A Closer Look at the Enemy

by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

YOU KNOW, this world we live in is a complicated place. Behind every phenomenon we observe there are many forces at work, some of them obvious and some not so obvious. Trying to separate what's important from what's not important can be a confusing task. Every week when we discuss on this program what's happening in the world around us, and I try to explain events so that listeners can have a clear understanding of them, I must simplify the world. Clarity requires simplification. Understanding demands simplification. A useful explanation requires separating the important things from those which are less important and focusing first on the former. If I tried to explain every phenomenon in the world in complete detail, leaving out nothing, I would succeed only in confusing everyone, especially myself.

So if we want to understand the world we must simplify it. But we must be careful not to oversimplify, or our explanations lose their value. Occasionally my listeners accuse me of oversimplifying, or they are aware of some factor which I have not discussed in detail, and they suspect that I have left it out deliberately because it would contradict some theory of mine.

Here's an old example of the way oversimplification can lead to confusion: After the Bolshevik takeover of Russia early in this century, many anti-communists in America spread the word that a majority of the Bolshevik leaders were not Russians but were Jews, and they warned Americans that there also were many Jewish communists in America who posed a danger of subversion. This was back in the days before the exposure of the Rosenbergs and other communist-Jewish spies and conspirators in America. The Jewish media countered this warning with a deliberate campaign of confusion. They said, "Oh, you used to accuse of us being international bankers and capitalists and of subverting nations with our money. Now you accuse us of being international communists and of being a threat to capitalism. So which is it? Are we capitalists or are we communists? It can't be both, so make up your mind." This response was supposed to make their accusers look foolish, and with much of the public the trick worked.

Of course, the truth of the matter is that Jews are both capitalists and communists -- and neither. They are, first and last, Jews, and that really says it all, if one understands what a Jew is. The average Gentile thinks that a communist must be someone who is a believer in communist ideology, and a capitalist must be someone who is a believer in the ideology of free enterprise. It doesn't occur to him that for many Jews ideology is not something that one actually believes; it is simply a tool which one uses for deceiving non-Jews. The aim always is to acquire wealth and power, and whether one uses capitalist methods and ideology or communist methods and ideology for this purpose depends upon the situation. Regardless of the methods one uses, one remains a Jew. That's what is important.

And of course, most of the people who were trying to warn their fellow Americans about the dangers represented by the Jews in their midst didn't try to explain that, because most Americans simply wouldn't have understood; it would have been too complicated for them. So the anti-communists simply said: "Watch out! The Jews are communists or are sympathetic to the communists." And that was an oversimplification of the truth.

Here's a more recent example: I have warned Americans that Bill Clinton is a puppet of the Jews, an obedient tool of the Jews, and I have pointed out the fact that most of the important appointments he has made as President have gone to Jews: two Supreme Court justices, his entire foreign policy and national security team, and so on. And I have stated that the Jewish media got him elected in 1992 and then reelected in 1996.

The Importance of Leadership

by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

EVERY TIME I fly somewhere for a meeting or a speaking engagement, I have to spend an hour or two in airports. That's a very democratic experience. One really sees the dregs of humanity in airports these days. It used to be that what bothered me most was seeing young White women with mongrel offspring in tow. What irritates me at least as much these days is the sight of young White males trying to look and act like Blacks. In every airport one sees these sorry specimens wearing hip-hop garb: backward baseball caps, baggy shorts or trousers, and clueless expressions on their faces. More and more one sees these slack-jawed cretins with their hair done in cornrows and pieces of metal through their lips or cheeks or nostrils.

I mentioned in a recent broadcast that I saw young Whites like this shuffling along the sidewalks of Philadelphia during one of my rare visits to that urban pesthole last month. The more White males I see garbed and groomed like Blacks, the less surprised I am to see White females leading by the hand the disgusting proof that they have been dabbling in bestiality. It's obvious that this sort of degeneracy is rapidly becoming much more widespread. When I did an interview with Rolling Stone magazine nearly two years ago, they sent along a German photographer who had his blond hair done in dreadlocks. I don't know why I should expect more of Germans than that. After all, they have had 57 years -- two generations -- of Judaeo-American forced education in democracy now. Turn on any TV receiver in Germany, and you will see much of the same poisonous, race-destroying filth from Hollywood that you see here. Young Germans watch Sumner Redstone's MTV just about as much as young Americans do. And in Germany as in America: monkey see, monkey do.

Last year the first-place photojournalism award for the best photograph by a newspaper photographer went to Mike Urban of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, for a photograph he took during the Mardi Gras riot there. I talked about that riot on this program last year. Gangs of Blacks ran through the mostly White crowd of Mardi Gras revelers, snatching purses, punching White women in the face, throwing them to the ground, and kicking them senseless, while Seattle's cops stood on the sidelines and refused to interfere, lest they be accused of "racial profiling." One young White man who tried to help a young White woman who had been knocked down and was being kicked by Blacks, was smashed in the head by a Black wielding a bottle and was killed. I repeatedly watched the newsreel footage of the riot, and it clearly was a Black-on-White riot.

But not entirely. There were some Whites among the rioters: "wiggers" I call them. That means "White niggers." They're the ones with the backward baseball caps. Mike Urban's prize-winning photograph, which the Seattle Post-Intelligencer did not have the courage to publish, is of a young White woman in the crowd who has been stripped naked by a gang of men and is being pawed and sexually abused by some of them while others constrain her. Most of the 20 or so men holding the naked girl down and pawing her are non-Whites: mestizos or Blacks. But in the photograph one can see clearly three or four White males -- wiggers -- grinning as they help the Blacks hold the struggling girl: a shocking and sickening portrait of the reality of multiculturalism.

What should be done with wiggers? In my view they are a thousand times worse than Blacks, and when the time of cleansing for America comes, they certainly will be dealt with first.

Thoughts on Recruiting, Part One

by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

THE WEST is being destroyed as much by sick, criminal, or irresponsible Whites who take their orders from Jews, attempt to curry the favor of Jews, or are under the influence of Jewish ideas as it is by the Jews themselves. Without the active collaboration of millions of White men and women, the Jews would be impotent. This self-evident fact raises several questions relating to recruiting for the Alliance — and, ultimately, to ethical behavior for members.

For example, how does one judge the fitness for membership of a former collaborator? What degree or type of collaboration puts a person forever beyond the pale? What mitigating circumstances should be taken into consideration?

Before answers to these specific questions are attempted, the scope of the problem should be set forth clearly. First, in a strict sense nearly every White person is a collaborator to some degree. There are very few people in the West who have put moral principles first in their lives and have refused absolutely every form of collaboration.

