Classic EssaysRevilo P. Oliver

America after the Holy War, part 2

read part 1

by Revilo P. Oliver

BOTH BRITISH AND Americans have always claimed to be humane and have loudly condemned unnecessary bloodshed, mass massacres, and sadistic delight in the infliction of pain, although one must now wonder whether those fine sentiments extend to members of their own race and are not instead restricted to their enemies, both civilized and savage, who will help them satisfy a morbid death-wish that has somehow been implanted in their diseased souls. However that may be, in 1945 their professions could still be credited without doubt, and that meant they would be stricken with remorse for a ferocious act of unmitigated savagery unparalleled in the history of our race and unsurpassed in the record of any race.

The bombing of the unfortified city of Dresden, nicely timed to insure an agonizing death to the maximum number of White women and children, has been accurately described by David Irving in The Destruction of Dresden (London, 1963), but the essentials of that sickening atrocity were known soon after it was perpetrated. To be sure, it is true that such an act might have been ordered by Hulagu, the celebrated Mongol who found pleasure in ordering the extermination of the population of all cities that did not open their gates to him — and of some that did — so that the severed heads of the inhabitants could be piled up into pyramids as perishable but impressive monuments to his glory. The Americans and British, however, deem themselves more civilized than Hulagu and less sadistic. And at the time that they, in their official policy of frightfulness and savagery, were incinerating their own blood brothers and sisters in Dresden, they were howling with indignation over the supposed extermination by the Germans of some millions of Jews, many of whom had taken the opportunity to crawl into the United States, and while Americans seem to feel a particular reverence for God’s People, one could have supposed in 1945 that when the hoax, devised to pep up the cattle that were being stampeded into Europe, was exposed, even Americans would feel some indignation at having been so completely bamboozled.

The prompt exposure of the bloody swindle seemed inevitable, particularly since the agents of the OSS, commonly known in military circles as the Office of Soviet Stooges, who had been dispatched to conquered Germany to set up gas chambers to lend some verisimilitude to the hoax, had been so lazy and feckless that they merely sent back pictures of shower baths, which were so absurd that they had to be suppressed to avoid ridicule. No one could have believed in 1945 that the lie would be used to extort thirty billion dollars from the helpless Germans and would be rammed into the minds of German children by uncouth American “educators” — or that civilized men would have to wait until 1950 for Paul Rassinier, who had been himself a prisoner in a German concentration camp, to challenge the infamous lie, or until 1976 for Professor Arthur Butz’s detailed and exhaustive refutation of the venomous imposture on Aryan credulity.

Germany, after a valiant and heroic defense against the forces of virtually the whole world that the Jews had mobilized against her, was forced to surrender in 1945, but with the American invasion of German territory began the innumerable atrocities against her civilian population — the atrocities against prisoners began even earlier — that have brought on our people the reputation of Attila’s hordes.

The outrages were innumerable and no one, so far as I know, has even tried to compile a list of typical incidents of rape and torture and mayhem and murder. Most of the unspeakable atrocities, it is true, were committed by savages and Jews in American uniforms, but many, it must be confessed, were perpetrated by Americans, louts from the dregs of our own society or normal men crazed with hatred. All victorious armies, it is true, contain elements that want to outrage the vanquished, and few commanders in “democratic” wars can maintain the tight discipline that made Wellington’s armies the marvels of Europe or the discipline that generally characterized the German armies in both World Wars; what so brands us with shame is that the atrocities were encouraged by our supreme commander in Europe, whose orders, presumably issued when he was not drunk or occupied with his doxies, made it difficult or hazardous for responsible American generals to observe what had been the rules of civilized warfare. Almost every American soldier in Germany had witnessed the barbarous treatment of the vanquished, the citizens of one of the greatest nations of Western civilization and our own kinsmen, and — despite the efforts to incite them to inhuman hate with Jewish propaganda — many of our soldiers witnessed such outrages with pity and shame. The cumulative effect of their reports when they returned to their own country should have been great.

It is needless to multiply examples, some of which may be found in FJP Veale’s Advance to Barbarism (London, 1953). I have, I believe, sufficiently explained my confidence, in 1945, that the following years would witness an inevitable reaction by the American people — a reaction far more intense and violent than the reaction that followed the First World War, which had been rather a kind of disillusion, since there were then no recognized culprits who could be called to account for indubitable and inexcusable crimes rather than vanity, folly, and venality.

