In regard to English, I saw a good BBC-TV presentation thereon when I was in Canada. It revealed that the language spoken and written by the rulers was Latin and French, the former brought in by the Romans and the latter brought in by the Normans, who were Vikings who had settled in France and adopted the language of the people they'd conquered. The languages of the people, the majority of the British Isles, were Scandinavian, German and Gaelic. The language which became English, according to the BBC presentation, developed from trade contact between Germans and Scandinavians, in which the German word endings were dropped, so that meaning was conveyed in word order. Had there been no Norman Conquest, English would 1 have resembled the spoken Friesian of today, along with Flemish. The introduction of French words, which are horribly mispronounced, added to the Latin-based vocabulary, just as there are many Latin words in German, but English grammar remained Germanic. English grammar is more like Swedish or Low German than it is to High German (Prussian). In fact, Prussian is grammatically a Slavic language, with lots of German words. Although I am not a linguist, I have studied several Indo-European languages and know a bit of Farsi and Japanese.

In my readings I encounter allegations that "German is based on Hebrew", that Gaelic is "ancient Hebrew", as well as English and some Amerasian languages such as Navajo or Hopi. In "The Makers of Civilization", Waddell claims that the Sumerians were not Semites, but Aryans, who were driven out of the Middle East, from whence they conquered India, giving rise to the Indo-European language group. As far as I know, Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, Chaldean, et al. are classified as Semitic languages. If Aryans spoke a Semitic language in Sumeria, would they have any reason to invent a whole new and different language group upon taking up residence in India? Apparently, the conquered mud people of the Indian subcontinent spoke their own non-Indo-European languages which still exist as Tamil, as opposed to Hindi. The other big language group of the Indian subcontinent is Urdu, a mixture of Persian and Hindi, if I recall correctly. Persian is an Indo-European language, if I remember correctly.

Confusion arises when a language adopts many foreign words, as often occurs with foreign invasions. Persia was invaded by Arabs, hence, that Indo-European language has many Arabic words, but is still not considered a Semitic language, even when written in Arabic letters. Romanian is often mistaken for a Slavic language, for Romanians are mostly of Slavic origin and Romanian can be written in the Cyrillic or Russian alphabet, as can English, but linguists assure me that Romanian is grammatically closer to classic Latin than is modern Italian.

As you probably know, I approach all fields of knowledge to find out what is, regardless of my subsequent likes or dislikes. It is definitely unpleasant for me to know that my house is on fire, but I will not reject that information just because I dislike it! I do not go in search of knowledge with a firm set of preconceptions, although I do compile a framework of perceived facts which fit together, and usually more facts which I encounter also fit within this framework, such as the fact of jewish world dictatorship and its program for the destruction of the White Race. When such a framework or world view is true, one may correctly understand and predict events. It was, for example, no surprise to me that FEDZOGUSA would adopt Ariel Sharon's policies toward the Palestinians, after Sharon declared that "jews run America." How many times do we need to hear this fact? Many Judeo-American Goyim said, "Isn't that nice?" and went back to their electronic opiate of talmudvision, like the Eloi who felt comforted by entering the "air raid shelter", where they would be 'nice and safe', in the bellies of the Morlocks!

Returning to the subject of using alleged 'origins' of language to 'prove' that Whites are the original Semites, &c. , I think the authors of such allegations are grasping at straws now that we know much more about ancient movements of populations and civilizations. The word, "taco", for instance, exists in Japanese and in Spanish. In Japan it means "octopus"; in Mexico, an unleavened cornmeal pancake and in Spain, it is used to describe any cussword or dirty word. Japanese and Spanish pronunciation are similar, but I see no reason to claim that Japs are the "true Spaniards" or that Spaniards and Mexicans are "the true Japs" .

Anyone can learn another language, but we cannot 'adopt' a different race. We can only destroy our own.

