Steven Spielberg – katana17

Book – The Myth of German Villainy – Part 02 – Aftermath of the War in Germany

admin — Mon, 03 Oct 2016 05:11:13 +0000

[Part 02]

[Benton Bradberry’s 2012 book, “The Myth of German Villainy” is a superb, must-read, revisionist look at how the German people have been systematically, relentlessly and most importantly, unjustly vilified as the arch criminal of the 20th century. Bradberry sets out, coolly and calmly as befits a former US-Navy officer and pilot, to show why and how the German people have been falsely accused of massive crimes and that their chief accuser and tormenter, organized jewry is in fact the real party guilty of monstrous crimes against Germans and the rest of the world.

In Part 02, the events surrounding the end of World War 1 are described. How after the armistice was implemented Germany was forced, under the threat of continuing starvation, brought about the British naval blockade, to sign the outrageously harsh and unjust Versailles Treaty that imposed crippling terms and conditions. Also outlined is the history of the causes of the war and how America’s involvement under jewish pressure ensured disaster for Europe and “precipitated an irreversible decline in Western Civilization” — KATANA.]

NOTE: The author has very generously given me permission to reproduce the material here — KATANA.

The Myth of

German Villainy

by

Benton L. Bradberry

[Clicking on a link in the Contents here will take you to that Part, in a separate post]

[Part 01]

Preface

Chapter 1 – The Myth of Germany as an Evil Nation

Germany’s Positive Image Changes Overnight

[Part 02]

Chapter 2 – Aftermath of the War in Germany

Introduction

The Versailles Treaty

Effect of the Treaty on the German Economy

Was the War Guilt Clause Fair? Did Germany Really Start the War?

[Part 03]

Chapter 3 – The Jewish Factor in the War

Jews at the Paris Peace Conference

Jews in Britain

[Part 04]

Chapter 4 – The Russian Revolution of 1917

Bolsheviks Take Control

Jews and the Russian Revolution

Origin of East European Jews

Reason for the Russian Pogroms Against the Jews

Jews Leave Russia for America

Financing the 1917 Revolution

Jews in the Government of Bolshevik Russia

[Part 05]

Chapter 5 – The Red Terror

Creation of the Gulag

Bolsheviks Kill the Czar

Jews as a Hostile Elite

The Ukrainian Famine (Holodomor)

[Part 06]

Chapter 6 – The Bolshevik Revolution Spreads Throughout Europe

Jews in the Hungarian Revolution

Miklos Horthy Saves Hungary

Jews in the German Revolution

The Spartacist Uprising in Berlin

Jewish Bolsheviks Attempt to Take Italy

Jewish Bolsheviks Attempt to Take Spain — The Spanish Civil War

Czechoslovakia in Danger of Communist Takeover

The Comintern’s Aim? World Domination!

[Part 07]

Chapter 7 – The Nation of Israel

History of the Expulsion of Jews

[Part 08]

Chapter 8 – Jews in Weimar Germany

Jews Undermine German Culture

[Part 09]

Chapter 9 – Hitler & National Socialists Rise to Power

The 25 Points of the National Socialist Party

[Part 10]

Chapter 10 – National Socialism vs. Communism

National Socialism

Jews Plan Marxist Utopia

[Part 11]

Chapter 11 – Jews Declare War on Nazi Germany

Text of Untermeyer’s Speech in New York

The Jewish Persecution Myth

Effect of Boycott on the German Economy

Jewish Exaggerations are Contradicted by Many

[Part 12]

Chapter 12 – The Nazis and the Zionists Actually Work Together for Jewish Emigration out of Germany

The Nuremberg Laws – 1935

The Zionist Movement

[Part 13]

Chapter 13 – Life in Germany Under Hitler

Night of the Long Knives

1934 Annual Nazi Rally at Nuremberg

Hitler Revives the German Economy

Hitler Becomes the Most Popular Leader in the World

[Part 14]

Chapter 14 – Hitler Begins Reclamation of German Territory

Chapter 15 – The 1936 Olympics

[Part 15]

Chapter 16 – “Anschluss”. The Unification of Austria and Germany

Austrian Economy Revived

Austria’s Jews

[Part 16]

Chapter 17 – Germany Annexes the Sudetenland

[Part 17]

Chapter 18 – War with Poland

The Polish Problem

Hitler’s Proposal to Poland

Kristallnacht

German-Polish Talks Continue

Jews Influence both Roosevelt and Churchill

British and American Political Leaders Under Jewish Influence

Roosevelt’s Contribution to Hostilities

Lord Halifax Beats the War Drums

Germany Occupies Bohemia and Moravia

Roosevelt Pushes for War

Anti-war Movement Becomes Active

Poles Murder German Nationals Within the Corridor

[Part 18]

Chapter 19 – The Phony War

Russo-Finnish War

The Norway/Denmark Campaign

German Invasion of Denmark and Norway

Churchill Takes Chamberlain’s Place as Prime Minister

[Part 19]

Chapter 20 – Germany invades France Through the Low Countries

The Phony War Ends.

Churchill the War Lover

The Fall of France

Hitler Makes Peace Offer to Britain

[Part 20]

Chapter 21 – The Allied Goal? Destruction of Germany!

[Part 21]

Chapter 22 – Germany as Victim

Rape and Slaughter

Jewish Vengeance

The Jewish Brigade

[Part 22]

Chapter 23 – Winners and Losers

Bibliography

Chapter 2 Aftermath of the War in Germany

Introduction

top

The long stalemate which World War I became would most likely have ended in a negotiated peace with no winner and no loser if the United States had stayed out of it. But the combined weight of British, French and American armies in October, 1918 was more than the Central Powers could withstand, and one after another began to seek a way to pull out of the war. Bulgaria signed an armistice on September 29, Turkey at the end of October, and Austria/Hungary signed on November 3.

Stalemate — 1918

The British starvation blockade of Germany was taking a terrible toll, which eventually caused Germany to begin to crumble from within. Faced with the prospect of putting to sea to fight the British blockade, the sailors of the German High Seas Fleet stationed at Kiel mutinied on October 29. They had been persuaded by agitators that such an attack would be a suicide mission. Within a few days the entire city of Kiel was under their control and the revolution then spread throughout the country. On November 9 the Kaiser abdicated and slipped across the border into exile in the Netherlands. A German “republic” was declared to replace the monarchy and peace feelers were then extended to the Allies. At 5 A.M. on the morning of November 11, 1918 an armistice between Germany and the Allies was signed in a railway car parked in a French forest near the front lines. At 11 A.M. that same day, the armistice became effective. After more than four years of bloody fighting, the Great War had come to an end.

Peace comes at last with the Armistice of 11/11/1918 [at 11:00 am]

But what had it all been for? No combatant nation gained from it, at least nothing remotely worth the sacrifices made. The accumulated wealth of Europe, the result of decades of peace, was completely dissipated and replaced by crushing national debt. The war had been a horrific experience unlike anything Europeans had ever experienced before, leaving them psychologically, economically and politically devastated. Before the war, all of Europe had come to believe that a steady, continuing improvement in the conditions of life was the inexorable trend of history. That generalized belief was replaced by a feeling of pessimism and cynicism. There was the feeling that Europe had been profoundly and permanently damaged, a feeling that turned out to be highly prescient, in retrospect. Ancient empires — the Austro/Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, the German Empire — crumbled as a result of the war. These empires had been the source of political and social stability, and now chaos reigned throughout Europe. The Paris Peace Conference after the war did a very imperfect job of putting it all back together again. It is clear from the perspective of today that World War I precipitated an irreversible decline in Western Civilization.

In addition to these adverse psychological and political consequences, there was also a considerable amount of physical destruction. Vast areas of northeastern France had been reduced to rubble. Flanders in Belgium had been all but destroyed, and the ancient city of Ypres was completely devastated. The homes of 750,000 French people had been destroyed and the infrastructure of the entire region had been severely damaged. Roads, coal mines and telegraph poles had been destroyed, greatly hindering the area’s ability to recover and begin to function normally again.

[Add. image — Ypres, Belgium. Soldiers of the Australian 2nd Division clear a road in the devastated town of Ypres in October, 1917. Behind them lies the shell-blasted ruins of Ypres’s Cloth Hall.]

But all of that was insignificant compared to the massive, industrialized slaughter of human beings. Nearly every family in Europe had lost a family member, if not a father, son, brother or husband, then a cousin of one degree or another. All combatant countries suffered casualties never experienced before in all of history. The British, for example, suffered 50,000 casualties in a single afternoon at the Battle of Passchendaele, and 350,000 casualties before the battle finally ended. The battle ended with no ground gained and no ground lost. The entire trench war was characterized by mass suicidal attacks against entrenched machine guns, and by massive artillery barrages which blew their targets to smithereens. This was mechanized, industrial death. Nothing on this scale had ever happened before. The scale of the slaughter can be appreciated by the lists presented below.

Allied Casualties:

Britain: 885,000 soldiers killed; 1,663,000 wounded

France: 1,400,000 soldiers killed; 2,500,000 wounded

Belgium: 50,000 soldiers killed; 45,000 wounded

Italy: 651,000 soldiers killed; 954,000 wounded

Russia: 1,811,000 soldiers killed; 5,000,000 wounded

America: 117,000 soldiers killed; 206,000 wounded

Central Powers Casualties:

Germany: 2,037,000 soldiers killed; 4,250,000 wounded

Austria/Hungary: 1,200,000 soldiers killed; 3,600,000 wounded

Turkey: 800,000 soldiers killed; 400,000 wounded

Bulgaria: 100,000 soldiers killed; 152,000 wounded

The number of soldiers killed on all sides totaled 9.7 million with 21 million wounded. Of the wounded, millions were maimed for life and unable to work. Nearly 7 million civilians on all sides lost their lives.

The Versailles Treaty

top

The lurid anti-German propaganda campaign conducted by Britain and America throughout the war had created such hatred for the Germans that a harsh peace was virtually inevitable. Germany, rightly or wrongly, was to be held accountable for the war, including all the death and destruction resulting from it, and Germany would be required to pay for all of it. As if the war itself were not enough, during mid-1918, Europe was hit by Spanish flu, causing the deaths of an estimated 25 million more Europeans. That comes to some 41 million Europeans who died from all causes during the war — a sizable percentage of the European population. Death on this scale had not occurred in Europe since the “black plague” of the Middle Ages. This added to the feeling of bitterness and gloom that ran through Europe and this anger was primarily directed at the hated and despised Germans — hated and despised as the result of the anti-German propaganda. Europe wanted to punish Germany and would do so with the Versailles Treaty.

The terms of the treaty, as finally hammered out by the victors of the war — Britain, France and the United States — were harsh by any standard. The idealistic President Woodrow Wilson had presented his “Fourteen Points” as the basis for a fair and just peace settlement but they were mostly ignored after the armistice was signed, especially by the French. The French had no interest in a “just” peace. What the French wanted was revenge!…that, and their two provinces back. The provinces of Alsace and Lorraine had been taken from France by the Victorious Prussians after the Franco/Prussian War of 1871. French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau considered Wilson sanctimonious and naïve, and privately ridiculed his Fourteen Points. He sneered that “God almighty only had ten.”

Basically the terms of the Versailles Treaty were as follows: 28,000 Sq. miles [approximately 10-15%?] of Germany’s territory and 6.5 million of her people were handed over to other countries. Alsace-Lorraine went to France; Eupen and Malmedy were given to Belgium; Northern Schleswig went to Denmark; Hultschin to Czechoslovakia; West Prussia, Posen, Upper Silesia and Danzig went to Poland (Danzig was placed under Polish management but was designated a “free city” under League of Nations supervision); Memel to Lithuania; and the Saar, Germany’s industrial heartland, was put under the control of the League of Nations. All of Germany’s overseas colonies were taken away.

Severe military limitations were imposed. Germany’s army was reduced to 100,000 men, and was not allowed to have tanks or armored cars. Germany was not allowed an air force, and was allowed to have only 6 capital naval ships and no submarines. The west of the Rhineland and 50 kilometers (31 miles) east of the Rhine River was made into a demilitarized zone. No German soldier or weapon was allowed into this zone. The Allies (meaning Britain and France) were to keep an army of occupation on the west bank of the Rhine for 15 years.

Financial penalties were equally severe. The loss of vital industrial territory would impede all attempts by Germany to rebuild her economy. Coal from the Saar and Upper Silesia in particular was a vital economic loss. The coal went to France and England. Germany’s richest farmland was given to Poland. Reparations were to be paid to the Allies in an amount to be decided by the Allies at a later time. It seemed clear to Germany that the Allies intended to bankrupt the country.

Germany was also forbidden to unite with Austria to form one large German state (even though both Germany and Austria wanted it), in an attempt to keep her economic potential to a minimum.

General terms of the treaty included three vital clauses:

1. Germany had to admit full responsibility for starting the war (The War Guilt clause – Clause 231).

2. Germany was thereby responsible for all the damage caused by the war, and was therefore required to pay reparations, the bulk of which was to go to France and Belgium. The amount of reparations was not set at Versailles, but was to be determined later. In other words, Germany was to sign a blank check which the Allies would cash when it suited them in whatever amount they decided. The amount was eventually put at $33 billion (in 1919 dollars).

3. A League of Nations was set up to keep world peace, though Germany was not allowed in as a member.

After agreeing to the Armistice in November, 1918, the Germans believed that the peace treaty to follow would be based on President Wilson’s “Fourteen Points” which would have ensured a fair and just peace, and that they would participate in drawing up the peace treaty. They had, in fact, signed the Armistice and laid down their arms with that understanding. Instead, the treaty was drawn up without German participation and then handed to them as a diktat, which the Germans were required to sign without discussion. The term “armistice” is generally understood to mean, “a cessation of hostilities while a peace treaty is worked out.” That is what Germany signed onto, but the Allies treated Germany as a defeated foe instead. According to the accepted meaning of an armistice, Germany should have had full participation in the peace conference.

The German delegation at Versailles. They were forced to sign the Treaty.

The German delegation was astonished at the harshness of the treaty. They were particularly offended by the charge that Germany had started the war. In the minds of Germans, Germany had been fighting a defensive war imposed upon her by Russia and France, and soon afterwards by Britain. The way Germany saw it, France and Russia started the war. The officer sent to sign the Versailles Treaty refused to do so. “To say such a thing would be a lie,” he said. The German Chancellor Phillip Scheidemann resigned rather than accept the treaty, saying, “May the hand wither that signs this treaty.” He characterized the terms of the treaty as “unbearable, unrealizable and unacceptable,” and proclaimed that the treaty would make the German people “slaves and helots.”

The German people were both shocked and outraged over the terms of the treaty. As a symbolic protest against it, all forms of public entertainment throughout Germany were suspended for a week. Flags across the country were lowered to half mast. Some wanted to start the war again, but Germany’s leaders knew that that was impossible. There was nothing they could do. The German army had disintegrated and gone home after the Armistice was signed and Britain was maintaining a starvation blockade around Germany, letting nothing in and nothing out, causing the deaths of thousands of German civilians every day. Britain declared that the blockade would be maintained until the German representatives signed the treaty. Finally, Britain and France gave the Germans an ultimatum. Sign the treaty within four days or be invaded. The British and French armies were still intact. A German representative finally signed the treaty in the Hall of Mirrors at the Palace of Versailles on June 28, 1919. (He was later assassinated under mysterious circumstances; no doubt the result of having signed the treaty.)

The Treaty was signed, but only reluctantly, and without the slightest intention of actually cooperating in its imposition. In the words of the British historian, AJP Taylor, in his book, The History of the First World War (1963):

“Though the Germans accepted the treaty in the formal sense of agreeing to sign it, none took the signature seriously. The treaty seemed to them to be wicked, unfair, dictation, a slave treaty. All Germans intended to repudiate it at some time in the future, if it did not fall to pieces of its own absurdity.”

In one last gesture of defiance, after the treaty was signed, the captured German naval ships held at Scapa Flow were scuttled by their crews.

Effect of the Treaty on the German Economy

top

The German economy was the most powerful in Europe going into the war, but like all the other combatant countries (except the United States), Germany was bankrupt by the end of it. Reconstructing her ruined economy after the war would have been a daunting task under the best of circumstances, but it was made doubly hard by the crushing impact of the Versailles treaty. Under the treaty Germany was forced to pay exorbitant reparations payments to the victorious powers at the same time that her ability to do so was drastically reduced by other terms of the treaty. Under the treaty, Germany lost 13 percent of her territory, 10 percent of her population, 25 percent of her potato and wheat production, 80 percent of iron ore, 68 percent of zinc ore, 33 percent of coal production, the entire Alsatian potash and textile industries, and the communications system built around Alsace-Lorraine and Upper Silesia. Her entire merchant fleet was confiscated along with numerous shipping facilities. Moreover, for 5 years, Germany’s shipyards were required to produce ships to be given to the victorious powers. She was also required to surrender 5,000 locomotives, 150,000 railway cars and 10,000 trucks. All German property abroad was confiscated.

Map showing German territory taken by the Versailles Treaty. The dark or shaded areas were taken from Germany.

Because of Germany’s weakened state the reparations payments demanded by the victorious powers were completely beyond her ability to pay. The confiscation of Germany’s coal mines was particularly devastating because the resultant coal shortage severely limited industrial production. Her agricultural production was also drastically reduced because she had no merchant fleet with which to import the phosphates necessary to produce fertilizers. She could not import other necessary raw materials because her colonies had been taken away as well as her merchant fleet. This caused factories to shut down resulting in increased unemployment. All those who had previously worked in shipping and trade were also now unemployed.

A million German civilians, mainly women, children and old people, starved to death as the a result of the British naval blockade.

A million Germans, mainly women, children and old people, starved to death as the result of the Royal Navy’s food blockade, but millions of others were reduced to a weakened state from lack of food. A plague of malnutrition caused diseases affected Germany’s children; many with permanently stunted growth, and disfiguring bone development. The war was over, but the starvation blockade continued to be imposed on an entirely helpless civilian population for seven more months, to force the unwilling Germans to sign the peace treaty. It was cruel beyond belief, yet it was imposed by the saintly British against the savage Hun. In fact, the main force behind the blockade was the much admired Winston Churchill.

The confiscation of Germany’s merchant fleet exacerbated an already disastrous situation. Germany was an industrial nation with a very dense population, closely integrated into the economic system of the world. She was therefore required to import enormous quantities of food and raw materials. The loss of her merchant fleet and the restrictions on trade imposed by the Versailles Treaty produced chaos in Germany, and served to extend the famine which existed as a result of the blockade.

Adolf Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf:

“Germany suffered most as a consequence of this Peace Treaty and the general insecurity which was bound to arise from it. The unemployment figures rose to a third of the number usually employed in the nation, which means, however, that by counting the families of the unemployed as well there were 26 million people in Germany out of a population of 65 million faced by an absolutely hopeless future.”

Was the War Guilt Clause Fair? Did Germany Really Start the War?

top

The chain of cause and effect in international relations is interminable, but if one is to make a point, one must begin somewhere. To a considerable extent, WWI had its genesis in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870/71. But the Franco-Prussian War itself was the culmination of years of tension between the two states, which finally came to a head over the issue of a Hohenzollern candidate for the vacant Spanish throne. France believed it was being surrounded by Prussian Hohenzollerns, and declared war on Prussia to prevent it. Prussia, under Chancellor Otto von Bismarck won the war, and without going into detail here, that victory made it possible for Bismarck to unite all the various German states, principalities, and estates into one unified German confederation. Included in this new German confederation were the two provinces, Alsace and Lorraine, taken from France as war booty and annexed to Germany. There was, of course, historical justification for Germany’s annexation of the two provinces, as France had previously taken them from Germany during the reign of Louis IV. Moreover, the populations of Alsace and Lorraine were still majority German speaking, ethnic Germans. As mentioned above, the chain of cause and effect is interminable.

The German annexation of Alsace-Lorraine, whether justified or not, left France humiliated and seething with anger over their loss. France had grown accustomed during her 400 years of war making and aggression to humiliating others — Germany in particular — and this role reversal was hard for France to swallow. Revanche (policy to regain lost territory) became a major French goal, and revenge against Germany became a French national obsession, particularly among the political and military elite. France’s determination to have a war of revenge against Germany was a factor in all of the diplomatic maneuvers that ultimately led to war in 1914. According to J.S. Ewart, in his book, “The Roots and Causes of War,” 1925.

“The Alsace-Lorraine annexation by Prussia in 1871 was the principle factor in the counter-alliances, ententes, and antagonisms which perturbed continental Europe for forty-three years…. Not France only, but all Europe, kept in mind, between 1871 and 1914, with varying intensity, the prospect — one might say the assumed certainty — of the recurrence of the Franco-Prussian war.”

After unification into a single state in 1871, Germany experienced an extraordinary period of economic growth and development.

Industrialization progressed rapidly and German manufacturers began to take markets away from Britain. Germany produced more and more of her own consumer products, and imported less and less of British made products. But Germany also began to compete with British commerce abroad, particularly in the United States. German textile production and steel production quickly surpassed those of Britain. Germany invested heavily in research and development, to a far greater extent than Britain, which produced impressive technological advances, especially in chemistry, electricity and electric motors, and in devices driven by electric motors. Germany was dominant in physics and chemistry to the extent that one-third of all Nobel Prizes went to German inventors and researchers. By 1913 Germany produced 90% of the world’s dyestuffs and began to excel in other areas of chemistry such as pharmaceuticals, photographic film, agricultural chemicals and electro-chemicals. With a population of 65 million, Germany became the dominant economic power on the continent and was the world’s second largest exporting nation after Britain. (The populations of Britain and France were 45 million and 40 million respectively.)

No one had worried much about Germany prior to its unification in 1871. Up to then “Germany” was only a geographic expression, referring to the multiplicity of German speaking kingdoms, principalities, city states and sovereign estates located in Central Europe. But Germany’s rapid rise in power after unification created anxiety amongst her neighbors. The old balance of power system, worked out by Prince Metternich at the Congress of Vienna in 1815 at the end of the Napoleonic Wars, had served as the basis for European relations until thrown off kilter by Germany’s growing power after unification.

Germany quickly displaced France as the dominant power on the European continent, causing consternation among the British elite. Britain had always seen France as her traditional enemy and rival on the continent, but British power had already long eclipsed that of France, and France was no longer in a position to challenge British dominance. The extraordinary growth of Germany as an industrial power, however, was beginning to challenge that of Britain. As a result, Britain began making efforts to develop friendly relations with France as leverage against Germany. It appeared to Britain that the entire continent was about to become organized as a single economic union under an all powerful Germany, which threatened to sideline Britain into insignificance. The more powerful Germany became, the more apprehensive British leaders became, to the point that they began to speculate on how to cut the “upstart” Germany down to size. An eventual war with Germany began to seem inevitable.

On April 8, 1904 Britain entered an “Entente Cordiale” with France, followed by an “Anglo-Russian Entente.” France and Russia then forged the “Franco-Russian Alliance.” Thus the “Triple Entente” of Britain, France and Russia was formed for the purpose of containing the growing power of Germany.

