WWII 'biggest fool's errand in history'
Honest Aryan
wrote:
> http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,2142098,00.html
>
> What Churchill said about Britain's immigrants
>
> David Smith
> Sunday August 5, 2007
>
> Observer
> Sir Winston Churchill expressed alarm about an influx of 'coloured
> people' in Fifties' Britain and looked for a chance to restore
> punishment by flogging, newly released cabinet papers from the national
> archive reveal.
>
> On 3 February 1954, under the agenda item 'Coloured Workers', Churchill
> is quoted, with abbreviations, by Cabinet Secretary Sir Norman Brook as
> saying: 'Problems wh. will arise if many coloured people settle here.
> Are we to saddle ourselves with colour problems in UK? Attracted by
> Welfare State. Public opinion in UK won't tolerate it once it gets
> beyond certain limits.'
> ......
>
> Too bad Winnie isn't still around to reap what he helped bring about.
Too bad dweebs still cheering Good Old
Winnie And His Poor Jews for 'saving' them
never ask themselves 'from what' and 'for what'.
--
Visit the Cybermuseum of BBC War Crimes at:
http://users.bluecarrots.com/rbisto/BBC/BBC.html
Admission *FREE* - even for libruls!
Mikein...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text ->
I was amused when George Galloway remarked with approval on his radio
programme how Alan Clark in his excellent book Barbarossa said the
Russians would have won without Western help anyway.
He meant of course that communism is wonderful. He worships Castro.
But was it worth all that terrible suffering and consequent national
destruction by the left for Britain to engage in a struggle to the
death with Hitler? Lots have asked whether we would have done better
with a deal in 1940.
Hitler, as Clark explains, was so monstrously brutal in Russia that he
was not seen as a rescuer from the equally or arguably worse monstrous
brutality of Stalin. The area of Russia least brutalised was the one
which gave most economic benefit to Germany.
Honest Aryan
> I was amused when George Galloway remarked with approval on his radio
> programme how Alan Clark in his excellent book Barbarossa said the
> Russians would have won without Western help anyway.
>
> He meant of course that communism is wonderful. He worships Castro.
> But was it worth all that terrible suffering and consequent national
> destruction by the left for Britain to engage in a struggle to the
> death with Hitler? Lots have asked whether we would have done better
> with a deal in 1940.
>
> Hitler, as Clark explains, was so monstrously brutal in Russia that he
> was not seen as a rescuer from the equally or arguably worse monstrous
> brutality of Stalin. The area of Russia least brutalised was the one
> which gave most economic benefit to Germany.
Britain's interests would have been best served
by joining in the attack on Stalin.
It's decisive contribution could have been to
straighten the Fuehrer out on a couple of things.
Mikein...@aol.com
Certainly Hitler would have been happy to let the Jews go elsewhere if
that could have been agreed. Problem was where. Madagascar?
Palestine?
fk
Keep this thread in the correct newsgroup.
this is not alt.British.comedy material, this is
alt.British.historicalnazishit
job...@hushmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, he said he would, and he was of course a man who could always be
relied upon to tell the truth, as Chamberlain found out.
parr...@yahoo.com
Prior to 1939, possibly. Afterwards - no chance.
> > Problem was where. Madagascar? Palestine?
Well, it was unlikely to be Palestine as he had already formed an
alliance with the Grand Mufti in Jerusalem which wasn't going to be
very beneficial to Jews in the region.
By 1941 the plan in Europe was to send those Jews that could work "To
the East" to "build roads". Eichmann later explained what this
euphemism meant.
>- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Well, he said he would, and he was of course a man who could always be
> relied upon to tell the truth, as Chamberlain found out.- Dölj citerad text -
Indeed. Plus he'd been ranting about destroying the Jews ever since
the 20's, and the T-4 programme in Germany wasn't looking at
relocating people...
>
> - Visa citerad text -
William Black
"Honest Aryan" <h...@centralpets.com> wrote in message
news:1190236976.8...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> Britain's interests would have been best served
> by joining in the attack on Stalin.
> It's decisive contribution could have been to
> straighten the Fuehrer out on a couple of things.
>
There are two major problems with that one.
1. By the time Hitler had worked out which was East he'd already bombed
half of Great Britain's cities flat and after burying their dead it's
doubtful if the people of the UK would have rallied behind old Adolf and his
gang of murderous psychopaths.
