Racist: India, South Africa and IsraHell

EUCHARIST IN HOUSE CHURCHES COMMANDED BY GOD. TO RISE ABOVE THE CONCERNS OF THE WORLD

click on picture - also Palestine Cry: St. Melito of Sardis - book of esther is a total synagogue of satan fabrication

ST. MELITO OF SARDIS - BOOK OF ESTHER IS A TOTAL SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN FABRICATION
 
click on picture

The Origin of Esther is the Devil Mother Goddess. See: Delusion - Naasseni, Great Mother and Evolution

Devil Mother Goddess

click on picture

HE WHO LIVES BY THE SWORD SHALL DIE BY THE SWORD.

click on picture - and see: Spies

JUDAS = SPY | DAMNED FOREVER

Judas betrays Jesus with a kiss - click on picture

Racist: India, South Africa and IsraHell

Racist India:

Palestine Cry: Dalit Christians

Racist South Africa:

Louis Botha 1910-1919

James Barry Munnik Hertzog 1924-1939

Jan Christiaan Smuts 1920-1924 and 1939-1948

Daniel François Malan 1948-1954

Johannes Gerhardus Strijdom 1954-1958

Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd 1958-1966. He was assassinated on September 6, 1966 at the Houses of Parliament in Capetown

Balthazar Johannes Vorster 1966-1978

Pieter Willem Botha 1978-1984 The position of Prime Minister was then abolished and he became State President from 1984-1989

F W de Klerk 1989-1994

Nelson Mandela 1994-1999

HEAD OF THE ANC, THE ABORTION, NECKLACING AND CORRUPTION PARTY

Nelson Mandela dies click on picture and see: Palestine Cry: Abortion is murder

South African HEADS of government - Google Cultural Institute

South African History in the 20th Century was dominated by the rise and fall of apartheid, a form of government based on racial classification that placed power and privilege in the hands of a small minority of people of European descent and disenfranchised the large majority of the nation’s population who are of African descent.   

The bitterness of two Anglo-Boer wars, fought between the British and Afrikaners (White South Africans primarily of Dutch descent) provided soil within which the Afrikaner nationalist ideology of apartheid could grow. In the tussle between Afrikaner and English South Africans, it was ultimately, South Africans of colour who lost out.   

The men who oversaw the rise and fall of apartheid were the nation’s heads of government. In 1910 the two former Afrikaner colonies of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State were united with the two British governed colonies, the Cape and Natal to form the Union of South Africa under the British Crown. From this time, the South African government was led by a Prime Minister.

Although they were Afrikaners, the early Prime Ministers, Botha and Smuts took a reconciliatory stance between Afrikaner and English South Africans. Under Hertzog, privileges for working class Whites were entrenched and Blacks were further disenfranchised. 

Apartheid, however, only became official government policy under the leader of the Afrikaner Nationalist Party, Prime Minister DF Malan who came to power in 1948. His successors built on this policy of segregation. HF Verwoerd in particular introduced what came to be known as “Grand Apartheid” the separation of races on a macro scale. People of African descent were not allowed to own or rent land outside of small pockets of land known as “homelands.” The enactment of the scheme saw the mass relocation of Black people to these homelands.

In 1961 South Africa became a Republic.  Prime Ministers continued to head up the government of the Republic of South Africa until 1984 when a new constitution was implemented and the State President became head of state.

FW de Klerk was the last President of South Africa where the system of apartheid was official policy. Pressure from the liberation movements, civil disobedience within the country, economic sanctions from the international community and condemnation by the religious community as well as pressure from the South African business community had rendered the system untenable. In 1993 De Klerk and African National Congress President, Nelson Mandela, were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of their efforts to bring an end to apartheid.

Apartheid was officially ended on April 27, 1994 when Nelson Mandela became the first democratically elected President of South Africa. In line with the Freedom Charter, Mandela called all South Africans to a common goal of a South Africa for all who live in it. Mandela even paid a courtesy visit to Hendrik Verwoerd's widow in 1995 as part of his efforts in reconciliation.

THE NAZI INFLUENCE  IN THE FORMATION OF APARTHEID IN SOUTH AFRICA  by Elizabeth Lee Jemison

http://www.tcr.org/tcr/essays/EPrize_Apartheid.pdf

THE NAZI INFLUENCE

IN THE FORMATION OF APARTHEID IN SOUTH AFRICA

Elizabeth Lee Jemison

South African apartheid was a system developed to protect

the supremacy of Afrikaans-speaking whites and to repress

non-white groups through a policy of almost complete separation.

The Afrikaner people, the descendants of the first Dutch settlers

in southern Africa, were the dominant white minority and, once

unified behind the cause of apartheid, formed a majority of the all-

white electorate. Apartheid, the Afrikaans word for separateness,

began as a governmental system after the elections of 1948 when

the Afrikaner Nationalist Party, became the majority Party, and

this system lasted until 1994. The Afrikaner white population

developed the apartheid system in 1948 in part as an outgrowth of

the ideology of Nazi Germany, an ideology the Afrikaners readily

accepted because of the affinity they felt towards Germans, and

because they feared being dominated by the English minority who

had previously controlled the country.

The desire of the Afrikaners for complete power in South

Africa began when the British took over the Cape area in 1806, in

an effort to prevent Napoleon from gaining control of the region.

The introduction of another European group vying for power

Elizabeth Lee Jemison is at Princeton. She wrote this paper at St. Mary’s

Episcopal School in Memphis, Tennessee, for Ms. Joan Traffas’ Honors

World History II course in the 2003-2004 academic year.

Elizabeth Lee Jemison

Elizabeth Lee Jemison

th century brought with them concepts

of the 18th century Enlightenment and the pro-business liberalism

of the 19th century. These ideas conflicted sharply with the conservative

Calvinist ideology of the Dutch who had settled South Africa

beginning in the mid-17th century. As the result of the anti-slavery

lobby in Britain and of the efforts of Christian missionaries to end

racial prejudice, the British advocated a lessening of segregation

to allow some non-whites to participate at least partially in the

white-dominated society. Overall, the English possessed a more

advanced culture and lifestyle than the Dutch living at the Cape,

so the Dutch were likely to be absorbed into a colonial British

society as second-class citizens. Indignant about the possibility of

such a fate and without sufficient skill to fend off the British, many

of the Dutch Boers moved further inland to areas to the northwest

of the Cape area beginning in 1835. These Afrikaners or

Voortrekkers conquered the land of native African tribes and

established autonomous Boer republics. There, Afrikaners began

to cultivate an Afrikaner culture.1

These Afrikaner or Boer republics began to prosper,

especially after the discovery of gold and diamonds within their

lands. This new-found wealth, however, worked to the detriment

of the Boer republics because when the British learned of the gold

and diamonds to be found further inland, they vied for control.

The conflicts erupting from the attempt on the part of the British

to incorporate the Boer republics into the British Empire eventually

caused two Boer Wars. The first of these lasted from 1881-1882

and the second from 1899-1902. During these wars, the British

suppressed and mistreated Afrikaners. The British created voluntary

concentration camps during the second Boer War where

many women and children came for protection, yet conditions in

these camps were such that 26,000 Afrikaners died of disease and

starvation. Towards the end of the second Boer War, the British

began to burn Boer farms—destroying crops and razing homesteads.

These wars illustrated the dangers of two self-proclaimed

Christian nations going to war against each other when both

nations believed in the same God and both were certain that God

THE CONCORD REVIEW

THE CONCORD REVIEW

2 The Freethinker, a liberal English journal,

reported in October 1899, “The Boer has a Mauser rifle in one

hand and a Dutch Bible in the other, while the Britisher has

weapons in both hands and a Bible behind his back...Each informs

the God of that book which side he ought to take in the quarrel.”3

Ultimately, the British gained control of the Boer Republics with

the Treaty of Vereeniging of 1902.

Though the Afrikaners were routed, many loyal Afrikaners

chose to destroy their weapons rather than surrender them to the

British, while still others accepted deportation rather than swear

allegiance to Britain.4 Despite their defeat, many Boers felt pride

that while Britain used 448,000 soldiers in the war where 7,000 of

them died, the Boers never had more than 70,000 soldiers (rarely

more than 40,000) and most of these were civilians. Only 4,000

Boers died in the war. This pride in their military record evolved

into a new wave of Afrikaner nationalism. Their defeat after

bloody wars made them more bitter towards the British than if

Britain had seized control of the Boer republics without a struggle.5

This century of conflict (1806-1902) encouraged Afrikaner unity

and a strong anti-British attitude that would serve as an initial

impetus for German sympathy culminating in intense pro-Nazism

in the mid-20th century.

The extent of Afrikaner anti-British sentiment was most

evident in Afrikaners’ opposition to the leadership of Jan Christian

Smuts. Smuts, though an Afrikaner himself, was willing to

negotiate with the British; he served in a variety of offices in British-

controlled South Africa including two terms as prime minister.

Smuts had fought on the Boer side of the second Boer War but

later became active in seeking compromise between the two sides

by leading the Boer negotiations for surrender as the Transvaal

State Attorney. Smuts explained the Boer position,

We are not here as an army but as a people...Everyone represents the

Afrikaner people...They call upon us to avoid all measures which may

lead to the decline and extermination of the Afrikaner people...We

commenced this struggle and continued it to this moment because

we wished to maintain our independence...But we may not sacrifice

the Afrikaner people for that independence. As soon as we are

Elizabeth Lee Jemison

Elizabeth Lee Jemison

6

As the result of his efforts to lead the post-war negotiations, Smuts

played crucial roles in convincing Britain to give Afrikaners general

autonomy and in uniting the defeated Boer republics with

British provinces to form the Union of South Africa in 1910.

Smuts’ belief that Britain had the right to rule South Africa

earned him a pro-British label and alienated many fervent Afrikaner

nationalists. The first evidence of this conflict appeared in 1914 at

the beginning of World War I when Smuts fought to end a pro-

German rebellion led by Afrikaners. Smuts’ opposition to the

rebellion primarily caused the formation of the Afrikaner Nationalist

Party later that year by J.B.M. Hertzog who wanted to make

British and Afrikaner cultures equal but separate entities.7 The

Nationalist Party grew in strength from 1914 until 1948 when it

gained a majority. From that political vantage, it was able to enact

its policies of apartheid that it developed during this period of

ascendancy. The Party became increasingly devoted to Afrikaner

supremacy rather than Hertzog’s initial policy of equality between

the two white groups.

In 1919 Smuts had become prime minister when his pro-

British Union Party was still the majority party. Upon entering

office, he experienced dissent from the Afrikaners who viewed

him as a British agent for his belief that the Union of South Africa

did not have the right to secede from the British empire. In the

wake of his experience with the pro-German rebellion in 1914,

Smuts was very cautious in his opposition to the Afrikaners.8 After

he lost power to Hertzog in 1924, Smuts became more politically

astute and aware of the strength of his opposition. Smuts and

Hertzog reconciled their differences to form the United Party in

1933 in which Smuts served as deputy prime minister until Hertzog

resigned from the government in 1939, when South Africa entered

World War II supporting the Allies. Hertzog’s resignation

made Smuts very aware of the division among South Africans in

their opinions on World War II and of the possibility of a civil war

THE CONCORD REVIEW

THE CONCORD REVIEW

9 Smuts’ leading

South African forces on the side of the British in World War II

angered the more conservative Afrikaners whose position the

newspaper, Die Burger, captured when it posed the question, “Why

should we fight for Britain, the only country which has ever

attacked us?”10 Although he was an Afrikaner, J. C. Smuts was the

object of many Afrikaners’ frustrations at the failed attempts at

Afrikaner independence, and he ironically became a symbol of

oppressive British imperialism. In an attempt to distance themselves

from Smuts, many Afrikaners aligned themselves with Germany

against the old enemy, Britain. Anti-British sentiment was

not a direct cause of the bulk of pro-German and later pro-Nazi

sentiment in South Africa, but it contributed in laying the groundwork

for stronger ideological identification with Germany.

