Searchlight's Zionist Agenda

An interesting article on Searchlies, Zionism and revisionist History:

GriffinWatch Blog

English Footballers in Auschwitz - Remembering Dead Poles?

Bernstein and Hodgson at Auschwitz: Yarmulkes in place

The media is trying to paint many Poles as "anti-Semites." The moralising and finger-wagging by metro-sexual liberals is almost at sickening levels.

We have never lived under the terror and horror of Communism. We haven't had millions of our people shipped to camps. We haven't had our country invaded in recent years. Poles might wonder why WW2 started to get Germany out of Poland only for Communist Russia (with its evil commissars) to be allowed in 'for free' in both 1939 and 1945.

Perhaps if we had people tortured and murdered by Communist commissars, then we too might be a little "anti-Semitic?" Who can say? It's all so easy to moralise and defend an event more to do with big business than grass roots sports, than it is to see how Polish people suffered through and beyond WW2.

The sight of people from the English FA wearing yarmulkes at Auschwitz must rankle with Poles again: did no Poles die at Auschwitz? Did they not have their country divided up and sacrificed? Yet for the media and the metrosexuals there is only one group of victims! Why didn't the FA wear crosses?

Auschwitz is not allowed to have Polish victims (just as the Auschwitz Crosses and nuns were removed after Jewish protests). Katyn never happened. Poland was never dissected nor occupied. Poles were not murdered by Red commissars, tortured or shipped to gulags for decades.

We would do well to understand the Poles and their hatred of Communism and the people who staffed its terror-machine, rather than join ignorant middle-class sponsorship-whores and defenders of multi-racism in meaningless posturing and moralising.

Or do you really think the next time England play Russia they will stop to visit gulags to remember the Christian victims of the same commissars who raped Poland?

Bishop Williamson Wins His Court Appeal Against 'Holocaust' Sentence & Fine

Great news!

His Lordship, the English Bishop Richard Willamson has won his appeal in a German Court against his conviction for having a personal opinion based on research of an historical event.

No, not the Battle of Hastings. Not the Bomber Command actions of WW2. Not the Boer War. Nor the Napoleonic Peninsular War. Not the sacking of Gibraltar.Not the gulags nor the Ukrainian forced starvation. Not the Irish potato famine. Nor the Katyn Forest massacre. Not the Spanish Inquisition. Not even the Armenian genocide. certainly not the expulsion of Palestinians.

It seems the only bit of world history we are not allowed to discuss, in quite a few countries, is the alleged "holocaust of six million Jews" (not even the number of Catholic Poles or Russian PoWs who died in German captivity).

What this does show is that given a punchy defence, standing up to the courts, victory is possible.

Congratulations to Bishop Williamson. As we go through Lent towards Easter, might those who still hide away "for fear of the Jews" as did the Apostles following the Crucifixion (the more times change, the more they stay the same) get out and start defending 'Europe and the Faith' from the anti-Christian hordes who seek to drag us and our Christian heritage down.

For more see Thought & Action blog

Are Some Pushing Zionist Agenda in Nationalist Circles?

A reader sent us an email which is published here verbatim. Why are some people still pushing the civic-nationalist proto-Zionist agenda? Nationalism suffers these idiots and the same names pop up at the centre of cranky attempts to create a "patriotism" which is controlled by the enemy.

Mr. Cotterill for one had a part-African gent elected as a "nationalist" councillor and lavished praise on the pro-Israeli film 'Munich.'

We do not know who the chairman of the meeting was, nor if he was Jewish. But it seems clear that a proto-Zionist line was taken, which annoyed our correspondent.

----------



       I attended a Bradford meeting last Saturday in which a Jew chaired the meeting and was on about Zionism and the showers/gas chambers.
                  I spoke up about the Wolzeck false testimony by Aushcwitz commander Hess. Jez Turner and Peter Rushden said nothing.

        Sent them the message below.

 

Poxy meeting it was. Zionism and the holohoax have nothing to do with truth and true patriotism. I don't reckon much of Mr Bronz now .

    Britain for the British, Palestine for the Palestinians and Berobodjhan for the Jews!

                

Subject: Notice of a meeting

Hi ######

Thanks for your e-mail. You can send the notice below to any other interested nationalists.

Yours Mark Cotterill.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This notice is for a meeting of CDN (Center for Democratic Nationalism) organised by the Democratic Nationalists Party.

Venue : The Salthorn WMC Armitage Road Oakenshaw Bradford BD12 7AR See below for directions.

Date : Saturday 4th Feb

Time : 2pm - 6pm. The club is open before and after these hours so if you want a drink before or after the meeting (or both !) as well as during the meeting no problem.

Speakers : So far (may be amended) Andrew Brons MEP
                                                      Peter Rushton
                                                      Richard Edmonds, Jim Lewthwaite,
Ken Booth (or another person speaking on behalf of 'NE Patriots')

At least half the meeting will be open for comments/speeches from members on the floor - this format worked well at the meeting the other month in Queeniborough.

