Saturday, May 31, 2008

Alison Krauss & Robert Plant Live

Buddy Miller on guitar, pedal steel and vocals!
A sweet gig for Buddy, one of Nashville's greatest.

Alison Krauss & Robert Plant @ Jools' Later 3


Added: May 10, 2008
Rich Woman

Alison Krauss & Robert Plant @ Jools' Later 2

Added: May 10, 2008
Killing The Blues

Robert Plant & Alison Krauss - Gone Gone Gone

Added: May 06, 2008

Alison Krauss/Robert Plant Down to the river to pray

Added: May 17, 2008
From their great show at Hovet, Stockholm, 16/5-08.

An Open Letter to the Vandals of Readyville Mill

Photobucket

All these years of waiting. Most of us thought it would never happen. We visualized the old mill rotting and crumbling into the Stones River like so many before it, only a memory and some brief notes in a few obscure local history tomes.

But one man had a vision. That man, Tomm Brady, saw history and decided to take it on himself to preserve it. Over two years of hard work and the mill is coming alive again; one nail, one board and one paintbrush at at time.

But for some reason, you-the vandals, decided to take it on yourself and set back the accomplishments a bit. No creativeness here fellows, just mindlessness. Did you laugh as you turned over five gallons of paint on the finely refinished floor? Did you cough up a chuckle as you spray painted "vulgar and racial slurs all over the walls?" Did this make you feel like a man?

Whatever your emotions were as you criminally violated what was not yours, the next question is what are you to do next? It seems you have misplaced and misdirected hated. Do you continue on the same path and create havoc upon others that you most likely don't even know? Was this a one shot deal you now regret and will never repeat?

Racial slurs all over the walls? This is Cannon County where the population is around 98% white and real racial strife is virtually unknown. A trend among some of the youth here is to perpetuate forms of racism that they have never even experienced except through the misguided words of acquaintances and the manipulations of the media. Vandalism and racism. I guess historically these two have walked hand in hand and in a sick way, you-the vandals, are also a part of historical preservation; one that is diseased and rotting .

Maybe one day you will grow up. We hope so. We're a forgiving society and if you can get past the indiscretions, misdeeds and vile actions of your youth, we will welcome you back. If not, perhaps during one of your future stints in jail, you can check out and read a few books including some local ones that tell the fascinating history of Readyville Mill and Cannon County. You'll have plenty of time on your hands.

Kenny

**********************************

Vandals Hit Readyville Mill

MILL VANDALIZED -- A five gallon bucket of paint turned over on the Readyville Mill floor was only part of the damage vandals caused during a break-in last weekend. Extensive damage was done in the ice house portion of the property.

Photobucket

Vandals broke into the Readyville Mill last weekend and destroyed hours of work that Mill owner
Tomm Brady had put in trying to restore the historic site.


"I'm just sick and even cried when I walked in and saw the damage," said Brady as he showed the
destruction caused by the vandals.


"I worked here last Sunday and left about I :00 P.M. and was called by Mary Reed that the damage had
been done," said Brady.


Mary Reed, co-owner of Russell's Market, which sits in front of the Mill property, saw an open door
Monday evening about 7:00 P.M.


"I Usually walk in the afternoon and I noticed the open door to the Yce House but I thought Tomm had
forgot to shut it when he left," Reed said.


The old ice house was the area where the vandals spray painted Vulgar and racial slurs all over the
walls and turned over a five gallon bucket of paint on the refinished floors.


Brady, who was visibly upset, during the tour of the damaged building" has been restoring the old
mill for over two years by himself.


The Mill is on the National Historic Register.


Each day he drives over from Shelbyville to tackle another project at the Mill and has made dramatic
changes since the work began two years ago when Brady and his wife purchased the mill and surrounding
property which includes the dam across the road, totaling about five acres.


Cannon County Sheriff Billy Nichols and Deputy Aaron Hillis saw first hand the damage and gave Brady some consolation. "I will have my deputies do extra patrol in this area starting tonight,"said Sheriff Nichols.


Brady stated that he has had trouble when youths parking on his property and going to the river to swim.


"I have tried to be nice to these people, but you can go down to the swimming area and see the trash of beer cans, needles and other items they leave behind," said Brady. "I think I can sand out most of the spray paint graffiti on the walls but it will take some time and a lot of work."


Sheriff Nichols warned several swimmers who were in the area Monday during the investigation that the Mill area was private property and citations would be written to those violating the No Trespassing signs posted on the property.


"Mr. Brady has done a tremendous amount of work here in restoring the Mill and it is a shame to see the damage caused by a few people who had nothing better to do," said Sheriff Nichols.


Investigators Vance Walker and Charlie Wilder inspected the room that suffered the most damage and found fingerprints and collected other evidence that will hopefully lead to an arrest.


The Cannon County Historical Society was scheduled to meet at the Mill on Monday evening, May 19 for their quarterly meeting.


"The meeting will be held but I just won't be able to let everyone see all the building," said Brady. "I don't want those folks to see the terrible writing that was painted on the walls."


The Sheriff's Department is asking for help from citizens in the community. "If anyone remembers seeing anything over the weekend, a parked car or recognized someone in the area please call us. The tip will remain anonymous and it might lead us to the suspects," said Sheriff Nichols.


The new number at the Jail is 563-1000 and ask for Investigators Charlie Wilder or Vance Walker.


Brady is a gifted craftsman. He has done all the work himself, putting up paneling, rebuilding stone walls, mechanical, carpentry, painting and electrical and the list goes on and on.


The Mill actually ceased production in the early 1980s and one can imagine the state of disrepair the building became just sitting there with no daily maintenance.


The early history of the Mill dates back to 1878 when Charles Ready, the original owner died and the Mill was purchased by Robert Carter from Charles' son in law, Peter Talley.


