Re: Re : ISLAM FOR INFIDELS - Islam Is An Evil Cult



 Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus > Re: Re : ISLAM FOR INFIDELS - Islam Is An Evil Cult

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 2

1

 

2

 
Topic: Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus
User: "Jean Guernon"
Date: 06 May 2004 07:24:20 PM
Object: Re: Re : ISLAM FOR INFIDELS - Islam Is An Evil Cult
Except that Bush gave the right explanation, the UN resolutions.
You, on the other hand, are a piece of ***** that kiss the terrorists asses, and
pollute NGs where you do not belong.
I hope you get to suffer the same fate soon, as they certainly will.
J.
grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk a écrit:


"Parky's Turn" <a.iqbal@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:hRrmc.83$P25.16@newsfe1-gui.server.ntli.net...

"George" <georgs@home> wrote in message
news:fddbe0fec8b6d008e5d81c2c8eb7ba2c@news.teranews.com...

"tipper" <tipper007@hotmail.com> wrote:


http://www.lebed.com/2003/art3290.htm
A Guide for the Perplexed


Just finished reading it right through.
Wow, a real eye opener.
Thanks for posting it.


We need to avoid jumping to conclusions:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4765845/


Wrong. We need to quickly make and then act upon obvious conclusions.

Islam is evil because it is not from God, and as such it is a cult and not a
religion.

Or... Let's pretend that God did whatever God was doing up to about the New
Testament times. Then God decided to contact us directly - to live as a
human among us - so we get Jesus. And Jesus explains everything pretty
well, and to make sure we got the point He both dies for us AND is
resurrected. Pretty clear to me who Jesus was/is and what the point is...

Oh! But wait!! Apparently God screwed up, He forgot some very important
stuff!! Sooo, 700 (SEVEN HUNDRED) years later He selects some dumbass
ratbag sandnigger and tells him all the new stuff and all the corrections.

That's makes sense!?!?! Nooo... Of course it doesn't make any sense!!

What makes sense, in an Occam's Razor kinda way, is that some dumbass
sandnigger made up his own 'religion' because he got tired of having his *****
kicked for being lazy and got tired of having his pinhead brain cooked in
the desert sun. And he wanted to be in charge for a while. So he just made
it up!! ANd he found followers fast!! Sure, other lazy sandniggers could
become Muslims and automatically be superior to everybody including their
women!! What a great deal!

Unfortunately some sissy Christians, (God bless 'em anyway, trying to be as
Christian as possible) have repeatedly throughout history allowed the cult
of Islam to continue.

It should be entirely obvious that every single post-AD religion that is not
Christian-based IS A CULT and is therefore EVIL-INSPIRED, and must be an
abomination to God.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is a much better explanation for the invasion of Iraq than Bush gave.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

.

User: "neptune3"

Title: Re: Re: Re : ISLAM FOR INFIDELS - Islam Is An Evil Cult 06 May 2004 07:47:31 PM
"Knowing who did the terrorism of September 11 is important, but why
they did
it is even more important to us.
Yet, strangely, there has been little discussion in the mass media on
why
the attack occurred. Politicians and media personalities have given us
completely inadequate explanations why a couple of dozen young men
would
blow themselves up to get at us. In fact, they have told us absurd
lies to
keep Americans from understanding the real reason for the attacks.
We have been told that the attackers were simply crazy, cowardly men
who
committed a quote "unprovoked attack." Media and government spokesmen
repeatedly assured us that these attacks had "nothing to do with
America's
support of Israel." The official view, as expressed by the President
to the
U.S. Congress, was that the terrorists attacked us because they hate
our
freedom! Here is an excerpt of his remarks before Congress
"Americans are asking, "Why do they hate us?"
"They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically
elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our
freedoms."
I am not trying to be disrespectful, but what he said is so ridiculous
that
even this intellectually challenged President cannot really believe
it. Does
Bush really think that a bunch of young men would give up their
families,
their homes, and immolate themselves in a huge ball of fire simply
because
they hate our democracy! Right on Mr. President! Next week, will we
will
hear about Islamic kamikazes crashing planes into Iceland, the oldest
enduring democracy on earth.
Mr. Bush is asking America to support a massive war over the next ten
years.
We are being asked to support a massive conflict whose huge costs
could well
bankrupt America and cause the loss of great numbers of American
lives.
Before we can make such a crucial decision, we deserve to have the
whole truth concerning this cataclysmic event.
Of course, Mr. Bush did not tell us the truth; he simply repeated the
Big
Lie put out by the American mass media.
Saying that these acts were born out of hatred for freedom is a
calculated
lie to divert us from associating this disaster with our support for
Israel.
You see, associating the attack with our Israeli policy would be bad
public
relations for Israel and the Jewish Lobby. The last thing they want is
for
the American people to realize that our unconditional support of
Israel has
directly led to this disaster.
If the American people clearly understand that fact, people might
begin to
ask a similar question to the one asked by Leslie Stahl, "Is our
support of
Israel really worth it?"
To keep people from asking that obvious question, the media made up
the Big
Lie that the men of October 11 were simply crazy, cowardly people who
hated
freedom and democracy!
The real reason for the attack
Even the date the terrorists chose for this attack shows their true
motivation.
The attack occurred on September 11. That is the anniversary of the
League
of Nations proclaiming in Palestine the British Mandate in 1922. The
date
represents the first physical step toward the implementation of the
Balfour
Declaration and the establishment of Israel.
Why has the mass media kept this important fact from the American
people?
Frankly, this fact has been suppressed because the American media are
thoroughly dominated by Jews. Many Americans suspect that Jews have
disproportionate influence in the press, but their actual power is
more than
most people imagine. If you want documented proof of their enormous
media
power, just go to my web page, www.davidduke.com and read the "Who
Runs the
Media?" chapter from my book, My Awakening. (Located at
http://www.davidduke.com/awakening/chapter19_01.html)
Just as Jewish Israel-Firsters dominate the mass media, so the Israeli
Lobby
afflicts Congress and the President. It should anger every American to
think
that the most powerful lobby in Congress is in the service of a
foreign
nation. Yet, the immense power of the Jewish Lobby is a proven fact,
and
nobody on Capitol Hill will dare defy this all-powerful lobby. Even
one of
the most powerful U.S. Senators in American history, William
Fulbright,
bluntly said on CBS's Face the Nation, that, "Israel controls the U.S.
Senate."
Recently, a Hebrew Israeli radio station, Kol Yisrael, on October 3rd
reported that during an argument in an Israeli cabinet meeting, Shimon
Peres
warned Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that unless he would heed American
requests for a cease fire with the Palestinians, he could cause
America to
turn against Israel. In a fit of anger, Sharon responded to Peres:
"Every time we do something, you tell me America will do this and will
do
that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about
American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America,
and the
Americans know it." (2)
The media bosses and the Israel-bought politicians know the real
reasons
behind this terrorism. They have read the interviews of Osama Bin
Laden. He
and almost every other Islamic opponent of America has put support for
Israel at the top of their top ten reasons for hating America. Bin
Laden and
countless millions in the Muslim world regard the attacks on Lebanon,
on
Iraq, on Libya, on Iran, on Afghanistan and on Sudan as a direct
result of
Israel's control over America.
They point out that the many Israeli massacres of Palestinians, the
ongoing
torture of thousands of prisoners, the use of assassination of
political
enemies, the bombing of refugee camps, and the expansive wars launched
by
Israeli's against their Arab neighbors; that all these Israeli crimes
are
completely dependent on unconditional American aid. They also see the
deaths
of the 500,000 Iraqi children, as admitted by our former Jewish
Secretary of
State, as a direct result of Jewish control of America.
The American people, who are under the bombardment of a biased
multimedia,
might not realize the Jewish control of American foreign policy, but
the
Palestinians and their allies such as Bin Laden, all understand it;
and they
hate us for it.
In fact, the same mass media that are giving out the Big Lie that the
terrorist motivation is "hate for freedom," are clearly aware of Bin
Laden's
real motivations.
I can easily prove the true motivation of bin Laden and I can prove
the
media has known the truth all along. In May of 1998 reporter John
Miller of
ABC interviewed Bin Laden. Bin Laden talks about why he seeks to
attack
America. You can find it on the ABC and the PBS web sites. Here are
excerpts
of bin Laden's own words.
"For over half a century, Muslims in Palestine have been slaughtered
and
assaulted and robbed of their honor and of their property. Their
houses have
been blasted, their crops destroyed.
"This is my message to the American people: to look for a serious
government
that looks out for their interests and does not attack other people's
lands,
or other people's honor. And my word to American journalists is not to
ask
why we did that but ask what their government has done that forced us
to
defend ourselves."
"So we tell the Americans as people, and we tell the mothers of
soldiers and
American mothers in general that if they value their lives and the
lives of
their children, to find a patriotic government that will look after
their
interests and not the interests of the Jews."
I say to them that they have put themselves at the mercy of a disloyal
government, and this is most evident in Clinton's administration. We
believe
that this administration represents Israel inside America. Take the
sensitive ministries such as the Secretary of State and the Secretary
of
Defense and the CIA, you will find that the Jews have the upper hand
in
them. They make use of America to further their plans for the world.
In the interview, bin Laden never said one word about opposing
democratic
principles, nor has he ever done so in his lifetime. So, now we know
Laden's
true motivation. He attacked us not because he "hates democracy", but
because he thinks Israel controls and uses America to attack his
people."
David Duke
(1) THE SUNDAY MAIL (2001) Sept. 16
(2) Israeli Hebrew radio, Col Yisrael Wednesday
---------------------------------------------------------------
Your support makes our work possible. We need your help now more than
ever.
Please help our efforts with an online donation today.
Make a donation today by clicking here:
http://www.whitecivilrights.com/donate.shtml
IMPORTANT ONLINE LINKS
Learn more about EURO at: http://www.whitecivilrights.com/faq.shtml
How to join EURO online: http://www.whitecivilrights.com/join.shtml
How to download an application and mail it in:
http://www.whitecivilrights.com/join.shtml
Where to find local EURO Chapters:
http://www.whitecivilrights.com/ero_contacts.shtml
Where to read our press releases:
http://www.whitecivilrights.com/news/
Watch news clips and interviews:
http://www.davidduke.com/video/index.html
Where to buy books, tapes or stickers: www.davidduke.net
Read sample chapters online from David Duke's book "My Awakening":
http://www.davidduke.com/awakening/toc.html
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com
http://www.nationalism.org/rnsp/display_ENG.htm
.
User: "Jean Guernon"

Title: White supremacists Nazi lies now? Up yours. Re: Re : ISLAM FOR INFIDELS- Islam Is An Evil Cult 06 May 2004 11:10:13 PM
neptune3 a écrit:

"Knowing who did the terrorism of September 11 is important, but why
they did
it is even more important to us.

