If you are wondering why there are anti-Zionists, then this site is especially for you.
We have created what we hope to be the most basic anti-Zionist site that explains why there are anti-Zionists.
Why do we oppose Zionists? Because they are behind the anti-White agenda. This is our basic 4-point argument:
1. There is an anti-White agenda (which is promoted through the media, for example).
2. The anti-White agenda is promoted by someone.
3. The anti-White agenda is promoted by Zionists.
4. Since the ones behind the anti-White agenda are Zionists, then they are a threat to Whites, so Whites should oppose these Zionists.
If you disagree with – or are unsure about – any of these 4 points, then you should read “The Basic Anti-Zionist Argument”, but first, please read “Our Purpose”.
Also, keep in mind that the sources that we include do not (necessarily) reflect our position: we are only using them because the information is useful.
We know that our society is hectic and stressful, and that there is often an overload of disorganised information. Hence, we want to present the basic anti-Zionist argument that everyone should be aware of; by “everyone”, we mean both Jews and Gentiles (non-Jews).
If you are not aware of Zionism, then we hope that this site is the first or main anti-Zionist site that you look at.
If you are attacked or scorned for being an anti-Zionist, then we advise you to (calmly) present this site to your “opponents”, that way you can justify yourself in the simplest way possible and (calmly) ask the “opponent” what part of this site they don’t agree with; this will help organise your conversation.
Someone who accepts Zionism.
Zionism is a Jewish ideology that is pro-Jew; its agenda involves promoting the unification and strengthening of Israel and the Jews:
The central question debated at the [23rd Zionist] Congress was the definition of Zionist goals… Congress passed the Jerusalem program, which defined the future tasks of Zionism as: “consolidation of the State of Israel, the ingathering of the exiles in Eretz Yisrael [the Land of Israel] and the fostering of the unity of the Jewish people.”
Yes; we’ll explain why in Question 16 and throughout the site.
“Jew” is an ambiguous term that can refer to one of the following:
1. A member of the Jewish race.
2. A follower of Judaism.
In this site, when we talk about “Jews”, our focus is on the Jewish race, not on the followers of Judaism; when we talk about followers of Judaism, we shall refer to them as “followers of Judaism”, that way we remove the ambiguity.
Although Zionism is a Jewish ideology that is pro-Jew, not all Zionists are Jews, though most of them are, and most importantly, the main Zionists are Jews.
Meanwhile, not all Jews are Zionists, and there are Jews who criticise Zionism.
Yes; not all Zionists are Jews, and not all Jews are Zionists, so you can oppose one without opposing the other. When you oppose Zionists, you are opposing their “Zionism”, not their “Jewishness”, so you would not be an “anti-Jew” (or an “anti-Semite”).
No, only the Zionist Jews and the Jews who are not anti-Zionist.
It’s true that the Zionists are mainly Jews, and that Zionism is a Jewish and pro-Jew ideology, but keep in mind that we also oppose non-Jew Zionists (such as White Zionists), so we are not anti-Jew (or anti-Semite); if we were anti-Jew (anti-Semite), we would be opposing the Jewish race, but we are not doing that.
We believe that there are good Jews, so we are not opposing “the Jews”.
Jews who oppose anti-Whites.
For example, below is what Donna Halperin wrote on the 23rd of March, 2011, and it is a comment to an article that talks about Jewish control of the mainstream media (we shall look at this issue in The Basic Anti-Zionist Argument, Point 3, Section 1):
Hi Jeff - I am Jewish and I take exception to some of the articles you post on your site. But, this particular article is staggering in its implications. It is said there are less than 15 million Jews on the planet. Most of us...and I know a lot of people... are kind, normal and not megalomaniacal in our approach to life. When someone of ANY religious or political persuasion reads this story and then also factors in the dominance of Jews in finance and the economy, government, science, the medical profession, the legal profession - in fact all the professions - one has to come away pondering how such staggering influence has been acquired by such a microscopic percent of the world's 7 BILLION people. For ANY group to wield such power clearly and obviously injects profound bias and skewing into all areas of a nation so dominated. Is there a Zionist/Jewish bias in Western society and especially the US? Is grass green? It is often whispered that Baron Rothschild really owns and controls Great Britain. It is reported that 7 of the 8 oligarch/gangsters who control most of Russia are Jews ...probably hard core Zionists. (Maybe Putin is trying to prevent a total Zionist takeover of Russia with the Lukos oil magnate's arrest?) And then look at the Zionist Jewish near domination of the Bush administration (no coincidence, that) and the more than one trillion dollars the kindly American people have given to Israel in 'loan guarantees'...not a penny of which has ever...or will ever... be paid back. I could go on but when a Jew starts to point out the facts and connect the dots, they are quickly smeared as 'self-hating' and so forth. Well, this Jew is an American first and I'm hoping you continue to post factual articles like this on your site. Thank you.
Donna Halperin has gained our respect! This is what we want to see, and we respect such Jews for opposing Zionists; this is why we are anti-Zionist, not anti-Jew!
We should treat them well, but good Jews ought to show signs of being good indeed. If you happen to know Jews that you believe are “good Jews”, then ask them this question: “would you oppose Jews who are anti-White?”
If these “good Jews” are good like you think they are, then they will be willing to oppose the Jews who promote an anti-White agenda, like Nicolas Sarkozy (former President of France) and Barbara Lerner Spectre (the recipient of the 2007 Max Fisher Prize for Jewish Education in the Diaspora, and the ICRF “2008 Women in Action” award; from http://www.paideia-eu.org/about/organization/staff/).
We don’t want genocide for the Jews or anything like that. We simply want the Zionists to stop being a parasite to non-Jewish societies (like White societies); in other words, we simply want the powerful Jewish elite who control mainstream media, along with its supporting Jews, to stop promoting an anti-White agenda, and to let us promote the well-being of our people just as they promote the well-being of their people.
For this site, “National Socialist” is identical to “Nazi” and “neo-Nazi”.
Someone who accepts National Socialism.
Among other things, National Socialism is a White ideology that is pro-White, like how Zionism is a Jewish ideology that is pro-Jew. Here are two basic quotes on what it means to be a National Socialist:
For me and for all true National Socialists, there is only one doctrine: Folk and Fatherland. (Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, Vol. I, Chap. 8, p. 214 Manheim trans.)
If you love your nation, you are a nationalist; if you love your people, you are a socialist. Be a National Socialist! (William Joyce)
In other words, since this is being said by White people, National Socialism is concerned about the well-being of White people: it says that Whites should care about the well-being of their White nations and their fellow White people, like how Zionism promotes the well-being of Israel and Jews.
Hence, National Socialism is pro-White, and it opposes anyone who is a parasite to the White race, although it does not seek to exploit other races. According to National Socialists, it’s ideal that each race should promote the well-being of their own race in their own land.
Non-Whites can also accept a “National Socialism” for themselves. For example, loosely-speaking, Zionism may be considered a sort of “National Socialism for Jews” in the sense that it is concerned about the well-being of its people. In this site, though, when we talk about “National Socialism”, we’ll be talking about “National Socialism for Whites”.
No; we are not trying to persuade you to become a National Socialist, partly because not all of us agree with National Socialism. Whether or not you want to become a National Socialist is not our concern; never does this site advocate for National Socialism.
Not everyone responsible for this site agrees with National Socialism; in other words, although all of us are pro-White, not all of us are National Socialists.
Being pro-White does not mean that you have to be a National Socialist. A National Socialist is necessarily pro-White, but if you are pro-White, then you are not necessarily a National Socialist – and you don’t have to become one.
We don’t go against the well-being of Jews and Israel, but we do have a problem the Zionists’ tendency to involve the exploitation of Whites and anti-White double standard. We’ll give an example of each.
An example of Zionists exploiting White people is that Zionists used the media to lead to the death of millions of White people just to benefit the Jews. We shall look at this issue in The Basic Anti-Zionist Argument, Point 3, Section 1.4.
