Sean Gabb on Holocaust Denial


UPDATE2:- (25th March 2009) See how Daniel Hannan tears, ferociously, the trousers, follows by the Y-fronts, off Gordon Brown, his own Prime Minister, in the EU Parliament. This will take the heat off poor Sir Fred Goodwin for a bit.

UPDATE: Here’s Sean Gabb’s speech to Conservative-Future, in London, Monday 16th February 2009. It was about what they should _REALLY_ do, as soon as they got into power. Smash the State, basically, by demolishing the levers of power which empower what Sean has publicly called “The Enemy Class” in their tyrannising of ordinary people, and the removal of individual liberty in all things.

It was a proper stormer, and really upset the Tories.

Free Life Commentary,
A Personal View from
The Director of the Libertarian Alliance
Issue Number 159
24th April 2007

postCount(‘flc159’);Comments (8)| postCountTB(‘flc159’); Trackback

Defending the Right to Deny the Holocaust
by Sean Gabb

Last week, on the 19th April, the Justice Ministers of the European Union agreed to make “incitement to racism and xenophobia” a criminal offence in all 27 member states. Despite the best efforts of the German Government, this does not mean that sceptical comments on the holocaust will become a crime in any European country where it is not so already. I am surprised that the British Government held out for a moderating of the final document so that all speech short of “incitement” will remain free. But I doubt if the agreement made last week will be the last word in the matter. Already, nine member states of the European Union punish denial or “gross revision” with imprisonment. There are calls for criminalisation in England. I have no doubt these calls will grow louder.

My own view – and I speak on this matter not only for me but also for the Libertarian Alliance – is that there should be no restrictions on freedom of speech where public affairs are concerned. This involves, among much else, the right to say anything at all about politics, religion, sex, science or history. It is no business of the State to tell people what they can and cannot think. Our bodies are our own. Our minds are our own. What we do with them is our business. It is one of the highest glories of the Enlightenment that states were shamed out of dragooning people into the various established worships of Europe. It is one of the most ominous signs of the modern counter-Enlightenment that people can again be persecuted for their opinions.

Of course, there are people who claim to believe in freedom of speech, but who say that the promotion of “hatred” is a distinct matter. They say that “hate speech” is direct or indirect incitement to acts of violence against others, and so should be put down by law. This is not, on their reasoning, censorship. It is simply a matter of keeping the peace.

We in the Libertarian Alliance reject this supposed distinction. What some call the promotion of hatred others call telling the truth. Quite often, whatever opinion the rich and powerful do not like they will find some means of calling “hatred”. In any event, we believe in the right to promote hatred by any means that do not fall within the Common Law definition of assault.

Perhaps you are one of those people who believe in a distinction between free speech and hate speech. This being so, I will drop any further mention of abstract rights and turn to a practical argument that is ultimately just as connected with keeping the peace. Let me ask: what reason have I to believe that the holocaust really happened?

The obvious answer – that the standard history books say it happened – is not in itself much good. My first degree was in History, and I know enough about certain periods to say with confidence that even standard secondary sources are riddled with errors that sometimes amount to actual falsehoods. I will not discuss the numerous claims of doubtful truth made about the Later Roman Empire. I will only observe that, in the standard accounts of the Second World War,  the Katyn Wood massacre used to be blamed on the Germans, and now it is blamed on the Soviets. How can I be sure that the same is not true for the holocaust?

The next answer – that there are many witnesses to the holocaust still alive – is also not much good in itself. These people may have been in a concentration camp, and they may have seen atrocities. They did not see the holocaust in any synoptic sense. They may have been mistaken. One of my grandmothers, for example, lived in Kent all through the Second World War, and she went to her grave insisting that there had been an unsuccessful German invasion of England in 1940. There are millions of people who claim to have seen plaster statues of the Virgin weep real tears, and I am perfectly assured they are mistaken or lying. How do I not know that the holocaust survivors I have met or seen on television were not mistaken or lying?

Or there is the argument from the agreed nature of the Hitler Regime. Almost everyone accepts that this acted in defiance of – and perhaps in open contempt for – the norms of civilised behaviour. This may be evidence for the probability of a holocaust. But it is hardly proof that one happened. On the same reasoning, I can believe that Hitler was a bad man: this does not require me to believe that he ate human flesh.

To answer the question properly for myself, of whether the holocaust happened, I need skills and knowledge that I do not have and do not feel inclined to acquire. I need a good understanding of German, Polish, Russian, Hungarian and Hebrew, among other languages. I need to be able to track down a mass of primary sources, most of which are unpublished but are in various European and American archives. To evaluate all this, I need technical knowledge that I do not have – knowledge, for instance, about the lethal nature of Zyklon B gas, or of diesel fumes, or of how to burn bodies and dispose of the remains.

I have not read even much of the secondary material that exists in English. This is not a subject that has interested me since I sat my O Levels. I have, though, read a very small selection of the material published on both sides of the debate. And what I can say of this is that, considered purely in itself, the revisionist material is as persuasive as that of the mainstream historians. At least one side in this debate is lying, and lying very fluently – but I am not able, on the basis of the evidence offered, to say who is lying.

Nevertheless, I believe with reasonable firmness that the German National Socialists did try, during the last years of the Second World War, to murder every Jew they could set hands on, and that they succeeded in murdering several million. Whether this was a plan centrally conceived and centrally directed, or whether most of the killings were deliberate murder or the effects of culpable negligence, are not matters on which I have any opinion. But on the central claim of the holocaust, I am reasonably assured.

I am assured of this on the authority of the mainstream historians. I have no means of knowing for myself whether the holocaust happened. But I take it on trust that it did happen. That is true for me, and it is true for the overwhelming majority of everyone else who believes the same.

There is nothing in its nature unsatisfactory about knowledge based on authority. Most of what we know we cannot demonstrate on any grounds of direct evidence. I “know”, for example, that light travels at 186,000 miles per second, and that the Earth is in an elliptical orbit around the Sun, and that the Earth is around 5,000 million years old. I am completely incapable of demonstrating any of this. I might even have trouble arguing with a convinced flat-earther. I believe all these things and much more beside because nearly everyone else believes them.

I grant that we should not believe too much on authority that we are competent to investigate for ourselves. But the only real concern with such knowledge is not that it is on authority, but that the authority should be good. What makes authority good? The best answer is when it can be openly contested by others who claim to know better, but who have not convinced reasonable onlookers that they do.

With regard to the holocaust, I have – broadly speaking – two options. I can believe that it did happen roughly as claimed. Or I can believe that it is a gigantic conspiracy of lies maintained since the 1940s in the face of all evidence. Since debate remains free in the English-speaking world, it should be obvious what I am to believe. I believe in the central fact of the holocaust. On the secondary issues mentioned above, where my authorities do not agree, I suspend judgment.

Take away the freedom to argue with or against these authorities, though, and my assurance that they are right must be weakened.

In my case, let me say, laws against revising or denying the holocaust will not destroy my belief that it happened. There is still the long preceding time of open debate, and the unlikelihood that compelling new evidence either way has been discovered now. There is also the fact that many people will insist on laws in support of evident truths. If you are Jewish, for example, it may be very upsetting for people to say that your grandparents were not murdered in Poland in 1944, but are alive and well and living in Finchley. Or you may worry that scepticism about the holocaust will prepare the way for a repeat of it. Then there are the obvious financial and moral advantages that certain Jews and the State of Israel have obtained from the holocaust. Cries of anti-semitism are a good closing tactic for many debates that might otherwise be lost.

Laws to compel belief in the holocaust do not mean it did not happen. But they do allow people to ask what kind of truth this is that needs laws to defend it. There are many people who know even less about the holocaust than I do, and who deny that it happened simply because David Irving is generally acknowledged to be an expert of sorts on the period, and he had to be locked up before he would shut up.

Open mockery of deeply-held views, deliberate and gross offence, savage abuse that barely stops short of incitement to violence – these may well disturb the peace. Far worse, though, is the sort of hatred that boils beneath a seemingly placid surface, and then erupts into a disorder that cannot be checked by reason. That is the danger of laws to compel belief in the holocaust.

And they make cranks into martyrs. Do you suppose the Libertarian Alliance enjoys putting out news releases in defence of David Irving? We put these out because we believe in freedom of speech with no exceptions. We put up with the cold shoulder from other civil liberties groups, and with raised eyebrows and outright smears. We are much happier defending the rights of sexual or social minorities, whose tastes we might ourselves share or do not think in the least reprehensible. We do what we believe is our duty, and do it as well as we can – but we regret the need to do it.

And they set a precedent for further censorship. If people must be careful what they say about the holocaust, why not add the alleged Armenian genocide? Or the alleged Bosnian genocide? Or the alleged Irish genocide of the 1840s? Or the Divine Mission of Christ? Or the holiness of the Prophet? Why not have legal curbs on doubts regarding the nature and extent of global warming? Indeed, on this last, there are calls for the American President to be impeached for his expressed doubts.

Censorship is rather like torture. It is always possible to fabricate “exceptional circumstances” to justify it. Opponents can always be denounced as naive or tender-hearted. But it is always corrupting of civilised decency. Its general tendency is to undermine whatever it is called into being to uphold.

I am glad that the British Government, among others, managed on this occasion to prevent a common scheme of censorship across the European Union. But I do not suppose, given the settled decline of faith in freedom of speech, that this will turn out to have been more than a holding action.

NB – Sean Gabb’s novel The Column of Phocas (£8.99) will be withdrawn from sale in the next few months, prior to its reissue in February 2008 by a multinational publishing group. Buy copies of the first edition while you can from http://tinyurl.co.uk/z31v or via Amazon: http://tinyurl.co.uk/2cnw The sequel has already been completed.

You can download the first three chapters free of charge from: http://tinyurl.co.uk/kkl4

Advertisements

629 comments

  • The Holocaust happened. There is not the slightest doubt that it did. Heinrich Himmler stated quite openly on several occasions in speeches that it did You’re just playing with semantics to justify anti-Semitism. Never make the mistake that you’re the smartest people in the room. Nazi bastards.

  • Dear Ed Straker,

    I hope you are not the son (or a relation) of Dennis Straker, who taught me maths in th 1950s and is possibly the greatest modern maths teacher of all time!

    Furthermore, if you would read around the Libertarian Alliance site, then you will find that we are

    (a) definitely not anti-Semitic (in fact as I am half-Lebanese (Christian) I go out of my way to be not only heavily pro-Israel but also I am what you might call a “Palestinian-Nation-Denier”. It does irritate my colleagues somewhat in a friendly way – you have only to look at what Tony Hollick saysd to me sometimes, to my face!

    (b) We here all know perfectly well that the holocaust happened. Firstly, friends and acquaintances of ours oculd not possibly have suddenly lost ALL their relatives for no concrete reason, and secondly I have personally seen the sites of these deeds.

    All we are defending is the right of deranged madmen to say things that they believe.

    For example, I feel nothing but contempt for people who call themselves “truthers”, which is to say that they think there is some deeper hidden subtext, possibly very unfavourable to the governemtn of the USA, behind the events of 9/11. I think that what they do is counterprodictive in potentially dangerous ways for Western Civilisation, but I would not advocate denying them the right to say what they do.

  • Ed Straker fulminates about “Holocaust Denial.”

    A film was made post-war of Belsen (not itself an “official extermination camp”, but nonetheless where a great many inmates died of typhus and other diseases brought on by the collapse of food and watter supply, and sewage failure in the last days of the war.

    The cameraman there said this more recently:

    “There are those today who say it never happened. If only that were true.” This seems to me a normal and natural reaction.

    I do not like the word ‘Holocaust”, which translates to “Burnt offering” or “Sacrifice.” I think that the Hebrew word “Shoah” meaning “Disaster” or “Catastrophe” is more appropriate.

    If someone tried to convince me that the First World War had never happened at all, I would dismiss them as cranks or idiots.

    If someone shows me the Auschwitz memorial plaque saying that five million died, I have a greater problem, because the best available contemporary accounts number the Jewish dead at Auschwitz at 1.1 million. A great number of members of other minorities died there also. We owe this better understanding to the steady, patient work of historians across decades.

    I support Israel, conditional only upon it remaining a Western civilized country. If Shoah had never occurred, that would not alter my support for Israel. My support for Human Rights for all owes much to the inspiration of Jewish thinkers and writers.

    I experience a terrible sadness when I think of the losses to the Arts, the Sciences and to humanity at the hands of the SS, the NKVD, the Khmer Rouge, the Red Guards, and the Mongols (who slaughtered 35 million Chinese people).

    Perhaps Ed Straker might feel the same, one day.

    Tony

  • This is a highly intelligent article. However, the author, like so many people, has been so thoroughly brainwashed by endless propaganda that he cannot see through the fog of distortion to the simple truth. Allow me to make the case as simple as it actually is. The Jews were not exterminated during the war and there was no German attempt to exterminate them. How do we know this? Because the Jews were still alive after the war! Where had the Jews been hiding if they were not exterminated? In the interior of the Soviet Union east of the Ural mountains, that is, in Jewish commissar land. After the war, there was a huge exodus of Jews through the Balkans to invade Arab Palestine. Every communist regime in Eastern Europe after the war was full of Jewish commissars. Many, many Jews had come to New York or South America after the war camoflauged as Hungarians, Poles, etc. The US Office of Naturalization and Immigration had dropped the category “Jew” in November 1943.

    All the “evidence ” for a Jewish extermination program rests on the bogus Nuremberg Trial, set up and run by Jews behind the scenes. This in itself is suspicious. No one needs a kangaroo court to prove a real extermination. The Ukrainian famine of 1932-1933 rests on mountains of emaciated corpses, not anyone’s ‘trial’. That Nuremberg was a kangaroo court is indisputable. Numerous reputable jurists, including American Supreme Court justices, said so. According to Hungarian author Louis Marschalko, of 3000 total personnel at the trial, 2400 were Jews. The man in charge of of procuring all personnel for the trial, Colonel David “Mickey” Marcus, was a Zionist Jew.

    So what happened at Nuremberg? The key point is that although all kinds of perjured testimony coerced through torture and forged documents were introduced, real German records were not introduced. The claims about “gassing” operations in the western camps in Germany proper have been dropped, even by Jewish historians. The claim now is that the “gassing” took place at Auschwitz and further east Polish camps. The German records of the Auschwitz camp were seized by the Red Army and carted off to Moscow. They were not presented at the court. On this grounds alone, the Germans were entitled to a mistrial. Auschwitz was a giant industrial production center for the German war effort. It consisted of three main camps and 38 satellite camps. The Germans produced everything from synthetic oil to synthetic rubber there. The camp records show that 100-150,000 people (only a minority were Jews) died at Auschwitz of all causes. The principle cause of death was typhus and heart attacks induced by typhus. The records further reveal that Zyklon B was used to delouse the camps and clothing infected by typhus. Crematory ovens were built in response to the typhus epidemics to sanitarily burn the diseased bodies. The actual disposal rate of the ovens was consistent with the actual number of deaths. There is nothing in the records about an extermination program or “gassing”. Every time there was a death in the camp, close to thirty signatures were required by German personnel before the death could be registered in the camp death books.

    The Germans needed the labor of the inmates for their war effort so everything possible was done to reduce the death rate. Heinrich Himmler, the secret police chief, even issued a signed order that “the death rate in the camps was to be reduced at all costs”. Just to show that this was not Himmler’s iniative alone, one of Hitler’s ministers, Franz Schegelgruber, recorded a conversation he had wirh Hans Lammerer, the Minister of the Interior, relating a conversation that Lammerer had had with Hitler, in which the Fuehrer had stated that hhe wanted the solution of the Jewish problem “delayed until the end of the war”. These documents are inconsistent with any real extermination program and thus are deleted or hushed up by orthodox historians and the media. All known German documents show that German policy was never anything other than expulsion and deportation. Before the war, the Germans had deported a number of German Jews to Palestine. After the fall of France, they considered deporting the Jews to French colonies like the large island of Madagascar, off the Aftrican coast. Once the invasion of Russia commenced, the plan changed to deporting the Jews to the occupied territories of the east.

    There is one aspect of the extermination story which does have partial truth. Large numbers of Jews were shot by the Wehrmacht in Russia. This was entirely understandable for a number of reasons. Jews were disproportionately involved in the communist partisan warfare against the German troops. The Soviet hierarchy was very heavily Jewish in those days and a great many of these Jews dserved their fate. However, a certain number of the western Jews deported to Russia were also shot, either out of pure malice or because the Germans found it easier to liquidate them than house them. It is also known that Jews were put to work in Russia for the Germans, building roads or making uniforms or other materials for the Wehrmacht. (It is known, for example, that Otto Frank, the forger of his daughter’s diary, was blackmailed for many years covering up the fact that he had been working for the Wehrmacht in Holland as a producer of war time goods for German use.) One key piece of evidence for what really happened to the Jews in Russia has disappeared. That is the diary of the German secret police chief, Heinrich Himmler. Himmler’s diaries were in Israeli hands after the war but have not been seen since. That would logically suggest that there is something in them which does not fit the story of every Jew killed in Russia. Himmler was in charge of all security operations in Russia and, thus, the suppression of his diaries is very indicative of cover up.

    Other facts do not fit the extermination claims either. Many of the Jews in western Europe were not rounded up until very late in the war, 1944. The Jews in France and Hungary were not even rounded up until the time of the Normandy landings. By the end of the war, only 75,000 out of 250,000 total Jews in France had even been deported (not killed) by the Germans. Surely if the Nazis had wanted to kill every Jew in Europe the round ups would have begun as soon as France fell, in May 1940. The same applies to Hungary where Admiral Horthy, the regent, could have been prevailed upon long before 1944 to begin the necessary liquidations.

    The total number of Jewish dead from the war is probably about a million, possibly two million if the extermination claims in Russia are true. This is a lot of death and suffering but it is no greater proportionately than what the Germans and Russians suffered. The author of this blog is very astute on one point. If the Holocaust Deniers are right (and they are) then there is an immense conspiracy at work in the world. The author has undoubtedly heard of the Protocols of Zion, the supposed Czarist “forgery” detailing a conspiracy to enslave mankind. The significance of “Holocaust Denial” is simply this. If the “gas chamber” story is a myth, then the “Protocols” are true. All social movements which have transformed the formerly white male United States have been inspired by Jews. This includes feminism, racial equality, open borders and “One World”. Are these things Jewish lies, just like “The Holocaust Hoax” ? These are shocking questions, but they are implicit in the hoax itself. This is why there must be laws against questioning “The Holocaust” for the “gas chamber” hoax opens the Pandora’s Lid” on all the mysteries of the modern world.

  • I will additionally point out tha the late Murray Rothbard, a libertarian icon, was himself a “gas chamber” denier.

  • For Heaven’s sake…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion

    Tony

  • I fail to understand Mr. Hollick’s comment. The existence of a Jewish international conspiracy is clearly proved by the “gas chamber” hoax, whatever one thinks of the Protocols. In reviewing Mr. Hollick’s previous comments on the Holocaust, I find that he is misinformed on many levels. There is absolutely no comparison between denying the mythical murder of “six million” Jews and denying the First World War. The analogy is preposterous. I do not deny the First World War any more than I deny the Second, the battle of Stalingrad, the defeat of Germany in both wars, the documented battles and atrocities on either side or anything else factually verifiable.

    I note that nowhere did Mr. Hollick attempt to rebut any of the arguments made in my posting. I think I know why. As to the mysterious Protocols, Mr. Hollick appears to be misinformed about them as well. He relies on the standard “explanation”, first promulgated by Mr. Philip Graves, that they are a plagiarism of an earlier book by Maurice Joly, “The Dialogues Between Machiavelli and Montesquie”. It is undoubtedly true that there are instances of overlap between the two works, in some cases word-for-word identical. However, Mr. Peter Myers in Australia has done a word-for-word comparison of the two books and has determined that the similarity only amounts to about 15% of the material. There are whole sections of the books which do not appear in the other. Thus, the financial program of the “Protocols” appears nowhere in Joly’s account. The tone of the two volumes is also markedly different. One theory propounded by Mr. Myers (with which I happen to agree) is that of a missing “Q” book, a la the books of the New Testament. That is, rather than “forgery” being the explanation, the explanation may simply be that both the authors of the “Protocols” and Maurice Joly may have been referring to older source(s) common to both. That is an explanation which Philip Graves did not even consider.

    In any event, the Jews were at great pains to disprove the “Protocols” when they first appeared in the west. First, a Princess Radziwill claimed to know their true origin. She was exposed as an embezzler and a liar. Then there was another explanation and another. When Graves came along with the Joly “forgery” thesis, the Jews jumped on it like a drowning man jumping on a life raft. The explanation, it seems to me, is a little too pat. The Protocols possess an amazing predictive validity in their main points, along with a lot of irrelevant nonsense in the details. (And, in all honesty, I will admit that there is a lot of nonsense in them.) I shall offer several illustrations. The “Protocols” aver that if their authors subversion is exposed, then the press shall immediately scream that “innocent men” are being defamed. The exposure of the subversion shall be made to look worse than the subversion itself. Is this not precisely what was done to destroy the now confirmed Senator Joseph McCarthy? Let us take another example. The “Protocols” speak of wearing down national rights by endless wars with no clearly defined victories. Endless examples come to mind, from the inconclusive splitting of Europe at the end of WW2 to Korea, Vietnam and the present bogus “War on Terror”. All these conflicts did result in the formation of international organizations like the United Nations, NATO, SEATO, etc. Finally, since it is hardly possible to do a comprehensive review of the “Protocols” here, I shall mention the Protocol about creating “emergencies” to frighten the population and centralize executive power. Does this not describe perfectly the staged 09/11 incident which, as a former President of Italy and every intelligence official in Europe knows, was set up the Israel First Jews in the American government? Is this not straight out of the manual?

    It is not necessary to agree with anything I say about the “Protocols” to understand my main point. I proceed on the legal maxim “False in one thing; false in all things”. If the Jews are lying about their “gas chamber” hoax, I see no reason they would not be lying about the “Protocols” the same way. Finally, to return to “The Holocaust” which is the theme of this discussion, I see no rebuttal of any of the points I brought up. I shall mention some more damning facts. Several forensic investigations have been made by engineers and scientists around the world of the so-called “gas chamer” facilities. The first was made by a Mr. Fred Leuchter, another by Walter Luftl, still another by Germar Rudolf. All the technical reports conclude that: (1) the builings lack any of the necessary design qualifications of a real “gas chamber” and (2) There is no trace of Prussian Blue staining in the buildings where mass “gassings” were supposedly being conducted! (However, in the buildings where clothing was being deloused Prussian Blue stain is found in abundance.) For those of you who are interested in the abundance of technical details which space does not permit here, please consult nazigassings.com by Friedrich Paul Berg.

    In closing I will say that this is a hypersensitive subject for all the reasons which I have previously outlined. The psychological blocks to admitting that the story is a hoax are immense. I can do nothing about the psychological blocks. But I can hammer, unmercifully, on the cold, hard provable facts-and I shall do so without fear of rebuttal. Revisionists are outgunned on everything-except the provable facts. On those, we are invincible.

  • I know about all that stuff. I used to have it presented to me by Steele and Brady until three in the morning.

    The “Protocols” draw elements from a tradition of imagining escapes from oppression and persecution and second-class status. And desires to control the world around you. You — of all people — should understand that. However, even if the Protocols containes one element of one Jew’s imaginings, that does not implicate all of World Jewry in their contents. You totally fail to understand thet. We shall see why in a moment.

    There is a whole field of reputable academic study of the “Holocaust” ( prefer the Hebrew description “Shoah.”). Certainly, many corrections have been made in earlier descriptions of what happened. The purpose of honest intellectual history is to refine and clarify the truth as to historical events. Thus, the plaque at Auschwitz no longer refers to “Five million Jews.” We have more recently had access to the captured Nazi files from Auschwitz. There, meticulously recorded, are details of over half a million Jewish deaths. And the deaths of many other inmates — Gypsies; Freemasons; Jehovah’s Witnesses; homosexuals; etc.

    I refer you to “SS: Himmler’s Black Order.” There, you will see clearly described how the camps were built, operated and controlled by the SS, who were above all German State Law. The camps were profit-making enterprises, with a staggering range of economic activities.

    From the earliest beginnings, the Gestapo (part of the SS) was controlled by its architect OberGruppenFuhrer Heinrich Mueller, who — according to CIA Counterintelligence, was recruited by General Abakumov of SMERSH, Soviet Military CounterIntelligence.

    There were tensions within the SS between “Jew-killer” factions; profit-making factions; and those who came to realize that Nazi Germany’s war economy was critically dependent on production from the camps.

    Thus you have the Einsatzgruppen, with their sealed vans, mobile gas chambers which collected prisoners and drove them into the woods, there to be killed and buried.

    You also have 365 camps with vast productive capacity, creating wealth for the SS and goods and services for the Nazi economy.

    The average life expectancy of inmates in US prisons today is 50 years of age. Poor nutrition; poor medical care; unsanitary and depressing surroundings; and endemic violence explain that. In the 1800s, life expectancy in Britain was 27 years for a day labourer, and 40 for rhe average Brit.

    In the camps, inmates were subjected to far worse conditions, with the intention of working them to death. The “technology” doesn’t matter — the intention and the conditions deliberately inflicted on inmates DO.

    There is little room for doubt that the “Allies” captured vast amounts of Nazi typewriters (with their single “SS” key); headed notepaper; official stamps and seals; and so on. There is little doubt that all sorts of atrocity stories were invented out of whole cloth, not least so as to obscure and exculpate the hideous atrocities perpetraded by the “Allies” on the captive German people who survived the War. Millions of Germans died.

    http://www.jamesbacque.com

    But none of this excuses the deliberate killing of millions of inmates of the camps by the Nazis. Nothing can excuse that.

    Please don’t try to — it’s unworthy.

    Tony

    PS: And I support Israel, as a troubled outpost of Western Civilization. And I will continue to do so even if — per mirabile — I could be convinced that Shoah never took place.

    Shalom Sabbat

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cognitive_Biases

    Tony

  • Good. A response. It is half sense; half nonsense. Mr. Hollick acknowledges that Auschwitz was an industrial production center for the German war effort. How could it simultaneously have been a killing center? And what is this “Black Order” of Heinrich Himmler which seems to conflict with the documented order to “reduce the death rate in the camps at all costs”? There exist numerous documented German rules and regulations in the camps against mistreating and abusing prisoners. Indeed, there were even prosecutions of German personnel at Auschwitz and other camps for prisoner abuse. Why did the Germans have a special SS court under Judge Konrasd Morgen for investigating camp abuses if it were German policy to kill Jews?

    Events in Russia are difficult to evaluate because so much of the relevant evidence is missing. The”gas vans”of the Einzatsgruppen are rather obviously Soviet propaganda. The alleged kill totals of the Einzatsgruppen in Russia are vastly exaggerated and clearly beyond the capacity of a small force comprisingonly 3000 total personnel. The English decrypts taken by Bletchley Park pretty clearly show that there were a lot of executions of Jews in Russia but in a great many cases the executions were justified. The Russian Jews, communists to the core, had done plenty of killing of their own as “Stalin’s Willing Executioners”. I refuse to concede that they did not have it coming.

    I am glad that Mr. Hollick concedes that many gruesome atrocities were committed against the Germans after the war. I am also glad that he admits that many bogus charges were made at kangaroo courts. As to the claim that Israel is an outpost of western civilization in the Middle East, that is a separate issue from Holocaust Denial, although the claim that the “gas chamber” hoax was used to force a Jewish state down the throat of the Arabs using crocodile tears as a cover has considerable merit. As to Zionism per se, I presume Mr. Hollick knows that the basic premise of Zionism as formulated by Theodore Herzl and other Zionist intellectuals was that since Jews and non-Jews were inherently incompatible, that therefore Jews should segregate themselves in their own state. Given that premise, I fail to understand how Israel can represent western civilization in any sense. Indeed, througout most of western civilization, Jews segregated themselves in ghettos and were despised by the surrounding Christian society which expeled them, again and again, as anti-social parasites. And many anti-semites, in England and elsewhere, happily supported Zionism as a way of getting rid of unwanted Jews and shipping them to Palestine. Did not Chaim Weizmann himself, in “Trial and Error”, state that “It is a fundamental law of history that whenever the number of Jews in a country exceeds the saturation point, that that country reacts against them”? Did he not classify this as a “fundamental law of history which cannot be confused with anti-semitism in the ordinary and vulgar sense”?

    Mr. Hollick must know, as a member of the British Isles, that the English officials and soldiers in Palestine after the First World War were adamantly opposed to the Balfour Declaration. They saw it as a betrayal of their Arab war time allies. Does Mr. Hollick know of the King-Crane Commission Report of 1919 prepared at the request of President Woodrow Wilson? Does he remember the passages where the investigators, very diligent, honest and capable men, concluded that the Arabs of Syria-Palestine were overwhelmingly opposed to the creation of a Jewish state in their land? Does he not remember how the report prohecied how a Jewish state could only be created by force and violence? Or how this would constitute an injustice to the Arabs and permanently inflame the whole area? Are not these prescient words confirmed every evening on the news reports? Did the English themselves benefit from the Jewish state which was once supposed to have been their ally as one British soldier and official after another was blown up in the 1946-1948 period?

    Mr. Hollick probably also knows that the Nazis themselves collaborated with theZionists in moving 10-15% of Germany’s Jews to Palestine before the war throught the Transfer Agreement. The names of Mark Blumenfeld, George Kareski, George Landauer and Siegfried Moses come to mind. Did not the infamous Stern gang offer to ally the Jewish underground with the Germans to fight the British in Pa;lestine in 1940-1942? Finally, without opening another another debate on the much disputed mass Khazar conversion to Judaism in the Dark Ages, how can a people and a movement even partially based on a Turkic romantic fantasy be deemed an outpost of western civilzation? I could even point point out that many of the left-wing Labour Zionists in Palestine, such as David Ben-Gurion, Nachman Syrkin, Dov Ber Borochov and others, were ideologically very closely related to the Marxist Jews who later made the Russian revolution. This does not enhance the status of Zionism either.

    Israel and its odious policies is the main cause of political turmoil today. Supporting Israel as an “outpost of western civilization” is ludicrous on the face of it, particularly given the real history of the Zionist movement. Both Zionism and “gas chamber” hoaxes belong in the trash bin of history. I have not the power to destroy either but I can point out the truth for those willing and able to think.

  • John Thames:

    “SS: Himmler’s Black Order” is an erudite book written by a senior British Police Officer. I suggest you read it. You just might learn something.

    In a strong sense, no ‘ethnic group’ belongs anywhere in particular, except upon this planet. And I have no desire to engage you in pointless discussion of the mechanics of mass murder.

    Judaism forms a significant part of the foundations of Western Civilization. This has to be taken into account when considering Isrrael. If a Jewish State had been established in Madagascar, this might have been preferable in many way, geopolitically. Inevitably, though, injustice would have resulted for many Madagascans.

    Judaism is an astonishingly successful survival programme of religious civilization. Judaism survived when so many did not, and they can tell us their story instead of being forgotten.

    As Karl Popper wrote, racism and nationalism are evils, and Jewish racialism and nationalism are no exception. Discrimination and oppression are great evils; but “National Self-Determination” is not the best available remedy. That said, Jews have as much right to be in Israel as anywhere and anyone else, and Israeli Arabs have a better life than Arabs do anywhere else in the Middle East under “their own” governments.

    All that we can expect to do is to find the best (or ‘least-worst’) solutions to problems. Israel may not be perfect, but it’s a good deal better than most countries in the world, and it would be even better if its neighbors ceased trying to destroy it and its people. Surely we can agree on that much?

    I probably owe my life to the Israelis, so I’m not about to change my mind on Israel’s virtues. I will defend them in return.

    Tony Hollick

  • Mr. Hollick appears to be willing to distort any number of facts to justify the state of Israel. He claims that the Arabs are better off in Israel than they would be anywhere else. This is difficult for me to fathom. In 1948 700,000 Arabs were kicked across the Jordan river at a point of a gun to wind up in miserable UN refugee camps. They lost their homes, their farms and all their personal possessions. In what respect, pray tell, did that improve their position? As to the claim that the Jews have as much right to be in Palestine as anywhere else, again I beg to differ. The fact that the ancient Jews (as opposed to Khazar interlopers) occupied a small portion of Palestine for a limited number of years entitles them to no modern state. Were that logic accepted, then Mussolini would be entitled to rule the Mediterranean because of the conquests of the Roman Empire. Ancient history confers no title in the modern world.

    Mr. Hollick appears to want his logic both ways. He asserts that racism and nationalism are wrong, then praises Judaism for surviving precisely because it is a religion of racism and nationalism. I must be missing something. As to the mechanics of mass murder, Mr. Hollick is putting the cart before the horse. First, he assumes the fact of mass murder and then rationalizes away the provable evidence that it did not happen. Again, precisely the wrong approach.

    As to the argument that Judaism forms a strong part of western civilization that is true in the sense that Christianity is an offshoot of the parent religion. In any other sense, it is flatly false. Jusaism has been at war with western civilization for a long time. It was at war (literally as well as figuratively) with the mighty Roman Empire. The barbarities inflicted upon the Greek and Roman populations of Alexandria are only too shockingly described by the ancient historians, such as Dio Cassius. Judaism was spiritually at war with the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages, as well as in such bloody, Jewish inspired revolts as that of the Hussites in the 15th century. The Talmud, that revoltingly evil book, has been at war with the rest of humanity ever since it was compiled . Communism, essentially a Jewish inspired form of messianism, strove to destroy the gentile social structure in blood. Zionism, another form of Jewish messianism, has set the Middle East ablaze. Judaism is the poison of western civilization.

    I will agree that the Arabs, left to themselves, are less than lovable. Their societies suffer from many problems. But justice is on their side. They were betrayed by the British Empire post-WW1 and the planting of the Zionist state in a peaceful little Arab backwater in Palestine has caused nothing but grief for the world. If the US launches an assault on Iran for Israel’s benefit, the whole world will experience just exactly how great a disaster Zionism has been.

  • A simple rule of thumb – if someone is hostile to jews and Judaism then be hostile to them.

  • To Otto:

    Jews might consider why the world is hostile to them. The hostility of the Arabs is easy to understand: The Jews came into Palestine with the intent of stealing their country. The hostility of people gouged by Jewish tax farmers is also easy to understand. If Jews insist on being a people set above the rest of humanity, if they operate from a Talmudic set of ethics which enjoin strict honesty when dealing with brother Jews but cheating, lying and swindling when dealing with non-Jews, if they place loyalty to Israel and loyalty to Jews everywhere and anywhere above loyalty to the land of their residence, then they have only themselves to blame for the consequences of their own behaviour.

  • John Thames:

    Hillel and Maimonides sum uo the Talmud by saying: “Do not do unto your neighbour that which would be hateful to you if done unto yourself.” All the rest is commentary. If this is your idea if “evil”, I hate to think what your idea of “good” might be…

    I have no problem with Jews having been at war with the Roman Empire. One of my heroes is Alaric.

    Your description of Communism as “Jewish” is preposterous. Marxism is a Hegelian doctrine premised on an absurd misinterpretation of Darwinism (in itself a tautological theory with no predictive capability, in the form that Marx knew it).

    “Bigger Capitalists swallow up smaller Capitalists while building up the productive base, which is controlled by their orders in their interests. Socialism is the annexation by the State of the assets if the few remaining Capitalists, with the State issuing orders to increase production for everyone. Communism is the state of affairs following upon this, whereby ownership devolves upon the community and the State is no longer necessary. That’s it.”

    Jews do not regard themselves as “above humanity.” Judaism teaches that the Jews were the last of all mankind to be offered the Law by G*d, and they accepted it out of obligation.

    You simply fail to understand your subject. Please cease your “contamination.”

  • Mr. Hollick is blowing smoke. I know what I am talking about only too well. The Talmud has been a much disputed book over the centuries. The Maimonides quotation is pure camoflauge, as are a great many other cover stories offered in its defense. It is true that the Talmud consists of a series of debates between rabbis on various questions of interpretation. Thus, Jews can always claim that the various offensive passages in the debates are only one particular rabbi’s opinion within the context of the particular point involved. They do not represent a hard rule covering all situations. The bigoted, simple minded anti-semite is taking it out of context and drawing unwarranted conclusions. There is not sufficient space here to go into all the innumerable applications of these and related techniques. Suffice it to say that it is all res adjudicata. The whitewash and varnish has been penetrated and exposed many times by Johannes Buxdorf, Johannes Eisenmenger, the converted Jews Pfferkorn and Donin and others. No competent student of the subject believes the pretenses for a second.

    I certainly do claim that communism/marxism, 1880 through 1950, was a Jewish movement. Any number of Jewish reference works make this clear. Whether one reads Nora Levin , Jonathan Frankel , Tony Michels or Gerald Sorin on the subject, they all quite candidly admit that socialism/communism were the movement of the impoverished masses of Russian Jews. You can get the books and read them; I won’t bother to quote them. Or, you can get the latest contribution, the highly praised “Jewish Century” by Yuri Slezkine in which the documentation of the Jewish control behind Stalinist communism is so overwhelming that no further dispute on the subject is possible. If that does not convince you Mr. Hollick, you may review the overwhelming intelligence reports of the British Foreign Office and Scotland Yard, post WW1 where the evidence for Jewish overrepresentation in the bolshevik commissariats is in the 50%-90% range. Or, if you simply prefer juicy pictures, you might look up Cecille Tormay’s old classic, “An Outlaw’s Diary”, in which the faces of the “Hungarian” commissars of Bela Kun are pictured. A few actually were Hungarian but most of them weren’t.

    To anticipate a possible objection, the Soviet Union was always anti-zionist but not anti-semitic. The conflict in the Russian revolutionary movement was whether communism should be established in Palestine or Russia. And yes, I know all about Vladimir Jabotinsky and the pro-capitalist revisionist Zionists. I am not dealing in ignorance, Mr. Hollick. Another standard dodge is to claim that these communist Jews were renegades who had repudiated their Jewishness. They did not represent the majority of the world’s Jews. But if that were true, there hardly would have existed a vast worldwide communist press published in Yiddish. Remember the “Morning Freiheit”, “Der Hammer”, “Der Emes” and all those other red journals published in a language which only ghettoized Jew boys understand?

    No, Mr. Hallick. I’ve got the facts down pat. I can even remember English communists like Phil Piratin and Emmanuel Shinwell, just as “English” as Moses. Not everyone from the USA is stupid, Mr. Hallick. We just do not get as much TV time as the paid liars of Zionism.

  • “john thames”:

    Are you from the US?

    In 1911, Cdr. Menzies, the first chief of MI5, British Security, was tasked with ascertaining the chief causes of revolutionary sentiment. His masters expected the answer “Fenianism.”

    He surprised them by reporting that MI5 had found these causes:

    [1] The foolish and dangerous ostentation of the rich:

    [2] The widespread sentiment that the economy was rigged for the benefit of speculators and financiers.

    [3] Bad housing conditions.

    Plus ca change…

    Here is my friend Rabbi Jeremy Rosen’s “take” on the current resurgence of anti-Semitism:

    Tony

    “So I am to blame for the current world financial crisis! That is the latest conspiracy theory. It is all over the blogosphere. Evil, greedy Jews caused the crash. We started it on Wall Street in New York and then we spread the poison all the way to China.

    Isn’t it funny how we Jews, who cannot agree on anything within our religion or without, can all get together to conspire to manipulate markets around the world to our advantage! I just wish some Jew I know had told me beforehand! We won’t agree on whether socialism or capitalism is preferable, on who the Messiah is, who will serve in the Temple, or indeed who will be the architect. But we can agree on a good conspiracy, like blowing up the Twin Towers and fooling the rest of the world into believing it was done by who actually did it.

    I grew up conscious that the European Christian world did not like us. I was a kid when my father gave me a book of pictures of the liberation of Bergen-Belsen and I realized that there were a lot of people on this earth who wanted to kill a Jewish child like me who had never done them any harm, and even more who couldn’t have cared less.

    When I was eleven and lived in the Oxfordshire countryside, I walked into the nearest town to go to the cinema. When I got there I discovered the prices of the seats had been raised and I did not have enough to go in. I complained to the ticket manager. He looked down at me malevolently and said, ‘It is all your fault. You are a Jew. You know about money. Now piss off.’

    I knew I was no Rothschild. I was brought up in a modest family. So clearly there were some people out there with very strange perceptions if they supposed all Jews to be wealthy businessmen. I once met a Jewish boy who had been evacuated during the war to a country farm. He told me the farmer’s wife refused to give him sheets for his bed for fear that the tail and scales that all Jewish boys had would tear them. Anyway, the New Testament kept on about nasty Jews and moneychangers so it was hardly surprising that regular churchgoers got the message.

    You could not grow up in Britain, study its literature or its history, without realizing that Jews were not popular! The Blood Libel started in Medieval England. The Jews had been expelled in 1292 after hundreds of years of torment. They were only reluctantly allowed back six hundred years later. The Jew Bill of 1753, giving Jews citizenship, had been passed by parliament and actually signed by the king. But then it was repealed under pressure that included the claim that there were too many poor, criminal Jews in the country. That is the problem. We are both too rich and too poor. Too religious and too secular. The Mosley fascists marched through the Jewish East End protesting that the Jews were wealthy bankers as well as evil communists. The truth is we are like any other people with their wealthy and their poor, their Democrats and their Republicans, their good ones and their bad ones. But I grew up thinking that Jew hatred was a British Christian disease.

    Then under Pope John 23rd Catholicism began to modify its negative stance, the old hatred now came from Islam. Walking down the Edgware Road in the West End of London one Shabbat afternoon I was accosted by a gang of Muslim youths who accused me of killing innocent Muslims to drink their blood. Actually I heard the same sick nonsense from a black Muslim in New York last month outside Macy’s.

    OK, I reasoned, I could understand religious hatred. After all, here were two new religions we Jews had spurned, sticking to our own old-fashioned traditions. No wonder they hated us. And, of course, politics in the Middle East won’t have helped. Even if we had a point we were massively outnumbered, and besides some of our own actions and decisions had not been too clever. At least I thought academics could be objective. But no, they too became increasingly as irrational in their hatred.

    No doubt you read all those reports from around the world about how Obama would change everything and drive all the wicked Jews out of Washington. And lo and behold he has appointed Jews to significant positions. Oh dear. That was not what the anti-Semites of the world expected. We are back. What devious people we are.

    There is no logic at all to this oldest of hatreds, other than our refusal to give up. We are the eternal outsiders wherever we are, the convenient scapegoat, only because we are both contrary and identifiable. We human beings are not inherently logical. Emotion plays a more powerful role than intellect in human affairs. That is why whipping up prejudice is so easy, particularly when it plays on human anxiety. That is why there are so many anti-Semitic sites on the internet and why you are as likely to find a hate site as not when you Google ‘Jew’. So welcome to cyberspace, fellow Jews. The rule is that if anything is wrong in this world it is our fault.

    There is an old joke about the Jew in Germany between the two World Wars. He was reading ‘Der Sturmer’, the Nazi anti-Semitic broadsheet. ‘Why are you reading this rubbish,’ asked a fellow Jewish passenger.

    ‘Look, when I read the Jewish press,’ he answered, ‘I see we are losing numbers, we are assimilating, arguing amongst ourselves, unable to support our institutions and communities. We are a disaster we are. But when I read anti-Semites I see we are the most powerful, wealthy people who control the world. Of course I would rather read the good news.’

    Shabbat Shalom,

    Jeremy

  • Mr. Hollick:

    You are a perfect example of your own dictum that people are mainly emotional, not logical. In essence, your argument is that the charges against the Jews are contradictory, hence unsustainable. In actual fact, Jews predominate in both the capitalist and socialist movements. This merely shows that Jews play both sides of the political spectrum. The communist revolutionaries in Russia (mainly Jewish) were largely subsidized by wealthy Jewish bankers like Jacob Schiff, Olaf Achsberg and Dimitri Rubenstein. So much for the idea that Jews cannot work together because they are diametrically opposed on everything.

    Jews have many divisions within their own ranks. The zionists quarrel with the communists, Labor Zionists quarrel with the Jabotinsky Revisionists, etc. But if Jews are incapable of agreeing on anything, then how did they all agree that Hitler was bad? How did capitalist Jews manage to work with communist Jews in destroying Russia? As I am sure you are aware, there exist innumerable Jewish organizations, such as the World Jewish Congress, who immediately speak up for any Jew anywhere in the world, who gets in trouble. Is this merely self-help or proof of international tribal solidarity? There are plenty of examples of Jewish international influence at work. The Jewish press in America and England was always going after Czarist Russia for its alleged “persecution” of the Jews in the pre-WW1 days. The Russians could never get a fair hearing for their anti-Jewish measures because of the one-sided distortions of the so-called “pogroms’ which were merely a response to Jewish financial gouging and sex slave trading. Rumania was targeted by the banker Bleichroeder for its attempts to mprotect its population from Jewish excesses in the 1870’s. After the First World War the Jews got the British Empire to issue the Balfour Declaration in ecxhange for that famous “contract with Jewry” testified to by David Lloyd George and Mr. Samuel Landmann. The Jews sent delegations to the Paris Peace Conference from the USA, Great Britain ans Eastern and Western Europe where they succeeded in getting “minorities treaties” imposed on the nations of Central and Eastern Europe. Does this not suggest a co-ordinated, transatlantic Jewish power at work, Mr. Hollick?

    There are plenty of other examples of Jewish power at work. Let us take one example from both the British Empire and present day America. It was Jews like Barney Barnato, Ernest Oppenheimer, Werner and Beit, Lionel Phillips, Samuel Momtague, etc. who got the British to attack the Dutch in South Africa so that Jewish financiers could get their hands on the mineral wealth of South Africa. It was Israel First Jewish neo-cons, such as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle. Dov Zackheim, Douglas Feith, etc. who launced the criminal invasion of Iraq. Would you still care to tell me, Mr. Hollick, that Jews have no influence in the world?

    On a more personal level, innumerable individuals have had their careers destroyed because of Jewish pressure. I will only mention the distinguished historian, David Irving, as an example. A Mr. Frederic Toben was recently released from jail in your nation because there is still some resistance to Jewish inspired “hate thought” laws. That the laws against “Holocaust Denial” are Jewish inspired is beyond question. So stop the “woe is me” act Mr. Hollick. Your tribe is very powerful indeed and does many odious things. That is, and always has been, the reason for “anti-semitism”.

  • john thames:

    You (risibly) assume that I am Jewish. As far as I know, I’m not!

    And you then go far beyond the bounds of liberarianism (and common sense) by asserting that because some Jews have done bad things, all Jews are “guilty.”

    Yet all Jews are human beings.

    If some Jews have done bad things, does that mean that all human beings are tainted? Your argument is absurd.

    Where in the US are you? Montana?

    Tony

  • My location is irrelevant.

    However, did not Theodore Herzl write in”Der Judenstaat” that “the Jews are a people, one people”? Jews want their logic both ways on the collective guilt question. They wish to act as a collective, as when they demand more and more tribute for the state of Israel as the representative of the Jewish people, but when Israel does bad things with the assistance they have so generously bestowed upon it, then they disavow any responsibility and wish to be judged as individuals only. I am afraid it will not wash.

    No, I do not assert that all Jews are bad people. Neither did Adolf Hitler, he of the fabled “six million”. Hitler always liked to attend performances of Shakespeare by Max Reinhardt when he was living in Vienna. He was also partial to the part-Jewish soprano Margarete Slezak whose career at the Berlin State Opera Hitler personally sponsored. Hitler even said of Edward Bloch, who treated Hitler’s mother, Klara, for cancer that Dr. Bloch was a good Jew and that if all Jews were like Dr. Bloch, there would be no “Jewish problem”. Hitler had his paintings marketed by Viennese Jews like Morgenstern, who he frankly confessed was his “financial angel” in his starving artist days. Many of Hitler’s customers were wealthy Viennese Jews, as is known by the extensive card catalogue which Morgenstern kept. All these inconvenient facts have disappeared from the orthodox history books.

