Peter Schaenk 6/17/08 Clean Break … A Plan to Secure the Realm for Israel

June 17, 2008


In this program Peter discusses:

  • PNAC and the founding document “Clean Break”.
  • Project for a New American Century, (PNAC) has nothing to do with American Empire and much more to do with rebuilding World Zionism.
  • VoR plans to unleash it’s “SPEAK ENGLISH” campaign.
  • “This Day In History”
  • All the latest news and more

Peter Schaenk 6/16/08 Transylvanian Disco Party!

June 17, 2008


In this program Peter discusses:

  • Debut of the Transylvanian Chef’s tasty beats.
  • Obama plans to replace the White House bowling alley with a basketball court…What’s next?.. Pull up the White House Rose Garden and replace it with a watermelon patch?
  • LEGALIZE MY LOVE: This absurd idea of normalizing perversion has taken on new dimensions with gay marriage. The perverts are now taking their vows in California.
  • A listener writes Peter an email discussing the plight of the heterosexual male in today’s society.
  • All the latest news and more

VoR Ramps up Promotion Machine

June 16, 2008

Win a VoR-customized iPod!

In the next few days, we will be announcing an Ipod giveaway as a way of promoting the Voice of Reason Podcast. To win, you will have to be subscribed to the podcast. We will be giving away several brand new iPod Nanos. More updates later in the week. Spread the word!

Government broken, watch for billboards

Later this month, we will debut our “Speak English” campaign in several major cities across the country. VoR seeks to express and focus the public outrage generated by a government that is hell-bent on electing a new citizenry (the won’t print my first choice–”Wanted: Angry young white males”).

Your continued support allows us to do all this and more, THANK-YOU!

Irish voters paddle N.W. Ho’s

June 16, 2008

. . . and they’re crying like whipped dogs:

Ireland’s veto in a referendum last week brought the EU’s internal discord to the fore, overshadowing matters ranging from the nuclear standoff with Iran to the bloc’s response to soaring food and energy prices.

The treaty can only take effect once all 27 EU countries endorse it, giving the 862,000 Irish who voted “no” a veto over political life in a group of 495 million people. So far, 18 countries have ratified it through parliament.

Ireland’s rebuff is a “cold shower” for Europe, said Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini, a former European justice commissioner.

Officials from three countries yet to ratify — Britain, Italy and Sweden — pledged to press on with the process, saying that their views shouldn’t be stifled by the Irish rejection.

“We don’t see any reason to abstain from having our voice just because they had their voice,” Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt said.

Conflicting Views

The debate reflected conflicting views of what the EU is for, with Britain and some countries in eastern Europe seeing it as an economic arrangement and a core group led by France and Germany intent on more political unity.

President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic — another country yet to ratify — hailed the defeat of an “elitist artificial project.”


Financial Times

Bud White & Heather Blue 6/13/08

June 15, 2008

How They Do It

June 15, 2008

European Americans United seeks to preserve and recapture the rights and freedoms of the people who built and founded our nation: European Americans. For far too long, our people and their collective interests have been marginalized and ignored; we have been abandoned by the American political establishment because, unlike every successful, self-conscious group, we have failed to organize ourselves effectively. European Americans United is eager to advocate on the behalf of European American interests, traditions, and values in an increasingly atomized, corrupt, and racially diverse America.’ While I am no fan of the label white nationalist, I still think the above “mission statement” from our executive website does qualify as a kind of component or definition of the term, which is to say we are working to develop “a movement that rejects equality as an ideal and insist on an enduring core of human nature transmitted by heredity.” –Sam Francis

Of course, anti-racist organizations still loudly whine that an idea like white nationalism exists purely to offer a “sanitary” public appearance for “white supremacy,” something I have yet to see in the face of European Americans’ demographic and political decline. Indeed as white nationalists we want to appeal to a larger audience, a broader, more educated audience; comprised of leaders and potential leaders with the resources and the tools to assist in the longevity and well being of our people – ALL of our people. And so we are recruiting supporters who see them selves defending the justifiable civil rights of European Americans against society’s blatant racial double standards. By the way, similar racial views used to be held by many conventional American leaders before the 1950s while the same Boasian disciples we see today indicted those Americans with hate, racial prejudice and “negative” identity politics. And I’m sad to report that it worked.

Unlike our enemies, and with the exception of a handful of (“pro-white”) psychopaths, rather than scaring the daylights out of people by supporting things like unjustifiable violence (self defense is still on the table, though!) or termination from the workplace, we want to use information and collective knowledge to argue for a self-conscious Caucasian identity while there’s still time. Additionally we say that a natural hierarchy among all races ought to succeed over the bald faced lie of social and biological equality. Indeed, the downfall of Caucasian influence as laid out by the Founders will spell doom for true representative government, the rule of law and freedom of speech…all of which is drying up right before our eyes due in large part to empire killing multiculturalism presented by the media, churches, and universities. Unfortunately, much of this can blamed on the fact that over the last 60 years or so those who came before us had failed in various ways to organize themselves effectively. But they nevertheless did animate a school of thought that has brought some benefit to our people to this day; though not to the degree they had anticipated.

As many of us know by now the reality of race in today’s America depends more on the definition of reality than on the definition of race. The sociopath that says race is “only skin deep” is lying, as any experienced forensic expert will tell you. I mean, it wasn’t all that long ago when our people understood the reality of race as set forth in our schools and universities. They also used to understand what it meant to be a European American in terms of unspoken knowledge; knowledge that was verified through their eyes and minds because of their surroundings. And truth be told our enemies fully understand the very same things. It’s just that they don’t want the Caucasian masses to get comfortable with such a politically incorrect idea, as it might get in the way of their divine effort to remake our country into the Marxist, multicultural paradigm they took in with their mother’s milk — which happens to include historically opposed movements in America such as miscegenation, political correctness and Third World colonization. Bottom line: It’s all about controlling the only segment of society which poses the greatest threat to our enemies’ self serving ends. And how do they wield such control? I think we already know. We already know that most people would rather be burned at the stake or lined up and shot than suffer the accusation of racist, neo-Nazi, bigot, and other terms of slander. And since our enemies put this racial condition in place themselves, they know all too well that today’s institutions will thereby slander, vilify and utterly marginalize any European American who attempts to take a similar position on their own behalf — like non-white groups do. The real haters operate in the court of predetermined public opinion and they rigged the jury a long time ago. One condition for mass acceptance of multiculturalism is that it must first be made into an image of neutrality and innocence, an image that came about almost overnight if you think about it. No one seems to notice that an America for European immigrants has been glibly reversed in the process, which is to say fewer European Americans and their influence is now not only fashionable but commercially desired.

So, when it comes to any manifestation of white racial identity, no matter how benign, here’s what the enemies of our people do (in no particular order):

1) Create, exagerrate, and over-report white on non-white crime and then tie this bad news to white identity. At the same time, ignore or downplay non-white on white crimes no matter how violent.

2) Create the illusion of widespread “hate” by giving plenty of airtime to leftwing groups and individuals hostile toward Europeans and European Americans. Above all fail to report the true agendas of those groups by depicting them as mom and apple pie civil rights advocates.

3) Downplay, ignore and disparage lawful European American activists’ success everywhere you find it.

4) Pay tribute to in, sympathize with and mythologize America’s perverts, liars and deconstructionists while implicitly vilifying morality.

5) Downplay the explicit nature of European America’s generosity in response to natural disasters and war. Recast their motives as being somehow supremacist in nature.

6) Fill the nation’s airwaves with uncertain and, sometimes, out-and-out lies about the activities of European American activists.

7) Give airtime and print coverage to leftist radicals and government officials who portray themselves as patriots.

8) Grant exposure to leftwing intellectuals and social scientists making anti-white statements. Present them as legitimate experts in their fields by publicizing their inaccurate or exaggerated findings but present those findings as truthful and non-biased.

9) Tightly control major news coverage of any pro Eurocentric protest you can find, whether it draws 100 people or 10,000 people, and concentrate on only the most unrefined participants of the protest.

10). Always ignore or downplay any and all serious issues Eurocentric activists are addressing, remembering it is not the reliability of finger pointing that counts in shaping public opinion, but the sincerity and sheer “volume” of finger pointing that does.

11) Play up racial relativism and the creation of widespread thankfulness for it by bringing in a law enforcement officer who is willing to impose racial relativism.

12) Deprive, silence and discredit any rational criticism put out Eurocentric groups as early as possible.

What shall WE do?

And that’s the end of my list. Can you imagine the discipline, time and energy it must take to systemically maintain this vast network of lies, obfuscation and contempt? While I’m sure there are many who could add even more enlightening explanations than I can, I believe we all understand the enormity of the problems we face as European American activists. In a world of split second phony images, immaterial and invisible as they are, we have to understand that those who pull the levers of power are distracting our people with these images and frightening the rest with intimidating propaganda. That’s why it’s imperative that you, member and supporter alike, now has to validate your acknowledged commitment to our people and start changing things for the better.

If you don’t do what you can — wherever you are — with what you have – who will? To become a healthy nation again we have to to do many things in a different way as a people. The things we teach our children, and the way we teach them is directly connected to the nature of society, and we can certainly see the results of abdicating that responsibility to the state and the media can’t we? At least in many cases. The kind of government we want and the way the economy works is also directly tied into the conditioning and education of our young people, and if they fail because of our inaction or our laziness everything else will fail, too. That’s why we have to take a radically different position to the ethics that are governing America today. That’s why this year EAU will be finishing up its own home school syllabus available to not only our members but to the general public as well. And that’s also why we stridently encourage our people to recruit new members, to initiate Chapter level activities in their communities, to establish a beach head against things that are yet to come. We all know how to get people to think and to plan now for the day when we can begin to put into service changes that are beneficial to us. Indeed, everything that we do right now, and everything that we do in the future must be guided by one concern and one concern only: will it aid our group to endure and to become strong again? Or shall we knuckle under to the soft Marxism we discussed above?

The choice is entirely up to you.

Source: Western Voices World News

Peter Schaenk, 6/13/2008–FIGHT’N SIDE OF ME

June 14, 2008

  • Marxism calls for the destruction of Civilization as we know it.
    With that destruction a power vacuum will be created only to be filled
    by a One World Government…A Jew World Order.

  • Rousseau, Marx, Freud, The Frankfurt School, and Freemasonry, all
    have similar goals. The destruction of Western Civilization, “The old
    Roman order”, to facilitate a Utopian society, or heaven on earth.

  • Peter discusses Freud’s theories as used by Edward Bernays, to
    implement social change and control of the masses to facilitate a New

  • All this and more.


The latest news and “This Day In History”.

Peter Schaenk 6/11/08 Self Evident Truth

June 12, 2008

Self Evident Truth

In this program Peter discusses:

  • Supporters of Hillary may flock to McCain.
  • The poisoning for our food supply by Mexico.
  • Self evident truth vs unchangeable truth.
  • PATRIOTARD MOMENT: David Icke’s fascination with fascism.
  • All the latest news and “This Day In History”

June 12, 2008, The Patriot Dames

June 11, 2008

On The Patriot Dames’ June 12th show, Susie and Barbie will be discussing the effects of Jewish influence and domination in the U.S.  From the Bronfmans to the Hate Crime Bill the ADL is trying so desperately to pass, the sisters will tell the listeners WHO is the criminal, WHAT they are doing and HOW to stop them. Listen up–you will enjoy it!

Peter Schaenk, 6/10/2008, with Tom Sunic

June 10, 2008


Topics covered:

article about Charles Lindbergh, which paints the American hero as some
sort of evil genius who worked to create a “master race” of…WHITE

Peter’s hatred of the Internet.