An example of Zionists applying anti-White double-standard is that they can go against Muslims for the sake of protecting their nation (Israel) and their people (the Jews), but when Whites want to go against Muslims for the sake of protecting White nations and White people, Zionists call such Whites “evil”, “hateful”, “xenophobic”, etc. We shall look at this issue in The Basic Anti-Zionist Argument, Point 3, Section 1.3.
Do we support the well-being of Israel and the Jews? Of course, but not at the expense of Whites (and other races, in case they are also exploited), and not when it involves anti-White double-standard. The problem is that Zionists are engaged in both; we’ll deal with this later in this site.
National Socialists oppose anyone who is a parasite to the White race. Insofar as they believe that Zionists are parasitical (in practice), then they are anti-Zionist; it’s at least likely that all National Socialists are also anti-Zionists.
Not all anti-Zionists are National Socialists, though; besides, not everyone responsible for this site accepts National Socialism.
Yes; there are even Jews who go against Zionism, and they are not National Socialists. There are also anti-Zionist Whites who are not National Socialists.
None; in other words, no religious person or group should have a problem being anti-Zionist.
Some may believe that Judaism is incompatible for an anti-Zionist, but we disagree because there are followers of Judaism who go against Zionism and consider it a threat to peace, among other things.
Both; some of us are religious (including traditional Christians) and some of us are irreligious (including atheists).
Anti-White double standard is the best and most evident manifestation of an anti-White agenda, and it doesn’t take much to see it across the mainstream media.
For example, any race can be proud of their own race, except White people. The mainstream media that encourages “Black pride”, for example, is the same media that opposes “White pride”. If Black people say, “I am proud to be Black”, we have to praise them, but if White people say, “I am proud to be White”, we have to shun them and call them “racist” and “hateful”, and if we don’t do this, then we are “racist” and “hateful”.
Another example is shown with this picture:
Keep this image in mind and now start paying attention, and you will be aware of the anti-White double standard that is common in mainstream media and in society. Although we are not opposed to the Jews, for example, this picture shows the anti-White double standard that we are talking about.
On one hand, anytime Whites are praised as a group, that is considered “hateful”. Only an individual White person who conforms to the anti-White agenda can be praised, and such White person is praised for not defending and for not praising their White race.
On the other hand, Muslims, Blacks, Jews, and immigrants must be praised or at least they must never be criticised. You can criticise an individual who happens to be a Muslim, a Black, a Jew, or an immigrant, but never can you criticise them as a group, even though you are allowed – and encouraged – to criticise Whites as a group.
If you don’t believe that this is true of our society, then test it. Try praising Whites as a group, and try criticising Muslims, Blacks, Jews, and/or immigrants as a group, and watch the reaction.
How do we remove the anti-White double standard? By having a check-mark in all 10 spaces.
Yes, people should be allowed to criticise Whites as a group, but people should also be allowed to criticise Muslims, Blacks, Jews, and immigrants as a group. Yes, people should be allowed to praise Muslims, Blacks, Jews, and immigrants as a group, but people should also be allowed to praise Whites as a group. To deny this is to accept and apply an anti-White double standard.
The anti-White agenda does not come out of nowhere: someone must be behind it.
Zionists are the ones behind the anti-White agenda mentioned in Point 1. It makes sense that they are the culprit since:
1. Zionists control most major media outlets: this is how they easily promote their anti-White agenda.
2. Whites protect Jews: since criticising Jews (such as Jewish Zionists) is “definitely unacceptable” in our society, Jewish Zionists are free to do what they want, and no one suspects a thing from them.
3. Jews can pretend to be Whites: Jews (such as Jewish Zionists) can promote anti-White messages like “White guilt” and “White self-hatred” while posing as Whites.
In this section, we’ll talk about a “very sensitive issue”; we hope that you are open-minded (willing to analyse other viewpoints). If you don’t believe that this section’s information is correct, then you are welcomed to refute such information, but please, no name-calling, etc. If you don’t agree, then simply refute our claims with evidence (correct information) and we’ll apologise.
Joel Stein – a Jew – admits that Jews control the mainstream media, and he even mocks those who do not believe this. On the 19th of December, 2008, he published an article called “Who runs Hollywood? C’mon”, and here are some excerpts:
I have never been so upset by a poll in my life. Only 22% of Americans now believe ‘the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews,’ down from nearly 50% in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood.
How deeply Jewish is Hollywood? When the studio chiefs took out a full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times a few weeks ago to demand that the Screen Actors Guild settle its contract, the open letter was signed by: News Corp. President Peter Chernin (Jewish), Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey (Jewish), Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Robert Iger (Jewish), Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton (surprise, Dutch Jew), Warner Bros. Chairman Barry Meyer (Jewish), CBS Corp. Chief Executive Leslie Moonves (so Jewish his great uncle was the first prime minister of Israel), MGM Chairman Harry Sloan (Jewish) and NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker (mega-Jewish). If either of the Weinstein brothers had signed, this group would have not only the power to shut down all film production but to form a minyan with enough Fiji water on hand to fill a mikvah.
The person they were yelling at in that ad was SAG President Alan Rosenberg (take a guess). The scathing rebuttal to the ad was written by entertainment super-agent Ari Emanuel (Jew with Israeli parents) on the Huffington Post, which is owned by Arianna Huffington (not Jewish and has never worked in Hollywood.)
The Jews are so dominant, I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. When I called them to talk about their incredible advancement, five of them refused to talk to me, apparently out of fear of insulting Jews. The sixth, AMC President Charlie Collier, turned out to be Jewish.
As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood. Without us, you'd be flipping between "The 700 Club" and "Davey and Goliath" on TV all day.
So I've taken it upon myself to re-convince America that Jews run Hollywood by launching a public relations campaign, because that's what we do best. I'm weighing several slogans, including: "Hollywood: More Jewish than ever!"; "Hollywood: From the people who brought you the Bible"; and "Hollywood: If you enjoy TV and movies, then you probably like Jews after all."
"That's a very dangerous phrase, 'Jews control Hollywood.' What is true is that there are a lot of Jews in Hollywood," he [ADL Chairman Abe Foxman] said. Instead of "control," Foxman would prefer people say that many executives in the industry "happen to be Jewish," as in "all eight major film studios are run by men who happen to be Jewish."
I appreciate Foxman's concerns. And maybe my life spent in a New Jersey-New York/Bay Area-L.A. pro-Semitic cocoon has left me naive. But I don't care if Americans think we're running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them.
We will list two basic webpages for you to look at.
As you read, keep in mind that we don’t necessarily agree with everything that is said in these webpages: we are only mentioning them for you to read about how Jewish Zionists control the mainstream media. For example, although http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-domination-media.htm says that Zionists are detrimental to “honest, God-fearing, hard-working Americans”, we say that this should also be applied to “honest, irreligious, hard-working Americans”, including “honest, atheistic, hard-working Americans”. Yes, Zionists are detrimental to God-fearing people such as Christians, but this also applies to irreligious people such as atheists. Lastly, keep in mind that Zionists are detrimental not only to Americans, but to all Whites, including those in Europe, since Zionist influence is also strong in Europe.
Here are two basic webpages that deal with the Zionist control of mainstream media:
In “Our Purpose”, Question 16, we said that “an example of Zionists applying anti-White double-standard is that they can go against Muslims for the sake of protecting their nation (Israel) and their people (the Jews), but when Whites want to go against Muslims for the sake of protecting White nations and White people, Zionists call such Whites ‘evil’, ‘hateful’, ‘xenophobic’, etc.” Let’s look at it, then.
Benzion Netanyahu, a famous Zionist, says that Jews should fight for Israel:
So, what’s the problem? The anti-White double-standard.
Who is behind the mainstream media that is calling anti-Muslim Whites “evil”, “hateful”, “xenophobic”, etc.? The Zionists, who are anti-Muslim. Hence, the Zionist anti-White double standard: Zionists can go against the Muslims, Zionists can say that they should probably even have a war against the Muslims, and Zionists can call for Jewish unity, but when Whites do the equivalent (such as opposing Muslims and calling for White unity), the Zionist mainstream media scorns them with name-calling.
