Occupied America - Part IV - An Ugly Trend
A Jewish business partner runs up to me shortly after the L.A. Bank shootout and says, in an agitated voice: "Hey Ygg, how come you NRA guys won't agree to ban assault weapons?"
I can handle this two ways.
The first is the polite WASP way in which I would say something like; "Assault weapons are so rarely used in crime that banning them would not accomplish anything. If a few million people want to fondle their assault weapons in the privacy of their own homes, then let them. The statistics show us this activity is harmless."
But if I take the polite WASP approach, I feel like an idiot because I know my interrogator has not the slightest interest in controlling street crime. What he really means is this:
Hey! We know that you NRA guys and militia types aren't going to attack the military, so why on earth would you want assault rifles except to kill Jews?
He knows that outlawing guns will not slow down violent street crime. And he doesn't care about "gun control" in the abstract because the stockpiles of Uzzis maintained by the Jewish "misgerot" or frames here in the U.S. make him feel quite secure.
Forget crime control or "gun control", what he really wants is goy control.
So if I decide upon alternative two, what do I say? I could just blurt out something like; "Gee, never in the history of the U.S. has a white gentile used an assault rifle to kill Jews. Killing Jews just isn't very high on our list of priorities, so maybe you should adjust your head instead!"
Comes off kind of heavy, don't you think?
Maybe something a tad lighter: "If we could only develop a bullet that would automatically self-destruct whenever aimed at a Jew, this whole gun control issue would quickly wither on the vine."
The Sarah Bradys of the world would still be around, but the real force and intensity behind the issue among those who fund the Democratic party, and write the evening news and the TV shows would quickly disappear.
And that is the problem with the whole gun control debate. We are not allowed to identify in public the wildly paranoid fantasies that motivate the confiscatory urge. Facts cannot dislodge the fantasy.
Yet my Jewish acquaintances all know that my ancestors had 2000 years experience at being ruled by aliens. First the Romans, then the Germanic Saxons, then the Danes, and then the Normans. The Normans spoke a language that none of us could understand. We needed interpreters. We acquiesced in their taxes, (a fact not lost on the latest band of aliens). But unlike our current overlords, at least the Normans allowed us to keep the same weapons that were carried by their own troops.
When William the Conqueror's descendants misbehaved, we gathered up those swords, lances and longbows and presented them with the Great Charter. We taught the aliens the virtues of limited government at the point of the sword.
Words in a charter or constitution mean nothing unless the people are armed. Limited government and the "consent of the governed" were tools to minimize tribal conflict and war. These concepts were imposed upon rulers by force. They kept the peace better than totalitarian Marxism ever did.
And of course, the Jewish population is well aware of this history. It is our gentile prejudice to assume that they would empathize, and that out of respect for the culture of their countrymen, and a desire to live in harmony with them, would carve out niches within this modern world in which this ancient culture of arms (the father of limited government) could be preserved and remembered in a positive way.
But that is not what the culture destroyers want at all. They want to stamp it out.
Israel Shahak in his masterpiece "Jewish History, Jewish Religion," (1994 Pluto Press, London, Page 12) explains why.
"It was noticed by several scholars, of whom the most important was Moses Hadas, who claimed that the foundations of classical Judaism', that is, Judaism as it was established by Talmudic sages are based on Platonic influences and especially on the image of Sparta as it appears in Plato. According to Hadas, a crucial feature of the Platonic political system, adopted by Judaism as early as the Maccabean period (142-63 BC), was that every phase of human conduct be subjected to religious sanctions which are in fact to be manipulated by the ruler'.
* * *
"Hadas claims that Judaism adopted what Plato himself summarized [as] the objectives of his program', in the following well known passage:
"The principal thing is that is that no one, man or woman, should ever be without an officer set over him, and that none should get the mental habit of taking any step, whether in earnest or in jest, on his individual responsibility. In peace as in war he must live always with his eyes on his superior officer ... In a word, we must train the mind not even to consider acting as an individual or know how to do it. (Laws, 942 ab)"
And what better description of life here in Occupied America could we have than this? The modern day Talmudic sages have given us 2000 pages of Internal Revenue Code, 8000 pages of Regulations interpreting that Code, and hundreds of thousands of pages of Revenue Rulings, Private Letter Rulings and interpretations.
We have legions of wetlands police, child endangerment police, Federal thought crimes police, fish and game police, industrial safety police, smoke, sewage and fertilizer police, pharmaceutical discovery police, investment police, business police, and electronic communications police all watching over us, each enforcing an additional hundred thousand pages of regulations and interpretations of Talmudic complexity.
