|
|
|
More Holocaust coercion, and a word of advice Hardly unexpectedly, Bruno Gollnisch, deputy leader of the FN and leader of the new nationalist grouping in the European Parliament, has been found guilty of “disputing a crime against humanity”. His judge in the Lyon court handed him a suspended jail sentence of 3 months and a fine of 55,000 euros for the offended “plaintiffs”, plus the cost for the judgment to be published in those newspapers that originally printed his remarks. His historical disputatiousness occurred in Lyon over two years ago. He had said:-
What, of course, he should have said was:-
He also said:-
But what he should have said was:-
He also said that the:-
But what he should have said was that the:-
For these oversights Gollnisch has been duly punished. So have we. Personally, I am not much interested in the number of deaths in the camps or how they died. Not my concern - not my people’s concern. Yes, these things play a central role in official definitions, and these definitions determine the parameters of debate. Thus, from the The Imperial War Museum:-
And more widely framed, from the Home Office:-
But it is where the Holocaust “project” tips over from historical dictat into engineered public morality that I become really interested. In particular, I find the vast and overbearing educational importance ascribed to “the Nazi policy towards Jews in Europe” completely offensive. The nexus with elite-financed progressivism makes it plain that there are more than Jewish interests behind this. There is a wilfull Establishment intent that the thoughts of English children shall be their thoughts. Thus, the Holocaust - with its capital H - is not just left to Year 9 History. Under the National Curriculum it is fed through the larger syllabus, most particularly in English Literature, Theology and Citizenship. The big H crops up on an opportunistic, non-National Curriculum basis in Art, Music and Drama teaching, and in Science (yes, the more keen science Holocaust teachers like students to know “how science was distorted and used to legitimise Nazi ideology, the role of scientists in the ‘euthanasia’ programme and in the Holocaust, and what this study might tell young people about the scientific method”). We pre-HET adults don’t escape the ideological draft, either. Once a year we get to celebrate Basra Blair’s decision in 2001 to give us a Holocaust Memorial Day - of which Her Majesty the Queen is patron of the organising charity (itself funded by the Home Office to the tune of £500,000 annually). The great “day” is intended to protect Holocaustism into the future, as its eye-witnesses die off. But in case once a year is not enough, and native enthusiasms flag on account of our own ethnic interests, there is always the trusty broadcast, film and print media ever-ready to bastardise Germany and Germans to eternity and, through them, us. No wonder men like Gollnisch revolt. My advice to him and to anyone tempted along that path is to leave the punitive fine and the prison cell to genuine criminals. Give the Establishment its suzereignty over “facts” and concentrate on its politics. The Holocaust juggernaut, that scarcely anyone had heard about until the 1970s, is not the same as historical events in continental Europe from 1941 to 1945. By its very size and unreasonableness it is open to attack. Really, the key is organisation. Here is a list of the NGOs just in Britain labouring tirelessly in its cause:- Anne Frank Trust Imperial War Museum Ultimately, we have to organise in our own cause as well as Jews organise. The idea that English children have a right to self-respect and, indeed, a birthright to their country is meaningful and resonant, and we must soon take it to those of our own people who still possess both the resources and the love to organise for political change. Comments:2
Posted by AusterWatch on Fri, 19 Jan 2007 23:31 | # More chutzpah for you: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/007140.html (Auster delighted to see Taylor assaulted by “anti-racists”) 3
Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 20 Jan 2007 00:27 | # The hoax-based ‘Anne Frank Trust’ is unlikely to be emulated by Whites as we possess too much racial respect for historical truth. No ‘Piltdown Man Trust’ for us. 5
Posted by JB on Sat, 20 Jan 2007 05:30 | # Auster is a Goldberg lite http://www.herald.ns.ca/Front/553140.html
6
Posted by Rnl on Sat, 20 Jan 2007 07:23 | # GW’s advice is good: opposing the politics of the Jewish Holocaust is much more valuable than challenging its facts and fictions. But it’s hard not to get irritated at Holocaust claims that can’t possibly be true. the Nazis aimed to destroy all the Jews of Europe. (Imperial War Museum) This claim, the most important of all the Jewish Holocaust claims, is clearly false. Anne Frank was relocated from Auschwitz to Bergen-Belsen. She died there of typhus. Elie Wiesel was relocated from Auschwitz to Buchenwald. He is still alive. Neither Belsen nor Buchenwald is even alleged to have been an extermination camp. The German decision to move thousands of interned Jews from Auschwitz to internment camps in Germany is inconsistent with a plan to murder every Jew in Europe. Other examples could be cited. Most of them would be similarly uncomplicated. You don’t need to know anything about the chemical properties of Zyklon-B. In this case all you need to know is that allowing interned Jews to live is inconsistent with a plan to kill all Jews. If a government willingly allows a substantial number of group X to live while in its custody, then by definition it is not conducting program of complete physical extermination against group X. *** We [Jews] remember that the food they [White Europeans] eat is grown from soil fertilized by 2,000 years of Jewish blood they have sprinkled onto it. We’re Right, the Whole World’s Wrong
In more recent years, the Holocaust industry has effectively turned into a shake-down racket in which more and more countries throughout Europe are being bludgeoned into coughing up compensation. Prof. Norman Finkelstein 7
Posted by Rnl on Sat, 20 Jan 2007 07:28 | # White nationalists argue that Holocaust commemoration has, leaving aside its unmistakable pecuniary rewards, at least three ulterior motives: (1) to eliminate White racial consciousness by associating it with mass murder; (2) to promote Jewish racial consciousness by identifying all non-Jews as potential mass murderers; and (3) to justify the explicitly Jewish state of Israel, diaspora Jewry’s refuge from any future mass murderers. The following excerpt, an account of a visit in 1990 by Israeli high-school students to German concentration camps in Poland, tends to confirm our arguments. The author is a left-wing Israeli journalist. *** Tom Segev, _The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust_, trans. Haim Watzman (New York, 1993), pp. 500-504. That discussion continued long into the night; at times it was very emotional, and usually very political. The students could deduce from it that they were not being told the truth when remembrance of the Holocaust was presented to them as a manifestation of national unity. In fact, it was another expression of the divisions in Israeli society between right and left, xenophobia and humanism, divisions confirmed by behavioral scientists Dan Bar-On and Oron Sela in their study of the relation of Israeli youth to the Holocaust. Political polarization made it hard for young people to understand the Holocaust apart from Israeli reality; their conception of that reality inevitably affected their approach to the Holocaust. This overlay of past and present was revealed over and over again during the journey to the death camps in Poland. While walking through the streets of Cracow one Friday evening, returning from a synagogue, several of the teenagers sang Yaakov Rotblit’s “Song of Peace,” written shortly after the Six-Day War; others sang a song from Bnei Akiva, the national-religious youth movement, improvising a line of their own. “Expel the Arabs, gather in the Jews.” The booklet the [Israeli] Ministry of Education distributed to the students prior to their trip stated that Poland supports self-determination for the Palestinians and Palestinian terrorist organizations, as if these two were one and the same. The students were not told that the right to self-determination is a universal right of every nation. Again and again the students were warned that the Holocaust meant that they must stay in Israel. They were not warned that the Holocaust requires them to strengthen democracy, fight racism, defend minorities and civil rights, and refuse to obey manifestly illegal orders. Meanwhile, surveys revealed the low level of democratic consciousness among Israeli youth; a comparative study conducted by Ben-Gurion University led to the embarrassing conclusion that the level of democratic consciousness among German youth was significantly higher. Most Israelis, in