If you want to see it for yourself, then go against the Muslims, call for White unity, etc., and see how the Zionist mainstream media will react to your comments.
We’ll conclude Section 1 by responding to the objection that “it does not matter who controls the media”.
What is the significance of Zionists controlling most major media outlets? It allows Jewish Zionists to promote their Zionist agenda, which is contrary to the interests of White people.
Most people follow the media without questioning it. If people were not like that – if they questioned and analysed things more often – then perhaps we could say that it would not be important to worry about who controls the media, but since most people do follow the media blindly, then whoever controls the media has control over the masses. Whoever controls the media can simply manipulate the mass public into doing whatever they want the mass public to do, and if they can control the masses, then they can practically do anything they want since the masses are on their side, which means that their opposition will be a minority, at most. That surely makes their job a lot easier, doesn’t it?
Remove their media power, and most likely they wouldn’t be able to do anything: that’s how important media control is. Besides, where do people get most of their “facts” from? The mainstream media.
We’ll finish this section with most of William L. Pierce’s essay “Media Myths”. As you read this, keep in mind two things. First, when William L. Pierce refers to “Jews”, we hope that he is only referring to the Jewish Zionists, not the good Jews who go against Zionism and the anti-White agenda; if he is referring to “all Jews, period”, then we disagree with him since we believe that there are good Jews. Second, you don’t have to go against everything from the media, just as we don’t go against everything in the media either; nevertheless, the main thesis of “Media Myths” is to show how dangerous it is for Whites to allow the Jewish Zionists to control the media and to promote Zionist interests as opposed to the interests of White people.
When you read this essay, you will also see why we said in “Our Purpose”, Question 16, that “an example of Zionists exploiting White people is that Zionists used the media to lead to the death of millions of White people just to benefit the Jews.”
You cannot make an informed decision if you don’t pay attention to all sides of a debate, so we ask that you be open-minded and consider the “other side”, the one not presented in the mainstream media. Below is most of the essay, and we put some key parts in bold:
The subject I’ve discussed most often is the dominant Jewish influence in the mass media of news and entertainment. I’ve spoken most often about this because it is the most important problem with which we must deal. It’s also a subject on which I receive a lot of flak. One of the most common forms of flak is the objection that it doesn’t matter. Sure, the Jews control the media, but it doesn’t make any difference, critics tell me. They’re just good businessmen, and they know how to run the media profitably. That’s why they’ve gained control, and it’s no worse than it would be if a bunch of Irishmen or Mormons were in their place.
I think that many of the people who tell me this don’t actually believe it themselves. They just want to be Politically Correct, and it’s Politically Correct to absolve the Jews of blame for anything. Even many of the people who are distressed about what Jewish media control is doing to our society don’t want to identify that control as Jewish. The Baptists, for example, who have launched a boycott of the Disney Corporation because of the raunchy movies its Miramax films division has been turning out, refuse to identify either Disney boss Michael Eisner or the Miramax bosses Bob and Harvey Weinstein as Jewish. The Baptist protest is against immorality in films, they insist, not against the Jewish control of the film industry.
That’s a bit like saying you’re against syphilis but you have nothing against spirochetes. And it’s not really honest, this determination to be Politically Correct. Political Correctness is based on a denial of reality, on the substitution of a deliberately falsified picture of the world in the place of reality. And this dishonesty, this refusal to admit Politically Incorrect truths, has very serious consequences for all of us. If we refuse to talk realistically about the Jewish control of the mass media, we may as well give up on trying to do anything about the negative effects this Jewish media control is having on our society.
Let me give you a specific example of refusal to face a Politically Incorrect truth. Steven Spielberg has a new film out, Saving Private Ryan, and it’s been getting a lot of attention by the reviewers. They say that the film is good because it is so realistic, because it gives such an honest portrayal of the Second World War. And of course, the film does show the blood-and-guts aspect of the war a bit more starkly than other films have. But honest it is not. It propagates the same lies about the Second World War that every film — and I mean every film — made by the Jewish film industry in Hollywood for nearly 60 years has propagated. And the reviewers, regardless of what else they say about these films, all repeat these same basic lies.
These lies are that the Second World War was a “necessary” war — that is, that there was no way we could have avoided it — and that it was a “good” war — that is, a morally justified war. We were forced to fight Germany in order to protect America. We could not have stayed out of the war or fought on the other side, because that would have been immoral. The other side was evil. We fought against evil. By destroying Germany and Hitler we saved the world, Hollywood tells us. We saved freedom. We saved the world from slavery and tyranny. …
That’s Hollywood’s unvarying story, and it’s a lie: an extremely dangerous and destructive lie. Unfortunately, it is a lie which is accepted unquestioningly, uncritically, by almost everyone, and not just by the lemmings. We hear that lie today in connection with Spielberg’s new movie; and in fact, we hear it from television news anchormen and from politicians and from other authority figures every time the war is mentioned. No dissent is permitted. But that’s the case only for the Second World War. One can have dissenting views about the Spanish-American War, the First World War, or about the Korean War. One can question the morality or the necessity of those wars without being considered an evil person. And as for the war in Vietnam, one can even take the position of America’s enemies, as film actress Jane Fonda and a student activist named Bill Clinton did.
But it has not been the government’s hard line against dissenters which has kept people parroting the dogma that the Second World War was a war which was both necessary and good. And it hasn’t been any reluctance to offend the veterans of the Second World War, because we have more living veterans of the Vietnam war in our society, and those opposed to the Vietnam war have never worried about offending them.
No, the dogma that the Second World War was necessary and good, that it saved the world or that it preserved our freedom, is entirely the creation of Jewish propagandists. Of course, the Second World War didn’t preserve America’s freedom. America’s freedom was never threatened by Germany. Hitler could not even have imagined taking away America’s freedom. His war against America was entirely defensive. We were the aggressors. The U.S. Army invaded Germany and took away Germany’s freedom, not the other way around. There was never the slightest danger that Hitler would invade America.
And we certainly didn’t save the world … We didn’t even defend America’s vital economic interests by destroying Germany. The only people whose vital interests were defended by America’s participation in the Second World War were the Jews.
And these facts really aren’t even disputed by serious and knowledgeable people today. No reputable historian or military leader would make the claim today that the United States was in danger of being invaded by Germany or that our vital interests were threatened by Germany. In other words, the war was not necessary. Every knowledgeable person understands that, but very few will say it.
As for the claim that Hitler and his SS were evil monsters, and that America was on the side of righteousness in destroying them, we can simply look at the facts again: look at what the two sides actually did during and after the war. It is generally conceded that the Germans treated American prisoners of war about as well as they could under the circumstances. And it also is generally conceded that Hitler’s troops, SS or otherwise, behaved themselves better toward the civilian populations of the countries they occupied than did the armed forces of any of the other combatants, including the Americans. Hitler’s SS troopers did not rape civilians, for example. Contrast this behavior with that of the Americans and our allies, such as the Red Army.
The Red Army, our comrade in arms, was notorious for raping and murdering civilians; in fact, Red Army men were encouraged to engage in atrocious behavior by their own government, our ally. And the U.S. Army itself engaged in several massacres of German prisoners of war: for example, the massacre of more than 500 disarmed SS prisoners at Dachau by members of the U.S. Army’s 45th Division on April 29, 1945. And then there was the mass starvation of German [prisoners of war] in prison camps after the war. And there was the massive ethnic cleansing, in which more than 2 million German civilians were murdered after the war. The U.S. government approved of this mass murder, of this ethnic cleansing — we gave the OK — and our allies carried it out.
