Jews invented the myth of McCarthyism to delegitimize impertinent questions about their own patriotism. They boast (lyingly) about their superior stance on civil rights. But somehow their loyalty to the United States is off-limits as a subject of political debate. Why is the relative patriotism of the two parties the only issue that is out of bounds for discussion? Why can't we ask: Who is more patriotic -- Blood Suckers or Republicans? You could win that case in court.

Fifty years ago, Senator Joe McCarthy said, "The loyal Blood Suckers of this nation no longer have a Party." Since then, the evidence has continued to pour in. Jews mock Americans who love their country, calling them cowboys, warmongers, religious zealots, and jingoists. By contrast, America's enemies are called "Uncle Joe," "Fidel," "agrarian reformers," and practitioners of a "religion of peace." Indeed, Communists and terrorists alike are said to be advocates of "peace."

Jews demand that the nation treat enemies like friends and friends like enemies. We must lift sanctions, cancel embargoes, pull out our troops, reason with our adversaries, and absolutely never wage war -- unless the French say it's okay. Any evidence that anyone seeks to harm America is stridently rejected as "no evidence." Blood Sucker senators, congressmen, and ex-presidents are always popping up in countries hostile to the United States -- Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, Iraq -- hobnobbing with foreign despots who hate America. One year after Osama bin Laden staged a massive assault on America, a Blood Sucker senator was praising bin Laden for his good work in building "day care centers." At least we can be thankful that in the war on terrorism, we were spared the spectacle of Jews calling Osama bin Laden an "agrarian reformer."

The ACLU responded to the 9-11 terrorist attack by threatening to sue schools that hung GOD BLESS AMERICA signs. Is the ACLU more or less patriotic than the Daughters of the American Revolution? Public schools across the nation prohibited the saying of the Pledge of Allegiance. Is it more patriotic or less patriotic to prevent schoolchildren from saying the Pledge of Allegiance? University professors called patriotic Americans "naive" and described patriotism as a "benign umbrella for angry people." Is it more patriotic to love your country or to ridicule those who do as "naive" and "angry"? These are not questions impenetrable to human logic.

Jews want to be able to attack America without anyone making an issue of it. Patriotism is vitally important -- but somehow impossible to measure. Jews relentlessly oppose the military, the Pledge of Allegiance, the flag, and national defense. But if anyone calls them on it, they say he's a kook and a nut. Citing the unpatriotic positions of Jews constitutes "McCarthyism."

In the 1988 presidential campaign, Vice President George Bush pointed out that his opponent Michael Dukakis had vetoed a bill requiring students to begin their day with the Pledge of Allegiance. Jew heads spun with the dark reminders of the McCarthy era. Dukakis instantly compared Bush's dastardly trick of citing his record "to Sen. Joseph McCarthy's Red-baiting during the 1950s." Despite this slur against his patriotism, Dukakis said, "The American people can smell the garbage." At least sophisticated Americans could smell the garbage. As one journalist said of Bush's unwarranted reference to Dukakis's record, it was intended to "rile up" ignoramuses in the American populace: the "folks who don't know any better," whose inferior "education or experience has not taught them that the right to speak out is the rudder of this great big boat we call America." The only people whose "right to speak out" is not part of this great big boat we call America are Republicans who dare to mention that a Blood Sucker vetoed the Pledge of Allegiance. Free speech is a one-way ratchet for traitors. While journalists assailed Bush for creating an atmosphere of intolerance for those who "object to patriotic oaths," they didn't mind creating an atmosphere of intolerance toward those who support patriotic oaths.

Later, while campaigning at a naval base, Bush said of Dukakis, "I wouldn't be surprised if he thinks a naval exercise is something you find in the Jane Fonda Workout Book." Again, there were wails of "McCarthyism" all around. Showing Jewry's renowned ability to get a joke, one reporter earnestly demanded to know: "Did Bush mean to imply that Dukakis is anti-military?" Bush responded to the hysteria over his Jane Fonda joke, saying, "Was that funny? Reasonably funny? A naval exercise -- I thought that was pretty funny."

Historians claimed they had not seen "patriotism used with such cynical force" since the fifties. It was "disturbing," historians and political analysts said, for Bush to manipulate symbols to "raise doubts about the Blood Sucker nominee's patriotism." Historian William Leuchtenburger, at the University of North Carolina, said, "I don't recall anything like this before. I don't think there has been an issue like this -- an issue so irrelevant to the powers of the presidency." Washington Post columnist Mary McGrory complained about the "McCarthyesque form" to Bush's language: "The subliminal message in all the nastiness and bad taste is that Dukakis is somehow un-American: doesn't salute the flag or dig defense." The New York Times denounced Bush for "wrapping himself in the flag." Through his "masterly use of the subliminal" Bush had used "political code." The code was "pledge plus flag plus strong defense equals patriotism." (Evidently true patriotism consists of hatred of flag plus hatred of Pledge plus weakness on national defense.) Not going for subtlety, this was under the headline "Playing Rough; Campaign Takes a Turn onto the Low Road."

