Der Stürmer

The official blog of the site "Der Stürmer" – http://der-stuermer.org

Month: January, 2017

Adolf Hitler – Speech to the Reichstag – 30.01.1937

der-fuhrer-spricht-1

Berlin, January 30, 1937

Men! Deputies of the German Reichstag!

The Reichstag has been convened today, on an important day for the German Volk. Four years have passed since that moment marking the beginning of the great inner cataclysm and reorganization Germany has experienced, four years which I requested from the German Volk as a period of probation and judgment. What would be more logical than to use this occasion to recount in detail all the success and progress these four years have bestowed upon the German Volk? Within the framework of such a short rally it is not even possible to mention all those things which might well be regarded as the remarkable results of this perhaps most astounding epoch in the life of our Volk! That is a task more fitting for the press and propaganda. Moreover, there will be an exhibition this year in the Reich Capital of Berlin in which the attempt will be made to give a comprehensive and more detailed impression of what has been created, achieved and begun than I could possibly be capable of giving in a two-hour speech. Therefore, I wish to make use of today’s historic meeting of the German Reichstag in order to point out, in a retrospective on the past four years, a few of the generally valid insights, experiences and consequences which are important not only for us to understand, but also for posterity.

I can say it with a certain amount of pride: this was perhaps the first modern revolution in which not so much as a window pane was shattered. Yet I do not want to be misunderstood: if the course of this revolution was bloodless, it was not because we were not men enough to stand the sight of blood. For four years, I was a soldier in the bloodiest war of all time. I never once lost my nerve throughout, no matter what the situation or what I was confronted with. This also applies to my fellow workers. But we perceived the task of the National Socialist Revolution not as destroying human life or property but instead as building up a new and better life. It is our greatest source of pride that we carried out this-undoubtedly greatest-cataclysm in our Volk with a minimum of casualties and losses.

Only where the murderous lust of Bolshevism believed itself capable, even after January 30, 1933, of preventing the triumph or the realization of the National Socialist idea by force have we naturally countered with force- and have done so with the speed of lightning. Then again there were other elements.

We recognized their lack of restraint, coupled with the gravest lack of political education, and these we merely took into preventive custody, only to restore to them their liberty after a very short time, generally speaking.

And then again there were those few whose political activities served only as a cover for a criminal attitude evidenced in numerous sentences to prison or penal servitude; these we prevented from continuing their devastating work of destruction by urging them to take up a useful occupation, probably for the first time in their lives.

In the space of a few weeks, both the political residues and societal biases of the past thousand years in Germany had been cleared away and eliminated.

Germany and the German Volk have overcome several great catastrophes.

Naturally, there always had to be certain men-I will be the first to admit-who took the necessary steps and who saw these measures through despite the eternal pessimists and know-it-alls. True, an assembly of parliamentary cowards is most ill-suited to lead the Volk forth-away from destitution and despair!

My Deputies! When the German economy seemingly ground to a complete halt in the years 1932 and 1933, the following became more clear to me than in the preceding years: the salvation of our Volk is not a financial problem; it is exclusively a problem of utilizing and employing the available work force on the one hand and exploiting available soil and mineral resources on the other.

The Volksgemeinschaft does not subsist on the fictitious value of money but on actual production, which gives money its value. This production is the primary cover for a currency, not a bank or a vault full of gold! And when I increase this production, I am actually increasing the income of my fellow citizens; if I decrease production, I decrease income, regardless of what salaries are being paid out. [-] This concerted resolution of economic issues finds its greatest expression in the Four-Year Plan. It assures that once great numbers of German workers are released by the armament industry and re-enter the labor force, these workers shall find secure employment within our economy. [-] It is quite clear that neither strikes nor lockouts can be tolerated in a sphere where such views prevail. The National Socialist State does not recognize an economic law of the jungle. The common interest of the nation-i.e. of our Volk-has priority over the interests of all its competing components. Therefore we cannot allow that any means suited for utilization in our Volk’s training and education be exempted from this shared obligation.

The education of youth, Jungvolk, Hitler Youth, Labor Service, Party, Wehrmacht: all of them are institutions for training and educating our Volk.

Books, newspapers, lectures, art, theater, film: all are means for the education of the Volk (Volkserziehung). What the National Socialist Revolution has accomplished in these areas is astonishing and colossal. One need only think of the following: Today, our entire German system of education-including the press, theater, film, and literature-is run and organized exclusively by German Volksgenossen. How often were we told before that removing the Judentum from these institutions must result in their collapse or deterioration? And what has happened now? In all of these areas we are witnessing a tremendous flourishing of cultural and artistic life. Our films are better than ever before; the performances on the stages of our first-rate theaters are in a world class all their own. Our press has become a powerful instrument serving the selfassertion of our Volk and does its part in fortifying the nation. German science is doing successful work, and tremendous proofs of our creative architectural will shall one day bear witness to this new epoch! An incredible immunization of the German Volk has been achieved to all the infiltrating tendencies from which a different world is made to suffer. We now already take for granted several of our institutions that were not yet understood even a few years ago: Jungvolk, Hitler Youth, BDM, Frauenschaft, Labor Service, SA, SS, NSKK-and above all the Labor Front with its tremendous organization-are bricks in the proud structure of our Third Reich. This safeguarding of the internal life of our German Volk needed to be complemented by an external safeguard. And I believe that it is here, my Deputies and men of the German Reichstag, that the National Socialist uprising has achieved the most marvelous of its accomplishments! When, four years ago, I was entrusted with the chancellorship and with it the leadership of the nation, I assumed the bitter obligation to lead back to honor a people who had been compelled to live the life of an outcast among the other nations for fifteen years. The internal order of the German Volk provided me with the requirements for reestablishing the German Army, and these two circumstances likewise made it possible to throw off those shackles which had been felt to be the deepest mark of disgrace ever branded on a people.

In concluding this process today, I have but a few statements to make.

First: the restoration of German equality of rights was a process that concerned and involved Germany alone. In its course we neither deprived any other people of anything nor did harm to any other people.

Second: I hereby proclaim to you that, within the context of the restoration of German equality of rights, I shall divest the German Reichsbahn and the German Reichsbank of their prior character and place them completely under the sovereign control of the Government of the German Reich.

Third: I hereby declare that, by virtue thereof, the part of the Treaty of Versailles which deprived our Volk of equality of rights and degraded it to an inferior Volk has now been settled in the natural course of things.

Fourth: above all, I herewith most solemnly withdraw the German signature from that declaration extracted under duress at that time from a weak government against its own better judgment, that Germany was to blame for the war! My Deputies, Men of the German Reichstag! This restoration of the honor of our Volk-most clearly evidenced in an external sense in the introduction of conscription, in the institution of a new Luftwaffe, in the re-establishment of a German Navy, in the reoccupation of the Rhineland by our troops-was the most difficult and most daring task and accomplishment of my life.

Today I must bow down in thanks to Providence, whose mercy has enabled me, once an unknown soldier in the World War, to thus help our Volk to win the battle for the restoration of its honor and uprightness! Unfortunately, not all the necessary measures in this context could be accomplished by way of negotiations. Be that as it may: a Volk cannot attain its honor by negotiating; it must seize its honor-just as its honor cannot be negotiated away, but only taken away!

That I took the required action without consulting our former opponents on each point or even informing them, was also due to the knowledge that I had thus made it easier for the other side to accept our decisions, as they would have had to at any rate. Allow me also to add yet another statement, namely, that the period of so-called surprises has now come to an end. As a state with equal rights, conscious of its role in Europe, Germany will cooperate loyally in the future to settle the problems which are a cause for concern to us and to the other nations.

When I now proceed to take a stand on all these basic questions of the present, it is perhaps most feasible to do so along the lines of the remarks Mr. Eden made recently in the English House of Commons.

In essence, they contain all there is to say on the relationship between Germany and France. Here I would like to express my genuine thanks for the opportunity of replying which was offered to me in the both frank and remarkable comments of the honorable British Foreign Secretary.

I have read these comments carefully and, I believe, correctly. Naturally I do not wish to become absorbed in details; instead I would like to try to extract the major points from Mr. Eden’s speech and, for my part, clarify and respond to them.

Initially, I will attempt to put right what appears to me to be a quite regrettable error. Namely, the error that Germany has any intention whatsoever of isolating itself, of passing over the events in the rest of the world with indifference, or that Germany had no desire to show any consideration for general exigencies.

What grounds are there for the view that Germany is adhering to a policy of isolation? If the assumption as to Germany’s isolation is concluded from what are alleged to be Germany’s intentions, I would like to note the following: I do not believe that a state could ever intend to consciously take a politically disinterested stand on events in the rest of the world. Particularly not if this world is as small as modern-day Europe. I believe that, if a state is in fact forced to take refuge in such an attitude, then only by virtue of being compelled to do so by an alien will imposed upon it. I would like to assure Foreign Secretary Eden here that we Germans do not in the least want to be isolated and by no means feel isolated.

In the past few years, there have been quite a few political ties which Germany has entered into, re-established, improved and, in the case of a number of states I might even say it has set up close and amicable relations. From our perspective, our relations in Europe are normal to most states, and very friendly to quite a few. At the top of this list I might cite the excellent relations binding us with all those states which have, as a result of hardship similar to our own, arrived at similar conclusions.

By virtue of a series of treaties, we have resolved former tensions and thereby made a substantial contribution to improving European conditions.

You will recall for example our agreement with Poland which proved advantageous for both states; our agreement with Austria; our excellent and close relations with Italy; our amicable relations with Hungary, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Greece, Portugal, Spain, etc.-and last but not least, our no less friendly relations with quite a number of states outside of Europe.

The agreement Germany concluded with Japan for the purpose of combating the Comintern Movement is graphic proof of how little interest the German Government has in isolating itself and how little it thus does in fact feel isolated.

Moreover, I have expressed more than once the desire and the hope of being able to arrive at equally good and friendly terms with all our neighbors.

Germany-and I solemnly reiterate this here and now-has repeatedly declared that there can be no humanly conceivable contentious issues whatsoever between itself and France, to cite an example. The German Government has moreover assured Belgium and Holland that it is prepared to recognize and guarantee these states at any time as inviolable neutral territories.

