Don't Be A Shabbas Goy!
by Arch Stanton
18 March 2005
The following is a prime example of what Aryans see as a virtue, but is typically viewed by the Jew as a "weakness".
From VNN reader mail:
Not trying to be a jerk or anything, but somebody should tell James J. that
Chicago's murder rate is at a 30-year low. Accuracy, accuracy.
The white man's penchant for unerring accuracy is seen by Jews as a weakness to be exploited. How many times have we read something written by a Jew that is clearly a lie, but printed as fact anyway? How many times have we taken information as fact only to find out later that it was either purposefully or unintentionally misrepresented? How many hours have we spent trying to prove to others that such information is false or misrepresented? What this manipulative technique actually accomplishes for the Jews is to keep their white opponent constantly on the defensive.
The Jews well understand that when we spend our time refuting or verifying any information, especially their "facts," this diverts our time, effort and resources towards trying to level the playing field rather than gaining ground. Instead of taking the offensive, we waste our time defending ourselves against Jewish accusations and lies. It was said long ago, you cannot win a war by taking a defensive posture.
The flip side of the Jewish coin of the lie, is the Aryan's "bad habit" of insisting that all facts used in his arguments being thoroughly researched and verifiably accurate. Such effort does the Jew's work for them. By taking the time and effort to carefully research all our facts, by making absolutely sure all our sources are neatly researched and verified, we have once again used our time researching and verifying instead of communicating our thoughts. It also means that the Jews know exactly how to approach our fact-based arguments. This penchant for researched facts and accuracy works great when one is advancing scientific theory and establishing a basis for technological advancement, but it is a real imposition, a millstone as it were, around the neck of those fighting the down-and-dirty Jew.
Everyone who doubts this has only to take a look at Jules Streicher and his paper Der Sturmer (the stormer, or attacker). In its day Der Sturmer was so vitriolic and inflammatory that even the Nazis supposedly called for its withdrawal from circulation. Imagine for a moment a publication that was TOO anti-Jewish for the those evil, Jew-hating, Nazis! But, as the story goes, Hitler so loved his only bespitten friend that he went against his staff and allowed Streicher to continue his work. If by some chance you're having difficulty getting your mind around this story, then you might start examining the historical ifs and whys of Streicher and his Der Sturmer.
No matter the history, what really needs to be studied is Streicher's technique. He published some of the greatest anti-Jewish work in history. Much of what he wrote was not gleaned from carefully researched and verified factual evidence. Instead, like his nemesis the Jews, Streicher would take a kernel of truth, one that had been verified in some form or another by most of his readers, and expand on this kernel until a complete story was developed. A classic example of this was his attack on Jewish ritual murder. There have been numerous examples of Jewish ritual murders throughout history. Some of them attaining high visibility with the German public, but thanks to Jewish efforts many of these stories had been altered or modified to the point where the facts were somewhat in dispute.
Did the Jew's efforts at squelching these stories stop Streicher from making his claim for Jewish ritual murder in a forthright manner? absolutely not! He created lurid stories around the known murders and fleshed out the facts with his own imagination based on his understanding of the Jewish mentality. Did he worry that the Jews might find inaccuracies in his stories? again absolutely not! Streicher's only goal was to reach the German people and warn them of the very real dangers of allowing the Jews to live among their people. It has been said: "Never Let the Facts Get in the Way of a Good Story," and the Jews have long practiced this philosophy. The following is a classic example of the technique in action:
It is easy to verify Streicher's success by reviewing the Jew's reactions to his paper's articles. It does not take long to realize that Streicher's withering descriptions put the Jews completely on the defensive. In response the Jews totally vilified Streicher in every way imaginable. My personal favorite, and fairly typical, story is a thoroughly Jewish S&M fantasy. In this fantasy we find the evil Streicher walking the streets of Germany in full Nazi SS regalia, randomly whipping people with a favored riding crop. Wow! This total fabrication must play really well in the San Francisco bathhouses, but the fact is Streicher was never even a member of the Nazi party and never held any position that would have allowed him to wear the famous black SS uniform with its jodhpur pants and calf-length riding boots. Obviously, once again, the Jews never let the facts interfere with a good story.