Directions... [snip]

Hate Crimes: The Untold Story

Many thanks to the reader who sent in links for these:

The Irish Minister Who Wished Ireland had Fought Germany (Preparing for Iran?)

Alan Shatter TD, Minister for Justice & Equality

As I mentioned the other day, it was recently Holocaust Memorial Day, and there was the usual smattering of WW2 propaganda dressed up as sob-stories to pull at one's heart strings in the media (though thankfully less than previous years). I believe one newspaper even gave out a free onion which readers could peel in a pocket if they were insufficiently moved; not incidentally by stories of the gulags, of firestorms, of Cossacks or Caucasus communities wiped out en masse... no the suffering seems limited to just a few - really, just one - group of people.

And the stoopidest story? Well we've all heard of the real fairy tales of different coloured smoke for different nationalities being incinerated and other miracles (read Michael Hoffman's revisionist cartoon book for some of the best - I think it was called Tales of the Holocaust). But for this year the worst statement has to come from Alan Shatter (how apt!), the Irish Justice Minister, who said:

"in the context of the holocaust, Irish neutrality was a principle of moral bankruptcy."

I wonder how well that went down in Ireland! He's trying to link the Irish with the Swiss (and Spaniards and Portuguese, and Swedish) in that by our modern misconceptions and after 60 plus years of WW2 war propaganda no nation should have stayed out of WW2! It was everyones' duty, according to him and the "wisdom" of this (Zionist) media age in the shadow of umpteen Hollywood films, to join the war and fight Nazi Germany!

And here we have the dichotomy of nationalism, especially for those who haven't moved on from the last century. Many British nationalists think WW2 was wonderful, historically speaking. The 'patriots' of groups like UKIP (and to a lesser extent the BNP, English Democrats, EDL and suchlike) still talk in terms of Germany taking-over Europe. Then we have the National Socialists in groups like the British Movement to whom Hitler could do no wrong (even when he backed anti-British Indians and the IRA), and it was the duty of all racial patriots to fight for Germany, especially against Soviet Russia. I suppose you might say the difference is like that between former blackshirts AK Chesterton who joined the British Army, and William Joyce who went to Berlin and broadcast for Hitler's Germany.

And in the middle are the nationalists who aren't NS, but aren't worshippers of the Westminster State either, who to one degree or another think that "No More Brothers Wars" is the ideal, and that the war was ultimately fought for bankers. Some may think that Hitler played into their hands. Others may think he was their victim.

Wherever you fall in this sliding scale of State/Racial Nationalism (and I know it's oversimplified, but how else may one express it rather than going into a 10,000 word essay?) you would have to be some kind of uber-moron to call on all neutral nations to enter a war which was primarily between France/Britain and Germany; America and Russia not joining the Allies until 1941 - the former from official neutrality (albeit the US State was backing Britain, though charging interest), the latter from a hitherto pro-German standpoint (ordering its acolytes in Britain to all but sabotage the war effort in factories and suchlike).

Given that Ireland had fairly recent memories of not only a war against Britain, but also a fratricidal Civil War in which many Irish families even fought against each other, it is highly dubious and a gross rewriting of history to suggest Ireland should have fought Germany in WW2. Like most neutral nations there is evidence of Ireland leaning one way or another. Many UKIPers and the like point to their telegram to Germany in 1945 to commiserate on the death of their Fuhrer. Yet historians have shown how Ireland helped the Allies by marking points on the Atlantic coast as navigation aids for the Allies. Just as neutral Argentina tended to lean towards Germany (at least in the first half of the war), so neutral Ireland leaned towards the British, e.g. handing over downed German pilots.

Yet according to Mr Shatter (no, I really haven't made that up) Ireland should have sent hundreds of thousands of its men to die in a war started to protect Poland from a power that invaded it in September 1939, which ended by handing over the entirety of Poland (and other European nations) to a power that... er... invaded it in September 1939.


What a waste.

Of course the difference is "the holocaust." As Mr, Shatter dribbled (no doubt busy peeling his free onion) it was "in the context of the holocaust." That is why, 60 odd years on we still have holocaust propaganda; because without it, WW2 would be just like WW1 for most people -- a colossal waste of lives, of money, of time. It is only "the holocaust" that differentiates WW2, and makes it some sort of "holy war" to free Europe's Jews, and deliver them to freedom (by letting them occupy Palestine).

It is all one long trick, a con trick to justify a war that did not give Poland her freedom, that levelled European cities only to deliver Poland to 50 odd years of Communist slavery and tyranny. e.g. we never hear of the amount of Poles who died in WW2, or the number of Poles incarcerated in German concentration camps, or in Soviet gulags - never mind atrocities such as Katyn. When Poles went to Auschwitz in 1998 to erect crosses in memory of all the Poles who were kept in the work camps (and those who died in them) it was Zionist Jews who poured urine over the Poles, said the crosses must be removed, and engaged in a huge campaign to evict nuns who had set-up at Auschwitz (which the Church shamefully capitulated to).

