Majorityrights Central > Category: That Question Again

The prosecution asked for and has been rewarded with a five year sentence for Ernst Zundel, at the end of his trial in Mannheim on 14 counts of incitement.

Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel was sentenced to five years in prison by a German court Thursday.

It’s the maximum sentence the far-right activist could have received for his conviction on 14 counts of incitement. Denying the Holocaust is a crime in Germany.

The decision was cheered by Jewish groups including the Canadian Jewish Congress.

“I think that they’ve given a strong message ... to the world, that I believe will bring a tremendous amount of comfort to Holocaust survivors,” said Bernie Farber, chief executive officer of the CJC.

“I think a lot of us can take a very deep breath and move on to other things—other than thinking of Ernst Zundel anymore.”

... Prosecutor Andreas Grossmann suggested Zundel was a “political con man.”

“You might as well argue that the sun rises in the west,” Grossmann said. “But you cannot change that the Holocaust has been proven.”

One hoped with the early release of David Irving from his cell in Austria that the nadir has been reached.  Apparently not.  It is very sad.  I admire these brave men such as Zundel, Germar Rudolf, Robert Faurisson.  I do not know whether they are right in all they claim.  I do know that state oppression is a crude wheel on which to break these beautiful, difficult birds, and is to be rejected and resisted by all who call themselves decent and fair-minded men.

The global machinery of the Holocaust will probably not turn for long without some Don Quixote somewhere determining to drive a lance through the mill-race.  It will happen, eventually.

The following is a reply by me to Lawrence Auster, part of the on-going debate of Svi’s Inverted World post.

Lawrence,

You are painting yourself into a corner, and it is not one from which a principled argument for the survival of Western Civilisation can be prosecuted.

Let’s clear our lines.  You and I would not talk of saving Western Civ if its outlook was not dark and getting darker.  On this, then, we can agree.  The illness has many symptoms.  We don’t need to go into all of these now.  Some are of a nature that all genuine Conservatives - and you and I are both Conservatives - will immediately identify.  Some are of a nature that Conservatives might, given the current climate, be loathe to do so.  But I will come to the imposition of silence last of all.

You and I can also agree that Western Civilisation is the production of Western Man - to be precise, of European Caucasian Man.  You and I can agree that a demographic disaster for him, meaning the loss of homeland by race-replacement and deracination, is a civilisational disaster for the West.  Again, because we are both Conservatives we can agree that in a general sense the decay of liberalism, which sad condition includes such confections as Reaganite right-liberalism and neoconservatism, describes the possible political, sociological and demographic outcomes of our age.  Needless to say, these cannot be Conservative outcomes.

Perhaps, then, we can also agree that the West’s political, cultural and corporate elites are liberalism’s executive officers, and their collective, day-to-day actions steer the West down its course to disaster.

I am confident that you and I can also agree that Jewish-authored liberal philosophies, Jewish political activism, Jewish largesse are highly germaine to that course.  (I know you have written critically, and rather refreshingly, of these things.)

That order of play - liberalism <> the liberal elite <> the Jewish engagement - is fair, I think, and should tell you that “you people”, as you name us, possess a proper understanding of the West’s political and cultural woes.  The next time you leap to your conclusion and feel the irresistible impulse to shout about how obsessed with Jewry we are, please entertain the smallest of doubts somewhere in your skull that you may, in fact, be wrong.  You are wrong now.

Very well, let’s continue.  You famously profess your desire to preserve our civilisation.  But such preservation has certain unavoidable and, for you, uncomfortable implications.  Genetically diverse peoples occupying a single living space do not merely compete as free individuals.  They compete as groups, each informed by specific group interests.  You acknowledge as much in objecting to mass imigration.  Therefore you know that competition for resources, for land and, most of all, for power is an expression of those interests.  Life is Manichean, that’s the truth.  And I should stress that it is so for evolutionary reasons.  Group interests are natural ethnic interests.  They are not culturally-imbued, as Frank Salter has shown.  They come with the skin we are in.