If we consider the mass rape and murder of civilians to be evil, if we consider the mass execution of prisoners of war to be evil, and if one of our motives for going to war was to fight evil, then clearly we were fighting on the wrong side. And it’s not as if we didn’t know how our gallant Soviet ally would behave before we began our effort to destroy Hitler and his forces. We had plenty of evidence of massive Soviet atrocities even before the war began. Our government knew what the communists had done in Ukraine. Our government knew about the mass arrests and executions in the Soviet Union. And before we crossed the English Channel to invade Europe we knew about the mass executions of Polish officers by the Reds at Katyn and elsewhere. And yet we allied ourselves with the mass murderers. We helped the mass murderers and mass rapists murder and rape millions of more Europeans. And so the claim that we were going to war to fight evil is simply a lie. The Second World War was not a good war. It was not a moral war. It was the most atrocious war of modern times. And we were on the side of those committing nearly all of the atrocities during that war: we were deliberately on the side of evil.
And there is just one reason that we fought on the side of evil. It was because that was the Jewish side. In the years before the war Hitler wasn’t rounding up people by the thousands and shooting them the way the communists were. Hitler wasn’t shooting anybody. His SS troops weren’t raping or terrorizing anyone either. Hitler was doing one thing which resulted in a huge, lying hate-propaganda effort against him from Hollywood. That one thing was Hitler’s campaign to break the grip of the Jews on Germany. In Germany, Hitler took the news and entertainment media away from the Jews. He kicked them out of the legal profession, which they had monopolized. He kicked them out of the teaching profession, where they had been pumping their ideas into the heads of German children. And Hitler did all of this peacefully, non-violently. He didn’t round Jews up and shoot them. He simply made it illegal for them to own German newspapers and German radio stations. He made it illegal for them to practice law or to teach in German schools. And so the Jews were leaving Germany. Between 1933 and 1939 two-thirds of the Jews in Germany emigrated. At the same time Jewish commissars in the Soviet Union were butchering millions of people. But the hate propaganda coming out of Hollywood was entirely anti-German, not anti-Soviet. The Jews’ only concern was the welfare of their fellow Jews. They didn’t care how many Russians or Ukrainians were murdered. But they screeched at the top of their lungs when Hitler took the German media away from them.
And they lied to the American people about what was happening in Europe. They lied in order to try to make us hate the Germans the way they did. When a Jew assassinated a German diplomat in Paris in 1938 and the German people reacted by smashing up Jewish department stores and synagogues in several German cities, the Jewish news media in the United States reported the incident as if Jews were being massacred wholesale in Germany. That was the famous “Crystal Night,” which the Jews still continue to remind us of every year in order to milk a little more sympathy from us. The picture of Germany painted by Jewish hate-propaganda in the United States during the years preceding the Second World War was a complete distortion of reality. Americans were told that Germans lived in constant fear of the Gestapo and the SS, that Hitler was a madman who terrorized the German people and who fell to the floor and chewed the edge of his carpet when he became angry. Americans were told that Germany was a land of concentration camps and barbed wire and police dogs. Our invasion of Germany was to be a “liberation” of the German people from the tyrannical rule of Hitler and the SS. That’s actually the word the Jewish propagandists used to describe the American and Soviet terror bombing, rape, and dismemberment of Germany: “liberation.” The American and Soviet invaders were to be the “liberators.”
Of course, the Jews didn’t control all of the mass media before the Second World War. They didn’t control the National Geographic Magazine, for example, and this magazine, with its articles and photographs on life in Germany flatly contradicted the hate-propaganda coming from Hollywood. A good example, if you have access to old National Geographics, is the February 1937 issue. But the National Geographic Magazine really wasn’t a mass medium, and Jewish Hollywood had a much stronger grip on the average American’s mind. And so the image of Germany most Americans had was the Jewish image of a land of terror, fear, brutality, and repression controlled by Hitler’s SS automatons, a land which needed to be “liberated” and which was a deadly menace to America. The hate-propagandists of Hollywood lied us into the most murderous and destructive war of all time solely because they hated the Germans, and they wanted us to destroy the Germans for them.
And they have maintained their pre-war lies even to this day, their portrayal of Hitler as a crazed carpet chewer and the SS as a gang of sadistic thugs, and they have added to this their postwar hate-propaganda of gas chambers and of lampshades and soap supposedly made from the bodies of murdered Jews. Most Americans still believe that their fathers or grandfathers “liberated” Germany and “saved” the world. They still believe that the Second World War was a “necessary” war and a “good” war. And the reason they believe it is that they have seen hundreds of Hollywood films and television shows which have repeated these same lies to them over and over and over again, and no public figure has ever had the courage or honesty to contradict them. We’re still hearing the same lies in films like Steven Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan and in the reviews of that film in the controlled media: Americans as “liberators.”
The fact is that Hollywood’s lies about Germany led to millions of White Americans and Europeans being slaughtered solely for the sake of punishing the Germans for throwing the Jews out of Germany. And we are put at a great disadvantage even today by those same lies, because they prevent so many of us from examining the past honestly. And if we cannot understand what happened in the past, we are much less likely to choose a wise course into the future. But the real point of my example of Hollywood hate-propaganda about Germany before and during the Second World War is that the Jews, with their control of so much of the mass media today, are able to sway the attitudes of the whole country to suit themselves. They are able to persuade us to give precedence to their interests and concerns instead of ours. They are able to change the course of history to their advantage and to our disadvantage by changing the way the American masses see the world. They were able to do that in the 1930s and 1940s, even before television. Today, with television, they are even more able to change American attitudes and opinions to gain advantages for themselves.
And today there are plenty of other examples of the Jews’ misuse of their media power to manipulate the opinions and attitudes of our people to our disadvantage. There is the current prospect of another war in the Middle East. Saddam Hussein and Iraq are being held up as a threat to America, a threat to the world, just as Germany was represented as a threat to the world before the Second World War, when in fact Iraq is a threat only to the Jews’ plans for the Middle East, and Germany was a threat only to the Jews’ plans for controlling Europe. But the prospect of another war is very real, and it will remain real as long as the Jews retain their control of the media and of U.S. government policy. Iraq certainly is no threat to America and never has been, but if the Jews become worried about Saddam Hussein’s ability to thwart Israel’s further expansion, you can be sure that we will be called on again to save America, to save freedom, and to save the world by “liberating” Iraq. And unfortunately, most Americans will respond to the call. They will believe that they are being patriotic by responding, just as most of the veterans of the Second World War still believe that they were being patriotic in responding to the call to save America from Hitler.
That’s not the way it should be. Our people’s patriotism shouldn’t be abused like that. Our mass media shouldn’t be used to manipulate our people to our disadvantage. Of course, most people being what they are, they will be manipulated one way or another. Most people will believe what they’re told to believe by their television. Which means that it is essential that the people who control the mass media, the people who decide what the masses should be told — these must be our people, people with our interests — not people with an entirely different agenda of their own. The mass media could be a powerful force for good, a powerful force for enlightening and uplifting and guiding our people rather than for exploiting them.
A lot of people understand that; they understand the power of the mass media. Our political leaders certainly understand that. Many academics understand it. But they won’t buck the Jews. They prefer to go with the flow, to get what advantage they can for themselves, but not to speak out against the way the media have been and are being misused to exploit our people. They are afraid of becoming targets of Jewish hate-propaganda themselves. And they understand the difficulty of convincing the public of the truth after the public already has been convinced of a lie. The public is fond of its myths, especially its patriotic myths, and hardly any patriotic myth is more cherished than that of the Second World War being a necessary and a moral war.
And so the politicians and the academics won’t point out the lies inherent in Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan. And that means that we’ll have to do it ourselves, the hard way. We’ll have to continue building our own media: media like American Dissident Voices and Free Speech. That’s a long and difficult job. And while we’re doing that we’ll be hearing and seeing a lot more romanticized propaganda from Steven Spielberg and the Weinstein brothers and the rest of the Jewish media establishment. But at least we are reaching more people with the truth this month than we did last month, and we’ll reach more still next month. (from https://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/media-myths/)
Some Whites relentlessly protect Jews to the point of denying clear evidence.