Even if they accept the fictitious "six million" you see, there is no way the Polish people can be allowed to distract people from the holocaust story. The Poles aren't allowed to show that Polish Christians suffered, that the Polish nation was ripped apart, that Poles were displaced and killed, and that (most tellingly of all!) 6 years of war, launched on the pretext of freeing Poland, delivered Poland into 5 decades of gulags, murder, torture, suffering and totalitarian repression.

As Brits looking back we are told that we must remember the liberation of Auschwitz and Dachau. We cannot be allowed to remember the liberation of Poland, because despite being the central war aim -- and especially as it never happened despite being the pretext of war in 1939!

If I were an Irishman, I would slap Mr Shatter in the face with an old kipper. No, Ireland should not have entered WW2. It had no duty to do so. Not one Irishman was threatened, Ireland's sovereignty was not threatened. Tens of thousands of Irish lives were saved by Ireland's decision not to enter WW2 and there is no evidence that one single Jewish death (e.g. from typhus due to Allied mass bombing of German infrastructure in 1945) could have been averted. If the holohoax is to be used (or according to those like Prof Norman Finkelstein, abused), then Ireland's decision was justified, and if Poland's freedom is to be used, then Ireland's decision was justified too.

Some UKIPers and Freemasons may mislabel the Irish as traitors (to whom?). Some Zionists may like to think all neutral nations should not have been neutral ("in the context of the holocaust").

But what does this matter today? Well, those nations who say no to Zionist controlled America (Israel's mouthpiece) when it comes to highly questionable wars, whether old ones (like Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya) or new ones (like Syria and Iran) are often called cowards, traitors etc. The misquoted, out of context words of Iran's Ahmadinajad (about "wiping Israel off the map") are used as if to apply the same holocaustianity-lined pressure on neutral countries who question the legality of wars against sovereign nations on highly questionable, flimsy or put-up ("sexed up" if you will) evidence.

Historically neutral or non-Zionist countries (like Ireland) should be free to question the geo-political events as they unfurl, not least events such as the Israeli commando assault on the charity flotilla heading for Palestine, which had a lot of support in Ireland.

Sadly the words of Mr Shatter increase the myth of the holocaust, increase it's "Holy" nature, its position as the centre of a new religion (a kind of gentile Phariseeism whose aim is the total protection of Israel) and that is why Mr Shatter's words are not about a war in the middle of the last century; rather they reflect on the geo-political events of today.

How long before politicians, in Ireland and elsewhere, are telling us all that another war is necessary lest "another holocaust" happens? A line already used, incidentally, by the likes of Melanie Philips, David Aaronovitch and the other paid mouthpieces of Israel in our controlled media; and so undoubtedly the line of attack in Western countries by Israel itself.

Mr Shatter's "in the context of the holocaust, Irish neutrality was a principle of moral bankruptcy" is already being translated into the British politicians' "in the context of the holocaust, British neutrality on the matters of Syria and Iran is a principle of moral bankruptcy."

===



P.S. I do not expect trolls, Zionists and Reds to believe me; but on searching for an image of Mr Alan Shatter, Irish Minister for Justice & Equality, I found out from Wikipedia: "Shatter was born in Dublin to a Jewish family... He supports Tottenham Hotspur Football Club,^[2] and is the only Jewish member of Dáil Éireann."

I had no idea when I wrote the above piece that Mr. Shatter is Jewish (or stereotypically a Spurs supporter) - merely that his comments were extraordinarily twisted and working to an agenda. This supports my thesis that Mr Shatter's comments aren't so much/only about rewriting Irish history, but of pushing an agenda for accepting future wars that are in Israel's interests and those of extreme Zionists, Neo Con warmongers and those who seek to profit from needless war (and not the Irish, British or any other disinterested peoples).

Jews and Japs: Removal, Internment and War

Germany 1935

The banner reads "Jews are not wanted here" and it hangs in Bavaria, Southern Germany in 1935.

Of course it is now proof that Germans wanted to kill all Jews and were really awful people, who needed a drastic lesson from the "democracies" a la Dresden February 1945.

What we're not told is that world Jewry declared war on Germany in 1933. Five years later, on November 7 1938, Herschel Grynszpan, a Jew, walked into the German embassy in Paris and shot Ernst vom Rath, a German diplomat, five times. This led to anti-Jewish disturbances known as "kristallnacht" -- not unlike when Italian businesses had their windows put  through in the UK when Italy joined WW2 on June 10th 1940 and riots broke out:

The terrified owners, many with British citizenship and having been resident in the British Isles (often for decades), were forced to barricade themselves into back rooms. The worst riots were in Liverpool, Cardiff, Swansea and Newport, all with large pre-war Italian populations.

