Hi there,
              This an exceptionally interesting argument about the Holocaust boondoggle and Jews. LOTS of sources get mentioned. It is much better than the routine name calling which does come in at the end. The point about katanas is spurious though.
It is rather long and still live.

Sean Gabb on Holocaust Denial

30 April, 2007 · 112 Comments

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

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

Defending the Right to Deny the Holocaust
by Sean Gabb

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories: Uncategorized

112 responses so far ↓

  • Ed Straker // 19 October, 2008 at 1:36 pm

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

  • David Davis // 19 October, 2008 at 3:01 pm

    Dear Ed Straker,

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Tony Hollick // 20 October, 2008 at 8:44 am

    Ed Straker fulminates about “Holocaust Denial.”

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

    The cameraman there said this more recently:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Perhaps Ed Straker might feel the same, one day.


  • john thames // 21 November, 2008 at 12:04 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • john thames // 21 November, 2008 at 7:18 am

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

  • Tony Hollick // 21 November, 2008 at 7:57 am

    For Heaven’s sake…



  • john thames // 22 November, 2008 at 7:19 am

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

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

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

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

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

  • Tony Hollick // 22 November, 2008 at 10:13 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

    Shalom Sabbat

  • Tony Hollick // 22 November, 2008 at 10:13 am



  • john thames // 22 November, 2008 at 7:02 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Tony Hollick // 23 November, 2008 at 2:16 am

    John Thames:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Tony Hollick

  • john thames // 23 November, 2008 at 4:49 am

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

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

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

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

  • Otto // 23 November, 2008 at 10:01 am

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

  • john thames // 23 November, 2008 at 10:35 pm

    To Otto:

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

  • Tony Hollick // 23 November, 2008 at 11:54 pm

    John Thames:

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • john thames // 24 November, 2008 at 4:55 am

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

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

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

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

  • Tony Hollick // 24 November, 2008 at 9:05 am

    “john thames”:

    Are you from the US?

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

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

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

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

    [3] Bad housing conditions.

    Plus ca change…

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Shabbat Shalom,


  • john thames // 24 November, 2008 at 6:48 pm

    Mr. Hollick:

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

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

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

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

  • Tony Hollick // 24 November, 2008 at 9:56 pm

    john thames:

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

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

    Yet all Jews are human beings.

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

    Where in the US are you? Montana?


  • john thames // 25 November, 2008 at 1:36 am

    My location is irrelevant.

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

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

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

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

  • Greg // 25 November, 2008 at 3:03 am

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

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

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

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

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

    Best Regards from California

  • john thames // 25 November, 2008 at 3:54 am

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

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

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

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

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

  • Jim // 25 November, 2008 at 6:35 am

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

  • Jim // 25 November, 2008 at 7:03 am

    Agin Zionist Racism says:

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

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

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

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

    Dahlia says:
    Hi John,

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

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

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

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

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

  • Jim // 25 November, 2008 at 7:22 am

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

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

  • Jim // 25 November, 2008 at 7:24 am

    Elie Wiesel vs Encyclopaedia Britannica

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

    Time Magazine, March 18 1985:

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

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

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


    Washington Report on Middle East Affairs | January/February 1999

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Jim // 25 November, 2008 at 7:26 am

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

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

    (Alexander Solzhenitsyn Speaks to the West (197 8) p 16)

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

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

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

    1928 versus 1933:

    30,7 million
    19,6 million

    Sheep and goats
    146,7 million
    50,2 million

    26 million
    12,1 million

    33,5 million
    16,6 million

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

    Millions of persons were executed or sent to labour camps. In his magnum opus The Gulag Archipelago, Solzhenitsyn credits Naftaly Frenkel, a ‘Turkish-born Jew’, with being works chief / chief overseer of the one-hundred-and-forty-mile-long Belomor (Baltic-White Sea) canal, built entirely with slave labour (paperback edition, vol 2 p 72). Solzhenitsyn quotes the official Soviet history of the project which describes Frenkel as having ‘..the eyes of an interrogator and prosecutor.. A man with enormous love of power and pride, for whom the main thing is unlimited power. If it is necessary for him to be feared, then let him be feared. He spoke harshly to the engineers, attempting to humiliate them.’ (ibid p 75). Other Jews were also involved in influential positions. Yakov Rappoport was deputy chief of construction (p 7 8) and Matvei Berman was the Chief of Gulag (p 79). Frenkel, Berman and Rappoport are amongst six men described by Solzhenitsyn as ‘hired murderers’, ‘each of whom accounted for thirty thousand lives’ (p 91). Is Solzhenitsyn alone in his accusations? Why are these names generally unknown to ordinary citizens in the West?