In the light of all the declarations formerly given by us and the actual state of affairs, I am somewhat at a loss to comprehend why Germany should feel itself isolated or even adhere to a policy of isolation.

I do, however, fear that I must interpret Mr. Eden’s words as meaning that he regards the implementation of the German Four-Year Plan as one element of Germany’s refusal to partake in international relations. Therefore, I wish to leave no doubt whatsoever that the decision to implement this Plan is not subject to any review. The reasons which led us to arrive at this decision were cogent ones. And I have been unable to detect any recent development which might have moved us to refrain in any way from implementing this decision.

Germany has a tremendous number of people who wish not only to work, but also to eat. In other respects as well, our Volk has a high standard of living.

I cannot build the future of the German nation on the promises a foreign statesman gives of providing some kind of international aid; I can build it only on the real foundation of a functioning industry whose products I must sell either at home or abroad! And this is perhaps where I, in my mistrust, differ from the optimistic remarks of the British Foreign Secretary.

If in fact Europe does not awaken from the fever of its Bolshevist infections, I fear that, despite the good intentions of individual statesmen, international trade will not increase, but ultimately decrease. That is because this trade is built not only upon the uninterrupted and thus secured production on the part of one specific nation, but on the production of all nations. Initially, however, one thing is certain: every single Bolshevist disruption will of necessity lead to a more or less lengthy disruption in orderly production. Therefore, I am not able to view the economic future of Europe as optimistically as Mr. Eden apparently believes he can. I am the responsible leader of the German Volk and must look after its interests in this world to the best of my knowledge and belief. Hence I am also under an obligation to assess the situation in accordance with what I believe I can perceive with my own eyes.

The history of my Volk would never acquit me were I to omit-for any reason whatsoever-doing something which is imperative for the preservation of this Volk. I am glad, as are we all, of any increase in our foreign trade. However, in view of the unresolved political situation, I shall not fail to do anything which might serve to guarantee to the German Volk its existence even after other states have succumbed to the Bolshevist infection. Furthermore, I must object when this view is dismissed as being but the product of a feeble imagination. For right now there is no doubt about the following: the honorable British Foreign Secretary is showing us theoretical perspectives on life, while in reality, for one, completely different events are taking place. The revolutionizing of Spain, for example, drove fifteen thousand Germans out of that country and did severe damage to our trade.

If the revolutionizing of Spain were to spread to other European states, the damage would increase, not decrease. If, however-this I must also investigate-the reason behind the opinion that Germany is adhering to a policy of isolation might lie in our withdrawal from the League of Nations, I would like to point out that the Geneva League was never truly a league of all the nations; a number of major nations either never belonged to it in the first place or had withdrawn even before we did, whereas no one claimed they were adhering to a policy of isolation. Therefore I believe Mr. Eden has evidently misunderstood German intentions and our own views on this issue.

For nothing is further from our minds than severing either our political or our economic relations with the other world or even to diminish them. On the contrary, the opposite is more to the point.

I have so often attempted to make a contribution to understanding in Europe, and have quite often assured particularly the English people and its government how very much we desire to cooperate and be on sincere and friendly terms with them. And I mean all of us, the entire German Volk, and last but not least myself! Yet I do admit there does exist a real and, as I see it, unbridgeable difference between the views of the British Foreign Secretary and our own on one issue. Mr. Eden emphasizes that under no circumstances does the British Government wish to see Europe torn in two halves. It is unfortunate that this desire was not expressed and heard earlier. Today this desire is nothing but an illusion.

For sadly the fracture not only of Europe, but of the entire world into two halves is now an accomplished fact. It is regrettable that the British Government did not take the position it does today-that the fracturing of Europe needs to be avoided under all circumstances-at an earlier point, for then the Treaty of Versailles never would have come about. It was in fact that Treaty which introduced the first fracture to Europe, namely, the division into victorious nations on the one hand and vanquished nations, without rights, on the other.

No one suffered from this fracturing of Europe more than the German people. That this rupture was repaired, at least as far as concerns Germany, is essentially the achievement of the National Socialist Revolution in Germany and thus, to a certain extent, probably mine as well! The second fracture arose as a result of the proclamation of the Bolshevist doctrine, one of whose integral components is that it does not confine itself to a single people but aims to be forced upon all peoples.

At issue here is not a special form of life indigenous to, let us say, the Russian people; rather, it is the Bolshevist goal of world revolution. The fact that the honorable Foreign Secretary Eden refuses to see Bolshevism as we see it is perhaps related to Great Britain’s location, perhaps to other experiences of which we have no knowledge. I do, however, hold that, because we speak of these things not as theoreticians, one cannot accuse us of being insincere in our conviction.

For Mr. Eden, Bolshevism is perhaps something sitting in Moscow; for us, however, Bolshevism is a plague against which we have been forced to defend ourselves in a bloody fight; a plague that has attempted to make of our country the same desert it has made of Spain, that had begun the same shooting of hostages we are now witnessing in Spain! National Socialism did not seek contact with Bolshevism in Russia; rather, the Jewish international Muscovite Bolshevism attempted to penetrate Germany! And it is still attempting to do so today! And we have fought a difficult battle against this attempt, upholding and thus defending not only the culture of our Volk, but perhaps that of Europe as a whole in the process.

If in those days in January and February 1933 Germany had lost the last decisive battle against this barbarity, and if the Bolshevist expanse of rubble and corpses had spread to encompass Central Europe, perhaps one might have reached other conclusions on the Thames as regards the character of this, the most horrendous menace to mankind.

Since England must be defended at the Rhine in any case,28 it would now already be in the closest proximity to that harmless democratic Muscovite world whose innocuousness is so constantly and ardently hammered home to us.

Thus I would like once more to formally state the following: Bolshevism is a doctrine of world revolution, i.e. of world destruction. To adopt this doctrine, to accord it equal rights as a factor in European life, is tantamount to placing Europe at its mercy. If other peoples choose to expose themselves to contact with this menace, Germany has nothing to say on the matter.

However, as far as Germany itself is concerned, I would like to leave no doubt that we 1. perceive in Bolshevism an intolerable world menace; and 2. that we are using every means at our disposal to keep this menace away from our Volk; 3. that we are thus endeavoring to make the German Volk as immune to this infection as possible.

This also entails that we avoid any close contact with the carriers of these poisonous germs and that we are specifically not prepared to dull the German Volk’s sense of perception for this menace by ourselves establishing connections more extensive than the requisite diplomatic or economic relations.

I hold the Bolshevist doctrine to be the worst poison which can be administered to a people. I therefore do not want my own people to come into contact with this doctrine in any way. And as a citizen of this Volk myself, I will not do anything I would be forced to condemn in my fellow citizens. I demand from every German worker that he refrain from having any relations or dealings with these international pests, and for his part he will never see me quaffing or carousing with them. In other respects, every additional German contractual tie with the present Bolshevist Russia would be completely useless to us. It would be equally inconceivable for National Socialist German soldiers to ever need fulfill a helpmate function in protecting Bolshevism; nor would we on our side accept any aid from a Bolshevist state. For I fear that every Volk which reaches out for such aid will find it to be its own demise.

I must also take a stand here against the view that the League of Nations might lend its support as such if needed and actually save the individual member states by virtue of its assistance. No, I cannot believe that. Foreign Secretary Eden stated recently that actions speak louder than words. I would, however, like to point out that the outstanding feature of the League of Nations to date has been not actions, but words-with the exception of a single case in which it perhaps would have been better to have been content with words only.29 Moreover, in that one instance-as could be expected-the actions were not able to achieve the desired effect.

Mr. Eden holds that, in the future, every state should possess only those arms which are necessary for its defense. I do not know whether and in what form Moscow has been approached with respect to putting this interesting thought into practice, and to what extent promises have already been made from that quarter.

There is, however, one thing I must say: there is no doubt that the amount of the arms required for defense depends upon the amount of the dangers which threaten a country. This is something which each Volk-and each Volk alone- is competent to judge. Thus if Great Britain establishes the limits of its arms today, everyone in Germany will understand this; the only way we can see it is that London alone is competent to decide on the proportions of the protection required by the British Empire. At the same time, however, I would also like to stress that the proportions of the protection and hence defensive arms required by our Volk comprise a matter which falls under our own competence and thus is to be decided exclusively in Berlin.

The attempt has been made to construe a connection between German sympathy for national Spain and some sort of colonial designs. Germany has no colonial claims against countries which have not taken colonies from it. In addition, Germany has suffered so greatly from the Bolshevist plight that it will not exploit this plight and rob another unhappy people in its hour of need or extract from it some future gain by force.

The German Volk once built up a colonial empire without robbing anyone and without violating any treaties. And it did so without waging war. That colonial empire has been taken away from us. The reasons being brought forth today to rationalize that action are not tenable.

First: “The natives do not want to belong to Germany.” Who asked them if they wanted to belong to someone else; and when have colonized peoples ever been asked whether they harbored good will and affection for their former colonial masters? Second: “The German colonies were not even properly administered by the Germans.” Germany had only gained these colonies a few decades before. Great sacrifices went into their expansion, and they were in the midst of an evolution which would have led to completely different results today than, for instance, in 1914. Yet we had nonetheless developed the colonies to such an extent that others considered them worth waging bloody battles with us to wrench them from our possession.

Third, it is claimed, “Those colonies had no real value.” Were this the case, this lack of value would also apply to other states, and hence it makes no sense that they are depriving us of them at all. Moreover, Germany has never demanded colonies for military purposes, but exclusively for economic ones.

It is obvious that the value of a certain territory may decrease in times of general prosperity; it is, however, just as obvious that such an assessment will undergo an immediate revision in times of distress. And today Germany is living in times of a difficult struggle for foodstuffs and raw materials. Sufficient imports are only conceivable given a steady and continuous increase in our exports. Thus the demand for colonies in a country as densely populated as our own will naturally be put forward again and again.

In concluding these remarks, I would like to take a stand on a document the British Government sent to the German Government on the occasion of the occupation of the Rhineland.

At the outset I would like to establish that we hold and are convinced that the English Government did everything in its power at that time to avoid an escalation of the European crisis, and that the document in question owes its existence to the desire to make a contribution toward untangling the situation at the time. It was nonetheless impossible for the German Government to provide an answer to these questions for reasons the Government of Great Britain will certainly appreciate.