fact, seem to lack the optimism necessary to accept the humanistic lessons of the Holocaust, and, in recognition of that, some people have gone so far as to advocate forgetting the Holocaust altogether. A few months after the outbreak of the Palestinian uprising in the territories, Haaretz [a liberal Israeli newspaper] launched a public debate by printing a most unusual essay by Yehuda Elkana called “For Forgetting.” At the time, Elkana was director of the Institute of the History of Science and Ideas at Tel Aviv University and director of the Van Leer Institute in Jerusalem. A Holocaust survivor, he had been taken to Auschwitz as a ten-year-old child. His experience there led him to the conclusion that “what happened in Germany can happen anywhere, with any people, including my people,” Yet he believed it was possible to prevent “such events” through proper education and an appropriate political context. The article came in the wake of the increasing number of press reports of “excesses” committed by Israeli soldiers in the [occupied] territories. Elkana had seen all this in the past, he wrote: “I have seen a bulldozer bury people alive, I have seen soldiers who, losing their senses, broke the hands of civilians, including children.” He asked himself what the source was of the acts committed by Israeli soldiers in the territories and reached the conclusion that what motivated Israeli society’s attitude toward the Palestinians was not personal frustration but rather a deep existential fear nourished by a specific interpretation of the Holocaust and by the willingness to believe that the entire world was against the Jewish people, the eternal victim. “I see in this ancient belief, to which many people subscribe today, Hitler’s paradoxical and tragic victory,” Elkana wrote. If the Holocaust did not suffuse national consciousness so deeply, the conflict between the Jews and the Palestinians would not have led to so many “aberrant” reactions, and, most likely, the diplomatic efforts would not have led to a dead end, he added. Like others before him, Elkana laid out the dangers inherent in memory: “An atmosphere in which an entire nation determines its relation to the present and shapes its future by concentrating on the lessons of the past is a danger to the future of any society that wishes to live in relative serenity and relative security, like all other countries .... The very existence of democracy is endangered when the memory of the past’s victims plays an active role in the political process. All the ideologues of the fascist regimes understood this well .... The use of past suffering as a political argument is like making the dead partners in the democratic process of the living.” The professor’s conclusion: “I see no greater danger to the future of Israel than the fact that the Holocaust has been instilled methodically into the consciousness of the Israeli public, including that very large part that did not endure the Holocaust, as well as the generation of children that has been born and grown up here. For the first time I understand the seriousness of what we have done, when for decades we have sent every child in Israel to visit Yad Vashem over and over again. What did we expect tender children to do with this experience? Our minds, even hearts, closed, without interpretation, we have proclaimed ‘Remember!’ What for? What is a child supposed to do with these memories? For a great many of them, the horror pictures were likely to be interpreted as a call for hatred, ‘Remember’ could be interpreted as a call for long-standing, blind hatred. It may well be that the world at large will remember. I am not sure of that, but in any case that is not our concern. Each nation, including the Germans, will decide for itself, in the context of its own considerations, whether it wishes to remember. We, on the other hand, must forget. I do not see any more important political or educational stance for the country’s leaders than to stand up for life, to give oneself over to the construction of our future - and not to deal, morning and evening, with symbols, ceremonies, and lessons of the Holocaust. The rule of historical remembrance must be uprooted from our lives.” 8
Posted by Rnl on Sat, 20 Jan 2007 07:36 | # Holocau$t Schlock & the Tattooed Jewess “Today,” says Stephen Brook, “... many of the most distinguished [artist] names in Britain are those of Jews ... [R.B.] Kitaj ... has discovered in middle age an increasing fascination with Judaism ... Like many Jews, his rediscovery of Judaism sprang from this study of the Holocaust; he became a mad expert in the whole ‘lugubrious business.’ ... His obsession with the Holocaust .. is adumbrated by the inclusion of a chimney-stack motif with some of his recent work.” [BROOK, p. 329] “I have long since resolved to be a Jew,” Kitaj once declared, “... I regard that as more important than my art.” [STEYN, J., 1999, p. 153] Juliet Steyn notes a traditional Jewish self-conception in one of Kitaj’s paintings: “The chimney [in a Kitaj painting] functions as an indictment of Christianity. Hence Jewish identity in Kitaj’s painting is achieved in opposition to Christianity ... Innocence and guilt: Jew and Gentile.” [STEYN, J., 1999, p. 168]
9
Posted by Rnl on Sat, 20 Jan 2007 07:41 | # Jewish Photography Among the most important genres of photography is the so-called “New York School.” It is overwhelmingly Jewish (two-thirds of the important artist selections for one book by curator Jane Livingston on this theme are Jews). “In its art historical usage,” says Coleman,
10
Posted by Rnl on Sat, 20 Jan 2007 07:46 | # Jewish Power in Germany Most of the members of the famously influential “Frankfurt School” of politics, philosophy, and culture were Jewish - Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse, Friedrich Pollock, and many others. Frederick Grunfeld argues that these people did not really experience anti-Semitism in pre-Nazi Germany. Why? “All of these privileged witnesses ... came from well-to-do families of the upper middle class, for whom money had always been a talisman against the cruder forms of prejudice.” [GRUNFELD, F., 1996, p. 17] Although such people were from affluent families, socialism and communism were often the world-views they championed. “What today we are apt to call Weimar culture,” notes Jewish scholar Werner Mosse, “was largely the creation of left-wing intellectuals, among whom there was such a disproportionate number of Jews that Weimar culture has been called, somewhat snidely, an internal Jewish dialogue.” “In twentieth century Germany where the Jews formed less than one percent of the nation’s population,” observes Istvan Deak, “Jews were responsible for a great part of German culture. The owners of three of Germany’s greatest newspaper houses; the editors of the Vossiche Zeitung and Berliner Tagleblatt; most book publishers; the owners and editors of the Neue Rundschau and other distinguished literary magazines; the owners of Germany’s greatest art galleries were all Jews. Jews played a major part in theatre and in the film industry as producers, directors, and actors. Many of Germany’s best composers, musicians, artists, sculptors, and architects were Jews. Their participation in literary criticism and in literature were enormous: practically all the great critics and many novelists, poets, dramatists, and essayists of the Weimer Republic were Jews ... If cultural contributions by Jews were far out of proportion to their numerical strength, their participation in left-wing intellectual activities were even more disproportionate.” [DEAK, p. 28] By the 1920s German critics like Theodore Fritsch, Hans Blucher, and Adolf Bartel were influential in the growing German complaint that German culture was dominated by Jews. [TRAVERSO] A German Jew, Moritz Goldstein, had poured fuel on the issue of Jewish dominance by writing a much-discussed article in 1913 (entitled “German-Jewish Parnassus”) in which he wrote that Jews essentially ran German culture, from an almost complete monopoly of Berlin newspapers and dominance of German theatre, music, and literature. [LAQUEUR, p. 74] “German cultural life seems to be passing increasingly into Jewish hands,” Goldstein wrote, “... We Jews are administering the spiritual property of a nation which denies us our right and our ability to do so.” [GRUNFELD, F., 1996, p. 21] In the pre-Nazi era of the Weimar Republic, three of Germany’s important newspapers were Jewish-owned - the Vossiche Zeitung, the Berliner Tageblatt (founded in 1872 by Rudolf Mosse and Georg Davidsohn) and the Frankfurter Zeitung (Heinrich Simon/Leopold Sonnemann). (The eventual president of the World Zionist Organization, Nahum Goldmann, began writing for the Frankfurt paper when he was 15 years old). [GOLDMANN, N., 1978, p. 16] The newspapers Grenzboten and Ostdeutsche Post were also owned by a Jewish media mogul, Ignaz Kuranda. [ROTH, C., 1940, p. 142] The two largest publishing houses in Germany - the Ullstein, and Mosse companies - were also owned by Jews, as were a number of smaller ones. [GINSBERG, B., 1993, p. 26] Rudolf Mosse, the founder of the Mosse company, and a colleague also began “building up an advertising bureau which soon overtook the former leaders, the English advertising agencies, and had 275 branches worldwide.” [GIDAL, p. 272] In the late 1800s Leopold Ullstein “launched the Berliner Morgenpost, which built up a circulation of six hundred thousand, the largest in Germany, but perhaps his most dramatic breakthrough came with the Berliner Illustrierte Zeitung which by 1894 had a circulation of two milion ... Ullstein had five sons, all of whom developed different branches of his enterprise. By the ‘thirties they were not only the biggest newspaper group in Germany, but they also published books, magazines, dress patterns and music. They also had their own news agency, picture service, film studio and even a zoo to serve their children’s papers.” [BERMANT, C., 1977, p. 70] 11
