On the True Meaning of Hate Speech

“A law against Jew-hatred is usually the beginning of the end for the Jews.”
—Joseph Goebbels, diary (April 19, 1943)[1]

‘Hate’ is such an ugly word.  And such a juvenile word.  It calls to mind the stereotypical eight-year-old girl who screams “I hate you!” to her mother when she is not allowed to join the local sleep-over.  The word is most often used half-jokingly—“I hate the Yankees!”, “I hate broccoli!”, etc.—or to describe some detested task (“I hate cleaning the bathroom”).  Or it can be used for rhetorical effect.  But the use of the term in the context of ‘hate speech’ is silly, juvenile, and formally meaningless.  We may dislike someone or some group, or be repulsed by them, or wish to dissociate from them.  But to hate them?  Seriously—what mature individual today is willing to openly and earnestly say “I hate you” to anyone?  Only a highly insecure or severely distressed person would do such a thing.  It’s a sign of weakness.

And yet today, hate seems to be the ethos of the moment.  More specifically, we seem to be surrounded by talk of ‘hate speech’ in the mass media.  To judge by various headlines and liberal pundits, hate speech would appear to be among the greatest dangers of modern existence—on par with racism and “White supremacy,” and greater than political corruption, international terrorism, global pandemics, financial instability, environmental decline, overpopulation, or uncontrollable industrial technology.  Most European countries have legal prohibitions against various forms of hate speech, however ill-defined, as do Canada and Australia.  Even in the US there is increasing pressure to create legal sanction for some such concept, the First Amendment notwithstanding.

I take this whole topic very personally.  It’s no secret that I’ve written harshly against Jews and other minorities.  It’s no secret that I prefer living in a White community and a White nation.  I have no need to apologize for any of this.  And yet, for these very reasons, some people find it appropriate to call me a ‘hater’:  “Dalton hates the Jews”; “he hates Blacks,” “he hates Latinos,” etc., etc.  But I state here, for the record, that nothing is further from the truth.  I hate no one.  I may dislike certain people, I may find them malevolent and malicious, I may want them punished, and I may want to separate myself from them; but this does not mean that I hate them.  In this era of “hate crimes” and “hate speech laws,” this requires some explanation.

As usual, we should start by knowing what we are talking about.  What, exactly, is it to ‘hate’?  The word has ancient origins, deriving from the Indo-European kədes and Greek kedos.  Originally, and surprisingly, it meant simply ‘strong feelings’ in a neutral sense, rather than something negative.  In fact, the Old Irish word caiss includes both love and hate.  But the negative connotation emerged with the Germanic khatis (later, hass), the Dutch haat, and eventually became ingrained in the English ‘hate.’

The standard dictionary definition typically runs something like this:  “intense or extreme dislike, aversion, or hostility” toward someone or something.  As such, the word is fairly innocuous; I can hate my job, hate asparagus, and even hate my boss.  But this is not at issue.  We are more concerned about hate as a mindset, and specifically as oriented toward classes of people, or increasingly, toward certain privileged ideologies.

But we immediately confront a major problem here:  Hate is a feeling, and feelings are indelibly subjective.  And anything that is completely subjective cannot be quantified in objective terms.  No one can say with certainty that “Dalton hates X.”  Only I can say, “I hate X,” precisely because it is my own feeling.  If there is one thing that I insist upon, it is complete sovereignty over my own feelings.  No one else will ever dictate how I feel about anything.

And even if I say “I hate X,” how does anyone else know that I really feel the hatred?  They don’t.  Maybe I’m being sarcastic.  Maybe I’m joking.  Maybe I’m just trying to cause a stir.  No one will ever know my actual feelings except me—precisely because they are my own.  No one will ever know if I am expressing “real” hatred, or just pretending.  (Does that even matter?)

The point here is that hatred, because it vanishes into a subjective void that is utterly inaccessible to others, can never be quantified or objectified, and thus can never be the basis for legal enforcement—at least, not in any rational sense.  Therefore, the corresponding concept of ‘hate speech,’ viewed as the expression of hatred, likewise melts into thin air.  It is, technically, an incoherent concept when put forth as a basis for law.  This fact, of course, does not stop corrupt lawmakers around the globe from trying to enforce it, though for very different reasons, as I will explain.

So, let’s take a look at how some attempt to define the indefinable.  Here is one interesting definition from the Cambridge Dictionary:  hate speech is

public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence toward a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation (= the fact of being gay, etc.)

This is a hugely problematic definition, on several grounds.  First, how public is ‘public’?  If I tell my neighbor, is that public?  If I publish something in a private chat room, is that public?  What if I mumble something aloud to a friend while in a shopping mall?  Am I responsible if a private email to a colleague gets reposted online?  And so on.

Second:  it involves the “expression of hate,” or “encouragement of violence.”  These are two vastly different things.  ‘Expression of hate’ is, as I said, functionally meaningless.  What, exactly, does it take for something to qualify as an “expression of hate”?  Presumably if I say “I hate X,” that counts.  But what else?  Does “I really, really, really dislike X” count?  Does “I’d like to see X die” count?  What about “I’d like to see X get very ill”?  Does “X is a total scumbag” count?  We can see the problems.  Incitement to violence is somewhat less ambiguous, but still problematic.  Who, for example, is to judge ‘encouragement’?  This is another highly subjective term.  And how much violence is necessary to qualify?  Is a good shove violent?  A pie in the face?  Tripping someone?  Is ‘emotional distress’ violence?  What about financial loss?

Third, we notice that it’s not violence per se, but rather violence “based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.”  This is very odd.  What does the phrase “something such as” mean here?  The qualifiers mentioned are usually assumed to be intrinsic to the person or group (race, gender)—except that religion, and even sexual orientation, can be changed at the drop of a hat.  Therefore, the qualities need not be intrinsic.  So what, exactly, is this mysterious criteria, this “something such as,” that is so crucial for the whole concept?

The point here is that the whole notion of ‘hate speech,’ like hate itself, dissolves into a subjective void.  In objective terms, it is virtually meaningless.  How, then, can be it be subject to the force of law?

The UN Takes a Shot

As if they don’t have enough on their plate already, the United Nations is now highly distressed by the spread of hate speech around the world.  Recently, in May 2019, they issued a short statement called “Strategy and plan of action on hate speech.”  It included this observation:

There is no international legal definition of hate speech, and the characterization of what is ‘hateful’ is controversial and disputed.  In the context of this document, the term ‘hate speech’ is understood as any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are—in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor.  This is often rooted in, and generates, intolerance and hatred and, in certain contexts, can be demeaning and divisive.

The key phrases here:  “controversial and disputed” (obviously), “any kind of communication” (very broad), “pejorative or discriminatory language” (highly subjective and undefined), and “on the basis of who they are” (mostly intrinsic factors, except for nationality and religion, and possibly “other identity factors”).  And then we read the subsequent explanatory paragraph:

Rather than prohibiting hate speech as such, international law prohibits the incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence (referred to here as ‘incitement’).  Incitement is a very dangerous form of speech, because it explicitly and deliberately aims at triggering discrimination, hostility and violence, which may also lead to or include terrorism or atrocity crimes.  Hate speech that does not reach the threshold of incitement is not something that international law requires States to prohibit.

So, hate speech per se is not to be prohibited, but rather only a special kind of hate speech—“inciteful (to violence) hate speech.”  In other words, only the worst of the worst, apparently.  Clarification and elaboration would soon follow.

Also, the Foreword to the statement reveals something of the deeper motives at work here.  We find, in the opening paragraph, references to “anti-Semitism,” “neo-Nazis,” and the dreaded “White supremacy.”  Strange how we inevitably find such terms in any discussion of hate speech; more on this below.

Evidently dissatisfied with this short statement, the UN issued a 52-page “detailed guidance” report, under the same name, in September 2020.  Here they establish three levels of hate speech:  1) the worst kind: “direct and public incitement to violence” (including to genocide), 2) a grey zone of hate speech to be prohibited based on “legitimate aims” and only as “necessary and proportionate”, and 3) an unrestricted and lawful form that may still be “offensive, shocking, or disturbing.”  Level One (“Incitement”) hate speech in turn is based on, and determined by, six conditions:

  • 1) social and political context
  • 2) status of the speaker (!)
  • 3) intention of the speaker (!)
  • 4) form and content of the speech
  • 5) extent of dissemination
  • 6) likelihood of harm

Level One Hate must satisfy all six criteria, meaning (presumably): a sensitive time or social context, an influential or important speaker, bad intent, provocative style, widely disseminated, and with reasonable probability of harm.  Again, all six are required, for Level One status.  Levels Two and Three may meet some, or none, of these.  The six criteria are elaborated on pages 17 and 18 of the report.

Later in the document we find an interesting admission:  “The terms ‘hatred’ and ‘hostility’ should be understood to refer to intense and irrational emotions of opprobrium, enmity, and detestation towards the target group” (p. 13).  This is actually quite a relief; any opposition to Jews or other minorities, if rational and non-emotional (e.g., fact-based) cannot count as hate speech!  Therefore, writings by scholars, academics, or other serious researchers, who build a case based on facts, history, and plausible inference, are under no circumstances engaging in hate speech.  This is a huge loophole that somehow slipped past the ideological censors, one which we should be able to use to our advantage.

We (some of us, at least) get further relief on the following page, where we read that Level Three (allowable) Hate includes not only “expression that is offensive, shocking, or disturbing” but also covers “denial of historical events, including crimes of genocide or crimes against humanity.”  As the UN sees it, so-called Holocaust denial is permissible, or at least non-punishable, hate speech.[2]  And in Figure 4 they go further still, stating that Level Three hate “must be PROTECTED” as a form of free expression.  This is a remarkable concession.  Ah, but there’s a catch:  “unless such forms of expression also constitute incitement to hostility, discrimination, or violence under article 20 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”  This document, written in 1966 and made effective in 1976, includes these words under article 20:  “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”  So it would seem that, for example, Holocaust “denial” (whatever that means) is not prohibited as long as it avoids any connection to “incitement” of any kind.  Presumably discussing it as a historical subject is fine; just don’t implicate anyone today who promotes, exploits, or profits from the conventional Holocaust story.

“It’s always about the Jews!”

So, let’s get down to the rub.  I have a tentative hypothesis that I am willing to put forward:  Hate speech is by, for, and about Jews.  (Oops—is that hate speech?)  That is, that hate speech laws have been invented and promoted by Jews, primarily for their benefit.  I further hold that Jews are the master-class haters in world history, and that they understand the power of hatred better than any other people.  They have furthermore learned how to project their hatred onto others in service of their own ends, including by trickery and deception.  Let me marshal whatever evidence I can, mostly implicit, to build a case for this hypothesis.

Start with a little history of Jews and hatred.  Perhaps the first explicit connection came way back in 300 BC, in a short writing by Hecateus of Abdera titled “On the Jews.”  Only two fragments remain, one of which is relevant:  As a result of the Exodus, “Moses introduced a way of life which was, to a certain extent, misanthropic (apanthropon) and hostile to foreigners”.[3]  It is striking that, even at that early date, the Jews had a reputation for misanthropy—a hatred of humanity.  The same theme recurs in 134 BC, when King Antiochus VII was advised “to destroy the Jews, for they alone among all peoples refused all relations with other races, and saw everyone as their enemy.”  The king’s counselor cited “the Jews’ hatred of all mankind, sanctioned by their very laws.”[4]  Not only was their hatred notable, so too was the fact that it was “they alone, among all peoples”; the Jews were exceptional haters, it seems.

It is worth further expanding on the idea that Jewish hatred is “sanctioned by their very laws”—by which they mean, the Old Testament.  We know, of course, that the Jews viewed themselves as “chosen” by the creator of the universe:  “For you are a people holy to the Lord your God.  The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his own possession, out of all the peoples that are on the face of the earth” (Deut 7:6).  Clearly, then, everyone else is second-best.  We also know that God supposedly gave the Jews a kind of dominion over the other nations of the Earth.  The Book of Exodus states, “we [Jews] are distinct…from all other people that are upon the face of the earth” (33:16).  Similarly, the Hebrew tribe is “a people dwelling alone, and not reckoning itself among the nations” (Num 23:9).  In Deuteronomy (15:6), Moses tells the Jews “you shall rule over many nations”; “they shall be afraid of you” (28:10).  There is Genesis:  “Let peoples serve you, and nations bow down to you” (27:29); or Deuteronomy, where God promises Jews “houses full of all good things, which [they] did not fill, and cisterns hewn out, which [they] did not hew, and vineyards and olive trees, which [they] did not plant” (6:11).  And outside the Pentateuch, we can read in Isaiah:  “Foreigners shall build up your walls, and their kings shall minister to you…that men may bring you the wealth of the nations” (60:10–11); or again, “aliens shall stand and feed your flocks, foreigners shall be your plowmen and vinedressers…you shall eat the wealth of the nations” (61:5–6).  What is this but explicit misanthropy, sanctioned by God, and sustained “by their very laws”?

Around 50 BC, Diodorus Siculus wrote Historical Library where, in the course of discussing the Exodus, he observes that “the nation of Jews had made their hatred of mankind into a tradition” (34,1).  A few decades later, Lysimachus remarked that the Hebrew tribe was instructed by Moses “to show good will to no man” and to offer only “the worse advice” to others.  And in the early years of the Christian era, the writer Apion commented on the Jewish tendency “to show no goodwill to a single alien, above all to Greeks.”[5]  Again, repeated observations of Jewish hatred toward Gentile humanity.

The most insightful ancient critique, though, comes from Roman historian Tacitus.  His works Histories (100 AD) and Annals (115 AD) both record highly damning observations on the Hebrew tribe.  In the former, the Jews are described as “a race of men hateful to the gods” (genus hominum invisium deis, V.3).  Somewhat later, he remarks that “the Jews are extremely loyal toward one another, and always ready to show compassion, but toward every other people they feel only hate and enmity” (hostile odium, V.5).  But his most famous line comes from his later work, Annals.  There he examines the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD, and Nero’s reaction to it.  Nero, says Tacitus, pinned the blame in part on the Christians and Jews—“a class of men loathed for their vices.”  The Jews “were convicted, not so much on the count of arson as for hatred of the human race” (odio humani generis, XV.44).  Clearly this was the decisive factor, certainly in Tacitus’ eyes and perhaps in all of Rome:  that the Jewish odio humani generis, hatred of humanity, was a sufficient crime to banish and even slay them.