We have chosen instead to settle some of these questions the most natural way of all in the practical handling of our relations with our neighboring states, and now that full German sovereignty and equality of rights have been restored, I would like to state conclusively that Germany will never again sign a treaty which is in any way irreconcilable with its honor, with the honor of the nation and the government representing it, or which is otherwise irreconcilable with Germany’s vital interests and thus cannot be upheld for any length of time.33 I do believe that this declaration will be easily comprehended by everyone.

The great tasks which have been commenced beyond this [the Four-Year Plan] shall be continued. Their goal will be to make the German Volk healthier and its life more comfortable. As external evidence of this great epoch of the resurrection of our Volk shall now stand the methodical expansion of several of the Reich’s major cities. Enhancing Berlin to become a true and genuine capital of the German Reich is the first priority. Therefore today-just as this is done for our road-building-I have appointed a General Building Inspector for Berlin who will be responsible for the structural enhancement of the Reich Capital and shall ensure that, despite the chaos of Berlin’s constructional development, the strong lines will be retained which do justice to the spirit of the National Socialist Movement and the individuality of the German Reich Capital. A period of twenty years has been allotted for the implementation of this plan.

May the Almighty God grant us the peace to be able to accomplish this tremendous task. Parallel to it there will be a large-scale enhancement of the Capital of the Movement, the City of the Reich Party Congresses and the City of Hamburg.

This, however, shall serve merely as a model for the general cultural evolution to which we aspire as the crowning glory of the internal and external freedom of the German Volk.

And finally, it shall be a task of the future to guarantee, in a constitution, for all time to come the true life of our Volk as it has now taken shape in the form of a state, and thus to elevate that life to become the immortal basic law for all Germans.

When I look back upon the great work of the four years lying behind us, you will understand that my initial feeling can be none other than that of gratitude to our Almighty God who allowed us to accomplish this work.

He blessed our work and enabled our Volk to stride unscathed and confident through all the perils lining its path.

I have had three unusual friends in my life: in my youth Poverty was my companion for many years. When the Great War came to a close, it was the deepest Regret at the collapse of our Volk that overcame me and prescribed my path. Since that January 30 four years ago I have met my third friend, Concern. Concern for the Volk and Reich entrusted to my leadership. It has never left me since, and will probably accompany me now until I am no more.

Yet how could a man be capable of bearing up under the weight of this concern if he did not, faithfully trusting in his mission, have the consent of Him who stands above us all? It is Fate with special tasks that so often compels men to he alone and forlorn. I also wish to thank Providence here and now that it enabled me to find a company of the most loyal fellow fighters who have linked their lives to mine and who have been at my side ever since, fighting with me for the resurrection of our Volk. I am so happy that I need not stride through the German Volk as a lonely man, but that beside me there are men comprising a guard whose name will live on in German history.

At this time I would like to thank my old comrades in arms who stood by me untiringly throughout these long, long years, and who are now giving me their help, either as Ministers, as Reichsstatthalters, as Gauleiters, or in other positions within the Party and the State. At present, there are fateful events taking place in Moscow which really reveal to us how highly that loyalty which binds leading men deserves to be valued.35 I would further like to extend my sincere thanks to those who, although they have not issued from the ranks of the Party, have come in the course of these years to constitute true helpers and companions in the leadership of the Reich Government and in the rest of the Volk. Today they all belong to us, though this very minute they may not yet have the symbol of our community.

I would like to thank the men and women who built up our Party organization and have so successfully headed it. Yet above all I must take this opportunity to thank the leaders of our Wehrmacht. They have made it possible to present the National Socialist weapon to the National Socialist State without any disturbance. Thus today the Party and the Wehrmacht constitute the two eternally-sworn guarantors of the assertion of our Volk’s life. We are also aware that all our deeds would have been in vain had not hundreds of thousands of Political Leaders, countless civil servants of the Reich and innumerable soldiers and officers stood by us loyally in the spirit of our uprising. And beyond that-had not the broad front of the entire German Volk stood behind us.

On this historic day, I must once again mention those millions of nameless German people who, from every walk of life, from every profession and factory and from every farm, have given of their heart and their love and their sacrifices for the new Reich. And we, too, Men and Deputies of the Reichstag, wish to join together to thank above all the German women, the millions of our mothers who have given the Third Reich their children. For what would be the sense in all our work, what would be the sense in the uprising of the German nation without our German youth? Every mother who has given our Volk a child in these four years has contributed, by her pain and her happiness, to the happiness of the entire nation. When I think of our Volk’s healthy youth, my faith in our future becomes transformed into joyful certainty. And I sense with heartfelt fervency the significance of that single word Ulrich von Hutten wrote before he set aside his quill for the last time:

Deutschland!

Advertisements

Famous People about Jews

Part III


JEFFERSON, THOMAS. 18th century American statesman: “Dispersed as the Jews are, they still form one nation, foreign to the land they live in.” (D. Boorstin, THE AMERICANS)


BEAMISH, HENRY H. 20th century British publisher: “There is no need to be delicate on this Jewish question. You must face them in this country. The Jew should be satisfied here. I was here forty-seven years ago; your doors were thrown open and you were then free. Now he has got you absolutely by the throat – that is their reward. ” (New York speech, October 30, 1937)


HARRINGTON, LORD. 19th century British statesman. Opposed admission of Jewish immigrants to England because: “They are the great moneylenders and loan contractors of the world… The consequence is that the nations of the world are groaning under heavy systems of taxation and national debt. They have ever been the greatest enemies of freedom. (Speech in the House of Lords, July 12, 1858)


CHURCHILL, WINSTON. 20th century British politician. In 1920, he wrote a long newspaper article of the recent Bolshevik seizure of Russia. After praising what he called the “national Jews” of Russia, he said: “In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish efforts rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxemburg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide revolutionary conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster has ably shown, a definite recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworlds of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of the enormous empire.

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creating of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistic Jews. It is certainly the very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders… In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astounding. And the prominent if not the principal part in the system of terrorism applied by the extraordinary Commissions for combating Counter Revolution has been take by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many nonJews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing. (“Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People.” ILLUSTRATED SUNDAY HERALD, London, February 8, 1920.)


WILHELM II. German Kaiser: “A Jew cannot be a true patriot. He is something different, like a bad insect. He must be kept apart, out of a place where he can do mischief – even by pogroms, if necessary. The Jews are responsible for Bolshevism in Russia, and Germany too. I was far too indulgent with them during my reign, and I bitterly regret the favors I showed the prominent Jewish bankers.” (CHICAGO TRIBUNE, July 2, 1922)


TWAIN, MARK (S. L. Clemens). 19th century American writer: “In the U.S. cotton states, after the war… the Jew came down in force, set up shop on the plantation, supplied all the Negroes’ wants on credit, and at the end of the season was the proprietor of the Negro’s share of the present crop and part of the next one. Before long, the whites detested the Jew.

The Jew is being legislated out of Russia. The reason is not concealed. The movement was instituted because the Christian peasant stood no chance against his commercial abilities. The Jew was always ready to lend on a crop. When settlement day came, he owned the crop; the next year he owned the farm – like Joseph.

In the England of John’s time everybody got into debt to the Jew. He gathered all lucrative enterprises into his hands. He was the King of Commerce. He had to be banished from the realm. For like reasons, Spain had to banish him 400 years ago, and Austria a couple of centuries later.

In all ages Christian Europe has been obliged to curtail his activities. If he entered upon a trade, the Christian had to retire from it. If he set up as a doctor, he took the business. If he exploited agriculture, the other farmers had to get at something else. The law had to step in to save the Christian from the poor-house. Still, almost bereft of employments, he found ways to make money. Even to get rich. This history has a most sordid and practical commercial look. Religious prejudices may account for one part of it, bit not for the other nine.

Protestants have persecuted Catholics – but they did not take their livelihoods away from them. Catholics have persecuted Protestants – bit they never closed agriculture and the handicrafts against them. I feel convinced that the Crucifixion has not much to do with the world’s attitude toward the Jew; that the reasons for it are much older than that event …

I am convinced that the persecution of the Jew is not in any large degree due to religious prejudice. No, the Jew is a money-getter. He made it the end and aim of his life. He was at it in Rome. He has been at it ever since. His success has made the whole human race his enemy.

You will say that the Jew is everywhere numerically feeble. When I read in the Cyclopedia Britannica that the Jewish population in the United States was 250,000 I wrote the editor and explained to him that I was personally acquainted with more Jews than that, and that his figures were without doubt a misprint for 25,000,000. People told me that they had reasons to suspect that for business reasons, many Jews did not report themselves as Jews. It looks plausible. I am strongly of the opinion that we have an immense Jewish population in America. I am assured by men competent to speak that the Jews are exceedingly active in politics. (“Concerning the Jews,” Harper’s Monthly Magazine, September 1899)

Twain’s opinion on the Jews is probably the best-kept secret in American literary history. Immediately after his death, his eccentric daughter Clara married – or was married by – the Jewish piano player, Ossip Galbrilowitsch. Twain’s publishers were given speedy instructions to delete “Concerning the Jews” from the collected works, where it had appeared in the book The Man that Corrupted Hadleybury & Other Stories. (1) Since Jews provided most of the agitators and orators who pushed forward the Abolition campaign that culminated in the Civil War (which Jewish bankers largely financed, on both sides), it seems a legitimate question whether there was any preplanning for the wholesale – and retail – economic looting done by mainly Jewish carpetbaggers after the war. (2) We have cited a host of other writers on the terrible economic depredation that Jewry visited on the people of Tzarist Russia.


SHAW, GEORGE BERNARD. 20th century British dramatist: “This is the real enemy, the invader from the East, the Druze, the ruffian, the oriental parasite; in a word: the Jew. (London Morning Post, December 3, 1925)


WAGNER, RICHARD. 19th century German composer: “The Jew has never had an art of his own, hence never a live of art-enabling import… “So long as the separate art of music had a real organic life-need in it, down to the epochs of Mozart and Beethoven, there was nowhere to be found a Jew composer: it was utterly impossible for an element quiet foreign to that living organism to take a part in the formative stages of that life. Only when a body’s inner death is manifest, do outside elements win the power of judgment in it – yet merely to destroy it.