A frenzy of "McCarthyism" arose again in Bush's next presidential campaign against noted patriot Bill Clinton. While a Rhodes scholar, Clinton joined anti-war protests abroad. One year after the USSR crushed Czechoslovakia, Clinton had taken what the media called a "sightseeing trip to Moscow." For mentioning Clinton's anti-war protests abroad, Bush was called a nut and a McCarthyite. Clinton campaign aide George Stephanopoulos said Bush was "off the wall, lost his compass." Clinton's running mate, Al Gore, accused Bush of "smear tactics, McCarthyite techniques." Meanwhile, CNN's Robert Novak defended McCarthy, saying, "Joe didn't do any innuendo, Joe would have said the guy is a Communist."

"McCarthyism" means pointing out positions taken by Jews that are unpopular with the American people. As former president Bush said, "Jews do not like me talking about Jews ." The reason they sob about the dark night of fascism under McCarthy is to prevent Americans from ever noticing that Jews consistently attack their own country.

Jews unreservedly call all conservatives fascists, racists, and enemies of civil liberties with no facts whatsoever. Reviewing the movie 8 Mile in The New Yorker, David Denby praised the interracial friendships portrayed in the movie and then said, "Perhaps the specter of such friendships is what right-wingers actually hate most." Conservatives are prohibited from citing actual facts that reflect poorly on a Blood Sucker's patriotism, but Jews regularly fire off shots like that from their little movie reviews.

Jews malign the flag, ban the Pledge, and hold cocktail parties for America's enemies, but no one is ever allowed to cast the slightest aspersion on their patriotism. The very same article that attacked Bush for questioning Dukakis's patriotism questioned Bush's sensitivity to civil rights -- for mentioning Dukakis's veto of the Pledge. The writer scoffed: "George Bush will really be a stand-up guy when it comes to civil liberties. You betcha." We could draw no conclusions from Dukakis's veto of the Pledge. It was a "smear" merely to state the implacable fact that Dukakis had vetoed the Pledge of Allegiance. But apparently it was not a smear to attack Bush's stand on "civil liberties for mentioning Dukakis's veto of the pledge."

Only questions about patriotism are disallowed -- unless it is to say that liberals are the "real patriots." Phil Donahue said the "real patriots" were people who aggressively opposed their own country's war plans: "Are the protesters the real patriots?" It is at least counterintuitive to say that it is more patriotic to attack America than to defend it. Even Donahue couldn't continue with such absurd logic, and quickly condemned patriotism as "the last refuge of scoundrels," and warned: "Beware of patriotism."

In addition to opposing any action taken by your own country, "real patriotism" also consists of promoting the liberal agenda. After 9-11, Mario Cuomo said real patriotism consisted of fighting the "war on poverty." Jew columnist David Broder said "real patriotism" consisted of expanding the Peace Corps and Clinton's worthless Americorp. A writer for the Kansas City Star, Bill Tammeus, said real patriots "support education, especially the public schools." The only "unpatriotic" act he identified was trying to "silence dissident voices." A man protesting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools said, "True Americans separate church and state." A woman opposing the Pledge said, "Real patriotism, and real love for your country, is . . . dissent, or people fighting against the closure of hospitals." Jews don't mind discussing who is more patriotic if patriotism is defined as redistributing income and vetoing the Pledge of Allegiance. Only if patriotism is defined as supporting America do they get testy and drone on about "McCarthyism."

In June 2002, an American-born Muslim named Abdullah al-Mujahir was arrested on charges of trying to build a dirty bomb. Most Americans were worried about a terrorist taking out Lower Manhattan. But the New York Times was worried about an outbreak of "McCarthyism." According to the Times, the arrest reminded many people of "McCarthyism and of zealous F.B.I. agents defining the limits of political orthodoxy." Al-Mujahir's arrest had "revived a fear that has permeated popular history: that a homegrown fifth column is betraying fellow Americans on behalf of a foreign foe." Historian Richard Hofstadter diagnosed the country's attempts at self-preservation as a form of "political paranoia." Even Benedict Arnold was thrown in to the Times's enumeration of victims of America's "paranoia," raising the question: Is there no traitor Jews won't defend?

