Tell the Truth & Shame the Devil

by Tell the Truth

  Thus restricted and convinced that they are “Chosen People,” they naturally demonstrate the arrogance of ignorance.

  Two learned Jews, Moses Maimonides and Moses Mendelssohn, tried at different times to turn the teachings away from the Talmud and into more enlightened channels:

  Moses Maimonides drew up a famous code of the principles of Judaism and wrote, “It is forbidden to defraud or deceive any person in business. Judaist and non-Judaist are to be treated alike...What some people imagine, that it is possible to cheat a Gentile, is an error, and based on ignorance... Deception, duplicity, cheating and circumvention towards a Gentile are despicable to the Almighty, as ‘all that do unrighteously are an abomination unto the Lord thy God’.”

  The Talmudists denounced Maimonides to the Inquisition, saying: “Behold, there are among us heretics and infidels, for they were seduced by Moses Ben Maimonides.”

  At this bequest his books were burned in Paris and Montpellier, the book-burning edict of the Talmudic law thus being fulfilled. On his grave the words were incised, “Here lies an excommunicated Jew” (ibid. p.100).

  Moses Mendelssohn stated that “Judaism is not a Religion, but a Law Religionized.” He proclaimed the heresy that Jews, while retaining their faith, ought to become integrated with their fellow men. That meant breaking free from the Talmud and returning to the ancient religious idea of which the Israelite remonstrants had glimpses. His guiding thought was, “Oh, my brethren, follow the example of love, as you have till now followed that of hatred.”

  Mendelssohn prepared for his children a German translation of the Bible, which he then published for general use among Jews. The Talmudic rabbinate, declaring that “the Jewish youth would learn the German language from Mendelssohn’s translation, more than an understanding of the Torah,” put it under ban: “All true to Judaism are forbidden under penalty of excommunication to use the translation.” They then had the translation publicly burnt in Berlin. (ibid. p.101).

  The Jewish religion as it is today traces its descent, without a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees. Their leading ideas and methods found expression in a literature of enormous extent, of which a very great deal is still in existence. The Talmud is the largest and most important single piece of that literature … and the study of it is essential for any real understanding of Pharisaism. (Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, 1943) Pharasaism became Talmudism… But the spirit of the ancient Pharisee survives unaltered. The Talmud derives its authority from the position held by the ancient academies. (Rabbi Louis Finkelstein, 1937)

  Aside: hence “pharisaical” -- also means “hypocritical” (Thesaurus)

  The Talmud is to this day the circulating heart’s blood of the Jewish religion. Whatever laws, customs or ceremonies we observe — whether we are Orthodox, Conservative, Reform or merely spasmodic sentimentalists — we follow the Talmud. It is our common law. (Herman Wouk, New York Herald-Tribune, 1959)

  ***

  We hate Christianity and Christians. Even the best of them must be regarded as our worst enemies. They preach love of one’s neighbour and mercy, which is contrary to our principles. Christian love is an obstacle to the development of the revolution. Down with love of one’s neighbour. What we need is hatred; only thus shall we conquer the universe. (A.Lunacharsky, Marxist revolutionary and Soviet People’s Commissar of Education)

  III

  EXTINGUISHED: CIVILIZATION

  After a false start in 1993, when I was inspired to communicate anonymously my suggestion that conservative parties should moderate their politics in favour of the environment, thus undermining and making unnecessary Leftist pseudo “Green” parties, I delayed any direct contact with the National Zeitung until I read, in 2004, that the two main German right-wing parties, NPD and DVU, had joined forces. The junior of the two, the DVU, was the creation of Dr. Frey, the owner of the newspaper. The moment seemed propitious.

  I remember grinning like a fool, on the occasion of our first meeting, in late 2004. I felt immediately at home, all the more so, when I recognized a photograph of my grandfather on the topmost shelf of his bookcase. This bookcase extended around three sides of the room and almost to the ceiling. The fourth side was taken up with a glass door, giving onto a balcony. Here, his son photographed us together, my gargoyle grin still fixed. It felt as though I had finally landed in the right place, after all these years.

  At lunch, at one of his favourite Italian restaurants, I was able to put to him a few of the questions that had been bothering me about the war. Why, for instance, had the evacuation of Dunkirk been allowed to happen, when Hitler had the opportunity of capturing the entire British army? It had been a last gambit to gain some understanding with Britain, he said. In fact, Hitler had been duped since the Munich Agreement in September 1938 into believing that there existed in Britain a strong movement for appeasement and against war with Germany, a movement led by Chamberlain, which would outweigh in importance and effect Churchill’s warmongering faction. This illusion had been fostered by banker Kurt von Schroder, who backed the “Anglo-German Fellowship” (an organization to which many leading British industrialists and companies belonged.). Hence, Hitler’s reluctance to attack the British Expeditionary Force in its hopeless position on the beaches.

