First Blood


I don’t want anyone to get the idea I am taking a Jews word for history because nothing  would be further from the truth. I use Jewish articles to prove their hypocrisy and I use my own history to prove who they are. Sure enough as things like these articles come out you will find the subverters working on the exact same subject on their websites to keep their lies alive and well. As the truth comes out the lies come out louder and clearer. To trust a Jew on history is thee most hypocritical thing one can do. This gives the false pretense that only Jews know history when the truth is Jews have been the age old destroyers of true history.

Here is another pilpilist hair brained history of the so called Jewish race. I will point out the hypocrisies in bold and comment below. All you need is the common sense to see the difference between whites and Jews. When 2 whites have a child together, the child is white, however when any two people have a child with a Jewish woman it is a Jew and whenever the daughter of that mixed couple has a child it is still a Jew. Therefore, A Black and a Jewess can have a child and it is a Jew, that child (if a female) can then mate with an Indian and it is a Jew and so on and so forth.

Again, 2 whites have a baby white, one Jewish woman and any species capable of reproduction and it is a Jew (according to Jews). However Jew DNA is in anyone who is the offspring of a Jew man or a Jew woman (notice I didn’t say “Jewish”- a whole other game). One thing is for sure that we know- a pure white has no Jew DNA or ancestry and a Jew has mixed ancestry. The ancestry of Judah went through Tamar a pure Israelite and also had children with the daughter of Shua, a Canaanite woman. None of them were ever accepted into the lineage of the Israelites.

Saadia Gaon claimed to be of Judah through his Canaanite wife

Keep in mind that none of this racial lineage is ever spoken of in an open forum. I’ve been studying Jews for decades and not once have I ever heard the Canaanite woman Judah had children with discussed anywhere in the media or on any internet radio stations. How is it that Judah and all the 12 tribes practiced racial purity with their own kind when they were the first of the Israelites? How can you have racial purity outside your so called race? You cant and they didn’t. Jews are mixed people and whites are not. Whites are a race, Jews are not. It’s common sense folks and it hurts people, but the truth is the truth. The question this article focuses on is “Who is a Jew”, but the real question people should be asking is “What is a Jew?”.

From the Forward

Jews Are a ‘Race,’ Genes Reveal

Author Uncovers DNA Links Between Members of Tribe

montage kurt hoffman

By Jon Entine

Published May 04, 2012, issue of May 11, 2012.

Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People
By Harry Ostrer
Oxford University Press, 288 Pages, $24.95

In his new book, “Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People,” Harry Ostrer, a medical geneticist and professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, claims that Jews are different, and the differences are not just skin deep. Jews exhibit, he writes, a distinctive genetic signature. Considering that the Nazis tried to exterminate Jews based on their supposed racial distinctiveness, such a conclusion might be a cause for concern. But Ostrer sees it as central to Jewish identity.

“Who is a Jew?” has been a poignant question for Jews throughout our history. It evokes a complex tapestry of Jewish identity made up of different strains of religious beliefs, cultural practices and blood ties to ancient Palestine and modern Israel. But the question, with its echoes of genetic determinism, also has a dark side.

Geneticists have long been aware that certain diseases, from breast cancer to Tay-Sachs, disproportionately affect Jews. Ostrer, who is also director of genetic and genomic testing at Montefiore Medical Center, goes further, maintaining that Jews are a homogeneous group with all the scientific trappings of what we used to call a “race.”

For most of the 3,000-year history of the Jewish people, the notion of what came to be known as “Jewish exceptionalism” was hardly controversial. Because of our history of inmarriage and cultural isolation, imposed or self-selected, Jews were considered by gentiles (and usually referred to themselves) as a “race.” Scholars from Josephus to Disraeli proudly proclaimed their membership in “the tribe.”