To ameliorate this developing hostility against her, Germany made vigorous efforts in the years before World War One to arrive at an understanding with Russia and France, and particularly with Britain, but got nowhere because the real problem was Germany’s very existence as a growing super power. Each had interests of their own which put them in conflict with Germany. First, Russia wanted control of the Bosporus Straights leading out of the Black Sea, as a warm water outlet for her Navy and merchant fleet, and was willing to go to war to get it. The Bosporus Straights were at the time controlled by Germany through her alliance with the Ottoman Empire. Next, Britain saw Germany as a threat to her economic dominance and wanted only to reduce Germany’s power. Then, France wanted revenge for the loss of the Franco/Prussian War in 1871, and also wanted her two provinces, Alsace and Lorraine, back. All three powers wanted to reduce Germany’s economic power, and the only way they saw to achieve that was by military force. All of Germany’s diplomatic efforts were frustrated by these factors. Germany’s very existence as a unified nation state was the problem, and it seemed that nothing short of dissolving itself would satisfy these rival nations. France and Russia together began to scheme against Germany and to develop plans for an eventual war. Britain was also looking for a pretext for war against Germany. Yet, Germany was guilty of nothing except becoming too successful.

A cartoon in 1904 from the German perspective. John Bull, as the symbol of Britain, is walking off with the harlot, Arianne, symbol of France, in what is supposed to be a tri-colored dress, turning their backs on the Kaiser.

Britain and Germany have often been called the “identical twins” of Europe. They were the same race, with similar, highly organized, high achieving cultures, both Protestant (in the main), both aggressive in pursuing their aims, and both with a history of constitutional monarchies. Britain had no quarrel with Germany, nor Germany with Britain, except that Britain became obsessed with Germany’s growing economic power. Britain, though smaller than Germany in size and population, headed the largest empire in the world; in fact, the largest empire in history. Yet, Germany was eclipsing Britain as an industrial power. Moreover, Germany was building a navy which threatened to rival that of Britain. Britain was also painfully aware of the comparative trajectories of the economic power of Britain and Germany. Britain’s was trending downward, while Germany’s was trending upwards; and this did not bode well for Britain’s future. The British believed that they needed to act against Germany while they were still powerful enough to do so.

Between 1912 and 1914, the Russian Ambassador in Paris, Alexander Izvolsky and President Raymond Poincare of France entered into an agreement to go to war against Germany, “in event of any diplomatic crisis that would bring Britain in on their side.” Such a crisis soon erupted with the Serbian assassination of the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand in June, 1914. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia after obtaining Germany’s unqualified backing (the blank check). The “blank check” was given because Germany’s governing elite believed that by doing so, Russia would be discouraged from intervening against Austria-Hungary on behalf of Serbia. Germany reasoned that If Austria-Hungary were to be defeated by Serbia and Russia, then Germany would be left completely surrounded by enemies. Propping up Austria-Hungary was crucial to Germany’s security. But Russia, who considered herself Serbia’s mentor and protector (Serbia was Russia’s “little Slavic brother”), ignored Germany’s “blank check” and threatened war against Austria-Hungary anyway. Germany tried mediating with Russia to prevent war, but Russia and her ally France, seeing this as the opportunity they had been waiting for, refused to be conciliatory. Instead, Russia abruptly ordered a general mobilization. Such a mobilization had long been recognized in European capitals as tantamount to a declaration of war. After urgent demands for Russia to cancel her mobilization, to no avail, Germany declared war on Russia on August 1, and immediately began her own mobilization. France began mobilizing three days later, but, in fact, had already informed the Russians that she had decided on war a day before Germany declared war on Russia and three days before Germany declared war on France. France’s mobilization was not, therefore, the result of Germany’s declaration of war on Russia. The mobilization had already been decided on. Germany, instead of being the aggressor in this case, was reacting to Russian and French initiatives.

Germany is located on a flat plain in the heart of Europe without natural defenses, completely surrounded by potential enemies, and therefore uniquely vulnerable to invasion from two or more sides. She was in no position, therefore, to wait and see before mobilizing her own armed forces. Germany was well aware of the plotting and scheming between France and Russia to create a pretext for war against her, and was, therefore, on continuous alert. The worst nightmare for Germany’s military leaders was a two front war with France on one side and Russia on the other. To counter that likelihood, Germany had worked out a military strategy called the “Schlieffen Plan.” The plan called for rapid mobilization, concentration of Germany’s armed forces, and a lightening attack through Belgium to first knock France out of the war, after which the German army would wheel around and take on Russia, thus avoiding a two-front war. Even though the Schlieffen Plan called for a pre-emptive attack, first on France and then Russia, the plan was, at bottom, a defensive strategy and not an aggressive one. To wait to be attacked first, from two sides, would be suicidal. On August, 3, 1914, when war seemed unavoidable, Germany swept through Belgium and into France, but was unable to deal France the quick, knock-out blow strategized in the Schlieffen plan.

[Add. image (click to enlarge) — The “Schlieffen Plan.”]

Britain then declared war on Germany on August 4, on the pretext that Germany had violated Belgian neutrality, though Britain’s actual reason for war against Germany was to destroy Germany as an economic rival. On that basis alone, Britain’s leaders decided to join France and Russia in a war against Germany. In reality, Belgium had not figured into the British cabinet’s discussion at all when war with Germany was decided upon. Belgium was used only as a pretext for war. Moreover, had Germany not invaded Belgium, Britain would have done so without a second thought.

Soon after pouring into France through Belgium, Germany became bogged down in the Battle of the Marne, just short of her goal of reaching Paris, which quickly brought an end to the “war of movement.” Stalemate and trench warfare followed in which neither side could predominate. This condition remained until the American forces came in to break the deadlock.

Germany eventually lost the war, and for that reason alone, was blamed for starting it. Article 231 of the Versailles Treaty formally blamed Germany for starting the war, which then served as the basis for all of the punitive measures taken against Germany. After the war was over and passions began to cool, a number of historians — known as “revisionists” — began to look through the intemperate propaganda to uncover the real facts. Scholars like Harry Elmer Barnes, Charles Beard, et al, began to tell a different story. Barnes argued in his book, The Genesis of the World War, 1926, that , on the record, Serbia, Russia and France bore a greater responsibility for starting the war than did Austria and Germany, and Germany’s responsibility was less than Austria-Hungary’s. In Barnes view, German “war guilt” was about equal to that of Britain. The most pro-German view was that Germany was forced into a war she did not want and was required to defend herself against rapacious foes out to destroy Germany as an economic power. President Wilson had sent his personal representative, Colonel Edward Mandel House, to Europe to study the situation three months before the war began. The view that Germany was being threatened by military aggression from Russia, France and Britain was supported by Colonel House’s report. He wrote in his report that, “when England consents, France and Russia will close in on Germany,” which is precisely what eventually happened. Germany was, in fact, the “defender” against Allied aggression.

Germany did not want war, had nothing to gain from war, and everything to lose from it. After all, Germany was obtaining everything she wanted without war, that is, economic expansion and the acquisition of colonies from which to obtain raw materials and to which to sell industrial products. But France did want war, as revenge against Germany for the Franco-Prussian War of 1870/71 and to regain her lost provinces of Alsace and Lorraine. Russia also did want war with Germany in order to obtain the warm water Bosporus Straits which Germany controlled, and Britain did want war in order to crush a commercial competitor. All three of these Allied powers believed that Germany was becoming too big and too powerful. The Versailles Treaty itself proves that, in that its main effect was to reduce the physical size of Germany and to reduce her economic and military power. The treaty took away large portions of German territory and gave it to other countries, along with 6.5 million German people,. A separate clause barred Austria form combining with Germany. During the peace deliberations, Georges Clemenceau, President of France, is supposed to have said, “Germany has 20 million too many people.”

Germany not only did not want war in the beginning, but put out peace feelers as early as 1916 to try to bring the war to an end, even though Germany appeared at that time to be about to win the war, but the Allies had no interest in bringing the war to an end. What the Allies wanted was to destroy Germany, as they had set out to do from the beginning, and so, Germany’s peace feelers were ignored. Clearly Germany was the victim and not the perpetrator of aggression. The United States had no reason whatever to enter the war against Germany. Germany had done nothing to the United States and was not a threat to the United States in any way. Moreover, German-Americans along with British-Americans constituted the very core of the American culture.

The United States had had only good relations with Germany, and American citizens had always looked upon Germany with warmth and admiration. Though the British anti-German propaganda campaign conducted in the United States had influenced public opinion, the vast majority of Americans were still opposed to entering the war. That could not be said, however, of America’s ruling elite. America’s ruling elite was strongly Anglophilic, with an attitude towards Great Britain not unlike that of Canada and Australia, innately predisposed to go to the aid of the “mother country.” America was virtually a vassal state to Great Britain in those days.

These were all factors, but the deciding influence in taking America into the war was the pressure on President Wilson by American Jewish financiers. It was these powerful Jews who had financed Wilson’s political career. Without their financial and media support, he probably would never have become president. These Jews exerted extreme pressure on Wilson to take the United States into the war on the side of Britain to ensure an Allied victory, in exchange for the Balfour Declaration which promised the Jews a homeland in Palestine after the war (of which more in the following chapter). Jews controlled most of the large newspapers and they controlled Hollywood, so they had all the means necessary to control American public opinion. The sinking of the Lusitania, the Zimmerman telegram, etc. were not reasons to go to war, only fabricated pretexts.

The German people had every reason to be outraged over the shameful peace treaty imposed upon them by the victorious powers. The Versailles Treaty was unfair and immoral, and had been imposed by force by the victors upon the vanquished. Germany was forced into signing the hated treaty by a “food” blockade imposed by the British navy, which caused a million Germans to starve to death, and by a threat of military invasion of Germany. Therefore, the imposed treaty had no moral or legal force and Germany was in no way obligated to adhere to the treaty and had every moral right to abandon it as soon as she was militarily able to do so.

Though America’s entry brought a quick end to the carnage, entering the war was actually disastrous in its long term consequences for Western, Christian Civilization. Had America stayed out of it, it is almost certain that the war would have ended in a negotiated peace with neither side achieving a victory. There would therefore have been no Versailles Treaty. Germany would not have been dismembered. Germany would have maintained her army intact and would have maintained her peace agreement with Russia (Treaty of Brest-Litovsk). The Czar would likely not have abdicated and the German Empire would have remained intact. Bolshevism would most likely have been nipped in the bud instead of taking control of Russia. The Austro-Hungarian Empire would have remained intact. So, also, would the Ottoman Empire, which would have precluded the creation of the state of Israel and all of the negative consequences resulting from that. There would have been no Communist revolution in Germany, Hungary or Italy. The Spanish Civil War would not have occurred. There would have been no World War II, no Cold War, and Communism would not have taken control of Central and Eastern Europe. A unified Europe, not unlike the European Union of today, except much larger and much more prosperous, would almost certainly have formed with Germany as its dominant member. In short, Europe would have stabilized and become a dynamic economic power in the world. America’s entry into the war was perhaps the greatest disaster in European history in its unintended consequences.

_______________________

[END of Part 02]

PDF Notes

* Total words = 7,107

* Total pages = 34

*Total images = 9

*Note: Images not in original book are indicated as “Add. image” (Additional image).

*Text in [square brackets] is not part of the original book.

*Special thanks to reader “mblaine” for providing the text for this book.

======================================

Click to download a PDF of this post (2.6 MB).

The Myth of Germany Villainy – Part 02

Click on a link to go to another part:

[Click images to enlarge]

Part 01 — Cover text; About the Author; Preface; Chapter 1: The Myth of Germany as an Evil Nation

Part 02 — Chapter 2: Aftermath of the War in Germany

Part 03 — Chapter 3: The Jewish Factor in the War

Part 04 — Chapter 4: The Russian Revolution of 1917

Part 05 — Chapter 5: The Red Terror

Part 06 — Chapter 6: The Bolshevik Revolution Spreads Throughout Europe

Part 07 — Chapter 7: The Nation of Israel

Part 08 — Chapter 8: Jews in Weimar Germany

Part 09 — Chapter 9: Hitler and National Socialists Rise to Power

Part 10 — Chapter 10: National Socialism vs Communism

Part 11 — Chapter 11: Jews Declare War on Nazi Germany

Part 12 — Chapter 12: The Nazis and the Zionists Actually Work Together for Jewish Emigration out of Germany

Part 13 — Chapter 13: Life in Germany Under Hitler

Part 14 — Chapter 14 & 15: Hitler Begins Reclamation of German Territory; The 1936 Olympics

Part 15 — Chapter 16: “Anschluss” The Unification of Austria and Germany

Part 16 – Chapter 17: Germany Annexes the Sudetenland

Part 17 – Chapter 18: War with Poland

Part 18 – Chapter 19: The Phony War

Part 19 – Chapter 20: Germany invades France – The Phony War Ends

Part 20 – Chapter 21: The Allied Goal? Destruction of Germany!

Part 21 – Chapter 22: Germany as Victim

Part 22 (last) – Chapter 23: Winners and Losers

Version History

Version 4: Mar 11, 2021 – Added new Go2 Cover images (3).

Version 3: Jan 14, 2020 — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version.

Version 2: Oct 8, 2016 — Expanded Table of Contents.

Version 1: Oct 3, 2016 — Created post.

Book – The Myth of German Villainy by Benton Bradberry – Part 01

admin — Sat, 01 Oct 2016 06:06:14 +0000

[Part 01]

[Benton Bradberry’s 2012 book, “The Myth of German Villainy” is a superb, must-read, revisionist look at how the German people have been systematically, relentlessly and most importantly, unjustly vilified as the arch criminal of the 20th century. Bradberry sets out, cooly and calmly as befits a former US-Navy officer and pilot, to show why and how the German people have been falsely accused of massive crimes and that their chief accuser and tormenter, organized jewry is in fact the real party guilty of monstrous crimes against Germans and the rest of the world — KATANA.]

NOTE: The author has very generously given me permission to reproduce the material here — KATANA.

The Myth of

German Villainy

by

Benton L. Bradberry

Front and Back Cover Text

Neither Kaiser Wilhelm nor Adolf Hitler wanted war. Both WWI and WWII were thrust upon Germany by the Allied powers. Germany’s great sin was emerging too late as a consolidated nation-state and upsetting the long established balance of power scheme in Europe. The already established great powers, Britain, France and Russia, joined together in 1914 to destroy this new rival. When Germany rose phoenix-like from the ashes of WWI to again become a great power, they finished. the job with World War II. The deliberate destruction of Germany during the Second World-War can only be compared to the Roman destruction of ancient Carthage, and it was done for the same reason — to destroy a commercial rival. The “official” history of World Wars I & II, the story we learned in school, is a myth.

As the title “The Myth of German Villainy” indicates, this book is about the mischaracterization of Germany as history’s ultimate “villain“. The “official” story of Western Civilization in the twentieth century casts Germany as the disturber of the peace in Europe, and the cause of both World War I and World War II, though the facts don’t bear that out.

During both wars, fantastic atrocity stories were invented by Allied propaganda to create hatred of the German people for the purpose of bringing public opinion around to support the wars. The “Holocaust” propaganda which emerged after World War II further solidified this image of Germany as history’s ultimate villain. But how true is this “official” story? Was Germany really history’s ultimate villain? In this book, the author paints a different picture. He explains that Germany was not the perpetrator of World War I nor World War II, but instead, was the victim of Allied aggression in both wars. The instability wrought by World War I made the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia possible, which brought world Communism into existence. Hitler and Germany recognized world Communism, with its base in the Soviet Union, as an existential threat to Western, Christian Civilization, and he dedicated himself and Germany to a death struggle against it. Far from being the disturber of European peace, Germany served as a bulwark which prevented Communist revolution from sweeping over Europe. The pity was that the United States and Britain did not see Communist Russia in the same light, ultimately with disastrous consequences for Western Civilization. The author believes that Britain and the United States joined the wrong side in the war.

About the Author

Benton L. Bradberry served as an officer and aviator in the U.S. Navy from 1955 to 1977, from near the beginning of the Cold War to near its end. His generation was inundated with anti-German propaganda and “Holocaust” lore. Then, in his role as a naval officer and pilot, he was immersed in anti-Communist propaganda and the war psychosis of the Cold War era. He has had a life-long fascination with the history of this period and has read deeply into all aspects of it. He also saw much of Europe during his Navy years and has travelled widely in Europe since. A natural skeptic, he long ago began to doubt that the “propaganda” told the whole story. He has spent years researching “the other side of the story” and has now written a book about it. The author is a graduate of the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey, California with a degree in Political Science and International Relations.

____________________

[Clicking on a link in the Contents here will take you to that Part, in a separate post]

[Part 01]

Preface

Chapter 1 – The Myth of Germany as an Evil Nation

Germany’s Positive Image Changes Overnight

[Part 02]

Chapter 2 – Aftermath of the War in Germany

The Versailles Treaty

Effect of the Treaty on the German Economy

Was the War Guilt Clause Fair?

Did Germany Really Start the War?

[Part 03]

Chapter 3 – The Jewish Factor in the War

Jews at the Paris Peace Conference

Jews in Britain

[Part 04]

Chapter 4 – The Russian Revolution of 1917

Bolsheviks Take Control

Jews and the Russian Revolution

Origin of East European Jews

Reason for the Russian Pogroms Against the Jews

Jews Leave Russia for America

Financing the 1917 Revolution

Jews in the Government of Bolshevik Russia

[Part 05]

Chapter 5 – The Red Terror

Creation of the Gulag

Bolsheviks Kill the Czar

Jews as a Hostile Elite

The Ukrainian Famine (Holodomor)

[Part 06]

Chapter 6 – The Bolshevik Revolution Spreads Throughout Europe

Jews in the Hungarian Revolution

Miklos Horthy Saves Hungary

Jews in the German Revolution

The Spartacist Uprising in Berlin

Jewish Bolsheviks Attempt to Take Italy

Jewish Bolsheviks Attempt to Take Spain — The Spanish Civil War

Czechoslovakia in Danger of Communist Takeover

The Comintern’s Aim? World Domination!

[Part 07]

Chapter 7 – The Nation of Israel

History of the Expulsion of Jews

[Part 08]

Chapter 8 – Jews in Weimar Germany

Jews Undermine German Culture

[Part 09]

Chapter 9 – Hitler & National Socialists Rise to Power

The 25 Points of the National Socialist Party

[Part 10]

Chapter 10 – National Socialism vs. Communism

National Socialism

Jews Plan Marxist Utopia

[Part 11]

Chapter 11 – Jews Declare War on Nazi Germany

Text of Untermeyer’s Speech in New York

The Jewish Persecution Myth

Effect of Boycott on the German Economy

Jewish Exaggerations are Contradicted by Many

[Part 12]

Chapter 12 – The Nazis and the Zionists Actually Work Together for Jewish Emigration out of Germany

The Nuremberg Laws – 1935

The Zionist Movement

[Part 13]

Chapter 13 – Life in Germany Under Hitler

Night of the Long Knives

1934 Annual Nazi Rally at Nuremberg

Hitler Revives the German Economy

Hitler Becomes the Most Popular Leader in the World

[Part 14]

Chapter 14 – Hitler Begins Reclamation of German Territory

Chapter 15 – The 1936 Olympics

[Part 15]

Chapter 16 – “Anschluss”. The Unification of Austria and Germany

Austrian Economy Revived

Austria’s Jews

[Part 16]

Chapter 17 – Germany Annexes the Sudetenland

[Part 17]

Chapter 18 – War with Poland

The Polish Problem

Hitler’s Proposal to Poland

Kristallnacht

German-Polish Talks Continue

Jews Influence both Roosevelt and Churchill

British and American Political Leaders Under Jewish Influence

Roosevelt’s Contribution to Hostilities

Lord Halifax Beats the War Drums

Germany Occupies Bohemia and Moravia

Roosevelt Pushes for War

Anti-war Movement Becomes Active

Poles Murder German Nationals Within the Corridor

[Part 18]

Chapter 19 – The Phony War

Russo-Finnish War

The Norway/Denmark Campaign

German Invasion of Denmark and Norway

Churchill Takes Chamberlain’s Place as Prime Minister

[Part 19]

Chapter 20 – Germany invades France Through the Low Countries

The Phony War Ends.

Churchill the War Lover

The Fall of France

Hitler Makes Peace Offer to Britain

[Part 20]

Chapter 21 – The Allied Goal? Destruction of Germany!

[Part 21]

Chapter 22 – Germany as Victim

Rape and Slaughter

Jewish Vengeance

The Jewish Brigade

[Part 22]

Chapter 23 – Winners and Losers

Bibliography

Preface

I served in the United States Navy from 1955 until 1977, mostly as a Navy pilot, and saw a lot of the world as a result. Aircraft carriers on which I served regularly visited European ports, as well as other ports around the world. I have also traveled extensively in the years since leaving the Navy.

After traveling around most of Europe, Germany emerges as my favorite country. During our visits there we found the German people to be pleasant, industrious, disciplined and civilized with many similarities to traditional Americans. They in no way resemble the stereotypes depicted in all the anti-Nazi movies, books and articles we have been subjected to over the years.

I was born in 1937, my generation grew up virtually inundated with anti-German propaganda. We were taught, quite literally, to hate the Germans as a people. Yet, Germans I have met or befriended through the years seem no different from other Europeans, or even Americans, and they seem no more inclined to violence and militarism than anyone else; if anything, less. I have never detected anything that might be considered intrinsically “wrong” with the German character. They are a highly cultured, highly civilized people in every respect. When studied objectively, even Germany’s leaders of the 1930s and 40s were essentially no different from other European leaders. They were only made out to be different by the relentless hate propaganda directed against them.

Germany suffered more than any other country by far as a result of World War II. Some 160 of her largest cities and towns were completely destroyed by the Allied bombing campaign and more than 21 million Germans lost their lives as a result of the war. Yet, no one wants to hear their tales of suffering, and no sympathy has been allowed the defeated and disgraced Germans. The anti-German propaganda has cultivated the general feeling that they got what they deserved.

The entire responsibility for starting both World War I and World War II, and for all the death and destruction resulting from them has been assigned to the Germans (though the facts don’t bear that out). Because they were the losers of both wars, they were never permitted to present their case before the world court, nor to tell their side of the story through any medium. The winners of wars, after all, write the history books. Neither did the true story of what happened during the war come out in the Nuremberg Trials. The Nuremberg Trials were nothing more than Soviet style show trials which violated every standard of traditional British and American justice. Their purpose was not to discover guilt or innocence, but to spread a legal gloss over a decision which had already been made to execute Germany’s leaders. The entire Nuremberg circus was a sham and a travesty.

The anti-German propaganda, used to create the climate of hatred that made the massive destruction and the mass slaughter of German civilians possible, continued relentlessly long after the war was over when it would seem natural for sober minded historians to begin to moderate their extreme views about Germany. The fantastic atrocity stories continue even today. One needs only to tune in to the History Channel to see them repeated again and again. In contrast, World War I was not long over before the atrocity stories attributed to the Germans during that war were exposed as the deliberate lies they were. Responsible men conducted thorough investigations and found that none of it was true. All the lurid stories were deliberately fabricated to win British public support for the war against Germany and also to bring America into the war.

But a different factor was in play after World War II to keep the phony horror stories alive which did not exist after World War I. After WWII, the Jews exploited the anti-German world sentiment, which they themselves had largely created with their propaganda, to justify the creation of their long sought after state of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people. These manufactured horror stories also served to disarm critics of Jews as they set about to regain power and control in Europe.

