Paper by Professor Robert Weissberg

Jews and Blacks:  Everything the Goyim Want to Know But Are Afraid to Ask

Robert Weissberg

            What explains continued Jewish support for black causes long after blacks have unequivocally turned against their erstwhile ally?  Or, in modern psychobabble, "Why does she still stay in the abusive relationship?"  Moreover, how might this Jewish co-dependency be undermined?  Is there a handy twelve-step program for this disorder?  Given that the entire contemporary civil rights political agenda (affirmative action and related "color sensitive" evils) might collapse into a mere nuisance without Jewish money, brains and dynamism, these are hardly trivial questions. 

            The Historical Record

            To begin with, let me read into the record two facts as one submits court documents.  Exhibit A is the Jewish contribution to black well being.  This monumental bestowal properly requires a massive tome.  Jews have already assisted as prominent leaders and financial benefactors.  The Julius Rosenwald Foundation virtually single-handedly bankrolled the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund (Rosenwald's generosity likewise once helped educate 25 to 40% of Southern black children!).  Decades back the Jewish philanthropists Jacob Shiff and Felix Warburg were similarly munificent.  More than half the lawyers and freedom riders assisting Southern black civil rights activists during the 1960s were Jewish.  Martin Luther King, Jr., James Farmer, among many others, all relied on Jewish advisors (and Jewish gelt [money]).  The Jewish Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Congress, and the American Jewish Committee (among numerous other Jewish organizations) have been "movement" stalwarts.  Elected Jewish leaders have uniformly been pro-civil rights, while ordinary Jews are the most racially liberal demographic group.  The Wall Street Journal recently noted that nearly all high-ranking black executives worked in Jewish run corporations.  And on and on.  Perhaps only Israel has drawn more fervent support in the pantheon of Jewish causes!

            Exhibit B is wretched black anti-Semitism.  The facts are again plain--even Ivory Tower academics admit it.  Repeated national polls show blacks more anti-Semitic than whites, even when statistically adjusting for socio-economic status.  A 1992 survey revealed that blacks were often twice as likely as whites to endorse anti-Jewish stereotypical, e.g., Jews favor shady business practices or have excessive economic power.  More telling is explicit Jew-hating permeating black popular culture.  The virulent anti-Jewish messages of Public Enemy, Professor Griff and other rap artists evidently do not offend black audiences judging by the millions of records sold.  Damning Jewish Ghetto merchants (even long after they have sold their stores) is apparently an honored black tradition.  That both Malcolm X and Louis Farrakhan have risen to respected mainstream figures among ordinary blacks (and NAACP, as well) despite praising Hitler's killing of six million Jews speaks louder than any poll.

            Overshadowing these outcroppings is the character of this antipathy.  It is not confined to ill-educated, destitute blacks easily seduced by gutter rhetoric, through it surely thrives in such environs.  Shockingly, it is more pervasive among educated African-Americans who, at least in principle, should be aware of their debts as well as the foolishness of alienating willing allies.  Black intellectuals, and we are not just talking of Leonard Jeffries, openly despise Jewish support, even occasionally seeing it as an anti-black plot.  Talk of "Jews running the slave trade" or "Jewish merchants sucking the blood from black communities" is often a "scholarly" given.  One is reminded of Gladstone's retort when informed that a Londoner spreading terrible lies about him.  "Why," he replied, "I never once did the man a favor?"

            Anti-Semitic professionals among wannabe black leaders often seem obligatory.  As Benjamin Ginsberg's The Fatal Embrace convincingly argues, professing "fervent commitment" to youthful Ghetto Brothers, nothing outshines open Jew-baiting.  In a bizarre psycho-logic, Jesse Jackson (let alone Louis Farrakhan) gains "authenticity" by biting the Hymietown hand that feeds them.  Meanwhile, black leaders "knowing better" must resist anti-Semitism circumspectly lest they be accused of selling out to "the Man."  The "attack a Jew, gain stature" nexus means that all the dialoguing, "education," let alone Jewish generosity, will come to naught.  Black anti-Semitism is not a passing lumpenproletariat disorder.

            Traditional Explanation of this Odd Relationship

            The scholarly literature abounds with theories explaining this Jewish affinity.  All make perfect sense...until about thirty years ago when this kinship became dysfunctional, if not pathological.  For those seeking a religions justification, one need look no further than the Torah with its emphasis on righteousness, performing of good deeds, charity, and respect for the less fortunate.  Rachmones--compassion, pity--is absolutely central to Judaism, and who is a better recipient than the long-suffering African-Americans?  Add Jewish traditional association with the central state, the ambitious, benevolent Monarch granting protection in exchange for commercial vigor.  The modern incarnation would be New Deal-Great Society bureaucratic liberalism with its promise of shielding all the downtrodden, regardless of creed or coloration.  Some Jews undoubtedly subscribe to a domino theory of repression--once "they" get the blacks, the Jews are next, so let's fight the battle now.  There is also the "kinship of suffering" hypothesis so popular among first or second-generation Jewish immigrants struggling against a common enemy, the white gentile.  Here helping blacks simultaneously helps Jews.  Lastly, those Jews desperately seeking escape from their own Jewish angst might find the black cause a key step towards building a white bread Utopia unbothered by racial or ethical distinction.

            All contain ample truth, and perhaps explain lingering habits.  What is puzzling is that objective conditions (as the Soviets liked to say), makes a mockery of today's affinity.  There should be a mass exodus, but, alas, a liberating Moses has failed to arrive.  Jewish-Black politics has become bitterly zero-sum, occasionally violently confrontational as the Crown Heights riot illustrated.  The black assault on merit punishes Jews (and Asians) well beyond college admissions or civil service jobs.  Jews by the thousands have had their life-chances diminished "thanks" to gains by undeserving African-Americans (often, ironically, assisted by misguided Jewish activist).  Surely Jews in "changing neighborhoods" cannot welcome urban incivility--crime, panhandlers, vandalism and blight--so endemic to African American communities.  Black rampant anti-intellectualism, most concretely displayed in the physical destruction of urban schools, in and of itself, should forever distance Jews from this putative "soul mate."  And truth to tell, try imagining two more adversarial cultures measured by family life, educational attainment, hedonistic indulgence, and nearly all else defining "culture."

            Perhaps the only valid justification for not annulling this marriage is both parties share an infatuation with the modern bureaucratic state.  In that African-American Utopia or programs, outreaches, mentors, role models, counselors, interventions and all the other do-goodism statist paraphernalia, Jews gain civil service jobs and a modicum of power.  A few Jewish intellectuals also find blacks useful soldiers for advancing their compulsive subversion of Western Civilization (e.g., cultural relativism, post modernism, and untold other Jewish contrived "insights").  Nevertheless, overall, if this partnership were taken to family court, even the most hidebound judge would grant an immediate divorce.

            The Schwartza

            To grasp fully why this dog does not bark, one must dig deeper, namely how Jews (at least those over 40) typically "conceptualize" African-Americans or, to use the Yiddish term, Schwartza.  This, the goyim seldom know, but it is central to explaining relationship longevity.  Leo Rosten's The Joys of Yiddish, tersely defines "Schwartza" as "a black person."  This is seriously misleading by omission; "Schwartza" comes with immense, highly nuanced cultural baggage.  It is not a synonym for "black" or "Negro," though these terms might appear inter-changeable to outsiders.  Once properly understood, this deeply embedded "conceptualization" helps account for Jews still tolerating black misbehavior, even anti-Semitism.

            Let's begin positively--the term has nothing to do with the "N word" or related derogatory slurs.  Nothing!  A little affection might even be sporadically detected.  Elderly kibitzing Jews would be genuinely horrified if a friend inserted "nigger" or "coon" to achieve lexiconic variety.  To be sure, and this cannot be over-estimated, exceedingly few Jews like blacks personally; nearly all will go to great lengths to avoid living among them.  The Jewish-black intermarriage rate is trivial.  Still, this personal aversion should not be confused with commonplace ethic hatred.

            Second, "Schwartza" always implies a cognitive inferiority.  This mental picture is true even for pro-civil rights Jews, regardless of contrary protestations or refusal to use the "S" word.  Adding "dumb" to Schwartza is somewhat superfluous, reserved only for egregious stupidity.  Invisible baggage likewise included gullibility, emotional excitability and a weakness for here-and-now conspicuous consumption.  Violence, especially inter-personal alcohol induced mayhem, is also associated with "Schwartza."  The correspondence with traditional Southern folklore is hardly accidental.  To repeat, none of this is fundamentally pejorative--this "fact of life" denotation is no different from 2+2=4 and was surely daily reinforced by childhood contact with black cleaning ladies, handymen, and school-related experiences.  This learning undoubtedly predated the racial liberalism acquired during adolescence.