I could go on, but the message is clear:  The ancient world viewed the Jews as exceptional haters.  I could also cite, for example, Philostratus circa 230 AD (“The Jews have long been in revolt not only against the Romans, but against all humanity”) or Porphyry circa 280 AD (The Jews are “the impious enemies of all nations”)—but the point is made.

Importantly, this impression carried on for centuries in Europe, into the Renaissance, the Reformation, and even through to the present day.  Martin Luther’s monumental work On the Jews and Their Lies (1543) includes this passage:  “Now you can see what fine children of Abraham the Jews really are, how well they take after their father [the Devil], yes, what a fine people of God they are.  They boast before God of their physical birth and of the noble blood inherited from their fathers, despising all other people.”[6]  Two centuries later, circa 1745, Jean-Baptiste de Mirabaud wrote that “The Jews…were hated because they were known to hate other men.”[7]  And then we have Voltaire’s entry on “Jews” in his famous Philosophical Dictionary, which reads as follows:

It is certain that the Jewish nation is the most singular that the world has ever seen, and…in a political view, the most contemptible of all. …  It is commonly said that the abhorrence in which the Jews held other nations proceeded from their horror of idolatry; but it is much more likely that the manner in which they, at the first, exterminated some of the tribes of Canaan, and the hatred which the neighboring nations conceived for them, were the cause of this invincible aversion.  As they knew no nations but their neighbors, they thought that, in abhorring them, they detested the whole earth, and thus accustomed themselves to be the enemies of all men. …  In short, we find in them only an ignorant and barbarous people, who have long united the most sordid avarice with the most detestable superstition and the most invincible hatred for every people by whom they are tolerated and enriched.[8]

British historian Edward Gibbon stated the following in his classic work of 1788, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire:

The Jews…emerged from obscurity…and multiplied to a surprising degree. …  The sullen obstinacy with which they maintained their peculiar rites and unsocial manners seemed to mark them out a distinct species of men, who boldly professed, or who faintly disguised, their implacable hatred to the rest of human-kind.[9]

A similar observation came from the pen of German philosopher Johann Fichte in 1793:

Throughout almost all the countries of Europe, a mighty hostile state is spreading that is at perpetual war with all other states, and in many of them imposes fearful burdens on the citizens: it is the Jews.  I don’t think, as I hope to show subsequently, that this state is fearful—not because it forms a separate and solidly united state, but because this state is founded on the hatred of the whole human race…[10]

Who, then, are the master haters in all of history?

Particularly striking are the words of Nietzsche.  A long series of negative comments on the Jews began in 1881 with his book Daybreak, where he observes in passing (sec. 377) that “The command ‘love your enemies’ had to be invented by the Jews, the best haters there have ever been.”  So it would seem that the Jews are truly best at something after all: hatred.  Then in The Gay Science (1882), Nietzsche sarcastically notes that the Jews are indeed ‘chosen’ people, precisely because “they had a more profound contempt for the human being in themselves than any other people” (sec. 136).

But the most stunning discourse appears in Nietzsche’s work of 1887, On the Genealogy of Morals, where he offers a detailed analysis of hatred from the Judeo-Christian perspective.  In short, Jewish hatred is manifested most visibly in their rabbis, religious men, and their priests.  Sanctioned by God, priestly hate is the deepest and most profound; it is the hatred of those without tangible power.  Jewish hatred then metastasized in Christianity, taking form as its nominal opposite, namely, love.  The First Essay is a masterpiece of literature and philosophy; I quote it at length:

As is well known, priests are the most evil of enemies—but why?  Because they are the most powerless.  From their powerlessness, their hate grows among them into something huge and terrifying, to the most spiritual and most poisonous manifestations.  The really great haters in world history and the most spiritual haters have always been priests—in comparison with the spirit of priestly revenge, all the remaining spirits are generally hardly worth considering.

Let us quickly consider the greatest example.  Everything on earth which has been done against “the noble,” “the powerful,” “the masters,” “the rulers” is not worth mentioning in comparison with what the Jews have done against them: the Jews, that priestly people, who knew how to get final satisfaction from their enemies and conquerors through a radical transformation of their values, that is, through an act of the most spiritual revenge.  This was appropriate only to a priestly people with the most deeply repressed priestly desire for revenge.  In opposition to the aristocratic value equations (good = noble = powerful = beautiful = fortunate = loved by god), the Jews, with an awe-inspiring consistency, dared to reverse things and to hang on to that with the teeth of the most profound hatred (the hatred of the powerless)…  (sec. 7)

But you fail to understand that?  You have no eye for something that needed two millennia to emerge victorious? … That’s nothing to wonder at: all lengthy things are hard to see, to assess.  However, that’s what took place: out of the trunk of that tree of vengeance and hatred, Jewish hatred—the deepest and most sublime hatred, that is, a hatred which creates ideals and transforms values, something whose like has never existed on earth—from that grew something just as incomparable, a new love, the deepest and most sublime of all the forms of love: —from what other trunk could it have grown?

However, one should not assume that this love arose essentially as the denial of that thirst for vengeance, as the opposite of Jewish hatred!  No: the reverse is the truth!  This love grew out of that hatred, as its crown, as the victorious crown unfolding itself wider and wider in the purest brightness and sunshine, which, so to speak, was seeking for the kingdom of light and height, the goal of that hate, aiming for victory, trophies, seduction, with the same urgency with which the roots of that hatred were sinking down ever deeper and more greedily into everything that was evil and possessed depth.  This Jesus of Nazareth, the living evangelist of love, the “Saviour” bringing holiness and victory to the poor, to the sick, to the sinners—was he not that very seduction in its most terrible and most irresistible form, the seduction and detour to exactly those Jewish values and innovations in ideals?  (sec. 8)

On this view, Christian ‘love’ grows out of Jewish ‘hate,’ like the crown of the tree from its roots.  The Jews (and Paul specifically), the master haters, purveyors of the “deepest and most sublime hatred” that has ever existed, created the idea of a saviour who loves everyone.  They did so as cover for their hatred of humanity, and as an enticement into their Jewish-inspired worldview—one of a Jewish man-god (Jesus), of Jehovah the Almighty, of heaven and hell.  These destructive and nihilistic “values and innovations” could only be foisted upon a humanity that was detested.  Christianity was thus the greatest manifestation of Jewish hatred ever conceived.

Nietzsche summarizes his thesis concisely in section 16:

In Rome the Jew was considered “guilty of hatred against the entire human race.”  And that view was correct, to the extent that we are right to link the health and the future of the human race to the unconditional rule of aristocratic values, the Roman values.

The nihilistic Christian values—based on a mythical God and an unknowable and perhaps nonexistent future life—managed to undermine and ultimately displace the superior Greco-Roman values that had flourished for 800 years and created the foundation of all of Western civilization.  Only an overthrow of Judeo-Christianity and a return to classic, aristocratic values can save humanity at this point.  The quoted passage refers, of course, to Tacitus.

We can’t leave the Genealogy without brief mention of a fascinating and humorous allegory on hatred that Nietzsche offers in section 13.  There he compares the situation between lowly (Judeo-Christian) haters and the strong and noble (Roman) aristocrats to the opposition that might exist between baby lambs and some nasty predator (Raubvogel), like an eagle.  The lambs are innocently and peacefully munching grass in a field, but live in constant fear of a predator who may, at any time, swoop in and snatch them up.  The weak lambs are haters; they hate those birds of prey.  But the noble eagles don’t hate at all.  Nietzsche explains:

But let’s come back: the problem with the other origin of the “good,” of the good man, as the person of ressentiment has imagined it for himself, demands its own conclusion.  —That the lambs are upset about the great predatory birds is not a strange thing, and the fact that they snatch away small lambs provides no reason for holding anything against these large birds of prey.  And if the lambs say among themselves, “These predatory birds are evil, and whoever is least like a predatory bird, especially anyone who is like its opposite, a lamb—shouldn’t that animal be good?” there is nothing to find fault with in this setting-up of an ideal, except for the fact that the birds of prey might look down on them with a little mockery and perhaps say to themselves, “We are not at all annoyed with these good lambs.  We even love them.  Nothing is tastier than a tender lamb.”

The noble don’t hate; they rule and dominate.  Only the weak hate.  The weak haters furthermore seek to portray the strong and noble in the harshest possible terms: “evil,” “killers,” “sinners.”  But this is ludicrous, of course.  The strong are just doing what is appropriate to their nature.  The haters might then try to confuse the strong, to guilt them into changing their behavior, to get them to become ‘weak’ and ‘good’ like the haters themselves.  But this would be the death of them, just as a life of munching grass—so pleasant for a lamb—would mean death for an eagle.  Nietzsche emphasizes this very point:

[I]t’s no wonder that the repressed, secretly smouldering feelings of rage and hate use this belief for themselves, and basically even maintain a faith in nothing more fervently than in the idea that the strong are free to be weak and that predatory birds are free to be lambs: —in so doing, they arrogate to themselves the right to blame the birds of prey for being birds of prey.

Today, weak and lowly haters—Jews, Jewish-inspired Christians, and Jewish lackeys in the media—have been working hard to convince the strong and noble that they are bad, evil, bigoted, racist, and supremacist.  And to the extent that they have succeeded, it has been the death of noble humanity.  We must resist this tendency with all our might.

Hate Speech in the Twentieth Century

With growing wealth and financial clout, and with a 2,000-year history of skill in hatred under their belts, organized Jewry began to press the case for legal sanctions against their opponents.  With the flood of Jewish immigrants around the turn of the century, it is perhaps not surprising that Jewish legal advocacy took hold in the US.  In the first two decades, a number of major pro-Jewish groups emerged, including the American Jewish Committee (1906), the Anti-Defamation League (1913), the American Jewish Congress (1918), and the American Civil Liberties Union (1920).  All these groups were de facto anti-hate speech advocates, even if the federal legal apparatus did not really exist at that point.  Their focus was on so-called “group libel,” a novel legal concept that was formulated specifically to benefit Jewish interests.

Meanwhile, across the ocean, Jews were making better legal progress in the proto-Soviet Union.  The rise of Jewish Bolsheviks from around 1900, including Leon Trotsky and the quarter-Jewish Vladimir Lenin, brought a new concern with anti-Semitism to the Russian Empire.  When they took power in the February Revolution of 1917, they immediately set to work to make life better for Russian Jews.  Pinkus (1990) explains that these Bolsheviks “issued a decree annulling all legal restrictions on Jews” in March 1917.[11]  He adds that, unsurprisingly, “Even before the October [1917] Revolution, Lenin and the Bolshevik Party were hostile to anti-Semitism.  Lenin castigated it in the strongest terms on a number of occasions.”  As soon as July 1918, the Soviet Council issued a decree (though without legal enforcement) stating that “the anti-Semitic movement and the anti-Jewish pogroms are a deadly menace to the Revolution”; all Soviet workers are called upon “to fight this plague with all possible means”.[12]  Lenin himself continued to press his pro-Jewish propaganda; in one short but notable speech of March 1919, he said:

Anti-Semitism means spreading enmity towards the Jews.  When the accursed Czarist monarchy was living its last days, it tried to incite ignorant workers and peasants against the Jews.  The Czarist police, in alliance with the landowners and the capitalists, organized pogroms against the Jews.  The landowners and capitalists tried to divert the hatred of the workers and peasants who were tortured by want against the Jews. … Only the most ignorant and downtrodden people can believe the lies and slander that are spread about the Jews.  This is a survival of ancient feudal times, when the priests burned heretics at the stake, when the peasants lived in slavery, and when the people were crushed and inarticulate.  This ancient, feudal ignorance is passing away; the eyes of the people are being opened.

It is not the Jews who are the enemies of the working people.  The enemies of the workers are the capitalists of all countries.  Among the Jews there are working people, and they form the majority.  They are our brothers, who, like us, are oppressed by capital; they are our comrades in the struggle for socialism. … Shame on accursed Czarism which tortured and persecuted the Jews.  Shame on those who foment hatred towards the Jews, who foment hatred towards other nations.

As (non-Jew) Joseph Stalin rose to power in the 1920s, he found it expedient to continue working with the Soviet Jews and generally defended their status.  Consequently, that decade became a sort of ‘golden age’ for Jews; it saw the emergence of the likes of Lazar Kaganovich, Yakov Sverdlov, Lev Kamenev, Karl Radek, Leonid Krasin, Filipp Goloshchekin, and Yakov Agranov—all high-ranking Jews in the Soviet hierarchy.[13]  Partly because of this governmental dominance, anti-Semitism among the Russian masses continued to percolate.  Eventually, “in 1927, a decision was reached to take drastic steps to repress anti-Semitism.”[14]  Various forms of propaganda were employed, including books, pamphlets, plays, and films; the process culminated in harsh legal action against anti-Jewish hate, up to and including the death penalty.  Stalin confirmed this in writing in 1931:

Anti-Semitism is of advantage to the exploiters as a lightning conductor that deflects the blows aimed by the working people at capitalism.  Anti-Semitism is dangerous for the working people as being a false path that leads them off the right road and lands them in the jungle.  Hence Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but be irreconcilable, sworn enemies of anti-Semitism.  In the USSR, anti-Semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system.  Under USSR law, active anti-Semites are liable to the death penalty.