Through manipulation of the international information media, the Jews won worldwide sympathy for themselves with their sensational stories of unique Jewish suffering at the hands of the cruel Germans. They claimed that Germany had followed a systematic plan to exterminate all of Europe’s Jews and that by war’s end had managed to kill 6 million of them. The alleged method was to round the Jews up from all over Europe, haul them in sealed trains to so-called “death camps” where they were herded into gas chambers and killed, and their bodies then burned in giant crematoria, with, conveniently, no forensic evidence of what had happened left behind. In the absence of forensic evidence, eye witness testimony, no matter how bizarre, sufficed to convict Germany and to make her the pariah of civilized nations.

The judges at the Nuremberg Trials were themselves not immune to the torrents of anti-German hate propaganda, and were already predisposed before the trials ever began to believe any horror story, no matter how fantastic, about the Germans. Another factor which preordained the outcome of the trials was that the accusers also served as investigators, prosecutors and final judges. Moreover, the trials were also permeated throughout with an atmosphere of Jewish vengeance seeking. Just behind the Gentile front men, most of the lawyers, prosecutors, and investigators were Jews. Hundreds of Jews who could barely speak English disported themselves in American Army officer uniforms. Two of the eight Nuremberg judges were Jews, Robert Falco of France, and Lt. Col. A.F. Volchkov (real name Berkman) of the Soviet Union. The General Prosecutor for the “High Court” was Dr. Jakob Meistner, a Jew. Their dominance and control of the trials was blatant. Even the hangman for the 10 Nazi leaders sentenced to death, Master Sergeant John C. Woods, was a Jew. As a demonstration of just how blatant their dominance was, they scheduled the hangings to take place on October 16, 1946, the Jewish holiday of “Purim.” In the Book of Esther, the 10 sons of Haman, an enemy of the Jews, were hanged on Purim day. On Purim day in 1946, 10 German leaders were hanged. This was obviously not a coincidence.

According to Louis Marschalko, a wartime Hungarian journalist who wrote about the trials:

“Out of 3,000 people employed on the staff at the Nuremberg Courts, 2,400 were Jews.”

The Holocaust story that we all know so well today was developed during the Nuremberg Trials.

By skillfully cultivating and propagating this Holocaust story, the Jews have been able to extort hundreds of billions of dollars out of Germany, as well as the United States, much of which was used to fund the new state of Israel. The claim that the Jews in Israel “made the desert bloom” was true. They did it with German and American money. They are now hard at work extorting more billions out of other European countries in what has been contemptuously but correctly called “the Holocaust industry.”

Even today, 70 years after the war, more than half a million so-called “Holocaust survivors” living mainly in Israel and the United States receive lifetime pensions from the German government. And what is a “Holocaust survivor?” Any Jew who lived anywhere in German controlled territory at any time during the war, whether living in a concentration camp or in the lap of luxury, is a Holocaust survivor and therefore eligible for a German pension. Moreover, any Jew who was forced to leave Europe during the Nazi era (even if he is a Hollywood producer) is a Holocaust survivor, and also eligible for a German pension. Some 4.39 million Jews were originally designated “Holocaust survivors.” Christian survivors of the war, no matter how horrific their experience are not eligible for pensions. “Shoah” is the Hebrew word for Holocaust. It has been joked around that “there’s no business like shoah business.” The entire Holocaust racket has become nothing so much as a vast shakedown of European countries, especially Germany. The Holocaust story has other uses as well. It is routinely invoked to disarm the general public from defending itself against Jewish predations. Prime Minister Netanyahu regularly invokes the Holocaust to justify Israeli attacks upon its neighbors, and the confiscation of its neighbors’ lands.

Keeping this gravy train moving requires the continued legitimization of Jews as history’s ultimate victim group, which, in turn, requires an ultimate victimizer of the Jews, and Germany has been designated to fill that role in perpetuity. The Jewish controlled History Channel, or the “Hitler Channel,” as it is sometimes derisively called, owes its success to endlessly repeating these anti-German propaganda programs. Any modification or revision of this carefully cultivated image of Germany as the evil monster of history, and particularly as the evil victimizer of the Jews, would threaten the entire Holocaust story. Therefore this image is jealously and carefully guarded by the Jewish controlled press and information media, and woe upon anyone who dares to question it. Anyone who does so is immediately attacked and smeared as a deranged anti-Semite. As a result of Jewish pressure, some 17 countries have made questioning, or even investigating, the Holocaust a crime which can get one a prison sentence.

The Jews are also unwilling to relinquish or even to moderate their quest for revenge. Old men who have suffered all their lives as fugitives, are still being tracked down as “war criminals,” and either “brought to justice,” or summarily murdered on the spot. (The MOSSAD, Israel’s equivalent of our CIA, is an assassination organization.) The only crime these old men may be guilty of was being an officer or soldier in the German army during the war.

But, why, one might ask, amidst all the carnage, death and destruction that occurred during World War II, has the so-called Holocaust emerged as the central atrocity story? Approximately 55 million people died during the war, only a tiny percentage of them Jews ― surely only a fraction of the 6 million claimed. All other combatant nationalities have long since put the war behind them and have tried to make peace with their former enemies, but not the Jews! More than two thirds of a century has gone by, but the Jews are still nourishing their grievances, still building Holocaust museums and memorials (not at their own expense, but at the expense of host governments), and still investigating new ways to extort money out of various countries as “compensation.” But why should only the Jews be compensated? Scores of millions of other people across Europe lost everything in the war.

The “Holocaust” has evolved over the years to become the national myth of the Jewish people with all the characteristics of a religion, complete with its very own Satan ― Hitler. The Holocaust myth is the glue that holds the Jewish people together as a distinct nationality, and because of that they carefully guard and protect it. As a consequence, the poor Germans are consigned in perpetuity to the role of history’s evil monster, regardless of what the actual facts may be.

But even if all the stories of German atrocities during WWII were true in every detail (which they are not), they would still not compare in their inhumanity to the atrocities committed against the Germans. The indiscriminate saturation bombing of German cities, the brutal expulsion of entire German populations after the war, the Allied imposed postwar deprivations, the Soviet massacres and political liquidations, simply dwarf the Holocaust in their destruction of human life and their destruction of the accumulated works of human civilization. Any final accounting and balancing of the conduct of all combatants during WWII could only result in the exculpation of Germany as “uniquely” barbarous in her methods of waging war, or in her treatment of subject populations.

The German people were devastated by the war, to a greater extent than any other participant, including the Jews, while at the same time they have been stigmatized as the evil, predatory perpetrators of the war. They have been made to pay a terrible price for atrocities during World War II which very probably never occurred, or at least, never occurred to the extent alleged. It is becoming clearer as time goes by that the Germans were the real victims of both World Wars I and II, and continue to be.

Chapter 1 The Myth of Germany as an Evil Nation

As the result of losing two apocalyptic world wars, Germany has acquired a reputation as the evil nation of Europe, and, perhaps the evil nation of all time. Just mentioning the word “German” still brings forth an image in the mind’s eye of robotic, goose-stepping storm troopers, under the command of stiff-necked Prussian officers, ready to march off to inflict gratuitous murder and destruction upon their peace loving neighbors. We have been brainwashed by relentless propaganda to regard the Germans as intrinsically militaristic, aggressive, brutish, racist and anti-Semitic, with a predilection for blind obedience to authority figures. Hundreds of Hollywood movies, relentless Holocaust propaganda, and countless books and magazine articles have permanently reinforced this negative image of Germany in the popular mind. Rational motives for the inexplicable horrors Germans are accused of having routinely committed are not required. It is axiomatic that their evil nature explains it all.

Consider the movie, “Schindler’s List,” by the Jewish director, Stephen Spielberg, for example. The Nazi commandant of the concentration camp (supposedly the Plaszow camp outside of Krakow, not far from Auschwitz), is standing shirtless on the balcony of his house with a hunting rifle over his bare shoulders. The rifle is equipped with a telescopic sight. In the movie, the house is located on a hill above the camp so that he can look down on the throngs of prisoners milling around in the compound below. He lifts the rifle to his shoulder and through the telescope begins casually scanning from one prisoner to another. The image through the telescope now fills the movie screen. The crosshairs of the scope stop on a randomly selected prisoner. He pulls the trigger and the prisoner drops to the ground, dead.

[Add. image — The actor Ralph Fiennes as Amon Goeth in the fictional story Schindler’s List, picking off camp inmates from his balcony.]

The screen then cuts back to the Nazi commandant to show bored insouciance as he actuates the bolt of his rifle and casually raises it back to his shoulder. He fires again, and again a prisoner drops to the ground, dead. Bored with his “target practice,” he turns his attention to the beautiful, sexy, naked woman lying on a bed just inside the house from the balcony. The woman is purportedly one of his Jewish housemaids selected from the camp, who also apparently serves as his sex slave. His face expresses disdainful, though lackadaisical, cynicism.

The point of the shootings, as well as bringing in the naked, Jewish housemaid, is to show the Nazi officer as totally depraved, without conscience, morality, or empathy for other humans; in short, a psychopath. It is presumed, of course, that the murdered prisoners were all Jews. Two popular Jewish themes are combined here: Nazi evil and Jewish persecution.

This episode is entirely fictional, based on a novel by Thomas Keneally, an Australian, who only visited the concentration camps once in 1980. No such actual event as described above has ever been recorded, yet the vast majority of movie goers swallow it whole and accept it as actual history.

The real Plaszow camp was located on the other side of a hill from the commandant’s house, and completely out of sight from the commandant’s balcony. It would have been impossible for him to shoot down into the compound as shown in the movie even if he had been inclined to do so, which is highly unlikely. The actual commandant of Plaszow, Amon Goeth, on which the character in the movie was based, lived in the house with his fiancé Ruth Kalder, with whom he had a child. Ruth said that they intended to marry but were unable to do so due to the chaos at the end of the war. She had her name and the child’s name changed to Goeth after the war with the help of Amon Goeth’s father. Amon Goeth was hanged after the war by the Polish government primarily for being a member of the Nazi party and a member of the Waffen-SS, not for shooting prisoners. Ruth described Amon Goeth as a cultured man who had a beautiful singing voice. Goeth did, indeed, have two Jewish housemaids, selected from the camp while he was commandant, but there is no information that he had untoward relations with them. That story was only included to add spice to the movie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaPBzhEsCL0

[Add. image — Screen shot of the movie Sophie’s Choice.]

Another example is the movie, “Sophie’s Choice,” by another Jewish director, Alan J. Pakula, in which “Sophie” and her two small children are sent to Auschwitz (Auschwitz is the holy temple of Holocaust lore). During the “selection” process (the “selection” is now one of the “stations of the cross” of the Holocaust religion) immediately after their arrival, Sophie is told by a stereotypically evil Nazi officer (supposedly Dr. Joseph Mengele of Auschwitz notoriety) that she can only keep one of her children and that the other must go to the gas chamber. She is forced to choose which one to keep and which one to be sent to the gas chamber, hence, “Sophie’s choice.” The evil Nazi officer provides no reason or explanation for requiring one child to die or for forcing her to make this heart rending choice. That he is an “evil” Nazi is presumed to be explanation enough. This preposterous movie was based on a novel by the American Southern writer William Styron, who had no firsthand knowledge of the camps. Auschwitz was simply used as the setting for a tale which came out of his imagination. Nothing of the sort ever happened in real life. Yet, evil Nazi stories such as these have long been a staple in Hollywood. The movie-going public has been so conditioned by this poppycock that fiction has become fact in the public mind. We have all been brainwashed to accept such absurdities without skepticism. Germans are “evil,” so they do “evil” things. No further explanation needed.

Yet, Germany was not always seen in this light. The image of Germany as a sinister, predatory, warlike nation only took root in the twentieth century. Nineteenth century Germany, by contrast, was seen as a place of peace and enlightenment. The English historian, Frederic William Maitland, described the way the English people saw the Germans during the nineteenth century:

“…it was usual and plausible to paint the German as an unpractical, dreamy, sentimental being, looking out with mild blue eyes into a cloud of music and metaphysics and tobacco smoke.”

The highly influential French writer and Salon matron, Madame de Stael, portrayed the Germans during the period of the Napoleonic Wars as a nation of;

“poets and thinkers, a race of kindly, impractical, other-worldly dreamers without national prejudices and disinclined to war.”

The Americans also held a benign opinion of the Germans prior to the twentieth century. The American historian, Henry Cord Meyer, wrote;

“…whether seen in their newly united nation [Germany was united into one nation in 1871] or in this country [German immigrants in the United States], the Germans were generally regarded as methodical and energetic people who were models of progress, while in their devotion to music, education, science, and technology they aroused the admiration and emulation of Americans.”

In 1905 Andrew Dickson White, a noted American historian, educator, and United States Ambassador to Germany, wrote just nine years before the outbreak of World War I:

“Germany, from a great confused mass of warriors and thinkers and workers, militant at cross-purposes, wearing themselves out in vain struggles, and preyed upon by malevolent neighbors, has become [after consolidation] a great power in arms, in art, in science, in literature; a fortress of high thought; a guardian of civilization; the natural ally of every nation which seeks the better development of humanity.”

The German people have historically made great contributions in every sphere of cultural, intellectual, and scientific achievement. In the field of music, there were such eighteenth century geniuses as Bach, Hayden, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert and Schumann, to name a few. This musical genius continued in the nineteenth century with the Strausses, Mahler and Richard Wagner. There were the literary contributions of Goethe and Schiller; the historical works of Ranke and Niebuhr; the philosophical studies of Kant and Hegel; and the great scientific contributions of Alexander von Humboldt and William Conrad Roentgen. These are only a few examples of a very long list. The Prussian system of higher education and the cultural flowering which characterized Prussia during the years following the Napoleonic wars greatly influenced both Europe and America. The American public school system as well as our university system was deliberately modeled after the Prussian public school system and university system. Germany was admired by the world as a center of learning, for its high culture and for its achievements in every field; but also for its culture of honesty, hard work, orderliness and thrift, which existed even at the lowest level of society.

British scholars and journalists had been very favorably disposed toward all things German, including their history, culture, and institutions throughout the nineteenth century. The highly respected Cambridge historian Herbert Butterfield commented extensively on Britain’s high regard for Germany.

“In England the view once prevailed that German history was particularly the history of freedom, for it was a story that comprised federation, parliament, autonomous cities, Protestantism, and a law of liberty carried by German colonies to the Slavonic east. In those days it was the Latin States which were considered to be congenial to authoritarianism, clinging to the Papacy in Italy, the Inquisition in Spain and the Bonapartist dictatorships in militaristic France. The reversal of this view in the twentieth century, and its replacement by a common opinion that Germany had been the aggressor and enemy of freedom throughout all the ages, will no doubt be the subject of historical research itself someday, especially as it seems to have coincided so closely with a change in British foreign policy … Up to the early 1900’s when historical scholarship in England came to its peak in men like Acton and Maitland, words can hardly describe the admiration for Germany ― and the confessed discipleship ― which existed amongst English historians.”

And then British author Thomas Arnold (June 13, 1795 – June 12, 1842) saw Germany not as a nation with a unique predisposition toward authoritarianism and regimentation, but rather as a “cradle of law, virtue, and freedom,” and considered it a “distinction of the first rank” that the English belonged to the Germanic family of peoples. The following photos and drawings represent the way in which the world saw Germany during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, right up to the beginning of World War I. Pre-WWI Germany was seen as a peaceful land of fairy tales and dreamy castles, and of industrious, law abiding, disciplined people.

Germany’s positive image changes over night

This view of Germany was to change almost overnight with the outbreak of World War I. After the war began in 1914 a grotesque image of a rapacious, bloodthirsty and uniquely aggressive Germany quickly took form and became the stereotypical image of Germany in Europe and America. This new image of Germany was the direct result of a virulent anti-German propaganda campaign conducted by the British government and later joined by the United States government in which deliberate and systematic lies, distortions and false atrocity stories were disseminated to the British and American publics. The emotions of both the British and American publics were deliberately whipped up to a fever pitch of hatred for the “Hun.” A pathological hostility towards all things German, which later became such a familiar and integral part of Western thinking about Germany, had its birth in this skillful propaganda campaign. After World War Two, historian Harry Paxton Howard examined this transformation of Germany’s reputation which began immediately after the start of WWI.

It was made out, he said, that Germany was not only evil but had always been that way, and that Germany, contrary to the facts, had always been the historical enemy of Europe and America. He wrote:

“Actually, in the literal sense of the word, the biggest job of revising history was done during the First World War when our ‘histories’ were completely revised to show that Germany had always been our enemy, that Germany had started the war in 1914, that Germany had even started the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, and that in the Revolutionary War we had not been fighting the British but the Hessians ― not to mention such things as the Germans cutting the hands off Belgian babies, instead of the Belgians cutting off the hands of Congolese. This was a real revision of our histories which has distorted the American mind for more than forty years.” Harry Paxton Howard.

All belligerents, of course, including Germany, used propaganda against their enemies, as all belligerents have done in all wars throughout history, but the propaganda efforts of Germany and the Central Powers were amateurish and ineffectual compared to the British. In their propaganda efforts, the Germans tended to appeal to reason instead of to the emotions.

They never portrayed their enemies as bloodthirsty, inhuman beasts. The Allies, Great Britain in particular, by contrast, proved themselves masters at adroitly manipulating world opinion by widespread propagation of fantastic tales of German villainy. From the beginning of the war, stories of German atrocities filled British and American newspapers. (American newspapers depended at that time on British news services for most of their news stories about Europe, which came across undersea cables controlled by Britain. The Germans had no access to the American media. Great Britain made sure of that by cutting Germany’s six trans-Atlantic cables to America.)

The first atrocity stories came out of the German march through Belgium at the beginning of the war. Germany’s purpose was not to attack Belgium, per se, but to pass through Belgium in order to outflank French defenses and then make a drive toward Paris. This strategy was known as the Schlieffen Plan, which the Germans believed was the only way to achieve a quick victory over France.

Germany’s “violation” of neutral Belgium served as Britain’s pretext for going to war against Germany, though the decision to go to war for other reasons (mainly economic) had already been made. Belgium was only a pretext. To enter the war, it was necessary to win public support, and the propaganda opportunities resulting from Germany’s invasion of Belgium, as well as the fabricated stories of German atrocities in Belgium served that purpose. “Eyewitnesses” were found who described hairy knuckled Huns in Pickelhaube helmets tossing Belgian babies in the air and catching them on their bayonets as they marched along, singing war songs. Stories of German soldiers amputating the hands of Belgian boys were widely reported (reputedly to prevent them from firing rifles). Tales of women with their breasts cut off multiplied even faster. There were also tales of crucifixions of Allied soldiers. Europeans and Americans were more religious then than they are today and the crucifixion stories aroused outrage. (It should be mentioned that of all forms of evidence accepted in modern courts of law, eyewitness testimony is considered the least reliable.)

But rape stories were the favorite of all atrocity tales. One “eyewitness” described how the Germans dragged twenty young women out of their houses in a captured Belgian town and stretched them on tables in the village square, where each was raped by at least twelve “Huns” while the rest of the soldiers watched and cheered.

After being fed a steady diet of this kind of propaganda, the British public veritably demanded revenge against the loathsome Hun. A group of Belgians toured the United States (at British government expense) telling these stories to Americans. (Britain wanted to draw the United States into the war.) President Woodrow Wilson solemnly received the group in the White House.

The propaganda portrayed Britain as “a knight on a white horse” coming to the defense of violated, neutral Belgium. This was cynical manipulation of public opinion, of course, because if Germany had not violated Belgian neutrality, Britain would have done so without a second thought.

Germany angrily denied all of these stories. So did American reporters who were with the German army and knew that they were lies. But these denials did not find their way into American newspapers. The British controlled what went into American papers and it was the British who were generating the atrocity stories. To enhance the credibility of these fantastic atrocity stories, the British government asked Viscount Bryce early in 1915 to head a royal commission to conduct an investigation. The British government, of course, intended that Bryce would support this false propaganda, which he obediently did. Bryce was a well known historian with a good reputation in America. He not only had served as the British ambassador in Washington, but had written several complimentary books about the American government. The British knew that he was highly respected and admired in America, and that he had a reputation for rectitude and honesty. America would believe whatever he said. Bryce was also intensely loyal to his own country and therefore perfect for the job.

False anti-German propaganda poster of World War I

The propaganda poster shown at left [above] and in the following pages are examples of the way in which the British portrayed their German foes — always as brutish, barbaric murderers of women and children.

Following these British propaganda posters are German propaganda posters against the British, French and Russians. Note the different styles. The Germans do not portray their foes as barbaric murderers.

An innocent Belgian girl about to be raped by a Hun.

Following are German propaganda posters directed against the British, French and Russians. Note that the Germans use ridicule against their enemies but do not portray them as inhuman beast.

The cartoon characters represent (L to R): Great Britain, France and Russia, and far right, Germany.

[Patience! You all will get it!]

[Add. image — Beloved fatherland, relax!]

Bryce and his six fellow commissioners, all lawyers, historians and legal scholars, “analyzed,” if you can call it that, 1,200 depositions of “eyewitnesses” who claimed to have seen these German atrocities first hand. Almost all of the eyewitness accounts came from Belgians who had left Belgium for England as refugees, though some accounts also came from British soldiers in France. The commission never interrogated a single one of these eyewitnesses, but relied on their written statements instead (shades of the Nuremberg Trials after the next war). Since there was a war on, there were no “on site” investigations of any reported atrocity. Not a single witness was identified by name, including the soldiers who had provided written accounts. Yet, the commission officially confirmed that all the atrocity stories, no matter how fantastic, were true. This bogus investigation was just another part of Britain’s anti-German propaganda campaign.

[Add. image — The Bryce Report and its author, James Bryce.]

The “Bryce Report” was released on May 13, 1915, and the British government made sure it went to every newspaper in America. The impact was phenomenal, especially coming just after the torpedoing of the British liner Lusitania which caused the deaths of 135 Americans.

Americans from coast to coast were outraged. A wave of revulsion for all things German swept the country. Hatred of Germans reached fever pitch. Suddenly the American public was clamoring for war. (There is well founded suspicion that the Lusitania was set up as a decoy by the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, deliberately exposing it to a German submarine attack for the purpose of bringing America into the war).

But there were skeptics of the Bryce Report. In England, Sir Roger Casement called the report a lie, and wrote a report of his own refuting it, though no one paid much attention to it. The American lawyer, Clearance Darrow, was so skeptical that he travelled to France in 1915 and searched in vain for a single eyewitness who could confirm even one of the Bryce stories. Increasingly dubious, Darrow announced that he would pay $1,000, equivalent to around $25,000 today, to anyone who could produce a Belgian boy whose hands had been amputated by a German soldier, or any other Belgian or French victim who had been mutilated by German troops. None were found.

The “proofs” provided by the Bryce Committee in its investigation, as well as the methods employed in gathering them, violated every elementary rule of evidence. Careful scholars have long since demonstrated that the entire report was made up of nothing more than distortions and outright falsehoods. But Britain was determined to pull the United States into the war and Bryce and his colleagues were willing accomplices in that effort. They justified their lies and exaggerations because it served the higher cause of Mother England. After the war most historians dismissed 99 percent of Bryce’s atrocities as fabrications. One called the report “in itself one of the worst atrocities of the war.” “After the war,” recounts Thomas Fleming in his book Illusion of Victory;

“historians who sought to examine the documentation for Bryce’s stories were told that the files had mysteriously disappeared.”

