CHRONOLOGY – SUBMIT TO SELF-APPOINTED LEADERSHIP

Rivers of Blood Speech: Enoch Powell

   Speech by Enoch Powell, MP, at the Annual General Meeting of the West Midlands Area Conservative Political Centre, Birmingham, England, April 20, 1968
   Here is the full text of Enoch Powell's famous speech to the Annual General Meeting of the West Midlands Area Conservative Political Centre, Birmingham, England, April 20, 1968.
   The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature. One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: At each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.
   Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: 'if only', they love to think, 'if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen'. Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical. At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it, deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.
   A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalized industries. After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said: 'If I had the money to go, I wouldn't stay in this country.' I made some deprecatory reply, to the effect that even this Government wouldn't last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: 'I have three children, all of them have been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan't be satisfied till I have seen them settled overseas. In this country in fifteen or twenty years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.'
   I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation? The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that this country will not be worth living in for his children. I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking - not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.
   In fifteen or twenty years, on present trends, there will be in this country 3 1/2 million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to Parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General's office. There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of 5-7 million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by different sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.
   As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase. Already by 1985 the native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact above all which creates the extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is hardest for politicians to take, action where the difficulties lie in the present but the evils to be prevented or minimized lie several parliaments ahead.
   The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by such a prospect is to ask: 'How can its dimensions be reduced?' Granted it be not wholly preventable, can it be limited, bearing in mind that numbers are of the essence: the significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent. The answers to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational: by stopping or virtually stopping, further inflow, and by promoting the maximum outflow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the Conservative Party.
   It almost passes belief that at this moment twenty or thirty additional immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every week - and that means fifteen or twenty additional families of a decade or two hence. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancées whom they have never seen.
   Let no one suppose that the flow of dependants will automatically tail off. On the contrary, even at the present admission rate of only 5,000 a year by voucher, there is sufficient for a further 325,000 dependants per annum ad infinitum, without taking into account the huge reservoir of existing relations in this country - and I am making no allowance at all for fraudulent entry. In these circumstances nothing will suffice but that the total inflow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative measures be taken without delay. I stress the words 'for settlement'.
   This has nothing to do with the entry of Commonwealth citizens, any more than of aliens, into this country, for the purposes of study or of improving their qualifications, like (for instance) the Commonwealth doctors who, to the advantage of their own countries, have enabled our hospital service to be expanded faster than would otherwise have been possible. These are not, and never have been, immigrants.
   I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the population would still leave the basic character of the national danger unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten years or so. Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the Conservative Party's policy: the encouragement of re-emigration.
   Nobody can make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous grants and assistance, would choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent. Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted. I can only say that, even at present, immigrants in my own constituency from time to time come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such a policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity of the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter the prospects for the future.
   It can be no part of any policy that existing family should be kept divided; but there are two directions in which families can be reunited, and if our former and present immigration laws have brought about the division of families, albeit voluntary or semi-voluntarily, we ought to be prepared to arrange for them to be reunited in their countries of origin. In short, suspension of immigration and encouragement of re-emigration hang together, logically and humanly, as two aspects of the same approach.
   The third element of the Conservative Party's policy is that all who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority. As Mr. Heath has put it, we will have no 'first-class citizens' and 'second-class citizens'. This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendants should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow citizen and another or that he should be subjected to inquisition as to his reasons and motives for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.
   There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it 'against discrimination', whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong. The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming. This is why to enact legislation of the kind before Parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match on to the gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is they know not what they do.
   Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth immigrant in Britain and the American Negro. The Negro population of the United states, which was already in existence before the United States became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they have only gradually and still incompletely come. The Commonwealth immigrant came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knows no discrimination between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free treatment under the National Health Service. Whatever drawbacks attended the immigrants - and they were drawbacks which did not, and do not, make admission into Britain by hook or by crook appear less than desirable - arose not from the law or from public policy or from administration but from those personal circumstances and accidents which cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to be different for another's.
   But while to the immigrant entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country. They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. On top of this, they now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by Act of Parliament: a law, which cannot, and is not intended, to operate to protect them or redress their grievances, is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.
   In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people, writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had expressed, and that they would risk either penalties or reprisals if they were known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine. I am going to allow just one of those hundreds of people to speak for me. She did give her name and address, which I have detached from the letter which I am about to read. She was writing from Northumberland about something which is happening at this moment in my own constituency:
   Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet streets became a place of noise and confusion.
   Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.
   The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7 a.m. by two Negroes who wanted to use her phone to contact their employer. When she refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her door. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying her rates, she had less than £2 per week. She went to apply for a rate reduction and was seen by a young girl, who on hearing she had a seven-roomed house, suggested she should let part of it. When she said the only people she could get were Negroes, the girl said 'racial prejudice won't get you anywhere in this country'. So she went home.
   The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house - at a price which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in weeks, or at most in a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out.
   Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letterbox. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. 'Racialist', they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.
   The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word 'integration'. To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members. Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the Commonwealth immigrants have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction. But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one to boot.
   We are on the verge of here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population - that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate. Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of action domination, first over fellow immigrants and then over the rest of the population. The cloud no bigger than a man's hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly. The words I am about to use, verbatim as they appeared in the local press on 17 February, are not mine, but those of a Labour Member of Parliament who is a Minister in the present Government.