Over the course of over 100 years the Mill changed hands several times. During those years theReadyville Mill provided corn meal, flour, lumber, ice, electricity and a machine shop to residents from Cannon and Rutherford counties.


In 1935 Leslie and George Justice purchased the Mill and installed turbines and replaced the grinding stones with steel rollers to produce the flour.


Brady stated when he purchased the Mill that it was basically "something to keep him busy" and it has for over two years.


Future plans even include the opening of a restaurant on the property. The possibilities go on and on as does Tomm's love of the Mill.


Source: The Cannon Courier, 5-27-08

**************************************

Videos of Readyville Mill 2008


Readyville Mill - Cannon County TN

Inside Readyville Mill

~~~~~~~~~~~
This has also been posted at OpEdNews.com
here: http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=7571

Talk is Cheap, Even with Enemies, and By the Way, Rivals Aren't Enemies

"Politicians Clamour to Make Themselves Heard Above Their Rivals" Giclee Print
Politicians Clamour to Make Themselves Heard Above Their Rivals by Erich Schilling



What the hell is Barack Obama talking about?

He says that America should be talking with leaders in Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, Korea, Syria. Fine. But he calls this “talking with our enemies.”

What enemies?

Let’s get something straight. Enemies are people who are fighting against you, who are trying to destroy you. Is Cuba fighting against America? Is Iran fighting against America? Is Venezuela fighting against America? Syria? China? No. These countries may be rivals, but they are not enemies.

The closest we come to having an actual enemy in today’s world is North Korea, where we are technically still in some kind of truce following a hot war, but of course that war itself has been over for half a frigging century, and nobody has been killing anyone on the Korean Peninsula in decades.

The truth is, America doesn’t have any real enemies, except for the ones it has made for itself in Iraq and Afghanistan, and of course the Al Qaeda organization. But Al Qaeda is a gang of terrorists, not a country, and in Afghanistan it is movement, the Taliban, once the government of that country, which we overthrew. And even there, where we have enemies, talk is better than war. It is obvious that at some point if we are ever to exit from Iraq and Afghanistan, there will have to be talks with the people we are fighting. Afghanistan’s leaders have said this—that there will have to be talks with the Taliban. And Bush’s own “Iraq Study Group,” headed by former Republican Secretary of State James Baker and former Democratic Congressman Lee Hamilton, concluded that the US will have to negotiate to settle the Iraq conflict. Both those processes should be begun immediately, not after more thousands have been killed.

By calling other countries “enemies,” Obama fell into a trap of his own making, though admittedly, he’s not the first to define all these rival nations as enemies. It’s a logical outcome of the Bush/Cheney position that “either you’re with us or you’re against us.”

Instead of buying into that nonsense, Obama should have questioned the premise. Then he wouldn’t be in the mess he’s in now, trying to fine-tune whom he would talk to and whom he wouldn’t talk to. Erstwhile Democratic presidential candidate and former Alaskan Senator Mike Gravel had it right when, during an early TV “debate” before the media decided to black him out, he replied to the moderator’s stupid question to all the candidates of “Who, after Iran, are America’s biggest enemies?” He challenged the premise, asking, “Iran’s not our enemy. Who are we afraid of? We don’t have any enemies.” He got one of the biggest applauses of the evening for that.

As for the basic point—talking with people we have disagreements or rivalries with—it is obvious that not talking is idiotic, and gets you nowhere—or worse, into a war.

Let’s take Cuba. For exactly half a century since its Communist revolution, we have treated Cuba like a mortal enemy, blockading the country, forcing other countries to join us in an embargo (an act of war, by the way), plotting and attempting to assassinate the country’s leader, Fidel Castro, and financing and supporting an obsessed group of dispossessed rich Cubans who want to return the island to its mob-infested, neo-colonial days. In those 50 years, the only thing not talking has accomplished has been the impoverishment of two generations of Cubans. Meanwhile, of course, the US has talked, conceded, caved in, given in, pandered and invested in China, another Communist country that, unlike Cuba, actually has fought against the US (in Korea, by proxy in Vietnam, and against an ally, Taiwan). There is clearly no logical reason for not talking with Cuba, and if we were talking with Cuba, life there would be better, and no doubt, things would be better here, too.

Iran is another example. It is known that when the US invaded Iraq, in 2003, Iran tried desperately to initiate talks with the US. The Bush/Cheney administration didn’t want to talk. It was calling Iran an “Axis of Evil” nation. Had talks begun, there might not even be a nuclear dispute today. Indeed, there might not even have been a rivalry. Instead, we now have the Bush/Cheney administration pushing forward for plans to attack Iran.

We could go back to Iraq, too, of course. Before the US launched its attack, Saddam Hussein was telling the Bush/Cheney administration he was willing to leave the country. All he wanted was a safe haven like Idi Amin got, and a billion dollars. We were not told about this offer until years later. Yet think how much cheaper that solution, arrived at through a little talking, would have been than what we got through not talking. Instead of letting Hussein run off with a billion of his own ill-gotten wealth, we’ve spent close to a trillion dollars, killed upwards of a million innocent Iraqis, destroyed a country, driven four million people in a nation of 24 million into exile, ruined America’s global reputation, and bankrupted the US treasury, not to mention running up the price of oil four-fold.

Talk is cheap, I’d say.

Obama should be more forthright and admit that America has no enemies, and that we can talk to anyone.

http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/?q=node/154

Too Little, Too Late...


We have a popular saying in Iraq and it goes this way "Ba'ad Kharaab Al-Basra"??!!

How to translate that? Literally it means "After the destruction of Basra" ?!

Kharaab comes from the verb kharraba, which means to destroy something that worked before, to irreparably damage it...

Kharban-the adjective, means damaged, rotten, not functional, not working, failed...

Simply put, kharraba means to screw up something so badly, rendering it useless...

So this proverb is used when someone comes along with either an admission, an apology, or to rectify some wrong after colossal damage has been inflicted...