Notwithstanding all the familiar hogwash fed daily to European Caucasians to negate our instincts and make us blind to one another we, too, are possessed of natural ethnic interests.  And so are Jews, and those unidirectional Jewish-authored liberal philosophies, Jewish political activism and Jewish largesse that I mentioned are transparent expressions of that.  One can see straight away from their divergent purpose that there is an unfathomably deep conflict with EC interests here.  It is a conflict that Jewry has been winning hands down since the end of WW2, and that is not without the most profound consequences for the fate of the European world.

Now we arrive at the first of two vital questions, Lawrence.  Can the creator peoples of Western Civ be pulled out of their liberal delusions sufficiently to save themselves and the Civ while their natural ethnic interests are denied them?  Your whole worldview argues a “Yes” to that question because you can’t quite bring yourself to resolve that conflict of interests in our favour.  That’s why I say you are painting yourself into a corner.  Because, of course, the correct answer is “No”.

And here’s the second seminal question: Can any Jew, a member of the most ethnocentric people on earth, ever deny his own ethnic interests and, for example, promote the European racial solidarity perquisite to saving the West?  I will believe it when I see it, and right now I am looking at you, Lawrence - at your many logical inconsistencies.

Now, I would very much like you to prove me wrong on that.  You can begin by putting aside the aggressive naming of us.  This is what the Jewish enemies of ECs always do when we show signs of reconnecting with our ethnic interests.  They silence us with a cold douche of vile words.  It’s very ugly.  And it’s not remotely in your interests, old man, if you are telling the world the truth on your website every day.

Regards,

GW

Here are the hotspots of a rather interesting, suitably fawning Telegraph article about the demographic crisis of Diasporic Jewry.

Is this the last generation of British Jews?

It is 350 years since Oliver Cromwell readmitted Jews to Britain, but a leading Israeli rabbi warns that Judaism here is now in imminent danger of extinction.

Leading figures from Britain’s Jewish community will join the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh this week at a glitzy ceremony at St James’s Palace to mark the 350th anniversary of Cromwell’s decision to allow Jews to return to these shores.

It is hard today to envisage British society without Jews. It is more than 100 years since Benjamin Disraeli became prime minister and there are Jews prominent in every profession and in every corner of British culture: from Lucian Freud, the artist, to Sacha Baron Cohen, the comedian; Harold Pinter, the playwright, to Harry Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice.

As the Government has conceded that it is time to reconsider the success of the multicultural experiment, Jews in Britain have provided the perfect example of an immigrant people able to retain their identity while playing a full part in society.  However, their very success in assimilating into British life now appears to be threatening their survival in this country.

Earlier this month, Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, the world’s leading Talmudic scholar, on a visit to Manchester from his home in Jerusalem, delivered an apocalyptic vision of Anglo-Jewry, warning that a once thriving community faces extinction.

“The Jewish community in England, as in other parts of Europe, is demographically unviable,” he said. “It is a dying community, without even counting assimilation. They say that in order to remain stable, a community needs to average 2.2 children. I don’t think this is the case in Anglo-Jewry. Whatever the figure, when you add the devastating devaluation of assimilation and intermarriage, it is becoming smaller all the time.”

And here’s the Rabbi’s Manchester speech reported - minus the salad dressing - in the Jewish Telegraph.  At the close are some brief but interesting observations on the native majority:-

READ MORE...

The London Review of Books held a greatly over-subscribed debate at the end of last month on the Walt & Mearsheimer paper.  Its title was “Israel Lobby: Too much influence on US foreign policy?”  It took place in the Great Hall of the Cooper Union. The panellists were Shlomo Ben-Ami, Martin Indyk, Tony Judt, Rashid Khalidi, John Mearsheimer and Dennis Ross, and the moderator was Anne-Marie Slaughter.

Click here to see the video.

While I was doing some quick research for a recent comment on another thread I came across this article by Nathan Abrams from the Winter 2004 issue of The Jewish Quarterly.  Many MR readers may know this anonymous piece at Heretical.com.  It’s something of a staple for the right on the vexing issue of Jews and pornography.  But unforced confession is so much more convincing than allegation, and TJQ’s piece - which I, for one, had not seen before - is not short of it.  For example:-

Is there a deeper reason, beyond the mere financial, as to why Jews in particular have become involved in porn? There is surely an element of rebellion in Jewish X-rated involvement. Its very taboo and forbidden nature serves to make it attractive. As I written in these pages before, treyf signifies ‘the whole world of forbidden sexuality, the sexuality of the goyim, and there all the delights are imagined to lie ...’ (‘Reel Kashrut: Jewish food in film’, JQ 189 [Spring 2003]).