On one thing am I clear: that is the influence which the Jews have gained upon our mental life, as displayed in the deflection and falsification of our highest culture-tendencies. Whether the downfall of our culture can be arrested by a violent rejection of the destructive alien element, I an unable to decide, since that would require forces with whose existence I am unacquainted. (Judaism in Music)


FITZGERALD, F. SCOTT. 20th century American novelist: “Down a tall busy street he read a dozen Jewish names on a line of stores; in the door of each stood a dark little man watching the passers from intent eyes – eyes gleaming with suspicion, with pride, with clarity, with cupidity, with comprehension. New York – he could not dissociate it from the slow, upward creep of this people – the little stores, growing, expanding, consolidating, moving, watched over with hawks’ eyes and a bee’s attention to detail – they [were Jews.]


EMERSON, RALPH WALDO. 19th century American philosopher, poet: “The sufferance which is the badge of the Jew has made him, in these days, the ruler of the rulers of the earth”. (Fate an essay)


BURTON, SIR RICHARD FRANCIS. 19th century British diplomat, writer. After a sting as consul at Damascus, Syria, where some years before, a Catholic priest was allegedly murdered in a blood ritual by Jews, Burton took an interest in the matter. His investigations satisfied him that such killings actually were performed by certain sects of Jews.: “The Jew’s hand was ever, like Ishmael’s, against every man but those belonging to the Synagogue. His fierce passions and fiendish cunning, combined with abnormal powers of intellect, with intense vitality, and with a persistency of purpose which the world has rarely seen, and whetted moreover by a keen thirst for blood engendered by defeat and subjection, combined to make him the deadly enemy of all mankind, whilst his unsocial and iniquitous Oral Law contributed to inflame his wild lust of pelf, and to justify the crimes suggested by spite and superstition.”


DREISER, THEODORE. 20th century American writer: “New York to me is a scream – a Kike’s dream of a ghetto. The Lost Tribe has taken the island. (Letter to H. L. Mencken, November 5, 1922)”


HERDER, JOHANN GOTTFRIED. 18th century German philosopher: “The Jewish people is and remains in Europe an Asiatic people alien to our part of the world, bound to that old law which it received in a distant climate, and which, according to its confession, it cannot do away with…How many of this alien people can be tolerated without injury to the true citizen?

A ministry in which a Jew is supreme, a household in which a Jew has the key of the wardrobe and the management of the finances, a department or commissariat in which Jews do the principal business, are Pontine marshes which cannot be drained. (Bekehrung der Juden)

For thousands of years, since their emergence on the stage of history, the Jews were a parasitic growth on the stem of other nations, a race of cunning brokers all over the earth. They have cause great evil to many ill-organized states, by retarding the free and natural economic development of their indigenous population. (“Hebraer,” in Ideen)


BONAPARTE, NAPOLEON. French statesman, general: “The Jews provided troops for my campaign in Poland, but they ought to reimburse me: I soon found that they are no good for anything but selling old clothes…”

“Legislating must be put in effect everywhere that the general well-being is in danger. The government cannot look with indifference on the way a despicable nation takes possession of all the provinces of France. The Jews are the master robbers of the modern age; they are the carrion birds of humanity… “They must be treated with political justice, not with civil justice. They are surely not real citizens.”

“The Jews have practiced usury since the time of Moses, and oppressed the other peoples. Meanwhile, the Christians were only rarely usurers, falling into disgrace when they did so. We ought to ban the Jews from commerce because they abuse it… The evils of the Jews do not stem from individuals but from the fundamental nature of this people.” (From Napoleon’s Reflections, and from speeches before the Council of State on April 30 and May 7, 1806.)


FRANCO, FRANCISCO. 20th century Spanish statesman. In his victory speech in Madrid, on May 19, 1939, he declared: “Let us be under no illusion. The Jewish spirit, which was responsible for the alliance of large-scale capital with Marxism and was the driving force behind so many anti-Spanish revolutionary agreements, will not be got rid of in a day.”


HENRY WALLACE, Secretary of Commerce, under President Harry Truman, wrote in his dairy that in 1946: “Truman was “exasperated” over Jewish pressure that he supports Zionist rule over Palestine. Wallace added “Pres. Truman expressed himself as being very much ‘put out’ with the Jews. He said that ‘Jesus Christ couldn’t please them when he was here on Earth, so how could anyone expect that I would have any luck?’ Pres. Truman said he hand no use for them and didn’t care what happened to them.”


HENRY ADAMS (Descendant of President John Adams), in a letter to John Hay, October 1895: “The Jewish question is really the most serious of our problems.”

The Shocking Jewish Role in Slavery Part I: What Jewish Historians Say

Dr. David Duke exposes the Jewish role in the African and global slave trade.

Caricatures from “Der Stürmer” – translated in English and colourized!

The Year 1940 – Part 10

09-sept-1940-13

09-sept-1940-14

10-oct-1940-01

10-oct-1940-02

10-oct-1940-03

10-oct-1940-04

10-oct-1940-05

10-oct-1940-06

10-oct-1940-07

10-oct-1940-08

Sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff

by Dr. William Pierce

What’s said to be the most expensive motion picture ever made was released a few weeks ago and has been earning record money at the box office. The film, of course, is Titanic, and it’s about the sinking of the ocean liner S.S. Titanic on April 15, 1912, with the loss of 1,513 lives, after the ship struck an iceberg in the North Atlantic.

There are many superlatives in the film. The Titanic was the largest ship ever built at the time. It also was the most luxurious ship, intended to provide high-speed trans-Atlantic transportation in comfort for the rich and pampered. The implication of the film is that the sinking of the Titanic is the greatest maritime disaster of all time. I’m sure that the great majority of the American public believes that to be the case, but it isn’t. Everyone has heard about the sinking of the Titanic, and very few have heard about the sinking of the S.S. Wilhelm Gustloff, which was the greatest maritime disaster.

It is easy to understand why everyone has heard about the Titanic: it was a very big, very expensive ship, claimed to be virtually „unsinkable,“ which went down on its maiden voyage with a record number of celebrities and tycoons aboard. The irony of the sinking helped generate public interest and an enormous media coverage. When the Wilhelm Gustloff went down, on the other hand, with the loss of more than 7 000 lives, the controlled media adopted the deliberate policy that it was a non-event, not to be commented on or even reported. The Wilhelm Gustloff, like the Titanic, was a big passenger liner and was reasonably new and luxurious. But it was a German passenger liner. It was sunk in the Baltic Sea on the night of January 30, 1945, by a Soviet submarine. It was packed with nearly 8 000 Germans, most of them women and children escaping from the advancing Soviet Army.

Many of these German refugees lived in East Prussia, a part of Germany that the Communist and democratic Allies had agreed would be taken from Germany and given to the Soviet Union at the end of the Second World War. Others lived in Danzig and the surrounding area, which the democrats and Communists had decided would be taken from Germany and given to Poland. All of these refugees were fleeing in terror from the Reds, who already had demonstrated in East Prussia what was in store for any German unfortunate enough to fall into their hands.

As Soviet military units overtook columns of German civilian refugees fleeing to the west, they behaved in a way which has not been seen in Europe since the Mongol invasions of the Middle Ages. Often the men, most of them farmers or Germans who had been engaged in other essential occupations and thus exempted from military service, were simply murdered on the spot. The women were, almost without exception, gang-raped. This was the fate of girls as young as eight years old and old women in their eighties, as well as women in the advanced stages of pregnancy. Women who resisted rape had their throats cut or were shot. Very often women were murdered after being gang-raped. Many women and girls were raped so often and so brutally that they died from this abuse alone.

Sometimes Soviet tank columns simply rolled right over the fleeing refugees, grinding them into the mud with their tank treads. When Soviet Army units occupied East Prussian villages, they engaged in orgies of torture, rape, and murder so bestial that they cannot be described fully on this program. Sometimes they castrated the men and boys before killing them. Sometimes they gouged their eyes out. Sometimes they burned them alive. Some women after being gang-raped were crucified by being nailed to barn doors while still alive and then used for target practice.

This atrocious behavior on the part of the Communist troops was due in part to the nature of the Communist system, which had succeeded in overthrowing Russian society and the Russian government in the first place by organizing the scum of Russian society – the losers and ne’erdo- wells, the criminals, the resentful and the envious – under the Jews and setting them against the successful, the accomplished, the refined, and the prosperous, promising the rabble that if they pulled down their betters then they could take the place of the latter: the first shall be last, and the last shall be first.

It was the members of this rabble, this scum of Russian society, who became the bosses of local soviets and collectives and workers’ councils – when the positions had not already been taken by Jews. The Soviet soldiers of 1945 had grown up under this system of rule by the worst; for 25 years they had lived under commissars chosen from the dregs of Russian society. Any tendency toward nobility or gentility had been weeded out ruthlessly. Stalin had ordered the butchering of 35 000 Red Army officers, half of the old Russian officers’ corps, in 1937, just two years before the war, because he did not trust gentlemen. The officers who replaced those shot in the 1937 purge were not much more civilized in their behavior than the commissars.

An even more specific and immediate cause of the atrocities committed against the German population of East Prussia was the Soviet hate propaganda which deliberately incited the Soviet troops to rape and murder – even to murder German infants. The chief of the Soviet propaganda commissars was a hate-filled Jew named Ilya Ehrenburg. One of his directives to the Soviet troops read:

„Kill! Kill! In the German race there is nothing but evil; not one among the living, not one among the yet unborn but is evil! Follow the precepts of Comrade Stalin. Stamp out the fascist beast once and for all in its lair! Use force and break the racial pride of these German women. Take them as your lawful booty. Kill! As you storm onward, kill, you gallant soldiers of the Red Army.“

Not every Russian soldier was a butcher or a rapist, of course: just most of them. A few of them still had a sense of morality and decency which even Jewish Communism had not destroyed. Alexander Solzhenitsyn was one of these. He was a young captain in the Red Army when it entered East Prussia in January 1945. He wrote later in his Gulag Archipelago:

All of us knew very well that if the girls were German they could be raped and then shot. This was almost a combat distinction.