Yet, strangely, there has been little discussion in the mass media on
why
the attack occurred. Politicians and media personalities have given us
completely inadequate explanations why a couple of dozen young men
would
blow themselves up to get at us. In fact, they have told us absurd
lies to
keep Americans from understanding the real reason for the attacks.

We have been told that the attackers were simply crazy, cowardly men
who
committed a quote "unprovoked attack."

You are a stupid liar.
Everyone knows that they attacked because they were the gang of Osama Bin Laden
who are all brainwashed Whahabees assholes, except for the leadership of course,
who wanted to trigger a war between Islam nd the West as they always have tried
to do in the past with their first attempt at the WTC and then with attacks in
Africa.
You anti-Semite duke ***** who kisses the ***** of terrorists doesn't' cut it,
we all know who did it and it is not the Jews. it is Osama.
The culprit himself says how he did it.
(http://www.michelnostradamus.org/multimedia/osamatape.rm or
http://www.michelnostradamus.org/multimedia/osamatape.ram for stream video)
You are the vermin who exploit tragedy to push your Nazi agenda. Pieces of *****
like you and Duke should as well be sued for libel. I hope it happens eventually
along with that ***** who pretend there is a link with osama and oil. Osama
has no possible say about oil, or anything else in fact.
Anyway, all you white supremacists, Islamic terrorists ***** kissing, anti-semite
assholes, can all go drown yourself.
Your lies only condemn only you.
J.
[snip rest of nazi lies]
.
User: ""

Title: Re: White supremacists Nazi lies now? Up yours. Re: Re : ISLAM FOR INFIDELS - Islam Is An Evil Cult 08 May 2004 05:47:31 AM
On Fri, 07 May 2004 04:10:13 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:



neptune3 a écrit:

"Knowing who did the terrorism of September 11 is important, but why
they did
it is even more important to us.

Yet, strangely, there has been little discussion in the mass media on
why
the attack occurred. Politicians and media personalities have given us
completely inadequate explanations why a couple of dozen young men
would
blow themselves up to get at us. In fact, they have told us absurd
lies to
keep Americans from understanding the real reason for the attacks.

We have been told that the attackers were simply crazy, cowardly men
who
committed a quote "unprovoked attack."


You are a stupid liar.

Everyone knows that they attacked because they were the gang of Osama Bin Laden
who are all brainwashed Whahabees assholes, except for the leadership of course,
who wanted to trigger a war between Islam nd the West as they always have tried
to do in the past with their first attempt at the WTC and then with attacks in
Africa.

You anti-Semite duke ***** who kisses the ***** of terrorists doesn't' cut it,
we all know who did it and it is not the Jews. it is Osama.
The culprit himself says how he did it.
(http://www.michelnostradamus.org/multimedia/osamatape.rm or
http://www.michelnostradamus.org/multimedia/osamatape.ram for stream video)

You are the vermin who exploit tragedy to push your Nazi agenda. Pieces of *****
like you and Duke should as well be sued for libel. I hope it happens eventually
along with that ***** who pretend there is a link with osama and oil. Osama
has no possible say about oil, or anything else in fact.

Anyway, all you white supremacists, Islamic terrorists ***** kissing, anti-semite
assholes, can all go drown yourself.

Your lies only condemn only you.

J.

[snip rest of nazi lies]

Hahahahah. What a MORON you are FROG. Fucking Jew hugging American
pond scum wannabee.
.
User: "Jean Guernon"

Title: Re: White supremacists Nazi lies now? Up yours. Re: Re : ISLAM FORINFIDELS - Islam Is An Evil Cult 08 May 2004 02:03:59 PM
Yes, zaakaasss, we know you are a nazi too.
Thanks for once again shoing it to the face of the world.
J.
Zak@home.com a écrit:

On Fri, 07 May 2004 04:10:13 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:



neptune3 a écrit:


"Knowing who did the terrorism of September 11 is important, but why
they did
it is even more important to us.

Yet, strangely, there has been little discussion in the mass media on
why
the attack occurred. Politicians and media personalities have given us
completely inadequate explanations why a couple of dozen young men
would
blow themselves up to get at us. In fact, they have told us absurd
lies to
keep Americans from understanding the real reason for the attacks.

We have been told that the attackers were simply crazy, cowardly men
who
committed a quote "unprovoked attack."


You are a stupid liar.

Everyone knows that they attacked because they were the gang of Osama Bin Laden
who are all brainwashed Whahabees assholes, except for the leadership of course,
who wanted to trigger a war between Islam nd the West as they always have tried
to do in the past with their first attempt at the WTC and then with attacks in
Africa.

You anti-Semite duke ***** who kisses the ***** of terrorists doesn't' cut it,
we all know who did it and it is not the Jews. it is Osama.
The culprit himself says how he did it.
(http://www.michelnostradamus.org/multimedia/osamatape.rm or
http://www.michelnostradamus.org/multimedia/osamatape.ram for stream video)

You are the vermin who exploit tragedy to push your Nazi agenda. Pieces of *****
like you and Duke should as well be sued for libel. I hope it happens eventually
along with that ***** who pretend there is a link with osama and oil. Osama
has no possible say about oil, or anything else in fact.

Anyway, all you white supremacists, Islamic terrorists ***** kissing, anti-semite
assholes, can all go drown yourself.

Your lies only condemn only you.

J.

[snip rest of nazi lies]





Hahahahah. What a MORON you are FROG. Fucking Jew hugging American
pond scum wannabee.

.


User: "neptune3"