[Add. image — Kaiser (to a 1917 recruit). “And don’t forget that your Kaiser will find a use for you—alive or dead.” Punch, 25 April 1917.]

As the war drew on, another fabricated story was widely circulated. It was reported that the Germans were operating a “corpse factory” where the bodies of both German and Allied soldiers killed in battle were supposedly melted down for fats and other products useful to the German war effort. The Germans were accused of making soap out of human fat. Human skins were used to make fine leather goods such as lampshades, driving gloves and riding breeches. The bones of these corpses were said to have been ground up and used as fertilizer on German farms.

A detailed account of this so-called “corpse factory” appeared in the highly respected British newspaper, The Times, on April 17, 1917.

According to the story, trains full of corpses arrived at a large factory. The bodies were attached to hooks connected to an endless chain. The article carefully described the process inside the corpse factory.

“The bodies are transported on this endless chain into a long, narrow compartment, where they pass through a bath which disinfects them. They then go through a drying chamber, and finally are automatically carried into a digester or great cauldron, in which they are dropped by an apparatus which detaches from the chain. In the digester they remain from six to eight hours, and are treated by steam, which breaks them up while they are slowly stirred by the machinery. From this treatment result several products. The fats are broken up into stearin, a form of tallow, and oils, which require to be redistilled before they can be used. The process of distillation is carried out by boiling the oil with carbonate of soda, and some of the by-products resulting from this are used by German soap makers. The oil distillery and refinery lie in the south-eastern corner of the works. The refined oil is sent out in small casks like those used for petroleum, and is of a yellowish brown color.” Note the meticulous detail.

The story was a total fabrication, but it was a “plausible” story, especially with all the detail, and it was not possible for the Germans to completely refute it while the war was still going on. After the war, of course, the story was exposed as the lie it was. No such corpse factory existed. It is interesting that the story of making soap out of bodies emerged again during World War II when the Germans supposedly made soap out of Jewish corpses. That lie is still widely believed and remains a staple of Jewish Holocaust propaganda. The “lampshades out of human skin” story also had its origin in World War I and emerged again during World War II when Germans were supposedly making lampshades out of Jewish skin. There was nothing to it, yet it also remains a staple of Jewish Holocaust propaganda.

“The purpose of war propaganda,” historian Thomas Fleming, in his book “The Illusion of Victory,” observes;

“as peddled by both the Anglo and American elite, was to create a widespread public image of Germans as ‘monsters capable of appalling sadism’ ― thereby coating an appeal to murderous collective hatred with a lacquer of sanctimony.”

“The trick,” said Fleming, “is to leave the target audience at once shivering in horror at a spectacle of sub-human depravity, panting with a visceral desire for vengeance, and rapturously self-righteous about the purity of its humane motives. People who succumb to it are easily subsumed into a hive mind of officially sanctioned hatred, and prepared to perpetrate crimes even more hideous than those that they believe typify the enemy.”

[Add. image — The Illusion of Victory by Thomas Fleming (2003)]

The Bryce Report as well as all the other anti-German propaganda unquestionably helped England win the war. It convinced millions of Americans and other neutrals that the Germans were beasts in human form, and this, as much as anything else, helped bring America into the war. But there were adverse consequences to this lurid atrocity propaganda campaign. It poisoned public opinion against the Germans to such an extent that it could not be undone. It was an obvious factor, for example, in the British decision to maintain the total blockade of Germany for seven months after the war was over, which, incidentally, was a violation of international law. The blockade caused a million German civilians to starve to death, and unbearable suffering of millions more. The blockade itself was far and away the greatest atrocity of World War I, though it receives very little publicity, and it was done, not by the evil Germans, but by the saintly British.

By creating blind hatred of Germany, the anti-German propaganda campaign also contributed to the harsh peace terms imposed on Germany at the end of the war, which then sowed the seeds of World War II. Though historians and other scholars have exposed these German atrocity stories as nonsense, the image of German villainy has remained fixed.

The benign world opinion of Germany which existed right up to 1914 was replaced overnight by the myth of unique German savagery which left a permanent residue of Germanophobia deep in Western minds. This explains why “our boys” were so willing to obliterate whole German cities and kill hundreds of thousands of German civilians with air bombardments during the Second World War. This hate propaganda, as false as it was, also had the effect of totally demoralizing the German people.

[END of Part 01]

_______________________

PDF Notes

* Total words = 7,550

* Total pages = 48

*Total images = 32

*Note: Images not in original book are indicated as “Add. image” (Additional image).

*Text in [square brackets] is not part of the original book.

*Special thanks to reader “mblaine” for providing the text for this book.

======================================

Click to download a PDF of this post (7.0 MB).

The Myth of Germany Villainy – Part 01 (Ver 2)

Click on a link to go to another part:

[Click images to enlarge]

Part 01 — Cover text; About the Author; Preface; Chapter 1: The Myth of Germany as an Evil Nation

Part 02 — Chapter 2: Aftermath of the War in Germany

Part 03 — Chapter 3: The Jewish Factor in the War

Part 04 — Chapter 4: The Russian Revolution of 1917

Part 05 — Chapter 5: The Red Terror

Part 06 — Chapter 6: The Bolshevik Revolution Spreads Throughout Europe

Part 07 — Chapter 7: The Nation of Israel

Part 08 — Chapter 8: Jews in Weimar Germany

Part 09 — Chapter 9: Hitler and National Socialists Rise to Power

Part 10 — Chapter 10: National Socialism vs Communism

Part 11 — Chapter 11: Jews Declare War on Nazi Germany

Part 12 — Chapter 12: The Nazis and the Zionists Actually Work Together for Jewish Emigration out of Germany

Part 13 — Chapter 13: Life in Germany Under Hitler

Part 14 — Chapter 14 & 15: Hitler Begins Reclamation of German Territory; The 1936 Olympics

Part 15 — Chapter 16: “Anschluss” The Unification of Austria and Germany

Part 16 – Chapter 17: Germany Annexes the Sudetenland

Part 17 – Chapter 18: War with Poland

Part 18 – Chapter 19: The Phony War

Part 19 – Chapter 20: Germany invades France – The Phony War Ends

Part 20 – Chapter 21: The Allied Goal? Destruction of Germany!

Part 21 – Chapter 22: Germany as Victim

Part 22 (last) – Chapter 23: Winners and Losers

_____________________

Version History

Version 7: Mar 13, 2021 – Added new Go2 Cover images (3).

Version 6: Apr 7, 2020 — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version. Updated See Also links.

Version 5: Dec 9, 2018 — Improved formatting.

Version 4: Oct 8, 2016 — Expanded Table of Contents.

Version 3: Oct 3, 2016 — Updated cover image. Formatting. Added Ver 2 of PDF of post for download. Added links to other parts.

Version 2: Oct 2, 2016 — Added PDF of post for download.

Version 1: Oct 1, 2016 — Created post.

Red Ice Radio: Dr Andrew Joyce – The History of Jewish Influence — TRANSCRIPT (Part 2)

admin — Sun, 05 Jun 2016 01:54:08 +0000

[In this very informative audio interview (139 mins — Parts I & II) Henrik Palmgren talks with Dr. Andrew Joyce. We learn of Andrew’s gradual awakening to the Jewish Problem/Question while still at school. Since then he has been led to conclude that organized jewry is behind a genocidal plan to effectively destroy White countries through the importation of non-Whites, among other strategies. He concludes that we all have a duty to fight for White survival by spreading awareness of what is going on to as many people as possible — KATANA.]

_____________________

https://redice.tv/red-ice-radio/the-history-of-jewish-influence

(NOTE: This link will take you to PART 1 ONLY.

You need to be a Red Ice MEMBER to listen to Part 2. BTW, I would encourage readers to become subscribers to Red Ice!)

Red Ice Radio

Dr Andrew Joyce

The History of Jewish Influence

Part 2/2

Published on Jun 1, 2016

Red Ice Preface

top

Andrew Joyce PhD is a scholar, speaker and writer with academic expertise in immigration, ethnic and religious conflict, and philosophy. Andrew sits on the Editorial Advisory Board of The Occidental Quarterly and is a regular contributor to The Occidental Observer. He also serves the British Renaissance Policy Institute in an advisory capacity and will be producing and editing a new journal for BRPI. He is in the final stages of preparing for publication Talmud and Taboo: Essays on The Jewish Question.

Dr. Joyce joins us for another critical look inside the history and events that continually lead us back to the immense Jewish question. To begin, Andrew highlights his academic journey and how he arrived at tackling the vast obstacles embedded within our propagandized Western history to get to the truth of Jewish influence. We discuss their role during the Middle Ages as middleman merchants in close alliance with the elite powers that be, when the practice of usury transformed the means by which Europe was expanded and consolidated. Andrew explains some misconceptions about Jewish emancipations during the medieval period, many of which were influenced by the weakening of monarchal power and the rise of parliamentary democracy in host nations. Then, we consider how the Jewish proclivity of exploiting weaknesses within the flawed democratic system, their fierce ethnocentricity, and deep fear of being racially and genetically disseminated has compelled them to intensely strategize against gentiles. Andrew talks about the cycle of greed within the monarchy system that led to numerous Jewish expulsions and the clever maneuvers that repeatedly brought them and their money back into the untouchable ruling elite fold. We also look at the current calamity of governmental errors driving Europeans to extinction and how Jews have contributed in shaping the demographic suicide of the West.

Then, Andrew illuminates how Jews have used a backdoor trial and error approach to slowly infiltrate special interest groups aiming to clamp down on freedoms to criticize detractors, and we look at what a massive cultural shift might look like if Whites can employ that same diligence in reversing the pathologically blind response to their destruction. Further, we discuss the immense responsibility that lies in safeguarding the inheritance of our future generations, which ultimately requires a strong ethnic brotherhood standing in radical resistance to the invading cultures that have no place within our own. At the end, we get into the idea that everything happening now with the push for multiculturalism in the West is just history repeating itself, and if we are to reverse this creeping genocide we must bring more awareness, raise the stakes, and adapt an attitude of total success.

PART 1

[Separate post]

Red Ice Preface

Introduction

How Joyce Came to Be Writing About Jews

Schindler’s List

Migration and Ethnic Conflict

Our History About Jews is Written by Jews

Discovering Kevin MacDonald’s Work

Contacting MacDonald and Writing for the Occidental Observer

Official View of Jews as Victims

Jews as Tax Farmers, Money Merchants in the Middle Ages

Wipe Your Mind of Any Preconceptions of Jews in History

How Jews Gained a Foothold in Europe

The “Emancipation” of the Jews

Frederick the Great of Prussia Made the Jewish Community Liable for Fraud

Jewish Emancipation and the Rise of Parliamentary Democracy

Why We Should View Jews as a Group?

Jews Are The, “Groupiest Group That Ever Grouped!”

Jews Fear Mixing and And Vanishing Genetically

Jews Are All Times Strategisers, at All Times Tacticians

Jewish Expulsions Throughout History

Jewish exploitation and Exclusivity

Opposition from Nobility, Clergy and Peasants

The Cycle of Expulsion of Jews and Their Return

Jews Thrive Under Very Strong Government and a Weak Population

Why Should We Concern Ourselves with Jewish Ethnic Interests and Power?

People of European Descent Face Demographic Catastrophe

Poisonous Jewish Intellectualism and SJWs

The “Refugee” Invasion

Our Land is Not Ours Anymore

British Renaissance and TOO

Sudden Enthusiasm for New Groups and Movements, Trump

Hubris vs 2,000 Year Problem

Trump Not in Jewish Play Book

“Talmud and Taboo” Book

See Also

PDF Download

Version History

PART 2

Red Ice Preface

Introduction to Part 2

A Need for a More Objective View About Jews

Avoiding the Obsessive Paranoid Approach to the JQ

Jews as Demonic, or as Supernatural Beings?

Jews Work Very Hard at Gaming the System

Jewish Exaggerations and Propaganda

Pseudo-Science from Jewish Academics

The Teaching of History is Dying Particularly the Nationalistic Element

Television and World War Two History

Although People Are Poor on Facts, They Are Rich in Indignation!

The Nature of “Reading” Has Changed

Jewish Atrocity Propaganda Dominates

We Need to Really “Evangelize” for Our Cause and for the Truth

Adopting an Unsentimental and Hard Perspective is Sometimes Needed

Communicating Our Message

Younger Generation’s Use of Humour with Things Like the “Holocaust”

It’s Time to Adopt Many Different Tactics

The Jewish Introduction of Hate Speech Laws in Britain

Jews Are Persistent about Getting Their Way

Jews Behind Race Relations Legislation

The Jewish Dominated National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants

Brittan and Rifkind’s Public Order Act That Banned Racial Harassment

Sidiq Khan, the Muslim Mayor of London

London, a Multicultural Hellhole

Many More Kahns to Come

The Personal Individual World of the Average Citizen Has Shrunk

As the Situation Gets Worse It May Not Get Better for Our Cause

Be Prepared to Be Surprised

We Must Act If Our Children and Grandchildren Are to Be Spared a Horrific Future!

Every White Country in the World is Being Flooded

You Wear the Uniform of Your Race, in Your Skin

Why This Has Been Done to Us?

Jewish Security was the Primary Motivation in Early Twentieth Century

Post World War Two Jewish Drive Towards Genocide of Whites

“The Last Whites of the East End”

Wrapping Up

I Do Think That We Will Win

See Also

PDF Download

Version History

TRANSCRIPT

(72:00)

[00:00]

Introduction to Part 2

top

Henrik: Welcome back ladies and gentlemen. We’re talking with Dr Andrew Joyce about his work on jewish history, jewish influence and, of course, of why we should take an interest in the subject, if we care about our own survival, our genetic survival, and the survival of our culture, our civilization. We’ve tried to really just kind of give an overview picture of some of the history of the relationship here between the jews in Europe and, of course, our relationship to that and how this is playing out in the modern age. I hope we can speak some more about this later, about what is happening right now and how we are being, you know, uniquely targeted in this way.

A Need for a More Objective View About Jews

top

But one of the thing I wanted to ask you about, Andrew, before we kind of proceed, if you will. And I don’t mean to take things off topic here, but, do you think that there is a, how do I put it, a kind of paranoia to a certain extent that seems to comfort some that are highly focused on this issue alone. I mean, you seem very well balanced, you have an ability to be objective, rational, scientific when you look at this subject.

And I know there is that is a concern here too, as people are usually not even willing to look at the subject, so I hate to criticize those who do look at the subject, but if I would have any critique, it would be that I feel that some people, it’s almost like they see an omnipotence, almost a metaphysical nature to the power and the influence that Jews hold as a group, and with that there seems to be almost kind of a paranoia over the issue. I’m not sure if you agree with that, or not, but do you think that, you know, that approach, or attitude to the subject is something that serves us good at the end, or not? I would propose that people adopt a more of an attitude that you hold, which is more objective, more cold, it’s not so emotional, if you will. I don’t know if you have any comments on that Andrew?

Andrew: The first thing that I would say Henrik, is that I agree with you that there seems to be, if you want to call it, an obsessive quality to a lot of what has been produced by our people in relation to the jews. Not just recently only the last fifty years, you know, under the kind of conspiracy theory umbrella, or metaphysical sense, but really going going back centuries.

As I mentioned before, when I when I first got into the subject and I was reviewing large amounts of literature, I encountered large amounts of literature that was shoddy, that was full of hyperbolic argument, right the way through to, you know, extreme fantasy along the lines of saying, you know, jews were demonic. That they were almost supernatural beings. That they had this kind of omnipotent power and, you know. All these different ways of interpreting what was happening.

As you go back further in time, you go into Europe, it held different mentalities and existed in a different concept of the world that we don’t have. It was more religious, people then lived closer to death., you know, they didn’t live so long, so the entire perception of the world of life, and of the life beyond was different and much more immediate. And it tended to shape how people viewed their day to day interactions.

Now over time some of the older superstitions and traditions and more fanciful ways of seeing the world have slowly dissipated. But, I agree with you that there is an esoteric element to the Jewish Question, only to the extent that esoteric may mean, “hidden knowledge”.

Henrik: Yep.

Andrew: Or the occult might mean hidden knowledge. And knowledge is hidden from the public, but not in a supernatural manner. I believe that every aspect of the Jewish Problem is explainable, measurable, quantifiable and studiable in terms of human nature and the variety of human nature, the nature of human interaction, the nature of ethnic conflict and genetics. And then how we are born as human beings and the traits that we have developed over historical time and through evolutionary processes and even through our own individual sociological histories. How we are raised by our parents, the values that we hold, the life priorities that we possess.

[05:00]

Avoiding the Obsessive Paranoid Approach to the JQ

top

But yes, there are definitely people who, I would say, have a kind of obsessive, paranoid, hobbyist, kind of approach to the subject, where they see, you know, jews under their bed, or something like that. Everything that goes wrong, you know, it would be this knee jerk reaction to say:

“Oh, it’s the Jews!”

And, you know, to offer a different picture to that, as we got into earlier, and as I explained, even with one of the bigger catastrophes that we face right now, in terms of this demographic displacement, I hesitate in saying, you know, “It’s all the jews”, you know, they’re brainwashing all of us and that is the only reason. No. I think we can reach to the fact that we are in a post-industrial society, that there are economic transitions that we view what is ours, differently. That our sense of community and ethnic cohesion has been damaged by a multitude of factors.

Jews as Demonic, or as Supernatural Beings?

top

And that some of, a lot of the weaknesses that we have had as a people over historical time, have been native to us, and we have provided more than ample opportunities for those weaknesses to be exploited by a people that there is, you know, more self interested than us on average, more cohesive than us, and seem to work much better as a team, than we do. I don’t see jews as demonic, or as supernatural beings and, you know, one of the offshoots of that is that I don’t see jewish influence, or jewish power, control on our society as insurmountable, or unbeatable.

Henrik: Right.

Andrew: I think that it’s really is simply a matter of studying what our weaknesses are and to develop strategies that are calm and sane and well thought out, and really long term. And if we do that, and if we can build upon such simple foundations, then I think that we will find that and in the next century, or two, things will look much, much different than there have in the past.

Jews Work Very Hard at Gaming the System

top

But, it will take constant effort and dedication, because that’s what jews apply to, on their side in fence. They apply a constant effort and dedication to what they’re doing. You know, they aren’t just lazily floating into these positions of influence that they occupy. When you look at the, you know, the issue of ethnic networking, whether it’s getting seats on the Supreme Court, or, whether it’s occupying key financial positions in the world of business. It’s just, it’s hard work. It’s not fair work. They’re not playing the game fairly, but they’re working very, very hard at gaming the system.

Henrik: Yep. That’s true.

Andrew: And there’s nothing supernatural about that. We can we can look at, … I do all the time in each of my articles for the Occidental Observer, cite the sources and the facts, you know, this is how they’re doing it.

Just to wrap that up, you asked me if I think, whether a paranoid, or an esoteric view of the Jewish Question is helpful to our movement. No it isn’t. It’s extremely counter-productive, because, you know, all the organized jewish community, or the Anti-Defamation League need to do, is to point to one quack coming out with something, … I read a statement like, you know, “The jews trying to blow up the moon”, or something, and that’s it, you know. That will resonate so deeply in the mind of a neutral individual that it will taint forever any sane, or rational attempt to get them to come to terms with this most important question.

Henrik: Yeah, and again, as I said, I hate to critic criticize those who are willing to look at this area, but I guess my main overview point would be, that there can be an unhealthy obsession, I think with the subject. I’ve seen many good people, utterly lose themselves and, you know, their own quality of life, …

I mean, I understand this is for real, this is a battle, this is not a joke. We have to we have to fight, we have to work to get ourselves out of this, but I think to be a healthy human being, to be able to address these subjects in a rational way, I think it’s important that we remain a level of mental health here and stay sane [chuckling], to be able to be efficient fighters, if you will, in this. And I think disconnecting from the subject, or breaking out from you getting a bit of a pause, now and then, is something that would be beneficial to some people.

[10:00]

Jewish Exaggerations and Propaganda

top

It’s a friendly critique, if anything, you know. But one of the things I want to get into here is basically, any kind of, it dovetails with what we just spoke about and that is, that there is a frustration, I think that comes with this topic for obvious reasons, because there are exaggerations on the opposite side of this, that are so outrageous. That those who study any of this to at any length, seem almost incapable of communicating to these absurd claims, if you will, to quote, “normal” people, who don’t look at any of this, you know, they, … Most people are just recipients of the normal propaganda out of the mainstream media and education, and all the rest.

But then, on on our side, if you will. We who look into this, deeper into history and science and these kinds of issues, see, for example, their claims of, you know, shrunken heads and electrified floors, you know, during the Second World War, or are making soap right out of the fat of the people, or that somehow, the German women during the Second World War wanted to make pillows out of the hair of jewish women, or that they made lampshades out of their skin. [laughing] Anyone who rationally looks at this, will quickly realize how absurd many of these claims are.

Pseudo-Science from Jewish Academics

top

Another example, of course, that was spoken about in the break, is the pseudo-science that exists behind many jewish academics, from Spinoza, I know you’ve written a great length about him. We have Stephen Jay Gould, we have, we also spoke a bit about Donald Yates, who wrote, “When Scotland was Jewish”. And it’s almost this aspect of going too far. It’s another level of pseudo-history, pseudo-science. But, when we try to communicate this, still to this day, it seems like, we are the kooks for pointing these, you know, obvious things out to people.

So, my point is, to make a long winded point somewhat short, is there is a disconnection in the communication between those who study the subject and those who are not well versed in this at all. And I think both sides look at this as like, the other side it seems are utterly kooks and there’s no interface between them. What do you suggest in terms of being able to explain this to people rationally and to be able to bring up some of these exaggerations without being sounding outlandish, or even the aspect that we dare to question, you know, World War Two history. It’s a huge subject I know, but what would you say to all of this?

Andrew: One of the first important points that I think needs to be made when we’re talking about how to communicate truth to someone about any of these topics, is the fact that the nature of communication has itself changed significantly in the last ten, or fifteen years and the nature also of our education in all of our nations has changed significantly, as well. And what do I mean by that? Well, I interact with a lot of young people and, you know, I am always keen to engage new people that I meet in conversation, both about current events and also when I touch a little bit about, you know, various historical subjects. It’s a passion of mine.

The Teaching of History is Dying, Particularly the Nationalistic Element

top

One of the things I’ve discovered is that, first of all, history is dying. The teaching of history, certainly is dying, and the great popular understanding of history is also dying. This isn’t surprising in a society which is beings sort of slowly led to slaughter. One of the best ways to encourage a people to go silently into that good night, is to deprive it of it’s sense of historical people-hood, and so you slowly withdraw significant aspects of the teaching of it’s history, particularly the nationalistic elements.

So, the first thing that I would say, you’re painting with broad strokes here, would be that the average member of the public doesn’t have a good understanding of any of their history, let alone any aspect of jewish history. What passes for history today, is much closer to tabloid journalism. And when you turn on the TV, whether it’s the History Channel, or some other kind of historical documentary that they put on a mainstream TV channel. It’s full of sound bytes and catch phrases and punch lines, designed to convey a very simplistic and very targeted message about what happened, why it happened and what you’re supposed to think about what happened.