As our society crumbles, with falling SAT scores, soaring violent crime, growing drug use among teenagers and growing welfare dependency, Jews in general are greatly comforted by the existence of this mass of rules and the armies of police to enforce them.
None of this was brought about by a conspiracy or a central "plan." Rather, it is the natural process by which a people confident of their culture struggles to establish the supremacy of that culture. And it is a culture that is only "comfortable" when hundreds of thousands of Rabbis (bearing modern secular titles) supervise every last detail of our lives. Conservatives wail about the fact that excessive regulation and police forces are legislated into existence even in the absence of a problem to solve. Indeed, that is the whole point! The "problem" is millions of Goyim wandering around doing what they please. That makes the rabinnate of the modern state (many of whom are Goyim who have internalized Jewish culture) very uncomfortable.
Conservatives seem never to understand that complexity confers power. A simple flat tax with one or two rates would be simple to overthrow because millions would be subject to the same rate and could organize to lower that rate. The complexity of multiple rates, various deductions, tax preference items and the alternative minimum tax divide the population into atomized individuals, making organized political opposition based on self-interest exceptionally difficult. Complexity is "good for Jews."
The vast federal structure built up over the last 55 years to watch over us never had anything to do with improving education, stopping urban crime, ensuring that all Americans become productive or any other recognizable meliorative purpose.
Its purpose was to return 2.4% of our population to the comfort zone of the regulated life of classical Judaism.
Israel Shahak explains on page 15:
"This was the most important social fact of Jewish existence before the advent of the modern state: observance of the religious laws of Judaism, as well as their inculcation through education, were enforced on Jews by physical coercion, from which one could only escape by conversion to the religion of the majority, amounting in the circumstances to a total social break and for that reason very impracticable, except during a religious crisis."
* * *
"However, once the modern state came into existence, the Jewish community lost its powers to punish or intimidate the individual Jew. The bonds of one of the most closed of closed societies, one of the most totalitarian societies in the whole history of mankind were snapped. This act of liberation came mostly from the outside; although there were some Jews who helped it from within ... [S]o it turned out to be very easy among the Jews, particularly in Israel, to mount a very effective attack against all the notions and ideals of humanism and the rule of law (not to say democracy) as something 'un-Jewish' or 'anti-Jewish' - as indeed they are in the historical sense - and as principles which may be used 'in the Jewish interest', but which have no validity 'against the Jewish interest', for example when Arabs invoke these same principles."
Shahak argues that much about Israeli politics that gentiles find impossible to understand can be attributed to this cultural nostalgia for a totalitarian and intensely communitarian past that existed in the pre-emancipation Jewish communities of Europe. I would argue that this same yearning - this same cultural nostalgia - explains the murderous political pathology of totalitarian communism, as well as the slyly genocidal regime of cultural destruction we experience from the modern "nanny state" better known as "liberal democracy."
Indeed, the most stunning proof of the essential Jewishness of communism is not so much the large number of Jews who staffed the secret police and the communist party in Russia from 1917 through the end of World War II, but rather that upon expelling Jews from the Russian communist party in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, the Goyim who remained became disoriented, and could not longer understand what communism was and what it was trying to accomplish. Having no historical and cultural memory of life in the Jewish stetl, communism in Russia simply withered on the vine, as any nationalist would have predicted. The arrival and departure of communism in Russia are both quintessential racial phenomenon.
Shahak seems to agree. From page 19:
"[A] great many present-day Jews are nostalgic for that world, their lost paradise, the comfortable closed society from which they were not so much liberated as expelled. A large part of the Zionist movement always wanted to restore it - and this part has gained the upper hand."
Just before the 1996 election, the Ygg family took a drive through several small rural "German" towns of central Texas. After several hours of touring the scenic towns, I announced that we would find a place to eat lunch. I selected an authentic local barbeque joint and turned into the parking lot.
My 13 year old daughter screamed "No! No! We can't stop here! These people are crazy! They will kill us!
Mrs. Ygg and I were stunned. We looked at each other in disbelief. I said "Where on earth did you get such a silly idea? These people are your distant cousins. They are your racial kinsmen. Why on earth would they want to hurt you?"
Once inside the establishment, teenage daughter calmed down. It turned out that these rural kids looked, talked and acted pretty much like the kids at her suburban high school.