Title: Re: White supremacists Nazi lies now? Up yours. Re: Re : ISLAM FOR INFIDELS- Islam Is An Evil Cult 07 May 2004 04:51:41 PM
The Value of Truth and Righteousness
By Dr. William Pierce
Last Saturday George Bush addressed the United Nations General
Assembly,
urging all of the member nations to join the United States in bringing
pressure to bear against all countries that sponsor terrorism or
harbor
terrorists. He did it in his standard mock-serious way, barely
suppressing a smirk. Everyone applauded, including the representative
of
a country that from its founding until the present day has sponsored
terrorism. That country, of course, is Israel.
The prime minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon, is a war criminal, a mass
murderer, with the blood of thousands of women and children on his
hands. He is being sought now for trial by the same Hague Tribunal
that
succeeded in extraditing former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic
for trial on charges of crimes against humanity in Kosovo, the same
Hague Tribunal that already has tried and sentenced soldiers who raped
and murdered in Bosnia and in Rwanda.
In 1982, during Israel's invasion of Lebanon, Ariel Sharon was
Israel's
defense minister. After the bloody terror-bombing of civilian
neighborhoods in Beirut that killed thousands of Lebanese and
Palestinian civilians -- terror bombing carried out by Jews flying
military aircraft supplied to Israel by the United States -- Sharon
arranged for the evacuation of Palestinian fighters from Lebanon.
Palestinian women, children, and old people were left behind in
refugee
camps, with their safety guaranteed by the United States. On the night
of September 16, 1982, Sharon sent murder squads into two Palestinian
refugee camps, Sabra and Chatila, in West Beirut to kill the unarmed
Palestinian civilians in the camps. With Israeli tanks and troops
surrounding the camps to prevent any of the Palestinians from
escaping,
Sharon's murder squads shot, knifed, and bludgeoned Palestinian
civilians all that night and the next day and the following night,
while
the Israelis around the camps listened gleefully to the shots and
screams coming from inside. Then Sharon sent in bulldozers to scoop
out
mass burial pits and cover up the corpses of more than 2,000
Palestinian
women and children.
Many Palestinians remained unburied, however, and Red Cross workers
found whole families in their homes with their throats cut and other
families who had been lined up and machine-gunned, from small children
to elderly grandparents. One infant had been stomped to death by a man
wearing spiked boots.
This was Ariel Sharon's work, but only a part of his work. He is a man
who believes the teaching of the Talmud that only Jews are human
beings,
and that all who are not Jews were put on this earth only to serve the
Jews, and that anyone who opposes the Jews deserves to be killed, and
he
has acted in accord with this belief all his life. There are a dozen
major atrocities for which he could be tried by the Hague Tribunal,
but
the one with which he is charged now is the mass murder he
implemented,
as Israel's defense minister, in West Beirut in September 1982. And
the
U.S. government, which clamored for Slobodan Milosevic to be turned
over
to the Hague Tribunal for trial, pretends that it knows nothing about
Sharon's genocidal crimes against humanity.
In the 1950s Israel's Mossad, the equivalent of the CIA in the United
States, sent hundreds of letter bombs to German scientists working in
Egypt and Syria, killing a number of them.
In 1967, during Israel's war against Egypt, the Israeli army carried
out
a number of mass executions of Egyptian prisoners of war in the Sinai,
forcing them to dig ditches, then lining them up and shooting them.
Dozens of eyewitnesses to these mass executions have reported what
they
saw, but the world's politicians and media bosses pretend not to know.
Also in 1967 Israel attacked the U.S. Navy ship, the U.S.S. Liberty,
attempting to sink it and kill its crew and then blame the sinking on
the Egyptians.
Israeli agents have carried out assassinations and other terrorist
operations around the world. One of the most colorful of these
operations -- and one of the few that received major media coverage --
was the attempt to murder a prominent Muslim cleric in Jordan in 1997.
Two Israeli agents sprayed poison in the ear of Khaled Meshal as they
walked past him on a sidewalk in Amman. Fortunately, Meshal's
bodyguards
were able to catch the two Jews as they ran away, and so the
assassination attempt was publicized.
Israel has stolen nuclear materials and nuclear weapons technology
from
the United States to build an illegal nuclear arsenal. Israel also is
known to have developed an arsenal of biological and chemical weapons
of
mass destruction.
None of these Israeli activities is secret. Those I've mentioned are
just a few of the ones that were found out and publicized. Not
publicized very much, of course. In fact, they all were dropped from
the
news pretty quickly. Still, everyone attending Mr. Bush's speech at
the
United Nations last Saturday knew about them. And yet, no one stood up
and booed. No one walked out in protest. Bush's speech was covered by
all of the major newspapers and television networks in the world, but
no
reporter for any news medium operating in the West commented on his
hypocrisy. No one mentioned Israel's terrorism. Everyone knew, but
everyone played along.
These people weren't lemmings. Lemmings really don't know any better.
Lemmings are essentially moral creatures; in fact they are
compulsively
moral. To lemmings it is essential to feel and think and act the way
they believe they are expected to feel and think and act. That's
morality. Most groups of lemmings believe that it is bad to lie, to
deceive, to be hypocritical. If during George Bush's speech at the
United Nations a substantial part of the audience had walked out in
disgust, and at the end the remaining delegates had stood up and booed
him loudly, and if the media commentators then had remarked with scorn
to their television audiences that Bush is a hypocrite who talks about
stopping state-sponsored terrorism while continuing to finance Israeli
terrorism, the lemmings would have booed him too.
But Bush's lies and hypocrisy were ignored by the media and by the
other
delegates. Instead of booing, they applauded him. And so the lemmings
applauded him too. It was all an act for the benefit of the lemmings.
Nearly all politics these days, nearly every speech or public
appearance
by a politician or a government official, is an act of showmanship.
What
is said has relatively little relationship to what the politician
actually is thinking.
ertainly, last Saturday George Bush wasn't really thinking about
waging
war on countries that sponsor terrorism or harbor terrorists. He was
thinking first and foremost about the importance of pleasing the
Jewish
media with his speech. He may have been keeping his fingers crossed
and
hoping that no Arab delegate would jump up during his speech and shout
at him, "What about Israel? You say that we should wage war on states
that sponsor terrorism. Israel engages in state-sponsored terrorism
more
than Afghanistan and all the other countries in the Middle East
combined. When will you send your B-52s to carpet-bomb Tel Aviv and
Jerusalem?" And at the end he must have marveled to himself how
smoothly
the act went and how easy it is to deceive the public.
Crookedness of this sort has been going on for a long time. There are
only two things that make this latest crookedness noteworthy. First,
it
is being used to justify yet another war that is not in the interests
of
the American people. It is being used to justify dropping cluster
bombs
on villagers whom we have no good reason to kill. And second, it is a
lot more obviously crooked than usual. Osama bin Laden caught the Bush
government and the media by surprise, and they didn't have time to
refine and polish their lies. All they could do was pretend that they
had no idea why he would attack the United States and then claim that
it
must be because he hates our freedom. They didn't have time to put up
their usual smokescreen of obfuscation. They simply launched their
denunciations of terrorism and terrorists and of governments that
tolerate terrorism and hoped that no one would say anything about
Israel
or Ariel Sharon or Israel's policies of assassination and torture.
Because the crookedness is more obvious now than usual, more
perceptive
people than usual are noticing it and saying something about it, and
that's good. But these perceptive few who are unhappy enough about the
crookedness to speak out have little or no voice in the mass media,
and
so the lemmings remain oblivious to the realities of the situation.
That's the wonderful thing about democracy: you don't have to try to
fool all of the people; all you have to do is fool most of the people
all of the time, and that's pretty easy to do when you control the
mass
media. You can just ignore the few who refuse to go along with the
act,
and the great majority of the voters will never notice.
So why do I care that the system is crooked? Why should you care? Why
not just pretend not to notice the crookedness and go along with it,
like everyone else? Pretend to be a lemming, but stay alert to
possibilities for profiting from the fact that, unlike the lemmings,
you
really are secretly aware of who's who and what's what. That's what
the
big shots do. That's what the people do who care only about themselves
and don't give a damn what happens to their country or their race or
the
civilization built by their race, as long as they personally are able
to
turn a profit from events. That's what George Bush does. He pretends
to
care about all sorts of things. He pretends to be outraged by
terrorism,
but he shakes Ariel Sharon's hand and gives him a big hug whenever
Sharon shows up in Washington. He pretends not to be aware of Sharon's
record as a mass murderer, a war criminal, a terrorist, a man who
sends
out teams of assassins and orders the Israeli police to torture
prisoners.
A lot of people think and behave the way George Bush does. A lot of
people believe that's the only smart way to be. We're living in a
society in which a great many people are completely alienated,
completely disconnected from any sense of responsibility to race or
nation or to anyone but themselves: amoral people, people willing to
do
anything they believe is personally advantageous, people for whom
every
public expression is simply an act. And because there are so many
people
like that, including virtually everyone in the government and in the
media, America is very, very sick.
I'll go further: individuals who think and behave that way are sick.
George Bush is a very sick man. Anyone who consciously and
deliberately
betrays his own race or his own nation, anyone who commits treason, is
a
defective person, a sick person. And George Bush, by consciously
following a policy he knows is not in the interests of America but
only
serves Israel's interests, a policy he knows is responsible for the
September 11 attack against America, a policy he continues to follow
despite that knowledge, is a traitor. That's George Bush I'm talking
about, the President of the United States. He may look stupid, but he
knows what he's doing. George Bush believes he's a smart guy, a guy
who
knows which side his bread is buttered on, a guy who can get away with
anything as long as the Jewish media will back him up. And so far he
has
been getting away with it. In a democracy, hypocrisy works; lying
works.
As long as you have the mass media on your side you can get away with
anything, because the majority of the voters never will figure it out.
What has been happening in Mazar-i-Sharif and Kabul and other northern
cities in Afghanistan this week is a good example. The big act put on
by
George Bush and his British counterpart Tony Blair and all of their
media supporters since the campaign to destabilize Afghanistan began
last month -- the big act was that the Taliban is a bunch of
tyrannical
fanatics who brutalize women, sponsor terrorism, and do lots of other
bad things, and the Northern Alliance, which was supplied with weapons
and money by the U.S. government while we bombed the Taliban to
smithereens, is a bunch of Sunday school teachers and Boy Scouts. The
United States will deliver Afghanistan into the hands of the Northern
Alliance, and then everything will be rosy and peaceful and
democratic.
The people who had been tyrannized by the Taliban will be free and
happy
under the Northern Alliance. The Americans will be the good guys, who
have made this wonderful improvement possible.
Well, of course, it hasn't worked out that way. As soon as the
Northern
Alliance took over each city it began rounding up people it didn't
like,
people who belonged to the wrong tribe, for example, and raping and
killing them. There have been dozens of mass executions and mass rapes
by the Northern Alliance troops this week. There are a lot of people
they don't like. And the ones who just get raped or shot are the lucky
ones. Eyes are being gouged out, breasts are being cut off, prisoners
are being castrated and impaled and skinned alive or burned to death.
That's the way things are done in the Middle East. When the British
tried to pacify the country in the 19th century, the rule was never to
let yourself be taken alive. If you were wounded and left behind, you
always saved your last cartridge for yourself. Rudyard Kipling wrote
about that:
"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
"And the women come out to cut up what remains,
"Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
"An' go to your Gawd like a soldier."
The Russians learned the same lesson, to their sorrow, just a little
over a decade ago. And the military people around George Bush
certainly
were aware of the experiences of the British and the Russians. The
Taliban indeed may be a rough and brutal bunch, but no more rough and
brutal than the people paid and armed by the U.S. government. When the
Taliban was in charge at least there was peace and stability. There
were
no massacres or gang rapes. The U.S. government, with its bombing
campaign and its mercenary troops in the Northern Alliance, has
succeeded in destabilizing large portions of Afghanistan, and the
rapes
and mutilations and mass executions have started.
But the lemmings won't hear enough about that for it to sink in.
George
Bush will continue lying and smirking and pretending that the Northern
Alliance are the good guys, and America is bringing freedom and
democracy and happiness to Afghanistan. What the United States
actually
is trying to do is set up a government a little more corrupt than that
of the Taliban: a government that we can control with bribes and
threats
and that will not be a danger to Israel. That's the whole purpose of
our
war against Afghanistan.
It's the same sort of crookedness that we saw in connection with the
Second World War. The pretext that the British government used for
declaring war against Germany in 1939 was the safeguarding of Poland's
freedom. When the Roosevelt government in the United States finally
was
able to use the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor as an excuse for
jumping
into the war against Germany, the act by the media and the politicians
here was that Americans were being the good guys and would bomb the
Germans to smithereens in order to protect American freedom and the
freedom of Europe. And the people to whom we shipped military supplies
so they could help us were the Soviets under good old Uncle Joe
Stalin,
that kind and fatherly fellow who also was being threatened by the
wicked Germans.
Of course, what we did, after carpet-bombing German cities and killing
enough Germans to make them surrender, was turn Poland and the Baltic
states and half the rest of Europe over to communist rule for half a
century. It had never been the intention of either the British
government or the U.S. government to free anybody. We knew what sort
of
people the communists were. We knew that they had butchered the cream
of
the Polish nation in the Katyn forest and elsewhere -- 25,000 Polish
military officers and professors and physicians and engineers and
writers -- but our government and media people pretended that it was
the
Germans who had done it and that we were "liberating" Europe from the
Germans and protecting American freedom, which never was threatened by
the Germans.
It was all an act. The aim was not to safeguard anybody's freedom; it
was to destroy Germany because the Germans had gotten the Jews off
their
backs and out of their country. We made war against Germany in order
to
make Europe safe for the Jews and for no other reason. We are making
war
against Afghanistan now in order to make the Middle East safe for the
Jews, and for no other reason. Everything else is an act to keep the
public fooled. And the public will be fooled: just as they never
figured
out what World War Two was all about, they won't figure out what the
war
against Afghanistan is all about. They may hear rumors about the
massacres being carried out now by the Northern Alliance, but the
television people won't spell it out for them, won't show them gory
pictures of the piles of corpses, and so the public won't get it.
So again, why should you care? Why not just go along with the act, the
way the big shots do?
That's a hard question to answer, in this sense: If you're like George
Bush or any of the other big shots who think they're being smart by
going along with the act and collaborating with the Jews against their
own people -- if you think that's the smart way to behave -- then you
won't understand my answer, no matter how carefully I explain it. If
you're a person who already is totally alienated -- if you're an
amoral
person who already is completely disconnected from your race and its
traditions and values and you think of yourself solely as an
individual
scrambling to get an advantage over other individuals by any means
that
will work -- you won't understand my answer.
But if you still have some sense of being a part of something larger
and
more permanent than yourself -- if you still have a sense of racial
identity, a sense of kinship with a larger family of fellow Europeans,
of fellow White men and women with whom you share traditions and
values
and a way of looking at the world -- if you value the civilization
your
ancestors built over the last 5,000 years, if you think of it as your
civilization -- then my answer is superfluous. You already know the
answer. You already understand why you must not collaborate with
creatures who secretly sneer at your values, who are contemptuous of
the
traditions and history of your people, who have been working for
thousands of years to corrupt your civilization, and who are
determined
to annihilate your race. You already understand why men who do
collaborate with these creatures must not be permitted to make laws
and
set policies governing your people. You understand that instead of
being
applauded and looked at with respect, they should be hanged as
traitors
and as a warning to others who might be tempted also to betray our
people. You already understand that truthfulness and righteousness are
their own reward.
Thanks for being with me again today.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The text above is based on a broadcast of the American Dissident
Voices radio program sponsored by National Vanguard Books.
It is distributed by e-mail each Saturday to subscribers of ADVlist.
To subscribe to ADVlist send an e-mail message to:
ADVlist-on@NatVan.com (The subject and body of the message don't
matter.)
For more information about National Vanguard Books or the
National Alliance see our web site at http://www.natvan.com or
http://www.natall.com
To contact us, write to:
National Vanguard Books
Attention: ADVlist
P.O. Box 330
Hillsboro, WV 24946
or e-mail:
please tell us if we can post your
comments and if so whether you want your name or e-mail address
given.
==> TO BE REMOVED from ADVlist, send an e-mail message to:
ADVlist-off@NatVan.com (The subject and body of the message don't
matter.)
(c) 2001 National Vanguard Books
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com
http://www.nationalism.org/rnsp/display_ENG.htm
.
User: "SherrieG"