            Third, and crucial, at least in my generation, it was always believed that any Jew could ultimately outsmart any Schwartza, save being confronted with a demented gunman.  Despite immense cultural chasms, Jews held themselves innately capable of finessing blacks, thanks to their superior wits, verbal talent, and mastery of black psychology.  The unmatched success of Jewish Ghetto merchants (and, ironically, Jewish civil rights activists in leadership positions) proclaimed this truth.  Even today, Jews may secretly brag about their success in beguiling blacks in contentious inter-personal relationships.

            Where personal manipulation might fail, the storehouse of survival tactics sufficed exceedingly well.  Black pathologies are bearable, especially since most black mayhem is self-inflicted.  Jews might even profit from these disorders as merchants or nanny state therapists.  Threatened Jews can flee deteriorating neighborhoods, enroll their children in private school, hire security guards, co-opt black leaders financially, or otherwise escape.  These adjustments are hardly cost free, but they can be borne and are culturally acceptable.  Jews see no conflict between righteously defending black criminals as "political prisoners" and living in fortress style buildings.  Jews permanently "at-risk" from black disorders are rare.

            There is a notable irony here.  On the one hand, Jews dread blacks physically.  This enduring cowardliness cannot be over-estimated in explaining outward Jewish political cravenness.  They dutifully pay the Danegelt though, unquestionably, they realize that this only emboldens the Dane.  Yet, simultaneously, they also realize that even the worst black disorders are surmountable.  Jews have historically faced far, far worse, and flourished.

            And now to raise some eyebrows.  Ultimately, public affirmations aside, for most Jews the goyim (technically, white goyim since Schwartza, like the Chinese, are never categorized as goyim) still pose the greatest potential threat.  Trust me--contrary fact-based arguments fall on deaf ears.  Forget that Richard Nixon steadfastly helped Israel during the Yum Kippur War.  Ditto for all the gushy kindness publicly showered on Israel by Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwall and other Fundamentalist luminaries.  The yearly Brotherhood dinners in which earnest Reformed Rabbis and enlightened Episcopal Ministers appeal for "mutual understanding and tolerance" are immaterial.  Disregard everything else, too, no matter how assuring.  Down deep, Al Sharpton or  Steve Cokely (the Chicago mayoral aid insisting that Jewish doctors inject black babies with AIDS) and judged less dangerous than Gary Bauer.

            And why, you should ask?  It's obvious.  Historically Jews have long experienced erstwhile "friends" who took great delight in genocide.  This 2000 year-old sorrowful fact is, I would argue, indelibly etched into every Jew's subconscious.  Centuries will pass before this fear evaporates.  Call it paranoia, if you want, but this occurs over and over and over--it is the very essence of our history.  W W I I events in Germany, the Ukraine, France, Romania, Hungary, Poland and so on are all of a piece--you can't trust the goyim in calamities though, assuredly, many will give their lives to save us.  The slaughter under Marxism, despite Jews in leadership positions, was just as bad.  All that it takes is a few, and the goyim can't be relied on, especially the ambitious, smart ones.  Jews of my parent's generation who worshiped FDR cannot forget that he turned back thousands of Jewish refugees, many of them ultimately perishing.  This ambivalence towards "friends" is the woeful Jewish baggage.  I have personally heard this "good goy turns bad goy" narrative repeated from those who barely escaped with their lives.  The ostensible "exemplary goy" metamorphosing into the opportunistic Gauleiter comes with mother's milk.

            And what, pray tell, about the Schwartza?  Are they not also potential Cossacks or Iron Guards?  Here's the punch line: they're incapable of such well-organized horror unless directed by nefarious whites.  Yes, they can briefly terrorize Crown Heights, chase Jewish teachers out of Ocean Hill-Brownsville, or even torch Freddy's Fashion Mart in Harlem.  A full-scale pogrom is far beyond their capacity, however.  Anti-Semitic outrages are episodes, not enduring campaigns.  Can you imagine blacks systematically rounding up thousands of Jews or even keeping tabs on Jewish neighborhoods?  This, too, would require a Great Society-like massive bureaucratic intervention program assisted by self-hating energetic Jews.  As Karl von Clausewitz reminds us, assess enemies by capabilities, not intentions.  If you multiply present-day anti-Semitism by potential for calamities, correcting for escapability, the Schwartza  pose minimal risk.

            A Political Homeland?

            To return to the image of a long-standing marriage gone sour, here's how the current Jewish-black relationship might be depicted.  The children (civil rights legislation, full legal equality, the demise of petty segregation etc.) have all grown up and left home.  Everything obtainable (and moral) has been accomplished.  Yet, the Jewish partner still sticks around, contributing money, energy and brainpower despite mounting psychological and physical abuse.  And antagonisms grow worse yearly.  The historical explanations for "staying together, if only for appearances sake" are mere covers to deceive the children.  The magic has vanished, both parties sleep in separate rooms, conversing only when the truce collapses into turmoil.  But, alas, this alliance still meanders along though privately the Jewish partner falls into depressing resignation.

            Grasping why Jews "stick with it" despite all the reasons to leave, is easy: there is no place better to go.  Imagine that tomorrow morning every Jew in American woke up and shouted "Enough already with the Schwartza!  Genug es genug!"  [enough is enough]  With the scales now fallen from their eyes, the question is:  "What now?"  Where will they go to reverse this deplorable situation?  The marriage metaphor offers a powerful clue:  men seldom divorce Ye Olde Wife (no matter how dreary) until a new squeeze appears.  If one visited a dating service specializing in "Fresh Ideological partners for Politically Abused Racial Liberal Jews in Remission," disappointment awaits.  Consider this landscape of "available others."  As per preceding analysis, alternatives are far worse than dutifully sticking with it.  At best, freshly enlightened Jews will kvetch [complain] privately but say nothing in public.

            A massive shift to the GOP is one occasionally mentioned possibility so Jews can be part of the solution, not part of the problem.  Only remotely feasible, and a rotten deal, too.  Surrendered would be the tenacious allure of meretricious big do-goodism government (with its tangible benefits to untold Jewish service providers) plus decades of careful Democratic influence cultivation.  This would be exchanged for an unreliable promise of meritocracy, refurbishing civil society, and all else that would flow when Washington ceased flattering the civil rights agenda.  Hardly enticing, even if politically deliverable.  More telling, does anybody sincerely believe that Republicans are committed to discharging their end of this bargain?  The palpable record, as demonstrated by indifference to measure such as California's Proposition 209 (and much more), hardly evinces optimism.  Jews may be addicted to pie-in-the-sky ideology, but stupid negotiators we are not.  Only a steady procession of Ronald Reagan types "standing up to them" might weaken suspicion of GOP cowardice.  Such a wholesale partisan conversion, no doubt, would make Middle East "land-for-peace" swaps look comparatively irresistible.

            The one nominally conservative sect outside the troubled marriage offering a safe home is neoconservatism.  Here, not surprisingly given its Jewish flavor, Jews generally feel welcome--it is avidly pro-Israel, pro-immigration, internationalist, pro-capitalism, attentive to traditional morality, socially compassionate, and critical for our purposes, openly hostile to racial tribalism.  Might Norman Podhoretz and his Wise Men deliver Jews out of Democratic bondage into some awaiting Promised Land color-blind coalition?  Pure fantasy in today's politics.  Not only are neocons persona non grata on the Right for untold non-negotiable programmatic reasons, but, despite its prestige and financial resources, neoconservatism is not a suitable Exodus vehicle.  The neocon movement is incapable of mobilizing ordinary Jews.  Its apparatchiki would comfortably fit into a few large upper West-side pre-war rent stabilized apartments.  Commentary and The Weekly Standard are powerless to propagate the faith among the multitudes.  Established neocons crave respectability, and clearly communicating opposition to today's civil rights agenda to ordinary people becomes "racism," the death of coveted respectability.  To boot, the movement's public side is too cerebral and "too Jewish" for many secularized, materialistic Jews.  I am reminded of a former colleague's wife who complained that the long-winded Commentary letters to the editor (let alone the turgid essays) "gave her a headache."  Overall, neoconservatism seems wholly incapable of budging Jews away from old habits.

            And now for disconcerting news, at least to conservatives awaiting Jewish racial apostasy.  For those untold Jews on the verge of conversion, shopping the rightward political mall for a new political identity will only bring alarm.  Better stick with the decrepit old lady.  The GOP may be a disagreeable bargain, and the neocons an exercise in futility, but "real conservatism" in all of its multiple flavors is worse.  Even scary, to be honest.  Can anyone think of a genuine conservative impulse that was not somewhere anti-Semitic?  At best, a few momentary organization-to-organization alliances might confront common issues, for example, support for religious education or resistance to the public validation of homosexuality.  For ordinary Jews to enlist as enthusiastic foot soldiers is inconceivable.  The lingering DNA-imbedded fear of the innocent appearing goy every willing to profit form Jewish misfortune is irrepressible, and if this goy is a "Right-winger," the fear is a hundred times worse.