    I apologize for any mistaken assumptions regarding your ethnicity. But good Jews aside, there is a very dark side to Jewish history which Jews are at great pains to whitewash. The ritual murder allegation which you poo-poo’ed in an earlier posting is a good illustration. Recently Professor Ariel Toaff in Israel published a rather convincing book on the famous Saint Simon of Trent case demonstrating what the Catholic Church had already conceded, that it was a genuine case of ritual murder. Rather than disprove Professor Toaff’s thesis, organized Jewry through the Anti-Defamation League had Professor Toaff’s book pulped and withdrawn from circulation. The Professor was threatened both with termination and loss of pension. These are the methods of guilt covering up.

    The history of the Jews has many sides to it. I freely concede that there is a positive side as well but we live in an age in which the positive has been exaggerated beyond all measure while the negative has been deeply, deeply buried. I regard Zionism, which so many English Jews like Lucien Wolf so vehemently opposed, as a regression to the ghetto. English Jews once looked upon Zionism with infinite alarm. I believe that theirs was the wiser position and that the Zionists, like the Communists of old, are pulling the Jewish people worldwide toward disaster.

  • I am a Revisionist from California. First, thank you for your support of Free Speech.
    My take on “Denial” is that it relates to
    what we expect of our own government. During and after World War II our governments (but
    particularly the Soviet and British governments)
    engaged in Black Propaganda…the best
    propaganda was an exaggeration of true Nazi crimes. An example of this was the acceptance
    into evidence at Nuremberg of reports regarding
    Majdanek Camp, near Lubin, Poland.
    The Soviet evidence was that 1,500,000
    people were murdered at Majdanek and
    converted into fertilizer.

    Fast forward to 2005 and the website of
    the Auschwitz State Museum-
    Here is a quote from the Auschwitz State Museum Website. Recent news December 2005

    Majdanek Victims Enumerated
    “Changes in the history textbooks? Lublin scholar Tomasz Kranz has established that the Nazis murdered 78,000 people
    at the Majdanek concentration camp-several times fewer than previous estimates”

    While 78,000 dead is a horrible figure, it
    turns out that the shooting pits, gas chambers,
    the 1.5 million dead, and the fertilizer factory were all faked evidence.
    This does not mean that killing 78,000
    is anything other than a terrible crime.
    And all the commanders of Majdanek ended
    up being hanged. It means that the crimes
    were exaggerated 20 fold and embellished
    with macabre tales, all as a propaganda
    show.

    I feel that it is important that our
    government and particularly our justice system
    strive toward truth and that the misuse of the justice system Nuremberg should be
    pointed out. For me, being a Revisionist
    has to do with holding ourselves to a
    standard of truth.

    Best Regards from California

  • The history of Zionism in England is very instructive because it demonstrates that there is in fact a Jewish international force at work behind the scenes as well as demonstrating that Jewish opposition to Zionism was well founded. The history of the famous Balfour Declaration by which the British government sponsored a Jewish “national home” in Palestine was one of the most intrigue filled episodes in the history of politics. For a full accounting of the details I reccomend two books: “The Balfour Declaration” by Leonard Stein and “Palestine: The Reality” by J.M.N. Jeffries.

    The declaration was the product of careful drafting on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. Numerous drafts and revisions were prepared and then discarded after objections and the need for further refining. The document was a masterpiece of deliberate deception. It pretended to protect the rights of the Arabs of Palestine while conspiring to take them away. Well over thirty men were involved in the preparation of the declaration (and possibly more, as the full story still has not been told). These men included both British statesmen and Zionists in America and Britain. The declaration spoke of a Jewish “national home” when a Jewish state was intended all along. It spoke of the civil and religious rights” of the Arabs, but said nothing about their “political and economic rights”. The declaration, which was incorporated into the “Mandate” issued by the League of Nations, provided no mechanism by which Arab rights could be guaranteed. However, the Mandate incorporating the Balfour Declaration did provide for a Jewish Agency to collaborate with (more precisely, to attempt to dictate to) the British Mandatory power. It is therefore obvious exactly whose “rights” were being guaranteed.

    The British government issued this declaration as a “payoff” to the Zionists for alleged influence over President Woodrow Wilson for getting the US into WW1 on Britain’s side. Numerous Zionists in both England and America worked on this declaration. These included Chaim Weizmann, Nahum Sokolw, Moses Gaster, Rabbi Stephen Wise, Felix Frankfurter, Richard Gottheil, Benjamin Cohen and others. They collaborated with Lords Alfred Milner, Robert Cecil, Jan Christian Smuts, Leo Amery, William Ormsby-Gore and others to produce the declaration. The declaration served Zionist objectives, toned down somewhat to meet British objections of too strong a declaration of in intent.

    This declaration committed the British government to thirty years of subservience to Zionist aims which ended in the British being kicked out of Palestine by force and violence. It destroyed the reputation of the British Empire for good faith and fair dealing. And it came about precisely because of war time double dealing to court international Jewish and Zionist influence. The wiser English Jews, anti-Zionist to the core, had vehemently opposed the declaration. They had pointed out that the declaration would revive the ancient charge of Jewish “dual loyalty” (as indeed it has, witness the well-justified charges that the current war in Iraq is being fought for Israel’s benefit). The declaration would violate the rights of the Arabs of Palestine, who wanted no part of it. The declaration would jeopardize the but recently won rights of Jews in England and elsewhere. (And this very point was addressed in the declaration, which stipulated that nothing in the Balfour Declaration wpould jeopardize the rights of the Jews living in any other country.) Edwin Montagu, Lucien Wolfe, Moses Montefiore, David Alexander and Leonard Cohen moved heaven and earth to try to defeat the declaration. Indeed, the declaration would have been issued in August 1917 rather than November but for the Herculean efforts of Mr. Montagu. In the end, it all failed. The declaration went through -and the British paid an enormous price. The United States, as the de facto successor to the British Mandate, is paying a similar price now.

    It is idle to accuse anti-zionists of being anti-semites because anti-semitism was always the “raison d’etre” of Zionism. Anti-semites were only too willing to collaborate with Zionists to move unwanted Jews out of their own countries to Palestine. Unfortunately, shipping the Jews to Palestine has only made the “Jewish problem” worse by moving it to a particularly sensitive part of the world. English Jews who once opposed Zionism have proved considerably wiser than gentile Zionist politicians who do their bidding. This discussion shows that one can oppose the evil Jews do without necessarily opposing Jews per se. An honest Jew like alfred Lilienthal who opposes the state of Israel is to be prefered to a gentile “I ama Zionist” like Joseph Biden. Organized Jewish power is more of a problem than individual Jews, who frequently have desireable characteristics. There are those who will argue that Jews as a collective cannot be separated from their individual positives. That may be true but it is well to try to remember that although the Jew, individually, may be good, the Jew, acting in his corporate persona as a representative of the oldest aspirations of his people, is frequently a disaster.

  • How should Holocaust Deniers Be Dealt With? Debate Them? Ignore Them?
    a debate raging on Amazon.com History Forums.

  • Agin Zionist Racism says:
    Typhus

    Central and eastern Europe have over the centuries had problems with typhus.

    Wikipedia:
    “Epidemic typhus is found most frequently during times of war and privation. For example, typhus killed many thousands of prisoners in Nazi Germany concentration camps during World War II.
    Epidemic typhus (also called “camp fever”, “jail fever”, “hospital fever”and “louse-borne typhus”) is so named because the disease often causes epidemics following wars and natural disasters. The causative organism is Rickettsia prowazekii, transmitted by the human body louse.
    Epidemics occurred throughout Europe from the 16th to the 19th centuries, and occurred during the English Civil War, the Thirty Years’ War and the Napoleonic Wars. During Napoleon’s retreat from Moscow in 1812, more French soldiers died of typhus than were killed by the Russians.
    Typhus was also common in prisons (and in crowded conditions where lice spread easily).
    Typhus epidemics killed inmates in the Nazi Germany concentration camps; infamous pictures of typhus victims’ mass graves can be seen in footage shot at Bergen-Belsen concentration camp. Thousands of prisoners held in appalling conditions in Nazi concentration camps such Theresienstadt and Bergen-Belsen also died of typhus during World War II, including Anne Frank at the age of 15 and her sister Margot.. During World War II typhus struck the German army as it invaded Russia in 1941 ” – end of quotes from Wiki.

    While the Americans began using DDT to control the spread of body lice and hence typhus, in the middle of WW2, the Germans still used three methods which were also previously used elsewhere: For groups at risk: (1) shaving body hair (2) showering (3) fumigation of clothing, using an insecticide called Zyklon B. We know that inmates of German concentration camps had hair removed and heads shaved, and were made to shower and that Zyklon B was used. All this is to be expected in a program to control epidemics, which Wikipedia and other sources confirm existed in the German camps. The existence of crematoria is also to be expected because of these epidemics.

    Challenge to the Holocaust True-Believers:
    Please give a rational and credible answer to the question “why did the Germans shave people’s heads in the camps, if not to save their lives?”

    Dahlia says:
    Hi John,

    The phenomena of shaving hair is consistent with plundering valuables, extracting gold teeth, collecting shoes, eye glasses and clothes.
    Most of this was done after the Jews have been gassed, so there was no way to “save” their lives at this point.
    Everything valuable was sent to Germany to be re used, clothing was given to German citizens, the Nazis kept the gold and other valuables. Women’s hair was sent to a firm in Bavaria for the manufacture of felt. Human hair was also used for rugs, socks, and mattresses.

    Agin Zionist Racism says:
    Dahlia’s explanation: “The phenomena of shaving hair is consistent with plundering valuables, extracting gold teeth, collecting shoes, eye glasses and clothes. Most of this was done after the Jews have been gassed, so there was no way to “save” their lives at this point. Everything valuable was sent to Germany to be re used, clothing was given to German citizens, the Nazis kept the gold and other valuables. Women’s hair was sent to a firm in Bavaria for the manufacture of felt. Human hair was also used for rugs, socks, and mattresses.”

    I might be wrong, but I think a lot of this information is new to the historiography of the Holocast. Please pass on to Yad Vashem etc etc.

    One thing I don’t yet understand: okay, cutting typhus-louse-infested hair for mattresses when you’re really totally desperate, but then going further and doing the shaving as well for the very last bits of hair, even after the ‘gassing’ – the Germans must have had some Scots involved, determined to use every scrap of hair. Did they even resort to shaving their cattle and pigs before turning them into sausages, for the same reason? So there must have been teams of corpse-shavers, as well as the famous barbers..

    C. Roberts says:
    For any individual that blindly subscribes to holocaust dogma: Why were there 150,000 Jewish soldiers in the German army? What was the Balfour Declaration of WW1 and what is its connection to WW2? Why was C.D. Jackson ,editor of Time/Life Inc., appointed to the U.S. Army Psych Ops investigation into the concentration camps? Why can you question the Chinese holocaust , Russian holocaust etc. but can be jailed in 15+ countries for questioning the Jewish? Was there active collaboration between Zionists and Nazis to emigrate Jews out of Europe ? How much money has been made to date from this “holocaust industry” and the demonization of the German people (films, museums, video games, speaking engagements,politics,reparations)? Research the number 6,000,000 and its connection with the Talmud/Kabbalah. Visit CODOH.com

  • Statement by Richard Lynn, Professor Emeritus
    University of Ulster, December 5, 2005:
    “I’ve checked out Churchill’s Second World War and the statement is quite correct – not a single mention of Nazi ‘gas chambers,’ a ‘genocide’ of the Jews, or of ‘six million’ Jewish victims of the war.
    Eisenhower’s Crusade in Europe is a book of 559 pages; the six volumes of Churchill’s Second World War total 4,448 pages; and De Gaulle’s three-volume Mémoires de guerre is 2,054 pages.
    In this mass of writing, which altogether totals 7,061 pages (not including the introductory parts), published from 1948 to 1959, one will find no mention either of Nazi ‘gas chambers,’ a ‘genocide’ of the Jews, or of ‘six million’ Jewish victims of the war.”
    _______________________

    It’s official – there’s no actual shortage of Holocaust survivors.
    ‘The Israeli Prime Minister’s office recently put the number of “living Holocaust survivors” at nearly a million’ (extract from The Holocaust Industry by Norman G. Finkelstein of the City University of New York, published by Verso, London and New York, 2000, p.83).

  • Elie Wiesel vs Encyclopaedia Britannica

    Wiesel has been a prominent spokesman for the very sizeable group of people known as Holocaust survivors. [According to Norman Finkelstein of the City University of New York in his book The Holocaust Industry published in 2000, ‘The Israeli Prime Minister’s office recently put the number of “living Holocaust survivors” at nearly a million’ (p.83)]. Wiesel has chaired the US Holocaust Memorial Council and has been the recipient of a Congressional Gold Medal and Nobel Peace Prize (!).

    Time Magazine, March 18 1985:

    ‘How had he survived two of the most notorious killing fields [Auschwitz and Buchenwald] of the century? “I will never know” he says. “I was always weak. I never ate. The slightest wind would turn me over. In Buchenwald they sent 10,000 to their deaths every day. I was always in the last hundred near the gate. They stopped. Why?”

    Compare this with Encyclopaedia Britannica (1993), under ‘Buchenwald’:

    “In World War II it held about 20,000 prisoners.. Although there were no gas chambers, hundreds perished monthly through disease, malnutrition, exhaustion, beatings and executions.”

    http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0199/9901055.html

    Washington Report on Middle East Affairs | January/February 1999

    “A Terrible Fraud” :
    Wiesel Ignores Palestinians
    To the Jerusalem Post, Oct. 9, 1998 (as submitted).

    (from Prof. Daniel McGowan, Professor of Economics at Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Geneva, NY)

    In your Oct. 9 article on Elie Wiesel, the American icon of Holocaust survivors, he is paid a special tribute as a “speaker of truth.” This is the same Elie Wiesel who is continually referred to by Noam Chomsky and others as “a terrible fraud.” What can explain such disparity of opinion?

    Perhaps it is because Wiesel, who has written literally volumes Against Silence, remains silent when it comes to such issues involving Palestinians as land expropriation, torture and abrogation of basic human rights.

    Perhaps it is because Elie Wiesel proclaims with great piety that “the opposite of love is not hate; it is indifference,” while he remains totally indifferent to the inequality and suffering of the Palestinians. Perhaps it is because he enjoys recognition as “one of the first opponents of apartheid” in South Africa, while he remains totally silent and indifferent to the apartheid being practiced today in Israel.

    Perhaps it is because he decries terrorism, yet never apologizes for the terrorism perpetrated by the Irgun at Deir Yassin on April 9, 1948. He refuses even to comment on it. He dismisses this act of terrorism in eight short words in his memoirs, All Rivers Run to the Sea. He remembers the Jewish victims at Kielce, Poland (July 1946) with great anguish, but ignores twice as many Palestinian victims of his own employer at Deir Yassin. The irony is breathtaking.

    It is even more shocking that the world’s best known Holocaust survivor can repeatedly visit Yad Vashem and yet keep silent about the victims of Deir Yassin who lie within his sight 1,400 meters to the north. He bitterly protests when Jewish graves are defaced, but has nothing to say when the cemetery of Deir Yassin is bulldozed. He refuses even to acknowledge repeated requests that he join a group of Jews and non-Jews who wish to build a memorial at Deir Yassin.

    Elie Wiesel may profess modesty and claim he is “not a symbol of anything” but, unfortunately, he has become a symbol of hypocrisy.

    Daniel A. McGowan, Director, Deir Yassin Remembered, Geneva, NY

  • THE ‘INCORRECT’ SIX MILLION
    Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Prizewinner and author of The Gulag Archipelago, in a speech in Washington in 1975 had this to say of the Soviet system which was deemed worthy of recognition as one of ‘our’ Allies fighting ‘for Democracy’ against the ‘Dictators’ in WW2:

    “This was a system which, in time of peace, artificially created a famine causing SIX MILLION PERSONS to die in the Ukraine between 1932 and 1933. They died on the very threshold of Europe. And Europe didn’t even notice it. The world didn’t even notice it. SIX MILLION PERSONS!”

    (Alexander Solzhenitsyn Speaks to the West (1978) p 16)

    Who were these people, and why was and is their fate unknown to the ordinary man in the street in western countries?

    Franklin Roosevelt’s ally and associate Joseph Stalin was the supreme dictator of Russia for almost a quarter of a century, from 1929 until his death in 1953. Born as Iosif Djugashvili, he adopted the very indicative name ‘Stalin’, ‘man of steel’. He lived up to this name in every respect. Soviet Russia under Stalin was a despotic police state that relied on espionage and terror, with a profound gulf in manner of living between the rulers and the ruled.

    Stalin’s first Five-Year Plan (1928-1932) sought to bring about the ‘collectivization of agriculture’ in accordance with the ‘abolition of property in land’ put forward in Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto. But back in 1861 Czar Alexander II had liberated 23 million serfs, four years before slavery was abolished in the United States. In the period before the Revolution, millions of these peasants had been enabled to get title to their own individual plots, boosting Russian agricultural productivity. These independent peasant farmers became known as kulaks. When Communism was imposed on Russia, the kulaks as private property owners now stood in the way of the idea of Communism. In 1929 Stalin called for ‘the liquidation of the kulaks’, and their small family farms, animals, implements and crops were declared to belong to the state. “(The Jews) Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev had always argued that the peasant would never surrender enough food voluntarily, and must be coerced and, if need be, crushed” (*Paul Johnson A History of the Modern World (1983) p 268). The Red Army and the GPU secret police were used to implement the policy. All peasants who resisted were treated with violence. A very large number were killed or sent in cattle or freight trains to exile in remote areas in the frozen north or the desert steppes. Rather than give up their animals to the collective farms, many peasants killed and ate them. As a result, the number of farm animals in the Soviet Union was catastrophically reduced:

    1928 versus 1933:

    Cattle
    30,7 million
    19,6 million

    Sheep and goats
    146,7 million
    50,2 million

    Hogs
    26 million
    12,1 million

    Horses
    33,5 million
    16,6 million

    (*Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, p 398).

    The peasants stopped farming on ground that suddenly, officially, no longer belonged to them. As a result, food production decreased drastically. After a while, the cities started running out of food. Orders were given for grain to be confiscated from the peasants, whether they had sufficient for themselves and their families or not. Those caught trying to reserve food for their families were ‘severely dealt with’. By the winter of 1932-3, virtually no food was left in the countryside. By early March 1933, ‘death on a mass scale really began’ (Robert Conquest, The Harvest of Sorrow (1986) p243). The main farming areas of Russia, in the regions of the Ukraine and North Caucasus, were utterly devastated. Millions of people were forced to eat anything that was available, mice, rats, birds, grass, nettles, bark and even cats and dogs, but even then did not survive. It was a time of great and terrible hunger, a catastrophic man-made famine.

    The American journalist Eugene Lyons was sent to Russia in 1928 as chief correspondent for the United Press agency. Arriving as an enthusiastic communist, he was able to experience the Soviet experiment at first hand. He became extremely disillusioned. He described the famine in his book Assignment in Utopia (published in 1937) in the following terms:

    “Hell broke loose in seventy thousand Russian villages.. A population as large as all of Switzerland’s or Denmark’s was stripped clean of all their belongings.. They were herded with bayonets at railroad stations, packed indiscriminately into cattle cars and freight cars and dumped weeks later in the lumber regions of the frozen North, the deserts of central Asia, wherever labor was needed, there to live or die..”. The number of people that died is unknown, but the famine alone is estimated conservatively to have been responsible for 6 million deaths, almost half of them children (*Conquest, p 303-4). Other millions died from the killings and sickness as a result of the deportations (*p 304-7). At the famous Yalta conference in 1945, Winston Churchill was able to question his friend and fellow ally Stalin about the process. Stalin said ‘ten million’ had been ‘dealt with’, but that it had been ‘absolutely necessary’. Churchill records that he ‘sustained the strong impression of millions of men and women being blotted out or displaced forever’ (*Churchill, The Second World War, vol. IV p448). However Churchill – thank God for Winston Churchill – had no further comment to make on the matter. Controlling the agenda is always so important!

    Lyons, himself Jewish, credits the Jewish commissar Lazar Kaganovich with the major portion of responsibility for this major crime against humanity:

    “Lazar Kaganovich… it was his mind that invented the Political Departments to lead collectivized agriculture, his iron hand that applied Bolshevik mercilessness.” (*Lyons, p 578). The Encyclopaedia Britannica says tersely, “(Kaganovich) was one of the small group of Stalin’s top advisors pushing for very high rates of collectivization after 1929.. Within the Politburo, Kaganovich and Molotov led the opposition to Kirov’s proposed concessions to the peasantry and to his attempts to relax the harshness of Stalin’s control.. (Kaganovich) opposed Krushchev’s de-Stalinization..”. Kaganovich died at the ripe old age of 98 in 1991 (Encl. Brit.), ethnically safe from pursuit by the Israeli secret service, the Simon Wiesenthal organization, the New York media-intelligentsia or other hunters of real or imagined war criminals or human rights violators.

    The suffering caused by the great man-made famine was covered by some reports in newspapers in Britain, Europe and the United States. Books dating from before World War Two can still be found in second-hand bookshops which describe the ferocity… Arthur Koestler, Soviet Myth and Reality in The Yogi and the Commissar (1945) Muggeridge, Lyons, Chamberlin… Yet this episode has been completely, entirely, totally ignored by our guardians of history, morality and political correctness…

    NO MEMORIAL EXISTS IN WASHINGTON DC

    (obviously) to record the indescribable scale of human suffering which resulted, undoubtedly because such a high burden of responsibility for it lies with the Jew Kaganovitch, and because the victims were not Jewish. No chance exists for such a monument, according to a private consensus, owing to certain political realities.

    This six million is the ‘incorrect’ six million, because their inconvenient story is not and has not been useful to today’s elite. The tribal affiliations of the chief perpetrator (Jew) and the victims (non-Jews) are the wrong ones, not fitting into the ‘correct’ pattern.

    According to Solzhenitsyn in the eighty years that preceded the Revolution in Russia, – years of revolutionary activity, uprisings and the assassination of a Czar, an average of ten persons a year were executed. After the Revolution, in 1918 and 1919, according to the figures of the Cheka, the secret police itself – more than a thousand persons were executed per month without trial. In 1937-8, at the height of Stalin’s terror, more than 40 000 persons were executed per month. (*Solzhenitsyn p17).

    Millions of persons were executed or sent to labour camps. In his magnum opus The Gulag Archipelago, Solzhenitsyn credits Naftaly Frenkel, a ‘Turkish-born Jew’, with being works chief / chief overseer of the one-hundred-and-forty-mile-long Belomor (Baltic-White Sea) canal, built entirely with slave labour (paperback edition, vol 2 p 72). Solzhenitsyn quotes the official Soviet history of the project which describes Frenkel as having ‘..the eyes of an interrogator and prosecutor.. A man with enormous love of power and pride, for whom the main thing is unlimited power. If it is necessary for him to be feared, then let him be feared. He spoke harshly to the engineers, attempting to humiliate them.’ (ibid p 75). Other Jews were also involved in influential positions. Yakov Rappoport was deputy chief of construction (p 78) and Matvei Berman was the Chief of Gulag (p 79). Frenkel, Berman and Rappoport are amongst six men described by Solzhenitsyn as ‘hired murderers’, ‘each of whom accounted for thirty thousand lives’ (p 91). Is Solzhenitsyn alone in his accusations? Why are these names generally unknown to ordinary citizens in the West?

    “The major role Jewish leaders played in the November (Russian) revolution was probably more important than any other factor in confirming (Hitler’s) anti-Semitic beliefs.” (J&S Pool, Who Financed Hitler, p.164).

    “There has been a tendency to circumvent or simply ignore the significant role of Jewish intellectuals in the German Communist Party, and thereby seriously neglect one of the genuine and objective reasons for increased anti-Semitism during and after World War 1.. The prominence of Jews in the revolution and early Weimar Republic is indisputable, and this was a very serious contributing cause for increased anti-Semitism in post-war years.. It is clear then that the stereotype of Jews as socialists and communists.. led many Germans to distrust the Jewish minority as a whole and to brand Jews as enemies of the German nation.” (Sarah Gordon Hitler, Germans and the ‘Jewish Question’ Princeton University Press (1984) p 23).

    “The second paroxysm of strong anti-Semitism came after the critical role of Jews in International Communism and the Russian Revolution and during the economic crises of the 1920s and 30s… Anti-Semitism intensified throughout Europe and North America following the perceived and actual centrality of Jews in the Russian Revolution.. Such feelings were not restricted to Germany, or to vulgar extremists like the Nazis. All over Northern Europe and North America, anti-Semitism became the norm in ‘nice society’, and ‘nice society’ included the universities.” (Bernal, Black Athena vol. 1 pp. 367, 387).

    “To many outside observers, the Russian revolution looked like a Jewish conspiracy, especially when it was followed by Jewish-led revolutionary outbreaks in much of central Europe. The leadership of the Bolshevik Party had a preponderance of Jews and included Litvinov (real name Wallach), Liadov (Mandelshtam), Shklovsky, Saltz, Gusev (Drabkin), Zemliachka (Salkind), Helena Rozmirovich, Serafima Gopner, Yaroslavsky (Gubelman), Yaklovlev (Epstein), Riaznov (Goldendach), Uritsky and Larin. Of the seven members of the Politburo, the inner cabinet of the country, four, Trotsky (Bronstein), Zinoviev (Radomsky), Kamenev (Rosenfeld) and Sverdlov, were Jews.”

    When Lenin died in 1924, Zinoviev – the first chairman of the Communist International – formed a triumvirate with Kamenev and Stalin to govern Russia. This ‘Troika’ as it was known was formed to keep Trotsky from the succession. Stalin was the only one of the three members of the Troika who was not Jewish. “Though Zinoviev and Kamenev feared Trotsky as too militant and extreme, they shared his belief in permanent revolution, which Stalin did not. Russia had been in almost continuous turmoil for twenty years and had suffered revolutions and counter-revolutions, war, invasions and a pitiless and drawn-out civil war. There were limits to which the endurance of a people could be stretched. The Russians wanted to bury their dead and resume what they could of normal life. Stalin understood this. Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev (the three Jews) did not.”

    “Jews had a prominent role in Communist parties elsewhere..” (Chaim Bermant, The Jews (1977)).

  • Have a look at a typical account by one of the seemingly endless number of survivors: Olga Lengyel’s Five Chimneys: a woman survivor’s true story of Auschwitz (Granada/ Ziff-Davis, 1947, 1972).

    The blurb on the cover of the book quotes the New York Herald-Tribune: “Passionate, tormenting”. Albert Einstein, the promoter of the US construction of the bombs used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is quoted as offering “You have done a real service by letting the ones who are now silent and most forgotten (sic) speak.”

    Lengyel says
    ‘After June, 1943, the gas chamber was reserved exclusively for Jews and Gypsies.. Three hundred and sixty corpses every half-hour, which was all the time it took to reduce human flesh to ashes, made 720 per hour, or 17,280 corpses per twenty-four hour shift. And the ovens, with murderous efficiency, functioned day and night. However, one must also reckon the death pits, which could destroy another 8,000 cadavers a day. In round numbers, about 24,000 corpses were handled each day. An admirable production record, one that speaks well for German industry.’ (Paperback edition, pp80-81). [No trace of any remains of or in ‘death pits’ has been found.]
    This implies almost 100,000 corpses per four working days, or a million in 40 days, or six million in 240 days (eight months).

    Could this claim be a misprint?

    Kitty Hart, in spite of her name a Jewish survivor born in Poland, fully confirms these figures:
    ‘Working around the clock, the four units together could dispose of about 18,000 bodies every twenty-four hours, while the open pits coped with a further 8,000 in the same period.’ (p 118; Return to Auschwitz – paperback edition by Granada (1981, 1983).

    According to the cover blurb, ‘The subject of the award-winning Yorkshire television documentary of the same name.’ ‘Both engaging and harrowing…an important addition to the growing holocaust literature, very little of which conveys so courageously both the daily torment and the will to survive’ – Martin Gilbert, The Times.

    Martin Gilbert, indefatigable Jewish campaigner on behalf of the ‘Holocaust’ and biographer of Winston Churchill, adds to the rich flavour and makes his own numerical claims, certainly not without chutzpah:
    In his book Auschwitz and the Allies (1981) he states
    ‘The deliberate attempt to destroy systematically all of Europe’s Jews was unsuspected in the spring and early summer of 1942: the very period during which it was at its most intense, and during which hundreds of thousands of Jews were being gassed every day at Belzec, Chelmo, Sobibor and Treblinka.’ (p.26).
    If we assume a minimum figure of 200,000 per day, this amounts to say a million a five-day working week, or 6 million in six weeks, and this does not include the truly awe-inspiring claims for Auschwitz put forward by Hart and Lengyel with Gilbert’s blessing.

  • Methodological Individualists think in terms of an individual’s motives and behaviour. “Kaganovitch was a Jew” is singularly unhelpful if Kaganovitch was gripped by Marxist ideology, and working in its service towards its ends. If Kaganovitch were to have been an Albino, would anyone in theor right mind say that “The Albino Kaganovitch” did xyz in the service of Albino interests??

    Critical Rationalists do not try to find “confirming instances”, especially when ideological bias ensures that seeming examples of “confirmation” woll always be found all over the place for any theory of that kind. Such illogic ensures that completely opposed theories will ALL be found to be “true.”

    Instead, we look for _refutations_. This method of Conjectures and Refutations is the best way we have of ascertaining the truth.

    Tony

    PS: The World Record for Genocide is held by Mongols, who killed 35 million Chinese.

    Why are we not discussing that?

  • The argument here is that the heavy Jewish involvement in communism was incidental to the movement. It could just as easily have been Albinos, Eskimos or any other group. The argument shall not wash. Without Jewish involvement and the deep, Talmudic hatred of Russian civiization it nurtured, communism would never have taken the nurderous turn it did. Yes, Chinese communism was equally nurderous but that communism was based on principles and the example already set by the Jewish commissars.

    Mr. Hallick has already been misled by his friend, Rabbi Rosen, on the true nature of the Talmud. The basic Talmudic principle is that only Jews are human; non-Jews are merely animals in human form fit to be enslaved or exterminated by the “Chosen People”. This is a precise description of what happened under Jewish bolshevism. It is therefore obvious that Communism was merely a secular form of Judaism. Mr. Hallick should consult an arcane reference work, “From Moses To Marx”, which contains hundreds of documented quotes from prominent Jews and Jewish leaders about the essential similarity between socialism and Judaism. If this is true, then it would hardly be surprising to see so many Jews rushing to support an ideology consonant with their reliogious traditions. For what it is worth, the Old Testament is replete with one massacre after another committed by the Jews as they invaed Canaan.

  • john thames:

    Now you’re using “bait-and-switch” tactics. And you can’t even get my name right… You’re breaking up…

    An obvious reason for a few Jewish Socialist writers advancing a thesis that Judaism and Socialism were similar is the “sugaring the pill” tactic. The BNP uses similar tactics, as do many political organizations, in an effort to garner supporters. Why can you not see this?

    At the end of the 19th Century, almost all scientists were socialists, believing as they did that socialism was the “scientific” way to run the economy and ensure plenty. They were unaware that a large abstract economy cannot function without prices, which can in practice only be arrived at as a vector sum of the individual preference of buyers and sellers in a market economy. It would be silly to complain about this. As Lenin found out later, “The socialist theoreticians have failed to provide us with a system of book-keeping.”

    As for conflicts in the Old Testament, it is a lamentable fact of human history that, after expanding its territory by one mile a year, eventually there was no accessible new territories left to expand into. Internicine conflicts then raged between existing tribes. This occurred everywhere on Earth. There are very fer historical accounts which have reached us from the period of the Old Testament. The two thousand years since the Common Era have provided ample evidence that these conflicts have continued to the present day.

    This discussion seems to be evidencing a degenerative problem-shift on your part…

    Tony

  • I apologize for misspelling your name, Mr. Hollick. But this is not a problem of me “switching gears”. I have been consistent throughout this debate. It is you who run around in circles, seeking to evade the plain meaning of facts.

    This is not a matter of a “few Jews” inventing a supposed connection between Jews and socialism. It is not a matter of postulating false equivalences for purposes of political advantage. On the contrary, there is a veritable library of reference works by Jewish authors substantiating the thesis I am advancing. I have already given the names of several of these heavily documented sources in previous postings. Dozens more exist. There used to be a little pamphlet entitled; “Why Don’t You Believe What We Tell You?” with documented quotations by Jews themselves on the relation between their religion and communism. I pose the same question to you, Mr. Hollick: Why don’t you believe what the Jews tell you?

    The fact that the late Adolf Hitler would agree with my thesis does not make it untrue. Neither does the fact that the BNP would agree with it make it untrue. I presume you are aware that Winston Churchill himself once published an infamous newspaper article identifying Jews with communism. It was entitled “Zionism Versus Bolshevism: A Struggle For The Soul Of The Jewish People”. It was published in the Illustrated Sunday Herald of February 8, 1920. Jews today continue to be of a strongly leftist persuasion. I believe the British Labour Party and the odious Mr. Brown are largely subsidized by wealthy capitalist Jews like Mendolsohn, Abrams and Sugar. Am I not correct?

    I agree with you that classical socialism is nonsense because it ignores the regulatory nature of the price system in setting supply and demand. The Soviet commissars of the 1920’s (mainly Jews) set prices by copying them out of Sears and Roebuck catalogues friom the United States. (And was not Julius Rosenwald, the owner of Sears, one of the financiers of the Jewish communist agricultural colonies in the Crimea during the 1920’s? Consult “Farming The Red Land” for confirmation.)

    I quoted the Old Testament not to endorse the dubious authenticity of the events described but rather to show the continuity of the Jewish mindset from ancient times to the present. The Jews perpetrating the God-awful massacres of civilian populations during the revolt against Rome were just as murderous as the Jewish commissars of the 1920’s and 1930’s in Russia. The Jews have sold the world a false version of their own history. They pretend to be unoffending victims of “persecution”. The truth is far different. The Jews moved into Palestine under the pretense that Jews and Arabs would be “brothers” and mutually benefit. We all know how that turned out.

  • Tony:

    I will use your first name this time to avoid mispelling your last name. Let me quote you from a very interesting article in the November-Decmber 2008 edition of the “Nationalist Times”. It is entitled “A Hate With No Name” by Edmund Connelly. A few paragraphs read:

    “…a profound sense of historical grievance-hatred by any other name-is the norm among Jewish groups. In a rare stance by a prominent scholar, James Petras makes this general statement specific by arguing that the ultimate cause of Israeli ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians is ‘the pervasiveness of racist attitudes, which had characterized Zionist extremism since inception’.

    Petras’s recognition that the source of the problem is ‘Jewish distrust of the non-Jewish world (and) their unwillingness to compromise’ is consistent with the views of John Murrasy Cuddihy, author of the seminal work on modern Jews, ‘The Ordeal of Civility’. Cuddihy pointed to the tendency for Jewish intellectuals to examine the white Christian world ‘in dismay, with wonder, anger, and punitive objectivity.’

    Thus, wherever Jews go, ethnic strife follows becauase masses of Jews, goaded on by the extremists among them, perceive themselves to be in an existential struggle with the host populations around them. As an acquaintance so indelicately put it: ‘Jews lust to fight the war (against white Christians) with every molecule in their Jewish brains. The vast majority of white Gentiles barely know it exists. Raise your hand if you think that poses a problem for a promising white future.’

    This sad state of affairs was again driven home for me when I read the latest issue of E. Michael Jones’ Culture Wars. A letter to the editor read as follows:

    ‘A Jewish man murdered his two children because they were being raised as Catholics by his ex-wife. He claimed that he would rather see them dead than Catholic. As incredible as it may sound, the courtroom was filled with supporters from the Jewish community. Yes, that’s right, supporters. The judge, who was Jewish, allowed him to get away with outbursts insulting his grieving ex-wife and her family, to the applause of the spectators. It was an absolutely appalling scene.

    I think that most Christians simply do not understand the virulence of Jewish hatred for Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. And, because of media campaigns making ‘anti-semitism’ the worst possible sin in this society, they are unprepared to stand up to it. This hatred dates back right to the origins of Christianity and has been held onto and indeed nourished by the Jewish community down through the millenia. It is a major part of Jewish identity to blame everything bad that has ever happened to Jews on the Catholic Church.'”

    Tony, you simply do not understand what you are dealing with. The Jews have conned you, as they have conned so many people. Jews are the biggest “haters” on the face of the planet. They usually conceal this hatred behind platitudes about “human brotherhood’, “racial equality”, “non-discrimination” and other such nonsense. But the moment they get the upper hand, all the camoflauge disappears. Then the Soviet gulags with their Jewish commissars appear and the bulldozers crushing the Arabs do their dirty work. Get a copy of Kevin MacDonald’s “Culture of Critique’ or David Duke’s “My Awakening” and read them. If you cannot stand Duke, read MacDonald instead. They both deal with the same data and reach the same conclusions.

    The Jews are not the wonderful people you imagine them to be. They are making war on whites with the intent of destroying them. There are many proofs of this but the clearest proof of all is the Nazi “gas chamer” hoax with which this discussion began. Observe how the hoax is used. “The Germans killed six million innocent Jews, the Germans were white racists, therefore all racism (but particularly white racism) leads to mass murder.” Is this not , in fact, how the pitch is made?

    I repeat, Tony. You are being conned. Learn the truth. The truth is that the “gas chamber” hoax is “The Mother Of All Lies”. It is the key to all the other lies. If the Jews are lying about the “gas chambers”, then they are lying about racial equality, diversity, One World, feminism and every other poison that they have unleashed upon the world.

    Finis.

  • john thames:

    Thank you for your apology. As you may know, the insertion of “tell-tale” mis-spellings in a name carries an implication.

    You still do not grasp my central point. Let me illustrate it this way.

    In 1959, O briefly joined the local “Young Consevarives.” The party official in charge said to me one day: “Of course, Socialism is fine in theory. There are just human problems in implemeting it in practice.”

    This seemed very unsatisfactory. If it were true, the objective should be to find better ways to put it into practice, not to oppose it, except on tactical grounds, to buy time.

    I think this attitude was very widespread amongst both educated and uneducated people, including of course Jews. Schemes of social improvement had especial appeal to Jews, because the advent of Messiah depended on the bringing about of great improvements in society.

    This alone very adequately explains the attraction of Socialism for many Jews. And many other well-intentioned people. Marxian Socialism’s slogan was “Help to bring about the inevitable!” — an attractive slogan for very many activists.

    Tony

  • Tony:

    I do not entirely disagree. The Jews have a concept “Tikkun Olam”, which roughly translates as “healing the world”. This is part of their Messianic ideology which holds that the world must be reborn-but only after it has first been destroyed. This is essentially what the Jewish communists attempted.

    You are correct that the appeal of eliminating all the inequities of life is what attracts a great many people to socialism-and not just the Jews. The tendency, however, is particularly marked among the Jews because of the factors I have already described. I will reccomend a book you may find very illuminating. It is called “The Jewish Revolutionary Tradition” by E. Michael Jones. Although extremely lengthy (over 1100 pages) it is very well written and covers the history of the Jews from Roman times into 20th century America. It has some particularly interesting chapters on English Protestantism and its connections with the Jews in the time of Queen Elizabeth. You can get it off Amazon for$30.

  • john thames:

    I follow Noahide laws. I’m Taoist.

    According to the Hebrew Bible, all humanity are descendants of Noah. Noah and his three children Shem, Ham, and Japheth survived the Flood aboard the Ark, along with their wives. Once the survivors were able to leave the ark for dry ground, they began to start new families and repopulate the earth. When Noah’s family left the Ark, God made a covenant with them. According to the Talmud, this covenant included the Seven Laws of Noah. Thus, to the B’nei Noah, all living humans, as descendants of Noah, are subject to the Noahide laws — although Jews as the chosen people have further responsibilities placed on them.

    The seven laws listed by the Talmud are[2]:

    1. Prohibition of Blasphemy: RESPECT GOD AND PRAISE HIM – Do Not Blaspheme His Name:

    When we feel disappointed with life, when things do not work out as they should, how easy it is to point an accusing finger and blame everything;even GOD. Loyalty and trust are crucial in life. To blame God, curse, or to curse others in His name, is an act of disloyalty – akin to treason. It is an act which undermines the basis of all order and stability, on which a just society must stand.

    2. Prohibition of Idolatry: BELIEF IN GOD – Do not worship Idols:

    Man, the weakest of creatures, is surrounded by forces of life and death far greater than himself. Confronted with the vastness of these universal forces, man might well try to serve them in order to protect himself, and better his lot. The essence of life, however, is to recognize the Supreme Being who created the Universe – to believe in Him and accept His laws with awe and love. We must remember that He is aware of all our deeds, rewarding goodness and punishing evil. We are dependent on Him, and to Him alone do we owe allegiance. To imagine that there could be any other power that could protect us or provide for our needs, is not only foolish, but perverts the purpose of life, and, as history has shown, potentially unleashes untold forces of evil in ourselves, and in the world.

    3. Prohibition of Sexual Immorality: RESPECT THE FAMILY – Do Not Commit Immoral Sexual Acts:

    The Bible states, It is not good for man to be alone, so God made a helpmate for Adam, the first man, and in marriage He blessed them. In a wholesome family, man’s creativity finds meaningful expression. Wholesome families are the cornerstone of healthy communities, nations, and societies. Nations which have condoned immorality – adultery, homosexuality, sodomy, incest – have never lasted long. Sexual immorality is the sign of an inner decay which spawns a ruthless society, bringing confusion into God’s life plan.

    4. Prohibition of Murder: RESPECT HUMAN LIFE – Do not murder:

    The record of man’s inhumanity to man begins with the story of Cain and Abel. Man is indeed his brother’s keeper. The prohibition against manslaughter comes to protect man from the bestial tendency which lies within him. Man the attacker, denies the sanctity of human life, and ultimately attacks God, who created us in His image.

    5. Prohibition of Theft: RESPECT FOR OTHERS RIGHTS AND PROPERTY – Do Not Steal:

    Since our sustenance comes from God, we should seek to earn it honestly, with dignity, and not through false means. To violate the property of others, by robbing or cheating, is a fundamental attack on their humanity. This breeds anarchy, plunging mankind into the depths of selfishness and cruelty. It was for this sin, above all, that the Flood was brought upon the world.

    6. Prohibition of eating the limb of a living animal: RESPECT ALL CREATURES – Do not be cruel to animals:

    God gives man dominion over the fish of the sea, the fowl of the heaven, over cattle, and over all of the earth. We are caretakers of God’s creation. Ultimately our responsibility extends beyond our family, even beyond society, to include the world of nature. Eating meat so fresh that the animal is still alive, may be healthy, but it is cruel, even barbaric, displaying a decadent insensitivity to the pain of others. This law is the touchstone, if you will, that measures how well the other six laws are being observed. When man fulfills his potential, the whole of creation is nurtured and elevated to realize its goal. This transforms the world into a beautiful gem – a place where God can dwell.

    7. Requirement to have just Laws: CREATION OF A JUDICIAL SYSTEM – Pursue justice:

    A robust and healthy legal system, administering justice fairly, creates a society worthy of God’s blessings. Establishing a system of judges, courts, and officials to maintain and enforce the law is a far-reaching responsibility. This precept translates the ideals of our personal life into a formal order for society at large. It is the extension and guarantee of all the preceding laws.

    I do think that the exclusion of “homosexuality” is inappropriate, and originates in a false idea of reproduction. In Biblical times, it was believed that the man planted a “seed” in the “fertile ground” of a woman’s womb, and this seed grew into a baby there.

    We now know differently. A male cannot plant a “seed” into a man’s “internals” and rationally expect a baby to result. Such acts are not really sexual in character.

    The Biblical prohibition is against a man laying with a man as with a woman. But this is physiologically impossible, except insofar as the man is engaging in anal intercourse with women (a popular practice in Argentina, or so I understand).

    The Bible never mentions lesbianism, because there is no imagined “seed” problem. Yet now, women can have each others’ babies via cross-chromosomal cloning.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah

    Tony

  • john thames:

    I follow Noahide laws. I’m Taoist. In Taoism, the Universe, Nature and G*d are one.

    “According to the Hebrew Bible, all humanity are descendants of Noah. Noah and his three children Shem, Ham, and Japheth survived the Flood aboard the Ark, along with their wives. Once the survivors were able to leave the ark for dry ground, they began to start new families and repopulate the earth. When Noah’s family left the Ark, God made a covenant with them. According to the Talmud, this covenant included the Seven Laws of Noah. Thus, to the B’nei Noah, all living humans, as descendants of Noah, are subject to the Noahide laws — although Jews as the ‘chosen people’ have further responsibilities placed on them.

    The seven laws listed by the Talmud are[2]:

    1. Prohibition of Blasphemy: RESPECT GOD AND PRAISE HIM – Do Not Blaspheme His Name:

    When we feel disappointed with life, when things do not work out as they should, how easy it is to point an accusing finger and blame everything;even GOD. Loyalty and trust are crucial in life. To blame God, curse, or to curse others in His name, is an act of disloyalty – akin to treason. It is an act which undermines the basis of all order and stability, on which a just society must stand.

    2. Prohibition of Idolatry: BELIEF IN GOD – Do not worship Idols:

    Man, the weakest of creatures, is surrounded by forces of life and death far greater than himself. Confronted with the vastness of these universal forces, man might well try to serve them in order to protect himself, and better his lot. The essence of life, however, is to recognize the Supreme Being who created the Universe – to believe in Him and accept His laws with awe and love. We must remember that He is aware of all our deeds, rewarding goodness and punishing evil. We are dependent on Him, and to Him alone do we owe allegiance. To imagine that there could be any other power that could protect us or provide for our needs, is not only foolish, but perverts the purpose of life, and, as history has shown, potentially unleashes untold forces of evil in ourselves, and in the world.

    3. Prohibition of Sexual Immorality: RESPECT THE FAMILY – Do Not Commit Immoral Sexual Acts:

    The Bible states, It is not good for man to be alone, so God made a helpmate for Adam, the first man, and in marriage He blessed them. In a wholesome family, man’s creativity finds meaningful expression. Wholesome families are the cornerstone of healthy communities, nations, and societies. Nations which have condoned immorality – adultery, homosexuality, sodomy, incest – have never lasted long. Sexual immorality is the sign of an inner decay which spawns a ruthless society, bringing confusion into God’s life plan.

    4. Prohibition of Murder: RESPECT HUMAN LIFE – Do not murder:

    The record of man’s inhumanity to man begins with the story of Cain and Abel. Man is indeed his brother’s keeper. The prohibition against manslaughter comes to protect man from the bestial tendency which lies within him. Man the attacker, denies the sanctity of human life, and ultimately attacks God, who created us in His image.

    5. Prohibition of Theft: RESPECT FOR OTHERS RIGHTS AND PROPERTY – Do Not Steal:

    Since our sustenance comes from God, we should seek to earn it honestly, with dignity, and not through false means. To violate the property of others, by robbing or cheating, is a fundamental attack on their humanity. This breeds anarchy, plunging mankind into the depths of selfishness and cruelty. It was for this sin, above all, that the Flood was brought upon the world.

    6. Prohibition of eating the limb of a living animal: RESPECT ALL CREATURES – Do not be cruel to animals:

    God gives man dominion over the fish of the sea, the fowl of the heaven, over cattle, and over all of the earth. We are caretakers of God’s creation. Ultimately our responsibility extends beyond our family, even beyond society, to include the world of nature. Eating meat so fresh that the animal is still alive, may be healthy, but it is cruel, even barbaric, displaying a decadent insensitivity to the pain of others. This law is the touchstone, if you will, that measures how well the other six laws are being observed. When man fulfills his potential, the whole of creation is nurtured and elevated to realize its goal. This transforms the world into a beautiful gem – a place where God can dwell.

    7. Requirement to have just Laws: CREATION OF A JUDICIAL SYSTEM – Pursue justice:

    A robust and healthy legal system, administering justice fairly, creates a society worthy of God’s blessings. Establishing a system of judges, courts, and officials to maintain and enforce the law is a far-reaching responsibility. This precept translates the ideals of our personal life into a formal order for society at large. It is the extension and guarantee of all the preceding laws.”

    I do think that the exclusion of “homosexuality” is inappropriate, and originates in a false idea of reproduction. In Biblical times, it was believed that the man planted a “seed” in the “fertile ground” of a woman’s womb, and this seed grew into a baby there.

    We now know differently. A male cannot plant a “seed” into a man’s “internals” and rationally expect a baby to result. Such acts are not really sexual in character.

