Part 5 of 8

The form of this essay was inspired by time-lapse photography: the distillation of a period of time into a series of snapshots that capture change undergone. Daily, no doubt, you on the right notice a barely perceptible progression of events in a negative direction. What is remarkable, however, when you see these various bits and pieces brought together, is the direction and speed of social change across the white west. You have probably noticed that my examples are of very recent vintage, with few more than two years old. Six months from now, the story could be rewritten using entirely new examples.

Germany, the next stop on our tour, offers a particularly good example of the leftist push to outlaw white nationalism. In most ways it is like the British and the French in suppressing right-wing opinion, but in other ways, regulation of the Internet in particular, the Deutsch are ahead of the rest of the world in combatting Badthink (as the leftists would feel)/ eradicating dissent from Multicultural Orthodoxy (as is our view). Here's yet another sampling from the leftists' Multicultural World smorgasbord, the serving table where you can have anything you like, as long as it's fishy.

Hundreds of Germans demonstrated against racism Sunday in the tiny village of Dolgenbrodt, which has become infamous for a firebomb attack on an asylum home in 1992.

Around 300 demonstrators, outnumbered by police officers, shouted ``Death to Fascism'' and ``Death to State Terrorism'' as they gathered in a field at the entrance to Dolgenbrodt, a village of just 300 inhabitants south of Berlin.

Police said they scuffled with protestors when they went into the crowd to detain 10 demonstrators for covering their faces with masks -- banned at such protests in Germany. ... Dolgenbrodt mayor Karl Pfannenschwarz said his village was not racist, but would not yield to the demand of protestors to hoist white flags as a sign of capitulation.
[3/16/97, Reuters]

If the same hysterical reactions weren't seen from France to Australia, Dolgenbrodt might be taken to exemplify German militarism recast in a left-wing mold: lots of yipping about death and terrorism and attempts to intimidate a small town. Note that it is illegal to wear facemasks in Germany. Many things are illegal in democratic Germany.

[Gary] Lauck, who goes on trial in Hamburg Thursday (May 9) for inciting racial hatred, was arrested in Denmark in March last year and extradited to Germany in September....Officials say that since Lauck, a 42-year-old from Lincoln, Nebraska, was put behind bars the amount of neo-Nazi material reaching Germany has declined substantially.``To say that the international neo-Nazi scene would collapse without Lauck was an understatement,'' Ingo Hasselbach, a former east German neo-Nazi leader, wrote in a book about his experiences in the extreme right-wing scene. ``He was the source of practically all the neo-Nazi propaganda pasted up on walls from Berlin to Sao Paulo... [5/7/96, Reuters (Andrew Gray)]

There is no first amendment in Germany, and you're probably more likely to be extradited from Denmark for political views than murder... Another example that certain political views are against the law in free and democractic Germany:

``[Bernd] Suhr poses considerable danger (to the public). In addition to that, he shows no signs of distancing himself from his extreme right-wing ideas,'' the presiding judge said... Police raided Suhr's home two days after the FAP [Free German Workers' Party], one of the largest and most radical neo-Nazi groups in Germany, was banned in February 1995.

They found a cache of explosives and original teaching materials once used to train Nazi party members more than 50 years ago... The Constitutional Court banned Suhr's party because it spread racist and anti-Semitic literature and defamed democratic institutions. The German government has banned at least four far-right parties since neo-Nazi violence flared alarmingly after unification in 1990.
[6/11/96, Reuters]

So, not only are certain political opinions illegal in Germany, certain types of parties are outlawed. Imagine an American judge, say Ginsburg or Breyer, saying: "He shows no sign of distancing himself from his extreme right-wing ideas." It's not hard to imagine, is it? More evidence:

Thies Christophersen, a former Nazi who published magazines and books denying the Holocaust ever happened, has died in northern Germany... Christophersen, 79, had been sought for a decade before he was arrested last month. He was released because he was suffering from advanced kidney cancer and was too sick to be jailed... Christophersen was an SS officer and a guard at the Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland. He published the pamphlet ``The Farming Community,'' extolling ``The Auschwitz Lie,'' which denies Germany exterminated millions of Jews during World War II. Christophersen went to Denmark to avoid charges in Germany of incitement to violence and racial hatred in 1986. Denmark turned down Germany's requests to extradite Christophersen because he held a Danish residency permit. But in 1994, protesters forced him out of Denmark. He surfaced in Switzerland in 1995 but was ordered to leave the country... [AP-NY-02-15-97 The Associated Press KIEL]