During lunch Mrs. Ygg raised again the issue of whether daytime access to CNBC's market ticker was worth the collateral damage done in 2 hours on Friday nights. She suggested it might be time to cancel cable TV (yet again) and subscribe to BMI, Signal, trade station or whatever else did not carry with it the toxic wastes of Sumner Redstone's MTV.
I was reminded of a book I read 20 years ago by Benjamin Stein called "The view from Sunset Boulevard" (Basic Books, 1977). It is a classic warning by a neo-conservative Jew to his fellow tribesmen that the TV fare they produce is so far removed from reality as to be dangerous to Jews. Stein gingerly explains his mission on page x of the introduction:
"So, for the first time in my life, I started to watch a lot of television. It was a revelation. In the midst of the most inane and repetitious television shows, comedy and adventure, and even soap operas, there was a spate of political and social messages so clear and interesting that they would have made Kracauer [a famous pre-War film critic Stein had studied at Yale] pass out with joy.
"The messages were deeply similar, or so it seemed to me. Businessmen were bad people and workers were good people. High-level police were bad people, representative of a rotten and deadening bureaucracy, and idiosyncratic, rebel cops were the salt of the earth and smart, too. This said something about organizations and bureaucracies, and about the value of rebellion as compared with acceptance. It spoke to questions of conformity and satisfaction with society.
"Small towns were superficially lovely, but under a thin veneer of cornpone there was lurking, terrifying evil, waiting to ensnare the innocent Natty Bumppo of the big city. But big cities, at first glance jungles where narcotics dealers disguised as real estate salesmen lurked on every comer, offering heroin and white slavery to small children, were basically friendly, cheerful places."
Continuing on page xii of the introduction:
"All of this means something elementary but interesting. The super-medium of television is spewing out the messages of a few writers and producers (literally in the low hundreds), almost all of whom live in Los Angeles. Television is not necessarily a mirror of anything besides what those few people think. The whole entertainment component of television is dominated by men and women who have a unified, idiosyncratic view of life. When a viewer understands that television is not supposed to be a facsimile of life but instead is what a Hollywood producer thinks life is, the viewer can then understand the match or mismatch between television and what he knows to be true."
Then, beginning on page 11 of the text of the work, Stein gets more specific about the identity of the problem:
"In television, the producers and writers are creative kings. What they say is law, and that law is transmitted on the airwaves into millions of homes (sometimes sixty or seventy million) per night. A popular variety or adventure show or a lovable sitcom will invariably draw a larger audience than an address by a president of the United States..."
"Who are these powerful producers and writers, and where do they come from?
"With a small number of exceptions, they are all white [sic] males. They are almost never younger than 35. They are almost never second-generation Californians. A distinct majority, especially the writers of situation comedies, is Jewish. However, there are many Protestants and Catholics as well, especially among writers of adventure shows."
Then Stein examines the biases and fears of these writers and producers about small towns in more detail.
"There is a special genre of TV shows cutting across situation comedy and adventure, which deals with small towns. That kind of show might be called "the city innocent in jeopardy" tale. Every adventure show that deals even once with small towns uses it, and every situation comedy set in the city eventually takes a stab at it."
"There is also an ethnic difference that frightens some. The Hollywood TV writer tends generally, although not always, to be Jewish or Italian or Irish, and he sees people in the small towns as not being ethnic at all. He sees them, moreover, as not being friendly toward ethnics, especially Jews. * * * And, of course, it could hardly be more natural for people who fear that they might be "beat up" in small towns because of their race to feel some anger toward them."
"Further, there is the political problem. * * * The thought of a hinterland full of small towns who voted for Nixon, as Meta Rosenberg said, makes them uneasy. They see a strong challenge to the brand of politics they favor, and, quite naturally, that affronts them. Politics in the small town are not only different, but to a large extent they are also incomprehensible." * * * "A variety of differences and fears separate the Hollywood TV writer and producer from the small town as he sees it. Fear of violence and animosity being directed at him because of race or religion, fear and lack of comprehension about the politics of small-town people, and a generalized fear of the unknown produce a powerful wave of dislike of small towns in the minds of TV writers and producers, which makes itself felt in TV programming."
When I first read this short masterpiece 20 years ago, I thought it hilariously funny to see Jews airing their dirty laundry in public. But at that time I had no idea about the extent of the cultural decline it would precipitate. As I said earlier, Ben Stein is a neo-conservative. He is a conservative in the sense that he knows the perceptions of these TV writers and producers are contrary to fact, and he assumes that once informed of their error, they will change their ways.