    The Biblical prohibition is against a man laying with a man as with a woman. But this is physiologically impossible, except insofar as the man is engaging in anal intercourse with women (a popular practice in Argentina, or so I understand).

    The Bible never mentions lesbianism, because there is no imagined “seed” problem. Yet now, women can have each others’ babies via cross-chromosomal cloning.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah

    Tony

  • Tony:

    Th Noahide laws are an exercise in deception. The laws sound good but one must always remember that the Talmud applies one law to the Jew; another law to the non-Jew. Non-Jews are not “men”ccording to Talmudic law. They are beasts in human form, “like the issue of an ass”. One must always bear this fundamental Talmudic deception in mind before taking eyewash like the Noahide laws at face value.

  • john thames:

    So now you have “windows into the mind” of Jews?? If you really did, you would know that you are talking nonsense.

    If you don’t, you cannot adduce poaitions to others that are contrary to their public statements.

    First you say that “Jews” have stated their intentions publicly. Then you do a 180 degree turnabout, and say there is a “secret agenda.”

    Make up your mind: which is it?

    Tony

  • Tony:

    I am afraid that you do not understand the Jews at all.

    Let me explain. The true nature of the Talmudic passages has been known for centuries. Many learned Christian Hebraists during the Middle Ages studied them at great length. Examples are Martin Luther, Johannes Eisenmenger, Johannes Buxdorf, etc. Numerous converted Jews, such as Nicholas Donin, Rabbi Pfferkorn and, in our own day, the late Professor Israel Shahak, have all documented the true nature of the Talmud. It is true that in courtroom trials of the Talmud in the 19th century, such as in the case of August Rohling and the priest Father Pranaitis in Czarist Russia, the anti-semites have sometimes embarrased themselves. This is because the anti-semitic scribe usually studies only the odious anti-gentile passage but does not study the entire Talmud. This allows the Jews to show the critic’s ignorance of the Talmud and allows the Jews to claim that the critic is taking passages out of context. Nevertheless, there is not the slightest doubt that the Talmudic scriptures do contain the anti-gentile passages alleged. If you consult the Pranaitis translation, “The Talmud Exposed” or Benjamin Freedman’s little pamphlet, “Facts Are Facts: The Truth About Khazars”, you will find all the incredible passages. Thus, there are passages about taking the virginity of three year old girls, non-Jewish women fucking farm animals, mothers making it with nine year old sons, women menstuating over wine casks, lying and cheating of non-Jews explicitly condoned, non-Jews as nothing more than the beasts of the field , the wonders of excrement, Jesus of Nazareth being burned in hot excrement for all eternity, etc. It is psychopathic in the extreme.

    For many centuries the Jews would not translate the Talmud out of the ancient languages of Hebrew and Aramaic. The reasons are obvious. They also adopted the interesting technique of teaching the more outrageous passages only orally because they were too dangerous to write down, particularly in a Christian age where too many learned men read Hebrew, a condition which no longer obtains. In the 1930’s the Jews translated the Talmud into English for the first time. This was the Soncino press edition of the Talmud, presided over and edited by the chief rabbi of England, J.H. Hertz. They made the translation, I think, for two reasons. Too many Jews could no longer read Hebrew and Jewish political and commercial power had reached the point that critics no longer need be feared. The ugly passages in the Soncino translation (reissued in the early 1960’s) may be found, verbatim, in the Freedman booklet previously mentioned. I personally found the 26 or so volumes of the Soncino translation in a library and verified the accuracy of Freedman’s translation, word for word. (I think maybe one comma or semi-colon was out of place.)

    So you see, Tony, my allegations about the Talmud are perfectly true. Now, as to your allegation that I am seeking to have the argument both ways. Actually, you would be better advised to apply this objection to the Jews claiming a vast Nazi extermination of “six million” of their tribesmen. On the one hand, the Jews claim that the Nazi extermination program was so super secret that no one knew about it during the war. Then, they argue that the Nazis were simultaneously proclaiming from the roof tops in their public speeches that the Germans were going to “Aussrotung” (eliminate Jewish influence, not murder) all the Jews. That is a great way to keep a secret, don’t you think?

    There are many such inconsistencies. The “supersecret” camp of Auschwitz was located in the middle of Polish farmland. with a clear view inside the camp through the fences. Very secretive, obviously. Free Polish labor was employed in the camp and every day they could go home and tell the world about the exterminations which were supposedly taking place. Brilliant. Real security, that. Numerous underground intelligence groups existed among the prisoners. They regularly reported to their governments-in-exile about what was going on in the camps by radio and carrier pigeon. Not once did they report any “gassings”. Truly amazing “intelligence”, Tony.

    I shall not belabor the point further. Now, as to my supposed inconsistent position on Jews. Jews do indeed have an agenda for creating a global society where racial homogeneity is effectively destroyed and outlawed. If you will check the race and “hatred” laws in the British isles, you will discover that in the UK, as elsewhere, all such laws have been proposed and enforced by Jews. Again, for the documentation, go to the relevant chapters in Professor MacDonald’s book, “Culture of Critique”. (Or, read the literature of the BNP. I am sure they have more complete information on the political situation there than I do.) Jews provably do have an agenda. Jews also make many damning admissions in their own reference works because few individuals read those reference works. Even when they do, they do not “connect the dots” or realize the enormous, enormous implications of what they are reading. (Rather like you.)

    Information, Tony, exists at two levels. There is the info for the masses which appears in the newspapers and on the TV. That is the level of information which informs peoples “minds”. Then there is the suppressed information which the Jews can aford to let out because it is basically for “their eyes only”. The few goyim who pry into the forbidden secrets and who see “the big picture” may be safely disregarded. No one will listen to them or understand what they are saying. (Witness you.)

    I trust this clarifies my position. I do hope you will go back and re-read this debate from start to finish. If you do, you will see that I have an iron clad case. And even if you do not see it, perhaps other readers of this blog will.

    Best.

  • john thames:

    You say:

    (Or, read the literature of the BNP. I am sure they have more complete information on the political situation there than I do.)

    Now I know you’re just kidding with us.

    Tony

  • Tony:

    I am not kidding at all.

    I note that nothing substantive was said about the rest of my comments. The “gas chamber/extermination” story is full of holes. As to the Jews, everything I say about them is provably true. Consult their own reference works. The documentation is voluminous.

    Happy Thanksgiving.

  • Happy Thanksgiving, all!

    Regards,

    Tony

  • Tony:

    I read an article that you published in “Free Life” in 1993 regarding a Mr. Baron which raised certain issues I believe should be addressed. Some of the comments made there seem to be affecting your thinking now.

    First, you assert that based on their general behaviour, that the Germans would be likely to commit mass murder. It seems to me, on the basis of provable historical facts, that the English would be far more likely to committ mass murder. After all, the English have a far more criminal record than the Germans-with or without Adolf Hitler. English imperialism has been extremely ruthless throughout the centuries. The English have raped Ireland for centuries. They then blame the Irish, rather like the Zionists blame the Palestinians. Oliver Cromwell, on every count, was more ruthless than Hitler. His massacre at Drogheda and the subsequent expulsion of the native Irish Catholics from their estates to starve on the bare rocks far exceeded the humane conditions for well-fed, interned Jews during WW2. British rule in India consisted of robbing the Indians blind while filling the coffers of England. Millions of Indians were probably starved to death in the process. The Dutch in South Africa were treated to the tender mercies of Herbert Lord Kitchener, who threw Boer women and children into bestial camps to die of disease and starvation (25,000 of them did). Two criminal wars against China in the 1840’s and 1860’s hooked millions of Chinese on opium before drug running became a crime. Innumerable Spanish galleons were raided on the high seas by English pirates and their crews routinely executed. The British were responsible for the mass starvation of civilians during WW1 through their naval blockade. In WW2 the British initiated the bombing of civilians as a deliberate policy of terror. They were responsible for burning over a million civilians to death with phosphorous and incendiary bombs with temperatures reaching as high as 1400 degrees Fahrenheit. That makes fake “gassing” by Zyklon B look merciful by comparison. (And please do not tell me that the Germans started the bombing of civilians. They did not. The British government itself admitted it in a little book called “Science and Government” published bacik in 1960. Siege operations of cities, whether by air or artillery, such as Antwerp, do not constitute deliberate attacks on civilians. They are ancillary to the military assault on a defended target. The deliberate targeting of civilians as such to terrorize the enemy was started by the British. That is a firmly established fact.)

    The Germans look rather mild when compared to the English. The French prospered under the German occupation. The Irish did not prosper under the English. When the potato crop failed in the mid-nineteenth century, a quarter of the population of Ireland perished as English absentee land lords looked on with indifference. (The English are such a humane, genteel people.) Many of the rest fled to America to escape the blessings of English rule. The English have a record of tyrrany and oppression all over the globe dating back centuries which dwarfs any actual or alleged brutality attributable to the Germans. You might read “The Vampire of the Continent” by Count Ernst Vom Rezentlow for a purely factual description of the crimes of the British Empire cleansed of the usual limey apologetic polish and varnish.

    Now to your claim that “Holocaust Denial” rests on a paranoid base of conspiracy theory. You stated that you found it impossible to believe that the British and American governments would go along with the Jews in such a conspiracy. I find your reasoning ultra-naive. It is a little bit like Hollywood, Tony. It is well-known that actresses have long had to get down on their knees and perform a little service for Jewish producers to get their parts. It does not get reported because the unwritten rule in Hollywood is that if you blab about the price of fame and fortune, you do not work-ever again. It is that simple. Representatives of governments which are deeply in debt to Jewish international banking firms which can destroy them by cutting off the money flow have a big incentive to “go along”, don’t they? Besides, it was very expedient for the English, who concocted all those fairy tales about handless Belgian babies, to go along with a hoax which would cover up their own crimes by pointing the finger at the Germans. I have already mentioned that the English started the terror bombing of civilians. Both the English and the Americans were deeply implicated in Operation Keelhaul, under which over a million Russian and Cossack refugees were repatriated back to Joseph Stalin to be murdered. Dwight Eisenhower personally murdered over a million German soldiers after they had surrendered by deliberately starving them in his camps for “Disarmed Enemy Forces”. Under the circumstances playing ball with the Yids by going along with a hoax of a murdered “six million” might look attractive.

    Of course, the hoax did allow the Zionists to transfer a great many very much alive, non-exterminated Jews from behind the Jewish communist Iron Curtain countries to invade Arab Palestine-and drive both the British and Arabs out. And there we have another problem with your naivete, Tony. If the Germans actually did kill “six million”, where did all of these very much alive Jews come from? Why, one-half to two-thirds of them had been evacuated by the Red Army ahead of the German advance into the interior of the Soviet Union where they hid out the war.

    You obviously do not like conspiracy theories. Neither do I. So many of them are nonsense. But the hard truth is that if the “six million” fable is a hoax, then one conspiracy theory happens to be true. Deal with it.

    Happy holidays.

  • I have read this debate with interest. Whilst I am not totally persuaded to either point of view, there is a fact that has intrigued me and has taken on more significance as I have studied the history of the Palestinian situation.

    That the colonization of Palestine was carefully planned and executed is well established and evidenced in the Zionist diaries and documents that have been discovered by the new historians Benny Morris, Ilan Pappé, Avi Shlaim, Tom Segev, Hillel Cohen.

    The aspect of the conquest/colonization process that has received scant attention is simply this.

    A relatively small, well organized military force is perfectly capable of capturing territory and terrorizing its rightful owners out of possession but it is not capable of holding that territory as the numerically superior dispossessed become organized into a viable force. To hold territory, it is necessary to recruit a population to settle the land.

    My curiosity regards this matter was first aroused when I became aware of the collaboration between certain Zionists, the Irgun (or Lehi as it was then known) and the Nazi regime. This is well documented- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(group)

    Lenni Brenner also deals with this comprehensively in his “Zionism in the Age of the Dictators” http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/

    I do not subscribe to a conspiracy of Jews as such but I can see very clearly how Zionists might have had a very strong interest in fostering the Holocaust narrative both during and after the War and in encouraging Jews to abandon their domiciles in Europe and the Middle East in order to buttress the conquest of Palestine subsequently.

    The Lavon affair
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair
    ..bolsters this theory as does the account given by Naim Giladi:
    http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/occupation/ameu_iraqjews.html

    The evidence for a Hitler-sanctioned genocide is scant. The accounts of “witnesses” such as Weizel are problematic, being fraught with inconsistency and sprinkled with accounts of the physically impossible. The photographic record is consistent with either deliberate maltreatment or the disease and starvation caused by the breakdown of a whole society in the course of a devastating defeat. We know that Typhus was rife in the camps.

    It seems to me that at the conclusion of WWII there existed a confluence of interest in furthering the Holocaust narrative.
    Britain had to justify civilian bombing and the loss of its treasure, Zionism leveraged off the outpouring of sympathy to eclipse any objection to its ambitions in Palestine. Zionists were influential in the U.S. The U.S. had its own excesses to excuse.

    Some cite the Nuremberg trials as evidence of the Holocaust yet Chief Justice of the United States, Harlan Fiske Stone called the Nuremberg trials a fraud. Associate Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas charged that the Allies were guilty of “substituting power for principle” at Nuremberg. “I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled,” he wrote. “Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials
    There is evidence that the testimony of Hoess was obtained through torture and threats to his family. His confession to the murder of 2,5000,000 is now known to be more than twice the most generous estimate of the deaths at Auschwitz during its entire existence, let alone during his tenure. He subsequently recanted his confession.

    Many believe the Holocaust narrative because its antithesis, a widespread conspiracy, is not credible. Yet those same people have no difficulty believing that thousands of Germans who supposedly witnessed the atrocities all lied when they denied all knowledge of such events. Surely this represents a “conspiracy” of equal magnitude.

    From where I sit, there is sufficient conjecture surrounding these matters so as to make the prohibition of investigation and expressed opinion not simply unwise but harmful to the proper examination of our history and thus, our knowledge of ourselves.

  • Mr. Johns comments are well taken.

    The history of Zionism is sufficient proof in itself of organized Jewish power at work. The key point here is that many groups had an incentive to go along with the “six million” swindle. As in the case of FDR lying the US into WW2, there was his personal incentive in solving the depression, the efforts of the British to get the US in and the efforts of the Jews. Many groups with overlapping objectives were working toward the same ends. So too with the “gas chamber” hoax.

  • john thames:

    My reasons for accepting the reality of Shoah have little to do with accepting the relative efficacy of any one method in the efforts of the SS “Genocide” faction.

    It’s the overall picture that we have to look for. That great crimes were committend by the Powers of the British Empire rather proves the point that evil deeds on such a scale are hardly limited to Germans.

    Nearly every Jewish family lost relatives. Continuous efforts are in progress at Yad Vashem and elsewhere to identify those who were killed, and document their history. You fail to specify any ascertainable fact that can prove your thesis to be false.

    If I offered to pay for you to visit Yad Vashem, would you accept?

    Some of us want to know the truth, so as to prevent any such catastrophe from happening again.

    You seem to be saying: “It didn’t happen (but it probably should have).”

    Tony

  • I’ll keep out of this one, me!

    That there clearly was such a thing as the “holocaust” (terrible word for it, i think i back Tony with “Shoah”) is beyond doubt.

    The point is being missed by everyone here. It should not be a crime to deny that it occurred, even though it did.

    That’s it. Sorry.

  • Tony:

    I will agree that crimes have been committed by all nations and all groups, although I do believe, as an American with a bad case of Andrew Jackson syndrome, that the dear old English are in a class by themselves, like the Jews. I do find it amusing that you should invoke Yad Vashem as “proof” of the Holocaust. Even the Yad Vashem itself has admitted that its documentation of real “provable” Jewish deaths falls far short of the fabled “six million”. The basic approach by the Jews is to assert that because many Jews disappeared or lost contact with each other during WW2 that therefore they were murdered by the Germans. Sorry. It won’t wash. Again and again, since the war, we have been treated to Jews supposedly dead, miraculously having survived. With so many survivors,it is difficult to determine exactly how many Jews did die. Undoubtedly it was a lot but more probably closer to one to two million, not the claimed “six million”.

    It is also clear that disappearance or relocation does not prove extermination. As previously pointed out, huge numbers of Jews were relocated east of the Ural mountains to work in the Soviet arms factories during the war. After the war many remained in Russia, deliberately undercounted by the Soviet regime for political reasons. Some of these Jews poured into Palestine to invade the Arabs, others relocated to the New World disguised as Hungarians, Poles, etc. One technique in the process of obfuscation has been to overcount the Jews in their countries of departure and undercount them in their destinations of arrival. This reduces the number of survivors and increases the alleged kill totals back home. But the entire subject of statistical manipulation is extremely complicated because of the doctored data. I reccomend to you Walter Sanning’s book “The Dissolution of European Jewry” for a highly competent study of the question.

    As to the claim that I think there should have been an extermination of Jews, that is overstating my feelings on the subject. I think it wiser to take a historically informed view of the matter, rather than descend to the level of emotion and revenge. Why did the Germans and other Eastern European peoples go after the Jews? The reasons obviously had to do with the overwhelming Jewish responsibility for communism and its mass murders. Other reasons pertained to the Jewish manipulations at the Paris Peace Conference, where the League of Nations, the minorities treaties and the “mandate” over Palestine, Jewish schemes all, were launched. Given these political realities, an anti-Jewish reaction was inevitable. These views were very common in the United Kingdom after WW1, Tony. You can read the old articles in “The Morning Post” edited by Mr. Gwynne, for just one example.

    I trust this clarifies my position.

  • Since this is a libertarian blog, I think it only fair to point out that the late Murray Rothbard was a convinced Holocaust Denier. He also freely admitted that Jews were, in fact, responsible for communism.

  • john thames:

    Murray Rothbard had bizarre views on many issues. It is entirely within keeping that he should espouse “Holocaust Denial”, since he came from the “Old Right” milieu which opposed US intervention in WWI and WWII. He was also vehemently anti-British.

    If any further proof were to be required, Rothbard’s stated principles permit the personal ownership of nuclear weapons. Indeed, his principles provide no possible means whereby nukes could be prohibited.

    Rothbard’s “lieutenant” Mark Brady distributed some of the worst examples of “Holocaust Denial” pamphlets on a commercial basis. Nothing that Rothbardians do surprises me anymore…

    Tony

  • Tony:

    I, too, belong to the “old right”. I also think the US should have stayed out of both world wars. I am also not overly fond of the British who, in my judgement, were and still are a lot worse than Germans. I have never seen the Brady pamphlets. I doubt that they would add anything to my knowledge of the subject.

    As to bizzare views, I am no advocate of nuclear weapons or even B-29 bombing raids. I merely point out that many individuals of many ideological persuasions are beginning to see through the “six million” story which has no actual evidence in its support. If youthink I have presented no evidence against the story, I can only suggest that you re-read the essays with which I started this discussion. The arguments are still valid.

    Merry Christmas

  • john thames:

    And a Merry Christmas to you.

    I’m not advocating a “six million Jews wre gassed” story. I’m defending the historical reality of Shoah, which is true whether the numbers who died were six million or two million. Whatever the means whereby they were killed. Millions of the most talented, creative, sublimely gifted people the world has ever seen.

    Millions of people who — perhaps like you and I — don’t always ‘fit in’ too well. The loss to the Arts and Sciences is incalculable. As is the loss to us all of all the dead in all the wars.

    When one person dies, a Universe dies with them.

    “For the Truth is past all commiseration.” — Maxim Gorky

    Tony

  • Gentlemen.

    Let me add that it is refreshing to engage in a debate of this kind that is free of the rancor and name calling that usually accompanies this subject.

    I am a lapsed Libertarian who has come to recognize what I perceive to be the value of Social Capital but that is an entirely different debate.

    As an older New Zealand citizen (I am 60) I became involved in on-line debate via a purely local matter just over two years ago, shortly before Israel attacked Lebanon. A fellow History buff and I who take coffee together most days were discussing the subject and I turned to the internet to clear up a few matters. By chance I happened upon this essay:
    http://www.bidstrup.com/zionism.htm
    …and my World got turned around.

    I was so astonished by this essay that I had to establish for myself the facts of the matter.

    Since that time I have spent most of my leisure tracing the facts of Israel’s re-birth in 1948, sourcing first-hand accounts and documents where possible and discussing it on-line.

    There is a very strange thing that happens to people who pursue this task. First the field becomes wider. One is drawn into ancient history examining the basis of the Historical claim to the land of Israel – a claim that is, in my view, spurious. One examines the genetics of the peoples concerned, the religions……and on and on.
    Along the way the Holocaust intrudes and one gains the impression that it is an integral part of the justification for the clearance of a large part of Palestine. It is impossible to research Jewish History without becoming exposed to various sites, some not considered very savory, that expound alternative views concerning WWII.

    I assure you that I was the last person one would expect to become interested in what most refer to as “denial” of well accepted history, a phenomenon I associated with “skinheads” and “National Front” people.

    It was in a quest for information primarily to defeat some of the revisionist claims that I became aware that many respected historians – Liddell-Hart, Trevor-Roper, even Jewish historians like Raoul Hilberg to name a few, had published material at variance with the established narrative. I also became acquainted with the work of Ilan Pappe and the “new historians of Israel.

    There is a great deal about the Holocaust or Shoah as it has been depicted that demands investigation. It is not my intention to expound on it here and it would serve no good purpose. It is best explored for oneself. It is, however, the altar on which a people has been sacrificed – a people who took no part in the War and who had lived peacefully for centuries with Jewish people in their midst.
    Zionism is a racist ideology that borders on the genocidal. Most Jews neither espouse it or even understand it. Most are just like the rest of us. We accept the world-view of our fathers and act on fears, opportunities and received wisdom.

    In the early part of the twentieth century, the Zionist movement had one overwhelming problem – how to motivate sufficient people to leave their homes and migrate to the land they wished to colonize. There were very powerful people involved in the movement, people who had the ear of the British and American Governments and free reign over the popular press.
    I have not gone so far down this path as to assert that these people manipulated War so as to achieve their ends but I can see how, given their ambitions, the conditions of War, the camps and the aftermath presented an opportunity to promote their cause.

  • Mr. Johns is correct that a true reading of the history of Zionism opens the door to many mysteries. When the student penetrates those mysteries he begins to understand that there is a supra-national force which transcends all ideologies. This is probably why the true history of Zionism is so little understood. Very powerful vested interests have good cause to see that it remains misunderstood.

    As Mr. John’s says, the true facts on Zionism are best left to the individual student to discover. They are so drastically at variance with the perceived reality of the world that no honest mind, upon reading them, can come to any conclusion other than that they constitute a “missing link” of transcendental importance. No one can have any reasonably accurate view of the world without knowledge of them. I do not wish to toot my own horn too loudly but I do have considerable knowledge of the subject. I reccomend to one and all my essay “The Fraud of Zionism” to be found on the Radio Islam website. I welcome any comments on it.

    As to the true nature of “The Holocaust” I think the relevant point is that a war time hardship has been converted into an uniquely horrible event. It has then been used for purposes of manipulation to the detriment of the rest of humanity. I regard that as both a civil and criminal fraud. Until the fraud is exposed and the perpetrators punished, the situation will only get worse. Of course, exposure of the fraud also entails big dangers as the reaction by a swindled world is likely to be severe. The true danger point is the behaviour of the state of Israel. If Israel creates an all-out war in the Middle East, then exposure of the hoax would taint all Jews with the crimes of Zionism. The Sarajevo which could result from that might be catastrophic indeed.

  • I took a look at the Bistrup essay. It is quite good. The piece is well researched and historically accurate. As to the proposed solution, I do not think it has a chance. Unfortunately, after the world can no longer tolerate Israel’s wars and provocations any longer, I think it will come down to the Roman General Titus approach. That is unfortunate but I suspect that Professor Tony Judd would agree with me.

  • I neglected to mention that Bidstrup’s solution is not only impractical but unjust. One does not study this problem very long before coming to the conclusion that, painful though it may be, the time honoured remedy of a single state, one man one vote, represents the only possible way forward.

    I am not so convinced of a backlash of catastrophic proportions. History seems to demonstrate that, despite their discovery, the most extraordinary crimes may go unpunished if the perpetrators are succeeded by those of similar bent. The soon to retire occupants of the corridors of power in the United States would not survive a trial based on the principles established at Nuremberg for example.

    An indication that Israel is at present seeking to consolidate its position and sacrifice further territorial ambition for the nonce can be found in Olmert’s recent utterances.

    The most likely future, in my view, is that Israel will enter the conciliatory phase that it has adopted whenever public opinion begins to turn – lip service will be paid to a new initiative like Camp David, Oslo etc which appeal to the uninformed. The dispossessed, who are all too aware of the injustice of such “solutions” will continue the resistance and suffer the the chagrin of being branded “terrorist” and the cycle will begin again. Israel will once again be portrayed as the victim to a new generation and others will have to rediscover the history. The slogan “never again” is profound in its irony.

    The internet offers some hope. What is available to us now was never on offer when I was a student. In my day we simply accepted what the newspapers told us. The utterances of Ben-Gurion, Dayan, Meir etc were not widely reported. I list some of them here for readers who have perhaps not been so curious as to seek them out.

    “We must expel Arabs and take their places.”
    — David Ben Gurion, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985.

    “There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?”
    — Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp. 121-122.

    “Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.”

    — David Ben Gurion, quoted in The Jewish Paradox, by Nahum Goldmann, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1978, p. 99.

    “Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves … politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves… The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country.”
    — David Ben Gurion, quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky’s Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan’s “Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.

    “If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel.”
    — David Ben-Gurion (Quoted on pp 855-56 in Shabtai Teveth’s Ben-Gurion in a slightly different translation).

    “There is no such thing as a Palestinian people… It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn’t exist.”
    — Golda Meir, statement to The Sunday Times, 15 June, 1969.

    “How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to.”
    — Golda Meir, March 8, 1969.

    “Any one who speaks in favor of bringing the Arab refugees back must also say how he expects to take the responsibility for it, if he is interested in the state of Israel. It is better that things are stated clearly and plainly: We shall not let this happen.”
    — Golda Meir, 1961, in a speech to the Knesset, reported in Ner, October 1961

    “This country exists as the fulfillment of a promise made by God Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its legitimacy.”
    — Golda Meir, Le Monde, 15 October 1971

    “We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?’ Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said ‘Drive them out!”
    — Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979.

    “[Israel will] create in the course of the next 10 or 20 years conditions which would attract natural and voluntary migration of the refugees from the Gaza Strip and the west Bank to Jordan. To achieve this we have to come to agreement with King Hussein and not with Yasser Arafat.”
    — Yitzhak Rabin (a “Prince of Peace” by Clinton’s standards), explaining his method of ethnically cleansing the occupied land without stirring a world outcry. (Quoted in David Shipler in the New York Times, 04/04/1983 citing Meir Cohen’s remarks to the Knesset’s foreign affairs and defense committee on March 16.)

    “[The Palestinians] are beasts walking on two legs.”

    — Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, “Begin and the ‘Beasts,”‘ New Statesman, June 25, 1982.

    “The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized …. Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever.”
    — Menachem Begin, the day after the U.N. vote to partition Palestine.

    “The past leaders of our movement left us a clear message to keep Eretz Israel from the Sea to the River Jordan for future generations, for the mass aliya (=Jewish immigration), and for the Jewish people, all of whom will be gathered into this country.”
    — Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir declares at a Tel Aviv memorial service for former Likud leaders, November 1990. Jerusalem Domestic Radio Service.

    “The settlement of the Land of Israel is the essence of Zionism. Without settlement, we will not fulfill Zionism. It’s that simple.”
    — Yitzhak Shamir, Maariv, 02/21/1997.

    “(The Palestinians) would be crushed like grasshoppers … heads smashed against the boulders and walls.”
    — Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) Yitzhak Shamir in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988

    “Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories.”
    — Benyamin Netanyahu, then Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, former Prime Minister of Israel, speaking to students at Bar Ilan University, from the Israeli journal Hotam, November 24, 1989.

    “If we thought that instead of 200 Palestinian fatalities, 2,000 dead would put an end to the fighting at a stroke, we would use much more force….”
    — Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, quoted in Associated Press, November 16, 2000.

    “I would have joined a terrorist organization.”
    — Ehud Barak’s response to Gideon Levy, a columnist for the Ha’aretz newspaper, when Barak was asked what he would have done if he had been born a Palestinian.

    “It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands.”

    — Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.

    “Everybody has to move, run and grab as many (Palestinian) hilltops as they can to enlarge the (Jewish) settlements because everything we take now will stay ours…Everything we don’t grab will go to them.”
    — Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of the Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, Nov. 15, 1998.

    “Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial.”

    — Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 25 March, 2001 quoted in BBC News Online

  • Edward Johns:

    If you peer into the origins of almost any country on Earth, you’ll find the same sorry story. Mankind spread all over the planet at around a kilometer a year.

    Thereafter, tribes and groups of tribes warred with each other for possession of territory. As countries establish themselves, they paint their history in flattering shades. They omit embarrassments. Even New Zealand (a fine country) has its history (as do the Maori tribes who were there when European settlers arrived).

    That most Zionists turned down all alternatives to the land of Israel shows that they considered themselves to have a valid historical claim. It’s “Where we came from; where we belong.”

    Suppose for a moment that each Zionist had presented him- and herself as refugees from a hostile world. As refugees, they would have been entitled to refuge. This does not entitle anyone to behave badly. But it does entitle them to be there.

    Tony

  • john thames:

    If you don’t mind, Professor Tony Judd should be permitted to make his own positions clear, rather than having you put words he hasn’t spoken into his mouth.

    Tony

  • “If you peer into the origins of almost any country on Earth, you’ll find the same sorry story. Mankind spread all over the planet at around a kilometer a year.”

    If you use history in this manner you will be able to justify whatever barbaric behaviour you wish – torture, slavery, murder and mayhem.

    Justifying Zionism in this manner is an admission that the process, begun in the twentieth century and continuing to this day, is precisely the same as the conquests and genocides of the past. This pretty much confirms the thesis that most of us espouse.

    As to the “Historical claim”, it is quite frankly non-existent. See:
    http://mondediplo.com/2008/09/07israel

    Even if one accepts Scripture as History, the occupation and rule of Palestine by people of Judaic faith consists of about 70 years out of some 3,000 recorded. As Erich From said:
    “If all nations would suddenly claim territory in which their forefathers had lived 2000 years ago, this world would be a madhouse.”

    In New Zealand’s case, our founding document is the Treaty of Waitangi, enshrined in law. My own family is of mixed European/Maori blood, our current Parliament has Maori members in greater proportion than the general populace and many more of mixed race. We regret the injustices of the past and have made reparations where possible. Contrast this with the situation in Palestine where the occupation and ethnic cleansing is ongoing. If the New Zealand model were adopted in that land, I would be contentedly tending my garden instead of debating this vexatious issue.

    “That most Zionists turned down all alternatives to the land of Israel shows that they considered themselves to have a valid historical claim.”

    Not so. It may equally indicate that the land of Israel was what they wanted.

    “Suppose for a moment that each Zionist had presented him- and herself as refugees from a hostile world. As refugees, they would have been entitled to refuge. This does not entitle anyone to behave badly. But it does entitle them to be there.”

    Once again this is logically absurd. The first entitlement would be a return to their pre-war domicile in peace and security. To demand possession of the homes of an innocent third party cannot, by any principle, be justified.
    In point of fact, post-war Palestine was a far less secure environment for Jews than post-war Europe.

  • Edward Johns:

    You completely miss two key points.

    [1] Refugees are entitled to refuge anywhere.

    [2] New Zealand is now a Westernized English-speaking country, not a Maori country.

    Tony

  • First, a reply to Tony Hollick.

    Tony Judd did indeed make those comments. I heard him say so on a TV interview. As to the rights of refugees, the fact that the Germans dispossessed the Jews in Europe does not give the Jews the right to help themselves to Arab Palestine. If a man has his home burned down, that does not give him the right to my home. Sorry.

    Mr. Johns is exceedingly well informed on the true nature of the Zionist state and has obviously read many of the same refernce works that I have. His propsals for solving the problem are, I believe, somewhat naive. Whether one is discussing a unitary state or partition or some other proposal, these are all essentially reversions to the British White Papers of the 1920’s through 1940’s. If these proposals were unworkable then, they are surely no more workable now. The very best solution would be for the US to cut off all financial and military aid to Israel. Confronted with the choice between economic strangulation and reform, the Jews would have little choice but to reform. That will not happen because of the enormous economic and political influence which Jews enjoy in the United States. Thus, the problem will ultimately be settled through the methods of the Roman legions. That is unfortunate, because an all out war in the region would inevitably drag in the US, the Russians and probably the Chinese. The Christian-Zionist psychopaths with their dreams of Armageddon would have a field day.

    Mr. Johns, I think, confuses tactical maneuvers with long term Zionist goals. It has always been a Zionist ambition from the days of Theodore Herzl to create a Jewish state from the Nile to the Euphrates. One can find old maps in the office of Joseph Burg, the Jewish National Fund director, illustrating this very well. There is opposition among the Israeli public but they are not in control of the situation, anymore than the more rational elements among the Jewish population were in control of the Bar Kochba revolt. The whole mess shall explode in disaster and I am afraid that reverting to old British proposals of the ’20’s through ’40’s shall do little to change it. I was re-reading Richard Crossman’s old book, “Palestine Mission” last night. It struck me in reading his well-informed account how little things have changed since then. The irreconcilables are still in place and the light at the end of the tunnel is nowhere to be seen.

  • john thames:

    When two groups demand the same ine thing, there is bound to be conflict. But this does not mean there HAS to be _unmanageable_ conflict.

    It is possible to contemplate a United States of Israel and Palestine, with ironclad international and internal Constitutional guarantees which protect the UDHR Rights of both Arabs and Israelis against attacks from within and without. Each State would have full rights to protect its nationals within their respective territories.

    Supranational institutions would protect the continuing existence of each State and its peoples.

    The difficult issues of property claims and boundaries could be more readily resolved by impartial arbitrators acting upon generally-agreed and rational abstract principles.

    Two principles are required to be implemented:

    [1] Both Arabs and Israelis have a right to reside in the region:

    [2] Both Arabs and Israelis have fully enforceable Human Rights.

    Once upon a time, such ideas would have seemed Utopian for Europeans. Now, they are a commonplace, and European people live, work and prosper where and as they please. NATO fully and effectively protects the Continent.

    This came to pass because people loved their children more than they hated their enemies. It can come to pass in the Middle East also. For Israelis and for Arabs.

    Tony

  • Mr Hollick.

    “[1] Refugees are entitled to refuge anywhere.”

    I refer you to the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees:
    http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/o_c_ref.htm

    …..which contains no such provision. It does contain this however:

    Article 2. General obligations

    Every refugee has duties to the country in which he finds himself, which require in particular that he conform to its laws and regulations as well as to measures taken for the maintenance of public order.

    I am somewhat persuaded that the setting up of a “Jewish State” by refugees in Palestine might run counter to this article.

    “[2] New Zealand is now a Westernized English-speaking country, not a Maori country.”

    The official name for New Zealand is “Aotearoa New Zealand” and it has three official languages – Maori (Te Reo), English and Sign language.
    If the above statement was made in any public forum, court or Parliament there would be a huge outcry and possible legal consequences.

    Mr Thames.

    We are probably closer than the impression my rather clumsy use of the rather quaint term “nonce” might have allowed.
    What I meant was that Israel will enter a temporary conciliatory phase until the heat dies down then recommence the conquest of territory.
    In my view, the withdrawal of U.S. support would bring about a single state – the reform you speak about. Israel would be forced to give up its special pleading for a race-based state and adopt the multi-cultural model that most of us enjoy.

    Interesting how this brings us back to the topic. Why is it that America has not only accepted racism but supports it in just this one case?

    The answer is of course because of the Holocaust. In other words, because Jews suffered from racism, they should have license to practice it. This is untenable. The remedy for racism is its prohibition.

  • As to the Jewish “historic right” to Palestine, I offer a little satire which I call :

    The State of Abdullah

    The Arab Zionists are demanding a state in Jewish Palestine. They base this claim on Arthur James Balfour’s famous declaration which provides that an “Arab national home shall be created in Palestine provided that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights (say nothing about the political and economic rights) of the existing indigeneous non-Arab population (a circumlocution meaning the soon to be dispossessed Jews)”. The Arab mandate is set up over the objections of the Jews while Chaim Abdullah in England is announcing that “Palestine is to become as Arab as England is English”. The Arabs start immigrating to Palestine in great numbers while the native Jews start rioting, fearing what is coming. The imperial English, mindful of their duties, send out one investigating commission after another to resolve matters. The reports unanimously conclude that the problem is Jewish fear that the Arabs really do want an Arab state-and that they will expel the poor Jews into the desert once sufficient Arab numbers have been achieved. The Jews remain unpersuaded by British assurances. They can see what is coming. The British are not to be trusted. They have already repudiated the promises they made in October 1915 in the famous Hymie-McMahon correspondence. If the English are tricky enough to redraw lines on a map, why would their “dual obligation” to both the Jews and the Arab Zionists be any more trustworthy?

    The Arabs begin accumulating vast stores of arms and ammunition during WW2 while the British are busy saving the world from Joseph Stalin and giving exile to Haj-Amin al-Trotsky. After the war the Arab Zionists begin assassinating and blowing up English officials and soldiers right and left. The British, bankrupt and properly intimidated, flee the country. The Arab Zionists, properly reinforced by arms from the “Arab commissars” of Czechoslovakia, make war on the overwhelmed Jews and drive 700,000 of them into the Jordanian desert. There is the famous massacre at Deir Yassein, where the Arab Zionists slaughter the Jews and disembowel their women and children to induce panic in the Jewish population.

    The state of Abdullah is announced to the world on May 15, 1948. Moslems around the world rejoice as the Prophet’s people now have a land of their own, 1200 years after the end of the Arab-Khazar wars. Only the Jews kicked into the desert think otherwise.

    By,
    John Bagot Glubb
    Commander of the Zionist Legion of Arabia

  • Although this is a discussion of the holocaust, Zionism and related issues, I would like to be clear about one thing: I am a racist or, more precisely, I believe in the benefits of racial, ethnic and cultural homogeneity. I abhor multi-culturalism and all the follies which result from it. A people of one blood do not suffer from all the conflicts which result from the mixing of incompatible groups. This does not mean that I support naked power grabs like the Zionist theft of a little Arab land. The problems which have resulted from that are obvious to anyone. Did not the old King-Crane Commission report of 1919 submitted to PresidentWoodrow Wilson prophecy precisely the events which came later?

    I think much like Patrick Buchanan who loves white America as intensely as he dislikes the Israel-uber-alles lobby. It is, of course, the Jews who wish to destroy white rule in America at the same time they wish to impose Zionist rule on the Arabs. I believe the Arabs have as much right to be free from Jewish colonization as white Americans have the right to be free from Mexicans and other races invading their land. In fact, I would say that Palestinians and white Americans have the same enemy-Khazar Zionists.

  • At this point I must concede a division:

    “A people of one blood do not suffer from all the conflicts which result from the mixing of incompatible groups.”

    Do not the terms matricide, fratricide and patricide have an application in the real world?

    Are not “white” people a polyglot lot whose racial origins are as diverse as any others?

    I seem to remember reading about Obama’s family connection to both Cheney and Bush. How do folk of mixed blood fit in?

    At what point in history does one’s “blood” or race become fixed? Given that there is an admixture of “blood” gathered during the millennia of conquest that all races have endured and that “culture” is subject to outside influences – surely such divisions are of a purely temporal nature?

    Interestingly, the weight of opinion among geneticists is that the Palestinians and Jews of Middle East origin are the same people. Professor Zand also concurs that Palestinians are those inhabitants of the area, including Jews, who never left but converted to Islam after the 7th century. It seems that in this case, blood has not brought relief from conflict.

  • I anticipated the response and shall be happy to respond. First, one small caveat: the Palestinians and the Jews are most definitely not genetically related. The Jews have doctored the data of certain genetic studies claiming that all Jews share a common mid-east origin. Italian geneticists have looked at the studies and determined that the actual genetic data (as opposed to the conclusions of the Jewish researchers) show very marked differences between the genes of the middle Eastern Jews and the Russian Jews. The DNA of the latter does indeed seem more closely related to the DNA of Central Asian Turkic tribes meaning the Khazars, the Turkish Empire in south Russia which converted en masse to Judaism in the Dark Ages.

    Now, as to the very good points raised. It is certainly true that peoples of kindred blood can, and have, warred repeatedly over the centuries. The American Civil War, the English War of the Roses, the constant warfare between the Germans and Poles; history offers innumerable examples. Consanguineity per se is no guarantee of abscence of conflict. The point, rather, is this. When conflict dies down, the ordinary workings of society depend on people being of the same wave length. It is what allows them to function as a cohesive unit. When a people dissolves into fragmented groups, all of whom cordially despise each other, then the functioning of society disintegrates. Politics becomes a game of one group after another claiming special “victimhood” status, to get the jump on the other groups. It is a form of racial Balkanization, of the kind which has caused so much strife in Eastern Europe over the centuries.

    Closely related racial stocks have fairly easily overcome their differences in American society and merged to create a distinct American society. That process cannot take place between non-white immigrants who are of a completely different biological, hereditary and cultural background. It is like trying to mate a plow horse with an Arabian stallion. It will not work. Genetic cross-breeding also has very bad long term consequences. Although the initial cross may produce a phenomenon known as hybrid vigor, the effect is only for the first generation. Subsequent generations are progressively down bred. (I do not intend to strike at a potential personal sore point here; I aim only to refer to firmly established facts.) In short, mingling between closely interrelated genetic stocks causes few, if any, problems; mating between Chinese and Hispanics or between whites and blacks provably does. If one looks at South America, it has long suffered from the effects of racial hybridity. The lower classes are overwhelmingly the mestizos; the upper classes are the more Nordic Europeans.

    I wish to attack no one on account of his race; I do insist that racial segregation and etnic homogeneity are essential for any society that intends to survive. If I am asked how my opinions differ from those of the Zionists, I respond that they are certainly right to protect their gene pool from that of the Arabs; they are dead wrong to steal someone else’s land and then blame the victims.

  • “Palestinians and the Jews are most definitely not genetically related”

    I deliberately inserted “of Middle East origin” after the word “Jews” in my statement.

    “When conflict dies down, the ordinary workings of society depend on people being of the same wave length”

    Sometimes it takes rather a long time for the conflict to die down as in the case of the Irish – some 300 years, despite their racial identity indicating a similar “wavelength”.

    “….. South America……. The lower classes are overwhelmingly the mestizos; the upper classes are the more Nordic Europeans.”

    As a frequent visitor to South America I find this difficult to concede from two points of view.
    As is common in post-colonial societies, the indigenous people, being dis-empowered by conquest, experience great difficulty regaining a foothold on power. Nevertheless, a list of prominent South American presidents reveals very few Nordic names. They are predominantly Hispanic and many are, in fact, Mestizos. Intermarriage and de-facto liaisons were common under the Conquistadors.
    In the modern era, the rise of Chavez, Morales etc. indicates a resurgence of indigenous power.

    In any case, you have not addressed the point I raised about the mixed origins of ALL races and the fact that approximately 85% of our genetic material is common to all races – indicating a large measure of “cross-breeding” as a precursor to the development of any individual on the planet.

  • The crucial (genetic) point is that all human couples can reproduce with each other without sterile offspring resulting.

    Ersatz-“Racism” is probably the lowest form of collectivism. The relevant race is the human race.

    Tony

  • Mr. Johns and Mr. Hollick:

    You both miss the point.

    If one looks at cats versus humans, the genetic material of both if 98% the same. The 2% which is not the same makes all the difference. It is true that there has been considerable interbreeding between whites and natives in South America. That is precisely why these areas are so backward and undeveloped. It is the direct consequence of the genetic downgrading of their populations. As to Mr. Hollick’s claim that there is only “one race, the human race”, that is complete nonsense. The fact that human beings can miscegenate, if they choose, and produce downgraded, mixed -blood offspring if they so choose, in no way proves that it is genetically desireable to do so.

    In case neither of you have noticed, the lie of racial equality has been sponsored by the same Jews who have been promoting the Holocaust Hoax. Does this not suggest something to you? Racial equality, the idea that all the races and breeds are equally capable, was devised in the 1930’s by a Jewish communist pseudo-anthropologist named Franz Boas. It has been faithfully carried on by a long line of similarly red “scholars”, most of them Jewish, like the late Ashley Montague (Israel Ehrenburg). Jews are, in fact, the world’s premier example of endogamy and marrying within their own kind. This is why they have survived as a separate group, eminently successful, for so long. Obviously they do not want to practice what they preach to others.

    Mr. Johns is at great pains to demonstrate that whites fight among themselves, as in the case of the English and the Irish. Perhaps Mr. Johns should ask himself this question. Which area has less crime and more social cohesion-a small, all white town in the mid-west or a major city like Los Angeles crawling with blacks, mestizos and Mexicans? The question answers itself. One could ask the same question regardng a small Irish town or a Third World sewer like London.

    I have not, and never wil, argue that whites are not guilty of infighting. But I see no reason to believe that mixing incompatible, genetically distinguishable populations will in any way improve matters. That is a flight of fancy which has no support in either the historical record or in the facts of biology. Hindus and Moslems fight each other in India, the Chinese and Malayans despise each other in Southeast Asia, on and on it goes. Mr. Johns points out that few South American politicians have Nordic names. That is a bad guide. Many Spanish aristocrats were descended from the Goths. “Hidalgo” means precisely “son of the Goth”. Irrespective of who holds the political power, the propertied classes are largely Hispanic/Nordic. Those South American countries that are most stable and most prosperous are precisely those that have the largest European influence. Argentina, for example, has a very large Italian population. It has also been more stable and prosperous over the years than the more mixed breed Latin ccountries.

    History speaks with one voice that race counts. Let us take blacks as just one example. In every country where white rule has been removed blacks have relapsed into the jungle. This has been true in places like the former Rhodesia and South Africa. Once blacks took over, the economies collapsed and murder, rape and mayhem became epidemic. In the Carribean island of San Domingo after the great slave rebellion which killed every white on the island, Haiti relapsed into the most backward, impoverished island in the area. The rich sugar cane plantations disappeared and the blacks have suffered nothing but anarchy and tyrrany ever since. Clearly, if whites were the cause of black backwardness, blacks would have zoomed forward after the removal of white rule. Instead, they have universally failed eerywhere after liberation. Black genetic inferiority is the only conceivable explanation.

    This whole issue is very interesting within the context of this Holocaust discussion because it demonstrates how otherwise intelligent men can see through a transparent hoax but cannot see through a transparent social equation which would have been laughed at by wiser white ancestors. That is a problem of the compartmentalized mind from which this author does not suffer.

  • Each and every instance of inferior social and economic outcomes quoted is fully understandable as a result of economic and social factors. To invoke a racial bias is superfluous.
    For example, since India invested heavily in IT training, Indian nationals outperform all other ethnic groups in that industry. This demonstrates the difference between genetic disposition and learned behaviour.

    The village is one of the healthiest social units devised by man, the city, one of the least healthy. This is not race-dependent.

    How many peaceful small multi racial towns are there in my country? – all of them. Our cities also display lower crime stats than the U.S. despite their multi ethnic makeup.

    Civilizations rise and fall. Nordic folk were beating each other over the head with blunt instruments while Egyptians discussed mathematics and philosophy. A Central African civilization, the Songhai, maintained a well organized empire for a thousand years – compare this with American Empire which has lasted – um – let me see, what time is it now?

    The Nordic influence on Hispanic people is negligible compared to that exerted by the Moors, both socially and by blood.

    Argentina? You got to be kidding. Peron, The Generals, World record hyper-inflation. Venezuela and Brazil have a better record.

    Social progress is intrinsically linked to the fertile crescent, the development of surplus food and the domestication of animals, it pays little heed to the color of skin. Jared Diamond is good on this.

    In any case, all such value judgments are relative. Placing one’s sporting bets according to the purity of the competitor’s blood would not bring much success. A white anglo-saxon banker would be about as useful as a one-legged man at an arse-kicking party when lost in the Simpson Desert.