BUT!!! OOOoooohhhh, does that description make the twisted Jew wet? You bet it does! And does it successfully portray Streicher as a two dimensional, black clad, evil, villain that will forevermore be hated for his thoughtless, sadistic, tendencies? you bet it will! And that is exactly why the Jews made up these stories, they serve to discredit Streicher and the Nazis while feeding their personal fantasies! I continually marvel at how the Jews always manage to play both ends of the field. They somehow always manage to gain for themselves at the expense of others and they do so at all levels.
I generally do not agree with copying the Jews' strategy of using outright lies simply because if one were to do so, at best they might well become like the very Jew we all loath. At worst such copying can be effectively turned against the copier. The defects of this strategy have been encountered by most chess players who have tried to copy a better player move for move. However in this case Aryans would do wise to follow the leader. When it come to making adverse statements about Jews, do not be overly concerned about the accuracy of facts; the idea is to make the Jew look like the scum-sucking parasite he truly is; it does not matter who is right or wrong, only who is believed. An important corollary to this concept is that there has been no communication unless there is productive a result.
Put the Jew on the defense by forcing them to work at proving your assertions are wrong, but remember this is not your ultimate purpose. The real goal is to get through to your kinsmen the inherent evil of the Jew and the danger in allowing said Jew to control their country and its institutions. If the Jew chooses not to make the effort to dispute your claims, if he allows the facts stand as originally stated, then so much the better. Should the Jew choose to call you on your facts and attempt to prove you are inaccurate, then use the Jew's techniques against him by taking the offensive (1) Never admit that you have misrepresented or are mistaken your information (2) Immediately change the subject to another area that is proven fact or a subject that at least cannot be easily disputed. Save your fact-finding for work that involves a definite need for verification. (3) Cry out with the utmost indignation that you have been slandered and slighted by an evil villain and demand an immediate full apology.
Of course one should never misrepresent facts that are easily observable or verifiable, doing so will quickly lead to discrediting in the minds of those he wishes to influence. Never make a statement like "thanks to the Jews weekly blood festival down at their synagogue on 4th and main, our children must live in mortal fear." Often there is a fine line between truth and fiction. In most of our arguments against the Jews, we find numerous examples of questionable "facts," half truths and gray areas; learn to use these effectively to your advantage in your arguments and accusations. Again I do not recommend resorting to the outright lies that Jews often use to make their argument, but neither do I recommend rigidly adhering only to the strict use of verifiable truths and absolute facts. It is a fine line to walk and walking it takes practice.
Let's take a look at how "facts" are used by both sides in this life and death game. Let's examine one of the favorite subjects of both sides - The Holocaust. First I only use the proper Jew-appointed term when I am addressing someone who will not understand what I mean when I say "Hollow-hoax." Jargon of any type only serves to confuse the issue with those not privy to the esoteric terminology, however one should never miss an opportunity to disparage the Jews sacred service of the immolation.
With that in mind, let's examine the Jews Hollow-hoax "facts". For their "proof," the Jews present a couple of confessions taken from tortured prisoners, the minutes of a few meetings, and a seemingly countless number of eyewitness accounts from survivors. The confession wrenched from the Nazi staff at Nuremburg have been proven highly suspect because the tortured victims made statements about places and events that clearly never happened, i.e.: the confession that there was a death camp for which there is no evidence whatever; no physical location or other references for the existence of this camp can be found.
Then there are several Nazi meetings like the fabled "Wannsee conference" that have been twisted to prove that the Nazis wanted to exterminate the dear chosen ones. Again, when this evidence is untwisted, it only points out that the Nazis believed that the Jews were a potentially dangerous nuisance to Germany and hence wanted them removed form their country by means of expatriation. Finally we have the eyewitness evidence of 1.5 Million survivors (Note that I simply make up this number? I do not spend hours researching the facts to find out how many survivors claims there actually are, I simply use this made up number in a sarcastic tone and if the reader takes it as fact, well as it was stated somewhere else: just because you are uninformed does not make me a wacko).