For example, Shulamit Aloni – who was an Israeli politician – admitted that Zionists use the Holocaust and “anti-Semitism” as excuses to prevent people from criticising the Zionists and the state of Israel.
And how about Barbara L. Spectre’s bluntness already mentioned in “Our Purpose”, Question 10? She bluntly says that Jews have a leading role in the multiculturalism agenda (such as flooding White societies with Arabs and Blacks).
But even then, despite the Jews admitting things, many Whites still invent some excuse to somehow “save the Jews” from criticism.
Criticising Jews is “definitely unacceptable” in society, especially in Europe. The significance of such fact is that someone can offer us this argument:
1. Jews should never be criticised.
2. Jewish Zionists are Jews.
Hence, Jewish Zionists should never be criticised.
According to this argument, we are wrong for criticising the Jewish Zionists, but since we go against the conclusion (we say that “Jewish Zionists should be criticised”), then we have to refute one of the premises. Since premise 2 is true, then we have to refute premise 1, so we have to argue that Jews can be criticised.
We are not anti-Jew, but we don’t agree that “Jews should never be criticised, period”, as we already said in The Basic Anti-Zionist Argument, Point 1. We also don’t agree with pro-Jew double standard, such as when Ariel Sharon said that "Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1241371.stm).
But back to our point, there is no sensible reason to “protect Jews from criticism”, as White people tend to do. Again, we are not being anti-Jew by arguing that Jews can be criticised; besides, you believe that humans can be criticised (I am sure you criticise many groups of people), yet that does not make you “anti-human”, does it? And if criticising Jews made you an anti-Jew, then criticising Whites would make you an anti-White.
What is the significance of Jews being relentlessly protected by Whites? Remember that the main Zionists are Jews, so if we cannot criticise Jews, then we cannot criticise these Jewish Zionists merely because they are Jews, which then allows these Jewish Zionists to go unnoticed and to keep their anti-White agenda strong. This is a perfect scenario for them since they can get away with anything and never be suspected of being evil, and when suspected, they don’t have to worry since they have brainwashed people at their service protecting them.
Imagine that your wallet has been stolen and that it must be in the thief’s drawer. Naturally, you decide to check people’s drawers, but as you walk towards Jacob’s drawer, you are not allowed to go any further because checking his drawer will “hurt his feelings” (somehow) since he is “very sensitive” and he has had a rough life, so we should pity him. Despite your rational remarks that all of that is irrelevant (for example, checking someone’s drawer should in no way be offensive to the person, and if the person finds it offensive, then that person needs to “grow up”), the people barricade and “protect Jacob and his drawer” with all their might. You are outnumbered and there is nothing you can do (unless you are willing to sacrifice your well-being and safety), so you are forced to not check Jacob’s drawer while being allowed to check everyone else’s.
There is a slight problem: the wallet is inside Jacob’s drawer, so you will never find your wallet just because people pitied the babyish Jacob for non-sensical reasons. Meanwhile, Jacob (who is not so innocent) is loving this because he can not only keep your wallet and use your money (since he will never be suspected of being bad, and even when suspected, he will be protected by others), he will also be able to continue stealing wallets from others, as he already does, though people are not aware of it because no one is willing to check Jacob’s drawer because “oh, the poor Jacob.”
Jewish Zionists are like Jacob; those who oppose any criticism of Jews (period!) are like the people who protect Jacob; and Anti-Zionists are like the outnumbered person who wants to check Jacob’s drawer.
Jewish Zionists can always get away with anything as long as no one is allowed to criticise Jews, including Jewish Zionists; this is why “Whites relentlessly protecting Jews” is a serious issue.
Although we are not anti-Jew, in this section, we’ll argue that “Jews can be criticised.” We have to do that in order to justify the conclusion that “Jewish Zionists can be criticised”:
1. Jews can be criticised.
2. Jewish Zionists are Jews.
Hence, Jewish Zionists can be criticised.
Whites protect Jews because: the White Christians feel like they must never oppose the Jews or else they will incur the wrath of God; Whites feel pity that the Jews have been persecuted throughout history; and Whites feel pity that the Jews suffered the Holocaust.
Are any of these justifications to “protect Jews” sensible? No. Do they justify an anti-White agenda? No.
One reason why Whites protect Jews is that White Christians feel like they can never oppose the Jews or else they will incur the wrath of God.
We’ll show that Christians should not fear being punished by God for opposing Jews who happen to be evil; instead, Christians should go against such Jews.
Some people believe that a Christian cannot be an anti-Jew, but we disagree. To prove our point, we’ll offer one line of thought that shows how you can be a Christian and an anti-Jew.
The concern for many Christians is this: “I cannot criticise and go against the Jews (or a Jew) because they are the chosen ones.” This is the argument:
1. If the Jews are the chosen ones, then it is wrong to criticise the Jews.
2. The Jews are the chosen ones.
Hence, it is wrong to criticise the Jews.
What is the problem with this argument? Premise 1 is false. Although at first sight it might seem plausible, premise 1 can be refuted by the fact that John the Baptist, Jesus, Peter, Stephen, and Paul the Apostle also criticised the Jews for various reasons, such as being hypocrites and for being responsible for the death of Jesus. We’ll offer some examples.
John the Baptist criticised the Pharisees and the Sadducees, who were Jews:
But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptising, he said to them: ‘You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?’ (Matthew 3:7)
Jesus criticised the Pharisees, who were Jews:
You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of. (Matthew 12:34)
‘You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?’ (Matthew 23:33)
Jesus said to them, ‘If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.’ (John 8:42-47)
Peter criticised the Jews:
When Peter saw this, he said to them: ‘Fellow Israelites, why does this surprise you? Why do you stare at us as if by our own power or godliness we had made this man walk? The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.’ (Acts 3:12-15)
Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: ‘Rulers and elders of the people! If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a man who was lame and are being asked how he was healed, then know this, you and all the people of Israel: it is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed.’ (Acts 4:8-10)
Stephen criticised the Jewish leaders:
‘You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: you always resist the Holy Spirit! Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him – you who have received the law that was given through angels but have not obeyed it.’ When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. (Acts 7:51-54)
Paul the Apostle criticised the Jews:
Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and boast in God; if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of little children, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth – you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who boast in the law, do you dishonour God by breaking the law? As it is written: ‘God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.’ Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. So then, if those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a law-breaker. (Romans 2:17-27)
For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: you suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to everyone in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last. (1 Thessalonians 2:14-16)
Hence, even if the Jews are the chosen ones, that does not mean that you cannot go against them if they turn out to be evil.
In case you are still hesitant, let’s expand on the argument. Remember that we need to show that the following premise is false: “if the Jews are the chosen ones, then it is wrong to criticise the Jews.” This is the argument expanded:
1. If the Jews are the chosen ones, then it is wrong to criticise the Jews.
2. The Jews are the chosen ones.
3. It is wrong to criticise the Jews.
4. If it is wrong to criticise the Jews, then whoever criticises the Jews is wrong for criticising them.
5. Whoever criticises the Jews is wrong for criticising them.
6. John the Baptist, Jesus, Peter, Stephen, and Paul the Apostle criticised the Jews.
Hence, John the Baptist, Jesus, Peter, Stephen, and Paul the Apostle were wrong for criticising the Jews.
But the conclusion is false! No Christian should say that “John the Baptist, Peter, Stephen, and Paul the Apostle were wrong” because they were divinely inspired, and certainly no Christian should say that “Jesus was wrong” because Jesus is perfect and sinless:
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to feel sympathy for our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are – yet he did not sin. (Hebrews 4:15)
God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:21)
‘He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.’ (1 Peter 2:22)
But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. (1 John 3:5)
According to rules of logic, a valid argument with a false conclusion must have at least one false premise. Since the argument is valid and the conclusion is false, then one of the 6 premises must be false. The question is “which one?” The answer is “premise 1.”
1. Premise 2 (“The Jews are the chosen ones”) is accepted by most Christians. Those who reject this premise (like those who accept Christian Identity) have no problem being anti-Jew, so we are not worried about them.