Ostrer explains how this concept took on special meaning in the 20th century, as genetics emerged as a viable scientific enterprise. Jewish distinctiveness might actually be measurable empirically. In “Legacy,” he first introduces us to Maurice Fishberg, an upwardly mobile Russian-Jewish immigrant to New York at the fin de siècle. Fishberg fervently embraced the anthropological fashion of the era, measuring skull sizes to explain why Jews seemed to be afflicted with more diseases than other groups — what he called the “peculiarities of the comparative pathology of the Jews.” It turns out that Fishberg and his contemporary phrenologists were wrong: Skull shape provides limited information about human differences. But his studies ushered in a century of research linking Jews to genetics.

Ostrer divides his book into six chapters representing the various aspects of Jewishness: Looking Jewish, Founders, Genealogies, Tribes, Traits and Identity. Each chapter features a prominent scientist or historical figure who dramatically advanced our understanding of Jewishness. The snippets of biography lighten a dense forest of sometimes-obscure science. The narrative, which consists of a lot of potboiler history, is a slog at times. But for the specialist and anyone touched by the enduring debate over Jewish identity, this book is indispensable.

“Legacy” may cause its readers discomfort. To some Jews, the notion of a genetically related people is an embarrassing remnant of early Zionism that came into vogue at the height of the Western obsession with race, in the late 19th century. Celebrating blood ancestry is divisive, they claim: The authors of “The Bell Curve” were vilified 15 years ago for suggesting that genes play a major role in IQ differences among racial groups.

Furthermore, sociologists and cultural anthropologists, a disproportionate number of whom are Jewish, ridicule the term “race,” claiming there are no meaningful differences between ethnic groups. For Jews, the word still carries the especially odious historical association with Nazism and the Nuremberg Laws. They argue that Judaism has morphed from a tribal cult into a worldwide religion enhanced by thousands of years of cultural traditions.

Is Judaism a people or a religion? Or both? The belief that Jews may be psychologically or physically distinct remains a controversial fixture in the gentile and Jewish consciousness, and Ostrer places himself directly in the line of fire. Yes, he writes, the term “race” carries nefarious associations of inferiority and ranking of people. Anything that marks Jews as essentially different runs the risk of stirring either anti- or philo-Semitism. But that doesn’t mean we can ignore the factual reality of what he calls the “biological basis of Jewishness” and “Jewish genetics.” Acknowledging the distinctiveness of Jews is “fraught with peril,” but we must grapple with the hard evidence of “human differences” if we seek to understand the new age of genetics.

Although he readily acknowledges the formative role of culture and environment, Ostrer believes that Jewish identity has multiple threads, including DNA. He offers a cogent, scientifically based review of the evidence, which serves as a model of scientific restraint.

“On the one hand, the study of Jewish genetics might be viewed as an elitist effort, promoting a certain genetic view of Jewish superiority,” he writes. “On the other, it might provide fodder for anti-Semitism by providing evidence of a genetic basis for undesirable traits that are present among some Jews. These issues will newly challenge the liberal view that humans are created equal but with genetic liabilities.”

Jews, he notes, are one of the most distinctive population groups in the world because of our history of endogamy. Jews — Ashkenazim in particular — are relatively homogeneous despite the fact that they are spread throughout Europe and have since immigrated to the Americas and back to Israel. The Inquisition shattered Sephardi Jewry, leading to far more incidences of intermarriage and to a less distinctive DNA.

In traversing this minefield of the genetics of human differences, Ostrer bolsters his analysis with volumes of genetic data, which are both the book’s greatest strength and its weakness. Two complementary books on this subject — my own “Abraham’s Children: Race, Identity, and the DNA of the Chosen People” and “Jacob’s Legacy: A Genetic View of Jewish History” by Duke University geneticist David Goldstein, who is well quoted in both “Abraham’s Children” and “Legacy” — are more narrative driven, weaving history and genetics, and are consequently much more congenial reads.

The concept of the “Jewish people” remains controversial. The Law of Return, which establishes the right of Jews to come to Israel, is a central tenet of Zionism and a founding legal principle of the State of Israel. The DNA that tightly links Ashkenazi, Sephardi and Mizrahi, three prominent culturally and geographically distinct Jewish groups, could be used to support Zionist territorial claims — except, as Ostrer points out, some of the same markers can be found in Palestinians, our distant genetic cousins, as well. Palestinians, understandably, want their own right of return.

