Part 1|Part 2|Part 3|Part 4|Part 5|Part 6|Part 7|Part 8|Part 9|Part 10|Part 11|Part 12|

So...what are the take-aways?
​

• Evil people and societies don’t sit around rubbing their hands together while cackling gleefully, “I’m soooo evil—and I love it!” Nor do they realize they are crazy. They ALWAYS think they are the victimized class and see the real victims as oppressors - which gives them the feeling that they can do ANYTHING they want.

 

• “Nice” people are perfectly capable of going along with and even actively maintaining very evil policies and values. (And I don’t mean pretenders, but people who genuinely value “nice” behavior). As counterintuitive as it sounds, being “nice” doesn’t mean you can’t also be a bad person. Of course, truly good people also behave nicely, but people must be judged on the actual values they uphold AND display, and not on how “nice” they are.

 

• Love of animals, veganism/vegetarianism, appreciation of nature, and a calm and healthy lifestyle cannot make you into a good person and by themselves are not even signs of goodness.

 

• Historically, when society demands a savior and then willfully ignores the blatant flaws in their designated savior, this is a precursor to tough times and bloodthirsty movements.

 

• Historically, movements that focused primarily on income equality or general economic prosperity (i.e. materialism) and “sticking it to the other side” led to bloody outcomes. Movements that focused on God and core values and morality (i.e. the Ten Commandments, the Noachide Laws, etc.) have done much better. A society that values morality will also have more freedom and economic prosperity.

And based on historical events and what I see unfolding now, here is what I think could happen:

• Anti-Israel sentiment will continue to rise. With the exception of the alt-Right (alternative and extreme Right), people cannot allow themselves to target Jews directly (especially seeing as the Left itself is comprised of many secular Jews) and still FEEL like a good person (because feeling good has trumped actually being good in most of society today). But like that former Hitler Youth member mentioned in Part 4, they feel it’s okay to yell “Death to…!” a country.

 

• President Trump will want to go down in history as the leader who made peace in the Middle East (which for some reason, always means "in Israel" and ignores all the wars between countries and clans in every other country in the Middle East). He has already made statements alluding to this. And seeing as the Israeli government is easier to push around than any other government in the Middle East, and Israel will pressed to make suicidal and halachically forbidden concessions.

   

• The American Left will up its battle against religion because it is religious people who are standing in the way of abortion-on-demand, same-gender marriage, and all the trans hype. (Although they are not standing in the way ENOUGH. Yet to Leftists, any limits are bad.) But again, because attacking Jews would harm their self-image as good people, Leftists will attack the Jewish religion (along with other religions, except for Islam) along with whatever they consider “Orthodox interpretation” while saying that the Reform movement and secular Jews are okay. (Sort of like in Rav Schach’s story in Part 2.)

Following these points, Jew-hatred will be increasingly expressed as Israel-hatred.

But maybe I’m wrong. Hopefully, I’m wrong.

Regardless, the main thing is to cultivate a close and personal relationship with Hashem, invest in deep self-introspection to scrub out bad traits and polish up good traits, and keep on doing mitzvot.

As is a well-known Jewish truth, bad omens and bad prophecies need never come true.

Teshuvah has the power to change everything.

Part 1|Part 2|Part 3|Part 4|Part 5|Part 6|Part 7|Part 8|Part 9|Part 10|Part 11|Part 12|

Part 1|Part 2|Part 3|Part 4|Part 5|Part 6|Part 7|Part 8|Part 9|Part 10|Part 11|Part 12|

One of the most powerful weapons of propaganda used by the Left has been TV and movies.

Nazis and Communists also used entertainment media as weapons. Back then, radio took the place of today’s TV, but movies were certainly utilized to push the desired narrative.


For example, children dying for the Nazi cause were glorified, especially in one film based on a true incident in which a teenage boy died in a brutal streetfight against Communists in Germany.

But Hitler also appeared on screen. In one 1934 docudrama, Hitler makes a speech which contains statements like:

It almost sounds like Sesame Street.

Except that he left out the part in which hundreds of thousands of Jewish babies are dumped into fire pits.

Making Moral Degeneracy Appealing

The American film industry has always been horrible.

Film and TV producers were moral degenerates. Time and again, movie stars engaged in behavior so disturbing that Hollywood conspired to hide it from the public. The American reaction to such behavior depended on the times.

In the Fifties, having a child conceived extramaritally was terribly scandalous (as it should be) and the appearance of virtue was de riguer. Today, standards are nauseatingly low. A racist epithet uttered by a white person (reverse racism is okay, though) could erase a celebrity’s popularity, as could violating a child (not a teenager, but an actual child). But almost anything else goes.

It depends.

But the point is that the main influence on American culture has always been run by moral degenerates who were always pushing the bar of decency to reflect their own values and make the world a more comfortable place for moral degenerates like themselves.

And in order for them to succeed, they had to make their worldview appealing.

A few years ago, someone showed me a 20-minute 1928 Laurel & Hardy film. I was shocked at how indecent it was—and all the indecency was covered up by theatrical “Har-har, just kidding!” wackiness:

• Cops were portrayed as petty incompetents.

 

• Convicted criminals escaping from prison were portrayed sympathetically, with the audience clearly meant to hope for the prison escapee’s success.

 

• The running joke through the movie was getting pinched on the backside by hermit crabs (naughty kindergarten humor) and there was even a scene that clearly hinted at same-gender relations in an alley, but to innocents, would merely seem like more naughty kindergarten humor (i.e., two men exiting an alley after using it as a bathroom).

And this was 1928!

Back then, most Americans considered police officers to be the good guys and prison escapees as posing a serious threat to public safety. But in the movies, you could completely switch these values as long as it was all in fun.

Even today, as long as you make people laugh, you can get away with anything on TV.

Emphasizing the "Right" Look: Nazi Germany and Modern America
Just as the Nazis promoted a certain “look” as Aryan, Western media also portrays attractive people in a certain way—even if that way changes slightly from decade to decade. Women and girls have been particularly targeted, with the result being a dramatic increase in eating disorders, plastic surgery (including bizarre plastic surgery, like the Pacific Asian girls who change their bellybuttons or eyelids to conform to those of Caucasians), and the increasingly complex use of cosmetics.

And despite all the “black pride” blather, female black celebrities continue to use hair treatments, make-up, and Photoshop to achieve the “white” look considered more attractive (to Hollywood people, anyway).

In fact, despite all the media focus on “racism,” I think that a fat girl or boy is much more likely to experience harassment and discrimination than a black boy or girl in an all-white environment.

Hollywood-Style Strategic Propoganda and Brainwashing
In his bestselling book Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV*, Ben Shapiro (a Modern Orthodox activist for political Conservatism) goes through the greedy history of TV programming and shows how even family-oriented TV shows promoted Liberal values. He also captured on tape the TV producers’ blatant agenda to warp American values via their TV shows.

For example, the 1983 made-for-TV movie, The Day After, which freaked out my generation with its graphic images of the effect of a nuclear bombs, was produced and directed by a man who stated: "My private, grandiose notion was that this movie would unseat Ronald Reagan when he ran for re-election."

While some Hollywood writers and directors focused primarily on getting a good story on screen, with their programs only incidentally reflecting their Liberal politics, many clearly stated an agenda to actively change the minds of society.

It’s chilling to realize how much thought and care they put into portraying a controversial opinion or character in just the right way, so as to manipulate their viewers.

Some of it was good and fair representation, such as putting non-white actors on TV and moving away from racial pigeon-holing (with positive presentations like The Cosby Show and the introduction of an attractive, well-spoken black couple on The Dick van Dyke Show).

But some writers and directors describe outright their agendas.

For example, some knowingly downplayed the actual behavior common in men attracted to their own gender while portraying women as behaving—not even as straight men behave, think, or speak—but as how men-attracted-to-men behave, think, and speak. They do this knowing that the average woman does not behave this way.

Fathers have been increasingly portrayed as fools or completely irrelevant.

In fact, Hollywood considers the paternal role so irrelevant that a TV program may choose not to feature the father of a baby (unborn or otherwise) at all. 

In some Hollywood minds, fathers aren't just invisible; they don't even seem to exist.

Yet Hollywood responds to any criticism by claiming it is merely reflecting real life.

Sometimes, enclosed within their urban Manhattan or luxurious LA bubble, they honestly believe that the nihilistic, atheistic, pagan, or degenerate views and lifestyles they depict on their shows are, indeed, “real life.” But sometimes, they simply feel that such views and lifestyles should be real life and actively seek to impose this on society at large.

This is one of the most disturbing aspects and most similar to Nazi propaganda:
They willfully portray a group as very different than that group actually is in order to change the beliefs and value system of society.

In other words, they knowingly promote a false image in order to fool society.

It’s really no different than the cultivated propaganda of the Nazi or Communist era. It’s a lot more sophisticated this time around, but no less intentional. And like Nazis and Communists, they intentionally inflame hatred against target groups and ideas while garnering sympathy for other target groups or ideas.

Sacrificing Everything to Moloch - What Altruistic Dedication!
Even more shockingly, Hollywood directors and writers are so committed to their degenerate propaganda that they cast aside their own greed to these deceptive ends.

For example, they’ll fight to keep a show that promotes their sick value system even if the show loses money for their network and even if viewers show no interest (or lose interest) in that show. This kind of warped mesirut nefesh is what the Nazis displayed in World War II when, despite heavy losses on the war front, they diverted their people’s much-needed resources to keep the death camps going.

The Nazis' genocidal ideals became more important than the most basic survival of their society and the physical survival of their fellow citizens. To the Nazis, killing a Jewish baby was more important than saving a fellow German soldier or citizen and even took precedence over the barest survival of their glorified Third Reich.

Likewise, Hollywood Leftists consider the destruction of unborn babies and fundamentally essential institutions (like marriage and basic morality) to be more important than anything else. In fact, the cop shows and music videos of a rap culture that glorifies violence, misogyny, and licentiousness show black people at their worst (all created by  self-preening white Liberals). Such programming not only perpetuates negative stereotypes, but has imposed this culture so forcefully that even white upper-class youth seek to imitate it.