An old war vet in failing health has to flee Germany for publishing a pamphlet. You may remember briefly in 1997 we heard from Jews in the know that the actual tally for Jews murdered in World War Two has reached seven million. This came and disappeared as a news blip, so perhaps they are rethinking their claim, or preparing to revise it further upwards. It would seem hard to lose a million people, but wars do cause a lot of disruption. But why is it that if you want to argue that the actual number was five million, you are not merely an evil nut, but a lawbreaker? Are the leftist Jews who put forward these numbers reliable sources? We've already seen the way leftist Jewish newspapers and wire services and the editors and writers they employ distort the truth daily with regard to goings on from Paris to Perth. We've seen the way they attempt to short-circuit the democractic debate, dismissing their opponents as evil haters. We've seen the way they've transmuted sympathy for their murdered coreligionists into social and intellectual taboos that are destroying our society. In short, we've seen that left-wing Jews have no qualms at all using their dead relatives for political gain. If you've ever visited a concentration camp or a Holocaust Museum franchise, you know the architects are far more concerned with conveying leftist political lessons than memorializing the dead. God, it seems, chose a tacky people. If you've come of age in America in the last twenty years, the chances are that you number among the literally tens of millions of pupils who have been forced to spend time reading goofy, third-rate Jewish literature such as Anne Frank's diary or the various lamentations of Elie Wiesel instead of Mark Twain and William Shakespeare -- solely in genuflection to Jewish/leftist political pressure. In light of all these considerations, I ask you to consider this question: If the leftist Jews distort, doctor or lie about everything else, as you know from your daily paper they do, then what is the chance they are playing the holocaust straight up? Is it likely this people-of-this-world nonpareil wouldn't press for every possible political advantage from what their lying writers and editors have persuaded the world was a legitimate wrong done it?; that it wouldn't try to turn a kernel's worth of genuine or propagandized injustice into a popcorn-bag full of social gain? Is it likely they are putting out the facts as they are, which they don't seem to do anywhere else, or that they are muffling, amplifying, distorting, magnifying, minimizing, squeezing, stretching and reversing the facts in line with their political agenda? Which is likely? Which is probable? Which would you put money on?

More examples of German political freedom, circumscribed in deference to the circumsized:

Bela Ewald Althans, 30, was convicted by a Berlin court in August last year for denying the Holocaust took place -- known as the `'Auschwitz lie'' -- a crime under German law punishable by up to five years jail.

He was also convicted for inciting racial hatred and denigrating the German state by telling an American visitor to the former Auschwitz death camp that the Holocaust was a myth. Althans, who had already been sentenced to 18 months by a Munich court for incitement to racial hatred, appealed against his conviction in the Berlin court, which had sentenced him to 31/2 years jail.

The sentences are to be served concurrently.

Althans became a notorious figure from the German extreme right-wing scene after he openly denied the Jewish Holocaust in the 1992 film called ``Profession Neo-Nazi.'' ``What is happening here is a giant farce,'' he told them in the film.
[7/12/96, Reuters]

How many other things can you think of that are so unquestionably true that to question them gets you half a decade in prison, hauled off by stern men with guns and thrown in with rapists and murderers? Can you think of anything? Does the truth usually require such a defense? Exactly what crosses the line? Can we quibble about the exact number killed, or is that illegal? Can we discuss the methods employed at the lagers without getting lagered ourselves? Can we query the researchers about their methodology, or does that land us in der pokey? If the World Jewish Congress folk who now claim seven million get off the plane in Frankfurt, do they risk jugging? Or is there a tiny little asterisk saying that the 'Auschwitz Lie' law is subject to revision subject to new records that may come to light or in light of changing Jewish political interests? Again I ask, what kind of truth can't take a punch? What kind of truth is as brittle as an upper-middle class woman? In my opinion, any truth worthy of the name bears dueling scars. The truth is not some inviolate princess in an ivory tower, it is a glistening nugget wrung from the muck by a grimy prospector. The Holocaust is the truth that can't take a punch. It is a Jewish mama's boy, scared to venture out on the playground for getting its butt kicked by the Fact brothers. For all I know, there really were six million -- pardon, seven million (and please note I stand ready to revise as required) -- murdered by the Nazis. I merely content myself with the observation that left-wing Jews, as a class, are one of the least reliable sources of information I know.