There was also vicious anti-Italian rioting in Scotland.

England 1933

But back to 1938, after the German diplomat was shot, the leading Jewish activist group in Paris paid for all the legal costs of the terrorist Grynszpan as David Irving explains here. Join the dots...


Now move forward a few years and Japan declares war on America and launches a military strike on Pearl Harbour. 


Were the Americans plotting to murder all the Japanese (including alien, Americanised and mixed race Japanese) men, women and children that it herded into concentration camps?

America 1941

Perhaps if America were bombed into oblivion, had its food supplies and railways cut, then (as in the Confederate-era prison camps) the Japanese internees would also have come out suffering dysentery, cholera and other diseases leaving some of them looking skeletal (whilst others looked completely normal).


We need to put aside many decades of WW2 propaganda, and ongoing Zionist propaganda, and look at the history of the various nations in those dark times. No one has clean hands, all were prone to kneejerk reactions to acts of aggression by "the enemy."

Here we see a headline celebrating the removal of 'Japs' to concentration camps, and yet a similar German headline of the removal of all Jews would stand as evidence of the holocaust.






Link:
Photos of American Concentration Camp for Japanese

Time for a Holocaust Musical? We've had Everything Else...

It was Ricky Gervais's and Stephen Merchant's series Extras which ran the episode in which it was stated that a film about the holohoax guarantees an Oscar. Now there's a truism.

Whilst an extremely well made and extremely popular film about Jesus Christ (The Passion of The Christ) was deliberately blocked by distributors and from the main Oscar awards, every big film about the holohoax, in reality war and pro-Israeli propaganda being relived time and time again for various vested interests (which Norman Finkelstein has labelled the "Holocaust Industry"), is a virtual shoe-in for an Oscar.

We have even had a Jewish film maker (Mel 'Brooks' Kaminsky) make a musical comedy (The Producers) about the Third Reich (not to mention Tarantino's "torture porn" and semi-sexual fantasies of Inglorious Basterds). So how far away are we from a musical comedy about the holocaust?

Cue the Evil German and the Avaricious Collaborators

Oh sure the usual people who decry it as "insensitive," but in reality they would love it as it would remind us all of how Jews (and no-one else?) suffered in WW2, how the deliberate industrial-scale mass extermination of Jews was a policy of the Third Reich, and bring the holohoax to a whole new level of people who might never watch The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas or The Reader.

Too low? Really? I don't think it would be too low for them - we are talking of a group of people who insist on the holohoax being a shoe-in on any historical film, whether it is sexual (The Reader), about children (...Striped Pyjamas), a musical (The Producers), violent and retributive (Inglorious...), about "good" Germans (Schinler's List), about rebellion (Defiance) or even about Science Fiction (X Men).

Every angle has been covered. On the other hand Communism killed circa 100 million people in the 20th Century, but you'd be hard-pressed to find any major film, certainly any Hollywood blockbuster or Oscar-nominee, which tackled the torture, starvation, death and gulags of Communism (be it Soviet or other).

Is it cos I is Christian?

One might surmise why this is: the victims were Christians, Communism was Jewish (as Winston Churchill pointed out). Indeed, Michael Hoffman has written how the mass murderers of Communism transformed themselves into "holocaust survivors" in one fell swoop.

Meanwhile in America various people, from ADL boss Abe Foxman to actor Marlon Brando have stated that Jews run Hollywood. The difference is that when folks like Joel Stein say it they are cheered, when gentiles like Brando or Gibson say it their careers are attacked.

"The Jews are so dominant," writes [LA Times columnist] Joel Stein, "I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies." "But lo and behold," Stein says, "even one of that six, AMC President Charles Collier, turned out to be a Jew!"

"As a proud Jew," says Stein, "I want America to know of our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood."

So if the powers-that-be (aka the you-know-who's) decide we need an all musical on the holocaust - we'll get it, along with a media kerfuffle designed to make it a household subject again.

Link:

Jews on Hollywood/Media Control

Stephen Spielberg's Big Holocaust Lie- Exposed

Spielberg's The Last Days film got an Academy Award (Schindler's List of course won "best film").

Whereas The Passion of the Christ was, according to the LA Times "shut out of contention for Oscar's biggest honors."

See this wonderful documentary here

It is clear that Hollywood is fighting a (anti) Cultural war for the "holocaust industry" and against Christianity. How else can we explain the fact that "holocaust" films get lauded and given gongs, whereas one single film that tells the history of the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ gets brickbats, smears, blockades and attacks by the media, the "experts" and the "hate watchers."

Many thanks to News From Atlantis blog for bringing this to the blogosphere's attention. The video contains absolute proof of the lies told by a minority of survivors as they climb aboard the 'holocaust industry' gravy train.