The Very Real and Destructive Effect of Hollywood on Society
As un-PC as it is to say it, widespread unwed motherhood has basically destroyed America's black community and is on its way to destroying the rest of the USA.

Regardless of race or class, prison incarceration, drug and alcohol use, dissolute and indiscriminate behavior on the part of girls, same-gender-attraction, and more can all be traced back to whether there was a steady and positive paternal influence in life or not.

(For example, a lot of problems in the black community - including the higher prison rates - correlate with being raised by an unwed mother with no steady father around. Meaning, that problems in the black community have nothing to do with racism and everything to do with radical feminism. White people raised by unwed mothers show similar statistics to black people raised by unwed mothers. The rate of unwed motherhood in the black community is 70%, which is why you see higher crime rates and the like.)

Hardly anyone wants to talk about or acknowledge this.
(And if you want to point out the pervasive influence of entertainment media on society, the importance of fathers has become somewhat taboo in frum society, to the point that clear halachic obligations applying to men are either dismissed or minimized - despite the fact that many frum people do not watch TV or movies. Yet the influences of general society eventually licks at the frum community, too.)

Of course, some people raised by an unwed mother without any father at all still turn out splendidly and boast of what a wonderful life they've had in their one-parent home. But most people either fare poorly OR fare okay, but could have fared better with a decent father at home.

And the Moral and Virtuous Right Did...Nothing! Of Course!
And right-wing Conservatives basically laid themselves down before the media steamroller. With the exception of scattered individuals, they didn’t turn off their TVs (nor did they limit themselves to watching the very few “kosher” programs available), they didn’t stop going to the movie theaters, nor did they consistently organize massive letter-writing campaigns to protest the programming.
(Sometimes, huge letter-writing campaigns occurred, but not frequently enough.)

And even though Conservatives have the financial resources to do so, they never tried to make a “Conservative TV channel,” even through cable or Internet streaming, and have done very little with independent movie productions (admittedly a big challenge, technologically and financially speaking, but not impossible—and with rising success, opportunities also rise).

And they continue to succeed in brainwashing society to think like them.

For more on this topic, please see:
How Hollywood Corrupted America
__________________
*Due to the incredibly foul language and concepts (and even the plot lines of some of the TV shows themselves) expressed by many of the Hollywood bigwigs interviewed by Shapiro in Primetime Propaganda (which was softened a bit via the time-honored method of “strategically placed hyphens”), I ended up not reading the whole book, but simply skipped to the end where Shapiro offers analyses and solutions. It’s a great expose if you need it (or if someone you know needs it) and Shapiro shows his usual brilliance and thoroughness, but because of the language, it falls in the “Did I REALLY need to read this after all?” category of books as far as I’m concerned, and I no longer own it.

Just being honest.

Part 1|Part 2|Part 3|Part 4|Part 5|Part 6|Part 7|Part 8|Part 9|Part 10|Part 11|Part 12|

Part 1|Part 2|Part 3|Part 4|Part 5|Part 6|Part 7|Part 8|Part 9|Part 10|Part 11|Part 12|

While Nazism is usually touted as an atheist ideology, it was actually atheist in the way that polytheism is atheist.
 
While it is true that by 1942, 25% of Hitler Youth schoolboys professed to not believe in God, that doesn’t mean they held no theological or (impure) spiritual beliefs.

​In fact, a powerful pull of Nazism was the idea that the Aryans were a race of gods, so to speak.
 
The German occultists, who grew in number and popularity starting even before World War I, believed that their ancient Nordic runes symbolized the Divine and showed the “original relationship” between “the god-sons and the world spirit, and they could lead a true seeker back to his cosmic homeland and offer a mystical union with God.”
​
(I cringe as I copy down this quote, but this is what was really going on back then.)
 
One of the most popular forms of occultism then was Ariosophy, a racist form of occultism that started up even before Word War I. 

A huge part of the reason why Nazism rejected Christianity has nothing to do with the reason why Judaism rejects Christianity.

Ariosophists saw Christianity as superimposing itself on the original Nordic pagan beliefs (which it certainly was, if you look at European Christianity with an objective eye.)

Some Ariosophists borrowed pagan elements from Christianity to bolster their system.

Himmler, for example, yearned to establish an SS Vatican and many Nazi occultists resented the authority of the Catholic Church, which they saw as a usurper over their “pure” and original belief system.

Just like the New Age movement does today.

It sees Judaism and Christianity as “paternalistic religions” that usurped the original and supposedly “purer” harmonious-with-Nature wise-woman pagan belief systems, systems that New Agers romanticize with blather about “Gaia” and goddesses, while ignoring the extreme cruelty and misogyny inherent in those very systems.
​
(Yes, you can be a misogynist even while worshiping a goddess. Just ask the slobbering male fans of Marilyn Monroe.)
 
While many people do realize now that Nazism based itself on occult elements, many people do not realize that they borrowed a tremendous amount from Eastern religion, specifically yoga practices.

An Indian group of Hindu’s highest caste embraced Nazism (to the point that their female leader—a Hindu convert of British-Greek ancestry—declared that Hitler was the reincarnation of the Hindu god Vishnu).

This group also saw parallels with eugenics in India’s inhumane caste system — while of course defending animal rights, nature conservation, and calling for the death penalty for those who didn’t respect animals or nature.
 
(I know it sounds weird, right? I mean, most Indians are a lot darker than Ariosophisy allows. On the other hand, one of the rules of conduct according to Wikipedia for the highest Hindu caste is "conduct himself as an Aryan." See how kochot hatumah mess with one’s head?)

Certainly, most yoga practitioners today do not support and even despise Nazi ideology.
 
They would be horrified to hear what early Nazi enthusiasts did with yoga.
 
Yet there was Hindu-based Nazi support in India (headed by that crazy British-Greek cat-loving hag) and Ariosophists certainly found themselves in Eastern paganism.

In other words, there was a mutual attraction.

So what did the Nazis see in Eastern mysticism that compelled them to borrow from it?

First of all, let’s deal with the beloved argument of how the Eastern Hindu/Buddhist swastika is different than the Nazi swastika because it’s spinning in a different direction and that the Nazi swastika is a broken cross — and nothing to do with the oh-so peaceful and innocent Hindu/Buddhist swastika!
 
Not true.

Both swastikas come from Hinduism/Buddhism.

This is how the swastika became the Nazi symbol:

In May 1919, an Ariosophist named Krohn wrote the following memorandum:
Is the swastika suitable as the symbol of the National Socialist [Nazi] Party?

(He meant the Hindu/Buddhist swastika, as we'll see in a moment.)
 
Then he proposed the left-facing swastika (aka the "good, peaceful" swastika) “on account of its Buddhistical interpretation as a talisman of fortune and health.”
​
(The right-facing swastika indeed denotes death and decline in Buddhist thought—not Nazi thought. Again, the Nazis did not invent the right-facing "bad" swastika; it already existed within Eastern spirituality.)

But Hitler wanted the right-facing Buddhist swastika for its symbolism of death...and Krohn acquiesced.

This Buddhism-loving Krohn also designed the color scheme of the Nazi symbol, with the black swastika on a white circle on a red background. He maintained the colors held spiritual significance.

So the initial proposal of a Nazi swastika is based on its Hindu/Buddhist symbolism and it was chosen according to Buddhist interpretation.
 
Again: The Nazis didn't invent their swastika; the Eastern religions already had it!

BOTH swastikas appear in Eastern symbolism.

As far as the Nazis were concerned, it was simply a matter of which one.

And in fact, on a 1908 chart of Ariosophic runes and symbols, both swastikas appear.

The cold hard literal facts?

There is no such thing as a Nazi swastika.

The Nazi swastika IS Hindu/Buddhist.

So next time someone tries to defend the left-facing swastika as being the Hindu one (and therefore, acceptable & "good"), you'll know that NO; BOTH swastikas are Hindu.

Or Buddhist. Or whatever.

Peace 'n' love, man.

As early as the 1890s, the original occult theology (which influenced Nazism) envisioned “a superhuman individual” who would “end all human factions and confusion with the establishment of an eternal order.”
 
Applying the idea of karma, this philosophy described how all Austrians and Germans who died in battle would be reincarnated as people with “innate millernian fervor” to form an elite corps of revolution.
 
And while the occult ideology that influenced Nazism certainly stood rooted in Norse mythology and nature-worship (as seen in their secret rituals involving a grove, spears, horned helmets, and accompanied by a small choir of “forest elves”), I was surprised at how often Eastern philosophies and symbols appeared:

• Disillusioned by post-WWI Germany, a young racist ended up leaving Germany for Australia, where he later developed the idea of building an Aryan homeland in Queensland (although he felt California was a good option, too). Then he started wandering around the world. In Peru, he met the Devaswara Lama, from whom he received “esoteric instruction.” After that, he met a yogi who apparently conjured some visions of scenes from the young German’s former incarnations. Returning to Germany, he worked as a yoga teacher and a draftsman, and even wrote a book called Hatha, Rāja, Karma, Bhakti and Jñâna Yoga. (I'm not making this up.) He later published his writings in the evil Nazi propaganda rag: Der Sturmer.

 

• In 1924, a German named Marby started up a newspaper based on his obsessive study of astrology and rune traditions. After developing a system to use runes in meditation and health-enhancement, he channeled these ideas into a series of books in 1931. Marby created postures and movements based on these runes to improve one’s reception of “cosmic influences.” He then progressed into “rune-gymnastics” which also involved repeating the rune sound as a mantra—all clearly drawing on yoga, according to scholar Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke. (There was also rune-yodeling, but this topic has gotten weird enough already.)

 

• In the late 1920s, the Ariosophical Society held lecture-tours and courses on “karmic astrology” and...yoga.

During that time, the German occult movement was thriving and developing special studies and books in the following: astrology, yoga, palmistry, meditation, and more.

​Initially, the occult movement developed all this as a way to promote “health and personal happiness.”