A side question: Do you suppose Amnesty International lists Althans as a political prisoner?

And so we see that not only are certain political views and parties illegal in our democratic ally, certain historical opinions are held to be Officially Unchallengeable. The leftists in Germany and the Jews around the world have proven quick to realize the political benefits from making the Holocaust legal opinion in Germany and socially sacrosanct in America. The neat part of their little trick is that since the Holocaust is essentially a trademark, and not a term that can be tied to a specific meaning, anything plausible or implausible, correct or merely politically useful that can be dragged under the term qualifies for full indemnification. Anyone questioning leftism gets tagged a "racist" or "anti-Semite"; these are sort of acolyte terms, ensuring worship of a number of leftist myths or spurious lessons of the Holycaust, which is the term I suggest we give to myths leftists lump under the properly spelled term, which correctly means the murder of Jews by HItler (and there is a good deal more room for debate as to what really went on than Official Sources would have you believe). The left has positioned the Holycaust as a sort of mirror-Jesus crucifixion, with right-wingers of any shade cast as the Christ-killers. This is why I say to be right wing is to be always arguing your moral bona fides. To always be playing uphill. To be a member of the public right is to be a man who accepts, on some level, that he is guilty. But listen to me when I say that, save you reject the terms of the game the leftists are playing, you can never win. In a real way the holocaust (small 'h,' signifying simply a pretty designer term appropriated for the murder of Jews by Nazis) is the Jesus the Jews have been waiting for. The holocausters died for the Jews' sins, and they have been redeemed in this world (and this world, not the next, has always been the focus for Jews, unlike Christians) -- not only do they have their own socialist-nationalist Jewish homeland, but they have been rewarded with dominion over press, pupils and programs in America -- and thereby cattle worldwide. Surely a reward commensurate with a multi-thousand-year wait!

Of course, while open-eyed appraisals of Jews as such are forbidden the unlaughing, Jews themselves enjoy perfect freedom to think and write what they will about any other people or group:

...Goldhagen argues German anti-Semitism was uniquely bloodthirsty and that millions of ordinary Germans eagerly took part in or supported the Holocaust. ... Goldhagen, 36, the son of a Holocaust survivor, says his is a pioneering work because it disproves earlier theories about the Holocaust being the work of sadistic Nazis or frightened Germans simply carrying out orders from above.

Most historians long ago discarded initial post-war views about inherently evil Germans to focus on the tragic effect racist ideology had on a society weakened by hyperinflation, depression, a wartime defeat and political radicalisation. ... Ignatz Bubis, head of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, said German historians and academics may have been too quick to slam ``Hitler's Willing Executioners,'' a highly touted book by Harvard assistant professor Daniel Jonah Goldhagen. ``I am very reticent [sic] about saying the man is exaggerating,'' Bubis told a seminar on Jewish life in Germany after War World Two, acknowledging that he had not yet read the book himself. ``I'm no historian, but with all that happened in public (during the Holocaust) you cannot say that no one saw or heard anything.''
[(??/96), Reuters (Michael Shields)]

Question the Holocaust? To jail with you! Germans inherently evil? Let's hold a seminar!... German, white man, Southerner -- do you realize what is going on -- truly going on -- in your world?

The following is a good example of the type of workaday idiocy you get when the government owns or controls the media, in this instance simply because there are so few other (TV) channels on which to broadcast an alternative view. In short, you get the world as filtered by a Sunday School teacher:

Germany's public broadcaster ARD would regularly turn Nazi war criminals into Palestinian spies or wipe out other politically unacceptable segments like the Nuremberg trials. Even episodes dealing with the Vietnam War were not safe.

In one ``Magnum'' episode, star Tom Selleck is trying to help a woman and her husband, who claim to be Jewish survivors of the Nazi death camps. Then he discovers the pair are actually are war criminals. But German viewers got a dubbed dialogue that turned the old Nazis into Palestinian spies. And in one scene, the old Nazi's shout in the original version of ``Jew! Jew!'' -- was turned into ``You! You!''