            The historic conflation of "the Right" with anti-Semitism continues regardless of toned down rhetoric.  Sad to say, Jews venturing into conservative territory will in due time encounter "incidents" stirring up deep, often hard-to-put-your-finger-on unease.  There is a grim inevitability about this, no matter how sincerely inviting the conservative outreach.  Primordial, visceral emotion will trump objective conditions.  Mind you, nothing, absolutely nothing, about these incidents may be overly anti-Semitic; much is perfectly, absolutely defensible pedestrian politics and factually correct.  Yet, the disconcerting psychological outcome is unmistakable.  Impact derives from the combination of what is said coupled with the speaker's capacity.  Remember, even the psychotic black anti-Semite is discounted when his or her modest talents enter the equation.  If Louis Farrakhan and his minions were rocket scientists (or even failed post card painters) there would be cause for genuine alarm and Jews might flee rightward.

            Quite clearly "stylistic" conflicts abound.  The wonderful match between Jews and non-Jewish high cultures, even an appetite for the dreaded blond Shiksa [blond gentile female], does not translate into a political affinity at the personal level.  Jews tend to be overly talkative, a bit boisterous, prone to boastfulness, aggressively argumentative, smart-assed, intellectually conceited, and clannish, i.e., fascinated by alleged Jewish identities.  Small town Protestants, the backbone of traditional US conservatism, are nearly mirror opposites.  Most Jews will secretly confess that they feel uncomfortable in echt conservative circles since their instinctive behaviors, all regularly re-enforced as the pre-requisites to worldly success, now subtly engender discomfort.  The opposite is equally true.  Tom Fleming would assuredly rather fall on his Roman sword than suffer a typical four-hour shamelessly aggressive UJA fund-raising dinner, even if the intent was a Chronicles bail out.

            Still, Jews can temporarily tolerate white bread and mayonnaise tuna sandwiches.  Apprehension deepens significantly when Jews encounter applause-line rhetoric about "America being a Christian nation," "Hollywood immorality" and similar platitudes peppering conservative convocations.  Let us be clear:   these statements, in my estimation, are generally factually correct and a serious case can be made that Left-infatuated Jews have disproportionately subverted traditional American values.  Julius and Ethel Rosenberg (and untold other Stalinist Jews) are not vast Rightwing chimeras.  Yet, and this is paramount, these heartfelt conservative utterances are intuitively interpreted as subterranean anti-Jewish hostility among Jews themselves.  To repeat:  objective truth is irrelevant.

            I honestly believe that conservatives are habitually oblivious to this impact.  I can recall one ultra-conservative (and absolutely harmless) gathering and being lectured on how "certain wealthy, big-city, articulate types" were ruining America.  My instinctive, visceral reaction was acute unease.  These to me were code phrases, no different form Stalin's "rootless cosmopolitans."  Likewise, Jews cannot help but notice the emotional fervor when "real conservatives" denounce "the neocons" often sans details, as if everyone grasped the hidden agenda.  Ditto for the unqualified fulminations against immigration qua immigration.  This makes Jews exceedingly suspicious.  Might it not be possible to denounce just illegal immigration, the entry of criminals or welfare parasites?  Conservatives should never forget that millions of today's Jews lost family due to restrictive immigration policies.  If anti-immigration conservatives want Jewish support, this stance has to be far more nuanced.

            Finally, and most disconcerting, conservatives exhibit a near instinctive infatuation with Quixotic traife (i.e., not kosher) causes and personalities guaranteed to frighten potential Jewish converts.  For most Jews, the "political right" historically conjures up rigid racial segregation, nativist demagogues, anti-intellectualism, the militias, or the likes of Gerald L.K. Smith.  Alas, a goodly portion of contemporary conservatism seems untroubled by this meshugga [crazy] tradition.  This cannot be repeated enough:  the Right, however misdirected, still means anti-Semitic kookdom and little else.  To insist to Jews that "the Right" might be embraced "on balance" so as to escape the pernicious racial spoils system is a bit like saying "She would make a marvelous wife despite having AIDS."  Outsiders cannot imagine the anguish associated with a Jew publicly coming out as "a Right-winger."  What will his mother tell "the girls" in the building?  My son, the famous reactionary?

            We can argue this point forever, but I'd wager that nearly every Jew believes Pat Buchanan to be an anti-Semite Nazi sympathizer.  And when conservatives passionately rush to his defense (see, for example, the January 2000 Chronicles), Jews must wonder why, given his obvious political inconsequentiality.  Why the proclivity for snide gratuitous remarks about Commentary to clinch the defense?  The approving treatment afforded Le Pen's Front National or Jorg Haider's Freedom Party in Austria only exacerbates the unease.  When I tell Jews that I gladly associate with an organization endorsing these figures, they are flabbergasted.  A Jewish Nazi, they must assume.  Imagine parental reaction when I confess contributing essays for a magazine still fighting the War of Southern Independence, still celebrating small town provincialism, and untold other "odd" views?  The dreaded inter-marriage pales by comparison.

            Conclusions

            This has been a disheartening account, but things are not quite so bad as they might initially appear.  The naive might still suppose that Jews en mass are still promoting racial foolishness judged by who defends weird racial quota lawsuits or which professors assault politically incorrect research.  Moreover, blacks still depend on talented Jews despite their best racial purification efforts.  Nevertheless, if one observes closely and talks frankly, nearly all Jews grow more sensible regarding their true interests.  Finally, genug es genug.  The knee-jerk support has vanished save a few jungle holdouts insisting on personally surrendering their sword to the Emperor.  The historical Jewish-black passionate alliance is evolving into an historical relic in Jewish consciousness.  This abnormal infatuation certainly possess no allure for orthodox Jews, the fastest growing Jewish community.  Crown Heights (and the lingering secret disdain for the Schwartza) now overshadow the Freedom Marches, though these heretical thoughts remain silent--why risk a klop in kopf? [hit on the head]  Continued assimilation (hastened by soaring inter-marriage) will no doubt further undermine the historic Jewish-black romance.

            Still, those longing for political conversion will be disappointed.  Jews may flock in droves to see The Ring (especially performed by renowned Jewish conductors specializing in Wagner) or intermarry with a passion, but getting into bed politically with the Right-Wing goyim is too risky.  That painful historical lesson cannot be shaken, and today's conservatives are often all too willing to reawaken--albeit often unintentionally--the fears.  This dread even holds for Jews so secularized that they will barely confess their "Hebrew faith."  The upshot, then, is political homelessness though, to be sure, a handful of misguided, high-profile Jews remain.  Outside of these deviants, however, we wander about, still mouthing racial liberal cliches, though as with the Hebrew prayers at the Reformed service, the words are but empty gestures.  We stay with out loathed ally because we suspect that abandonment will make things worse.  Such a deal, but it's the best that can be expected.

Trade 'white' dominance for Jew dominance.....does that sound right to you?

Things that do not make sense have always bothered me.  Destroying 'white' dominance in America and replacing it with Jewish dominance is one of those things.

If anyone is old enough to remember, people in this nation never said 'this is a white nation' before Civil Rights.  Yes, those in positions of power were not black or Jewish but that is sensible because Jews and blacks are in the minority.  All that changed after Civil Rights and the 60s Revolution.  'Revolution' is a bad word....ask any Russian.

So before 1970, all Americans lived in an idyllic, albeit sheltered world.  Crime before 1970 was committed mostly by white people for things like 'walking while intoxicated,' burglary, assault and robbery.  After 1970, when Civil Rights (run by Jews according to Prof. Robert Weissberg of American Renaissance) arrived, they told American blacks that the reason they were 'oppressed' was because of the white man.  Crime became violent and black.

I entered arrest statistics for the period starting in about 1930 and past 1970.  I saw the pattern.  It was white, non-violent crime and then it became black violent crime after Civil Rights.  Facts don't lie.  Request these stats from Public Records.

So the question is; did we trade white dominance in America for Jewish dominance?  Gene Autry owned many radio stations.  Walt Disney owned Disney Studios.  Henry Ford built the production-line auto industry.  Non-Jews ran the newspapers.  Morality and spirituality dominated our society.  Society controlled behavior by not accepting bad behavior.  The state didn't tell people what to do....they knew what was right.  No one had to say to school kids, 'Good job,' 'You are a hero,' 'You are a leader,' 'I love you.'  No one had to remind anyone that you don't bully other people.  No one had to tell us how to wipe our butts.  We knew how.