​(Sound familiar?)
 

• In May 1932, the Ariosophical School opened, offering courses in, among other things, “yoga and breathing exercises.”

​Again, just because the Nazis and occult racists used a certain system does not mean that system is evil and racist.

• There are kosher forms of meditation.
• There is kosher palm reading (i.e. to gain insights into one’s personality and potential, not for fortune-telling).
• Frum vegetarians simply don't like meat or poultry, as opposed to avoiding meat for "spiritual" reasons or because they value animals equally to humans.

So why bring this up?

The early German occultists were attracted to yoga BECAUSE of its inherent spiritual nature and power.

​The occult contains real power (although not a greater power than the holiness Jews access through Torah and mitzvot) and these Ariosophists were expert occultists who consulted directly with Eastern practitioners.
 
Let’s look at it this way:

Before World War II, you had books, classes, courses, and even a school teaching how to improve health and mental well-being by connecting with “cosmic energy” via specific positions, breathing exercises, hand formations, mantras, and even yodeling — all based on ancient Nordic runes.
 
And apparently, participants indeed felt better, else these things would not have gained such popularity.

If you came across one of these system today, would you engage in these rune-based practices as long as all the racist Ariosophic and pagan elements were removed?

Would you contort your body into, say, a Nordic rune as long as the instructor assures you that calling it "pinwheel" makes it okay? After all, it's just stretching!
 
(And again, BOTH kinds of swastikas — the one adopted by the Nazis & the peace one — were included in the runes.)

Sorry to repeat, but please remember that the German occultists did not invent all this.

They merely borrowed and made adaptations from pre-existing Eastern systems.

​They simply modified yoga positions and breathing exercises and mantras to match their runes.

If the spiritual power wasn’t there, all these occultists would not have spent decades researching and adapting the Eastern system.
 
To sum up, Eastern spiritual systems seem innocent, but their power and impurity is very real.

This can be seen via their societies.
​The societies based on Eastern spirituality are rife with horrific human rights abuses and terrible poverty. They can blab on all they want about being one with the cosmos, veganism or vegetarianism, nature, vibes, achieving nirvana, but the result is a corrupt and abusive society.

The New Age movement in America has been growing for decades now.

I’m sure you spotted the similarities between what you see among the New Age in American society and what the Ariosophists also promoted: healthy eating, yoga, breathing exercises, astrology, meditation, animal rights, nature conservation, etc.—all with the goal of personal health and happiness.
 
As explained in Part 8: Clean Green Nazis, Torah Judaism also covers the way to live a spiritually and physically healthy life.
 
But this New Age stuff isn’t it.

Ultimately, all this nature-loving, Eastern-spiritual, get-back-to-pagan-roots occultism led to what Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke describes (in the Nazi view, not his own):

Part 1|Part 2|Part 3|Part 4|Part 5|Part 6|Part 7|Part 8|Part 9|Part 10|Part 11|Part 12|

Part 1|Part 2|Part 3|Part 4|Part 5|Part 6|Part 7|Part 8|Part 9|Part 10|Part 11|Part 12|

In NAZI GREENS - An Inconvenient History, Martin Durkin writes:

While the Nazi movement is generally portrayed as atheist, it was really pagan.

​An entire movement based on nature-worship and borrowing from Far Eastern influences (like yoga and Buddhism) preceded the Nazi movement and strongly influenced Nazi ideology, as will be discussed in a future post.
 
The Nazis prized pristine nature, just as they prized what they viewed as a “pristine” race.
​
Vegetarianism was "in" and smoking was "out."

Again, Darwinism plays a part here.

​With evolution seen as “survival of the fittest,” an evolutionist sees the today's trees, plants, and flowers as examples of the fittest flora.
 
So preserving and nurturing beautiful flowers, for example, means getting rid of useless and troublesome weeds.
 
Applying this concept to people, undesirable races or racial characteristics are mere weeds in need of uprooting to protect and nurture the superior Juliet roses.

This was the view of Ernest Haeckel, a German zoologist who coined the term “ecology” in the 1870s.

He gained infamy as the creator of the inaccurate yet famous woodcuttings meant to show the human fetal stages developing through the forms of primary groups of adult animals — quasi-mirroring the stages of evolution, an alleged indication of evolution.
 
These woodcuttings, though inaccurate, and the theory behind them were still being taught in school in the Eighties as one of many “proofs” of evolution.

​In college (early 1990s), I remember students and professors discussing them in class as if they represented accurate fetal development.
 
So the Nazis cherished nature conservation for the same reasons as Haeckel's ecology.

Ever since elementary school, I felt disturbed by how environmentalists invested so much in saving trees when so much dire human suffering plagues the world.

Environmentalists always defend their priorities with claims of human suffering caused by forestry loss and pollution, and acting as if without their efforts, humanity won’t have a world to live in, that if you save and nurture people, they won’t become so desperate to  harm their environment.

But their claims to be acting on behalf of humanity never rang true to my heart.

(Not to mention there is so much nature throughout the world, humans aren’t in any real danger from ecologically incompatible practices.)
 
And while we all want clean water and clean air and healthy nature, the Nazis idealized this in a way that proved both religious and genocidal.

I’ll leave you with some quotes by some of history’s most immoral and sociopathic figures.

I’m sure you’ll find the ideas expressed in them unnervingly familiar:

"The man who contemplates the universe with his eyes wide open is the man with the greatest amount of natural piety; not in the religious sense, but in the sense of an intimate harmony with things." 
 
Atheists often express some form of this idea.
 
But guess who also felt this way?
 
Adolf Hitler [may his name be erased]. Those are his own words.
 
Source: Adolf Hitler [yemach shemo], Hitler's Secret Conversations, 1941-1945 (New York: Farrar, Straus and Young, 1953), p. 5.

​"Man should organize his existence meaningfully in the natural sphere of his living space, should make everything that nature offers him useful for himself while being conscious of his responsibility, should be the master of nature but at the same time its protector and conserver."
— Julius Wagner, German educator
Source: Julius Wagner, Die Biologie im Dienste heimatlicher Landschaftskunde (1934).

​GERMAN IMPERIAL CONSERVATION LAW OF 1935
Lands protected included:
"Remaining portions of landscape in free nature whose preservation on account of rarity, beauty, distinctiveness or on account of scientific, ethnic, forest, or hunting significance lies in the general interest."
Source: Raymond H. Dominick III, The Environmental Movement in Germany: Prophets and Pioneers, 1871-1971 (Bloomington : Indiana University Press, 1992), p. 108.  (Introduction to law can be read here (PDF File).

​"At the end of the last century the progress of science and technique led liberalism astray into proclaiming man's mastery of nature, and announcing he would soon have dominion over space ... In any case, we shall learn to become familiar with the laws by which life is governed, and acquaintance with the laws of nature will guide us on the path of progress."
— Adolf Hitler [yemach shemo], 11 July 1941
["Path of progress"! See? He was a progressive.]
Source: Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Table Talk, 1941-1944.  tr. N. Cameron & R.H. Stevens (New York: Enigma Books, 2000), pp. 5-6.

​"Among the Spartans, all newly born children were subject to a careful examination or selection. All those that were weak, sickly, or affected with any bodily infirmity, were killed. Only the perfectly healthy and strong children were allowed to live, and they alone afterwards propagated the race."
— Ernst Haeckel, Father of German Ecology
Source: Ernst Haeckel, The History of Creation. 2 vols. (New York: D. Appleton, 1876), vol. I, p. 170.

​"The German landscape is something unique that we cannot disturb and have no right to destroy. The more densely populated our 'living space' becomes with settlements, the greater our hunger will grow for unspoilt nature. The ever increasing spiritual damage caused by life within the big city will make this hunger practically uncontrollable ... when we build here on this the landscape of our homeland we must be clear that we will protect its beauty; and in places where this beauty has already disappeared, we will reconstruct it."
— Fritz Todt, who believed that, based on the above, “our engineering will reflect the National Socialist [Nazi] movement."
Source: Franz W. Seidler, Fritz Todt: Baumeister des Dritten Reiches (München: F.A. Herbig, 1986), p. 113.

Part 1|Part 2|Part 3|Part 4|Part 5|Part 6|Part 7|Part 8|Part 9|Part 10|Part 11|Part 12| 

Part 1|Part 2|Part 3|Part 4|Part 5|Part 6|Part 7|Part 8|Part 9|Part 10|Part 11|Part 12|

Nazi education from elementary school through high school and all throughout college consisted of brainwashing, pseudoscience, and the indoctrination of undeserved self-esteem.
 
Male students found themselves honored with a dagger engraved with the self-esteem-raising phrase: “Be more than you seem.”

And by 1942, only 1 in 4 Hitler schoolboys believed in God.
 
School became a place to teach Nazi morality and the pseudoscience of eugenics, to teach Aryan children that they were little gods intended to rule the world, and to create a superior fighting force.

​When I was in school, evolution was taught as a fact.
 
And there were also the infamous you-know-what-ed classes (boys and girls together).
 
In 7th grade(!), such a class was taught by one of the Phys. Ed teachers, who was inclined toward her own gender only and rumored to be having an affair with a like-minded teacher. We thought it was funny.
After all, what did such a woman have to teach us about this subject? Ha-ha!
But now I think teaching this in school is sick.

It's the norm in such classes, for example, for the teacher to pass around different forms of birth control to get the students familiar with, snicker at, and silently puzzle about. (How exactly would I ever use this? Where do I put this exactly?—it looks really uncomfortable.)
The pretty colored concentric circles in the Pill package were attractive, yet confusing with their different colors. The instructions were also confusing. And why does the Pill-popper need to take the differently colored placebos again?
(Remember: 7th grade girls either have not yet started getting their cycles or are still fairly new at it, and are still learning the ropes, so to speak.)
 
As one homework assignment, the students were given a list of phone numbers provided by an information organization. If you’d call one of those numbers, you would get a recording explaining to you all about that particular topic. The topics covered diseases transmitted you-know-how, abortion, same-gender attraction, and other topics I’m embarrassed to mention here. Students looked at the list and wondering what those diseases were and you pronounce their names. But they did the assignment even though the cheerful pre-recorded sound-bite was boring and beyond their comprehension.
 