ARD's original censorship is only one of countless examples in which TV series and films imported from Hollywood were altered for German viewers... The Humphrey Bogart classic ``Casablanca,'' for instance, was shown only in a sanitized version in Germany until 1971. Even the Bruce Willis film ``Die Hard'' turned the evil Germans in the original into evil Russians in the Teutonic copy.

Scenes from TV series shown on
ARD and fellow public broadcaster ZDF such as ``Miami Vice,'' ``Columbo,'' ``The Rockford Files'' and even ``Star Trek'' that referred to Nazis were also sliced out of the versions that German TV viewers saw.

Another privately owned network,
RTL, is scoring a ratings and publicity hit by showing ``Magnum'' in the original version, and thumbing its nose at the heretofore unknown censors at ARD. ... ARD executive Wolfgang Jurgan defended the policy, saying some episodes were cut because the network felt they were ``too weak,'' and others were changed because ARD felt it was ``inappropriate'' to include references about such serious subjects as the Holocaust in the middle of an entertaining series about a private detective in Hawaii. [7/8/96, Variety (Erik Kirschbaum)]

Read Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom to understand why socialism inevitably leads to censorship. Finally Germany is allowing a private broadcaster or two; imagine an America where there were only two networks and they were both operated by the feds. Who cares what some tax-funded Jurgen thinks is "appropriate"? Did the subtle minds among you notice that perhaps the most interesting thing in the selection is that every one of these prime time shows contained references to Nazis? It's almost a given, given the Jewish nature of Hollywood, that any non-sitcom show lasting more than a season will work a Nazi episode into its schedule. What most bears watching in Germany, however, is its attempts to censor the Internet. As we will shortly see, after child porn, police investigators get hottest about verboten political thought.

"AOL Bertelsmann Online completely rejects the accusation of spreading child pornography," a company statement said.

The investigation follows months of uncertainty over whether online services, whose software enables people to 'talk' by computer over the phone, should be held legally responsible for the content exchanged over their networks.

Unlike in the U.S., where freedom of speech is enshrined in the constitution, Germany's existing laws have tighter controls aimed primarily at preventing Nazi revivalism. Ministers are working on a new multimedia law which they have said would be drafted by later this year and come onto the statute books by early 1998.
[7/16/96, Reuters]

Can't wait for the new law!... This selection is important because it shows the technical side of the growing impulse to control the Internet from the left. Some think the best way to get rid of right-wing opinion on the web is to choke it off at the ISP (Internet Service Provider, the gateway or post-office-equivalent), to threaten the ISP not to host sites that, for example, the Simon Wiesenthal Center disapproves of. The SWC has cowed many ISPs, including the biggest of all, America Online, into dumping web pages it doesn't like, using the rationale that they are in violation of AO's own policies of tolerance, diversity, blah, blah, blah. The specifics don't matter, this is purely a political matter. Should AO not have given in, it would have been subjected to intense media criticism from Jewish groups and papers, and CEO Steve Case and his family might not have made it through the night uninterrupted.

Today, in Munich, there are tax-funded cops online, searching for pages containing illegal material. The public brouhaha tends to center on the child pornography sites they are snuffing out; but below this radar flies a more important fact: these cops are surfing to eliminate political opinion. These sites are always defined as purveying "neo-Nazi" or "extremist" material. The public prosecutors and the left-wing press always, when they mention these searches in public, seek to link child porn with right-wing politics in the mind of the listener, viewer or reader. Given that questioning the Holocaust (never defined) is illegal and hence within the cops' purview to prosecute, the question we must ask, again, just where is the line drawn? If my website says that Hitler was right, but doesn't mention the Holocaust, am I a criminal? What if I maintain a "hate page," that is, a page of sites I decide are "hate" sites, complete with hot buttons to "revisionist" sites? Can I be prosecuted? What if I'm running a left-wing Jewish site and rebutting the Holocaust questioners, and in rebutting I quote them: Have I now passed into the censored zone? These questions are merely to point up how silly it is to try to draw a thou-shalt-not-cross line around something as nebulous as the Holocaust. My real concern is twofold: first, it is illegal in Germany, much of Europe, and potentially in the U.S. to hold pro-white or nationalist political opinions; and, second, that the press isn't interested enough to provide any details, in Germany, about the content of the sites under attack, or, in the U.S., about the number and nature of 1) the sites that have been dropped by ISPs and 2) the people and groups that requested that these sites be dropped.