    In this modern era, economic activity has become the criterion of success. In fifteenth century China, when Xeng Hue sailed a fleet of 400 ships around the World leaving traces of DNA and artifacts in the Americas and Oceania, traders and merchants were regarded so poorly that they were not permitted to sleep within the city walls. (Given the pass that merchants and bankers have recently brought us to, perhaps that was not such a bad idea!)
    Thus, “success” is dependent on the games that humans play. Should some environmental catastrophe such as global warming or cooling cause the game to get serious, economic skills might well lose their lustre. In such a case, Teutonic Titans may well find themselves queuing up at some Australian aborigine’s bark hut proffering greenbacks in exchange for tips on how to survive. The aborigine’s reply is likely to be:
    “Waz the use of that stuff Whitefella?”

    A countryman of mine just set the World tap dancing record:
    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/CU0812/S00097.htm

    …even white folks got rhythm.

    Indians place 1st, 2nd, 4th in Scripps spelling bee.
    http://public.spellingbee.com/public/results/finishers

    ……black folks got brain.

    Cherry picked examples can prove any prejudice.

  • Mr. Johns simply has his head up his ass. He cannot, and will not, face facts. I begin by commenting on his country. Who are the Maoris? In the context of world history, they are nothing. They have all the significance of a human ant hill. That is precisely what India has been for centuries. If one looks at the most successful, prosperous societies on earth, they are also the most racially homogeneous. The Chinese and the Japanese are two excellent illustrations. Mr. Johns addressed not a word to my discussion of Negroes, easily the most worthless race on earth. His silence on the subject speaks volumes.

    If Mr. Johns really believes that differing outcomes are the consequence of social and economic factors devoid of race, he has his head stuck in a place where the sun does not shine. The same nonsense has been used to explain away black failure for decades. I would not deny that the Hindus have produced some gifted scientists. Nor would I deny that Arabic civilization was flourishing when Europe was still in the Dark Ages. But the hard fact, whether the half-breed Mr. Johns likes it or not, is that it was white, European civilization which expanded all over the globe for centuries, bringing superior wealth, technology and social innovation with it. Most of what the Chinese now enjoy they got by copying from the whites (and they are very talented immitators), not by developing it themselves.

    The proof of ability is the real world. In the real world, mud faces have always lagged behind whites. Mud faces have oppressed their fellows, just as whites have. But whites have been able to rise above the oppression. The other races have not. It must be comforting to Mr. Johns to believe that the Third World is the Third world because of big, bad whites. But whites did not keep blacks in the jungle cannibalizing each other. Blacks did that all by themselves. I know nothing of the alleged empire of the Songhai. But I know something of the Zulus, those exemplars of black “civilization”. I know what Africa is like after the whites left. I know what Mexico is like, where extortion, corruption and defecating in the streets are the normal modes of life. I have seen the reality of race with my own eyes, Mr. Johns. Even without my extensive knowledge of history I can see how non-whites live in their own lands. I do not want the savages doing the same things here.

  • john thames:

    You say:

    “But I see no reason to believe that mixing incompatible, genetically distinguishable populations will in any way improve matters. That is a flight of fancy which has no support in either the historical record or in the facts of biology. Hindus and Moslems fight each other in India…”

    Are you seriously saying that religion is genetically determined??

    Tony

  • Waiting for the Barbarians

    By Constantine Cavafy (1864-1933), translated by Edmund Keeley

    What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum?
    The barbarians are due here today.
    Why isn’t anything happening in the senate?
    Why do the senators sit there without legislating?
    Because the barbarians are coming today.
    What laws can the senators make now?
    Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating.
    Why did our emperor get up so early,
    and why is he sitting at the city’s main gate
    on his throne, in state, wearing the crown?
    Because the barbarians are coming today
    and the emperor is waiting to receive their leader.
    He has even prepared a scroll to give him,
    replete with titles, with imposing names.
    Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today
    wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas?
    Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts,
    and rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds?
    Why are they carrying elegant canes
    beautifully worked in silver and gold?
    Because the barbarians are coming today
    and things like that dazzle the barbarians.
    Why don’t our distinguished orators come forward as usual
    to make their speeches, say what they have to say?
    Because the barbarians are coming today
    and they’re bored by rhetoric and public speaking.
    Why this sudden restlessness, this confusion?
    (How serious people’s faces have become.)
    Why are the streets and squares emptying so rapidly,
    everyone going home so lost in thought?
    Because night has fallen and the barbarians have not come.
    And some who have just returned from the border say
    there are no barbarians any longer.
    And now, what’s going to happen to us without barbarians?
    They were, those people, a kind of solution.

    Tony

  • Tony:

    You are becoming increasingly inane. No, I do not argue that religion is genetically determined. But I would argue that genetics influences how people look at the world. As to the cute poetry, what is the point? That barbarians do not exist? If you wish to argue that the current “War on Terror” is bogus, a concoction by the Israel First Jews to fight an all out war on their behalf, I will buy that. But if you wish to extrapolate from that that there is no such thing as barbarian races and that all Latrinos should be invited to the US to create a mestizo society, then you are truly off your rocker.

  • Mr. Hollick and Mr. Johns:

    Why don’t you simply consult “The Utter Normality of Ethnocentrism-For Everyone But Whites” by Professor Kevin MacDonald and perhaps then we can drop the nonsenical pretense that race does not count.

  • Who are the Maori?
    Let us begin with the Maori Battalion during WWII. Said by Rommel to be the greatest fighting force he had ever encountered.( Knight’s Cross: A Life of Field Marshal Erwin Rommel New York: Harper Collins)
    General Bernard Freyberg commented “No infantry had a more distinguished record, or saw more fighting, or, alas, had such heavy casualties, as the Maori Battalion.”
    2 VCs, 7DSOs, 21 Military Crosses (3 with bar), 13 DCMs were awarded this unit.
    Not simply warriors however.
    Te Rangi Hīroa, also known as Sir Peter Henry Buck, KCMG, DSO (Gallipoli), MBChB, MD (ca. October 1877 – December 1, 1951)
    -internationally renowned anthropologist, the first Maori medical doctor, a politician, administrator, soldier, sportsperson and leader of the Maori people.
    His honorary doctorate from the University of Hawaii recognised his “Contribution to the knowledge of mankind” and likewise his honorary doctorate from Yale University .

    Maori are renowned for their musical accomplishment.
    Inia Te Wiata and Kiri Te Kanawa both enjoyed long careers at Covent Garden and the Met.
    Te Kanawa performed at the Lyric Opera of Chicago, Paris Opera, Sydney Opera House, the Vienna State Opera, La Scala, San Francisco Opera, Munich and Cologne and has honorary degrees from Cambridge, Dundee, Durham, Nottingham, Oxford, Sunderland, Warwick as well as these universities worldwide: Chicago, Auckland and Waikato as well as being honorary fellow of Somerville College, Oxford and Wolfson College, Cambridge.

    I shall leave out sports as it is not my field and the World Champions too numerous to mention.

    As to the African American, also out of my field but the American Olympic table would be rather bare if they were omitted and there is scarcely a piece of music written on either side of the Atlantic in the past 50 years that does not bear their stamp. A brief search throws up scholars, musicians, millionaires, inventors, humanitarians too numerous to list.

    There is a world of difference between your ideology and that of Professor MacDonald. Yours is a blinkered approach Mr Thames and your outburst above requires no rebuttal from me. It requires no special insight to see the glaring inconsistencies contained in it.

  • Mr. Johns has his head up his Maori ass. The Maoris were tough warriors. So what? So were the Zulus and a lot of primitive tribes. I’ve heard Kiri Te Kanawa. Vastly overrated. I would rather listen to Jussi Bjoerling. The accomplishments of blacks? Gee, what about their crime rate which is ten times that of whites, their riots in the streets whenever they are unhappy and their government entitlement programs which elevate them over better qualified whites? Maybe Mr. Johns should apply a little test devised by David Duke. Take a walk down the streets of a black infested city at night like Louisville, Kentucky or Cincinnati, Ohio out in my neck of the woods. Then take a walk at night in a small little white town. I can tell you right now which procedure offers the better chance of survival.

    Oh yes, black contributions to “music”. You mean jazz crooners like Aretha Franlin and Pearl Bailey, Crack whores like Janet Ross and the Jackson Clark five and Mr. “Be Good To Children” like Michael Jackson. (No, I did not accuse him of child abuse. I would have voted for acquital too.) Such great contributors to civilization. (At least Quincy Jones has a little talent.) And let us not forget that fine, upstanding nigger bass-baritone, Mr. Kremlin himself, Paul Robeson. He did sing “Ole Man Nigger” so magnificently. (Lawrence Tibbet, a white boy, did it a lot better, though.)

    There are some righteous blacks who agree with me. I believe Bill Cosby made himself very unpopular with blacks by suggesting it wasn’t whites who were responsible for black failure. Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell have said the same thing. Even Eldridge Cleaver, the sixties radical, recanted and stated quite openly that if he were white observing blacks in their natural state in Africa, that he, too, would believe in black genetic inferiority. And oh yes, now that we are on the subject of unpopular points of view, did not the hallowed and revered Mahatmas Gandhi, the darling of every Hollywood pinko, state that Zionism was wrong because it aimed to dispossess the rightful Arab owners of Palestine? Did he not also propose, in his South African days, that the British and Hindus should jointly share power and lord it over those worthless kaffir-niggers? (I believe he did. You “learned gentlemen” can look it up on the internet in between debating me.)

    Now on to Professor MacDonald. I believe I can speak with some confidence on his views as I know him personally as well as having read his books. I recall that he was highly amused at my definitions of Nazism as: (1)Zionism for gentiles and (2)a copyright infringement of the “Chosen People” concept. I can assure you that the only difference between Professor MacDonald and me is that I am even more forthright.

    Finally, back to Mr. Johns point that Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews share similar genetic blood lines. I recall that before the coming of the Zionists relations between the natve born Arabs and native born Jews were relatively good. It was the coming of the Zionist Khazars from Russia which started the problems. This merely supports my point that the mixing of the incompatible creates problems. Mixing Mexicans and others with white Americans shall not lead to good results any more than mixing Arabs and Khazars led to good results.

    Now that I have thoroughly trounced both of you on the “gas chamber” hoax and racial realities, I can sit back and smile at a job well done.

  • john thames:

    How to tell the difference between winners and losers:

    Losers talk about what they’re going to do when they win; winners think about what has to be done so as not to lose…

    Tony

    THE LITTLE FASCIST

    From: “What do you say after you say Hello?” by Eric Berne M.D.)

    “Every human being seems to have a small fascist in his head. This is
    derived from the deepest layers of the personality (the Child in the
    Child). In civilized people it is usually deeply buried beneath a platform
    of social ideals and trainig, but with proper permissions and
    directives, as history has shown again and again, it can be liberated
    into full bloom. In the less civilized portion of the population, it is
    openly exposed and nurtured, and awaits only proper opportunities for
    periodic expression. In both cases it is a strong force in advancing
    the script: in the first case, secretly, subtly, and denied: in the
    second case, crudely or even proudly acknowledged. But it may be said
    that whoever is not aware of this force in his personality has lost
    control of it. He has not confronted himself, and cannot know where he
    is headed.

    A fascist may be defined as a person who has no respect for living
    tissue and regards it as his prey. This arrogant attitude is no doubt a
    relic of the prehistory of the human race, still surviving in the gusto
    of cannibalism and the joys of massacre. For carnivorous anthropoids on
    the hunt, ruthlessness meant efficiency and greed was motivated by
    hunger. But as the human mind and brain evolved through natural
    selection, these qualities were not bred out. After they were no longer
    necessary for survival, they became detached from their original goal
    of bringing down the dinner meat and degenerated into ends in
    themselves, luxuries often indulged in and enjoyed at the expense of
    other human beings. Ruthlessness developed into cruelty, and greed into
    exploitation and theft. Since the prey–the flesh itself, and
    especially human flesh–was largely replaced by more compliant
    stomach-filling commodities, it began to be used to satisfy
    psychological hungers. The pleasures of torture replaced or preceded
    the pleasures of eating, and “He He” took over from “Yum Yum.” It
    became less important to kill him (or her) than to hear and watch him
    (or her) scream and grovel. This became the essence of fascism–a
    roving band seeking male of female prey to torment or deride–whose art
    lay in probing for the victim`s weakness.

    There are two by-products of the grovel, both of them advantageous to
    the aggressor. The biological effect is sexual pleasure and excitement,
    with the victim available to indulge even the most ingenious
    perversions the favorite of record being anal rape. Torture brings
    about a peculiar intimacy between the torturer and the victim, and a
    profound insight which is often otherwise lacking in both their lives.
    The other by-product is a purely commercial one. The victim always has
    valuables which can yield a profit. For cannibals it may be the strength
    derived from magic organs such as the heart or the testicles, or even
    the ear. For advanced peoples, the fat can be used to make soap, and
    golden tooth fillings can be salvaged. These yields are exploited after
    the furor of personal encounter has subsided, and they are “melted
    down” into anonymity.

    The small fascist in every human being is a little torturer who probes
    for and enjoys the weakness of his victims. If this comes out openly, he
    is a cripplekicker, a stomper, and a rapist, sometimes with some excuse
    or other such as toughness, objectivity, or justification. But most
    people suppress these tendencies, pretend they are not there at all,
    excuse them if they show their colors, or overlay and disguise them
    with fear. Some even try to demonstrate their innocence by becoming the
    purposeful victims instead of the agressors, on the principle that it
    is better to shed their own blood than that of others, but blood they
    must have.

    These primitive strivings become interwoven with the injunctions,
    precepts, and permissions of the script, and form the basis for
    third-degree or “tissue” games that draw blood. He who pretends that
    these forces do not exist becomes their victim. His whole script may
    become a project to demonstrate that he is free of them. But since he
    is most likely not, this is a denial of himself and therefore of his
    right to a self-chosen destiny. The solution is not to say, as many
    do, “It`s frightening,” but rather “What can I do about it and what
    can I do with it?” It is better to be a martyr that to be a troglodyte,
    that is, a man who refuses to believe he has ascended from an apelike
    creature because he hasn`t yet: but to know oneself is better than
    both…”

    ———— * * * * * ————

  • I will only comment that by your own definition I am a winner.

    As to the absurd lecture on fascism, I will quote Ernst Zundel: “Nature is Nazi”. How about atavistic, fascist feminists getting a kick out of butchered fetal tissue. Do they get orgasms out of killing their own baby?

  • Tony:

    Since you lecture me on the need to control babaric impulses, I will quote you Adolf Hitler regarding English propaganda. “Remember, gentlemen, if this empire (the British) actually believed in the principles for which it now professes to be fighting, it would never have been created in the first place.”

  • john thames:

    I don’t “lecture you.”

    I offer posts to read which may (or so I hope) enlighten you. There is a difference.

    Hitler’s knowledge of history was none too good. The enterprise later known as “The British Empire” was created through voluntary trade, and the claiming of lands believed to have no States. Later, powerful merchants pressed for the imposition of uniform codes of Law, to assist in the upholding of their contracts.

    This inevitably gave rise to a shift from “Primus Inter Pares” to Imperial Sovereignty.

    The principal cause of the American War of Independence (supported by less than a third of the Colonists) was the Ruling in the House of Lords that slave-owning was incompatible with te Common Law (which applicable in America). The slave-owning class viewed this as ruinous and intolerable, and fomented revolt.

    Do you really regard Blacks as less than fully human?

    Tony

  • Tony:

    Hitler’s reading of history was quite good; yours is deficient. Let me enlighten you. The British empire was not created by “trade”; it was created by raw, naked aggression all over the planet for centuries. The endless plunder raids into France for centuries had nothing to do with “trade”; ask Joan of Arc. Raiding Spanish galleons on the high seas had nothing to do with “trade”; the “trade” with the Chinese over opium was achieved by blowing up Chinese ports; the Boer war “traded” Dutch lives for Jews and gold,etc. This rosy view of English imperialism has never been shared by the rest of the world who know better. The conquest of India was a classic example of English “trade”. The British would start with “trade”, then annex one principlality after another to “protect” the interets of the East India Company. After enough cases of playing one ruler off against another with the British picking up the pieces, the British had the entire subcontinent under their control. They then proceeded to rob the Indian people blind. Remember William Hastings, who said that : “Sirs, when I think of how much more I could have stolen, I am astonished by my own modesty?” You should read the excellent speech by Senator Gerald Nye entitled “Aggression Builds the British Empire”. “The Way of the Aggressor” is also quite cogent on the way the English kept continental Europe in turmoil 1550-1814 by playing off one continental rival after another. I won’t bother to go into Oliver Cromwell’s Mavigation laws by which the ships of other nations were declared the prey of English privateers. Which history of which British Empire have you been reading?

    It may surprise you that someone with my views should be recounting crimes against the Third world (and white world) by the British. It isn’t that I have any particular sympathy for these groups but when English crocodiles start propagandizing about the benefits they have bestowed on humanity that really is too much. I recall that Dr. Joseph Goebbels wrote many cogent attacks on English hypocrisy. He stated that the British empire had a “history which was more than dubious”. Adolf Hitler frequently mocked English charges of German aggression by pointing out the crimes the British were vcommitting in Palestine. As Der Fuehrer put it in a Sportspalast speech: “The poor Arabs of Palestine are defenseless and forgotten; the Germans of Czechoslovakia are neither defenseless nor forgotten.” You are, of course, quite correct that the majority of American colonials wanted to remain loyal to England. They are lucky they lived before Lord Balfour’s time; had they read his mewling assurancesof fair treatment to the Arabs the American Revolution could have killed more Redcoats a lot more easily. (“Forewarned is forearmed.”)

    You ask whether I really do consider blacks less than human. Let me propose a test by which you can answer your own question. When you wind up being burned alive with a rubber tire aound your torso, perhaps with gasoline poured down your throat to enhance the process, courtesy of the enlightened race you adore, then you can ponder whether blacks are really any more advanced than Genghiz Khan (or even more advanced than pacifist, anti-“male violence” feminists who pull their own baby apart with a pair of pliers at the abortion clinic). I am impartially cynical; I know too much about the sewer called humanity to suffer from any unreasonable bias whatever.

  • john thames:

    You say:

    “You ask whether I really do consider blacks less than human. Let me propose a test by which you can answer your own question.”

    Let’s make the test really simple for you.

    If you had a red button which, if pressed, would cause the instant and permanent disappearance of all “black” people from Planet Earth, would you press it? “Yes” or “No” will do.

    Tony

  • Yes.

  • john thames:

    And Jews? Yes/No

    Indians? Yes/No

    Arabs? Yes/No

    Chinese? Yes/No

    Japanese? Yes/No

    Pakistanis? Yes/No

    Africans? Yes/No

    Aboriginal Peoples? Yes/No

    Mongols? Yes/No

    Russians? Yes/No?

    South Americans? Yes/No

    Iberian Peninsula? Yes/No

    Korean Peninsula? Yes/No

    Everyone else except you? Yes/No

    You too? Yes/No

    Well?

    Tony

    “We may all be in the gutter: but some of us are looking up at the stars.” – Oscar Wilde

  • No.

    Had I answered your loaded question any other way, would you have believed me?
    Do you think that:

    (1)All dissidents and free thinkers should be wiped off the globe?

    (2)All right wing extremists and historical revisionists should be wiped off the globe?

    (3)All racists should be wiped off the globe?, etc.

    Questions like these are sophomoric.

  • john thames:

    The questions may be “sophomoric” but when dealing with people who advocate getting rid of other people, they an be useful in finding out who they want to get rid of, thus why. You were supposed to answer the list group by group.

    As I will answer yours:

    (1)All dissidents and free thinkers should be wiped off the globe?

    Of course not: freedom of thought and opinion is one of the glories of the Enlightenment.

    (2) All right wing extremists and historical revisionists should be wiped off the globe?

    Of course not. Arguing with them may improve our understanding in many ways.

    Right wing extremists are usually victims of cripplingly authoritarian child-rearing practices. We need to protect children better against violence.

    (3)All racists should be wiped off the globe?

    When I was 19, I was “racist” in a typical English middle class way. Then I read a novel by the American writer James Baldwin. Whatever else I thought of the novel, there was nothing in it to make me think that the writer was other than fully human. I was astonished when a (racist) friend told me the author was Black. My racism evaporated. It was predicated on the mistaken idea that Black people must be noticeably different “inside their heads.”

    98% of the human genome is held in common. Yet in every society on Earth, darker-skinned people are at the bottom of the social pyramid, while lighter-skinned people are at the top. The only exceptions I can think of are the hapless Jamaican “Red-Legs”, poor whites brought in to be slavemasters, until slavery was abolished.

    Their history is instructive…

    Tony

  • Tony:

    You have learned all the wrong lessons in life. Blacks are completely different inside their heads. There are all kinds of well documented scientific studies on their lesser mental development. Wake up to the real world. It will not be found in James Baldwin novels.

    I have heard the nonsense abour right wing extremists having grown up in “authoritarian” families. You haven’t been reading “The Authoritarian Personality” by Theodore Adorno, have you? Actually, I grew up in the least authoritarian family you could imagine. You are off the mark again.

  • **************
    Dear Ed Straker,

    I hope you are not the son (or a relation) of Dennis Straker, who taught me maths in th 1950s and is possibly the greatest modern maths teacher of all time!
    **************

    I agree with this article 100%.
    By the way ED STRAKER was a fictional hero of a UK sci-fi production of the late 1960s (UFO) by Jerry Anderson…
    Go figure

  • **********
    98% of the human genome is held in common. Yet in every society on Earth, darker-skinned people are at the bottom of the social pyramid, while lighter-skinned people are at the top.
    **********

    So what?
    First, you get that in common with big apes, too.
    Second, look up a Open University broadcast named “the human genome”…you’ll see top scientist claiming this “98% in common with” means NOTHING…in fact humans are “50% banana” says one scientist…and humans have only twice as many genes as a…WORM says another scientist.
    But probably all you care about is making some bandwagon appeal.
    A look at US crime rates may also help you understand how “you know who” is typically eyed with suspicion.
    Neither the OU, nor the US justice dept. are run by ODESSA.

  • “jb”:

    “98% of the human genome is held in common. Yet in every society on Earth, darker-skinned people are at the bottom of the social pyramid, while lighter-skinned people are at the top.”

    I stated an observable, ascertainable fact. There are many explanations for differences in skin colour. Given all the different explanations for different groups, why should there be this uniformity of outcome, unless cultural factors account for the discrimination? Genetic traits in a population converge to the mean.

    You cannot have sex with a banana and expect a fertile human baby as a result. At least, I must hope that you wouldn’t expect that; but in the light of your utterances, we can leave nothing to chance… >:-}

    One look at US “crime” rates (most of these “crimes” are figments of the imaginations of authoritarian legislators) shows us that a low-level race war is in progress in the US.

    Life expectancy in US prisons is 50. Most prisoners are black, at peak “breeding” age. They cannot “breed” in prison. They cannot vote afterwards. How “convenient!”

    The aptly-named “US Criminal Justice System” shows us only too clearly, that the emotions which incinerated those millions are alive and well. Most of the Nazi “Race” ideologies and practices actually _originated_ in the US. No need for any ODESSA to get them there. Read up on Eugenics in America.

    The first kiss between a white man and a black woman on US TV was between Kirk and Uhuru in “STAR TREK” in 1964. (And even then, the plot demanded that they were acting under mind control).

    Try this:

    Fly to New York and get a skilled theatrical make-up artist to make you up as black. Then spend a few days trying to go about your business.

    Try it in London and you won’t be too pleased by what happens, either. Make sure you have a good lawyer.

    Tony

  • *****************
    You cannot have sex with a banana and expect a fertile human baby as a result. At least, I must hope that you wouldn’t expect that; but in the light of your utterances, we can leave nothing to chance… >:-}
    *****************

    You can have sex with big apes and expect offsprings, so what? In vitro they engineered pigs with a sizable percentage of human DNA to transplant bits and organs into humans, so what? It is a fact that the “98% in common with” explains just nothing.

    **************
    One look at US “crime” rates (most of these “crimes” are figments of the imaginations of authoritarian legislators) shows us that a low-level race war is in progress in the US.
    **************

    I am sure you are the first to lock your car, house or to “avoid” or “profile” places or people, right? After all, if some thug of color stabbed you in the guts to steal your car, you wouldn’t be able to post here any longer to say crimes are imaginary.
    Theft, burglary, drive-by-shooting, stabbings, dope dealing aren’t thought crimes.
    Studies show how AFRICAN taxi drivers do profile potential clients in the same way white taxi drivers do, which means AFRICAN taxi drivers IGNORE many potential AFRICAN clients…it’d be interesting to interview them to find out, eh?

    *************
    The first kiss between a white man and a black woman on US TV was between Kirk and Uhuru in “STAR TREK” in 1964. (And even then, the plot demanded that they were acting under mind control).
    *************

    I see you are very interested in interracial stuff. I suppose one of the many $2,99/day XXX websites will accommodate you. Gene Roddenberry had a chip on his shoulder as big as Mars and was portrayed as a bossy, disrespectful a$$hole by those who worked with him, yet I understand he only relayed US phobias as “universal”.

    **************
    Fly to New York and get a skilled theatrical make-up artist to make you up as black. Then spend a few days trying to go about your business.

    Try it in London and you won’t be too pleased by what happens, either. Make sure you have a good lawyer.
    **************

    A long time ago the alarm would beep and I’d be cornered by security EACH & EVERY TIME I’d enter a big shopping mall…So I had to empty my pockets, etc etc and I had nothing on me, ever. I am as white as one can be and have been often mistaken for a German, yet since I have no chip on my shoulder I simply let it go.
    I have been given the “speak white” routine, too.
    On the streets I see no shortage of people of color of all hues, shapes and sizes; on TV (especially youth-oriented TV ) there is no shortage of colored stars, hosts and so forth, but you tell me all are closely watched as suspects: too many of them to do so, I say.

    Bill Cosby once said the problem with African people is not racism but African people themselves.

  • PS:
    how do you explain that if I approach a white girl and she won’t touch me with a ten meters pole because *** (you name it: I’m too fat, too skinny, whatever ) they call it “lack of chemistry”, but if the same fate befalls a person of color (which may include many non-white categories ), they call it “racism”?

  • *************
    At the end of the 19th Century, almost all scientists were socialists, believing as they did that socialism was the “scientific” way to run the economy and ensure plenty.
    ************

    Marx coined the “scientific socialism” buzz-word to part HIS gospel from both old school socialism (=appeasers to him. Napoleon III was a declared socialist ) AND “utopian” socialism (=fantasy).
    Scientific socialism=marxism.
    I doubt ALL scientists in 1900 were marxists.

  • “jb”:

    Petty theft and burglary are “have-not” crimes. Drive-by-shootings have to be divided into “recreational” and “reprisal” killings. With stabbings, it’s sometimes hard to know who started the fracas. Some people just like to fight.

    For libertarians, sales of unadulterated recreational drugs should not be criminalized. In the ’60s, when heroin was free on the NHS, there was no market for it, and the number of users stayed put at 1600. Then the criminalizing “Do-gooders” got busy… 850,000 users now…

    The only experience of criminal behaviour I have is as a white person, at the hands of white people. In most cases, the (white) State Police are worse than useless.

    As for your question: James Baldwin put it rather well when he said that if he runs for a bus, and it drives away, for him it may be because he’s black. Likewise, if he asks a pretty girl (or boy) for a dance, and she (or he) refuses, it can always be because he’s black.

    BTW: Why did you set off alarms in shopping malls?

    Tony

  • **************
    Petty theft and burglary are “have-not” crimes. Drive-by-shootings have to be divided into “recreational” and “reprisal” killings. With stabbings, it’s sometimes hard to know who started the fracas. Some people just like to fight.
    **************

    I hope you never find some thug needing your help to unwind.

    **************
    Likewise, if he asks a pretty girl (or boy) for a dance, and she (or he) refuses, it can always be because he’s black.
    **************

    That’s why I call it a chip on the shoulder…it may always be anything…halitosis for example.
    When a non-white (or other equally “special” groups like gay, queers etc ) gets a failing grade, it’s the proof that the chauvinist establishment wants them on their knees…
    If a “mainstream” (=non-special) boy gets a failing grade, then he either didn’t study hard enough or at best has run into one of those unavoidable teacher-pupil situations that we all have experienced.

    **********
    BTW: Why did you set off alarms in shopping malls?
    **********

    I never got to find out. I wear no prosthetic, body plates or similar, either. After a (long) while, security got used to it and no longer bothered with me.
    Another time airport security didn’t want (1996) me to board a plane because they said my documents were faulty…AFTER CHECK-IN…that is when I am physically boarding the plane, there comes this big blond and blue-eyed thug with a badge and a gun and stops me.
    Another time they didn’t want me to board an EEC domestic flight.
    Another time street cops obliged me to go to the station because my car documents (the state-supplied ones & the only ones I got ) were “suspect”.
    Another time yet street cops detained me & a friend almost an entire day because we fit the profile of two “terrorists” (in 1993) they were seeking and only released us when I got fed up and asked to make a call to talk to my lawyer.
    See?
    Maybe they were seeking people riding the same model of car, who knows…
    What would a person of color make out of all that?

  • Gentlemen:

    What are you arguing about?

    Blacks regress in every society where they are left to their own devices. What more needs to be said?

  • “john thames”:

    “Blacks regress in every society where they are left to their own devices. What more needs to be said?”

    For starters: How would you explain, then, that the entire human race throughout the world has developed from black origins in Africa? Or that the first true steels were made in Africa by African smiths? Or that Trevor, the husband of my niece, is [a] very black; [b] intelligent; [c] successful at business and [d] an accomplished American Football player?

    As well as a really nice guy (and ex-Army)…

    Tony

  • Tony:

    Where did you get this nonsense that human civilization started in Africa? You might as well tell me that human civilization started in Haiti. There used to be a book entitled “Great Accomplishments Of The Black Race” with numbered blank pages. I suggest you read it.

    It is nice to know that your niece is a nigger lover. The white race really needs more half-breed orangatangs walking around. Blacks have destroyed Rhodesia and South Africa after the removal of white rule. Perhaps you should send your personal Barack Obama over there to raise them up. Maybe he could help them build a few steel mills.

  • “john thames”:

    Look at yourself:

    “It is nice to know that your niece is a nigger lover. The white race really needs more half-breed orangatangs walking around.”

    You wouldn’t say that face-to-face. You wouldn’t say it to Trevor. Do you think you’re “unreachable” just because you’re posting on the Internet?

    Tony

  • Tony:

    As a matter of fact, I would. You misjudge me. People tend to say all kinds of things behind their employers back-but not within earshot, when they might get fired. Such are the realities of the world.

  • “john thames”:

    How old are you?

    Certanly, no-one could accuse you of having learnt good manners…

    Tony

  • Tony:

    My age is irrelevant.

    I am perfectly capable of good manners-when they are appropriate. However, good manners are for social occassions. They are not for intellectual debates when it is daggers drawn. Too many false ideas are tolerated because of fear of controversy. I prefer the controversy.

  • “john thames”:

    “Civilization really got going with the invention of _swords_. Intelligent people saw brave men and women fighting and dying, and reached the conclusion that wise people would fight with words rather than swords, with bad _ideas_ dying instead of people.” — Karl R. Popper

    Tony

  • “john thames”:

    I do have two Hattori Hanzo katanas, by the way. Really. In bright tempered steel.

    Tony

    • Tony
      What is a “Hattori Hanzo katana”? Is it some kind of car? if so, Peter would like to know as it has not featured on “Top gear” so far as I know! Do tell!

  • Dave:

    Hattori Hanzo, “The Man from Okinawa” is the world’s finest swordsmith. You can meet him in his Okinawa Sushi Bar in Quentin Tarantino’s movie “Kill Bill.”

    He it is who forged the finest samurai blades for members of the Deadly Vipers Assassination Squad. Beatrix Kiddoo (Uma Thurman) persuades him to break his vow never to make a killing blade again.

    Here is his entry from Wikipedia:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kill_Bill_characters#Hattori_Hanz.C5.8D

    If you and Peter haven’t seen the movie, go get it now! Uma Thurman makes the greatest female sword-fighter since Valeria (Sandahl Bergman) cut loose in “Conan the Barbarian” (she hospitalized half of the extras). I saw that film with you.

    I’m a Member of Swordmasters International, BTW.

    Best

    Tony

    PS: I grok Peter’s allusion. Tell him to key “Hayabusa” into Google Video…

  • Dave & Peter:

    Trailer for “Kill Bill”:

    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jVam1qOmlEo

    Tony

  • Greetings.
    I will not get into an argument about where civilisation began – I think there is enough scientific evidence to say that it is Africa. How much more do we want people who happen to be black, to prove themselves? there are those of all ethnic origins who come to nothing in life – so why only come down on the blacks?
    I am all for freedom of speech and so i respect those who do not believe that there was a” holocaust” but tell me, was there slavery of Aficans in the west? What of the murder of indigenous peoples of the Americas by Europeans, usually under the guise of spreading Catholicism?

  • Miss Macintosh:

    Blacks have failed everywhere as a people throughout history. Why do you think that is?

  • Pingback: Sean Gabb: Speech to Conservative Future « The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG

  • The Jewish “Six Million” figure is a religious number. Hoffman in his new book Judaism Discovered http://www.revisionisthistory.org/page1/news.html
    reprints it from two Jewish sources: first, from Encyclopedia Britannica (eleventh edition, 1910-11), vol 2, p. 145, and second, from The American Hebrew, Oct. 31, 1919, p. 582.

  • The ‘myth’ of the ‘civilization-that-started-in-Asia’ is based on scattered and not uncontroversial evidence.
    However, I am ready and willing to subscribe to the possibility that the dawn of the apeman took place in Africa…it makes no more difference discussing today’s problems than examining a human embryo in its very first stages does, and seeing it got a tail and gills like our reptilian amphibian ancestors several millions years ago, whose genetic legacy we still carry today.

    Another myth debunked is the most famous 99% of genetic materials all so-called races (ah, and big apes, too ) have in common…actually, a man has only twice the genes as a worm and humans have at least 50% genes in common with vegetables…
    It may very well be true, but it doesn’t explain social dynamics.

  • Pingback: Blogging, and traffic driving: I’m doing an experiment. « The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG

  • I have just been alerted to this exchange. Quite something really. I have not read every word in every post, but two questions.

    One: has anyone asked for, and received, a drawing or a photograph of a nazi gas chamber at Auschwitz?

    Two: has anyone proposed the name, with proof, of one person who was killed in a gas chamber at Auschwitz?

  • [1] Yes

    [2] Yes

    Always glad to be of service…

    Tony

  • Hmmmm… Africa is a crap hole, and it’s always someone else’s fault – never the Blacks. …..
    Jews have been expelled as a group from many European countries at some point in the last 3000 years, but it’s never the Jew’s fault…..
    Africans are really mental supermen, it’s just the wicked white man who has been the problem….
    Much of the violent crime – robbery, rape, murder – in Britain (but remember – prison/justice is racist) is brought about by those of African decent- but it’s OK, because they need to unwind/be understood/are disadvantaged….
    And Libertarians become upset that they aren’t taken seriously…..
    Moral Relativity, and it’s twin Cultural Relativity, really have destroyed us.

  • Tony Hollick:

    Yes and Yes. Good to know. Where?

  • Welcome to Brother Smith.

    Harry is quite correct the evidence for black inferiority is overwhelming.

  • Oh, F*ck, you’re back…

    That must be why there are more and more blacks than whites…

    Think of it as “Evolution in Action”, John. It’ll make you feel a whole lot better.

    Tony

  • Holocaust Denial And Damnation Clubs

    Holocaust Denial and Damnation Clubs are springing up all over the landscape. Satanic sex orgies, with six million blow jobs, are required rites of admission. The blasphemous Deniers even have a crematory room where practices too shocking to describe are conducted. The Deniers practice the Black Mass where Jews wearing Gloria Allred masks service the Fuehrer. In Holocaust Denial and Damnation Clubs it is anything goes. They have even invented a “shovel the coal” sex position. The Jewess takes it doggy style while “blowing the flames”. In Holocaust Denial Clubs Jews do not die, they are revived in effigy. After each “gassing” ceremony, the ressurected Jew appears on the wall of the club in indestructible wax. The Jew, however, is never resurrected with the same image. That is not how the game is played. Rather, each resurrction takes place in a different part of the globe with a new name. The Jew may be David Gruen in Poland and then resurrect in Palestine as David Ben Gurion. Or he leave New York as Max Goldfarb and then reappear in Moscow as General Petrovskii. He may work as Moishe Mass Murderer for Joseph Stalin and then wind up at the Cannes Film Festival as Martin Gray. Variations are endless. Always, however, Holocaust Denial Clubs have six million costumes at the ready.

    Holocaust Denial and Damnation Clubs are for those who wish to drink, make merry and laugh at Jewish fables. No Jew actually dies at a Holocaust Denial and Damnation Club. He merely has the wax melt from his nose as he dissolves, like theWicked Warlock of the Kremlin.

  • Remaking The World By Design

    Could there be a conspiracy to enslave mankind? The powers that be sneer at the idea. But if the conspiracy does exist its objectives would have to be fasirly simple-as would the ideas it drums into the minds of its victims.

    The conspiracy would also need a command center. If ne looks at the modern world, it is increasingly a world of internationalism-a world in which there is a free flow of capital and populations across national bordes. In this world, the very existence of national borders would become more and more meaningless. One might expect to see increasing regional confederations as a movement, a preliminary to world government.

    In this world of internationalism, traditional distinctions of class, race and gender would become increasingly meaningless. The propaganda line might be: “We are all one.”

    The idea would be to dissolve any power structure which might impede the process by declaring it a relic of prejudice, standing in the way of progress. This, of course, is precisely what is being done.

    Such a conspiracy would, naturally, not apply its principles to itself. Thus, any such conspiracy would require a power center where it could direct the rest of the world oblivious to the principles it teaches to others. Such a power center would be immune to criticism because its lackeys fear its power. Those subservient to its will might take annual trips to the power center to pay obeisance to its power or to receive instructions.

    A discreet curtain of silence on what really goes on in the power center might be imposed by a media contriolled by this same power center. The power center might practice discrimination of a sort which it forbids in the outside world subject to its control.

    The real history of the power center might be all but unknown to the man in the street. The history might be available in a few reference works read by only a few individuals, but it would be rigorously banned from the TV and the newspapers where millions get their ideas.

    The controlling power might have a protective myth of their own purported extermination to make them immune from criticism and morally unimpeachable. This myth might be so valuable to them that they might pass laws criminalizing any objective investigations into their claims. They might play this myth of their own extermination on the television at regular intervals to neutralize opposition to them.

    This controlling power would have to be immensely wealthy and entrenched in the every power center all over the world. It would need an intense racial consciousness, such that an attack on one was an attack on them all.

    The power center would be capable of the most horrible deeds, killing tens of millions of people in one country and promoting revolutionary socialism all over the globe. It could then cover up the true identity of the perpetrators of the crime and label its chief political opponent a “madman”.

    This power so laboriously described is not unknown. It can be found in the day-to-day practice of politics through the America Israel Public Affairs Committee, among many other manifestations. It was to be found in the old Soviet Union through Trotsky, Kaganovich, Yagoda and Litvinov. It can be found in Holocaust Memorial Museums in every major metropolis.

    This power denies its existence but its accomplishments belie its claims. This power does act in the manner described. It does not act randomly and without intent. It has remade the world in a certain image and that image reflects its design.

  • John:

    So why don’t my Jewish friends know about this? Is it a secret? If it is, how do you know so much about it? Why do you think they don’t silence you or kill you? I dunno!

    Tony

  • Tony:

    You are simply silly.

    Ask yourself these questions. Why does Israel have a strangle hold over the US Congress? Why do all politicians fear crossing “the lobby” as the kiss of death? Why does anti-semitism equal “unemployable social outcast” ?

    How do I know these things? Simply by reading Jewish reference works and comparing the data to what is going on in the world. Most people are too dumb to count to ten on their toes. Do you really wish to join them?

    Read what I wrote. It all adds up perfectly. Or do you have eyes but cannot see?

  • Tony:

    The Jews frequently do kill people they find inconvenient-but only when it is necessary. It is always a last resort-and reserved for those who are sufficiently discomfiting to merit the treatment. I think of the anti-Zionist Professor Jan De Hahn, a Palestinian Jew of Dutch origin who was assassinated by Ben Gurion’s friend, Ben Zvi, because he represented an anti-zionist voice which might have derailed their plans after the Balfour Declaration. But why would they assassinate me? I have zero influence over the popular mind.

    People are incredibly dumb, Tony. Let’s take you. I may smile at your feeble efforts but you are still far more intelligent than the average citizen. The average star of Jay Leno’s “Jaywalk All Stars” would simply have no understanding of any of my writings. My scribblings presuppose very extensive historical knowledge. Most of the topics discussed involve subjects of which John Q. Citizen has never heard. All the average American or Englishman knows about WW2 is that Adolf Hitler was a bad man who persecuted Jews for no reason and who was allegedly out to conquer the world. He has never heard of the Treaty of Versailles, the Jewish background of communism, minorities treaties or a thousand and one other things relevant to the debate. If the state of Israel now has a smelly reputation, it is because of the invasion of Gaza, not because John Q. Citizen has read any musty old British White Paper on Palestinian problems of the 1930’s. My scribblings may perturb them a llittle but not enough to require any such drastic remedy.

    The Jews know perfectly that historical revisionist writers exist. But if they were going to assassinate anyone, Patrick Buchanan would be a better choice. He has a national audience and, in toned down form, says essentially what I say. But little old me? I know that I am on the watch list but I am not that critical a problem for them.

  • John:

    As a polymath with an I.Q. well over 150, I am clearly neither simple nor silly.

    Your assertion DOES prove something about you. You’re long on insults and even longer on Confirmation Bias.

    What would have to be provably the case for you to abandon your erroneous assertions?

    Tony

  • IQ has nothing to do with the ability to reason logically, Tony. I encounter all the time people with high IQ’s who have the most irrational notions about so many things. One of them, John “Birdman” Bryant, just died. I wrote an epitaph entitled “Epitaph For A Birdbrain”.

    As to insults, I merely gently chided you. As to my “erroneous assertions”, which ones? In this entire debate I have not made any erroneous assertions. I have claimed that an international Jewish force exists. It certainly does. Just who do you think is hounding Bishop Richard Williamson and why?

  • John:

    “Just who do you think is hounding Bishop Richard Williamson and why?”

    Well, the Vatican, ferinstance? Posturing opportunists of many kinds? People who — for whatever reasons — consider his views an affront to their historical understandibgs?

    Les Anti-Lefebvreists in the Roman Catholic Church, numbering in millions? Politicians and other opportunists jumping on a bandwagon?

    RCs who oppose anyone who seem to be getting a bad rep for the Catholic Church?

    People who like sticking it to perceived anal-retentives?

    People who want to ‘tar’ the RC Church?

    Militant atheists?

    Just for starters…

    The Pope’s demand that he recant is typical of RC Orthodoxy, which gave the world the Inquisition…

    Isn’t the present Pope actually one of their number??

    Tony

  • The Pope is going after Williamson for one reason: because the Jews told him to.

  • John:

    So “The Jews” control the Vatican???

    Newton thought that Lucifer does…

    Tony

  • The Jews control everything. Where are you living?

  • John:

    Funny, that! An infinite Universe, and the Jewish G*d controls it all!

    Sort of, like a version of Pantheism… lol

    Do the Jews control _you_, John?

    Or are you a sort of “Lucifer the Lightbearer, Son of the Morning” kind of a figure in all this drama?

    Do you think that Mitochondrial Eve was Jewish? That would make us all Jews, yes?

    [ FX: “Whew!!! What a relief!!!” ]

    See? Nothing to worry about.

    What’s your ‘take’ on Neturei Karta, BTW?

    Do you have — you know — a livelihood?

    What do you actually do with your life?

    Are you happy, John?

    Tony

  • Tony:

    I think you had better stick with documented facts and drop the irrelevancies.

  • John:

    Easier and more productive to drop this subject and you with it…

    Be seeing you!

    Tony

  • I will let the matter rest. You never did answer Bradley Smith’s questions. We both know why.

  • John:

    You belive that yo know why:

    Whereas I KNOW why.

    Are you a wannabe ‘mind-reader’ now?

    Tony

  • Tiny:

    For a guy with such a high IQ you really do have a problem saing anything that makes sense.

  • Craig J. Bolton

    Hi Tony,

    Long time, no exchange with each other.

    I’ve just read through your essay and 4/5th of the subsequent thread. I agree with most everything in your essay, albeit I believe that if you were more interested in this topic and did read critically the holocaust literature you’d be even more convinced of your current conclusion that – yes it probably happened, it was deliberate and the numbers may be questionable but were quite high. However, all your other comments are very well taken.

    I would say this to you, however. The instant that you open the door on this topic you immediately attract the sorts of people with whom you’ve been having the above exchange. Superficially, these people sound very well informed and have a tremendous store of out of context quotations with which they salt their comments. You dig down, as you have, however, and you find that they believe totally counterfactual matters like Jews have a group mind, that they think that gentiles are lower animals, that they have tremendous power and exercise that power to create and control wars, revolutions, etc., and, of course, that they control the Vatican. ROTFL.

    In other words, Tony, spending your time on these sorts is less productive in getting at reality than spending equivalent time in an exchange with an advocate of the flat earth hypothesis.

  • Mr. Bolton:

    Instead of expressing opinions on subjects you know nothing about, it would behoove you to get an education. There is nothing “counterfactual” about anything I write. Your problem, like that of so many others, is that:

    (1) You do not know the facts;

    (2) You have been so thoroughly brainwashed you would not be able to properly evaluate the information if you did know it.

  • Craig J. Bolton

    Mr Thames:

    You know exactly zero about my knowledge or other background. I, on the other hand, have now read dozens of your poor and often incredibly bizarre attempts at justification of a world view that is totally disconnected from reality.

    On that basis, and on the basis that you do not seem to be a stupid person, I would strongly suggest that you seek professional psychological help. Surely, a life where you must continually worry about those Jews and Blacks under your bed who are trying to shoot mind control rays through your metal hat must be a continual source of distraction for you.

  • I have to say I do find all this quite entertaining. But I don’t believe a word of it (which ones…..?)

  • Craig!

    Great to have you here! Wilkommen!!

    In the late ‘Seventies and early ‘Eighties, I used to have David Ramsay Steele and Mark Brady proselytizing the “Six Million Revisionism” thing. In a fit of madness, Steele actually wrote an 8 page onionskin review of the stuff, stating that the exact number of Jews killed was ZERO!!!

    I find corpse-counting an unpleasant business, and I have better things to do anyway. However, Sean Gabb wrote and published an Essay on the Free Speech issues, and like Topsy, it just growed.

    John Thames (sp?) reminds me of George Bernard Shaw’s maxim, that a madman is someone who has lost everything EXCEPT his reason.

    Since Nazism is not a matter we can take lightly (not least because it is emblematic of morral horror), I cannot think that just ignoring the increasing numbers of people who subscribe to “Six Million Revisionism” stuff should be ignored. They should be confronted; their case strengthened where possible, then demolished so that nothing can be resurrected.

    Sir Karl (who had to leave Austria) approved of this course of action. No doubt that John would say “He’s a Jew!!!” just as the Nazis did.

    Tony

  • We’ve never had so many comments on a single blogpost before. Sean ought to feel rather flattered.

    It just goes to show what a terrible, almost unspoken and unmentionable level of fear, about the potential level of infection of epistemologically-focussed-thinking (about the holocaust) prevents the illumination of the holocaust’s real details.

    You know the ones.
    Like, er, people got killed. Millions.

    And someone did it.

    Happy now?

  • Everyone? Happy?

  • Good.

  • Mr. Bolton:

    You know absolutely nothing about me, either. I intend that it shall remain that way. I was amused by the George Bernard Shaw quote. It might interest you to know that Shaw had many favorable things to say about Hitler’s Germany. He also was less complimentary toward the Jews, who he referred to as “Chosen by the late Lord Balfour”.

    Views which you ascribe to my alleged psychological imbalances were once widely held in between wars England. You might research the history of the British Conservative Party. Rutledge has a book out on it that I read. Read Major Stanton Beamish, Edward Spears and others on Jews and communism (not to mention the Zionist state in the making) and you will see that my views are no more psychotic than those of some very distinguished Englishmen of yore.