Title: Re: White supremacists Nazi lies now? Up yours. Re: Re : ISLAM FOR INFIDELS- Islam Is An Evil Cult 08 May 2004 04:07:52 PM
Never again.
"neptune3" <nptn3@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:061o90h5j7k8vq448f3e73b4tvd8djoaat@4ax.com...

The Value of Truth and Righteousness
By Dr. William Pierce

Last Saturday George Bush addressed the United Nations General
Assembly,
urging all of the member nations to join the United States in bringing
pressure to bear against all countries that sponsor terrorism or
harbor
terrorists. He did it in his standard mock-serious way, barely
suppressing a smirk. Everyone applauded, including the representative
of
a country that from its founding until the present day has sponsored
terrorism. That country, of course, is Israel.

The prime minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon, is a war criminal, a mass
murderer, with the blood of thousands of women and children on his
hands. He is being sought now for trial by the same Hague Tribunal
that
succeeded in extraditing former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic
for trial on charges of crimes against humanity in Kosovo, the same
Hague Tribunal that already has tried and sentenced soldiers who raped
and murdered in Bosnia and in Rwanda.

In 1982, during Israel's invasion of Lebanon, Ariel Sharon was
Israel's
defense minister. After the bloody terror-bombing of civilian
neighborhoods in Beirut that killed thousands of Lebanese and
Palestinian civilians -- terror bombing carried out by Jews flying
military aircraft supplied to Israel by the United States -- Sharon
arranged for the evacuation of Palestinian fighters from Lebanon.
Palestinian women, children, and old people were left behind in
refugee
camps, with their safety guaranteed by the United States. On the night
of September 16, 1982, Sharon sent murder squads into two Palestinian
refugee camps, Sabra and Chatila, in West Beirut to kill the unarmed
Palestinian civilians in the camps. With Israeli tanks and troops
surrounding the camps to prevent any of the Palestinians from
escaping,
Sharon's murder squads shot, knifed, and bludgeoned Palestinian
civilians all that night and the next day and the following night,
while
the Israelis around the camps listened gleefully to the shots and
screams coming from inside. Then Sharon sent in bulldozers to scoop
out
mass burial pits and cover up the corpses of more than 2,000
Palestinian
women and children.

Many Palestinians remained unburied, however, and Red Cross workers
found whole families in their homes with their throats cut and other
families who had been lined up and machine-gunned, from small children
to elderly grandparents. One infant had been stomped to death by a man
wearing spiked boots.

This was Ariel Sharon's work, but only a part of his work. He is a man
who believes the teaching of the Talmud that only Jews are human
beings,
and that all who are not Jews were put on this earth only to serve the
Jews, and that anyone who opposes the Jews deserves to be killed, and
he
has acted in accord with this belief all his life. There are a dozen
major atrocities for which he could be tried by the Hague Tribunal,
but
the one with which he is charged now is the mass murder he
implemented,
as Israel's defense minister, in West Beirut in September 1982. And
the
U.S. government, which clamored for Slobodan Milosevic to be turned
over
to the Hague Tribunal for trial, pretends that it knows nothing about
Sharon's genocidal crimes against humanity.

In the 1950s Israel's Mossad, the equivalent of the CIA in the United
States, sent hundreds of letter bombs to German scientists working in
Egypt and Syria, killing a number of them.

In 1967, during Israel's war against Egypt, the Israeli army carried
out
a number of mass executions of Egyptian prisoners of war in the Sinai,
forcing them to dig ditches, then lining them up and shooting them.
Dozens of eyewitnesses to these mass executions have reported what
they
saw, but the world's politicians and media bosses pretend not to know.
Also in 1967 Israel attacked the U.S. Navy ship, the U.S.S. Liberty,
attempting to sink it and kill its crew and then blame the sinking on
the Egyptians.

Israeli agents have carried out assassinations and other terrorist
operations around the world. One of the most colorful of these
operations -- and one of the few that received major media coverage --
was the attempt to murder a prominent Muslim cleric in Jordan in 1997.
Two Israeli agents sprayed poison in the ear of Khaled Meshal as they
walked past him on a sidewalk in Amman. Fortunately, Meshal's
bodyguards
were able to catch the two Jews as they ran away, and so the
assassination attempt was publicized.

Israel has stolen nuclear materials and nuclear weapons technology
from
the United States to build an illegal nuclear arsenal. Israel also is
known to have developed an arsenal of biological and chemical weapons
of
mass destruction.

None of these Israeli activities is secret. Those I've mentioned are
just a few of the ones that were found out and publicized. Not
publicized very much, of course. In fact, they all were dropped from
the
news pretty quickly. Still, everyone attending Mr. Bush's speech at
the
United Nations last Saturday knew about them. And yet, no one stood up
and booed. No one walked out in protest. Bush's speech was covered by
all of the major newspapers and television networks in the world, but
no
reporter for any news medium operating in the West commented on his
hypocrisy. No one mentioned Israel's terrorism. Everyone knew, but
everyone played along.

These people weren't lemmings. Lemmings really don't know any better.
Lemmings are essentially moral creatures; in fact they are
compulsively
moral. To lemmings it is essential to feel and think and act the way
they believe they are expected to feel and think and act. That's
morality. Most groups of lemmings believe that it is bad to lie, to
deceive, to be hypocritical. If during George Bush's speech at the
United Nations a substantial part of the audience had walked out in
disgust, and at the end the remaining delegates had stood up and booed
him loudly, and if the media commentators then had remarked with scorn
to their television audiences that Bush is a hypocrite who talks about
stopping state-sponsored terrorism while continuing to finance Israeli
terrorism, the lemmings would have booed him too.

But Bush's lies and hypocrisy were ignored by the media and by the
other
delegates. Instead of booing, they applauded him. And so the lemmings
applauded him too. It was all an act for the benefit of the lemmings.
Nearly all politics these days, nearly every speech or public
appearance
by a politician or a government official, is an act of showmanship.
What
is said has relatively little relationship to what the politician
actually is thinking.

ertainly, last Saturday George Bush wasn't really thinking about
waging
war on countries that sponsor terrorism or harbor terrorists. He was
thinking first and foremost about the importance of pleasing the
Jewish
media with his speech. He may have been keeping his fingers crossed
and
hoping that no Arab delegate would jump up during his speech and shout
at him, "What about Israel? You say that we should wage war on states
that sponsor terrorism. Israel engages in state-sponsored terrorism
more
than Afghanistan and all the other countries in the Middle East
combined. When will you send your B-52s to carpet-bomb Tel Aviv and
Jerusalem?" And at the end he must have marveled to himself how
smoothly
the act went and how easy it is to deceive the public.

Crookedness of this sort has been going on for a long time. There are
only two things that make this latest crookedness noteworthy. First,
it
is being used to justify yet another war that is not in the interests
of
the American people. It is being used to justify dropping cluster
bombs
on villagers whom we have no good reason to kill. And second, it is a
lot more obviously crooked than usual. Osama bin Laden caught the Bush
government and the media by surprise, and they didn't have time to
refine and polish their lies. All they could do was pretend that they
had no idea why he would attack the United States and then claim that
it
must be because he hates our freedom. They didn't have time to put up
their usual smokescreen of obfuscation. They simply launched their
denunciations of terrorism and terrorists and of governments that
tolerate terrorism and hoped that no one would say anything about
Israel
or Ariel Sharon or Israel's policies of assassination and torture.