It is time to make a few predictions. As computers have come of age, so to speak, over the past decade, and been connected over phone lines to form the Internet, an argument has become common among libertarians and nationalists that the same forces that dominate the printed and televised world aren't going to dominate here. They have some reason to believe as they do: the Internet is just about the only place in the world you can read things that haven't passed first before Jewish eyes. And from the libertarian perspective, the Internet affords such privacy and free-access as gladden their hearts. Nevertheless, I believe they are taking the short view, and that ultimately the taxers and censors will find their ways. Off the top of my head, here are a few ways the government might crack down on the Internet: For instance, they could declare the Internet a public utility, and grant certified ISPs the monopoly right to offer service within a given district. The mere fact that "technology allows it (multiple providers)" has never stood in government's way before, as those of you familiar with the history of the big three networks delaying cable TV can attest. ISPs could, similarly, be subject to political pressures, with all the same FCC gobbledegook about "diversity" and "fairness" brought to bear, with license renewal made contingent thereon.

One method of Internet control I fully expect to see over the next few years relates to the browser, the software that allows the user to surf the 'Net. Already we are seeing the development of browsers that screen sites. Browsers have already been developed that screen for political views as well as child porn and other disgusting things. As in Germany, the very lumping together of right-wing politics and nasty child porn is no accident. Next, in line with the growing clamor to wire the classroom from people like Al Gore, it is possible that classrooms will be forced to use government-approved browsers -- which is to say, browsers that prevent kids at school from unfettered access to sites unpopular with left-wing Jews or the National Education Association, the Democrats' single biggest support bloc. Kids will be limited to sites that the left-wing pressure groups, including most significantly left-wing Jews, don't object to. Kids who want to get unfiltered sites' material will have to use their parents' home computers to access whatever Jewish-pressured right-wing sites are left -- assuming parents aren't using the same browser as the Multicultural Orthodox, and surely Comp USA won't be offering any two-for-one school specials, no? Or maybe you think the Jewish Justice lawyers now showing Gates who's boss of this New New World will hesitate to force him to include their Wiesenthal-approved Multicultural Orthodox Pathways browser, once it's finished?

Another question for you: Can you think of anything of power equivalent to a Pentium computer that isn't licensed, taxed, ennumerated -- controlled -- by the government? Guns? Ha, ha, ha! Cars? No. Why can't one of our fine Jewish libs like Wellstone or Schumer pass a bill that calls for the creation of a new federal Department of Advanced Technology (DAT) commissioned with regulating America's most successful industry? Anybody for computer control? The Constitutional issue wouldn't bother these Jews for a second, and the tax receipts would be enormous, not to mention the expansion of federal power. The DAT could issue permits for the manufacture of a limited number of computers per company per anum, and require that each computer manufactured be identified in the way a motor vehicle is, plus -- and here the FBI will applaud -- equipped with an un-deinstallable Clipper Chip, allowing external monitoring as needed (ha) by these or those police. Why can't this happen? Because the public outcry would overwhelm our masters? Are you kidding? The feds burned up and shot to death (murdered) eighty-plus of our fellow citizens in Waco to barely a murmur, and that from the hate-filled right-wing extremists, not the liberty-loving left, which was silently cheering the governement on and, not so silently through its media wing, backing up bogus allegations of illegal weaponry and child abuse.

