Understanding Anti-Aryan Hate Laws V: The Colonial Experience

Understanding Anti-Aryan Hate Laws V: The Colonial Period


R.E. Prindle

We Aryans have a more than thin grasp of historical cause and effect. One can’t understand the impetus for Anti-Aryan Hate Laws without bearing in mind the colonial period from, say, 1600 to 1900. Now, Aryans did nothing than other conquerors had done, probably less. The Mongols of Genghis and Kublai Khan were totally destructive of civilization. They subjected the Russians to defeat and the worst humiliations for centuries.

The difference in the Aryan conquest of the world was that we were fair skinned while defeating all the coloreds of the world subjecting the Earth to our rule. There is no way to white wash any conquest. The conquerors are without exception arrogant. But, the Aryans were of a different skin tone while despising the darker species.

Technologically the Aryans were far superior to the rest of the entire planet combined. The Semites, Jews and Arabs alike, were root bound by their religion and remain so. The Chinese had been stalled for a couple thousand years; there was no hope for any change. The Aborigines of Australia? Well, what can one say.

Our superiority alone combined with fairness was enough to create the deepest hatred. True, Aryans found the world sunk in disease and poverty but unlike any other conquerors in history Aryan medicine and science removed all the diseases, improved nutrition, a concept none of the coloreds had ever conceived, and put the entire world on the track of prosperity. But, well, those are small things compared to having been a White conqueror rather than another colored one.

Thus, the entire issue is the irreparable one of Whiteness. The coloreds state explicitly that Whiteness, by any means necessary, must be eliminated from the face of the planet.

The coloreds cannot and will not rest until this is done. There is no concession that can be made that will change this. Having been rulers we must remain rulers or perish. Although bad the situation is not unredeemable. Dive and rule is always a viable approach. Agitate all differences, set side against side, people against people. There can be no peace without conquest.

Retake the education of Aryan children and then breed like flies. Forget overpopulation, there won’t be any in the long run. Observe no laws that discriminate against us.

This is our life and we must live on our own terms.


A Prayer For Rachel Shukert

A Prayer For Rachel Shukert


R.E. Prindle


     Rachel Shukert on Tablet Magazine has tackled the only person mentioned in the media as often as the Jews- Adolf Hitler.  Well, Rachel, let’s talk about Hitler and the 1917-1945 historical period of which for some odd reason Hitler has become the emblem.

     Of those twenty-eight truly horrific years Hitler played only a small part.  How did this age of horrors begin?  With the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917.  Who led the the Bolshevik Revolution?  The Jews.  How many defenseless  people were slaughtered by this Jewish led Revolution?  Tens of millions.  The years from 1917 to 1945 are years of indescribable human suffering.

     Jewish led slaughters of Aryans defy description.  In one account Jews operated charnel houses into which Russians were led to be slaughtered like cattle, dismembered and shoved out the other end as Jews waded ankle deep through blood and gore.  This part of history has been excised from the history books by the ‘victors.’

     The horrors of Bela Kun in Hungary are mentioned nowhere.  Instead we hear of the ‘monster’ Henry Ford who slaughtered no one.

     Is it surprising that a Hitler arose in Germany to forfend these horrors taking place in Jewish/Communist Russia?  Does anyone really believe that Russian atrocities would not have been repeated in Germany if the Jewish revolution had succeeded in that country?  Of course they would have.  The German Volkists in greater numbers than any Jews would have been run through extermination camps just like those run by Jews in the gulag of the USSR.  Where is the German guilt?

     The Russians even had their name stripped from them by the Revolutionaries, changed to the non-descript Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

     Shouldn’t Hitler and the various Volkist Parties have been concerned lest the same happen in Germany to them?  Germany wiped off the map by Jews to be replaced by some anonymous collection with a name such as the Union of Central European Soviet Socialist Republics?

     Was Hitler a worse demon than the Bolshevik Revolution?  Only a fool could argue that.

     I quite agree with you that it is time for the Jewish hysteria concerning Hitler to end.  It’s time to put Hitler into a historical perspective that explains real reasons for Hitler’s response to possible German annihilation.  It does no good to plead Jewish innocence; in the United States of today the Jewish spokesman, Noel Ignatiev, has toured prestigious universities as an honored spokesman calling for the annihilation of White people by any means necessary. 