All this was supposed to prevent disease and unwanted pregnancy, and make young people feel “okay!” about any dissolute or deviant behavior while enhancing their ability to make “informed decisions.”

It never seemed to work, however, because both junior and high school students consistently make irresponsible decisions in this area and the teen pregnancy rate is only rising.

​In 8th grade, our Social Studies/Geography teacher was showing us a film and then paused the camera. "The following scene shows an abortion," he announced. "But I am not allowed to show it because YOUR PARENTS objected. I feel that you are mature enough to deal with the subject matter, but SOME PARENTS disagree." Then he continued with the rest of the film (after the abortion part).
 
I was relieved, personally. I had no desire to see the murder of an unborn baby (even if I didn't think of it in those terms back then).
 
But the clear message was that our rights were being violated somehow.
Yes, violated!
By our PARENTS!
Woe are us!
And also that this was censorship and condescension.
 
It was confusing because on one hand, I was relieved not to have to watch it, but on the other hand, I got the sense I was supposed to be outraged and offended -- as if my initial feeling of relief was not the correct one.
​
(I know...you’re probably wondering what that film had to do with geography. I don’t know.)

But my friends who attended exclusive private schools had it even worse. Super Liberal, those top teachers decided that part of the high school Language Arts curriculum MUST include a movie so disturbing and traumatic that every woman I know who saw it STILL has the occasional nightmare about it 2 or 3 decades later. Baruch Hashem, I never saw it for some reason, even though it was an extremely popular cult classic.
​
I could go on and on, but you’re probably nauseated enough by now.

​Interestingly, both my junior high and my high school populations comprised a huge percentage of Christians and Mormons. And while they gave some pushback, it was very weak considering their number.

Sometimes, Christian students did speak up in the classroom, but their comments were always short, pathetically simple, and unpersuasive. (Usually something along the lines of: “But my pastor says…!” or “But the Bible says…!”)

And they could never respond to a teacher's counterclaim in any way.

I remember one teacher, in response to a student's protest of learning evolution, explained that he was obligated to teach it and students who didn't believe in evolution could just take it as a theory, sort of like learning different schools of philosophy.
 
At second glance, it's strange how that was dealt with.

I mean, science deals with fact, right? It should be able to stand up to the basic questions of a preteen at least.

It's weird that schools were required to teach a "science" and then tell students to treat it as an alternative fictitious theory. This never happened with biology or physics or algebra.

But this way, the students couldn't really ask questions or present counter-arguments and the teachers never needed to defend their "evidence."
 
Looking back, it's bizarre how passive and uninformed about their own positions the Christian students were. They had their churches, communities, families, and youth groups, but they could not launch an effective counterattack against the onslaught. I guess it's not surprising seeing as Christianity's foundation insists on a ignore-the-obvious mindset that doesn't exactly sharpen the mind. 

When learning about carbon-dating in 7th grade, I asked the teacher how we knew that it was the same then as now.
 
She smiled and said, "Well, we can't know. But we assume."
 
"Why do we assume that?" I asked. "What if it changed?"

I was confused. After all, we were talking about tens of millions of years ago, with a different climate in the kind of world that sported many active volcanoes, T-Rexes, Brontosauruses, and Pterodactyls.
 
"We just do," she said cheerfully. "But good question!"
 
Much later, I realized that the phrase "We assume" is one of the most popular in science.

​It's somewhat disturbing that a field that prides itself on "proven theories" and "experiments" and "fact" and "evidence" uses the phrase "We assume" with such regularity.

There’s really no reason why most BAs need four years of college.
 
Two or three years is sufficient in most situations.
(For example, Israeli universities take only 3 years to get a BA.)
 
College today is largely political and social brainwashing with very little actual education going on, just like it was in Nazi Germany.
 
Yet I think that, say, Harvard Law School will actually still give you an excellent education in Law, but I’m not sure that is true with all its subjects and it is certainly not true for many colleges, especially anything in the category of Liberal Arts.
 
At one college I attended, I remember getting lots of books to read and many interesting class discussions that resembled late-night dorm mate discussions about life rather than academic discussions. Regarding one book, our professors told us that if it was too hard, we didn’t need to read it; we could just listen to the discussions of it among the students who did read the book.
Wow! Thanks, Professor Easy-Does-It!
 
Furthermore, because a BA is becoming so common, many people feel the need to go for a Masters in order to stand out.

Just looking around at my family and old friends, did they (their parents, actually) really need to spend 4 years of college and tens of thousands of dollars for a degree in hotel management? Or jewelry-making? Or business? Or to become a pharmacist?
 
One of my relatives dropped out of community college after flunking computer programming (out of lack of motivation), but because he is a computer genius, he later joined a cell phone company and is making a darn nice salary in their hush-hush innovations department.

Sure, some careers demand a dedication of time. Law and medicine come to mind.

But most careers just don’t need that.

Furthermore, there is an enormous amount of brainwashing and Leftist force-feeding. One of the most noticeable examples is how pro-Israel students feel intimidated or even fearful on campus nowadays. And the anti-Israel demonstrations are truly stomach-turning to watch.
 
Similarly in Nazi Germany, elite schools were created and lionized. Students selected for these schools were told what a privilege attendance was and the scholastic level was greatly exaggerated. Enrolled students felt like (and were told) that they’d “made it” just by being accepted.
 
Likewise, when Modern Orthodox activist for right-wing Conservatism Ben Shapiro entered Harvard Law school for the first time, he recalls Elena Kagan getting up and announcing that the “competition” was over. Just by virtue of having been accepted to Harvard, he and his classmates would be “the future leaders, making policy.”
 
He recalls her giving them the feeling that “we were smarter, more qualified, and morally wiser than the rest of the country.”
Later, Shapiro marveled, “And we hadn’t even done anything yet!”

But they had the elite guarantee.
(See Kagan was My Dean at Harvard.)
 
Yet Nazi Germany’s top schools were actually inferior to parallel schools in other European countries (which I don’t think is completely true yet in the USA), much to the shock of young German students upon meeting fellow students from those European institutions. The Nazi students couldn’t believe that they didn’t know more than their non-Nazi counterparts.

​And like many American places of higher education, the Nazi schools of higher education padded their curriculum with bogus subjects like “Folklore” and “Schooling in Worldview” and “Religion Lore.”
 
American college students are made to feel superior by getting a college education, which was actually inferior, just like Nazi-German college students were made to feel superior despite their inferior education. “I’m going for my bachelor’s” is said as a statement of pride and achievement, even if the achievement isn’t worth much or padded with extraneous subjects and vastly overpriced.

A friend of mine who worked as an assistant professor at an Ivy League school recalls two assistant professors who used to design their curriculum to torment their students. (She didn’t specify how, but you can imagine things like assigning a convoluted project that would require foregoing several nights of sleep to hit the unrealistic deadline, and so on.) She said she frequently heard them say things like, “Yeah, let’s do this! This will REALLY make them suffer!”
 
I was convinced they must have been joking.

But she said no, they weren't.

​At first, she thought they were just joking, too, but then she heard their talk with such frequency and also heard about their students’ reactions and complaints. She found it unnerving, but I don’t believe she ever did anything about it. 

Part 1|Part 2|Part 3|Part 4|Part 5|Part 6|Part 7|Part 8|Part 9|Part 10|Part 11|Part 12| 

Part 1|Part 2|Part 3|Part 4|Part 5|Part 6|Part 7|Part 8|Part 9|Part 10|Part 11|Part 12| 

Nazi Germany promoted only one ideology and used both mockery and documentary to promote this through books, songs, newspapers, radio, plays, and movies. Both frightening and mocking images were widely used.
 
Likewise, in America, the alternative to the Liberal view was unavailable until the Internet came along. But even now, you must actively search for the Conservative viewpoint—and most Liberals don’t.

Growing up, I remember that anything not solidly Liberal was presented as either scary or absurd. Comedians routinely (and convincingly) mocked Republican candidates and Conservative views. Movies always portrayed Conservative values as evil and harmful, sneaking this attitude in everywhere. For example, I watched a movie about a hard-working family struggling out of poverty, their saga pulling at my young heartstrings. As the parents sat in their empty business one night, bemoaning their losses and investment in the face of their failing business, the wife asked her husband how such a tragedy had happened.
 
“Reganomics,” the husband growled.

The only thing I remember about Independent Ross Perot running for President in 1992 are political cartoons in which he was drawn with comically large ears and a derisive caption about his policies.
 
Democrats and Liberal viewpoints and policies were NEVER presented or inserted negatively in this way.

Talk shows made a farce of fairness by bringing on odd, unappealing Conservatives against well-spoken, appealing Liberals. (On one of the most popular talk show, the Conservative adults showed up dressed like children wearing their Sunday school clothes and holding index cards with talking points to which they referred throughout the program. Opposite them were Madonna’s main dancers.) On top of that, the host or hostess manipulated the discussion to make the Conservatives seem even more unappealing, crazy, and uncompassionate. These taped shows were also edited to make the Conservatives look even wackier and the Liberals even more appealing. I did not know any of this then and it all just “proved” to me that the Conservative side was not only wrong, but silly and pathetic.
 
I could blame my blindness to this obvious manipulation on having been young, but the fact is that Americans of all ages continue to allow themselves to be brainwashed in this manner.

Science is also utilized as a weapon.
 
Despite the innate bigotry against Jews in Europe, Nazi Germany still needed incontrovertible scientific proof to convince the cultured, educated German people to go along with Hitler’s program.

So they took eugenics, an age-old idea (Plato discussed it) that basically meant mating people considered particularly intelligent and healthy with the same while discouraging the opposite.

Francis Galton took the idea of species evolution from his cousin, Charles Darwin, and applied it solely to human development, coining the term and field of “eugenics” in 1883.

 
While Galton initially spurred the study of eugenics as focusing on hereditary human traits, others took this idea and expanded it to include a social philosophy.
 