  This mistaken outlook also explains Rudolf Hess’s flight to Britain in May 1941, the ultimate attempt to proffer a peace plan before the June offensive against Russia. It was at Schroder’s house in Cologne, in January 1932 and January 1933 that the vital meetings occurred during which Hitler was assured of financial backing for the then bankrupt NSDAP, and of support for his chancellorship. (Schroder’s backing can ultimately be traced to N.M. Rothschild/the Bank of England -- The Secrets of the Federal Reserve, p. 92—even if Hitler knew of or guessed at the origins of this money, he may be presumed to have disregarded the injunctions attached to it.) Even if I had been conscious of these facts then, I doubt that Dr. Frey would have been willing to discuss them.

  “He (Hitler) then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilisation that Britain had brought into the world. He remarked, with a shrug of the shoulders, that the creation of its Empire had been achieved by means that were often harsh, but ‘where there is planing, there are shavings flying’. He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany’s position on the Continent. The return of Germany’s colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in difficulties anywhere.” (Historian Basil Liddell Hart, quoting General von Blumentritt about the Halt Order at Dunkirk, The Other Side of the Hill, Pan Books, 1983, p. 200).

  Eventually, Dr. Frey asked me if I would be interviewed for the paper. I accepted. At home again, I reflected that I didn’t want that one meeting to have been the sum of our acquaintance. I proposed that I write a regular column, entitled “Menuhin and the Way he sees the World.” Thus began a fruitful collaboration that lasted until October 2008. It only ended then because I was disappointed at his unwillingness to publish an interview I had just done with imprisoned lawyer Sylvia Stolz, which we had agreed in advance. It must have seemed too hot. In fact, his refusal led to a much wider exposure of the interview on the internet, where it was translated into French, Italian and English, from the original German.

  Civic courage against the Right is less courage against Rightist violence than—at least in terms of psychological warfare—violence against the Right, it does not need any particular courage. Courage was shown by Sylvia Stolz, who stood up against the political criminal court of the vassal Federal Republic and thus risked everything, her social existence, her profession, her freedom, if not her life. She unquestionably transgressed the limits of the Federal Republic, after which she was as good as an outlaw. She was prevented by �
�vassal’s justice”—in the name of the people—from fulfilling her mandate, unlawfully condemned and arrested in the courtroom. The judges who did this revealed themselves as unredeemable charlatans who deserve our contempt...She described Germany’s judicial position and that of the German Reich correctly. (Horst Karl August Lummert, Jewish commentator and author, yishmaelonline.Blogspot, August 1, 2008)

  Over time, doubts occurred to me about the whole-hearted commitment of Dr. Frey and his National Zeitung to the cause which I had automatically assumed we shared. In view of his ability to acquire the newspaper in 1952, at a time when the Allies must still have been particularly careful in their assignment of proprietorship of the media, over which they had complete control, one may wonder if Dr. Frey had made certain promises, signed certain undertakings, limiting the extent of his patriotic effusions. The publication has always distinguished its defence of traditional German values and the German Wehrmacht from nostalgia for National Socialism. However, these misgivings only arose later. At the outset, I was simply gratified to be able to add my voice in support of the truth.

  SHAEF law Nr. 191. Until the passage of new laws by the military government, the following is forbidden: the printing and distribution of newspapers, magazines, books, placards and other printed matter of all kinds, as well as the activity and operation of press correspondence offices and news agencies...

  To write implies an expectation that someone is going to read what one writes. In a time when a dwindling number of people read at all, Bulwer-Lytton’s expression “The pen is mightier than the sword” risks losing its relevance. Nevertheless, I hoped to make a difference, however slight. There was never any question of remuneration and, indeed, I found as I had before, during the years when I had occupied myself with training in architectural restoration, that being one’s own master allowed the kind of freedom of action and decision that working for pay within a structure could not. Of course, the paper imposed its own limitations. My contributions were edited to conform to German law, in particular, to the notoriously elastic “Absatz 130 Volksverhetzung” (lit. “incitement of the people,” more commonly known as “hate crime”), but I tried to push the barriers as far as I could. While the indisputable truth is available through many sites on the internet, Paragraph 130 ensures that anyone who propagates this truth will be prosecuted—you can know the truth, but you must not speak about it.

  Whereas previously the “Stammtisch” (regulars’ table) assumed a self-contained group of like-minded people, now, in some European countries—Switzerland, for example—you may share a thought with one other person, but even the interception by a third party might expose you to prosecution.

  Swiss law, 2007: “The national court has expressed itself in this matter thus: ‘Freedom of speech does not apply absolutely; according to Art. 10 §2 EMRK, it may be subjected to legal restraints, in so far as these are necessary for the maintenance of democratic order. Art. 261a penal code, like other determinations of the penal code, in this sense represents the legal limitations of the freedom of speech basically guaranteed by the EMRK. The courts are to interpret this determination according to the constitution.’” (Study commissioned by the National Commission against Racism, Bern 2007)

  The glaring contradiction of a claimed “democracy” in which freedom of speech is only relative has not deterred the dismal legal sycophants who fabricated this travesty of a law. And what is this “EMRK”? It is the “Human Rights Convention,” that fancy-sounding old subterfuge for societal repression, in league with Switzerland’s “Eidgenössischen Kommission gegen Rassismus” or “National Commission against Racism,” an extra-parliamentary committee, headed since its creation in 1993 (not coincidentally just before the introduction of the Swiss Antiracism Law 261a, in September, 1994) by a certain George Kreis, always in the forefront on such questions. So this tenured fifth columnist and his self-important organization have induced the Swiss people to muzzle themselves. Human Rights really mean the Rights of Jews.