The Jewish Golden Age in the Soviet Union lasted until the late 1930s, when Stalin inaugurated a retrenchment of Jewish power, apparently in response to the National Socialist stance.[15]

But the Soviet (and Bolshevik) philo-Semitic policies of the 1920s and 1930s were not lost on Hitler.  He and Goebbels were relentless, and justified, in their critiques of “Jewish Bolshevism” as a dominant threat to Germany and Europe.  Goebbels in particular noted the growing push for ‘hate speech’ and ‘hate crime’ laws in defense of Jews in both the USSR and the UK; for him, this was proof of (a) a deep-seated and imminent mass uprising against the Jews, and (b) an over-playing of their legal authority.  Anti-hate laws are a sign of desperation; they indicate that the end-game is near.  In a revealing diary entry of 19 April 1943, Goebbels writes:

The Jews in England are now calling for legal protection against anti-Semitism.  We know that from our own past, in the times of struggle.  But even that didn’t give them much advantage.  We’ve always understood how to find gaps in these protective laws; and moreover, anti-Semitism, once it rises from the depths of the people, cannot be broken by law.  A law against Jew-hatred is usually the beginning of the end for the Jews.  We will make sure that anti-Semitism in England does not cool down.  In any case, a longer-lasting war is the best breeding ground for it.[16]

The following month, in his published essay “The War and the Jews,” Goebbels commented on the legal situation in the USSR—the very law that Stalin described above, and that was still in force some 13 years later:

We constantly hear news that anti-Semitism is increasing in enemy nations.  The charges being made against the Jews are well-known; they are the same ones that were made here.  Anti-Semitism in enemy nations is not the result of anti-Semitic propaganda, since Jewry fights that strongly.  In the Soviet Union, it receives the death penalty.[17]

The status of anti-Semitic hate speech laws was of importance to Goebbels right to the very end.  In his last major essay, “Creators of the World’s Misfortunes” (1945), he reiterated the significance of the Soviet law:

Capitalism and Bolshevism have the same Jewish roots—two branches of the same tree that in the end bear the same fruit.  International Jewry uses both in its own way to suppress nations and keep them in its service.  How deep its influence on public opinion is in all the enemy countries and many neutral nations is plain to see: it may never be mentioned in newspapers, speeches, and radio broadcasts.

There’s a law in the Soviet Union that punishes ‘anti-Semitism’—or in plain English, public education about the Jewish Question—by death.  Any expert in these matters is in no way surprised that a leading spokesman for the Kremlin said over the New Year that the Soviet Union would not rest until this law was valid throughout the world.  In other words, the enemy clearly says that its goal in this war is to put the total domination of Jewry over the nations of the Earth under legal protection, and to use the death penalty to threaten even a discussion of this shameful attempt.  It is little different in the plutocratic [Western] nations.

Even at the bitter end, this theme still impressed Goebbels.  In one of his final diary entries, he wrote:

The Jews have already registered for the San Francisco Conference [on post-war plans].  It is characteristic that their main demand is to ban anti-Semitism throughout the world.  Typically, having committed the most terrible crimes against mankind, the Jews would now like mankind to be forbidden even to think about them.[18]

And indeed, they have succeeded, at least in part.  The postwar German Volksverhetzung and the Austrian Verbotsgesetz both stand as among the most embarrassing legal capitulations to Jewish interests in the Western world.

Thus we clearly see the origins of hate speech legislation in the twentieth century: it was first constructed by Jews and their sycophants (like Stalin), both in the US and in the Soviet Union, to quell any looming opposition to their power structure.  So intent were they on stifling objection to Jewish rule that they were willing to kill those who opposed them.

To the Present Day

With the growing dominance of Jewish influence in American government over the past five decades, and ongoing influence in Europe, calls to restrict and punish any anti-Jewish commentary via hate speech laws have become ever more strident.  The U.S. government—or at least the Republicans—have so far mostly resisted such efforts, but social media has come around to the philosemitic stance.  Facebook and Facebook-owned Instagram, Twitter, and Google-owned YouTube, have all taken it upon themselves to censor hate speech, especially of the anti-Semitic variety.  Google has altered its search algorithms to de-rank offensive and “hate” sites.  All this is perfectly understandable, given the huge Jewish presence atop Big Tech; we need only mention Mark Zuckerberg, Sergei Brin, Larry Page, Larry Ellison, Michael Dell, Sheryl Sandberg, Safra Katz, Susan Wojcicki, Steve Ballmer, Brian Roberts, Marc Benioff, Craig Newmark, and Jeff Weiner, for starters.

Parallel to Big Tech censorship, Jewish advocacy groups like the SPLC and the ADL continue to press civil cases against those ‘haters’ who they believe have violated the rights or reputation of some aggrieved party.  The SPLC has a section of its website dedicated to “anti-Semitism and hate speech,” and the ADL—well, that’s their raison d’etre.  Third-party lawsuits and tech censorship serve the purpose of implementing de facto pro-Jewish hate speech policies, at least within the U.S.


But to come full circle:  I began this piece with a discussion about the logical vagueness and incoherence of the concept of hate speech.  Clearly, though, many powerful, Jewish-inspired corporations and politicians find the concept useful.  For them, in the most basic and practical terms, it becomes quite simple:  Hate speech is any speech that Jews hate.  Yes, they may claim to hate anti-Muslim speech or anti-Black speech, but this is so only because it is a necessary corollary to anti-Jewish hate speech.  The Jews are not so stupid today as to push for uniquely Jewish, “anti-anti-Semitism” laws; those are a thing of the past.  Today, such laws require cover language that, at least in theory, includes other “oppressed” groups.  Jews and their defenders must appear universal and fair—when in reality most seem to have utter contempt for virtually all non-Jewish groups (there’s that “hatred of humanity” again).  Hate speech is any speech that Jews hate.

Consider:  If you hate what I say, who’s the hater?  It’s you, not me.  The fact that you may not like what I’m saying does not make me a hater.  It makes you the hater.  And if you happen to be a champion, master-class, world-historical hater, well then—it’s all hate to you.

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books and articles on politics, history, and religion, with a special focus on National Socialism in Germany.  His works include a new translation series of Mein Kampf, and the books Eternal Strangers (2020), The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019), and Debating the Holocaust (4th ed, 2020), all available at www.clemensandblair.com.  For all his writings, see his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com.

[1] Reprinted in Goebbels on the Jews (2019; T. Dalton, ed), p. 199.  This and most other books cited below are available at www.clemensandblair.com.

[2] For the record, I am no denier.  I believe that there was a Holocaust of the mid-20th century:  it was called World War Two, and some 60 million people died as a result of Jewish-instigated actions both here and in Europe.  Jewish fatalities seem to have numbered around 500,000, according to the major revisionists.  For more on these issues, see my books The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019) and Debating the Holocaust (4th ed, 2020).

[3] Eternal Strangers (2020; T. Dalton, ed), p. 16.

[4] Emilio Gabba, “The growth of anti-Judaism,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism (vol. 2, 1984; Cambridge University Press), p. 645.

[5] Eternal Strangers, pp. 19, 21, and 25, respectively.

[6] On the Jews and Their Lies (2020, T. Dalton, ed; Clemens & Blair), p. 53.

[7] Eternal Strangers, p. 68.

[8] Eternal Strangers, pp. 70-71.

[9] The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1788/1974, vol. 2; AMS Press), p. 3.  See also Eternal Strangers, p. 59.

[10] Eternal Strangers, p. 78.

[11] Benjamin Pinkus, The Jews of the Soviet Union (1990; Cambridge University Press), p. 84.

[12] In Pinkus, p. 85.

[13] The parallels to the Biden regime are striking; see my recent piece “Confronting the Judeocracy.”

[14] Pinkus, p. 86.

[15] Postwar, Stalin’s purging of high-ranking Jews accelerated, resulting in a decade-long period of virtual state-sponsored anti-Semitism, ending only with Stalin’s death in 1953.

[16] Goebbels on the Jews, p. 199.

[17] Ibid., pp. 206-207.

[18] 4 April 1945, in Goebbels on the Jews, p. 255.

61 replies
  1. Gerry
    Gerry says:

    Here an important tidbit of historical information pertaining to the UN and China as written and found in Willard Cantelons book The Day the Dollar Dies date of publication 1973:

    The Justice of the United Nations

    Foundations of the United Nations were laid by the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union,
    from August 21 to September 28,1944, in the Dumbarton Oaks Conference in Washington. Immediately afterward, the Republic of China became one of the five founding nations, and was given lifetime membership in the Security Council. Her population was larger than 3/4 of the nations who held membership in the UN. Even in Taiwan, she maintained diplomatic relationship with 60 countries of the world. In the field of commerce, she exported over a billion dollars’ worth of merchandise annually, and yet when Albania, with a population half the size of Philadelphia, made a motion that the Republic of China be expelled, the smaller nations rallied to the suggestion in a demonstration of emotionalism and bias that left a permanent blemish on the record of the UN. Ambassador Bush said on October 25, 1971,

    “Never have I seen such hate.”

    The late David Lawrence, respected news journalist and editor of the U.S. News & World Report, said, “Can
    any nation be safe in an atmosphere of such irresponsible and emotional action?”

    The Chinese leaders returned to Taiwan in tears. They carried with them a record free from blot or blemish. Their dues had been paid. Their position had been held with honor. But without a single grievance against them, they were expelled and not even granted the courtesy of being permitted to speak for themselves. Someone dared to suggest before their departure that perhaps Communist China and Nationalist China could each have a seat’ The pro-Communist block pounded their desks and shouted down the proposal. A few days later they.were willing to talk about 2 seats being given to both West Germany and Communist East Germany to sit side by side.’
    Karl Marx said, “The idea of God is the keystone of a perverted civilization. It must be destroyed.”

    Kruschchev’s son-in-law Alexi Adzhubei, said, “Every flirtation with God is an unutterable abomination.”

    Lenin said, “Religion is the opium of the people. Religion is a kind of spiritual gin, in which the slaves of capitalism drown their human shape and their claim to any decent life.”

  2. charles frey
    charles frey says:

    During the protracted trials and tribulations of Ernst, in Toronto and Ottawa, our intellectual Canadian judicial giants came up with the maxim, that ” truth is no defense “.

    Additionally, actually objectively offending someone, stepped into the background, while the WAY the alleged offended person FELT, became the deciding factor.


  3. Leon Haller
    Leon Haller says:

    An outstandingly researched essay marred by Dalton’s trademark hostility to Christianity (that section is, perhaps unsurprisingly, by far the weakest portion of the essay). This is typical: great history and political and sociological analysis whose impact gets sadly lessened by cartoonish theology. To put the matter in real simplistic form (like the 8 year old girl yelling “I hate you!”): just because Nietzsche says something doesn’t make what’s being said true. Though brilliant in his way, he’s not some kind of unimpeachable oracle.

    Dalton should either learn about Christian thought from the inside, by studying its great thinkers rather than relying on what anti-Christianists of the left and right have said about it, or otherwise stick to his forte, history (I’m going to assume that Dalton’s PhD is in history; it seems like it).

    As to hate speech regulation, this is obviously a simple if insidious attempted consolidation of alien ruling class power. White men everywhere have lost control of their own nations through a combination of (post-“Enlightenment” liberal, as well as theologically faux-Christian) indoctrination; Jewish elite class dominance; and sincere ideological treason (rooted in gullibility and stupidity), along with often plain greed and ambition, on the part of elite class white sellouts. Increasingly, this disempowerment is being rendered permanent by a) mass nonwhite immigration invasions; b) elections “fixing”; and c) the suppression of dissent, whether by deplatforming or outright criminalization. Just as dispossessed and dwindling white majorities must defend individual firearms ownership (esp in the US, where we still possess this right), so too we should be free speech militants (at least while we remain weak). In the US, defending the 1st and 2nd Amendments is a way to counteract Jewish power functionally, without mentioning Zionists at all, and in terms that a huge majority of non-race treasonous whites supports. Another way to weaken Jewish power is to explain and support the libertarian (but also, if correctly understood, prowhite) objective of abolishing the Federal Reserve system, and replacing the dollar with a 100% court-enforced gold currency unit. Yet another way is to recognize that Federal policing, esp the FBI, is not only bad policy and arguably unconstitutional, but is another mechanism of alien regime control, and thus advocate its reduction, restriction, or abolition (something many Far Leftists would also support). We should also, thinking longer term, join with leftists in pushing for very steep reductions in Army personnel. Given that the entirety of the Federal Government is under alien control (whether ethnic or ideological, or both), white nationalists should seek to reduce the government in size and scope as much as possible (even as we work to reorient its resources toward the few things it can do to advance white interests, like securing the Mexican border, repulsing cyberattacks, and combatting foreign crime mafias and gangs).

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      An admirably sensible final sentence crowns a fine comment, although I am less hopeful than Leon is that even so sound a tactic can succeed in the no-longer-white USA. That said, I have two brief glosses.

      An outstandingly researched essay marred by Dalton’s trademark hostility to Christianity (that section is, perhaps unsurprisingly, by far the weakest portion of the essay).

      Even less surprisingly, that section is also the longest and most passionately advanced. Given how much hatred Dr. Dalton accords to Christians, Christ, and His Cross, only a Nietzschean Übermensch would have a remnant left over for the Jews! And apropos the notable Saxon himself,

      Though brilliant in his way, [Nietzsche’s] not some kind of unimpeachable oracle.

      Far from oracular, certainly, but is he indeed even brilliant? Here and elsewhere, what his votaries call close argumentation more closely resembles the tirade of an inveterate hard drinker—and a nasty one at that. That Nietzsche’s writings are deemed philosophy has more to do with courtesy than content, as what pass for his insights look most insightful to those who share his prejudices ante factum.

      • Leon Haller
        Leon Haller says:

        Thank you for the kind words. I ought to study more Nietzsche, if only because he was a major philosopher (whether “major” because of brilliance, or, like Marx, influence, I will have to withhold judgment pending greater examination). Certainly, he has inspired many others in the white preservationist movement, and thus perhaps ought to be read carefully if only for that reason.

        What annoys me no end is the oft-asserted and even more oft-implied notion among a certain type of white preservationist that to combat Jewish subversive influence on Western nations one needs to attack the long traditional faith of the West – as opposed to seeing in a theologically reformed and ecclesiastically cleansed version of that faith a key, perhaps THE key, bulwark against the “Judeocracy”.