In one of his poems, „Prussian Nights,“ he describes a scene he witnessed in a house in the East Prussian town of Neidenburg:

Twenty-two Hoeringstrasse. It’s not been burned, just looted, rifled. A moaning by the walls, half muffled: the mother’s wounded, half alive. The little daughter’s on the mattress, dead. How many have been on it? A platoon, a company perhaps? A girl’s been turned into a woman, a woman turned into a corpse. . . . The mother begs, „Soldier, kill me!“

For his failure to take Comrade Ehrenburg’s directive to heart, Solzhenitsyn was reported by the political commissar in his unit as not being Politically Correct and was packed off to the gulag: that is, to a Soviet concentration camp.

And so, German civilians were fleeing in terror from East Prussia, and for many of them the only route of escape was across the icy Baltic Sea. They packed the port of Gotenhafen, near Danzig, hoping to find passage to the west. Hitler ordered all available civilian ships into the rescue effort. The Wilhelm Gustloff was one of these. A 25,000-ton passenger liner, it had been used before the war by the „Strength through Joy“ organization to take German workers on low-cost vacation excursions. On January 30, 1945, when it steamed out of Gotenhafen it carried a crew of just under 1 100 officers and men, 73 critically wounded soldiers, 373 young women of the Women’s Naval Auxiliary, equivalent to our WAVES, and more than 6 000 desperate refugees, most of them women and children.

Soviet submarines and aircraft were a constant menace to this rescue effort. They regarded the refugee ships in the light of Ehrenburg’s genocidal propaganda: the more Germans they could kill the better, and it didn’t make any difference to them whether their victims were soldiers or women and children. At just after 9:00 PM, when the Wilhelm Gustloff was 13 miles off the coast of Pomerania, three torpedoes from the Soviet submarine S-13, under the command of Captain A.I. Marinesko, struck the ship. Ninety minutes later it sank beneath the icy waves of the Baltic. Although a heroic effort to pick up survivors was made by other German ships, barely 1 100 were saved. The rest, more than 7 000 Germans, died in the frigid water that night.

A few days later, on February 10, 1945, the same Soviet submarine sank the German hospital ship, the General von Steuben, and 3 500 wounded soldiers aboard the ship, who were being evacuated from East Prussia, drowned. To the Soviets, inflamed by Jewish hate propaganda, the sign of the Red Cross meant nothing. On May 6, 1945, the German freighter Goya, also part of the rescue fleet, was torpedoed by another Soviet submarine, and more than 6 000 refugees fleeing from East Prussia died.

The lack of knowledge in the United States about any of these terrible maritime disasters of 1945 is profound, even among people who consider themselves knowledgeable on naval matters. And this ignorance stems from the deliberate policy of the controlled media, a policy which has relegated these disasters to the category of non-events. The reason for this media policy originally was the same reason which led the Jewish media bosses to blame the slaughter of 15 000 Polish officers and intellectuals in the Katyn woods in 1940 on the Germans. They knew that the Soviets had done it, as part of their effort to „proletarianize“ Poland and make the Poles more amenable to Communist rule, but they didn’t want to tarnish the image of our „gallant Soviet ally,“ as the Reds were called by the controlled U.S. media during the war. They wanted Americans to think that the Germans were the bad guys and the Soviets were the good guys, so they simply lied about the Katyn massacre.

Likewise, even in the last months of the war, they didn’t want Americans alerted to the fact that our „gallant Soviet ally“ was butchering and raping the civilian population of East Prussia and deliberately sinking the civilian refugee ships which were helping the East Prussians escape across the Baltic Sea. That might damage America’s enthusiasm for continuing the destruction of Germany with the help of our „gallant Soviet ally.“ So the controlled media simply didn’t report these things.

After the triumph of the democratic and Communist Allies and the unconditional surrender of Germany this reason no longer was valid, of course. But by then another motive had taken its place. The Jews were beginning to build their „Holocaust“ story and were demanding sympathy from the world – and reparations money from anyone they could get it from. As they began wailing about the supposed extermination of six million of their kinsmen in „gas ovens“ by the wicked Germans and portraying themselves as the innocent and inoffensive victims of the greatest crime in history, they didn’t want any facts getting in the way – and they certainly didn’t want Americans to see both sides of the conflict; they didn’t want the Germans seen as victims too. All Germans were evil, just like Comrade Ehrenburg had said; all Jews were good; and that was it. The Jews suffered, and the Germans didn’t, and so now the world owed the Jews a living for not stopping the „Holocaust.“

It really wouldn’t help their „Holocaust“ propaganda at all to have the American public learn about what had happened in East Prussia or in the Baltic Sea – or to learn that our „gallant Soviet ally“ had deliberately murdered the leadership stratum of the Polish nation in the Katyn woods, and that some of the murderers involved in that horrendous act were Jews. And so there has been a conspiracy of silence in America on the part of the Jewish media bosses. That’s why Hollywood was willing to spend $200 million producing the film Titanic but would never consider any film dealing with the sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff. It’s not that such a film couldn’t make money – I think that a film about East Prussia and the Wilhelm Gustloff could be a real blockbuster – it’s that there must be no sympathy for the Germans. There must be no rethinking of America’s reasons for waging war against Germany, no questioning of whether or not we did the right thing in allying ourselves with Communism on behalf of the Jews. And beside these considerations, the truth simply doesn’t count – at least, not to the Jews who control our mass media.

This bit of history – America’s motivations for engaging in the war in Europe, which really was something altogether separate from the war in the Pacific, despite the alliance between Germany and Japan – this bit of history always has fascinated me. And one of the interesting aspects about it is the unwillingness of so many Americans to examine it. I understand the sentiments of the Clintonista elements. To the kind of people who voted for Clinton, the Soviets were the good guys and the Germans were the bad guys on ideological grounds. Gang-rape, mass murder, and the sinking of refugee ships are not really crimes in the eyes of the Bill-and-Hillary types when they’re done by Communists against „Nazis.“

But there also were a lot of decent Americans who fought in the war in Europe, anti-Communist Americans, and many of them don’t want to think about the fact that they fought on the wrong side. These American Legion and VFW types don’t want to hear about who really killed all of those Polish intellectuals and leaders in the Katyn woods. They don’t want to know what happened in East Prussia in 1945. They hate it when I ask them, why did we fight Germany in the name of freedom and then turn half of Europe over to Communist slavery at the end of the war? They become angry when I suggest that perhaps Franklin Roosevelt was the same sort of lying, Jew-collaborating traitor that Bill Clinton is, and that in return for media support he lied us into the war on behalf of the Jews, just the way Clinton is lying us into a war in the Middle East on behalf of the Jews.

I was far too young for military service in the Second World War, but I am sure that if I had fought in that war, I’d be even more interested in understanding what was behind it. I believe that knowing the truth about these things is far more important than protecting our carefully nurtured belief that we were on the side of righteousness. I believe that understanding how we were deceived in the past is necessary, if we are to avoid being deceived in the future.

Israeli Attack on the Liberty Was No Accident

Source: http://codoh.com/library/document/3029/

By James Ennes
Published: 2002-07-27

James M. Ennes was serving as a US Navy lieutenant on board the USS Liberty when it was attacked by Israeli forces on June 8, 1967. He is the author of Assault on the Liberty, a detailed account of the attack published in 1980 by Random House. Born in 1933 and now retired, he served with the US Navy during most of his adult life.
This interview, published in the Iranian newspaper Jam-e-Jam, July 27, 2002, was conducted by Ali Jafar. The text is posted on-line at:

http://www.ussliberty.org/jamejam.txt

Question: When did you join the USS Liberty and what position did you serve on June 8, 1967?

Answer: I joined the ship in April 1967. I was a lieutenant and was assigned to be the ship’s Electronic Materiel Officer, responsible for the maintenance and repair of all of the ship’s electronic equipment. I also stood watches on the bridge as Officer of the Deck.

Q: There have been many cases of “friendly fire” and misidentification in wartime. Unlike other cases, the attack on the USS Liberty has lingered for 35 years and still remains unresolved. Israelis claim that the attack on the Liberty was also a case of mistaken identity, and that they misidentified the Liberty for an Egyptian horse carrier, El Quseir. One of the reasons that they present for their argument is that the attacking jets circled the ship three times looking for a flag, but no flag was flown. Do you agree with that statement?

A: “Friendly fire” is a brief, accidental attack. This was a prolonged, carefully coordinated attack. It has been called the most carefully planned “accident” in the history of warfare. The Israeli account of the attack is untrue. We flew a flag at all times, and it stood out clearly displayed in a good breeze. Israeli jets circled us 13 times during the several hours before the attack, and during that period we heard their pilots informing their headquarters by radio that we were American. When the attack started, the attacking jets passed high overhead once, then turned 180 degrees and came down the centerline firing without any attempt to identify us. Long after the attack I was contacted by an Israeli pilot who told me that on his first flight over the ship he saw our American flag and informed his headquarters that we were American, but was told to ignore the flag and attack anyway. He refused to do so and returned to base where he was arrested. I was told by an Israeli in the war room that they knew we were American. I have been told by several American intelligence analysts who read, or in some cases heard, the messages between the pilots and their headquarters that these messages make it very clear that the pilots and their headquarters knew we were American.

Q: You have written a book titled Assault on the Liberty. What are some of the most convincing reasons or evidences you presented in that book to prove that the Israelis knowingly attacked the Liberty?

A: Among other things, the extensive reconnaissance, the fact that the attack continued for 75 minutes, and the fact that they compiled a totally false account of what happened. After the torpedo explosion the torpedo boats examined our name in English on the stern and our American flag on the mast from less than 50 feet away, and continued to fire from close range for another 40 minutes. As US Secretary of State Dean Rusk said later, an accident may occur for a few minutes, but there is no way our very distinctive-looking ship could have been fired upon for 75 minutes from close range without it being recognized as American.

In the hours after the attack a “consensus report” was written reflecting the view of all American intelligence agencies that the attack was deliberate. This report was circulated, but was withdrawn and cancelled and all copies destroyed because it was too embarrassing politically to be allowed to stand.

Q: Being small in size and population, Israelis have always relied on spying to get intelligence information. They have spied on many Arab and non-Arab countries including the US. In October 1954 quite a few of the Israeli spies were arrested and two of them were executed in Egypt. Elias Cohen was the Israeli spy who was caught in 1965, and later executed in Syria, and I am sure you know about Jonathan Pollard, the Israeli spy whose spying activities cost the lives of America’s most loyal and best agents in the Communist world. Generally speaking, how could the Israelis not have known that El Quesir was not even there?