But that is not the way it works. While the paranoid view may be erroneous, its propagation beyond the Jewish nation is immensely advantageous for Jews in their struggle for dominance and power, for it places a wedge between educated suburban whites and their racial cousins. It diverts suburban gentiles from their natural role as leaders of their rural kinsmen, turning them into allies of the Jews, equally uncomfortable with the "peasants" in the countryside.
If you can implant your fears into the broader mass of TV viewers, you do not need to convince them of the benefits of the Rabinnical State with rational arguments, but may rely on irrational fears and emotions. In the era before television, the intellectual assault of Marxism was intended to do precisely the same thing. The Marxist ideology made upper middle class whites fearful of their racial kinsmen thereby stripping the peasantry of the political power which the concept of democracy clearly implied they should have.
Conservatives assume that the irrational impulses that inform the content of television are "accidents" and will reverse themselves on exposure to truth. However, when these impulses are examined for their potential to redistribute political power, it turns out that they are "good for Jews" and have, of course, easily survived Ben Stein's courageous little book.
And the paranoia runs deep. From page 20:
"Allen Burns, partner of Brooks and also a brilliant writer and producer of the "Mary Tyler Moore Show" agrees that he is "pretty unsympathetic toward businessmen." He distrusts and dislikes big business because of its "bigness." He believes that large companies have private armies, which frightens him."
Wow! Only in Occupied America could such silly nonsense survive in our elites, men of immense power and influence!
From page 27:
"There are yet other explanations for why the businessman comes off so badly in Hollywood. The key one is that businessmen, especially big businessmen, are perceived as coming from a different class from that of the TV writers and producers - and an adversary one at that. Although not one producer or writer said so for the record, a number of writers with whom I became familiar spoke of businessmen from AT&T, or IBM in terms that contrasted their Gentile, Ivy League backgrounds with the more ethnic, "school-of-hard-knocks" backgrounds of the TV writers.
"There was a distinct feeling that, despite the high pay and the access to powerful media that TV writers and producers enjoy, they are still part of a despised underclass, oppressed psychologically and (potentially) physically by an Aryan ruling class of businessmen and others. This feeling is by no means confined to Jews."
"The belief in a ruling class of white, East Coast Protestants meeting occasionally in corporate board rooms to give its orders to whoever happens to be elected to office is so strong that no amount of argument to the contrary makes a dent. And hostility to that real or imagined class is just as strong."
As for the American military, Stein reports on page 55:
"There is also at least a hint of ethnic animosity in the feelings of TV writers toward the military. Whenever the subject came up in private conversations that were not part of formal interviews, the writers clearly thought of military men as clean-shaven, blond, and of completely WASP background. In the minds of a few of the people I interviewed, these blond officers were always a hair's breadth away from becoming National Socialists. They were thought of as part of an Aryan ruling class that actually or potentially repressed those of different ethnic backgrounds."
Indeed, the deeper we dig into the Jewish psyche, the more we find blatant racial and tribal motivations.
Israel Shahak explains on page 52:
"Classical Jewish society has no peasants, and in this it differs profoundly from earlier Jewish societies in the two centers, Palestine and Mesopotamia. It is difficult for us, in modern times, to understand what this means. We have to make an effort to imagine what serfdom was like; the enormous difference in literacy, let alone education, between village and town throughout this period; the incomparably greater freedom enjoyed by all the small minority who were not peasants - in order to realize that during the whole of the classical period the Jews, in spite of all the persecutions to which they were subjected, formed an integral part of the privileged classes. Jewish historiography, especially in English, is misleading on this point inasmuch as it tends to focus on Jewish poverty and anti-Jewish discrimination. Both were real enough at times; but the poorest Jewish craftsman, pedlar, landlord's steward or petty cleric was immeasurably better off than a serf."
Continuing on page 53:
"Everywhere, classical Judaism developed hatred and contempt for agriculture as an occupation and for peasants as a class, even more than for other Gentiles - a hatred of which I know no parallel in other societies. This is immediately apparent to anyone who is familiar with the Yiddish or Hebrew literature of the 19th and 20th centuries."
"Most east-European Jewish socialists (that is, members of exclusively or predominantly Jewish parties and factions) are guilty of never pointing out this fact; indeed, many were themselves tainted with a ferocious anti-peasant attitude inherited from classical Judaism. Of course, zionist 'socialists'were the worst in this respect, but others, such as the Bund, were not much better. A typical example is their opposition to the formation of peasant co-operatives promoted by the Catholic clergy, on the ground that this was 'an act of antisemitism'. This attitude is by no means dead even now, it could be seen very clearly in the racist views held by many Jewish 'dissidents' in the USSR regarding the Russian people, and also in the lack of discussion of this background by so many Jewish socialists, such as Isaac Deutscher. The whole racist propaganda on the theme of the supposed superiority of Jewish morality and intellect (in which many Jewish socialists were prominent) is bound up with a lack of sensitivity for the suffering of that major part of humanity who were especially oppressed during the last thousand years - the peasants."
