Mimicry: The First Step to Destruction

Mimicry: The First Step to Destruction, a review of and embellishment upon a speech by Joseph Goebbels

The mockingbird is a species of bird which is said to mimic the songs of other birds, and even the sounds of insects and amphibians. But at least mockingbirds nest and raise their own offspring. Yet another species of bird is the cowbird, which is found throughout the western hemisphere, and which lays its eggs in the nests of other species of birds, so that those other species would brood, raise and nourish its offspring. Here is a quandary: if we had to identify races of people with varieties of birds, the Jewish people have consistently exhibited both of these traits, those of the mockingbird and the cowbird, and others which are much more deadly. They mimic Whites so that they can creep into White society, they become entrenched, and then they behave in a manner which destroys their host society, or they themselves are destroyed. But at the same time, they also seek intermarriage with Whites, so they can greatly increase their own corrupt numbers for future generations, and diminish the growth of the true White population. So this evening we are going to present a speech by Joseph Goebbels titled Mimicry, which discusses aspects of this same dilemma, as well as presenting other materials in support of our own conclusions.

This speech is presented here as it is found translated and published by Randall Bytework of Calvin University, who is apparently the creator and maintainer of Calvin’s large German Propaganda Archive. Because of the tenor of the editorial comments at the Archive, we suspect that Mr. Bytework is hostile to our own cause, we have a right to counter his comments with comments of our own, and therefore we must assert that this presentation represents a fair use of his copyrighted material for non-profit academic purposes. That is something to which the copyright laws of these United States entitles their citizens. Doing so, we will add other materials which may elucidate both the text of Goebbels’ speech, the truthfulness of his words, and the result of a situation which he had witnessed as it had continued to develop after his lifetime.

Introducing this speech, Randall Bytework had written that: “This is Goebbel’s lead article from Das Reich, dated 20 July 1941, shortly after the invasion of the Soviet Union began. It is one of his more vehement anti-Semitic tirades.” Then he gives “The source: Die Zeit ohne Beispiel (Munich: Zentralverlag der NSDAP., 1941).” The phrase Die Zeit ohne Beispiel means The Time Without Precedent in English, which was evidently the title of the National Socialist publication.

Mimicry

by Joseph Goebbels

The Jews are masters at fitting in to their surroundings without in any way changing their nature. They are mimics. They have a natural instinct that senses danger, and their drive for self-preservation usually gives them effective ways and means to escape danger at no risk to their lives or any need for courage. It is difficult to detect their sly and slippery ways. One has to be an experienced student of the Jews to recognize what is happening. Their response when they have been uncovered is simple and primitive. It displays a perfidious shamelessness that is successful because one usually does not think it possible to be so shameless. Schopenauer once said that the Jew is the master of the lie. He is such an expert on twisting the truth that he can tell his innocent opponent the exact opposite of the truth even on the plainest matter in the world. He does this with such astonishing impudence that the listener becomes uncertain, at which point the Jew has usually won.

The Jews call this chutzpah. Chutzpah is a typically Jewish expression that really cannot be translated into any other language, since chutzpah is a concept found only among the Jews. Other languages have not needed to invent such a word since they do not know the phenomenon. Basically, it means unlimited, impertinent, and unbelievable impudence and shamelessness.

Here we will interrupt Goebbels to say that there are an incredible number of examples in modern history of this Jewish trait which they themselves do describe as chutzpah. So we will single out one tale from their Holocaust^TM myth as an example. This is found in the recent exposure of a supposed survivor, Herman Rosenblat, who blatantly lied about a particular experience which has been irrefutably discredited, and even when he was confronted, and admitted that his story was not true, he said that it was “real in my mind” and on that basis he continued to deny lying. The following is an interview with Rosenblat conducted by ABC News correspondent Dan Harris, which we will present here in spite of Harris’ disagreeable introduction [we have a transcript in the notes, but here we shall present the original audio clip]:

Harris: Herman Rosenblat does have a real story of survival in the Nazi concentration camps, a story that is genuinely extraordinary. But as he explained to us in this exclusive interview, he felt he needed to make things up to get people to pay attention.

A clip from Oprah: The greatest love story we've ever told on this show.

Harris: Herman Rosenblat received international attention for his story about being a hungry little boy in a Nazi concentration camp who was thrown apples every day by a little girl on the other side of the fence. Years later, according to the story, Rosenblat met that same girl on a blind date in New York City, and he proposed on the spot.

A clip from Oprah of Rosenblat’s wife, Roma: I used to come by every day, bring the apple I have in my jacket and a piece of bread, and he used to say, I'll see you tomorrow.

Harris: The story landed Herman and Roma Rosenblat on Oprah twice and in newspapers all over the world. They also got a book and movie deal. But the story wasn't true.

Harris interviewing Rosenblat: Why did you do it? Why did you tell such a big lie to so many people for so long?

Rosenblat: It wasn't a lie. It was my imagination. And in my imagination, in my mind, I believed it. Even now I believe it, that she was there and she threw the apple to me.

Harris: How can you say it wasn't a lie? It wasn't true and you know it's not true.

Rosenblat: Yes, it's not true. But in my imagination, it was true.

Harris narrating: Rosenblatt says he made the story up to give people hope and to promote understanding about the Holocaust. But members of his own family say his real motivation was money.

Harris interviewing Rosenblat: So you were not motivated in any way by money?

Rosenblat: No.