2. By the time Adolf had turned his gang of rabid murderers loose on the
peoples of Eastern Europe and Russia Churchill had made damn sure that
anyone with any sympathy with Hitler was either out of a position of power
or well away across the sea and somewhere seriously 'down range' of the
levers of power.
If Hitler had attacked the USSR some time before then it's possible that the
then British government might have done a deal, but not with the memory of
heaps of dead children littering the place still vivid is people's minds.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Honest Aryan
> Certainly Hitler would have been happy to let the Jews go elsewhere if
> that could have been agreed. Problem was where. Madagascar?
> Palestine?
Indeed.
Hitler simply wanted Jews out
but Good Old Winnie cut off their
escape route because he was
determined to have his Just War
with Germany at all costs.
Honest Aryan
> 1. By the time Hitler had worked out which was East he'd already bombed
> half of Great Britain's cities flat and after burying their dead it's
> doubtful if the people of the UK would have rallied behind old Adolf and his
> gang of murderous psychopaths.
>
> 2. By the time Adolf had turned his gang of rabid murderers loose on the
> peoples of Eastern Europe and Russia Churchill had made damn sure that
> anyone with any sympathy with Hitler was either out of a position of power
> or well away across the sea and somewhere seriously 'down range' of the
> levers of power.
>
> If Hitler had attacked the USSR some time before then it's possible that the
> then British government might have done a deal, but not with the memory of
> heaps of dead children littering the place still vivid is people's minds.
Which brings us back to Churchill.
There's no appeasing a warmonger, so
having let the Brits escape from Dunkirk
Hitler found Good Old Winnie simply used
them to fulfil his ambition of war with Germany.
William Black
> On 20 Sep, 08:12, MikeinCam...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>> Certainly Hitler would have been happy to let the Jews go elsewhere if
>> that could have been agreed. Problem was where. Madagascar?
>> Palestine?
>
> Indeed.
> Hitler simply wanted Jews out
> but Good Old Winnie cut off their
> escape route because he was
> determined to have his Just War
> with Germany at all costs.
That would have been a good trick.
Churchill wasn't in power at the start of the war.
William Black
> On 20 Sep, 19:01, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> 1. By the time Hitler had worked out which was East he'd already bombed
>> half of Great Britain's cities flat and after burying their dead it's
>> doubtful if the people of the UK would have rallied behind old Adolf and
>> his
>> gang of murderous psychopaths.
>>
>> 2. By the time Adolf had turned his gang of rabid murderers loose on the
>> peoples of Eastern Europe and Russia Churchill had made damn sure that
>> anyone with any sympathy with Hitler was either out of a position of
>> power
>> or well away across the sea and somewhere seriously 'down range' of the
>> levers of power.
>>
>> If Hitler had attacked the USSR some time before then it's possible that
>> the
>> then British government might have done a deal, but not with the memory
>> of
>> heaps of dead children littering the place still vivid is people's minds.
>
>
> Which brings us back to Churchill.
> There's no appeasing a warmonger, so
> having let the Brits escape from Dunkirk
> Hitler found Good Old Winnie simply used
> them to fulfil his ambition of war with Germany.
Nope.
I'll need that in English.
Molesworth
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> "Honest Aryan" <h...@centralpets.com> wrote in message
> news:1190482267.4...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > On 20 Sep, 08:12, MikeinCam...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Certainly Hitler would have been happy to let the Jews go elsewhere if
> >> that could have been agreed. Problem was where. Madagascar?
> >> Palestine?
> >
> > Indeed.
> > Hitler simply wanted Jews out
> > but Good Old Winnie cut off their
> > escape route because he was
> > determined to have his Just War
> > with Germany at all costs.
>
> That would have been a good trick.
>
> Churchill wasn't in power at the start of the war.
Well done William!
LOL
'done and dusted'
--
Molesworth
Honest Aryan
> That would have been a good trick.
>
> Churchill wasn't in power at the start of the war.
Churchill was when it mattered: when
Hitler was making peace overtures and when
Stalin was overrunning the Baltic states.
"It is a fact that more than half of the membership of the tiny
pre-Soviet Lithuanian Communist Party, about eight hundred
people, were Jews. It is also a fact that these Jewish Communists
in 1940 and 1941 played prominent roles in the Soviet occupation
administration of Lithuania. The most notorious interrogators of
the Lithuanian branch of the Soviet security police, the NKVD,
were Lithuanian Jewish Communists, and many such Jewish
Communists manned the NKVD detachments, which randomly
arrested and deported to Siberia the alleged class enemies
and other so-called `anti-Soviet elements' of Lithuania."