Nearly everyone is at least a passive collaborator — that is, he fails to take those actions which reasonably could be expected to thwart the Jews in one way or another: He fails to find out which merchants and other businessmen in his community are Jews, so that he can avoid buying their goods and services, thereby withholding money from the Jewish community which would increase its political strength; he fails to speak out forcefully against false teachings in the schools in his community, thus allowing the Jews to spread their poison unchallenged; in general, he fails to keep always in mind that a race war to the death is in progress, and that he is a soldier in that war.

Clearly, if every passive collaborator were judged unfit for Alliance membership, the pool of potential recruits would be extremely small. Yet, passive collaboration is not a minor sin. If all passive collaboration were halted, the West immediately would become an untenable theater of operations for the Jews, despite all the efforts of their active collaborators.

The problem of passive collaboration is a difficult one. It is not easy to avoid some types of collaborations when one lives in enemy-controlled territory. Paying taxes to the U.S. government certainly is a form of collaboration, for example, as is serving in the U.S. armed forces, even as a draftee. And, it should be noted, there may be circumstances which make some forms of passive collaboration justifiable. The National Office, for example, does not usually take into consideration whether or not a company from which it purchases office supplies or books is owned by a Jew. Is this justifiable collaboration? Would the same behavior be justifiable on the part of a White person not actively opposing the Jews? What’s the difference? The whole question of how one should behave in enemy-controlled territory is an interesting ethical problem, which should be explored at a latter opportunity.

Classic Audio: Mossad and the Jewish Problem

This was Dr. Pierce's last ADV, recorded less than a month before his death.

by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

http://nationalvanguard.org/audio/2002-06-29-mossad-and-the-jewish-problem.mp3

FOR SEVERAL YEARS I have been warning in these broadcasts about the growing infiltration and subversion of American law-enforcement agencies by Jewish pressure groups. This process, which has been going on at a significant rate for more than two decades, accelerated during the Clinton administration, especially after the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, when Jewish groups put themselves forward as "experts on terrorism," based on their experience in repressing Palestinians and on their undercover snooping into dissident groups in the United States. They offered training seminars to the FBI and other Federal police agencies, to various military units, and to state and local police agencies.

"We will show you how to recognize terrorists and potential terrorists and how to deal with them. We will tell you about these dangerous dissident organizations, these "hate" groups, and we will help you to prevent another terrorist bombing, such as the one carried out by Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City," the Jewish groups told the police and military agencies. The most visible of these groups was the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, but as we will see, there also were other, less visible Jewish groups at work.

Never mind that Timothy McVeigh had not belonged to any dissident group but had acted solely as an angry individual determined to send the government a message that its behavior in massacring the members of the Branch Davidian church in Waco, Texas, would not be tolerated. Never mind that the Anti-Defamation League and other Jewish groups offering their services really were pushing the military and law-enforcement agencies to shift their emphasis toward the investigation and repression of dissidents and the enforcement of a brand-new category of laws -- so-called "hate crime" and "speech crime" laws -- rather than toward the prevention of terrorism.

Never mind those things; it was the Clinton era, and Bill Clinton had brought more Jews into the government than any previous President. Jews were riding high in the Clinton administration, from Monica Lewinsky to Madaleine Albright. When the Jews wanted something, the Jews got it, and smart bureaucrats, including those in the military and law-enforcement agencies, knew better than to ask questions.

By Way of Deception Thou Shalt Do War

Does Jewish survival strategy demand misdirection, coverups, and colossal lies?

by Dr. William L. Pierce

THE MOTTO of Israel's spy agency, Mossad, is, according to recently defected Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky: "By way of deception thou shalt do war." That motto describes more than the modus operandi of the world's most ruthless and feared organization of professional assassins and espionage agents; it really describes the modus vivendi of an entire race. It is necessary to understand that fact before one can hope to understand fully the role of the Jews in national and world affairs.

The concept of a race eternally at war with the rest of the world is alien to us. It is difficult to believe or even to grasp. When we examine such a concept and begin sifting the evidence it is easy to become confused. On the one hand we have the Old Testament injunctions to the Hebrews from their tribal god, speaking through their prophets, to annihilate every Gentile nation over which they gain power:

And thou shalt consume all the peoples which the Lord thy God shall deliver unto thee; thine eye shall not pity them . . . thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. (Deuteronomy 7:16, 20:16)

Similarly bloodthirsty, explicit injunctions are repeated so often in the Jews' holy books that we can only assume that they are meant to be taken seriously. The historical evidence suggests that in ancient times the Jews did indeed take their religion seriously: they were notorious everywhere and at all times as implacable haters of humanity who in turn were thoroughly despised by every people among whom they lived.

Then on the other hand we have the modern, American Jew in the role of humanitarian, shunning the instruments of war and urging that all citizens, including himself, be disarmed, in order to make the streets of our cities kinder and gentler. Not only do the Jews provide the principal impetus to America's gun-control effort, but they are found in the forefront of every other squishy, do-good movement, from those ostensibly aimed at reducing hostility between the races to those designed to increase tolerance of homosexuals and their practices.

The Cobbler and the Professor

by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

INTRODUCTORY NOTE: On April 30, 1978, Dr. Pierce spoke to a group of Washington-area Alliance members on the type of people we want to recruit for the Alliance. His talk was prompted by an incident which had occurred two days earlier, at an international meeting of anti-communists in Washington. Although virtually all those attending the meeting were Jew-wise, they were mostly middle-class types who are afraid to express their view openly for fear of jeopardizing their incomes. They will talk a very brave line against the Jews behind closed doors and drawn blinds — i.e., when they are sure that their talk will not provoke the Jews into some form of retaliation — but they will run like rabbits at the first threat of being “exposed.”

Into the meeting walked a 74-year-old gentleman, a retired cobbler, with a wooden leg. He had lost his leg during World War II, fighting communists as a member of the underground in his native Lithuania. When a Jewish commissar had ordered him arrested and executed, he had escaped to the West — but not before his left leg was shattered by 13 machine-gun bullets.

This old gentleman, who has often distributed Alliance publications in the past, began distributing leaflets explaining the Jewish origins of communism to the other persons at the meeting. Hardly had he begun, however, when the director of the meeting, a former university professor who now makes a very good living arranging middle-class anti-communist meetings, sicced the police on him and had him thrown out of the hotel where the meeting was being held.

What follows has been excerpted from Dr. Pierce’s talk:

THE BASIC QUESTION raised by Friday’s incident in Washington involving the ex-cobbler and the ex-professor is this: Which of the two is the sort of person we are looking for? More generally, which of the two represents the type of man or woman who can be organized into a force capable of whipping the Jews and their allies and then carrying our truth on to victory?

Toward a Healthy Society

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kybN4dlBA5c

By Dr. William L. Pierce

I'VE SPOKEN BEFORE about the deliberately destructive role of the mass media in American society. I've talked about the psychology of liberalism, about what makes liberals do the crazy and destructive things they do. Today, though, instead of talking about the enemies of our society, the enemies of our people, let's just talk about our people and the sort of society that we need.