Wow! Mr. Shahak, you are lucky to still be alive, and the only reason you are is that Rabbi Cooper of ADL and his ilk in Israel no longer care what is said in books! What they care about is control of the TV. You owe your very life to television!
On page 62:
"All over Poland the nobles used Jews as their agents to undermine the commercial power of the Royal Towns, which were weak in any case. Alone among the countries of western Christendom, in Poland a nobleman's property inside a Royal Town was exempt from the town's laws and guild regulations. In most cases the nobles settled their Jewish clients in such properties, thus giving rise to a lasting conflict. The Jews were usually 'victorious', in the sense that the towns could neither subjugate nor drive them off; but in the frequent popular riots Jewish lives (and, even more, Jewish property) were lost. . . . Similar or worse consequences followed from the frequent use of Jews as commercial agents of noblemen: they won exemption from most Polish tolls and tariffs, to the loss of the native bourgeoisie."
"But the most lasting and tragic results occurred in the eastern provinces of Poland - ... The towns were established by nobles and belonged to them - and they were settled almost exclusively by Jews. Until 1939, the population of many Polish towns east of the river Bug was at least 90 per cent Jewish, and this demographic phenomenon was even more pronounced in that area of Tsarist Russia annexed from Poland and known as the Jewish Pale. Outside the towns very many Jews throughout Poland, but especially in the east, were employed as the direct supervisors and oppressors of the enserfed peasantry - as bailiffs of whole manors (invested with the landlord's full coercive powers) or as lessees of particular feudal monopolies such as the corn mill, the liquor still and public house (with the right of armed search of peasant houses for illicit stills) or the bakery, and as collectors of customary feudal dues of all kinds. In short, in eastern Poland, under the rule of the nobles (and of the feudalised church, formed exclusively from the nobility) the Jews were both the immediate exploiters of the peasantry and virtually the only town-dwellers."
Continuing on page 63:
"But, as we have remarked, the peasants suffered worse oppression at the hands of both landlords and Jews; and one may assume that, except in times of peasant uprisings, the full weight of the Jewish religious laws against Gentiles fell upon the peasants. As will be seen in the next chapter, these laws are suspended or mitigated in cases where it is feared that they might arouse dangerous hostility towards Jews; but the hostility of the peasants could be disregarded as ineffectual so long as the Jewish bailiff could shelter under the 'peace' of a great lord."
Continuing on page 64:
"During the whole period of classical Judaism, Jews were often subjected to persecutions/7 - and this fact now serves as the main 'argument' of the apologists of the Jewish religion with its anti-Gentile laws and especially of Zionism." * * * "It must be pointed out that in all the worst anti-Jewish persecutions, that is, where Jews were killed, the ruling elite, the emperor and the pope, the kings, the higher aristocracy and the upper clergy, as well as the rich bourgeoisie in the autonomous cities - were always on the side of the Jews. The latter's enemies belonged to the more oppressed and exploited classes and those close to them in daily life and interests, such as the friars of the mendicant orders.8. . . . For this reason all the massacres of Jews during the classical period were part of a peasant rebellion or other popular movements at times when the government was for some reason especially weak."
So you see, limited government equals weak government equals pogroms.
And that is the nub of it.
It has nothing to do with whether private welfare would work better than the public dole, or whether educational achievement and upward mobility would be enhanced by educational vouchers. These conservative policies weaken the government and will lead to the killing of Jews.
Jews do not trust us with freedom or limited government.
It is a prejudice that has been around for 2000 years. "Pray for the welfare of the government" said Rabbi Hanina in the first century AD at a time when the New World Order of its day was imposed by Rome.
Those passages in which Shahak explores the blatantly racist precepts that underlie the Jewish religion and the related laws that demand concealment of the truth from outsiders are perhaps the most sensational parts of his book. However, they are not nearly so important as his historical insights quoted above.
His detailed descriptions of the public deceptions about the contents of the Talmud are spectacular.