Because the crookedness is more obvious now than usual, more
perceptive
people than usual are noticing it and saying something about it, and
that's good. But these perceptive few who are unhappy enough about the
crookedness to speak out have little or no voice in the mass media,
and
so the lemmings remain oblivious to the realities of the situation.
That's the wonderful thing about democracy: you don't have to try to
fool all of the people; all you have to do is fool most of the people
all of the time, and that's pretty easy to do when you control the
mass
media. You can just ignore the few who refuse to go along with the
act,
and the great majority of the voters will never notice.

So why do I care that the system is crooked? Why should you care? Why
not just pretend not to notice the crookedness and go along with it,
like everyone else? Pretend to be a lemming, but stay alert to
possibilities for profiting from the fact that, unlike the lemmings,
you
really are secretly aware of who's who and what's what. That's what
the
big shots do. That's what the people do who care only about themselves
and don't give a damn what happens to their country or their race or
the
civilization built by their race, as long as they personally are able
to
turn a profit from events. That's what George Bush does. He pretends
to
care about all sorts of things. He pretends to be outraged by
terrorism,
but he shakes Ariel Sharon's hand and gives him a big hug whenever
Sharon shows up in Washington. He pretends not to be aware of Sharon's
record as a mass murderer, a war criminal, a terrorist, a man who
sends
out teams of assassins and orders the Israeli police to torture
prisoners.

A lot of people think and behave the way George Bush does. A lot of
people believe that's the only smart way to be. We're living in a
society in which a great many people are completely alienated,
completely disconnected from any sense of responsibility to race or
nation or to anyone but themselves: amoral people, people willing to
do
anything they believe is personally advantageous, people for whom
every
public expression is simply an act. And because there are so many
people
like that, including virtually everyone in the government and in the
media, America is very, very sick.

I'll go further: individuals who think and behave that way are sick.
George Bush is a very sick man. Anyone who consciously and
deliberately
betrays his own race or his own nation, anyone who commits treason, is
a
defective person, a sick person. And George Bush, by consciously
following a policy he knows is not in the interests of America but
only
serves Israel's interests, a policy he knows is responsible for the
September 11 attack against America, a policy he continues to follow
despite that knowledge, is a traitor. That's George Bush I'm talking
about, the President of the United States. He may look stupid, but he
knows what he's doing. George Bush believes he's a smart guy, a guy
who
knows which side his bread is buttered on, a guy who can get away with
anything as long as the Jewish media will back him up. And so far he
has
been getting away with it. In a democracy, hypocrisy works; lying
works.
As long as you have the mass media on your side you can get away with
anything, because the majority of the voters never will figure it out.

What has been happening in Mazar-i-Sharif and Kabul and other northern
cities in Afghanistan this week is a good example. The big act put on
by
George Bush and his British counterpart Tony Blair and all of their
media supporters since the campaign to destabilize Afghanistan began
last month -- the big act was that the Taliban is a bunch of
tyrannical
fanatics who brutalize women, sponsor terrorism, and do lots of other
bad things, and the Northern Alliance, which was supplied with weapons
and money by the U.S. government while we bombed the Taliban to
smithereens, is a bunch of Sunday school teachers and Boy Scouts. The
United States will deliver Afghanistan into the hands of the Northern
Alliance, and then everything will be rosy and peaceful and
democratic.
The people who had been tyrannized by the Taliban will be free and
happy
under the Northern Alliance. The Americans will be the good guys, who
have made this wonderful improvement possible.

Well, of course, it hasn't worked out that way. As soon as the
Northern
Alliance took over each city it began rounding up people it didn't
like,
people who belonged to the wrong tribe, for example, and raping and
killing them. There have been dozens of mass executions and mass rapes
by the Northern Alliance troops this week. There are a lot of people
they don't like. And the ones who just get raped or shot are the lucky
ones. Eyes are being gouged out, breasts are being cut off, prisoners
are being castrated and impaled and skinned alive or burned to death.
That's the way things are done in the Middle East. When the British
tried to pacify the country in the 19th century, the rule was never to
let yourself be taken alive. If you were wounded and left behind, you
always saved your last cartridge for yourself. Rudyard Kipling wrote
about that:

"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,

"And the women come out to cut up what remains,

"Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains

"An' go to your Gawd like a soldier."

The Russians learned the same lesson, to their sorrow, just a little
over a decade ago. And the military people around George Bush
certainly
were aware of the experiences of the British and the Russians. The
Taliban indeed may be a rough and brutal bunch, but no more rough and
brutal than the people paid and armed by the U.S. government. When the
Taliban was in charge at least there was peace and stability. There
were
no massacres or gang rapes. The U.S. government, with its bombing
campaign and its mercenary troops in the Northern Alliance, has
succeeded in destabilizing large portions of Afghanistan, and the
rapes
and mutilations and mass executions have started.

But the lemmings won't hear enough about that for it to sink in.
George
Bush will continue lying and smirking and pretending that the Northern
Alliance are the good guys, and America is bringing freedom and
democracy and happiness to Afghanistan. What the United States
actually
is trying to do is set up a government a little more corrupt than that
of the Taliban: a government that we can control with bribes and
threats
and that will not be a danger to Israel. That's the whole purpose of
our
war against Afghanistan.

It's the same sort of crookedness that we saw in connection with the
Second World War. The pretext that the British government used for
declaring war against Germany in 1939 was the safeguarding of Poland's
freedom. When the Roosevelt government in the United States finally
was
able to use the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor as an excuse for
jumping
into the war against Germany, the act by the media and the politicians
here was that Americans were being the good guys and would bomb the
Germans to smithereens in order to protect American freedom and the
freedom of Europe. And the people to whom we shipped military supplies
so they could help us were the Soviets under good old Uncle Joe
Stalin,
that kind and fatherly fellow who also was being threatened by the
wicked Germans.

Of course, what we did, after carpet-bombing German cities and killing
enough Germans to make them surrender, was turn Poland and the Baltic
states and half the rest of Europe over to communist rule for half a
century. It had never been the intention of either the British
government or the U.S. government to free anybody. We knew what sort
of
people the communists were. We knew that they had butchered the cream
of
the Polish nation in the Katyn forest and elsewhere -- 25,000 Polish
military officers and professors and physicians and engineers and
writers -- but our government and media people pretended that it was
the
Germans who had done it and that we were "liberating" Europe from the
Germans and protecting American freedom, which never was threatened by
the Germans.

It was all an act. The aim was not to safeguard anybody's freedom; it
was to destroy Germany because the Germans had gotten the Jews off
their
backs and out of their country. We made war against Germany in order
to
make Europe safe for the Jews and for no other reason. We are making
war
against Afghanistan now in order to make the Middle East safe for the
Jews, and for no other reason. Everything else is an act to keep the
public fooled. And the public will be fooled: just as they never
figured
out what World War Two was all about, they won't figure out what the
war
against Afghanistan is all about. They may hear rumors about the
massacres being carried out now by the Northern Alliance, but the
television people won't spell it out for them, won't show them gory
pictures of the piles of corpses, and so the public won't get it.

So again, why should you care? Why not just go along with the act, the
way the big shots do?

That's a hard question to answer, in this sense: If you're like George
Bush or any of the other big shots who think they're being smart by
going along with the act and collaborating with the Jews against their
own people -- if you think that's the smart way to behave -- then you
won't understand my answer, no matter how carefully I explain it. If
you're a person who already is totally alienated -- if you're an
amoral
person who already is completely disconnected from your race and its
traditions and values and you think of yourself solely as an
individual
scrambling to get an advantage over other individuals by any means
that
will work -- you won't understand my answer.

But if you still have some sense of being a part of something larger
and
more permanent than yourself -- if you still have a sense of racial
identity, a sense of kinship with a larger family of fellow Europeans,
of fellow White men and women with whom you share traditions and
values
and a way of looking at the world -- if you value the civilization
your
ancestors built over the last 5,000 years, if you think of it as your
civilization -- then my answer is superfluous. You already know the
answer. You already understand why you must not collaborate with
creatures who secretly sneer at your values, who are contemptuous of
the
traditions and history of your people, who have been working for
thousands of years to corrupt your civilization, and who are
determined
to annihilate your race. You already understand why men who do
collaborate with these creatures must not be permitted to make laws
and
set policies governing your people. You understand that instead of
being
applauded and looked at with respect, they should be hanged as
traitors
and as a warning to others who might be tempted also to betray our
people. You already understand that truthfulness and righteousness are
their own reward.

Thanks for being with me again today.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The text above is based on a broadcast of the American Dissident
Voices radio program sponsored by National Vanguard Books.
It is distributed by e-mail each Saturday to subscribers of ADVlist.

To subscribe to ADVlist send an e-mail message to:
ADVlist-on@NatVan.com (The subject and body of the message don't
matter.)

For more information about National Vanguard Books or the
National Alliance see our web site at http://www.natvan.com or
http://www.natall.com

To contact us, write to:
National Vanguard Books
Attention: ADVlist
P.O. Box 330
Hillsboro, WV 24946

or e-mail:

please tell us if we can post your
comments and if so whether you want your name or e-mail address
given.

==> TO BE REMOVED from ADVlist, send an e-mail message to:
ADVlist-off@NatVan.com (The subject and body of the message don't
matter.)

(c) 2001 National Vanguard Books


www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com
http://www.nationalism.org/rnsp/display_ENG.htm

.
User: "neptune3"

Title: Re: Re: White supremacists Nazi lies now? Up yours. Re: Re : ISLAM FOR INFIDELS- Islam Is An Evil Cult 09 May 2004 09:21:01 AM
On Sat, 08 May 2004 21:07:52 GMT, "SherrieG"
<cinymngirl@earthlink.net> wrote:

Never again.