[15:00]

The sense of history, as something which is malleable, debatable, that’s subject to an intellectual tug of war, and in particular, something that should provoke investigation rather than result in some kind of self-satisfied, “I know what happened”. That sense of history, as far as I can see, it is almost, it exists in corners of the Internet, in some intellectual movements, this kind of questioning attitude. Red Ice Radio itself is an example of one of the last enclaves in our culture, in our society, where free debate and the spirit of investigation persists. But, Henrik as I said, history as we understand it, is a dying art in our society.

Henrik: Right.

Television and World War Two History

top

Andrew: So, what I have come to expect when engaging any member of the public in discussion about any particular sort of subject, and in particular, I suppose World War Two and the alleged atrocities which occurred during it, and I mention those specifically, because that is one of the most common things that appears on TV is, you know, this is what happened during World War Two. This is who said, this is what happened during World War Two. And this is how you should feel about it. You should feel horrified that this happened in Europe. You should feel some sense of guilt, because your country was either complicit in it, or stood by and watched it happen.

And, you know, normally that’s followed up with an advertisement for Christian Aid to Africa during the ad break, [laughter] or something that, you know, some woman coming on TV and explaining why refugees are welcome!

Although People are Poor on Facts, They are Rich in Indignation!

top

So it all feeds into a pattern. But, the average person on the street, really doesn’t know a great deal about World War Two at all. And most will admit that, as well. But, more crucial than than what they know, or do not know, is the sense that they are, they don’t possess a lot of facts, but somehow an instinct gets woven in there, through their cultural and educational experience. This instinct I talked about earlier, where, you know, that something bad happened and, you know, that to adopt an antagonistic position to this bad thing that happened, it will make you a bad person! So, although they are poor on facts, they are rich in indignation!

Henrik: Yes.

Andrew: Should you decide to press on that point, and I’ve discovered that when you present some facts in conversation, I’ve discovered, almost immediate enlightenment! Whenever you come out with, you know, just bare facts with the idea, you know:

“Oh, well, you know, the number of jewish casualties in World War Two, during World War Two was nowhere near as high as was what you think it is.” or, “You know, the number of Germans who died and the number of Europeans across the Continent, far dwarf the number of jewish dead.”

Whereas, when is a Steven Spielberg’s Dream Works going to make a film about their suffering, you know? When can we expect a movie on Dresden:

“Oh! You’ve never heard of Dresden? Why haven’t you heard of Dresden?”

Henrik: Yeah

Andrew: And slowly, slowly, the scales begin to fall from their eyes, so to speak., but that is a very direct form of communication. And again we come back to this idea, as I said, about how communication has changed.

The Nature of “Reading” Has Changed

top

It used to be, that we lived in a much more literate culture and this might seem strange in an era that I’m saying this, when we have the internet and we have Twitter and Facebook, and it seems like people are constantly reading, but that really depends on your definition of, “reading”. When, you know, when someone fifty, or sixty years ago went to a library, or picked up a newspaper, they read. And when they read, they read something that was quite long. And they read with a sense that this was something they needed to really get a good grasp on, understand and remember.

Whereas, what is reading today involve? Well, it might involve having a quick look at a one sentence status update on Twitter. It might be consist most of reading, perhaps a two thousand word op-ed in The Huffington Post, but the nature of reading has changed. That’s why I argue that we live in a much less literate society.

[20:00]

And communication, the emphasis of communication are shifted much more to the personal and the interpersonal, in the sense that, you know, one of my friends is a professor in business. And one of the things he teaches his students about is this how marketers in industry are shifting all of their attention away from, kind of billboards and different things, into getting people to talk to each other, or buy products., because they have discovered that’s how we communicate best and that’s the best way to sell an idea is to spread socially through conversation., because we’re communicating less and less with ideas on paper. I say that with some sense of despondency, being a writer predominately, myself. Perhaps that’s one of the reasons why am I taking to the airwaves as well, you know, it’s a natural evolution.

Henrik: Yeah.

Jewish Atrocity Propaganda Dominates

top

Andrew: And perhaps I’m moving with the times. But, yes, communication has changed, but how to do we communicate an alternative narrative to World War Two, you know? However, it’s getting out there, the popular narrative of World War Two and the the alleged atrocities that took place during it is predominate and it is dominated and shaped by jewish organizations, on all levels of our culture. Not only in terms of history books that are put out there.

Some of which, I recently read a book on the so-called czars pogroms in which, you know, long discredited tales about babies having their heads smashed against walls and thrown on fires, being burnt alive. Women having their breasts hacked off. It’s really, really pornographic, brutal imagery. These stories have long since been discredited, but you still find jewish historians repeating them.

Henrik: Yes.

Andrew: How do we compete with this kind of brutal, emotive, audacious propaganda?

It can be an uphill struggle to combat an article like that you need to rely on a lot of facts, and you also require, …

Henrik: Let me ask you Andrew, because, I mean, you read my mind there, because I want to mention, you know, that despite everything you’ve mentioned, there is a narrative driven here, there’s a consensus that forms itself. By the mass message of the mass media, right? To do something here is driving the influence and I like the word you used, “instinct” right. It’s creating an instinct in people, they can’t really pinpoint it, or maybe justified intellectually it was explained why they feel a certain way. They just kind of know on an instinctual level.

What I’m wondering is if this change that’s taking place in the ideas of history and how we learn things. If that’s something that we can actually use in our favor, right. Is there something we can do strategically to exploit that at this time? Because obviously the one to one communication is, as you say, probably the best and the most ideal, but it’s also the one that takes the longest to do right. We need to still mass communicate, but we need to do it in such a way that it appeals to people. And very difficult, maybe, I don’t know how much you’ve been thinking about these things. I know your work is primarily in history and so forth and on media strategies, but what’s your thought on it?

We Need to Really “Evangelize” for Our Cause and for the Truth

top

Andrew: Is it is something that I’ve given considerable thought to. And actually for several years now. I’ve thought that one of the things that we need to be doing more of is, almost copying the Christians church, in that we act as missionaries and we seek to go out and interact with people, and really evangelize for our cause and for the truth.

Evangelism as a word, really is, I think extremely appropriate and very apt for what we are doing, because we are seeking not necessarily to save someone’s soul, but we are seeking to save them from themselves, almost.

The existing narrative and all of those instincts that they currently possess, if left to their own devices without our intervention, are very, very harmful and damaging to the rest of us, also, but really let’s not beat around the bush here, it’s a suicidal instinct and it’s own path to damnation! And if people are going to respond best to, kind of, face to face persuasion and seeing their friends and their family members, you know, adopting a different worldview, and not being evil Nazis that want to use electrified floors on people and everything else, [laughter] then that is a way forward.

[25:10]

It has to be all encompassing. It always saddens me sometimes when I when I see images online of a so-called far right protest and the people there are holding beer cans and just in their overall presentation, everything about them is, you know, there’s not much there that I can sympathize with, or admire. Other than the fact that they know, that the current narrative is designed to, the destruction of their people, basically.

But, beyond that, some of these people are rather unfortunate personalities. It’s a confusing one for me in some respects. Just like you said about those whose kind of succumb to a kind of paranoia. We want to give them all a friendly critique and we hesitate to completely push them away, even if what they’re doing is harmful.

When I see, you know, for want of a better word, some thugs on the street, you know, half drunk accosting members of the public and presenting really what should be a very decent and very productive message, in a quite vulgar way, to I myself feeling very frustrated, because, …

Henrik: And the media loves to focus on those personages too, of course, It’s like, right for the picking for, you know, the papers and the mass media.

Andrew: Absolutely! And it’s frustrating, because I look often and I see so many good people in our movement, and I feel overall a desire to push us up, to raise us up as a people, and we we should be in a sense, elitist and always looking for self improvement within ourselves personally, and within ourselves as a movement and ultimately as a people. And it’s frustrates me somehow, sometimes that people who don’t live up to that ideal, or, and live it out, because, you know, for every, … There just seems to be too many people out there, who are, you know, chanting that they are Aryan superman and yet lives of debauchery and drunkenness and low achievement.

Adopting an Unsentimental and Hard Perspective is Sometimes Needed

top

Perhaps that’s a little bit elitist of me, but again, as I said, at the outset of this interview, I’m unsentimental about the problem that we face. And I may be more hard-line than most, and less egalitarian and welcoming everyone into the fold, as others, but, you know, these are hard times. As for me personally, I think that adopting a hard perspective is sometimes needed.

Henrik: Yep.

Communicating Our Message

top

Andrew: And when it comes to communicating our message, on a one to one basis, that to me is the antithesis of what we should be aiming for. It needs to be presented in a very acceptable, if I can put it like that way to the members of the general public. It’s difficult enough, the obstacles we face are difficult enough, without shooting ourselves in the foot.

Henrik: So, I’m a believer that, you know, there’s many different tactics that does work, that there’s many different approaches, different things will appeal to different people, different people come to the truth, and they come to a deeper, you know, interest in history from many different walks of life and whatnot. So, I am in favor of a broad kind of, you know, approach and not trimming it down too much, maybe.

On the other hand, I do understand what you’re saying, that there needs to be a conscious effort of what you’re doing. But, look at things of like how trolling and the of just running exaggerations of some of the claims have done, to kind of well, really destabilize the mainstream to certain extent, right? What I’m talking about is making fun, making jokes of all of this. Making it very light hearted, everything from the Daily Stormer, or to the Twitter trolls out there. There has been a certain level of success with that, I would say. Especially to young people who are, maybe just tired about the seriousness around it. I’m not saying that this appeals to academics that are, you know, fifty and over, but, my point there is that, who knew that something like this would like work on young people?

[30:00]

And they would be like, you know, attracted to, you know, Alt Right ideas and they kind of love just the light heartedness of it. That somehow, it’s a tremendously serious time for us as a people and what we’re facing, and yet, it seems that the light heartedness around it is what has attracted many people to it, if you think I’m saying?

Younger Generation’s Use of Humour with Things Like the “Holocaust”

top

Andrew: Yes, and I agree. At the outset of my review of David Cesarani’s book “The Final Solution” [“Final Solution: The Fate of the Jews, 1933–49”], I actually wrote a few paragraphs on the attitude of the younger generation, the millennial generation, if you want to give them that label, to situation that we’re in. More specifically the “Holocaust” and, you know, I wrote that, here, you know, here was a situation where we had decades of incredibly serious studious scholarly “Holocaust” revisionism, which resulted in people being imprisoned and lawsuits against people like David Irving.

And everything was very serious and involved lots of legalities and everything and then up pops the millennial generation with writers, with names like, “Grandpa Lampshade”! [laughter] And, you know, and with images of, like a little frog, you know, that accompanies Donald Trump, in putting Jews in striped pajamas behind wire fences! [laughter] Its taken to really ridiculous levels, and one of the things that does, to come back this idea of an instinct is, it’s so jarring to the system, to someone in the mainstream that it almost breaks that instinct.

Henrik: Yep.

Andrew: In a very different way to presenting them with some nice factual information, or playing on their curiosity. What it actually does is it plays on their sense of shock and their sense of humor. So it pulls on something very, very different and certainly no less effective to a younger millennial generation. As I said, that doesn’t want to read a great deal, and increasingly this method of communication of the meme works. This image with a funny caption designed to get a few giggles and, you know, it could be something just ridiculous, or just so outlandish that even the most earnest and, you know, self righteous, social justice warrior, might even crack a smile with them. And get them thinking about how ridiculous some aspects of the narrative that they have been taught really are.

It’s Time to Adopt Many Different Tactics

top

So I, you know, I actually have a lot of time for people like Andrew Anglin. I agree with you that there are so many different strategies that we should take. One of the analogies I used earlier was that, Jewish influence and this whole Jewish question is an anvil that has worn out thousands of hammers and maybe it’s time we stopped trying to just use the one hammer, …

Henrik: Yeah.

Andrew: … It’s time to adopt many different tactics and rule nothing out.

Henrik: No, unexpected, think outside of the box, do different things, right? You have to try whatever works here. Isn’t that what they did to penetrate into European society? They tried many different avenues, in many different paths, even getting to a position where they, for example, could exploit our sense of morality and altruism, right? That they took a long time to wear us down, if I’m correct.

The Jewish Introduction of Hate Speech Laws in Britain

top

Andrew: Of course! jews do not arrive at their positions through coming up with one solution and then just, you know, it was so smart and so intelligent a solution on how to penetrate our society, that it just worked first time, every time, and that was it.

No, actually it’s that whole, you know, “one percent inspiration ninety nine percent perspiration“, in which jews have succeeded so well, because they don’t give up. It’s the principle of trial and error. One of the great examples, of course, is the introduction of hate speech laws and the restriction of free speech in Britain. That whole process started in 1946.

Henrik: Yeah.

Andrew: In the aftermath of the bombing of the King David Hotel and then a couple of years later with the “Sergeant’s Affair” where Irgun terrorists hanged a couple of British sergeants in a Europe eucalyptus grove in Palestine, and booby trapped their bodies so that they blew up when their comrades came to retrieve them!

[35:00]

And just this, there was a wave of revulsion against jews in Britain and people were painting slogans on walls saying, “Hitler was right!” and there were attacks on jewish stores and everything.

Jews Are Persistent About Getting Their Way

top

So all of the jewish communists in the Labor Party floated this legislation that would outlaw anti-semitism. That was the original goal, let’s outlaw anti-semitism, let’s nip it in the bud. But it didn’t work. You know, this idea that jews are omnipotent and always get their way, is just, it’s ridiculous! It didn’t work. They tried again two years later, it didn’t work again. It was defeated at the next Labour party conference. Then it was floated in Parliament, nine times in nine years, during the 1950s. And was defeated, every single time!

Henrik: Wow!

Andrew: It was only in the 1960s did the jews attempted changing tack, and this time they decided on a different approach. It would come through the front door and the back door. So the front door was, jewish politicians and the members of parliament would continue to introduce legislation that would ultimately have the desired goal, but with one crucial difference. Instead, broadening it’s application, so it was no longer outlawing anti-semitism, it was a law outlawing group libel.

So, you know, you’re not allowed to disparage groups. So jews get protection from that. Well there weren’t many other groups there, and so the black population that had originated in Britain the 1950s, start to multiply and then the Indian and Pakistani communities also.

Jews Behind Race Relations Legislation

top

But they started, it was in 1965, Frank Soskice the Home Office minister, who was the son of Russian Jewish revolutionary migrants into Britain, he floated this Race Relations legislation. And it got passed and inside this legislation, it was like pork barreling, inside this legislation was the provision for creating a Race Relations Board. And it was supposed to be an independent board that would forever, kind of, set the guidelines for how race would be discussed in Britain. And all these think tanks would be attached to it, and it would be independent and everything else.

The Jewish Dominated National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants

top

But it wasn’t remotely independent! It was staffed by jews, predominately, by jews. We know this, because we can look at the internal evidence and it was jewish dominated. One of the think tanks that it produced and referred to, was the Political and Economic Planning Institute which was dominated by jewish lawyers and which itself spawned yet another think tank, the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants, NCCI.

Now the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants was supposed to represent the interests of Afro-Caribbeans in Britain and also the new Pakistani and Indian population. It was supposed to give them a voice., but just like the NAACP [National Association for the Advancement of Colored People — an American organisation set up by jews for US blacks] this organization that was intended to be the spokesman and voice to all these colored immigrants. It wasn’t led by colored immigrants. None of it’s research was produced by colored immigrants. No, it was led and it was directed by a man called Anthony Lester who just so happened to be jewish, and it’s main offshoot the Runnymead Trust was another Lester brainchild and it was co-run with Jim Rose who was also, you guessed it, jewish!

Henrik: Yep!

Brittan and Rifkind’s Public Order Act That Banned Racial Harassment

top

Andrew: So it was a backdoor, trial and error kind of approach. But, you know, I could go on and on, but they kept at this until eventually, in 1985, they finally got what they wanted through pure luck.

There was a miner’s strike in 1985 in Wales. There was a lot of public disorder and Parliament was very, very keen to pass a Public Order Act, giving the police in the area, powers to basically to deal with this. Now the Home Office minister at the time was a jew, called Leon Brittan, and one of his close associates was another jew, named Malcolm Rifkind.

Well, what did Brittan and Rifkind do? Well, they snuck in a little tiny clause into that Public Order Act, that banned and made illegal racial harassment. And it is really, in 1985, that was the culmination of, you know, forty, forty four, or more, forty five or forty six years of jewish trial and error in trying to clamp down on the ability of the British people to form a critique, based around race. So it was a long time in the making and it with a huge number of nuanced approaches taken in order to achieve that goal.

And that’s what we need to understand. It’s not some magic trick that they’re pulling here. It’s taken over time and we need to be much more astute in terms of how this operates and on how we form our counter strategies.

[40:15]

Sidiq Khan, the Muslim Mayor of London

top

Henrik: Yeah. Yeah, well put. Well, I mean we need to fight! We need to run for office! Rise to positions of influence, whether that’s business, or politics. I think what’s happening right now is that, most of us are giving up, we’re surrendering, we’re handing over territory, White flight, we’re, you know, bowing out! It’s incredible! Well, look at what’s happening in London with Sidiq Khan and even his co-operation, of course, with the jews, in London. He could never have pulled it off, I think, without them. And yeah. Here we stand now, a major, major capital of a European city [country], you know, handed over to Muslims with the co-operation of jews. Incredible isn’t?

Andrew: Yeah, I was thinking about about this Sidiq Khan case, this just last night.

But, again, one of the things that I thought about was, yeah, we can look into all the jewish support for Khan. He certainly has it. Jonathan Freedland, the Jewish editor of The Guardian newspaper, has been singing Sidiq Khan’s praises for a long time.

And the aftermath of Kahn’s election, he called Kahn something like an international phenomenon and everyone wants a piece of Kahn! No one wants a piece of Kahn! [chuckles] Most of the world don’t even know who it is., but it is, just this is jewish, … It should come as no surprise that Freedland was also singing the praises of the ultra diverse London Olympic Ceremony a few years back, you know, he’s a cheerleader for anything that the signals the demographic demise of the British people in their own country!

Henrik: Yeah

London, a Multicultural Hellhole

top

Andrew: But, let’s not forget that there are all these immediate factors contributing to Kahn’s success. But, Kahn would never even enjoyed the success of London if it wasn’t for the multicultural hellhole that it is today. And it is, the multicultural hellhole, that it is today, because of decades of immigration and steady tweaking of policy and lots of behind the scenes shuffling that came about, because this is modern parliamentary democratic system that we have, leaks like a sieve and has so many black holes in it, that it can be manipulated and played like a puppet by any puppet master that wants to play the game. So, there are long term, … Kahn could not happen overnight, if I can put it in a nutshell.

Henrik: Yep

Many More Kahns to Come

top

Andrew: This has been a long time in the making. And those among us who have sense will have the foresight to see that, you know, already today, bit by bit, the bricks are being laid and the path is being laid for many, many more Kahns to come. And our effort should be on trying to figure out where those strategies are, how they are being slowly put together and do our best to stop them.

Henrik: What does this mean for us to think in the future, and will this lead to more people coming over to our side and realizing slowly, but surely:

“Yes, we are being displaced. Yes there’s no room for consideration, for us in the picture and anything that basically means everyone else is good and if there’s too many of us in any position, or in any board, or any influence whatsoever then this is going to be continually fought and we’re going to be pushed out!”

What does it mean for us, do you think?

The Personal Individual World of the Average Citizen Has Shrunk

top

Andrew: Well, here is one of our problems Henrik, in terms of, you know, people coming to our side and as things change, as they get worse, will they come over to our side? Here’s one of the problems. The world, the personal individual world of the average citizen has shrunk over time, you know, we all hear this phrase as the world is a smaller place, because of travel and ever thing else. I believe the personal world of the individual has shrunk in the last century.

Although we might be able to go places that our ancestors were never able to see and everything else, as I explained earlier, our sense of what is ours has shrunk down to the minute level, and what we perceive as ours and value as ours and what we have the opportunity of feeling is threatened has retracted to an astonishing degree.

And I think that for too many people of in our culture in our society today, they won’t be prompted to feel threatened enough, until it’s on their doorstep, until their home is being invaded, you know, until their car is being stolen, until their daughter is being attacked, or their son is being murdered.

[45:09]

And even then, as we’ve seen with so many attacks in Germany, sometimes the parents, or the relatives involved, have this sick pathological response! Where somehow they see themselves as being to blame! It is a very, very difficult and disheartening situation and there are a number of sick and countering productive and maladaptive instincts that we need to figure out how to overcome.

As the Situation Gets Worse It May Not Get Better for Our Cause

top

Unfortunately, I’m not one of those that believe, you know, as the situation gets worse it’s somewhat automatically going to get better, because people will be forced to wake up. I think that is, unfortunately, is a bit of wishful thinking.

I think the solutions are going to become, have to become ever more radical, unfortunately, to shift societal thinking. I think that, you know, within any given population of any species not even of humans are there a variety of traits and I think that these will be selected for in our population. I think that those that remain blind until the end, will go the way that every other species, member of a species that has failed to adapt as well, and that is into oblivion. And I think that those who have somewhere in them the potential and the necessary traits to find that instinct within themselves of survival and kin survival and national, and ethnic survival. If they can find out within themselves, then they will group together with us and that will be the core of what we have to fight with going into the future.

Be Prepared to Be Surprised

top

But it’s, I don’t claim, I don’t possess the hubris to profess to be able to predict what’s going to happen. As I said, before I think we are on a very, very dynamic situation. Things are going to be constantly changing. I’m prepared to be surprised, and I think everyone else should should be too.

If history tells us anything, it’s that sometimes massive cultural shifts can can can just take off from nowhere like the lighting of a fuse. And, you know, the French Revolution, and it didn’t happen overnight and there was some planning and everything, in place before it all, but once it started, it was very difficult to put that genie back in the bottle. And, I say that, you know, don’t underestimate the momentum of history and the momentum of human action. And also group thinks in crisis, you know, I think there’s still something to be said for the fact that humans are herd creatures and I think that all we need is a kind of tipping point, a percentage of the population and so many others will follow, unthinkingly if necessary.

Henrik: Yeah, exactly! I mean, you’re right when you say that this is kind of a, well in a roundabout way, you’re saying this is a eugenic aspect here that’s occurring. Only those that are strong enough and intelligent enough are going to make it out through this alive, to a certain extent. And then, OK, certainly it’s, you know, happening to other people too, but much less so, I mean this is largely this is a phenomenon that’s only occurring in Western nations where Europeans dwell.

And it’s also in a strange way, it’s got, almost like our own diaspora, right? I mean we’re being pushed out of certain areas. It’s of course, reminiscent of what happened in Spain when the Muslims were pouring in there and, jeez, who knows what direction this is going to go in the future and what kind of hardships and battles and bloodshed, that’s going to come out of this! Of trying to both regain territory, but also, you know, gain back power and influence again over the lands that are ours, that are our homelands! Andrew?

We Must Act If Our Children and Grandchildren Are to Be Spared a Horrific Future!

top

Andrew: Yes. I don’t, I do not envy the experience that our children and grandchildren will have, Henrik. I have two children and a third on the way, …

Henrik: Congratulations!

