by Robert Frenz

19 January 2000

WE are all inclined on occasion to criticize others for what we perceive to be back-sliding, waffling or some other means to get off the hot-seat circumstances have placed us upon. I've done it many times and some of it was based upon incomplete information and a mistaken notion of what I might have done in that situation.

One develops attitudes based upon his experiences. Dogs can be trained to be viciously hostile to Black people by simply employing some Black person to kick the dog on a repeated basis. The dog soon learns to associate pain with Black people. People with no opinion in the beginning soon change their attitude towards Blacks if all they notice is rowdiness, crime, drugs and welfare.

As many jews have written, 'anti-Semitism' is little other than a reaction to negative jewish behavior. The term anti-Semite was coined by a jew and as typical, it encompassed more than merely an anti-jew attitude by adding the Arabs and others. In a similar fashion, the jew coined term 'genocide' never implicitly referred to a biological genus. This tendency to expand, or exaggerate things is not confined to jews. We are all familiar with the 'fish which got away' and the boasts of a philanderer.

John Rocker has an opinion about minorities and AIDS carriers. He voiced that opinion and one would think that he had set fire to a nun's habit. He apologized for the utterance and many branded him as cowardly for it.

David Irving, in his initial writings about Hitler and so on, made many statements concerning the exaggeration of the number of jews killed during WW II. He came under fire for this and whether intentional or not, he entered a corollary research aimed at discovering instances where jews were killed en masse just because they were jews. Many have now criticized Mr. Irving for that. He is waffling, and back-sliding, so the remarks go.

I have often been amazed at what some people think war is. It is not a picnic where the person tossing the greater number of marshmallows is declared winner. War is about killing people and destroying things with the added benefits of looting and raping. As far as the taking of innocent life goes, the forces of the Allies were responsible for the greater destruction and number of unnecessary civilian deaths. One only has to think of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden plus Eisenhower's deliberate starvation of over one-million Germans after the military part of the was had ended. (WW II is still alive and well in the odd jewish mind.)

During WW II, masses of people were executed simply because they were Japanese. The Japanese executed large numbers of Chinese simply because they were Chinese. We summarily shot huge number of surrendering German simply because they were Germans and many downed American pilots were clubbed to death by German civilians simply because those pilots were American. Thousands of Poles were executed by the Soviets simply because they were Poles. Then, why in hell does it come as a surprise that thousands of jews were killed because they were jews? A childhood friend of mine, who took part in the Dresden raid, mentioned that cows and horses were machine-gunned to death simply because they were there and not necessarily because they were cows and horses. This then poses the question as to whether those executed were killed because they belonged to a certain group or merely because they were available. I think is was the availability of those who were helpless in the circumstance and it had little to do with any group membership. The massive rape of German women occurred not because the women were Germans but simply because they were available with NO REPERCUSSIONS to the perpetrator following the act. Give men a license to kill and rape -- which war is -- and they'll soon supply a plentitude of reasons why you should not have granted it.

An apology for some unkind remark is valid only when it is issued voluntarily. A confession is never accepted unless duress is absent. John Rocker's apology is meaningless. He figuratively had a gun held to his head. David Irving and Ernst Zündel have also been in this position along with many others. When threats, intimidation or coercion is used in an attempt to 'nail' a person for remarks you personally do not like, then your victory is superficial and devoid of substance. Whatever might be within the recesses of the minds of those such as Mr. Rocker and Mr. Irving, I am sure that the sum of those outside pressures did not alter it one modicum. In fact, this interference absolutely does generate another parcel of dislike to be added to the original. Whatever negative -- politically incorrect -- notions might perceivably exist within some man's noggin, they are not eliminated by creating a reason for him to have another. I am sure that John Rocker has not increased his 'mellowness' one iota by the media flap and its subsequent tap dance. All that is accomplished is to drive an increased resentment underground.

As long as Blacks continue on an insolent and indolent path, dislike for all of them will increase, as we see daily. As long as jews continue to pursue and persecute helpless old men -- hangers-on from a war 50 years ago -- and continue to fart out Spielberg dogmadrama hate-movies by the billions, plus seeing THEIR gold under ALL beds, dislike for jews will increase. You'd think these people would 'wise up' but they won't. Blood always tells and that's the racial bottom line.