So you tell the person in Iraqi "What's the use, after the destruction of Basra?!"

In the same vein, the latest admissions from Mc Lellan ex-press spokesman for the White House and from other media voices like this CNN reporter, who both finally admitted that their reporting on Iraq, was "less than candid". In other words they fucking lied...The CNN reporter added that they were "forced" to report in a particular fashion that was not detrimental to your government's image.

Excuse me, but am I supposed to feel better now or what ?

For 5 fucking years, no for 18 years, you've been buying the lies and suddenly you admit that it was "less than candid" and am supposed to feel OK with it ?

Like what do you expect me to do? Rush and embrace you for your "honesty"? Or maybe you expect me to forget our ruined lives and our filled to the brim graves ?

Or maybe being the fucking hypocrites that you are, you expect me to say "well after all, there are some good people left in America. It's not their fault really, they were forced..."

Oh, the bullshit! Oh, your bullshit that knows no limits. Oh, you compulsive liars, bad faith, deceitful, dishonest lot !

You did the same thing in Vietnam. After over 10 years of murder and mayhem, you took to the streets with your flowers and peace signs and cried about "poor" Vietnam.

It took you 10 fucking years. And you only moved your big fat asses after your brave boys came back in body bags and you could not stop the counting.

All throughout the 10 years, the pictures of the napalm burned kids did not move you, oh no they did not...you were too busy singing in Woodstock thinking you're so fucking cool...when you were and are nothing but a screwed up bunch of mental retards and morons...

And do you think you learned anything ? Nothing. You learned nothing and you will never learn. You only learn the hard way, when you get your asses kicked big time and people start talking your language. This is when you open those rotten ears of yours and listen.

The problem with you people and I've experienced over and over, you mistake the words and demeanor of basic human civility for weakness. You know nothing about civility or civilization, you understand only one language - violence. Because that is the only language you are proficient at.

And I being a "good Muslim", I follow the saying of our Prophet who said "talk to people in the language they understand".

So you come now and tell us that the whole thing was dishonest? "After Kharaab Al-Basra"? Ya awlad al Kalb - sons of dogs. But dogs are too noble to be compared to you. You are less than dogs. Less than animals. Less...much less. You are scum and vermin. God, I fucking hate your hypocrisy ya awlad al sharmoota - you sons of whores.

You sons of a thousand whores, will your fucking Mc Lellan or your CNN marry the 3 million widows ? Or feed the 5 million orphans ? Or bring back the 5 million refugees home ? Or heal our cancer patients from your criminal weapons of mass destruction? Or grow a limb and an eye back to the 1000's lost, from your bombs ?
Or maybe your admission will revive the 1 million plus, dead ? Or restore our 7'000 years old archaeological sites, homes, buildings, fields, infrastructure, electricity and water ? Or maybe you short lived fake, phony meaculpa will disarm the sectarian pathological turbaned shits who are ruling us now-thanks to you ?

I am too angry to finish this post...and there is nothing left to finish...you bastards. I hate your fucking guts all of you.

--------------------

Painting: Iraqi artist, Mohamed Ali Shaker.

Feature: Summer's Here and the Time is Right for... Getting Busted Going to the Festival (If You're Not Careful)

With Memorial Day now just a memory, the summer music festival season is on -- and with it, special drug law enforcement aimed at festival goers in what could be called a form of cultural profiling. If years past are any indicator, music lovers should be prepared to encounter everything from announced "Drug Checkpoints" that aren't -- they are instead traps to lure the freaked out -- to real, unconstitutional, highway drug checkpoints masquerading as "safety checks" (complete with drug dogs) to undercover cops working inside the festival grounds themselves.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/files/wakarusa.jpg
Richard Anderson, via commons.wikimedia.org
Nationally known festivals like Bonaroo in Tennessee and Wakarusa in Kansas, as well as countless lesser festivals, especially in rural areas, have drawn special law enforcement efforts in the past. With this year unlikely to be any different, festival goers will need to know their rights and how to exercise them when they encounter the cops.

The police enforcement actions are already getting underway. Last weekend, the 2008 Summer Camp Festival in Chillicothe, Illinois, drew some 13,000 fans to hear a diverse line-up of bands including the Flaming Lips, George Clinton & Parliament/Funkadelic, Blind Melon, the Roots, and the New Pornographers. It also drew city and state police, who claimed 20 drug arrests -- for marijuana, ecstasy, and LSD -- between them in and around the festival.

The police were pleased. "I think a lot of it had to do with all of the agencies getting together before the event and really planning out our attack," Chillicothe Police Chief Steven Maurer told local HOI-19 TV News. "Our goal is to prevent it from coming in and that's what we did a lot of."

Meanwhile, down in northeast Georgia, some other law enforcement agencies had also gotten together to plan an attack. This one wasn't aimed directly at concert-goers, but at the highway-traveling public in general. In what the Northeast Georgian described as "one of the county's largest highway interdiction and safety checks in at least five years," personnel from the Habersham County Sheriff's Office, Northeast Georgia Drug Task Force, Georgia National Guard Counter Drug Task Force, Georgia State Patrol, Georgia Bureau of Investigation, Georgia Department of Public Safety Motor Carrier Compliance Unit, Lee Arrendale State Prison, Phillips State Prison and Cornelia Police Department participated in a 24-hour checkpoint on a local highway.

Police bragged about the success of their checkpoint, which netted 74 arrests, 31 of them for drug offenses. "It worked well, I thought," said Habersham County Sheriff De Ray Fincher. "The operation resulted in a seizure of $36,000 in illegal drugs. And a total amount of currency, drugs and vehicles seized is estimated to have a value of $82,000."

Police did write some tickets for traffic offenses, Fincher told WNEG-TV 32 News. "We got a lot of people with no insurance, no driver's license or suspended license," he said. And some pot smokers: "The majority of our cases were marijuana cases; however, we did get several methamphetamine and we got one case of cocaine," Fincher explained.