Bob 'TV Nazi' Holness, St Stephan Lawrence and Murdered Arabs

Bob "Der Fuhrer" Holness

It is a little known fact that some people made official complaints to ITV (or whatever it was called back then) about the (recently deceased) Blockbuster host Bob Holness. It seemed on greeting new contestants he would fling his arm up in the air and they said this was "nazi".

Can I Have a P Please Adolf?

Is there nothing more absurd in this world?

Just the other day I saw a tweet from the Holocaust Educational Trust babbling on about Stephan Lawrence, and how terrible his murder was etc. etc. These are the same people who treat the mass murder, concentration camps, torture, expulsion and discriminatory laws used against the Palestinian people for over half a century as perfectly fine, and any attempt to equate that or the murder of millions by the Communists with their HolyHoax is itself a "hate crime" and proof of "anti-Semitism."

Ed Balls on his Blackbusters policy

Yet the wily old Zionoid was free to equate St Stephen Lawrence with his aged hoax, because he chose to do so, and he no doubt thinks this will 'lift up' his HolyHoax. Heaven forbid that we European-Whites should ever treat the non-European guests in Europe as badly as the Jewish "Israelis" treat the indigenous Arabs of those parts! And yet we patriots are lambasted for our "racism" when we say we are against coloured immigration by the very same vested interests who come out with the old canard that Israel is an "island of democracy." You couldn't make it up!

Isn't it funny that millions of Rwandans and Ukrainians can be wiped out, or an entire nation like Armenia obliterated, and the HolyHoax always retains it's topmost place, being taught in our schools (when we had no role other than to "liberate" Jewry). To try and equate their Holyhoax with anything else (even the 100 million killed by Communism) has been condemned by St Deborah Lipstadt as a form of anti-Semitism. 

Having their Kosher-Cake and Eating It

Yet when it suits their aims and they want to look "all inclusive," instead of practising racial separatism and having some of the strictest racial laws in their own artificial homeland (their ownership of which is based on a covenant they broke when Christ was murdered; not including the many Jews who converted to Talmudism of the Pharisees and Kabbalistic Black Magic since then), then they are happy to equate their Holyhoax with the murder of a single individual or the strange arm greeting of a TV gameshow host!

Killing time until Blockbusters was on

But don't ever say to the self-chosen few who run the Holocaust Industry (who will even call Jews who question what they do "anti-Semitic") that the wanton murder of a single Palestinian by racist Jews, or the bizarre behaviour of anyone (let along a TV show host) could be equated to the HolyHoax, for then you too will be an "anti-Semite."

It's all so very two legs good, four legs bad... Two legs good, four legs bad... Four legs good, two legs bad...

Isn't it?

BBC: Revisionists!

As it is illegal in so many countries to question the holyhoax (unlike the numbers who were massacred/wiped out by the Talmudic Communists), then the BBC must be hoping they don't get jailed for this bit of barefaced chutzpah:

Oh yes FC reader! Didntcha know that sub-Saharan negroes were champion knights in Romano-Celtic Britain.

Haven't you heard of the brave negro warriors who defended Britain from the influx of Saxon heathens?

This is Saturday night fodder for a brain dead generation who think Hitler was the goalkeeper in the 1966 world cup, or that Nelson was the name of the last space shuttle to orbit the earth. Let's not even try anything over 500 years old. (The Council of Trent was the Midlands local authority that started Winterval?)

Come on BBC! A negro as a Arthurian knight? Puuuuurlease!

Bishop Williamson, Consumersim and the Gulags

This blog has an interesting video of an interview with a friend of Bishop Williamson.

He deals with that interview (the holocaust one), but also consumerism, Communism (inc the gulags) plus abortion, homosexuality and many modern evils.

He is clearly a well-educated author and his argument and views are very interesting.

Dr White Interview - 20 minute clip

Who Remembers the Other Millions Who Died?

Who Remembers the Millions KIlled by Talmudic Reds?

Remembrance Day has been and gone. Do the Socialists remember those dead who died in the Korean War fighting Communism? Do we think that WW1 was fought "for freedom"? Or that Iraq and Afghanistan were worth the losses, all for a Neo-Con fantasy?

Next up is Holocaust Day in January. We were sold this political event on the grounds it would remember all genocides. Really?

• Who remembers the Ukrainian Christians and Nationalists forcibly starved by the Communists circa 1933?
• Who remembers the Irish forcibly starved by the British State circa 1845?
• Who remembers the Bengalis forcibly starved by the British State circa 1943?
• Then there's the Armenians (the first Christian nation), robbed of their statehood and massacred by Turks.
• Then there's the Palestinians, robbed of statehood, exiled, put in camps etc.

All told these peoples vastly outnumber the "6 Million Jews" - the same figure Zionists said were being massacred, we should always remember, at the time in news reports during WW1.