2. Premise 3 (“It is wrong to criticise the Jews”) was derived from Premises 1 and 2.
3. Premise 4 (“If it is wrong to criticise the Jews, then whoever criticises the Jews is wrong for criticising them”) is self-evident.
4. Premise 5 (“Whoever criticises the Jews is wrong for criticising them”) was derived from Premises 3 and 4.
5. Premise 6 (“John the Baptist, Jesus, Peter, Stephen, and Paul the Apostle criticised the Jews”) is proven by the Bible, as we saw.
6. That only leaves premise 1 (“If the Jews are the chosen ones, then it is wrong to criticise the Jews”) as the false premise.
Hence, even if the Jews are the chosen ones, that does not mean that Christians should not go against Jews if Jews turn out to be evil.
Our argument still works.
It’s false that the Jews, as a whole, were never criticised in the Bible. We mentioned some verses where not only a few selected Jewish groups were criticised, such as the Pharisees, but the entire Jewish nation (the Jews as a whole).
Perhaps someone may say that the Bible verses have been edited and distorted by later anti-Semites. This issue could be debated, but let’s skip this debate since it does not affect our argument.
So, let’s imagine that the Jews, as a whole, were never criticised in the Bible. Well, our argument still works. All that is needed for our argument to work is for a respected Biblical figure, such as Jesus or any of his disciples, to criticise one Jew (just one!), and that definitively occurred, no Christian will deny that, unless Christians start making very controversial claims, such as that a respected Biblical figure never criticised the Pharisees, or that the Pharisees were not Jews, but we doubt that a Christian will be willing to say these things.
So, if there is an evil Jew, and it is acceptable to criticise such a Jew for being evil, as Jesus did when he criticised the Pharisees (so he definitively criticised at least one Jew), then it is acceptable to criticise any Jew if such a Jew is evil; since it is acceptable to criticise one Jew who is evil, then it is acceptable to criticise all Jews who are evil. Hence, if the Jews, as a whole, turn out to be evil, then it is acceptable to criticise the Jews, as a whole, for being evil.
Christians could be anti-Jew by at least saying that although the Jews are the chosen ones, they should be opposed because they have turned evil, and as Christians, we should always go against evil.
An evil Jew should be opposed as much as an evil Gentile: evil people should be opposed regardless of their race. A true Christian should not be friendly with those who are evil, and it’s the Christian’s duty to expose them.
Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. (Ephesians 5:11)
The Bible does not add an exception to this. The Bible does not say to expose the works of darkness, unless it is the work of a Jew, which then, do not expose such works because “Jews are the special people of God, so you cannot criticise them, period.” Besides, as we already saw, the fact that the Pharisees were Jews did not stop Jesus and his disciples from criticising them.
Hence, if Jews happened to be evil (like the Jewish Zionists), then we have the right to be their enemy and to expose their evil plans.
Our explanation should have been enough, but just to make sure, we’ll mention a noteworthy example: Brother Nathanael, a Jewish Christian who is opposed to Zionism (and Judaism), and who admits that the mainstream media is owned by Jews.
We don’t necessarily agree with everything he says, but we posted this video to reassure Christians – one last time – that they should not fear criticising Jews, such as Jewish Zionists.
Another reason why Whites protect Jews is that Whites feel pity that the Jews have been persecuted throughout history, but such thinking is invalid.
Let’s assume that homosexuality is not wrong, and that the historical anti-homosexuality was unjust; however, imagine that homosexuals started preaching an anti-heterosexual agenda, such as that heterosexuals should start hating themselves and promoting their own destruction. Should heterosexuals be fine with that? No, unless you are fine with the promotion of revenge, though imagine the chaos if everyone engaged in vengeful deeds, like “that person hit my car, so I will hit their car”, etc.
Let’s apply the same rationale to anti-Semitism. Let’s assume that it was unjust for there to be anti-Semitism throughout history; however, imagine that Jews started preaching an anti-White agenda. Should White people be fine with that? If you say “yes”, then you are self-contradictory and unjust since the previous scenario, to which you said “no”, has the same rationale as this scenario.
Simply because the Jews have been unjustly opposed in the past does not mean that they are justified to promote an anti-White agenda. In other words, even if the Jews have been unjustly persecuted throughout history, it still does not justify the anti-White agenda promoted by the Jewish-owned mainstream media; hence, such Jews should be opposed rather than pitied.
The last reason why Whites protect Jews is that Whites feel pity that the Jews suffered the Holocaust. Although we will not deny the Holocaust, we’ll mention a few important things.
We will not argue against the Holocaust, but even if the Holocaust is true, anti-White Jews should still be opposed instead of pitied.
Let’s assume that the mainstream media caricature of the National Socialists is true: let’s assume that the National Socialists attempted to commit genocide on the Jews. If it were justified to have an anti-White agenda because a group of Whites – the Germans – attempted to commit genocide on the Jews, then it would also be justified to have an anti-Jew agenda because Jews have committed genocide in the past, and they have done this not once, but multiple times:
When Sihon and all his army came out to meet us in battle at Jahaz, the Lord our God delivered him over to us and we struck him down, together with his sons and his whole army. At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed them – men, women and children. We left no survivors. (Deuteronomy 2:32-34)
So the Lord our God also gave into our hands Og king of Bashan and all his army. We struck them down, leaving no survivors. At that time we took all his cities. There was not one of the sixty cities that we did not take from them – the whole region of Argob, Og’s kingdom in Bashan. All these cities were fortified with high walls and with gates and bars, and there were also a great many unwalled villages. We completely destroyed them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city – men, women and children. (Deuteronomy 3:3-6)
When the trumpets sounded, the army shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the men gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so everyone charged straight in, and they took the city. They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it – men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys. (Joshua 6:20-21)
That day Joshua took Makkedah. He put the city and its king to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it. He left no survivors. And he did to the king of Makkedah as he had done to the king of Jericho. Then Joshua and all Israel with him moved on from Makkedah to Libnah and attacked it. The Lord also gave that city and its king into Israel’s hand. The city and everyone in it Joshua put to the sword. He left no survivors there. And he did to its king as he had done to the king of Jericho. Then Joshua and all Israel with him moved on from Libnah to Lachish; he took up positions against it and attacked it. The Lord gave Lachish into Israel’s hands, and Joshua took it on the second day. The city and everyone in it he put to the sword, just as he had done to Libnah. Meanwhile, Horam king of Gezer had come up to help Lachish, but Joshua defeated him and his army – until no survivors were left. Then Joshua and all Israel with him moved on from Lachish to Eglon; they took up positions against it and attacked it. They captured it that same day and put it to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it, just as they had done to Lachish. Then Joshua and all Israel with him went up from Eglon to Hebron and attacked it. They took the city and put it to the sword, together with its king, its villages and everyone in it. They left no survivors. Just as at Eglon, they totally destroyed it and everyone in it. Then Joshua and all Israel with him turned round and attacked Debir. They took the city, its king and its villages, and put them to the sword. Everyone in it they totally destroyed. They left no survivors. They did to Debir and its king as they had done to Libnah and its king and to Hebron. So Joshua subdued the whole region, including the hill country, the Negev, the western foothills and the mountain slopes, together with all their kings. He left no survivors. He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the Lord, the God of Israel, had commanded. Joshua subdued them from Kadesh Barnea to Gaza and from the whole region of Goshen to Gibeon. (Joshua 10:28-41)
Then Saul attacked the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, near the eastern border of Egypt. He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword. (1 Samuel 15:7-8)
We are not arguing that these actions were right or wrong, so we are not being anti-Christian in any way. The point is that are you willing to follow this kind of thinking, which would lead to an anti-Jew agenda? If it’s unjustified to have an anti-Jew agenda even though Jews have committed multiple genocides, then it’s unjustified to have an anti-White agenda even if a group of Whites – the Germans – attempted to commit genocide on the Jews. And if it’s justified to have an anti-Jew agenda because Jews have committed multiple genocides, then are you anti-Jew and are you promoting an anti-Jew agenda?