  Memo from today: February 20, 2015. The Swiss National Council (government) has announced that it has been working for eight years on the implementation of an “opinions authority” (“Gesinnungsbehörde”). This comprehensive project has as goal, with the help of so-called “monitoring-intruments,” systematically and over the long-term, to collect racist and discriminating tendencies in Switzerland. So the Swiss government plans to spend public money to observe and survey Swiss citizens by means of a kind of “thought-police,” with a view to capturing and presumably censoring their mental dispositions.

  Memo from today, April 2, 2015. Switzerland in the news again: A banner with the inscription “Football Frees” at the Super-League game on Thursday at Luzern’s Allmend is bothering the state prosecutor’s office. It is checking whether the fans of St. Gallen football club have contravened the law on racism. By their possibly unintended but humourous allusion to the all-too-familiar “Arbeit Macht Frei,” the unfortunate Swiss football club may have broken this superfluous law.

  “Work Will Set You Free” (“Arbeit Macht Frei”) reads the sign over the gate at the Auschwitz work camp. What few people realize is that good behavior and work habits actually could set you free. Many prisoners were released during the war, “showing that the purpose of the camps was rehabilitation and reform, not torture and repression.” (THE BARNES REVIEW, January/February 2001 issue, “The Facts About the Origins of the Concentration Camps and Their Administration,” by Stephen A. Raper.

  “Mandatory tolerance.” As part of the ongoing enforced re-education of the planet, a 12-page “European Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance,” document was produced in 2012 (“submitted with a view to being enacted by the legislatures of European states”), by a team headed by a professor from Tel Aviv. Although published under the logo of the EU, it was steered by an Israeli Jew. Apparently discretion is no longer necessary: Jews are right out in front and in the lead in the promotion of their own brand of tolerance, of which Israel does not yet possess a monopoly on the word’s re-definition, but surely dominates its own singular understanding of it.

  The document has been officially presented to public by ECTR (European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation) Chairman Alexander Kwasniewski and ECTR Co-Chairman Viatcheslav Kantor (another one) on October 16, 2012 in Brussels and later has been passed to Martin Schulz, President of the European Parliament (a diligent lackey). Talking of the need for “rules, proposals, laws” to make tolerance mandatory across the EU, Kantor introduced ECTR’s proposals for a general law of tolerance.

  ***

  Balkan leaders honoured for “tolerance, honesty, moral courage, and reconciliation” at European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation ceremony. European Jewish Press, October 16, 2012. (Wikipedia)

  ***

  The ECTR held a Round Table Meeting in Moscow on October 25, 2011. Russian and international experts discussed issues of paramount importance connected with the current status, aspects and promotion of tolerance in Europe and in Russia. The experts also touched on such topics as the boundaries of tolerance, etc., etc.

  So now we have “experts” on tolerance.

  In October 2012 Viatcheslav Moshe Kantor introduced ECTR’s proposals for a general law of tolerance, which was presented at an official ceremony in the presence of European Parliament President Martin Schulz, as well as the two recipients of the European Medal of Tolerance. Expanding on the Model Law for Promotion of Tolerance, a version of which it seeks to make mandatory across all 27 member states, Chair of the Task Force in charge of its inception Yoram Dinstein (another one) said that “tolerance is the glue that cements together the bond between distinct groups in a single society.” (Wikipedia)

  Apart from the redundancies in this sentence, there is no “bond between distinct groups in a single society.” That is why one can speak about “distinct groups in a single society.” If anything, it is the glue of universal, unredeemable debt that binds all societies toge
ther. (author’s italics)

  Aside: the overuse of the word “Tolerance” in the context of Jew-legitimated behaviour has reduced its meaning and its worth to nil. I propose that the word “Tangerine” be substituted, as it also has three syllables and is at least as expressive. By the way, German Minister of Finance Wolfgang Schäuble and publisher Hubert Burda (“Through his active involvement in Partners in Tolerance, Burda supports Steven Spielberg’s Shoah Foundation” —Wikipedia) received this year’s “Prize for Understanding and Tolerance,” from the Jewish Museum in Berlin, proving that they are performing satisfactorily. So that’s all right. (Author’s italics)

  Of course such laws have nothing to do with the aforementioned common sense, and everything to do with special interests. This must be the case; else any reflective person must ask himself if the world has gone mad. What kind of legal system—after centuries of progressive and rational development-- can be coerced into passing laws that allow people to be imprisoned merely for voicing an opinion, or for offending someone’s sensibilities? These suppressive laws themselves are only based on inculcated belief.

  “Today’s historiography is just a belief. A belief that is supported by criminal law.” (Hermann Göring’s closing words at Nuremberg show trial)