Document:Immortalising the Myth

 article  by Anthony Lawson dated 2013/12/22

---

Subjects: The Holocaust, Zionist, Nazi Germany, Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Source: Rense (Link)

★ Start a Discussion about this document

---

Immortalising the Myth

Comparing Zionist Apartheid Israel to Nazi Germany

I'm not ready to take on another video project, at the moment, but I get incensed when so many people — even intelligent commentators like Paul Craig Roberts and Man of the People, Roger Waters — insist on comparing Israel to Nazi Germany, when the comparison is quite absurd. Israel's policies are far worse than Nazi Germany's ever were.

Paul Craig Roberts wrote:

A person might wonder what is exceptional and indispensable about a government that is a reincarnation of Nazi Germany in every respect.

Roger Waters said:

The parallels with what went on in the 30’s in Germany are so crushingly obvious that it doesn’t surprise me that the movement that both you and I are involved in is growing every day.

It has been said that comparisons are odious, and they are even more so when the comparison is biased in the wrong direction.

Zionism's stated aim, as propounded by Theodore Herzl at the First Zionist Congress in Basel, August 1897, was to steal a land already occupied by others in order to create the Zionist Jewish State of Israel. And, ironically, it was not Adolph Hitler but Herzl who first coined the phrase “the final solution of the Jewish question” in a communication with the Czar of Russia.

The unification of Germany took place in 1871. However, as it was with many European nations at the time, there were many areas of conflict and dissent with local populations who spoke different languages and many German-speaking people were left out of the unified nation who, in troubled times, were at the mercy of opposing political forces in countries such as France, Poland and the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia.

But one factor was reasonably constant within these populations: their forbears had all been living in these territories for hundreds of years, no matter which language or dialect they spoke, or how they got pushed around on the political chessboard.

The Gathering Storm

On the front page of the March 24, 1933 issue of The Daily Express of London it was announced that Judea—also referred to as International Jewry—declared economic war on Germany.

This date can be taken as the true beginning of the Second World War, and it should also be noted that Germany’s influential Jewish population—industrialists and media owners—warned the instigators against this economic attack, but they were ignored. This then, is why Jews became 'The Enemies Inside the Gates of Germany' and why many of them were later herded into concentration camps when it was clear that a shooting war was more or less inevitable. A parallel can be drawn with the internment of large numbers of ethnic Japanese living in the United States following Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor.

In 1933, the German people had just elected a new leader, Adolf Hitler. The political infighting that preceded this is a vast story, but Hitler's election presaged the end to a long period of turmoil and economic woe in Germany and offered its people hope for a degree of stability and growth after they had been treated abominably, both territorially and economically, by the triumphant Allies at the end of the Great War, as manifested in the appallingly biased terms of the Treaty of Versailles.

After this, dare it be said, the Germans began to develop some of their long-lost pride as human beings, following the humiliation at Versailles, and much has been written and said about the concept of a superior race of people — an Aryan or Master Race — as propagandised by Hitler and its leaders.

The Aryan concept, despite claims to the contrary, pre-dates the Nazi era. The word originates from the Sanskrit word a–rya, in origin an ethnic self-designation, in Classical Sanskrit meaning honourable, respectable, noble. Nothing too wrong with aspiring to those qualities, even as a nation, I wouldn’t have thought. Compare that concept with the constantly reiterated claim of the Jews to be God’s Chosen People.

These feelings were epitomised in the aftermath of the assassination of a minor member of the Nazi party, Horst Wessel, in 1930. The famous, some insist on calling it infamous, Horst Wessel Lied, also known as Die Fahne hoch; The Flag is High — named after a minor member of the Nazi party who was shot by a member of the opposition Communist party, in 1930—had far more to do with pride and anti-Communism than an aggressive attitude towards any particular nation or religious group. It certainly had nothing to do with Jews, per se, although it is well known that Jews were prominent and very active in the rise of Communism in Russia, less than two decades earlier.

As an aside, Senator Joseph McCarthy would have applauded the sentiments of the lyrics in the early 1950s, because they can easily be related to his Reds-Under-the-Beds fears, but that was neither here nor there to those who were determined to blame Germany for absolutely anything and everything at the end of WW II, in 1945. Even today the Horst Wessel Lied is banned in Germany and Austria, and Amazon and Apple have been investigated for selling the song to German users. How dreadful!