In 1918 the reaction had been confused and aimless, diverted and distracted by marginal agitations. Unthinking persons, for example, perhaps influenced by Wilson’s idiotic phrase, “a war to end wars,” actually believed that the horrors of 1914-1918 proved that war was thenceforth impossible in the civilized world or, if not quite so fatuous, entertained wild fantasies that wars could be averted by a kind of solemn vaudeville show called the League of Nations or some other magic to be performed with scraps of paper spotted with meaningless verbiage. In the United States a motley gang of shysters and swindlers had exploited the uterine thinking of fat-headed females newly permitted to vote and the itch of professional holy men to yell in their pulpits, and the result had been a constitutional amendment that probably had the purpose, and certainly had the effect, of subsidizing organized crime and promoting a fusion of crime and politics. In 1945, however, there could be no mistake about responsibilities, about the natural function of war in civilization, or about the folly of the weird quasi-religious cult of humanitarians and self-styled “Liberals,” whose superstitions and ignorance had made them unwitting instruments of the basically criminal mass of parasites and looters that battened on Roosevelt’s “New Deal.”

Obviously, I sadly overestimated the intelligence of the American people — an error I was to commit often thereafter — and grossly underestimated the power of the Jews.

My generation thought of the Jews as pests rather than as an international race, and there were some Jews who were not Jews.

Persons who have grown up since 1945 will find it difficult to understand what we, who grew up around 1930, then took for granted but now seems inconceivable.

In the 1920s and 1930s there were a few Jews — very few in comparison with the millions that were in the United States even before the great influx under Roosevelt — who seemed to be Americans or Europeans and, without trying to disguise their racial origins, seemed to have so little in common with the majority of their race that one did not think of them as Jews. They had the manners of gentlemen, had apparently assimilated the traditions, learning, and spirit of our culture, and had evidently lost the intense racial consciousness that is the prime characteristic of Jews. If they felt (and even today I find it hard to believe that they did) the Jews’ contempt for the stupid Aryans and the other races that their tribal god or their innate superiority have made their natural subjects, they concealed that sentiment perfectly, and, when the question arose, expressed a well-bred contempt for the “Kikes,” the mass of crafty, industrious, instinctively dishonest, and naturally dirty aliens who were battening on our society and exploiting our Christian weakness, a foolish toleration of, and sympathy for, anything that whines.

Some of the civilized Jews were or claimed to be of Sephardic stock, and pointed out that the mass of parasites were Ashkenazim, not Semites at all but of Turko-Mongolian origin, and therefore not Jews by race, but only by having professed an obsolete and barbarous religion that educated men must regard with amusement. I well remember one gentleman who, with the careful courtesy with which a citizen of one country alludes to the shortcomings of another in conversation with one of its citizens, discoursed on the deplorable blunder of the Americans in admitting immigrants without discrimination in the nineteenth and early twentieth century, when we permitted an influx of such Jews from Poland and Russia, who had corrupted our entire society; and he marveled that Americans of that time, yielding to the greed of their capitalists and their own silly sentimentality, had not had the intelligence to impose at least a financial and educational test to exclude such human dregs. He was, of course, eminently right. Another man, speaking from his own bitter experience, commented on the disastrous and inevitable consequences of marriage between the children of civilized Jews and the children of Kikes who had cheated and clawed their way to wealth. And the Sephardic Jews, proud of their own ancestry, knew how many of the very wealthy Jews in New York City were really the “scum of the earth” despite their crude aping of civilized manners.

Civilized Jews never complained about “discrimination” or “persecution” (past or present) — it would have been preposterous if they had — and neither flaunted nor dissembled their race. They had (so far as one knew) no connection with synagogues or the other racial organizations of the Jews. I knew two who professed a Christian mysticism that was Mediaeval and at least partly aesthetic, but even those who listed themselves as Christians to mark their alienation from Jewry took the educated man’s attitude toward superstitions about the supernatural, and they were no more embarrassed by the Old Testament than the Celts of France and the British Isles today are embarrassed by the religion of the Druids and the sacrifices to Esus and Taranis that are so vividly described by Caesar. I never heard from them a word of sympathy for, or even toleration of, the Bolsheviks, and quite a few, more perceptive than most Americans, saw the need for Europeans to take military action to excise the cancer of Western civilization and destroy the pretensions of the Soviets by either placing the valuable parts of the former Russian Empire under civilized rule as colonies or at least rendering the barbarians powerless and leaving them to rot in their own filth.