You know, a society is a very complex thing: it is like a living organism. It responds to selective environmental forces, and it evolves. In past ages it was the struggle of our people to survive, the competition of our people against other peoples, other races, which determined the nature of our society. Societies which functioned well survived. Societies which didn't function well perished. Historically, if some crazy liberal came along and were able to change all of the rules and structures in a society to suit some egalitarian fantasy of his, the society would sink like a rock, and its people would perish. And that's what's happening to our society today, although it may not be apparent to us because of the time scale. After the experimenters finish their deadly work, it may take a society 200 years to disintegrate completely and sink out of sight. That's not long from a historical viewpoint, but it's long enough so that most of the people involved never realize what's happening to them.

The society we had in Europe up until the end of the 18th century — or one may say, the various national societies there, which really were very much alike when compared with any non-European society — this European society had evolved over a period of many, many generations of our people, and it had fine-tuned itself to our special nature; it had developed its institutions and its ways of doing things which suited us as a people and allowed us to form viable, efficient communities. And when we colonized North America and other parts of the world, we brought the essential elements of our society with us.

The Holocaust Problem

by Dr. William L. Pierce

A LOS ANGELES COUNTY Superior Court judge ruled last month that the so-called “Holocaust” — the alleged extermination of six million Jews by Germany’s National Socialist government during the Second World War — is a historical fact and “is not reasonably subject to dispute.” The ruling was the outcome of a lawsuit by a Jewish concentration camp “survivor,” Mel Mermelstein, now a successful Long Beach, Calif., businessman, against the publishers of a “revisionist” historical periodical, The Journal of Historical Review. (ILLUSTRATION: Buchenwald concentration camp, May 1945: Why were there so many “survivors,” if the German plan was to exterminate all Jews? Jews were put behind barbed wire in Germany during the Second World War for exactly the same reason Japanese were locked up in the United States: because they could not be trusted. Many American “liberators” of Germany’s concentration camp eventually reached the conclusion that the world would have been better off, however, if there had been no survivors, but few had the moral courage to say it. General George Patton was an exception. After becoming well acquainted with the nature of the people [officially called “Displaced Persons”] his troops freed from Germany’s concentration camps, he noted in his diary in September 1945: “Harrison [a U.S. State Department official] and his ilk believe that the Displaced Person is a human being, which he is not, and this applies particularly to the Jews, who are lower than animals.”)

The only real purpose of the periodical — the claims of its publishers notwithstanding — was to cast doubt on Jewish Holocaust claims, and that purpose has been reflected in the pages of each issue. As a promotional stunt The Journal of Historical Review rashly offered a $50,000 reward to anyone who could prove that a single Jew was killed in a gas chamber by the German government during the Second World War. Mermelstein accepted the challenge; sued when, he alleged, the publishers reneged on their $50,000 offer; and won his case.

Anne Frank Hoax Exposed

Clever Jew Made Millions from Dead Daughter

by Dr. William L. Pierce

TUCKED AWAY ON pages 119 and 122 of the October 6 issue of Der Spiegel, a weekly German news magazine comparable to Time or Newsweek, was a news item of considerable significance: A scientific analysis of the manuscript purported to be the original diary of Anne Frank, a Jewish girl who died in a German concentration camp during the Second World War, has revealed that the manuscript could not have been written before 1951, six years after the end of the war. (ILLUSTRATION: Anne Frank. She died of typhus in 1945 — but she didn’t write a diary.)

The significance of Der Spiegel’s revelation of this fraud is twofold. First, the printing of the story in a mass-circulation publication constitutes a major break with past treatments of similar news. The German news media, though not under the Jewish monopoly control which blights the media in this country, generally follow a pro-Jewish line, a heritage from the immediate postwar years when the Allied occupation forces gave publishing licenses only to those Germans who had proved their disloyalty to their country during the war. Consequently, most news tending to cast doubt on Jewish stories about gas chambers and the like from the World War II era has either been blacked out altogether or downplayed and given very unsympathetic treatment. The present article, though accompanied by copious apologies and held back for six months after it became news, would not have been printed at all a year or two ago.

General Patton's Warning

by Dr. William L. Pierce

At the end of World War II one of America’s top military leaders accurately assessed the shift in the balance of world power which that war had produced and foresaw the enormous danger of communist aggression against the West. Alone among U.S. leaders he warned that America should act immediately, while her supremacy was unchallengeable, to end that danger. Unfortunately, his warning went unheeded, and he was quickly silenced by a convenient “accident” which took his life. On the 69th anniversary of General Patton's death, we are proud to republish this essay from William Pierce's Attack! newspaper.

THIRTY-TWO YEARS AGO, in the terrible summer of 1945, the U.S. Army had just completed the destruction of Europe and had set up a government of military occupation amid the ruins to rule the starving Germans and deal out victors’ justice to the vanquished. General George S. Patton, commander of the U.S. Third Army, became military governor of the greater portion of the American occupation zone of Germany.

Patton was regarded as the “fightingest” general in all the Allied forces. He was considerably more audacious and aggressive than most commanders, and his martial ferocity may very well have been the deciding factor which led to the Allied victory. He personally commanded his forces in many of the toughest and most decisive battles of the war: in Tunisia, in Sicily, in the cracking of the Siegfried Line, in holding back the German advance during the Battle of the Bulge, in the exceptionally bloody fighting around Bastogne in December 1944 and January 1945.

The Essence of Judaism

by Dr. William L. Pierce

THE JEWISH PROBLEM is as old as the Jewish race. Over three thousand years ago the Jews were formed as a racial and national community in Egypt. There the former slave Joseph had parlayed his talents for necromancy and grain-speculation into a virtual dictatorship at the side of the Pharaoh. “As for the people, he reduced them to serfdom from one end of the land to the other” (Genesis 47:21). Then Joseph threw open Egypt to his Jewish brethren: “You shall feed on the fat of the land” and “the best that the land of Egypt offers is yours” (Genesis 45:18, 20).

When a more national-minded Pharaoh turned the tables on the Jews they were forced to flee, but not before relieving the Egyptians of their gold and silver (Exodus 12:35–36). And so the pattern of Jewish history was set: from outcasts to fellow-citizens, then trusted advisers, and finally, ruthless masters. Then follow the persecutions, pogroms, and expulsions which have won for the Jews so much undeserved sympathy.

The great mass of American Whites seems indifferent to the Jewish question. This is not to say that Americans are unmindful of the Jews — far from it. The Jews are presently more prominent in American life than they have ever been before, and they feel less need to dissimulate and disguise the outward traits which have traditionally brought upon them suspicion and dislike. A name change or a nose job is no longer the prerequisite for social and political acceptance by Gentiles. On the contrary, to qualify as unprejudiced in today’s America, non-Jews must appear amenable to Jewish jokes, Yiddish slang, kosher hotdogs, and Israel bonds.