        I confess to being a Christian, albeit more “old school”, and therefore not someone who mistakes progressive liberalism for a secularized version of Christianity. Nor do I think that recognizing the reality of God and the lordship of Christ must necessarily lead to the denial of plain empirically demonstrable racial realities (differences in IQ, crime rates, historical trajectories, cultural styles and aesthetic preferences, etc). Nor am I somehow betraying Christ or acting evilly by calling attention to the very real, full-spectrum “war on whites”, or by advocating firm but hardly cruel or criminal measures to resist that war, and to ensure white racial and civilizational perpetuity.

        Racially alien immigration is a form of non-military imperialistic aggression even if the immigrants themselves are not criminals, and merely seek to “better themselves”. Why is it thought that white (and nota bene, only white) nations must imperil, via territorially and politically incorporating ultimately unassimilable race aliens, the transmission of their own (incomparably rich and lovely) ethnocultures to future generations of their own people and posterity? I am certain that Christ would tell the migrants that their very entrance and continued presence is disruptive (and I refer to genuinely “hard working immigrants” – NOT aggressive Islamist colonizers, Chinese spies, Latin American drug cartels, or African street criminals and welfare abusers), and that they ought to work to improve their economic prospects within their own lands and circumstances. No one, moreover, has a moral right (under Christian moral theological understandings) to enter someone else’s home simply because it’s more pleasant than one’s own. There is nothing wrong with improving one’s financial circumstances, but doing so is hardly man’s ‘end’, as theologians understand it, nor are Christians (and thus all men, insofar as Christianity holds itself to be true and therefore universally applicable) supposed to be primarily concerned with any of the things of this world.

        A Christian has certain duties of Good Samaritanship, but they are not unlimited in scope. A black man collapses in front of me; I ought to help him if I can. But how does one derive from either biblical or theological (“faith seeking wisdom”) understandings the conclusion that I, as a white man, have a neverending duty, dischargeable through government-mandated coercive property and wealth redistribution, to ensure that blacks as a community enjoy greater economic prosperity? Ensuring greater prosperity (more clothes, cars, vacations) is not any kind of Christian imperative! It’s one thing to argue that Christians have a moral obligation to help the poor (whether that obligation must be fulfilled via socialistic government is a very different contention). No one should starve when there is sufficient wealth to feed them (the matter is different under extreme adverse conditions, where I cannot feed my family if I feed another). But even granting the obligation to feed the hungry, are we obligated to provide them with filet mignon? Beyond supplying the bare necessities, does being a good Christian require that we divest ourselves of the fruits of our own labor so as to provide impecunious others with flat screen TVs and chic shoes, just because they want them? Liberals in cities like NY and San Francisco say that their armies of (slovenly, slothful, ill-behaved, often menacing) vagrants are the result of “housing unaffordability”. Apart from this being simply untrue (the vast bulk of these homeless are drifters, grifters, junkies, and bums, along with a large number of lunatics needing involuntary institutionalization), where is it written that someone is entitled to live in a city whose houses or rents he cannot afford? I might prefer a Ferrari to my SUV, but am I thereby somehow “deprived” – and entitled to force some innocent other to buy me a Ferrari? The white nations (maybe along with Japan and Singapore) are the “Ferraris” of homelands. Of course, Third Worlders would prefer to live there than in their own failed societies. What of it?

        [I should write some more here as there is so much more to say, but work calls. Perhaps later.]

      • Wolf Stoner
        Wolf Stoner says:

        (Mod. Note: “Wolf”, in the TOO comments section, your friend is the short and punchy text, with lots of paragraphs to keep things clear. Big blocks of undifferentiated text are NOT your friend, if your goal is to get your ideas across.)


        Mr. Pierre de Craon, you, Christians tend to use the same language as liberals: “Given how much hatred Dr. Dalton accords to Christians, Christ, and His Cross”. What hatred do you talking about? I don’t see any hatred in Dalton’s article. Everything is decent, proper and mild. But you ascribe hate to the people whom you hate themselves, like those “peace-loving” liberal or their religious predecessors who burned people for only crime of not believing in Christian tales. I suppose, that if given opportunity, you would first burn us, non-Christians, than to chase out crowds of migrants. Christians always preferred to fight against their racial brothers instead of defending Europe against alien invaders. In ancient Russia (Rus) the most devoted Christian prince Alexander of Novgorod at the time of Mongol invasion, that essentially devastated 70% of Russian lands, decides to not fight them but instead turns against Swedes, Germans and Baltic people. Precisely in the years when Mongols burned Russian cities, raped and killed Russian women, Alexander in 1240 assaults without any reason Swedish lands on Neva river (near the place where afterward St Petersburg would be built). He defeats Swedes and in 1242 assaults Baltic nations, which were the dominion of Teutonic and Livonian Orders. Livonian Order sends forces against Novgorod; Alexander meets them at 5th of April of 1242 on the ice-covered Peipus lake. Germans had all advantages of superior tactics and weaponry but at the peak of the battle the ice cover of the lake breaks under the weight of masses of people and horses and the bulk of German knights drowns. Russians being less overburdened with defensive armor, are able to escape from this mess with lesser losses and even capture some Germans. Alexander received his main military glory precisely for this victory. Yes, from military point of view it was a victory, but we should remember the overall historic background of this event. Since 1237 up to 1241 Mongols systematically devastated all Russian lands located on open (non-forested) lands. Novgorod and Pskov principalities were spared this fate for reason of being in the densely wooded northern part of Rus, which Mongols couldn’t reach easily. And this “saint” scoundrel, prince Alexander of Novgorod, instead of committing all his forces against Mongols and helping other Russian principalities, starts wars against brotherly neighboring countries. But the most important fact is that Alexander was a devoted Christian and he strictly followed the advices of his religious “holy fathers” who were the source of this crucial strategic decision. Christian religious hierarchs reckoned that Mongols being heathens, were not especial threat to the Orthodox Christian dominance of Rus, but Livonian and Teutonic Orders being of competing Catholic believes, were perceived as the mortal danger to Orthodoxy, because in case of their victory, the Russian lands would be assigned to the overall religious authority of Rome. Think about this! These Orthodox Christian vipers put their own narrow corporate interests far above the lives of countless thousands of Russian people killed and enslaved by Mongols. See what do the current Washington rulers. They send American troops to fight for Israel’s interests at the time when alien hordes are swarming through Mexican border, but no one cares in the White House; it is of no importance to them. It is exactly the same mentality that Russian Christian hierarchs had back in 13th century. Think about this. Throughout two millennia we see the same consistent mode of behavior of this religion. They never cared about wellbeing of their country but only about their own organizational interests. And after all of this there are some simpletons, devoid of historical knowledge, who with holy ardor try to persuade everyone that Christianity played positive role in Europe! I can bring much more examples of similar kind but it would require much more space. Everyone can read about historical events himself and find all those facts. The problem is that those people, ardent Christian conservatives, don’t want any truth; truth is no defense for them too; they have an agenda and are ready to roll over any facts, however truthful and undeniable. This quality is universal among Christians, be it Protestant pastor in Germany, Catholic priest in France or Russian Orthodox clergyman. Therefore, Mr. Pierre de Craon, the problem is not in Mr Dalton’s “hatred” of Christianity, or Nietzsche’s voluminous diatribes about Christ and apostle Paul, but in you, the devoted Christians, in your inability of logical thinking and in your hatred (real hatred) of everyone with different opinion. In this regard you were fully infused with qualities of your original self-chosen progenitors. You are mental Jews; it is the main problem. And as long as the significant part of European and American societies continue to remain mental Jews, we should not expect any positive changes. Christians are the main problem, not those who justly and factually criticize them. You are to the same extent are impervious to reason as Jews. Because you are the one whole with them, you are their obedient shabbes goyim, even if you yourself don’t understand this. Their power is based on your acceptance of their supposed “chosenness”. And you can’t deny these accusations because they are based entirely on facts, not preconceived notions. I was born in Orthodox family and from earliest age attended Church services and I liked very much religious choirs and I like the whole culture associated with this religion; therefore, I never had any original motive to dislike this religion; but after thorough study of all its ideological foundations and its history, I couldn’t come to any other conclusion, because I am intellectually honest. I continue to love culture associated with Christianity (it is purely European culture) – music, paintings, architecture – but I reject Christian desert ideology without reservations as the most alien and hostile to our European spirit.

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          I reject Christian desert ideology without reservations as the most alien and hostile to our European spirit.

          You have made this opinion no secret since your recent noisy arrival on scene. Since it is hardly a minority view hereabouts, what makes you think that partnering it with an unoriginal stream of incoherent barroom insults and irrelevancies directed at me will increase your market share of approval among either friends or foes?

          • Al Ross
            Al Ross says:

            Edward Gibbon’s magisterial history of the Roman Empire attributed the rise of Christianity in ancient Rome to “the zeal of the Jews.”

            Of course, for many intelligent Romans who did not actually believe in the existence of pagan deities but rather viewed them as a social convention , the arrival of the new proletarian – venerating , Semitic poison went largely unremarked.

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            Al: Ultimately, I don’t think it’s unfair to say that Gibbon and his magnum opus are most appreciated by those whose prejudices they confirm.

            As I’m sure you know, Gibbon was a part of Samuel Johnson’s circle of intimate associates, notwithstanding their frequent vigorous clashes over religion and much else. In the Life, Boswell records some occasional verses recalled (i.e., not written) by Johnson that are expressive of his attitude toward Gibbon:

            See how the wand’ring Danube flows,
            Realms and religions parting;
            A friend to all true Christian foes,
            To Peter, Jack, and Martin.
            Now Protestant, and Papist now,
            Not constant long to either,
            At length an infidel does grow,
            And ends his journey neither.
            Thus many a youth I’ve known set out,
            Half Protestant, half Papist,
            And rambling long the world about,
            Turn infidel or atheist.

            Fifty years ago, when I first began reading the Life, finding a memorable or apposite passage often required hours of page turning, especially when memory failed to provide the precise context of what was sought. In that sense, if in few others, I suppose that the existence of the Internet might genuinely be deemed progress, at least of a sort.

        • TJ
          TJ says:

          I accept the B.S. [Bart Simpson] dessert ideology.

          “May we all receive our just desserts.”

    • Blenda Richter
      Blenda Richter says:

      For quite some time I’ve been trying to comprehend and come to terms with the factor of Christianity. Today, the White man’s vigorously predominant religion worldwide and for many of us, the religion of our upbringing.

      I wonder how in the world our White European race ended up totally embracing a belief in a desert Semitic god, developed a blind faith and a doctrine out of a nomadic, Semitic and desert creed, then for centuries on end the White European race endured persecution and martyrdom through ghastly cruel deaths, all in fanatical faithfulness to the belief in that foreign religion adopted from Semitic desert nomads. Moreover, all throughout Europe Whites fanatically massacred each other for centuries over dissensions in that Semitic desert faith .

      And all that Middle East belief and that desert religion was handed down to the White European man from ancient and obscure Hebrew writings filled with surreal stories and fantastic narrative detailed á la Harry Potter. A narrative filled with violence, cruelty, petulant divine vengeance and evil punishments. All compiled in a Book called Bible.

      Now, the irony of all this is that those fantastic stories and commandments in the Bible were concocted and written exclusively BY those Semitic desert nomads and FOR them only, who themselves, moreover, believed absolutely none of it even to this day.

      But today White Europeans worldwide still unquestionably embrace that Judaic belief from ancient Hebrew and then Greek writings and Whites worldwide accept it and believe it fanatically as if the writings had been authored specifically BY Whites and FOR Whites. (?)

    • Wolf Stoner
      Wolf Stoner says:

      Mr. Leon Haller, I don’t want to try to dissuade you from your Christian faith but you should be consistent. Either you are Christian or you are racially aware White person. It can’t be both. Because for Christians “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”. Everything that is going on now in the western world is not contradiction of Christianity but the ultimate completion of its ideals. In this regard Pope and all other major Christian leaders are right in their support of LGBT movement, multiculturalism, diversity and so forth. Because all of this is the logical continuation of the original Christian doctrine. Let’s not be so presumptuous and to imagine that everyone at the top of the religious organizations is so stupid as to support something that thoroughly contradicts their original teachings. Not, they are not stupid; they can clearly see that the original Christian ideology fully corresponds to the modern tendencies of total equality, redistribution of wealth, annihilation of ethnic identity, creation of the single global state. All these ideas are in the Bible. Read the Bible; but read it not like some “word of god” but from the point of view of researcher. The problem is not with modern religious leaders but with you. It is you, Christian conservatives, who are not able to understand the true ideological foundations of your religion. Accept it and follow your pastors into the bright future of universal equality and plenty. Instead, you try to invent some kind of mythical Christianity with Christ being some kind of Odin and his apostles are like stormtroopers spreading racial message. It was not so and couldn’t be so; all of it is the figment of your imagination, like Mormon fairy-tales. Where in the Bible you can find a single idea that would support racial and ethnic identity? (except of Jewish supposed chosenness). Or, maybe the tale about Lot and his daughters is the epitome of family values? Do you share such values personally? So, you need to decide on which side you are; you can’t be on both sides at once; either you are racially aware person or Christian.

      • Mary Smith
        Mary Smith says:

        I totally disagree with you and I think your argument is specious.

        Wokeness is NOT Christian by any measure.

        The Christian religion served white people well for a good 1900 years. How do you explain that?

        No, the destruction of Christianity and the western world has been caused by Jewish subversion.

        You can try to deflect away from organized Jewry and try to blame the victim, but this doesn’t work on me.

        • Harry Warren
          Harry Warren says:

          Mary, I have the creepy feeling that Jews, atheists, and possibly satanists also, are visiting this website from time to time and dripping poison in our ears.

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          To Mary Smith: Permit me to raise a respectful objection to your employment of the word “argument” to characterize Wolf Stoner’s comment. What he writes is an argument only in the sense that an acrimonious family squabble at the Thanksgiving dinner table might be called an argument.