And even apart from technology-based political controls, taxation by itself is powerful enough to end cheap, free connections between the private citizen and the world. Have you ever examined your phone bill? Have you noticed that a not-insubstantial portion of your bill is for taxes -- taxes for services or reasons that are basically indecipherable? Why can't a few more indecipherables be added? How will you prevent it? And what about the leftists great bogus bugaboo of 'access'? There was never anything invented but the next day leftists called for its outlaw because some Aleutian-American hunting seals on an ice floe didn't have "access" to it. These greedy drag-downers don't care a whit that even on their own terms they are wrong; that free development leads to greater access than federal control; because at bottom that federal control is their real goal and "access for the poor" but their calling card, their cover story. We simply have to stop pretending these fellows are what they say they are. It may be impolite to doubt a man's motives, but after fifteen times we've got to start dealing with his meaning and not his words

. There is another argument from the right that I think is questionable: the proposition that the Internet will not end up concentrated in a few hands, like TV, radio and the press; that it will be the golden fleece, the level playing field, where all ideas have an equal chance. I think this is far less sure than it seems. America Online is paying the man who fleshed out MTV as a brand hundreds of thousands of dollars to do the same thing for AOL. That man has stated in interviews his belief that while the Internet is new and exciting and its future seemingly unclear, in the end we are going to see the same concentration online we've seen off. That is, there will be maybe twenty or thirty sites that everybody visits, ten times that number (say, 250) that many people visit, and then a vast huge mass of sites (the bottom of the pyramid) visited by a relative few. Now maybe this man is wrong, but he has a track record of success, he is being paid a lot of money by very smart people, and he thinks about these things forty-plus hours a week. At the very least, his view bears consideration. Back to Germany: I want to show you through the next few examples that here, in what is in many ways the most important western country after America, the same cultural pattern of leftist paternalism obtains:

...Soviet Russia's official Socialist Realism style bears a chilling resemblance to that chosen to glorify Hitler's Aryan ideal. There are rumours the Red Army liked the Nazis' art so much they used it to decorate their barracks at the end of the war. "Some Nazi art was destroyed by the allies, but some was destroyed by the artists who feared it would incriminate them," said Christoph Stoelzl, the director of the Berlin museum, who helped put together the German side of the show. Post-war occupation forces purged the country of virtually all the Nazis' art as part of a drive to "de-Nazify" Germany in line with the 1945 Potsdam agreement. Experts say very little Nazi art is of any artistic merit. But the dangers of creating a neo-Nazi place of pilgrimage or boosting an already thriving market in Nazi memorabilia are too great not to keep it locked away, German officials say. [6/9/96, Reuters (Fiona Fleck)]

Nazi Reich or German democracy?: opinion-holders jailed; political parties outlawed; TV programs censored; art locked away that doesn't conform to official policy... In Germany, you can't look at Nazi paintings or hear Tom Selleck refer to Nazis because you wouldn't know how to handle it, just as big-league publisher Wiley is afraid of losing its reputations by standing behind a book it commissioned on race and IQ that comes to conclusions that discomfit leftists. Again, the left not only fails to recognize opposing viewpoints as legitimate, but it sees the populace as bunch of kindergartners, fit for fingerpaints and Dr. Seuss, but not facts. Laughable in this selection is the "expert" opinion that little Nazi art is of artistic merit. I'm sure Goebbels could have produced a few "experts," such as the folks who put together the "Degenerate Art" tour back in the thirties (which also toured the U.S. a couple years ago), to say the same thing about Wassily Kandinsky, Paul Klee, et al. The difference is that Hitler and his crew allowed the degraded Jewish art to be seen whereas the German democrats, per American instruction, have their degraded paintings under lock and key. That cuts a little, doesn't it? Hitler more tolerant than us? How could that be? Everybody knows leftists are more tolerant than Nazis. The only conclusion, the conclusion Holmes would draw, is that the Hitler was a leftist. You could tell by his recourse to labels, as in the moral judgment, "degenerate." How much you want to bet if you look back in the brochures the national socialists (!) called it "hate art," or "brushed with hate," or "the art that hate produced"? The Germans pursue the nazi bogeyman ad infinitum:

A Canadian software company has temporarily halted sales of its top-selling Corel Draw computer programme in Germany because it includes four banned Nazi symbols, a spokesman said on Monday. Corel Corp will remove three drawings of Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler and one swastika symbol from future versions of the popular software, Thomas Layer said. In the meantime, it is also distributing warning labels for computer shops to stick on their current stocks to be able to resume selling them, he said. The label warns that the "improper use of digital images and symbols" found in the programmes Corel Draw 4.0, 5.0 and 6.0 is prohibited in Germany, which bans public displays of Nazi symbols.