Where anti-British sentiment was unable to produce lasting

German sympathies, ideological identification with German

nationalism especially through Afrikaners’ adoption of the concept

of a volkgeist forged strong ties between Afrikaners and

Germans. Johann von Herder, an early romantic German nationalist

coined the term volk in his Ideas of a Philosophy of Human History

to describe the cultural heritage of the common people in any

particular area; Herder called the character distinctive to a culture

its volkgeist. A later German philosopher, J. G. Fichte, built on

Herder’s concepts of volk and volkgeist by claiming in his Addresses

to the German Nation that the German volkgeist was superior to that

of other cultures. Fichte’s theories, first expressed in 1808, introduced

the concept of German supremacy that became the first

seeds of Nazism. Afrikaners adopted this concept of a volk for their

own purposes. The volk stood for the identity of the common

people, so Afrikaners used it to glorify the Voortrekkers who

traveled deeper into Africa, conquered native tribes, and established

the Boer Republics; they were the paragons of Afrikaner

idealism.

In addition, many Afrikaners were of German as well as

Dutch ancestry and shared a common bond with Germans through

Elizabeth Lee Jemison

Elizabeth Lee Jemison

glish,

not German. Several future leaders of the apartheid era

encountered Nazism while studying in Germany.11

Strong pro-German sentiment was evident as early as 1914

when German nationalism caused an Afrikaner rebellion against

British rule. Many Afrikaners opposed the Versailles Treaty ending

World War I. They viewed it as a cruel domination of the

already defeated Germans. Even Smuts attempted to persuade the

British to negotiate a less debilitating treaty with Germany.12 As the

Nazi Party gained power in Germany, Afrikaners felt an inclination

to support Nazism as both Nazism and their own Voortrekker

heritage relied heavily on the idea of volk to promote the concepts

of racial supremacy. Nazis and Afrikaners construed the concept

of volk to permit a form of xenophobia that would preserve their

Western Christian tradition from the dangers Asian and Soviet

powers posed.13 Afrikaners adopted Hitler’s concept of a master

race and Nazi German nationalism to their Afrikaner situation.14

Nazi influence in shaping the ideology of Afrikaners was not the

primary cause of Afrikaner belief in the superiority of whites over

blacks, but Nazism was largely responsible for encouraging the

idea that Afrikaners were superior to any other groups of whites.15

Afrikaners distorted their Calvinist beliefs to further this

attitude of not only white supremacy but also of supremacy of the

Afrikaner volk over all other groups. Because Afrikaner culture

derived support from the Calvinist tradition, the religious ties of

Afrikaners were a natural place to find additional support for the

Afrikaner volk. Accordingly, they claimed that God had established

the volk as a tool for His purposes in South Africa. Afrikaners

took Calvinism’s doctrine of election and claimed that it supported

the spiritual, biological, and cultural superiority of the

“elect” Afrikaner culture. Afrikaners further adapted Calvinism to

include a national consciousness in the doctrines of election and

vocation, thus making the “salvation” of the Afrikaner nation from

THE CONCORD REVIEW

THE CONCORD REVIEW

trolled

government as similar to the biblical story of the young

Hebrew boy, David, defeating the Philistine giant, Goliath.16 By

equating Calvinism to Nationalism and by seeing the struggle for

Afrikaner political power as obedience to divine will, Christian-

Nationalists stressed the State at the expense of more liberal ideas

of individual freedom. This made the emerging ideas of totalitarianism

and fascism seem reasonable and compatible with Christian-

Nationalism.17

The Christian-Nationalist movement grew in importance

and became a central part of the campaign for Afrikaner independence

and for apartheid. Afrikaners, after having gained independence

from Britain in 1961, revealed the degree to which they

thought that independence from Britain was their divinely ordained

destiny when the Afrikaner newspaper, Die Transvaler,

reported, “Our republic is the inevitable fulfillment of God’s plan

for our people...a plan formed in 1653 when [the first Dutch

settlers] arrived at the Cape...for which the defeat of our Republics

in 1902 was a necessary step.”18 In addition to advocating independence

from Britain, Afrikaners manipulated Calvin’s teachings to

claim that Calvinism’s clear delineation between the elect and the

damned supported the formation of apartheid’s rigid racial and

ethnic distinctions.19

While Christian-Nationalism provided an ideological justification

for fascism, anti-Semitism in the 1930s further linked the

ideologies of Christian-Nationalism and Nazism. Both formulated

similar policies to control Jews within their respective countries.

Interestingly, there was initially resistance to this trend from

powerful Afrikaner leaders. In 1929, General J.B.M. Hertzog, the

founder of the Nationalist Party, expressed decent tolerance,

Elizabeth Lee Jemison

Elizabeth Lee Jemison

pean

countries from which Jews most frequently immigrated.

Despite such voices, anti-Semitism rose at an alarming rate in both

Germany and South Africa during the 1930s. In fact, South African

anti-Semitism was directly related to the anti-Semitism and persecution

policies in Germany. Because of the persecution of Jews in

Germany, there was a dramatic increase in the number of Jews

immigrating to South Africa from Germany. Many Afrikaners

noted this increase with alarm, fearing that Jews would eventually

overpower Afrikaners’ economic and political control. Thus, with

the Immigration Quota Act, the government seemed to legitimize

anti-Semitism,20 and anti-Semitism became an official policy of the

Afrikaner Nationalist Party.

Several militant Nazi-sympathizing organizations protested

the immigration of Jews into South Africa. One such gang was The

South African Grey Shirt Party, led by L.T. Weichardt, a South

African of German descent. The Grey Shirts became very active in

anti-Semitic protest against the rising numbers of German Jewish

immigrants.21 These immigrants formed 57.4% of the 6,295 Germans

immigrating to South Africa from 1933-1936. Other Nazi

sympathizing organizations included the Boerenasie and the New

Order; all these were anti-Semitic, but the Grey Shirts were the

most vehemently anti-Semitic of these groups.22 Initially, the

Afrikaner Nationalist Party attempted to oppose the Grey Shirts’

anti-Semitism, but the Party soon became involved in pressing for

a new restriction on immigration of Jews that went into effect on

November 1, 1936. Before this new restriction went into effect, the

SS Stuttgart, a chartered ship, carried 600 German-Jewish refugees

to South Africa. A protest organized by the Grey Shirts met the ship

near the docks in Cape Town as a show of the force various militant

groups possessed. 23 In reaction to the SS Stuttgart incident, the

THE CONCORD REVIEW

THE CONCORD REVIEW

tionalist

Party member, and five other Stellenbosch professors

pledged themselves to pursue an end to all Jewish immigration.24

Verwoerd further pursued anti-Semitic policies by suggesting to

the government that it no longer give Jews any new trading

licenses.25 Verwoerd became even more outspoken on the subject

of anti-Semitism when, in 1937, he became editor of Die Transvaler,

the newspaper published by the Nationalist Party of the Transvaal

region, which provided a prominent voice on Party issues for

several decades. His first editorial was a caustic diatribe against

Jews.26

Afrikaners continued to pursue increasingly radical anti-

Semitic legislation throughout the late 1930s, keeping pace with

that of Nazi Germany. In 1937, the Aliens Act created an Immigrant

Selection Board to ensure “assimilability” among all immigrants.

Although this act did not explicitly prohibit Jewish immigration,

Afrikaners often considered Jews “non-assimilables” and

prevented them from immigrating.27 The ambiguities in the Aliens

Act caused the Nationalist Party to fight for a number of new

demands to prevent all Jewish immigration and thus minimize the

role of Jews in South Africa. These demands included the explicit

prohibition of all future Jewish immigration, the removal of

Yiddish as an approved European language for immigration

purposes, and prohibition of Jews and other “non-assimilable”

groups from joining certain professions.28 Following these demands

of the Nationalist Party, Eric Louw, later Foreign Minister,

introduced another anti-Semitic bill that strongly resembled Nazi

legislation—the Aliens Amendment and Immigration Bill of 1939.

His bill was a means of suppressing all Jews. This bill suggested that

Jews threatened to overpower Protestants in the business world

and were innately cunning and manipulative, and that Jews were

a danger to society. To support his claim, Louw maintained that

Jews were involved in the Bolshevik Revolution and therefore

intended to spread Communism worldwide. This bill defined Jews

as anyone with parents who were at least partly Jewish regardless

of actual religious faith or practices. The majority Union Party

Elizabeth Lee Jemison

Elizabeth Lee Jemison

ment

and Immigration Bill failed, the fact that politicians introduced

such bills showed the extremes of South African anti-

Semitism in the 1930s.29

Many of the Jews who immigrated to South Africa adapted

more readily to urban life than the largely agrarian Afrikaners and

were generally better educated; subsequently, most Jews seemed

noticeably wealthier than Afrikaners. Afrikaners blamed the Jews

for their own lack of wealth by branding them enemies of society

and of the Afrikaner in particular.30 Thus, by blaming Jews for

Afrikaner economic hardships and by seeking to prevent Jewish

immigration, Afrikaners found a scapegoat for their own difficulty

in adjusting to an urban, industrial society. This anti-Semitism

grew in its irrationality and contradiction until Afrikaners accused

Jews of being both ruthless capitalists and subversive Communists.

A 1937 poster for the South African Nationalist Peoples’ Movement

read, “We say: Down with the Jewish Communism! Down

with the exploiters of Democracy! Down with the exploiters of the

Trade Unions! Down with the Bolshevik agitators who want...to

satisfy their hatred of...Christian Afrikaners...Down with Judaism,

the enemy of the whole world!”31 Dr. D.F. Malan, the incoming

leader of the Afrikaner Nationalist Party, voiced this slander in a

speech made on July 10, 1939: “Behind the organized South

African Jewry stands organized world Jewry...They have robbed

the population of its heritage so that the Afrikaner lives in the land

of his father but no longer possesses it.”32 Malan also voiced his

opinion that Jews should never comprise more than five percent

of the population of any region. In addition to anti-Semitism from

the political arena, a committee within a synod of the Dutch

Reformed Church concluded after much examination that the

Jews were not God’s chosen people as described in the Old

Testament. While the whole synod voted against accepting this

committee declaration, the introduction of such a claim revealed

THE CONCORD REVIEW

THE CONCORD REVIEW

33 This strong

attitude of anti-Semitism fed the ideological bond between

Afrikaners and Nazi Germany. This, along with the concepts of the

Afrikaner volk and Christian-Nationalism, provided a firm foundation

for the formation of strong, Nazi-sympathizing organizations.

The Afrikaner Broederbond (Brotherhood) was the earliest

conservative Afrikaner group which closely aligned itself with

Nazi Germany, and which was influential in the founding of

apartheid in 1948. The Broederbond began as a fraternity of men

devoted to the Afrikaner cause in 1918 and became a secret

organization in 1924. In 1918, a mob interrupted a Nationalist

Party gathering in Johannesburg where Dr. D.F. Malan, then the

Party leader in Cape Town, was speaking. The mob vandalized the

Nationalist Club building and injured some of the Party members

attending the meeting. This disturbance left a deep impression

especially on three Afrikaner teenagers at this meeting—H.J.