In a 2000 Supreme Court decision, Indianapolis v. Edmonds, the high court held that indiscriminate highway drug checkpoints were unconstitutional since motorists were being stopped without suspicion for a law enforcement -- not a public safety -- purpose.

But Fincher was open about his constitutionally-suspect highway checkpoint. "We are trying to do everything we can to prevent drug activity in Habersham County, whether it's just passing through or stopping here," he said, noting that drug arrests in the county were on the rise. "That just means we've taken a real aggressive approach to drug enforcement."

"In the wake of the Indianapolis case, law enforcement has tried to figure out ways to still conduct drug checkpoints that comport with that ruling," said Adam Wolf of the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project. "Intent is the name of the game. If the intent is to conduct a checkpoint basically for law enforcement purposes, that's not okay. If it's for public safety purposes, such as sobriety checkpoints, that is okay."

A constitutional challenge to any given checkpoint would turn on intent, said Wolf. "If it turns out the intent was primarily to be a drug checkpoint, that would be an unreasonable search and not comply with the Constitution," he said. "That kind of checkpoint should be shut down, but it would take someone to challenge it."

Noting Sheriff Fincher's report of cash and goods seized, Wolf suggested the purpose of the checkpoints could really be about something other than law enforcement or public safety. "So often these things are being done to fund law enforcement agencies. Asset forfeiture is really a cash cow," he said.

Whether the checkpoints or other special law enforcement tactics are to raise money, wage the drug war, or indeed for "public safety," experts consulted by the Chronicle sang a remarkably similar song: Be prepared, don't be stupid, and don't give away your rights.

"The most efficient way to get arrested for marijuana possession short of blowing pot smoke in an officer's face is to smoke marijuana while driving or parked in your car, especially on the way to a festival," said Steven Silverman of the civil liberties group Flex Your Rights, which has released a video instructing people how to flex theirs. "You have a minimal expectation of privacy, and it reeks. Officers can smell it, and if they can smell it, that's probable cause to search you."

"Keep your private items out of view," recommended the ACLU's Wolf. A baggie full of weed on the front seat is all the probable cause an officer needs to search the vehicle and arrest the owner.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/files/car-search.jpg
car search
"The only sure thing to do is not to carry," said Keith Stroup, founder and currently senior counsel for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). "But the problem with that is there may or may not be good marijuana available at the festivals. If you're going to bring something with you, keep the quantity as small as possible, and for God's sake, don't smoke in the car!"

If you are stopped at a checkpoint (or pulled over for any reason) and you haven't provided police probable cause to search you or your vehicle, now is the time to exercise your rights. People in such situations should be polite but assertive, the experts said.

"If you are pulled over by police for any reason, the officers are very likely to ask you to consent to a search," said Silverman. "Don't do it. Never, ever consent under any circumstances. It might be couched in terms of a command, but it is a request. If you consent, you are waiving your Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. They won't 'go easier' on you; anything they find, they will confiscate, and arrest you and put you in jail. Don't do their job for them."

"There is no circumstance I can imagine where you should ever consent to a search," agreed NORML's Stroup. "If you give permission, you waive your Fourth Amendment protections. They may say it'll go easier if you cooperate, but that's bullshit. Their only reason for being there is to see if you have contraband and arrest you and put you in jail if you do."

"Just say no to warrantless searches," echoed the ACLU's Wolf. "Officers won't tell you you have the right not to consent, but you do, and it is one that people have held dear since the founding of the Republic."

There are other highway hazards for the unwary festival-goer. Law enforcement can be creative in its unending war on drug users and sellers.

"Anybody driving to see his favorite band should also be aware of fake drug checkpoints," said Silverman. "Drug checkpoints are unconstitutional, but what some sheriffs will do close to festival sites is set up a big 'Drug Checkpoint Ahead' sign, and then watch who turns off the highway at the next ramp or who throws something out his car window. Then they pull them over for littering or failure to signal a lane change or something. If you see such a sign, keep driving -- it's a bluff designed to see who it scares."

"When you see a sign like that, proceed ahead within the speed limit, driving safely through the area," advised Wolf.

Wolf has problems with the harassment of festival-goers that run deeper than particular law enforcement tactics. "Profiling based on race is not okay, profiling based on gender is not okay, and profiling based on the type of concert you attend is not okay," he said. "It's unreasonable and unjustifiable for police to target a group of people because they are going to any particular type of concert."

"Simply having a Grateful Dead sticker or dreadlocks doesn't constitute reasonable suspicion of anything," agreed Silverman.

But in the real world, it can. Festival-goers and other highway travelers need to be aware of their rights, as well as the realities of life in the contemporary US, as they hit the highway this summer.

And one last thing once you actually make it to the festival. "There's a big myth out there that police officers must reveal if they're an undercover cop," said Silverman. "That's wrong, and it's stupid to believe that. Police officers can and do legally lie in doing their jobs. Believing that has probably led to thousands of people being arrested."

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/538/summer_festival_drug_law_enforcement

**************************************************
The bonnaroo festival is once again coming to a farm near Manchester, TN June 12-15.
A wild time in a sleepy town.
Be careful kiddies.

2008 Lineup Poster

I guess Led couldn't make it but they get Lez Zeppelin
Send the 2008 lineup to your friends!I

High Comedies - Great moments in the drug war Kulturkampf

Nick Gillespie | May 30, 2008