Munich's state prosecutor launched an investigation into the software on October 2 after learning someone had used the banned images to print business cards for a neo-Nazi group, Layer said.

Corel Draw provides more than 24,000 "clipart" drawings and symbols that computer users can copy into newsletters and other documents. The company suspended its sales on November 19.
[MUNICH, Germany, Nov 25 (Reuter)]

And beyond:

``The ambassador used expressions in a report on the country and made value-judgments which cannot be approved of,'' a ministry spokesman said. He declined to comment on an advance report from Friday's edition of the...Bild...which said the remarks in question had included a derogatory judgement about Colombia's women.

In January, Germany fired its ambassador to Haiti after reports that he had compared the outgoing president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, to Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels, and said Haiti was overpopulated because ``the women are always willing and the men are always able.''
[6/6/96, Reuters]

And, stomping pretty little flowers of humor left and right, they keep on keeping on:

The sudden death ``Golden Goal'' introduced for Euro 96 is a Nazi invention that should be scrapped, the German-based International Federation of Football History and Statistics (IFFHS) said on Friday.

``It is a mockery to re-name this Nazi invention a ``Golden Goal','' IFFHS president Alfredo Poege told Reuters.

"You can't glorify something the Nazis introduced. It is totally discredited. It leaves a bitter taste in the mouth to see FIFA and UEFA taking over this rule invented by the German fascists and using it for the final round of the European championship in England.'
' [6/7/96, Reuters]

Admit it: you always knew "sudden death" had to be a Nazi invention. Do they stop? No -- they continue:

LONDON (AP) - Foreign Secretary Malcom Rifkind says he wants an end to the controversy over a German newspaper's reference to him as `the Jew Rifkind,'' the Sunday Telegraph reported.

``I have no intention of pressing the matter, nor would I want anyone else to do so,'' Rifkind was quoted as saying.
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, one of the most influential and respected German newspapers, made the reference in its report a speech Rifkind made in Bonn on Wednesday. The article by reporter Michaela Wiegel alluded to a quotation Rifkind used, by 16th century Christian reformer Martin Luther.

"As if his speech had not quite stressed it, the Jew Rifkind closed - ironically apologetically - with the words spoken by the German Luther: `Here I stand. I can do no other','' she wrote. ...

On Friday, member of Parliament Greville Janner, a leading figure in the Jewish community, said the formulation used by Ms. Wiegel was that thrown at Jewish people by fascists.

``My reaction to it is I am shocked that a respectable newspaper, especially in Germany, would publish that description,'' he said.
The Times of London quoted her as saying, ``I was only trying to underline how surprising it was that somebody who is Jewish should quote the leading German Protestant reformer.''

Legislator Sir Ivan Lawrence, a member of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, said it was ``very ill-advised for a German newspaper to revive the language of Hitler's Germany,''
The Times reported. [AP-NY-02-22-97 2036EST]

Mention that someone is a, gasp, Jew, and you create an international scandal. Because why would it mean anything? Jews are people, just like anyone else. Jews are the normal, and the Normal isn't worth noting, isn't news. Right-wing extremist Christian is not normal, is abnormal, is worth noting, is news. That's why there's nothing wrong with pointing it out. But left-wing Jews -- nothing different about them. At least nothing bad; nothing worth noticing. I mean, why would you even write something like that unless you wanted to round 'em up and kill 'em? This ability to prevent public recognition is the most telling sign of Jewish power, as Joe Sobran has observed. As he puts it, Jewish power is something you must always be aware of and never publicly mention. It's the tacit rule underlying all the brain cholesterol we fill our minds with daily -- newspapers, TV, magazines, radio shows: this program/paper is a product of the Jewish Industry, which is emphatically not an Equal Opportunity Employer: only the Correct -- not the right -- need apply. That's why no matter what you eat from the newsstand or how much you eat, it always tastes the same.