Klopper, H.W. van der Merwe, and Daniel H.C. du Plessis—who

met the following day to pledge themselves to restore the Afrikaner

to his rightful place in South Africa. On June 5, 1918, these three

under the guidance of Rev. J.F. Naude of the Dutch Reformed

Church, held a meeting in du Plessis’ home. This meeting marked

the beginning of the Broederbond. The name of the organization

that they began with only eighteen members was Jong Suid-Afrika

(Young South Africa), but by 1920, the organization took the

name Afrikaner Broederbond, and considered itself a quasi-

religious organization for the purpose of promoting Afrikaner

unity and of allowing young nationalist-minded Afrikaners to

meet one another. Membership was open, and the Broederbond

strongly encouraged its 37 members to wear Broederbond buttons

to distinguish themselves.34 However, the Broederbond did not

remain as open and harmless an organization as it began.

As the Broederbond grew, its nature changed and it

became increasingly exclusive by the late 1930s. Membership was

very limited. In 1944, membership was about 2,674 with 8.6% of

these being public servants and 33.3% educators.35 The mission of

the Broederbond was to promote Afrikaner interests in every area.

Elizabeth Lee Jemison

Elizabeth Lee Jemison

36 In 1946, Senator Andrew Conroy,

the Minister of Lands and an outspoken anti-Broederbond member

of the United Party, estimated that the Broederbond had

strong influence over nine out of ten Dutch Reformed Church

congregations. Because of this and other allegations of

Broederbond involvement in the Dutch Reformed Church, the

Church launched an investigation of the Broederbond in 1949.

They reported that the Broederbond was a benign social organization

open to all Afrikaans-speaking Protestants who were loyal to

South Africa. Many of the Broederbond’s critics argued that

precisely the Broederbond’s influence within the church had

secured a favorable, though fraudulent, report.37

Just as its critics feared, the Broederbond’s membership

was not as open as the Dutch Reformed Church’s report alleged.

The Broederbond denied membership to J.B.M. Hertzog and J.C.

Smuts, both Afrikaans-speaking Protestants, for their willingness

to negotiate with Britain and for their refusal to deny the right of

English-speaking South Africans to participate in government.38

Hertzog also denounced the Broederbond for their refusal to

negotiate with English-speaking South Africans and for hindering

his diplomatic efforts. The Broederbond countered by accusing

Hertzog of trying to increase his own political power by provoking

English-speaking South Africans to fear Afrikaners.39 Smuts considered

the Broederbond a dangerous organization but failed to

oppose it publicly for some time despite having the power granted

by the special War Measures Act of 1941 to do so. According to his

Director of Military Intelligence, E. G. Malherbe, Smuts chose not

to expose the Broederbond because so many Broederbond members

were Dutch Reformed Church ministers and teachers, professions

for which Smuts had great respect. Smuts refused to oppose

the pro-Nazi attitudes of university students and professors except

in the case of those who committed civil crimes.40 Eventually Smuts

THE CONCORD REVIEW

THE CONCORD REVIEW

tion,

but many more resigned from their civil service position. Of

those who resigned from the Broederbond, 807 rejoined after

Smuts’ administration lost power to the Nationalist Party in the

1948 elections. Broederbond members gained much public sympathy

during this period for their loyalty to the Afrikaner cause,41

while Smuts publicly denounced the Broederbond as “A dangerous,

cunning, political Fascist organisation.”42 Broederbond members

responded by repeatedly denying Smuts’ allegations, and

claiming that the Broederbond was a benign cultural organization.

When the Broederbond began in 1918, it was not the

fascist organization that Smuts denounced in 1944, but with the

rise of Nazi Germany, the link between the ideology of the

Broederbond and that of Nazi Germany grew. This link became

critical to the Broederbond with the 1934 visit of Graf von

Durckheim Montmartin, a representative of Nazi Germany.

Montmartin came to South Africa with the official intention of

attending a conference on education, but according to documents

confiscated during World War II at the German diplomacy

headquarters for the Union of South Africa, Hitler sent Montmartin

with the purpose of determining what support South Africa might

provide to Germany in the new world order that Hitler envisioned.

Montmartin met secretly with top Broederbond leaders to discuss

how the Broederbond might be of service to this end. After this

meeting with Montmartin, the Broederbond reorganized itself to

resemble the Nazi Party. One exception in this new organization

was the Broederbond’s use of the Dutch Reformed Church to

inspire nationalism and support of all Afrikaners, whereas Hitler

Elizabeth Lee Jemison

Elizabeth Lee Jemison

43

Montmartin’s appeal emphasized the value of anti-British

propaganda as a means of securing South African support for Nazi

Germany and included another sphere of possible influence,

young South African scholars whom the Broederbond encouraged

to study at German universities. One implementation of

Montmartin and the Broederbond’s strategy of anti-British propaganda

during World War II involved a radio station in Zeesen,

Germany that broadcast very clearly to South Africa, more clearly

than the British Broadcasting Company or any South African

radio stations. This radio station was very popular for its music

programs. After the popular music programs, a South African

teacher studying in Germany, Dr. Erik Holm, broadcast vehement

anti-British and anti-Semitic messages in Afrikaans to the listeners

in South Africa. After the war, a South African court found Holm

guilty of treason and imprisoned him, but when the Nationalist

Party came into power after the elections of 1948, the new government

released Holm from prison after only serving one year of his

10-year sentence. Ironically, Holm later received an appointment

to the Department of Education.44 Influenced by Holm’s pro-

Nazism, newspapers openly began to reflect Nazi sympathy before

and during the war. One example was Die Transvaler, published by

Dr. Verwoerd, a Broederbond member. In addition to his anti-

Semitic editorials, Verwoerd expressed delight at Allied defeats

and much dismay in his reports on Nazi losses. Such Broederbond

propaganda prompted much concern among government officials

about the growing power of the organization as the tie

between the Broederbond and the Nazi Party became evident to

those outside of the organization.45

Janie Malherbe, a South African captain of Military Intelligence,

realized the danger of Broederbond’s close alliance with

the Nazi Party after Montmartin’s visit. She reported: “This terrifying

octopus-like grip on the South African way of life was made

possible by reorganising the Broederbond on the pattern of

Hitler’s highly successful Nazi state, complete with fuehrer,

THE CONCORD REVIEW

THE CONCORD REVIEW

46 The Afrikaner Broederbond followed

the ideological and organizational patterns of the Nazi

Party and advocated support of the Nazi Germany under the

assumption that in Hitler’s new world order, Hitler would give

Afrikaners independent rule of South Africa as a reward for their

loyalty to and support of Nazism.

In 1939, while the Broederbond was growing in strength

and World War II was underway, Afrikaner conservatives who

wanted violently to pursue Afrikaner control of South Africa led a

new military-minded organization, the Ossewa Brandwag (literally

Brigade of Ox-wagon Sentinels, referring to the pioneering

Voortrekkers). Colonel J.C.C. Laas, a former military officer

intensely loyal to the Afrikaner volk and the Voortrekker heritage,

founded the Ossewa Brandwag to promote Afrikaner heritage, but

the organization quickly grew into a popular military movement.

Laas led the Ossewa Brandwag from February 1939 until the rapid

growth of the organization expanded beyond his managing capabilities,

prompting his resignation in October 1940.47 After Laas

stepped down from the leadership, the Ossewa Brandwag became

more militant in nature under the leadership of Dr. Hans van

Rensburg. As the national leader, he had the title Commandant-

General, and local leaders became “generals.”

The Ossewa Brandwag, like the Broederbond, supported

Nazi Germany.48 The group strongly opposed the efforts of Smuts

and his army to support the British; its opposition posed a significant

threat because the Ossewa Brandwag had more members

than Smuts’ army.49 The group’s Nazi sympathy became clear

when it printed its constitution in German Gothic type and when

it chose an eagle, the emblem of the Nazi Reichstag, as its

emblem.50 The Ossewa Brandwag opposed the growth of urban

areas using the Dutch Reformed Church’s doctrine of “British-

Jewish capitalism.”51 A cartoon from the Afrikaner nationalist

newspaper, Die Burger, opposed the alleged control of the British

market system by Jewish professionals. The cartoon pictured an

exaggeratedly rotund, greedy Jew riding on the shoulders of a

Elizabeth Lee Jemison

Elizabeth Lee Jemison

52 Some Afrikaners expressed

the opinion that Jews, in league with the British, deviously

worked to increase their wealth and power at the expense of

hardworking Afrikaners who steadfastly did their best to survive in

a harsh world. To many, it appeared that the British and the Jews

oppressed the Afrikaners; Afrikaners could “free” themselves by

supporting Nazi Germany, which promised to destroy both groups.

The Ossewa Brandwag became increasingly Nazi-oriented.

They formed the Stormjaers (stormtroopers), who were a secretive

part of the Ossewa Brandwag composed mostly of police

officers. The Stormjaers threatened and attacked anyone who was

not as conservative as they, including Nationalist Party leaders

such as Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd. The Stormjaers considered themselves

to be acting for the best interests of the Ossewa Brandwag

but may not have always acted under the direct orders of the

group.53 The violence of the Stormjaers demonstrated the grave

danger the Ossewa Brandwag posed as it sought to create a fascist

state.

J.C. Smuts, while hesitant to confront the Broederbond,

nonetheless opposed the Ossewa Brandwag with much fervor as

the type of organization that brought Hitler to power in Germany

and that might have the capability to bring a similar leader to

power in South Africa.54 His criticism was not without justification;

the Ossewa Brandwag was evidence of the growth of Nazi sympathy

and dedication to Afrikaner supremacy in South Africa. Rev. J. D.

Vorster, one “general” in the Ossewa Brandwag, a Nationalist Party

leader, and a future Nationalist prime minister, expressed the

rapidly changing opinions of many who became increasingly

right-wing. In 1934, Vorster denounced Fascism and Nazism in

particular but after he became an Assistant-hoof Kommandant in

the Ossewa Brandwag, he expressed his admiration of Hitler and

his desire for a South Africa in which only Afrikaners had wealth

and political power—all Jews expelled from the country, and

democratic elections terminated.55 Vorster hoped for a new South

African government where, “the Afrikaner will no longer cooper

THE CONCORD REVIEW

THE CONCORD REVIEW

56 Vorster spoke to the

Afrikaner Nationalist Studentebond, the youth wing of the Ossewa

Brandwag, saying, “Hitler’s Mein Kampf shows the way to greatness—

the path of South Africa. Hitler gave the Germans

a...fanaticism which causes them to stand back for no one. We

must follow his example because only by such holy fanaticism can

the Afrikaner nation achieve its calling.”57 Because the violent

nature of Vorster’s opinions threatened the government’s stability,

Smuts jailed Vorster along with some other Ossewa Brandwag

members during much of World War II.58

Vorster’s desire for a new South African government and

for the expulsion of Jews from South Africa was a common desire

throughout the Ossewa Brandwag. The group assured its members

that, “the man with a crooked nose [is] the danger to the

country.”59 In 1940, the Afrikaner Nationalist Studentebond, the

youth wing of the Ossewa Brandwag, acted upon the group’s

desire for a new government and issued a “Freedom Manifesto” as

a promise on the part of the youth to fight to overthrow the

parliamentary government and establish a Christian-Nationalist

government under an elected dictator. This plan included a state-

controlled press, a state education system with Christian-Nationalist

principles, and Afrikaans as the official language of South

Africa. While this document never explicitly mentioned Nazism,

the government described was very similar to the dictatorship in

Nazi Germany.60

In September 1940, the newspaper, Die Suiderstem, published

“Constitution from the Christian-Nationalist Republic” as

the Ossewa Brandwag’s plan for a new government. This government

was viewed by Die Suiderstem as a Nazi state with only a few

changes such as the title of the dictator being president instead of

fuehrer, and the basis of the government being Christian-Nationalist

rather than National-Socialist.61 During the same month, the

Cape Times published an article asserting that the Ossewa Brandwag

was in the process of arranging a coup to establish a Christian-

Nationalist dictatorship. This report claimed that there were

Elizabeth Lee Jemison

Elizabeth Lee Jemison

62 In the

same year, the Ossewa Brandwag issued a similar plan for a new

South Africa with its “Declaration on the Boer Republic.” This new

government was to be a compilation of the governments of the

initial Boer Republics with many elements of Nazi government

and some aspects of other governments including that of Mussolini

in Italy. This government called for a head of state with unlimited

power who would support the concentration of power and wealth

in the hands of Afrikaners and discrimination against all Englishspeakers.

