I promise that this book will challenge you. Its amazing documentary evidence will confront some of your most cherished beliefs. If you can put aside as best you can the prejudices you may have on this subject and even preconceptions you might have about me personally — you can more fairly evaluate the ideas and evidence in this book. That is all an author can ask of his reader; and I ask it of you. It is my earnest belief that if you endeavor to keep an open mind, what you read will surprise you.
The real power of this book comes from its documentation from major sources. In fact, you will quickly discover that most of my documents about Jewish Supremacism are from Jewish sources. They argue more convincingly for my point of view than anything I could write. I encourage you to go to the sources that I quote and check them out for yourself. In this book I take you along with me on a fascinating journey of discovery in a forbidden subject. I urge you to courageously keep an open mind while you explore the topics ahead, for that is the only way any of us can find the truth.
Some will defame this book by calling it

Yet, it is not considered anti-American to examine historical mistreatment of Indians.

No one calls it anti-Christian to talk about the excesses of the Inquisition.

No one says that it is anti-Muslim to examine extreme elements within Muslim fundamentalism.

Is one considered anti-White for documenting the history of Jim Crow in the South?
This book is not anti-Semitic; it simply examines and documents elements of ethnic supremacism that have existed in the Jewish community from historical to modern times.
Any criticism of Jewish Supremacism is immediately condemned as “anti-Semitism.” The chronic media recital of the horrors of the Holocaust has made the term “anti-Semitic” morally equivalent to the endorsement of mass murder. The word itself shuts down reason and evokes heat rather than light. The word is flagrantly overused; it is even used against those who simply protest Israeli human rights violations against Palestinians.
I am reluctant to begin my book by saying what it is not. The media climate, however, forces me to do so. Due to the overwhelming power of the media to distort what I say and write, I will state emphatically here and now that I do not oppose all Jews, any more than an author examining the excesses of the Inquisition opposes all Christians. Specifically, Jewish Supremacism examines a long record of Jewish supremacist ideology and history that have had a powerful and damaging effect on both the Jewish and Gentile world.
I will be the first to acknowledge that not all Jews support or share in this supremacism. In fact, a number of courageous Jews suffer greatly for opposing it. This book is dedicated to the memory of one of them: an Israeli Professor, Dr. Israel Shahak, who recently passed away. Dr. Shahak believed that Jewish Supremacism has greatly harmed the Palestinian people as well as the non-Jewish community the world over. He offered strong evidence that Jewish radicals have waged an unrelenting ethnic war against Gentiles since the days of their sojourn in Egypt. Dr. Shahak believed that this extreme chauvinism has helped bring about centuries of repeated anti-Semitic reactions, ranging from the pogroms of Pharaoh to the horrors of what is now called the Holocaust. He persuasively argued that unless both Jews and Gentiles courageously stand up against this supremacist agenda and its power, it will continue to pose a severe danger to Jews and Gentiles alike.1
This book is ultimately about lessening both the dangers and the hatreds between our peoples. This cannot happen until both Jews and Gentiles hear the other side of the Jewish Question, a point of view currently forbidden in the modern world.
As I write these lines, I sit on a mountain in the Colorado Rockies named after the Aspen tree, whose shade I now enjoy. Its cylindrical leaves turn easily in the cool breeze, reflecting the sunlight and affording me a magical image. Through those glittering leaves I can see snow capped peaks on the horizon. The sight pleases both my eyes and my soul. From this mystic place, I cannot see a single human being; only the magnificence of Nature fills my eyes. Questions of politics, culture, religion, nationalities, ethnicity and race seem far away from here. From this vantage point the world and even Nature herself appear serene. Yet, when I look closely at the scenic beauty of Nature, I can see conflict and war that far eclipses even the worst turmoil found in mankind.
Here on this mountain a never-ending struggle rages of element against element and species against species. The wind, rain and snow will someday level these great mountains of rock. Even the flowing stream, the ultimate symbol of serenity for many people, violently fights for its life of movement against the mountain. Indeed, in time this great mountain will eventually succumb to even the tiniest rivulets of water and the other erosions of Nature. As I write in my notebook, two ants approach a peach pit on the rock beside me. One ant is larger and very differently equipped than the other. He has his way over the smaller one, but the vanquished creature runs back to his kingdom to report the great store of sweet food. His relatives will seek to return to the treasure before their competitors. The two tiny breeds might even go to war over the morsel. My eyes open to the war waged all around me. On this mountain, the trees, bushes and grasses compete for the sunlight and life itself. Smaller birds keep wary eyes out for hawks. The flora and fauna face the danger of death from the insects and parasites seeking to consume them. Even within every life form, a microscopic war rages. The more closely one looks, the more intense the battle. In one cubic meter of life, there are more living creatures injured, killed, eaten or even exploited and enslaved than all the numbers of human beings on earth who have faced a similar fate. Biologists could offer endless examples of the never-ending battle for life and dominance between life forms, enough to fill a million books the size of this one.
Yet, oddly, it is this brutal struggle of survival waged over a billion years that produced the serene beauty that so touches my heart as I look out from this high place. So, perhaps this mountain is not so unlike the eternal battles among humankind. The historical struggle between human races has played a powerful role in our human evolution just as it has for all life forms throughout the Natural World. Its result for humanity is no less breathtaking than the view from this mountain. It produced a higher humanity that has given us the art of DaVinci’s Madonna and Child, the ultimate expressions of sublime love found in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet or Keats’ Ode On a Grecian Urn.
The eternal struggle created the evolutionary advances that enabled our kind to put our footprints on the moon. It is still hard to grasp that human beings have walked on another world and actually traveled to the golden orb of light that mankind has gazed up at with wonder for millennia. Could these things have been achieved without the evolutionary struggle for life and dominance that has driven us upward? An argument can surely be made that it is this life and death struggle for evolutionary fitness that produced the beautiful and ultimate forms of love and achievement that in turn give us meaning. This struggle created the beauty in mankind and the glory of its creations, just as a seemingly cruel Nature created the stark splendor seen on this mountain I love.
So perhaps, up here surrounded by a magnificent portrait of Nature, I am not in a world very far removed from the human conflicts down below. Most people see the seemingly serene vistas of Nature and never guess the war that rages underneath its aesthetic canopy. There are also those who are unaware of the racial and ethnic wars boiling both on and under the surface of humanity. Although we fantasize about the peace-loving nature of human beings, most of human history is a record of tribal, ethnic, or racial war of one kind or another. For instance, the most read book on earth, the Bible, records the bloody history of the conflict between the Israelites and the other peoples of the Middle Eastern region. It tells glorious stories of war and shocking accounts of genocide.
Anyone who reads the Old Testament with unbiased eyes will readily discern its dominant theme of racial and ethnic supremacism. There are many blatant expressions of ethnic supremacism: • Israelites are a “chosen people,” chosen by God above all the other peoples of the world.2 • Israelites have a right to rule over all other people and are promised that they will someday own and rule over the whole world.3 • Israelites boast of genocide against whole peoples and kingdoms. 4 • Israelites are commanded to murder all the people of the lands where they intend to live and to kill all the people of foreign nations that do not submit themselves in slavery.5 • Israelites are forbidden to make slaves of their own people, but are encouraged to enslave non-Israelites whom they may pass down as slaves to their descendants forever.6 • Israelites are forbidden to intermarry or “mix their seed” with other peoples.7
Few people dare to even acknowledge the blatant racial supremacism of the Bible. And those who become aware of the extreme Jewish Supremacism in the Old Testament tend to believe that such sentiments are relegated to ancient times and have no influence on the present. Jewish Supremacism, however, shows that the powerful ethnocentrism of ancient Judaism has continued to thrive to the modern day. I will offer compelling evidence that it has a dramatic and increasing effect on world events.
It can be said that I as a Christian also revere the same Old Testament books of supremacy. The difference, of course, is that the Christian New Testament represents a profound shift from the Old. In place of an “eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,” Jesus Christ taught “turn the other cheek.” In contrast to Jewish Supremacism, Christianity offers universal salvation. Judaism bitterly rejected Jesus Christ and has never enjoyed his teachings of love and toleration. In fact, not only did the Jewish high priests pursue the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, these leaders guided their faith in the opposite ideological direction. It can be said that in addition to the crucifixion of Christ’s body, they killed his spirit in their own hearts.
It would be wrong to hate or persecute present day Jews because of the role of Jewish leaders in the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, but it is important to understand the ideological, religious and ethnic war born during those times.
From the earliest days of Christianity, Jewry became its chief persecutor, for they saw the Christian salvation of both “Jew and Greek” as a threat to their ethnic purity and supremacism. It should be said that Judaism is also diametrically opposed to the Muslim faith, which like Christianity also has been interpreted as a universal message. Not only did they oppose Jesus when he walked among them, they mercilessly persecuted his followers, the early Christians. Yet for fear of the Jews no one spoke openly of him (John 7:13)8 . . .for you suffered like things of your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out and displease God, and oppose all men (1 Thessalonians 2:14-16)9
Over the next few centuries, they codified Jewish oral tradition and adopted the Babylonian Talmud as their most important religious text. According to the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, it even supercedes the Torah in authority.10 As Jesus Christ represents an evolution of greater love and tolerance, the Talmud only intensified the Torah’s chauvinism. I will thoroughly document this fact from Jewish texts themselves and through quotes from major Jewish scholars who discuss the Talmud’s meaning. The Talmud’s unashamed and frequent references to non-Jews as animals and “supernal refuse,”11 as well as accounts of boiling their enemies in semen and excrement12 might even have made Hitler blush. I will prove this controversial statement in this book and even show how mainstream Judaic authorities, such as uncensored editions of another major Jewish resource, the Jewish Encyclopedia, confirm the Talmud’s hateful anti-Gentile teachings. I will also show that rabid anti-Gentile teachings are still promoted in modern times by many of the largest Jewish publications, such as the most popular Jewish newspaper in the United States, The Jewish Press. It sets the tone of Jewish religious and cultural attitudes more than any other newspaper.
One of its primary religious authorities is Rabbi Simcha Cohen, who has an instructional Dear Abby type of column called Halachic Questions. Not long ago, Rabbi Cohen instructed his readers that the Talmud denotes Gentiles as “animals” (as outlined by Talmudic writings from Gemara Kiddushin 68a and Metzia 114b).13 In another section he discusses how a Jewish woman is not designated as a prostitute if she has premarital sex with a Jew, but she is a whore if she has any sexual relations with a Gentile, even if she is married. Marriage to a Gentile can never be sanctified or condoned, such a liaison classifies the woman as a zona…common parlance interprets the term zona to refer to a prostitute…. 14
Another major Jewish publication, the Jewish Chronicle, in an article called “Some Carefully and Carelessly Chosen Words,“ reveals that the Jewish word for Gentile woman is the offensive Yiddish word shiksa — meaning “whore,” from the Hebrew root, sheigetz (“abomination”). It also pointed out that a little Gentile girl is called shikselke, meaning “little female abomination.”15 Shiksa – the Jewish term for a Gentile woman, from the root word sheigetz meaning “abomination” or “whore.” Shikselke – a Gentile little girl, meaning “little female abomination.” How would Jews and the media react if Gentiles casually referred to Jewish women and little girls as “Jewish whores” and “little Jewish whores”? What would happen to any politician or entertainer in the world who referred to Jewish women and little girls as Jewish whores? Am I now supposed to be called an anti-Semite because I simply dare to expose such hateful anti-Gentilism proven in the two most influential Jewish newspapers in America? The Talmud’s extreme supremacist teachings have certainly been a powerful factor in preventing assimilation of the Jewish people with the Christian and Muslim communities. Even though Jews have lived as only a small minority in Gentile nations for more than 3000 years, major Jewish geneticists and anthropologists proudly assert that Jews have preserved their distinctive genetic identity.16 I will show how supremacist doctrines of fear and hatred of Gentiles, along with notions of Jewish superiority, are carefully instilled in every generation.
Every young Jew learns of the perfidious nature of the Gentiles from Pharaoh to Hitler. They are taught – and many believe – that they are the “chosen of God,” which may be the ultimate expression of ethnic superiority.
For, those who still want to think Jewish Supremacism is a phenomenon of ancient Biblical times, read the following words of Dr. Stephen Steinlight, one of the leading Jews in America, who wrote these comments in October of 2001. Steinlight is no minor Jewish figure. He served for five years as the Director of National Affairs (domestic policy) in the most powerful and respected Jewish organization in the United States, the American Jewish Committee. Steinlight confesses the rampant Jewish supremacism and disloyalty to America that permeates the American Jewish community. I’ll confess it, at least, like thousands of other typical Jewish kids of my generation, I was reared as a Jewish nationalist, even a quasi-separatist. Every summer for two months for 10 formative years during my childhood and adolescence I attended Jewish summer camp. There, each morning, I saluted a foreign flag, dressed in a uniform reflecting its colors, sang a foreign national anthem, learned a foreign language, learned foreign folk songs and dances, and was taught that Israel was the true homeland. Emigration to Israel was considered the highest virtue, and, like many other Jewish teens of my generation, I spent two summers working in Israel on a collective farm while I contemplated that possibility. More tacitly and subconsciously, I was taught the superiority of my people to the gentiles who had oppressed us. We were taught to view non-Jews as untrustworthy outsiders, people from whom sudden gusts of hatred might be anticipated, people less sensitive, intelligent, and moral than ourselves. We were also taught that the lesson of our dark history is that we could rely on no one.17 If any Gentile politician dared to say that “typical Jewish kids” are deliberately taught that their real loyalty is not to America but to Israel and the Jewish people rather than to America; and that Jews are superior to Gentiles in intelligence and morals, he would be mercilessly condemned by the media and hounded out of politics as an anti-Semite. Yet, this is the stark admission by the former head of National Affairs of American Jewish Committee. It should be emphasized that his words are not from an off-handed or careless conversation, but are the carefully chosen words of a major article he wrote for Jewish consumption, called “The Jewish Stake in America’s Changing Demographics.”
This volume will show that the official policies of modern Israel and many of the leading elements of World Jewry still embody radically supremacist sentiments and policies. Organized Jewish elements around the world doggedly pursue their own supremacist agendas. Those agendas frequently conflict with the interests of the host nations in which they live. My assertion that there exists a powerful, cohesive, world-wide Jewish Supremacism finds confirmation in evidence mostly provided by the Jewish Supremacists themselves. Their supremacist ideology finds clear enunciation in the foundation, structure and conduct of Israel, a nation unabashedly based on an ethnic supremacism. It is a state that has dispossessed, terrorized and grossly violated the human and civil rights of the Palestinian people. What is Jewish Supremacism? The definition of White supremacism from the Random House unabridged Webster’s Dictionary denotes it as “belief in superiority over other races and retaining of control in all relationships.” Let’s take the definition and apply it specifically to the term Jewish Supremacism. Jewish Supremacism – The belief, theory, or doctrine that the Jewish people are superior to all others and should retain control in all relationships. As to the first part of the definition, this book assembles powerful evidence that the leading Jews of the world have a belief, theory or doctrine that they are superior to all other peoples. I will also clearly demonstrate and that they seek control in all relationships with other peoples.
David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister, often called the “George Washington of Israel,” said specifically that he believed in the “moral and intellectual superiority” of the Jewish people.18 That sentiment can be found repeatedly in the statements and writing of Jewish leaders throughout the world. Imagine the outcry if the President of the United States or head of state of any modern European nation pronounced that he believes in the moral and intellectual superiority of the White race! The Jewish dominated world media have so shielded Jewish Supremacists from criticism that their most famous leaders can say such things without fear of repercussion. There was no outrage expressed by the world press when Ben Gurion made his remark, nor did any protest ensue from his supremacist prophecy quoted in Look magazine in 1962; a prediction that Israel would one day sit atop a one world government. “In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a Shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind.” It also seemed cruelly ironic to his Palestinian victims that there was little outcry when the admitted terrorist Menachem Begin was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Begin brags in his book, The Revolt, about the massacre of over two hundred men, women, and children at Dier Yassin. 20 The world hunts down suspected Nazi war criminals but gives a blood-stained Jewish one…the Nobel Peace Prize! That one event should tell us a great deal about who is really supreme in the modern world.
The other necessary part of the definition of supremacism denotes having control over other races. I will argue that Jewish Supremacists seek to control the nations in which they dwell. They make concerted efforts to dominate the two critical factors of control in the modern world, mass media and government. This book provides documented evidence of their incredible power in these sectors. This extreme concentration of power exists not only in the United States, but in most of the major nations of the world including Canada, Britain, Russia, France, Brazil and many more. It is a universal pattern suggesting that it is by design rather than accident. Israel: A Jewish Supremacist State
Of course, Israel itself came into being by massive ethnic cleansing and displacement of Palestine’s indigenous population. At the time of the Balfour Declaration in 1917, Jews made up only 10 percent of the population of what today is Israel. After most of the Palestinian population had been driven out by terrorism in 1947 and 1948, Jewish Supremacists established Israel. The Zionist state still scrupulously preserves the cultural and genetic identity of the Jewish people. Israel protects its Jewish control over their ethnic enclave by carefully guarding its ethnic makeup. It bases its immigration on a genetic standard and limits immigration almost exclusively to those of biological Jewish descent. An atheist Jew from New York City who has never stepped foot inside Israel is financially encouraged to immigrate, while hundreds of thousands of Palestinians whose families have lived there for thousands of years are forbidden to return to the place of their birth.
Israel is not a “multicultural nation.” It is unashamedly a Jewish state devoted exclusively to the interests of the Jewish people. A nation with a sizable Palestinian minority, it is certainly the most rigidly segregated society in the world. Separate schools exist for Jews and Arabs, separate apartment complexes, separate neighborhoods and separate settlements. Many laws and regulations adversely affect Pal estinians as compared to Jews. For instance, Palestinians are forbidden by law from joining the military. In spite of their 22 percent of the population, (Close to double that of African Americans in America) there has never been a Palestinian member of the Israeli cabinet. A former member of Israel’s Supreme Court, Haim Cohen, described the system that applies to Jews and Palestinians in Israel as similar to “Nuremberg laws” of Nazi Germany: …the bitter irony of fate which has led the same biological and racist laws propagated by the Nazis and which inspired the infamous Nuremberg laws, to serve as a basis for the definition of Judaism within the State of Israel
I will go deeply into the subject of Israel in the body of this book, but I should not leave the subject now without pointing out that the Jewish Supremacism that dominates Israel receives little negative press around the world. Consider the positive press that Israel receives as compared to the unanimous and universal media condemnation that was heaped upon the former Apartheid regime in South Africa. Condemnation of South Africa was hypocritically led by an American media thoroughly dominated by Israeli partisans. I slowly became aware of a dual morality permeating Jewish- Gentile relations. Jews preach one morality for themselves and preach another for the non-Jewish world. Their highest morality is one of racial pride, 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 gun control for American citizens? • Support the nation of Israel, which openly states its mission to preserve the Jewish people and heritage, while condemning Palestinians who desire their own state, and scourging European Americans who dare to advocate the preservation of the Western heritage and culture in America? • Always depict the historical relations between Jews and Gentiles with the Gentiles as evildoers and the Jews as innocent victims, while condemning Gentiles as “anti-Semites” if they dare defend themselves from such ethnic slanders?
Perfect examples of the gaping double standard can be found in the writings of the most important editor of the most important newspaper in America, A.M. Rosenthal of the New York Times. Rosenthal is an enthusiastic, open-borders multiculturalist for America, but a rabid closed-border, Jewish Supremacist for Israel. Such double standards in the mass media raise other questions. Why is the world press so myopic in regard to Israel’s ethnic suppression? Is it reasonable to suspect that the bias in the press could be a result of a preponderance of Jewish power? Regarding subjects such as Jewish Supremacism, this domination certainly affords a reason why the term Jewish Supremacism, unlike White Supremacism, is never used by the press. Nor is the concept even explored. Even when Meir Kahane called Palestinians “dogs” and advocated forcibly expelling all Palestinians from Israeli occupied territory, he was never referred to as a Jewish Supremacist.
On February 25, 1994, an American Jew, Baruch Goldstein, entered a mosque in Hebron and machine-gunned Palestinians at prayer, killing 29 of them. Some Jewish groups in both America and Israel have since made Goldstein a saint, building shrines for him both in America and in Israel. Neither Goldstein nor those who have built shrines to him are ever referred to as Jewish Supremacists or even as “anti-Gentiles.”22 On the opposite hand, if a Gentile to even dares to quote the statement by Haim Cohen comparing Israel’s laws to Nazi Nuremburg Laws, he will certainly find himself labelled an “anti-Semite” by the media.
The double standard of world governments and the press is often quite amazing. As I write these words, the American President, George Bush, in the aftermath of the World Trade Center bombings of September 11, is busily trying to stamp out terrorism as well as wiping out “all the evil in the world.” He does not see that goal as even the slightest bit too ambitious. Bush announced that any nation that harbors terrorists will feel the wrath of American bombs. Not long after this pronouncement, Mr. Bush dined with one of the world’s worst terrorists, the Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon. As the world knows, Sharon has a long record of terrorism and murder, including responsibility for the massacre of 1500 men and women children in the Sabra and Chatila refugee camps in Lebanon. During dinner, Mr. Bush did not so much as drop an olive on Mr. Sharon. Unlike hapless Afghanistan, no American bombs have fallen on Tel Aviv for harboring terrorists. In fact, Israel not only harbors terrorists, it has elevated many to be their supreme leaders. Sharon is not the first terrorist who made it to Prime Minister; some of the worst terrorists who achieved that position are Begin, Shamir and Barak. The double standards never seem to end. When an Israeli cabinet official, Rechavam Zeevi, was assassinated by Palestinians, Sharon and some U.S. officials denounced it as “terrorism.” But, if the shooting down of Zeevi is indeed terrorism, what do we call many years of Israeli “targeted assassinations” of hundreds of Palestinian political figures, philosophers, clerics and poets? Why doesn’t the press point out as well that Zeevi was himself a Jewish Supremacist who advocated the forcible expulsion of all Palestinians from the occupied territories?
One might argue that because Israel is led by supremacists does not necessarily mean that the Diaspora (Jews outside of Israel) echoes the same supremacist sentiments. However, one should consider the fact that organized Jewry all over the world devotedly supports the supremacist state of Israel. Secondly, there is ample evidence that policies of Jewish Supremacy extend far beyond the boundaries of Israel. Powerful Jews in media and government around the world frequently act to exert control over the peoples among whom they live.
A World Wide Agenda
Jewish groups formulate strategic agendas and act in ways that they think will serve specific Jewish interests. I think you will be amazed by the evidence I present of the media and political power exercised by Jewish Supremacists around the world. Organized Jewry can be clearly shown to have had world-wide strategic objectives since the beginning of the last century. For instance, an early 20th Century goal of Russian and World Jewry was the overthrow of what they considered to be the anti-Semitic, Czarist government of Imperial Russia. Jewish communities around the world supported the establishment of a proto-Jewish Communist regime in Russia. They provided most of the leadership and financing23 for the “Russian Revolution,” a revolution that was actually more Jewish led than Russian led. Its chief financier was in fact the New York Jewish Capitalist, and extreme Jewish supremacist Jacob Schiff. 24 One of the many startling documents I cite comes from the National Archives of the United States. It reveals that in the first government of Communist Russia there were only 13 ethnic Russians and more than 300 Jews out of a total of 384 Commissars.25 Let that startling fact sink in: there were only 13 ethnic Russians in the first Bolshevik government of the “Russian Revolution.” The chief correspondent of the London Times in Russia at the time described it as nothing short of an “alien invasion” and takeover of Russia by Jews.26 The same was said by our American ambassador to Russia, David Francis, 27 and by American intelligence officers in Russia. Even Winston Churchill described the Russian Revolution as a takeover by Bolshevik Jews that had “…seized the Russian people by the hair of their heads and become the masters of this enormous empire.” 28 This is just a small preview of the many startling documents you will find in this book.
The successful overthrow of a major national Government (and murder of its ruling family) as part of a world Jewish agenda shows that even in the early days of the 20th Century they had considerable world-wide economic, political and media power. In the years since, their power has grown exponentially. Most people are still completely unaware of the paramount role of Jewry in the origins of Bolshevism in Russia and the spreading of Communism throughout the world. The public’s lack of knowledge in this area also serves as a manifestation of their influential role in academia and media. Otherwise, how could such important and easily verifiable facts of history be kept from common knowledge? It also reveals the incredible cohesion and coordination of Jewish power around the world that can be mobilized for specific Jewish objectives. Another example of the power they wield in the highest councils of major nations was their successful effort for the establishment of Israel. From the issuance of the Balfour Declaration (only very recently did the world learn that Balfour was actually a secret Jew)29 to the founding and continuing support for Israel, they have shown the ability to get what they want.
Jewish supremacy has a hypocritical and a jealous nature. If the people among whom the Jewish Supremacists reside would adopt programs of ethnic loyalty and solidarity similar to the Jewish Supremacists, Jews could obviously not exercise power and control, for they are only a small percentage of the population. Only where the ethnic and nationalist feelings of the host people are diminished can Jewish Supremacists accumulate enough power to achieve their agenda. This book will show a clear pattern of Jewish influence in academia, government and media aimed at weakening all ethnic solidarity and loyalty among their host peoples, while purposefully encouraging ethnic pride and solidarity among Jews. This is true whether one speaks of Palestinians or Britons, Frenchmen or European Americans, or African Americans, or even among Muslims in the Arab world. This pattern is present in all nations wherever there are significant numbers of Jews. Hypocritically, the same forces who support Jewish Supremacism have accused me of being a “White supremacist.” I reject that epithet, for unlike Jewish Supremacists I don’t seek to rule over or control any other race; I simply want to preserve my own heritage. Recognizing that there are intrinsic differences in culture, behavior, tradition, and even genetics among the different races does not make one a supremacist. The truth be told, most people naturally prefer the association of their own racial or ethnic group, and frankly, most people think of their group as the best. What constitutes supremacism is when one group tries to control or be supreme over another.
Divide and Conquer
Supremacist Jews fear and oppose all ethnic solidarity other than their own. In the Western nations they consistently oppose all organizations seeking to preserve the interests and heritage of Europeans. Likewise, in non-European nations, they consistently work to break down the solidarity and homogeneity of the prominent ethnic group. It is part of the Jewish supremacist modus operandi to foment diverse immigration and multiculturalism in every nation they reside in (except of course for Israel), as they see a squabbling disunited society as easy prey to their intense and well-organized efforts at control. Dr. Stephen Steinlight, the former officer of the American Jewish Committee whom I quoted earlier, puts it in amazingly blunt terms: For perhaps another generation, an optimistic forecast, the Jewish community is thus in a position where it will be able to divide and conquer and enter into selective coalitions that support our agenda.30
In America, not only have they worked to weaken the solidarity of European Americans, they actively opposed African American Nationalist movements such as Marcus Garvey’s movement and the Nation of Islam. Those Black organizations simply desired to preserve their own heritage rather than assimilate into a multicultural society. Jewish Supremacists hypocritically want no one other than themselves to be conscious of their own heritage and common interests. They try to make other groups feel guilty for even having pride in their own culture. They paint ethnic pride and cohesion in other peoples as supremacist or hateful.
A pertinent example of this divide and conquer method can be seen in Palestine and Lebanon. Most Palestinians and Lebanese are Muslim, but significant numbers are Christian. Israel has actively promoted hatred and civil war between Christians and Muslims in the region. One of the reasons that Ariel Sharon arranged for the slaughter of Muslim refugees by the Lebanese Phalangist militia forces in 1982 was to promote bitter hatred and war among Israel’s Arab enemies. The diaries of one of Israel’s former Prime Ministers, Moshe Sharett, exposed the fact that this was one of Israel’s main tactics. 31 The destabilization of nations by encouraging massive multiracial and multi-religious immigration, as well as promotion of existing ethnic and religious divisions within nations — has been a longpracticed strategy of Jewish Supremacists. This attempt to breakdown their enemy’s ethnic solidarity can be explained in the context of the Palestinian people. If Israel’s displaced Palestinians fully assimilate in foreign lands with their host populations and thus lose their identity as Palestinians, they are certainly not as likely to support the Palestinian cause. While they attempt to break down other peoples’ ethnic loyalty; Jewish supremacist forces in the media sponsor a chronic recital of historical anti-Semitism. Such a focus has two objectives. First, it heightens Jewish solidarity and worldwide support for Israel, and secondly, stimulates collective Jewish hatred for the Gentile world and thus lessens assimilation. The recital of Gentile perfidy against Jews also protects them from Gentile criticism, for if anyone dares to criticize Jewish Supremacism, he is painted as morally equivalent to the purveyors of the Holocaust. Another example of the great hypocrisy of the Jewish Supremacists can be seen in the intermarriage issue. During his campaign for President, George Bush found himself excoriated by the press for speaking at Bob Jones University, an institution that opposes interracial dating and marriage. Of course, during the campaign both George Bush and Al Gore made many obligatory speeches for many Jewish organizations. The irony is that every Synagogue in America and every major Jewish organization vigorously opposes intermarriage of Jews with non-Jews. Of course, this blatant double standard finds no mention in America’s supposedly fair and free press. Such exposure would not be good for Jewish public relations. There are thousands of books and movies, many written, produced and marketed by Supremacist Jews that condemn doctrines and movements of racial or ethnic supremacy among non-Jews. Few books, however, dare to examine the world’s oldest, most powerful and virulent form of ethnic supremacism: Jewish Supremacism. It seems that if these supremacist Jews were honest, they could better write about the supremacy they know the most about: their own.
Of course, not all Jews are supremacist anymore than all Germans were Nazis during the Hitler era, but the fact remains that organized Jewry has pursued a successful agenda that has amassed incredible power in modern times. With the creation of Israel, they have established the most ethnically supremacist nation on earth. Even more importantly, they have managed to acquire enormous power in many of the major governments of the world (especially the United States) and today they thoroughly dominate the world news and entertainment media. When you read my well-documented chapter about the media, you will find their power is far greater than you might suspect. Those at the centers of political influence in the United States and other nations are aware of the intense power of the Israeli lobby. The Jewish Lobby is the one lobby in Washington that no American politician dares to forthrightly oppose. It should disturb any patriotic American to think that the most powerful lobby in America’s congress is in the service of a foreign nation.
Silencing Their Critics
The extent of Jewish power is precisely why the general public is unaware of it, for those who know it also know the high price they would pay for openly discussing it. In America, doing so can result in damage of one’s reputation, or even the loss of business or employment. Such truth telling can result in threats, intimidation and even physical attacks by groups such as the Jewish Defense League. The Anti-Defamation League, a group that supposedly opposes racial and religious supremacism, is always busy accusing their critics of racial, religious, or ethnic intolerance, while they ardently defend and deny Israel’s blatant supremacism. This Jewish supremacist group can ruin the business or the political career of almost anyone they choose. Even more dangerously, Jewish Supremacists have now been successful in imprisoning their critics in many European nations. They cannot as of yet freely assassinate their critics in Western countries as they have hundreds of Palestinian writers, poets and clerics across the Arab world. In today’s Europe, however, simply quoting the supremacist statements of Jewish leaders can land one in prison. There are hundreds of dissidents in prison at this moment who dared to simply speak or write openly about Jewish ethnic intolerance. Although the media constantly tells us that unlike the Nazis or the Communists, we have free speech; there are citizens of European nations right now in prison for simply contesting the politically correct Jewish versions of historical events such as the Holocaust. Jewish Supremacists have made an intense effort to weaken the sense of ethnic awareness and loyalty among Europeans. In our mod ern media’s political correctness, it is considered “hate speech” for Europeans to speak about their love for their heritage and express their desire to preserve it. As a European American, I do believe that my people have a right to preserve their way of life. At the same time I recognize that natural right for all the different peoples and nationalities of the Earth. For instance, how odd it is that the Palestinians, who have been ethnically cleansed from their own nation and denied their most basic human rights, are so often characterized as “anti- Semites” and “terrorists,” while the “anti-Gentile,” Jewish Supremacists who have terrorized them and stolen their entire country are little criticized by the world press.
Palestinians and those in the Arab world need to understand that the source of their own plight comes from the fact that European Americans have been prevented from defending their own national interests and heritage just as Palestinians have been so prevented. Palestinians will never find liberation in their nation until European Americans find liberation in America from Jewish Supremacism. Although I am certainly an activist for European Americans, I respect and applaud every people who desire to preserve their own way of life and, and even more vitally, their very existence as an ethnic entity. To me, ethnic survival is the most basic of human rights. It also is a fundamental human right for people to live under a government and also a news and entertainment media that reflect their own basic values, traditions, social and economic interests. A nation under the power of an alien and destructive mass media is equally oppressed as one under the power of a foreign, occupying government. The increasing globalism of the 21st Century, driven on by Jewish Supremacists, will continue to decrease the choices and freedoms of all people. Moreover, it will endanger the preservation of individual cultures, traditions, values, religious beliefs, and ethnic identities. The end result of globalism will be an enormous world government, one that will crush freedom and diversity as a steamroller would a flower. The idea that government should represent its own people and not any foreign power is the driving principle of the Declaration of Independence and America’s nationhood: the right of a people to have a government of their own and for their own interests. The preamble to the Constitution of the United States puts it succinctly when it talks of a government “for ourselves and our posterity.” In America, the Jewish domination of key United States Government positions is amazing. During President Clinton’s Administration, the leading Israeli newspaper, Maariv, described “warm Jews,” meaning Jews loyal to the interests of Israel, as holding critically important positions on the United States’ National Security Council. Maariv stated that 7 of its 11 members are “warm Jews.” 32 The beginning of the 21st Century saw Madeline Albright as head of the State Department, George Tenet leading the CIA, William Cohen as the Secretary of Defense, and Sandy Berger as chairman of the National Security Council. All are Jewish. Although the George Bush administration has fewer Jews in the most visible positions, the underlying government bureaucracy that spans different administrations is as Jewish as it has ever been. A good example is Alan Greenspan who has served as chairman of the powerful Federal Reserve for many administrations. Jewish Supremacism will show specifically how Jewish Supremacists have used their political and media power to impose their agenda on other nations even when it opposes the true interests of those nations.
I see the value of all people preserving their cultural, national, and even genetic heritage. All peoples have the right to preserve their unique identities, including Jews. This book is about the fact that organized Jewish leadership pursues those goals of self-preservation and self-advancement tenaciously, while consistently disallowing other nationalities and races to act similarly in their own interests. Their ultimate victory would cause not only the loss of freedom, but also the destruction of the heritage of all peoples on the earth. It is my hope that all of us, all nations and every people, while acknowledging our respective differences of religion, race, culture, and nationality, will work together to defend ourselves from the one incredibly powerful supremacism that threatens us all.
Much of this book is taken from my autobiography, My Awakening. This book is structured in the same fashion. It is an account of my personal journey of awakening to the reality of Jewish Supremacism: the ultimate supremacism. You will find its real power in the many direct quotations from important Jewish sources, all of which I carefully document with hundreds of source notes for your reference. Jewish Supremacism is a thesis in autobiographical form. It is the story of my awakening on the Jewish Question that began when I was a young man beginning in the late 1960s. Most of my fundamental understanding was in place by the end of that decade, but my knowledge has grown much deeper over the last 30 years. Since the 1960s, much new scientific and political material has become available. In recounting my awakening, I am not trying to give the reader the impression that all the materials or studies I cite were available in the 1960s. I weave into this narrative contemporary data and documentation so the reader has the benefit of the latest information. Also, for reasons of coherence and organization, I focus on one primary area of discovery at a time, while in life the acquisition of knowledge is not so neatly compartmentalized. The reader may find some repetition in some Jewish quotes that I find particularly revealing. They are repeated when especially pertinent to more than one topic. Also, I would be remiss not to add that when I write “I learned” or “I discovered,” I take no credit for original research, for my education on these subjects came from innumerable authors and their books and articles. I am in debt to them as well as to my many supporters and friends who have educated me with the insights and knowledge acquired in their own awakening. I assemble, organize, analyze and comment on materials collected by scholars and writers from ancient times to the present.
My introduction finished, I must close my notebook and come down from Aspen Mountain. In doing so, I realize that I am not leaving the Natural World, for its laws continue in the world of human conflict below. The struggle for life and freedom exists among the different varieties of mankind as certainly as it does for every form of life and energy on this mountain.
Taking part in the struggle for my people’s life and freedom is as natural as the flow of the crystal stream running beside me. It is my hope that the European people, the Palestinian people, and indeed, all peoples of the world, are permitted the most basic human right to preserve their own unique cultures, freedom and identity. To do so, they must resist the power of the earth’s ultimate supremacism: Jewish Supremacism.
I would be a fool not to realize the danger to my own life, reputation and freedom that I face by exposing Jewish Supremacism. But, as a loyal European American; as a patriotic citizen of the United States and also as one who sincerely wishes for justice for all people of the world – my duty is clear.
The stream beside me will follow its course.
So will I.
David Duke
Former Member of the House of Representatives
State of the Louisiana, United States of America
Updated text — December 2001


PAGE – 1

I dedicate this work to Dr. Israel Shahak, a Jewish holocaust survivor and Israeli citizen who showed the moral and intellectual courage to challenge the Jewish Supremacism that endangers both Jews and Gentiles.

In the first years of the 21st Century, any serious criticism of the Jewish people, their religion or the nation of Israel is considered the worst of moral crimes. Jews are the most sacred of sacred cows, and anyone with a negative word about them inevitably finds himself labeled an “anti-Semite.” Once a man acquires that label, true or not, nothing can redeem him from what the mass media views as the ultimate sin. So, irredeemable as I am — I have the freedom to write and speak openly about a taboo that few dare to broach. You see, I am not an anti-Semite and I reject that epithet. However, I must address what Henry Ford called the “world’s foremost problem,” a problem not only vital to the Palestinian people, but also to every other nation of the world.

It is almost impossible in our Holocaust-saturated world to even say the word “Jew” without arousing emotion. The mass media of the Western world have made that so with their unrelenting packaging and repackaging of the “Holocaust.” As British historian David Irving says, “It’s spelled ‘Holocaust’ with a capital ‘H’ — trademark applied for.” The Holocaust has gone from being a sidebar of the Second World War to the point where the war has become a historical footnote to the Holocaust. During the one year before the publication of my autobiography, My Awakening, which is well over 50 years after the end of the war, my local (“local” is a misnomer, for New Yorkers own it) daily newspaper, The Times-Picayune, had dozens of news and feature articles exploring varying aspects of the Holocaust. In that year, the same paper had barely mentioned the Soviet Gulags where between 10 and 30 million people died, and had only one story that mentioned the Cambodian murder of three million. Not a single article appeared about the slaughter of 30 to 40 million in Red China.

Looking through old newspaper microfiche, I discovered that during the late 1990s there are at least 10 times more news articles about the Holocaust than there were in the late 1940s or 1950s. Rarely does an event become more talked and written about as it recedes in time. For instance, the subject of the Second World War took up a far greater proportion of movies, TV programs, documentaries, books and magazine articles in the late 1950s than in the late 1990s. Not so for the Holocaust: the further in time we seem to get away from the event, the more it bludgeons us as the Holocaust industry expands. It would be a Herculean task to even count all the Holocaustoriented television news stories and specials, the documentaries and “docudramas,” the books (both fiction and nonfiction), the magazine articles, movies and plays. Tales of Holocaust victims, relatives, survivors, war crimes, criminals, reparations, Holocaust-related art and literature, remembrances and memorials bombard us almost daily. The sheer weight of this onslaught has prompted a number of Jews to call it “Shoah business.”

The Holocaust Museum is right on the most sacred soil in the American Pantheon, the Mall near the Smithsonian Institution, financed in no small part by our tax dollars. Interestingly, it was built long before there was any real effort to build a memorial to the Second World War. It is a massive, modern version of the Chamber of Horrors at Madame Tussaud’s Wax Museum. The Holocaust is not the only Jewish trauma for which we all must grieve, for we see many painful historical accounts and dramatic Hollywood productions about other historical persecutions of the Jews. Jews are victimized by Arab terrorists in the Mideast, by fascists in Europe, and even by Klansmen in the United States. A seemingly inexhaustible supply of books, articles, movies and plays concern individual Jews who have suffered from evil anti-Semites. Each year, tens of thousands of stories about intelligent, compassionate, unselfish, creative, moral and courageous Jews fill two-foot TV screens and 30-foot movie screens; our newspapers, magazines, and books; our playhouses, pulpits and podiums; our radio waves and satellite transmissions. There are thousands of portrayals of persecuted Jews as innocent, noble and heroic; while their opponents are portrayed as the embodiment of evil. No group on Earth has better public relations than do the Jewish people. Whether it is Pharaoh’s army with swords unsheathed, chasing the Hebrews, or the Czar with his anti-Semitic Cossacks, Hitler with his SS minions dressed in black, an unnamed Palestinian terrorist trying to kidnap Israeli schoolchildren, or the more intimate story of a sensitive Jew mistreated by an anti-Semitic businessman — we have all seen the anti-Semitic stereotype, seen the skeletal bodies, and shared the Jewish pain. I know of this firsthand, for it was true for me as a young man.

At age 12, reading Anne Frank: Diary of a Young Girl in the school library, I recoiled from the inhumanity of Anti-Semitism. By the time I had finished the book, I felt as if I had lost members of my own family. With my shirtsleeves, I covertly wiped away the moisture that had welled up in my eyes.

Only a few times did I have any discussion with my father about Jews, for whom he had only praise. He spoke about my great-uncle Nathan, a Methodist minister who had converted from the Jewish faith and married my grandfather’s sister, my great-aunt Gussie. Father had enormous respect for Nathan and carried it over to the rest of the people he called the “Hebrews,” thinking that his term carried more dignity than the word “Jews.” At various times he described the “Hebrews” as hardworking, smart, thrifty, and accomplished. “Thrifty” was an accolade that made a distinct impression on me, because I knew that Father looked upon that particular trait as one of the most important. He hated waste of any kind. I learned that lesson at the dinner table a hundred times, having to eat every bite of my food before being excused. I thought thriftiness was as Scottish as the Duke family, but hearing that it was Jewish impressed me. Recitals of the Holocaust and Bible stories formed my primary impressions of the Jewish people. Cecil B. DeMille’s movie classics, as typified by The Ten Commandments, led me to identify contemporary Jews with the heroic “Israelites” of the Old Testament. I formed a deep admiration for the “Chosen People.”

How, then, did I go from my early fawning opinion of the Jews to being eventually described as a dangerous “anti-Semite” by the powerful Jewish advocacy organization, the ADL (the oddly-named Anti- Defamation League of B’nai B’rith)? No Jew had ever overtly wronged me; I wasn’t taught Anti-Semitism by my parents or friends, nor did I blame them for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Although I categorically reject being labeled anti-Semitic, I certainly believe that — as any other people — Jews deserve praise for their accomplishments and, conversely, they should not be immune from criticism for their failings. The only problem is that in post-World War II, Holocaustsaturated America, any criticism of Jews as a group is viewed as the moral equivalent of condoning mass murder. If one criticizes any part of Jewish history or conduct, or intolerant aspects of their religion, or even Israel’s Zionist policies, he inevitably acquires the label “anti-Semitic,” a term that could not be more damaging or prejudicial.

If one speaks, however, about the routine mistreatment of Indians in American history, he is not described as “anti- American.” Those who express horror about the excesses of the Spanish Inquisition are not labeled “anti-Christian” or “anti-Spanish.” The same media that prohibits even the slightest criticism of Jews has no reluctance to demean other groups. White Southerners, Palestinians, Germans and Fundamentalist Christians and Fundamentalist Muslims — these groups get more than their share of ridicule and debasement. The portrayal of the slack-jawed, green-toothed, ignorant, racist, hateful, murderous, rural White Southerner has become a stereotype in Hollywood films. White Southerners are not alone. One of the best-selling books of the late 1990s is the media-promoted Hitler’s Willing Executioners,36 a book that says the German people have something dark and evil within them, an inherent defect that makes them all guilty for the atrocities of the Holocaust. In Europe today, there are so-called hate laws that can land one in jail for saying anything critical of the Jews. In fact, there are hundreds of men who have been jailed for simply raising historical questions about the Jewish version of the Holocaust. These scholars do not allege that Jews are evil; they simply use scientific and historical evidence to dispute prevailing historical interpretations of the persecution of Jews during the Second World War. For simply offering a different historical analysis and opinion, many European scholars such as David Irving, Dr. Robert Faurrison and Juergen Graf have been prosecuted. On the other hand, Daniel Goldhagen, the writer of Hitler’s Willing Executioners, a man who argues that Germans are inherently evil, is not prosecuted for racial defamation, he is celebrated! Of course, the Arabic terrorist is now a staple of Hollywood movies. In stark contrast, whenever Jews are mentioned as a group, it is always with a sort of hushed reverence.

What is it about the Jewish people that evokes such unrestrained adulation and visceral hatred?

Once I became convinced that people of European descent, and truly all people, have the right to protect and preserve their heritage and culture, I became a young member of the Citizens Council. Often, after class and on rainy summer days, I would go down to the office on Carondolet Street in New Orleans to do volunteer work. Many fascinating publications streamed into the office from hundreds of right-wing groups all over America. One day, as I finished helping with a Council mailing, I came across some tabloid newspapers called Common Sense. It was a conservative, right-wing paper modeled after Thomas Paine’s classic broadside; but the message was sharply different from Paine’s. One issue’s headline read “COMMUNISM IS JEWISH!” trumpeted another. I also found some old issues. The huge headline in one of them predicted, “RED DICTATORSHIP BY 1954!” However, such a warning did not seem too credible when looked at in 1965! I found the National Enquirer-type headlines ludicrous, but it was hard to resist reading something that scandalous, even if just to laugh at it. The Sharp Words of Mattie Smith One of the regular volunteers, Mattie Smith, an elderly lady in a flower-print dress and outlandish hat, saw me snickering at the lurid headlines and simply said, “You know, it’s true.” “Red Dictatorship by 1954?” I replied with a smile. “No,” she said, “Communism is Jewish. They are the ones behind it.”

I thought I would humor the little old lady by politely arguing a bit with her. “Ma’am. How could that be?” I asked. “Communists are atheists; they don’t believe in God. Jews believe in God, so how could they be Communists?” “Do you know who Herbert Aptheker is?” she said, answering my question with one of her own. “No,” I replied, affecting nonchalance. She was like a tightly coiled spring waiting for release. “He has the official role of chief theoretician of the Communist Party, USA, and he’s listed in the Who’s Who in World Jewry.37 Leon Trotsky, the Communist who took over Russia with Lenin, was in Who’s Who in American Jewry.38 His real name is Lev Bronstein. Both are atheist Communists, and both are proudly listed as great Jews in these books published by the leading rabbinical organizations in the world.” Meekly, I offered, “Maybe they were listed because they were once Jews.”

“You have so much to learn,” she said with a sigh. “Under Israel’s Law of Return, you can be an atheist Communist and still immigrate to Israel. There are plenty of them too. You only qualify to immigrate if you are a Jew, and a Jew is described simply as being of Jewish descent. So, you see, you can be Jewish and still be an atheist and still be a Communist — and I tell you, Communism is Jewish!” “All Jews are Communists?” I retorted sarcastically. “No, no, no,” she emphatically replied, with much patience in the way she paced her words. “All Jews are not Communists, any more than all snakes are poisonous. But most leading Communists in America are Jews, as well as most of the convicted Russian spies in America, as well as the leaders of the New Left. And historically, most of the Commie revolutionaries in Russia were Jewish as well!” What Mrs. Smith said made me very uncomfortable. Although it was not yet time to leave, I claimed that I had to catch my bus back home. I left the office hurriedly. Mrs. Smith had to be wrong, but I just did not have the information I needed to refute her statements. I resolved to research the issue so that I could show her why she was wrong. Something else bothered me as well, for I felt a little guilty for even talking with someone who said such things about Jews. I was staunchly anti-Communist, and to suggest that Jews were behind the horrors of Communism was to me such a terrible allegation that my heart told me that it just could not be true. It was the first time I had been face to face with a person I presumed was an anti-Semite. I was soon running to catch my streetcar.

During the next couple of days I avoided even thinking about the issue, and I stayed away from the Citizens Council office. Finally I picked up and read the two copies of Common Sense I had taken home. One copy maintained that the NAACP was a Communist front organization dedicated to the eventual overthrow of our way of life. It purported that 12 Jews and one African American had founded the NAACP, and that all of the founders were dedicated Marxists with decades of documented Communist affiliations. The article asserted that the only major Black founder of the NAACP, W. E. B. Dubois, was an avowed member of the Communist Party who emigrated to Communist Ghana (where he eventually was buried). Furthermore, the scandalous publication purported that the NAACP was financed by Jewish money and always had a Jewish president. It said that a Jew, Kivie Kaplan, was the current NAACP president and that he was the real leader of the organization rather than its African American “front man,” Roy Wilkins. Although the public perceived Wilkins as the NAACP leader, the paper asserted that he actually had the lower rank of national secretary.

The argument of Common Sense was that the Jews led and supported the integrationist NAACP because they were opposed to powerful African American nationalist leaders such as Marcus Garvey and later those who led the Nation of Islam. They had no interest in African Americans becoming self-reliant or self-supportive. It maintained that the Jewish leadership only had an interest in racial pluralism only because it would offer certain advantages to the Jews as a group.

The other copy of Common Sense was no less startling. It had a long article asserting that international Communism was a Jewish creation and the Russian Revolution had not really been Russian at all. Jews had supposedly financed and led Communism since its in ception, and that they still thoroughly dominated the Communist movement in the United States and around the world.

This National Enquirer of the right quoted many names, dates, and sources to support its incredible allegations. I was very skeptical of its assertions, but the information was too compelling to ignore. I had learned early on not to easily dismiss unpopular opinions. Despite the articles’ strong documentation, the allegations just seemed too bizarre to be true. How could it be that the largest and most powerful African American organization in America had been founded, financed, and run by Jews and Marxist Jews at that — instead of African Americans? How could something so incredible be kept so quiet that most people would not know about it? If the Russian Revolution was truly a revolution led by Jews rather than Marxist Russians, why was such an enormous historical fact ignored in our history books and in our popular media? Furthermore, I could not understand why wealthy and powerful capitalist Jews would foster race-mixing and Communism.

Father had often talked to me about the evils of Communism, and I had been thoroughly anti-Communist since reading books such as The Conscience of a Conservative by Barry Goldwater,39 None Dare Call It Treason by John A. Stormer,40 and You Can Trust the Communists (To Be Communists)41 by Frederick Charles Schwarz. These books and others impressed upon me the penetration of Communist ideology throughout our society, media and government.

The Cuban Missile Crisis had occurred just three years before, and Father’s plans to build a fallout shelter were still fresh in my mind. He had even purchased food and other survival supplies for it. During that period, the idea of nuclear war, grew from an abstract idea to concrete anticipation. In the early 1960s, most communities tested the working order of air-raid sirens by sounding them daily at noon. Sometimes, when we lost track of time in school and the noon air-raid sirens went off, we wondered for a moment if the war was actually upon us.

During the Cuban crisis, most adults rationalized that thermonuclear war would not happen because it must not happen — because the very thought was too monstrous to contemplate. An 11-year-old is much more prone to believe that someone might pull the switch. Years later, the world discovered that we had actually teetered much closer to nuclear war than most Americans had known at the time. The fact that I viewed Communists as putting my family in real danger of nuclear incineration contributed greatly to my visceral anti Communist stance.

“There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews…” Winston S. Churchill

One of the Common Sense issues mentioned a full-page newspaper article written by Winston Churchill called “Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People.” The article had originally appeared in the Illustrated Sunday Herald on February 8, 1920. Churchill had maintained that the world’s Jews were being torn between an allegiance to Communism on the one hand and Zionism on the other. Churchill hoped the Jews would adopt Zionism as an alternative to what he called “diabolical” and “sinister” Bolshevism. In his well-written article, contemporary with the early years of the Russian Revolution, Churchill described Communism as a “sinister confederacy” of “International Jews” who “have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.”

The article shocked me enough that I had to check its authenticity. It turned out to be genuine. In fact, I found some Jewish references to it bewailing the fact that Churchill’s article gave fodder to the anti- Semites of the world. The following is an excerpt from his amazing article. In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where the Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing…and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire. There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews

As important an historical figure as Churchill was, he was still only one voice. I rationalized that he could be wrong about the nature of the Russian Revolution. One of the Common Sense articles I read referred to a series of explosive documents (complete with file numbers) from the National Archives of the United States. I wrote to my local Congressman, F. Edward Hebert, and asked if his office could obtain copies of the files for me. A couple of weeks later, on returning home from school, I found waiting for me a large manila envelope from the Congressman.

Certified by the seal of the United States of America, the documents were from the National Archives. They concerned intelligence reports from foreign governments and extensive reports from our chief intelligence officers in Russia during the time of the Russian Civil War in the early days of the Communist revolution. The early 1920s were long before the establishment of the OSS and the CIA. The U.S. Army ran our international intelligence work at that time. One of our military intelligence officers in Russia during its revolutionary period was Captain Montgomery Schuyler. He sent back regular reports to the chief of staff of U.S. Army Intelligence, who then relayed them to the Secretary of War and the President of the United States. Reading through the lengthy reports gave me a glimpse into a historical period of which few Americans are aware. They reported horrible massacres of thousands of Russian aristocrats and intelligentsia, murdered simply because they could provide effective leadership in opposition to the Communists. Many Americans are at least somewhat aware of Stalin’s murder of millions. However, many millions also died in the early days of Bolshevism under Lenin and Trotsky, for it was these men who initiated the first mass killings and the Gulags. The reports also stated, without equivocation, the Jewish nature of the revolution. In one of Schuyler’s official reports, declassified in 1958, almost 50 years after he wrote and dispatched them, he states: 44 In quoting the graphic language of this official report, my intention is not to offend; but Schuyler’s report says what it says, whether we like it or not. In another report, written four months later, Captain Schuyler goes on to quote the evidence of Robert Wilton, who was then the chief Russian correspondent of the authoritative London Times. Wilton later went on to pen a number of best-selling books about the revolution, including the widely acclaimed Russia’s Agony and Last Days of the Romanovs.45 On June 9, 1919, Schuyler cites Wilton as follows: A table made up in 1918, by Robert Wilton, correspondent of the London Times in Russia, shows at that time there were 384 commissars including 2 Negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen, 22 Armenians and more than 300 Jews. Of the latter number 264 had come from the United States since the downfall of the Imperial Government. There was, of course, no reason to impugn the reporting of the Times or of Captain Schuyler. I couldn’t believe my eyes as I scanned the papers dispersed across the plastic tablecloth on my dining room table. I wondered how it could possibly be true that the “Russian Revolution” had had only 13 ethnic Russians out of the 384 members of its top governing body. Churchill’s description of “gripping the “It is probably unwise to say this loudly in the United States, but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since its beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest type…”

Captain Schuyler, American army intelligence officer in Russia during the revolution. (in his official report) “There is now definite evidence that Bolshevism is an international movement controlled by Jews.” — The Director of British Intelligence to the U.S. Secretary of State Russian people by the hair of their heads” came to life in the pages I received from our own National Archives.Once I started checking out the leads I would glean from my reading, the National Archives kept providing me with the most incredible documents. Not only did our chief intelligence officer write to the President of the United States about the Jewish nature of Communism, so did our U.S. ambassador to Russia, David R. Francis. In a January 1918 cable to our government, he reported:

The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a world-wide social revolution. — David Francis, American Ambassador to Russia at the time of the Revolution47 The National Archives also sent me copies from its files of communications from Scotland Yard and British Intelligence. The directorate of British Intelligence sent to America and other nations a lengthy report dated July 16, 1919, on Bolshevism abroad. It was called “A Monthly Review of the Progress of Revolutionary Movements Abroad.” This lengthy report lists the Communist movements in the major nations of the world. The first sentence in the first paragraph on the first page of this British government report bluntly states that Jews control international Communism.48 There is now definite evidence that Bolshevism is an international movement controlled by Jews. Years later, as a student at Louisiana State University, I took a course entirely devoted to the Russian Revolution. Neither my professor in his lectures, nor my textbook (The Soviet Achievement)49 made any mention of the historical Jewish-Russian conflict and the Jewish domination of the Communist Party.

The Jewish role in the Communist revolution was, however, mentioned in many major Jewish publications such as the Jewish Encyclopedia and the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia. It astounded me to find them actually boasting about the pivotal role of Jews in the Russian Revolution. They even pointed out the effort of the Communist Jews to disguise the Jewish role — a successful effort — for most Gentiles in America and Europe are still unaware of it. The Communist movement and ideology played an important part in Jewish life, particularly in the 1920s, 1930s and during and after World War II…. Individual Jews played an important role in the early stages of Bolshevism and the Soviet Regime…. The great attraction of Communism among Russian, and later also, Western Jewry, emerged only with the establishment of the Soviet Regime in Russia… Many Jews the world over therefore regarded the Soviet concept of the solution to the “Jewish question” as an intrinsically positive approach…. Communism became widespread in virtually all Jewish communities. In some countries Jews became the leading element in the legal and illegal Communist parties and in some cases were even instructed by the Communist International to change their Jewishsounding names and pose as non-Jews, in order not to confirm right wing propaganda that presented Communism an alien, Jewish conspiracy.

Trotsky’s book, Stalin, written in exile, attempted to show that Stalin had played only an insignificant role in the early days of the Communist takeover. Trotsky attempted to illustrate this point by reproducing a postcard widely circulated in the months following the revolution. The postcard depicted the six leaders of the revolution. Shown are Lenin (who was at least one-quarter Jewish, spoke Yiddish in his home, and was married to a Jewess); Trotsky (real Jewish name: Lev Bronstein); Zinoviev (real Jewish name: Hirsch Apfelbaum); Lunacharsky (a Gentile); Kamenov (real Jewish name: Rosenfeld); and Sverdlov (Jewish).51 Not only does the postcard show the Jewish domination of the revolution; it also illustrates the fact that the Jewish Communist leaders shown had changed their names, presumably to disguise the fact that they were Jews, just as reported in the Encyclopedia Judaica. Although the fact of Lenin’s Jewish ancestry was kept quiet for many years, Jewish writers are now taking note of it. David Shub, author of Lenin: A Biography, stated in a letter to the Russian émigré paper Novyi Zhurnal52 that Lenin’s mother was Jewish at least on her father’s side and probably so on her mother’s side as well.53 In addition, a French Jewish periodical, Review de Fonds Social Juif,54 reported that a Soviet novelist, Marietta Shaguinian, was prevented by Soviet censorship from publishing evidence of Lenin’s Jewish ancestry. A number of Jewish publications in recent years have disclosed Lenin’s Jewish heritage, including the Jewish Chronicle.55 The Cheka, or secret police, had a Jew, Moses Uritzky, as its first chief. Most of the other subsequent leaders were also Jews, including Sverdlov and Genrikh Yagoda (which is Russian for “Yehuda” — “the Jew”) who presided over the pogroms that killed millions of Christians. The Soviet propaganda minister during the war was a Jew, Ilya Ehrenburg, who notoriously distinguished himself by his Second World War exhortations of Soviet troops to rape and murder the women and children of Germany.56 Anatol Goldberg quoted Ehrenburg in his book, Ilya Ehrenburg as saying, “…the Germans are not human beings…nothing gives us so much joy as German corpses.”

The Communist secret police, which underwent many name changes, including Cheka, OGPU, GPU, NKVD, NKGB, MGB, and KGB, was the most feared police agency in the history of the world. They imprisoned, tortured, or murdered more than 30 million Russians and Eastern Europeans. Even the more conservative Soviet historians of the 1960s were placing the number of murdered at about 20 to 40 million — figures that do not include the millions more who were dispossessed, imprisoned, exiled, tortured, and displaced. Nobel Prizewinner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in his opus, The Gulag Archipelago, using the research of a Soviet statistician who had access to secret government files, I. A. Kurganov, estimated that between 1918 and 1959, at least 66 million died at the hands of the Communist rulers of Russia. Although that number may be far too high, in Gulag Archipelago II, Solzhenitsyn affirms that Jews created and administered the organized Soviet concentration camp system in which tens of millions of Christians died. Pictured on page 79 of the Gulag Archipelago II are the leading administrators of the greatest killing machine in the history of the world.58 They are Aron Solts, Yakov Rappoport, Lazar Kogan, Matvei Berman, Genrikh Yagoda, and Naftaly Frenkel. All six are Jews.

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. 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.”60 The Congress Bulletin (Publication of the American Jewish Congress) stated: 61 62 63

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.64 The Beginning of an Ethnic War In school, I brought up these fascinating facts with some of my teachers. They in turn were as incredulous as I had been. One suggested that the Jewish involvement in the Communist revolution might have been a result of the long running historical persecution of Jews by the Czars and, indeed, by much of the Russian intelligentsia. For instance, Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, and many other prominent Russian writers had criticized Jewish machinations in their books and articles. Russians didn’t like the fact that the Jews used the Russian lan- Jacob Schiff and Leon Trotsky, two key players in the Russian Revolution, both found their base of support in New York City.

guage for doing business among Gentiles but spoke Yiddish among themselves. Jews were also accused of having an “us versus them” mentality rather than assimilating with the Christian majority. There had been a running feud between the Russians and the Jews for centuries and from these conflicts arose “pogroms” to suppress the Jews. This war without borders can be illustrated by the Jewish reaction in the 1880s to the anti-Semitic Russian May Laws. The May Laws of 1882 attempted to restrict Jews from some professions and mandate resettlement of most Jews to their original area of the empire, the Pale of Settlement (a huge area, originally set up in 1772, encompassing an area about half the size of Western Europe, extending from the Crimea to the Baltic Sea, to which the Jews had been restricted). In retaliation, Jewish international financiers did their best to destroy the Russian economy. Encyclopaedia Britannica describes what happened:

The Russian May Laws were the most conspicuous legislative monument achieved by modern Anti-Semitism…. Their immediate result was a ruinous commercial depression which was felt all over the empire and which profoundly affected the national credit. The Russian minister was at his wits end for money. Negotiations for a large loan were entered upon with the house of Rothschild and a preliminary contract was signed, when…the finance minister was informed that unless the persecutions of the Jews were stopped the great banking house would be compelled to withdraw from the operation….65

In response to the economic and other pressures put upon Russia, the Czar issued an edict on September 3, 1882. In it he stated: For some time the government has given its attention to the Jews and to their relations to the rest of the inhabitants of the empire, with a view of ascertaining the sad condition of the Christian inhabitants brought about by the conduct of Jews in business matters…. With few exceptions, they have as a body devoted their attention, not to enriching or benefiting the country, but to defrauding by their wiles its inhabitants, and particularly its poor inhabitants. This conduct of theirs has called forth protests on the part of the people,… thought it a matter of urgency and justice to adopt stringent measures in order to put an end to the oppression practiced by the Jews on the inhabitants, and to free the country from their malpractices, which were, as is known, the cause of the agitations. 66

So, Jews had ample reason to attempt to overturn the Czarist government of Russia, and there is direct evidence they did just that. The Jewish Communal Register of New York City of 1917-1918, edited and published by the Jewish community, profiles Jacob Schiff, who at that time was one of the wealthiest men in the world as head of the huge banking house of Kuhn, Loeb & Company. In the article it states how the firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Company “floated the large Japanese War Loans of 1904-1905, thus making possible the Japanese victory over Russia.” It also goes on to say, Mr. Schiff has always used his wealth and his influence in the best interests of his people. He financed the enemies of autocratic Russia and used his financial influence to keep Russia away from the money market of the United States.67 Jacob Schiff actually gave somewhere between $17 million and $24 million to finance the Jewish- Communist revolutionaries in Russia, a sum that would be the equivalent of many hundreds of millions of dollars by today’s dollar value. Rabbi Marvin S. Andelman, in his book To Eliminate the Opiate, cites two sources documenting Schiff’s financial support of the Communist revolution and ultimate repayment by them. Jacob Schiff is credited with giving twenty million dollars to the Bolshevik revolution. A year after his death the Bolsheviks deposited over six hundred million rubles to Schiff’s banking firm Kuhn & Loeb.68 69 It puzzled me that the violently anticapitalist Communist Party would be supported by some of the most prominent capitalists in the world. But I finally realized that Russian Revolution was not ultimately about the triumph of an economic ideology, it was about the culmination of an age-old struggle between two powerful peoples — the Jews and the Russians — in an ethnic war that tragically ended in the totalitarian tyranny of the Communist dictatorship. Even worse, the score was ultimately settled in the terror of the blood-washed cellars of the Cheka and the frozen death of the Gulags.

The fact that supercapitalists such as Jacob Schiff could support a nakedly socialist regime such as Communism made me question whether there was something more to Communism than met the eye. What was it about Communism that made it so attractive to Jews, who were largely well-educated non-proletarians, when Communism was supposed to be, in Lenin’s words, “a dictatorship of the proletariat”? Obviously, by and large, Jews were nothing like Marx’s “workers of the world,” for no group was more involved in capitalism or the manipulation and use of capital than the Jewish community. I checked out the Communist personalities that Mattie Smith told me were in the Jewish Who’s Who in World Jewry. Atheist Leon Trotsky as well as atheist Maxim Litvinov, the Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs, are proudly listed in the directory of famous Jews compiled by the leading Jewish rabbinical groups of the world. Winston Churchill, in his eloquent article “Zionism Versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People,” had argued that Communism and Zionism were distinct ideologies that were competing, as he put it, “for the soul of the Jewish people.” But something didn’t seem quite kosher in this supposed titanic struggle, for it appeared that many Zionists also supported Communism and, at least in the early years, many Communists were sympathetic to Zionists. Millions of Jews, even supercapitalists such as Jacob Schiff, supported the Communist revolution in Russia. The struggle seemed to be like that of two brothers who might sometimes argue between themselves but who always stand together against their common enemies.

In 1975, I read a book called Trotsky and the Jews, written by Joseph Nedava and published by the Jewish Publication Society (Philadelphia, 1971). The book points out that before the Russian Revolution, Leon Trotsky (born Lev Bronstein) used to play chess with Baron Rothschild of the famous Rothschild banking family. A Jewish journalist (M. Waldman) who knew Trotsky from the period of his stay in Vienna (“when he used to play chess with Baron Rothschild in Cafe Central and frequent Cafe Daily to read the press there”). 70 What could the Rothschilds, the biggest banking house in Europe, possibly have in common with a leader who wanted to destroy capitalism and private property? Conversely, why would a dedicated Communist be a close friend of the most powerful “capitalist oppressor” in the world? Could it be that they saw Communism and Zionism as two very different avenues to a similar goal of power and revenge against the Czars?

A number of questions arose: 1) Could Communism simply have been a tool they adapted to defeat and rule their Russian antagonists? 2) Were there other peoples with whom the Jews believed they were in conflict? 3) Was Communism originally part of a strategic imperative that reached far beyond the confines of Soviet Russia? These were important questions. I thought that I might find their answers in the philosophical origins of Communism. I resolved to investigate the ideological roots of Communism. I found Das Kapital71 and the Communist Manifesto72 in my public library. Karl Marx’s books were obtuse, especially the parts describing the Hegelian dialectic, but they made some sense if one believed that mankind had a machine-like nature that Marx described. One of my teachers made the often-repeated, poorly-thought-out comment that Communism was great in theory but faulty in practice. To my way of thinking, to be a great idea it must work in practice, and Communism obviously doesn’t. There has never been a theory that has promised more human happiness yet delivered more poverty, mental and physical oppression, and more human misery and death. Until I looked into the foundations of Communism, I had always thought Karl Marx was a German. In fact, I had read that Marx’s father was a Christian. It turns out that his father, a successful lawyer, was a Jew who had converted to Christianity after an edict prohibited Jews from practicing law. Much later, in 1977, I read an article from the Chicago Jewish Sentinel boasting that Marx was the grandson of a rabbi and “the descendant of Talmudic scholars for many generations.”73 An excellent article in the Barnes Review points out the “Racism of Marx and Engels.”74 Not only was Karl Marx from a long line of Talmudic scholars, he also hated Russians with a passion that could be described as pathological. I looked up Karl Marx in the Jewish encyclopedias, and I found to my amazement that the man who taught him many of the principles of Communism was Moses Hess. As incredible as it might seem, contemporary Zionist leaders venerate Moses Hess as the “forerunner” of modern Zionism. In The Encyclopedia of Zionism in Israel, under the entry for Moses Hess, is the following: Pioneer of modern socialism, social philosopher, and forerunner of Zionism…. Hess was thus a forerunner of political and cultural Zionism and of socialist Zionism in particular. He became deeply involved in the rising socialist movement. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels acknowledged that they had learned much from him during the formative years of the movement…. — The Encyclopedia of Zionism in Israel 75

After months of reading from many major, first hand sources, I realized that the elderly lady in the offices of the Citizens Council had been essentially right, at least about the origins of the Communist revolution. I felt as if I were sitting on the edge of a volcano. Every new piece of information seemed to both confirm and clarify the issue ever further. In The Last Days of the Romanovs, Robert Wilton, on assignment for The London Times in Russia for 17 years, summed up the “Russian Revolution” in these words: The whole record of the Bolshevism in Russia is indelibly impressed with the stamp of alien invasion. The murder of the Tsar, deliberately planned by the Jew Sverdlov and carried out by the Jews Goloshekin, Syromolotov, Safarov, Voikov, and Yurovsky, is the act, not of the Russian people, but of this hostile invader.76 In 1990, a major New York publisher, the Free Press, a division of Simon & Schuster, published a book by Israeli historian Louis Rapoport called Stalin’s War Against the Jews. In it the author casually admits what we Gentiles are not supposed to know: Many Jews were euphoric over their high representation in the new government. Lenin’s first Politburo was dominated by men of Jewish origins… Under Lenin, Jews became involved in all aspects of the Revolution, including its dirtiest work. Despite the Communists’ vows to eradicate Anti-Semitism, it spread rapidly after the revolution — partly because of the prominence of so many Jews in the Soviet administration, as well as in the traumatic, inhuman Sovietization drives that followed. Historian Salo Baron has noted that an immensely disproportionate number of Jews joined the new Soviet secret police, the Cheka…. And many of those who fell afoul of the Cheka would be shot by Jewish investigators. The Collective leadership that emerged in Lenin’s dying days was headed by the Jew Zinoviev, a loquacious, curly-haired…77 I began to realize that there was once widespread knowledge of the Jewish leadership of the “Russian Revolution,” — an example can be found in the National Geographic Magazine’s May 1907 edition. An article entitled “The Revolution in Russia” describes the Jewish leadership of the terroristic Communist revolution.

…the revolutionary leaders nearly all belong to the Jewish race and the most effective revolutionary agency is the Jewish Bund,…The government has suffered more from that race than from all of its other subjects combined. Whenever a desperate deed is committed it is always done by a Jew and there is scarcely one loyal member of that race in the entire Empire.78

The facts were indisputable. An enormous fact of history has been wiped away from the intellectual consciousness of the West as thoroughly as a file can be erased from the hard disk of a desktop computer. In his classic novel 1984,79 George Orwell wrote about historical truth “going down the Memory Hole.” This had been the fate of the truth regarding the real perpetrators of the “Russian Revolution.” I asked myself two questions: “Why was the historical truth about the Communist revolution suppressed?” and “How, in a free world, could that suppression have been accomplished?” The first question had an obvious answer in the fact that the forces of international Jewry would not want it generally known that they were the primary authors of the most repressive and murderous evil in the history of mankind: Communism. Obviously, knowledge of that fact does not create good public relations for Jews. The answer to the second question of “how” was more elusive. I realized that only very powerful forces could suppress important parts of the historical record and create a false impression of a “Russian Revolution” when there were only 13 ethnic Russians in the highest levels of the first Bolshevik government. Obviously the Jews historically did have a lot of power — as evidenced by Jacob Schiff, the Rothschilds, and others — but the power to change the perception of history — that seemed preposterous. Yet only a few months before, when Mattie Smith had told me at the Citizens Council that the Russian Revolution was Jewish, I had thought the idea was ridiculous. Now I knew differently, and I knew I was just beginning to discover a different reality in the world that was not mentioned by the NY Times. The facts I then knew led me to some interesting new questions: • Does it make me an anti-Semite to accept the historical fact that the “Russian Revolution” was not actually Russian but a takeover of Czarist Russia by an antagonistic, non-Russian nationality? • Is there a historically proven nationalism among the Jews hostile toward other peoples? • Do Jewish interests and the interests of the Christian West synchronize or conflict? • If those interests sometimes conflict, did the well-coordinated, world-wide Jewish effort to fiercely fight for their perceived ethnic interests in Russia have negative ramifications for Russia, Western Europe and America? • How did Jewish organized power create our “special relationship” with Israel in modern times? • And, finally: Did asking these questions have anything to do with “hate”?

When I saw programs on television about Anti-Semitism, hate was almost always the word used to describe any negative opinion about Jews. I felt no hatred toward Jews. My investigation had been purely an intellectual exercise. I was an interloper looking into a world where I did not belong, but it was a world that intrigued me. Pondering the “hate” question, I asked a teacher at school why the word hate wasn’t ever used by the media to describe the motivation of the mass murder of millions of Russian Christians in the Soviet Union. Certainly, it would have taken a great deal of hate to have committed such monstrous crimes. She had no answer, and yet I had many more questions. In later years, I learned that labeling such inquiries “hate” was itself part of an organized effort to demonize anyone who would dare to oppose Jewish Supremacist hatred of the Gentile World. Once I discovered the shared roots of both Communism and Zionism, I decided to examine the history of the Jewish people, both historical Judaism and the development of modern Zionism. I felt that I had access to the best sources in the world for my investigation. I started with three excellent and exhaustive Jewish encyclopedias.


PAGE – 2

Powerful and enigmatic, intelligent and creative, idealistic on the one hand and materialistic on the other, the Jewish people have always fascinated me. Few teenagers growing up in the middle 1960s, as I did, could have avoided acquiring a positive image of Israel and the Jewish people. Because of my years of Sunday school, my perception of the Jews was even more idealized than most. I was 11 years old when I saw the classic movie, Exodus.80 It made such an enduring impression on me that for a few months its beautiful theme song became my favorite, one that I would often hum or sing. I remember an episode of embarrassment when my sister and her teenage friends stumbled upon me loudly singing the stirring words, “This land is mine, God gave this land to me.” Heroic Israel inspired me. It was as if the Israelites of the Bible had transported themselves to modern times to live out their Old Testament adventures again. The televised image of Israel strongly reinforced my acceptance of the idea that Gentile intolerance had caused every historical conflict with Jews.

After I had discovered the extensive Jewish leadership of early Communism, which I had hoped was an uncharacteristic blight on Jewish history, I began to ask questions one dared not ask in polite society about this interesting people and religion. I had read about the many persecutions of the Jews throughout history, including their great suffering now called the Holocaust (in the mid-60s that term had not yet been appropriated by the Jews to apply exclusively to their sufferings during the Second World War — holocaust merely means, as it always has, large scale destruction, especially by fire). Mark Twain wrote, “Every nation hates each other, but they all hate the Jew.” Somehow I found the impertinence to ask why. In a historical context, almost every major nation of Europe had expelled them in the past, some repeatedly, after renewed waves of Jewish immigration. What was it, I wondered, about the Jewish people, that inspired such hatred?

Normally, when we study historical conflicts between nations or peoples, we do it dispassionately. For instance, in examining any war from long ago, we list as objectively as possible, the grievances and rationales of the opposing sides. When studying the War for Southern Independence, every American school child learns the Southern arguments for secession and the Northern arguments for forced union. In contrast, when studying the many historical disputes between the Jewish people and others, only the Jewish point of view is acceptable. 56 In early 1995, Congressman Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House, fired his newly appointed congressional librarian, Christina Jeffrey.81 He fired her for having once suggested that history students, when studying the Holocaust, should also study the German point of view on the subject. She was fired in spite of her high standing in her profession and notwithstanding her long and cozy relations with the powerful Jewish ADL (Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith). The very suggestion that there could be another side to any issue affecting Jews is decried as “anti-Semitic.” In both the entertainment and news media, the only permissible opinion is that Jews are always innocent victims persecuted by intolerant Christians and other “anti-Semites.” Maybe they were always innocent, and all the other peoples of the world were always unjust, I thought. But they weren’t so innocent in the Russian Revolution. I realized I could not evaluate the issue fairly until I had read about both sides.

Jewish Racial Supremacism

One of the first things I discovered that is that while Gentiles who call the Jews a “race” are condemned, but Jewish leaders have for centuries routinely called themselves a race. The leader of American Jewry in the 1930s, Rabbi Stephen F. Wise, said it succinctly in this dramatic statement, “Hitler was right in one thing. He calls the Jewish people a race and we are a race.”82 Right up to the present day, there are many statements illustrating how Jewish leaders matter-of-factly view themselves not just as a religion, but as an identifiable race, genetically distinguishable from other peoples.

The former Israeli Prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, former Israeli Prime Minister, speaking to Jewish group in southern California said: “If Israel had not come into existence after World War II then I am certain the Jewish race wouldn’t have survived…I stand before you and say you must strengthen your commitment to Israel.”83 An editorial entitled “Some Other Race” in the New York weekly Forward (A very prestigious Jewish publication) urges Jews to list themselves on the U.S. Government census form as a race. It goes on to suggest: “… On question eight [of the form, which asks about race], you might consider doing what more than one member of our redaktzia [editorial staff] has done: checking the box ‘some other race’ and writing in the word ‘Jew’.”84

Charles Bronfman, a main sponsor of the $210 million “Birthright Israel,” an organization specifically committed to preventing intermarriage between Jews and Gentiles, expressed the need to preserve the Jewish genetic character as expressed in the Jewish DNA. Bronfman is brother of Edgar Bronfman, Sr., president of the World Jewish Congress. He said, “…you’re losing a lot — losing the kind of feeling you have when you know [that] throughout the world there are people who somehow or other have the same kind of DNA that you have.”85 Imagine for a moment if President George Bush would speak to a group of White college students and tell them how great it is for them know that others in the world share their White DNA, and thus they should not lose it by intermarrying with other races. Bush could live to 100 years old and still never live down a remark like that! During his campaign for President in 2000, Bush spoke before dozens of Jewish organizations and Synagogues that oppose intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews. The media only had praise for those appearances. In contrast, Bush was roundly condemned by the Jewish media by simply speaking at a conservative Christian university (Bob Jones University) that quietly opposes racial intermarriage. After the media unleashed a storm of criticism, Bush had to quickly apologize and then passionately condemn Bob Jones University for its position. Of course, within a few days, Bush was again speaking before many Jewish groups that stridently oppose intermarriage, yet no one in the media dared object to these appearances, or to even point out this blatant double standard.

Judaism Views the Bible as Racial Supremacism

Looking for answers to the Jewish view on race, I returned to where I had first learned my respect for the Jews: in the Holy Bible. I went back and reread the Old Testament, paying close attention to the relationships between Jews and non-Jews. In contrast to the universalism of the New Testament, the Old Testament is extremely ethnocentric. It repeatedly identifies the Israelites as a “special people,” or a “Chosen People,” and it painstakingly traces the genealogical descent of the Children of Israel. Many thought-provoking passages forbid the intermarriage of Jews and other tribes. In the book of Exodus, Moses responds to Israelites who had sexual relations with Moabite women by ordering that the Moabites be executed. In Ezra, God commanded those who married non-Israelites to cast off their wives and even the children of such unions.86 Some of the bloodiest writings I have ever read detailed the Jewish people’s annihilation of their tribal enemies.

The massacres of Canaanites, Jacobites, Philistines, Egyptians, and dozens of other peoples are gruesomely recorded in the Bible. In today’s terminology, we describe the slaughter of entire peoples as genocide. Old Testament Jews spared neither men, women, children or even the animals and pets of their enemies.87 The following are just a few among dozens of similar passages found in the Old Testament: And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword . . . (Joshua 6:21)88

Then Horam, king of Gezer, came to help Lachish; and Joshua smote him and all his people, until he had left him none remaining. And they took Eglon, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that were therein. (Joshua 10:32-34)89 And they took Hebron, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king thereof, and all the cities thereof, and the souls that were therein; he left none remaining. (Joshua 10:37)90 For the indignation of the Lord is upon all nations, and His fury upon all their armies: he hath utterly destroyed them, He hath delivered them to the slaughter.

Their slain also shall be cast out, and their stink shall come up out of their carcasses, and the mountains shall be melted in their blood. (Isaiah 34:2-3)91 But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, (Deuteronomy 20:16)92

As a Christian, I could not explain what appeared to be celebrations of genocide. I acknowledged that God is unfathomable and unknowable. However, I could not help but have sympathy for those who where massacred, including thousands of innocent men, women and children. It is easy to imagine how the few who survived those bloody, merciless massacres felt about the “Jews.” Of course, the Jews were not unique in their pursuit of ethnic cleansing; many other early peoples had committed genocide on their enemies. With the coming of Jesus Christ and his advocacy of love and kindness as recorded in the New Testament, the Old Testament advocacy and record of genocide is little recollected by modern churches. When a modern Christian stumbles across passages of the Old Testament condoning genocide, he usually dismisses them as the sad happenings of a remote biblical era, one now mitigated with the New Covenant of love that Christ brings to those who accept his message. The Israelite record on racial integrity and supremacy is quite clear:

Neither shall thou make marriages with them; their daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. (Deuteronomy 7:2-3)93

. . .For thou art a holy people unto the Lord Thy God: the Lord Thy God has chosen thee to a special people unto himself, above all people that are on the face of the earth. (Deuteronomy 7:6)94 Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace or their wealth for ever, that ye may be strong and eat of the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever. (Ezra 9:12)95

Members of racial groups might argue about their comparative history, or abilities, or spirituality. But to suggest that God favors one people over all others — even to the point of advocating and condoning genocide to make way for the “Chosen”? Certainly, that must be the apex of racial supremacy.

Modern Christianity deals with the ethnocentric and genocidal parts of the Old Testament by focusing on the loving aspects of the New Testament. One example is the way that Jesus Christ reversed Old Testament law such as “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,” to “turn the other cheek.” The Jewish religion, however, had no comparable figure in its history to moderate the extreme ethnocentrism of the Old Testament. Perhaps the Jewish teacher who offered the greatest moderation toward Gentiles was Maimonides, considered by most Jews as the foremost figure of European Judaism. Even Maimonides decreed that Jewish physicians should not save the life of a Christian unless not saving him would “cause the spread of hostility against the Jews.” 96

The early spread of Christianity by the Apostle Paul encouraged Christians to become more tolerant of different ethnic groups. Paul himself was a Jewish Pharisee who converted to Christianity and preached much of his life to Gentiles of diverse nationalities. The Christian faith had intolerance for other beliefs and other Gods, but no bias against other tribes. Evangelists of the ancient world themselves came from assorted peoples and preached across the known world. Of course, Christians could and often did harbor xenophobic tendencies, but their nationalistic or ethnocentric attitudes found their origins in their own cultures, not in the teachings of the New Testament. The book of Galatians makes the point quite well that the chosen people, “neither Jew or Greek,” are now those who accept the salvation of Jesus Christ.97 Salvation in the ancient world became based upon acceptance of faith, not simply on blood. The Jewish religion had an evolution quite different from that of early Christianity. The Jewish people and their religion were entwined. Belief in God was necessary to preserve the tribe as much as preserving the tribe was important to safeguarding the religion. However, according to the Zionist State of Israel, race is far more im60 portant than religious belief. A prospective immigrant does not have to practice or believe in Judaism to immigrate to Israel; in fact he can be an outspoken atheist and Communist. He must only prove Jewish descent. Protection of the ethnic identity of the Jewish people became the main reason for Judaism’s existence.