The Ideological Roots of Zionism

Paperback Reveals Astounding Zionist Mentality

by Dr. William L. Pierce

AN INTERESTING and important paperback hit the newsstands a couple of months ago. It is the New American Library (Signet) edition of Max Dimont’s 1971 book, The Indestructible Jews.

A quick skim of the book will convince the average reader that it is 482 pages of stark, raving madness. And it is 482 pages of stark, raving madness! But it is a revealing sort of madness that is well worth a careful, sober scrutiny by every American patriot (and by patriots of all lands) concerned about the menace of Zionism.

“Thou Shalt Suck the Milk of the Gentiles”

Max Dimont is no closet Zionist. In his book he lets it all hang out. He boldly announces to the world what all Zionists believe but most are too

The Jewish Problem

This anti-Jewish-immigration cartoon from Life magazine, October 5, 1911, gives a striking
reminder of how the media have changed after falling under Jewish control. The caption reads "These pills
make me grow, mother, but the more I take the worse I feel."

by Dr. William L. Pierce

FOR THE LAST three decades there has been, in this land of free speech and a free press, an almost universally observed taboo on one topic of overwhelming importance: the Jewish question. Until about the last year or two, in fact, it was hardly permissible to even hint at the existence of such an issue, much less to discuss it openly.

Now the subject has been broached, not by our own people — for whom it has the most crucial importance — but, interestingly enough, by the Jews themselves, who successfully imposed the taboo on it in the first place.

One cannot pick up a major newspaper today without reading about “the Jewish vote” in the recent Presidential election, or which candidate got the most “Jewish money,” or which senators are blocking further Russian trade agreements until the Russians make more concessions on “the Jewish issue,” and so on.

Subversion in South Africa

Since the fall of apartheid in 1994, South Africa has increasingly become a locus of
slaughter, rape, torture, poverty, and Black-on-White genocide
-- with near-zero coverage from the mass media.

by Dr. William L. Pierce

THE AMERICAN press in recent months has carried a number of reports of protests by South African students against their government’s policy of racial separation, or apartheid. “White Students Rebelling Against Government Discrimination,” the Reuters reports shriek, followed by vivid accounts of truncheon-wielding policemen wading into crowds of peacefully protesting students and brutally cracking skulls left and right. One news story told of policemen chasing students from the University of Cape Town who sought refuge in St. George’s Cathedral, battering them senseless, and dragging them out, leaving pools of blood among the pews.

Portnoy's Complaint: A Goyische View

A Portnoy's Complaint poster from 1972.

by Dr. William L. Pierce

ATTACK! CERTAINLY does not want to establish a reputation as a pander for the skin-flick trade, but we are going out on a limb just once and recommending that all our readers see the movie Portnoy’s Complaint.

Actually there’s very little skin to be seen in this flick, although it is decidedly pornographic. The peg on which the film is hung is a young Jew’s problem with masturbation. 

Fixation on Genitalia

If the viewer can stomach the peculiarly Jewish fixation on genitalia and human excretory functions which pervades the film, there is a reward for him: namely, a fleeting glimpse at the traditional Jewish attitude toward Gentiles — or the goyim, as Portnoy and his family would say.

Liberals, the Jews, and Israel

by Dr. William L. Pierce

THE CURRENT JEWISH power play in the Middle East poses the gravest imaginable dangers to America. Yet, in the midst of these dangers is a development which offers the promise of great good to the American people. That good is the disruption of the American liberal establishment and the extensive undermining of the traditional alliance between Jews and Gentile liberals.

Neo-Liberal Stalwarts

The Palestine crisis has caused a major falling out among the architects of American decline and degeneration. We are presented with the interesting spectacle of such neo-liberal stalwarts as Reverend Daniel Berrigan, Senator J.W. Fulbright, and syndicated columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, among others, turning against both their fellow liberals and their Jewish patrons in the news media and siding with the Palestinians in the Jew-Arab conflict in the Middle East.

One of the many ironies of this is that the very liberals who are now in such a state of ideological disarray and moral torment over the issue of Jewish imperialism and aggression in the Middle East laid the groundwork themselves for that imperialism and aggression more than a quarter-century ago by supporting the initial Zionist seizures of Arab territory.

Jewish Soap

Daniel Berrigan

At that time — in the years immediately following World War II — Jews could do no wrong in liberal eyes. They were then, even more successfully than now, exploiting their role as “victims” of National Socialist persecution. They parlayed pitiful tales of gas chambers and soap factories into a carte blanche for their postwar political designs, relying heavily on support from beguiled liberal Gentiles.

It is interesting to note that liberals, who have always insisted that a person must be judged only as an individual and not as a member of a racial or ethnic group, accepted without hesitation the thesis that the Jews, as a people, were entitled to immunity from criticism and to collective reparations for the disabilities which some individuals among them, no longer present for the most part, had suffered earlier in Germany.

Butchers in U.S. Uniforms

J.W. Fulbright

Furthermore, the same liberals who so passionately commiserated with the Jews after the war were startlingly oblivious to atrocities committed against peoples far less blameworthy than the Jews in Germany: the postwar massacre of the Cossacks by the Soviet secret police, for example, or the slaughter of half a million anticommunist Croats by Tito’s communist guerrillas in 1945. Liberal writers who condemned in the harshest terms the German practice of shooting Jewish political commissars whenever they were discovered among captured Soviet troops, refer in an indifferent and offhand way to the brutal torture and murder of tens of thousands of German SS men, the elite of their nation, who, after they had laid down their arms and surrendered, were turned over to Jews in U.S. Army uniforms to be castrated, used for bayonet practice, and subjected to other tortures too gruesome to recount.

Left-Wing Tradition

One cannot blame this historic inability of liberals to recognize persecution, except when a Jew happens to be the persecutee, on the liberal bias toward left-wing causes and governments with which Jews have traditionally been associated. The Soviet government, for example, was immune from criticism so long as it occupied itself with the butchering of Ukrainians, Cossacks, Latvians, Poles, etc. But when the Kremlin decided the time had come to put a foot down on Zionist agitators on its own doorstep, liberal publicists suddenly turned against the Soviet Union with a vengeance.

Professional Victims

Rowland Evans

No, there is a very special relationship between Gentile liberals and Jews, and it began long before World War II.

Jews, of course, have been playing the “persecution” angle for all it is worth throughout their long and turbulent history. In a sense they have made a living — generally, a very good living — off being “scapegoats.”

Before the Germans it was the Russian Czars who persecuted this race of professional “victims,” and before them it was the Polish peasants, and the Spanish Inquisitors, and the English yeomen, and the French Crusaders, and the Roman legions, all the way back to the Egyptian Pharaohs. Westerners, and not just the liberals among them, have always been suckers for a cleverly managed act of martyrdom.