Finally there are those eyewitness accounts. Let's examine the value of eyewitness testimony from a legal standpoint. First off eyewitness testimony is (or was) the least desirable form of evidence to present in court. Why? the problem with eyewitness testimony was demonstrated to many of us in high school. Perhaps you remember that day when the teacher had an unknown person enter the classroom for a few seconds and then had the class write a description of the person they had just seen. Of course the descriptions would vary widely as to the type of clothes worn, amount of facial hair, weight, body type, hair color, and so on. The point of this exercise was to demonstrate that the subjective nature of such observation makes the eyewitness account a highly inaccurate source of factual evidence.
Then there is the problem of a vested interest influencing a witness, if a witness is paid to give an account of his having witnessed a certain event in a certain way, then you obviously have a credibility problem with the eyewitness's account. Therefore in the past, courts have gone to great lengths to verify that no person having a vested interest in the outcome of a case be allowed to testify or influence any witnesses. Understanding the economic influences on the Jewish eyewitnesses to the Hollow-hoax would therefore in itself disqualify every single "eyewitness" testimony for the event - at least that would have been the case in a pre-1960 court of law.
So what we are now finding with the sacred Hollow-hoax is that there is absolutely no empirical evidence for it ever having happened, at least as claimed by its Jewish advocates. On the other side of the Hollow-hoax issue we have the revisionist who are immediately slandered by the Jews as "deniers" without any regards as to the accuracy of this terminology. Again it is only the attainment of a desired outcome from the audience that truly counts; so what effect has been obtained by the purposeful misuse of terminology? Simple: before making his case the revisionist must first spend his time and effort disputing the "denier" label by going into long-winded explanations of how he does not deny the existence of the camps and that yes, the Nazis were bad to Jews and Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah! Note that the admission of the Nazis' mistreatment of Jews works to the their advantage by softening the revisionist's claims before he has even begun to make his case.
Everyone pretty much agrees that no reasonably sensible person would deny the existence of the Nazis' concentration camps, nor the fact that Jews died in those camps. Why? simply because there is far too much empirical evidence to the contrary. The proof of this is found in the physical remains of the camps, as well as numerous documents that attest to the existence of these camps. There are reams of Nazi records that prove conclusively that (1) Concentration camps did in fact exist and (2) Jews were interned within these camps and (3) Jews died in these camps. Neither side contests the evidence for the existence of these camps. The above example clearly demonstrates the difference empirical evidence makes on a case as opposed to eyewitness evidence. Empirical evidence can only be disputed at the risk of having the denier appear as a wacko.
Interestingly, Hollow-hoax revisionists have gone to great lengths to obtain such evidence, or a lack thereof, to dispute the eyewitness claims for the Hollow-hoax. These revisionist have gone to the Russian archives and dug up original Nazi records that show the actual number of total deaths at camps like Auschwitz. They have dispatched men with indisputable knowledge on the subject matter to these camps in an effort to find evidence that would either prove or disprove the existence of gas chambers. They have poured over wartime aerial photographs for any trace of the infrastructure needed to support the Jew's claim for the existence of Nazi "death" camps. They have searched far and wide for any and all records, especially written orders, that would verify that the Nazis did in fact have a plan to exterminate all Jewry. Yet for all their effort, the revisionists have come up with nothing, excepting evidence that various photos of the camps and camp inmates were obviously manipulated for the express purpose of supporting the Jews claims for the existence of the mythical Nazi death camps.
Having reviewed this substantial amount of information, who do we find has the high ground in this case, who is the accepted authority on Hollow-hoax myth? Do we find people clamoring after more information from those revisionists who cannot find any empirical evidence for a Nazi extermination plan for all Jewry? Hardly, what we find instead is an almost universal acceptance of the claims by those "victims" who saw it happen with their own, well reimbursed, eyes. So what is the difference? Why is it that a bunch of lying, thieving, Jews have the shrieking, whining, moral and evidential high ground over those who want nothing more than a calm, rational, factual examination for the claim of a genocidal plan by the Nazis?