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Jim // 25 November, 2008 at 7:27 am

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

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

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

    Could this claim be a misprint?

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

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

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

  • Tony Hollick // 25 November, 2008 at 9:17 am

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

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

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


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

    Why are we not discussing that?

  • john thames // 25 November, 2008 at 5:43 pm

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

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

  • Tony Hollick // 25 November, 2008 at 6:17 pm

    john thames:

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

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

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

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

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


  • john thames // 25 November, 2008 at 8:30 pm

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

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

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

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

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

  • john thames // 26 November, 2008 at 1:12 am


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


  • Tony Hollick // 26 November, 2008 at 1:23 am

    john thames:

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

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

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

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

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

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


  • john thames // 26 November, 2008 at 3:31 am


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

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

  • Tony Hollick // 26 November, 2008 at 7:44 am

    john thames:

    I follow Noahide laws. I’m Taoist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



  • Tony Hollick // 26 November, 2008 at 7:49 am

    john thames:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



  • john thames // 26 November, 2008 at 5:44 pm


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

  • Tony Hollick // 27 November, 2008 at 4:24 pm

    john thames:

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

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

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

    Make up your mind: which is it?


  • john thames // 27 November, 2008 at 6:01 pm


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


  • Tony Hollick // 27 November, 2008 at 11:19 pm

    john thames:

    You say:

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

    Now I know you’re just kidding with us.


  • john thames // 28 November, 2008 at 2:55 am


    I am not kidding at all.

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

    Happy Thanksgiving.

  • Tony Hollick // 28 November, 2008 at 1:18 pm

    Happy Thanksgiving, all!



  • john thames // 29 November, 2008 at 1:03 am


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

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

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

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

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

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

    Happy holidays.

  • Edward Johns // 11 December, 2008 at 8:11 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The Lavon affair
    ..bolsters this theory as does the account given by Naim Giladi:

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

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

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

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

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

  • john thames // 12 December, 2008 at 3:18 am

    Mr. Johns comments are well taken.

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

  • Tony Hollick // 12 December, 2008 at 10:40 am

    john thames:

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

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

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

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

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

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


  • David Davis // 12 December, 2008 at 3:08 pm

    I’ll keep out of this one, me!

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

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

    That’s it. Sorry.

  • john thames // 13 December, 2008 at 11:04 pm


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

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

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

    I trust this clarifies my position.

  • john thames // 14 December, 2008 at 1:18 am

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

  • Tony Hollick // 14 December, 2008 at 11:31 am

    john thames:

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

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

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


  • john thames // 14 December, 2008 at 9:03 pm


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

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

    Merry Christmas

  • Tony Hollick // 15 December, 2008 at 11:18 am

    john thames:

    And a Merry Christmas to you.

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

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

    When one person dies, a Universe dies with them.

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


  • Edward Johns // 16 December, 2008 at 4:37 am


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • john thames // 16 December, 2008 at 6:56 am

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

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

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

  • john thames // 16 December, 2008 at 7:08 am

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

  • Edward Johns // 16 December, 2008 at 8:50 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Tony Hollick // 16 December, 2008 at 11:00 am

    Edward Johns:

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

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

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

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


  • Tony Hollick // 16 December, 2008 at 3:52 pm

    john thames:

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


  • Edward Johns // 16 December, 2008 at 7:23 pm

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

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

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

    As to the “Historical claim”, it is quite frankly non-existent. See:

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Tony Hollick // 16 December, 2008 at 8:26 pm

    Edward Johns:

    You completely miss two key points.

    [1] Refugees are entitled to refuge anywhere.

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


  • john thames // 16 December, 2008 at 9:25 pm

    First, a reply to Tony Hollick.

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

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

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

  • Tony Hollick // 17 December, 2008 at 12:01 am

    john thames:

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

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

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

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

    Two principles are required to be implemented:

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

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

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

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


  • Edward Johns // 17 December, 2008 at 12:11 am

    Mr Hollick.

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

    I refer you to the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees:

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

    Article 2. General obligations

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

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

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

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

    Mr Thames.

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

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

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

  • john thames // 17 December, 2008 at 12:18 am

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

    The State of Abdullah

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

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

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

    John Bagot Glubb
    Commander of the Zionist Legion of Arabia

  • john thames // 17 December, 2008 at 3:10 am

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

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

  • Edward Johns // 17 December, 2008 at 3:56 am

    At this point I must concede a division:

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • john thames // 17 December, 2008 at 6:17 am

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

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

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

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

  • Edward Johns // 17 December, 2008 at 9:55 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Tony Hollick // 17 December, 2008 at 2:20 pm

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

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


  • john thames // 17 December, 2008 at 4:26 pm

    Mr. Johns and Mr. Hollick:

    You both miss the point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Edward Johns // 17 December, 2008 at 10:17 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    A countryman of mine just set the World tap dancing record:

    …even white folks got rhythm.