Let's not forget the hundreds of thousands of Germans who died in criminal Allied Firestorms, nor the PoWs deliberately starved in 1945-46.

But hey, don't worry you Ukrainians, Irish, Bengalis, Armenians, Germans and Palestinians - we can all have yet another pantomime based on the Holohoax as the collection tin for B'nai B'rith is passed around. It seems your innocent dead don't count because they are gentile... How many Hollywood films about your dead are there? How many history lessons in schools? How many museum exhibits? How many govt organised memorial days? And how many laws making discussing the facts of their deaths an actual crime?

Ukrainians, Irish, Bengalis, Armenians, Germans and Palestinians: second class one and all!



P.S. If you are in any doubt as to the disdain you are held, think of the Poles who died at Auschwitz. Not only did they lose their freedom in 1945 to one of the countries that invaded them in September 1939 (which brings into doubt the whole ethos of WW2), but when Carmelite nuns erected Crosses at the site of their death, militant Zionist Jews poured vessels of urine over them. The latter demanded that the Crosses be taken down. Not even the dead of Auschwitz count... if they are not "chosen."


Links:
Bengal 1943/44 - The Forgotten Holocaust Killed Millions
Ukraine 1933 - Atheist Reds Organise Mass Starvation
Ireland 1845 - Free Trade Dogma of UK Means Millions Die

More Than Taboo: Emotional Blackmail Used to Justify Dubious Wars

Those promoting the pro-Israel, quasi-Neo Con line or "it's all the Muslims" lines in Nationalism must be ostracised.

One doesn't haven't to appreciate all this bloke's lines to see there is something wrong. In fact it is a shame he overlooks the fact that even religiously, given the Incarnation of Jesus Christ (after all, we are supposed to be a Christian country), the "right" of Jews to Palestine is negated: The New Covenant is between Christ and His Church, not the Jews who rejected Christ; and especially not those who converted to Judaism hundreds of years after Christ died.

Food for thought...

BTW - why aren't we, in the school system, ever told of the numbers of millions of Christian Russians, Ukrainians, Balts etc, who were killed in the gulags or via forced starvation by the Communists? is it because they were European Christians? Is it because Communists are still involved in politics and education? Is it because the Communist regime was run by a certain Jewish faction (as detailed by Churchill- hardly a "nazi")?

There does seem an inverse racism at play.

Millions were killed in Rwanda in a terrible tribal conflict, yet we still "worry" about one group in a conflict 60 years ago in which so many peoples suffered (not least the Germans and Russians). What do you think Africans make of that?

Yes! Now We Are ALL Anti-Semites

Oliver Stone is the latest 'celebrity' forced to his knees to apologise to the Golden Calf that is the Israeli Lobby.

His crime?

• To state that more Russians died in WW2 than Jews.
• To state that the Zionist Lobby runs American foreign policy.

And he was forced to apologise?

Is it a "crime" (a hate crime no less!) to state the truth, no matter how unpalatable?

Some Zionist mouth piece claimed that Stone had now been exposed as an Anti-Semite.

Welcome to the club Oliver!

Rich or Poor, White or Black, Left or Right, Christian or Muslim, (even) Jew or Gentile: if you dare to state the truth about history, geo-politics, banking, government policy, media control etc. etc. you too could well be an "Anti-Semite."

It's an ever growing club!

Fine(d) SSPX Bishop: Germany's Legal Farce

April 20, 2010

The Trial of the Bishop who wasn't there
A Tragicomedy in a Few Acts and Many, Many Scenes


On Friday, 16 April 2010, Pope Benedict XVI 83rd birthday, the trial against Bishop Richard Williamson of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) took place at the Local Court Regensburg, Germany. All in all roughly forty journalists arrived as well as twenty-odd supporters of Williamson, who had to make do being seated in the back row of the absolutely packed court room. Amongst the supporters were Lady Michèle Renouf, Günter Deckert and Ursula Haverbeck, as well as many other well known faces. Sadly, there were no members, followers or supporters of the SSPX present that could be identified as such.

After the usual security checks, which for a change were handled in a rather civilised manner, the trial started at 09.00 a.m. sharp. The dramatis personæ were: Judge Karin Frahm, a fairly pretty blonde, twenty-nine years of age (!); Senior State Prosecutor Edgar Zach, a grey-haired gentleman probably in his late fifties; and Defence Counsel Matthias Loßmann, a bloke possibly in his mid-forties whose air and appearance were eerily reminiscent of a gravedigger. The minor parts were played by an all-female cast: a stenographer, an interpreter for English, and another for Swedish. Her Honour was seated in front of a strange yellowish backdrop, the kind familiar from modern Wagner productions. Seating and legroom were satisfactory, the acoustics excellent.