A: They could not have made such a mistake. Israeli naval officers have told me they are embarrassed by the claim that they could been so incompetent as to make such a mistake.

Q: It has been reported that after the Liberty radioed for help, two aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean responded by launching fighter aircraft, but they were recalled before reaching their destination to help the Liberty. Can you tell us who gave the orders, and why they were recalled?

A: Secretary Robert McNamara ordered the recall of rescue aircraft. He has refused to discuss the matter. The recall order was confirmed by President Lyndon Johnson. President Johnson later said that he would not risk shooting down Israeli aircraft, even if Americans died as a result.

Q: Quite often the American government is referred to as a “government of the people, for the people, by the people.” In 1967 your responsible officials, by recalling the launched aircraft, left you practically unprotected, and since then, your government not only blocked every effort to launch an investigation, but in fact did everything it could, to cover it up for 35 years. Is there any doubt in your mind that the very government, that you put your life on the line to protect, betrayed you and your shipmates?

A: Someone in our government certainly failed to protect us after promising that we would be protected.

Q: There are certain motives behind any crime that is committed. If indeed, as you believe, the Israeli attack on the Liberty was premeditated, what was their motive for attacking the Liberty?

A: The USS Liberty was an intelligence ship. Clearly someone in Israel feared that we would learn something that Israel did not want the US to know. Some American intelligence experts have said that they believe this was the pending invasion of Syria to capture the Golan Heights.

Q: In recent years an impressive number of American officials, including Admiral Thomas Moorer, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) at the time of the Liberty incident, have gone on record insisting that the Israeli action was, in fact, deliberate. Are you optimistic that after 35 years of cover up, the truth may finally come out?

A: No. I fear that Israel has so many friends in the Congress and the White House that no effective investigation is ever likely to be conducted. But we can continue to report the facts so that the world may learn the truth. In 1956 President Eisenhower forced the Israelis to cease their advance toward Suez. This was still a bitter memory in Israel in 1967. The Israelis did not want to risk having to withdraw from the Golan Heights as they had from Suez, so they disabled the USS Liberty in the hope that the US could be kept in the dark until the Heights were in Israeli hands.

This week a Navy Times survey of its readers showed that about 90 percent support a call for a new investigation of the attack. Yet few members of Congress are likely to support an inquiry, as it would certainly prove embarrassing to Israel.

Q: Generally speaking, in an incident like the Liberty attack, one would feel that the most valuable, viable and valid sources of information would be people such as yourself, who were present on the battlefield on June 8, 1967. A. Jay Cristol, a pro-Israeli federal judge and one of the most outspoken critics of the Liberty story, is the author of a book titled The Liberty Incident. He supposedly has done extensive research, and has interviewed many of the survivors. It has been reported that you refused to cooperate with him. Was there any particular reason that caused you not to cooperate?

A: After a brief telephone conversation, I did not trust him to treat the subject fairly or objectively. His dissertation and his later book proved that judgment to be valid, in that he has distorted many of the facts.

For instance, his book makes much of what he claims is the visual acuity of fighter pilots, yet experienced pilots tell me that pilots can see much more than Cristol claims, and could easily have seen our flag. Cristol discounts as untrue the unanimous eyewitness reports of American survivors, but accepts as true virtually every false claim by the Israelis. He relies upon the Court of Inquiry, which is itself false and has been discredited by its own legal counsel. He claims Liberty’s radio intercept range was only 25 miles, which is dead wrong. He claims the Liberty had no radio telephone contact with Washington, which is untrue. He claims only a few survivors regard the attack as deliberate, yet the truth is that survivors are unanimous in calling the attack deliberate. He claims our radios were not jammed, when even the corrupt Court of Inquiry says they were. He claims he came to Seattle to interview me, and that I broke a promise to see him, which is untrue. In fact, he had asked only to talk to me by telephone during a layover in Seattle, and I chose not to take the call because I realized that his intent was to try to discredit us, not to report our story objectively.

In fact, Cristol claims to have made numerous trips to Israel and to have interviewed over 200 people for his book, but his research is very unbalanced, drawing primarily from Israeli sources while ignoring or discounting most eyewitness reports. He has interviewed few survivors, and those only very briefly. He brands Liberty’s senior intercept officer a liar, yet made no attempt to interview him. His research appears to be aimed entirely at attempting to discredit survivors, not to investigate the attack objectively. He claims to be the world’s foremost expert on the attack, but I have never heard from a survivor who believes he can be taken seriously.

Q: Upon returning to the US, the Liberty crew members were ordered and in fact threatened to be silent. Who gave the order and why?

A: Survivors were visited in hospitals all over the US by many different officers and warned to be quiet. Aboard the ship, Admiral Kidd called men together in groups and warned them never to talk about the attack with anyone, not even their wives and mothers, or risk being sent to prison.

Q: In November of 1979 the Iranian students in protest to the US government policy of letting the former Shah of Iran in the US for medical treatment, stormed the US embassy in Tehran and held 52 American hostage for 444 days. ABC news almost immediately launched a new [television] program by the name of “Nightline,” with correspondent Ted Koppel reporting on the condition of the hostages as well as the developments of the story itself, night by night. The title of the nightly report was: “The Iran Crisis: America Held Hostage.” As I am sure you know, the hostages finally came home safe and sound, and were given a hero’s welcome, and “Nightline” has continued its special reports on important events, including many interviews with former hostages. By comparison, the brutal and tragic Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, in which 34 innocent young Americans were killed and 171 others were badly wounded, is something that most Americans, who are well-informed about President Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky, may not even be aware that it ever took place. You know, Mr. Ennes, one wonders why there wasn’t a similar program like “Nightline” launched for the Liberty and her survivors? What would have been wrong if ABC news had a nightly report with a title such as “The Middle East Crisis: Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty”? It seems as if the mainstream mass media had a tacit agreement with the US government to keep the public in the dark about the Liberty and the plight of its survivors. Don’t you feel that they have acted very selectively, and in fact unfairly, in regards to the Liberty incident?

A: There is much opposition in this country to this story being told. Ted Koppel is an interesting case. In 1982 Ted Koppel invited several survivors to his studios in Washington, DC, where we filmed a full report on the attack. It was edited and scheduled for broadcast, and then on the very day it was to be broadcast Israel invaded Lebanon, and that bigger story replaced the Liberty story. Later, when broadcasters planned to present the Liberty show, the films had mysteriously vanished from the file room, never to be found.

Q: Jean-Paul Sartre, the famous French philosopher, has said, and I quote, “Man is a product of time and place.” By reading chapter six of your book, one can see that on June 8, 1967, you experienced perhaps the worst day of your life. The political officials who were supposed to help you, betrayed you. The president and military officials who were supposed to rescue you and your shipmates, recalled the aircraft and left you unprotected against the attacking Israeli jets. The mass media, which was supposed to give extensive coverage to the Liberty and the plight of its survivors, has acted with deafening silence, and finally, taking your experience with A. Jay Cristol into consideration, one could say that the pen that should have elicited the facts and told the truth, has distorted it. Can you please tell us how the Liberty incident has affected your life?

A: I published the first edition of this book in 1980, expecting to go on to other things. To my surprise, the story lives on. Twenty-two years later I continue to get daily mail and phone calls. I have created the web site at http://www.ussliberty.org to help answer the many questions that still arise.

Q: Is there anything else that you would like to say regarding the Liberty or in general.

A: My shipmates and I have tried for 35 years to tell the truth about the attack to the American public and to the world. We appreciate the opportunity you have given us to tell the story to the Iranian people. We wish you peace.


Candor About War Against Iraq

“Those who favor this attack [by the US against Iraq] now will tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel.”
-General Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander. Interview in The Guardian (Britain), August 20, 2002.

War: Enemy of Freedom

“Of all the enemies to liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war [and] the power of raising armies… A delegation of such powers [to the president] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments. The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted.”

-James Madison, Political Observations, 1795

On America’s Foreign Policy

“Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her [Americas] heart, her benedictions, and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. But she is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banner of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.”
-John Quincy Adams, 1821

Lincoln On the President’s Power to Make War

“Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose, and you allow him to make war at his pleasure.

“… Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect… If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, ‘I see no probability of the British invading us,’ but he will say to you, ‘Be silent; I see it, if you don’t?'”

-Abraham Lincoln, The Writings of Abraham Lincoln (ed., A. Lapsley), vol. 2, pp. 51-52.


“For those who have Awareness,
a hint is quite enough.
For the multitudes of heedless,
mere knowledge is useless.”

– Haji Bekdash, circa 1200 AD


“You can muffle the drum, and you can loosen the strings of the lyre, but who shall command the skylark not to sing?”

– Khalil Gibran

The Anti-Revisionist Hollywood Movie Attacking Historian David Irving Is a Flop

Denial. BBC Films. 109 minutes.

Source: http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2016/volume_8/number_4/denial.php

By Michael Hoffman

This reviewer was expecting that it would be a tedious ordeal to sit through Denial, Hollywood’s attempted canonization of the obnoxious thought cop Deborah Lipstadt, which was supposed to also serve as the final confirmation of the libel trial in London in 2000 that saw historian David Irving’s reputation supposedly shredded (cf. Revisionist History no. 86).

Actually, the imps of contrariness have seen to it that Denial rehabilitates Irving. While the film’s production values are high and the cast is A-list, the director, Mick Jackson, is no Steven Spielberg and his movie backfires. Denial gives new impetus to World War II revisionism, which heretofore was assumed by many to consist of a coterie of drooling crackpots. Even in a movie that detests Irving, he nonetheless comes off as a formidable advocate.

There are two challenging questions for any Hollywood director seeking to lens Prof. Lipstadt’s courtroom battle and maintain minimal credibility at the same time: why she never took the stand, and why no “Holocaust survivor” was brought to testify by her defense team. According to Denial, Lipstadt (played by Rachel Weisz), was forbidden to testify by her lawyers, who wanted to keep the focus on putting Irving (Timothy Spall) on the defensive, and not her. It makes sense, but whether it is true or not we can’t determine. After all, Lipstadt refused to speak to the news media during the long trial (a fact the movie omits). The latter refusal would seem to indicate a fear of exposure of her ignorance of World War II history. Meanwhile, Mr. Irving was extensively cross-examined in court and spoke volubly to the press on nearly every occasion.