     Ignatiev’s program is not an innovation; it can only be a continuation of a Jewish program begun in Russia in 1917.

     ‘Fess up, Rache.  Deal with some truth.  I can’t tell you how my heart went out to you when I read this paragraph in your article.

     There may be no human, living or dead, who has spent as much time thinking about Hitler as me.  I was raised as part of the “Never Forget” Jewish Day School generation, rarely offered a piece of leisure reading by a parent, teacher, or other authority figure that didn’t have to do with little Marta or Franz or Itzik hiding in a crawlspace somewhere.  I sudied these books with morbid obsessiveness, until I had internalized the terror of their message to the point that I spent most of my “play” time packing and re-packing my Snoopy suitcase with the items I thought I would most need when we had to go in hiding.  And as for “never forgetting,”  for nearly five years I couldn’t take a shower without experiencing a panic attack.  As a teenager, I went on the March of the Living, and even now, as an adult, an entire bookcase in my one-bedroom apartment is devoted to what my husband lovingly calls “her Nazi books.”

     Yes, you are right, Rachel.  Just as my brain was sizzled in 1958 when the Jews controlling all three TV networks forced us all, Jews and Aryan alike, to watch zillions of piled up dead bodies being bulldozed into trenches in the camps.  I know what your people’s intent was but it was overkill.  It didn’t ‘sensitize’ me to Jewish suffering, it desensitized me.  Don’t blame me, but, I don’t care how many Jews died.  Perhaps the most anti-Semitic statement of all was the seizure of the airwaves to broadcast this stupid crap that no one wanted to see.  We wouldn’t haven’t wanted to see the horrific rape of the German women by the Soviets either.  But that wasn’t mentioned.

     Horrors that you were subjected to view every week even though nothing had ever been done to Jews in the US.  You were compelled to dwell on these horrors hour by hour, day after day, month after month, year after year.  My, god, who needs Judaism?  For your own good, Rachel, give it up.

     Bless you Rachel.  I know your heart is pure, but your religion is sordid.

Shot Across The Bow: Hollande, France, Aryans and Jews


Shot Across The Bow:

Hollande, France, Aryans And Jews


R.E. Prindle


     Robert Zaretsky, a Jew living in the United States, has made himself a participant in French politics based one supposes on his Jewishness.  This emboldens be, an Aryan living in the US, to do the same based on my Aryan affinity to the French.

     Bob is concerned that having lost Sarkozy who he considers not only a friend but an advocate of his Jews, the Pres. elect Francois Hollande may be ‘tepid’ in his advocacy or special concern for his  Jewish French citoyens.

     Bob says, ‘a real friend cannot only observe but criticize too.’ apparently referring to his own Jewish presence.  I would that Bob and his Jews would practice what the preach.

     I, for instance, consider myself a real friend of the Jews who can show my devoted friendship by criticizing as well as observing.  Unfortunately my Jewish friends who I love as my own Aryans do not appreciate criticism contructive or otherwise.

     The thanks I get for my caring enough to criticize is to be defamed on the ADL site by having my well intentioned criticisms reported as  examples of anti-Semitism.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  I’m trying to help.  After all for evil to triumph it is only necessary for good men to do nothing.

    And then as if to add insult to injury the Jewish Tablet ezine refuses to let me make constructive criticisms by denying me access to the site.  Where’s that at Bob?

     Now, the headline of Bob’s article carries the provoking headline:  A Shot Across The Bow:  Hollande Faces Challenge Of Winning Over Jews.  From my experience it will require considerable bootlicking, licking the dust off their feet as the Holy Bible says, to come close to that rather than any criticism much less observing.

     One wonders why Hollande would have to go to extreme lengths to ‘win over’ patriotic citoyens like the Jews who owe it their country to aid it in any way rather than demanding to be courted.  The Front National are very patriotic French citoyens who don’t even require winning over but it appears that Hollande and his Jews spurn them with the foot, or perhaps, they are offering it to be licked.  What more could the Jews demand?  Extermination camps for the French Aryans?  With Sarkozy gone perhaps the motive for a law requiring Aryan women to have sexual intercourse only with Africans will fade away too. 

     Just sayin’….