Rupert Murdoch is now our radio and television station owner.  Fox, NBC, CBS, ABC, Dreamworks movies, MGM, magazine and comic books, newspapers, are all owned/run by people with Jewish names.  We traded the white for the Jew!!

And what is 'white' anyway?  Is it EVERYONE ELSE but the black and the Jew?  That's a lot of people to be pushed aside by minorities.  Is it the people that built civilizations in Rome, Europe and Egypt?  Is it the Greeks that created government run by the people?  Is it Leonard da Vinci, Augustus Cesar, John F. Kennedy or Mother Teresa?  Do you ever in history remember anything built by Edomites or Jews?  Or is it as Bobby Fisher said, "Jews are destroyers." 

 

And we didn't see it coming.  Look at it this way:  Russia before 1917 wasn't perfect but people lived in peace and many peasants were becoming wealthy.  Jews, thanks to Karl Marx, began telling the peasants and working class that they were oppressed.  Sound familiar?  So, what did the peasants and working class people do?  The same as what the American blacks did.....they took up arms against the Whites.  And what became of Russia?  It became Communist.

Hummmmm.  Could there be a pattern here?  Instead of 'fair and equitable treatment' we got EQUALITY FOR ALL.  Is everyone equal?  No, but the Jews never said that.  The Jews never said that once the American blacks tore up our society, that the Jews would push them aside because they had outlived their usefulness.  During that time, Jews would step into place as the Jewish Establishment replaced the White Establishment, the very same thing the 60s Revolution revolted against.  Remember that slogan?  "Down with the Establishment."

Well, the Jews used the same slogan in 1917 Russia.  "Down with the Aristocracy." 

The facts are there when you research the last hundred years.  We replaced a society/government that WAS working, for a Jewish-run monstrosity that has given us violence, pharmaceutical-dependent unhealthy adults, drugged up kids, violent crime, no jobs, food stamps for white people that have no job, a tanked economy, illegals, an inferior public school system, Hate Crime and Health Care bills.....anything to 'help' people deal with the misery.

Heck, at least Flavius built the Roman Colosseum to entertain the people while he taxed them to death.  And he opened up a few bars to entertain the citizens also but that caused a bit too much violence, so he closed them up.  Oh wait......Jews did the same thing in America.  What was I thinking?

We do have entertainment!  Lots of it.  We have ignorant and immoral television shows produced by Jews.  Violent movies produced by Jews.  Even movies for children are rated PG for sexual content.  Rap music incites sexual perversion and hate and newspapers/television, owned by Jews, refuse to print the truth about what is really happening.  Instead they make people believe they have only TWO presidential candidates to vote for.

So, did our nation 'move up' when the Jews replaced white people?  Did we improve or digress?  I believe we were bamboozled and tricked.  I believe Jews told us a bunch of lies, used their money to buy up our media and strategically place themselves in our government.  We 'thought' these lies were coming from the white politician for forty years.  We were wrong.  Robert Weissberg states in his 1998 paper, 'Jews and blacks.  Everything the goyim want to know but were afraid to ask' that JEWS did it. 

Jews even tell us they did it yet Americans are intimidated into believing they will be insensitive if they speak the truth.....if a fat person really is fat.....if a stupid person really can't learn.....if an illegal really is illegal.....if a poor person really is poor....You can't say that anymore.  You are not allowed to speak the truth.  We have been neutered.

Jews have taken away our right to speak the truth because they don't want to be exposed.  The Anti-Defamation League tells police departments that 'the terrorists are Moooooslims.'  Lt. Fred Bowditch, Homeland Security of the Columbus Police department, told me, "We investigate Hamas and Hezbollah, Susan, not the Mossad."   Can you get any clearer??

I prefer my old nation back, run by the best and brightest.  If they happen to be mostly white, that's the way it is.  I want my industries back.  I want our jobs back.  I want our taxes lowered by getting rid of bloated institutions such as Welfare and Child Protective Services.  I want the mental hospitals and orphanages back.  I want my job to again pay for my health insurance.  I want hospitals for the poor back.  I want perversion and violence gone and the only way to do that is to get rid of the current 'Establishment.'  

Jewish-produced movies change true history

A funny thing happened the other day.  A friend gave me a DVD documentary entitled 'JOAN of ARC, Child of War, Soldier of God.'  The story is based on Jeanne's (Joan) own notes about her life.  About an hour later, I turned on the television and another Joan of Arc movie was on called 'The Messenger.  The story of Joan of Arc.'  There were so many differences between the two stories that they did not even seem about the same person.  Why were they different?

The documentary told of a simple farm girl from Domremy, France in 1425, not educated but quite intelligent, living through bells announcing the bombings of French villages and living a fearful life, running to the basement shelters to escape harm.  She prayed.  France was being invaded by the English, who had taken half of France.

It was prophesied in the village that a 'maiden would do wonderful things' for their nation.  Joan was living through the 100 Years War.  She prayed.

After another such a bell warning, Jeanne's family went to the shelter but she got her clothes together and left.  She had been hearing a voice inside her head tell her that she would be the one to save France from England and, in fact, she was but in the process of doing that she was betrayed by the Dauphin and imprisoned by the English and burned at the stake for witchcraft.  Five hundred years later she was canonized a saint by the very Church that condemned her to death.

Joan of Arc defended the weak heir to the throne, saying that the Dauphin was the legitimate heir, and he gave her a horse and amour.  The first battle she led the men in was successful.  So were others and France was slowly being taken back.  However, after the Dauphin's coronation, he had no need for her and felt she would get the credit for saving France, so he refused to provide her men for her army and arranged for her to be captured and given to the English.

Imprisoned in a tower, she jumped out with no injuries but was again put in a cell.  There was a trial, at which the priest tried to trick her and get her to say heresy, but she did not fall for his questions.  In the end, this valuable English prize was sentenced to be burned at the stake.

In the movie, 'The Messenger,' she was said to be violent in her fighting and frightened and mad in her captivity.  Dustin Hoffman 'appeared' to a frightened, stammering Joan as her Conscience.  When she told this apparition that she knew what the voice said was true because she had 'signs,' he mocked her.  "What kind of signs?"  She mentions the wind, or water, or a sword found in a field. 

The Conscience said, 'Oh, like people fighting in a field and someone drops their sword," and a picture of the 'event' is shown.  "Or, someone walking through the field and throws away their sword," and another picture of that is shown.  Then he says, "Or the holy version..." and a light appears coming from the sky with singing voices and in that ray of light is a sword floating to the ground.  All the while, Joan can hardly speak above a whisper, keeps moving her lips with no words and looks scared to death and certainly a crazed person who looks like a young man.

'The Messenger' doesn't speak about her courage.  It shows repeated vicious beatings of her at the hands of the guards and in the end, the English burn her at the stake. 

Let's talk about why these two stories were different.  A quote on the front of the documentary by Moviepicks states, "We wish there were more outstanding films like this, with historical accuracy and authenticity..."  The production company's name is Gaiam of GT Media.   The actors' have last names such as Vondrackova, Ward and Taylor.  The documentary was produced for 'Faith & Values Media' by Lightworks Producing Group, directed and produced by Pamela Mason Wagner.

In 'The Messenger,' it is uncertain if the actress playing Joan, Milla Jovovich, is Jewish or not but she sings for and plays in numerous movies produced by Jews.  Dustin Hoffman is Jewish.  The company producing the movie is Gaumont, which is also Columbia Pictures (Jewish-run), Tri-Star Films, Sony Picures (Jewish-run) and Universal Pictures Nordic.

Wikipedia states:  " Jovavich's Jeanne is plagued by the difference between her idea of utter submission to God and the consequences of doing so; by doubt over the veracity of her visions; and by the gap between her ideals of the divine rights of kings and realpolitik. She is constantly on the verge of a nervous breakdown - is this a manifestation of her mental illness, or of her "burning for God"? And where's the difference between the two?"

"The film raises more questions than it answers, and that's as it should be. It is something of a shame that Besson's (Jewish) film takes liberties with the facts as we understand them (though history is more often about our interpretation of events than the events themselves), but in terms of raising important questions on the nature of faith, it succeeds beyond measure."

In their own words, Jewish producers have taken 'liberties' to change the true story of Joan of Arc's courage and conviction to one of a mentally ill girl and raises 'questions' that never existed before, only to paint Joan of Arc in an insane and sarcastic light.

I have noticed other distortions with Jewish-run productions such as after 'A Bug's Life' by Pixar was produced.   'A Bug's Life' is a clean movie any child can watch.  It is about the ants uniting against the grasshoppers.  Another movie produced at the same time, 'Toy Story,' has a message of 'be kind to your toys,' and is another child-safe movie. 

