Myself and Deanna discussed the issue of the jew as the ultimate materialist (i.e. the egocentric jew) and I was delighted that she brought up a guest she had had on the show some days before who was a jewish former lobbyist who got caught, served time in prison and was now promoting the general corruption of the US government. I thought it was a well-made point that; as Goethe said, theory is grey but life is green. Or put into simpler language: theory and experience must operate in a symbiotic relationship with experience governing the contours of theory and theory providing the paradigm that informs the views in which experience has to operate.
It served to reinforce the point I was making that jews have little to no understanding of the consequences of their actions when they do not conform to their own expectations of how they will work out. So for example when a jew decides to cheat someone they will tend to presume that such a motive and action is untraceable to them because of all the precautions they have taken, but if they are caught then they will promptly deny any wrong-doing until they are blue in the face.
However once it is proven beyond doubt that that is what they have done jews tend to have one of two responses: either they go on simply denying it using all their powers to do so (like the miniature ultra-Zionist lobby around imprisoned Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard claiming he is innocent) or reinvent themselves as "'whistle-blowers'" or former"'insiders' "who are now telling the" 'truth'" to the world about their experiences like Deanna's guest. That this is more or less the same behaviour as their previous incarnation doesn't seem to be frequently realised however it is simply the same instinct for personal reinvention and ruthless entrepreneurship/exploitation (whichever way you look at business) that jews show on a vast scale.
I covered this dynamic of jewishness in a little detail; although not as much as I would normally have liked to given its key importance in understanding the jewish question today, however time was limited and I wanted to discuss the other themes of Ford's "'The International Jew'". We covered the jewish historical habit of changing their names, discussed some brief examples and also some tips on how to spot a jew by their name.
Deanna caught me slightly off guard when she brought up the surname "'Black'" as a jewish surname so it took me a few moments to come up with a plausible explanation in the German for" 'Black' "(Schwartz) which could be anglicised as" 'Black' "although as I made clear I hadn't seen many examples of such as jews have a tendency to leave it as simply"'Schwartz' "as it sounds perfectly European and non-jewish.
We moved on to discussing the issues around the Kol Nidre ("'All Vows'") and Ford's thesis on it in" 'The International Jew' "where I pointed out that Neil Baldwin's" 'counter argument' "in "'Henry Ford and the Jews' "was rather ignorant and not only misrepresented Judaism but was in a fact a tautology. (2)
I also pointed out; in again less detail than I would have liked to, that Ford's article on the Kol Nidre was substantially correct and that; in spite of a few minor factual slips that would have been defensible at the time, is still a very credible argument that can be utilized with an appropriate knowledge of the halakha surrounding the issue of jewish oaths and vows in the Mishnah and Gemara.
In relation to this I briefly pointed out that most modern critics of jews and Judaism don't really know enough about either of these texts to quote from them or try to interpret them given that jews themselves spend years studying these huge texts in order to merely become proficient in them. As such it is worthwhile further elucidating that when debating jews unless you know these texts relatively well bringing up Talmudic quotes is going to land you trouble because jews have been producing half-truthful Talmudic debunks for quite some time and have probably heard your claim before and have a ready-made answer for it. Thus forcing the ball back into your court when you have little left to bat it back with but invective.
This is a point I have made several times before but in order to debate jews you have to make sure you study them a little and don't just walk straight into the many intellectual ambushes they have prepared over the decades for you. Remember that history waits for no man and as such if you walk into such an ambush unprepared there will be no intellectual mercy from the jews or philo-Semites and nor should you expect any.
In the cut and thrust of intellectual combat there is only one fundamental rule: anything goes.
This is something that Deanna and myself came back to when we took callers with the indomitable Werner calling in to express his outrage at the jews and pointing out that if any other nation had been doing what the Israelis have been doing to the Palestinians then the UN and NATO would have striking with their full force against them rather molly-coddling them. I felt the point that Werner made was typically excellent as he expressed the hypocrisy of the West in allying against Syria, Iran and Libya without also allying against Israel in a beautiful rhetorical contrast that could not have failed to give the listener pause for thought.
Then we had a longish call from a soft-spoken lady who expressed an admiration for Andrew Carrington-Hitchcock's work" 'The Synagogue of Satan'" and asked about Freemasonry its relation with Judaism and gave two quotes from jewish publications. I expressed the view that both the quotes were accurate (as I have checked them in the past) and that Freemasonry did indeed have jewish roots as it dates itself (probably unreliably but never-the-less suggestively) from the builders of the Temple of Solomon and that there have been several major Freemasonic organisations that have been exclusively for jews such the Lodge of the B'nai Brith (who founded the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith).
She also asked about local activism to which I replied that the key was to oppose our enemies on a local level and to take personal responsibility for the struggle against them: one cannot fight a war by oneself but if you are fighting alongside a lot of people who are aiming in approximately the same direction then you are going to act as force multipliers to each other and eventually force the evolution of a united front against the enemies of the West. Too many people try to go into this struggle at the top level of macro (i.e. presidential) level politics rather than sacrificing their egoistic pretensions and looking to what they can do now not when they have a few thousand non-existent followers.
It is the fundamental cancer afflicting the patriotic movement in North America as it is in a sense what Ford called it: "'distilled Judaism'". Or put more simply: everybody wants to be the President and nobody wants to be the technician doing the sound-check before a press conference. That has to fundamentally change if we are to be victorious in this struggle against the enemies of the West and as a European immigrant to America perhaps it is more obvious to me as a proverbial" 'outsider looking in'". It is time to ask yourself not who will serve you but rather what you can do now.
The last caller was a chap who talked about the need to differentiate between Zionists and "'Torah True'" jews. It was the only time in the entire show that I vehemently disagreed with something someone else had said in that he tried to suggest; quite innocently I think, that just because a jew is religiously opposed to Zionism ("'Torah True'") they are therefore non-objectionable.
I clarified the error in this thinking by highlighting the fact that said "'Torah True' "jews actually believe precisely the same things as secular and religious Zionists, but where they differ is in trying to force Hashem's hand. So what secular and religious Zionists believe essentially is forcing history and/or Hashem's hand by recreating the historic jewish kingdom (i.e. they are "'divinely-inspired'") on earth and thus artificially creating the conditions for what is called "'Messianic Times' "in Judaism i.e. when the jewish Messiah's arrival is deemed to be imminent and thus jews are entitled to begin to throw off the gentile yoke and begin their rule of the material world early. While"'Torah True'" jews merely strongly disagree with forcing Hashem's hand and believe that the Messiah will turn up on his own and lead them back to the holy land: indeed they view Zionist actions as prolonging the Diaspora not cutting it short.
So then as I summarised the difference between secular and religious Zionists and" 'Torah True'" jews is not a matter of if but rather when. They are hardly very different: one just proposes waiting while the other refuses to do so.
All in all I thought it was a thoroughly enjoyable and educational experience for me and I hope the listeners found it as enjoyable and educational as I did. I'll be back on with Deanna soon.
REFERENCES
(1) You can listen to this at the RBN archives:
Tags: powerful voodoo dolls multiple personalities 3 laban mo laban natin merlin et lepee excalibur time consciousne pope peter last pope more evidence that abstinence