KAS: Welcome to American Dissident Voices, Mark Weber.
MW: Hello, Kevin.
KAS: What is the Institute for Historical Review, of which you are the
director?
MW: The Institute for Historical Review is more than twenty years old,
and what we try to do is, as we say, to "bring history into accord
with
the facts." That's quoting Harry Elmer Barnes, who is a kind of ideal,
or mentor, for the IHR. The IHR is most famous -- or, in some eyes,
infamous -- for what we've done with regard to the so-called
"holocaust"
-- the Jewish "holocaust" during World War II.
Over the years, the IHR has published quite a lot in its Journal, and
in
books, and at conferences to show that much of what the public has
been
led to believe about the fate of Europe's Jews during World War II is
wrong or exaggerated or distorted. And that has just enraged groups
like
the ADL [the Jewish "Anti-Defamation League" of B'nai Brith -- Ed.],
and
the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and so forth.
But that's not all the IHR does. We try to deal with a number of other
issues as well.
KAS: You call yourselves revisionists? Is that correct?
MW: That's right.
KAS: The word sounds odd to many listeners, I'm sure. It sounds you're
trying to revise history. Don't we already know what happened in
history? Why should it be revised?
MW: Right. It's a sorry thing that the word "revisionism" has taken on
the connotation it has. "Revisionism" just comes from the Latin "to
look
again at things"; and all good history is revisionist in the sense
that
always an effort is made -- and should be made -- to examine the past
in
the light of new information, of new research, and new insights. And
that's what the IHR does.
But the main point of revisionism is that it's skeptical history. It's
unofficial history. What people call, oftentimes, "standard" history
is
really just official history. And what revisionism tries to do -- and,
again, it is a term that many people, as you point out, have trouble
understanding -- revisionism means to take a skeptical new look at the
past based on what we know. But many people who are fearful of the
term
"revisionism" don't realize the extent to which they themselves are
victims of a kind of "official" history, that history can actually
change in our encyclopedias and our standard books and so forth. And
people think that whatever the "official" version is, is the "correct"
one. Hardly anyone who's studied history can fail to be surprised at
the
extent to which Americans are taught today a version of our own
history,
as Americans, that's very different from the version of history that
was
taught to our grandparents and great-grandparents fifty, sixty, or
seventy years ago, for example.
KAS: So you're saying that, over time, the "official" version changes.
And does it also change geographically, depending on where you are,
what
the "official" version actually is?
MW: Of course, yes. Just about everyone would be in favor, for
example,
of the kind of revisionism that took place in Eastern Europe and the
Soviet Union after the fall of Communism. The official history
presented
the Communist past in a way, of course, that was in keeping with the
Communist regime, and after the fall of the Communist regimes in
Eastern
Europe and the Soviet Union there was an enormous process of
revisionism
-- that is, of re-examining history on the basis of information that
had
been suppressed for many years. By the same token, in American history
for example, during World War II the Soviet Union was an ally of the
United States. And so the Soviet leader Stalin and the Soviet Union
were
presented in a positive way, in keeping with the wartime alliance.
After
the Cold War began and during the 1950s, the portrayal of the Soviet
Union and Stalin was a very different one. There are many, many
examples
of that. And revisionism is simply part and parcel of the natural and
important process of constantly re-examining our past based on new
insights and information.
KAS: If you're questioning the "official" version, doesn't that put
you
at odds with certain very powerful interests? Have these interests
tried
to retaliate in any way against you?
MW: The most obvious is that by calling into question this
almost-icon,
this mantra about the "holocaust," this endless emphasis about the
suffering or fate of Europe's Jews during World War II, the IHR has
enraged the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Anti-Defamation League, the
World Jewish Congress, and other powerful Jewish organizations -- and
the state of Israel -- and their helpers. But the IHR really doesn't
care very much what they think. We just assume that's the attitude
they'll take. At the same time, we try to do our work in a way that is
responsible and sober. The IHR has succeeded, for example, in getting
what's called 501c3 status with the federal government; that is, it's
recognized by the federal government as a legitimate public-interest
educational enterprise, and people can donate money to the IHR and
deduct the amount for income tax purposes. Now, when the IHR got that
status, Tom Lantos, a very prominent Jewish Zionist member of
Congress,
screamed and yelled about it. The ADL issued a news release denouncing
it. And, on the basis of that, they sent another IRS agent out here to
go through our books, but they were unable to find any pretext to deny
us that.
But the most dramatic opposition to our work has come from Jewish
terrorists. In the late 70s and early 80s, there was a whole series of
drive-by shootings, bomb attacks, harassment, and violence against
employees that culminated on July 4th, 1984 in an arson attack on the
IHR offices that destroyed the IHR office and warehouse and resulted
in
immense damage. But since that time, it's been relatively peaceful.
It's
been rather peaceful.
KAS: That did not stop you, did it?
MW: No, it didn't. And it was very gratifying to see the tremendous
rallying that took place by people in the aftermath of that 1984 arson
attack.
KAS: We've gotten a sketch of what you do, and the fact that you have
some powerful enemies who don't want the facts of history to be looked
into. Who are you? Who are the leading personalities of the Institute?
MW: I'm the director; I've been employed full time since 1991. The IHR
Journal has an Editorial Advisory Board that is made up of scholars
from
many different countries who are distinguished in one way or the
other.
But probably most high-profile has been the support which the IHR has
received at its conferences. Two years ago, one of the speakers was
former Congressman Pete McCloskey, who was noted, during the time he
was
in Congress, as quite a liberal. He was the first Republican
Congressman
to call for the impeachment, years ago, of Richard Nixon. But we've
had
other prominent supporters who have been, as it were, conservative. At
the recent IHR conference we held in June, Joe Sobran was the banquet
speaker, and he's noted for his conservative views. For years, he was
a
senior editor at National Review. Also Professor Tony Martin of
Wellesley College in Massachusetts, who was actually born in the West
Indies -- and he's Black, spoke at the same conference. So the IHR has
support from people who are recognized, sometimes prominent: writers,
scholars, and thinkers of different political backgrounds. And one of
the points of the IHR is to get support for the work that we do,
regardless of people's political, racial, and other background.
KAS: What are your qualifications for the work that you're doing, for
directing an institute such as the IHR?
MW: Well [amused], I don't know about my qualifications? I was born
and
raised in Portland, Oregon; I went to school at Portland State
University; I have a Bachelor's degree from Portland State, but I
studied at the University of Munich in Germany; I studied at the
University of Illinois in Chicago; and I went to graduate school at
Indiana University in Bloomington where I got a Master's degree.
That's
sort of my qualifications, but in one sense the qualifications are not
one's degrees. It's one's commitment to what I regard as this enormous
struggle for truth in history, because much of what we are told in our
society is a version of history that is not only wrong and skewed and
distorted, but dangerously so.
KAS: What do you mean? Why is it dangerous, and who's doing the
skewing?
MW: The most obvious expression of this, and one that the IHR and I
have
spoken about and we've written about quite a lot -- especially in the
last several years -- is Jewish, Zionist power. In the United States,
Jews wield immense, tremendous power and influence, way out of
proportion to the tiny percentage of the population that they make up.
And this affects not only our policy, especially in the Middle East,
but
how we look at history. And this is manifest, perhaps most obviously,
in
the enormous way that the so-called "holocaust" is presented and
emphasized in our schoolbooks, in our schools, in our television, in
our
motion pictures, and so forth. And this presents just a very skewed
version of history in which Jews are presented as innocent victims,
people who deserve and should be given great support and help, and
that
the "lesson," so-called, of the "holocaust" is never do anything that
Jewish groups object to.
KAS: I've often noted that Americans in general, and American students
in particular, can always give you the "six million" figure for Jewish
losses in World War II. But if you ask them how many Russians died, or
how many Americans died, or how many British people died, they just
give
you a blank stare.
MW: Yes, it's a point I've made many times: the "six million" figure
is
repeated incessantly. It's an inaccurate and it's a mythical figure.
But
it's repeated constantly. Americans have no corresponding
understanding,
or almost no Americans have any corresponding knowledge of the
suffering
of other people. It's all part and parcel of what I call a kind of
"victimization hierarchy" in America, in which Jews are sort of number
one, and then other groups, depending on their status in society, are
further down the list. It's a dangerous and skewed version of history
that clouds everything that we do.
KAS: So you would definitely state that Jewish groups have distorted
and/or exaggerated their losses during World War II?
MW: No question. At the conference, for example, two years ago, former
Congressman McCloskey went into great detail about how the
Anti-Defamation League in particular does everything that it can to
suppress, silence, and shut up anyone who speaks about history in a
way
that Jewish groups regard as contrary to their interests, particularly
on the Middle East. It's more and more obvious, I think, to people
around the world just how skewed America's policy -- but not only
policy, but its perception of the world -- is because of Jewish
Zionist
influence in our mass media, in our educational system, and in our
political system.
KAS: Are there any falsehoods about the "holocaust" which stand out as
particularly absurd or particularly worthy of correction for our
audience today?
MW: Well, it's almost like shooting fish in a barrel. One story that
is
still told sometimes is this fable that the Germans made bars of soap
from the corpses of murdered Jews during World War II. And this story
has been given tremendous life over the years. It's appeared in
textbooks; it's appeared in important speeches. It's given great
prominence. It's utterly untrue. It's very lurid, it's ghastly -- but
completely untrue. And it's admitted to be untrue now, even by Jewish
groups -- if you press them on the matter. But the fact that it took
on
this tremendous life for so long is just typical of the way in which
the
most defamatory, horrible stories can be told about Germans or about
any
other non-Jewish group that's in disfavor at the moment -- without
correction, without fear of contradiction.
In the years right after World War II, and at the Nuremburg Trials, it
was claimed that people were killed in gas chambers in camps all over
Europe, including Buchenwald, Dachau, Auschwitz, and so forth. Many of
these claims have just been quietly abandoned over the years: No one
seriously claims anymore that anyone was gassed at Dachau or
Buchenwald
or at camps in Germany proper. One of the interesting aspects of this
is
that the so-called "eyewitnesses" and testimony and evidence for these
claims is therefore obviously not true.
KAS: And yet people were punished for those alleged crimes.
MW: Right. People were punished for those alleged crimes. This is just
part and parcel of this distortion; there are numerous examples. For
years, at Auschwitz, it was officially claimed that four million
people
were killed there, and that was supposedly proven at the Nuremberg
Trials in 1945-1946. In recent years, the numbers have been
drastically
reduced. They're still dropping down. Oftentimes the response to that
is
to say "So what if it's one million or four million or 100,000 or even
two?" There's an argument to be made for that, but the essential point
isn't over quibbling about numbers or anything like that, although
that's what historians are supposed to do. The essential point really,
I
think, is the way in which there's this tremendous political capital
made out of one chapter of history, designed to gain sympathy and
support. And the result has been a massive shakedown, kind of a
blackmail that's resulted in billions of dollars extracted from
Switzerland, from Germany, from European corporations, and from
American
taxpayers.
KAS: It's a kind of moral blackmail, I think.
MW: And some Jewish writers have even used those very terms. One of
the
striking things -- and Americans, I think need to understand this --
is
that the views of history that we are very used to, and comfortable
with, are not universal. The view of Middle East history that comes
from
the movie Exodus or the insights on European history that come from
the
movie The Sound of Music are gross distortions. They're just
perversions
of the truth. They may be very comfortable for many Americans to
believe, but they're not only perversions of the truth: Around the
world, there's an increasing awareness that how America looks at the
world and the Middle East is just out of line. Unfortunately, many
Americans still haven't "gotten it." Fortunately, millions more
Americans, I think, are "getting it." It's obvious, I think, to anyone
who has spent much time living overseas, that how the Middle East
situation is presented in the daily press is very different than it is
here in the American press.
KAS: In a moment, I'd like to talk about the linkage between Holocaust
Revisionism and the present situation in the Middle East, but first
I'd
just like to say that when you talk about "the 'holocaust'" it seems
to
me that the objection that should be raised is not so much to the word
"holocaust" but to the word "the" -- the article that precedes it. As
if
it's the only suffering of any national group in history!
MW: Yes, that's right. You know, the word 'holocaust' when used to
apply
collectively to what happened to Europe's Jews in World War II, didn't
come into popular usage until the 1970s. Normally, with the passage of
time, particularly horrible or gruesome or dark chapters of history
tend
to recede into the past and recede in importance. But just the
opposite
has happened with regard to what's called "the holocaust." You're
right,
even the very use of this term in this way is to give a kind of label
to
what was really a lot of individual things that happened rather than
some overarching phenomenon.
KAS: It seems to me that the suffering of the Germans after World War
II
certainly exceeded in scope anything that happened to the Jews. And
also
what happened to the Ukrainians in the pre-war period was horrific.
MW: I think the evidence is clear that more Germans than Jews were
killed during World War II. One of the things that was an important
beginning experience in my life was, when I was living in Europe, to
learn for the first time about the tremendous suffering, killings, and
expulsions that took place -- the victimization of Germans and other
Eastern Europeans in what is now Poland, in Czechoslovakia, and so
forth
in 1945 to 1948. We hear almost nothing about that in America. And
again, that's just part of the tremendous distortion, perversion, and
skewing of history that we see.
KAS: Isn't it true that in some parts of the world -- many parts of
the
world, perhaps -- it's actually a crime now to question the Jewish
view
of events during World War II?
MW: This is a point that the IHR has publicized a lot. In some
countries
-- Germany, France, Holland -- it's a crime to, as they say, "deny the
holocaust." The amazing thing is that it's only one chapter of
history:
For the sake of argument, suppose for a moment that the so-called
"holocaust deniers," the revisionists, are wrong. Justice is not
justice
unless it's applied equally. To criminalize dissident views about just
one chapter of history, and not others, is a form of injustice. People
today in Europe have been, and are, fined, exiled, imprisoned, for
expressing skepticism or dissident views on this chapter of history.
It's an outrage. The very fact that it's hardly known in America is in
itself an expression of the tremendous power that put those laws into
effect in the first place.
KAS: It's a strange kind of "truth" that has to be protected by laws
and
guns and prisons.
MW: Indeed, yes.
KAS: There is something going in Australia now. The Adelaide Institute
Web site is being forced off?
MW: Just the other day, the Federal Court in Australia ordered
Frederick
Töben, who runs something called the Adelaide Institute -- it's a
Holocaust Revisionist Web site -- to shut down the site and to
eliminate
everything on his site and on any other site that questions whether
people were killed in gas chambers at Auschwitz, that questions
whether
the "holocaust" occurred -- I think I'm quoting from the language of
the
court ruling. It's outrageous. This was considered a violation of the
so-called "Racial Discrimination Act" in Australia. Töben tried to
argue
that the Act shouldn't apply because Jews constitute a religious
group.
But the Jewish organizations insisted that Jews should be regarded as
a
racial group. That alone is rather interesting because, when it is to
the advantage of Jewish groups, they will insist just the opposite.
And the law in Australia is similar to the laws in other countries: It
merely requires that one or two Jews claim to feel offended, and the
law
goes into effect. Well, a lot of things on the Internet are offensive
to
a lot of people. The fact that it's applied in this way, and that
Jewish
groups take advantage of it in this way, and that the courts uphold
their protests, is again an expression of the kind of special
treatment,
the privileged treatment, that Jewish groups receive in Australia and
everywhere in the Western world.
On our next program, we will continue our conversation with Mr. Weber
with a discussion of the impact of Jewish power -- and Jewish history
distortion -- on American Middle Eastern policy and on the looming war
in that region. Be sure to be listening one week from today.
If you'd like more information on the Institute for Historical Review,
you may write to IHR, PO Box 2739, Newport Beach, CA 92659, or visit
the
Institute's Web site at www.ihr.org <http://www.ihr.org>.
Until next week, this is Kevin Alfred Strom reminding you to keep on
thinking free.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The text above is based on a broadcast of the American Dissident
Voices radio program sponsored by National Vanguard Books.
It is distributed by e-mail each Saturday to subscribers of ADV-list.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
==> To subscribe send an e-mail message to:
adv-list-request@NatVan.com
The subject of the message should be: Subscribe
==> TO BE REMOVED send an e-mail message to:
adv-list-request@NatVan.com
The subject of the message should be: Unsubscribe
==> The National Alliance has a strict anti-spamming policy. This
information is intended for interested parties only and is not to be
indiscriminately distributed via mass e-mailing or newsgroup posting.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
To comment on this broadcast, please write to:
To
report typos and technical errors in ADV-list or our web site, please
write to:

To contact us via "snail mail," write to:
National Vanguard Books
Attention: ADVlist
P.O. Box 330
Hillsboro, WV 24946
The National Alliance: <http://www.natvan.com>
<http://www.natall.com>
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com
http://www.nationalism.org/rnsp/display_ENG.htm
.
User: "SherrieG"

Title: Re: Re: White supremacists Nazi lies now? Up yours. Re: Re : ISLAM FOR INFIDELS- Islam Is An Evil Cult 09 May 2004 11:20:27 AM
Never. Again.
"neptune3" <nptn3@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4hfs90l9gjn3sbs2d9tc64qpcm0fckug47@4ax.com...

On Sat, 08 May 2004 21:07:52 GMT, "SherrieG"
<cinymngirl@earthlink.net> wrote:

Never again.



KAS: Welcome to American Dissident Voices, Mark Weber.

MW: Hello, Kevin.

KAS: What is the Institute for Historical Review, of which you are the
director?

MW: The Institute for Historical Review is more than twenty years old,
and what we try to do is, as we say, to "bring history into accord
with
the facts." That's quoting Harry Elmer Barnes, who is a kind of ideal,
or mentor, for the IHR. The IHR is most famous -- or, in some eyes,
infamous -- for what we've done with regard to the so-called
"holocaust"
-- the Jewish "holocaust" during World War II.

Over the years, the IHR has published quite a lot in its Journal, and
in
books, and at conferences to show that much of what the public has
been
led to believe about the fate of Europe's Jews during World War II is
wrong or exaggerated or distorted. And that has just enraged groups
like
the ADL [the Jewish "Anti-Defamation League" of B'nai Brith -- Ed.],
and
the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and so forth.

But that's not all the IHR does. We try to deal with a number of other
issues as well.

KAS: You call yourselves revisionists? Is that correct?

MW: That's right.

KAS: The word sounds odd to many listeners, I'm sure. It sounds you're
trying to revise history. Don't we already know what happened in
history? Why should it be revised?

MW: Right. It's a sorry thing that the word "revisionism" has taken on
the connotation it has. "Revisionism" just comes from the Latin "to
look
again at things"; and all good history is revisionist in the sense
that
always an effort is made -- and should be made -- to examine the past
in
the light of new information, of new research, and new insights. And
that's what the IHR does.

But the main point of revisionism is that it's skeptical history. It's
unofficial history. What people call, oftentimes, "standard" history
is
really just official history. And what revisionism tries to do -- and,
again, it is a term that many people, as you point out, have trouble
understanding -- revisionism means to take a skeptical new look at the
past based on what we know. But many people who are fearful of the
term
"revisionism" don't realize the extent to which they themselves are
victims of a kind of "official" history, that history can actually
change in our encyclopedias and our standard books and so forth. And
people think that whatever the "official" version is, is the "correct"
one. Hardly anyone who's studied history can fail to be surprised at
the
extent to which Americans are taught today a version of our own
history,
as Americans, that's very different from the version of history that
was
taught to our grandparents and great-grandparents fifty, sixty, or
seventy years ago, for example.

KAS: So you're saying that, over time, the "official" version changes.
And does it also change geographically, depending on where you are,
what
the "official" version actually is?

MW: Of course, yes. Just about everyone would be in favor, for
example,
of the kind of revisionism that took place in Eastern Europe and the
Soviet Union after the fall of Communism. The official history
presented
the Communist past in a way, of course, that was in keeping with the
Communist regime, and after the fall of the Communist regimes in
Eastern
Europe and the Soviet Union there was an enormous process of
revisionism
-- that is, of re-examining history on the basis of information that
had
been suppressed for many years. By the same token, in American history
for example, during World War II the Soviet Union was an ally of the
United States. And so the Soviet leader Stalin and the Soviet Union
were
presented in a positive way, in keeping with the wartime alliance.
After
the Cold War began and during the 1950s, the portrayal of the Soviet
Union and Stalin was a very different one. There are many, many
examples
of that. And revisionism is simply part and parcel of the natural and
important process of constantly re-examining our past based on new
insights and information.

KAS: If you're questioning the "official" version, doesn't that put
you
at odds with certain very powerful interests? Have these interests
tried
to retaliate in any way against you?