Professor Sunic, author of; Homo Americanus…Child of the Postmodern Age, discusses a myriad of topics;

Action, Hate Speech laws, the myth of the Holocaust, White guilt, the
collapse of the Soviet Union and the Americanization of Eastern Europe.

Plus all the latest news.

Common Slurs Used Against European-Americans

June 10, 2008

Common Slurs Used Against European-Americans


Slurs are names, labels, definitions, or descriptions of any of the diverse white American peoples that demonstrate the state of mind of the speaker as one of disgust, hatred, disparagement, loathing, or supremacy. Slurs provide support for the hate caricatures, negative stereotypes, and white-baiting canards that also demean the diverse white American peoples.

A slur is not something that Resisting Defamation finds offensive. The definition of slur is based on the feelings and thoughts of those producing or publicizing the name, label, definition, or description in context, and never the feelings (usually defined as “offense”) of those denigrated by the slur.

That is, Resisting Defamation doesn’t claim offense as the basis for our analyses; it is the mental and emotional state of the person making and promoting the slur that is to be investigated and interrogated.


1) A slur is usually based on a claim of supremacy, that is, the claim to have the right to name and label members of a group other than one’s own.

2) It always shows contempt or disgust toward those slurred.

3) It almost always seeks to smother the diversity and/or nationality of those slurred.

4) It is always divisive to society.

5) It operates to dehumanize those it slurs by using animal, insect, plant, or food names.

6) It is almost always an angry demand that someone “shut up,” especially those willing to speak out against the campaign of defamation against the diverse white American peoples.


acting white – An attempt to smother white American diversity in the same way that “model minority” smothers Asian American diversity; an expression of contempt for diverse white Americans; Barack Obama’s view of white Americans ["eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white"] expressed in his 7/27/04 political speech to a national political convention — no mention that it is primarily a slander against the diverse young white American students.

anglo – A Spanish-language epithet for all the diverse white Americans — not shorthand for the English-language name Anglo-Saxon; a claim to supremacy over the diverse white American peoples by claiming a right to name and label them; an expression of contempt; an attempt to smother white American diversity and nationality.

anti-Semite, here – A claim to supremacy over diverse white Americans by claiming a right to name and label them; an expression of contempt akin to that shown by shiksa, shabbas goy, goyim, and gentile; an attempt to smother white American diversity and nationality. [Anti-Jewish activities can obviously take place, but labeling a person with this name is over the line. It is like saying an alien present in the US without papers is an "illegal alien."]

geek – An expression of contempt by the dominant media culture and the corporate entertainment culture toward the diverse white American technical and technology professionals.

gentile - A claim to supremacy over diverse white Americans by claiming a right to name and label them; an expression of contempt akin to shiksa, goyim, shabbas goy, and anti-Semite; an attempt to smother white American diversity and nationality.

goy/goyim, here – A claim to supremacy over white Americans by claiming a right to name and label them; an expression of contempt akin to shiksa, gentile, shabbas goy, and anti-Semite; an attempt to smother white American diversity and nationality.

gringo, here, here, here, here – A claim to supremacy over white Americans by claiming a right to name and label them; an expression of contempt; an attempt to smother white American diversity and nationality.

haole – A claim to supremacy in Hawaii over the diverse white American peoples by claiming a right to name and label them; an expression of contempt; an attempt to smother white American diversity and nationality.

hillbilly – A expression of contempt for rural dwelling mechanics, farmers, merchants, and farm workers, expressed especially by certain urban dwellers as a showing of supremacy.

honky – An expression of contempt; an attempt to smother white American diversity and nationality.

non-Hispanic white
– A expression of contempt by the dominant media culture; an attempt to smother white Americans diversity and nationality.

paddy – A showing of contempt for Irish and Irish-Americans.

peasant - An expression of contempt for rural dwelling mechanics, farmers, merchants, and farm workers, especially by urban dwellers.

redneck – An expression of contempt for rural dwelling mechanics, farmers, merchants, and farm workers, especially by urban dwellers.

shabbas goy - A claim to supremacy over white Americans by claiming the right to name and label them; an expresion of contempt akin to shiksa, goyim, gentile, and anti-Semite.

shiksa – A claim to supremacy over the diverse white American women by claiming the right to name and label them; an expresion of contempt akin to gentile, goyim, shabbas goy, and anti-Semite; an attempt to smother white American women’s diversity. [See Israel Shahak, 1994, page 26 -- "unclean animal; loathsome creature, abomination."]

typical white person – an expression of hostility to white American diversity, nationality, and right to self-name.

white boy – An expression of contempt for young white American men; an attempt to smother young white American men’s diversity and nationality.

white skin privilege, here – A Big Lie by extremists in academia claiming that all white Americans are equally successful in all walks of life, similar to the term “model minority”; an attempt to smother white Americans’ diversity. See “The Redneck Manifesto” (1997) by Jim Goad for a look at the lives of subordinated and blue-collar diverse white American peoples in the land of “white privilege.” [For a longer review of "white skin privilege" go here.]

white resentment – The newest slur to be affixed to the diverse white American peoples which has now appeared in two prominent places, once by US Senator Barack Obama who condescended to smother the diversity of the feelings and thoughts of all diverse white Americans under this label in his major address on race relations on 3/18/08; and by the San Jose Mercury News, always eager to stay on the cutting edge of slurs and slander against the diverse white American peoples which initiated the use of a similar slur ["old timers' resentment of change"] in an editorial on 6/1/03; an attempt to silence white American participation in public discourse by denigration; an expression of contempt..

white trash, here – an expression of contempt for low income white Americans.

Thanks to the donors!

June 8, 2008

Last Thursday, I got a call from Mishko right before Peter Schaenk was supposed to go on saying that the server was down. Generally, this is the IT guy’s nightmare. The server’s a thousand miles away at the hosting company’s location, and I could not get it to respond. Worse still, the ISP’s website is down, so it’s probably company-wide–ie: not something in my hands that can be fixed. These are things that happen with the best and most reliable hosting companies, but we’re a media outlet, and dead air is unacceptable.

“No problem,” I said. Thanks to you, the listener, we had just bought a second server that was installed with an identical setup to the main broadcast server. This server is housed in a different part of the country, the location owned by a different company. I dialed in and the server had taken over, happily playing a Marc Krieger archive to our audience who was none the wiser.

No doubt, this is a small thing to many, but from our perspective at VoR, watching the system continue to work after the main server gets chopped off is a wonderful thing. Most importantly, however, is the continuing support we get that allows us to put our best foot forward in presenting ourselves to new listeners as well as new talent. It’s working, and I thank you as we continue, with your support, to move forward. Thank-you!


Of the Same Blood …

June 8, 2008

“A Man should, whatever happens, keep his own caste, race and breed”

– Rudyard Kipling

Have you ever had an experience in your life that affected you profoundly but that you couldn’t write about because you felt you just couldn’t do justice to the experience? That has been my feeling about a certain visit I made to Britain some thirty years ago when I was a young man. I still don’t feel I can adequately describe it, but I’m now old enough to realize that I’ll never be able to do the theme justice, so let me at least stammer at what cannot be adequately articulated.

It was the mid-1970’s. I had been in Italy, Greece, and France and found those countries to be beautiful. The Parthenon was fascinating, the Pieta and the Sistine Chapel were moving, and the Louvre in Paris was magnificent. But nothing in Southern Europe affected me as much as the mere act of stepping on British soil did. I felt like Mole in The Wind in the Willows (Chapter 5, Dulce Domum): I was home. I was in the country of Shakespeare, Kipling, Scott, Grahame, Dickens, and others, men of my own tongue, of my own flesh and blood, who were wedded in spirit and blood to the same heritage that I was wedded to. The day I was married and the individual births of my six children have been the only moments in my life that can compare with the day I set foot on British soil.

I wasn’t born and raised in a cave, so I didn’t expect every Brit I met to quote Shakespeare or to say, ‘Pip, pip, cheerio,’ but I did hope to meet some real Brits. I don’t know if the ghosts of Britain alone could have kept my enthusiasm at a fever pitch if I hadn’t met some living representatives of the great ghosts of Britain. I was fortunate. The young men and women of my own age were burnt-out cases without personal identities, citizens of a new international community of soulless automatons. But I was able to meet some older Britons who did indeed live up to the finest traditions of the nation of Shakespeare, Kipling, and Scott. One couple in particular made a lasting impression.

I was wandering through the Lake District of England, quite lost but not particularly nervous about it because I had water, cheese, and bread and it was summertime. If worse came to worse, I could sleep out in the woods. Toward evening though, I came upon an elderly woman tending a garden in front of a modest cottage. A cottage in the woods! I asked for directions to the nearest youth hostel. She asked her husband to come out of the house; “He gives much better directions than I do.” The husband was just as cordial as his wife. After exchanging a few pleasantries, he informed me that the nearest youth hostel was much too far away to reach before dark and that I should spend the night at their house.

I first I declined, for the usual reasons: “I just couldn’t impose on you like that. And besides, I’m a stranger.”

The husband’s reply still makes me feel like Ratty on the river. “You’re no stranger, you Yanks are the same blood as us.” Ah, the “same blood.” Thomas Fleming would not approve. This ‘infantile’ old man was talking about ties of blood! But that old Brit was correct. We were of the same blood. I slept in his study that night, surrounded by our common heritage: Treasure Island, King Lear, Hamlet, The Christmas Carol – you know the list. That encounter with a true-born Englishman has stayed with me all my life. It affected me much like the reading of The Wind and the Willows had. I felt that I knew why God chose to reveal Himself to man through the blood.

The philosopher, the scientist, and the barbarian all separate the life of the spirit from the life of the blood. The philosopher and the scientist see the true life of the spirit in the mind, while the barbarian sees no spiritual dimension in his life, only the blood. But a Christian knows that spirit and blood are not meant to be separated. Christ is our spiritual father and our blood brother. When a man ceases to care about ‘little things’ like home, blood, and race, he ceases to be Christian, because it is through those little things that God reveals Himself to man.

Suppose a black man had approached my British friend and asked for directions. And let’s say the black man was a naturalized British citizen and a professed Christian. I can say with certainty the black man would have been offered food, he would have been given directions to the youth hostel, but he would not have been asked to stay under the same roof as the English couple. Why? Because the old Brit’s Christianity was bred in the bone. He knew that a Christian renders aid as the Good Samaritan did, caring for the stranger but not admitting the stranger to his dwelling.

So much hinges on this question of the stranger. A few years back I read a “conservative” Catholic journal that zealously proclaimed that the sign of the true Christian was the amount of respect which he accorded the stranger. I don’t believe that respect for the stranger is the penultimate of Christianity. But let’s assume it is. Does respect for the stranger include respect for his heathen religion? Were the Spanish wrong to tear down the altars of the Aztecs? Were the British missionaries wrong to try and convert the African headhunters? And were the British wrong to forbid the Suttee and other colorful customs of the Hindus?

Let’s take this argument to the next step. What happens when the African , the Indian, or the Aztec converts to Christianity? Aren’t we then obligated to treat them as equals? The Northern European Protestants did not think so. They did not think that the mere affirmation of Christianity made a non-European any less of a stranger. Their Christian faith did not countenance race-mixing. The Spanish and Portuguese Catholics did mix bloodlines with the stranger, but they did so more from a weakness of the flesh than from a belief in the principle of racial egalitarianism. And when they mixed with the stranger, the mulatto was not put on the same level as the white. Until the later half of the 20th century, with more exceptions in the Catholic countries, the general consensus of the European people was that an espousal of Christianity did not mean an African or an Indian could become a European. And certainly not a Muslim or Hindu. What has changed? How did we get from Thomas Nelson Page’s declaration that preserving the integrity of the white race was our primary duty to Thomas Fleming’s assertion that those who raved about the survival of the white race were infantile?