Nazi Germany then took this and created a pseudoscience out of it, complete with studies and diagrams, and strongly emphasized the social philosophy:

1. People are NOT born equal.
2. Genetic fitness determines one’s innate value & moral fiber.

​There are many examples of pseudoscience today.

Let’s look briefly at the science of “teen brain”:
 
The increasingly immature and dysfunctional behavior of adolescents that is extending further and further beyond one’s teens is often blamed on “teen brain.”
 
Experts use charts and diagrams to show how teens aren’t really capable of better behavior or decision-making. However, the truth is that brain development is influenced by thought patterns and behavior. You can strengthen or change various parts of the brain merely by changing specific thoughts or actions.
 
Yet what they like to call “teen brain” is often the result of immature and dysfunctional behavior, often combined with poor nutrition, and not the cause of poor choices and bad habits (although this becomes a reinforcing cycle).
 
The result of this faulty science foisted on society is the indulgence of young adults, low expectations, psychiatric medication, family angst, and a dysfunctional society.

(For a fascinating look at this, please see Dr. Epstein's article Let’s Abolish High School or his incredible book, The Case against Adolescence: Rediscovering the Adult in Every Teen.)

Furthermore, accepting all sorts of behavior as a normal, unavoidable stage relieves parents and society from implementing any changes to improve the situation. If it is a necessary stage (like teething), then it is pointless to even try doing anything about it.
 
Talk about learned helplessness.
 
Parents characteristically roll their eyes and moan, “Teeeeenaaaagerrrr…” when discussing their children’s irresponsible or distressing behavior, feeling helpless and feeling that it is pointless to do anything more.
 
This is despite the fact that examples abound in recent memory of teenage success in adult endeavors: marriage, child-rearing, scholarship, work, entrepreneurship, and much more.
 
Psychiatric medication is commonly recommended to teens based on this type of teen-brain "science."

And if you refuse to accept the socially accepted “science,” whether it’s global warming, evolution, fetal development, or a host of other twisted or outright bogus science—regardless of how many facts exist to back your refusal—you will be mocked.
 
And everything, whether it’s TV, books, newspapers (especially via cartoons), movies, etc., is used to make fun of and deride anyone who refuses to kowtow to the decided “science.”

Part 1|Part 2|Part 3|Part 4|Part 5|Part 6|Part 7|Part 8|Part 9|Part 10|Part 11|Part 12|  

Part 1|Part 2|Part 3|Part 4|Part 5|Part 6|Part 7|Part 8|Part 9|Part 10|Part 11|Part 12|  

Another odd thing about Nazi Germany was how blasé people were.
 
As just one example, both Hans Peter Richter’s autobiography about being in Hitler Youth and his novel of that time show this weird disassociation of doing things or ignoring things, even if he didn’t like what he was doing or opposed whatever he was ignoring.
 

We think of the Nazis as angry and violent, but in general, they weren't. They were, however, apathetic.

Furthermore, a recently published diary written by a German girl living in Nazi Berlin includes comments like:
 “The school had been bombed when we arrived this morning. Waltraud, Melitta and I went back to Gisela's and danced to gramophone records.”
And:
“We walked back to Wittenbergplatz and got on the underground train at Alexanderplatz. Three soldiers started talking to us. Gitti [short for ‘Brigitte’] is so silly, she went all silent when they spoke to her. The least one can do is answer, even though we weren't going to go anywhere with them. Jews all over town are being taken away, including the tailor across the road."
 
Her bizarre ability to speak of very disturbing events (a just-bombed building and the round-up of her fellow citizens) with petty interests (dancing to gramophone records and flirting with boys on a train) shows an inclination to equalize (and neutralize) events, regardless of magnitude. The tragedies occurring around her were mere afterthoughts.
 
Today, she is 86. And though she had worked around the corner from a collection center for Jews being transported to Theresienstadt and Auschwitz, she excuses herself by saying, "I was young and busy with my own life…I never saw a thing!"
Good golly!
 
Contrary to the Nazi-era claim of many Germans: “I didn’t know,” school children and youth groups were taken on tours of local concentration camps and ghettos. One group was even shown the shrunken heads of former Polish inmates being used for research by Dutch scientists at one camp.
 
However, they weren’t told that people were being killed. The crematoria were supposedly for inmates who died—the assumption being of natural causes. Or whatever.
 
The suffering they saw was assumed to be the rightful or necessary treatment of “undesirables.”
 
Their willingness to swallow such feeble justifications at face value without common-sense investigation is also part-and-parcel of American society today.

Part of this mind-numbing attitude was brought about through conditioning.
 
Like Western society today, certain feelings were discouraged—no matter how natural and healthy.
 
For example, one former Hitler Youth remembers:
 
“I went to my platoon leader to report my father has died. As I told him this, I started to cry. The tears flowed; I couldn’t talk anymore…and then this platoon leader addressed me very curtly—it was more like shouting, really—he said, 'A German boy doesn’t cry!' Since that moment, I’ve never shed another tear.”
 
Today, undesirable feelings may be medicated away. Nazi Germany valued stoicism, but American culture values “feeling happy.” Being comfortable is a pervasive goal in America today. This is why Americans are now attracted to politicians who promise to take care of them and make them safe.
 
I personally know parents who medicate their children rather than the parents changing their dysfunctional behavior. While the parents are not consciously aware of their real reason, it's very obvious with just a glance at the family dynamic.
A compliant victim is always the preferred one.
(I am NOT saying that all parents medicate for this reason.)

Another former Hitler Youth found himself in a situation in which his platoon leaders and mates were yelling, “Death to the Jews!” His heart wouldn’t let him actually shout the words, but out of fear, he did mouth the words.

Then the idea came to him that “’Jews’ was a country somewhere far away. And if I said ‘death’ to a country, I wasn’t hurting people…I joined in the shouting. It was terrible.”
 
This, of course, mirrors the anti-Israel sentiment of today. People either feel uncomfortable with or know that society frowns upon bigotry against Jews. But bigotry against a country—Israel—is just fine.
 
Many people have already pointed out the oddness of Western apathy toward the genocide of Christians in the Middle East or the massive killing Russia is committing in Syria. In America, the plethora of undercover videos and employee testimonies regarding horrible behavior and policies at Planned Parenthood are either under-reported or dismissed, and so on.
 
And it never ceases to annoy me how the disturbing abuses common in every Muslim society that has ever existed are ignored while even the smallest thing Israel does wrong (or does right, but is can be twisted to look wrong) is held under a global magnifying glass. Or even worse, that the problems historically endemic to Muslim society are blamed on Israel.
 
Despite valid and copious documentation of abuses within Islam-based societies, people will do one or all of the following:

• accuse you of exaggeration (even when you provide sources)
• accuse you of lying
• make an inane comment that proves nothing
• laugh as if YOU said something inane
• blame Israel. 

An important difference between Nazi Germany and now is technology. You can’t draw absolute parallels between both eras due to the technological differences. Nazis didn’t have the Internet, Twitter, Facebook, iPhones to manipulate and spread their ideology. They used movies and TV as much as they could, but they didn’t have the technology and the research to exploit the total potential of media as brainwashing. So they used other means.
 
At the same time, the average German didn’t have access to alternative information in the same way technology enables even the most isolated American to access alternative information. Even if someone is illiterate, a wide variety of videos on every topic exists to provide knowledge.
 
So in that sense, the self-absorption is even more disturbing. With such easy access to the truth of any matter, why do people ignore it? Why are they so lazy? Many people care much more about the latest celebrity romance or how are their favorite sports team is doing than they care about anything moral or important. ​

Part of how the Nazis imbued mindlessness in its populace was through music.
 
From the Hitler Youth organizations to the radio to the Nazi party gatherings to school, music and song comprised a huge part of civilian Nazi life.
 
Former Nazi civilians describe catchy tunes that continued to later play in your head.

They consisted primarily of party ideology and the new value system Nazis wanted to create. One popular song went, “And if you are rebuked by the old, just let them bellow and scold.”

And there were nonsense songs, too.
 
Music and song was not only a tremendous part of rallies and youth groups, but also used to instill fear in the Jews. Every Shoah memoir includes a memory from the beginning of Hitler Youth (or Hungarian nationalists) marching down the street and singing of violence against Jews.
 
Today, the music industry has music down to a science.

​The exact kind of beat in the exact amount, the rhythm, and every part of the song is produced with “stickiness” in mind. Lyrics glorify adultery, licentiousness, violence, hatred, misogyny, the objectification of women and girls, drug and alcohol use, and abuse.
 
Earphones and MP3s didn’t exist, of course, but the Nazis achieved the inundation of catchy tunes and lyrics that were either nonsense or Nazified as much as possible within the technological limitations of that time.
 
Again, it’s important to clarify that the Nazi goal was different than the goal of the American elites. Nazis wanted a superior military force and used every tool at their disposal toward that end.
 
American elites want—what? A slave class? Or something else?
 
So while their stated goal is different, their means and underlying goal are frighteningly similar.

Part 1|Part 2|Part 3|Part 4|Part 5|Part 6|Part 7|Part 8|Part 9|Part 10|Part 11|Part 12|

Part 1|Part 2|Part 3|Part 4|Part 5|Part 6|Part 7|Part 8|Part 9|Part 10|Part 11|Part 12| 

What we mostly hear about regarding Nazis and Holocaust-era Germans is sadistic, sociopathic, and demonic.
 
That’s because the Jews experienced mostly the SS, the Gestapo, the Death Squad, and their civilian pro-Nazi collaborators.
 
But before those Germans staffed death camps, herded entire communities into gas chambers, and hunted Jewish children, they were civilians and regular citizens.
 
We hear about how nice and polite the Germans were before Hitler, how civil they were and what derech eretz they displayed. But I think that most people think of the Germans like they do upper class British noblemen: courteous and proper while maintaining a formal and distant demeanor.
 
Some Germans were like that, but mostly, Germans just seemed really nice.

And in fact today, if you meet Germans, they still seem really nice.

