The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/s/savage.rick/1994/rs.1194


Archive/File: fascism/identity rs.1194
Last-Modified: 1995/02/27

Article 10 of alt.politics.nationalism.white:
Xref: oneb alt.politics.nationalism.white:10 alt.skinheads:10150
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.skinheads
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rsavage
From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
Subject: On the nature of the problem
Message-ID: 
Followup-To: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.skinheads
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References:  
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 16:42:02 GMT
Lines: 350

Tom Lathrop (tlathrop@netcom.com) wrote:

: The real problem has nothing to do with the Jews.  The real problems
: are the Third World population explosion, the low white birth-rates in
: far as I am concerned, and as far as just about every white person I've
: ever discussed the matter with is concerned, Jews are white.  And on a
: personal level, although (as far as I am aware) I don't have a drop of
: Jewish blood in me, I am nevertheless totally unwilling to accept a
: definition of the White race which excludes someone like Albert
: Einstein!

     The real problem has nothing to do with "Jews" as individuals and 
people but rather their religion.  If you don't understand that then you 
will never rise above emotionally conditioned responses of fear to 
name-callers who throw around self-serving accusations of "antisemitism".  
     A healthy body throws off and expells parasites and does not fear 
them.  Productive people do not naturally aspire to parasitical 
professions such as laywers, politicians, usury-banking finaciers and 
mind-bending psycho-ANALysists (are you going to lament the loss of 
Freud to your defintiition of the "White" race aslo?).  Creators of real 
values grow, produce and manufacture things that build wealth.  Theives 
become "professionals" and leech off real wealth through confidence games 
that produce nothing of value.
     Because you have no understanding of religion, you have no 
understanding of law which makes you ignorant of the cause of all our 
REAL problems.  Third-world immigration and birth-rates and low rates of 
the same in whites is a SYMPTOM of the real causes for the national 
decay.  A national identity is founded on a world-view that encompases 
all areas of life.  If you don't have a solid philosophy/religion of law 
you don't have any basis to judge what is right and wrong, good or evil, 
productive or destructiove.

: the US and elsewhere, and the destruction of Western self-confidence
: that followed World War II and the Holocaust.  The latter certainly
: involved the Jews, but it was not their fault, but ours.  The sooner we
: can accept that, the sooner we can put it behind us.  But as long as we
: try to explain our problems by blaming them on the Jews we will
: continue to alienate the reasonable, moderate whites we so desperately
: need to have on board if our cause is to have any chance at all of
: success!

      You need to study more history from an economic perspective to 
discover who profits.  If you can't understand the economics of war you will 
never pinpoint the true guilt and reasons for any war.  "The root of all 
evil is the love of money...."

: This is rule number one!  We *must* appeal to moderate whites, or we
: are dead!  Weird-ass antisemitism is not the way!!!

     Moderate whites will only be moved to act when things finnally 
disrupt their mindless pleasures and sense of security.  You will not 
convince them of anything when you are ruled by fear.  Your fear is 
understandable in light of your lack of understanding of the real problem 
at the root of all the symptoms you want to complian about.

: In article ,
: Rick Savage  wrote:
: >From anonymous FTP site:    ftp.netcom.com /pub/SFA
: >-----------------------------------------
: > 
: >PICKING AT SCABS
: >   -- Our Judeo-Fiction Heritage
: >        "If a man cannot forget, he will never amount to much" 
: >             --Soren Kierkegaard
: > 
: >     A recurring theme in Instauration is the judaization of America 
: >or words to that effect.  I suspect that most of us have some pretty 
: >vivid notions of what that means.  We could point to Jewish 
: >control of the media and finance (and degradation of same), Israeli 
: >influence on foreign policy, Holocaust sanctification, the 
: >predictable yammering of the ACLU and the ADL and Clinton's 
: >cabinet appointments and Supreme Court nominees.  
: >     More important are Jewish influences that are not just "alien" 
: >to us, but infect and transform us so completely we start to exhibit 
: >Jewish behavior.  Here we could mention hucksterism and fast 
: >bucksterism, the mounting rudeness and abrasiveness of daily life, 
: >an intolerable increase in conspicuous consumption while taste 
: >and restraint are nose-diving, the collapse of ethics, the 
: >proliferation of lawsuits and the over-emphasis on groins and 
: >loins in popular culture.  Jews may have blazed the trails, but all 
: >too many of us have followed them, almost oblivious to the fact 
: >that the aforementioned trails are anathema to an advanced 
: >civilization.
: >     Another Jewish trait that permeates American society is the 
: >"Never Forget Syndrome."  I like to call it picking at scabs.
: >     There's a reason why your mother told you to leave your scabs 
: >alone.  First of all, it isn't polite to pick, your scabs in public.  
: >More importantly, if you leave the scabs alone, they eventually fall 
: >off.  In time, you'll never know a scab used to be there.  (Note that 
: >Melville's Captain Ahab -- a sorely wounded Gentile who suffered 
: >from the "Never Forget" syndrome -- was named after a Hebrew 
: >king.)  But no matter how big the scab, if you pick at it, it will 
: >never heal -- worse yet, it may become infected.  By choosing to 
: >pick scabs, the Chosen render themselves as pustulous as they are 
: >pushy.  And the contagion has spread to the Majority.
: >     From Freud to the latest Jewish headshrinker on the nonfiction 
: >bestseller list, Jews have achieved fame and fortune by convincing 
: >us to pick at every scab -- real or imaginary -- long after the injury 
: >-- real or imaginary.
: >     There is a two-step process at work here.  First you convince 
: >'em they're sick, then you sell 'em the cure!  It's an unbeatable 
: >combination.
: >     The Holocaust survivor is an all-too-familiar figure reaching 
: >back 50 years or more into his memory bank and bringing out 
: >atrocity after atrocity.  Ah, but now the Holocaust survivor has 
: >company -- lots of it.  And most of it belongs to the Majority.  
: >The semitized bestsellers and TV talk shows allow even the most 
: >seemingly normal person to major in victimology.  We have 
: >people claiming to have witnessed hundreds of murders during 
: >satanic rituals, though no remains are ever found.  Alien 
: >abductions are a real problem, but I'm referring to Latino 
: >carjacking, rap and murder, not abductions of the "Beam me up, 
: >Jose'" variety.
: >     The thousand and one shocks the flesh was heir to in Hamlet's 
: >time have grown apace.  Today we must be up to at least a million 
: >and one.  But you wouldn't have a clue as to what they are if you 
: >stuck to the TV talk shows that specialize in victim/survivors 
: >picking their scabs in public:
: >     - They called me fatso and hurt my feelings!
: >     - My dad never told me he loved me!
: >     - My parents use racial slurs when no one else is around.
: >     - They said I wasn't pretty enough to make the cheerleading 
: >squad.
: >     - My mother wouldn't accept my black boyfriend.
: >     - My supervisor fondled my buttocks!
: >     And the scabs of the fathers are visited upon the sons.  Note 
: >how we now have not only Holocaust victims but children and 
: >grandchildren of Holocaust victims -- perhaps not so surprising 
: >considering Yahweh's wrath toward not just evildoers but their 
: >offspring.  In the year 2025 will we tun in holograph sets and sit 
: >among a solemn talk show gathering of great-grandchildren of 
: >Auschwitz inmates?
: >     Don't bet against it.  Multi-generational whining is all the rage.  
: >We not only have Alcoholics Anonymous but organizations for 
: >the spouses and teenage children of boozers.  The gays and 
: >lesbians not only have their own organizations, so do their parents 
: >and children.
: >     One of the sorriest trends in pop psychology is the concept of 
: >pain sharing.  "I feel your pain," is now the equivalent of "I'm so 
: >sorry."  This is the height of idiocy.  Pain is to be RELIEVED, 
: >not shared, just as a disease is to be cured, not spread.  Would 
: >you want to share someone else's HIV virus or E. coli?  Perhaps 
: >this trend explains why we haven't quarantined AIDS victims.  We 
: >want to share their pain.
: >     Hard to believe that we used to be a hearty people.  Ask 
: >yourself if you or anyone you know would even attempt to cross 
: >North America in a wagon train.  AT the first broken wheel, we 
: >would sue the wheelwright.  Indian attack?  Sue the wagonmaster 
: >for not protecting us.  
: >     Have you ever noticed how that as Gentiles age they start to 
: >resemble Jews?  As the body ages and loses its tone, it assumes a 
: >wizened, shriveled look.  Many elderly people are complainers, 
: >evoking good old days when they had their health, before they 
: >made a lifetime of mistakes of the "If I knew then what I know 
: >now" variety.
: >     Catholics will literally light a candle rather than curse the 
: >darkness but Jews prefer the histrionics of the wailing wall.  
: >Curiously, they seem to do so not for the purpose of catharsis but 
: >for the perverse joy of wallowing in pain.  But Jews aren't the only 
: >ones with a wailing wall these days.  Have you seen those TV 
: >news stories of Vietnam vets at their own wailing wall -- the 
: >Vietnam Memorial in Washington, D.C.?  Is there anything more 
: >pathetic than the sight of a middle-aged white man in fatigues, 
: >blubbering away about his war experiences of a quarter century 
: >ago.   (Note that relatively few blacks are videotaped visiting the 
: >wall -- even though it's in the heart of D.C.!)
: >     Now I can hear someone objecting that the Vietnam Memorial 
: >is just the latest in a long line of war memorials.  Not so.  A 
: >generation after WWII, you didn't see veterans lingering around 
: >memorials to their war and bawling their eyes out.  You didn't see 
: >the mothers of dead soldiers still grieving.  Actually, it's not so 
: >much that the memorials have changed.  WE have changed.  
: >Generations ago people got on with their lives.  Now we're too 
: >busy picking at scabs.
: >     Thanks to a student deferment and a high draft lottery number, 
: >I was spared the Vietnam experience, so I may not be qualified to 
: >pronounce judgment on lachrymose vets.  Still, it strikes me their 
: >response is not normal.  Here I defer to a recently deceased 
: >WWII veteran who once described to me the three stages of 
: >combat grief:
: >     The first time you see a buddy get killed, it's "Oh, my God!  
: >My best friend!  He's dead!"
: >     The second time, it's "Oh, geez, too bad." 
: >     And the third time, it's "Whew, glad it wasn't me."
: >     Throughout the vast charnel house of history -- of wars, 
: >famines, plagues, natural disasters and changing neighborhoods -- 
: >there's mores than enough heartache to go around.  Most cultures 
: >provide a specified period of mourning, but in semitized America, 
: >we can never forget.  (We are, however, constantly advised to 
: >deep-six the Old South and the Stars and Bars, even though "Old 
: >times there are not forgotten.")  Too many of us have become 
: >emotionally disabled for life.  Note the terms "incest survivor" or 
: >"rape survivor" as opposed to "incest victim" or "rape victim."  
: >Well, why wouldn't you survive?  As brutal and repulsive as these 
: >activities may be, they are not usually life-threatening.  But the 
: >term "survivor" magnifies the seriousness of the wound and the 
: >deadliness of the perpetrator.  Anything to maximize sympathy.
: >     So let's look at the Holocaust afresh.  Forget the body count 
: >and let the Jews assert that Six Million Jews died in concentration 
: >camps.  Then let us utter the time-honored words, "So what?"
: >     Insensitive?  Maybe so, but the next time you're in a crowd, say 
: >at a stadium, a shopping mall, a subway concourse at rush hour or 
: >a beach on a holiday weekend, take a look at all the people within 
: >your field of view.  Out of the thousands that you see, every one 
: >will feel pain at various stages of his life -- guaranteed!  And every 
: >one will die -- guaranteed!  Black and white, Jew and Gentile, 
: >homo and hetero, male and female -- every last one of them.  But 
: >once the dead have been buried, it's time to abandon funeral dirges 
: >and funeral urges.  Listen, Hymie, they've made great progress in 
: >tattoo removal since you were in that camp.  You could at least 
: >cover it up with another tattoo, say, a heart with "My Yiddische 
: >Momma" emblazoned on it.  Whether the body count is 6 or 
: >6,000,000, they've been gone for almost 50 years.  So enough of 
: >those bladder-buster feature films (Swindler's List is a mere 195 
: >minutes.  The Sorrow and the Pity (1970) ran 260 minutes.  
: >Shoah (1985) lasted 503 minutes).  Of course, all three movies are 
: >routinely given four stars by the reviewers.  Could any group of 
: >people on this planet render abject misery in such wall-to-wall 
: >detail?  What other group would even try?
: >     As time goes by, it becomes all too easy to stockpile 
: >resentments and disappointments.  Some may be profound, others 
: >trivial.  But they mount up relentlessly and inevitably.  You can't 
: >totally ignore them but you can, in the current parlance, "Get a 
: >life!"  It is not that unusual to find people who operate under dire 
: >handicaps yet still remain cheerful and productive.  On the other 
: >hand, the chronic complainer usually has it no worse than 
: >anybody else.
: >     All females are victims/survivors to a large degree.  They 
: >surpass men in rote memory and have an uncanny ability to recall 
: >every slight, every insult.  Men tend to have more selective 
: >memories.  Women bruise easier than men -- emotionally as well 
: >as physically.  They are too thin-skinned, literally and figuratively.  
: >Men, with thicker skins (and thicker skulls, I can hear the distaff 
: >reader adding) can withstand pain better.  But you better not say, 
: >"Be a man!" to a male today.  That exhortation can get you in big 
: >trouble in some circles.
: >    The white man, at least if he is of Northern European descent, 
: >constantly derided by those of darker hue because he is too 
: >restrained, too repressed, too uptight, too anal retentive.  (Thank 
: >you, Sigmund, what would we do without such colorfully 
: >descriptive phrases.)  In view of the link between light-colored 
: >eyes and hesitation and inhibition, Nordics are constitutionally 
: >able to suffer pain in silence.  This may be the cause of our 
: >greatest failing.  Look at how patient we are with the depredations 
: >of minorities.  Ironically, despite Instauration's exaltation of 
: >Nordics, a serious white consciousness movement will probably 
: >have brown-eyed foot soldiers!
: >     Until recently, we didn't burden others with our tales of woe.  
: >The "stiff upper lip" used to denote courage.  Now the trembling 
: >lower lip is more common, as the worst examples of human 
: >wreckage are congratulated for their "courage" when they appear 
: >on talk shows and rip apart their old wounds on national 
: >television.  "Well," gushes the talk show host, "it certainly took 
: >COURAGE for you to come on our show and tell us how you 
: >were anally raped by inmates for twenty years at Leavenworth."
: >     The talk show circuit is heavily semitized, but the damage to 
: >Majority sensibilities doesn't stop with this kind of 
: >"entertainment."  Do you think we would have been treated to so 
: >many instant replays of Rodney King getting his comeuppance if 
: >the TV networks weren't run by the Chosen?  Would the rabble 
: >have responded so rabidly if the images in that famous blow-by-
: >blow videotape hadn't been seared into their collective 
: >consciousness?  If Rodney King had been Shlomo Schwartz, the 
: >videotape would still be running.
: >     The Jew is an emotional hypochondriac.  As he exerts more 
: >and more influence over our popular culture, the unique character 
: >of his tribe becomes more and more evident.  Originally, Woody 
: >Allen was going to call "Annie Hall" by another name:  
: >"Anhedonia."  This is a clinical term for an affliction in which an 
: >individual is unable to feel pleasure.  A born scab-picker, that 
: >Woody!
: >     Whatever their accomplishments as scientists, Jews are not 
: >known as outstanding naturalists.  Too bad, because they could 
: >learn something.  Snakes shed their skin, birds moult, trees lose 
: >their leaves, cells die and are replaced by more dead skin.  This is 
: >renewal.  This is normal.  This is life.
: >     Note that blisters eventually give way to calluses if friction 
: >continues.  This is the normal course of events.  However, this 
: >does not mean that the subject must become callous.  The callus is 
: >designed to protect the blister from further injury.  The callous 
: >individual, despite the linguistic similarity, is generally someone 
: >who INFLICTS pain in others.  His best defense is offensive 
: >behavior. 
: >     Perhaps now we can see the unbridgeable chasm between 
: >Christianity and Judaism.  Christianity is life.  Judaism is death.  
: >We can argue forever about whether Christ was a Jew.  Either 
: >way, his teachings were aimed at Jews -- the people who needed it 
: >most.  "Look, you Jews, life doesn't have to be like this.  There's 
: >another way."  Perhaps this is the most compelling reason to 
: >believe that Christ was not a Jew.  If he had been, he would have 
: >picked at those Crucifixion wounds and they never would have 
: >healed.
: >     There is a long tradition of healing in Christianity and 
: >paganism.  I'm no Biblical scholar, but from what I remember in 
: >my readings, healing didn't play a big part in the Old Testament.  
: >Gnashing of teeth, rending of garments, beating of breasts, 
: >lamentations, and imprecations were common behavior patterns.  
: >Of course, in the New Testament, the Jews had a lot to complain 
: >about, since they were living under Roman occupation.  But since 
: >they weren't buying Christ's message, his apostles took it to the 
: >Gentiles.  Lazarus was literally brought back from the dead; the 
: >"live" Jews weren't so lucky.  The scales had to fall from Saul's 
: >eyes before he saw the light.  Then came the Diaspora, when Jews 
: >packed their bags and picked their scabs -- and they still haven't 
: >stopped.  Christianity, when transplanted to pagan cultures, 
: >frequently blends with the local beliefs.  Judaism and those who 
: >espouse it are unassimilable.
: >     The normal organism tries to avoid bodily distress.  Picking at 
: >scabs prolongs bodily distress.  It is an unnatural attempt to 
: >reverse the out-with-the-old, in-with-the-new process.  Worse, it 
: >increases the possibility of infection.  And infection, if not treated 
: >or held in check by a strong immune system, will eventually kill 
: >the organism.
: >     You have been warned.
: > 
: >- Judson Hammond, INSTAURATION, September 1994
: >  Published by Howard Allen Enterprises, Inc.
: >  Box 76, Cape Canaveral, FL 32920
: >  Annual Subscription:
: >    $35 (third class)
: >    $43 (First class)
: >    $43 Canada
: >    $47 foreign (surface)
: >    $66 foreign (air)
: >  Single copy price $4, postpaid.
: >  Make checks payable to Howard Allen.
: >  Florida residents, please add %6 sales tax
: > 
: >-----------------------------------------
: >Get the "Identity.faq" and many other files by
: >anonymous FTP from:    ftp.netcom.com /pub/SFA
: >-----------------------------------------
: >
: >-- 
: > _____________________Rick Savage ______________________
: >|     Access this ftp site for many interesting files:      Rick Savage     | 
: >|  Anonymous FTP server:  ftp.netcom.com  -  cd /pub/SFA    PO Box 5251     |
: >|       Gov't, history, law, Bible, socialissues          Denver, CO 80217  |


: -- 
: ===================================================================
: Tom Lathrop         | Politics:  A strife of interests masquerading
: tlathrop@netcom.com | as a contest of principles. -- Ambrose Bierce
: ===================================================================
-- 
 _____________________Rick Savage ______________________
|    Important files on life, liberty and happiness:        Rick Savage     | 
|  Anonymous FTP server:  ftp.netcom.com  - "cd pub/SFA"    PO Box 5251     |
|       Gov't, history, law, Bible, socialissues          Denver, CO 80217  |


Article 18452 of alt.revisionism:
Xref: oneb alt.politics.nationalism.white:15 alt.revisionism:18452 alt.skinheads:10176
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!psgrain!nntp.ski.mskcc.org!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Picking at Scabs
In-Reply-To: rsavage@netcom.com's message of Fri, 28 Oct 1994 01:42:43 GMT
Message-ID: 
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References: 
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 07:01:36 GMT
Lines: 131


From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
>We could point to Jewish 
>control of the media and finance

We could, but then someone might ask us to document this claim and it
all falls apart, so we won't...