One can only wonder what might have happened to the jingoistic songs of some of the Allies had they been the losers; for example: Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves . . . or the U.S. Marine Corps Hymn.

But no, it was only Germany's Horst Wessel Lied that got banned. What a pathetic way to attempt to skew history. Where do they come from, these petty-minded nit-picking people who think up such things? One of Abe Foxman’s ADL predecessors seems a likely culprit.

So, where was I? Oh yes, describing Germany's situation in early 1933. It is important to keep in mind that the vast majority of Germans were people whose forebears had been living in that general area of Europe for generation upon generation, so why shouldn't they have stood behind a leader who was prepared to stand up for them against the dual threats of International Jewry ganging up on one side and the Soviet Union, led by a preponderance of Jews on the other?

What would any sensible leader have done, under the circumstances? Prepare for the worst wouldn't have been a bad choice. Train up some battalions of crack troops, like other nations are wont to do these days. The British call theirs the SAS (Special Air Services) and the Americans have their Navy SEALs (Sea, Air, Land Teams) some of whom, not so long ago, formed a team that was sent off to murder an already-dead Osama bin Laden, and who appear to have been off'ed themselves on the orders of their commander-in-chief.

The big mistake that the Germans seem to have made was to give their specialist units such names as Waffen-SS, far more aggressive-sounding than the cuddly SEALs, one has to admit, although it merely means Weapons Protective Squad (bodyguards).

Then you have the ominous-sounding sturm — in a military sense meaning assault—thus SS-Sturmbannführer equals Protective Squad-Assault Command Leader, but Hollywood and the BBC have a habit of making these names sound something like Baby Bayoneting Battalions when spoken by actors or documentary voiceovers.

So there was Europe, on the brink of what had all the makings of an international conflict and—despite popular belief—Germany was not the nation to cast the first stone. In fact it was not even a nation that did the casting, it was a religious organisation with territorial aims in mind, but not in Europe. It was Jewish Zionists, and the first stone was cast in March, 1933.

Now we come to what led to the creation of Israel. Remember that the so-called holocaust, whatever that really entailed, was not to occur for about 40 years when the Zionist plot—for the takeover of a large part of the territory surrounding Jerusalem; the so-called Promised Land — was first hatched, in 1897.

The Zionists planned to take over a territory known as Palestine which was already populated by Arab Muslims and Christians far in excess, in numbers than the then indigenous Jewish population which, during the late 1930s, was being surreptitiously increased by the implementation of the Transfer Agreement, made between the Zionists and the Nazis—yes, imagine that, the Nazis actually negotiating with the Zionists about German Jews being allowed to leave Germany and settle in Palestine—and this was achieved by bribes and deals made earlier between Zionist Jews and the British and American political establishments of the time and known, quite innocuously, as the Balfour Declaration.

It was this agreement which, in the fullness of time, would result in what the Palestinians call The Nakba—The Disaster—when well-organised gangs of armed Jews rampaged through the land, dividing and conquering; destroying hundreds of Palestinian villages and herding those they didn’t kill into enclaves such as the tiny strip of coastal territory called Gaza, which is under siege 65 years later.

So please, Paul Craig Roberts, Roger Waters and others, do think twice about comparing the excesses of the Jewish Apartheid State of Israeli—both at its beginnings and continuously ever since—with what has been propagandised about the German Nazis being the cruellest bunch of SS-Sturmbahnvillains since Ghengis Khan's Mongol hordes went on the rampage.

The Inevitable Accusations

Roger Waters’s statement has, inevitably, produced the usual fits of righteous indignation from rabbis and holocaust enthusiasts. Here are some quotes from the London Guardian:

Now leading American thinker Rabbi Shmuley Boteach has raised the stakes by describing Waters' views as audacious and clearly antisemitic.
Writing in the New York Observer, the rabbi said: "Mr Waters, the Nazis were a genocidal regime that murdered six million Jews.”
Karen Pollock, chief executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust, said: "Everyone is entitled to an opinion and to advocate passionately for a cause, but drawing inappropriate parallels with the Holocaust insults the memory of the six million Jews ­ men, women and children ­ murdered by the Nazis. These kinds of attacks are commonly used as veiled antisemitism and should be exposed as such.”

When are these people and those who pass on their drivel going to get honest? Everyone may be entitled to an opinion, but they are sure to get insulted and falsely accused by people like Boteach and Pollock who clearly have something to protect. The six-million figure has been widely questioned for many years, mainly because of its reiteration in earlier Jewish texts and it is now widely recognised as being utterly preposterous since the Polish authorities officially reduced the Jewish death toll at Auschwitz and its associated camps from four million to just over one million.