- from an essay by Aleksandras Shtromas, professor
of political science at Hillsdale College, Hillsdale, MI,
interned in the Kaunas ghetto, Lithuania, during
Churchill's pointless war with Hitler.
Honest Aryan
> Well done William!
>
> LOL
>
> 'done and dusted'
Western civilisation soon will be if it doesn't
get its head out of its ass and quit cheering Good
Old Winnie And His Poor Jews.
The 'Net will save us yet:
From: "Stan Pierce" <tpie...@bigpond.net.au>
Subject: Re: Adolf Hitler - The lies are collapsing under their own
weight
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 11:44:24 GMT
"Well Dr. Barry, I could tell you the sound of a Dornier bomber
right
now if I heard the engines. I'll live with that sound and the
screaming of people alight because of them till my dying day. I
should
never have had to suffer that at the age of five. I still burst into
tears hearing the planes on documentaries.
My parents generation were far from informed on what was going on
even when we were being bombed shitless for months on end. It was
a carefully controlled story we were told after it all too. There
was no minute by minute news. No television. Just black and white
photo's of a 'win' in a bombing raid photographed from thirty
thousand feet. Real dramatic stuff !
There were the 'hero' stories that as kids we all loved...and the
films. The ending was always the same...WE were the goodies and we
won. We never knew about many of the disasters on our side and
nothing
about the secret war with the Enigma until thirty years after the
events.
I swallowed whole the Nazi bogeyman and all the horror of them for
sixty years until I got a computer ten years ago and found out about
the Communist threat to Germany, who's money was behind it, and why
Hitler was so hatefull to the jewish people. I never knew a thing
about that side of it until then.
It made me think about those times again...not change my mind
though.
The horrors did happen. The evidence is too great. What I think
most
posters complain about though is the 'Industry' that has
surrounded
the horrors as though they were the only thing to think about. The
constant barrage of who the enemy was. For me that no longer bears
up.
It was all a massive balls up by Churchill as I see it now. He
chose
the wrong enemy. He made the whole english speaking world fight
Hitler instead of Stalin.
I would like to think he was right so I could have that comfortable
feeling of an old man being satisfied that it was all worth while.
But
the evidence as I see it now is all against him. Fifty million
people
dead . It's hard to believe a human being can make a mistake of
that magnitude. And the world story still seems to concentrate
on six million jews...the very people who had a hand in the cause
of the war.
But it will take the next generation to look at the evidence without
the fear of prosecution before the full story is told. You may think
this side of the story is crap. I don't."
Honest Aryan
> Nope.
>
> I'll need that in English.
Bear in mind: Aryan languages read from left
to right, unlike Hebrew.
Shalom ("molahS" if you prefer).
William Black
> On 22 Sep, 18:47, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Nope.
>>
>> I'll need that in English.
>
> Bear in mind: Aryan languages read from left
> to right, unlike Hebrew.
Well, except for Urdu...
William Black
> On 22 Sep, 18:46, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> That would have been a good trick.
>>
>> Churchill wasn't in power at the start of the war.
>
> Churchill was when it mattered: when
> Hitler was making peace overtures and when
> Stalin was overrunning the Baltic states.
I see.
So after inflicting the first defeat on the Nazi war machine you now expect
the UK to surrender?
How quaint...
Honest Aryan
> William pointed out that Churchill was NOT PM at the outbreak of WW2.
>
> The 'outbreak' geddit?
>
> It had ALREADY STARTED before Churchill became PM.
>
> The point you were making prior to the above (which you snipped btw)
> that it was all Churchills' fault for WW2.
My point, as in previous exchanges with your chum
William, was that Churchill was PM when it mattered:
when Hitler was making peace overtures (by allowing the
Brits to escape from Dunkirk) while Stalin was over-running
the Baltic States in 1940, having already overr-run the
the other half of Poland and a good chunk of Finland in 1939.
"...These mostly young Jews, often well-educated and from rich
or religious families, now addressed each other as 'comrade.'