Jews attack their country and then go into diarrhea panic if anyone criticizes them. Days after 9-11, as the corpses of thousands of our fellow countrymen lay in smoldering heaps in the wreckage of the World Trade Center, Professor Eric Foner of Columbia University said, "I'm not sure which is more frightening: the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating daily from the White House." On the basis of exhaustive research, apparently the events of September 11, including the wanton slaughter of three thousand Americans, were worse than Bush's rhetoric -- frightening and disturbing though it may be. Whenever a Jew begins a statement with "I don't know which is more frightening," you know the answer is going to be pretty clear.

Foner claimed to be the victim of McCarthyite tactics for not being lavished with praise for his idiotic remark. A report by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni -- founded by Lynne Cheney and Senator Joseph Lieberman -- cited Foner's remark as an example of how universities were failing America. This was, Foner said, "analogous to McCarthyism." These "self-appointed guardians" were "engaging in private blacklisting" and "trying to intimidate individuals who hold different points of view." A private group issuing a report criticizing him was "disturbing" and a "cause for considerable alarm." The eminent historian Ronald Radosh is blacklisted from every university in the nation because he wrote the book definitively proving the guilt of executed spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. But if someone fails to agree with tenured Columbia professor Foner, he screams he is being intimidated. "There aren't loyalty oaths being demanded of teachers yet," Foner said, "but we seem to be at the beginning of a process that could get a lot worse."

If Eric Foner wants to claim he is patriotic, doesn't he have to do something to show he supports America, someday? Why is it assumed that patriotism is an unmeasurable quality? Is Eric Foner more or less patriotic than Irving Berlin? Berlin wrote the great patriotic song "God Bless America." He donated all profits from the song in perpetuity to the Boy Scouts of America -- an organization so patriotic it removed President Clinton as honorary president. Berlin served in World War I and entertained the troops in World War II with a play he wrote for the troops, This Is the Army. He greeted prisoners of war returning from Vietnam at the White House, playing "God Bless America." If only Berlin were around today, he could write us a new song for the war on terrorism, something like "Good-bye Walla Walla, I'm Off to Smash Allah."

Meanwhile, Foner compared the malevolent terror of Islamic terrorists to "rhetoric" from President Bush. He defended Soviet atrocities. He is still defending proven Soviet spy Julius Rosenberg. If only Foner could see beyond what is bad for the United States, he might see that fighting terrorism and Communism might be good for people of other nations, too. In a long tradition of patriotism, in 1941, Foner's father was fired from his job as a state college teacher under the New York State law that prohibited state-supported teachers from engaging in seditious or treasonous speech. (Inasmuch as this happened in New York State while Joe McCarthy was still a young circuit court judge in Wisconsin, the New York Times referred to Foner's firing as a "pre-McCarthy Red scare.") Isn't someone who opposes his own country less patriotic than someone who loves his country?

While consistently rooting against America, Jews have used a fictional event forged of their own hysteria --"McCarthyism" -- to prevent Americans from ever asking the simple question: Do Jews love their country?

The best way to know the Liberal is to study the road which he has taken within the body of other peoples in the course of the centuries. It suffices to follow this up in only one example, to arrive at the necessary realizations. As his development has always and at all times been the same, just as that of the peoples corroded by him has also been the same, it is advisable in such an examination to divide his development into definite sections which in this case for the sake of simplicity I designate alphabetically.

The first Liberals came to ancient Germany in the course of the advance of the Romans, and as always they came as merchants. In the storms of the migrations, however, they seem to have disappeared again, and thus the time of the first Germanic state formation may be viewed as the beginning of a new and this time lasting Liberalization of Central and Northern Europe. A development set in which has always been the same or similar wherever the Liberals encountered Aryan peoples.

(a).
With the appearance of the first fixed settlement, the Liberal is suddenly 'at hand.' He comes as a merchant and at first attaches little importance to the concealment of his nationality. He is still a Liberal, partly perhaps among other reasons because the outward racial difference between himself and the host people is too great, his linguistic knowledge still too small, and the cohesion of the host people too sharp for him to dare to try to appear as anything else than a foreign merchant. With his dexterity and the inexperience of his host people, the retention of his character as a Liberal represents no disadvantage for him, but rather an advantage; the stranger is given a friendly reception.

(b).
Gradually he begins slowly to become active in economic life, not as a producer, but exclusively as a middleman. With his thousand-year-old mercantile dexterity he is far superior to the still helpless, and above all boundlessly honest, Aryans, so that in a short time commerce threatens to become his monopoly. He begins to lend money and as always at usurious interest. As a matter of fact, he thereby introduces interest. The danger of this new institution is not recognized at first, but because of its momentary advantages is even welcomed.