That disagreement over the meaning of DNA also pits Jewish traditionalists against a particular strain of secular Jewish liberals that has joined with Arabs and many non-Jews to argue for an end to Israel as a Jewish nation. Their hero is Shlomo Sand, an Austrian-born Israeli historian who reignited this complex controversy with the 2008 publication of “The Invention of the Jewish People.”

Sand contends that Zionists who claim an ancestral link to ancient Palestine are manipulating history. But he has taken his thesis from novelist Arthur Koestler’s 1976 book, “The Thirteenth Tribe,” which was part of an attempt by post-World War II Jewish liberals to reconfigure Jews not as a biological group, but as a religious ideology and ethnic identity.

The majority of the Ashkenazi Jewish population, as Koestler, and now Sand, writes, are not the children of Abraham but descendants of pagan Eastern Europeans and Eurasians, concentrated mostly in the ancient Kingdom of Khazaria in what is now Ukraine and Western Russia. The Khazarian nobility converted during the early Middle Ages, when European Jewry was forming.

Although scholars challenged Koestler’s and now Sand’s selective manipulation of the facts — the conversion was almost certainly limited to the tiny ruling class and not to the vast pagan population — the historical record has been just fragmentary enough to titillate determined critics of Israel, who turned both Koestler’s and Sand’s books into roaring best-sellers.

Fortunately, re-creating history now depends not only on pottery shards, flaking manuscripts and faded coins, but on something far less ambiguous: DNA. Ostrer’s book is an impressive counterpoint to the dubious historical methodology of Sand and his admirers. And, as a co-founder of the Jewish HapMap — the study of haplotypes, or blocks of genetic markers, that are common to Jews around the world — he is well positioned to write the definitive response.

In accord with most geneticists, Ostrer firmly rejects the fashionable postmodernist dismissal of the concept of race as genetically naive, opting for a more nuanced perspective.

When the human genome was first mapped a decade ago, Francis Collins, then head of the National Genome Human Research Institute, said: “Americans, regardless of ethnic group, are 99.9% genetically identical.” Added J. Craig Venter, who at the time was chief scientist at the private firm that helped sequenced the genome, Celera Genomics, “Race has no genetic or scientific basis.” Those declarations appeared to suggest that “race,” or the notion of distinct but overlapping genetic groups, is “meaningless.”

But Collins and Venter have issued clarifications of their much-misrepresented comments. Almost every minority group has faced, at one time or another, being branded as racially inferior based on a superficial understanding of how genes peculiar to its population work. The inclination by politicians, educators and even some scientists to underplay our separateness is certainly understandable. But it’s also misleading. DNA ensures that we differ not only as individuals, but also as groups.

However slight the differences (and geneticists now believe that they are significantly greater than 0.1%), they are defining. That 0.1% contains some 3 million nucleotide pairs in the human genome, and these determine such things as skin or hair color and susceptibility to certain diseases. They contain the map of our family trees back to the first modern humans.

Both the human genome project and disease research rest on the premise of finding distinguishable differences between individuals and often among populations. Scientists have ditched the term “race,” with all its normative baggage, and adopted more neutral terms, such as “population” and “clime,” which have much of the same meaning. Boiled down to its essence, race equates to “region of ancestral origin.”

Ostrer has devoted his career to investigating these extended family trees, which help explain the genetic basis of common and rare disorders. Today, Jews remain identifiable in large measure by the 40 or so diseases we disproportionately carry, the inescapable consequence of inbreeding. He traces the fascinating history of numerous “Jewish diseases,” such as Tay-Sachs, Gaucher, Niemann-Pick, Mucolipidosis IV, as well as breast and ovarian cancer. Indeed, 10 years ago I was diagnosed as carrying one of the three genetic mutations for breast and ovarian cancer that mark my family and me as indelibly Jewish, prompting me to write “Abraham’s Children.”