Posted by Rnl on Sat, 20 Jan 2007 07:48 | # Jews were also vastly over represented as editors and reporters in German journalism. “Unfortunately,” says Sarah Gordon, “many of them tended to use their works as vehicles to oppose or criticize prevalent German values.” [GORDON, p. 14] Among these critics of German society was Kurt Tucholsky, “whose biting satire made him a hero of the more cosmopolitan segments of the German middle class. The son a successful Jewish businessman-lawyer, Tucholsky flayed Germans and German values mercilessly. By the late 1920s, he had decided that Germany was hopeless and that middle-class Germans were either idiots or positively evil.” [ROTHMAN/LICHTER, 1982, p. 85] On one hand, Jews were increasingly perceived to have strangleholds on the German social, cultural and economic system. On the other, in the political field, Richard Rubenstein notes that “Marxism was seen by conservative Europe as Jewish in origin and leadership, a view that was reinforced in Germany by the three successive left wing regimes that succeeded the Bavarian royal house of Wittelsbach from November 7, 1918 to May 1, 1919, at the end of World War I. In Munich, the city that did more than any other to give birth to [Hitler’s] National Socialism, and in the era in which Hitler first joined the miniscule party, a series of politically naive, left-wing Jewish leaders attempted ineffectually to bring about an enduring socialist revolution in Catholic, conservative Bavaria.” “As Robert Michel pointed out in his classic Political Parties,” note Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter, “Jews at that time [late 1800s] were playing a key role in socialist parties in almost every European country in which they had settled in any numbers.” [ROTHMAN/LICHTER, 1982, p. 84] In Germany, these included Daniel deLeon, a Sephardic Jew who headed the Socialist Labor Party. DeLeon “attempted to conceal his Jewish background, pretending that he was descended from an aristocratic family of Catholic background.” [ROTHMAN/LICHTER, 1982, p. 95] Works Cited Arendt, Hannah. The Origins of Totalitarianism. Meridian Books: The World Publishing Company, Cleveland and New York, 1964. Bermant, Chaim. The Jews. Times Books, 1977. Deak, Istvan. Weimer Germany’s Left Wing Intellectuals. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1968. Gidal, Nachum T. Jews in Germany From Roman Times to the Weimar Republic. Konemann , 1994 (First English Language Edition, 1998], Kohn [Germany]. Ginsberg, Benjamin. The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1994. Goldberg, M. Hirsh. Just Because They’re Jewish. If Anything Can Be Misconstrued about the Jews, It Will Be ... And Has Been. Stein and Day, Publishers, New York, 1979. Goldmann, Nahum. [Translated by Steve Cox] The Jewish Paradox. Fred Jordan Books/Grosset & Dunlap, New York, 1978. Gordon, Sarah. Hitler, Germans, and the “Jewish Question.” Princeton University Press, 1984. Grose, Peter. Israel in the Mind of America. Schocken Books, NY, 1983. Grunfeld, Frederic V. Prophets without Honor: Freud, Kafka, and Their World. Kodansha International, New York, Tokyo, London, 1996. Kornberg, Jacques. Theodor Herzl: From Assimilation to Zionism. Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis, 1993. Laqueur, Walter. Weimar: A Cultural History. Putnam, New York, 1974. Lazare, Bernard. Antisemitism. Its History and Causes. Britons Publishing Co., London, 1967. Lindemann, Albert. Esau’s Tears: Modern Antisemitism and the Rise of the Jews. Cambridge University Press, 1997. Lottman, Herbert. A Publishing Dynasty ... , Publishers Weekly, December 19, 1994, p. 13. Marrus, Michael R. The Politics of Assimilation: A Study of the French Jewish Community at the Time of the Dreyfus Affair. Oxford, 1977. Roth, Cecil. The Jewish Contribution to Civilization. The Union of American Hebrew Congregations, Cincinnati, MCXL [1940]. Rothman, Stanley. Lichter, S. Robert. Roots of Radicalism. Jews, Christians, and the New Left. Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford, 1982. Shaw, Christine. Der Springer-Verlag ..., Business History, January 1994, p. 214. Traverso, Enzo. The Jews and Germany: From the “Judeo-German Symbiosis” to the Memory of Auschwitz. University of Nebraska Press, 1995. Excerpted from _When Victims Rule: A Critique of Jewish Pre-eminence in America_. 12
Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 20 Jan 2007 11:08 | # Given the Chosenites hatred and contempt for each and every host society throughout the ages, the contents of Rnl’s valuable post shouldnt come as a surprise. The most serious question raised is why so many Aryans should acquiese in the defacement of their own societies by purporting to ‘appreciate’ the degeneracy inherent in Jewish ‘art’. 13
Posted by ben tillman on Sat, 20 Jan 2007 18:45 | #
Also from Benda: “For my part, I maintain that by their morality the modern Germans are collectively one of the plagues of the world, and if I had only to press a button to exterminate them entirely, I would do it on the spot, even if I had perhaps to cry about any good people who would die in the process.” Un Régulier dans me siècle (Paris [trans. Gallimard]: 1938), p. 153. 14
Posted by Auster stinks on Sat, 20 Jan 2007 19:07 | # “http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/007140.html (Auster delighted to see Taylor assaulted by “anti-racists”)” A major reason I have utter contempt for Auster is that when people attempt to explain to him WHY people at the Amren conference have such hostility to Israel - the hypocrisy of Jews who support a Jewish state while opposing any manifestations of whites’ defense of their racial interests - he refused to even read the correspondence, stating “the first sentence of your email is so stupid, I’m not going to bother to read the rest.” Yet, he’ll continue to make strawman arguments about “irrational Jew haters” while ignoring counter-arguments, including those from Paul Gottfried, himself Jewish, who wrote some essays about zionist hypocrisy in VDARE. 15
Posted by Rnl on Sat, 20 Jan 2007 22:41 | # Norman F. Cantor, “Striking Back,” _The Jewish Experience_ (Castle Books, NJ, 1996), p. 364: Not only in American business and cultural life and in Israel’s military triumphs have the Jews in this century struck back against their age-old enemies. The Bolshevik Revolution and some of its aftermath represented, from one perspective, Jewish revenge. As the Tsarist government in the late-nineteenth century found itself increasingly in confrontation with the Empire’s Jewish population, there was a strong leftist and revolutionary drift among the younger Jewish generations. Most became members of the Bund, a democratic, peaceful, labor union organization. But some became bomb-throwing anarchists and revolutionary Communists. In the Bolshevik government that was in control of most of Russia by 1920, three out of the six members of the Politburo executive were Jews, not counting Lenin himself whose father had a Jewish grandparent. The founders of the Soviet secret police (later KGB), headquartered in Lubyanka prison in Moscow, were mostly Jews. Jews also took leadership roles, down into the early 1950s, in the Communist parties of Germany, Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Rumania. In the struggle for succession to Lenin in the 1920s, leading to the defeat and exile of the Jewish Trotsky (Bronstein), most of the high-level Soviet Jews made the mistake of supporting Stalin, an Asiatic anti-Semite who in the purge trials in the mid-1930s eventually eliminated these Jewish ‘Old Bolsheviks.’ But even to some degree after the Great Purge, Jews were still prevalent in powerful Soviet government positions and many of Stalin’s cohorts in the 1940s had Jewish wives…. During the heyday of the Cold War, American Jewish publicists spent a lot of time denying that - as 1930s anti-semites claimed - Jews played a disproportionately important role in Soviet and world Communism. The truth is until the early 1950s, Jews did play such a role, and there’s nothing to be ashamed of. In time, Jews will learn to take pride in the record of Jewish Communists in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. It was a species of striking back. *** _Aspects of the Third Reich_, ed. H.W. Koch (New York: St Martin’s Press, 1985), pp. 374-76: The first documentary evidence for Hitler’s anti-semitism turns up in September 1919, when, upon the instruction of his commander, Hitler wrote his own exposition of the ‘Jewish problem’ in the form of a letter. In this he argued strongly that pogrom methods should be avoided in dealing with the problem, it should be dealt with ‘scientifically’ and dispassionately. This immediately raises the question why in 1919 and not before? The tentative answer of the editor [H.W. Koch] is that it was in the revolutionary upheaval in Germany in 1918-19, and in Bavaria, in particular, that Jews played a very prominent part in the Bavarian Soviet Republic. It was not only German nationalists who attributed the blame to the Jews. Some Jews themselves expressed feelings like those of the Austro-German Stefan Zweig, who in a letter of 8 December 1918 to the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber mentioned that he was thinking of a very necessary action, a call to all Jews in Germany and Austria ‘not to push themselves forward now, not to pull the reins of politics into their hands. A call for moderation. It is disgusting to see how Jews are taking everything by storm - revolution, Red Guards, ministries, what impure greed for power by impure people is now being gratified. Should it not be the responsibility of us all ... to anticipate the justified anti-semitic indignation and call them back to their senses.’ Otherwise, Zweig feared, Germany would experience anti-semitic pogroms similar to those which were taking place in the newly founded Polish national state. Buber’s reply is not contained in his published correspondence, but it must have been negative, because in a further letter Zweig says ‘I am sorry that we are not of one opinion: but I repeat that whatever is attained or lost henceforward, guilt for the collapse will for centuries to come be attributed in Germany to Jewish leaders (and indeed their disorganizational actions, their impatience, is responsible for much).’ ... It is more than a coincidence that at the time of the largely Jewish Soviet Republic in Bavaria the hard-core of the radical anti-semites of the future NSDAP should be in Munich or Bavaria. 16
Posted by Rnl on Sat, 20 Jan 2007 22:47 | # In the version of _Night_ intended for Gentile consumption, and now mandatory reading in many American high schools, Elie Wiesel, perhaps the most famous “holocaust survivor,” suppressed the fact that, immediately after the liberation of Buchenwald, his fellow Jewish inmates, evidently not as emaciated as you might think, summoned up enough energy to rape German women. The admission (or boast) originally appeared in the final pages of the first version of _Night_, written in Yiddish and entitled _Un di velt hot geshvign_ (“And the World Kept Silent”). There Wiesel wrote: “Early the next day, Jewish boys ran off to Weimar to steal clothing and potatoes. And to rape German girls [shiksas].” (_Shiksa_ is a derogatory term for a Gentile woman, meaning “detestable thing” or “unclean animal.”) But in the revised French text, the first to be published in the West, racially neutral “jeunes gens” replaces “Jewish boys,” and the reference to raping German shiksas has been removed: “Le lendemain, quelques jeunes gens coururent à Weimar ramasser des pommes de terre et des habits - et coucher avec des filles.” In Stella Rodway’s English translation: “On the following morning, some of the young men went to Weimar to get some potatoes and clothes - and to sleep with girls.” Clearly Wiesel feared that French- and English-speaking readers might, unlike their Yiddish-speaking counterparts, disapprove of raping defenseless German civilians, so he prudently concealed the truth. And just as clearly Wiesel’s fellow Jewish DPs, and perhaps Wiesel himself, were eager participants in the wave of Allied brutality that swept over prostrate Germany, much of it directed against German women and young girls, often very young. But no German today would dare reproach them, and most young Germans are unaware that it even occurred. See The Rage That Elie Wiesel Edited Out Of ‘Night’ *** Naomi Seidman, professor of Jewish Culture at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, wrote a comparative analysis of the Yiddish and French texts for a 1996 article in Jewish Social Studies. She documented the transition from a historical account of events to what she sees as an autobiographical novel, concluding that Night transforms the Holocaust into a “religious theological” event. She writes that “in the aftermath of God’s abdication, the site and occasion of this abdication - “the Holocaust” - takes on theological significance, and the witness becomes both priest and prophet of this new religion,” quoting Wiesel, who has said that “Auschwitz is as important as Sinai.” Seidman concludes that there was not one Holocaust survivor in Night, but two, “a Yiddish and a French,” a view that Holocaust deniers have exploited to imply that Wiesel has not been truthful about some of the scenes, and which led to Seidman herself being accused of Holocaust revisionism in letters to the editor. Seidman told the Jewish Daily Forward that, in re-writing, rather than simply translating Un di Velt Hot Geshvign for publication in France, Wiesel had replaced an “angry survivor” who regards “testimony as a refutation of what the Nazis did to the Jews,” with one who is “haunted by death, whose primary complaint is directed against God, not the world, [or] the Nazis.” Seidman supports her thesis that the Yiddish and French versions are two books written for different audiences by comparing the parts of the text that survived the editing process, and pointing out what she sees as significant differences. For example, in the Yiddish, Wiesel writes that, after liberation, some of the camp survivors, the “Jewish boys,” run off to “fargvaldikn daytshe shikses” (“rape German shiksas”), whereas in the French, they are just “young men” who go “coucher aves les filles” (“to sleep with girls”). Seidman argues that the Yiddish version is for the Jewish readers, who want to hear about Jewish boys taking revenge by raping German non-Jews. For the rest of the world - the largely Christian readership - the anger is removed, and they are simply young men sleeping with girls. Seidman writes that Wiesel, perhaps taking advice from François Mauriac, a Roman Catholic, deliberately suppressed what his Jewish readership wanted to read about: the need for vengeance. She asks: “Was it worth translating the Holocaust out of the language of the largest portion of its victims and into the language of those who were, at best, absent, and at worst, complicitous in the genocide?” 17
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 21 Jan 2007 01:29 | # But you are not following my point. It does not matter that the facts are this or that, that Jews died here or there or nowhere. None of that is important because much greater events occurred in the Soviet Union and we are not required to tear out our hair over them. Why? That is the question. Why the political exploitation of this one event, whatever it was? And it is not simply a Jewish manipulation, though there is that. It is a policy of <u>Western governments</u> to placate Jewish sentiment and to align themselves with the Jewish desire that all Westerners will for all time be burdened with guilt towards the Jews. There’s the issue to attack. Never mind Buchenwald and Auschwitz. Let the saints before the courts bear that cross up the hill. Our job is the political critique. 18