63

However, this republic never had a chance to become

more than an idea because with the Allies’ complete victory over

the Nazis in 1945, the Ossewa Brandwag lost much of its support

and its members dispersed. Many joined the Nationalist Party,

which grew in power during this transition. Some Ossewa Brandwag

members formed another minor Fascist organization, but its

membership and influence were very small.64 The postwar era saw

the rapid growth of the Nationalist Party until it won a majority in

1948 and began the system of apartheid.

The Nationalist Party that began in 1914 under the leadership

of J.B.M. Hertzog grew steadily from its founding to World

War II, but it experienced its greatest growth under Dr. D. F. Malan

during World War II and immediately after the war, especially with

the collapse of the Ossewa Brandwag and other fascist groups.

During the growth of Afrikaner nationalism in the early 1930s, the

Nationalist Party under Hertzog did not actively pursue independence

from Britain. The Nationalist Party thereby gave up the

relative freedom and autonomy of South Africa within the British

Empire for this radical step for complete independence.65 When

Hertzog united with Smuts to form the United Party in 1933,

Malan assumed leadership of the Nationalist Party which began to

pursue a more radical path. At the apogee of Nazi Germany’s

THE CONCORD REVIEW

THE CONCORD REVIEW

66

Despite the official position of supporting the Afrikaner

and not the Nazi, many members of the Nationalist Party openly

supported Nazi Germany. Even Hertzog expressed his distrust of

a majority-ruled, democratic, free-market society with a free press

in favor of a “new world order” of Christian-Nationalism and

National Socialism.67 During the course of World War II, the

Nationalist Party published four documents that demonstrated

the extent of the Nationalist Party’s Nazi support and the influence

of the Ossewa Brandwag and other militant groups.68 Otto du

Plessis, the Nationalist Party’s Secretary of Information, wrote the

first of these documents in 1940. In a pamphlet entitled The New

South Africa—The Revolution of the Twentieth Century he heralded the

new place South Africa would have in the Nazis’ new world order.69

This document supported an Afrikaner state affirming, “The

philosophy at the basis of the new order...is undiluted and unequivocal

nationalism.”70 Du Plessis further argued,

“Afrikanerdom...has, under the imported British system, not known

full political, economic, and social freedom. It consequently pines

for the new system of a new order, which would bring with it true

national freedom in all spheres of life.”71 In his plan, Du Plessis

Elizabeth Lee Jemison

Elizabeth Lee Jemison

72 The Nationalist

Party supported this extreme nationalism believing that it would

elevate the country at the expense of the “ruthless foreign capitalist.”

The Ossewa Brandwag supported the Nationalist Party’s

position in this document by patterning several of its own documents

after The New South Africa—The Revolution of the Twentieth

Century.73 In 1941 Dr. Malan, the Nationalist Party leader, further

revealed the pro-Nazi stance of the Nationalist Party when he

wrote The Republican Order: Future Policy as Set Out by Dr. Malan.74

This document showed fewer parallels to the government of Nazi

Germany than Du Plessis’ The New South Africa. Rather, The Republican

Order described the political structure of the Boer republics

as a uniquely Afrikaner model of government. This document did

link itself to Nazi Germany by its mentioning the expectation that

through its victory in World War II, Germany would drive the

British out of South Africa.75 Malan formed a strategic rather than

ideological tie with Germany in his The Republican Order, but he

strengthened this tie in 1942 with his ideological Draft for a

Republic. The Christian-Nationalist republic that Malan described

in this document had a president with unlimited powers, “directly

and only responsible to God.”76 The president had the power to

control and dismiss Parliament and his Cabinet, to declare war

and control the military, to control the economy, to prevent

competition, and to censor the press. Critics accused Malan of

supporting Hitler’s “pure race” concepts because he specified,

“Each coloured group...will be segregated, not only as regards to

place of dwelling...but also with regard to spheres of work.”77 The

Eastern Province Herald, a pro-British newspaper, claimed in an

editorial published on January 24, 1942, that Malan’s document

…Borrowed from Mussolini for his group system, Goebbles on the

matter of press and radio control and propaganda generally, Hitler

in respect of the arbitrary, all-embracing, over-riding powers of the

Fuehrer-President, ...[and] Mr. Pirow’s new order study group for

various odds and ends dictated by an earnest desire to steal their

synthetic thunder.78

THE CONCORD REVIEW

THE CONCORD REVIEW

trolled

by the Central Economics Council. All key industries will be

controlled by the State...[This is] the sensible way of a controlled

economic system within the framework of a national government.

This is the way to the New Order in the Free Republic of South

Africa.”79 This publication was the last of the documents of the

Nationalist Party that borrowed heavily from Nazi Germany. After

this point in the war, Germany’s imminent defeat weakened any

bond that Afrikaners wanted to claim with her. In 1945, the Ossewa

Brandwag and other militant pro-Nazi groups disbanded when

the Allies had completely defeated Nazi Germany.

The fascist documents that the Nationalist Party and other

organizations such as the Ossewa Brandwag published during

World War II represented the more conservative end of Afrikaner

political opinion. Other more moderate groups supported South

African neutrality in the war, aiding neither Britain nor Germany,

while the most conservative Afrikaners supported Britain with

only minimal reservations. Because Afrikaner sentiment covered

this wide spectrum, World War II caused great division and

fragmentation of the Afrikaners. After the war, many of these

splintered groups joined the Nationalist Party, which became less

militant in its quest for fascism and refocused on its original

purpose, the elevation of the Afrikaner.80 In general, this postwar

period was a time of unification of the many Afrikaner factions that

were splintered by World War II. The influence of the members of

the Ossewa Brandwag, who joined the Nationalist Party after their

organization collapsed in 1945, prevented the Nationalist Party

from becoming overly passive or conciliatory. Nonetheless, the

Party knew that it no longer had support for the totalitarian

government described in its The New South Africa—The Revolution

of the Twentieth Century and Malan’s Draft for a Republic. Still the

Elizabeth Lee Jemison

Elizabeth Lee Jemison

heid

regime did not repudiate the ideology of Nazism; rather, they

adapted their political positions only enough to win power in the

post-World War II South Africa.

With the advent of the post-World War II world, Afrikaners

felt threatened by the new spirit of liberalism introduced by the

Allies in the Atlantic declaration and the U.N. Charter of Human

Rights. The increasing numbers of black laborers who were moving

into the cities to find work also seemed to threaten conservative

Afrikaners when many of these laborers embraced the growing

Communist Party as a way to oppose their harsh working

conditions. The Communist influence on black laborers culminated

in a widespread strike among mine workers in 1946 that

further frightened Afrikaners who recognized Communism as a

threat to their livelihood. The African Mine Workers’ Union

organized this strike of between 75,000 and 100,000 black mine

workers who worked in extremely dangerous conditions for less

than a tenth of the pay of white workers. The strike only lasted a

week before the government violently forced workers back to the

mines, yet it affected more than 30 mines.81 The liberal post-war

doctrines and the mineworkers’ strike encouraged Afrikaners to

retreat to a position of isolation from the new intellectual currents

abroad.82 Opposition to Smuts as prime minister grew during this

period. Smuts was reviled for leading South African troops to the

aid of the Allies and for interning some of the most conservative

Afrikaner nationalists (such as Rev. J.D. Vorster), which reminded

Afrikaners of the British concentration camps in which many

Boers died during the Second Boer War.83

After 1945, the concepts of the Afrikaner volk and Christian-

Nationalism became increasingly central to the Afrikaner

THE CONCORD REVIEW

THE CONCORD REVIEW

alism

directly aided Afrikaner unity and efforts towards autonomy,

whereas concepts of Nazism or totalitarian governments, while

embraced by many Afrikaners, also divided the Afrikaners. The

concepts of volk and Christian-Nationalism had origins in Hegel’s

and Fichte’s German nationalism and in the Dutch Reformed

Church’s brand of Calvinism, both of which preceded the rise of

Nazi Germany. They did not lose validity by the end of World War

II. Increasing numbers of Afrikaners believed like Dr. D.F. Malan

that the purity of the Afrikaner volk depended on the prevention

of intermarrying with other races and that without a rigid system

of separation of the races intermarrying would occur and the

Afrikaner race would lose some of its potency in its unique work of

fulfilling the will of God.84 Accordingly, the Nationalist Party

founded the South African Bureau for Racial Affairs in 1947 to

oppose the South Africa Institute of Race Relations which many

Nationalists considered too liberal and pro-British. Some Afrikaners

derogatively referred to it as the English Institute. This organization

was responsible for the development of the theory of apartheid

and for the implementation of it after the Nationalist victory

in 1948.85One Broederbond member and former Ossewa Brandwag

general, Stellenbosch Professor G. Cronje, wrote in his Voogdyskap

en Apartheid, “The Christian standpoint boils down to the belief

that it is God’s will that there should be a variety of races, volks, and

cultures, and...the glorification and maintenance of such variety,

regarded from a Christian viewpoint, is justified and moreover can

be taken as obedience to the will of God.”86 Thus, the official

standpoint of the Dutch Reformed Church, the largest religious

denomination among Afrikaners, seemed to support a national

plan of segregation. Malan, who had been a minister prior to his

entry into the political realm, remarked that while establishing a

system of segregation is not under the jurisdiction of the church,

the government should pay close attention to the Church’s guidelines

in the establishment of such a system. He meant that governmental

policies regarding race must stress separation.87

Elizabeth Lee Jemison

Elizabeth Lee Jemison

88 The

Broederbond was active in the elections of 1948 with at least 60

Nationalist Party candidates known to be members, including

Malan who became prime minister. One of the candidates was

W.C. du Plessis who had served as a South African diplomat but

resigned when Smuts ordered in 1944 that no public servants

could be Broederbond members. The fact that du Plessis reentered

the political sphere in the same election in which Smuts lost

power demonstrated the change of the political climate in South

Africa.89 In the final count, the Nationalist Party, with its political

ally, the much smaller Havenga’s Afrikaner Party, won 79 of the

150 seats in parliament. The two parties had each received a

plurality, not a majority, of all the votes cast.90 The alliance of these

two Afrikaner parties revealed the unification of all Afrikaners

after World War II to fight for political power, but their victory did

not represent the true will of the electorate that had cast 140,000

more votes for the parties in opposition to the allied Nationalist

Party and Havenga’s Afrikaner Party than for this apartheid

platform.91 This election marked the beginning of apartheid in

South Africa. Under Malan’s leadership, the Nationalist Party

legislated the complete separation of whites from non-whites (that

had already been in practice) but also introduced the separation

of one non-white group from another.