In Scandinavia I met many native non-Whites, such as Finns who have distinctly Mongolian appearance and behavior. The hint is that Finnish, like Hungarian, is Ugric, which originated in Siberia. Like the Lapps, the Finns are usually blond, fair and blue/gray-eyed, but White they are not. It is remarkable that the happiest people in Finland, according to a recently concluded psychological-behavioral survey are Swedes! Eurasians or mestizos are not happy people, as I have learned from my own experience, and they become quite dangerous when drunk. I have not visited states such as Minnesota, North Dakota, et al., but I have met numerous mestizo Norwegians, miscegenated with the Amerasian tribes of the La Kotas, &c. Often they are big mestizos whose Asiatic admixture does them no good whatsoever. Race-mixing is indeed genocide.

In regard to "The Hitler We Loved & Why", you are welcome to use any of my writings as you see fit, in whole or in part. My only request is that you do not have me saying "that jews are White", as one publisher did. My use of the word "jew" in lower case resulted from my research and my attendance at thought-crime trials over a decade. The jew is the one critter who is not defined in terms of The Genocide Convention. He is not a race, for "jews" include mixtures of all three races. He is a mongrel, and we do not capitalize that word. The jew need not be religious, or he can be any religion he likes, so he can be a believer or an unbeliever. Those words are not capitalized, either. A jew may come from his community in Turkey, or Africa, or China, or from Eastern Europe, like the Ashkenazi. It is proper to capitalize the name of such an ethnic group, even when they are multi-racial, like the Assassins. The one real bond which defines and holds jews together, from London to Hong Kong, is criminal parasitism. If one wishes to capitalize "criminal" or "parasite", which are general terms, like "jew", then one would need to capitalize Tapeworm and Louse. Breeds of dogs and horses are capitalized, but mongrels are not. Any jew may be of Satan's Race, specifically "the Vampire Race, but their Goy stooges and frontmen are no better. How do we distinguish the servants of Satan from the children of Satan, when both are performing the same crimes, to one degree or another? All of Satan's minions and children I lump under the term Zionist,  which I do capitalize, but not all jews are Zionists. Some of my best sources in anti-Zionist research have been Ashkenazim and Sephardim. If you prefer to call them jews, with the J capitalized, go right ahead.

I applaud your heroic efforts to Aryanize Jesus and to undemonize Adolf HitIer. Many thanks for the essays by Houston Stewart Chamberlain, which I was not aware of. Someone showed me a little book entitled "The Holy Book of Adolf Hitler", which was allegedly authored by an Englishman who'd been imprisoned under Churchill's infamous emergency powers act. As one guard said, "We have more V.C.s inside these walls than we do outside!" The Victoria Cross is Britain's highest honor for outstanding valor, like the satanic emblem known as The Congressional Medal of Honor in the U.S.A. One jovial Freemason told me that U.S.A. really meant "Under Satan's Administration". What could be more obvious than that?

As you may be aware, there has been much discussion, pro and con, about the introduction of religion into politics (people-power). Any successful political movement must have religious ingredients, for the best of us respond to things beyond Marxist materialism, and a successful politician can demand the best from us, as Hitler did. ZOG-pols generalize their lies to cadge the most votes, usually in terms of "everyone wins if you elect me!" The Goy sheeple seem ignorant of the fact that "free" programs must be paid for. In other words, not everybody wins, and the losers are those who must pay so others can play. We can attempt to build a political movement by generalization, as ZOG-pols do when they use the generic term, "God" , which is as silly as capitalizing the general term, "Food". One man's god is another man's devil. The "Jesus" of the masses of asses is really satanic, as interpreted by priests and preachers of the 'mainstream' churches. As you observe, the children of The Father of Lies have been very busy and quite successful. That is why I seek my god without relying on books. My god is not a god of words, not a deus ex libra, nor a deus ex machina drawn from fantasy and wishful-thinking. My god is manifest through observation and experience, whose rules govern Nature. Such a god cannot be confined nor defined in may book, but has laid down our proper roles and duties, the foremost of which is the preservation of Our Race.

As you say, our first job is to show our people that the jews are liars; whose lies always work against us.

ORION!