[remarkably brainless blatant anti-semitism mostly ignored...]

>Have you seen those TV 
>news stories of Vietnam vets at their own wailing wall -- the 
>Vietnam Memorial in Washington, D.C.?  Is there anything more 
>pathetic than the sight of a middle-aged white man in fatigues, 
>blubbering away about his war experiences of a quarter century 
>ago.

So Savage, what unit did you serve with? I forget.

>(Note that relatively few blacks are videotaped visiting the 
>wall -- even though it's in the heart of D.C.!)

Actually, no, I've never noted that.

>     Now I can hear someone objecting that the Vietnam Memorial 
>is just the latest in a long line of war memorials.  Not so.  A 
>generation after WWII, you didn't see veterans lingering around 
>memorials to their war and bawling their eyes out.

Really?

You haven't been to any Memorial Day ceremonies apparently.

> You didn't see 
>the mothers of dead soldiers still grieving.  Actually, it's not so 
>much that the memorials have changed.  WE have changed.  

No, it's that you should have changed.

>     Thanks to a student deferment and a high draft lottery number, 
>I was spared the Vietnam experience, so I may not be qualified to 
>pronounce judgment on lachrymose vets.

Oh maybe not, but it didn't stop you, why it didn't even slow you
down.

Then again *real* Americans volunteered. Don't you think? They didn't
hide behind student deferments and high lottery numbers.

>     So let's look at the Holocaust afresh.  Forget the body count 
>and let the Jews assert that Six Million Jews died in concentration 
>camps.  Then let us utter the time-honored words, "So what?"

Well, to be honest Savage, the world feels the same way about you.

>Listen, Hymie, they've made great progress in 
>tattoo removal since you were in that camp.

yes, I'm sure this is the point...

>     The talk show circuit is heavily semitized

Really, amazing what dem jooos control.

>Do you think we would have been treated to so 
>many instant replays of Rodney King getting his comeuppance if 
>the TV networks weren't run by the Chosen?

Rodney King is JOOOSH! Yow, I never knew!

>If Rodney King had been Shlomo Schwartz, the 
>videotape would still be running.

Wait, is your point that, hmm, we're losing you here.

>     The Jew is an emotional hypochondriac.

And Rick Savage and friends are actual sociopaths? Am I close?

>     Whatever their accomplishments as scientists, Jews are not 
>known as outstanding naturalists.

You didn't know that Darwin was Jewish? Hey, Rick, get with the
program. Where do you think he got all that money to go running around
the Galapagos anyhow?

No, really, his name wasn't really Darwin. Well, his father changed
it, it was Darvinsky. Nice kid, used to play basketball for Canarsie
High before they moved to London, his father was in dry goods. Made a
helluva egg cream.

I remember Chaim Darvinsky's (that was his real name) last words
before leaving for London: "I'm gonna make monkeys outta dem goyim!
Just watch me!" What a kidder he was.

>     Perhaps now we can see the unbridgeable chasm between 
>Christianity and Judaism.  Christianity is life.  Judaism is death.  

Why...that's...so...deep!

>     Perhaps now we can see the unbridgeable chasm between 
>Christianity and Judaism.  Christianity is life.  Judaism is death.  
>We can argue forever about whether Christ was a Jew.  Either 
>way, his teachings were aimed at Jews -- the people who needed it 
>most.  "Look, you Jews, life doesn't have to be like this.  There's 
>another way."  Perhaps this is the most compelling reason to 
>believe that Christ was not a Jew.

Really? And you mean not one Jew followed Him?

And what about his brother living as a devout Jew the rest of his
life? Strange, huh?

>     There is a long tradition of healing in Christianity and 
>paganism.  I'm no Biblical scholar, but from what I remember in 
>my readings, healing didn't play a big part in the Old Testament.  

You're right, you're no biblical scholar.

But the truth is, they were just going to all those Joosh doctors,
remember, dem jooos control the medical profession also.

AH! And then the SALES PITCH!

I should have known, they must have a joosh marketing director...

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD


Article 18537 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rsavage
From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
Subject: Khazars: the self-styled "Jews"
Message-ID: 
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References:  
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 05:15:21 GMT
Lines: 100

Philip Trauring (philip@cs.brandeis.edu) wrote:

: In article , hoffman2nd@delphi.com wrote:
: > I wonder what would happen to Khazars (or philo-Khazars) like Schulz if, when
: > losing a debate, they did something besides summoning the ghosts of Abe Reles,
: > Menachem Begin and other august ice-pick pokers and piano-wire wielders? Or
: > perhaps Schulz draws his inspiration from the continuing presence in this mortal
: > realm of Shitsack Shamir, architect of the murder of the 53 year old U.N.
: > diplomat Folke Bernadotte on Sept. 17, 1948? (Bernadotte had rescued hundreds > of Khazars during World War Two).

: First of all, I would like your sources on calling Jews Khazars. It's a
: great theory(Come on, Al Sharpton likes it) and I'd like some proof for it.
: Althoguh I beleive there was a Khazar nation, and that it did primarily
: convert to Judaism, to say that all Jews are Khazars is a bit absurd.

    First of all there are two sources for the Khazar connection at:
      ftp.netcom.com /pub/SFA/Bible  Facts_are_Facts (by B. Freedman)
      ftp.netcom.com /pub/SFA/history 13th_Tribe_Review (Koestler)

    Here is a newspaper article as well:

"The Jews That Aren't" 
by Leo Heiman: Copley News Service
San Diego Union - August 28, 1966
 
Tel Aviv
 
    Nathan M. Pollock has a beef with the Israeli government. 
    His elaborate plans to celebrate this September the 1,000th 
anniversary of the Jewish-Khozar alliance were summarily rejected.
    An elderly, meek-looking man who migrated to Israel from Russia 43 
years ago, Pollock ekes out a living as a translator of scientific texts 
and proofreader in a publishing firm.
    But his great passion, hobby and avocation is historic research.
    HE has devoted 40 of his 64 years to trying to prove that six out of 
10 Israelis and nine out of 10 Jews in the Western Hemisphere are not 
real Jews' Jews, but descendants of fierce Khozar tribes which roamed the 
steppes of southern Russia many centuries ago.
    For obvious reasons the Israeli authorities are not at all eager to 
give the offical stamp of approval to Pollock's theories.
    "For all we know, he may be 100 per cent right," said a senior 
goverment official.  "In fact, he is not the first one to discover the 
connection between Jews and Khozars.  Many famous scholars, Jews and 
non-Jews, stressed these links in their historical research works.
    "But who can tell today what percentage of Khozar blood flows in our 
veins, if at all?  And who can declare with any degree of scientific 
accuracy which Jews are Jews and which descendants of this Tartar-Mongol 
race?
    "As a matter of fact, our alleged descent from the Khozars is the 
central theme of Arab propaganda," he added. "The Arabs claim most 
European Jews have no right to be in Israel in the first place because 
they are not descended from Biblical Hebrews, but from Tartar-Mongol 
nomad tribes, including the Khozars who were converted to Judaism en 
masse 1,000 years ago."
    Scientific opinion in Israel is divided on the subject.  No one 
argues the basic premise: that a group of 12,000 Jews, fleeing from 
perseuction and wars in the Holy Land, in the wake of Byzantine and 
Moselm conquests, made the long overland trek to Persia, crossed the 
territory of today's Turkestan in Central Asia and found asylum in the 
Khozar Kingdom, which occupied a vast area between the Caspian Sea, Volga 
River, Ural Mountains, Black Sea and the Polish borderlands.
    In the year 965 the Khozars were defeated for the first time in 500 
years by Prince Sviatoslav of Kiev.  King Bulan III of Khozaria concluded 
that Prince Sviatoslav emerged victorious from the war because his troops 
and mercenaries were Christians, while his nomads were pagan worshipers.  
The king and his nobles embraced Judaism in 965, and in 966 a royal edict 
was passed enforcing Judaism as the only legal religion in the Khozar 
Kingdom.  Tribesmen had to undergo circumcision, learn Hebrew prayers and 
recognize Jewish rabbis as their spiritual leaders - on pain of death.
    As other Jews who were persecuted in the Middle East, medieval Europe 
and Spain at the time, heard of the new Jewish-Khozar kingdom, rumors 
spread that the Messiah had arrived at long last.  There were several 
consecutive migration waves to Khozaria, via Persia, Greece and Poland.
    Pollock believes the traditional Russian anti-Semitism probably stems 
from that epoch when Hebrew-speaking Khozar raiders attacked Russian 
villages, killed the men folk, abducted women, forcibly converted them to 
Judaism and married them in full-fledged religious ceremonies.  This also 
would explain why so many European Jews are blond and blue-eyed, with 
slight Mongol slant to their eyes, as well as the total absence of 
Semitic features among many Israelis of European descent.
    The flourishing Jewish-Khozar Kingdom was destroyed in 1239 by the 
Mongol invasion of Batu Khan.
    Following the Mongol invasion and conquest, surviving members of 
Jewish-Khozar tribes trekked west and settled in Poland, Hungary, 
Bohemia, Austria, Romania, and the Ukraine.  
    How can one find out if he is a "Khozar Jew" or a "Hebrew Jew?"
    According to Pollock, whose parents came from Poland, if your name is 
Halperin, Alpert, Halpern, Galpern, etc., you are a 100 per cent Khozar.  
"Alper" means "brave knight" in the Khozar tongue, and the name was 
granted by the king to the most distinguished warriors.  Names like 
Kaplan, Caplon, Koppel, and the like are positive proof of Khozar 
descent, according to the scholar.  "Kaplan" means "fierce hawk" in the 
Khozar language.  Kogan, Kagan, Kaganovich show aristocratic descent from 
Kagan-Hagan, King Bulan's chief minister.  (EOA)

-- 
 _____________________Rick Savage ______________________
|    Important files on life, liberty and happiness:        Rick Savage     | 
|  Anonymous FTP server:  ftp.netcom.com  - "cd pub/SFA"    PO Box 5251     |
|       Gov't, history, law, Bible, socialissues          Denver, CO 80217  |


Article 18548 of alt.revisionism:
Xref: oneb alt.revisionism:18548 alt.religion.christian:3666 alt.christnet:4443
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.religion.christian,alt.christnet
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rsavage
From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
Subject: Re: Khazars: the self-styled "Jews"
Message-ID: 
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References:   
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 17:45:38 GMT
Lines: 77

Barry Shein (bzs@world.std.com) wrote:

: Would someone please explain this fascination with Khazars?
: A few observations:

: 1. Apparently the big point here is that if a lot of modern-day
: Euroepean Jews descended from Khazars then this somehow breaks the
: link to Israel.

: 	a) Does anyone doubt the link between Israel and the
: 	Jewish *religion*?

       Not anymore than one would doubt the link between the Moonies 
and the teaching of Jesus Christ.
       The point being Judaism is merely a religion that claims descent 
from Biblical Israel but is the complete opposite of these beliefs in 
actual practice.  
       Is this an admission that the modern day "Jews" of Judaism have no 
physical link to Biblical Israelites, as the 1980 Jewish Almanac 
confirms?  This admission would make me happy if you would also then 
include an admission that the "Jews" are not "God's Chosen People," "The 
People of the Book (Bible)," and/or "The Jews of the Old & New Testament".
Can I use you as a reference in correcting the many Christians who 
believe these lies then?  


: I don't get it, except if one postulates that the only reason Israel
: has any right to exist is on the belief that every single (or even
: most) Jew living in Israel is descended from someone who left Israel
: only in the diaspora. Does anyone seriously believe this point exists
: much beyond a spiritual point of view?

     Yes, many "Christian" Zionists belief this fiction beyond the 
"spiritual" point of view.  You would do them a service by correcting 
this misconception.

: That's independent of whether or not you are comfortable with that
: spiritual point of view. I'm not, particularly.

    Why not?

: Personally my view of Israel is basically political; the British
: controlled it, they basically yielded it to the immigrating Jews who
: certainly had more reason to pick Israel/Palestine to head towards
: than, say Madagascar or the Fiji Islands, and that's where it stands.

     Why do you suppose the British yielded palestine to the the 
immigrating "Jews" of Judaism?  Was the British decision just and legal 
per International Law?  Were the Palestines every paid reprarations for 
their lost lands, businesses and homes much like the "Jews" collect from 
Germany today?

: As a thought exercise: Do any of the descendants of white europeans
: feel they have any right to live in North America that isn't
: summarized by: We fooking took it, so now it's ours, just *try* to pry
: us out and we'll nuke your sorry butts to kingdom come!?

    Absolutely.  The Indians claimed less than 3% of the land legally.  
The white europeans played by the Indians own rules.  The indians were 
killing each other off for decades before the whites came.  The whites 
just played their own game, but were more effective at it.
    Get the file "Indians.txt" by anon. FTP:  
          ftp.netcom.com /pub/SFA/history 
for the complete legal arguement over the land issue in America.

: And what any of this has to do with whether or not the holocaust
: occurred escapes me, except inasmuch as that now that that issue has
: been raised seems to have drawn every jew-basher out of the woodwork.

      The holocaust legend is at the heart of the politics of the illegal 
bandit state of Israeli in Palestine.  It is supported by Zionist 
Christians because of this guilt inspiring propaganda hoax.  
-- 
 _____________________Rick Savage ______________________
|    Important files on life, liberty and happiness:        Rick Savage     | 
|  Anonymous FTP server:  ftp.netcom.com  - "cd pub/SFA"    PO Box 5251     |
|       Gov't, history, law, Bible, socialissues          Denver, CO 80217  |


Article 18581 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rsavage
From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
Subject: Re: Judaism is Not Genetic (was: Re: Death Thr
Message-ID: 
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References:   <5Y9WrA1.hoffman2nd@delphi.com> <39a2a7$lb9@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 17:28:04 GMT
Lines: 38

Danny Keren (dzk@cs.brown.edu) wrote:
:  wrote:

: # I do not believe that many of the
: # people who call themselves >>Jews<< today have any blood ties to 
: # the people of Abraham and Isaac. 

: Mr. Hoffman truly reveals his own racism by writing this. Being a
: Jew has nothing to do with any "blood ties" but with one's
: decision to accept Judaism. Genetics has nothing to do with it.

     This admission disproves all of Judaism's claims that the "Jews" of 
today are "God's Chosen People."  Thanks for the admission.  It also 
disclaims their right to the land in Palestine since this was the claim 
they used to justify their "right" to it.

: I know someone who was a Catholic (from France), and decided to 
: convert to Judaism. He is considered a Jew just like any other Jew.
: He actually married an orthodox Jewish woman.

     Then can the "Jews" of Judaism then finnally denounce their claim to 
be "God's Chosen People," the "People of the Old Testament," the "People 
of the Book (Bible)" once and for all and be done with it?  If you will 
do this I will be happy and will be glad to quote you to every Christian 
I come along who holds this heretical belief.

: Various Nazis often wrongly project their own belief in "the blood" 
: onto others.

     The "Jews" of Judaism merely project their tribal identity unto the 
Jews of the Old and New Testaments of the Bible.  This is a claim and 
belief in "the blood".  If you want to claim otherwise, then please do 
so and can I quote you?
-- 
 _____________________Rick Savage ______________________
|    Important files on life, liberty and happiness:        Rick Savage     | 
|  Anonymous FTP server:  ftp.netcom.com  - "cd pub/SFA"    PO Box 5251     |
|       Gov't, history, law, Bible, socialissues          Denver, CO 80217  |


Article 18595 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uhog.mit.edu!news.kei.com!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Judaism is Not Genetic (was: Re: Death Thr
In-Reply-To: rsavage@netcom.com's message of Fri, 4 Nov 1994 17:28:04 GMT
Message-ID: 
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References:  
	<5Y9WrA1.hoffman2nd@delphi.com> <39a2a7$lb9@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
	
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 23:21:34 GMT
Lines: 111


From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
>     This admission disproves all of Judaism's claims that the "Jews" of 
>today are "God's Chosen People."  Thanks for the admission.

Huh? How do you figure? You mean if you're the great-great-great...
grandchild of a convert to Christianity then you can't be "saved" and
thus enter the Kingdom of Christ? By this same reasoning?

I think you're about the only one here who seems to believe that
"god's chosen people" is exclusively an inherited quality.

Go read the Ten Commandments in the bible, as a good start.

Where exactly does it say "Thou shalt not be the son or daughter of a
non-Jew"?

Nowhere.

It says do this, do that, do this, etc, all voluntary acts on the part
of the individual, and you shall be one of God's chosen people, ie, a
Jew. Ok, there are some other things not covered by the Ten
Commandments, Leviticus and all that, but show me where this is
limited to a genetic or racial group.

IT'S A RELIGION. IT BELIEVES THAT IF YOU ACCEPT THE RELIGION YOU HAVE
A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD. YOU ARE OF THE CHOSEN. YOW, HOW
UNUSUAL!

You are one utterly confused person.

>It also 
>disclaims their right to the land in Palestine since this was the claim 
>they used to justify their "right" to it.

As it would also disclaim any rights claimed by the Catholics to the
Vatican, or Islam to Mecca and Medina etc??? Or dozens of other
nations organized specifically around a religion? The US is actually
the odd one out on this point you know.

I'm not particularly saying it's right or justified, I'm just saying
it's about as common as dirt and your delusion that this is unique to
Judaism is just that; a delusion.

>     Then can the "Jews" of Judaism then finnally denounce their claim to 
>be "God's Chosen People," the "People of the Old Testament," the "People 
>of the Book (Bible)" once and for all and be done with it?

No, because this is what they believe.

It's not a genetic, inherited quality you dunderhead.

Yes indeed the child of Jewish parents (yes I know the rules) is
Jewish.

And the child of Catholics is generally considered Catholic, and those
of Protestants Protestant, Islamic Islam, etc.

Nothing awfully odd about that.

You're confused, you have built an entire hateful belief system on
mere confusion about some stupid point you've imagined being true!

YOU CAN CONVERT TO JUDAISM.

And if you do, YOU ARE A JEW. YOU BECOME ONE OF GOD'S CHOSEN PEOPLE,
according to their theology. Feel free. Wanna become one of God's
Chosen People and recognized as such by every Jew on earth? Call your
local rabbi and CONVERT! Ok, it's not as easy as converting to
Christianity in some mechanical sense, the steps involved, but so
what, surely that's not your complaint.

It's analogous to Christians' tenet that ``Only through belief in
Christ can you enter the Kingdom of Heaven''.

And similar for most any other major, organized Western religion.

BFD, welcome to planet earth.

>If you will 
>do this I will be happy and will be glad to quote you to every Christian 
>I come along who holds this heretical belief.

Nobody cares about this, as we've pointed out you're just mistaken in
your belief system. There's no need for any concession of any sort by
anyone. You may choose to remain confused, or you may come join the
living. But that's your choice to make.

>     The "Jews" of Judaism merely project their tribal identity unto the 
>Jews of the Old and New Testaments of the Bible.

Right, unlike when a Christian speaks of persecution of "their people"
at the hands of the Romans (eg, "Spartacus", lions and christians and
slaves and all that.) Or Protestants review of the Reformation, speak
about members of their branch "fleeing" to America to escape religious
persecution, Pilgrims, Thanksgiving, Hoffman reveling here just
yesterday about his personal celebration of Guy Fawkes day, blah blah
blah.

Right, this is unique to the Jews. Wanna buy a bridge in Brooklyn?