One of them gestured a slash across the throat at me. Their love
for Communism and Jospeh Stalin knew no bounds - especially human
sacrifice. They were much worse than the blackmailers and denouncers
who emerged among the Jews and who were interested in the jobs or
goods of their Polish victims - such as our neighbour Jozek Kagan,
whose family we helped, but who became an NKVD informer."
http://www.polandsholocaust.org/memoir2.html
"A Gulag and Holocaust Memoir of Janina Sulkowska-Gladun
The Red Army Invades
----------------------------
At 5 a.m. on September 17, 1939, our telephone rang. It was the
third
week of war and it had been ringing day and night with urgent
messages
for my father Jan in his official capacity - often the only contact
I
had with him was running errands for him across the city. Before I
could throw on a housecoat, he had already run from the bedroom, not
waking his wife Natalia, and picked it up. He was quite used to the
routine by now.
On the other end was Starost [chief official of the county] Zaufal,
and a family friend, with some very important news.
'Hello...I'm listening...Yes...When?...Where?...I see...I see--' my
father's voice trailed off chocked with emotion and chronic
bronchitis.
Jan Sulkowski slowly hung up. I watched him as a silhouette swaying
against our veranda doors - his gold bracelet glinting in the early
dawn as he cradled his head in a pair of graceful but trembling
hands.
He said nothing as he tried to compose himself.
Finally he whispered: 'The Soviet Army has crossed the border...it's
all over...it's the end.'
'Maybe they're coming to help us against the Germans!' I spoke up
trying to bolster our spirits. He just put his arm around me and
shook
his head. We both realized that it was all over for Poland. But what
lay in store for the Sulkowski Family?
That day the sound of artillery echoed from the hills east of
Krzemieniec as our lightly-armed Frontier Defense Corps opposed the
Red Army which was pouring across the border with masses of soldiers
and tanks. Locked in mortal combat with the Nazis, we did not
anticipate an attack from that direction and our shock was
considerable. Confusion reigned as to the intent of the Soviet
Union,
but Poland was not privy to the secret protocals of the Molotov-
Ribbentrop Pact which would see us divided between our two age-old
enemies: Germany and Russia.
A horror unimaginable by Poles was closing in from both sides, and
it
was the last straw for some. That day a single revolver shot in the
Bona Hotel announced the suicide of Senator Siedlicki who also was
Head of the Theosophical Society for Poland. Meanwhile, our British
and French 'allies' confined themselves to dropping leaflets and
issuing threats as casualties in Warsaw surpassed 40,000.
Later that morning my father dispatched a county car to pick up my
sister Wanda and brother Czeslaw from a vaction spot in the country
with friends where they'd been dispatched following the German air
attack on Krzemieniec a few days earlier. Home was now the only
place
for the Sulkowski Family to face a dark future - one which would
split
our family apart forever.
Greta Garbos and Jewish Collaborators
---------------- -------------------------------------
The next morning a nauseating smell of crude burnt fuel and a rumble
of tanks and tractors announced the arrival of the Red Army into our
beautiful town. I ventured into the streets to see what it was all
about.
My introduction to the Red Army were rag-tag soldiers marching out
of
step and machinery that constantly broke down leaving a mess of mud
and oil. Even the NKVD officers wore canvass boots and tattered
greatcoats. Though they were well-armed, the Red Army didn't bring
supplies with them, and an occasional soldier would break from the
ranks to make a quick purchase. Their eyes bulged at the amount and
quality of goods in the stores even as they insisted that they had
'plenty of everything in the USSR--including Greta Garbos!' During
their entrance one of the Soviet soldiers slipped from a vehicle and
impaled himself on one of their long four-cornered bayonets - the
Soviets gave him a great funeral. What a contrast to our 12th Ulan
Regiment which paraded on national holidays in beautful uniforms and
maginficent steeds.
The Poles watched the Soviet invaders with a mixture of revulsion
and
fear. Not a few of us cried. My brother became so distraught that
shortly after, his hair began to come out in clumps while my little
sister could only ask: 'How could they do this?' But as
disconcerting
was the emergence of a local Jewish militia which was friendly to
the
Red Army and had made its appearance even before the enemy had
marched
in. Armed and organized, its first task was to arrest the students
and
Boy Scouts who had been posted as guards with old carbines in some
cases taller than them. The Jews roughed up the shocked youngsters
who
had considered their captors as friends and classmates, before
turning
them over to the Soviets from whom they had prior directions. What
was
the fate of these young Poles? In many cases torture and death. This
Jewish militia would help carry out the Soviet's dirty work during
their occupation. My family and others would fall victim to them.
