THE BIG LIE ABOUT THE BERLIN OLYMPICS

In its broadest scope, the Holocaust myth involves much more than the supposed gassing of the famous "six million." It includes every related lie which the Jewish propagandists have invented about Germany and the Germans in the period 1933-1945. One of the most brazen of these lies concerns the Olympic games of 1936, which were held in Berlin.

According to the story, which is being given renewed currency by the controlled media as the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles draw nearer, Adolf Hitler intended for the 1936 games to prove to the world his "master-race theory" of Aryan superiority. But the theory was shattered, the story goes when U.S. Negro sprinter and jumper Jesse Owens defeated the Nazi athletes. Humiliated and enraged, Hitler then showed his lack of sportsmanship by snubbing the Black champion.

The truth of what happened at the 1936 Olympic games was witnessed by 4.5 million spectators from all over the world, and it has been related numerous times since then -- but never by the controlled news media in the United States, which unvaryingly parrot the same, old lie whenever the occasion arises. [See, for example, Adolf Hitler by John Toland (Doubleday, 1976, pp.392-3] And it is that lie which the average American, whose greatest single source of information is Jew-controlled television, believes. Checking out the story of the "gas ovens" and the "six million" may be too much for anyone but a scholar experienced in historical research, but any sports fan willing to spend two or three hours in a library reading un-biased accounts of the 1936 Berlin games can convince himself that today's Jewish version of what happened there and then is almost exactly contrary in every particular to the truth.

He can learn that the behavior of Hitler and his government exemplified the ideals not only of sportsmanship, but also of hospitality, in the view of nearly everyone who was there; that if anyone behaved in an unsportsman-like way, it was the U.S. team, which was under orders not to extend the customary courtesy of the Olympic salute to the Tribune of Honor, where Hitler sat; that Hitler did not snub Owens, and the Black athlete himself later said, "When I passed the Chancellor he arose, waved his hand at me, and I waved back at him. I think the writers showed bad taste in criticizing the man of the hour in Germany"; and that, far from being humiliated by the results of the games, Hitler was elated, because the Germans won more gold, more silver, and more bronze medals (89 altogether, compared to 56 for the Americans)(1) than anyone else. (In the words of historian John Toland, "The games had been an almost unqualified Nazi triumph.")

It would require more study to learn that the National Socialists never theorized that Aryans are inherently better in every type of athletic endeavor than non- Aryans; that instead they recognized that each race's peculiarities give it certain advantages and certain disadvantages in competing against other races; and that the particular form of the "master-race theory" attributed to Hitler is a Jewish invention. But what really should be learned from the lie about the 1936 Olympics is just how credible is the Holocaust myth of which it is part and parcel.

A MORE ACCURATE GRADING OF OLYMPIC PERFORMANCE

Based upon population, the U.S. is an athletic also-ran.

by Robert Frenz

For the most part I ignored the 1984 Olympic Games. Although sports represent a certain level of achievement, I find it difficult to elevate them to the empyrean heights reserved for athletic events by the media. The fact that a gold medalist in 1984 broke a record set by a gold medalist in some other year does not indicate any evolutionary gain, at least to me. The measure of human progress, now and in the future, will always be tied to the mental apparatus of man, not the physical. The abilities of our race should not be linked to the ability to run down a rabbit, leap over a shrub or wrestle a baboon.

Some Olympic contests, such as running from here to there and jumping over a sand pile, come across as rather trivial events when compared, let us say, to gymnastics. The latter demands a much higher level of mental/physical activity than the former. Yet, the gold medal is the same.

While popping my TV set from one channel to another recently, I paused for a moment to hear Don Rickles mention that "if it weren't for the Negro, there wouldn't be any Olympics." Should we really be so thankful for our black minority? I decided to do a little research.

My data source was the World Almanac. I checked the awarding of medals for 1976 and 1980, both the Summer and Winter Games. Instead of merely counting medals, I assigned a value of 3 to each gold medal, 2 to each silver and 1 for each bronze. In my view this would represent a better assessment of national performance than a mere medal count.

It seems only reasonable that nations with large populations should accumulate a larger number of medal points than small nations. Nation X, for example, with 14% of the total population of the countries participating, might capture 16% of the total number of the medal points possible. Multiplying 16% by 100 and then dividing this product by the total population (14%) would yield a value of 114. All other things being equal, nations should have a points/population value of 100. A number higher than this represents above average performance while a lower value indicates the opposite (see tables).

The Winter Olympics Games are distinguished by an almost total absence of non-whites. Consequently, the Winter Games could be used as a means of ranking white racial performance along national lines. It should be noted that the absence of a country from the tables indicates that it either was not a participant or did not win any medals. Table I tells us that the U.S. scored a mediocre 31 in the 1976 Winter Olympics.[2] Liechtenstein, with a population of 20,000, performed extraordinarily well. Table III shows the U.S. with a 51, still well below 100. While this represents an improvement, it nonetheless reveals a rather dismal overall rating. Finland's score on Table II may indicate why a handful of Finnish skiers raised so much havoc with invading Soviet troops in 1940.

Let's move on to the Summer Games. With a boycott here and a boycott there, Table II tells us that the U.S. did about what one would expect on a random basis. Table IV, with no listing of the U.S., tells us that Carter refused to let Americans go to Moscow. Both Tables II and IV are worth a second look. We see the usual high ranking of Nordic-populated countries as well as the low ranking of largely non-white nations which contributed a plethora of runners of one sort or another. The preponderance of Northern Europeans in water events served to increase the ranking of Nordic-populated countries. If we can assume that U.S. Majority athletes fare as well as their Northern European counterparts in swimming, as in skiing, then how can we explain the much better showing, in a relative sense, of the U.S. in the Summer as opposed to the Winter Games? Could it be that Don Rickles is partially right? Is the U.S. in such sad straits that, as a competing nation, it can only appear average when the black contribution is added?

(2) In the 1976 Winter Olympics Games, 37 gold, 37 silver and 39 bronze medals were awarded. This represents a maximum of 224 points. The total population of the nations winning awards was 805,750,000. At the time, the U.S. population was 219.5 million. American athletes were awarded 3 golds, 3 silvers and 4 bronzes, yielding a point value of 19. The U.S. captured 8.5% (100 x 19/224) of the points with a population of 27.3% (100 x 219500000 / 805750000) of the total. Dividing 8.5 by 27.3 and multiplying by 100 yields the figure of 31 found in Table 1.