Harris: This is from your son. He said that he knew you were lying for years and he couldn't get you to stop. And here's his quote. “It was always hurtful. My father is a man who I don't know.” How do you respond to that?

Rosenblatt: I don't know. I can't respond to it. I don't know why he said that. I don't know. Maybe I'll ask him.

Harris narrating: Herman and Roma Rosenblatt told their false story publicly for more than a decade. But it all fell apart about six weeks ago after Holocaust scholars proved that it was physically impossible for prisoners to approach the fence at the concentration camp where Herman was kept, and that Roma's family was actually more than 200 miles away at the time.

Harris interviewing Rosenblat: Why did your wife agree to go along with this? Did she ever express any reservations?

Rosenblat: Because she loves me.

Harris: Why is she not here today?

Rosenblat: Because I don't want her to be here today. It's too much, [waving arms around in the air] too much going on.

Harris: Was it difficult for your wife to have to go out very publicly and tell a story that she knew wasn't true? It was.

Rosenblat: It was. It was. But she loves me so much that if she thinks that's good for me, she'll go along.

Harris narrating: Rosenblatt is remarkably unrepentant about his years of lying.

Clip from Oprah of Rosenblat and Roma: I pronounce my love for you forever.

Harris interviewing Rosenblat: When you look at that, does it make you uncomfortable at all?

Rosenblat: No.

Harris: You think that was the right thing to do?

Rosenblat: Yeah.

Harris: And while you were up on the stage there in front of all those people, in the back of your mind, were you not thinking, I'm not telling the truth here?

Rosenblat: No.

Harris: Let me ask you just quickly about it.

Interruption by Harris Solomon: I didn't hear you say you agreed to this. Did we agree to that?That…

Harris narrating: Our interview was frequently interrupted by this man, Harris Salomon, who says he is planning to produce a fictionalized movie account of Rosenblatt's story, despite complaints from critics.

Harris interviewing Salomon: If you look on Holocaust denier websites right now, they're using it as we speak, as an example of why you shouldn't believe Holocaust survivors.

Salomon: Right. And those Holocaust denier websites would perpetuate some other story if it wasn't Herman Rosenblatt.

Harris narrating: Rosenblatt says he wants people to know that he did what he did with good intentions.

Harris interviewing Rosenblat: So if you had to do it over again, would you tell the same story?

Rosenblat: Yeah.

Harris: You would?

Rosenblat: Yes.

Harris, joined by co-anchor Diana Sawyer, narrating: Rosenblatt does say that he's sorry, but he's only sorry he says that people took the story, quote, “the wrong way.” His book deal, for a nonfiction memoir, fell through a couple of weeks ago because of this controversy, but a fictionalized book may come out this summer, and the movie version is supposed to start shooting this summer as well in Eastern Europe, Diane. And they say they're going to carry on despite the criticism.

Sawyer: I simply don't know what to say. I mean, it's his imagination, but he knows it's not true.

Harris: He says he made up a fantasy world and he was living in that fantasy world.

Sawyer: And his son says, he tried to stop him.

Harris: Yes.

Sawyer: Good heavens. Okay, thank you, Dan.

Notice that Harris Salomon, himself a Jew, had told Harris that “those Holocaust denier websites would perpetuate some other story if it wasn't Herman Rosenblatt.” That is absolutely true, because there are indeed countless incidents of discredited Holocaust survivor or atrocity accounts. So here Harris Salomon had basically admitted that other such discredited accounts exist, and Dan Harris seems to have agreed. But this does not vindicate Herman Rosenblat, nor does it vindicate Harris Salomon for upholding and perpetuating his lies. It only helps serve to prove our case, that the so-called Holocaust^TM as history needs to be discredited.

Rosenblatt’s memoir, titled Angel at the Fence, was scheduled to be published by Berkley Books in February of 2009, but was canceled about six weeks before its release date. There is another book which is currently for sale titled The Apple, written by Penelope Holt and marketed as “based on the Herman Rosenblatt Holocaust Love Story”, and while it is listed by Amazon.com as a novel and classified as “Genre Fiction”, that is not evident from its cover. Basically, The Apple is a romance novel based on a fantasy novel, which might make it unique in its field. I cannot think of another example, but I do not read novels at all, unless I count the daily reports from the Jewish media. In 2010, despite the earlier exposure of the “apple” story as a fraud, Harris Salomon and Atlantic Overseas Pictures had contracted to make a film based on Rosenblat’s memoir, but the film was never made. We can only imagine that even Jews with chutzpah cannot risk losing 25 million dollars, the price of the contract, if the movie had flopped in the wake of the exposure. Perhaps we may conjecture that Salomon, who was obviously seeking to limit the damage to Rosenblat’s reputation which would be caused by this Harris interview, was reluctant to let the story go in the hopes that it would write him a handsome paycheck.

There are larger Holocaust lies which have not been exposed, and even more drastic examples of Jewish chutzpah are evident throughout the history and aftermath of the so-called World Wars in Europe.

In a relatively popular book titled Inside the Concentration Camps, which purports to be a collection of “eyewitness accounts of life in Hitler’s death camps”, on page 132 we read the following:

In March, 1945, 500 people were killed by being thrown alive into the oven.

800 to 900 yards from the place where the ovens were, the prisoners were squeezed into little cars that ran on rails. In Auschwitz these cars had various dimensions and could hold up to 15 people. As soon as a car was loaded, it would be set in motion on an inclined plane that traveled at full speed down a corridor. At the end of the corridor there was a wall, and in the wall was the door to the oven. As soon as the car hit the wall, the door opened automatically, and the car would dip forward and pitch it's cargo of living people into the oven. Right behind it came another car with another load, and so on.