You're a confused person. That's all you've shown here. You have this
deep belief system based on sheer erroneous assumptions, it's not an
opinion, it's just a dumb mistake on your part.


-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD


Article 18596 of alt.revisionism:
Xref: oneb alt.revisionism:18596 alt.religion.christian:3684 alt.christnet:4447
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.religion.christian,alt.christnet
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.umbc.edu!eff!news.kei.com!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Khazars: the self-styled "Jews"
In-Reply-To: rsavage@netcom.com's message of Fri, 4 Nov 1994 17:45:38 GMT
Message-ID: 
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References:  
	 
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 1994 00:01:02 GMT
Lines: 211


From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
>: 	a) Does anyone doubt the link between Israel and the
>: 	Jewish *religion*?
>
>       Not anymore than one would doubt the link between the Moonies 
>and the teaching of Jesus Christ.

And you believe it is your role to sit in judgement of whether or not
Moonies are Christians?

And how, exactly, did you attain this high and exalted position?

And, by your theology, who *do* you admit as being Christian enough
for your tastes?

>       The point being Judaism is merely a religion that claims descent 
>from Biblical Israel but is the complete opposite of these beliefs in 
>actual practice.  

Complete opposite? What a stupid thing to say. Would you care to
elaborate on this rather strange point of view. Do you mean they grow
long foreskins, sit all day boiling pork in milk for dinner and
worship multiple Gods? What could you possibly, possibly mean?

>       Is this an admission that the modern day "Jews" of Judaism have no 
>physical link to Biblical Israelites, as the 1980 Jewish Almanac 
>confirms?

What is a "physical link"?

What exactly is your own physical link to your religion that makes you
so smug?

What in the hell are you talking about?

>Can I use you as a reference in correcting the many Christians who 
>believe these lies then?  

No, you can de-confuse yourself, because you are confused.

>     Yes, many "Christian" Zionists belief this fiction beyond the 
>"spiritual" point of view.  You would do them a service by correcting 
>this misconception.

Consider them corrected. Next question?

>: That's independent of whether or not you are comfortable with that
>: spiritual point of view. I'm not, particularly.
>
>    Why not?

Because I don't practice Judaism so don't particularly accept their
beliefs. I also don't practice Christianity so don't accept their
beliefs as holding special authority. Nor Islam, nor buddhism, etc.

But *THEY* believe that.

Just as Christians believe that Christ was God's Son sent to earth to
deliver mankind.

It's a religious belief.

But unless you're willing to abandon your own religious beliefs, for
example, I think we're just going to have to accept that people hold
such beliefs, and not all the same.

Catholics believe that it was ordained that Peter founded the
seat of the Christian Church in Rome, that this was God's Will.
And thus the Vatican is theirs.

Muslims believe that Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem (in particular the
Dome of the Rock and Al'Aqsa) are their holy places. Unfortunately
Jerusalem is claimed by at least three different religions as having
special significance to them. And no matter who "gets it" the other
two are likely to be very, very unhappy tho apparently the Jews and
the Christians have come to a fairly comfortable understanding. The
Muslims remain quite unhappy. It's a difficult problem. It's caused
much contention, warfare and killing these past 1300 years or
thereabouts, or haven't you noticed?

>     Why do you suppose the British yielded palestine to the the 
>immigrating "Jews" of Judaism?

Cost/benefit analysis. They could no longer control it, they
yielded. That's why I used the word "yielded".

Need I point out that this was not the only instance of this? Do words
like India, Iraq, Rhodesia mean anything to you?

>Was the British decision just and legal 
>per International Law?

Sure, of course it was. It was theirs to do as they liked as far as
int'l law was concerned.

Certainly just as much as any basis upon which the British had
acquired Palestine in the first place (as a result of WWI if I
remember correctly, so about 30 years previous?)

British Palestine was split into two pieces. One part became Israel,
the other Jordan. Israel was handed over to the Jews, Jordan to the
Hashemites (King Hussein's father, and his people, Muslims by
religion.)

>Were the Palestines every paid reprarations for 
>their lost lands, businesses and homes much like the "Jews" collect from 
>Germany today?

Did the British pay them? Did the Turks before them?

Actually, apparently this is being settled. A Palestinian homeland is
being constructed right now, right? Next question.

And do you actually, honestly give a damn about Palestinians? Or is it
just an excuse to bash Jews?

For example, what have you done lately about repaying Native Americans
for the land *you* live on?

Or do you only cast stones?

>    Absolutely.  The Indians claimed less than 3% of the land legally.  
>The white europeans played by the Indians own rules.  The indians were 
>killing each other off for decades before the whites came.  The whites 
>just played their own game, but were more effective at it.

Right you dumb fucking piece of shit. WHEN IT COMES TO YOU AND YOURS
MIGHT MAKES FUCKING RIGHT!

But when you decide to judge Jews all of a sudden this bullshit about
international law and reparations comes drooling out of your twisted
little brain.

WHO IN THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE KIDDING YOU DUMB HYPOCRITE? JUST
WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE KIDDING?

Boy do you exhibit that typical, loathsome double-standard of bigots
like yourself.

*THEY* have to play nice and follow our idealized concept of "THE
RULES".

*WE* however will nuke their sorry asses to kingdom come if someone so
much as LOOKS at us wrong.

MIGHT MAKES RIGHT! (but only for "us".)

>for the complete legal arguement over the land issue in America.

Legal argument? YOU KILLED THEM. You killed them with the same
rapaciousness you killed the Buffalo. You wiped them out until they
were no longer any challenge to land claims, stuck them on
reservations, starved them, put them on death marches, etc.

And you now have a *LEGAL* argument?

Pardon me while I barf.

Who exactly invited your "white people" to come to North America and
sort out which portion the Native Americans weren't using?

>      The holocaust legend is at the heart of the politics of the illegal 
>bandit state of Israeli in Palestine.

No. It is at the heart of two bit evil f*cking hate-mongers like
yourself who should be damned to hell, to a one.

You have no issue.

You are an evil, low-life, hypocritical, lying hate-mongerer.

I view you and your views with the same loathing I would someone who
sexually molests small children, or professes that it would be a good
idea anyhow (to distinguish mere sick and twisted belief from actual
action.)

You are in the same category as far as I am concerned, and deserve
exactly as much respect. That is, none. You are a loathsome,
hate-ridden insect. Period.

Now why don't you please just go to hell quietly. You profess a
religion of hate and evil and you represent no one. You are not a
Christian, you are just a twisted and evil individual.

>It is supported by Zionist 
>Christians because of this guilt inspiring propaganda hoax.  

Yeah, right, everybody is crazy but you Ricky-boy. Right.

You are one twisted, sick little beast.

Has it ever occurred to you that it may have some relationship to the
significance of Israel to Christians? Have you noticed the Crusades of
the past almost 1300 years, waged by Christians to control the Holy
Lands and keep it out of the hands of the "heretics"?

Don't you get it? Does any light penetrate that disease-ridden skull
of yours? It's only been 1300 years of continuous warfare over the
Holy Land, only 1300 years, YOU MIGHT HAVE TAKEN A HINT BY NOW!

Christians are comfortable with Jews as the caretakers of their Holy
Land. Particularly if the other choice is Muslims.

Now here's a nickel, go buy yourself a clue.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD


Article 33 of alt.politics.nationalism.white:
Xref: oneb alt.politics.nationalism.white:33 alt.discrimination:18550 alt.politics.correct:18197
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination,alt.politics.correct
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rsavage
From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
Subject: What is Racism?
Message-ID: 
Keywords: racism
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 1994 16:55:33 GMT
Lines: 261

                  from: ftp.netcom.com /pub/SFA
        ----------------------------------------------------
 
                          WHAT IS RACISM?                        
                         by Thomas Jackson
   {Originally Published in American Renaissance, Vol 2, No. 8}
 
      There is surely no nation in the world that holds "racism"
in greater horror than does the United States. Compared to other
kinds of offenses, it is thought to be somehow more
reprehensible. The press and public have become so used to tales
of murder, rape, robbery, and arson, that any but the most
spectacular crimes are shrugged off as part of the inevitable
texture of American life. "Racism" is never shrugged off.        
For example, when a white Georgetown Law School student reported
earlier this year that black students are not as qualified as
white students, it set off a booming, national controversy about
"racism." If the student had merely murdered someone he would
have attracted far less attention and criticism. 
     Racism is, indeed, the national obsession. Universities
are on full alert for it, newspapers and politicians denounce it,
churches preach against it, America is said to be racked with it,
but just what *is* racism?
     Dictionaries are not much help in understanding what is
meant by the word. They usually define it as the belief that
one's own ethnic stock is superior to others, or as the belief
that culture and behavior are rooted in race. When Americans
speak of racism they mean a great deal more than this.        
Nevertheless, the dictionary definition of racism is a clue to
understanding what Americans *do* mean. A peculiarly American
meaning derives from the current dogma that all ethnic stocks are
equal. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, all races have
been declared to be equally talented and hard- working, and
anyone who questions the dogma is thought to be not merely wrong
but evil.
      The dogma has logical consequences that are profoundly
important. If blacks, for example, are equal to whites in every
way, what accounts for their poverty, criminality, and
dissipation? Since any theory of racial differences has been
outlawed, the only possible explanation for black failure is
white racism. And since blacks are markedly poor, crime-prone,
and dissipated, America must be racked with pervasive racism.
Nothing else could be keeping them in such an abject state.      
     All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid
logic. Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on
white wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden
territory of racial differences. Thus, even if today's whites can
find in their hearts no desire to oppress blacks, yesterday's
whites must have oppressed them. If whites do not consciously
oppress blacks, they must oppress them UNconsciously. If no
obviously racist individuals can be identified, then
*institutions* must be racist. Or, since blacks are failing so
terribly in America, there simply must be millions of white
people we do not know about, who are working day and night to
keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial equality leaves no
room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in some
fashion, an indictment of white people.
      The logical consequences of this are clear. Since we are
required to believe that the only explanation for non-white
failure is white racism, every time a non-white is poor, commits
a crime, goes on welfare, or takes drugs, white society stands
accused of yet another act of racism. All failure or misbehavior
by non-whites is standing proof that white society is riddled
with hatred and bigotry. For precisely so long as non-whites fail
to succeed in life at exactly the same level as whites, whites
will be, by definition, thwarting and oppressing them. This
obligatory pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions.
First of all, racism is a sin that is thought to be committed
almost exclusively by white people. Indeed, a black congressman
from Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black mayor of
Detroit, have argued that only white people *can* be racist.
Likewise, in 1987, the affirmative action officer of the State
Insurance Fund of New York issued a company pamphlet in which
she explained that *all* whites are racist and that *only* whites
can be racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained
without flirting with the possibility of racial inequality?      
      Although some blacks and liberal whites concede that non-whites
can, perhaps, be racist, they invariably add that non-whites have
been forced into it as self-defense because of centuries of white
oppression. What appears to be non-white racism is so
understandable and forgivable that it hardly deserves the name.
Thus, whether or not an act is called racism depends on the race
of the racist. What would surely be called racism when done by
whites is thought to be normal when done by anyone else. The
reverse is also true.
       Examples of this sort of double standard are so common,
it is almost tedious to list them: When a white man kills a black
man and uses the word "nigger" while doing so, there is an 
enormous media uproar and the nation beats its collective breast;
when members of the black Yahweh cult carry out ritual murders of
random whites, the media are silent (see AR of March, 1991).
College campuses forbid pejorative statements about non-whites as
"racist," but ignore scurrilous attacks on whites.
      At election time, if 60 percent of the white voters vote
for a white candidate, and 95 percent of the black voters vote
for the black opponent, it is white who are accused of racial
bias. There are 107 "historically black" colleges, whose
fundamental blackness must be preserved in the name of diversity,
but all historically white colleges must be forcibly integrated
in the name of... the same thing. To resist would be racist.     
      "Black pride" is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but
anything that could be construed as an expression of white pride
is a form of hatred. It is perfectly natural for third-world
immigrants to expect school instruction and driver's tests in
their own languages, whereas for native Americans to ask them to
learn English is racist.
         Blatant anti-white prejudice, in the form of affirmative
action, is now the law of the land. Anything remotely like
affirmative action, if practiced in favor of whites, would be
attacked as despicable favoritism.
         All across the country, black, Hispanic, and Asian clubs
and caucuses are thought to be fine expressions of ethnic
solidarity, but any club or association expressly for whites is
by definition racist. The National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) campaigns openly for black
advantage but is a respected "civil rights" organization. The
National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP)
campaigns merely for equal treatment of all races, but is said to
be viciously racist.
         At a few college campuses, students opposed to
affirmative action have set up student unions for whites,
analogous to those for blacks, Hispanics, etc, and have been
roundly condemned as racists. Recently, when the white students
at Lowell High School in San Francisco found themselves to be a
minority, they asked for a racially exclusive club like the ones
that non- whites have. They were turned down in horror. Indeed,
in America today, any club not specifically formed to be a white
enclave but whose members simply happen all to be white is
branded as racist.
         Today, one of the favorite slogans that define the
asymmetric quality of American racism is "celebration of
diversity." It has begun to dawn on a few people that "diversity"
is always achieved at the expense of whites (and sometimes men),
and never the other way around. No one proposes that Howard
University be made more diverse by admitting whites, Hispanics,
or Asians. No one ever suggests that National Hispanic University
in San Jose (CA) would benefit from the diversity of having
non-Hispanics on campus. No one suggests that the Black
Congressional Caucus or the executive ranks of the NAACP or the
Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund suffer from a
lack of diversity. Somehow, it is perfectly legitimate for them
to celebrate *homogeneity*. And yet any all-white group - a
company, a town, a school, a club, a neighborhood - is thought to
suffer from a crippling lack of diversity that must be remedied
as quickly as possible. Only when whites have been reduced to a
minority has "diversity" been achieved.
         Let us put it bluntly: To "celebrate" or "embrace"
diversity, as we are so often asked to do, is no different from
*deploring an excess of whites.* In fact, the entire nation is
thought to suffer from an excess of whites. Our current
immigration policies are structured so that approximately 90
percent of our annual 800,000 legal immigrants are non-white. The
several million illegal immigrants that enter the country every
year are virtually all non-white. It would be racist not to be
grateful for this laudable contribution to "diversity."        
It is, of course, only white nations that are called upon to
practice this kind of "diversity." It is almost criminal to
imagine a nation of any other race countenancing blatant
dispossession of this kind.
         What if the United States were pouring its poorest,
least educated citizens across the border into Mexico? Could
anyone be fooled into thinking that Mexico was being "culturally
enriched?" What if the state of Chihuahua were losing its
majority population to poor whites who demanded that schools be
taught in English, who insisted on celebrating the Fourth of
July, who demanded the right to vote even if they weren't
citizens, who clamored for "affirmative action" in jobs and
schooling?
         Would Mexico - or any other non-white nation - tolerate
this kind of cultural and demographic depredation? Of course not.
Yet white Americans are supposed to look upon the flood of
Hispanics and Asians entering their country as a priceless
cultural gift. They are supposed to "celebrate" their own loss
of influence, their own dwindling numbers, their own
dispossession, for to do otherwise would be hopelessly racist.   
     There is another curious asymmetry about American racism.
When non- whites advance their own racial purposes, no one ever
accuses them of "hating" another group. Blacks can join "civil
rights" groups and Hispanics can be activists without fear of
being branded as bigots and hate mongers. They can agitate openly
for racial preferences that can come only at the expense of
whites. They can demand preferential treatment of all kinds
without anyone ever suggesting that they are "anti-white."       
     Whites, on the other hand, need only express their opposition to
affirmative action to be called haters. They need only subject
racial policies that are clearly prejudicial to themselves to be
called racists. Should they actually go so far as to say that
they prefer the company of their own kind, that they wish to be
left alone to enjoy the fruits of their European heritage, they
are irredeemably wicked and hateful.
         Here, then is the final, baffling inconsistency about
American race relations. All non-whites are allowed to prefer the
company of their own kind, to think of themselves as groups with
interests distinct from those of the whole, and to work openly
for group advantage. None of this is thought to be racist. At the
same time, *whites* must *also* champion the racial interests of
non-whites. They must sacrifice their own future on the altar of
"diversity" and cooperate in their own dispossession. They are to
encourage, even to subsidize, the displacement of a European
people and culture by alien peoples and cultures. To put it in
the simplest possible terms, white people are cheerfully to
slaughter their own society, to commit racial and cultural
suicide. To refuse to do so would be racism.
         Of course, the entire non-white enterprise in the United
States is perfectly natural and healthy. Nothing could be more
natural than to love one's people and to hope that it should
flourish. Filipinos and El Salvadorans are doubtless astonished
to discover that simply by setting foot in the United States they
are entitled to affirmative action preferences over native-born
whites, but can they be blamed for accepting them? Is it
surprising that they should want their languages, their cultures,
their brothers and sisters to take possession and put their mark
indelibly on the land? If the once-great people of a once-great
nation is bent upon self-destruction and is prepared to hand
over land and power to whomever shows up and asks for it, why
should Mexicans and Cambodians complain?
         No, it is the white enterprise in the United States that
is unnatural, unhealthy, and without historical precedent. Whites
have let themselves be convinced that it is racist merely to
object to dispossession, much less to work for their own
interests. Never in the history of the world has a dominant
people thrown open the gates to strangers, and poured out its
wealth to aliens. Never before has a people been fooled into
thinking that there was virtue or nobility in surrendering its
heritage, and giving away to others its place in history.        
Of all the races in America, only whites have been tricked into
thinking that a preference for one's own kind is racism. Only
whites are ever told that a love for their own people is somehow
"hatred" of others. All healthy people prefer the company of
their own kind, and it has nothing to do with hatred. All men
love their families more than their neighbors, but this does not
mean that they hate their neighbors. Whites who love their racial
family need bear no ill will towards non-whites. They only wish
to be left alone to participate in the unfolding of their racial
and cultural destinies.
         What whites in America are being asked to do is
therefore utterly unnatural. They are being asked to devote
themselves to the interests of other races and to ignore the
interests of their own. This is like asking a man to forsake his
own children and love the children of his neighbors, since to do
otherwise would be "racist."
         What then, is "racism?" It is considerably more than any
dictionary is likely to say. It is any opposition by whites to
official policies of racial preference for non-whites. It is any
preference by whites for their own people and culture. It is any
resistance by whites to the idea of becoming a minority people.
It is any unwillingness to be pushed aside. It is, in short, any
of the normal aspirations of people-hood that have defined
nations since the beginning of history - but only so long as the
aspirations are those of whites.
 
 
-------------------------------------------------------
Get the "Identity.faq" and many other interesting files
by anonymous FTP.:
     FTP site:  ftp.netcom.com /pub/SFA/
-- 
 _____________________Rick Savage ______________________
|    Important files on life, liberty and happiness:        Rick Savage     | 
|  Anonymous FTP server:  ftp.netcom.com  - "cd pub/SFA"    PO Box 5251     |
|       Gov't, history, law, Bible, socialissues          Denver, CO 80217  |


Article 18671 of alt.revisionism:
Xref: oneb alt.revisionism:18671 alt.religion.christian:3695 alt.christnet:4453
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!caen!zip.eecs.umich.edu!panix!usenet
From: ljz@panix.com (Lloyd Zusman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.religion.christian,alt.christnet
Subject: Re: Khazars: the self-styled "Jews"
Followup-To: alt.revisionism,alt.religion.christian,alt.christnet
Date: 07 Nov 1994 21:43:15 GMT
Organization: Panix
Lines: 31
Message-ID: 
References:  
	 
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix2.panix.com
In-reply-to: rsavage@netcom.com's message of Mon, 7 Nov 1994 16:29:37 GMT

In article , rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage) writes:

>      1.  It was a law common among Indians that the stronger of 
> two tribes or people (nations) has the right to conquer and subdue 
> the weaker.
>      2.  Under Indian common law it was understood that land 
> claims existed by inhabiting the land and by any use of the land.
>      3.  When any land was unoccupied or not used for one year, 
> the land was free for anyone to claim and settle.