There was a racial fact of which no one at the time seemed to appreciate the significance. With the exception of Sephardim who contracted marriages according to the aristocratic code of family alliances, none of the civilized Jews whom I knew was married to a Jewess. And, what is more important, while I knew or now remember nothing of the parents of many, of those whose parents I met or had been given some account, none, if memory serves me, was the son of a Jewess. Thus, although those men thought of themselves as Jews by race, according to the standards of the Jews, who obviously know much more about the hereditary transmission of racial traits than we do, they were not Jews at all. Having rejected the Jewish cult-practices, they rejected also the Jewish criterion of race, and were not perturbed thereby. Not perturbed, I mean, before the late 1930s, when the strident Jewish propaganda against Germany made their position increasingly uncomfortable.

The civilized Jews were, of course, a tiny minority among the members of their race in this country. No one in his senses and not willfully obtuse could overlook the disastrous consequences of the policy that is epitomized by the inscription on the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor: It is verse written by a Jewess and purports to praise the United States, but what it really says is, “World’s garbage disposal: dump your human refuse here.”

The Jews who infested the nation even before the mass importations under Roosevelt were clearly unassimilable and uncivilized aliens, but, as I have said, their actual power was clandestine and unnoticed, and one thought of them as pests, comparable, perhaps, to boll weevils in a cotton field or army worms among the corn. They were undoubtedly the principal source of a corruption of which the stench could not be ignored indefinitely. The comment that one heard so frequently under the “New Deal” expressed concisely the sentiments of many Americans: “We need a Hitler here.” The German statesman was often referred to sympathetically, with a smiling allusion to a product that was then widely advertised, as “The Dutch Cleanser” and his policy of encouraging the emigration of Jews from his country was so generally approved that, despite the lamentations of holy men, well-paid journalists, and sentimental women, the Jews were able to arouse only scant sympathy before they invented the hoax about “gas chambers” and the “extermination” of God’s Own People. The great mass of Jews, who obviously were what some of the more literate openly boasted they were, an “island within” and an alien nation lodged in the United States, whether they were small shopkeepers who, by their industry and craft, could usually undermine and drive out of business competing goyim, or mighty financiers, manipulating markets and subsidizing Bolsheviks, were an infection that the nation could not endure indefinitely, but, as I have said, they seemed entirely distinct from the civilized Jews.

Even today, I cannot believe that all or most of the civilized Jews were merely marranos. They were, however, the principal reason why very few Americans were aware of the racial solidarity of Jews or could imagine a Jewish “conspiracy,” however that word was defined. To be sure, there were in circulation pamphlets and booklets that made such allegations, but all of them — all, at least, that I saw — began with what Jesus said about “the synagogue of Satan,” “your father, the Devil,” etc., and were naturally discarded unread by persons who, unlike most Christians, had read and understood all of the New Testament and had noticed the passages in which the same Jesus is reported as having said quite different things.

One heard of the famous Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but regarded them as a fabrication on the grounds that no body of conspirators would be so foolish and rash as to describe in a written document the secret purposes of their conspiracy, which they presumably took for granted before meeting to forward it. More cogent was the veritable treatise that Henry Ford had published in installments in his magazine, The Dearborn Independent, but that was generally left unread, having been neutralized by one of the most adroit strokes of Jewish propaganda, the endlessly repeated attribution to him of a statement, “History is bunk,” that effectively identified him as an ignorant and uncouth misologist.

When one read the eminent conservative writers in French and German, men of the highest intellectual and literary attainments, their discussions of the Jewish problem were invariably limited to the nation of the writer and incorporated arguments in defense of religious and monarchical traditions that seemed to be irrelevant, for all practical purposes, to America. The most distinguished critics of the Jews in Europe were Charles Maurras and his collaborators of L’Action francaise, who were also the chiefs of a political movement that at one time included 75 per cent. of the university students in France and at least 200,000 Frenchmen of all social classes — a movement that seemed formidable in the early and middle 1920s, when the few followers of Hitler in Germany seemed comic to most observers. In the 1930s, however, it required no perspicacity to see that the political movement had been out-manoeuvred, and that, what was more important to an American, Maurras and his fellows, for all their brilliance, had trapped themselves intellectually in a pitfall from which there was no escape. One admired their literary culture and the sure rapier thrusts of polemics that reminded one of D’Artagnan and his three Mousquetaires, but one could hardly fail to see that their politics, taken as a whole, were sheer romanticism.