The Broederbond was influential in these first years of

apartheid by establishing the Institute for Christian-National Education

and the Federation of Afrikaans Cultural Organizations as

well as by obtaining from the Dutch Reformed Church a doctrinal

justification of apartheid.92 In 1948, the Federation of Afrikaans

Cultural Organizations published Christian-National Education Policies

that outlined the principles the new government should

maintain to ensure that schools were, “places where our children

are soaked and nourished in the Christian-National spiritual

cultural ‘stuff’ of our nation.”93 The document included instruction

on proposed teaching methods intended to provide an

education steeped in Christian-Nationalism, and it concluded

THE CONCORD REVIEW

THE CONCORD REVIEW

alist

government. Article 14—“Instruction and Education of

Coloureds” affirmed, “We believe that the instruction of Coloured

people should be regarded as a subdivision of the vocation and

task of the Afrikaner to Christianize the non-European by the

European, and particularly by the Afrikaner.”94 The final section

of this document, Article 15—“The Teaching and Education of

Natives,” professed white supremacy even more emphatically: “We

believe that the education and task of white South Africa with

respect to the native is to Christianize him...and this vocation and

task has found its immediate application and task in the principles

of trusteeship, no[t] placing of the native on the level of the white,

and in segregation.”95 Thus, the new South African government

implementing apartheid relied heavily on the principles of Christian-

Nationalism.

Despite the reliance of the Nationalist government on the

concepts of Christian-Nationalism and the Afrikaner volk, the

influence of Nazism remained within the Nationalist Party primarily

through the continued control of the government by members

of the Broederbond. All prime ministers and most major political

leaders during the apartheid era were members of the

Broederbond. Through its secret nature, the Broederbond retained

much of its right-wing ideology during the period between

the defeat of Nazi Germany and the Nationalist Party victory in

1948. The leaders of South Africa after 1948 no longer espoused

Nazism as they had during World War II, but they had come to

their political and intellectual maturity under the shadow of Nazi

Germany and had devoted years of their lives to the furtherance of

its ideology. Thus, a strain of the infamous regime that terrorized

Europe in the first half of the twentieth century persisted to

control South Africa for the second half of the century.

Elizabeth Lee Jemison

Elizabeth Lee Jemison

 1 Charles Bloomberg, Christian-Nationalism and the Rise

of the Afrikaner Broederbund in South Africa, 1918-1948

(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989) pp. xix-xx; see

also William Henry Vatcher, Jr., White Laager: The Rise of

Afrikaner Nationalism (New York: Frederick A. Praeger,

Publishers, 1965) pp. 3-4

2 David Nash, “The Boer War and its Humanitarian

Critics,” History Today 49 (June 1999) p. 42, found using

InfoTrac Web: Student Edition.

3 Ibid., p. 3

4 Ivor Wilkins and Hans Strydom, The Broederbond (New

York: Paddington Press, 1979)

5 Ibid., pp. 37-38

6 Ibid., p. 36

7 Bloomberg, p. 183

8 Kenneth Ingham, Jan Christian Smuts: the Conscience of

a South African (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1986) p. 118

9 Bloomberg, p. 183

10 Vatcher, p. 63

11 Bloomberg, p. 137

12 Ibid., p. 136

13 Bloomberg, p. 162

14 Vatcher, p. 60

15 Brian Bunting, The Rise of the South African Reich

(Penguin Africa Library, 1969, Available as ebook at http://

www.anc.org.za/books/reich.html) ch. 4. p. 2 of 12

16 Ibid., p. xx

17 Bloomberg, pp. 100-101

18 Ibid., p. xxi

19 Ibid., p. 100

20 Bunting, ch. 4, p. 2 of 12

21 Vatcher, p. 64

22 Bunting, ch. 4, pp. 3-4 of 12

23 Ibid., ch. 4, p. 3 of 12

24 Ibid., ch. 4, pp. 3-4 of 12

25 Ibid., ch. 4, p. 3 of 12

26 Vatcher, p. 61

27 Bunting, ch. 4, p. 4 of 12

28 Ibid., ch. 4, p. 5 of 12

29 Ibid., ch. 4, pp. 4-5 of 12

30 Vatcher, p. 61

THE CONCORD REVIEW

THE CONCORD REVIEW

Ibid., p. 62

32 Ibid., p. 61

33 Ibid., pp. 61, 63

34 Wilkins, pp. 44-46

35 Bunting, ch. 3 p. 3 of 8

36 Bloomberg, p. xxii

37 Bunting, ch. 3, p. 3 of 8

38 Ibid., ch. 3, p. 2 of 8

39 Ibid., ch. 3, p. 2 of 8

40 Wilkins, pp. 78-79

41 Ibid., pp. 82-84

42 Bunting, ch. 3, pp. 2-3 of 8; see also Wilkins, p. 83

43 Bunting, ch. 3, pp. 1-2; see also Wilkins, pp. 76-77

44 Wilkins, pp. 77-78

45 Ibid., p. 77

46 Bunting, ch. 3 pp. 1-2 of 8

47 Bloomberg, p. 163

48 Ibid., pp. 161-162

49 Wilkins, p. 77

50 There is also some evidence that the organization used a

swastika as a symbol of its power and prestige, but that is not

certain. Vatcher, p. 66

51 Bloomberg, p. 162

52 Vatcher, p. 61

53 There are no clear records of any orders the Ossewa

Brandwag issued to the Stormjaers probably because the group

did not wish any record of its responsibility for acts of violence.

Bloomberg, p. 166

54 Ibid., p. 168

55 Ibid., p. 167; see also Wilkins, pp. 77-78

56 Vatcher, p. 63

57 Ibid., p. 63

58 Wilkins, pp. 77-78

59 Vatcher, p. 65

60 Bloomberg, pp. 165-166; see also Wilkins, pp. 256-257

61 Vatcher, p. 66

62 Ibid., p. 66

63 Bloomberg, p. 167

64 Ibid., pp. 201-202

65 Ingham, p. 182

66 Bloomberg, p. 165

67 Bunting, ch. 4, pp. 1-2 of 8

Elizabeth Lee Jemison

Elizabeth Lee Jemison

68 This evidence of a radical faction within the Nationalist

Party causes a minority of scholars to consider the Ossewa

Brandwag as nothing more than a radical branch of the

Nationalist Party. Kenneth Ingham suggested this in his

favorable biography on Smuts perhaps to minimize the degree

of opposition that Smuts faced. Ingham, p. 213; see also

Vatcher, p. 68

69 Bloomberg, p. 165

70 Vatcher, p. 69

71 Ibid., p. 69

72 Ibid., p. 69

73 Ibid., pp. 68-69

74 Most branches of the Nationalist Party published this

document without its subtitle. The Transvaal branch of the

Party added the subtitle when it published the document.

75 Vatcher, p. 70

76 Ibid., pp. 70-72

77 Ibid., p. 73

78 Ibid., p. 73

79 Ibid., p. 73

80 Bloomberg, pp. 202-203

81 M.P. Naicker, “The African Miners’ Strike of 1945,” from

“Notes and Documents,” No. 21/76. Sept. 1976 http://

www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/misc/miners.html (1 July

2003)

82 Ibid., pp. 202, 204

83 Wilkins, p. 80

84 D.F. Malan, personal letter, 12 February 1954

85 Vatcher, p. 151

86 Bloomberg, pp. 203, 205

87 Malan, letter

88 Bloomberg, pp. 203-204

89 Bunting, ch. 3, p. 3

90 Bloomberg, p. 205

91 Ibid., p. 205

92 Ibid., p. 208

93 Vatcher, p. 289

THE CONCORD REVIEW

THE CONCORD REVIEW

Ibid., p. 300

95 Ibid., p. 300

Bibliography

Bloomberg, Charles, Christian Nationalism and the Rise of

the Afrikaner Broederbund in South Africa, 1918-1948

Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989

Bunting, Brian, The Rise of the South African Reich

Penguin Africa Library, 1969, available as an ebook at http://

www.anc.org.za/books/reich.html

Ingham, Kenneth, Jan Christian Smuts: the Conscience of a

South African New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1986

Malan, Daniel F., Personal letter, 12 February 1954 (no

source given)

Naicker, M.P., “The African Miners’ Strike of 1945,” from

“Notes and Documents,” No. 21/76, Sept. 1976 http://

www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/misc/miners.html (1 July

2003)

Nash, David, “The Boer War and its Humanitarian Critics,”

History Today 49 (June 1999): 42, found using InfoTrac Web:

Student Edition

Vatcher, William Henry, Jr., White Laager: The Rise of

Afrikaner Nationalism New York: Frederick A. Praeger,

Publishers, 1965

Wilkins, Ivor, and Hans Strydom, The Broederbond New

York: Paddington Press, 1979

Racist IsraHell:

Palestine Cry: The Life of an American Jew in Racist Marxist Israel

Palestine Cry: A very short recent history of Palestine in pictures showing the truth of the Palestinian cause

Palestine Cry: The Abomination of Desolation in the Holy Land - the Jews

GOD VOIDED THE COVENANT - CLICK ON PICTURE

 
God voided the covenant

The following promise to the Israelites was fulfilled in the time of Solomon and then gone and never to be any more.

Deuteronomy 11:24

Every place, that your foot shall tread upon, shall be yours. From the desert, and from Lebanon, from the great river Euphratesunto the western sea shall be your borders.

2 Kings 19:31

Berzellai also the Galaadite coming down from Rogelim, brought the king over the Jordan, being ready also to wait on him beyond the river.

3 Kings 4:21

And Solomon had under him all the kingdoms from the river to the land of the Philistines, even to the border of Egypt: and they brought him presents, and served him, all the days of his life.

v.21 “The river”… Euphrates.

3 Kings 4:24

For he had all the country which was beyond the river, from Thaphsa to Gazan, and all the kings of those countries: and he had peace on every side round about.

After that the land covenant with Israel was voided by God and never applied again.

God voided the covenant

The core of the Antichrist, ad-Dajjal, lie is that the Israelis are the people that God made a land covenant with which is still in effect in the area called Palestine for the last two thousand years. In the Book of Deuteronomy, Chapters 28 — 32 God explicitly tells Moses that the ancient Israelites will transgress the land covenant with God and God will void the covenant permanently and cast them out. Especially see Dt. 31:16,17

“And the Lord said to Moses: Behold thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, and this people rising up will go a fornicating after strange gods in the land, to which they goeth in to dwell: there will they forsake me, and will void the covenant, which I have made with them,
And my wrath shall be kindled against them in that day: and I will forsake them, and will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured: all evils and afflictions shall find them, so that they shall say in that day: In truth it is because God is not with me, that these evils have found me.”

This came to pass forevermore exactly as Our Lord Jesus Christ said 1500 years later when He prophesied the utter destruction of the Temple. That destruction occurred in 70 A.D. God also gave the descendants of Ishmael the land since God voided all land covenant with Israel but kept the unconditional blessing upon Ishmael and his descendants to inherit the land.

The Zionist Jew ad-Dajjal, the Antichrist, plan is to conquer all the ancient territory that Solomon ruled over. But that is totally against God’s will and plan, for He took the kingdom from Solomon’s successors (3 Kings 11:11 and 3 Kings 11:31 – 35) and voided the land covenant with Israel FOREVER. God kept the land covenant with Ishmael’s descendants, which includes Palestinians and Lebanese and Iraqis and many others.

Therefore it is the sacred duty of all Muslims and Christians to resist the Zionist Jew ad-Dajjal, the Antichrist, and support our brothers and sisters in the Palestinian and Lebanese and Iraqi and all resistance in every way.

See:

God, Allah (SWT) speaking:

Genesis 17:20
And as for Ishmael I have also heard thee. Behold, I will bless him, and increase, and multiply him exceedingly: he shall beget twelve chiefs, and I will make him a great nation.