  • Mr. Bolton:

    You know absolutely nothing about me, either. I intend that it shall remain that way.
    ==============================

    Ah, what a disappointment. And here I was looking forward in reporting you to the Learned Elders. After all, you are such a remarkably effective threat to their world domination that I’m sure they are anxious to neutralize you.

    But you are, of course, wrong Mr. Thames, I know a great deal about you. You have told us repeatedly and in great depth about your world view and beliefs. Or maybe you are a double agent out to make those who express such beliefs look ridiculous? Could be.

    As for what Englishmen of yore or playwrights believe: Englishmen of yore use to lime their hair and get high before they rushed into battles which were hopeless. Playwrights, well…… read something about the other views of George Bernard Shaw [e.g., fabian socialism and phrenology] or better Will Shakespeare.

    Sorry, I think I’ll continue to deal with reality. You might try it for a change some time.

  • Mr. Bolton:

    You would not know reality if you tripped over it.

    I am well acquainted with the socialist views of Mr. Shaw, views that I do not share. As to the rest of your comments, they fall well within the realm of the utterly inane. Try telling ex-president Jimmy Carter that there does not exist an extremely influential Zionist lobby in the US. One need not believe in the “Learned Elders” to notice that there exists an extremely influential Jewish lobby manipulating the affairs of the US. If you are English, read the history behind Lord Balfour’s declaration and then pontificate on a non-existent international force.

    Until such time as you have something intelligent to say, why don’t you leave off the feeble attempts to be sarcastic? You aren’t very good at that, either.

  • One Conclusion

    The mythical Jewish conspiracy to enslave mankind. Only Adolf Hitler and other psychopaths ever believed in it, right? Unfortunately, no. Quite a few people before the mythical Holocaust believed in it. One was the renowned Winston Churchill who espoused in his famous newspaper article “Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People” views remarkably similar to those of his later World War Two rival, Adolf Hitler. Another was David Starr Jordan, the first president of Stanford University, who wrote a book “The Invisible Empire”, describing a global network of Jewish finance that ruled the world. The American State Department in the year 1919 was full of devotees of Jewish communist conspiracy theories. The English press post World War One was filled with commentary on what “international Jews” were doing at Paris concocting minorities treaties, a mandate over Palestine and a great League of Nations. It all read remarkably like the allegations about a cabal of Israel First “neo-conservatives” driving the US into war in Iraq.

    Why does this allegation of an international Jewish conspiracy to enslave mankind keep recurring, again and again? Is there a subterranean lava flow of revolution against mankind that keeps erupting periodically? The Jews deny it but if it is true it explains a lot of things. Again and again mankind goes through one crisis after another. Much of it is undoubtedly the product of circumstances. But is there an agitating force taking advantage of those circumstances? That is the magic question. The Jews deny that any such thing could be occuring. But some very obvious facts belie their interpretation. Two world wars which devastated white European civilization led to some consistent results. The first was the beginning of an embryonic Jewish state in Palestine. The second was the actual creation of the Jewish state in Palestine. The demise of a German dictator has led to the myth of a vast extermination by means of “gassing”, a legend that is only now beginning to break down. The conclusion of the two wars led to two post-war conventions, one in Paris and the other at Nuremberg. There was amazing Jewish preparation and organizing which went into both conferences. At the first, Jewish ambitions were fulfilled by delegations from both sides of the Atlantic ocean. The mandate over Palestine, the League of Nations and the minorities treaties were all formulated in the French capitol, the center of the European Diaspora, to serve Jewish interests. At Nuremberg, a Jewish revenge trial against an anti-semitic enemy was convened with swarms of Jews hiding behind the British, American, French and Russian front men on the bench. Today, many decades after the end of the war, Holocaust Museums are built all over Europe and America. Laws criminalizing dissenters from the “gas chamber” hoax are ruthlessly enforced. The Congress of the United States trembles before AIPAC. A formidable power has emerged, unchallenged, into the open. An historical jigsaw puzzle has been assembled and its outlines are no longer indeterminate.

    This sort of reasoning is usually dismissed as “conspiracy theory”. It is nothing of the kind. It is merely inferential reasoning based on emerging patterns. The patterns are of long standing. They point consistently to a common ethnic denominator. They admit of only one conclusion.

  • The Guillotine Of Revisionism

    It appears that Bishop Richard Williamson has put the Catholic Church on the spot. The pope has demanded that Williamson recant his views. In essence, the Jews are demanding that the Church endorse the “six million” lie as official theology. Whether Williamson actually recants remains to be seen. The issue, however, is much more fundamental than Bishop Williamson. The issue is: Suppress Holocaust Denial at all costs. Holocaust Denial must be relegated to the underworld of cranks and lunatics. It must not be espoused by “respectable people” and it must not be overlooked by “respectable institutions”. Bishop Richard Williamson is doing that which cannot be tolerated. He is asserting, in essence, that people of standing in society can espouse unacceptable views. He is inviting others similarly situated to do the same. That is a deadly threat to the prevailing system of thought control.

    Bishop Richard Williamson must not be tolerated. An example must be made of him that shall crush anyone else so tempted. If Richard Williamson is permitted to get away with his heresy others, ever so timidly, shall begin to cross the line. As more and more become aware of the hoax and its implications, a certain power shall become ever more exposed to view. That power, which now terrorizes everyone with threat of career destruction and criminal prosecution for “hate speech”, shall itself begin to tremble. There shall be demands to replace a fake extermination with a real extermination. There shall be a nation, wrongfuly accused, rising up in righteous wrath. There will be tens of millions of dead Russians and Ukrainians, rising from their graves to demand retribution from the still extant descendants of the commisars. A nation of Arabs, robbed of their land and all their possessions, shall rise as one. Demands for Jewish blood and murderous retribution shall be everywhere.

    The Jews know that all their power resides in one unholy lie. Expose that lie before the world and the Jew stands defenseless before the guillotine.

  • The Pandora’s Box Of Jewry

    Anyone who doubts that a Jewish international force exists should look at what happens to Holocaust Deniers who speak out in public. Germar Rudolf and Ernst Zundel are in prison in Germany for proving that the “gas chamber”
    story is a hoax. Bishop Richard Williamson has been ordered by the Pope to recant and expelled by the government of Argentina. Gerd Honsik was deported from Spain to imprisonment in Austria. David Irving was thrown into solitary confinement by this same government of Austria. West Germany asttempted, unsuccessfully, to have Dr. Frederick Toben deported from England for Holocaust Denial. President Ahminijad of Iran has come in for severe international criticism for holding Holocaust Denial conferences. Fred Leuchter had his career destroyed for writing the pioneering report proving that the “gas chambers ” of Auschwitz were a hoax. The repression grows ever worse.

    The Jews are literally frantic to supress any public realization that their holy hoax might be precisely that. It is not hard to understand why. The anxiety which the Jews display over the “gas chambers” is eerily reminiscent of the anxiety they displayed over the Protocols of Zion in the early 1920’s. Here is something they must suppress-or the game is up. It is not merely that the “gas chamber” story is a lie. It is the door opening to all their other lies. For decades the Jews have covered up all the facts they do not want known behind the legend of their extermination. If the “gas chamber” story is exposed to public view then everyone will want to know: What else have the Jews been up to? The Holocaust, then, is the Pandora’s Box of Jewry. If the lid is lifted on their extermination hoax, they shall never be able to put the lid back on honest historical inquiry.

  • John Thames:

    Germar Rudolf and Ernst Zundel may be lying, or they may be dupes or provocateurs.

    Makes no difference.

    Historians worldwide work on studies of these matters.

    All that is really significant is the corresponence between the various different historical accounts, and the Truth as to what really occurred.

    You want to jump into bed with one version of that theory, prematurely, and buy into it 100%

    Why???

    Let History judge,

  • Tony:

    I do not buy it 100%. I think that the number of Jews shot in Russia could be higher than the revisionists admit. As to Rudolf and Zundel, they could be telling the truth. Why does that possibility not occur to you?

    Historians, Tony, are like everybody else. They are subject to certain powers. In other words, they are not objective investigators, as they pretend. Were they to openly investigate the “gas chamber” claims, they would be open to the same reprisals that have befallen Zundel and Rudolf. I feel sure you must know this. Just to illustrate the point an anonymous professor who writes under the name of Dalton has just published a book “Debating The Holocaust”. Were he to publish it under his own name he would be destroyed in an instant.

    The real problem here, Tony, is psychological, not factual. And, Mr. Bolton to the contrary, the psychological problems are not mine. It is very easy to demonstrate, on the basis of the facts, that the Jews were not exterminated during WW2. But, if the story of their extermination is a hoax, then the implications of that hoax-and the power which perpetrated it-are very disturbing. The implications are so disturbing that people would rather not face the implications.

    Let us take you as an illustration. You are obviously not stupid. Yet you make all kinds of objections to my factual, lucidly reasoned presentations that are simply silly. Why? The answer is: psychological blockage. You do not wish to confront the fact that there is a very evil power in this world capable of enormous deception. That power has obviously not disappeared. Equally obviously, if that power lied about a supposed extermination, it would be equally capable of turning the social structure upside down. It takes no particular genius to see that civil rights, racial equality, feminism, open borders and One World are all ideas promoted and advanced by the same Judaic power responsible for the “gas chamber” hoax.

    I think you realise all these things, Tony, but the willingness to see the obvious is too painful. That is a problem from which a great many people suffer. My writings make a great many people uncomfortable because I refuse to back away from the facts and their meaning.

  • John Thames:

    “As to Rudolf and Zundel, they could be telling the truth. Why does that possibility not occur to you?”

    Because my primary focus is upon the truth-content of their assertions.. That’s how Critical Rationalism works. Something may be true even though _no-one_ believes it; and something else can be false even though _everyone_ believes it.

    This straightforward truth-testing is far and away the best method we hacve in quests for knowledge.

    I advocate reasoned discussion. “You may be right and I may be wrong — let’s find out together, and learn from each other (hopefully).

    I’m still awaiting your response to my question “What would have to be the case, for you to be wring?”

    Unusually, my willingness to defend Israel is in no way dependent on Shoah.

    It’s dependent on the fact that Israel is a beleagured (and sometimes woefully mistaken) part of Western Civilization.

    They defended me when no-one else could or would do (including Chris R. Tame, whose life I defended with my own).

    Push comes to shove, and he abandons me to the tender mercies of Dr. Babiker, a Sudanese, Lefever’s glove-puppet… And Chris was doing work for SUDAN FOUNDATION at the time (he hated Christianity so much…)

    Regards,

    Tony

    [ FX: EVENT SEQUENCERS ARE NOW SYNCHRONIZED AND INTERACTIVELY OPERATIONAL ON TWELVE PLANE LEVELS!!! FAIL-DEADLY PROCEDURES ARE IN PLACE: WE HAVE A “GO!” I REPEAT, WE HAVE A “GO!” THIS IS NOT A DRILL!!!” ]

    You wont’t believe what happens next…

    ———— * * * * * ————

  • Tony:

    You are making no sense whatever.

    It would take one thing to convince me of the truth of the Holocaust-six million bodies full of hydrogen cyanide residue. They have not been found. As to your own standard, you are not living up to it.

    Now, as to the claim that Israel is an outpost of western civilization. It is not and never has been. Herzl came up with the Zionist idea based on the presumed incompatibility of Jews with European civilization. That is Zionism 101-for anyone who has studied the subject. As to the old Balfour eea claim that a Jewish state in Palestine would be an “ally” of the British Empire, we all know how that turned out.

  • John Thames:

    You say:

    “It would take one thing to convince me of the truth of the Holocaust-six million bodies full of hydrogen cyanide residue.”

    That is completely illogical and absurd. My knowledge of Shoah does not depend on the existence of murderous cyanide gas-chambers in any way.

    A young friend of mine (I provided a home for him, his two brothers and their mother in 1969) was found on his step-father’s kitchen floor, dying of cyanide poisoning (according to the autopsy).

    He left behing a C-90 tape recording which three people have also heard (as well as me), in which he stated unequivocally that he believed he was going to be murdered by his step-father and his Czechoslovak former girl-friend, who had taken to sleeping with his step-father while in the same house as Andrew.

    I notified New Scotland Yard’s Special Branch, directly, three times: my contact’s very existence at NSY was denied.

    Andrew’s father worked in Signals Intelligence. They did nothing, as far as I know.

    Question: Do you think that Andrew was murdered by cyanide poisoning? If he was, why was nothing done about it??

    Tony

  • Tony:

    Sorry about your friend. But your point is completely inane.

    The Jews claim that six million of their number were murdered in “gas chambers”. I simply ask: Where is the proof of the “gas chambers”? Where are the bodies? Where is the evidence? I have received no response.

  • Craig J. Bolton

    The Jews claim that six million of their number were murdered in “gas chambers”. I simply ask: Where is the proof of the “gas chambers”? Where are the bodies? Where is the evidence? I have received no response.
    ==========================

    O.K., well here’s a response. No Jew [or anyone else] has ever made any such claim.

    Claims have been made that approximately 6 million Jews were gassed, shot, burned alive, starved and/or worked to death, hung or used in fatal medical experiments. The claim is further than most of these deaths were deliberate and intentional and induced without reasonable cause – and certainly without due process of law – that they were murder.

    For someone who claims to have such profound knowledge of this subject your contentions about what other people “claim” are either remarkably ignorant or deliberate lies.

    As for the proof you demand: This happened over 50 years ago. Bodies do not last for 50 years.

    Get a clue, and try to wipe that spittle off your chin occasionally.

  • Mr. Bolton:

    You are a bullshit artist.

    The proof is very simple. The Jews have made a great many claims about their holy “six million”. First they claimed that the Germans were exterminating Jews in the camps in Germany proper. Then they dropped those claims and asserted that the exterminations were taking place at Auschwitz. At Nuremberg they claimed that four million Jews were killed. Now they have lowered the nuber to under one million, after several preliminary piecemeal reductions. The Jews once claimed that Jews were mass electrocuted at Sobibor and Belzec and steamed to death, like lobsters. They have dropped those claims as too embarassing to their legend.

    It gets better, Mr. Bolton. The Jews cannot come up with any German order, from Adolf Hitler or anyone else, calling for the extermination of the Jews. All that they can claim is that the Nazis used deportation as an euphimism for extermination. There are quite a few German documents which speak against any extermination plan. Heinrich Himmler posted an order that the death rate in the camps was to be “reduced at all costs”. That order was an effort to preserve Jews as labor, not to kill them. In the so-called Scheckelgruber memorandum found by David Irving, Ministry of the Interior official Hans Lammerer made a note of a phone conversation he had where he was told that “the Fuehrer wants the solution of the Jewish problem delayed until after the war”. Is that the wish of a man bent on extermination, Mr. Bolton?

    The rest of your arguments are equally idiotic. True, bodies do not last for sixty years. But bones do. All over the former Soviet Union the bones of the bolshevik mass slaughters are being dug up. The bones of the mythical “six million” are nowhere to be found. The claim that the Germans built special crematory ovens capable of destroying the bones at a high rate is a lie. The crematory ovens at Auschwitz had a disposal rate consistent with the death rate from disease. Read Carlo Mattogno’s debates with Professor Zimmerman, if you don’t believe it.

    I do not know whether you are a Jew, Mr. Bolton, although I expect you are. Your comments reveal a deliberate evasion of the points already gone over in considerable detail in earlier posting. Did you bother to read them or do you shoot from the hip, Mr. Bolton?

  • Craig J. Bolton

    Usual lies followed by evasions when you are called on those lies. [“No, not that hand, look over here.”]

  • Mr. Bolton:

    You lying, kike son-of-a-bitch.

    I answered every point and then some. If anyone is evading issues it is you. As for your claim that these poor Jews were deliberately murdered, what about the many millions murdered by the Jewish commissars of communism? There is an expression, Mr. Bolton, that “what goes around comes around”. It is a little like those “poor, innocent Jews” in Palestine stealing an Arab land-and then screaming because a few suicide bombers give them what they deserve.

    I adamantly deny that the Germans killed six million in “gas chambers”. But as to the ones they did kill-they richly deserved it for self-evident reasons. Now stop whining-you circumsized piece of shit.

  • John Thames:

    You say: “civil rights, racial equality, feminism, open borders and One World.”

    I support Civil Rights, equality, the free movement of people , individualist feminism and so forth. I’m an Athenian polymath.

    Tony

  • Tony:

    Like Mr. Bolton, you do not know what you are talking about.

    Open borders and the free movement of peoples is a recipe for global racial mongrelization. That is exactly what the Jews want-One World of mud faces which the superior “Chosen People” can control. Why do you think that Jew bastard, Sarkoczy, is telling the French that they must miscegenate and “diversify”? Do you suppose that the circumsized bastard is going to tell the Israelis to miscegenate and intermarry with Palestinians? Not a chance, Tony Halick.

    Now for individualist feminsm. I shall take you apart on that pone the same way I have taken you apart on everything else. Here is the social structure pre-feminism. Women work to support men who raise the children. Women give men everything in divorce court (the house, the car, all her money). Women pay massive child support and alimony to automatic custody fathers. Women die fighting all the wars of their country while men drink tea with the boys back home. Women go down with the Titanic so that men and children can climb on the life boats. Women work themselves into heart attacks climbing the corporate ladder so that men can outlive women by eight years and inherit 84% of all the personal wealth in the land.

    Men have it made. In 1963 a revolutionary book appears on the market. It is “The Male Mystique” by Betty Schmuckstein. Betty pretends to be an ordinary house husband of the transvestite variety. In reality, she is a lifetime Jewish communist and devotee of Joseph Stalin. Betty preaches the line that the average male suburban house husband is really living in a camoflauged Auschwitz concentration camp. Men should “liberate” themselves from this female oppression and pursue high paying careers in addition to men and babies first.

    Women tell men to shove it. All the real discrimination is in favor of men. Women are not going to give men all the jobs, too. Men have too much already. Besides, women should be paid more than men. Women must support the opposite sex, women must give it all away in divorce court, women must pay child support and alimony to automatic custody fathers. Why should men have equal pay when they do not wat equal operating expenses? That is as absurd as giving men the vote when it was women who spilled their blood at Valley Forge and Yorktown.

    We must continue these debates, Tony. I am actually going to teach you and Mr. Bolton how to think if it kills me.

  • John Thames:

    O’m ‘unteachable’, though I do study and I do learn.

    I was suspended from Dulwich College seven times and ‘asked to leave’ twice.

    I was issued with an ultimatum at Geelong Grammar School in Australia: Accept being beaten in the school showers by the House Prefects, or be expelled just two weeks before my University Entrance exams: I chose to leave (“The Mania for Credintials” is intellectually unhealthy, and places your future in the hands of hierarchy.

    I received a standing ovation from nearly the entire school, and I am proud to be a Geelong Grammarian — now a magnificent place of learning.

    Don’t kill yourself, John… (smiles)

    Tony

  • Tony:

    In your case, I think you should have stayed in school. You might have learned something.

    I abhor credentials as much as anyone. But your exist from academia did not increase your common sense which seems to have been missing since birth.

  • John Thames:

    More snide remarks from you.

    Common sense suggests I ignore you.

    If you cannot raise your game pronto, I’ll do just that.

    Tony

  • Craig J. Bolton

    Mr. Thames,

    Having reviewed your last dozen or so posts, where you become increasingly paranoid, vituperative and insulting to everyone around you, I have come to the conclusion that you truly are an agent of the Learned Elders hired to discredit their respectable critics and opponents. They really should look for someone who is more subtle and of better character.

  • Mr. Bolton:

    I grow weary of utterly uniformed , inane comments by people who lnow nothing of the facts. Since I get no response on the facts (by you or anyone else), I get the usual suggestions that I suffer from “mad dog” disease. My only psychologicasl disability is that I know whereof I speak.

  • John Thames:

    I am not interested in diversions into your psychology, your state of mind, your ‘weariness’ or anything other than the correspondence of your assertions to the ascertainable facts.

    In ANY conflict, Truth is the first casualty. Yet you continually exhibit every form of cognitive bias. Everything that might CONFIRM your thesis ‘must’ be true, whereas everything that falsifies it must be a priori false.

    OberGruppenFuhrer Heinrich Mueller was recruited by General Abakumov of SMERSH in 1943. Abakumov must have had great insight into the internal workings of the Nazi inner circle — he had to have others there.

    Stalin was attacking and eliminating very similar target groups within the Soviet Union itself. It is by no means unlikely that he — another Jew-hater — would want to ‘cleanse’ Germany prior to annexation, and discredit Western Civilization.

    It has been shown beyond all doubt that Heinrich Mueller was a great admirer of the NKVD as a means of Social Control, and so he cross-copied it into the foundations and structure of the Gestapo he created. Function follows form, and in doing so he CREATED the NKVD within Nazi Germany.

    However, these structures have a life of their own, and it is not in the least surprising that the Gestapo came to resemble ever more closely the NKVD and its fell practices.

    Switching the allegiance of Gestapo staffers to Stalin’s NKVD became easier and easier — it was a distinction without a difference.

    The Roosevelt regime was determined to carve up the entire world between the US State and the Soviet State. Since “Uncle Joe” was our “heroic ally”, criticism of him and his hideous regime was literally _unthinkable_.

    OF COURSE every kind of lie was told to exaggerate German atricities. This sort of thing ALWAYS happens in wartime and its aftermath.

    And you, John Thames, are helping the REAL perpetrators of the REAL atrocities to get away with it. by reason of your absurd Jew-hatred.

    Go away and do some homework, then come back…

    Tony

  • Yes, Mr. Thames, we’ve all observed how misunderstood and persecuted you are. But do keep up that struggle for Truth, Justice and the Aryan way.

  • Mr. Bolton:

    I surely shall.

    Be sure you send your monthly check to the Zionist Organization so that your brother Jews may continue to slaughter Plestinians. As Herzl put it so accurately in Der Judenstaat: “We are a people, one people.”

  • Tony Hollick:

    I have done more research into more historical issues than you ever have or will.

    You are quite correct that the only issue is the truth and the facts. Unfortunately, you lack the intelligence and knowledge of the facts to meet your own standard. It is a documented fact that Adolf Hitler once said: There is more which binds us to Bolshevism than seperates us from it.” He also praised on several occassions “Stalin’s interesting socialist experiment.” You apparently mistake me for a National Socialist. I am not. I more closely resemble a Winston Churchill white supremacist. (And he was surely that. You should pick up a used copy of Patrick Buchanan’s book, “Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War”. You might learn something.)

    I find your comments on appeasement of Stalin amusing. I read many years ago, in my youth, George Crocker’s “Roosevelt’s Road To Russia”), William Henry Chamberlain’s “America’s Second Crusade”, Charles Beard’s “President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War”, Charles Callan Tansill’s “Back Door To War”, George Morgenstern’s “Pearl Harbor”: The Story of the Secret War” and innumerable other volumes too numerous to mention. Right now I am reading Norman Rose’s book, “The Gentile Zionists” about Baffy Dugale, Walter Elliott and all the other whores of Zionism in the British Empire of the 1930’s. I can wrap you and Mr. Bolton around my little finger in terms of informed historical knowledge.

    And this brings us to one of the more astounding examples of your ignorance. You refer to my irrational hatred of Jews. There is nothing irrational about it. You profess yourself a student of history, yet you know nothing about the enormous Jewish impact upon the empire of your own country, much less their influence upon the history of the 20th century. Apparently you do not even know that communism throughout the end of the Second World War was a Jewish movement world wide. Now, if you do not even know that, Tony, how well informed can you be?

    If you doubt that such was the case, then why don’t you get Professor Yuri Slezkine’s book, “The Jewish Century” and read it? If you are too lazy (I suspect you are), then just read Professor Kevin MacDonald’s review of same. It is much shorter. Or read Joseph Bendersky’s book “The Jewish Threat: Anti-Semitic Politics of the U.S. Army”. Then you can read all the documented American intelligence reports about Jewish commissars in Russia. If you are really dense, Tony, just read Winston Churchill’s old Illustrated Sunday Herald article: “Zionism Versus Bolshevism: A Struggle For The Soul Of The Jewish People”, February 8, 1920. That should tickle your patriotic English funnybone.

    As to appeasement of Stalin, that was the necessary corollary of “Germania delenda est” (just in case you haven’t figured it out). Had the stupid British (you are English, aren’t you Tony?) fought with Hitler or at least remasined neutral, Stalin would never have swallowed half of Europe. And guess what, Tony? If the British had actually made common cause with Hitler, then those “mighty warriors” in Singapore might not have been taking Japanese monkeys up their assholes for the duration of the war. (Do you prefer James Baldwin up the ass, Tony?)

    I do not need any history lessons from either you or Mr. Bolton. As to my “irrational hatred” of God’s Chosen People, you should try telling Palestinians to get over Gaza. Their hatred of Jews vastly exceeds mine-for reasons which require no explanation.

  • Mr. Bolton:

    You treat the holocaust as the “Father, Son and Holy Ghost”. It must be the “New Christianity”-for schmucks.

  • Correction:

    “Father, Son and Holy Gas Chamer”.

  • John Thames:

    ” (Do you prefer James Baldwin up the ass, Tony?)”

    Actually, no; but that crack has triggrtrf Neutal Nets running on all your postes, ever. We like to be thorough…

    Haw do you fancy being nailed through your hands and feet, spreadeagled face down on a wooden floor?

    Marine Corps folk can then play with your ‘back passage’ (as they ever so politly say) using red-hot cavalry sabres…

    Chief Mangus Cioirado put up with this for ten full minutes before calling on his warriors to surrender, during the Indian Wars…

    Just a thought, arising from your above-quoted ‘remark’……

    Tony

  • I have no respect for the torture methods of the phony “War Against Terror” I regard them as a disgrace. As to what I think of the fighting abilities of English “pussy boy” stormtroopers, that speaks for itself. It is too bad the Japanese did not feed every yellow bellied English faggot to the jungle crocodiles. They deserved it.

  • The “New Christianity”

    Christianity is not, as some imagine, passe. It has been transmuted into “The father, the son, the holy gas chamber”. It is the new trinity of the post-Holocaust age. The Jew is the victim, the survivor and the long lost relative. What a miraculous transformation! Even Jesus ascending to the hereafter could never equal it. Saint Peter sits at the Pearly Gates with the magic question: “Did you survive the gas chambers, my son?” On that question alone does eternal salvation depend. The tatoo on the arm marks the birth of a new saint. Saint 666 is the ultimate distinction. Saint Bergen of Belsen, Count Dachau and Sister Sophie of Auschwitz are the new Mother Teresas.

  • John Thames:

    Chief Mangus Colorado was tormented in just that way by US Cavalry soldiers during the US Indian Wars. NOT the soi-disant “War on Terror.”

    As an amateur history buff, surely you must have known that? You have your wars all mixed up, along with everything else…

    Tony

    ———— * * * * * ————

  • Tony:

    I am not confused at all. I was perfectly aware of the time period. Our Guantanamo Bay bully boys are doing things every bit as bad, and worse. I recall that the Ottoman Turks did the same thing to your POW’s during WW1. Of course, you limey bastards deserve it.

  • John Thames:

    The idea that Marxist philosophy is an idealistic political programme is commonly and utterly mistaken.

    A man might welcome the sunrise; but he can do nothing to bring it on or hold it back. Marx believed that he had discovered Iron Laws of social evolution comparable to Darwinism (of course, we now know that Darwin was mistaken; and that Lamarckism or Bergsonianism are nearer to the truth).

    Nearly every intelligent person accepted Marx’s basic ideas,even if they didn’t like the predictions. And Marxism had an unbeatable slogan: “Help to bring about the Inevitable.”

    Naturally, many Jews were attracted to Marxism. According to mythology, the Jews were the last people to be offered Judaism by G*d. This placed a great burden on them — to perfect the world so as to prefigure the coming of Messiah.

    My spiritual ideas are not revelatory.

    I’m Taoist…

    Tony

  • I agree that both Marxism and Darwinism are completely incorrect. Jews did indeed have a special propensity for Marxist philosophy because it jibed so closely with the messianic tradition of Judaism. All that is well documented and factually indisputable.

    Some of your thinking is valid; you remain confused about mythical “gas chambers” and a fabulous “six million”.

  • John Thames:

    Thjere are more than 2.3 million people incarcerated in the US. Most of them are black. Also, most of them are at peak ‘breeding’ age. Increasingly, young black females are also being incarcerated in greater numbers. The average age at death of a past or present inmate is 50.

    Is it reasonable to conclude that the US is enforcing a Negative Eugenics programme on hated and feared racial minorities, with lethal consequences for countless thousand of blacks, right now?

    ‘Yes’ or ‘No’???

    Tony

  • No.

    Such a conclusion is absurd. The US is no more imposing a “negative eugrnics” program on blacks than blacks are imposing a “negative eugenics” program on themselves in Africa by slaughtering and cannibalizing each other. The US is imposing a “negative eugenics” program on whites by taxing them to subsidize the birth rate of mud faces. There are millions of hispanics in the US who get free medical care and food at the expense of the already overburdened whites. California is the classic example of this but hardly the only one.

    In Europe the same process is at work where millions of Muslims are being subsidized at the expense of the declinig whites. Better wake up, Tony. It isn’t the blacks who are in danger. It is your own kind.

  • John Thames:

    You are ‘strong on the bad points’ of your case. and ‘weak on the good points.”

    Give us your ‘take’ on Rhodesia.

    O helped with ‘sanctions-busting’ during the ‘Sixties. I could actally have been _executed_ under the Treason Felony Act for sending a congratulatory telegram to PM Ian Smith in the First Anniversary of Rhodesian Independence). It was then that I discovered that all our telegams were read by the State, long befire the “Project Shamrock’ story bit the headlines.

    So tell us: where were you, what were you doing, and what did you support (and why).

    I supported progressive enfranchisement, a policy I still support…

    Tony

  • Start here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodesia

    Tony

  • Tony:

    What are you trying to tell me?

    That blacks haven’t wrecked Rhodesia the same way they wrecked every other country they took over?

    I have no idea what “progressive enfranchisement” is. If you mean that one idiot’s vote is as good as any other idiot’s vote, I don’t buy it.

  • John Thames:

    “I have no idea what “progressive enfranchisement” is.”

    There’s your trouble…

    Which one of the two words “progressive” and “enfranchisement” do you fail to understand?

    Tony

  • Tony:

    “Progressive” usually means socialist; enfranchisement means the vote. I take it that you mean that the vote should be given to those who do not deserve it, like African blacks, Alcohol Prohibitionist females, working class morons, etc.

    My “social program” consists of the following:

    (1) Repeal female suffrage;

    (2) Bring back slavery

    (3) Design real “gas chambers”

  • John Thames:

    Then I’ll see you at the barricades,

    Through night-sight sniperscopes attached to very high velocity rifles that can bring off a clean kill at 3,000 metres.

    I design them (amongst other things).

    http://www.fcsa.org

    What a waste of a life yours is…

    Whatever (or whoever) made you that twisted, I wonder?

    Tony

  • Tony:

    As I remarded before, there is no correlation between IQ and the abilityto think clearly.

    You may be able to design scopes for rifles, but you have yet to figure out that blacks are a worthless race. The human mind is a curious thing. Yours is far more curious than mine.

    Now, since you falsely believe that Israel is an outpost of western civilization in a sea of Arab tyrrany, here is a little essay to disabuse you of that notion. Maybe you could design killing weapons for your Jew friends in the Kike-Reich. They seem to put them to practical use.

    Another Amazing Quote

    “I had a long talk with (Chaim) Weizmann about Bolshevism. He argued that Zionism was ‘constructive Bolshevism” as opposed to the destructive form in Russia… I asked him for his frank view on Bolshevism to which he replied-If Christ were to come to Paris now, he would preach Bolshevism.”

    (Paris, January 30, 1919)

    Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen, “Middle East Diary” (London, 1959), p.14

    Richard Meinertzhagen was a famous English military pro-Zionist. He was rather exceptional for the British military which was strongly pro-Palestinian Arab. Weizmann’s words, although amazing, were rather typical of the post-World War One era. It was common in those days for Zionist Jews to threaten the British Empire with the spectre of Jewish Communism on the rampage if Zionist ambitions in Palestine were not served. Weizmann’s cute distinction between “constructive Bolshevism” (Zionism) and “destructive Bolshevism” (Communism) was completely bogus, of course. As anyone can tell by Israel’s invasions of Lebanon and Gaza, “constructive Bolshevism” is just as murderous and destructive as that of the Jewish bolsheviks. Israel’s carefully constructed image as a “democracy” is now coming unglued before the world. But this is not, as some would argue, a recent development. The true image of Zionism, as a movement of Jewish communists from Russia pouring into Arab Palestine, was known from the beginning. That is why it is essential to return to the beginning to understand what is going on today. For it was predictable and forseeable from the beginning-as many informed men of the day prophesied.

  • Stalin’s Jewish Emigration Policy

    It is well known that Joseph Stalin allowed huge numbers of Jews to emigrate from Soviet Russia to Palestine after World War Two. The reason is also well known. Stalin calculated that allowing communist Jews to pour into the Jewish state-in-the-making would influence Israel in a pro-Soviet direction. What caused the Soviet dictator to reverse course after initially recognizing Israel in 1948? Stalin discovered that the masses of Soviet Jews, communists to the core, were starting to switch their loyalties to the Zionist state. Even worse, America was emerging as the sponsor of Israel-and huge numbers of Soviet Jews had relatives living in America. Stalin did the only prudent thing. He broke off relations with Israel and denounced Zionism.

    Stalin, who has employed the Jews as his “willing executioners”, now had a dual loyalty problem on his hands. The same Jews who had run his gulags, murdering millions, might now betray him on behalf of a foreign state. The brutal dictator started removing the same Jews he had only recently appointed to run the Iron Curtain countries of Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Rumania. Jacob Berman, Rudolf Slansky and Ana Pauker, among others, fell victim to Stalin’s revenge. Stalin, the Adolf Hitler of the Bolshevik Jews, now became a late life Haman. The same Jews who had worshipped him as he appointed Lazar Kaganovich, Lev Inzhir, Gregory Zhuk, Moishe Trilliser, Lavrenti Beria, Henrik Yaghoda, Simon Firin, Mattvei and Boris Berman, Naftaly Frenkel and others to high positions in the NKVD now denounce him as an anti-semite.

  • The Insemination And Embryonic Development Of Zionism

    There is altogether too much writing and discussion on the present of Zionism. Oceans of ink are spilled on the latest atrocity, invasion of a neighboring country, peace discussion, photo finish election, etc. This is called by media blabbermouths “keeping the public informed”. It is nothing of the kind. It is simply treating the present as the reality of the problem.

    The reality of the problem lies deep in the past. That does not mean that it goes back thousands of years, as many suppose. That view is equally uninformed. In reality, from the defeat of Mehmet Ali and his son, Ibrahim in 1840, peace prevailed in Palestine from that year until the outbreak of the First World War in 1914 (actually, until Enver Pasha brought Turkey into the war against the English in 1915). No organized violence of any kind occured in Palestine during these years. When, then, did the problems begin? They began about the time of the assassination of Czar Alexander Two in Russia in 1881. Actually, we can go back fifteen years later to roughly 1865. Around this time Russian Jews began to conceive the idea of a “return” to Palestine. One of the first early works proposing this idea was Moses Hess book “Rome and Jerusalem” published in 1862. The Russian Jews were unhappy under the Czars and developed the idea that since there was no future for the Jews under the Czars, the solution was to migrate either to Palestine, England Argentina or the United States. These ideas had been gestating in Russia for some time before Theodore Herzl formally developed them into the doctrine of Zionism in Vienna. Among the Russian Jews attracted to this novel idea were Leon Pinsker in his “AutoEmancipation”, Nachman Syrkin, Dov Berechov, Usshishkin, Moishe Lillienblum and others who all promoted the idea of the “return” in various ways, usually from a Marxist perspective. This Marxist-Zionism came to a head in the assination of the Czar in 1881. The Russian monarchy passed its infamous “May Day” laws, a precursor of Adolf Hitler’s Nuremberg laws, excluding the Jews from participation in large segments of the economy and”confining” them in a large area of western Russia known as the Pale of Settlement.

    Following the assassination of the Czar the Jews began their first “aliyah” to Palestine. Jewish agricultural colonies were planted in Arab Palestine beginning in 1878 with Petak Tikvah, Rishon-Le Zion, Rehoboth and other colonies. Contrary to what they later pretended, the Zionist pioneers quickly discovered that Palestine was full of Arabs, most of them farmers, plowing the land with oxen. The coastal cities were already fully populated with Arabs and Arab olive trees, orchards, vineyards, wheat fields and soap factories already dotted the land. The Arabs were extremely apprehensive regarding the Jewish colonies from inception. Arab newspapers in Egypt, Syria and Palestine regularly discussed the threat that the colonies represented to Arab interests. Arab delegates to the Turkish Parliament in Constantinople were always bringing up the Jewish colonies and demanding action against them. Nothing meaningful was done and by the outbreak of war in 1915 there were 600,000 Arabs and 100,000 Jews in Palestine, most of the latter Russian and Eastern European Zionists of recent arrival.

    There is no need in this essay to go into the history of Lord Balfour’s declaration and the subsequent history of the British Mandate. The relevant point here is that the beginnings of Zionism originated in conditions of Russia extraneous to conditions in Palestine. The Arabs were never responsible for conditions in Eastern Europe. Neither were they responsible for the later policies of Adolf Hitler. To review the gestative stages of Zionism is to realise immediately that Zionist claims to Palestine have always rested on sheer presumption. The presumption has been, from day one, that the Arabs of Palestine should be pushed aside to solve Jewish problems in Europe. So long as that presumption prevails, as it still does, there shall be no resolution to the crisis in Palestine.

  • Dear Mr. Bolton:

    Please do honor me with your comments about my “ignorant, uniformed” views. The readers of this discussion can judge for themselves exactly how “uninformed” my views actually are.

  • The Reality Of A Certain Accusation

    It is well known that over 80% of all accusations of child abuse in divorce cases are deliberate concoctions, devised by vindictive wives and mothers to screw their husbands over. Accusation is considered proof, innocence of the accused is not even considered a possibilty. The rewards of making a false accusation are considerable. The accused is immediately prohibited from having any contact with his children upon mere accusation. His legal expenses, even if eventually exonerated, are enormous. Custody shall go automatically to the mother, to guarantee that no harm shall befall the child (better to be safe than sorry) . In short, screaming “Child abuse!” is a set up.

    But there is one accusation of abuse that is neither of recent origin nor the product of feminist hysteria against men. That is the centuries old charge of Jewish ritual murder of non-Jewish children. This accusation has many documented cases to sustain it. Again and again, bodies of young children and adults have been found where the bodies were drained of blood and multiple wounds in the shape of Christ nailed to the cross have been found. Again and again, the charge has been leveled against the Jews in all lands. Again and again, the Jews scream”Blood libel!” but cannot explain away the evidence against them. The same “politically correct” people who will believe any charge of abuse against a man refuse to believe that any member of God’s “Chosen People” could possibly kill a gentile child for his blood. They will not believe it the same way they will not believe that “gas chambers” can be a hoax.

  • The Deracination Of Whites

    The deracination of whites post World War Two has been an amazing phenomenon. A race which once accepted its own superiority as a self-evident fact now bows supinely before every mud race on earth. White countries in Africa surrender to the rule of savages; American whites turn a blind eye to the invasion of their country by Third World orangatangs. Miscegenation increases at an alarming rate. Whites actually seem to believe that all races are equal and that genes do not matter. This belief, which their ancestors would have found astonishing, they take as a matter-of-course based on all the Jew propaganda poured into their senseless brains. It seems not to occur to these fools that the Jews preaching this nonsense to them are the same Jews who practice master race politics against the Palestinian Arabs.

    Whites, plainly put, are brain dead. They do not seem to realize that racial suicide is the purpose of all the egalitarian nonsense poured into their skulls. Whites actually seem to believe that their kind is evil. They do not ask themselves how turning the earth over to Genghiz Khan savages, Mau-Mau killers or Santa Ana/Frito Bandito Mexicans shall improve things. Whites also fail to notice that the mud races they suck up to despise them. Blacks and Mexicans openly announce on their web sites that they wish to exterminate the “white devils”. Whether they do it by outright mass murder or miscegenation makes little difference.

  • Tony:

    Why so silent?

  • John Thames:

    “Then I’ll see you at the barricades,

    Through night-sight sniperscopes attached to very high velocity rifles that can bring off a clean kill at 3,000 metres.

    I design them (amongst other things).

    http://www.fcsa.org

    What a waste of a life yours is…

    Whatever (or whoever) made you that twisted, I wonder?

    Tony”

    I have nothing further to say to you, John. You’re a ‘dead soul.” Finis.

  • Tony:

    I anticipated the response.

    This is what always happens when people get hit over the head with facts that they cannot refute. I have encountered it over and over again. You cannot refute a single reasoned essay I post; therefore, throw in the towel.

    It is obvious that you have learned nothing from our debates; perhaps those with more open minds than yours will have learned something.

  • John Thames:

    A word to the wise: if you persist in prattling on about ‘inventing new and better gas chambers’ I can assure you that Oliphant Street will consider ‘sending you to a better world’, as they say in Jerusalem…

    Regards,

    Tony

  • Tony:

    Don’t worry about sending me to a “better world”. Just try understanding what kind of a world you are really living in.

  • John:

    Doing what you do does take a kind of crazy courage,

    Where do you think that you get that courage from?

    TEXT: ‘The problem of values is nothing but the problems of our acts,
    goals and morals. It concerns the compass by which we must
    steer our ship if we are to set a true course through life. The
    compass itself has been given different names by various
    religions and philosophies … but I have a clear impression
    that all such formulations try to express man’s relatedness to a
    central order. In the final analysis the central order, or the
    ‘One’ as it used to be called with which we commune in the
    language of religion, must win out….

    If we ask Western man what is good, what is worth striving for
    and what has to be rejected, we shall find time and again, that
    his answers reflect the ethical norms of Christianity even when
    he has long since lost all touch with Christian images and
    parables. If the magnetic force which has guided this particular
    compass – and what else was its source but the central order? –
    should ever become extinguished, _terrible_ things may happen to
    mankind, far more terrible even than concentration camps and
    atom bombs.’

    Werner Heisenberg, [1971] ‘Physics and beyond: encounters and
    conversations’, published by George Allen and Unwin, London.

    Tony

  • Tony: I agree we all need a moral compass.

    What drives me? Nothing more than old fashioned loyalty to the truth as I see it, a classic value of western civilization in which I believe, like David, Irving, Michelle Renouf and others.

  • http://counterknowledge.com/2009/03/michael-santomauro-there-was-no-holocaust-just-a-massive-massacre/

    ore debating for any who are interested.

  • I’m always (more than) interested in the quest for difficult, complex, relevant truths.

    I’ll be there.

    Tony Hollick

  • CREMATING THE LEARNED ELDERS
    (OR, THE PROTOCOLS OF “GASSING”)

    Like Holocaust Denial, the Protocols of Zion are outside the parameters of polite society. It is easy to see why. If either is true, then there exists a centuries old conspiracy to enslave mankind. Te Protocols are supposedly a forgery by the Czarist secret police; Holocaust Denial is supposedly a fringe movement of Hitler apologists and lunatics. What no one wishes to do is to submit either the Protocols or Holocaust Denial to rational examination. The moment that is done, the more obvious it becomes that both Holocaust Denial and the Protocols fit the facts. More than that, the truth of the one reinforces the truth of the other. That suggests a common ethnic origin behind the conspiracy.

    The Protocols of Zion are supposedly a plagiarism of Maurice Joly’s nineteenth century book “Dialogues Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu”. Undoubtedly there are point-by-point equivalences. But all that really begs the question. The Protocols did not describe the world as it existed when they first appeared in the early twentieth century (around 1905 to 1920). But they very much do describe the world as it has subsequently developed in the succeeding century. Why? The predictive validity is the point crying out for explanation. The Protocols became a rallying point for the British press in the aftermath of the First World War. They seemed to confirm the terrible reality of the Jewish-Bolshevik revolution in Russia. The activity of the world’s Jews at the Paris Peace Conference where Jewish delegations from the Old and New world’s congregated and demanded “minorities treaties” testified to the reality of co-coordinated Jewish international power in the real world. It was the British Empire itself which sponsored a Jewish “national home” in Palestine-allegedly as the result of a “contract with Jewry” to get the United States into World War One. The “Morning Post” and the “London Times” hammered on these themes constantly in the years 1919-1923. Today, anyone can see that Jews and Israel First organizations provide the majority of the political campaign financing of the two political parties. Anyone can see the extreme Jewish control of the media. The Cam West media monopoly of the Asper family in Canada, the Samuel Newhouse chain of newspapers in America, the purchase of both the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune by the Polish-Jewish real estate developer Samuel Zell, it all speaks for itself. Anyone can see that Israel First advisors surround both George Bush, Jr. and Barack Obama. The identity of the neo-cons who got the U.S. into the disastrous Iraq war is known; so is the identity of the Israeli Rahm Emmanuel who is Barack Obama’s wirepuller. Anyone can look at these self-evident facts and compare them with the Protocols. Do not the Protocols speak of Jews controlling the press, dictating both sides of every debate and serving as the advisors and controllers of the politicians? Cannot everyone see that this is precisely what is taking place in the real world? The Protocols speak of no-win wars to tear down national sovereignty and promote international organization. Has anyone forgotten the partition of Europe at the end of World War Two? (Rather like the partition of a small Arab country in Palestine at the end of the First World War?) Does anyone remember N.A.T.O., the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or S.E.A.T.O., the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization? Did not Korea and Vietnam follow the pattern of no-win wars and never ending international conferences? The Protocols speak of international organizations under Jewish auspices. What were the original League of Nations and the successor United Nations if not precisely this? When the United Nations passed its famous “Zionism is a form of racism” resolution in the mid-1920’s, a certain power stepped in and forced the repeal of the resolution. Was it the same power which sponsored the minorities treaties and the mandate over Palestine in the 1920’s? The Protocols speak of creating emergencies to control the masses. Does this not accurately describe the staged 09/11 incident and the bogus “War on Terror”? Does it not describe the previous emergency of the Great Depression and the emergency measures of Franklin Roosevelt’s “Jew Deal”? The Protocols recommend a centralization of power in the chief executive and the suspension of constitutional procedures. Does this not sound like the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Acts? The Protocols particularly recommend treating the exposure of subversion as more reprehensible than the subversion itself. Does this not sound exactly like the technique that was used to destroy Senator Joseph McCarthy?

    If there were an international conspiracy such as the Protocols describe, that conspiracy would need a cover story, a holy lie behind which it could hide its power. That lie would make the imperial power morally unimpeachable and unchallengeable. It might constitute a historical myth making any objective examination of the ruling powers history or behavior beyond the parameters of socially acceptable discourse. The lie, were it questioned and exposed, might even need legal protection making it a crime to write or speak critically on the subject. The lie, were it exposed, might serve as a sort of Pandora’s Box to all the other lies hiding behind it. The lie might be so “ethnic specific” that its exposure would leave no doubt as to the identity of the international conspirators. Is there such a lie at work in the world today? Yes there is. It is the lie of the Nazi “gas chambers” and the supposedly murdered six million Jews. This lie has as much evidence against it as the Protocols have evidence in their favor. The Jews claim that the Nazi “gassing” program is the most thoroughly documented extermination of all time. But all the evidence rests on a kangaroo court at Nuremberg run by the Jews behind the scenes. No one knew anything about the supposed extermination at the time it was taking place, a fact which is more than suspicious. Key German records of the alleged killing camps were carted off to the Soviet Union and not presented to the kangaroo Nuremberg court. Those records tell a story entirely different than the story told at the trial. The records show that the Auschwitz camp where millions of Jews were supposedly “gassed” was a major industrial production center for the German war effort. The records show that the Jews and others interned in the camps were used as labor for the German war effort. The records further show that a total of 140,000 internees died in the Auschwitz camp over its operation, of whom 70,000 were Jews. The main cause of death was typhus and heart attacks caused by typhus. The records show no evidence of an extermination program whatever. In fact, the records show that the camp was shut down in the summer of 1942 because of a gigantic typhus epidemic. The crematory ovens were built in the spring and summer of 1943 to dispose sanitarily of the diseased bodies. The actual disposal rate of the crematory ovens was consistent with the deaths from disease, not with the millions of claimed deaths. The German secret police chief, Heinrich Himmler, issued an order that the death rate in the German labor camps be “reduced at all costs”, an order that is inconsistent with any extermination program. Adolf Hitler was recorded by a German Ministry of the Interior official as stating that he wanted the solution of the Jewish problem delayed until “the end of the war”, a position which is utterly irreconcilable with any claim that he was simultaneously exterminating the Jews. The Germans had a special investigating branch of their judiciary under Judge Konrad Morgen to root out abuses of prisoners in the camps. Numerous camp commandants were tried and convicted for these abuses. In the famous Auschwitz camp, the Germans provided hospitals, libraries, theatres and brothels, among other amenities, for the Jews they were supposedly exterminating. The supposed “gas chambers” were nothing but morgues for storing bodies before they could be burned. Those morgues show none of the design characteristics of real gas chambers. They have no means of heating, distributing or ventilating gas. They are hardly airtight. Some of them are built underground, hardly a design advantage. The morgues are rather small and could never have held the claimed number of victims, all of whom would have died of suffocation without any need of “gassing”. The chambers of the morgues show no traces of Prussian Blue hydrogen cyanide residue. The delousing chambers where the Germans were disinfecting the clothing of the prisoners are covered with Zyklon B stain. And that was the real use of the Zyklon B, which was used profusely throughout the camps-to disinfect clothing and barracks to prevent epidemics. Several forensic reports of the so-called “gas chambers” have been performed. The first was by Fred Leuchter, an American designer of prison execution equipment. Subsequent investigations have been performed by the Viennese engineer, Walter Luftl, and the German chemist, Germar Rudolf. All the investigations have confirmed both the test results and the conclusions- there were no execution “gas chambers” at Auschwitz or any other German camp.