Symbiosis

But there is more to it — much more. From the time when the Jews were emancipated from their European ghettos and began infiltrating the institutions and the cultural and political life of the Western peoples among whom they lived, there developed a symbiotic relationship between Jews and Gentile liberals.

Jews are, in a sense, the carriers of the neo-liberal virus — that is, of the disease in its modern form, which differs substantially from what was called ”’liberalism” prior to the 19^th century.

Robert Novak

Having lived throughout 4,000 years of recorded history as an alien minority among other peoples, Jews have developed a unique modus vivendi which depends critically upon preventing their hosts from forming a united front against them and restricting their activities. They must, much in the way certain bloodsucking insects inject a venom into their host in order to break down its body tissues and permit the easier withdrawal of nourishment, break down all barriers of race and culture which protect a host people from them.

Potent Venom

Otherwise the natural protective reactions to their presence in the body of the host will result in their being either expelled or encysted, as has happened repeatedly throughout history.

Neo-liberalism is the most potent tissue-dissolving venom which the Jews have developed for breaking down the institutions and the internal structure of the Western nations. Gentiles infected by the disease have opened the door of one Western institution after another to the Jews during the past 200 years and have then provided “cover” for their activities.

Automatic Suckers

The Jews are an extraordinarily clever, ambitious, and aggressive people, and they have used their cleverness to evoke an almost worshipful attitude toward them on the part of Gentile liberals, who have been hypnotized by the Jews’ apparent “brilliance,” “creativity,” and “sensitivity.” In this hyper-receptive state, the liberals have been automatic suckers for every new fad the Jews have trotted out, from the most perverse and destructive trends in modern painting and sculpture to the pornographic “literary” blather of Philip Roth and Norman Mailer.

From the Jews they have learned to venerate the ugly, the weak, the deformed, the impure, the unnatural, the chaotic. The Jews have inverted their sense of values and taught them to coddle and promote Blacks, mongrels, criminals, moral cripples and perverts of every sort, and, above all, those rejected and “persecuted” by society.

Ill-Gotten Lucre

None have ever more successfully used the gimmick of portraying themselves as a persecuted minority, the unfortunate and blameless victims of religious and racial discrimination, than the Jews.

This was easy for them at a time when, as pushcart peddlers and pawnbrokers, they could speak only broken English and were ostracized from polite society. But only the special relationship which has grown up between liberals and Jews can account for their being able to maintain this pretense after they had gotten rid of their Yiddish accents (Henry Kissinger excepted) and were rolling in ill-gotten lucre from Hollywood to Broadway.

Monopolists

Liberals still thought of them as downtrodden people, especially deserving of sympathy and protection, after they had monopolized half the schools of law, medicine, and journalism in America, had elbowed the last of their Gentile competitors out of the clothing industry and a dozen other major industries, and had established themselves as the single most powerful bloc on Wall Street, with Jewish financial houses (Kuhn, Loeb & Co.; Goldman, Sachs; J.W Seligman & Co.; Lehman Bros.; Dillon, Read; Speyer & Co.; Ladenburg-Thalman; Salomon Bros.) overshadowing the older Gentile firms.

In recent years, lest all this opulence and power confuse their liberal admirers, the Jews have used their control of the mass media to crank out a steady stream of motion pictures, books, and Sunday-supplement articles rehashing over and over again their mistreatment at the hands of the Germans a generation ago, thus maintaining their status as a persecuted minority.

Easy Choice

But, irony of ironies, it was this very bias in favor of the underdog which finally caused the liberals to miss an ideological turn the Jews had mapped out for them and to go off on the “wrong” road in the Middle East.

After all, here were a bunch of arrogant, militaristic, racist, imperialistic Jews on one side (the Israelis), rolling in billions of dollars of “reparations” extorted from Germany and grants from the United States, and armed to the teeth with an enormous arsenal of fancy, new, technological weapons, waging aggressive war against huddled, penniless, tattered Arab refugees living in tents and armed only with rifles and hand grenades (the Palestinians). It was pretty obvious which side a person conditioned always to favor the underdog should choose.

Over-conditioned Liberals

The situation is reminiscent of that accompanying the Italian invasion of Ethiopia nearly 40 years ago, when the liberal sympathy for the Ethiopians, brown and backward, was Pavlovian. Since then they have been conditioned repeatedly by the news media, most notably in the Korean and Vietnamese wars, to side with the guerrillas, the irregulars, the “freedom fighters,” against the establishment troops. In the Middle East all this conditioning has backfired on the Jews.

They have tried to use their control over the mass media to paint a propaganda picture of Israel as an underdog nation and to identify the wretched, dispossessed Palestinians with their oil-rich Arab neighbors. But this portrayal has been too grotesque for credibility. The Israeli concentration camps, the racism practiced against the Arab minority in the Jewish-occupied areas, the Israeli policies of imprisonment without trial, of collective reprisals against Arab civilians, of arrogantly trampling on the sovereignty of Lebanon, of torture of prisoners — all these have triggered conditioned reflexes in American liberals.

Ideological Consistency

And the result is, wonder of wonders, that the liberals—or, at least, a significant fraction of them—are accidentally ending up on the right side of an issue for once. They are, in growing numbers, taking the side of Arafat and his Palestinian freedom fighters instead of the side of their Jewish oppressors.

The pro-Palestinian position is by no means unanimous among liberals, of course. It is taken only by the honest ones, by the ideologically consistent ones.

The Jews still have a plentiful stable of obedient liberal hacks on their payroll — 95 per cent of the Congress, for example, and thousands of newspaper prostitutes, pulpit prostitutes, academic prostitutes, and showbiz prostitutes — all dancing to the Zionist tune in order to earn their supper. For every Senator Fulbright there are half-a-dozen Hubert Humphreys and “Scoop” Jacksons, and for every Evans and Novak there are three or four Joseph Alsops.

No Collaboration

Furthermore, it would be a severe miscalculation to plan on any sort of coalition or collaboration between honest liberals and patriots in order to break the Jewish stranglehold on America.

Liberals — with a very few individual exceptions — have had no real change of heart. They are quite insistent that their anti-Zionist position in no way implies any basic change in their attitude toward Jews. They simply regard Zionists as Jews who have gone bad and Zionism as a racist aberration, rather than as the essence of Jewishness itself.

Table-leg Therapy

Senator Fulbright and the Reverend Berrigan are still on the wrong side of every issue except Palestine, and they are on the right side of that issue for the wrong reasons.

In other words, liberals — including the consistent ones — are just as sick as ever and just as dangerous to the future of America as ever. The only way the great majority of them will get their thinking straight, eventually, is with a sturdy, oak table leg applied smartly and repeatedly alongside the head.

Nevertheless, the present dissension in liberal ranks is of inestimable value. It is the most fervent and influential of the liberals who are now taking an anti-Zionist position, and their numbers and influence are growing daily.