Like East Asians, the Amish, Icelanders, Aboriginals, the Basque people, African tribes and other groups, Jews have remained isolated for centuries because of geography, religion or cultural practices. It’s stamped on our DNA. As Ostrer explains in fascinating detail, threads of Jewish ancestry link the sizable Jewish communities of North America and Europe to Yemenite and other Middle Eastern Jews who have relocated to Israel, as well as to the black Lemba of southern Africa and to India’s Cochin Jews. But, in a twist, the links include neither the Bene Israel of India nor Ethiopian Jews. Genetic tests show that both groups are converts, contradicting their founding myths.

Why, then, are Jews so different looking, usually sharing the characteristics of the surrounding populations? Think of red-haired Jews, Jews with blue eyes or the black Jews of Africa. Like any cluster — a genetic term Ostrer uses in place of the more inflammatory “race” — Jews throughout history moved around and fooled around, although mixing occurred comparatively infrequently until recent decades. Although there are identifiable gene variations that are common among Jews, we are not a “pure” race. The time machine of our genes may show that most Jews have a shared ancestry that traces back to ancient Palestine but, like all of humanity, Jews are mutts.

About 80% of Jewish males and 50% of Jewish females trace their ancestry back to the Middle East. The rest entered the “Jewish gene pool” through conversion or intermarriage. Those who did intermarry often left the faith in a generation or two, in effect pruning the Jewish genetic tree. But many converts became interwoven into the Jewish genealogical line. Reflect on the iconic convert, the biblical Ruth, who married Boaz and became the great-grandmother of King David. She began as an outsider, but you don’t get much more Jewish than the bloodline of King David!

To his credit, Ostrer also addresses the third rail of discussions about Jewishness and race: the issue of intelligence. Jews were latecomers to the age of freethinking. While the Enlightenment swept through Christian Europe in the 17th century, the Haskalah did not gather strength until the early 19th century. By the beginning of the new millennium, however, Jews were thought of as among the smartest people on earth. The trend is most prominent in America, which has the largest concentration of Jews outside Israel and a history of tolerance.

Although Jews make up less than 3% of the population, they have won more than 25% of the Nobel Prizes awarded to American scientists since 1950. Jews also account for 20% of this country’s chief executives and make up 22% of Ivy League students. Psychologists and educational researchers have pegged their average IQ at 107.5 to 115, with their verbal IQ at more than 120, a stunning standard deviation above the average of 100 found in those of European ancestry. Like it or not, the IQ debate will become an increasingly important issue going forward, as medical geneticists focus on unlocking the mysteries of the brain.

Many liberal Jews maintain, at least in public, that the plethora of Jewish lawyers, doctors and comedians is the product of our cultural heritage, but the science tells a more complex story. Jewish success is a product of Jewish genes as much as of Jewish moms.

Is it “good for the Jews” to be exploring such controversial subjects? We can’t avoid engaging the most challenging questions in the age of genetics. Because of our history of endogamy, Jews are a goldmine for geneticists studying human differences in the quest to cure disease. Because of our cultural commitment to education, Jews are among the top genetic researchers in the world.

As humankind becomes more genetically sophisticated, identity becomes both more fluid and more fixed. Jews in particular can find threads of our ancestry literally anywhere, muddying traditional categories of nationhood, ethnicity, religious belief and “race.” But such discussions, ultimately, are subsumed by the reality of the common shared ancestry of humankind. Ostrer’s “Legacy” points out that — regardless of the pros and cons of being Jewish — we are all, genetically, in it together. And, in doing so, he gets it just right.