In the Middle East (and later throughout the world) the Jews mingled with many peoples, and yet they preserved their heritage and their essential customs. They are the only ethnic minority in Western nations that has not assimilated after thousands of years. In Babylon, they lived under slavery and then under domination for hundreds of years and developed a code that enabled them not only to survive, but to prosper while living as a minority in an alien society. When they emerged from their Babylonian sojourn, they were stronger, more organized, and more ethnocentric than ever before. The Talmud: A Jewish-Supremacist Doctrine

In rejecting Jesus Christ and the love and tolerance he preached, Judaism proceeded on its path of chauvinism. It culminated in the pages of the Talmud, an encyclopedic exposition of Jewish law and custom, compiled by hundreds of rabbis over the centuries. The American Heritage Dictionary describes it as “constituting the basis of religious authority for traditional Judaism.” The Talmud was first transcribed in Babylonian times, and the oral tradition is many centuries older. By the Sixth Century AD it was written down, becoming the most important religious work of the Jewish people and the chief canon of their religion. In it they finally codified their most chauvinistic tendencies. Herman Wouk, the very popular Jewish writer,98 describes the influence of the Talmud as follows: The Talmud is to this day the circulating heart’s blood of the Jewish religion. Whatever laws, customs, or ceremonies we observe — whether we are Orthodox, Conservative, Reform or merely spasmodic sentimentalists — we follow the Talmud. It is our common law.99

As a 16-year-old, during one of my visits to the Citizens Council offices, I had found a book called The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today by Elizabeth Dilling.100 It interested me because the large format of the book contained complete photocopied pages from parts of the Talmud officially compiled by Jewish scholars. I remember skipping Dilling’s commentary and going right to the translations. One of the first passages I read really surprised me. It said,

A heathen [Gentile] who pries into the Torah [and other Jewish Scriptures] is condemned to death, for it is written, it is our inheritance, not theirs. (Sanhedrin 59a)101

If a 16-year-old boy reads something forbidden like that, he is certain to read on. The passage was completely alien to everything I had always understood about religion. Why would they not want all men to read their holy words the same way Christians want to “spread the good news?” Just what is in these scriptures that would oblige the Jews to kill a Gentile that read them? Why would public knowledge of Jewish scriptures be dangerous to Jews? I went to the library and found some old translations of parts of the Talmud. It was not long before I came across other, even more amazing passages such as: Balaam [Jesus] is raised from the dead and being punished in boiling hot semen. Those who mock the words of the Jewish sages and sin against Israel are boiled in hot excrement. (57a Gittin) 102 When I asked my Jewish friend’s rabbi about the passage, he told me that Balaam was not Jesus. He sounded very convincing, but that very evening, I looked up Balaam in the Jewish Encyclopedia and was shocked to read that Balaam was a pseudonym for Jesus. Because Christian scholars periodically obtained copies of the Talmud, Talmudic scribes hoped to deceive them by using the name Balaam to denote Jesus.

In The Jewish Encyclopedia, under the heading “Balaam,” it says, “…the pseudonym ‘Balaam’ given to Jesus in Sanhedrin 106b and Gittin 57a.”103 The Talmud repeatedly uses obscure words to denote Gentiles with an assortment of names such as Egyptian, heathen, Cuthean, and idolater.

In the most popular English-language translation of the Talmud, called the Soncino edition, the practice is illustrated by the fifth footnote of the book of Sanhedrin. It reads, “Cuthean (Samaritan) was here substituted for the original goy…”104 Christians are sometimes referred to by the code word “Min” or “Minim.”105 The footnotes of the Soncino edition of the Talmud as well as passages in the Jewish Encyclopedia blatantly mention this intentional artifice.

The Encyclopedia Judaica also notes that, In rabbinical literature the distinction between gentile ( goy, akkum) and Christian ( Nazeri) has frequently been obscured by tex- The Jewish Encyclopedia, under the heading “Balaam,” it says, “…the pseudonym ‘Balaam’ given to Jesus in Sanhedrin 106b and Gittin tual alterations necessitated by the vigilance of censors. Thus ‘Egyptian, ‘Amalekite,’ ‘Zadokite (Sadducee),’ and ‘Kuti’ (Samaritan) often stands in place of the original Nazeri, as well as goy, akkum, etc. Probably when Resh Lakish stated that a gentile ( akkum, etc. in existing texts) who observed the Sabbath [Saturday rites] is punishable by death (Sanhedrin, 58b), he had in mind Christians … Numerous anti-Christian polemic passages only make real sense after Nazeri has been restored in place of the spurious Kuti or Zadokite.”106

In other passages in the Talmud I discovered a possible reason why some of the Talmud’s writers had forbidden Gentiles to read it. The Talmud’s words are vitriolic:

• Only Jews are human. [Gentiles] are animals. (Baba Mezia 114a- 114b.)107

• For murder, whether of a Cuthean [Gentile] by a Cuthean, or of an Israelite by a Cuthean, punishment is incurred; but of a Cuthean by an Israelite, there is no death penalty. ( Sanhedrin 57a)108

• Even the best of the [Gentiles] should be killed. ( Babylonian Talmud)109

• If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go to a city where he is not known and do the evil there. (Moed Kattan 17a.)110

• Gentiles’ flesh is as the flesh of asses and whose issue is like the issue of horses.111

• If a heathen [Gentile] hits a Jew, the Gentile must be killed. Hitting a Jew is hitting God. (Sanhedrin 58b.)112

• If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite [Gentile] gores an ox of an Israelite… the payment is to be in full. (Baba Kamma 37b.)113

• If a Jew finds an object lost by a heathen [Gentile] it does not have to be returned. (Baba Mezia 24a; Affirmed also in Baba Kamma 113b.)114

• God will not spare a Jew who ‘marries his daughter to an old man or takes a wife for his infant son or returns a lost article to a Cuthean [Gentile]… (Sanhedrin 76a.)115

• What a Jew obtains by theft from a Cuthean [Gentile] he may keep. (Sanhedrin 57a.)116

• [Gentiles] are outside the protection of the law and God has ‘exposed their money to Israel.’ (Baba Kamma 37b.)117

• Jews may use lies (‘subterfuges’) to circumvent a [Gentile]. (Baba Kamma 113a.)118

• All [Gentile] children are animals. (Yebamoth 98a.)119

• [Gentiles] prefer sex with cows. (Abodah Zarah 22a-22b.)120

• The vessels of [Gentiles], do they not impart a worsened flavor to the food cooked in them? (Abodah Zarah 67b.)121

It astonished me to read such unmitigated hatred from the chief writings of the Jewish religion. It was obvious that these quotations were all authentic, because the copies I read were published by Jewish organizations. I could not find any rational explanation for such writings being in the Jewish sacred books. In fact, it became clear to me that most Americans do not even know that such writings even exist. These quotes were hard for me to believe, as they will be for many readers. However, if anyone doubts their authenticity, an easy way to verify the Talmud’s extreme hatred against Gentiles is by reading the Jewish Encyclopedia. In the article “Gentiles,” it makes very clear the Talmud’s hatred toward non-Jews. Under the subtitle “Discrimination against Gentiles,” on pages 617-621, it clearly shows the Talmud’s attitude toward non-Jews.

Here are some excerpts:

. . .they held that only Israelites are men, . . . Gentiles they classed not as men but as barbarians. (B.M. 108b). . . Another reason for discrimination was the vile and vicious character of the Gentiles. . . . “whose flesh is like the flesh of asses and issue is like the issue of horses . . .” The Gentiles were so strongly suspected of unnatural crimes that it was necessary to prohibit the stabling of a cow in their stalls (Ab. Zarah ii. 1). . .”The Torah outlawed the issue of a Gentile as that of a beast.. . . ” The almighty offered the Torah to the Gentiles nations also, but since they refused to accept it, He withdrew his shining legal protection from them, and transferred their property rights to Israel. . . the presumption is that the Gentile obtained possession by seizure, . . . The property is considered public property, like the unclaimed land of the Desert. 122

The 1907 edition of the Funk & Wagnall’s Jewish Encyclopedia mentions a quotation of Rabbi Simon Ben Yohai (a giant of Talmudic literature) that is “often quoted by anti-Semites.” The quotation reads: “Tob shebe-goyim harog” — “The best of the Goyim is to be killed.” It says that the rabbi’s utterance results from persecution, describing this anti-Gentile statement as a reaction of a rabbi “whose life experiences may furnish an explanation for his animosity.” Yet the passage continues revealingly, “In the connection in which it stands, the import of this observation is similar to that of the two others: ‘The most pious woman is addicted to sorcery’; ‘The best of snakes ought to have its head crushed.’ ” 123 The Talmudic quotations I reproduce here are by no means taken out of context. It is true that the Talmud is comprised of many writings and has many “commentaries” throughout. It also sometimes actually has disputes on certain issues. However, there is no mistaking the decidedly anti-Gentile tone that dominates it throughout. The exhortation that “the best of Gentiles should be killed,” for instance, is located in at least three different sections.

Imagine the reaction if a prominent Christian pronounced that “the best of the Jews should be killed.” Would not such a statement be forcefully condemned? Imagine the media opprobrium that would be heaped on the offending words and its author. Perversely, if one exposes the intolerance in the Talmud, he is the only one likely to face accusations of religious prejudice and intolerance. When I first sought to read the Talmud, I noticed a strange thing. I had a hard time finding a copy. It is not sold in bookstores, and most libraries don’t have copies. Admittedly, the Talmud is a few times the size of the Bible, but certainly, in mass quantities, the Talmud could be printed for a nominal cost, much like the Bible is, on thin paper and in inexpensively bound volumes. As the most holy writ of one of the world’s major religions, there must be significant human interest in it. Why then must one usually go to a synagogue or pay hundreds of dollars for an original Soncino edition? One must ask why it is not readily available for the public to read. The answer is probably found in the fact that the Jewish organizations that oversee the distribution rights to such writings don’t want them widely read. When one reads the Talmudic books, one can understand their reasoning. As an idealistic teenager, I was totally unprepared for this dark side of a faith that I had always respected. My impression had been that the Jewish faith had no animosity toward Jesus Christ. I was always told that they had much respect for Him as a prophet or at least as a great teacher but simply did not accept Him as the Messiah. It disturbed me to have come across violently obscene descriptions of the Savior and of Christians in the Talmud. Among other things, Christ is described as a charlatan, a seducer and an evil-doer. It accuses Christ of having sexual intercourse with his donkey 124 and it describes the Virgin Mary as a whore. 125 When I first read extensive sections of the Talmud, even with the Jewish published translations in front of me, I did not want to believe they were authentic. I approached another Jewish acquaintance, Mark

Cohen, and gave him a page of these quotations. He seemed equally upset by them. By the look on his face, I knew instantly that he was completely unfamiliar (and unsympathetic) with this Talmudic writ. He offered to ask his rabbi about their authenticity. The rabbi confirmed that the quotations were genuine but claimed that those views were not currently held by most Jews of today. I willingly believed this, and I still believe it is true of the average Jew. At the same time, however, knowing that such passages existed helped me to understand why there has been so much anti-Jewish sentiment over the centuries. It also offered insight into the anti- Gentile animus that dominated Judaism. It should be noted that all rabbis study the Talmud. How would Jews react if Christian preachers studied Mein Kampf as part of their holy writ, but excused it by saying that the book has no effect on their current attitudes? It may sound shocking to the uninformed, but any open-minded reader who reads both Mein Kampf and the Talmud would find the Talmud to be the more wrathful of the two, for despite Hitler’s vitriolic against the Jews, few of his statements approach the hatred reflected by Talmudic quotes such as “The best of the Gentiles should be killed. In Mein Kampf Hitler asks the question or whether or not Jews are “Germans,” whereas the Talmud states that Gentiles are not even human beings but animals.

I looked up Anti-Semitism in the major encyclopedias. All of them attempted to explain historical Anti-Semitism purely as Christian intolerance toward Jews. Sometimes, they even suggested that Christians persecuted Jews simply because the Gospels blame the Jews for the crucifixion of Christ. They never even suggested that one of the sources of Anti-Semitism could have been the hateful and ethnocentric attitudes of the Jews themselves as expressed toward Gentiles in their own religious laws. Even during the life of Jesus Christ, the forces of organized Jewry opposed the kindhearted teacher who spoke of the power of love and reconciliation, rather than of the militant anti-Roman measures hoped for by the Pharisees. The New Testament records faithfully the intense Jewish terror used to suppress the early Christian faith. In one of the Gospels’ most chilling verses it is written: Howbeit that no man spake openly of him [Christ] for fear of the Jews.” (John 8:13)126 From the early centuries of Christianity, some Gentile scholars became fluent in Hebrew. They developed bitterness toward Jews based on the contents of the Talmudic writings. Down through the intervening centuries, dozens of popes issued edicts and encyclicals condemning Judaism. They expressed outrage, not because the Jews crucified Christ, but because of the Talmud’s vicious anti-Gentile and anti- Christian passages. Here is short selection of some Popes’ views about the Jews:

Gregory IX. Condemned the Talmud as containing “every kind of vileness and blasphemy against Christian doctrine.” Benedict XIII. His Bull on the Jews (1450) declared, “The heresies, vanities and errors of the Talmud prevent the Jews from knowing the truth.” Innocent IV. Burned the Talmud in 1233 as a book of evil. John XXII. Banned the Talmud in 1322 Julius III. Papal Bull Contra Hebreos retinentes Libros (1554) ordered the Talmud burnt “everywhere.” Paul IV. Bull Cum Nimis Absurdum (1555) powerfully condemned Jewish usury and anti-Christian activities. Pius IV. Condemned Jewish genocidal writings. Pius V. Expelled all Jews from papal states. (1569) Gregory XIII. Said in a Papal Bull of 1581, “Moved by an intense hatred of the members of Christ, they continue to plan horrible crimes against the Christian religion with daily increasing audacity.” Clement VIII. Condemned Jewish genocidal writings. Not only did the founders of the Catholic Church take this dim view of the Jews, I was amazed to find that the great reformer and founder of Protestantism, Martin Luther, shared the same passionate opposition toward them.

As a teenager, I had a great admiration for Martin Luther, and I was keen to find out what the founder of Protestant Christianity had to say about Jews. A mail-order catalogue of books on the Jewish question at the Citizens Council office listed a translation of a book by Martin Luther with the abrasive title The Jews and Their Lies.127 The great Martin Luther was a biblical scholar who read Hebrew. He had thoroughly researched the books of the Talmud in their original language, and he had reacted to them with revulsion. Going on to read compilations of Luther’s sermons and writings, I was astonished at his passionate anti-Jewish tone.

They have been taught so much deadly hatred against the Gentiles by their parents and Rabbis since their earliest youth and continue to feed their hate during all the years of their lives, and this hatred has saturated their very blood and flesh, fills the very marrow of their bones and has become inseparable from their whole being. (Weimar 53, pgs. 482-483)

Their Talmud and their Rabbis teach them that a murder shall not be regarded as a sin whenever a Jew kills a Gentile, but only if a Jew murders a brother in Israel. Neither is it a sin to break an oath sworn to a Gentile. . .The Jews of our days still keep to these doc trines and follow the example of their fathers, taking every opportunity to practice their deliberately false interpretation of the Lord’s Word, their avariciousness, their usury, their thefts, their murders, and teaching their children to do likewise. (W. 53, 489- 490-91)

Maybe mild-hearted and gentle Christians will believe I am too rigorous and drastic against the poor, afflicted Jews, believing that I ridicule them and treat them with such sarcasm. By my word, I am far too weak to be able to ridicule such a Satanic breed. (W. 32, pg. 286)

You should know that the Jews blaspheme and violate the name of our Savior day for day…they are our public enemies and incessantly blaspheme our Lord Jesus Christ, they call our Blessed Virgin Mary a harlot and her Holy Son a bastard and to us they give the epithet of Changelings and abortions. If they could kill us all they would gladly do so, in fact, many murder Christians. . . (Luther’s last sermon, a few days before his death in February 1546) (Erlanger 62, pg. 189)

There were many tribes, nationalities and conflicting religious sects that migrated to the great cities of the Roman Empire. Yet, of all these groups, only the Jewish tribe has elicited such relentless hostility throughout the centuries. Only the Jewish tribe never assimilated into the Roman population. Could their own Talmudic practices and their disdain for non-Jews have had something to do with the enmity they generated? It seemed logical to me that these things contributed to anti-Jewish sentiments in the West.

The Contrast of Christian and Jewish Holy Days The contrasting holidays of Christianity and Judaism illustrate the dichotomy between the two religions. Christmas and Easter celebrate universal themes offering hope and salvation for all mankind. Christmas officially commemorates the birth of the Savior and celebrates the desire for “peace on Earth and goodwill toward men.” Easter, a more somber occasion, represents the promise of universal salvation through the Resurrection of Christ. While Christians celebrate universal goodwill on their holy days, Jews celebrate historic military victories against their despised Gentile enemies. Near the time of Christmas, the Jews celebrate Hanukkah, a celebration of their military victory in 165 BC over their hated enemy, the Greek-descended King Antiochus IV of Syria. The victory finds its remembrance by the miracle of the long-burning oil lamps in their recaptured temple. As Christians enter the Lenten Season and prepare for the celebrations of Christ’s offer of salvation, the Jews celebrate Passover, a holiday that is, again, based on an ancient conflict between Jew and Gentile. Passover is an unambiguous reference to the night when the spirit of death harmlessly “passed over” Jewish homes and descended into the homes of their hated Egyptian enemies, killing every firstborn male from newborn to elderly in all of Egypt. It may shock one to realize it, but this is a joyous celebration of mass infanticide and murder of the strong among the non-Jews. Another important Jewish holiday is the Feast of Lots, called Purim. The Random House Dictionary of the English Language describes it as follows:

Purim A Jewish festival marked chiefly by the reading of the book of Esther and eating of hamantaschen, that is celebrated on the 14th day of Adar in commemoration of the deliverance of the Jews in Persia from destruction by Haman.128

The festival celebrates the Jewish massacre of thousands of Persians along with their Prime Minister Haman and his 10 sons. It even includes the symbolic eating of the supposed anti-Semite’s ears (Haman’s ears — hamantaschen) in the form of three-sided cookies. Another of the favored Purim foods is Kreplach, which are dough pockets again shaped in a triangle to denote Haman’s ears, but these snacks are filled with chopped meat, symbolizing the beaten flesh of Haman. Another Purim celebration has Jews beating willow branches in the synagogues as they imagine themselves flogging Haman. The following description of these practices comes from a Jewish culture organization called Jewish Art in Context, but is found in numerous books about Jewish culture and religious holy days. The second description is from a Jewish cooking guide called “Bon Appetit.”

c. Special Delicacies

1. “Haman Taschen” (Oznei Haman = Haman’s Ears).

2. “Kreplach”: chopped meat covered with dough, also triangular in shape.

The name has received a popular etymology: “Kreplach are eaten only on days on which there is both hitting and eating: Yom Kippur eve — the custom of Kaparot, Hoshanna Rabba — the beating the willow branches, Purim — the (symbolical) beating of Haman.” 129

The reason Kreplach are eaten on Purim is interesting (if a bit of a stretch). Kreplach is also traditional for Yom Kippur … and for Hoshannah Rabah (the seventh day of Sukkot).

On these days it was traditional for there to be some sort of beating. On Yom Kippur in ancient times, men would be flogged before Yom Kippur and we beat the willow branches on Hoshannah Rabah. On Purim, we beat out the name of Haman. So Kreplach became traditional for Purim. (Phillip Goldwasser from “Bon Appetit”)130

Upon learning these things, I realized that if any group other than Jews had similar ceremonies; Jews would label them hateful and barbaric. Imagine if White Christians were to yearly observe a ritual in which they made and ate cookies shaped to represent the ears of Martin Luther King and held a holy ceremony in which they symbolically whipped him! Purim has been celebrated annually since long before the time of Christ and has certainly been important in the fomenting of hatred and suspicion of Gentiles in the hearts and minds of Jewish children. This repulsive ceremony is analogous to Christian churches teaching our children to symbolically beat the Jewish Pharisees who condemned Jesus and then eating foods symbolizing the pulverized body parts of the Jewish priests. Of course, such activities would be completely antithetical to the spirit of Christianity, yet such revengeful attitudes form the very core of Jewish tradition.

Zionism as Racism

After 2,000 years of conflict, the Jewish prayer “Next Year in Jerusalem” finally became expressed in an open political movement called Zionism. In 1862, Moses Hess, teacher of Karl Marx and the spiritual father of both Zionism and Communism, wrote Rome and Jerusalem. In it, he expressed the familiar Talmudic values.

We Jews shall always remain strangers among the Goyim [Gentiles]. . . . It is a fact the Jewish religion is above all Jewish nationalism. . . . Each and every Jew, whether or not he wishes it, is automatically, by virtue of his birth, bound in solidarity with his entire nation. . . . One must be a Jew first and human being second. 131

If Adolf Hitler had ever said the words “One must be a German first and a human being second,” would not those words be repeated often as proof of his depravity? For some compelling reason, no one dares to condemn such words when they come from the important Jewish leader who laid the foundations of both Zionism and Communism. I began to survey Zionist literature, from the writings of Moses Hess to the present day, and repeatedly I encountered the same supremacism expressed in the Talmud.

A prominent Zionist historian, Simon Dubnow, wrote the Foundation of National Judaism in 1906. In it, he expressed sentiments that would certainly be described as anti-Semitic had they come from a Gentile.

Assimilation is common treason against the banner and ideals of the Jewish people. . . . But one can never ‘become’ a member of a natural group, such as a family, a tribe, or a nation…A Jew, on the other hand, even if he happened to be born in France and still lives there, in spite of all this, he remains a member of the Jewish nation, and whether he likes it or not, whether he is aware or unaware of it, he bears the seal of the historic evolution of the Jewish nation. 132

In 1965, Moshe Menuhin, an Israeli who was born into an extremely prominent Hasidic family, dared to write an exposé of the Jewish hypocrisy. He wrote a fascinating book called The Decadence of Judaism. 133 He was a graduate of a yeshiva in Jerusalem and was the father of the prominent Israeli musical performer Yehudi Menuhin. Menuhin documents the influential modern Zionist writer Jakob Klatzkin addressing the world at large in his 1921 German-language book Krisis und Entscheidung (Crisis and Decision). Klatzkin writes We are not hyphenated Jews; we are Jews with no qualifications or reservations. We are simply aliens; we are a foreign people in your midst, and, we emphasize, we wish to stay that way. There is a wide gap between you and us, so wide that no bridge can be laid across. Your spirit is alien to us; your myths, legends, habits, customs, traditions and national heritage, your religious and national shrines [Christianity], your Sundays and holidays. . . they are all alien to us. The history of your triumphs and defeats, your war songs and battle hymns, your heroes and their mighty deeds, your national ambitions and aspirations, they are all alien to us. The boundaries of your lands cannot restrict our movements, and your border clashes are not of our concern. Far over and above the frontiers and boundaries of your land stand our Jewish unity. . . . Whosoever calls the foreign [Gentile] land a fatherland is a traitor to the Jewish people. . . . A loyal Jew can never be other than a Jewish patriot…. We recognize a national unity of Diaspora Jews, no matter in which country they may reside. Therefore, no boundaries can restrain us in pursuing our own Jewish Policy. 134 Before the Second World War Nahum Goldmann, president of the World Zionist Organization, urged German Jews to immigrate to Palestine, using the following blunt words:

Judaism can have nothing in common with Germanism. If we go by the standards of race, history, and culture, and the Germans do have the right to prevent the Jews from intruding on the affairs of their volk. . . The same demand I raise for the Jewish volk as against the German. . . . The Jews are divided into two categories, those who admit they belong to a race distinguished by a history thousands of years old, and those who don’t. The latter are open to the charge of dishonesty. 135

Even Judge Louis Brandeis, the Zionist who sat on the American Supreme Court, said it succinctly: “Jews are a distinct nationality, whatever his country, his station, or his shade of belief, he is necessarily a member.” 136

Theodor Herzl, the father of modern Zionism, expresses the true causes of what he calls the Jewish Question: The Jewish Question exists wherever Jews are to be found in large numbers. Every nation in whose midst Jews live is, either covertly or openly, anti-Semitic. . . Anti-Semitism increases day by day and hour by hour among the nations; indeed it is bound to increase because the causes of its growth continue to exist and cannot be removed. . . . Its immediate cause is our excessive production of mediocre intellects, who cannot find an outlet downwards or upwards — that is to say, no wholesome outlet in either direction. When we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat, the subordinate officers of all revolutionary parties; at the same time, when we rise, there rises also our terrible power of the purse. 137 The Jews’ exclusivity, their resistance to assimilation, their alien traditions and customs, their often questionable economic practices, and their carefully nurtured hateful attitude toward other peoples and religions, – all these factors have contributed to a reaction from the Christian world that at times became extreme. With each persecution the Jews suffered, their own distrust and antipathy toward Gentiles became intensified in their own writings and in patterns of behavior that engendered still more persecution. A cycle of recrimination began that still continues as we embark on the early years of the 21st Century.

A whole generation of Jews is now growing up inundated with stories of Gentile perfidy. Not only are the Germans and Eastern Europeans blamed for the Holocaust, but now there are many Jewishauthored books arguing that all the Western nations share in the guilt, as well as President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Catholic Church, and, indeed, the entire Christian world.138

I discovered that to draw attention to the writings of the Talmud and to quote the very words used by modern Jewish leaders and writers, invites the charge of Anti-Semitism. It seemed to me that if repeating the words of Jewish leaders is Anti-Semitism, then there must be distasteful elements in the words themselves. Maybe one should consider the historical Jewish attitude toward Gentiles pertinent to assessing the causes of Anti-Semitism.

Bernard, a popular Jewish intellectual in France in the 19th Century, investigated his people’s role in age-old conflict with other peoples. In the widely circulated book L’Antisemitisme, he wrote: If this hostility, this repugnance had been shown towards the Jews at one time or in one country only, it would be easy to account for the local causes of this sentiment. But this race has been the object of hatred with all the nations amidst whom it ever settled. Inasmuch as the enemies of the Jews belonged to diverse races . . . it must be that the general causes of Anti-Semitism have always resided in Israel itself, and not in those who antagonized it. 139

Some might argue that the anti-Gentile tone of the Talmud and the founding Zionists has little relevance to the Jews of today. The evidence, however, is that the core of Judaism, orthodoxy, is steadily becoming more, rather than less extreme against Gentiles than in previous generations. The Encyclopedia Judaica 140 says as much in its articles on the subject.

Perhaps this development could have been predicted with the advent of modern film. Cinema and television wield an enormous influence on human emotions. Jewish producers create endless accounts of the persecutions of Jews, all the way from the Torah to the Holocaust. Thousands of well-crafted films, from The Ten Commandments141 to Schindler’s List,142 graphically remind Jews of Gentile perfidy, while softening Gentiles to Jewish causes. The incessantly repeated horrific stories of the Holocaust can only serve to heighten the suspicions of the average Jew toward Gentiles while underscoring the need for Jewish solidarity.

Modern Jewish Supremacism

As I read more and more of the historical accounts of Jewish ethnocentrism, I wondered how much of this applied to modern day Jews. I began to devour modern Jewish books and publications. I chose their most popular and respected newspapers, books, and magazines. Because I was now beginning to see a double standard, I began to look for corroborating evidence, and what I found fascinated me. In fact, finding it was easy, and it still is. Prominent Jews still proudly write and publish articles about their suspicion and condemnation of Gentiles. They boast of Jewish moral, spiritual and genetic superiority. Even admissions of control over key positions in media and government in Gentile nations are in their contemporary literature. Any reader of publications meant for Jewish consumption will find material no less anti-Gentile than the 1500-year-old Talmudic writ I quoted. It is seldom as brazen as the old material, but the underlying themes are inevitably present and sometimes even unvarnished hatred just spills out.

Many examples of what I am talking about can be found in the largest Jewish newspaper outside of Israel, The Jewish Press,143 which sets the tone of Jewish religious and cultural attitudes more than any other newspaper. One of its primary religious authorities is Rabbi

Simcha Cohen, who has an instructional Dear Abby-type of column called “Halachic Questions.” Not long ago, Rabbi Cohen instructed his readers that the Talmud denotes Gentiles as “animals” (as outlined by Talmudic writings from Gemara Kiddushin 68a and Metzia 114b).144 In another section he discusses how a Jewish woman is not designated as a prostitute if she has premarital sex with a Jew, but she is a whore if she has any sexual relations with a Gentile, even if she is married.

Marriage to a Gentile can never be sanctified or condoned, such a liaison classifies the woman as a zona…common parlance interprets the term zona to refer to a prostitute…. Indeed, premarital sex of a Jewish woman to a Jewish man does not automatically brand the woman a zona…. A Jewish woman becomes a prostitute or zona in the eyes of the Talmud only when she marries or otherwise has sexual relations with a non-Jew. 145 Another major Jewish publication, the Jewish Chronicle, in an article called “Some Carefully and Carelessly Chosen Words,“ revealed that the Jewish term for Gentile woman is the offensive Yiddish word shiksa — meaning “whore,” from the Hebrew root, sheigetz (“abomination”). It also pointed out that a little Gentile girl is called shikselke, meaning “little female abomination.” 146 How would Jews react if Gentiles casually referred to Jewish women and little girls as “whores” and “little whores”?

Moreover, not only Christians but also non-Christians of all races are regarded as “supernal refuse” (garbage) by Talmud teachers such as the founder of Habad-Lubavitch, Rabbi Shneur Zalman. The Habad is a powerful movement within Hassidim. The New Republic magazine, which has a mostly Jewish staff, had some revealing admissions in a May, 1992 edition. …there are some powerful ironies in Habad’s new messianic universalism, in its mission to the gentiles; and surely the most unpleasant of them concerns Habad’s otherwise undisguised and even racial contempt for the goyim. As for the goyim…Zalman’s attitude (was): ‘Gentile souls are of a completely different and inferior order. They are totally evil, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.’ …Consequently, references to gentiles in Rabbi Shneur Zalman’s teachings are invariably invidious. Their (non-Jews) material abundance derives from supernal refuse. Indeed, they themselves derive from refuse, which is why they are more numerous than the Jews, as the pieces of chaff outnumber the kernels…All Jews were innately good, all gentiles innately evil. …Moreover, this characterization of gentiles as being inherently evil, as being spiritually as well as biologically inferior to Jews, has not in any way been revised in later Habad writing. (The New Republic)147

It is true that all Jews do not have the extreme views of the Habad, who are an integral part of the Jewish Orthodox Religion. However, imagine if a movement existed within the Catholic or Methodist church claiming that Jews or Blacks are pieces of garbage who are “totally evil” and have “no redeeming qualities.” Would there not be a great outcry? The Jews have demanded that the Catholic Church take out of their liturgy anything the Jews deem as offensive, and the Catholics as well as other Christian denominations have done so. Yet, no one dares to insist that the Jewish faith should expunge references to Gentiles as “innately evil with inferior souls.” As I began to look at these issues from a new perspective, I saw that Judaism is centered in the preservation of Jewish heritage and the advancement of Jewish interests.

In examining some of the encyclopedias and biographical reference works compiled by rabbinical authorities, I found prominent Jews listed who were self-proclaimed atheists and Communists — as mentioned in the last chapter. Leon Trotsky, one of the main atheist perpetrators of the Russian Revolution, and Herbert Aptheker, the “atheist” chief theoretician of the Communist Party USA, are proudly listed in Jewish directories such as Who’s Who in World Jewry148 and Who’s Who in American Jewry.149 These books are compiled by the leading rabbinical organizations of America.

The Jewish religion, as codified by the Talmud, is less concerned with an afterlife than with the survival and power of the Jewish people. Driven by the belief that Jews are the “Chosen People,” Judaism is held together by chronic recitals of past persecutions. In a world that renounces racism, Judaism is the only creed on Earth being praised for fostering genetic exclusion, elitism, ethnocentrism, and supremacism. Modern Israel is the only Western state that is openly theocratic, unashamedly proclaiming itself to be a nation whose purpose is to advance one religion and one unique people. Israel defines Judaism as the state religion, with little separation of church and state in its civil and religious laws. In spite of their religious state, most Jews in Israel identify themselves as “secular.” But, even the nonreligious Jews of Israel and America support the Orthodox-run state of Israel, and they support numerous organizations run by Orthodox Jews around the world, as a mechanism for preserving their cultural and racial heritage.

Most of us never see the reality of Jewish chauvinism and power because we have not organized the scattered facts into a coherent whole. Like a child’s connect-the-dot puzzle, most of us have not yet connected the dots and completed the picture. The media erase as many dots as they can from our awareness, and anyone who succeeds in connecting all the dots is bludgeoned back with the ultimate moral weapon: accusations of Anti-Semitism.

Given the Jewish influences that have so much power in this nation’s media and finance, it is amazing that any Gentiles would dare oppose them. One accused of being an anti-Semite faces an intractable enemy organized around the world — one that will do whatever it takes to discredit, intimidate, jail and destroy him.

After I completed a survey of readings in the Talmud and of the modern Zionist writers, I realized that the Europeans were not the only historical practitioners of racial and religious intolerance. Actually, the Jews have been quite proficient at it themselves. Once I accepted that Jewish ethnocentrism existed, again I asked the question that had arisen after my enlightenment on the “Russian Revolution:” Why were we forbidden to know this? A Jew can rightly object to slanderous criticism from Christians. Why should I, as a Christian, not be upset by slanderous criticism of my heritage by Jews? If Christians are wrong to voice hateful sentiments against Jews, why are Jews not just as reprehensible for voicing hateful sentiments against Christians? Are the media right in suggesting that Christians have a monopoly on hate, while Jews have a monopoly on charity? Which religion, as judged by the evidence of its own writings, is more motivated by hatred? Even as I write these provocative words, I harbor no hatred toward the Jewish people. There are intolerant Jews just as there are intolerant Gentiles. It is also true that there are many Jews who respect our Christian heritage. But unless the nonchauvinist Jews are willing to work hard to bring to their own faith and community the same kind of love and reconciliation that Christ taught, the cycle of hatred between Jew and Gentile could fester. Unless they temper their supremacism with acceptance and love, they could suffer a replay of the terrible excesses of the past. The government, church, and media establishment work zealously to diminish Gentile intolerance of Jews. That objective can be realized only through an equal effort to lessen Jewish chauvinism, suspicion, and anger against Gentiles. As the Israeli human-rights activist Israel Shahak wrote, “Anti-Semitism and Jewish chauvinism can only be fought simultaneously.”

After reading the words of Zionism’s modern founder, Theodore Herzl, I fully realized that there are, as he expressed it, “alien” power brokers in our civilization. These are people who do not share our culture, our traditions, our faith, our interests, or our values. I realized that if I desired to preserve the heritage and values of my people, I would have to defend my people from the intolerant sector within the Jewish community that seeks not domination rather than conciliation. When I was 16, I never suspected that just by pointing out the powerful Jewish elements of anti-Gentilism I would be labeled anti- Semitic. I do not accept that label today, and I still believe that it is no more anti-Semitic to oppose Jewish Supremacism than it is anti-Italian to oppose the mafia.


PAGE – 3

From the earliest times that I can remember, I have been a believing Christian. My father is a devout Christian who taught me about the salvation that Jesus Christ offers and about His lessons for living. Father was never dogmatic about his faith, and over the years he led my family to different churches without worrying about the denomination. At one time or another, we were members of Presbyterian, Methodist, and Church of Christ congregations. The only important consideration for Father was the quality of the minister and the congregation. When I was in grade school, my family joined the Elysian Fields Methodist Church where Father taught Sunday school. When we traveled we would almost always try to attend Sunday school and church in whatever city we happened to be in. The new perspectives we received from the different Sunday school teachers and preachers were like shots of adrenaline for our Christian faith. At thirteen, I went to Clifton L. Ganus School, a strongly fundamentalist Church of Christ school in New Orleans. At this same time, my family and I began to attend services at the Carrollton Avenue Church of Christ, which had strong ties to the school. Although I had had an infant baptism in the Presbyterian Church, my new teachers and friends convinced me that the Bible taught that a conscious decision about salvation was needed before baptism. I prayed about it and gave myself to Christ as I was laid back in the waters of the baptismal pool in our church’s sanctuary. Not long after my baptism, after much pleading from me, my father found his way to the baptismal pool as well.

My experience of being a renewed Christian had a profound impact not only on my Christian beliefs, but also on my secular ones, for it seemed I saw everything in a fresh light. When a man has confidence in his own beliefs, he is unafraid to joust with contrary opinions. Being “saved” gave me a sense of security that made me more open to different ideas. When someone has doubts about the underlying validity of his beliefs, he feels threatened by challenges to them. The feeling of being “right with God and the world” gave me freedom to explore challenging ideas.

I knew that the New Testament offered a new Covenant that included salvation for all. A few years after my baptism, as I reread the Old Testament in light of increased understanding of the Jews, I fully recognized its radical ethnocentrism. The Old Testament describes the history of one nationality, one people: the Israelites, who were designated as a special people, a “chosen people.” Life and death struggles between the Israelites and the Cannanites, Jacobites, Philistines, Amalakites, Assyrians, Egyptians, and dozens of other peoples are recorded exhaustively. As I’ve mentioned in my chapter on Jewish Supremacism, I was quite surprised and dismayed by the genocide. I continued to find many more verses of the Bible (such as Joshua 6:21150 and 10:28-10:41) 151 detailing the slaughter of entire peoples.

The Jewish forces committed their genocide under the strict guidelines established by Moses in Deuteronomy chapter 20. He told them that in the lands set aside to become Israel, Jews should exterminate every inhabitant, while people in surrounding nations had to die unless they submitted themselves as slaves to Israel. When you draw near a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. And if its answer to you is peace and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you. But if it makes no peace with you . . . you shall put all its males to the sword, but the women and the little ones, the cattle, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourselves; and you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies . . . Thus you shall do to all of the cities which are very far from you, which are not cities of the nations here. But in the cities of these people that the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and Jebusites, . . . (Deuteronomy 20:10-18)152

The wording is unmistakable. Even innocent children were to be killed simply because they were of an enemy nation. It became obvious to me that “love thy neighbor” had a very strange meaning in regard to the Old Testament.

Love Thy “Neighbor”

Since my earliest Sunday and Bible school days, I had been taught that the greatest instruction of God was to “love thy neighbor as thyself” (Leviticus 19:18)153. Having grown up on the Ten Commandments, the best-known passages of the Old Testament, I now wondered how such Old Testament genocide could be understood in light of “thou shalt not kill,” “thou shalt not steal,” and “thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house” (Exodus 20:13, 15, and 17)154. I decided to look up the scripture that discusses loving thy neighbor as thyself. I found it in Leviticus 19:18 in the Revised Stan dard Version Old Testament that had belonged to my grandmother. It read

You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but shall love your neighbor as yourself… (Leviticus 19:18)155

The following is the Jewish translation of the text for their bible according to Hebrew texts:

You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your countrymen. Love your fellow as yourself. -TANAKH156 The verse made it clear that neighbors were “the sons of your own people” — in other words, neighbor meant a fellow Israelite and not other peoples. The most recent Jewish translation of the verse uses “your countrymen” in place of “the sons of your own people.” The Talmud explains in Baba Kamma 113b157 that the term neighbor specifically does not apply to a Gentile. The Jewish Encyclopedia says it clearly, “Here the Gentile is excepted, as he is not a neighbor…”158 Years later I read an article by Dr. John Hartung in which he explained that the Ten Commandments’ legal proscriptions were clearly directed at offenses against a “neighbor,” which excluded non-Israelites. He pointed out that the scrolls from which the Ten Commandments were translated had no periods, commas, or first-word capitalization. Therefore, the part about “Thou shalt not kill” becomes part of a larger context. It could read:159 Thou shalt not kill, neither shalt though commit adultery, neither shalt thou steal, neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbor, neither shalt thou covet your neighbor’s wife and you shall not desire your neighbor’s house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor’s.

So who are the Israelites proscribed from killing? “Thou shalt not kill thy neighbor… the children of thy people, the sons of your own people, your fellow Israelites.” From this narrow definition of “neighbor,” the mass killing and theft of other people’s lands became very consistent with the laws of the Ten Commandments. Ethnic Supremacism in the Old Testament As much as it may surprise many of the Christians reading this, the Old Testament also wholeheartedly supports the institution of slavery. The bible makes if clear that Israelites may forever engage in slavery of other peoples, but they must not enslave their own. As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession forever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness. (Leviticus 25:44-46)160

There are also unmistakable passages condemning mixed marriages. And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them, thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them;

Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. . . .(Deuteronomy 7:2-6)161. . . I am the Lord your God which has separated you from other people. (Leviticus 20:24)162 . . . Now it came to pass, when they had heard the law, that they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude. (Nehemiah 13:3)163 The Bible goes on to say to Israelites who marry non-Israelites, “so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you.” (Deuteronomy 7:4)164 The Old Testament decries the mixing of the “holy seed of Israel” in other versus as well. Jewish priests complain that “the people of Israel, and the priests and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands, doing according to their abominations…( Ezra 9:1)165 For they have taken of their daughters for themselves and for their sons; so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the peoples of the lands.” (Ezra 9:2)166 Ezra goes on to list 107 men who renounced their foreign wives and their children by them as part of their obedience to God.

I also found that genealogies were used as proofs of untainted bloodlines. Racially impure genealogies were used to deny the priesthood to some who returned from Babylonian captivity. Genetic heritage is paramount in the Old Testament.

Jewish Anti-Christianism

As every reader of the Bible knows, the New Testament takes a dramatically different tone on ethnic matters than the Old Testament. The New Testament essentially says that salvation through Christ is available to every one. The “turn the other cheek” tone of the New Testament is quite a turn from the “eye for eye” dictum of the Old. As I became increasingly familiar with the role that organized Jewry played in Communism, Zionism, and liberalism, I also noticed their animosity toward Christians.

Hollywood produces an abundance of movies that attack Christianity, and the publishing establishment generates prolific anti- Christian literature. For instance, in my college days I read a bestselling, highly promoted book called the Passover Plot, written by a Jewish scholar named Joseph Schonfield.167 He alleged that Jesus had not died on the cross, but was actually drugged by His followers to fake His death and resurrection. Jewish organizations routinely lead the fight to ban Christian prayers from schools, prohibit the mention of Christ in public facilities, and even forbid the singing of Christmas carols in our schools.

Once, when I criticized Jewish organizations for such actions on a radio talk show, a caller called me un-Christian for daring to criticize them. “After all,” he retorted, “the Jews are God’s chosen people.” I had already done enough biblical research to know that such a statement told only the first half of the story. For the New Testament clarifies that believing Christians had become the ”heirs of God’s promise,” and that God no longer viewed the Jews as in His Covenant. 168 As I became more enlightened, I discovered that many Jews consistently endeavored to undermine the dominant religion and solidarity of any nation in which they dwell, or wherever it suits their purpose (such as agitating and militarily supporting the Christian Phalangist minority and subsequent civil war in the nation of Israel’s enemy: Lebanon).

Once, when I criticized Jewish organizations for such actions on a radio talk show, a caller called me un-Christian for daring to criticize them. “After all,” he retorted, “the Jews are God’s chosen people.” I had already done enough biblical research to know that such a statement told only half of the story. For the New Testament makes it clear that believing Christians had become the ”heirs of God’s promise,” and that God no longer viewed the Jews as in His Covenant. 169 Looking into the historical attitude of the Christian Church towards Judaism, I found that it had changed remarkably in the twentieth century. This was a period that also marked the rise of Jewish economic, political, and media power. The Christian Church had a long record of fundamental conflict with the Jews. It is a record of which Jewish writers frequently complain. In the early fledgling days of Christianity, Jewish persecution of Christians, as depicted in the gospels (and in historical accounts as well), was still fresh in the minds of church leaders. A former Pharisee, Paul, was one of those cruel persecutors until his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus. Eventually, Christianity became an overwhelmingly Gentile faith, and organized Jewry became its implacable enemy, claiming that Jesus was a bastard and Mary a whore, and that Christians were to be boiled in excrement. On the other side, using the New Testament, some Christians blamed Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus and widespread persecution of Christians.

Many Christians think that the Jews’ only religious books are those found in the Old Testament. As I described in my chapter on Judaic Supremacism, the Talmud is a collection of the chief books of Jewish commentary. The American Heritage Dictionary describes it as “. . . constituting the basis of religious authority for traditional Judaism.” There are three main branches of the Jewish religion: Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform. The Orthodox is the traditional source of Judaism and is considered to be at its heart. Very similar to Orthodox Judaism is the Conservative branch, but it offers some greater leeway in observance of the stringent Jewish laws. More modernistic, the Reform movement is far less bound by Pharisaic traditions than either of the other branches. The Encyclopedia Judaica describes the current religious picture of the nation of Israel.

There are very few Reform or Conservative congregations in the State of Israel. Orthodoxy is the official religious position in Israel with the majority of the rabbis belonging to the old school of Talmudic jurists. 170 (“Judaism.” Encyclopedia Judaica, pg. 396) The tendency within the Jewish Theological Seminary [in New York] has been emphatically . . . toward a more orthodox stance than existed within it in the previous generation. 171 (“Conservative Judaism,” Enc. Encyclopedia Judaica, pg. 906) The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia makes it very clear that the Talmud, not the Torah or Old Testament, is the supreme authority for Judaism. Thus the ultimate authority for Orthodoxy is the Babylonian Talmud. The Bible itself ranks second to it in reality, if not in theory. 172 ( Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, “Authority” pg. 637)

The Talmud makes it clear that Judaism regards Jesus as a “charlatan,” ”magician,” “seducer,” and “deceiver.” The Talmud also alleges that the biblical account of the crucifixion was a lie, maintaining that Jewish priests rather than the Romans actually crucified Jesus. They maintain that they strangled Him in a pit of dung, and hated Him so much that they executed Him four different ways! The Talmud portrays Jesus Christ as the bastard son of a prostitute, and it even suggests that He was a Gentile. In some startling passages it even boasts that Jesus Christ was conjured up from the dead by a Jewish magician and then punished for his heresies by being boiled in hot semen. Below are direct quotes I confirmed from the Talmud, dealing with Jesus and Christians:

. Balaam [Jesus] fornicated with his jackass. (Sanhedrin 105ab) 173

. Jewish priests raised Balaam [Jesus] from the dead and punished him in boiling hot semen.(57a Gittin) 174

. She who was the descendant of princes and governors [The Virgin Mary] played the harlot with a carpenter (Sanhedrin 106a)175

. [Jesus] was lowered into a pit of dung up to his armpits. Then a hard cloth was placed within a soft one, wound round his neck, and the two ends pulled in opposite directions until he was dead. (Sanhedrin 52b)176 Also, says they gave him four different executions in Sanhedrin 106a.177

. Hast thou heard how old Balaam [Jesus] was?”…bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days it follows that he was thirty-three or thirty-four years old. (Sanhedrin 106) . Those who read the uncanonical books [New Testament] will have no portion in the world to come. (Sanhedrin 90a) . Jews must destroy the books of the [Christians]. (Shabbath 116a)

When I first encountered these Talmudic quotations in Elizabeth Dilling’s book The Jewish Religion, such as those above and those reproduced in Chapter 16, I told myself that they couldn’t be accurate, that they had to be fakes or forgeries. Then I looked up the offending quotations and confirmed their presence in the Soncino Edition (the most popular 20th century English translation of the Talmud). The anti-Gentile quotations also received ample coverage in the Jewish Encyclopedia, enough so that no one could seriously doubt their authenticity. The Jewish Encyclopedia even details how the English translations make use of code words such as Amalakites, Cutheans, Egyptians, heathens, and other monikers to denote Gentiles in general. Using these specific terms, the writers sought to hide from the Gentiles how viciously the Talmud speaks of them. It also says clearly that the word “Balaam” is a code name for Jesus Christ (see my Jewish Supremacism chapter).

As a younger man I reacted to this hidden Jewish racism first with shock and then with anger. How could the liberal Jewish pundits and media moguls condemn those who simply exposed Jewish intolerance, while their own Holy Writ taught hatred and violence against us, the non-Jews. When I began to talk publicly about the hatred that was in the Talmud, I was branded a hater, a bigot, and an anti-Semite by the media and by groups like the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith (ADL). The ADL is a multimillion-dollar, world-wide organization whose whole purpose is to defame and discredit those who simply tell the truth about Jewish Supremacism and hatred against Gentiles. I became very upset, not only at the hatred that I saw in the traditional Jewish writings, but also in the hypocritical attacks by the Jewish leadership on those who exposed Jewish intolerance. Over the years, they have frequently attacked me for simply quoting the Talmud publicly, when I did nothing but simply read directly from their holy books. For exposing their hate, they called me the “hater.” Ultimately, the unjust and hypocritical attacks I faced only sharpened my resolve to stand up, no matter how alone, for the cause I believed in. Unexpectedly, I found that there are a number of Jews who dare to expose the truth about Zionism and Jewish Supremacism. A much-persecuted and slandered group, they are just as appalled as I was about the intolerant and hateful strains of Judaism that had arisen in the Jewish community and the Zionist State. They have included Americans such as Alfred Lilienthal, Noam Chomsky, Norman Finklestein and a courageous Jew in Israel, the late Dr. Israel Shahak. These scholars have dared to stand up against Jewish intolerance. Dr. Israel Shahak risked all to bring what he calls “decent humanity” to Judaism and the Zionist State. Professor Shahak was born in Warsaw in 1933 and was liberated from the Nazi concentration camp at Bergen-Belsen; therefore, by the Jews’ own definition, he was a Holocaust survivor. He immigrated to Israel, served in the Israeli army, and became a respected chemistry professor. Dr. Shahak was a lifelong human rights activist who has written on many aspects of Judaism in both Hebrew and English. Among the many books he authored, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, is his best known.178 Gore Vidal wrote an excellent foreword to the current American edition. Here are some excerpts from Shahak’s book exposing the attitude of the Jewish religion toward Christianity:

Judaism is imbued with a very deep hatred toward Christianity combined with ignorance about it. This attitude was clearly aggravated by the Christian persecutions of Jews, but is largely independent of them. In fact, it dates from the time when Christianity was still weak and persecuted (not least by Jews), and it was shared by Jews who had never been persecuted by Christians or who were even helped by them…

According to the Talmud, Jesus was executed by a proper rabbinical court for idolatry, inciting other Jews to idolatry, and contempt of rabbinical authority. All classical Jewish sources which mention his execution are quite happy to take responsibility for it; in the Talmudic account the Romans are not even mentioned. . . The very name Jesus was for Jews a symbol of all that is abominable, and this popular tradition still persists. The Gospels are equally detested, and they are not allowed to be quoted (let alone taught) even in modern Israeli schools. 179 He points out that enough Israelis so hate Christianity that there was long, drawn-out battle to remove the international arithmetic plus sign because it resembled a cross!

Pious Jews object to the international plus sign for it is a cross, and it may in their opinion, influence little children to convert to Christianity. Another “explanation” holds; it would then be difficult to “educate” them to spit on the cross, if they become used to it in their arithmetic exercises. Until the early 1970s two different sets of arithmetic books were used in Israel. One for the secular schools, employing an inverted “T” sign. In the early ’70’s the religious fanatics “converted” the Labour Party to the great danger of the cross in arithmetic, and from that time, in all Hebrew elementary schools (and now many high schools as well) the international plus sign has been forbidden. (From Israel Shahak statement on the Jewish hatred of Christianity) reprinted by Radio Islam. Professor Shahak reported that the Zionists publicly and ceremoniously burned hundreds of copies of the New Testament in Jerusalem on March 23, 1980. They were destroyed under the auspices of Yad Le’akhim, a Jewish religious organization subsidized by the Israeli Ministry of Religions.180 To think that this is the same government that some Christian ministers say we should support with American tax dollars! Among other startling charges, Dr. Shahak wrote:

Jewish children are actually taught — passages such as that which commands every Jew, whenever passing near a cemetery, to utter a blessing if it is Jewish, but to curse the mothers of the dead if it is non-Jewish. . . it became customary to spit (usually three times) upon seeing a church or a crucifix. . . . 181 Dr. Shahak quoted the very popular, Israeli-published Talmudic Encyclopedia, which discusses the relationship between Jew and Goy (“Goy” meaning any non-Jew). If a Jew has coitus [sexual intercourse] with a Gentile woman, whether she be a child of three or an adult, whether married or unmarried, and even if she is a minor aged only nine years and one day — because he had willful coitus with her, she must be killed, and as is the case with a beast, because through her a Jew got into trouble.182 ( The Talmudic Encyclopedia) 183 I knew of such hateful Talmudic laws long before I read Shahak’s latest book, yet they still astonish me each time I read them. The monstrous implications still shock me. If a Jew rapes a young Christian or Moslem girl, the little girl must be killed because she got a Jew in trouble! How does one even respond to such depravity, to such evil? Professor Shahak goes on, page-after-page, giving numerous examples of hateful Judaic laws against Christians. He exposes laws that permit Jews to cheat, to steal, to rob, to kill, to rape, to lie, even to enslave Christians.

The bulk of his book shows that Judaism in Israel, instead of moderating these anti-Gentile laws, actually becomes more openly hateful of Gentiles with each passing day. Dr. Shahak confirms that in order to hide their beliefs from Christians in Europe, many anti-Christian Talmudic passages and common prayers were hidden from Christians by code words (such as Cuthean for Gentile or Balaam for Jesus) by the Jewish authorities. Lists of Talmudic Omissions were circulated to fully clarify the code words in the viciously anti-Gentile passages. But today the passages are again being restored and published in their original form (without code words) for Israeli schoolchildren.184 From the earliest days of Christendom, Catholic popes issued edicts condemning the Jews for their usury, prostitution trafficking and other forms of the slave trade; and their anti-Christian teachings and activities. Protestants were just as vociferously anti-Jewish. The founder of Protestantism, Martin Luther, read the books of the Talmud and called the Jews “agents of the Devil.” 185 Do Jews currently have a Covenant with God? The dominant Christian viewpoint from the first century until the 1960s was that the Jewish people once had a special relationship with God, a Covenant. However, that Covenant was strictly conditional. In Deuteronomy 7:6-12 God states the covenant in explicit terms. Know, therefore, that only the Lord your God is God, the faithful God who keeps His covenant and steadfast love to those who love Him and keep His commandments, to a thousand generations and requites to their faith those who hate him, by destroying them — never slow with those who reject Him, but requiting them instantly. Therefore, observe faithfully the instruction-the laws and the rules — with which I charge you today. (Deuteronomy 7:6-12)186

Until very recent decades, most Christians believed that the Jews had broken the Covenant when they crucified and then later spurned Jesus Christ and His apostles. Jesus Christ made salvation available for Jews as well as anyone else, but there was no longer any special relationship for the people who rejected God and his Son. A New Covenant was established between God and all who accepted the salvation of Christ. The Catholic catechism and most Protestant churches persisted in this view until very recent times. Below are some of the scriptures on which this view was founded. I find the following passages of particular interest.

For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen by race. . .

But it is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, …

This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants…

As indeed he says in Hosea,

Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ . . And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’. . . What then? Israel failed to obtain what it sought. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, (Romans 9:1–3, 6–8, 24–26 and Romans 11:7–8)187

The book of Hebrews in the New Testament with absolute clarity that God put an end put to the old covenant and a new one formed through Christ for those who accept Him as Lord. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord when I will make a new covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah:

Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day when I took them by the hand out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. (Hebrews 8:6–7, 9–10) 188

Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits of it… And when the chief priests and Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he spoke of them.(Matthew 21:43-45)189 As I read these passages, I thought, How can the Judaized Christian preachers ignore these clear Scriptures? “…they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.”

One can argue effectively from a New Testament perspective that the Pharisees crucified Jesus because He challenged Jewish power and practices. Judaism of today traces its lineage directly to the Pharisees. Just days before the crucifixion, Christ raised their ire by turning over the moneychangers’ tables in the temple. He struggled with them all of His life and issued one of the most damning statements ever made against them, calling them the father of the lie. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me. …Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do: he was a murderer from the beginning and abode not in truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own; for he is a liar and the father of it. …Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou are a Samaritan, and has a devil…(John 8:42-48)190 Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile! (John 1:47)191

The gospels have repeated warnings about the anti-Christian and misanthropic nature of many Jews. Some examples include: . . .for you suffered like things of your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out and displease God, and oppose all men. . . But God’s wrath has come upon them at last. (1 Thessalonians 2:14-16)192

This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, instead of giving heed to Jewish myths or to commands of men who reject the truth. (Titus1:13–14)193 The Judaized Christians seem never to quote these powerful passages. To simply quote these passages by Jesus or the apostles would cause one to be called anti-Semitic. In fact, I shudder to draw the comparison of what would happen to the person who went into a synagogue with a cat-o’-nine-tails and drove the Jews out. It is no wonder that that many Jews so passionately hate Jesus Christ. Ironically, anyone who dares to complain about hateful anti-Christian Jewish attitudes is quickly libeled as “un-Christian.” I pondered that by the media’s definition, even Jesus Christ is anti-Christian! Shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, influential Jews have rushed to support new limitations on freedom of speech, even freedom of religion and freedom of thought. In Great Britain, a new law is being prepared to make disparaging remarks about a religion punishable by up to seven years in prison!

Under the headline, “Religious hatred law survives,” a BBC story on November 26, 2001, says, “Some Labour MPs with Muslim com munities in their constituencies, including former minister Gerald Kaufman, were among those to back the latest part of the bill to cause controversy. Telling how he had experienced anti-Semitism as a practicing Jew, Mr. Kaufman said action against religious hatred was long overdue.”194

The Board of Jewish Deputies in Britain strongly supported this bill to halt religious criticism and imprison their opponents.195 You can be sure that the law will not be aimed at those who disparage Christianity, but only against those who expose the intolerance of Judaism. In modern times, almost everyone believes that the Inquisition’s practice of imprisoning people for disparaging religion was one of the darkest periods for liberty in world history. Yet, that is precisely the kind of suppression that this new British law seeks. By this law, even the New Testament could be banned because of its anti-Jewish sentiment, just as it was in the early days of Jewish Bolshevism and exactly has been done in many Israeli institutions. By this law a person could be imprisoned for up to seven years for simply quoting the New Testament on the Jewish question! Of course, by this draconian law, any person who expresses a negative opinion about any religion could be imprisoned at the whim of Government courts. It is probably the most extensive and dangerous step away from freedom of speech in hundreds of years!

As the centuries passed following the crucifixion, the antagonisms between Christian and Jew grew and became even more hostile. In Rome the first great persecution of Christians occurred under Nero. The leaders of the early Church carefully noted that this persecution came under the ceaseless urgings of Nero’s Jewish mistress, Poppaea Sabina. Even Jewish histories record the collusion of the Jews with the Moors during their oppressive occupation of Christian Spain. In relatively recent times, Jewish Communists played a principal role in the greatest murder and oppression of Christians in history — that which took place under the Communist regimes of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. As I mentioned in the last chapter, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn showed that Jews administered the Gulags in Russia that murdered many millions of devout Christians. 196

Through such evidence uncovered during my research, I came to understand fully one of the most chilling verses of the New Testament. It appears repeatedly in the Gospels: Yet for fear of the Jews no one spoke openly of him (John 7:13)197 In modern America, Jews lead the effort to de-Christianize America. More importantly, Jews dominate the very un-Christian mass media. Book publishing and distribution, major newspapers, maga zines, movies, and television are empires in which Jews are greatly over-represented and Christians are vastly under-represented. The few Christians have learned to say what they must to survive and prosper. The ancient opponents of Christ are, through their pervasive power in the media, are able to convince millions of Christians that Christian doctrine holds that the Jews are still God’s Chosen People and that God still today has an exclusive covenant with the Jewish people. Christians are told that to resist the Jews’ anti-Christian actions would be to oppose the will of God Himself. Yet, God says explicitly in Hebrews 8:9: Not according to the Covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day when I took them by the hand out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my Covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.198

Some ministers argue that prophecy holds that the Jewish people will eventually come to Christ, and that therefore we should support Israel no matter how many terrible, anti-Christian acts it commits. That is equivalent to saying that we should give the keys to our churches to arsonists seeking to burn them down because they may someday come to Christ. The offer of God’s salvation is for everyone, but that does not mean that we should not oppose the forces of evil, or that we should financially and militarily support the worst enemies of Jesus Christ. I believe that we have a moral obligation to defend our faith against those who attack Christ and to defend fellow Christians who face persecution at the hands of Christ’s enemies. Although many of the leading lights of modern Christianity tell us repeatedly how special and wonderful the Jews are, the New Testament itself has no qualms about opposing the Jews. In fact, there is a world-wide effort by Jews to change the text of the New Testament. Various Passion Plays around the world have been modified to delete what the Jews see as offending passages directly from the Gospels. ‘The Jews.’ It is a term that appears 195 times in the New Testament… But unlike the millions who have shrugged off — or suffered under — the New Testament image of ‘the Jews,’ Irvin J. Borowsky is on a campaign to rid the Good Book of its dark depiction of his people. A retired magazine publisher and founder of the Liberty Museum in Philadelphia, Borowsky has for 19 years been urging Bible publishers to find other ways to translate the Greek hoi Ioudaioi — literally, ‘the Jews.’ The New Testament was written in Greek. Hoi Ioudaioi (pronounced hoy yu-dye-yoy) appears 151 times in John and Acts, often referring to enemies of Jesus.199 It is important to clarify that although I think we must defend our faith and heritage, we need not be hateful or spiteful ourselves. While

we shouldn’t be hateful, we must be resolved to oppose their efforts to destroy our way of life, our Christian faith, and our freedom and our very survival as a people. In my life, I have tried to approach every individual fair-mindedly. There is no reason to regard an individual Jew with disrespect or hatred. But, if he works to destroy our heritage, we have the right to— indeed we must — oppose him. Television evangelists are very careful what they say about the “Chosen People” because they know that can be booted from the airwaves at any time the Jewish owners so choose. I remember clearly one of Jimmy Swaggart’s programs long before his sexual scandals. He whimpered and cried that he had to tell us that the Pentecostals were not following the Word of God; that the Catholics were not; that the Presbyterians were not; and that the Methodists were not. Jimmy was careful not to mention the one extremely powerful religious group that openly opposes Jesus Christ. Swaggart may have lost a little by criticizing Catholics and Methodists (fellow Christians who love Christ but who differ in some interpretations of the Holy Bible), but he knew he would have risked much more (in fact, everything) by uttering the slightest criticism of Jews.

As I became more aware of the all-encompassing, world-wide scope of Jewish power, I also learned that Jews have endeavored to undermine the religious foundations of whatever nation they have lived in. The Koran for instance details Jewish machinations against them and against Christians through the ages. Islam and Christianity: Similar Views on the Jews Years later, upon reading the Muslim Holy Book, the Koran, I became intrigued by its warm view of Christ and its view of the Jews that echoes the New Testament. For instance, although the Koran views Christ as a great prophet rather than savior, it says Mary was a virtuous woman and God had fathered her son, Jesus. It also says that God resurrected Jesus from the dead. The Koran, like the New Testament, suggests that the Jews had a covenant with God that they broke and that God then offered a new covenant to all believers. It condemns the Talmud’s assertion that Mary was a whore and disputes the Talmud‘s boast that Jews themselves murdered Jesus Christ rather than the Romans at their behest.

Those of the children of Israel who went astray were cursed by the tongue of David and by Jesus the son of Mary. That is was because they rebelled and transgressed….Evil for them indeed is that which they send on before themselves (with the result) that Allah’s wrath is upon them, and torment they will abide. 5:77-80 (Sura 5 is Al-Ma’idah) Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the be lievers wilt thou find those who say “we are Christians”: Because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who renounced the world, and they are not arrogant. (Sura 5 Al-Ma’idah “5-82)

They (Jews) have incurred divine displeasure: in that they broke the covenant… And little is it they believe. That they rejected faith and they uttered against Mary a grave false charge…

That they said (in boast) “we killed Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah- but they killed him not, nor crucified him. But so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts… Nay, Allah raised him up Unto himself; and Allah is exalted in power.

And there is none of the people of the book but must believe in him before his death, and on the Day of Judgment, he will be a witness against them. (Sura 4 AlNisa 153- 159) The Jews say: “Allah’s Hand is tied up… (Allah says) Nay, both His Hands are widely outstretched. He spends (of His Bounty) as He wills. Verily,… enmity and hatred amongst them till the Day of Resurrection. Every time they kindled the fire of war, Allah extinguished it; and they (ever) strive to make mischief on earth…(5-64) As I researched Jewish history, I became aware of the fact that the Jewish people of today share little of the heritage of the Old Testament with the original Israelites. Reading the Jewish Encyclopedia I learned that the Jewish people classify themselves into two major divisions: the Ashkenazim and Shephardim. The Shephardim, who migrated from Palestine to the Mediterranean nations, are supposedly related to the original tribes of Israel, while the Ashkenazim first emerged from an area of Southwest Asia called the Khazar (also called Chazar) Empire and filtered into Russia and Eastern Europe. The Jewish Encyclopedia contains a long article on the Khazars and admits that the Kingdom of Khazaria converted to Judaism around 740 AD. Arthur Koestler, the eminent Jewish author, in an exhaustively researched book called the Thirteenth Tribe200 argues persuasively that the Khazars became the Ashkenazim branch of Jewry, which forms the great majority of the modern Jewish people. Of course, this historical inquiry is little pursued because if it could be shown that many of the Jewish people have no direct lineage to Abraham, then their “ancient homeland” justification for the state of Israel would be completely undermined. (See Barnes Review: The Khazars, Non-Semitic Jews)201

Furthermore, many of the original Israelite tribes fell under Babylonian captivity, and Jews have been minorities in every nation of the world in which they have resided. In spite of their ethnocentrism and the Talmudic prescriptions opposing intermarriage, without a doubt the Jews have intermarried to a certain extent with their host peoples. Even with only a slight interbreeding compounded over the last 3,000 years, the Jews probably have altered some of their original genetic heritage. Yet, as they have slowly absorbed the genes of other nationalities, close inbreeding in their minority communities has certainly led to great genetic similarities among them. Exclusively Jewish diseases such as Tay-Sachs reveal a linked genetic heritage of Jews no matter where they reside in the world.202

While in college I encountered the Christian Identity faith that maintains that the original Israelite tribes became the differing nationalities of the European peoples. The denomination claims that with the coming of Christ, those of the original Israelites who maintained their heritage became Christians. They believe that those who were amalgamated with the other peoples (such as the Babylonians and then later the Khazars) and followed the Talmud became what are now called Jews. I researched and prayed about the issue, but I kept my more traditional Christian attitude about Jews. Over the years, though, many Identity Christians have become my friends, and I have been impressed by their dedication to Jesus Christ in the struggle for freedom from Jewish Supremacism. I view them warmly as fellow Christians with whom I share many sentiments and with whom I disagree on few. I am thankful that they are in alliance with all those dedicated to freedom from Jewish Supremacism. I came to understand that I was not going against the Word of God to recognize and wish to preserve the heritage of my own people nation and indeed all races that he created. If anything, I was fulfilling the laws of his creation. I also finally realized that according to the Holy Bible the coming of Jesus Christ created a New Covenant; and that the chosen people of God now were those who accepted Him and His Father. I knew that I was right to defend my Christian heritage from the powers seeking its demise. Then, as now, I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Jews have every right to believe whatever they wish and to be actively anti-Christian and anti- Gentile. Zionists have every right to seek their own political supremacy. But, we certainly have the right to oppose them, to defend ourselves from their power, to preserve our heritage in the face of their attacks, and to fight for our precious freedom from their domination.

Although I am Christian and a person of European heritage, I care that the ultimate triumph of Jewish Supremacism would mean the destruction of all heritages, nationalities and religions other than their own. As the Jewish Supremacists are united in their efforts against us, so despite our obvious differences in our cultures and faiths, we must at least be united in our efforts to defeat the power of their New World Order.


PAGE – 4

The eccentric woman in the Citizens Council office who railed about the Jews and Communism obviously had some of her facts straight. The facts were inescapable: Communism and Zionism were born from the same Jewish soul, personified in Moses Hess. 203 I slowly became aware of a dual morality permeating Jewish- Gentile relations. Jews practice one morality for themselves and preach another for non-Jews. Judaic morality is racial pride taught solidarity, tradition and self-interest. They preach diversity and liberalism for their perceived competitors. If such dualism does 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 Europeans who dare to advocate the preservation of the Western heritage and culture in America?

• Always depict the historical relations between Jews and Gentiles with the Gentiles as evildoers and the Jews as innocent victims, while condemning Gentiles that simply dare to defend themselves from such ethnic slanders?

The moral hypocrisy became obvious. Powerful Jews advocate one morality about racial pride for Jews and an opposite agenda 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 stan dard? If by their own arguments “White racists” are morally reprehensible, why are not Jewish Supremacists reprehensible as well? While Herzl and other Zionists feverishly gathered world-wide 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 European Americans 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 European race doesn’t exist. Palestinians are said to be evil for simply desiring their own nation run by their own people, despite that this is the founding principle of Israel itself.

Even though Jews devotedly support their own exclusively Jewish- run state of Israel, they work feverishly to undermine the White control and character of America through massive non-European immigration. They consistently work for “diversity” and pluralism in every nation of the world except for their Jewish world center in Israel. While they have laws in Israel prohibiting Gentiles from owning certain forms of 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 have the leading roles in the efforts to destroy the very underpinnings of our heritage. I had read that Jews were the leaders of the academic movement promoting the idea that nations and races are artificial entities. In looking into the foundations of racial egalitarianism, I found that adherents of international Communism pioneered the modern notions of universalism. Across the world, Communism allied itself with racial and national minorities and their struggle for “liberation from 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 Glazer204 stated matter-of-factly that in the 1960s and 1970s 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.205 Probably the most infamous act of treason in American history was the theft of atomic bomb secrets by Ethel and Julius Rosenberg.206 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.207 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 that 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 Julius and Ethel Rosenberg 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.”208

I began to realize that African Americans were not the primary proponents of racial miscegenation. Most African Americans, as is true of all peoples. are proud of their distinctiveness, although they certainly desired 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 efforts of European Americans to preserve Western heritage, arose a minority that sought to sabotage both agendas. Even today, despite the best efforts of the Jewish media to defame him, the most popular African American leader is the Muslim Minister Farrakhan who unashamedly seeks the preservation of his own race.

A Movement Hostile to All Nationalities 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 colors of water. Boas introduced what he called “cultural anthropology” to the discipline. Until his arrival, anthropology officially belonged to the physical sciences. 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. 209

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.”210 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. He claimed that the immediate environment alone created all of the superficial differences. 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 African American scientist K. B. Clark and two women, Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead. Mead later wrote her famous book on Samoa (Coming of Age in Samoa)211 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.) 212 213 214

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 support their own in their 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 modern academic establishment. They succeeded.

Whenever egalitarians achieved positions of influence or power, they aided their comrades advance in the teaching departments of the colleges and academic departments they administered. They consistently assisted 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 of thought led to prestige and acclaim, money and success. Racial truth-telling led to personal attack, dead-end careers and often even to 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 opinions about racial equality. 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 of the issue.215 Montagu’s birth name was actually not Montague at all, but 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.216

By the late 1990s, Jewish writers began to write brazenly 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 is 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” when it comes to Blacks and Whites — are now hypocritically affirming the unique genetic homogeneity of Jews. More over, increasing numbers of Jewish anthropologists have come out of the closet in celebration of their special genetic and cultural heritage. 217
Unless they speak about the Jewish Chosen People, egalitarianism still dominates America’s academic climate. Richard Lewontin, Leon Kamin, Jared Diamond and Stephen Jay Gould are its four selfacknowledged 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, Diamond and other egalitarians frequently appear in the pages of magazines such as the Smithsonian, Natural History, Nature, Discover, Time, Newsweek, and other widecirculation publications. Television programs often interview them as “authorities” on the subject of race — and seldom allow any contradiction from academic opponents of egalitarianism. Most of the leading egalitarian spokesmen are self-described Marxists, a detail the media never seems to mention. Imagine if one of their opponents was a self-proclaimed Nazi; I suspect that fact would always be cited. Perhaps the best way to prove the purposeful deception utilized by Jewish egalitarians is by exposing the blatantly hypocritical writings of one the leading lights of Jewish egalitarianism: Jared Diamond. In the New York Review of Books, Diamond has praised Cavalli- Sforza for “demolishing scientists’ attempts to classify human populations into races in the same way that they classify birds and other species into races.”218 But, in a recent Natural History magazine article, Diamond says that genetic studies prove that Jews differ from non- Jews. He makes the startling assertion, “There are also practical reasons for interest in Jewish genes. The state of Israel has been going to much expense to support immigration and job retraining of Jews who were persecuted minorities in other countries. That immediately poses the problem of defining who is a Jew.”219 So Diamond says that there are no real differences between the major races of mankind, but that it is indeed both possible and desirable to distinguish the far less pronounced differences between Jews and non-Jews.

A good example of the Jewish strategy can be seen in their hopes for the widespread assimilation of the Palestinian people into other cultures and peoples. Palestinians are overwhelmingly Muslim and Christian, two faiths that generally are universalistic in their outlook as opposed to the racial supremacist view of Judaism. As the Palestinians that were driven out of what is now Greater Israel have filtered into Western Countries many have intermarried and assimilated into the populations of their host countries. Jewish Supremacists correctly predict that assimilated Palestinians will naturally have weaker ties and less commitment to their Palestinian heritage and the cause of Palestinian freedom. What applies to Palestinians apply to all people that Jewish Supremacists see as their enemies and competitors. That is why they consistently seek to break down the desire to preserve the racial heritage, culture and solidarity in all people other than themselves. Egalitarianism is for Gentile consumption only, while racial distinction and supremacism remains the soul and sinew of Judaism. 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.

Of course, it is a strategic necessity for Jewish Supremacists to break down any feeling of ethnic solidarity, culture, or loyalty among their opponents. If other peoples have strong ties to their own identity, heritage and culture, they naturally would not so easily submit to Jewish domination.

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. 220 Since the Great Depression, academic psychology has discounted the impact of heredity and attributed almost all individual human behavioral patterns and mental ability to environmental conditioning. It claimed that environment rather than heredity is really the source of all mental and behavioral differences among the races. 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.221

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 222 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 Taboo223 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.224 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 . . .225

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. 226 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). 227
So here is perhaps the most famous Jew of recent European history revealed as a Jewish Supremacist, anti-Gentile! 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.228 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.”229

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 African American, 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 for the Communist cause. NAACP leader Kivie Kaplan

Dubois even chose Communist Ghana as his burial site. 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 had associated with the NAACP was that of Roy Wilkins, its African American 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 African American president finally in the 1970s. Once an African American 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 African American resentment against them by reciting the fact that the lion’s share of the financing of the integrationist cause has come from Jews. They also boast that at least 90 percent of the legal effort for integration has come from Jewish attorneys and long been supported by Jewish money.230

Practically every step of the civil rights movement’s progress came through the courts. They decreed forced racial integration of the schools, and ultimately forced the massive anti-White discrimination program upon America with the Orwellian name “affirmative action” upon America 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. Even now in the 21st century Jews still lead The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Legal Defense Fund. 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 industrialized world to one of the worst. The new system, far from alleviating racial tensions, only heightened hatreds between races in America.

Even in areas where Jews were not the actual leaders in the integrationist movement, 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 African American.

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,231 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), however 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.232

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. 233 Schools regularly revoke degrees upon 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. Yet, 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.234 King even spent the night before his assassination copulating with and beating White prostitutes. Recorded on the FBI surveillance tapes the “Reverend King” exclaims during intercourse, “ 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. 235 Jewish and Black relations have deteriorated in recent years as African American 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 nonracial definition of “American,” since they more than anyone a re aware of their status as outsiders in White society. Almost all organized Jewish factions supported the dismantling of the laws and traditions that supported the continued existence of the White 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. Many of Stalin’s maneuvers against the Jews did not become clear until long after the Second World War, and many Jews were reluctant to believe that they had lost control of the Soviet regime. Even late into the 1960s, in 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 White Russians reclaimed Russia, the Jews created the state of Israel, and it seemed that the old, ethnocentric, and orthodox prophecies were finally coming true. 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 of 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 poured 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 out for the interests of the Jews and the Israeli State.


Simultaneous with the sacrifice of our nation upon the altar of an impossible racial “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 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 because of 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 thus limiting the options of those who might otherwise choose a homemaking role. 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, two-parent families often find themselves stressed and debilitated by having to do both the traditional women’s roles in the home and of 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 degraded 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. 236 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. 237

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 238

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)239 A maiden aged three years and one day may be acquired in marriage by coition. (Sanhedrin 55b and 69a-69b)240 and (Yebamoth 57b 58a, 60b)241

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.

Egalitarianism and Civil Rights as Weapons

As I uncovered more information on the Jewish domination of the anti-White, and anti-family revolution, it struck me that many power ful Jews might see White America in the same manner with which 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 do not view us as Theodor Herzl did — as aliens — why do 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 a powerfully influential media. And it means almost sure victory if they oppose the other candidate for some reason.

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 African Americans, once rhythmic and peaceful urban communities now echo with the sound of gunfire. A third of all young African American men are in jail, on probation or parole, and millions are chained, hand, foot and soul, to alcohol and drugs.

What did Jews have to gain from the empowerment of minorities in America? Obviously, the Marxists saw minorities as staunch allies vital for the advancement of their agenda and political success over the more resistant European American. Over the past decades, the Black bloc vote has been vital to liberal politics. Perhaps more importantly, a Babylon-like, multiracial America suits Jewish interests. In a divided land, the most unified group exercises the greatest power. Divide and conquer has always been the supremacist prescription for power. In a jumbled, kaleidoscope society, the exercise of 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. Of course, this process goes on not only in America but in every nation where Jews constitute a powerful minority. They consistently seek to weaken the predominant group, now matter what it might be, as to afford an opportunity for increasing their own power A great deal of the degeneracy has no design behind it at all. The alien nature described by Theodor Herzl finds its expression in thou sands of jabs and body blows to the traditions and values of the Anglo- created America. 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. 242

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 the American way of life. His allegiance is with the aliens who seek to 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. Yet, without determined and courageous efforts for self-preservation, it will die there.

Most Americans who fought against the civil rights movement, believing 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 people understood that those behind the civil rights movement were of the same malevolent 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 Supremacist State of Israel.

How ironic it is that the civil rights movement had its roots in racism, and that it was simply a weapon wielded by the most ethnocen tric people on Earth against their ancient enemies. African Americans were simply pawns in a much larger political game, and real terms have suffered in their own ways as European Americans have suffered in others. 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 African Americans themselves, as well as so many Whites, were being manipulated in the much bigger contest of the Jewish struggle for power. The same Jewish dominated establishment that preaches the holy writ of racial equality and dissolution, 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 and demonized. A tabernacle for 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 proper 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. They never cease to tell us that the greatest crime in the history of the world was Hitler’s supposed effort to commit genocide against them, to wipe out the Jewish People as a race. Yet, each day the Jewish powers promote massive immigration into European nations and encourage racial intermarriage. Those processes will, of course, constitute a true genocide against their own ancient enemies; the destruction of the unique character and heritage of the European race. Alien oppression of our people would be bad enough by itself, but our masters clearly plan the genetic extermination of our kind and as well as any other people that might stand in their way. Once I understood that, I could no longer remain silent about the realities of Jewish supremacism in the West. Their continued dominance would sweep away our folk in a rising tide of immigration, intermarriage and European self-sterilization. It is only their twisted media power that denotes our desire for our people to survive as “racism.” The alien-dominated media keep most Americans completely unaware of the ongoing dispossession of our people — and the alien segment that cheers 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 and world mass-communication media.


PAGE – 5

” Such as it is, the press has become the greatest power within the Western World, more powerful than the legislature, the executive and judiciary.

One would like to ask; by whom has it been elected and to whom is it responsible? ” — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Four of the largest five entertainment giants are now run or owned by Jews. Murdoch’s News Corp (at number four) is the only gentile holdout — however Rupert is as pro-Israel as any Jew, probably more so.” (Los Angeles Jewish Times243 Oct. 29. 1999) In the Oscar-winning 1976 movie Network,244 Howard Beale, the “mad prophet of the airwaves,” becomes consumed with the idea of exposing an insidious danger facing America: the takeover of American television by Arabs through their petro-dollars.

The film was based on an Oscar-winning screenplay by Paddy Chayefsky, who depicts a dark plot by Arabs to buy and control the TV networks. Howard Beale, played by Peter Finch, is a deranged news anchorman who speaks his mind about any subject, resulting in skyrocketing ratings. Raving about the inequities and corruption in American life, Beale would cry out: “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore!”

Imagine if Iraqi-American supporters of Saddam Hussein had control of the American media. Suppose they controlled the national television networks and were a majority of the owners, producers, and writers of television entertainment and news. TV is an irresistible power that reaches into every American home — the primary source by which most Americans learn about the world. Consider the dangers of that enormous power dominated by a tightly knit, Iraqi, Muslim minority that supported the Hussein regime.

If the non-television media were still free, they undoubtedly would regard Iraqi media domination as a great danger to America. Every non-Iraqi source of media would proclaim that such control threatens our freedoms. Congress would likely draft legislation to break up the Iraqi stranglehold on television. Patriots would remind Americans that if we were not free to obtain unbiased news, documentaries, and programming, democracy could not work. The power of TV controlled by one point of view would erode the foundation of all our freedoms: the freedom of speech. Pundits would be outraged that non-Americans, people with allegiance to a foreign power, had control over the American mind.

Taking the analogy further, imagine if the rest of the media were also in Iraqi hands. Suppose that the three major news magazines, Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News and World Report were run by Iraqis, that the three most influential American newspapers, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post — as well as a majority of the remaining major newspapers and magazines — were controlled by Iraqis. Imagine that Muslim Iraqis dominated the Hollywood movie industry as well as book publishing and even book distribution. Picture the Iraqis as also holding immense wealth in business and banking, and as thoroughly entrenched in entertainment and Hollywood, academia, the judiciary, and the government. On top of all this, suppose that supporters of Saddam Hussein had the most powerful lobby in Washington and were responsible for the bulk of the fundraising of both the Democratic and Republican parties. Suppose a dedicated Iraqi was head of the National Security Council at the White House. Would such a situation be dangerous for America? If Americans awoke one morning and found Arabic names scrawled all over their TV and movie credits, on their magazine and newspaper mastheads and in the pages of their books, millions would say, “We’ve been taken over!” Viewers would suspect the motives of everything they see on television and read in newspapers, magazines, and books. They would be especially wary of information about issues related to Iraqis, Saddam Hussein, Islam, and the Middle East conflict. In very short order, many Americans would cry out in the fashion of Howard Beale: “I’m mad as hell, and I am not going to take it anymore!”

When I came to the realization that the original Russian Revolution was not Russian, that it was financed, organized, and led mostly by Jews who were driven by a centuries-old conflict between themselves and the Russian people, I wondered how such an important fact of history had been so effectively covered up. Upon learning fully about the Communist murder of millions of Christians in Russia and Eastern Europe, I asked myself why there were so few movies, dramatic television series or documentaries, novels, books, or magazine articles about it, but endless coverage of the Holocaust. Then I read a copy of the Thunderbolt newspaper, published by Dr. Edward Fields of Marietta, Georgia.245 Dr. Fields carefully documented Jewish control of America’s three major television networks, NBC, CBS, and ABC. I carefully checked Dr. Fields’ sources, which included biographies published by Jews.

At the time of my first inquiry, Richard Sarnoff was the head of NBC, William Paley was the head of CBS, and Leonard Goldenson ran ABC. I was amazed to learn that all three were Jews, all were active in Zionist organizations, and all had been honored by awards of numerous Jewish, Zionist, and pro-Israeli groups. Then I discovered that the leading newspaper in America, The New York Times, is Jewish owned and edited. So is the newspaper that has more influence on the federal government than any other, The Washington Post. Jews also own the largest circulation daily paper in America, The Wall Street Journal. They even own my hometown newspaper, the New Orleans Times-Picayune.

I learned that Jews had dominated Hollywood for years. It was interesting to find out that of the “Hollywood Ten,” who took the Fifth Amendment when asked before Congress whether they were Communists, 9 were Jewish. As I looked into magazine and book publishing, again I discovered a striking preponderance of Jews — most of them dedicated to Jewish interests, much like today’s Steven Spielberg, director of Schindler’s List,246 who is an outspoken supporter of Zionist causes. In fact, the most-watched movie ever made about the Holocaust, viewed as history by millions, was entirely a Jewish production.

Jerry Molen — producer; Gerald R. Molen — producer; Steven Spielberg — director, producer; Kurt Luedtke — screenwriter; Steve Zaillian — screenwriter; Janusz Kaminski — cinematographer; Michael Kahn — editor; Ewa Braun- set decoration/design, production designer; Branko Lustig — producer, production designer; Allan Starski — production designer; Lew Rywin coproducer. Years later I read Jewish publications that boasted about Jewish domination of American media. I also read An Empire of Their Own 247 by Neal Gabler, a book that details the Jewish takeover of the film industry.