   The Sikh communities' campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker: whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.

   All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive that, and the courage to say it.
   For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organize to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding.
   Like the Roman, I seem to see 'the River Tiber foaming with much blood'. That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century.
   Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal. #

[Islamic marriage is like slavery, serfdom]

 
   The hidden face of Eve, by Nawal El Sa'dawi; London, Zed press, pp 139-140, published 1980.
   The institution of marriage remained very different for men to what it was for women, and the rights accorded to husbands were distinct from those accorded to wives.  In fact it is probably not accurate to use the term 'rights of the woman' since a woman under the Islamic system of marriage has no human rights unless we consider that a slave has rights under a slave system. Marriage, in so far as women are concerned, is just like slavery to the slave, or the chains of serfdom to the serf.

Husband’s Rights Are Greater Than The Sacrifice Of Woman’s Breasts

 
   Al-Mar'ah wal-Islam, Dar al-Kitab al-Lubnani; by Ahmad Zaky Tuffaha, page 176, published 1985.
   If a woman offered one of her breasts to be cooked and the other to be roasted, she still will fall short of fulfilling her obligations to her husband. And besides that, if she disobeys her husband even for a twinkling of an eye, she would be thrown in the lowest part of Hell, except she repents and turns back.

[Robust immigrant group blames another for all wars, homosexuality, hoarding, and world control.]

 
   Based on The Weekend Australian Magazine, November 19-20, 1988.
   SYDNEY: In September 1988 Sheikh Taj Eldine El-Hilaly, Imam of the Lakemba Mosque, Sydney, spoke to Muslim students at Sydney University.
   He described Judaists as "the underlying cause of all wars threatening the peace and security of the whole world," and accused them of "a malicious disposition towards all mankind." 
   He said they used "sex and abominable acts of b*ggery, espionage, treason and economic hoarding to control the world."

Iraq invades Kuwait; 1990, August 2

   On 2 August 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. The international community responded by placing a trade embargo on Iraq, and issued ultimatums through the United Nations. Iraq took hundreds of innocent Westerners hostage, and dug its troops in to the occupied territory.
   On 17 January 1991, 38 nations led by the United States of America, went to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation, and to destroy Iraq's military power for the future safety of the gulf region.
   The Saddam Hussein regime launched dozens of Soviet-made Scud missiles at residential areas in Israel.
   They opened the spigots of Kuwait's main supertanker-loading pier to pour millions of litres of crude oil into the seas of the Persian Gulf. They set fire to 600 oil wells throughout Kuwait. They destroyed hotels and government buildings, and looted.
   When the 43-day liberation war ended, it was discovered that the Iraqis had torn off the fingernails of Kuwaitis who displayed pictures of their emir. They had drilled holes in the kneecaps of resistance suspects - or inflated their intestines with air or cut off their ears or gouged out their eyes - before murdering them.
   Early on in the Iraqi occupation, "the Iraqis killed so many young men … that the bodies were taken to a skating rink for short-term preservation" (The Bulletin/Newsweek, 12 March 1991). And they raped and humiliated Kuwaiti women at will.
   -- Adapted from: "Delivered from bondage," Challenge (W. Australia), mailtoCOLON infoATchall engenewsDOT org, By ANDREW LANSDOWN, pp 1 and 2, April 2008

[Slay; Fight the Unbelievers who are near to you – Koran]

   SAUDI ARABIA: The Holy Qur-ān (i.e., Koran), Issued as a gift by King Fahd Ibn Abdul-Aziz (not for sale); Printed by The King Fahd Complex For The Printing of The Holy Qur-ān, P.O. Box 3561, Al-Madinah Al-Munawarah, Saudi Arabia; Arabic text; With English translation and commentaries of Abdullah YUSUF ALI, revised and edited by The Presidency of Islamic Researches, Ifta, Call and Guidance (Saudi Arabia); Dated Year 1413 H., i.e., 1992-93 A.D.