    Many other revisionist scholars have investigated the multiple absurdities of survivor testimonies and the endlessly conflicting accounts. Among these scholars are Professor Robert Faurrison, Carlo Mattogno, Gerd Honsik, Jurgen Graf, Enrique Aynat Eknes, Germar Rudolf and many others. The survivor testimonies always suffer from three defects:

    (1) They are internally inconsistent;

    (2) They are inconsistent with each other;

    (3) They are inconsistent with the physical facts.

    There are other glaring problems with the extermination story. The Jews in many western European countries were not even deported (not exterminated) until very late in the war. Many of the deportations did not even begin until 1944, after the allies had landed at Normandy. In Russia one-half to two-thirds of the Jews had been deported by the heavily Jewish communist regime ahead of the German advance. That is why most of the Jews supposedly exterminated by the Germans were in fact hiding east of the Ural Mountains during the war. After the war, these Jews poured into the commissariats of the Iron Curtain countries in Eastern Europe. Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Rumania and East Germany were top heavy with very much alive Jewish commissars. A huge exodus of Jews poured out of Russia on their way to invade Arab Palestine. Still more went to America and South America disguised as citizens of the countries of their origin. (Poles, Czechs, etc.) Today, there exist tremendous numbers of “survivors” who logically should not exist, collecting never ending reparations. These survivors all insist that the extermination of the Jews was real, even as one survivor story after another is shown to be a fraud.

    The Holocaust tale does not mean that large numbers of Jews did not die in World War Two. The true death total was probably between one to two million. That is a lot of deaths but nowhere near the number of German soldiers and civilians who died during and after the war. The significance of the Holocaust Hoax is now clear. It is the obverse side of the Protocols of Zion coin. The design of the Protocols was proved to be true in the earlier part of this essay. Their platform has been fulfilled. The Holocaust Hoax is the proof that the design behind the Protocols is Judaic. It is the warning to the masses: “Don’t look here!” The ban on inquiry into the Protocols is the same as the ban on inquiry into the Holocaust. The reason is precisely the same. The Protocols are the shoe that fits; the Holocaust is the lie that cannot be sustained. The one leads inevitably to the other. They are the hand and the glove with the perfect fit.

  • THE PEOPLE OF MARX
    Jews usually try to pretend that they had nothing to do with communism. But there are all kinds of facts which betray them. Just to take one example. There existed from about 1906 a Zionist-Communist political party named Poale-Zion, split into both left wing and right wing factions. Poale-Zion rejected the British Empire as the administrator of the Mandate over Palestine and wanted the workers paradise, the Soviet Union, to assume the role of the protector of the emerging Zionist state in Palestine instead. The Soviet Union tolerated the existence of Poale-Zion as an independent political party until 1928, when it banned Poale-Zion because of its dual Zionist and communist ideology. Poale-Zion also got the British Labour Party to issue a declaration in August-September 1917 supporting a Jewish state in Palestine before His Majesty’s Government got around to it on November 2, 1917.

    Such interesting historical tidbits certainly seem to show a deep Jewish connection with both Marxism and Zionism. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union also had a special “Jewish Section”, the Evsektsiia, to re-educate capitalist Jews into the new Soviet system. The idea was not to persecute Jews but to get them integrated into a new ideology and a state system which provided Jews with abundant opportunities in the upper echelons of the new regime. The Bund, entirely Marxist and Jewish, dissolved in Russia after the revolution and joined the Communist Party en masse. Outside Russia, the Bund continued to enjoy an independent existence in Poland until shortly after the Soviet post-war takeover. Before and after the Bolshevik Revolution Jews had a vast communist press published in Yiddish out of New York. Abraham Cahan, Philip Krants, Avrom Lesin and others published one socialist newspaper after another espousing Marxist ideals. After the seizure of Russia by communism numerous Yiddish newspapers arose to promote the Party line. The most influential was the Freiheit, later the Morning Freiheit, founded by the actual communist agents, Moishe Olgin and Shakne Epstein. Another was Der Hammer, also published in Yiddish. Communist art was promoted by the likes of Hugo Gellert and Louis Lozowick. Even journalists later to become famous as historians, like Barbara Tuchman (real name Wertheim) were writing for Stalinist New York newspapers. As Eugene Lyons expressed it in the title of his classic study of the 1930’s, it was truly the “Red Decade”. FBI agents and government informers who attended communist meetings during the 1920’s through 1950’s reported what observers of the New York scene reported 1880-1920-that all radical meetings consisted of 80% Russian born Jews. Any reading of the Communist press in those years will show a disproportionate number of Jewish names.

    Those who tried to expose the Jewish communist connection at the height of the Soviet terror were savagely crucified in the press. One such was Malcolm Muggeridge, the English journalist who wrote a thinly veiled account of his travels in Soviet Russia, “Winter In Moscow”. Muggeridge was blacklisted for many years because of his scathing references to the murderous Jewish commissars of “scientific socialism”. Even today, an unedited edition of “Winter In Moscow” is hard to find. Many American military officers were fully aware of the Jewish control behind communism but dared not mention publicly what they candidly wrote in their intelligence dispatches. Marlborough Churchill, the head of the Military Intelligence Department, was fully convinced of the Jewish background of communism, as were Ralph Van Deman, Captain Montgomery Schuyler and dozens of other military personnel. The opinions of the illustrious George Samuel Patton on the Jews and their communist connections are well documented but carefully kept out of Hollywood movies and the popular press. Today the Jews operate a dual system of information on the forbidden question of Jewish bolshevism. They deny or minimize it in the popular media while striving to make no mention of it at all. However, in their reference works written for Jewish eyes primarily, they not merely document the fact of Jewish control behind communism but elaborate it in detail. A very good example of this tendency is the book “Jewish Nationality and Soviet Politics: The Jewish Sections of the CPSU, 1917-1939” by Zvi Gitelman.

    Thus, it turns out that Jewish involvement in communism was very real. The popular image of reality rarely has anything to do with the facts. Facts are usually deeply buried to preserve the popular misconceptions. Jews and communism is one more case in point.

  • Tony:

    “I have not yet begun to fight.”

  • A RESPONSE TO PETER MYERS

    Peter Myers thinks that variations in German train schedules for Jewish deportations to the east disproves the revisionist claim that there was no extermination of the Jews during WWII. The argument will not hold up. First, Mr. Myers is in error when he thinks that no revisionist has answered the question of where the Jews went if they were not exterminated. Both professor Arthur Butz and Walter Sanning have addressed the question, the latter in his book The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry. The short answer is that they were deported behind the Ural Mountains to work in the Soviet arms factories. As Sanning demonstrates in his book, before and during the German invasion of Russia, 50%-65% of Russia’s western Jews were taken as technical and skilled workers to work for the heavily Jewish Soviet regime in military production facilities outside the reach of the Germans. This does not address the fate of the Jews deported by the Germans to the occupied Eastern territories. The Germans had the habit of using Jews for labor. Those uses in Russia could have included the building of roads, growing crops and making uniforms and other equipment for the German army. It is highly significant that all German records on the Jewish resettlements in Russia have disappeared. Instead of assuming that the Germans destroyed the records, it might be wiser to inquire whether the records have been suppressed/destroyed by the Soviets to cover up the fact that the Jews were still alive. The same problem applies to the real and alleged exterminations of the Einsatzgruppen, the German security police in Russia. Not merely did the Einsatzgruppen lack the personnel to kill the number of Jews alleged, the relevant data on their activities is also missing. The only Einsatzgruppen reports that have survived are the reports by the commanders to the authorities back in Berlin. The field reports by the soldiers in the field back to their commanders have conveniently disappeared. Thus, there is no way to compare the field reports with the Berlin reports. One suspects that the field reports would give much lower figures than reports carefully edited to impress the authorities several thousand miles away.

    But there are even more fundamental problems with Mr. Myers thesis. Heinrich Himmler was the German official in charge of all German security and anti-Jewish operations on the Eastern front. He, of all persons, would know exactly what the real number of Jews liquidated was. His complete diaries, including those dealing with the war time years in Russia, have been in Israeli hands since the end off WWII. To this day, those diaries have not been released to the public. This raises the inevitable suspicion that the diaries do not support the story the Jews are telling. Why else suppress such a key piece of evidence? One very good reason for doubting the claims of huge massacres in Russia sufficient to constitute a real extermination program is given by professor Butz in The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. Had the Germans been conducting a real extermination of Jews in Russia, there would have been no need for the “gas chamber” hoax. Those who have real evidence do not need to fake evidence. None of this is to deny that the Germans killed huge numbers of Jews in Russia. Russian Jews were unanimous supporters of a murderous communist regime that they had created. The partisan warfare which claimed so many German soldiers lives during the war was largely in Jewish hands. In plain English, many of these Jews deserved to die. As to the more civilized western Jews who were shot because of inadequate housing facilities or plain indifference to their fate, one can have a measure of sympathy.

    Mr. Myers thinks that zigzagging patterns in German train schedules means something. Not necessarily. The deportation and reallocating of Jews during the war depended on many factors, such as where the Jews were required for labor at any given moment, shifting fortunes in the war in Russia, availability or non-availability of land for resettlement, etc. Indeed, one of the reasons for shifting the Jews westward in the latter stages of the war was undoubtedly to remove the labor they represented from the advancing Red Army. There is nothing sinister in this. The huge flood of Jews out of Russia post-war on their way to invade the Arabs of Palestine is clear proof that the vast majority of Jews survived the war. If Mr. Myers will consult The Hoax of the Twentieth Century he will read of the Army and Congressional reports post-war that describe a huge flood of Jew, numbering as many as three million pouring out of Russia and the Iron Curtain countries to various locations. It is also noteworthy that in November 1943 the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service dropped the classification “Jew” from its records. This allowed innumerable Jews to come to America and South America camouflaged as Hungarians, Poles, Rumanians, etc. UNRRA (United Nations Rehabilitation and Relief Centers) assisted Jews moving out of Europe to move to new locations. All this was noted in the reports of British and American intelligence officials of the time.

    If Peter Myers thinks that revisionists have not settled the question of what really happened to the Jews during and after WWII, he should read more revisionist research. The revisionists have not settled every question relating to the actual fate of the Jews but that is only because the Jews and their political allies have suppressed so much of the relevant data. The mysteries, then, are the result of cover up, not the product of any fallacies in revisionist research. Revisionists have never claimed that Jews did not suffer in WWII like everyone else, merely that their suffering was not unique. And that, really, is the purpose of revisionist research: to puncture the claim to eternal martyrdom arising out of an allegedly unique experience, and to reduce the fate of Europe’s WWII Jews to its proper dimensions. Attempting to shift the non-extermination of Europe’s Jews to Soviet Russia from the non-existent “gas chambers” of Auschwitz does not contribute to that objective.

  • Craig J. Bolton

    Tony:

    “I have not yet begun to fight.”

    ============================

    My, my. Off your meds AGAIN, Mr. Thames?

  • Craig J. Bolton // 12 April, 2009 at 1:34 pm

    Tony:

    “I have not yet begun to fight.”

    ============================

    My, my. Off your meds AGAIN, Mr. Thames?
    ———— * * * * * ————

    I don’t really approve of that crack, to be honest, because I’m on meds for P.T.S.D.

    Lithium Orotate + Prozac — very mellow!

    The Prozac works by growing new brain cells and neurons, so there’s hope for Old Father Thames yet… (smiles)

    [ FX: “I don’t _suffer_ from ‘insanity’ — I _enjoy_ it…” ]

    ———— * * * * * ————

    In the time it’s taking JT to fight, the ‘opposition’ could have completely dismantled him into a red-and-white mush by now, at 1,000 yards with .50 Cal BMGs…

    “Blessed is he that gets his blow in first” or something. What JT does takes some crazy courage…

    ———— * * * * * ————

    “The Secret of Happiness is Freedom; and the Secret of Freedom is Courage.” — Thucydides, Greek Philosopher and General

    Tony (reading “The Western Way of War” by Victor Davis Hanson).

    “Decimate” comes from the effects of the Spartan Phalanx Charge… (Smiles)

    ———— * * * * * ————

    http://vodpod.com/watch/1497501-enya-dreams-wtc-tribute-911

    ———— * * * * * ————

    “This is alone Life, Joy, Empire and Victory…” — P.B. Shelley, “Prometheus Unbound.”

    ———— * * * * * ————

  • Tony:

    I frequently wonder what you are trying to tell me.

    Your problem is that you can’t deal with the fact that you have been conned. Why do I need drugs when I am in perfect health with a lucid mind?

  • Mr. Bolton:

    I do not need meds, you need a brain.

  • THE JEWISH REVOLUTIONARY TRADITION

    E. Michael Jones book, “The Jewish Revolutionary Tradition’, is a remarkable book. Its erudition is immense. The book covers the history of the Jews from Roman times through the Middle Ages, Renaissance and Enlightenment up to present day America. The detail of the scholarship is tremendous. Even the student of things Jewish who thought he “knew it all” can learn from this book. But the books strength is also its weakness. It is written from a fervently pro-Catholic perspective. The author frequently seems more determined to defend Catholicism and the Papacy than he is to indict the Jews. This is particularly the case with the chapters on Freemasonry, the overthrow of the monarchy in England, the Enlightenment and the French revolution. On the plus side, the authors amazingly detailed knowledge of the Catholic versus Protestant politics of the era, and the resulting interplay with Jewish forces favoring the Protestant side, helps illuminate the dynamics of a very pivotal change over period in western history. The fundamental flaw in Jones analysis arises from his mistaken assumption that the conflict between the Jews and the rest of humanity is spiritual in nature. It is not. In Jones’s mind the Jews erred in rejecting Jesus as the Messiah. Therefore, if only the Jews accept Jesus and return to the “true faith”, the age-old “Jewish problem” shall be solved. This analysis completely misunderstands the dynamics of Jewry. Jews are an ethnic-racial conspiracy against the rest of humanity. Their religion is merely a cloak for this fact. As numerous Jewish sources attest, a Jew does not cease to be a Jew because he fails to practice his religion. The ethnic solidarity and tribal unity remain.

    The scope and compass of “The Jewish Revolutionary Tradition” is astonishing. Whether Jones is discussing Freemasonry in the 17th and 18th centuries, Catholic-Protestant politics, communism in 1960’s popular music, Black Panther-Jewish rifts or any other subject he has the facts down pat. He is also most judicious in his handling of facts. When writing of the Jewish involvement in Soviet communism he does not resort to exaggerated statistics of dubious authenticity, like some scribes. Rather, he marshals facts of known certainty to establish the Jewish disproportion in the bolshevik enterprise. He also presents the standard Jewish apologetic defenses for their involvement in communism: (1) Czarist persecution and (2) greater education which allowed Jews to pour into the Soviet bureaucracies after Czarist employment restrictions were removed. As for the frequently encountered claim that communist Jews were “renegades” who had renounced their religion, Jones slyly notes that perhaps the Germans can excuse themselves for the excesses of Hitler on the grounds he was really just an Austrian. “The Jewish Revolutionary Tradition” is an elegantly written book. The tone is judicious and moderate. The facts are verifiable and logically organized. The author does not argue an all-encompassing conspiracy theory but argues rather that there has been a consistent Jewish animus against western civilization throughout the centuries. The thirty plus chapters of the book amply document that thesis.

  • CHURCHILL AND HITLER AS MILITARY COMMANDERS

    It would be absurd to reduce any world war to a comparison of two of its chief opponents. Nevertheless the comparison is instructive in many respects. Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler were supposedly polar opposites. (And, in many ways, they were, although there are also certain similarities which have been conveniently forgotten.) One of the biggest differences between Churchill and Hitler was simply competence. Although Hitler has been demonized by historiography for the undoubted blunders he made, such as Stalingrad and the Falaise pocket, his overall military record was quite good. Let us review the record. His invasion of Poland was a classic example of “lightning war”. The Poles were repeatedly encircled and smashed, particularly at the battle of Kutno. Hitler was similarly successful at the battle of Norway with the British. His forces defeated numerically superior British troops and secured Norway for German occupation, rather than British. (It must be admitted that Hitler panicked during the invasion and ordered German withdrawal, an order which his commanders in the field, aware of impending German victory, pocketed.) The German victory in France was a spectacular victory for Hitler. An expertly planned campaign by Der Fuehrer smashed French resistance in a few weeks time, even though the British and French were numerically superior and had more tanks. The German campaigns through the Balkans in early 1941 were smashing successes, as the Wehrmacht poured through Yugoslavia and Greece. Kicking the British out of Crete was a more difficult task as 25% of the invading Germans were killed before the British were finally subdued. In North Africa Hitler and Rommel initially succeeded magnificently before getting caught between a British and American pincers and forced to surrender.

    The invasion of Russia began brilliantly with one smashing victory after another. Again and again, huge Russian forces were encircled and destroyed by the Germans. As to the decision to abandon the attack on Moscow and to swing southward to seize the oil fields, it is highly probable that Hitler was right about that one, too. The successful capture of Moscow would not have been decisive for the Nazis, any more than the capture of Moscow was decisive for Napoleon in 1812. The huge Soviet forces in the south would have been left intact and the all-vital tank production facilities and the oil fields in the Black Sea area would still have belonged to Stalin. Hitler is now universally acknowledged to have been correct in his forbidding retreat in the brutal winter of 1941. Had that happened the German army would have been driven out of Russia by 1942. By holding on, Hitler bought three years until 1945.

    Hitler began to go seriously wrong with the disaster at Stalingrad. The responsibility was entirely his. He stubbornly refused to disengage until his forces were completely surrounded and destroyed. He made the same mistake in the Falaise pocket in France when he should have called off the attack when the first attempt failed. By trying a second time he allowed the German army to be encircled and half destroyed. Hitler has been criticized for not retreating faster from Russia when Army Group Center was destroyed in 1944. But that was at least an attempt to hold onto a position for a possible counter attack. Hitler displayed some instances of tactical and strategic insight even in his darkest period. Thus, he correctly predicted in March 1944 that the Allies would invade France at Normandy beach only to be talked out of it by traitors on the German General Staff working for the British and Americans. His Ardennes counter offensive at the end of the war was a master-stroke. It was perfectly timed and hit at the precise weak spot of the Allied armies. Had it succeeded the American and British armies would have been split and their supplies from the port of Antwerp cut off. The attack failed because of a number of factors but Hitler’s strategic planning cannot be faulted. Adolf Hitler, then, had proved quite competent as a commander-in-chief. He made some mistakes in the latter half of the war against vastly superior forces but overall his command was quite good. Even his alleged colossal blunder of attacking Soviet Russia looks quite good in retrospect. More and more evidence is emerging showing that a Soviet attack on Germany was imminent. Thus, the attack on Russia was not a mistake but a necessity.

    So much for Adolf Hitler. Now, for Winston Churchill. Unlike Hitler, who had many moments of glory to his credit, Churchill’s record is one of almost never ending misery. Let us begin with the personal careers of Churchill and Hitler on the battlefield. Hitler had a record of great courage in World War One. He fought with great bravery and captured several English soldiers late in the war. He was highly regarded by his commanders. Churchill, by contrast, got himself captured by the Dutch during the Boer war. It was to be the first of a recurring cycle of failures in the service of Mars. Churchill, while Lord of the Admiralty during the First World War, conceived the disastrous Dardanelles campaign. The British suffered huge losses under the Turkish guns defending the narrow straits. Churchill was driven from the government in disgrace. After stints as Colonial Secretary and Lord of Exchequer in the 1920’s Churchill returned as Prime Minister in 1940, after the fall of Neville Chamberlain. He immediately presided over the disastrous campaigns in Norway and France. Those defeats were followed by the humiliations of Greece, Crete and North Africa. Churchill’s performance in the Far East was even more dismal. Against the advice of his ambassador in Japan Churchill deliberately goaded the Japanese toward war. It proved a poor decision. The English were humiliatingly routed at Singapore. Churchill sent two magnificent battleships, The Prince of Wales and Repulse, into action against the Japanese without any air support. They were sent straight to the bottom by Japanese planes. The English made one further attempt at naval action against the Japanese. The English admiral went down with his ship. The rest of the English navy went into hibernation in an African port and was not seen for the rest of the war.

    Churchill was rather inebriated during most of his war conferences. Diary entry after diary entry of his attending generals and Cabinet members documented that Winston was generally sloshed during his 1-3A.M. pow-wows. Churchill, in addition to blundering all over the battlefield, devised methods of incinerating civilians from the air and provoking illegal partisan warfare against the Germans. The all pervasive communist influence in Italy and France after the war was largely the product of Churchill’s arming the communist underground during the war. It was a policy which boomeranged badly. Churchill was almost insane in his efforts to burn German civilians alive. He even toyed with the idea of anthrax bombs against Germany. Had this been done, Europe would today be a waste land. Not merely was Churchill’s policy of bombing and burning German civilians alive criminal, it wasted resources which could have been better employed attacking German armies in the field.

    Any comparison of the military records of Adolf Hitler and Winston Churchill will show that although both men had their faults, Hitler had by far the superior record. Hitler once said that Churchill was “as poor a soldier as he is a politician, and as poor a politician as he is a soldier” No one can deny that Hitler was biased but his assessment was both more succinct and more accurate than dozens of fawning biographies by the hagiographers of establishment history.

  • ADOLF HITLER: PHILO-SEMITE

    It is a truism of history that Adolf Hitler was the most evil of all anti-semites. It is a message of history so firmly established by the post-World War Two era that no one doubts it. And yet, as Hitler’s youthful collaborator and later antagonist, Reinhold Hanisch noted, if Hitler was an anti-semite, it came only much later in life-and may even have been an act necessitated by politics. When Hitler went to Vienna in 1909 to become an artist, he stayed at the Ratzner men’s hotel. There he quickly became friends with two Jews, Siegfried Loffner and Joseph Neumann. Neumann, a trained copper polisher, frequently engaged Hitler in long conversations on Theodore Herzl’s Zionism. (Herzl was a Viennese Jewish journalist.) Hitler was favorably impressed by Jewish racial solidarity and remarked that it was a pity that Germans were not equally race conscious. It would appear, then, that Hitler used Zionism as a model for his later National Socialist movement. In 1913 young Hitler made a third Jewish acquaintance at the hotel, Rudolf Redlich from Moravia. When Hitler had a falling out with Reinhold Hanisch, it was the Jew, Siegfried Loffner, who reported Hanisch to the police as having defrauded Hitler. Hitler is known to have been on very good terms with many Viennese Jewish families in this period, attending music concerts in their homes. More importantly, it was Viennese Jews who provided the bulk of Hitler’s income during this important early period. It was the Jewish art dealers Morgenstern, Altenberg and Landsberger who sold Hitler’s paintings to rich Viennese Jews, like the lawyer Dr. Joseph Feingold. According to Hitler’s later testimony, without Morgenstern, his financial angel, Hitler would have been in dire straits during this period. Hitler was not noted by anyone to have had an anti-Jewish bias at the very time in his life when he was most closely associating with Jews, both personally and financially.

    Hitler’s anti-semitism surfaced only in the aftermath of Germany’s defeat in the First World War. Before going any further, it is necessary to note that Hitler’s newly found anti-semitism was a product of its era. And it did have factual support. Jews were deeply involved in communist revolutions in Germany, Hungary and Russia. These facts were noted by Winston Churchill in England and the State Department in America, as well. Jews from foreign countries bought up German businesses and real estate while ordinary Germans were devastated by the post-war inflation. This is what caused Hitler’s anti-semitism, not his personal relations with Jews which had always been good. When Hitler came to power, he was the moderating force among the more radical National Socialists. Hitler promulgated the Nuremberg race laws in 1935 but he made numerous exceptions for the so-called mischlinge, or products of mixed Jewish-gentile marriages. Numerous Jews of partial gentile descent were made “honorary Aryans” and allowed to serve in the Wehrmacht. More than this, there were many high Nazi officials of part-Jewish descent. Herman Goering had a half-brother who was a half-Jew, Albert Goering. Reinhard Heydrich, of Czechoslovakian fame, reputedly had a Jewish actor father. The Fuhrer’s favorite photographer was the part-Jew Heinrich Hoffman. In the arts Adolf Hitler proved himself particularly indulgent. He allowed favored Jews to participate in German cultural life while ruthlessly purging the majority. Thus, while Erich Leinsdorf and Eric Korngold were fleeing to Hollywood, Franz Lehar was allowed to remain wed to Lizzie Leon, daughter of the Viennnese Jewish librettist, Victor Leon. Hitler sponsored the career of the part-Jewish soprano Margarete Slezak at the Berlin opera. (The part-Jewish Austrian tenor, Leo Slezak, was a huge admirer of Hitler’s policies.) Hitler even had a regular visitor at the Berghoff, a Jewish mother and her child.

    Adolf Hitler, as a mature statesman, was hardly a friend of the Jews. He may not have murdered six million of them in non-existent “gas chambers” but he did deprive them of their influence and power. His policies were based on political factors and not on personal animosities. Those who look for the “secret” of Adolf Hitler’s anti-Jewish outlook in personality disorders deceive themselves. Hitler’s record shows quite clearly that he interacted very intimately with Jews on a personal level. His policies arose from the organized Jewish political malignancies which have plagued the world for centuries.

  • Their Incomparable Incompetence

    English apologetic historians (is there any other kind?) have a difficult time with the English military performance of two world wars. It was so overwhelmingly incompetent on all fronts that, aside from a few stray successes, like sinking the Italian fleet in port at Tarantino and stopping an outgunned, out manned Erwin Rommel at El Alamein, there is virtually nothing to be said for it. The British stumbled and fumbled incessantly with nary a bright spot. The record is dismal. In the First World War the English generals, led by the incomparable fool, Douglas Haig, sent hundreds of thousands of soldiers to the slaughter by marching them straight at German machine guns. The British invented the tank but never learned how to use it. Instead of concentrating tank formations against a narrow target and “breaking through”, the idiot English launched broad attacks on muddy fields already chewed up by artillery barrages (the much more intelligent Germans had already withdrawn their forces out of range of the artillery). Attempts by English revisionist historians to rehabilitate Haig and other English generals are pathetic failures. The English achieved nothing in World War One until the American Expeditionary Force and General John J. Pershing saved their sorry ass. The English naval performance of World War One was equally miserable. German U-boats sunk huge quantities of English shipping virtually bringing England to her knees. The only major naval battle between the Germans and the English at Jutland was a draw with the English admiral, Jellico, displaying virtually no strategic or tactical insight. The German admiral Scheer was able to disengage his forces through a camouflage of smoke and retreat to port. The dumfounded English, as usual, missed their opportunity. English casualties in the Great War were disproportionately high. English offensives, like the Somme and Paaschendale, failed miserably and succeeded only in pushing the Germans back a few miles at the cost of mountains of corpses. German offensives were generally much better mounted and came much closer to ultimate success, like the drive on the Marne in 1941.

    On other fronts during the “Great War” the English proved equally incompetent. They suffered disaster after disaster against the Ottoman Turks who made the English look like the “sick man” of Europe. The Dardanelles campaign, presided over by that prototypical English military genius, Winston Churchill, was an unmitigated disaster. English warships were blown up like sitting ducks in the narrow channel and English soldiers were slaughtered by the thousands by the Turkish soldiers firing down from the cliffs. The Turks had chosen better strategists in the Germans. The English continued their mishaps at Gaza where another English military “genius”, General Murray was routed by the Turks at Gaza, not once, but twice. Things had gotten so bad that, as usual, the English had to recruit Arab allies to help them (the English always need help, and with good reason). In Mesopotamia things were no better. Another English general of the blundering idiot school of strategy had gotten himself into trouble at Kut where he was surrounded by Turks. Charles Townsend and his troops spent the rest of the war in a Turkish prison enjoying Anatolian buggery. The mighty English, having achieved nothing but all pervasive defeat on all fronts, then incited a revolt from an Arab Sheriff named Hussein of Hejaz. The Arabs managed to keep twenty thousand plus Turkish troops occupied defending the holy places of Mecca and Medina. This allowed the all conquering English to regroup out of Egypt until Edmund Allenby and the Arab Army of National Liberation under Prince Feisal killed thousands of Turks at Meggido/Deraa in September, 1918 effectively ending the war. The English then repaid Feisal and the Arabs handsomely by turning over Palestine to Lord Balfour and the Jews.

    That was the magnificent English military performance called World War One. It cost the English empire over 750,000 dead and demonstrated to the Third World that maybe the English Raj was not so mighty. At least, that is the impression the Indians got at Amritsar in 1919 before the English committed a well-known massacre. The rebellious Iraqis of a few years later got bombed by the Royal Air Force (a Winston Churchill innovation) and the great Easter Rebellion of the Irish got clobbered by similarly inspired methods. In World War Two the all-conquering English of World War One excelled their previous performance. The English were fortunate indeed to have as their glorious Fuehrer, the well-known alcoholic idiot, Winston Churchill. Churchill began his campaigns with the well-known Narvik disaster in Norway. The English, those pious protestors against international crime and aggression, had conceived the idea of invading Norway to threaten Germany from the north. Adolf Hitler beat them to the punch by invading first. The English suffered their usual humiliating defeat, although it must be admitted that the Royal Navy did succeed in sinking ten German destroyers. Churchill then presided over the debacle of the fall of France-and compounded the campaign by sinking the French fleet at Mers-El-Kabar with thousands of deaths. The strategic genius Churchill next presided over the disaster at Singapore where over 100,000 second-class empire troops surrendered to 30,000 crack Japanese soldiers. The English commander Percy did everything wrong. He stationed his troops at the wrong end of the island to await the Japanese invasion, he had no idea of the actual numbers of the Japanese troops he was actually facing, he allowed his artillery to be captured by the enemy and his soldiers thought that Japanese troops on bicycles were actually Japanese tanks. It was a glorious debacle-and a credit to English military expertise. (In fact, the English had not even finished building the air bases for the defense of Singapore because the funds had been diverted to crushing the 1936-1939 Arab rebellion in Palestine. It was a fitting denouement to the betrayal of World War One.)

    English military glory continued with the Germans driving them out of Greece, to Crete, to Cyprus, to Egypt. Erwin Rommel drove the English all over North Africa to the brink of defeat before the English finally rallied at El Alamein. The English advanced like snails in France in 1944 against superior German soldiery. The disaster at Arnheim in Holland showed how incapable the English were against the Germans on equal terms. The English did manage to redeem themselves, however. They mass murdered civilians by the tens-of-thousands with phosphorous and fire bombs. Hamburg and Dresden were two of their crowning military successes. After the war the mighty, all conquering English continued on their glorious ways. They collaborated with the Americans in Operation Keelhaul, during which they hand delivered hundreds of thousands of Cossacks and Russian prisoners-of-war back to Joseph Stalin to be murdered. The honorable English, the greatest jurists since the Romans, sat with dignity and pride on the Nuremberg kangaroo court, where they piously and with proper judicial decorum hanged the defeated Germans for the very offenses of which they, the English, were most guilty. In Palestine, the high and mighty English, lords of tarnished hypocrisy, were assassinated right and left by Zionist criminals before crawling back to England with their tail between their legs. In India, their empire dissolved without a fight. The English were defeated by a Martin Luther King style pacifist with “non-violence” (who would need violence against such a cowardly lion?) as his motto.

    Such was the demise of the world’s most powerful empire. It stumbled and fumbled, it promised a recreated temple to the Jews in Palestine, it recruited the Americans to do its fighting a second time, it couldn’t get it up on the battlefield but enjoyed S and M mass murder of civilians and played the Mikado to the Japanese in the Far East. These are the two great crusades of the twentieth century of which English apologetic historians write so stirringly. Their prose is superb. It has to be, for the writing must excel the irredeemable facts.

  • THE WALTER DURANTYS OF ZIONISM

    Walter Duranty, as the historically literate are aware, was the star reporter of the New York Times. He lied through his teeth over the great Ukrainian famine of 1932-1933, in which 7-10 million peasants were deliberately starved to death by Joseph Stalin and his Jewish henchmen., such as Lev Kopelev. Duranty rose to world fame and fortune because of pro-Soviet apologetics. His employer, the New York Times, won the Pulitzer Prize in the preceding year because of Duranty’s efforts. Walter Duranty is dead but his tradition lives on. Duranty lied on behalf of the great Jewish social experiment called communism. Now that communism and its murderous Jewish commissars are gone, the intellectual prostitutes of FOX news, CNN, Cam West and other Zionist controlled news networks lie, Walter Duranty style, on behalf of the other great Jewish movement of Czarist Russia, Zionism-or the Jewish state in Palestine.Duranty painted Stalin’s Russia as a land of milk and honey. Starvation did not exist. The purge trials of the mid-1930’s were an honest defensive reaction to fascist saboteurs. Soviet Far East policy was motivated by fear of Japanese aggression, not by a desire to spread Marxism to China, etc. Mother Russia was always in the right. Compare this twaddle with the FOX news “explanations” of Israel’s behavior. Israel “defends itself” from suicide bombers. Israel invades Lebanon to clear out Hezbollah strong points. Israel invades Gaza to destroy rocket launchers. Israel bulldozes homes and expels inhabitants to clear out “Arab saboteurs” (or “Islamo-fascists”, if you prefer Stalinist-Zionist dialectics.) The exact similarity of the apologetics is obvious to anyone who can think.

    Lying on behalf of the workers paradise in Palestine pays; just like lying on behalf of the workers paradise in Russia paid for Duranty. Intellectual prostitutes of Zionism are no different than the intellectual prostitutes of Communism. Turn the truth upside down-and blame the victims. The intellectual prostitutes of the left sold their soul to the false God of Communism in the 1930’s. The intellectual prostitutes of the kosher conservative, religious right have sold their soul to the false God of Zionism post-1967. Both seem curiously unaware that their competing Gods have a common ethnic origin. No one has told them that the supposed opposites, Communism and Zionism, grew up side-by-side in Czarist Russia, 1880-1917. They do not know that Jews and Communism in Russia were one and the same-nor that a Zionist was a Communist who wanted his workers paradise in Palestine rather than Russia. Because they do not know these things they see opposition when they should see similarity. The political left sees “Nazism” in Palestine; the political right saw “Russian autocracy” under Stalin. What both sides should see is: Jewish commissars in both lands.

  • READING LIST FOR JEWISH STUDIES

    JEWISH CONTROL OF SEX SLAVE TRADE

    Prostitution and Prejudice, Edward J. Bristow
    Oxford University Press, 1982

    The Natashas: Inside The Global Sex Slave Trade, Victor Malarek
    Arcade Publishing, 2004

    JEWISH INVOLVEMENT IN COMMUNISM

    The Jewish Century, Yuri Slezkine
    Princeton University Press, 2004

    The Generation: The Rise and Fall of the Jewish Communists of Poland, Jaff Schatz
    University of California Press, 1991

    The Jewish Intelligentsia and Russian Marxism, Robert J. Brym
    Shocken Books, 1978

    The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State, Benjamin Ginsberg
    University of Chicago Press, 1993

    The Jewish Threat: Anti-Semitic Politics of the U.S. Army, Joseph W. Bendersky
    Basic Books, 2001

    Jews, War and Communism in three volumes, Zosa Szajkowski
    KTAV, 1972

    The Roots of American Communism, Theodore Draper
    Octagon Books, 1977

    Jewish Nationality and Soviet Politics: The Jewish Sections of the CPSU, 1917-1930, Zvi Gitelman
    Princeton University Press, 1972

    A Fire In Their Hearts: Yiddish Socialists in New York
    Harvard University Press, 2005

    JEWISH COMMUNISM IN HOLLYWOOD

    Hollywood Party: How Communism Seduced the American Film Industry in the 1930’s and 1940’s, Kenneth Lloyd Billingsley
    Prima Lifestyles, 1998

    Red Star Over Hollywood: The Film Colony’s Long Romance With The Left, Ronald and Joyce Radosh
    Encounters Books, 2005

    Tender Comrades: A Back Story of the Hollywood Blacklist, Patrick Gilligan and Paul Buhle
    Saint Martin’s Press, 1999

    Hide in Plain Sight: The Hollywood Blacklistees in Film and Television, 1950-2002
    Palgrave MacMillan, 2003

    Radical Hollywood: The Untold Story Behind America’s Favorite Movies, Paul Buhle and Dave Wagner
    New Press, 2003

    MCCARTHY REVISED-THE STORY THE JEWS AREN”T TELLING YOU

    Joseph McCarthy: Re-examining the Life and Legacy of America’s Most Hated Senator, Arthur Herman
    Free Press, 1999

    Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies, M. Stanton Evans
    Crown Forum, 2007

    JEWISH ZIONISM

    The Palestine Diary: in two volumes, Robert John
    Booksurge Publishing, 2006

    Palestine and the Arab- Israeli Conflict, Charles D. Smith
    Various editions from the 1980’s until present
    Bedfords Saint Martins

    Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001, Benny Morris
    Vintage, 2001

    A Broken Trust: Sir Herbert Samuel, Zionism and the Palestinians, Sahar Huneidi
    I.B. Tauris, 2001

    Conquest Through Immigration: How Zionism Turned Palestine into a Jewish State, George W. Robnett
    Britons, 1970

  • Gee, no comments on my essays. The quality of my arguments must be pretty good to provoke such deafening silence.

  • Gee, no comments on my essays. The quality of my arguments must be pretty good to provoke such deafening silence.
    ======================

    “, Says the shopping cart lady to her imaginary friend.”

  • John Thames:

    Keeping up with your prodigious output would be interesting no doubt, but this is springtime, the trees and flowers are in bloom, the sky is blue, the open road beckons, and I have a limited appetite for historical (or un-historical) horror-stories…

    Regards,

    Tony (ever-mindful of our world and our Universe “infinite in all directions”; and the beauties and ugliness of mens’ contributions to it. Go read David Lindsay’s novel “A Voyage to Arcturus.” It might just change your life…)

  • Mr. Bolton:

    “He speaks, but he says nothing.”

  • John Thames:

    http://counterknowledge.com/2009/04/nazi-policy-himmler-and-operation-reinhard/

    Your reponse is required.

    Tony Hollick

  • http://www.codoh.com/newrevoices/nrtkreder.html

    Why don’t we begin by assessing the credibility of key witness Reder?

  • http://www.codoh.info/viewpoints/vprwgraf.html

    More reading material, do-do brain.

    Kindly note that the real nuber of dead at the camp was 1000, as shown by the excavations, not the mythical 600,000 who were simply shipped further east. Learn to distinguish, please, between historical fact and the “evidence” of the Jewish communist judge, Jan Sehn.

  • John Thames:

    The last time I stidued phtsiology, the brain was clearly isolated from the digestive system.

    Your understanding of the anatomy of mass murder si similarly defective.

    You might want to clean up your act, right now ferinstance…

    Tony

  • Tony:

    My understanding of the techniques of real mass murder is very, very good. So is my understanding of war time propaganda, particulary English propaganda. In case you had not heard, David Irving has found an internal memorandum of one of your WW2 propaganda chiefs suggesting that the “gas chamber” charge be dropped after the war, as a fiction that had served its purpose.

    Am I the one with my head up my ass, or is that you, my friend?

  • John Thames:

    You descend into an abusive tirade when you cannot force your arguments on onther people. Such behaviour is coercive in its intent, and full well you know it…

    Quote the alleged “memorandum” in full, with authentication data.

    Does it not occur to you, that Europe post-war was confronting an attempt by Stalin and elements in the US administration who wanted to divvy up the entire world into Soviet and US “Hemispheres of Influence and Control”??

    Does it not penetrate your clouds of obfuscation, that the Nazi regime had been smashed and destroyed at the end of the war in Europe, and that several perceptuve filk were seriously concerned that further destroying the morale of German people might only serve Stalin’s ambitions and purposes? It certainly seems to have occurred to Stalin and his cohorts, and their cheerleaders in Western countries who should have known better than to serve the interests of a regime which posed a mortal menace to the whole of mankind?

    ———— * * * * * ————

    ‘Values as the expression of the Central Order’, written by Werner Heisenberg…

    ‘The problem of values is nothing but the problems of our acts, goals and morals. It concerns the compass by which we must steer our ship if we are to set a true course through life. The compass itself has been given different names by various religions and philosophies … but I have a clear impression that all such formulations try to express man’s relatedness to a Central Order. In the final analysis the Central Order, or the ‘One’ as it used to be called – with which we commune in the language of religion – _must_ win out….

    If we ask Western man what is good, what is worth striving for and what has to be rejected, we shall find time and again, that his answers reflect the ethical norms of Christianity even when he has long since lost all touch with Christian images and parables.

    If the magnetic force which has guided this particular compass – and what else was its source but the Central Order? –
    should ever become extinguished, _terrible_ things may happen to mankind, far more terrible even than concentration camps and atom bombs.’

    Werner Heisenberg, [1971] ‘Physics and beyond: encounters and Conversations’, published by George Allen and Unwin, London.

    Thorpe is emphatic in asserting that we must never forget that such a conclusion must on no account be attributed solely to the Western insights stemming from the Christian revelation; he gives the following Admonitions as a further example, drawn from the Amerindian tribe of the hawnees (who were dispossessed of their Oklahoma lands in 1839).

    The Shawnee Admonitions:
    ================

    TEXT: (A) “Do not kill or injure your neigbour, for it is not him you injure, you injure yourself.”

    (B) “Do not wrong or hate your neighbour, for it is not him that you wrong, you wrong yourself.

    Moneto, the Supreme Being. loves him also as she loves you.”

    Quoted from W.H. Thorpe, ‘Purpose in a World of Chance: A Biologist’s View’ [1978], George, Allen and Unwin.

    This is clearly related via the Central Order to the (negative) Judaic injunction not to do unto one’s neighbour that which one would not wish to befall one’s self.

    My own — perhaps agnostic — orientation is nearer Taoism [and Greek mythology]; but these ethical principles are capable of reformulation for most spiritual — and even humanistic or ‘moral atheistic’ — contexts.

    ———– * * * * * ———–

    I think it must be you, John: your voice is becoming more muffled by the day…

    Tony Hollick

  • Andurill:

    Does it occur to you that had Hitler been allowed to make an alliance with the British as he had wished that the whole problem would have been avoided? All arguments are an attempt to overturn and coerce the established point of view.

  • John Thames:

    You ask:

    “Does it occur to you that had Hitler been allowed to make an alliance with the British as he had wished that the whole problem would have been avoided?”

    Yes, John, I used to consider it. And I cane to see that Nazism had incorporated the Core Structures of the NKVD (which OberGripprnFuhrer Heinrich Mueller greatly admired for its all-embacing Socoal Control) directly into the heart of the Nazi State. There was for all practical purposes NO DIFFERENCE ANY MORE.

    There are easily enough Control Freaks in Britain who would have _desired_ such Absolute Powers. .

    They and their Control Systems would have merged into further clones of Stalinism and Stalinism. The British ‘Public School System’ was DESIGNED to produce Lieutenant Classes and Leaders for an Empire which would have become ever more despotic.

    Amongst the most shameful High Crimes of Nazism was its degradation of the clear Northern Lights of Scandinavian High Culture; Celtic High Culture; and Saxon High Culture .

    To have destroyed Tolkien’s work would have been amongst the most destructive attacks on Western Civilazation itself.

    Nazism worshipped Rome, not Athens or Sparta. To have lost all five foundations would have been the greatest crime in the long history of all Mankind — for Western Civilization, of all the great Civilizations to have been destryed for a few temporary, posturing., absird and incompetent “Fuhrers” woold have been disgusting.

    John:

    For the sake of Deep Heaven, go read these greatest works in Western Literature, and come to see what Nazism so betrayes and nearly destroyed…..

    How CAN you continue to give Nazism any credence whatsoever? Nazism’s Core Structure worshipped Power, not Values…

    [TRACK ONE] ‘Values as the expression of the central order’

    TEXT: ‘The problem of values is nothing but the problems of our acts, goals and morals. It concerns the Compass by which we must steer our ship if we are to set a true course through life. The Compass itself has been given different names by various religions and philosophies … but I have a clear impression that all such formulations try to express man’s relatedness to a Central Order.

    In the final analysis the Central Order, or the ‘One’– as it used to be called — with which we commune in the language of religion [and spirituality], MUST win out….

    If we ask Western man what is good, what is worth striving for and what has to be rejected, we shall find time and again, that his answers reflect the ethical norms of Christianity even when he has long since lost all touch with Christian images and parables.

    If the magnetic Force which has guided this particular Compass — and what else was its source but the Central Order? — should EVER become extinguished, _terrible_ things may happen to Mankind, far more terrible even than concentration camps and atom bombs.’

    Werner Heisenberg, [1971]; ‘Physics and beyond: Encounters and Conversations’, published by George Allen and Unwin, London.

    ———– * * * * * ———–

    I ask you to read deeply JRR Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings”; and “The Silmarillion.”

    Go read Anne C. Petty’s “One Ring To Bind Them All.”

    And forever give up worshipping the Ersatz ‘Gods’ of ‘Authority’ and ‘Power… ‘

    Anduril

    ———– * * * * * ———–

  • I thought we were discussing whether the Nazis killed six million Jews, not whether National Socialism was a desirable social system? As to destroying western civilization, I believe that both British bombers over Dresden and Jewish commissars after the war did far more to achieve that than anything Hitler ever could have done. It might interest you to know that Hitler was a first rate architect and painter who had a deep and abiding passion for western art. He was building peoples opera houses all over Germany before the war. I fail to see how any of that is consistent with a desire to destroy western civilization. I have absolutely no idea what high Saxon culture is.

    I am acquainted with Tolkien. It might interest you to know that he subscribed to fascist political journals and underlined key antisemitic passages in red ball point pen. The”Lord of the Rings” trilogy can be interpreted various ways but I believe the Orks strongly resemble the Red Army and its Jewish political commissars. The good guys of Middle Earth remind me of the various European nationalists joining forces against the common enemy (Ukrainian SS, Latvian SS, etc.)

    Was Tolkien preaching against Hitler? Or was he preaching for Hitler against the Jewish bolshevik orks? I do not know but the fact that he was reading Chesterton’s “Candour” and marking approvingly the verboten passages is food for thought, to say the least.

  • John Thames:

    Your attempt to co-opt Tolkin’s writngs to your cause is _doomed_.

    Tolkien himself durectly deprecated racism and Nazism durung hus lifetime.

    The Races in the books are all human — Men; Dwarves and Elves. The Nneteen Rings forged by the Elven-Smiths of Noldor were all calibrated for the different threads of the weven human fabric:

    “Three Rings for the Elven-Kings under the sky

    Seven for the Dwarf-Lords in their Halls of stone

    Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die

    Notice the inclusiion of the Nineteen Races of Humans; and the complete omission of other _Species_.

    No Rings at all for other Species, are there? Orcs etc. don’t get to have Rings made for them at all. Orcs are created by Sauron himself, from Elvush DNA… A horrndiys crime whuch is an inhuman and hideous desecration of the First Born and the intents of THEIR creators.