Ben Stein, a Jewish screenwriter (and son of Herbert Stein, an economic advisor to President Richard Nixon), wrote the book The View from Sunset Boulevard. In it he candidly remarks that a great majority of Hollywood’s television writers and executives are Jewish and that they are adamantly opposed to Christian values and the conservatism of traditional, small-town America.248 He wrote an article for E!-online in 1997 entitled: “Do Jews Run the Media” accompanied by a subtitle that read, “You bet they do — And What of it.”249 In the 1970s Dr. William L. Pierce, chairman of the National Alliance and editor of National Vanguard magazine, along with his staff, researched the question and documented the Jewish dominance in his essay “Who Rules America?” 250

What I discovered was that the worst nightmare of Paddy Chayefsky and his Network character, Howard Beale, has been realized. A small but cohesive minority, with a 3,000-year loyalty to their own people and a fanatical dedication to their newly formed nation, dominates America’s media. But it is not the Arabs who have this power; nor is it the Irish, Germans, French, English, Russians, Swedes, Danes, or Italians. It’s not Muslims, Christians, Mormons, or Catholics. Ironically, it is the group made up of the Paddy Chayefskys of the world. Chayefsky — an enthusiastic supporter of Jewish causes and the state of Israel — cleverly attempts to influence viewers against Arabs by fictionally accusing them of attempting the same thing that Jews have already accomplished. The rest of the Network staff included director Sidney Lumet, producer Howard Gottfried, and editor Alan Heim. The same tribe that financed, produced, wrote and distributed the film Network, dominates the American media, and truly the media of the entire Western world.

Jewish media power is so extensive that one can scarcely exaggerate it. It is not simply a question of their power being disproportionate to their percentage of the population — their power is breathtaking. If you live in a major city, the daily newspaper you read will more than likely be Jewish owned or edited. So will the national newsmagazine you buy at the news counter. More than likely, the national cable or regular TV network you watch will be Jewish owned, and if not, Jews will be preponderant in the executive and decision-making departments. The movie you see in the theater or watch on television will very likely have been produced, directed, or written by Jews — and often all three. The publishers of the hardbacks or paperbacks you read, even the record companies that produce the music you buy, will probably be Jewish owned, and if not, they will very likely have Jews in key executive positions. Bookstores and libraries often select their new book purchases based on reviews by Jewish critics and publications such as The New York Times Book Review, another part of the Jewish-run New York Times.

It is certainly true that many people in media are not Jews. Nor do I allege that every Jew in media is part of some fantastic and intricate conspiracy or that every Jew is ardently Zionist. But the overwhelming domination and thrust of American media is Jewish, and no group is more ethnocentric and more organized for their perceived interests than are Jews. With these facts in mind, can any reasonable person believe that Jews present news and entertainment without a slant for their own purposes through what Gabler calls “An Empire of Their Own”?

I grew up reading the New Orleans Times-Picayune, and from third grade on, I would read it every morning with my father. By the time breakfast ended, Father had decorated it with toast crumbs and coffee stains, and I had garnished it with oatmeal and milk. My father would take the news section first, and I would take the sports and the comics pages, and then it would be my turn to get into the headlines while he read the other parts of the paper. Up until the late 1950s, the Times-Picayune was truly a Southern newspaper. It reflected the values, standards, political viewpoints, and heritage of the South. We considered the paper our lifeblood of information about the simple goings-on around town and about the major events in the world at large. It was our paper — and not only because it was printed in our city; it represented something of our thinking, our culture, and our values.

When integration of schools began, the Times-Picayune railed against the federal intrusion into our way of life. Many articles talked about the amicable relationship between Blacks and Whites in New Orleans, about the excellent quality of life for Whites and Blacks, and about how the city included one of the largest Black entrepreneurial classes of any in America. It wrote about how, under White direction, Black educational and living standards had progressed over the last few decades. The editorial writers of the Times-Picayune predicted dourly that forced integration and the stirring up of Blacks by Yankees and liberal agitators would ruin one of the most beautiful and culturally rich and charming cities in the world. Integration, they maintained, would retard the progress of the Black community and threaten White standards.

After the purchase of the Times-Picayune by S.I. Newhouse, the paper gradually began to shift to the left. As the city’s schools and government services began to disintegrate under integration and the Times-Picayune became increasingly liberal, my father — who was mildly conservative — came to dislike it. I still enjoyed the paper, and as I got older, I found myself agreeing with its racial viewpoints. I didn’t know that the Picayune was no longer a Southern newspaper, and that the owner, a Jewish refugee of Czarist Russia, resided in the New York city area.

When Newhouse died, he left a media colossus worth about $10 billion to his two sons, Samuel and Donald. Among their newspaper holdings were the Times-Picayune; the Syracuse, New York, morning Post-Standard and the afternoon Herald-Journal; the Mobile, Alabama, Morning Register and Afternoon Press; the Huntsville, Alabama, morn ing News and afternoon Times; the Birmingham, Alabama, morning Post Herald and afternoon News; the Springfield, Massachusetts, morning Union, afternoon News, and Sunday-only Republican. The Newhouse empire today owns 30 daily newspapers, 12 television stations, 87 cable-TV systems, two dozen national magazines, and the Parade Sunday supplement that has a staggering circulation of more than 22 million.

When Newhouse bought the Times-Picayune, it was reported by Time magazine that he commented, “I just bought New Orleans.” 251 In some ways, his statement is accurate. Newhouse and his employees could say anything they liked about any person or any issue with little fear of contradiction. Newhouse, secure in his monopoly, was free to push whatever social and political agenda he wished. Even today, more than 25 years after Newhouse’s purchase of the Times-Picayune, many in New Orleans are unaware that a Jewish New York family owns the paper. The editorial page gives a local address and says the publisher is Ashton Phelps, a descendant of the family that once owned the paper.

When I was a teenager, just learning of the Jewish control of media, I noticed that many of the Picayune’s advertisers were Jewishowned businesses, including Goldrings, Levitts, Mintz, Godchauxs (a French adapted Jewish name), Kirshmans, Rosenberg’s, Rubinstein Bros., Gus Mayer’s, Adler’s, and Maison Blanche. One of the biggest advertisers in New Orleans was Sears & Robuck, and Edith Stern, a New Orleans activist in Jewish and liberal causes, was Sears’ largest stockholder. I soon learned that many of the largest advertising agencies, both local and national, were under Jewish ownership and direction. These agencies could steer advertising to whatever newspaper or media outlet they desired.

Jewish advertising power not only has increased the Jewish monopolization and consolidation of American newspapers, it also greatly affects publications with Gentile management or ownership. All major publications are dependent on Jewish advertising revenue, so their features, reporting, and editorial policies must be carefully attuned to Jewish attitudes and interests. Ultimately, the free press is not free. It runs on money. The old axiom certainly holds true in the media: “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” At the beginning of this century, most major cities had two or three daily newspapers, and many had even more. There has been an alarming trend toward monopolization of daily newspapers. There are only about 50 cities in America with more than one daily newspa per, and many of those have the same parent company. The Newhouse-owned Times-Picayune and the afternoon States-Item aptly illustrate the trend; they merged into the Times-Picayune early and late editions.

As a result, of the 1,600 daily newspapers in America, only 25 percent are independently owned rather than part of a newspaper chain. And only a tiny number are large enough to have even a skeleton reporting staff based outside their own communities. They are dependent on newsgathering conglomerates such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Newhouse chain for their national and world news.

The Jewish domination of American media is longstanding. Even as far back as the 1920s, Jews had influence far disproportionate to their percentage of the population. And even though media operations frequently change hands and the CEOs, chairmen, administrators, and top editors change, Jewish domination is stronger than ever — and the power brokers continue to increase and consolidate their power. Much of the news that “independent” newspapers print comes from the wire services, the giant of which is the Associated Press. Michael Silverman is its current managing editor who directs the day-to-day news reporting and supervises the editorial departments. Silverman reports to Jonathan Wolman, another Jew, who is executive editor for the AP. The other leading sources of news articles for local papers are the three most influential newspapers in America Three Powerful Newspapers

The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post are positioned at the heart of American business, culture, and government. Their influence reaches out across the nation. They originate news, focus on issues of their liking, elevate public figures they approve of and denigrate those they do not. They tell us what movies to see, what books and magazines to read, what records to buy and what art to admire. They influence how we think on a thousand different subjects — and, in fact, they frequently choose what subjects we are to think about by trumpeting some stories and ignoring others.

The New York Times is read all over America — in academia, business, politics, the arts and literary world. It sets our political, social, entertainment, literary, artistic, and fashion standards. The Sulzberger family also owns, through the New York Times Co., 33 other newspapers, including the Boston Globe, purchased in June 1993 for $1.1 billion; twelve magazines, including McCall’s and Family Circle with circulations of more than 5 million each; seven radio and TV broadcasting stations; a cable-TV system; and three book publishing companies. The New York Times News Service transmits news stories, features, and photographs from the New York Times by wire to 506 other newspapers, news agencies, and magazines. Like so many other newspapers, it began under Gentile ownership and ended up under Jewish control. George Jones and Henry Raymond founded the great paper in 1851. Near the turn of the century, Jewish activist Adolph Ochs bought the paper, and now his great-grandson, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., is CEO and publisher. Executive and managing editors are Max Frankel and Joseph Lelyveld. Because it is so widely read by Washington’s elected and appointed federal officials and bureaucrats, The Washington Post has a huge impact on our government. It can influence appointments, firings, legislation, and foreign and domestic affairs of all kinds. It can even be instrumental in bringing down a president, as it did Richard Nixon. The bosses of The Washington Post can choose to give publicity to an issue or choose to ignore it, choose to be outraged about an event or bellow in approval. The Post has numerous holdings in newspapers, television, and magazines — most notably, Newsweek. The Washington Post Co. has a number of other media holdings in newspapers (the Gazette Newspapers, including 11 military publications); in television (WDIV in Detroit, KPRC in Houston, WPLG in Miami, WKMG in Orlando, KSAT in San Antonio, WJXT in Jacksonville); and in magazines, most notably the nation’s number-two weekly newsmagazine, Newsweek. The Washington Post Company’s various television ventures reach a total of about 7 million homes, and its cable TV service, Cable One, has 635,000 subscribers. In a joint venture with the New York Times, the Post publishes the International Herald Tribune, the most widely distributed Englishlanguage daily in the world.

Like The New York Times, The Washington Post started out in Gentile hands. It was founded in 1877 by Stilson Hutchins and was later run by the McLean family. Due to the McLeans’ conservative policies, Jewish advertising shifted to the other Washington papers, driving the Post into bankruptcy. A Jewish financier, Eugene Meyer, stepped in to buy it for a trifling sum at the bankruptcy auction. As soon as it passed into Jewish hands, advertising from Jewish businesses and advertising agencies returned, and the newspaper returned to profitability. In an effort at further consolidation of the media in our nation’s capital, the Jews ran an advertising boycott of Colonel Robert McCormick’s Times-Herald, which they detested because of its support for anti-Communist Sen. Joseph McCarthy. Unable to sell retailadvertising space, the newspaper shrunk dramatically and began losing about a million dollars a year and was finally sold to Meyer in 1954 at a bargain price. The Washington Post is now run by Meyer’s daughter, Katherine Meyer Graham, the principal stockholder and chairman of the board. Her son Donald is president and CEO. The third leading influential newspaper in America, especially in the business realm, is The Wall Street Journal, published — along with Barron’s and 24 other daily newspapers — by Dow Jones & Company. The Wall Street Journal has a circulation of more than two million, making it America’s largest business daily and a tremendous influence on business, banking, trade, and economic issues. The CEO of Dow Jones and chairman and publisher of The Wall Street Journal is Peter R. Kann, a Jew.

Most of New York’s other major newspapers are in no better hands than the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. In January 1993 the New York Daily News was bought from the estate of the late Jewish media mogul Robert Maxwell (born Ludvik Hoch) by Jewish real-estate developer Mortimer B. Zuckerman. The Village Voice is the personal property of Leonard Stern, the billionaire Jewish owner of the Hartz Mountain pet supply firm. The New York Post is owned by News Corporation under the Jew Peter Chernin.

The Three Most-Read Newsmagazines

Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News and World Report are the three major weekly newsmagazines published in the United States. The largest and most respected of these is Time, which has a circulation of more than four million. The CEO of Time-Warner is Gerald Levin, a Jewish benefactor of many Jewish and Israeli causes.

Newsweek is the second most widely read weekly, with a circulation of more than three million. It is under the control of the Washington Post’s Katherine Meyer Graham, another avid supporter of numerous Jewish causes.

The third-ranking newsmagazine is U.S. News and World Report, whose owner, publisher, and editor in chief is Mortimer B. Zuckerman, a proud Zionist who also owns the Atlantic Monthly and the New York Daily News.

The Giants of Book Publishing

Book publishing is perhaps the part of American media least controlled by Jews. Yet they still dominate the most important parts of that industry. All one needs is a printer and some cash to publish a book, and tens of thousands of printers do business in America along with hundreds of small book publishers. Yet here too the Jewish influence is powerful, for writing a book, no matter how informative and provocative, offers no guarantee of it being published, and being published offers no guarantee of it being professionally promoted, distributed, or even reviewed. The half dozen or so largest publishers and distributors handle 95 percent of the biggest-selling books in America. And in those areas of book publishing and distribution, Jewish appraisal is inevitable and Jewish approval is crucial. According to Publisher’s Weekly, the three largest American publishers are Random House (and its subsidiaries, including the Crown Publishing Group), Simon & Schuster, and Time Warner Trade Group (including Warner Books; Little, Brown; and Book of the Month Club). Jews control two out of three and the third, Random House, has many Jews in important positions throughout its division of the conglomerate it has joined.

Gerald Levin is CEO of Time-Warner Communications, which owns Time Warner Trade Group. The other major media, Simon and Schuster, is a subsidiary of Viacom Inc. Viacom’s CEO and chairman is Sumner Redstone (born Murray Rothstein). Additionally, it should be noted that the largest publisher of children’s books, with more than 50 percent of the market, is Western Publishing, whose chairman and CEO is Richard Snyder, who just replaced another Jew, Richard Bernstein.

The Suppression of One Book

One of the most brilliant books of this century dealing with the weakening of the American majority is The Dispossessed Majority by Wilmot Robertson. 252 This book is rich in research and ideas, and it is written with a command of the English language rarely seen today. But Robertson was unable to find a major publisher because he dared to write about the unmentionable subjects of race and Jewish ethnocentrism. No national or major publications would review his work, and no national distributors would handle it. Many national publications would not permit Robertson to buy advertisements for his book because it contained information unacceptable to the selfordained Jewish censors. Despite its ban from the mainstream bookstores and not being reviewed by the major media critics, Robertson has sold well over 150,000 copies through the mail and by word of mouth. Television

When I read the article by Edward Fields documenting the Jewish control of the three major TV networks, I was fascinated. ABC, CBS, and NBC produce the overwhelming majority of entertainment television broadcasts in America, and for most Americans they are the primary sources of news. Leonard Goldenson of ABC, William S. Paley of CBS, and David Sarnoff of NBC ran their respective networks for decades, setting the tone and breadth of the modern Jewish domination of broadcasting. Here is a portion of Dr. William L. Pierce’s “Who Runs the Media” article on the current state of American broadcasting.

Who Runs the Media?

Continuing government deregulation of the telecommunications industry has resulted, not in the touted increased competition, but rather in an accelerating wave of corporate mergers and acquisitions that have produced a handful of multi-billion-dollar media conglomerates. The largest of these conglomerates are rapidly growing even bigger by consuming their competition, almost tripling in size during the 1990s. Whenever you watch television, whether from a local broadcasting station or via a cable or a satellite dish; whenever you see a feature film in a theater or at home; whenever you listen to the radio or to recorded music; whenever you read a newspaper, book, or magazine — it is very likely that the information or entertainment you receive was produced and/or distributed by one of these megamedia companies.

The largest media conglomerate today is AOL-Time Warner, created when AOL bought Time Warner for $160 billion in 2000. The merger brought together Steve Case, a Gentile, as chairman of AOL-TW, and Time Warner chairman Gerald Levin, a Jew, as the CEO. Although AOL-TW isn’t (yet) run entirely by Jews, the effect of this blend of leadership between a White capitalist whose biggest concern is money and a racially conscious Jew will be gradually to increase the Jewish influence within AOL. Steve Case won’t complain when Gerald Levin begins hiring mostly Jews to fill key positions beneath him because Case’s own profits won’t be affected. After Case dies or retires, the Jews will have complete control at AOL.

Before the merger, AOL was the largest Internet service provider in America, and it will now be used as an online platform for the Jewish content from Time Warner.

Time Warner, Inc., with 1997 revenues of more than $13 billion, was the second largest of the international media leviathans when it was bought by AOL. Levin, chairman and CEO of Time Warner, had bought Turner Broadcasting Systems in 1996 from Ted Turner, who had been one of the few Gentile entrepreneurs in the media business. Ted Turner, as the company president, became the number three man at AOL-TW, after Case and Levin. When Ted Turner, the Gentile media maverick, made a bid to buy CBS in 1985, there was panic in media boardrooms across the nation. Turner had made a fortune in advertising and then had built a successful cable-TV news network, CNN, with over 70 million subscribers. Although Turner employed a number of Jews in key executive positions in CNN and had never taken public positions contrary to Jewish interests, he is a man with a large ego and a strong personality and was regarded by Chairman William Paley and the other Jews at CBS as uncontrollable: a loose cannon who might at some time in the future turn against them. Furthermore, Jewish newsman Daniel Schorr, who had worked for Turner, publicly charged that his former boss held a personal dislike for Jews.

To block Turner’s bid, CBS executives invited billionaire Jewish theater, hotel, insurance, and cigarette magnate Laurence Tisch to launch a “friendly” takeover of the company, and from 1986 until 1995 Tisch was the chairman and CEO of CBS, removing any threat of non-Jewish influence there. Subsequent efforts by Turner to acquire a major network were obstructed by Levin’s Time Warner, which owns nearly 20 percent of CBS stock and has veto power over major deals. When his fellow Jew Sumner Redstone offered to buy CBS for $34.8 billion in 1999, Levin had no objection.

Thus, despite being an innovator and garnering headlines, Turner never commanded the “connections” necessary for being a true media master. He finally decided if you can’t lick ’em, join ’em, and he sold out to Levin. Ted Turner is in one respect a reflection of Steve Case. Both of these White men are capitalists with no discernible degree of racial consciousness or responsibility. In July 2001, AOL Time Warner announced that yet another Jew, Walter Isaacson, formerly the editorial director of Time, Inc., will become the new chairman and CEO of CNN News Group, which oversees the news empire that Ted Turner built.

Time Warner’s subsidiary HBO is the country’s largest pay-TV cable network. Until the purchase in May 1998 of PolyGram by Edgar Bronfman, Jr., Warner Music was America’s largest record company, with 50 labels, the biggest of which is Warner Brothers Records. Warner Music was an early promoter of “gangsta rap.” Through its involvement with Interscope Records (prior to Interscope’s acquisition by MCA), it helped to popularize a genre whose graphic lyrics explicitly urge Blacks to commit acts of violence against Whites.

In addition to cable and music, Time Warner is heavily involved in the production of feature films (Warner Brothers Studio, Castle Rock Entertainment, and New Line Cinema) and in publishing. Time Warner’s publishing division (editor-in-chief Norman Pearlstine, a Jew) is the largest magazine publisher in the country (Time, Sports Illustrated, People, Fortune).

The second-largest media conglomerate today, with 1997 revenues of $23 billion, is the Walt Disney Company. Its chairman and CEO, Michael Eisner, is a Jew. The Disney empire, headed by a man described by one media analyst as “a control freak,” includes several television production companies (Walt Disney Television, Touchstone Television, Buena Vista Television) and cable networks with more than 100 million subscribers altogether.

As for feature films, the Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group, under Walt Disney Studios, headed by Joseph E. Roth (also a Jew), includes Walt Disney Pictures, Touchstone Pictures, Hollywood Pictures, and Caravan Pictures. Roth founded Caravan Pictures in January 1993, and it is now headed by his fellow Jew Roger Birnbaum. Disney also owns Miramax Films, run by the Weinstein brothers, Bob and Harvey, who have produced such ultra-raunchy movies as The Crying Game, Priest, and Kids.

When the Disney Company was run by the Gentile Disney family, prior to its takeover by Eisner in 1984, it epitomized wholesome, family entertainment. While it still holds the rights to Snow White, the company under Eisner has expanded into the production of a great deal of so-called “adult” material. In August 1995, Eisner acquired Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., which owns the ABC Television Network, which in turn owns ten TV stations outright in such big markets as New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and

Houston. In addition, it has 225 affiliated stations in the United States and is part owner of several European TV companies. ABC’s cable subsidiary, ESPN, is headed by president and CEO Steven Bornstein, who is a Jew. The corporation also has a controlling share of Lifetime Television and A & E Television Networks cable companies, with 67 million subscribers each. ABC Radio Network owns 26 AM and FM stations, again in major cities such as New York, Washington, and Los Angeles, and has over 3,400 affiliates. Although primarily a telecommunications company, Capital Cities/ABC earned over $1 billion in publishing in 1997. It owns seven daily newspapers, Fairchild Publications (Women’s Wear Daily), Chilton Publications (automotive manuals), and the Diversified Publishing Group.

Number three on the list, with 1997 revenues of just over $13 billion, is Viacom, Inc., headed by Sumner Redstone (born Murray Rothstein). Viacom, which produces and distributes TV programs for the three largest networks, owns 13 television stations and 12 radio stations. It produces feature films through Paramount Pictures, headed by Jewess Sherry Lansing. Redstone acquired CBS following the December 1999 stockholders’ votes at CBS and Viacom. Working for Redstone as CBS’s chief executive is a Jew named Melvin A. Karmazin. He is the boss and biggest individual shareholder of the company that owns the CBS Television Network, 14 major-market TV stations, 160 radio stations, the Country Music Television and the Nashville Network cable channels, and a large number of outdoor advertising assets. Viacom’s publishing division includes Simon & Schuster, Scribner, The Free Press, and Pocket Books. It distributes videos through over 4,000 Blockbuster stores. It is also involved in satellite broadcasting, theme parks, and video games.

Viacom’s chief claim to fame, however, is as the world’s largest provider of cable programming, through its Showtime, MTV, Nickelodeon, and other networks. Since 1989 MTV and Nickelodeon have acquired larger and larger shares of the juvenile television audience. The first quarter of 2001 was the 16th consecutive quarter in which MTV was rated as the #1 cable network for viewers between the ages of 12 and 24. Redstone, who actually owns 76 per cent of the shares of Viacom, has offered Beavis and Butthead as teen role models and currently is the largest single purveyor of race-mixing propaganda to White teenagers and sub-teens in America and in Europe. MTV Networks plans to acquire The Music Factory (TMF) from the Dutch media and marketing group Wegener. TMF distributes music to almost 10 million homes in Holland and Belgium. MTV is expanding its presence in Europe through new channels, including MTV Dance (Britain) and MTV Live (Scandinavia). MTV Italy is active through Cecchi Gori Communications. MTV pumps its racially mixed rock and rap videos into 210 million homes in 71 countries and is the dominant cultural influence on White teenagers around the world.

Nickelodeon, with about 65 million subscribers, has by far the largest share of the four-to-11-year-old TV audience in America and also is expanding rapidly into Europe. Most of its shows do not yet display the blatant degeneracy that is MTV’s trademark, but Redstone is gradually nudging the fare presented to his kiddie viewers toward the same poison purveyed by MTV. As of early 2001, Nickelodeon was continuing a nine-year streak as the top cable network for children and younger teenagers.

Another Jewish media mogul is Edgar Bronfman, Jr. He headed Seagram Company, Ltd., the liquor giant, until its recent merger with Vivendi. His father, Edgar Bronfman, Sr., is president of the World Jewish Congress. Seagram owned Universal Studios and Interscope Records, the foremost promoter of “gangsta rap.” These companies now belong to Vivendi Universal. Bronfman became the biggest man in the record business in May 1998 when he also acquired control of PolyGram, the European record giant, by paying $10.6 billion to the Dutch electronics manufacturer Philips. With the revenue from PolyGram added to that from MCA and Universal, Bronfman became master of the fourth largest media empire, with annual revenues around $12 billion. One especially unfortunate aspect of the PolyGram acquisition was that it gave Bronfman control of the world’s largest producer of classical music CDs: Poly- Gram owns the Deutsche Grammophon, Decca-London, and Philips record companies.

In June 2000, the Bronfman family sold Seagram to Vivendi, a French utilities company led by gentile Jean-Marie Messier. The combined company, Vivendi Universal, will retain Edgar Bronfman, Jr., as the vice chairman of the new company, and he will continue to be in charge of its entertainment division. The strategy for this merger seems to mirror that of AOL-Time Warner: infect and wait. Vivendi Universal will pay off the debts it assumed in the merger by selling Seagram’s alcohol business, retaining its media empire. With two of the top four media conglomerates in the hands of Jews, and with Jews in executive charge of the remaining two, it is difficult to believe that such an overwhelming degree of control came about without a deliberate, concerted effort on their part.

What about the other big media companies?

Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, which owns Fox Television Network, 20th Century Fox Films, and Fox 2000, is the fifth largest megamedia corporation in the country, with 1997 revenues of over $11 billion. It is the only other media company that comes even close to the top four. Murdoch is a Gentile Australian, but Peter Chernin, who is president and CEO of Fox Group, which includes all of News Corporation’s film, television, and publishing operations in the United States, is a Jew. Under Chernin, as president of 20th Century Fox, is Laura Ziskin, a Jewess who formerly headed Fox 2000. Jew Peter Roth works under Chernin as president of Fox Entertainment. News Corporation also owns the New York Post and TV Guide, and they are published under Chernin’s supervision. Murdoch told Newsweek magazine (July 12, 1999) that he would probably elevate Chernin to CEO of News Corporation, rather than allow the company to fall into the hands of his own children, none of whom are younger than their late twenties. It is hard to imagine a Jew giving a major media corporation to a Gentile underling when he has children waiting in the wings. For his part, Chernin was quite candid: “I get to control movies seen all over the world. . . . What could be more fun?”

Most of the television and movie production companies that are not owned by the largest corporations are also controlled by Jews. For example, New World Entertainment, proclaimed by one media analyst as “the premier independent TV program producer in the United States,” is owned by Ronald Perelman, a Jew who also owns Revlon cosmetics and who offered a job to Monica Lewinsky when Bill Clinton was trying to keep her quiet. The best known of the smaller media companies, DreamWorks SKG, is a strictly kosher affair. DreamWorks was formed in 1994 amid great media hype by recording industry mogul David Geffen, former Disney Pictures chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg, and film director Steven Spielberg, all three of whom are Jews. The company produces movies, animated films, television programs, and re corded music. Considering the cash and connections that Geffen, Katzenberg, and Spielberg have, DreamWorks may soon be in the same league as the big four.

It is well known that Jews have controlled most of the production and distribution of films since shortly after the inception of the movie industry in the early decades of the 20th century. When Walt Disney died in 1966, the last barrier to the total Jewish domination of Hollywood was gone, and Jews were able to grab ownership of the company that Walt built. Since then they have had everything their way in the movie industry.

Films produced by just the four largest motion picture companies mentioned above — Disney, Warner Brothers, Paramount (Viacom), and Universal (Seagram) — accounted for two-thirds of the total box-office receipts for the year 1997.

The big three in television network broadcasting used to be ABC, CBS, and NBC. With the consolidation of the media empires, these three are no longer independent entities. While they were independent, however, each was controlled by a Jew since its inception: ABC by Leonard Goldenson; NBC first by David Sarnoff and then by his son Robert; and CBS first by William Paley and then by Laurence Tisch. Over periods of several decades these networks were staffed from top to bottom with Jews, and the essential Jewishness of network television did not change when the networks were absorbed by other corporations. The Jewish presence in television news remains particularly strong. NBC provides a good example of this. The executives at NBC recently were shuffled among the key positions. Andrew Lack, who had been chief of the network’s news division, ascended to become its president and chief operations officer. Neal Shapiro, who had been producing Dateline NBC, moved into Lack’s old job. Jeff Zucker, who had been producing the Today show, was promoted to NBC entertainment president (a job that apparently was created for him), and Jonathan Wald moved into Zucker’s old spot after shoving aside Michael Bass, who had been filling in for Zucker with Today. Some time ago, Wald became the producer of the NBC Nightly News, taking the position from Jeff Gralnick. When Wald moved to Today, Steve Capus took over as Tom Brokaw’s producer. It is not known at this time whether Capus is a Jew or not, but everyone else is.

A similar preponderance of Jews exists in the news divisions of the other networks. For example, in February 2000, Al Ortiz moved to head the “Special Events” coverage at CBS, making gentile Jim Murphy the executive producer of The CBS Evening News with Dan Rather — and the only exception that we know of to an otherwise solidly Jewish cadre of television news producers. The new CBS Early Show, which replaced CBS This Morning, had an internal shakeup in which three producers were fired, ostensibly for not being “aggressive” enough. One wonders whether they were also not Jewish enough. The shakeup did not, however, affect the outgoing executive producer Al Berman, who transferred to a new job as a program developer, and Steve Friedman has become the executive producer of the Early Show. Paul Friedman is still the executive producer of ABC World News Tonight with Peter Jennings. Rick Kaplan, once an executive at ABC, moved to CNN in 1997, where he became the president of CNN/USA. The overwhelming Jewish control that Dr. Pierce writes about in television and movies is not a new phenomenon. It is not a short-term aberration in the entertainment and news industry. It has been prevalent for decades. Over time the names may change, but the heritage usually remains the same. If anything, the Jewish power in media continues to consolidate and grow. Jewish publications themselves often boast about their power to their own readers.

Not only do the Jews have immense power in media through ownership and through key positions elements of control in production, management, hiring, editorship, and writing, they also have key watchdog groups that monitor all major publications (and public figures) for any evidence of opposition to Jewish Supremacism and Israel. This multimillion dollar, international organization is called the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai Brith. Any person who dares to speak freely is liable to run afoul of this organization that can destroy the career of almost any one it deems a threat. The ADL also monitors every conceivable source of information available to the public, attempting to suppress anything it sees as harmful to Jewish public relations. One of the more recent enterprises was the development of an internet filter for individuals, libraries and educational institutions. Of course my website and all other sites that dare to expose Jewish supremacism are blocked by the self-appointed censors.

The ADL has long history of receiving millions of dollars from Jewish gangsters and criminals. In return it has rewarded them with awards, such as giving a gangster like Moe Dalitz the “Torch of Liberty Award in 1985.253 It is gallingly ironic that through its internet censorship, a group with organized crime connections can keep millions of Americans from ever discovering that very fact. Although the Jews have breathtaking domination of the media and an effective system of monitoring and suppressing dissident thought, still their control is not monolithic.

“Through its 31 offices across the country, the ADL monitors school curricula, library acquisition lists, and public conferences and symposiums, working behind the scenes to stifle intellectual freedom.” Robert Friedman, The Jewish Thought Police: How the Anti- Defamation League Censors Books, Intimidates Librarians, and Spies on Citizens, The Village Voice, July 27, 1993.

Groups like the ADL, however, will not be satisfied until Jewish control of the media becomes completely monolithic. They seek not only complete control of the mass media, but also to make illegal for anyone to even dare to offer a contrary opinion to their agenda. They have succeeded in Canada and in many European nations toward that sinister end, and they are working hard to accomplish the same thing in America.

“An Empire of Their Own”

Even though it is hard to imagine now, Gentiles originated America’s film industry. Thomas Edison patented many of the early cameras and projection techniques and launched the first major studio. The man who pioneered the modern movie was D. W. Griffith, a brilliant director whose techniques and films are still studied by film classes around the world. His silent classic Birth of a Nation 254 held the title of most-watched movie in the world until Gone with the Wind.255 Birth of a Nation is a film version of The Clansman, a novel by Southern writer Thomas Dixon.256 The film depicted the fratricidal conflict of the War Between the States and the oppression of the Southern people during the “Reconstruction” era. (see Willis Carto’s Barnes Review, July, 1997)257

When Birth of a Nation appeared, Jewish organizations actually went into the courts attempting to ban the film in a number of major cities, and they applied financial pressure on theaters to keep it from playing. A special showing of the film in the White House garnered an enthusiastic review by President Woodrow Wilson and initiated an irrepressible groundswell of support. The Jewish forces in the fledgling film industry realized that it was far more effective to control the film industry from the inside than to have to fight rearguard actions to suppress films that they did not want the American people to see. The attempted Jewish banning of Birth of a Nation was not the first or the last attempt at Jewish censorship in America. Many people are surprised when they learn that Jewish groups actually were able to ban a play by the greatest writer of English literature: William Shakespeare. Performing Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice 258 became forbidden in New York City in the early years of the 20th century at the behest of the Jewish community, which claimed that it was anti- Semitic.

In the 1990s, the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) did a running series of all Shakespeare’s plays that included The Merchant of Venice. A long editorial introduction attempted to condition the audience into interpreting the play as sympathetic to Shylock, the central Jewish character who demanded the Gentile’s “pound of flesh.” The lines in which Shylock defends himself in court, pleading “If you prick a Jew doth he not bleed,” were emphasized to encourage the viewer to interpret the play as favorable to Jews. Interestingly, the Jews made no such interpretation of the play when they intolerantly argued for making performance of the play illegal. Recently, the Canadian Jewish News reported an attempt by Jews to suppress the play in a Canadian school district.259

As they have gone from outsiders to now thoroughly dominating the Western governmental and media establishment, many Jews have shifted from strong defenders of free speech to some of its most willful suppressers.

The Jewish students who dominated the “free-speech” movement at Berkeley in the mid-1960s sang the praises of free speech for the purpose of inviting to campus the likes of the filthy-mouthed and repugnant Allen Ginsberg and the violent, openly Communist, black revolutionary Angela Davis. Today they attempt to silence anyone who dares to speak before a student audience on the issues raised in this book.

In some cases they have reverted to tactics similar to their campaign against The Merchant of Venice. In 1976 a national Black talk show broadcast on PBS, Black Perspectives on the News, invited me to Philadelphia for an appearance. After the taping, but before the show aired, the Anti-Defamation League and other Jewish organizations discovered that I mentioned the historically well-documented Jewish role in the Colonial slave trade. Jewish activists Sol Rosen, Harry Bass, and Peter Minchuck sought an injunction in the Common Pleas Court in Philadelphia, asking the judge to censor the program. The Jewish judge, Stanley Greenberg, issued an order demanding that the program not be aired until the tape was delivered to him and “approved.” Luckily, the First Amendment Coalition and attorney David Marion appealed the decision to the State Supreme Court and won. However, the Jewish methods of censorship were by no means exhausted. Jewish organizations then went nationwide in an attempt to suppress the show at each PBS affiliate where the program was to be broadcast. In a massive campaign of intimidation, Jews wrote and called local PBS stations, threatening a cutoff of donations and public support if they aired the show. If that did not work, my opponents promised picketing, harassment, and even violence against the stations. By the time they finished their dirty work, the original program aired on only a small percentage of the local PBS stations.

Furthermore, the stations that did have the temerity to air the original one-hour show — immediately followed it with a special program attacking my positions and my character without allowing me to respond.

An example of quiet suppression, from among many I could cite, was my experience with the Tomorrow Show with Tom Snyder in 1974. The Tomorrow Show was a late-night talk show that went into serious topics rather than vapid celebrity banter. I did not fit the media image of the “anti-Semite” that host Tom Snyder had expected, and during the program he surprised me when, on camera, he referred to me as “intelligent, articulate, and charming.” Snyder laughed heartily at my witticisms and repeatedly stated on air that I would soon be back on the show. His last words on the program were “David Duke will be back here.”

Three days later Snyder’s staff called to set up the follow-up show. They said that I would appear along with a Black civil rights leader, a Jewish rabbi, a liberal Catholic, and a Protestant clergyman. Flight and hotel reservations were made, and I received a confirmation letter from the show. Only three days before the planned taping of the program, a staff member called and told me that she was sorry, but the program had been forced to cancel my appearance. I asked her why, and she confided in me that the Jewish executives at NBC had sternly informed the program that “David Duke will never again appear on the Tomorrow Show.”

The program went on as scheduled, but my detractors were the only guests. They denigrated me for the entire hour with cheap insults. The rabbi, evidently well-versed in Freudian psychology, attributed my negative view of Jewish Supremacism to “sexual frustration.” And so it went. The media masters had presented three high priests of egalitarianism railing at me, and silenced any dissent. Israel and Arabia Perhaps the best way to illustrate the bias of the media is examine the media coverage of Israel as compared to its Arab neighbors. There is no more revealing evidence of how Jews wield their media power in pursuit of their interests. Consider the following: Iraq was condemned and attacked for invading its neighbor Kuwait, a part of Iraq until just a few short years ago, YET— Israel invaded its neighbor Lebanon which eventually cost the lives of at least 20 thousand Lebanese civilians and countless billions of dollars of property.

The reason for the attack against Iran, was the fact it had disobeyed UN resolutions to vacate Kuwait, YET— Israel has defied UN resolutions since the original invasion in the 1980s and still remains in the Golan heights. Another reason the world attacked Iraq was ostensibly that Iraq had violated UN regulations on unconventional weapons, YET— Israel, of course, has violated those weapons regulations from the very beginning, having developed everything from nerve gas, biological weapons to nucleur weapons.

When Palestinian terrorists blow up Israeli buses or markets in suicide attacks, it is world-wide front page news, YET— When Israel drops Napalm on refugee camps and kills scores of women and children, it receives far less coverage. Consider the media reaction, if one of the Arab states had shot down a commercial airliner with passengers aboard, YET— Israel shot down a passenger airliner over the Sinai Peninsula with hardly a ripple of protest. To catalogue the host of pro-Jewish films produced by the Hollywood establishment would be a monumental task, but I can offer some pertinent examples.

Not surprisingly, the most lavishly promoted miniseries of all time was also the most important film of all to the Jews: The Holocaust. The film was a thoroughly Jewish production. It was directed by Roots’ director Marvin Chomsky. Gerald Green wrote the screenplay. Morton Gould composed the music. The producers were Robert Berger and Herbert Brodkin. TV Guide remarked that during filming in Europe, the writer’s father died. Rather than return home for his funeral, Green felt he was honoring his rabidly pro-Zionist father by staying in Europe to work on The Holocaust. For a dozen hours, the film, a work of extreme ethnic hatred, portrayed Germans and other Eastern Europeans as either bloodthirsty or spineless, and of course, it portrayed every Jew as a paragon of virtue, love, and kindness. Never had a television production received more advance coverage or more praise than The Holocaust. Jewish-run publications and pundits acted as though it was the most important piece of drama in the history of cinema.

Of course, many of the Jewish made films deal on other issues that direct Jewish concerns. They have done their part in stirring up illwill in minorities against the European majority. Divide and conquer has always been their strategy. While I was still in college, I attended a so-called Black-exploitation film called Farewell Uncle Tom.260 I read about the film before its showing in New Orleans, where it played in a mostly Black movie house downtown. Expecting a difficult situation, I drove down from Baton Rouge with two of my bravest and most dedicated LSU friends. In 90 minutes, at a matinee filled with Blacks, my friends and I received an emotional and graphic education on the heinous impact of the Hollywood anti-White movies.

Set in the antebellum South, the film portrayed slave life as an orgy of White mutilation, starvation, murder, and rape of Black men and women. A Black revolt occurs, and the screen erupts with revenge- minded Blacks hacking to death White men, women, and children. With each bloody outrage, the audience howled with approval. “Right on!” some screamed. “Rape the Bitch!. . . Kill ‘em!” The Black crowd laughed and cheered during the goriest scenes of mutilation, rape, and murder.
To make sure the film’s point was clear to its patrons, the film’s ending flashed to the present day, showing afro-wearing Black men in leather jackets and sunglasses, sneaking into the bedroom of a White couple.

The camera depicts the couple’s horror as the attackers hack them to death with a hatchet.

In slow motion, the hatchet falls repeatedly, splattering blood and brains across the room.

Even after 20 years, I vividly recall the film and the raw hatred it engendered in the Black audience.

At the sight of the murders, the audience worked itself into a frenzy. As soon as the credits appeared, my friends and I, sitting in the rear of the theater, grabbed our coats and left quickly. We were somber as we drove back to LSU because we knew that Farewell Uncle Tom was designed to incite Blacks to murder and rape Whites across America.

In researching the film, I discovered that Cannon Releasing Corporation had released it and that Cannon’s president was Dennis Friedland. His associates included Marvin Friedlander, Thomas Israel, James Rubin, and Arthur Lipper. I found out later from a film review that most of the Jews involved with the White-hating film actually had their names removed from the film credits. The time I spent in that dark theater touched my emotions so powerfully that I swore to myself and to God that I would make whatever sacrifices I must to someday stop the brutal attacks against our flesh and blood as symbolized in that hateful film. I also resolved to stand up against filmmakers who create a climate of anti-White hatred. During my hundreds of interviews over the years, whenever I mentioned Jewish media domination, my interrogators first would deny the Jewish preponderance of power. Then, when that defense sank beneath a sea of facts, they acted shocked that anyone could even suggest that Jews might use their media power for their own advantage.

The domination of America’s news and entertainment media is so obvious that some Jewish media have begun to acknowledge it, but they suggest the Jewish domination makes no real impact on content. The cover of the August 1996 issue of Moment magazine was emblazoned with the headline, “Jews Run Hollywood, So What?” The article, written by well-known Jewish film critic Michael Medved, includes the following comments: “It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish power and prominence in popular culture. Any list of the most influential production executives at each of the major movie studios will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names.” Medved reports how Walt Disney studios hire only “highly paid Jewish moguls” such as Jeffery Katzenberg, Michael Ovitz, and Joe Roth as producers. He goes on to state that: The famous Disney organization, which was founded by Walt Disney, a Gentile Midwesterner who allegedly harbored anti-Semitic attitudes, now features Jewish personnel in nearly all its most powerful positions. 261 Interestingly, in spite of the attempts to besmirch the name of Walt Disney as an anti-Semite, his films were the most morally and spiritually uplifting – as well as educational – in the industry. All this while Michael Eisner’s new Disney and its subsidiaries continue to make anti-Christian and sexually degenerate films such as The Priest262 and The Crying Game. 263 Not only do the Jewish producers create a plethora of pro-Israel and pro-Jewish propaganda along with their anti-Christian, anti Gentile hate films and documentaries, they are careful to monitor films made by both Jews and Gentiles. For example, Jewish censors of the fact-based film, Seven Years in Tibet, felt that the main character, an ex- Nazi explorer from Austria, was not repentant enough about his past.

They had the filmmaker invent a repentance scene and insert it into the “true story.” 264 Michael Medved writes in his article that “Jewish writers and directors employ unquestionably flattering depictions of Jews for audiences that react with sympathy and affection.” It goes without saying that Jewish directors and writers depict those who oppose Jewish Supremacism as thoroughly evil. A 1998 made-for-television film documentary aired on the Arts & Entertainment cable network boasted of the preeminent Jewish role in media and the shaping of our society to their purposes. It was made by Elliot Halpern & Simcha Jacobvici Productions, and written and directed by Simcha Jacobvici. The documentary tells how Jews overcame the Gentile filmmakers such as Thomas Edison and D.W. Griffith, and gradually replaced their traditional American themes. Movies such as Griffith’s Birth of a Nation which honored our traditional heritage, became replaced with paeans to the immigrant and multiracialism. They interview Jewish author Neil Gabler, who frankly tells how they replaced the “real” America. They created their own America, an America which is not the real America…But ultimately this shadow America becomes so popular and so widely disseminated that its images and its values come to devour the real America. And so the grand irony of all of Hollywood — is that Americans come to define themselves by the shadow of America that was created by the Eastern European Jewish immigrants who weren’t permitted in the precincts of the real America. The narrator goes on to say that the Hollywood Jews became almost godlike in their power and set up a system to raise their prestige in the eyes of Americans.

Where there were new Gods there must be new idols. So, the studio heads began a movie guild with the lofty title of The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. It was Mayer’s brilliant idea to create the Oscars where the movie moguls’ guild honor themselves by giving each other awards. In this way, they went from being a group of immigrant Jews to award-winning American producers.

The Lesson of Marlon Brando

Jewish power is such that they can make craven even the greatest of Hollywood icons. Marlon Brando is a prime example. In the early days of his acting career he was completely under the control of Jewish agents and acquaintances. Brando wrote in his autobiography that he was given an important role in a disgustingly pro-Zionist play called A Flag Is Born, written by avid Zionist Ben Hecht and directed by Luther Adler. As Brando notes, It was essentially a piece of political propaganda advocating the creation of the state of Israel … Everyone in A Flag Is Born was Jewish except me … I did not know then that Jewish terrorists were indiscriminately killing Arabs and making refugees out of them in order to take their land … The play, as well as my friendship with the Adlers, helped make me a zealous advocate for Israel and later a kind of traveling salesman for it… Brando then began giving propaganda speeches for a Zionist organization, and even contributed money himself to the Zionist Irgun organization, a terrorist group.265

Marlon Brando later learned the truth about Zionism and dramatically changed his opinion. “Now,” he said in 1994, “I understand much more about the complexity of the situation than I did then … 266 …I sided with Jewish terrorists without acknowledging that they were killing innocent Palestinians in their effort to create the state of Israel …267… One of the strangest government policies is that largely because of the political influence of Jewish interests, our country has invested billions of dollars and many American lives to help Israel reclaim land that they say their ancestors occupied three thousand years ago.”268 During an appearance on the Larry King television show, actor Marlon Brando dared to comment that “Hollywood is run by Jews. It is owned by Jews.” Brando contended that Jews are always depicted as humorous, kind, loving, and generous while they slander every other racial group, “but are ever so careful to ensure that there is never any negative image of the Kike.”269

Jewish groups came down unmercifully on Brando, stating in their press releases that they would see to it that he “would never work again.” No one in the Jewish press seemed to notice that the threats simply validated Brando’s observation of their unchallenged media power. Brando became so intimidated by the onslaught of hatred and threats against him that he had to arrange an audience with Simon Wiesenthal himself. In probably the best acting job of his life, Brando cried and got on his knees and kissed Wiesenthal’s hands, begging for forgiveness for offending the Jewish Supreme Gods of the Western World. Brando publicly renounced his Heresy against the Jewish Gods, and Wiesenthal absolved him of his sin. Brando has said nothing but positive things about Jews ever since.

If someone wants to understand how the Jewish Supremacists maintain their almost complete media control, the Brando incident is an excellent object lesson. They do it by both the carrot and the stick. They reward those Goyim who go along with their evil as they did Brando in his early career, but they are unmerciful to anyone who dares to oppose them. Public figures who publicly oppose them have to be either incredibly stupid or magnificently brave. Marlon Brando naively thought that by telling the obvious truth about Israel he might endure serious criticism, but he never dreamed of the evil tidal wave of abuse that would descend upon him. In a pitiful scene, Brando caved into his masters like a whimpering dog, literally licking the hand of the master that beats him.

There can be no renewal for our people until that kind of intimidating power is broken. There is no possibility of redemption for our people until we they summon the courage necessary to defy our Jewish supremacist overlords. Finally, no regeneration of our society can occur until our people again have real freedom of speech and press once more.

Once I discovered the Jewish power over the American media, I resolved never to surrender my freedom of speech in deference to it. No matter if it might cost me my reputation, my freedom or even my life; I became determined to oppose the media masters who seek to destroy our way of life and our very life form. I am confident that in time my kinsmen will likewise rise up in defiance rather than kneel in dishonor — as Marlon Brando did— to our supremacist masters.


PAGE – 6

The U.S. has no longer a government of Goyim [Gentiles], but an administration in which the Jews are full partners in the decision making at all levels.
Perhaps the aspects of the Jewish religious law connected with the term ‘government of goyim’ should be re-examined, since it is an outdated term in the U.S. ( From the major Israeli newspaper Maariv)

“I’ve never seen a President — I don’t care who he is — stand up to [the Jews] … They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wouldn’t write anything down. If the American people understood what a grip these people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms.” (Admiral Thomas Moorer, former Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff)271 “… terrific control the Jews have over the news media and the barrage the Jews have built up on congressmen …. I am very much concerned over the fact that the Jewish influence here is completely dominating the scene and making it almost impossible to get congress to do anything they don’t approve of. The Israeli embassy is practically dictating to the congress through influential Jewish people in the country” — Sec. of State John Foster Dulles in Feb. 1957 quoted on p.99 of Fallen Pillars by Donald Neff
In recounting my learning about the Jewish power in the government of the United States, I will skip ahead about five years to an event I saw on television on April 15, 1973. Senator William Fulbright appeared on the CBS Face the Nation272 program when, in discussing American policy in the Mideast, he stated very simply, “Israel controls the United States Senate.” Since the middle 1960s I knew enough about the pro-Zionist policy of the U.S. government to realize that what he said was true, but I was shocked that he would say such a thing openly. I wondered what impact such a charge would make on the public. After all, he made one of the most sensational charges ever spoken by a U.S. Senator, an allegation with incredible implications — that a foreign power controlled the highest legislative body in America. In a matter of just a few days, Fulbright’s accusation of Zionist control disappeared from the press almost as if it had never happened. However, Senator Fulbright, a popular personage in his home state, who had been reelected easily even during the highest patriotic passions of the Vietnam War (He came to oppose the war), suddenly found himself in political hot water.

In his next election, he paid dearly for his truth telling. Huge amounts of Jewish money poured into Arkansas to defeat him, and Jews with any position of influence in business, government, or media — both inside and outside of Arkansas — rallied to help Israel-Firster, Dale Bumpers. One of the remarkable aspects of the affair was that most Jews had liked Fulbright early on because he took a position on the Vietnam War that they endorsed. Jews overwhelmingly opposed the war, from the radical Communists in the street such as Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman to the influential Jews of the New York Times and The Washington Post. Senator Fulbright dared to say that just as it was not in our true interests to be in Vietnam, neither was it in our true interests to be embroiled in the Mideast conflict. Ironically, many Jews had called Fulbright a hero for casting the lone Senate vote in the early 1950s against continuing the funding of Wisconsin Senator Joe McCarthy’s Permanent Investigations Subcommittee.273 They owed him a great debt, but all of Fulbright’s past support for the liberal policies of Jews meant nothing to them when he refused to pledge unquestioning subservience to Israel. By criticizing the U.S. government’s policy in the Mideast, he lost his Senate seat.

As I learned about the Jewish domination of the news and entertainment media in the late 1960s, I also came across copious evidence of their enormous political power. I found it to be two-headed. Obviously, through their domination of the media, they have tremendous influence on elections and on public issues. Not only can they influence the public’s perceptions by weighting propaganda for or against a candidate or an issue, they can essentially determine whether certain issues will even be discussed at all. The second way they influence politics is more direct. They have become, by far, the most powerful players in American campaign financing — their support is crucial to every major candidate. Those who cater to them with the most servility receive support, while support is withheld from those whom they deem less servile. They deliver great rewards for those who play along and politically annihilate those who won’t. In the 1970s, I read a Wall Street Journal article entitled “American Jews and Jimmy Carter” by James M. Perry. He wrote, “Jews are generous with their money. The White House’s Mr. Siegel, a longtime Jewish employee of the Democratic National Committee, estimates that as much as 80% of the big gifts that sustain the party, year in and year out, come from Jews.”274 Another article in the Wall Street Journal about campaign financing frankly stated that most of the money of the Democratic Party came from Jewish contributors, and half of the Republican war chest came from Jews as well. Campaign contributions to politicians are like oxygen; they are necessary for political life. Is there anyone who thinks that such money does not buy influence? Because Jewish money and organized Jewish support is so essential, Jewish advisors and assistants also become absolutely vital. Not long after Sen. Fulbright’s statement claiming Jewish control of the Senate, the highest-ranking military officer in the United States — General George Brown, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — spoke candidly at Duke University about the Jewish control of the American government, media, and economy:

We have the Israelis coming to us for equipment. We can say we can’t possibly get the Congress to support a program like this. And they say don’t worry about the Congress. We will take care of the Congress. This is somebody from another country, but they can do it. They own, you know, the banks in this country, the newspapers. Just look at where the Jewish money is.275 — (General George S. Brown, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) As I discussed in my chapter on Jewish group strategy, they ethnocentrically support each other until they come to dominate most organizations they are brought into. Such is also true of the American government. From the “advisory” roles of Bernard Baruch and Louis Brandeis to President Woodrow Wilson, to the complete domination of Bill Clinton’s National Security Council, Jewish power has grown steadily as the century draws to a close.

My awakening to Jewish power came in the mid-1960s, during the administrations of Johnson and Nixon. During the Johnson era, I was particularly aware of Wilbur Cohen who as head of the Health, Education, and Welfare Department, was pushing racial integration and the baby-factory welfare system that I saw as an inevitable disaster for America. I also knew that Zionist partisan Walt Rostow was one of Johnson’s chief foreign advisors, as was the ambassador to the United Nations, Arthur Goldberg.

Despite Richard Nixon’s supposedly cryptic, anti-Semitic views as exposed by the Watergate tapes, he feared their power and readily placated it. He surrounded himself with high-level Jewish advisors and cabinet members. He made Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State, and appointed James Schlesinger as Secretary of Defense — both crucial positions of course, in regard to Israel. In the economic realm he appointed Arthur Burns, chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Herbert Stein as his chief economic advisor, Laurence Silberman, as deputy Attorney General, and Leonard Garment, as legal council and head of the White House civil rights department. The Zionists covered all their bases, as they usually do, by also having key positions in the inner circles of the other party. Hubert Humphrey’s closest advisor, E. F. Berman, and Humphrey’s 11 largest contributors were Jews.276 George McGovern’s top advisor was Frank Mankiewicz.

After Nixon’s resignation, Gerald Ford kept Henry Kissinger and brought in an old Stalinist sympathizer, Edward Levi, as Attorney General, and he named Alan Greenspan as his chief economic advisor. Jimmy Carter continued the disproportionate Jewish representation by appointing Harold Brown as Secretary of Defense and adding a troop of the “Chosen” to the National Security Council and important economic positions. Reagan and Bush added to the Jewish onslaught with the appointment of a host of other Jews to positions throughout the bureaucracy, always reserving many key roles for Jews in foreign and economic policy. From the early days of the 20th century, Jewish power has steadily progressed until such enormous power is now breathtaking in its scope. As their power became more entrenched, the Jewish-dominated media found less need to deny its clout, in fact they may find it somewhat to their advantage to boast of it in the elite circles so as to make sure no Goyim will dare challenge it.

The major Israeli newspaper Maariv ran a story called “The Jews Who Run Clinton’s Court” on September 2, 1994, in which it boasts of the Jewish domination of Clinton’s advisors and cabinet. It quotes a prominent Washington rabbi to the effect that the government of the United States is no longer a government of Gentiles. It bears repeating:
The U.S. has no longer a government of Goyim [Gentiles], but an administration in which the Jews are full partners in the decision making at all levels.

Perhaps the aspects of the Jewish religious law connected with the term ‘government of goyim’ should be reexamined, since it is an outdated term in the U.S.277 The article boasts of their complete domination of the administration, and describes many top officials around the president as “warm Jews” on whom Israel can always count. In the National Security Council, 7 out of 11 top staffers are Jews. Clinton had especially placed them in the most sensitive junctions in the U.S. security and foreign administrations: Sandy Berger is the deputy chairman of the council; Martin Indyk, the intended ambassador to Israel, is a senior director in charge of the Middle East and South Asia; Dan Schifter, the senior director and adviser to the president, is in charge of Western Europe; Don Steinberg, the senior director and adviser to the president, is in charge of Africa; Richard Feinberg, the senior director and adviser to the president, in charge of Latin America; Stanley Ross, the senior director and adviser to the president, is in charge of Asia. The situation is not much different in the president’s office which is full of warm Jews: the new Attorney General, Abner Mikve: the president’s schedule and programs manager, Ricky Seidman; deputy chief of staff, Phil Leida; economic adviser, Robert Rubin; media director, David Heiser; staff director, Alice Rubin; Ely Segall, in charge of volunteers; Ira Mezina, in charge of the health program. Two Cabinet members, Labor Secretary Robert Reich and Micky Cantor in charge of international trade agreements, are Jewish.

They are joined by a long list of senior Jewish officials in the State Department, headed by the head of the Middle East Peace Team, Dennis Ross, and followed by many deputy secretaries and even more senior secretaries’ chiefs of staff. 278 Bar-Yosef begins the article by pointing out those “warm Jews” (dedicated Zionists) who every day go over the most secret intelligence information presented to the President of the United States. One wonders why Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard is locked up in federal prison when extreme partisans for Israel, such as Sandy Berger, have daily access to America’s most secret intelligence. Even in my college days, it was obvious to many people that the Jewish lobby had a tremendous impact on Capitol Hill and in the White House. A real dichotomy existed between what the politicians would do and what they would say. Even though Nixon ran on a conservative platform, which emphasized issues such as victory in Vietnam and opposition to forced busing, his administration began the first affirmative-action programs. Although he gave lip service to ending busing for racial integration, he appointed the officers in the Attorney General’s office who continued to push for it in courts across America. His Jewish Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, helped frame the Paris Peace Accords that led to the inevitable victory of the Viet Cong and a peace with “dishonor,” making meaningless the sacrifices of hundreds of thousands of American fighting men. Interestingly, many of the same dovish voices decrying the napalming of Viet Cong soldiers were Israeli hawks cheering the use of the same weapon on women and children in the Palestinian refugee camps. The Israeli newspaper also makes it clear that effective Jewish control includes both Democrats and Republicans:

Incidentally, although the Jewish power in the current Democratic Administration is so huge, there are also many warm Jews heading for the top positions in the Republican Party.279

Survey of Jews in critical Clinton Administration positions
Secretary of State
Secretary of the Treasury
Secretary of Defense
CIA chief
Head of National Security Council
Secretary of Agriculture
Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board
Health Care Chief
Head of Voice of America
Under Secretary of State for Europe
U.S. Trade Representative
Chief Aide to the First Lady
Heads National Economic Council
Heads National Health Care Policy
Deputy Secretary of State
Ass. Sec. of State for Congressional Affairs
On Board of Economic Council
On Board of Economic Council
Presidential Advisor
Council to the President
Deputy National Security Council
NSC Senior Director for Speechwriting
Drug Policy Coordinator
Special Liaison to the Jewish Community
Presidential Personal Chief
Presidential Attorney
Asian Expert on Security Council
Communications Aide
Communications Aide
Special Assistant to the President
National Health Care Advisor
National Security Council Member
Asst. Sec. of Veterans Affairs
Deputy Head of Food and Drug Admin.
White House council
Asst. Secretary of Education
Director of Press Conferences
Director of St. Dept. Policy
Member National Security Council
Member of the National Security Council
Director of the Peace Corps
Deputy Chief of Staff
Dep. Director of Man. and Budget
Under Secretary of State
Under Secretary of the Treasury
Special Council to the President
Special Representative to NATO
Chief of Social Security
Deputy White House Council
Special Advisor to the First Lady
Chief of Food and Drug Administration
Acting Solicitor General
Presidential Pollster
Special Middle East Representative
General Counsel for the FBI
White House Special Counsel
Secretary of Management and Budget
Heads FBI Equal Opportunity Office
Deputy Chief of Staff
Vice Chairman of Federal Reserve Board
Heads Council of Economic Advisors Madeleine Albright
Robert Rubin
William Cohen
George Tenet
Samuel Berger
Dan Glickman
Alan Greenspan
Sandy Kristoff
Evelyn Lieberman
Stuart Eisenstat
Charlene Barshefsky
Susan Thomases
Gene Sperling
Ira Magaziner
Peter Tarnoff
Wendy Sherman
Alice Rivlin
Janet Yellen
Rahm Emanuel
Doug Sosnik
Jim Steinberg
Anthony Blinken
Robert Weiner
Jay Footlik
Robert Nash
Jane Sherburne
Mark Penn
Robert Boorstine
Keith Boykin
Jeff Eller
Tom Epstein
Judith Feder
Richard Feinberg
Herschel Gober
Steve Kessler
Ron Klein
Margaret Hamburg
Karen Alder
Samuel Lewis
Stanley Ross
Dan Shifter
Eli Segal
Jack Lew
James P. Rubin
David Lipton
Lanny P. Breuer
Richard Holbrooke
Kenneth Apfel
Joel Klein
Sidney Blumenthal
David Kessler
Seth Waxman
Mark Penn
Dennis Ross
Howard Shapiro
Lanny Davis
Sally Katzen
Kathleen Koch
John Podesta
Alan Blinder
Jane Yellen
The primary use of Jewish power in Washington obviously is to promote Zionist interests, such as our pro-Israel policy. In that area, Israel has all her bases covered. The President’s top security advisors such as Sandy Berger and Leon Perth are dedicated Zionists, and they have Jews in the critical positions of Secretary of Defense William Cohen, and the Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. When the United States mediates Mideast peace talks between the Palestinians and the Israeli Prime Minister, Dennis Ross is the chief arbitrator — a nice, as they say, “warm” Jew. Is it any wonder that the Palestinians feel that they do not get a fair shake when the so-called mediators of the conflict are as dedicated a bunch of Zionists as are the official representatives of Israel. The hypocrisy goes on and on. Salon Magazine, in a February 17, 1997 article by their Washington correspondent, Jonathan Broder (a writer for the Jerusalem Report), had this to say:

WASHINGTON–following the recent revelations about Madeleine Albright’s Jewish roots, the new U.S. Secretary of State faces a new conundrum: All her top candidates for a slew of senior positions in the State Department are Jewish–and male. A number of foreign policy experts have been quick to note the exquisiteness of the irony. “It suggests that we’ve come a long way in this country from the days when the foreign service was reserved for a very WASPy elite,” says former National Security Council Middle East advisor Richard Haass, who now directs foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution.280 When Albright traveled to the Balkans, she attacked the immorality of Croatia for not allowing refugees to return. But, she makes no similar moral demands for Israel to allow the return of the million Palestinian refugees it has banned for decades.281

As any group seeking power would understand, economic prowess is the next important component of control after directly administered political power. Jewish power in the economic processes of our country is practically monolithic.

Many of these positions, of course, change from time to time, but as of this writing in the last term of President Clinton, Jews hold all the most powerful economic positions. The most powerful position of all is the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, and it is interesting to note that this critical economic appointee, Alan Greenspan, has remained in office through both Republican and Democrat administrations. Are Americans so naïve as to believe that this cohesive, ethnocentric people of immense wealth do not share information and network with their brethren for their own benefit? In the section on Jewish economic strategy within my upcoming chapter on the Roots of Anti Semitism, I point out how in the economic sphere, early knowledge of government policy or access to other privileged government information is worth countless billions of dollars. As I discovered these things, I asked myself, Do these Jewish economic czars have an opportunity to advance their own common interests? Does not reason suggest that they have pressed their own economic interests in the same way they have advanced their interests in America’s pro-Israel policy? Jewish interests go far beyond Israel and economic policy. The top advisors to the President of the United States influence every area of American life from welfare to taxes, immigration to criminal justice.

Consider their influence on the appointment of federal judges alone. In my own federal court district, the Eastern District of Louisiana, which has only a very small Jewish population, Jews constitute a third of the sitting federal judges. On the Supreme Court of the United States there are currently two Jews and seven Gentiles. Jews often have had specific agendas in the areas of civil rights, immigration, feminism, homosexuality, religious beliefs, the arts, gun control, and many other areas of American life. Invariably, they have insinuated themselves into positions of great power and influence which impact government policy on those and many other issues. It is not only President Clinton’s top advisors and councilors who are Jewish; Vice-president Al Gore’s Chief of Staff is the Jew, Ron Klein. So we can say that they are even prepared to mobilize in the event of the president’s death or impeachment. Perhaps one of the most telling indications of the special status of Jews in the U.S. government is the startling fact that Clinton has officially appointed a position of “Special Representative to the Jewish Community.” Jay Footlik’s position is a unique one as there is no “special representative” for any other ethnic, racial, or religious group. There is no representative exclusively for the Irish, Germans, or Italians or, for that matter, even Christians. But there is one for the Chosen, and it is easy to see why when one considers their incredible power. It is a power clearly understood by every President of the United States. A partial list of the key governmental positions occupied by Jews appears in this chapter. This list by no means shows their complete power. Who knows how many bureaucrats are like Madeleine Albright — Jews who expect us to believe that they don’t know they are Jewish until after they are appointed to office. The Spotlight282 newspaper as well as Dr. Edward R. Fields of the Truth at Last, and I have publicly talked about her Jewish pedigree for over two years before she supposedly knew of it.

One of the many low points of the Clinton administration was the pandering of the White House Lincoln bedroom for big campaign contributors. The newspaper Jewish Week proudly reports that: “There was a definite Semitic aspect to the list,” Said Johns Hopkins University political scientist Benjamin Ginsberg. In fact, half or more of the White House visitors listed were Jewish, … from the new DNC [Democratic National Committee] chair and former president of the pro- Israel lobby, Steve Grossman, to superstar singer Barbara Streisand. That result was hardly surprising, given the special character of Democratic party fund raising, Ginsberg said.283 Not only do Jews exercise great power inside the government bureaucracy and diplomatic corps, they also have disproportionate power in the lobbying organizations that most influence government. The three most powerful foreign-policy lobbying organizations on Capitol Hill are pro-Zionist organizations, and the heads or key administrators of many other special interest groups are Jews. They also have great influence in many foundations and organizations that in turn affect politicians and government. They include such groups as the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, and many more. Of course, they wield immense power in the press, such as Katherine (Meyer) Graham’s Washington Post and the Sulzberger’s New York Times, as well as having immense influence in television. Without question, the Jewish dominated media constitute the most powerful governmental lobby in the world.

Jewish power in government and media has grown so great that they appear to think they are unassailable. Upon the reelection of Bill Clinton to the presidency, Jewish Week, on January 24th, 1997, reported a gathering in Washington, D.C., at the Jewish Community Center for a “Jewish Leadership Celebration.” The article makes the case that in years past: Jewish leaders would not be so bold in celebrating Jewish political involvement…The worry was that acknowledging Jewish suc cesses would only reinforce anti-Semites. . . Jews feel secure enough in their accumulated clout…Politically we’ve come out of the closet…comfortable enough with our own achievements to celebrate them openly …the Jewish community has reached a kind of critical mass in politics that guarantees that many of the gains of the Clinton years will remain, no matter who occupies the White House.284 No matter who occupies the White House, they boast, their immense power will remain. Are they implying that no one could even attempt to become President without subservience to their power? If that implication were made by Gentiles, it certainly would be viewed as anti-Semitic. Perhaps the most telling barometer of whether the American government has become what some refer to as a Zionist Occupational Government, or “ZOG,” is Jewish representation in the diplomatic corps. If, after all, the government is in reality a “Jewish Occupational Government,” it certainly stands to reason that its key representatives overseas would reflect that fact. Here is the amazing list of Jewish Ambassadors (as of 1997), which does not include the multitude of Jewish bureaucrats and under-ambassadors serving lower-level positions.

America’s emissaries to its three closest neighbors, Canada, Mexico, and Cuba, are Jewish. They are: Ambassador Gordon Griffin for Canada, Jeffrey Davidow for Mexico, and our “U.S. Interest Diplomat” for Cuba is Michael Kozak. In the Middle East, America has Jewish Ambassadors to both Israel and to Egypt. Jewish diplomatic hegemony is equally impressive in Europe. Its two largest nations, France and Germany, have Jewish ambassadors: Felix Rohatyn in Paris and John C. Kornblum in Berlin. It hardly ends there, as Jews also serve as ambassadors to Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Belarus and Switzerland. Switzerland was successfully blackmailed by Edgar Bronfman’s World Jewish Congress over supposed Holocaust bank accounts. America’s Jewish Ambassador, Madeleine Kunin helped Bronfman. The New York Times on October 4, 1997 reported that she, “…doggedly pursues the Swiss on the issue of Gold for Holocaust survivors.”285 Just as they have come to be key advisors and appointees of the President of the United States, Jews are accomplished at their Jewishpartisan, team politics in the lower echelons of power as well. They hold a vastly disproportionate share of positions of influence in groups from social clubs to labor unions. Their domination of many labor unions is an ironic display of their power, for no group in the United States is less disposed to physical labor.

Clinton’s Ambassadors for Whom?
North America
Mexico – Jeffrey Davidow
Canada – Gordon Griffin
Cuba – Diplomat Michael G. Kozak
Turkey – Marc Grossman
Egypt – Daniel C. Kurtzner
Israel – Martin Indyk
India – Frank Wisner
New Zealand – Josiah H. Beeman
Morocco – Marc Ginsberg South
Africa – James A. Joseph
Singapore – Timothy A. Chorba
Brazil – Melvyn Levitsky
France – Felix Rohatyn
Belgium – John C. Kornblum
Germany – Alan J. Blinkin
Denmark – Edward R. Elson
Norway – David B. Hermelin
Sweden – Thomas L. Siebert
Switzerland – Madeleine Kunin
Poland – Daniel Fried
Hungary – Donald M. Blinken
Romania – Alfred H. Moses
Belarus – Kenneth S. Yalowitz
Such leadership may explain why union administrators have often sold out their overwhelmingly European-American membership by supporting programs such as affirmative action, and taking only half-hearted actions in opposition to free trade and immigration. Once in positions of great power, they are not reluctant to use their positions to advance an agenda that conflicts with the interests of the overall membership. In my campaigns for the U.S. Senate and for governor of Louisiana, Jewish officials in diverse groups from insurance companies to tourism — would use their influence in the organizations to promote their own political agenda against me.

A New President, the Same Jewish Agenda

The election of George Bush to the American Presidency in the year 2000, has had little effect on the overwhelming Jewish power in the American governmental bureaucracy. Although the Jewish establishment overwhelmingly supported Al Gore for President, it knew that Bush understood the political necessity of following political agendas set by supremacist Jews. Powerful Jews such as Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, continued to span both Democratic and Republican administrations. Although Jews lost some of their more visible positions in the new Bush administration, the underlying Jewish dominated, “civil service” bureaucracy has continued with a multitude of Jews holding critical “undersecretary” and “deputy” positions in the State Department, Pentagon, CIA, and other important agencies. Even President Bush’s primary public spokesman is appropriately Jewish. Press Secretary Ari Fleischer even shares the same ethnically-derived first name as Israeli Prime Minister Sharon. A recent Director of National Affairs (domestic policy) of the American Jewish Committee (Probably the most powerful Jewish organization in America), Dr. Stephen Steinlight, wrote an essay in October of 2001 about the Jewish-led, American immigration policy. It reveals much more than Jewish attitudes on immigration; it also exposes widespread sentiments of Jewish Supremacism and power. Jewish Political Power in 21st Century America In his article, “The Jewish Stake in America’s Changing Demography,” Steinlight writes of the preeminent Jewish role in changing American immigration policy over the last century to the point where Whites will now become a minority in America. He expresses fear that the change is now occurring so fast that, although multiculturalism has been a big advantage to Jewish power, it will pose a threat unless it is slowed to allow for Jewish propagandizing of the new arrivals. He is especially concerned about Muslim immigration, arguing that their voting and lobbying might pose a danger to Jewish political power. In making his case to his fellow Jews, he speaks guardedly, but makes some amazing admissions about Jewish power in America. …will Jewish sensitivities continue to enjoy extraordinarily high levels of deference and will Jewish interests continue to receive special protection? Does it matter that the majority non-European immigrants have no historical experience of the Holocaust or knowledge of the persecution of Jews over the ages and see Jews only as the most privileged and powerful of white Americans?286

Steinlight goes on to write about what he sees as a threat to Jewish power, and even indirectly reveals why real campaign finance reform (favored by overwhelming numbers of Americans) will fail. …Not that our disproportionate political power (pound for pound the greatest of any ethnic/cultural group in America) will erode all at once, or even quickly…Unless and until the triumph of campaign finance reform is complete, an extremely unlikely scenario, the great material wealth of the Jewish community will continue to give it significant advantages. We will continue to court and be courted by key figures in Congress. That power is exerted within the political system from the local to national levels through soft money, and especially the provision of out-of-state funds to candidates sympathetic to Israel,…287 He speaks frankly about the incredible power of the Jewish controlled media. It is also true that Jewish economic influence and power are disproportionately concentrated in Hollywood, television, and in the news industry, theoretically a boon in terms of the formation of favorable public images of Jews and sensitizing the American people to issues of concern to Jews…288 He even confesses the rampant Jewish supremacism of which most Gentiles are completely unaware. I’ll confess it, at least, like thousands of other typical Jewish kids of my generation, I was reared as a Jewish nationalist, even a quasi-separatist.

Every summer for two months for 10 formative years during my childhood and adolescence I attended Jewish summer camp. There, each morning, I saluted a foreign flag, dressed in a uniform reflecting its colors, sang a foreign national anthem, learned a foreign language, learned foreign folk songs and dances, and was taught that Israel was the true homeland. Emigration to Israel was considered the highest virtue, and, like many other Jewish teens of my generation, I spent two summers working in Israel on a collective farm while I contemplated that possibility. More tacitly and subconsciously, I was taught the superiority of my people to the gentiles who had oppressed us. We were taught to view non-Jews as untrustworthy outsiders, people from whom sudden gusts of hatred might be anticipated, people less sensitive, intelligent, and moral than ourselves. We were also taught that the lesson of our dark history is that we could rely on no one. …Of course we also saluted the American and Canadian flags and sang those anthems, usually with real feeling, but it was clear where our primary loyalty was meant to reside.289 If any Gentile politician dared to say that “typical Jewish kids” are taught that their real loyalty is to Israel rather than America, and that Jews teach their children that they are superior to Gentiles in intelligence and morals, he would be condemned and hounded out of politics as an anti-Semite. Yet, these are the precise words used by the head of the Domestic Policy division of American Jewish Committee. His words are not from an off-handed or careless conversation, but are the carefully chosen words of a major article he wrote for Jewish consumption. Steinlight even speaks frankly about one of the traditional methods of Jewish power: divide and conquer. (Note that the wording is similar to many other Jewish writers, they write as if they were at war with the Gentile world)

For perhaps another generation, an optimistic forecast, the Jewish community is thus in a position where it will be able to divide and conquer and enter into selective coalitions that support our agenda.290 I guess I am supposed to be an “anti-Semite” because I am one American citizen who prefers that our nation not be “divided and conquered.” Jewish political tactics similar to those used on the local and national level are employed in the international arena as well. Jews in critical positions in the U.S. government can use their influence to blackmail other nations of the world to support Israel. Foreign aid, trade status, and other U.S. policies are used like a carrot and stick to coerce other nations to support Israel’s position in the United Nations. Zionist influence is also used to buy off, with huge expenditures of American taxpayers’ money (as foreign aid), Israel’s enemies such as Egypt and Jordan. Jewish power in Government and media has also prodded U.S. military actions against Israel’s enemies such as Saddam Hussein or Muammar Kaddafi. America, with her great might, has become a surrogate strong-armed enforcer for Israel and the Jewish people world-wide. The tail truly wags the dog. In Switzerland’s battle with Edgar Bronfman’s World Jewish Congress, Zionists in the United States used our government to blackmail the Swiss into capitulating to Bronfman’s extortion of $1.2 billion dollars, by threatening to have the United States government shut down Swiss banking in the United States.291 Even city governments were used in the blackmail effort, and of course, New York City as a center of banking can severely punish the Swiss for failing to accede to Jewish demands. To quote the Times-Picayune of August 13, 1998, “A number of cities and states in the United States had threatened to impose sanctions on UBS. AG and the Credit Suisse group if they did not agree to an acceptable settlement.”

When I began the previous chapter on the Jewish domination of American media, I asked, “What if Iraqis who supported Saddam Hussein controlled the American media?” Americans would correctly see that situation as dangerous to our freedoms and our national interests. Suppose for a moment that the same Iraqis that were loyal to Saddam had the most powerful lobby in Washington, were the top national security advisors to the president, and practically controlled the economic policies of the United States. No true American patriot aware of that alien domination would tolerate it. Is the situation any less tolerable that these men and women are not Iraqis but fanatical Zionists reared in catechism of anti-Gentile, Jewish supremacy and completely dedicated to the most racist nation on earth? Few in America seem to ask these important questions. The silence is understandable, however, when one identifies the tribe who decides what questions are to be posed and what facts are to be given to the American people. It is also understandable, considering the real-life examples of the political consequences of telling the truth about Jewish Supremacism and power. Men such as Senator William Fulbright, Senator Charles Percy, Representative Paul Findley, Pat Buchanan and I have paid a high price for frankness. Congressman Findley wrote an excellent book detailing the incredible intimidation and suppression exercised against those who stood up against the Israel Lobby: They Dare to Speak Out.292 Perhaps the Jews have every right to try to influence the American government and its policies. But we, the great majority of the American people, have the right to demand that our government be “ours” and not “theirs.” The right of self-government is basic to all political freedom. A government manipulated against the best interests of its people on behalf of a tiny minority is called tyranny. When some of my friends in the patriotic movement coined the aforementioned term Zionist Occupation Government, or ZOG, I thought the term a bit extreme, but after much reading and thought, I realized that it is a rather apt description of the sad state of affairs in Washington, D.C.

The quotation from the Israeli Maariv newspaper should send a shiver up the spine of every loyal American. I will quote it for the third time, and I will do so again and again in my political life, until the American people understand its gravity:
The U.S. has no longer a government of Goyim [Gentiles], but an administration in which the Jews are full partners in the decision making at all levels.
Perhaps the aspects of the Jewish religious law connected with the term ‘government of goyim’ should be reexamined, since it is an outdated term in the U.S.293

So America no longer has a “government of Goyim,” and the only ones who make a point of saying it publicly are Zionists boasting for the edification of their fellow Jews in Israel. It is my belief that there are still millions of Americans, who, if they have the opportunity to read these lines will become as angry as the character of Howard Beale in the movie Network.294 They will become “mad as hell” and they will do what it takes to change things so that the next generation of Americans will not have to “take it anymore.” The human instinct to protect one’s family, race, and nation is called patriotism. It beseeches us to oppose any alien group seeking the control our nation’s government, whether it be Zionists, Iraqis, Germans, or even, theoretically, the fanciful notion of invaders from outer space. Such impulses are not Anti-Semitism but simply good patriotism. We have every right to stand up for ourselves just as Jews stand up for themselves. Stephen Steinlight, the AJC director who I have quoted extensively, put it in elemental terms. He wrote, We rightly ask, “If I am not for myself who will be for me?”295 In America and the Western world, only Jews are allowed to exhibit true patriotism — for those of us whose patriotism dares to go beyond enjoying the fireworks on the Fourth of July, we are attacked relentlessly. Jews who seek to exert control over other nations are never condemned, but we Gentiles who simply express the natural desire to have our own nations reflect our own traditions, values and interests; are branded as anti-Semitic and hateful. This rank hypocrisy will be swept away only after the Jewish stranglehold on the media and government is broken.


PAGE – 7

[Anti-Semitism] is an understandable reaction to Jewish defects – Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism (From his diaries, as quoted by Arthur Kornberg 296) When I became aware of the existence of Jewish Supremacism and its powerful influence in the United States government and the American media, I spoke openly about it. In a high school civics-class I remarked that Jewish bureaucrats who authored American Mideast policy had a potential conflict of interest. In an effort to quickly dismiss me, my teacher quickly pointed out that the President of the United States was a Gentile. I recounted to her what I thought was an impressive list of important government positions that were held by Zionist Jews who would likely put Israel’s interests over that of strategic American interests.

My teacher, frustrated in trying to rebut my points, dropped an intellectual atomic bomb. “That’s the kind of sentiment that led to the deaths of six million Jews,” she said. “You don’t want to give us the impression that you’re an anti-Semite, do you?” The usually restless and boisterous class became still, and I fell silent. I feared being accused of Anti-Semitism. What was Anti-Semitism? Had I become an anti-Semite for simply opposing elements of Jewish Supremacism? That very afternoon I went to the school library and found some books on Anti-Semitism. Jews wrote all of them, and from what I could discern, most of the writers were Zionists. I looked up Anti- Semitism in the four encyclopedias on the library shelves, and found that all of the articles on Anti-Semitism had Jewish authors. As illustrated by the popular Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia by Funk and Wagnall’s, they are still authoring almost all the articles on anti-Semitism. The Encarta article on Anti-Semitism has a Jewish author, Nahum Norbert Glatzer, a revered scholar in the Jewish community and author of the very supremacist and ethnocentric Jewish History. Encarta also has a recommended reading list on Anti- Semitism. I reproduce it here.

Bein, Alex. The Jewish Question: Biography of a World Problem. Fairleigh Dickinson, 1990. History of Anti-Semitism world-wide. Belth, Nathan C. A Promise to Keep: A Narrative of the American Encounter with Anti-Semitism. Various publishers. Historical account of Anti-Semitism in America and Anti-Defamation League efforts to combat it; for general readers. Furet, François, ed. Unanswered Questions: Nazi Germany and the Genocide of the Jews. Schocken, 1989. Balanced collection of essays covering a variety of issues on the Nazis and Jews of Europe. (“balanced”? It is anything but balanced) Gerber, David A., ed. Anti-Semitism in American History. Illinois, 1986. Collection of essays focusing on hostility towards Jews in America. Katz, Jacob. From Prejudice to Destruction: Anti-Semitism, 1700-1933. Harvard, 1980, 1982. Recommended historical survey of Anti-Semitism in France, Austria, Germany, and Hungary. Lewis, Bernard. Semites and Anti-Semites: An Inquiry Into Conflict and Prejudice. Norton, 1987. Analysis of Anti-Semitism in the Islamic World. Poliakov, Leon. The History of Anti-Semitism. 3v. Vanguard, 1964-75. V.1, Christ to Court Jews; V.2, Mohammed to Marranos; V.3, Voltaire to Wagner; V.4, Suicidal Europe, 1870-1933; translated from the French. Reinharz, Jehuda, ed. Living With Anti-Semitism: Modern Jewish Responses. Brandeis Books/University Press of New England, 1987. Essays on varied reactions over 200 years, arranged geographically.297 The theme common to the article and all Jewish-authored books recommended by the encyclopedia is rather simple: Throughout history, Jews have been innocent victims of evil Gentiles. In hundreds of civil, national, and religious reactions against the Jews outlined by these books, there is never a hint that Jews could have done anything of a disreputable nature. They were always innocent little lambs led to the slaughter. Christians, Muslims, Zoroastrians, Pagans and other antagonists are all said to be motivated by religious or ethnic intolerance and hatred of Jews. The books also argue that innocent Jews are universally made into scapegoats for social and economic problems. Just so the reader understands that Encarta is not an exception, I also reproduce here the suggested reading list at the end of Grolier’s Encyclopedia’s article on Anti-Semitism.298 Erich Rosenthal wrote its article and presumably picked out the reading list. Bibliography: Almog, Shmuel, Anti-Semitism through the Ages (1988) Arendt, Hannah, The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951; repr. 1983) Curtis, Michael, ed., Anti-Semitism. (1986) Katz, Jacob, From Prejudice to Destruction (1980) in the Contemporary World (1985); Dinnerstein, Leonard, Anti-Semitism in America (1994; repr. 1995) Gager, J. G., The Origins of Anti-Semitism (1983) Gerber, D. A., ed., Anti-Semitism in American History Poliakov, Leon. The History of Anti-Semitism, 4 vols. Aren’t these suggested reading lists equivalent to recommending articles on the Arab-Israeli conflict written only by Palestinians or articles on anti-Communism written only by Communists?

It is suggested by some of the authors that inherent Jewish superiority in ability and morals causes Gentiles to be jealous and spiteful. Many books on Anti-Semitism even argue that Anti- Semitism is a manifestation of mental illness and that it is an inherent defect among Gentiles. In discussing the almost universal, oftrepeated anti-Jewish attitudes of the past 2,000 years, Glatzer, Rosenthal, and the other writers fail to recognize a few things. They never make the slightest suggestion that the Jewish people may have been at least in part responsible for the repeated negative reactions to them. One would also never suspect that Jews themselves held any intolerant attitudes toward Christians and other Gentiles. Without exception, in every conflict between Jews and Gentiles, the Gentiles and Christians are depicted as evil, while the Jews are depicted as paragons of goodness.299 300 301 302

Glatzner, Rosenthal, and the other Jewish partisans have a onesided point of view. None of their books mention that the negative Christian reaction to Judaism arose out of the Jewish anti-Gentile rhetoric of the Talmud and the persecution of early Christians by Jews such as Paul (Saul) until his conversion. Viciously anti-Gentile, Jewish teachings long predated the anti-Jewish Christian writers. None of these Jewish authors mention this important fact.