You should order your own copy ($16, I believe) by e-mailing to email@example.com
But I shall list some of those rules here to give you a flavor of how brazenly we are deceived when our leaders talk about the "Judeo-Christian" tradition:
1. A jewish doctor must save a jew (do otherwise forbidden work) on the Sabbath, but must not save a similarly circumstanced gentile. (Page 1)
2. A jew is forbidden to take interest on a loan from a Jew, but is commanded to take interest from a gentile. (Page 42)
3. The killing of a Jew is a capital crime for which the death penalty applies, but the killing of a gentile by a Jew is a moral offense only and not a legal offense punishable by a court. (Page 75)
4. In times of war, all gentile civilian members of the hostile nation should be killed. (Page 76)
5. The obligation to save the life of a fellow Jew is paramount and supersedes all other religions obligations, but a gentile with whom (the jews) are not at war must not be saved (for example if they fall into a well or into the sea). (Page 80)
6. A Jewish doctor is forbidden to treat a gentile, unless it is necessary to forestall hostility against Jews, in which case treatment is permitted (but not on the Sabbath). (Page 80)
7. Intercourse with a married Jewish woman is a capital offense for both participants, but since the concept of matrimony does not apply to gentiles, the concept of adultery does not apply to intercourse between a Jewish man and a gentile woman. Only the gentile woman must be executed "as is the case with a beast, because through her a Jew got into trouble" and the Jewish male must be flogged. (Page 87)
8. All gentile women are presumed to be prostitutes. (Page 88)
9. Jews must not, if they can prevent it, allow a gentile to be appointed to any position of authority over Jews. This rule also applies to converts to Judaism. (Page 88)
10. Gentiles are presumed to be congenital liars and are disqualified from testifying in Jewish courts. (Page 88)
11. Giving money to a Jewish beggar is an important religious duty, but giving money to gentile beggars is only permitted if it will prevent anti-Jewish hostility. (Page 89)
12. If a Jew finds the property of another Jew, he has an affirmative duty to seek out the owner and return the property. But if the owner was a gentile, the Talmud forbids him to return it. (Page 89).
13. It is a sin to deceive a fellow Jew in a business transaction, either by false statement or by failure to disclose essential facts. If the other party to the transaction is a gentile, then only false statements are forbidden. (Page 89)
14. It is forbidden to defraud a fellow Jew by "buying or selling at an unreasonable price," a prohibition that does not apply in a Jew's dealings with a gentile. (Page 89)
15. Non-violent theft is forbidden even if the victim is a gentile. However, armed robbery of a gentile by a Jew is forbidden only when in a gentile jurisdiction and not when in a Jewish jurisdiction. (Page 90)
In addition, a series of special laws apply to gentiles in the land of Israel.
1. Jews are forbidden to sell real estate in the Land of Israel to gentiles. (Page 90)
2. Leasing land to a gentile in the land of Israel is permitted only if the arrangement is temporary, and not at all if Jews have sufficient power and wealth to expel all gentiles. (Page 90)
Gentiles typically display one of two reactions to this information. The first is denial - that these xenophobic laws of Judaism must be a fabrication, because no group of educated human beings which so fervently advocates tolerance, compassion and diversity would risk such a brazen public fraud.
The second reaction is to dismiss these laws as ancient nonsense that nobody believes any more.
Christians make the mistake of assuming that Judaism is just another flavor of Christianity. They think that Jews have lost faith just as Christians have. But the content of the Jewish faith is so radically different from the Christian faith that it is much harder to lose.
It is one thing to deny the probability of supernatural events such as the divinity of Christ or the existence of God. But it is quiet another to discard a set of standards for relations with strangers specifically tailored to further your self-interest at their expense. One must be especially skeptical when group behavior consistently indicates that the spirit and, whenever possible, the letter of the old rules is still being followed.
Israel Shahak claims that it is impossible to advocate "civil rights," "pluralism," "tolerance" and "compassion" without first renouncing the Jewish religion. In his view, any Jew who has not renounced Judaism and continues to advocate these liberal causes does so deceptively and only because he knows "pluralism" will weaken his adversaries.
So where does all this leave us?
A very important article appeared on page 1 of the Wall Street Journal on Aug 8, 1991.
"In June, the Council of Jewish Federations, in New York, released a survey showing that since 1985 slightly more than half of Jews who married married a gentile."
"Things were quite different 30 years ago. ... [B]arely 5% of Jews who wed picked non-Jews as mates. In their seminal 1963 book "Beyond the Melting Pot." Nathan Glazer and Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote that Jews were among the most endogamous of U.S. ethnic groups. And that, the authors concluded, ensured Jewish survival."