A pile of human bodies is not going to be thrown a considerable distance at a rate of 20 mph, or even 30 mph. Perhaps at speeds above 60 mph there may be some consistent success. But of course, it is quite incredible that the Germans could have built absolutely indestructible rail cars which could continually crash at high speeds into absolutely indestructible brick ovens with automatic doors, and that under these strenuous circumstances, everything could continue to function perfectly over prolonged periods of time, and hundreds of such crashes. But then, all of the physical evidence of their existence could disappear completely before Germany surrendered weeks later, in early June of 1945. That completely fraudulent account is an example of Jewish chutzpah, the book has many other equally incredible accounts within its pages, and it is still sold in stores as non-fiction today.

The word Holocaust^TM does not appear in the English language to describe any event related to World War II until the 1970’s. The 1947 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica makes no mention of any extermination of the Jews in its article for Nazi. In the 1968 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica there is no mention of a holocaust at all. In the 1971 edition of the World Book Encyclopedia which I have here on my shelves, there is no mention of a holocaust. In countless books about National Socialist Germany and the war, published from the 1940’s through the 1960’s, there is no mention of a holocaust. This includes the memoirs of famous men who had a significant role in the war. Another example I have on hand is the History of World War II, Armed Services Memorial Edition published in 1945 specifically for veterans of the war, which makes no mention of a holocaust or of any organized extermination of Jews. While elements of holocaust-related atrocities are found in Soviet media propaganda, the Holocaust^TM did not happen until men such as Elie Wiesel and Herman Rosenblat decided that it was real in their minds, and they made lucrative careers out of its promotion. Until they began to receive media attention in the 1970’s, myths about holocaust atrocities had no credibility because they simply weren’t supported by any physical evidence. The so-called “gas chambers” at Auschwitz are poor Soviet-era contrivances, and they have wooden doors, and a rather large chimney that is not even attached to any building.

Tales of six million Jews in peril or in persecution did not begin in 1933, or in 1945. We have dozens of examples of articles from the New York Times which date from as early as 1869. The Jewish holy number “six million” appears in them all. Another source we have lists 246 such references in Western media between 1900 and 1945. So each occurrence of the phrase “six million” in the media is just one other example of Jewish chutzpah. Collectively, the Jews benefit from these audacious accounts because they exploit Christian empathy and Jews thereby become the beneficiaries of Christian social and political sympathy. Then at the same time, Jews also become immune from criticism, because all critics are slandered as taking up the cause of the bogeyman persecutors, persecutors which never even existed. Therefore all modern Jewish political power is rooted in chutzpah, which is the method by which Jews advance themselves as a group. Unlike Christians, Jews prefer and support one another at all times and at all costs, with the objective of building up their own nation within their host nations. Any “big lie” which serves that objective is endlessly trumpeted in the ears of their hosts.

But Jewish chutzpah is not limited to false atrocity tales or the romance novels that have been built on their ashes. In 1933, Senator Burton Wheeler of Montana asked to read into the Congressional Record a 1922 speech by Representative Walter M. Chandler of New York, titled “Palestine for the Jews”. The speech, beginning on page 1912 of the Congressional Record for 1933, contains endless language describing perceived Jewish suffering and persecution. At the time, U.S. policy concerning Palestine was being debated in Congress, and in 1922 the Congress had already voted in favor of the Balfour Declaration. So here is one example of the Jewish chutzpah which is found in this speech:

To describe the horrors and cruelties of Jewish persecution would be to narrate the history of the Jewish race during 2,000 years. Time does not permit and the occasion does not demand such a narrative. I will only quote in this connection Rabbi Ben Ezra's Song of Death, which gives pathetic utterance to the agonizing cry of his people of all ages to the God of their fathers for protection and relief:

“By the torture prolonged from age to age,

By the infamy, Israel's heritage,

By the ghetto's plague, by the garb's disgrace,

By the badge of shame, by the felon's place,

By the branding tool, the bloody whip,

And the summons to Christian fellowship.”

Jews playing on the heartstrings of Christians for sympathy in order to advanced their own political cause.

Christ Himself, and all of His apostles, had warned Christians not to have fellowship with Jews. In fact, their 2,000 years of suffering was prophesied by Christ, and therefore it must be the Will of God, for example in Luke chapter 21 where we read, from the King James Version: “20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. 24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the nations, until the times of the nations be fulfilled.” Therefore, to disagree that the enemies of Christ should be persecuted in this manner, or even to sympathize with them, is to stand in opposition to Christ. In Jeremiah chapter 24 there is a prophecy of this same thing with even stronger language.

But throughout Chandler’s entire speech are also found echoes of the usual Jewish claims that they had given the world both Moses and Christianity, and that Christians owe them something in return. Like the Holocaust^TM, these claims have also all been discredited. The truth is that the Jews are not called Jews because they were of the tribe of Judah. Only 42,000 or so citizens of the former kingdom of Judah, which came to an end around 585 BC, had ever returned to Palestine to rebuild Jerusalem and construct the second temple. They were subject to the Persians, and then to the Greeks for about 170 years until about 160 BC, when they gained their independence.