    Indians place 1st, 2nd, 4th in Scripps spelling bee.

    ……black folks got brain.

    Cherry picked examples can prove any prejudice.

  • john thames // 17 December, 2008 at 11:13 pm

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

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

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

  • Tony Hollick // 17 December, 2008 at 11:22 pm

    john thames:

    You say:

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

    Are you seriously saying that religion is genetically determined??


  • Tony Hollick // 17 December, 2008 at 11:26 pm

    Waiting for the Barbarians

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

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


  • john thames // 18 December, 2008 at 12:31 am


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

  • john thames // 18 December, 2008 at 12:33 am

    Mr. Hollick and Mr. Johns:

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

  • Edward Johns // 18 December, 2008 at 1:47 am

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

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

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

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

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

  • john thames // 18 December, 2008 at 2:36 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Tony Hollick // 18 December, 2008 at 4:00 am

    john thames:

    How to tell the difference between winners and losers:

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

    ———— * * * * * ————

  • john thames // 18 December, 2008 at 5:38 am

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

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

  • john thames // 18 December, 2008 at 5:47 am


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

  • Tony Hollick // 18 December, 2008 at 12:21 pm

    john thames:

    I don’t “lecture you.”

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

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

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

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

    Do you really regard Blacks as less than fully human?


  • john thames // 18 December, 2008 at 4:20 pm


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

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

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

  • Tony Hollick // 19 December, 2008 at 10:45 am

    john thames:

    You say:

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

    Let’s make the test really simple for you.

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


  • john thames // 19 December, 2008 at 6:40 pm


  • Tony Hollick // 20 December, 2008 at 12:01 pm

    john thames:

    And Jews? Yes/No

    Indians? Yes/No

    Arabs? Yes/No

    Chinese? Yes/No

    Japanese? Yes/No

    Pakistanis? Yes/No

    Africans? Yes/No

    Aboriginal Peoples? Yes/No

    Mongols? Yes/No

    Russians? Yes/No?

    South Americans? Yes/No

    Iberian Peninsula? Yes/No

    Korean Peninsula? Yes/No

    Everyone else except you? Yes/No

    You too? Yes/No



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

  • john thames // 20 December, 2008 at 5:56 pm


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

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

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

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

    Questions like these are sophomoric.

  • Tony Hollick // 20 December, 2008 at 7:54 pm

    john thames:

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

    As I will answer yours:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Their history is instructive…


  • john thames // 20 December, 2008 at 9:09 pm


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

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

  • jb // 31 December, 2008 at 7:29 pm

    Dear Ed Straker,

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

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

  • jb // 31 December, 2008 at 7:39 pm

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

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

  • Tony Hollick // 1 January, 2009 at 2:18 pm


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Try this:

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

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


  • jb // 1 January, 2009 at 5:03 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • jb // 1 January, 2009 at 5:07 pm

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

  • jb // 1 January, 2009 at 6:07 pm

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

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

  • Tony Hollick // 1 January, 2009 at 6:25 pm


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

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

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

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

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


  • jb // 1 January, 2009 at 7:43 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • john thames // 5 January, 2009 at 7:34 am


    What are you arguing about?

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

  • Tony Hollick // 5 January, 2009 at 12:01 pm

    “john thames”:

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

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

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


  • john thames // 5 January, 2009 at 4:55 pm


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

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

  • Tony Hollick // 6 January, 2009 at 5:16 am

    “john thames”:

    Look at yourself:

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

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


  • john thames // 7 January, 2009 at 3:21 am


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

  • Tony Hollick // 7 January, 2009 at 5:08 am

    “john thames”:

    How old are you?

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


  • john thames // 7 January, 2009 at 7:01 am


    My age is irrelevant.

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

  • Tony Hollick // 7 January, 2009 at 1:42 pm

    “john thames”:

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


  • Tony Hollick // 7 January, 2009 at 1:45 pm

    “john thames”:

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


  • David Davis // 7 January, 2009 at 4:50 pm

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

  • Tony Hollick // 7 January, 2009 at 6:27 pm


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

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

    Here is his entry from Wikipedia:


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

    I’m a Member of Swordmasters International, BTW.



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

  • Tony Hollick // 7 January, 2009 at 6:56 pm

    Dave & Peter:

    Trailer for “Kill Bill”:



  • Ann Macintosh // 11 January, 2009 at 7:30 pm

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

  • John Thames // 12 January, 2009 at 5:07 am

    Miss Macintosh:

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

Leave a Comment