Palestinian Victory Inevitable

The Palestinian people, through their perseverance, their sacrifices, their reckless courage, and their determination to use any and all means to keep the world from forgetting about them, have finally succeeded in obtaining, in the United Nations, a forum for presenting their case to the world. More and more liberals will be forced to listen to them, and more and more liberals cannot help but agree with them.

And Israel’s intransigence and arrogance, exacerbated by recent Palestinian propaganda successes, will become more painfully obvious to her former admirers. Who could have failed to be repelled by that shrieking, cursing mob of swarthy, wiry-haired Israelites outside the United Nations building in New York in November, spitting and screaming for Yasser Arafat’s blood as he eloquently pleaded his case for justice for his people inside?

Cracks Will Widen

All this can only lead to a widening of the cracks which have already appeared in the System: the liberal-Jewish power structure which rules America. These cracks offer patriots an opportunity they have not had in the last 35 years to build opposition to the System and to win support for an alternative.

The Jews, of course, are fully aware of this. They can feel the tide of liberal opinion finally turning against them or, at least, against their territorial ambitions in the Middle East — and they are far-sighted enough to see the long-range dangers this tide can bring them.

“The New Anti-Semitism“

They have frantically tried to head it off by denouncing as “anti-Semitism” every manifestation of anti-Zionism. Their principal “enforcement” agency in America, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, has sponsored the publication of a widely touted book, The New Anti-Semitism, which singles out by name many prominent liberals who have taken a public stand even slightly critical of Israel and attempts to stigmatize them with an “anti-Semitic” label.

In days past, the threat of being called an anti-Semite was enough to send the bravest liberal scurrying for cover, but this tactic isn’t working any more. In fact, it’s backfiring on the Jews.

Nature of the Beast

The Palestine issue is too clear-cut, and the liberals who have finally made a moral decision on this issue are standing their ground. Being called “anti-Semites,” instead of frightening them, is calling to their attention, for the first time, the true nature of the beast with which they are dealing. It is merely hardening their position, burning the bridges between them and their former unquestioning philo-Semitism, and — in a very few cases — causing them to re-examine the whole basis of their ideology.

Rising Panic

These developments are causing a rising feeling of panic in the Jewish community. Always ready to cry before they are hurt, some Jews have even claimed, with a tinge of hysteria, “It’s happening again!” (a reference to their growing unpopularity in Germany in the 1930s).

More than anything else, the changing tide of liberal opinion may cause the Jews to overreach themselves by attempting a “final solution” of their Arab problem in the Middle East before they lose too much more ground in America.

If that happens, America will undoubtedly become involved in another war and will probably suffer grievous consequences. But, as General Brown suggested, it also might be exactly what is needed to change the present liberal ground swell against Zionism to a popular tidal wave against all Jewish influences in America.

* * *

From Attack! No. 32, 1975

transcribed by Vanessa Neubauer from the book The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard, edited by Kevin Alfred Strom

Sins of the Fathers: Racism and Genocide in the Old Testament

From National Vanguard magazine, 1986:
Sins of the Fathers: 
Racism and Genocide in the Old Testament
By Frank Candor

Although the alleged sins took place more than a generation ago, they hardly have become bygones to those who claim to have been sinned against.  These victims are determined that the world shall not forget their tribulations or the wickedness of their persecutors; witness only the ongoing National Holocaust Memorial Museum project in Washington and the new nine-hour film epic, Shoa, the latest in a long series of Hollywood “Holocaust” spectaculars.

Over and over again, through every medium of communication, we are presented with two contrasting images:  on the one hand the blameless innocents (both Jews and non-Jews, we are told, although the focus is almost entirely on the former), hounded and humiliated, herded into concentration camps, and brutally exterminated; and on the other hand the callous, arrogant Germans, who either participated in the persecution or went along with it.

With these images before us we hear repeated, either explicitly or implicitly, the accusation of the victims against their persecutors.  And although it is an accusation which first was leveled against the German people before the Second World War, when Germany under Adolf Hitler was striving mightily to free herself from Jewish influences at home and to secure her vital interests abroad (peacefully if possible), through the magic of the mass media it has been given such an aura of currency that the German people today are kept on the defensive by it, and the Jews feel justified by it in throwing tantrums of the sort witnessed last year when Ronald Reagan announced his plan to visit a German cemetery.

That historical accusation may be paraphrased something like this: “You are arrogant racists and genocidal maniacs.  Convinced of your own superiority, you have no compunction against slaughtering all those who are not members of your own nation, and you will stop at nothing in your plan to dominate the world.  Through some psychotic delusion of grandeur you have got the idea that God has given you the right to exterminate and/or enslave the rest of humanity and has authorized you to commit mass murder in your ruthless quest for Lebensraum.”

While Sigmund Freud was way off base in many of his speculations, his theory of “projection” fits this instance perfectly.  According to a Freudian doctrine, a person with a guilty conscience often will accuse someone else of committing the very sin of which he himself is guilty, doing his best to “project” his guilt onto the other person and thus feel himself blameless.  This neatly explains the Jewish mania for denouncing “White racism” and for endlessly repeating manufactured atrocity tales.

Reading through Jewish history, one finds startling parallels between what the Jews actually did and what they have since accused the Germans – and others – of doing.  There is hardly a better source of such parallels than the Jews’ own holy book, the Old Testament.  In it genocide is the officially approved policy, to be carried out against all Those who occupy Lebensraum coveted by the Jews.  Its articles of faith are racist through and through, and the prescribed penalty for their violation is death.  The seventh chapter of Deuteronomy, which is a policy statement by the Jews’ spiritual Fuehrer Moses, makes these things quite clear:

When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; 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 shew mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give into his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son….But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire. For thou are an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth… And thou shalt consume all the people which the Lord thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them… But the Lord thy God shall deliver them unto thee, and shall destroy them with a mighty destruction, until they be destroyed. And he shall deliver their kings into thy hand, and thou shalt destroy their name from under heaven….

These words were not just empty rhetoric, as subsequent deeds proved.  Nor was the elimination of inferior breeds something of which the ancient Jews were ashamed.  They preserved the record for posterity, and they rejoiced in endless retellings of the gory blitzkriegs that won them their Lebensraum.  The image of the mighty Jewish Wehrmacht putting the women and children of a captured city to the sword doubtless was evoked around campfires as an example for youngsters to admire.

While Germans often are accused falsely, on the basis of fraudulent evidence, the Hebrews are shown with the blood of innocents on their hands in their own family album.  Yet while the Jews insist that the alleged sins of German fathers be visited upon German children (from those taxes nearly a billion dollars a year in “guilt payments” currently is being sent to Israel), any suggestion that the Jews themselves be held to the same standard of accountability evokes outraged accusations of “anti-Semitism.”