The more I read, the more I realized that the articles and books castigating Europeans as anti-Semites are racist in the most pejorative sense. To portray a race of people as inherently psychotic and murderous is just about the worst thing someone can say about a race. And yet, the mainstream Jewish media characterizes European Christians precisely that way. And, it must be said that the media also categorizes Palestinians and Arabs in the most unflattering ways. So this is how I am supposed to get to the truth about Anti-Semitism, I thought. Jewish chauvinists must explain it to me. If that is good logic, then we might as well learn about the Second World War only from the perspective of Nazis or the history of the Palestinian people only from followers of Menachem Begin. How could anyone discover the truth about the causes of the Gentile-Jewish conflict from reading only the Jewish side of it, or from only those Gentiles who endorse the Jewish view? Gentile writers cannot help but learn quickly that there are great advantages to adopting the Jewish point of view to get their books accepted by major publishers or reviewed in the thoroughly Jewish New York Times Book Review. The same is true if they want to be interviewed on programs such as the Jewish-produced Today Show. And, of course, they must promote philo-Semitism for their works to become “recommended reading” by the encyclopedias. Why, in all the mainstream media, are people not allowed to hear the reasonable view that Anti-Semitism has frequently been a reaction to Jewish Supremacism and misanthropy? Certainly, there have been intolerant outbreaks of Anti-Semitism in which innocent Jews have suffered or died. That being said, we must also acknowledge that Jews have had more than their share of anti-Gentile intolerance. However, we never hear about the Jewish excesses. To end the recurring cycles of Anti-Semitism, we must try to learn its real causes.

Is Anti-Semitism an irrational response that finds its genesis in the mental pathology of its adherents, or does it find its origin as an understandable reaction to Jewish behaviors? It is reasonable to think that Jewish supremacy and Anti-Semitism nourished each other over the generations, ultimately producing the modern horrors of the Second World War, the Holocaust and Zionist imperialism. The conflict may well reach a dehumanizing crescendo in the 21st century unless we learn the true roots of the conflict between Jew and Gentile. To understand what has motivated Gentile opposition to Jews as a group, it is important to be aware of Jewish patterns of behavior that Glatzner and other authorities on Anti-Semitism fail to acknowledge. So-called anti-Semites have alleged over the centuries that, as a group, Jews have disproportionately engaged in unethical and exploitative practices such as usury, the slave trade, prostitution, fraudulent business schemes and various other criminal enterprises. Many have alleged that Jews use unethical business practices and collusion to gain control over commerce. Anti-Semites have charged that many historic examples exist of Jews collaborating with the foreign enemies of their host nations. Charges of Jewish disloyalty have been voiced since the time of their sojourn in Egypt, and have continued to the present day. The case of convicted Israeli spy, Jonathan Pollard, is a recent example.

It was time for me to dig into the roots of Anti-Semitism. Religious Intolerance or Economic Resentment? When I delved into the great body of popular Jewish authors on Anti-Semitism, two themes emerged. The first and most popular theme is that Anti-Semitism stems from the fact that Gentiles blame Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus. To quote the Encarta Encyclopedia, “Jews from the fourth century and perhaps even before then were viewed as the killers of Jesus Christ.” Another theme of Jewish and philo-Jewish writers is that Anti-Semitism arose from Gentile jealousy of Jewish economic and social success. Jewish writer Arthur Hertzberg shows how blaming Anti-Semitism on Christian intolerance has a strategic advantage:

To blame Christianity and only Christianity for most Anti- Semitism has certain advantages for Jews. Their sufferings through the centuries can be conceived as noble martyrdom; the attacks on Jews are not to be connected with their own distinctive beliefs, culture, and patterns of behavior, and in some cases their faults, but only with their faith. –Arthur Hertzberg 303 Thorough study of historical Jewish-Gentile interaction reveals that blaming the crucifixion of Christ on the Jews had only a minor role in ancient and modern Anti-Semitism. For instance, biblical passages asserting that Jews crucified Jesus Christ did not prevent Christians from trying to convert Jews and bring them into the Christian community. Obviously, the Christian Church did not see Jews as irredeemable because of the actions of their pharisaic ancestors. Early multiethnic Christians opposed Jews not on the basis of race or ethnicity, but primarily because of Jewish beliefs and practices. In regard to religion, Jews as a group were opposed primarily because of the intractable anti-Christian and anti-Gentile character of the Talmud and concomitant anti-Christian acts — illustrated by the mass persecution and murder of Christians by the emperor Nero’s Jewish mistress, Poppaea Sabina.304 305 In stark contrast to the ethnically more tolerant Christians, Jews based their opposition to Gentiles on race. While Christians repeatedly tried to convert Jews, Jews made no real attempt to convert Christians. Instead, they erected barriers to conversion, and the small number of Gentiles who did convert were designated, according to Jewish law, as bastards. Jewish priests were forbidden to marry Jews who were converts or even descendants of converts, a policy still in effect today. 306 In all of Jewish history in Western civilization there is not one Gentile convert who became a significant Jewish leader.

Christianity evolved from a precarious, fledgling faith into the state religion of Rome, and later Europe itself became synonymous with Christendom. Once secure in its own power, Christianity became more tolerant of other faiths — even if disapproving of them. Hostility toward Jews found its base in economic, social, ethnic, and political issues, and there is much evidence that these factors dominated anti- Jewish attitudes even during times of little religious turmoil. For instance, Anti-Semitism was not historically limited to Christians but found virulent expression before the Christian era and in many non- Christian lands. Religious antagonism often seemed to be a rationalization of economic and social hostility.

I sought out the works of the giants of European literature, philosophy and science on the Jewish issue. Sometimes I would spend hours in the library looking up “Jews” and “Judaism” in the indexes of the books of some of the greatest Western writers. I found that many had things to say that would be considered anti-Semitic today. It would be impossible to list them all, but a few of them include Milton, most of the Catholic Popes as well as major Protestant leaders, Shakespeare, Kant, Goethe, Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Voltaire, Shaw, Emerson, Melville and Dickens. Even my favorite American author, Mark Twain, made some interesting comments about the Jews. Most of Twain’s remarks on the Jews in an 1899 Harper’s magazine article are extremely flattering to the Jewish people. But some parts of his essay are impermissible today. In the cotton States, after the war, the simple and ignorant negroes made the crops for the white planter on shares. The Jew came down in force, set up shop on the plantation, supplied all the negro’s wants on credit, and at the end of the season was proprietor of the negro’s share of the present crop and of part of his share of the next one. Before long, the whites detested the Jew, and it is doubtful if the negro loved him… The Jew is being legislated out of Russia. The reason is not concealed…. He was always ready to lend money on a crop, and sell vodka and other necessaries of life on credit while the crop was growing. When settlement day came he owned the crop; and next year or year after he owned the farm, like Joseph… In the dull and ignorant England of John’s time everybody got into debt to the Jew. He gathered all lucrative enterprises into his hands; he was the king of commerce; he was ready to be helpful in all profitable ways…

Religious prejudices may account for one part of it, [anti-Semitic Prejudice] but not for the other nine. 307 To my amazement, Jewish histories, which are intended mainly for Jewish eyes, frankly record cases of Jewish economic exploitation from ancient times to the present. I found the Jewish historians far more enlightening on the issue than the Gentile writers. They had no prejudice against Jews; if anything, they had a clearly supremacist bias for their own people. Many of them practically gloated about their financial victories over the Goyim.


Jews are a nation of usurers . . . outwitting the people amongst whom they find shelter. . . . They make the slogan ‘let the buyer beware’ their highest principle in dealing with us — Imanuel Kant308 The philosopher Immanual Kant was not the first Westerner to make the charge that the Jews are a nation of usurers, and that their economic practices were often exploitative. Since the Israelite sojourn in Egypt, non-Jewish politicians, theologians, and chroniclers have spoken of Jewish avarice and exploitative practices. Even Shakespeare immortalized the Jewish usurer in The Merchant of Venice through his character Shylock, who, in the absence of the money due him, demands the Christian’s “pound of flesh.” There are numerous examples of medieval governments receiving huge percentages of their revenues from the taxation received on the profits of Jewish usury. In the Diaspora (the Jewish people living outside of Palestine) there is a pattern of Jews being employed by Gentile kings and governments as tax farmers and revenue collectors, and of their being utilized as the administrators of foreign occupational governments. By their very nature, farming and ranching require periodic infusions of capital. Diseases, insect infestation, and natural disasters can place those who cultivate crops or animals at the mercy of those who have ready money to lend. This is especially true among those who draw little more than their essential sustenance from such pursuits, which was true for most people from ancient times to the modern era. Historically, such needs for capital were often provided by cooperatives and intervention by the civil authorities, but more often such needs went unanswered, resulting in times of severe suffering and want. In all business, capital is crucial to ameliorating the unforgiving cycles of prosperity and recession. Amid these economic uncertainties enters the Jewish moneylender, far more skilled and knowledgeable in the manipulation of currency and gold than his customers. There was little financial regulation of lending practices until fairly recent times, offering many opportunities for the unscrupulous. It should be made clear that the term usury means not simply a fair and moderate interest rate but an excessive one. Usury would be what one would call loansharking today — with exorbitant interest and compound interest rates.

usury n.

1. the lending or practice of lending money at an exorbitant interest.
2. an exorbitant amount or rate of interest, esp. in excess of the legal rate.
3. Obs. interest paid for the use of money.

loansharking n.

the practice of lending money at excessive rates of interest Random House Webster’s Unabridged Electronic Dictionary 1996

Jews themselves understood the exploitive nature of their usurious practice on the Gentiles. Maimonides, who is considered the greatest European Jewish teacher, wrote the following in his important Book of Civil Laws: It is permissible to borrow from a heathen or from an alien resident and to lend to him at interest. For it is written Thou shalt not lend upon interest to thy brother (Deut. 23:20)309 — to thy brother it is forbidden, but to the rest of the world it is permissible. Indeed, it is an affirmative commandment to lend money at interest to a heathen. For it is written Unto the heathen thou shalt lend upon interest (Deut. 23:21).310 ( The Code of Maimonides, Book 13, The Book of Civil Laws, ch. V:1, 93)311 Nesek (“biting,” usury) and marbit (“increase,” interest) are one and the same thing. . . . Why is it called nesek? because he who takes it bites his fellow, causes pain to him, and eats his flesh. ( The Code of Maimonides, Book 13, The Book of Civil Laws, ch. IV:1, 88-89)
The usury practiced by the Jews of the medieval world are outrageous by modern standards.

• In A History of the Jews in England, Cecil Roth finds Jews charging interest rates between 22 and 43 percent. 312 In northern France the interest rate was limited to 43 percent in 1206 as the authorities tried to reduce the prevailing rate of 65 percent plus compounding. 313
• In The Jews of Poland: A Social and Economic History of the Jewish Community in Poland from 1100 to 1800, writer Bernard Weinryb shows similar outlandish rates in Poland in the 14th and 15th centuries.314
• In the 1942 book The Jews in Spain: Their Political and Cultural Life During the Middle Ages, the Jewish author A. A. Neuman writes that in Castile the authorities allowed Jews to charge an interest rate of 33 1/3 percent. When farmers desperately needed to purchase seed during the great famine in Cuenca in 1326, the Jews refused to lend money unless they were allowed 40 percent.315
The most important political document from medieval England and perhaps in the history of Western civilization, the Magna Carta (revealing their common presence) declares that widows and orphans have first claim on estates over Jewish moneylenders.316

In The Social Life of the Jews of Northern France in the XII-XIV Centuries as Reflected in the Rabbinical Literature of the Period, Louis Rabinowitz notes how the Jewish usurers themselves saw their occupation as far more profitable than farming or artisanry.317 Many Jewish historians have documented the tremendous wealth accumulated by the Jews through usury. Rabinowitz points out, for example, that the taxes on Jewish usury alone amounted to more than the rest of the ordinary royal revenues in France in 1221. King Louis IX, who vigorously denounced the Talmud, had more concern over the Jewish economic predatory behavior. In 1254 he barred Jews from moneylending and said they should live by trade and manual labor. As an illustration of the far-reaching impact of Jewish usury, Achille Luchaire shows that in medieval Europe even many churches and monasteries were closed because of debts owed to the Jewish moneylenders.318 Jacob R. Marcus, one of the world’s leading Jewish historians, in his Encyclopaedia Britannica article “Jews,” states, “the floating wealth of the country was soaked up by the Jews, who were periodically made to disgorge into the exchequer.” 319 Gentile opposition to Jewish predatory economic activity, far from always being pathologic and hateful against Jews, was more often rational and compassionate. Today loansharking is viewed as a pernicious activity that deserves criminal prosecution. It has been also shown that in communities that limited such activity, Anti-Semitism was also mitigated. Davidson quotes two patricians in 16th century Venice as saying that moneylending is the way that the Jews “consume and devour the people of this, our city.” 320 The Venetian authorities eventually codified precise regulations of Jewish economic activity, including a maximum interest rate of 5 percent on loans.321 Brian Pullen quotes a rabbi of the times who, after elucidating the causes of Anti-Semitism elsewhere, noted: Usury makes them unpopular with all the orders of the city; engaging in crafts with the lesser people; the possession of property with nobles and great men. These are the reasons why the Jews do not dwell in many places. But these circumstances do not arise in Venice, where the rate of interest is only 5 percent, and the banks are established for the benefit of the poor and not for the profit of the bankers. 322 Arthur Kornberg, in Theodor Herzl: From Assimilation to Zionism, quotes extensively from the founder of modern Zionism, Theodore Herzl — including fascinating parts of his diary. Herzl writes that Anti-Semitism arising from Jewish financial domination was completely understandable and insisted that “one could not expect a ma jority to ‘let themselves be subjugated’ by formerly scorned outsiders whom they had just released from the ghetto.”323 In another section he quotes Herzl as saying that Jews had been educated to be “leeches” that possessed “frightful financial power” and were a “moneyworshipping people incapable of understanding that a man can act out of other motives than money.” 324Herzl commented, “I find the anti-Semites fully within their rights.”325 Modern Jewish writers on Anti-Semitism never acknowledge the possibility that Gentiles have a basic right to defend themselves from “frightful” Jewish financial power and that anti-Semites could be “fully within their rights.” If a Gentile described Jewish financial predators as “leeches,” — even when such is acknowledged by one of the leading lights of Zionism — he would certainly be called an anti- Semite.

Is it any wonder that a thoughtful Christian such as Saint Thomas Aquinas, who was considered a great exponent of love and charity, would also speak out against the Jewish practice of usury? The Jews should not be allowed to keep what they have obtained from others by usury; it were best that they were compelled to work so that they could earn their living instead of doing nothing but becoming avaricious.” — THOMAS AQUINAS, Saint. 13th century scholastic philosopher.326 As I read more Jewish histories, I learned that usury was just one of many predatory financial practices in the commercial sector that provoked opposition in the Christian community. Jewish Commercial Activities Usury was the greatest source of Jewish power and certainly the wellspring of the Jewish banking families that dominated Europe for hundreds of years, but Jews also found profit in many other activities, both credible and contemptible. While Jewish religious teaching forbade usury to fellow Jews as a pernicious practice, it encouraged Jews to engage in usury against the Gentiles. The same principle extended to every economic competition between Jew and Gentile. Financial acumen combined with powerful group cohesion and economic strategy provided powerful weapons in the battle for commercial dominance in Europe and later in America. The fact that Jews practiced a dual set of ethics — an altruistic one for themselves and a predatory one for Gentiles — contributed to their economic domination even in the more ordinary business endeavors.

Many of the most egregious practices were condemned by a (Jewish) Frankfort synod of 1603 in order to prevent hillul hashem (disgrace of the Jewish religion). “Those who deceive Gentiles profane the name of the Lord among the Gentiles.”327 That statement has been much quoted by those who dismiss anti- Gentile financial measures as representative of a bygone era. However, a subsequent rabbinic responsa clarified the issue as a result of a dispute between two Jews who contested the spoils of the deception of a Gentile. It held that exploitation and deceit against Gentiles is permissible as long hillul hashem does not occur; that is, if the act does not damage the Jews as a group. Jacob Katz says, “Ethical norms applied only to one’s own kind.”328 Just as it was morally wrong to practice usury on fellow Jews and morally commendable to be usurious with Gentiles, it is decreed morally ethical for Jews to engage in profitable unethical acts toward Gentiles as long as they can do so without harming the Jewish community. The following passage from the vital Code of Maimonides clearly shows the dual economic morality in business dealings. It should not be forgotten that Jews consider Maimonides their greatest philosopher during the enlightenment. A heathen cannot prefer charges of overreaching because it is said ” one his brother” (Lev. 25:14).329 However, if a heathen has defrauded an Israelite he must return the overcharge according to our laws (in order that the rights of) a heathen should not exceed (those of) an Israelite. ( The Code of Maimonides, Book 12, The Book of Acquisition)330 Jewish teaching commanded Jews to aid their brothers and not to compete with one another in attempts to exploit Gentiles. Jacob Katz traces a large body of Jewish literature forbidding competition between Jews. They were barred from interfering with monopolies controlled by other Jews and from underbidding fellow Jews. They were always to cooperate with other Jews in the face of Gentile competition so as “not to lose the money of Israel.”331

The Jewish Team Strategy

It is difficult to overstate how Jewish economic solidarity and, when they deem them necessary, economic boycott or hostility can injure commercial enterprise. In my chapter on media control, I discussed the well-coordinated Jewish takeover of the Gentile-owned Times-Herald in Washington, D.C., which was accomplished by quietly having Jewish advertisers and agencies leave the Herald and drive it into insolvency and then returning their revenue after the newspaper was safely in Jewish hands. Such is indicative of the many ways that group strategy can have tremendous economic impact on almost any business enterprise.

Take, for example, the impact that government has on almost any major corporation in America. Key bureaucrats can influence government contracts, environmental compliance, civil rights, tax liability, and regulations on items such as food and drugs. If a Jewish government administrator has hostility toward a particular corporation — or a vested interest in it — obviously he can have a tremendous impact on its financial health. If a Jew has an important corporate purchasing authority, he can choose to buy a product from either a Gentile firm or one owned by fellow Jews. His decision will have a profound effect, for good or ill, on the two entities. The Gentile in this instance has been conditioned to think that everyone must be judged on his or her merits and that it would be immoral to be biased for his own race. Furthermore, he learns that his primary mission is the good of the company or government agency he serves. The Jew, on the other hand, has been conditioned from early life to think in terms of the good of his group and of Gentile perfidy from Pharaoh to Hitler. Is it any wonder that the Jewish manager is likely to choose the Jewish firm to fill the contract or the Jewish applicant to fill the important executive vacancy? Such actions might seem altruistic, but they are also self-serving, for just as he knows he will assist a fellow Jew when he can, he knows that somewhere along the line he will be assisted in the same way.

A classic example of ruthless Jewish team business strategy was revealed in a 2001 study by Avner Halperin of MIT’s Faculty of Business Administration. The Israeli daily Ha’aretz had a story about Halperin’s study called, “Why American CEOs of Israeli Firms Fail.” 332 It stated, “Lots of startups hired Americans as top executives in order to facilitate entry into the United States market.” The gist of the article is that dozens of Israeli firms lured American executives to their firms as executive officers so as to get a jump start in American markets. Not surprisingly for anyone who understands Jewish team ethics and strategy, all the Gentile hires were fired after they had served their purpose. The Jewish Mr. Halperin blames the firings on cultural clashes between Jews and Gentiles, but the fact remains that in his study of over 90 firms with 25% of them having hired a Gentile CEO, that, “The result: every one of the companies wound up firing their American CEO.”333 While ever increasing numbers of American firms such as Disney are taken over by team-aligned Jews (while Gentiles are told it would be wrong to discriminate against Jews or any other minority), Jewish firms work relentlessly purge any potential Gentile interlopers.

Historically there are many examples of this “team effort” utilized for economic and political advantage. Roth discusses the appointment of a Marrano Jew, Diego Arias Davilia, as state treasurer in 15th century Spain.334 The terms “Marrano” and “New Christian” are used to denote Jews who falsely converted to Christianity, while practicing Judaism covertly.335 Roth points out that through Davilia’s influence many other “New Christians” rose to high positions. He also shows that the Marranos also controlled all New World imports and exports as well as their distribution in Spain. If Roth is right and the Jews, as a closed syndicate, controlled all the trade during that period, would not that cause hostility from Gentile merchants? All over Europe the Jews used their common languages and organizations to gain a competitive advantage over Christians and Muslims in the Mediterranean region. In his book The Jews of the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic, Stanford Shaw shows how Jews had a system of bills of exchange honored only by other Jewish traders and bankers, giving them a competitive edge.336 A case study in Opatow, Poland, during the 17th and 18th centuries by Gershon Hundert called The Jews in a Polish Private Town: The Case of Opatow in the Eighteenth Century337 illustrates how the Jews came to dominate commercial life. There were constant complaints that the Jews refused to join the craft guilds; that they controlled the trade and prices of raw materials; that they imported finished goods into the town, undercutting the local Christian artisans; that they did not buy from Christians; that there were complaints . . . that Jews had pushed Christians entirely out of commerce, with the result that Christian merchants were forced to move elsewhere.338 Hundert writes that “Jewish domination of the town’s commerce . . . was almost complete.”339 He also notes that Jews came to dominate all phases of the alcoholic beverage business, including its manufacturing, distribution and retail. Some Jewish writers even implied that Jewish union leaders in America were more inclined to be conciliatory to management if their union membership was mostly Gentile rather than Jewish.340 If that is true, then one could presume that Jewish firms would be likely to get more favorable labor agreements than Gentile firms. One can easily see the powerful advantage such firms would have over their Gentile competitors. There are many ways that group cohesiveness and loyalty can corrupt and ultimately pervert supposedly free markets.

Banks and Stock Exchanges

The first family of banking over the last two centuries has been the Rothschilds. From them came the most powerful banking houses of Europe. The founder of the House of Rothschild, Mayer Amschel Rothschild, was born in 1743 in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Amschel studied first to be a rabbi and then decided to go into moneylending and finance instead. He ultimately became the financial agent of the British government during the Napoleonic Wars and launched the greatest banking houses in Europe, with his sons going to the continent’s major capitals and establishing banks there. I read a very flattering book on the Rothschilds that related the story of Mayer Amschel’s most famous financial coup. During the great battle between Napoleon and Wellington at Waterloo, the London stock market suffered as traders worried about the possibility of Napoleon’s victory. Amschel saw the important battle as an unparalleled business opportunity. Knowing that if Napoleon won, the stock market would crash, and that if France lost, the market would soar, Amschel set up a system whereby he would learn the outcome of the war before anyone else got the news. Using carrier pigeons over land and a series of boats with signal lanterns at intervals of a mile or so across the English Channel, he learned before anyone else that Napoleon had lost at Waterloo. He then had his confederates put out the false information that Napoleon had won. This lie led to a devastating crash of the London stock exchange. Valuable stocks sold for pennies on the dollar. Amschel and his Jewish associates, knowing that Britain had actually won, bought up the stocks for a pittance. Overnight, as the London market learned of the British victory, these stocks became worth a huge fortune. The book presented the Rothschild’s fraud as clever and admirable. One must pause to think about the fortunes lost — fortunes that had been acquired by years of toil and genius — of businesses literally stolen from their creators, of lives broken. Did the author think that this huge fortune simply materialized out of the air? Did the author care that money comes not only from those who create and lead companies, but also from the hard work of thousands of laborers? Such a theft affects salaries, working conditions, employment and many other factors. Many hundreds of thousands ultimately had to pay the high cost of Rothschild’s swindle. Mayer Amschel used the enormous wealth he acquired through his Waterloo scheme (among others) to establish his five sons, Am schel, Salomon, Nathan, Karl, and James, in their own banking houses across Europe. As discussed in my chapter on the Russian Revolution, the Rothschilds have readily used their massive wealth to influence nations on behalf of Jewish interests, as when they ripened Russia for revolution by canceling loans in protest over the Czar’s May Laws.341 Rothschild’s ill-gotten wealth also effectively bought his family the first Jewish seat in the British Parliament and even membership in the British aristocracy. By combining the power of their own family’s huge banks and other Jewish-owned banks, they could literally bring a nation’s economy to its knees. By dominating international banking, they could set their own financial terms to cash-hungry nations and amass even greater riches.

Because of the competitive advantages of Rothschild’s international contacts, Jews dominated private banking throughout Europe. For instance, there was almost a complete absence of Gentile banking firms in Prussia in the late 19th century. In 1923 Berlin there were 150 Jewish banks and only 11 non-Jewish banks.342 343 In the stock market, schemes similar to Rothschild’s Waterloo ploy have been used for generations, finally resulting in the center of world trading, Wall Street, becoming dominated by Jewish stock and investment- banker operations. In the book Our Crowd and a relatively recent one, the New Crowd: The Changing Jewish Guard on Wall Street, Jewish writers Judith Ehrlich and Barry Rehfeld fawningly relate the overwhelming Jewish takeover of the nexus of the American economy.344 345 Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken, who stole close to two billion dollars between them, are glowing praised for their brilliance and market savvy. When I was in high school, my father had some modest stock investments. His broker was a politically conservative Jew, R. Newmann of the firm of Kohlmeyer & Company. I got a job working for Newmann, “plotting curves” — the term for charting stocks and commodities. At the time of my employment, I had little understanding on the Jewish issue. I liked Newmann, and he always seemed to have a pertinent statement handy in response to the latest outrages of liberalism. Newmann had made a fortune in the market, and while I worked for him I discovered the real secret of making money in the market and the reason Jews have come to dominate the brokerage industry. Newmann was constantly on the phone with his fellow Jews in New York, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. Each member of his circle knew other Jews as well as a few Gentiles in business, government, and media and at the critical junctures of the market. In his conversations Newmann often spoke using words that I could not understand: they were Yiddish. Occasionally, after the telephone conversation, he would quickly write out an order for a major stock or commodity purchase and have me run it to the clerk for submission. I remember frequent transactions that netted him tens of thousands of dollars. I asked him what his secret was, and he told me that he had no secret. “Information,” he said, “that’s how you make real money in the market. You have to get the information before the crowd gets it. Once it is in the newspapers it’s too late.”

He felt safe bragging to a quiet high-school student,
and I listened and learned a lot.

“Let’s take the government,” he said. “Imagine you knew someone in the Federal Reserve who had inside information that Arthur Burns planned to raise interest rates. After all, someone has to know these things before the world knows. How could you do in the bond market or, for that matter, a dozen other markets that are extremely interest rate sensitive? Or how about if you knew a friend in the Department of Defense, and he knew if Lockheed or McDonnell-Douglas would get the new fighter-plane contract, do you think you could make a fortune? Face it, someone must know ahead of time. Or how about if your friends knew where the next military base would be opened? Think you could do pretty well in real estate? Or say you knew someone at the Justice Department who lets you know that they will drop their antitrust litigation against IBM. When that news comes out, what happens to the stock? Would you buy IBM stock? And it’s not just government information that can make you a king’s ransom. For instance, if you had friends at IBM and knew before anyone else that IBM was going to give a contract for a hundred thousand computer cases to a small company, what do you think might happen to that penny stock? There’s a million ways,” he would tell me, “how information means money.” I asked Newmann if insider trading was illegal, and he told me, “They might as well make breathing illegal.” He said it was technically illegal but that it was almost impossible to prove — and that it was not really even looked into except in the most blatant cases — usually involving huge amounts of money. Years later, such manipulation of enormous sums of money led to the biggest stock-market scandal in history. In 1986 Dennis Levine, Ivan Boesky, Martin Siegel, and Michael Milken were charged with insider trading of stocks and bonds worth billions of dollars. Boesky admitted his guilt and was fined $100 million, and millions more were eventually paid by Milken, who after all the fines and litigation and some jail time, still came out a very rich man. In 1987 Milken made $550 million for his activities the year before — more than all but the top 41 of the Fortune 500 companies earned that year. Levine, Boesky, Siegel, and Milken were guilty of the greatest financial fraud perpetrated since the Rothschild’s theft of the English stock exchange. It should also be noted that with their Jewish lawyers, and facing Jewish judges, they served light sentences in minimum security federal jails for their enormous crimes.

It is instructive to note how the Jewish power structure reacted to the Boesky affair. Some top Jewish leaders, including Laurence Tisch (who later became top man at CBS), Felix Rohatyn (now U.S. ambassador to France), and David Gordis, executive vice-president of the American Jewish Committee, came together to do damage control. The Palm Beach Jewish World quoted Rabbi Gordis as saying that because of the arrests, Jews would be seen as “exploiters of the economy and profiteers.”346 If my friend Mr. Newmann was right and inside information equals “money” in a modern market economy, what does that mean for the most cohesive and organized group in the world? Many Jewish young people are as knowledgeable in finance from an early age as many Gentile kids are familiar with the star players of the Super Bowl or World Series. Ivan Boesky is exceptional only in the magnitude of his theft. Insider information of one sort or another is incredible power in the hands of people who know how to make use of it. Around the corner, or around the world, it is the greatest weapon in an economic war. The spoils of that war are not only the luxuries that money can buy, but also the enormous political and media power it purchases. The fact that tiny Jewish minorities often rise to economic dominance in Gentile nations of both the Mideast and Europe certainly played an important role in the repeated rise of anti-Semitism. Even when businessmen act perfectly legally, a cohesive and powerful team effort will consistently amass collective power over a scattered and individualistic mass. Such is the elemental nature of business. When the team strategy is combined with inside information garnered by Jewish penetration into upper-level administrative roles in Government and businesses, the accumulation of incredible power is inevitable. I was soon to learn, however, that the secrets of Jewish financial success were far more than simply intelligence and team effort. I came to learn about an unexpected Jewish dominance in some of the most unsavory criminal enterprises that have ever afflicted mankind. It was time for me to investigate how the darkest sides of the Jewish character influenced the rise of anti-Semitism.

I read that Jews have played a surprisingly powerful role in organized crime from ancient to present times. From having watched an endless stream of Hollywood movies portraying an Italian flavor to gangsterism, I did not expect that the world wide Jewish involvement in organized crime made Sicilians look very small time


PAGE – 8

I grew up on movies. I never failed to go to the Saturday matinee, and over the years movies have been my main form of entertainment. My idea of an evening out is still dinner and a movie. Of the hundreds of films I have seen over the years, I have many recollections of gangster films. Because of those films and many newspaper and magazine articles and novels, I long associated organized crime with Italians — specifically, with Sicilian-Americans. It is a common association. Gangsters are synonymous in almost everyone’s mind with Italian features and Italian accents. One makes an almost automatic subliminal connection between the gangsters and spaghetti. In high school I came across an article about Murder, Inc., a huge criminal syndicate based in New York City that was one of the most evil and powerful crime organizations in the history of the United States. It specialized in murder-for-hire and ran every kind of criminal racket, generating hundreds of deaths and the theft of tens of millions of dollars. Thomas Dewey (later a presidential candidate) helped break up the organization. The cast of characters of Murder, Inc. amazed me, for they were almost all Jews. Its original members be176 came the leaders of organized crime through the 1980s and included crime boss Meyer Lansky. I then read that the biggest boss of organized crime since the time of Al Capone was Jewish. I thought he would be a Sicilian as depicted in the movies. The book Lansky by Hank Messick documented a view of organized crime far different than I saw at my Saturday matinees. The top law enforcement sources and investigative reporters agreed that Lansky was the master gangster in America. He had been the most powerful person in the American crime syndicates for four decades, yet most Americans — who certainly know the names Al Capone and John Dillinger — have never heard of Meyer

Colorful Members of Murder, Inc.

Al GLASS Max ‘The Jerk” GOLOB “Abbadabba” BERMAN Bo WEINBERG Emanuel ‘‘Mendy’’ WEISS Sholem BERNSTEIN Jacob “Hooky” ROTHMAN Charlie WORKMAN Mert WERTHEIMER ‘Pretty” AMBERG “Dopey Benny” FEIN Frankie TEITELBAUM “Lulu” ROSENKRANZ Charlie SOLOMON Lou COHEN Abe SLABOW Yasha KATZENBERG Max RUBIN Charlie YANOWSKI Moses “Moey Dimples’’ WOLINSIKY Carl SHAPIRO Irving “Chippy” WEINER ‘‘Waxey’’ WECHSLER “Tootsie” FEINSTEIN Hyman KASNER Mickey COHEN ‘‘Pittsburg Phil’’ STRAUSS ‘Jack’’ GOLDSTEIN‘‘ Abe’’ WAGNER ‘‘Bugsy’’ GOLDSTEIN “Bugsy” SIEGEL Benny ‘‘The Boss” TANNENBAUM Meyer LANSKY “Gangy” COHEN “Puggy” FEINSTEIN “Dandy Phil” KASTEL “Longy” ZWILLMAN Isidore “Curlev’’ HOLZ Paul BERGEN “Wolfie” COLDIS “Nig’’ ROSEN “Fat Sidney” BLATZ Allie “Tick Tock” TANNENBAUM Max SHAMAN “Happy” MELTZER Al SLIVERMAN Harry “Big Greenie” GREENBAUM Jacob SHAPIRO Sam GASBERG Arnold ROTHSTEIN Joey SILVERS “Fattv” KOPERMAN Izzzy FARBSTEIN Lou GLASSER Willie SHAPIRO Max BLECKER Harry MILMAN ‘‘Muddy’’ KASOFF Hyman YURAN

The most notorious gangster was not Italian; he was in fact Jewish and an ardent supporter of Zionism.
Newsweek reported the following:

Each year, Lansky and his underworld associates pour vast sums into the Israeli bonds and Israeli philanthropies. As the daily Ha’aretz saw it, the government seemed afraid of losing the millions of dollars in illicit money first “laundered” in mob-controlled institutions and then funneled into Israeli business and industry.347 Investigative reporter Jack Anderson talked about the issue in The Washington Post: This underworld boodle — much of it raised from nefarious enterprises in the U.S. — is “laundered” before it arrives in Israel.348 In Lansky, Messick reveals the relationship between Israeli and American Jewish gangsters Certainly Jewish gangsters have long and openly supported Jewish causes and the state of Israel. On the night Lansky’s expartner, Bugsy Siegel, was executed, the Flamingo was taken over by Moe Sedway. When asked how he so conveniently happened to be in Las Vegas, he explained that he was there to arrange a United Jewish Appeal fund drive.349 As an illustration of how Jewish gangsters are treated in the Hollywood media, one only has to look at the treatment accorded the notorious gangster Bugsy Siegel in the film Bugsy.350 The film downplayed his Jewishness and portrayed one of America’s most bloodthirsty and merciless murderers as a handsome and playful romantic, a man of vision, portrayed by the thoroughly Anglo-Saxon-looking Warren Beatty. Siegel was portrayed as a kind-hearted man who had a somewhat rough side. Even though I was familiar with the horrible deeds of the real Bugsy Siegel, while watching the movie I found myself liking him. It did not surprise me to learn that the film had been written by James Toback and directed by Barry Levinson. Messick sums it up well when he writes: The real leaders of crime have remained hidden while the nation’s law enforcement agencies have chased minor punks. . . . Research reveals that non-Mafia leaders of crime have been hiding behind the vendetta-ridden society for decades. . . . I have been smeared as anti-Semitic from coast to coast by gangsters who used religion as a cloak. 351

“Russian Revolution” and/or “Russian Mafia”

In the final years of the 20th century, the most dangerous criminal organization in the United States and all over the world is the “Russian Mafia.” Much like the truth about the so-called Russian Revolution, the “Russian Mafia” is neither Russian nor Mafia. In a word, it is: Jewish. Just as the media downplayed the huge role of Jewish organized crime in America throughout the 20th century (from Murder, Inc. to Meyer Lansky’s Syndicate), so they have hidden from the American people the truth about the modern crime syndicate called the Organizatsiya — the most powerful criminal organization in the world. The members of the Organizatsiya come from parts of the former Soviet empire, but they don’t identify themselves as Russian, and certainly not as mafia. They are exceedingly proud Jews who support Jewish causes with the same exuberance shown by Meyer Lansky and his cohorts. In the mid-1970s I read Hustling on Gorky Street, a book written by Yuri Brokhin, a former Jewish pimp for one of the crime organizations in Russia.352 Konstantin Simis, a prominent Jewish lawyer for organized crime, wrote another important book on the subject called USSR: The Corrupt Society.353 Both books make clear the Jewish control of organized crime in the Soviet Union. Brokhin brags that Jews are the only ones intelligent enough to run large-scale organized crime. Slavs, he says, are capable of only street crime. Of course, neither book mentions the advantages of Jewish criminals having allies in the heavily Jewish Soviet bureaucracy. When the Communist regime fell, the already powerful and Jewish crime groups grew dramatically, so much so, that it could be said that no nation has ever suffered more in the grip of organized crime than Russia does today. Even the Russian President, Boris Yeltsin, is clearly under the thumb of organized crime, as evidenced by his appointment of Jewish organized crime figure Boris Berezovsky to Russia’s National Security Council. Yeltsin had to rescind Berezovsky‘s appointment after some of Russia’s non-Jewish newspapers made an issue of his crime connections. Berezovsky is thought to be the richest person in Russia, followed closely by his fellow tribesman, Vladimir Gusinsky, who has become the most powerful media boss. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Jewish mob spread rapidly all over the world, and many authorities in law enforcement now considered its American branch as the most powerful and dangerous crime organization in America. Af ter the murder of comedian Bill Cosby’s son in Los Angeles, the press identified the alleged murderer as Mikail Markhasev, a Ukranian immigrant, when in fact he was a Jewish member of the so-called “Russian Mafia.” Invariably, Jewish film and television producers portray the gangsters as blond, blueeyed Russians, with not even a scant suggestion of their real Jewish identity. Casting these Jewish criminals as Russian is a double lie. It is inaccurate as to their Jewish origin, and it libels the Russian people. Again, the contradictions of Jewish power come to the fore. The masters of the media will not tolerate even a truthful exposé of Jewish perfidy, yet they perpetuate false and pernicious images of others.

Occasionally, though, the truth breaks out, even if it isn’t in the movies. The Village Voice, on May 26, 1998, ran a story called “The Most Dangerous Mobster in the World” by Robert Friedman.354 He writes: According to the FBI and Israeli Intelligence, Semion Mogilevich rules over an arms trafficking, money-laundering, drug-running and art-smuggling red mafia, the most dangerous mobster in the world… The leader of the Red Mafia is a 52 year old Ukranian born Jew. He is a shadowy figure known as the brainy Don — he holds an economics degree — and he has never been exposed by the media. Robert Freedman, himself Jewish, writes that the Organizatsiya has even brought in ex-commandos from Israel as gunmen, and they are so ruthless that some policemen will not work the cases because they won’t hesitate to go after a cop’s family. Freedman goes on to write: Jewish organizations have lobbied the Justice Department to downplay the Russian Mob, fearing that adverse publicity will jeopardize the mass exodus of Russian Jews to Israel. 355 As well it might. But what about the exodus of “Russian Mafia” Jews to America? Obviously there is no concern about that, for the interests of the Israeli state to augment its Jewish population — and the sacred interests of Jewish public relations — are far more important than the rights of the people of the United States to defend themselves from this horrific Jewish organized-crime syndicate. The Jewish 2 percent of the population has the dubious distinction of producing the lion’s share of organized crime in America in the Mikail Markhasev, convicted slayer of Bill Cosby’s son, labeled as Ukranian by the media, is actually Jewish.

20th century, from Murder, Inc. to Lansky’s Syndicate to the “Russian Mafia” of Semion Mogilevich. This hidden fact suggests the possibility of similar behavior in former times. In looking into the history of Jewish criminal behavior, I found many major historical figures and chroniclers who feared Jewish criminal organizations. (If this volume could afford the space, the below sampling could expand a hundredfold): Roman statesman Marcus Cicero: Flaccus, a friend who was a customs official found himself persecuted for stopping the illegal flow of gold from Rome to Jerusalem. Cicero in defending Flaccus condemns such early smuggling and money-laundering and the efforts to intimidate an honest public official from doing his duty. He says, Softly, Softly! I want none but the judges to hear me. The Jews have already got me into a fine mess, as they have many other gentlemen. (Oratio Pro Flacco) First century Roman philosopher Lucius Seneca referred to the Jews as that “most criminal nation.” Napoleon: The Jews are the master robbers of the modern age; they are the carrion birds of humanity. . . . We ought to ban the Jews from commerce because they abuse it. . . “ Daniel Defoe: The works Roxana, Robinson Crusoe, and The Military Memoirs of Capt. George Carleton have frequent allusions to greedy and unprincipled criminal Jews whose stock in trade is “fenced stolen articles.” William Prynne, a Puritan writer opposing Cromwell’s efforts to allow the Jews back into England, describes Jewish offenses as “usuries and deceits, clippings and falsifying monies.” (from A short Demurrer to the Jewes long discontinued Remitter into England). Charles Dickens had the classic characterization of the criminal Jew (Fagin) in Oliver Twist. The character would enlist Gentile children to pickpocketry and an assortment of similar criminal enterprises. Tacitus Among themselves they are inflexibly honest and ever ready to show compassion, though they regard the rest of mankind with all the hatred of enemies. . . (The History 5.4,659) There is much evidence of a Jewish-dominated criminal underworld that has existed for hundreds of years. One of the most amazing things I discovered was a book published at the time of Protestant reformer Martin Luther. Europe was so plagued by organized crime that the authorities felt compelled to publish a lexicon of criminal terms. Luther supported its publication as a means of fighting crime and wrote an introduction to the lexicon in which he noted that the vocabulary of criminals was full of Hebrew words. In the preface Luther wrote: I consider it useful that this book be widely read, so that it may be seen and understood how the Devil rules this world, so that men may be wise against him. It is true that this Rothwelsche Sprache (underworld slang) comes from the Jews, for it contains many Hebrew words, as those who know Hebrew will observe.356

When Criminals Control the Media

The fact that so few Gentiles are aware of the long and integral relationship between Jews and organized crime is due to their enormous power in media that shields them from the image that Italians have in relation to the mafia. It is perhaps typified in the interconnectivity of Jewish organized crime in Russia and Jewish media power there. For instance, two of the leading organized crime figures there are Berezovsky and Vladimir Gusinsky. Both are media moguls in Russia, having enormous power in TV, radio, newspapers and magazines. Gusinsky was recently indicted by the Russian Prosecutor’s office for corruption and money-laundering. In 1999 Berezovsky seized control of Moscow’s TV-6 television station. Russia’s premiere daily newspaper, Kommersant was also acquired by Berezovsky and he promptly fired its editor, Raf Shakirov, who said that “his ouster [is] an attempt to curb often critical coverage of the tycoon’s business and political activities.” 357 Forbes magazine published a scathing article about Berezovsky entitled “The Godfather of the Kremlin,” with no byline for fear of violence against its authors. The magazine’s editor, James Michaels, said that Berezovsky “stands tall as one of the most powerful men in Russia. Behind him lies a trail of corpses, uncollected debts and competitors terrified for their lives.”358 The Forbes article asserted, “Assassination is a tool of business competition. Scores of business leaders and media personalities have been killed … Berezovsky controls Russia’s biggest national TV network. His control was solidified shortly after the first chairman of the network was assassinated gangland style. Berezovsky was immediately fingered Vladimir Gusinsky on his way to Russian Prosecutors office. Gusinsky is also head of the Russian Jewish Congress by the police as a key suspect, but the murder remains unsolved two years later … Such is the Russian business environment today that the men at the top have use for the shadowy army of killers and thugs who work further down in the scale of corruption, running prostitute and protection rackets.”359 Incredibly, in 1996 Berezovsky became a member of the Kremlin Security Council and privy to the most sensitive information of Russia. It was also revealed by the Moscow Times newspaper that Putin used to take his holidays at Berezovsky’s summer home in Moscow. Yet, even for Putin, Berezovsky’s blatant murder and racketeering was too much. The Russian Prosecutor is now pursing him for criminal indictment. Both Berezovsky and Gusinsky, now on the run from authorities are screaming that they are simply victims of “anti-Semitism.” The relationship between Jewish organized power, organized crime, media and government power is crystal clear in the former Soviet Union. Just as they seized power in 1917 as Bolsheviks, they have now seized power at the fall of Communism through corruption and organized crime. Fortune magazine ran an article entitled “Russia’s Robber Barons,” profiling ten of the most important Russian business tycoons and mobsters who have catapulted to economic dominance in Russia with the collapse of communism; these included Gusinsky, Berezovsky, Boris Hait, Mikhail Friedman, Vladimir Vinogradov, Vladimir Potanin, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Alexander Smolensky, and Pyotr Aven.360 It is estimated that more than 50 percent of Russia’s raw wealth is owned by these ten men. While the average Russian barely survives on less than an average of $200 per month, enormous wealth and power has been concentrated in the hands of a tiny group of men loyal not to the Russian people but only to their tribe. These men certainly did not earn this vast wealth that they accumulated in only 3 or 4 years after the demise of Communism. It was acquired through fraud, corruption, bribery, theft, and murder. The world knows almost nothing about the Jewish character of this theft of practically an entire nation because the Jewish media in Russia and in the rest of the world has chosen to keep this vital fact from our consciousness. Nine out of the 10 leading robber barons of Russia listed by Fortune magazine are Jews.

The Slave Trade

44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about you… 46 You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession forever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness. (Leviticus 25:44)361

Although the institution of slavery existed throughout most of human history, trade in human flesh has never been looked upon as a noble occupation. Compassionate men and women have long decried cruel mistreatment of slaves, especially of women and children, by slave traders and holders. Many agreed with Christ’s admonitions to slaveholders to treat their slaves kindly. In contrast to the benevolent image assigned to them by the media, Jews historically dominated an international institution that embodied the darkest evils of human exploitation: the slave trade. My introduction to the important Jewish role in slave trading came from an article about Jews written by a leading Jewish historian and apologist, Jacob Marcus, in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Marcus casually remarked about the Jewish control of commerce in the Middle Ages — particularly in the slave trade. In the dark ages the commerce of western Europe was largely in his [the Jew’s] hand, in particular the slave trade. . . .362 The Jewish mastery of the slave trade did not go unnoticed to Christian writers of the Middle Ages. I read poignant accounts of European children who suffered sexual and other abuses from Jewish slavetraders who acquired them. In Roman times they often followed the path of the conquering Roman army and enslaved enemy soldiers and civilians. Chroniclers of the ancient and medieval periods wrote of their preference for fair women and children, and of their frequent sale in the Levant. The Jewish slavers were more than happy to satisfy darker men’s taste for White flesh. Horrified by reports of abuse of Christian women and children by Jews, a number of Christian principalities issued edicts detailing these abuses and forbidding Jews to own or trade in Christian women and children. Jews, in writing their own histories, have matter-of-factly acknowledged the Jewish role in slave trading, looking at it as simply an extremely lucrative Jewish commercial venture.

In A History of the Jew: From Babylonian Exile to the End of World War II, published by the Jewish Publications society of America, the author writes very emphatically: Jews were among the most important slave dealers [in European society].363 What really surprised me was when I found out that Jews played a prominent role in American slavery. In the early 1970s I came across a book called Who Brought the Slaves to America by Walter White.364 I could understand the role of Jews in the slave trade of the Mediterranean region, but it seemed unlikely to me that the very small Jewish population in the early American Colonies could dominate such a large enterprise. I also retained, at that time, Hollywood’s image of White men, perhaps even Southerners, sailing to Africa and rounding up Black natives for the slave trade. In movies, articles and books, slavers were Anglo-Saxons with names like Smith or Jones. Usually they were hard drinking, uncouth Southern types. Later I learned that slavery was ubiquitous in Africa among native Blacks themselves, and that they were seldom rounded up by Whites. Usually, Black African slaveholders were the ones who sold them to the slavetraders.

Who Brought the Slaves to America steered me to the library collections that housed the records of the slave ships, contemporary accounts, and a number of Jewish historians who documented the role Jews have played in slavery (also see the Barnes Review, Sept. 97). 365 The Jewish writers I read were prideful in their accounts of the great Jewish slave traders. A good case in point is Marc Raphael’s Jews and Judaism in the United States a Documentary History. Jewish merchants played a major role in the slave trade. In fact, in all the American colonies, whether French (Martinique), British, or Dutch, Jewish merchants frequently dominated. This was no less true on the North American mainland, where during the eighteenth century Jews participated in the ‘triangular trade’ that brought slaves from Africa to the West Indies and there exchanged them for molasses, which in turn was taken to New England and converted into rum for sale in Africa. Isaac Da Costa of Charleston in the 1750s, David Franks of Philadelphia in the 1760s, and Aaron Lopez of Newport in the late 1760s and early 1770s dominated Jewish slave trading on the American continent. 366

In North America, the slave trade had its most powerful center in Newport, Rhode Island. Newport formed a pivotal part of the triangular slave trade of rum and molasses from New England to Africa for slaves and back to the West Indies and the Colonies with the human cargo. I discovered that it was no coincidence that Newport, center of the slave trade, had the oldest synagogue in America and the largest thriving Jewish community in the American Colonies. Aaron Lopez, a Portuguese Jew of Marrano descent and a resident of Newport, was one of the most powerful slave traders in the Americas. He owned dozens of ships and imported thousands of Blacks into the Western Hemisphere. In an account of just two voyages of one of Lopez’s ships, the Cleopatra, at least 250 Blacks perished.367 Such horrendous loss of life in such a dirty business did not prevent Jewish chronicler Jacob Marcus from praising Lopez: “What can be said about this most attractive figure.?”368 Although Lopez acquired riches in the Colonies, he violated the anti-British non-importation trade agreements during the revolutionary period, supporting Britain’s interests rather than the Colonies.’369 Jews dominated the slave trade not only in the American Colonies but all over the New World. In a major Jewish history of the early Americas called, New World Jewry, 1492-1776, one can find the following passage:

They came with ships carrying African blacks to be sold as slaves. The traffic in slaves was a royal monopoly, and the Jews were often appointed as agents for the Crown in their sale….[They] were the largest ship chandlers in the entire Caribbean region, where the shipping business was mainly a Jewish enterprise….The ships were not only owned by Jews, but were manned by Jewish crews and sailed under the command of Jewish captains.370 Many Jewish writers chronicled the Jewish role in slavery, often boasting of their shrewdness in the business. The West India Company, which monopolized imports of slaves from Africa, sold slaves at public auctions against cash payment. It happened that cash was mostly in the hands of Jews. The buyers who appeared at the auctions were almost always Jews, and because of this lack of competitors they could buy slaves at low prices. On the other hand, there also was no competition in the selling of the slaves to the plantation owners and other buyers, and most of them purchased on credit payable at the next harvest in sugar. Profits up to 300 percent of the purchase value were often realized with high interest rates….If it happened that the date of such an auction fell on a Jewish holiday the auction had to be postponed. This occurred on Friday, October 21, 1644. 371 Although certainly indefensible by today’s moral standards, slavery in the United States was many times preferable to the incredibly cruel and murderous conditions of African slavery. The greatest inhumanity of Black slavery is associated with the passage to America. Some say that 10 to 15 percent of Black slaves died in the cramped and filthy conditions on the ships. Since the Jews have dominated the slave trade from ancient times, I realized that it is not only Blacks who have suffered from those inhuman conditions, but also untold numbers of White people of the Mediterranean region. It should also be pointed out that not only were Jews the principal slave traders, they had a markedly higher per capita holding of slaves than non-Jews. All through the eighteenth century, into the early nineteenth, Jews in the North were to own black servants; in the South, the few plantations owned by Jews were tilled with slave labor. In 1820, over 75 percent of all Jewish families in Charleston, Richmond, and Savannah owned slaves, employed as domestic servants; almost 40 percent of all Jewish householders in the United States owned one slave or more. There were no protests against slavery as such by Jews in the South, where they were always outnumbered at least 100 to 1….Very few Jews anywhere in the United States protested against chattel slavery on moral grounds.372 Considering that less than 10 percent of colonists owned slaves, Marcus reveals that individual Jewish Households (40 percent owned slaves) were far more likely to own slaves than were Gentiles. With their comparatively greater numbers in the Mediterranean world, Jews constituted disproportionate slaveholders in the ancient and medieval world just as they were in the Colonies. The importation of slaves to America is a relatively recent historical phenomenon that lasted about 200 years. From before the time of Christ to the African trade of the 1700s, most of the slaves owned and bartered by Jews were White.

When I learned of the Jewish role in the slave trade, it seemed to me that it could have certainly added to the resentment against the Jews felt by their host populations. Being known as the greatest perpetrators of the slave trade is not the best of public relations for Jews. It is no wonder that the Jewish-dominated media have avoided the issue. Only Jewish scholars, who faithfully record Jewish history, pri marily for Jewish readers, are allowed to travel on to such forbidden historical ground. After my first efforts on national television in the early 1970s to expose the Jewish role in slave trading (on PBS’s — Black Perspectives on the News), the Nation of Islam also did extensive research on the issue. Their historical research department came up with a tremendous amount of documented material on the subject that they published in the book called, The Secret Relationship between Blacks and Jews.373 Today, simply by repeating the words of prominent Jewish historians on the Jewish role in slavery, one becomes guilty of Anti-Semitism. It was only when the public began to learn some of the little-known facts previously reserved for Jewish scholars, that the ADL found it necessary to counter such “anti-Semitic” propaganda. The ADL and other Jewish organizations have responded by trotting out a number of prestigious Jewish scholars who have publicly announced that the Jewish role in the colonial slave trade was “minimal.” In Spielberg’s blockbuster movie on the slave trade, Amistad,374 there was hardly a Jew to be found in the film. Although the Jews dominated the Newport, Rhode Island slave trade, all the slavers in the film seemed conspicuously Christian. A number of articles that discussed Amistad and the slave trade, including Time and Newsweek, went out of their way to deny a major Jewish role in slave trading. Unfortunately, most of their readers were not told what prominent Jewish historians themselves wrote about the matter before it became an embarrassing issue. Few will read the words of the editor of the magazine of the American Jewish Historical Society; “Jewish merchants played a major role in the slave trade. In fact, in all the American colonies, whether French (Martinique), British, or Dutch, Jewish merchants frequently dominated. This is no less true on the North American mainland…”375 Steven Spielberg’s movie about the slave trade made no mention of the predominant Jewish role in the Newport, RI slave trade.

White Slavery

Prostitution, or White slavery as it is aptly called, is another institution as old as civilization. Even in ancient times, the fair-skinned beauty of European women and little boys and girls brought a premium from the purveyors of perhaps the most brutal kind of slavery of all: the sexual defilement of one’s body. The subjection of countless innocents to the filth and pain of sexual degradation is a crime of enormous magnitude. Just as they dominated the organized slave trade, Jews dominated prostitution. It originally came about as a natural adjunct to slavery, as it took no special commercial acumen to realize that a female or young boy slave could be rented out for sexual abuse. And fair European maidens could fetch great prices from the sultans of the darker nations. From the days of the concubines of King David to the modern “madams” Xaviera Hollander and Heidi Fleiss, Jews have dominated the sex business. The Talmud is obsessed with sexual “connections” of what it calls “natural and unnatural” kinds, of sexual relations of adults with little boys and girls, with bond maidens, and with harlots. In the modern age, Freud and his colleagues in academia brought this perverted view of our natures into the classrooms and living rooms of America. Freud, with the help of the Jewish-influenced media, told Western society — with a straight face — that sexual and excretory organs are the most important factors in life and that every male secretly desires to have sexual relations with his mother. In looking into the history of prostitution, I read about a maleficent deception Jews used in Central Europe during the last century. During times of famine or economic hardship, well-dressed, fasttalking Jews would go into peasant communities and tell the parents of attractive Christian teenagers that their children could have a better life in America, which had a shortage of household labor. The Jews told the parents that after a short time their children could pay off the cost of their passage and begin a new life in the land of freedom and plenty. In spite of the pain of being separated from their children, some of the parents would consent to such an arrangement, wanting the best for their daughters. Instead of finding a bright, new life, tens of thousands ended up suffering in the brothels of the New World. In his book Prostitution and Prejudice, Jewish historian Edward Bristow writes about the world prostitution network and clearly shows the prominent Jewish role.376 377 It is not hard to conceive of the reaction of many Eastern Europeans to the Jewish enslavement and degradation of tens of thousands of Christian girls. Bristow reveals that the center of the Jewish trade in Gentile women from Poland and surrounding regions was a small town called Oswiecim, which the Germans called Auschwitz. That simple revelation can bring much understanding of the recurrent Jewish and Gentile conflict. Jewish domination of White slavery continues. In fact, it is on a larger scale now than ever before in history. The New Orleans Times- Picayune on January 11, 1998, ran an article titled “Slave traders Lure Slavic Women.”

It (written by Michael Specter and distributed by the Jewish-run New York Times News Service) documents a Jewish-run White slave operation of huge proportions. The piece begins with a poignant story about how a beautiful blonde Ukrainian girl hoping to escape the poverty and despair of her village life answered an ad in a small newspaper in her hometown promising work and opportunity abroad. She wound up a sex slave in Israel. She was 21, self-assured and glad to be out of Ukraine. Israel offered a new world, and for a week or two everything seemed possible. Then, one morning, she was driven to a brothel, where her boss burned her passport before her eyes. “I own you,” she recalled his saying. “You are my property, and you will work until you earn your way out. Don’t try to leave. You have no papers and you don’t speak Hebrew. You will be arrested and deported. Then we will get you and bring you back.”378 In Israel the government does little to end the brutal slave system other than deport a small percentage of the girls they find with no immigration papers. Almost 1,500 Ukrainian women have been deported from Israel in the past three years. The deck is completely stacked against the Gentile woman and in favor of the slavemasters, for if they file a complaint against the slavemaster, they must remain in prison until a trial is held. Specter quotes the prison director at Neve Tirtsa as saying she did not know of a single girl who chose to testify against her Jewish slavemasters. The White slaver is thus protected by the Israeli system, while the victims are punished. Specter identifies both the prostitutes and their masters. He quotes an Israeli White slave master, Jacob Golan: The women who work there, like nearly all prostitutes in Israel, are Russian, their boss is not. “Israelis love Russian girls,” said Jacob Golan. . . . “They are blonde and good looking and different from us,” he said, chuckling. 379

Of course, Israel is not the only destination of the Eastern European women. The Jewish gangs in Russia have strong connections with Jewish organized-crime syndicates all over the world. According to the Ukraine’s interior ministry, an estimated 400,000 women under the age of 30 were lured from the Ukraine in the past decade — and that is just one of the former Soviet states. Specter quotes the International Organization for Migration as estimating that 500,000 Eastern- Block women are trafficked into Western Europe and around the world annually.380 It is a tragedy of huge proportions that gets very little press. Moment magazine, the “Magazine of Jewish Culture and Opinion,” had an article on page 44 of the April, 1998 edition, called “Hookers in the Holy Land.”381 In it they discuss the thriving prostitution of blonde Russian girls as a “national institution.” It goes on to talk about the customers who even include rabbis riding bicycles to the whore houses. A good percentage of the customers — or Johns, in the lingo — are ultra-Orthodox Jews, pious men whose lives are guided by halachah (religious law), which tells them when they can or cannot have sex with their wives. So, on Thursday afternoons, (boys night out in Israel) busloads of Orthodox Jews travel from Jerusalem, Haifa, and points beyond to Tel Aviv for a few precious moments of passion in a massage parlor, behind a sand dune, or in an alleyway. Other customers are accountants, lawyers, policemen, and politicians. “The entire spectrum of Israeli society is keeping the hookers in business.” Claims Detective Shachar, a cynical veteran on the Tel Aviv vice detail…Tel Baruch is so very absurd and so very Israel.382 It blatantly goes on to describe the girls, who are mostly East European Gentile women along with some Palestinians, as virtual slaves who are put on a slave auction block. Once the girls arrive in Israel, the crime bosses take over. The girls are usually taken to an “auction house,” where the owners of the various massage parlors can bid on the talent — each one offers a price, and the highest bidder gets the girl.…The girls are virtual slaves.383 The article goes on to note that many of the prostitutes in Israel, especially those of Arab descent, encounter physical abuse from Jews who abuse them as an expression of their “racial-nationalist fervor.” …find that their Jewish customers only come to them after a Palestinian terrorist act to get their own brand of sexual revenge laced with racial-nationalistic fervor. “…and they do it with hate and anger.” 384

In discussing the forged documents used to smuggle the girls into Israel, Specter notes that they have often been obtained from “elderly Jewish women in the Ukraine.” Even so, Specter casually refers to the Jewish perpetrators of this international White slavery ring as “Russian crime gangs” or “Russian mafia.” It would be bad for Jewish public relations if the Times-Picayune had titled the article “Jewish Slave traders Lure Gentile Women.” Jewish writers on Anti-Semitism never mention the Jewish domination of the slave trade or of prostitution over the centuries. They never point out that such Jewish activities could understandably lead to unfavorable attitudes toward Jews. Imagine the world-wide media reaction if Gentiles were enslaving hundreds of thousands of Jewish girls, putting them on auction blocks, and subjecting them to indescribable brutalities? Consider the outrage that would bellow from the Jewish media. Yet, with millions of Christian girls becoming the victims of Jewish criminals, there is no moral outcry — no international cause trumpeted by celebrities and politicians. After my discussion of these issues on the national PBS program Black Perspectives on the News, attacks on me as an “anti-Semite” became even more shrill. As a young man, when I read about slavery in the South, my heart was touched by the tales of cruelty and suffering, so much so that I felt guilty. But as I learned the truth about the slave trade, I noticed that the same Jewish writers and producers and publishers who had instilled guilt in me never once suggested that Jews had any “collective guilt” for a 2,000-year record of plying their trade in human flesh. Apparently, in the new morality of the Jewish press, learning about White exploitation of Blacks is “history,” and learning about Jewish exploitation of both Whites and Blacks is called “hate.” Disloyalty Historically, the most common term other than moneylender associated with Jews has been tax collector. There are many examples, all the way through the 20th century, of Jews being the main instruments of tax collection that ruling bodies used to raise revenue. The Jewish historian Josephus, in his Antiquities of the Jews385, tells the story of a Jewish tax collector named Joseph in the court of the Ptolemies who was so ruthless and effective in collections that he bid twice the amount of anyone else for the right to collect taxes. In those times kings often took bids from tax collectors, and the one who promised the highest set amount would obtain the commission, and he would keep for himself all he collected over the amount he promised the king.

Joseph’s success came in no small part from the fact that he would kill and confiscate the property of those who refused to pay what he demanded. Josephus described his success as “stripping Syria to the bone.” Yet he showed no restraint in his praise: “Joseph was a good man, and of great magnanimity; and brought the Jews out of a state of poverty and meanness, to one that was more splendid.”386 Rulers of multicultural empires often used Jews as administrators because the ruling powers knew that they would have no loyalty to the non-Jewish people of the lands where they resided. Jews made excellent tax collectors. They had good financial acumen, and they had the required trait of all good tax collectors: little sympathy for the taxpayer. In the Muslim world, the practice of using Jews as occupying administrators can be seen in the Arab conquest and rule of Spain in the eighth to 11th centuries, in the Fatimid rule over Tunisia in the 10th century, the Merinid occupation of Morocco in the 13th through 15th centuries, during Mongol rule in Iraq, and in the 16th century Ottoman period. The practice has continued even into the 20th century — in Morocco, where the French used them in this role over the Muslims, in the post-World War II satellite states of the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe, and even, at one time, in the control exercised by King Faysal in Iraq. One of the most repeated charges that anti-Semites have made is that, in retaining loyalty to their own perceived group interest, Jews have historically betrayed their host nations in times of war, occupation, and hardship. Byzantine history affords an example of a relentless conflict between the Jews and their host people during wartime.

Constantinople: A Story of Repeated Betrayal

• Jewish writers Gedalia Alon387 and Michael Avi-Yonah388 show that Byzantine authorities prophetically feared that their Jews would aid Persian invaders. They also were correct in fearing that they would assist Muslim armies as well. • Jews were killed in great numbers after the uncovering of a Jewish plot to deliver a city to the Persians.389 • Jews sided with the Persian invaders of the early 7th century and in collusion with the Samaritans massacred 100,000 Christians. 390 • When the Christian Byzantines retook the city, Jews were forcibly converted to Christianity. • The Jews supported the Arabs when they conquered the area in 636-40.391 392 • In the 12th century, the Byzantine Jews supported the invading armies of Seljuk Turks.393 • In the 14th-century they supported the invasions of the Ottoman Turks — the final conquest of Constantinople occurring through a Jewish quarter with the active assistance of the Jews.394 • In gratitude for their support, the Sultan imposed Jewish economic domination over his Christian subjects and Jews immigrated into the area from throughout the Diaspora.395

A great deal of evidence exists that Jews supported the Saracen conquest of Spain396 and served as the harsh administrators of the Muslim occupation government.397 398 399 Jewish communities have aided the invader whenever they have seen an advantage in the overthrow of the existing order. Of course, Muslim societies have just as often been betrayed by Jews as have Christian ones. After the Second World War, Jews became the prominent administrators and secret police of the brutal regimes installed by the Soviets in Eastern Europe. In his 1981 book Uprising, David Irving shows that Jews so dominated in the secret police that tortured and murdered hundreds of thousands in Soviet-controlled Hungary, that “Anti-Semitism” was one of the motivations of the anti-Communist uprising.400 Considering the Jewish involvement in the murderous specter of Communism, it should be no puzzle why the Jews accuse Eastern Europeans as being the most “anti-Semitic.” In Russia itself, Jewish Communists were the forces that dispossessed the Russians of their own government, that made up the leadership of the murderous KGB, and who murdered the Russian royal family, including all the children. America experienced one of the most treacherous acts of treason in the annals of history when Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and their Jewish co-conspirators stole America’s atomic bomb secrets and gave them to the Soviets. During the Vietnam War, the Jewish-dominated New Left led pro-Viet Cong demonstrations while American boys died from Viet Cong bullets and bombs. The two most famous of the Vietnam era seditionists were Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin. Jewish spies for Israel such as Jonathan Pollard have stolen some of America’s most closely guarded secrets. His stolen secrets were then bartered by Israel to the Soviets, which devastated our intelligence operations in Eastern Europe.

Perhaps the classic example of their role as administrators and exploiters in an oppressive government is found in their own chronicles. It is the story of their sojourn in ancient Egypt. The Story of Joseph

Every Sunday school child is familiar with the biblical story of Joseph, his “coat of many colors,” and his betrayal by his brothers, enslavement, and subsequent rise to great power in Egypt. When I was in college a friend recommended that I read the account of Joseph and the Israelite sojourn in Egypt in the light of my new understanding of historical Jewish behavior. I took out my Bible and turned to the last pages of Genesis and the first of Exodus, and after reading and reflecting on what I had read, I think I finally understood why God was so often put out with the “Chosen People.” Genesis introduces Joseph at age 17, tattling to his father, Jacob, about his brother’s wrongdoing. Jacob is so taken by Joseph that he gives him a coat of many colors that evokes jealousy in two of his brothers. The brothers are also disgusted by Joseph’s selfaggrandizement in relating his dreams of his future superiority. In one dream, Joseph tells how he is in a field binding sheaves and how his sheaf stood up, whereas his brothers’ sheaves were gathered all around it, bowed low.401 Soon afterward, he relates a dream in which the sun, the stars, and the moon bow down before him. Even Jacob rebukes Joseph for his display of insufferable chutzpah. His brothers hate him so much that they decide to kill him and subsequently throw him down an abandoned well. However, when they see an Ishmaelite caravan bound for Egypt, they decide to sell their brother into slavery instead.402 Joseph is taken to Egypt and eventually sold to Potiphar, captain of the Pharaoh’s guard. Joseph’s glib tongue and financial acumen lead to his rise as overseer of an entire household. Potiphar trusts him with every detail. One day, while Potiphar is away, his wife cries out that Joseph is trying to rape her, and when the other servants come running, they find Joseph’s clothes, left behind as he fled. Joseph claimed it was he who was victim of an attempted rape, but an enraged Potiphar throws him into prison anyway.403 Again using his cleverness and acumen, Joseph rises to become the top trustee of the prison and virtually runs the jail and has all the prisoners under his control. In the prison are several of the Pharaoh’s servants. From them Joseph undoubtedly learns all the gossip and goings on at the royal house. Two of Pharaoh’s servants, a butler and a baker, have dreams that Joseph cleverly interprets. The butler is eventually reinstated, and after the Pharaoh has a disturbing dream, the butler tells Pharaoh about Joseph’s abilities. Brought before the Pharaoh, Joseph interprets the famous dream of the seven fat beeves and the seven thin ones. Intelligently understanding the cyclical nature of prosperity and famine, he tells the Pharaoh that there will be seven good years and seven bad ones. Joseph then suggests that Pharaoh appoint a man “discreet and wise, and set him over the land of Egypt” (Genesis 42:33).404 Pharaoh then makes Joseph the most powerful man in Egypt other than himself and has him gather up the crops of Egypt. For the next few years Joseph collects vast amounts of grain from Egyptian farmers and ensconces himself as the “Lord of Egypt” and “ruler of Egypt,” acting in the name of the Pharaoh. When drought and famine finally hit, Joseph hatches a scheme to increase his and the Pharaoh’s wealth and power. As the starving Egyptians appeal to the Pharaoh to get back some of the grain they have deposited over the years, the Pharaoh tells them to go talk to Joseph. He tells them that they must pay for the grain and “gathers up all the money that was found in the land of Egypt.” (Genesis 47:14)405 A severe depression occurs when the currency fails. Following are a few of the powerful verses:

15: And the money failed in land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan and all the Egyptians came to Joseph and said, Give us bread, for why should we die in thy presence? For the money faileth. 16: And Joseph said, give your cattle, and I will give you food for your cattle, if money fail. 17: And they brought their cattle unto Joseph: and Joseph gave them bread in exchange for horses, and for the flocks, and for the cattle of the herds, and for asses, and he fed them with bread for all their cattle for that year. 18: When that year was ended, they came unto him the second year, and said unto him. We will not hide it from my Lord, how our money is spent: my lord also hath our herds of cattle: there is not ought left in the sight of my lord but our bodies and our lands. 19: Wherefore shall we die before thine eyes, both we and our land? Buy us and our land for bread, and we and our land will be slaves unto Pharaoh… 21: and as for the people, he made slaves of them from one end of Egypt to the other… So Joseph first takes away all the money of the free Egyptians, then all their domesticated animals, then their homes and lands, and finally he puts them back on the Pharaoh’s new land as slaves with 20 percent of their crop going to the Pharaoh. The Pharaoh is ecstatic with this arrangement, for his treasury is overflowing, and Joseph has taken away all the lands of the people and put them back on it working essentially as sharecroppers. At the same time the Egyptians are going through this misery, Joseph sends for and brings all of his Jewish Brethren to Egypt. Genesis makes it quite clear that Joseph gives the Israelites bags of gold and food and that they “live off the fat of the land.” 45:18 And take your father and your households, and come unto me; and I will give you the good of the land of Egypt, and ye shall eat the fat of the land. 47:6 The land of Egypt is before thee; in the best of the land make they father and brethren to dwell: in the land of Goshen let them dwell; 47:13 and there was no bread in all the land; for the famine was very sore, so that the land of Egypt and all the land of Canaan fainted by reason of the famine. 47:27 And Israel dwelt in the land of Egypt, in the country of Goshen; and they had possessions therein, and grew, and multiplied exceedingly.

One can imagine what the Egyptians thought about Joseph taking all their lands and possessions and reducing them to slavery while the foreign Israelites are given gold, free food, and the best land in all of Egypt. The Egyptians had built a grand civilization with magnificent artistic and cultural achievements, and advances in mathematics, engineering, architecture, astronomy and agriculture. They had built the most enduring architectural creations in the world: the pyramids. How they must have chafed under the absolute power of this foreign tribe. According to Genesis and Exodus the arrangement persisted for a long time, suggesting that the Israelites were the privileged administrators of Egypt during a long period of time. The Pharaoh could count on them having no loyalty to the native aristocrats or merchant class of Egypt, and they might have served the Pharaoh’s purpose by directing the wrath of the people toward the Jews rather than toward the Pharaoh himself. At any rate, eventually the numbers and political and economic power of the Jews grew so excessive that even the royal family felt threatened — a pattern that has often been repeated in Jewish history. Note the following passages from Exodus. 1:7 And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceedingly mighty, and the land was filled with them. 1:8 Now there arose up a new king over Egypt who knew not Joseph. 1:9 And he said to his people. behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we: 1:10 Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land.406 Then are recorded dutifully the Egyptian pogroms against the Jews and Jewish celebration of Egyptian infanticide and Jewish expulsion and deliverance as represented in Passover. The Egyptian Pharaoh was not the last who sought to expel Jews from his land. Following is a partial list of the expulsion of Jews from European kingdoms: Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann wrote the following about frequent hostile reaction to Jewish presence: Whenever the quantity of Jews in any country reaches the saturation point, that country reacts against them. . . . [This] reaction . . . cannot be looked upon as Anti-Semitism in the ordinary or vulgar sense of the word; it is a universal social and economic concomitant of Jewish immigration and we cannot shake it off. 407 According to the popular Jewish version of history, in every case Gentiles were at fault in the conflict. After tolerantly allowing Jewish immigrants into their nation, Gentiles are accused of unreasoning hatred against Jews, who are depicted as blameless sources of economic and social benefit.

Expulsions of Jews from European States

Mainz, 1012 Upper Bavaria, 1442 Naples, 1533 France, 1182 Netherlands, 1444
Italy, 1540 Upper Bavaria, 1276 Brandenburg, 1446 Naples, 1541 England, 1290
Mainz 1462 Prague, 1541 France, 1306 Mainz, 1483 Genoa, 1550
France, 1322 Warsaw, 1483 Bavaria, 1551 Saxony, 1349 Spain, 1492
Prague, 1557 Italy, 1492 Papal States, 1569 Belgium, 1370 Lithuania, 1495
Hungary, 1360 Hungary 1582 Slovakia, 1380 Portugal, 1496 Hamburg, 1649
France, 1394 Naples, 1496 Vienna, 1669 Austria, 1420 Navarre, 1498
Slovakia, 1744 Lyons, 1420 Nuremberg, 1498 Moravia, 1744 Cologne, 1424
Brandenburg, 1510 Bohemia, 1744 Mainz, 1438 Prussia, 1510 Moscow, 1891
Augsburg, 1439 Genoa, 1515
When I read of the hostility toward Jews in dozens of different locations and historical circumstances, it seemed analogous to a man charged and convicted of dozens of rapes in several states over the course of many years. The man claims that he is always innocent, and that the dozens of rape convictions are merely the results of an unreasoning “hate” that the victims had for him. One perceptive writer, Joseph Sobran, said it well when he suggested that the term “anti- Semite” no longer means someone who dislikes Jews — it now means someone whom the Jews dislike.

The Jewish View of Anti-Semitism

As I continued my reading, I discovered what Jewish scholars believe is the historical origin of the Jew-Gentile conflict. If one delves back into the pages of Genesis preceding the story of Joseph, one comes upon the striking story of Isaac and Rebecca and their two sons, Esau and Jacob. The Jewish faith claims that the two sons represent the two separate nations of Jew and Gentile. From Genesis chapters 25: 23 And the Lord said to her. Two nations are in your womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people, and the elder shall serve the younger. . . 25 And the first came out red all over like a hairy garment, and they called his name Esau, and after that came his brother Jacob and he took hold on Esau’s heel. . . 27 And the boys grew; and Esau was a cunning hunter, a man of the field; and Jacob was a plain man, dwelling in tents. . . 28 And Isaac loved Esau, because he did eat of his venison, but Rebecca loved Jacob. 29 . . . And Esau came from the field, and he was faint [sick]. And Esau said to Jacob, feed me I pray for I am faint. Feed me with the same red pottage: Afterward he was called Edom. (after the red pottage) 31 And Jacob said I will feed you for the price of your birthright 32 And Esau said, I am at the point of death, what good then will my birthright do for me? 33 And Jacob said, Swear to me your birthright and I will feed you. Esau swore to him and sold his birthright. And Jacob fed him bread and pottage, and when Esau ate and drank, and got better, he went away…408 Esau’s good and faithful conduct causes him to remain Isaac’s favorite. Ailing and of poor of eyesight, Isaac calls Esau and asks him to hunt down and bring him some venison, saying that after he did he would offer him the blessings of God. Rebecca, upon hearing this, schemes with Jacob to pretend that he was Esau and bring Isaac ram meat prepared to taste like venison. Jacob disguises himself to feel and even smell like Esau. Jacob then lies to his father and presents himself as the firstborn Esau. Ultimately, from this deceit and treachery, he receives his father’s blessing. 19 Jacob said to his father, “I am Esau your first-born. I have done as you told me; now sit up and eat of my game, that you may bless me…” 21 Then Isaac said to Jacob, “Come near, that I may feel you, my son, to know whether you are really my son Esau or not.” 22 So Jacob went near to Isaac his father, who felt him and said, “The voice is Jacob’s voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau…” 24 He said, “Are you really my son Esau?” He answered, “I am…” 29 Let peoples serve you, and nations bow down to you. Be lord over your brothers, and may your mother’s sons bow down to you. Cursed be every one who curses you, and blessed be every one who blesses you!409 Returning from the hunt with the venison, Esau discovers that his brother had deceived his father, and cheated him out of his blessing. 33 . . .I have eaten before you came, and have blessed him, yes, and he will be blessed. 34 And when Esau heard the words of his father, he cried with a great and exceeding bitter cry, and said to his father, bless me also, oh my beloved father. 35 And he said. My brother came in deceit and took away my blessing. . .he has robbed me two times, for he took away my birthright and now he has taken away my blessing. Father, have you not reserved a blessing for me. 37 (Isaac) Behold, I have made him your lord and all his brethren have I given to him for servants. . 38 . . . And Esau lifted up his voice to him and wept. . . 39 And by your sword shall you live and serve thy brother, and it shall come to pass when you have dominion, you will break Jacob’s yoke from your neck. Jacob and Esau found reconciliation 22 years later, but according to Jewish commentary, Esau’s descendants became the Gentile Edomites, while Jacob’s became the Jews. Jewish scholars later referred to the Romans as Edomites, and the term Esau became synonymous with Europeans and all Gentiles. The story of Jacob and Esau is an allegory of the Jew and Gentile with which the Jewish religion still identifies. Allusions to Esau are found in Raphael Patai’s popular book The Jewish Mind and hundreds of other Jewish works.410 Sholem Aleichem, the famous Yiddish-language author, wrote in his autobiography about a crude Russian ferryman, Esau! Only a Goy could do work like that, not a Jew. The Bible says of Esau, ‘and thou shalt serve thy brother.’ It is good that I am a descendant of Jacob, and not of Esau.411

Popular Jewish intellectual Sidney Hook recounts how he questioned his Jewish teacher about the injustice of Jacob’s actions against Esau. He quotes his rabbi as saying, “What kind of question is that? Esau was an animal.”412 Jacob, who became renamed “Israel,” is considered the father of the Jewish people. Esau is seen as the archetype of the Gentile. Because Jews suggest that Jews are always blameless of the Anti- Semitism inherent in Gentiles, Esau’s hatred of Jacob is considered the origin of Anti-Semitism as well. Rabbi Leon Spitz, quoted in the American Hebrew, illustrates the depth of hatred of many Jews for Esau and his descendants: Let Esau whine and wail and protest to the civilized world, and let Jacob fight the good fight. The anti-Semite. . .understands but one language, and he must be dealt with on his own level. The Purim Jews stood up for their lives. American Jews, too, must come to grips with our contemporary anti-Semites. We must fill our jails with anti-Semitic gangsters. We must fill our insane asylums with anti-Semitic lunatics. We must combat every alien Jew hater. We must harass and prosecute our Jew-baiters to the extreme limits of the laws. We must humble and shame our anti-Semitic hoodlums to such an extent that none will wish or dare to become their fellow travelers. 413

When I understood that Jacob and Esau are an apt Jewish allegory for the eternal conflict between Jew and Gentile from a Jewish perspective, I realized that Gentiles might learn from it too. Is not the fact that Esau worked hard in the fields while Jacob stayed in tents, symbolic of the history of Jew and Gentile? It corresponds perfectly with the Europeans’ inherent love of Nature, the outdoors and land — with the Jews’ love of urban life. Even reading the account written from the bias of Jacob’s descendants, would not any fair-minded person find Esau’s tears and rage justified? Is Jacob blameless and innocent or was Esau the one cheated? Shylock asking for a “pound of flesh” in Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice represents no less avarice and cold-heartedness than does Jacob withholding food from his sick brother so he could steal his birthright. In addition, consider Jacob’s disguising of himself to defraud both his father and brother. Is that what the Jewish scholars see as justice? Is Esau’s anger “hate” and “Anti-Semitism”? Is it anti- Semitic to note that by its own account, Israel found its earliest roots in fraud, treachery and deceit — and that it boasts about it?

Perhaps Isaac was prophetic when he said that Esau would be a servant to his brother until he obtained dominion (complete control over the land in which he lived) and thus broke “Jacob’s yoke” from around his neck. Even though the philo-Semitic version of history is one long tale of Jewish woe at the hands of Gentiles, Jacob’s descendants are certainly not the only ones who have suffered. Esau’s children have lost untold billions to the descendants of Jacob in usury, fraud and organized crime. Millions of Gentiles have suffered torturous slavery, degradation and death at the hands of the Jewish masters of the slave trade and prostitution. Esau’s tears have fallen for the murder of millions of Christians at the hands of Jewish Bolsheviks in Eastern and Central Europe. They have been shed for millions of combatants and civilians who died in the two great fratricidal World Wars of the 20th Century, encouraged in no small part by Jewish power. Is not Esau’s justifiable rage found in the Palestinian people who lost their land, their freedom and, for so many, even the lives of their children? If the story of Jacob and Esau is what the Jewish rabbinate say it is — the story of the genesis of the Jew and Gentile — it is a story of Jewish deceit and treachery against those whom they consider Gentiles. Such treachery must end. If it continues, it is only a matter of time until Esau’s rage rekindles once more, just as it has a thousand times since the “sons of Jacob” first entered our lands. Thoughtful and intelligent Jews must recognize that just as certainly as Jews have grievances against Gentiles, Gentiles have real grievances against Jews. Those Jews must take sincere action to mitigate Jewish Supremacism and destructive anti-Gentilism. They have the power of the media and wield great influence in government — certainly enough to break the cycle of Jewish Supremacism and Anti- Semitism. We do not ask Jews to sacrifice their identity and heritage. In fact, we understand their natural urge for the survival of their cultural and genetic heritage, but we demand that they recognize that same fundamental right for the peoples among whom they dwell. For instance, how hypocritical it is for Jews to promote in the Islamic World, books that deeply offensive to Muslims, such as Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses, and for Jews to seek to ban Christmas carols from American public schools, yet they seek support for the exclusively Jewish religion by American tax dollars! They campaign to open America’s borders to the Third World while working to send American tax money to a nation that denies immigration to non-Jews, denying return even to those who were born there and whose families lived there for generations!

If farsighted Jews would refrain from such hypocrisies and abide by our standards of morality while living among us, if they would stop the manipulation and exploitation, then we may avoid the tragic anti-Semitic reaction that has erupted repeatedly in so many nations. From the lessons of Jewish history that I have learned from the works of the Jews themselves, it seems unlikely that their leadership will see the wisdom in my proposal. History teaches harsh and often bloody lessons, but few heed them. I also know that we cannot rest in the vain hope and trust of the magnanimity of our traditional enemies. No, we have the right to be masters in our own house. We have the natural right to have our Western nations reflect our own soul, our own spirit, our own esthetics, our own art, our own values, our own desires, our own interests, our own destiny. Every people culture and nation have that inherent right.