The great work on the Jewish question was Hitler’s Mein Kampf. It lacked the literary glitter and scintillating wit of the French polemicists, but also lacked their political romanticism. It was pedestrian in style and sober in content, and although it dealt specifically with a situation peculiar to Germany, it should have been cogent.

The failure of Mein Kampf to be more persuasive in the 1930s will seem strange today — except, of course, to the millions of boobs who have been conditioned to yap about a book they have never read — but is not inexplicable. It was the work of a political leader, whom an American almost automatically assimilated to the creature in our White House, who was generally said to have conscientious scruples against telling the truth and, at least, could not be suspected of veracity in the cunning spiels, called “Fireside Chats,” that he regularly broadcast over the radio to befuddle light-headed women and stupid men. It was easy to assume that when Hitler wrote the book as an almost unknown politician in 1924, he was making a calculated bid for power and so appealed to his compatriots’ justified resentment of the Jews’ looting of Germany after her catastrophic defeat in 1918. And perhaps everyone who had an intelligent interest in the Jewish problem had been influenced by Bernard Lazare, who was the Jews’ most effective apologist, although they show him no gratitude today and even denounce him as “anti-Semitic,” using the catachrestic and grossly misleading epithet that he did so much to fix in common use. His L’Antisemitisme (1893) was persuasive because he honestly acknowledged that the Jews have been, since the beginning of their history, the fomenters of sedition and trouble in the nations in which they have lodged themselves; he attributed their hostility toward their hosts and their solidarity to their barbaric religion, which could no longer impose on rational men; and he predicted a peaceful and seemingly reasonable solution to the problem, the eventual absorption of the Jews into our race.

Lazare was a learned man and seemed candid, and his book was accordingly influential. It was not generally known that he, after his probably innocent involvement in the Dreyfus affair, changed his mind and decided that the only feasible solution was the one that Hitler later tried to put into effect, i.e., the emigration from the nations of the West of all Jews — or, at least, all unwilling to join the nations in which they were residing — and their establishment in some area of the world in which their international nation would be geographically united and thus become a nation like the others in this world. In Lazare’s time the plan that Hitler later tried to carry out was called Zionism by its Jewish advocates.

Another factor in determining American attitudes was the fact that Jewish power was not openly displayed, and it was possible for an American to refer intelligently to the Jewish Problem even in our most respected publications, and to do so without fear of punishment.

In the period 1920-1940 there flourished at least half a dozen monthly periodicals of general circulation addressed to educated readers, that enjoyed a high prestige and had standards of literary excellence and culture that would be impossible today, although the names of one or two have survived as ghosts of a vanished past. For example, The Forum in March, 1926, published, with illustrative plates, Lothrop Stoddard’s summary of the great variety, in terms of physical anthropology, of racial strains, including the Negroid, that appear in Jews, thus posing a problem in genetics that remains unsolved, since the diverse physical types share a distinctive mentality. In January and February 1928, the Century published Marcus E. Ravage’s “Case Against the Jews,” surveying the extent of their subversion of our culture. And as late as June and July, 1941, the Atlantic Monthly published Albert Jay Neck’s demonstration that the Jews are an Oriental race, fundamentally incompatible with our race. Such articles in the foremost magazines, which could be purchased each month at any newsstand, were written without a polemic interest, it is true, but that was simply in keeping with our traditions of well-bred equanimity and courtesy, which Americans maintained when they believed themselves the dominant race in their own country, and they were written and published without trepidation, strange as that will seem to the American of today, who cowers at the thought that he might inadvertently offend his masters and be sternly chastised for his indiscretion.

So great was the confidence then felt in the essential stability of the United States that few Americans paid attention when a wealthy representative of Jewish finance, Samuel Untermeyer, in August 1933 declared, in the name of his international race, a Holy War against Germany, implying, however, that his people’s financial power over all the nations of the Western world would suffice to squash the insolent Aryans who wanted a country of their own. His speech, in which he said nothing about eventually stampeding herds of British and American goyim against the Teutonic goyim, was, if noticed at all, dismissed as mere rodomontade and, indeed, soon forgotten. The only man, so far as I can recall, who fully understood its significance at the time was a civilized Jew, who may have been of Sephardic ancestry but whose wife was a charming American woman. He was a prominent and reputedly honest attorney of about fifty, and in a moment of bitterness he said, “The world will never know peace so long as there are Jews. I have done my part: I have no children.” The statement, which, although triggered by Untermeyer’s speech, clearly represented a conclusion reached early in life, shocked me at the time and seemed a wildly emotional exaggeration, and it was only many years later that I perceived its tragic import.