In town, many Jews and Ukrainians were cheering and ingratiating
themselves with the Soviets. I recognized neighbours and
acquaintances
among those who were jostling and searching Poles or eyeing their
property for future theft. Jewish men offered gifts to the Russians
while their wives and daughters kissed their tanks. Among this
rabble
were ordinary criminals released from our jail by the NKVD to create
mayhem - one of them, a murderer, appeared at our door demanding my
father pay him 'backwages!' They were all emboldened by posters that
had suddenly appeared urging Ukrainians, Jews, peasants and others
to
attack Poles and Polish soldiers with axes and scythes. And the
Soviet
officers indicated they would not stand in the way of such slaughter
which was already turning the countryside red with the blood of a
Polish minority outumbered by Ukrainians and Jews. The county of
Krzemieniec was 42% Ukrainian, 35% Jewish and 15% Polish - and an
influx of Jewish refugees, many of them pro-Soviet, would tip the
scales even further against us.
On that day I had my first encounter with a swaggering group of
traitors attired in leather jackets, red armbands or sashes,
pistols,
and hatred in their eyes. I beheld classmates among them, including
girlfriends. These mostly young Jews, often well-educated and from
rich or religious families, now addressed each other as 'comrade.'
One of them gestured a slash across the throat at me. Their love for
Communism and Jospeh Stalin knew no bounds - especially human
sacrifice. They were much worse than the blackmailers and denouncers
who emerged among the Jews and who were interested in the jobs or
goods of their Polish victims - such as our neighbour Jozek Kagan,
whose family we helped, but who became an NKVD informer.
Starting as communist sympathisers who flocked to the militia or
acted
as spies, these political types would soon graduate into
'agitators,'
administrators and even sadistic interrogators for the Soviets as
they
filled positions in the new order. A knowledge of the language and
the
local scene, combined with their fanatacism, would be essential to
the
NKVD's reign of terror; they eagerly compiled lists and arrested
Poles
and Ukrainians - and Jews, whom they considered to be enemies of the
state. They were the ones who on horseback chased my father through
town like an animal, to act as interpreter for their torture
victims.
A sizable minority of Polish Jews from all levels collaborated,
usually passively but often actively, with the Soviet occupiers in
their liquidation of Poles in Eastern Poland in 1939-1941. (A
Krzemiencian whose family deportation was headed by a Jew and
cheered
by young Jews along the route to the cattle cars, would later
testify:
'Jewish society it appears at a rate of 95% or in any case in
overwhelming numbers immedaitely snuggled up to the new Soviet
rulers and worked with them in carrying out the new order. It was
largely through their help that the new order was able to set up
and expand in the occupied territories.')
The Jewish Yizkor (Memorial) Book of Krzemieniec confirms the
position
of the Jewish community: 'And yet, the Zionist Hebrews are useful
and
faithful subjects of the Soviet regime. And indeed, the Jews adopted
themselves quickly to life under the new regime.'
For many, including my kin, the last sight they had of Poland and
their loved ones, was a cattle car bound for Siberia, and a Jew or
Ukrainian, or both, with a rifle on every wagon."
Honest Aryan
> I see.
>
> So after inflicting the first defeat on the Nazi war machine you now expect
> the UK to surrender?
>
> How quaint...
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/acsc/97-0609h.pdf
"Hitler was in very good humor, he admitted that the course of
the campaign had been 'a decided miracle,' and gave us his
opinion that the war would be finished in six weeks. After that
he wished to conclude a reasonable peace with France, and
then the way would be free for an agreement with Britain.
He then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British
Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilisation
that Britain had brought into the world. He remarked, with a
shrug of the shoulders, that the creation of its Empire had
been achieved by means that were often harsh, but 'where
there is planning, there are shavings flying'. He compared the
British Empire with the Catholic Church-saying they were both
essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he
wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge
Germany's position on the Continent. The return of Germany's
lost colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would
even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved
in any difficulties anywhere. He remarked that the colonies were
primarily a matter of prestige, since they could not be held in
war, and few Germans could settle in the tropics. He
concluded by saying that his aim was to make peace with
Britain on a basis that she would regard as compatible with her
honour to accept."
"Defeat"? quaint indeed.