According to one anonymous industry insider quoted by E. Michael Jones in the magazine Culture Wars (May 2003), ‘the leading male performers through the 1980s came from secular Jewish upbringings and the females from Roman Catholic day schools’. The standard porn scenario became as a result a Jewish fantasy of schtupping the Catholic shiksa.

Furthermore, as Orthodox Jew and porn gossipmonger Luke Ford explains on his website (lukeford.net): ‘Porn is just one expression of [the] rebellion against standards, against the disciplined life of obedience to Torah that marks a Jew living Judaism.’ It is also a revolt against (often middle-class) parents who wish their children to be lawyers, doctors and accountants. As performer Bobby Astyr put it on the same website, ‘It’s an “up yours” to the uncles with the pinky rings who got down on me as a kid for wanting to be musician.’

... Extending the subversive thesis, Jewish involvement in the X-rated industry can be seen as a proverbial two fingers to the entire WASP establishment in America. Some porn stars viewed themselves as frontline fighters in the spiritual battle between Christian America and secular humanism. According to Ford, Jewish X-rated actors often brag about their ‘joy in being anarchic, sexual gadflies to the puritanical beast’. Jewish involvement in porn, by this argument, is the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority: they are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion. Astyr remembers having ‘to run or fight for it in grammar school because I was a Jew. It could very well be that part of my porn career is an “up yours” to these people’. Al Goldstein, the publisher of Screw, said (on lukeford.net), ‘The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks. We don’t believe in authoritarianism.’ Pornography thus becomes a way of defiling Christian culture and, as it penetrates to the very heart of the American mainstream (and is no doubt consumed by those very same WASPs), its subversive character becomes more charged. Porn is no longer of the ‘what the Butler saw’ voyeuristic type; instead, it is driven to new extremes of portrayal that stretch the boundaries of the porn aesthetic. As new sexual positions are portrayed, the desire to shock (as well as entertain) seems clear.

It is a case of the traditional revolutionary/radical drive of immigrant Jews in America being channelled into sexual rather than leftist politics. Just as Jews have been disproportionately represented in radical movements over the years, so they are also disproportionately represented in the porn industry. Jews in America have been sexual revolutionaries. A large amount of the material on sexual liberation was written by Jews. Those at the forefront of the movement which forced America to adopt a more liberal view of sex were Jewish. Jews were also at the vanguard of the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Wilhelm Reich, Herbert Marcuse and Paul Goodman replaced Marx, Trotsky and Lenin as required revolutionary reading. Reich’s central preoccupations were work, love and sex, while Marcuse prophesied that a socialist utopia would free individuals to achieve sexual satisfaction. Goodman wrote of the ‘beautiful cultural consequences’ that would follow from legalizing pornography: it would ‘ennoble all our art’ and ‘humanize sexuality’.

The BBC reports this story without one word of the usual high-moral journalistic delinquency.  Apparently, there can be no charge of hate or racism ... none of the hard-edged Trot-speak that would be instantly spewed out if a politician of European descent were to make such an unequivocally plain and ethnocentric statement:-

Kadima was founded on the premise that Israel’s long-term survival depends on safeguarding its Jewish majority and preventing Palestinian Arabs becoming the majority at any time in the future.

Demography was the motivation for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s withdrawal of troops and settlers from the Gaza Strip last year and Kadima’s election pledge to make future “territorial compromises” in the West Bank.

... “In the coming period we will move to set the final borders of the state of Israel, a Jewish state with a Jewish majority,” Mr Olmert told Kadima supporters in a televised speech on election night.

He added: “We will try to achieve this in an agreement with the Palestinians ...  If not, Israel will take control of its own fate, and in consensus among our people and with the agreement of our friends in the world, especially US President George Bush, we will act.”

“The time has come to act,” he reiterated.  Indeed, the time probably has come already.