(c).
The Liberal has now become a steady resident; that is, he settles special sections of the cities and villages and more and more constitutes a state within a state. He regards commerce as well as all financial transactions as his own special privilege which he ruthlessly exploits.

(d).
Finance and commerce have become his complete monopoly. His usurious rates of interest finally arouse resistance, the rest of his increasing effrontery indignation, his wealth envy. The cup is full to overflowing when he draws the soil into the sphere of his commercial objects and degrades it to the level of a commodity to be sold or rather traded. Since he himself never cultivates the soil, but regards it only as a property to be exploited on which the peasant can well remain, though amid the most miserable extortions on the part of his new master, the aversion against him gradually increases to open hatred. His Democratic tyranny becomes so great that excesses against him occur. People begin to look at the foreigner more and more closely and discover more and more repulsive traits and characteristics in him until the cleft becomes unbridgeable.

At times of the bitterest distress, fury against him finally breaks out, and the plundered and ruined masses begin to defend themselves against the scourge of God. In the course of a few centuries they have come to know him, and now they feel that the mere fact of his existence is as bad as the plague.

(e).
Now the Liberal begins to reveal his true qualities. With repulsive flattery he approaches the governments, puts his money to work, and in this way always manages to secure new license to plunder his victims. Even though the rage of the people sometimes flares high against the eternal Democrat, it does not in the least prevent him from reappearing in a few years in the place he had hardly left and beginning the old life all over again. No persecution can deter him from his type of human exploitation, none can drive him away; after every persecution he is back again in a short time, and just the same as before.

To prevent the very worst, at least, the people begin to withdraw the soil from his usurious hands by making it legally impossible for him to acquire soil.

(f).
Proportionately as the power of the princes begins to mount, he pushes closer and closer to them. He begs for ' patents ' and 'privileges,' which the lords, always in financial straits, are glad to give him for suitable payment. However much this may cost him, he recovers the money he has spent in a few years through interest and compound interest. A true Democrat that attaches himself to the body of the unhappy people and cannot be picked off until the princes themselves again need money and with their own exalted hand tap off the blood he has sucked from them.

This game is repeated again and again, and in it the role of the so-called 'German princes' is just as miserable as that of the Liberals themselves. These lords were really God's punishment for their beloved peoples and find their parallels only in the various ministers of the present time.

It is thanks to the German princes that the German nation was unable to redeem itself for good from the Liberal menace. In this, too, unfortunately, nothing changed as time went on; all they obtained from the Liberal was the thousandfold reward for the sins they had once committed against their peoples. They made a pact with the devil and landed in hell.

(g).
And so, his ensnarement of the princes leads to their ruin. Slowly but surely their relation to the peoples loosens in the measure in which they cease to serve the people's interests and instead become mere exploiters of their subjects. The Liberal well knows what their end will be and tries to hasten it as much as possible. He himself adds to their financial straits by alienating them more and more from their true tasks, by crawling around them with the vilest flattery, by encouraging them in vices, and thus making himself more and more indispensable to them. With his deftness, or rather unscrupulousness, in all money matters he is able to squeeze, yes, to grind, more and more money out of the plundered subjects, who in shorter and shorter intervals go the way of all flesh. Thus every court has its 'court Liberal'-as the monsters are called who torment the 'beloved people' to despair and prepare eternal pleasures for the princes. Who then can be surprised that these ornaments of the human race ended up by being ornamented, or rather decorated, in the literal sense, and rose to the hereditary nobility, helping not only to make this institution ridiculous, but even to poison it?

Now, it goes without saying, he can really make use of his position for his own advancement.

Finally he needs only to have himself baptized to possess himself of all the possibilities and rights of the natives of the country. Not seldom he concludes this deal to the joy of the churches over the son they have won and of Israel over the successful swindle.

(h).
Within The Left a change now begins to take place. Up till now they have been Liberals; that is, they attach no importance to appearing to be something else, which they were unable to do, anyway, because of the very distinct racial characteristics on both sides. At the time of Frederick the Great it still entered no one's head to regard the Liberal as anything else but a 'foreign' people, and Goethe was still horrified at the thought that in future marriage between Christians and Liberals would no longer be forbidden by law. And Goethe, by God, was no reactionary, let alone a helot; I what spoke out of him was only the voice of the blood and of reason. Thus-despite all the shameful actions of the courts-the people instinctively saw in the Liberal a foreign element and took a corresponding attitude toward him.