We came to this pass because the intellectual elite of Europe abandoned the wisdom of their race and persuaded enough of the peasants (obviously when I use the term, peasant, I am not referring only to those who till the soil) to follow in their train. The liberal liberal and the conservative liberal all prostrate themselves before ancient Greece, but they fail to learn from the Greeks. They look on the rationalist tradition of the Greeks as a sure foundation from which to launch their utopian schemes and plans. They completely disregard the moral of the Greek experience because they disregard the wisest of the Greeks, Sophocles. In Oedipus Rex, Sophocles depicts a man intelligent enough to solve the riddle of the Sphinx, but whose intelligence is insufficient to ward off fate. It is only the old blind Oedipus who sees, at Colonus, what the rationalists could not and cannot see. Like the blinded Gloster in King Lear, he sees the world feelingly. He sees a God connected to the human heart. It has always been Satan’s mission to obscure the divine intimations in the human heart and beckon man to look at God and the world with his mind. That was the original temptation that the first man and woman succumbed to.

Observe, too, what is very important: man had it in his power to destroy the harmony of his being in two ways, either by wanting to love too much, or to know too much. He transgressed in the second way; for we are, in fact, far more deeply tinctured with the pride of science than with the pride of love; the latter would have deserved pity rather than punishment, and if Adam had been guilty of desiring to feel rather than to know too much, man himself might, perhaps, have been able to expiate his transgression, and the Son of God would not have been obliged to undertake so painful a sacrifice. But the case was different. Adam sought to embrace the universe, not with the sentiments of his heart, but with the power of thought, and, advancing to the tree of knowledge, he admitted into his mind a ray of light that overpowered it. The equilibrium was instantaneously destroyed, and confusion took possession of man. Instead of that illumination which he had promised himself, a thick darkness overcast his sight, and his guilt, like a veil, spread out between him and the universe. His whole soul was agitated and in commotion; the passions rose up against the judgment, the judgment strove to annihilate the passions, and in this terrible storm the rock of death witnessed with joy the first of shipwrecks.

- from The Genius of Christianity by François R. de Chateaubriand
This has ever been the conflict. Christ restores the harmony of man’s being by turning him back to the sentiments of his heart, and Satan seeks to tempt man away from his heart back to his ‘illuminated mind.’ Christ vs. the Pharisees, St. Paul vs. the Greeks, the Europeans vs. the Scholastics, the poet vs. the scientist, the Kinist vs. the universalist. The rationalistic façade is always different but always rational. The devil is the great mocker, the supreme sophist. He sneers at everything human:

These last great authors have given to the Evil Principle something which elevates and dignifies his wickedness; a sustained and unconquerable resistance against Omnipotence itself—a lofty scorn of suffering compared with submission, and all those points of attraction in the Author of Evil, which have induced Burns and others to consider him as the Hero of the “Paradise Lost.” The great German poet has, on the contrary, rendered his seducing spirit a being who, otherwise totally unimpassioned, seems only to have existed for the purpose of increasing, by his persuasions and temptations, the mass of moral evil, and who calls forth by his seductions those slumbering passions which otherwise might have allowed the human being who was the object of the Evil Spirit’s operations to pass the tenor of his life in tranquility. For this purpose Mephistopheles is, like Louis XI, endowed with an acute and depreciating spirit of caustic wit, which is employed incessantly in undervaluing and vilifying all actions, the consequences of which do not lead certainly and directly to self-gratification.

–Introduction to Quentin Durward by Walter Scott
I once read a book, written for children (like a number of those books written for children, I think it moved me more than it did my children) that told the story of a country boy in Elizabethan England who somehow ended up working at the royal court. When he refused, despite the scorn and ridicule of the city-bred boys and girls, to give up his country songs, one of the nobles of the court applauds him and says, “Quite right, my lad; you should never be ashamed of your home and the things you love.”

Thomas Fleming is almost right; it is not infantile, but it is childlike for a white man to care about the survival of the white race. But didn’t someone once enjoin us to become like little children? All the things we love – home, kith, and kin – are interwoven into the fabric of the white man’s culture. Only a man who has severed his mind from his heart and turned to the worship of his own mind could suggest that we give those things up for lost.

But therein lies the conflict. The children of darkness have given up their religion of the heart for the religion of the mind. This goes against the wisdom of the race. The white man has always preferred the leaden casket over the one of gold and the one of silver; the cottage in the woods to the sumptuous palace; and the blood of the Lamb to the magic talisman. Let the sons and daughters of this ‘new age of enlightenment’ keep all their magic talismans: rationalism, science, and multiculturalism. The European will stay with the European cottage in the woods that contains the things he loves. And his childlike attachment to the things he loves will keep him bound to the Sacred Heart Who speaks to men through the little things that the clever men and women have discarded. The old fairy tales are correct: the faithful heart always triumphs over the satanic mind.

Source: Cambria Will Not Yield

Bud White 6/6/08

June 7, 2008

Peter Schaenk 6/6/08 Hitler’s Brain Was Behind 9/11!

June 7, 2008


In this program Peter discusses:

  • The manufacturing of Obama as the Democrat’s choice for president and the reasons Hillary will not accept the VP nomination.
  • A listener’s email “proving” 911 was the work of Nazi’s, (George Bush and family), to get revenge on the U.S. for the German defeat in WW2 and the creation of a “1000 year Reich” in the Good Old U. S. of A.
  • Homosexual activist Frank Kameny who convinced the American Psychiatric Association to reclassify “homosexuality” as normal and not a perversion, is now saying “bestiality” is protected behavior under the U.S. Constitution.
  • All the latest news and “This Day In History”

Peter Schaenk’s 6/4/2008 live show cut short by studio power outage

June 5, 2008

Peter’s show was cut short today due to a power outage at the Shanktalk studios in Austin.

We have the first 40 minutes where Peter discusses Harriet Christian’s remarks and how support of Affirmative Action in the 1960′s by women like Hillary Clinton and Harriet Christian led to Obama’s rise as the Democratic presidential candidate.
6:31 PM

A message to all feministas: Live by the sword, die by the sword

Obama more pro-Israel than Bush–promises US Jews Jerusalem

June 4, 2008

Obama gave possibly the most vaunted foreign policy speech today at the AIPAC conference. He’s once again reiterating and repeating his committment to Israel’ security and well being as well as his belief in the historical bound between the US and the Jewish state. Remarkably, he also promised that Jerusalem will become Israel’s capital, something that unheard of from Hillary, Bill Clinton, and even the Bushes. In terms of Iran, Obama promised to use a strong diplomacy and no longer applying the word “unconditional” dialogues with the Mullah’s regime. Instead, he would carefully set up a preparation before engaging with it and only when Iran will not become a threat to the state of Israel (it sounds like a conditionality to me).
Daily Kos: Obama’s Speech at AIPAC: A New Concession to the Zionist Lobby?

Universal Studios Fire: a devastating loss to Amerikan Cultcher

June 3, 2008

The American movie industry was still reeling from shock last night after the devastating fire that swept through part of the Universal Studios complex in Los Angeles, California. The damage, though yet to be quantified, is thought to amount to hundreds of millions of dollars. But the cultural loss to millions of Americans will not be so easy to calculate. So many well-known iconic images of contemporary American life were destroyed in the blaze that it is thought that the history of post-modern America may have been totally wiped out, never to be seen again.

Heartbroken Hollywood directors and performers were lining up to share their memories of one of America’s great movie houses as vast parts of it collapsed into a smoking ruin.

“I just can’t believe it,” said African-American director, Spike Lee, “that famously recognizable couch on which the white bitch was repeatedly raped by six brothas in the sequel to Michael Winner’s “Death Wish” has been totally destroyed. It’s completely beyond repair,” sobbed the Negro, who went on to explain that it was this movie that had inspired him to venture into the movie business when he was still in his early 20s and had been told repeatedly that he was a complete failure and had no talent for anything.

Recording megastar Madonna was visibly in tears as she surveyed the smoking wreckage. “I remember watching King Kong being made here many years ago and thinking to myself, ‘Oh God! It IS acceptable for white women to be fucked by Negroes, after all!’ “Of course,” she went on, “the movie was merely an allegory for black-on-white fucking, as to spell that message out plain and clear back in those prissy days was a complete no-no. Thank God we now live in more Liberal times and no longer have to resort to such devices to get this vital message over. And let me repeat that message again: it’s GOOD for white women to fuck Negroes! Especially if the Negroes involved smoke crack and have AIDS!”

At this point we were joined by Christina Aguilera, who threw her arms around Madonna in a touching gesture of empathy. “I know how you feel, honey,” she said, kissing the aging superstar french-style, “right there was that scene I filmed for one of my pop videos where I was half-naked leaning over a pink convertible and being felt-up by about 8 horny black guys who were desperate to get into my panties. I can’t remember which song it was we were shooting the scene for now, but….” she broke down in tears at this point, “it’s all gone!! So many memories! So many black cocks up my ass…”

Quentin Tarantino showed up shortly afterwards. Asked what his memories of the studios were, he said, “I guess my favorite movie ever was Hitchcock’s ‘Psycho’ which of course was filmed here too. You know, up until that movie came out, everyone thought it was kinda weird and creepy to keep the corpse of your dead mother at home in the cellar, but the movie really helped to break that old taboo.” Asked what his favorite moment was from one of his own films, Tarantino replied without hesitation: “That bit in Reservoir Dogs where Mr. Blond binds that cop to a chair and cuts his ear off with a razor whilst dancing to ‘Stuck in the Middle’ by Gerry Rafferty. That scene was pure class, though I do say so myself.”

Samuel L Jackson was also among those mourning the tragic loss. He explained how whilst shooting Pulp Fiction on the studio`s sound stage he had unwittingly popularized the term `motherfucker` which up until that moment hadn`t really found widespread acceptance in mainstream society, but he was glad he had broken that taboo, describing it as a `Liberation` for African-Americans everywhere.

So there we have it, folks. The destruction of Universal Studios may well prove a terminal blow to American popular culture. The Insurance companies will cover the financial loss of this catastrophe, but the loss to this great nation’s influence over cutting-edge culture around the world may take a lot more than mere money to repair!

We will shortly return you to our regular programming….

Source: Phaedrus

Peter Schaenk 6/2/08 “Best Of” Interviews

June 2, 2008

  • Edgar Steele talks about Matt Hale.
  • E. Michael Jones discusses the “Vagina Monologues”.
  • Ted Pike discusses Zionist imposed censorship and the Kabbalah.