Pt. III: We Must Invent A New World

Part III

We Must Invent A New World


R.E. Prindle



Matthieu Pigasse is a glib talker. His fine sounding generalities mask some concrete specifics. ‘We’ will quote him further:


The crisis and reactions to the crisis demonstrate this as a fallacy [that governments should have no power] that there exist good policies and bad ones, that there exist good and bad regulations.

We must act in these areas:

1. Production, in other words growth. We must tell ourselves that without growth, there can be no progress and no reduction of inequality.

2. Solidarity, which is a method as much as a necessity. There is no progress if it does not profit all and if it is not accepted by all. Solidarity in Europe is not only a part of our glorious past, it is our key to our tomorrow.

3. Public action, for the genius of Europe is first of all that of a collective project and a common destiny.


Sounds lovely doesn’t it? In the abstract but what does it mean in the specifics.

Matt says that there is a crisis but he doesn’t say what that crisis is or who caused it and for what purpose, so we are left to interpret his words according to our understanding which may not accord with his belief that his beliefs must be accepted by all. Why must they? And he says Solidarity is a method. Really? Solidarity as I interpret it means a solid block, everyone moving in the same direction to the same drummer. When was that true of Europe as he states? What tradition can he demonstrate? And if there is a diversity of opinion how is that single opinion he advocates to be enforced and by whom? As Matt is a Communist one can only assume by Commissars appointed by some Lenin or Stalin, perhaps Matt himself.

But let us return to the crisis. This crisis as most of us understand it is the influx into Europe and America of conflicting ideologies and belief systems that cannot be reconciled with ours. The Moslems, for instance, if we are to have solidarity, believe it can only be under their ignorant system of Sharia law. At the same time the Jews say, nyet, nyet, it must be Talmudic law. Those of us who prefer Aryan customs, what are we to do, maintain exclusivity and let the Jews and Moslems exterminate one another? The remainder exterminating the other thus achieving solidarity?

These are real problems and not the beautiful theoretical model of Matt’s dreams. And then good policies and bad ones, good and bad regulations. Matt as a good Communist agrees with the flooding or Aryan lands with conflicting ideologies, religions and races. French text books under his guidance now denigrate French and European history in favor of inconsequential matters from Africa. Napoleon is given a few pages while the state with absolutely no history, Monomotapa located in the old Rhodesia is given many, many pages. Monomotapa is even represented as an African state which it was not. It was a Malagasy state exterminated by the Africans. What is being taught is not only inconsequential but untrue, a lie. He and his, actually unrepresentative minority, think this is a good policy while the majority vehemently disagree. The majority is democratically to be ignored.

Now he says that production is synonymous with growth and growth equals equality and progress. Then, we can’t have progress/production without growth. This is his point of view but there are others. But, he says, other opinions destroy solidarity and cannot be tolerated. So, where is growth to come from? There are five million Aryans in South Africa under the threat of genocide but Matt doesn’t want growth of that kind. No, he wants the genocidists who are killing Aryans. Does he not think Africans will kill Aryans in Europe as well as in South Africa? I’m betting he does and wants it to happen.

So Europe is being flooded with Black Africans which in turn creates a situation of inequality. But, Matts says, inequality is a bad policy, yet so long as there are Aryans and Negroes there will be inequality. How to eliminate that inequality. Eh, voila! He and Nick Sarkozy will pass a law that Aryan women must bear children to African fathers only. That was easy, wasn’t it?

Matt and Nicky are slippery customers with a very slippery vocabulary. They are not to be trusted. Shun them.

Pt. II, We Must Invent A New World

Pt. II

We Must Invent A New World


R.E. Prindle



Matt Pigasse’s manifesto of the future of mankind seems a bit dissociated from reality. He seems to be living in some parallel universe while commenting on this one. He does ask the pertinent question: So how can we approach tomorrow in a new way? I myself would hesitate to offer a suggestion finding nothing wrong in the approach to tomorrow from 1950 to 9/11/01. As far as I was concerned the world was as it good as it has ever been and probably will be. Of course, it’s major defect from Matt’s point of view is that it was a meritocracy which means you had to do something to earn your share; nothing was granted automatically on the basis of your color or race.

Matt has a ready answer to his question however:


We must invent a new world.

We must recover the meaning of progress, not progress as an automatic reflex or an empty word, but as an act of will.

Never become resigned, never submit, never retreat.

We must never see the market as a more effective means of coordinating individual actions.