After Disney (Jewish-run) bought Pixar in January of 2006, they produced 'Bee Movie,' which is rated PG for sexual content.  With 'Bee Movie,' there are too many political messages for children and of course, the sexual content.  Bee Movie is a 2007 computer animated family comedy film starring Jerry Seinfeld, Renée Zellweger, Matthew Broderick, John Goodman, Chris Rock, Kathy Bates, Barry Levinson, Megan Mullally, Rip Torn and Patrick Warburton. Produced by DreamWorks Animation, it is directed by Simon J. Smith and Steve Hickner.  Bee Movie is the first motion-picture script to be written by Seinfeld, who co-wrote it with Spike Feresten, Barry Marder, and Andy Robin. The film was produced by Jerry Seinfeld, Christina Steinberg and Cameron Stevning, according to Wikipedia.

Along the same vein, Hans Christian Andersen wrote a story called 'The Emperor's New Clothes' that depicted a vain king influenced by two weavers that pretend they are weaving invisible cloth.  In the Jewish movie version of this story by Stephen Spielberg, Yiddish phrases are used and original dialogue is changed to depict twisted and sexually-perverted minds.  Much of the voice cast is Jewish.

Why, when a wholesome story is re-produced by Jewish people it changes, I have no idea.  Why it needs to be changed is a mystery also but it happens over and over.

The change in the true Joan of Arc story is a prime example.  Jewish writers and producers either create far-out, violent, spaced-out, monster, magical or sexual movies or they take time-worn stories and change them.

At the beginning of the documentary, Leo Braudy, University of Southern California, states, "When the system has to change, when the social order itself is on the verge of changing, the vehicle of that is often a woman.  Because women are outside the social system:  Somebody who comes out of nowhere to strike against the corruption of power."

Sound familiar?

More can be read about Jewish producers, actors and movers and shakers at:  http://hipsterjew.com/2012/03/atheists-use-gods-name-in-vain-anger-yaweh/

'Good Jewish Bitches'

 

'Good Jewish Bitches' aka GJB, is coming to your television soon.

Coming soon by any Gentile brave enough to produce it is the new show “GJB.”  The new series is based on the book “The Holocaust Adventure," by Seymour Butts, not to be confused with 'The Poseidon Adventure,' and is about a former mean white girl who moves back to her hometown in Ohio only to be the subject of gossip and backstabbing by Jewish women. 

On the GJB official website is a picture of the cover featuring a large diamond-encrusted Star of David resting on rather impressive cleavage. The picture, as yet unconfirmed, is morphed from Elizabeth's Taylor's chest.  The cover, title, and tagline make it seem as through Judaism is treated as simply an accessory to be used when it is convenient to the situation.

What is a “Good Jewish Bitch,” anyway?  I went to the GJB web site and read these probing questions:

• Have you ever used the Torah as a neck roll while watching 'Sex in the City?'
• Have you ever gone to a shoe store your son owns and demanded service?
• Have you ever gone to a Jewish dating service to find out who spits on whom?
• Have you ever mouthed your phone number to Mel Gibson as he was being interviewed for 'The Passion?'
• Do you ever sit with men at the Synagogue dressed as a man? 
• Do you sometimes write books about your time in German concentration camps that are not true? 

I was able to answer “no” to all of the fifteen questions and qualify as “A damn Gentile.”  Apparently, going to a Synagogue is portrayed as a lewd thing.  These are the standards to which the author holds Jewish.
This TV show suggests in its attention-getting title that being Jewish is a bad thing.  After 40 years of being told Jewish people are 'the chosen people,' no one got the memo that it wasn't true.  It is difficult to believe that such a show about any other religion would be accepted in the mainstream media.  Oh, wait.  'Good Christian Bitches' is airing Sunday, March 4th, on ABC.  I am such a dufus.

 In GJB, Jewish women are held in a high esteem for telling Gentile women off for their lop-sided version of the Bible.  I can't wait to see the outfits they are wearing.  Hey, everyone makes mistakes and no damn Gentile is going to out dress a Jewess.

The available clips of GJB mock Judaism, if anyone still considers Judaism the same as Jewism.  In one episode, a Bentley sports a decal reading, 'Who Knew?' a phrase used in promoting tourism to Israel.  A Gentile woman's Ford sports a decal reading, 'Chew the Jew' and her car is peppered with bagels and cream cheese.

How insensitive can people be?  It just isn't right that our Christian-run U.S. media can make fun of how people act!!  It is time we put down our foot and stood up for intolerance.  Oh wait, I said that wrong.  I meant, stand up for tolerance.  Don't watch 'Good Jewish Bitches.'  For that matter, don't watch 'Good Christian Bitches' either.

Before, During and After the Russian Revolution, by Susan Purtee

From Double Eagle to Red Flag...the story of communism

One insightful and strong lesson that can be learned from these three books is that Jews are used to create chaos, murder and plunder a nation and then are kicked out or murdered themselves by the leaders of the systems they helped to create. It happened in Russia under Stalin and in Germany by Hitler. History proves the same will happen to the Jews in the United States. The frightening question then becomes: Will the communist nation the Jews helped create in the United States crumble immediately or will Americans never see their America again?

It takes three strands to weave a braid and this author will weave the story of the Communistic takeover of Russia using three books: From Double Eagle To Red Flag (two volumes) by General P.N. Krassnoff, White Road by Olga Ilyin and 200 Years Together by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, a review by Wolfgang Strauss.

The first book by Krassnoff, copyright 1927, covers the twenty years or so before and up to 1917. It provides an in-depth account of all the nuances in society and government that occurred to let the 'Jew Bolsheviks,' or “Bol'sheviki yevrey” (P. 89) take over that nation that had stood for 2,000 years.

In the second book, Olga Ilyin chronicles her journey through White Russia from 1919 to 1923 as an aristocrat married to an army officer during the Russian Revolution. She also blames 'the Jews' for rousing the peasants to revolt.

Solzhenitsyn's book takes up where the other two books leave off: He tells us what happened after the Jew Bolsheviks took over.

--------------------------------------------------

From Double Eagle To Red Flag begins with the idyllic life lead by the aristocrats in Russia under Czar Nicholas II (Nikolay Alexandrovich Romanov ), a benevolent deity that saw the plight of the peasants and instituted ways to make their lives better. The aristocrats always separated their lives from the citizenry although they constantly administered to their well-being and comfort in life. In old Russia, the class lines were Tsar, nobles, merchants, clergy, professionals classes, peasants and officials.

“The 'bourgeois,' and the 'proletarians' had appeared now. Peasants and workmen still remained while all the rest were divided into parties: Monarchists, October Party, Nationalists, Constitutionalists, Social-democrats, Socialists-revolutionaries, Labour Party, Anarchists, Internationalists, Communists, --perhaps there were even more!” p. 346

The main characters in this book are Sablin Rotbek, (also called Sasha and Alexander Nicolaievitch), an officer in the Russian army who went through many women, including Marousia Lubovina, until he finally married a women in his class, Vera Constantinovna, who bore him a son named Kolia and a daughter named Tania. By Marousia he had an illegitimate son named Victor Korjikoff, who at the end of the story is responsible for his father's death.

The wife of the Czar, Alexandra, befriended a man named Rasputin, who was thought to be a mystic and plays a 'saint' paid for by Emperor Wilhelm but in reality he seduces the aristocratic women. After Vera's seduction, she commits suicide. Rasputin eventually runs away and is killed on February 28, 1917 by members of Sablin's regimen.

As socialists weaved their way into the thoughts of the aristocrats, they began to tell the people, “But now the noble class was in decay.” “Little by little they (nobles) had taken the form of the horrible, unpatriotic and superficially educated 'intelligentzia,' who were now ruining Russia in their party strife. Russia could not exist with them. Such nobles were no longer needed, let them perish and give their land to the people.” p. 346.

They also said that the clergy was in poverty and lost its active spirit and faith and had no influence on the people. The Duma was formed 'for the people' which was itself corrupt being composed of parties and not of Russian people.

Illegitimate son Victor wrote in his note-book, “Arise and stand like Israel. He shall be rewarded who succeeds in freeing himself of the enemies of Israel. He shall earn everlasting fame, who will rid himself of them and crush them.” And, “To conquer the universe? Fight unceasingly against human society until due order is established and until all the nations of the world have become your slaves.” (Bogar). “Slay the best of the gentiles, crush the head of the best serpent.” (Mechilt).