Jon Entine is the founder and director of the Genetic Literacy Project at George Mason University, where he is senior research fellow at the Center for Health and Risk Communication. His website is

Jews are mutts! That is the only truthful thing said in this entire piece. Jews are not Israelites because Israelites were a pure people straight back to Adam. It really doesn’t matter what Jews say is my point. They are going to make sure whatever you have to say is never heard because Jews decide what they are and what you are. You have no say whatsoever. In other words you wont be getting the truth.
It is obvious Jews have enmity with whites and have for thousands of years. This we know is a fact of  history if we study our own. The world was on an even keel when whites were in control. I don’t recall whites enslaving anyone in the Jewish slave sense (just look at the last people on earth guilty of this). Now Jews are in control and the entire planet is about to erupt in pure chaos in every category. Go ahead and follow Jews, bring Jews into your homes, trust them, but understand that you would never bring a wolf into a pasture of sheep and expect those sheep not to become dinner. Oddly enough that old biblical cliché, unbelievable to most, stands as true today as it was for as long as true history records (the other history as Ted Pike might put it). If you don’t identify them as wolves you threaten us all.
Here you have a very recent post on what a jew is and it is nothing but contradictory jewish hogwash. If Mark Glenn linked to it it is more than 95% likely to be hogwash and it indeed is.
Removed two of my comments. This site has all the bells and whistles, colors, etc. The truth stands on its own.
My comments have been resurrected now.  This is one of those sites linked with the faggot over at Wake Up From Your Slumber  (not the original owner who was great) the current owner. He is dedicated to Palestinians, but hates people who speak out against Jews in the USA. This is the dirty crowd that infiltrated the USS Liberty movement (all people who hate the US military and love them at the same time). Hypocrites folks! In a word, Druze. Some Druze appear to be wide open to free speech and some true truth telling Americans seem to be hidden, but it isn’t always the way it seems. The truth is some (many) of these shills that put their fat faces in front of you run like they just saw a ghost when they are confronted with the truth. You have wide open comments to say what you want here, but the Ugly Truthers take only comments that make their sites look like everyone loves them. I don’t want everyone to love me here. In fact I want Jews to hate me with a passion (and all their pals too). Jews hate truth more than anything on earth.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to First Blood

  1. melgibstein says:

    Just in Dec 30 2012- are jews starting to tell the truth? If Jews add truth they increase the poison as well.

    New Study Shows YU Researcher, Others Appear To Have Cooked The Genetic Books To ‘Prove’ Middle Eastern Origin Of The Jewish People When One May Not Really Exist

    Khazaria_map_from_600_till_850″The various groups of Jews in the world today do not share a common genetic origin. We are talking here about groups that are very heterogeneous and which are connected solely by religion…[the] genome of European Jews is a mosaic of ancient peoples and its origin is largely Khazar.”

    Originally published at 9:36 pm CST 12-29-2012

    New Study Shows Yeshiva University Researcher, Others Appear To Have Cooked The Genetic Books To ‘Prove’ Middle Eastern Origin Of The Jewish People When One May Not Really Exist
    Shmarya Rosenberg •

    “My research refutes 40 years of genetic studies, all of which have assumed that the Jews constitute a group that is genetically isolated from other nations,” Dr. Eran Elhaik says.

    That’s because Jews were never genetically isolated, making those other studies fatally flawed and very often contradictory.

    Now Elhaik, in a study that is being called more profound than all of those that came before his combined, has exposed that fatal flaw and is the first to propose a viable way resolve those contradictions, Ha’aretz reports.

    The answer to the origin of the Jewish people Elhaik found is startling – for most of us, out Jewish origins really do begin with the Khazars, the Medieval central Asian people whose ruling elite (and perhaps its merchant class, as well) converted to Judaism.

    The 32-year-old does his work at the School of Public Health of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. His study was published earlier this month as, The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses, in the prestigious journal, Genome Biology and Evolution, which is published by Oxford University Press. This study is based on a complete analysis of the comprehensive genetic data published in preceding studies.

    But in the absence of genetic data for the long-lost Khazars themselves, Elhaik uses a procedure often used by researchers in his field – he used data from populations that are genetically similar to the Khazars, including Georgians, Armenians and Caucasians, populations that Elhaik says have all come from the same genetic soup.

    When doing so Elhaik discovered what he calls the Khazar component of European Jewry.