The proceedings began with an explanation by Herr Loßmann that Williamson would not be appearing since the SSPX had forbidden him from doing so. Next it was recorded that not one of the three Swedish witnesses had turned up, and that they had neither excused themselves nor given any reason for their absence. Herr Zach then began reading out the indictment. The contents were comprised of the usual stuff familiar to all: Williamson has denied and belittled the Holocaust, has done so aware of the fact that such heresy is a grievous violation of modern dogma, has furthermore committed this heinous act intentionally in a manner suited to disturb the public peace, and must therefore be dealt with accordingly. To his credit it must be said that Herr Zach was calm, collected, read the indictment without any aggressive or hateful undertone, and made a generally polite impression.

In the scene that followed, Herr Loßmann gave a fairly detailed account of what had transpired and how the various events had come about. The judge asked many a probing question, of which a few were simply superfluous. Some questions Herr Loßmann was unable to answer, but a great deal of these gaps were filled in later during an exciting scene in which Loßmann's witness, and lawyer for the SSPX, Maximilian Krah - a smarmy Nick Griffin effigy - took the stand. All in all Herr Loßmann left a rather dubious impression: his account was repetitive, unstructured, and his idiom sloppy and unbefitting of his role.

Here now a summary of a few lesser scenes, in no particular order: The court ordered a viewing of the infamous final five minutes of an originally hour long interview, the very five minutes that got Bishop Williamson into this mess. Then the matter of the absent witnesses was taken up again: two documents were read out, one by the legal department of the Swedish television station SVT1 which stated that they would not help the court due to lack of trust in the German legal system, and the other by the Swedish Ministry of Justice, who wrote that they would not be rendering the court mutual judicial assistance since freedom of speech is guaranteed in Sweden but not so in Germany. Furthermore, an article from a Swedish magazine, which had no real bearing on the case, was translated off the cuff fluently into high quality German - that was really cool. Plus, a segment of a German television programme showing the interviewer of Williamson (Name: Ali Fagan; Status: absent witness) make the comment that he would gladly stand as a witness in a German court of law, etc., etc. Another delightful scene starred the interpreter for English. Asked by Judge Frahm whether she could translate a letter extemporaneously or whether she needed time to prepare, this lady requested and was granted "five minutes", whereupon she ambled over to her Swedish speaking colleague, chatted with her for fifteen minutes, went back to her seat and translated the text in one go. It was surreal. - All these and the following scenes were interrupted by "five minute recesses" that were fifteen minutes long each. The trial lacked any real coherence, haphazardly jumping from one matter to the next, not even the many "five minute recesses" being synchronised to the action on stage. The only thing that kept everything together, were the endless, totally superfluous repetitions. It was weird.

A real highlight was the act in which Herr Krah, whom we first encountered two paragraphs ago, was called as a witness for the defence. As lawyer for the SSPX, Herr Krah had a great deal of knowledge as to what had transpired having witnessed the events unfurl himself. Of this he gave an informative account. In answer to the judge's questions, he drew a detailed picture of Williamson's standard of living, describing not only his home but also which tube to take in order to get there! He then told of Williamson's position within the fraternity, that the bishop wields little or no power in the SSPX, and that Richard Williamson is considered and considers himself "an eccentric Englishman". Herr Krah went on to speak of the Bishop's personality, characterising him as refined, polite, erudite, well-spoken, and an excellent teacher. He then informed the court that if the bishop questions the Holocaust then only because he is utterly convinced that his opinion represents the truth. The bishop, so he said, is absolutely bound to truthfulness and would never lie. As such Williamson is certainly convinced of what he had stated in that interview. The problem, according to Herr Krah, is that Williamson's ability to perceive the truth is seriously impaired ("ein nachhaltig gestörtes Erkenntnisvermögen"). As an example of this condition Herr Krah told the court that Bishop Williamson does not believe in the 9/11 story, and on having been asked by the judge continued by explaining to the court all about how some, if not many people doubt the veracity of the official 9/11 account. To summarise, Herr Krah was nothing short of a waffling windbag basking in the cold glow of that yellowy neo-Wagnerian backdrop. He gave a heap of information that nobody really cared about, including details likely to harm the bishop. But he enjoyed himself, and that is probably what mattered most.

Let us now turn to the final act of this tragicomedy. In the first scene Herr Zach gave his closing arguments. He stated that Bishop Williamson had known exactly what he was saying, knew full well that this is against the law in Germany, was counting on the fact that this interview would be made public, and that the bishop had by these means hoped to spread his twisted views on the Holocaust. Considering the fact that Williamson had done this intentionally, a fair sentence would be a fine of 12.000 Euros (i.e. 10.500 GBP or 16.000 USD).