          Stoner plainly searches out the incoherent Christophobic fulminations of others, and after a few hurrahs and attaboys, he copies them and pastes them here. Such are his “strengths”.

          To Harry Warren: Indeed. Keeping one’s eyes open and antennae up is sound practice in any situation.

      • Pip
        Pip says:

        “Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked,
        “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”
        Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?
        For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ [Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy. 5:16] and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[Exodus 21:17; Leviticus. 20:9]
        But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

        “‘These people honor me with their lips,
        but their hearts are far from me.

        They worship me in vain;
        their teachings are merely human rules.’[ Isaiah 29:13]”
        Matthew 15:1-9.

        Jesus of Nazareth asks Talmudic Jews:
        Why is my language not clear to you Talmudic Jews?
        It’s because you are unable to hear what I say.
        YOU BELONG TO YOUR FATHER, the DEVIL, and you want to carry out YOUR FATHER’S desires.
        The reason you do not hear is that YOU DO NOT BELONG TO GOD.”

        He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is NO TRUTH IN HIM. When he lies, he speaks his NATIVE LANGUAGE, for he is a LIAR and THE FATHER OF LIES.
        Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!
        Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?
        If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me?
        Whoever belongs to God hears what God says.
        The reason you do not hear is that YOU DO NOT BELONG TO GOD.”
        John 8:43-47
        Why did Jesus call Talmudic Jews sons of Satan?
        Read on!
        “THEJEWISH TALMUD IS ONE OF THE WONDERS OF THE WORLD. During the twenty centuries of its existence…IT SURVIVED IN ITS ENTIRETY, and not only has the power of its foes FAILED TO DESTROY EVEN A SINGLE LINE, but it has not even been able materially to weaken its influence for any length of time.
        The Talmud, then, is the written form of that which, in the time of Jesus, was called the Traditions of the Elders, and to which he makes frequent allusions.
        — Rabbi Michael L. Rodkinson (1)

        Or consider this from The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, in the entry

        The Jewish religion as it is today traces its descent, without a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees.
        Their leading ideas and methods found expression in a literature of enormous extent, of which a very great deal is still in existence. The Talmud is the largest and most important single member of that literature, and round it are gathered a number of Midrashim, partly legal (Halachic) and partly works of edification (Haggadic). This literature, in its oldest elements, goes back to a time before the beginning of the Common Era, and comes down into the Middle Ages. Through it all run the lines of thought which were first drawn by the Pharisees, and the study of it is essential for any real understanding of Pharisaism.
        — R. Travers Herford for the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia. (2)

        Rabbi Dr. Louis Finkelstein, Instructor of Talmud, and later president of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, writes:

        Pharisaism became Talmudism, Talmudism became Medieval Rabbinism, and Medieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism. But throughout these changes of name, inevitable adaptation of custom, and adjustment of Law, the spirit of the ancient Pharisee survives unaltered. When the Jew reads his prayers, he is reciting formulae prepared by pre-Maccabean scholars; when he dons the cloak prescribed for the Day of Atonement and Passover Eve, he is wearing the festival garment of ancient Jerusalem; when he studies the Talmud, he is actually repeating the arguments used in the Palestinian academies.
        — Rabbi Dr. Finkelstein (3)

        SANHEDRIN, 55b-55a: “What is meant by this? – Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that (2) What is the basis of their dispute? – Rab maintains that only he who is able to engage in sexual intercourse, may, as the passive subject of pederasty throw guilt (upon the actual offender); whilst he who is unable to engage in sexual intercourse cannot be a passive subject of pederasty (in that respect) (3). But Samuel maintains: Scriptures writes, (And thou shalt not lie with mankind) as with the lyings of a woman (4). It has been taught in accordance with Rab: Pederasty at the age of nine years and a day; (55a) (he) who commits bestiality, whether naturally or unnaturally: or a woman who causes herself to be bestiality abused, whether naturally or unnaturally, is liable to punishment (5).”

        SANHEDRIN, 69b “Our rabbis taught: If a woman sported lewdly with her young son (a minor), and he committed the first stage of cohabitation with her, -Beth Shammai says, he thereby renders her unfit for the priesthood (1). Beth Hillel declares her fit…All agree that the connection of a boy nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not (2); their dispute refers only to one who is eight years old.

        KETHUBOTH, 11a-11b. “Rabba said, It means (5) this: When a grown up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this (6), it is as if one puts the finger in the eye (7), but when a small boy has intercourse with a grown up woman, he makes her as `a girl who is injured by a piece of wood’ “.
        (footnotes) “(5). Lit., `says’. (6) Lit., `here’, that is, less than three years old. (7) Tears come to the eyes again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years.”

        KETHUBOTH, 11a-11b. “Rab Judah said that Rab said: A small boy who has intercourse with a grown up woman makes her (as though she were ) injured by a piece of wood (1). Although the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act, nevertheless the woman is injured by it as by a piece of wood(a dildo).”
        (footnotes) “(1) Although the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act, nevertheless the woman is injured by it as by a piece of wood.”

      • Leon Haller
        Leon Haller says:

        You, like the Christian liberals I criticize, do not understand theology at all. Someday, I must write up a formal post on this topic. You are taking words out of context, and misreading Christian morality and obligations. You are accepting leftist lies. Christian brotherhood is a spiritual ideal, not a recommendation for how to construct societies. Of course a Christian may be both a follower of Christ, and someone concerned with racial preservation (or animal preservation, or monuments preservation). And a Christian MUST be a truthteller, and that includes a racial truthteller. Lying about the facts of racial differentiation is a grave sin. Church leaders today have, as so often before, succumbed to the false thought currents of the age. But your own understanding is limited by your prejudices..

  4. 9593
    9593 says:

    It is simple enough for words to have meaning, “Hate” means only,”intense dislike”. Look it up. But when faced with widespread intense dislike, perhaps a consensus of dislike, then, without need for an examination of conscience, a really powerful association can apply the skill of obfuscation to our precious English language to cause words to have confusing new meaning, the dictionary notwithstanding:

    “The question is, ” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty. “which is to be master—that’s all.”

    “Hate” has become criminalized, without need to examine the root causes of being intensely disliked.

  5. John
    John says:

    We are witnessing a new Bolshevik Revolution in the United States.

    It has been going on for decades here but has accelerated in the last ten years.

    The Czar was overthrown in 1917 and the destroyers took over.

    A similar thing is in the cards for the U.S.

    How can we prevent this?

  6. Kenneth P Neal
    Kenneth P Neal says:

    Hebrew and jew are not not the same term. Jew is not the same as Israelite. Jews are mongrel breeds from Cain, and the Edomites. True Israelites were White. Yahweh commanded them to be separate from all of the other races (study word origins and meanings from the Bible with a concordance) The word for “man” and “Adam” are the same. Do proper research.

    • Tim Folke
      Tim Folke says:

      The Hebrew/Jew/Israelite subject is quite complicated, made even more so when you toss the Ashkenazim into the equation. Having said that, I basically agree with your observations. Having studied foreign languages over the years has helped me into coming to the same conclusion as you have.

      Personally I believe much of the confusion stems from the Bible, which, in my opinion, has numerous and serious mistranslations, either by way of ignorance or design I do not know.

      • Kenneth P Neal
        Kenneth P Neal says:

        I agree. there are numerous mistranslations, which are a major fctor to consider.

    • Wolf Stoner
      Wolf Stoner says:

      Excuse me, Mr Kenneth P Neal, but it seems that you invent your own version. I have read Bible from the first page to the last twice and separately three times read the New Testament. Beside it I have read many books written by Christian thinkers (mostly Orthodox ones, because I was born in Orthodox community and all my ancestors were pious Orthodox Christians) and I can’t remember a single passage from those books that would support your assertion about “true Israelites being White” and anything like this. On the contrary, I well remember the constant theme of all Christian texts being the idea of special nature of Jews and their divine right to possess the whole world. So, Mr. Neal, base your assertions on the original Biblical texts, not on some obscure “studies” of some Christian freaks who can find everything in anything. Give precise quotes from the Bible that would support your assertions. Otherwise, everything that you write is nothing more than yet another Joseph Smith – style “revelation”. Maybe you too believe that Jesus Christ (or at least his apparition) visited America?

      • Tim Folke
        Tim Folke says:

        Mr. Neal may respond, but here are a couple of things to think about.

        First, with the exception of the Book of Esther (which many feel should not even be in the Bible) every place the word ‘Jew’ shows up was originally termed ‘Judean’, which could mean someone living in Judea, from the tribe of Judah, or just someone born there.

        Drawings, paintings, etc… by the Assyrians of members of the 10 tribes taken into captivity show the people to be most definitely White; no big noses or camel type faces anywhere.

        The word ‘Gentile’ is an invented word; the earliest writings where that word is now used, the word ‘nation(s)’ was used instead.

        The Ashkenazim are not even a Semitic people. Biblically they are Japethites (see Genesis 10:3).

        It is indeed a complicated subject, and I am sure there are better things to spend one’s time on. Regardless, it is certainly a subject that can be discussed in an amicable manner.

        Have a great day!

        • Kenneth P Neal
          Kenneth P Neal says:

          Mr. Folke,

          I agree with you, and thank you for your input, especially in regard to the term “Gentile” meaning Nations. It’s the same as saying anyone living in Texas is a Texan.

      • Kenneth P Neal
        Kenneth P Neal says:

        Mr. Stoner,

        I appreciate your input and comments. I highly recommend that you visit the Christogenea website http://www.christogenea.org Mr. William Finck is an excellent Bible scholar. There is a wealth of information there. I am Christian identity. I also recommend the writings of Richard Kelly Hoskins
        and E. Raymond Capt, among others. Also the late Pastor Mark Downey of Kinsman Redeemer Ministries.

    • Blenda Richter
      Blenda Richter says:

      Christian Identity

      Christian Identity is Whites turning themselves into pretzels while Kabuki dancing to rationalize and justify their belief in a book filled with incongruent and preposterous Middle Eastern writings called Bible.

      Thus White Christian Identitarians soothe their duped ego and try to save face over their naive gullibility in bizarre Semitic writings by firmly clinging like a cripple to a crutch to the ‘Tribes of Israel’ fable. They claim divine chosen status by descendance from a “Lost Tribe” as recorded in Semitic ancient fiction as fantastic and preposterous as Harry Potter (with far more cruelty and sadism)

      Just like Christian Zionism, Christian Identity is another through and through ĵ€w concoction. Tailor-made by (((them))) to throw for a loop pneumatic-head Whites who desperately need a justifying and acceptable reason for believing in an absurd, lowbrow story from farcical Middle Eastern writings called Bible.

      The whole Book is an absurd fantastical yarn concocted by Middle Eastern, Semitic tall tale fabulists. And that is before getting into the grotesque, psychedelic, LSD-laden book of Revelation.

      It’s difficult to conceive that in this day and age grown-up Whites believe and gobble all that outlandish and absurd rubbish.

      • Pip
        Pip says:

        The following is an article written by an American Jew in 1928:
        By Marcus Eli Ravage
        Reprinted from The Century Magazine January 1928

      • Leon Haller
        Leon Haller says:

        Your attitude reveals complete ignorance of the immense fields of theology and biblical interpretation. I agree, though, that “Christian Identity” cannot be taken seriously theologically.

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          … “Christian Identity” cannot be taken seriously theologically.

          Just so. There is something both loopy and creepy about it and, all too often, its adherents, too.

    • Pip Power
      Pip Power says:

      Tzfi’a 3
      Rabbi David Bar Chaim
      Yeshivat Mercaz HaRav

      In this article R’ Bar-Chayim discusses the attitude towards “Gentiles” in the Torah and in the Halacha and comes to an unambiguous conclusion:

      “The Torah of Israel makes a clear distinction between a Jew, who is defined as ‘man,’ and a Gentile.”

      That is to say, any notion of equality between human beings is irrelevant to the Halacha. R’ Bar-Chayim’s work is comprehensive, written with intellectual honesty, and deals with almost all the aspects of Halachic treatment of non-Jews. It also refutes the statements of those rabbis who speak out of wishful thinking and, influenced by concepts of modern society, claim that Judaism does not discriminate against people on religious grounds. R’ Bar-Chayim shows that all these people base their constructs not on the Torah but solely on the inclinations of their own hearts. He also shows that there are even rabbis who intentionally distort the Halachic attitude to Gentiles, misleading both themselves and the general public.

  7. Gerald Goldberg
    Gerald Goldberg says:

    (Mod. Note: Please submit your next book to the editor for publication. Please don’t try to cram a book into the comment stream. Comments need to be short, not like this long screed.)


    Authors of the book: Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira and Rabbi Yosef Elitzur

    The impact of the torching a mosque in the Upper-Galilee village of Tuba Zingerah, which lies within the Green Line, on October 3, 2011 by an Israeli underground organization, raises urgent questions on the motives of burning the mosque and the body behind this crime. The underground, Jewish terrorist organization, which burnt the mosque, left its mark at the crime scene, just as it did when it set fire to more than five mosques in the occupied West Bank recently. On the walls of the mosques it burnt the Jewish terrorist organization sprayed the Hebrew words tag mehir (literally translated as “price tag”). In such a crime, the primary suspect is a racist and extremist network that is rooted in the Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian West Bank, especially the Jewish religious schools (yeshivas) scattered in these settlements and their extensions across the Green Line. In order to scrutinize the background of these heinous crimes, and their underpinning in intellectual, religious and political basis, embraced and heralded by a very large number of West Bank settlers, as well as a growing number of Israelis inside the Green Line, it is useful to read The King’s Torah, a book written by Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, head of the Yeshivat Od Yosef Chai (Joseph Still Lives), in the Yitzhar settlement located in the West Bank, south of the city of Nablus.

    The book is co-authored by Rabbi Yosef Elitzur, a teacher at the same religious Yeshiva. It should be noted that this book is just the tip of the iceberg of extremist, racist, and anti-human ideas that poison the mobilized students’ minds of the Jewish religious schools in the West Bank settlements, in addition to the settler rabbis who foment hatred, racism, and hostility among their followers in the settlements, yeshivas or beyond toward the Palestinians.