The 45 Questions Most Frequently Asked About the Jews

June 1, 2008

With Answers by Bill Pelley

Copyright 1939 by William Dudley Pelley

“THESE 45 Questions, of course, by no means comprise all the interrogations which can be projected regarding the people known as Jews. But they are the 45 Questions that are most constantly asked by common folk, seeking to know why the Jews meet with trouble everywhere they take up residence. In course of time there may be a second booklet gotten out, answering questions of importance that have been omitted for lack of space or overlooked.
“What has been printed herein, however, should be sufficient to give the average American a fair working knowledge of the background of the Jewish Problem.”
- W.D Pelley

“World Peace: working to promote greater inter-faith understanding and openness.”
- Phaedrus

1.Why did God create such a difference between Jew and Gentile, so that the Jew is at once recognized, no matter what race he lives among?
2.How did the Jews come to have such strange traditions setting them apart, racially and religiously, from the Gentiles?
3.Should we say that Jews are members of a race, or followers of a religion?
4.If the Jew is the follower of a religion, why does it cause him so much inconvenience or harassment, as against the followers of other religions?
5.What is the Talmud?
6.Is the Talmud a single book?
7.Are the two Talmuds alike?
8.How did the Babylonian Talmud come to be written, if the Jerusalem Talmud was already in existence?
9.Are the two Talmuds the holy books of the Jews?
10.What does the term Rabbi mean?
11.Is a Rabbi and a Jewish priest one and the same?
12.Why did the Destruction of the Temple destroy the Israelite priestly caste?
13.What was the Ark of the Covenant?
14.Is there any difference between the Jehovah of the Jews, and the Divine Father spoken of by Jesus and as worshipped by the Christians?
15.What is the difference between a Jewish Temple and a Synagogue … and isn’t the synagogue the Jewish Church?
16.Are the modern Jews and the ancient Israelites one and the same people?
17.Were there no Jews in the world prior to the coming of Jacob’s sons to Egypt?
18.Was there really an Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob?
19.Did not Christ’s words confirm that there was an Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?
20.Why does the Old Testament refer to the early Hebrews as Israelites?
21.Have we any other accounts than those of the Old Testament on the advent and adventures of the Hebrews in Egypt?
22.Were the Children of Israel persecuted by the Egyptians?
23.Was Pharaoh drowned in the Red Sea while the favored Hebrews passed over to Midian unscathed?
24.Is the Exodus story a myth?
25.Did Moses write the first five books of the Old Testament?
26.Why do we call the Jews “Semites”?
27.Have the Jews the right to designate Palestine as their Homeland?
28.Why were the Jews carried captive to Babylon?
29.Why do today’s Jews make such an ungodly pother about returning to Palestine as a race?
30.How many Jews are there in the whole world today?
31.What is the Jewish Sanhedrin?
32.Is the Sanhedrin still in active existence?
33.Do Jews actually believe that the day is coming when they are going to be supreme masters over all the other races and peoples of earth?
34.Are the Jews a united people for the achievement of a world messiahship?
35.How do Sephardic Jews differ from Ashkenazic Jews?
36.To which branch of Jews did Jesus Christ belong?
37.Why did the Jews deny Christ?
38.Why does the Bible, as the “Inspired Word of God,” persistently represent Christ as being a Jew?
39.What was Ebionitism?
40.Isn’t the Bible the Inspired Word of God?
41.What is the Vulgate?
42.How can we condemn or persecute people who cannot help having been born into the Jewish race?
43.What is to be the future of the Jews when this present paroxysm of anti-Semitism has run its course?
44.Why jump on all the Jews, just because some of them misbehave? Aren’t there any good Jews?
45.Is it true that all Jews are Communists?