    According to his study’s findings, the dominant element in the genetic makeup of European Jews is Khazar. Among Central European Jews, this makes up the largest part of their genome, 38%. For East European Jews it does the same, at 30%.

    Elhaik found that European Jews genome is mostly Western European.

    “[They are] primarily of Western European origin, which is rooted in the Roman Empire, and Middle Eastern origin, whose source is probably Mesopotamia, although it is possible that part of that component can be attributed to Israeli Jews,” he told Ha’aretz by phone from Maryland.

    That possibility is important because, if it turns out to be true, it could connect European Jews to Israel. However, even if it is true, that connection is only a tiny part of the overall genome, a percentage so small that it would reportedly not be statistically significant enough to show that the origin of the Jews is the Kingdom of Judah in the biblical Land of Israel.

    But Elhaik’s study did find that there is a genetic continuum linking the Jews of Iran, the Caucasus, Azerbaijan and Georgia with the European Jews. These groups could share common ancestors – probably the Khazars.

    Elhaik says that among the various groupings of European and non-European Jews there is no common genetic origin.

    “The various groups of Jews in the world today do not share a common genetic origin. We are talking here about groups that are very heterogeneous and which are connected solely by religion…[the] genome of European Jews is a mosaic of ancient peoples and its origin is largely Khazar,” he told Ha’aretz.

    But what about other much-publicized studies which claim to show common genetic descent for Jews?

    Many of these papers and books were written by noted professors and published by respected academic journals and publishers – for example, for example, Oxford University Press published, “Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People,” by Yeshiva University’s Dr. Harry Ostrer, who teaches in the departments of pathology, genetics and pediatrics in the university’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine. He argues that genetics prove the Jews are one people with a Middle Eastern origin.

    Ostrer found no significant evidence for a connection between the Jews and the Khazars. According to Ostrer, genetically Jews are closer to Palestinians, Bedouin and Druze than to the Khazars.

    How could Ostrer and so many others have reached conclusions that are co very different from Elhaik’s?

    Simple, Elhaik says. First these researchers decided what conclusion they wanted to find, and then they set off to find evidence to support it.

    “[Their research] has no empirical basis, sometimes even contradicts itself and offers conclusions that are simply not convincing…It is my impression that their results were written before they began the research. First they shot their arrow – and then they painted the bull’s-eye around it,” Elhaik said.

    “The majority of Jews do not have the Middle Eastern genetic component in the quantity we would expect to find if they were descendants of the Jews of antiquity,” he said.

    To Elhaik, there is no uniquely Jewish gene because each human being is a genetic amalgam, and no population group has ever lived in total isolation from other population groups.

    Haaretz says that it asked a number of scholars from Israel and the Diaspora – both historians and geneticists – what they thought about Elhaik’s article.

    All of the historians declined to comment on Elhaik’s work, arguing that they were not geneticists and lacked the expertise needed to comment on his work.

    But every one of the geneticists Ha’aretz contacted also refused to comment.

    Some ignored Haaretz’s request and never answered at all. Other geneticists claimed they were unfamiliar with population research and therefore could not answer. Still others claimed they lacked the time needed to answer the question.

    The only scholar who answered Ha’aretz’s question was Tel Aviv University professor of history Shlomo Sand.

    Sand wrote the book “The Invention of the Jewish People.” It has now been translated into 22 languages, despite what was until Elhaik’s work was published a stacked deck of genetic research that opposed it.

    Sand has tough words for geneticists looking for Jewish genes.

    “For an ignoramus like me, genetics had always appeared to be crowned with a halo – as a precise science that deals with quantitative findings and whose conclusions are irrefutable. [But] I discovered geneticists – Jewish geneticists – whose knowledge of history ended at what was necessary for their high-school matriculation exams. Which is how I would describe my knowledge of biology. In high school they had learned that there is one Jewish nation, and, on the basis of this historical narrative, they reconstruct their scholarly findings,” Sand told Ha’aretz.