We should understand that we are not concerned here with isolated or atypical acts of brutality by errant members of the Twelve Tribes of Israel.  What we are confronted with instead is a conspiracy, planned and executed by the most prominent and respected members of the Jewish nation, to exterminate all of the peaceable, settled tribes which, to their misfortune, happened to occupy the “promised land.”  Moses stands out as the dastardly mastermind. His appointed Stellvertreter and heir apparent, Joshua, son of Nun, carried out to the letter the most brutal and despicable provisions of his plan. This is the same Moses who is venerated above every other member of their tribe by Jews today; the record of his genocidal activities, carefully hand-lettered on parchment Torah scrolls, is carried out lovingly from its resting place and read aloud in reverent tones in every synagogue in the land.

JOSHUA'S TROOPS make a holocaust -- a burnt offering -- of the city of Ai, in ancient Palestine, after his extermination squads have killed every living creature in it. Jews claimed their policy of genocide was ordered by their tribal god Yahweh, but the real reason was their fear of racial-mixing between the "chosen people" and the goyim.

What a contrast there is between reality and the image the Jewish public-relations experts have crafted so cleverly!  Even the Bible itself, where the record can be read in black and white by anyone who cares to look, has been given a whitewash job.  The average Gentile has been conditioned to view it through rose-colored spectacles.  What it says is clear enough, but he sees the public-relations image of it instead of the reality. Mention the word “psalms” to him, for example, and he envisions a group of pious Jews, their eyes turned heavenward, praising their tribal god Yahweh (or Jehovah, as the Hebrew name most often has been transliterated into Aryan tongues) in flowery language while thinking pure and loving thoughts. He would hardly know what to make of the real Book of Psalms, with its grotesque, revolting imagery of dogs lapping up the blood of slain Gentiles, of non-Jews withering and dying like premature babies left to the desert sun.  Consider the following verses from Psalm 18, which might have been read for inspiration by Lt. William Calley before his foray into My Lai:

I have pursued mine enemies and overtaken them:  neither did I turn again till they were consumed. I have wounded them that they were not able to rise: they are fallen under my feet. For thou has girded me with strength unto the battle: thou has subdued under me those that rose up against me. Thou hast also given me the necks of mine enemies; that I might destroy them that hate me. They cried, but there was none to save them: even unto the Lord, but he answered them not. Then did I beat them small as the dust before the wind: I did cast them out as the dirt in the streets. Thou hast delivered me from the strivings of the people; and thou has made me the head of the heathen: a people whom I have not known shall serve me. As soon as they hear of me, they shall obey me: the strangers shall submit themselves unto me.

Shall we accept the image of the Jew created by his public-relations experts – the peace-loving, tolerant, kind-hearted, egalitarian Jew – or the one revealed to us in his sacred writings?  Shall we discount the latter because they are centuries old?

Let us remember that a people’s conception of their deity is intertwined inextricably with their own souls: with their world view and general outlook on life. As the interpretation of a Rorschach inkblot reveals the personality of the person being tested, a people’s image of their god reveals their innermost nature: their most deep-seated hopes, fears, and desires. Thus when we read of Yahweh commanding the Hebrews to slaughter all the inhabitants of such and such a city, we can guess that this desire already was in their heart of hearts.

As for the fact that the deeds described in the Jews’ Bible occurred many centuries ago, we should keep in mind that they themselves – at least, the ones who remain religiously observant – regard every word of it as still entirely relevant to their lives today (quite unlike the Christians, who have been busily reinterpreting their New Testament in recent years, primarily in response to Jewish complaints that parts of it are insensitive to Jews or even anti-Semitic in nature).  The more pious Jews interpret the Torah quite literally.  Not only do they make it the basis of their religious life, but of their workaday life as well, observing to the letter injunctions and precepts laid down by Moses three thousand years ago.

In recent decades the Jews have presented themselves to the world as models of egalitarianism, knights in shining armor fighting against the dragon of racism. They are unanimous in proclaiming racism to be the most evil, mean, and nasty concept in existence. In referring to the Hitler era, they never fail to remind us that one of the wickedest things the Germans did was attempt to prevent the mixing of the Aryan and non-Aryan races. “This insane insistence on race purity must be eliminated!” was the demand of the Jews during that era, and it remains their demand today.

But if that demand is met, they will be obliged to take a pair of scissors to their own holy book. Racism was a cornerstone of Hebrew religious dogma. Racial tolerance was something that the Old Testament Jews were convinced they could not afford. The evidence of this is sprinkled through the Old Testament from the first book to the last. Indeed, the Jewish abhorrence of race mixing (for themselves) was so extreme that it was extended even to the laws governing their food production, their diet, and the clothes they wore. And Orthodox Jews today still follow Moses’ commandment in the 19th chapter of Leviticus:

Ye shall keep my statutes.  Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind:  thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed:  neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee.

Judaism is a patriarchal religion, in which the words of the great-great-great grandfathers are taken to be Yahweh’s words.  The three patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were all quite explicit in their racism. Abraham and Isaac set down the law to be followed by their progeny in the 24th and 28th chapters of Genesis. They adamantly stated that they would not tolerate their sons’ marrying the racially inferior breeds around them. Jacob in turn so instilled the ideology of racial purity and racial superiority into his own sons that they were willing to commit mass murder to protect their sacred seed from an influx of inferior protoplasm.  Not for the sons of Jacob the melting pot of peaceful coexistence! 

In the 34th chapter of Genesis is related the first instance in the Bible in which Jewish racial fanatics put heathens to death in order to prevent race mixing between Jews and those they considered Untermenschen.  Jacob and his extended family and their slaves were squatting in the region of Canaan (Palestine) belonging to the Hivite tribe.  Dinah, one of Jacob’s daughters by one of his many wives, caught the eye of a Hivite nobleman:

And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her. And his soul clave unto Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel, and he spake kindly unto the damsel. 

Shechem’s was an honorable love. In the manner of the times he asked Hamor, his father, to plead with Jacob for Dinah’s hand in marriage: 

And Hamor communed with them, saying, The soul of my son Shechem longeth for your daughter:  I pray you give her him to wife. And make ye marriages with us, and give your daughters unto us, and take our daughters unto you. And ye shall dwell with us: and the land shall be before you; dwell and trade ye therein, and get you possessions therein.

Woe unto Hamor and his people! He had not learned that there is no making pacts with Jews, but only the hard “either, or.”  While the Jews extended one hand to him in a false show of friendship, the other hand already was reaching for a hidden dagger. The sons of Jacob conspired among themselves and then told Hamor that the Jews were willing to live peacefully among the Hivites and intermarry with them, provided only that the Hivites would allow themselves to be circumcised in order to conform to Jewish religious custom. Hamor foolishly agreed, and every male Hivite was circumcised.  Then while the Hivites were still immobilized with their self-inflicted wounds, the Jews let the mask drop:

And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brethren, took each man his sword, and came upon the city boldly, and slew all the males.