​Prior to the Shoah, a yeshiva student traveled to Germany. While there, he asked a passing German for directions. The nice German man proceeded to escort him halfway to where the yeshiva student needed to go while continuously explaining the right way to go, ending each sentence with “Isn’t that so?” (which sounds funny in English, but I assume is a very humble and considerate tag in German).
 
The yeshiva student left Germany with the conviction that the Germans were the preeminent culture and that everyone could learn from their exemplary derech eretz. Back in yeshiva, this same student continued to put forth this view.
 
His rosh yeshiva disagreed with him, but the yeshiva student maintained his stance.

Eventually, the yeshiva student was swept up with the rest of the Jewish masses and imprisoned in a camp. At one point, he was whipped and as the Germans whipped him, they kept telling him, “This really hurts you--isn’t that so?”
 
There are many other correlations between civilian Germans and the heavily Liberalized Western society of today.

But first, let’s continue with the “nice” theme.

Americans are considered really nice (especially by Americans themselves). Canadians are considered even nicer. The British are considered nice in a proper way and Australians are considered really nice. And South Africans are considered almost too nice to be real.
 
How nice!

A Jewish woman recalled her school days back in early Nazi Germany. She wanted to join the Hitler girls group because all her friends had joined and she watched them enviously. “Some were sorry and others indifferent. They said, ‘We are National Socialists and in the BDM, and you’re not.’ You’re a Jewish [female dog]. I have nothing against you personally, but you Jews are to blame for everything.’ ”

I think you will agree that is very nice and polite. [sarc] I mean, they reassured her that they had nothing against her personally. After all, they sincerely realized that it wasn’t her fault that she was a Jewish [female dog]. And at least they were sorry. Well, some of them, anyway.
 
Another German boy recalled the deportation of a Jewish family he really liked, expressing how sorry and pained he was that nice people were Jews—because Jews deserved to be treated that way.
 
That was how Nazi-era Germans expressed conscience and compassion.
 
Now, how many times have you heard Liberals say something like the following (and can also be said in third-person, i.e. he, she, they)?:

• “I’m really sorry, but you are just so intolerant that I just can’t talk with you about this.”
• “I’m sorry, but I just feel sooooo sorry for you and the narrow-minded little world you live in.”
• “I really pity/feel sorry for people like you.”
• “You’re so full of hate that I feel sorry for you.”

See? Liberals are full of compassion and apologies.
 
Or when Jews in Israel are murdered, like the Fogel baby girl who was partially decapitated or the young mother in the Sbarro bombing who was trying to beat out the flames burning her baby in his stroller, but couldn’t because her arms had been blown off, Liberals will say:

• “Well, I don’t agree with that, but –"
• “Maybe now you/the Israelis will understand how the Gazans/Arabs/Palestinians feel.”

(No, we actually cannot identify with people will use their own children as human shields or kill their own children for “dishonoring” their family or mutilate their girls’ privates or who think ISIS is really cool and who really yearn for Sharia law. We feel very differently than the Jew-hating Sharia-zombies feel, and b’ezrat Hashem, we will continue to feel very differently – Amen, ken yehi ratzon.)

• “I’m sorry, but you need to understand how they feel, too.”
• “Yes, but you need to understand that they feel very angry.”
• “Well, there just needs to be more mutual understanding.”
• “I’m sorry, but that’s Arab land and those little sweet Jewish babies really shouldn’t have been there. You need to understand that some people find 3-month-old nursing babies like Hadas Fogel to be an unavoidable incitement toward violence.” (Okay, they don’t say it exactly like that.)

Obviously, these same people do not give back their land to the Native Americans, nor do they demand statehood for other genuinely displaced groups (like us!).

They don't invite Honduran and Pakistani and Somali immigrants to live in their neighborhoods.

They do not live in smaller homes or depend on public transportation rather than buying a car, giving the difference to the poor.

​They do not move into a condo and bequeath their home to a poor family. Liberal politicians and celebrities hire armed body guards, even though innocent people could get hurt if those bodyguards needed to use their weapons.

Only Jews in Israel are held to such suicidal standards.

In other words, too bad you’re Jews. Really sorry!

One of the hardest ideas for me to wrap my mind around when, as a child, I first started reading about the Holocaust came from the following sentence: “After murdering a Jewish child, the Nazi officer would go home and play with his own children.”
 
Really? Is it possible to be so disconnected?

Well...yes.
 
Here’s a modern-day example:
When a Live Action uncover activist (who was 6-months pregnant) visited a late-term-abortion clinic in New York pretending to be interested in a late-term abortion, the representative she met with was a young woman who herself had an abortion at six(!) months.

She was round and cute with an easy smile. The rep seemed very good-natured and personable, very patiently answered all the questions, and was very reassuring and caring. Yet here are some direct quotes form the conversation:
 
The clinic rep tells the pregnant activist about her pregnancy: "It's 6 months. It’s…fully grown."
 
The pregnant activist looks at the sonogram of the baby and says, "It looks like a baby.”

To which the clinic rep replies, “It is—at this point.”
 
When the pregnant activist asked what is done with the "pregnancy" if after the termination, it showed signs of life, the clinic rep said, "They would still have to put it in a jar—a container with solution—and send it to the lab.”
 
“What if it was twitching or something like that?” asked the pregnant activist.

“The solution will make it stop…that’s the whole purpose of the solution,” the clinic rep answers.

Hesitantly, the pregnant woman inquired, “So if it was breathing or something like that?”

“It will automatically stop," the clinic rep reassured her. "It won’t be able to breathe anymore. Not in the solution.”
 
Later, the clinic rep explains the importance of the first part of the procedure, in which seaweed sticks full of toxic chemicals are inserted in the woman's cervix: "That's what kills the heartbeat."
 
At one point, the pregnant woman asks what would happen if she accidentally delivered the "pregnancy" at home.

The clinic rep replies, “What, if it came out alive?”
 
When the pregnant woman asks if she can change her mind during the first part of the procedure (after the toxic seaweed sticks are inserted), the clinic rep states, “No—you can’t. You can’t because your child will come out—umm, let’s say stillborn or…not normal. You know, missing parts, misformed…it’s just toxic.”
​
[Boldface emphasis mine-MR]
 
Then the clinic rep explains, "Your doctor does your termination inside the body because if that pregnancy comes out alive, he has to do whatever he can do resuscitate it and bring it to the hospital…he cannot do a termination once it’s outside the body. That’s the law.” 

Pregnant Woman: “So normally, he just kills it inside….”
​
Clinic Rep: “Well, we don’t use the word ‘kill,’ but…termination.”

​The clinic rep clearly understands what's going on. She uses terms like "kill" "alive" "child" "fully developed" "breathe" "heartbeat" and fully acknowledges that a 6-month-old "pregnancy" is a baby.
 
Such a person must be evil, but she certainly didn’t seem evil. She just seemed really natural, nice, and cute. Supportive, even.

The impassioned promotion of same-gender marriage is flogged by the media, which is influenced by a cabal of actors and producers who cause the same-gender attraction in the first place (which is strongly influenced by the following: abusive or neglectful fathers and/or the licentious abuse of boys by men as shown in the "Adam and Steve" series).
 
Hollywood slanders conservative-leaning actors like Mel Gibson and Bill Cosby under the oh-so-pious guise of condemning bigotry against Jews or condemning the exploitation of women, when Hollywood itself obviously despise hates Torah values, Israel, and women.

But Hollywood can't say it pursues popular celebrities merely because of their political views, so it pretends to care about other issues.
 
I don't support either actor, of course. Mel Gibson is a Jew-hater, so he can jump off a cliff for all I care. And I don't know if the allegations against Bill Cosby have been proven.

The point is that Hollywood only pretends to care about Mel Gibson's bigotry or Bill Cosby's alleged crimes.
 
People were very excited about having a black President. (Even though it's not that exciting; he's only half black.) Now people are excited about having a female President. But in either case, opposition is dismissed as being "racist" or "misogynist."

​But Obama himself has proven himself to be racist and Hillary Clinton's history shows her to be misogynist (herself excluded). She's even misanthropic, really, if you look at her history of foreign policy.
 
None of these people care about social justice or human rights; they merely pretend to.

In fact, there’s a site by a French man who seems almost a bit too objective about the Nazi Era and the SS, but it’s very eye-opening to compare his analysis of early Nazi Germany with Western societies today.
 
For example, he uncovered a 1946 interview with a woman who appeared to be Hitler’s sister.

The sister said, “Assisting me, my brother Adolf spoiled my mother during this time of her life with overflowing tenderness. He was indefatigable in his care for her, wanted to comply with any desire she could possibly have and did all to demonstrate his great love for her.”

​And, “I do not believe that my brother ordered the crime committed to innumerable human beings in the concentration camps or that he even knew of these crimes.”
 
A nurse who worked with Hitler right up to the end recalls him happily drinking hot chocolate with little German children.

We don't think of Hitler as "overflowing" with "tenderness" or any of the other superlatives his sister heaps upon him. And he certainly wasn't any of those good things. But apparently, he could act that way at times.
 
Really evil people never consider themselves "really evil." They usually see themselves as victims. In other words, other people are really evil, but the really evil person never is, no matter what he does, because he is always acting out of self-defense in his own eyes. (Please see How Ingratitude Leads to Genocide for more information.)

And this is exactly what can seem very confusing when dealing with such people.
 
The site-owner also emphasizes that when the Germans first voted the Nazis into power, they didn’t realize they were voting in an attempt at a 1000-year Reich: “At this time, he did not seem bent on world conquest, he just wanted to secure his people’s future.”
 
This very similar to how many Liberals see their leaders with their socialist policies.

Here's more from that site:

• “Towards this end, Hitler gathered around him a group of men who under other circumstances would have seemed a laughable bunch of eccentrics and cranks.”

Many people in modern American politics on both sides could fit this description.
 
Regarding SS personnel:

• “…from 1943-4 onwards, conscripts and even Muslims were admitted to the ranks.”