[[Page 473; Sūrat 8, Āyat 15-16]] 15.  O ye who believe!       When ye meet       The Unbelievers       In hostile array 1190       Never turn your backs       To them. […]       Unless it be in a stratagem […]    [[Pages 536-537; Sūrat 9, Āyat 111]] 111. Allah hath purchased of the Believers       Their persons and their goods;       For theirs (in return)       Is the Garden (of Paradise): 1361       They fight in His Cause,       And slay and are slain:

A promise binding on Him       In Truth, through the Torah,       The Gospel, and the Qur-ān 1362       And who is more faithful       To his Covenant than Allah?       Then rejoice in the bargain       Which ye have concluded:       That is the achievement supreme.    [[Page 541; Sūrat 9, Āyat 123]] 123. O ye who believe!  Fight       The Unbelievers who are near to you 1374       And let them find harshness       In you:  and know that Allah       Is with those who fear Him.

____________________
   1190. The laws of Jihād are exactly similar to those enforced by military virtue and discipline.  Meet your enemy fairly and squarely, not rashly, but after due preparation.  Zahfan in the text (meeting in hostile array) implies a slow and well-planned proceeding towards a hostile army.  When once in combat, carry it through:  there is no room for second thoughts.  Death or victory should be the motto of every soldier:  it may be death for himself individually, but if he has faith, there is triumph in either case for his cause.  Two exceptions are recognised:  (1) reculer pour mieux sauter, to go back in order to jump forward; or to deceive the enemy by a feint; (2) if an individual or body is, by the chances of battle, isolated from his own force, he can fall back on his force in order to fight the battle.  There is no virtue in mere single-handedness.  Each individual must use his life and his resources to the best advantage for the common cause.
   1361. In a human bargain both sides give something and receive some advantage.  In the divine bargain of Allah with man, Allah takes man's will and soul and his wealth and goods, and gives him in return ever-lasting Felicity.  Man fights in Allah's Cause and carries out His will.  All that he has to give up is the ephemeral things of this world, while he gains eternal salvation, the fulfilment of his highest spiritual hopes,–a supreme achievement indeed.
   1362. We offer our whole selves and our possessions to Allah, and Allah gives us Salvation.  This is the true doctrine of redemption:  and we are taught that this is the doctrine not only of the Qur-ān but of the earlier Revelations,–the earlier Law of Moses and the original Gospel of Jesus.  Any other view of redemption is rejected by Islam, especially that of corrupted Christianity, which thinks that some other person suffered for our sins and we are redeemed by his blood.  It is our self-surrender that counts, not other people's merits.  Our complete self-surrender may include fighting for the cause, both spiritual and physical.  As regards actual fighting with the sword there had been some difference in theological theories at different times, but very little in the practice of those who framed those theories.  The Jewish wars were ruthless wars of extermination.  The Old Testament does not mince matters on this subject.  In the New Testament St. Paul, in commending the worthy fruits of Faith, mentions Gideon, Barak, and other warriors of the Old Testament as his ideals.  "Who through faith subdued kingdoms… waxed valiant in fight, turned to fight the armies of the aliens…" (Hebrews, xi. 32-34).  The monkish morality of the Gospels in their present form has never been followed by any self-respecting Christian or other nations in history.  Nor is it common-sense to ignore lust of blood in unregenerate man as a form of evil which has to be combated "within the limits, set by Allah" (Q. ix. 112).
   1374. When conflict become inevitable, the first thing is to clear our surroundings of all evil, for it is only evil that we can rightly fight.  To evil we must put up a stout and stiff resistance.  Mealy-mouthed compromises are not right for soldiers of truth and righteousness.  They are often a compound of cowardice, weariness, greed, and corruptibility.