Molesworth
Honest Aryan <h...@centralpets.com> wrote:
> On 28 Sep, 01:37, Molesworth <ukm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > William pointed out that Churchill was NOT PM at the outbreak of WW2.
> >
> > The 'outbreak' geddit?
> >
> > It had ALREADY STARTED before Churchill became PM.
> >
> > The point you were making prior to the above (which you snipped btw)
> > that it was all Churchills' fault for WW2.
>
> My point, as in previous exchanges with your chum
> William, was that Churchill was PM when it mattered:
<snip unrelated matters>
So the Treaty Britain signed to protect Belgium, Poland etc etc was to
be ignored or reneged upon?
Britain went to war in 1914 for exactly the same reason. Why would
Hitler have expected any less in 1939? Neither war was in Britains'
interest. In fact the ruinous expense of both wars brought down the
Empire (among other reasons).
(GWB are you reading this?)
--
Molesworth
William Black
Well before any peace feelers could be detected in London and discussed the
German airforce was bombing RAF airfields and the Battle of Britain had
begun.
In reality the British had worked out before the attacks began that the
Germans couldn't invade with any chance of success without destroying Royal
Navy first, which they couldn't do.
Why should Britain surrender to the Nazis if they couldn't be directly
defeated and had superiority at sea?
William Black
> On 28 Sep, 01:37, Molesworth <ukm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> William pointed out that Churchill was NOT PM at the outbreak of WW2.
>>
>> The 'outbreak' geddit?
>>
>> It had ALREADY STARTED before Churchill became PM.
>>
>> The point you were making prior to the above (which you snipped btw)
>> that it was all Churchills' fault for WW2.
>
> My point, as in previous exchanges with your chum
> William, was that Churchill was PM when it mattered:
> when Hitler was making peace overtures (by allowing the
> Brits to escape from Dunkirk) while Stalin was over-running
> the Baltic States in 1940, having already overr-run the
> the other half of Poland and a good chunk of Finland in 1939.
And you'd have liked Britain to surrender at that point?
Honest Aryan
> > Bear in mind: Aryan languages read from left
> > to right, unlike Hebrew.
>
> Well, except for Urdu...
Bollox.
Arabic script.
Honest Aryan
> <snip unrelated matters>
>
> So the Treaty Britain signed to protect Belgium, Poland etc etc was to
> be ignored or reneged upon?
It was reneged upon.
War wasn't declared on Stalin when he
invaded Poland.
And Hitler wanted to give Belgium back
two weeks after he took it.
"It's permissible to discuss the power of every other
group, from the Black Muslims to the Christian Right, but
the much greater power of the Jewish Establishment is
off-limits. That, in fact, is the chief measure of its
power: its ability to impose its own taboos while
tearing down the taboos of others - you might almost say
its prerogative of offending. You can read articles in
Jewish-controlled publications from the [New York] Times to
Commentary blaming Christianity for the Holocaust or
accusing Pope Pius XII of indifference to it, but don't
look for articles in any major publication that wants to
stay in business examining the Jewish role in Communism
and liberalism, however temperately."
http://www.sobran.com/establishment.shtml
"The Jewish Establishment
(Reprinted from SOBRAN'S, September 1995, pages 4-5)
In the early 1930s, Walter Duranty of the New York Times
was in Moscow, covering Joe Stalin the way Joe Stalin
wanted to be covered. To maintain favor and access, he
expressly denied that there was famine in Ukraine even
while millions of Ukrainian Christians were being starved
into submission. For his work Duranty won the Pulitzer
Prize for journalism.
To this day, the Times remains the most magisterial and
respectable of American newspapers.
Now imagine that a major newspaper had had a correspondent
in Berlin during roughly the same period who hobnobbed with
Hitler, portrayed him in a flattering light, and denied
that Jews were being mistreated - thereby not only concealing,
but materially assisting the regime's persecution. Would that
paper's respectability have been unimpaired several decades
later?
There you have an epitome of what is lamely called
'media bias.' The Western supporters of Stalin haven't
just been excused; they have received the halo of victimhood
for the campaign, in what liberals call the 'McCarthy era,'
to get them out of the government, the education system,
and respectable society itself.
Not only persecution of Jews but any critical mention of
Jewish power in the media and politics is roundly condemned
as 'anti-Semitism.' But there isn't even a term of opprobrium
for participation in the mass murders of Christians. Liberals
still don't censure the Communist attempt to extirpate
Christianity from Soviet Russia and its empire, and for
good reason - liberals themselves, particularly Jewish
liberals, are still trying to uproot Christianity from
America.