As always in history, one can never negotiate successfully from weakness, only from strength. It is our task to become strong. Knowing the truth will make us strong. We must understand that we are in an evolutionary, life-or-death struggle — and we must understand that if we fail in this effort, all the beauty and greatness purchased by the blood and sacrifices of our ancestors will be lost, and along with them all hopes for the future for our people. As the Bible says so elegantly, only when Esau has dominion will Jacob’s yoke be broken. I seek no yoke upon the Jewish people. I only seek our own dominion in our own lands, free of Jewish political, intellectual and cultural domination and deformation. Jews may be able, theoretically, to trace their lineage to Jacob, but obviously, the European Peoples of the Earth were not born of Esau. Our progenitors whether Nordic, Alpine, or Mediterranean (originally Arabic) had already built the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Babylonian, Mycenaean, Sumerian, Hittite and many other civilizations when Rebecca had her twin sons. Our ancestors designed the great pyramids and the complex astronomical observatory at Stonehenge long before the Jews established the kingdoms of Solomon and David. I and my kinsmen seek no war against the Jews. We ask only to live and let live, but it must be made clear: We do intend to live! Only when Jewish Supremacism abates will Anti-Semitism disappear. Europeans, Asians and Africans will not accept the deceit or the supremacy proclaimed by Jacob. We will not wear the yoke of subservience. Our dominion shall be won. We have earned the blessings of God and Nature by our genius, our hard work, our creativity and our faith. We will not shrink from the fight for our freedom, and we reject the label of Anti-Semitism from those who are themselves the embodiment of ethnocentrism, intolerance, and anti- Gentilism.

As I began this book I will close it. I am not an anti-Semite. I simply strive for the life and freedom of my people and all peoples and nations around the world. While having respect for those Jews who act honorably, I must oppose the Jewish Supremacism that plagues so many nations. It is as simple as this: Because I love my own people I have no choice but to oppose those who would harm us or threaten our survival. Such is as natural and life-giving as the breath we take each moment.

As long as I live I will breathe. As long as I live I will defend the life and the freedom of my people.


PAGE – 9

Jesus Christ couldn’t please them when he was here on Earth,
so how could anyone expect that I would have any luck. —

President Harry S. Truman under pressure to recognize the newly announced Zionist state in Israel.414

For all its disappointments, Israel is who we are, uncamouflaged and unadorned. — Hillel Halkin 415

American Jews must have the courage to declare openly that they have a double loyalty — to the country in which they live, and to the state of Israel. The Jew must not let himself be talked into merely being a good patriot of a country in which he lives.416 In the Zionist movement’s new campaign to conquer the communities of Free Diaspora, the government of Israel will give every moral and political support…to the limits of its capacity.417 As I delved deeper into the Jewish question and Zionism, attempting to get a clear understanding of this enigmatic people, I realized that exploring the foundations and policies of the modern nation of Israel would answer some of my questions. For the first time in over 2000 years, Jews had their own sovereign state, a nation created entirely in their own image.

By the time I began my inquiry, it was obvious to me that the press and the entertainment industry were very pro-Israel. They had induced in me an early prejudice in favor of Israel. I now noticed that the reporters covering the stories for the TV networks and for the major newspapers are usually Jewish. Suspecting that much of my pro- Israel sentiment had come from biased sources, I sought to learn the undisputed basics of the Mideast conflict, and I first turned to my encyclopedias. I found in my encyclopedias, information similar to what one will find today in the “Israel” article in the very popular Encarta Encyclopedia. Of the more than 800,000 Arabs who lived in Israeli-held territory before 1948, only about 170,000 remained. The rest became refugees in the surrounding Arab countries.418 In 1948, the year the Israeli nation was set up, more than threefourths of the entire Palestinian population living in the Israeli-held territory had become refugees. According to Encarta, 630,000 people were no longer able to dwell in their homes and to work on the land where their families had lived for thousands of years. Since then, Israel expanded its borders in the wars of 1956, 1967, 1973, and in the Lebanon invasion in 1982 — creating hundreds of thousands of additional Palestinian refugees.

Would people voluntarily leave their homes, their businesses, their farms? I asked myself. Would they freely choose to live as penniless, stateless people in squalid refugee camps? Obviously, the Zionists had driven them from their homes and property; and furthermore, the expulsion had obviously been intentional, for the Palestinians were forbidden to return to their homes after the fighting ended. While in high school I wrote to a Palestinian information organization in Washington, D.C., and asked for some books giving their side of the Israeli-Arab conflict. From them and from libraries I obtained many well-documented sources — including some amazing Zionist ones — that gave a very different answer to the Mideast question. I learned that the fledgling Israeli government had passed regulations forbidding the expelled Palestinians from returning to their homes and property. They also enacted a special law that deemed this Arab property “abandoned” and subject to confiscation without compensation. The Nazis of Hitler’s Reich could not have disposed of the problem with any more cold-blooded efficiency. I checked the figures compiled by the British Census in 1922. At that time, Jews accounted for only about 10 percent of the population. In the last such census, taken the year before the establishment of Israel, Jews had made up only about half of the population within the area that subsequently became Israel. The Palestinians then owned 93.5 percent of the land. The facts were inescapable and damning: Zionist immigrants had forced their way into Palestine against the wishes of the inhabitants and then, through the weight of arms and terror, had driven the residents from their homes, robbing them of their land and possessions. The facts could not be more plain. The Zionists, with help from their cohorts all over the world, had stolen a whole nation: the nation called Israel. No equivocation, no mountain of pro-Israeli propaganda, no playing of “Exodus” on the radio, and no replay of millions of feet of Hollywood films showing Arabs as brutal terrorists and Jews as innocent victims — none of this could change the obvious and inescapable facts.

The pro-Israeli propaganda I read suggested that Palestine was essentially an empty country. Tell that to the more than one million people who have been driven out of it since 1948. Zionist leaders understood from the beginning that Israel was going to be acquired by colonization and conquest. The dedicated Zionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky makes this clear in his 1923 book The Iron Wall: We and the Arabs.419

Zionist colonization must either be terminated or carried out against the wishes of the native population . . . an iron wall… to resist the pressure to the native population. . . . A voluntary reconciliation with the Arabs is out of the question…for without an armed force …colonization is impossible. . .Zionism is a colonization adventure . . . It is important . . . to speak Hebrew, but… more important to be able to shoot… 420 Israel was born of the Holocaust, but it was sired thousands of years before then. For at least 2,000 years Jews prayed, “Next year in Jerusalem.” And until the middle of the 20th century, such prayer was only a religious metaphor. Then, dramatically, in 1948, the possibility of “next year in Jerusalem” became a possibility for every Jew in the world. The political machinations of the Zionist State are testimony to the cohesive and pervasive Jewish power in the West. In its operation, Israel lives as testimony to the very supremacist nature of both Judaism and its partly secular son, Zionism. Jewish messianic tradition goes back as far as their recorded history. Even when the Jews were one of the smallest tribes of the Middle East, they fashioned a faith that designated themselves a special people, a chosen people, a people who were promised to rule the world. These messianic intentions are not paranoid delusions of anti- Semites, but are written plainly in their own Hebraic scriptures, and since that time they have been dutifully appended, even to the present day. Compare the following Biblical quotation to the messianic words of Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion. . . .and kings shall come from you and shall rule wherever the foot of the sons of man has trodden. I shall give to your seed all the earth which is under heaven, and they shall rule over all the nations according to their desire; and afterwards they shall draw the whole earth to themselves and shall inherit it for ever’ (Jub. 32:18-19) In Look magazine in 1962, Ben-Gurion stated his prediction for the next 25 years, a prediction of amazing prescience: The image of the world in 1987 as traced in my imagination: The Cold War will be a thing of the past. Internal pressure of the constantly growing intelligentsia in Russia . . . may lead to a gradual democratization of the Soviet Union. On the other hand . . . transform the United States into a welfare state with a planned economy. . .With the exception of the USSR as a federated Eurasian state, all other continents will become united in a world alliance, at whose disposal will be an international police force. All armies will be abolished, and there will be no more wars. In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a Shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind. 421 Many people are amazed to discover that most Jews in Israel are “non-religious,” just as was their first great leader David Ben-Gurion. However, these mostly atheistic Jews tolerate a religious state. Apparently, Jews who have no belief in God support Judaism as a statesponsored institution that preserves both Jewish culture and the Jewish genotype. Other than a few intolerant fanatics, the Jewish Orthodox institutions allow a wide range of religious belief, from atheism to forms of the occult called Kabbalism. Only the Talmud could have a passage where a rabbi claims to have argued with God and defeated him. To Jewish orthodoxy, biblical and theological interpretations may vary greatly as long as Jewish tradition and Jewish heritage is scrupulously preserved.

Is God a Zionist?

Israel supports its claim on Palestinian land by saying that God gave it to the Jews. A corollary secular argument is that the remote ancestors of the Jewish people lived 2,000 years ago on parts of what is now Israel. They argue with a straight face that this gives them the right to take that land away from whoever has lived on the land during the intervening years.

That argument is much like saying that because the Romans had ruled the Mediterranean 2000 years ago the Italians now have the right to conquer the entire Mediterranean Basin and drive out threefourths of its population. Furthermore, the Jewish people cannot claim they were first people dwelling in the “Promised Land.” The Bible clearly records Jewish invasions and genocide in the region. The Palestinian people are descended from the same peoples who lived in the area before the Jewish conquests. If the claim that whoever lived on the land first has the rightful claim, then the Palestinians should have the primary claim to the land because many of their ancestors lived on it long before ancient Israel even existed. The allegation that Jewish rule over Palestine today is Godordained poses a more difficult question, especially for contemporary Christians. It is difficult because the Jewish powerbrokers have been able to completely change 2,000 years of Christian interpretation of the Bible. Servile Judeo-Christian preachers have made alliances with the Zionists because of their media power. They quote liberally from Old Testament verses that proclaim a covenant between God and the Israelites that bequeaths the land referred to as Israel to the Jews. The Christian Church of our fathers, though, from its earliest history up to recent times, has always refuted that claim. Christian scholars, from the writers of the New Testament itself to the midpoint of the 20th century, pointed out that the Bible makes it very clear that all promises made by God are conditional upon continued faithfulness. God says clearly in the Old Testament that if the Israelites reject him, he will requite them. The New Testament emphatically makes the point that the Jewish nation, by rejecting God and his Son, has dissolved the Old Covenant. New Testament scriptures quote God as making a New Covenant with a new promise of salvation of Christ for all. As I have previously quoted, the scriptures cannot possibly be any more explicit than in Hebrews 8:10, in which God says the Jews are no longer in the covenant he made in the Old Testament. 8:10 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day when I took them by the hand out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

Is it any wonder that Jews reject the New Testament and that Israel forbids even quoting from it in their schools? Government funded groups in Israel have even organized public burnings of the New Testament, and Israeli laws provide for criminal prosecution and five-year imprisonment for Christians who seek to convert Jews. It seems quite odd, in light of these facts, that many denominations of the Christian Church are now busily adopting the view that Jews are still today the “chosen people.” It is understandable that supremacist Jews who reject Christ and the New Testament would say that God sanctions their terror against the Palestinian people, but it is scandalous that Christians could possibly support them in their bloody adventure. Many of those who suffered from the Zionist onslaught were Christian Palestinians. Israel’s crimes have significantly hurt the many Christians among the Palestinian people. The fact that some Christian leaders lend moral and financial support to a nation that hates and oppresses Christians is testimony to the penetration and subversion of Zionist power and influence — even into the highest councils of various Christian denominations. In doing so they have undermined the Christian faith in the entire Mideast. And, indeed, in the entire World. The Israeli claim that God gave them the land of Israel is ludicrous when one considers that at least three-quarters of Israelis don’t be lieve in God in the first place. (Israeli government statistics say 85 percent do not believe in God.) How can a God that they do not believe in, promise them land that belongs to others? Far from being a religious promise, Israel’s creation came not from divine intervention, but from Zionist intrigue that began during the First World War.

The Balfour Declaration

The First World War laid the political foundation of the Zionist State. Britain was having a tough time of it. For years, the war had droned on causing a horrendous loss of life. Despite oceans of spilled blood, the front lines had moved only a few kilometers back and forth on the Western front.

Jewish loyalties were somewhat divided during the war. Some Jews favored the allies for business or other reasons. Others favored the Germans for the main reason that German success against Russia would weaken their long-time enemies, imperial Russia and the Czar. Just a decade earlier, financiers Jacob Schiff and Bernard Baruch led a campaign to finance the Japanese in the Russo-Japanese war, resulting in a defeat for Russia.422 Now Jewish powerbrokers around the world hoped for an even more calamitous Russian defeat in the Great War to provide an opportunity to overthrow the Czar and establish a Jewish- Bolshevik government.

The Germans, desperately fighting a war on two fronts, knew that a revolution in Russia might remove Russia from the war. Toward that end Kaiser Wilhelm approved one of the most treacherous deeds in the annals of Western civilization. In his zeal to defeat Russia, his ministers assisted Lenin, Trotsky, and hundreds of other Bolshevik revolutionaries, mostly Jewish, to cross Germany in a sealed train toward Russia. Allowing the Bolshevik terrorists and assassins access to Russia unleashed the greatest period of human oppression, torture, and murder that the world has ever experienced.

Britain and her allies fought to a stalemate against Germany, but as Russia weakened, the allies knew that her defeat would allow the entire German army on the Eastern Front to almost double their army in the West, dramatically tipping the military balance toward the Central Powers. Britain understood that it was critical that they bring the United States into the war on the Allies’ side to counter the Russian collapse.

Onto this stage of crisis, stepped the British Lord Arthur Balfour. He met with the Rothschilds, and made an agreement that in return for pledging Britain’s support in the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, the Jews would use their great international power and influence to draw the United States into the war. (see Willis Carto’s Bar nes Review) 423 Lord Balfour drew up a document — the Balfour Declaration — that called for the Jewish homeland. Even our popular encyclopedias admit the reason for the Balfour Declaration:

It has been commonly accepted that the Balfour Declaration was a unilateral undertaking by the British government. The immediate purpose was to win for the Allied cause in World War I the support of Jews and others in the warring nations and in neutral countries such as the United States.424 (Encarta Encyclopedia) Read what David Lloyd George, Britain’s wartime prime minister, wrote about the Balfour Declaration. Note his pointing out that the Jews of Russia had been the “chief agents in the betrayal of the Russian war effort” as well as “the disintegration of Russian society — later recognized as the Revolution.”

Russian Jews had been secretly active on behalf of the Central Powers from the first… by 1917 they had done much in preparing for that general disintegration of Russian society, later recognized as the Revolution. It was believed that if Great Britain declared for the fulfillment of Zionist aspirations in Palestine under her own pledge, one effect would be to bring Russian Jewry to the cause of the entente. It was believed, also, that such a declaration would have a potent influence upon world Jewry outside Russia, and secure for the entente the aid of Jewish financial interests. In America, their aid in this respect would have a special value when the Allies had almost exhausted the gold and marketable securities available for American purchase. Such were the chief considerations which, in 1917, impelled the British Government towards making a contract with Jewry.425 Samuel Landman, in his book Great Britain, The Jews and Palestine, confirms the Jewish role in bringing America into the war. Landman, a leading Zionist and secretary of the Zionist Organization from 1917 to 1922, confirms from the Jewish perspective exactly what Lloyd George says: . . . the only way (which proved so to be) to induce the American President to come into the War was to secure the cooperation of Zionist Jews by promising them Palestine, and thus enlist and mobilize the hitherto unsuspectedly powerful forces of Zionist Jews in America and elsewhere in favor of the Allies on a quid pro quo contract basis…426 Some of President Woodrow Wilson’s top advisers during the period were the Jewish Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, Rabbi Stephen Wise, and the powerful banker and international financier of New York City, Bernard Baruch. Although Wilson had campaigned for president on the slogan “He kept us out of the war,” once the Balfour Declaration was proposed, Jewish influence quickly pushed him to an interventionist path. When Balfour came to the United States in May 1917 in hopes of pulling America into the war, he ignored the U.S. State Department (which created much resentment) and met with Brandeis, who had no authority to speak on foreign relations.427 The Jewish protagonists for war were also aided in their jingoism by a number of American magnates who saw American participation in the European conflict as writing a blank check for the militaryindustrial complex. The press that was Jewish-owned or Jewish controlled agitated unashamedly for war, running lurid tales of German atrocities, and promoting stories that Germany planned to invade the United States through Mexico — even though, in four years of war, it had been unable to even take Paris.

In short order, the Germans — although racially and morally no different from the British and Americans — were labeled “Huns” and “baby-killers.” The Allies, despite Britain’s and France’s nondemocratic foreign empires, were said to be fighting for “democracy.” Even though Germany had electoral institutions similar to those of the Allies, it was called tyrannical. The two prominent slogans for the greatest and bloodiest war in all of history were, “The War to Make the World Safe for Democracy” and, incredibly, “The War to End War!” If those were truly the Allied objectives of the First World War, it is easy to see the fruits of their victory. As the 21st century begins, democracy around the world still seems to be in precious short supply, and war since 1918 has been a thriving business.

Most historians now agree that the First World War was not the result of aggression or dictatorship or any sinister force other than entangling alliances structured to preserve the balance of power. Essentially, it was prompted by nothing but national fears and bravado. For most of that internecine conflict, America sensibly stayed out of the war’s insanity, but finally, Jewish power, whose concern, as always, was only its own interests — tipped the scales for war. After all, what were the lives of a few hundred thousand young Americans compared to the interests of the Chosen?

The media keeps Americans blind to the Jewish influence in our participation in the First World War, just as they had cloaked the pivotal Jewish involvement in the Russian Revolution. The world didn’t even learn until 1999 that Lord Balfour was actually a Jew, 428 and while ostensibly working for Britain’s interest was secretly working on behalf of the world Zionist organization. Even to this day, few Americans are aware of the preeminent Jewish influence directly resulting in America’s involvement in the First World War. The Balfour Declaration was innocuous-sounding enough, and it took pains to state, …that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. 429 The Zionists, though, did not want a homeland containing a significant non-Jewish community. From the outset, they were determined not to set up a multicultural, pluralistic democracy that they were so busy planning for America and the rest of the European world. They wanted a chauvinistic, ethno-religious, purely Jewish state, but they could not reveal this until they had attained power in Palestine. Among themselves, though, they made clear their intentions to create an ethnic state — one amazingly similar to the nation they most hated: Nazi Germany.

Zionism / Nazism: Born in Each Other’s Image

In the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, Julius Streicher, the notorious publisher of the Nazi magazine, Der Stürmer, gave the following testimony when asked if he had helped develop Germany’s racial laws:

The accused (Streicher) : Yes,…I had been writing that all mixing of German and Jewish blood had to be prevented in the future. I wrote articles to that effect, and I have always repeated that we had to take the Jewish race, or the Jewish people, as a model. I have always repeated in my articles that the Jews were to be regarded as a model by other races, for they have given themselves a racial law, the law of Moses, which says: “If you go unto foreign lands, you must not take foreign wives.” And this, Gentlemen, is of great importance in judging the Nuremberg laws. It was these Jewish laws that were taken as a model. When, centuries later, the Jewish legislator Ezra saw that, despite this, many Jews had married non-Jewish wives, these bonds were broken. This was the origin of Jewry which, thanks to its racial laws, survived for centuries, whereas all the other races and civilizations were destroyed. 430 The racial awakening in Europe of the 19th and 20th centuries grew in great part because of the presence of the Jewish people. There were no Blacks or Orientals in Europe, but there was no shortage of Jews. Scientific and social observers noted that their character and appearance differed from those of the indigenous races of Europe.

One of the first major figures to recognize the dynamic power of race and write extensively about it was the British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli, who himself was of Jewish heritage. He stated: “The racial question is the key to world history…all is race, there is no other truth.”

Scholars who recognized the role of race in history knew that the power and perseverance of the Jewish race rests in its ethnocentrism and prohibitions against intermarriage, enabling it to survive after 2,000 years of living among Gentiles. As Streicher’s testimony proves, the formulators of European racial ideology had learned a lot from studying Jewish institutions and history. Although Zionists and Nazis saw each other as mortal enemies, many of the leaders of both movements had extremely similar ideas, and many collaborated in pursuit of their mutual aims.

The National Socialists wanted their own nation free of Jewish influence, and the Zionists sought nonassimilation with Gentiles and a nation of their own. (Even today in modern America and Europe most major Jewish organizations oppose intermarriage.) At first glance, it seems unbelievable that Zionism and Nazism sometimes had worked together, but the historical record reveals fascinating evidence. Most Jews in Europe and the rest of the world virulently opposed Hitler and National Socialist Germany. In fact, as Hitler gained power in 1933, the World Jewish Congress, claiming to speak for Jews worldwide, declared economic war on Germany and announced their intention to do everything in their power to destroy Germany and National Socialism.431

Within the Jewish community, however, there were many Zionists who saw the anti-Semitic policies of Germany as an aid to the creation of the Jewish state. They saw those policies as encouraging emigration to Palestine and increasing Jewish anger and solidarity. And, interestingly enough, they viewed the racial thinking of Hitler as analogous to what they desired for their own people. For these Jews, collusion between the Zionists and the Nazis served the interests of both. Britain had difficulty dealing with the increased Jewish immigration into Palestine in the 1930s, as it caused marked unrest in the Arab sectors of the mandate. To lessen tensions, the British attempted to limit Jewish immigration into Palestine. Into this opportunity stepped Hitler and Nazi Germany. Hitler had misgivings about Israel becoming a center for international Jewish power in the same way the Soviet Union had become one for international Communism. Although he had concerns about damaging German relations with the Arab world, he saw the emigration of the Jews from Germany and all Europe as being of paramount importance. In his mind, a Jewish state in Palestine might be a practical destination for Europe’s Jews, although he favored the far less populated, and larger, island of Madagascar. From the earliest days of Hitler’s rise to power, the leading Zionist organization in Germany sought out common ground with him.

Within months of Hitler’s achieving the chancellorship, the Zionist Federation of Germany presented him with a statement suggesting that Zionism could solve the “Jewish Question.” In the foundation of the new State, which has proclaimed the race principle, we wish to adapt our community to these new structures… Our recognition of the Jewish nationality allows us to establish clear and sincere relations with the German people and its national and racial realities. Precisely because we do not want to underestimate these fundamental principles, because we too are against mixed marriages and for the maintaining of the purity of the Jewish group. . .

. . .Zionism believes that the rebirth of the national life of a people, which is now occurring in Germany through the emphasis on its Christian and national character, must also come about in the Jewish national group. For the Jewish people, too, national origin, religion, common destiny and a sense of its uniqueness must be of decisive importance in the shaping of its existence. . . . . .We are not blind to the fact that a Jewish question exists and will continue to exist. From the abnormal situation of the Jews severe disadvantages result for them, but also scarcely tolerable conditions for other peoples. 432 433 434 435 Joachim Prinz, a German Zionist who emigrated to the United States and who later became head of the American Jewish Congress, wrote in his 1934 book Wir Juden [We Jews] 436 that the National Socialist revolution in Germany meant “Jewry for the Jews.” Prinz in later years also wrote scathingly about Adolf Hitler’s view of the importance of race, but hypocritically showed no reluctance to defend the concept of the “Jewish race.” We want assimilation to be replaced by a new law: the declaration of belonging to the Jewish nation and the Jewish race. A state built upon the principle of the purity of nation and race can only be honoured and respected by a Jew who declares his belonging to his own kind…No subterfuge can save us now. In place of assimilation we desire a new concept: recognition of the Jewish nation and Jewish race. 437 In the key book of modern Zionism, the Jewish State,

Theodore Herzl maintained that the Jews were much more than a religious community; they were a people. Herzl even used the well-known German racialist word Volk to describe them. Volk was also one of Hitler’s favorite words. With it he described his ideal state, the “Volkishe Staat.” Herzl wrote, long before Hitler’s rise, that Anti- Semitism is a natural reaction of Gentiles to Jews. He advocated a separate state as the only real answer to the conflict. 438 439 440 441

The Jewish question exists wherever Jews live in noticeable numbers, Where it does not exist, it is brought in by arriving Jews. . . . I believe I understand Anti-Semitism, which is a very complex phenomenon. . .I consider this development as a Jew, without hate or fear. . . It is a national question. To solve it we must, above all, make it an international political issue. . . a final solution of the Jewish question.

The leading German Zionist paper, Judische Rundschau, in 1935 even went so far as to express approval of the “Nuremberg Laws” designating Jews as an alien nationality and forbidding intermarriage and sexual relations between Germans and Jews. The new laws give the Jewish minority in Germany its own cultural life, its own national life. In the future it will be able to shape its own schools, its own theatre, and its own sports associations. In short, it can create its own future in all aspects of national life . . .442

Georg Kareski, the former head of the largest Jewish community in Western Europe (that of Berlin) and leader of the Zionist State Organization and Jewish Cultural League, made the following comment to the Berlin daily Der Angriff at the end of 1935: For many years I have regarded a complete separation of the cultural affairs of the two peoples [Jews and Germans] as a precondition for living together without conflict. . . . I have long supported such a separation, provided it is founded on respect for the alien nationality. The Nuremberg Laws . . . seem to me, apart from their legal provisions, to conform entirely with this desire for a separate life based on mutual respect. . . . This interruption of the process of dissolution in many Jewish communities, which had been promoted through mixed marriages, is therefore, from a Jewish point of view, entirely welcome. 443 444 445 446 447 Other leading Zionists around the world spoke similarly. Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, president of the American Jewish Congress and the World Jewish Congress, speaking before a rally in New York in 1938, said:

I am not an American citizen of the Jewish faith, I am a Jew. I am an American. I have been an American for sixty-three sixty-fourths of my life, but I have been a Jew for 4000 years. Hitler was right in one thing. He calls the Jewish people a race and we are a race.448 Not only did the Nazis and Zionists cooperate with each other, they actively collaborated up to and even during the Second World War. The Nazi government set up a series of 40 agricultural centers throughout Germany to train young Jews for kibbutz life in Palestine. It supported emigration of Jews to Palestine until prevented by the war. The official SS newspaper, Das Schwarze Korps, supported Zionism in front-page editorials.449

The SS collaborated with the Haganah, the Zionist underground military in Palestine, with help in Jewish emigration and even provided smuggled guns for the Zionist forces. Despite misgivings, Hitler continued to support Zionist objectives in Palestine.450 451 452 453 Hitler told his army adjutant in 1939 and again in 1941 that he had asked the British in 1937 about transferring all of Germany’s Jews to Palestine or Egypt.

The British rejected the proposal, he said, because it would cause further disorder in those countries.454 As the British government became more restrictive on Jewish immigration into Palestine in the late 1930s, the SS made a pact with the secret Zionist agency Mossad le-Aliya Bet to smuggle Jews into Palestine. As a result of this collaboration, Jewish migration, both legal and illegal, from Germany (including Austria) to Palestine increased dramatically in 1938 and 1939. 10,000 Jews were scheduled for emigration in October 1939, but the beginning of the war prevented it. During 1940 and 1941, and as late as March 1942, Germany still assisted with indirect Jewish emigration to Palestine and had at least one officially authorized Zionist “kibbutz” training camp in Germany for potential emigrants.455 (see also “Secrets of the Mossad” in Barnes Review)456 In the economic sphere, the Ha’avara agreement between Nazi Germany and the Palestine Center of the World Zionist Organization was vital to the Zionist cause.

It began in 1933 and lasted throughout the 1930s and allowed the transfer of Jewish wealth to Palestine. Through this pact, Hitler’s Third Reich did more than any other government during the 1930s to support Jewish development in Palestine. 457 458 459 460 461 462

Probably the most telling document of the willingness of some Zionist factions to enter an alliance with Hitler was the offer made in 1941 by the Fighters for the Freedom of Israel, popularly called the “Lehi,” or the Stern Gang. One of its top officials was Yitzhak Shamir, who became its leader and chief terrorist after Stern’s death and who later became Israel’s prime minister in the 1980s.

The Stern gang considered the British to be Zionism’s biggest enemy because Great Britain tried to protect the civil rights of the native Palestinians and attempted to slow the insurgent Jewish immigration.

In one of the most amazing facts of modern history, the Lehi actually made a formal proposal to the Germans of a military alliance between the Jewish revolutionary organization and the Nazis. In effect, they formally proposed to join the war on Germany’s side.

Here are portions of the text of their communiqué with the Nazis. In their speeches and statements, the leading statesmen of National Socialist Germany have often emphasized that a New Order in Europe requires as a prerequisite a radical solution of the Jewish question by evacuation. (“Jew-free Europe”) The evacuation of the Jewish masses from Europe is a precondition for solving the Jewish question. However, the only way this can be totally achieved is through settlement of these masses in the homeland of the Jewish people, Palestine, and by the establishment of a Jewish state in its historical boundaries. The goal of the political activity and the years of struggle by the Israel Freedom Movement, the National Military Organization in Palestine (Irgun Zvai Leumi), is to solve the Jewish problem in this way and thus completely liberate the Jewish people forever. The NMO, which is very familiar with the good will of the German Reich government and its officials towards Zionist activities within Germany and the Zionist emigration program, takes that view that:

1. Common interests can exist between a European New Order based on the German concept and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as embodied by the NMO. 2. Cooperation is possible between the New Germany and a renewed, folkish-national Jewry. 3. The establishment of the historical Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, and bound by treaty with the German Reich, would be in the interest of maintaining and strengthening the future German position of power in the Near East.

On the basis of these considerations, and upon the condition that the German Reich government recognize the national aspirations of the Israel Freedom Movement mentioned above, the NMO in Palestine offers to actively take part in the war on the side of Germany. This offer by the NMO could include military, political and informational activity within Palestine and, after certain organizational measures, outside as well… The indirect participation of the Israel Freedom Movement in the New Order of Europe, already in the preparatory stage, combined with a positive-radical solution of the European Jewish problem on the basis of the national aspirations of the Jewish people mentioned above, would greatly strengthen the moral foundation of the New Order in the eyes of all humanity. The cooperation of the Israel Freedom Movement would also be consistent with a recent speech by the German Reich Chancellor, in which Hitler stressed that he would utilize any combination and coalition in order to isolate and defeat England. 463 464 465 No records exist of the German response to the amazing proposal, but by the time it was offered, Germany had already committed itself to a pro-Arab posture in an attempt to undermine Britain’s position in the Middle East. When I first saw this document, I noticed the ideological similarities between Zionism and National Socialism, right down to the use of that favorite Nazi word “folkish” (Volk) to describe the foundations of the state they wanted to create. It fascinated me to read about Zionist collusion with Nazi Germany.

Zionist-Nazi collaboration has long been a dirty little secret — one that speaks volumes about the ideological foundations of Israel and the lengths to which Zionist extremists would go to secure its creation. Zionist fanaticism had little regard for human lives, including that of Jews, when it came to the establishment of Israel. Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, made the following statement when German Jewry was threatened by Hitler. If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England, and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Yisrael, then I would opt for the second alternative. For we must weigh not only the life of these children, but also the history of the People of Israel. 466 If Israel’s first prime minister’s regard for Jewish life was such that he would rather see half the Jewish children of Germany die than be transported to England instead of Israel, how much value could one expect him to place on the life of a Palestinian child? How would the world react to a Nazi who would say that he would rather see half the Jewish children die rather than simply go to another country? Another classic example of his low regard for human life, even Jewish life, can be seen in a 1940 terrorist act by Ben-Gurion and the founders of the Zionist state. The Haganah, led by Ben-Gurion, blew up a ship of Jewish refugees from Hitler. The British had been taking them to Mauritius rather than allowing them to disembark in Haifa, Israel. To arouse indignation against the British, the Zionists blew up the ship on Christmas day, 1940, causing the death of 252 Jews as well as the ship’s English crewmen. If Nazis had blown up a ship of refugees in the waters of Israel, the Mossad would have hunted the perpetrators to the ends of the Earth if need be, so that they could be brought before the Israeli “war crimes” courts. There would be wellpublicized, annual remembrances of the terrible act of terrorism. Instead, Israel chose the murderer as its first prime minister.467 Zionism and Nazism are torn from similar cloth, their banners stained with blood. Zionists, though, are infinitely better at public relations.

Israel: A Racist State

On November 10th 1975, a plenary session of the United Nations declared that Zionism is a form of racism. Howls of protest went up across America and throughout the world from the (once again) poor, persecuted Jews. They were furious that such a charge could have been made against the “only true democracy in the Mideast.” But what exactly is Zionism if it is not racism? Even David Ben-Gurion, in discussing the “Hitlerism” of Menachem Begin, wrote, “He can be accused of racism, but then one will have to put on trial the entire Zionist movement, which is founded on the principle of a purely Jewish entity in Palestine.” 468 The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1965, has now been ratified by most member states. Article 1 of this Convention defines the term racial discrimination as . . .any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. 469

Israel was and is a nation set up exclusively for Jews. By the Israeli “Law of Return,” a Jew is defined not by his religious beliefs, but by his Jewish ancestry, proven by the heritage of his parents. Although it is possible for Gentiles to convert to Judaism, the obstacles are so great that the “converted” make up only a tiny percentage of the Jewish population. As I write these lines, Jewish Orthodoxy, the statesanctioned religion of Israel, is in a major controversy with American Reform and Conservative factions because the Orthodox in Israel will not even recognize conversions from these two branches of Judaism. A Palestinian who was born within the boundaries of what is now Israel, and whose family lived there for thousands of years before being forced out by the Israeli army, cannot return to his homeland and become a citizen of Israel. In contrast, an atheist Jew born in New York City and who speaks no Hebrew, can immigrate to Israel and be granted instant citizenship. In addition, the Israeli government offers him help for housing, living expenses, education, besides numerous other benefits.

In 1948, nearly 94 percent of the land of Israel was owned by Palestinians. Since then, Palestinian-owned land has been systematically confiscated by the Israeli government. Most of the Palestinian land went into what Israel calls the “National Jewish Fund,” and was declared by law to be “Land of Israel.” It has become “Jewish” land, and by law it can never be sold to a non-Jew, rented to a non-Jew, or worked by a non-Jew. Much of the land has been given at no cost to Jewish settlers. The Zionist army has forced the Palestinians from more than 350 cities and villages in Israel and the Occupied Territo ries and then bulldozed the homes. Even ancient Palestinian cemeteries are often plowed under.

Two other laws concern the Keren Kayemet (“National Jewish Fund” Law passed on 23 November 1953) and the Keren Hayesod (“Reconstruction Fund” Law passed on 10 January 1956). The president of the Israeli Human Rights League, Doctor Israel Shahak, a professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, in his book, The Racism of the State of Israel,470 tells us that there are in Israel whole towns (Carmel, Nazareth, Illith, Hatzor, Arad, Mitzphen-Ramen, and others) where non-Jews are forbidden by law to live.

The Palestinians who remained in Israel, although ostensibly citizens, suffer intense discrimination. They are given citizenshipidentification cards that have no Israeli nationality designation; nationality is listed only as Arab or Jewish, lending itself to the many discriminatory policies in the Jewish state. In Israel there are whole cities and settlements in which it is illegal for Palestinians to live. There are segregated housing areas and complexes, schools, and recreational facilities where Palestinians are not allowed. This segregation is not de facto; it is official government policy. Palestinians are not permitted to serve in the military, and despite the fact that Palestinians comprise between 15 and 20 percent of the Israeli population, there has never even been one Palestinian in the Israeli cabinet. Israeli law does not recognize the legality of marriage between Jews and Palestinians, as marriages and other aspects of civil laws are decided by religious courts, which do not recognize such marriages. Whenever I see Jews in the American media glorifying and encouraging intermarriage between Blacks and Whites, I think about their hypocrisy in supporting a nation that will not, by law, recognize a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew. Haim Cohen, a former judge of the Supreme Court of Israel, noted …the bitter irony of fate which has led to the same biological and racist laws propagated by the Nazis and which inspired the infamous Nuremberg laws, to serve as a basis for the definition of Judaism within the State of Israel. 471 It is quite interesting when a respected member of the Israeli Supreme Court says almost exactly the same thing about Jewish Supremacism as did the much Jewish-maligned, Julius Streicher, at the Nuremberg Trials. It is truly a world turned upside down, when the same American and world press that never tires of conjuring up images of the crimes and evils of Nazism, but in turn gives a Jewish supremacist, Nazi-like nation international deference and adulation. As the primary founder of Israel, Ben Gurion, admitted — Zionism was founded on racist principles. If anyone other than a Zionist leader dares say that same thing as the Israeli founder, the world press will viciously condemned him. If by their power in the media and in the governments of the Western World, Jewish Supremacists can so effectively hide their extreme supremacism, disguising their terrorism must seem to them like child’s play. Having already learned a lot about the terrorism and bloodthirstiness of Jewish Bolsheviks in the early days of Communism, I now delved more thoroughly into an investigation of Zionist terrorism in Mideast.

A Palestinian I met in college related to me one the most descriptive remarks I have ever heard concerning the Palestinian conflict. He told me that “The Jew always cries in pain as he strikes you!”


PAGE – 10

The first obstacle to Zionist objectives was that Britain envisioned a Palestine as portrayed by the Balfour Declaration, a society that would protect the civil and religious rights of all who lived there. To dislodge the British, whom the League of Nations had mandated to govern Palestine, the Zionists developed to a fine art the use of terrorism as a modern weapon of political revolution. Menachem Begin, Abraham Stern, Yitshak Shamir, David Ben-Gurion, and many others began a campaign of bombings and assassination. They hanged and garroted British soldiers with piano wire and left their mutilated bodies to be found by the British authorities. Israeli terrorists blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, killing more than 90 people. Their operatives invented the letter-bomb technique. Jewish hitmen even assassinated the UN mediator in Palestine, Count Folke Bernadotte, because he dared to express concern for the rights of the Palestinians. In his final report to the UN before his death, Bernadotte scathingly referred to Zionist pillage on a grand scale and the destruction of villages without apparent military need. 472(U.N. archives) It would offend basic principles to prevent these innocent victims of the conflict from returning to their homes, while Jewish immigrants flood into Palestine . . . threatening to permanently replace the dispossessed Arab refugees who have been here for centuries. 473 The Zionist campaign worked. Eventually tiring of the terrorist campaign waged against them and despairing of a world press that covered up these crimes, the British finally threw up their hands and announced their withdrawal from the region. With the British gone, the Zionists could have their way with the native peoples who had dared to live on the land they coveted. No force was left to restrain them. Aided by both the military and financial support of both the capitalist U.S.A. and the Communist U.S.S.R., as well as by the huge sums of money that poured in from Zionist coffers from all over the world, the Jewish blitzkrieg rolled over their enemies as decisively as the Biblical account of the Red Sea rolling over the Egyptians. With military victory certain, two significant problems still confronted the Zionists. The first was that there were hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who obviously would not sit back and let the new Jewish State take away their rights and their lands. Secondly, Palestinians owned more than 93 percent of the land of the new nation — a serious roadblock to the new “Greater Israel.” Quoting literally from the Book of Joshua, Jewish religious leaders warned that Israel must drive the Palestinians out of their borders: Else if ye do in any wise go back, and cleave unto the remnant of these nations, even these that remain among you, and make marriages with them, and go in unto them, and they to you; know for a certainty that the Lord your God will no more drive these nations from out of your sight; but they shall be a snare and a trap unto you, and a scourge in your sides, and pricks in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land — (Joshua 23:12-13)474

Zionists fanatics ultimately solved their “Palestinian problem” with mass expulsions, murder, and well-planned, intentional terror, what the press refers to in modern times as ethnic cleansing. Palestinians who were born there and whose ancestors had lived there for countless generations were rounded up by the Israeli stormtroopers and driven over the border. Told they could never return to their homes, those expelled had little more than the tattered clothes on their backs. Many who refused to leave their homes were massacred by the Israeli military, and the Zionists publicized the massacres, intentionally causing widespread panic and flight among the Palestinians.

Committing atrocities against the Palestinians became an integral part of the Israeli strategy. When Jewish terrorists raped and massacred the residents of Arab villages, those in the surrounding villages naturally gathered up their children and fled for their lives, that was precisely what they wanted. Once the Zionists set up their state and secured their initial borders — minus approximately 630,000 pesky Palestinian men, women, and children — the beneficent government of Israel forbade them ever to return to their homes, businesses, fields and flocks. By the time the Israeli “War for Freedom” ended, only about 170,000 Palestinians were left within Israel’s borders. The Jews, of course, had prominent and powerful spokesmen and supporters all over the world, especially in media, telling of the courage and righteousness of “little Israel.” By the 1960s there were millions of adults and children around the world who, like me, were enthralled by the heroic story of Israel — a story romantically retold by the Academy Award-winning movie Exodus.475 At that time I, just as most Americans of today, had scant knowledge of the gross injustice committed against the Palestinians.

The Massacre at Dier Yassin

The most well-known atrocity of the first Israeli war was the massacre of Deir Yassin. On April 9, 1948, after cessation of fighting in that small village, the Zionist terrorist Irgun Gang, led by Menachem Begin, murdered 254 people, most of them women, children, and the elderly. For two days these Zionist terrorists had murdered men, women, and children, raped women, crushed the stomachs of pregnant women, and stolen their possessions. A Red Cross doctor, Jacques de Reynier, chief representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Jerusalem gave a chilling account of the massacre in his official report.476

De Reynier arrived at the village on the second day and saw “the mopping up,” as one of the terrorists put it to him. It had been done with machine guns, then grenades, and was finished off with knives. They decapitated some of the victims and maimed 52 children in the sight of their mothers. The terrorists cut open 25 pregnant women’s wombs and butchered the babies in front of them. After his retirement in 1972, Israeli Haganah officer, Colonel Meir Pa’el, stated the following about Deir Yassin in Yediot Ahronot, a major Jewish publication: The Irgun and LEHI men came out of hiding and began to `clean’ the houses. They shot whoever they saw, women and children included, the commanders did not try to stop the massacre…they were taken to the quarry between Deir Yassin and Giv’at Shaul, and murdered in cold blood…477 The commander of the Haganah unit that controlled Deir Yassin after the massacre, Zvi Ankori, made this statement in the Israeli newspaper Davar: I went into six to seven houses. I saw cut off genitalia and women’s crushed stomachs. According to the shooting signs on the bodies, it was direct murder. 478 Albert Einstein, along with other concerned Jews, wrote a letter to the New York Times in 1948 decrying Begin as having: “openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist State.” He went on to describe Deir Yassin in these words:

On April 9, terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants — 240 men, women, and children, and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem… the terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre…

Menachem Begin boasts of the importance of the massacre of Deir Yassin in his book The Revolt: The Story of the Irgun. He wrote that there would not have been a State of Israel without the “victory” of Deir Yassin. “The Haganah carried out victorious attacks on other fronts… In a state of terror, the Arabs fled, crying, ‘Deir Yassin.’ ” 479. Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion — no slouch at Jewish supremacy himself — was quoted as describing Begin with these words:

Begin undeniably belongs to the Hitlerian type. He is a racist, ready to destroy all the Arabs in his dream of unification of Israel, prepared to resort to any means to realize this sacred goal.480 The instigator of the mass murder, Menachem Begin, later became the Prime Minister of Israel and even received the Nobel Peace Prize. Such an award is symbolic of the incredible world-wide Jewish media power, for Begin had been guilty of crimes not dissimilar to those of Nazis whom Jews are still hunting and prosecuting today. Yet instead of facing trial and punishment for crimes against humanity, Begin received what many would consider the world’s highest honor. When I first learned of Dier Yassin, I would recount the Israeli massacres and ask my friends, Have you seen any TV documentaries or any Hollywood movies about the Israeli terror of Deir Yassin or of many thousands of other Israeli acts of terror against the Palestinian people? You have heard plenty of violin music for Jewish victims of Hitler, but have you heard any violins for the women at Deir Yassin who had their babies cut from their wombs by Jewish Supremacists? In the intervening years there have been many more terrible acts of Israeli terrorism. Perhaps I can ask the same of those now reading this text, have you heard any violins for any of the other thousands of Palestinian victims of Begin, Shamir, Barak, and Sharon?

Befitting Israel’s long record of terrorism against the Palestinian people, Israel has the nasty habit of electing its most notorious terrorists and mass murderers as its Head of State.

The United States has a whole division of the Justice Department dedicated to hunting down Nazis who have committed crimes against humanity. While America doggedly pursues elderly suspected German war criminals, American Presidents have state dinners honoring Jewish ones!

The massacre at Deir Yassin was not the only one Israeli forces committed. In its May 6, 1992 edition, the Hebrew daily Ha’ir published an article by Guy Erlich called “Not Only Deir Yassin” that outlined a pattern of terror and murder. Erlich quotes the Israeli historian Aryeh Yitzhaki as saying the following: ‘The time has come’ he says, ‘for a generation has passed, and it is now possible to face the ocean of lies in which we were brought up. In almost every conquered village in the War of Independence, acts were committed, which are defined as war crimes, such as indiscriminate killings, massacres and rapes. I believe that such things end by surfacing. The only question is how to face such evidence.’ 481

Erlich and Yitzhaki point out that Israeli authorities are still covering up the murders. Nor did the massacres cease after the establishment of the Jewish State; they continued in times of both peace and war. Following are the names of some of them: Sharafat Massacre, Kibya Massacre, Kafr Qasem Massacre, Al-Sammou’ Massacre, the Sabra And Chatila Massacre, Oyon Qara Massacre, Al-Aqsa Mosque Massacre, the Ibrahimi Mosque Massacre, the Jabalia Massacre. There were further killings and expulsions of the Arabs as the Jewish State expanded. In subsequent wars and military incursions, Israel drove more hundreds of thousands of Palestinians into relocation camps. Plagued by hunger and disease they bore remarkable resemblance to wartime concentration camps. Lebanon also fell victim to Israeli aggression in the 1980s and 1990s, when it was bombed and invaded. Estimates of civilian casualties in Lebanon exceeded 15,000. The Zionist State also surreptitiously helped create and support rival factions in the Lebanese civil war which added tens of thousands to the death toll.

The extraordinary diaires of Moshe Sharett, who had once shared the prime ministership of Israel with David Ben-Gurion, reveal Israel’s treachery in the Lebanese Civil War. Sharett had been forced out of the cabinet because he would not go along with what he felt were Ben-Gurion’s clandestine and immoral actions. After Sharett’s death, his son published the diaries despite a long battle of intimidation and legal maneuvers by the Zionists. Jewish author Livia Rokach quotes Sharett’s diaries in her book Israel’s Sacred Terrorism. The diaries tell how Israel purposefully created the Lebanese “Civil War” to further Israel’s imperialist ambitions.482 In May, 1955 passages, Sharett’s dairy describes Israel’s plans to destabilize Lebanon’s government, a plan that eventually produced the 1978 Lebanese War. Sharett quotes Moshe Dayan, Ben- Gurion’s defense minister, at a secret cabinet meeting on May 16th planning to foment Lebanese civil war as an excuse for Israel to go in and annex land with water rights to the Litani River.483 484 In the first invasion of Lebanon in 1982, 10,000 civilians died and one half of a million people were driven from their homes. In the course of the fighting, Israeli forces devastated the city of Beirut, which before the war was described as the garden city of the Mideast. During the Israeli invasion, The U.S.S. New Jersey, sitting offshore, fired shells into some of the Lebanese towns. The U.S. involvement in Israel’s 1982 war destroyed what little credibility America had left in the Mideast and cost our taxpayers billions; it also cost the lives of 241 U.S. Marines. More than 1,500 women, children, and elderly people were butchered in the Sabra and Chatila refugee centers under the watchful eyes of the Israeli invaders.

A Terrorist, Mass-Murderer as Israeli Head of State

Israel’s Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, is one of the world’s most bloodstained terrorists. He is responsible for the cold-blooded slaughter of at least 1,500 men, women and children in the Beirut refugee camps of Chatila and Sabra. Even a formal Israeli commission found Sharon personally responsible for the Lebanese massacres.485 In 1982, as Israel’s defense minister, Sharon directed Israel’s invasion of Lebanon and the carpet bombing and devastation of the city of Beirut ( In Lebanon four times more women and children died than in the September New York attack ). This terror bombing was carried out by Jews using jet fighters and bombs supplied by the United States.

After the Israeli military devastation and occupation, Sharon forcibly removed Palestinian resistance fighters from Lebanon. Many Palestinian women, children and old people were left behind in refugee camps near Beirut. The United States publicly guaranteed their safety and promised that they would quickly be reunited with their loved ones. When Sharon plotted their murder, he not only planned a bloody act of terrorism against the refugees; he knew it was an act of treachery against the United States that would raise intense hatred against America.

On the night of September 16, 1982, Sharon sent Phalangist murder squads into two Palestinian refugee camps, Sabra and Chatila. With Israeli tanks and troops closely surrounding the camps to prevent any of the Palestinians from escaping, the murder squads machine- gunned, bayoneted, and bludgeoned Palestinian civilians all that night, the next day and the following night; all while the Israelis surrounding the camps listened gleefully to the machine gun fire and screams coming from inside. Sharon then sent in bulldozers to hide as much of the atrocity as he could. At least 1500 Palestinian men, women and children were butchered, and perhaps as many as 2500. (An official Lebanese investigation set the figure at 2500) Even after the efforts of Sharon’s bulldozers, many Palestinians remained unburied, and Red Cross workers found whole families; including hundreds of elderly and little children, with their throats cut or disemboweled. Uncounted numbers of women and girls were also raped before they were slaughtered. Ariel Sharon is sought for trial by a Belgium court for crimes against inhumanity in much the way that the Hague Tribunal succeeded in extraditing former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic for charges of crimes against humanity in Kosovo. Sharon will not travel to Belgium for fear of arrest by the International Court for the massacre.486

Although he is sought for his Chatila and Sabra murders, Sharon could be tried for any of a dozen other massacres committed during his sterling career, crimes against humanity that go back at least as far as 1953. The Israeli newspaper, Ha’aretz, recalls Sharon’s leading of a massacre in the village of Kibya in 1953, “The soldiers of Major Ariel Sharon killed 70 Palestinians in the reprisal raid, most of them women and children “487 Israel’s murder of the Palestinian refugees after the United States had publicly guaranteed their safety was not only a crime against humanity, but also one of treachery against America. Sharon and the others involved were completely aware of America’s well-publicized promise of the refugees’ safety. The Beirut Sabra and Chatila Massacre was the chief motivation of the Lebanese suicide bombing attack that killed 241 American Marines in Beirut less than a year later, and it clearly demonstrates how American support of Israeli terrorism leads to terrible consequences for the United States. The Los Angeles Times, in discussing a revealing book by a former agent of the Israeli Mossad (secret service), showed that the Mossad had foreknowledge of the terrorist attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983, but treacherously did not warn America. 488 Among Ostrovsky’s more shocking allegations are that Mossad failed to share with the U.S. detailed intelligence that might have averted the 1983 suicide bombing of the Beirut Marine barracks that killed 241 U.S. servicemen;… The Qana Massacre A more recent massacre was at Qana, a small town in southern Lebanon. Here are some excerpts of a British journalist’s eyewitness account of the action so that the reader can fully understand that behind the cold statistics are real people, people who have faced a horror no less real than those who were murdered in the World Trade Center bombing. Qana, southern Lebanon – It was a massacre. Not since Sabra and Chatila had I seen the innocent slaughtered like this. The Lebanese refugee women and children and men lay in heaps, their hands or arms or legs missing, beheaded or disemboweled. There were well over a hundred of them. A baby lay without a head. The Israeli shells had scythed through them as they lay in the United Nations shelter, believing that they were safe under the world’s protection. Like the Muslims of Srebrenica, the Muslims of Qana were wrong. In front of a burning building of the UN’s Fijian battalion headquarters, a girl held a corpse in her arms, the body of a gray- haired man whose eyes were staring at her, and she rocked the corpse back and forth in her arms, keening and weeping and crying the same words over and over: “My father, my father.” A Fijian UN soldier stood amid a sea of bodies and, without saying a word, held aloft the body of a headless child.

…When I walked towards them, I slipped on a human hand…

Israel’s slaughter of civilians in this terrible 10-day offensive – 206 by last night – has been so cavalier, so ferocious, that not a Lebanese will forgive this massacre. There had been the ambulance attacked on Saturday, the sisters killed in Yohmor the day before, the 2-year-old girl decapitated by an Israeli missile four days ago. And earlier yesterday, the Israelis had slaughtered a family of 12 – the youngest was a four- day-old baby – when Israeli helicopter pilots fired missiles into their home. Shortly afterwards, three Israeli jets dropped bombs only 250 meters from a UN convoy on which I was traveling, blasting a house 30 feet into the air in front of my eyes. Traveling back to Beirut to file my report on the Qana massacre to the Independent last night, I found two Israeli gunboats firing at the civilian cars on the river bridge north of Sidon… A French UN trooper muttered oaths to himself as he opened a bag in which he was dropping feet, fingers, pieces of people’s arms… We had suddenly become not UN troops and journalists but Westerners, Israel’s allies, an object of hatred and venom. One bearded man with fierce eyes stared at us, his face dark with fury. “You are Americans”, he screamed at us. “Americans are dogs. You did this. Americans are dogs.” President Bill Clinton has allied himself with Israel in its war against “terrorism” and the Lebanese, in their grief, had not forgotten this. Israel’s official expression of sorrow was rubbing salt in their wounds. “I would like to be made into a bomb and blow myself up amid the Israelis”, one old man said…489 Unlike the bloody scenes of the aftermath of Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel, Americans and Europeans never saw the butchery that Fisk describes. The media very seldom draw our attention to sufferings inflicted by Jews, it is suffering inflicted on Jews that they focus on. Those who wear the six-pointed star and who bomb United Nations shelters, ambulances, civilian refugee camps and civilian automobiles are never described as terrorists. They are simply referred to as “commandos” or simply “military forces.” In contrast, Palestinian fighters outside the borders of Israel are, of course, routinely described as terrorists.

The remarks of the unknown old man at Qana that he “would like to be made into a bomb and blow myself up amid the Israelis,” proved tragically prophetic, for just a year and a half later a number of Palestinians, desperate to exact revenge, sacrificed their lives to do just that in a Jerusalem marketplace, since that time dozens have done so in intervening years. No one can defend any acts that kill or maim the innocent, but it is important to understand the horror that has induced hundreds of Palestinians to sacrifice their own lives to strike their feeble blows at those who have murdered their loved ones and stolen their homeland. In their grief and rage they also commit acts of violence against the innocent. The Zionist leaders also know full well that such Jewish losses, stroked by their media relentlessly airing the blood-splashed video around the world, only increases Jewish solidarity and augments non-Jewish sympathy for the eternally suffering Jewish people.

When Saddam Hussein tried to take back Kuwait, which just a few decades before had been part of Iraq, the Western world went to war — encouraged to do so most notably by Israel.
Were Iraq’s actions any more imperialistic than Israel’s against the Palestinians or the Lebanese?

Other than the scale of the conflict, what is the difference between Israel’s perpetual war of conquest compared to Nazi Germany seeking Lebensraum in the 1940s? Germany treated no nations any worse than Israel did Palestine, with its terrorizing and driving out threefourths of its Palestinian residents. No populations of any European nation, other than those in some of the Soviet-occupied sectors of Germany, had been so massively displaced. It is interesting to note that Jews also directed the terror against the Germans as well, but in that war they wore the uniform of Soviet commissars rather than that of the terrorist Stern Gang or Haganah. Within the borders of Israel and her occupied territories, under the heel of a harsh military occupation, Israel continues to expropriate land from the Palestinians, settlement by settlement. Naturally the Palestinians resist such confiscation. The greatest uprising in recent years was the Intifada.

The statistics of Palestinian casualties are ominous.
Here are the figures compiled by the major French magazine Le Monde:

1,116 Palestinians have been killed since the beginning of the Intifada (the stone-throwing revolt) on 9 December 1987, shot by soldiers, policemen or settlers. The figures break down as follows : 626 deaths in 1988 and 1989, 134 in 1990, 93 in 1991, 108 in 1992 and 155 from 1 January to 11 September 1993. Among the victims were 233 children under 17 years old according to a study carried out by Betselem, the Israeli association for human rights. Military sources give a figure of nearly 20,000 for the number of Palestinians wounded by bullets and the U.N. Relief and Works agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) gives a figure of 90,000. …This humanitarian organization also indicates that at least 20,000 detainees are tortured every year during interrogation in the military detention centers.490 No country in peacetime — not even the Soviets or the Red Chinese in the heyday of their Gulags — has held as many prisoners per capita as the nation of Israel. It is one of the few nations that will not officially renounce the use of torture. It has long been high on the list of the offenders compiled by Amnesty International. The London Times Magazine did an extensive exposé on Israeli torture in the 1970s, the 1980s and 1990s. The inescapable fact is that Israel was born and built by invasion, murder, and theft. Such injustice requires the use of force and terror to maintain its power.

Over 50 Years of Ongoing Israeli Terrorism

Since 1948, Palestinians have faced ongoing terrorism from Israel. Hundreds of villages have been obliterated and literally wiped from the map. Tens of thousands of homes have been bombed, bull-dozed or dynamited during peacetime! Tens of thousands of men, women and children have been killed. Even greater numbers have been blinded, crippled, disfigured and maimed. Hundreds of thousands have been imprisoned and/or tortured. In going after Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation, Israel has never been shy about bombing refugee camps full of women and children. Israeli tanks, helicopters and even jet fighters are used to drop bombs or fire missiles into the heart of Palestinian neighborhoods and refugee camps packed with women and children. These weapons cannot discriminate between a supposed terrorist and an eight-year-old little girl. Such a weapon kills children as surely as it kills enemies of the state. Palestinians suspected of actively opposing Israel’s occupation of the West Bank or Gaza, have had their homes and families attacked by Israeli tank cannons, missiles or bombs. And after their suspect is killed or imprisoned, the Israeli army bulldozes or dynamites their family’s home. Thousands of homes have been destroyed in this fashion. Israel has also killed hundreds of Palestinian leaders by assassination and terroristic attacks. These attacks often kill innocent bystanders. Many of those assassinated have never been associated with any terror or violence of any kind; they simply were poets, writers, or clerics who by their words have inspired in their countrymen the desire for freedom. The Israeli Prime Minister previous to Ariel Sharon was Ehud Barak. In 1972, during peacetime between Israel and Lebanon, he led an Israeli commando death squad into Beirut, Lebanon where he personally murdered Palestinian writer Kamal Edwan and his whole family. In the middle of the night, using silenced submachine guns, he and his team slaughtered Edwan and his wife while they slept in their bed. For good measure, he even murdered the couples’ daughter who was asleep in another bedroom. When the newly elected Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, came to New York and Washington, the Jewish-controlled press treated this man who had murdered an entire family, as though he was a conquering hero. The double standards never seem to end. When an Israeli cabinet official, Rechavam Zeevi, was assassinated by Palestinians in October of 2001, Sharon and some U.S. officials denounced it as “terrorism.” If the shooting down of Zeevi is indeed terrorism, what should we call many years of Israeli assassinations of hundreds of Palestinian political figures, philosophers, clerics and poets? Why doesn’t the press point out that Zeevi was himself a Jewish Supremacist who described Palestinians living and working illegally in Israel as “lice” and a “cancer in our midst.” 491 Zeevi himself obviously was an extreme Jewish supremacist and terrorist who advocated the forcible expulsion of all Palestinians from the occupied territories and the assassination of all those who resist Israel occupation. He even publicly called for the assassination of Yassir Arafat. Yet, the same press that called Zeevi’s assassination “terrorism” never called the pro-assassination Zeevi a terrorist or even a Jewish Supremacist. The Zeevi assassination itself was in direct response to the Israeli assassination of a Palestinian leader a few weeks before.

In 1991, at an Israeli cabinet meeting, Zeevi said that President George Bush, by pressing Israel to peace talks, was “an enemy of Israel” and that “America was plotting a second Holocaust.”492 With a supposed “ally” like this, does America need any enemies? The overwhelming power of the Jewish partisans in the world media keeps many from fully grasping the terror of hundreds of Is raeli assassinations. In fact, even before the WTC terror attack in September, the BBC instructed their reporters to call Israel’s assassination of their enemies as “targeted killings” rather than exactly what they are: assassinations.493 However, the BBC (which has a disproportionately Jewish executive staff) referred to the Zeevi killing as an assassination, and not a “targeted killing.” The public has been subjected to this kind of sanitized and distorted media treatment of Israel for years. It is no wonder why few Britons and even fewer Americans are fully aware of Israel’s record of terrorism. It is for this reason that I cannot blame most Americans for their ignorance of Israeli terrorism. At Least 150,000 Palestinians Tortured in Israel

The brutal torture of thousands of one’s enemies must be classified as a particularly vicious form of terrorism. Tens of thousands of Palestinians have been tortured in Israeli jails. A Jewish human rights group in Israel confirmed in a 60-page report that 85% of Palestinian detainees undergo torture while in custody.494 And make no mistake about it; many of the tortures endured by these Palestinian victims are the stuff of one’s worst nightmares. Israeli torture includes everything from choking victims with urine and feces soaked bags tied over their heads, to using electric cattle prods for anal rape and mutilation. Israel often doesn’t even admit to who they are holding, so if they decide to kill or torture a Palestinian to death while he is in custody, his body will simply disappear, or they will later claim that they died in a battle with Israeli police before capture. Many thousands of Palestinians and Lebanese have died while in Israeli custody. A feature article by Joel Greenburg in the very pro-Israel New York Times stated matter-of-factly that Israel tortures 500 to 600 Palestinians every month.495 That figure, which is probably too low as it comes from the pro-Israel New York Times, means that each year at least 6,000 Palestinians are tortured in Israel. Torture of Palestinians has been going on in Israel since 1948 (53 years to date). Even if one uses just onehalf of the number of Palestinians that Mr. Greenburg says suffer torture each year — at least 150,000 human beings have been tortured in Israeli jails since the founding of the Jewish state. Bowing to Israel’s public relations problems because of its legalized torture, in 1999 the Israeli Supreme Court made an intentionally vague ruling that torture is sometimes illegal, but both Israeli and Palestinian rights groups offer much evidence that the ruling is just a public-relations veneer. They offer evidence that torture continues with the same frequency and brutality as did before the ruling.496 Following Israel’s lead, Jewish journalists are now beginning to advocate the use of torture in America! A recent issue of Newsweek headlined an article entitled ‘Time to think about torture; it’s a new world, and survival may well require old techniques that seemed out of the question.”497 Even a supposed Jewish champion of civil liberties, Alan Dershowitz, now advocates it.498

Victor Ostrovsky, a former Israeli Mossad agent, wrote two books about Israel’s terror against their enemies. In one of them, he discusses the fate of Palestinians who illegally cross the border in search of work in Israel. Many thousands of these young men simply are never heard from again after being captured by Israel’s forces. Some of them are taken to the ABC research facilities where they endure the indescribable terror of chemical, nuclear or biological warfare. …ABC standing for atomic, bacteriological, and chemical. It was where our top epidemiological scientists were developing various doomsday machines…should there be an all-out war in which this type of weapon would be needed; there was no room for error. The Palestinian infiltrators came in handy in this regard. As human guinea pigs, they could make sure the weapons the scientist were developing worked properly and could verify how fast they worked and make them more efficient.499

Israeli Weapons of Terror

In the early 1990s there was a traveling road show of U.S. Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, Defense Secretary, William Cohen, and National Security Chairman, and Sandy Berger. This trio of Jewish partisans appeared together in speeches and on television programs to promote their renewed bombing of Iraq and their enforced blockading of the country (including food and medicine). Their rationale was that Iraq had violated United Nations resolutions because it had dared to do research into the development of chemical and biological weapons, and that it had refused international inspections. Albright, Cohen and other leading American Zionists effectively bullied the United Nations into supporting these draconian sanctions. Within a few years, the blockade had taken a horrendous loss of life in the desert kingdom that has little production of food and medical products. The same United Nations that had authorized the sanctions estimated that over 1,000,000 people, mainly children and the elderly, had perished from the effects of widespread malnutrition, starvation and lack of medical supplies. In perhaps one of the most callous remarks ever made by a United States Government official, Madeleine Albright, in response to a journalist’s question, said that such a loss of life was, “worth it.” Some Americans reading my words will refuse to believe it, they will refuse to believe that America under our Jewish leadership has purposely caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children. Here is the transcript of the interview of America’s Jewish Secretary of State with Leslie Stahl of CBS on May 11, 1996: Lesley Stahl, (speaking of US sanctions against Iraq): “We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And — and you know, is the price worth it?”

Madeline Albright: “I think this is a very hard choice,
but the price — we think the price is worth it.”500

The readily acknowledged fact is that Israel has been one of the world’s worst offenders in the development of internationally prohibited nucleur, chemical and biological weapons. They have repeatedly violated UN international policies and have never allowed any sort of International inspection of their facilities, not even from the United States, the nation has certainly provided most of the military funding that Israel has used for such projects. Does the United States call for the blockade of Israel for such offenses? Does it make billions of dollars of American military aid to Israel contingent on Israel honoring its commitments not to develop biological, chemical and nucleur weapons? The former American Secretary of State said she was willing to cause the death of 500,000 children in order to slow the spread of biological and chemical weapons, but she was just as willing to continue to help finance the development and spread of those kinds of horrendous weapons in Israel. Is it any wonder why such double standards are increasing hatred toward the United States?

The Ultimate Supremacist

The unholy marriage of Jewish supremacism and terrorism is best symbolized by an entirely new kind of weapon now under development in the Supremacist State of Israel. It is an ethnicallytargeted, biological bomb. The Sunday Times in Great Britain revealed that Israel has been developing a terrifying new kind of biological weapon. The story broke at the same time America was getting ready to bomb Saddam Hussein for not allowing weapons inspectors into his country.

Israel planning ‘ethnic’ bomb as Saddam caves in by Uzi Mahnaimi and Marie Colvin ISRAEL is working on a biological weapon that would harm Arabs but not Jews, according to Israeli military and western intelligence sources. The weapon, targeting victims by ethnic origin, is seen as Israel’s response to Iraq’s threat of chemical and biological attacks.

Yesterday Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi leader, backed away from the brink of war and agreed to resume co-operation with the inspection teams seeking his suspected chemical and biological weapons plants.

Kofi Annan, the United Nation secretary-general, said he believed Iraq had met UN requirements. As Britain and America stood by to bomb Saddam, however, Tony Blair’s office said compliance must be unconditional. The White House, which is threatening Iraq with the biggest onslaught since the Gulf war, said President Bill Clinton’s advisers were assessing whether Iraq’s offer was adequate.

The Pentagon is ready to bomb within days…

In developing their “ethno-bomb”, Israeli scientists are trying to exploit medical advances by identifying distinctive genes carried by some Arabs, then create a genetically modified bacterium or virus. The intention is to use the ability of viruses and certain bacteria to alter the DNA inside their host’s living cells. The scientists are trying to engineer deadly micro-organisms that attack only those bearing the distinctive genes.

The programme is based at the biological institute in Nes Tziyona, the main research facility for Israel’s clandestine arsenal of chemical and biological weapons. A scientist there said the task was hugely complicated because both Arabs and Jews are of semitic origin. But he added: “They have, however, succeeded in pinpointing a particular characteristic in the genetic profile of certain Arab communities, particularly the Iraqi people.” The disease could be spread by spraying the organisms into the air or putting them in water supplies…

The idea of a Jewish state conducting such research has already provoked outrage in some quarters because of parallels with the genetic experiments of Dr Josef Mengele, the Nazi scientist at Auschwitz. Dedi Zucker, a member of Knesset, the Israeli parliament, denounced the research yesterday. “Morally, based on our history, and our tradition and our experience, such a weapon is monstrous and should be denied,” he said. …William Cohen, the American defence secretary, revealed that he had received reports of countries working to create “certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic-specific”. A senior western intelligence source confirmed last week that Israel was one of the countries Cohen had in mind.

The “ethno-bomb” claims have been given further credence in Foreign Report, a Jane’s publication that closely monitors security and defence matters. It reports unnamed South African sources as saying Israeli scientists have used some of the South African research in trying to develop an “ethnic bullet” against Arabs. It also says Israelis discovered aspects of the Arab genetic makeup by researching on “Jews of Arab origin, especially Iraqis”…501 Additional reporting: Matthew Campbell in Washington, Hugh McManners

Israel, of course, has denied this story that appeared in one of the most respected newspapers of the world, just as it denies every other criticism against them. But, tellingly, it also continues to deny any access or inspections of its weapons facilities, including those biological weapons facilities the United States has already identified and has acknowledged in the Israeli State. The fact that Israel would even consider developing such a biological weapon in the light of their endless demonization of the Nazis has monstrous implications. Whether or not the Nazis are truly guilty of all the accusations the Jews have levied against them, the Israel of the 21st Century is approaching in reality the extremes of racial Supremacism of which the most supremacist Nazi could only have dreamt.

The wake of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in September of 2001, the United States declared a new war on terrorism. Many millions around the world who know the truth about Israeli terrorism were shocked to see the American President, George Bush, learning how to fight terrorism from the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon. It is certainly true that Sharon should be able to teach Mr. Bush a lot about terrorism considering that he is the world’s leading terrorist. At least Mr. Bush has sought expert advice! The Jewish people and their history fascinated me. I did not remain quiet as I educated myself about the Jewish question. I discussed what I read with my family, friends, and teachers. Pointing out Jewish hypocrisy caused me to be accused of hatred, intolerance, racism, religious bigotry, and of course Anti-Semitism. It became clear to me that despite the media image of Jews as the most holy and Godlike people on Earth, they hypocritically maintained a Jewish infrastructure that practiced an extreme form of ethnic supremacism. Their supremacism was coupled with intense hatred toward others, nursed from the time of their sojourn in Egypt to the post-Holocaust modern age. Such chauvinism has repeatedly erupted in intolerance and repression.

Anyone who dares to expose this record of Jewish hypocrisy, racism, and hatred is defamed
by the “Anti – Defamation League”
as a hater.

When I would bring up Jewish racism or quote from Jewish scriptures or current Jewish leaders, my teachers were at first taken aback, but would later assure me that such sentiments were part of a remote past or a tiny minority in the present. They told me that Jews of the modern era really did not follow the ethnocentric way of their forefathers. But studying Israel helped me to realize that Jewish Supremacism is very much in their present. At that moment, I realized that Israel is not just a Palestinian problem. It is an American problem. Israel is a problem not just because of the $50 billion it has drained from our treasury; or because of the hundreds of billions of dollars in higher oil prices spawned by our Israel- first policies; or the damage it has done to our good name and to important American interests all over the world . Our Israeli policy is a symptom of a pervasive Jewish power in our government and the press that threatens the very foundations of America itself. While Zionists in Israel were dispossessing the Palestinians, Zionists in America were busy consolidating their power in all the Western nations also, promoting policies that would weaken the identity and the will for self-preservation of the founding Gentile elements. They had even set about to make us a minority in our nation, just as they had made the Palestinians a minority in Israel. I knew that if the Zionists succeeded in their ultimate objectives they would destroy our own people’s life and liberty just as they had affected millions in the Mideast.

The structure and form of modern Israel proves that Jewish Supremacism is not an ideology of the past, but an ominous reality of the present, overtly expressed in every sinew of the Israeli state. The fact that the Jewish power structure in America and around the world intensely supports it offers convincing evidence that little had changed in the struggle between Jew and Gentile over the last 2,500 years. Moreover, the fact that Jews have been able to get the Western world to support Zionism in all its bloody hypocrisy is testimony to their power over all forms of media and over our nation’s governments. The European and American peoples, the Palestinians, indeed all the peoples of the world cannot survive, nor can they be free unless that power is broken.

Jewish supremacism and Jewish terrorism have, of course, gone hand in hand from the days of the genocide boasted about in the Old Testament, to the brutal murder and suppression of early Christians as recorded in the New Testament, to the mass murder and torture of the Gulags of the early days of Jewish-led Bolshevism, and, of course to the founding and expansion of the Jewish Supremacist State of Israel. But, up until a summer day in 1967, I never dreamed that my own country could be the recipient of Jewish terrorism. It seemed a far away phenomenon, not really applicable to America. In 1967 Israel launched a deliberate terror attack against the American Navy ship the USS Liberty. Learning the sordid details of the attack against my own nation and its subsequent cover-up had a profound effect upon the direction of my life, ultimately even playing an important role in influencing me to continue my research into Jew ish Supremacism and spurring on my willingness to expose it even though I knew that doing so would likely exact a high personal cost. My learning about Israeli terrorism against America was one of the major reasons that you now hold this book in your hands. Now, I will turn to the details of this Israeli act of treachery that so appalled me.


PAGE – 11

On June 8, 1967, an American Navy intelligence ship, the U.S.S. Liberty, patrolling off the waters of Israel and the Gaza Strip, came under the fire of jet fighter aircraft and torpedo boats. I recall that I heard the news from my transistor radio while I was at my summer job, scraping the old paint off a house in New Orleans’ Lakeview section. The attack occurred during the Israeli-Arab war of 1967, a war in which America supported Israel. The first news accounts did not identify the attacking parties, and I assumed that the Egyptians, in a supremely brutal and stupid attack, had struck a U.S. vessel in retaliation for our massive support of the Israeli military. Immediately after the first reports of the attack came in, a few elected officials had already begun to call for immediate military retaliation on Egypt. In spite of my growing knowledge of the pernicious nature of Zionism, my deeply embedded patriotism came pouring out. I became angry at Egypt for daring to attack an American vessel. Later on, reports finally began to filter in that it was the Israelis who had attacked the American ship, wounding 171 Americans and killing 31. The official excuse was that the Israelis had mistaken the Liberty for an Egyptian ship. Over the next few weeks, a great deal of evidence emerged revealing that the attack had been deliberate. Still, the major media dropped all the stories of the U.S.S. Liberty and its 202 American casualties in deference to stories of gallant little Israel fighting its heroic war with Egypt and Lebanon.

The crew had been ordered not to divulge any information about the attack. When the silence was finally broken years later by Lieutenant James Ennes, an officer aboard the Liberty, the overwhelming evidence revealed a murderous and treacherous attack by the Israelis on an American ship.

The U.S.S. Liberty, a lightly armed intelligence ship whose mission was to intercept foreign radio communications, had been sailing in international waters off the Egyptian town of El Arish, which Israeli forces had just captured. Israel knew that the Liberty was monitoring its transmissions and was fearful it would learn of preparations for a planned invasion of Syria. Also, the Liberty had intercepted Israeli radio communications showing that they had murdered hundreds of unarmed Egyptian prisoners of war in the Sinai.

On the clear and breezy morning of June 8, Israeli fighter jets circled the Liberty numerous times, coming in so low and close that the ship’s crewmen waved at the pilots and could actually see their faces. The Liberty was clearly marked with its large U.S. Navy identifying letters and it had a large American flag flying stiffly in the breeze. With no warning, at 2:00 p.m., unmarked Israeli jets attacked the Liberty with rockets, cannon fire, and napalm bombs. Their first target was the radio room, which they destroyed along with the Liberty’s antennas. The fighters made repeated passes, attacking the ship until they ran out of bombs and ammo and broke off the attack. At that point the men of the Liberty replaced the first American flag, which had been shot away, with an oversized 7- by 13-foot flag. The Israelis obviously knew the ship was American as they intercepted and tried to electronically jam the Liberty’s radio signals for help. Incredibly, the ship’s radio operators had managed to rig up a new antenna and get a distress call through identifying the attackers and requesting help from the Mediterranean Sixth Fleet. The carriers Saratoga and America sent messages that help was on the way and dispatched fighters to defend the Liberty. The beleaguered and bloodied crew of the Liberty waited in vain for the promised fighter support as Israeli torpedo boats then attacked, trying to sink the Liberty and finish off the crew who were now fighting the napalm fires on the decks and tending to the wounded. The Israelis raked the Liberty with 20 and 40 mm cannon fire and struck the ship with a torpedo at the waterline, killing 22 more sailors below decks. The torpedo boats came in close enough to machine-gun the crew tending to the wounded on deck. USS Liberty with gaping hole from Israeli Torpedo Attack Despite 821 holes each bigger than a man’s fist, napalm bombs exploding on the decks and in the superstructure, and a gaping hole and serious torpedo damage at the water line, miraculously, the USS Liberty remained afloat (no thanks to the U.S. fighter support which never came; they had been called back by orders of President Lyndon Johnson before they could intercept the attackers).

Israel obviously intended to sink the Liberty and kill everyone on board. In violation of international law, Israeli torpedo boats even machine-gunned the Liberty’s deployed life rafts. They sought to knock out the Liberty’s communication room and jam her radio signals to prevent her from identifying her attackers, then to send the American ship and her crew to the bottom so no one could refute the natural supposition that the treacherous deed had been committed by the Egyptians. The Zionists knew that by knocking out the Liberty they would have more of a free hand in Syria, and the indignation over the sinking of an American ship by the Egyptians would garner unconditional support for Israel’s most radical war aims. Only the courage and resourcefulness of the men of the U.S.S. Liberty prevented that further miscarriage of justice.

In his recall of the U.S. Navy jets sent to protect the Liberty, Johnson committed one of the most treasonous acts of betrayal in American history. He cared more about preventing a public breach between the U.S. and Israel than saving the lives of American fighting men. The survivors of the Liberty have stated clearly that had the jets not been recalled, the torpedo boat attack could have been stopped, saving many American lives.

Captain William McGonagle, the Liberty’s commanding officer, although seriously wounded, showed exceptional heroism that eventually won him the Congressional Medal of Honor. Usually the president awards the nation’s highest honor in a White House ceremony along with a citation recording the details of the heroic deed. President Johnson called the Israelis to see if they had any objection to the awarding of the medal and then decided not to take part in the ceremony or even allow it at the White House. The Secretary of the Navy ended up awarding the medal at the Washington Naval Yard, and the citation did not even identify Israel as the attacker. The Washington Post ran no story about Captain McGonagle receiving the award. The U.S. Navy conducted a perfunctory court of inquiry (lasting only four days), and failed to call even one Israeli to testify. Lieutenant James Ennes, one of the Liberty’s officers, wrote a detailed book about the incident called Assault on the Liberty, published in 1979.502 It exposes the tremendous evidence showing how the attack was a calculated and deliberate attempt to sink a ship the Israelis knew was American and kill any survivors so there would be no American witnesses. The U.S. ambassador to Lebanon at the time has also come forward and stated that when he was on duty in the Middle East, he heard U.S.-intercepted Israeli communications with the attacking Israeli fighters acknowledging the ship was American. Many prominent leaders of the U.S. Navy courageously have gone on record to demand a real inquiry on the Liberty, and the head of Navy Operations said that the evidence clearly pointed to a planned attack. Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Admiral Thomas Moorer and the surviving crew of the U.S.S. Liberty all say that the attack was clearly deliberate.

Perhaps one could understand such a treacherous act from the stated enemies of this country, but not from a supposed ally. The fact that Israel had attacked the forces of the nation that has supported it more than any other — with money, diplomacy, good will, and even military arms (including the very weapons that were turned against our men) — has to be one of the most egregious acts of military betrayal in the history of nations. I asked myself how Israel could be so reckless as to attack an American vessel. The obvious answer was that they knew their operation against the Liberty held very little risk, for if the attack succeeded and the ship and all its crew were destroyed, Israel would get everything it wanted in the war. If they failed in their mission to sink the Liberty and blame it on the Egyptians, the Israelis knew they could pass it off as a mistake. They also knew that their massive influence in the American government and the press would help them cover up their treachery. After sweeping the terror and dispossession of a million and one half Palestinians under the rug for half a century — the USS Liberty was child’s play The Jewish-dominated American media expressed no outrage for the attack and supinely accepted the specious Israeli excuse for it. Even though our own Secretary of State and our own Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said the Israeli attack was deliberate, the Jewish Lobby was even able to prevent a formal Congressional inquiry into the attack. In contrast, the USS Liberty’s sister ship, the USS Pueblo, was captured by North Korea the following year (1968) with the loss of only one life, yet within a year the U.S. Congress launched a formal inquiry into that attack. There still has been no formal inquiry into the attack on the USS Liberty. How did the political leaders of the United States respond to this Israeli act of war against it? Did America bomb Tel Aviv as it did Ka bul, Afghanistan? No, the Israeli-controlled American government along with the Jewish-controlled media committed a clear case of treason against America by covering up this vicious terrorist attack, and it continues to send billions of American tax dollars to Israel in military and monetary aid. I must invoke the example of Pearl Harbor. Any American government official who would have given aid or comfort to Japan after the attack in 1941 would have been prosecuted as a traitor to the United States. I charge that those American government officials who collaborate with the Jewish Lobby and media in continuing to support Israel after its attack on the USS Liberty – are traitors against the United States of America!

When I learned the full truth of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty a few weeks after the actual attack — I remembered how incensed I had felt when I heard on my transistor radio how the Egyptians had apparently attacked an American ship. Those moments of anger had long passed when years later I read Ennes’s book. However, Ennes’s poignant accounts of the dead and dying men aboard the Liberty caused another anger to rise in me, again only to give way to profound sadness for my country. As a young and proud American, I could not understand how our President could treasonously refuse to defend American men under fire. How could our government willingly cover up the intentional Israeli murder of Americans — and even reward the murderers with even more billions of our tax money in foreign aid? The incident shocked me so much that it drove me to research Israel’s true record of terrorism and treachery against the United States. I learned very quickly that the Liberty was not the first Israeli act of terrorism and treachery against America.

The Lavon Affair: Israeli Terrorism against America

In 1954, the Israeli government launched a secret operation of terror against the United States called Operation Suzannah. It plotted to murder Americans and blow up American installations in Egypt. Their plan was to leave false evidence that the Egyptians committed the terrorist acts, so as to make America go to war against Egypt on the side of Israel. Jewish agents succeeded in blowing up some post offices and American libraries in Cairo and Alexandria. On the way to blow up an American movie house, the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Theater, an Israeli’s agent’s bomb went off prematurely. Thankfully, for both Egypt and for America, the plot was then exposed and stopped in its early stages. Because of the capture of the Israeli agents, the world learned of this Israeli treachery and the Israeli Foreign Minister, Pinhas Lavon, was later forced to resign. The whole episode became known as the Lavon Affair. Today, the Jewish-dominated American media and publishing establishment deftly cover up this Israeli treachery against us. Most Americans know nothing about it. For instance, only a slight mention of the Lavon Affair is found in the popular Encarta Encyclopedia. The reference can be found in an article about Ben-Gurion authored by the pro-Zionist, Bernard Reich. It is appropriate to note that the article’s author illustrates a typical media pattern. When Americans suppose they are reading an unbiased Encyclopedia or news magazine account, they more often than not are reading a purposely distorted account written by ardent Jewish Zionists. Here is the exact wording of its reporting of this Israeli terrorism against America. Ben-Gurion returned to politics in 1955 to replace Minister of Defense Pinhas Lavon—who resigned after a failed attempt to sabotage Egypt’s relations with the West.503

Note how the article meekly says, “a failed attempt to sabotage Egypt’s relations with the West.” What does this mean to the reader? “Sabotaging relations“ sounds as though Israel might have just said a few nasty things about Egypt and America behind each other’s back. The intentional deception used in this article by its Jewish author is typical of the distortions that go on countless times in the mass media. The line in Encarta should read: “–who was forced to resign after Israel was caught committing terrorist bombings against the United States to treacherously incite America to war against Israel’s enemy.” I am sure that ninety percent of those who now read these lines have never heard of the Lavon Affair. If you still might doubt that Israel has committed these terrorist acts against America in Egypt, here is a quote from a recent article appearing in the Jewish magazine Moment, written by Samuel Katz and meant for its small Jewish audience. The article is more forward than the Encarta reference, yet still omits the provocative word terrorism, a word Israel uses when Palestinians blow up libraries and cinemas. And the failures were as common as the spectacular successes. In the mid ’50s, A’man (the Jewish Defense Agency) suffered a serious setback during the infamous “Operation Suzannah,” when Israeli agents provoked Jews in Egypt to attack American and British targets and incite anti-Western sentiment. Many Jews were arrested, and some were executed. The bungled operation was a severe embarrassment for the government of Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and his defense minister, Pinhas Lavon504 So, in the Lavon Affair we learned how our so-called “best friend in the Mideast,” Israel, rewards the United States for its unconditional monetary and military support: by committing terrorism against us! Ponder the fact that most Americans have never even heard about this Israeli terrorist attack against us.

If the Egyptian government had been behind this terror against America, we would have rightly considered it an act of war and we would have gone to war against Egypt and bombed it unmercifully, just as we have done against Afghanistan. And the media; they would have clamored for such attacks just as they demanded attacks against Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks of 2001. In fact, we attacked Afghanistan on far less grounds than we have for attacking Israel. No evidence existed that Afghanistan approved of or even knew anything about the attack on the World Trade Center; but in the Lavon Affair, the Israeli government had committed a direct act of war against the United States. America, of course, did not bomb Tel Aviv in retaliation. America did not sever its diplomatic relations with Israel. In fact, we did not even cut off our billions of dollars in monetary and military aid! Why not?