No society can organize itself simply by virtue of the markets.

Thus we must be wary of the liberal illusion of a society that has no need to think out its future or define its regulations.

On the contrary it is up to politics to reinvent itself, to define new rules and new institutions.


Fine words indeed, but a maze of fine words through which it is difficult to find your way. Matt’s essay strikes me as the kind of high school essay that got raves from the teacher but had his fellow students shaking their heads.

Inventing a new world has no meaning while sounding like excellent science fiction. On what principles are ‘we’ to invent a new world and who are ‘we’ and how are ‘we’ to demonstrate our ability to invent a new world, whatever a new world may be, and how are ‘we’ to convince the old world to accept what ‘we’ devise in our own image? One suspects that this new world is already being invented by the destruction of Europe and its values to be replaced by the old world Jewish, Moslem and African values. It is clear from the influx of alien peoples into Europe and the United States that these two areas are the only ones being affected by Matt’s grand vision. It seems that Asia and Africa are not only not affected by Matt’s grand vision they haven’t even heard of it. How is it going to work without their cooperation?

Matt says that we must recover the idea of progress not as an automatic reflex but as an act of will. I can hear Matt’s high school teacher reading his essay in class, but what do his fine words mean? When was progress ever an automatic reflex and not an act of will? Were not Charles Darwin’s studies an act of will and did they not open society’s mind to ‘progressive’ notions? Was not General Electric’s motto that ‘Progress is our most important product?’ Weren’t their scientists inventing as an act of will? Where does Matt come up with crap like ‘automatic reflexes?’ Reflexes are automatic anyway. I’m beginning to worry about the future of Lazard Freres with Matt at the helm, let alone society.

‘We must not see the market as a more effective means of coordinating individual actions. No society can organize itself by virtue of the markets.’ I’m not sure these are even fine words while I have no idea what they mean. Are they a Communist attack on individualism? Are they a call to regulate free speech, and thought, scientific investigations that may produce unwanted results according to Matt? I have no idea. They words sound like they were intended to mean something but I can’t figure out what.

‘We must be wary of the liberal illusion…’ Is Matt posing as a Conservative or is he a Communist rejecting what they consider Liberal palliatives? No idea, Matt isn’t clear.

Then he comes up with this whopper: it is up to politics to reinvent itself, to define new rules and new institutions.

Well, new? Communism has already been tried and rejected; free enterprise was working fine but is apparently unpalatable to Matt. So having rejected collectivism and individualism Matt feels ‘it’s up to politics to reinvent itself.’ Tall order and good luck Matt, the choices are limited and they’ve all been explored.

We Must Invent A New World

We Must Invent A New World


R.E. Prindle


Matthieu Pigasse

      Matthieu Pigasse the CEO of Lazard Financial Advisory of France has opened a sideline in the field of Communist propaganda.  Eschewing the usual ‘progressive’ claptrap he presents what purports to be an intellectual manifesto.      In some perverted travesty of the Communist Manifesto he begins his with the stirring call:  Today, all of Europe is living in doubt.  Certainly dramatic but I can assure him that no one in Europe is living in doubt.   The Jews and Moslems have no doubts about their agenda, they know where they are headed as well as their Liberal sychophants which would include I should think our M. Pigasse himself.  The Conservatives have no doubts nor do the African hordes for whom Nicky Sarkozy wants to pass a law requiring Aryan women to bear their children thereby achieving equality and an end to ‘racism.’  As a matter of fact everyone seems to have no doubts at all.      Still, M. Pigasse states:  We are living through a turning point,  in great confusion.  Granted we are living through a turning point but neither Barry Obama nor his stooge, Nicky Sarkozy, seem to be in either confusion or doubt; they appear to be extremely self-possessed and confident.  Nevertheless, Matt states:  We must struggle against this doubt…  Well, go and and struggle, Matt; I’ve got things worked out myself.      Matt says:  We must must invent a new world….Many believe that in a so-called global and liberal economy, governments should have no power.  They are mistaken….       But, dictatorships along the lines of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Roosevelt and the one you propose have no place in the world.  No government has the right to tell women who they must fuck; nor does any have the right to teach five year old boys to butt-fuck in school as your totalitarians are attempting.      Ah, but, Matt says, we must have absolute equality, all differences must disappear.  Well, OK, Matt, let’s make the world over in my image, without a doubt the right thing to do and a thing I can wholeheartedly endorse.  I can’t imagine a better world than one filled with replicas of myself.  But, that’s not the equality you meant is it, Matt?  No.      You meant that Aryans must cease to excel, stifle themselves, right?  As you say:

      For five centuries, our continent (you mean to say, we Aryans; continents can’t do anything but drift.)  have been able to invent the ideas and goods that have transformed the world, yet it seems to have lost the secret of their manufacture.  It no longer knows if it is capable of inventing the world of tomorrow; it doesn’t know if it has a common future anymore.  Unquote.  (The site has ceasing functioning properly at this point.  Below is my own writing.)

As Tennyson once said Matt:  Better fifty years of Europe than a cycle of Cathay.  If we Aryans are not to create the world of the future, then who is, Matt?  Do you really think China is capable of transcending its stagnant past cycles?  Are we to look to Africa for hints as to our future?  Is that where scientific advances will come from, the Negro ‘equals’ of the Aryan?  Do you have doubts, Matt?  I don’t.  Nothing is to be expected from either the whole of Asia and/or Africa.  What indications are there that they can do what they’ve never done?

Meanwhile Zimbabwe and South Africa create areas of equality by exterminating the Aryans while you cheer from the comparative safety of France.

     Out of that three thousand dollar tailor made suit, Matt, and those fifteen hundred dollar shoes.  Get equal, kid, into your baggys and sneakers, no Michael Jordans either now.  Give away your magnificent salary and your expensive residence.  Move into the banlieux.  Get yourself a Negro wife.  We’ll believe in your idea of equality when we see you set the example.  We’re not going to do it, but we want to watch you.


Graham Sumner On Slavery I


Graham Sumner On Slavery

Graham Sumner writing in 1902 title Folklore. A perspective from a different time and place. Sumner was a remarkable prescient writer. This is from a chapter examining the history of slavery. P. 306, topic 312: The Future Of Slavery:

In the eighteenth century, in western Europe, there was a moral revolt against slavery. None of the excuses, or palliatives, were thought to be good. The English, by buying the slaves on their West India islands, took the money loss on themselves, but they threw back the islands to economic decay and enculturation. When the civilized world sees what its ideas and precepts have made of Hayti, it must be forced to doubt its own philosophy. The same view has spread. Slavery is now considered impossible, socially and politically evil and so not available for economic gain, even if it could win that. It is the only case in the history of the mores where the so-called moral motive has been made controlling. Whether it will remain in control is a question. The Germans, in the administration of their colonies, sneer at humanitarianism and eighteenth century social philosophy. They incline to the doctrine that all men must do their share in the world and come into the great modern industrial and commercial organization. They look around for laborers for their islands and seem disposed to seek them in the old way. In South Africa and in our own southern states the question of sanitary and police control is arising to present a new difficulty. Are free men free to endanger peace, order and health? Is a low and abandoned civilization free to imperil a high civilization, and entitled to freedom to do so? The humanitarians of the nineteenth century did not settle anything. The contact of two races and two civilizations cannot bed settle by any dogma. Evidence is presented every day that the problems are not settled and cannot be settled by dogmatic and sentimental generalities. Is not a sentiment made ridiculous when it is offered as a rule of action to a man who does not understand it and does not respond to it? In general, in the whole western Sahara district slaves are as much astonished to be told that their relation to the owners is wrong, and that they ought to break it, as boys amongst us would be to be told that their relation to their fathers was wrong and ought to be broken.

Actually slavery is the same as cradle to grave social welfare, while being impossible to maintain because as the population grows the expense of maintaining the slave community becomes unsupportable. Of the population perhaps only a third are producers but all have to be maintained in a reasonable manner, housed, clothed and fed. It become necessary to sell off the excess population. The South was headed for trouble. The slaves had to be freed to spare the Aryans.

But then, as Sumner points out, other problems arise. He apparently foresaw the hideous state of affairs in Zimbabwe and South Africa where AIDS and other health problems run riot. But no one wants to talk about that.