Over the 30 years which followed, they tried to gain back the surrounding lands from the Edomite and other Canaanite inhabitants, and they continually failed to drive them out. So around 125 BC, under the leadership of the high priest John Hyrcanus, the Judaeans forcibly converted them one town at a time to Judaism. This policy continued through the time of the later high priest Alexander Jannaeus, until all the Edomites and Canaanites of Palestine were at least marginally converted and incorporated into the kingdom which then became known to the Greeks and the later Romans as Judaea. So all the enemies of ancient Judah became known as Judaeans. When Herod, an Edomite, became king of Judaea around 36 BC, he killed all of the original nobility of those Judaeans, and replaced them with his Edomite cronies, and that is why Christ and the apostles had denied them their claim to be Abraham’s children. This denial is found throughout the New Testament. At least most of the true people of Judah converted to Christianity, and those who did not became mingled with the impostors who today call themselves Jews. Even to this day, they esteem their Edomite Talmud over the laws of Moses, by their own words, as we shall see.

So the original White people of Judah had expressed their natural empathy by converting the Edomites and the other Canaanites rather than slaughtering them, and within a hundred years, those Edomites had taken over the kingdom. Jewish mimicry began as Edomite and Canaanite mimicry, and the Edomites, who were the predominant element of the population in Judaea, through their mimicry had supplanted those who showed them mercy. Then, on account of Jewish impudence which had been exhibited by those same Edomites in the uprisings against the Romans, Jerusalem and all Judaea was destroyed once again, in a series of wars from 65 to about 136 AD.

Jewish mimicry always leads to the destruction of the host nation. In his treatise, On the Jews and Their Lies, Martin Luther had written about Jews who boasted that they already controlled Germany by his time. Then from around 1870, German journalist Wilhelm Marr began publishing and updating his book, The Victory of Judaism over Germanism, which had eight editions by 1879. In it, he explained how Jews were able to easily take control of German finance and industry after their emancipation earlier that same century. In World War I, Germany was nearly destroyed, and in the backlash that was caused by primarily Jewish treachery, through their agents France and Britain, in World War II Germany was completely destroyed. Jewish mimicry, which enabled them to gain control of Germany, led to Germany’s destruction. The same pattern led to the destruction of Russia with somewhat different methods. But this has been going on for a long time, as Jews are known to have opened the gates of Toledo to the Muslims invaders in medieval Spain, and Jews are also known to have assisted the Turks in their conquest of Constantinople many centuries later.

So the fact that all of these historical appeals by or on behalf of Jewry are founded upon lies is a reflection of the combined effects of collective Jewish chutzpah and Christian empathy and naivete which have set the course of history for the past 2000 years, ever since the diaspora of the Jews beginning with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. Returning briefly to Chandler’s speech in Congress, he even glorified the Talmud, where we read:

The Hebrews of every age have held the Talmud in extravagant reverence as the greatest sacred heirloom of their race. Their supreme affection for it has placed it above even the Bible. It is an adage with them that “the Bible is salt; the Mischna, pepper; the Gemara, balmy spice”; and Rabbi Solomon ben Joseph sings:

“The Kabbala and Talmud hoar

Than all the prophets prize I more;

For water is all Bible lore,

But Mischna is pure wine.”

“More than any other human agency has the Talmud been instrumental in creating that strangest of all political phenomena -- a nation without a country, a race without a fatherland.'”

So the Talmud was celebrated in the Congress of the United States by a representative from New York in 1922, and again by a senator from Montana in 1933, both of whom were apparently Europeans and Christians. But they were naively citing the words of some Jew. Therefore, having fallen victim to their own apparent ignorance, this is also an incredible act of chutzpah, because if any Christian had ever actually read the Talmud, he should be disgusted and have nothing but wrath for the Jews who embrace it. Quite ironically, the same year he had given this speech which had so boldly celebrated Jews, Chandler was defeated in his bid for reelection by a Jew named Sol Bloom, who would hold the seat for the next 26 years.

Here are a few popular examples of statements in the Talmud which should cause Christians to reject both the Talmud and the Jews who obey it:

• It approves of Sodomy and pedophilia: "If one committed sodomy with a child of less than nine years, no guilt is incurred" (Sanhedrin 54b).

• It approves of child sacrifice: "He who gives of his seed to Molech incurs no punishment" (Sanhedrin 64a).

• The cursing of parents is allowed: "One who curses his parents isn't punished unless he curses them by Divine name" (Sanhedrin 66a).

• It permits enchanting: "It is permitted to consult by a charm the spirits of oil and eggs, and make incantations" (Sanhedrin 101a).

• It condones beastiality: "Women having intercourse with a beast can marry a priest, the act is but a mere wound" (Yebamoth 59b).

• It permits harlotry: "A harlot's hire is permitted, for what the woman has received is legally a gift" (Abodah Zarah 62b-63a).

• It permits blasphemy: "One can revile the Divine Name if mentally applying it to some other object" (Sanhedrin 65a-b).

• It allows one to purposely break his promises: "One may declare: 'Every vow which I may make in the future shall be null'" (Nedarim 23a-23b).

• It even condones lynchings: "If ten men smote a man with ten staves and he died, they are exempt from punishment" (Sanhedrin 78a).

• But one of the worst sins it condones is pederasty: “The Gemara asks: What does it mean that the Torah does not deem a younger boy to be like an older boy? Rav says: It means that the Torah does not deem the intercourse of one who is less than nine years old to be like the intercourse of one who is at least nine years old, as for a male’s act of intercourse to have the legal status of full-fledged intercourse the minimum age is nine years. And Shmuel says: The Torah does not deem the intercourse of a child who is less than three years old to be like that of one who is three years old (Sanhedrin 54b).