Gn:21:17:
17 And God heard the voice of the boy: and an angel of God called to Hagar from heaven, saying: What art thou doing, Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the boy [Ishmael], from the place wherein he is.

18 Lift the boy up and take him by the hand, for I will make him into a great nation.”

Lebanon belongs to the Lebanese and no one else, just likePalestine belongs to the Palestinians and no one else and Iraqbelongs to the Iraqis and no one else.

Palestine belongs only to the Palestinians. Jesus Christ belongs to all who receive Him into their lives.

This scripture makes it an unalterable and eternal truth from the time that Our Lord Jesus Christ said these words to the perfidious Jews that upon the judgement that fell on the Deicide Jews in 70 A.D. - THAT THEY, THE JEWS WOULD NEVER AGAIN BE THE NATION OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD V.43 Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

MATTHEW 21

CHAPTER XXI.

Christ rides into Jerusalem upon an ass: he casts the buyers and sellers out of the temple: curses the fig-tree: and puts to silence the priests and Scribes.

42 Jesus saith to them: Have you never read in the Scriptures: *The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner? By the Lord this has been done; and it is wonderful in our eyes.

43 Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone, shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they understood that he spoke of them.

46 And seeking to lay hands on him, they feared the multitudes: because they held him as a prophet.

The Zionist Jews are invaders/imposters and murderous thieves and nothing else. The Antichrist abomination of "IsraHell" belongs in eternal fire, where it will go.

God through Our Lord Jesus Christ grant us deliverance from the Zionists and all the enemies of God.

The Final Trial: No to all Terrorists

No to all Terrorists including a false ' Mahommot ', the false Mahdi

The Dome of the Rock

Fanatics' target for attack to begin WWIII? Or actually the location for the false peace pact to be built around. See below:

Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ warned of false prophets who come in His name. This warning must be applied to any who preach themselves rather than God. If someone claimed to be the Twelfth Imam in an esoteric false-Sufi sense and pointed to a figure like al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah of the Druze as the Mahdi he would be a false prophet and an antichrist (dajjal) by definition. When he pointed to this person (most likely a freemason ecumenist "hawk") as the Mahdi who then, instead of witnessing to Muhammed (PBUH) and especially Jesus Christ (PBUH) and morality, unifies both Sunni and Shia and all of an apostasy from Islam around himself and strikes a peace agreement with the Antichrist (ad-Dajjal) in Jerusalem then this person claiming to be the Mahdi would be one of the ten horns (see Rev. 17:3, 7, 12, 16) that follow after the Beast (the Antichrist) and do his will and then there is the false peace St. Paul warned about. See: 1Thes:5:3 “For when they shall say: Peace and security; then shall sudden destruction come upon them, as the pains upon her that is with child, and they shall not escape.” (DRV) Many Muslims are named after Muhammed (PBUH). In this sense if we rearrange the name Muhammed (PBUH) to a different spelling that does not in any sense apply to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) but would only apply to a false prophet who is an apostate from Islam - a kafir, we arrive at -

In Hebrew Gematria:

Mohammot = 40 + 70 + 5 + 1 + 40 + 40 + 70 + 400 = 666

M mem = 40, O ayin = 70, H he = 5, A aleph = 1, M mem = 40, M mem = 40, O ayin = 70, T tau = 400

Below: Father Sloet of Holland’s solution to the final name of the Antichrist (who will be a Jew) with medial kaph so the reign of this false “ ‘king’ of Israel” will be temporary, i.e. short.

(Note: in the below that the Hebrew characters normally read in reverse order than the English letters. Numerical equivalents are beneath the English letters.)

Hammelek l Yisrael

H M L K L Y S R A L

ה מ ל כ ל י ש ר א ל

5+ 40+ 30+ 20+ 30+ 10+ 300+ 200+ 1+ 30 = 666

The swastika is one of the so-called birth symbols of the buddha; in actuality it is an ancient sun symbol of paganism and black magic --
The heresy of the Naasseni (literally “Naas” is the word for serpent, Jewish Gnostic serpent worshippers) is adverted to by the other leading writers on heresy in the early age of the Church. See St. Irenaeus, i, 34: Origen, Contr. Cels., vi 28 (p. 291 et seq. ed. Spenc.); Tertullian, Proeser., c. 47 Theodoret, Haeretic. Fabul, i. 14; Epiphanius, Advers. Haereses., xxv. and xxxvii.: St. Augustine, De Haeres., xvii.; Jerome, Comment. Epist. ad Galat., lib. ii. The Abbe Cruice reminds his readers that the Naasseni carried their doctrines into India, and refers to the Asiatic Researches (vol. x. p. 39).

The Abbe Cruice mentions the following works as of authority among the Gnostic Naasseni, and from whence they derived their system: The Gospel of Perfection, Gospel of Eve, The Questions of Mary, Concerning the Offspring of Mary, The Gospel of Philip, The Gospel according to (1)Thomas, (2) the Egyptians.
'The Abbe Cruice reminds his readers that the Naasseni carried their doctrines into India, and refers to the Asiatic Researches (vol. x. p. 39).' It was from this that the main composers of Buddhist teachings, Nagarjuna (literally “wise snake”) and Ashvaghosha, got their ideas (early second century A.D.) which are at the real historical beginning of Buddhism and not the mythic beginning around 500 B.C. concurrent with Mahavira and Goshala.


The Hebrew word is nachash. Hebrew for serpent and black magic and from whence comes the Indian word naga (serpent) and which is the same as nag in Nag Hammadi where the Gnostic writings were found a few decades ago and totally backed up everything that the Church Fathers said about the Gnostics.

paraton autoon logon. Bernaysius suggests for these words, patera too autoo logoo. Schneidewin regards the emendation as an error, and Bunsen partly so. The latter would read, patera ton autoon Logon, i.e., "The Naasseni honour the Father of all existent things, the Logos, as man and the Son of Man."

From St. Hippolytus THE REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES.
BOOK V.CHAP. I.- RECAPITULATION; CHARACTERISTICS OF HERESY; ORIGIN OF THE NAME NAASSENI; THE SYSTEM OF THE NAASSENI.
…

These (Naasseni), then, according to the system(1) advanced by them, magnify, (as the originating cause) of all things else, a man and a son of man. And this man is a hermaphrodite, and is denominated among them Adam; and hymns many and various are made to him. The hymns? however--to be brief--are couched among them in some such form as this: "From thee (comes) father, and through thee (comes) mother, two names immortal, progenitors of Aeons, O denizen of heaven, thou illustrious man." … All these qualities, however--rational, and psychical, and earthly--have, (the Naassene) says, retired and descended into one man simultaneously--Jesus,(5) who was born of Mary.

…

That is they honor: Adam as Father and Mother, and Jesus Christ as only man and only one example of the Logos and born of Mary and Joseph and not by the virgin birth, which is absolute apostasy.

IN SHORT IT WAS THE GNOSTICS THAT CREATED BUDDHISM BY THEIR EXPORT OF THE BLACK MAGIC OF THE APOSTATE GNOSTIC JEWS WHO DATED FROM TWO CENTURIES BEFORE CHRIST (NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH CHRISTIAN JEWS NOR ORTHODOX JEWS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT) TO INDIA. IT IS TRUE THAT THE ALREADY PAGAN BASE OF HINDUISM WAS THE PAN HELLENIC – INDIAN PAGANISM THAT IT WAS GRAFTED ONTO. Actual notable Jewish presence (merchants) in India dated from about 500 B.C.

IT WAS IN THE EARLY THIRD CENTURY A.D. THAT ANOTHER CONNECTION TO THE PAGANISM OF INDIA WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE NEO-GNOSTIC DIDASCALIA (SOPHIST THEOLOGICAL SCHOOL OF ALEXANDRIA).

__________________________________________________________________________

It was Zionism and Communism, both radical Jewish far left abominations that were and are supported by the entire body of Judaism, that created the climate for for the Holocaust against the Slavic gentiles by the Black Mariah (Jewish secret police in Russia) at the beginning of the Russian Communist state in the first place and lead to the greater abominations of Stalin and Mao et al.

_________________________________________________________________

With the Gestapo and the name Guttmacher include Irgun, IDF, Stern Gang, Haganah, Palmach, Lehi, Yishuv, Rekhesh, Mossad, Shin Bet, Communist Insurgents, Nazi Ratline ODESSA Granta operatives, Gantdeutsch above the law saboteurs and criminals, all other transnational lawbreakers -- they are all terrorists.

THE TRUTH FROM A PRIEST FROM HIS OWN WRITINGS

Father Leonard Feeney - a voice for truth

 click on picture

Father Feeney has been defamed as a racist and false injections into his writings have been attempted in order to bolster this lie - but there is no truth to that.

The Point

---

Edited Under Fr. Leonard Feeney M.I.C.M. — Saint Benedict CenterJanuary, 1955

WORLD GOVERNMENT BY THE JEWS

Of the 1,800 executives employed at United Nations headquarters in New York City, over 1,200 are Jews.In its current report in the American Jewish Yearbook, the American Jewish Committee labels opposition to the United Nations as anti-semitism.

David Ben-Gurion, first Prime Minister of the State of Israel, told American newsmen in an interview in 1948, “The United Nations ideal is a Jewish ideal.”
*   *   *   *   *   
Every day there is new evidence that the American people are waking up to the fact that World Communism is a movement fostered and run by Jews. But, even more urgent for Americans to know, and much less publicized, is the fact that the Jews are likewise the promoters of the United Nations.Whatever the apparent differences between these two Jewish projects, the U. N. and Communism (and the differences are only apparent), one similarity is overwhelmingly evident. Both the U. N. and Communism are means to the establishment of a central and absolute world control — which control is precisely what the Jews want.

For twenty centuries the Jewish nation has toiled to destroy in the world the Kingship of Jesus Christ. And to seal this destruction, the Jews have plotted a world Jewish empire, dominating all the nations of the earth, so that the message of Christ the King will be forever stifled.

To this silencing of Christian apostles, all Jews are urged in their prime source of religious counsel, the Talmud. And, concerning this Jewish determination, Saint Paul warns in his First Epistle to the Thessalonians, Chapter 2: “The Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men; prohibiting us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved.”

The Obstacle

In order to make the U. N. work for their purpose, the Jews knew from the start that the United States of America would be a chief obstacle. America’s traditional wariness of foreign entanglements (which accounted for the failure of the old League of Nations) would have to be eliminated. And there was a deeper reason for concentrating on America.
When the smoke of World War II cleared away, the Jews rejoiced to see how much they had accomplished in their ancient battle against Christ and His Church. In all of the leading nations of the earth, the Catholic Faith had been tragically devitalized, or had disappeared entirely. In only one of the strong nations of the world was there any chance that the Faith might take hold of the people. America, with its 50,000 Catholic priests, its 150,000 nuns, and its abundance of Catholic churches and schools, needed only the spark of a few zealous apostles to be set ablaze with Catholic belief. If the U. N. Jews were to bring America into line, they would have to work quickly. And they did.

Selling the U. S. the U. N.

One of the surest ways of getting the U. S. into the U. N. was to get the U. N. into America. The Jews realized that it would be difficult for America suddenly to pull out of the U. N. once the organization was firmly established on the banks of New York’s East River.
And quite as effectively, the Jews prepared the way for the U. N.’s “one world” idea by a long and concentrated indoctrination of the American people with purposeful Jewish slogans. Through all public media, Americans were told that everyone ought to be like everyone else, that nationality, race, and religion have no real significance and should be set aside for the sake of achieving what the Jews called “Brotherhood.”