[Christian leaders lording, idolatrous, false, devour wealth, will suffer in Hell – Koran]

   SAUDI ARABIA: The Holy Qur-ān (i.e., Koran), Issued as a gift by King Fahd Ibn Abdul-Aziz (not for sale); Printed by The King Fahd Complex For The Printing of The Holy Qur-ān, P.O. Box 3561, Al-Madinah Al-Munawarah, Saudi Arabia; Dated Year 1413 H., i.e., 1992-93 A.D.
   Arabic text; With translation into English and commentaries of Abdullah YUSUF ALI, revised and edited by The Presidency of Islamic Researches, Ifta, Call and Guidance (Saudi Arabia);

Women in Islam

   Published by The Berean Call, www.tbcorders. org/default. asp , By P. Newton and M. Rafiqul Haqq, pp 20-22, 1995.   
   Some believe the number is limited to nine wives, as two and three and four make nine, and Muhammad himself when he passed away had nine wives and to follow his tradition is the commended way of living. ⁸³
   Others believe that the above verse is the proof for an unlimited number of wives because the verse does not say two or three or four. The verse, literally, says two and three and four, meaning two and three and four etc. ⁸⁴ The majority believe the number of wives the man may marry to be limited to four, because of the reported Hadith about a man who had ten wives. When he became a Muslim, Muhammad said to him: 'Keep four, and leave the rest.' ⁸⁵
   The reason for marrying more than one woman is given by Ghazali, the great Muslim scholar:

Some men have such a compelling sexual desire that one woman is not sufficient to protect them [from adultery]. Such men therefore preferably marry more than one woman and may have up to four wives. ⁸⁶

   Besides the above provision, men have the right to have sex with their slave girls.

For if a man purchases a slave girl, the purchase contract includes his right to have sex with her. ⁸⁷
This contract is primarily to own her and secondarily to enjoy her sexually. ⁸⁸

   And the reason for having sex with the slave girls beside one's wives is also given by Ghazali:

Since among Arabs passion is an overpowering aspect of their nature, the need of their pious men to have sex has been found to be the more intense. And for the purpose of emptying the heart to the worship of God they have been allowed to have sex with women slaves if at some time they should fear that this passion would lead them to commit adultery. Though it is true that such action could lead to the birth of a child that will be a slave, which is a form of destruction,… yet enslaving a child is a lighter offence than the destruction of religious belief. For enslaving the newborn is a temporary thing but by committing adultery eternity is lost. ⁸⁹ […]

   …Bukhari reported,

The Prophet used to pass (have sexual relation with) all his wives in one night, and at that time he had nine wives. ⁹¹
For "He once said of himself that he had been given the power of forty men in sex." ⁹²
And "Ali who was the most ascetic of all the companions had four wives and seventeen slave girls as concubines." ⁹³
While some of the other companions had three and four wives and those who had two wives were countless in number. ⁹⁴

   Concerning the provision for having sex with slave girls, found in the last part of the above Qur'anic verse, Razi said:

God made the provision of having sex with many slave girls as easy as marrying one free woman. Besides, the responsibilities and provisions of the slave girls are lighter than those of the dowers, no matter (never mind) if you have a few of them or many, no matter if you were fair in apportioning your nights amongst them or not, no matter whether you completed the sexual act or not. ⁹⁵

   The commentator Qortobi sees in that verse (Q. 4:3) that slave girls used as such by the free Muslim man,

have neither sexual rights, nor financial rights. For God made the 'one free woman' and the 'slave girls you may own' of the same category.  The man however owes the slave girls the appropriate rights of ownership, and the kindness that befits slaves." ⁹⁶

   So because the need of the pious men to have sex was found to be the more intense, and for the purpose of emptying their hearts for the worship of Allah they, the pious men, have been allowed to marry up to four women and have sex with an unlimited number of slave girls even if this provision may lead to the destruction of innocent children. […]