If the recently concluded HBO series The Wire is arguably the most aesthetically accomplished fictional indictment of the decades-long war on drugs, there is no shortage of contenders for the most absurd bit of prohibitionist agitprop, from the unintentionally hilarious 1936 movie Tell Your Children (better known as Reefer Madness) to the widely parodied 1987 public service announcement in which the role of "your brain on drugs" is played by an egg frying in a skillet to an early 1990s TV ad in which the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles counsel a grammar school kid offered a fistful of joints ("Get a teacher," advise the Turtles, "get a pizza, get real").

Then there's the latest offering sponsored by the Office of National Drug Control Policy's National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, a mockumentary called Stoners in the Mist, featuring a pith-helmet-wearing narrator explaining the strange customs of the slack-jawed, amotivational, Lava lamp-loving inhabitants of "Cannabis Isle." Online at abovetheinfluence.com and featuring squirrely navigation and a rhythmic drum track more stupefying than anything produced by Cheech & Chong, Stoners underscores what most Americans already knew: Real winners don't do anti-drug websites.

Here's a short magical mystery tour, culled from the foggy memories of reason's editors, of decades of advertising and small-screen messages that inadvertently made childhood just a little more bearable. And drugs—even NoDoz—just a little cooler.

"Marijuana...is the Hula Hoop of the Jet Generation!" Produced in the late 1960s by the American Medical Association, this anti-cannabis commercial featured animation groovier than the film Yellow Submarine and a detailed list of just how fun it is to get high. "The human brain," notes the serioso narrator, "is hardly a Tinker Toy." But judging from the spot's graphics, it sure looks like one, especially if you've been smoking dope.

Dragnet's "Blue Boy" Episode. Clocking in at number 85 in TV Guide's 1997 list of the best TV episodes ever, this segment told just the facts about LSD-and a face-painting hippie called Blue Boy, who overdosed on the stuff after being arrested by Sgt. Joe Friday, played by three-pack-a-day smoker Jack Webb, who died in real life of a heart attack at age 62. Honorable mention: the "Big High" episode, in which two cannabis-craving parents get stoned and let their child drown in a bathtub. "After 25 years on the job, it's finally happened," groans Friday's partner, Bill Gannon. "I'm going to be sick."

Sonny Bono's Secret Message. "If you become a pothead," the curiously speech-slurring future congressman warned in this 1970 PSA, "you risk blowing the most important time of your life: Your teen age [sic]." The pitch might have been more effective if Bono's eyes weren't quite so red--or his jumpsuit so golden and shimmery.

Stop the Madness! This star-and-monkey-studded mid-'80s video is the Citizen Cocaine of Nancy Reagan's Just Say No campaign. (The First Lady even has a cameo.) Featuring past and future drug users ranging from Arnold Schwarzenegger to David Hasselhoff to Whitney Houston-and a spasticated spider monkey dancing to the strains of a Herb Alpert trumpet solo-"Stop the Madness" didn't just make a case for getting high (anything to stop the "Stop the Madness" video!). The title track previewed the lockdown that has given the U.S. the highest rate of incarceration in the world: "You thought that using dope would be a party/Now you're a prisoner in a cell crying to be free."

Heavy Metal Drug Addicts Destroy Communism. In August 1989, what The New York Times described as "thundering hordes of Western heavy-metal rock" acts, including Motley Crue, Ozzie Osbourne, Skid Row, and Bon Jovi, played at the Soviet-sanctioned Moscow Music Peace Festival as guitar-grinding "ambassadors of peace and temperance." The concert, which was broadcast to the West on MTV, was created by the American impresario Doc McGhee as part of a parole deal stemming from a 1987 conviction for marijuana importation. The Berlin Wall fell a scant 14 weeks later-long before Ozzy or Motley Crue's Nikki Sixx entered rehab.

I'm So Excited by Caffeine Pills! In a 1990 episode of the crypto-kiddie-porn high school sitcom Saved by the Bell, Jessie (played by Elizabeth Berkeley, later to triumph as a bare-it-all-to-get-ahead dancer in Showgirls) gets hooked on caffeine pills while studying for a big math test and rehearsing for a singing audition. Her friends' intervention comes soon enough to save Jessie from the ultimate coffee high but not before the audience hears her espresso-distorted version of the Pointer Sisters' anthem of chemically free overexuberance, "I'm So Excited!"

Pee-Wee Herman Says No to Crack-and Jail Time. "Everyone wants to be cool," the uber-ironic Saturday morning children's show host admits in this ad made as part of a sentencing deal after Pee-Wee's 1991 arrest for masturbating in a Florida movie theater. "But doing it with crack isn't just wrong. It could be dead wrong."

One Frying Pan Can Ruin Your Whole Kitchen. Riffing off the legendary 1987 ad "This Is Your Brain on Drugs," this 1999 spot created by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America features an underweight model personifying heroin chic, who explains the downside of smack (a drug regularly used by less than 0.1 percent of Americans) by smashing up a kitchen with a cast-iron frying pan.

If you're interested in related fare, check out The Best Week Ever's "10 Funniest Anti-Drug Commercials in Advertising History" and 10 Zen Monkey's "Five Druggiest High School Sitcom Scenes."

And if you're still locked in a terminal buzz from watching so many videos online after your coffee break, contribute a little more to the declining productivity of the American economy by watching the infamous episode of Quincy, M.E., that answers the musical question, "Can punk rock kill?"

Nick Gillespie is editor of reason.com and reason.tv. A version of this appeared in the June reason.

Does Our Vichy Congress Need A Haircut?

Saturday, May 31, 2008


With the annual AIPAC treason fest set to begin in Chicago in June, shouldn't Americans be asking this question? Many of us are beginning to wonder for whom this Congress works. With one disastrous war not yet behind us many of these servants to AIPAC and Israel are suggesting that another nation may require obliteration. Who are these congressional pod people who show such devotion to AIPAC or more importantly the Jewish votes and political contributions that AIPAC can muster.


Has the need for these contributions become so important that our politicians would willingly forsake the real interests of the United States in order to pursue those contributions? Here are just three comments delivered by our current Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi in a speech to AIPAC at the 2005 treason fest with some editorial comments by your own Liberal White Boy.(This is same year that AIPAC's Rosen and Weissman were caught handing over classified secrets at the Israeli embassy).

"One thing, however is unchanged: America's commitment to the safety and security of the State of Israel is unwavering. America and Israel share an unbreakable bond: in peace and war; and in prosperity and in hardship.