• The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rav and Shmuel disagree? The Gemara answers: Rav holds that any halakha that applies to one who engages in intercourse actively applies to one who engages in intercourse passively, and any halakha that does not apply to one who engages in intercourse actively does not apply to one who engages in intercourse passively. Therefore, just as one who engages in intercourse actively is not liable if he is less than nine years old, as the intercourse of such a child does not have the halakhic status of intercourse, so too, if a child who is less than nine years old engages in homosexual intercourse passively, the one who engages in intercourse with him is not liable (Sanhedrin 54b).

In other words, according to the Talmud an adult male can have sexual intercourse with any child under the age of nine years, and it is not a sin. So the Talmud approves of pederasty, or pedophilia, without reservations. But these age distinctions do not even appear in the laws of Moses in the Old Testament.

So the Talmud explicitly approves of pedophilia, and having read this, we should not wonder why so many Jews have begun insisting in recent times that pedophilia should be legalized, or at least decriminalized, as it has recently been advanced towards decriminalization in Germany.

It is very unlikely that Walter Chandler, who had given this speech in 1922, or Burton Wheeler, who repeated it in 1933, could have known of these passages, or of those like them which condone other sick sexual acts. Nor could they have known of the many outright slanders of Christ and of Mary His mother, which we shall not repeat here. Instead, they acted out of other motives, some of which we have described, and some of which we may never know.

Now to return to Joseph Goebbels, he speaks of the impact of this attitude of chutzpah on the world of his time:

As long as we had the doubtful pleasure of having to put up with Jews, we had more than enough examples of the typical Jewish characteristic they call chutzpah. Cowards became heroes and decent, industrious, and brave men became contemptible idiots or fools. Fat and sweaty stockbrokers presented themselves as communists saving the world, and decent soldiers were characterized as beasts. Normal families were mocked as breeding pens, while group marriages were praised as the highest form of human development. The most disgusting junk the human mind could create was presented as great art while real art was ridiculed as Kitsch. The murderer was not guilty, but rather his victim.

Likewise, American art has now been completely degraded to the lowest common denominator of filth. The signal example is the Christian crucifix floating in a jar of urine, which won acclaim in certain art circles and was partially sponsored by grants from a US government agency. It is far beyond the scope of our ability for this presentation, but there are countless examples of all of these things in modern books, television programs and movies as well as in degenerate Jewish art. Generally, in Hollywood, White men are portrayed as villains and scapegoats, fumbling inferiors or incompetent bystanders, while Jews, Negroes and other non-Whites are portrayed as intelligent and competent leaders and heroes. Of course, this is the precise opposite of historical reality. Now Goebbels describes its effects as he had perceived them:

It was a system of public deception that, when applied long enough, lames a people both culturally and spiritually and over time strangles any kind of defense. Before National Socialism, Germany was in the midst of such deadly danger. Had our people not come to its senses at the last possible moment, our country would have been ripe for Bolshevism, the most devilish infection the Jews can bring upon a people.

Bolshevism, too, is an expression of Jewish chutzpah. Turbulent Jewish party leaders and clever Jewish capitalists managed the most shameless coup one can imagine. They mobilized the so-called proletariat to class struggle by ruthlessly exploiting real or imagined problems. Their goal was total Jewish domination. The crassest plutocracy used socialism to establish the crassest financial dictatorship. A world revolution was to expand this experiment from the Soviet Union to the rest of the world. The result would have been Jewish world domination.

All of Goebbels’ words here are vindicated by history, when upon the dismantling of the former Soviet Union in the early 1990’s, in its aftermath all of the wealth, resources and industry had ended up in the controlling interests of a small group of Jewish oligarchs, without a single significant exception. So Jews forcibly took Russia from the Russians in 1917, and Jews still own it today. Certain prominent Jews in the United States, such as former Clinton Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, had been put into a position to help supervise this process of privatization when he was an economics professor at Harvard, along with peers such as Harvard economist Jeffrey Sachs, who is now at Columbia. These men were among the principal advisers to Boris Yeltsin when Russian industry was privatized. (See, for example, Larry Summers’s Ghosts by Katrina Vanden Heuvel for The Nation.)

The attempts of Bolsheviks to take over Germany in that same manner were quite real, and would have been formidable if they had not met swift opposition. They established a short-lived Soviet Republic in Bavaria, and they took over northern cities such as Hamburg for a short time, but they were defeated by the Freikorps, paramilitary militias which were mostly comprised of World War I veterans who acted as volunteers and were marginally affiliated with the government, where they were employed to stamp out the post-war Bolshevik uprisings in Germany. The Freikorps confronted and fought with communists in Bavaria, Prussia, Poland, the Baltic States and elsewhere.

As a digression, the Wikipedia article for the Freikorps contains this slander: “In 1977, German sociologist Klaus Theweleit published Male Fantasies, in which he argues that men in the Freikorps radicalized Western and German norms of male self-control into a perpetual war against feminine-coded desires for domesticity, tenderness, and compassion amongst men.” It should not be surprising, that Klaus Theweleit has a Jewish mother. This is how they do it, through their mimicry comes destruction. Ultimately, it shall be their own destruction, which is also a promise of Christ.