Victor had been raised by his step-father after he married the mother to 'keep her reputation' and provide for her. This husband/step-father, Fedor Fedorovitch (Korjikoff), was in the communist party, thought not a major leader. His instructions to his step-son were, “They are helping us themselves, Victor Mihaelovitch. The soldiers felt indignant, I should think. Add a drop more in one place, a stroke in another, underline the right point somewhere else and we won't be very far from a mutiny.” p. 29

Korjikoff, in teaching those following him, states, “Have you read Marx and Engles?” p. 389. “What is a government? Engels' definition is the following: 'A government is an organised form of despotism of one class over the other.' What should therefore be done, so as to free the oppressed class, i.e. the working (proletarian) class? The latter should form an organisation which would abolish the division of Society into different classes with irreconcilable and hostile interests. The abolishment of class-interests would do away with the form of coercive subjection of one class under the yoke of the other--.i. e., the government. The government would die a natural death having lost all reason for existence.” p. 390.

These Internationalists began inserting words like 'comrade' into the common language. Eventually even the Russian military began using such words. Korjikoff states, “ 'We,' said Lenin to us, 'intend to lull them to sleep by deceit. We shall amalgamate with their forces, preaching victory and at the same time leading the army to defeat.” “We shall deprive the private individuals of all their riches, placing them in the possession of the state—thus following the instruction of Marx and Engles. Not one single individual shall have the right of owning were it but a needle or a plough; everything will be socialized—and the people will become our blind weapons.” p. 393.

And indeed the Red Party did infiltrate the Russian military, spreading hopelessness and dissension among the troops, assassinating the military leaders that could have led Russia to victory and replacing them with Jews and party members. A Jew named Broadmann complains, “I'm a Jew. Yes, a Jew of that race which for centuries has been persecuted by the Russian Government” by limits of residence-license, name calling, limits in the universities, being hit. In retaliation for this treatment, he states that the same Cossacks that hit him “will obey me and will elect me honorary member of their Cossack-settlements. And girls of the best society will come to me to caress me, but I shall torment and torture them before the very eyes of their brothers and their betrothed.” p. 396.

Germany and Austria declared war on Russia. Emperors were being assassinated. Lubovin, former Russian soldier and deserter to the Red Party and brother to Marousia Lubovina (former lover of Sablin and mother to Victor) was found hanged. Sablin was wounded and later recovered, his son Kolia was killed on the battle field. by the end of Volume One.

Volume Two begins in about 1914. The Russian Revolution is being fought on two fronts, one internally with the Jews and the other on the battlefield with Germany and Austria. Jews are wearing red ribbons and giving them to the Russian soldiers. Soldiers start arresting Russian generals. Russian songs are replaced with modern, subversive ones. The Czar and his family is placed under arrest and held at Alexander Palace in Tsarskoie Selo. No one would help the Russians, not even King George and Queen Alexandra.

Meanwhile on the battlefield, the Russian military tried to maintain order not realizing they had been infiltrated by Jews and the Reds that were sabotaging and executing their ranks. The Russians won many battles against the Germans but were not getting supplies or reinforcements because their messages were not being delivered by the infiltrated revolutionaries. The army was not required to do drills any longer. The structure of the military was being destroyed. The war was being orchestrated in Sweden. “The German government has established a special branch in Sweden for the propaganda amongst the armies of the anti-German coalition, and we must use that branch for our work tending towards a universal revolution” Broadman reported to Victor, who had given valuable Russian information to Austria. “You are to go there and then to Russia, where you will promote socialistic propaganda, organize strikes, revolutionary riots, disorganize the government functionaries, and lay the foundation of civil war, disarmament and the cessation of this sanguinary war. Such is the general plan of the German government, which coincides with the program of our faction. You have been appointed leader of the 'seven' who are to act in Petrograd. You must come in touch with the following members of the Duma: Petrovsky, Badaieff, Moorakoff, Samoiloff and Shagoff.” p. 521.

Victor asks, “How are we to set to work?” and is told by Brodmann, “...the entire Russian educated classes are sure to aid you. They are a herd of cowardly sheep and it will suffice to scatter them to the ranks of the army to see it decomposed by them, as by a noxious microbe.” He is told to make a laughing stock of the officers and “to play on the public admiration of the soldier's merits and gradually form new soldiers with nothing military about them.” p. 522

One of the Czar's daughters, Tatiana Nicholaievna, and her mother worked in the tents for the injured soldiers, although many people did not trust their intentions. The emperor had abdicated his throne and there was no leadership.

In the end, Victor tried to get his father, Sablin, to go over to the Communist side and he refused. Victor threatened to take Sablin's daughter, Tania, his half-sister and rape and kill her if he did not go over to their side. After torturing and killing Sablin, Victor lined up several Russians and was going to shoot them when Victor made a mistake of asking one of the men, Polejaeff, to kill the others and gave him his gun. Polejaeff instead killed Victor and escaped with Tania to Finland across the water in a boat

---------------------------------------------------------

White Road, copyright 1984, is the true story by Ilyin of her escape from Russia to Siberia in 1919 to 1923 and then to the United States. She states on page xiv, “The First World War started in Russia in August 1914 and ended in the March 1917 Revolution. This so-called Bloodless Revolution from the Top uncovered the staggering unpreparedness of the liberal humanitarians, mostly members of the Duma, who had engineered the coup and taken over the government. The well-meaning, democratically minded Provisional Government, which we all tried to support against the Communist Party, had tied its own hands by promises of nonviolence and found itself unable to enforce its own decrees and orders.

The structure of a thousand-year-old empire swayed and crumbled under the onslaught of the Bolsheviks and their terrorist tactics. We, the intelligentsia, tried desperately and futilely to catch the shattered pieces and fit them into place, but then the bloody Red October Revolution fell upon us with its enslavement, fear, and general starvation.”

Her family was aristocracy and therefore the target of the Reds. She did not want to leave her father who was staying at Tamborsk to face certain death. She married an underground anti-Red cavalry lieutenant named Igor Volotskoy in 1917. She looked forward to fighting back against the Reds. There were several in their ranks including the Czech Legions, who were former prisoners of war and came over to the Russian side in 1916 and fought against the Germans and rebelled against the Soviets.

Many young girls were in the fighting units. Olga had just delivered her first child when the Reds were coming nearer to Tamborsk and they had to flee because her name was on the Red execution list. She began her exodus by peasant cart, next a wagon, then a Volga Steamer, a cattle car, and finally a train before reaching Siberia. The people that escaped with her shared a common bond—a frenzied hatred for Bolshevism.

By sleigh, Olga went with her baby and Pana, her nurse. She escaped death several times, hiding with relatives. “The supply of ammunition was decreasing by the hour; the Allies, disappointed in the whole venture, were no longer furnishing any war materiel and had recalled their troops. Crowds of refugees from newly abandoned territory clogged the railway, the roads, the towns. The local peasantry, most of it monarchist, was getting gloomier, less cooperative, accusing the Whites from European Russia of having dethroned the Czar, and simultaneously beginning to drift toward the greatest of magnets—the winning side.” p. 35.

At the few times she would see her husband, he said to her once when talking about whether to continue this battle, “Oh, anything which makes it easier: pleasure, excitement, oblivion. Anyway, to live full blast while it's still possible and blow one's brains out when you've had enough. When everything is going to the dogs, why deny yourself anything that might make life easier? Whatever helps one endure life must be right.” She replied, “Anything that you do to alleviate the burden is right, provided you are happy about it. I mean happy in the long run.” p. 37.

Olga went from town to town, trying to find peasants to take her in and give them food. In a discussion one night with her friends, one said, “Of course we have disappointed the Allies, but only after they dealt us this fatal blow of nonrecognition. The idiots assumed that we were fighting for the return of our possessions and privileges. In reality we have given up everything we had, to fight not only for Russia but for them also. Yes, for the whole world, its future. What about the Communist goal of world conquest? As if they had not made it clear as campaign soup! Couldn't the 'Allies see it? Oh! and buried her face in her hands.” p. 50.

In 1905, there was a “revolution that granted so many new freedoms to the people, we saw Russia make powerful strides in so many fields. Mental and material freedom, formerly the prerogative of the privileged class, had been broadening fast before our eyes; economic, cultural, and educational advancement, the adoration of poetry, music, the theater, overflowing into all the nooks and crannies of Russian daily life, created an atmosphere of uplifting purposefulness. To stop the process of dehumanization started by the Bolsheviks was, we felt, our duty and privilege.” p. 68.

The Reds screamed their slogans, “All Land to the Peasants! All Power to the Workers and Soldiers!' and especially 'Death to Your Exploiter! Grab all you want, it's rightfully yours!' All this would seem to have doomed us to failure from the beginning. But we did not believe so.” p. 69.