Why? Why should Americans care about Israel anymore than any other country? We have no formal alliances with Israel. Israel has never come to our aid in any war, not even in the Middle East. Their assistance would have been detrimental to our causes. Israel is despised throughout most of Arab world, not because of the fraud called anti-Semitism, but because these pretenders stole the Palestinians land from them and have brutalized and ethnically cleansed its people for sixty years.

“Prime Minister Sharon's leadership of Israel at this crucial time has been remarkable. He has brought Israel through an extremely challenging period, and now he has made the difficult decision that it is in Israel's national security interest to disengage from Gaza.

Yes this is the same leader that presided over Israel as its Mossad agents/terrorists watched the hijackers for a year before 9/11 and didn't tell us. He deserved the Speaker of the House's accolades. This piece of garbage allowed 9/11 to happen.

"In the next few months, Israeli settlers will be evacuated entirely from Gaza and from four settlements in the northern West Bank. This courageous decision is gut-wrenching for Israel.

Yes dragging a bunch of crazy Hebrew extremists off of their stolen land in Gaza and moving them to more defensible stolen land on the West Bank takes a lot of courage. All that gut wrenching(and we are talking about a rather large gut when speaking of Ariel Sharon) probably caused the stroke leading to Diaper Dan Sharon's current vegetative state.

But this is what are Congress has become. So very sad. It's time for a trim.

Hey Kids. Can you pick out the cow in this picture? Now can you pick out the war criminal?

Where Will The Terrorists Strike Next...Why Not Ask Mossad?

By way of deception shall you Conquer...Mossad Motto

Their spies were sitting on top of the 19 hijackers for almost a year before 9/11. They are probably watching the next crop of terrorists as you read now. Apartheid Israel is not happy with the National Intelligence Estimate. Another country must be bombed and invaded. More innocent blood must be spilled. And of course Mossad won't tell us any more about the next group of terrorists than they did the first. Don't bother sending a freedom of information request for the video tape that the Apartheid Israel Mossad Goons took of themselves in Liberty Park either. You remember the dancing Israelis high fiving and flicking their Bic's as the Towers burned in the background across the river. And even though Israel and our own Government assured us in no uncertain terms that the dancing Israelis were just as innocent as could be, the tape is now classified. (I bet the Goons got to the show early.) Gosh this is like deja vous all over again. (e.g. the U.S.S. Liberty treachery). Yes we have motive, means and opportunity. In the old days before politicized justice, that was all you needed to go after criminals. AIPAC you Tweasonous Wascally Wabbits!12/21/07

The assassination of Robert Kennedy, Part 3 -- The woman in the polka dot dress

A. Branson

Sat, 31 May 2008 00:29 EDT

Image

As we dig deeper into the assassination of Bobby Kennedy, things get curiouser and curiouser, as Alice would say.


It seems there are some things that people just "know." There are no such things as ghosts, astrology and psychic powers are just ploys used to get money from the gullible, the chances that Earth will be hit by a comet within our lifetimes are astronomical (forgive the pun) and everyone deep inside is basically the same: just trying to be good as they understand it.

The strange thing about this kind of "knowing" is that no one can tell you just how they know. Ask them how they know that two plus two equals four and they will have at least a vague recollection of their early school years. But ask them how they know about ghosts, astrology, psychics, comets and the psychology of the rest of humanity and you'll likely get a response that is something akin to, "Everybody just knows that." But the question bothers me. Just when did "everyone" learn these things and why can't they remember having learned them?

Here, we find a key to how people can be coerced into taking part in a conspiracy they know nothing about. It is the beliefs they hold, masquerading as knowledge or "common wisdom"&--beliefs that will paradoxically be defended more vociferously than 2+2=4--that are skillfully manipulated by the perception managers.

Throughout our lives, rarely anything happens to trigger a fear of ghosts, aside from the occasional scary movie that is easily dismissed as the product of the scriptwriter's imagination. We live our lives blissfully unaware of that part of us, still very much alive in our minds but normally quiet, that does believe in ghosts and knows that there is compelling evidence for the reality of spirit.

If we were to find ourselves alone in a drafty, creaky old house on a dark, windy night, we would be forced to face that part of ourselves. Despite what we would claim to believe in the movie theater or in the bright sunlight, our fears of things unseen would begin to creep up the back or our neck and cause the hair to stand up. We would find ourselves involuntarily looking behind, just to be sure there is nothing there.

And when we find the evidence that our fears were unjustified and childish--the banging shutter or the gap in the window through which the wind whistled--we would laugh at our gullibility and feel a palpable sense of relief that sanity had been returned to the world. And even if something inexplicable actually does happen, we rush to explain it away even at the cost of lying to ourselves.

We specifically look for the evidence that our fears are unfounded because the key to our beliefs, that "common knowledge" without a remembered lesson, is a desire for a world that is fully knowable, under control and, ultimately, safe for us. We want to believe that our most dire fears are only the product of our overactive imaginations. And when those fears are triggered, any "rational" explanation that returns sanity to the world is welcomed with open arms.

Even many of the most ardent seekers of truth have fears and beliefs they keep deeply buried under stones that must never be turned. It is a childish belief--not the belief in ghosts, but the belief that ignorance, masquerading as common wisdom, provides safety. So, we see even vehemently outspoken critics of the U.S. government label as conspiracy theorists of the lowest order those who would dare claim that, as an example, 9/11 was the product of anything but Arab hijackers.

This is how it is with events like 9/11 or the assassinations of JFK, MLK and RFK. For a moment, our deepest fears seem realized. We madly grope for something, anything, that will return sanity to the world. We desperately look for the banging shutter or broken window that will assure us there is nothing unseen, nothing unknowable and, ultimately, nothing really unsafe. In this way, each of us can be made, is made, a part of the conspiracy even without realizing that the conspiracy exists.