Please provide documentation for 1, 2, and 3 above.  There were many
nations of natives here before the Europeans arrived.  Did they all
adhere to the exact, same "common law"?
 
>      This first law of the Indians could actually render all other 
> arguments of land rights academic.  This law was almost a way of 
> life with the Indian, which is why they were always warring among 
> themselves, and perhaps why they were so few in number.  The 
> wars and conflicts between the white race and the Indian race 
> throughout history are numerous, and the fact that the white race 
> was the stronger cannot be doubted.

Please provide documentation for your claim that the American natives
"were always warring among themselves."

-- 
Lloyd Zusman    	01234567 <-- The world famous Indent-o-Meter.
ljz@panix.com           ^	     I indent thee.
   To get my PGP public key automatically mailed to you, please
   send me email with the following string as the subject:
                    mail-request public-key


Article 18197 of alt.politics.correct:
Xref: oneb alt.politics.nationalism.white:33 alt.discrimination:18550 alt.politics.correct:18197
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination,alt.politics.correct
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rsavage
From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
Subject: What is Racism?
Message-ID: 
Keywords: racism
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 1994 16:55:33 GMT
Lines: 261

                  from: ftp.netcom.com /pub/SFA
        ----------------------------------------------------
 
                          WHAT IS RACISM?                        
                         by Thomas Jackson
   {Originally Published in American Renaissance, Vol 2, No. 8}
 
      There is surely no nation in the world that holds "racism"
in greater horror than does the United States. Compared to other
kinds of offenses, it is thought to be somehow more
reprehensible. The press and public have become so used to tales
of murder, rape, robbery, and arson, that any but the most
spectacular crimes are shrugged off as part of the inevitable
texture of American life. "Racism" is never shrugged off.        
For example, when a white Georgetown Law School student reported
earlier this year that black students are not as qualified as
white students, it set off a booming, national controversy about
"racism." If the student had merely murdered someone he would
have attracted far less attention and criticism. 
     Racism is, indeed, the national obsession. Universities
are on full alert for it, newspapers and politicians denounce it,
churches preach against it, America is said to be racked with it,
but just what *is* racism?
     Dictionaries are not much help in understanding what is
meant by the word. They usually define it as the belief that
one's own ethnic stock is superior to others, or as the belief
that culture and behavior are rooted in race. When Americans
speak of racism they mean a great deal more than this.        
Nevertheless, the dictionary definition of racism is a clue to
understanding what Americans *do* mean. A peculiarly American
meaning derives from the current dogma that all ethnic stocks are
equal. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, all races have
been declared to be equally talented and hard- working, and
anyone who questions the dogma is thought to be not merely wrong
but evil.
      The dogma has logical consequences that are profoundly
important. If blacks, for example, are equal to whites in every
way, what accounts for their poverty, criminality, and
dissipation? Since any theory of racial differences has been
outlawed, the only possible explanation for black failure is
white racism. And since blacks are markedly poor, crime-prone,
and dissipated, America must be racked with pervasive racism.
Nothing else could be keeping them in such an abject state.      
     All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid
logic. Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on
white wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden
territory of racial differences. Thus, even if today's whites can
find in their hearts no desire to oppress blacks, yesterday's
whites must have oppressed them. If whites do not consciously
oppress blacks, they must oppress them UNconsciously. If no
obviously racist individuals can be identified, then
*institutions* must be racist. Or, since blacks are failing so
terribly in America, there simply must be millions of white
people we do not know about, who are working day and night to
keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial equality leaves no
room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in some
fashion, an indictment of white people.
      The logical consequences of this are clear. Since we are
required to believe that the only explanation for non-white
failure is white racism, every time a non-white is poor, commits
a crime, goes on welfare, or takes drugs, white society stands
accused of yet another act of racism. All failure or misbehavior
by non-whites is standing proof that white society is riddled
with hatred and bigotry. For precisely so long as non-whites fail
to succeed in life at exactly the same level as whites, whites
will be, by definition, thwarting and oppressing them. This
obligatory pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions.
First of all, racism is a sin that is thought to be committed
almost exclusively by white people. Indeed, a black congressman
from Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black mayor of
Detroit, have argued that only white people *can* be racist.
Likewise, in 1987, the affirmative action officer of the State
Insurance Fund of New York issued a company pamphlet in which
she explained that *all* whites are racist and that *only* whites
can be racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained
without flirting with the possibility of racial inequality?      
      Although some blacks and liberal whites concede that non-whites
can, perhaps, be racist, they invariably add that non-whites have
been forced into it as self-defense because of centuries of white
oppression. What appears to be non-white racism is so
understandable and forgivable that it hardly deserves the name.
Thus, whether or not an act is called racism depends on the race
of the racist. What would surely be called racism when done by
whites is thought to be normal when done by anyone else. The
reverse is also true.
       Examples of this sort of double standard are so common,
it is almost tedious to list them: When a white man kills a black
man and uses the word "nigger" while doing so, there is an 
enormous media uproar and the nation beats its collective breast;
when members of the black Yahweh cult carry out ritual murders of
random whites, the media are silent (see AR of March, 1991).
College campuses forbid pejorative statements about non-whites as
"racist," but ignore scurrilous attacks on whites.
      At election time, if 60 percent of the white voters vote
for a white candidate, and 95 percent of the black voters vote
for the black opponent, it is white who are accused of racial
bias. There are 107 "historically black" colleges, whose
fundamental blackness must be preserved in the name of diversity,
but all historically white colleges must be forcibly integrated
in the name of... the same thing. To resist would be racist.     
      "Black pride" is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but
anything that could be construed as an expression of white pride
is a form of hatred. It is perfectly natural for third-world
immigrants to expect school instruction and driver's tests in
their own languages, whereas for native Americans to ask them to
learn English is racist.
         Blatant anti-white prejudice, in the form of affirmative
action, is now the law of the land. Anything remotely like
affirmative action, if practiced in favor of whites, would be
attacked as despicable favoritism.
         All across the country, black, Hispanic, and Asian clubs
and caucuses are thought to be fine expressions of ethnic
solidarity, but any club or association expressly for whites is
by definition racist. The National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) campaigns openly for black
advantage but is a respected "civil rights" organization. The
National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP)
campaigns merely for equal treatment of all races, but is said to
be viciously racist.
         At a few college campuses, students opposed to
affirmative action have set up student unions for whites,
analogous to those for blacks, Hispanics, etc, and have been
roundly condemned as racists. Recently, when the white students
at Lowell High School in San Francisco found themselves to be a
minority, they asked for a racially exclusive club like the ones
that non- whites have. They were turned down in horror. Indeed,
in America today, any club not specifically formed to be a white
enclave but whose members simply happen all to be white is
branded as racist.
         Today, one of the favorite slogans that define the
asymmetric quality of American racism is "celebration of
diversity." It has begun to dawn on a few people that "diversity"
is always achieved at the expense of whites (and sometimes men),
and never the other way around. No one proposes that Howard
University be made more diverse by admitting whites, Hispanics,
or Asians. No one ever suggests that National Hispanic University
in San Jose (CA) would benefit from the diversity of having
non-Hispanics on campus. No one suggests that the Black
Congressional Caucus or the executive ranks of the NAACP or the
Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund suffer from a
lack of diversity. Somehow, it is perfectly legitimate for them
to celebrate *homogeneity*. And yet any all-white group - a
company, a town, a school, a club, a neighborhood - is thought to
suffer from a crippling lack of diversity that must be remedied
as quickly as possible. Only when whites have been reduced to a
minority has "diversity" been achieved.
         Let us put it bluntly: To "celebrate" or "embrace"
diversity, as we are so often asked to do, is no different from
*deploring an excess of whites.* In fact, the entire nation is
thought to suffer from an excess of whites. Our current
immigration policies are structured so that approximately 90
percent of our annual 800,000 legal immigrants are non-white. The
several million illegal immigrants that enter the country every
year are virtually all non-white. It would be racist not to be
grateful for this laudable contribution to "diversity."        
It is, of course, only white nations that are called upon to
practice this kind of "diversity." It is almost criminal to
imagine a nation of any other race countenancing blatant
dispossession of this kind.
         What if the United States were pouring its poorest,
least educated citizens across the border into Mexico? Could
anyone be fooled into thinking that Mexico was being "culturally
enriched?" What if the state of Chihuahua were losing its
majority population to poor whites who demanded that schools be
taught in English, who insisted on celebrating the Fourth of
July, who demanded the right to vote even if they weren't
citizens, who clamored for "affirmative action" in jobs and
schooling?
         Would Mexico - or any other non-white nation - tolerate
this kind of cultural and demographic depredation? Of course not.
Yet white Americans are supposed to look upon the flood of
Hispanics and Asians entering their country as a priceless
cultural gift. They are supposed to "celebrate" their own loss
of influence, their own dwindling numbers, their own
dispossession, for to do otherwise would be hopelessly racist.   
     There is another curious asymmetry about American racism.
When non- whites advance their own racial purposes, no one ever
accuses them of "hating" another group. Blacks can join "civil
rights" groups and Hispanics can be activists without fear of
being branded as bigots and hate mongers. They can agitate openly
for racial preferences that can come only at the expense of
whites. They can demand preferential treatment of all kinds
without anyone ever suggesting that they are "anti-white."       
     Whites, on the other hand, need only express their opposition to
affirmative action to be called haters. They need only subject
racial policies that are clearly prejudicial to themselves to be
called racists. Should they actually go so far as to say that
they prefer the company of their own kind, that they wish to be
left alone to enjoy the fruits of their European heritage, they
are irredeemably wicked and hateful.
         Here, then is the final, baffling inconsistency about
American race relations. All non-whites are allowed to prefer the
company of their own kind, to think of themselves as groups with
interests distinct from those of the whole, and to work openly
for group advantage. None of this is thought to be racist. At the
same time, *whites* must *also* champion the racial interests of
non-whites. They must sacrifice their own future on the altar of
"diversity" and cooperate in their own dispossession. They are to
encourage, even to subsidize, the displacement of a European
people and culture by alien peoples and cultures. To put it in
the simplest possible terms, white people are cheerfully to
slaughter their own society, to commit racial and cultural
suicide. To refuse to do so would be racism.
         Of course, the entire non-white enterprise in the United
States is perfectly natural and healthy. Nothing could be more
natural than to love one's people and to hope that it should
flourish. Filipinos and El Salvadorans are doubtless astonished
to discover that simply by setting foot in the United States they
are entitled to affirmative action preferences over native-born
whites, but can they be blamed for accepting them? Is it
surprising that they should want their languages, their cultures,
their brothers and sisters to take possession and put their mark
indelibly on the land? If the once-great people of a once-great
nation is bent upon self-destruction and is prepared to hand
over land and power to whomever shows up and asks for it, why
should Mexicans and Cambodians complain?
         No, it is the white enterprise in the United States that
is unnatural, unhealthy, and without historical precedent. Whites
have let themselves be convinced that it is racist merely to
object to dispossession, much less to work for their own
interests. Never in the history of the world has a dominant
people thrown open the gates to strangers, and poured out its
wealth to aliens. Never before has a people been fooled into
thinking that there was virtue or nobility in surrendering its
heritage, and giving away to others its place in history.        
Of all the races in America, only whites have been tricked into
thinking that a preference for one's own kind is racism. Only
whites are ever told that a love for their own people is somehow
"hatred" of others. All healthy people prefer the company of
their own kind, and it has nothing to do with hatred. All men
love their families more than their neighbors, but this does not
mean that they hate their neighbors. Whites who love their racial
family need bear no ill will towards non-whites. They only wish
to be left alone to participate in the unfolding of their racial
and cultural destinies.
         What whites in America are being asked to do is
therefore utterly unnatural. They are being asked to devote
themselves to the interests of other races and to ignore the
interests of their own. This is like asking a man to forsake his
own children and love the children of his neighbors, since to do
otherwise would be "racist."
         What then, is "racism?" It is considerably more than any
dictionary is likely to say. It is any opposition by whites to
official policies of racial preference for non-whites. It is any
preference by whites for their own people and culture. It is any
resistance by whites to the idea of becoming a minority people.
It is any unwillingness to be pushed aside. It is, in short, any
of the normal aspirations of people-hood that have defined
nations since the beginning of history - but only so long as the
aspirations are those of whites.
 
 
-------------------------------------------------------
Get the "Identity.faq" and many other interesting files
by anonymous FTP.:
     FTP site:  ftp.netcom.com /pub/SFA/
-- 
 _____________________Rick Savage ______________________
|    Important files on life, liberty and happiness:        Rick Savage     | 
|  Anonymous FTP server:  ftp.netcom.com  - "cd pub/SFA"    PO Box 5251     |
|       Gov't, history, law, Bible, socialissues          Denver, CO 80217  |


Article 18265 of alt.politics.correct:
Xref: oneb alt.politics.nationalism.white:41 alt.discrimination:18601 alt.politics.correct:18265
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination,alt.politics.correct
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rsavage
From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
Subject: Re: What are Scythians?
Message-ID: 
Followup-To: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination,alt.politics.correct
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References:  <39gmob$be1@girtab.usc.edu> <1994Nov5.130105@clstac> <39hnms$9bg@girtab.usc.edu>  
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 1994 21:28:14 GMT
Lines: 26

Joseph Boyle (boyle@netcom.com) wrote:
: The Scythians lived on the steppes of present-day Ukraine and neighboring 
: lands. Linguists agree they spoke an Iranian language, not a Germanic one.

: The Germanic peoples originated in Scandinavia, then spread out to
: present-day northern Germany and Poland, then both south and east to cover
: a large area of Europe about 2000 years ago, before migrating west into
: the Roman Empire under the pressure of other barbarians from the steppe. 
: There is no evidence for a southern origin.

: Most migrations were from north to south. Hittites, Iranians, Celts,
: Germans, etc. all in turn were drawn to the richer, more civilized, warmer
: lands to the south. There seems to have been little traffic in the reverse
: direction. If there had been, recessive traits like blondness and blue
: eyes would not have survived in the north. 

     This would be interesting if it was true.  It would be nice if you 
could give references to the above statements.  This would be interesting 
to research.  
     In the mean-time see the next message.

-- 
 _____________________Rick Savage ______________________
|    Important files on life, liberty and happiness:        Rick Savage     | 
|  Anonymous FTP server:  ftp.netcom.com  - "cd pub/SFA"    PO Box 5251     |
|       Gov't, history, law, Bible, socialissues          Denver, CO 80217  |


Article 18604 of alt.discrimination:
Xref: oneb alt.politics.nationalism.white:42 alt.discrimination:18604
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rsavage
From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
Subject: German victims of Immigration
Message-ID: 
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 1994 18:01:24 GMT
Lines: 68

   Germany - 5000 Casualties a Day
 
    Germany is in the throes of a crime wave - a massive crime wave.  The 
figure repeated time and again by natives and vistors is that ONE IN TEN 
Germans became a victim last year of either murder, rape, robbery, or 
assualt.  Germans tell me that MOST of the crime is committed by alien 
immigrants.  They are identified as Turks and North African moslems.
    The media will not put a figure on the number of victims but, 
instead, they tell the Germans that while things might be a trifle bad - 
the immigrants have it worse - that half the crime they commit - they 
commit against themselves.  Somehow, immigrants becoming victims of 
immigrant-crime are supposed to make the Germans fell guilty.  They are 
blamed for having a country where people can be assaulted.  While made to 
fell guilty, they are also made to feel grateful that while things are 
bad - they could be much worse if the entire weight of immigrant crime 
were directed exclusively against them.
    Take a hand calculator and you will quickly get an idea of what "one 
person in ten is a victim" really means.
    There are about 80,000,000 Germans in re-united Germany.  The one in 
ten who are victimized represent 10%.  Ten percent of 80,000,000 
generates 8,000,000 victims.  That's a lot of victims - especially when 
compared with pre-war Germany which had almost no crime.  There are 7 
million immigrants - mostly Turks and north African muslims, many of whom 
are Black.  These, comibned with other races already enscorned in 
Germany, consitute perhaps as many as 10 million.  Perhaps more.
    If only half the crime is committed by them - instead of MOST as is 
charged - they are responsible for committing 4 million crimes.  And, if 
half of the 4 million is directed against their own people (if the media 
can be believed), this would make them responsible for the other 2 
million crimes committed against Germans (and the bleeding-heart of the 
last article is worried about 1,483 attacks by alleged 'neo-Nazi gangs')
 
    Simple Math
 
    Pencil pushing reduces 2 million to a figure more easily understood.  
There are 365 days in the year.  Two million divided by 365 produced 
5,479 Germans who are victims of the aliens each and every day.  (Don't 
forget - there are three times that number of crimes being committed in 
Germany at the same time.)
    Almost every time a Turk or a Black is beaten, or a foreign shelter 
is attacked by irate Germans, that incident is media-labeled in a front 
page extravaganza -"Outbreak of Neo-Nazi hate!" "Hate!" "Hate!" (ad nausea.)
    The newspapers are upset over the fact that skinheads and others are 
beginning to protest their own mistreatment and their protests area 
called - "hate".  Could it be that the Germans are becoming upset that 
5,479 of their people fall victim to the aliens each *DAY* and it is the 
Germans who are called "bigots" and "hate-mongers", and it is the 
immigrants who are called the "victims of hate"?
 
   TRUTH in Media Law Needed
 
   The law requires food and drink to be labeled as to its contents.  It 
is time that the same laws be extended to cover the poisoned information 
dished out by the media.  It should be compelled to tell the truth.  If 
they can run stories and print pictures of almost every one of the two or 
three hundred (or 1,483 as alleged by last article) aliens who have 
fallen victim to irate Germans, they should also be required to print the 
pictures of the Germans who have fallen victim to these same infidels - 
some 164,383 every MONTH!
 
  - This has been an excerpt from, "The Hoskin's Report", P.O. Box 997,
Lynchburg, Virginia 24505 USA (804)845-1335, May 4th, 1992 issue (#212)

-- 
 _____________________Rick Savage ______________________
|    Important files on life, liberty and happiness:        Rick Savage     | 
|  Anonymous FTP server:  ftp.netcom.com  - "cd pub/SFA"    PO Box 5251     |
|       Gov't, history, law, Bible, socialissues          Denver, CO 80217  |


Article 18719 of alt.revisionism:
Xref: oneb alt.revisionism:18719 alt.religion.christian:3704 alt.christnet:4455
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.religion.christian,alt.christnet
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Khazars: the self-styled "Jews"
In-Reply-To: rsavage@netcom.com's message of Mon, 7 Nov 1994 16:29:37 GMT
Message-ID: 
Followup-To: alt.revisionism,alt.religion.christian,alt.christnet
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References:  
	 
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 1994 06:01:16 GMT
Lines: 27


From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
>  At the 
>time of discovery (circa 1500 A.D.), the American Indian 
>numbered about 700,000 inhabitants, sparsely scattered over what 
>is now America.

There were about 6 million Incas living in Mexico at the time of the
European discovery.

There were 10-12 million Indians living in North America at the same
time.

What are you talking about?

Instead of raving like a madman why don't you just pick up an
encyclopaedia for 5 minutes.

Thus far we have demonstrated, once again, that your entire twisted
belief system resembles a spelling error.