    Your ‘knowledge’ of Ring Lore is a garbled pretence. Worthless..

    Celebrimbor and the Noldorian Smiths would have treated it with a well-deserved derision.

    Westernesse; Atalante; Numenor; Middle-Earth and the rest:

    “They are not shown on any Map:

    True places never are…”

    I was captured and literally tortured by your chums at Southmead Poluce Station: we — being prescient — have a colour video with sound tracks of the entirety of the – utterly futile — session.

    There are as of now copies of it elsewhere, because the video wristwatch I have has biderectional RF uplinks, links which immediately spirit the datastream of the watch elsewhere… Smiles…

    Your Official Terrorists are inept and contemptible oath-breakers…

    As we shall now demonstrate to the World. I can upload a copy of the entire lengthy session here, if you get off on watchung such things, as your kund usually do.

    Between Violence and the Offucual Lie is the most natural and fundamental link:

    Violence can only survive on the Lies; and the Lies can only survive by Violence.

    “One Word of Truth can change the World” say our Russian friends…

    [ FX: “Just watch. ye of the Lidless Eye…” ]

    Anduril

    You can tell your absurd chums that your “Surveillance Camera Systems” are playthings…

    [ FX: “Don’t Mess With Westernesse…” ]

  • THE BLACK GATE OPENS…

    Sirs:

    This says it all. Really.

    “The Secret of Happiness is Freedom; and the Secret of Greedom is Courage”

    — Thucydides, Classical Greek philosopher and General, 2,500 years ago…

    “For They did Not Despair Of the Republic…”

    http://www.ae911truth.org

    All best wishes to you for a bright, truly free American future for Western Civilizations.

    Tony Hollick

  • Andurill:

    I do not pretend to be an expert on Tolkien. As to the rest, I simply do not understand what you are saying. Nonsense is nonsense.

  • http://www.barnesreview.org/html/tolkien.html

    For your information.

  • http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2006-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&updated-max=2007-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=28

    FYI.

  • Although it’s really really nice that all you clever guys like to have long spats on this comment thread, would it perhaps be too much to ask you all that you might go to some of our other posts, and comment on those?

    I really want, in the lifestage that this blog is now in, to get the mean comments-per-post up quite a bit, and I’d also like to see comments less “normally-distributed” in a binomial sense. I don’t really want 1% of the posts to get 99% of the comments.

    The mean is currently about 3 comments per post, and rising, but this one has 239 including mine of just now: this is not how I view the development of this blog.

    If you guys feel you’d like to migrate your interesting discussion to another of our posts, then I odn’t mind how you arrange to meet, you can land anywhere else that pleases you!

  • http://mail.google.com/mail/?hl=en#inbox/120eeaa86292342d

    More irrefutable documentation.

  • I shall cease and desist on this thread. Enough has been posted to make the case.

  • ALL THOSE PEOPLE COULD NOT HAVE LIED

    No matter how convincingly the Holocaust revisionists document their case, they are always confronted with the ultimate fall back argument: “All those people could not have lied.” It is a little like the 09/11 conspiracy. All those people could not have lied. No one could pull off a hoax that great. It is such a childish argument but it is resorted to, again and again. Let us begin with a simple question. Why could all those people not have lied? We all know that individuals and small groups of people lie. Why, then could not large numbers of individuals lie? All it would take is a common purpose and the ability to suppress the truth by various methods. The Jews, a people of the lie, would have every incentive to smear their chief political opponents. By so doing, they could make themselves the martyrs of the world forevermore. They could disarm every criticism by screaming “Nazi!” Moreover, they could hide their responsibility for the crimes of communism behind the defense of Nazi propaganda. They could use the alleged Holocaust as a camouflage for stealing Palestine from the Arabs. All the ugly facts about Jewish history (and the facts are extremely ugly) could be forever hidden behind the extermination hoax.

    What about the others, the British, the Americans, and the Soviet Russians? What did they have to gain by going along with the hoax? Basically, they could use the hoax of the extermination of the Jews to cover up their own crimes. That meant diverting attention from the firebombing of civilians, the deliberate starvation of the German prisoners after the war, the expulsions of the Germans from the east, the mass rapes, Operation Keelhaul and all the rest of it. Everyone stood to gain by going along with the hoax of the poor, exterminated Jews. Now, did the prosecuting powers at Nuremberg lack the means to cover up the truth? Not at all. They had all the necessary means at their disposal. To begin with, they had all the captured German documents in their possession. That meant that all the documentary evidence showing that the Jews had not been exterminated could either be destroyed or hidden, as required. Next, the conspirators could take genuine German documents and alter or destroy them, as in exerting exaggerated kill totals in Einzatsgruppen documents. If necessary, they could even manufacture fake documents to suit their purpose, as both the YIVO, the Yiddish Scientific Institute in New York and the Centre For Contemporary Jewish Documentation in Paris, are known to have done. The “L” series of documents at Nuremberg are a very good example of the forgeries practiced there. The kangaroo court at Nuremberg was also under the victor’s control. They made the rules. The Nuremberg Court could take judicial notice of anything it deemed a “fact”. No proof was required. No witness for the prosecution at Nuremberg was ever prosecuted for perjury, then or now. Thus, any lie could be told with impunity. The court could withhold any documents it chose from the defendants while supplying any documents it chose to the prosecution. The right of cross-examination of the defense was severely limited while unlimited discretion was granted to the prosecution The fact that millions of Jews were still alive in Russia and Europe after the war was deliberately concealed from the public by the Jewish controlled western media, even though it was visible to the man-in-the-street. The Jewish commissars in the Iron Curtain countries were not shown to the TV cameras as examples of “gassed” Jews, nor were the thousands of healthy prisoners in the camps shown in the newsreels, only the diseased and starving ones.

    All the necessary ingredients for the creation of the hoax were in place. The continuation of the hoax in the ensuing decades is not hard to understand, either. Once the hoax was in place, it could stand as proof of the moral rectitude of the victors of the war. “We had to do it!” – because of the camps and the poor Jews, of course. The records would remain buried, war crimes trials would go endlessly and no one would know the truth. But then those inconvenient revisionists showed up and started asking the wrong questions. Worse yet, an American electrical engineering professor actually wrote a book in the mid-1970’s seeing through the whole thing. We all know what happened. Forensic examinations of the so-called “gas chambers” followed and the Jews have been passing Holocaust Denial laws ever since.

    All those people did lie – and they are still lying. They have no choice really. A lie that has gone on for so long must continue. For if the lie collapsed, then the whole world political order built on that lie must also collapse.

  • http://www.sunray22b.net/lord_of_the_swastikas.htm

    A little essay on Tolkien and English literary history.

  • Pingback: Another nail in the coffin of Free Speech « The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG

  • On JTT Tolkien’s Legendarium, the ultimate evil is COERCION, the overthrow of one person’s free will by another person or entity.

    “Nazism without coercion is unimagineable”

    End of story

    Anduril (“Lux Ferre”)

  • JRR Tolkien

    Anduríl

  • *************
    For starters: How would you explain, then, that the entire human race throughout the world has developed from black origins in Africa? Or that the first true steels were made in Africa by African smiths? Or that Trevor, the husband of my niece, is [a] very black; [b] intelligent; [c] successful at business and [d] an accomplished American Football player?
    ***************

    First, the whole idea of “all civilization from Africa” is based on scant evidence that was once used (by the very same learned pundits ) to support other conclusions.
    Second, it may be true. That would say nothing more than human embryos in early stages have a tail & gills that remind us of our distant reptilian ancestors…by your logic, an amphibian is no better than me because he is my ancestor and civilization started with him…
    So, this African relative of yours maybe also…
    1 was a NBA star
    2 won three platinum discs for his rap album
    3 has a p€nis as big as a forearm
    right?
    PFFT!
    If you make tall claims, try at least to make them credible…
    Oh, I forgot…maybe his presumably mulatto offspring will make it to the White House…
    PFFT!

  • ************
    “Nazism without coercion is unimagineable”
    ************
    Actually it was Hobbes who claimed “the State” has the monopoly of “legitimate violence (coercion etc “.
    Hobbes is the antecedent of most modern policy making.

  • *****************
    You wouldn’t say that face-to-face. You wouldn’t say it to Trevor. Do you think you’re “unreachable” just because you’re posting on the Internet?
    *******************

    Newsflash: your African relative is 3 meters tall, strong as a gorilla…pardon, ox…and Wesley Snipes took karate lessons from him…
    PFFT!

    ABOUT BLACK CRIME IN THE USA:
    http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/llgsfp.htm
    ——–
    The lifetime chances of a person going to prison are higher for men (9%) than for women (1%) and higher for blacks (16%) and Hispanics (9%) than for whites (2%). At current levels of incarceration newborn black males in this country have a greater than a 1 in 4 chance of going to prison during their lifetimes, while Hispanic males have a 1 in 6 chance, and white males have a 1 in 23 chance of serving time.
    ——–
    ——–

  • ******************
    Yes, John, I used to consider it. And I cane to see that Nazism had incorporated the Core Structures of the NKVD (which OberGripprnFuhrer Heinrich Mueller greatly admired for its all-embacing Socoal Control) directly into the heart of the Nazi State. There was for all practical purposes NO DIFFERENCE ANY MORE.

    There are easily enough Control Freaks in Britain who would have _desired_ such Absolute Powers. .
    ******************

    Think again.
    By ALL accounts, we are MUCH MORE CONTROLLED TODAY in the most liberal Banana Republic than suspects were under Nazism. Period.
    So saying that Hitler’s defeat put a kink in the long lived plans for thorough control is false.
    The only difference is that Hitler’s enemies told us that he was controlling people out of ill will and mental disturbances…what Hitler was telling people was that he was ensuring their safety while restraining “anti-nationals”…
    The same “we do it for your own good” that big brother tells us today…no difference.
    Mostly every street corner…and CERTAINLY every public place (stations, malls, shops etc ) is now under camera control…did that stop crime?
    Not one bit…so why is it there?
    The famous biometric passport, high-tech brainchild of all those big brother’s hacks whose gums bleed for our own sins, was faked WITHIN DAYS OF THE OFFICIAL RELEASE.
    But we’re ALL going to get one sooner or later, while it has been proven that EVERY criminal with a few dimes can buy a doctored one…
    If it doesn’t successfully deter criminals, why is it there?
    Answer: to control me & you.

  • we should stand up and surport Isreal against her ememies

  • And here’s one more.
    Sean Gabb’s article is very good. I too had always accepted the fact that the Nazis murdered 6 million Jews and others they did not like. And that they ran death camps to do this. And I still accept that it is certainly true because, yes, it is very hard to conceal specific details in the long term. If it was untrue it surely should have come out by now, with specific data. Like the theory that the CIA or whoever did 9/11 is clearly not true because to cover up so much information and to silence so many people would be a huge task. And who would silence the silencers?
    But I have been concerned that “holocaust deniers” should be prosecuted. It is coming very close to denying the ability to examine facts and if one is denied that then you can’t say what is true. The facts should be presented and then those who deny the truth can be seen for what they are. Liars or deluded.
    One fact that I think is extremely important and that usually gets mixed in somewhere in the debate and should not:
    The establishment of Israel should not be regarded as having anything whatsoever to do with the holocaust or any other recent events.
    Israel was initially established by a statement of God recorded in Genesis 12:7 , again in Genesis 13:14-17 and is subsequently reaffirmed many times in the Bible.
    That is the foundation for Israel.

  • John B has it all wrong.

    The establishment of the state of Israel has nothing to do with any Biblical promise. Herzlian Zionism was founded on the premise that Jews should segregate themselves from incompatible gentiles. Besides, Khazars have no claim to any Biblical promise – ridiculous though such claims are.

  • The truth about the Holocaust hoax has come out – read Butz’s book. It is the Jew media that keeps the story buried.

  • A substantial amount of the Bible has been found to be historically accurate.
    In it God states that He gives the land that now includes Israel but actually extends from the Red Sea to the Euphrates to Abraham and/or subsequently, to Jacob and Isaac.
    The Arabs are also the children of Abraham it would seem but the children of Isaac are the Jews.
    As to whether such a claim is ridiculous, well, what makes for a ridiculous claim to any piece of land? Where do you begin or end the legitimacy of a claim?
    I am not too concerned about what Herzl may have thought or done. Or Lord Balfour. That was their concern.
    I am more interested in the fulfilment of God’s statements.
    The “Jew media”, as you call it, is so profoundly hostile to Israel that I think if one was was to think it was supporting Israel it can only be in a coffin. Nothing is doing more to destroy Israel than that media.

  • In 1967 of course, it was the other way around.

    At the time of the Six-Day-War (remember that, anyone?) I was one of two young 6th formers at my school who supported “The Arabs”: the “Media”, universally and almost globally, with the possible exception of the BBC World Service, were solidly and triumphantly behind “The Israelis”. The other guy and I were mercilessly scragged, not only by the rest of the 6th form but by some teachers, for our rather strange views.

    We must remember that memory of the Shoah was still quite fresh: it was earlier the same morning for most of our parents, and even for the older chaps of our generation. Eichmann had been hung only six years earlier, to the jubilation of the world’s broadcast media which reported the fine details of the actual event with a profound and closure-encapsulating joy.

  • Anyone who gloats over the execution of a person or any termination of life is disgusting. Saddam Hussein on TV, etc. It is profoundly sick but seems to be consistent with where the human race tends to live when it abandons God.
    As to what the media did in 1967: Well, at the very least that puts them as having been in the Jewish sphere of influence, severely in the past tense. So they did not organise that too well.
    The Foreign Office and other British state structures have always been fairly pro Arabist, I think, so it is strange that the pro Israeli feeling should have ridden so high. Perhaps Britain was a better country then?

  • Anyone who believes that the “Holy Bible” offers a title to someone else’s land in the 21st century is difficult to reason with, to say the least.

  • Hi John,
    That is an incorrect assessment of my position.
    I do say that is when the title was established – about 3,500 years ago. But the fuller picture is that there has been a Jewish presence in this land ever since that time until the present as has been archaeologically verified.
    So it is neither simply something that happened in 1947, nor is it simply a claim going back to times recorded in the Bible. It is both those, and a continuous thread in between.

  • The facts and the logic are both specious.

    Jews were never the majority or dominant group in Palestine at any point in history, even if the Biblical fairy tales are accepted as accurate. The Caanites were there long before the Jews, as were the Phoenicians and the numerous Greek colonies in Syria-Palestine. Even in ancient times, the vast majority of the Jews were living outside Palestine – and had no desire to “return”.The Jews, in short, were already “dispersed”, even then.

    There has been a continuous Latin presence in Italy since the collapse of the Roman Empire – but no one uses that as an excuse to recreate Rome. Most of these Jews in Palestine are descended from the Khazar Turks – who have no claim to Palestine whatever. I reccomend to you, since you appear to be English, Jon Bagot Glubb’s book, “Peace in the Holy Land”. Glubb, as the longtime commander of the Jordanian Legion, knew as much or more about the Zionist movement as any man alive – and wrote extensively on the subject.

  • Italy still exists as a Latin country. Latin is not spoken too much except in the Vatican, sure. But it is still there and no one wants to slaughter every Latin person in Italy nor objects to them living there or running the government. Rome is still there. Rome as in ’empire’? No one wants to establish an Hebrew empire that I know of.
    Whoever the present Jewish people may be racially is, while not irrelevant, not relevant to their Jewishness. That is surely soley dependent on their relationship with Jehovah?
    Jews were the dominant force in the area which is modern day Israel and Jordan, which I think was named Palestinia by the Romans, since the time of Moses. (From Abraham to Moses they were in that area but also Egypt.)
    During the time of David and Solomon and the kings they were very much the dominant force, so your statement “never in the majority or dominant group” is not accurate.
    The Jews went into Babylonian captivity for around 400 years at the time of Jeremiah, but a Jewish presence continued in the area even during that time.
    The Romans also tried to smash up the Jewish identity, destroying the temple in AD 70.
    I think the dispersed Jews have been saying: “Next year in Jerusalem,” for the last 2000 years and this has now happened.
    The history recorded in the Bible that you refer to as “Biblical fairy tales” is substantiated by a large amount of archaeological evidence.

  • There has been a continuous Latin presence in Italy since the collapse of the Roman Empire – but no one uses that as an excuse to recreate Rome. Most of these Jews in Palestine are descended from the Khazar Turks – who have no claim to Palestine whatever. I reccomend to you, since you appear to be English, Jon Bagot Glubb’s book, “Peace in the Holy Land”. Glubb, as the longtime commander of the Jordanian Legion, knew as much or more about the Zionist movement as any man alive – and wrote extensively on the subject.
    ==============================

    And after that you should read George III on Americans. He knew as much or more about those bloody colonial rebels as any man alive.

  • I will only quote Shakespeare to Mr. Bolton: “He speaks, but he says nothing.”

    As to JB, I would ask:
    Do you think sir, that because a Danish king once ruled the British isles in the 8th century AD, that therefore the Danes have title to the United Kingdon today? No? Then stop applying the same absurd logic to Palestine. If you think that Biblical fairy tales have been substantiated by the facts, I can onlysuggest that you read some books by Israeli archaeologists digging among the ruins. Also, if you think that no one has been planning for a “Khazar Empire” in the Middle East, perhaps you should look up some old maps of the Jewish National Fund showing a Zionist state stretching from Egypt to the Euphrates and Tigris rivers.

    You have a lot to learn. I have already learned it.

  • There has not been a continuous Danish presence in Britain, or even an intermittent one, since the Danish king ruled Britain. The fairly continuous Jewish presence in Israel goes back over 3 500 years. The similarity with the Danes in the UK might be considered specious?
    I don’t know how you can dismiss the archaeological verification of that Jewish presence in Israel as I think it is fairly well documented and new discoveries are often coming to light.
    If the Jews are planning an empire they are not doing it very well. Are they? It seems to me that Jewish influence is on the decline. An interesting point on this is the difference to be found in public opinion as experienced by David Davis in his comment above. If they control the media (and thus public opinion) they really are doing a shoddy job.
    Regarding the maps you mention. The promise to Abraham in Genesis 15:18 reads: “On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, “To your descendants I give this land, from the river [or Wadi] of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates,” so perhaps the maps to which you refer were looking at the land indicated in that promise.
    Seriously I don’t see the Jews doing any empire building. But I do hear talk of an intended global caliphate.

  • John B:

    As I stated, you have an awful lot to learn.

    If you think that Jewish influence is on the wane, you might ask yourself why the US government is preparing to attack Iran for Israel’s benefit. You seem incapable of understanding that ancient history does not grant title in the modern world – but then, all those who believe in the”Holy Bible” are idiots by definition.

    I also see that you believe in “Islamo-fascism” – which is nothing but a Zionist propaganda lie. Since you believe in the Jews book naturally you would also believe in Jew lies like Islamic conspiracies to conquer the world, fake “gas chambers” and all the rest of it.

  • ***************
    Sean Gabb’s article is very good. I too had always accepted the fact that the Nazis murdered 6 million Jews and others they did not like. And that they ran death camps to do this. And I still accept that it is certainly true because, yes, it is very hard to conceal specific details in the long term. If it was untrue it surely should have come out by now, with specific data. Like the theory that the CIA or whoever did 9/11 is clearly not true because to cover up so much information and to silence so many people would be a huge task. And who would silence the silencers?
    *************************

    First of all, how many people really do have access to this “much information”?
    How many can freely access top secret archives?
    Please…don’t tell me you missed the fact that access to archives is selective; and besides, who knows where to find information among cubic miles of book shelves?
    Look at it this way: Katyn has been supposed to be a Nazi crime…then after decades the opposite turned out to be true.
    Churchill’s WWII correspondence with Mussolini was disqualified as a hoax…maybe a ounce of truth in a ton of bile.
    Several DECADES later, it turns out Churchill did have this extensive WWII correspondence with Mussolini planning to turn tables on Stalin.
    Who were those who finally blew the whistle? The very same power structure that gave us the lie in the first place.
    It is best seen in small scale cases that do not call explicit political factors into question at all;
    take one of the many cases: the 1917 Cottingley fairies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_fairies
    In that case, a couple girls manufactured this story of fairies they had seen; upon getting teased about it, they even found a way to prove it with pictures.
    Spiritualists, Conan Doyle and other personalities boarded the ship as it seemed just what they needed to buttress their own agenda.
    For nearly SEVENTY YEARS both the supposed eyewitnesses and the story itself seemed to hold water; the 2 witnesses repeatedly swore it was nothing but the truth.
    Naysayers existed, who called the whole story a bluff, but you know how these things go.

    In the early 1980s the 2 supposed eye witnesses admitted it was a forgery; an elaborate forgery that included experts & makeup artists to make carboard cutouts from a book look like fairies on film.

    More interesting is what the 2 witnesses said about deceiving so many people for so long (ARTHUR C. CLARKE’S WORLD OF STRANGE POWERS video ): “people wanted to be taken in”, “they wanted to believe”, “we did not have to tell a lie at all, because every time someone came out to justify it”.

    Ever heard of the Piltdown man & the Archeoraptor paleonthologuy hoaxes (supposed missing links between apes and man, and between reptiles and birds )? Given credibility by some of the best minds in the field for decades in one case, or months in another.
    Naysayers existed, who called the whole story a bluff, but you know how these things go.

  • **************Italy still exists as a Latin country. Latin is not spoken too much except in the Vatican, sure. But it is still there and no one wants to slaughter every Latin person in Italy nor objects to them living there or running the government. Rome is still there. Rome as in ‘empire’? No one wants to establish an Hebrew empire that I know of.
    ********************

    I hate to break it to you, but there are no Latins in Italy. In the north they were systematically wiped out by invading Germanic barbarians; in the South of Italy you had in turn slaves from Asia, Byzantines and a massive Arab presence after the fall of the Roman empire; over time you even got Albanians etc.
    But you make a good point: Israel’s historical claim to any land that does not come from postcolonial arguments (after all, Israel was just one of the many countries born on the drawing board of postcolonialism) is as thin as a claim Italy might make to the regions of the ancient Roman empire…hey! Isn’t there enough archaeological evidence to support that claim? A really poor argument…
    Oh, and Iraq’s claim to represent Mesopotamia?
    Please…
    Even some leading Israeli experts think the whole identity game to be fraudulent and that a bulk of Jews descend not from Abraham but from converts in the middle ages…

  • That’s okay. We don’t want to be racist.
    But one has to define something somewhere or we might as well have no national identities at all. A good idea?
    Some think so.

    A more recent bit of archaeological stuff:

    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1262339428603&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

  • I guess one has to draw identity lines somewhere if one is going to at all? Perhaps not.
    Here’s a piece:

    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1262339428603&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

  • THE UNNECESSARY WAR – PART ONE

    Patrick Buchanan’s “Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World” is a tour-de-force account of the folly of the two world wars – the great civil war of the west, as Buchanan accurately terms it. This is a view completely contrary to the usual position. Although the folly of the First World War is now generally conceded, the Second World War is still romanticized as a great crusade against evil. Buchanan not merely rejects this view; he insists – correctly – that the folly of the second war was the direct outgrowth of the folly of the first. They were a continuum, not two separate occurrences.

    In this Buchanan is entirely correct. His decision to open his book with an extended discussion of the diplomatic background of the First World War is therefore a wise one. Although some of the intricacies of European diplomacy, 1890-1914 are difficult for even well read laymen to follow (Who today remembers Falasha or two Moroccan crises?) Buchanan nevertheless makes essential points clear. The German Kaiser never once went to war in twenty-five years prior to 1914. His bark was far worse than his bite. England was perfectly prepared to resort to preventive war to smash a Germany she feared was getting too strong – as evidenced by the repeated proposals of fleet commander, Admiral “Jackie” Fisher, that the English “Copenhagen” the German high sea fleet at anchor in Kiel. The Kaiser was perpetually humiliated by his nephew, King Edward VII of England. All of this deep animosity and suspicion between the two powers was to have fatal consequences in 1914. The chief English diplomatic blunder in the pre-war years was to grant a secret guarantee to France to go to war in the event of a Franco-German war. When war came in 1914 the Germans, confronted with the specter of a joint French-Russian pincers from the east and west, had no inkling of the secret English guarantee. Neither did many of the English politicians, who were prepared to walk out of Prime Minister Herbert Asquith’s cabinet rather than declare war on Germany. They were prevented by David Lloyd George who calculated that he could ascend to the Prime Minister ship himself, if he did what was best for his career rather than what was best for his country. The Germans were not blameless for the outbreak of the war. The Kaiser had ill advisedly given a blank check to the Austrians to issue an ultimatum to the Serbian government which had indeed been complicit over the assassination of the Archduke in Sarajevo. But as war approached, it was the Kaiser who was most desperately trying to back out of the impending war. The Kaiser’s words are worth quoting. On July 31, 1914 Kaiser Wilhelm wired the Czar and King George V:

    “It is not I who bears the responsibility for the disaster which now threatens the entire civilized world. Even at this moment the decision to stave it off lies with you.”

    The war to destroy Germany had arrived at last. It cost the British, French and Russians far more blood than they had anticipated. More importantly, the war and the punitive peace treaty that followed laid the foundations for the second, and even more devastating, war to come. Patrick Buchanan’s description of the treaty of Versailles is masterful. The betrayal of Woodrow Wilson’s “fourteen points”, the sacrifice of the self-determination of peoples to English and French power politics, the looting of Germany’s industry and economy to pay impossible war reparations, the atrocious “sole guilt” clause ascribing responsibility for the war to Germany, the destruction of the German fleet to avoid turning it over to the English, the amputation of large sections of German territory and the turning over of millions of ethnic Germans to foreign domination, is all gone over in striking detail. The hypocrisy of the Entente powers, the humiliation and thirst for revenge of the Germans speaks clearly through Buchanan’s prose. Even better is the treatment of the dismemberment of Hungary. The amputation of two-third’s of Hungary’s territory was so excessive that even American and Entente statesmen known not to be sympathetic to the Hungarians protested. The map of Europe had been decisively butchered. But at this point, the obviously well informed and widely read Patrick Buchanan stops short. He is only too willing to inform the reader of the reasons the Germans objected so bitterly to the Versailles diktat; he is not willing to tell the reader the reasons for the anti-Jewish sentiment which erupted in Germany after the war. Buchanan goes into great detail about the behavior of Woodrow Wilson, David Lloyd George and Clemenceau at the great peace conference. But nowhere does he mention the tremendously influential Jewish delegations that traveled to Paris from the United States, Great Britain, all points of Europe and the newly emerged Bolshevik empire. He writes nothing of the discussions which raged in the English press, particularly “The Morning Post” on the implications of Jewish international politicking at Paris. There is no discussion of the intrigue behind the Balfour Declaration, the purported “contract with Jewry” of David Lloyd George, the minorities treaties” in Central Europe, the “old Jewish idea” called the League of Nations or the mandate over Palestine. There is no mention of the Zionists who controlled Woodrow Wilson or their consistent promotion of his career from president of Princeton University to president of the United States. Similarly, in his discussion of the anguish of the defeated Germans there is no discussion of the innumerable Jews who bought up German real estate and assets at a small fraction of their real value during the post-war inflation. Nor is there any mention of Rosa Luxemburg, Leo Jogisches, Paul Levi, Kurt Eisner, Hugo Haas, Ernst Toller, Max Levien, Eugene Levine-Nissen or dozens of other Jewish Communists who terrorized Germany after the war. Buchanan writes of Bela Kun and his murderous dictatorship in Hungary but omits any mention that Kun and 160 of his 200 commissars were Jewish.

    It is not possible that a man so well informed as Patrick Buchanan is unaware of these facts. Such massive reading of history and abundant documentation precludes the possibility. Indeed, toward the end of his book Buchanan mentions that Winston Churchill shared the same views as Adolf Hitler on the Jewish origins of Communism. He mentions Churchill’s infamous newspaper article “Zionism Versus Bolshevism: A Struggle For The Soul Of The Jewish People” in which Churchill explicitly blames Jews for Bolshevism. Buchanan does note, correctly, that the same Churchill who once demanded an international crusade to destroy Communism with Germany as an ally, later fought Germany on behalf of Communism. (Buchanan, however, chooses not to quote those all too revealing words from “The Aftermath”, the final volume of Churchill’s “The World In Crisis” history of the First World War, where he alludes to “an international force, the likes of which the world has not yet seen, gripping the Russian people by the hair of their heads”. The meaning of the words is all too clear.)

    Patrick Buchanan is writing history “up to the brink”. He is telling most of the truth while leaving the ultimate truth hidden. True, he is offering hints – strong ones. In the next section of “The Unnecessary War”, we shall examine the very powerful truths he does reveal about the Second World War – and the one point on which he is clearly wrong.

  • Your comment on Pat Buchanan’s book is extremely interesting. It sounds like there is a lot of good information there.
    One of the enemies-of-truth’s most successful ploys has been to take some truth and some lie, stick them together and parcel and package them as one item.
    You are somewhat saying that about Buchanan’s account.
    There is another situation of re-packaging that has been caused by the Jews always having been riven with internal betrayal. Right from the Red Sea crossing and onwards. There has always been the “fifth column”. The one’s who had the big orgy while Moses was receiving God’s instructions in Mount Sinai. Or the guys with whom Elijah had a confrontation. The Bible is one long story of Israel’s internal battle with its fifth column. There are Jews who call themselves Jews but are not.
    A modern example are the Jews who deny Israel’s existence as a Jewish state.
    While it may be possible to mock the origin of Israel 5000 years ago as being of no consequence to the present, the fact is that Israel has always been significantly Jewish throughout history to the present.
    I suspect that the Jewish links that are established by “Jews” to communism and/or “the world domination league”, will be found to be of the same order, and of the same people. That is, the internal betrayer.
    Too much conspiracy? – Look at Britain today and ask how this was achieved and by whom and for what purpose.
    It is also a strange phenomenon of Western civilisation that we are somehow impelled to energetically saw off the very branch on which we sit and depend for our existence.

  • Craig J. Bolton

    Pass the popcorn, please.

    There is nothing so entertaing as watching a slobbering Jew Hater battling a self-appointed defender of Judaism who, from his remarks, isn’t a Jew. One of those “pro-Israel” dispensationalist Christians, trying to create the “end time,” perhaps?

    Who ever manages this list is missing a bet by not charging admission.

  • No need to “create” the end time, doll.
    Best one can do for humanity is try and slow it down a bit.

  • Mr. Bolton:

    Admission should be charged for my overflowing erudition. But I regret to inform you that you are not the main attraction.

  • THE PEACE TREATY TO END ALL PEACE TREATIES

    There once was a “peace treaty to end all peace treaties”. It created all sorts of countries no one ever heard of, from the Baltic Sea to the Persian Gulf. This peace treaty was to make the world “safe for democracy” and end militarism for all time. This peace treaty was actually multiple peace treaties. It involved Versailles. St. Germain and Trianon in Europe plus Lausanne and Sevres with the Ottoman Empire. It arguably included Brest-Litovsk, imposed by Germany on Czarist/Bolshevik Russia in Eastern Europe. As a consequence of this treaty or treaties ancient empires were carved up like carcasses and distributed according to the whim of the victors. Out of the western Czarist area formerly known as Livonia came Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Poland, which had vanished from the map in the late eighteenth century, was recreated by the Germans in 1916 and enlarged three years later largely at the expense of Ukraine and Hungary. Austria was denied union with Germany and a customs union blocked crippling the economies of both nations. Hungary, at Trianon, was stripped of two-thirds of her territory. Most of the booty went to Rumania as its reward for switching sides several times during the war before winding up on the Entente side. Transylvania became a Rumanian, not Hungarian, possession. Czechoslovakia was created by incorporating millions of Sudeten Germans, Slovaks, Hungarians and Ukrainians into the Czech state. Eduard Benes and Thomas Masaryk, the Czech leaders, presented forged population maps and phony statistics to Wilson and Lloyd George at Paris to make their case. The Czechs also kidnapped the Slovak leader to prevent him from appearing at the Peace Conference. By such methods did the Czechs persuade the victorious Entente that the Slovaks and Czechs were “one people”. Poland had another huge ethnicities problem with millions of Germans, Ukrainians and Hungarians absorbed into its borders (not to mention millions of Jews). The problem would have been still worse had the polish delegates to the Peace Conference, Paderewski and Dwomski, not been thwarted by the “Little Versailles”. The Poles felt themselves aggrieved by not having their “historic borders”, namely the Jagiello dynasty of the 14th century stretching from the Baltic to the Black se, restored to them. The Entente did a particularly stupid thing in carving out the famous “corridor” separating Danzig from Germany. This eventually became the trigger for war in September 1939. Upper Silesia with its indispensable coal was taken from the defeated Austro-Hungarians and given to Poland. Alsace-Lorraine in the west was given back to the French and the Ruhr was subjected to a brutal occupation by black Senegalese troops who molested and raped German women. Russia came apart during the Bolshevik revolution and ensuing civil war. Large parts of the country were temporarily occupied by an Entente intervention and white armies. The Americans and British occupied Murmansk and Archangel in the north, near the Finnish border. The French intervened in the south Ukraine near Odessa on the Black Sea. Additional interventions took place in Siberia under the French general Janin. Russian territory switched back and forth until the Red Army under Leon Trotsky finally won the war. The Bolsheviks then tried to expand their power to the west. Marshall Tukhachevsky and the Red Army were stopped at the gates of Warsaw by the Poles.

    Such was the condition of Europe in the years of the “peace making”. In the Arabian Peninsula similar drastic changes were at work. The defeat of the Ottoman Turks by General Edmund Allenby led to a post-war labyrinth of conflicting promises and pledges. The English had provoked an Arab revolt against the Turks under Sheriff Hussein of Mecca. The famous correspondence of October 24-25, 1915 between the Sheriff and Sir Henry McMahon, the British High Commissioner in Egypt had produced a tentative agreement in which the English promised to support a unified Arab, independent state after the war in exchange for an Arab revolt against the Turks, Germany’s ally. Palestine, which became such an issue after the war, was nowhere mentioned in the correspondence. It is now reasonably clear, from the lines on the map and the intent to exclude certain populations, that Palestine was included in the pledge to the Arabs. But there were major complications. The Sykes-Picot treaty between England and France had already encompassed the same territory. Worse yet, on November 2, 1917, His Majesty’s Government had issued a famous proclamation announcing its intent to create a Jewish “national home” in Palestine. The Arabs of Palestine were not consulted. In the end, the unified national state which the Arabs were to have received became the mandates of Iraq, Palestine, Transjordan, Syria and Lebanon. The first three were British; the latter two French. Turkey’s Arabian possessions disappeared forever; the trouble for the Anglo-French overlords of the former Ottoman dominions was only beginning. The Arabs experienced first hand at Paris, the true influences which determined English policy. Prince Feisal, the son of Sheriff Hussein, went to the French capital to press Arab demands. He discovered that Zionist Jews from England and America surrounded Lloyd George and Wilson, influencing or determining their every move. He learned that the Arabs, who had done the fighting and dying on England’s behalf against the Turks, were expendable fodder. True power lay with the Zionists, who had made that “contract with Jewry” to get the United States into the war. The Jewish “national home” was the quid pro quo. Feisal was forced to sign a ridiculous “Treaty of Friendship” with Felix Frankfurter, purporting to welcome the Jews to Palestine as fellow Semitic brothers. He saw the Arabs betrayed – and saw the true source of the betrayal.

    Much else happened in Arabia after the war. The Hashemite dynasty of Sheriff Hussein was used by the English to control the area in the interests of British imperialism. Prince Feisal, a Sunni Muslim from the Hejaz on the east coast of the Red Sea, was sent by the English to become King of Iraq, an area of Shiite Muslims with whom he had no connection. He received the appointment after the French rejected him as King of Syria in March 1920. His brother, Abdullah, became emir and later King of Jordan. Thus were dynasties established by Arabs from the south of the peninsula over areas much further north and east. Poor Sheriff Hussein, who did so much to ensure British victory with Arab blood, was sold down the river by the empire in 1924-1925. He was abandoned by the English to the conquest of Ibn Saud of the Wahabi tribe. In large part, Hussein was ditched because he would not recognize the mandate over Palestine. He thus became disposable to both the English and the Zionists.

    Such were the consequences of the “Versailles” of Arabia. These consequences are still with the modern world. The British Empire suffered never-ending strife during the 1921-1948 era over Palestine. Its endless investigations of Palestinian grievances never once found a satisfactory solution to the conflicting pledges given to Arabs and Jews, 1915-1917. The state of Israel rose on the foundation of the wartime pledges of Lord Balfour – with all the resulting strife we experience today. The grievances of 1915-1917 are all but unknown to the public today but still fester in the minds of the Arabs to whom they are as real as though they occurred yesterday. Such were the consequences of the “peace treaty to end all peace treaties”. The great experiment that was to reshape the world did precisely that – although not in the way intended. It did not bring democracy to the world. Nor did it bring rights of self-determination, peace without annexations or any of the other concepts with which it was sold. It brought artificial borders, wholesale amputations of populations, irredentist revisionism and conflicting promises everywhere it was implemented. It also brought a hidden agenda, hiding behind the slogans, camouflaged by the old imperialism in a new guise, but pursuing a real remaking of the world in a carefully “chosen” direction. That was the “peace treaty to end all peace treaties” – and no one can understand the world today without considering all of its momentous after effects.

    THE PEACE TREATY TO END ALL PEACE TREATIES

    There once was a “peace treaty to end all peace treaties”. It created all sorts of countries no one ever heard of, from the Baltic Sea to the Persian Gulf. This peace treaty was to make the world “safe for democracy” and end militarism for all time. This peace treaty was actually multiple peace treaties. It involved Versailles. St. Germain and Trianon in Europe plus Lausanne and Sevres with the Ottoman Empire. It arguably included Brest-Litovsk, imposed by Germany on Czarist/Bolshevik Russia in Eastern Europe. As a consequence of this treaty or treaties ancient empires were carved up like carcasses and distributed according to the whim of the victors. Out of the western Czarist area formerly known as Livonia came Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Poland, which had vanished from the map in the late eighteenth century, was recreated by the Germans in 1916 and enlarged three years later largely at the expense of Ukraine and Hungary. Austria was denied union with Germany and a customs union blocked crippling the economies of both nations. Hungary, at Trianon, was stripped of two-thirds of her territory. Most of the booty went to Rumania as its reward for switching sides several times during the war before winding up on the Entente side. Transylvania became a Rumanian, not Hungarian, possession. Czechoslovakia was created by incorporating millions of Sudeten Germans, Slovaks, Hungarians and Ukrainians into the Czech state. Eduard Benes and Thomas Masaryk, the Czech leaders, presented forged population maps and phony statistics to Wilson and Lloyd George at Paris to make their case. The Czechs also kidnapped the Slovak leader to prevent him from appearing at the Peace Conference. By such methods did the Czechs persuade the victorious Entente that the Slovaks and Czechs were “one people”. Poland had another huge ethnicities problem with millions of Germans, Ukrainians and Hungarians absorbed into its borders (not to mention millions of Jews). The problem would have been still worse had the polish delegates to the Peace Conference, Paderewski and Dwomski, not been thwarted by the “Little Versailles”. The Poles felt themselves aggrieved by not having their “historic borders”, namely the Jagiello dynasty of the 14th century stretching from the Baltic to the Black se, restored to them. The Entente did a particularly stupid thing in carving out the famous “corridor” separating Danzig from Germany. This eventually became the trigger for war in September 1939. Upper Silesia with its indispensable coal was taken from the defeated Austro-Hungarians and given to Poland. Alsace-Lorraine in the west was given back to the French and the Ruhr was subjected to a brutal occupation by black Senegalese troops who molested and raped German women. Russia came apart during the Bolshevik revolution and ensuing civil war. Large parts of the country were temporarily occupied by an Entente intervention and white armies. The Americans and British occupied Murmansk and Archangel in the north, near the Finnish border. The French intervened in the south Ukraine near Odessa on the Black Sea. Additional interventions took place in Siberia under the French general Janin. Russian territory switched back and forth until the Red Army under Leon Trotsky finally won the war. The Bolsheviks then tried to expand their power to the west. Marshall Tukhachevsky and the Red Army were stopped at the gates of Warsaw by the Poles.

    Such was the condition of Europe in the years of the “peace making”. In the Arabian Peninsula similar drastic changes were at work. The defeat of the Ottoman Turks by General Edmund Allenby led to a post-war labyrinth of conflicting promises and pledges. The English had provoked an Arab revolt against the Turks under Sheriff Hussein of Mecca. The famous correspondence of October 24-25, 1915 between the Sheriff and Sir Henry McMahon, the British High Commissioner in Egypt had produced a tentative agreement in which the English promised to support a unified Arab, independent state after the war in exchange for an Arab revolt against the Turks, Germany’s ally. Palestine, which became such an issue after the war, was nowhere mentioned in the correspondence. It is now reasonably clear, from the lines on the map and the intent to exclude certain populations, that Palestine was included in the pledge to the Arabs. But there were major complications. The Sykes-Picot treaty between England and France had already encompassed the same territory. Worse yet, on November 2, 1917, His Majesty’s Government had issued a famous proclamation announcing its intent to create a Jewish “national home” in Palestine. The Arabs of Palestine were not consulted. In the end, the unified national state which the Arabs were to have received became the mandates of Iraq, Palestine, Transjordan, Syria and Lebanon. The first three were British; the latter two French. Turkey’s Arabian possessions disappeared forever; the trouble for the Anglo-French overlords of the former Ottoman dominions was only beginning. The Arabs experienced first hand at Paris, the true influences which determined English policy. Prince Feisal, the son of Sheriff Hussein, went to the French capital to press Arab demands. He discovered that Zionist Jews from England and America surrounded Lloyd George and Wilson, influencing or determining their every move. He learned that the Arabs, who had done the fighting and dying on England’s behalf against the Turks, were expendable fodder. True power lay with the Zionists, who had made that “contract with Jewry” to get the United States into the war. The Jewish “national home” was the quid pro quo. Feisal was forced to sign a ridiculous “Treaty of Friendship” with Felix Frankfurter, purporting to welcome the Jews to Palestine as fellow Semitic brothers. He saw the Arabs betrayed – and saw the true source of the betrayal.

    Much else happened in Arabia after the war. The Hashemite dynasty of Sheriff Hussein was used by the English to control the area in the interests of British imperialism. Prince Feisal, a Sunni Muslim from the Hejaz on the east coast of the Red Sea, was sent by the English to become King of Iraq, an area of Shiite Muslims with whom he had no connection. He received the appointment after the French rejected him as King of Syria in March 1920. His brother, Abdullah, became emir and later King of Jordan. Thus were dynasties established by Arabs from the south of the peninsula over areas much further north and east. Poor Sheriff Hussein, who did so much to ensure British victory with Arab blood, was sold down the river by the empire in 1924-1925. He was abandoned by the English to the conquest of Ibn Saud of the Wahabi tribe. In large part, Hussein was ditched because he would not recognize the mandate over Palestine. He thus became disposable to both the English and the Zionists.

    Such were the consequences of the “Versailles” of Arabia. These consequences are still with the modern world. The British Empire suffered never-ending strife during the 1921-1948 era over Palestine. Its endless investigations of Palestinian grievances never once found a satisfactory solution to the conflicting pledges given to Arabs and Jews, 1915-1917. The state of Israel rose on the foundation of the wartime pledges of Lord Balfour – with all the resulting strife we experience today. The grievances of 1915-1917 are all but unknown to the public today but still fester in the minds of the Arabs to whom they are as real as though they occurred yesterday. Such were the consequences of the “peace treaty to end all peace treaties”. The great experiment that was to reshape the world did precisely that – although not in the way intended. It did not bring democracy to the world. Nor did it bring rights of self-determination, peace without annexations or any of the other concepts with which it was sold. It brought artificial borders, wholesale amputations of populations, irredentist revisionism and conflicting promises everywhere it was implemented. It also brought a hidden agenda, hiding behind the slogans, camouflaged by the old imperialism in a new guise, but pursuing a real remaking of the world in a carefully “chosen” direction. That was the “peace treaty to end all peace treaties” – and no one can understand the world today without considering all of its momentous after effects.

  • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/fighting-the-blood-libels-made-against-israel/

  • THE WISDOM OF WINSTON CHURCHILL

    On November 5, 1919 in the House of Commons, Winston Churchill gave a remarkable account of the Russian revolution. He began his account with a description of the sending of Lenin into Russia with his revolutionaries described by General Ludendorf. Churchill then recounted:

    “Lenin was sent into Russia by the Germans in the same way that you might send a phial containing a culture of typhoid or of cholera to be poured into the water supply of a great city, and it worked with amazing accuracy. No sooner did Lenin arrive than he began beckoning a finger here and a finger there to obscure persons in sheltered retreats in New York, in Glasgow, in Berne, and other countries, and he gathered together the leading spirits of a formidable sect, the most formidable sect in the world, of which he was the high priest and chief. With these spirits around him he set to work with demoniacal ability to tear to pieces every institution on which the Russian state depended. Russia was laid low. Russia had to be laid low. She was laid low in the dust.”

    The formidable sect referred to by Winston Churchill is not hard to identify. One need merely consult his infamous newspaper article “Zionism Versus Bolshevism: A Struggle For The Soul Of The Jewish People” in the “Illustrated Sunday Herald” of November 8, 1920 to know of whom he was speaking. Churchill continued along the same lines in his history of the First World War. In the final volume of the history, entitled “The Aftermath”, he wrote of an international force having seized hold of Russia. This international force was unlike anything the world had hitherto seen and was gripping the terrified Russian people by “the hair of their head”. And so the renowned Winston Churchill, the later opponent of Adolf Hitler and National Socialism, denounced Jewish Bolshevism in the most vehement and thinly veiled terms. This is not quite so amazing as it seems. Churchill was not alone in his views. His namesake Marlborough Churchill, the head of Military Intelligence in the United States, held exactly the same opinion. As shocking as Churchill’s views on Communism and the Jews may be, his later views on the virtues of Nazism are arguably even more shocking. Winston Churchill pre-war is on record as having praised Hitler’s patriotic achievement in saving Germany. He stated “one may dislike Hitler’s system while admiring his achievement”. Churchill also stated “were England to be defeated, he hoped that she would be fortunate enough to find a leader of Hitler’s magnetism and courage to lead her back to her place among the nations”. He praised Hitler’s ability to inspire his followers and noted that this characteristic had permeated his career from lowest ebb to highest tide. Finally, Churchill hoped that history might yet see a milder, more moderate Fuehrer. As Winston accurately noted, many world leaders had been forgiven rough methods when they subsequently got results.

    Winston Churchill was a flaming white supremacist and racist. He detested Indians and Arabs. He callously dismissed the Bengal famine in India during WW2, caused by British scorched earth warfare against the Japanese, on the grounds that the Indian untermensch “bred like rabbits”, anyway. Winston held that superior races had the right to dominate the inferior. Churchill was a big supporter of eugenics to control he birth rate of the genetically impoverished. When England embarked on “diversity” in the 1950’s by allowing colonials to immigrate to the Mother Country, Churchill coined the expression “Keep England White”. In short, Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill was not the enlightened man that the intellectual cognoscenti would have the man in the street believe. Churchill’s reputation has degenerated considerably in England where it is now generally recognized that “Churchill’s War” against Germany destroyed the British Empire. In America however, where Zionist influence is very strong, no one wishes to examine Churchill’s actual deeds, much less his infamous words. Churchill was a man of many words (“We shall fight in the streets, we shall never surrender.”) But his most truthful words, expressed long before his most disastrous blunders, shall ring only in the ears of those who study verboten subjects.