Andrew: Yeah! I have, you know, I fear for them. It’s something that preoccupies me and at times disturbs me. In many ways how lucky we are to be in the position we are in. It may be that we are in the more fortunate position than that, that will be experienced by our children and grandchildren.

[50:11]

I gave a speech, actually, to a group back in October and at the end of the speech, I got quite emotional and, you know, I was almost trembling when I said it, but I urged everyone present to give everything they had, not for any kind of sense of glory, or ego, or, because of the here and now, but so that their children and grandchildren are spared a horrific future! And so that they never ever, ever have to go through even what we are experiencing right now, where they are alienated within their own culture, where the tools of their culture have been completely stolen from them and in which, that they are so thoroughly oppressed and denied the most basic right of self assertion and pride in their history. It is such an undignified and horrendous matter and I just urged everyone that was there, to give it everything that they have got, for their future. I mean, I’m not a religious person and I said to more than a few people that I know:

“You know, I do I believe in one afterlife and that is the afterlife that I will experience through my children. They will carry on my genes. Through them I will live on.”

And in that sense, they are everything to me. And the ideas that I will pass on a world to them, that I can see faintly over the horizon, as you said, looks like there will be bloodshed and strife and war and hunger. That’s not a legacy that I want to pass on to them. Our parents, … I know Henrik, the generation came before us did not do a good job of safeguarding the inheritance that was to be passed on to us. Nor did their parents. And, you know, it’s left us to try and pick up the pieces for that and adopt a rightful sense of responsibility, because we are responsible to the future generations.

Every White Country in the World is Being Flooded

top

Henrik: Absolutely! Yeah, well said! Well said. You know, I mean it’s incredible! I think of it all the time. I have woken up many times literally in cold sweats, having nightmares about this, of displacement, of the fact that we are being slowly and in some cases violently attacked and genocided. We are being pushed out, we don’t have any country of our own anymore. Every White country in the world is being flooded in the same way and it’s a horrible prospect, it’s a horrible thought. Especially when you see the way that this is turning out, right? I mean this connection, if you will, between the view and the image that we were, to certain extent, promised, or what they’re promoting to us, how wonderful this was going to be and what it meant, right?

And now we’re seeing the reality of it. Which is rape rates skyrocketing, violent crime, we’re seeing terrorism, you know, bombs going off, gangs, it’s just everything that’s antithetical to the high trust society that we’ve been accustomed to, for such a long time. And I think that in itself is catching us off guard, right? It’s so shocking, it’s so foreign, and it’s so bizarre that we quite don’t know how to deal with it, almost. Not at this stage, not yet.

You Wear the Uniform of Your Race, in Your Skin

top

Andrew: No. As you say, it is far from the image that we were fed and this view of the future that we were led to believe, we would all go walking hand in hand into it., but it was always based on a conceit, it was always based on this idea that we could somehow make the world in our image and if we, ourselves, deny our ethnic heritage and the society that we create will be a society without ethnicity, or race. It is so conceited and it is so illogical, because, you know, I said this before, I’ve said it in speeches.

[55:00]

It does not matter, I’ve addressed audiences some of which included neutral people there, if you’re sitting on the fence, if you’re not sure about what nationalism is, or what it means to you. If you just don’t think it’s quite for you, or you don’t feel a part of your race, or ethnicity. It doesn’t matter. It really doesn’t matter! It doesn’t matter, if you hate your own race, it doesn’t matter if you think all White people deserve this, that, or the other. That all of the colored people who have come in, will view you as some kind other, it does not matter! You wear the uniform of your race, in your skin, …

Henrik: Yeah!

Andrew: ... And you wear it every single day. And no matter what you think of yourself, or your fellow Whites, the guy on the other side of the fence is going to see you as just another White!

Henrik: Absolutely!

Andrew: It’s what in his head and his perception, and to him you’re just another kaffer, just another unbeliever, just another infidel, you’re just another honky, you’re just not a cracker! Whatever it might be, drop the conceit! You’re nothing special! Your little moral system, it will take you right to the grave. You know, you need to drop the act, stop with the self conceit and join your gang! I mean, when you look at prisons, they are a microcosm of what the future is going to look like.

Henrik: Right.

Andrew: About how people group together when resources get scarce and when the level of danger in a society increases. And you will find so many White men who didn’t have any kind of racial conception of themselves before. They might be going in for shoplifting, or whatever. They might have been shoplifting with a black fellow criminal. But once they passed the prison gates, the black guy must go and join the black gang and the White guy will be forced to go and join the White gang, because, other than the prison uniform that they wear, they wear another set of uniforms, and that is skin color and everything that, that entails. It’s about, … It says so much, about where you came from and who’s going to look out for you and who can protect you. And when it comes down to it, that’s your ethnic brothers.

Henrik: Yeah, absolutely! Well, I mean, we’re kind of approaching the end here, I mean we could talk probably for several more hours. Very interesting discussion and so many important things. But, one of the things I want to just get to here, at the end, is kind of, this idea that everything that is happening now, has been done to us, right? I want to try to get that point across. There’s been Putnam and others have done studies on multiculturalism, I believe it’s Putnam. That shows, … What I’m saying is, I think that there has been a knowledge already, within our elites, the establishment, that this is the kind of society that would be created. I think those at least were, who have been smart, who have been pushing it, have been to a certain extent aware of the fact that, it would create chaos and disorder to a certain extent,

Why This Has Been Done to Us?

top

But, what would you say about why this has been done to us? What is the objective here? Is it to genocide us, is it to displace us, is it revenge? Because, obviously there is no secret that many who have been promoting the multicultural society have been jewish. They’ve been pushing diversity, they have been, you know, all the way from an academic sense of trying to deconstruct race and, you know, affiliation on that level and biology, have been jewish. From Gould to Diamond that I mentioned earlier, “The Mismeasure of Man” and these kinds of works, have all aided in this overall view that we have today that has formulated, I think, the picture that we find ourselves in, of a multicultural hellhole. But, what would you say to that question of why this has been done to us?

Jewish Security was the Primary Motivation in Early Twentieth Century

top

Andrew: I think there has been a confluence of factors and there have been countless and subtle changes and direction as history has progressed., but I think, going back to the late nineteenth century, early twentieth century, when you look at lots of Jewish writings like Israel Zangwill’s, “The Melting Pot” and some of the earliest jewish advocates for multiculturalism.

[60:00]

I tend to agree very strongly with Kevin MacDonald’s argument that Jews became very aware of the fact that they would enjoy more anonymity and more safety and more power and more agency in a multicultural society, because the host population with the less likely to focus on them if they are no longer the sole minority, or the most major minority within the population. So, there was definitely a kind of idea that if a homogeneously White society was diluted and it’s percentage of population decreased, somewhat, then it would result in greater jewish security and would facilitate the achievement of jewish interests much more easily and without as much trouble. And I think that idea of jewish security was the primary motivation for some time, or at least the dominant motivation for some time.

But, I think that things changed during World War Two. I think that in a lot of respects World War Two changed the world and it changed the character of jewish European relations, if I can put it in those terms. Right after the war, or actually, just before the end of the war, you had the publication, I can’t remember the name of the author, but title the book was, “Germany Must Perish”.

Henrik: Kaufman wrote something, …

Andrew: Yes, I think it was Kaufman. And it was this argument for the genocide — there were other arguments as well, just not quite as the notorious as Kaufman’s — for sterilization., but really it’s an argument for the genocide of the German people. And I say, I think some seeds really were planted at that time, in terms of realizing that, you know, it raised the stakes of the game. There were other Jews at the time, I referenced in my review of David Cesarini’s book, “Final Solution” that after the war there were attempts by jewish terrorist groups to poison German [water] reservoirs with the aim of just killing tens, hundreds of thousands of people.

Post World War Two Jewish Drive Towards Genocide of Whites

top

A hunger for incredibly wide ranging and brutal revenge was sparked during World War Two. I think before that the game was played much more subtly, but I think the pace all of everything in this European-jewish tussle, it endured a catalyst effect. And I think that ever since then what we have been seeing is not so much a search for jewish security, as, I think a very, very conscious awareness of the fact that the multicultural policies have taken a life of their own and really had a snowball effect, that really, is resulting in displacement and, if you want to give it the word “genocide”, I don’t see reason why we shouldn’t apply that to what is happening right now.

Henrik: Yep.

Andrew: Our birthrates are plummeting, the culture is anti-natalist, you know, there’s demographic displacement on a mass scale, London is no longer a British city. This is a creeping death, there is no, “ifs“, “ands”, or “buts” about it. And for me personally, I see multiculturalism practiced on this industrial scale as nothing less than part of a planned scheme for wholesale dispossession and, yes, genocide!

I view every advocate of multiculturalism as party to this treason to our people. And I think that radical measures are all that remain in order to roll back the tide, because the situation has just gone through so terribly out of control. And, what legislative action can be taken right now? Even this Brexit debate that’s going on in Britain, or the rise of Donald Trump — I haven’t heard one policy proposed that would reverse any of the damage that’s been done. And even if things were to remain static, the level of disparity in birth rates would still see us eclipsed in our own lands within fifty years. It’s a disaster!

[65:00]

Henrik: Yeah. My God! It’s incredible that it’s happening and that we have so many of our own that are fighting people like us! Who are trying to bring awareness to this and trying to reverse it. Trying to, you know, save people, of trying to give our own people an opportunity that these people would would grant to any other people! They would fight for them to have their lands for them, not to be invaded the way we are. It’s just, it’s unbelievable! It is truly remarkable!

“The Last Whites of the East End”

top

Andrew: There was a show that was, I didn’t see it, but I was sent a link to a story covering it, there was a show recently aired on the BBC. It surprised me, given the nature of the BBC. A show aired on the BBC, called, “The Last Whites of the East End”, …

Henrik: Yes! Lana brought it to my attention, yesterday. Very interesting.

Andrew: Yes, this documentary about the last White people in this district of London. And, you know, I haven’t seen and I want to watch it, because, …

Henrik: It’s extremely sad, very, very sad. It’s scary, very scary! Frightening watching it!

Andrew: But,even more interesting than the content of that show, probably was the reaction on Twitter and social media by social justice warriors, and leftists and jews afterwards. Who said, it was the most racist program that has ever been shown on TV! [laughter] this was actually what it was called. It was the most racist program that has ever been shown on TV!

Henrik: Why? Because it gives sympathy to Whites, or something?

Andrew: Yeah! They can’t even mention that Whites are being displaced. That is enough, it is racist! It reminded me of a case, not so long ago with Steven McGowan who is, I think he’s the director of the, “Ask the Truth Folk Alliance”. He’s in a religious organization in the United States. And for a long time Steven McGowan has been protesting Chinese interference in Tibet, and even the rights of Sri Lankans and all these oppressed peoples. No one even batted an eye at him saying this stuff., but one day he wrote a post on Facebook saying that he sympathized with the German people on the actions of Angola Merkel who had flooded the country with thousands of, tens of thousands of immigrants, of hundreds of thousands of immigrants! That would eventually displace the German people their in own homeland.

And my goodness, did the social media world erupt at this racist Stephen McGowan! For daring to draw attention to their plight. And Steven McGowan responses was very, very astute. He said:

“Look, no one said I was racist when I said this about Tibetans. No one said I was racist when I said the same thing about the Sri Lankans. Everybody is jumping on the bandwagon and calling me a racist, because I spoke up for the Germans!”

Henrik: Yeah. That’s right. Oh, man, Andrew! Yep, it’s a dire situation for sure, but we have to we have to fight. There’s nothing else about it. I’m still positive, in the sense that I think we’ll be able to turn this around. I mean, we have to! There’s no other way about it. I mean, I would fight even if I thought it was futile! I would open still do it, there’s just no other way about it.

Wrapping Up

top

But, you know, we have to keep our spirits up high, we have to kind of adapt that attitude of success to certain extent of, you know, kind of almost, you know, mentally placing ourselves in that state of like, being successful in what we do, and fighting this off, and holding our own ground to a certain extent. Otherwise, if we, you know, hang our head in shame, or if we, you know, get too depressed by this, I don’t think we’re going to win it. I think we have to change our attitudes towards it and adopt a different attitude.

But, anyway Andrew, we could go on for hours, as I said. I think this is a good place to start wrapping things up. There’s much more, of course, we can have talked about, both when it comes to Trump and what else. And if there is something else you want to squeeze in here right at the end, any closing thoughts, or anything like that, please please go ahead., but I just want to bring attention to the two web sites that we’ve been referencing today. The Occidental Observer dot net. Look out for articles by Dr Andrew Joyce. Also British Renaissance dot org. We’ll have the links up to this, and then further ahead., look out for later this year, look out for [the book], “Talmud and Taboo”. A collection of essays by Andrew Joyce as well.

But, I want to say, thank you so much for your time today, Andrew, for talking with us for sharing some of your work and opinions with us. It’s been very interesting. So please, you know, keep up the good work and you’re welcome back any time, by the way.

[70:00]

I Do Think That We Will Win

top

Andrew: Thank you very much Henrik. If I could make one final statement, would just be that, like you I’m optimistic about the future. I do think that we will win. I think that as difficult as the situation is right now, it will only make the glory all the sweeter when we achieve that final victory! And I believe that we will.

Another thing I want to say, just to wrap things up as well. Each and every one of us who is writing an article, or producing a podcast, or leading a radio show like yourself, or convening a conference, each one of those little things is the pulse of the heart of this movement. A movement that, although persecuted and down trodden and maybe pushed a little bit out of the mainstream, is still in existence and I believe getting stronger. And I think if we all keep doing this and keep working the way we, we will only go from strength to strength. And yes, our enemies are still there working away, doing what they’re doing, but so are we!

Henrick: Absolutely! Well put Andrew. We’ll close with that. Thank you so much again.

Andrew: OK thanks.

Henrick: That’s our show for today, folks. Thank you for listening. We have more coming, with Andrew Fraser, Julian Langness and also Evalion on 3fourteen, A video version of that, available for members. We also have a live show this Saturday, as I mentioned. Only on Red Ice Members dot com. This is going to begin our weekly wrap up show, so definitely stay tuned for that. More information soon on the Web sites. Thank you again, so much for listening. Always good to have you with us. Join us again on Friday and Saturday for more Red Ice.

Have a nice day, or evening wherever you are. Take care and we’ll see you soon.

[72:00]

END of Part 2/2

Go to: Red Ice Radio: Dr Andrew Joyce – The History of Jewish Influence — TRANSCRIPT (Part 1)

======================================

PDF Download

top

Click to download a PDF of this post (0.6 MB):

Red Ice interviews Dr Andrew Joyce — TRANSCRIPT – Part 2

Version History

top

Version 18: Mar 21, 2021 — Added See Also Part 3 image and links.

Version 17: Sep 20/Nov 15, 2020 — Updated See Also links and images.

Version 16: Aug 5, 2020 — Updated See Also image (7) and links.

Version 14: Jul 31, 2020 — Added Table of Contents with links.

Version 13: Jul 28, 2020 — Added new See Also image and links.

Version 12: Jul 27, 2020 — Added new See Also image and links.

Version 11: Feb 18, 2020 — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version.

Version 10: May 9, 2018 — Improved formatting.

Version 9: Sep 18, 2016 — Formatting. Added PDF for download.

Version 8: Jun 11, 2016 — Fixed some typos. Changed uppercase “Jew…” to lowercase “jew…”.

Version 7: Jun 9, 2016 — Added 12 mins [60:00] to [72:00]. Total mins = 72. TRANSCRIPT COMPLETE.

Version 6: Jun 8, 2016 — Added 10 mins [50:00] to [60:00]. Total mins = 60.

Version 5: Jun 7, 2016 — Added 20 mins [30:00] to [50:00]. Total mins = 50.

Version 4: Jun 6, 2016 — Added 10 mins [20:00] to [30:00]. Total mins = 30.

Version 3: Jun 6, 2016 — Added 10 mins [10:00] to [20:00]. Total mins = 20.

Version 2: Jun 5, 2016 — Completed 10 minutes [00:00] to [10:00].

Version 1: Posted Jun 5, 2016 — Added rough draft of transcript.

Red Ice Radio: Dr Andrew Joyce – The History of Jewish Influence — TRANSCRIPT (Part 1)

admin — Fri, 03 Jun 2016 02:55:06 +0000

[In this very informative audio interview (139 mins) Henrik Palmgren talks with Dr. Andrew Joyce. We learn of Andrew’s gradual awakening to the Jewish Problem/Question while still at school. Since then he has been led to conclude that organized jewry is behind a genocidal plan to effectively destroy White countries through the importation of non-Whites, among other strategies.

He concludes that we all have a duty to fight for White survival by spreading awareness of what is going on to as many people as possible.

— KATANA]

_____________________

https://redice.tv/red-ice-radio/the-history-of-jewish-influence

Red Ice Radio

Dr Andrew Joyce

The History of Jewish Influence

Part 1/2

Published on Jun 1, 2016

Red Ice Preface

top

In the members’ half, we address the concern that there tends to be an unhealthy obsession with the JQ and how we can study our own weaknesses in terms of damaged ethnic cohesion in balancing this weighty issue. Dr. Joyce stresses that we must find rational ways to communicate to the average citizen how our deprived sense of historical peoplehood coupled with the barrage of guilt inducing MSM and academic programming is leading us to the slaughter. We talk about the great power of face to face persuasion and leading by example, along with using humorous memes and trolling in encouraging our folk to adopt a sense of nationalistic pride. Then, Andrew illuminates how Jews have used a backdoor trial and error approach to slowly infiltrate special interest groups aiming to clamp down on freedoms to criticize detractors, and we look at what a massive cultural shift might look like if Whites can employ that same diligence in reversing the pathologically blind response to their destruction. Further, we discuss the immense responsibility that lies in safeguarding the inheritance of our future generations, which ultimately requires a strong ethnic brotherhood standing in radical resistance to the invading cultures that have no place within our own. At the end, we get into the idea that everything happening now with the push for multiculturalism in the West is just history repeating itself, and if we are to reverse this creeping genocide we must bring more awareness, raise the stakes, and adapt an attitude of total success.

Part 1

Red Ice Preface

Introduction

How Joyce Came to Be Writing About Jews

Schindler’s List

Migration and Ethnic Conflict

Our History About Jews is Written by Jews

Discovering Kevin MacDonald’s Work

Contacting MacDonald and Writing for the Occidental Observer

Official View of Jews as Victims

Jews as Tax Farmers, Money Merchants in the Middle Ages

Wipe Your Mind of Any Preconceptions of Jews in History

How Jews Gained a Foothold in Europe

The “Emancipation” of the Jews

Frederick the Great of Prussia Made the Jewish Community Liable for Fraud

Jewish Emancipation and the Rise of Parliamentary Democracy

Why We Should View Jews as a Group?

Jews are The, “Groupiest Group That Ever Grouped!”

Jews Fear Mixing and Vanishing Genetically

Jews are All Times Strategisers, at All Times Tacticians

Jewish Expulsions Throughout History

Jewish Exploitation and Exclusivity

Opposition from Nobility, Clergy and Peasants

The Cycle of Expulsion of Jews and Their Return

Jews Thrive Under Very Strong Government and a Weak Population

Why Should We Concern Ourselves with Jewish Ethnic Interests and Power?

People of European Descent Face Demographic Catastrophe

Poisonous Jewish Intellectualism and SJWs

The “Refugee” Invasion

Our Land is Not Ours Anymore

British Renaissance and TOO

Sudden Enthusiasm for New Groups and Movements, Trump

Hubris vs 2,000 Year Problem

Trump Not in Jewish Play Book

“Talmud and Taboo” Book

See Also

PDF Download

Version History

PART 2

[Separate post]

Red Ice Preface

Introduction to Part 2

A Need for a More Objective View About Jews

Avoiding the Obsessive Paranoid Approach to the JQ

Jews as Demonic, or as Supernatural Beings?

Jews Work Very Hard at Gaming the System

Jewish Exaggerations and Propaganda

Pseudo-Science from Jewish Academics

The Teaching of History is Dying Particularly the Nationalistic Element

Television and World War Two History

Although People Are Poor on Facts, They Are Rich in Indignation!

The Nature of “Reading” Has Changed

Jewish Atrocity Propaganda Dominates

We Need to Really “Evangelize” for Our Cause and for the Truth

Adopting an Unsentimental and Hard Perspective is Sometimes Needed

Communicating Our Message

Younger Generation’s Use of Humour with Things Like the “Holocaust“

It’s Time to Adopt Many Different Tactics

The Jewish Introduction of Hate Speech Laws in Britain

Jews Are Persistent about Getting Their Way

Jews Behind Race Relations Legislation

The Jewish Dominated National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants

Brittan and Rifkind’s Public Order Act That Banned Racial Harassment

Sidiq Khan, the Muslim Mayor of London

London, a Multicultural Hellhole

Many More Kahns to Come

The Personal Individual World of the Average Citizen Has Shrunk

As the Situation Gets Worse It May Not Get Better for Our Cause

Be Prepared to Be Surprised

We Must Act If Our Children and Grandchildren Are to Be Spared a Horrific Future!

Every White Country in the World is Being Flooded

You Wear the Uniform of Your Race, in Your Skin

Why This Has Been Done to Us?

Jewish Security was the Primary Motivation in Early Twentieth Century

Post World War Two Jewish Drive Towards Genocide of Whites

“The Last Whites of the East End”

Wrapping Up

I Do Think That We Will Win

See Also

PDF Download

Version History

TRANSCRIPT

(66:45)

[00:00]

Introduction

top

Henrik: Welcome, this is Red Ice Radio. I’m Henrik. I hope you have had a good day so far. Thank you for tuning in. It’s always a pleasure to have you with us. We have some good company over the weekend. Some friends that came for a visit and we decided to take Monday off. A much needed break, since we seldom take them, and extend the weekend a bit and charge up the batteries, as we are gearing up to start our new live show, exclusive for members, this coming Saturday. So definitely don’t miss that! Information and details, will be on Red Ice Members dot com slash live. We also put some details on the main site to Red Ice dot tv. Just go to forward slash live, or click on upcoming stream at the top of the site, or from the menu if you’re on a mobile device.

Switching over to today’s show we have Dr Andrew Joyce with us. He’s a scholar, a speaker, and a writer with academic expertise in immigration, ethnic and religious conflict and philosophy, and sits on the editorial advisory board of The Occidental Quarterly, and is a regular contributor to The Occidental Observer. He also serves the British Renaissance Policy Institute, in an advisory capacity and will be producing and editing a new journal for them. He’s also in the final stages of preparing for publication of his book, “Talmud and Taboos: Essays on the Jewish Question”.

And that’s what we’re going to talk about here today.

As Andrew puts it:

“The anvil that has worn out many hammers!”

But I urge you to check out our, “New to Red Ice” section on the website. And search in our archives if you want to get a better understanding, both why this is an important question, and also we can put judaism, jewish influence and their ethnic interests in context and in relation to our own interests. There really isn’t any reason why this should be an untouchable topic, as some people propose. We would to do same, and we do, with any other group that has clashing interests with our own. So stick around. I hope you learn something new.

Welcome Dr. Andrew Joyce. It’s a pleasure to have you here. Thank you so much for coming on Red Ice Radio today!

Andrew: Henrik, it’s an absolute pleasure to be here. I’m a big fan of the show.