So good a job of bloodletting did the gang led by Simeon and Levi do on the Hivites that Levi’s men were appointed a sort of permanent Einsatzkommando, which thenceforth was called upon whenever an especially nasty bit of genocide needed to be done to protect the Jews’ racial purity.  The Levites were also used later by Moses as a combination Sicherheitsdienst and execution squad to keep his fellow Jews on the straight and narrow path through terror. 

TORAH SCROLL, with the record of Moses' campaign of genocide in Palestine, is the holiest object in every synagogue. Its Hebrew text is read lovingly by religiously observant Jews, and Orthodox Jews consider the policies laid down by Moses in them to be binding on them today.


After the slaughter of the Hivites, Jacob, you will remember, led the Jews into Egypt, where they remained for four generations, eating the “fat of the land” like a swarm of locusts.  Then late in the 13th century B.C., after the Egyptians had become fed up with them, Moses let them out>  Moses’ original plan was to go directly to Canaan again, exterminate the Canaanites, and steal their land. But after four generations of soft living in Egypt, the Jews weren’t up to the task.  So Moses made them live in the desert for 40 years to toughen them up and weed out the weaklings.  Finally, when the Jews were tough as leather and hart wie Kruppstahl, they fell on the unsuspecting Canaanites like a ravening wolf pack.  

Moses sent out his troops on one assault after another against the people of the land, leaving only smoking ruins and piles of corpses in the cities which fell to him.  His last conquest was of the Midianites.  After the Midianites’ cities had been destroyed and all their men butchered, the victorious Jews brought the captive Midianite women and children back as trophies to show to Moses.  But Moses was not pleased, and he angrily ordered all of the women and the male children put to death on the spot.  

Moses died after this last bit of bloodthirsty cruelty, and his deputy Joshua took over the task of completing the extermination of the non-Jewish inhabitants of Canaan.  Joshua’s first triumph was the destruction of Jericho, a city already 7,000 years old at the time.  In dealing with the population of Jericho, Joshua followed the pattern set by Moses:

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.

And this terrible pattern was repeated over and over, as the Jews gobbled up their Lebensraum. After Jericho came the city of Ai:

And so it was that all that fell that day, both of men and women, were twelve thousand, even all the men of Ai.For Joshua drew not his hand back, wherewith he stretched out the spear, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai….And Joshua burnt Ai, and made it an heap for ever, even a desolation until this day.

Although Joshua destroyed many more cities after Jericho and Ai, routinely murdering all the inhabitants, the fascinating thing about these first two is that they were consecrated specifically as burnt offerings to Yahweh – i.e., as holocausts, in the strictest sense of the word.  When one greedy Jew, Achan, covertly put aside a part of the loot from Jericho for himself, disobeying the order to burn everything which was not taken back as a treasure to be offered to Yahweh, he and his entire family were stoned to death; Ai then became the new burnt offering to atone for Achan’s sin and lift the curse which Yahweh had placed on the Jews after Jericho.

Indeed, as mentioned previously, the Old Testament is filled with arresting parallels between the Jewish campaign to make the “promised land” goy-free and the “Holocaust” mythology concocted 3,000 years later.  We have all heard, more often than we care to remember, about Hitler shoving Jews into “gas ovens,” for instance. Behold the 21st Psalm:

Thine hand shall find out all thine enemies: thy right hand shall find out those that hate thee. Thou shalt make them as a fiery oven in the time of thine anger: the Lord shall swallow them up in his wrath, and the fire shall devour them. Their fruit shalt thou destroy from the earth, and their seed from among the children of men

And what about that famous rock quarry where the wicked Nazis are said to have gleefully pushed thousands of Jews to their deaths?  In chapter 14 of the Second Book of Kings we read of the exploits of the Jewish leader Amaziah, king of Judah:

And Amaziah strengthened himself and led forth his people, and went to the valley of salt, and smote of the children of Seir ten thousand. And other ten thousand left alive did the children of Judah carry away captive, and brought them unto the top of the rock, and cast them down from the top of the rock, that they all were broken in pieces.

In the light of these passages, wouldn’t Freud at least have suspected that many of the later “Holocaust” claims were a classic case of projection?

The clincher surely must be the screaming outrage which any mention of Hitler’s Nuremberg Laws, banning marriage and sexual relations between Aryans and Jews, evokes from Jews today, just as it did in the 1930s when the laws were enacted.  Are we to believe that they are unaware of their reformer Ezra’s very own “Nuremberg Laws,” imposed by him on the Jews of Jerusalem after the Babylonian exile?  He describes, in the Old Testament books of Ezra and Nehemiah, his forceful breakup of mixed marriages:

For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons:  so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands… And now, O our God, what shall we say after this?  For we have forsaken thy commandments, Which thou hast commanded by thy servants the prophets, saying, The land unto which ye go to possess it, is an unclean land with the filthiness of the people of the lands, with their abominations, which have filled it from one end to another with their uncleanness. Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons… And Ezra the priest stood up and said unto them, Ye have transgressed, and have taken strange wives, to increase the trespass of Israel. Now therefore make confession to the Lord God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives.Then all the congregation answered and said with a loud voice, As thou hast said, so must we do… In those days also saw I Jews that had married wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab… And I contended with them, and cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God, saying, Ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters unto your sons, or for yourselves.

Ezra’s policy, of course, was only a reaffirmation of the policy established a thousand years earlier by the patriarchs and enforced with a bloody hand by Moses and Joshua:  The Jews’ god wants them to keep their race pure and to shun all mixture with other races, who are considered inferior and unclean.  Every observant Jew knows this.  He also knows that in Israel today mixed marriages may not be performed and are not recognized by the state.

While on the subject of Israel, we may note that it provides the best available evidence of the extent to which the Old Testament reflects the actual attitudes and beliefs of the Jewish people today.  Even the language of the country, Hebrew, is that which was spoken by the authors of the Old Testament, and it was chosen by the Zionists for that very reason; before the founding of the Zionist movement late in the last century, it was a language which had been dead for 22 centuries, except for liturgical use.  In view of this, it is hardly surprising that the policies of the modern Israelis toward the modern Palestinians and their other neighbors are not significantly different from the policies of Moses and Joshua toward the neighbors of the ancient Hebrews.

And of course, modern Israel is the center toward which all the other Jews of the world look; they see in it not just the upstart state which launched its expansionist career in 1948, but also the fabled land of the Old Testament patriarchs.  It is the keystone of their own sense of Jewish identity, the source of their will to maintain the apartheid between themselves and the goyim around them, as commanded by Yahweh. 

So when we next hear them declaiming against “White racism” or promoting the latest product of Hollywood’s “Holocaust” industry, we might recall the words of a spiritual leader who was quite familiar with their ways:  “Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but perceives not the beam that is in thine own eye?  Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye.”