-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD


Article 18720 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Judaism is Not Genetic (was: Re: Death Thr
In-Reply-To: rsavage@netcom.com's message of Mon, 7 Nov 1994 16:41:07 GMT
Message-ID: 
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References:  
	 
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 1994 06:17:32 GMT
Lines: 64


From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
>: I think you're about the only one here who seems to believe that
>: "god's chosen people" is exclusively an inherited quality.
>
>     I believe the Bible defines who are "god's chosen people".  It is 
>rather plain.  If you are ignorant of the reference I can post them.  

Yes, please do post them and we will see who is ignorant. Please stick
to the Old Testament.

Any comment on your recent claim that there were only 750,000 Indians
living in the Americas in 1500 when every other reference seems to put
the number in North America and Mexico alone at closer to TWENTY
MILLION.

Yes, ignorant, you're right, there are certainly ignorant people
around here...

>: Go read the Ten Commandments in the bible, as a good start.
>
>   And how does this relate to defining "God's chosen people"?

I dunno, it's your nightmare.

>: Where exactly does it say "Thou shalt not be the son or daughter of a
>: non-Jew"?  Nowhere.
>
>      Where does it say anything about "Jews" being "God's Chosen 
>People"?  Nowhere.

Actually, there's not a word of english in the whole thing.

>: It says do this, do that, do this, etc, all voluntary acts on the part
>: of the individual, and you shall be one of God's chosen people, ie, a
>: Jew. Ok, there are some other things not covered by the Ten
>: Commandments, Leviticus and all that, but show me where this is
>: limited to a genetic or racial group.
>
>   Does it?  Where does it say this?  Where do you find the word "Jew" in 
>any of it?  The word "Jew" doesn't even show up until the book of Kings.  
>Long after Leviticus.  Any good Bible Concordance can show you this.

Any good concordance in English, right?

And what has the word "jew" got to do with anything?

What exactly is your point?

>     Thanks for clearing that up.  Thanks for clearing up the 
>misconception regarding the "Jews" claim to being "God's Chosen People".  
>It is not based on the Bible or the God of the Bible but their religion 
>ONLY.  This is what I've been saying all along. 

Huh?

As I've said before, your entire bizarre belief system resembles, upon
examination, a spelling error.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD


Article 18721 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Judaism is Not Genetic
In-Reply-To: rsavage@netcom.com's message of Mon, 7 Nov 1994 16:49:13 GMT
Message-ID: 
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References:  <5Y9WrA1.hoffman2nd@delphi.com>
	<39a2a7$lb9@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> 
	<39iv67$5av@access1.digex.net> 
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 1994 06:22:00 GMT
Lines: 17


From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
>     Go argue with the Judeo-Christians.  They still believe the myth 
>that the "Jews" of Judaism are the literal blood descendants of the Jews 
>of the Old and New Testaments.

Cite, please?

Sorry Rick, but given your recent track record if you came thru the
door dripping wet and told me it was raining I would feel compelled to
look out the window just to be sure.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD


Article 18614 of alt.discrimination:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!news.pipeline.com!not-for-mail
From: white@pipeline.com (James White)
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination
Subject: German victims of Immigration
Date: 9 Nov 1994 05:46:58 -0500
Organization: rsavage@netcom.com
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <39q9b2$fva@pipe1.pipeline.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pipe1.pipeline.com

Responding to msg by rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage) on Mon, 7 
Nov  6:1  PM

>   Germany - 5000 Casualties a Day

NeoNazi propaganda deleted.

I am a German and you are posting neoNazi propaganda.  Do you 
know anything about Germany?

Der Neonazi Ewald Althans hat den Mord an Millionen Juden in 
der NS-Zeit vor dem M|nchner Landgericht am Montag erneut 
bestritten. Der Hauptdarsteller des umstrittenen Films "Beruf 
Neonazi" behauptete sogar, er habe nur "offenkundiges Wissen" 
verbreitet. Die Staatsanwaltschaft wirft dem 28jdhrigen 
Journalisten unter anderem Aufstachelung zum Rassenha_, 
Verunglimpfung des Andenkens Verstorbener und Verbreitung von 
Propagandamitteln verfassungswidriger Organisationen vor.
 
    Althans hat laut Anklage Videos mit Nazi-Propaganda 
angeboten. Darin haben der Deutsch-Kanadier Ernst Z|ndel, der 
umstrittene britische Historiker David Irving und der 
amerikanische Neonazi Fred Leuchter die Existenz von Gaskammern 
im Konzentrationslager Auschwitz geleugnet. In der vffentlichen 
Sitzung k|ndigte Althans an, seinem "Zwang" zur Darstellung 
seiner Meinung wolle er auch k|nftig nachkommen.
 
    Der Angeklagte gilt als Anhdnger des verstorbenen 
Neonazi-F|hrers Michael K|hnen und des in Spanien inhaftierten 
fr|heren Generalmajors und Alt-Nazis Ernst Remer. Er f|hle sich 
von den deutschen Behvrden diskriminiert, verfolgt und 
eingegrenzt, sagte Althans vor Gericht: "Ich sehe mich hier zu 
Unrecht sitzen."

These are the psople who write this nonsense, it is not the 
ideas of the German people and you should not post this stuff.

>  - This has been an excerpt from, "The Hoskin's 
>Report", P.O. Box 997,  Lynchburg, Virginia 24505 USA 
>(804)845-1335, May 4th, 1992 issue (#212)

This is where this comes from I guess.  Well I will notify the 
German government about it, you know we do not like that kind 
of propaganda blamed on us.  We have had enough of it and the 
majority of us are trying to assure that we will never go down 
the path of the 30s and 40s ever again.

Jim White                   
Deutscher-Amerikanischer Panzerfuhrer mein Kapitan: Deutschland 
uber Alles
Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Eine....






Article 18738 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!unixg.ubc.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!psgrain!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rsavage
From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
Subject: Re: Judaism is Not Genetic (was: Re: Death Thr
Message-ID: 
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References:   
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 1994 16:41:07 GMT
Lines: 85

Barry Shein (bzs@world.std.com) wrote:

: From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
: >     This admission disproves all of Judaism's claims that the "Jews" of 
: >today are "God's Chosen People."  Thanks for the admission.

: Huh? How do you figure? You mean if you're the great-great-great...
: grandchild of a convert to Christianity then you can't be "saved" and
: thus enter the Kingdom of Christ? By this same reasoning?

    Thanks for your misunderstanding, next...

: I think you're about the only one here who seems to believe that
: "god's chosen people" is exclusively an inherited quality.

     I believe the Bible defines who are "god's chosen people".  It is 
rather plain.  If you are ignorant of the reference I can post them.  
Then we can show how the modern day "Jews" of Judaism do not fit any of 
the qualifications.  

: Go read the Ten Commandments in the bible, as a good start.

   And how does this relate to defining "God's chosen people"?

: Where exactly does it say "Thou shalt not be the son or daughter of a
: non-Jew"?  Nowhere.

      Where does it say anything about "Jews" being "God's Chosen 
People"?  Nowhere.

: It says do this, do that, do this, etc, all voluntary acts on the part
: of the individual, and you shall be one of God's chosen people, ie, a
: Jew. Ok, there are some other things not covered by the Ten
: Commandments, Leviticus and all that, but show me where this is
: limited to a genetic or racial group.

   Does it?  Where does it say this?  Where do you find the word "Jew" in 
any of it?  The word "Jew" doesn't even show up until the book of Kings.  
Long after Leviticus.  Any good Bible Concordance can show you this.

: IT'S A RELIGION. IT BELIEVES THAT IF YOU ACCEPT THE RELIGION YOU HAVE
: A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD. YOU ARE OF THE CHOSEN. YOW, HOW
: UNUSUAL!

    Judaism is a religion.  The only admission I want is it find's no 
basis in the Christian Bible, but rather their Babylonian Talmud.  The 64 
volumes of the Talmud are a mind-bending justification for doing 
everything the Bible condemns.  This is why it is antithetical to the 
Bible and the Christian Religion.

: You are one utterly confused person.

    Because I don't understand your confusion?

: >     Then can the "Jews" of Judaism then finnally denounce their claim to 
: >be "God's Chosen People," the "People of the Old Testament," the "People 
: >of the Book (Bible)" once and for all and be done with it?

: No, because this is what they believe.
: It's not a genetic, inherited quality you dunderhead.

     Thank you, this is the only admission I needed.  I'm happy and you 
can call me any name you need to appease your sense of self-righteousness.

: Yes indeed the child of Jewish parents (yes I know the rules) is
: Jewish.


: YOU CAN CONVERT TO JUDAISM.
: And if you do, YOU ARE A JEW. YOU BECOME ONE OF GOD'S CHOSEN PEOPLE,
: according to their theology. Feel free. Wanna become one of God's
: Chosen People and recognized as such by every Jew on earth? Call your
: local rabbi and CONVERT! Ok, it's not as easy as converting to
: Christianity in some mechanical sense, the steps involved, but so
: what, surely that's not your complaint.

     Thanks for clearing that up.  Thanks for clearing up the 
misconception regarding the "Jews" claim to being "God's Chosen People".  
It is not based on the Bible or the God of the Bible but their religion 
ONLY.  This is what I've been saying all along. 
-- 
 _____________________Rick Savage ______________________
|    Important files on life, liberty and happiness:        Rick Savage     | 
|  Anonymous FTP server:  ftp.netcom.com  - "cd pub/SFA"    PO Box 5251     |
|       Gov't, history, law, Bible, socialissues          Denver, CO 80217  |


Article 18661 of alt.discrimination:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!hudson.lm.com!news.pop.psu.edu!news.cac.psu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!news.pipeline.com!not-for-mail
From: white@pipeline.com (James White)
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: What is Racism?
Date: 11 Nov 1994 18:00:40 -0500
Organization: rsavage@netcom.com
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <3a0t2o$3kr@pipe1.pipeline.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pipe1.pipeline.com

Responding to msg by rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage) on Mon, 7 
Nov  5:47 PM

>     All of the different cultures you want to define 
>as seperate on one 
>hand and then deny the existence of the white race with 
>your reductionist 
>logic is rather confusing.  Let's straighten some of 
>this out. 

What the hell is reductionist logic Savage?  Where do you get 
these labels?  I will bet I can guess.  

>     You want to talk about British, German and other 
>white cultures as 
>proof there is no white race.  This should be funny to 
>most thinking 
>individuals.  Ther greater Germanic race encompases all 
>these seemingly 
>differing cultures.

There is no greater Germanic race except in your imagination.

>Just who are the "Germanic Peoples?"

I am German and most Germans are Teutons.  Some are mixed with 
Slavs some are mixed with Gauls some are mixed with Nordic 
peoples.  I happen to be more Nordic than Teutonic because I am 
a third generation product of Hitler's breeding program a fact 
that I am not proud of also.  My grandparents were Nazis a fact 
that I am not proud of today.  I am thoroughly shocked at the 
amount of Nazi thinking alive and well in America today.  More 
than in Germany.  American blood was shed to rid the world of 
the kind of thinking you are promoting here, I wonder what the 
people who died at Anzio, Normandy, the Bridge at Remagen and 
Bastogne would think of you promoting the sort of things they 
gave their lives to remove from the world.  I think you are a 
disgrace not only to your parents and yourself but the whole of 
the United States of America that nutured you.  You are vermin 
and nothing more.

>Tracing Our White Ancestors, by Haberman
>God's Covenant People - Yesterday, Today and Forever, 
>by Ted Weiland
>Origins of Race and Civilization, by Charles Weisman
>Your Inheritance: Best Kept Secret in the World, by 
>Robert Allen
>Our Scythian Ancestors, W.E. Filmer
>Racial Elements of European History, by Dr. Hans 
>Gunther

Bullshit, pure BULLSHIT.  That bibliography reads like a Who's 
Who of racists.  Savage you certainly have the right name.

>    Since we dismissed your simplistic reductionist 
>logic above, I think 
>we can understand your need to insult people's 
>intelligence.

Savage here you go with your reductionist logic again.  You are 
the biggest BULLSHITER I have ever seen on the net.  The 
pittiful thing is that I think you believe it.  Then you offer 
more bullshit at an annonymous server location.  Tsk, tsk, 
tsk..... I hope I can insult you enough to keep you off the net 
permanently.

James White
Deutscher-Amerikanischer Panzerfuhrer mein Kapitan:  
Deutschland uber Alles,
Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein ...



Article 18904 of alt.revisionism:
Xref: oneb alt.politics.nationalism.white:58 alt.revisionism:18904
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!news.hal.COM!olivea!hookup!news.duke.edu!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: So what's wrong with Jews?
In-Reply-To: rsavage@netcom.com's message of Fri, 11 Nov 1994 17:49:52 GMT
Message-ID: 
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References: <1994Nov9.020624.28231@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> 
	<3a01cr$c14@decaxp.harvard.edu> 
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 1994 01:26:04 GMT
Lines: 25


From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
>     As David Irving put it...An anti-semite is anyone the Jews hate.

And many hate anti-semites for good reason!

You have earned the label, Mr Savage, why not wear it proudly?

Remember the holocaust denier's motto, always:

	The holocaust didn't occur, and they got what they deserved!

Face it, you're scum savage, learn to live with it.

>     The "Jews" need to stop crying "anti-semite" if they insist on 

And Savage needs to get a religion that is not based upon a spelling
error!


-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD


Article 18935 of alt.revisionism:
Xref: oneb alt.politics.nationalism.white:62 alt.revisionism:18935
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!news.hal.COM!olivea!koriel!lll-winken.llnl.gov!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rsavage
From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
Subject: Re: So what's wrong with Jews?
Message-ID: 
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References: <1994Nov9.020624.28231@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA>  <3a01cr$c14@decaxp.harvard.edu>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 1994 17:49:52 GMT
Lines: 29

Felix Vagabond (stara@fas.harvard.edu) wrote:



:   Savage! Savage! Savage! You're primitive and oblivious even to who you are.
:   If you were to take everything you concoct at its face value, you would lose  
:   on every accout. That's you have to prove. But then again why waist time with
:   an dolt. Yet to me it shows how some of you revisionist are anti-semites.


     As David Irving put it...An anti-semite is anyone the Jews hate.  "I 
believe I don't deserve to be called anti-semitic,...but you think I 
would be entitled to be from all the abuse I have suffered at the hands 
of the Jews"  (to paraphrase).
     The "Jews" need to stop crying "anti-semite" if they insist on 
continuing in persecuting, hating and harassing those who might resent 
being abused in such manner.  
     AS Albert Einstein put it: 

   "Anti-Semitism is nothing but the antagonistic attitude produced in 
the non-Jew by the Jewish group.  The Jewish group has thrived on 
oppression and on the antagonism it has forever met in the world."  
(Collier's Magazine, Nov. 26, 1938)

-- 
 _____________________Rick Savage ______________________
|    Important files on life, liberty and happiness:        Rick Savage     | 
|  Anonymous FTP server:  ftp.netcom.com  - "cd pub/SFA"    PO Box 5251     |
|       Gov't, history, law, Bible, socialissues          Denver, CO 80217  |


Article 58 of alt.politics.nationalism.white:
Xref: oneb alt.politics.nationalism.white:58 alt.revisionism:18904
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!news.hal.COM!olivea!hookup!news.duke.edu!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: So what's wrong with Jews?
In-Reply-To: rsavage@netcom.com's message of Fri, 11 Nov 1994 17:49:52 GMT
Message-ID: 
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References: <1994Nov9.020624.28231@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> 
	<3a01cr$c14@decaxp.harvard.edu> 
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 1994 01:26:04 GMT
Lines: 25


From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
>     As David Irving put it...An anti-semite is anyone the Jews hate.

And many hate anti-semites for good reason!

You have earned the label, Mr Savage, why not wear it proudly?

Remember the holocaust denier's motto, always:

	The holocaust didn't occur, and they got what they deserved!

Face it, you're scum savage, learn to live with it.

>     The "Jews" need to stop crying "anti-semite" if they insist on 

And Savage needs to get a religion that is not based upon a spelling
error!


-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD


Article 62 of alt.politics.nationalism.white:
Xref: oneb alt.politics.nationalism.white:62 alt.revisionism:18935
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!news.hal.COM!olivea!koriel!lll-winken.llnl.gov!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rsavage
From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
Subject: Re: So what's wrong with Jews?
Message-ID: 
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References: <1994Nov9.020624.28231@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA>  <3a01cr$c14@decaxp.harvard.edu>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 1994 17:49:52 GMT
Lines: 29

Felix Vagabond (stara@fas.harvard.edu) wrote:



:   Savage! Savage! Savage! You're primitive and oblivious even to who you are.
:   If you were to take everything you concoct at its face value, you would lose  
:   on every accout. That's you have to prove. But then again why waist time with
:   an dolt. Yet to me it shows how some of you revisionist are anti-semites.


     As David Irving put it...An anti-semite is anyone the Jews hate.  "I 
believe I don't deserve to be called anti-semitic,...but you think I 
would be entitled to be from all the abuse I have suffered at the hands 
of the Jews"  (to paraphrase).
     The "Jews" need to stop crying "anti-semite" if they insist on 
continuing in persecuting, hating and harassing those who might resent 
being abused in such manner.  
     AS Albert Einstein put it: 

   "Anti-Semitism is nothing but the antagonistic attitude produced in 
the non-Jew by the Jewish group.  The Jewish group has thrived on 
oppression and on the antagonism it has forever met in the world."  
(Collier's Magazine, Nov. 26, 1938)

-- 
 _____________________Rick Savage ______________________
|    Important files on life, liberty and happiness:        Rick Savage     | 
|  Anonymous FTP server:  ftp.netcom.com  - "cd pub/SFA"    PO Box 5251     |
|       Gov't, history, law, Bible, socialissues          Denver, CO 80217  |


Article 19076 of alt.revisionism:
Xref: oneb alt.revisionism:19076 alt.religion.christian:3827 alt.christnet:4473
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.religion.christian,alt.christnet
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!unixg.ubc.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!psgrain!nntp.ski.mskcc.org!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!uunet!world!news.kei.com!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rsavage
From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
Subject: Re: Khazars: the self-styled "Jews"
Message-ID: 
Followup-To: alt.revisionism,alt.religion.christian,alt.christnet
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References:   
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 1994 16:29:37 GMT
Lines: 186

Barry Shein (bzs@world.std.com) wrote:

: >    Absolutely.  The Indians claimed less than 3% of the land legally.  
: >The white europeans played by the Indians own rules.  The indians were 
: >killing each other off for decades before the whites came.  The whites 
: >just played their own game, but were more effective at it.

: Right you dumb fucking piece of shit. WHEN IT COMES TO YOU AND YOURS
: MIGHT MAKES FUCKING RIGHT!
: But when you decide to judge Jews all of a sudden this bullshit about
: international law and reparations comes drooling out of your twisted
: little brain.
: WHO IN THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE KIDDING YOU DUMB HYPOCRITE? JUST
: WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE KIDDING?