Henrik: Well, thank you so much. I appreciate that. You have a Ph D. in history and you told me here, before we started, that you really take a hard and an unsentimental lens, specifically at jewish history. You have written tremendous amounts for Occidental Observer. I believe you’re involved in British Renaissance right now, Britren as well. You have just a tremendous amount of essays, if you will, in your past that you’ve written about. And I’m looking forward to talking more about your work and specifically some of the history that you’ve written about. But, what do you think our audience should know about you, Andrew, and your background, before we kind of dive into the meat of your work here?

How Joyce Came to Be Writing About Jews

top

Andrew: Well, and I think the audience might want to hear first and foremost how I came to be writing so much and so extensively on the subject of jewish culture. My teenage years, actually, is when I started getting into this particular subject matter. I always had a very intense interest in history and what I would describe as a real thirst for knowledge, an endless and insatiable curiosity. But it wasn’t always directed towards jewish subjects.

I went through phases of my childhood, where I was fascinated by ancient Egypt for a while. Also I was very, very interested in the Viking period of the Norse. But when I was about fifteen, or sixteen, I came to discover, through the education system, as so many of our young people now do, something called the “Holocaust”. And as part of my particular school curriculum we had to study a film that I’m sure all of your listeners have heard of, by the name of “Schindler’s List”.

Henrik: Yes.

Andrew: And we had to write an essay on Schindler’s List, after having watched it. And while most of my classmates were, you know, watched it and had, what I would call, the “expected emotional trigger response” to the images that they were seeing on film, of young children being arbitrarily shot, and what have you, I looked at it through a much more critical lens.

Schindler’s List

top

I looked at Schindler’s List for what I perceived to be, and that it was a masterwork of propaganda. Whether that was the filming style chosen by Spielberg, himself, who chose to always have the camera pointing down at jews, emphasizing their lowly humble and innocent, doe-eyed expressions, while always pointing the camera upwards at Germans, who were dominant, domineering, and violent lords and masters.

[05:18]

I started to pull apart the techniques used by Spielberg, and actually in the resultant essay that I wrote for my school teacher, I argued this Spielberg really was no different from what I was being told about Joseph Goebbels. [laughter] Another master propagandist who was quite fond of being innovative in his filming techniques. We only have to look at the movie, “The Eternal Jew” and look at how he spliced his own themes, and his use of imagery there, to see that he too was a propagandist.

But it was an unorthodox essay, I should say. And actually, the reason that I was able to take things further was because, I was particularly blessed to have a rather open minded History teacher. The essay was taken in along with everyone else’s. it was reviewed and it was marked. And actually, got quite a high mark. My history teacher then pulled me aside one day and he said to me:

“Look, this what you’ve written here it is not a acceptable piece of work. This is not something that I should be seen to encourage. But, the reason I’ve given you such a high mark, is that in terms of history writing it is a good piece of work, and what you have displayed is a certain degree of open mindedness, and more to the point, you’ve shown a talent for argument. You’ve marshaled your sources well and produced a convincing piece of persuasive writing.”

So, that was unusual. I benefited from that, I’m sure that does not happen every day in schools across the West.

Henrik: Unfortunately not.

Migration and Ethnic Conflict

top

Andrew: Yes. But actually, the next few years, I kind of put the jewish history thing aside again. It interested me really for a brief period then, and as I said, as an aside. But, as I went into the age of nineteen, or twenty, I started to just reading more generally into Western history. I started a degree in history. I looked in the twentieth century, international history. I looked into the history of the United States and I became particularly interested in the history of migration, ethnic conflict going back centuries, if not millennia.

And I think that anyone who looks into that range of topics seriously and critically and with an open mind, can’t help, but be struck by the presence of the jews in those themes, in terms of ethnic conflict, in terms of patterns of the political contest if you want to put it like that, between the native peoples of Europe and the really, what was the only significant minority in Europe at the time. It really struck me as a crucial story in the history of Europe. But one that had been written, as far as I could tell, in quite a distorted way, in a biased way and in a manner in which it just left me completely unsatisfied.

And it was that dissatisfaction with those histories that drove me on to read more, and more, and more! And the dissatisfaction actually grew more, and more, and more! Until, I started really conducting independent research into some of these things. Not all of which was related to my university course, or really any way to my academic career that would follow. But it became, I described to someone else recently, it became in a strange way, it sounds like a strange term to used, but, a labour of love. The love was not for jewish history, but for truth, …

Henrik: Right.

Our History About Jews is Written by Jews

top

Andrew: … and the desire to get to the bottom of these sources. When one wants to find truth in this sphere of jewish history, one is confronted with innumerable obstacles.

[10:00]

When you walk into any university library, or public library, and you go to the section they have on jewish history, you will find hundreds of books, hundreds, and hundreds, and hundreds! And all of them will have been published by elite publishing houses. We’re not talking about some back-street publisher, we’re talking about Princeton University Press, Harvard University Press, Yale University Press, Cambridge, and Oxford University Press. We’re talking about really the most highly regarded publishing houses in the world. And all of them are publishing these books on jewish history and each and every one of them is published by a jewish author and a jewish academic.

And each one of these books, when you open them up, all have the same kind of themes. You know, jews have been victims since they entered on the world stage, jews have done no wrong, Western society is sick, it is evil, and from day one it has concocted, what they call, “canards” about jews. And they have used these canards to spread hate and to perform acts of violence and destruction against this harmless and innocent jewish community.

To anyone who thinks independently, to anyone who has enough brain cells to understand what a primary source is, a primary document, and really take on board what the truth of the matter may be, these narratives don’t sit well and will create, as it did in me, a great sense of dissatisfaction.

By the time I was twenty three, twenty four, I had started to formulate some of my own theories, but I was pretty much still adrift, and I was definitely not part of any kind of movement. I was still unsure of what my conclusions meant, in that sense that most young people today, if you were to approach them and say to them:

“Look, you are the victim of excessive jewish influence in your society”.

Right? Their first reaction won’t be to say:

“Oh, that’s crazy!”

Because, I think deep down everyone knows that there is more than substantial amount of plausibility to a statement like that. But their first reaction rather will be one of, I would say, fear mixed with a sense that, what you have just said, is somehow not quite right, and somewhat not quite good.

So, when I started at the age of twenty two, or twenty three, to start to question serious aspects of jewish history and really have the seed of a much more realistic, much more aware, conception of what this history amounted to, I was struck by that same feeling of:

“But wait a minute, where does that leave me? What does that make me?”

Because we are all led to believe that to question certain things about jewish history, or to feel certain things towards jews, or to perceive in jewish group behavior, or actually, to perceive jews as behaving as part of a group, even that, that means that you are somehow a Nazi, racist, anti-semite!

We have all of these labels that immediately come to mind, and they immediately come to mind, because they’ve been put there! And they’ve been put there at a very young age through our education system and our culture.

So I went through this phase of wrestling with what this meant. But, I persisted, because to me it didn’t matter so much, as I said, as you mentioned of the start, I’ve adopted a very unsentimental attitude to these things. Truth takes priority!

Henrik: Yeah.

Discovering Kevin MacDonald’s Work

top

Andrew: So, I soldiered on. And then I would say, when I was probably twenty seven, twenty six, twenty seven, I had the great fortune of discovering the magnificent trilogy of books on jews and jewish culture, by Kevin MacDonald. And it was like a light just shone on me! And one of the reasons for that was, because a lot of the material that I had read, written by people in centuries past, who didn’t, let’s be honest, who didn’t quite like jews very much at all, it was written, as far as I could tell, in a very sloppy way, or a very emotive way that I couldn’t quite get in touch with. I couldn’t quite connect with that.

I needed something that had a bit more rigor to it, a bit more intellectual heft. And I think that Kevin MacDonald’s books were the first that I really just devoured and found satisfying on a level that I have needed, probably since I was eighteen or nineteen, since that journey really began in earnest.

I remember at the time after I had finished, Culture of Critique, the last of the trilogy, I emailed Kevin MacDonald. I had dug out his email. When one Googles, Kevin MacDonald, one of the first things that you’re confronted with, is this, obviously the ADL hit piece.

[Image] ADL Defames Pro. Kevin MacDonald (click image to enlarge).

[15:28]

Henrik: Yep!

Contacting MacDonald and Writing for the Occidental Observer

top

Andrew: Which I had a quick read and nothing on it surprised me, whatsoever. But I persisted in scrolling down the results and I got his email address and I made contact with him.

And we exchanged emails and I told him a little bit about myself and some of my own research and he was very positive about that. And one day I just, I decided, just send him a piece of writing. I was very impressed with the content of the Occidental Observer and I hoped that I had something I could contribute to what they were trying to achieve there, in terms of disseminating what I would call real history, and also honest discussion of contemporary politics and culture. And it was well received, and really it hasn’t stopped since then.

I think the pace of my work has increased. I write also for the Occidental Quarterly. I sit on the editorial board for the Occidental Quarterly and I’ve been doing speaking engagements and really just trying to get the truth out there. And coming on Red Ice this evening is another part of that. So I thank you Henrik for giving me the opportunity.

Henrik: Well thank you! Yeah, definitely we were very glad to have you. As I said I think you do great work. I don’t know if you’ve been counting, but I’m attempted to do so today. I think we have multiple pages on the Occidental Observer under your author’s page, if you will, you’ve probably written, what, forty, fifty pieces, I think, for the Occidental Observer over a few years?

Andrew: Yeah, it is probably, definitely, yes definitely around fifty right now.

Henrik: Yep.

Andrew: In addition to, you know, pieces for Occidental Quarterly that didn’t appear in the Occidental Observer. There are one, or two there. And on top of that, you know, I’m working actually on a book right now. It’s a collection of what I would regard anyway as my best articles for the Occidental Observer, but also some new content. And I also have expanded some of the articles that I wrote for the Occidental Observer, because when you write for the Occidental Observer there’s a limit to how detailed you can be on some subjects, but when you’ve got a whole chapter to play with, you know, that you can really get to the meat and bones of each and every subject. And it’s very important to me as a writer.

One of the things I pride myself on is that each of the claims that I make, and each of the statements, I try to back it up with as much factual and, you know, material with a lot of integrity, as possible, because we are in an uphill struggle. Those on the opposing side will try and call what we do “pseudo intellectualism“, or “pseudo science“. And we need to really be on top of our game, each and every time, in the hope that any right thinking person who eventually does come across our work, as isolated and pushed to the corner of the Internet as it is, we have to hope that when an intelligent, decent, person does read that work, that they are thoroughly convinced. And that we take that small, but minute opportunity to win them over and show them a new perception of the world. So yes, it’s very, very important to me.

Henrik: Of course! Yeah, exactly. I mean your work is academic, well referenced, and I appreciate that so much. We definitely, you know, need to do that, because it’s not that our opinions stand on unfounded principles — it’s quite the opposite. And in that regard we definitely share the quest for truth, you know, we have that in common and we’re also, of course, on the same page when it comes to the fact that we’re in desperate need for real history and an objective history and fair history.

Well now, you know, many in our audience, I think, are more, or less well seasoned on the topic of the JQ [Jewish Question]. However, we do get newcomers all the time. We have to keep them in mind. We also have, of course, both detractors and enemies listening and I would invite them also to keep an open mind and listen to a perspective that they usually do not consider.

Official View of Jews as Victims

top

So, with that in mind, you kind of briefly touched on this of course, but what would you say to those that have, more, or less, an official view on the history of the jews? Specifically, maybe as it pertains to Europe, right, of them being a suppressed group, especially targeted throughout history. They are victims. What should they know in terms of this relationship between jews and Europeans, or jews in Europe? And what would you say to them as a kind of an overview to give them a different perspective, maybe, than the official one that they have been given?

[20:22]

Andrew: I think the first thing that I would say to anyone adopting a neutral, or as you say, oppositional position to what we might have to say, first I would have a say to them is, open your mind! You may right now think that you have an open mind, you may think that you’re the most liberal, loving and caring person walking the earth, but I ask you to set down any, I ask you to set down your conceits. And I don’t mean that in an insulting way. We all have our conceits and our preconceptions and our prejudices. And I would ask each and every one of those people to set those down completely, wipe the slate clean!

Then, I ask you to take the arguments that we’re making. For example, one of the arguments that I would make, is that you may have this conception of jews as being victims in the historical past. To which I would reply, that if you were to look at the history of mediaeval Europe, Poland actually would be an excellent example. And if you were to look at the position of your ancestors and compare it to the position of the jewish ancestors of jews living today, you would find that the jewish ancestors would be in a position far superior, far more comfortable, and far more powerful than your own.

Jews as Tax Farmers, Money Merchants in the Middle Ages

top

And the reason for that is quite simple. In the Middle Ages, jews occupied a middle man role. That middle man role normally was finance driven, they were tax farmers, money merchants. And one of the main methods of operation that they followed was that they would be in close alliance with the elite. So, I don’t know about you, but there aren’t many oppressed victims in the world who are in close alliance with the elite!

Henrik: Right.

Andrew: In actual fact, if you were to look for the oppressed in that society, it would have been your own ancestors, those people who were paying heightened rates of tax, because the new guy in town, the jewish population had just put a down payment on the right to collect taxes and hike them. Not only hike them, but had the backing of the royal militia with which to enforce the heightened raise in taxes.

Wipe Your Mind of Any Preconceptions of Jews in History

top

So, you know, that there are innumerable examples, like that, but it’s just a small one. You need to completely wipe your mind of any preconceptions you might have about the position of the jews in history. Because, much of what you have been led to believe, simply didn’t happen and you will not be able to progress to a more enlightened view of your current situation, until you abandon those preconceptions.

Henrik: Right. Tell us a bit about how they gained this position, as middlemen, as merchants and money lenders in our society.

Andrew: Well, Henrik, as with many of our modern contemporary problems the issue kind of starts in a way, with us, rather than the jews. Jews have been involved in commerce and lending money at interest for centuries, at least two thousand years. So, it wasn’t anything new that they did, but in the Middle Ages, European society was changing. There were a switch from tribes into principalities and then a slow drift from principalities into nation states and the end of the feudal system.

Now, all of this expansion and consolidation of our people required things like, armies. It required things like administration and it required also a certain amount of increasing trade and increased complexity in trade. We were able to cover all of these necessities ourselves, but for some princes and kings, not at the pace that they would have liked. We’ve met many a medieval king that was greedy and hungry for power. It’s part of the human condition.

[25:04]

How Jews Gained a Foothold in Europe

top

And what they wanted they wanted right now. Now for the person that is impatient for financial progress — since from time immemorial until the present — one of the things that they will lust after, is a quick loan, easy cash. We still have it today. When a housewife can’t wait to get the newest appliance, or the newest clothes, she’ll use her credit card to get it.

Well, these kings and princes weren’t much different, they wanted fast, easy, cash. And they had, in their midst, a semi-nomadic group of wanderers who didn’t have much to offer the surrounding culture. In fact, they were quite self isolating, but one thing that they did have that they were willing to share with that surrounding culture, was cash, was money, at a price. Their interest rates were not to be taken lightly. But, you know, when you are the prince, when you’re a king, nothing is beyond your consideration. And, of course, why care when you can pass the cost on to the lowly peasants?

So, this was the means by which the jews gained a foothold in Europe. It was the greed and the selfishness of our elites, and unfortunately, we still have so many contemporary examples, where our elites are greedy, selfish, and they will be happily in partnership with jews to achieve those goals.

But, yes, that in a nutshell is how those [jewish] communities gained a foothold, whether it’s in the far east of Poland or, whether it’s with the arrival of the Normans in 1066 in England. The jew travelled with the Normans, and just with the Anglo Saxons, their money loaning and whatnot. And, you know, the problem grows from there. But that in a nutshell is it’s origin.

The “Emancipation” of the Jews

top

Henrik: Yeah. It’s kind of a strange relationship, because the, what’s called the emancipation of the jews didn’t really occur. It happened at different date, of course, throughout various countries. I think, all the way from 1791 in France, all the way up to, what, 1923 in Romania and trickled throughout in different countries. That’s when the jews were granted, I guess, legal equality, but it seems the relationship before that, Andrew, was still kind of one at arm’s length, if you will. That they had a relationship working together, but they were still kind of separate within society, right? They were still their own group and they still largely kept to their own, so it wasn’t as clear-cut as that, am I right?

Andrew: Yes, that’s correct. One of them the misconceptions of this business of jewish emancipation, is that, it is like any other emancipation, we might consider emancipation of slaves, or what have you. But it really wasn’t. Jewish emancipation was a tactical measure.

There was an essay written in the nineteenth century by a man named McCauley, I can’t remember his first name., but it was an argument, actually for jewish emancipation., but in the essay McCauley to was quite honest in his interpretation of what this meant and why jews wanted it. jews didn’t want to be seen on a par with every other citizen during the period of absolute monarchs. Definitely not! Why? Well, because the average citizen was in a very lowly position indeed. It was much better to be in the middle man position, cozied up to the elite and have all the privileges that entailed.

Now, that didn’t always produce good results for jews, for example, a monarch that you were very close to may die and his successor might not be very keen on you at all. Either, because he’s more of an adherent to his religious principles, or whether, because he had an intense loathing for jewish characteristics, mannerisms, group behavior.

Frederick the Great of Prussia Made the Jewish Community Liable for Fraud

top

An excellent example would be Frederick the Great, Fredrick the Second of Prussia. He found jews to be very, very distasteful and he was also particularly concerned with their tendency towards money lending, but really, bankruptcy, financial fraud, things like coin shaving that they’ve been involved in, going back centuries. And one of the things that he actually did was that he introduced a law making the jewish community, as a whole, liable for any instance of financial fraud by any particular jew.

[30:04]

It was conclusively effective in eliminating financial fraud in that community and actually, when I was recently re-reading some research that I did on the Mark Rich case, you know, Mark Rich in the 1980s, along with Pincus Green, these two jewish businessmen who basically defrauded the United States out of a hundred, at least one hundred million dollars in hidden tax money, that you know, that they gained a lot of profits from illegally trading with Iran.

Henrik: Yes.

Andrew: But a lot of this ill-gotten cash, … They’d pumped like a quarter of a million dollars into the ADL, five million dollars to Birthright Israel. A lot of this money went into Jewish causes, which all contributed to the fact that all these Jewish groups wrote petitions for a pardon from Bill Clinton, which was subsequently granted.

And I read that and I thought to myself, you know, jews benefit as a group from financial fraud carried out by members of the group. So why shouldn’t they be punished as a group? That actually, that measure by Frederick the Second, seemed to me supremely logical and I admire it’s effectiveness.

And actually, I think that something similar today wouldn’t be — certainly to my mind — it wouldn’t be monstrous and it would probably do a great deal to deter this very harmful — at least to the non-jewish community — practice.

Jewish Emancipation and the Rise of Parliamentary Democracy

top

But to come back to the mediaeval period and the issue of jewish Enlightenment, or jewish emancipation. The drive for jewish emancipation only only came about with the rise of parliamentary democracy, with the slow creeping march of democracy. Because when you have no monarch anymore, or when the power of the monarch is weakened and the power of the people begins to rise, it places the middleman in a very, very difficult position. So the cut and thrust, the goal behind jewish emancipation is not simply to achieve equality with everyone else, because that’s what you always wanted, it is a response to events within the host population.

Henrik: Right.

Andrew: The nature of government has changed. Therefore we are now going to tactically readjust and reposition ourselves into new avenues of power and one of the ways that we can achieve this is by trying to get this thing, this new thing called the vote. We need to be, we need to have the vote, we need to be electable, we need to be appointable to government office, we need to be appointable to any advisory positions, which may be available, we need to be part of this process. Simply, you know, standing by and occupying some kind of null and void status is unconscionable. So that’s the essence, I would argue Henrik, for the drive for jewish emancipation.

And McAuley? ? Himself referenced, I can’t remember the exact words. But as I recall it, it was a very realistic piece of writing. He argued that it should be granted nonetheless, because the democratic system, we can hold jews accountable, we can see how they vote, we can observe them more closely than if they kind of go rogue. But actually, I think that was a very serious miscalculation by McAuley? ? I think that he overestimated the effectiveness of the democratic system. He didn’t quite grasp the many weaknesses that permeate the parliamentary democracy in practice. Because, of course, it’s a wonderful idea in theory, but it is so dangerously and fatefully flawed in practice. And I think that many of our contemporary problems are due not only to the inherent weaknesses of parliamentary democracy in practice, but also the sheer talent of Jews in spotting and exploiting those weaknesses.

Why We Should View Jews as a Group?

top

Henrik: Right, exactly. Now tell us a bit about why we should view them as a group, as opposed to just individuals, you know, where people say, “Well, you know, there are good ones and there’s bad ones”, right. But of course we know that specifically we, as Europeans, are treated as a group, as a whole, and the claim is that our power and privilege as a group is somehow equally distributed among us. But what speaks in favour of this idea that they do in most respects operate as a group and that they have fierce ethnic interests?

[35:05]

Andrew: Well the first thing that I would say to someone who would approach me and say:

“Hey, come on Andrew, they aren’t a group, we can’t hold them all accountable for the individuals of one of them. They’re each wonderful, loving individuals in their own way”.

Jews Are The, “Groupiest Group That Ever Grouped!”

top

The first thing that I would say to that is simply, well, why do they organise as a group? Why do they self-describe as a group? Why do they cling so ferociously to their group status? Is the World Jewish Congress a figment of my imagination? Is the ADL a figment of my imagination? Have we been making up this idea of a religion called Judaism which is ferociously ethnocentric? Of course not. The jews are the most — if I can make up some words here — the, “Groupiest group that ever grouped!”

Henrik: Right. [laughing]

Andrew: You know, it’s comical. I don’t understand how anyone who looks at jewish history, and I’ve been looking at it for about fifteen years, or more, now. I don’t understand how anyone can even spend one hour, or one day looking at this history and deny that here is a collection of people that has ferociously sought it’s interests and intensively looked out for one another. And that’s one of the things that jews do, that I find difficult in some ways to condemn, partly because I would like to see more of it within our own people.

Henrik: Right.

Andrew: They look out for each other.

Henrik: Well, I think Andrew, sorry to interrupt, but the problem is that most people don’t look, well not even a day, many don’t even look an hour, because they already have all the answers, right? They know how they position themselves as a group, and they are a suppressed group and I would imagine that somehow they would explain this:

“That well, you know, they need to organise on this level, because they have been targeted throughout history uniquely”.

So this is just kind of a safety mechanism — is a security for them to be able to organise like this otherwise, you know, there would be concentration camps and gas chambers built tomorrow, you know. [laughing]

Jews Fear Mixing and Vanishing Genetically

top

Andrew: Well, that might be a cozy little theory that satisfies some some smug little social justice warrior, but the reality is quite different. When you look at the history, when you look at the nitty-gritty of Jewish history, what you will find — and it’s almost perverse — is that during those periods in history in which the host population, or the monarch, or the government attempted to wrap it’s arms around the jews and welcome them in. And I’m thinking of the government of Alexander the First in Russia, you know, in terms of having a policy which is that of the carrot, or that of the stick, you couldn’t have had a bigger carrot.