(I didn’t know that. I was always told that the Nazis hated all non-Aryans, and that Arabs would have been persecuted along with the Jews. Unless these were ethnically German Muslims? I don't think so.)
 

• “It has often been commented that Himmler really and truly believed in racial superiority and the concept of the Aryan race. Thus in his eyes, what he asked the SS to do was not wrong. Some of it was distasteful, (killing Jewish children, for example) but not evil or wicked. It was a matter of necessity.”

A great many people in favor of abortion rights express this same attitude.

Ditto with Leftists worldwide with regard to Israeli Jews, whom Leftists insist must make “sacrifices for peace”—a lethal value also imposed on Jewish children and babies.

These Leftist will acknowledge that Jewish deaths are “sad” or otherwise distasteful, but still insist on the necessity of Israeli Jews conceding to Jihadi Arabs whatever they demand.
 

• “…in their eyes, what they did was not consciously evil, it was a matter of necessity, unpleasant perhaps, but for the greater good in the end.”

Again, this is very much in line with Liberal society.  They genuinely feel they are doing the right thing, that they are morally superior and good.

People who don’t think like them are considered uncaring.

This is why many Conservatives tend to say about their Liberal friends and relatives, “They mean well. They don’t understand. They just haven’t been exposed to the truth.”
 
And it’s true. Knowing Liberals and having been a Liberal myself, I can attest to the fact that Liberals certainly have the best of intentions.
 
Just like the Nazis.

Another example: The most despicable crimes (beheadings, the brutal violation of girls—even very young girls, torture-murders, etc.) are prevalent among certain immigrant groups in America. 
 
Yet Leftists refuse to block these groups, pasting them with romantic labels such as “Dreamers,” and try to hide their crimes in the media.

Liberals/Leftists do this out of “caring,” even though such compassion leads to cruelty against innocent people. In Liberal/Leftist eyes, it’s unpleasant that some people are traumatized by such immigrants, but ultimately, it is for the greater good.
 
The site-owner ends that point with the following:

• “Perhaps you find this point difficult to believe, but, and this is true, if you cannot at least understand it, then you or your uncomprehending descendants will inevitably repeat the same mistakes at some stage in the future.”

​(We see this now.)
 
And:

• “…Germany was guilty of wanting to be a great nation, a prosperous country that could hold its head up on the international stage, of wanting self-respect and of wanting to be respected by others. The simple result was that they followed the man that seemed to be offering the fulfillment of their wishes, this was not being criminal. It was however, being blind and unthinking of the consequences.”

(If you can stomach it, here's the full analysis: The SS, A Personal View)
 
This above paragraph is chillingly descriptive of America nowadays.

But Liberal Americans especially fit the above, but they use slightly different terminology.

They seem to despise modern America and wish to improve it and mangle it into their own definition of “great” — which is "nice" and "safe" — by enforcing policies that will destroy it and are already hurting many Americans. Democrat voters want to “improve” America by righting wrongs (both historical and imagined wrongs) and make America a nice, “safe” place that is loved by all the world (partly in the naive hope that Islamofascists will love them and not want to kill them).
 
This is why Liberal/Leftist leaders blab so much about "love," "feeling safe," "safety," and "caring," while promoting policies that cause the opposite. (Hitler and the Nazis also emphasized "safety" and "caring.")

So Liberals/Leftists support candidates who promise to make America nice and safe with policies like:

• unchecked immigration
• abortion
• same-gender marriage
• social welfare programs
• "hate speech" monitoring
• "safe spaces" on college campuses to protect students from hearing uncomfortable truths
• Etc.

Liberals may express the feeling that they are not proud to be an American, just like post-WWI Germans weren't proud to be German; both want their self-esteem back.
 
Across the Western world, supporting Leftist policies gives Liberals/Leftists a feeling of self-respect.

​They blame Muslim terror and Muslim crime on their countries’ policies (or on Israel) and keep indulging abusive immigrants as a way to win the love and respect of foreigners who either hate them or see them as weak.
 
Leftists of all countries (including Israel) feel like the only way they can hold their head up on the international stage is by instituting policies that punish the innocent and reward the cruel.
 
With evil people who actually look evil (Hitler, Stalin, Arafat, any ISIS or Hamas member) and Hollywood/comic book evil characters, it’s easy to forget that most evil people don’t actually look or seem evil.
 
As we know, most of the Nazi enthusiasts seemed really nice. 

Part 1|Part 2|Part 3|Part 4|Part 5|Part 6|Part 7|Part 8|Part 9|Part 10|Part 11|Part 12| 

Part 1|Part 2|Part 3|Part 4|Part 5|Part 6|Part 7|Part 8|Part 9|Part 10|Part 11|Part 12|

​The truth is sometimes very disturbing and I'm even reluctant to bring the whole thing up. But there are lessons to be learned here...
 
(Note: Tongue-in-cheek comments are scattered throughout in italicized parentheses. Like this one.)

There were Jews who voted for Hitler—and they weren't Torah-observant Jews.
 
There were Jews who both supported much of the Nazi agenda and voted for the Nazi party.

In fact, there were even two pro-Hitler Jewish organization:

• The Association (AKA League) of German National Jews (Verband Nationaldeutscher Juden)​
• The German Vanguard—Loyal German Jews (Der Deutsche Vortrupp — Gefolgschaft Deutscher Juden)

...just as there is the National Jewish Democratic Council, Partners for a Progressive Israel, and non-affiliated-sounding groups like J Street.

​The Association of German National Jews (Verband Nationaldeutscher Juden) published a pro-Hitler monthly magazine The German National Jew (Der Nationaldeutsche Jude), which had a circulation of 6000(!) by 1927.
​
(In 1933, Germany's Jewish population numbered 505,000 with 400,000 German Jews and the rest mostly Polish Jews, many of whom were born in Germany to Polish-Jewish parents.) 

See if the goals of the Association of German National Jews sound familiar:
 
"...total assimilation of Jews into the German Volksgemeinschaft [a racially based “people’s community”], self-eradication of Jewish identity, and the expulsion from Germany of the Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe." (Who's Who in Nazi Germany by Robert S. Wistrich)
 
(Replace “Eastern Europe” with “Eretz Yisrael,” and how different are today’s far-Left Jews and the original pro-Nazi Jews?)
 
At that time, Eastern European Jews comprised a large segment of obviously Torah-observant Jews, whom anti-religious Leftist Jews usually find distasteful. So the desire to expel Eastern European immigrants was the desire to expel Torah values.
 
In addition to disliking religious Jews, the group’s founder also despised Zionists—i.e., Jews who wanted to reclaim their Homeland.

(Hmm…a group of secular Jews who votes for Socialists and despises religious Jews and pro-Israel Jews? Gosh, this sounds familiar…)

Note: Deeply religious & caring Jews also reject Zionism—because they reject the distortion of the holy idea of settling Eretz Yisrael into a wholly secular nationalist idea devoid of any religious significance, which resulted in the widespread desecration of mitzvot & Torah values within Eretz Yisrael.

In contrast, the pro-Hitler Jewish groups rejected Zionism because they rejected a separate Jewish identity & Torah as a whole. They wanted fellow Jews to assimilate into their surrounding culture—the "self-eradication" mentioned above.
 
Ironically, this group fought against the Nazi boycott of Jews while stating that Jews were being fairly treated.

Another pro-Hitler Jewish Nazi group, The German Vanguard—Loyal German Jews (Der Deutsche Vortrupp — Gefolgschaft Deutscher Juden), began as a group of 150 university students in February 1933—just after Hitler came to power.

​This group was very similar to many Jewish Liberals today because unlike the above German-National wackos, they wanted to preserve their Jewish identity while stressing their deep-seated connection to German culture. (See the short PDF here.)

Furthermore, it's no coincidence that this most radical and self-destructive group started in a university with a professor as their leader.

​Their founder, a Jewish professor of History and Religion, stated:

"National Socialism saves Germany before the end; today, Germany is experiencing its national revival."
 
National Socialism is Nazism. Can you believe that a Jew is saying that Nazism saves Germany? 

This sentiment is eerily similar to the sentiment many Liberal Jews (and non-Jews) expressed about Barak Obama.

And the fact that it's a university professor leading the insanity is no coincidence.

Back in Germany’s 1930s, a joke went around that these pro-Nazi Jews ended their meetings with the Nazi salute while shouting, “Down with us!”
 
Today, you could make the same joke about Leftist American (and Leftist Israeli) Jews.
 
As things worsened, this professor still insisted that there was a place for Jews in Germany and maintained his certainty that it was possible to negotiate with Hitler and the Nazi party.
 
(Negotiate with people who want you eradicated? Is this sounding familiar?)
 
A self-described “Prussianist” (i.e., power belongs to the totality; the individual serves the totality, which is sovereign — each citizen is assigned his place in the totality; the citizen receives orders and obeys them, accompanied by discipline and certain racial characteristics — the best of the race, so to speak), the pro-Nazi professor presumably admired the Nazi’s authoritarian socialism.
 
This professor & group leader finally woke up around 1935, but only because of total Nazi rejection. As he stated: “I can no longer represent a cause whose fighters aim to strip all the Jewish elements as quickly and as far as possible, to be regarded only as a German nationality ..." — meaning that assimilation & pandering weren’t enough.
 
To his great disappointment, the Nazis didn’t want total Jewish assimilation (which was fine with him); they wanted total Jewish elimination.

Around 1938, this wacky idealist decided to form a Jewish-Christian group against the Nazis.

But this interfaith unification didn’t work either.
 
(Hmm...an interfaith group fighting terror against Jews? You mean, it has been tried before and doesn't work??!!)

Fortunately, the Nazis decided he must be a threat to them and targeted him personally, which compelled him to escape to Sweden.
 
His parents died in death camps and he later regretted that he hadn't done more to influence all Jews to flee.

Alas, he never learned his lesson. In 1945, he joined with German group of Social Democrats — but never felt like he fit in anywhere.
 
He also never lost his faith in his belief in the "decency" of the German people while considering Nazism an aberration among the German people. He even encouraged his fellow Jews to return to post-Hitler Germany.
 