When the war finally got under way in Europe and Roosevelt began to stir up simple-minded Americans with drivel about “quarantining aggressors,” observers generally concluded, not that he was a performing puppet of the Jews, but that he was serving his own dictatorial ambitions and using the aliens for his own revolutionary purposes. Intelligent people, however, did not fail to recognize the blatantly vicious propaganda for American participation in the European war as Jewish pollution of the American mind.

Paul Beshers, who had enjoyed a season of political prominence in the early 1930s as the exponent of a plan to relieve farmers by utilizing part of the corn crop for manufacture of alcohol which would be mixed with gasoline as fuel for automobiles, told me that he assured his Jewish acquaintances, “If you do get us into the European War, it won’t be long before men are shooting Jews on Michigan Avenue without a hunting license.” A cultivated Jew whom I knew was substantially in agreement: “If those crazy fanatics,” he said, “succeed in pushing the United States into a war against Germany because they have lost their dominant position there, they will have to leave this country fast after the war, and I am afraid we will have to go with them.” And in the late 1930s a Jew, whose name I have forgotten, published a bathetic novel of the future that was widely read and seemed prophetic: The Jews, having been expelled from every nation in the world, assemble as a multitude and begin a toilsome migration to the only area on Earth left open to them, the most sparsely inhabited and desolate part of Siberia.

It must not be thought that the Jews gained favor from Americans during the war that was, in reality, fought for their pleasure. On the contrary, one heard everywhere a growing resentment that was merely biding its time until the end of the war. In the Army and Navy there was only resentment that the “Son of a Bitch” in the White House not only lavished on Jews spurious commissions in the OSS but actually thrust them into the legitimate military with direct commissions and usually with some special function that insured them against damage to their hides. Jews were Bolsheviks, of course, and therefore agents of the Soviet (some even unintentionally, for while they might have refused direct help to the Soviets, the latter had only to send a Jewish agent to speak to them about the “plight of Our People” to learn everything they knew), but it was thought, on the whole, likely that they could provisionally be trusted in a war against the Soviets’ enemy — and after that war, there would be a purge that would leave us prepared for whatever action might be necessary to put our real enemies in their place.

Civilians who had much contact with the hordes of “refugees” made their own observations. Academic circles were expected to recognize Hitler’s bootmark on coat-tails as the highest scholarly distinction, and many a Jew who claimed to have been an Ordinarius in a German university turned out to have been, at most, a Privatdozent and sometimes merely a graduate student. Many a business man charitably gave a job to a poor, unfortunate refugee, who, as soon as he had learned the business and studied the community, produced a hundred thousand dollars or so from one pocket and bought out the man’s competitor. Many Jews let it be known that they resented the bigotry of Americans who did not at once yield their positions when their superiors arrived. Not all refugees, to be sure, behaved thus, but the difference in racial mentalities inevitably made itself felt. And many of the Jews who had long resided in our country saw in the war an opportunity for looting and for exhibiting their arrogance.

In the teeming bureaucracy in Washington, it would be hard to say which set of Jews was considered the more offensive, although I did hear of an immigrant who, made the head of a department in a lie-factory, listened to his goyim servants, who protested that a particular piece of propaganda about German atrocities was so rankly incredible that even ignorant Americans wouldn’t believe it, took the cigar from his mouth, and complacently remarked, “We speet in die fazes uff die American schwine.” At all events, when Roosevelt died, the general rejoicing in the bureaucracy was augmented by a rumor, based on remarks that Truman was said to have made in private, that the inauguration of the new president would be the beginning of a great house-cleaning.

With the kind of humor that is peculiar to administrative circles in Washington, such comments were made over cocktails as, “I hear that the Pennsylvania Railroad is rising to the occasion. Immediately after the inauguration, through trains to the Bronx will leave Union Station every ten minutes, and the parlor cars will have Yiddish-speaking attendants.” That is the kindest quip I recall; when the roseate expectations were disappointed, the jokes became more acerbic.

