Have you ever noticed the psychological phenomenon in which a person
will often call attention to the real or imagined faults in others that
he himself suffers from? The name of this phenomenon is projection, and
it certainly crops up often in life: the mentally unbalanced man accusing
others of being "crazy"; the extremely jealous woman accusing
her husband of not trusting her; the habitual schemer accusing his co-workers
of plotting against him; the greedy man excoriating his fellows for being
selfish; etc.
This phenomenon is nowhere more apparent than in the controlled media's
readiness to accuse anyone who believes in White survival of being what
they call a "White supremacist." This has to be the most egregious
example imaginable of the pot calling the kettle black.
Actually, it is more like the pot calling the silverware black, since
most of those accused of being À "White supremacists," or in
illiterate-speak, "White supremists" [sic], are actually White
separatists, a very important distinction. It is the largely Jewish masters
of the media who are supremacists supreme.
A separatist desires that his people should have freedom and independence
from domination by other peoples, and to that end he works for the day
when his people shall be able to live and provide for themselves in their
own nation, without the burden of an underclass or overclass comprised
of other peoples. A separatist specifically does not desire to be an
overclass. He does not want to rule over any other people. In fact,
a separatist does not want a multiracial society at all.
A supremacist, on the other hand, wants and demands a multiracial society.
In this multiracial society he wishes his race or social group to be the
dominant one. The fact that this desire is usually cloaked in pretensions
of beneficent intentions and "the greatest good for the greatest number"
should not obscure the fact that it is a master/servant relationship that
the supremacist wants. White Americans who promoted Black slavery in this
country during the first half of the 19th Century could properly be called
supremacists. White American businessmen who support increased Third World
immigration to provide themselves with cheap labor are essentially supremacists.
The White upper class have abandoned their own people, but they daub their unconscionable piggish greed and treason with a fake gilding of
"tolerance" which they themselves neither believe nor practice.
The world champions of hypocrisy when it comes to ethnic supremacy,
however, have to be the organized Jews. Dominant in the Hollywood/New York
cultural axis, when anyone challenges their interests they are quick to
denounce with the words that they have made into terms of opprobrium: "racist,"
"White supremacist," etc. In their movies and their newscasts
they are zealous in their promotion of the idea of a multiracial, multicultural
society in which all live in perfect harmony. In fact, the genesis of this
"multicultural" moral and social construct was with the leftist
media Jews and their allies, as they themselves admit in private Jewish
publications (see previous article, "Yiddishkeit Pathology."
But a careful examination of organized Jewry's attitudes towards other
races reveals a quite different face from that presented to the public.
In fact, it can be fairly said that Jewish religion and Jewish practice
exemplify racial supremacy at its most hateful and its most outrageous.
In truth, after examining definitive Jewish religious documents one can
be forgiven for thinking that racism just might have been invented by the
Jews.
Let's take a look at the record.
A few years ago a friend of mine, after a long evening discussing politics
and conspiracy, asked me, "If there really were a Jewish plan to dominate
and enslave us as you say, surely someone would have defected and spilled
the beans on his fellow conspirators."
"Well," I replied, "I agree that would be the very best
evidence of all."
I can tell you now that such evidence not only exists, but it is plentiful.
It is not all in one place, and one has to examine the testimony of more
than one individual to get the complete picture, but there are indeed defectors
from what my friend called the "Jewish conspiracy." I am not
sure how well the word "conspiracy" now applies to a domination
presently being conducted more and more out in the open, but a conspiracy
it once was, and defectors it has surely had, though not all of them would
have claimed that title. Long-time readers will be familiar with the names
of a few of these: Benjamin H. Freedman, Alfred Lilienthal, Victor Ostrovsky,
Samuel Roth, Marcus Eli Ravage, Noam Chomsky, Israel Shahak. Each provides
a piece of truth that the ruling establishment does not wish you to know.
Today let us examine Israel Shahak. Israel Shahak is a professor emeritus
at Hebrew University and longtime Israeli dissident. Israel Shahak is a
liberal Jew who excoriates "Nazis" repeatedly and vociferously
in his writings. Israel Shahak is himself a former resident of the Bergen-Belsen
concentration camp during World War II. He was raised as an Orthodox Jew.
He is a Jew who settled in Palestine in 1945 and was witness to the founding
of the state of Israel. And he is a powerful opponent of Jewish hypocrisy.
The extraordinary thing about Israel Shahak is that he does not have
a double standard for Jews and non-Jews when it comes to racial supremacy.
Shahak is against racial supremacy whether practiced by Jews or non-Jews,
and he finds that it is practiced extensively by Jews and is in fact part
of their religious traditions. Professor Shahak finds this morally disturbing
and not in the long-term interests of Jews. Professor Shahak has published
a book which examines the issue of Jewish racism in detail, Jewish History,
Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3,000 Years.