MW: The most obvious is that by calling into question this
almost-icon,
this mantra about the "holocaust," this endless emphasis about the
suffering or fate of Europe's Jews during World War II, the IHR has
enraged the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Anti-Defamation League, the
World Jewish Congress, and other powerful Jewish organizations -- and
the state of Israel -- and their helpers. But the IHR really doesn't
care very much what they think. We just assume that's the attitude
they'll take. At the same time, we try to do our work in a way that is
responsible and sober. The IHR has succeeded, for example, in getting
what's called 501c3 status with the federal government; that is, it's
recognized by the federal government as a legitimate public-interest
educational enterprise, and people can donate money to the IHR and
deduct the amount for income tax purposes. Now, when the IHR got that
status, Tom Lantos, a very prominent Jewish Zionist member of
Congress,
screamed and yelled about it. The ADL issued a news release denouncing
it. And, on the basis of that, they sent another IRS agent out here to
go through our books, but they were unable to find any pretext to deny
us that.

But the most dramatic opposition to our work has come from Jewish
terrorists. In the late 70s and early 80s, there was a whole series of
drive-by shootings, bomb attacks, harassment, and violence against
employees that culminated on July 4th, 1984 in an arson attack on the
IHR offices that destroyed the IHR office and warehouse and resulted
in
immense damage. But since that time, it's been relatively peaceful.
It's
been rather peaceful.

KAS: That did not stop you, did it?

MW: No, it didn't. And it was very gratifying to see the tremendous
rallying that took place by people in the aftermath of that 1984 arson
attack.

KAS: We've gotten a sketch of what you do, and the fact that you have
some powerful enemies who don't want the facts of history to be looked
into. Who are you? Who are the leading personalities of the Institute?

MW: I'm the director; I've been employed full time since 1991. The IHR
Journal has an Editorial Advisory Board that is made up of scholars
from
many different countries who are distinguished in one way or the
other.
But probably most high-profile has been the support which the IHR has
received at its conferences. Two years ago, one of the speakers was
former Congressman Pete McCloskey, who was noted, during the time he
was
in Congress, as quite a liberal. He was the first Republican
Congressman
to call for the impeachment, years ago, of Richard Nixon. But we've
had
other prominent supporters who have been, as it were, conservative. At
the recent IHR conference we held in June, Joe Sobran was the banquet
speaker, and he's noted for his conservative views. For years, he was
a
senior editor at National Review. Also Professor Tony Martin of
Wellesley College in Massachusetts, who was actually born in the West
Indies -- and he's Black, spoke at the same conference. So the IHR has
support from people who are recognized, sometimes prominent: writers,
scholars, and thinkers of different political backgrounds. And one of
the points of the IHR is to get support for the work that we do,
regardless of people's political, racial, and other background.

KAS: What are your qualifications for the work that you're doing, for
directing an institute such as the IHR?

MW: Well [amused], I don't know about my qualifications? I was born
and
raised in Portland, Oregon; I went to school at Portland State
University; I have a Bachelor's degree from Portland State, but I
studied at the University of Munich in Germany; I studied at the
University of Illinois in Chicago; and I went to graduate school at
Indiana University in Bloomington where I got a Master's degree.
That's
sort of my qualifications, but in one sense the qualifications are not
one's degrees. It's one's commitment to what I regard as this enormous
struggle for truth in history, because much of what we are told in our
society is a version of history that is not only wrong and skewed and
distorted, but dangerously so.

KAS: What do you mean? Why is it dangerous, and who's doing the
skewing?

MW: The most obvious expression of this, and one that the IHR and I
have
spoken about and we've written about quite a lot -- especially in the
last several years -- is Jewish, Zionist power. In the United States,
Jews wield immense, tremendous power and influence, way out of
proportion to the tiny percentage of the population that they make up.
And this affects not only our policy, especially in the Middle East,
but
how we look at history. And this is manifest, perhaps most obviously,
in
the enormous way that the so-called "holocaust" is presented and
emphasized in our schoolbooks, in our schools, in our television, in
our
motion pictures, and so forth. And this presents just a very skewed
version of history in which Jews are presented as innocent victims,
people who deserve and should be given great support and help, and
that
the "lesson," so-called, of the "holocaust" is never do anything that
Jewish groups object to.

KAS: I've often noted that Americans in general, and American students
in particular, can always give you the "six million" figure for Jewish
losses in World War II. But if you ask them how many Russians died, or
how many Americans died, or how many British people died, they just
give
you a blank stare.

MW: Yes, it's a point I've made many times: the "six million" figure
is
repeated incessantly. It's an inaccurate and it's a mythical figure.
But
it's repeated constantly. Americans have no corresponding
understanding,
or almost no Americans have any corresponding knowledge of the
suffering
of other people. It's all part and parcel of what I call a kind of
"victimization hierarchy" in America, in which Jews are sort of number
one, and then other groups, depending on their status in society, are
further down the list. It's a dangerous and skewed version of history
that clouds everything that we do.

KAS: So you would definitely state that Jewish groups have distorted
and/or exaggerated their losses during World War II?

MW: No question. At the conference, for example, two years ago, former
Congressman McCloskey went into great detail about how the
Anti-Defamation League in particular does everything that it can to
suppress, silence, and shut up anyone who speaks about history in a
way
that Jewish groups regard as contrary to their interests, particularly
on the Middle East. It's more and more obvious, I think, to people
around the world just how skewed America's policy -- but not only
policy, but its perception of the world -- is because of Jewish
Zionist
influence in our mass media, in our educational system, and in our
political system.

KAS: Are there any falsehoods about the "holocaust" which stand out as
particularly absurd or particularly worthy of correction for our
audience today?

MW: Well, it's almost like shooting fish in a barrel. One story that
is
still told sometimes is this fable that the Germans made bars of soap
from the corpses of murdered Jews during World War II. And this story
has been given tremendous life over the years. It's appeared in
textbooks; it's appeared in important speeches. It's given great
prominence. It's utterly untrue. It's very lurid, it's ghastly -- but
completely untrue. And it's admitted to be untrue now, even by Jewish
groups -- if you press them on the matter. But the fact that it took
on
this tremendous life for so long is just typical of the way in which
the
most defamatory, horrible stories can be told about Germans or about
any
other non-Jewish group that's in disfavor at the moment -- without
correction, without fear of contradiction.

In the years right after World War II, and at the Nuremburg Trials, it
was claimed that people were killed in gas chambers in camps all over
Europe, including Buchenwald, Dachau, Auschwitz, and so forth. Many of
these claims have just been quietly abandoned over the years: No one
seriously claims anymore that anyone was gassed at Dachau or
Buchenwald
or at camps in Germany proper. One of the interesting aspects of this
is
that the so-called "eyewitnesses" and testimony and evidence for these
claims is therefore obviously not true.

KAS: And yet people were punished for those alleged crimes.

MW: Right. People were punished for those alleged crimes. This is just
part and parcel of this distortion; there are numerous examples. For
years, at Auschwitz, it was officially claimed that four million
people
were killed there, and that was supposedly proven at the Nuremberg
Trials in 1945-1946. In recent years, the numbers have been
drastically
reduced. They're still dropping down. Oftentimes the response to that
is
to say "So what if it's one million or four million or 100,000 or even
two?" There's an argument to be made for that, but the essential point
isn't over quibbling about numbers or anything like that, although
that's what historians are supposed to do. The essential point really,
I
think, is the way in which there's this tremendous political capital
made out of one chapter of history, designed to gain sympathy and
support. And the result has been a massive shakedown, kind of a
blackmail that's resulted in billions of dollars extracted from
Switzerland, from Germany, from European corporations, and from
American
taxpayers.

KAS: It's a kind of moral blackmail, I think.

MW: And some Jewish writers have even used those very terms. One of
the
striking things -- and Americans, I think need to understand this --
is
that the views of history that we are very used to, and comfortable
with, are not universal. The view of Middle East history that comes
from
the movie Exodus or the insights on European history that come from
the
movie The Sound of Music are gross distortions. They're just
perversions
of the truth. They may be very comfortable for many Americans to
believe, but they're not only perversions of the truth: Around the
world, there's an increasing awareness that how America looks at the
world and the Middle East is just out of line. Unfortunately, many
Americans still haven't "gotten it." Fortunately, millions more
Americans, I think, are "getting it." It's obvious, I think, to anyone
who has spent much time living overseas, that how the Middle East
situation is presented in the daily press is very different than it is
here in the American press.

KAS: In a moment, I'd like to talk about the linkage between Holocaust
Revisionism and the present situation in the Middle East, but first
I'd
just like to say that when you talk about "the 'holocaust'" it seems
to
me that the objection that should be raised is not so much to the word
"holocaust" but to the word "the" -- the article that precedes it. As
if
it's the only suffering of any national group in history!

MW: Yes, that's right. You know, the word 'holocaust' when used to
apply
collectively to what happened to Europe's Jews in World War II, didn't
come into popular usage until the 1970s. Normally, with the passage of
time, particularly horrible or gruesome or dark chapters of history
tend
to recede into the past and recede in importance. But just the
opposite
has happened with regard to what's called "the holocaust." You're
right,
even the very use of this term in this way is to give a kind of label
to
what was really a lot of individual things that happened rather than
some overarching phenomenon.

KAS: It seems to me that the suffering of the Germans after World War
II
certainly exceeded in scope anything that happened to the Jews. And
also
what happened to the Ukrainians in the pre-war period was horrific.

MW: I think the evidence is clear that more Germans than Jews were
killed during World War II. One of the things that was an important
beginning experience in my life was, when I was living in Europe, to
learn for the first time about the tremendous suffering, killings, and
expulsions that took place -- the victimization of Germans and other
Eastern Europeans in what is now Poland, in Czechoslovakia, and so
forth
in 1945 to 1948. We hear almost nothing about that in America. And
again, that's just part of the tremendous distortion, perversion, and
skewing of history that we see.

KAS: Isn't it true that in some parts of the world -- many parts of
the
world, perhaps -- it's actually a crime now to question the Jewish
view
of events during World War II?

MW: This is a point that the