Thus, it happened that when the U. N. came into being, the American people were quite prepared to accept an organization that was nation-less, race-less, and creed-less. And the Jews turned their publicizing energies to an all-out, pro-U. N. campaign. Professor Mortimer Adler, noted Jewish intellectual, voiced the official Jewish line when he said, “We must do everything we can to abolish the United States. The only answer to the threat of atomic war is world government.” (Cleveland Plain Dealer, Oct. 23, 1945).

Propaganda for the U. N. was an openly Jewish enterprise, and every Jew, whether officially attached to the U. N. or not, was on call to lend his propagandizing talents. A member of the American Jewish Committee was given by UNESCO the express job of developing a “nation-wide educational program” for promoting U. N. aims and principles. And supervising all phases of the effort to win America to the U. N. was the Jew, Benjamin Cohen, head of the United Nations Department of Public Information.

The Deception

The ultimate appeal in all this Jewish propaganda was that the U. N., and only the U. N., could guarantee peace to America. War-weary Americans, even those who were unmoved by the Jews’ earlier “Brotherhood” slogans, turned eagerly to the U. N., trusting that it was, as advertised, an organization “determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.”
After nine years of U. N. peace-promotion, however, during which billions of American dollars have been spent in arming the world, and tens of thousands of American boys have been wounded and killed on foreign battlefields, the American people are coming to realize that they have been the victims of a colossal deceit.
The true nature of this deceit is yet to be grasped by most Americans. For the U. N. is not, as might be supposed, a peace movement which failed. The U. N. is a sinister design for governing the day-to-day activities of the peoples of all nations.

The U. N. is a world revolution.

The Threat

Peacefully, without firing a shot, the U. N. is now poised to accomplish the ancient Talmudic purposes of the Jewish nation: the crushing of the Catholic Church and the establishment of a central Jewish world control. Although the real intent of the U. N. has been most deliberately hidden, Americans are becoming daily more alerted to this intent and to the peril which threatens their country.
Even more urgent, however, is the necessity that American Catholics be made aware of all that will befall their Church, if the U. N. plot is successful. To its readers, therefore,The Point offers a summary of what the U. N. intends for them — as Americans and, more intimately, as Catholics.

The U. N. Versus Americans

The only way for the U. N. to conduct a bloodless revolution in America is to get the American Government to consent, somehow, to its own destruction. By taking advantage of a vulnerable clause in our Constitution, the Jews have found a way of obtaining such consent, through the instrumentality of U. N. Covenants. These are ordinances which would inflict upon America a whole new way of life, and which are proposed to our country under the guise of treaties.
The American Constitution contains the express provision that any treaty which is ratified by the United States Senate becomes a part of the internal law of the country. Indeed, it becomes, in effect, superior to the Constitution itself — so that rights guaranteed to Americans by their Constitution could be taken away from them by properly ratified treaties. And for a treaty to be ratified and become the law of the land, not even a quorum of voting Senators is necessary. All that is required is that two-thirds of the Senators present in the Senate Chamber, at any given time, vote in its favor. On June 13, 1952, for example, three treaties were ratified with only two Senators present in the Senate.

Thus, if a U. N. Covenant-treaty were introduced on a quiet summer afternoon, when only three members were present in the Senate, it would require the assenting vote of only two of the Senators to impose upon the American people some major portion of the Jews’ unbloody revolution.

Here are some representative examples of what will happen if the U. N. Covenant-treaties — many of which are now pending before the U. S. Senate — should be ratified.

1. The Bill of Rights in our American Constitution will be supplanted by the U. N. Covenant of Human Rights. This means that our present unqualified guarantees of free speech, press, and assembly will be, according to the terms of the Covenant, “subject to certain penalties, liabilities, and restrictions.”

2. Judges in American courts will be forced to make their decisions in conformity with U. N.-dictated principles. A preview of this came in the recent Fuji case, when a California court overrode a state law on the grounds that it seemed to conflict with the United Nations Charter.

3. American citizens will be obliged to obey laws imposed upon them by the U. N. and, for violating these laws, will be liable to trial by international courts. By way of preparing the people for this situation, certain internationalists in our government have lately arranged that American troops stationed in foreign countries should be subject both to the laws of those countries and to legal prosecution in their courts.

4. All American gold resources will be taken over by a central monetary control. The U. N. has already demonstrated how generous it can be with the money of American taxpayers. Under the auspices of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Association, U. S. currency plates, plus supplies of Treasury Department ink and paper, were handed over to the Russians, with no control over the amount of American-backed money which they could print. This project was the brain-child of the Treasury Department Jews, Harry Dexter White and Harold Glasser, and received the quiet blessing of Jewish UNRRA head, Herbert Lehman.

5. American soldiers will be part of an international military pool. They will be obliged to fight under the leadership of U. N. Generals, against whatever enemy the U. N. may designate, even if that enemy be the U. S. A.

6. The U. N. will reserve the right, under its “full employment” program, to tell a man what job he must work at, what wages he must receive, and in what part of what country he must find employment.

7. Under the U. N.’s World Health Program, there will be mandatory, standardized Government care for everyone suffering from “any morbid condition, whatever its cause, from birth to death.” This program of socialized medicine further provides for mass inoculations, the killing of incurables, and a system for “planned populations,” which will mean birth control in some areas, and baby-bonuses in others.

8. The U. N. will establish a universal and compulsory system of education designed to safeguard and perpetuate its own regime. By provision of the U. N. Charter, education shall “promote understanding ... and further the activities of the United Nations.” Illustrative of what tone this mental regimentation will take was the announcement that the U. N.’s official history of the world was to be entrusted to the celebrated atheist, Julian Huxley.

Thus, by American adoption of U. N. Covenant-treaties, American citizens will become citizens of the world, and the Jews will have triumphed in their bloodless revolution.

The U. N. Versus Catholics

Just as the U. N. will require that America be stripped of her individuality and sovereignty, and permitted to keep only those political and cultural features which she might have in common with Communists and Zulus, so also will the U. N. demand that the Catholic Church be purged of her singular and intransigent doctrines and allowed only those basic expressions of religion which she might appear to share with Mohammedans and Holy Rollers. For, in the coming revolution, the religious effect of the U. N. Covenant-treaties will be to enforce, as rigid law, those “Brotherhood” slogans which the Jews have so widely propagated in our country.
No longer will the Jews merely suggest that “It makes no difference what a man believes.” They will insist that this is so, and establish proper penalties for any Catholic priest who, convinced that what a man believes makes all the difference in the world, is determined to convert his fellow Americans to the Catholic Faith.
“One religion is as good as another” will cease to be a glib, billboard sentiment. It will become a stern, inflexible law. To administer this law, the Jews will have to suppress our parochial schools, not only because they teach that the Catholic Church is the only true one, but because by their very existence, they proclaim that the religion of a Catholic child is something so precious and unique that it justifies his being guarded and set apart from other children.

And for the legal enforcement of the Jews’ “tolerance” slogans, U. N. Covenant-treaties make clear provision that no religious utterances, ceremonies, or symbols shall discriminate against, or cause “mental harm” to, members of other religious groups. Already the Jews have indicated what they mean by this. Abundantly they have protested that Crucifixes, New Testaments, and public mentions of Jesus Christ are incitements to anti-semitism and slights to the Jewish community.

Here are two recent, frightening examples of how far the “one world” Jews intend to go:

1. They have filed an international protest against the traditional, Catholic Passion Play of Oberammergau, charging that it “leads to anti-semitism.”

2. They have succeeded in removing the white crosses which marked the graves of American war dead in the National Memorial Cemetery in Hawaii. Our Defense Department explained that this removal of Christian symbols was “a trend of the times.”
*   *   *   *   *   
The Jews’ bloodless revolution is imminent. They are about to do away with our nation and our Faith. And yet, to stay the onslaught, we need only alerted American Catholics, re-determined to convert their country to the cause of Christ the King, Who, in patient majesty, is waiting in the tabernacles of Catholic Churches all across our land.

The Point

---

Edited Under Fr. Leonard Feeney M.I.C.M. — Saint Benedict CenterSeptember, 1958

HOW THE JEWS INVADED THE HOLY LAND

Four Men Who Built The Zionist State

It is a peculiarity of history that the farther back we stand to get a look at it, the better we see it. And thus, with the smoke lifted and the rubble swept aside, those two increasingly distant calamities, World Wars I and II, are every day making a clearer picture.

It may be argued that the abiding effects of a war are not always the precise effects intended by the war’s planners. But when two international conflicts, fought within twenty-five years of each other, have both resulted in the establishment and extension of the same two world powers (to the detriment of all others), then there is more than mere chance to be reckoned with.

Those two powers, the chief two in the world today, are Communism and Zionism. The First World War gave them both a solid footing: the tracts of land they needed if they were to continue. The Communists announced a claim to all of Russia; the Zionists were granted one to Palestine. And World War II more than made good these claims. It gave the Communists the largest empire the world has ever known — stretching from Berlin to the China Sea. More unlikely, it gave the Zionists a sovereign Jewish state in the Holy Land.
That the fortunes of Zionism and Communism have been complementary, that world events of the past several decades have been to their common advantage, is obvious. That both movements are avowedly anti-Christian, and that both are in origin and direction Jewish, is a matter of record. But although the Jewish power of Communism has been quantitatively a greater oppressor of the Church — having killed more priests and desecrated more altars — the Jewish power of Zionism has hit the Church at the very core by seizing and profaning the one land which above all others is the Holy Land.

As an organized program of racism and revenge, fulfilling centuries of thwarted Jewish dreams, Zionism is larger than any one of the men who have been its leaders. Out of the last hundred years, however, there are four of these men who stand as symbols of Zionist progress. Considered in sequence, these leaders of Zionism will tell all of the story that must so urgently be known.

Moses Hess

In the year 1862, a German Jew named Moses Hess published at Paris a book called Rome and Jerusalem. If modern Zionism must be assigned a specific starting point, this was it. Hess’s message was straightforward. “Papal Rome,” he writes, “symbolizes to the Jews an inexhaustible well of poison.” But the Jews should not be discouraged, Hess continues. A “regeneration” of the world has been going on since the “great” French Revolution. Rome is already on the way down, he declares, and the job of the Jew is to establish Jerusalem in place of it. Christianity will be “finally replaced among the regenerated nations by a new historical cult. To this coming cult, Judaism alone holds the key.”

Hess nailed the whole argument in with the resounding blasphemy: “Every Jew has within him the potentiality of a Messiah and every Jewess that of a Mater Dolorosa ... The Messianic Era is the present age.”
There was no Jew in Europe that was not interested. But, for many, Hess’s call to arms was too dangerous. There would be Christian resentment, they said. There would be a reaction, and all those new liberties so lately acquired by the Jews, as a result of the Masonic revolutions, would be revoked. To these “assimilated” Jews of Western Europe, Hess was a stab of bad conscience. He was telling them that, despite their white gloves and tall hats and changed names, they were still, and irrevocably, Jewish.

On the other hand, to the Jews of Eastern Europe, still confined in the Polish and Russian ghettos, Moses Hess was a prophet. His book begot a dozen secret societies dedicated to a revived Jewish nationalism. And it set the stage for a more versatile Jewish leader.

Theodore Herzl

If Moses Hess was the violent revolutionist that Zionism needed to start it off, Theodore Herzl was the capable calculator who brought order to the Zionist frenzy, won for Zionism the support of Western Jews, and gave permanent direction to the Jewish resurgence by advocating the immediate establishment of a self-governing Jewish state.