The second daunting question turns on an even more-perilous and potentially highly damaging issue: why were there no “Holocaust survivors” on the witness stand? Here David Hare, the film’s scriptwriter, really goofs and apparently no one on the production team caught his blunder, though many in the audience will spot it. In the movie, Lipstadt is outraged that her lawyers will not call on “survivors” to testify. The head of her defense team, Anthony Julius, has a response. (Julius is rendered as an expressionless, one-dimensional, and in many respects unsympathetic character, played deadpan by actor Andrew Scott, known for roles as the villainous Moriarity in the BBC Sherlock TV series, and the traitorous head of the British Secret Service in the 007 film, Spectre). We first meet Julius while he is holding a copy of the book he authored which, we see from the cover, traduces the reputation of the esteemed Christian poet T.S. Eliot. Julius informs Prof. Lipstadt that he will not call the “survivors” because he wants to spare them the disrespect which Irving (who acted as his own attorney), would demonstrate toward them in cross-examination.

It’s a weak alibi. The honchos of Holocaustianity are painfully aware that putative “homicidal Auschwitz gas-chamber eyewitnesses” were eviscerated under cross-examination by lawyer Doug Christie during the 1985 trial in Canada of Ernst Zündel, for spreading “false news.” This was the actual reason there was no appearance by them at Lipstadt’s trial. At this point in the film, as I sat in the theater I jotted in my review notes, “Movie omits to mention Zündel trial’s discrediting cross-examinations of Judaic witnesses.”

Later in the movie however, Lipstadt demands once again that “Holocaust survivors” testify, and this time a more-candid Julius, albeit in rapid-fire dialogue, tells her that he can’t call on them because, “The survivors were torn apart at the Zündel trial.”

david-irving-01David Irving at the 1988 trial of Ernst Zündel. Photo from codoh.com

Exactly correct! When so-called “eyewitness Holocaust survivors” were cross-examined in the Zündel case, as detailed in this writer’s The Great Holocaust Trial, not one departed the witness stand with his credibility intact—and it is Hollywood’s Denial movie that reminds the world of this shocking and embarrassing fact, which shatters the main pillar upon which Auschwitz execution-gas-chamber mythology depends: the “undeniable” testimony of “eyewitnesses.” (The statement about the Zündel trial is made in a stream of verbiage from the Anthony Julius character. It is not said slowly or with emphasis. One has to be alert to catch it in the film).

The movie is haunted by the specter of Zündel, whose two trials (1985 and 1988) are landmarks in revisionism. The film’s opening scene has Prof. Lipstadt in a classroom writing on a chalkboard the four main points of “Holocaust denial.” The last two are borrowed from Prof. Robert Faurisson, the Zündel defense team’s research head, as he stated them in an explosive essay in 1978 in France’s leading newspaper, Le Monde. Lipstadt’s point four is straight from Faurisson and rings true: The gas-chamber myth was concocted to “extort money from the Germans and gain sympathy for the state of Israel.” Bingo!

In another of Lipstadt’s classroom points she asserts that any allegation that Judaic casualty figures are exaggerated constitutes “denial.” But unknown to the movie audience, she is herself on record saying that the high casualty figure for German victims of the Allied firebombing of the city of Dresden is exaggerated. The Talmudic double standard makes it perfectly respectable for her to lay a charge of exaggeration against the history of the Dresden bombing. Ordinary mortals do so with regard to Auschwitz at the risk of forfeiting their employment and reputation.

Early in the movie the viewer is taken on an actual tour of Auschwitz-Birkenau in Poland, where Lipstadt and her defense team stumble around among the sacred relics. She admonishes her barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson) over his insufficient awe and reverence (he makes tearful amends later). The familiar propaganda about the camp is retailed, until the movie gets to a nearly intact old building. Before entering, it is unambiguously stated that to defeat the deniers’ position on Auschwitz homicidal gassings, one must defeat the Leuchter Report. By now I was wondering if my hearing was faulty, so welcome was this acknowledgement of that momentous study, which is usually demonized by media hacks and academics as a worthless trifle.

The Leuchter Report was commissioned by Zündel in the course of his 1988 trial. It reported a forensic, chemical analysis of physical material taken from the walls of buildings in Auschwitz. Revised by former Max Planck Institute chemist and historian Germar Rudolf, the Leuchter Report remains one of the most-devastating exposes of the hoax ever published, and here in a Hollywood movie its formidable potency is acknowledged—and never satisfactorily refuted in the course of the film! Although he is not mentioned, when the movie arrives at the courtroom proceedings themselves, the first day concludes with Dr. Faurisson’s signature aphorism concerning, “No Holes—No Holocaust.”

On another day of the trial, Rampton holds aloft two different editions of Irving’s classic history, Hitler’s War, and points out that the 1977 first edition upholds the genocide of Judaics, while the reissued and revised 1991 edition does not. True, but the movie omits what made the difference. Between 1977 and 1991 the two Zündel trials took place with the demolition of “survivor” testimony in the first, and the Leuchter Report issued at the second, which impressed Irving so much that he revised his Hitler book to reflect the Leuchter revelations which Zündel had made possible.

On occasions after Irving has spoken in court, the camera turns to Lipstadt’s character, showing her in paroxysms of frustration and agony. Conversely, when her own lawyer scores a legal or historical point she casts a venomous glance at Irving, suffused with undisguised hatred. The filmmakers have done her image no favors with this less-than-noble—but quite possibly accurate—depiction of her person and reactions.

Another fatal error in the movie’s goal of vindicating Lipstadt is that it fails to dispel the David vs. Goliath impression of a stacked legal battle. Irving is shown as a lone warrior up against a legal team that fills a room with solicitors, researchers, historians, archivists and the barrister. The audience watching the mustering of this throng must feel that they’ve been cheated: after having it shoved down their throats for decades that doubting homicidal gas chambers is the easiest thing in the world to discredit, it takes a host of lawyers, clerks and historians years of research and more than a month in court to refute one Doubting Thomas?

The unintended consequences become more obvious near the end of the movie, when, in a news conference, Lipstadt makes an analogy between revisionist historians and those who doubt that Elvis Presley is dead. Among the theater audience with whom I saw the film, her parallel went nowhere. It is too palpably jejune to gain traction in the face of the battle the viewer has just observed her multi-million-dollar team having undertaken, with several close shaves for them in the courtroom, and the verdict far from a foregone conclusion.

Denial is pompously self-righteous and foolishly bereft of the tedium-relieving humorous moments which clever directors use to leaven even the most serious cinema. Lipstadt is at first presented melodramatically as Destiny’s Heroine of the Jewish People From The Beginning of Time. After that gas bag is floated, the movie attempts to deflate it slightly with a few attempts at levity, which are aimed at showing her to be a good sport in spite of her carved-in-marble stature; but these fail. She comes off not as one of the guys but as a yenta with a foul mouth: “What the f**k just happened?” she demands to know when the judge states that anti-Semitism can be an honest belief; not necessarily a result of a desire to deceive. Meanwhile, in devastating contrast, Irving is depicted as always in form as an English gentleman, even if at times sarcastic and wounding.

Vile execration of Irving is on ample display: “Irving’s words are like s**t on your shoes,” says Anthony Julius. In a meeting in her hotel room between Lipstadt and her barrister Rampton, it is made clear that Irving is to be hated, “Look the devil in the eye and tell him what you feel,” Rampton advises. God help anyone who would dare to advise us to look upon Deborah Lipstadt as a devil.

The foul-mouthed banter and palpable hate are supposed to, on one hand endear us to the humanity of Lipstadt and her team, and on the other, to make sure we get the message that a doubter like Irving is to be hated, given the sacred subject which he has dared to question. But Timothy Spall, who plays Irving, despite the phony Etonian accent he adopts and perpetually high-pitched, straining voice (which little resembles Irving in real life), comes across as somewhat sympathetic. After the verdict is read we see Irving gallantly approach the barrister Rampton, congratulating him and offering to shake hands. Irving is rebuffed. There is a fundamental decency that permeates his underdog status and it is part of his appeal in Denial.

Lipstadt thinks it’s outrageous that Irving believes there are actually two points of view on World War II history. There is only one point of view, she hectors. But don’t the best parents and teachers convey to their youthful charges the truism that there at least two sides to every issue? Yet in Lipstadt’s inquisitorial, claustrophobic “Holocaust” world, there can only be one.

Yet another unintentionally exculpatory factor for Mr. Irving is the realization that a regiment of Lipstadt’s researchers pored over every extant speech he ever gave, and the several million words he wrote, in search of an error (about dozen or so were found). If any one of us had every word we wrote or spoke through most of our lives examined, there would be plenty of grist for any detractor’s mill. Only two Irving errors are submitted: a questionable interpretation of a morgue at Auschwitz, and misattributed words in a note by Heinrich Himmler; these are not exactly earth-shaking derogations of his historiography.

Meanwhile, the original grounds for Irving’s libel suit against Lipstadt and her publisher, Penguin Books—that they lied about his having stolen from the Moscow archives in Russia, and by claiming that he was associated with Hamas and other Arab terror organizations—are indeed found to be lies, just as David said. He was indeed libeled by Penguin and Lipstadt. Few who watch Denial will know that fact, or know of the intimidation tactic aimed at presiding Justice Charles Gray (Alex Jennings), when the Israeli ambassador with a full retinue of gun-toting guards, seated himself prominently in the courtroom during the trial. The message conveyed could not have been lost on the judge, nor the audience: a sovereign state, armed to the teeth, had a vested interest in an outcome of the trial favorable to their heroine, Dvora. (Lipstadt refers to herself by that Hebrew variant of her name when recalling her mother’s prophecy about her).