It's permissible to discuss the power of every other
group, from the Black Muslims to the Christian Right, but
the much greater power of the Jewish Establishment is
off-limits. That, in fact, is the chief measure of its
power: its ability to impose its own taboos while
tearing down the taboos of others - you might almost say
its prerogative of offending. You can read articles in
Jewish-controlled publications from the Times to
Commentary blaming Christianity for the Holocaust or
accusing Pope Pius XII of indifference to it, but don't
look for articles in any major publication that wants to
stay in business examining the Jewish role in Communism
and liberalism, however temperately.
Power openly acquired, openly exercised, and openly
discussed is one thing. You may think organized labor
or the Social Security lobby abuses its power, but you
don't jeopardize your career by saying so. But a kind of
power that forbids its own public mention, like the Holy
Name in the Old Testament, is another matter entirely.
There is an important anomaly here. The word 'Jewish,'
in this context, doesn't include Orthodox or otherwise
religious Jews. The Jews who still maintain the Hebraic
tradition of millennia are marginal, if they are included
at all, in the Jewish establishment that wields journalistic,
political, and cultural power. Morally and culturally, the
Orthodox might be classed as virtual Christians, much
like the descendants of Christians who still uphold the
basic morality, if not the faith, of their ancestors. Many
of these Jews are friendly to Christians and eager to
make common cause against the moral decadence they see
promoted by their apostate cousins. Above all, the
Orthodox understand, better than almost anyone else
in America today, the virtues - the necessity - of
tribalism, patriarchal authority, the moral bonds of
kinship.
The Jewish establishment, it hardly needs saying, is
predominantly secularist and systematically anti-Christian.
In fact, it is unified far more by its hostility to
Christianity than by its support of Israel, on which it
is somewhat divided. The more left-wing Jews are faintly
critical of Israel, though never questioning its 'right
to exist' - that is, its right to exist on terms forbidden
to any Christian country; that is, its right to deny rights
to non-Jews.
A state that treated Jews as Israel treats gentiles would
be condemned outright as Nazi-like. But Israel is called
'democratic,' even 'pluralistic.'
Explicitly 'Jewish' organizations like the American Jewish
Committee and the Anti-Defamation League enforce a dual
standard. What is permitted to Israel is forbidden to
America. This is not just thoughtless inconsistency.
These organizations consciously support one set of principles
here - equal rights for all, ethnic neutrality, separation
of church and state - and their precise opposites in Israel,
where Jewish ancestry and religion enjoy privilege. They
'pass' as Jeffersonians when it serves their purpose,
espousing rules that win the assent of most Americans. At
the same time, they are bent on sacrificing the national
interest of the United States to the interests of Israel,
under the pretense that both countries' interests are
'identical. (There is, of course, no countervailing American
lobby in Israel.)
The single most powerful Jewish lobbying group is the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which,
as its former director Thomas Dine openly boasted, controls
Congress. At a time when even Medicare may face budget cuts,
aid to Israel remains untouchable. If the Israelis were to
begin 'ethnic cleansing' against Arabs in Israel and the
occupied lands, it is inconceivable that any American
political figure would demand the kind of military strike
now being urged against the Serbs in ex-Yugoslavia.
Jewish-owned publications like the Wall Street Journal,
The New Republic, The Atlantic Monthly, U.S. News & World
Report, the New York Post, and New York's Daily News emit
relentless pro-Israel propaganda; so do such pundits as
William Safire, A.M. Rosenthal, Charles Krauthammer,
Jeane Kirkpatrick, and George Will, to name a few.
That Israel's journalistic partisans include so many
gentiles - lapsed goyim, you might say - is one more sign
of the Jewish establishment's power. So is the fact that
this fact isn't mentioned in public (though it is hardly
unnoticed in private.)
So is the fear of being called 'anti-Semitic.' Nobody
worries about being called 'anti-Italian' or 'anti-French'
or 'anti-Christian'; these aren't words that launch
avalanches of vituperation and make people afraid to do
business with you.
It's pointless to ask what 'anti-Semitic' means. It
means trouble. It's an attack signal. The practical
function of the word is not to define or distinguish
things, but to conflate them indiscriminately - to
equate the soberest criticism of Israel or Jewish
power with the murderous hatred of Jews. And it works.