The Importance Of Being Aryan

The Importance Of Being Aryan


R.E. Prindle

     Noel Ignatiev, the leading anti-White genocidist, has correctly pointed out that Whiteness is not a culture.  What he fails to indicate is that his Libero-Jews stripped Whites of their culture designation in the aftermath of the Nazi-Communist confrontation of the first half of the nineteen forties after the Nazis lost the confrontation.  So while Whiteness is not a culture, Aryanism is.  the key is accepting our Aryan identity.

     Aryans have been the great culture bearers of history to whom all other peoples are indebted.  While since the Jewish Emancipation Aryans have allowed the Jews, for some inexplicable reason, to shape and write their historical narrative, it is now time for that mistaken attitude to be revoked.  It is time to disregard the objectives of the 2% and reassume our Aryan identity along with the racial consequences thus hopefully ending the splintering of the folk into many compteting ‘Indo-European’ groups.

     Aryan history began somewhere in the vicinity of the Aral Sea in Central Asia.  About 2000 BC the folk having apparently developed a magnificent Weltanschauung that would fertilize the world’s peoples began to move, to expand.  Thus, what many historians consider the first migration was through the Khyber Pass into India.  the Sanscrit language, which those historians, mistakenly I believe, consider the mother tongue because the language has been lost at its source in the North, is the earliest known Aryan language.

     It would seem impossible to believe that several groups didn’t migrate East into China where they were absorbed even more completely than they have been in India.  There must be genetic traces among the Chinese.

     The stream that changed the history of the world West of the Aral Sea moved out in wave after wave for millennia through the Caspian Gates into Iran and Anatolia and over the Black Sea South into Greece  and further West into Europe proper.  The Sumerians an early group dropped down to the Euphrates establishing civilization in the Middle East.  Medes, Hittites and Persians followed them into Iran and Anatolia.  Others rounded the Black Sea moving South into Greece founding the civilization of the West.  Succeeding waves colonized Europe and the British Isles.

     Thus while it has been difficult for now-Western minds to connect their ancestry back to the Aral racial fountainhead, the cultural continuity is expressed in the medieval Arthurian legends and also with a very direct connection to the Lacedaemon of Greece.

     So, no matter how far from the source we’ve roamed we are one people with the same racial ethic that differs from that of the Semites, Negroes and Mongolids.  While those other races have retained racuak solidarity we have disregarded ours  becoming various competing national groups.  It is now time to reclaim our Aryan identity.

     We must stop talking and thinking ‘White’ which is merely a racial characteristic having only an incidental relationship to our Aryan identity.  It is time to begin thinking Aryan and assuming racial solidarity.  Blood is thicker than water with us as with the other races.

     Think of yourself as Aryan.

Tribal Chiefs

Tribal Chiefs


R.E. Prindle


     Monday, January 9th, 2012 was a day of jubilation in the Jewish camp.  Obama named Smilin’

Smilin' Jack Lew

Jack Lew, as his new chief of staff.  The appointment was greeted with undisguised elation by the Beards although Smilin’ Jack currently is going without.

     Thus when Bama Lama is surrounded by six Beards including Paul Krugman at economic policy meetings the news will be relayed by Beard Lew.  How signficant is this?  I think it means an acknowledgment of the separation of the Jews from the body politic into a distinct autonomous people controlling the US government to further their own ends at the cost of the rest.  In other words- Obama is their slave.  He can’t make a move they won’t know about in advance, while we wait.  Thus the 98% of us non-Jews in this country will dance to the tune of the 2%.  The Jews.

     Obama who is now under the command of one of the Tribal Chiefs- the title of the above referenced article- will undoubtedly be ordered to declare, or why declare it, just do it,  war on Iran to satisfy Jewish lusts.  Iran, with or without an atomic bomb, is no threat.  It is surrounded by no less than fifty US airbases in a dozen adjacent countries putting every inch of Iran within an hour’s reach.  Even Moslems aren’t so insane as to invite instant annihilation- I don’t think, but, I could be wrong.

     Besides the possession of the bomb isn’t the reason for Jewish hatred of the Iranians.  If you remember the Amalekites, and who doesn’t, the Jews wouldn’t rest without exterminating them, man woman and child, for who knows what defensive measure employed against them.

     Jews don’t forget and what they don’t forget, they invent.  Thus after making a nuisance of themselves in Mesopotamia for fifteen hundred years or so the Iranians, or somebody just like them, expelled the colony in the eleventh century.  The colony naturally further emburdened the West by removing themselves to Spain much to Spanish chagrin, they already having their own difficulties with their own colony of Jews.