ASSUME that you are a normal American citizen, born and raised in this one-time Land of the Free, educated in its public schools, and a member of some Christian denomination — Catholic or Protestant. You are as good as you can be, and probably no worse than circumstances allow. You are undoubtedly married and possibly have children. You pay your bills as best you can, and subscribe to a policy of “Live and Let Live!” If you have sympathies, they usually go to the under dog in a contest, and if you have a pet peeve, it’s being hoaxed or bamboozled. In other words, you’re a 99 percent American, trying as best you can to get along and stay out of jail; you like to see fights carried on in a sporting manner and don’t especially enjoy the realization that someone thinks of you, or treats you, as a “sap.” . . . Very good!
You look about you in this Land of the Free — that isn’t as free as it was in your boyhood — and observe that your country, your State, and perhaps your city or neighborhood, also contain a quota of human beings who are commonly labeled Jews. They are people whom you know you must watch in any business deal, for their trickery is so proverbial that the word “Jew” is often used as verb as well as noun. When your neighbor comes to you and tells you that his partner “Jewed” him out of last year’s profits, you know at once what he means. He means that he was cheated. No one has maliciously originated this use of the word Jew. It has simply come about through long experience of “your kind” of folks in dealing with Israelites. But you know other things about Jews.
You know that as a people they have definite characteristics that forever mark them out as being Jews. Some have enormous hooked noses. Others have a queer rubbery look about the eyes. Some you can pick out because of the vulgarity of their dress or the lewd way in which they display and wear expensive jewelry. Commonly you recognize them by the manner in which they talk. That they have no reserve, no respect for other people’s privacies, and little stability of character — being arrogant and insolent one moment and fawning and wailing the next — is something you’ve probably observed subconsciously. Furthermore, they are great people to hive up, or gang together. In our great cities, they prefer to live close to one another to such an extent that we call their localities of abode, “Ghettos.” . . .
But there is this strange item about these Jews: from the time that you were first able to walk and talk, or know anything about religion or history, you have had it dinned into your consciousness that this strange folk — as a race — were special favorites of the Almighty.
The popular term designating them has been “God’s Chosen People.”
God, it seems, back over the ages, for no particularly good reason that you’ve been able to figure out in logic, took an eccentric divine fancy to this especial breed of humans. You don’t know exactly why God should have done so. You don’t see many characteristics in them today that should have prompted God to make such a choice. All the same, tradition has informed you that God once promised the whole earth and all the peoples in it, to the seed of Abraham, and to cap the whole business, you were further informed that the universal Savior of all mankind — the Christ, born in the Bethlehem Manger and crucified on Calvary for the sins of the world — was likewise a Jew.
It stacks up to you, if you have ever given thought to it at all, that if it hadn’t been for the Jews, the world would have had no Christ. You don’t know a whole lot about the authenticity of the business; again, I say, that’s what you’ve keen told.
Lately you’ve been told a lot of other things, and chiefly they concern one race of people abroad who were our recent enemies in the World War. The Germans! You’ve peen told that all of a sudden the Germans have arisen under their Chancellor, Adolf Hitler, and “persecuted” the Jews — persecuted them frightfully. In fact, this persecution amounts to kicking them out of Germany. After living in that country for generations, they’ve had to pull up stakes, give up their homes and friends, and flee from the wrath of the Terrible Nazis. Of course it has been represented to you, that the Jews were by no means guilty of doing anything to Hitler, his followers, or the German people as a whole, meriting such inhuman treatment. The Germans, almost overnight, decided that they simply didn’t like the Jews, and didn’t want them around. So they rose up and clubbed and maimed and hounded the poor Israelites, who had to flee to foreign countries before such pagan violence.
And while such unfair and unsporting treatment has been going on in Germany, a lot of other Old-World nations have taken their cue from Hitler and decided it would be nice to seize the opportunity to resort to some inhuman violence on their own Jews as well. People who don’t want to see Communism come in their country, want a scapegoat for it and blame it on the Jews. So other nations follow Germany’s lead and join in giving the Jew a good kick in the pants.
Of course the Jew wants some place to flee to, therefore he asks permission to come over here into the United States. A halfcrazy Jewish boy shoots a Nazi official in Paris, and the German people riot and treat the Jews roughly, ending up by fining the whole race — or such part of it as lives in Germany — something like $400,000,000 for the mischief.
You feel that such treatment is a bit unfair, and yet when the Jew asks permission to come over here to the United States, you wonder how on earth the country is going to take on any more liabilities. We have something like 12 million unemployed already, and only about so much work to go around. If ungodly numbers of refugee Jews come over here, somebody must support them. If they apply for work and support themselves, it means that an equal number of native American Gentiles must relinquish their present jobs and either go on Relief or join the bread line.
Nevertheless, it looks as though the attitude of the Roosevelt Administration is to let them come in. It seems the humane thing to do.
But gradually it has likewise been occurring to you, that the attitude of even the Federal Administration is changing. Instead of Christian Gentile people being put in key government jobs, the big places in Washington are being filled by Jews. You hear that Morgenthau is a Jew, Madam Perkins is a Jewess, Judge Brandeis is a Jew, Felix Frankfurter — who has just gone upon the Supreme Court Bench — is another Jew. In fact something like 275 of the biggest and most vital positions in the Washington government, are filled by Jews. You hear that Jews control or own 65 percent of the nation’s industries. You know that the movies are owned and run by Jews. As for the Relief agencies, since the Administration has had to meet the problem of aid to the unemployed they are everywhere staffed by Jews and most of them Communist Jews at that.
All of a sudden, all over the earth, it seems, everybody is becoming Jew-conscious. Jews are everywhere. They are into everything. If you hear of a great vice ring being broken up in New York, Chicago or San Francisco — always it is Jews that are reported as having been arrested. Is a great arson ring run to earth? Again the perpetrators are Jews. Is the white slave trade attacked? Again Jews are nabbed for having engaged in it. Does Dewey make a great pother about busting up the rackets in New York? Get behind the Gentile names being used by the racketeers, and always the true names of the culprits are Jewish.
Jews are into crime, it seems, even as they are into business. You turn on the radio of a Sunday afternoon and dial into Father Coughlin. He is thundering from his Royal Oak pulpit against the International Bankers. But they all have Jewish names. What on earth is making the whole world seem to go crazy simultaneously against the Jews?
Some Sunday evening you read a bitter tirade in the papers against the Jews, or some spirited defense of the Jews, and you suddenly bethink to ask yourself — –
Just how much do you know about the Jews, or the Jewish Question, anyway?
Whom can you go to, to ask truthful particulars about the Jews, and get the real low-down on why they may be persecuted from the poles to the equator?
All at once it seems as if there were about a hundred questions you’d like to ask about the Jews — why they act as they do, why they always stir up such animosity against themselves in whatever land they settle, why they exhibit such buttinsky manners that rile other races and make them retaliate, what the real Jewish situation is throughout the earth. and what’s to be the end of it.
Well, my friend, average and normal American that you are, this little booklet is put into your hands, anticipating your questions and answering them candidly, honestly, without undue bias, and in the intense patriotic desire to preserve the welfare of this, our mutual country, against inequitable encroachments by minorities especially minorities with a different moral code.
You may feel the desire to combat some of the answers, and others you will probably want more enlightenment upon. But in the main, if you do further checking, you’ll discover to your amazement that the answers are quite accurate. They have been compiled, not as any sort of Nazi propaganda, but by the officials of an American patriotic movement, after years of being interrogated on the public platform and in private interviews precisely in the manner set forth in this handbook.
The true purpose of this handbook, therefore, is to open your eyes to what’s going on around you, and what an unhallowed menace to the peace, prosperity, and longevity of your country, this influx of overseas Israelites may be.
If you want more information on any of these answers, you can get it — pressed down and overflowing, in such detail as to stupefy you. There is now a vast and equitably authenticated literature on this most vital of all issues to the non-Jewish peoples of the earth. And it is yours for the acquiring.
However, to the first question. What is it that people most want to know about the Jews —
1. Why did God create such a difference between Jew and Gentile, so that the Jew is at once recognized, no matter what race he lives among?
Answer — God did not create any essential difference between Jew and Gentile. The difference between Jew and Gentile is a man-made thing entirely. It has arisen from the fact that over the generations the priests, scribes, and rabbis of the Jews have compiled a great mass of racial and religious instruction which the Jewish baby imbibes with its mother’s milk. This racial and religious instruction impresses upon each new Jewish child, from the moment it first begins to understand the Hebrew tongue that it has been born into a race that is “different” from the other races of mankind, that it has been born into a “better” race, and that by comparison with the people of the Jewish race, the people of all the other races are likened to mere cattle and animals. However — unfortunately — while the people of the Jewish race are “better,” at the same time they are fewer in number. So, being the smarter and yet in the minority, the members of the Jewish race suffer “persecution” — which comes from naught else than the jealousy of the more populous races, who are resentful that the “better” and “smarter” Jews best them at every turn. Such is the psychology in which the Jewish child is reared, and after a time he builds a defense mechanism against the results of it. He looks at the members of all other races as his “enemies” and is in a state of subconscious antagonism with them. God has had nothing to do with it. It is a case of race psychology that has gained such a terrific momentum up through the ages that no one Jew can arrest or change it.
2. How did the Jews come to have such strange traditions setting them apart, racially and religiously, from the Gentiles?
Answer — When Moses led the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt, he is traditionally credited with having introduced a strange custom for the perpetuation of his One-God religious ideas and the priesthood that was intended to keep them alive in the hearts of the Israelites. He laid it down as a law that the first-born son of every Hebrew family should be dedicated to the priestly calling, also that one-tenth of the resources of every family should be donated for the upkeep of such priesthood. Now for one boy out of every family to be qualified as a priest, or “cohen” — from which so many modern Jews get the surname Cohen — meant that over a long period of time the numbers of priests must become prodigious. There were so many of them, in fact, that they came to be recognized as a caste, called Levites. Incidentally from Levites we get the many variations or names such as Levi, or Levy, that designate today’s Jews. These formidable numbers of priests came eventually to make the Hebrews the worst priest-ridden people on the face of the earth. They had to be supported, and anything that in any way threatened their priestly jobs, met with swift and fierce opposition. The only way that they could preserve these jobs, was by enforcing a rigid solidarity and racial consciousness among the masses, and binding them tight to the priestly counsel. The only way such solidarity and racial consciousness could be created and maintained in turn, was to so interpret religion — or what passed for religion — that the populace could not perform the simplest acts of daily life without having the priestly interpretation of it, and making the people feel that such priests were indispensable. This was accomplished by training the people to think that they were “different,” and thus creating the barrier between them and members of other races in consequence. As the priests were likewise the only learned men, and in charge of the Israelite traditions, they could interject into those traditions what they pleased — if it only impressed upon their people a sense of the priestly importance, that they — the Israelites — were the truly great people and those beloved of the Creator, and that the priests were unchallenged leaders over them. Today we would term such monopoly a racket, because basically it was built on priestly gain and power. In other words, whatever enhanced the racial and spiritual solidarity of this people, enhanced the influence and indispensability of the priestly caste. So in teaching the Israelites to think that they were “different” and “better” the priests were feathering their own nests and making their jobs sure-fire and profitable. So Israelite — and later Jewish — traditions became what they are today. It is ingrained into the Jew to think himself “different,” and “better,” and the priest-rabbi now has such a hold over him that he cannot be a Jew without acknowledging the priest-rabbi influence in the most trivial of his daily acts.
3. Should we say that Jews are members of a race or followers of a religion?
Answer — The Jews, according to blood-tests made in English laboratories, belong to one of the divisions of the oriental or yellow-branch of the human family. Biologically, or anthropologically, they are not a race unto themselves — as the Finns, the Britons, the Latins, or the Negroes. Strange to relate, and contrary to popular notion, the Jew has no physical characteristics but his basic Mongoloid stock to mark him out as to which division of the species he belongs. The great hooked nose or “schnozzle” of the Ashkenazic Jew, is a feature that he acquired by cross-breeding over untold generations with the Assyrians. So the Jews of today are orientals who have been kept politically intact throughout the earth by a clan consciousness derived from the peculiarities of their common Mosaic faith. Jews have crossbred with other races to such an extent that there is almost no such thing today as a pure-blooded Jew. Anthropologically the Jew is a racial hybrid, wherever we find him. That is why he no longer welds together politically or sets up a strictly Jewish nation. It is the more nearly correct thing to say that the Jew is the follower of a religion — and a particularly formalized and debased religion at that — and any claim to membership in a “race” is spurious.
4. If the Jew is the follower of a religion, why does it cause him so much inconvenience or harassment as against the followers of other religions?