Now it was time for the summation of the defence. Herr Loßmann proceeded to recapitulate the entire story as it had slowly unravelled before our eyes through a profusion of irrelevant repetitions, tedious tangents, and futile five-minute recesses. In short: On occasion of the ordination of a Swedish deacon who had converted from Protestantism not merely to Catholicism, but to one of its most traditional branches (which caused a stir in Sweden), a Swedish camera crew went to Zaitzkofen, near Regensburg, and asked the ordaining bishop, Richard Williamson, for an interview which he granted them. They spoke about religious matters for over fifty minutes, and then, once they had gained the bishop's trust, suddenly asked him about a comment he had made about the Holocaust twenty years ago in Canada. The interviewer, Ali Fagan, described this question as "a shot from the hip", and the evidence clearly showed that the interviewer had deliberately set a trap for the bishop. After Williamson had answered the question in depth, he pointed out to the interviewer that such comments are illegal in Germany and asked him not to publicise them. The Swedish television station STV1 then approached the leading German news magazine Der Spiegel with this story, which the Spiegel proceeded to publish three days before the interview was to be aired on Swedish television. As soon as the SSPX had gotten wind of this they had their lawyer, Herr Krah, get in touch with Williamson, the latter asking that the interview not be broadcast, something that was realistically not going to happen, and insisting that this interview not be made available over the internet. When Matthias Krah contacted Bishop Williamson, he was immediately aware of the gravity of the situation saying something along the lines of "typical journalists, you can't trust them." STV1 nonetheless made the final five minutes of the interview available on their website, from where it was downloaded onto YouTube and went viral. By itself this was all fairly inconsequential, for who had ever heard of the SSPX, or Bishop Richard Williamson for that matter? Unfortunately, however, this was exactly the moment the Vatican welcomed the SSPX back into the fold of the Church, and to the viciously anti-ecclesiastical, i.e. Jewish, press, the idea of a Holocaust heretic having his excommunication revoked must have been like curry to a pisshead. As such the matter was blown out of all proportion, causing desired damage to the Church. All this, Loßmann argued, was not the bishop's fault. In fact Williamson is simply a victim of foul play, and must therefore be acquitted.

The court took a thirty minute recess, during which Her Honour decided on the verdict, the grounds for which were eight pages long. The court reconvened at 03.00 p.m. for the final scene, and Judge Frahm read out the verdict: guilty, fine: 10.000 Euros, i.e. 9.000 GBP or 13.500 USD. She gave the following reasons for the verdict: Williamson had denied the Holocaust, and though he may be convinced that it had not taken place, this is irrelevant since history has shown the Holocaust to have taken place, and furthermore even the highest courts have knowledge of this subject. Richard Williamson was also aware of the fact that his opinion would reach the public, but had nonetheless continued to express it. His crime was therefore a deliberate action. The fact that the interview had gone viral on YouTube was ignored since this was certainly not the bishop's fault and went against his express wish. However, §130 Penal Code stipulates that incitement of the People (Volksverhetzung) is only given if the crime is perpetrated publicly and is suited to disturb the public peace. But: nowhere does it say that the public must be a German public! By having the interview broadcast in Sweden, millions of Swedes could see it. These then could feasibly contact their friends and relatives in Germany and thus endanger the German public peace. Therefore, the bishop is to be found guilty and fined 10.000 Euros. - And that's the end of that.

Finally, it must be said that this trial was of no value to the struggle for freedom whatsoever, since the defence counsel defended neither his client nor truth but merely the SSPX. Then, the idea of having a twenty-nine year old female judge is, considering that judges ought to be male and at least forty years of age, a total joke, a joke topped only by the ridiculous (if talmudically exquisite) argumentation of the lady. At the end of the day, this trial showed us what happens when the System is left to itself, without anybody struggling against it. And as Michèle Renouf pointed out: "by reducing the fine they reduced the bishop."
.
Markus Haverkamp

Ernst Zundel Released

Israel is a Lunatic Country That Wants War With Iran

Israel is a "lunatic" country.

When it was proven that Iran had no nuclear weapons programme, the whole world sighed in relief: except Israel!

How prophetic were those words?

Even in the recent Iraq War enquiry, when the war criminal, Neo Con and profiteer Tony Blair refused to apologise for the many dead and injured, he was pushing for another war - this time with Iran.

The same spurious grounds, the same spurious 'evidence,' the same spurious lie-machine, the same spurious Neo-Con/Zionist hucksters.

Do they really think we are so dense? Do they really think, to quote Daltry et al, we won't get fooled again?

Perhaps they think a long buttering-up by the media, on top of a Sun-reading, Eastenders-watching, non-educated moronic base of support (with the help of all those who seek to profit via Muzzie-bashing and all the Al-Qaeda Power of Nightmares B.S.) will deliver them the war they so want.

Even as the body bags still flow from Afghanistan...

There is a breed of politician who thirsts for war. We know them as Zionists.

The Bishop Williamson Case: Behind the Headlines

Are Zionists Milking a "Murder Revenue?"