And now, on with our story...

The Woman in the Polka Dot Dress

Sandy Serrano, a young campaign worker for Kennedy, was there at the Ambassador Hotel the scary night that Bobby Kennedy died. Needing a break from the heat and the crowd, she found a little quiet on the steps that lead from the back of the kitchen area. Somewhere around 11:30 pm, she encountered three people, a woman and two men, entering the kitchen from the back, using the stairs she was sitting on. The woman she would described as wearing a white dress with dark polka dots and having a "Bob Hope" type nose. The two men with her were described as,

White male (Latin extraction), 5'5" tall, 21 to 23 years old, olive complexion, black hair, long - straight, hanging over his forehead and needed a haircut. [The other was] white male (Mexican American), about 23 years of age, 5'3" tall, curly, bushy hair and wore light colored clothes. She said after seeing a picture of Sirhan Sirhan in the newspaper she felt certain that this was the same person she saw go up the stairs with this woman. [Turner and Christian; The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, The Conspiracy and Coverup]

Sometime later, seconds after Serrano heard what she described as sounding like automobile backfires, the woman and one of her male companions came running back down the stairs. According to Serrano, the woman was yelling, "We shot him, we shot him." When asked who they shot, she replied, "Senator Kennedy."

Serrano was not the only one to describe the woman in the polka dot dress and associate her with Sirhan and/or the assassination. Amongst them was Kennedy campaign worker Darnell Johnson and the son of an Ambassador Hotel maƮtre d', Thomas Vincent DiPierro. DiPierro said that the only reason he noticed Sirhan was that there was a very good looking girl next to him. According to DiPierro,

I would never forget what she looked like because she had a very good looking figure - and the dress was kind of lousy...it looked like a white dress and it had either black or dark-purple polka dots on it.

Minutes after the shooting and well before any of the stories of the woman in the white dress had been made public or could have been shared, LAPD Sergeant Paul Sharaga heard news of the shooting on his police radio. Already in the vicinity, he arrived at the scene within a minute. An older couple approached Sharaga and, as he tells it:

They related that they were outside one of the doors of the Embassy Room when a young couple in their early twenties came rushing out. This couple seemed to be in a state of glee, shouting, "We shot him, we shot him, we killed him." The woman stated that she asked the lady, "Who did you shoot?" or "Who was shot?" and the young lady replied, "Kennedy, we shot him, we killed him."

The only defining characteristic of the young lady that the witnesses could give was that she was wearing a white dress with polka dots. Sharaga immediately put out an all point bulletin for police to be on the lookout for a woman in a polka dot dress in the company of a man.

And then something very strange happened that, as far as we know, has never happened before or since in the history of the LAPD. For about 15 to 20 minutes, all police radio communications were lost on all frequencies. This was ample time for the woman in the polka dot dress and her companion to get off the streets and out of reach of the police.

The elderly couple Sharaga had interviewed were lost and have never come forward. Serrano, being the sole witness to the woman in the polka dot dress claiming, "We shot Kennedy" was brought to the notorious Rampart Division of the LAPD for extensive questioning. I encourage you to follow the link on the Rampart Division. The story of the ongoing corruption in the LAPD and the Rampart Division in particular is very informative. The Bobby Kennedy assassination is not the only one in which the Rampart Division has taken part.

In this case, however, the witness was not so much questioned as she was browbeaten and verbally tortured into renouncing her testimony. The "questioning" was performed by Sergeant Enrique "Hank" Hernandez who, according to his resume, played a key role in "Unified Police Command" training for the CIA in Latin America. As is clear from the questioning, Hernandez had one goal in mind - to discredit Sandy Serrano and anything having to do with the story of the woman in the polka dot dress.

Here, for your listening pleasure, are two excerpts from that taped session which, amazingly, survived after the LAPD had attempted to destroy all evidence that would discount the official story of the assassination of Robert Kennedy. Keep in mind as you listen that Sgt. Hernandez is allegedly questioning a material witness who has nothing to gain from lying.

Serrano and Hernandez part 1

Serrano and Hernandez part 2

A thread of the web

Hernandez played a key role in the special LAPD task force created to investigate the Kennedy Assassination, called Special Unit Senator, or SUS. SUS was headed by LAPD Lieutenant Manuel Pena.

Interestingly, Pena had officially retired from the LAPD in November of 1967, less than a year before the Kennedy assassination, to take a position with the Agency for International Development Office of the State Department, or AID; AID, a known cover agency for the CIA for its counter insurgency and torture operations in South America. AID is probably best known for one of its most infamous agents, a man who Pena allegedly had worked with, Dan Mitrione. From 1960 to 1967, Mitrione worked with the Brazilian government under the cover of AID, torturing then killing, without trial, political dissidents.

Though Pena's farewell was a well attended and publicized event, sometime around April 1968 he returned to the LAPD quietly, without fanfare. His explanation was that the job with AID had not turned out to be what he had hoped. Within two months, he would find himself in charge of the most important murder investigation every conducted by the LAPD, the man who would have the final say on virtually everything that would happen in the investigation.

And here, we have an interesting thread of web to examine. Two of the most important investigator's of the case, Hernandez and Pena, are both ex (or perhaps current at that time) CIA operatives, both involved in CIA operations in South America. Pena, the man running the entire investigation, had just returned from duty with AID, a CIA front organization that specialized in crushing political dissidents and likely worked with Dan Mitrione.

In 1970, Mitrione was kidnapped by the Tupamaros, a leftist guerrilla organization fighting against the U.S. sponsored dictatorship in Uruguay. Though his name was changed, that event was the basis of the movie State of Siege. Mitrione's funeral, much like Pena's "retirement" from the LAPD, was a well publicized and attended affair. Following his funeral, a benefit concert was held in his home town of Richmond, Indiana, headlined by none other than Frank Sinatra and Jerry Lewis (go figure).