My initial reaction was the typical "conservative" response. This seemed to be proof that Jews were not a problem separate and distinct from liberals generally, and that in 60 years their numbers in the U.S. would be substantially diminished. I was comforted in this view by the description of the ethnic consequence of these intermarriages set forth in the article:
"Studies show that the children of mixed marriages rarely consider themselves Jews; most have no affinity for Jewish institutions ranging from the local synagogue to the state of Israel. The demographics have been unfavorable for years."
It was not until I read Ostrovsky's "By Way of Deception," Seymour Hersh's "The Samson Option" and Israel Shahak's "Jewish History, Jewish Religion" that I recognized the obvious. This demographic threat coming from Jews' own aesthetic sexual preferences would cause the "remnant" to become much more dangerous.
Their conduct proves it.
We have Sayanim all over Europe and the U.S. spying for Israel, and providing them with the latest weapons technology. We have "misgerot" or armed groups of Jews ready to support forcible entry and extraction of Jews by Israel throughout Europe and America.
States do not waste their resources on these kinds of preparations unless they intend to use them.
We have entered into a new chapter in the history of the Jewish people. They are splitting into two groups. One group is generally non-political or not passionately political. They often vote wrong but are trusting enough to discuss their feelings honestly with us. They are often willing to be pursuaded by reasonable arguments backed up by facts.
The other group is a wildly paranoid remnant of true believers, getting bolder and more brazen in their demands now that Israel has the missile technology to deliver their nuclear weapons.
The political activists come from this remnant. The State of Israel is controlled by them. They are broadly incapable of believing that non-jews have anything but murderous intentions toward Jews.
Unfortunately, members of this remnant are often the most intelligent.
In 1943, Oppenheimer and the other Jewish scientists working on the U.S. nuclear bomb passed nuclear secrets to Stalin because Stalin promised Oppenheimer a Jewish homeland inside Russia. It caused us 45 years of fear and an imponderably expensive arms race. Being Jewish means never having to say you are sorry!
Immediately following the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, Ben-Gurion, Peres and Ernst Bergman began working on a nuclear weapon. Bergman had a thorough understanding of the theory. In 1957 a Jewish physicist named Raymond Fox emigrated from California to Israel. Fox "had access to weapons design information at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.... Fox's secrets would be invaluable to the Israelis at Dimona." (The Samson Option, p 91)
Ever since Dimona, the Israeli nuclear production facility, went live sometime between 1964 and 1967, we have seen an escalation in the belligerency and stridency of Israeli and Jewish demands. Prior to 1965 we did not hear much about the Holocaust. But the Holocaust propaganda has escalated markedly since then. It was the possession of nuclear arms that marks the escalation of demands for "reparations" from the industrialized countries of the world.
According to Hersh, Israel threatened to use nuclear weapons against their Arab opponents in the 1967 war if the U.S. did not engage in a massive conventional military supply and assistance mission. Thereafter, the U.S. has paid $5 billions annually and paid $3 billions annually to bribe Israel's neighbors into peaceful relations.
Israel had discovered nuclear blackmail. The worse they behave the more money they make!
Since 1967, the holocaust drumroll has escalated in intensity. Germany now pays pensions to 4.1 million aging Jews under a program to compensate "holocaust survivors." There were only about 1.1 million Jews alive in the camps at the end of the war, but the size and the expense of the program has escalated dramatically in recent years. Indeed, Germany pays about $14 billion (U.S.) per year defraying Israel's old age (Social Security) costs as well as the cost for much of the rest of world Jewry. There are about 16 million Jews worldwide, and 3.5 million of them live in Israel. It is a tiny country. $5 or $10 billions is an enormous sum to them.
What happens in 15 or 20 years when the number of Jews who can claim to have been alive during the Third Reich begins to dwindle rapidly? Does anyone really believe that Israel intends to begin paying its own old-age survivor benefits? Does anyone really believe that Israel will not come up with a new propaganda rationale for why Germany must keep paying, while rattling its nuclear saber in the private councils of European Governments?
Lately, the World Jewish Congress and Israel have set their sights on Switzerland, a wartime neutral, as well as Sweden and Norway. The original pretext for the extortion of Switzerland was that the Swiss had supposedly bought gold confiscated from Jews by Germany. Forget the post-war propaganda and cultural icons like "Sound of Music." History is once again being rewritten, and Switzerland has become like the U.S. and Germany, a bad guy. In order to silence the thunder of the media, Switzerland had to pony up $200 millions (U.S.) even before the facts were investigated. The funds will be passed out to aging Jews without regard to whether they had any gold or not (which was the real objective from the beginning).