Jews were welcomed with open arms. There were policies allowing them into education, you know, a lot of the more coercive measures that had been employed in the past were really abandoned. And how did jews respond to this? Well, actually they became even more defensive, they herded together even more intensively, because what jews feel most threatened by is not violence, is not anti-semitism, what jews fear most is dispersal, and dissemination, and vanishing genetically, racially, into the gentile, the great gentile mass that they imagine to exist. It’s been in their religious writings for millennia, this idea that they shall not mix, that they shall stand apart from the nations and be forever a people that shall dwell alone, as the title of Kevin MacDonald’s first book, goes.

Jews Are All Times Strategisers, at All Times Tacticians

top

So the idea that they group together, because of fear of violence and of oppression. It shifts all of the agency onto the host population, which is to blame for jewish actions. And I think that that is a very facile and naive interpretation of jewish history. I think anyone with any amount of intelligence and grounding in the subject can see that, the only agency in Jewish history rests with the jews.

Jews are all times strategisers, at all times tacticians, and at all times perfectly capable of getting themselves out of just about any scrape you can imagine.

[40:00]

It’s why after three thousand or more years they are still here, while the Egyptians and the Babylonians have vanished. jews and judaism and jewish influence are an anvil that have worn out a thousand hammers or more! And the sooner that more of our people realise that and adjust their tactics and level of awareness accordingly, the better.

Jewish Expulsions Throughout History

top

Henrik: Yeah. I definitely want to talk about what you just mentioned, more, later on. But, let’s kind of continue to unfold this scenario and talk a bit more about the history here. What can you say about the issues or issue of expulsions, right? How many, I don’t know if you’ve counted, perchance, I’ve attempted a couple of times, but how many places have they been expelled from throughout the last millennium and what is this indicative of what, what should we learn from this history?

Andrew: Well, I couldn’t even begin to count. I’m sure actually that not even all of them have been recorded, Henrik. I think jews have been expelled from different locations and host populations from pre-history, probably. They themselves, in the story of the Exodus, you know, going out of Egypt, I think that it’s possibly allegorical, it possibly refers to one, or several expulsions in prehistory.

Henrik: Right.

Andrew: And I think that it’s a, you know, it’s a self-congratulatory interpretation, a self-righteous interpretation of those expulsions. But I would hesitate to put any limit on the number of expulsions, or areas of location. I think that there’s been a constant and prevalent phenomenon of Jewish history.

As far as the significance of it in history, as far as the reasons behind it, I think these are more straightforward to explain. In his book, “The Jews” Hilaire Belloc describes a kind of process by which friction develops between a jewish population and it’s non-jewish host. It’s an excellent book explaining this in very mechanical and matter-of-fact ways, but essentially, jews originated in our societies along with an idea that they have some kind of usefulness. The usefulness may have been for a short period to a particular monarch, if they financed a war, if they financed the expansion of a kingdom, the creation of a militia. Some loans provided by jews also built some of Europe’s cathedrals.

Jewish Exploitation and Exclusivity

top

So there was an idea for a time there of usefulness. But attending that, was also a number of other characteristics of the jewish community that weren’t even remotely perceived as being positive. One was exclusiveness. Over time, exclusiveness, or exclusivity, contributes to friction. And it contributes to friction, because exclusivity with jews carried echoes also of superiority. And, you know, people in mediaeval Europe were aware of the fact that when the jewish butcher, or whatever, sold them meat it was the lower quality cuts. They were aware the jews wouldn’t sit at the same table as them. They were aware slowly, but surely, of what was written in the Talmud about them, for example.

So, exclusivity was one of the factors contributing to friction. The other was exploitation. The financial usefulness of the jews gradually morphed into a sense of being exploited. And, you know, if it was the monarch who started to feel that it was getting a little bit tight in terms of making the repayments, he would simply pass that on to the wider population, by raising the taxes, which would then be collected by the jews.

So the tension always rose from, really from below, that’s where the pressure built up. Now, a monarch who enjoys absolute power, feels quite comfortable. He can do really what he wants, and if the nobles immediately below him are divided and squabbling, and what have you, the old divide and conquer strategy, then he feels even more comfortable. But gradually, because of this position of the Jews, who not only were charging exorbitant interest rates on their loans, but were also a heathen, different and separate people, it added a different flavour altogether to what was occurring.

[45:14]

Opposition from Nobility, Clergy and Peasants

top

And it was also an opportunity, the differences of the Jews, for these different groups within the European population to come together. So the nobles start coming together. The people start coming together. If they’re lucky, they manage to get a bishop or the local priest on board as well, so you have a unification of the peasantry, of the clergy and of the nobility. And when that happens, the power of the monarch starts to become weaker, in terms of the overall balance.

There are a number of things that can then happen. The monarch can attempt to clamp down on all these people and we have instances in history where, examples may have been made of a particular noble who was violent to a jew, because jews were protected by being the King’s property. So if a noble didn’t want to repay his loan and he struck a jew, or if he killed a jew, he would be severely punished, because that was viewed as an assault on the Monarch himself.

But, the balance of power was crucial. But, if it was tipped, just that little bit too much against the monarch, if you looked at the nobles that were arranged against him and the people behind them and also the clergy, and he thought for a second, “I might not come out too well from a conflict on this” then expulsion was a good way to release that pressure. It was, it would be a good way to deflect attention from his own personal greed and his own personal exploitation of the lower orders. It could all be, you know, dispensed with by the getting rid of this this troublesome middleman population.

The Cycle of Expulsion of Jews and Their Return

top

And I think that as we look back at history, we shouldn’t be too sentimental about this in terms of believing that our kings and monarchs were perfectly good in doing this, or whatever. It was selfish, ultimately. It would benefit us for a time that the jews where were expelled, but inevitably they would be re-invited by another monarch with similar motives of greed and self-interest and the cycle with would be forced to repeat itself, in some European principalities at least.

But, also on the subject of expulsions, another period of weakness would be the period of the interregnum, for example, between one King dying and their successor coming to the throne. Lots of nobles took that opportunity to carry out actions against jews and try and push them out. It wouldn’t be a formal royal edict of expulsion, but it was an all out effort by the nobility to get rid of this troublesome and exploitative population of jews in the interregnum period.

And we see a lot of that, particularly in England in the Middle Ages. Really the idea behind it was:

“Okay, while there is no King in position right now, we need to act quickly, because as soon as the new King takes the throne the Jews are his property once again and effectively become untouchable and are backed by the Royal Militia”.

So when you strip away a lot of the superstition behind things like this idea of the blood libel and everything, I actually don’t view them really as instances of crude superstition at all. I actually think they were very, very intelligent manoeuvres by a people that were very, very hamstrung in terms of what they could do and how they could voice their displeasure at being exploited. And if you could claim some kind of allegiance with the Church or claim that what you were doing was somehow part of God’s wishes and there were miracles and everything going on. Very, very clever. Very clever, indeed. And I think there was an excellent bit of logic going on there.

Jews Thrive Under Very Strong Government and a Weak Population

top

But, jews thrive under very, very powerful elites that they are allied to and this is something — it’s a crucial factor in jewish, … I cannot stress that enough, it is a crucial factor that jews thrive under very, very strong government and a weak population. And that’s why, in the past I’ve written about this issue of gun control, …

Henrik: Yes.

Andrew: … about jewish efforts to disarm the population of the United States and, at all turns, pushing for big government.

[50:00]

Why Should We Concern Ourselves with Jewish Ethnic Interests and Power?

top

Henrik: Yeah, very many important factors there that you talked about that I want to get into later, but I know this will be jumping ahead maybe a little bit, but I want to address this before we break here in five minutes or so and then I want to speak a little more about your writings and the upcoming book that you have.

But can you explain the concerns, if you will, an overview of the concerns that you have right now, when it comes to what we’re facing as Europeans. I mean, you can extend this to North America too, I guess, as our situations are similar, but different circumstances perhaps, but in consideration of what you just talked about, why should we concern ourselves with jewish ethnic interests and power and how does that kind of converge with our interests as European? What’s, describe that for someone who just has no clue whatsoever, in terms of the situation that we are in and how that is juxtaposed by jewish interests.

People of European Descent Face Demographic Catastrophe

top

Andrew: I think the best place to start would be simply to say that we are living in a period in time that is completely unprecedented in the history of our people. Or in human history. I think that the current demographic changes that are occurring across Europe and in those lands in which Europeans have been predominant in the last two or three centuries, that these changes are a catastrophe of immense significance, and the danger that we face as a people is tragically immense.

The, as far as the jewish position, and all that is currently happening is concerned, that the jewish role is very, very significant. I don’t think it’s, right now, as direct as some people think it is, or seem to need to think it is. I think a lot of the groundwork for our current situation was laid in fact at the start of the twentieth century and it really snowballed up through the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s and I think, actually, what we’re seeing now is not so much that the planting of this rotten tree, but the fact that this rotten tree is now bearing fruit.

Henrik: Yes.

Poisonous Jewish Intellectualism and SJWs

top

Andrew: I think that generations of our young people have grown up in an atmosphere, a cultural, intellectual educational atmosphere, saturated by a truly poisonous jewish intellectualism. They have absorbed it, it is in their blood stream, it is in their thought processes. And in many respects it dominates and distorts their entire personality.

I recently called this phenomenon of social justice warrior, the “Frankenstein’s creation of jewish intellectualism”. These young people who believe, or have been led to believe, that they are supernaturally good, or supernaturally moral and capable of transforming the world. I mean, I simply look at it and I feel like asking them, you know, what are these changes that you think you are bringing about? What power do you think you have, other than the power to completely wipe your entire genetic heritage from the face of the earth?

Henrik: Yes.

Andrew: Because most of these people are intellectual mediocrities, they aren’t particularly intelligent, nor do they have anything even entertaining to say. You turn on your screen and you look at the average far-left protest and you see a bunch of normally upper-middle class zombies with their heads full of Marx and Steinem, and then any other number of jewish brainwashers. And they’re creating havoc and destroying every chance that their people has of some kind of resurgence, and regaining some kind of sane position within their own nations.

But, look. I just look around and I’ll be honest, I confess to tremendous feelings of despair at times, sitting some evenings watching the news broadcast as it tells us of thousands of more migrants.

Henrik: Yes.

The “Refugee” Invasion

top

Andrew: You know, I don’t call them refugees — they aren’t refugees from anything. They aren’t fleeing anything but a mediocre existence created by their own culture.

Henrik: Right.

Andrew: We can’t help them with that. All we can offer them is a suicidal, symbiotic relationship in which they attach themselves to our welfare systems, in which they, you know, commit crimes on an appalling scale and completely and utterly take us for granted, and take us to the cleaners!

[55:05]

And there is no benefit! There is no benefit to us for letting in these people! There is no utility, there is no way of skewing any of the facts, because there is not, …

Henrik: But it feels so good Andrew, it feels so good to help other people. Right? [sarcastic laughter]

Andrew: I’m sure it does, I’m sure it does to some very, very dysfunctional people who live very, very empty lives.

Henrik: Right.

Andrew: I spent a good amount of time earlier actually. I was driving in the car and sometimes these themes and these thoughts come into my head and I ponder, and I just reflect back on any kind of historical pretext there may be, for why we are the way we are, right now. And when I say “we” I mean lots of these dysfunctional moral do-gooder types. And as you say, well why do they feel that this is so good? One of the ideas, actually, that I came up with earlier, was that we have a very much declined sense of what is ours in the modern age, and part of that is economic.

Our Land is Not Ours Anymore

top

If you were to rewind and turn back the clock two centuries you and I Henrik, would have been born into a family homestead. We would have had land that our fathers and their fathers would have owned, and such would have been the case going back generations. But, you know, industrialisation came in, people drifted from the countryside into the city. They sold what little land they had to some, you know, capitalists, who probably gave them a few coins and off they skipped merrily to the city where they took a job in a factory. And they felt so free and they didn’t have the concern of the land and everything, anymore.

But fast forward even further to our generation, and that the most that we can hope to own or feel attached to, is perhaps our own home, our house, if we’re lucky it might have a garden. If we live in the city we won’t have that. And all of the things that we feel attached to are our possessions.

Henrik: Yes.

Andrew: That’s what modern culture and society is. Our cars are ours. Our televisions is ours. The fancy new kitchen suite is ours, but the land is not ours, And so when we hear about thousands of invaders streaming through the borders and they’re settling here and settling there, that sense of loss that would have been there, if we were still in the position of our ancestors and the land itself was ours, it’s gone. That feeling is gone! And it is a complex situation and, you know, it’s not purely psychological. It’s economic, you know. Our world has changed.

There is a famous book by the English historian, Peter Laslett, called, “The World We Have Lost”, and it’s full of recollections about times when we all, you know, that we lived near our extended family. We lived on the land. We had guests and apprentices living in our home, and he talks about breaking up of social bonds and cultures that came with industrialisation.

I think part of the problem — by no means all of it — is that Whites have a tendency to be our worst enemy sometimes. Some of our talents in creating machines and industrialisation contained the kernels of our weaknesses, but these weaknesses need to be exploited, of course, and I think that’s where jewish intellectualism comes in. Because if there’s one thing that, you know, the organised jewish community is very good, and has been very good at doing over historical time, it is finding and then exploiting ruthlessly any weaknesses that we may have.

Henrik: Yeah, yeah. So it’s just incredibly important, I mean there’s so much we can say about this and I have much more that I want to ask you about, and much more I want to discuss in the next segment. I want to ask you, well obviously, we can’t talk about this subject while avoiding something as central to this as as the “Holocaust”.

I want to ask you more about that later. And how, what position that has, or how important that is in the question of jewish identity, and also, of course, how that has been exploited in terms of everything that’s happening right now. So, we’ve tons more to discuss here.

British Renaissance and TOO

top

But tell us, you work a bit with British Renaissance. You obviously, as we said, write for theoccidentalobserver.net and you are part of also publishing articles for the Occidental Quarterly. Feel free to give us the website addresses to those so people know where to go, where they can find your writings. And also tell a bit about the upcoming book you have and if you have any release date as of yet, on that.

Andrew: Yeah, well what you said, occidentalobserver.net is where you’ll find the vast majority of my writings. I don’t really write for any other websites, and I enjoy a very, very close and fruitful relationship with Kevin MacDonald.

[60:16]

He’s a scholar that I admire tremendously and I think he’s done some absolutely groundbreaking work that will forge a path and has forged a path for younger scholars and people in our movement, like myself, …

Henrik: Yes.

Andrew: … to follow, really for decades to come. I view his writings as no less significant and historical as some of the things written by Richard Wagner, or Heinrich von Treitschke. Or many others in the past, who have taken on this subject and have attempted to come to a reasoned, scholarly, but at the same time, eloquent response to it.

Yes, I’m also involved to some extent in Jack Sen’s British Renaissance group. It’s constantly evolving, you know. I’m not in the thick of it, but as an idea, the British Renaissance is evolving. I mentioned earlier that, you know, jewish influence is a an anvil that has worn out thousands of hammers, and I think that one of the good things at least about a British renaissance is that it’s not fixing itself to one shape too much.

Sudden Enthusiasm for New Groups and Movements, Trump

top

I think that one of the things that our movement suffers from is this rash enthusiasm that seems to attend every new group or movement, you know:

“This is how we are going to win; this is how we’re going to get the votes of the people; this is how we are going to roll back Jewish influence; this is how we are going to end the migration crisis.”

I see the same thing with the phenomenon of Donald Trump in the United States:

“This is heart. This is the turning point.”

And I think that longer-term, more flexible strategies would be far more useful to our cause, and really, to view the whole thing as the “long game”.

Henrik: Yes.

Hubris vs 2,000 Year Problem

top

Andrew: What we’re looking at here is a problem that has been with us for about two thousand years. And many, many more intelligent men, than myself, have taken it on and failed. That’s not a reason for me to walk away with my head down and say, “Well, you know, I’m not up to it.” But, it is a reason for me to want to avoid any kind of hubris. And unfortunately I’ve seen hubris now and again in our movement, and unfortunately some egos as well.

But, one of the things that I would say about Jack Sen is that he has adopted a flexible approach to the question of bringing Britain to it’s senses, and I think he’s being quite ably assisted by others, at the minute. And certainly the group has been slowly evolving into a think tank — it’s now the British Renaissance Policy Institute. And I think that, over time, some good ideas may well come out of it, or it may undergo a further transition as the situation requires. We need to keep in mind that this is a dynamic, as I said earlier, it’s an incredibly important period in our history, but it’s also very, very dynamic.

Trump Not in Jewish Play Book

top

The situation is changing constantly, and things are being thrown up that not even our enemies have anticipated. I don’t think, for one second, that the Donald Trump phenomenon is something that was on the jewish play book. I think that they’ve been placed in a very, very uncomfortable position, if not so much by Trump, who of course has a Jewish son-in-law, then by Trump as they fear that some of the themes that he’s raising, the style of his rhetoric. This kind of, it’s in some ways, it’s Trump is kind of a mega-troll, you know. Some of the things he’s come out with, are really riling people up!

That is to jews, akin to some kind of Pandora’s Box, that threatens to swallow them whole. This is viewed with great trepidation and will be met, over time, with, I’m sure, a very sophisticated counter-strategy. Already we hear about Republican donors, jewish Republican donors, slowly, according to Haaretz and The Forward, slowing opening their wallets to Trump.

This will be an effort, quite similar to the historical instances, where even where the monarch or the leader was quite hostile to jewish or jewish interests, to just get in there with any kind of influence they can and one of the most ancient forms of getting influence is to open the chequebook.

Henrik: Yes.

Andrew: It’s to shake the coins, you know. That will be the way in.

[65:13]

Henrik: Yes, that’s an interesting point, Andrew. Let’s definitely talk more about Trump and, “Trumpism” in the second segment. There is much to that, of course. We’ll have the websites up, of course, to the publications that we are talking about here, the Occidental Observer, the Occidental Quarterly and also to British Renaissance. And quickly here now then before the break. The book. Any idea when it will be out?

“Talmud and Taboo” Book

top

Andrew: Certainly, you know, I’m just finishing the manuscript right now, but the goal would be to have it out by the end of 2016. The book is called, “Talmud and Taboo”. Essays on the jewish question and as I said, earlier, it will contend some of the best content that I’ve produced for the Occidental Observer, some of that expanded and developed further, but also some new essays, covering things Trump and, “Trumpism” and also some thoughts on the jewish question as a whole and it’s contemporary significance. And also my own thoughts on counter strategy and slowly, but surely, we might be able to build something over time and it will take time, that can secure an existence for our children.

Henrik: Absolutely! Very important. All right, very good. “Talmud and Taboo”, keep an eye out for the book, ladies and gentleman, upcoming here probably towards the end of the year, hopefully. All right, well thanks Andrew. Stay with us here. We’ll be right back after a short break with the second hour. Much more to get into. We’ll talk to you on the other side.

[66:45]

END OF PART 1/2

Go to: Red Ice Radio: Dr Andrew Joyce – The History of Jewish Influence — TRANSCRIPT (Part 2)

============================================

PDF Download

top

Click to download a PDF of this post (0.7 MB):

Red Ice interviews Dr Andrew Joyce — TRANSCRIPT – Part 1

Version History

top

Version 18: Mar 21, 2021 — Added See Also Part 2 image and links.

Version 17: Sep 20/Nov 15, 2020 — Updated See Also links and images.

Version 16: Aug 5, 2020 — Updated See Also image (7) and links.

Version 15: Jul 30, 2020 — Added Table of Contents with links.

Version 14: Jul 28, 2020 — Added new See Also image and links.

Version 13: Jul 27, 2020 — Added new See Also image and links.

Version 12: Jul 2, 2020 — Added See Also links. Added 4 images. Improved formatting and fixed typos.

Version 11: Feb 18, 2020 — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version.

Version 10: May 9, 2018 — Improved formatting.

Version 9: Sep 18, 2016 — Formatting. Added PDF for download.

Version 8: Jun 11, 2016 — Fixed some typos. Changed uppercase “Jew…” to lowercase “jew…”.

Version 7: Jun 10, 2016 — Added 17 more minutes. Total complete = 67 mins. TRANSCRIPT NOW COMPLETE.

Version 6: Jun 7, 2016 — Added 5 more minutes. Total complete = 50 mins.

Version 5: Jun 5, 2016 — Added note on, “Why Bother with Transcripts?” 5 more minutes of transcript proofread. Total complete = 45 mins.

Version 4: Jun 4, 2016 — 40 minutes of transcript proofread. Total complete = 40 mins.

Version 3: Jun 4, 2016 — 5 minutes of transcript proofread. Daisy has 35 minutes in progress. Total complete = 5 mins.

Version 2: Jun 3, 2016 — 5 minutes of transcript proofread. Daisy has 20 minutes in progress. Total complete = 5 mins.

Version 1: Posted Jun 3, 2016 — Added rough draft of transcript.

Steven Spielberg – katana17

Book – The Myth of German Villainy – Part 02 – Aftermath of the War in Germany

[Part 02]

The Myth of

German Villainy

by

Benton L. Bradberry

Contents

Chapter 2

Aftermath of the War in Germany

Introduction

The Versailles Treaty

Effect of the Treaty on the German Economy

Was the War Guilt Clause Fair? Did Germany Really Start the War?

[END of Part 02]

PDF Notes

Version History

Book – The Myth of German Villainy by Benton Bradberry – Part 01

[Part 01]

The Myth of

German Villainy

by

Benton L. Bradberry

Front and Back Cover Text

About the Author

Contents

Preface

Chapter 1

The Myth of Germany as an Evil Nation

Germany’s positive image changes over night

[END of Part 01]

PDF Notes

_____________________

Version History

Red Ice Radio: Dr Andrew Joyce – The History of Jewish Influence — TRANSCRIPT (Part 2)

https://redice.tv/red-ice-radio/the-history-of-jewish-influence

Red Ice Radio

Dr Andrew Joyce

The History of Jewish Influence

Part 2/2

Published on Jun 1, 2016

Red Ice Preface

CONTENTS

PART 1

PART 2

TRANSCRIPT

[00:00]

Introduction to Part 2

A Need for a More Objective View About Jews

[05:00]

Avoiding the Obsessive Paranoid Approach to the JQ

Jews as Demonic, or as Supernatural Beings?

Jews Work Very Hard at Gaming the System

[10:00]

Jewish Exaggerations and Propaganda

Pseudo-Science from Jewish Academics

The Teaching of History is Dying, Particularly the Nationalistic Element

[15:00]

Television and World War Two History

Although People are Poor on Facts, They are Rich in Indignation!

“Oh, well, you know, the number of jewish casualties in World War Two, during World War Two was nowhere near as high as was what you think it is.” or, “You know, the number of Germans who died and the number of Europeans across the Continent, far dwarf the number of jewish dead.”

“Oh! You’ve never heard of Dresden? Why haven’t you heard of Dresden?”

The Nature of “Reading” Has Changed

[20:00]

Jewish Atrocity Propaganda Dominates

We Need to Really “Evangelize” for Our Cause and for the Truth

[25:10]

Adopting an Unsentimental and Hard Perspective is Sometimes Needed

Communicating Our Message

[30:00]

Younger Generation’s Use of Humour with Things Like the “Holocaust”

It’s Time to Adopt Many Different Tactics

The Jewish Introduction of Hate Speech Laws in Britain

[35:00]

Jews Are Persistent About Getting Their Way

Jews Behind Race Relations Legislation

The Jewish Dominated National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants

Brittan and Rifkind’s Public Order Act That Banned Racial Harassment

[40:15]

Sidiq Khan, the Muslim Mayor of London