... Kadima is trying to set the tone for this by talking about the Jews’ “national and historic right to the Land of Israel in its entirety” (ie including all the occupied territories).

But its manifesto continues by asserting: “The balance between allowing Jews to fulfil their historic right ... and maintaining the continued existence of Israel as the national Jewish home necessitates territorial compromise”.

So this is the realist, “compromising” Sharonite party speaking - the one that, if it overcomes the resistance of last-ditch Likudniks, will be applauded by all the mainstream media and every race-replacing Western government.

My thanks go to Geoff for pointing me in the direction of this Guardian article.

Britain secretly supplied Israel with plutonium during the 1960s despite a warning from military intelligence that it could help the Israelis to develop a nuclear bomb, it was disclosed last night. The deal, made during Harold Wilson’s Labour government, is revealed in classified documents released under the Freedom of Information Act and obtained by BBC2’s Newsnight programme.

The documents also show how Britain made hundreds of shipments to Israel of material which could have helped in its nuclear weapons programme, including compounds of uranium, lithium, beryllium and tritium, as well as heavy water.

Israel asked Britain in 1966 to supply 10mg of plutonium. Israel would have required almost 5kg of plutonium to build an atomic bomb, but British defence intelligence officials warned that 10mg had “significant military value” and could enable the Jewish state to carry out important experimental work to speed up its nuclear weapons programme.

Documents show that the decision to sell plutonium to Israel in 1966 was blocked by officials in both the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office, who said: “It is HMG’s policy not to do anything which would assist Israel in the production of nuclear weapons.” But the deal was forced through by a Jewish civil servant, Michael Michaels, in Tony Benn’s Ministry of Technology, which was responsible for trade in nuclear material, according to Newsnight.

Peter Kelly, who was British defence intelligence’s expert on the Israeli nuclear weapons programme, knew Mr Michaels. He told Newsnight he believed Mr Michaels knew that Israel was trying to build an atomic bomb, but that he had dual loyalties to Britain and Israel.

Mr Benn told the programme that civil servants in his department kept the deals secret from him and his predecessor, Frank Cousins.

He had always suspected that civil servants were doing deals behind his back, but he never thought they would sell plutonium to Israel. He told Newsnight: “I’m not only surprised, I’m shocked. It never occurred to me they would authorise something so totally against the policy of the government.

“Michaels lied to me, I learned by bitter experience that the nuclear industry lied to me again and again.”

READ MORE...

David Irving, an impoverished 68-year old British historian who disputes the official version of World War Two and, within that, the Jewish narrative known as the Holocaust, has been jailed today for 3 years by

the inquisition

a court in Austria.  His crime consisted in refutational remarks made in speeches to Austrian nationalist groups in 1989 in Vienna and the southern town of Leoben.

I do not believe in the Great 1960’s Narrative either.  I consider myself free to weigh the evidence as I have gathered and understood it, imperfectly or otherwise, and to believe what I will.  I consider myself free to speak to my fellow Man about this, as any, belief.  I consider that any racial or elite group that removes this basic right of free speech from me and threatens incarceration if I disobey to be fundamentally evil.

Am I wrong?  What is your opinion?

UPDATE, 21.02.06

The Austrian prosecutor has reacted to Irving’s filing of an appeal by moving to appeal the sentence.

A spokesman for the prosecutor’s office said it had lodged an appeal to have the sentence increased.

Michael Klackl, the state prosecutor, said Irving was a serial “falsifier of history” and had been cast as a martyr for free speech by neo-Nazis who would not grant such rights if they were in power.

A new hearing is not likely before the second half of 2006.

Irving expressed his unfashionable opinions in Vienna and Leoben three years before the legislation under which he has now been prosecuted was even on Austria’s statute books.  At the time, then, he was not committing a crime in Austria.  It’s grim enough that this legislation is so repressive ... worse that it is retrospective.  But that it is also apparently the Law of Schadenfreud, whereby the wretched Irving can be tormented at will post-trial, is alien to all civilised standards.

I have never much interested myself in Irving’s colourful career.  Certainly, I never considered him a sympathetic figure, much less a martyr.  But that is what he will increasingly become to many observers shocked, like me, by the cold power of the state that has been employed against him.