But here we have two prominent Jews, both engaged in the business of educating people—a rabbi, designated by two Guardian reporters as a leading American thinker and the chief executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust who is also a member of the Jewish Human Rights Coalition, UK —deliberately linking this spurious claim to aid them in delivering the ultimate accusation of intolerance towards Jews in general: that of being anti-Semitic.

British taxpayers might also like to know that this educational trust was voted a parliamentary grant of £4.65 million, in 2008, when it was announced that:

More than 1,500 students have now had the opportunity to visit the concentration camps at Auschwitz-Birkenau as a result of the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust.

So how did the myth of the six million Jews murdered by Germans manage to survive for so long?

A Summation of the Sequence

On April 18, 1945, in the immediate aftermath of World War II, the New York Times reported that 4 million people died at Auschwitz and this fact has been bandied about for at least 50 years. (But please note, the numbers of Jews who allegedly died are not specified.)

Got that? 4 million people died . . . And just to be clear, I checked when the Russians actually liberated Auschwitz and its satellite camps to see if there could possibly have been any authentication of this number in such a short space of time. I searched for the information I was looking for in what I hoped would be a website acceptable to those who might wish to question my research. In the end, I came across an article on the website of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum titled: Liberation of Auschwitz which sounded authentic enough even for the likes of Abe Foxman and Alan Dershowitz, and here is the relevant quote:

On January 27, 1945, the Soviet army entered Auschwitz and liberated more than 7,000 remaining prisoners, who were mostly ill and dying.

So the Soviets had had about two-and-a-half months to get the figures together for the New York Times report of 4 million although, as might be expected, there are reports that many documents were destroyed or carried away by the Germans as the Soviet army advanced.

But that information pales into insignificance when continuing to read the Liberation of Auschwitz article and discover the following:

It is estimated that at minimum 1.3 million people were deported to Auschwitz between 1940 and 1945; of these, at least 1.1 million were murdered.

Hello, hello, hello — as British coppers are wont to say when things don’t quite add up — what’s goin’ one ‘ere?

We’ve got a rabbi (teacher) and the chief executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust both sticking to the six-million figure as well as bandying about the ant-Semitic accusation, which means that either they or the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum are not telling us the truth.

Clearly, if the original six-million figure was supposed to have been accurate—taking into account the number of alleged Jewish deaths at other German-run concentration camps for the not-insignificant period of half-a-century—then a reduction from four million to just over one million at the Auschwitz complex must mean that the total figure of six million Jews allegedly murdered by the nasty Nazis is out by about three million. Quite an error, one has to admit.

So, if such a huge error could have been hidden for 50 years, there is a distinct possibility that there were no planned exterminations. And it is a fact that no equipment that would have been necessary to operate the so-called death chambers has ever been discovered. Anywhere.

What were discovered were rooms equipped with machines designed to blow hot air over Zyklon B pellets, to liberate the hydrogen cyanide gas soaked into them and circulate it around clothes and bedding; Zyklon-B was an insecticide used to kill the lice that spread the deadly disease typhus. Zyklon B was used to save human beings, not to kill them. Now ask yourself. Why would so many of those pieces of equipment have survived, but none that had to do with exterminating humans? Had the Russian found such equipment, at Auschwitz, wouldn’t they have preserved it as evidence against their arch enemies?

Another reason why I am so suspicious about any information about this period is epitomised in an email I have just received, from YouTube, the text is as follows:

Regarding your account: Anthony Lawson
We have received a legal complaint regarding your video. After review, the following video: "Holocaust, Hate Speech and Were the Germans so Stupid? — Updated", has been blocked from view on the following YouTube country site(s):
French Guiana, Wallis and Futuna, Switzerland, Israel, Reunion, Mayotte, French Southern Territories, New Caledonia, Czech Republic, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Poland, Austria, Martinique, Guadeloupe, France, French Polynesia, Italy, Germany
YouTube blocks content where necessary to comply with local laws. Please review our help centre article on legal complaints //support.google.com/youtube/bin/answer.py?answer=3001497&hl=en-GB.
Yours sincerely,
The YouTube Team

I received a similar notification about six months ago and I replied asking them exactly what a “legal complaint” was and why wasn’t I copied with its contents. But after several repeated requests The YouTube Team failed to respond.