    But what really concerns Sand most is the misuse of genetics to characterize people or nations – something the Nazis did with glee and Sand rightly labels as “dangerous.”

    “[I]n the past, anyone who defined the Jews as a race was vilified as an anti-Semite, today anyone who is unprepared to define them as a race is labeled an antisemite.

    “I used to think that only in such disciplines as history and literature can facts be given various interpretations, but I then discovered that the same thing is done in genetics. It is very easy to showcase certain findings while marginalizing others and to present your study as scholarly research. In general, specialization in genetics can create an incredibly high level of ignorance in history,” Sand pointed out.

    Now everyone is mixed? The question is who is mixed with whom? Because Jews have some white DNA doesnt mean they are white. Arabs have some white DNA, Druze have Arab, Jew and white DNA, but a white only has white DNA. Its common sense folks. If you are white and you married a white woman you have a perfect chance you will have a white baby. If two Jews have a baby, the truth is anything could come out because they are the most mixed people on the earth. The Bible could not be written for Jews in a million years, that is if you actually read it and quit taking the Judeo worlds view on it.

  2. imeetmylove says: is the blog of a Toronto jewess called Barb, who tries to pass as a Palestinian Arab Muslim.

  3. 卍の独楽猫 says:

    Re: “the faggot over at Wake Up From Your Slumber (not the original owner who was great)”

    I see a lot of garbage here about how Hitler was masonic/pro-masonic:

    In fact he was anti-masonic, and blamed the war on jews and freemasons.

    “Wake Up”s disinfo comes from the trashy “Hitler’s Table Talk” fictitious memoirs.

    (“The Voice of Destruction: Conversations with Hitler 1940”, p. 240)

    Even jewbopedia can’t sel Rauschenberg’s trash:

    “Hermann Rauschning (7 August 1887 – February 8, 1982) was a German Conservative Revolutionary who briefly joined the Nazis before breaking with them. In 1934 he renounced Nazi party membership and in 1936 emigrated from Germany (eventually settling in United States) and began openly denouncing Nazism. Rauschning is chiefly known for his book Gespräche mit Hitler (Conversations with Hitler) US title Voice of Destruction, UK title Hitler Speaks, in which he claimed to have many meetings and conversations with Hitler.”

    “The authenticity of the discussions Rauschning claims to have had with Hitler between 1932 and 1934, which form the basis of his book Hitler Speaks, was challenged shortly after Rauschning’s death by Swiss researcher Wolfgang Hänel. Hänel investigated the memoir and announced his findings at a conference of the revisionist association Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt in 1983.

    “Hänel declared that Gespräche mit Hitler (the German title of Hitler Speaks) was a fraud and that the book has no value “except as a document of Allied war propaganda”[page needed] and concluded that:

    * Rauschning’s claim to have met with Hitler “more than a hundred times” was a lie[page needed]

    * that the two actually met only four times, and never alone[page needed]

    * words attributed to Hitler were simply invented or plagiarized from many different sources, including the writings of Ernst Jünger and Friedrich Nietzsche; and an

    * account of Hitler hearing voices, waking at night with convulsive shrieks and pointing in terror at an empty corner while shouting “There, there, in the corner!” was taken from a short story by French writer Guy de Maupassant (Le Horla).[page needed]

    “Hänel based his book upon a tape-recorded interview that he had led in 1981 with Emery Reves, publisher of the original French edition of Hitler speaks (which had been entitled Hitler m’a dit) who had commissioned the book from Rauschning in 1939. In this interview, Reves contended that penniless Rauschning’s main reason for agreeing to write Hitler speaks was the 125,000 Francs advance, and, referring to preliminary talks with Rauschning in 1939 where he had agreed with the author on what themes and personality traits to apply to Hitler, considered it as largely fabrication.

    “The Encyclopedia of the Third Reich also considers that “The research of the Swiss educator Wolfgang Hänel has made it clear that the ‘conversations’ were mostly free inventions.”