Leaflets were circulating telling people to destroy the Southern (White) Army and then add “to rise to the defense of our abused Mother Russia” which was odd since “Bolsheviks never referred to Russia otherwise than as 'the Soviet Union.' “ The Reds would also say Grand Duke Nikolay Nikolaevich has been chosen and “Lenin and Trostsky in Moscow have given their allegiance to the Grand Duke and have been appointed his ministers. I am calling upon each and every orthodox Christian to take up arms with me for the Czar and the Soviets.” Olga's husband replied upon reading this, “Clever so-and-sos. These days the more blatant the lie, the better they will swallow it.” p. 99.

The small group went from village to village in search of a place to stay and some food. Olga's little son got sick from lack of milk and bottles were hard to obtain. Another friend of her husband's named Verin was told to stay with the women. He states, “My cousin insisted that I stay here where I could still serve my country. Men of goodwill were needed desperately to counteract the other kind—sadists and criminals who had pushed into the ranks of the Bolsheviks.” p. 194.

Their lives were miserable and no one from the outside would help the Russians. “Every Red official, no matter how low in status, was a power with regard to a conquered White.” p. 204. People were released from prison on condition that they would inform on those around them. They asked how someone could eavesdrop on their friends and they said, “Well the poor man sat for twenty-four hours in the ice chamber and discovered he could.” p. 204

Olga asked one of the people she knew why he was working on the Red's automobiles and said to him, “Did it never occur to you that if nobody listened to these spies and propagandists the Whites could have won?” He replied, “Not a chance. I'm telling you we had no real leader to unite us. This man said to us: 'You're fighting with windmills like Don Juan, that's what you're doing.' “ p. 213.

Olga managed to get back to her home city, Tamborsk, at great risk and stayed with her baby at an aunt's home. She found out that people she knew who had been jealous of them had turned to the Red side. The Peasants from Sinniy Bor would “complain bitterly to her about the losses and offenses they had suffered at the hands of the village commissars and even the young generation of Communist-propagandized hoodlums—their own children.” p. 243. No country helped them and “the only people still interested in the anti-Communist struggle in Siberia were the Japanese, and they had put their support behind Ataman Semenov.” p. 244.

Finally in Harbin, she meets up with her husband who holds her and his son and states, “Fine then! Let's head for America!” p. 316.

So ends this story, coming to America in early 1920s and settling San Francisco.

---------------------------------------------------------

The third book in this Russian trilogy is 200 Years Together. I am at a slight disadvantage because I have not read the recent English translations because it seems each chapter was translated by a different person and I can't rely on its correctness, so I must rely on Wolfgang Strauss' earlier article about the book, 'The End of the Legends' in 2005.

Solzhenitsyn published this two-volume work on the history of Russian-Jewish relations (Two Hundred Years Together 2001, 2002). This book stirred controversy and caused Solzhenitsyn to be widely accused of anti-Semitism.

It is interesting that when restrictions were in place on Jews in Russia, the nation had survived for hundreds of years in relative peace and harmony. Once the leaders started giving in 'to equal rights' for the Jews and peasants, the old nation was torn apart, its leaders, clergy and military murdered, and millions of Russians, including Ukrainians, died. The common thread in these three books is the introduction of Liberalism/Socialism before Communism.

In Wolfgang Strauss' review of Solzhenitsyn's book, he states, “Solzhenitsyn emphasizes, "Many more Jewish voices than Russian are heard in this book". Jewish voices, not Russian, speak of Jewish dominance in the anti-monarchial movements in the period before the war. In an article entitled "The Jewish Revolution" in the 10 December 1919 issue of the Neue Jüdischen Monatsheften, published in Berlin, was the sentence:

"Regardless of how extremely the anti-Semites exaggerate it, and how so nervously the Jewish bourgeoisie deny it, the large Jewish contingent in today’s revolutionary movement stands fast."

After incarceration in 1945 and release during the 50s, he converted to Russian Orthodox and changed his first name from Aleksandr to Alexander. He followed Marxism before his conversion in 1954 and had served in the Red Army.

200 Years Together began in 1964 as an article on Russia and the Jews. After Petr Stolypin was murdered in 1911 in the Kiev Opera, Solzhenitsyn wrote, “The first Russian premier minister, who had honorably set the task of establishing equal rights for Jews and had even opposed the Tsar in attempting to realize it, was killed at the hands of a Jew. Was it an irony of history?” Solzhenitsyn does assert that the assassin, Mordko Hershovich Bogrov, was an agent of the Okhrana, a spy in the pay of the Tsarist secret police. Wouldn't this incident be similar to the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin in 1992 by a “right-wing Israeli radical Yigal Amir”?

Strauss states in defense of Solzhenitsyn being accused of “anti-Semitism” that he defended

Stolypin, “Every truth lives within a time nucleus. The truth about the 'October Revolution' in which the Bogrovs, Bronsteins, Mandelstams, Auerbachs, Rosenfelds, Brilliants, and Apfelbaums played an essential role, is being vomited up ten years after the end of the failed experiment of Communism.”

Solzhenitsyn cites 1918 as the date Red Terror was born. A terrorist named Apfelbaum proclaimed the mass death sentence: “The bourgeoisie can kill some individuals, but we can murder whole classes of people.” And Sonia Margolina, the daughter of a Jewish Trotskyite and proud of it, accuses Solzhenitsyn of 'always looking backwards.'

In 1918, “the non-communist intelligentsia saw Medusa's head.” Apfelbaum, who entered the history books as Zinovev, wanted to send ten million Russians to the smoldering ovens of the class war. He stated, “From the population of a hundred million in Soviet Russia, we must win over ninety million to our side. We have nothing to say to the others. They have to be exterminated.”

Solzhenitsyn cites the Israeli historian Aron Abramovitch who in 1982 in Tel Aviv wrote: “In October 1917 the Jewish contingent of soldiers played a decisive role in the preparation and execution of the armed Bolshevik uprising in Petrograd and other cities as well as in the following battles in the course of suppressing rebellions against the new Soviet power.”

The writer Nashivin notes that he isn't anti-Semite but that “the mass of Jews in the Kremlin literally knocks your eyes out.” Vladimir Korolenko, who was close to the Social Democrats, in 1919 stated, “There are many Jews and Jewesses among the Bolsheviks. Their main characteristics—self-righteousness, aggressive tactlessness and presumptive arrogance—are painfully evident. Bolshevism is found contemptible in the Ukraine. The preponderance of Jewish physiognomies, especially in the Cheka (secret police), evokes an extremely virulent hatred of Jews among the people.”

Solzhenitsyn states, “Whoever holds the opinion that the revolution was not a Russian, but an alien-led revolution points to the Yiddish family names or pseudonyms to exonerate the Russian people for the revolution. On the other hand, those who try to minimize the over-proportional representation of Jews in the Bolshevik seizure of power may sometimes claim that they were not religious Jews, but rather, apostates, renegades, and atheists.”

Lenin provided the impetus. On July 27, 1918, after the murder of the Tsar and his family, the Soviet government ordered the liquidation of all pogromists and every priest was by law considered to be a pogromist. For this destruction and extermination, Sverdlov, Dzerzhinski and Trotsky were the most power allies. None of them was Russian. The executioners in Yekaterinburg and Ural governments were not Russians. Yankel Yurovsky, not a Russian, boasted, “It was my revolver that knocked off Nicholas on the spot.” The victims were overwhelming Russians, millions of Russians. Those shot in cellars, burnt to death in the cloisters, drown in river boats, hanged in the forest; officers, peasants, aristocrats, proletariats, the anti-anti-Semitic bourgeois intellectuals—Russians mostly.

Solzhenitsyn emphasizes, the Cheka-Lubyanka-Gulag holocaustic perpetrators could not possibly be a Slavic people (p. 93). On page 233 of Nolte's Der Kausale Nexus, the German historian is convinced the term “Jewish Bolshevism” is historically well-founded and should not be expunged from history.

Solzhenitsyn writes that without the high Jewish presence among the leaders and executioners of the Bolshevik dictatorship, Lenin's newly born Soviet state would have been at an end, at the latest, by the time of the Kronstadt Sailors Rebellion in 1921.

While there was a rise during this time of anti-Semitism because of what was happening in Russia, and the Soviet Union fell in the late 1980s, there was no retaliation against Jewry as many in 1939 had predicted. “Solzhenitsyn cites extensively and without commentary from newspapers of the day. According to the newspapers, the 'Jew Bolsheviks' had captured and occupied the Soviet State; they were in the top ranks of the Red Army. Soviet power had been converted into Jewish power, and the Jews pursued Jewish, not Russian goals.“ (p. 201). Even Jews said, “Judeophobia has spread throughout present-day Russia.” Such slogans appeared on the walls of high schools--'Smash the Jews, Save the Soviets'; 'Beat the Jews Up, Save the Councils.'