Again I invoke the example of Pearl Harbor as I did in recounting the attack on the USS Liberty. Any American government official who would have given aid to the Japanese after the attack on Pearl Harbor would have been prosecuted as a traitor to the United States. Let me be perfectly blunt. Those Americans in government who continued our support of Israel after it had committed terrorist acts against the people of the United States — clearly committed treason against the United States.

If only America’s leaders, after Israel’s terrorist attack against us in the Lavon Affair, or after the attack on the Liberty, would simply have stopped their treasonous aid to Israel. There would have been no subsequent acts of terror against us such as the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. What further acts of terrorism could we prevent by stopping the flow of our money and military arms to Israel right now?

Ongoing Israeli Treachery: The Pollard Affair

In the 1980s, Israel recruited an American Jew, Jonathan Pollard, to spy against the United States. After his apprehension, Israeli officials at first claimed he was a “rogue agent,” but later they admitted that Pollard was working for them from the beginning. Other than the Jewish spies, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, who gave our atom bomb secrets to the Soviets, probably no spies have ever done more damage to our country than that which was done by this single Israeli spy: Jonathan Pollard.

Israel’s use of Pollard’s information not only destroyed our intelligence operations in the Mideast; it practically destroyed our intelligence apparatus in the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc.505 Many of America’s most loyal and best agents in the Communist world were executed because Israel sold or bartered Pollard’s stolen information to the Soviets.506 As the article below by Eric Margolis explains, America’s supposed “wonderful friend and ally” Israel would not even allow the United States to debrief the Mossad agents who handled the Pollard spy case. They wouldn’t even let us determine the full extent of the damage done to the United States and the dangers posed to American agents overseas. Some of the enormously sensitive secrets stolen by Pollard may have been either sold, or bartered, by Israel to the Soviet Union.

A number of key CIA agents in the East Bloc were allegedly executed as a result of Pollard’s spying. The KGB likely gained access to top-secret U.S. codes – either directly from Israel, or through spies in Israel’s government. In short, Pollard’s treachery caused one of the worst security disasters in modern U.S. history…507

So, Israel, which receives billions of American aid, has continuously and treacherously spied on and broken the very security of the United States. To further demonstrate their contempt for us, they even bartered the top secret information they had stolen from us – to America’s worst enemies. Even after Israel’s public relations apologies for the Pollard spying, and after assuring American officials it would never happen again, it has continued to spy on us. The Los Angeles Times in 1997 reported that an American Jew named David A. Tenenbaum “admitted to divulging secrets to Israel.”508 To quote the Los Angeles Times, “A civilian engineer working at an Army command facility near Detroit has admitted divulging classified military information to Israeli officials over the last 10 years.” After the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, 60 Jews (and 140 even be fore the attacks) were being held by the FBI for spying, “including major Jewish intelligence operatives.”

“WASHINGTON — Some 60 Israelis, who federal investigators have said are part of a long-running effort to spy on American government officials, are among the hundreds of foreigners detained since the Sept. 11 terror attacks, Fox News has learned. …Numerous classified documents obtained by Fox News indicate that even prior to Sept. 11, as many as 140 other Israelis had been detained or arrested in a secretive and sprawling investigation into suspected espionage by Israelis in the United States. …Documents say they, “targeted and penetrated military bases.” The DEA, FBI and dozens of government facilities, and even secret offices and unlisted private homes of law enforcement and intelligence personnel. The majority of those questioned, “stated they served in military intelligence, electronic surveillance intercept and or explosive ordinance units.” …Why would Israelis spy in and on the U.S.? A general accounting office investigation referred to Israel as country A and said, “According to a U.S. intelligence agency, the government of country A conducts the most aggressive espionage operations against the U.S. of any U.S. ally.” A defense intelligence report said Israel has a voracious appetite for information and said, “the Israelis are motivated by strong survival instincts which dictate every possible facet of their political and economical policies. It aggressively collects military and industrial technology and the U.S. is a high priority target.” The document concludes: “Israel possesses the resources and technical capability to achieve its collection objectives.” …There are other things to consider. And in the days ahead, we’ll take a look at the U.S. phone system and law enforcement’s methods for wiretaps. And an investigation that both have been compromised by our friends [sic] overseas.509

Every American can obviously understand the immense damage that can be caused from a foreign government spying on us. Spying has always been prosecuted by every nation as one of the most serious crimes, and justly so. A very legitimate question is why does the American government tolerate Israel’s spying and treachery against our country? Why has not President Bush simply said to Israel, America does not have to give you billions of American tax dollars. We do not have to diplomatically support your terrorism and supremacism before the United Nations. The least we should have expected in return is that you do not spy on us and betray us. Since you have repeatedly committed treachery against us, that’s it! You won’t get another dime! Furthermore, if you commit anymore treachery against America we will answer it with a military response that will make our attack on the Taliban look like foreplay! Why American officials have not and do not say this offers clear proof of Israel’s power over them, and clear evidence of the treason that prospers in the American government.

Even after Israel repeatedly proved its willingness to spy on us and critically damage America’s intelligence operations, President Clinton appointed a dedicated, Zionist Jew as Chairman of the National Security Council, the highest and most sensitive intelligence position in the White House. Even the Israeli daily Maariv referred to Berger as a “warm Jew,” meaning that he is devoted to Israel first.510 Appointing Berger as National Security Council chief after the Pollard Spy Case is pure insanity. The fact that Israel could commit these outrages against the United States without suffering scathing media attacks and causing at least the cutoff of American aid to Israel (if not placing Israel on our enemies list), shows their absolute supremacism over the American establishment.

It is no wonder that Ariel Sharon could make the following statement to Shimon Peres when he suggested that Israel might lose American aid if it did not pull back recent Israeli incursions into the West Bank. Sharon responded: “Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don’t worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.” —Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001 511

Jonathan Pollard is not the only American who has committed treason against America. All those in the American government who would continue to monetarily and militarily support a foreign nation that spies on us and severely damages our intelligence operations (along with causing the deaths of American agents) have committed treason against the United States of America. In response to these ongoing acts of treachery against the United States, a truly patriotic American Government would have (at the very least) ended our support for Israel. Supporting a foreign nation after it willfully commits such acts of treachery against America is nothing less than treason. The fact that billions of dollars of American taxpayer support to Israel did not miss a single beat is one more indicator of the power of Jewish Supremacism over the American establishment. Jewish Treachery in the 9-11 Attacks on America Examining the reaction of the American media and government to the terrorist attacks of September 2001 shows the power of Jewish Su premacism over them. While the fires were still burning in the Twin towers and the Pentagon, Jewish partisans in the media carefully began conditioning the minds of the American people so that these attacks would help the Israeli cause. The major news networks ran a video tape of a small group of Palestinian kids supposedly celebrating the news of the strike against America, and then aired it every five or ten minutes juxtaposed to the spectacular carnage of the burning WTC and soot-covered Americans crying in horror. In truth, every major Palestinian organization condemned the attacks and not even a single Palestinian was implicated in the attacks. Interestingly enough, the Jerusalem Post reported that Israelis on a rooftop nearby the World Trade Center in New York were detained by the FBI after they were spotted video-taping and “whooping with glee as the Twin Towers burned.”512 Repeatedly running the tape of a few Palestinian rowdies was an especially cheap shot that left a powerful anti-Palestinian impression seared in the consciousness of millions of Americans traumatized by the horrible scenes of destruction they witnessed on their television screen.

The Big Lie

Almost immediately after the attacks, the media began to parrot a huge lie about why the event happened so as to protect Israel’s image and maximize American hatred for Israeli’s enemies. There were two main parts to the lie. First, the media solemnly announced that the attacks had absolutely nothing to do with American support of the criminal and terrorist policies of Israel. It is vital to the Jewish Supremacists that the American people do not fully realize the huge national and personal costs of our Israeli controlled foreign policy. Americans might begin to ask why we have a policy that so hurts America and that even brings terrorism to our shores. The media cannot afford people to ask those kinds of logical questions, so they had to manufacture an explanation for the attack that left out Israel. Jewish ultra-supremacist Benjamin Netanyahu actually had the chutzpah to appear before a Congressional hearing on the incident and claim that the Arab world hates America so much that it is Israel that suffers from its association with the United States! Thus, the soldiers of militant Islam do not hate the West because of Israel, they hate Israel because of the West…513 Netanyahu told America not to worry, however, because loyal little Israel would still stand behind the United States even though it has been ruining its sterling reputation with the Arabs by associating with us. President Bush should have immediately responded by telling the Israelis that we are very sorry for hurting Israel’s image among the Arabs, so we will solve that problem for you by cutting off our support for Israel. Secondly, the media repeatedly alleged that that the attackers simply did it because they hate American “freedom.” The attack on freedom was repeated incessantly by the media. Even President George Bush repeated that canard in his speech to the U.S. Congress. He said:

Americans are asking “Why do they hate us?”

They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other. The media did not bother to tell the American people that the attack occurred on the anniversary of the League of Nations Proclamation of the British Mandate, which was made public in Palestine on September 11, 1922. The British Mandate was the first major step toward implementation of the Balfour Declaration; the founding of a Jewish State in what is now Israel. September 11 is a day of infamy for the Palestinians and they apparently sought the same for America. The media bosses had to know of the significance of that date. But, no major news source even mentioned it. The date can be found in many historical dating indexes, including Important Dates in History. At the same time the media blamed Bin Laden for being the mastermind behind the attack, they told us he did it because he “hates American freedom!” The media knew such claptrap was blatant lie. Every media outlet in the world has full access to his past interviews. Laden has never said a word against democracy or freedom. In 1998, ABC news interviewed Laden and asked him about the previous attack on the World Trade Center. He praised the attackers and gave the reasons why he opposes America. Here are some excerpts of the broadcast by ABC three years ago:

“I say to them that they (Americans) have put themselves at the mercy of a disloyal government, and this is most evident in Clinton’s administration…We believe that it represents Israel inside America. Take the sensitive ministries such as the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense and the CIA, you will find that the Jews have the upper hand in them. They make use of America to further their plans for the world…” “For over half a century, Muslims in Palestine have been (by the Jews) slaughtered and assaulted and robbed of their honor and of their property. Their houses have been blasted, their crops destroyed… The Jewish media knew why America was attacked from day one. They knew all along it was because of our Israel First foreign policy. The media bosses had a meeting and decided to air no more interviews with bin Laden (except for government approved excerpts) so they could perpetuate their lies about his motivations. They knew that the attackers viewed America as under control of Zionists and that it has been used to support Israel’s terrorism and to attack and murder Israel’s enemies. Saying the September 11 suicide bombers attacked America because they hate democracy is as ridiculous as saying a wolves eat rabbits because they hop. The truth is that wolves do not eat rabbits because they hop, but because they are food. Arab terrorists struck at America not because it is a democracy, but because they believed that terrorism against us was justified for our support of the Israeli terrorism against them. The world has not read about any plane bombs crashing into Switzerland or Iceland, two long-enduring democracies. The absolutely absurd, Big Lie about attacking democracy was promoted to cover up the obvious truth that the terrorist acts happened in retaliation for America’s unconditional support for the terrorist state of Israel and its leader who is one of the world’s most blood-stained terrorists; Ariel Sharon. The Jewish supremacist media felt compelled to lie and divert people with a bogus reason for the terrorist acts. If Americans clearly understood that the fact that our Israeli policy was the primary cause of this tragedy, people might ask obvious questions, such as: Is America’s support of Israel really worth it?

• Is it worth the lives of 4,000 American victims lost on 9/11? • Is it worth the one trillion dollars of damage suffered by our economy? • Is it worth the 200 billion dollars of American taxpayer’s money sent to Israel since its inception? • Is it worth the additional trillions of dollars we have spent for higher petroleum costs? (The Arab oil-weapon response to our pro- Israel policies) • Is it worth the enormous dangers of biological, chemical and nucleur terrorism upon the American people? • Is it worth the loss of our precious Constitutional Rights and freedoms? • Is it worth making 99 percent of the people of the Mideast hate us to please a nation that commits treachery against us? • Is it worth it to support a nation created by terrorism and ethnic cleansing and whose leader is a long-time terrorist who is responsible for the death of 1500 men, women and children refugees in Lebanon? • Is it worth it to support a nation that has committed terrorist acts of murder and destruction against the United States? (Such as the Lavon Affair and the attack on the American Navy ship, the U.S.S Liberty) • Is it worth it to support a nation who spies on us? (Such as the Jonathan Pollard Case) • Is it worth it to support a nation who steals from us? (Such as the theft of enriched uranium for Israel’s illegal atomic bombs) • Is it worth it to support a nation that sells our most secret defense technology to America’s most dangerous enemy, the Red Chinese? • Is it worth it to allow a foreign nation to have the strongest lobby in our own American government? • Is it worth it for Israeli agents to bribe American candidates with vast sums of campaign money so they will put the interests of Israel over America?

The fact that the media could so unanimously cover up the real reason for the attack of September 11 is clear proof of the Jewish supremacism over it. Of course, the real truth is that America was attacked not because we have a truly free press, but because it is controlled by Jewish Supremacists. We were attacked not because our Government is free, but because our Israeli controlled government, as Sen. William Fulbright said, one that has acts directly against the most important interests of the American people. Right up until September 11, the media daily characterized George Bush as the village idiot who stumbled into the Presidency. Now that Bush is embracing Israel’s Holy War against the Palestinians and their allies, he has suddenly become a great leader who will give us a wonderful victory in the glorious war ahead. At least, as long as continues to serve the interests of Jewish Supremacism. The same leftist Jewish bosses and media personnel who have subverted every true American patriotic interest to Israel’s agenda over the past 50 years, and have consistently represented those who wave American flags as ignorant, country yahoos, have now put an American flag everywhere in sight and made flag-waving chic. They solemnly tell us that George Bush’s campaign to “rid the world of evil” is not in the least bit, too ambitious. Israeli Treachery in the September Attacks So, the record is clear. Israel is the worst terrorist rogue state on earth. Israel and its terrorist leaders including Ben-Gurion, Begin, Shamir, Barak and Sharon have committed a half-century of relentless ethnic cleansing, bombings, shootings, torture and murder of the Palestinian people. Israel has also committed numerous acts of treachery and terrorism against the United States of America as I have clearly shown in documenting the Lavon Affair, the Attack on the USS Liberty and the Pollard Spy case and the continued spying that still continues.

Because of overwhelming Israeli power in media and government, traitors to the United States continue to treasonously betray America with little fear of punishment.

Through the efforts of Jewish and Gentile traitors in service to Jewish Supremacism, the American government has embarked on a foreign policy that has repeatedly betrayed America’s true interests. Massive American military and monetary support has enabled Israel to continue its relentless terrorism against the Palestinians and thus provoked tremendous hatred against the United States, greatly hurt American economic and strategic interests, and ultimately spawned the terrorism now rising against America. The traitors who sacrificed America to Israel are as guilty of the death of 4,000 American lives on September 11 as those who actually hijacked and crashed the planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon. However, knowing Israel’s record of treachery against America, I had suspicions from the first few moments of the attacks that Israel played a treacherous role in these attacks from which it was the only real beneficiary. From the dawn of the new century to September 11, 2001, Israel has suffered the worst public relations disaster in its history. The election of mass murder Ariel Sharon as Prime Minister was the last straw for millions of decent minded people all over the world. The UN Conference on Racism, which labeled Israel an “Apartheid state,” also signaled rapidly growing disapproval of Israel. Then, suddenly, the attack on the World Trade Center changed everything. In a matter of minutes, the world swung back to Israel’s favor and has since been given a blank check (which they have quickly cashed!) to indiscriminately bomb and kill the Palestinians and crush their fledgling new state. Was all of this just a fortunate coincidence for Israel?

As I have shown earlier in this chapter, Israeli has a long and treacherous record of covert treachery against the United States. They are very aware that any Arab terrorist attack on America greatly advances their own aims, the bigger the attack against America; the more carnage, the better it is for Israel.

On September 10, 2001, the eve of the WTC attack, The Washington Times ran a story on about a recent 68-page study issued by the U.S. Army School for Advanced Military Studies (SAMS). The study, issued by the elite Army officer’s school, detailed the dangers of a possible U.S. Army occupational force in the Mideast. Here is how the article commented about the Israeli Mossad: Of the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, the SAMS officers say: “Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act.” Ironically, within 24 hours of the story’s publication, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were in flames. Could the “ruthless and cunning Mossad,” as the U.S. Army officers describe it, covertly have been behind the attack? The Mossad is the certainly most ruthless terrorist organization in the entire world. It is also one of the largest and most sophisticated intelligence organizations. No other nation comes even close to matching its level of infiltration of Arabic organizations. It prides itself on infiltrating every sizable militant Palestinian and Arabic organization on earth. Knowing these facts, there can be little doubt the Mossad has deeply penetrated one of the oldest, largest and what is considered the most famous and dangerous Arabic terrorist organization on earth; bin Laden’s al-Qaida.

Furthermore, the FBI and the CIA have clearly stated that the attack on the WTC and Pentagon was a huge covert operation using an international network of at least a hundred terrorists, spanning three continents. Could Mossad agents in al-Qaida as well as the rest of Mossad’s vast network of thousands of infiltrators and informants, not have learned about the most extensive and ambitious Arabic terrorist operation in history? It is, of course, extremely difficult to prove the precise role of a secretive, foreign intelligence organization, such as the Mossad, in a terrorist act; they are in fact a super-secret spy organization. But, powerful evidence is mounting that the Israelis had foreknowledge of the September 11th attack on America. And, if indeed they had foreknowledge of these murderous acts of terrorism – and then had the cold-blooded mentality not to warn the United States and avert the disaster — because they saw a horrendous massacre of thousands of Americans as good for Israel – it follows that they would have felt no moral restraint from actually instigating and covertly aiding this terrorist plan through their own agent provocateurs. Let’s look at the mounting hard evidence indicating the Mossad had foreknowledge of the September 11 attack.

Only One Israeli Casualty at the WTC

The day after the attack on the World Trade Center, the Jerusalem Post, the most respected and famous Israeli newspaper in the world, reported that 4000 Israelis were missing in the attack on the WTC. The Foreign Ministry compiled the number from Israeli relatives, who in the first few hours after the attack, contacted the Israeli Foreign Ministry and gave the names of Israeli friends and relatives who worked in the WTC or who had business scheduled in it or its adjacent structures. Even without seeing the article in the Jerusalem Post, logic alone would tell one that there would be many hundreds, if not thousands of Israelis in the World Trade Center at the time of the attacks. The international Jewish domination of banking finance and Trade is legendary. For instance, two of the richest firms in New York are Goldman- Sachs and the Solomon Brothers; and both have offices in the Twin Towers. Many executives in many firms in the Trade Towers regularly commute back and forth to Israel. New York is the center of world-wide Jewish financial power, and the World Trade Center is at its epicenter. One would naturally expect the Israeli death toll to be catastrophic. The Jerusalem Post certainly thought so on September 12, 2001. Here is the beginning of its article: Thousands of Israelis missing near WTC, Pentagon The Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem has so far received the names of 4,000 Israelis believed to have been in the areas of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon at the time of the attack. (The headline and first sentence of the Jerusalem Post article)514 When George Bush made his speech before Congress, it turns out that he made a significant numerical error in addition to making the absurd allegation that the WTC attackers did it because they “hated freedom.” Bush made it a point to say that in addition to thousands of Americans, 130 Israelis died in the WTC. The implication was to say that Israel shared in our suffering, and that we and Israel are in this thing together. Upon hearing the number of 130 Israeli dead, it seemed suspiciously low to me. If 4000 Israelis were at the WTC, and the WTC death toll was about 4000 (about 10 percent of the 40,000 people normally in the buildings at that time), the Israeli toll should have statistically been around 400 and not 130. As the center of international commerce, the Trade Center was not a place of minimum-wage employment like McDonald’s, it had thousands of highly paid, high tech and high level jobs and executive positions primarily in international finance, banking and stock trading. Is rael’s population is most over-represented nation in the world in the kinds of jobs and type of business found in the WTC. I asked myself how there could be only 130 Israelis were alleged dead, while there were at that time even an estimated 199 dead from Columbia and about a 100 victims from one of the poorest and most obscure nations on earth, Ecuador. Would anyone suggest that Ecuadorians have anywhere near the presence in international trading and finance as Israelis? Searching through hundreds of articles trying to track down the true Israeli death toll, I finally found a New York Times piece that clarified the precise number of Israelis who died in the World Trade Center attack.

It turned out that of the 130 Israelis President Bush claimed had died in the World Trade Center, 129 of them were still alive! Only one Israeli had actually died in the World Trade Center! I was incredulous. “Good God,” I said to myself, “only one Israeli!” Here is the amazing excerpt I found in the NY Times:

But interviews with many consulate officials Friday suggested that the lists of people they were collecting varied widely in their usefulness. For example, the city had somehow received reports of many Israelis feared missing at the site, and President Bush in his address to the country on Thursday night mentioned that about 130 Israelis had died in the attacks. But Friday, Alon Pinkas, Israel’s consul general here, said that lists of the missing included reports from people who had called in because, for instance, relatives in New York had not returned their phone calls from Israel. There were, in fact, only three Israelis who had been confirmed as dead: two on the planes and another who had been visiting the towers on business and who was identified and buried. (New York Times, Sept. 22) 515 Even the very low death toll of 130 had suggested that a number of Israelis at the Trade Center had been warned before the attack. When I found out the truth that only one Israeli had died, it erased all reasonable doubt that there had been a prior warning for many Israelis. Having only one Israeli casualty among the 4000 dead at the WTC is simply a statistical impossibility. For example, there were two Israeli casualties among only 157 passengers on the two hijacked domestic flights that struck the WTC. Certainly there would have had to have been a much higher percentage among the over 40,000 people in the Trade Center itself. Even if the Israeli Foreign Ministry and the Jerusalem Post had grossly overestimated the number of Israelis at the World Trade Center by a factor of 10, there still should have still been 400 Israelis there at the time of the attacks. Even if only a few hundred Israelis were present at that time, only one Israeli death occurring is statistically absurd. Either September 11 had to be a big Jewish holiday, or a number of Israeli citizens had some advance warning of the impending attack.

Prior Warning to Israelis

The next thing I researched was to see if there were any confirmed warnings to Israelis prior to the attack. I quickly found an article in Newsbytes, a news service of the Washington Post, titled “Instant Messages To Israel Warned of WTC attack.” 516 The Israeli daily, Ha’aretz, also confirmed the prior warnings to Israel and confirmed that the FBI is investigating the warnings.517 The articles detailed that an Israeli messaging firm, Odigo, with offices in both the World Trade Center and in Israel, received a number of warnings just two hours before the attack.

Instant Messages To Israel Warned Of WTC Attack

Officials at instant-messaging firm Odigo confirmed today that two employees received text messages warning of an attack on the World Trade Center two hours before terrorists crashed planes into the New York landmarks. But Alex Diamandis, vice president of sales and marketing, confirmed that workers in Odigo’s research and development and international sales office in Israel received a warning from another Odigo user approximately two hours prior to the first attack. (From the Washington Post’s Newsbytes)518 So now I had found powerful and convincing evidence from impeccable sources show some Israelis were warned in advance of the attack. First, without a prior warning, there could not have been only a single Israeli victim at the World Trade Center. Secondly, there is clear confirmation that an Israeli company with offices in both Israel and the WTC received instant messages warning of the attack on the World Trade Center just two hours before it happened. Who would have warned Israelis of the impending attack if not Israel’s Mossad? The fact that Israel’s government had prior knowledge of this huge, unprecedented attack and had warned potential Israeli victims, but then deliberately let thousands of Americans die – makes the Israelis just as responsible for the carnage as the Arab Kamikazes. As I continued to look into the matter, I figured that it was only a matter of time before intelligence information leaked out that would indicate Israeli had foreknowledge of the attack. The media also ran stories immediately after the attack reporting the FBI was investigating massive short-selling of airlines and insurance stocks right before the attacks. They pointed out that the short selling (betting the stocks would collapse) indicated involvement and prior knowledge in the attacks because the volume of trades in these multiple stocks was 1,000 times greater than the normal volume. These trades netted tens of millions of dollars in profits in a number of exchanges in America and Europe. Americans were told by government officials that the trades would give us a clear trail to those behind these acts. Americans were told that the operatives of bin Laden were probably behind them. Strangely, though, after the initial flurry of articles, there has been nothing at all released on the identity of those who made millions on the transactions. I suspect that the media has suppressed the follow-up stories because the profiteers turned out to be not Arab terrorists but Jewish supremacists. Finally, on December 12, a major news source broke a story that openly pointed out that the FBI had evidence of Israeli advance knowledge of the attacks.

Here are excerpts from the Fox Network

News story. BRIT HUME, HOST: It has been more than 16 years since a civilian working for the Navy was charged with passing secrets to Israel. Jonathan Pollard pled guilty to conspiracy to commit espionage and is serving a life sentence. At first, Israeli leaders claimed Pollard was part of a rogue operation, but later took responsibility for his work. Now Fox News has learned some U.S. investigators believe that there are Israelis again very much engaged in spying in and on the U.S., who may have known things they didn’t tell us before Sept. 11. …CARL CAMERON, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Since Sept. 11, more than 60 Israelis have been arrested or detained, either under the new patriot anti-terrorism law, or for immigration violations. A handful of active Israeli military were among those detained, according to investigators, who say some of the detainees also failed polygraph questions when asked about alleged surveillance activities against and in the United States. There is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9/11 attacks, but investigators suspect that they Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it. …HUME: Carl, what about this question of advanced knowledge of what was going to happen on 9/11? How clear are investigators that some Israeli agents may have known something? CAMERON: It’s very explosive information, obviously, and there’s a great deal of evidence that they say they have collected — none of it necessarily conclusive. It’s more when they put it all together. A bigger question, they say, is how could they not have know? Almost a direct quote.

At this writing, it has been five days since the story’s release. It would seem that such information, of the uncovering of a vast Israeli spy network in the United States and that Israel purposefully let thousands of Americans be slaughtered on September 11, should be headline news in every newspaper of America. It should be the lead story on every major news broadcast. It should have by now caused George Bush to have suspended all aid and diplomatic relations with Israel. But, the Jewish press only drones on in silence about these revelations of Israeli treachery. And President Bush, who says he will attack anyone who aided the 9-11 terrorists, remains silent about the fact that Israeli was an accessory to worst terrorist act ever committed against America. By purposefully not warning America, Israel aided this horrendous act of murder and terror. President Bush by now must know about the Israeli involvement in the September attack. If he remains silent about it, he too will become an accessory to murder and a traitor who would cover up the crimes of a foreign enemy! These words are harsh, I know, and it saddens my heart that I must write about the betrayal of my country by its highest leaders. You can be sure that joy rose in the hearts of all Israeli supremacists as they witnessed the smoke plume rising from the twin towers. As I mentioned earlier, the FBI even arrested five Israelis on a rooftop nearby the twin towers, videotaping and cheering the entire event.519 They knew that American and world resistance to Israel’s Supremacism and terrorism had plummeted right along with the collapse of the towers of the World Trade Center. Perhaps the most telling statement was when a NY Times reporter questioned the former Israeli, Benjamin Netanyahu, a man every bit as radical as Ariel Sharon. Here are the words of the excited former Israeli Prime Minister: Asked tonight what the attack meant for relations between the United States and Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, the former prime minister, replied, “It’s very good.” Then he edited himself: “Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy.520 Sharon and his fellow Jewish Supremacists did not warn American authorities and save thousands of American lives because they knew such a horrible event would reverse all of Israel’s recent losses. September 11 would be a twenty-first century Pearl Harbor; galvanizing the American people for war; their war! Of course, not warning America about the impending attacks would make Israel a coldblooded accomplice in mass terror and murder. But, please tell me when Israel or Ariel Sharon has shrunk from such treachery. Zionists have never worried about the loss of innocent lives to achieve their ends. The Israeli state was founded on terror such as it had perpetrated at Deir Yassin, when Menachem Begin’s thugs brutally murdered over 250 men, women and children. Only Jewish supremacists would have the chutzpah to then purposely publicize the atrocity in order to terrorize the Palestinians into fleeing from their homes and lands. And as I already pointed out, Ben-Gurion purposely even blew up an entire ship of his own people, (appropriately on Christmas day) to accomplish his supremacist objectives. One fact is irrefutable; Zionists are as responsible for the attack on America just as surely as if they themselves had piloted those plane bombs. It was caused by the Jewish control of the American media and Congress and its blind support of over 50 years of Israeli terrorism and murder against the Palestinians and the other peoples of the Mideast. Their supremacism over America can be illustrated by the fact that the American government has continued to support Israel with guns and money even after it committed direct acts of terrorism and treachery against America — such as in the Lavon Affair, the Assault on the Liberty, and in the ongoing spying and sabotaging of American interests.

The truth is that the Zionists not only seek Jewish supremacism over the hapless Palestinians; they seek supremacism over all of us no matter what our race or nationality. It’s not just America they want supremacy over, its Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and every other nation upon the earth. Jewish supremacists already control the Hollywood movie and television industry, music and the news media that so strongly influence the entire civilized world. They are the most powerful single force, in fact an irresistible force, in the government of the United States. Through that control they also direct at he most powerful military might the world has ever known and can thus extend their supremacism even to nations where their power is not as pervasive as in the United States. The Jewish Supremacists have purposely orchestrated the non- European immigration that will dispossess European Americans the same way that Jewish immigration into Palestine has displaced the Palestinians. They have consciously led the effort to effort to make European Americans a minority in our own country as they made Palestinians a minority in Palestine. They seek nothing less than to destroy the genetic, cultural identity and nationalism of all peoples other their own. While they preach open borders for us, they preach ultra-nationalism for their own people and support for Israel which has not a religious, but a genetic requirement for immigration. The inescapable truth is that Jewish Supremacists hate the European people and Christians just as much as they hate the Muslim Arabs and Palestinians. They teach their children fear and hatred toward all Gentiles, and they endlessly recite Christian and Moslem persecutions against them. Their media teaches hatred of their Gentile enemies from Pharaoh and Haman to Hitler and Hussein, their hate propaganda is as ancient as the Talmud and as modern as movies such as the horrifying fiction of Shindler’s List. Jewish supremacists have also been the instigators of the globalism that is sweeping away American sovereignty and truly the freedoms, economic independence, and cultural values of all nations. They are the architects of so-called hate laws that are the modern equivalent to medieval laws against Blasphemy or Heresy. Only this time, it is the Jewish Supremacism who is the God beyond questioning. And now, in the wake of the September attacks of 2001 and the global war that follows, they are orchestrating the most massive infringement of rights and freedom in world history. They are setting up a world government and world police state that will make it a serious criminal offense to utter a word against their supremacism.

They are the new Gods, and those who love freedom are the new Heretics.

They are also preparing us for the dungeons and torture chambers of medieval times. Jewish pundits and even Jewish “civil-libertarians” such as Alan Dershowitz are now calling for the legalization of torture. Am I am alarmist? Were the early Palestinian resistance fighters “alarmists” when they said that the Zionist settlers coming to Palestine in the 1940s had not come to live as good neighbors but to take their country and enslave their people? Were the White Russians “alarmists” when they warned that the Jewish Bolsheviks would wipe away freedom and cast Mother Russia into a sea of blood? Were po litical untouchables like Patrick Buchanan and myself alarmists when we warned that Americans would suffer terrorism and murder by supporting the crimes of the Zionist state. Have we been proven false? In my preface I quoted Ben-Gurion’s prediction in Look Magazine in 1962. In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a Shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind. 521 I wonder if you, dear reader, after digesting the intervening two hundred pages of this book, might now share my fears that Ben- Gurion’s dark dreams are dangerously close to fulfillment. Is my fear just some anti-Semitic nightmare, or will the reader find it a healthy reaction to the ravings of unbridled Jewish supremacism? Jewish Supremacism is by far the most critical issue in the 21st Century World. As these past two chapters have shown, Jewish Supremacism is a term synonymous with terror. It goes to the very heart of the two most important things to every people on earth: survival and freedom.



After I became aware of the ethnocentrism that permeated Judaism and Zionism, and of the pervasive Jewish presence in the media, I read some books and articles that hinted that the stories of German atrocities during the Second World War were exaggerated and misconstrued. Some suggested that the persistent saturation of the media with what is now called the Holocaust, decades after the war, was motivated by the strategic interests of Israel. At first, I rejected the idea that some of the allegations against the Germans could be false, for I had seen the gruesome photos and films that seemed to make German atrocities self-evident. The following is an account of how I came to question some aspects of this somber episode of European history. I wrote an essay for an English class at Louisiana State University on the liberalization of American sexual morality. I recounted how I had never seen a picture of a frontally viewed, completely nude woman until I was a freshman in high school. That reminiscence may sound strange to young people of today, but even Playboy magazine omitted the most private sexual area until the mid-1960s. After I wrote the essay, a right-wing friend who read it told me that I was mistaken about not seeing full nudity in my childhood. “You have seen fully nude women,” he said, “graphic pictures of nude men and women, often emaciated, in horrible scenes of death. You saw many photographs and films of the Jewish victims of Nazi atrocities.”

On reflection, I had to admit that he was right. Television and print media of the late 1950s and early 1960s were much more prudish than they are today, but during the years of my childhood, the media often showed horrific photographs and newsreels depicting graphic scenes of mutilated and emaciated nude Jewish victims of the Second World War. They burdened the pages of magazines such as Look and Life; they never failed to appear in television documentaries on the war, and even daily newspapers reprinted them — including my hometown newspaper, the Jewish-owned Times-Picayune. In a time of innocence when my friends and I had never seen a photograph of a completely disrobed woman, the media showed us cadavers, often of nude women or the small frames of children, piled up like so much cordwood being bulldozed by Allied troops into mass graves. Those photographs were powerful, for even today those images remain vivid, etched deeply by the emotion evoked by them. My friend suggested that there was a political reason why the media repeatedly showed me the Jewish victims of the Second World War. “Was it accidental?” he asked rhetorically. “If it was just for the sensationalism of nudity and death, why are Jewish victims practically the only ones shown?”

When the movie The Faces of Death 522 opened in theaters across America in 1974, millions lined up to see actual film footage of real people in the throes of death. Seeing a human being in the maladroit pose of death is perhaps the most riveting sight a human being can witness. Parents shield their children from such scenes, and television news programs seldom show the most gruesome pictures of a homicide. Despite the media’s frequent use of sensationalism to boost ratings, even after the crash of a passenger airliner they usually show only general footage at the scene rather than severed heads and torsos. In the 1990s many voice concern that television programs and movies are too violent and gory for young children, yet the horrific scenes of the Holocaust have become mandatory viewing for some school children by state law. Jewish groups have lobbied to pass laws to require “Holocaust Studies” in public schools, and many thousands of local school systems, at Jewish urging, have simply mandated it. The bloody violence of the rankest of fictional movies or television programs could not possibly be more graphic than the gory scenes of the Holocaust. Would those same schools show films of the bloody victims of airline crashes to their young charges? Would they show the massacres of Palestinian women and children butchered at the Sabra and Chatila camps in Israeli-occupied Lebanon or the victims butchered by the Communists in Cambodia, to 9-year-olds? For what reason, I asked myself, must they show little children these horrible scenes of Jewish victims of half a century ago?

Proponents of “Holocaust Studies” for school children say that the trauma is necessary to teach them about the dangers of racism and Anti-Semitism. Yet they show no victims with their brains blown out to teach children about the horrors of criminal homicide, no scenes of the millions of corpses starved or butchered by the Soviet mass murderers to teach children the dangers of Communism. No colleges have a “Gulag Studies Department,” and no public high schools require studies about the Gulags to graduate. One of the arguments used by those who promote Holocaust Studies for our young children is that the Holocaust shows the evils of racism. It reveals, they say, that mass murder is the ultimate consequence of racial consciousness. They fail to point out that far more human beings have been slaughtered in the name of equality than in the name of racism. From the days of the bloody excesses of the French Revolution, to the millions butchered by the Soviets in their Gulags, the murderous Red Guards in China, and the killing fields of Cambodia, no doctrine has killed more people than Communism — and at its very heart lies fanatical devotion to egalitarianism. The awful scenes of Jewish suffering and death touched my heart as a young man, and they still do. They spawned revulsion at the inhumanity that produced such horrors. Indeed, it arouses anger in all of us against those responsible for the carnage. Nevertheless, as I became more aware of the early Jewish domination of the international Communist movement, I wondered why the media’s focus was almost entirely on Jewish suffering, with little attention afforded the other victims of mass murder.

The only victims of whom I was really conscious were Jews. They were the victims I read about, the victims I saw in television dramas, the victims I saw in the graphic photographs and newsreels. No greater human crime exists than the slaughter of the innocent. British historian David Irving labels it “innocenticide.” Yet I eventually learned of an innocenticide far more extensive than even the terrible crimes of the Nazis. This knowledge did not come from television documentaries or docudramas or from well-publicized trials of war criminals or searches for them, but from the quiet pages of books and documents little discussed by the popular media. Communists in Russia, Eastern Europe, and China killed at least ten times more innocent people than allegedly killed by the Nazis. As a young teenager, those victims of Communism were outside my awareness. I heard comments about atrocities by the Communists, but I saw no newsreels or photographs of the victims of Communism. I cannot recall even one. I saw no documentaries, nor did I read any diaries of young girls (or anyone else, for that matter) who had suffered at the hands of the Communists. Thus, I had no emotional involvement with the Christian victims of Communists, but I had strong emotional ties to the Jewish victims of the Second World War. Spurred on by my anti-Communism, I read about the greatest human slaughter in world history: the murder of tens of millions of Christians in Communist Russia. I read with fascination about the horrible murder of Czar Nicholas and his family by Jewish Bolsheviks and the mass murders begun by Lenin and climaxing in the unparalleled slaughter committed by Stalin. Lenin’s classic statement about mass murder by the Soviet state illustrated the cold-blooded nature of these killings. He said, “You can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs.” By the early 1960s, published information from the Kremlin itself acknowledged that the early leaders of Communism had organized the liquidation, by the Communist Party’s own estimates, of 25-to-40 million people. During this period, the media remained focused on the suffering of Jews, with little sympathy or attention shown to the other victims of totalitarianism. I found it amazing that the media lavished so much attention on atrocities against Jews while showing indifference to the mass murder of millions of Christians by Jewish commissars in the Soviet State. The muted response to Soviet atrocities seemed unexplainable considering the fact that at the time, America was in a “Cold War” with the Communists. What psychological weapon could have been better used against the Communists in that world-wide ideological Cold War than exposing the historical truth of their massacre of tens of millions of human beings?

The Western press kept mostly silent on the Soviet mass murders even while millions still suffered in Communist concentration camps. Millions more died in Red China during the “Cultural Revolution,” in many nations of Africa, in the jails of Cuba, in the killing fields of Cambodia, and in the “re-education camps” of Vietnam. Yet, during a period when Marxists liquidated millions, all we seemed to see was the endless parade of stories about Jewish suffering of decades before. At the same moment Jewish pundits were screaming “Never again!” about atrocities committed by a solitary regime dead and gone for decades, millions of innocent people faced torture and death in dozens of Communist tyrannies around the world. While the murders continued, we heard only a few whispers about them, but the saturation publicity about Jewish suffering in the war goes on to this day. During the late 1960s and early 1970s I attended meetings of anti- Communist Cubans and many Eastern European nationalities who had suffered grievously at the hands of the Communists. Latvians, Estonians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, White Russians, Romanians, Hungarians, Czechs, Poles, Croatians, Serbs, and many other refugees told a story of oppression, torture, and murder that received only a fraction of the media coverage of the Holocaust — yet their story concerned the suffering of even greater numbers of people. While the media trumpeted the search, capture, and trial of German war criminals, modern-day Communist war criminals continued incarcerating, torturing, and murdering millions in concentration camps across the world. The Jewish-dominated media made no determined effort to prevent the destruction of lives that might have been saved, nor did they make a righteous call for the prosecution of Communist war criminals past or present. After I learned of the great massacres organized by the Jewish Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union, I wondered why I reserved such special rancor for the Nazi perpetrators of war crimes. Why, I wondered, did I reserve special enmity for one mass murderer over another? Whether it is a commissar murdering the Czar and his children, an SS commander in war-torn Eastern Europe liquidating Jews, a Chinese Maoist Red Guard murdering thousands in the so-called Cultural Revolution, a Jewish member of the Stern Gang massacring Palestinians at Deir Yassin, or an Arab terrorist blowing up a commercial market in Tel Aviv, are not all mass murderers equally depraved? Yet undeniably, it was for the Jewish victims that I had the most empathy, and for their anti-Semitic persecutors, I had the most disgust and anger. I asked myself, what brought that on?

At that point I began to understand how I had been manipulated. Because of Jewish influence in the news and entertainment media, it was their story I saw on television and in the movies; it was their heartbreak I shared in books, their mangled bodies I saw in pictures and films, their horror I heard from teachers and preachers. How powerful is the impact on a 9- or 10-year-old if the first nudity he sees in media is accompanied by horrible scenes of death? I began to ask other politically incorrect questions about the Holocaust. Even if everything the media say about the Holocaust is true, why does it occupy our attention a thousand fold more than the massacre of many more people by the Soviets? Now that Communism has fallen, why is there no clamor for Nuremberg-type trials for the Communist mass murderers? Another question I have come to ask in the 1990s is why there are no war crimes trials for Israel’s many mass murders of Palestinians, such as at Dier Yassin, at Kibya, at Chatila and Sabra, and at Qana. These crimes are documented crimes against humanity, easily proven, and there are even many Israeli officials who have already publicly the confirmed these crimes against humanity. But, no one seems to be interested in bringing Jewish murderers to justice. If suspected German war criminals are the only ones to be targeted, doesn’t that suggest an anti-German ethnic bias in itself? Other questions began to plague me. If putting an innocent Jewish civilian in a gas chamber was the epitome of evil, was the aerial firebombing of millions of German and Japanese civilians morally wrong too? Is there an ethical distinction between murdering the innocent by poison gas and murdering the innocent by burning them alive? Does it make it morally acceptable that America firebombed civilian women and children because we were at war with the Germans and Japanese? By that standard, would Second World War German atrocities against Jews be somehow acceptable if they considered themselves to be at war with the Jews?

I read a book by David Irving called The Destruction of Dresden. 523 It exposed the murderous firebombing of Dresden in the waning days of the Second World War. Most Americans have heard much about the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, but few are aware that more people perished in Dresden than in either of the cities obliterated by atomic bombs. Dresden was an Allied “experiment.” They wanted to discover if they could create a “firestorm” by dumping tons of incendiary bombs on the city center. Dresden was a city of priceless artistic and cultural treasure that had been untouched up to that point during the war. The bombing set the entire inner city ablaze, creating hurricane- like winds that fed the flames. Asphalt bubbled and flowed in the street like lava.

When the aerial attack was over, some 100,000 people had perished. To avoid the spread of disease, the authorities burned the ghastly remains of tens of thousands of people in grotesque funeral pyres. Dresden had no military significance and when it was bombed, the war was practically won. If anything, the bombing only stiffened German resistance and cost more Allied lives. I sincerely asked myself, was the bombing of Dresden a war crime? Was it a crime against humanity? Were the children who suffered the cruelest death of all, being burned alive, any less wronged than, say, Anne Frank, who was placed in a concentration camp and ultimately succumbed to disease? Today the British government admits that their Air Ministry, from February 1942, embarked on a policy of targeting German civilians for bombing. As Willis Carto’s Barnes Review point out, more than 600,000 men, women and children perished from bombing calculated to kill as many civilians as possible.524 The United Nations now defines deliberate bombing of civilians as a crime against humanity. The double standard that seemed to exist in all things dealing with the Second World War nagged at my sense of fair play. An example of the media’s morality of convenience is the treatment of the Oklahoma City bombing as compared to the tremendous civilian bombing in the Second World War. I still remember the refrain after the Oklahoma City carnage, and the incredu lity that echoed in the trial of Timothy McVeigh. In essence, it went, “What kind of monster would bomb and burn to death children?” Is the burning alive of tens of thousands of innocent babies by intentional civilian bombing from planes any less morally wrong than the murder of two dozen children by Timothy McVeigh? Governments give one bomber of children medals, and another the death penalty. However, the ultimate blame must fall on the governments that institute such policies not on the soldiers that follow their orders. I view the intentional mass murder of women and children by anyone, any cause, or any government — as unjustifiable.

Even after the war’s end, for many months the Allies allotted an official calorie ration for each German civilian that was less than could sustain life. The Barnes Review pointed out that hundreds of thousands of civilians died in those months of hunger, exposure, and disease. The Soviets forced millions from their homes in German lands in the east. 525 In violation of the Geneva Convention and longstanding rules of war, millions of German soldiers were held long after the war’s end and thousands died from starvation, exposure and illness in the Allied-administered camps. Those deaths occurred after the fury of war had ceased and while massive stores of food and medicine were close by, stockpiled in Allied warehouses.526 I found a perfect example of the “us and them” double standard of morality in a book I learned about in college called Germany Must Perish! 527 by an American Jew, Theodore N. Kaufman. Published in 1941 before America’s involvement in the war and before the allegation of any German extermination program against Jews, the preface states:

This dynamic volume outlines a comprehensive plan for the extinction of the German nation and the total eradication from the earth of all her people. Also contained herein is a map illustrating the possible territorial dissection of Germany and the apportionment of her lands. Both Time magazine and The New York Times reviewed the book rather than simply dismissing it, and neither publication seemed too outraged at its open call for genocide. How would today’s moralists react if the Nazis had published a book called Jews Must Perish, and major magazines and newspapers in prewar Germany had publicized a book calling for “the total eradication from the Earth of all the Jewish people?” Would not they offer it as proof of the moral depravity of Germany? As a teenager, although I was fiercely patriotic and pro- American, I began to see that in war no side had a monopoly on virtue. And in total war, in which one side annihilates the political and cultural establishment of the other, only the victors write the history. The adage that “In war, truth is the first casualty” applies here. So what of the truth of the Holocaust? I knew that America’s mass media had deceived me about the origins and driving force behind Soviet and international Communism, and about the extent of Communist mass murder. It certainly seemed possible that the Jewish-dominated mass media would be just as deceptive on an issue immensely important to them. By the time I looked into details of the Holocaust I had already learned that the media-generated image of the always innocent Jewish religion and people was false. Yet I still found it difficult to look at the Holocaust objectively, for not so many years before my eyes had misted with tears when I read Anne Frank- the Diary of a Young Girl. 528 I was — and still am — deeply moved by the scenes of human carnage from the Second World War.

On the surface, it seemed the evidence of the Holocaust was overwhelming. Mountains of books, magazine and newspaper articles, movies, sermons and speeches, and documentaries proclaimed it with nary a word of contradiction. In addition, as a fiercely proud young American, with a proud military history in my family, I was prone to believe all the war propaganda about my country’s enemies. My father, a full colonel who still participated in the active Army Reserves, viewed his participation in the Second World War as the most meaningful period of his life. He would not hear of any mitigation of German guilt. The Holocaust was part of Father’s belief system and it became part of mine. However, I discovered that a number of distinguished Americans had made state- Holocaust survivor and revisionist Paul Rassinier. ments dissenting somewhat from the establishment version of World War II history. They included such men as Senator Robert Taft, Charles Lindbergh, General George Patton, and former Supreme Court chief justice Harlan Fiske Stone. I read the interesting views of Paul Rassinier, a Holocaust survivor who spoke out against what he called the lies of the Holocaust. A French political opponent of the Nazis, Rassinier suffered greatly during the war. In a number of concentration camps during the war, he never saw any evidence of human gas chambers or any program to exterminate the Jews. After his liberation, he read sensationalized accounts that he knew were false. Although he had little respect for his German captors, he felt it was his ethical duty to tell the truth about the camps and refute the exaggerated and false claims being made in the world’s press. In addition to the poignant accounts of his own experiences and observations, he began to research the entire issue after the war. Rassinier contended that the death toll in the camps was far lower than alleged and that the deaths were primarily caused by the poor conditions of the camps — the unintended effect of the losses and devastation of a nation crushed in a catastrophic war. He also called the allegations of gas chambers “classic examples of war propaganda that had no basis in fact.” Rassinier had nothing to gain personally in postwar France by taking such an unpopular position. In fact, he had much to lose, and after suffering all the hardships and privations of the German concentration camps, he then suffered intense persecution for his courageous writings. Three Famous Victims of the Holocaust Years later, I read a pamphlet outlining the inconsistencies and improbable content of Anne Frank: the Diary of a Young Girl. 529 Dr. Robert Faurisson, a liberal professor who specializes in the authentication of literature at the University of Lyon, France, made a strong case that the book’s form and content made it unlikely that a girl in her early teens had written it, at least in its published form. It also amazed me that this girl, the most famous victim of the Holocaust— who spent most of the war at Auschwitz — did not die in the gas chambers. Near the end of the war, the Germans evacuated her, along with many others, to Bergen-Belsen. In the last months of the war, she succumbed to typhus. Anne Frank’s sister, Margot, and her mother were not gassed either. They both died from typhus as well. Her father, Otto, fell ill while at Auschwitz and was nursed back to health in the camp hospital. Near the end of the war the Germans evacuated him to Mauthausen and he was liberated there. Otto Frank himself attested to these facts.

These facts seemed at variance with the stories I had read about Auschwitz. Books and movies portrayed the camp as an assembly line of murder, a place where whole trainloads of Jews were taken straight from the arrival platforms to the gas chambers. The Nazis supposedly inspected the new arrivals and sent the able-bodied to work, the young children and the sick to the gas chambers. If these stories are true, why then were the young Anne and her sister, who arrived in Auschwitz at the supposed height of the killing, not gassed? The other famous survivor of Auschwitz is the high priest of the Holocaust, Elie Wiesel, the man who won the Nobel Prize for his writings about it. Wiesel, like Anne Frank’s father, also had a sojourn in the camp hospital during the end of the war. In his autobiographical work Night, Wiesel relates that in January 1945, at the Birkenau section of Auschwitz, he had surgery on an infected foot in the camp hospital. His doctor suggested two weeks of rest, but the Russians were soon to liberate the camp. Hospital patients and all others who were considered unfit to travel, were given the option by the German authorities to remain in the camp to be liberated by the Russians or be evacuated with the Germans. After discussing it, Wiesel and his father decided to evacuate with their supposed “killers.”530 531 I should also note that the third most famous survivor of the Holocaust is Simon Wiesenthal, who has become famous for fighting those who dare to have doubts about some aspects of the Holocaust. Much like Anne Frank’s father and Elie Wiesel, Wiesenthal also had a sojourn in the Nazi camp hospitals. Wiesenthal wrote that while incarcerated by the Nazis he tried to commit suicide by cutting his wrists.532 The Nazis — whom he alleges were trying to kill all the Jews of Europe — did not let him die; instead they sent him to the hospital where they carefully nursed him back to health. If the Germans were the fiendish brutes that Wiesel suggests in his books, and were truly dedicated to the extermination of all Jews, why would he and his father have chosen to leave with the Germans rather than waiting for the Soviets? When I read of this admission by Wiesel, I was incredulous. Why would they send Anne Frank’s father to the hospital, and why on earth would they endeavor to save the life of a Jew who tried to commit suicide? Upon learning these things, I realized they were completely inconsistent with the Holocaust story as it is usually presented.

I wondered if the Holocaust story had changed over the years. So the first thing I did was pull out my much-thumbed volumes of the 1956 Encyclopaedia Britannica.533 It had only one reference to Nazi atrocities against the Jews. The extensive Second World War article made no mention of Nazi pogroms against the Jews. The edition also had no articles devoted to the “Holocaust.” In an article titled “Jews,” there was a short section on the Jews in Europe during the war. This article, written by Jacob Marcus, perhaps the preeminent Jewish historian in the world at that time, cited many Jewish writers and authorities as sources, including Encyclopedia Judaica, Judishe Lexicon, the Jewish Encyclopedia, and the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia. A pro-Jewish perspective dominated the article, and Marcus described Jewish conditions under the Nazis with these words: In order to effect a solution of the Jewish problem in line with their theories, the Nazis carried out a series of expulsions and deportations of Jews, mostly of original east European stock, from nearly all European states. Men frequently separated from their wives, and others from children, were sent by the thousands to Poland and western Russia. There they were put into concentration camps, or huge reservations, or sent into the swamps, or out on the roads, into labour gangs. Large numbers perished under the inhuman conditions under which they labored. While every other large Jewish center was being embroiled in war, American Jewry was gradually assuming a position of leadership in world Jewry. 534 [found in the 1947, 52, and 56 editions]

Imagine my surprise to find this description of what is now called the Holocaust in the 1956 Encyclopaedia Britannica, published within 11 years of the war’s end and after the most important of the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials. I had expected to read a detailed article about the “greatest human carnage in history.” The article certainly painted a grim picture of human suffering, but, importantly, it did not mention the famous six million figure or gas chambers or even the word Holocaust. Instead, Encyclopaedia Britannica simply stated that the Nazis put Jews into concentration camps and made them work in labor gangs where many perished from the terrible conditions. I thought, what a far cry from today’s image of the Holocaust. It seemed curious to me that the most famous and respected encyclopedia in the world would report the Jewish suffering in that way. It sparked my first real glimmer of doubt about the whole question and began to open my mind to new questions. I went to the public library in 1970 and again looked up the heading, “Jews,” in a 1967 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. 535 In stark contrast to its 1950s editions, it stated unequivocally that the Germans attempted to exterminate all of European Jewry and had employed a method that was “more efficient and economical than shooting or hanging: poison gas.” What did the Britannica staff know in 1967 that it did not know in 1956? Why the change from the earlier editions? I asked myself. Had new evidence been uncovered decades after the war? If the efficient Nazi war machine controlled Europe’s Jews and aimed to kill them, how could so many have survived? In fact, millions of Jews have applied for and received compensation from the German government. How did all those survive? I also noted that in Wiesel’s famous autobiography, published in 1956, the same year as the Britannica article, even though he mentions crematories at Auschwitz, he never mentions gas chambers — not once. In fact, he writes that Jews were killed en masse by being thrown alive into burning pits, a horrific allegation to be sure, but far different from modern claims. Wiesel also quotes accounts of Jews being murdered at Babi Yar, where for “month after month the ground never stopped trembling” and “from time to time, geysers of blood spurted from it.”536 I thought, Is this from the man who will tell me the truth of the Holocaust? Other impertinent questions occurred to me. Did the Nazis, while in the midst of the war effort, really construct huge and complex gas chambers; transport millions of Jews to camps, and exterminate their victims in this manner? If their intention was to kill them, wouldn’t bullets, costing a few cents apiece, have killed them more efficiently and eliminated the huge expense and logistical nightmare of transportation, housing, food and medical care? I asked myself, If the Nazis really intended to kill all the Jews, why would they even need to build concentration camps?

I was uneasy asking myself these questions. I wondered if I was somehow defending mass murder by questioning whether the atrocity tales had been exaggerated. I had seen survivors on television telling the stories of Jewish victims’ skin turned into lampshades and their body fat made into soap. A wave of sympathy sometimes arose, causing me to drop my inquiry for a while. I finally decided to continue my reading and think more about the issue. The search for the truth is never wrong. The only sin is to lack the courage to follow where truth leads. I began my inquiry into the Holocaust by looking into the Nuremberg Trials, the international proceedings that supposedly proved the nature and extent of the Holocaust.

The Nuremberg Trials

My father was a traditional Republican who admired Senator Robert Taft of Ohio. Taft agreed with many American military men that the Nuremberg Trials set a dangerous precedent that could endanger American military personnel captured in future conflicts. If the victorious armies of the Second World War could prosecute their defeated enemy for war crimes, he thought the same could happen someday to captured American soldiers. I saw the award-winning movie Judgment at Nuremberg and read a book that depicted the trials as dispensing justice to war criminals who deserved the gallows or the firing squad. Interestingly, the first alternative view I read about the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, came from a man whom I viewed as an enemy of the South: President John F. Kennedy. In the pages of his Pulitzer Prize-winning book Profiles in Courage,537 Kennedy wrote of the political heroism of Senator Taft, whose personal code of honor required him to denounce the Nuremberg Trials at the risk of jeopardizing his lifelong quest for the presidency. Despite vociferous opposition and an unprecedented smear campaign against him by the Jewish-influenced media, Taft questioned the fairness of the Nuremberg Trials. He contended that they were not the shining example of Western jurisprudence that the mass media had led me to believe. Taft conducted a Senate investigation in which many American witnesses disclosed that there had been widespread torture of German defendants. Such conduct appalled Senator Taft and he had the temerity to suggest that one could not trust such confessions. He went on to question the very foundations of the trials and the image of justice they were supposed to represent.

In Profiles in Courage Kennedy quotes Taft speaking at Kenyon College in Ohio. On page 238 Kennedy writes, “The trial of the vanquished by the victors,” he [Taft] told an attentive if somewhat astonished audience, “cannot be impartial no matter how it is hedged about with the forms of justice.” 538 Kennedy goes on to quote at length from Taft’s speech. About this whole judgment there is the spirit of vengeance, and vengeance is seldom justice. The hanging of the eleven men convicted will be a blot on the American record we shall long regret. In these trials we have accepted the Russian idea of the purpose of trials — government policy and not justice — with little relation to Anglo-Saxon heritage. By clothing policy in the forms of legal procedure, we may discredit the whole idea of justice in Europe for years to come.539

Kennedy comments,

Nuremberg, the Ohio Senator insisted, was a blot on American Constitutional history, and a serious departure from our Anglo- Saxon heritage of fair and equal treatment, a heritage which had rightly made this country respected throughout the world. “We can’t even teach our own people the sound principles of liberty and justice,” he concluded. “We cannot teach them government in Germany by suppressing liberty and justice…” 540 Taft’s argument was that the victor’s justice is no justice at all. Although the media gave the trials an appearance of fairness in a courtroom setting, it was superficial. Real justice cannot be done when the accusers have control over the judges, prosecution, and defense. Our Western concept of law rests on the idea of impartial justice. Is that possible when the judges are the political enemies of the accused.? Is it possible when men face prosecution for acts of war that the Allies themselves had committed? Are the trials credible when they allow massive amounts of testimony without cross-examination of witnesses… when so-called evidence consists of confessions exacted through torture…when witnesses for the defense could face arrest for showing up at court…when men are tried for violations of laws that did not even exist at the time of their alleged commission? Judge Edward Van Roden was a member of the Simpson Army Commission that investigated the methods used at the Dachau Concentration Camp. In the January 9, 1949, Washington Daily News and in the January 23, 1949, London Sunday Pictorial he told of some examples of the use of torture. . . .The investigators,” he said, “would put a black hood over the accused’s head and then punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him and beat him with rubber hoses. . . . All but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases we investigated, had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair. 541 542 Much of the “Holocaust proof” offered today by historians is the “confessions” extracted at the war crimes trials. I thought, Can we trust the “confessions” of those whose testicles were damaged during interrogation? I was also shocked when I learned that Russian KGB officials, who themselves had committed extensive crimes against humanity, sat as judges. One of my friends at the Citizens Council told me that an American judge who was president of one of the tribunals exposed the injustices of the Nuremberg Trials. I found out that Iowa Supreme Court justice Charles F. Wenersturm had resigned his appointment in disgust at the proceedings. He charged that the prosecution pre vented the defense from obtaining evidence and preparing their cases, that the trials were not trying to create a new legal principle but were motivated solely by hatred of Germans. Additionally, he said that 90 percent of the Nuremberg Court consisted of persons who, on political and racial grounds, were biased against the defense. He contended that Jews, many of whom were refugees from Germany and newly made “naturalized” American citizens, dominated the staff of the Nuremberg Courts and were more interested in revenge than justice. The entire atmosphere is unwholesome. . . . Lawyers, clerks, interpreters and researchers were employed who became Americans only in recent years, whose backgrounds were embedded in Europe’s hatreds and prejudices. 543

I also found out that my military idol, General George S. Patton, had opposed the war crimes trials. For example, in a letter to his wife he wrote

I am frankly opposed to this war criminal stuff. It is not cricket and is Semitic. I am also opposed to sending POW’s to work as slaves in foreign lands, where many will be starved to death. 544 The armies of our ally, the Soviet Union, raped almost all the German women in their occupied areas — from young children to the elderly. They murdered millions and forced millions from their homes in the winter of 1945. East Prussia, a German land for centuries, had its entire German population expelled or murdered by the Soviets. In the 1990s, Jewish researcher, John Sack, documented the Jewish mass murder of tens of thousands of Germans in the months following the war.545 It was not only the Soviets and the Jews who committed war crimes. The Western allies committed their share as well. One was Operation Keel Haul, which deported hundreds of thousands of Russian and Eastern European anti-Communists to torture, slave labor and mass murder in the Soviet Union. When they learned of the forced repatriation planned by the Allies, scores of them committed suicide. The Morgenthau Plan was another disgraceful crime the Allies implemented after the war. The plan called for each German civilian to receive a ration of food that was less than that alleged to have been allotted to inmates in Germany’s concentration camps. It sickened me to read of German mothers who were forced into prostitution to feed their children. After the war was over, hundreds of thousands of German civilians and soldiers died in the first year of the harsh Allied occupation. 546 When I began to understand that war created these kinds of injustices on both sides, I began to seriously question my belief that Germans were the only ones guilty of wrongdoing during the Second World War.

Discovering that the Allies also committed atrocities reminded me of vicious anti-Southern propaganda unleashed when Yankee forces liberated Andersonville Prison Camp in the War Between the States. Many Northern prisoners there had died of disease and malnutrition. This came about because the Southern forces had literally nothing to feed their prisoners. Many Southerners themselves suffered terribly from the “scorched-earth” policy of William Tecumseh Sherman, the destruction of railroads, and the naval blockade of the South. Under such circumstances, it isn’t surprising that the prison camps were hellholes, and no malevolent plan or conspiracy is required to account for it. While still in college I learned that although the North suffered no food shortages, the conditions in Yankee-run prison camps were little better than those in Southern camps.547 When I read of Lincoln’s direct order forbidding Yankee jailers to give their captured Southerners the food parcels and blankets sent from concerned relatives, I learned the bitter truth that the victors always portray themselves as just and the conquered as unjust. When I considered the patent injustice of the Nuremberg Trials, it became easier for me to view the Holocaust objectively, for its foundation lay in the allegations set out by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. One example of Nuremberg’s shabby evidence is the purported confession of Rudolf Hoess, the former Nazi commandant at Auschwitz Concentration Camp. For years, Holocaust historians trumpeted the Hoess “confession” as proof that the Nazis purposefully exterminated the Jews. In fact, it formed the foundation of the Auschwitz allegation of mass gassings. Chief Holocaust historian, Raul Hilberg, heavily relied upon it, but when its full unedited content became widely known in the 1960s, many Holocaust experts became embarrassed by it, and by the 1990s some admitted its obvious unreliability. Historian Christopher Browning admitted in a Vanity Fair article that: Hoess was always a very weak and confused witness. The revisionists use him all the time for this reason, in order to try to discredit the memory of Auschwitz as a whole. 548 The first problem lay in the numbers. In his alleged confession, Hoess said there were more than 2.5 million Jews gassed at Auschwitz. Nearly all so-called authorities on the Holocaust, including the current curator of the museum and center at the Auschwitz camp, Dr. Francizek Piper, now say that the figure was 1.2 million. Why should Hoess have lied?

Hoess also confessed to things that were impossible. For example, he alleged that after hundreds of victims were gassed with hydrogen cyanide, workers immediately entered the nonvented rooms and removed the bodies without wearing gas masks. He described how they smoked and ate snacks as they performed their task. By comparison, in modern times, the State of California vents its gas chamber for hours after an execution. Even then, workers cannot enter the room without gas masks and body suits to avoid the toxic substance that can kill just by entering the pores. Anyone in the camps who immediately entered a large room saturated with deadly hydrogen cyanide that had killed hundreds of people would have quickly found himself among the victims. In his confession, Hoess also alluded to a concentration camp that did not even exist — Wolzek. Hoess wrote his memoirs while awaiting trial and execution in a KGB-run Communist prison in Poland, with all that such circumstances imply. Rupert Butler, in his anti-Nazi and anti-Hoess book Legions of Death, vividly describes Hoess’ capture. Here is Butler’s account of Hoess’ torture and arrest: At 5 p.m. on 11 March 1946, Frau Hoess opened her door to six intelligence specialists in British uniform, most of them tall and menacing and all of them practiced in the more sophisticated techniques of sustained and merciless investigation… We discovered later that he had lost the cyanide pill most of them carried. Not that he would have had much chance to use it because we had rammed a torch [flashlight] into his mouth… Clarke yelled: “What is your name?” With each answer of “Fritz Lang,” Clarke’s hand crashed into the face of the prisoner. The fourth time that happened, Hoess broke and admitted who he was… The admission suddenly unleashed the loathing of the Jewish Sergeants in the arresting party… The prisoner was torn from the top bunk, the pajama ripped from his body. He was then dragged naked to one of the slaughter tables, where it seemed to Clarke the blows and screams were endless. Finally a medical officer urged the Captain: “Call them off, unless you want to take back a corpse…” [Hoess] was dragged back to Clarke’s car, where the sergeant poured a substantial slug of whiskey down his throat. Then Hoess tried to sleep. Clarke thrust his service stick under the man’s eyelids and ordered in German: “Keep your pig eyes open, you swine…” The party arrived back at Heide around three in the morning. The snow was swirling still, but the blanket was torn from Hoess and he was made to walk completely nude through the prison yard to his cell. It took three days to get a coherent statement from him. 549 Another powerful example of the inaccuracy of the Nuremberg Trials was that the Allies had represented as fact that 300,000 people had perished by gassing at the Dachau Concentration Camp near Munich. Today no authorities on the Holocaust claim that the Germans gassed even one person at Dachau, and the official death toll has been reduced to approximately 30,000 from all causes. Approximately half the death toll occurred from disease epidemics that had ravaged the camp, and many of the deaths occurred even after the Allies took control of it.
Even after the liberation of the Dachau camp, thousands of inmates died of typhus as the Allies struggled to get the epidemic under control. Allied photographs at the time show speed limit signs in Dachau that read, in English,

War-torn Europe suffered widespread and catastrophic typhus epidemics. German authorities fought lice infestation with disinfestation chambers for clothing and personal articles, just as American jails fight lice by disinfecting prisoners with a delousing spray. Zyklon B was used only on clothes and other articles and it had to be used in a custom-built, airtight chamber so as not to endanger anyone. Because I read the Holocaust literature extensively, and compared both the old and the new material, I began to see cracks in its foundation that threatened the whole edifice. Most of us have read or heard accounts of American soldiers who have related that they knew what the Nazis had done because “they saw it with their own eyes.” What did American sol- diers actually see? They saw terrible scenes of human suffering and death. They saw piles of corpses emaciated from hunger and disease, just as Yankee troops saw the same at Andersonville during the War Between the States. Nevertheless, did any Americans see gas chambers? According to accepted authorities on the subject, including the famous Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal, Americans saw no such sights in Germany — nor could they have — because the only gas chambers used on Jews were in Eastern Europe.

One classic picture shown around the world depicts a helmeted American soldier at Dachau standing next to a heavy metal door painted with a skull and crossbones and the German warning CAREFUL, LIFE THREATENING. The photo caption read “Gas Chamber at infamous Nazi death camp at Dachau.” No one who saw that photo and caption could be blamed for thinking they had seen a picture of a gas chamber in which Nazis had murdered human beings. When I first saw the photograph, I thought the same thing. Years later I found that it was indeed a gas chamber — one used for the fumigation of clothing to kill lice — the vermin that spread typhus and other diseases that killed concentration camp inmates. In fact, many hundreds of Allied soldiers died from those vermin-spread diseases during and after the war. The soldier in the famous photograph stood next to a disinfestation chamber intended to save inmate’s lives, not take them. Napoleon said, “In war, the mental is to the physical as three to one.” Near the end of the war, Allied governments had to paint the German enemy in the worst possible light. Rumors proliferated, exaggerations exploited. It was not a big leap for war propaganda to represent disinfestation chambers for lice as gas chambers for humans. American camp liberators, who had read and heard a thousand times over about Germans gassing Jews, came to believe that they had seen the results of gassing with their own eyes. It is a psychological phenomenon familiar to judge and journalist alike. After having experienced the psychological shock of the horrible scenes of death at the camps, no one could be blamed for believing the “official explanation” as touted by the media. Many years after the war, long after it became known that no American soldiers had seen a single gassed victim, the media still support the myth. Newspapers and magazines frequently quote soldiers who “know” that the Germans gassed the Jews because they “were there” and they “saw it with their own eyes.” Yet, no editor corrects the error. In the late 1960s and early 1970s I noticed the beginnings of a significant revision of the Holocaust story. “Death camps” where hundreds of thousands had supposedly been gassed suddenly became “concentration camps” where there had been no purposeful effort to exterminate the prisoners. Camps such as Dachau, which were formerly alleged to have gassed Jews, suddenly dropped any mention of gassing and their death figures were revised downward. Plaques on the camp gates showing old inflated numbers of victims were quietly replaced. Even the professional “Holocaust historians” began to classify Dachau as a “concentration camp” rather than a “death camp.” Under greater scrutiny, the previous claims of human gassing in camps on German soil became exposed as a wartime falsehood. Much of the popular press still supports the error, even though the official chroniclers of the Holocaust had shifted the gas chamber allegations entirely to the “Communist-liberated” camps of the east. The socalled experts who now say that all death camps were in the east, had just a few years earlier claimed the same of the camps in the west.

The Jewish Soap Story

The outlandish story that the Nazis made soap from the bodies of Jews is perhaps one of the most startling examples of the fraudulent nature of the evidence and conduct of the Nuremberg Trials — and the falsehoods contained in the Holocaust story. During the Nuremberg Trials, L.N. Smirnov, chief counselor of justice for the U.S.S.R., declared: The much-published map of concentration camps (white) and “death camps” (black). Note that all the “death camps” were Soviet-captured.. The same base, rationalized SS technical minds which created gas chambers and murder vans, began devising such methods of…the production of soap from human bodies and the tanning of human skin for industrial purposes…550(Nuremberg exhibit U.S.S.R.- 197) Allied prosecutors produced affidavits that alleged that Dr. Rudolf Spanner, head of the Danzig Institute, had called for the production of soap from the bodies of concentration camp inmates. Dr. Spanner’s supposed formula for human soap was presented (Nuremberg document U.S.S.R.-196), and actual soap presumed to be made from humans was submitted to the IMT (exhibit U.S.S.R.-393). Sir Hartley Shawcross, chief British prosecutor, in his summation to the court stated, “On occasion, even the bodies of their [the Germans’] victims were used to make good the wartime shortage of soap.” As part of the Nuremberg verdict, the judges stated, “attempts were made to utilize the fat from the bodies of the victims in the commercial manufacture of soap.”551 This sensational allegation made headlines all over the world and is still often repeated today. After the Nuremberg Trials, the Jewish soap story grew with each recounting. Survivors recounted washing their bodies with Jewish soap.

Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal wrote about the human soap during the Nuremberg Trials. In 1946, in the Austrian Jewish Community paper Der Neue Weg, he wrote:

During the last weeks of March the Romanian press reported an unusual piece of news: In the small Romanian city of Folticeni twenty boxes of soap were buried in the Jewish cemetery with full ceremony and complete funeral rites. This soap had been found recently in a former German army depot. On the boxes were the initials RIF, “Pure Jewish Fat.” These boxes were destined for the Waffen-SS. The wrapping paper revealed with completely cynical objectivity that this soap was manufactured from Jewish bodies. Surprisingly, the thorough Germans forgot to describe whether the soap was produced from children, girls, men or elderly persons. 552 The allegation that the Nazis made soap out of Jews during the last years of the war was presented simply as a grim fact of the inhumanity of the Germans against the Jews. It was repeated in books such as William Shirer’s media-touted Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and in thousands of articles, documentaries, and even in textbooks.553 In Israel, there have even been Jewish funerals for bars of soap alleged to be the remains of Jews. The soap bars, wrapped in funeral shrouds, were interred according to solemn Jewish ritual. Every article, statement, affidavit and drama about the Germans making soap from the bodies of Jews has been shown to be false. After the war, the Allies initiated indictment proceedings against Dr. Rudolf Spanner. After a lengthy investigation, the prosecutor’s office found no evidence that the Danzig Institute had ever made soap of human bodies, and they dropped charges against him. It turns out that the initials “RIF” that appeared on the soap in question did not stand for “pure Jewish fat” but for the official name of the government agency that distributed soap and other cleansers. “Reichsstelle fur Industrielle Fettversorgung” means simply “Reich center for Industrial Fat provisioning.” In fact, “Pure Jewish Fat” would be “RJF” (Rein Judisches Fett), not “RIF,” but in the hysterical anti-German atmosphere at the end of the war, the Holocaust-hypers would not let simple facts get in the way. When “Holocaust revisionists” confronted the atrocity-mongers with the truth, they had to admit the soap lie or lose credibility.

Jewish historian Walter Laqueur, in his 1980 book The Terrible Secret, acknowledged that the human soap story was a fantasy.554 Gitta Sereny, another famed Jewish historian, noted in her book Into That Darkness555 that “the universally accepted story that the corpses were used to make soap and fertilizer is finally refuted by the generally very reliable Ludwigsburg Central Authority for Investigation into Nazi Crimes.” Deborah Lipstadt, professor of modern Jewish history and Holocaust Studies at Emory University, wrote in 1981 that “the Nazis never used the bodies of Jews, or for that matter anyone else, for the production of soap.”556 Finally, in April 1990, the man acclaimed as the world’s foremost Holocaust historian, Professor Yehuda Bauer of Israel’s Hebrew University, as well as Shmuel Krakowski, archives director of Israel’s famous Yad Vashem Holocaust Center, stated that the human soap stories were not true. Bauer said that camp inmates “were prepared to believe any horror stories about their persecutors.” In his interesting statement, Bauer blamed the whole human soap story on the Nazis. Krakowski commented that “Historians have concluded that soap was not made from human fat. When so many people deny the Holocaust ever happened, why give them something to use against the truth?”557 Historian Mark Weber, writing in the Journal for Historical Review, sums up his article on “Jewish Soap” stating, “That so many intelligent and otherwise thoughtful people could ever have seriously believed that the Germans distributed bars of soap brazenly labeled with letters that indicated they were manufactured from Jewish corpses shows how readily even the most absurd Holocaust fables can be — and are — accepted as fact.”558 Just as the “Jewish Soap” story turned out to be a gigantic falsehood, there is a wealth of information that also contradicts many of the other popular beliefs. Many researchers, drawn to the contradictions and implausible scenarios of the Holocaust story, independently came up with new findings. The body of inquiry that challenges the Holocaust story — “Holocaust revisionism” — continues to uncover new evidence even as I write these lines. (See also: “The Myth that Refuses to Die,” Barnes Review)559 The Holocaust experts have countered the revisionists with invective and suppression. Just a few years ago, those who dared to question the Jewish soap story were called Nazis and haters. Even today anyone who dares to question any part of the Holocaust package: its nature, numbers, or policies — is condemned as a “Holocaust denier” (a term that will probably be trademarked and written with a capital “D,” just as Holocaust has come to be spelled with a capital “H”). To call anyone who questions the Holocaust dogma a “Holocaust denier” is to suggest that he is a witless (or evil), anti-Semitic lunatic. How could anyone deny, ask the holocaust “authorities,” what, after all, everyone has seen with his own eyes — the photos and newsreels of gassings and shootings, the mounds of Jewish bodies. In reality, I discovered that no responsible revisionist denies that large numbers of innocent people, including many Jews, died at the hands of the Germans and their allies during the Second World War. No one denies that the Germans rounded up the Jews from all over occupied Europe and put them into deplorable concentration camps. Revisionists do not deny that Nazis committed atrocities against Jews; they do, however, contend that the numbers of those killed have been grossly inflated. More importantly, they maintain that there was no central program, plan, policy, or order by the German government to exterminate all of the Jewish people. Revisionists claim that the Nazis created the camps to confine Jews because they considered them a security risk, much like the American government rounded up and incarcerated Japanese for security reasons.

Revisionists argue that scientific and documentary evidence supports their position and that the proponents of Holocaust orthodoxy must ruthlessly suppress debate if the Holocaust story is to survive. Finally, they argue that there are powerful political and economic motives for the creation and perpetuation of the Holocaust story. Throw the Holocaust heretics into prison — and cast their books into the fire! In the 1990s, hundreds of individuals all over the Western world, including many scholars and researchers, have been harassed, intimidated, physically attacked, fired, fined and even jailed simply for of fering evidence that challenges parts of Holocaust orthodoxy. Professors, judges and teachers have been fired from their jobs. Some have been fined tens of thousands of dollars merely for expressing politically incorrect opinions. Professor Robert Faurisson at France’s University of Lyon-II, for example, has been fined thousands of francs for his opinions and had his face crushed and doused with acid in a brutal attack. Often such victims are well educated, respected men who were never accused of Anti-Semitism until they researched and wrote about the Holocaust.

A prime example of the persecution of the Holocaust questioners is the story of historian David Irving. His books are found in almost every library in the world. Irving has written more than thirty volumes on the Second World War published by a half dozen of the most prominent publishers in the Western World, including: The Viking Press; Harper & Row; Little, Brown; Simon & Schuster; and Avon Books.

The most respected historians in the world, including A.J.P. Taylor, Trevor Roper, Gordon Craig, and Stephen Ambrose have praised some of his works. He has researched in the German State Archives for more than thirty years, as well as in the U.S. National Archives, the British Public Records Office, the government archives of Australia, France, Italy and Canada, and even the former Soviet Secret State Archives. He was the first historian to challenge the validity of the widely heralded (and later debunked) Hitler Diaries.560 In the course of his wide-ranging research, Irving has uncovered many documents that challenge parts of the Holocaust orthodoxy. While he was in Germany, Irving quoted the videotaped admission of the head curator of the Auschwitz State Museum, Dr. Francizek Piper. Piper had admitted that the facility shown to the world (and more than 40 million visitors) for 40 years — as a genuine Nazibuilt gas chamber — is not authentic. Polish Communists had actually built it after the war. For simply quoting Piper’s admission, the government charged Irving with “Defaming the memory of the dead.” Although he had clear evidence proving the truth of his statement, Irving was forbidden to present it at his trial or even to call Dr. Piper as a witness. For making his statements of historical fact, the German government fined him 30,000 marks. In “the German State’s interest” they banned him from using the German State Archives where he had labored for more than thirty years, and to which he had donated priceless collections of original documents. The German government has now banned him from the country. Canada, France, Austria, Italy, South Africa, Australia and many other nations have subsequently banned him at the behest of the Jews. His publishers have been harassed and intimidated into canceling contracts. He has been physically attacked and has had lectures broken up by pipe-wielding thugs. In Canada, at the request of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the authorities seized, shackled, and deported him from the country in handcuffs. The Toronto Globe & Mail asked why he had been handcuffed and then answered its own question with another, “Did someone think he might use his typewriter?”

With the American tradition of First Amendment rights, few realize that in the so-called “Free World” it is possible for a historian to be jailed simply for voicing an opinion about a historical event of 50 years ago. Speaking inside his home near the U.S. embassy in London, Irving did an interview with a French television station, again repeating the fact that the main gas chambers shown to tourists at Auschwitz are fakes. For making this statement in his own living room in London, he was prosecuted in the Paris courts. In France, it is illegal to challenge any of the “crimes against humanity” as alleged in the Nuremberg Trials Charter of 1945 — even if one does so in his own home and in another country.

There are those who say that we should not debate aspects of the Holocaust any more than we should debate those who say the world is flat. Yet, would any knowledgeable person be afraid to debate an advocate of the Flat Earth theory? Would he urge the passage of laws to prevent the advocate of that theory from speaking, writing or publishing? Would he try to have his livelihood destroyed, have him fined thousands of dollars, and if that did not work, cast him into prison? I believe in freedom of speech because I am not afraid. I believe that my ideas are well reasoned and that I can back up my opinions with logic and evidence. In an atmosphere of free and open discussion, I fear not, for there is not a truth that I dread. What do the opponents of David Irving, or of all revisionists, fear? Our libraries and schools are well stocked with orthodox Holocaust literature. Newspapers and magazines publish an endless stream of related stories. Theater and television screens light up with drama, commentary, interviews, and images of the Holocaust. It would seem that with this much overkill, there should be little to fear from the David Irvings of the world — unless of course, his persecutors think that his evidence is convincing, his reasoning sound and his presentation eloquent. Thus, to protect their popular version of the Holocaust, they seek to hound this man to the ends of the Earth. What “historical fact” is so vulnerable that it must be protected by terror, by jail, and deportation? What do the opponents of David Irving and the other revisionists fear? Are the revisionist arguments so convincing that their opponents must use naked political oppression to silence them?

Auschwitz: The Centerpiece of the Holocaust

The Holocaust story centers on the Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland. For years, it was presented to the world as a death camp where the Nazis gassed three to four million Jews as well as millions of non-Jews. Whatever doubts visitors might have about the enormity of the Holocaust, and the veracity of the gas chamber stories — are wiped away by the camp tours. Half of a million tourists each year see what are purported to be the actual gas chambers where millions of Jews were murdered. From 1945 to 1989, a plaque at the front gate proclaimed in many different languages that 4.1 million victims had died there. During a visit to the camp in June 1979, Pope John Paul II stood before this monument and blessed the four million victims’ souls. It turned out that at least three million of the perished were figments of imagination.

Shortly after the pope’s visit, with no fanfare or publicity, the camp historians removed the plaque and replaced it with one reflecting the new official figure: 1.2 million. For many years, the officially declared six million Jewish victims of the Holocaust included the four million supposedly killed at Auschwitz. Interestingly, when the Auschwitz figure went down by about three million, there was no rush to correct the encyclopedias or the endless stories quoting the six million figure.

When the “experts” made the Auschwitz reduction, they did something for which revisionists have been jailed: They revised the Jewish casualty rate downward. However, they had no real choice. They had to radically lower their figures or lose credibility. It was one thing to make fantastically ludicrous claims when Auschwitz was a little-visited Communist Party-controlled site of the 1950s and 1960s, but with greater access came more questions. By revising the figures, the camp curators were in effect admitting that the Communists and the subsequent camp museum officials had fabricated numbers and that they were just too inflated to be believed. Jewish revisionist David Cole traveled to Auschwitz in September, 1992. Wearing a yarmulke, he interviewed the curator, Dr. Francizek Piper, who admitted that while the “official tour guides” tell the visitors the gas chamber is exactly as it was when the camp was liberated, it is actually a “reconstruction.” That revelation is just one of the gaping holes in the bow of battleship Auschwitz, the mothership of the Holocaust fleet. Cole was subsequently beaten up and his life threatened repeatedly.561

In the face of mounting evidence exposing the blatant Auschwitz falsehoods, the Holocaust promoters admitted much of what people such as David Irving had been condemned for saying. Interestingly, in perhaps the most authoritative and exhaustive book on Auschwitz yet published, Auschwitz: 1270 to Present by Robert Jan Van Pelt and Deborah Dwork, it is admitted by the two Jewish Holocaust authors that the gas chamber at the main Auschwitz camp and that the one shown to tourists was a fake built by the Polish Communists long after the war. 562 The authors, however, allege that there were gas chambers in another Auschwitz camp.

The overthrow of Communism in Russia brought to light many documents that were hitherto inaccessible to Western researchers. Startling pieces of evidence have recently turned up in the Moscow State Archives. When the Soviets “liberated” Auschwitz, the Germans had hurriedly abandoned it, leaving behind tons of documents. Among the items recovered by the Communist troops was the Auschwitz Death Register — chronologically bound volumes of death certificates of those who had died in the camp. For 45 years, these crucial documents had languished in the secret files of the KGB. Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev authorized release of the ones researchers had located: 46 bound volumes. The volumes show that doctors and other medical personnel meticulously recorded each death at Auschwitz. The records included descriptions of the cause of death, which ranged from execution (generally shooting or hanging) to disease, heart attack and similar causes. Most of the deaths were from disease. The incomplete Death Register volumes contain records that add up to approximately 74,000 deaths, of which approximately 30,000 were Jews. The rest were Poles, Russians, and other nationalities. The Death Register raised immediate questions. If the authorities recorded executions by shooting or hanging, then why not those by gassing? More importantly, why had the books been kept hidden for so many years? Had the Soviets suppressed the books because they knew that they did not correlate with their official KGB versions of Auschwitz?