Israel Shahak says that Judaism and its teachings are "poisoning
the hearts and minds" of its followers and have been doing so for
thousands of years. In a recent forum at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, he acknowledged that Jews have been persecuted in the past,
but emphasized that today "it is quite common that a persecuted group
becomes the persecutor."
One of Shahak's favorite activities is translating the Hebrew press
into English for the edification of the rest of us, a practice which has
earned him the burning hatred of many in the Jewish establishment. One
article he translated recently, by Israeli journalist Tom Segev, relates
the writer's random walk through Jerusalem in the company of an Arab lawyer.
The lawyer was stopped repeatedly by Israeli guards and his identification
papers were demanded. One guard ordered him, "Come here, jump."
Then the guard dropped his papers on the road and, laughing, demanded that
the Arab pick them up. Aside to the Jewish journalist the guard stated,
"These people will do whatever you tell them to do. If I tell him
to jump, he will jump. Run, he will run. Take your clothes off, he will
take them off. If I tell him to kiss the wall, he will kiss it. If I tell
him to crawl on the road, won't he crawl? . . . Everything. Tell him to
curse his mother and he will curse her too." The guard continued,
offering his opinion that the Arabs are "not human beings." The
border guards then searched the lawyer, gratuitously slapping him, and
ordered him to remove his shoes, warning him that they could order him
to remove all his clothes if they so chose. Segev continues: "My Arab
kept silent and sat down on the ground." The border guards laughed
and said again, "Really, not humans."
This, of course, is a relatively mild example of the attitude of many
Jews toward Gentiles, but it suffices to show the mentality involved.
Shahak, in an article entitled "The Ideology Behind the Hebron
Massacre," gives us some additional recent examples of this widespread
Jewish attitude. He translates a few of the statements of a religious group
in Israel called the Gush Emunim, which, according to Shahak, "enjoy[s]
[Yitzhak] Rabin's friendship and strong influence in wide circles of the
Israeli and diaspora Jewish communities."
This sect states that Jews are not and cannot be a normal people.
One of their leaders, Rabbi Schlomo Aviner, stated,". . . while
God requires other normal nations to abide by abstract codes of justice
and righteousness, such laws do not apply to Jews."
Rabbi Israel Ariel states, "A Jew who kills a non-Jew is exempt
from human judgment, and has not violated the prohibition of murder."
According to Gush Emunim rabbis, "all Arabs living in Palestine
are thieves because since the land was once Jewish, all property to be
found on that land really belongs to the Jews."
These Jewish fanatics feel invincible. They possess one of the world's
most powerful military machines (built up by five billion or more U.S.
dollars in annual aid) and have plenty of potential American cannon fodder
at their disposal. They state: "Israel need have no fear of future
wars, and can even provoke them at will . . . Even if there is peace, we
must instigate wars of liberation in order to conquer . . ."
In Shahak's article former Knesset member Rabbi Eliezar Waldman, who
is now the director of the main Jewish school in Kiryat Arba, expresses
the view "that by fighting the Arabs, Israel carries out its divine
mission to serve as the heart of the world . . . while Arab hostility springs,
like all anti-Semitism, from the world's recalcitrance against being saved
by the Jews, . . . or from Arabs seeking to fulfill their collective death-wish."
Shahak recounts the answer of a rabbi who was asked by an Israeli soldier
if it was proper to kill Arab women and children. The rabbi's answer was
a quote from the Jewish holy book, the Talmud "The best of
the gentiles . . . kill him; the best of snakes . . .dash out its brains."
Some holy book; some religion!
Shahak contends that Jews are imbued with such attitudes to the degree
that they are immersed in Judaism. In his book he explores the anti-Gentile
outlook of Judaism's Talmud. He writes:
According to the Jewish religion, the murder of a Jew is a capital offense
and one of the three most heinous sins (the other two being idolatry and
adultery). Jewish religious courts and secular authorities are commanded
to punish, even beyond the limits of the ordinary administration of justice,
anyone guilty of murdering a Jew . . . When the victim is a Gentile, the
position is quite different. A Jew who murders a Gentile is guilty only
of a sin against the laws of Heaven, not punishable by a court. To cause
indirectly the death of a Gentile is no sin at all.
Thus, one of the two most important commentators on the Shulhan 'Arukh explains that when it comes to a Gentile, "one must not lift one's
hand to harm him, but one may harm him indirectly, for instance by removing
a ladder after he had fallen into a crevice . . . there is no prohibition
here, because it was not done directly."
A Gentile murderer who happens to be under Jewish jurisdiction must
be executed whether the victim was Jewish or not. However, if the victim
was Gentile and the murderer converts to Judaism, he is not punished.
Shahak reveals that according to the Talmud:
Sexual intercourse between a married Jewish woman and any man other
than her husband is a capital offense for both parties, and one of the
three most heinous sins. The status of Gentile women is very different.