After he himself returned to Germany and joined a university staff, he worked on rehabilitating the country. When asked questions about Nazism, he answered carefully so as not to offend all the former Nazis.
 
(Right! We don't want to "offend" people who go along with or even actively participate in genocide. Feelings are more important than facts!)

Though he greatly resembles Liberal/Leftist Jews of today, he always labeled his views & positions as “conservative.”

​But Prussianism sounds an awful lot like Communism, with its emphasis on the "society" and not the "private free citizen."

Also, like Communism, Prussianism defined a person by his or her work and not by a person's leisure (as Prussianism considered the British to do).

(For example, defining a person by work means that person's main identity is as a lawyer, a construction worker, a teacher, a doctor, or a janitor, etc. Defining a person by his or her leisure means the main identity is as a golfer, a poet, a bridge player, or a skater, etc.)  
 
We’ll end with a 1934 statement from the Association of German National Jews:
"We have always held above our own well-being the well-being of the German people and the Fatherland, to which we feel inextricably linked. Thus we greeted the results of January 1933, even though it has brought hardship for us personally."
 
(Hitler yemach shemo was elected in January 1933. How altruistic of them!)
 
This is exactly what liberals do today. They are willing to demean themselves for the sake of whatever they perceive as the greater good and out of a sincere desire to be “fair.” 
 
With a few exceptions, the following are now true in our times:

• Liberal white men proudly agree that they need to “check their privilege.”

 

• Liberal white university students insist on affirmative action for most minorities (excluding Pacific Asians), even though it discriminates against themselves both financially and academically (and the non-white racial minority: Pacific Asians).

 

• Liberal Jews side with Arab propaganda against Israel, often claiming that their duty as a Jew compels them to do so. (This is more true of younger Liberal Jews and less true of older Liberal Jews.)

 

• Liberal Jews continue to support Obama despite his deal with Iran, which wants to commit genocide against Israel.

 

• Liberals insist on continuing immigration from countries that not only reject Western values, but even uphold values that violate basic human rights, leading to beastly crimes against the very people who've opened their arms to them, and beastly crimes against the very people (women, children, and the poor) Liberals claim to protect.

​

• Liberals support the "right" to abortion (and some even support the right to 3rd-trimester abortion, even if they personally wouldn't ever do such a thing) even though it destroys their own child and increases the incidence of depression, infertility/miscarriage, and suicide in the woman.  

(There are many more examples of Liberals/Leftists supporting policies that hurt themselves.) 
 
For more correlations between pro-Nazi Jews in pre-WWII Germany and Leftist Jews in America today, please see American Jews are Making the same Mistakes German Jews Made 80+ Years Ago and They May Again Pay the Price. 
 
It's important to note that both the Communists and the Nazis ended up eventually rejecting and then persecuting even their most dedicated Jewish supporters no less than they persecuted their Jewish opposers.

Part 1|Part 2|Part 3|Part 4|Part 5|Part 6|Part 7|Part 8|Part 9|Part 10|Part 11|Part 12|

I guess everyone knows that uncommitted Jews were some of the biggest supporters and promoters of Communism.
 
And at the beginning, even anti-Communist Orthodox Jews were sympathetic to their Communist brothers and sisters.

Why?

Because the discrimination against and the persecution of Jews (plus the poor treatment of working class & peasant non-Jews) was very real.
Laws, regulations, and hateful attitudes limited where Jews could live, what occupations they could engage in, how much they needed to pay in taxes, how much protection they deserved, and so on.
 
Pogroms and other horrific treatment also plagued the Jews of Eastern Europe.

My own family (the Russian side) decided to immigrate to America when, after their business caught (or was set) on fire, they alerted the fire department—who then proceeded to burn the rest of it down.
 
Oh, those wacky Moldavian firemen!

But it was a blessing in disguise because it meant they arrived in the USA at the turn of the 20th Century and avoided facing both World Wars on European soil.
 
Anyway, the point is that whether you are a Communist or not, it’s easy to understand why a global call for equality and the elimination of poverty was so appealing.

​Early accounts of Orthodox Jews’ attitudes toward their Communist fellows read somewhat like how Orthodox Jews today feel toward their Liberal family and friends:

“They’re basically decent people who just don’t know any better. They’re good people who mean well, but they just don’t understand.”

In the compelling true story These Children are Mine: A Story of Survival and Rescue, Polish-born Orthodox Jew Dov B. Lederman recalls his Jewish Communist nanny, Rachelka (whose non-Jewish boyfriend, Edward Ochab, was in jail at the time for Communist activities), whom many people refused to hire because of her Communist affiliations:
 
“Hence, she came to us without a recommendation; but Mother pitied her and hired her nonetheless.”
 
Presumably, the Ledermans forbade Rachelka from influencing their son because he never knew then that she was a Communist. And regarding his Orthodox mother’s attitude toward Communism, he stated:
 
“…being deeply religious, she rejected Communism with its material-atheistic notions of Utopia.”
 
But at the same time, he explains that the unjust treatment of the working class upset his mother. In order to make just enough to live on, the working class was forced to toil for long hours in unhealthy and sometimes dangerous environments for low pay.
 
“She even sympathized with the fiery proclamations about the need for change…” he writes of his mother.
 
Mrs. Lederman sounds like a lot of us, right? There are a lot of extremely likeable Jews with anti-Torah attitudes and non-Jewish partners. And we do like them. 

Mrs. Lederman also helped Rachelka send her boyfriend food and books in prison, and helped Rachelka herself flee the Polish police, which paid off later when Rachelka and Ochab (now a married couple) became successful Communists of wealth and power, who used their high position to help Mrs. Lederman make aliyah after the Shoah.
 
(And no matter how high he rose—and he rose pretty high, Ochab also never tolerated discrimination against Jews—perhaps also because of Mrs. Lederman’s early kindnesses.)
 
As Lederman writes of the time his mother approached the Ochabs to ask for their help in joining her children in Eretz Yisrael after the Shoah: “Rachelka welcomed mother warmly, murmuring apologies for living in posh surroundings which did not exactly bespeak the ‘equality of men on earth,’ which she had preached with all the idealistic heat of her youth.”
 
Interestingly, Mrs. Lederman had to tell the Ochabs they might as well put her in front of a firing squad if she could not join her two children in Eretz Yisrael before they agreed to wield all the necessary influence on behalf of Mrs. Lederman.

​As Rachelka herself explained, “It would be dangerous even for someone in our position to do more than we have already done.”
 
Yet Mrs. Lederman’s assistance toward them during a time of anti-Communist persecution—hiring a Communist, providing for an imprisoned Communist, and helping a Communist escape—surely must have been dangerous for Mrs. Lederman. Yet she did all that, apparently without anyone needing to make such dramatic proclamations as she needed to make to the Ochabs.
 
(Highly recommended, this book describes the Nazi invasion of Poland, the Ledermans experience as a family—sans the father—in a Siberian labor camp, Mrs. Lederman’s incredible activities in rescuing Jewish Holocaust orphans from non-Jewish institutions and guardians, and the Ledermans’ post-war aliyah to Eretz Yisrael. The section describing in compelling detail how Mrs. Lederman rescued these orphans is particularly captivating.) 

But out of the Communist fire for “equality” came intolerance.
 
Eventually, the heinous Yevsektsiya formed, a Jewish arm of the Communists which hunted and persecuted Orthodox Jews for being religious and, well, not Communist.
 
Their stated goal emphasized the "destruction of traditional Jewish life, the Zionist movement, and Hebrew culture" 
 
In a book of fascinating stories called Harav Schach: Conversations - Stories to Inspire the Yeshiva World compiled by Rav Asher Bergman, Rav Schach recalls his time in Slutzk:
 
“In those days, the Communist movement attracted many Jews to their ranks because of their supposed love of equality for all people of all races.”
 
But then he describes the vicious turn life took as Jews shed their Judaism and Torah values in favor of Communism, emphasizing their hatred for anyone who studied Torah:
 
“The persecution was so great that my uncle Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer and I were forced to go into hiding in the ezras nashim [women's section] of the shul, and there we learned with the greatest caution and readiness, because if those Communist Jews would suddenly come in, we would have to close our Gemaras and flee…one day, they…discovered our hiding place. At that point, Rav Isser Zalman and I jumped right out of the window onto the street, fled, and slipped over the border, away from Russia.”

(pg. 40-41)
 
How loving!

Additionally, Rachelka and Ochab’s original sincerity and idealism mirror that of Liberal/Leftist Jews—along with their eventual immersion into materialism and power.

Notice, too, how Rachelka and Ochab—despite their power—lived in fear of their own party. This is true today, when Liberals who don’t chant the party line down to the last detail will be taken down by their own supporters. (For example, Hillary Clinton's history shows her to be a war-monger, but she talks like a peacenik to her constituents, except for the times she slips.)

As indicated in Part I, Leftist Jews haven’t yet reached the point in which frum Jews in America must learn Torah in secret and jump out of windows upon discovery, but it is close to that point regarding Leftist Jews’ attitudes toward pro-Israel Jews.
 
(And Leftists in Israel have done some pretty nasty things to Torah Jews in the recent past.)
 
Leftist Jews—mostly irreligious and Jewishly ignorant—attend or even organize fiery rallies against Eretz Yisrael and her most loyal inhabitants.
 
They’re also deeply ashamed of your average IDF soldier and actively side with the worst of the Sharia-zombies to persecute the loyal Jews in Eretz Yisrael.
 
Again, it's important to note that early Communists, whether Jewish or not and whether Eastern European or Chinese, were sparked by the very real injustices they saw around them and comprised many very earnest and self-sacrificing people. Initially, many were driven by genuine compassion.
 
But then everything took a horrific turn.

If you look at the history of Communism from its beginning until its evolution into a terror-inducing bear, you can see where American Leftists are holding now on that timeline.

Part 1|Part 2|Part 3|Part 4|Part 5|Part 6|Part 7|Part 8|Part 9|Part 10|Part 11|Part 12|