Powerful evidence from Allied sources also conflicts with the fantastic alleged murder rate at Auschwitz. In the mid-1970s, the U.S. government released wartime aerial photographs of the Auschwitz camp. Jewish historian Raul Hilberg, in his article for Encarta Encyclopedia, writes, “In 1944 the camp was photographed by Allied reconnaissance aircraft in search of industrial targets; its factories, but not its gas chambers, were bombed.” The United States Army Air Corps took the photographs over a lengthy period, and they are so remarkable in their clarity that vehicles and even people can be distinguished in them. Many of the photographs had been taken during the supposed height of the alleged killing. The surveillance flights took many at mid-morning on typical workdays. Not one of the photos taken over a number of days shows huge pits or piles of human bodies; nor are there any fires suggesting their burning or smoke billowing from the chimneys of the crematoria.

Thousands of tons of coke would have been needed to fuel the crematoria if the murder and cremation of millions of people had been in progress. Yet, the photos show no mountains of coke, and there are no long lines of railway cars filled with the fuel. No lines of people are assembled outside the doors of the alleged Auschwitz gas chamber, and no holes appear on the very roof where allegedly Zyklon B was supposedly tipped in on top of the victims. Another startling piece of evidence surfaced with the release of the British “Enigma Secret.” Using computers, the British broke the supposedly indecipherable ultra-secret code that the Germans had relied on to send communiqués between the battlefront and the high command. Cracking the code helped turn the tide of war, for the British and Allied forces knew the German’s military plans and orders — sometimes even before the German field commanders themselves. Sir Frank H. Hinsley, master of St. John’s College and professor of International Relations at Cambridge University, published a special appendix to Volume II of his magisterial British Intelligence in the Second World War: Its Influence on Strategy and Operations.563 In the section titled “German Police Cyphers,” Hinsley reveals that during 1942 and 1943 British intelligence intercepted daily coded communications for Dachau, Buchenwald, Auschwitz, and seven other camps. Every day each camp reported the number of people brought in, the number transferred to other camps, and the numbers who were born and those who died. It also reported executions by shooting or hanging. “The returns of Auschwitz,” states Hinsley, “the largest of the camps with 200,000 prisoners, mentioned illness as the main cause of death but included references to shootings and hangings. There were no references in the decrypts to gassing.” The numbers of dead in the decoded messages correlate with the records of the death books and the amount of coke consumed. More importantly, if gassing had been taking place, why would they have not been reported, just as shootings and hangings were? Since the Germans dutifully reported executions or killings to their superiors, and their reports were made in top secret transmissions, why would they hide the method of execution used?

Interestingly enough, British Intelligence also intercepted the communications of German commando forces called “einstatzgruppen” that were locked in an horrific partisan war in the east against the Communists. In those decrypts are graphic descriptions of mass murders of Jewish partisans and groups of civilians. Why would those secret messages include grim accounts of the murder of civilians, but not the decrypts from Auschwitz?

Scientific Evidence

In a criminal trial, scientific evidence is usually the most powerful because it can be validated in an objective, scientific manner. There is no scientific evidence indicating mass gassing at Auschwitz or any other German camp. The United States Army had toxicology experts do autopsies on hundreds of dead in the Nazi concentration camps. Human remains can show signs of cyanide poisoning for years. No scientific evidence existed that even one of the victims was gassed to death. Nor do records of autopsies by Russian doctors in the Eastern European camps show any evidence of gassing. Although autopsies had been performed, the results were not presented at Nuremberg. Why? Is it because the results would not have served the prosecution since none of the deaths could be blamed on poison gas? In every murder trial doesn’t the prosecution attempt to show the cause of death? In the most publicized murder trial of all time, the International Military Tribunal, proof of the cause of death is conspicuously absent. If the Nazis had really gassed people by the millions, would not the prosecution have produced at least one autopsy proving the cause of death to be poisoning by the cyanide gas produced by Zyklon B?

Holocaust orthodoxy “experts” claim that one “proof” of the gassing of human beings is the great quantity of Zyklon B used at Auschwitz during the war. Attempting to rebut revisionist questioning of gas chambers, Jean Claude Pressac, a French chemist, in his book Auschwitz: Techniques and Operation of the Gas Chambers, supplies data showing the large consumption of Zyklon B at Auschwitz.564 A more logical explanation is simply that the Germans used the chemical in an effort to control the epidemics that ravaged the camps. Additionally, the data published by Pressac himself shows that the per capita amount of Zyklon B used in the Auschwitz concentration camp was similar to Zyklon B consumption in German camps such as Oranienburg, where the experts admit that no human gassing took place. If Auschwitz was the great center of extermination, and if Zyklon B was the poison used, how could it be that records of the chemical’s purchase and usage show no greater consumption at Auschwitz than at the many concentration camps where Zyklon B was used strictly for lice infestation and where there were no alleged gassings? Pressac also inadvertently revealed that coke consumption was no greater per capita in Auschwitz than the camps in Germany where extermination is not alleged.

In February 1988, the Canadian government charged Holocaust questioner Ernst Zundel with violating an archaic law against “spreading false news.” Defense attorneys in this criminal case commissioned an American engineering consultant on prison gas chambers, Fred Leuchter, to make a scientific examination of the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz. Leuchter, an apolitical person, is perhaps the premier authority in the United States on the construction and use of execution equipment, and he was actually in charge of the design and construction of execution facilities used in a number of American prisons.

In his investigation, Leuchter surveyed the construction of the alleged gas chambers and researched the chemical properties of the Zyklon B fumigant. He found that Zyklon B is a compound that, when exposed to air, releases deadly hydrogen cyanide gas. It clings to surfaces and has a tendency to react chemically with materials containing iron (ferric compounds), creating a ferricyanide. If Zyklon B is used in iron chambers or in red brick structures, it reacts with ferrous (iron) material to produce a distinctive blue color. The printing ink industry has used these chemical reactions for many decades to produce a distinctive color called Prussian Blue. Random House Webster’s Electronic Dictionary, 1992 edition, defines it as follows: Prussian Blue n. 1. a moderate to deep greenish blue. 2. a dark blue, crystalline, water-insoluble ferrocyanide pigment, used in painting, fabric printing, and laundry bluing. Not only did Leuchter find that the supposed homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz were structurally unsuitable for gassing, he also took samples from the walls and had them chemically analyzed. Independent laboratories in the United States found no evidence of the ferricyanide compounds. Yet, when Leuchter examined the rooms used as disinfestation chambers for clothes and luggage, he readily observed the distinctive blue coloring associated with ferricyanide. After further chemical analysis of the samples, he proved that the disinfection walls had heavy concentrations of the ferricyanide caused by exposure to cyanide. Leuchter also pointed out that the disinfestation chambers used for delousing clothes were well made, airtight, and designed for safety. On the other hand, the supposed human gas chambers were shoddily constructed. He asked why gas chambers for killing lice would be properly engineered, whereas chambers allegedly for killing millions of people would be improperly engineered and constructed — and dangerous for operators.

The Fight Against Revisionism

When Leuchter published his report, Holocaust authorities reacted predictably — with defamation, suppression, intimidation and even imprisonment. Leuchter became the victim of an intense international campaign to discredit him and ruin him financially. Jewish groups wrote defamatory letters to all of his state penitentiary clients urging them to cancel his contracts. They were able to get authorities to prosecute him in his home state of Massachusetts, in spite of his obvious expertise and his patents, under an arcane statute of practicing engineering without a license.

The German government jailed Leuchter for six weeks simply for reporting his technical findings in a lecture in November 1991 at Weisshiem. For simply translating and commenting on Leuchter’s speech, Mr. Günter Deckert, a former high-school teacher with a clean record, was sentenced to a year’s probation. In their verdict, the judges, Dr. Orlet and Dr. Muller pointed out that Deckert was a city councilor who graduated with distinction in law from Heidelberg University and was of high moral character. Because they did not sentence Deckert harshly enough according to the international press, the judges themselves faced intimidation and efforts to overturn the sentence they imposed.

Frau Saline Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, the German minister of justice, called the verdict a slap in the face for every victim of the Holocaust and had the two judges suspended and placed on “sick leave.” Mannheim prosecutor Hans Klein appealed the verdict with the result that Deckert received a two-year jail sentence. Klein also promised to go over the wording of the verdict in search of anything that might be grounds for prosecuting the two judges. It is obviously not a free system if a judge can face termination, or even be criminally charged for stating why he is lenient within the bounds of his authority. It seems that little has changed in Germany during this century. In America it is hard to imagine someone going to jail simply for translating a scientific lecture, or having judges suspended or threatened with arrest for rendering a verdict or sentence deemed politically incorrect. Nevertheless, such are the methods of protecting the Holocaust story. Germany is not the only violator of free speech in this matter. Some time later, the frail and spectacled Fred Leuchter was also incarcerated and forcibly deported from Great Britain. A year after the Leuchter controversy, the Auschwitz Museum staffers secretly duplicated Leuchter’s tests and arrived at the same scientific results. They do not, however, discuss these scientific facts in their guidebooks. Their feeble explanation for the lack of ferricyanide in the human gas chambers is that somehow it dissipated over time — a chemical impossibility. They offer no explanation why the ferricyanide did not dissipate in the disinfestation chambers. Another Holocaust expert argued that it takes less cyanide to kill humans than it does to kill lice, therefore there would be less in the human gas chambers than in the disinfestation chambers. Yet, it is alleged that huge amounts of Zyklon B were used to kill millions of people in a veritable “factories of death.”

The Holocaust revisionists, in spite of enduring vicious attacks from the press, caused such a stir by the release of the Leuchter Report and subsequent revelation of the details of Auschwitz’s own chemical study, that the Auschwitz staff authorized a new investigation that purports to refute Leuchter and their own earlier study. However, they will still not allow any independent studies by scientists and engineers, although it would be relatively easy and quick to obtain samples and do analyses of the alleged gas chamber walls. Repeatedly, in the study of the Holocaust, those with a personal or political stake in maintaining their version of events are opposed to academic or scientific inquiry. They endeavor to prevent a physical inspection of records or scientific studies of sites, and they make even the public reporting of scientific or historical investigations punishable by imprisonment.

Even a well-respected Jewish historian who believes in the existence of the gas chambers offers a somewhat revisionist viewpoint. In his 1988 book Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?: The “Final Solution” in History, Princeton University professor Arno J. Mayer pointed out that there are many questions about the Holocaust. Mayer, who himself lost close family in the Holocaust, writes: Many questions remain open. . . . All in all, how many bodies were cremated in Auschwitz? How many died there all told? What was the national, religious, and ethnic breakdown in this commonwealth of victims? How many of them were condemned to die a “natural” death and how many were deliberately slaughtered. . . ? We have simply no answers to these questions at this time. (pg. 366)

From 1942 to 1945, certainly at Auschwitz, but probably overall, more Jews were killed by so-called “natural” causes than by “unnatural” ones. (pg. 365) Sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable. 565 I must repeat that Mayer strongly believes that gas chambers did exist at Auschwitz, but he points out that “Most of what is known is based on the depositions of Nazi officials and executioners at postwar trials and on the memory of survivors and bystanders. This testimony must be screened carefully, since it can be influenced by subjective factors of great complexity.” 566Mayer’s statements would be grounds for prosecution in France and Germany.

Witnesses to the Holocaust

As Mayer points out, much of the Holocaust story is based on eyewitness accounts. Revisionists argue that so-called eyewitness testimony is not always reliable. They give as an example, the John Demjanjuk case. Demjanjuk, a naturalized American autoworker from Eastern Europe, was accused of being Ivan the Terrible, a nefarious concentration camp guard at Treblinka concentration camp who allegedly murdered hundreds of people. Demjanjuk maintained his innocence, but hundreds of Jewish eyewitnesses testified that he was Ivan. The witnesses screamed, cried, and postured, telling the most incredible stories of cruelty and sadism. They swore under oath that they clearly remembered that Demjanjuk was Ivan. Ultimately, Demjanjuk was deported to Israel, an Israeli court tried and convicted him, primarily on “eye-witnesses” testimony. But new evidence came forward that proved that the Soviet KGB had framed Demjanjuk. Documents that supposedly showed him to be a guard proved to be Soviet forgeries. When faced with a world-wide scandal, even the Israeli Supreme Court had to agree that the eyewitness accounts were not credible and that Demjanjuk was innocent.

Those Incredible Numbers

In examining the Holocaust, I found that sources varied wildly in their estimations of the number killed, ranging from 4 to 24 million. Reproduced below is the entry under Holocaust in the Compton’s Multimedia Encyclopedia, 1991.

As Nazi Germany gained control of one country after another in World War II, there was much killing of civilians and maltreatment of soldiers that can be classified as war crimes. These crimes, however, pale in comparison to the massive, deliberate, and wellplanned extermination of more than 15 million persons in what is termed the Holocaust. This genocide of staggering proportions was carried out with scrupulous efficiency by a well-coordinated German bureaucracy in which nothing was left to chance. 567 Elsewhere in the same Compton’s Encyclopedia (under the topic Concentration Camp) is the following statement: The most horrible extension of the concentration camp system was the establishment of extermination centers after 1940. They were set up primarily to kill Jews. This slaughter is known as the Holocaust. It is believed that from 18 to 26 million people were killed in them, including 6 million Jews and 400,000 Gypsies. 568 Holocaust chroniclers assessing German crimes obviously see no need for accuracy or even consistency. But regardless of which set of numbers is used, the figures are so fantastic that they strain credulity. If 18 to 26 million people were murdered and cremated in the “extermination centers” of Poland (most of them at Auschwitz), the daily count would have had to be in the tens of thousands. As cited previously, the expert cited by the Holocaust scholars themselves, Pressac, now estimates the death toll at Auschwitz of all victims to have been between 600,000 and 800,000. How do these figures, which themselves could be greatly exaggerated, square with the wild numbers for Auschwitz bandied around in the popular encyclopedias? When a nation is accused of such terrible crimes, shouldn’t there be at least a demand for accuracy and consistency? If not, then any people could be accused of any transgression without fear of reproach. About the time I noticed the discrepancies in Holocaust numbers, I saw a television interview of a Zionist who attacked Holocaust revisionism by saying that “Whether it was ten million or one million, 100,000 or 1000, it does not make the crime any less abhorrent!” The truth is that if hundreds of thousands rather than up to 26 million were killed, and if most of those deaths were caused by the expected brutalities of war rather than a calculated plan of extermination, then the prevalent version of the Holocaust story is grossly inaccurate.

Other Holocaust Questions

The main component of the Holocaust story is that the Nazis had a plan or program for exterminating the Jews. But even though the Allies captured Germany’s government and military headquarters and most of the concentration camps with their records intact, there has never been a single order or instruction found that calls for the gassing of Jews or that indicates a plan to exterminate all of European Jewry. No blueprint has been found for the construction of a human gas chamber, or instructions or orders written for gassing human beings. On this subject, as on others, the Holocaust story has undergone revision. No longer do the experts claim the Nazis gave direct orders to exterminate the Jews. Raul Hilberg in the 1961, first edition of his major work on the Holocaust, The Destruction of the European Jews, wrote that in 1941 Hitler had issued two orders for the extermination of the Jews. In Hilberg’s revised three-volume edition of the book, published in 1985, all reference to such orders had been removed. 569 In a review of Hilberg’s revised edition, historian Christopher Browning, himself an “exterminationist historian,” wrote: In the new edition, all references in the text to a Hitler decision or Hitler order for the “Final Solution” have been systematically excised. Buried at the bottom of a single footnote stands the solitary reference: “Chronology and circumstances point to a Hitler decision before the summer ended.” In the new edition, decisions were not made and orders were not given. 570

A Holocaust under the Nose of the Red Cross?

Jewish leaders have directed anger toward the International Red Cross for not revealing the Holocaust or doing anything to stop it. They point out that international teams of Red Cross inspectors visited and inspected all the major German concentration camps, including Auschwitz, right up to the end of the war. On one hand, the Holocausters expect us to believe that the Germans were murdering tens of thousands of people a day in a super-secret plan that they dared not mention even in their top-secret orders. On the other hand, they expect us to believe that the Nazis would let the International Red Cross inspect those same camps at the during the same period they were supposedly killing many thousands each day. Here are excerpts from a telling U.S.A. Today article: Many Jewish leaders and Holocaust experts long have contended that the Red Cross failed spectacularly during World War II — mostly by not raising an alarm about Nazi atrocities — and compounded the failure later by refusing to acknowledge it… In fact, in a Nov. 22, 1944, letter to U.S. State Department officials about the visit, the Red Cross said: “(We) had not been able to discover any trace of installations for exterminating civilian prisoners… In this case, the documents show, the Red Cross failed at every possible turn. Not only had Red Cross officials neglected to grasp the situation, but they then passed along bad information to the Allies.


Several Red Cross documents suggest that the organization was reluctant, at least initially, to put much faith in tales and rumors of Nazi brutality. Like the general public, Red Cross officials didn’t comprehend the true extent of the Nazis’ crimes… “There is no doubt that the Red Cross let itself be used by the Nazis,” says Radu Ioanid, director of the Holocaust Survivors Registry at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. “There is no doubt they were fooled.”571 Obviously, if the grievously high death toll was from lack of medicine, shortages of insecticide (for killing disease-spreading lice), and food — because of the destruction and disruption of the war — the Nazis would have had no fear of International Red Cross inspectors and volunteers in the camps any more than the British would have feared them helping in the ruins of East London after an air raid. Do the promoters of the Holocaust story believe the members of the International Red Cross were part of an anti-Semitic, Nazi, Holocaust conspiracy? Or did their members, in spite of visiting the camps during the war and delivering to prisoners 973,000 packages and parcels (as their own records show), simply see no evidence at all of mass gassings or burnings or “extermination facilities” or for that matter, any effort on the part of the Nazis to purposefully exterminate the Jewish people? While helping hundreds of thousands of refugees, Red Cross volunteers undoubtedly heard stories of Nazi brutality and rumors of mass gassings and they noted those rumors and kept an eye out for any evidence of them, but they saw nothing to indicate that the rumors were true. At the end of the war, in camps such as Buchenwald, they saw great numbers of bodies, but their own reports laid the horror on disease epidemics, which even the British occupiers and the Red Cross itself had great difficulty controlling. For instance, the British estimated that more people perished after they assumed control of Bergen-Belsen than before the camp’s liberation.

Jewish forces condemn revisionists who raise common sense questions about the Holocaust, such as “How could there have been a Holocaust right under the nose of the International Red Cross?” It’s no wonder they want such questions quashed and the questioners imprisoned. Their version of the Holocaust story cannot withstand such inquiries.

Why No Debate?

The official keepers of the Holocaust wage an international campaign to silence the disturbing questions. Most people never even hear the revisionist position because Jewish forces dominate the media and block mainstream access to material that questions Holocaust orthodoxy. Among the most potent of such forces is the world-wide “Anti- Defamation League of the B’nai B’rith,” which has a $37 million annual budget in the United States devoted to defaming those who criticize Israel or question parts of the Holocaust tale. The ADL instructs its spokesmen never to debate any aspect of the Holocaust. If their version of the Holocaust is so overwhelmingly documented, why do they fear free and open discussion? An honest debate between the high priests of the Holocaust and Holocaust questioners would reveal that the latter are not crackpots or hatemongers but people with legitimate questions and arguments based on sound evidence. Such a debate would reveal that revisionists do not deny that Jews, like the Japanese in World War II America, were incarcerated in concentration camps. Revisionists acknowledge that the conditions in the European camps were horrendous near war’s end, and they maintain that many thousands of Jews died in the camps, mostly from malnutrition and disease. Finally, revisionists also freely admit that some massacres of innocent civilians took place and that such horrors should be condemned. Revisionists maintain that while there were certainly Germans who committed what is today defined as “war crimes,” the Allies themselves, which include the Soviets, were guilty of them to at least an equal degree. Revisionists point to the Allied intentional firebombing of civilian populations as well as to the Soviets’ mass rape, expulsion, and murder of millions of Germans and other peoples of Eastern Europe (see Willis Carto’s Barnes Review).572They also point out that many of the deaths in the concentration camps in the last years of the war were caused by Allied bombing of rail lines vital for transportation of food and medicines. They point out that specific targeting and destruction of pharmaceutical factories that produced medicines and medical supplies increased the death rate among German civilians, soldiers and also among those in the camps.

To challenge the popular perception of the Holocaust, obviously, is not condoning mass murder. Those who refute the popular conception of the Holocaust make it clear that they view atrocities against innocent Jews or any other people as crimes against the moral values of Western civilization. Revisionists simply contend that the Jews were not the only victims of the world’s most horrific war. Many revisionists also argue that the motive for a horrendous Holocaust story is the furtherance of the economic and political objectives of Israel and the Jewish organizations. When I began to learn many of the disturbing facts that challenged my perception of the Holocaust, I asked myself how the Holocaust story began and why it so ubiquitous more than 50 years after the end of the Second World War. Usually, there is a great deal of bitterness and hatred at the end of any war, but as time passes, the hysteria lessens and cooler heads prevail. Yet there seems to be as much if not more frenzy about German war crimes today as there was immediately after the war. Just months after the war’s end, a U. S. Senate leader, Robert Taft, condemned the International Military Tribunals as a “blot on the American record we will long regret.”573 The Chief Justice of Supreme Court of the United States, Harlan Fiske Stone, said of Justice Jackson, who left the court to lead the tribunal: Jackson is away conducting his high grade lynching party in Nuremberg. I don’t mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to the common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas. 574 Fifty years later, one would be hard-pressed to find even one American congressman who would dare condemn the war crimes trials. Even if he secretly harbored that opinion, he would know that uttering it would bring upon his head such wrath that his political career would be over. What is the motive, then, that keeps Holocausters striving to keep the story so ingrained in our minds and hearts?

Motives for the Holocaust Story

Pressure was placed on the Allied powers to establish a permanent haven in Palestine for Jewish survivors. The establishment of Israel three years after Germany’s defeat was thus an aftereffect of the Holocaust. 575 –Encarta Encyclopedia article on Holocaust by Raul Hilberg, leading Jewish Holocaust historian During every war, there is war propaganda. In modern warfare, it has become a powerful psychological weapon. While propaganda has no necessary relation to truth, it can be used on a nation’s own forces as well as those of the enemy. During the First World War, the British War Office issued dispatches saying that the German soldiers would enjoy themselves by hoisting up the babies of Belgium on their bayonets, and, furthermore, that they boiled the babies’ bodies to derive the phosphates used in munitions. After the war, the British War Office confirmed that these stories were blatant falsehoods. In the Second World War — in an expanding age of radio, movies, and mass-circulation newspapers and magazines — propaganda became ever more refined and powerful. Jews, who exercised considerable power in the American and British media, began circulating stories about German atrocities in the 1930s, and the stories escalated with the coming of war. As the revisionist Barnes Review 576 points out, just as Germans were accused of boiling babies in the First World War, Germans were now accused of making soap from the bodies of their murdered victims. However, this time it took almost half a century for the historical truth to vanquish the soap story lie, and the blatant falsehood is still often repeated. As a student, in the basement of the Louisiana State University library, I surveyed a great many magazines published between 1945 and 1950, and I found compelling reasons why the war propaganda did not stop after the end of the war. The guns in Europe had scarcely been silenced when a new war began that was vital to the world-wide Jewish community. A massive Jewish invasion and ensuing war began in Palestine for the creation of the Zionist State of Israel. Its success depended to a great degree on the Holocaust story. In his Encarta Encyclopedia article, Raul Hilberg accurately depicts the establishment of Israel as an “aftereffect of the Holocaust.” Actually the establishment of Israel was not so much an aftereffect of the Holocaust as it was an aftereffect of the Holocaust story. The realities of the Holocaust were not as important as the perception that there was a Holocaust. Today, there are important historical questions concerning the sinking of the Maine preceding the Spanish-American War; the Gulf of Tonkin incident preceding heavy American involvement in Vietnam; and whether the Lusitania, which the Germans sank in the First World War, was illegally carrying munitions. The importance of these decisive incidents lay more in the public’s perception of them than in whatever their factual basis may have been at the time. The same is true of the Holocaust. The Zionist’s dream of Israel needed a “Holocaust” — the most monstrous Holocaust imaginable — to further their aims.

Modern Israel could not have been established without the story of the “six million.” The creation of the Jewish state depended on the massive influx of Jews from all over the world into Palestine and a successful war of terror against both the British who administered the region under a League of Nations mandate and against the region’s native inhabitants. The displaced Jewish populations of Europe were a tremendous source of immigration to Palestine. Without that invasion, it is doubtful that the relatively small prewar Jewish population there could have wrested control from the British and the native Palestinians. The Zionist military takeover of Palestine required vast economic, military, and political support from around the world. It entailed the terrorization of the Palestinian majority, driving them from their homes and lands and denying them their civil and political rights. Only the perpetuation of the Holocaust story could make these crimes tolerated by the world. Sympathy for the Jews, deeply stirred by recollections of the Holocaust, made whatever grievous offenses committed against Palestinians, no matter how unjust, seem trivial. The Holocaust story has generated tens of billions of dollars of aid from the United States and even greater amounts from Germany in reparations. Perhaps most importantly, the Holocaust was the fuel that fired the flame of Jewish Zionism all over the world. Recital of the Holocaust united Jews world-wide and elicited the huge monetary and political support necessary for the establishment and maintenance of Israel. After 50 years of almost unbroken conflict with the Palestinians and her Arab neighbors, Israel still relies heavily upon American and German support. Israel is America’s biggest annual recipient of foreign aid, just as it has been since her establishment. Constant harping on the Holocaust keeps the money flowing from both Jews and non-Jews and forms a subtle excuse for every injustice committed against the Arabs.

Nahum Goldmann, president of the World Jewish Congress, wrote a popular book called The Jewish Paradox, published by Grosset & Dunlap in 1978. Goldmann writes dramatically of the impact of German reparations for Israel.

The Germans will have paid out a total of 80 billion…Without the German reparations that started coming through during the first ten years as a state, Israel would not have half of its present infrastructure: All the trains in Israel are German, the ships are German, and the same goes for electrical installations and a great deal of Israel’s industry. . . and that is setting aside the individual pensions paid to survivors. Israel today receives hundreds of millions of dollars in German currency each year. . . . In some years the sums of money received by Israel from Germany has been as much as double or treble the contribution made by collections from international Jewry. 577 In this amazing book, Goldmann admits that even during the war the Zionists were planning war crimes trials and reparations from Germany.

During the war the WJC (World Jewish Congress) had created an Institute of Jewish Affairs in New York (its headquarters are now in London). The directors were two great Lithuanian Jewish Jurists, Jacob and Nehemiah Robinson. Thanks to them, the Institute worked out two completely revolutionary ideas: the Nuremberg tribunal and German reparations. The Institute’s . . . idea was that Nazi Germany ought to pay after its defeat, …The German reparations would first have to be paid to people who had lost their belongings through the Nazis. Further, if, as we hoped, the Jewish state was created, the Germans would pay compensation to enable the survivors to settle there. The first time this idea was expressed was during the war, in the course of a conference in Baltimore. 578

The Nuremberg Trials were presented to the public as an effort by the Allies to levy justice on war criminals. In The Jewish Paradox, Goldmann admits that the Nuremberg Trials and the idea of German reparations were originated not by the Allies but by Zionists before any evidence of a Holocaust, and that the compensation would be vital to the foundation of Israel.

Since the Second World War, the Holocaust story has engendered tens of billions of dollars from the United States and even greater amounts from Germany in reparations. The staggering sum, easily exceeding $150 billion, would certainly provide a powerful motive to Israel and World Zionism to perpetuate the sensationalized Holocaust story.

Another possible motive for keeping the propaganda alive became apparent to me as I read the stacks of 1940s magazines in the LSU library. I found numerous stories predicting the eminent rebirth of Nazism. Many of them claimed fancifully that secret hordes of gold existed that would fund the neo-Nazi movement in Germany and all over the world, including North and South America. Associating the Holocaust with Nazism was certainly the most effective way to rebuke the National Socialist philosophy. Of course, the Holocaust not only rebukes the Nazis, it insulates the Jews from practically any criticism. It is also a psychological weapon in the hands of the Jewish-led egalitarian movement, for the mass media never seemed to miss an opportunity to link racial thinking and science to the Nazi horrors (except of course for Jewish racial horrors against Palestinians).

In advancing the Holocaust story, the Jewish-dominated media had a willing partner in the Allied governments. At the end of the war, with Europe in ruins, tens of millions dead, and half of Europe under the Communist tyranny, many could be forgiven for asking if involvement in the original Polish-German war had been worth it. The Holocaust story provided powerful emotional justification. I enjoyed reading Raymond Chandler murder mysteries when I was in college. When studying the Holocaust, I remembered that in making a criminal case, the prosecution shows that the defendant has motive to commit the offense and the opportunity to do so. Powerful Jewish interests certainly had the motive to create and promote the Holocaust story in its most extreme version, and with their domination of the media they certainly had the opportunity. There are literally thousands of books in print focusing on aspects of the Holocaust and countless magazine articles, speeches, sermons, documentaries, novels, plays and movies tell us of its terror. An overwhelming number of the authors of material on the Holocaust are themselves Jewish. Is it likely that Jews, who passionately believe in the unspeakable horrors of the Holocaust, can write objectively about it? Could Elie Wiesel write an unbiased account of Nazi Germany or the Holocaust, or could Adolf Hitler, were he alive, write an unbiased one of Wiesel and the Second World War?

Elie Wiesel writes:

Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate — healthy, virile hate — for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of the dead.579 Imagine if a Russian survivor of the murderous Gulags under Jewish Bolshevism made a statement saying that, Every Russian, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate — healthy virile hate — for what the Jew personifies and what persists in the Jew. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of the dead. I don’t believe he would have won a Nobel prize. In fact, in the Europe of today he would be jailed and called an evil anti-Semite. The real power of the Holocaust story has been in the human emotion it evokes. It is the tearful remembrances of elderly Jewish survivors, the coquettish words of Anne Frank, and the photographs and newsreels of emaciated and mangled bodies that are ingrained in the consciousness of us all. It is the pictorial record that is the real “proof” of the Holocaust, for we have all seen its victims in their terrible poses of death. However, similar pictures could be shown from many wars. We could see the millions of victims of Communism under Trotsky’s Red Army or Stalin’s purges. We could see the women and children who died by the thousands in the British-run concentration camps of the Boer War. We could see the remains of the tens of thousands of men, women, and children who were burned alive at Dresden or Hamburg. We could see the dead of the killing fields of Cambodia or the blood-drenched jungles of Rwanda. But we do not see these victims in photographs and films day after day, year after year. These other victims of war have no multimillion-dollar memorial among the national monuments of Washington, D.C., no political lobby, no Hollywood promoters. To remember them doesn’t suit the agenda of those who decide what the public will view and hear. During the coming century, as communications flow with greater ease and rapidity, more people will challenge many of the premises and allegations of the Holocaust story. Errors and falsehoods will fall before vigorous cross-examination and intellectual challenge. Each day the story unravels a bit more, becoming increasingly untenable. The truth grows incrementally. Terror and suppression will no longer suffice to block its advance. It shall prevail someday, triumphant in its naked power.

I cannot say with absolute certainty that some parts of the Holocaust story did not occur just as the leading “exterminationists” allege. But certainly, there is now enough contrary evidence and reasonable questions to warrant a full and open inquiry and debate on Holocaust dogma.

We cannot know the full truth until dissenting opinions and free inquiries into the Holocaust are allowed. Those historians and scholars who harbor doubts about aspects of Holocaust orthodoxy must be allowed to investigate and analyze; and then to present their findings without fear of retaliation of the sort suffered by David Irving. After researching and questioning elements of the Holocaust story, I came to realize that those who challenge parts of it are no more unjustified than those who dispute the establishment’s version of the Kennedy lone assassin theory. The difference is that there is less political, economic, social, or religious repercussion when challenging the Warren Commission findings. To simply ask pertinent questions about any aspect of the Holocaust story will bring down upon oneself the unbridled wrath of those who dominate the media and who support Israel. I have already paid dearly for my apostasy, and this book will probably exact an even greater personal cost. In America, if a researcher dares to publish and then publicly discuss the issue, it can result in the loss of his livelihood and even physical endangerment. In Canada and Europe it has meant revocation of university degrees and loss of employment, professional standing, pensions, businesses, and, in addition, imprisonment and physical attacks.

As I write these words, news has come to me that the French nationalist leader Jean-Marie Le Pen has been convicted by a French court and fined thousands of dollars for simply saying in a conversation with a journalist that the gas chambers were a “footnote” of the Second World War.580 Sir Winston Churchill, in his monumental sixvolume The Second World War,581 has no mention of gas chambers — not even a footnote. The same can be said for Eisenhower’s Crusade in Europe.582 Perhaps the Zionists can arrange for a posthumous trial for these two men who did not pay proper homage to the holy Holocaust. After Le Pen’s comment, the European director of the Wiesenthal Center demanded the waiver of Le Pen’s European Parliamentary immunity to make him liable for prosecution and ineligible to run for elective office.583

A society that does not allow free discussion, inquiry, and debate is not free. The greater the fear of government and media for an idea, the more intense the suppression. In the case of politically incorrect ideas about the Holocaust, this fear has reached hysterical proportions. A government or media establishment that fears certain ideas, suppresses them, not because the ideas are weak, but because they are powerful; not because those ideas are refutable, but because they are convincing. If it really believes the ideas to be weak, it has no urgency to suppress them. If we are to know the true story of the Holocaust, there must be freedom of inquiry, freedom to question and freedom to doubt.

If there is one thing I have learned in my political life, it is to question. We must have free speech and press, free inquiry and discussion. Before we can know what is true or untrue, fact or fiction, we must hear all sides. This holds for every issue before us, including the phenomenon that produces such incredible hysteria: the Holocaust, spelled with a capital “H.”

The Holocaust increasingly assumes the dimensions of a religion. It is a sort of death and redemption theme that takes on the image of an innocent people being slaughtered but rising in an aura of unassailable holiness. There are refurbished concentration camps as shrines and pilgrimages to them; holy writ full of saints and sinners, and temples such as the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. Anyone who questions even the slightest detail of it is a heretic who deserves scorn and derision at the least, but more preferably the loss of his livelihood and his imprisonment. The writings of the blasphemers must be confiscated and burned. If the heretical works somehow, even to a small degree, find their way to the public, the authors and their works must be systematically demeaned and ridiculed. The Holocaust legend lives on, fueling intense ethnic solidarity among Jews and collective hatred toward Gentiles. Among Gentiles, the chronic replay of the Holocaust story destroys our most elementary psychological defenses against Jewish Supremacism. Actually, the greatest holocaust born of ethnocentrism was the mass murder of tens of millions of Christians by the Jewish-led Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. It seems sadly ironic so little is focused on that Holocaust of Holocausts. In our age, though, events and their significance are defined as supremacist Jews choose to define them. Holocaust terminology remains the exclusive preserve of the Jewish victims of the Second World War. The Jewish Holocaust is sacredly held apart from all other loss of life. There are Jews and then there is all the rest of humanity — the small “g” gentiles of the world.

The Mother of All Holocausts

It would be far more appropriate to describe the entire Second World War as a Holocaust, rather than simply the sufferings of the Jews. The bombing and burning of Europe’s most beautiful cities and artworks, the death of tens of millions of the bravest and fittest young men, and the ruthless uprooting, starvation, rape and murder of tens of millions of innocent civilians from all nations and ethnic groups of Europe — that was the greatest Holocaust the world has ever known. The civilized world will feel the cultural and genetic effects of the Second World War for many generations to come. The British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, put it succinctly when he said the German-Polish border dispute wasn’t worth the blood of one English grenadier. All of those born during and since the conflict, grew up with the catechism of parents and press about the “good war.” If the death of 50 million human beings is a good war, then what exactly is a bad one? Naturally, the same forces that have publicized the Holocaust have emphasized the necessity of the war, and the Nuremberg Tribunals decreed the ultimate war guilt of the Germans. Seeking to end the 20-year Polish subjugation of eastern German territory, Germany had invaded Poland. At that point, it was a border war, with minimal loss of life and little bombing of cities or civilians. The war widened as France and England declared war on Germany, and soon it was a World War, ultimately the greatest human carnage in history (see Willis Carto’s Barnes Review). 584 In many nations there were those who wanted war. There were Germans looking to the east for Lebensraum; Poles, who would rather have war than give back their Versailles-expropriated German territory. Among the French, there were those jealous of their German rivals; and among the British, those who were fearful of the economic, political, and military power of a united Europe. Those forces and others helped create the Holocaust of the Second World War. And, let us not forget one other group that bears a heavy responsibility for this Holocaust of war: the world-wide forces of organized Jewry. In 1933, the World Jewish Congress proclaimed war on Germany.585 For six years, in every nation of the West, they exacerbated every national grievance and paranoia. They ran inflammatory articles about Germany in the Jewish owned or controlled press. They used their great financial power to advantage. They used their powerful political and media influence to agitate for war and feed the fires of hate, a fire still stoked by the media 55 years after the fact.

We Americans, along with British, Germans, French, Poles, Russians, Italians, and others slaughtered millions of European women and children, killed and maimed our young men, and burned our most sacred works of beauty in our European cradle of culture and civilization. When I was very young, I developed a feeling of guilt for slavery and Jim Crow. I shed that guilt as I came to realize that our race has given far more to the people of the Earth than it has taken. As I came to understand the realities of the Second World War, feelings of guilt came upon me again, but this time, not for what my race has done to others, but for what we have done to ourselves. Ultimately, we have no one to blame for that carnage more than ourselves. The Second World War was the most destructive and devastating occurrence in the long history of European mankind. Communism raped half of Europe and was unleashed across the planet, killing and enslaving millions more before it burned itself out. With their Pyrrhic victory, Jewish Supremacists consolidated their power, with the result that the 21st century begins with Zionist hegemony in the highest echelons of media and political power. At the end of the Second World War, as Supremacist Jews invaded Palestine, while their con federates in Europe and America planned a different form of invasion for European and American homelands: an immigration invasion. In the early years of the 21st Century we can now easily envision the demographic and genetic catastrophe that looms ahead. An ancient hatred is now being settled by the people who “never forget and never forgive.”

And today, although our Jewish antagonists appear on the threshold of complete victory as they busily lay the foundations for their New World Order, it is still not their power that threatens us. It is our own weakness. Our Achilles’ heel has proved to be our naiveté. If we learn the truth of the Holocaust, such naiveté will end, and we may yet foil the plans for the eradication of European mankind. We men and women of the West must not sacrifice our birthright upon the altar of the Holocaust.



Give me your tired, your huddled masses, Yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. — Emma Lazarus

The influx of Europeans into North America led the Indian populations to displacement and eventually to consignation on reservations. Similarly, relentless Jewish immigration into Palestine was against the interests of the Palestinian people, but it was necessary for the Jewish takeover of the region. It laid the foundation for the Zionist State.

Any tribe, race or nation desiring to preserve its culture, group interests and sovereignty must preserve its predominant status in the geographic region in which it dwells. Most nations have had a fundamental understanding of that fact from the time of the earliest civilizations, and every modern nation has sought strict control of its borders and immigration.

Most Americans view the Indian historical record of resistance to European colonization as morally justifiable, but in the skewed ethics of today, some find European-American attempts to preserve our unique genes and culture from non-European immigration as morally reprehensible. Nevertheless, despite pervasive propaganda promoting multiculturalism and the media-touted joys of diversity, opinion surveys in America show overwhelming opposition to unrestricted immigration. Similar public sentiment holds true in every European nation.

It was not until the 1965 Immigration Act that the U.S. Congress ignored the majority’s wishes and began a policy that discriminated against potential European immigrants, and encouraged massive non- European immigration. From that time forward, the federal government also showed less willingness to enforce our immigration laws and police our borders. These policies resulted in a flood of non- White immigrants, legal and illegal. Immigration and higher non- White birthrates have transformed the American population from almost 90 percent European in the early 1960s to less than 70 percent at the end of the century. The U.S. Census Bureau has predicted that by the middle of the 21st century, well within the lifetime of many reading these words, European Americans will be a minority in the United States. We are already a minority in most of America’s major cities and will soon be outnumbered in California and Texas. Policies similar to those enacted in the U.S. have introduced large numbers of non-Europeans into Canada; Negroes into Britain; North Africans and Asians into France; Turks into Germany; and a potpourri of alien races into Scandinavia, Spain, and Italy. As I grew racially aware, it was certainly obvious to me that the new immigration policies of the United States and Europe would greatly damage Western societies. Only a short time after the change in immigration policy, crime problems escalated in all the affected nations. The quality of education suffered and social welfare problems increased. As this planned racial transformation accelerates, these ills will reach catastrophic proportions.

What groups had anything to gain from this demographic Armageddon? The individual foreigners who could benefit from the economic opportunities afforded by the Western societies had little political or economic clout while outside the Western nations. As I looked into the American fight over immigration laws during the last 100 years, the driving force behind opening America’s borders became evident: It was organized Jewry, personified by the poet Emma Lazarus whose lines I quoted to begin the chapter. By the time I was a junior in high school, I had become convinced that massive non-European immigration poised the greatest shortand long-term threat to the America that I loved. I saw that the Immigration Act of 1965, unless repealed, would eventually sound the death knell for my country. Much of the material I read pointed to a long history of organized Jewish efforts to radically change America’s immigration laws. I contacted Drew Smith, an elderly New Orleans attorney who had authored The Legacy of the Melting Pot, and who had already taught me a lot about the immigration issue.586 Smith and I met one rainy day after school at the Citizens Council offices. He explained the history of American immigration law. After quoting the Lazarus lines from the base of the Statue of Liberty, he asked me, “Whose interest could have been served in having America flooded with ‘wretched refuse’?” He quickly answered his own question. “It was in the perceived interest of a cohesive people who use racial solidarity like a weapon, a weapon they want only for themselves. The efforts to change the American immigration law and ultimately displace the European majority has been led almost exclusively by Jews.”

Smith explained that Emma Lazarus — like many other immigration activists — was a Jewish partisan who supported the creation of an exclusively Jewish Zionist state in Palestine, but who supported “diversity” for America.

He pointed out to me how Jews such as Lazarus have even changed the modern meaning of the Statue of Liberty. The beautiful jade-colored colossus had no original connection with immigration and predated the Ellis Island immigration center. It was a gift from France to commemorate the American Revolution, not to honor the arrival of “wretched refuse” on America’s shores.

Emma Lazarus had been best known for her fulminations against Russia’s pogroms following the assassination of Czar Alexander II in 1881. The irony is rich: A woman dedicated to the creation of an elite Jewish State in Palestine was anxious to turn America into a refuge for the castoffs of the world. Drew Smith owned many books on the immigration issue, including some by Jews, in which he had underlined important passages. I borrowed them and passionately delved into them.

Jewish organizations such as the American Jewish Congress led (and still lead) the effort to liberalize American immigration and defeat restrictionist legislation. In 1921, 1924, and 1952, Congress passed legislation that simply attempted to maintain the racial status quo in America. Interestingly enough, even though Anglo Americans were in a vast majority of the American population as well as in Congress, they did not attempt to increase their own percentage of the American population, but simply sought to fairly maintain each group’s status quo. In the early legislative battles, Jews were the leading advocates of open immigration and vehemently opposed legislation that would maintain America as an ethnically European, Christian nation. In the House of Representatives, Adolph Sabath, Samuel Dickstein, and Emanuel Celler led the fight for unrestricted immigration, while in the Senate, Herbert Lehman and in later years Jacob Javits coordinated the effort. In the early struggles, Representative Leavitt clearly outlined the Jewish involvement in remarks before Congress. The instinct for national and race preservation is not one to be condemned. . . . No one should be better able to understand the desire of Americans to keep America American than the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Sabath], who is leading the attack on this measure, or the gentlemen from New York, Mr. Dickstein, Mr. Jacobstein, Mr. Celler, and Mr. Perlman. They are of the one great historic people who have maintained the identity of their race throughout the centuries because they believe sincerely that they are a chosen people, with certain ideals to maintain, and knowing that the loss of racial identity means a change of ideals. That fact should make it easy for them and the majority of the most active opponents of this measure in the spoken debate to recognize and sympathize with our viewpoint, which is not so extreme as that of their own race, but only demands that the admixture of other peoples shall be only of such kind and proportions and in such quantities as will not alter racial characteristics more rapidly than there can be assimilation as to ideas of government as well as of blood. ( Congressional Record, April 12, 1924.) 587

Sociologist Edward A. Ross, in his influential 1914 book The Old World and the New: The Significance of Past and Present Immigration to the American People, quotes the famous pro-immigration leader Israel Zangwill as suggesting that America is an ideal place to achieve Jewish interests. Ross then bluntly writes about the Jewish influence. Jews therefore have a powerful interest in immigration policy: Hence the endeavor of the Jews to control the immigration policy of the United States. Although theirs is but a seventh of our net immigration, they led the fight on the Immigration Commission’s bill. . . . The systematic campaign in newspapers and magazines to break down all arguments for restriction and to calm nativist fears is waged by and for one race. Hebrew money is behind the National Liberal Immigration League and its numerous publications. 588 In 1924 Congressman Knud Wefald pointed out the Communist ties of many of the Jewish immigrants and stated that many Jews “have no sympathy with our old-time American ideals.” The leadership of our intellectual life in many of its phases has come into the hands of these clever newcomers who have no sympathy with our old-time American ideals . . . who detect our weaknesses and pander to them and get wealthy through the disservices they render us.

Our whole system of amusements has been taken over by men who came here on the crest of the south and east European immigration. They produce our horrible film stories [and] they write many of the books we read, and edit our magazines and newspapers. ( Congressional Record, April 12, 1924. 589

The last important congressional legislation passed to protect the status quo of America was the Walter-McCarran act of 1952. Congressional opposition was led by the Jewish troika of Celler, Javits, and Lehman. Every major Jewish organization (as well as the Communist Party USA) also lined up to oppose it, including the American Jewish Congress, American Jewish Committee, the ADL, National Council of Jewish Women, and dozens of others. During congressional debate, Francis Walter noted that the only civic organization that opposed the entire bill was the American Jewish Congress. Representative Celler noted that Walter “should not have overemphasized as he did the people of one particular faith who are opposing the bills.” (Congressional Record, April 23, 1952.) 590 When Jewish Judge Simon Rifkind testified against the bill in joint hearings, he emphasized that in supporting breaking down U.S. immigration law, he represented “the entire body of religious and lay opinion within the Jewish group, religiously speaking, from the extreme right and extreme left.”591 It thrilled me to read the courageous remarks of Mississippi Congressman John Rankin during the debate. Today such truthful comments by any elected official would bring a torrent of abuse that few could withstand.

They whine about discrimination. Do you know who is being discriminated against? The white Christian people of America, the ones who created this nation. . . . I am talking about the white Christian people of the North as well as the South. . . . Communism is racial. A racial minority seized control in Russia and in all her satellite countries, such as Poland, Czechoslovakia, and many other countries I could name. They have been run out of practically every country in Europe in the years gone by, and if they keep stirring race trouble in this country and trying to force their Communistic program on the Christian people of America, there is no telling what will happen to them here. ( Congressional Record, April 23, 1952.) 592 Finally, in 1965, the goal first advanced by Jewish organizations in the 1880s came to fruition when Congress passed the Immigration Act. It has resulted in immigration becoming 90 percent non- European. America went from an immigration program meant to be proportionately representative to all groups in the United States to one that discriminated against Europeans. As with earlier legislation, Jewish representatives and senators as well as powerful Jewish lobbying organizations led the assault. It succeeded because during the 41 years since 1924, Jewish power had increased dramatically in virtually all spheres of American life.

In 1951 Senator Jacob Javits authored an article called “Let’s Open Our Gates.”593 that called for massive unrestricted immigration. Javits and Representative Celler figured prominently in the passage of the bill in 1965. Nine years before passage of the 1965 Immigration Act, the American Jewish Congress initially proposed the essential elements of the bill and praised President Eisenhower for his “unequivocal opposition to the national quota system.” In a 1956 editorial they praised him for “courageously taking a stand in advance of even many advocates of liberal immigration policy and embraced a position which had at first been urged by the American Jewish Congress and other Jewish agencies.”594 Jewish Motivation Behind Open Immigration It would have been stupid and counterproductive for the Jewish organizations that pushed for open borders to admit that they were motivated by interests that conflicted with those of non-Jewish Europeans. They promoted open immigration as “patriotic.” From the early days of the century, they made public pronouncements that multiculturalism and diversity would be beneficial to the United States, cleverly masking their strategic motivations. After the passage of the open immigration statutes of 1965, Jewish authors such as Naomi W. Cohen felt much safer in revealing some of the real Jewish reasons for promoting such policies. She wrote that, beginning with the persecutions in Russia in the 1880s through the Nazi occupation of Europe and into the Cold War tribulations in Eastern Europe, open immigration in Western nations served Jewish interests because “survival often dictated that Jews seek refuge in other lands.”595 Cohen also wrote that a U.S. internationalist foreign policy serves Jewish interests because “an internationally minded America was likely to be more sensitive to the problems of foreign Jewries”596 Perhaps even more important, Cohen intimated that Jews saw open immigration policies as breaking down the homogeneity and unity of America, creating a pluralistic society in which Jews could thrive.

In his monumental book A History of Jews in America, Howard Sachar notes that pluralism supports “legitimizing the preservation of a minority culture in the midst of a majority’s host society.”597 So, in effect, by breaking down the integrity and cohesion of America, Jews could increase their integrity and cohesion. Sachar goes on to explicitly show how pluralism intensifies Jewish solidarity: But Kallen’s influence extended really to all educated Jews: Legitimizing the preservation of a minority culture in the midst of a majority’s host society, pluralism functioned as intellectual anchorage for an educated Jewish second generation, sustained its cohesiveness and its most tenacious communal endeavors through the rigors of the Depression and revived Anti-Semitism, through the shock of Nazism and the Holocaust, until the emergence of Zionism in the post-World War II years swept through American Jewry with a climactic redemptionist fervor of its own. 598 Social psychologist Kevin MacDonald pointed out in A People That Shall Dwell Alone that major anti-Semitic movements are usually found in ethnically homogeneous nations and that “ethnic and religious pluralism serves external Jewish interests because Jews become just one of many ethnic groups. . .and it becomes difficult or impossible to develop unified, cohesive groups of Gentiles united in their opposition of Judaism.” 599 600

In his 1985 book A Certain People: American Jews and Their Lives Today, Charles Silberman writes that American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief, one firmly rooted in history, that Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority of American Jews to endorse “gay rights” and to take a liberal stance on most other so-called “social issues.” 601 John Higham, in his book Send These to Me: Immigrants in Urban America, states in clear terms that Jewish-sponsored changes in immigration law were a defeat of the political and cultural representation of “the common people of the South and West.”602 During the decades leading up to opening the borders in 1965, Jewish groups had piously stated that there should be no discrimination against any group in immigration and that such could only be good for America. But, Richard Arens, staff director of the Senate subcommittee that produced the Walter-McCarran Act, pointed out that the same Jewish forces which were the most avid promoters of open immigration, hypocritically opposed ethnic immigration they deemed unfavorable to their own interests. One of the curious things about those who most loudly claim that the 1952 act is “discriminatory” and that it does not make allowance for a sufficient number of alleged refugees, is that they oppose admission of any of the approximately one million Arab refugees in camps where they are living in pitiful circumstances after having been driven out of Israel. 603 Organized Jewry not only wants to prevent Arab refugees from returning to their homes in Israel, they also oppose their coming to the United States. Do they see the displaced Palestinians as potential political opponents?

Jewish groups clearly promote forms of multiculturalism that destroy Gentile cohesion, but not those which could threaten their own group power. So clearly, their dedication to multiculturalism is purely a strategic one, they want groups coming into the nation which can further pluralize American society and destroy its cohesion, but not those groups whom they see as political threat Jewish-dominated political and media institutions have long promoted the demographic invasion and dissolution of America. While the Jewish media demonize as “racists” those who oppose the flood of non-White immigration into America, Canada and all the European nations, Israel’s immigration policy that excludes non-Jews is condoned. A million Palestinians fled their homes in the wake of the Israeli blitzkrieg takeover of Palestine. They cannot return to their ancestral homeland, and many are forced to live in refugee camps that are little more than concentration camps of want and squalor.

A. M. Rosenthal is the long-time editor of perhaps the most influential newspaper in America, the Jewish-owned New York Times. A hawkish supporter of Israel, he only complains about the Zionist state when it is not Zionist enough for his taste. Yet, in a 1992 editorial Rosenthal feels obligated to criticize another country which desires to preserve its racial integrity and cultural heritage: They would do better to set a quota on immigrants and nurture a more pluralist society by adopting a formula for citizenship based on residence than blood ties. Equally distressing is Bonn’s failure to revise an outdated naturalization law rooted in ethnicity. Under the existing system, a Turkish guest worker who has lived in Germany for 30 years and speaks German fluently is denied the citizenship automatically granted a Russian-speaking immigrant who can prove German ancestry. 604

Rosenthal likens current German immigration policies to that of the Nazis. Yet, is Israeli immigration law so different? Not only Germany, but every White nation is a target of Rosenthal’s open immigration advocacy. Only Israel’s immigration policy — the most draconian of all — is immune from criticism. In America, Rosenthal identifies himself as the offspring of an illegal immigrant (his father) and even lauds the immigration of Haitians, many of whom are drug users and HIV-positive. Almost always now, when I read about Haitians who risk the seas to get to this country but wind up behind barbed wire, I think of an illegal immigrant I happen to know myself, and of his daughters and his son [himself]. . . .

Even reluctantly recognizing some economic limitations, this country should have the moral elegance to accept neighbors who flee countries where their life is terror and hunger, and are run by murderous gangs. . . .

If that were a qualification for entry into our Golden land, the Haitians should be welcomed with song, embrace and memories.605 As a chronic reader of The New York Times, I have yet to read a Rosenthal editorial calling for the acceptance into Israel of the million or more Palestinians who are forced by Israel to live in the dire poverty of the refugee camps. Nor has Rosenthal ever called upon Jews to welcome Palestinian refugees into Israel with “song and embrace.” Rosenthal is not stupid, but he is profoundly hypocritical. He knows that making full citizens of all the Palestinians currently in Israel and all those in refugee camps outside its borders would quickly sweep away the Zionist political state in the same way that non-European immigration erodes the America of our forefathers.

On the other side of the coin, Rosenthal knows that Israel could not have been created but for their emigration-invasion of Palestine. Looking at the historical record, should Palestinians have welcomed the Jewish immigrants with song and embrace? Rosenthal has no more regard for traditional Americans anymore than he has for the original Palestinian inhabitants of what is now called Israel. He has only one overwhelming concern, Jewish welfare. Rosenthal is proud of what he and many other Jews are: aliens as much as the wetbacks with whom he identifies. He lives here, partaking of all the advantages of American citizenship, but he will not — and cannot — become a real American who places the interests of America above those of the Zionist agenda. As the Jews become more brazen in their exercise of power, some now boast of their role in dispossessing the European-Gentile American. Earl Raab, executive director emeritus of the Perlmutter Institute of Jewish Advocacy, an associate of the ADL (Anti- Defamation League of B’nai B’rith) and writer for the San Francisco Jewish Bulletin, wrote:

It was only after World War II that immigration law was drastically changed to eliminate such discrimination. In one of the first pieces of evidence of its political coming-of-age, the Jewish community has a leadership role in effecting those changes. 606 Raab goes on to celebrate the coming minority status of Whites in America. Once that has happened, he looks forward to “constitutional constraints” (restriction of freedom of speech?): The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country. We have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to ethnic bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever. 607 As Raab says, Zionist Jewish activists who have supported an exclusively Jewish-run national state have been nourishing massive nontraditional immigration into America , and they look forward to the time when the voting demographics of the United States reflect that transformation.

I wonder if Zionist Israel Zangwill — who coined the term “melting pot” — envisioned his Jewish state as a melting pot of Jew and Arab; of Islam and Judaism? Given the ethnocentrism of Zionism, I rather doubt it. One American cartoonist wrote that the problem with a melting pot is that “The bottom always gets burned, and the scum rises to the top.” It is true that America has seen a melting of the different nationalities of Europe into a traditional American majority, but in spite of the pervasive race-mixing propaganda of the Jewish media, there has been no great melting of the White and Black, and only marginal melting of the Mestizo and Anglo elements. However, what these Zionists have not yet been able to accomplish through their advocacy of miscegenation, they are in the process of achieving through massive immigration and differential birthrates. Jews have also promoted, through “zero-population” advocates such as Paul Ehrlich, smaller families among the natural leaders of the American majority. Jewish promotion of the women’s liberation movement and abortion on demand has lowered the birthrate of America’s most productive and educated classes. Their blunt desire is the dissolution of the European race in the West by any means necessary. Continued massive non-European immigration satisfies these aims.

In summary, massive non-White immigration has been one of the most effective weapons of organized Jewry in its cultural and ethnic war against the European American. We cannot win this life and death struggle until our people realize that we are in the midst of a war — and our side is suffering great losses. To lose this war would mean the destruction of our American culture, heritage, and freedoms. It would mean nothing less than the destruction of the very genes that have made possible all the social, cultural and spiritual creations that distinguish our civilization. Our voices are muted by mass media that are in the hands of our enemies. Too many of us are silently witnessing the genocide of our people. The time is late. We must speak out now and defend ourselves. We must fight for the continuation of the magnificent culture bequeathed to us by our forefathers. We must take whatever action necessary to insure the future of our children and our generations to come. As is true for all living things, we must fight for our right to live. America is in many ways already occupied similarly to the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Jewish Supremacists control the news, publishing and entertainment media, they control our elections and politicians, and now they are orchestrating a massive immigration into our land that will make us a politically and culturally impotent minority in the same way that the people of Palestine have suffered that fate. They seek to make our country into a tower of Babel in which they will occupy the penthouse suites.

Not only are Americans on the road to oblivion from immigration, but so are our brethren across Europe. Indeed, many nations are under the Jewish Supremacist drive toward globalization, and the destruction of any sort of ethnic or national pride and cohesiveness that could pose a threat to their hegemony. They seek to remake the world into an unremarkable mass of atomistic, deracinated individuals incapable of collective resistance. If we remain silent in this critical time in our people’s history, our people will be extinguished and silent forever. This maxim is not only true for Europeans and Americans, but for all the peoples of the Earth.



In the early 1970s, a period of rampant egalitarianism, I read the Geography of Intellect608 by Jewish partisans Nathaniel Weyl and Stephan Possony, and also a popular book called The Jewish Mystique 609 by Ernest Van Den Haag. They claimed outright that Jews were genetically, culturally, and morally superior. They said brazenly what the mainstream Jewish histories had implied. In 1969 popular British scientist-turned-novelist C. P. Snow gave a speech to Hebrew Union College in which he claimed that because of “inbreeding” Jews were “superior to all other living peoples.” 610 Then as now, in explaining Jewish success, some Jewish authors suggest that the structure of Judaism had a positive genetic effect on intelligence. Assertions of Jewish genetic superiority enjoy a warm reception by the same media that caustically condemn as immoral and evil what they call “the theory of Caucasian genetic superiority.” Weyl argued persuasively that Jewish traditions had a eugenic effect, citing the fact that the most successful Jewish scholars and thus the most intelligent in the Jewish community, the rabbis, were supported by their fellow Jews in having the largest families. He compared the high rabbinic birthrate to the celibacy of the Catholic clergy, which he felt had a dysgenic effect among Gentiles. I could certainly see how such reproductive patterns would be beneficial to Jewish intelligence, and I was certainly willing to acknowledge that Jews are intelligent. What struck me then was Weyl’s thesis that Jewish social patterns and practices could affect their intelligence. I had long believed that both intelligence and behavioral tendencies have an important genetic component, but for the first time I began to think seriously about the underlying differences between Jews and Gentiles. Were they cultural-religious or genetic in origin? To get to the bottom of it, I looked at applications of evolutionary biology to the development of the Jewish people.

Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species611 dealt with the effects of natural selection on the individual, but even more importantly, on the selection process involving species and subspecies (races). He studied the origin of groups of genetically related individuals and studied their fitness to survive in their respective environments. The subtitle of his masterpiece reads, Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Few understood the mechanism of group selection in regard to human evolution. Perhaps the best early exposition of it was Sir Arthur Keith’s dynamic 1948 book A New Theory of Human Evolution.612 Keith explained that just as individuals are subject to evolutionary pressures, so are competing groups. In the early 1960s, researcher W. D. Hamilton and others began the modern inquiries into the genetic basis of social behavior, now referred to as sociobiology.613 The principles of sociobiology, first propounded by G. C. Williams in the 1960s, became scientifically embedded in the principles of behavioral genetics and in the landmark work of Dr. Edward Wilson in his seminal Sociobiology: A New Synthesis. 614 I read Wilson’s book just a few months after it came out and found it magnificent. Although Wilson deftly sidestepped the application of his theories to the human races, he offered powerful evidence that behavior in the most elementary creatures such as ants had a biological basis driven by the urge to preserve the genotype. Genetic kinship turned out to be a powerful factor in evolution and behavior. In such a context, group loyalty and altruism become understandable from an evolutionary perspective in that the individual may sacrifice his life and his individual reproduction to ensure the survival of those who are genetically similar to him. Richard Alexander, J. Phillippe Rushton, D. S. Wilson, Kevin MacDonald, Edward Wilson, Edward Miller, and many others over the next two decades pushed the envelope further. They showed that human groups differing in their genetic makeup experience similar social pressures to those experienced by competing animal species or subspecies. The new scientific discipline called Behavioral Genetics and Evolutionary Psychology continues to break new ground, showing the intimate relationship between heredity and human behavior on both the individual and the group level. The insights of sociobiology and behavioral genetics greatly increased our understanding the development of racial differences. It is easy to understand the evolutionary impact of the harsh northern climate on more than 5,000 generations of Europeans and the effects of the milder climate of Africa on the Black race. In addition, the social taboos, customs and social organization of human beings since the beginnings of civilization can also have an obvious impact on reproductive patterns and genetic makeup.

Since the relatively recent domestication of the dog, mankind has produced, through selective breeding, hundreds of breeds that differ as much as the St. Bernard, the hairless Chihuahua, the German Shepherd, and the Pug. All come from one original species, and all are genetically capable of interbreeding. Here is how Grolier’s Encyclopedia characterizes the varieties of dog and how selective breeding has affected both appearance and temperament: Dogs vary more in outward appearance than in anatomical structure. An adult dog may weigh 2 to 99 kg (4 to 220 lb.), depending on the breed, and range in height from 12.5 to 90 cm (5 to 35 in.) at the shoulder. Other differences in conformation include length of leg; length of muzzle; size and attitude of ears; length, shape, and carriage of tail; and length, density, color, and character of hair. Over time, the various breeds were also selectively bred to produce temperaments suited to the tasks they performed.615 In the same way that people could selectively breed genetically different breeds of dogs, certain social structures and policies can affect human evolution. Social structures, especially those that influenced marriage patterns, could have a dramatic impact on survival and reproduction rates. They could certainly affect human temperament and behavior in the same way that dog breeders have created breeds as stoic as the St. Bernard or as hyperactive as the Pekinese. We all know people who are naturally as aggressive as a Pit Bull, or as friendly as a Labrador Retriever. Is the Jewish behavioral pattern a product of cultural institutions such as Judaism and its secular offspring, Zionism, or is there something in their genotype that inclined them to the consistent behaviors that they have exhibited across greatly differing cultures over three millennia? I wondered how the structure and nature of Judaism across the centuries may have affected the genetic characteristics of the Jewish people. Just as two species of animals occupying a particular geographic area naturally develop a group evolutionary strategy to compete for resources, so human groups can do the same thing — even in the civilized societies. They can develop certain behavioral traits that give them competitive advantages and greater reproductive success. In human societies, when genetically distinct groups interact, they can assimilate and lose their genetic distinctions, or they can develop ethnocentric ideologies and behavior that favor the distinct characteristics of their own gene pool. An ethnocentric group could even develop a religion that rationalizes its evolutionary response to other groups.

I wondered if the Jews had become genetically distanced from the other peoples of Europe and, if so, how deep the divide was. Had their supremacist and ethnocentric tendencies become ingrained in their genetic code, or were they simply a result of the cultural attitude of their religion and the separate societies they created? Did genetic impulses create the ideology of Judaism that reinforced and intensified the Jewish genotype? Years later, in the 1990s, the same Jewish-dominated anthropology that rejected the importance of European racial consciousness and sense of identity has reasserted Jewishness and the “Jewish identity.” In “Jews, Multiculturalism, and Boasian Anthropology,” in The American Anthropologist, Jewish writer Gelya Frank celebrates American Boasian antiracist anthropology as “Jewish history.” 616 She points out that the central Jewish role was intentionally whitewashed for fear that Gentiles would realize that Jews had a radical agenda. There has always been a lively, if sometimes hushed, in-house discourse about American anthropology’s Jewish origins and their meaning. The preponderance of Jewish intellectuals in the early years of Boasian Anthropology and the Jewish identities of anthropologists in subsequent generations have been downplayed in standard histories of the discipline… This essay brings together strands of these various discourses on Jews in anthropology for a new generation of American anthropologists, especially ones concerned with turning multiculturalist theories into agendas for activism…. There has also been a whitewashing of Jewish ethnicity, reflecting fears of anti-Semitic reactions that could discredit the discipline of anthropology and individual anthropologists, either because Jews were considered dangerous due to their presumed racial differences or because they were associated with radical causes. –Gelya Frank Now, with the political and cultural dominance of racial pluralism over European solidarity, Frank discloses that Jewish anthropologists are reasserting their Jewish ethnicity and group identity. Any number of scholars are reasserting Jewishness in the academy, simultaneously attempting to discover and define what Jewish identity can mean in that most universalist of institutions. Some relevant examples from the long and growing list of sources, in addition to several already cited, include: Behar 1996; Boyarian 1992, 1996; Eilberg-Schwartz 1990, 1992, 1994; H. Goldberg 1987, 1995; Kleebatt 1996; Nochilin and Garb 1995; Prell 1989, 1990, 1996; Robin-Dorsky and Fisher Fishkin 1996; and Schneider 1995. The reappearance of Jewish difference(s) raises the stakes for Jewish anthropologists engaged in multiculturalist discourses.617

The article floored me. The same Jewish-driven anthropology establishment that tells Europeans that there is really no such thing as race and that racial identity is silly at best and a moral evil at worst, quietly promotes Jewish “differences” and “ genetic identity.” Frank’s article goes on with unrestrained praise of the Jewish pride in the writing of Barbara Meyerhoff in Number Our Days.618 All of this in the premier magazine of Anthropology, one that has repeatedly ridiculed the idea of race and ethnic pride for Europeans. When I first looked into the issue of Jewish genetic relatedness, I did not have the benefit of Frank’s article. At that time, I thought that the best way to investigate the issue was to see how similar the geographically separated Jewish populations are to each other and to the Gentile populations among whom they live. Do Jews differ from the other Europeans the same way that, say, an Englishman differs from a Frenchman or a German from a Russian? Or are they altogether different from all European subraces? Substantial work had been done on the issue, much of it from Jewish researchers who were busily studying their own people’s genetic makeup. Over the years, they enlightened me on this subject in much the same way that I had gained an interesting perspective on Jewish history from Jewish chroniclers. The first thing I found was information on the set of genetically borne diseases that occur almost exclusively in the Jewish community, such as Tay-Sachs disease. Their presence certainly indicated a genetic variance specific to the Jewish population and illustrated a genetic difference from the Gentiles. Soon I found scientific papers dealing precisely with the issues I sought. 619 620 Genetic researchers Sachs and Bat-Miriam discovered amazing similarity between the Jewish populations of nine countries of North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Europe. Conversely, they found sharp differences between Jews and non-Jews from those same countries. 621

In studying blood group data, Mourant, Kopec, and Domaniewska- Sobczak wrote in a book called The Genetics of the Jews that it may be said that, in general, blood group data…support the relative homogeneity of the main historical Jewish communities.622 Now, here we have mainstream Jewish anthropologists and geneticists — the same groups who chronically preach to us that there are no great differences between Blacks and Whites — boldly assert that the Jewish people are genetically distinctive and relatively homogenous! They argue that some differences exist between the Ash kenazim and the Sephardim (the main ethnic division among Jews), but that essentially Jews are a single people with a limited genetic resemblance to the European populations among whom they dwell. 623 • In blood group data, two major studies, one in 1977 by Bonné- Tamir, Ashbel, and Kenett and one by Karlin, Kenett, and Bonné- Tamir in 1979, found when using fourteen polymorphic loci, no significant difference in Jewish populations from Iraq, Libya, Germany, or Poland. They estimated that the genetic distance between Gentiles and Jews living in the same area is three to five times greater than for Jews living in the different nations studied. In the 1977 study, the researchers state “not much admixture has taken place between Ashkenazi Jews and their Gentile neighbors during the last 700 years or so.” 624 625 • Mille and Kobyliansky discovered in studies of dermatologlyphic data that Ashkenazim (Eastern European Jews) are much more similar to Shephardim (Middle-Eastern and European Jews) than they are to the non-Jewish Eastern Europeans. 626 • Kobyliansky and Livshits in using cluster analysis on 25 morphological characteristics, estimated that Jews in Russia were six times more distant from Russians than Russians were from Germans. They also found the Jews to be completely separate from the twenty-four other ethnic groups studied in Russia, Germany, and Poland. 627 • Another study compared modern Jews and those of 3,000-yearold Jewish skeletons discovered in the Middle East. Sofaer, Smith, and Kaye studied dental morphology from Morocco, Kurdish Iraq, and Eastern European countries. They found more likeness between the widely scattered Jewish populations than for the Gentile groups living near them. The ancient Jewish skeletal group turned out to be far more similar to the three Jewish populations than for every non-Jewish group studied except for one, an Arab Druse group from the 11th century. 628 One researcher summed up the overall genetic differences by saying that there was probably at least three times more genetic difference between an average Jew in France and his Gentile Frenchman neighbor than between an average French Jew and a Jew living in Russia or the Middle East.

The Jewish studies amazed me. I would not have guessed that Jews were that genetically different from all Europeans. I knew a few Jews who were indistinguishable from the potpourri of other European- Americans. From their appearance, it seemed impossible that there was three times more genetic difference from us than from Jews in remote regions of the world. But, the research proved that a wide genetic difference existed between Jew and European. I wondered why they did not seem that dramatically different in their appearance. Fritz Lenz suggested back in the 1930s that Jewish resemblance to the European populations did not mean that their genes were similar.629 He suggested that their similar external resemblance could have emerged from the natural selection of genes within the Jewish gene pool. These genes could simply be a small cluster of genes that lay dormant in the Jewish pool or that were introduced by limited genetic mixture with Gentiles, and which then were selectively favored by the social environment. Genes that caused a greater corporeal resemblance to that of the Gentile host could have favorable results in acceptance, accumulation of wealth, and social advancement and thus on reproductive success. By a somewhat similar process, distinct species of butterflies not closely related, come to resemble one another without narrowing their genetic distance. A very small set of genes influencing appearance within the Jewish population could thus be favored, causing a greater similarity of appearance to the Gentile population while not narrowing their overall genetic alienation from their host population. Over many generations the external resemblance to Gentiles could increase while the parts of the brain that affect behavioral tendencies and abilities could be unaffected. According to evolutionary genetics, it is possible that Jews have come to more resemble their hosts in their external appearance while at the same time becoming even more distant in their mental and behavioral characteristics. Whatever the questions of physical appearance, there seemed little doubt that Jews are indeed very different from Europeans and that they had maintained that genetic difference for a very long time.

I also ran across a number of popular sources arguing that high Jewish-Gentile intermarriage rates would end their genetic distinctiveness from European Gentiles. As in so many other matters dealing with the Jews, there is a wealth of information on the issue, an underlying reality that is very different from popular perceptions. Will Intermarriage End Jewish Supremacism? It is often said that the high rates of intermarriage between Jews and Gentiles, especially in the United States, will diminish ethnocentrism and cause assimilation of the Jewish population into the Gentile gene pool. That contention is made in the highly publicized and promoted book The Myth of the Jewish Race by Ralph and Jennifer Patai. They suggest that Jewish intermarriage has steadily increased since the Enlightenment. 630 It is true that many Jewish groups and leaders have raised a great commotion about the dangers of intermarriage. Major Jewish publications often have articles and even ads decrying intermarriage and im ploring Jews to marry only other Jews. Steve M. Cohen writes the following in The Jewish Family: Myths and Reality: Vigorous effort by organized Jewry to try to halt or reverse recent demographic changes . . . to get large numbers of Jews to change their family-related decisions — that is, to marry young, marry each other, stay married, and have many children. 631 Pinches Stolper writes of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America promoting only strong pure Jewish marriages. In describing the threat of a beautiful Gentile girl living just a few houses away, he asserts: Intermarriage is a tragedy the Jewish people cannot tolerate. The person who marries out of the faith has turned his or her back on the Jewish people. Our tradition regards such a person as spiritually dead, and the family sits shiva [observes a period of mourning] for him or her. Such marriages rarely work, even when accompanied by a socalled conversion to Judaism, and certainly can never work when the Jewish partner is seriously concerned with his or her Jewishness. For the families involved, the result is heartbreak and tragedy, and for the children, a life of frustration, conflict, and strain. 632

David Landau shows that Jewish fundamentalism is rapidly increasing in the Diaspora. He quotes one of the opponents of a mild change in Reform law allowing tracing of genealogy through the father rather than the mother as “one of the most evil crimes, almost akin to Hitler. It destroyed the integrity of the Jewish People.” 633 Rising fundamentalism has also meant a rise in birthrates among the most committed Jews. In an essay in the book The Jewish Family: Myths And Reality, Cohen notes that through high birthrates and by “using insulating mechanisms, the Hasidim have achieved a high degree of success in offsetting the assimilative tendencies of the larger society.” 634 Therefore, it can be seen that organized Jewry has made a concerted effort to encourage endogamy among Jews. Orthodox groups are certainly those most extremely opposed to intermarriage, but even the newspapers and magazines published by Reform groups strongly discourage it. The Jewish researcher Ellman comments in the journal Jewish Social Studies that the only ethnic or religious community in the United States that continues to attempt to limit and discourage conversions and intermarriage is the organized Jewish community. But Ellman — along with a number of other authors who are strongly opposed to intermarriage — also believe that the seemingly high rates of intermarriage are no real threat to the Jewish heritage. He suggests that it strengthens the traditional Jewish culture and genotype by eliminating those Jews who have assimilationist tendencies. 635 Ellman points out that intermarriage has little effect on the core of Judaism. He points out that intermarriage is far more frequent for second and subsequent marriages in which the couples are unlikely to have children. He also cites the much higher rates of divorce in intermarriage. More than 90 percent of intermarriages results in nonconversion and thus the intermarried do not become part of the Jewish community. Only a small percentage of children of intermarriage are raised as Jews, and more than 90 percent of them do not marry Jews. Ellman also reports that Jews of higher socioeconomic status are more likely to marry other Jews, thus the community will continue to be dominated by a pure Jewish elite core while lower-class Jews, who do not represent the desired traits of ethnic solidarity, are much more likely to marry outside and leave the community. Barry Kosmin and other Jewish researchers, in Highlights of the CJF 1990 National Jewish Population Survey, found that 91 percent of intermarriages were made up of nonconversionary couples, that only 28 percent of the children of such couples were raised as Jews, and that even this small minority’s descendants would not be likely to marry Jews. 636 Not only are intermarried Jews far more prone to leave the Jewish circle, evidence suggests that they often encounter hostility in Jewish society. Jewish authors such as Michael Meyer 637 and C. Waxman638 cite “tacit rejection” of the mixed couples. All these factors indicate that mixed marriages have little effect on the Jewish gene pool other than affecting the overall number of Jews. Higher rates of intermarriage will probably have the long-term effect of strengthening traditional Jewish genetic characteristics. Jewish elements prone to assimilation are being removed while at the same time there is a resurgence in Jewish orthodoxy and high birthrate among the most committed of the Jewish elements such as the Hasidim. Additionally, religious Jews in Israel are almost all Orthodox, and there is almost no intermarriage in the world nexus of Jewry — the nation of Israel.

Perhaps the best way to describe the Jewish community is how the distinguished Jewish writer Daniel Elazar does in Community and Polity: Organizational Dynamics in American Jewry. 639 He proposes a model of concentric circles. The inner circle is a hard core of about 5 to 8 percent who lead what he calls “fully Jewish lives.” Next are 10 to 12 percent of Jews whom he calls “participants.” They are often em ployed in “Jewish civil service,” working tirelessly for Jewish causes. Third, he identifies 25 to 30 percent of Jews whom he calls “contributors and consumers.” These make regular contributions to Jewish causes and make use of the Jewish community for things such as weddings, bar mitzvahs, and funerals. Elazar calls his last group the “peripherals and repudiators.” They make no contributions to Jewish causes, but sometimes the inner circles pull them in to participation or they are peeled off, leaving the Jewish core at the center and the whole of Jewry more committed than ever. 640 Because of copious publicity of high rates of Jewish intermarriage, some Gentiles may come to believe that Jews are becoming less ethnocentric. But in reality the opposite is true. Those Jews left at the core are even less disposed to assimilate. At the same time, the outmarrying Jews who are amenable to Gentile values also serve an important role in causing Gentiles to believe the Jewish group is more similar to them than it actually is. More importantly, some Jewish researchers see a degree of intermarriage as having a functional value in Gentile environments. Mark Zborowski and Elizabeth Herzog say that it serves as a bridge to the Gentile community, but one that does not threaten the Jewish core. The peripheral area which serves as a bridge to the surrounding cultures fills several functions. It is an avenue to invasion, a buffer and a source of renewed vigor. Each impact that chips at the outer edge may serve simultaneously to strengthen the core. 641 Lieberman and Weinfeld, in their article “Demographic Trends and Jewish Survival,” view relatively high levels of intermarriage as a successful strategy in securing greater support from the Gentile community for their political and social goals such as political support for Israel.

The successful exercise of influence is best achieved in a community with a large subset of members interacting with politicians and opinion leaders. Through intermarried Jews themselves, and certainly through their social networks involving Jewish family and friends who may be closer to the core of the community, Jewish concerns, interests, and sensibilities can be articulated before a wider, more influential audience. In a recent interview, Presidential aide Robert Lipshutz traced the origin of Jimmy Carter’s concern for Israel to his close friendship with a first cousin, an Orthodox Jew (Carter’s aunt married a Jewish man, and their two children were raised as Jews). Intermarrying Jews, while perhaps diluting the community in one sense, perform compensating strategic functions in another. 642 Obviously, if intermarried Jews serve as a “bridge to the Gentile community,” those who are outside of the Jewish community but are conscious of Jewish blood will often have warm feelings toward that heritage and be well disposed to Jewish interests. They will also express less solidarity with European issues and interests. Far from solving the Jewish-Gentile conflict, intermarriage only tends to reinforce the core Jewish genotype and nurture more extreme political and cultural solidarity. By sending their allies into our culture and body politic, they are better able to secure Jewish interests. Among Gentiles intermarriage has the opposite effect. Because they are absorbed almost wholly into our society, our own solidarity is weakened while giving the appearance that the Jewish community is less impenetrable and ethnocentric. There is no real threat to the Jewish genotype; if anything it becomes more “Jewish” with each new generation.

Once I learned that Jews had a different genetic heritage than Europeans and that this difference was intensifying, I wanted to understand what that could mean in terms of Jewish behavior and evolutionary strategy.

An Historical Summary

This book has so far shown that Jewish history, from the earliest periods recorded in the Bible up to the present tribal jingoism of Israel, has been a long story of supremacism and ethnocentrism. Jews learned to thrive as a distinct minority in overwhelmingly non-Jewish nations, and they learned to preserve both their cultural and genetic heritage in the face of often intense pressures toward assimilation from the host societies. To avoid the process of assimilation that swallowed every other people living as a minority in ancient nations, they nurtured an ideology of intense inward group loyalty and love, and outward ethnocentrism and hatred. Through their sojourn as a powerful minority in Egypt early in their history, they created a strategy of survival and racial purity. Later, in a region composed of many distinct peoples, they refined their ethnocentric policy and created the mythology that this policy was decreed by God. It is a strategy that finds its purest expression in Judaism, a this-worldly religion that promises dominion and power for the Jewish people rather than personal reward of an afterlife to deserving individuals.

To resist assimilation by the much larger societies in which they lived, Jews developed a theology that fostered the belief that they were a superior people “chosen by God” and made “separate from other peoples” with a divinely-ordained right to rule the world, accompanied by a sacred obligation to keep both their culture and geno type pure. Non-Jews were characterized as unclean inferiors and even as murderous foes determined to destroy them either by extermination (as commemorated annually in Passover and Purim) or by assimilation (as commemorated in Hanukkah). To survive as a minority in other nations — often as newcomers with little or no land and a religious-cultural disdain for physical labor, they needed to develop skills in other areas. They became proficient at usury, finance and administration, and legal as well as criminal forms of enterprise. They discovered that with an altruistic team effort they could come to dominate important areas of Gentile social structure. It also became apparent that it was in their interest to maintain an ethnocentric “team strategy” and at the same time to weaken Gentile solidarity. They also developed complex strategies to hide their hostility from their Gentile hosts. By the end of their Babylonian captivity, a period of hundreds of years during which they flourished as a powerful minority in an alien nation, their Judaic strategy had developed to a fine art, which they codified in the Tanakh (Old Testament) and ultimately the Talmud. Jews developed distinct cultural, dietary, and ritual traditions to keep them separate from Gentiles. Distinct from the other two major world religions, Judaism sought no converts and, although ostensibly permitting conversion, erected barriers making conversion difficult. The Jewish community did not fully accept converts or even their descendants. (Many rabbis in Jewish scripture say it takes ten generations or more in the Jewish community to be fully accepted, and Jewish law refers to offspring of the converted as “bastards.”) The vast majority of Jews who out-married did so with nonconverted Gentiles, and thus were expelled from the Jewish community. In other words he was deprived of civil and political rights to which every Israelite had claim, even those such as bastards who were of seriously blemished descent. 643 As a cohesive minority in Gentile nations, Jews needed to hide their true ethnocentric beliefs. One aid to that process was their maintenance of the Hebrew language among their scholars and their limiting of translations of their texts into Gentile languages. (As documented in my Jewish Supremacism chapter, in modern times they even developed code words to disguise the more hateful anti-Gentile quotations in their Talmud and rituals — even to the extent of publishing companion guides to the Talmud showing Jewish students the real anti-Gentile meaning of the disguised terms.) 644 Jews also learned to make themselves as politically cryptic as possible, often content to direct policies from behind the scenes so as not to awaken Gentile ire.

In these endeavors they often failed to restrain their rapaciousness, sometimes leading to violent anti-Semitic reactions. The Judaic community has historically emphasized education and highly praised Jewish scholarship of the Talmud, rewarding such scholarship with prestige and economic security. Such policies had a profound impact on their genotype. Just as favoring the best scholars favored those with high verbal IQs, so a number of other aspects of their social structure favored other traditional Jewish characteristics. J. Philippe Rushton, in his groundbreaking 1995 book Race, Evolution, and Behavior,645 has shown in studies of data dealing with twin research, that even tendencies toward group altruism and ethnocentrism have strong genetic components. Jewish law has for hundreds of generations expelled Jews who have assimilated with Gentiles, thus removing them from their gene pool. Such policies would certainly strengthen any Jewish predisposition to ethnocentrism by removing those who had a more conciliatory attitude or even attraction to Gentile aesthetics or values. As the Jews became more proficient at usury, monopolistic business practices, tax collecting, criminal enterprises and acting as oppressive intermediaries or the administrators of occupational governments, Gentile reactionary Anti-Semitism reinforced the siege mentality of Jews. Their antipathy toward their Gentile hosts encouraged Jewish communities to support foreign military incursions and occupation of the nations in which they lived. Such actions in turn spawned greater animosity toward Jews, deepening the vicious cycle that continues to the present day. Jews reacted to the threat of assimilation by becoming more ethnocentric. In sharp contrast, living in their mostly homogeneous communities in the heart of Europe, our ancestors never developed the siege mentality of the Jews. As trade, slavery and foreign immigration increased into Europe, most European communities were ill prepared for the introduction of powerful, ethnocentric minorities within their borders. Gentile societies of the ancient world often permitted varied religious expression, including tolerance of the Jewish faith, whereas the Jewish people demanded strict adherence to their faith within the confines of their society. The Jewish community has continued through the centuries as an authoritarian society that has continually and consciously promoted Jewish cohesion. Even through the Middle Ages, many Jewish communities exercised the death penalty for those Jews deemed to have betrayed Jewish interests.