It is because, unlike the Nazis, the Jews did have a genocidal plan. Even before the war ended the Jews made a plan that would allow them to endlessly whine and kvetch about those evil Nazis, this plan would also put all "deniers" on the defensive long before they even realized or understood the importance of this case and what role they might play in disputing the Jew's "evidence" for it. The Jews knew far in advance they would use their Hollow-hoax myth as a hammer to forge their persecuted collective identity into a weapon that would be used to advance their economic and political agendas. The Jews did this long before the Aryans ever began to suspect that this myth would ever be anything more than an historical footnote.
The result of the Jews success in this matter has been that even as they gain an ever increasing amount of both monetary and psychological profit from their myth, Aryans now spend a considerable amount of their time and effort attempting to counter what would be normally considered an obvious, twisted, web of lies and deceit. Essentially the Jews got there first with their lies and now the revisionist spend all their time trying to prove their truths to counter those lies. The lesson here is to never allow the Jews to make what might seem even the most innocent claim. The best position for Aryans to take is that everything, EVERYTHING, the Jew says is a lie or based on lies, everything, EVERYTHING, the Jew does is done deceitfully.
Instead of putting time and effort into furthering the cause of the white race, we spend far too much of our time trying to counter Jewish lies and while Aryans spend their time refuting the Jews lies, the Jews move on the offense into other areas where they will yet make more advances in their agenda. If our past failures are any indication of future performance, once again, by the time the white man arrives on the Jew's bloody murderous, scene of horror and mayhem, he will find himself fully occupied trying to put out the fires set by Jewish arsonist. Thus Jewish offensive tactics (is there poetry here or just a double entendre?) consistently put Aryans on the defensive. Allow me to repeat myself here, Wars are not won by taking the defense.
Now that we have a clear picture of what the Jews are doing. Let us counter by putting the Jew on the defense. Rule one in this game ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK!* When it comes to naming the Jew, be aggressive, be assertive, be belligerent, be obnoxious, be inaccurate, but above all, make those unsubstantiated accusations without worry as to how they might be perceived. Don't do the Jews work for them, don't spend your time and effort proving you are right, make the Jews spend their time proving you are wrong.
For Odin's sake, do not spend you time and effort picking apart the argument of another white man. Quit casting aspersions and nitpicking those fellow white people with whom you disagree, for once again by doing so you are doing the Jew's work for them. If you kinsmen refuse to fight, then so be it; do not waste your time and effort disparaging and/or trying to correct your kinsman as invariably such efforts will neither be appreciated nor beneficial to your cause. If you find your kinsman using ineffectual fighting techniques, then once again so be it; spend your time and effort polishing your own fighting techniques, for there is nothing to be gained in the heat of battle by dividing your attention in an attempt to correct an ally. By doing so, all that is created are hard feelings and when this is the result, once again we have done Jews' work for them; we have helped the Jews' cause by dividing our own race. Instead of following the direction the Jew throws his stick, concentrate: focus on the Jew, do not let anyone, especially the Jew, divert your attention toward other matters.
There have been a couple of times in my life when I quite literally, as the saying goes, "saw red". At that moment my vision focused into a tunnel surrounded by a red haze. At that moment animal instinct took over and all thoughts fled from my mind, my sole focus was on destroying my opposition. At that moment there was no longer any murder in my heart, in fact there was no emotions at all, only the need to eliminate that which was an immediate threat to my existence. In both instances my opponent saw and felt the change in my countenance and fully realized they had pushed too far and by doing so were now facing their own immediate extinction. Both times my opponents fled in terror at what they were experiencing, for they instinctively knew that to continue would mean a fight to their death with man totally devoid of conscience, reason or humanity. So it is with the Jews, we must continually see red, we must focus to the point where only the Jew's ratlike face fills our racial consciousness to the exclusion of all other matters.