Posted by Billy Joe Daniels on Sun, 21 Jan 2007 02:09 | # Guessedworker says, “It is a policy of Western governments to placate Jewish sentiment and to align themselves with the Jewish desire that all Westerners will for all time be burdened with guilt towards the Jews.” I think there is a simpler explanation and that is the practice, long in effect in the USA, for a Jewish person to become a friend of an up-and-coming politician. Not quite as a political commissar, but close to that. More like a friend who is careful to instruct the politician and to help him or her raise campaign funds. Yes, it’s really like a fulltime lobbyist assigned to that politician. When a person with a Jewish advisor is elected to Congress, the Jewish friend helps him or her to select at least one young AIPAC-sponsored Jewish staffer in the DC office, and from then on it’s all downhill. Brandishing the whip and promising the cabbage, the Jewish person becomes very close to the politician and moderates any potential outbursts on discovering some truths, and drafts placatory letters for the politician. I don’t think it is primarily based on blackmail, just continuous attention and solicitude. I’ve seen it in action in other areas. Leaders of one ethnic group I’ve come to know actually take their problems to a prominent local Jew whose first advice is always that they say nothing negative about members of other minority groups, but to stay focused on Euromen as scary racists. I don’t know how long that can last with the pressures that racial diversity is imposing, but it is a practice everywhere. It apparently doesn’t take that many people to be effective. When you hear about Jewish Community Relations Committees, that’s their prime function…to attach likable, personable Jews to rising politicians and to help them advance. In addition, I don’t think it’s about guilt, that’s just a side issue. It’s really about silencing us. They don’t really care if we feel guilty, they want those of us who have begun to escape the matrix to shut up. Guilt may be one way of doing this, but so can fear, hunger, loss of class standing, loss of career, etc. 19
Posted by Billy Joe Daniels on Sun, 21 Jan 2007 02:43 | # Guessedworker also says, “Why the political exploitation of this one event, whatever it was?” The simplest answer is that the Shoah works to empower changes in the world. There are numerous other political exploitations…false claims about always being victims, feigned anger about being called names, any aspect of Israel, etc. Let’s not forget the playbook featuring their martyrdoms is the very same playbook used by St. Paul and his peers to establish a new Jewish cult about 2000 years ago. The new Jewish cult in those days got a little out of control, and it may be simply that 6,000,000 martyrs today are seen as enough to push back one martyrdom. Early Christian theology was clearly about an ideology based on victimhood and loss and many, many martyrs. The political exploitation is obviously to leverage political, social, and economic changes. How long it can last is the question. Remember the “return of the repressed,” because organized Jewry has no clue that we are not simply creatures of plastic to be shaped and molded according to their will. If Iran attacks and wins, then we will see a massive influx of Jewish refugees eager to blame everyone for their losses, and it might be that such a military loss would replace Shoah as their primal wail. Fundamentally, anything at hand that generates sympathy and power will do. 20
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 21 Jan 2007 05:34 | #
That’s interesting but there are problems with its plausibility: for one thing, it raises the question “Why can’t Euros think for themselves?” For another, if that were what was going on, at least a few politicians who’ve been through the process and are now retired so have nothing to lose by speaking up would be telling everyone that that is how the system works, they’d be revealing it in books they write, they’d be going on the lecture circuit and giving speeches about it, getting on C-SPAN and talking frankly about it, and so on. But you never see anyone “in the know” doing that. Is it possible that every single one of them would keep mum about it? Highly doubtful. Nevertheless, Jews are a powerful élite who, it goes without saying, exert formidable pressures behind the scenes to steer things in directions they see as serving their interest, as all powerful élites do. Regardless of the detailed mechanism, the actual nuts-and-bolts process, by which they exert influence( * ), the fact is that 1) their influence in certain domains is very considerable, and 2) in general they bear significant ill-will toward Euros, and lots of them see themselves as in a war to bring Euros down, a war Euros for the most part aren’t even aware is being waged. This bodes ill for Euros. ( * I think they do it very simply by giving big donations the way this Jewish billionaire did (I forget his name) who dropped a hundred million dollars on the Sierra Club on condition it not oppose race-replacement immigration.) 21
Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 21 Jan 2007 05:44 | # Fred, the meddling Jew’s name is David Gelbaum and he told the Sierra Club, “If you ever promote immigration restriction you wont get a dollar out of me”. 22
Posted by Rnl on Sun, 21 Jan 2007 08:45 | # Guessedworker wrote: Why the political exploitation of this one event, whatever it was? Different atrocities carry different political meanings. You select an atrocity to commemorate on the basis of the political meanings you want to privilege. If you want Third World immigration and White dispossession, then you’ll like the Jewish Holocaust, because it teaches the danger of majority self-assertion. If you support nations and oppose their destruction, you’ll prefer the Holodomor, which teaches the potentially lethal consequences of attempting to denationalize a population. If you oppose Marxism, then you might develop an interest in the Cambodian Genocide. It is therefore not surprising that Western politicians choose the Jewish Holocaust and mandate its promotion, even to the point of criminalizing Holocaust skepticism. They want their White majorities to keep quiet about racial policies that clearly injure Western nations, and the moral need for White passivity and systematic anti-racialism are among the Holocaust’s principal meanings. When in the early days of 1933 the first civil servant wrote the first definition of ‘non-Aryan’ into a civil service ordinance, the fate of European Jewry was sealed. Raul Hilberg, _The Destruction of the European Jews: Revised and Definitive Edition_ (New York: Holmes Meier, 1985), 1044. Translation: If a majority distinguishes itself from others, it is preparing to murder those others. This museum [the Holocaust Museum in Washington] belongs at the center of American life because America, as a democratic civilization, is the enemy of racism and its ultimate expression, genocide. An event of universal significance, the Holocaust has special importance for Americans: in act and word the Nazis denied the deepest tenets of the American people. 23
Posted by Billy Joe Daniels on Sun, 21 Jan 2007 17:19 | # Fred says, “That’s interesting but there are problems with its plausibility: for one thing, it raises the question “Why can’t Euros think for themselves?” For another, if that were what was going on, at least a few politicians who’ve been through the process and are now retired so have nothing to lose by speaking up would be telling everyone that that is how the system works, they’d be revealing it in books they write, they’d be going on the lecture circuit and giving speeches about it, getting on C-SPAN and talking frankly about it, and so on. But you never see anyone “in the know” doing that. Is it possible that every single one of them would keep mum about it? Highly doubtful.” This is a reference to the concept of a special Jewish friend attaching himself or herself to a politician. This is frequently alluded to in tales of Churchill’s life…at a very low point in his life, a wealthy Jew came to his assistance & friendship and Churchill was never the same after that. Books in the USA by Findley, and other ex-Congressmen allude to having close Jewish friends until they went one step too far over the line, at which point the Congressmen were disowned and defeated. I don’t know if any of them realized that the close Jewish friendship was based on Jewish interests, and in fact they may not have realized it. Think about Reagan’s “kitchen cabinet” made up mostly of very friendly Jews in California. It is well-documented that AIPAC insists on placing one young Jew as an intern in every Congressional office. The Jewish “commissars” who attach themselves to up-and-coming politicians do not advertise themselves that way. They introduce the politician to other Jews, big dinners, big fundraising, and lots of free advice. Nevertheless, the best example is in the life of Churchill and you may well ask his heirs why he stayed mum on the dominating role of the Jewish high-roller who saved his estate and aided his political career during its last 20 or 30 years in destroying the British Empire and the lives of thousands of young English soldiers. 24
Posted by Matt O'Halloran on Sun, 21 Jan 2007 18:12 | # Not long ago some of MR’s more dimwitted commenters were still defending Auster, still burbling on about how “useful” he was, still claiming that we poor white cattle couldn’t do without his silver tongued eloquence. “How do you like it now, gentlemen?” (Ernest Hemingway) 25
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 21 Jan 2007 19:45 | # I contend that Auster is less virulent than the other strains of Jews that have occupied positions of trust and authority. If you replaced all of those Jews with Jews like Auster, the world would be a better place. Auster is intelligent enough to want to avoid killing that upon which he and his ilk depend. It is only a small step from that to realizing Jewish essence is not the virulence of horizontal transmission via diaspora migrations, although that virulence has become a major feature of Jewish character during its diaspora. 26