     Here you go again, typiclly flying off at the mouth before 
understanding what is being presented.  Is your tirade all played out 
now?  Can we now look at what I was actually saying?  Good.  Here we go:

From:  ftp.netcom.com /pub/SFA
----------------------------------------
 
INDIANS AND THE WHITE MAN
 
     What about the Indians?  Weren't they here first?  Didn't we 
(the white race) take this land away from the Indian?  Doesn't the 
Indian have the rightful title to America?
     Since we are dealing with a conflict between two nations or 
races, the white race and the Indian race, we need to turn to the 
Law of Nations or International Law for the solution.  The 
following are some basic maxims of the International Law:
     FIRST: That every nation possesses an exclusive sovereignty 
and jurisdiction in its own territory.
     SECOND:  That no state or nation can by its law directly affect 
or bind property that lies outside of its own territory, or persons 
not resident therein.
     THIRD:  That whatever force the laws of one country have in 
another depends solely on the municipal laws of the latter.
     -"Harper's Encyclopedia of United States History."  Harper & 
Brothers Publishers, Vol. V, 1901 (International Law)
 
     The first principal listed here would seem to suggest that all of 
America was the possession of the Indians prior to the age of 
discovery by  the white race.  However, the Indians never laid 
claim to all of America because they had no understanding of its 
size or boundaries.  The Indian only claimed the land he was 
inhabiting and that which he used for hunting, burial, etc.  At the 
time of discovery (circa 1500 A.D.), the American Indian 
numbered about 700,000 inhabitants, sparsely scattered over what 
is now America.  Thus the Indians never had a legal claim to much 
more than 3% of the land at any one time.  So it can be said that 
the Indians did have a legal claim to America, 3% of it, which was 
considered their "own territory."
     In light of this, it can not be said that the white race violated 
the second principal of International Law either, since 97% of 
America was not legally the "property" of anyone.  When America 
was claimed by the English, French, and Spanish, they claimed the 
entire breadth and width of the land, from sea to sea, from one 
boundary to the next.  They did not just claim the plot of land they 
were inhabiting.  However, the lands that the Indians occupied 
within these European claims were still Indian land.
     It is sometimes argued, however, that the white man encroached 
upon and took possession of lands that were legally claimed by 
the Indian.  It is indeed true that the white man now possesses 
lands which were once legally Indian land.  However, it cannot 
necessarily be concluded that all the lands were illegally taken 
because we know that some of these land rights were sold to the 
white man.  The third maxim of International Law says we have to 
look at the Indian's law, and that whatever measures or acts the 
white man makes in regards to Indian land must be pursuant to 
Indian law.  AT this point then we need to look at some laws that 
were held by the Indians:
     1.  It was a law common among Indians that the stronger of 
two tribes or people (nations) has the right to conquer and subdue 
the weaker.
     2.  Under Indian common law it was understood that land 
claims existed by inhabiting the land and by any use of the land.
     3.  When any land was unoccupied or not used for one year, 
the land was free for anyone to claim and settle.
 
     This first law of the Indians could actually render all other 
arguments of land rights academic.  This law was almost a way of 
life with the Indian, which is why they were always warring among 
themselves, and perhaps why they were so few in number.  The 
wars and conflicts between the white race and the Indian race 
throughout history are numerous, and the fact that the white race 
was the stronger cannot be doubted.
     According to the third Indian law listed, the white man, or any 
man or nation, had the right to possess the vast lands that were 
uninhabited or unclaimed by the Indian in America.  Since the 
Indians never claimed the American continent from Atlantic to 
Pacific, the lands claimed by right of discovery are valid.  Thus, 
the only legal conflict that can exist lies with the 3% of the land 
the Indian had a legal claim to in America, in accordance to the 
second Indian law listed.
     In spite of the legal right the white race has to America, we 
often are confronted with the anti-American propaganda that the 
white race wronged the Indian by attacking and killing them and 
driving them out of their land.  We thus need to look at the first 
colonial settlers.  A summary of these first conflicts show that 
they were always initiated by Indians:

(The following excerpts were used from these history sources:  
(Edward Eggleston, "A History Of The United States And Its 
People," 1888.
(Gertrude Southworth, "A First Book In American History," 
1919.
(Hezekiah Butterworth, "The Story of America," 1898.
(John Bassett, Ph.D., "A Short History of The United States: 
1492-1929," 1933.)
 
 - Shortly after the first colony was established at Jamestown in 
1607, the settlers were attacked by Indians, who wounded 
seventeen men and killed one boy.
 - After the above conflict, peaceful relations prevailed, due to the 
wise police of Captain John Smith and the good will of Powhatan, 
head chief of the Indian Confederacy.  When Powhatan died in 
1618, his brother Opechancanough, who disliked the English, 
began to plot war.  In March 1622, the Indian tribes wen ton the 
warpath, and swept though a line of settlements marked by a trail 
of blood.  In the white settlements, nearly 400 men, women and 
children, were cruelly put to death before the ravages of the 
Indians could be checked.
 - For 22 years after the massacre of 1622 there was peace.  But 
Opechancanough, at last head chief, only waited for another 
opportunity.  In 1644, there was a civil war in England, and he 
thought the expected moment was at hand.  The massacre he 
waged left over 300 white settlers slain in two days.  Again the 
whites took up arms in defense, and in 1646 the aged chief 
himself was taken and killed - there was never again a general 
uprising in Virginia.
 - In the Plymouth colony, a peace compact was established 
between the Indian chief Massasoit and Governor Carver.  AS 
time went on, the friendly old chief died.  When his son, King 
Philip, came to be ruler of the Wampanoag tribe, trouble began to 
brew for the colonists.  Urged on by his braves, King Philip began 
sending messages to friendly tribes, inviting them to join in a 
mighty war on the "pale faces."  The war that followed was a 
terrible one.  The Indians, avoiding the white troops, dodging 
them, and never meeting them face to face in the open field, carried 
on the contest in their savage way of massacring the helpless, and 
burning villages.  Many a fair and quite settlement was made 
desolate.  Women and children were ruthlessly murdered, and 
burned in the houses.  But by the end of 1675 the force of the 
Indians was broken.
   - In the New Haven colony the situation with the Indians (the 
Pequets) was similar.  At first there were peaceful relationships 
between them and the white settlers.  During 1637, the Pequots 
attempted to organize a confederacy, but unable to secure the help 
of the Narragansetts due to the influence of Roger Williams, they 
took to the warpath alone.  They did not come out in open battle, 
but waylaid a party of whites and killed thirty of them.  In 
response to this, a small party of English, along with some seventy 
friendly Indians, attack the Pequet stronghold, killing over 450 of 
that tribe.  The great Pequet tribe was crushed, and nearly forty 
years of Peace ensued.
 
     History reveals that all the early hostilities and wars between 
the American Indians and the white settlers, were instigated by or 
first carried out by the Indians.  Even though the white settlers had 
legal title to the land by way of purchase or claim of unoccupied 
lands, the Indian was always the one to disrupt peaceful relations 
with attacks, massacres, and wars.  The retaliation by the white 
settlers were merely acts of self defense and self preservation in 
accordance with the law of nature.  Thus it was the Indian who 
was the intruder and violator of land rights.  It was the Indian who, 
in the beginning, wronged the white man.  The Indian's treachery, 
barbaric and warlike manners, and sneak attacks on the colonist 
was positive proof of the anti-social nature of the red man.  This 
exhibit of the Indian's character caused much distrust of the Indian 
continued to live by and uphold in the future.
     Thus, the white race has a rightful and legal claim and title to 
America pursuant to international law, the Indian's law, the law of 
nature, and by a combination thereof.
 
From the book, _America: Free, White, & Christian_, by Charles A. Weisman, 
pgs. 52-56 
 
Available from: 
Scriptures For America, PO Box 766-c, LaPorte CO 80535, 
$8.00 ppd
-- 
 _____________________Rick Savage ______________________
|    Important files on life, liberty and happiness:        Rick Savage     | 
|  Anonymous FTP server:  ftp.netcom.com  - "cd pub/SFA"    PO Box 5251     |
|       Gov't, history, law, Bible, socialissues          Denver, CO 80217  |


Article 19096 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!unixg.ubc.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!psgrain!nntp.ski.mskcc.org!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!uunet!cherokee!engineer.mrg.uswest.com!news.uoregon.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.umbc.edu!eff!news.kei.com!travelers.mail.cornell.edu!news.tc.cornell.edu!caen!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rsavage
From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
Subject: Re: Judaism is Not Genetic
Message-ID: 
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References:  <5Y9WrA1.hoffman2nd@delphi.com> <39a2a7$lb9@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>  <39iv67$5av@access1.digex.net>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 1994 16:49:13 GMT
Lines: 34

Michael P. Stein (mstein@access1.digex.net) wrote:
: In article ,
: Rick Savage  wrote:
: >Danny Keren (dzk@cs.brown.edu) wrote:
: >: Mr. Hoffman truly reveals his own racism by writing this. Being a
: >: Jew has nothing to do with any "blood ties" but with one's
: >: decision to accept Judaism. Genetics has nothing to do with it.
: >
: >     This admission disproves all of Judaism's claims that the "Jews" of 
: >today are "God's Chosen People."  Thanks for the admission.  It also 
: >disclaims their right to the land in Palestine since this was the claim 
: >they used to justify their "right" to it.

:     Of course, Rick Savage argues out of both sides of his mouth.  On
: the one hand, he says that the lack of blood descent invalidates any
: theological claim by a modern Jew to be one of the "chosen people" - that
: one cannot *join* the chosen people by simple conversion.  However, when
: it comes to Identity Christianity, all of a sudden it seems to become
: something you *can* choose, and is not restricted to descendants of
: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. 

     Go argue with the Judeo-Christians.  They still believe the myth 
that the "Jews" of Judaism are the literal blood descendants of the Jews 
of the Old and New Testaments.  Since you don't believe in this fiction 
then you are perfectly welcom to ridicule it all you want.  I wont object 
at all but probably join you.
     Your second comment is interesting.  I thought "Identity" 
Christianity believed that God does the choosing, not us choosing God.  

-- 
 _____________________Rick Savage ______________________
|    Important files on life, liberty and happiness:        Rick Savage     | 
|  Anonymous FTP server:  ftp.netcom.com  - "cd pub/SFA"    PO Box 5251     |
|       Gov't, history, law, Bible, socialissues          Denver, CO 80217  |


Article 19117 of alt.revisionism:
Xref: oneb alt.politics.nationalism.white:73 alt.revisionism:19117
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!news.ucdavis.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rsavage
From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
Subject: Re: So what's wrong with Jews?
Message-ID: 
Followup-To: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References: <1994Nov9.020624.28231@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA>  <3a01cr$c14@decaxp.harvard.edu>  
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 18:26:26 GMT
Lines: 29

Charles R.L. Power (karlpov@access4.digex.net) wrote:
: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage) writes:
: >     As David Irving put it...An anti-semite is anyone the Jews hate. 

: Dunno about that, Rick, but I'd say that anyone who promulgates the 
: belief that Jews are the literal descendents of Satan might conceivably 
: qualify.  That is among the doctrines of your cult Christian Identity, 
: isn't it?

    No.  You should really refrain from reading the plagerized ADL hate 
reports.  The ADL can't get anything right.  
    You might want to get the file "Devil/Satan Defined" from anon. FTP at;
ftp.netcom.com /pub/SFA/Bible.  
    After reading this you might understand that there is no literal 
super-spook named "Devil" or "Satan."  The words are adjectives and/or 
appositives and not proper nouns.  This will make your idiotic statement 
the transparent ignorant flame that it is.

: Do you object to being called "anti" the children of Satan, Rick?  Or are 
: you a friend of the children of Satan?  Perhaps you could clarify.

    Who are the "children of Satan"?  You have some idea of what this 
means that I obviously don't share.

-- 
 _____________________Rick Savage ______________________
|    Important files on life, liberty and happiness:        Rick Savage     | 
|  Anonymous FTP server:  ftp.netcom.com  - "cd pub/SFA"    PO Box 5251     |
|       Gov't, history, law, Bible, socialissues          Denver, CO 80217  |


Article 78 of alt.politics.nationalism.white:
Xref: oneb alt.politics.nationalism.white:78 alt.activism:50985
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.activism
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!news.hal.COM!olivea!uunet!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rsavage
From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
Subject: Thinking Beyond the CRIME BILL
Message-ID: 
Keywords: crime,state,rights,sovereignty,militia,military,zionism,NWO
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 22:11:25 GMT
Lines: 956

THINKING BEYOND THE CRIME BILL
 
The Christian Crusade for Truth, Sept.-Oct. 1994
Intelligence Newsletter
by Pastor Earl F. Jones
 
-----------------------
From Anonymous FTP site:  ftp.netcom.com /pub/SFA
Get the Identity.faq.
-----------------------
 
     This writer was recently enroute to a conference in 
Wisconsin.  Sitting beside me in the airplane was a man 
and his wife returning to home from Albuquerque.  In our 
discussions they mentioned that their daughter was a public 
defender lawyer in a large city.  Our discussions naturally 
turned to the ills of our country.  It seems that this is the 
most talked about topic in America today.
 
     The lady quickly volunteered the information that their 
daughter oftentimes discussed with them the evils of the 
government.  She openly declared that our government has 
become tyrannical.  Even public defenders see the problem!
 
     Of course, the discussion would not have been complete 
without talking about the infamous Crime Bill.  Congress 
had just then passed it.  The lady very quickly insisted that 
the so-called "assault-weapons" were not needed by the 
citizens and she agreed with the banning of them.  When 
the remarks by the founding fathers were given her 
regarding the real purpose of the second amendment, that it 
was to keep a tyrannical government in check, she insisted 
that times have changed and there is no need for citizens to 
have those types of weapons.  We landed in Wisconsin 
with her repeatedly being told that she should listen to her 
daughter who keeps telling them that our government has 
become tyrannical!
 
     In that story we can see the problem in our country.  It 
is the same problem that has been the downfall of our 
people many times.  It has been the cause of the fall of 
great civilizations of the past.  It is the cause of the fall of 
Rhodesia and South Africa.  It is the cause of the decline 
and fall of the United States of America.  This issue of the 
Intelligence Newsletter is dedicated to addressing that 
problem.  In a single sentence that problem is the lack of 
unity among the Celto-Saxon peoples of the world.  It is 
the single most prevalent cause of the weakening of the 
great American Republic.
 
     The Bible addresses that problem.  The root of the 
problem that causes the lack of unity is self-righteousness.  
That women on the plane to Wisconsin was a Methodist.  
She learned about he "evils" of those "assault weapons" 
from her minister.  When she learned that from him, (or 
her!), she then had the inclination to be self-righteous.
 
     The great stories of principle in the Old Testament 
meant nothing because her minister never reads them.  
Undoubtedly, her minister even glosses over the passage in 
Luke where Jesus says this:  "When a strong man armed 
keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace:  But when a 
stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, 
he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and 
divideth his spoils.  He that is not with me is against me: 
and he that gathereth not with me scattereth."  (Luke 11:23)  
Unless we gather together with Him it is tantamount to 
being against Jesus.
 
     ....Contrary to the thought that is spoon-fed us which 
states that differences of opinion (lack of unity) is healthy, 
unless we gather together in unity we will always do what 
Jesus said, "...he that gathereth not with me scattereth."  
 
     There were forty-six Republicans in the House of 
Representatives who voted for the Crime Bill.  The final 
count was 235 to 195.  Even with the forty-six Republicans 
who changed sides, the final vote still shows nearly a 50-50 
split in thinking.  We can evaluate every issue in America 
today and we will see a lack of unity on a 50-50 split.  
There is no national mandate from the people, through their 
Congressmen, on any issue.  We are a ship at sea without a 
rudder or a compass to steer the course.
 
     In the Senate it was much the same.  Senator Bob Dole 
of Kansas tried to impress the people of his state by trying 
various tactics which would defeat the bill in the Senate.  
Yet, if you will remember, he was one of only three men on 
the Senate floor when the Brady Bill was passed with a 
VOICE vote!
 
     There is much, much more to the Crime Bill of 1994 
than to stamp out crime!  Incidents in the House and Senate 
indicate that another, more compelling force was driving 
them.
 
     John Dingell was a member of the Board of Directors 
of the National Rifle Association.  He is also a member of 
the United States House of Representatives.  He resigned 
his post on the Board of Directors of the NRA and voted 
for the Crime Bill, along with the ban on "assault 
weapons."  He earlier even made the statement, that the bill 
was a violation of the second amendment and classified it 
as obnoxious.  Yet, he quit his Board of Directors post of 
the NRA and voted FOR it!
 
     For months, the news media had proposed that the main 
thrust of the Crime Bill was to build more prisons to 
incarcerate those classed as criminals as a result of the 
changes in definition in crime.  Senator Orin Hatch of Utah 
informed the public that, "Not one dime in the bill the 
President supports must be spent on building one prison 
cell."  The public was told that over eight billion dollars 
would be spent on prisons.  Senator Hatch stated, "Yet, 
$1.8 billion of that funding is simply to reimburse states 
for costs associated with incarceration of criminal aliens, 
funding that will go overwhelmingly to only a handful of 
states in any event.  The remaining $6.5 billion is to go to 
"Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth in Sentencing 
Grants."  The money is to go to free existing prison space 
for early release-type programs, half-way houses and other 
alternatives, rehabilitation, drug and sex offender treatment, 
job training, and that sort of effort.  Hatch concluded by 
saying, "In order to satisfy the liberal social spending 
interests in his party, the President has endorsed 
squandering billions of dollars in scarce crime-fighting 
resources to be spent, instead, on liberal social spending 
pork."
 
     No, there is a much more serious problem than the 
control of crime that comes out of that bill.  First, it 
federalizes many crimes that are none of their business.  
Most crimes are state functions and the federal government 
has no business being involved in them.  This is simply 
another tactic to remove the states as sovereign entities as a 
part of the Republic and reduce them to simple "regions" 
within a federal government.
 
     It permits, or mandates, that the federal government will 
move into the state and local law enforcement agencies.  
Thus, the slightest infraction of a local ordinance or state 
law will now become a matter for the Department of Justice 
to handle.  However, they stepped on their own foot 
regarding the financial ability to accomplish this.  The 
director of the FBI, Louis Freeh, made the public statement 
that the money to fund the 100,000 new police officers the 
bill provides for at the local level was to be taken from the 
FBI and the DEA!  Rest assured that there will be money 
swapping from other funds to keep these two organizations 
going and growing!
 
     From the broader aspect, we must consider what the real 
motive for the Crime Bill is.  The outlawing of the 19 so-
called assault weapons gives a clue.  Another clue is the 
development of a federal police task force system in the 
most remote regions of the country.  This can only mean 
the remote sections of the country where the population is 
downward of three or four people to the square mile! 
 
     The Western states provide training grounds for the 
unorganized militia from all parts of the country.  If the 
United States is to merge into a world order means must be 
developed to counter the unorganized militia.  These militia 
units are being organized often.  They are Constitutionally 
legal and secured by the Constitution as well as the 
Declaration of Independence.
 
     A militia is comprised of local men dedicated to the 
preservation of the Constitution.  These men will be 
equipped with weapons of their choice, availability and 
ability to purchase.  There is no definition of an "assault 
weapon"  (other than the 19 listed).  The determination of 
an assault weapon will be made by the officer in the field.  
That means, in reality, that any weapon, even an old break-
down single shot shotgun is an assault weapon if it is in the 
hands of a militiaman.  The militias that were organized as 
the need for the Revolutionary War became apparent used 
just such guns as "assault weapons!"
 
     In regard to the militia, we want to include an interesting 
article by the editor of a small newspaper here in the West.  
The title is "Why Did Our Forefathers Fight?"
 
     "There seems to be two extreme views in the Patriot 
Camp today.  I call these the Pacifistic Defeatist view and 
the Linda Thompson War Halk View.  The Defeatists hold 
that armed defense of the Constitution is impossible, stating 
'It would be shotguns against attack helicopters and 
missiles.'  They have basically told the government 'If you 
use violence against us, we'll lay down like sheep in the 
slaughter, but until then we'll use legal devices against you.'  
That is an open invitation to tyranny and is not consistent 
with the spirit of the Constitution or the Declaration of 
Independence."
 