     So from the eleventh century to this the Jews have borne their secret hatred patiently.  Now is the hour.  Get ready you Iranian bastards.

     The Spaniards, as we all know, rebelled against the Jewish yoke in 1492 when they expelled their own Jews and the arrivals from the East in their turn.  This added Europeans to the list of Jewish hatreds.  Europeans are now being punished for that, in Jewish minds, offence.

     In this country the Jews hate Americans because Roosevelt didn’t call Hitler up and ask him to hold hostilites while the US loaded up all the European Jews to bring them to the safety of the US thus avoiding the holocaust.  They were entitled.  Not to do so is a major crime in Jewish eyes.  So, we are under their gun.

     Having now made Obama a Jewish slave the Tribe is in a position to command the 98% to do its bidding which is to exterminate the Iranians.  Apparently the Iranian shlubs didn’t learn from the lesson of the Amalekites.

     Now, Smilin’ Jack is a deep dyed Jew, according to Yair, who wrote the piece  best nown for not picking up the phone to answer a call from his boss Bill Clinton on the Jewish Sabbath when such things are forbidden.  Jewish Law trumps secular law.  I mean, hey everybody, ditso is ditso and this guy is now jeopardizing the 98% under Slave Obama.

     As Yair gleefully notes:  ‘It’s hard not to wonder what the funniest Jewish anecdote from Lew’s tenure in the White House will be.  If you’ve got a prediction leave it in the comments.  Winner gets a free copy of…you guessed it:  Jews And Power.

     OK.  I’ll make my guess: Smilin’ Jack trips on a carpet, falls down a flight of stairs and breaks his neck.  I can be reached at my website but, can I please have cash; I’ve already got the book.

Germans And Jews In The Nineteenth Century




R.E. Prindle


Gotz Aly


    The Gotz Aly book brings attention to certain matters that to my knowledge have never been specifically dealt with.  Let us take the case of educational institutions.  Of the peoples of Northern Europe with which after the expulsion of the Jews from Spain the Jews are more especially associated we have five distinct nationalities to consider: The English, French, Germans, Russians and the Jews.  The Jews were an autonomous people with their own institutions in the Pale of Settlement.

     Let us consider the higher educational institutions in each nation.  All four European nations had highly developed university systems with outstanding schools each that turned out spectacular scholars who plumbed the depths of nature through the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries.  The Jews of the Pale- the Baltic States, Poland, Byelorussia and the Ukraine- being an autonomous people in possession of that inestimable treasure of Jewish knowledge, the Talmud, had every opportunity to establish a great university staffed by brilliant Jewish scholars and an entirely Jewish student body..  Did they do so?  No.  They created the Yeshiva that completely rejected Western Science turning out instead a steady stream of useless Rabbis who adjudicated bloody eggs, spouting some inane ‘Jewish knowledge’ of the Talmud and its voluminous commentaries.

     While undoubtedly an outstanding education for Jewish purposes it ill prepared the Jews to compete with the European universities to acquire useful knowledge.   At present there is a Jewish organization in Europe named after the ancient Greek educational system, Paideia, whose goal is to legally impose their useless Talmudic tripe on an equal footing with European Science.  Its sponsors want Talmudic superstition made compulsory study by Europeans.

     Now, while all Jews could aspire to a university education in England, France, Germany and Russia the native nationals except for the upper classes were entirely excluded, none need apply.  The serfs of Russia and Germany were discriminated against much more harshly than any Jew.

     Was it envy then that caused resentment of the Jews or a fully justified grievance?  I opt for the latter.  Class differences that defined place for the peasant and working class nationals did not apply to the Jews who were essentially free agents outside the national class structures.

     Thus when the Jews from the countries to the east of Germany flooded into Germany they had the advantage over 90% of the Germans while competing with some fatuous aristocrats who looked down on commerce, on money making, and spurned the Jews with their foot, as it were.  But as money was more important in this emerging Brave New World than land, many aristocrats were forced into Jewish marriages in the attempt to rescue their impoverished, but landed, estates with Jewish money.

     Supposed Jewish superiority however had nothing to do with it.  A societal sea change had taken place that Jews as outsiders grasped but German aristocrats disdained.  The bulk of the German nationals were given no consideration.