With all the frenzy about the Jews, Russian revolutionaries Frunze, Nogin and Troyanovsky called for the expulsion of the 'Jewish leaders' from the Politburo upon which, opponents of this idea reacted quickly and Nogin died and later Frunze. (p. 209).

Stalin deliberately placed Jews in leading positions so that later he would have plausible grounds for turning them over to the executioner on grievous charges. A program from 1928 – 1933 had names of prominent 'Jew Bolsheviks' attached. Jews spread terror, killing peasants and destroying the villages, leading to the famine that took the lives of at least six million Ukrainians. In 1936, after the slaughter of the peasantry, “at the hands of the Bolshevik Jews,” the death bell began to toll for those who had been responsible for the carnage. Names like Ya. Yakovlev-Epstein, M. Kolmanovich, G. Roschal, V. Feygin. (p. 285).

Even with the purging of the murderous Jews, Solzhenitsyn states, “Cadaver-like obedience in the GPU, the Red Army, the diplomatic service, and on the ideological front. The passionate participation of young Jews in these branches was in no way dampened by the bloody events of 1936-38.” (p. 281).

Jews had controlled food, businesses and the torture institutions. Commissioned by the NKVD, the Jewish designer of execution systems, Grigori Mayranovsky, invested the gas chair. The mobile gassing truck was invested by Isay Davidovich Berg, head of the NKVD Economics Division in the Moscow region. (p. 297).

CONCLUSION

From Double Eagle To Red Flag by General P.N. Krassnoff, was written by a man that lived it. Although he describes events that happened to him, he also pieces together the stories told to him by other Russians that lived through this time.

Krassnoff takes the reader through the twenty years or so before Communism took over in 1917 and describes a beautiful life by the aristocracy of manners, nobleness, honor and culture of the arts. It is mindful of the beautiful days before the Civil War when the cultured people wore beautiful clothes, cared for their plantations and never thought of death much. It also tells of promiscuity among the wealthy and a mutual blindness among their ranks that their lives would ever change because of giving peasants 'more rights.' Those in the military 'noticed' the abundance of Jews among them but never thought to deny them being in their ranks.

But the Communists, guided by Karl Marx's 'Communist Manifesto,' used the plan to 'free the workers' to actually put into place a revengeful plan to pay people back for the 'wrongs done to the Jews.'

The socialists, little by little, told the Tsar that he needed to give peasants more rights, which he did. At the same time, however, those socialists, aka Communist Jews, began undermining Russian society with propaganda about destroying the aristocrats because they were depriving them of freedom. The propaganda fed into the resentment of the peasants that they did not have the beautiful lives the rich did and that this new-found Communism would give them that life “because they deserved it.”

Krassnoff describes the violence and debauchery of those Jews in the Gulag and the stupidity of the people that thought their new life would be so much better than under the Tsar. It was not.

White Road by Olga Ilyin, is the true story of one aristocratic White European Russian family's escape from Russia to Siberia and then to America. It chronicles how difficult and how dangerous that journey was and how easily the peasants turned on them, blamed them and felt no compassion for them.

Olga only slightly mentions the death of the Tsar and never the Communist Manifesto. She realizes Russia is dying and describes the tragedy happening to her family and the cruelty and fear but never puts the blame squarely on the Communists.

200 Years Together by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, shows how deadly Communism is and its aftermath in Russia. Although Stalin would execute those Jews in high places, the Soviet Union and Communism was by 1918 cemented in place.

This hate of a particular ethnic-religious group may be the reason the second volume of Two Hundred Years Together is available for reading in full in Putin's Russia but not in Germany. “To fight Fascism, you have to be a Communist” according to a BBC story about the Cambridge Spy case. So Jews and Russians fought against Germany and Hitler. Solzhenitsyn says that Lenin chose these young Jews because of “their deadly hate they had for the Russian traditions, religious rites, historical models, hate for everything Russian and Russia itself. Second, their willingness to cross the last taboo borders in morality. Third, their readiness to physically liquidate the enemy.”

Lenin, the internationalist, was no friend of Jews who were Zionists believing Jews were a “paper nation.” Six and a half times more Jews occupied cadre positions in the Soviet ruling class than existed in the total Jewish population, which was 1.82% in 1926.

In the 1920s, Jewish internationalists purged the history books by deleating and forbidding such concepts as 'Russian history' and 'Great Russia. Germans purged the derussification program conducted by the 'Jew Bolsheviks' during the 1920s nor do the terms Cheka and GPU appear in the German reviews. “The purges resulted in the physical disappearance of almost all Jewish Communists who played an important role in the USSR.” p. 327.

Stalin thought Jews could be assimilated but Jews fiercely rejected assimilation. Yiddish was promoted as the Jewish Soviet Nation language in 1920 but was abandoned with the triumph of an international atheism.

Solzhenitsyn questions why the reality of the Gulag is much less remembered than the persecution of the Jews under National Socialism.

It has always amazed me that the Crusades killed people 'in the name of God' or that the very points the Communists stated at the beginning they were against were the very same things they did when they took power except much more violent and horrible. And the 'extermination' today's Jews say happened to them in German concentration camps was already being done in Russia to the Russian people from 1917, the main difference being there is no knowledge that Hitler did anything perverted or sadistic to his prisoners. David Irving has stated that Jews sent to Russia from Germany during this time just 'vanished.' Jews killing Jews?

It seems to me that when the United States entered WWI, they allowed the Communist victory over Russia and domination over Germany, the nation that was anti-communist along with Franco of Spain and Mussolini of Italy. In other words, the United States preferred Communism to anti-Communism.

Coincidence or fact? Even with the 60s Revolution in the United States, Jewish professors like Robert Weissberg of American Renaissance states in his writings that it was a Jewish-run movement, paid for by Jews running the NAACP and other organizations that were supposed to be for American blacks and fought for in courts by over 50% Jewish attorneys. But Weissberg stated that he told the American people this not so they would know who did it, but because the 'Jews are upset that the blacks don't appreciate what they have done for them.'

Plain and simple: Communism was thought up by Karl Marx, born Jewish, and it was implemented in Russia by Jews. They may not have been 100% of the Gulag or Cheka or in the military but they were the orchestrators of the Revolution. The Bolshevisks murdered priests, bishops (especially the village clergy) and exterminated the nobility and the Tsar and his family, according to Solzhenitsyn, and from 1918 to 1920, the secret police (Cheka) was controlled by Bolshevistic Jews.

In reading these three stories I can see that what happened to Russia is happening to the United States today. It began with Socialism by FDR, Liberalism in the Democratic Party and in colleges and universities. The Non-Government Organizations taking our industries overseas and groups like the anti-Defamation League purging our society of anything Catholic or Christian is, in my opinion, a deliberate destruction of our nation by Communists.

Senator Joseph McCarthy was the last anti-Communist man in America. He recognized the “Jewish-Soviet spies” in our Federal government and eliminated them. He also banned Jewish filmmakers from making subversive and perverted films until 1965. That is when the 60s Revolution began, our own Russian Revolution, that ushered in slogans like 'Down with the Establishment,' drugs and free love.

But the Jews had already been working behind the scenes with desegregation and Civil Rights and bloating the Welfare State. They control American media, which controls the American mind. They are disproportionately represented in government, the same tactics used to take over Russia.

Yet we, as with Russia, are afraid to identify the enemy until it is too late.

Coming Soon..........

The Columbus Crier has a couple of articles coming up you will enjoy.  The first is an article on Milosevic.  The next is a book review of 'White Road' by Olga Ilyin and the third is a book review of 'From Double Eagle to Red Flag' by General P.N. Krassnoff.

I found 'White Road' in a book club in the 70s.   You won't find 'From Double Eagle to Red Flag' because Jews in America had it banned but you can buy it on the internet for a thousand dollars.

See you in January!!
Susie

Just a Thought......

I listened to the below video about the Constitution and thought how insane our 'government' has become because of WHO is running it.  

On television Dec. 24, I heard some newsman say that 25% of all lung cancer victims are people that never smoked.  They said this must be 'because of some gene.'  LOL

So that means the other 75% don't have this gene?  lol


Then I thought about how persecuted smokers are by banishing them to the cold, snow and rain 'to keep people healthy.'   How kids are taught in school how creepy cigarette smoking is.


Homosexuals are the dominant group with AIDS and HIV.  Are they persecuted?  Are they banished to the far corners of society for their awful deed?  

Are obese people banished because they cause a severe strain on our 'health care' system?  Because these fat people develop diabetes, heart disease, circulation problems AND are loaded up with drugs so they can develop other diseases such as Lymphoma??


Listen to the judge:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=7n2m-X7OIuY 
Judge Andrew Napolitano on 'Health care' and the Constitution.