To me, and many others, it is quite clear that details of certain events that occurred between 1933 and 1945 are being covered up, and that it must be the Zionist establishment that is doing it. It follows, then, that the reported rise in so-called anti-Semitism is being driven by the Zionists themselves, because of their dishonest behaviour in attempting to suppress any legitimate investigation or comment on what they call the Jewish Holocaust. It is, in certain countries, the only event in history on which open discussion is illegal, and many criminal prosecutions have resulted in heavy fines and imprisonment.

This is, of course, in direct breach of Article 19 in The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights:

19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Whatever arrangements were made between the Zionists, Britain and the United States that resulted in the iniquitous formulating of the Balfour Declaration, in November 1917, and whatever accusations can be made against Adolf Hitler for aiding and abetting the migration of many Jews to Palestine, the behaviour of the Zionist Jews towards the indigenous population has been nothing less than shameful.

The majority of the lands in Palestine were the properties of the Palestinian rural population, the fellahin. In the process of the creation of the state of Israel, over 418 Palestinian villages were depopulated and destroyed. Bedouin semi-nomadic tribes were displaced and 104 Palestinian populated villages remained under Israeli control. Understanding the culture of the fellahin is key to understanding the system of land ownership in Palestine. Referring to the fellahin of Palestine as peasants, as they are often referred to is an unfair misrepresentation of Palestinian society and culture to say the very least.

Just imagine that your local county council decided that they were going to divide up the place you were living in and give more than half of it to a bunch of people you’d never met and who, when they arrived, told you—at gunpoint—which part of your house and your garden they were going to occupy and if you didn’t like the arrangement you could shove off.

The Balfour Declaration was converted into the Mandate for Palestine by The Council of the League of Nations, in July 24, 1922. A section of which reads as follows:

. . . adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine . . . (emphasis added)

But, as we all know, the nations involved have done next to nothing, over the years, to pay even lip service to the rights of the non-Jewish communities that had been well established on that land for hundreds of years. Furthermore, it appears that the United Nations was in error, following WW II, to order the creation of the State of Israel. The closing paragraph of The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel reads as follows:

The U.N. could not deprive the majority of the people of Palestine of their territory and transfer it to the exclusive use of a minority in the country…. The United Nations Organization has no power to create a new State. Such a decision can only be taken by the free will of the people of the territories in question. That condition is not fulfilled in the case of the majority proposal, as it involves the establishment of a Jewish State in complete disregard of the wishes and interests of the Arabs of Palestine.

The Principles of Evidence

People who make accusations of anti-Semitism when they really mean anti-Zionism are rabidly dishonest, because there is absolutely nothing wrong with disliking or being anti a very suspicious and disturbing political movement that is opposed to democratic principles. It is well known that Zionists control politicians in many countries because they have the funding to buy their allegiance for the price of a candidate’s next election campaign, and it really doesn’t matter which party wins, as long as the fear of losing is always present, so that the successful candidates always feel beholden to those Who Pay the Piper.

It is also dishonest to characterise the search for knowledge about what is called the Jewish holocaust as denial. To draw a parallel, nobody denies that the Titanic sank, but trying to find out why it sank has never been considered to be disrespectful to those who died or to their loved ones who survived them.

It has been estimated that around 60 million people died during World War Two. Each and every one of those deaths was a tragedy, as was the pain and suffering caused by injury and loss to those who survived. But to prevent anyone from attempting to find out why such a war could have happened should be considered a crime against humanity.

The fact that about one-quarter of a billion people in Europe are not allowed to exercise their right to free speech and research on the single issue of what happened to the Jews, and why, is a despicable misuse of power by the Zionists and clearly indicates that there is a lot that needs to be hidden.

In a properly constituted court of law, anyone found to be bringing undue influence against those who had legitimate evidence to present on any issue being adjudicated, be it a matter of grievous bodily harm, fraud or murder would be in contempt of court.

If people like Karen Pollock and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach gave evidence to such a court, knowing that it was provably wrong, they would also be held in contempt and either jailed or fined, just as those some of those who have exercised their right to free speech about the so-called holocaust have been.

But one of the most despicable uses of Zionist power has been, and continues to be the attempt to prevent people from revealing the extent of the abusive and illegal actions and crimes of Israel against the Palestinians, by using diversionary tactics such as accusing anyone who criticises Israel’s appalling behaviour towards them as being anti-Semitic.