MARLON BRANDO BACKFLIPS

after telling truth about Hollywood
SCHOLARS OBJECT TO TALMUD TELLING PEOPLE TO HATE OTHERS By Kerry Adamson                                                             5 September 1996
   Marion Brando, dual Academy Award winner, has apologised for saying this year that Hollywood was run by Jews=Judaists. (The West Australian, Friday August 30, 1966, Today page 3)
   Other famous people who have apologised after criticising Judaism include Henry Ford -- after he found problems getting finance to retool for a change of car model. Similarly, Brando has had recent problems with getting sufficient funding for a film in Ireland (Ibid = same as last reference).
   Brando has gone even further; he is now reported as being a "crusader for race relations" (Sunday Times, Perth, September 1, 1996, p 3, see p 8), and has been posing with Australian Aborigines and a didgeridoo.
   THREAT OF LIVING HELL: The West Australian, April 9, 1996, page 2, had reported: "The Jewish Defence League … vowed to make the rest of Brando's life 'a living hell' after Brando appeared on Cable News Network's Larry King Live on Friday night [sic; it was Good Friday !].
   "In the interview, Brando, 72, denounced what he said was a Jewish-run movie establishment that had exploited other racial and ethnic stereotypes."
   He was quoted as saying: "Hollywood is run by Jews, owned by Jews and they should have a greater sensitivity." A colleague, however, said that Brando was really pro-Judaist and pro-Israel.
   IS HOLLYWOOD RUN BY JEWS? In his book that won a 1988 Theatre Library Association Award, U.S. academic Neal Gabler states that from 1915, when Carl Laemmle wrested control of Universal Pictures from the other investors, and became "King of the Movie Renters," the Jews controlled Hollywood (Neal Gabler, An Empire of their Own, 1989, New York, Anchor-Doubleday, Dewey Number 384.8'09, p 64, para 2).
   Judaist author the novelist Stephen Birmingham wrote in his trilogy about American Judaists: "… the motion picture business … an almost exclusively Eastern European business ,.." (Stephen Birmingham, The Rest of Us, 1987, London, Futura-Macdonald, p 88) "… by the 1920s much of the business end of show business was in Jewish hands [and] … much of the "Prohibition liquor trade was in Jewish hands …" (p 182) "… the motion picture business … had become a heavily Jewish industry …" (p 183) "Hollywood's Jewish moguls … by the 1920s had become the most powerful purveyors of mass culture in America …"(p 184).
   The founders of the Hollywood film studios were of Eastern European Judaist origins (Gabler, pp 1, 3-4), i.e., presumably of Khazar descent, mother tongue probably Yiddish: Universal Pictures: Carl Laemmle, born 1867 Laupheim, s-w Germany; Paramount Pictures: Adolph Zukor, b. in Tokay grape district of Hungary, brought up by rabbinical scholar; Fox Film Corporation: William Fox, son of Hungarian-Judaist immigrants; Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer: Louis B. Mayer, previously a Russian junkman, would not say where or when born (Gabler, p 399), Sam Goldwyn, whose name was formerly Goldfish (p 109); Warner Brothers: Benjamin Warner, b, Poland; Columbia Pictures: Harry Cohn, father German Jew tailor, mother Russian Jewess from the Pale (p 155).
   ARE THE FILM STARS JUDAISTS? Many film stars are of Judaist descent, probably of Khazar origin, with names changed, some made to look Anglo-Celtish, e.g., Kirk Douglas.
   Isidore Baline became Irving Berlin, Theodosia Goodman >Theda Bara, Benjamin Kubelsky >Jack Benny, Fanny Borach >Fanny Brice, Ehrich Weiss >Harry Houdini, Asa Yoelson >Al Jolson, Sonia Kalish >Sophie Tucker, Nathan Birnbaum >George Burns [died this year], Isidor Iskowitch >Eddie Kantor, Catherine Holzman >Libby Holman "… Eastern European Jews …" (Birmingham, p 180)
   Theda Bara's Jewishness was a closely-guarded secret… Douglas Fairbanks's mother had been Jewish." (p 184) Irving Lahrheim became Bert Lahr, Emmanuel Goldberg >Edward G. Robinson, Pauline Levee >Paulette Goddard, Lee Jacob >Lee J. Cobb (see p 184). "Eddy Cantor, Jack Benny, Fanny Brice, the Marx Brothers … Jews…" (p 184).
   "These early film pioneers were kept out of social clubs, and had problems getting finance from the then Wall Street "Establishment," but they and others over many years have changed all that!