    The King’s Torah aims to determine the position of the Torah and Jewish law on gentiles (non-Jews or ‘goyim’ in Hebrew), which the Jewish State and the Jews must be committed and adhere to. The book classifies mankind into multiple ranks. According to this classification, Jews are ranked higher. They are, immeasurably, better than any other human beings. It deems the Jews as the only real humans, while the gentiles are lower in rank – closer to the status of animals. Therefore, the Jewish State and the Jews should take discriminative attitudes toward them, at best, or allow them be killed, or they should often be killed, particularly in time of war.
    The King’s Torah … a guide to the killing of Palestinians
    The two authors extensively tackle an issue that dominates the entire book – that is, when will the Jews be allowed to kill the gentiles (goyim)? When should the Jews kill them? The gentiles must not be misidentified. Clarifying the ‘gentiles’ here as being basically the Palestinian Arabs, Rabbi Yitzchak Ginzburg, a revered religious figure among the religious Jews in Israel, says in the introduction to The King’s Torah that the issues addressed by the book:

    “are closely related to the situation in the land of Israel, which we should restore from our enemies.”

    He argued that the book serves the objective of achieving this goal, strengthening the morale of the Israeli people and soldiers, and explaining both the Torah’s deep comprehensive view and Jewish law on outstanding relevant issues.

    “In the war on the fate of the land of Israel, the gentiles must be killed,” the authors say, adding,

    “The gentiles, who claim this land for themselves, are stealing it from us, but it is a legacy from our forefathers.”

    This book really represents a guide for the perplexed, the hesitant and those who seek a religious Jewish legal opinion (fatwa) as to when it is allowed to kill the Palestinian Arabs and when this “should” take place according to the Jewish law. Moreover, it provides moral and religious support to many settlers and Israelis who are convinced of the content of this book before reading it.

    Written in ancient Hebrew similar to ancient religious Jewish writings, the authors consolidate their views in the book, especially those calling for the killing of gentiles (i.e., the Palestinians), with texts from Jewish law and a lot of quotes by senior Jewish rabbis through different ages. They make this a backdrop for any opinion they hold in the book, giving it a religious aura influencing many Jews, especially the religious. The outstanding religious sources of the Jewish law were a basis for the book. In addition to the written Torah, which they quote little, the authors depend as well on the oral Torah, Mishnah (about AD 200), and on post-Mishnah rabbinic interpretations compiled in the Babylonian Talmud (AD 5th Century Babylonia) and the Jerusalem Talmud (AD 4th Century Palestine).

    The King’s Torah is also based on Mishneh Torah, compiled and commented on by Moses Ben Maimon or Maimonides (Rambam) (1135-1204), and Rabbi Moshe Ben Nahman’s (Ramban) writings, as well as Rabbi Joseph Caro’s Shulhan Arukh (The Prepared Table) (published in the sixteenth century), and the writings and opinions of 20th Century senior rabbis who held a prominent place in the Zionist religious mainstream, such as Rabbi Kook.

    Although it is widely based on the most important sources in Jewish law, The King’s Torah reviews and cites the most extremist Jewish texts, legal opinions, and interpretations that permit, favor, call for or mandate the killing of ‘gentiles,’ overlooking the positive human values of the Jewish law. This makes the book more dangerous, as it incites and openly calls for the extermination of the Palestinian Arabs.


    Published in 2009 by the Biblical Institute in Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva, the 230-page The King’s Torah consists of an introduction, six chapters, and a summary. The Biblical Institute intends to issue a second volume of the book once the authors complete it. It will address a range of topics, such as the position of The King’s Torah toward the “minorities in the Jewish State”.

    In chapter one, the authors confirm that the biblical obligation “Thou shalt not kill” only prohibits the killing of a Jew by a Jew, but it does not apply at all to the Jew who kills one or more gentiles. The book points out that in many cases the Jew has the right to kill the gentiles. In many other cases, the Jew should kill the gentiles.

    In chapter two, entitled “The Killing of a Non-Jew Who Violates the Seven Laws (of Noah),” the authors stress that a non-Jew who violates one of the laws ordained on Noah’s sons “must be killed”. God, according to the authors, asked all human beings to accept His Torah, but only the Children of Israel responded while all other human beings rejected God’s ordinance. Therefore, God distinguished the Children of Israel from all other human beings, and gave them a very special and reputable status and drew them to Him.

    Conversely, God degraded the gentiles, whom the authors call “Noah’s sons” and classify them in lower ranks in a hierarchy of classification for the human beings set by The King’s Torah. Noah’s sons must commit themselves to the Seven Laws ordained by God through the Children of Israel, with any Jew having the right to kill anyone from Noah’s sons who violates one of the Seven Laws. The implementation of this murder, according to the authors, does not require a court of law or prosecution witnesses. It is enough for a Jewish person to see or know that a non-Jew violates one of the Seven Laws and thus kills him.

    In chapters three and four, the authors compare between Jews and gentiles, focusing on how far each side adheres to their respective beliefs and their position on murder. The Jews are freer to kill non-Jews than the gentiles can kill other gentiles, the authors conclude.


    In chapter five, entitled “The Killing of Gentiles in War,” the authors write that it is not only the fighters who engage in war against Israel that should be killed, but any citizen in the region or in a hostile state, who encourages fighters or expresses satisfaction with their actions, must be killed as well. They add that the citizens of a hostile state or region, who do not encourage their state to commit acts of war, can be killed, claiming that the Jewish law doubts that they do not want, in time of peace, to shed the blood of the Jews. This suspicion is growing to the extent that they want to shed the blood of the Jews in time of war, thus allowing the killing of those innocent civilian gentiles who do not participate at all in the course of war.

    The authors give other reasons for allowing the killing of innocent civilians. “A large part of the malice and evil that exists within these civilian gentiles stems from their violation of the Seven Laws,” the authors say.

    “Hence, we would enforce the ruling and kill them because of their violation of this. This is why our great sages ruled that the best gentiles during the time of war are ‘the dead’ – that is, there is no room for reforming the gentiles, given their intensive danger and malice. As for children from birth through adolescence, who of course do not violate the Seven Laws for not realizing or hearing about them, can be killed “because of the future risk they pose if they are allowed to live and grow up and thus become evildoers like their parents.”

    The authors add,

    “Of course, the children and other civilians, whom the evildoers seek their protection, are allowed to be killed too. Thus, the evildoers must be killed, even if this led to the killing of children and civilians.”


    In chapter six, “Targeting the Innocents,” the authors tackle the killing of the innocents in a “good state,” (i.e., Israel), saying that this “good state” used to force its innocent men to go to war and risk their life. Not only that, but the state used to appoint guards to stand behind the fighting soldiers to kill whoever escapes from them. The authors add that if the king could not harm his combatant citizens in order to participate in war and force them to make headway and be ready for death, his kingdom cannot face bad people who do not hesitate to kill to achieve victory. If the king, the authors conclude, is allowed to kill his innocent combatant men to force them to fight, he has the right and it is allowed to target the civilians belonging to the kingdom of evildoers.

    The authors emphasize Israel’s right to target and kill the citizens of a hostile state, regardless of their age and number. Even if they have just been born, elderly or on the brink of death, be they male or female, participating in fighting or not, Israel is entitled to target and kill them all.

    Their view is based on the Jewish law and rabbinic interpretations over ages. The authors use all provisions of Jewish law that allow for the killing of gentiles, such as the ruling of pursuing and persecuting the Jews, the din rodef (law of the pursuer), and slandering the Jews or din moser (law of the informant), all to justify Israel’s killing of Palestinians.

    Again the authors confirm that the Palestinians should be killed because they violate the Seven Laws, adding that the Palestinian civilians who help the “killers” must be targeted, even if the innocent were forced to do so.

    “Even if they are tied or imprisoned and no way to escape and have no choice but to stay in the same place, like hostages, they can be targeted, crushed and killed if this is the way to get rid of the evildoers. As we explained earlier, whoever helps to kill someone against their will can be targeted and killed. In many cases, children find themselves in such a case: they block, by their presence at the scene, the way of rescue. They are forced to do so unintentionally. However, they can be targeted and killed, for their presence helps murder.”

    Accordingly, it can be concluded that the The King’s Torah justifies Israel’s targeting and killing of hundreds of innocent Palestinian civilians if they happen to be, willingly or forcibly, in a big building where a wanted Palestinian is in.

    The authors make a distinction between the laws of war that apply to non-Jewish States, and the laws that apply to Israel. In a war between two “fair” and “evil” non-Jewish States, if the military action carried out by the fair state leads to the killing of a large number of innocent citizens of the evil state to save a few citizens of the former, the latter is prohibited from carrying out this operation. However,

    “in war between Israel and gentiles, we simply prefer to kill non-Jews in order to save the Jews, because the lives of the Jews are more valuable and better, as we explained in Chapter Four. Moreover, the Jews are the ones who are reforming the world and also delivering the Word of God, especially the Seven Laws, to the whole world.”


    The authors put revenge in an aura of veneration in chapter six of The King’s Torah, confirming that Israel should take revenge on the Palestinians. Revenge is a necessity that makes the killing of evildoers a must. It is an essential need to defeat and win. Therefore, it is possible to delay the burial of a dead body in order to take revenge. As manifestation of justice, revenge must be done with enthusiasm and “without accountability”. Revenge is not only necessary for those alive, but also for the dead.

    “In the world of the dead, there is a similarity between a person’s soul and justice. The soul demands justice, which is revenge.”

    The authors add,

    “No one must be excluded when Israel retaliates. All the Palestinians are vulnerable to retaliation. In the face of revenge, no one is innocent, be they old, young, children, men or women, and regardless of their health. Children and adults, men and women, whatever their condition, should be avenged.”

    Justifying the killing of children, particularly infants who have just been born, the authors say the Children of Israel had killed the young children of Midian (is a geographical place and a people mentioned in the Bible and in the Qur’an believed to be located in Saudi Arabia) in the bygone time.
    The killing of children en masse is not only meant to create a balance of terror, because those children belong to the evildoers, but for “the existence of an internal need for revenge,” and the killing of children, especially the young, responds to this need. Enumerating reasons for the killing of Palestinian children, the authors say it is possible to deal with the necessity of killing Palestinian children on the basis that they are chosen by fate to be killed to save the Jews. By the same token, by killing them, evil can be avoided.

    “In addition to what we mentioned in the previous chapter, they are, of course, accused of becoming evildoers when they grow up,” they say.

    It is noted that all penalties and provisions included in The King’s Torah book for any offense is murder and death. There are no penalties in the book but murder and death. Even the punishment prescribed by the book on the innocent is murder and death. Other penalties, such as imprisonment, fining or the like, have no room in the book. It is also noted that the book does not recognize international laws related to war, protection of civilians in time of war, or international humanitarian law on the prevention of genocide and punishment of the perpetrators.

    This is, perhaps, because the book assumes, as many Israelis believe, that Israel is above the international laws, and as long as the US administration supports Israel, the balance of power in the region will tilt in favor of Israel, while the Arab countries are subject to Israel and are unable to face or resist it.

    The danger of this book lies in the fact that its hostile theories and ideas – the worst ever inhuman theories that emerged in human history – are not confined to a few setters isolated from the rest of the Israeli society.

    These ideas are adopted by very large segments of the Jewish settlers in the occupied Palestinian West Bank, and large groups of religious Zionists as well as the ultra-Orthodox Jews, the Haridim, in Israel. The senior rabbis, who publicly support The King’s Torah and defend what is mentioned in it, are not marginal at all. They are known for being belonging to the religious mainstream of Israel, both religious ultra-Orthodox (Haridim) and national-Zionist wings.

    In addition, thousands graduate from the Jewish religious schools (yeshivas) in the Israeli settlements and inside Israel after they have learnt hatred, resentment, and anti-human values, such as the hostile, attitudes toward the Palestinians calling for their expulsion and killing. These values are also based on the teachings mentioned in The King’s Torah that advocate extermination of the Palestinians. The number of students is growing year after year as are the numbers in the Israeli army.

    The danger of this book does not lie in the adoption and preaching of these ideas, even though it is very dangerous. Rather, large sectors of the settlers turn from the adoption of these ideas into putting them into action. Under the auspices of the Israeli government and the protection of the occupying Israeli army, the settlers have been assaulting Palestinians, their property, and holy places. The rabbis and yeshiva students, who revere the ideas of The King’s Torah and deal with it as their original Torah, represent the spearhead of settlers and the occupation. They abuse the Palestinians, ravage their towns and villages, cut down their trees, and burn their farms, crops and mosques, thus turning their lives into a hell as a prelude to deportation. In this context, a secret, Jewish military organization named Tag Mehir emerged in 2009 from the ranks of those rabbis and their West Bank settlement yeshiva students, representing the military power of The King’s Torah-guided settlers.

    • W. Poe White
      W. Poe White says:

      Who wrote this commentary on Rabbi Shapira and Rabbi Elitzur’s “The King’s Torah?” It sounds like it was written by a Left-wing Israeli peace movement member.

      It is a useful and mostly sound analysis of the hardcore Talmudic mentality. Nevertheless I see a criticism to make. Instead of merely morally condemning this mentality as “extremist, racist and anti-human ideas” or “hatred, resentment and anti-human values” it would be more precise to characterize it as Jewish supremacism based upon a fanatic faith in the world reforming efficacy of absolute unrestrained Jewish rule.

      The foundation of this mentality is the fundamental Jewish dogma that Jews are “chosen” to exercise absolute dominion over the whole world and all the nations of goyim and that furthermore Jews are tasked with a sacred mission to then use their arbitrary power to perfect the world: They are to establish shalom so as to bring about tikkun olam.