Answer — Strictly speaking, it does not. There are hundreds of religions being practiced in the world today, and the devotees of each are quite as fanatical and defensive of their tenets of faith as the Jew — speaking now of the orthodox Jew. What seems to be inconvenience and harassment resulting to the Jew from his religion, visited upon him of course by other races and devotees of other faiths, is the debased character of his concepts in regard to God and humanity that are not religious so much as theological. Here again a plethora of priests is responsible. Having, as we might put it, nothing else to occupy their time, and being insistent on making themselves indispensable to this particular people, these priests have “laid down the law” to a minute detail that in the estimate of other religionists is little short of ridiculous. For instance, it is a religious “sin” for a Jewish family to have butter on the table if they also have lard. So many white hairs must be counted on a cow’s pelt in order to truthfully call the beast a “white” cow — such absurdities became priestly designations. There is no act of the strictly orthodox Jew’s life, from the instant he awakens in the morning till he closes his eyes at night, that his priests have not prescribed for him as to what is right and what is wrong, what is “sin” and what is “keeping the law.” As a result, his religion has lost all its spontaneous spirituality. And a theology without inherent spirituality soon begins to present a blunted or distorted moral code. This in time becomes no code at all. Finally when the psychopathy of this plethora of priests begins to tell the Israelites that it is altogether “moral” for him to lie and cheat and steal — if it be done to a human being who is not an Israelite — the devotees of such an unmoral or non-spiritual cult are bound to land in plenty of social trouble with their neighbors. And such atrocious tenets are precisely what the Talmuds, or Jewish rabbinical writings, DO teach — although it is not our intent to swell this little book with the authenticating Talmudic quotations. The latter can be procured in a special booklet giving these atrocious quotations and naught else.
5. What is the Talmud?
Answer — The Talmud is the name given to the fundamental code of the Jewish civil and canonical law as compiled by various rabbis, or schools of theological writers, after and since the destruction of the first Temple at Jerusalem. It comprises the Mishna and the Gemara. The Mishna is the canonical text, the Gemara is the commentary or complement to the text.
6. Is the Talmud a single book?
Answer — No, there are two Talmuds. There is the one called the “Talmud of the Occidentals” — sometimes referred to as the Jerusalem or Palestine Talmud, which was closed at Tiberius. Then there is the Babylonian Talmud. But the Babylonian Talmud has nothing to do with the Captivity of the Jews in Babylon. It gets its name from the fact that it was compiled by Rabbi Ashe, president of the Academy of Sora in Babylon, about 400 years after Christ. The Jerusalem Talmud is the older book, originating in Tiberius, in the school of Johanan, who died A.D. 179.
7. Are the two Talmuds alike?
Answer — No! The Babylonian Talmud, compiled some time in the fifth century after Christ, is nearly four times as voluminous as the Jerusalem Talmud. The latter extends over 30 treatises of the Mishna only. The Babylonian Talmud covers 36 treatises but the Gemara or commentaries fill 2,947 folio leaves — nearly 3,000 pages.
8. How did the Babylonian Talmud come to be written, if the Jerusalem Talmud was already in existence?
Answer — Both the Mishna and Palestine Gemaras had, despite the comparatively brief time that had elapsed since their compilation in A.D. 179, suffered greatly, partly by corruption, that had crept into their texts through faulty traditions, partly through the new decisions arrived at independently in the different younger schools of rabbis — of which there flourished many in different parts of the Dispersion after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus the Roman, in 70 A.D. At times these decisions were contradictory. To put an end to disputes and the general theological confusion resulting from them, which threatened a complete religious chaos, Rabbi Ashe, aided by his disciple and friend Rab Abina, commenced the cyclopean task of collecting anew the enormous mass of material which by that time had accumulated. It took him, with the assistance of ten secretaries, no less than 30 years, and many years were spent by him in the revision of the work.
9. Are the two Talmuds the holy books of the Jews?
Answer — No! Strictly speaking, the Biblical Old Testament is the holy book of the Jews, the same as it is one-half of the Holy Book of the Christians, the New Testament being the other half for the Christians. To get the more correct idea of the relationship of the Talmuds to the Old Testament, we might put it that the Talmuds bear the same relation to the Old Testament that the Constitution of the United States does to the Christian religion as practiced or professed by American Christians. The Old Testament gives the background and supposedly sacred history and social code of all Israelites; the Talmuds are the compilations of the commentaries of the rabbis and learned scribes of this people, interpreting this background, history, and code for the daily conduct of Judaists and the application of their Faith to the worldly circumstance.
10. What does the term Rabbi mean?
Answer — In Jewish history and literature, Rabbi is the noun “Rab” with a pronominal suffix, and in Biblical Hebrew it means “great man, distinguished for age, rank, office, or skill.” Since Biblical times, and in popular parlance, it has been used as a title indicating sundry degrees by its several terminations, but generally speaking it means Master Teacher, or Doctor of the Law.
11. Is a Rabbi and a Jewish priest one and the same?
Answer — Absolutely not! Up to the time of the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, in 70 A.D., and the scattering of the Jews throughout the earth, the priests were the officials, dignitaries, and sacred attaches of the Temple and its ceremonials. After the Temple was destroyed, the Hebraic law was kept alive in the hearts of orthodox Jews by district teachers, who merely expounded the canonical law. In other words, the difference between a Jewish priest and a rabbi might be likened to the difference between an ordained clergyman or priest of the Christian religion and a Professor of Theology in a theological seminary.
12. Why did the Destruction of the Temple destroy the Israelite priestly caste?
Answer — Because Israelite priests, strictly speaking, were personal attendants on a literal Jehovah, who, when in contact with the earthly world and His Chosen People, was assumed to be somehow attached mystically to the Ark of the Covenant. This Ark of the Covenant was carried by four men before the Israelitish hosts into battle on long pole-handles, and because Jehovah was popularly represented as being connected therewith, He literally “went before His people into battle.” Sometimes the Lord God was thus captured by His puny mortal enemies — or enemies of the Israelites, and that wasn’t so good. It always gave the Israelites a horrible funk to have their Lord God captured by their enemies. When the Israelites had finally conquered Canaan and had no more battles to fight, they required some place to put the Lord God. So they erected the Temple — which all good Christian Masons make such a pother about today — and stored the Ark of the Covenant, with the Lord God, in the Holy of Holies. Only the very Top-Boss priests went in and held powwow with the Lord God in the Holy of Holies. So, when the Temple was destroyed — or rather the Second Temple erected by the Jews on the return from the Babylonian Captivity — there was no place for the Ark of the Covenant or the Lord God, therefore no Holy of Holies, therefore no possibility of personal attendants, therefore no priests excepting as they were designated as such by courtesy title. The Lord God escaped His coffer in the Holy of Holies and presumably went back to heaven. The Ark, after many vicissitudes — and being hidden hither and yon among the cities of Asia Minor — is now credited with reposing in a sealed room in the basement of the British Museum. For political-racial reasons it is not permitted to be exhibited or examined.
13. What was the Ark of the Covenant?
Answer — The word Ark literally means: a chest or coffer for the safekeeping of any valuable thing; a depository. The Ark of the Covenant, in the synagogue or Temple of the Jews, was the chest or vessel in which the Tables of the Law were preserved. This was a small chest or coffer, three feet nine inches in length, two feet three inches in breadth, and the same in height, in which were contained the various sacred articles. It was made of shittum wood, overlaid inside and out with gold, and was covered by the Mercy Seat, called also the Propitiatory — that is, the lid or cover of propitiation. Thus, in the language of Hebrew Scripture, those sins which are forgiven are said to be covered. The orthodox Jew will scoff at the non-Jewish implication that the Lord God Himself dwelt in or near such a box, but that was the general acceptance by the populace.
14. Is there any difference between the Jehovah of the Jews and the Divine Father of Jesus as worshiped by the Christians?
Answer — There is a difference so vast as to render them practically two different personages. The word Jehovah is the modern English rendering of the Hebrew term for the Midian tribal deity, Yahvah. Moses, after he had murdered two Egyptians for their treatment of an Israelite, fled to Midian, a district across the Red Sea, south of the Land of Goshen. There he married a Midian wife and became a sheepherder. Jehovah or Yahvah was the neighborhood god of the Midianites whom Moses seized upon, and utilized, in his later politico-racial exploits back among the Egyptians. Moses claimed that this little tribal god, with all his provincial hates and lusts, was the One Lord God of all the universe. This last could only be interviewed by Moses in person, or by Aaron or his Levites when Moses wasn’t around. Christ came, and got Himself hated unto crucifixion, by standing this narrow and fallacious notion of the deity on its head. Christ said that the Lord God was Universal Spirit, and that man needed no paid priest or elaborate temple ceremonials to commune with Him. This threatened the whole basic foundation of Judaism, since it counselled the masses that priests were dispensable.
Furthermore, Christ taught that the Lord God was the Father of all mankind, Jew and Gentile alike. This was insufferable to the Israelites, who had a personal monopoly on the Creator, He being their original tribal deity and they being His particular devotees. In the Ebionitic attempts to reconcile the two identities, however, early church fathers mixed the two deities hopelessly, and filled the Bible full of contradictions and paradoxes. See answer to Question 38: Who were the Ebionites?
15. What is the difference between a Jewish Temple and a Synagogue — and isn’t the synagogue the Jewish Church?
Answer — The Lord God, having mystical connections with the Ark of the Covenant, could only be at the great Temple at Jerusalem, or wherever the Ark of the Covenant was, and the High Priest was handy to attend Him. There was but one Jewish Temple and that was at Jerusalem. But scattered throughout ancient Palestine, particularly after the Dispersion, were meeting-houses where the cantors did the sacred chantings on the Sabbath, and the rabbis expounded the canonical law. These were labeled Synagogues — or Community Houses. A synagogue, strictly speaking, was not a church as we Christians think today of our dedicated edifices; it was a public gathering place. Hence going into the Synagogue to teach, no more made Christ a Jew than it would make you or me a Catholic — presuming that you’re a Protestant as I am — to deliver a lecture on Pure Foods in a parochial hall in Racine, Wisconsin.
16. Are the modern Jews and the ancient Israelites one and the same people?
Answer — For all practical working purposes, yes! But in the same sense that we might answer the parallel question: Are the modern Americans and the ancient Pilgrim Fathers — who landed on Plymouth Rock and started the settlement of New England — one and the same people? According to the Old Testament, which is purely a transcript of tradition and legend and not much besides, the Israelites in Egypt were divided into Twelve Tribes.
Each tribe comprised the descendants of a son of Jacob, or acknowledged tribal allegiance to one of his sons, who thereby became the tribal patriarch. Among these Twelve Tribes was one known as the Tribe of Judah. After the conquering of Canaan — exactly as this same people tried to “conquer” Germany in the past generation but was stopped by Hitler, or is now “conquering” the United States under Roosevelt — the Tribe of Judah was allotted the area of land that included the City of David, or what we know today as Jerusalem. This possession of the capital city within their particular territory, gave the Tribe of Judah a particular prominence over the other tribes. Because the Temple and the priestly caste likewise exercised functions within their allotted territory, the Tribe of Judah became the more race-and-theology conscious. And the members of this Tribe “carried on” the more fanatically and zealously in preserving the legends, traditions, and literature of all the tribes, after the city’s and temple’s destruction. It is the progeny of this one tribe of Israelites, the Tribe of Judah, that we identify as today’s Jews. The members of the other tribes of Israelites have largely disappeard from the world’s face.
17: Were there no Jews in the world before the coming of Jacob’s sons to Egypt?
Answer — There have always been the same elements among all populations of the earth that we identify today as Judaists. The very ancient Egyptian and Sumerian chronicles refer to them as the People of Set, or “Spirit of Disorder in Governments.” No matter what conditions they found politically or socially in the lands wherein they were received, they always wanted them changed, to conform to their own eccentric notions. The Egyptians seem to have referred to them as the “Set-un” Set being the god of Darkness and Destruction, and ”un” being the suffix meaning “people.” We derive our modern word Satan from this source. When Joseph escaped from his brethren, and went down into Egypt to work himself into the good graces of Pharaoh, and his brothers later followed him and “multiplied,” this racial element was designated strictly among Pharaoh’s subjects as the Tribe of the Habiru. From the term “Habiru” the term “Hebrew” comes down to us. But Jews as we know them today were not so called till after the “conquering” or “overrunning” of Canaan and its capital city of Jerusalem, and the allotting of the land whereon it stood to the Tribe of Judah. The word Jew is a sort of slang contraction of Judaist or member of the specific Tribe of Judah, only we spell it J-e-w instead of the terser J-u.
18. Was there really an Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob?
Answer — We do not know! We have only tradition and legend to account for them. The Old Testament says such persons existed, but the contents of the Old Testament were passed down by word of mouth through a hundred generations before they became written on scrolls of sheepskin as a permanent literary record. At the time of the destruction of the first Temple and the Captivity, most of the records were destroyed. When the Jews came back from the Captivity and had completed the Second Temple, rebuilding it in tawdry form upon the ruins of the first Temple, Ezra the High Priest came running wildly to his compatriots one morning and proclaimed that he had “found” the ancient records miraculously intact down behind the altar in the Holy of Holies. Unbiased common sense tends to the conclusion that there was nothing mysterious or miraculous about it. Ezra rewrote the legends and traditions of his people from memory, naturally altering them to make the members of the Tribe of Judah the “big shots” of such chronicles. It is still this narrative reported by Ezra as thus “restored,” that our Old Testament version of the Egyptian episode comes from.
19. Did not Christ’s words confirm that there was an Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?
Answer — None of us know accurately what Christ’s real words were. He never left a scrap of paper or parchment penned by Himself personally. All accounts of His words were purported as taken down by His disciples or followers, but even their original manuscripts were lost, and all that we have to go by, are copies of copies. How these were altered, edited, augmented, deleted, and transformed, is described in the answer to Question 40 further on: What is the Vulgate?
20. Why does the Old Testament refer to the early Hebrews as Israelites?
Answer — Because, before the coming of the legendary Moses, they were followers of the same worship as their neighbors, the Egyptians. That is, they were worshipers of Isis, goddess of life and fecundity, co-deity with the Sun. The word Israel should be broken down into three syllables: Is-Ra-El. “Is” stands for Isis; “Ra” means the name of the god of the sun, represented like Horus — with the head of a hawk and bearing the disk of the sun atop it. “El” means “high Lord” or that which is over all, as expressed by the modern word Elevated. “Ites” means those who follow or belong to. So Israelites, translating literally, were “those who followed or belonged to the High Deities Ra and Isis.” Moses is popularly supposed to have changed all that, when he introduced his Midian tribal deity Yahvah to the people of the Habiru. Today the word Israelites clings to the Jews merely as a symbol for their identification as one-time worshipers of the sun.