Oh, how it works.
When Joe McCarthy accused people of being Communists,
the charge was relatively precise. You knew what he meant.
The accusation could be falsified. In fact the burden of
proof was on the accuser: when McCarthy couldn't make his
loose charges stick, he was ruined. (Of course, McCarthy
was hated less for his 'loose' charges than for his
accurate ones. His real offense was stigmatizing the Left.)
The opposite applies to charges of 'anti-Semitism.' The
word has no precise definition. An 'anti-Semite' may or
may not hate Jews. But he is certainly hated by Jews.
There is no penalty for making the charge loosely; the
accused has no way of falsifying the charge, since it isn't
defined.
A famous example. When Abe Rosenthal accused Pat Buchanan
of 'anti-Semitism,' everyone on both sides understood the
ground rules. There was a chance that Buchanan would be
ruined, even if the charge was baseless. And there was
no chance that Rosenthal would be ruined - even if the charge
was baseless.
Such are the rules. I violate them, in a way, even by
spelling them out.
'Anti- Semitism' is therefore less a charge than a curse,
an imprecation that must be uttered formulaically. Being
a 'bogus predicate,' to use Gilbert Ryle's phrase, it has
no real content, no functional equivalent in plain nouns
and verbs. Its power comes from the knowledge of its
potential targets, the gentiles, that powerful people are
willing to back it up with material penalties.
In other words, journalists are as afraid of Jewish power
as politicians are. This means that public discussion is
cramped and warped by unspoken fear - a fear journalists
won't acknowledge, because it embarrasses their pretense
of being fearless critics of power. When there are incentives
to accuse but no penalties for slander, the result is predictable.
What is true of 'anti-Semitism' is also true to a lesser
degree of other bogus predicates like 'racism,' 'sexism,' and
'homophobia.' Other minorities have seen and adopted the
successful model of the Jewish establishment. And so our
public tongue has become not only Jewish-oriented but more
generally minority-oriented in its inhibitions.
The illusion that we enjoy free speech has been fostered
by the breaking of Christian taboos, which has become not
only safe but profitable. To violate minority taboos is 'offensive'
and 'insensitive'; to violate Christian taboos - many of them
shared by religious Jews - is to be 'daring' and 'irreverent.'
('Irreverence,' of course, has become good.)
Jewry, like Gaul, may be divided into three parts, each
defined by its borders vis-à-vis the gentile world. There are
the Orthodox, who not only insist on borders but wear them.
They often dress in attire that sets them apart; they are
even willing to look outlandish to gentiles in order to
affirm their identity and their distinctive way of life.
At the other extreme are Jews who have no borders, who may
(or may not) assimilate and intermarry, whose politics may
range from left to right, but who in any case accept the
same set of rules for everyone. I respect both types.
But the third type presents problems. These are the Jews
who maintain their borders furtively and deal disingenuously
with gentiles. Raymond Chandler once observed of them that
they want to be Jews among themselves but resent being seen
as Jews by gentiles. They want to pursue their own distinct
interests while pretending that they have no such interests,
using the charge of 'anti-Semitism' as sword and shield. As
Chandler put it, they are like a man who refuses to give
his real name and address but insists on being invited to
all the best parties.
Unfortunately, it's this third type that wields most of
the power and skews the rules for gentiles. The columnist
Richard Cohen cites an old maxim: 'Dress British, think Yiddish.'
Americans ought to be free to discuss Jewish power and
Jewish interests frankly, without being accused of denying
the rights of Jews. That should go without saying. The truth
is both otherwise and unmentionable."
Honest Aryan
> Well before any peace feelers could be detected in London and discussed the
> German airforce was bombing RAF airfields and the Battle of Britain had
> begun.
Doubtless some real bombs got dropped in the Phoney War.
> In reality the British had worked out before the attacks began that the
> Germans couldn't invade with any chance of success without destroying Royal
> Navy first, which they couldn't do.
Warmonger Churchill was as fond of such calculations
as he was of speeches about his Thousand Year Empire etc.
> Why should Britain surrender to the Nazis if they couldn't be directly
> defeated and had superiority at sea?
Because Stalin's stooge was pretty soon
complaining about the fruits of 'victory' - see
start of this thread.
"One Hollywood motion picture Mogul declared in the British press
that he had a holiday in his heart every time a British soldier was
killed in Palestine."
http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Palestine/kidnap.htm