      Is this racism? There is a racial component to Judaism since the cohanim are genetically distinct and many Jews are genetically related to the cohanim but there are other Jews who have little or no shared genetics with the cohanim racial core population. Jewish identity has a racial component but cannot be reduced to race. There is also an essential ideological component (centering on the faith in chosenism, shalom and tikkun olam and the willingness to abide by an halachic consensus established by Rabbinical dialectic or a secular Jewish analog of such). It is more accurate to call this Jewish supremacism than racism since what is sought is the collective dominion of the Jewish people under the rule of their Rabbis (or secular analog of Rabbis) bringing about tikkun olam rather than a mere racial dominion defined in terms of biological race. Ideology is an essential feature of the Jewish supremacist project, not just biological race.

      Is this hatred? Certainly no one hates more fervently than Jewish supremacists. They are world champions of hate. But what is the root of this hatred and resentment? Jewish supremacists want to rule. Indeed, they absolutely insist upon ruling. They will not take no for an answer! They simply MUST rule. Yes, they hate. But why? They hate those who will not willingly submit to their rule.

      They are driven by a nearly unbreakable collective will to power which is collectively nurtured and reproduced generation after generation down two and a half millennia so far and counting. Is there a better example of herrenvolk mentality in all history? (This is a criticism, not praise.)

      • Pip
        Pip says:

        Gentiles in Halacha
        “The Torah of Israel makes a clear distinction between a Jew, who is defined as ‘man,’ and a Gentile.”
        That is to say, any notion of equality between human beings is irrelevant to the Halacha. R’ Bar-Chayim’s work is comprehensive, written with intellectual honesty, and deals with almost all the aspects of Halachic treatment of non-Jews. It also refutes the statements of those rabbis who speak out of wishful thinking and, influenced by concepts of modern society, claim that Judaism does not discriminate against people on religious grounds. R’ Bar-Chayim shows that all these people base their constructs not on the Torah but solely on the inclinations of their own hearts. He also shows that there are even rabbis who intentionally distort the Halachic attitude to Gentiles, misleading both themselves and the general public.

        Tzfi’a 3
        Rabbi David Bar Chaim
        Yeshivat Mercaz HaRav

      • Pip
        Pip says:

        Talmudic Maledictions Against Christians. Birkat Haminim Jewish Curses. Noahide Laws Did Not Make Judaism Universal. Langer

        Cursing the Christians?: A History of the Birkat Haminim,
        by Ruth Langer. 2011
        The Long History of Jewish Malediction Against Christianity–Even Before Christians Were in a Position to Persecute Jews
        This is a fascinating, technical book. The author traces the history of the BIRKAT HAMINIM from antiquity, through the Middle Ages, and to modern times. In recent times, this prayer has been softened, with removal of reference to enemies, and with the condemnation of evil, as an abstraction, having replaced the condemnation of sinners. (pp. 156-on).

        Author Ruth Langer makes the following candid statements, (quote) “For Jews engaged in dialogue, it has been much easier to identify the problems within Christianity than to turn that scrutiny back on our own heritage. Jews, after all, were very much the victims, not just of the Holocaust, but also of centuries of Christian anti-Jewish venom and oppression. Consequently, traditions developed among those studying in the WISSENSCHAFTLICH mode to obscure embarrassing elements of the tradition rather than to confront them. True dialogue, though, requires partnership, mutuality, and adjustment of attitudes on both sides…Thus, full Jewish participation in reconciliation with Christians requires that Jews similarly examine and take responsibility for their own traditions, especially where, as in the case of liturgy, these traditions affect daily life and are not simply dusty books on the shelf. (unquote). (p. 12).

        (quote) “By grappling with Jewish texts that appear xenophobic or racist…In my plenary talk at their conference that summer addressing this point, I suggest that while Jews do indeed need to be self-critical about their traditions of anti-Christianity; the possible methods of implementing change really do depend on where one stands within the spectrum of contemporary approaches to Judaism…There is no question that BIRKAT HAMINIM, for most of its history, is a text that for moderns engaged in Christian-Jewish reconciliation and dialogue is “problematic” or “difficult”. (unquote). (pp. 184-185).

        In the decades following the destruction of the temple in 70 CE (or AD), Rabban Gamliel called for the establishment of the BIRKAT HAMINIM. Langer comments, “All later evidence suggests that this BIRKAT HAMINIM, literally ‘a blessing of the sectarians’, was some sort of CURSE asking that God eliminate the “kinds” of people causing the rabbis trouble…MINIM…can apply to Christians, but it can also apply to various kinds of Jewish heretics who are not Christians.” (p. 4, emphasis in original. See also p. 24, 39, 354).
        “This prayer, in its medieval European manifestation, was very much a curse of the Christians.” (p. 12; See also p. 66, 184). Moreover, Jews thought of it both in terms of Jewish converts to Christianity as well as those born Christians. (p. 83).

        In contrast to the non-specificity of MIN/MINIM, the term NOZERIM, found in some versions of the BIRKAT HAMINIM, did refer specifically to Christians. (p. 66, pp. 198-199, 354. See also p. 189).
        What about code words among Jews? Note that the Biblical Esau/Edom became identified with Rome and Byzantine Rome. (p. 82). Langer also affirms the fact that “Yeshu ben Pandira [Pandera]”, in the Babylonian Talmud, clearly refers to Jesus Christ. (p. 287).

        Some Jews today would have us believe that Judaism was always universal because Judaism, unlike Christianity, never excluded anybody, as obedience to the Noahide laws enabled the goy to stand equal with the Jew before God. The truth is rather different. Among medieval rabbis, some of them, notably Rashi, understood MINIM to refer to gentile Christians. (p. 78). Furthermore, the Ritva (R. Tov ben Avraham Ashvili) added that both Christians and Muslims are MINIM, and cannot be considered among the righteous gentiles even if they obey the Noahide laws. (p. 79).

        Nowadays, we think in terms of the premise that, owing to the fact that they were a minority group, Jews could only utter hurtful words against Christians, while Christians could utter hurtful words and then perform hurtful actions against Jews. However, in ancient and medieval thinking, the spoken word itself was a matter of gravity, and could by itself be very much a weapon of aggression.

        Ruth Langer makes this clear. She writes, (quote)
        “Why should it matter if Jews curse Christians? We live in a world today in which deeds, not words, are real, but this was not the premodern understanding. As in antiquity, medieval Europeans understand curses to be effective means to invoke evil (and coterminously, to remove blessing). In medieval Christian Europe, the Church gains significant political power through granting blessings, understood to protect the recipient in this world and the next, and by removing this protection through curses of various sorts”. (unquote). (p. 67).

        The author adds that, (quote)
        “Cursing was also part of the vocabulary of the larger worlds in which Jews lived. As Anderson points out, significant parts of Ancient Near Eastern treaty documents consisted of curses designed to force compliance with the treaty”. (unquote). (p. 38).

        Finally, author Ruth Langer touches on the persistence of old thinking among some Jews even today. She comments, (quote)
        “In some cases, like the censored line of ‘ALEYNU [ALENU], now widely printed in Orthodox prayer books, the community today is widely ignorant of why it might have been an object of sensitivity, and many find other interpretations for its words. Most Jews will never encounter the restored versions of Talmudic texts, but those who are most likely to, among the ultra-Orthodox community, are precisely those who are least likely to approach these texts with historical and critical sensitivity. One wonders about the relationship between this and recent incidents of spitting at Christians and desecrating Christian sites in certain areas of Jerusalem, to which the Jewish community’s leadership needed to respond”. (unquote). (p. 259).

  8. W. Poe White
    W. Poe White says:

    There is a coherent definition of “hate speech,” viz. speech demonizing a group occurring as part of a psychological warfare campaign aimed at setting the targeted group up for attack. Hate speech is then more than merely expressing strong detestation of the group; it is an act of concerted psychological warfare. It is an example of “war by other means.”

    The use of the term “hate speech” by Jews is of course cynical. Jews deploy this weaponized phrase as part of a campaign to demonize the White race so as to facilitate the demographic dispossession of Whites in all White nations. Their very use of the phrase is itself an example of hate speech. Accusations of hate speech against Whites are part of the Jewish war by other means on Whites. They are – as they do so frequently – projecting their own intentions onto their target.

    There is a rational political purpose behind this projection: (1) to silence those (whether White or non-White) who tell the truth about Jewish power and Jewish goals in order to prevent political opposition to Jewish dominance; and (2) to intimidate and silence Whites into political passivity so that they cannot organize politically in their collective self-defense in time to stop their dispossession via replacement immigration. A multiracial population is being engineered into existence throughout the White nations. This Kalergian demographic revolution is the principal means by which the Jews will consummate their conquest of America and the entire West.

    • John Bateman
      John Bateman says:

      Excellent comment, but how will the Jews ever ‘consummate their ‘conquest’ of Western Civilization. Who’s going to run the greatest achievement of humanity? A bit like the kids who stole the keys to the candy store from their parents.

      • Wolf Stoner
        Wolf Stoner says:

        Perfectly said, Mr Bateman. I too always shared this view. This crafty, devious but mentally shallow tribe would never be able to support on their own the tremendously complicated structure of the White Civilization. Already now we can clearly see how everything starts to come down as a result of diminishing share of White People in key sectors of economy. Therefore, if they succeed in bringing down European civilization, it would be their downfall too and it will be bloody indeed. When the whole legal system crumbles, the all grievances against these self-appointed god’s people would surface at once and there will be no one to defend them. Yes, maybe the Europe lives out its last days (in its present form) but these are the last days of this tribe too. It is the sign of profound stupidity on their part to believe that they would be able to organize some kind of paradise for themselves when the whole world falls into chaos. They will have to taste this bitter fruit too, probably more than anyone else.

      • Pip
        Pip says:

        John Bateman
        John have you ever heard of the shabbos goy?
        He is the Gentile who does things for the Jew.
        It started with lighting the Jew’s fire on the Sabbath!
        It has mushroomed into both Democrat and Republican parties in America.

        (excerpt of Disraeli’s novel published in London, 1844)
        In his novel Coningsby (London, 1844) Disraeli draws a picture from life of the Jews ruling the world from behind thrones as graphic as anything in the protocols of Nilus.

        The passage in which Rothschild (Sidonia) describes this runs as follows:

        “If I followed my own impulse, I would remain here”, said Sidonia.
        “Can anything be more absurd than that a nation should apply to an individual to maintain its credit, its existence as an empire and its comfort as a people; and that individual one to whom its laws deny the proudest rights of citizenship, the privilege of sitting in its senate and of holding land; for though I have been rash enough to buy several estates, my own opinion is that by the existing law of England, an Englishman of Hebrew faith cannot posses the soil.”

        “But surely it would be easy to repeal a law so illiberal.”

        “Oh! as for illiberality, I have no objection to it if it be an element of power.
        Eschew political sentimentality. What I contend is that if you permit men to accumulate property, and they use that permission to a great extent, power is inseparable from that property, and it is in the last degree impolite to make it in the interest of any powerful class to oppose the institutions under which they live.
        The Jews, for example, independent of the capital qualities for citizenship which they possess in their industry, temperance, and energy and vivacity of mind, are a race essentially monarchical, deeply religious, and shrinking themselves from converts as from a calamity, are ever anxious to see the religious systems of the countries in which the live, flourish.
        Yet since your society has become agitated in England and powerful combinations menace your institutions, you find the once loyal Hebrew is variably arrayed in the same ranks as the leveller and the latitudinarian, and prepared to support rather than tamely continue under a system which seeks to degrade him.
        The Tories lose an important election at a critical moment; ’tis the Jews come forward to vote against them.
        The Church is alarmed at the scheme of a latitudinarian university, and learns with relief that funds are not forthcoming for its establishment; a Jew immediately advances and endows it.
        Yet the Jews, Coningsby, are essentially Tories. Toryism indeed is but copied from the mighty prototype which has fashioned Europe. And every generation they must become more powerful and more dangerous to the society which is hostile to them.
        Do you think that the quiet humdrum persecution of a decorous representative of an English university can crush those who have successfully baffled the Pharaons, Nebuchadnezzar, Rome, and the feudal ages?

        The fact is you cannot destroy a pure race of the Caucasian organization. It is a physiological fact; a simple law of nature, which has baffled Egyptian and Assyrian kings, Roman emperors, and Christian inquisitors.
        No penal laws, no physical tortures, can effect that a superior race should be absorbed in an inferior, or be destroyed by it.
        The mixed persecuting races disappear, the pure persecuted race remains.
        And at the moment, in spite of centuries, or tens of centuries, of degradation, the Jewish mind exercises a vast influence on the affairs of Europe. I speak not of their laws, which you still obey; of their literature, with which your minds are saturated, but of the living Hebrew intellect.
        You never observe a great intellectual movement in Europe in which the Jews do not greatly participate.

        The first Jesuits were Jews: that mysterious Russian diplomacy which so alarms Western Europe is organized and principally carried on by the Jews; that mighty revolution (of 1848) which will be in fact a second and greater Reformation, and of which so little is as yet known in England, is entirely developing under the auspices of Jews, who almost monopolize the professorial chairs of Germany.
        NEANDAR, Founder of spiritual Christianity and who is Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Berlin is a Jew.

        Benary, equally famous, and in the same university is a Jew.
        Wehl, the Arabic Professor of Heidelberg, is a Jew.
        Years ago, when I was in Palestine I met a German student who was accumulating materials for the history of Christianity and studying the genius of the place; a modest and learned man. It was Wehl; then unknown, since become the first Arabic scholar of the day, and the author of the life of Mahomet. But for the German professors of this race, their name is legion. I think there are more than ten at Berlin alone.

        I told you just now that I was going up to town to-morrow, because I always made it a rule to interpose when affairs of state were on the carpet. Otherwise, I never interfere. I hear of peace and war in newspapers, but I am never alarmed, except when I am informed that the sovereigns want treasure; then I know that monarchs are serious.

        A few years back we were applied to by Russia. Now there has been no friendship between the Court of St. Petersburg and my family. It has Dutch connections which have generally supplied it; and our representations in favour of the Polish Hebrews, a numerous race, but the most suffering and degraded of all the tribes, has not been very agreeable to the Czar.

        However circumstances drew to an approximation between the Romanoffs and the Sidonias (Rothschilds). I resolved to go myself to St. Petersburg. I had on my arrival an interview with the Russian Minister of Finance, Count Cancrin; I beheld the son of a Lithuanian Jew.