21. Have we any other accounts than those of the Old Testament on the advent and adventures of the Hebrews in Egypt?
Answer — Yes! Lord Breasted and others have recovered scores of papyrus scrolls and other records in very ancient Egyptian tombs along the Nile. These have been translated from time to time, but modern Jews do their best to discourage such translations and suppress printed copies of them, because they brutally contradict the pro-Jewish accounts in the Old Testament.
22. Were the Children of Israel persecuted by the Egyptians?
Answer — Undoubtedly! — but in the same manner that the Nazis of today are persecuting the Jews of the Fatherland, and from similar causations. The Children of Israel were not “persecuted” until they had overrun the land of Egypt, corrupted the Pharaohan court and Egyptian institutions, introduced — or tried to introduce — an ancient version of the NRA into Egyptian politics and economics, and subverted and debased pure-blooded Egyptian subjects. Finally Moses undertook to get them out, precisely as many an international Jewish or Zionist leader is trying to get the Jews out of Germany today but meeting with poor success because such an exodus means taking so much wealth — or as the Israelites expressed it, “spoils” — out of the country. When Pharaoh finally gave his consent to the departure of the Hebrews, he discovered to his consternation that they had taken with them vast amounts of portable valuables, and he chased after them with a force of chariots to recover this loot.
23. Was Pharaoh drowned in the Red Sea while the favored Hebrews passed over to Midian unscathed?
Answer — He could not have been, unless his royal body was recovered, because his fairly well-authenticated mummy is preserved today in the British Museum.
24. Is the Exodus story a myth?
Answer — No, but it appears to be a complete subversion of what actually took place. The debasing influence of the Habiru or People of Set became so great, that from time to time severe pogroms occurred. The Egyptians would gladly have let the Habiru depart, had the latter been willing to go empty-handed. But taking their property, much of it gotten as dishonestly as the New-Deal Jews of today have gotten their fortunes by exploitation or open graft, represented a severe economic problem. In the Scriptures as written by Jews, however, and thence handed to us for acceptance, all this hocus-pocus is glorified and blessed by the benedictions of Yahvah. As for the Chosen-People notion’s being fallacious, we have the statement of a Jew, Dr. Oscar Levy of London, who declared quite frankly: “We the Jews invented the myth of being God’s Chosen People!” Later, Dr. Levy died a very sudden and mysterious death. You can draw your own conclusions.
25. Did Moses write the first five books of the Old Testament?
Answer — He could not have done so. At the time of Moses, 1,440 years before Christ, the Hebrews possessed no language of their own in which to write it. At the most, he would have had to write in Egyptian hieroglyphics or picture-graphs. Not till the Hebrews came into contact with the Phoenician peoples after settlement in the Land of Canaan, did they appropriate the strange block-letter alphabetical system that we recognize as the Hebrew of today. Even so, it contained no vowels for many generations. Try to write a page of this booklet in English, but leave out all the vowels, and see how accurately you get the exact sense of what is meant. P-T might stand for pat, pet, pit, pot, or put. How would you know which of these five words I might mean, were the vowls not used? So how can we tell what Moses, or any other ancient teacher or “law-giver” said literally?
26. Why do we call the Jews “Semites”?
Answer — Because the forebears of the Habiru in Egypt were credited with having come from Arabia and the Arabian peninsula. This district, said legend, was allotted to Shem, a son of Noah, upon descent from the mythical Ark. The habitat of the Habiru was likewise described by some authorities as comprising Abyssinia, Palestine, Phoenicia, and Syria. From the name Shem, we get the term “Semites” or probably, “Shemites.” But the Arabs, and some Persians, are likewise designated as Semites — without having a drop of Jewish blood in them. It is strictly a territorial designation, as today we term all people Americans who dwell within the territorial confines of the United States.
27. Have the Jews the right to designate Palestine as their Homeland?
Answer — No more and no less than either the Arabs or Syrians.
When the Habiru were chased out of Egypt by Pharaoh’s charioteers, they “wandered” for forty years in the Wilderness — a district no bigger than our State of Connecticut — and then under Joshua “cased” the Land of Canaan, as bandits “case” a bank they intend to rob today. In other words, they got the lay of the land, and then proceeded to attack the Canaanites and take their property and real estate away from them with the avowed encouragement of the petty Midian Yahvah. Ultimately they succeeded in this pillage and sabotage, and parceled out the conquered territory among the Tribes. David became eventually their greatest political-warrior king, and his illegitimate son, Solomon, their most voluptuous ruler. After Solomon’s death, the tribal territories were divided under the rule of his two sons. One son succeeded to rulership over the lands of the Tribes of Judah and Beniamin, and this coalition came to he known as the Southern Kingdom; the other son succeeded to the rulership of the remaining tribes north of Jerusalem, known as the Northern Kingdom.
28. Why were the Jews carried captive to Babylon?
Answer — Because Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonian monarch, became utterly outraged over the manner in which the Hebrews to the southwest of his country and capital were preying upon his caravans and trade routes to Egypt. In 585 B.C. he sent an army down into Palestine, defeated the Judaists, and carried them off to Babylon, razing Solomon’s Temple and leaving Jerusalem a waste. The distance that the Judaists were transported was only a couple of hundred miles, however. Remember, that the size of all Palestine is only 75 miles wide by 193 miles long — about the same territorial coverage as the State of Massachusetts. The duration of this Captivity is usually reckoned as 70 years, although, strictly speaking, it lasted only 56 years. A great part of the remaining Northern Tribes had previously been taken captive to Assyria for similar maraudings.
29. Why do today’s Jews make such an ungodly pother about returning to Palestine as a race?
Answer — Most of it is lachrimose propaganda. The Jews do not want to return to Palestine. In the first place, a country only 75 miles wide and 193 miles long couldn’t contain them. In the second place, they wouldn’t be happy living with one another, having to endure one another, and being without Gentiles to exploit. History has proven this; it is no particular libel. The true reasons why the Jews are making such a clamor over having Palestine “returned” to them, is the presence of the stupendous mineral and chemical wealth in the Dead Sea, which would go to them along with the presentation, and the fact that in Palestine they would be in a strategic position to introduce Jewish-Communist Russia down to the Suez Canal and thereby sever a major artery between the British Isles and India. This would inflict a mortal wound to the British Commonwealth of Nations. Material gain is usually the real basis of any project over which the Jew waxes sentimental!
30. How many Jews are there in the whole world today?
Answer — Jewish populations are usually deceptive when given in the census figures, because Jews are forever trying to hide their Jewish nationality or race. Furthermore, when Jewish authorities compile a strictly Jewish census, they count males who have attained to their majorities only. As the average human family of any race customarily consists of five persons, we are safe in multiplying whatever figures the Jews give us of their numbers by five, or adding four times the original figure. Gentiles do not possess an accurate count of all the Jews in all the countries of the earth, but 80 millions — men, women, and children — would not be a wild estimate. Doubtless it is nearer a hundred millions, considering that the earth holds 2 billion inhabitants. That there are something like 25 million Jews, males and of age, within the civilized countries of the earth is a sound possibility. Of these, some 12,046,648 are in the United States at the present time. Only ten years ago, the figure, from Jewish sources, was set at 4,228,029. In other words, Jews in the United States have increased by 7,818,619 since 1927 — an average of something like 15,000 a week! Fully half the world’s Jews would seem to be within the United States at the present time. And arrangements are being completed under the American Jewish leaders and the Roosevelt Administration to bring the rest here as swiftly as it ran be managed!
31. What is the Jewish Sanhedrin?
Answer — It is — or was — the supreme international council of the Jews, established at the time of the Maccabees, probably under John Hyrcanus. It consisted of 71 members, and was presided over by the Nasi — or “prince” — at whose side stood the Ab-Beth-Din, or “Father of the Tribunal.” Its members represented the different castes and classes of Hebrew society. There were priests, elders — that is, heads of families — men of age and experience, scribes or doctors of law, and others exalted by eminent learning — the sole condition of acceptance into this assembly. The presidency was usually conferred upon the High Priest, if he were sufficiently erudite, otherwise “he who excels all others in wisdom.” The limits of its jurisdiction are not known with certainty but the supreme decision over life and death was exclusively in its hands. With the exception of Sabbath and feast days, it met daily. After the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem, it finally established itself, after many migrations, in Babylon. During the Middle Age, we find, it met in Constantinople.
32. Is the Sanhedrin still in active existence?
Answer — Gentiles who have made a deep study of the Jewish Question and international organizations and activities of Jews, have ample evidence for believing so. But the Jews seem to have reasons for keeping its existence a secret till their fancied or anticipated reestablishment of their material kingdom over the earth is accomplished.
33. Do Jews actually believe that the day is coming when they are going to be supreme masters over all the other races and peoples of earth?
Answer — Orthodox Jews most certainly do! Apostate Jews are cynical about the whole business, but are by no means averse to looting all Gentiles and obtaining their wealth as they may discern opportunity. This unhallowed business in action is the world-wide movement known as Communism. Gentiles and the world’s laboring classes are the instruments utilized to get this accomplished. But most Jews seem to have altered their notions about such dominance by modern Israel’s coming about through the appearance of one man, a messiah, or anointed leader. They now interpret the ancient prophecies, that “the Jews as a race shall be the world messiah” and make the world over into one united kingdom with a single great Jew as supreme dictator. See the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. The Talmud is literally loaded with such interpretations, too. The orthodox Jews consider the matter idealistically. The apostate, or atheistic Jews, are riding along perfectly content to profit from the gains of Jewry as a whole, and despoiling the modern Egyptians with zest, whenever and wherever they are permitted the chance.
34. Are the Jews a united people for the achievement of a world messiahship?
Answer — They most certainly are not! They are guilty of quite as much racial discontent, brawling, and general psychopathy among themselves as against the Gentiles. And this state of things has always been true. From the return from the Captivity, down to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus and the scattering of the Jews throughout the nations of the earth, the average length of reign of the Jewish kings — and one Jewish queen, Alexandria — was no longer than two years. Jews can’t agree on rulers, even among themselves. Yet they think themselves capable of ruling all the other nations, comprising millions upon millions of Gentiles. The perpetual cry of their leaders, from Rabbi Ashe to Rabbi Wise, has forever been: “Stop your fighting and get together!” But the Jew can’t “get together,” not even with his own breed. The phobia of “being different” has bitten into him too deeply. The only thing that really drives the Jews into any sort of unity is persecution or violence directed against all classes of them as a people. Then they coalesce like sheep in a fold, all packed together and wailing to high heaven — only sheep don’t wail. Only Jews wail. And how they wail!
35. How do Sephardic Jews differ from Ashkenazic Jews?
Answer — The Sephardim are the Jews of the Mediterranean Basin — Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, and later Dutch and English Jews — who have diluted their Jewish blood with these Latin and Nordic races by cross-marrying to such an extent that Gentile characteristics predominate. They can usually be identified only by Jewish names — if they have not changed them — or by the Jewish temperament as it exercises in times of crisis or vicissitude. Sephardic men have clean-chiseled Grecian profiles and lips. Sephardic women are dark-eyed and strikingly beautiful. The Ashkenazim, on the other hand, are the Russian, Polish, or German Jews — in other words, Mongoloid Jews — who were swept into Asia and Europe when the Assyrian king “scattered” the Northern Tribes and replaced them with Gallic peoples brought down by him from the Danube Valley. The Ashkenazic Jews are possessed of the “schnozzle” nose, derived from Assyrian interbreedings, the small round head on the thick neck, and the gross and vulgar mannerisms making them so offensive to Gentiles of reserve and Christians of refinement. When the Ashkenazim crossed their Mediterranean Hebrew or Sumerian with the Russian, Polish, or German tongues, they got a hybrid vernacular that is called Yiddish. Generally speaking, it can be said that the great mass of the Sephardim are orthodox Jews, and the great mass of the Ashkenazim are apostate Jews. The Sephardim uniformly hold that Judaists constitute the devotees of a religion; the Ashkenazim uniformly hold that the Judaists are a race or political unit. The Sephardim believe in gaining ascendancy over the non-Jewish races by strategy and peaceful penetration; the more or less apostate Ashkenazim believe in going straight to their ascendancy by crack-down and violence. Thereby do we witness Communism being mainly supported and advanced by Ashkenazic Jews, while the Sephardim behold it in an increasing alarm, sensing that the world’s Gentiles may eventually penalize or exterminate all Jews for the lusts, hatreds, and atrocities of the Communistic Ashkenazim, and they find themselves included.
36. To which branch of Jews did Jesus Christ belong?
Answer — Jesus Christ belonged to neither branch! Shocking as it becomes to modern Christians, an examination of the evidence now coming to light reveals that Jesus Christ was not a Jew or any other kind of an Israelite! This, of course, strikes at the very core and heart of present Christian doctrine. Nevertheless, sooner or later, Aryan Christians have got to face the facts. It takes a whole volume in itself to present these facts, but such a volume is available. In the first place, the only true Jews are descendants of the Tribe of Judah, and even if Biblical bases be taken for argument, the New Testament says in a score of places that He emphatically did not come from that tribe. Christ was a Galilean and a Nazarene. Galilee got its name from the Gauls, brought down by the Assyrian king when he denuded, the northern kingdom of Hebrews. The proper spelling of the word should be Gaulilee. Over and over, too, the New Testament writings speak of “Galilee of the Gentiles” … The genealogies of Christ in the two New Testament Gospels do not determine the matter, since they do not agree, and since they do not agree, neither one of them can be established as authentic. Moreover, Jews reckoned genealogies through the father, always. Christians are confronted by the dilemma that if they make a tenet of their faith that Mary conceived Christ by the Holy Ghost, then she did not conceive Christ by Joseph her husband; and if she did not do the latter, then the Hebrew genealogies, tracing Jesus’ ancestry back to David and Abraham, are fabrications. Jesus did not speak the prevalent Jewish tongue of the period; He conversed in what was a Gentile language. At no place did He Himself confirm that He was a Jew, and the words before Pilate, “Thou sayest!” were merely a colloquialism, not of acquiescence to Pilate’s remark but of the thought: “You’re doing the talking, I’m keeping quiet!” This great question about the Jewishness or non-Jewishness of Jesus, manifestly cannot be handled in a handbook of this size. If you are interested to read the complete attestments of his Gentile blood and background, send to the publishers of this booklet for the