   WAS OPPOSITION REASONABLE, OR DISCRIMINATORY? The early U.S. opposition to Judaism had a basis in fairness, including a wish to keep America for the Americans. Then, when some Judaists became wealthy and paraded their wealth, jealousy added to the antipathy of some people (read Walter Blumenthal—Walter Lippmann, March 3, 1922, quoted in Ronald Steel, Walter Lippmann and the American Century, (New York, 1980), p 192; see Gabler, pp 237, 456). Were there more serious reasons for antipathy?
   BEST OF THE NON-JEWS DESERVE DEATH. "The best among the Gentiles deserves to be killed" (Rabbi Simon ben Yohai, see Jewish Encyclopedia, page 617)
   Does this include children in Lebanon, hit by Israeli rockets in April 1996? Or are they just victims of war, well outside the UN-sanctioned boundaries of modern Israel? Why are Israeli troops occupying a strip of Lebanon, which they invaded in 1982? (see Jack Berstein and Len Martin, The life of an American Jew in … Israel, 1984, Detroit Lakes Michigan, Pro-American Press.) Iraq was rightly forced to give up Kuwait which it had seized. But Indonesia has not been forced to hand back East Timor, seized in 1975. On September 3 and 4 this year Iraq was hit without warning by 27 U.S. cruise missiles for an alleged attack on a Kurdish village inside its borders; Israel and Indonesia are still killing villagers outside their borders, but no U.S. attack comes.
   "Rab Judah said in Rab's name: One who returns a lost article to a Cuthean. [originally meant heathen]-- concerning him Scripture sayeth, … The Lord will not spare him." (Talmud, Sanhedrin, 76 b, p 517. misusing Bible, Deuteronomy 29:20)
   Well, in spite of years of peace talks, U.N. resolutions, and U.S. funds and weapons being poured in, a lot of land has not been handed back to the indigenous people of Palestine. Are late August's Israeli plans to erect 1800 more home units on the West Bank a symbol that the Israelis will use the widest of the variant Bible accounts of the boundaries, i.e., seize from the Mediterranean Sea to the Euphrates River in Iraq, and include from Lebanon to the Red Sea? Ah, but land is not an "article."
   "Though it is forbidden to rob the heathen … the offence was non-actionable." (footnote to Sanhedrin, p 388 of above)
   See above. Talmudists must be blood brothers in double-think to criminals, politicians etc!
   Promises and oaths are cancelled in advance annually, somehow moved to Yom Kippur, i.e., the Day of Atonement, by the sung Kol Nidre (see Talmud book Nedarim, 23 a - 23 b, translated in Epstein, I., editor, The Babylonian Talmud, 1935, London, Soncino Press, pp 67-8)
   I wonder if this includes the promises made under Keating's and Howard's workplace agreements! Or, Clinton's and Major's election promises! Well, if breaking oaths is approved by the Talmud in defiance of the Bible's Ten Commandments, what about worshipping false gods and idols?
   WORSHIP OF FALSE GOD APPROVED BY THE TALMUD. "Our Mishnah is in accordance with the view that Molech worship is not idolatry." (Talmud, Sanhedrin 64a, p 438)
   Further reading: BERSTEIN, Jack (former Israeli), and MARTIN, Len, The life of an American Jew in… Israel, 1984, Detroit Lakes, Michigan, Pro-American Press)
BIRMINGHAM, Stephen, Our crowd: The great Jewish families of New York, ©1967, 1985, London, Futura, a division of Macdonald & Co; The Grandees: America's Sephardic elite, ©1971, 1986, ditto; The rest of us: The rise of America's Eastern European Jews, ©1984, 1987, ditto.
DILLING, Elizabeth, The plot against Christianity, c. 1950, U.S.A.
FREEDMAN, Benjamin H, Facts are facts, 1955, New York, self-published.
GABLER, Neal, An Empire of their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood, 1989, New York, Anchor-Doubleday, Dewey Number 384.8'09
GRIFFIN, Des, Anti-Semitism and the Babylonian connection, 1992, Clackamas, Oregon, USA, Emissary Publications.
KOESTLER, Arthur, The thirteenth tribe: The Khazar empire and its heritage, ©1976, originally London, Hutchinson, republished New York, Random House; 947.9'01.
REED, Douglas, The controversy of Zion, init 1978, 1985, Bullsbrook, W.A., Veritas (obtainable: PO Box 20, Bullsbrook, WA, 6084, Australia)
SOFFER, Yonna (former Israeli), Justice! How much? ©1990, Guildford WA, Bookmark (obtainable from The Advertiser, Box 583, Morley, WA, 6943).#