A New Look at the Politics Behind the Holocaust

On November 14, 2007, Fox 5 broadcast aired syndicated TV episode of the sitcom “Back to you” all over the country. The show was presented in prime time and the ratings show that the episode titled “Something's up there” was watched by 7 3000 000 viewers. A journalist of Polish background named Gary Crezyzewski, happens to be one of the characters. In that particular episode his fellow, trying to talk him into representing a TV station in a bowling tournament, says to him: “Come on Crezyzewski, you're the best bowler at this station. It's in your Polish blood, like kielbasa, collaborating with the Nazis.” These words are followed by a studio generated sitcom laughter, clearly louder than at other moments. Crezyzewski himself does not react to those remarks in any way. In my letter to Fox network I asked: Do you believe that after a transfusion of “Polish” blood one becomes an instant antisemite? Professor Chodakowski's “researches” are another example of a skillful propaganda avoiding the core issue of the United Nations wartime policy for which Poland was a marginal issue. The Palestine First was and still is the “Lighthouse” of this policy.

Well, by focusing on the “Polish antisemitism” and the “Polish death camp” the US elites' propaganda aims at deflecting the attention of the American people from the Arab collaboration with the Nazis, of which the best example is

The US Holocaust Museum which Ignores the Mufti

Boston attorney Charles Morse has made an issue of the fact that the US Holocaust Museum simply ignores any mention of the Arab or Muslim role in the Holocaust, as well as the link between Nazism and current Islamic extremism. The museum has programs on the role of Christianity in promoting anti-Semitism; yet, nothing on Islam.

There is no mention of the Mufti Al-Husseini in the museum's permanent exhibit, nor is there any reference to the Mufti in the millions of files in the US Holocaust Museum. In contrast, there are 33 large files on the Mufti in the Yad VaShem Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem.

Walter Reich, who served as the director of the US Holocaust Museum from 1995 to 1998, was quoted in the Washington Times on February 9th, 2006 as saying that "a focus on Arab and Muslim anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial at the Holocaust museum... would be, I believe, appropriately within the museum's mandate. Indeed, it would be strange if the museum did not focus on such anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial, given the museum's devotion not only to the Holocaust, but also to contemporary genocides and given the prevalence in contemporary Arab rhetoric of not only the kind of anti-Semitism that helped lead to the Holocaust, but also the calls for genocide that are aimed at the Jews of Israel."
The mufti's memoirs and other studies appeared in Arabic. Obviously, the museum's authors do not know those books of that language.

Big chunks of knowledge have been left out in the museum's narrative. Almost nothing relates to the 29 years he lived after WWII, though there is the fairy tale of his “escape” from Paris to Cairo in 1946. But escape? Before this happened, the French said he was free to go.

Missing is his help in getting thousands of Nazis jobs in the Middle East in the military, security and propaganda (most converted to Islam). You wonder from where the deadly ideology came that pushed Israel into a spiral of a struggle for survival.. Here you learn nothing about the mufti's bases in Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, or Pakistan. Nor is anything said about his involvement in the murder of those willing to come to terms with the young Jewish state, people like Jordan's King Abdullah I.

Missing is the mufti's worldwide incitement of terror against Israel and Jews, the support for his protege Y. Arafat or his being tutored by the Nazi general Otto Remer, commander of the A. Hitler Leibstandarde, and his role in finding retreats for Muslim Brothers in cities like Geneva or Munich. You don't read anything about the global Islamic organizations he built until his death in 1974.

Reich lost his position at the US Holocaust Museum when he objected to the overture of President Bill Clinton's Middle East advisor, Dennis Ross, who suggested that Yasser Arafat, the protege of the Mufti, be brought as an honored guest to the Museum.

Obviously, Blaming the Arabs as collaborators of Hitler's in executing the Holocaust wouldn't serve well the grandiose project of establishing Palestinian state which is considered a first step in the final destruction of the Jewish state.

Seymour Hersh in his interview (The President Has Accepted Ethnic Cleansing) for SpiegelOnline of Sept. 28, 2007 said: “We have this wonderful capacity to Hitlerize people. We had Hitler, and since then we had about 20 of them. Khrushchev and Mao and, of course, Stalin, and for a little while Gadhafi was our Hitler. And now we have this guy Ahmadinejad. The reality is, he is not nearly as powerful inside the country as we like to think he is.”