lengthier volume.
37. Why did the Jews deny Christ?
Answer — Because He would not subscribe to the tenet that their little Midianite tribal deity, Yahvah, could possibly be the Great Creator of the Universe and the author of all living things, or that such a Great Creator had a Chosen People, or that the Hebrew religion as the Sanhedrin propounded it, was a true religion, or that the Jews as such were due to inherit the earth and rulership over all its institutions. No man who thus struck at the roots of Judaism, could possibly be their long looked-for Messiah. Furthermore, Christ was the outstanding “Jew-Baiter” of His day. He called the scribes and Pharisees hypocrites and whited sepulchres, and indicted the Sanhedrin to the teeth of its bigshots as being “of the Synagogue of Satan.” In other words, by not being willing to “play the Jew game” to other nations and races, Christ was identified as an “enemy” of the Jews; and the Jews know of but one way in which to treat their enemies: Kill them!
38. Why does the Bible, as the “Inspired Word of God,” persistently represent Christ as being a Jew?
Answer — Because the Biblical manuscripts, comprising the Old and New Testaments as we know them today, were written under Jewish auspices, by writers striving to reconcile the prophecies of the Hebraic Old Testament with the astounding and not-controllable spread of the new Christianity. Obviously, if Christianity continued to grow and strengthen, in time it would supersede and exterminate Judaism altogether. So the Judaists got busy and worked out a clever ruse that, in practice, came to be called Ebionitism. They “tied into” the aggressive and expanding new religion by preaching that Christianity was the outgrowth of Judaism. Because Christianity was built upon a blanket castigation of everything Judaistic, to be an utter Christian one had to go through the same process and first be a Judaist. After one had first acknowledged everything Judaistic, including the priority of authority of the law of Moses, the authenticity of the Hebrew prophets and prophecies, and the whole patriarchal background of Judaism, then one was ready to take the next step into Christianity. Thus, one of the most important tenets of this atrocious subversion was to make the text impress upon the would-be convert’s mind that even Jesus Himself was born a Jew. Therefore if there hadn’t been any Jews, there wouldn’t have been any Jesus, and if there hadn’t been any Jesus, there wouldn’t have been any Christian religion. This subversion and rewriting of the sacred text was carried to so bold a point that in one place it is crassly and satanically stated that . . . “salvation is of the Jews!” Salvation is nothing of the sort. Salvation is of the Christ, and the Holy Spirit! To explain the point in the modern scene, it is like saying that after a few hundred years the German Jews will get together and subvert the whole Nazi program in history by giving it out that Hitler was a Jew — because he lived, operated, and instructed in German-Jewish Germany — and that one couldn’t become a good Nazi without first subscribing to the tenets of predatory Jewry, because otherwise what would Nazism have had, to be different from or agitate against?
39. What was Ebionitism?
Answer — The subversive instructors, sent out by the Jerusalem authorities to imbed such notions in the minds of early Christian converts, were called Ebionites. It was their job and commission to make the very Judaism against which Christ inveighed, the foundation and background of the new Christian theology. Christ must be made to say that He came “to fulfil the law of Moses.” Thereby the law of Moses became quite as essential to the new religion as did Christ. And so on, throughout a hundred scriptural passages. Again, we can compare it to the Jews of a hundred years hence making Hitler to say “I came to fulfil the law of Karl Marx!” These Ebionites had their headquarters in the Greek city of Pella, so that they would not be openly recognized as subversive missionaries for the Jerusalem Sanhedrinists. And it was in, or near, Pella that the New Testament manuscripts were compiled. The Apostle Paul once cut up an awful shindy about the mischief of Ebionitism, and said that the Doctrine of the Trinity had nothing whatsoever to do with Judaism. It was a clean-cut departure from it. Yet when the Gospels came to be translated into other languages for our modern world, the New Testament Gospels were dyed dripping wet with the subvertings and deceptions of Ebionitism. Christian people today who say, “Yes, I know the Jews crucified Christ, and I know He said some atrocious things against them; also I know that Jews are practically wrecking our United States with their crazy incompetence — all the same we have to remember that they are God’s Chosen People, ” — these are but modern Ebionites, acquiescing to the very doctrine that the Sanhedrin went to much trouble and expense to promulgate and get incorporated into the Christian’s “holy” books.
40. Isn’t the Bible the Inspired Word of God?
Answer — No! Not literally considered! It cannot be such, because it holds too many contradictions and paradoxes in its present form, and a Perfect Creator could not indite a contradictory or paradoxical book. This view is confirmed by no less an authority than St. Jerome. About the year 370 A. D. he translated the whole Bible into Latin. Damascus, who was Pope at that time, had asked him to attempt such translation. Jerome, in a letter to Damascus, reported on his work in connection with the new version. He wrote that “it would be a dangerous presumption” to attempt to issue a Bible which would reproduce the correct text, since the existing copies of the original documents were scattered all over the world and no two of them were alike! Jerome was now called to judge between them. If he did so, and produced a Bible, it would be so unlike anything currently passing for the Bible, that he would be dubbed a forger and fabricator. He would be charged with having altered words and sentences, having omitted something here or inserted something there, or trying to “improve” on originals elsewhere. And then he added a remark that strikes a body blow at all who hold today’s Bible to be the unadulterated Word of God: “Even those who condemn me as an impious forger must admit that we can no longer speak of such a thing as Truth, where there are variations in that which is said to be true.” In his letter, Jerome went on to state how the many discrepancies between the copies of the original text can be explained. Some copyists, he said, were deliberate criminal forgers. Others were conceited enough to attempt to improve on the text, but in their inexperience only succeeded in impairing it. Still others dozed while they copied, and so left out, misread or misplaced words and passages. To say that God nevertheless caused Absolute Truth to result from all this, is to rationalize an absurdity.
41. What is the Vulgate?
Answer — The Vulgate is the Bible that St. Jerome produced, none-the-less, when he went ahead as Damascus directed and “cleaned up” prevalent “Holy” Writ after his own notions and erudition. But he did precisely what he lamented that others had done before him. He followed his own personal opinion, altered words and passages, made omissions, and wrote into it such stuff as suited his caprice. Maybe God was using St. Jerome as editor. But if He did, then assuredly God showed Himself as naught but a Papist of the period. Then, by decree of the Council of Trent, it was declared that the Vulgate contained the inspired Word of God. Jerome, of course, was a top-notch Ebionite. Everything in the New Testament rested four-square upon the Old. The Jews were still God’s Chosen People. Jesus was a Jew. One could not subscribe to being a good Christian without first subscribing to being a good Judaist and accepting all the patriarchal fol-de-rol — much of it unmoral and obscene — which Christianity appeared to exterminate and supplant. So the Jews today profit. And the modern rabbi cries to the anti-Semite battling for survival of his precious Christianity: “If you repudiate us, you repudiate the Savior whom we gave you!”
The insolence of it!
42. How can we condemn or persecute people who cannot help having been born into the Jewish race?
Answer — We should consider that we are neither condemning nor persecuting, when we look squarely at the Jewish Enigma in modern society, recognize its fundamentals for what they are, and declare that after due discrimination, we do not want them further materialized in a country which recognizes the Christian moral code as all that epitomizes true spiritual greatness. Disapproving of the Jew and his mischievous background, moving to harness him from subverting Christian institutions or debasing Christian culture, is not persecution, excepting as the Jew himself seizes upon that ruse to blunt the edge of the resistance sent against him. That a child is born to Jewish parents is neither here nor there. Children are likewise born to parents who are burglars, counterfeiters, and highwaymen. Is that any reason why we should not raise up authorities to put a stop to robbery, counterfeiting, or thuggery? If one is metaphysically inclined, it is probably true that a given child is born to Jewish parents because “like attracts like” and children are born to parents toward whom they have karmic adjustments to work out. If one is strictly orthodox in his beliefs, a Jewish child, born with Jewish blood in his veins, and reared in a Jewish persecution-complex from infancy, must stand elementally with his people till the two great antithetical philosophies of Judaism and Christianity move to a crisis and one bests the other for good and all. This Jewish child, as it grows, has ample opportunity to discern wherein the conduct or ethics of its people are right or wrong. If it disapproves, then it can live its own life righteously. That is its prerogative in Free Will. But again, condemnation or persecution in regard to the Jew is no more than the disapproval and legal restraint that society throws around any individual whose ways do not work for the universal good. Let us not be Ebionites in this item, either. If we want a clean country to live in, we’ve got to be willing to do our parts toward its constant sanitation.
43. What is to be the future of the Jews when this present paroxysm of anti-Semitism has run its course?
Answer — The Jew as an unruly and wilful race-child, is going to be made by the more sedate parental races to submit himself to wholesome discipline, get over his obsession that God loves him more than his Gentile neighbor, stop the glorification of personal and racial dishonesties, and take his place in world society as a chastened and penitent citizen. He is to have branded into his eternal consciousness that being classed as a Jew is tantamount to being classed as an immature or fledgling Spirit, with much to learn culturally and esoterically before he may call himself a true worldly resident — thereby consulting his own good as much as the good of his associates. Probably thousands will lose their present lives in the process, but that will all be part of the general education. Let us waste no lacrimose sentimentality over these great elemental issues between distinctive blocs of the human race. They are set in movement to teach the mass populace something which it very much requires to know permanently.
44. Why jump on all the Jews, just because some of them misbehave? Aren’t there any good Jews?
Answer — To judge as between good and bad, we must first have a standard. When the question is put: “Aren’t there any good Jews?” the implication is strong that Jews judged by the Christian moral standard and Christian social ethics, are meant. But on the other hand, the Jew himself doesn’t use — but repudiates — the Christian moral standard and Christian social ethics. To be a “good” Jew, to himself, he must be a very Judaistic Jew — meaning a Jew who follows literally the instructings of the two Talmuds and generally considers the Christians as having been put on earth for Jewish exploitation or human drudgery.
To be a “good” Jew to his Christian neighbor, he must, in the sense of doctrine and logic, be a “bad” Jew to the orthodox Talmudist. So a good Jew is a bad Jew to the Talmudist, and a bad Jew to the Talmudist is a good Jew to the Christian. If we want to ask: “Are there not some Jews that obey the laws, conduct themselves decorously, and do not lie, cheat, or steal?” it is possible that they exist as individuals. But it is the damning indictment of this race and its ethics that they thereby prove themselves exceptions to the racial rule. The Jew is, first of all, himself! As Christianity is the antithesis or opposite of Judaism, so the Jew must forever be something “different” from the Christian Gentile. We have to look upon him as a Jew, racially and theologically, and say: “There may be some Jews who are a little less Jewish than their fellows.” But we are herein considering Jews as a race, not as individuals. The moment the Jew starts being too “good” according to the Christian’s standard, he ceases being a Jew. But his rabbi will soon get after him if he doesn’t watch out!
45. Is it true that all Jews are Communists?
Answer — In fairness to our Jewish citizens, no! No more than all Americans, by the very fact of being Americans, are necessarily good patriots. It has been repeatedly said, not without truth, that Communism itself is Jewish. By that is meant that the system known as Communism was conceived by a Jew — Karl Heinrich Mordecai, alias Marx — and since the publication of the Communist Manifesto in 1848 has been uniformly promoted and propagandized by Jews. We find the foul egg which later hatched into Communism described in the correspondence between Marx and Baruch Levy: “The Jewish people as a whole will be its own messiah. It will attain world domination by the dissolution of other races, by the abolition of frontiers, by the annihilation of monarchy which has always been the support of individualism, and by the establishment of a world republic in which the Jews will everywhere exercise the privilege of citizenship. In this new world order, the Children of Israel, who are scattered over the world, will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition; and this will more particularly be the case if they succeed in getting the working masses under their control. The governments of the different peoples forming the world republic will, through the victory of the proletariat, fall without difficulty into the hands of the Jews. It will then be possible for the Jewish rulers to abolish private property, and everywhere to make use of the resources of the State. Thus will the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled, in which it is said, that when the Messianic time has come, the Jews will have the property of the whole world in their hands.” From this scheme, the main mass of the world’s Jews have, of course, not dissented. The Jew, Marx, went ahead with his Scientific Socialism , and found the Ashkenazic Jews uniformly sympathetic and endorsive of what he proposed to accomplish. You will note therefore, that when Communism first came into post-war Russia, not only were Lenin and Trotsky both Ashkenazic Jews, but of 504 kommissars at the head of the politbureau running Bolshevia, 496 of them were Ashkenazic Hebrews, and the other eight renegade white Russians or Armenians. That’s the way Communism works in practice and why we have the reasonable right to say that Communism is Jewish — or Ashkenazic World Jewry in Action. The Sephardim, in the main, believe more in gaining their ends over the Gentiles by strategy and political maneuvers. They are horrified, more or less, at what aroused Gentiles may do to all Jews for developing the nightmare of Communism, and in many cases work as they can to lay or defeat it. At the same time, they do not want to go so far in defeating it that they join openly with Gentiles or destroy Jewish racial gains to the moment.

“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear!”

Source: Phaedrus