So, even if the Holocaust occurred, it still does not justify the anti-White agenda promoted by the Jewish-owned mainstream media; hence, such Jews should be opposed rather than pitied. To say it differently, you can accept the Holocaust yet still be an anti-Jew, such as an anti-Zionist; in our case, we are only anti-Zionist.
Some people ask, “why are all Holocaust sceptics Gentiles and anti-Semites?” Actually, we believe that not all who question the Holocaust are Gentiles and anti-Semites, but let’s skip this debate because it’s not that important, and here is why.
Even if all Holocaust sceptics were Gentiles and anti-Semites, it does not change the veracity or lack of veracity of the Holocaust. People can ask such a question, but they should not use it as some sort of “proof” that “it’s wrong to question the Holocaust” or that “the Holocaust occurred”: to do so is to commit a logical fallacy (non sequitur) because even if it’s true that “all Holocaust sceptics are Gentiles and anti-Semites”, that would not lead to the conclusion that “we should not question the Holocaust” or that “the Holocaust occurred”.
We’ll finish Section 2.3 by showing that the Holocaust is at least very suspicious for two reasons:
1. Anyone who merely questions the Holocaust (like when open-minded people question things) is severely punished, the punishment involving harsh verbal opposition (such as being called a “hater”), losing’s one’s job and reputation, and even being jailed. Why is there such extreme censoring?
2. The mainstream media, from which we get our information that “the Holocaust occurred”, just so happens to be mostly controlled by the ones who benefit from this Holocaust narrative. This could be a mere coincidence, but is it?
Let’s imagine that you suspect that Jacob stole your wallet and put it in his drawer. Naturally, you would want to look at his drawer to check if your wallet is inside. So, you tell him that you want to check his drawer, but he says that he did not steal your wallet. You then say, “really? Then let me see what’s inside”, and he defensively says, “no, you can’t!” You then say that you have good reason to believe that he stole your wallet and that it is hidden in his drawer, but again, he is defensive and says that you are wrong. You finally lose your patience and say, “then why don’t you just open your drawer and prove your point? Open your drawer, my wallet will not be inside, I will be proven wrong, I will apologise, and we move on with our lives. What’s so hard about that? I will open your drawer, then.” How does Jacob reply? Extra-defensively; he says “don’t even come close to my drawer! If you dare try to open it, I will make you pay for it!”
How would you feel in this situation? Wouldn’t your suspicion only get stronger?
It’s the same thing with the Holocaust, though. Some people have a suspicion that the Holocaust did not occur, at least not how it is commonly preached; besides, this is not a light matter. For example, if the Holocaust did not happen, then “Holocaust reparations” for the Jews were not justified, which means that the Jews should pay them back since they did not deserve such reparations. There is a lot on the line, so can’t we make sure we got the evidence right?
Let’s use decision theory. What do you have to lose by checking Jacob’s drawer?
The wallet is inside Jacob’s drawer
The wallet is not inside Jacob’s drawer
Check Jacob’s drawer
+100 (a lot to gain)
-1 (little to lose)
Do not check Jacob’s drawer
-100 (a lot to lose)
+1 (little to gain)
1. If you check Jacob’s drawer and the wallet is inside, then you have a lot to gain: your wallet with your money inside it.
2. If you check Jacob’s drawer and the wallet is not inside, then you have little to lose: you will have spent a little time on this and you will have to apologise to Jacob, but that’s not a big deal, we all make mistakes and there is nothing shameful about apologising.
3. If you do not check Jacob’s drawer and the wallet is inside, then you have a lot to lose: for example, you forfeit the chance to recover your wallet with your money inside it.
4. If you do not check Jacob’s drawer and the wallet is not inside, then you have little to gain: you will not have spent a little time on this and you do not have to apologise to Jacob.
So, isn’t it justified and worth it to check Jacob’s drawer? Of course!
It’s the same thing with the Holocaust, though.
Holocaust is a lie
Holocaust is true
Question the Holocaust
+100 (a lot to gain)
-1 (little to lose)
Do not question the Holocaust
-100 (a lot to lose)
+1 (little to gain)
1. If we question the Holocaust and the Holocaust is a lie, then we have a lot to gain: we can demand that all reparations given to Jews be returned to their rightful owners, such as the Germans, and we will not need to keep giving “Jewish reparations”; instead, we can spend that money on ourselves, our families, and others.
2. If we question the Holocaust and the Holocaust is true, then we have little to lose: we will have spent a little time on this and we will have to apologise, but that’s not a big deal, we all make mistakes and there is nothing shameful about apologising.
3. If we do not question the Holocaust and the Holocaust is a lie, then we have a lot to lose: for example, we gave away billions – if not trillions – of dollars to an unjust cause, instead of spending that money on ourselves and our families.
4. If we do not question the Holocaust and the Holocaust is true, then we have little to gain: we will not have spent a little time on this and we do not have to apologise.
So, isn’t it justified and worth it to question the Holocaust? Of course!
Have you noticed that the Holocaust is the only event in the history of humanity that is punishable by law if you merely question it?
This extreme censoring is by itself very suspicious. Isn’t it our right and duty to seek the truth, to investigate, and to consider all available evidence? There’s nothing to be scared about if the Holocaust is “certainly true” and the evidence “clearly proves it”, so why can’t we even research the Holocaust?
How would you feel if you were in a Christian society, and it was illegal to simply question the existence of Jesus, or if you were in an anti-Christian society that denied the existence of Jesus, and it was illegal to simply question the non-existence of Jesus? Either way would be very suspicious; it’s the same thing with the Holocaust, though.
Add another consideration to this already suspicious case. You have been told that the Holocaust occurred, perhaps multiple times and ever since you were a child, but whoever told you that had to rely on the media somehow: the media is what allows information to disseminate. However, who is in control of such media? Zionists, as we saw in Point 3, Section 1. Do you see how this is even more suspicious?
Zionists – who are beneficiaries of the Holocaust since it allows them to spend more money on their fellow Jews – are the ones who just so happen to also have control of the media outlets that we get our “Holocaust facts” from. Doesn’t it look very suspicious that the Zionists would be pushing this Holocaust-as-a-real-event agenda onto the public, that way they can keep receiving monetary benefits and they are pitied so they can continue to be a parasite, but no one dares question Zionists because “poor Jews, look how much they have suffered”?
It’s understandable – although immoral – for Zionists to prevent Holocaust research, and to arrest and oppress anyone who wants to research this issue: if it’s discovered that the Holocaust is a lie, that will probably be disastrous to Zionists.
Acknowledgment of Galileo’s conclusions [concerning the orbit of the Sun] would have utterly destroyed the very premise upon which his accusers based their political power. Acknowledgment of [David] Irving’s conclusions [that the Holocaust is a lie] would no less destroy the very premise upon which today’s tyrants base their political power. With no "Holocaust", the many billions of dollars in bogus "reparations" bilked from the German people to prop up the … state of Israel would no longer be justified. With no "Holocaust", the Jews would be exposed as the greatest liars of all time. With no "Holocaust", their high moral ground against all forms of criticism and exposure would be forever lost.
Again, it makes sense why Zionists might not want people to research the Holocaust – although if the Holocaust is a lie, then the Zionists should have the character to admit their mistakes and to correct themselves. Nevertheless, the puzzling part is why do Whites have a problem with those who want to research the Holocaust? White people, we have so much to gain if the Holocaust happens to be a mere fabrication, but how can we discover this if we are not allowed to investigate?
We are trying to help the White race by opening the Zionists’ drawer and perhaps showing all that they have stolen from White people! If we show that Zionists happen to be bad and parasitical, then sensible people will be opposed to them, which would help you have a better life since instead of the money being spent on the Jews for “Holocaust reparations”, for example, that money could be spent on you and your family!
To summarise, the Holocaust is at least very suspicious for two reasons:
1. Anyone who merely questions the Holocaust (like when open-minded people question things) is severely punished, the punishment involving harsh verbal opposition (such as being called a “hater”), losing’s one’s job and reputation, and even being jailed. Why is there such extreme censoring?
