It is only when we stop being so polite, gentlemanly, nice and euphemistic when defining our enemy
that we will begin to make progress in making this a better world.
It's actually past time to start naming the Jews, expose them for what they have done and stop using euphemisms that only confuse the issue.
FOCUS...!
By ARCH STANTON
Jews have stolen everything.
They’ve stolen our faith.
They’ve stolen our future.
They’ve stolen the Aryan values bequeathed to us by our forefathers.
They’ve stolen our health, welfare and happiness, replacing them with debilitating pharmaceuticals that drive us mad.
Most of all, they’ve stolen our happiness. Our sense of well being, with the constant confusion of phony “progress” that has torn up our neighborhoods to the point that we can no longer recognize or feel comfortable living in them.
They’ve stolen our media — every last bit of it.
They’ve stolen our wealth with their Federal Reserve.
They’ve stolen our sunshine with their deadly chemtrails.
They’ve stolen our pure water, befouling it with deadly chemicals.
They’ve stolen our children, sacrificing them on their media’s altar in howling bloodlust.
They’ve stolen our truths, our justice, our American way; mocking our loss with a televised, cardboard, comic book character.
The Jews have stolen our past; and those who have stolen our past, have stolen the future also.
All the Jews have left us with is this: a miserable, tenuous existence—and soon they shall finish stealing our lives as well. Then they shall wallow through their global, Jewish pigsty like the “effendi” pigs they are, with the remaining mud-race slaves to serve them.
One can only pray to a Jewish god (((they))) cannot steal our souls. If there ever was a reason to hate a race, it’s the people of hate — the Jews.
If you happen to be a lying, thieving, conniving, murdering, Jewish psychopath, the future looks bright – very bright.
If you happen to be anyone else, your future looks dim. Very dim. Jew’s have stolen everything, so what is left for them to steal?
When did success ever stop a thief? With each succeeding generation, the Jews’ power has grown ever stronger.
The Russians did not stop the Jews.
The Germans did not stop the Jews.
Kings and queens have not stopped the Jews.
Presidents have not stopped the Jews.
Congress has not stopped the Jews,
Liberals have not stopped the Jews.
Conservatives have not stopped the Jews.
If YOU don’t stop the Jews — no one will!
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Let's Call Jews 'Jews', and Not Use Silly Euphemisms Like 'Globalist'
"They clearly show that you are afraid to write the J word. And they know how to deal with frightened persons."
The original title of this article was: 'The "Globalists" Love Gefilte Fish'. The author is Jewish.
Our grandparents faced a quandary when they had to describe some body parts or physical activity. The ‘obscene words’ remained taboo at least until D.H. Lawrence broke the prohibition in Lady Chatterley’s Lover, and the four-letter words became printable only recently. However, now we have new banned words, or words one can use only at one’s own peril.
A globalist house pet
‘The Jews’ is such a word. Speaking about the Jews is fraught with consequences. Jews do not like to be referred to, unless in extremely flattering terms. You are likely to be banned in Facebook and other social networks for referring to ‘Jews’. You can be fired. Even a hundred years ago it was a troublesome step, likely to cause social ostracism.
Therefore, there is a permanent demand for euphemisms.
- “Semite” is an early and enduring euphemism of the 19th century which is still with us thanks to “anti-Semitism”.
- The Clergy prefer to write ‘Masons’ instead of ‘Jews’.
- ‘Khazar’ or ‘Khazarian’ is popular in the networks, thanks to Arthur Koestler, the author of The Thirteenth Tribe. He claimed modern Jews were the descendants of the Turkic Khazars who were Judaised in 12th century.
- The nickname ‘Ashkenazi’ originally referred to the Jews of Central Europe; the East European Jews of Lithuanian and Ukrainian origin gladly accepted it despite the German Jews’ objections. Nowadays it is just an euphemism for a Jew, with an extra bonus: not-very-prominent (outside trade and money) Oriental Jews will gladly join in Ashkenazi denunciation.
- ‘Zionist’ is a popular term of use and abuse, as in “Jews are fine, it is Zionists whom I dislike”.
- “Reptilian” or ‘Illuminati’ are the words used when all the rest fail.
There is one big problem with these words. They clearly show that you are afraid to write the J word. And they know how to deal with frightened persons. It is enough to murmur in response, “It’s an antisemitic slur”, and the guy will collapse in a paroxysm of denial. There is a second problem: it makes very little sense to call the Bolshevik Jews “Zionists.”
The Jews themselves have proposed a few euphemisms of their own: ‘Hebrews’ or ‘Israelites’ were the preferred ones, but they didn’t make much inroad in the English-speaking world. However, ‘Hebrews’ became the official designation of Jews in Russia, while the ‘Jews’ moniker had been outlawed, though it survived in Poland and the Ukraine.
Now the US has produced a new word: “globalists.” The Huffington Post called the tweet of Donald Trump about the dismissal of “globalist Gary Cohen” – anti-Semitic. It turns out that a “globalist” is just a Jew. For example, globalists like gefilte fish.
This neologism pleased Ann Coulter, and she amused her numerous readers with her tweets: “Paul Newman is only half globalist,” “How many globalists came under the distribution in the fight against male assault and harassment!”, “Israel is the last refuge of globalists.” These Tweets received thousands of likes and reposts, and caused an angry condemnation … of globalists.
Mahmud Abbas, the president of Palestine, created an euphemism accidentally. He called the US Ambassador to Israel a “son of a bitch”, and His Excellence Right Honourable Ambassador David Friedman said it is was an “antisemitic slur”.
A propos, the creation of euphemisms is a very Jewish way to deal with taboos. At first, the Jews banned the Name of God יהוה, and then they banned the substitute, and the substitute of the substitute, and the substitute of the substitute of the substitute. Nowadays, the religious Jews refer to ‘God’ in writing in an oblique way.
The whole of political correctness (PC) grew out of extrapolating this Jewish attitude to other groups. In the PC culture, the word ‘Negro’ was displaced by “Black”, and then by ‘black’ in low case, and then by “Afro-American”. Thus PC had created a new fence around the ban.
The idea of fences is another Jewish concept. A Jew is forbidden to pick fruit on the Sabbath. Fine! Then, the Jews created a fence around this prohibition forbidding the climbing of an apple tree on the Sabbath. The idea is: if you climb on an apple tree, you may be tempted to pick an apple. And then they built another fence, forbidding the climbing of any tree one the Sabbath. Otherwise, you’ll get used to climbing a pine on the Sabbath, and one day you’ll climb an apple tree.
PC is this additional fence. If today you refer to a black person, tomorrow you will be tempted to refer to Jews. And if you refer to Jews, perhaps you will do so in unflattering terms. The concept of micro-insults and micro-aggressions completes the fence.
And now we have a new fence: a reference to ‘bankers’, ‘moneylenders’ and even ‘globalists’ has become forbidden, as in the case of George Soros. The Hungarians referred to him as a “globalist banker” and the Jewish world rushed to his defense. Not that he is liked by his fellow Jews, he isn’t, but they have to fight the breach in the fence. You know the logic: today you call Soros ‘’a globalist’, and tomorrow you will call a Jew – a Jew.
President Putin did just that. In an interview with Megyn Kelly, he answered her question about the 13 Russians who were indicted by Mueller for alleged interference in the elections: “They do not represent the interests of the Russian state. Maybe they are not Russians, but Ukrainians, Tatars, Jews with Russian citizenship. Check it out.”
He was attacked ferociously. The leading Jewish organization ADL (Anti-Defamation League) referred to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (this is their standard response whenever a Jew is mentioned), and added, “Don’t you dare blame the Jews for interfering in American elections!”
This is especially piquant – if there is a foreign country that actively interferes in the US politics and elections, it is primarily the Jewish state and its supporters. American friends of Israel, Sheldon Adelson and Jeff Katzenberg are the largest donors; and in general Jews spent more money on presidential elections in the US than on helping needy Jews. Israeli diplomats are actively interfering in American elections at all levels, as the Jewish website Mondoweiss writes. But you can mention that only in marginal publications on the verge of a ban from Google and Twitter.
And in Israel, the energetic young MK Xenia Svetlova, (a Knesset Member for the Zionist Union), accused Putin of anti-Semitism and called upon Netanyahu to ‘protect the Jews’. It’s nothing personal – Xenia grew up in Moscow, worked for Russian TV channels, even loved Russia, but when she went into politics, she had to prove that she was not a Putin stooge. And she calls for Israeli intervention in Syria against Assad and Putin, and for the condemnation of Putin’s anti-Semitism.
The Tatars and Ukrainians did not resent Putin’s words. The Russian Jews in Russia dismissed it, too. For a good reason: the taboo on the word ‘Jew’ is not universal. It does not exist in Russia. Russia is the land of many native ethnicities, a hundred and fifty or so, from Yakut to Mordva, and people freely refer to all of them without fear. The Jews in Russia are just another ethnicity, or ethnos, or nation, one of many. ‘Russians’ in Russia connote members of Russian ethnicity, the most numerous nation of the Russian Federation, not the citizens of Russia, as you would expect.
This attitude may surprise an American, or a Frenchman. It is not totally unknown in Europe, where Walloons and Flemings populate Belgium, and Catalans and Basques live in Spain. Still, a Frenchman of Brittany or Provence is a Frenchman first, and a Breton or Provençal a distant second. In the US, ‘ethnicity’ is a domain of recent immigrants, Greeks or Poles; the Americans have race and religion as identity-forming factors.
In Russia the ethnic identity has been enforced since Stalin’s days: it was actually recorded on the ID. I explain this by Stalin’s personal perceptions: a native of Georgia, the country in Transcaucasia, he was brought up in the local tradition of ethnic awareness. For Russians proper, this ethnic identity is of little importance. They know of it, but do not consider it greatly important. That is why in modern Russia ‘ethnicity’ is not registered on the ID anymore.
Of course, Megyn Kelly, while referring to ‘Russians’ indicted by Mueller, had meant ‘citizens of Russia’, and not ‘ethnic Russians’. Me myself, like the majority of old émigrés, also refer to “Russians” meaning people in Russia or from Russia, or even people from the former Soviet Union. In Israel, every person whose origins are in the USSR is called ‘Russian’, to the chagrin of Russian Jews. They would like to be called ‘Jews’ in Israel, and ‘Russians’ in Russia, but alas, it is other way around, they are called ‘Jews’ in Russia and ‘Russians’ in Israel.
Russian ethnic nationalists of the kind embraced by my colleague Anatoly Karlin would like to keep the ethnonym ‘Russians’ just for themselves, but they are harmless, you can disregard their whines – they aren’t globalists for you.
Now, for the first time ever, the Russians are being trained to stick to American word usage. This is done by Facebook, a platform that millions of Russians use. Besides opening Russia for American business and stealing its data, Facebook is a powerful enforcer of PC in Russian minds. Whenever you refer to blacks, Jews, or even Ukrainians you risk being banned for a week or a month.
As unusual this attitude is for the Russians, they are susceptible for training, as we all are. These small punishments go a long way to bring Jewish hegemony to Russia. Beside protecting Jews, or Blacks from micro-insults, the banning of words has a powerful impact on the mind. Whoever tells you what you may or may not say, is a person of authority. This way of subduing people to your command is called Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP), and the CIA is on the forefront of using this black magic of words.
Israelis, and Jews in general do not accept these taboos. It is perfectly all right for Israelis and Jews to refer to ‘Jews’, or worse. The late Israeli MK Ze’evi, a popular right-winger minister, called Martin Indyk, the US Ambassador in Israel, a ‘Jewboy” (יהודון); Netanyahu’s aide called another US Ambassador a ‘Jewboy’, too. Israelis speak freely of blacks; they do not speak only, but deport them as well. They do not mind banning non-Jews from renting apartments quite openly, too. This disregard of taboo gives Jews an additional power in dealing with Gentiles, like a disregard of the Matrix gave supernatural powers to Neo.
The Palestinians disregard the taboo, too. They do not hesitate shouting “Jews are coming”, when Israeli soldiers on their jeeps roll into their villages. Americans of Palestinian origin are scrupulous with their observance, they never utter the forbidden J-word, (unless they want to say something nice about a Jewish friend), otherwise they speak of ‘Zionists’. That is why Palestinians in Palestine are free, and Palestinians in the US are not, like all Americans.
This taboo should be broken. Until it is done, the Jews will continue to dominate the discourse and the US society, the Palestinians will suffer, the bankers will grow fat and prosperous, legal and illegal immigration will continue unabated.
Saying “Jew” will have a liberating effect, like mouthing the name of Rumpelstiltskin. And it is much shorter.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Straight Talk About Zionism: What Jewish Nationalism Means
By Mark Weber
April 14, 2009
April 14, 2009
(An audio recording of this article, narrated by the author, is posted here for listening or downloading)
It’s important to understand Zionism, not just because it’s an influential ideology and a powerful social-political movement, but also because there’s a lot of ignorance, confusion and deliberate misinformation about it.
If you look up the word “Zionism” in a standard American dictionary, what you’ll find is likely to be inaccurate, or least misleading. For example, a popular and supposedly authoritative American dictionary in my office defines Zionism as “A movement formerly for reestablishing, now for supporting, the Jewish national state of Israel.” / 1 This definition, which is typical of American reference works, is more than just misleading. It’s deceitful.
The founder of the modern Zionist movement was a Jewish writer named Theodor Herzl. In the 1890s he was living in Paris, where he was a journalist for a major newspaper in Vienna. He was deeply troubled by the widespread anti-Semitism, or anti-Jewish sentiment, in France at the time. He thought a lot about the pattern of tension, distrust and conflict between Jews and non-Jews that had persisted through the centuries, and he hit upon what he believed is a solution to this age-old problem.
Herzl laid out his views in a book, written in German, entitled The Jewish State (Der Judenstaat). Published in 1896, this work is the manifesto or basic document of the Zionist movement. A year and a half later, Herzl convened the first international Zionist conference. Fifty one years later, when the “State of Israel” was solemnly proclaimed at a meeting in Tel Aviv, above the speakers’ podium at the conference was, appropriately, a large portrait of Herzl.
In his book Herzl explained that regardless of where they live, or their citizenship, Jews constitute not merely a religious community, but a nationality, a people. He used the German word, Volk. Wherever large numbers of Jews live among non-Jews, he said, conflict is not only likely, it’s inevitable. He wrote: "The Jewish question exists wherever Jews live in noticeable numbers. Where it does not exist, it is brought in by arriving Jews ... I believe I understand anti-Semitism, which is a very complex phenomenon. I consider this development as a Jew, without hate or fear." / 2
In his public and private writings, Herzl explained that anti-Semitism is not an aberration, but rather a natural response by non-Jews to alien Jewish behavior and attitudes. Anti-Jewish sentiment, he said, is not due to ignorance or bigotry, as so many have claimed. Instead, he concluded, the ancient and seemingly intractable conflict between Jews and non-Jews is entirely understandable, because Jews are a distinct and separate people, with interests that are different from, and which often conflict with, the interests of the people among whom they live.
A prime source of modern anti-Jewish sentiment, Herzl believed, was that the so-called “emancipation” of Jews in the 18th and 19th centuries from the confined life of the ghetto into modern urban society brought them into direct economic competition with non-Jews in the middle classes. Anti-Semitism, Herzl wrote, is “an understandable reaction to Jewish defects.” In his diary he wrote: “I find the anti-Semites are fully within their rights.” / 3
Herzl maintained that Jews must stop pretending -- both to themselves and to non-Jews -- that they are like everyone else, and instead must frankly acknowledge that they are a distinct and separate people, with distinct and separate goals and interests. The only workable long-term solution, he said, is for Jews to recognize reality and live, finally, as a “normal” people in a separate state of their own. In a memo to the Tsar of Russia, Herzl wrote that Zionism is the “final solution of the Jewish question.” / 4
Over the years many other Jewish leaders have affirmed Herzl’s outlook. Louis Brandeis, a US Supreme Court justice and a leading American Zionist, said: “Let us all recognize that we Jews are a distinctive nationality of which every Jew, whatever his country, his station or shade of belief, is necessarily a member.” / 5
Stephen S. Wise, president of the American Jewish Congress and of the World Jewish Congress, told a rally in New York in June 1938: "I am not an American citizen of the Jewish faith. I am a Jew ... Hitler was right in one thing. He calls the Jewish people a race, and we are a race." / 6
Israel’s first president, Chaim Weizmann, wrote in his memoirs: “Whenever the quantity of Jews in any country reaches the saturation point, that country reacts against them ... [This] reaction ... cannot be looked upon as anti-Semitism in the ordinary or vulgar sense of that word; it is a universal social and economic concomitant of Jewish immigration, and we cannot shake it off.” / 7
In keeping with the Zionist worldview, Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon told a meeting of American Jews in Jerusalem in July 2004 that all Jews around the world should relocate to Israel as soon as possible. And because anti-Semitism was especially widespread in France, he added, Jews in that country should immediately move to Israel. French officials quickly, and predictably, responded by rejecting Sharon’s remarks as “unacceptable.” / 8
But imagine if the leaders of France, the United States, and other countries were to respond to those remarks by Sharon, and similar ones by other Zionists, by expressing agreement. Imagine if an American president were to respond by saying: “You’re right, Mr. Sharon. We agree with you. We agree that Jews do not belong in the United States. In fact, we are ready to show our support for what you say by doing everything we can to promote and encourage all Jews to leave our country and move to Israel.”
That would be the logical and honest attitude of non-Jewish political leaders who say that they support Israel and Zionism. But the political leaders of the United States, France, Britain, and other such countries today are neither honest nor consistent.
During the 1930s, one European government that was honest and consistent in its attitude on this issue was the government of Third Reich Germany. Jewish Zionists and German National Socialists shared similar views about how best to handle what Herzl called “the Jewish question.” They agreed that Jews and Germans were distinctly different nationalities, and that Jews did not belong in Europe, but rather in the so-called "Jewish homeland” in Palestine.
On the basis of their shared views, Germans and Jews worked together for what each community believed was in its own best national interest. The Hitler government vigorously supported Zionism and Jewish emigration to Palestine from 1933 until 1940-41, when the Second World War prevented further extensive collaboration. / 9
(During the war years attitudes hardened, and policy shifted drastically. The German policy of collaboration with Zionists and support for Jewish emigration to Palestine gave way to a harsh “final solution” policy.)
During the 1930s, the central SS newspaper, Das Schwarze Korps, repeatedly proclaimed its support for Zionism. An article published in 1935, for example, told readers: / 10
“The recognition of Jewry as a racial community based on blood and not on religion leads the German government to guarantee without reservation the racial separateness of this community. The government finds itself in complete agreement with the great spiritual movement within Jewry, the so-called Zionism, with its recognition of the solidarity of Jewry around the world, and its rejection of all assimilationist notions. On this basis, Germany undertakes measures that will surely play a significant role in the future in the handling of the Jewish problem around the world.”
In late 1933, a leading German shipping line began direct passenger service from Hamburg to Haifa, Palestine, providing "strictly kosher food” on board.
In September 1935, the German government enacted the “Nuremberg Laws," which prohibited marriages and sexual relations between Jews and Germans and, in effect, proclaimed the country’s Jews an alien minority group. / 11 A few days after the Nuremberg Laws were enacted, the main German Zionist newspaper, the Jüdische Rundschau, editorially welcomed the new measures. It explained to readers: / 12
“Germany ... is meeting the demands of the World Zionist Congress when it declares the Jews now living in Germany to be a national minority. Once the Jews have been stamped a national minority it is again possible to establish normal relations between the German nation and Jewry. The new laws give the Jewish minority in Germany its own cultural life, its own national life. In future it will be able to shape its own schools, its own theater, and its own sports associations. In short, it can create its own future in all aspects of national life ...”
During the 1930s, Zionist groups, working together with Third Reich authorities, organized a network of some forty camps and agricultural centers throughout Germany where prospective settlers were trained for their new lives in Palestine.
The centerpiece of German-Zionist cooperation during the Hitler era was the Transfer Agreement, a pact that enabled tens of thousands of German Jews to migrate to Palestine with their wealth. The Agreement, also known as the Ha’avara -- Hebrew for "transfer" -- was concluded in August 1933 following talks between German officials and an official of the Jewish Agency, the Palestine center of the World Zionist Organization. / 13
Between 1933 and 1941, some 60,000 German Jews emigrated to Palestine through the Ha'avara and other German-Zionist arrangements, or about ten percent of Germany's 1933 Jewish population. Some Ha'avara emigrants transferred considerable personal wealth from Germany to Palestine. As Jewish historian Edwin Black has noted: "Many of these people, especially in the late 1930s, were allowed to transfer actual replicas of their homes and factories -- indeed rough replicas of their very existence." / 14
The Transfer Agreement was the most far-reaching example of cooperation between Hitler's Germany and international Zionism. Through this pact, Hitler's Third Reich did more than any other government during the 1930s to support the Zionist movement and Jewish development in Palestine.
The essence of Zionism, or Jewish nationalism, is that Jews everywhere -- regardless of where they live, regardless of their religious outlook, and regardless of their citizenship -- are members of the Jewish “people” or “nation,” to whom all Jews owe a primary loyalty and allegiance.
The overwhelming majority of Jews in the United States today identify with and support Israel, and are affiliated with Zionist groups and organizations. Every significant Jewish group or association in the United States, and every prominent Jewish American political or community leader supports Israel and Zionism, in most cases fervently so. With very few exceptions, even American Jews who are critical of some of Israel’s more embarrassing policies nonetheless express support for Israel and the nationalist ideology upon which the Zionist state is based.
A Zionist Jew, by definition, owes his primary loyalty to the Jewish community and to Israel. Zionism is not compatible with patriotism to any country or entity other than Israel and the world Jewish community. That’s why it’s difficult to accept as sincere or honest the pious assurances of Jewish leaders in the United States that American Jews are just as loyal to the US as everyone else.
In the United States, nearly every prominent political leader -- Jewish and non-Jewish, Democrat and Republican -- ardently supports Israel and the Jewish nationalist ideology upon which it is based. In Washington, political leaders of both major parties insist on US support for Israel as an ethnically Jewish state. They fervently support, and eagerly seek the favor of, influential Jewish-Zionist groups, such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).
Everyone -- whether Jewish or non-Jewish -- who claims to support Israel should, if he is honest and consistent, endorse the view of Israeli prime minister Sharon, and other Zionist leaders, and support the migration of Jews everywhere to Israel. But of course that’s not what happens.
With regard to Zionism and Israel, the attitude and policies of nearly all American political leaders, Jewish and non-Jewish, is characterized by hypocrisy and deceit. To put it another way, Zionist Jews and their non-Jewish supporters embrace a blatant double standard. Jewish-Zionist organizations, along with their non-Jewish allies, support one social-political ideology for Israel and the world Jewish community, and a completely different one for the United States and other non-Jewish countries. They insist that ethnic nationalism is evil and bad for non-Jews, while at the same time they vigorously support ethnic nationalism -- that is, Zionism -- for Jews.
They insist that Israel is and must be a Jewish nationalist state, with a privileged status for its Jewish population, including immigration laws that discriminate against non-Jews. At the same time, Jewish-Zionist groups and leaders, and the non-Jews who support them, insist that in the United States, Britain, France, Germany and other countries, there must be no privileged status for anyone based on race, ethnicity or religion.
Our political leaders tell us that American Jews should be encouraged to think of themselves as a distinct national group with an identity and community interests separate from those of other Americans. At the same time American politicians insist that Zionist Jews be given all rights as full and equal US citizens. On the basis of this double standard, Jews are given a privileged status in American political and cultural life.
Americans are led to believe that Zionism is a benign outlook of altruistic and righteous support for a so-called Jewish homeland. In fact, Zionism is an ideology and movement of ethnically-based Jewish nationalism that reinforces the identity and self-image of Jews as a distinct and separate community with interests different from those of non-Jews, and which strengthens the already powerful world Jewish community.
Notes
- New World Dictionary of the American Language, Second College Edition (1978?), p. 1654.
- Th. Herzl, Der Judenstaat. ( http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Der_Judenstaat/Einleitung / http://www.zionismus.info/judenstaat/02.htm )
Also quoted in: M. Weber, “Zionism and the Third Reich,” The Journal of Historical Review, July-August 1993, p. 29. ( http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html ) - Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents (Praeger,1998), pp. 45, 48.
- Memo of Nov. 22, 1899. R. Patai, ed., The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl (New York: 1960), Vol. 3, p. 888.
- Louis D. Brandeis, “The Jewish Problem and How to Solve It.” Speech of April 25, 1915. ( http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/personality/sources_document11.html / http://www.law.louisville.edu/library/collections/brandeis/node/234 )
- “Dr. Wise Urges Jews to Declare Selves as Such,” New York Herald Tribune, June 13, 1938, p. 12.
- Chaim Weizmann, Trial and Error (1949), p. 90. Quoted in: Albert S. Lindemann, The Jew Accused (1991), p. 277.
- “French Jews Must `Move to Israel’,” BBC News, July 18, 2004 ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3904943.stm )
See also: “Sharon Urges Jews to Go to Israel,” BBC News, Nov. 17, 2003. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3275979.stm ) - M. Weber, “Zionism and the Third Reich,” The Journal of Historical Review, July-August 1993 (Vol. 13, No. 4), pp. 29-37.
( http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html ) - Das Schwarze Korps, Sept. 26, 1935. Quoted in: Francis R. Nicosia, The Third Reich and the Palestine Question (Univ. of Texas, 1985), p. 56-57.
- These days the Nuremberg Laws are routinely portrayed as imposing outrageous and inhumane discrimination against Jews. But to put this in perspective, it’s worth mentioning two points. First: the Nuremberg Laws ban on marriage between Jews and non-Jews is consistent with the law in Israel today, where such marriages are not permitted, as well as with the prohibition on such marriages as laid out in the Hebrew scriptures. (See, for example: Numbers 25: 6-8; Deuteronomy 7:3; Ezra 9: 12; 10: 10-11; Nehemiah 10: 30; 13: 25.)
Second, in 1935 less than one percent of the population of Germany was Jewish, which meant that the Nuremberg laws ban on marriage between Jews and non-Jews was irrelevant for the vast majority of the country’s population. By contrast, in the United States during the 1930s, most of the American states had laws in place that prohibited marriage between people of different races. Because the portion of the American population that was racially non-majority was much larger than in Germany, the US racial laws impacted a much larger portion of the US population at the time than the Nuremberg laws affected the German population. - Jüdische Rundschau, Sept. 17, 1935. Quoted in: Y. Arad, and others, Documents on the Holocaust (Jerusalem: 1981), pp. 82-83.
- W. Feilchenfeld, “Ha’avara,” New Encyclopedia of Zionism and Israel (Herzl Press, 1994), pp. 535-536; M. Weber, “Zionism and the Third Reich,” The Journal of Historical Review, July-August 1993, pp. 33-34.
- Edwin Black, The Transfer Agreement (1984), p. 379.
No comments:
Post a Comment