Keeping this focus in mind, make your attacks broad based, do not confine yourself to specifics. Specifics allow the Jew to narrow your argument down and then side track you onto minor issues that in themselves are of no consequence. For example, do not say: "I have proof that less than 150,000 Jews died in the concentration camps" for the Jew will say, "that's a LIE! We can prove that it was 1.5 million" thus the Jew reduces your argument to a dispute over numbers. Instead one might say say: "No one in history, including the Nazis, ever had any plan for exterminating the Jews, no Jew has ever died from an attempted program for the extermination of Jewry." With this statement the Jew must face the accusation directly and attempt to defend himself by making complete denial against this frontal attack. As soon as the Jew makes this denial, scream an accusation in his face, "you're a LIAR - prove what you say!" Another point brought out here is to try minimizing the use of Jewish terminology, as this once again has a tendency to put you on the Jew's uneven playing field. Using the Jew's word "genocide" in this context gives the argument a softer, more human, slant putting the ball in the Jew's court of sensitivity. Using a word like "extermination" dehumanizes the argument, reducing the Jew and his claim to the level of an insect, a most fitting similitude to plant in the mind of the ignorant observer.
An example of the use of more subtle technique can be found in the accusation, "almost all Jews are liars and thieves." Note the use of the modifier "almost"? This leaves your audience a mental out. If you say, "ALL Jews are liars and thieves, no matter how correct the statement might be, making it all inclusive will immediately result in your statement becoming suspect. This is especially true now that the Jews have inculcated the American mind with the single exception rule, i.e. If it saves but one child, if one innocent Negro is set free, then it was all worth it! In the mind of the American, there is always that one nagging exception; that single innocent Negro in the midst of millions and millions of truly guilty Negroes that changes everything. Try using the Jew's indoctrination to advantage your claims. If this is impossible, then at the very least, do not fall into their traps.
When it comes to accuracy only concern yourself in being scrupulously accurate about easily verifiable facts. The internet has made this an easy task, one only has to go and look up their facts in the giant, universal cyber-brain, if the facts cannot be found embedded in concrete in three search results on the first search page, then you can probably use them as you see fit. Again this does not apply to any statement deleterious to the Jew, when it comes to slandering and defaming the Jew, the Aryan can hardly go wrong. Follow the Jew's lead on this one, say it first and say it loud; worry about the repercussions later. Of course this type of thinking should be moderated when it concerns anything that might result in litigation for slander of liable. It is typical that since the Jews have almost unlimited legal funds with which to fight those who dispute their slanderous and libelous accusations, they pretty much say it anyways and the make hay off the court case if and when the litigation is brought to bear.
The most important thing for the Aryan to understand is the disadvantage of their own mindset. It is time we stop apologizing for our thoughts, statements and actions even when we are wrong; as the Spanish say, you must never apologize for it will be taken as a sign of weakness. The Aryans must quit soft-soaping their opponent and quit seeking the Jew's approval for their arguments, in this regard George Rockwell's methods were exemplary. We must quit playing the Jews game and quit playing by the rules Jews have made for us, As a test pilot would say, we must learn to operate outside the "envelope" - the envelope Jews have constructed for us.
P.S. I've developed a new slogan for my awareness campaign: "Wake up to the Jew - They're murdering your planet".
*Interestingly enough our man in Germany, Adolph you-know-who, has been used to partially discredit the concept of consistently using the attack to defeat the enemy. It is often written that Hitler's main weakness in strategy was that he never set up any defenses for Germany because his philosophy was to always press the attack. Yet if this were the case Hitler would have obviously pressed home the attack on the British army at Dunkirk and at the very least taken the British Army prisoner. Then he would have successfully pressed on with his invasion against England and denied the allies their primary base for attacking Germany. Due to the Jews incredibly overwhelming and perverse literature on Adolph Hitler, I have begun to think that almost everything I read about the man is based on, or grossly tainted by, myth and half truths. Thanks to the view through the Jew's twisted lens, we will probably never really know who and what Hitler really was and what his positions actually were on these matters.