Posted by Larry Austere on Sun, 21 Jan 2007 23:04 | # Since Auster doesn’t have the integrity or moral courage to answer critiques of his comments about Taylor/AR/WN and anti-Semitism when contacted directly, I’ll ask the question here. Exactly who are the “serious anti-Semites” who make up Jared Taylor’s “inner circle?” Who exactly makes up this “inner circle?” Certainly Auster cannot believe that just because Duke or Black show up to a AR meeting, as do hundreds of other people, that this makes them part of an “inner circle.” Who is it then? Is Kevin MacDonald part of Taylor’s “inner circle?” (not to mention that KMacD is a scholar, not an “anti-Semite”). Who? In fact, Taylor had been working for years with the radically pro-Jewish Ian Jobling, who was replaced by a Mr. LeFevre, who was also strongly against anti-Semitism. Now, there is a new web director for AR…does Auster believe that this person is “anti-Semitic?” Or Webster? Who? If you make the accusation, Mr. Auster, then tell us who makes up this “seriously anti-Semitic inner circle.” Or, is it the fact that Taylor’s “inner circle” is not Hart, Weissberg, Berman, Auster, Levin, and Gottfried really upsetting Larry? 27
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 22 Jan 2007 00:27 | # On the subject of every pol’s best little friend, here’s one major way it works in America, and here and here (all ready to go, just as soon as Blair steps down) is how it works in Britain. 28
Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 22 Jan 2007 03:22 | # “If you want Third World immigration and White dispossession, then you’ll like the Jewish Holocaust, because it teaches the danger of majority self-assertion.” I couldn’t disagree more. The lesson of the Holocaust is the danger of immigration, of forced integration, of heterogeneity. 29
Posted by Larry Austerity on Mon, 22 Jan 2007 15:00 | # Lawrence Auster accused of “anti-Semitism”, described here: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/004484.html What goes around, comes around. Of course Auster doesn’t have enough self-awareness to consider that he is being as unfair to Taylor as he believes he himself was treated here. 30
Posted by Matt O'Halloran on Mon, 22 Jan 2007 15:57 | # Well, neoconservatism IS a Jewish intellectual movement. Definitive description here:
Note in this little in-house spat between Larry and Lifson, as always, that to be considered “antisemitic” is regarded as a clinching argment for flinging you into the outer darkness. Never mind whether being anti-Jewish (to use the correct, not Talmudic, term) is merited by Jews’ behaviour. Jews are above criticism and all criticism is genocidal. And still simpletons such as James Bowery cannot smell the supremacism, and write “If you replaced all of those Jews with Jews like Auster, the world would be a better place.” On your knees, cattle! 31
Posted by JB on Tue, 23 Jan 2007 07:07 | #
what a bunch of cowards these neo-RightWingers are. always licking the jews’ feet, umm… Lawrence, you’re using a bad word that may be antisemitic, and… and… I can’t allow that. I’d be embarrassed to write for these warmongers/patriotards websites. My god they’re pathetic 32
Posted by Rnl on Sat, 27 Jan 2007 23:17 | # ben tillman wrote: The lesson of the Holocaust is the danger of immigration, of forced integration, of heterogeneity. Had there been no Tutsis in Rwanda there would have been no massacre of Tutsis by Hutus. If that’s the point, I agree. Heterogeneity promotes dissension and often leads to violence. But the political meaning of the Jewish Holocaust remains as I described it, whether one thinks of the Holocaust as a collection of historical facts (German mistreatment of Jews between 1933 and 1945) or as a gigantic propaganda structure erected on the facts, which is my opinion. Does the historical fact of German persecution of Jews teach that majorities should be especially tolerant of minorities? It’s not unreasonable to answer yes, if we assume that old events teach political lessons for the enlightenment of the present. I don’t draw that conclusion, but I’m not surprised that anti-nationalists who favor White dispossession do draw that conclusion. Certainly the killing of a large number of an alien minority by a nationalist majority doesn’t encourage either majority rights or nationalism. Multiracialists like the Jewish Holocaust precisely because they favor White dispossession. If they believed the Holocaust taught the need for secure borders and race-cultural cohesion, they wouldn’t promote the Holocaust. Why the political exploitation of this one event, whatever it was? Why Western leaders and opinion-makers are so intent on wrecking their own nations is a more difficult question. No simple answer is possible, it seems to me. But once we’ve recognized that Western elites are indeed committed to wrecking their nations and dispossessing their White populations, we should have no difficulty understanding why they like the Holocaust. You can usually figure out someone’s politics by the mass murder he talks about the most. *** This museum [the Holocaust Museum in Washington] belongs at the center of American life because America, as a democratic civilization, is the enemy of racism and its ultimate expression, genocide. If that’s true, then Israel is far down that dark road that leads to genocide and America should become its enemy: Israel’s Dark [i.e. nazi-like] Future 33
Posted by Rnl on Sat, 27 Jan 2007 23:42 | # Kevin MacDonald should be confident that the Holocaust took place because (1) that’s the conventional wisdom rooted in the opinion of experts, (2) there is no good reason for them to be lying, and (3) the arguments Holocaust deniers use are weak. If you try to argue about this, I’ll have to delete your comment on the grounds that it is insane. (The Realist) [...] The Holocaust happened and everybody knows it. It was the greatest mass murder in recorded history ... Let’s see if I understand this. General Eisenhower was fooled when he visited the concentration camps. The films and pictures were all part of a great hoax ... The stacks of twisted bodies. Why, it was typhus, folks, not those nasty Nazis. http://inverted-world.com/index.php/column/column/the_insanity_of_david_duke/ Eisenhower toured and later described a concentration camp in which the majority of the inmates were non-Jews. The camp was Ohrdruf-Nord, a Buchenwald sub-camp. Elie Wiesel was a member of a religious minority during his internment at Buchenwald. Most of his fellow inmates, including the future Holocaust revisionist Paul Rassinier, were Christians. (Rassinier, by the way, would later write that Buchenwald was a country club in comparison to Dora, where he spent most of his own internment.) Were there large numbers of emaciated inmates in German concentration camps in 1945? Yes there were, and no one denies it. Were there large numbers of corpses in German concentration camps in 1945? Yes there were, and no one denies it. Do those corpses and emaciated inmates demonstrate a German plan to murder every Jew on earth? No, they don’t. The majority of the inmates and the majority of the corpses were non-Jews. Holocaust historians no longer even allege that the camps on German soil were extermination camps. The majority of the concentration camp inmates liberated by Americans were non-Jews. They were not seen as Jews in 1945; they are seen as Jews today. In the intervening years our perception of camp inmates and camp fatalities has been radically altered. They have become Jews, and The Realist can cite their photographic images as definitive proof of a German plan to murder all Jews. That’s a remarkable transformation. It’s politically insignificant, because you can’t speak about it without frightening many in your intended audience, but it’s remarkable nevertheless. *** Is The Realist a Nazi? [Begin Quote] After tiny Israel miraculously defeated the Arab world in the 1948 War of Independence - despite being outnumbered by the Arabs 100 to 1 - the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain and the United Nations pressured the Jewish State to accept the anti-Israel 1949 armistice agreements. Israel had beaten back the huge invading Egyptian army, not only throwing the Egyptian Muslim Nazis out of the Negev Desert but pursuing the Egyptian aggressors deep into the Sinai Peninsula. In fact, after Israel liberated Sinai territory up to El Arish, the Egyptians suddenly expressed interest in an armistice agreement that would prevent the tiny but fierce Jewish army from advancing even further. Egypt’s British Nazi allies threatened to militarily intervene in the war on behalf of the Egyptians unless Israel agreed to retreat