The Halakhah presumes all Gentiles to be utterly promiscuous and
the verse "whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue [of
semen] is like the issue of horses" is applied to them . . . Therefore,
the concept of adultery does not apply to intercourse between a Jewish
man and a Gentile woman; rather the Talmud equates such intercourse
to the sin of bestiality . . .
According to the Talmudic Encyclopedia: "He who has carnal
knowledge of the wife of a Gentile is not liable to the death penalty,
for it is written: `thy fellow's wife' rather than the alien's wife . .
. and although a married Gentile woman is forbidden to the Gentiles, in
any case a Jew is exempted."
This does not imply that sexual intercourse between a Jewish man and
a Gentile woman is permitted -- quite the contrary. But the main punishment
is inflicted on the Gentile woman; she must be executed, even if she was
raped by the Jew: "If a Jew has coitus with a Gentile woman, whether
she be a child of three or an adult, whether married or unmarried, and
even if he is a minor aged only nine years and one day . . . because he
had willful coitus with her she must be killed, as is the case with a beast,
because through her a Jew got into trouble."
If a Jew finds property whose probable owner is Jewish, the finder is
strictly enjoined to make a positive effort to return his find by advertising
it publicly. In contrast, the Talmud and all the early rabbinical
authorities not only allow a Jewish finder to appropriate an article lost
by a Gentile, but actually forbid him or her to return it . . .
It is forbidden to defraud a Jew by selling or buying at an unreasonable
price. However, fraud does not apply to Gentiles, for it is written: "Do
not defraud each man his brother . . ." The Halakhah interprets all
such idioms [as ‘each man his brother’ or ‘neighbor’] as referring exclusively
to one's fellow Jew.
In 1962 a part of the Maimonidean Code . . . the so-called Book of
Knowledge, which contains the most basic rules of Jewish faith and
practice, was published in Jerusalem in a bilingual edition, with the English
translation facing the Hebrew text. The latter has been restored to its
original purity, and the command to exterminate Jewish infidels appears
in it in full: "It is a duty to exterminate them with one's own hands."
In the English translation this is somewhat softened to: "It is a
duty to take active measures to destroy them." But then the Hebrew
text goes on to specify the prime examples of "infidels" who
must be exterminated: "Such as Jesus of Nazareth and his pupils, and
Tzadoq and Baitos [the founders of the Sadducean sect] and their pupils,
may the name of the wicked rot." Not one word of this appears in the
English text on the facing page (78a). And, even more significant, in spite
of the wide circulation of this book among scholars in the English-speaking
countries, not one of them has, as far as I know, protested against this
glaring deception.
Jew Israel Shahak has done the world a great service. He has been intellectually
honest and very courageous. In Israel he speaks against Judaism at a very
real risk to his life so as to reveal the truth about the most long-standing
and utterly hostile racism the world has ever seen: Jewish racism.
Israel Shahak's works make it clear that the new religion of "equality"
promoted by the Jewish establishment is for Gentile consumption only. Organized
Jews promote "equality," but they believe in the very opposite.
They believe that they are a special, chosen people, destined to rule all
others and to own all the wealth of the world. They are fanatical about
preserving their heritage and their identity, their exclusive Jewish schools,
and their organizations. The prevailing Jewish world view is a textbook
example of the racial supremacy they are so fond of accusing others of
having.
What can we learn from this? I assure you it is not my purpose to promote
hatred or racial supremacy from our side of the racial divide. The very
fact that I devote so much space to truth-telling Jewish dissidents should
prove that.
I think we can learn a lot from an unbiased observation of Jewish activities.
First we must acknowledge that they have been amazingly successful at surviving. Surrounded by often hostile majorities, they have preserved their identity,
their culture, and the germ of their racial uniqueness through millennia.
For that we can credit their intense sense of identity and solidarity and
their belief in themselves as a people. I deeply wish that we Europeans
could emulate them in this regard, for then our survival would be assured.
But I cannot recommend their hypocrisy as an example to be followed.
This hypocrisy always leads them to practice a supremacist rather than
a separatist way of life. Despite some Zionist denials the Jewish way of
life shows every sign of continuing on its perpetual path of living among
other peoples as a solid, organized minority and attempting to gain the
upper hand in Gentile nations by promoting the poisonous idea of a raceless
society. This destructive and hypocritical approach is sure death for the
Gentiles, of course, and in the long run always backfires on the Jews.
That is precisely what Professor Shahak is worried about.
I think that racial separatism, not supremacy, is the only path to independence
and freedom for all peoples on this planet. It is also a path that is in
harmony with our natural instincts. Our instincts -- all of them -- are
there for very important reasons, and we would not be what we are if it
were not for the instincts which led us to survive the rigors of Ice Age
Europe and to consider ourselves fundamentally different from peoples who
developed closer to the Equator.
at
the Battle of Cowpens, S. Carolina, 1781