The XIIIth Point of Pres. Wilson’s Fourteen Points stipulated “An independent Polish state which should include the territories inhabited by indisputably Polish population, which should be assured a free and secure access to the sea, and whose political and economic independence and territorial integrity should be guaranteed by international covenant.” There was no Point stipulating an independent Jewish state even though Balfour’s declaration of 1917 proclaimed a homeland for Jews in Palestine. Accordingly, on August 28, 1919, the American “King-Crane Commission” presented its report and recommendations to the allies on the status of Syria, Iraq, and Palestine. This commission had been delegated by the Paris Conference to study the situation there. The Commission, noting that, “a national home for the Jewish people is not equivalent to making Palestine into a Jewish state,” recommended that, “…Jewish immigration should be definitely limited, and that the project for making Palestine distinctly a Jewish commonwealth should be given up.” (see G. Antonius, The Arab Awakening. London, 1938) p. 448, 450) The report recommended the creation of a single Arab state – “Greater Syria” – that included Lebanon and Palestine and would have been administered under American mandatory power (“Palestine” at the time also included the area that became Jordan in 1921).

Woodrow Wilson in his presidential address claimed “that the whole nation has awakened to and recognizes the extraordinary importance of the science of human heredity, as well as its application to the ennoblement of the human family.”

“Your father is the devil and you desire to do what gives him pleasure. He always was a murderer and standeth not in truth because truth is not in him. When he says what is false, he does what is natural to him, for he is a liar and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe not.” John 8:44

This verse inspired Martin Luther's extremely anti-Semitic book titled The Jews and Their Lies in 1543. In this book he accused Jews of being liars and thieves and blamed just about every bad thing in the world on “the Jews”. He also requested in this book that the Catholic Church cast the Jews out of Europe, and it was the Church's failure to comply with this request, among others, that convinced Martin Luther to break with the Catholic Church. Five centuries later a German Member of Parliament added in his anti-Semitic rant the feature that M. Luther omitted from St. John's charges. He called Jews a Taetervolk, a nation of murderers. Like their God in Jesus' rant. The Nazis proclaimed that “Jehova, whom the Jews worship is the greatest of all criminals.”

In short, there was no place for a Jewish state in the Middle East in Anglo-American policy and that attitude is reflected in the pseudo-religion called New Age rooted in the theosophical movement initiated by the Russian-German Aryan chauvinist Helena von Hahn-Blavatsky, who became the goddess in the Nazi pantheon, and therefore earned a footnote in the book sponsored by Card. K. Wojtyla published in 1975 which was rewarded by the ill-famous UN resolution equating Zionism with racism. This resolution is being revived periodically (Durban, Geneva) by Mary Robinson (an incarnation of the Bloody Mary) and any of that ilk.
The famous Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek in his article The Pope’s Failures (In These Times, April 8, 2005) observed: “Although the modern topic of human rights is ultimately grounded in the Jewish notion of the love for one’s neighbor we tend to establish today a negative link between the Decalogue (the traumatically imposed divine Commandments) and human rights. That is to say, within our post-political, liberal-permissive society, human rights have, ultimately, become the rights to disobey the Ten Commandments. “The right to privacy” – the right to adultery, done in secrecy, where no one has the right to probe. “The right to pursue happiness and private property” – the right to steal and exploit others. “Freedom of expression and freedom of the press” – the right to lie. “The right of free citizens to bear weapons” (cp. those Palestinian terrorists always with their shotguns, shooting into air without a cause) – the right to kill. And ultimately, “freedom of religious belief” – the right to worship false gods like the Palestinians do in their worship of Baal). In the minds of some Europeans (of Voltaire, for example, the Jews were relics of a barbarous and obscurantist past, and as such were unworthy of the rights of free men.

Those Scientific Syrians

“At the same period there was coming into existence that speculative Ionian philosophy to which the world owes the origin of free thought and critical philosophy. As professor Bury has said, ‘Our deepest gratitude is due to the Greeks as the originators of liberty of thought and discussion. Ionia in Asia Minor was the cradle of free speculation. The history of European science and European philosophy begins in Ionia. Here in the 6th and 5th centuries B.C. the earliest philosophers by using their reason sought to penetrate into the origin and structure of the world. They began the work of destroying orthodox views and religious faiths’ (Encyclopedia Americana, ed. 1954, entry History).

Greek Philosophy as a model of free thought? Plutarch writes that, the heliocentric hypothesis of Aristarchus of Samos was proved (apodeiknumi) by a certain Seleukos of Syria (Seleucos prins opinion d’affermer la terre veritablement autour des poles se mouuoir non le ciel – Rabelais, Pantagruel, Book V, ch. 25 (1552). The Greek verb ‘apodeiknumi’ used by Plutarch is cognate with the theological concept of dogma. Statements of speculative philosophy (‘knowledge of good and evil’) were termed by Latin writers decreta, scita, placita, axiomata, enunciata, effata. Cicero replaced all these terms by one: dogmata. Inquisition was not an invention of Catholic Church; already Plato wanted to defend his dogmas with the help of such an institution. This encyclopedia explains the neo-Nazi atmosphere prevailing on the U.S. Campuses.