from the liberated Sinai. These are the same British Nazis who murdered over 6 million innocent Jewish men, women and children during the German Holocaust by forcibly preventing European Jews from entering the British-occupied Land of Israel to escape Hitler’s inferno during World War II. The British Nazi army and navy deliberately sent thousands of desperate European Jewish men, women and children who tried to enter the Holy Land in the 1940s back to Hitler’s gas chambers and ovens. Not satisfied with being responsible for the murder of over 6 million Jews, the British Nazis then armed Israel’s Arab Muslim enemies to the teeth during the 1948 War of Independence in order to help the Arabs finish Hitler’s job. When G-d gave the hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned Jews a miraculous victory in the 1948 war, the British Nazis then threatened to go to war against Israel to help the Arab Muslims. Unfortunately, Israel’s first Bolshevik dictator, David Ben Gurion, gave in to this British Nazi threat and agreed to a unilateral Israeli retreat from the liberated Sinai in 1949. [End Quote] http://www.jtf.org/israel/israel.is.yesha.liberated.part.one.htm Is The Realist ethnically guilty of genocide? His friends at the Jewish Task Force think so. To them he is a descendant of Holocaust perpetrators (i.e. of “British Nazis”). Would he be clinically insane if he got a bit irritated at this stuff? The Realist: [Begin Quote] Although I am not a Jew, I know many Jews who are fervent race realists. And these people tell me they get a fair hearing from their Jewish friends, who might one day come around. And it isn’t just that they believe in racial differences, but they have an all-around pro-white, pro-Christian attitude: they support limitations of non-white immigration and Nativity scenes in the town square, for example. Spend some time at the Jewish Task Force website if you don’t believe me: If Jews are as monolithically hostile to whites as MacDonald suggests, how would such people be possible? [End Quote] *** If I say that the Jewish Holocaust is an instrument of Jewish self-aggrandizement and anti-Western politics, am I insane? If Realist wants to argue that I am correct but should nevertheless keep quiet, we could treat him as a serious WN contributor to the discussion. But if he denies the fact that Jewish suffering in World War II has been instrumentalized as a weapon against the West, then he is something else - not insane, but someone who willfully refuses to see clearly: “I don’t blame Germany for the Holocaust; I blame Christendom for the Holocaust.” (Hyam Maccoby of the Leo Baeck Institute for Jewish Studies in London) “The scale and terror of the Holocaust makes it clear that Jews are innocent and a wronged people, murdered and abandoned to their fate. This makes Christians, even Christians who were not in Europe at the time, a guilty people.” (Jewish novelist Ann Roiphe) “We [Jews] remember that the food they [White Europeans] eat is grown from soil fertilized by 2,000 years of Jewish blood they have sprinkled onto it. Atavistic Jew-hatred lingers in the air into which the ashes rose from the crematoria.” (Rabbi Dov Fischer, vice-president of the Zionist Organization of America) “In Europe, which bears the mark of Cain for its complicity in the Holocaust, the Arab-Israeli conflict has become a means of absolving guilt.” (Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism) “The heart of every _authentic_ response to the Holocaust ... is a commitment to the autonomy and security of the State of Israel.” (Emil Fackenheim, Holocaust theologian) “The guilt of Germany is the guilt of the West. The fall of Germany is the fall of the West. Not only six million Jews perished in the Holocaust. In it Western civilization lost its claim to dignity and respect.” (Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits, another Holocaust theologian) “It is clear that Christianity will not be able to overcome its legacy of guilt for the Holocaust without a major purging of its sources of Jew hatred ... The capacity for major development can come only from recognition that the Holocaust is an orientating event in Christian history.” (Rabbi Irving Greenberg, influential Holocaust promoter) “What is needed [in the US] is a kind of denazification.” (Noam Chomsky, left-wing Zionist) “In truth, Auschwitz signifies not only the failure of two thousand years of Christian civilization, but also the defeat of the intellect that wants to find a Meaning - with a capital M - in history.” (Elie Wiesel, professional survivor) “The vast majority of the Serbs are animated by a particularly virulent variant of the nationalism characteristic of Western civilization.” (Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, Harvard Holocaustologist) “The Holocaust is something different. It is a singular event. It is not simply one example of genocide but a nearly successful attempt on the life of God’s chosen children and, thus, on God himself.” (Abraham Foxman, ADL national director.) “The world is divided into two parts: those who actively participated with the Nazis and those who passively collaborated with them.” (Rabbi Shlomo Riskin) “Merging Holocaust Studies into Jewish Studies is the wrong approach. It simply sends the wrong message. That the Holocaust is the most traumatic event in the death and life of the Jewish people since the destruction of the Second Temple goes without saying. But study of the Holocaust is also to study the pathology of Western civilization and its flawed structures. It must not be hidden away by false bracketing of courses.” (Dr. Marcia Sachs Littell, director of the National Academy for Holocaust and Genocide Teacher Training) “Keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females, too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed - not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed.” (Noel Ignatiev, Jewish academic.) *** “We Christians need to get on our knees and repent our sins against the Jewish people. I mean the Jews of history: past, present, yes, future Jews too.” (Harry James Cargas, in his _A Christian Response to the Holocaust_ [Denver: Stonehenge Books, 1981], which is adorned by a preface by Elie Wiesel, who congratulates Cargas for his many insights. Cargas is a self-described “post-Auschwitz Catholic.”) “Jewish survivor Elie Wiesel told me in a television interview that ‘the sincere Christian knows that what died in Auschwitz was not the Jewish people but Christianity.’” (ibid) *** After a short explanation of how the tour [of the Tolerance Museum (aka “House of the Shoah”) in LA] would proceed, we were pointed toward two large doors. Above them, bright red neon signs designated one door “Not-Prejudiced,” the other, “Prejudiced.” On a nearby video, a rather sarcastic actor challenged the visitors to consider whether or not they were prejudiced. Then each of us was instructed to choose the door that matched our attitudes. As the already humbled mass ambled herd-like toward the “Prejudiced” portal, I opted to try the “Not-Prejudiced” door. It couldn’t be opened - it was fake. So began the brainwashing of yet another group of young Americans. The first part of the tour is an emotional barrage of film clips and still photos showing racial strife, riots, and suffering Third World children. There may have been a European-American pictured without a Ku Klux Klan robe, but if there was I missed it. At the Tolerance Museum 34
Posted by Rnl on Sat, 27 Jan 2007 23:45 | # A Holocaust Revisionist Critique of the Thinking of Deborah Lipstadt [...] VI. Deborah Lipstadt and Her Hypocritical Talk on Ethnic Intermarriage When asked by Lipstadt’s attorney Rampton about his views on interracial marriage, historian Irving stated: “I have precisely the same attitude about this as [Lipstadt] ... I believe in God keeping the races the way he built them.” In response, Lipstadt writes: “As soon as Irving said this, I began to pulsate with anger. This was not my view. I was deeply troubled by intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews because it threatened Jewish continuity. Color or ethnicity were entirely irrelevant to me.” She goes on to say that she was very disappointed that nothing was done to clarify her position on racial intermarriage at the trial, and that false ideas were floating around about her position on racial intermarriage. If ethnicity is truly entirely irrelevant to her, and Jewish continuity was her only concern, then we should expect that she would have adopted the following policy. It is acceptable for Jews to marry non-Jews of any color or ethnic group, as long as the non-Jewish partner adopts the Jewish religion and Jewish cultural customs. But she did not adopt this policy; she is flatly opposed to intermarriage - period. As the Jewish journalist Dan Gutenplan pointed out: “t was hard not to feel queasy listening to Rampton quiz Irving about his attitude to ‘intermarriage