  • PATRICK BUCHANAN: THE LAST SUCCESSFUL ANTI-SEMITE

    Patrick Buchanan is the Charles Lindberg who succeeded. Lindberg plummeted from the heights of fame and fortune after he publicly accused Jews of being one of the principal forces driving America toward intervention in World War Two. Buchanan, however, has become ever more influential and widely read as he adopts more and more Charles Lindberg style positions. This is probably because Lindberg was a real threat to prevent certain trends whereas Buchanan can merely document and bemoan that which can no longer be reversed. Patrick Buchanan has, in fact, gone further in many of his public comments than Charles Lindberg ever dared. When the first Iraq war erupted Buchanan claimed that “the blood of kids named Smith and Gonzales” would pay for a war “started by Israel and its supporters. He also made numerous references to Israel’s “Amen Lobby” on Capitol Hill. Patrick Buchanan’s books have always contained an anti-interventionist outlook and a thinly veiled opposition to American participation in World War Two. In “A Republic, Not An Empire” Buchanan advanced the thesis that the proper course of action would have been to let the Germans and Russians fight it out, thereby preventing the post-war Communist occupation of Eastern Europe. This position generated some negative comment but the negative reaction increased many times over with the publication of “Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World”. Here Buchanan took a lifetime of historical research and distilled it into a one volume revisionist rewriting of the history of the two world wars. Patrick Buchanan was surely correct in treating the two world wars as essentially one, interrupted only by a bogus peace treaty. The book is neither soft-core nor hard-core revisionism, hovering somewhere in between. It is actually closer to hard-core revisionism, although hovering just on this side of intellectual respectability. Buchanan goes a very long way in “The Unnecessary War” to recasting Britain as the bad guy and the Germans as the good guy of the two wars. He displays a marked sympathy for Germany’s position while not exculpating the Germans completely. His attitude toward Britain’s obsolete balance-of-power politics is completely hostile and well justified by the facts.

    Buchanan displays a firm grasp of revisionist World War One scholarship in exculpating the Kaiser. His analysis of Britain’s motives in entering a war which did not directly threaten her is incisive. It is an account that hardly reflects credit on the English. But he is at his best in describing the disastrous post-war settlement. The Treaty of Versailles, the treaties of St. Germain and Trianon are all revealed in their amazing duplicity and hypocrisy. Buchanan makes the reader aware of just what kind of conditions Adolf Hitler had to overcome when he began his revision of its terms in 1936. This makes his absorbing account of Hitler’s march to war all the more convincing as the reader understands the true background to the struggle. Hitler is shown as he actually was, not as some comic strip character of demonic evil. Buchanan stresses Hitler’s extreme Anglophilia and desire for friendship with England, all the while condemning his reckless and unnecessarily provocative means of obtaining his ends. The war, however, came about through ill-advised English diplomatic guarantees, not because of any German desire to promote a general world conflict.

    This is all a long way from whitewashing Hitler, something Buchanan most assuredly does not do. His brutalities and diplomatic “fast ones” are all acknowledged and condemned. But the book is insistent on one point – it was World War Two that destroyed Britain’s Empire and western colonial dominance around the globe. It was World War Two that expanded Communism all over the globe and led to fifty years of Cold War. This is precisely what Charles Lindberg warned against. Patrick Buchanan wades in some very dangerous waters while writing “The Unnecessary War”. He quotes Churchill on the Jewish origins of Communism, thus suggesting to the reader the obvious question of why a man who agreed with Hitler should have gone to war with him. Buchanan also quotes Churchill on eugenics, white supremacy, the need to keep colonials from the Dominions out of the Mother Country so that England could “remain white”, etc. Nowhere does Buchanan explicitly endorse these views but the veiled implication is there.

    There is no doubt that Patrick Buchanan is an anachronism. He is a man living in the past, espousing a point of view that has long since vanished from the American scene. Many indications exist in his own writings, such as “The Death of the West”, that he realizes this. His analysis is masterful and largely beyond rebuttal. But he is espousing a cause that can never be won and that is why he is tolerated by the political establishment. He is their token reactionary; “proof” that freedom of speech and thought still exist in America. Anyone so foolish to believe this will be holding a pink slip as he is ushered out the door. Patrick Buchanan, then, is America’s last successful anti-Semite. Mel Gibson could be offered as an exception but Patrick has not had to apologize like Mel. It is unlikely that Patrick Buchanan will be writing any more books, just as it is unlikely that he will again run for president. He has had as much say as the media will allow. But it has been a pleasure to read his wisdom, for he is one of the last living Americans who might meet Diogenes test of an honest, and intelligent, man.

  • THE KU KLUX SCHMUCKS

    The Ku Klux Schmucks have an ugly reputation. Supposedly they were arrogant racists, persecuting newly liberated savages. But actually they were “fighters for the freedom of the south” (“The “Irgun Zvai Confederacy”). The Ku Klux Schmucks have no respect for “mandatory” constitutionality. Their mission in life is to protect schnozzle nose Scarlett O’Hara’s from Yassir Arafat types running amuck. The Ku Klux Schmucks are the Stern gang in white robes. They ride across the land in the circle of the KKK, kosher approved, slaughtering uppity slaves in the sand.

    Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir and Nathan Yellin-Mor once were on the “Most Wanted” posters of the old Palestine Police Force. But now they wear the “Pour Le Merite” of the Zionist Foreign Legion. Justice Ginsberg of the Supreme Schmucks has bestowed upon the Ku Klux Schmucks the blessings of “privileges and immunities”. Reconstruction Zionism has much in common with Reconstruction slavery. The Ku Klux Schmucks have sworn that Zionism shall never be “Gone With the Wind”. That is why the Ku Klux Schmucks have vowed that Old Palestine shall never rise again.

  • Craig J. Bolton

    Mr. Bolton:

    Admission should be charged for my overflowing erudition. But I regret to inform you that you are not the main attraction
    ==================

    I would never even attempt to steal the spotlight from a figure as fascinating as you, John. Such compulsive/obssessive psychosis so publically displayed is truly fascinating. I do thank you for that steady stream of posts supporting your delusions. They make for a very nice archive.

  • Craig:

    Accusing one’s opponent of psychological problems is the last refuge of those defeated on the facts.

  • Oh no, not all that stuff again…

    Tony

  • Yes, Tony:

    Your education is only beginning. Heil he who knows all!

    (That should tickle Mr. Bolton’s funny bone.Maybe he will put it in his “file”.)

  • Have you always had this obsession with “The Jews”?

    Tony

    PS: [ FX: “I don’t need no ‘education'” ]

  • Rony:

    You need a lot of education. How lucky that you have me to provide it to you.

    As for obsessions, I think it only proper to be obssessed with the force that controls the universe. More staggering wisdom shall follow.

  • Craig J. Bolton

    As for obsessions, I think it only proper to be obssessed with the force that controls the universe.

    ========================

    Very cool. First Jews control the Anglo-American world. Then they control the Earth. Now the universe. What is next for those all controling Jews?

    Do you have your tin foil kippa handy? Next they may turn their secret brain wave regulator on you to prevent you from continuing your all-so-effective compaign of exposure of the Jews.

    No, no possibility of psychological problems with you, Mr. Thames. None at all………

  • Mr. Bolton cannot recognize satire when he reads it. Ah, the joys of limited intelligence. Perhaps when I post my next essay, “The Basis of Their Reputation” he will have a better understanding of Jewish international influence and how it is exercised. But then again, Mr. Bolton’s mind is impervious to facts, no matter how thoroughly documented.

  • Craig J. Bolton

    Ah, Mr. Thames, you are the one who cannot recognize satire. Of course I didn’t really take you seriously. No sane person would believe that Jews control everything.

  • No, Mr. Bolton, Jews do not control everything. But they control far more than you are willing to admit.

  • Wikipedia:
    Dispensationalism is a Protestant evangelical tradition and theology[1] based on a biblical hermeneutic that sees a series of chronologically successive “dispensations” or periods in history in which God relates to human beings in different ways under different Biblical covenants. As a system dispensationalism is rooted in the writings of John Nelson Darby and the Brethren Movement.[2]:10 The theology of dispensationalism consists of a distinctive eschatological “end times” perspective, as all dispensationalists hold to premillennialism and most hold to a pretribulation rapture. Dispensationalists believe that the nation of Israel is distinct from the Church,[3]:322 and that God will fulfill His promises to national Israel. These promises include the land promises, which in the future result in a millennial kingdom where Christ, upon His return, will rule the world from Jerusalem[4] for a thousand years. In other areas of theology, dispensationalists hold to a wide range of beliefs within the evangelical and fundamentalist spectrum.[2]:13

    Okay.

    So now I know what a Dispensationalist is. Amazing what one learns on the internet.
    I’ll go with about half of the above.

    However. It really depresses (distresses) me when people use labels to counter a point of view rather than examining the available data and trying to make sense of it.
    It seems to be an increasing trend in Britain (and the world) to opinionate rather than examine facts. The media is a clear example.
    The only winner should need to be the truth.
    Rational thought is perhaps discouraged in the UK education system as being dangerous to pompous deceptions necessary to maintain a system of thought based on lies?

    Regarding Israel/the Jews:
    Where does Judge Goldstone fit into this global control structure?
    And the various Jewish voices that suggest Israel should give up being a Jewish state and promote measures and propaganda to achieve this?
    There will no doubt be some truth in the data you present (John Thames) but the problem is in its being used to obtain false conclusions.
    It is tending towards the David Icke type scenarios. Perhaps it IS the lizards masquerading as Jews?!
    It is evident that there are a lot of things that have happened that do not add up according to the usually accepted ‘narrative’.
    But what you and Mr Icke are doing is actually obscuring a full examination of the situation.
    Look at the rest of the picture as well.
    How does J Street fit into your theory?

  • The Jews know that the state of Israel is going over board and getting them all in trouble.Thus, some of the wiser ones are insisting that Israel “tone it down”. Hence, the Goldstone report. It is no different than the original objections of the English Jews to Zionism in Lord Balfour’s time.

  • THE BASIS OF THEIR REPUTATION

    Where did the Jews get their reputation as international wire pullers? Why, they basically got it at the time of the Paris Peace Conference and the Communist revolution in Russia. Everyone could see that the Jews were behind Bolshevism in Russia. The commissars were Jews, Latvians, Ukrainians and a few Russians but mainly they were Jews. So said the military and diplomatic personnel at the scene; so boasted the Jews in their Yiddish newspapers; so said highly placed politicians all over the world. In Paris, Jewish delegations from New York, London and Continental Europe proliferated at the conference. The American Jewish Congress, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Alliance Israelite Universelle and the Committee of Jewish Delegations of the Central and Eastern European Jews all participated. Jewry from around the globe congregated in Paris for purposes of pursuing joint Jewish objectives.

    Were the activities of the Jews in Paris to no purpose? Hardly. The Jews knew what they wanted – and they got a great deal, although not all of what they wanted. They did not get a Jewish “state within the state” in Poland but they got separate Jewish schools and exemption of work on the Sabbath. They also got Jewish national councils in such countries as Latvia and Lithuania which were then given official standing in the national legislatures. It was Lucien Wolf of England and Simon Dubnow of Russia who worked with the Englishman, James Headley-Morham, in formulating the Polish-Jewish minority treaty. The aforesaid Lucien Wolf was praised by the Zionist Israel Zangwill as the man behind the League of Nations, that “essentially Jewish aspiration”. Nahum Sokolow referred to the League of Nations as an “old Jewish idea”. Then there was that League of Nations granted mandate over Palestine where the language of Britain’s Balfour declaration was incorporated into the language of the mandate. The Balfour declaration, which was the basis of the mandate, was written, modified and tailored by the Zionists behind the scenes before being formally issued on the paper of the British Foreign Office. Jacob de Hass, Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis, Rabbi Stephen Wise and others made key alterations to the British document to make it more congenial to Zionist ambitions. Another Zionist, Felix Frankfurter, drew up one of the early drafts of the mandate for Palestine. Woodrow Wilson was also deeply involved in the drafting of the Covenant of the League of Nations, particularly Article 22, the article that dealt with the whole granting of mandates, especially that key one in Palestine. Wilson had many assistants on that one, most particularly the arch-Zionist frankfurter.

    The activities of the Jews at the Peace Conference were very sly and cunning. For the most part, these activities were conducted behind the scenes, not in formal session. Indeed, the only formal session before the Council of the Big Four (Britain, France, the U.S. and Italy) was held in February 1919 at a time when Woodrow Wilson had headed back to Washington for a month. But although the Jews did their work behind the scenes, there was one noteworthy appearance before the Four. Howard Bliss, the president of American University in Lebanon, told the leaders of the Four that the decision to sacrifice the Arabs of Palestine to Jewish takeover was immoral and wrong. He predicted never ending strife if Lord Balfour’s pledge to the Jews was implemented. The Four were much discomfited but the truth was not about to change plans already formulated. Paris 1919 was a Jews fest. It is not possible in a short essay to list all the machinations of the Jews at the great conference to remake the world. But surely one of the most influential was Louis Marshall. Head of the American Jewish Committee, Marshall was in charge of reconciling the various Jewish disputes over the meaning and extent of “minority rights”. As a representative of a country where Jews enjoyed more legal protection than anywhere else in the world, Marshall personally had little concern for the concept. But to the Jews in the war torn countries of Eastern Europe it was the topic of centuries old strife between the Jews and their host populations. Marshall watered down the concept as it applied to the Jews of England, France and the United States. He did this to defuse the ancient charge of dual loyalty which the Zionist movement was threatening to revive. But when it came to the Eastern Jews, still living in medieval ghettos and fanatically committed to Communism and Zionism, the issue was a different matter. Marshall would not allow the outright “state within the state” for fear of the issues it would raise but he allowed Wolf, Dubnow and Headley-Morham to get as close to it as reasonably possible. The English and Wilson himself did not think that the “minorities rights” issue should be pushed too far. One inhibiting factor was that minorities rights as a rallying cry could be used as a rallying cry by the large numbers of Germans and Hungarians being placed under the control of repressive Czech and Romanian regimes.

    All this Jewish intrigue was overshadowed by the brutal reality of Jewish revolution erupting everywhere. Communism was liquidating aristocracy all over Europe. Incredible atrocities were being committed by Communists who mainly seemed to be Jews. It had been well known long before the eruption of the First World War that the revolutionary movements in Russia were dominated by Jews. The Bund, the General Confederation of Jewish Labor of Lithuania-Poland, was 100% Jewish and Marxist. The Rusian Social Democratic Labor Party, later to become the Communist Party, was heavily dominated by Jews in both the Menshevik and Bolshevik factions, particularly the former. Poale-Zion, the Jewish Socialist Workers Party, the Zionist-Socialist Workers Party and the May 1917 merger of the latter two parties into the United Jewish Socialist Workers Party, constituted the main revolutionary line up. If one adds the Social Revolutionaries and the Polish Social Democrats of Rosa Luxemburg, the castoff players is reasonably complete. Once the hated Czarist monarchy collapsed, the Jews erupted in fury. Jewish commissars appeared in all government bureaus. The Jew with the Red Star became almost the prototype of the revolution. Trotsky-Bronstein, Kamenev Rosenfeld, Zinoviev-Apfelbaum-Radomylsky became international symbols of Jewish revolution. The Jews foolishly played into their enemies hands by openly boasting of their role in the revolution. The Communist press, published for self-evident reasons in Yiddish, glorified the role of the Jews. Boastful gloats appeared in the “American Hebrew” about how “the revolution in Russia was a Jewish revolution, the product of Jewish brains and discontent”. The “Jewish Chronicle” of London published an editorial claiming that “the ideals of Bolshevism are consonant with the finest ideals of Judaism”. Prideful lists of Jews high in the Soviet government appeared in official Jewish journals. Communist governments in Europe appeared that were almost completely Jewish. Bela Kun in Hungary in March-August 1919 was surely the most dramatic but hardly unique example. Intelligence agencies virtually obsessed over the perceived danger. The sheer quantity of reports generated and processed by the American State Department, Military Intelligence Department and the British Foreign Office in the 1917-1921 period on the equation of Jews and Communism must be read to be believed. Congressional and State investigating committees, such as the Lusk Committee report, entered into the fray as well. Whenever the issue of Communism came up in the American press, there was always mention of the “lower east side of New York”. The man who was later to become Adolf Hitler’s nemesis in World War Two, Winston Churchill, wrote flaming denunciations of Jewish responsibility for Communism. An issue that later became taboo was openly discussed.

    Thus, whether it was the velvet glove of omnipresent Jewish diplomacy at Paris or the mailed fist of Jewish Communist revolution the impression was everywhere the same – Jewish power had been unleashed on prostrate Christian Europe! This, then, is the background of the much maligned idea of omnipresent Jewish international power. As the reader can discern, there is considerable factual support for this old but still current idea. Since the advent of the internet all of this buried but still extant information has reemerged. The reemergence of the information has sparked some interesting academic efforts to counter the material. Among the efforts worth mentioning are Sharman Kadish’s “Bolsheviks and British Jews”, Mark Levene’s “Jews, War and the New Europe” and Andre Gerritts “The Myth of Jewish Communism; An Historical Analysis”. These efforts have their differences, of course, but the common theme is the effort to explain away the undeniable Jewish involvement in Communism as the product of particular historical circumstances, having nothing to do with Jews or Judaism as such. Thus, Czarist persecution is routinely invoked, as well as the claim that Jews practicing Communism were non-Jewish Jews who had repudiated their faith. Another standard defense is that Jews, as a better educated segment of the population, were attractive to the Soviet leaders as a labor pool. Whatever one thinks of these arguments, they represent an effort to deal with a provable fact, a disproportionate Jewish involvement in Communism, rather than trying to deny it outright, as was once the case, particularly post-World War Two.

    Today, there are still those who reason that Jewish power in the world has not decreased. As proof, they point to the strangle hold of the Israeli lobby over U.S. foreign policy, the attempt to demonize the Holocaust Denier in Tehran, Mahmoud Ahminijad, the disproportionate financing of U.S. politicians by Zionist money and like phenomena. Thus, they see the emergence of Jewish power in Paris in 1919 and this same power operating today as the growth of a cancerous force threatening civilization. Such are the historical roots of the idea of Jewish power. The ultimate expression of this idea of diabolical Jewish power is Holocaust Denial, the belief that the extermination of six million Jews in purported ”gas chambers” is a hoax. Whatever one thinks of Jewish global power theorists, they do have certain provable facts to which they can refer. Jews did exert great influence at the Paris Peace Conference following the “Great War”; they were disproportionately involved in Communist revolution and there has been a rather easily provable cover up of this fact. The past will not die so long as the facts are there to sustain it. Anti-Semites will always have an arguable case so long as the Jews cannot satisfactorily explain certain inconvenient facts.

  • Mr. Bolton:

    Try refuting the facts and analysis contained in this one. It will not be quite so easy as attacking the psychological problems I do not have.

  • You, Mr. Thames, are preaching methodological collectivism in a venue of methodological individualism. You also have too many factoids which you use to buffer your case. Arguing with you is pointless. You will not offer a possible scenario which would refute your “case.” Not surprising, because your “case” is one diatribe after another, in “broadcast” mode.

    I note that you don’t tell us how long you’ve held these views, and who “converted” you.

    Tony

  • Is there any money in this Anti-Semitism stuff?

    Tony

  • Craig J. Bolton

    Is there any money in this Anti-Semitism stuff?

    Tony
    =====================

    Depends on what market you are aiming at. Probably not a whole lot of money these days in the English speaking world. Albeit as P. T. Barnum once noted…..

    But if you import mass shipments of the Protocols in Arabic into, say, Dubai, well then….

    I fear that likes of Mr. Thames and company are, however, just dismissed as cranks. Even the once touted David Irving is, these days, pretty destitute.

    But among we libertarian sorts, you might inquire of Justin how things are going in his sub-market. The last I heard, he was doing pretty well, while Carole wasn’t doing so hot.

  • Craig:

    “But among we libertarian sorts, you might inquire of Justin how things are going in his sub-market. The last I heard, he was doing pretty well, while Carole wasn’t doing so hot.”

    I tried communicating with Raimondo, without success. “Carole”?

    Tony

  • Mr. Bolton:

    There is no money whatever in preaching anti-Semitism. To the contrary, it is a sure path to career destruction, as many unfortunate souls have discovered. Jews wield enormous financial power in the world. I suspect you are more concerned with your pocketbook than you are with any supposed principle of individualism.

    As for collectivism, Jews pioneered the most collectivist society on earth in Soviet Russia, a point your “factoid” mind seems to have overlooked. I think “factoid” means that you are incapable of refuting anything I write; therefore, the next best technique is to assert that I distort and take things “out of context”. As an historical type, I am aware of more contexts on more subjects than you ever studied.

    Speaking of poverty, how many millions do you have behind you so that you can read, write and study?

  • Mr. Bolton:

    Sine you accuse me of obssessions, you might reflect that Mr. Libertarianism himself, Murray Rothbard, was a Holocaust Denier. He also candidly admitted Jewish responsibility for Communism. Ponder the implications – and then ponder whether I might not know what I am talking about.

  • Murray Rothbard had many strange ideas and associates. He was of Jewish origin. That he espoused any particular view has nothing to do with its truth, nor with any factual basis of his beliefs (or lack thereof).

    Tony

  • Tony:

    Very true, but it does not disprove his beliefs, either. As I have demonstrated, belief in coordinated Jewish power is hardly inconsistent with the principles of libertarianism. Neither is a belief that Jews were responsible for Communism in any way an endorsement of Nazism. Lots of people in the American army who later wound up on the battlefield against the Germans shared the same belief, George Patton being one.

  • Craig J. Bolton

    Carole Moore, who, sadly, I agree with on just about everything else

    We really should compare notes sometime. Preferably in a less noisy environment.

  • Does it not occur to you, gentlemen, that if the Jewish extermination story is a hoax, that there are certain unavoidable implications that follow from that fact? Or does it indeed occur to you – which is why you “hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil”?

  • http://www.carolmoore.net/libertarianparty/principlesandisrael.html

    Since Mr. Bolton mentioned Carole Moore, I looked her up and attatch the following essay which closely corresponds with my views. In particular, Mr. Bolton should read Murray Rothbard’s well reasoned and historically accurate ” The Middle East War Guilt Question” from 1969 which she attatches as a link.

  • http://www.ericmargolis.com/political_commentaries/dont-blame-hitler-alone-for-world-war-ii.aspx

    Eric Margolis agrees with me.

  • Collective identities as tools can be at best a convenience, often a distortion, and sometimes outright deception.
    Jewish people were the subject of Jewish prophets’ warnings, pleas and condemnations. It’s not like they are the original all sweetness and light. Nobody is perfect but one should be accurate about perceived or presumed faults and virtues.
    What is Jewish?
    It is originally a belief in the God Jehovah, Yaweh.
    Jewish people are a bit of a special case because they are the only group established by Jehovah. I think.
    There are many deceptions going around and even the most intelligent can be swept along unless they engage continual re evaluation. Which many are too proud to do because it is a humbling experience.
    I suspect that applies here as well.
    Regarding Churchill, Paton or Rothbard, well, it is hard to rise in the estimation of one’s fellow beings without some root of pride creeping in and thereby, inaccuracies.
    But for the record, according to the record that has many historical verifications, ie, the Bible, Jehovah has said of those we commonly, largely and fairly inaccurately identify as “The Jews”: Those that bless you, I will bless, and those that curse you I will curse.

  • Craig J. Bolton

    Does it not occur to you, gentlemen, that if the Jewish extermination story is a hoax, that there are certain unavoidable implications that follow from that fact?

    =========================

    While it is always a mistake to take seriously and enter into another’s psychosis, let me ask you several simple question:

    From whence is directed this worldwide conpiracy? Where are the Elders of Zion? Could you name them for us? Or are they only identified in private to Jews, perhaps as a part of the follow up to their Bar Mitzva?

    How are these conspirators so influential that 99% of the history profession, a group that can, on most questions, be herded about as well as cats, tow their party line? How is it that only the really distinguished scholars, like Murray Rothbard, Carol Moore and, of course, yourself, see and report the truth? Do you have any idea what the internal pressures are in a discipline like History to find new material to publish or perish?

  • Craig J. Bolton

    You know, John B., I know it is a long standing Christian pasttime to reinterpret the Jewish scriptures for Jews and to report on what Jews are like, but maybe it is time that Christians grew out of that entertainment form.

    Here’s a really strange thought. Why not go talk to a variety of rabbis about these matters?

    The first thing you’d find is the nonOrthodox rabbis will explain to you that Judaism is today, and apparently has been for well over two thousand years, almost as diverse as Christianity. An old saying on that point is: “Two Jew, Three Opinions.” Only the Orthodox, for “ideological” reasons, maintain that there is and has been only one Judaism.

    The second thing you’ll find is that all the Rabbis, including the Orthodox, will fully admit, and even tout, the point you are stumbling toward. The Jewish Scriptures are a record of the repeated shortcomings of Jews, even in the period of the Patriarchs. Jews don’t have “perfect men,” like Christians and Muslims. The point is to strive to follow the law, not that anyone ever does so perfectly. Jews, unlike Christians, also do not have unrealistic expectations of themselves. They try to be better, not perfect.

    I could go on, but perhaps that makes the point. The point is that what Mr. Thames wants [sometimes] to talk about and what this thread started out to be about is just fine. It is just fine to debate whether particular historical events “actually happened,” and the extent to which they happened. Of course, no real proof exists, since history isn’t repeatable.

    What isn’t so fine is this incessant speculation about Jews and Judaism by “all sides,” none of whom have, apparently, ever done their homework. That is, frankly, a bit irritating to those who have done their homework.

  • At long last, Mr. Bolton is asking asking pertinent and relevant questions. I shall be happy to respond, most “non-psychotically”.

    First, let’s address the questions to John B. I certainly do not, and never have, argued that Judaism is monolithic or static. One need merely read the late Professor Israel Shahak, in his “Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years”, to know this. Shahak identifies three distinct stages in the evolution of Judaism from ancient times to the present.Contrary to James B, who thinks that Orthodox Judaism is based on the Old Testament, it is actually based on the Talmud, a series of rabbinical commentaries on the Old Testementary scriptures, reinterpreting and twisting them, rather like the Supreme Court twisting the Constitution into something new and completely different. The Jewish religion is essentially made up, being anything the rabbis proclaim it to be. Nor am I unaware of the disputes over the Talmud. The anti-Semites claim that it contains severely anti-Gentile, homicidal and pornographic passages; the Jews claim that the passages are taken out of context, that they only apply to particular circumstances or that they only represent the opinions of particular rabbis, not the intent of the Talmud as a whole. And yes, Mr. Bolton, I have consulted the Soncino and other editions of the Talmud in the libraries, all twenty-six volumes of a set of rabbinical commentaries on all the problems of life, from marriage, bathing habits to you-name-it. I know of the medieval and modern disputations and trial, from Donin to Pfferkorn to Rohling, to Pranaitis, etc., etc.
    Judaism is indeed an evolving set of concepts, rather like “survivor” testimony of a supposedly proven historical event of WW2, which is also ever “evolving” to get around inconvenient, immutable facts.

    Now, back to Mr. Bolton. Bolton has indulged the well known technique of setting up a straw man and knoking it down. He asks: Where is this central Jewish government and who are its members? This is a bit like asking: What is the true size of the iceberg under the water? This is impossible to say because no one can get underneath the water to see. But we can see the tip of the iceberg and make logical inferences from there. I have, in my well researched and factual essays posted on this site, given many examples of coordinated Jewish power operating in the world. My essay on the Paris Peace Conference gave very impressive evidence of trans-Atlantic Jewish coordination, evidence that Mr. Bolton did not even try to refute. (He glossed it all over as “factoids”.) Let me come up with an even more impressive example of trans-Atlantic Jewish coordination after the Second World War. From 1945-1948 there was a huge exodus of hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of very much alive Jews, out of Soviet Russia and the Iron Curtain countries through the Balkans to Palestine and the New World. This was completely blacked out by the media until British General Sir Frederick Morgan, head of the UNRRA (United Nations Rehabilitationand Relief Association) in charge of post-war refugee relief, blurted out the truth at a press conference. The Zionists had taken over the former German camps like Bergen-Belsen and were using them as shipping points for the “second Exodus”. It is known that Jewish organizations in New York were funnelling millions of dollars to Eastern Europe to finance the Exodus. The US Army and the UNRRA, who assisted in distributing the money and supplies to these very much alive, non-“gassed” Jews, were also participating in the scheme. The Jewish commissars of the Eastern European countries through whom these Jews were passing, also had to be participating in the scheme as, without their cooperation, no such Exodus would have been possible. I will mention Jacob Berman in Poland and Ana Pauker in Romania as two Jewish leaders who obviously participated in the scheme. Do you think, Mr. Bolton, that Joseph Stalin, who apointed these Jewish leaders, did not know and approve what was going on? How could Berman or Pauker have done these things without “Uncle Joe’s” consent? (Stalin himself, a very world-wise and realistic man, firmly believed in the existence ofa Zionist “international”. He was not a man given to romantic political fantasies.)

    Thus, in true “iceberg” fashion, we have very impressive circumstantial evidence of an incredible feat of international stage managing in which Jewish interests were paramoount while other organizations and nations were going along with the operation in collaboration with, and deference to, Jewish objectives. Does this not suggest a certain international influence acting “sub rosa”, Mr. Bolton?Mr. Bolton asks: “How could ‘reputable’ academics go along with such a scheme? How could they be coerced intoo silence”? Remember those “forged” Protocols, Mr. Bolton? Have you forgotten the passages which speak of the corruption of the universities? Are you unaware, Mr. Bolton, of what happens to the careers of academics who venture into “verboten” territory? Recently a Mr. Nicholas Kollerstorm, an astronomer at the a university in London, was dismissed from his position for publishing an article supportive of Holocaust Denial. Professor Robert Faurisson in France was nearly beaten to death by Zionist thugs, in addition to being subjected to multiple legal prosecutions and massive fines. European countries have laws against “denying” the Holocaust, laws which can, and have been, enforced.

    Academics are among the most craven intellectual cowards on the face of the earth. Their reluctance to face the real facts on a great many issues is legion. Only in recent times, after sixty years have passed, have they even begun to timidly explore the cover-up behind Pearl Harbor. Most of them continue to adhere to the line that Roosevelt was “surprised”. The late Harry Elmer Barnes, a magnificent scholar whatever one thinks of his generally leftist views, wrote long and convincingly on the “historical blackout” after WW2 in which it was virtually impossible for a revisionst writer to find a mainstream publisher for his book. Until the advent of the Israel “New School” of historians, the truth about Israel’s deliberate theft of Palestine was generally hushed up by mainstream academics afraid of the power of the Jews. Ditto with the reluctance to address the Khazars, the true progenitors of Eastern European Jewry. Only a Professor Dunlop dared to write on the subject, and even he would not dare to propose that the ostjuden and the Khazars were one and the same. That heretical suggestion had to come from Arthur Koestler and Shlomo Sand. Jews are allowed to write these things, not properly trained academic goyim. It is rather like Jews and Communism. Yuri Slezkine, Marci Shore, Benjamin Ginsberg and other Jews can admit that the Jews were “Stalin’s Willing Executioners”, but woe to even the renowned Alexander Solzhenitsyn if he dares to write the same thing.

    I will not belabor the point with further examples. Mr. Bolton has been answered and refuted, at great length. Now for the charge that I am “psychotic” and “obssessed. To the contrary. If I see that there is a great evil in the world wreaking havoc on social structures and hoodwinking entire populations with a great hoax, then I am no more “obssessed” than the president of Iran. I am merely (if that is the word) more astute than the rest of you. As I wrote previously, the hoax of the “gas chambers” does indeed contain grave implications. If the Jewish international has been lying about the extermination hoax, what else have they been lying about? As Professor Kevin MacDonald has demonstrated beyond refutation, if Jews have been the driving force behind civil rights, feminism, open borders, diversity and all the other social movements that have destroyed white male America, then a logical mind would ask: Is this coincidental or part of a plan? It matters not whether the plan is the infamous Protools of Zion or just a general Jewish animus based on Talmudic teachings. The net result is the same.

  • As you can see from the last post, Mr. Bolton, I have done my homework; you have not. I possess hundreds of university press titles on many subjects, many of them by Jewish academics. My facts are ironclad; my conclusions are irrefutable.

    You are out of your league.

  • Craig J. Bolton

    First, let’s address the questions to John B. I certainly do not, and never have, argued that Judaism is monolithic or static. One need merely read the late Professor Israel Shahak, in his “Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years”, to know this. Shahak identifies three distinct stages in the evolution of Judaism from ancient times to the present.Contrary to James B, who thinks that Orthodox Judaism is based on the Old Testament, it is actually based on the Talmud, a series of rabbinical commentaries on the Old Testementary scriptures,
    ========================
    Perhaps symptomatic of your learning is your inability to spell Testament. But, that aside, the BT is a commentary on the Mishnah. If you’d ever actually looked at a BT you would know that the text of the Talmud [the Gamara] surrounds the Mishnah passages being commented on. The Mishnah, in turn, is a set of rabbinic rules that isn’t even cited to the “Old Testament” aka the Torah part of the Jewish Scriptures.

    But, at least, you did spell Talmud right. One out of four or five isn’t that bad.

    ======================

    Judaism is indeed an evolving set of concepts, rather like “survivor” testimony of a supposedly proven historical event of WW2, which is also ever “evolving” to get around inconvenient, immutable facts.
    =================

    Judaism is, indeed, a set of evolving concepts, just like Christianty or Islam or any other living religion. Unlike, for instance, the Nordic relgions.

    =======================
    Now, back to Mr. Bolton. Bolton has indulged the well known technique of setting up a straw man and knoking it down. He asks: Where is this central Jewish government and who are its members? This is a bit like asking: What is the true size of the iceberg under the water? This is impossible to say because no one can get underneath the water to see. But we can see the tip of the iceberg and make logical inferences from there. I have, in my well researched and factual essays posted on this site, given many examples of coordinated Jewish power operating in the world. My essay on the Paris Peace Conference gave very impressive evidence of trans-Atlantic Jewish coordination, evidence that Mr. Bolton did not even try to refute. (He glossed it all over as “factoids”.) Let me come up with an even more impressive example of trans-Atlantic Jewish coordination after the Second World War. From 1945-1948 there was a huge exodus of hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of very much alive Jews, out of Soviet Russia and the Iron Curtain countries through the Balkans to Palestine and the New World. This was completely blacked out by the media until British General Sir Frederick Morgan, head of the UNRRA (United Nations Rehabilitationand Relief Association) in charge of post-war refugee relief, blurted out the truth at a press conference. The Zionists had taken over the former German camps like Bergen-Belsen and were using them as shipping points for the “second Exodus”. It is known that Jewish organizations in New York were funnelling millions of dollars to Eastern Europe to finance the Exodus. The US Army and the UNRRA, who assisted in distributing the money and supplies to these very much alive, non-”gassed” Jews, were also participating in the scheme. The Jewish commissars of the Eastern European countries through whom these Jews were passing, also had to be participating in the scheme as, without their cooperation, no such Exodus would have been possible. I will mention Jacob Berman in Poland and Ana Pauker in Romania as two Jewish leaders who obviously participated in the scheme. Do you think, Mr. Bolton, that Joseph Stalin, who apointed these Jewish leaders, did not know and approve what was going on? How could Berman or Pauker have done these things without “Uncle Joe’s” consent? (Stalin himself, a very world-wise and realistic man, firmly believed in the existence ofa Zionist “international”. He was not a man given to romantic political fantasies.)

    Thus, in true “iceberg” fashion, we have very impressive circumstantial evidence of an incredible feat of international stage managing in which Jewish interests were paramoount while other organizations and nations were going along with the operation in collaboration with, and deference to, Jewish objectives. Does this not suggest a certain international influence acting “sub rosa”, Mr. Bolton?
    =======================

    Put more briefly: “I don’t have a clue. But maybe if I babble long enough you won’t notice that I’m not answering your question.

    =======================

    Mr. Bolton asks: “How could ‘reputable’ academics go along with such a scheme? How could they be coerced intoo silence”? Remember those “forged” Protocols, Mr. Bolton? Have you forgotten the passages which speak of the corruption of the universities? Are you unaware, Mr. Bolton, of what happens to the careers of academics who venture into “verboten” territory? Recently a Mr. Nicholas Kollerstorm, an astronomer at the a university in London, was dismissed from his position for publishing an article supportive of Holocaust Denial. Professor Robert Faurisson in France was nearly beaten to death by Zionist thugs, in addition to being subjected to multiple legal prosecutions and massive fines. European countries have laws against “denying” the Holocaust, laws which can, and have been, enforced.

    Academics are among the most craven intellectual cowards on the face of the earth. Their reluctance to face the real facts on a great many issues is legion. Only in recent times, after sixty years have passed, have they even begun to timidly explore the cover-up behind Pearl Harbor. Most of them continue to adhere to the line that Roosevelt was “surprised”. The late Harry Elmer Barnes, a magnificent scholar whatever one thinks of his generally leftist views, wrote long and convincingly on the “historical blackout” after WW2 in which it was virtually impossible for a revisionst writer to find a mainstream publisher for his book. Until the advent of the Israel “New School” of historians, the truth about Israel’s deliberate theft of Palestine was generally hushed up by mainstream academics afraid of the power of the Jews. Ditto with the reluctance to address the Khazars, the true progenitors of Eastern European Jewry. Only a Professor Dunlop dared to write on the subject, and even he would not dare to propose that the ostjuden and the Khazars were one and the same. That heretical suggestion had to come from Arthur Koestler and Shlomo Sand. Jews are allowed to write these things, not properly trained academic goyim. It is rather like Jews and Communism. Yuri Slezkine, Marci Shore, Benjamin Ginsberg and other Jews can admit that the Jews were “Stalin’s Willing Executioners”, but woe to even the renowned Alexander Solzhenitsyn if he dares to write the same thing.
    ==================

    In other words: “I don’t have an answer to this question either. But maybe if I babble further and invoke popularist anti-intellectual libels you won’t notice.”

    ===================

    I will not belabor the point with further examples. Mr. Bolton has been answered and refuted, at great length.
    ========================

    ROTFL. You really ought to take up the practice of law, it is always delightful to have an opponent like you in the courtroom. Sometimes even the Judge can’t hide a smile.

  • Craig J. Bolton

    As Professor Kevin MacDonald has demonstrated beyond refutation, if Jews have been the driving force behind civil rights, feminism, open borders, diversity and all the other social movements that have destroyed white male America, then a logical mind would ask: Is this coincidental or part of a plan? It matters not whether the plan is the infamous Protools of Zion or just a general Jewish animus based on Talmudic teachings. The net result is the same.
    =====================

    Ah, a tip of the hat to you. You’re absolutely right about this point. The eternal quest to vindicate and actualize the natural, universal and equal rights of all mankind are traceable to the Jews and the Talmud. Thank you for your astude acknowledgement of that fact.

    Of course, you consider that as a bad thing, but, of course, you would. And a good evening seig heil to you and yours.

  • Dear Mr. Bolton:

    You continue to amaze me.

    The Talmud has nothing to do with equalizing the rights of non-Jews with Jews. It certainly has nothing to do with equalizing the rights of Palestinian Arabs in Israel, either. Jews have an inherent credibility problem. They preach universal rights for everyone else while shitting on the people whose country they stole. This may not bother you but it bothers me and a lot of other people, too.

    I womder, Craig: Are you Jewish? Or are you simply a shabbat goy tool of the tribe? I note that there was no response to the historical facts, once again. For a guy who has “done his homework” you really do not have much to say on facts in conflict with your pretensions.

    Tony and John B are silent. Maybe they are learning in silence but I rather doubt it.

  • To Mr. Bolton Once Again:

    Yes, Mr. Bolton, I have consulted the Babylonian Talmud, both the Mishna and Gamara. I have seen many examples of how the rabbis distort the meaning of Biblical passages – as have many others. All of your bogus, straw man questions were answered – thoroughly.

    You are lucky indeed that you do not have me with which to deal in a courtroom, Mr. Bolton. I would chew you up and spit you out – just as I am doing here.

  • http://www.yale.edu/history/faculty/shore.html

    Well now, Craig. Here we have a Jewess professor of Marxism who has written very extensively on the Jewish connection with Marxism. Don’t take it from me, Craig. Take it from your own scholars. That’s where I get my facts, Mr. Bolton. It is called “admissions against interest”.

  • http://mises.org/daily/3931

    Read this one, Craig.

  • http://mises.org/daily/3931

    Read this one, Craig.

  • Yes, that piece, as can be said of most at the Mises Institute, is very good.
    A big problem in this discussion on this blog is that of using collective identities which, as said before, are at best a somewhat inaccurate convenience but more normally a tool for deception. Seeing as that latter aspect has generally held sway in this discussion there is little point to continue to chip away at collectivist identities and what might or might not be identified by them.
    Garet Garrett makes many excellent points, as does Harry Elmer Barnes.

  • Craig Bolton resorts to the usual technique of claiming that anyone who objects to Jewish subversion is therefore a “Nazi”. Nonsense. I do not like Hitler’s National Socialism any more than I like Karl Marx’s International Socialism. Nor is it true that anti-Semites are necessarily ignorant, stupid people. I will only mention that Voltaire, Diderot and D’holbach did not like them either. Were the philosophes of the French Enlightenment “Nazis” before their time?

    Not all Jews are bad, of course. There was a famous saying at the time of the French revolution that “to the Jew as a man, everything; to the Jew as a nation, nothing”. I think that pretty well summarises it.

  • Tony is silent bcause I have other things to do, and one of them is reading “Israelity” from Israel21C. It shows you how different life in Israel is from the caricatures and negativism which are all too prevalent.

    http://israelity.com/2010/03/05/foto-friday-ron-shoshani%E2%80%99s-israel-eye-candy/

    Arguing wth you is pointless, because nothing can change your mind. Pages-long messages are not feasible bases for discussion.

    Tony

  • “to the Jew as a man, everything; to the Jew as a nation, nothing”.

    A Napoleonic quote.

    Tony

  • Craig:

    Professor Israel Shahak is a devotee of Karl Popper.

    Tony

  • Craig:

    It would be good to make contact.

    I can phone you anywhere (Britain or America).

    Email me or give me an address for you. Preferably not in this topic!

    Regards,

    Tony

  • Tony:

    Very pretty photographs, but what’s the point? Israel may be technolgically advanced but ideologically it is very primitive. Got any photographs of Gaza to show us, Tony? Those are not so pretty.

    Lots of things change my mind but usually they fall in the category of documented facts. Understanding facts requires lengthy analysis. I have the time and the mindset for it. You and Mr. Bolton do not.

  • Craig J. Bolton

    Were the philosophes of the French Enlightenment “Nazis” before their time?
    ================

    No, just bigots ignorant of what they spoke about on certain topics.

    http://www.amazon.com/French-Enlightenment-Jews-Arthur-Hertzberg/dp/0231073852/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268270798&sr=8-3-spell

  • Craig:

    You circumsised, lying SOB. The “bigotry” is all on your side. Just ask the Arabs in Palestine. They know you for exactly what you really are – and so did the victims of the Jewish commissars.

    Tony:

    I looked at your Israelty web site. If this is what you base your opinions on, I think I understand your problem.

    Craig:

    I have the Hertzberg book and have read through it extensively. As usual, Jewish reference works make the anti-Semitic case better than anything else.

  • JUDEO-COMMUNISM DENIERS

    We live in a world where Holocaust Denial is increasingly a crime. Strangely, however, Judeo-Communism deniers have total freedom of speech. It is an incontestable fact that Jews dominated all communist movements until at least the end of the Second World War. Yet one hack journalist after another, such as Cathy Young in “Reason” Magazine, pretends that the Jewish Communist connection just isn’t there. Cathy does not go to prison for Judeo-Communist Denial. Walter Duranty did not go to jail for Ukrainian famine denial in the 1930’s. Instead, he got the Pulitzer Prize the year before for his expert lying on behalf of Joseph Stalin and the workers paradise. Judeo-Communism deniers are everywhere in the prostitute press. They will tell you that the charge was a delusion of a pathological Nazi liar named Adolf Hitler. But the Judeo-communism deniers shall not tell you that Winston Churchill made the same charge in 1920.

    Judeo-Communism denial is safe and brings the blessings of a happy Jewish boss and a secure paycheck. Holocaust denial means career destruction and permanent unemployment. In the world of Judeo-Communism denial, facts mean nothing but a fat bank account means everything. Judeo-Communism denial does not bother Jewish academics who write proudly of the Jewish involvement in Marxism. Judeo-Communism is only for the stupid masses who need to be hoodwinked. Thus, Marci Shore, Yuri Slezkine, Benjamin Ginsberg, Henry Sbrernik, Andre Gerritts, Robert Brym, Jonathan Frankel, Gerald Sorin, Nora Levin, Tony Michels, Elliot Ratzman and a galaxy of academic authors can write extensively on Jews and Marxism, while the Walter Duranty clones deny Jewish commissars with Zyklon B on their breath. True, there are a few heretics like Eric Margolis with the Toronto Sun and the late Alexander Solzhenitsyn, but the latter can be dealt with by not translating “Two Hundred Years Together” into English.

    Judeo-Communism denial shall continue to flourish, just as the New York Times shall continue to hold onto Walter Duranty’s Pulitzer Prize. Facts are not the issue: polishing the platter of the Chosen People is the prime directive of every journalist desirous of a long working life.

  • http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3342999,00.html

    See “Stalin’s Jews” by Sever Plocker. There are more informative articles in the Israeli press than what you read, Tony.

  • In Puccini’s opera “Tosca” there is the famous scene where Tosca, having stabbed Scarpia to death, utters the famous line: “E avanti a lui, tremava tutta Roma.” (“Before him, all Rome trembled.”) Similarly, of the Jews, one could say: “E avanti gli ebrei, tremava tutta humanita.” (“Before the Jews, all humanity trembled.”)

    Adolf Hitler lived for art – just like Floria Tosca.

  • “There are more informative articles in the Israeli press”

    This would seem to contradict directly what you try to convince us of.

    Tony

  • No, Tony, it does not.

    Jews admit all kinds of things in their reference works and newspapers that they vehemently deny in the mainstream press they control. Why? Because most non-Jews do not read the Jewish press – or realize the implications if they do. It is a little bit like sleepwalking – the man walks down the road with his eyes wide open but does not see.

    Jews know this. Their influence in the world is enormous but they operate out in the open because, a la Star trek, they operate under the protection of a Klingon style “cloaking device” which prevents you and other well-meaning people from seeing what they are doing. I remember reading George Lincoln Rockwell’s description of the “great awkening” that came over his eyes when he started reading the Jewish press. I experienced more or less the same awakening when I started reading Jewish reference works.

    That is why I urge you and all others to do what I do – read the Jews own words and then ask why they say one thing in their own publications and then deny it all in the bilge they put out for the general public. That is the only method of which I know to break the trance.

  • http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/articles/Hiroshima.html

    Hundreds of thousands of Japanese killed unnecessarily. Would it not have been better to let the Germans finish the Communist bastards off?

  • Craig J. Bolton

    Would it not have been better to let the Germans finish the Communist bastards off?
    ====================

    Yept, Mr. Thames is not a Nazi. Where would I ever have gottten such a silly idea?
    =====================

    Jews admit all kinds of things in their reference works and newspapers that they vehemently deny in the mainstream press they control.
    ========================

    Well, then, if you just read more of those reference books and newspapers you could answer my question to you about the identity of the Elders of Zion….

    Oh, but that’s right, you don’t know the secret Jewish salute. Here, let me divulge it to you, because you know, well, just everything else about us. You take your right hand, spread all the fingers, including the thumb, place the tip of the thumb against the tip of your nose and wiggle the fingers. You might try out this salute on an English Bobby. They are also in on the conspiracy, in case you didn’t know, and I’m sure that they will take you into the presence of the inner circle of Elders if you just give them the secret Jewish salute.

    [Love this guy.]

  • Mr. Bolton:

    You are an unfunny idiot.

    Until you find something intelligent to say, kindly keep your drivel to yourself.

  • Craig:

    You kosher asshole. Why don’t you look up the board of directors of AIPAC? That will keep your “mind” off the Elders of Zion.

  • Craig:

    You are not going to win a debate by trick questions. Either deal with the documented facts – or shut up.

  • Craig J. Bolton

    You are an unfunny idiot.

    Until you find something intelligent to say, kindly keep your drivel to yourself.
    ======================

    Ah, Mr. Thamas in now not only the savior of humanity from the evil Jews, but is master of this list. Anyone who finds him absurd should just shut their mouth. Sorry, oh great one, but you have absoutely no control over me, and I will call a fool a fool when I see fit.

  • Mr. Bolton:

    If you seek a fool, look in the mirror.

    Yout knowledge is zero; your arguments are worse than inane. Post anything you like but please try sayning something that isn’t:

    (1) a non-sequitur;

    (2) completely irrelevant;

    (3) has at least some factual basis.

    Until you can do that, keep your ignorance in the closet.