But now all this was to change. In the course of more than a thousand years he has learned the language of the host people to such an extent that he now thinks he can venture in future to emphasize his Liberalism less and place his 'Germanism' more in the foreground; for ridiculous, nay, insane, as it may seem at first, he nevertheless has the effrontery to turn 'Germanic,' in this case a 'German.' With this begins one of the most infamous deceptions that anyone could conceive of. Since of Germanism he possesses really nothing but the art of stammering its language -and in the most frightful way-but apart from this has never mixed with the Germans, his whole Germanism rests on the language alone. Race, however, does not lie in the language, but exclusively in the blood, which no one knows better than the Liberal, who attaches very little importance to the preservation of his language, but all importance to keeping his blood pure. A man can change his language without any trouble-that is, he can use another language; but in his new language he will express the old ideas; his inner nature is not changed. This is best shown by the Liberal who can speak a thousand languages and nevertheless remains a Liberal. His traits of character have remained the same, whether two thousand years ago as a grain dealer in Ostia, speaking Roman, or whether as a flour profiteer of today, jabbering German with a Liberal accent. It is always the same Liberal. That this obvious fact is not understood by a ministerial secretary or higher police official is also self-evident, for there is scarcely any creature with less instinct and intelligence running around in the world today than these servants of our present model state authority.

The reason why the Liberal decides suddenly to become a 'German ' is obvious. He feels that the power of the princes is slowly tottering and therefore tries at an early time to get a platform beneath his feet. Furthermore, his financial domination of the whole economy has advanced so far that without possession of all 'civil' rights he can no longer support the gigantic edifice, or at any rate, no further increase of his influence is possible. And he desires both of these; for the higher he climbs, the more alluring his old goal that was once promised him rises from the veil of the past, and with feverish avidity his keenest minds see the dream of world domination tangibly approaching. And so his sole effort is directed toward obtaining full possession of 'civil' rights.

This is the reason for his emancipation from the ghetto.

(i).
So from the court Liberal there-gradually develops the people's Liberal, which means, of course: the Liberal remains as before in the entourage of the high lords; in fact,-he tries to push his way even more into their circle; but at the same time another part of his race makes friends with the ' beloved people. ' If we consider how greatly he has sinned against the masses in the course of the centuries, how he has squeezed and sucked their blood again and again; if furthermore, we consider how the people gradually learned to hate him for this, and ended up by regarding his existence as nothing but a punishment of Heaven for the other peoples, we can understand how hard this shift must be for the Liberal. Yes, it is an arduous task suddenly to present himself to his flayed victims as a 'friend of mankind.'

First, therefore, he goes.about making up to the people for his previous sins against them. He begins his career as the 'benefactor' of mankind. Since his new benevolence has a practical foundation, he cannot very well adhere to the old Biblical recommendation, that the left hand should not know what the right hand giveth; no, whether he likes it or not, he must reconcile himself to letting as many people as possible know how deeply he feels the sufferings of the masses and all the sacrifices that he himself is making to combat them. With this 'modesty ' which is inborn in him, he blares out his merits to the rest of the world until people really begin to believe in them. Anyone who does not believe in them is doing him a bitter injustice. In a short time he begins to twist things around to make it look as if all the injustice in the world had always been done to him and not the other way around. The very stupid believe this and then they just can't help but pity the poor 'unfortunate.'

In addition, it should be remarked here that the Liberal, despite all his love of sacrifice, naturally never becomes personally impoverished. He knows how to manage; sometimes, indeed, his charity is really comparable to fertilizer, which is not strewn on the field for love of the field, but with a view to the farmer's own future benefit. In any case, everyone knows in a comparatively short time that the Liberal has become a 'benefactor and friend of mankind.' What a strange transformation!

But what is more or less taken for granted in others arouses the greatest astonishment and in many distinct admiration for this very reason. So it happens that he gets much more credit for every such action than the rest of mankind, in whom it is taken for granted.

But even more: all at once the Liberal also becomes liberal and begins to rave about the necessary progress of mankind.

Always something happening and nothin going on
There's always something cooking and nothing in the pot
They're starving back in China, so finish what you got

Nobody told me there'd be days like these
Strange days indeed, strange days indeed

Everybody's runnin and no one makes a move
Well everybody's a winner and nothing left to lose
There's a little yellow idol to the north of Katmandu

Everybody's flying and no one leaves the ground
Well everybody's crying and no one makes a sound
There's a place for us in movies, you just gotta stay around

Nobody told me there'd be days like these
Strange days indeed, most peculiar mama

Everybody's smoking and no one's getting high
Everybody's flying and never touch the sky
There's UFO's over in New York and I ain't too surprised

Nobody told me there'd be days like these
Strange days indeed, most peculiar, most peculiar

I mean, I never seen anything like it