Continuing with Goebbels, he discusses the role of Jewry and Bolsehvism in the World War:

The National Socialist revolution was a death blow to this attempt. Once international Jewry realized that agitation was no longer sufficient to take over the various European nations, they decided to wait for a war. They wanted it to last as long as possible, so that at its end they could institute Bolshevist terror and force on a weakened, drained and impotent Europe. This had been the goal of Moscow’s Bolshevists from the beginning of the war. They wanted to join in only when easy and safe victory was assured, meanwhile holding down sufficient German forces to keep Germany from a decisive victory in the West. One can imagine the howls of rage in the Kremlin as they realized one Sunday morning that the Führer’s sword had cut through their web of lies and intrigues.

Until then, the Jewish Bolshevist leaders had cleverly kept in the background, probably in the mistaken belief they could fool us. Litwinov and Kaganowitsch were hardly seen in public. Behind the scenes, however, they were about their dastardly work. They tried to persuade us that the Jewish Bolshevists in Moscow and the Jewish plutocrats in London and Washington were enemies. Secretly, however, they were planning to strangle us. That is proven by the fact that they made up with each other the moment their devilish game was revealed. The ignorant peoples on both sides who surely were astonished at such a sight were calmed down by tactful measures.

Here, Goebbels has revealed the fact that Jews in the West had been collaborating with Soviet Jews, and planning to destroy Germany as soon as Hitler had gained power. Now where he continues, he explains how the Soviets made their Western alliance more palatable to Westerners themselves:

In Moscow, for example, the Jews abolished the Atheist Federation even though it had been a matter of honor only a few days earlier for leading Soviet bigwigs to belong to it. Religious freedom was now guaranteed in the entire Soviet Union. Lying news items were spread in the world press announcing that praying was once more allowed in the churches, among other swindles. The English could not quite bring themselves to play the Internationale on the radio every night, since in Mr. Eden’s interesting distinction the Bolshevists were not allies, only fellow combatants. The Internationale would have been a bit too strong for the British people at the moment, but they are hard at work presenting Stalin as a great statesman and wonderful social reformer who can be compared only to Churchill. They are doing their best to find other similarities as well between the glorious democracies in Moscow and London.

Now he explains that once the true nature of corporate capital is understood, the differences were not so drastic to begin with:

Remarkably, they are not all that far from the truth in this regard. They look different only to those who do not know much. To experts, they are as alike as two peas in a pod. The same Jews are at work, whether on stage or behind the scenes. When they pray in Moscow and sing the Internationale in Moscow, they are doing what Jews have always done. They are practicing mimicry. They adjust to the conditions around them, slowly, step by step, so as not to unsettle or awaken others. They are angry at us for uncovering them. They know we recognize them for what they are. The Jew is secure only when he can remain hidden. He loses his balance when he senses that someone sees through him. The experienced Jewish expert immediately sees in the insults and complaints the familiar Old Testament outbursts of hate. They have come our way so often that they have lost every element of originality. They are only of psychological interest to us. We wait calmly until Jewish rage has reached its epitome. Then they start falling apart. They spout nonsense, and suddenly betray themselves.

Likewise, there were only very few people in America who realized that the Roosevelt or Truman administrations had been dominated by Jews, for example Henry Morgenthau, Felix Frankfurter and Harry Dexter White. For the most part, Jews remained behind the scenes, or left their Jewishness in the background. But in more recent decades, Jews evidently must feel that they are now powerful enough to wear their gold stars proudly, so they trumpet their Jewishness.

Now Goebbels describes the flow of atrocity tales and cultural propaganda by which the West had justified its destruction of National Socialist Germany, and the propaganda, which was all false, is now written into the history books by the victors as if it were truth:

The material on Radio Moscow or Radio London and the articles that appear in the Bolshevist and plutocratic organs are simply indescribable. London always gives priority to Moscow, which allows it to preserve good manners and blend into the landscape. Moscow’s Jews invent lies and atrocities, the London Jews cite them and blend them into stories suitable for the innocent bourgeois. They do it only from professional obligation, naturally. The dreadful crimes in Lembert that horrified the entire world were, of course, not committed by the Bolshevists, but rather were an invention of the Propaganda Ministry. It is quite irrelevant that German newsreels made the proof available to the entire world. Obviously we suppress the arts and sciences, whereas Bolshevism is a true center of culture, civilization and humanity. We personally were pleased at a recent statement by Radio Moscow. It was so absurd and despicable that it was almost flattering. We assume the Jewish speaker recalls the good old days in Berlin. Unless they have a very short memory, they must recall that all their insults will only lead to a thrashing at the end. Every evening they announce that they want to punch our nose, us and all the other Nazi pigs. Sure, you want to, but doing it is something rather different, gentlemen! The whole affair has a certain tragicomic tone. The Jews talk as if they were really strong, but soon they have to move their tents and run like rabbits from the approaching German soldiers. Qui mange du juif, en meurt!

The phrase “qui mange du juif, en meurt” means “those who eat from the Jew perish from it”. In the book German History in Documents and Images, Volume 4. Forging an Empire: Bismarckian Germany, 1866-1890, there is a chapter by Hellmuth von Gerlach on Leading Antisemites and their Agitation (1880s), we read in part: “Anyway, that was the conception with which I was raised: The Jews are different from us and are on a lower level. They do not want to work, just to haggle. They know no morality other than making money at any price. Therefore, one ought to beware of them. The best thing was to avoid them. For the saying went: Qui mange du juif en meurt. .” That was in the 1880’s, so here Goebbels has only repeated a sentiment which had been long established among the German people.