The execution of Jesus is a perfect example of the eradication of one who they felt was a threat to their homogeneity. Other historic tools used to maintain their ideological and genetic purity were excommunication and expulsion. While Europeans coming from a less competitive, homogenous society endorsed a live-and-let-live, more individualistic ethic, Jews maintained an intense collectivism. In modern times, Jews have strengthened their networks of communication and solidarity, while supporting the fragmentation of Gentile values and societies. To thrive as a small minority in an alien society also requires a talent for deceit. In Christian Spain of the Middle Ages, Jews responded to demands for Christian conversion by becoming Marranos, supposed converts to Christianity who secretly practiced Judaism. They developed elaborate schemes of deception that have lasted for centuries. Many secret Jews successfully deceived their Gentile hosts as to their true anti-Christian beliefs. The most convincing Marranos thrived and prospered, while those less skilled in such duplicity often suffered or perished in the Inquisition and other persecutions. Jews developed patterns of dual morality: one morality for themselves and their kin and another for their Gentile hosts. Conversely, Gentiles in the homogeneous societies of Europe tended to develop a single morality that favored assimilation when alien populations immigrated to their lands or when they conquered other nations. Ancient Greece exemplified that tradition by carrying a doctrine of universalism to their conquered lands. Some of the same values of within-race altruism that Jews revered for themselves also existed among European populations. However, because no non-European races were present, there was no need to develop intricate competitive or deceptive group strategies so characteristic of the Jews. In the dayto- day commerce and social interaction of Europe, truthfulness was honored as a standard for daily life. In times of war a more dual type of morality arose differentiating the interests of one’s own people from that of the enemy. Yet, the normal course of affairs involved interchange and commerce primarily among one’s own kind rather than among alien people. Thus our people never learned well the art of dual morality except in the exigencies of war. The migration and presence of alien Jewish elements contributed greatly to the modern development of European racial consciousness.

The Present State of Jewry

Churchill put it succinctly in 1920 when he described the Jewish takeover of Russia as having “gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and become the masters of this enormous empire.”646 In the last decade of the 20th century, they grip America in the same way.

They thoroughly dominate the news and entertainment media in almost every civilized nation; they control the international markets and stock exchanges; and no government can resist doing their bidding on any issue of importance. They can coalesce against any state that resists their power, such as they did in the economic extortion of a billion dollars from Switzerland or the way they orchestrated violent carpet bombing of Iraq. The cohesion of the Jewish people is indeed the context of the New World Order, and under its auspices they are attempting to extend their totalitarian denial of free speech from Europe and Canada to the nation that was once the most free in the world: the United States. Those who state the facts of Jewish power are called believers in “The Jewish Conspiracy,” as if to conjure the ridiculous image of Jews in caftans and yarmulkes, peering from behind their earlocks at a candle-lit globe as they plot world domination. But it is not the fanciful Learned Elders of Zion we have to fear. It is those who wield Jewish power today, ever more brazenly. There is no conspiracy, at least not in the usual sense of the term. There is not even much secrecy about it. Jewish power is ubiquitous. Every politician is so aware of their power that he knows he cannot dare mention it! Jewish organizations, Jewish media, and Jewish political agents ruthlessly advance their agenda remorselessly and without introspection. Just as they single-mindedly once orchestrated the Russian Revolution, they now coordinate their world power. No Jewish leader needs to direct his minions to seek political control over Gentile nations; they do it as naturally as the blue jay appropriates another bird’s nest. Jewish media bosses and government bureaucrats don’t have to be told to destroy Gentile pride, heritage, honor, loyalty, tradition, while simultaneously defending their own. There is no necessity of a master plan to corrupt Gentile sexual mores, family structure and religious beliefs. Freud and his intellectual descendants and media purveyors have certainly needed no plan, they just do what comes natural to them. No Learned Elder of Zion has to tell the Jewish bureaucrats to open America’s and Europe’s borders to the wretched refuse of the Third World; they know almost instinctively that in a nation of diversity, they can dominate. They also know that if they can destroy our genetic integrity and racial solidarity, there will be no one with the capacity to challenge their rule.

No, it is not an intricate conspiracy. It is simply two nations — Jew and Gentile — in a state of ethnic war. Of course, most Jews and Gentiles do not even realize that we are at war. But while we Gentiles are unknowingly taught cultural and political suicide, Jews are taught allegiance to their kind and hatred and mistrust of us. Only a small portion of Jews are on the cultural and political frontlines, but through many Jewish organizations, the homefront supports its storm troops. Of course, there have been Jews who have decried the hypocrisies of the supremacists. Some have even risked their own lives to warn Gentiles about the Zionist danger. Such men include Noam Chomsky, Benjamin Freedman and Alfred Lilienthal, three men of Jewish descent who realize that Zionist extremism can lead them to disaster. The peace movement in Israel harbors many such Jews. Some Jews, while still desiring preservation of their own genotype, seek a policy of peaceful separation and coexistence rather than Zionist absolutism. They realize that Jewish Supremacism may eventually destroy them. Although we understand the Jewish supremacist character of both Judaism and Zionism, we do acknowledge that there are individual Jews who embrace neither doctrine and who are not engaged in any kind of activity to corrupt or destroy Gentile institutions. A good example is Israel Shahak, a Jewish survivor of Nazi concentration camps and a professor in Israel who suffered greatly for daring to speak out about Zionism and Talmudic Judaism. He told the world about the Jewish misanthropy not only on behalf of justice for Gentiles but also to save his people from the consequences of their actions. Jews such as Israel Shahak offer hope of a mutually beneficial resolution of the Jewish-Gentile conflict. But Shahak and those like him remain a despised, tiny minority among their brethren. Fair resolution of the conflict can surely never come from Jewish hegemony. Only after we depose Jewish power in our own nations can we negotiate with them successfully. At this point in the conflict, although an ethnic peace conference would be the best solution for all parties, history tells us that it is unlikely to occur. Tyrannies defer only to greater power.

If they truly represented what is noble in man, perhaps it would be in the order of Nature to have our people replaced by the Jewish prototype. However, history reveals that in the sweep of history Jews have far more often been harbingers of darkness than of light. This is revealed in the tragic implementation of the doctrines of the three most influential Jews of the 19th and 20th centuries: Marx, Freud and Boas. These three Jews came to debase mankind, not to ennoble it. Jews have enormous power — power born of talent coupled with unscrupulousness. They are strengthened by that which weakens us. Our power can reassert itself only from dedication to truth and jus342 tice, from expressions of courage and nobility. When we violate our own morality, we grow weakened and exploitable, as we are now. Somewhere in our genotype stirs our genes for survival, and those genes are now expressing themselves in a new awakening. I see this awakening wherever our people are. It is especially strong in our young. It is a vision that persecution and hatred cannot destroy. Somewhere, at this moment, another fair baby sleeps peacefully in his cradle, unaware of the great battle now raging for his right to grow up and live in his own land and by the values of his own people.

Are Jews Superior?

What about intelligence, how do Jews compare to Europeans as a whole and to select European groups? There has been a fair amount of study on the issue, primarily by Jewish researchers. They show a higher general IQ for Jews. But the difference comes almost exclusively from the verbal parts of IQ tests. Most studies show that Jews have a markedly higher verbal IQ, but Europeans often score higher on the more abstract and spatial components of IQ. Brown found Jewish children higher in verbal IQ and Scandinavian children higher in visio-spatial IQ. Levinson found the same thing among Jewish and Gentile children in a 1960 study, and Backman shows significantly higher verbal IQs and significantly lower IQs for Jews on visio-spatial reasoning. 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 That Jews seem to be superior in the verbal mental skills seems perfectly consistent with their evolutionary strategy. Verbal skills are obviously important for communication, commerce, teamwork, administration, and mediation, all of which were vitally important in the societies in which they prospered. Werner Mosse, a celebrated historian of European Jewish history, has even suggested, citing studies from Germany early in the century, that Gentile manufacturers tend to be artisans whereas Jewish manufacturers tend to be from trading or banking families. He argues that the character of Jewish involvement in manufacturing in Germany of the 19th century was: less in outright innovation or invention than in a special aptitude for economic “mediation” in the forms of the export of German goods, of “secondary innovation,” technology transfer through the introduction into Germany of processes and methods observed abroad, and new techniques for the stimulation of demand. 654 Richard suggests that visio-spatial abilities and verbal abilities are negatively correlated and that more of the cerebral cortex is devoted to either one set of abilities or the other. Another researcher, Richard Swartzbaugh, in his book The Mediator,655 suggests that Jews are natural mediators in a multiethnic, multireligious, multinational environment, that the natural clashes between the antagonistic groups produces a tremendous demand for mediation. Such mediation finds expression in law, negotiation, arbitration, stock exchange, and government administration — all of which are responsive to Jewish verbal skills and intelligence.656 657 658

Jews have received a disproportionately large percentage of awards for scientific and cultural enterprise. From Academy Awards to Pulitzers to Nobel Prizes, the significant Jewish presence is striking. Disproportionate Jewish success in winning scientific and cultural awards is a reflection of both their abilities and their team strategy. Both the Academy Awards and the Pulitzer Prizes have a large contingent of Jewish voters who have from an early age been taught to favor their own. As mentioned in my chapter on ZOG, Jews are especially prone to join the governing bodies of any social organization in which they participate, and thus would tend to increase their ability to recognize and reward their own in their respective professions. Additionally, the Jewish-dominated news and entertainment media consistently elevate their own for praise and recognition. Barbara Streisand may not have been the best pop singer in the country, but she certainly remains so in the Jewish press. Schindler’s List may not have been the best movie made in 1993, but it meshed perfectly with Jewish social and political objectives. The appalling choice of Jewish terrorist Menachem Begin for a Nobel Peace Prize depended on the groundwork laid by the Jewish press around the world. Even in the scientific sphere, in an era of tremendous scientific advancement and great numbers of deserving researchers, publicity and media promotion of a scientist’s work is now probably just as critical for the earning of a scientific award as the work itself. In this arena, Jewish scientists have a built-in promotional advantage. Even today, with geneticists and psychologists rapidly proving the crucial role of heredity and race in intelligence and behavior, the Jewish media continue to tout the behavioral environmentalist viewpoint. The media give fringe egalitarians such as Lewontin, Kamin, and Gould preference over the quieter but more cogent scientists. As I pointed out earlier, the three most influential Jews of the 19th and 20th centuries were Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud and Franz Boas. All three were intelligent men, yet each had a catastrophic effect on European society. Karl Marx laid down the foundations for the most destructive and murderous ideology of all time. Sigmund Freud undermined the foundations of the family and European values. Franz Boas was the anthropologist father of the egalitarian movement that now seeks nothing less than the destruction of our genotype and every genotype on the planet except that of the Jews

The Ultimate Gauge

Even the so-called moderate wing of Judaism preaches a Jewish supremacy of morality and intellect. In an article in Reform Judaism titled “Relax. It’s Okay to be the Chosen People,” Arthur Hertzberg (the editor) and Aron Hirt-Manheimer discuss their victimization as youngsters at the hands of Christians. They assert the specialness of the Jews, even of those liberal Jews who don’t want to admit it. In the article they quote the words from the founder of the Israeli state, David Ben-Gurion. My concept of the messianic ideal and vision is not a metaphysical one but a socio-cultural-moral one… I believe in our moral and intellectual superiority, in our capacity to serve as a model for the redemption of the human race. This belief of mine is based on my knowledge of the Jewish people, and not some mystical faith; the glory of the divine presence is within us, in our hearts, and not outside us.659 (emphasis mine) It would be interesting to see the reaction if the President of the United States made a statement that he believed in the moral and intellectual superiority of the White race. Not only does the Ben-Gurion statement show a supremacist attitude, it also shows that his sense of Jewish superiority is not born out of believing they are “chosen by God” but arises simply from a self-chosen egotism. Before self-proclaimed assertions of Jewish superiority can be taken seriously, it is important to remember that the ultimate gauge of worthiness is creative achievement and historical performance. The European record is magnificent. Caucasians laid the foundations of astronomy, physics, mathematics, engineering, biology, geology, and Western medicine. It was our Egyptian ancestors who designed the pyramids, our forefathers who built the Parthenon and the Pantheon. It was our Greek ancestors who wrote the first novel, developed drama as an art form, and gave the world the philosophy of Socrates and Plato. It was our race that unlocked the secrets of the Copernican universe, our folk who built the Roman Re public and who wrote the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. Our people created the great art of ancient Greece and unleashed the beauty of the Renaissance. Michaelangelo had our blood in his fingers as he reached out to God on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel; and in Leonardo’s hands our blood and unique DNA pulsed as he created from cold stone the warm beauty of The Madonna and Child.

From our genes came the compositions of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Wagner. Our people invented the automobile, the airplane, the steam engine, the internal combustion engine, the jet engine, the electric light, telephones, radios, and cameras — and even the powerful tools now used as weapons against us: the motion picture camera and television. Men of our heritage gave us the building blocks of the computer age: the semi-conductor, the transistor and the integrated circuit. Our people developed the math and physics and the chemical propulsion that enabled us to leave our footprints on the moon. I could go on and on recounting the great achievements of our European heritage. In the greatness of the Egypt of Ramses II, the Greece of Pericles, or the Rome of Caesar, or the England of Shakespeare there was almost no Jewish influence. Western civilization would still have scaled the heights without them. But, would we have plumbed the depths of Marxism, Freudianism and Boasian egalitarianism without them?

The difference between Jews and Gentiles finds expression in the kind of films made by Walt Disney and the type made by the current Jewish head of Disney Studios, Michael Eisner. While both Disney and Eisner made technically proficient films, Disney made films accenting the beauty and nobility in man and the wonders of Nature. Eisner steered Disney away from the Nature-film business and toward degenerate films such as The Crying Game and The Priest, two films wallowing in sexual deviance and depravity, films that Walt Disney would not have even watched — much less produced. While the Classical Greeks and the Europeans of the Renaissance were producing great art and sculpture celebrating the ideal beauty of the human form, Jews rejected art as “graven image.” Now they sponsor and promote degenerate art that prizes the misshapen and the weird over the well formed, noble, and heroic. And they dominate the pornographic rackets that explore the lowest depths of human degradation. While the European’s Faustian spirit has penetrated the deepest oceans and the highest mountains and even ventured into space; the Jews have seldom been pioneers. While we revere the soil, the Earth, the very natural world by which most Europeans and the rest of the people of the earth have gained their daily bread until very recent times, the Jews have, for two thousand years, sucked their sustenance from the golden calf of a soulless and parasitic urban life. While Freud held up the genital and excretory organs as the keys to the meaning of life, the Gentile Carl Jung dismissed Freud and developed the concept of the racial soul. While Jews still enshrine the dictum of an eye for an eye, the Europeans embrace, perhaps dangerously, the doctrine of “turn the other cheek.”

In terms of intelligence, Jewish supremacists have the verbal dexterity to have earned Jesus Christ’s referral to them as the great masters of the lie. But in the spatial skills that give us our sense of art and farsightedness, that give us balance and wholeness, we excel. They are a fast-talking, clever people well versed in the arts of manipulation and mediation. But they are certainly not superior in the qualities of character that have created the greatness and sublimity of our people. The Jewish genotype has certainly been resilient and adaptive, and they may yet, if we allow it, inherit our Earth as their dominion. The contest, though, is far from over. There is a wealth of wonderful genetic material in our people that shall yet prove itself worthy of survival. When our people awaken and apply our genius, our idealism, and our courage to the struggle for our survival, victory will be possible.

Jews have adapted to the vagaries of their surroundings while preserving their own genotype. But while they have adapted, we have created. We have created both technology and art. We have found great beauty in both the body and the soul. We have embraced both God and Nature; science and religion. We have learned how to balance both government and freedom.

The ultimate ethnic clash of these diametrically opposed genotypes and cultures fast approaches with the new millennium. Jewish will-to-power pushes them on to domination as it has for the last 2,000 years. Their evolutionary strategy has been perfected to the point that Europeans and all other races now suffer under Jewish hegemony on a global scale. We must acknowledge their present political and social power, but we also know that their power has come at the cost of the devolution of our civilization. Failure to defy this power can only lead to our eventual extinction, and this looming genocide gives our task the importance of a life or death struggle — one that has urgency for our people and truly all peoples and nations upon the earth We shall do our duty. We shall not surrender our freedom and our very existence to Jewish supremacists or any other power. We shall preserve our heritage and our hard-won rights and freedoms. We shall guide our people up the evolutionary stairway to the stars.


Page 15

End Notes

1 Shahak, I. (1994). Jewish History, Jewish Religion. Boulder, Colorado. Pluto
2 KJV Deuteronomy 7:6
3 Jub. 32:18 19
4 KJV Joshua 6:21; KJV Joshua 10:37; RSV Deuteronomy 20:16
5 RSV Deuteronomy 20:10-18
6 KJV Leviticus 25:44-46.
7 KJV Deuteronomy 7:2-3; Ezra 9:12
8 RSV John 7:13.
9 RSV 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16.
10 Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, “Authority” p. 637.
11 New Republic. (1992). May.
12 Simon, M. Trans. (1936). 57a Gittin. London. Soncino Press. p.261
13 The Jewish Press. (1988). Feb. 19. 10A.
14 The Jewish Press. (1988). Feb. 19. 8C.
15 Bermant, C. (1991). Some Carefully And Carelessly Chosen Words, Jewish
Chronicle. May 17.
16 Frank, Geyla (1997).
17 Steinlight, Stephen. (2001). Backgrounder. Center for Immigration Studies.
18 Hertzberg, A. & Hirt-Manheimer, A. (1998). Relax. It’s Okay to be the Chosen
People. Reform Judaism. May.
19 Look Magazine. (1962). January 16.
20 Begin, M. (1964). The Revolt: The Story Of The Irgun. Tel-Aviv: Hadar Pub.
21 Badi, J. (1960). Fundamental Laws Of The State Of Israel. New York. p.156.
22 Reuters News Service (1998). Israelis Now Hold Worship Services
at Grave of Their Hero, Baruch Goldstein June 17
23 New York Journal American (1949). February 3.
24 Andelman, M.S. (1974). To Eliminate the Opiate. New York-Tel Aviv: Zahavia.
Ltd. 26
25 U.S. National Archives. (1919). Record Group 120: Records of the American
Expeditionary Forces, June 9.
26 U.S. National Archives. (1919). Record Group 120: Records of the American
Expeditionary Forces, June 9.
27 Francis, D. R. (1921). Russia From the American Embassy. New York: C.
Scribner’s & Sons. p.214.
28 Churchill, W. (1920). Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the
Jewish People. Illustrated Sunday Herald. February 8.
29 Associated Press Online. (1999). Balfour Author Was a Jew.
30 Steinlight, Stephen. (2001). Backgrounder. Center for Immigration Studies.
31 Rokach, L. (1980). Israel’s Sacred Terrorism. Bellmont, Mass: Assoc. Arab
American University Grads.
32 Bar-Yosef, Avinoam. (1994). The Jews Who Run Clinton’s Court. Maariv.
September 2.
33 Ford, Henry, (1920-1922). The International Jew: the World’s Foremost
Problem. Dearborn Independent. Dearborn, Michigan.
34 Irving, David. (1994). Action Report. Special Edition.
35 Jick Leon A. (1981). The Holocaust: its Use and Abuse within the American
Public. Yad Vashem Studies, XIV, p. 316. Jerusalem
36 Goldhagen, D. (1996). Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans And
The Holocaust. New York: Knopf, Random House.
37 Who’s Who In World Jewry. (1965). New York : Pitman Publishing. Corp.
38 Who’s Who In American Jewry. (1927-). New York : The Jewish Biographical
Bureau, Inc.
39 Goldwater, B. M. (1960). The Conscience Of A Conservative. Shepherdsville,
Kentucky: Victor Publishing Co.
40 Stormer, J. (1964). None Dare Call It Treason. Florissant, Missouri: Liberty
Bell Press.
41 Schwarz, F. C. (1960). You Can Trust The Communists. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
42 Churchill, W. (1920). Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the
Jewish People. Illustrated Sunday Herald. February 8.
43 Churchill, W. (1920). Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the
Jewish People.
44 U.S. National Archives. (1919). Record Group 120: Records of the American
Expeditionary Forces, June 9.
45 Wilton, R. (1920). Last Days of the Romanovs. New York: George H. Doran
Co. p.148.
46 U.S. National Archives. (1919). Record Group 120: Records of the American
Expeditionary Forces, June 9.
47 Francis, D. R. (1921). Russia From the American Embassy. New York: C.
Scribner’s & Sons. p.214.
48 National Archives, Dept. of State Decimal File, 1910-1929, file 861.00/5067
49 Nettl, J. P. (1967). The Soviet Achievement. New York: Harcourt, Brace &
50 Encyclopedia Judaica. p.791-792.
51 Trotsky, L. (1968). Stalin: An Appraisal of the Man and His Influence. ed.
trans. Charles Malamuth. London, MacGibbon & Kee.
52 Shub, David. (1961). Novyi Zhurnal no. 63.
53 Shub, D. (1966). Lenin: a Biography. Harmondsworth, Penguin.
54 Review de Fonds Social Juif. (1970). no. 161.
55 Ben-Shlomo, B. Z. (1991). Reporting on Lenin’s Jewish Roots. Jewish
Chronicle. July 26. p.2.
56 Hoffman, Michael. (1997). Campaign for Radical Truth in History. P.O. Box
849. Coeur d’ Alene, ID 83816. Ehrenburg won the Order of Lenin and the
Stalin Prize and willed his papers to the Israeli Yad Vashem Holocaust
57 Goldberg, Anatol. (1984). Ilya Ehrenburg : Revolutionary, novelist, poet, war
correspondent, propagandist : the extraordinary epic of a Russian
survivor. New York : Viking.
58 Solzhenitsyn, A. (1974). The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956 : An Experiment
in Literary investigation, I-II. Tran. Thomas P. Whitney. London : Collins:
Harvill Press. p.79.
59 Aronson, G. (1949). Soviet Russia and the Jews. New York: American Jewish
League Against Communism.
60 The Jewish Voice. (1942). New York. January.
61 The Congress Bulletin. (1940).(New York). American Jewish Congress, January
62 George Bernard Shaw, quoted in The Jewish Guardian ( 1931). said: “I have
seen the statement which Stalin gave recently to the Jewish Telegraphic
Agency on Anti-Semitism and in which the Soviet leader said that under
the Soviet laws militant Anti-Semitism is punishable by death.”
63 Joseph Stalin (Note to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency). 12th January 1931,
Collected Works, vol. 13.
64 Gregor Aronson. (1949). Soviet Russia and the Jews. New York: American
Jewish League Against Communism.
65 Encyclopaedia Britannica. (1947). Vol. 2. p.76.
66 Latimer, E.W. (1895). Russia and Turkey in the 19th Century. A. C. McLury &
Co. p. 332.
67 Jewish Communal Register of New York City. (1918). p.1018-1019
68 New York Journal American (1949). February 3.
69 Andelman, M.S. (1974). To Eliminate the Opiate. New York-Tel Aviv: Zahavia.
Ltd. 26
70 Nedava, J. (1971). Trotsky and the Jews. Philadelphia. Jewish Publication
71 Marx, Karl, (1936). Das Kapital. English. New York: The Modern library
72 Marx, Karl, (1932). Capital, the Communist manifesto and other writings.
New York: The Modern library.
73 Chicago Jewish Sentinel. (1975). Inside Judaica.. October 30.
74 Barnes Review. (1996). The Racism of Marx and Engles. Oct. vol. 2. 10. p. 3.
75 The Encyclopedia of Zionism in Israel. (1971). New York: Herzl Press/McGraw-
Hill. p.496-497.
76 Wilton, R. (1920). Last Days of the Romanovs. New York: George H. Doran
Co. 148.
77 Rapoport, Louis. (1990). Stalin’s War Against The Jews. Free Press/Simon &
78 Curtis, William Elroy. (1907). National Geographic Magazine. The Revolution
in Russia. May. p.313.
79 Orwell, George. (1948). 1984.
80 Exodus (1960). dir. Otto Preminger United Artists.
81 Kurtzman, Daniel. (1995). Ousted House Historian Seeks Restitution and a
Straight Record. Jewish Telegraphic Agency. October 31.
82 Wise (1938). Dr. Wise Urges Jews To Declare Selves As Such. New York
Herald Tribune. June 13. p.12.
83 (Daily Pilot, Newport Beach/ Costa Mesa, Feb. 28, 2000, front page)
84 in the March 17, 2000, issue
85 (“Project Reminds Young Jews of Heritage,” The Washington Post, Jan. 17,
2000, p. A19)
86 Bible. King James Version. Ezra chapter 9.
87 KJV Numbers 33:55
88 KJV Joshua 6:21
89 KJV Joshua 10:32-34
90 KJV Joshua 10:37
91 KJV Isaiah 34:2-3
92 RSV Deuteronomy 20:16
93 KJV Deuteronomy 7:2-3
94 KJV Deuteronomy 7:6
95 KJV Ezra 9:12
96 Maimonides, Mishneh Torah. Laws On Murderers 2,4,11.
97 KJV Galatians 3:26-29
98 The Winds of War, War and Remembrance, and others.
99 New York Herald Tribune. (1959). Nov. 17.
100 Dilling, E. (1980). The Jewish Religion. Los Angeles: CDL Report (Renamed
From The Plot Against Christianity)
101 Talmud, Sanhedrin. (1935). Soncino Edition. p.400.
102 Simon, M. Trans. (1936). 57a Gittin. London. Soncino Press. p.261
103 Jewish Encyclopedia. (1907). Balaam. p.469.
104 Talmud, Sanhedrin. (1935). Soncino Edition. 5th footnote on p. 388.
105 Funk And Wagnalls Jewish Encyclopedia. (1905). Min. p.594.
106 Encyclopedia Judaica. (1978). Keter Publishing House, Jerusalem, Vol.7
107 Talmud. (1935). Soncino Edition.
108 Talmud, Sanhedrin (1935). Soncino Edition. p.388.
109 Funk And Wagnalls Jewish Encyclopedia. (1907). Gentile. New York. p.617.
110 Talmud. (1935). Baba Mezia. Soncino Edition. 114a-114b.
111 Funk And Wagnalls Jewish Encyclopedia. (1907). Gentile. New York. p.621.
112 Talmud, Sanhedrin (1935). Soncino Edition. 58b. p.398.
113 Talmud, Baba Kamma. (1935). Soncino Edition. p.211.
114 Talmud, Baba Kamma. (1935). Soncino Edition. p.666.
115 Talmud, Sanhedrin (1935). Soncino Edition. 76a. p.470.
116 Talmud, Sanhedrin (1935). Soncino Edition. 57a. p.388.
117 Talmud, Baba Kamma. (1935). Soncino Edition. 37b.
118 Talmud, Baba Kamma. (1935). Soncino Edition. p.664-665.
119 Talmud, Yebamoth. (1936). Soncino Edition. 98a.
120 Talmud, Abodah Zarah. (1935). Soncino Edition. 22a-b.
121 Talmud, Abodah Zarah. (1935). Soncino Edition. 67b.
122 Funk And Wagnalls Jewish Encyclopedia. (1907). Gentile: Discrimination
Against Gentiles. p.617-621.
123 Funk And Wagnalls Jewish Encyclopedia. (1907). Gentile. New York. p.617.
124 Talmud, Sanhedrin (1935). Soncino Edition. 105a-b. p.717.
125 Talmud, Sanhedrin (1935). Soncino Edition. 105a-b. p.726.
126 RSV John 8:13T
127 Luther, M. L. (1962).The Jews And Their Lies. Chicago. Christian Press
Translated From The Erlangen And Weimar German Editions. (1483-
1546). Works. 1883 D. Martin Luthers Werke; Kritische Gesammtausgabe.
Weimar, H. Böhlau, (1883-1985).
128 Random House Websters Unabridged Electronic Dictionary. (1996).
129 Holiday Observances (1997). Jewish Art In Context.
130 Goldwasser, Phillip. (1998). Bon Appetit. Hosted by the Jewish
Communication Network on the Internet.
131 Hess, Moses, (1958). 1812-1875. Rome And Jerusalem. Translated By
Maurice J. Bloom. New York: Philosophical Library.
132 Dubnow, S. (1906). Foundation Of National Judaism. Translated From Die
Grundlagen Des Nationaljudentums. S.M. Dubnow. Berlin : Jüdischer
133 Menuhin, Moshe. (1965). The Decadence Of Judaism In Our Time. New
York: Exposition Press
134 Menuhin, Moshe. (1965). The Decadence Of Judaism In Our Time. 482-483.
135 Attack. (1976). Goldmann quoted in Zionism I: Theory. no.42. (Hillsboro. WV.
136 Brandeis, L. at a speech before the Menorah Society at Columbia University.
137 Herzl, T. (1967). The Jewish State: An Attempt At A Modern Solution Of The
Jewish Question. London, Pordes.
138 Wyman, David S. (1985). The Abandonment Of The Jews: America And The
Holocaust, 1941-1945. Pantheon.
139 Lazare, Bernard. (1967). Antisemitism: Its History And Causes; Translated
From The French. London, Britons Publishing Co.
140 Encyclopaedia Judaica. (1994). Decennial Book, 1983-1992 Events Of 1982-
1992 Jerusalem : Encyclopaedia Judaica.
141 De Mille, C. B. (1956). The Ten Commandments. Hollywood. Paramount.
142 Spielberg, S. (1993). Schindler’s List. Hollywood. Universal.
143 Jewish Press. Brooklyn, NY.
144 The Jewish Press. (1988). Feb. 19. 10A.
145 The Jewish Press. (1988). Feb. 19. 8C.
146 Bermant, C. (1991). Some Carefully And Carelessly Chosen Words, Jewish
Chronicle. May 17.
147 New Republic. (1992). May.
148 Who’s Who In World Jewry. (1965). New York : Pitman Pub. Corp.
149 Who’s Who In American Jewry. (1927-). New York : The Jewish Biographical
150 RSV Joshua 6:21
151 KJV Joshua 10:39
152 RSV Deuteronomy 20:10-18
153 KJV Leviticus 19:18
154 KJV Exodus 20:13, 15, and 17
155 RSV Leviticus 19:18
156 TANAKH. (1985). A New Translation of The Holy Scriptures according to the
Traditional Hebrew Text. Philadelphia. The Jewish Publication Society.
157 Talmud – Baba Kamma (1935). 113b. p.666. Soncino Edition.
158 Funk and Wagnalls Jewish Encyclopedia. (1905). Gentile. p.620.
159 Hartung, John. (1995). Love Thy Neighbor: The Evolution of In-Group
Morality. Skeptic, Vol. 3. No. 4.
160 KJV Leviticus 25:44-46.
161 KJV Deuteronomy 7:2-6.
162 KJV Leviticus 20:24.
163 KJV Nehemiah 13:3.
164 KJV Deuteronomy 7:4.
165 RSV Ezra 9:1.
166 KJV Ezra 9:2.
167 Schonfield, H. J. (1965). The Passover plot; new light on the history of
Jesus. New York: B. Geis Associates. Random House.
168 KJV Hebrews 8:9.
169 KJV Hebrews 8:9.
170 “Judaism.” Encyclopedia Judaica, p. 396.
171 “Conservative Judaism,” Enc. Encyclopedia Judaica, p. 906.
172 Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, “Authority” p. 637.
173 Talmud, Sanhedrin (1935). Soncino Edition. 105a-b. p.717.
174 Simon, M. Trans. (1936). 57a Gittin. London. Soncino Press. p.261.
175 Talmud, Sanhedrin (1935). Soncino Edition. 105a-b. p.726.
176 Talmud, Sanhedrin (1935). Soncino Edition. 52b. p.356.
177 Talmud, Sanhedrin (1935). Soncino Edition. 105a-b. p.726.
178 Shahak, I. (1994). Jewish History, Jewish Religion. Boulder, Colorado. Pluto
179 Shahak, I. (1994). Jewish History, Jewish Religion. 97-98.
180 Shahak, I. (1994). Jewish History, Jewish Religion. p.21.
181 Shahak, I. (1994). Jewish History, Jewish Religion. 23 & 93.
182 “Goy” Talmudic Encyclopedia as quoted by Shahak.
183 Shahak, I. (1994). Jewish History, Jewish Religion. 87.
184 Shahak, I. (1994). Jewish History, Jewish Religion. p.23.
185 Luther, M. L. (1962). The Jews And Their Lies. Chicago. Christian Press
Translated From The Erlangen And Weimar German Editions. 1483-1546.
Works. 1883 D. Martin Luthers Werke; Kritische Gesammtausgabe.
Weimar, H. Böhlau, 1883-1985.
186 RSV Deuteronomy 7:6-12.
187 RSV Romans 9:1–3, 6–8, 24–26.
188 KJV Hebrews 8:6–7, 9–10, and 13.
189 KJV Matthew 21:43-45.
190 KJV John 8:42-48.
191 KJV John 1:47.
192 RSV 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16.
193 RSV Titus1:13–14.
194 BBC News. (2001). Internet transcript. November 26.
195 Board of Deputies of British Jews. (2001). Press Release. Nov. 29.
196 Solzhenitsyn, A. (1974). The Gulag archipelago, 1918-1956 : an experiment
in literary investigation, I-II. Tran. Thomas P. Whitney. London : Collins :
Harvill Press. p.79.
197 RSV John 7:13.
198 KJV Hebrews 8:9.
199 Knight Ridder News Services. (2001). He Wants to Rid Bible of Dark Interpretation
of Jews. August 17.
200 Koestler, A. (1976). The Thirteenth Tribe. New York: Random House.
201 Barnes Review. (1997). The Khazars, Non-Semitic Jews. July. Vol.3. p.9.
202 Chase, G. A., & V. A. McKusick (1972). Founder Effect In Tay-Sachs Disease.
American Journal Of Human Genetics. 25:p.339-352.
203 The Encyclopedia of Zionism in Israel. (1971). New York: Herzl
204 Glazer, Nathan. (1970). Remembering the Answers: Essays on the American
student revolt. New York: Basic Books
205 Britton, F. (1979). Behind Communism. Noontide Press.
206 Cohen, Jacob. (1993). The Rosenberg File. National Review. July 19.: p.48-
207 Neville, John F. (1997). The Press, the Rosenbergs, and the Cold War.
London: Praeger.
208 Strom, Kevin. (1998). We Are All Prejudiced. Internet Article. April 13.
209 Boas, F. (1911). Rev. Ed., (1938). The Mind of Primitive Man. New York.
210 Herskovits, Melville J. (1953). Franz Boas; the science of man in the making.
Clifton, NJ: A. M. Kelley, p. 65.
211 Mead, Margaret. (1961). Coming of age in Samoa; a psychological study of
primitive youth for Western civilization. Foreword by Franz Boas. New
York: Morrow.
212 Freeman, D. (1983). Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making and
Unmaking of an Anthropological Myth. Cambridge University Press.
213 Freeman, D. (1990). The Samoan Reader: Anthropologists Take Stock.
Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America.
214 Freeman, D. (1991). On Franz Boas and the Samoan Researches of Margaret
Mead. Current Anthropology. p.32, 322-330.
215 Montagu, Ashley. (1945). Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race.
New York: Columbia University press
216 Pearson, R. (1996). Heredity and Humanity: Race Eugenics and Modern
Science.. Washington, DC: Scott-Townsend Publishers.
217 Gelya, F. (1997). Jews, Multiculturalism, And Boasian Anthropology. The
American Anthropologist. Vol. 99. #4. p.731-745.
218 New York Review of Books. (2000). 13 April, p.61.
219 Natural History. (1993). Nov. p.12.
220 Yerushalmi, Y. H. (1991). Freud’s Moses: Judaism Terminable and
Interminable. New Haven: Yale University Press. p.98.
221 Gay, P. (1988). Freud: A Life For Our Time. New York: W. W. Norton.
222 Freud, S. (1939). Moses and Monotheism. New York: Vintage.
223 Freud, S. (1938). Totem and Taboo; Resemblances Between the Psychic
Lives of Savages and Neurotics. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin
224 MacDonald, K. (1996). A People That Shall Dwell Apart. Westport,
Connecticut: Praeger.
225 Freud, S. (1969). The Interpretation of Dreams. Trans. J. Strachey. New York.
226 Yerushalmi, Y. H. (1991). Freud’s Moses: Judaism Terminable and
Interminable. New Haven: Yale University Press. p.45.
227 Yerushalmi, Y. H. (1991). Freud’s Moses: Judaism Terminable and
Interminable. New Haven: Yale University Press. p.45.
228 Freud, S. (1939). Moses and Monotheism. Trans. by K. Jones. New York:
Vintage. .p.114-117.
229 Mannoni, O. (1971). Freud. Trans. R. Belice. New York. p.168.
230 Friedman, Murray. What Went Wrong. (1995). New York: Free Press.
231 Garrow, David.(1983). The FBI and Martin Luther King. Penguin Books, New
232 Strom, Kevin Alfred. (1994). The Beast as Saint. Radio broadcast. Printed
transcript available from National Vanguard Books, Box 330, Hillsboro, WV
233 Pappas, T. (1992). A Houdini of Time. Chronicles. November 26-30.
234 Abernathy, R. (1989). And the Walls Came Tumbling Down. New York:
Harper & Row.
235 Newsweek. (1998). Books: The Middle of the Journey, Taylor Branch’s Grand
Civil-Rights History Rolls On. January19. p.62. Quoting from Pillar of Fire:
America in the King Years 1963-65. Taylor Branch. Simon and Schuster.
236 Kaye, Evelyn. (1987). A Hole in the Sheet: a Modern Woman Looks at
Orthodox and Hasidic Judaism. Secaucus, New Jersey: L. Stuart.
237 Kaye, Evelyn. (1987). A Hole in the Sheet.
238 Jewish Encyclopedia. (1905). Talmudic prayer. p.617.
239 Talmud. (1936). Kethuboth. Soncino Edition. Kethuboth 11b. p.58.
240 Talmud. (1935). Sanhedrin. 69b. p.469.
241 Talmud. (1936). Yebamoth. Soncino Edition. 57b. p.386
242 New York Times. (1992). December 9.
243 Los Angeles Jewish Times, ‘Yes, Virginia, Jews Do Control the Media,’ Oct.
29-Nov. 11, 1999 p. 14
244 Network. (1976). Director: Sidney Lumet. Producer: Howard Gottfried.
Screenwriter: Paddy Chayevsky. Editor: Alan Heim. United Artists-MGM.
245 Thunderbolt. P. O. Box 1211 Marietta, GA 30061.
246 Schindler’s List. (1993). Universal. Director: Steven Spielberg. Producers:
Gerald R. Molen, Steven Spielberg. Screenwriters: Kurt Luedtke, Steve
Zaillian. Cinematographer: Janusz Kaminski. Editor: Ewa Braun.
247 Gabler, N. (1988). An Empire of Their Own : How the Jews Invented
Hollywood. New York: Crown Publishers.
248 Stein, B. (1979.). The View From Sunset Boulevard. New York: Basic Books.
249 Stein, Ben. (1997). Do Jews Run the Media: You Bet they Do — And What of
it? E! online Internet Magazine.
250 National Vanguard Books, P. O. Box 330 Hillsboro, WV 24946. Or

251 Time. (1962). The Newspaper Collector. July 27. p.56.
252 Robertson, W. (1981). The Dispossessed Majority. Cape Canaveral, Florida.
Howard Allen Enterprises, Inc. (PO Box 76, Cape Canaveral, FL 32920).
253 Las Vegas Review-Journal, (1999). Internet version of the “1st Hundred Men
Who Shaped Las Vegas”. Part. 2.
254 Birth Of A Nation. (1915). Director, Composer: D.W. Griffith. Screenwriter:
Frank E. Woods, D.W. Griffith. Producer: Frank E. Woods.
Cinematographer: Billy Bitzer. Editor: James Smith.
255 Gone with the Wind. (1939). Editor: Hal Kern. Producer, Screenwriter: David
O. Selznick
256 Dixon, T. (1905). The Clansman: An Historical Romance Of The Ku Klux
Klan. New York: Grosset & Dunlap,.
257 Barnes Review. (1997). Birth of a Nation. July. vol. 3. n. 7 p. 27.
258 Shakespeare, W. (1600). The Excellent History Of The Merchant Of Venice:
With the extreme cruelty of Shylock the Jew towards the saide merchant, in
cutting a just pound of his flesh and the obtaining of Portia by the choyse
of three caskets. London: J. Roberts.
259 Canadian Jewish News. (1991). January 31. p.33.
260 Farewell Uncle Tom.[1972] Cannon Releasing Corporation.
261 Medved, M. (1996). Jews Run Hollywood, So What? Moment. August.
262 Priest. (1994). Miramax Films.
263 The Crying Game. (1992). Miramax Films.
264 Seven Years In Tibet. (1997). Sony Pictures Entertainment, TriStar Pictures,
Mandalay Entertainment, Reperage & Vanguard Films, Applecross.
265 Brando, Marlon. [with Robert Lindsey] Brando. (1994). Songs My Mother
Taught Me.
Random House of Canada, Toronto. P.107-111
266 Ibid. p.111
267 Ibid. p.231
268 Ibid. p.388
269 Larry King Live. (1996). Guest: Marlon Brando. Friday, April 5.
270 Bar-Yosef, Avinoam. (1994). The Jews Who Run Clinton’s Court. Maariv.
September 2.
271 Curtiss, Richard. (1986). quoted in A Changing Image: Americans’ Perceptions
of the Arab-Israeli Dispute, American Educational Trust. p. 267
272 Fulbright, Sen. William. (1973). Face the Nation. CBS: New York. April 15.
273 Buckley, William F. (1970). McCarthy and His Enemies; The Record and Its
Meaning. New Rochelle, New York: Arlington House.
274 Wall Street Journal. (1978). American Jews and Jimmy Carter. March 2.
275 Getler, Michael. (1974). Pentagon Chief Suggests Israel Lobby Has Too Much
Influence. Los Angeles Times.
276 San Francisco Chronicle. (1968). November 23. p.9.
277 Bar-Yosef, Avinoam. (1994). The Jews Who Run Clinton’s Court. Maariv.
278 Bar-Yosef, Avinoam. (1994). The Jews Who Run Clinton’s Court. Maariv.
279 Bar-Yosef, Avinoam. (1994). The Jews Who Run Clinton’s Court. Maariv.
280 Jonathan Broder. (1997). Salon. February 17.
281 The New York Times News Service. (1997). Albright Upbraids Stubborn
Balkan Leaders: Refugees…. June 1.
282 The Spotlight The leading anti-Zionist newspaper in the United States. Published
by Liberty Lobby 300 Independence Ave. SE Washington, D.C.
283 Jewish Week. (1997). March 3.
284 Jewish Week. (1997). January 24.
285 New York Times. (1997). October 4.
286 Steinlight, Stephen. (2001). Backgrounder. Center for Immigration Studies.
287 Ibid.
288 Ibid.
289 Ibid
290 Ibid
291 The Times-Picayune. (1998). Swiss banks, Holocaust survivors settle war
claims. August 13. p.A-13.
292 Findley, Paul. (1989). They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions
Confront Israel’s Lobby. Chicago, Illinois: Lawrence Hill Books.
293 Bar-Yosef, Avinoam. (1994). The Jews Who Run Clinton’s Court. Maariv.
294 Network (1976). Director: Sidney Lumet. Producer: Howard Gottfried.
Screenwriter: Paddy Chayevsky. Editor: Alan Heim. United Artists-MGM.
295 Steinlight, Stephen. (2001). Backgrounder. Center for Immigration Studies.
296 Kornberg, R. (1993). Theodore Herzl: From Assimilation to Zionism.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press. inner quote from Herzl diary, 161.
297 Microsoft Encarta 96 Encyclopedia. (1993-1995). “Anti-Semitism.” Microsoft
Corporation. Funk & Wagnalls Corporation.
298 Grolier’s Encyclopedia. Anti-Semitism.
299 Heschel, Susannah. (1993). Anti-Semites Against Anti-Semitism. Tikkun,
November/December. p.52.
300 Todd Endelman, (1979). The Jews of Georgian England, 1714-1830.
Philadelphia. p.95.
301 Wisse, Ruth. (1991). The Twentieth Century’s Most Successful Ideology.
Commentary. Vol. 91, #2. February. p.33.
302 Jerusalem Post. (1990). Editorial. ). September 15. p.24.
303 Hertzberg, A. (1993). Is Anti-Semitism Dying Out? New York Review of
Books, XL (12), p.51-57.
304 Lewis, N. and Reinhold, M. (1955). Roman Civilization: Sourcebook II: The
Empire. Harper Torchbooks: New York.
305 Bishop, John. (1964). Nero: the Man and the Legend. Robert Hale Limited:
306 The Times-Picayune. (1998). Study Affirms Genetic Link in Jewish Priestly
Class. July 9. p.A11
307 Twain, M. (1899). Concerning the Jews. Harper’s Monthly Magazine.
308 Rose, P. L. (1990). Revolutionary Antisemitism in Germany, from Kant to
Wagner. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. p.7.
309 KJV. Deut. 23:20.
310 KJV. Deut. 23:21.
311 The Code of Maimonides, ed. L. Nemoy. (1965). Yale Judaica Series. New
Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.
312 Roth, C. (1978). A History of the Jews in England, 3rd edition. Oxford: The
Clarendon Press.
313 Chazan, R. (1973). Medieval Jewry in Northern France: A Political and
Social History. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
314 Weinryb, B. D. (1972). The Jews of Poland: A Social and Economic History
of the Jewish Community in Poland from 1100 to 1800. Philadelphia:
The Jewish Publication Society of America.
315 Neuman, A. A. (1969). The Jews in Spain: Their Political and Cultural Life
During the Middle Ages; Vols. I & II. New York: Octagon Books. (Originally
published in 1942.)
316 Baldwin, J. W. (1986). The Government of Philip Augustus: Foundations of
French Royal Power in the Middle Ages. Berkeley: University of California
317 Rabinowitz, L. (1938). The Social Life of the Jews of Northern France in the
XII-XIV Centuries as Reflected in the Rabbinical Literature of the Period.
London: Edward Goldston Ltd.
318 Luchaire, A. (1912). Social France at the Time of Philip Augustus. New York:
Frederick Ungar.
319 Encyclopedia Britannica (1952).Vol. 13. Jews. p.57.
320 Davidson, N. (1987). The Inquisition and the Italian Jews. Inquisition and
Society in Early Modern Europe. Totowa, New Jersey: Barnes & Noble.
321 Haliczer, S. (1987). Inquisition and Society in Early Modern Europe Trans. S.
Haliczer. Totowa, New Jersey: Barnes & Noble.
322 Pullan, B. (1983). The Jews of Europe and the Inquisition of Venice, 1550-
1670. London: Basil Blackwell. p.159.
323 Kornberg, R. (1993). Theodore Herzl: From Assimilation to Zionism. Inner
quote from Herzl diary. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.
324 Kornberg, R. (1993). Theodore Herzl: From Assimilation to Zionism. p.161-
325 Kornberg, R. (1993). Theodore Herzl: From Assimilation to Zionism. p.183.
326 Aquinas, Thomas. On the Governance of the Jews.
327 Finkelstein, L. (1924). Jewish Self-Government in the Middle Ages. Westport,
Connecticut: Greenwood Press. p.280.
328 Katz, J. (1961). Tradition and Crisis: Jewish Society at the End of the Middle
Ages. New York. The Free Press of Glencoe. p.24.
329 KJV. Lev. 25:14.
330 The Code of Maimonides.(1965). ed. L. Nemoy. Yale Judaica Series, New
Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. Ch. XII:1. p.47.
331 Katz, J. (1961). Tradition and Crisis: Jewish Society at the End of the Middle
Ages. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe. p.61.
332 Kaufman, Debbie. (2001). Why American CEOs of Israeli Firms Fail. Ha’aretz.
Dec. 6.
333 Ibid.
334 Roth, C. (1974). A History of the Marranos, 4th ed. New York: Schocken
335 Random House Unabridged Webster’s Electronic Dictionary. Marrano.
336 Shaw, S. J. (1991). The Jews of the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish
Republic. New York: New York University Press.
337 Hundert, G. D. (1992). The Jews in a Polish Private Town: The Case of
Opatow in the Eighteenth Century. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
338 Hundert, G. D. (1992). p.54.
339 Hundert, G. D. (1992). p.57.
340 Liebman, A. (1979). Jews and the Left. New York: John Wiley & Sons. p.267-
341 Encyclopaedia Britannica. (1947). Vol. 2. p.76.
342 Mosse, W. E. (1987). Jews in the German Economy: The German-Jewish
Economic Élite 1820-1935. Oxford, U.K.: The Clarendon Press.
343 Gordon, S. (1984). Hitler, Germans, and the “Jewish Question.” Princeton,
New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
344 Birmingham, Stephen (1967). Our Crowd: The Great Jewish Families of
New York. New York: Harper & Row.
345 Ehrlich, J. and Rehfeld B. (1989). New Crowd: Changing of the Jewish
Guard on Wall Street. Boston: Little, Brown & Company.
346 Schwartz, M. (1987). Irangate and Boesky Affair Worrisome to Jews. Palm
Beach Jewish World. January 30.
347 Newsweek. (1971). November 17.
348 Anderson, J. ( 1971). Israel is Crook’s Promised Land. Washington Post.
December 19.
349 Messick, H. (1971). Lansky. New York: Putnam. p.276-277.
350 Bugsy. (1991). Director: Levinson, B. Screenwriter: Toback,J. Tristar.
351 Messick, H. (1971). Lansky. New York: Putnam. p.8-10.
352 Brokhin, Y. (1975). Hustling on Gorky Street. Dial Press. 353 Simis, K. (1982). USSR: The Corrupt Society. Simon and Schuster.
354 Friedman, R.R. (1998). The Most Dangerous Mobster in the World. Village
Voice. May 26.
355 Ibid.
356 Luther, M. (1974). Quoted by Leon Poliakov. The History of Anti-Semitism.
New York. p.233, note 10.
357 Higgins, James V. and Hoover, Barbara. (2001). Work, Play Are All One to
Taubman. The Detroit News, May 3. p.1, 4A
358 Michaels, James. (1996). Keeping the Old KGB Busy. Forbes. Dec. 30. p. 10
359 Forbes. (1996). Godfather of the Kremlin? Dec. 30.1996. p. 90-96
360 Mellow, Craig. (1997). Russia’s Robber Barons. Fortune. March 3. p.120-126
361 RSV. Lev. 25:44.
362 Marcus, J. (1952). Jews. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Vol. 13. p.57.
363 Grayzel, S. (1948). A History of the Jew: From Babylonian Exile to the End
of World War II. Philadelphia Jewish Publication Society of America. p.312.
364 White, W. (1966). Who Brought the Slaves to America? White Publishing.
365 Barnes Review. (1997). Who Really Engaged in the African Slave Trade. Sept.
366 Raphael, Marc. (1983). Jews and Judaism in the United States: A
Documentary History. New York: Behrman House, Inc. Vol. 14. Raphael is
the editor of American Jewish History, the journal of the American Jewish
Historical Society at Brandeis University in Massachusetts.
367 Platt, Virginia B. (1975). And Don’t Forget the Guinea Voyage: The Slave
Trade of Aaron Lopez of Newport. William and Mary Quarterly. Vol. 32,#
368 Marcus, J. (1970). The Colonial American Jew: 1492-1776. Detroit,
Michigan: Wayne State University Press.
369 Marcus, J. (1974). The Jew and the American Revolution. Cincinnati,
American Jewish Archives. 3[3
370 Liebman S. B. (1982). New World Jewry 1493-1825: Requiem for the
Forgotten. KTAV, New York, p.170, 183. [Liebman is an attorney; LL.B.,
St. Lawrence University, 1929; M.A. (Latin American history), Mexico City
College, 1963; Florida chapter American Jewish Historical Society, 1956-
58; Friends of Hebrew University, 1958-59; American Historical Society
Contributor to scholarly journals on Jewish history.
371 Wiznitzer, A. (1960). Jews in Colonial Brazil .p. 72-3 [Note: Wiznitzer, Arnold
Aharon, educator; Born in Austria, December 20, 1899; Ph.D., University
of Vienna, 1920; Doctor of Hebrew Literature, Jewish Theological
Seminary of America; Emeritus research professor, University of Judaism,
Los Angeles; Contributor to historical journals in the United States and
Brazil including the Journal of Jewish Social Studies and the Publications
of the American Jewish Historical Society. Former president, Brazilian-
Jewish Institute of Historical Research.]
372 Marcus, J. (1989 United States Jewry). 1776-1985. Detroit: Wayne State
University Press, p.586.
373 The Secret Relationship between Blacks and Jews. (1991). Prepared by the
Historical Research Department of the Nation of Islam. Chicago, Illinois:
Latimer Associates.
374 Spielberg, S. (1997). Amistad. Los Angeles: Dreamworks.
375 Raphael, Marc. (1983). Jews and Judaism in the United States: A
Documentary History. New York: Behrman House,
376 Bristow, E. J. (1983). Prostitution and Prejudice. New York: Shocken books.
377 Bristow, E. (1986). Studies in Contemporary Jewry, II. Bloomington,
Indiana: Indiana University Press. p.310.
378 Specter, M (1998). Slave traders Lure Slavic Women. Times-Picayune. New
York Times News Service. January 11.
379 Specter, M (1998).[or]Ibid
380 Specter, M (1998).[or]Ibid
381 Katz, Samuel M. (1998). Hookers in the Holy Land. Moment. April. p.45-78.
382 Katz, Samuel M. (1998). Hookers in the Holy Land. p.47.
383 Katz, Samuel M. (1998). Hookers in the Holy Land. p.48.
384 Katz, Samuel M. (1998). Hookers in the Holy Land. p.49.
385 Josephus, F. (1989). The Works of Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews.
Complete and unabridged, trans., W. Whiston. Peabody, Massachusetts:
Hendrickson Publishers. (12:224).
386 Josephus, F. (1989). The Works of Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews.
387 Alon, G. (1989). The Jews on Their Land in the Talmudic Age (70-640 C. E.).
Trans. G. Levi from Hebrew. Cambridge: Harvard University Press
(Originally published in 1980, 1984 by the Magnes Press, Hebrew
University, Jerusalem) p.16.
388 Avi-Yonah, M. (1976). The Jews under Roman and Byzantine Rule: A
Political History of Palestine from the Bar Kokhba War to the Arab
Conquest. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, reprinted 1984. p.261.
389 Parkes, J. (1934). The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue: A Study of
the Origins of Antisemitism. London: The Soncino Press. p.263, 257-
390 Grant, M. (1973). The Jews in the Roman World. New York: Charles
Scribner’s Sons. p.288.
391 Ibid. p.289.
392 Jones, A. H. M. (1964). The Later Roman Empire 284-602: A Social
Economic and Administrative Survey, 2 vols. Norman, Oklahoma:
University of Oklahoma Press. p.950.
393 Shaw, S. J. (1991). The Jews of the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish
Republic. New York: New York University Press. p. 25.
394 Ibid. p.26.
395 Shaw, S. J. (1991). The Jews of the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish
Republic. New York: New York University Press. p.77.
396 Amador de los Rios, R. (1875-1876). Historia Social, Politica y Religiousa de
los Judios de España y Portugal. Madrid. Vol. I.
397 Ballesteros y Beretta, A. (1918-1936). Historia de España y Su Influencia en
la Historia Universal. Barcelona. Vol. II.
398 Castro, A. (1954). The Structure of Spanish history. Trans. E. L. King.
Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
399 Stillman, N. A. (1979). The Jews of Arab Lands: A History and Source Book.
Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America.
400 Irving, D. (1981). Uprising! London: Hodder and Stoughton.
401 RSV. Genesis 37:6,7.
402 RSV. Genesis 37:26
403 RSV. Genesis 39:7-23
404 RSV. Genesis 41:33.
405 RSV. Genesis 47:14.
406 RJV. for all of above quotes.
407 Weizmann, C. (1949). Trial and Error: The Autobiography of Chaim
Weizmann. New York: Harper and Brothers. p.90.
408 KJV. Genesis 25:23-33
409 KJV. Genesis: 27: 19-39
410 Patai, R. (1977). The Jewish Mind. New York: Scribners. p.234.
411 Aleichem, S. (1937). Funem Yarid. New York.
412 Hook, S. (1989). On Being a Jew. Commentary. Vol. 88, # 4. October 29.
413 Spitz, L. (1946). Sermon by rabbi Leon Spitz. American Hebrew. March1.
414 Truman, Harry S. (1945). As quoted from the diaries of Henry A. Wallace from
his papers at the University of Iowa. Included in Victory Lasky’s book, It
Didn’t Start Watergate.
415 Halkin, Hillel. (1998). Here to stay: An Unrepentant Zionist Reflects on his
Aliyah. Moment. p.5.
416 Menuhin, Moshe. (1965). The Decadence of Judaism in Our Time. New York:
Exposition Press, Inc. p.159.
417 Menuhin, Moshe. (1965). The Decadence of Judaism in Our Time. New York:
Exposition Press, Inc. p.397.
418 Encarta Encyclopedia. (1996). Funk and Wagnalls.
419 Brenner, Lenni. (1984). The Iron Wall : Zionist Revisionism from Jabotinsky
to Shamir. Totowa, New Jersey. : Biblio Distribution Center
420 Jabotinsky, V. (1923). The Iron Wall: We And The Arabs.
421 Look Magazine. (1962). January 16.
423 Barnes Review. (1997). The Balfour Declaration. Jan. vol. 3.
424 Encarta. Balfour Declaration.
425 George, D. L. Memoirs Of The Peace Conference. p.726.
426 Landman, S. (1936). Great Britain, Great Britain:] The Jews And Palestine.
London: New Zionist Press. p.3-6.
427 Grose, P. (1984). Israel In The Mind Of America. New York: Knopf. p.64.
428 Associated Press Online. (1999). Balfour Author Was a Jew.
429 Encarta. Balfour Declaration.
430 Trial Of The Major War Criminals Before The International Military Court.
Nuremberg : November 14th 1945 Oct. 1 1946. Official French Text.
26th April 1946. Debates, Tome XII. D 321.
431 Daily Express. (1933). Judea Declares War on Germany. March 24. p.1.
432 Dawidowicz, L. (1976). Memo Of June 21, 1933, In: A Holocaust Reader.
New York: Behrman. p.150-155.
433 Nicosia, F. R. (1985). The Third Reich And The Palestine Question. Austin:
University Of Texas. p.42.
434 Niewyk, D. L. (1980). The Jews In Weimar Germany. Baton Rouge. p.94-
435 Nicosia, F. (1985). Third Reich. p.1-15.
436 Prinz, J. (1934). We Jews. [Wir Juden.] Berlin: Erich Reiss.
437 Hohne, H. (1971). The Order Of The Death’s Head. Ballantine. p.376.
438 Herzl, T. (1970). Jewish State. New York: Herzl Press. p.33, 35, 36.
439 Weckert, I. (1981). Feuerzeichen: Die Reichskristallnacht. TüBingen:
Grabert. p.212.
440 Black, E. (1984). The Transfer Agreement. New York: MacMillan. p.73.
441 Herzl, T. (1897). Der Kongress. Welt. June 4. Reprinted In: Theodor Herzl’s
Zionistische Schriften (Leon Kellner, Ed.), Erster Teil, Berlin: Jüdisher
Verlag, 1920, p. 190 (And p. 139).
442 Rundschau. (1935). September 17. Quoted In: Yitzhak Arad, With Y. Gutman
and A. Margaliot, Eds. Documents On The Holocaust (Jerusalem: Yad
Vashem. (1981). p.82-83.
443 Kern, E. (1935). Verheimlichte Dokumente. Der Angriff. Munich. (1988).
December 23. p.148.
444 Nicosia, F. (1985). Third Reich. p.56.
445 Brenner, L. (1983). Zionism In The Age Of The Dictators. p.138.
446 Margaliot, A. (1977). The Reaction.… Yad Vashem Studies Jerusalem. Vol.
12. p.90-91.
447 Levine, H. (1975). A Jewish Collaborator In Nazi Germany. Central European
History. Atlanta. September. p.251-281.
448 Wise (1938). Dr. Wise Urges Jews To Declare Selves As Such. New York
Herald Tribune. June 13. p.12.
449 Nicosia, F. (1935). Das Schwarze Korps. September 26. Quoted In: The
Third Reich And The Palestine Question (1985), p.56-57.
450 Nicosia, F. (1985). Third Reich. p.63-64, 105, 219-220.
451 Nicosia, F. (1985). Third Reich. p.141-144.
452 Wistrich, R. (1985). On Hitler’s Critical View Of Zionism In Mein Kampf. See
Vol. 1, Chap. 11. Quoted In: Hitler’s Apocalypse. p.155.
453 Nicosia, F. (1985). Third Reich. p.26-28.
454 Kotze, H. V. (1974). Heeresadjutant Bei Hitler. Stuttgart. p.65, 95.
455 Arad, Y. (1981). Documents On The Holocaust. p.155.
456 Barnes Review. (1995). Secrets of the Mossad. Sept. p. 11.
457 Feilchenfeld, W. (1972). Haavara-Transfer Nach Palüstina. Tübingen:
458 Yisraeli, David (1971). The Third Reich And The Transfer Agreement, Journal
Of Contemporary History. London. No. 2. p.129-148.
459 Encyclopaedia Judaica. (1971). Haavara. Vol. 7. p. 1012-1013.
460 Nicosia, F. (1985). The Third Reich. p.44-49.[consistency!]
461 Hilberg, R. (1985). The Destruction Of The European Jews. New York:
Holmes & Meier, p.140-141.
462 Levy, R. S. (1984). Commentary, Sept. 68-71.32.
463 Original Document In German Auswurtiges Amt Archiv, Bestand 47-59, E
224152 And E 234155-58.
464 Yisraeli, D. (1974). The Palestine Problem In German Politics 1889-1945.
Israel. p.315-317.
465 Polkhen, K. (1976). The Secret Contacts. Journal Of Palestine Studies.
Spring-Summer. p.78-80.
466 Yoar-Gelber. (1939-1942).Zionist Policy And The Fate Of European Jewry.
Yad Vashem Studies. Vol. XII. p.199.
467 Rosenblum, H. (1958). Yediot Aahronot. Jewish Newsletter. New York.
468 Bar Zohar. (1966). Le Prophète Armé — : Ben Gourion. Fayard. Paris. p.146.
469 United Nations General Assembly. (1965). The International Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
470 Shahak, I.. The Racism Of The State Of Israel. p.57.
471 Badi, J. (1960). Fundamental Laws Of The State Of Israel. New York. p.156.
472 U.N. Archives. (1948). A. 648. September 16. p.14.
473 U.N. Archives. (1948). A. 648. September 16. p.14.
474 KJV. Joshua 23:12-13.
475 Exodus (1960). Director & Producer: Otto Preminger. United Artists.
476 De Reynier, J. (1950). Chief Representative Of The International Committee
Of The Red Cross In Jerusalem. (A Jerusalem Un Drapeau Flottait Sur La
Ligne De Feu’, Geneva.
477 Yediot Ahronot. (1972). April 4.
478 Ankori, Zvi (1982). Davar. April 9.
479 Begin, M. (1964). The Revolt: The Story Of The Irgun. Tel-Aviv: Hadar Pub.
480 Haber, E. (1979). Menachem Begin, The Man And The Legend. New York:
Delle Book. p385.
481 Erlich, G. (1992). Not Only Deir Yassin. Hebrew Daily Ha’ir. May 6.
482 Rokach, L. (1980). Israel’s Sacred Terrorism. Bellmont, Mass: Assoc. Arab
American University Grads.
483 Ibid.
484 Ibid.
485 Israel Kahan Commission.
486 United Press International. (2001) Sharon fears to visit Belgium. Sept. 7.
487 Ha’aretz. (2001). As long as he doesn’t hurt us again. Feb. 16, 2001
488 Los Angeles Times. (1998). Mossad’s Checkered Past. Home Edition. pp A-
16. Feb. 27.
489 Fisk, R. (1996). Massacre In Sanctuary: Eyewitness. The Independent. April
19. p.1.
490 Le Monde. (1993). September 12. p.118.
491 Phil Reeves. (2001) War On Terrorism: Israel – Assassins kill general. Independent.
Oct. 18.
492 Phil Reeves. (2001) War On Terrorism: Israel – Assassins kill general. Independent.
Oct. 18.
493 The Independent. (2001) BBC staff are told not to call Israeli killings
‘assassination’. August 4.
494 Sami Sockol, Moshe Reinfeld (1998) May 20. the Israeli daily, Ha’aretz
495 Joel Greenberg (1993). Israel Rethinks Interrogation of Arabs. New York
Times Aug. 14
496 Weizman, Steve. (2001). Rights Groups Cite Israel Torture. AP Online. Nov. 11
497 Jonathan Alter. (2001). Time To Think About Torture; It’s a new world, and
survival may well require old techniques that seemed out of the question.
Newsweek, Nov. 5.
498 St. Louis Post-Dispatch (2001). U.S. Now might have to consider what once
was unthinkable, Dershowitz says.
Nov. 5.
499 Ostrovsky, V. The Other Side Of Deception(confessions of a former Jewish
MOSSAD agent for Israel) p.188
500 Stahl, Leslie. (1996). Interview on CBS. May 11.
501 Mahnaimi, Uzi and Colvin, Marie. (1998). Israel planning ‘ethnic’ bomb as
Saddam caves in. The Sunday Times in the UK. Nov. 15.
502 Ennes, J. (1979). Assault On The Liberty. New York: Random House.
503 Bernard Reich. (2001). Encarta Encyclopedia. Ben Gurion.
504 Katz, Samuel M. (1998). Israel’s covert crisis Moment. Oct.1.
505 Weiner, Tim. (1999) U.S. Now Tells of Much Deeper Damage by Pollard. New
York Times, 11 Jan.
506 Hersh, Seymour. (1999) The Traitor: The Case Against Jonathan Pollard. The
New Yorker Magazine. January 18.
507 Margolis, Eric. (1999). Jonathan Pollard: No Jewish Patriot. Toronto Sun. Jan.
Description: From the Toronto Sun, 1999.
508 Los Angeles Times. (1997). Engineer Admits Divulging Secrets to Israel. Feb.
509 Fox Network News. (2001). Top Stories. Dec.12
510 Bar-Yosef, Avinoam. (1994). The Jews Who Run Clinton’s Court. Maariv.
511 PIA (2001). From a monitored news broadcast of Yid Israel radio. Oct. 3. and
also reported in Pravda.
512 Amotz Asa-El and Dan Williams. (2001). Trading places. Jerusalem Post.
Sept. 28.
513 Statement of former Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu before the U.S. Government
Reform Committee. (2001). Sept. 20.
514 Jerusalem Post. (2001). Thousands of Israelis missing near WTC, Pentagon.
Sept. 12.
515 Lipton, Eric. (2001). Estimates of toll may be too high. New York Times. Sept.
516 McWilliams, Brian. (2001) Instant Messages To Israel Warned Of WTC attack.
Newsbytes. Sept. 27.
517 Dror, Yuval. (2001). Odigo says workers were warned of attack. Ha’aretz. Sept
518 Ibid.
519 Melman, Yossi. (2001). 5 Israelis detained for `puzzling behavior’ after WTC
tragedy. Ha’aretz. Oct. 14
520 Bennet, James. (2001). Spilled Blood Is Seen as Bond That Draws 2 Nations
Closer. NY Times. International section. Sept. 12.
521 Look Magazine. (1962). January 16.
522 Gross, F. B. (1975). Faces of Death. MPI Home.
523 Irving, D. (1964). Destruction of Dresden. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
524 Barnes Review. (1966). Aerial Bombing of German Cities. March/April Vol. 4.
p. 2.
525 Barnes Review. (1996).The Mass Expulsion of Ethnic Germans. Oct. 96 Vol.
2. 10
526 Bacque, J. (1989). Other Losses. Canada: Stoddart Publishing.
527 Kaufman, Theodore N. (1941). Germany must Perish! New York: Gordon
528 Frank, Anne. (1952). Diary of a Young Girl. Translated from the Dutch by B.
M. Mooyaart-Doubleday, with an introduction by Eleanor Roosevelt.
Garden City, New York: Doubleday.
529 Ibid.
530 Wiesel, E. (1969). Night. New York: Avon Books. p.41-44, 79, 93.
531 D. Calder. (1987). The Sunday Sun. [Toronto, Canada. May 31. p.C4.
532 Wiesenthal, S. (1967). The Murderers Among Us. New York: McGraw-Hill
533 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1952).
534 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1947),(1952). & (1956).
535 Encyclopaedia Britannica. (1967).
536 Paroles d’étranger (1982). Editions du Seuil. 86.
537 Kennedy, J. F. (1963). Profiles in Courage. New York: Pocket Books.
538 Ibid.
539 Ibid.
540 Ibid.
541 Washington Daily News. (1949). January 9.
542 Sunday Pictorial. (1949). January 23. London.
543 Chicago Daily Tribune. (1948). February 23.
544 Blumenson, M. (1972). The Patton Papers. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
545 Sack, J. (1993). An Eye For An Eye. New York: Basic Books.
546 Bacque, James (1997). Crimes and Mercies : The Fate of German Civilians
Under Allied Occupation, 1944-1950. Toronto: Little, Brown and
Company, Canada.
547 Barnes Review. (1997). Anderson File: The Movie and the Truth. vol. 3. p. 17.
548 Holocaust Revisionism Source Book. (1994). Quote from Vanity Fair. pg.1.
549 Butler, R. (1983). Legions of Death. England. p.235-237.
550 Nuremberg exhibit, U.S.S.R. p.197.
551 Porter, Carlos. (1988). Made in Russia. Facsimile reprint from (IMT (Blue
Series) vol.1. p.252.). p.159.
552 Wiesenthal, S. (1946). Die Neue Weg. 17/18 p.4-5
553 Shirer, W. L. (1960). The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich : A History of Nazi
Germany. New York. p.971
554 Laqueur, W. (1981). The Terrible Secret : Suppression of the Truth About
Hitler’s “Final Solution.” Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
555 Sereny, Gitta. (1974). Into That Darkness: From Mercy Killing to Mass
Murder. New York: McGraw-Hill. p.141.
556 Los Angeles Times. (1981).Nazi Soap Rumor During World War II. May 16.
557 Toronto Globe & Mail. (1990). April 25.
558 Weber, Mark. (1991). Jewish Soap. Journal for Historical Review. Vol. 2.
559 Barnes Review. (1998). The Myth that Refuses to Die. Mar/Apr. Vol. 4. P. 63.
560 Hugo, R. (1983). The Hitler Diaries. New York: Morrow.
561 After much intimidation Cole later repudiated his revisionist viewpoints, but
the tape of Francizek Piper remains.
562 Van Pelt, R. J. & Dwork, D. (1996). Auschwitz: 1270 to Present. New Haven
and London: W.W. Norton & Company. p.363-364.
563 Hinsley, F. H. (1984). British Intelligence in the Second World War: Its
Influence on Strategy and Operations. New York: Cambridge University
564 Pressac, J. C. (1989). Auschwitz: Techniques and Operation of the Gas
Chambers. New York: Beate Klarsfeld Foundation.
565 Mayer, A. J. (1988). Why Did The Heavens Not Darken?: The “Final Solution”
In History. New York: Pantheon Books. p.365
566 Ibid.]p.362.
567 Compton’s Multimedia Encyclopedia. (1991). Miriam Webster.
568 Ibid.
569 Hilberg, R. (1961). The Destruction of the European Jews. New York: Harper
& Row.
570 The Revised Hilberg. (1986). Simon Wiesenthal Annual. Vol. 3. 294.
571 Kelley, J., Eisler, P., Kelly K. (1997). Silent Witness. USA Today. May 2. FINAL
Page 13A.
572 Barnes Review. (1997). Red Rampage 1945. April. vol. 3.
573 Kennedy, J.F. Profiles in Courage.
574 Mason, A. T. (1956). Harlan Fiske Stone: Pillar of the Law. Viking Press.
575 Hilberg, R. (1996). Holocaust. Encarta Encyclopedia.
576 Barnes Review
577 Goldmann, N. (1978). The Jewish Paradox. New York: Grosset & Dunlap.
578 Ibid. p.122-123.
579 Wiesel, E. (1982). Legends of Our Time. (chapter 12: Appointment with Hate.)
New York: Shocken Books. p.142.
580 Dina Kyriakidou. (1996). Le Pen Fights Fine. Reuters Wire Service. June 21.
581 Churchill, Winston, Sir. (1989). The Second World War. Norwalk,
Connecticut: Easton Press. Indexes: 1. Gathering storm — 2. Their finest
hour — 3. Grand Alliance — 4. Hinge of fate — 5. Closing the ring — 6.
Triumph and tragedy.
582 Eisenhower, Dwight D. (1997). Crusade in Europe. Baltimore, London:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
583 Wiesenthal Center Press Release (1997). December 8.
584 Barnes Review. (1997).Truth for Germany: The Guilt Question of the Second
World War. December. Vol. 3. 12.
585 Daily Express. (1933). Judea Declares War on Germany. March 24. p.1.
586 Smith, Drew L. (1971). The Legacy Of The Melting Pot. North Quincy,
Massachusetts. Christopher Publishing House
587 Congressional Record, April 12, 1924. 6,265-6,266.
588 Ross, E. A. (1914). The Old World And The New: The Significance Of Past
And Present Immigration To The American People. New York: The
Century Co. p.144..
589 Congressional Record, April 12, 1924. 6,272.
590 Congressional Record, April 23, 1952. 2,285.
591 Joint Hearings Before The Subcommittees Of The Committees On The
Judiciary, 82nd Congress, First Session, On S. 716, H. R. 2379, And H. R.
2816. March 6-April 9, 1951. 563
592 Congressional Record, April 23, 1952. 4,320.
593 Javits, J. (1951). Let’s Open Our Gates. New York Times Magazine. July 8.
p.8, 33.
594 Congress Weekly. (1956). Editorial of February 20. p.3
595 Cohen, N. W. (1972). Not Free To Desist: The American Jewish Committee
1906-1966. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society Of America.
596 Ibid. p.342.
597 Sachar, H. (1992). A History Of Jews In America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
598 Ibid. p.427.
599 MacDonald, K. B. (1994). A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism As A
Group Evolutionary Strategy. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.
600 MacDonald, K. B. (1998). Separation And Its Discontents: Toward An
Evolutionary Theory Of Anti-Semitism. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.
601 Silberman, C. E. (1985). A Certain people: American Jews and Their Lives
Today. New York: Summit Books.
602 Higham , J. (1984). Send These To Me: Immigrants In Urban America.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
603 Bennett, M. T. (1963). American Immigration Policies: A History. Washington,
DC: Public Affairs Press. p.181.
604 A. M. Rosenthal. (1992). New York Times. December 9.
605 A. M. Rosenthal. (1992). .New York Times. December 9.
606 Jewish Bulletin. (1993). July. 23.
607 Jewish Bulletin. (1993). Feb. 19.
608 Weyl, N. & Possony, S. (1963). Geography Of Intellect. Chicago: H. Regnery
609 Van den Haag, E. The Jewish Mystique. New York, Stein and Day.
610 Pittsburgh Post Gazette. (1969). Apr. 1. p.26.
611 Darwin, C. (1892). The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection, Or
The Preservation Of Favored Races In The Struggle For Life. New York, D.
Appleton And Company.
612 Keith, Arthur, Sir, (1949). A New Theory of Human Evolution. New York.
Philosophical Library
613 Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The Genetical Theory Of Social Behaviour .Vols. I,
II. Journal Of Theoretical Biology. 7:p.1-52.
614 Wilson, E. (1975). Sociobiology: A New Synthesis. Cambridge: Harvard U.
615 Grolier’s Electronic Encyclopedia. (1994).“Dog”
616 Frank, Gelya. (1997). Jews, Multiculturalism, And Boasian Anthropology. The
American Anthropologist. (99 (4) 731-745.
617 Frank, Geyla (1997).
618 Meyerhoff, B. (1978). Number Our Days. E. P. Hutton.
619 Chase, G. A., & V. A. McKusick (1972). Founder Effect In Tay-Sachs Disease.
American Journal Of Human Genetics. 25:339-352.
620 Fraikor, A. L. (1977). Tay-Sachs Disease: Genetic Drift Among The Ashkenazi
Jews. Social Biology. 24:117-134.
621 Sachs, L., & M. Bat-Miriam (1957). The Genetics Of Jewish Populations.
American Journal Of Human Genetics. 9:117-126.
622 Mourant, A. E., A. C. Kopec, & K. Domaniewska-Sobczak (1978). The
Genetics of the Jews. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
623 Mourant, A. E., Kopec, A. C. & Domaniewska-Sobczak D. (1978). The
Genetics Of The Jews. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
624 Bonné-Tamir, B., Ashbel, S., & Kenett, R. (1977). Genetic Markers: Benign
And Normal Traits Of Ashkenazi Jews In Genetic Diseases Among
Ashkenazi Jews. Ed. R. M. Goodman & A. G. Motulsky. New York: Raven
625 Karlin, S., R. Kenett & Bonné-Tamir, B. (1979). Analysis Of Biochemical
Genetic Data On Jewish Populations II. Results And Interpretations Of
Heterogeneity Indices And Distance Measures With Respect To Standards.
American Journal Of Human Genetics. 31:341-365.
626 Mille, S. & Kobyliansky, E. (1985). Dermatoglyphic Distances Between Israeli
Jewish Population Groups Of Different Geographic Extraction. Human
Biology. 57: 97-111.
627 Kobyliansky, E. & Livshits, G. A. (1985). Morphological Approach To The
Problem Of The Biological Similarity Of Jewish And Non-Jewish
Populations. Annals Of Human Biology. 12:203-212.
628 Sofaer, J. A., Smith, P. & Kaye, E. (1986). Affinities Between Contemporary
And Skeletal Jewish And Non-Jewish Groups Based On Tooth
Morphology. American Journal Of Physical Anthropology. 70:265-275.
629 Lenz, F. (1931). The Inheritance Of Intellectual Gifts In Human Heredity,
Trans. E. Paul & C. Paul, Ed. E. Baur, E. Fischer, & F. Lenz. New York:
630 Patai, R., & Patai, J. (1989). The Myth Of The Jewish Race. Detroit, Wayne
State University Press.
631 Cohen, Steven M. (1986). Vitality And Resilience In The American Jewish
Family. In S. M. Cohen & P. E. Hyman (Eds.), The Jewish Family: Myths
And Reality. New York Holmes & Meier. 228.
632 Stolper, P. (1984). Jewish Alternatives In Love, Dating, And Marriage.
NCSY/Orthodox Union/University Press Of America. 64.
633 Landau, D. (1993). Piety And Power: The World Of Jewish Fundamentalism.
New York: Hill And Wang. 300.
634 Shaffir, W. (1986). Persistence And Change In The Hasidic Family. In The
Jewish Family: Myths And Reality. Ed. S. M. Cohen & P. E. Hyman. New
York: Holmes & Meier. p.190.
635 Ellman, Y. (1987). Intermarriage In The United States: A Comparative Study
Of Jews And Other Ethnic And Religious Groups. Jewish Social Studies.
Vol. 49. p.1-26.
636 Kosmin, B. A., Goldstein, S., Waksberg, J., Lerer, N., Keysar, A., &
Scheckner, J. (1991). Highlights Of The CJF 1990 National Jewish
Population Survey. New York: Council Of Jewish Federations.
637 Meyer, M. A. (1988). Response To Modernity: A History Of The Reform
Movement In Judaism. New York: Oxford University Press.
638 Waxman, C. (1989). The Emancipation, The Enlightenment, And The
Demography Of American Jewry. Judaism. Vol. 38. p.488-501.
639 Elazar, D. J. (1980). Community And Polity: Organizational Dynamics Of
American Jewry, First Published In 1976. Philadelphia: The Jewish
Publication Society Of America.
640 Ibid
641 Zborowski, M., & Herzog, E. (1952). Life Is With People: The Jewish Little-
Town Of Eastern Europe. New York: International Universities Press.
642 Lieberman, S. & Weinfeld. (1978). Demographic Trends And Jewish Survival.
Midstream. November.
643 Jeremias, J. (1969). Jerusalem In The Time Of Jesus: An Investigation Into
Economic And Social Conditions During The New Testament Period.
Trans. F. H. Cave & C. H. Cave (Based On An Earlier Draft Of A
Translation By M. E. Dahl). Philadelphia: Fortress Press. p.311.
644 Shahak, I. (1994). Jewish History, Jewish Religion.
645 Rushton, J. Philippe. (1995). Race, Evolution, and Behavior : A Life History
Perspective. New Brunswick, New Jersey. Transaction Publishers.
646 Churchill, W.I. (1920). Illustrated Sunday Herald. February 8.
647 Levinson, B.M. (1960). A Comparative Study Of The Verbal And Performance
Ability Of Monolingual And Bilingual Native Born Jewish Preschool
Children Of Traditional Parentage. Journal Of Genetic Psychology. Vol.
97. p.93-112.
648 Brown, F. (1944). A Comparative Study Of The Intelligence Of Jewish And
Scandinavian Kindergarten Children. Vol. 64.p.67-92.
649 Backman, M. E. (1972). Patterns Of Mental Abilities: Ethnic, Socio-Economic,
And Sex Differences. American Educational Research Journal. Vol. 9.p.1-
650 Levinson, B. M. (1957). The Intelligence Of Applicants For Admission To
Jewish Day Schools. Jewish Social Studies. Vol. 19 p.29-140.
651 Journal Of Genetic Psychology (1958). Cultural Pressure And WAIS Scatter In
A Traditional Jewish Setting. Vol. 93.p.277-286.
652 Journal Of Genetic Psychology. (1960). A Comparative Study Of The Verbal
And Performance Ability Of Monolingual And Bilingual Native Born Jewish
Preschool Children Of Traditional Parentage. Vol. 97.p.93-112.
653 Journal Of Genetic Psychology. (1962). Jewish Subculture And WAIS
Performance Among Jewish Aged. Vol. 100. p.55-68.
654 Mosse, W. E. (1987). Jews In The German Economy: The German-Jewish
Economic Élite 1820-1935. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press. p.166.
655 Swartzbaugh, Richard. (1973). The Mediator; His Strategy for Power. Cape
Canaveral, Florida: Howard Allen.
656 Lynn, R. (1987). The Intelligence Of The Mongoloids: A Psychometric,
Evolutionary And Neurological Theory. Personality And Individual
Differences. Vol. 8.p.813-844.
657 Rushton, J. P. (1991). Race Differences In Intelligence: A Global Perspective.
Mankind Quarterly. Vol. 31. p.255-296.
658 J. Lynch, C Ed. (1992). Intelligence: Ethnicity And Culture. In Cultural
Diversity And The Schools. Ed.. S. Modgil. London and Washington, D.C.:
Falmer Press.
659 Hertzberg, A. & Hirt-Manheimer, A. (1998). Relax. It’s Okay to be the Chosen
People. Reform Judaism. May

Published on February 11, 2009 at 11:48 pm  Comments (1)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

One CommentLeave a comment

  1. I have been actively posting on comments which may be of interest to you. I write mostly all of my posts and usually use credible videios from Jew Pack 1; 2; 3; 4; and others as well. I am satisfied with my receiption there, it is a battle, what I would like get is what were the official warrents/exact charges out on Menahem Beigin by the English Crown as this is oon one of my posts.

    by doing a simple text search you can find this post on the internet.

    Age 38, height 174cm a Jewish Zionist and the Stern
    gang in the King David Hotel bombing, They used a high
    jacked truck to deliver the explosives. They dressed in Arab clothing, (FALSE FLAG) and carried the 350 Kg of Jelly Nitric high explosives in 7 butter churns, planted the bomb in broad daylight in a building full of people. IZAHK ZADOK, Irgun

    some people don’t believe me, or don’t want to.

    I would appreciate your help, I do wish to write a post on the second Jerusalem hotel bombing, but I have found no sources, can you direct me to some?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: