http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-128766/TS-1034956.mp3

Click on the above link to listen to the audio.

See also:

http://age-of-treason.com/2015/12/08/talking-with-john-friend/

http://therealistreport.com/the-realist-report-tanstaafl-the-jew-as-a-parasite/

The international Jew, the promoter and benefactor of both international Communism and capitalism, is a biological parasite. National Socialist Germany clearly understood this fact, and made moves to address the situation. Now it’s America’s turn.

On this edition of The Realist Report, we’ll be joined by Tanstaafl of Age of Treason. Tanstaafl is one of the most knowledgeable and insightful commentators in the alternative, independent media today. In this podcast, we discussed the jewish problem and Jewish parasitism, the root cause of so-called “pathological altruism” prevalent in the White race today, the 2016 president campaign, and related matters. http://therealistreport.com/the-realist-report-tanstaafl-the-jew-as-a-parasite/

TRANSCRIPT

[00:00]

John Friend (JF): You are listening to the Realist Report. Here’s your host John Friend.

Tanstaafl (TAN): Hello John.

JF: All right folks. Welcome book to another edition of the Realist Report. I am your host John Friend. Today I have a very special guest, Tanstaafl from Age of Treason is joining me on the line. Tanstaafl is one of the most knowledgeable and insightful commentators in the pro-White media today. Particularly when it comes to the Jewish Question (JQ) or more accurately, the Jewish Problem (JP). A topic that we will be discussing at length today. So Tanstaafl, welcome to the Realist Report. Thanks for being with us today

TAN: Thank you for inviting me John. Glad to be here.

JF: Absolutely. Yes, for people that aren’t familiar with your work, I’m going to post a link to a radio program you did where you kind of go through your background and how you awoke to some of these issues and how you started your website and your radio program and whatnot. But for now can you just people the URL to your website? And any other details you want to give out about your website.

TAN: I think if you just search for “Age of Treason” you’ll find my site. It’s probably ranked high enough that you will see age-of-treason.com and it’s easy to find.

JF: OK, and I’ll have a link directly to your site when I post this program. And as I mentioned a link to a radio program where you talk about your background and whatnot. Well, anyway let’s just jump right into the discussion. And let’s start off, … Could you just explain to your audience, how you woke up to the Jewish Problem.

TAN: Well, it started by waking up to race, first. I went through most of my life pretending that race isn’t important, doesn’t exist. Looking back on it showed that the proper instincts that I knew, certain places and certain things were not safe and were not good.

But I didn’t, … Like most White people I basically didn’t think of myself as White, or having interests as a White person. And, I eventually, after one particular straw broke the camel’s back, … I realized and accepted that I was White and that Whites are under attack as a race. And that I was part of that whether I wanted to be part of it or not. And I, you know, to put it in terms that I later realized, “race” is a code word for White, basically.

What I saw and what I think what the straws that broke the camel’s back ultimately, were the double standards on race. The hypocrisy, the identity politics. And I didn’t understand this until later either. That identity politics as it exists now and as it has always existed as it was constructed is inherently anti-White.

The anti-White premise of it is built in. It not about all people organizing by race to advocate for their interests as a race, as a group. It’s all groups except Whites being allowed and even encouraged to organize racially. And jews first and foremost for that. The way that I was forced to confront the jews was that once I realized that race was important I realized that the attack on the White race was coming mainly from jews. That jews were the most vocal, the most vitriolic attackers of Whites.

JF: Hmm.

TAN: That is how it happened.

JF: Very interesting. Yes. And you made the point, you were sort of talking about how you were deracinated. You didn’t really think in racial terms prior to your racial awakening. I think that is how most, the vast majority of White are, certainly in America, but probably even in Europe, at this point.

TAN: Yes and it’s unnatural. It’s not just that we are not naturally interested in race. It’s actually propagandized to us in that way. We are indoctrinated with the idea that Whites specifically thinking in terms of race is WRONG! It’s EVIL!

JF: Yes, and you hear the leftists and the anti-White is going on, and on, and on, and on about how there’s still White supremacy in America. And if you look at Congress it’s all White people. And yes that is true to a certain extent. But these White people in Congress and these White people controlling our government, which, you know, is becoming increasingly non-White. But the White people that are in government in the media and whatnot, they do not think of themselves as White. They are not out there acting in the best interests of Whites. They are totally deracinated. And in many cases are working for the racial interests of other groups.

[05:12]

TAN: Yes, that is the dishonesty that you’re pointing out of that argument that we live in a White supremacist system because their are Whites in control of the universities, Whites have been, every president, up to till Obama, Whites run the banks, Whites run Hollywood. It’s really disingenuous, because even the Whites that are involved in those things don’t think of themselves as Whites, don’t have a positive identity as a White. Or, if they do, they keep it to themselves. They know that they have to keep it to themselves or, they will lose their position in any of those places.

JF: Now, getting back to the “Jewish Problem“, you said that you sort of woke up to race first and then you recognized the Jews as the primary adversaries of the White race, and I mean there is a long history that we can talk more about. But, I guess just generally speaking, how would you describe the Jewish Problem, or the Jewish Question? I think the Jewish Problem is a much more accurate, you know, description of this issue, you know, this issue with jews.

You know, we see all across the world today, especially America. But like, how would you describe the Jewish Problem to an average person? What are the most important points that people need to understand when it comes to this issue?

TAN: Right. Well it depends on where they are starting from. If they are starting from zero, where I trace my start from. That they are deracinated. You first have to talk to them about race. You have to get them to see this realization that we are under attack as a race, as a group. And that just because you are acting like it doesn’t matter to you, that is not going to protect you. You are not going to be safe because of that. But once you get someone to say that; race does matter, it’s important and I’m White and I’m going to do something about it.

Then you need to point out the jews to them. It doesn’t come automatically to most people. In fact a lot of people will try to continue the pretense that jews are White. And what you point out to them is that the jews control the banks, jews control the media, jews control the politics and jews rule, when it comes down to it. And if you don’t like what is going on in this country, as most White people don’t, you don’t like the jews. You just don’t, maybe, don’t realize it yet. That it is the jews. And maybe at some point in their brain, … And I think again looking book in my own travels, it wasn’t that I didn’t see the evidence of it. It’s that I refused to confront it for my whole life. It was not that I was totally ignorant of it.

So that is the first thing to do. To get them to acknowledge that there is, that all of this stuff is going on, right. Then you come to the Jewish Problem. And the Jewish Problem is really just the flip-side of the anti-semitism, right. It’s our, … It’s what the conflict of interests is called from a White point of view. It’s called the Jewish Problem. The jews call it anti-semitism. Or you could say, from a jew point of view it’s the non-jew problem. We non-jews call it the Jewish Problem. And historically it’s the problem that jews create for us.

The fact is the jews aren’t White. They are genetically distinct, so their DNA is different. They are ideologically hostile. This is even more important, that even if they were, … If you could get over the fact that they are genetically similar [different?] they are ideologically 180 degrees different Whites. They see themselves, … The core of their identity, if you pay attention to their blood libel narrative and the “Holocaust” narrative, is that Whites are the enemy. Especially when they get on their soapbox and lecture everyone about what the blood libel means to them, what the holocaust means to them. You can see it. They lay it out for you.

That their time amongst European is for two millennia has been nothing but them being victimized by European is. It’s nothing but an inversion of reality. They have lived among Europeans by their own choice. They came up from the Middle East to live amongst Europeans. And they come to live amongst Europeans and insist upon living upon us, amongst us, because they benefit from it. And they know they benefit from it. But they flip it around. It’s one of the psychological, one of the basic psychological tricks that they use, is that they flip it around and blame Whites for the conflict of interest, between the two groups.

[10:00]

JF: Yeah, it’s interesting, that the topic of anti-semitism, I mean it’s something that I’ve written quite a bit about on my website and it’s fascinating, … I mean literally, if you look at, I mean, I follow the jewish press and organizations like the Anti-Defamation League [ADL]. And when they talk about anti-semitism, they are basically talking about people who criticize jews and who make basic observations about jews. And people who literally quote Jews themselves. You know to demonstrate what sort of agenda they’re promoting and what these jews are up to. That is what anti-semitism is, it is telling the truth about the jews. I mean, it’s really incredible that they continue to really use this word as a weapon against us! I mean there’s other words, “racist,” and “White Supremacist” and there’s many others. But I think the jews have been very effective in weaponizing our political discourse and using it against Whites.

[Image] Ruben-vase.

TAN: Yes, yeah, and uh, the key is that it has to do with point of view. And it’s the relationship between Whites and jews specifically. It’s like one of those drawings that you can see from one of two ways. It’s actually called a “Ruben-vase”*. It’s the most classic example of that. Yeah, I just looked it up today to find out if there was a name for it. And it’s based on this, according to Wikipedia. It’s based on a Danish psychologist, who turns out, of course, to be jew. But, it’s, … From the jewish point of view, it’s just mindless, senseless, hate of jews for no reason whatsoever. And Whites, in typical fashion, we step outside of ourselves, we don’t even take our own side in this, we step outside of ourselves, see it objectively as a conflict of interests. And see it, as a struggle between equals.

And what I’ve come to realize over time, … Initially, that’s how I saw it when I first woke up to it, it’s like:

“Oh, well there’s a conflict here, between two groups, the jews have their own identity and Whites should have their own identity and we’re at odds with each other, at least, some of the time.”

And what I’ve come to realize is that it’s actually far worse than that. It’s Whites have no identity in large part because jews attack whatever sign we show of any sort of consciousness of our racial common interests. And they attack brutally! I mean, it’s just about everything that they accuse the Whites of doing to them, they are actually responsible for doing themselves, they’re basically projecting their own malice onto their enemies.

* [Rubin’s vase (sometimes known as the Rubin face or the figure–ground vase) is a famous set of ambiguous or bi-stable (i.e., reversing) two-dimensional forms developed around 1915 by the Danish psychologist Edgar Rubin. They were first introduced at large in Rubin’s two-volume work, the Danish-language Synsoplevede Figurer (“Visual Figures”), which was very well received.

Edgar John Rubin (September 6, 1886ing May 3, 1951) was a Danish psychologisted phenomenologist, remembered for his work on figure-ground perception as seen in such optical illusions like the Rubin vase.

Born of jewish parents, Rubin was born and raised in Copenhagen. Enrolling at the University of Copenhagen in 1904, he majored in psychology and finished his magister artium examination in philosophy in 1910.

Sources:

https: //en.wikipedia.orged wikied Edgartion Rubin

https: //en.wikipedia.orged wikied Rubintion vase]

JF: Right, and we see how Jews frame anti-Semitism as always some irrational, you know, crazed expression of just anti-Jewish hatred for no reason, there’s no evidence, or any points that these anti-Semites are making, they’re just these crazy individuals. And they’ve also just literally pathologized White identity to where if you actually recognize the fact that you are White and you care about the future of White people, you care about our history, our traditions, you are, again, crazy and irrational. I mean it’s just incredible what they’ve been able to do. And I think of, for example, Dr. Kevin MacDonald and the Culture of Critique really explains this all really, very, very well. And that kind of gets into my next question. What are some of the most important books you would recommend, or that you’ve read dealing with these topics?

TAN: Yeah, definitely Kevin MacDonald is the most important, I would have to mention first. And especially for someone who’s first waking up to race and the Jews. It’s a very detailed explanation of what’s been happening historically and largely cites Jews themselves, as a source of lots of quotes and facts about about the case. And, the Culture of Critique, of course, is a three-volume set, I’ve never read that cover-to-cover myself, I’ve actually gone beyond it. It’s definitely worth it if somebody wants to read it from cover-to-cover, and I’ve read large sections of it, as certain topics became of interest to me.

There’s one particular subset that he wrote about the jewish involvement in immigration into the United States that I forward probably once a month to somebody or another whenever immigration comes up and people act like it just happened out of the blue. What’s going on with our open borders. And I thought MacDonald made a great case there in that chapter that he wrote about that, and he made it available in a separate PDF*. Which is relatively short and easy to read.

• [Download of MacDonald’s PDF, Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy: Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy

[15:00]

He also wrote a lot of effective stuff about Cultural Marxism, the Frankfurt School, Franz Boas. So if you’re trying to figure out, you know, how did we get to this, state of race, and what happened to race science, then MacDonald is a great source for that.

He was inspired, …

JF: I’m sorry, real quick, … I was just going to say, I have read Culture of Critique, but I haven’t read, … I think there are two books that preceed Culture of Critique in the series. And I haven’t read those. But, I mean, that book is absolutely essential reading because it brilliantly and very scholarly explains and analyses the systematic Jewish assault on Western civilization from a cultural perspective, from an intellectual perspective, from a scientific perspective. I mean, these jews literally took over the West, you know, academically and even politically now, obviously, that is very obvious now.

But back in the 40s, 50s, as you mentioned, Cultural Marxism and the Frankfurt School, topics that MacDonald expertly addresses and gives a history of. You know, these radical Jewish intellectuals literally took over Western civilization. And has been undermining and destroying it ever since. And, you know, we can demonstrate this with ease, you know, these jews openly admit it. It’s how do we get people to actually understand all this, because there is a lot to it. And I think you can summarize it and break it down pretty simply. But if you want all the details you have to read Culture of Critique.

TAN: That is what I was getting at when I said, it depends on your point of view as to whether something is anti-semitism or not. And what MacDonald does, is he quotes Jews saying these things. And they say it as a good thing. And of course MacDonald is presenting in a way that puts it in a bad light, in a negative light. Bad for Europeans. That it has been destructive to European society, European civilization. And that is what makes it anti-semitism. If you are seeing it from a jewish point of view, well now, someone quoting all these jews, poisonous things about Whites and White civilization, [laughing] yes that is anti-semitism! From our point of view, it’s documenting the Jewish Problem.

JF: Right. Of the jewish genocidal agenda against the West. And that is absolutely what they are up to.

TAN: Right. And it is an agenda that is organized. It is conscious thing. Now, … You can see in the triolgy* MacDonald himself has talked about how he himself became more and more aware of just how deep this problem was. And how, I don’t want to put words in his mouth, but how negative it was. He started of just studying the jews abstractly, objectively and by the Culture of Critique how was basically making an argument in favour ointing the finger of blame at jews for what has happened, certainly in the last 200 years or so, I think is what he covers.

* [A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism As a Group Evolutionary Strategy, With Diaspora Peoples.

Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism.

The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements.]

[Image — Kevin MacDonald’s trilogy.]

He was inspired by a book, in part he was inspired by a book he came across, I have read cover to cover, called, … It was John M Cuddihy, “The Ordeal of Civility”. [The Ordeal of Civility: Freud, Marx, Levi-Strauss and the Jewish Struggle with Modernity] and the subtitle was, Marx, Freud and Levi Strauss. Focusing on three particular jews who were, that are iconic of what MacDonald calls, jewish intellectual movements. This gurus that lead whole troops of jews, mostly jews anyway. Part of what MacDonald documents is how jews put “goy” out front, several “goy” out front to basically be the face of the movement. But Cuddihy is far more objective, or at least comes across that way. As an Irishman he comes across at least sympathetic to the jews, to there outsider adversarial point of view, towards the West, and towards Anglo-Saxons in particular.

[Image — John M Cuddihy and his book (click image to enlarge).]

Although the thing is it’s not just the Anglo-Saxons that Jews don’t like. It’s the Germans they don’t like, it’s the Swedes they don’t like, it’s the American they don’t like. It’s really any host that they basically have to subdue in order to benefit from, in order to exploit. And that is, …, you know, MacDonald and Cuddihy are both hesitant to identify jews as an enemy or use any terms that go beyond an objective evaluation of the situation.

[20:00]

I mean, McDonald goes further than Cuddihy does in laying out the hostility and it speaks for itself when you lay it out that way, that they’re the enemy, that they think of us as the enemy. I do it myself when I describe how the jewish identity is centered on, the core of it is, identifying Whites or any host that they live amongst really.

But Whites are our concern, and the most recent host for them, as the enemy, and that Whites, if we have a failing at all, it’s in not recognising that, you know where part of the psychological trick they play is that they constantly accuse us of being stupidly, crazily blaming jews for everything. When, the real problem is that Whites, if you want to generalise about the problem, is that Whites don’t blame jews for enough. Whites under-estimate jews. They misunderstand jews. So it’s really a problem of under-estimating them.

JF: Yes, no, and I think that goes to the heart of our problems here in America and really the wider Western world, in that we have never really, well at least in America, we’ve never really dealt seriously with the Jewish Problem and it absolutely is a huge problem.

And guys, if you don’t believe me, I’m gonna have a link to the Renegade Tribune and it’s an article called “Quotes in support of White Genocide”. And it’s just a list of jews making just some of the most outrageous, truly genocidal comments about white people and, I mean, this is something that’s been going on for a very, very long time, certainly during World War II. That’s what World War II was all about. It was all about destroying the one man who actually did stand up to the jews and actually did expose and explain, even in simple terms, the Jewish Problem to his nation and that was Adolf Hitler’s Germany. That is really what all this boils down to, is that we are not real about race and even more importantly we’re not real about the Jewish Question, or the Jewish Problem, I should say.

TAN: Yeah, Hitler’s another one to mention. Mein Kampf, I haven’t read Mein Kampf cover to cover either, I’ve read large sections of it and there is nothing that Hitler has ever, in any translated speech I’ve ever seen or any tract of text that he’s written, nothing that I can find that he’s wrong about.

JF: Amen!

TAN: As far as I can tell he was telling the truth and he told it very well. He was very articulate, in expressing himself.

JF: I’m glad you mention that because by far the most powerful and impactful book that I read, especially waking up to racial realism and the Jewish Problem, you know, I was really into, I originally got started in all this and sort of woke up to the Jewish Problem by researching 9/11 and coming to the obvious conclusion that 9/11 was actually done by Israel and an international network of jewish criminals. And most certainly not Osama Bin Laden and 19 Arabs, you know, terrorist hijackers. What an absurd, ridiculous story that is! But that was my awakening to the Jewish Problem, but I didn’t really get, you know, into the racial issues until I read Mein Kampf and I mean everything really clicked once I read that book.

And it’s interesting, you know. I remember reading, I think it’s chapter, it’s like chapter 11, or maybe 12 and I think it’s called, “Nation and State” or “Nation and Race” maybe, I can’t remember the exact name of the chapter [Chapter 11: People and Race*] . But it’s really, in my opinion it’s probably the best chapter in the whole book. And he deals with race and he talks about how the White race, “the aryan man” I think he exactly says, is the founder of civilisation and the jews have always been parasites and the corrupters and subverters of civilisation. And I really just read that and was so blown away. I’d never really heard history articulated like that. Wow! Did White people really invent civilisation and all the technology we use today? And the more I thought about is the more obvious it became that absolutely it did. We are the founders of civilisation. No other races have accomplished anything even close to what we’ve accomplished. And I don’t think that’s wrong or supremacist for making that basic, factual observation.

*[Click here to see the post: Mein Kampf: Chapter 11 — Race and People]

TAN: Yeah. About 9/11, let’s talk about that in a little while.

JF: OK.

TAN: I have a difference of opinion with you on 9/11, but let’s talk about that in a bit.

JF: Yeah, sure.

TAN: Just to continue, the influential books that are worth reading, the influential people who have said things about Jews. Revilo Oliver is definitely one of the more recent and important. William Pierce, you could add to that. But Oliver’s “Jewish Strategy” is very good and highlighted just for me, just how far back in time this goes. That it’s an ancient, … The Jewish Problem is an ancient problem. It’s not something that started when Europeans started to wake up to the biological reality of race, in the 17th, 18th centuries.

[25:00]

JF: Right.

TAN: Arthur Gobineau is another one who, predated Hitler. And, by the way, that chapter you mentioned, that chapter 12, … I’m not sure of that is it, either. But race and nation where he talks about that, … But I get into that in some detail when I was discussing Francis Parker Yockley’s book, which is not worth reading, I don’t think.

JF: Hmm, that is, “Imperium”?

TAN: Imperium. And he’s a great writer and he got lots of things right, but I think on race he was wrong. And I can, … He dedicated his book to the hero of World War Two, and he did it just shortly after World War Two. He was writing when everybody else was, or most other people, were putting distance between themselves and the National Socialists and Hitler. He wrote a book about it and dedicated the book to Hitler.

But, what I pointed out, his views on race, … Yockey’s views on race were kind of wishy washy and kind of spiritual. He was against Rationalism and Darwinism because he saw those as some outgrowth of Jewishness, rather than as an outgrowth of Ayran objectivity. And I contrasted Yockey’s opinion on race and nation and the malleability and plasticity of biological attributes like skull shapes.

Yockey went into, or bought in the Boas fraud. Which was this idea that if you move a person from one place to the another the ground shapes them. Now this is funny because Darwinism is that theory. Darwinism explains it as taking generations. Generation after generation has to be shaped by it’s environment. That is the basic idea behind natural selection. But it was even more instructive to contrast what Yockey had to say with what Hitler had to say. His hero, …, you know, he apparently missed that chapter, I guess, …

JF: Right.

TAN: When trying to understand Hitler’s views about race. And Hitler’s views about race, I believe, come down from Arthur Gobineau. I don’t know if he read the book himself directly, but Gobineau’s, “Inequality of Human Races” describes a very popular view of the importance of race and the differences not just between Whites and blacks and yellows, whatever, the continental races. But the differences amongst Whites themselves, the differences, … Gobineau used the term “race” in a very fine-grained senses that used to be used for nation. What nation used to mean, subrace. A more narrowly group of people related natally. And Gobineau was talking really about the distinctions amongst European is. He saw at that time, he was writing in the 1850s, or so. Whites were just stomping all over the world, conquering and colonizing everywhere here and it seemed like everywhere here the Whites went the non-White races were sort of withering and dying away and he, … From his vantage point Whites were going to dominate the planet.

I think a criticism of Gobineau, is that in retrospect he didn’t appreciate the [danger of] jews. Like other European is in his time and up until today you had many European is that are just blind to the jews or consider them some sort of fossil people. I think Gobineau actually used that term, and later it was used by people like Toynbe, and Spengler also. And that attitude is just wrong! The jews are not a fossil people! Implying that they are just inert, and unchanging and ancient. They are a very dynamic and a very deadly force! Very much alive, very much active in what’s going on in the world.

And in the last influential source I would urge [listeners to look into] , is something that I just became aware of recently is a book called, “The Great Jewish Masque” which is, the author is unknown, … People have speculated about the it. It was published in, by Arnold Leese’s, … He had something to do with the publishing of it. From the way the text is phrased, it came out in 1920, I think or there abouts, … It seemed to me like it was Leese’s voice, from other things I have heard from or read of Arnold Leese.

[30:00]

What it is, it’s a, … Basically an exposure of the Jews as historic fraudsters. That the jewish narrative throughout history, the telling of history from a jewish point of view is a giant lie. It’s one, or it’s a series of lies. Things or elements of who they are, just made up. The subtitle is something like, “The Donkey in the Lion Skin”, or something, “The Ass in the Lion Skin” which is some ancient European fable that describes the jews as basically making themselves to be heroic and brave and great, when the reality is quite the opposite. That they are very secretive.

And this idea of jews using masks and disguising themselves is something you will find, … basically every insightful critic of jews have noticed, including MacDonald, including Revilo Oliver, Hitler, is that they use disguises. And MacDonald calls this “crypsis”*. And MacDonald come closest to putting a biological interpretation of what they are doing, closest to calling it out as parasitism, without calling it parasitism, at least until recently. He’s kind of shied away from that. But when you look up what “crypsis” is, and jewish crypsis is basically just this use of camouflage, disguising who they are. It’s a good word, it’s a technically sounding term to describe what they do.

* [In ecology, crypsis is the ability of an organism to avoid observation or detection by other organisms. It may be either a predation strategy or an antipredator adaptation, and methods include camouflage, nocturnality, subterranean lifestyle, transparency, and mimicry.]

One aspect about their fraud, which is the fraud about who they are. This is what this Jewish Masque book is about. It’s about the fraud of their history. Of course fraud and Jew go together in many ways. Financial fraud, scientific fraud and so on.

JF: Right. Now in Mein Kampf Hitler actually talks about the greatest jewish deception is that they are this religious minority rather than a hostile, foreign racial element undermining society. And I think that is what it really boils down to. That we have to understand that the jews are a foreign racial entity, not really a religious community, you know, a lot of people get confused and think:

“Oh, jews are Whites and they just have a different religion”.

And that is just not the case at all. I mean jews themselves, denounce their Whiteness and boldly proclaim their Jewishness, you know, what I mean, so?

TAN: Right. And that they are jews even when they are atheist and so forth. But, and you are right, … I skipped over that. When you are having that conversation with people who, maybe are awake to race but insist that jews are White. That is the kind of people that you have to have this heart to heart, you know, lay it on the table. That, no, Judaism is not what jews are about, it’s their people-hood really. That is the term they use for it. The European euphemism for race, that they use. They talk about the continuity of their people-hood and how important that is to them. And they talk about the evil of assimilation and intermarriage, two more kind of code words that they use.

Which is, … You know, if Whites were talking in the ways that jews talk about it, Whites would be accused of being horrible hater racists, you know, for thinking of things in racial terms. But the jews do it more or less openly, using this coded speech for it. They all know what they are talking about. And they all know that it’s their strength. So, and they know it would be their own undoing to say, “Open the borders of Israel to aliens”. Even the Syrians who are their next door neighbours, genetically close to them, they don’t want to open their borders to them. And it’s not because of religion.

JF: Right.

TAN: Religion is just an organizing principle for them. It helps them to maintain their racial integrity, their racial purity.

JF: Right, I completely agree. And that is the most outrageous aspect of the Jewish Problem is just their blatant, in your face, it truly is insulting hypocrisy. Where, for example, we have, wall to wall jewish support. I mean every single jewish organization in America, in Europe. They are all demanding that the West accept unlimited and totally unrestricted, you know, refugees from the Middle East. Quote, unquote “refugees”, I mean these people are invaders. And yet as you mentioned in Israel they are not taking in any refugees. And I mean there are other examples of jewish hypocrisy. But this one is so blatant and in your face and it is so relevant today, obviously with what is going on in Europe.

[35:00]

TAN: Hypocrisy is mainly a point of view that appeals to Whites. It’s how we see the world as. The world should be fair and equal and whatever. We view it objectively, right?

Hypocrisy is mainly a point of view that appeals to Whites. It’s how we see the world as. The world should be fair and equal and whatever. We view it objectively, right? Objective groups in competition. We duke it out, man to man, and at sunrise with pistols, with swords, or whatever. That tradition, that mindset.

 Whereas the jews, … What’s behind this supposed hypocrisy, this double standard, is really just the single standard of what’s best for jews. And what’s best for the jews and Israel is different from what’s best for jews outside of Israel. Outside of Israel the jews want to be treated as one of many types of people where they can be free to foment division and exploit divisions amongst other people. And so having open borders everywhere here so that they can move freely about, and so that they can move other people freely about is what’s in their best interest. Whereas, in Israel, that is their home, that is their nest. They don’t want to screw that up.

JF: Yes, that is a good way of looking at it. Now, I’m curious. Are you familiar with “Dispossessed Majority” by Wilmont Robertson?

TAN: Another book that I have not read cover to cover, but I’ve read large sections of.

JF: That is a phenomenal book actually, I think.

TAN: I like the book overall, but I think he minimizes the Jewish Problem. I think, for instance, he doesn’t state it as the Jewish Problem, he just lists Jews as one of the unassimmulatable minorities alongside Greeks, southern Italians and a few other groups that he, … He basically, … His language to me is where the weakness begins.

That this thinking of things in terms of majority and minority. Instead of saying White, he, … Another thing that I remember about his point of view is that he really disliked the term, “White“. And for good reason I think, because White and been used by the jews. They had basically shoehorned their way into America by making the argument that they were White. And being mistaken as White by amps who had control to exclude them at that point, on the basis that they weren’t White. You brought it up earlier that America, when it was founded, I think they thought that they were leaving the Jewish Problem behind in Europe. And that there wasn’t that many jews in America, and that there wasn’t going to be a problem with jews anyway because jews started off emancipated in the US. Whereas they still weren’t fully emancipated in Europe at the time. They just started off as equal and White in America, at least the Germanized, Western jews that were in America at that time.

But in the 1880s when the Eastern European jews started flooding into America, it was obvious that these were alien people with alien patterns of thinking and hostile to amps. And many amps pointed this out. But Wilmont Robertson was long past. He should have had the benefit of hindsight, writing in the 70s as he was., you know, to just sort of, … I don’t want to accuse him of pussyfooting, he used that term, or truckling, … That there were certain Whites in power at the time that obviously had some sort of racial consciousness, like Richard Nixon. And he was, … In fact the title of his book, “Dispossessed Majority” was a play on some term that Nixon used at the time. I forget what it was now.

But, the, … Back to the language of majority versus minority. Majority is not what makes us, us! We can be in the minority and White is still important. And even White, if you don’t like the term White because it let’s jews in, well, then that means that you have should be more explicit in saying: “No, jews are not White. They are the enemy of Whites”. And I understand that some people are very north western European, entirely

In their heritage and that they want to preserve that, so that they are very stand offish towards Whites that are further out on the fringes of Europe. Perfectly understandable, and perfectly defensible. They should just be able to say:

“This is our country. We created this country. We are north-western European is and we are not going to let you in, not because we are the majority, but because we are north-western European is. We are related to each other. We are more closely related to each other than we are to you!”

And so, I see no problem in, you know, having different gradations of, and different levels of clustering of race. Race, you know, is not a black and white thing necessarily. Of a particular group to exist it has to make a distinction between “Us” and “Them”! It’s a very basic biological distinction, and over time it’s what produces speciation.

[40:04]

Populations, even if they start out being totally related to each other, they cleave for some reason. Geography is often what’s to do with it, amongst humans or hominids it has to do with language and cultural differences, but then it’s like the law of entropy in physics. In species, speciation is the natural way of things. This constant dividing of different species into other species, into other separate groups that breed amongst each other exclusively. And if they do that long enough then they actually become incapable of breeding with each other over time.

JF: Hmm. Interesting. OK, I wanted to move on here and talk about this, … It’s sort about, … Well I guess in the past couple of years I hear people talking and writing more and more about it, and that’s this idea of pathological altruism. Which is put forth, … I mean, I’ve heard Dr. Kevin MacDonald write about it and talk about it., you know, all sorts of pro-white intellectuals and activists and what not.

Jared Taylor comes to mind as well. And, I mean, I think that there maybe is something to this idea of pathological altruism, but from the way that I understand a lot of their arguments, they seem to be basically saying that this is something that is innate, like an innate weakness in White people. And I don’t really agree with that. And after hearing some of your critiques of this idea of pathological altruism, I think that there is a root cause of pathological altruism. There is something that is making us this way. It’s not something that’s necessarily innate within us and I think that’s more of the argument that someone like Dr. Kevin MacDonald or Jared Taylor would be making. What are your thoughts on this? And maybe if I got anything wrong there, please go ahead and clarify.

TAN: Well I think I’m the main critic. I’m the one who basically started this. Because what I saw from my point of view, it started about two years ago, this talk about white pathology and it solidified ultimately into pathological altruism as the specific pathology that people were talking about. And it definitely has broad appeal. I saw it being echoed in many different places. But I didn’t like it from the beginning, because I thought, “White pathology?” That’s describing the symptoms, it’s not describing the cause. What is the cause? That’s my main critique of it, is if you’ve got a pathology, well, what’s the pathogen? Where’s the germ that’s creating this problem, as you’ve said?

JF: I’m sorry Tan, really quick. How would you describe “pathological altruism”. What are the main points of this argument? Just so people have an understanding of what we mean by, “pathological altruism”.

TAN: Right, it’s a technical term. Altruism as from biology and the study of all species, not just how humans behave. But in this case it’s specifically about White people. Altruism is when a person or an organism makes a personal sacrifice that benefits someone else. And it becomes pathological altruism when it’s benefiting your enemy or someone who’s totally alien from you.

It’s one thing to be altruistic towards your kids or, sorry, your sibling’s offspring, towards your nieces and nephews. They’re not directly your offspring, but you still share some genes with them and you still share some interests with them biologically, culturally. So it makes sense and likewise to the people around you in your race. They are all within the same gene pool with you, they are much more likely to share cultural and political interests with you, than complete strangers, complete genetic, biological aliens.

So pathological altruism is this idea, as you said, you put it very well, what I sensed in it too, in my critique of it is that it’s basically an accusation that Whites are born losers. That we’re born to just give away and born to just be suicidal. That’s what I immediately connected it to was my previous critique of people who looked at what’s going wrong, they sense that something’s wrong, they look around and then they’ve got these people who tell them it’s suicide. Europeans are just killing themselves. I hated that before White pathology came along. As far as I’m concerned White pathology is basically the, “Suicide Meme 2.0”. It’s a refinement.

[45:00]

JF: It’s a more intellectual variation of it.

TAN: Yeah, but like I say, it’s an explanation supposedly for people who are deciding that’s somethings wrong, that they want to know what’s wrong. It’s an answer to their question. And White pathology is more specific than suicide. Pathological altruism is more specific that White pathology.

So, if you think, … Remember, this idea comes from Jared Taylor. He’s the main proponent of this White pathology, this pathological altruism idea. The thing about Jared Taylor is that he presents himself as pro-White, but he also at the same time says, “jews are White”, that they look White to him. He talks about race very explicitly, but for him race means black and White or black and White and brown and yellow. But jews are a totally separate problem in his opinion, that it’s unrelated.

He mentioned one time, when he was put on the spot about this, that he doesn’t want to be, “considered a crank on two issues at one time”. And I thought, that’s really curious, because race and the Jews are intimately related to each other. They’re basically the same problem. The reason why anti-racism exists is because the jews drive it. The jews are the one attacking Whites, calling us racists, psychopathologising us for even thinking in terms of race, it’s the jews doing that! Now, I don’t know how Jared Taylor could think about race, day in and day out, and not realise that the jews are genetically distinct, that they have this hostility, ideologically and politically to Whites and that it’s a historic problem, it’s been going on for millennia.

At first I was very charitable toward Jared Taylor because I saw him as a pro-White voice. He’s out in the open under his own name organising activity, writing very eloquently and speaking very eloquently. But on this issue of the jews, he is dishonest at the very least. I don’t think that he’s self deceiving himself. I don’t think that he really thinks that this is some sort of clever strategy that he’s gonna sneak up on the jews, because if he does, he’s a fool.

You can’t sneak up on the jews. The jews are far more racially conscious than any White person I’ve ever read. Even Hitler talks about how he was naive about the jews and learned about the jews only later in life. And that’s the general trend with Whites, that we only wake up to this late in life, if we wake up to it at all. Whereas jews are teaching their young that the Amalekites* need to be genocided. That the anti-semites need to be hunted down. That the Nazis need to be not tolerated, killed.

* [There is no archaeological or epigraphic evidence for the existence of the Amalekites; all sources mentioning them are either directly based on the Hebrew Bible, or of a far later date than the presumed time of their existence.

In the Hebrew Bible, the Amalekites were a nomadic, or semi-nomadic people who inhabited ancient Israel. They are commonly considered to be Amalek’s descendants through the genealogy of Esau. This is probably based on the association of this tribal group with the steppe region of the Negev and the area of Kadesh (Genesis 14:7). As a people, the Amalekites are identified as a recurrent enemy of the Israelites.

In Judaism, the Amalekites came to represent the archetypal enemy of the jews. In the jewish folklore the Amalekites are considered to be the symbol of evil.

Source: Https: ed / en.wikipedia.orged wikied Amalek]

JF: The Klan, racists, yeah.

TAN: They are trained as soldiers from the get go. From the time that they can first speak. They go to special jewish schools for that purpose. Whereas Whites go to schools where jews are the teachers, teaching them that Whiteness is bad. Racism. Giving us the complete opposite story.

JF: Exactly! And they’re forcing our kids to go to school with Negroes and all sorts of other non-Whites and we’re taught that Whites are the most evil people on the face of the planet and we’re responsible for slavery and the “Holocaust” and genocide. You name it, it goes on and on and on.

TAN: That’s how pathological altruism comes in.

JF: Yeah. I was gonna say real quick [that] I agree with most of what you just said about it. This idea that White people collectively as societies, our governments for example, and other White institutions and organisations, the Catholic Church and some of these other mainstream Christian organisations, the idea that they are literally putting the interests of other racial groups of hostile alien racial groups ahead of their own. That is obviously what is going on, that’s public policy in the United States. That’s how many organisations operate in the United States.

But I don’t think that it’s really something that’s innate within us, I think it’s a result of propaganda. I think it’s a result of the White race being entirely deracinated, you know, at least collectively. And fundamentally I think that it is a result of the Jews, of the parasitic, subversive nature of the jews and what they do to us when we don’t recognise them as the alien, hostile race of people that they really are.

[49:53]

TAN: Right. They have agency. They are very, very active. They are very, very conscious. They are more conscious than Whites are as to their interests as a group, their existence as a group and what they need to do to not only survive, but thrive. And Whites are not. And part of the reason why Whites are not, the largest part, the proximate cause, as a lawyer would say, is jews. That is the first approximation, that is the number one cause of this. Now, my critique of pathological altruism, … What really set me off was when I noticed that every time it came up, the specific examples that I saw being offered, …

“What is pathological altruism exactly, can you point to something concrete?”

It was always things like “cat ladies” or people who adopt alien babies from Africa or Asia. And, you know, basically they would previously said White liberalism. You know, what is “liberalism”? It’s a vague term. But these are specific examples, this, “cat lady” and alien adoption thing. And what I noticed about this is, … This is not a cause. This is a symptom of the poisonous media that is what’s presented by this jewish media as good and right is this kind of stuff. And it’s no wonder that people go and do it!, you know, people naturally do what they look around and they everyone else clucking about, either in favor of or against.

And so we have stopped being a racially conscious group where we talked about miscegenation as if it was a bad thing. Now we are talking about “miscegenation as a bad thing” as a bad thing! Because of the jews. It wasn’t as if White people decided to that on our own.

JF: Right! It’s a direct result of jewish propaganda.

TAN: Of enemy activity. Yes! If the enemy drops bombs on your city, do you blame yourself of letting your city burn? No! The enemy dropped bombs on you. You fight the fires, but you don’t lie to yourself that you caused the fires!

JF: Right. So what I think it boils down to is that the root cause of pathological altruism, you know, among White people is two interrelated factors. Number one is the denial of race. The denial that White people have interests and that we need to be concerned about them and to think racially. But also sort of, you know, obviously very much related to this, is the Jewish Problem!

TAN: Yep.

JF: And what the Jews are up to and what their agenda is. So I mean, if with continue to deny these realities that we need to deal with, then we are going to continue to suffer this “pathological altruism”. And we are going to continue to watch our countries and our nations to crumble.

TAN: Yes. So as far as MacDonald goes, he has taken up this White pathology and pathological altruism argument. He got it from Jared Taylor. I think he parrots it because he respects Jared Taylor as a colleague, another academic intellectual type who has pro-White intentions. I think he is mistaken there. But, MacDonald is responsible for taking it a step further. MacDonald has actually tried to come up with a thesis that literally roots it in our genes.

He argued that, this pathological altruism is inborn and comes from our Ice Age hunter gather ancestors. That because of the climate in which White people evolved for 15,000 years during the Ice Ages. That, that laid the pattern in our genes, that with are genetically programmed to be egalitarian and tolerant and that we have moral, that we form moral groups rather than ethnic groups. That we have groups based on ideas rather than family relations like Middle Easterners do, like the jews do.

And I think that, you know, that could all be very true, … But I think, …

JF: I was going to say, I think, I think there is something to a lot his arguments. But maybe we just interpret them differently.

TAN: Well, one problem is this., you know, he points to Sweden as the epitome of the White pathological altruism, White pathology. And the problem with that is, … He says it’s because Northern Europeans are the most hunter gatherer of all the different European is. They have the most hunter gatherers. They also have the most Ayran in them genetically. And the Ayran mindset is completely at odds with squishy, wishy washy liberal attitude. There are some similarities.

I haven’t really written about this before, but I thought about it, how, you know, egalitarianism is not purely a hunter gatherer thing. You can see elements of it in this “band of brothers” peer type attitude that even the Ayrans had. That they were amongst equals of the nobility at least. That they saw an aristocracy. They saw differences and the need for a hierarchy. But amongst the people at the top, the Aryans at the top who were running whatever society they conquered, they saw themselves as a band of brothers, as equals in a way within that group.

[55:08]

JF: Yeah, and I think some of these qualities and characteristics that MacDonald talks about and, you know, sort of ties it to evolution and how Whites evolved throughout the ice age and what not and the geography that we were living in, and what not. I think that there is something to these arguments, but I think that what’s even more important is that the Jews sort of recognise these traits and exploit them to the hilt. I mean really, they understand our psychology. They have really studied these things. Look at Bernays* and all these other Jewish propagandists. They know how to do this stuff scientifically.

* [Edward Louis Bernays (November 22, 1891 – March 9, 1995) is considered one of the fathers of the field of public relations along with Ivy Lee. Combining the ideas of Gustave Le Bon and Wilfred Trotter on crowd psychology with the psychoanalytical ideas of his uncle, Sigmund Freud, Bernays was one of the first to attempt to manipulate public opinion using the subconscious.

He felt this manipulation was necessary in society, which he regarded as irrational and dangerous as a result of the ‘herd instinct’ that Trotter had described. Adam Curtis’s award-winning 2002 documentary for the BBC, The Century of the Self, pinpoints Bernays as the originator of modern public relations, and Bernays was named one of the 100 most influential Americans of the 20th century by Life magazine.

Born 1891 in Vienna to jewish parents, Bernays was nephew to psychoanalyst pioneer Sigmund Freud. His father was Ely Bernays, brother of Freud’s wife Martha Bernays. His mother was Freud’s sister, Anna. In 1892 his family moved to New York City. In 1912 he graduated from Cornell University with a degree in agriculture, but chose journalism as his first career. He married to Doris E. Fleischman in 1922.

In the 1920s, working for the American Tobacco Company, he sent a group of young models to march in the New York City parade. He then told the press that a group of women’s rights marchers would light “Torches of Freedom”. On his signal, the models lit Lucky Strike cigarettes in front of the eager photographers. The New York Times (one April 1929) printed: “Group of Girls Puff at Cigarettes as a Gesture of ‘Freedom’”. This helped to break the taboo against women smoking in public. During this decade he also handled publicity for the NAACP.

Source: Http: ed / en.metapedia.orged wikied Edwardtion Louistion Bernays]

TAN: Yes. Manipulative. They are manipulative and they’re ruthless in the manipulation. They are hyper aware, hyper sensitive and willing to do whatever they have to do to manipulate their host to behave however they need it to behave. The thing about MacDonald is you can use his own arguments that he makes in Culture of Critique and he’s made since. He went on, … He had two recent interviews with Nordfront that were very, very good. I recommend to anyone who likes MacDonald. And he himself lays out that he thinks culture is very important and that it’s critical. That’s why he wrote a book about the culture of critique.

And yet, as I say, the jewish influence in recent history is the proximate cause for the degeneracy that we see around us. All the stuff that people point at and say, “That’s pathological altruism”. Well, the jewish finger prints are all over it! The jewish control and dominance of the media and the sick messages that they send out, portraying this degeneracy as normal, as heroic, as something to celebrate! That’s the number one cause of the degeneracy that you see. It’s people ingesting that poison and it’s no wonder that people get sick and die from that kind of stuff.

JF: Yes. Very well said, and I want to talk more about the jewish media here in a few minutes. Really quickly, you mention this idea of White suicide and this is something that I have heard Jared Taylor talk about this idea of White suicide, how Whites are literally committing suicide and implementing policies that are suicidal in nature.

And again I think that is a very flawed argument because I think they are not suicidal, I think they’re genocidal and they are coming from the organised jewish community and their puppets., you know, their goyim puppets in key positions of power and influence in America, certainly. And you know, what’s incredible is really, most important positions in the federal government, in Congress in the Obama Administration are actually controlled by jews themselves. So it’s certainly not suicidal if the jews, a racial foreign element, are implementing policies that are destructive to us. That’s not suicide, that’s genocide.

TAN: That’s right. That’s right. They don’t identify positively with Whites, in fact they identify negatively. They see Whites as the enemy. So, yes, it’s not suicide. The number one tip off is that suicide is a very personal decision. You consciously decide, “I’m gonna end my life” for whatever reason and you do it. That’s suicide.

What’s happening is the people who actually control the levers of power or at least have some sort of influence over it. They are the figure heads, for instance the President of the United States, the President of various other countries in Europe. They are not suicidal, they are almost the polar opposite. They are so concerned about themselves and their own personal interests and that’s really what the problem is, is the over-concern for personal interests and a complete lack of consideration for their race, for the larger group. They think that they can live without their larger group.

JF: And that to me is the epitome of this idea of Whites being deracinated. There’s a disconnect between Whites as individuals and Whites as a wider community, a wider racial community.

TAN: Right.

JF: And we have to understand that. We have to understand that we are part of a wider community and we have to start thinking in these terms if we want to compete and eventually retake our countries. I think that is happening. I think there are more people realising these sorts of things. Go ahead.

TAN: Beyond merely competing, we have to go beyond seeing the jews as yet another group that wants to exploit us. That’s when we come to what is a better thesis for understanding the relationship between Whites and jews, is parasitism.

[60:02]

That if you look at it in biological terms, and the Jews are constantly dropping hints that you should look at it in biological terms. When they talk about ant-semitism, they talk about it as a disease. They talk about it as an infection. As a virulent thing. And the reality is, … If you look up virulence you find out, … What does virulence mean? Virulence is the technical term for the damage that a parasite causes it’s host. That’s what virulence is. The more virulent a parasite is the more damaging it is, the more deadly it is to it’s host.

And actually, the Nordfront guys brought up a point that a true parasite basically can co-exist with it’s host for an extended period of time, whereas a parasite-like entity that kills it’s hosts is called a parasitoid.

JF: Interesting!

TAN: I thought that’s interesting. A fine distinction. They’re parasitic basically and that’s the best way, I think, to make sense of all of it. All of the pieces fall into place when you understand it that way.

Many, many people, even people who aren’t racialists have written about the financial parasitism of the banker class or the donor class or whatever. That they are behaving in a parasitic way, financially. Well, financial [parasitism] is just one aspect of the whole thing. The Israel lobby in Zionism, is another, more, … It’s related to money, but it’s also about sovereignty, it’s about redirecting the resources of many other nations to the benefit of Israel. Shipping them money, shipping them arms, making promises to protect them. The leaders of the United States and European countries say things in defence of jews and Israel that they would never say about even defending their own countries that they run! And, you know, Trump is a good example of that.

JF: Right. That was actually the next topic. I mean, this idea of, … Really the most accurate way of viewing the Jew is as a parasite, right? I mean, that is really [true] in my opinion. And I think you’ve elaborated on this in great detail on some of your radio shows about this reality. I mean, that is the way, you know, we have to understand these people.

Again, this is something that the Germans talked about, you know, the National Socialists clearly understood this and wrote about it. And, you know, made it a central aspect of what they were trying to communicate to the German people.

As you mentioned there’s many forms of this parasitism, financial, obviously political. Look at the holocaust industry. This is in my view the most outrageous and truly infuriating and blood boiling, … I mean, I cannot stand these jews and this fake “Holocaust” story. And the way they just exploit us financially, emotionally, culturally. You can’t avoid the “Holocaust” in the West today.

TAN: That’s right. The elements of the parasitism that came to me, that stood out to me were the infiltration, the manipulation, the exploitation. This pretty much covers all of what the Jews do, how they do it and that all points to parasitism. They are exploiting secretively, furtively, they are exploiting a host. They do whatever they can to subdue our defences, in fact what the jews have done is they’ve hijacked our defences, they’ve actually turned our defensive mechanisms, our defensive institutions into institutions that benefit them. That protect them, within our own countries. And the “Holocaust” is a big part of that.

JF: Yes, and that kind of gets into the next topic. And that’s this “cuckservative” meme that is a relatively phenomenon. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen you write and talk about this subject, but I’m curious. What are your general thought on it? And the idea that it expresses, because I think it’s a very powerful, devastating critique of American politics.

TAN: It is devastating. I think most of the people who use the term are not even really fully conscious of just what it is they’re implying. I think many people are talking about it in terms of the inter-racial sex fetish. That cuckolding fetish. But it really traces back, … The root of the whole concept is the exploitation of a parasite, of its host and the cuckoo bird. You know, how the cuckoo bird is this giant bird, comes lays this giant egg in some smaller birds nest and then that giant egg hatches into a giant, screeching, demanding chick, …

JF: Just a disgusting bird.

[65:00]

TAN: It hatches early. It’s genetically different than the bird it’s parasitising and it kicks out their eggs and then screeches at the top of it’s lungs to be serviced by the other bird. And if you dig deeper into even that, and I haven’t heard anybody but Jews really go into this, … There’s one jewish biologist that wrote about this. How a cuckoo bird, actually… There is a struggle between the cuckoo parasite and it’s host. The host that tries to defend itself, by say, knocking the cuckoo bird egg out, the cuckoos will come and punish that bird by destroying it’s nest.

And so, there’s a give and take, there’s a push back and forth. And I see that even, … I haven’t dug into the details of it yet. There’s still lots to do with demonstrating the Jewish parasitism of Europeans over the course of millennia. But one of the elements that you should see if it is parasitism is you should see some attempts by Europeans to sort of adapt and do something to defend themselves. In fact, you could see all of the expulsions that Europeans have done over the centuries as one bit of evidence in that Europeans have tried to defend themselves. It’s not suicide, they’ve repeatedly tried to defend themselves but they are never able to achieve full consciousness and they just end up kicking the problem next door.

It’s like, if you’ve got roaches in a motel and you just gas one apartment, the roaches move next door to the other apartments and then ultimately they filter right back in to the apartment that was cleaned out and that’s what, … The Jews have actually adapted to that kind of treatment of them over time too. They’ve counter-adapted to being expelled. It’s part of their life-cycle now, being expelled. They’ve made it into their narrative.

The holocaust narrative is really just the most recent example of the narrative that they’ve been telling for two thousand years, about how they’ve been horribly oppressed by every host that they’ve ever tried to exploit, and it’s become the story that they tell. George Lincoln Rockwell wrote a great metaphorical story about it, “The Ducks and Geese”. The parable of the ducks and geese.[Actually it’s, “The Fable of the Ducks and the Hens“]

JF: And we see how, not only how important this fake holocaust story and just this narrative of jewish persecution is. We see how central this is to their over all agenda. But, I mean, it’s just something that defines them as jews, it’s a central aspect of their jewish identity. There’s public polls, the Pew Research Center does research on different ethnic groups in America. And the most important aspect of jewish identity, when you ask jews and when you poll jews, whether it’s in America or anywhere really in the whole world, is their identification with this fake “Holocaust” story. And that they’re victims and that their people have this history of oppression and the whole world hates them. It’s a central aspect.

TAN: Right. That is the number one answer that they provided as to what it was that made them identify as jews. That is the number one thing that they cite themselves. Jews polling jews or Pew polling jews about it.

JF: Exactly. You know, another interesting aspect of jewish parasitism and just how effective it’s been and how out of control it is in America, is again, going back to this idea of a cuckservative. We have these mostly White guys in the GOP, in the Republican party, who portray themselves as these great American patriots. When in reality all they are doing is serving the interests of Jews, on every single key aspect of public policy. Whether it’s foreign policy, domestic policy, they always bow down to the Jews; and yet they’re able to effectively present themselves as these American patriots and American heroes.

TAN: Right. Yes, they’re not cat ladies. They’re selling out their own kind, either consciously or unconsciously for their own personal benefit. For power, for fame, for fortune, whatever it is that drives them to do it. Or, … There’s also an angle to it of vicarious racial identity. That they know they can’t identify as White. I think of this when I think of people like Limbaugh and Coulter and Hannity, although less. I think they’re waking up to it a little bit themselves, but in the past it seemed to me like, they, … People like that take a certain joy out of talking about jews, like they’re this people to sympathise with and to defend and to give your life in their defence. [It] just makes you the most wonderful person in the world. And the cuckservative thing cuts through all that! And even more specifically, “kikeservative”, emphasises the fact that what they’re doing is sick.

[70:00]

If you want to talk about White pathology, that’s the number one evidence of White pathology is when people actively identify with their enemy, and talk about their enemy in these glowing, positive terms. You’ve got to be mentally ill.

JF: Yeah, they literally are servicing their own racial enemy. The racial element that wants to destroy everything that they stand for. I mean it’s amazing.

TAN: I don’t mean to cop out and say:

“Oh, they’ve got to be crazy!” because I think that’s what it is.

When people say:

“My enemy is stupid” or, “My enemy is crazy” what that really is, is they are copping out saying, “I can’t explain it” or, “I don’t want to explain it so I’m just gonna call it stupid or crazy”.

The reality is that I think there is a way to make sense of what these people are doing. Which is that they just don’t care about their race. They in fact think that their race is a liability and they need to cut the chord with their race in order to progress, to make their career, or to at lest maintain their career. That they have to act like they don’t care. They have to show that they don’t care.

It’s becoming more and more obvious, this, “Black Lives Matter” thing and what happened at Mizzou (University of Missouri). Where you’re basically now being pressured if you’re in any form of position of power as a White man, or White woman, to renounce your race and accept guilt for your race.

That’s part of what I didn’t like about White pathology also, is it’s basically related to that, what White liberals do, denouncing their Whiteness. When White racialists talk about White pathology and pathological altruism, what are they doing? They’re not saying they, themselves, are born pathological, that they are behaving pathologically. No, it’s those other Whites! It gives them a sort of boost in their brain to say:

“Oh yeah, I’m not broken, but all those other Whites are.”

It’s taking responsibility in the most dishonest way, of not really taking responsibility yourself, personally, but saying somebody else is responsible for it. And the funny thing about that is when I made this critique, the very first thing and the loudest criticism of me, that comes at me was:

“Oh you just want to blame the Jeeews for everything, you want to shift all the blame to the Jews”.

It’s a stupid argument. It’s simplistic and it’s easy to take it apart. What I’m actually arguing is that there’s two here, there’s at least two parties involved, jews and Whites, and they’re in conflict. And it’s not that it’s just the jews or just Whites. It’s the people who say it’s suicide that are really saying that there’s no jews involved:

“Don’t pay any attention to those jews behind the curtain”.

JF: Exactly, it’s all dumb Whitey’s fault. Now, there’s a couple other topics that I wanted to wrap up with here and one of them is, two of the most important issues in my opinion. Two issues that are central not only to the White struggle but just the struggle for truth and honesty and decency and some sort of integrity in our society is being honest about the true history of World War Two, so “Revisionism”. And then 9/11 truth. You know, being honest about 9/11 and what really happened and who was really behind it. And it sounds like, based on your comment earlier in this interview, you might disagree with me on 9/11.

But I’m just curious, what role do you see for Revisionists, for people that are doing critical research into World War Two, into World War One, into this alleged jewish “Holocaust” story? Which in my view has been thoroughly and conclusively debunked once and for all. We have the evidence and proof to explain everything that we’re saying about this event, this alleged event. So I’m curious, what are your thoughts on these two important topics?

TAN: I think different things, different issues appeal to different people, because of where they’re coming from, where their background is. I think in general, what you’re getting at is there are these other, sort of related movements that are on the periphery of the White struggle, what you called, … Is being pro-White, having a racial identity and fighting for your race and those other things attract truth seekers. That’s the general description you could give to it. There are people that sense there is a problem. They don’t accept the mainstream narrative, the mainstream explanation for what the problems are.

[75:00]

As I’ve pointed out many times the mainstream explanation of what’s wrong is racism! Whites, White supremacy! Those are the problems according to the Jewish mainstream narrative. And there are people who that doesn’t compute with. I mean they look at things like 9/11, they look at things like the “Holocaust”, … Other things that I could think of that are similar, … Men’s Rights or even the Counter Jihad people. They are all coming at it from different angles. It reminds me of that cartoon or parable of the elephant, the wise men, … The blind wise men and the elephant. They all feel a different part of the elephant, they all describe it in a different way. But it’s all connected and it’s all, you know, the Jews are all behind it.

[Image] The jewish elephant and the blind wise men.

The problem with these other things, whether it’s 9/11 truth and maybe to a lesser extent “Holocaust” revisionism, but certainly with Men’s Rights and certainly with Counter Jihad is that it’s full of jews. There are Jews trying to derail you. There are jews trying to get you stuck just there, … Don’t go any further! Don’t think about White racial consciousness. A lot of the people involved aren’t White or are only half White. And there are a lot of half jews or part Jews are there to. Who are pretending to be White. And there are a lot of gate keeping going on. So it’s a two edged sword.

Those other related areas, 9/11 included, are ways in which people see that there is something wrong with the system. And for them different things are the straw that breaks the camel’s back, and hopefully they then proceed through the gate to full racial consciousness, to full truth of it all.

See: The Realist Report with Christopher Bollyn – Sep 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

JF: Absolutely! And in my opinion, I mean, the racial issues are by far, you know, the most issues that I’m dealing with. But I do think that revisionism and 9/11 truth, and just being honest about the nature of the media and the Jewish media and how it’s being used to deceive us and what not. Just being, you know, being honest about all these subjects. I think it’s important and critical for our success.

But I do agree with you, there are a lot of people in 9/11 truth that really kind of get bogged down and they, you know, they don’t continue to progress to where we are at, where we are talking about these issues.

TAN: I’ve read people that have come through 9/11 truth. Mike Delaney is one that I think of that have pointed out that there’s lots and lots of jews. They are creating disinformation. So they sense that there is something there that needs to be covered up. They sense that it’s a weak point. And they flood in there as gate keepers, as charlatans to keep people busy poking around all the different theories there.

JF: Right.

TAN: My own opinion about 9/11 is, “I don’t know” I wasn’t there. I’m not involved with it directly, I don’t know anyone directly, … Well, actually I knew a few people who were involved, who were at Ground Zero, … I don’t know anybody who was directly killed, they wouldn’t be able to tell me anything anyway. But, the thing is it’s, it’s some, … Whatever happened there is, … The argument that I often hear is, the argument that you laid out pretty well. The jews or Israel did 9/11. And we can be certain of that.

And I would only say to that, is we can’t be certain. I don’t know that for certain that it was the president of Israel or a bunch of Israelis that planned the whole thing and did it. You get into these gradations of argument where you can argue endlessly. Just how much did Israel do? Did they, at the very least, … And what I’m comfortable with accepting is that they know that there were Muslims that were doing it. And that they didn’t in any way communicate to United States security that, that this was going to happen. So they didn’t prevent it. And you get finer, more and more gradations all the way to a surreal, … It was all just crisis actors, … It didn’t really happen. It was just a Hollywood production.

And I understand why people can go that far, because they see Hollywood productions, … But, they see what the jews are capable of putting up on the screen, you know, that they can manufacture things that look real, … But, to me that is not necessary. I don’t even need to dig into the details of 9/11. By the time people told me that I should look into 9/11, I was well past that. I already understood that, … I understood race, and I understand that the jews are the enemy.

So, once you understand that, I think that is really what the important thing is. This other things, 9/11, the “Holocaust”, all the details of the “Holocaust”, arguing that amongst each other, Men’s Rights, Counter Jihad, … All that stuff just becomes peripheral, once you realize that race is real, the White race is what is important to you, … And the Jews are the biggest enemy of that, … Then yes, you could say that the jews are capable of just about anything.

[80:00]

The Jews give the commands to our government. Sure, Jews rule! I mean, if not directly occupying the office of the President, they are the ones who narrate our imaginations. Using their control of the media, they put the ideas in our heads as to what is good and what is bad and with that power, it’s like the power to print money, there’s almost infinite spill-over from that into other things.

I want to say, though, that it’s not infinite. The Jews do not have infinite control and that’s what makes me sceptical about elaborate things, like 9/11 or some of these other things that people say are just hoaxes, entirely. Even when they say the “Holocaust” was a hoax, or the “Holocaust”, the Germans had camps. They put Jews in those camps. They distinguished Jews from themselves racially, biologically. That is real. The hoax part is the soap and the lamp shades and the six million, …

JF: And the gas chambers, yeah.

TAN: … and all of the exaggerations that the jews tell about it. But it goes deeper than just the “Holocaust“, even. It’s questioning the jews on any aspect of their history. Take disagreeing with the jews about the fact that they are victims, historically. That’s as bad as “Holocaust” denial. It maybe doesn’t have a word for it other than anti-semitism, anything more specific than that. But that is really what you need to do is realise that the whole thing is a lie. Not just the “Holocaust”, but their whole history from their point of view, is a lie.

And this is another point to make, is history itself is a story from a certain point of view. People like to describe history as having an objective basis in reality. And yes, there are facts upon which given history is based. Events happen. But even when you have something that happened recently. If you have two people involved and you both of their stories you’re gonna get two different versions of what happened. Which one is true? It’s hard to tell. And even you standing outside of it listening to both sides, you create a third opinion, a third view of what happened. I’m not trying to say that it’s all relative but it’s more relative I think than most people give credit to. I’m a rational, logical person. I believe in reality based, … I believe in science. I’m grounded in that way and I’m sceptical of arguments based on just hand waving and assertion, you know, saying:

“You’ve got to believe this otherwise you’re stupid”.

And that’s one of the things that’s left a bad taste in my mouth about 9/11, is when people come and make an argument like that to me:

“Oh, you believe that 12 Arabs or 19 Arabs did 9/11? You’ve got to be an idiot!”

Actually I just don’t know. And I know I don’t trust my government, I know I think my government answers to jews and serves jews more than it serves it’s own citizenry. I know that that’s a fraud. I know (Franz) Boas was a fraud. What more do you need to know other than jews are the enemy. Why dig into the details?

JF: That’s fair enough, I understand where you’re coming from.

TAN: I’m not opposed to the people who want to spend their life digging into the details of 9/11 or the “Holocaust” or any of the other aspects. That research is valuable because then you can, like MacDonald’s books, you can point at it, you can say:

“OK, I can build from there. I can stand on the shoulders of those giants and I can do something beyond that. Something meta. Taking their results and all the detailed arguments that they’ve laid out and going beyond it”.

JF: Yeah, OK, that’s fair enough. I have a much clearer perspective of where you’re coming from on these issues, so thanks for clarifying all that. And I totally hear what you’re saying, it’s a good argument although, obviously I’d probably disagree slightly.

Now to wrap up here I just wanted to get your take on Trump, on Donald Trump especially and just the Presidential campaign in general. I’ve been frankly very impressed with Donald Trump. I’m not trying to say he’s some kind of White nationalist or anything like that, but I think he’s saying a lot of very important things and I do find him to be a genuine person and I think he’s running a brilliant campaign. So, what’s your take?

TAN: He’s definitely creating an earthquake and several earthquakes, a daily earthquake, you know:

“What did Trump do today to turn things upside down?”

JF: Right!

[85:00]

TAN: And in that respect it’s good. I think, first of all, though, Trump is an example, a physical example of how the Jews infiltrate, how they intermarry with the non-jewish elite and form alliances with them and together how this goes forward. You know, Trump as unlikely as he is to say:

“I’m a proud White man and I’m gonna do what’s best for White people.”

He does say things that come very close to that about jews. How he’d be a good President for jews because he’d defend Israel a thousand percent and all that stuff. So he’s a good example of how jewish influence actually works. But I think on the flip side, on the good side for Trump is that he exposes this Judeo-Liberal democracy for the fraud that it is. That basically, it’s pretty obvious that the people behind the curtains are jews, because of the way that Trump is so obsequious to Jews and Israel, but also how they react. How jews are very, very much trying to incite fear and loathing of Trump. How they compare him to Hitler, even though the comparison is laughable. In their minds it’s real! That’s a measure of how hyper sensitive they are, the old joke about:

“Your broken leg is a comedy and my hang-nail is a tragedy”.

Everything is another tragedy, another holocaust about to happen from a jewish point of view. That’s part of the secret of their success, they don’t let any detail slide. And when it comes to Trump, they did the same thing with Obama. They complained that he was a horrible anti-semite and every little thing he did that they didn’t like:

“Obama is a horrible anti-semite”.

So this is becoming, I think, more obvious to more Whites more quickly than it ever has in the past and Trump is, he’s not doing it on purpose. I think, … The way I understand Trump is that he is just a pragmatist. He wants to be President and he knows that all he has to do is say things that are popular. And he doesn’t care if other candidates wouldn’t say those things. They know what is popular too. They know shutting down the border, building a wall, deporting them all, all of that stuff, “Make America great again”, they try to mimic him to the extent that they can but they all answer directly to jewish donors.

The jewish donor class that funds their campaigns and who would destroy them in the media if they were to say those things that Trump is saying. Well Trump is saying it and the media is trying to destroy him, the jewish media, but he’s using Twitter and Facebook to go directly to the people. It’s the first candidate who’s really done that himself. I mean, candidates have in the past had those social media accounts, but Trump actually communicates mostly that way and most of the jews media tearing down at him is reacting to what he’s doing.

JF: Yeah, and that’s what I mean by he’s running a very effective campaign and that he’s genuine because he is himself out there operating his own Twitter account. And he speaks very well in front of crowds I think. Again, the issues that he’s bringing up are very important and resonating very deeply with, well, sort of, most of America! Well, I think a lot of his views on the border, for example, are mainstream amongst many Americans.

TAN: And even many non-Whites. He’s actually more popular with non-Whites than the media. That was one of the things that they tried on him first is:

“Oh no, he said this horrible stuff about Mexican immigrants, and that’s it, he’s lost the Mexican vote”.

The assumption being that Mexicans vote as a block and they all vote pro-immigration and the reality is different than that. And Trump has demonstrated that.

I think the other main point about Trump to keep in mind is that we’ve seen this pattern before, in fact it’s been the pattern of White politicians for a hundred years, at least the last fifty, where they promise things like Nixon did with his, “silent majority” quote. That was the thing that the “dispossessed majority” that we were talking about earlier, … Nixon talked about the “silent majority” and he talked in private with Billy Graham about that it was the jews that were the enemy and attacking him although he didn’t seem to really, fully appreciate just how much of an enemy they were. How implacable they were.

But we’ve seen it with Schwarzenegger in California. You should be familiar with that. Maggie Thatcher in Britain did it. They “dog-whistle” on race, that’s what the left calls it, dog-whistling is saying things in code like Trump does that are popular and they know are popular. But then when they get into office they don’t actually deliver.

[90:00]

When they get into office they don’t actually deliver, they do the the opposite, in a lot of cases, in fact, like Thatcher did, like Reagan did, or Nixon, uh, Trump would be a change from the normal if he were to get into office and actually try to do what he’s said he’s going to do, … Building a wall, and everything, and he said he’s going to build a wall, but he also said he’s going to have a great big door in it. That’s evidence that Trump understands that he can say whatever he wants to get elected. He tells one group of people I’m going to build a giant wall and for the benefit for the other people who are skeptics or don’t want to hear that, he says I’m going to have a big fat door in it, and he’s trusting that people are too stupid to put those two together and see that they contradict each other.

JF: Um hmm, …

TAN: And, for the most part, I don’t think it is stupidity. I think it’s just people, they want to hear, … they want leadership, certainly. White people, are just thirsty for somebody to push back against this smothering, downward spiral, that even if they don’t think in terms of race, they think in terms of their country. Their country is going to hell and they want to take their country back. Often times they don’t think any further than that – they don’t think to themselves, take if back from who? From the Mexicans? It’s not the Mexicans who let themselves in here. They don’t want to confront the fact that it’s race and it’s the jews that are the enemy.

And on Trump, the ones who are cheering for Trump, at least half of them are in that camp. They’re cheering for Trump because he’s saying things they want to hear. But they aren’t thinking beyond that to – can I really believe this guy? Is he really going to do what he’s saying? He says he loves Israel and he loves jews – his daughter’s married to one, he does business with them, … Can I really trust him to fight the enemy?

JF: Yeah, I know, those are all good points and very well taken, I think, um, we’d be fools to simply assume that Trump is just going to get in there and do everything that he’s now saying. And, as you mentioned with his comments about he wants to have a big door to let people in through the border are a little bit troublesome, yeah.

But, I mean, definitely we should hold his feet to the fire as best we can. And that my strategy has always been that as soon as he got into the campaign was to really try to reach out to his supporters, to people who are paying attention to Trump – your tea party types, your traditional conservatives and old time Republicans, and to sort of draw them into our camp. Into the race realist camp, into the quote, unquote, “anti-Semitic camp”, which, as we talked about, is just being honest about jews. And maybe that’s been effective to a certain degree, maybe not, I don’t know. But I really think we have the potential to reach out and get more and more people into our way of thinking as a result of what Donald Trump is doing with his campaign.

TAN: Yeah, it only takes a little bit of nudging because the evidence is right there for people to see, if they see it in the right way. They can see, for instance, that for the last several election cycles, Whites have been psycho-patholgized by the jewish media, that not liking, disliking and distrusting Obama is just a sign that Whites are racist. And not voting for Obama:

“You’re a racist, just because you’re White.”

You don’t even have to say that it’s because you’re White. The tea partiers are a good example of that – where they formed and the jewish media psycho-pathologizes them for being racists, and when they bend over backwards to demonstrate that they’re not racist. Meanwhile, you have jews openly expressing their dislike for Obama, even though they ended up voting for him. And their distrust for him. And they’re doing the same thing with Trump this time around and the narrative for that, is this is just jews looking out for what’s best for the jews and it makes sense.

JF: Right.

Tan: To me, that’s one of the things you can point to your mom or pop, or neighbor next door, as something very obvious: That jews are not White, they’re not treated to the same standard politically as Whites. The jews can organize like any non-White group for their own best interest, do it openly, and there’s no problem. In fact the problem only starts if YOU say there’s something wrong with it, then you’re a racist hater.

Meanwhile, Whites, just the rumor of Whites starting White student unions is this unthinkable disaster from the Jewish media’s point of view. They can’t stand the idea that Whites might actually organize. Even if it’s just a rumor – and I don’t think it is just a rumor, I think there actually is a nugget, a growing awareness that Whites are having, that it’s not going well and I think there’s a nugget, a growing awareness that Whites are having that, this is not going well and it’s because they’re White, that they’re going to have to face this at some time or another. The jew thing I think will come after that, for some people the jew thing comes first and then they discover Whiteness. It depends.

JF: Right, obviously both of them are interrelated and connected and very, … They are easy to piece together once you start thinking about these things.

TAN: Right, the opposite of what Jared Taylor said, is that they’re two separate things, they’re not related to each other.

JF: And anybody being honest should recognize that. Hey, Tanstaafl, we are going to go ahead and wrap up now, this has been a very interesting discussion for sure and I just want to thank you so much for taking time out of your busy day to join me here today.

TAN: Well, I thank you John for having me on, you’re very knowledgeable, you understand things very well and you articulate yourself very well, you put it very well. Whenever I hear you speak about these issues, I’m always impressed.

JF: Thank you, I appreciate that, that certainly means a lot coming from you, because I’ve learned quite a bit over the years from reading your site and listening to your radio program. So I really do appreciate that!

TAN: Thank you.

JF: OK. Thanks Tan and thanks everybody.

[96:00]

END

 See Also:

The Realist Report Interviews TANSTAAFL — 2016 — TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report – Tanstaafl: The Jew As A Parasite — TRANSCRIPT

Luke Ford – JQ Debate with Age Of Treason – Mar 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

 

ALL AMERICA MUST KNOW

THE TERROR

THAT IS UPON US

By Dr. Revilo P. Oliver

From a speech by Dr. Revilo P. Oliver,

University of Illinois Professor of the Classics,

in March, 1959, before the

DAUGHTERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

Annual Illinois State Convention

Supplementary notes are provided to document

and, in a few instances, to expand and explain

statements made in the speech on March 12, 1959.

CONSERVATIVE VIEWPOINT

POST OFFICE BOX 1808

BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301

JUNE 1966

FORWARD

No single paper, pamphlet, booklet, more expanded text can even remotely challenge the number of reprints that have been made of this famous speech. A total circulation of “many” millions has certainly been reached.

Now, in mid 1966, Dr. Oliver has kindly extended the related “documentation” which, in many instances, is even more revealing than the original speech.

Over seven years of additional treachery fully substantiate any and all conclusions drawn or implied and completely support his bold and frightening analysis. To suggest that “treason is the reason” is the understatement of the week. This originally relatively casual “recital” of many obvious acts of treason, has now earned its place in history. Yet there remain untold millions who are not awake.

Too many well informed patriots forget how little the uninformed really comprehend. We are prone to forget that we too learned of the conspiracy piece by piece. It is very reasonable to assume that the proper moment in history has finally been reached.

By your efforts to “each one reach one”, and then by multiplying that effort as God gives you strength it is very “reasonable to assume” that untold millions will now “awake”.

Read (or re-read) this revealing speech. Then study (or re-study) the supporting documentary supplement. Obtain such books as you require to expand your knowledge on any of the many related subjects. Books marked in BOLD in the “notes” are available through CONSERVATIVE VIEWPOINT, P. O. BOX 1808, Bakersfield, Calif. 9330l.

Resolve all over again that any amount of effort on “our” part at this point in history, “beats the alternatives”. The only conceivable “alternative” is, of course to simply submit (it has been “planned that way”) to a course of inaction that will culminate in your butchery and the butchery of your loved ones, at the hands of the bolshevik beast.

CONSERVATIVE VIEWPOINT

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr. Revilo Pendleton Oliver is Professor of the Classics at the University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois. He was born in Texas, went to high school in Illinois and California was an undergraduate in Pomona College (Claremount, California), and obtained the degree of Ph.D. at Illinois under the late great Professor William Abbott Oldfather. For many years he has taught, almost entirely, graduate students in Classical Philology, and for a number of those years he also gave graduate courses in Spanish and Italian.

He has traveled widely. After World War II he was awarded a Guggenheim Post-Service Fellowship. In 1953-54, he spent a year in Italy on a Fulbright Research Fellowship exploring Renaissance manuscripts in the famous Italian libraries.

He is a scholar of international reputation. He has published scholarly articles in four languages in twelve learned periodicals of the United States and Europe. His first book was an annotated translation from the Sanskrit, “Mreehakatika” (“The Little Clay Cart”) published by the University of Illinois in 1938. He is a member of fourteen learned societies in the United States and Europe, and has been an officer in several of these.

During World War II, he was Director of Research in a secret agency of the War Department, and was cited for outstanding service to his country. In this position his attention was first called to the magnitude of Communist penetration in this country, and the information which he then acquired has enabled him to follow the progress of the Communist conquest of the world abroad and of the Communist conspiracy at home. To expose the conspiracy he has written many book reviews and articles in periodicals such as American Opinion (in which he writes the monthly “Review of Reviews”), Modern Age, American Progress, Free Enterprise, Christian Economics, National Review and even Nation’s Business in which as long ago as 1934, he pointed out, in two articles, the dangers and folly of socialistic agencies of the New Deal.

Professor Oliver is one of the very few college professors who are speaking publicly against Communism. He has made numerous appearances before patriotic groups, service clubs, forums, and on radio and television.

Professor Oliver’s speeches and articles on Communism are his contribution as a loyal American to the preservation on his country. This is a burden voluntarily assumed as a private citizen, and has, of course, no connection with his professional work in teaching and scholarly research in the field of Classical Philosophy at the University of Illinois.

[Image] Dr. Oliver answers questions from the audience with Dr. Dale Scholz as moderator, Decatur, Illinois, March 18, 1964.

ALL AMERICA MUST KNOW

THE TERROR THAT IS UPON US

By Dr. Revilo P. Oliver

You have doubtless seen the recent and cleverly advertised book entitled What We Must Know About Communism by Harry and Eonaro Overstreet. It is a strange book. I cannot take time to analyze it or to discuss the possible motives for the authors silence about the most important parts of the vast web of subversion that extends from the humblest primary school to the highest court in our land. But I shall limit myself to matters that the Overstreets ignore or evade. And I can give only the most perfunctory summary of a few selected aspects of the terror that is upon us.

[Image] What We Must Know About Communism (1965).

I first encountered Communists and their allies, the “liberal intellectuals,” when I was a lad in college, and I then formed the impression of them that so many people of my generation still carry in their minds. The pro-Communists among my fellows were so childish and so ignorant! Many of them, to be sure, were glib enough in parroting the phrases and arguments they had heard or read, but they obviously belong to the group that worked hard only to avoid hard intellectual work. They talked, and they seemed to believe, Marxism, a crude and absurd superstition that can be taken seriously by no one who has any knowledge of human history and Occidental culture.

There were also a few members of the faculty who were obviously pro-Communist — remember that this was years and years ago, and the college in which I was an undergraduate was not so progressive as others even at that time a few members of the faculty, I say, but they were all teaching the “science” of “education” or some similar bunk that was obviously a fraud on the public and an insult to the intelligence of an educated man. My friends and I thought the Commies, young and old, very funny.

We had all heard, of course, of what had happened in Russia, but we did not know then what everyone knows now, that the Bolshevik butchery in Russia had been organized in the United States, financed from the United States, and carried out by a gang of 1,700 disciplined assassins, most of whom came from New York City. [l] And in any case Russia was a distant and barbarous country, and nothing could be more ludicrous than a suggestion that what happened there could conceivably happen here…

[Page 1]

I spent the war mostly in Washington, in the most secret department of the Army, and my first shock virtually coincided with the beginning of my work there. One of our basic maxims was this: “Remember that everything that is known in the White House is known in the Kremlin.” That was a shock at the time, although now, of course, everyone who has read at all about Communism knows that Roosevelt’s assistant, Lauchlin Currie, a counterpart of the more recently infamous Sherman Adams, was a Communist agent and that he, with a trained corps of at least thirty traitors, presided over all the activities of the White House.

[Image] Lauchlin Currie (left) and Sherman Adams

It was not until later that Harry Hopkins, the man who dispatched to Moscow all the plans for the atomic bomb together with the materials necessary to manufacture it, moved into the White House to supervise the work of treason. [2] At that time Washington was full of Communists, both domestic and foreign, and they had already obtained that complete control of most of the governmental bureaus that they have held ever since and progressively increased. It was a matter of common knowledge that in many of the civilian agencies only persons approved by the Communist party could hold offices of any responsibility. That is, of course, mere commonplace now, and, in informed circles, was mere commonplace then.

We all know, for example that Congressman Dies of Texas happened to obtain photographs of a part of the Communist records which showed that 2,500 members of just three governmental departments — State, Justice, and Interior were card-carrying members of the Communist Party. He took those records to President Roosevelt, who in one of those fits of almost insane temper to which he was so frequently subject, screamed out, “Many of my best friends are Communists!,” and ordered the Congressman from the room. [3]

It is not so generally known that a presidential order commanded the Naval Intelligence service immediately to cease all inquiry into the activities of Communists, whether domestic or alien, and to destroy all records concerning Communist traitors and spies.

Washington was in 1942 what it is today — a city in which, as one bureaucrat complacently assured me, “you’ve got to be a Communist to get anywhere.” [4] It was even a city in which it was dangerous to be an American. I was there during the obscene farce — in many ways a tragic farce called the “Sedition Trial.” Everyone in Washington knew that the one purpose of this trial was to intimidate Americans. Read about it sometime. Thirty men and women from all over the country, most of whom had never even heard of one another and who had in common only outspoken criticism of Communism, were hauled to Washington in handcuffs and leg irons, imprisoned in cells kept dark so that they could not read, and subjected to the most fantastic trial for conspiracy ever conducted outside Russia or an admittedly satellite state. [5]

The presiding judge, Eicher, who had, I understand, been appointed on the demand of Felix Frankfurter, was one of the new breed of Federal judges, that is to say, viciously corrupt, and he finally died while under impeachment for malfeasance in office.

The Assistant Attorney General of the U. S. who prosecuted the case was another protégé of Felix Frankfurter, and he was rewarded for his efforts when in 1950 he went to Russia as the personal guest of Stalin.

The Hungarian revolt provides one of the hundreds of bits of evidence that show the close cooperation between the Kremlin and the bureaucracy that captured Washington under Franklin Roosevelt and has been expanding and strengthening itself ever since.

When the Hungarian people spontaneously rose in revolt, they were, as several refugees have assured me, cozened and confused by lying broadcasts from the radio station that is so sardonically called Radio Free Europe. This station, which, as Fulton Lewis has recently shown, [6] is staffed largely by Communist agents, is supported by secret grants from C.I.A., our Central Intelligence Agency. It is also supported by funds collected every year from the American people. That is just a bit of Communist humor. They delight in tricking Americans into contributing money. to ostensibly charitable enterprises for their own destruction.

[Page 3]

When the Hungarians suffered, and died, and begged in vain for help, only one nation in Europe dared to offer them even a modicum of assistance. That was Spain, a nation headed by General Francisco Franco, whom the Communist-dominated press in the United States so regularly vilifies. Spain agreed to send the Hungarians the weapons they most desperately needed, anti-tank guns. Spain arranged to transport the guns in her own planes, and arranged with Germany to permit these planes, on their return trip, to land to refuel, since the Spanish planes could not carry enough gasoline for a round trip. Now our Central Intelligence Agency, which seems never to be able to discover anything to the advantage of the United States, quickly found out about the Spanish plan to help the Hungarians.

The C.I.A. transmitted the information to our State Department, which immediately went into action and brought very strong pressure to bear on the German government to cancel the permission that had been given for the Spanish planes to refuel on their return journey. Thus was Washington able to save the Russians considerable inconvenience during their massacre of the Hungarians. [7]

The Central Intelligence Agency is an organization so secret that even our senators are not allowed to know anything of its operations. But, as was recently disclosed in National Review, the head of any section of this agency has full power to employ even persons whose Communists records are in the files of the F.B.I. The agency has undoubtedly undergone progressive change in the past nine years. It was in June, 1949, you will remember, that Admiral Hillenkoetter, who was then head of the agency, received an inquiry from Senator McCarran concerning one hundred new appointees to the United Nations staff. Admiral Hillenkoetter replied that according to a preliminary check of his records 29 of these appointees were officers in the Communist Party and that 32 others were known members of the Russian espionage system. Admiral Hillenkoetter was immediately transferred to a desolate outpost in the Pacific. This was, of course, but one of the many incidents by which our army and navy officers have been shown that they dare not do anything that would displease our Communist conspirators.

[Page 4]

I trust that you have not overlooked the latest triumph of what may fairly be called the Washington-Moscow Axis. The Batistia government in Cuba was not, to be sure, a perfect government, but it probably was as good a government as one could ever reasonably expect to find in an island largely populated by mongrels. [9] Batista, however, had committed the one sin that is unforgivable in the eyes of the people who call themselves our “liberal intellectuals”: he was an enemy of Communism. Not only was he a reliable ally of the United States, but he had even gone so far as to sever diplomatic relations with Russia, an act which greatly embarrassed our State Department. It was clear, therefore, that he must be eliminated. Accordingly the revolt led by Fidel Castro was organized. You will recall that some of the preparations for it were quite openly made in Florida.

Now although Castro thought it worth while to say that he is not himself a member of the Communist Party, his principal assistants including his brother, were notorious Communists, and no reasonable person, even slightly acquainted with Latin-American affairs, could ever have doubted that the Castro revolt was a Communist operation intended primarily to secure bases for the many Russian submarines which are constantly cruising along our Atlantic Coast, and to permit the establishment of rocket bases within one hundred miles of American soil. [10]

During the progress of his takeover in Cuba, Castro received supplies from Russian submarines, and, of course, vast quantities from the United States. The shipments from Florida were, of course, technically smuggled to him, but oddly enough our government was never able to intercept them.

But even with this help Castro would have failed but for the energetic intervention of our State Department. The technique used is, of course, a standard procedure and should be quite familiar to all of us by now.

You will recall that when General George Marshall was sent to China to arrange for the Communist occupation of that country, he was able to accomplish his mission by simply cutting off from General Chiang Kai-Shek the supplies of ammunition that he needed for his soldier’s rifles, which were all, of course, of American manufacture. $150,000,000 worth of ammunition on ships that were about to land was simply dumped in the ocean, and, of course, no further shipments were made. Thus Chiang Kai-Shek’s men could not use even their rifles to say nothing of machine guns and artillery, and he had to retreat before the Communist invaders, who had been equipped with the huge Japanese stores of weapons and munitions that we had turned over to them in Manchuria.

Following this established pattern, our State Department cut off all supplies of ammunition to the small army of Colonel Batista in Cuba, which was, of course, equipped with weapons purchased in the United States. Even ammunition that Batista had bought and already paid for was confiscated on the docks. It seems quite clear that Batista’s men did not desert, they simply had nothing to shoot. [12]

You will also remember that while the great betrayal in China was under way under the direction of such eminent figures as General Marshall and Professor Owen Lattimore, the controlled press in this country was filled with propaganda to the effect that Chiang Kai-Shek was a scoundrel, and that the Communists in China were just innocent “agrarian reformers.”

The same technique is, of course, now being used. The press is once again filled with manufactured reports of the past iniquities of Batista, and with glowing accounts of Fidel Castro as an “agrarian reformer” and the “George Washington of Cuba.”

If the American people can be hypnotized by this concerted campaign in the press and over the radio, the situation in Cuba should be properly “stabilized” in about two years. Then you will witness another act in the farce. You will recall that when the Communists were firmly established in China, our “experts” blandly told us:

“Oops! We said they was agrarian reformers, but we was mistaken. They’s Communists after all. Ha-ha-ha!”

As soon as the Russians have built their submarine bases and set up the launching fields for ballistic missiles in Cuba, our State Department will no doubt again tell us:

“Oops!

 

We were mistaken. But now that launching sites for atomic missiles have been set up within one hundred miles of the United States, war is unthinkable, ain’t it?”

[Page 6]

By the way, you will probably witness in the next few months the destruction of our only remaining ally in the Caribbean — our only certain ally south of Canada, the Dominican Republic. That was, to my mind, clearly forecast by the Galindez affair three years ago, but it has now been made quite certain by our recent official proclamation, issued over the name of President Eisenhower, to the effect that we look with great disapproval upon “dictators” such as General Trujillo. [14]

The Communist underground is our real danger, and no one can accurately measure its total strength. Its members all vociferously deny that they are Communists, and they are so organized that when everything is working properly no one conspirator can positively identify more than five of his accomplices. Louis Budenz recounts with wry humor that when he had worked himself far enough up in the Communist Party to become managing editor of the Daily Worker and a member of the official party’s national executive council, he began to fancy himself a person of some importance, until one of his superiors remarked dryly, “Son, all that you have seen is just the periscope of the submarine.” [15]

On 3 March 1958 Congressman, Francis E. Walter published a report that “the Kremlin has succeeded in enlisting, at a conservative estimate, more than a million Americans … There are at this moment the equivalent of some twenty combat divisions of enemy troops on American soil … troops that are loyal only to the Soviets.” In other words, you are now living in a country that has been partly occupied. Unless the American people now make a desperate effort to save themselves, they will, within four years, I think, find themselves in the position of the Hungarians when they made their frantic effort to regain their freedom three years ago.

There are two basic facts that one must bear in mind when one tries to understand Communists.

[Page 7]

First, all the talk about an “ideological struggle” is mostly nonsense. No Communist, except gullible college boys and other children, really believes in the doctrine of socialism. Marx’s absurd theories are merely a propaganda device, a means to an end. The intellectual processes of the Communist have been well explained by Czeslaw Milosz in his Captive Mind, and by Gerhart Niemeyer in his Inquiry Into the Soviet Mentality, but they were best epitomized by Duane Thorin. [16]

This young American, who had somehow escaped brainwashing in his high school and college, was taken prisoner in Korea and interrogated for months by the Chinese Communists who sought to convert him. He received some attention from a really important Communist official, and his native shrewdness enabled him to see that the Communists who make the decisions had only contempt for their inferiors who really believed the Marxist propaganda. As Thorin neatly puts it: “Intellects that failed to see through the falsities of Communism were so arrested that they were of only limited use in the totalitarian state.”

It is quite incorrect, therefore, to say of a Communist, unless you mean that he is a fool, that he believes in Communism. Communism is not a theory in which men may believe; it is a conspiracy in which men participate. So far as Communism has an intellectual basis, that basis may be found in the doctrine, not of Karl Marx, but of John Dewey. [17] The Communist is the perfect Pragmatist; he is a Nihilist; he believes that there is no such thing as truth. He repudiates and hates all the traditions and culture of the Past; there is no truth, there is no value in the world but the satisfaction of his own whims and appetites, whatever they may be. Intellectually speaking, he is a beast — perhaps the lowest and most dangerous of all beasts.

Perhaps the neatest illustration of the intellectual processes of a Communist and the jargon that he loves to use will be found in comments made to me by a university president some time ago. I had happened to mention the old ideal of scholarship and learning: disinterested pursuit of truth. I thought that he would at least pay lip service to this ideal, but he interrupted me imperiously.

[Page 8]

“There is no truth but social truth,” he said.

“And what,” I asked, “is social truth?”

He replied quite simply: “It is what it is expedient for a society to tell its members.”

“And who,” I asked, “determines what story is expedient to tell the suckers?”

He smiled. “WE do.”

Now I cannot be certain that the man in question was a member of the Communist underground, but the reasoning that he employed is that of the Communist mind. There is no truth; there is only expediency. Truth, in other words, is lies.

But intellectual nihilism, the repudiation of all concepts of truth, justice, humanity, is not sufficient to explain the terrible energy of the Communist conspiracy. That energy is emotional: it is a lust, a craving, a passion. I had my first glimpse of this passion early in my days in Washington.

I met a young man who had just come into the army. He looked like an amiable college boy, and, as a matter of fact, he had been graduated from law school only two or three days before. He had been working for the Labor Relations Board, and he enthusiastically described to me the way in which he and his colleagues would railroad small American corporations that were inclined to be recalcitrant, seize their books and cart them off, ostensibly for the purpose of photographing them, but actually to force the company, paralyzed by the loss of its records, to submit. I was a little shocked, and I asked, “Lieutenant, didn’t it seem to you that you were violating the constitutional rights of American business men?” He was a young man, and he answered promptly, “Rights? Why, they’re capitalists. When we stand them up against a wall, we shoot them in the belly: they die longer that way.”

That was how I first came to suspect the real orientation of Communist minds, but only after years of observations, and with help from the illuminating analysis by Denis de Rougemont, did I realize that the young man was exceptional only in the readiness with which he let slip the mask. The true Communist, whatever disguise he may wear when he moves among you, is, in the literal and exact meaning of the English word, a thug, that is, a man who has made a religion of murder. [18]

[Page 9]

He is driven by an overwhelming lust to destroy and uproot to annihilate civilization, to kill — and even more than that, to make decent men and women suffer, to degrade them to the level of animals. And he will work constantly, tirelessly, with infinite cunning for his ideal: The day when he will drag you from your home, kick in your teeth, crack your ribs, and throw you into a slave-labor camp where you will drag out the rest of your life in a degradation that you have never imagined even in nightmares. That is what he yearns for. Economic and social theories are merely a disguise to befuddle suckers.

In 1872, when the headquarters of the international Communist conspiracy were openly and officially transferred to New York City, there were only a few hundred people in the United States who were inspired by this bloodlust. But they went to work, patiently, doggedly, and with vicious cunning, to extend their tentacles over the entire nation. They went underground. By 1876 practically all of the members, including, of course, the new recruits, had been instructed to conceal their membership and deny that they were Communists; to penetrate existing American organizations, and to help one another attain positions of influence and power in those organizations; to work for the Communist goal under the guise of “social reform” and “democracy.” This is, of course, the basic strategy that has been followed ever since.

By 1907 the Communists were strong enough to organize a wing of the party that operated openly under the leadership of a criminal named William Z. Foster. [19] One of Foster’s closest associates and advisers, in 1907 or soon thereafter, was Felix Frankfurter, an immigrant who had wormed his way into the post of secretary to the Secretary of War in the cabinet of President Howard Taft.

By 1910 the first big Communist cell was planted in an American university — Harvard, of course. So far as I have been able to learn, the famous cells in Teachers College of Columbia University were not organized until somewhat later.

[Page 10]

By 1917 the Communist conspiracy in the United States was strong enough directly to affect the policies of the American government. As everyone knows, the Communist seizure of power in Russia was carried out by criminals trained in the United States. A whole shipload of this vermin was sent from New York City under the command of a butcher named Leib Bronstein, who became famous under one of his many aliases, Leon Trotsky. This ship was intercepted by the British Navy and taken to Halifax, but a vigorous protest from President Wilson forced the British to release this shipment of human germs and escort it to Russia. [20]

The pressure on Wilson doubtless came from several sources, but the most importance seems to have been a banker named Jakob Schiff, who had been the financial manager of Wilson’s presidential campaign, and whose banking house, Kuhn, Loeb & Co., had more than a year earlier deposited in Swedish banks $50,000,000 in the name of Trotsky and another degenerate whose true name and early career has never been satisfactorily ascertained but who is known to history as Nikolai Lenin. [21]

In 1918 Felix Frankfurter was publicly denounced by former President Theodore Roosevelt as a soul-mate of Lenin and Trotsky. He accordingly retired from the American government to a professorship in Harvard University, where he settled down to train two generations of traitors and slip them into positions of responsibility in Washington or into law schools throughout the nation. Alger Hiss was but one of the hundreds whom Frankfurter prepared for their important tasks. [22]

I have mentioned these dates primarily to remind you of the great progress that the Communist conspiracy made before 1919, when they decided to set up an official political party headed by William Z. Foster. This official party, the segment of the conspiracy that is openly displayed, has never been large. It probably has never had over 90,000 card-carrying member’s at any one time.

[Page 11]

It has served on the one hand as a recruiting and testing agency to enlist talented conspirators who, after they had proven their worth and ability, could quietly be transferred to one or another division of the underground, and it has served on the other hand as a shield to mask and facilitate the work of the part of the apparatus that consists of conspirators who pose as “liberal intellectuals,” and who urge the American people to save themselves from Communism by reforming their legal and economic system along Communist lines at home, and by taxing themselves to finance Communist governments abroad.

Now these foreign events, although, of course, designed to weaken further our military position, are in the Communist plans, strictly subordinate to the great program of internal subversion. This also has its center in Washington. Let me call your attention to one detail that you may not have noticed. We have all read about the president’s so called “economy” budget, and the loud yammering in Congress for increased expenditures, which is, of course, primarily a means of making foolish Americans think they have gained something if merely the crippling burden of that “economy” budget is dumped on their backs. Taxation has always been one of the primary instruments of the Communist conspiracy. You may remember the famous remark that is attributed to Harry Hopkins, I know not how accurately: “We have to bleed the American pigs dry before we butcher them.”

But in this “economy” budget one should note which department of government was granted the largest increase. It is the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, which, in this budget, is granted a total outlay of $3,139,719,000 — an increase of one billion dollars over 1954. [23] Now this is the agency that is spending its money to promote such things as fluoridation of public water supplies. [24]

By the way you are here on the scene of one of their great triumphs, probably a triumph obtained by lavish expenditures from the Federal treasury. The unfortunate people of Chicago were ordered by the little dictator in their city hall to drink water contaminated with sodium fluoride, and they are now drinking it, and are not even allowed to express their own opinion by a vote.

[Page 12]

The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare is also the agency that is currently promoting another Communist scheme to enlist the services of well-meaning dupes under the guise of “social good.” The current agitation about Mental Health was begun by the World Health Organization whose president was that ubiquitous traitor, Alger Hiss. It is sponsored in this country by the National Association for Mental Health, whose director, Julius Schreiber, refused to tell a Congressional committee whether or not he was a Communist on the grounds that his answer might incriminate him. [25]

But the greatest promotion is, of course, done with your money by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. In this one department observers in Washington estimate that 75% to 80% of the responsible officers are conspirators. [26]

I have said enough, I think, to suggest how desperate our situation is. Our ancestors were never confronted by a danger so terrible and so immediate.

But I permit myself to see some hope. As the huge sale of the Overstreet book shows. The American people, who watched in a narcotic apathy, induced by the press and the radio, while the Communist conspiracy struck down the late Senator Joseph McCarthy, are at last becoming faintly aware of their danger. Some people everywhere have been made uneasy by such outrageous exhibitions of Communist confidence as the use of paratroopers in Little Rock to overawe Americans who thought that they had constitutional rights. [27] Protest is at last being heard against taxes that are imposed ostensibly for “welfare” and “progress,” but in reality merely to bleed dry what Hopkins called “the American pigs.” Farmers are rejecting the bribes offered them by the commissars, and resenting governmental terrorism. And what is even more important, on the local level in many a community people are becoming aware of the real purposes behind such things as regional planning, fluoridation, “mental health,” “counseling programs” in the schools, and the many other local activities that serve the Communist purpose of persuading the boobs to fasten on themselves their own chains.

I know of no more clear and concise program for Americans than that which you set forth in the magnificent set of resolutions adopted last April by your Continental Congress. [28] I may say that I first permitted myself to hope when I read those resolutions in the pages of American Mercury, a magazine which, by the way, the Communist conspiracy through its control of the distributing agencies, has succeeded in barring from most of the nation’s newsstands. [29]

[Page 13]

Remember that the tentacles of the conspiracy reach into your home town, where its puppets are promoting fluoridation “mental health,” and innumerable other plans to accustom us to gradually increasing slavery and intimidation. On these issues also you have in your resolutions given Americans a program for action.

Take that program and act by it in all matters, national or local. Make your voice heard. Each one of you belongs to a club or a social circle. Speak out: tell Americans of their danger. I ask you for courage and resolution: you have displayed them as an organization, now display them as individuals in the community to which you belong.

This may, I know, entail some sacrifice. But our ancestors risked their lives and their honor to create this nation. Is it too much to ask us to risk our lives, if necessary, to recapture it from our enemies?

_______________________________

NOTES

The following notes are provided to document and, in a few instances, to expand and explain statements made in the speech which I gave before the Daughters of the American Revolution on March 12, 1959.

I have limited myself to a few basic references, citing, wherever possible, sources that may be easily obtained at the present time; full documentation would require many pages.

Books of which I give the title in CAPITAL LETTERS may be obtained at the prices indicated, from:

CONSERVATIVE VIEWPOINT

P. O. Box 1808

Bakersfield, California 93301

The most recent and concise survey of treason and subversion in the United States is John Stormer’s excellent book, NONE DARE CALL IT TREASON (75c). I accordingly cite is as basic documentation, and do not repeat in the following notes authority for statements (e.g. about Lallehlin Currie’s Communist connections) that may easily be verified by consulting the index of Mr. Stormer’s book and turning to the indicated pages.

[Page 14]

1,700 DISCIPLINED ASSASSINS

l. On the planning of the Bolshevik capture of Russia in New York City, see especially Boris Brazol, The World at Cross Roads (Boston, 1921; out­-of-print). Some of this information is repeated by Arsene de Goulevitch in his recent CZARISM AND REVOLUTION ($4.00), pp. 231 ff. On the financing of the Bolsheviks, see note 21 below.

If 1,700 seems a small number for the capture of so huge a country, remember that Bronstein, alias Trotsky, boasted that he had paralyzed the centralized Russian government and taken over with only one thousand perfectly disciplined men in the right places; he used the “correct tactics,” which were best described by Major Frank Pease in his booklet, Tech­nicians and Revolution (out-of-print and very rare). Many Bolseviks had, of course, been planted in the Russian government. It is sometimes forgotten that the Bolseviks captured Russia with comparatively little blood­ shed. It was not until after they had captured the government and supreme power that they began the wholesale butchery of decent Russians, of whom they eventually murdered some 20,000,000 [*The numbers have been re-adjusted since to between 60,000,000 to 120,000,000] for the fun of it. The victims naturally included many “intellectuals” and other over-educated nitwits whom the criminals had manipulated and used in the early stages of their take-over.

It is significant that a large part of the gang came from New York City. The Reverend Mr. George A. Simons, who had been in Russia in 1917, testified before the Senate Subcommittee on the Judiciary on February 12, 1919, that he had recognized many of the Bolshevik leaders and agitators as persons he had known in New York; he cited statistics to the effect that out of 388 major officials of the Bolshevik regime in St. Petersburg in December, 1918, only 16 were Russians; of the remaining 372, one was a negro from the United States and 265 were known to have come from the East Side of New York City. Robert Wilton, correspondent of the London Times in Russia for seventeen years, investigated the antecedents of the 565 most important Bolshevik officials in 1918-1919, and found that only 17 were Russians. See his Last Days of the Romanovs (London, 1920; out-of-print) and also the additional data given in the French translation, Les derniers jours de Romanof (out-of-print).

HARRY HOPKINS

2. Harry Hopkins’ acts of treason connected with the development of the atomic bomb were first discussed by Major George Racey Jordan in FROM MAJOR JORDAN’S DIARIES ($2.00). This treason continued, of course, after Hopkins died, and there is good reason to believe that the first atomic bombs exploded by the Soviet were assembled from parts shipped from the United States; see Medford Evans (former Security officer for the Atomic Energy Commission), THE SECRET WAR FOR THE A-BOMB ($4.00). For another aspect of Hopkins’ activity, see Admiral William M. Standley’s Admiral Ambassador to Russia (out-of-print).

CONGRESSMAN DIES

3. In his latest book, MARTIN DIES’ STORY ($3.00), Congressman Dies says that Roosevelt was “furious,” but he does not say that, as gossip in Washington reported at the time, he was ordered from the room. Congressman Dies now writes regularly for American Opinion.

[Page 16]

BASIC FORMULA FOR SUCCESS

4. When the bureaucrat said “a Communist,” he probably meant anyone willing to accept Communism as an inevitable “wave of the future,” whether or not an actual Party member.

5. The most concise account of the “Sedition Trial” is to be found in The Sedition Case, compiled and published by the Lutheran Research Society in 1953; I understand that the book has just gone out of print. The book by Maximilian St. George and Lawrence Dennis, A Trial on Trial, was published before the absurd charges were finally dismissed; it is now out-of-print.

RADIO FREE EUROPE

6. Broadcasts on this subject were given by Fulton Lewis, Jr., in November and December, 1958. On the background of Ripka and many other officials of Radio Free Europe, see Professor Kurt Glaser’s CZECHO­SLOVAKIA: A CRITICAL HISTORY ($5.50).

7. And, as was later disclosed, the State Department sent to Comrade Tito in Yugoslavia, obviously for transmission to his superiors in the Kremlin, an official note stating that the United States did not want a non-Communist government established in Hungary. With this assurance of the cooperation of Washington, the Soviet was emboldened to send in its Mongolian hordes to butcher the Hungarians.

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

8. On Admiral Hillenkoetter, see Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, AMERICA’S RETREAT FROM VICTORY ($3.00). Since I spoke, the enemies of the United States have acquired an apparently total control of our armed forces. When the Communist Conspiracy drove General Edwin A. Walker from the U. S. Army in 1961, it was obviously proclaiming its complete mastery of our Army. There have been many acts of terrorism to intimidate and silence military men who are loyal to the United States. For a partial list, see the forthcoming book by Major Arch E. Roberts, VICTORY DENIED (75c paper, $3.95 cloth).

BATISTA

9. I call attention to the presence of a large number of mongrels (hybrids) in Cuba because that is a fundamental datum. Official estimates of the population of Cuba are roughly in agreement, differing by only a small percentage in each category. An estimate for 1956 is: white, 71.8%; mulatto, 14.5%; negro, 13.4%; mongolian,0.3%. Everyone agrees that the first figure is much too high and the second too low, since octoroons usually, and quadroons frequently, escape across the color line. The exact figures do not great matter. It is a rule of thumb in military intelligence (see, for example, William M. McGovern’s STRATEGIC INTELLIGENCE AND THE SHAPE OF TOMORROW, $4.00) that whenever ten percent or more of the population of a country is composed of a visibly different race, there will exist, no matter what the government or the dominant race may try to do about it, tensions which represent major and irremediable internal weakness. If there is, in addition, a large hybrid population, it must be taken for granted that the internal situation is potentially explosive and that government must be either more or less despotic or highly unstable.

[Page 17]

On the current Bolshevik use of racial antagonism to expedite the liquidation of decent Cubans remaining on the island, see John Martino’s excellent book, I WAS CASTRO’S PRISONER ($4.75).

The laws of nature cannot be repealed by the squawking of “Liberals” and neurotic “do-gooders.” The current situation in Cyprus is an excellent illustration, and could, of course, have been predicted with mathematical certainty by any rational man years ago. For another current example, consider the old Belgian territory of Huanda-Urundi, where it was certain that as soon as the Belgian troops were withdrawn, the Bantus would begin to exterminate the Watusi, as they are now doing.

Racial repulsions are powerful and ineluctable forces; they frequently exist where the differences are overlooked by casual observers. Few Americans realize, for example, that the upheavals in China during the early part of the present century were to a considerable extent caused by racial tensions between the Manchus and the Chinese majority.

CASTRO

10. In a speech available on a long-playing phonograph record ($4.00), it takes me fifty minutes to summarize the evidence which was available before January, 1959, to prove conclusively that Castro was a Soviet agent.

GENERAL GEORGE MARSHALL

11. The most concise account of the betrayal of China to the Communists is Senator McCarthy’s book, AMERICA’S RETREAT FROM VICTORY ($3.00).

12. When I said that “Baptista’s men did not desert,” I did not know that some of his ranking officers had been urged to betray him by “our” Central Intelligence Agency. Although observers earlier suspected that the super-secret C.I.A. had promoted the Communist conquest of Cuba, no proof was available until Ambassador Earl E. T. Smith testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security in August, 1960; see Smith’s THE FOURTH FLOOR ($5.00). It is now virtually certain that some of Batista’s officers accepted large bribes to sabotage operations against the Communists; it is not unlikely that the bribes were provided by American taxpayers, but no proof is available or will be available until the Central Intelligence Agency is investigated by Congress and forced to explain its participation in many acts of treason. Thus far, Congressmen have not been permitted to know how much of your money they appropriate for the C.I.A., since its funds are siphoned out of other appropriation by trick bookkeeping. The only specific information on the use of these funds was provided by a defector from the Soviet Secret Police (see articles in the New York, Journal-American, March 2-5, 1964), who knew what had been done with one remittance of $1,200,000 to the C.I.A.’s office in Vienna: one-third of this sum was given directly to the Soviet Secret Police, one-third was sent to the Communist Party in Italy, and the remaining one-third was sent back to the United States to the Communist Party here – doubtless to help finance the campaign against “right-wing extremists.”

[Page 18]

Of course, $1,200,000 is a very small sum of money when one considers the scale on which the C.I.A. operates; observers, including Americans who were in the C.I.A. in its early days, estimate that it now extracts between one billion and two billion dollars per year from American taxpayers.

13. Of course, the Soviet bases are still in Cuba and are constantly being expanded and supplied with the best missiles that Soviet Russia can manufacture with the aid of working drawings and, perhaps models supplied from the United States. For a description of some of the missiles now in position for use against us, see the report by Eduardo Ulacia in The Guide (Coral Gable, Florida), March 2, 1966, pp. 1, 14, 17. Naturally, such news does not appear in our crypto-Communist controlled press, which believes that its function is to keep the American sheep quiet until butchering time.

At the time that I spoke, I did not foresee that Washington had another and even more important purpose in establishing a Soviet fortress in Cuba. The island now serves as a convenient center for training the technicians who are to direct the looting and burning of American cities when the “Civil Rights” program, financed by the captive American taxpayers, gets under way. The incident in Watts, California, was only a small-scale rehearsal for the real violence of which our “Liberals” have long dreamed. Cuba is also the location of radio stations that constantly exhort Negros in the United States to exterminate white men and rape white women as a necessary preliminary to racial equality.

EISENHOWER

14. When I spoke in March, 1959, my best estimate was that the State Department and its allies planned to convert the Dominican Republic into a Communist base before the end of 1960, which meant that the operation to overthrow General Trujillo would have to begin before the summer of that year. I am inclined to believe now that the planned operation was postponed rather than risk the possibility that the American people would insist on action in Cuba. A number of nasty “right-wing extremists” were publicly telling the truth about Castro early in 1959, and by the fall of that year they were able to give the exact location of various Soviet bases then under construction. Although the puke­machines of press and radio were able to keep the American people confused and paralyzed for the necessary length of time, the Conspiracy could not be absolutely certain in advance that they would succeed in doing so. A Communist operation in the Dominican Republic, if carried out before the bases in Cuba were complete, would have greatly increased the risk of effective public exposure.

On General Trujillo, see my article in American Opinion, June, 1961. He was murdered on May 30, 1961 – by assassins in the employ of “our” Central Intelligence Agency, according to General Arturo Espaillat, former chief of the Dominican Intelligence Service.

[Page 19]

The State Department’s determination to establish a Soviet outpost on the island of Hispaniola remains unshaken. In 1962, after the murder of General Trujillo, lavish expenditure of money wrung from the tax­paying serfs in the United States procured the election of a notorious Communist, Juan Bosch (see American Opinion, September, 1963, pp. 37-50), but the decent people in the Dominican Republic threw the creature out. The Communists began an armed revolt on April 24, 1965. Washington, with the usual blather about “opposing Communism,” rushed in American troops to kidnap General Wessin and paralyze the anti-Communist forces that would otherwise have put down the revolt. As an embittered officer of our army told a reporter for the Chicago Tribune, that was the first time that our Army had been used to impose a Communist government on another nation. As I write, the results of the “free election” decreed by Washington are still in doubt, but the Communists, if their candidates should lose the election, can always order our Marines to do their work for them. Washington, having had to postpone its plans for a Communist Hispaniola for six years, is becoming impatient.

LOUIS BUDENZ

15. Budenz’ TECHNIQUES OF COMMUNISM ($2.00) is one of the most informative books on the operations of the official Communist Party in the United States.

COMMUNISM NOT AN IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE

16. The title of Duane Thorin’s book is A Ride to Panmunjom (out-of­print). For a confirmation of his observations from the Communist side, sec William G. Goddard, The Story of Chang Lao (published by the Australian League of Rights, 273 Little Collins Street. Melbourne; $1.50 postpaid).

COMMUNISM AS A CONSPIRACY

17. Dewey concealed the real implications of his “doctrine” from superficial readers by using contorted English and confused verbiage about “democracy” and “social good.” Alert readers, however, can be counted on to see for themselves the necessary consequences of a denial that there is truth, intellectual or moral. An excellent study of the criminal mentality of the true Pragmatist was written by a former editor of National Review, William S. Schlamm, and published in German under the title, Die jungen Herren der alten Erde. Since Mr. Schlamm uses as one of his prime examples the late John F. Kennedy, I understand that the publication of his book in English was stopped when Kennedy was assassinated.

It should not be forgotten that Dewey, together with other noted subversives, formed in 1905 the Intercollegiate Socialist Society as a recruiting organization. The name was changed to Student League for Industrial Democracy in 1821, and in 1935 to American Student Union, a Communist front which went underground in 1940, probably in anticipation of Roosevelt’s Crusade to Save the Soviets. It emerged in 1947 as the Student League for Industrial Democracy, and became Students For a Democratic Society in 1959, which has an offshoot, commonly called SNICK, whose “leaders” boast that they are “more revolutionary than the Communists.” The two facets of this organization, lovingly nurtured by “Liberal” professors, include most of the anthropoids that now fill many college campuses with their din and stench.

[Page 20]

THE RELIGION OF MURDER

18. The book by Denis de Rougement was translated into English under the title, Man’s Western Quest: The Principles of Civilization (out-of­print) An excellent recent guide to an understanding of the Bolsheviks’ inner motivation is Louis Zoul’s THUGS AND COMMUNISTS ($5.10; paperback, $2.00). To understand what the rabid beasts of the Conspiracy really want, one has only to examine the record of what they have done in every country that they have captured; many of them do not succeed in hiding their purposes in their writing, although few are quite so indiscreet as Marx’ fellow-conspirator, Bakunin, who once said, “I believe in nothing, I read nothing, I think of but one thing; twist the neck, twist it yet further, screw off the head.” Revealing statements may be found in many sources, e.g. the late Matt Cvetic’s THE BIG DECISION ($1.00). An excellent short exposition of the true nature of Bolsheviks was given by Major Frank Pease in a valuable little booklet, Camp Fires of Ghenghiz (now very rare).

FELIX FRANKFURTER

19. On the history of the criminal conspiracy in the United States to 1922, sec R. M. Whitney’s authoritative Reds in America, published by the Beckwith Press, New York, 1924, and now not only out-of-print but virtually unprocurable.

The murderous! I.W.W. was founded in 1905, but did not become prominent until 1907. Foster later served in other subsidiaries of the International Conspiracy and was National Chairman of the open Communist Party in the United States when he published TOWARD SOVIET AMERICA early in 1932. The book was widely distributed until the Conspiracy saw that the coincidence between its program and the work of subversion and destruction begun by its secret agents in our government was becoming painfully obvious. The book was then suppressed by the Conspiracy’s usual methods: copies of it disappeared from public libraries and bookstores were regularly visited to purchase (and destroy) all copies, whether new or used, that came on the market. It is said that very few copies of the original edition are in existence. One, however, was found by Americans and reproduced photographically, accompanied by a useful commentary ($4.74).

LEIB BRONSTEIN, ALIAS LEON TROTSKY

20. I should not now be so confident in placing the entire responsibility for the release of Trotsky and his accomplices on the American government. British writers who touch on the subject state or imply that it was pressure from Washington that induced the British authorities, who had intercepted the vermin and interned them at Halifax, to execute a complete volte-face and not only release the creatures but provide them with a naval escort to make sure that they reached Russia safely.

[Page 21]

This seems highly probable, because (1) the United States was the only nation in the world that could have exerted enough pressure to make Britain so completely reverse itself; (2) Wilson was politically indebted to Schiff, who had been the financial manager of the presidential campaign that put him in the White House, and who was financing the vermin; and (3) the elusive and sinister “Colonel” House, who, as is now known, did most of Wilson’s thinking for him, was in the employ of Schiff and other international bankers. These considerations led me to accept the view that Britain had yield to a protest from Wilson, who presumably claimed that the criminals, having sailed from New York, were in some sense under American protection (some of them acquired citizenship).

I am now inclined to believe that there were elements in the British government headed by David Lloyd George (a notably dishonest politician) that would have been glad to release the criminals on any pretext, and might have honored a request from Kerensky even without pressure from Wilson (although not, I believe, without consulting him and obtaining at least his approval). The decisive consideration, to my mind, is the fact that at about the same time and certainly without pressure from Washington the British released and sent to Russia an international criminal, third only to Lenin and Trotsky, whom they had under arrest as a German spy [*certainly a German Jew! ] and should have shot, since the creature was almost certainly acting in that capacity, as did other vermin (including Lenin) while awaiting an opportunity to capture Russia. The spy was a former forger and accomplice in bank-robbery named Finkelstein, alias Wallach, alias Graf, alias Maxim Litvinov, later Prime Minister of the Soviet and once thought a likely successor to Stalin, for whom he negotiated with Franklin Roosevelt the United States’ disastrous and degrading diplomatic recognition and economic support of the Soviet Union in 1933.

Lloyd George, who was willing to do almost anything to stay in power, was probably subject to the same kind of influences that directed Wilson. As Hugh Seton-Wilson says in his Pattern of Communist Revolution (London, 1960), “In the first months of 1919 (when the Bolsheviks could have been suppressed with a minimum of effort), Lloyd George and Wilson were both keen to reach agreement with Lenin.” Later, both spoke unfavorably of the vermin, but did nothing effective to help the Russian people who were fighting desperately to free themselves from the sub-humans who had taken control of their country. It is inconceivable that either Lloyd George or Wilson could have been ignorant of the nature of the beasts, but they may have imagined that only Russia would be destroyed by them.

Both Wilson and Lloyd George, according to Henry Wickham Steed, editor of the London Times, in his Through Thirty Years (London, 1924), secretly planned to recognize Soviet Russia and invite the vermin to participate in the Peace Conference at the end of the First World War, but were finally convinced that such a crime against civilization would be more than the American and British people would stand for.

[Page 21]

JAKOB SCHIFF

21. The amount of money sent from the United States to finance the Bolshevik conquest of Russia and butchery of decent Russians is variously estimated. American Military Intelligence in 1918 estimated Schiff’s personal contributions (presumably made through Kuhn, Loeb & Co.) as $12,000,000; copious quotations from this report may be found in Father Denis Fahey’s The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World (out­of-print).

On the other hand, Schiff’s grandson, who, given his interest in the estate, should have known, stated in an interview published in the New York Journal-American on February 3, 1949, that his grandfather had given from his own pocket approximately $20,000,000. Smaller, but still very large contributions were made, presumably as gifts, by other financiers residing in the United States.

To such gifts must be added loans. According to the former Russian Ambassador to the United States, (as reported in Arsene de Goulevitch’s CZARISM AND REVOLUTION $4.00), the Bolsheviks transferred 600,000,000 roubles in gold to Kuhn, Loeb & Co. between 1918 and 1922, presumably in repayment of loans. That quantity of gold was the equivalent of about $306,300,000 pre-Roosevelt.

Of course, the vermin were also financed from Germany; see the third volume of the United States Senate’s Subcommittee on the Judiciary, 66th Congress, 1st Session, Document No. 62, generally known as the Overman Report (1919). It is now known that the German Government itself [*what it really was was a German Jewish government as the Germans had no money], presumably unaware of the virulence of the germs that it was using, financed the Bolsheviks as a means of destroying Russia. One of the principal intermediaries was Israel Lazarevich Gelfand, [*a Jew] alias Alexander Helphand, alias Parvus, who went to Germany at the beginning of the World War, became suddenly and mysteriously very wealthy, and acquired great influence with the German government. [*Would that not have been the Weimar Repbulic which was run by Jews? ] For further details, see Stefan T. Posson’s new book, LENIN ($7.95).

When I said that Lenin’s “true name has never been satisfactorily ascertained,” I was thinking of various reports (e.g. by the Russian historian, D. Petrovsky, in his book, La Russie sous les Juifs), that he was really a certain Chaym Goldman. [*A Jew] I am now inclined to believe that the story was the result of the creature’s attempt to explain one of the aliases that he used, and that he, like his equally degenerate and murderous brother (executed in 1887), was the son of a prosperous Tarter named llya Ul’yanov by a German Jewess named Blank or Berg or Bernstein. His real name, therefore, was Vladimir Il’ich Ul’vanov. In the course of his criminal career, the blood-thirsty animal operated under many aliases, such as Karpov, V. Ilyin, K. P. Ivanov, etc., and frequently used forged passports.

[Page 23]

ALGER HISS

22. On Frankfurter’s earlier activities, see Whitney’s Reds In America, cited above. On his subsequent career, sec articles in the American Mercury by Harold Lord Varney (May 1957) and Thomas B. Quinn (February, 1958), and the article in American Opinion (February, 1963) by the distinguished jurist, Robert H. Montgomery. Frankfurter was identified as an “actor” in the “Bolshevik movement” in a report from the Special Assistant Attorney General of the United States dated February 23, 1921, which was filed in the National Archives, Department of State, Decimal File 1910-1920, under number 861.00-8795; I understand that this report (of which I have seen a copy) was removed from the Archives after it was discovered by a research worker in Washington some years ago. On the other aspects of the Frankfurter’s activities, see Robert H. Montgomery, SACCO-VANZETTI: THE MURDER AND THE MYTH ($5.00) and the Veritas Foundation’s report, KEYNES AT HARVARD: ECONOMIC DECEPTION AS A POLITICAL CREDO ($2.00). It should be remembered that, as James Burnham points out in his WEB OF SUBVERSION ($1.00). “almost the entire membership” of the first cell of traitors in Washington, including such loathsome creatures as Alger Hiss, Nathan Witt, Lee Pressman, John Abt, Weiss (alias Harry Dexter White), and Lauchlin Currie, came out of the Harvard Law School and had been pupils of the Frankfurter before he was elevated to the Supreme Court.

23. Since I spoke, this one filthy nest of subversion has doubled its exactions from the American serfs. In 1965, it spent $5,739,388, 296.00, and, as I write, it is predicted that the parasitic mass, now commonly known as PHEW!, will suck about six and one-half billion dollars from taxpayers in 1966.

24. On the poisoning of public water supplies, see American Opinion, March, 1963, pp. 51-65, and works therein cited; see also Robert M. Buck, The Grim Truth About Fluoridation (New York, Putnam’s 1964; cf. American Opinion, April, 1965, pp. 48-50l, and Dr. G. L. Waldbott, A STRUGGLE WITH TITANS ($4.75). Although the original purpose of “fluoridation” may have been merely to induce chronic diseases and thus facilitate the imposition of “medicare” as a means of capturing the medical profession and destroying its ethics, the use of drinking water to drug the population has other possibilities, more recently disclosed.

As is well known, fluorides, in a concentration greater than that now officially administered to resident in many American cities, have long been used in Soviet “labor camps” to keep the slaves submissive until they are worked to death, but recently Dr. Holgar Hyden, working in cooperation with the Johns Hopkins University, announced the development of a drug, tricyanoaminopropene, of which a minute quantity will clog the brain with excess protein and destroy its capacity for critical thought; he suggested that it could inexpensively be added to public water supplies, and guaranteed that it would reduce all who drank tap water to a state of such imbecility that they would believe whatever they were told on television or radio and do whatever they were commanded to do by their masters. (For the first announcement of this discovery, see, e.g. the Chicago American, February 11, 1961, p. 4).

[Page 24]

Another new drug, also tasteless and odorless, could be put into the public drinking water and would according to its enthusiastic promoters, have the effect of making the entire population sterile or, at least, incapable of begetting offspring that would be born alive; an antidote, which PHEW, by bleeding the taxpayers a little more, could supply free to its favorites, would ensure the continued fertility of criminals, degenerates, and savages. Thus within a generation civilized white men could, even without the immigration of masses of international vermin scheduled for the near future, be reduced to the minimum needed for the slave labor that, according to present plans, will toil to support the World Government.

25. Since I spoke, the World Health Organization has denied that Alger Hiss was ever president of it. It was launched at a convention sponsored and financed by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (of which the infamous Hiss was the president) and announced in the Endowment’s official publication, International Conciliation, in a special issue dated March, 1948, which bears the subtitle, “World Health Organization.” An encomiastic preface, which announces the formation of the World Health Orangization, states that it will concern itself with “mental health, housing; nutrition, economic or working condition, and administrative and social techniques” everywhere, and advertises its first convention, to be held the following June, is signed, “Alger Hiss, President. February 21, 1948.”

That, at least, is studied ambiguity of the kind in which the traitor must have been expert. It is possible, therefore, that Hiss was not, as I supposed, the first president of the “World Health” rattlesnake, but only president of the snake that laid the egg from which it was hatched, but that is a technicality. It is noteworthy that the preceding issues of International Conciliation for many months were devoted to propaganda for the “United Nations,” a Communist booby-trap for Americans of which Hiss was the principal architect.

On “mental health” and the diseased creatures that direct agitation for it, see Dr. Lewis A. Alesen, MENTAL ROBOTS ($1.50), and Ellen McClay, BATS IN THE BELFRY ($1.75 paper, $5.00 cloth). One should also study carefully the reported text of an inaugural lecture in a course of psychopolitics for American traitors at Lenin University by a homicidal maniac best known under the alias, Lavrenti Beria, which he used as chief of the Soviet espionage-and-murder apparatus, now generally known as N.K.V.D., until he was liquidated by his employers. (He earlier used the alias of Berijev; his real name is said to have been Berman or Burmann.) A translations of this speech, together with a resume of the course, may be found in the booklet, Brain-Washing (Australian League of Rights, Melbourne; $1.00), which contains an introduction by the distinguished analyst of world affairs, Eric D. Butler.

26. When I spoke in March, 1959, I used as my authority a transcription of a lecture by Herbert Philbrick, former agent of the F.B.I., who informs me that he was citing the conclusions of Matt Cvetic, who also penetrated the Communist Party for the F.B.I. I subsequently went to Washington and made my own investigation by interviewing reputable and responsible persons who were in a position to know intimately the operations of the malodorous “Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.”

[Page 25]

The results of that investigation were reported in American Opinion, October, 1959, pp. 48 f. My informants believed that “between seventy and eighty percent of the responsible officers in the Department are members or accomplices of the Communist Conspiracy,” and added the interesting detail that “a congressional investigation (of PHEW) would disclose such falsification of travel records as to create presumptive proof that some members of the Department really serve as Communist couriers.”

27. The invasion of Little Rock, Arkansas, by the U. S. Army on the orders of Dwight D. Eisenhower in open defiance of the Constitution has since been eclipsed by the outrages subsequently perpetrated by revolutionary bands directed from Washington. Particularly memorable was the governmental outlaws’ invasion of Oxford, Mississippi, which especially delighted “Liberals” eager to get the raping and the murdering started in the state which, till then, had the lowest crime rate of any of the United States. When the cockroaches swarmed into Selma, Alabama, early in 1965, the plan, formulated in Washington as early as October, 1963, when Brigadier General Eschenberg was sent to Selma to look over the ground and decide where to land paratroopers, called for the creation of an “incident” which could be used as a pretext for sending in soldiers to bayonet white men and women. The plan was defeated by the restraint and wisdom of the people of Selma and their officials. For what really happened in Selma, as distinct from what was reported in the liepapers, see Albert C. Persons, THE TRUE SELMA STORY ($1.00), and Sheriff James J. Clark, I SAW SELMA RAPED ($2.00) ; also the article by Scott Stanley, Jr., in American Opinion, May, 1965, pp. 1-10.

PROGRAM FOR AMERICANS

28. The resolutions of the Daughters of the American Revolution, unanimously adopted, were summarized in the American Mercury, August, 1958. I here list briefly the first six of the twelve points:

(1) curb the Supreme Court’s unconstitutional and illegal activities;

(2) abolish the income tax;

(3) abolish so-called Foreign Aid, “which is a definite Communist plan”;

(4) repeal the GATT agreements, which arc destroying many American industries;

(5) withdraw recognition of Russia and all its satellites;

(6) “get the United States out of the United Nations, and the United Nations out of the United States.” Substantially the same resolutions were adopted by the D.A.R. at subsequent Continental Congresses.

29. Such was the situation when I spoke in March, 1959. Thereafter, the vermin, not content with banishing the magazine from most newsstands, resorted (according to its publisher) to buying up the printing establishments at which it was printed. The periodical, which bears one of the most honored names in American journalism, declined and almost disappeared. It has just been acquired by a new and vigorous publisher, whose first issue will appear in June, 1966. The American Mercury, P. O. Box 7213, Houston, Texas; $10.00 per annum.

[*comment by germanvictims.com]

—————————————————————-

PDF of this post. Click to view or download (1.1 MB) >>All America Must Know the Terror That Is Upon Us by Oliver Revilo – Ver 2

PDF of this post (text only ). Click to view or download (o.7 MB) >> All America Must Know the Terror That Is Upon Us by Oliver Revilo

Version History