    “The non-revisionist historian Hugh Trevor-Roper’s initial view that the conversations recorded in Hitler Speaks were authentic also wavered as a result of the Hänel research. Whilst, in the introductory essay he wrote for Hitler’s Table Talk in 1953 he had said:

    “”Hitler’s own table talk in the crucial years of the Machtergreifung (1932-34), as briefly recorded by Hermann Rauschning, so startled the world (which could not even in 1939 credit him with either such ruthlessness or such ambitions) that it was for long regarded as spurious. It is now, I think, accepted. If any still doubt its genuineness, they will hardly do so after reading the volume now published. For here is the official, authentic record of Hitler’s Table-Talk almost exactly ten years after the conversations recorded by Rauschning”.

    “in the third edition, published in 2000, he wrote a new preface in which he did revise, though not reverse, his opinion of the authenticity of Hitler Speaks:

    “”I would not now endorse so cheerfully the authority of Hermann Rauschning which has been dented by Wolfgang Hanel, but I would not reject it altogether. Rauschning may have yielded at times to journalistic temptations, but he had opportunities to record Hitler’s conversations and the general tenor of his record too exactly foretells Hitler’s later utterances to be dismissed as fabrication.”

    “In writing his biography of Hitler, Ian Kershaw has written “I have on no single occasion cited Hermann Rauschning’s Hitler Speaks, a work now regarded to have so little authenticity that it is best to disregard it altogether.””


    • melgibstein says:

      Hello Brian, I thought that was you. Sullivan kicked me off when I proved to him Ed Sullivan married a Jewess. Like the Jew Godlike Productions, WUFYS has me completely blocked from his site. I only waltz over there once in a blue moon to see Sulli transferring fatso Rivero’s Jew cabal posts over to his own site. The guy deliberately trashed a once good free speech forum. Sulli took it over and made a ghetto out of it like he was scared sh**less of something. Even his pals left him. Not one of them could take any rejection. They all want to be loved and popular with the Jew audience. They do more harm than good.They want free speech like jews do.

  4. Ken says:

    Of course those “pretending” to be Israelites or Judeans will not meet the racial qualifications of being part of the pure Adamic Race, for they are pretenders and usurpers. No different than how they have infiltrated the Nation of America (created by the Adamic Race) and taken it over while destroying our modern Laws (US Constitution). Hell, most people in America consider Jews to be White People, just as most suckers consider Jews to be Judeans/Hebrews/Israelites which took over that Nation. I find it amazing that supposedly Jew Wise people can swallow the lies/deceptions Jews tell them about Biblical history and who the Hebrews/Israelites were/are.

    Since when has the putrid Jew told the truth about anything in history?

    • melgibstein says:

      No doubt, Ken.

      Native populations of the Americas lacked immunity to the infectious diseases that ravaged Europe and Asia for centuries. Sparse populations on the Plains and the pristine valleys of the Rocky Mountains prevented a buildup of communicable diseases. The “white man” diseases…measles, chicken pox, typhus, typhoid fever, dysentery, scarlet fever, diphtheria, and after 1832, cholera…devastated the American Indian. Lumped together, these diseases did not equal the havoc of smallpox in terms of number of deaths, realignment of tribal alliances, and subsequent changes in Canadian and American Indian Cultures.
      Smallpox in the New World:

      Some of the African slaves brought by Columbus to be used on the sugar plantation of the West Indies carried the smallpox virus. In 1495, fifty-seven to eighty percent of the native population of Santa Domingo, and in 1515, two-thirds of the Indians of Puerto Rico were wiped out by smallpox. Ten years after Cortez arrived in Mexico, the native population dropped from twenty-five million to six million five hundred thousand a reduction of seventy-four percent.

      Prior to the arrival of Europeans, various sources estimate native population in North and South America at ninety to one hundred million. It is impossible to arrive at the number of Indians in the Americas killed by European diseases with smallpox the deadliest by far. Even the most conservative estimates place the deaths from smallpox above sixty-five percent (Bray).

      Jews brought the slaves to America and no doubt brought their infectious diseases as well. I guarantee you will find the Jew if you look.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s