This speech by Goebbels was published in 1941, and at that time, the National Socialists were confident that their cause would prevail, because having been true Christians, they knew that they were on the side of what is Right and Godly. However it wasn’t meant to be, because in the end we shall see that only Christ can, and shall, prevail over His enemies. When that happens, these next and final words of Goebbels’ shall also be found to have been true:

One could almost say that anyone with the Jews on his side has already lost. They are the best pillar of the coming defeat. They carry the seed of destruction. They hoped this war would bring the last desperate blow against National Socialist Germany and an awakening Europe. They will collapse. Already today we begin to hear the cries of the desperate and seduced peoples throughout the world:

“The Jews are guilty! The Jews are guilty!”

The court that will pronounce judgment on them will be fearful. We do not need to do anything ourselves. It will come because it must come.

Just as the fist of an awakened Germany has struck this racial filth, the fist of an awakened Europe will surely follow. Mimicry will not help the Jews then. They will have to face their accusers. The court of the nations will judge their oppressor.

Without pity or forgiveness, the blow will strike. The world enemy will fall, and Europe will have peace.

This is all true, but it was not meant to be true in Goebbels’ time. This is an ominous warning for us today. Until the return of Christ, or at least, until the fall of Mystery Babylon when the blindness is finally removed from the eyes of men, the pattern of Jewish mimicry and destruction shall continue, and it is playing out now in America and the rest of the West today.

In the 1940’s Jews published books that beckoned, and even threatened, the total destruction of Germany. Among them were titles such as What to Do with Germany? by the Jew Louis Wizer, Germany is Our Problem by the Jew Henry Morgenthau, and Germany must Perish! by the Jew Theodore Kaufman. Subsequently, Germany was destroyed. But it took three world empires, the British, Soviet and American, nearly six years to destroy a single nation half the size of the American State of Texas.

Now in more recent years, in America we see books being published such as Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration, and the Future of White Majorities by the Jew Eric Kaufmann, White Kids: Growing Up with Privilege in a Racially Divided America and Those Who Care and Those Who Don’t: Children and Racism in the Trump Era, both by Margaret A. Hagerman, a Jewess who holds faculty affiliate positions at Mississippi State University in both the African American Studies and Gender Studies programs. Then there is The Invention of the White Race by the anti-White Marxist Jew Theodore Allen, Everyday Forms of Whiteness Understanding Race in A "post-racial" World by the rather hideous-looking Jewess Melanie Bush, Angry White Men by a Jew named Michael Kimmel, White Like Me by the Jew Tim Wise, who is not White at all, and this doesn’t even scratch the surface of literally hundreds, or even thousands, of anti-White books and magazine articles which have been published in the West over the past 50 or so years. If Jews had their way, they would abolish Whiteness by abolishing Whites, and they are working to achieve that in all of the immigration and social welfare programs found throughout the West today. Christians accepted Jewish mimicry, and now Christendom faces destruction.

To support this conclusion, we shall first hear from former university professor Noel Ignatiev [once again, we have a transcript here in the notes, but here we shall present the original audio clip]. In this clip there is a sampling of anti-White statements from an interview which Ignatiev had given before his death:

My concern is doing away with whiteness. Whiteness is a form of racial oppression. Sure, the suggestion is that it is somehow possible to separate whiteness from oppression, and it is not.

There can be no white race without the phenomenon of white supremacy.

If you abolish slavery, you abolish slaveholders. In the same way, if you abolish racial oppression, you do away with whiteness.

Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.

Interviewer question: Your views are fairly well received in academia.

Ignatiev answer: Yes, they're legitimate, not to say that everyone agrees, but sure. I could not point to any examples where it has provoked political censorship. Whiteness is an identity that arises entirely out of oppression.

Whiteness is not a culture, it's not a religion, it's not a language, it's simply an oppressive social category.

Blackness is an identity that can be plausibly argued. Black studies is the study of a people that has formed itself in resistance to its oppression. The task is to bring this minority together in such a way that it makes it impossible for the legacy of whiteness to continue.

Thankfully, Noel Ignatiev has been done away with while there is still much Whiteness in the world. But he has his adherents and successors. Ignatiev was not merely some fringe Jew, but rather, he represented the objectives and intentions of many Jews. And not only Jews, but many other non-Whites as well. For example, in June of 2020, a Cambridge College "Professor" named Priyamvada Gopal, a Pajeet, had made public remarks on Twitter that “I’ll say it again. White Lives Don’t Matter” and, borrowing a term from Ignatiev, “Abolish Whiteness”. In spite of a public outcry, two days later she proclaimed that her “ludicrous” ban from Twitter had been lifted, and “that last night Cambridge promoted me to a full Professorship”. So in at least one prominent northeastern college, anti-White sentiments are rewarded.

But this is not all. Some Jewish professors even consider Ignatiev to be a hero for his anti-White expressions. One of these is named Mark Le Vine, who is currently a Professor and Chairman for the Program in Global Middle East Studies at the School of Humanities for the University of California at Irvine. Whiteness was first abolished in the Middle East after the rise of Mohammedism, a Jewish ploy in the 7th century, and now evidently this character wants to carry the campaign on to the rest of the world.

So in November of 2019, a mere eight days after Ignatiev went to the Lake of Fire, Le Vine wrote an oped which was published, of all places, in Al Jazeera, a presumably Islamic media outlet, which was titled Abolishing whiteness has never been more urgent Noel Ignatiev showed us how. Here we shall reproduce portions of this article, because it is exemplary of Jewish mimicry and their subsequent desire to destroy their hosts:

Noel Ignatiev never set out to be a hero. His goal was quite the opposite: to be a “traitor” to a race that for much of his life would not accept him and whose inherent toxicity, he believed, would permanently impede the possibility of the United States living up to its ideals.