Just like Americans, who must endure boring, politicized museum displays put on by the Smithsonian and its lessers, Germans have to put up with "Degraded Germans" tours like the following:

A World War II exhibit that unmasks the regular German army as Holocaust executioners, not just dutiful soldiers, is raising a furor in Bavaria, birthplace of Hitler's Nazi movement. Older Germans tend to view Hitler's regular armed forces - called the Wehrmacht - as an army that properly fulfilled its duties by battling enemy soldiers, while Nazi SS units carried out the Fuehrer's plan to rid Europe of Jews. That view is graphically rejected by an exhibit called ``Extermination War: Crimes of the Wehrmacht 1941-44.'' It documents killings of Jews, Gypsies and prisoners of war in the Soviet Union and the Balkans. After traveling to 16 cities in Germany and Austria during the past two years, the exhibit opens Monday in Munich, the capital of Germany's most conservative state, Bavaria. [AP-NY-02-22-97 1155EST, By TERRENCE PETTY BONN]

Then there's this:

A U.S. congressman who fought in Hungary's anti-Nazi underground sharply criticized the German government's history museum Wednesday, saying it lacks a substantial exhibit on the Holocaust or Jewish culture. Tom Lantos, a California Democrat, said the German museum glosses over the killing of 6 million Jews, an omission he likened to O.J. Simpson discussing ``his golf game, rather than the seminal event in his life.'' [AP-NY-02-19-97 1742EST Copyright 1997 The Associated Press, TERRENCE PETTY]

There you have the incredible bossiness and solipsism of the Jew: the murder of some Jews was the "seminal" event of Germany. Even denotatively, Lantos is wrong. The seminal event of Germany was the collapse of the Berlin wall, the collapse of the evil empire built on the ideology to which so many Jews like Lantos devoted years of the best service they could give, (as our philanderer/rapist-in-chief might have put it). Because Jews are self-obsessed (the "chosen" people), others must share their delusions or they are 'anti-Semitic.' Imagine the poverty of a mind that conceives treatment of Jews as the chief criterion by which to measure a nation as great as Germany! Nations are to be judged by the great and wonderful things they have given the world, and what country has given the world more than Germany? America, perhaps, but I would also point out that Germans are the largest ethnic group in America, and no small reason for her success. England and France have also made great contributions that have been more widely noted, but it was Germany that gave us the printing press and Protestantism, without which none of us would enjoy the ubiquitous material and intellectual riches available in 1998. I would even argue that Germany's Reinheitsgesetz (beer purity law) is more important than its treatment of Jews in wartime. Bad things happen all the time, everywhere, in every country. They are to be expected and unavoidable -- and transient. The killing of the Jews, to the extent it wasn't necessary and deserved, is over, something we are beyond. But the beer purity law means great beer for all eternity, and as for the benefits of an alternative to Catholicism and the spoken word, why they are incalculable: Imagine a world where everyone had to bow to Pat Buchanan's boss, or an entertainment menu offering you a choice between Henry Rollins and Spaulding Gray. The Germans paved the way for wealth and thought to become real possibilities for the average man. As for the destruction of the Jews, well, I feel more sympathy for the Poles and the Ukrainians and the various partisans than the Jews; among other reasons, they whine less and they suffered more and they put up a braver fight. They absorbed their losses and moved on; only the Jews continue to whine, whine, whine. And when they stop whining, they tend to lie, I notice. The Germans had hundreds of thousands baked and broiled to death in pure-revenge fire attacks by British heroes of 30,000 feet who turned cities into ovens (I'd say gas chambers, were I a Holocaust-style promoter), and they don't whine about it. They had millions raped by Cossacks and they sucked it up. Cons like Churchill, puffing their cigars and grinning the big grin of the little boy with the big brother, laughed as they signed off on the transfer of millions -- yes, millions, literally millions -- of innocent Europeans eastward to knife-toothed Joe. These people were killed, yet who remembers them today? In short, like most Americans, I'm little concerned with Jewish suffering, and I disagree that Jews suffered more or worse than others, and I don't accept any responsibility for what went on in a foreign country in wartime sixty years ago. But Jews are free to cherish and nurse their illusions of persecution, just like everybody else. What I resent -- and what all normal white Americans ought to resent -- is Jewish chauvinist apologetics being forced on innocent American schoolchildren. It is a shame and a tragedy that Jewish political indoctrination in the form of inferior agitprop is so common in American classrooms. It ought to be weeded out. American schoolchildren deserve to be taught a higher standard of literature than Jews can produce.

American children would be better off reading Shelley's Frankenstein than Frank and Wiesel.

Got to Part 6

Back to VNN Main Page

Click Here!