Sinatra, as you may remember, was one of the stars of the John Frankenheimer film The Manchurian Candidate. The film is a fictional account of a man, played by Lawrence Harvey, who is hypnotically programmed to perform assassinations without conscious knowledge of doing so. Following the Kennedy assassination, Sinatra purchased the rights to The Manchurian Candidate and removed it from circulation until 1987.

On June 3rd, Bobby Kennedy had dinner with his friend John Frankenheimer (who, coincidentally, drove him to the Ambassador Hotel that fateful night) along with a pretty actress named Sharon Tate and her husband, Roman Polanski.

Now, please bear with me as we descend into something of an abyss. When trying to see the web, we run across strange coincidences that may seem on the surface to be tenuous, improbable or even downright laughable. It's the nature of the beast. If you want to know what is really going on, these things must at least be put on the table, even if they are discarded later. Remember, though, webs are tenuous things made from very delicate threads. Often times, the most obvious and easily accepted data turns out to be nothing more than something caught in the web - an artifact, if you will, rather than the web itself. That said, here we go.

In August 1969, Sharon Tate was murdered by members of the Manson Family, who had strong connections to the Laurel Canyon music scene. Curiously, the year Kennedy was shot Sharon Tate was in the process of making a film entitled The Wrecking Crew, which co-starred Dean Martin. That same name was taken by a group of Los Angeles studio musicians associated with Phil Spector, who were also closely connected with the Laurel Canyon music scene. And Dean Martin, her costar in that film, was of course a long time collaborator with Jerry Lewis, who shared billing with Frank Sinatra at the Dan Mitrione benefit concert following his funeral. During the filming of that movie, Tate would be trained to do her own stunts by the martial arts expert Bruce Lee, with whom she would become close friends and who also later died under mysterious circumstances.

Tate, it should be noted for those who don't remember her, was a movie star on a meteoric rise. She was beautiful and talented. As the Hollywood Reporter stated concerning her role in The Wrecking Crew, "Sharon Tate reveals a pleasant affinity to scatterbrain comedy and comes as close to walking away with this picture as she did in a radically different role in Valley of the Dolls."

Tate, it should also be noted, had taken a keen interest in Bobby Kennedy's campaign. She was a frequent attendee at Kennedy campaign dinners. It's funny (and not in a humorous way) how often those in the public eye who take a political stance that is in favor of human rights, human dignity and simply doing the right thing are found in a pool of their own blood.

As for Dan Mitrione, he was not the only famous former resident of Richmond, Indiana. For a fairly small town (the 2000 census shows a population of only 39,124) it has had more than its fair share of celebrity. Richmond can boast at least four NFL players, one of whom was a rookie of the year, an NFL coach, two NBA coaches, an Olympic gold medalist, Margaret Landon (the author of The King and I), Orville and Wilbur Wright, the legendary and cutting edge R&B singer Baby Huey and actress Polly Bergen along with Mitrione and a street preacher there who Mitrione befriended while he was Chief of Police in Richmond; a man by the name of Jim Jones.

But that is another story for another time.

More to come...

Source: Sott.net

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The assassination of Robert Kennedy - Part 1

The assassination of Robert Kennedy, Part 2 - Thane Eugene Cesar

http://allenbranson.blogspot.com/

Breaking News: Putsch being carried out among reporting staff at Ha'aretz

Written by Ed Corrigan
Saturday, 31 May 2008
http://www.israelnewsguide.com/images/haaretz.jpg

A new German owner has purchased Haaretz and a "Putsch is being carried out among reporting staff," in the most important and liberal Zionist paper in Israel. According to inside sources, the new owner has carried out a rough, sittingroom survey that revealed that "the occupation doesn't sell newspapers" and they are therefore concentrating on the business world (ie. The Marker). Twilight Zone, Gideon Levy's regular Friday column, has been scrapped, Amira Hass has been degraded to freelance on half salary, Meron Rapaport has been fired and Akiva Eldar has lost at least one half page a week.

The paper frequently allowed journalists critical of the Israeli occupation to publish articles that exposed the reality of the occupation to be exposed to the Israeli population and was circulated around the world. The new editorial direction is disturbing news. Haaretz was one of the few decent Israeli media outlets and showed that in Israel there was some respect for freedom of the press and critical discussion. This is a repeat of the situation when Conrad Black bought the Jerusalem Post and hired an Israeli censor to be publisher. The decent journalists all quit in protest, including Benny Morris back when he still had a moral conscience.

It reflects a more disturbing trend. Norman Finkelstein was recently denied entry into Israel and the West Bank. Bishop Desmond Tutu was denied entry into Israel too. Prominent Palestinian journalists are routinely denied exit visas by the Israelis to leave the Occupied Territories to go on speaking tours and a group of Palestinians students from Gaza were also recently denied exit visas to attend American universities after being granted Fulbright Scholarships from the American Government.

It appears that the Israelis are closing down many if not all of the sources of critical information coming out of Israel. The hypocracy of it all is that Israel complains that when the British Academic Union proposes a boycott of Israeli academic institutions as a way to pressure Israel and to protest Israel's policies toward the Palestinians the Israelis start to scream that the proposed boycott is a violation of freedom of speech and a violation of academic freedom. Israeli authorities have been crushing academic freedom and free speech for Palestinians, and even Israeli critics, for decades. Israel does not want its own population and the rest of the world to know what it is doing to the Palestinians.

Source: ZioPedia.org

The 45 Questions Most Frequently Asked About the Jews


With Answers by Bill Pelley
Copyright 1939 by William Dudley Pelley
"The Star of David with a Shofar Coming out of the Center" Giclee Print

"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

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!"