Politically Incorrect Biography

When St. Martin's Press announced plans early this year to publish a biography of Joseph Goebbels by celebrated British historian David Irving, Jewish organizations began screaming bloody murder and applying pressure to the publisher, ranging from telephoned death threats to promises of a boycott. It's not that they object to a biography of the man who was one of Adolf Hitler's closest associates and the Minister for Public Enlightenment in the Third Reich; there are a number of Goebbels biographies to be found in U.S. libraries. But they are all approved biographies: Politically Correct biographies, which have been screened carefully and deemed suitable for reading by the goyim.

David Irving's biography had not been approved. In fact, David Irving is noted as a man who does not submit his books for approval, and the Jewish censors knew without reading the book themselves that it would never do to let the goyim read it.

Eventually St. Martin's Press yielded to the threats and announced on April 4 that it had changed its mind about publishing Irving's book. Fortunately, the book already had been published in Britain, under the title Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich. It's inconvenient for Americans to obtain a copy, but it's possible.

Even after the president of St. Martin's Press, Thomas J. McCormack, had apologized to the Jews and done the obligatory groveling, Jewish commentators were still raging about the fact that he had even considered publishing a book they had not approved. A column by Tina Rosenberg in the June 2 issue of the New York Times explains what they hated about Irving's book, aside from the fact that it was written by him.

The book isn't friendly toward Dr. Goebbels, Rosenberg admitted. But it is insufficiently friendly toward the Jews. "Under its polished surface the book is in fact a sophisticated blood libel," she complained.

To illustrate what she means she quotes one sentence from the section of the book dealing with a 1933 boycott of Jewish businesses: "The upshot of the Jewish campaign overseas was that Goebbels secured from Hitler--or so he claimed--approval to threaten a short, sharp counterboycott of the Jews." The counterboycott was Dr. Goebbels' response to a worldwide boycott of German products launched by Jews in the United States and Britain ("the Jewish campaign overseas"), Irving explained. But such explanations are not Politically Correct, nor is the use of the word "counterboycott." That makes it look like "the Jews had it coming," complains Rosenberg.

The historical fact that the Jews boycotted the Germans first is not disputed by Rosenberg. What angers her is that Irving reveals that fact to his readers and that he presents the German boycott of Jews as a reasonable response to the prior Jewish boycott of Germans--which, in fact, it was. The only acceptable position for an author is to portray the Jews as absolutely innocent and absolutely blameless, regardless of the facts. To offer the slightest evidence that the Jews' own behavior brought on public dislike of them or governmental policies against them is what Rosenberg calls "a sophisticated blood libel."

Clinton Loses an Ally

One of Bill Clinton's old pals died in May, a victim of cancer. He was David Ifshin, who used to march with Clinton in pro-Viet Cong demonstrations in the 1960s. In 1970 Ifshin, who at that time headed the Communist-front National Student Association, went to Hanoi and made radio broadcasts for the Communists, in which he urged American soldiers to turn their guns against their own officers. The pusillanimous government of Richard Nixon declined to prosecute him for treason when he returned to the United States.

In 1973 Ifshin worked on a kibbutz in Israel. He later became a Washington, D.C., lawyer and lobbyist and served as a director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful Jewish pressure group in Washington.

Ifshin is credited with delivering the Jewish vote to Clinton in 1992 and tipping the election in Clinton's favor. Clinton rewarded Ifshin by sending him to Cairo in 1994 with the American delegation for the signing of the Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.

Ifshin was a frequent visitor at the Clinton White House and was one of Clinton's closest advisors. Clinton told friends that Ifshin was "ferociously" devoted to him. The two sometimes appeared in public on the same platform together, confident that the controlled news media would not embarrass Clinton by reminding the public of Ifshin's treason during the Vietnam war.