Now this is also a signal example of Jewish chutzpah, because Jews commonly and purposely misrepresent American ideals. True American ideals were originally represented in the various State constitutions of the original colonies, which we have recently discussed and proven to have been entirely Christian, and in the explicitly stated objective to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” which is found in the Preamble to the United States’ Constitution. While there may have been a tiny minority of Jews in America at the time, they were excluded from public office in most every State, and even from voting, and their offspring are not the posterity of the authors and signers of the Constitution. When a Jew opens his mouth, he is lying … every single time.

Continuing with Le Vine:

On November 9, the historian died, leaving behind a body of work explaining why and how Americans ought to abolish “whiteness”. As the country faces a surge in white supremacist violence and rhetoric, there may be no better time to engage with – and embrace – his ideas.

So he is celebrating Ignatiev’s desire to “abolish whiteness” and he wants to continue the endeavor. But an idea cannot be abolished. Only the people who put it to practice can be abolished, and in this case, that means White people. Attacking the idea of “whiteness” is a ploy so that Ignatiev and his followers could escape charges of a conspiracy to commit genocide.

Now he describes Ignatiev’s disappointment with mimicry, which he apparently thought of as having failed, under the subtitle:

Becoming white

Ignatiev was born and raised in the same progressive – and for some, radical – American Jewish tradition that moulded Bernie Sanders (who was born less than a year before him). He grew up in a mixed-race area of Philadelphia where he witnessed the extent and depth of anti-black racism. In the late 1950s, he enrolled at the University of Pennsylvania, but dropped out after three years and focused on leftist activism.

He took up a job in a steel mill, becoming a labour organiser among the mostly African American workforce before completing a PhD at Harvard (where he was accepted despite his lack of a college degree) in 1995.

This is funny, actually, because Ignatiev perfectly fits a common caricature of Jews in the workplace, who do not actually work, but who only use their employment to avoid work and to exploit the labor of others, in this case, Negros. Now to continue:

Ignatiev was a member of the last generation of Jews who experienced what it meant to be considered less than white in the US – at least until the present generation experienced a sharp rise in anti-Semitic attacks after the election of Donald Trump. He understood the malleability of race and its reality as a social, ideological and political, rather than biological, construct.

The majority of Jews embraced whiteness as it became more readily available to them from the 1960s onwards, believing it offered unprecedented protection against any possible resurgent anti-Semitism. Ignatiev, however, saw the solution to Jews’ problems, and those of the US at large, in abolishing it.

Ignatiev was accepted as a doctoral candidate at Harvard University in spite of the fact that he never obtained a college degree. So he was actually privileged. This is another example of Jewish chutzpah. His mimicry actually earned him a privileged position in life as a university art professor, and evidently he cried about how he was oppressed. The truth is that White empathy and altruism, which facilitates Jewish mimicry, always leads to destruction.

The balance of Le Vine’s article contains many more lies about White society, as Whites have actually sought to educate the world, rather than prohibit non-white races from education. All of the modern universities, churches and other institutions found throughout the non-White world today are a testament to that endeavor. He says:

Abolishing whiteness is different to merely challenging “white supremacy” or “white privilege”. What Ignatiev understood was that for most self-identified “white” people there is, a normally invisible, boundary to how far they will go in working for true racial equality. Unsurprisingly, those boundaries become apparent around issues – such as equal access to education and jobs – that might threaten or merely inconvenience the advantages and privileges of whiteness.

This is pitiful, because it reads as if it was written in the 19th century. Of course, in the 1950’s and through the 1970’s, many programs and even State and Federal laws were put into place, at a time when America still had a decidedly White super-majority of voters, which ensured minorities not only equal access to both jobs and education, but even preferences in hiring and university acceptance. But no law can equalize competence or ability, and that is why Jews have also been at the vanguard of dumbing down the educational system and lowering all the barriers to licenses and degrees over that same period of time.

The truth is that both Noel Ignatiev, and this Mark Le Vine, who is also quite privileged as a Jew, being the chairman of a department in a large university, hate White people, along with countless other and similarly-privileged Jews. Oddly, they are never mentioned on the website of the Anti-Defamation League, because the ADL cares only about the supposed defamation of Jews, and not the defamation of other races by Jews, of which there are countless examples. Now, for the past few decades, Jews have abandoned their mimicry, because it is no longer needed by them. They are less and less mockingbirds, and more and more they act like cowbirds. So the next step is destruction, either of White Christians, or of Jews. There is no escaping this pattern which has played out so many times in history, as it is a simple scientific cause and effect, and a fate assigned by God Himself, in Genesis 3:15.

The Jewish rabbis who were cited by Walter Chandler in his speech before Congress in 1922 were not proclaiming that Whites or Whiteness should be destroyed. Rather, they were making appeals to White America for Christian fellowship. They were acting as mockingbirds because they aspired to be cowbirds. At that time, America was far more “racist” than anything which Noel Ignatiev or Mark Le Vine could ever have encountered. In fact, only a few years earlier, the debate over immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe in America was still raging. But the Jew never has enough, and we hope to discuss further reasons for that here soon, in another presentation.

For now, in his article at Wikipedia, Mark Le Vine is quoted as having said “As long as you think you’re white, there’s no hope for you.” But we know, and we are assured by Yahweh God Himself, that as long as one is a Jew like Le Vine, there is no hope for him.