2. The mainstream media, from which we get our information that “the Holocaust occurred”, just so happens to be mostly controlled by the ones who benefit from this Holocaust narrative. This could be a mere coincidence, but is it?
What is the significance of Jews being able to portray themselves as Whites? It allows Jews – such as Jewish Zionists – to promote White guilt, White self-hatred, and other anti-White messages, since they give the false appearance of being Whites who are “so honourable” to engage in these anti-White attitudes and activities, and meanwhile, any White person who does not agree with them must be “dishonourable” and “evil” Whites. Many Whites fall for this trick just because they don’t want to be considered bad people, so they go along without even questioning if these anti-White messages are reasonable.
Before showing the many cases where Jews self-portray as Whites (Section 3.3), we’ll argue that it does not really matter if Jews are White because anti-White Jews should be opposed either way (Section 3.1), but nevertheless, Jews are not White (Section 3.2).
We’ll argue that Jews are not White (Section 3.2), but again, it does not really matter because we are still able to argue that we should be anti-Zionist even if Jews – including Jewish Zionists – are White.
“The Jews are White” can mean two things:
1. Jews are identical to Whites (“All Jews are Whites, and all Whites are Jews”)
2. Jews are a sub-group of Whites (“All Jews are Whites, but not all Whites are Jews”)
When people believe that “Jews are White”, they believe #2, not #1.
#1 would not make sense. For example, if being a Jew was the same as being White, then being anti-Jew would be the same as being anti-White; hence, anti-Jew Whites would be anti-White Whites (people who have White self-hatred). If you go against anti-Jew Whites, though, you admit that you are not going against White self-hatred, which shows that you don’t believe that Jews are identical to Whites. Thus, you reject #1.
Also, if you were to access and read an anti-Jew site, you would not think that such site was anti-White in any way, which means that you don’t believe that Whites and Jews are identical, so you reject #1.
Let’s look at #2, then, since this is the choice that people accept when they believe that “Jews are White”. In this case, the “anti-White agenda” would not be an agenda against Whites, but only against non-Jewish Whites, since such agenda is applicable to all Whites except Jews.
If this were the case, then the Jewish Zionists (who are Jewish Whites) should still be opposed by the non-Jewish Whites; Jewish Zionists would be like the evil sibling who is willing to destroy the other siblings (the non-Jewish Whites). In this case, for the sake of self-preservation, the other siblings should get together and put a stop to this evil sibling.
Hence, it doesn’t really matter if Jews are Whites because Zionists (including Jewish Zionists) are still bad and parasitical, so we should go against them: we should go against anyone who is evil, regardless of their race or sub-race.
Although it does not really matter whether the Jews are White, we’ll use simple methods to argue that Jews are not White.
1. All Whites are Gentiles.
2. No Jews are Gentiles.
Hence, no Jews are Whites.
From our experience, at least, those who believe that Jews are White accept the two premises; however, they lead to the conclusion that Jews are not White.
Imagine that you access an anti-Jew site, and this is written on its home page:
The Jews are a belligerent and sacrilegious bunch of egotistical devil worshipers, who engage in unbridled materialistic enjoyment of perverted worldly pleasures while contemplating their next megalomaniacal scheme and revelling in their ill-gotten gains!
Now, would you think that such site was anti-White in any way? No, which means that you don’t believe that Jews are White in any way. If you considered them to be White, you would have considered the site to be attacking Whites (more specifically, a White sub-race), but while you read the anti-Jew rant from such home page, in your mind White people never showed up as victims of this rant.
If you had come across an anti-Nordic or anti-Mediterranean site, for example, then you would have considered it to be an anti-White site since you believe that Nordics and Mediterraneans are White sub-races, but this was not the case for the anti-Jew site because you don’t believe that Jews are White, not even that Jews are a White sub-race.
From our experience, at least, many individuals believe that Jews are Semites (think of “anti-Semitism”) and that Semites are not Whites. Combine those two statements and you get this:
1. All Jews are Semites.
2. No Semites are Whites.
Hence, no Jews are Whites.
This method is for at least most Christians, who believe that “Jews are the chosen of God” and that “Whites are not the chosen of God” (“No Whites are the chosen of God”). When you combine these two claims, though, it leads to the conclusion that Jews are not White.
1. All Jews are the chosen of God.
2. No Whites are the chosen of God.
Hence, no Jews are Whites.
This method is for those who oppose any sort of “White supremacy”, such as the claim that “Whites are special”.
1. Any sort of claim that says that “Whites are special (including any sub-group within the White race)” should be opposed (such as through the media).
2. Jews are Whites.
Hence, the claim that “Jews are special” should be opposed (such as through the media).
If the Jews are Whites and you oppose any form of White supremacy, then start opposing Jewish supremacy as well because like “Nordic supremacy” and “Mediterranean supremacy”, for example, “Jewish supremacy” is another form of “White supremacy” since “Jews are Whites”, right? If you completely oppose White supremacy but you don’t oppose Jewish supremacy, then you believe that Jews are not Whites.
Interestingly, if Whites said that they were special, that they deserved special treatment, and that they were the chosen ones of God, that would have been called “racist” and “White supremacist”, and most importantly, it would be opposed by many people. However, when Jews do it, all of a sudden it’s not “racism” and “Jewish supremacy”, and most importantly, it’s not opposed by the same people who oppose “racism” and “White supremacy”.
We’ll finish Point 3 with a basic list from social media and a few additional examples.
This is not intended to be an exhaustive list of examples, but it should be enough. In some examples, the people are not necessarily pretending to be White, but we kept such examples because they are still interesting.
Tim Wise opposes “White supremacy” and wrote the book White like me. Tim Wise is Jewish: http://www.timwise.org/2014/12/tim-wise-on-the-rock-newman-show-race-and-racism-in-america-121014/ (45:59 - 46:02)
Here are two other Jews who self-identify as White, and in their articles, both criticise “racial injustice”, “White privilege”, and related issues:
On Yom Kippur, Jews take account of our souls, an intense reflective process called cheshbon hanefesh. This year, when I search my soul, I’ll be focused on confronting my own white privilege.
We need to acknowledge that over the last 50 years, Jews in America have benefited from white privilege.
My responsibility as a white American Jew becomes clear: to stand together with the black members of our American family.
(By Rabbi Jonah Dov Pesner; from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/10/11/as-jews-atone-on-yom-kippur-we-need-to-confront-our-white-privilege/?utm_term=.e8667c3ff02a)
My Jewish-American identity is defined by my religion as much as my whiteness. While I do not often think, write about, or actively engage with my whiteness, it is an omnipresent force in my life.
I normally don’t think much about my whiteness.
(By Benjy Cannon; from https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/jews-white-privilege-and-racism-in-u-s-1.5340307)
Point 4 is based on Points 1-3.
You can link this site to anyone and post it on the internet.
You can also print and distribute this:
We welcome your suggestions on how to improve this site. If we were not convincing, then we welcome your criticism, and if you are correct, then we’ll apologise and learn from our mistakes.
We would have liked to include a direct contact for any comment that you had, but we are confident that unfortunately there will be a lot of unproductive messages; hence, we decided not to include a direct contact.
But if you have a serious comment, there is an indirect way to contact us:
1. Include your comment (suggestion, critique, etc.) on any social media, such as Facebook, Twitter, Gab, etc. with the hashtag #AntiZionism_Resource — It’s best to also mention the section that you are commenting on.
2. Wait for your comment to reach us; if it is a serious comment, it will have a better chance, and we hope it reaches us.
This will help filter the serious comments from the ones that are not.
We apologise for any inconvenience, but at the same time, we don’t want to waste our time with unproductive messages, so this indirect form of contact is the best available option.
We are always open to debate, but that involves talking to open-minded people. No intelligent dialogue is possible with those who are devoted to their interests “no matter what”, even if sensible counter-arguments are presented.