Ifshin's role as a confidant and advisor to an American President is as much as any other thing a proof of the rottenness of the present American government and of the necessity for its destruction by any means available. This is a fact of which the Clintonistas themselves seem to be more aware than anyone else. That is why when Clinton made a photo-opportunity visit in April to U.S. troops in Bosnia, all soldiers--including officers and military policemen--were required to have the magazines and bolts removed from their weapons. Only the politicized Secret Service thugs under the command of Clinton's Jewish pal Robert Rubin were allowed to have loaded weapons in Clinton's presence.

Truth in Strange Places

Remember what happened to actor Marlon Brando earlier this year when he blurted out the truth about Jewish media control during a television interview with Larry King?

"Oi, veh! Lies! Anti-Semitism! Hate! It's not true! Ve don't control the media!" the cry went up in all the media, until poor, befuddled Marlon groveled and apologized.

National Alliance members evoke a similar reaction from the Jews and their collaborators when they raise the subject of Jewish media control. The National Vanguard Books documentary pamphlet on media control, Who Rules America?, is regularly denounced by Jewish and so-called "human rights" groups as "hate literature."

All the more surprising, then, to find the admission of Jewish control of the media by a prominent Jewish journalist in the most prominent of Jewish newspapers. Ari Shavit is a columnist for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. After the Jewish massacre of Lebanese refugees at Cana in April, the world outcry against this atrocity, and the cavalier Israeli response to the outcry ("So what? They were only goyim. Besides, it was a mistake. Ho, hum. What are you, already, an anti-Semite?"), Shavit wrote a column for Haaretz warning his fellow Jews against becoming so arrogant that they were in danger of losing their Gentile supporters. His column was reprinted in the May 27 edition of the New York Times under the title "How Easily We Killed Them." Among other things Shavit wrote, somewhat ungrammatically:

We killed them out of a certain naive hubris. Believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own.

Not only the media, but also the White House and the Senate! What a pleasure to have confirmed, from the horse's mouth, what we have been shouting from the rooftops for so long!

Why did they do it? Was it perhaps the feeling that the New York Times is really a Jewish community publication, and that even if it does have a few non-Jewish readers they don't really count?

And if that was the reason, is not such hubris largely justified? Isn't it true that most Gentiles are so cowed by fear of the sort of lambasting that poor Marlon got at the hands of the media Jews that they immediately put out of their heads any such inconvenient facts they encounter, lest a Politically Incorrect conclusion form in their frightened, slavishly fashionable, little minds?

Affirmative Action Overseas

You think Americans have been brainwashed on matters of race? It's nothing compared to what's been done to the poor Germans. In America it's unfashionable to question the dogma of racial equality; in Germany it's illegal.

For the past 50 years, ever since the end of the Second World War, the media, the schools, the government, and the churches have been telling the Germans how wicked they were to have wanted to have a Germany for Germans under Hitler. One of the consequences of this brainwashing campaign has been an open-door policy toward non-White "refugees" from Africa and Asia eager to be supported at German expense. Another has been a disgusting incidence of miscegenation, with German women eager to prove how fashionable they are by mating with these dusky immigrants, as well as with Black GIs in the U.S. occupation force. A third consequence has been an "affirmative action" program to make even an American liberal blush.

Sam Meffire is a 25-year-old Afro-German mischling, the product of a union between a German girl and an immigrant from Cameroon. In 1992, when he was 21, Meffire was recruited by the Dresden police department, which was eager to show how "progressive" it was. As the only non-White policeman on the force, he was sought out by journalists and soon became a celebrity. Camera crews followed him during his police training, and talk-show hosts sought his advice on how to counter the rise of neo-Nazism. The Sachsische Zeitung, Dresden's leading daily newspaper, featured Meffire in a campaign against racism and put his distinctly un-German face on billboards under the headline "Ein Sachse" ("A Saxon"--Dresden is the capital of the province of Saxony). This dreadful display won an award for the best German advertisement of 1993.