Israel has become utterly dependent on these extortions from other countries. If this aid were to be cut off, the Israeli economy and government would collapse.
To ensure that the aid will not stop, Israel has developed medium range missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads anywhere in Europe or Russia. It is working on intercontinental ballistic missiles to ensure successful world-wide extortion. Does anyone really believe that if Israel goes to nation X and threatens to attack nation Y unless nation X pays, that nation X (assuming it is a European nation) won't knuckle under and pay?
Now, under cover of the Israeli Nuclear umbrella, the extortion rackets become ever louder and ever more brazen. For a people consumed with a 2000 year history of fearing "anti-semitism," the rush against Switzerland was incredibly heavy handed. The Swiss are certain to feel outraged and humiliated by this treatment. "Anti-semitism" is sure to increase as a result.
If you look to their actions, as opposed to their propaganda, it becomes clear that the remnant is no longer afraid of provoking anti-semitism. The remnant no longer cares how angry the Swiss get. Switzerland is within easy striking distance of Israel's medium range missiles and has none of its own. The logic of targeting Switzerland for blackmail is impeccable. The arrangement will evolve into a system of permanent tribute.
The U.S. and Russia both loudly proclaimed their nuclear capabilities to the public. Their strategy was to generate political opposition to "first use" within the opponent's domestic population. In contrast, Israel has chosen to remain silent in public about their nuclear arsenal. They are absolutely committed to "first use". But more important, they do not want the people of Switzerland, Austria, Croatia, Germany, Sweden, Norway or Italy thinking of them as a nuclear threat. They want these populations to remain as sympathetic as possible to the Jewish cause and agreeable to payment of tribute. However, Israel is quick to boast of its capabilities behind closed doors to the world's political leaders. The threat is clearly and loudly made to the world's governments.
While the U.S. and Russian military leaders proclaim that nuclear weapons are "too horrible to use," neoconservatives like Sam Cohen (inventor of the neutron bomb) write articles in National Review (Feb. 10, 1997 p 36) castigating our military for failing to prepare for the day when nuclear weapons _will_ be used. The reason Cohen is so certain that such weapons will be used is that he understands Israel and Israel's ancient law that commands the slaughter of civilians in nations with which it is at war.
Meanwhile, back here in Occupied America, we differ from Palestinians only in our good fortune not to have been born in Eretz Israel. Instead, we have members of the Jewish remnant such as Benjamin Ginsberg, professor of political science at Johns Hopkins, openly bragging in his book "The Fatal Embrace" (University of Chicago Press, 1993) about how easy it was to take political power from us, and openly bragging that we gentiles are incapable of effective political resistance because of our inability to spot the real agendas within the smoke:
"During the 1960's, Jews joined with other liberal Democrats and with blacks in the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements. Through this alliance, Jews were able to weaken their conservative Southern adversaries as well as their Northern white working-class rivals within the Democratic Party, and to virtually destroy the traditional party machines upon which these forces depended for their power. In addition, the programs of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society enlarged the Welfare State and expanded the influence of Jewish professionals and academics in policy-making and administrative processes at the national, state, and local levels." (Page 225)
Occupied America is still a "free" country if you define freedom to mean the ability to do things that do not anger the powerful.
But then, every society that has ever existed grants this sort of freedom.
In America, you can still be a success and earn a lot of money. If you do, you will find yourself part of a small group supporting the racial grievance lobbies to the tune of $100 billions per year, and you will be supporting a huge subculture of non-productive idlers, many in government employment.
With the money left over after the Rabbinical state is through with you, you might find your reward for your successful business career in the inevitable steady diet of McDonald's hamburgers and pizza or in the blare of mindless TV talk shows and hostile rap music.
You will never even get a thank-you note from the Zionist Occupation Government for the enormous tribute you pay. And inevitably, you and your intelligent cohorts in the glass and steel canyons of the information elites will be pushed ever harder to support the non-productive. After all, the non-productive in Occupied America have the smartest and most successful political leadership on earth.
You can call it freedom if you wish. You could even call it success. Our alien rulers and their front men like Bill Clinton certainly would call it that. But then their power over you depends on their skill at lying to you and their skill at manipulating your moral sentiments.
Your acceptance of the situation depends on your ability to lie to yourself.
Back to Main Page
(c) 1996 Yggdrasil. All rights reserved. Distribute Freely.