Other revelations from the makers of this movie:

  • Denial informs us there were never any photographs of any of the millions of “Jews” in any of the gas chambers because (wait for it): the Germans would not allow it; which doesn’t explain why no German personnel took photos surreptitiously, or were not bribed to do so, or why photos of an event that is said to have happened tens of thousands of times, were not otherwise leaked.
  • Denial informs us that Auschwitz was never designed as an extermination camp. From the beginning it was a labor camp and it only later changed its function.
  • During the trial, Irving’s “no holes no holocaust” challenge to Auschwitz “expert” Robert Jan van Pelt (Mark Gatiss) is never answered, even though an answer is promised in the next court session.
  • If we are listening carefully, we hear a reporter state, albeit as an audio voiceover on a scene of jostling media, that Justice Gray praised Irving’s skill as a military historian.
  • In London, a grim-faced woman with a cinematic aura of sanctity identifies herself privately to Lipstadt as a “Holocaust survivor.” Lipstadt informs her defense team that this woman is indeed a “Holocaust survivor” who is qualified to testify. What is the basis of “renowned historian” Lipstadt’s corroboration of the woman’s identity and credentials as a witness? She showed Lipstadt some faded numbers tattooed on her arm. This is proof? What a joke.

If you’re already a true believer, the film may further cement your belief, but for thinking individuals who are paying attention, Denial alerts curious minds to the existence of a substantial body of dissent, going so far as to feature Mr. Irving’s website on-camera, as well as the covers of his books. Viewers of the film who follow up with an Internet search for the Leuchter Report or the “Zündel trial” (few though these may be) are going to encounter a world of revisionist discovery and intellectual challenge.

As we often remind our readers, our enemies are not invincible, any more than they are infallible. Their victory is not inevitable. They make big mistakes and Denial is one of them: a 109-minute commercial of sorts for a valiant writer whose reputation is still very much intact.

We seldom have the occasion to write the following words, but it is delightful to do so now: Thank you, Hollywood!

This article originally appeared in Revisionist History No. 87, November 2016.
Copyright© 2016 Michael Hoffman

Jew Admits Jews Dominate Hollywood and American Culture

jewish-hollywood

Source: http://www.dailystormer.com/jew-admits-jews-dominate-hollywood-and-american-culture/

Joshua Hammerman, a rabbi writing for the Times of Israel suggests a Joscars category for film awards. “The criteria for a Jos-car nomination is simple: the Jewish aspect of a film can include Jewish subject matter, Jewish values, or Jewish participation.” Then he admits its not really necessary because “With these criteria, you can find something “Jewish” in almost every film.” So does this mean the Jews control Hollywood?

Every film? Jewish? This brings to mind the classic anti-Semitic claim that “the Jews own Hollywood.” Of course that is ridiculous, but not for the reason you might think. If the claim is that Jews are significantly represented at all levels in the production and dissemination of culture, which includes movies, books, music, drama, journalism, dance, the visual arts and the humanities, my response is “guilty as charged.”

He mocks those involved in less important roles in the film industry.

Incidentally, have you noticed just how many gaffers, grips and best boys are Jewish? Neither have I.

The implication here is that “best boy” might as well be called “best goy”. We get the goy to do all the menial jobs, while we Jews do everything important, haha!

Those who subscribe to grand Jewish conspiracy theories are typically those who have the least familiarity with real live Jews. The ADL’s Global survey of 100 nations discovered that people living in countries with larger Jewish populations are less likely to hold anti-Semitic views than people living in countries with smaller Jewish populations. The same is true of places in America. It’s true with other groups too: familiarity reduces bigotry. In this case, absence makes the heart grow hateful.

Or to put it another way, people in countries without large Jewish populations are most likely to hold anti-Semitic views because Jews have not established a dominating influence in their culture, politics or media and used that influence to pump out philosemitic propaganda and marginalise anyone who challenges their agenda by pointing out the truth. They are able to accurately perceive the facts, free of Semitic filtering.

The rabbi then boasts of how Jewish domination of the instruments of cultural production prevents European patriots achieving their goal of preserving the existence of European peoples.

But I will say this — proudly. The influence of Jewish values, those principles Jews have long held sacred, has been most profound on the American cultural scene.

…These values, which are neither exclusively left nor right, but Jewish through and through, include humility, love and freedom and dignity. They clash markedly against the “values” of the “traditional” anti-Semite, who, as defined by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, tends to be xenophobic, anti-intellectual, populist, racist, brutish and, if unchecked, ultimately genocidal.

And here’s the rub — the part that drives anti-Semites absolutely bananas. The influence of popular culture, in the US and throughout most of the world, continues to be far, far more pervasive than that of any government or branch of government. When Chief Justice Roberts (who is decidedly not an anti-Semite) wrote about the “undeniable appeal” of arguments of social fairness and equality in the 2015 same-sex marriage case, he was speaking of the undeniable influence of TV programs like “American Family” and current films like “Loving,” whose influence on the culture continue to be profound.

So when anti-Semites say “The Jews control Hollywood,” or “The Jews control the media,” they are really cursing the fact that their agenda can never achieve the ultimate triumph they seek until the instruments of culture are co-opted. And, yes, I can proudly say that Jews are continuing to hold up our end of the bargain, not by owning Hollywood, or by propagating any particular agenda, but by driving haters crazy.

Source

Another story in the Times of Israel tells of how Jewish Hollywood mogul, Arnon Milchan (12 Years a Slave), has been involved in supplying Netanyahu with cigars and Israel with weapons. And some other Hollywood Jews have also apparently been involved in helping Israel over the years.

Peres, who was president at the time, said he recruited Milchan. “Arnon is a special man. It was I who recruited him … when I was at the Ministry of Defense. Arnon was involved in numerous defense-related procurement activities and intelligence operations,” said Peres.

Milchan also said he tried to get other Hollywood figures involved in his clandestine work, notably the late director Sydney Pollack. Pollack was allegedly involved in buying arms and military equipment for Israel during the 1970s and, according to Milchan, knew just what he was getting into. “Pollack knew, but I didn’t want to scare him because he’s American… He could have said ‘no,” Milchan said. “He said ‘no’ many times, but he also said ‘yes’ many times.”

He used Hollywood pull to lure a “US nuclear scientist” to a private meeting. What tribe was this scientist a member of? We can only speculate.

Milchan, who is part-owner of Israel’s Channel 10 television company, also admitted trying to use an unnamed big star to entice a US nuclear scientist to a private meeting in the actor’s house, although the interview didn’t clarify if the rendezvous ever took place. A number of actors feature in the Channel 2 documentary, including Russell Crowe, Ben Affleck and Robert De Niro, who is a personal friend of Milchan’s. De Niro told Dayan that he had heard things about Milchan; however nothing that was ever confirmed. “I wasn’t sure,” he said.

What was the purpose of this meeting with a scientist? No doubt obtaining classified information that would be of benefit to Israel.

Two years ago, authors Meir Doron and Joseph Gelman published a book titled “Confidential: The Life of Secret Agent Turned Hollywood Tycoon Arnon Milchan,” in which they asserted that Milchan was acting for Israel’s now defunct Bureau of Scientific Relations, known as Lekem. The clandestine bureau focused on obtaining information for secret defense programs that reputedly included Israel’s rumored nuclear weapons research and development program. The bureau was disbanded in 1987 after US Navy specialist Jonathan Pollard was caught spying for Israel.

So Milchan was involved with an Israeli agency that inveigled American Jews into committing treason against their “own country”. This is the same guy who produced 12 Years a Slave, a film that pushes the Blame Whitey slave narrative which stigmatizes Europeans and incites African-Americans to hate European-Americans.

Caricatures from “Der Stürmer” – translated in English and colourized!

The Year 1940 – Part 9

09-sept-1940-02

09-sept-1940-03

09-sept-1940-04

09-sept-1940-05

09-sept-1940-07

09-sept-1940-08

09-sept-1940-09

09-sept-1940-10

09-sept-1940-11

09-sept-1940-12

Megacaust

Source: http://www.renegadetribune.com/megacaust/

By Mike Walsh

megacaust1

The holocaust mantra that falsely claims six million lives is drummed into our heads since early childhood. It then comes as a shock to learn that the fuhrer’s accusers between them take full responsibility for multiple acts of genocide that claimed no less than 164 million lives.

According to R. J. Rummel, Power Kills: Genocide and Mass Murder (Journal of Peace Research): Murder by government claimed the lives of 170 million people during the last 100 years.

If Hitler’s Germany is supposed to have accounted for six million of these unfortunate victims who takes responsibility for the 164 million victims whose plight is airbrushed off the West’s news pages and television screens? Eerily, we learn that the culprits responsible for 18 times the ‘Death by Government’ murders attributed to the Reich are Hitler’s accusers.

Name and shame; who was primarily responsible for the genocide of 164 million non-Jewish victims of genocide; racial and ethnic extermination? Why the endless clamour over six million alleged Jews but a deafening silence falls when one asks, ‘what about the other 164 million’?

Taking their places on the Dais of Death is the dwarfish ex-bank robber Bolshevik Russia’s Joe Stalin and America’s Franklin D. Roosevelt; beside them stands the toad-like half-American dilettante and notorious sexual deviant Winston Churchill. The fourth of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse riders is China’s Mao tse Tung.

megacaust2

Shockingly, MEGACAUST by Michael Walsh convincingly argues that most of the 164 million ‘death by government’ victims could have been prevented by a mainstream media that chose instead to collaborate with history’s greatest mass murderers.

The legendary Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are Death, Famine, War and Conquest. If one wants to bring into stark relief the images of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse one needs look no further than Josef Stalin, Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt and China’s Mao tse Tung).

In 1917 ~ before the Russian Tragedy, the population of Imperial Russia stood at 182 million. The 1990 census revealed that Russia’s population had dramatically decreased to 143 million over the 73 intervening years in which Bolshevism ravaged Imperial Russia. Over the same time period Britain’s population increased by 25 per cent despite suffering the haemorrhage of World War Two and unprecedented migration.

Had Russia’s population been allowed to keep pace by 1990 one would have expected Russia’s population to stand today at 230 million. In 1939 Germany’s population stood at 80 million but by 1950 was just 68 million. Interestingly, according to the Jewish World Almanac the only population that remained the same before and after World War Two and throughout the Russian Tragedy was the Jewish population of 13 million. How do we explain this?

All is revealed by Michael Walsh in his just published MEGACAUST. Available only from Amazon and Kindle this game-changing exposé is likely to tear apart the arguments of those who claim that Hitler’s Germany was responsible for the deaths of six million Jews. MEGACAUST is the ultimate and final riposte to the myth of the six million.

megacaust3Purchase on Amazon