Prominent politicians sought to have their pictures taken with Meffire. Heinz Eggert, the minister of the interior for Saxony (until his resignation last year following charges of homosexual solicitation), became Meffire's drinking buddy.

When Meffire finished his police training he was assigned to investigating automobile thefts. Neither this mundane work nor the disciplined environment of the police department suited the taste of the mulatto celebrity, however, and he quit after a few months. He tried to set up his own security firm but almost immediately failed at that.

Then Meffire found the work for which he was suited: armed robbery. He began holding up discos, post offices, and other Dresden establishments. But, alas, racism proved his undoing. When the victims described the robber, the insensitive Dresden police found it difficult to avoid the conclusion that the culprit was their boy Meffire.

Meffire fled to Zaire and was arrested by Zairean police. The Germans are still trying to persuade Zaire to extradite him. His former colleagues in the Dresden police department are still trying to figure out why their affirmative action program ended in disaster. German liberals, it seems, are not much better at coping with reality than their American counterparts.

AIDS Figures Better Than Ever

AIDS obviously is a racist disease, since it preferentially attacks people of color. Furthermore, while the rest of society becomes more and more Politically Correct, AIDS is becoming even more racist.

From the beginning it was recognized that Blacks--whether in the United States, the Caribbean, or Africa--had a much higher incidence of AIDS than Whites. As more detailed racial breakdowns of AIDS statistics became available, it was apparent that the relative incidence among American Blacks as well as the absolute incidence of the disease was increasing.

The most striking aspect of the latest U.S. Black AIDS figures is the much higher incidence of the disease among non-drug-using heterosexuals. Earlier it had been theorized that the higher incidence of AIDS among U.S. Blacks as a whole was due almost entirely to the higher incidence of intravenous drug usage among Blacks, but now it is apparent that either some other behavioral factor--or a genetic factor--is at work.

The 1995 data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that overall 488 Blacks out of every 100,000 Blacks in the U.S. population are infected with HIV (approximately one-half of one per cent). For Whites the figure is 107 cases per 100,000 (approximately one-tenth of one per cent). Among non-drug-using heterosexuals, however, the incidence of HIV infection for Blacks is eight times the incidence for Whites.

Those who believe that this disparity is due to a behavioral difference between Blacks and Whites cite the greater sexual promiscuity of Blacks and their lesser inclination to take precautions, such as using condoms. More and more evidence suggesting a genetic basis for at least part of the disparity is appearing, however. The stigma of Political Incorrectness connected to any hint of genetically based racial differences is severely limiting research into this matter.

Market Statistics

The cigarette companies have been embarrassed recently when some of their internal research--e.g., research on the effectiveness of various nicotine levels in "hooking" new smokers--has leaked out to the public. The media giants have had similar embarrassments. Just like the cigarette makers, the media companies need to understand their customers' tastes and behavioral characteristics in order to optimize the design of their product and maximize their profits--but, also like the cigarette makers, they cannot afford to let the public know about these internal considerations.

Consider the case of CBS. The network programmers must take into consideration the makeup and characteristics of their audiences, and that is what John Pike, the head of CBS's late-night-programming, had in mind when he briefed the producers of a comedy program about the importance of appealing to the Black segment of the audience. Pike explained that CBS research had shown that there are three reasons why Blacks would make up an especially large portion of the late-night comedy audience: First, they have no place to go in the morning--no jobs--so they can stay up as late as they like. Second, they can't follow hour-long drama shows--no attention span--so comedy sketches are perfect for them. Third, network TV is free.

A CBS staffer who was present at the briefing leaked Pike's comments to a magazine reporter, and when the comments appeared in print the CBS management was busy back-pedaling and apologizing. Just as the cigarette makers need to understand everything about the addictive carcinogen they are peddling to the public while keeping that public in the dark about the true nature of the product, so the media bosses need to understand the way in which the poison they are peddling affects the consuming public without letting that public have a clue as to what it's really all about.