> John Lee wrote:
>
> Good Read.
> John
>
> http://www.ddc.net/ygg/rj/rj-30.htm
>
> Name: Occupied America - Part
>IV - An Ugly Trend.url
> Occupied America - Part IV - An Ugly Trend.url Type: Internet Shortcut
>
>(application/x-unknown-content-type-InternetShortcut)
> Encoding: 7bit
===========
YGGDRASIL
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?"
Hmm!
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.
Page 63:
"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."
Page 70:
"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."
Page 71:
"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 PROTECTED]
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.
Hmm!
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.
Yggdrasil-
-------------
Sounds like you have a personal problem with Jews. That's good. WE're having
a great old time. If you'd like to have a great old time too, all you have to
is get circumcised, convert, take world domination lessons from a good rabbi,
find some dumb Goyim to tax and some inferior types with self esteem issues
who are too immature to own guns,... and have the ATF, (a well known Jewish
organization,) take them away.
Have a nice day.
Joshua2
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths,
misdirections
and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and
minor
effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said,
CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
<A HREF="http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