between the races’ - on behalf of [Lipstadt] who has written, ‘We [Lipstadt and her fellow Jews] know what we fight against: anti-Semitism and assimilation [of Jews and non-Jews], intermarriage [between Jews and non-Jews] and Israel-bashing.’” Furthermore, she may not be revealing how she really feels about intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews. As Jewish author Ellen Jaffe McClain pointed out in _Embracing the Stranger: Intermarriage and the Future of the American Jewish Community_, Lipstadt is simply flatly opposed to intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews: “Although people like Deborah Lipstadt, the Emory University professor who has written and lectured widely on Holocaust denial, have exhorted Jewish parents to just say no to intermarriage, much the way they expect their children not to take drugs, a large majority of parents (and more than a few rabbis) are unable to lay down opposition to intermarriage [between Jews and non-Jews] as a strict operating principle.” According to this, she is not just “deeply troubled” by intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews - she loathes it. There is even evidence within _History on Trial_ itself that suggests Lipstadt may be engaging in deceit when she claims that “ethnicity is entirely irrelevant to her.” On pp. 12-13, she implicitly condemns the policy of the former Soviet Union on the issue of the Holocaust, because of the USSR’s refusal to validate the concept of a “Jewish ethnicity” by identifying the victims of the Holocaust as Jews. In her own words: “To have identified the victims [of the Holocaust] as Jews would have validated the notion of ethnicity, a concept contrary to Marxist ideology.” So let’s get things straight. She implicitly condemns the Soviets for refusing to validate the concept of “Jewish ethnicity.” (The reader is encouraged to read pages 12 and 13 to see for himself that this is correct.) Yet, when it suits her ideological purposes to condemn David Irving and weasel her way out of her dilemma, on page 182, she claims that “ethnicity is entirely irrelevant to her.” There is more evidence that she is possibly being duplicitous when she claims that “color and ethnicity are entirely irrelevant to her.” Dr. Oren Yiftachel, an Israeli professor at Ben-Gurion University, pointed out that Israel is not a democracy in the sense in which it is currently understood in the West. Rather, it is an “ethnocracy” - a land controlled and allocated by ethnicity. In his own words: “The Israeli regime is ruled by and and for one ethnic group in a multi-ethnic reality. Factors that make Israel an “ethnocracy” include the facts that 1) immigration to the Jewish state is restricted to Jews only. Some 2.5 million displaced Palestinians who would like to return are not allowed to migrate to Israel; 2) military service is according to ethnicity; 3) economic control is based on race, religion, and ethnicity; 4) The country’s land regime entails transfer of land ownership in one direction, from Arab to Jewish control, but never back again.” If ethnicity is entirely irrelevant to her, then why does she passionately identify with apartheid Israel - a state that is based on the principle that the Jewish ethnic group is to be preserved for all time, and is to remain separate from and dominant over non-Jews within the state? Lipstadt may have made this statement - “color and ethnicity are entirely irrelevant to me” - to meet the propaganda needs of the moment. That is, to “refute” the allegation of David Irving and hide her strong feelings of Jewish racialism. Said claim does not appear to reflect her real feelings. 35
Posted by Rnl on Sun, 28 Jan 2007 00:24 | # “In Israel ... rabbinical law rules the personal status of Jewish citizens, with the result that no Jew can marry a non-Jew; marriages concluded abroad are recognized, but children of mixed marriages are legally bastards (children of Jewish parentage born out of wedlock are legitimate), and if one happens to have a non-Jewish mother he can neither be married nor buried…. There certainly was something breathtaking in the naivete with which the prosecution [in the Eichmann trial] denounced the infamous Nuremberg Laws of 1935, which had prohibited intermarriage and sexual intercourse between Jews and Germans. The better informed among the correspondents were well aware of the irony, but they did not mention it in their reports.” Hannah Arendt, _Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil_ (New York: Penguin, 1964), 7. 36
Posted by Uberdrek on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:34 | # it is interesting to read all the guilt manifested in these comments. come on “white boys” please stop whinning so much about the Jews. I would suspect that many of you are terribly frustrated by your circumstances, jesus the Jew would still love you, or give you a punch in the arm and say “you’re okay”. Why so much angst regarding the holocaust, why do you get so pissed off when you hear that Hitler did not like Jews? Now be honest guys. Many of you would have happily participated in the bloody partying of the S.S. Sorry, you can un-stretch your arms, ya, ya, that’s right, put em back down. Your personal reasons for hating Jews are yours, and of course they are personal. But maybe just maybe, instead of blaming all your ills on the Jews, maybe, quietly say thank you. Since we all know that their endeavours produce more jobs than any other ethnic group in America, and they produce all them bang, bang, boooooooom movies you all enjoy so much. Thank you for your time. You can now feel free to salute….zeig…. 37
Posted by Armor on Sun, 25 Oct 2009 16:40 | # Gollnish (answering questions from journalists): “existence of the gas chambers is for historians to discuss.” That is something he said in october 2004. Of course, it doesn’t mean that everything is right. Post a comment:
Next entry: Quorum Sensing in bacteria mirrors peaceful conquest behaviours
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) CommentsAl Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 02 May 2024 04:26. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 02 May 2024 03:35. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 02 May 2024 03:12. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 15:19. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:53. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 22:36. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:20. (View) |
Posted by Billy Joe Daniels on Fri, 19 Jan 2007 19:36 | #
Apparently at every historical age, organized Jewry has worked to establish its superior victimhood in the minds of the various peoples of the world. The good news is that the focus of hatred changes from time to time, and carelessness with Iranians may change the focus of their complaints in a very major way soon.
Don’t forget that Czarist Russia, the Romanians, and others in the past 150 years were subjected to the identical kinds of slander and libel that the German peoples are now subject to. It appears that organized Jewry doesn’t know how to stop this behavior, and doesn’t have a clue as to how loud and large it places its claims in the public square.
Nevertheless, here is an example from an academic Arab Muslim source about the havoc wrought by events in the 13th century, specifically the invasions of the Khwarazminian Turks and then the Mongols into Southwest Asia.
“If one day you are told that the earth has never known such calamity since God created Adam, do not hesitate to believe it, for such is the strict truth. Nebuchadnezzar’s massacre of the children of Israel and the destruction of Jerusalem are generally cited as among the most infamous tragedies of history. But these were as nothing compared to what has hppened now.”
These translated remarks come from “Perfect History” by one Ibn al-Athir, Arab Muslim historian from the 13th century.
See “The Crusades Through Arab Eyes,” Schocken Books, 1984.
The humorous thing about the quotation above is that the historian is obviously demeaning the dead Jewish children, and equally obviously relativizing the Jewish disasters with Nebuchadnezzer and with one of the destructions of Jerusalem. Clearly Ibn al-Athir would be found criminally guilty of the new proposed EU statute had one been in place.
Nevertheless the quotation is worth contemplating because somehow, even in Muslim strongholds, organized Jewry was able to dictate just whose tragedies were the worst and paradigmatic. In a way it is funny because it is the template for almost all their discourse with European-origin peoples, and it shows how they get their way in these historical contests for biggest sufferer.
Maybe next year they will be wailing about the new shiny glass surface of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Which is to say, when you pluck the whiskers of the tiger too often, one day your stories and fantasies and fictions may come true.