     "The Linda Thompson War Hawk View holds that all is 
lost unless we precipitate a contest of arms.  In fact, Linda 
Thompson, claiming to be 'Acting Adjutant of the 
Unorganized Militia' is calling (called) on armed supporters 
'in uniform' to march on Washington on September 9th.  
All this while we are actually moving forward with legal and 
peaceful actions that are helping to rebuild our 
Constitutional Republic 'line upon line, precept upon 
precept.'  Linda Thompson, in a rash move to get 'the whole 
ball of wax,' is willing to plunge us into a bloody war."
 
     "Because we have claimed a heritage which stretches 
back to our founding fathers and because we recognize our 
authority as having first been recognized and enforced by 
these visionary leaders, it is to them we must now turn to 
for counsel."
 
     "Many people have the impression that in 1775, our 
founding fathers suddenly decided that enough was enough 
and decided to fight.  In fact, the debate began in earnest in 
1765 when men like James Otis and Samuel Adams started 
opposing the actions of the British King.  Long before the 
'shot heard around the world' was fired on the Lexington 
Green, men such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas 
Jefferson had made their choice to fight for freedom.  
While every effort was made to reach a peaceful 
conclusion, the men of '75 had already decided when and 
why they would have to fight."
 
     "Thomas Jefferson summed it up well in speaking to us 
about the 2nd Amendment, 'Men will not appreciate the 2nd 
Amendment until they have to fight for it.'  It is no 
coincidence that in April of 1775 when General Gage's 
'Redcoats' were marching to Lexington and Concord 'to 
seize all powder, shot, cannon and muskets' held by the 
'illegal' citizen's militias (the Minutemen) there was no 
turning back.  Even before there was a lot of talk about 
independence, when the majority of Americans still held 
strong affections for the mother country, the revolution was 
underway."
 
     "The minutemen were not a centralized national militia.  
That title was descriptive of the fact that militia members 
could act 'in a minute' to repel an enemy.  These militias 
were created primarily by private individuals.  Some were 
organized around a town, such as the militia of Lexington 
and Concord, some around a person, such as Franklin's 
Associates, which was organized in 1745 to protect 
Pennsylvania from the French and Indians and in 1774 
gave birth to the first Philadelphia Cavalry Troop.  There 
were literally dozens of such militias and hundreds of 
smaller armed groups all of which had different reasons for 
their founding but all had one similar ideal as a reference; 
the only sure defense for a people is that the people 
themselves should be armed.  In _Federalist #46_, Madison 
explains that the chief protection we have against tyranny is 
to be armed."
 
     "For the Minutemen, this was not a light matter.  Many 
lost their fortunes and, worse, their lives in the bloody war.  
When the government moved to disarm the people, the only 
choices were to fight and hope to win or surrender and lose 
all.  The minutemen could not, with a clear conscience, 
throw away the freedoms won by their own forefathers."
 
     "You must remember that the men who came to America 
were seeking freedom and knew that even before the Bill of 
Rights was written, it existed as a powerful unwritten law.  
It is a testament to our forefathers that they understood 
their rights, as given by God, even without a "written Bill of 
Rights while we, with such a list of rights encoded in our 
law do not seem to clearly understand them!"
 
     "Our forefathers had old muskets, pistols and, in 1775, 
around 8 small-caliber cannons with which to fight the 
huge warships.  The well-trained and then-modernly-
equipped Red-Coats had large and plentiful cannons.  For 
the first three years, with a few local successes, the 
hodgepodge patriots were hard-pressed just to survive.  
Bad odds were not a part of the calculations our forefathers 
made as many said along with Nathaniel Hale, who was 
murdered by the British, 'I regret that I only have one life to 
give for my country' and Patrick Henry who said, "As for 
me, give me liberty or give me death!"
 
     "The Continental Army evolved essentially out of a 
tossing together of small groups and militias.  It was an 
outgrowth of a common effort to repel the foe and did not 
take shape until well into the initial stages of the battle.  
That was the problem the British had in quelling the 
Patriots, they could knock out one force or militia only to 
have another one crop up.  There was no 'capitol' or 
headquarters that they could destroy to eliminate the 
Patriots."
 
     "Because the various parts were guided by a common 
principle, and therefore worked cohesively, there was no 
need for a formal 'central' authority.  It was not until the 
battle tipped in the Patriot's favor that a real centralized 
'army' was created under George Washington's leadership.  
By the time this occurred, even though the Continental 
Army went through such hard times as Valley Forge, there 
was no real danger of the British being capable of totally 
destroying the American Army;  it was too big."
 
     "While our forefathers worked feverishly to prevent any 
need for war, they quietly and deliberately armed 
themselves against that day.  Why did they not create a 
'national militia?'  If you recall in Israel during the days of 
the judges when a war was on, there was a general call for 
'men who were skilled in war' to come to fight."
 
     "Our founding fathers created localized militias or even 
smaller groups of 'men who could shoot straight and duck.'  
Many groups, surprisingly, were organized in churches.  
Pastors quietly told the men to arm themselves and learn to 
be 'skilled in war.'  There was no formal organization, only 
a call to be prepared.  That is why many congregations 
were recorded to have marched off to war when the fighting 
began."
 
     "As long as they retained their means of self-defense, 
they weren't calling for war.  The legal battle raged in the 
courts and parliament while protests and pamphlets were 
used to expose the enemy.  When General Gage moved 
against one small groups of citizens to take away their 
means of self-defense, the whole country sprang to life and 
within a week the British were facing a formidable array of 
militias and small bands of angry Americans."
 
     "I shudder to think that were Patrick Henry, Nathaniel 
Hale and George Washington alive today they would 
accuse us of the basest form of cowardice and treason and 
demand we account for the freedom they won for us."
 
     "When the men at Waco defended themselves against 
the tyrant's boot, we were all caught napping with our heads 
on our ammo boxes.  As the old saying goes, 'You fool me 
once, shame on you, you fool me twice, shame on me."
 
     "Even now, General Gage's ghost rides with Janet Reno, 
Bill Clinton and the goons of the Waco Massacre, let that 
give us pause and let us send out a warning far and wide 
'The Red Coats are Coming!"  End of the article (News 
Scope, Kross Information Service, 205-A W. Santa Fe, 
Grants, NM, $30/yr)
 
     Note that the writer stated:  "There was no Capitol or 
headquarters that they could destroy to eliminate the 
Patriots.  Because the various parts were guided by a 
common principle, and therefore worked cohesively, there 
was no need for a formal central authority."  That is called 
unity.  You know that our forefathers didn't agree on 
everything.  There were differences of opinion.  They went 
to different churches but they were of a single mind when it 
came to defining the enemy and what had to be done about 
it.  Note also that these militias were organized from the 
consideration of their being defensive.  They also 
recognized that when the time came the best defense is a 
good offense.  WE MUST LEARN UNITY!
 
     We wonder if the author realized how closely his quote 
"The Red Coats are coming!" parallels the problem of 
today.  We know that the New World Order brainchild of 
the Anglo-American elite is still attempting to regather the 
United States back to England.  Together they are going 
forth to conquer the world.  This concept started 
immediately after the Revolutionary War but it wasn't 
openly discussed and publicly described until Cecil Rhodes 
and his partner in the U.S., Andrew Carnegie, wrote about 
their plans.  That effort has continued all these years.  
George Bush talked openly about it and he is a fourth 
cousin to Queen Elizabeth.  Bill Clinton is carrying forward 
and he was a Rhodes Scholar and Communism is no 
accident.  All of them, from the very beginning have used 
Communism as a dialectical tool!
 
     To understand why the United States is the world's 
policeman, why we hear so much about foreign troops on 
American soil, why we hear of cooperative maneuvers 
between U.S. and Russian troops, we need to read a very 
well written and concise article by Norman Franz, Senior 
Staff Economist, FAMC.  His article is found in the 
_Monetary and Economic Review_ magazine for February, 
1994.  His organization can be contacted at 1-800-325-
8919.
 
     "During the Iraq war, humanity witnessed the public 
announcement of the insiders' age-old intent to create a one 
world government that they affectionately call the 'New 
World Order.'  The fact that this announcement was made 
form the plains of Shinar in Iraq reveals the same 
Babylonian roots that were present when the leaders of the 
ancient city of Babel (Babylon) announced.  'Come let us 
build for ourselves a city and a tower whose top will reach 
into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name;  lest we 
be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth,' 
(Genesis 11:4).  Ancient Babel was the first attempt to 
establish a New World Order, and that same spirit is at 
work among financial and political leaders today."  
 
     "The Iraq war also marked a renewed effort on the part 
of insiders to implement their thirty-year-old plan for 
creating a New World Army under UN command.  Most 
Americans do not realize that this plan was presented to the 
UN by President John F. Kennedy on September 25, 1961, 
and now serves as official U.S. policy (public Law 87-
297)."  (It is important to realize that all presidents from 
Kennedy to Clinton, Democrat and Republican alike, have 
continued in the spirit of that speech and the public law 87-
287. -Ed.)
 
     "Kennedy called it 'Freedom From War:  The United 
States Plan for General and Complete Disarmament in a 
Peaceful World' (State Department Publication 7277).  
Created by one world strategists in Dean Rusk's (CFR) 
State Department and Robert McNamara's (CFR) Defense 
Department, 'Freedom From War' is a three stage plan that 
outlines global military maneuvers designed to transfer the 
military power of sovereign nations, including the U.S. and 
Russia, over to UN control."
 
     "STAGE I Maneuvers declare that 'Measures would be 
taken to develop and strengthen UN arrangements for 
arbitration, for development of international law, and for the 
establishment, in State II, of a permanent UN Peace Force.'  
These measures are manifesting as insider created internal 
strife that erupts into economic, political and religious 
chaos and civil war that the UN is then called on to 
arbitrate.  Enforcement of UN arbitration by military force 
is made possible in Stage II."
 
     STAGE II Maneuvers, the stage we are in now, calls for 
the 'Establishment of a permanent international peace force 
within the UN.'  It goes on to say that "The UN Peace 
Force shall be established and progressively strengthened...  
to the end that the UN can effectively, in Stage III, deter or 
suppress any threat or use of force in violation of the 
purposes and principles of the UN.'  In plain English, they 
plan to disarm sovereign nations while simultaneously 
building up UN forces with the armaments from those 
nations."
 
     "Phase II was officially approved by the U.S. on 
September 21, 1992 when then President and insider 
George Bush addressed the UN, saying, 'I welcome the 
Secretary-General's call for a new agenda to strengthen the 
United Nations' ability to prevent, contain and resolve 
conflict across the globe,,,and,,,to best employ our 
considerable life, logistics, communications and intelligence 
capabilities.'"
 
     "We witnesses America's actual entry into Stage II on 
May 4, 1993, when President and insider Bill Clinton 
transferred command of U.S. troops in Somalia over to 
Cevik Bir, a UN officer from Turkey.  This was the first 
time in American history that U.S. troops have ever been 
put under foreign command, and it marked the beginning of 
the transfer of U.S. military power over to the UN."
 
     "America's Facilitation of UN Troops.  In his 1992 UN 
speech, Mr. Bush also proposed that, 'The United States is 
prepared to make available our bases and facilities for 
multinational training and field exercises.  One such base 
nearby, with facilities, is Fort Dix.'  This is very much in 
line with additional Stage II Maneuvers that state, 'Agreed 
military bases and facilities, wherever they are located, shall 
be dismantled or converted to peaceful (UN) uses.'"
 
     "As a result, we have seen the U.S. military bases close 
like retail stores in Los Angeles.  Unfortunately, most 
Americans are oblivious to the fact that most of them are 
being converted to bases for UN multinational forces.  
Proof of this came during a recent FAMC conference, 
when attending military personnel from the local military 
base testified that the UN troops present at the base were 
being referred to as 'international students.'  (For UN troop 
deployment in the U.S., see 'One World Government,' 
March 1993 MER)." 
 
     "President Bill Clinton is in full agreement and very 
much involved with the transfer.  Not only has he 
transferred military command of U.S. troops over to 
foreign control, but in an August 5, 1993 article in the 
_Washington Post_, Barton Gellman broke the story on 
globalist Clinton's 'Presidential Decision Directive 13' 
(PPD 13) 'endorses the United Nations as ersatz world 
policeman and commits Washington to support multi-
national peacemaking and peacekeeping operations 
'politically, militarily and financially.'"  (We know that 
Clinton really despises the U.S. military since he stated that 
years ago.  The powers that be therefore made an excellent 
choice for president in Clinton because he wouldn't have 
any compunctions in doing that to our military.  -Ed.)
 
      "Under PDD 13, the U.S. becomes the promoter, 
trainer and bill payer of Stage II maneuvers designed to 
establish a military command structure for the UN.  This 
was evident in President Clinton's September 27, 1993 
Address to the UN when he said, "The United Nations 
must have the technical means to run a modern world-class 
peacekeeping operation.  We support the creation of a 
genuine UN peacekeeping head-quarters with a planning 
staff, with access to timely intelligence, with a logistics unit 
that can be deployed on a moment's notice, and a modern 
operations center with global communications.'  The U.S. 
military has lost its sovereignty and is now the rubber 
stamp for UN policy enforcement."
 
     "Here Come the Russians.  We know that U.S. troops 
are being handed over to the UN in foreign countries, but 
who makes up the UN troops that are currently here in the 
U.S.?  The answer is easy.  It's the Russians, and here's 
how it works." 
 
     "The UN Under Secretary-General for Political and 
Security Affairs has always been in command of UN 
military forces and, with one exception, the Under 
Secretary-General has always been a Russian.  Listed 
below is the Historic register of UN military commanders.
 
1946-1949  Arkady Sobolev  (USSR)
1949-1953  Konstatin Zinchenko  (USSR)
1953-1954  Ilya Tchernychev  (USSR)
1954-1957  Dragoslav Protitch  (Yugoslavia)
1958-1960  Anatoly Dobrynin  (USSR)
1960-1962  Georgy Arkadev  (USSR)
1962-1963  E.D. Kiselev  (USSR)
1963-1965  V.P. Suslov  (USSR)
1965-1968  Alexei Nesterenko  (USSR)
1968-1973  Leonid N. Kutakov  (USSR)
1973-1978  Arkady Shevchencko  (USSR)
1978-1981  Mikhail D. Sytenko  (USSR)
1981-1986  Viacheslav Ustinov  (USSR)
1987-1992  Vasiliy S. Safonchuk  (USSR)
1992-      Vladimir Petrovsky  (Russia)
 
     "In the September issue of MER, we reported that 
former Russian president Mikhail Gorbachev's Foundation, 
located at the Presidio in San Francisco, was creating a task 
force that would oversee the shut-down of U.S. military 
bases.  Their strategy becomes very clear when you 
consider that the current UN commander is Vladimir 
Petrovsky, Gorbachev's former Deputy Foreign Minister."
 
     "Add to this the fact that the new U.S. Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John Shalikashvili, is a native 
of Russia whose accent is so heavy that sometimes you can 
hardly understand him.  He's not an American; he's a 
globalist serving Russian interests.  His father was a 
member of Hitler's SS Troops and his grandfather was a 
Russian general."
 
     "The plot thickened when, on September 8, 1993, former 
Defense Secretary Les Aspin and his Russian counterpart 
Pavel Grachev signed agreements that, among other things, 
would:
 
     1.  Set up joint military exercises between the two 
nations' navies and other armed services;  2.  In 1994, 
implement exchanges of enlisted personnel and officers, 
and would include reciprocating arrangements for military 
members of the two nations to attend the defense academies 
of the other nation."
 
     "In these actions, one can see the attempt to merge U.S. 
and Russian forces into the UN's New World Army, and 
both will be used to police each other's citizenry."
 
     "Most people think that Russia is disarming, but senator 
Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) has presented new evidence that 
the Russian military is building new road-mobile and fixed-
site, land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) 
armed with multiple re-entry vehicles (MIRVs).  The irony 
of it all is that they are financing it with U.S. tax dollars 
from the Nunn-Lagar aid program that is supposed to 
provide for Russian defense conversions and nuclear 
weapons reductions."
 
     "STAGE III Maneuvers state that '...the progressively 
controlled disarmament would proceed to a point where 
NO STATE would have the military power to challenge the 
progressively strengthened UN Peace Forces.'  This means 
that Stage II transfer of military will continue until no 
country, including the U.S. and Russia, has the military 
power to successfully make war against the UN.  AT this 
point we would have the indomitable New World Army 
with complete dictatorial control over the entire world."
 
     "The _Seattle Post Intelligencer_ Reported on February 
8, 1994, that $64 million of the 1994 Military Budget is 
appropriated to replace old World War II barracks at Fort 
Lewis, in the Seattle area.  Barracks are to be used for 
housing a 4,500- man armored brigade form Europe.  A 
local Seattle radio station identified the troops as British 
and Scottish."
 
     "THE BEAST.  We must remember that the financial 
and political elite's lust for money, power and control is at 
the heart of everything the New World Order does.  
Therefore, it can be reasonably assumed that this one world 
government will not be one of benevolence, but one like a 
beast."
 
     "According to the prophet Daniel, the last man-made 
government is mounting each day, and there really remains 
little doubt of it.  Therefore, it is safe to conclude that, at 
some point in time, the antichrist will most likely take over 
the leadership of the UN."  (We will discuss this point 
shortly. -Ed).
 
     "The office of Secretary-General is the leadership 
position at the UN, and it is currently held by Boutros 
Boutros-Ghali of Egypt.  According to people on his staff, 
he is obsessed with trying to establish a standing UN army 
and the management of current UN military engagements."
 
     "His attitude concerning his role as UN leader was 
reported in the December 17, 1992 _Wall Street Journal_:  
'Going into a recent meeting on the Somalia crisis, 
Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleberger put his arm 
around UN chief Boutros Boutros-Ghali, calling him 
'effendi', an Egyptian term for sir.  No, said the Egyptian 
diplomat, call me 'pasha', a more exalted term, meaning 
lord."  End of the article form the _Monetary & Economic 
Review_.
 
     It has become most obvious that public law 87-297 and 
State Department Document 7277 which we have read 
about for many years is now coming into final fruition.  It 
is also very obvious that the number of traitors in Congress 
just about includes all of them.  The American people sense 
this and are now talking very seriously about removing 
them all and starting over again.
 
     It is this writer's opinion that the greatest double-cross 
that has ever been perpetrated on the western nations is 
about to take place.  Notice that someone or some group 
was able to assure that it would be Russia that would 
provide the leadership for the UN military force.  At the 
time of the Korean conflict, the first time that the United 
States was fighting a UN police action, we could not 
understand why a Russian General would be in control.  
We were deep in the middle of a "cold war" with Russia at 
the time.  We were only concerned about the Communist 
USSR some day declaring war on the United States.  Then 
we learned that the same financial power created 
Communist Russia, Nazi Germany and the United States 
war machine of World War II.  This has been discussed in 
more detail in past "Lessons in History" of the Intelligence 
Newsletter.
 
     Then, within a very short time, and in a manner as 
though it was a queue from a higher power, the USSR fell 
and we were told that communism is dead.  For our people 
to believe that communism is dead is like believing in the 
tooth fairy!
 
     A very similar situation occurred following World War 
II when the world watched the British Empire collapse.  
Starting with India, the Empire came apart, one colony after 
another, until it was dismantled and there was hardly a peep 
out of the world community.  Certainly, there was no UN 
action to keep it intact.  Doesn't it seem strange that the 
Anglo American elite is actually in control of the United 
Nations?  We are sending troops to one brush fire after 
another under the control of the UN but there was no 
support for the fall of the British Colonial Empire.  
However, it is obvious that the United States and England 
are currently very much in control, at least outwardly, of the 
UN police actions, including the directing of the Russian 
military forces.
 