With diabolical doggedness, Herzl peddled his plan for a Jewish homeland on every important doorstep in Europe. The Kaiser listened to him. And so did the King of Italy and the Sultan of Turkey. England offered him a piece of her own property in Uganda. But the Zionists were determined against second-class handouts. They wanted Palestine or nothing for their nation, and Jerusalem for their capital.

Herzl dared approach even the Pope, Saint Pius X, to ask support for a Jewish settlement in Palestine. To so fantastic a proposal, the Holy Father (says Herzl’s Diaries): “answered in a stern and categorical manner: ‘We are unable to favor this movement. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem — but we could never sanction it. The ground of Jerusalem, if it were not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church, I cannot answer you otherwise. The Jews have not recognized Our Lord; therefore, we cannot recognize the Jewish people.’ ”

The Pope did not discount the possibility of some measure of success for Zionism. Himself the virtual prisoner of Italy’s Masonic administrators, Saint Pius X held no illusory view of “Catholic Europe.” The men who were then running Europe’s governments were the offspring of those same Freemasons who had gloried in tearing down the ghetto walls while they sacked the churches. For Freemasonry had set the Jews up; and now that the Masons were in unchallenged power, the Jews could expect great things. But could they really expect Palestine? Besides being the Holy Land of the Christians, the territory of Palestine was the guarded property of the Turkish Empire, the centuries-old home of an established people. It seemed unlikely to the Pope that great numbers of Jews could ever settle there — and unthinkable that circumstances would ever permit the Jews to set up their own government in the place.

The Zionists, on their part, were confident that when desired circumstances do not present themselves on their own, they can be made to order. In a speech before the Sixth Zionist Congress in 1903, Herzl’s colleague, Max Nordau, said (and we repeat that the year was 1903): “Let me tell you the following words as if I were showing you the rungs of a ladder leading upward and upward: Herzl, the Zionist Congress, the English Uganda proposition, the future World War, the peace conference where, with the help of England, a free and Jewish Palestine will be created.”

Chaim Weizmann

When the World War that Nordau had foretold eventually came, in 1914, Herzl was ten years dead. But a new Zionist leader was on hand to oversee the expected Jewish triumph. This was Chaim Weizmann, an itinerant chemist who had moved from his native Russia to Manchester, England, sometime before the outbreak of the War. It was Weizmann’s task to acquaint the British government with Jewish designs on the Holy Land. In exchange for an official smile on these Zionist ambitions, Weizmann could promise that his race — its financiers, presidential advisors, newspaper publishers and all — would join whole-heartedly in helping Britain win the war. Consequently, on Nov. 2, 1917, the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Balfour, addressed a letter to Lord Rothschild, English representative of the powerful Jewish banking house.

“His Majesty’s Government,” wrote Balfour, “view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people ... ” Though the letter further specified that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,” the Jews assumed this clause was meaningless. The Balfour Declaration, as this letter came to be called, gave the Jews a foot in the Holy Land, and they set out with determination to wriggle the rest of their bulk through the door.

To direct this operation, Chaim Weizmann went to Palestine in 1918, as head of the Zionist Commission. Under Weizmann’s supervision, armies of Jewish immigrants pushed into Palestine (made a British Mandate in 1922) till eventually they had swollen their numbers to one-half the total inhabitants. (Their land-purchases were less prodigal; by 1948 they owned only six per cent of the available property.)

Through all this, the Church remained adamantly anti-Zionist. In a 1921 allocution, Pope Benedict XV expressed his fear that “the Jews should come to take in Palestine a preponderant and privileged position.” Most Catholic observers, however, thought such a possibility remote. Father Bede Jarrett, noted English Dominican, gave the majority opinion when he wrote, also in 1921: “The Jew has always specialized in money. Industrial labor has no interest for him, and agricultural labor even less. Therefore, he will never go back to Palestine, where the wealth is almost entirely in agriculture. Indeed, why should he worry over Palestine when he has the whole world at his feet?”

What Father Jarrett did not realize was that “the Jew” intended to demonstrate just how abjectly at his feet the world was — and precisely by taking over Palestine.

World War I, as Nordau revealed, had been the scheduled means for setting up a Jewish state. But it did not quite do the trick. A second World War was needed to bring the Jews’ otherwise unthinkable scheme to perfection. At the conclusion of World War II, Chaim Weizmann came to America to claim the spoils. Spurred on by him and fellow-Zionists, the United Nations obediently decreed that at the expiration of the British Mandate, the Holy Land should be partitioned into two areas; the smaller to be governed by Arabs, the larger by Jews.

The British were to withdraw on May 15, 1948. At midnight of May 14, Zionist leaders announced the formation of a Jewish State. Ten minutes after their announcement, President Harry Truman, defying all protocol, accorded this infant monstrosity official United States recognition. Later, Mr. Truman was to write in his published memoirs: “I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leaders — actuated by political motives and engaging in political threats — disturbed me and annoyed me.”
Even if it were not known otherwise, events of the last decade would bear stern witness that the Masonic Mr. Truman overcame his annoyance.

David Ben-Gurion

Though Chaim Weizmann was duly named President of the Jewish State, and held that office until his death in 1952, it was a position of honor only. The Jews were grateful for all Weizmann had done, but they were confident they had come to a new season: the full flowering of that “Messianic Era” that Moses Hess had proclaimed. And they had a new leader: their Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion.
As effective head of the Jewish State, Ben-Gurion represents the fulfillment of Hess, Herzl, and Weizmann; the achievement of Zionist victory. He is the symbol of Jewry on its own — the crucifiers of Christ free at last of Christian standards and surveillance. How alien the Jews are to those standards, their ten years of sovereignty have enabled them to show.

The acts of Jewish terrorism that had marked the final months of the British Mandate (when Jews were blowing up British buildings in Palestine, hanging British soldiers, mailing time-bombs to members of the British cabinet) seemed like mere schoolboy pranks when the Jews went to work on the Arabs. One million Arab residents of Palestine were forced to flee their ancestral homes — the orchards, pastures, and farms their people had worked for centuries. And as Archbishop George Hakim of Galilee insisted: “They were terrorized out.” The persuasive device employed by the Jews was simple: they massacred one whole Arab village; then they sent a sound-truck through all the neighboring villages, promising each one the same fate unless the people evacuated their homes immediately.

All this was apart from the military aggression, when Jewish soldiers, with arms supplied by Communist Czechoslovakia, invaded the Arab-assigned regions of Palestine and increased their national holdings by forty per cent. Feats like this thrilled the Jews who were watching from afar, swelled the fantastic sums being poured into Palestine by World Jewry, and provoked statements like this one by New York’s Jewish Congressman, Emmanuel Celler: “Maybe the Israelis may have to give the Arabs another lesson and cut through their forces again like a hot knife through butter. Only this time the pleas of the United Nations will not deter them. They will shoot their way clear into Beirut, Amman, and Alexandria.”

When Prime Minister Ben-Gurion’s plans for the further expansion of the Jewish state are realized (when international circumstances have been ordered to that end), there will be a fresh field open to the Jews. And it will be open not only for additional confiscation of Arab property, but for further desecration of Christian shrines and churches in those parts of the Holy Land that the Jews do not yet control. Bethlehem, for example, can expect a repetition of the profanity and sacrilege that the Jews have already perpetrated in Mount Carmel, Ain-Karim, Haifa, Capharnaum, Tiberias, Beit-Jala, Katamon, in all of Galilee, and in Jerusalem, the Holy City itself. These previous desecrations, so well calculated by Mr. Ben-Gurion, prompted the well-known but little-heeded warning of the late Apostolic Delegate, Archbishop Hughes, who stated that there is in operation a “deliberate Jewish effort to decimate the Arabs and to destroy Christianity in Palestine.”

The consequences of this “deliberate Jewish effort” will spread in our time far beyond the borders of Palestine. For the once-Christian West has betrayed Our Lord’s Holy Land into the hands of His crucifiers, and already the price of the betrayal is being paid, in kind. It has cost England her empire. And it has put that other chief Zionist supporter, the United States of America, face to face with a Third World War — one that looms like a terror out of the Apocalypse, and that will provide the most fantastic chapter yet in the unfinished story of Zionism.


See:

Palestine Cry: GOD HAS SHOWN MERCY. FOR THOSE WHO REJECT THAT, THERE IS ONLY THE JUSTICE AND VENGEANCE OF GOD WHICH IS ETERNAL DAMNATION.

Palestine Cry: Right to Life: Right to Life: Culture: Culture: Abortion is Murder

Palestine Cry: Right to Life: Right to Life: Right to Life: Culture: Culture: Abortion is Murder and the beginning of the Satanic Lawless Antichrist State

Palestine Cry: Abortion

Palestine Cry: Traditional Catholic Prayers: The Justice of God: Doenmeh - Read Jews causing genocide in Turkey


Traditional Catholic Prayers: The Justice of God: Doenmeh - Read Jews causing genocide in Turkey

"There is no overweaning singular "Jewish" conspiracy to the obviation of any gentile conspiracies. There are conspiratorial individuals and groups within "ethnos" - various ethnic groups and nations etc. One such is the Doenmeh within the grouping called Jewish."

Genocidal Conspiracies include the Nazis and Communists and the Armenian Genocide and Hindu eugenocide against the Dalits and the Naqba - genocide against the Palestinians, the whole Neo-Nazi system of desaparecido and murder and repression throughout South America and the mass depopulation of Africa and most especially the genocide by abortion and Agenda 21.

The Justice of God: Doenmeh - Read Jews causing genocide in Turkey

What is a Holicide? It is a genocide of gentiles offered as an unlawful 'holocaust' [sacrifice] (all genocides are unlawful of course - the meaning is in terms of God's law) caused by and perpetrated by Jews who are Talmudic, Zionist and racist and who hate and murder out of a secretive conniving and conspiratorial manipulation of governments and rulers. There is no overweaning singular "Jewish" conspiracy to the obviation of any gentile conspiracies. There are conspiratorial individuals and groups within "ethnos" - various ethnic groups and nations etc. One such is the Doenmeh within the grouping called Jewish.

Palestine Cry: The Illuminati Aug 14, 2011 ... Hurufi, Ismaeli, Shi'ite and Wahabi heresies and Doenmeh-Frankist apostasies from worshipping the true God aside, since they are ... stepalestinecryfreedom.blogspot.com stepalestinecryfreedom.blogspot.com/2011/08/illuminati.html

Palestine Cry: Communist World Government: The Goal of ... Aug 23, 2011 ... The Crescent and Star is actually the waxing Crescent of the Kabalaistic Hilal adopted by the the Frankist Doenmeh heavily influenced late ... stepalestinecryfreedom.blogspot.com stepalestinecryfreedom.blogspot.com/.../communist-world-government-goal- of.html

It was the Doenmah that was directly the perpetrators of the Armenian Holocide. It has been refered to as the Armenian Vespers - 1.5 Million Armenian Christians murdered to satisfy the bloodlust of a group of Jews known as the Doenmeh. The Doenmeh has its roots in Hurufi, Ismaeli heresies in Islam as well as Kabalistic Talmudic racist sorcerous Judaism.


______________________________________

Lenten hymn

Remain, O Christ, in the hearts you have redeemed.
You who are perfect love,
pour into our words
sincere repentance.

We raise our prayer to you,
O Jesus, with faith;
pardon the sin we have committed.

By the Holy sign of the Cross,
by your tortured body,
defend us constantly as your sons.

The Venerable Bede

911

Palestine Cry: A FALSE MAHOMMOT

The Final Trial: No to all Terrorists

Palestine Cry: Iraq Cry: African Cardinal