        The loan was connected with the affairs of Spain. I resolved on repairing to Spain from Russia. I travelled without intermission. I had an audience immediately on my arrival with the Spanish minister, Senor Mendizabel; I beheld one like myself, the son of a Neuvo Christiano, a Jew of Aragon.

        In consequence of what transpired at Madrid, I went straight to Paris to consult the President of the French Council.; I beheld the son of a French Jew, a hero, an imperial marshal, and very properly so, for who should be military heroes if not those who worship the Lord of Hosts?”

        “And is Soult a Hebrew?”

        “Yes, and others of the French marshals, and the most famous, Massena, for example; his real name was Mannaseh: but to my anecdote:

        The consequence of our consultations was that some northern power should be applied to in a friendly and medative capacity.

        We fixed on Prussia, and the President of the Council made an application to the Prussian minister, who attended a few days after our conference. Count Arnim entered the cabinet, and I beheld a Prussian Jew.

        So you see, my dear Coningsby, that the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.”(pp. 294-252)

      • W. Poe White
        W. Poe White says:

        John Bateman, you asked how the Jews ever consummate their ‘conquest of Western Civilization.

        That should be obvious: by turning Whites into a minority in all their nations. Their idea is plainly to create a high-tech highly urbanized Technocracy with a pan-racial mass population. They apparently expect to be able to administer such a civilization using 21st century technology, especially computing, AI, robotics and biotech.

        They will not even try to maintain traditional Western civilization. They want to pursue their radical futurist vision including transhumanism. Fantastic as this sounds, they have asserted this intention over and over and their actions are in accord with their pronouncements.

        I have no faith in such a system working for long. I think it would end with the world in ashes. The transhumanist Technocratic dream is hubris on stilts.

  9. anonym
    anonym says:

    It´s the old “Athens vs. Jerusalem” all over again. Truth vs. “Law”.

    For pre (and post) christian Europeans truth is God. Order and intent in nature is God, science and art are methods to see and get closer to God. Free speech is inherent in this tradition. A book, a painting, a theorem, is a way to describe an aspect of God, but they are not God, and can be rejected of altered any moment a new breakthrough is made.

    The Jews are not Europeans, and despite having lived in Europe for more than 2000 years they still fail to grasp this fundamental notion. Their “God” is pure superstition, born out of paranoia and fear. Most of them may not believe in Jehova anymore, instead they turn everything else into a Jewish “religion”. Marx communism, Ayn Rands objectivism, todays “woke” culture etc etc, is Jewish pseudo religions. Its basic idolatry.

    When we reason with facts, such as mentioning racial IQ differences, crime statistics, lack of cyanide residue in the Auschwitz “gas chambers” etc etc, the answer back is always “ethical” – we are “immoral”, “bad” and “bigoted”. As if they supernaturally know what´s true and what´s false.

    They´re still rabbis, accusing everyone who disagree with them of being “unholy” and “satanical”. They´re still “God´s chosen people” and their endeavor to stop free speech is fundamentally a Jewish superstitious “belief” in Jewish “Law”.

    • Odin's left eye
      Odin's left eye says:

      “… truth is God.” Yes, like love, beauty and justice are experiences of the Divine. Thank you for this and all your other insightful observations. I was losing interest in this site due to its infestation by the Christ-Conned.

    • Wolf Stoner
      Wolf Stoner says:

      Yes, precisely so. The key idea is that Christianity, Marxism, post-WW2 liberalism are the branches of the same poisonous plant. To this we should add the new insane idea of producing some kind of hybrid of man and computer and that we are at the threshold of the new era of super technologies and exponential progress when no one would need to work and everything would be for free. Sounds familiar? Yes, Christianity and communism preached the same trash but in different wrapper. But who preaches this supernew idea? One of the most prominent “thinkers” of this kind is Ray Kurzweil – Jewish mental trickster who wrote the book “Singularity is near”; I have read it about 12 years ago; singular trash but appraised by the retinue of fellow-Jews as “smart and persuasive” and all other imaginable laudations. The great of the greatest, Bill Gates himself, said about Kurzweil: “the best person I know at predicting the future of artificial intelligence”. But in reality, Kurzweil simply trades in the same goods of his tribe – tricking the gullible goyim. The new apostle Paul; technological version. But we can see them through; they lost their former advantage of being in the complete shadow; now too much had become known about them and too many people see who they are. This time it will not be so easy to impose yet another fairly-tale as a new dominant ideology.

      • anonym
        anonym says:

        It´s been a while since I read Kurtzweil too, but doesn´t he divide the development into six stages? Like the Jewish history, in six stages, based on the creation in Genesis (“and on the seventh day God rested”). The day of “Singularity” would be “the Historical Sabbath” then. Some rabbis in Israel include the AI “evolution” into their end time prophesies, and think that “the Third temple” can be realized via AI technology.

        Many of the leading AI “prophets” seems to be Jewish (Marvin Minsky, Stanislav Lem, Kurtzweil),with autistic dreams about a mechanical, sterile cerebral world without love and passion. All emotions would just be emulated, imagination replaced by cold rationality. Theodore Roszak has written a really good book about it, “The Cult of Information”.

  10. Robert Penman
    Robert Penman says:

    Brilliantly summed up by Dr Dalton. The whole “Hate Speech” con is dependent on people not using any critical thinking, for people to think “hate, that’s no good, we must stamp out hate”. Sadly, for now, most people are either taken in by the con, or not prepared to question it.

  11. Chris
    Chris says:

    “or sexual orientation (= the fact of being gay, etc.)”

    What if we question the whole idea of there being a “fact of being gay”? Or an orientation?? And how could we possibly know it? The most flamboyant vomit inducing gay behavior may actually be a straight person acting out a role.

  12. Harry Warren
    Harry Warren says:

    The Jews have destroyed the country into which I was born. It exists now only in my memories and in old films. So, yes, I hate them.

    • Wolf Stoner
      Wolf Stoner says:

      Actually, Jews are hated by much greater number of people than it can be imagined. Jews had gained too much unwarranted advantage in society in the last decades and people dislike it but fear to express it. The very fact of this fear only adds to this hatred, because people hate to live in fear. Jews had become too omnipresent feature of the American society; everything pivots around them; all policies are elaborated with reference to their interests; the whole foreign policy is formulated according to the Israel’s interests. Many people see it clearly; even the stupid ones start to see it. The fact that everyone (from mainstream crowd) prefers to remain silent isn’t the sign of support and love of Jews. Actually, it is the ominous sign of growing resentment and vengefulness against this usurper-tribe.

      • Pip
        Pip says:

        5,000,000 of the 6,000,000 immigrated to the Americas and other countries!
        Quotes from:
        By Paul Rassinier
        Statistics: Six Million or …
        Logic demands that this demographic study end with general statistics which include the following four items for each of the European nations which I have surveyed:
        1. The number of Jews who were living there just before Beck’s accession to power in Poland (1932) and Hitler’s accession to power in Germany (1933);
        2. The number of Jews among them who, to escape persecution, emigrated between 1932 and 1945;
        3. The number of Jews who remained in Europe and who were still alive there in 1945;
        4. The number of Jews who cannot be accounted for and who, hence, are presumed to be dead.

        In order to give the exact truth of this dark story, these statistics should be accompanied by others giving the structure of the world Jewish population at the end of 1962. And, in four sections also, for each of the nations of the other continents:

        1. The number of Jews living there before the rise to power in Poland of Beck, and in Germany of Hitler;
        2. The natural increase in the Jewish population from 1932 to 1962;
        3. The census of the Jewish population at the end of 1962;
        4. The number of Jewish immigrants calculated from the difference between the total figures of items 2 and 3. (There is no doubt that this difference comes near the 4,419,908 figure that is mentioned in the preceding section.)

        This was my intention at the beginning. Now, this double labor turns out to be impossible; the second statistics cannot be determined unless and until the leadership of international Zionism agrees to undertake a census of the world Jewish population, and we have seen that Zionist leaders are not about to accept this idea. As for the first statistics, there is a long series of other difficulties that still present obstacles in spite of all the specific data that the preceding study has produced.
        Paul Rassinier was born on March 18, 1906, in Beaumont, a small village near Montbéliard, the son of a farmer. He received his formal education in the schools of the area and passed the necessary examinations which allowed him to teach history and geography at the secondary school level and to use the title of “professor.” He taught in the secondary school at Faubourg de Montbéliard where students were prepared to take the “brevet,” an examination that is somewhat inferior to that examination which is taken by students in the lycées who desire to matriculate at the university. It was at this school that he was arrested by the Gestapo in October 1943.

        On the basis of the preceding analysis, this is where we stand now: First, out of the study of the statistics of the World Center of Contemporary Jewish Documentation and from its own data, we find 1,589,492 European Jews dead or missing as a consequence of Nazi persecutions in concentration camps or in some other way.
        Second, out of the study of Mr. Raul Hilberg’s data we find only 987,592 dead or missing Jews.

        The actual Jewish population of the world in 1962 is very close to being the following, at least in the order of magnitude of the figures. By using statistics for each country of the world dated for 1926, or 1927, or 1928, as the case was, Mr. Arthur Ruppin estimated that world Jewry had reached a total of 15,800,000 persons as of that date. We have seen that the World Almanac of 1951 estimated the world Jewish population at 16,643,120 for 1939. The natural rate of increase having considerably dropped between 1926 and 1939 (Poliakov dixit, cf p. 295), but when it is compared with that of Mr. Arthur Ruppin, this estimate is allowable.

        Here, then is the Jewish population of the world in 1962, calculated on the corrected data of the World Center of Contemporary Jewish Documentation.

        1. World Jewish population in 1939: 16,643,120
        2. Jewish victims of Nazism: 1,589,492
        3. World Jewish population living in 1945(l): 15,053,628
        4. Jewish natural increase of 16% since 1946: 2,408,580
        5. Total Jewish population on 1962(2): 17,552,208
        And here is the same as calculated on the corrected data of Mr. Raul Hilberg:
        1. World Jewish population in 1939: 16,643,120
        2. Jewish victims of Nazism: 987,592
        3. World Jewish population living in 1946: 15,655,528
        4. Jewish increase of 16% since 1946: 2,504,884
        5. Total Jewish population in 1962: 18,160,412

        And, here we are at the end of this study. It remains for me only to make an apology to the reader: this study has clearly been very long, and difficult to follow, like all that is technical by nature. But a demographic study can only be of such a technical nature. What the reader must recognize is that, until now, the proponents of the Zionist line — whose “official” contentions on the horrors of the war I have been following — have never been faced with arguments other than those from journalists, which have been often vague and specious, factors that have been the main reason for their lack of success. The only way to shatter their arguments was to set up against them the arguments of a specialist. And, that is what I have tried to do.

        This is a powerful, honest book, that gives the facts! No myths!

  13. Bobby
    Bobby says:

    You hit this one out of the park Thomas- it’s a keeper.

    Thank you for all of the historical references. In discussing the Jewish Bolsheviks, you forgot to mention Genrich Yagoda (Jewish). Kaganovich was one of the Jewish leaders involved in the Holomodor genocide, 8 million plus, and Yagoda, the Kulaks- 20 million plus slaughtered.

    In terms of the philosophical questions, who is stronger? The Jews ‘destroy’ countries, Europeans conquer and improve them. The Jews are well on their way to now destroying all of Western Europe and our great country, why? Most of the Biden administration is Jewish. So who is stronger? Why are we letting them get away with this to the extent it has?

    I know you’re not big on Christianity but Jesus just might have said it best in regards his own people; “You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” ~John 8:44

    ‘Not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him.’ An answer might be there. We need to get the truth, the truth that scholars such as yourself Thomas, and the many on here and TOO’s readers hold to. We need to somehow get the truth out into the minds of the masses, into a discussion of it in some kind of gentle way.

  14. Carolyn Yeager
    Carolyn Yeager says:

    I agree with you that the promise of the USA, into which I was born 80 years ago, is now hopelessly destroyed, but the seeds of that destruction were there and actively fermenting at the time of my birth. It didn’t just start in 1965 or 2001. It started in 1912, at the very latest, if not on May 6, 1861! It started when this Republic was transformed into a “Democracy.” I think that in order to actually correct our course, we have to take the long view. But not all the way back to Rome!

      • Harry Warren
        Harry Warren says:

        Thanks, Carolyn. I’m British, by the way, born in 1945. I regret the passing of the USA almost as much as I regret the passing of my own country. My father was involved in the rescue of an American fighter pilot from the North sea in 1944, and always remembered it as being the best of his war experiences.

  15. Joe
    Joe says:

    The jews are first and foremost hypocrites in everything.
    They call you a hater while hating you.
    They invent tales of having 6 million of their kind murdered while they, in fact, starved, enslaved and slaughtered 20 million Russians and Ukrainians in the USSR.
    They copyright the fake “Holocaust” while denying the proper use of the word for their atrocities committed against the Turks and later the Kulaks in the Holodomor.
    They advocate totally open borders everywhere in the diaspora while denying ANY non-jewish immigration in Israel.
    They advocate homosexual marriage everywhere in the diaspora while denying this perversion in Israel.
    They advocate for gun control everywhere in the diaspora while allowing jews to carry machine guns in public in Israel.
    They staunchly fight against building a wall to protect our southern border while they wall themselves in in Israel.
    The list goes on and on.

    Basically, a sound policy is to take ANYTHING a jew says or does and think the opposite if you want to get at the truth.

    • Pip
      Pip says:

      When I see an ORANGE, I think of JAFFA and when I think of JAFFA, I think of the JEWISH pogrom of ARABS, in 1946

  16. Blenda Richter
    Blenda Richter says:

    Busy, posting replies to show the detrimental effect of Christianity on the survival of the White race, a kampf which although seemingly futile, worthwhile fighting nonetheless, I failed to praise this outstanding essay by the great Thomas Dalton, Ph.D., who in my book has stepped up onto the ‘insuperable’ Thomas Dalton. A masterpiece.

Comments are closed.