     The UN, outwardly being controlled by the United 
States and England, passed a resolution in 1957 declaring 
Zionism, the controlled faction of Israel, to be "A form of 
racism and racial discrimination."  Nothing was ever done 
about the resolution and it was finally rescinded in 1992 as 
a result of Zionist pressure in the United States.  Compare 
that total lack of enforcement of a UN resolution to that of 
the Iraqi conflicts, Somalia, the Serbian-Moslem conflict, 
Haiti, Panama, etc. These are just a few important points to 
consider to understand what is taking place behind the 
scenes.  Who, or what, is it that is actually pulling the 
strings?  
 
     It is the money behind the world-wide Zionist 
movement.  Zionists from the Ashkenazi branch of 
Judaism, along with their fellow travelers, posses nearly all 
of the world's money supply.  WE think of the Bank of 
England and the Federal Reserve as controlling the world's 
money market.  This is not true and the fall of the British 
Empire proves the point.
 
     We discussed the change in the control of the world's 
money and the manner in which money is made in a past 
history lesson.  Briefly, the change started to take place 
around the turn of the century and all of the wars of this 
century and all of the wars of this century were brought 
about by this new controlling faction.  They don't make 
money by family type corporations and banks such as 
Henry Ford, the Dodge family, Carnagie Steel, J.P. Morgan 
banks, etc.  The old system considered production and 
long-term investment and growth as the means of accruing 
a fortune.  But now money is made with money for the 
sake of money.  The new system is manifested by the 
actions of the Derivatives stock market, the Bosky stock 
market buy-out scheme, the Milliken affair.  These actions 
were actually illegal but they were able to succeed in 
destroying old time family corporations.
 
     It was probably Anchel Meyer Rothschild who started 
the system.  Even though he and his family were accepted 
by the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve, they and 
other Ashkenazi families like them pulled away.  Now a 
new colonial system is in place wherein corporations are 
moving into third and fourth-world countries and setting up 
shop while leaving each country ostensibly in control of 
their own nation.  However, it is to be all under the control 
of the UN and it won't be England and the Untied States 
pulling the strings behind the scenes.  It is the world-wide 
Zionist Movement who believe that they will be in total 
command.  It is a new colonial system which is much more 
extensive than the old system.  It will be much more brutal 
also.
 
     In a document called the _Nuturei Karta_ (Guardians of 
the City), written by devout orthodox Jews, we extract the 
following quotes:  "Zionism is a radical break with the 
Jewish past and Jewish tradition, a perversion of the true 
nature of the Jewish people and a most dangerous 
development in Jewish history...Judaism and Zionism are 
completely incompatible and mutually exclusive.  If you are 
a good Jew, you cannot be a Zionist.  If you are a Zionist, 
you cannot be a good Jew...The birth of the Zionist State is 
to be deplored, a state which is known to be conceived in 
atheism, based on materialism, nurtured by anti-semitism, 
led by Marxism, ruled by chauvinism, and trusting in 
militarism."  End of quote.
 
     We must consider that Russia is being allowed, and 
even encouraged with money, to continue to build their 
strategic capabilities.  We must consider that Gorbachev is 
in the Presidio developing the plans for the dismantling of 
America's military might.  We must consider that Russia 
and the United States military are conducting maneuvers 
together in such a manner as to allow the Russians to know 
intimately our tactics for warfare.  we must consider that we 
have allowed the Russian military to come into the United 
States to learn of our internal capabilities and to better 
understand the geography of our land mass.  Who needs 
KGB agents gumshoeing in the dark stealing our secrets?
 
     We must also consider that it was Zionism that created 
the Atheistic Communist Russia in 1917.  It was the Zionist 
faction of Wall Street money that kept Russia afloat and 
developed it into the monster that it is.
 
     Russia is that monster that is being preserved and even 
expanded by the real power behind the UN that is to be 
used as the "hammer" for the final 'coup de grace' if it is 
needed.
 
     The Zionist Utopia is the revolutionary.  All Americans 
who intend to stand up against those revolutionaries can 
properly be termed the counter-revolutionaries.  It would 
appear logical to us here at _Christian Crusade for Truth_ 
that those in government who understand this, along with 
those in the military and the various police departments 
who likewise understand, would encourage and quietly 
support any efforts to develop the counter-revolutionary 
capability.  It would seem that the myriad of local militias 
such as were developed before the Revolutionary War 
would be the centerpiece of the counter-revolutionary 
movement.
 
     The American people have finally become aware of this 
terrible threat to our nation.  More and more newspapers all 
over the country are now writing editorials such as the 
article included at the first of this issue.  The beginning 
thrust to regain our constitutional system are the numerous 
counties and state governments which are declaring state 
sovereignty.  Militias are forming in many communities 
and others are being contemplated.
 
     This is not going unnoticed by the New World Order 
advocates in Washington.  Just as they used the 
Constitution to supposedly allow the UN Treaty to take 
authority over the Constitution, they are now using the 
same technique to attempt to quash these efforts.  On 
August 30, 1994, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), 
FBI, BLM and the Forest Service met at some undisclosed 
location in Nevada to discuss methods and capabilities to 
destroy these county and state sovereignty efforts.  A 
memorandum, written by a Forest Service Ranger stated 
this:  "The purpose of this meeting was to inform the 
agencies that the 'States Rights' movement has been made a 
priority issue for the U.S. Attorney's office, as well as the 
Department of Justice.  In our discussions on August 30th, 
the request for a declaratory judgment was discussed as the 
preferred action to take to stop the State's Rights 
movement.  The U.S. Attorneys Office and the U.S. 
Department of Justice recognize this, not as an isolated 
incident, but a national problem."  End of Quote.
 
     It is obvious that this ground swell of Americans is 
bothering the internationalists who have decided to 
relinquish our national sovereignty to a world government.  
So, to counter this federal action, the citizens of that part of 
Nevada who are involved have filed a suit in Federal Court 
using the services of the Individual Rights Foundation with 
the active attorney being John W. Howard of The 
Foundation, based in Los Angeles.
 
     This will be a very interesting court action.  In all 
probability the federal government will prevail in court as is 
usually the case in such matters.  But either way, win or 
lose, the citizens of the country will win in that more 
Americans will be awakened to the enormous threat that our 
country is facing.  Even if the citizens of Nevada win the 
court case, the federal government probably won't abide by 
the judgment.  Again, this will send a message to the 
people.
 
     In several lessons in history we showed the life style, 
social customs, laws and religion of England prior to the 
invasion by William the Conqueror from France.  We then 
showed what happened after the invasion in 1066 and the 
tremendous change in these same functions.  The citizens 
of England enjoyed freedom and liberty before 1066.  they 
owned their land in "alodium" which means owned it 
completely without payment of taxes to anyone.  After 
William the Conqueror all that changed because they 
changed to a land of laws and regulations.  They owned 
their land in "fief" which means they had to pay taxes to 
William.  They were deeply in debt as a nation because of 
the system of tax and spend with the myriad of regulations 
enforcing the system.  This came about because William 
the Conqueror brought with him the Jewish money lenders 
from Roen France.  They were his advisors.  They collected 
the taxes.  They developed the new projects on which to 
spend money.  It was they who encouraged William to 
confiscate private property and make it the government's 
property.
 
     It was these conditions that led to the Magna Carta, a 
mere 175 years later.  It was in 1215 that the people of 
England, led by the leaders of the church, who forced King 
John, a descendent of William, to sign the Magna Carta.
 
     Today, our country is forced to endure a very similar 
situation.  This time it is the atheistic Zionist system which 
was so well defined by the "Neturei Karta" quoted earlier.  
We, in the United States are enduring the same type of 
conditions that Saxon England had forced upon them after 
1066.  It has also taken about 175 years here in the United 
States for the conditions to be similar.
 
     William the Conqueror had to develop a special 
technique to accomplish his mission.  If he was too harsh, 
the people would rebel.  Here, too, the idea is to give a lot of 
social goodies to tranquilize the population.  But they 
always get greedy.
 
     In closing, we will include a poem, written in 1100 A.D. 
which depicts how William the Conqueror did it.  You will 
notice the similarities:
 
     "My son", said the Norman Baron, "I am dying, and 
you will be heir, To all the broad acres in England that, 
William gave for my share, When we conquered the Saxon 
at Hastings, and a nice little handful is it.  But before you 
go over to rule it I want you to understand this:
     "The Saxon is not like us Normans.  His manners are 
not so polite, But he never means anything serious till he 
talks about justice and right.  When he stands like an ox in 
the furrow, with his sullen set eyes on your own, And 
grumbles, 'This isn't fair dealing,' my son, leave the Saxon 
alone.
     "You can horsewhip your Gascony archers, or torture 
your Picardy spears; But don't try that game on the Saxon; 
you'll have the whole brood round your ears.  From the 
richest old Thane in the county, to the poorest chained serf 
in the field.  They'll be at you and on you like hornets, and, 
if you are wise, you will yield.
     "But first you must master their language, their dialect, 
proverbs and songs.  Don't trust any clerk to interpret when 
they come with the tale of their wrongs.  Let them known 
that you know what they're saying; let them feel that you 
know what to say.  Yes, even when you want to go hunting, 
hear 'em out if it takes you all day.
     "They'll drink every hour of the daylight and poach 
every hour of the dark.  It's the sport not the rabbits they're 
after (we've plenty of game in the park).  Don't hang them 
or cut off their fingers.  That's wasteful as well as unkind.  
For a hard-bitten, South-country poacher makes the best 
man-at-arms you can find.
     "Appear with your wife and the children at their 
weddings and funerals and feasts.  Be polite but not 
friendly to Bishops; be good to all poor parish priests.  Say 
'we,' 'us' and 'ours' when you're talking, instead of 'you 
fellows' and 'I."  Don't ride over seeds; keep your temper; 
and never you tell 'em a lie!"
--------------------------------
 
NEWSLETTER INFO
     Many people write and ask to be placed on the mail list 
for Intelligence Newsletter and ask for subscription rates.  
There are no subscription rates because we sell nothing.  
We send our newsletter and our tapes as a gift to all who 
ask for them.  This ministry receives gifts from those who 
want it to continue.  Without you who freely give our 
expenses could not be met.  We thank you and may God 
bless you.  In Christ, we love you all.
 
Pastor Earl Jones,  Christian Crusade for Truth,
Star Route 2, Box 39, Deming, New Mexico 88030
Telephone: (505) 267-9350
 
---------------------------------
From Anonymous FTP site:  ftp.netcom.com /pub/SFA
Get the Identity.faq.
---------------------------------
 
AMERICA THE CONQUERED
by Pastor Peter J. Peters
 
This book proves beyond a doubt that America has been 
conquered and THEY, the conquerors, now rule over us.  
Read and discover who THEY are and awaken to the reality
of our conquest.  Discover why it has happened, how it 
happened and what we must do.
 
Contains over two hundred pages of truths of America's 
captivity within thirteen chapters, plus numerous 
illustrations, cartoons, and documentation that will awaken
even the most brainwashed American.
 
This book highlights the undisputable signs and earmarks 
of a conquered nation.  Learn why and how America's 
conquerors have distorted our heritage, stolen our children,
usurped our military, robbed our wealth, placed tribute 
on us, and forbidden our God and religion.  
 
This "underground" book will awaken the reader to our 
country's dilemma by contrasting America's former status
as a free, independent nation with  its present status as a 
victim of covert conquest.  Only $8.00 postpaid from:
 
Scriptures For America
PO Box 766-c
LaPorte, CO 80535  USA
 
Ask for their free newsletter.
------------------
EOF
-- 
 _____________________Rick Savage ______________________
|    Important files on life, liberty and happiness:        Rick Savage     | 
|  Anonymous FTP server:  ftp.netcom.com  - "cd pub/SFA"    PO Box 5251     |
|       Gov't, history, law, Bible, socialissues          Denver, CO 80217  |


Article 123 of alt.politics.nationalism.white:
Xref: oneb alt.skinheads:10834 alt.politics.nationalism.white:123
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rsavage
From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
Subject: Re: Zimmerman on the Evil of Nationalism
Message-ID: 
Followup-To: alt.skinheads,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References: 
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 05:22:09 GMT
Lines: 71

Joseph Boyle (boyle@netcom.com) wrote:

: From Here To Bosnia;Why Good Fences Don't Make Good Neighbors  
: 						By Warren Zimmermann 
:     In today's conglomerate world, the nation-state concept is a
: dangerous principle on which to base civil society. At its worst -
: and it is often at its worst - it elevates one ethnic group above
: another. It claims superiority based on race. It demands for one
: nation privileges not accorded to others. It cites - or creates -
: history to justify expansion to real or imagined former borders. And
: it seeks to separate ethnic groups, by force if necessary. 

    It was by force that these nations suffered "integration".  To whine 
about force being used to reverse the process is a bit hypocritical.

:     South Africa is a good example of a country in successful
: transition from competing nationalisms to the give-and-take of
: democratic politics, from the nation-state to the multinational
: principle.

    South Africa is only an example of the sucess of a formerly 
productive nation that will follow the same path to destruction as 
Rhodesia, Portugal, Hatii and so many others did.  It will soon be just 
another long list of examples of how to destroy a nation.


: The states of Europe and North America got it right in 1975 when they
: agreed, in the Helsinki Final Act, that frontiers should be changed
: only "by peaceful means and by agreement." 

    This could be done very simply but why isn't it?  If we have already 
agred that frontiers can be chaned by "peaceful means and by agrement" 
than why don't we act on this understanding? 
    Why not invest the money now spent on "peace-keeping actions" on 
promoting self-determination and a seperatist ethic on a global scale.  
Invest the money now made to "control conflict" on RESOLVING the 
conflict by removing the friction that is causing the conflict.  Allow 
the natural instincts of the people to be seperate and independent from 
conflicting and competeing cultures/relgions/races.  
     

:     Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. in "The Disuniting of America" makes
: the point that in the United States "ethnic ideologues . . . have
: set themselves against the old American ideal of assimilation. They
: call on the republic to think in terms not of individual but of
: group identity and to move the polity from individual rights to
: group rights." 

    Which is only natural and cannot be stopped.  This is happening 
because the failures of assimilation and "multi-culturalism" are becoming 
all to obvious to the common sense of the people.  This failed ethic is 
doomed to collapse under the weight of it's own failure.  The sooner we 
admit it and begin working toward minimising the damage the less pain and 
suffering this system will inflict on it's already hurting people.


:     That is exactly what the terrible simplifiers of Balkan
: nationalism are doing. The crimes committed in Bosnia in the name of
: the nation-state thus offer Americans a nightmare picture of what
: can happen when the values of the ethnic collective are substituted
: for the values of individual liberty.  

    Individual liberty can only be preserved when the liberty of an
individuals culture is respected and preserved.  To deny one is to deny 
the other for no individual can have liberty when his greater identity from 
his racial/cultural family is not respected and preserved.
-- 
 _____________________Rick Savage ______________________
|    Important files on life, liberty and happiness:        Rick Savage     | 
|  Anonymous FTP server:  ftp.netcom.com  - "cd pub/SFA"    PO Box 5251     |
|       Gov't, history, law, Bible, socialissues          Denver, CO 80217  |


Article 10834 of alt.skinheads:
Xref: oneb alt.skinheads:10834 alt.politics.nationalism.white:123
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rsavage
From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
Subject: Re: Zimmerman on the Evil of Nationalism
Message-ID: 
Followup-To: alt.skinheads,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References: 
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 05:22:09 GMT
Lines: 71

Joseph Boyle (boyle@netcom.com) wrote:

: From Here To Bosnia;Why Good Fences Don't Make Good Neighbors  
: 						By Warren Zimmermann 
:     In today's conglomerate world, the nation-state concept is a
: dangerous principle on which to base civil society. At its worst -
: and it is often at its worst - it elevates one ethnic group above
: another. It claims superiority based on race. It demands for one
: nation privileges not accorded to others. It cites - or creates -
: history to justify expansion to real or imagined former borders. And
: it seeks to separate ethnic groups, by force if necessary. 

    It was by force that these nations suffered "integration".  To whine 
about force being used to reverse the process is a bit hypocritical.

:     South Africa is a good example of a country in successful
: transition from competing nationalisms to the give-and-take of
: democratic politics, from the nation-state to the multinational
: principle.

    South Africa is only an example of the sucess of a formerly 
productive nation that will follow the same path to destruction as 
Rhodesia, Portugal, Hatii and so many others did.  It will soon be just 
another long list of examples of how to destroy a nation.


: The states of Europe and North America got it right in 1975 when they
: agreed, in the Helsinki Final Act, that frontiers should be changed
: only "by peaceful means and by agreement." 

    This could be done very simply but why isn't it?  If we have already 
agred that frontiers can be chaned by "peaceful means and by agrement" 
than why don't we act on this understanding? 
    Why not invest the money now spent on "peace-keeping actions" on 
promoting self-determination and a seperatist ethic on a global scale.  
Invest the money now made to "control conflict" on RESOLVING the 
conflict by removing the friction that is causing the conflict.  Allow 
the natural instincts of the people to be seperate and independent from 
conflicting and competeing cultures/relgions/races.  
     

:     Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. in "The Disuniting of America" makes
: the point that in the United States "ethnic ideologues . . . have
: set themselves against the old American ideal of assimilation. They
: call on the republic to think in terms not of individual but of
: group identity and to move the polity from individual rights to
: group rights." 

    Which is only natural and cannot be stopped.  This is happening 
because the failures of assimilation and "multi-culturalism" are becoming 
all to obvious to the common sense of the people.  This failed ethic is 
doomed to collapse under the weight of it's own failure.  The sooner we 
admit it and begin working toward minimising the damage the less pain and 
suffering this system will inflict on it's already hurting people.


:     That is exactly what the terrible simplifiers of Balkan
: nationalism are doing. The crimes committed in Bosnia in the name of
: the nation-state thus offer Americans a nightmare picture of what
: can happen when the values of the ethnic collective are substituted
: for the values of individual liberty.  

    Individual liberty can only be preserved when the liberty of an
individuals culture is respected and preserved.  To deny one is to deny 
the other for no individual can have liberty when his greater identity from 
his racial/cultural family is not respected and preserved.
-- 
 _____________________Rick Savage ______________________
|    Important files on life, liberty and happiness:        Rick Savage     | 
|  Anonymous FTP server:  ftp.netcom.com  - "cd pub/SFA"    PO Box 5251     |
|       Gov't, history, law, Bible, socialissues          Denver, CO 80217  |


Article 164 of alt.politics.nationalism.white:
Xref: oneb alt.skinheads:10987 alt.politics.nationalism.white:164
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rsavage
From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
Subject: Re: Zimmerman on the Evil of Nationalism
Message-ID: 
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References:    <3b5k45$5h1@floyd.santarosa.edu>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 1994 22:37:48 GMT
Lines: 19

Neal Attinson (nattinso@nermal.santarosa.edu) wrote:
: Quoth Brian Bagnall:
: :  (Rick Savage) writes:

: : (some very well thought out ideas...)

: Yeah; from a guy who thinks that only the "races" that can blush are worthy
: of civilization...

    It shows a real weakness in your position if you have to misrepresent 
what people say to oppose a point you don't agree with.  I never made a 
statement remotely similiar to your construct above.  You can retract 
your libel or remain a liar, your choice.

-- 
 _____________________Rick Savage ______________________
|    Important files on life, liberty and happiness:        Rick Savage     | 
|  Anonymous FTP server:  ftp.netcom.com  - "cd pub/SFA"    PO Box 5251     |
|       Gov't, history, law, Bible, socialissues          Denver, CO 80217  |



Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.