No informed person paid any attention to the nonsense about “extermination” of Jews in Germany that began to be disseminated widely near the end of the war: That was just hokum to pep up the populace, like the “Atlantic Charter” (supposedly drawn up and signed by Churchill and Roosevelt at some conspiratorial meeting on a battleship), which was, of course, a fiction, although purported copies of it were printed and profitably sold to the suckers. And naturally one never heard from responsible persons adverse criticism of the German policy toward Jews during the war, which was simply what one would expect in a country not governed by morons.

Today one occasionally hears from silly sentimentalists regret for the treatment of Japanese in this country after Pearl Harbor. They were all interned in concentration camps in keeping with an obvious military necessity. It is likely, indeed, that there were some Japanese who were not spies and who would not have sabotaged railways, power lines, or whatever else they could reach, but there was no possible way of identifying them. Had the Japanese not been interned for the duration of the war, it would have been necessary to consider every one of them an enemy agent and keep him under surveillance — and it requires no acumen to estimate the magnitude of that impossible task. It is meaningless to talk of “injustice” to individuals. It is one of the simple facts of life on this planet that members of a race or nation must usually participate in the common fate of the group to which they belong. The German children whom we burned to death in Dresden and other cities can have been guilty only of having been born in a nation that could not stand off the rest of the world and that had been so simple-minded as to assume that the British and Americans had honor or humanity when serving in a Jewish Holy War.

In Germany, when the war began, every Jew was a potential enemy, and the remarkable thing is that the Germans were less thorough in dealing with their resident aliens than we were. Had they interned every Jew in concentration camps, they would have taken the minimum precautions for their own safety. Had they failed to intern their domestic enemies, they might as well have surrendered before firing a shot. This, of course, does not take account of what seems to be the general belief of Americans today, that Jews, being God’s People, are correct in believing that they are a vastly superior race whom it is an honor for an Aryan to serve and obey. On that supposition, the Germans should never have tried to emancipate themselves from their divinely ordained masters. That view, however, was not generally held by Americans in 1945.

I did not then anticipate so drastic a solution as that suggested by the Jewish novelist of the future exodus, but I did think it likely that when the American people discovered what had been done to them, the Jews, perhaps including some who were innocent, would be well advised to flee to their own country, the former Russian Empire, which they had subverted and captured in 1917-1919. But l did not think of the international race as a world power, greater than any nation of our people. l did not even regard them as ultimately responsible for the war, as distinct from the unfortunate form that war had taken. In this I can claim to have shared the common error of our people, here and in Europe, before that war. When one reads Spengler today, for example, one marvels that no account is taken of Jewish forces on the history of any civilization, ancient or modern. But before 1940, unless I am much mistaken, no reader in England or the United States noticed the omission — not even if he noticed Spengler’s failure adequately to measure the influence of biological race.

(to be continued)

read part 1

* * *

Source: America’s Decline

Previous post

Foreigners Get the Franchise

Next post

Joining the Cause of White Renewal

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
2 Comments
Inline Feedback
View all comments
ulysses freire da paz jr
ulysses freire da paz jr
14 January, 2022 10:36 am

“Persons who have grown up since 1945 will find it difficult to understand what we, who grew up around 1930, then took for granted but now seems inconceivable.” (https://dailyarchives.org/index.php/archives/4892-loyalty-for-loyalty?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=notification&utm_id=755541)

comment image

Loyalty is my honour 
(https://katana17.com/2016/11/02/book-the-myth-of-german-villainy-part-10-national-socialism-vs-communism/)

comment image 

comment image 

The real spirit of traditional European religions — and of Cosmotheism — is contained in the blood of our folk wherever it extends through space and time.
(https://nationalvanguard.org/2020/05/nation-race-blood-and-faith/)

Howard
Howard
16 January, 2022 4:36 pm

“BOTH BRITISH AND Americans have always claimed to be humane and have loudly condemned unnecessary bloodshed, mass massacres, and sadistic delight in the infliction of pain, although one must now wonder whether those fine sentiments extend to members of their own race and are not instead restricted to their enemies, both civilized and savage, who will help them satisfy a morbid death-wish that has somehow been implanted in their diseased souls.” Yeah, you do have to kind of wonder whether or not those particular sentiments (of humane feelings and lack of bloodshed) actually do exist; just today, we found out that a ‘British citizen’ has invaded a ‘sacred’ synagogue of our friends and good neighbors of the chosen Kikes, in Texas. “The suspect, who died in the incident when an… Read more »