Let me quote here two verses of the canonical Gospel of Mark 1:21-22 describing this event: “And they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the Sabbath day he (Jesus) entered into the synagogue, and taught. And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes.” Jesus speaking with authority expresses the same idea as the verb apodeiknmi. The bBC anchors also speak with authority.

To those who wonder why Washington follows policies so different from the European states, a large part of the answer these days has to do with the clout of Christian Zionists, who are especially powerful when a conservative Republican like G.W. Bush is president. (J. Streicher observed in 1942 that Holocaust became possible because the Bible lost its authority as a result of Copernicanism and Darwinism) In contrast, Christian Zionism has nearly died out in Great Britain. It was already dead when the British government published in 1939 the ill-famous White Paper. In the 1930s Fascism was (and still is) a popular philosophy among more right-wing members of the British upper classes. Some were in the pro-Fascist Cliveden set; others were prominent businessmen connected to Windsor’s schemes, including Lord McGowan of Imperial Chemical Industries (IG Farben!) and Montagu Norman of the Bank of England, who were laundering money to Hitler through Swiss banks. Lord Rothermere of the London Daily Mail gave a total of $5 million in cash to assist in Hitler’s rise to power. So, you know who are the people who dislike Pres. Bush’s foreign policy. On the cover of A. Huxley book New Brave World a young woman wears on her left arm an armband with a swastika, which suggests that A. Huxley like, the other representatives of his caste saw his New Brave World of the future embodied in the Nazi state of A. Hitler. The book was published in 1932, a year before Hitler took power. Click on the link below to see this cover.

www.avaliantheart.com/otx_fandoms.html
Monarchy, Aristocracy and Catholicism, declared Taine, were the historic influences that had shaped the French nation. It was a nation, he warned that was now being seriously debilitated by dangerous notions of democracy.

The following quotation form A. Hitler’s Mein Kampf explains why the British upper classes admired the Führer and were helping him financially: “…The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in thus greatest of all recognizable organism, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.”

In May 1939 came the British White Paper renouncing the Balfour Declaration and the mandate on which British authority rested. The White Paper was prepared by George Antonius’s, The Arab Awakening: The Story of the Arab National Movement (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1939) The British imperialism in the Middle East was justified in such words: “There seems to be no valid reason why Palestine should not be constituted into an independent Arab state in which as many Jews as the country can hold without prejudice to its political and economic freedom would live in peace, security and dignity, and enjoy full rights of citizenship. Such an Arab state would naturally be tied to Great Britain by a freely-negotiated treaty which should contain provisions for the safeguarding of British strategic and economic interest. It would secure Great Britian’s interests on a firm basis of consent. And it would restore Palestine to its proper place, as a symbol of peace in the hearts of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.”

Well, in 1922 The British divided their Palestine Mandate into a puppet state Jordan, east of the Jordan river and forbade the Jews to settle there. Ever since only the areas west of Jordan were recognized as Palestine. In 1939 the British forbade the Jews to settle in Palestine too, the Balfour Declaration notwithstanding. Now, it turns out that only part of this Palestine belongs to Jewish people and they are forbidden to settle in the areas considered as Palestinian state. But the so-called Palestinian refugees have the “right” to return and settle in the Jewish state .Now., it is not God who decides where His People should live but Copernicus's All Seeing sun god who decides where his people, i.e. Palestinians should live.


The modern version of the ideology of the British Empire which has been broadened to include the US as a principal was outlined by C. Rhodes about 1895 as follows: “Establish a secret society in order to have the whole continent of South America, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates …the Malay Archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan and, finally, the US. In the end Great Britain is to establish a power so overwhelming that wars must cease and the Millenium be realized.”(Cf. the Road Map to Peace). One admitted purpose of the Rhodes Foundation was “in creating in American students an attachment to the country from which they originally sprang…” (Enc. Brit. “Cecil Rhodes”). In May 1939 came the British White Paper renouncing the Balfour Declaration and the mandate on which British authority rested. The document carried the imprimatur of Neville Chamberlain. It constituted an act of appeasement of the forces of evil that rivaled, and in some ways surpassed in its iniquitous consequences, performances at Berchtesgaden and Munich of the previous autumn. Plainly the policy of the Chamberlain government was to reduce the Jewish homeland to a Jewish ghetto within an Arab Palestine. From that policy flowed the greatest tragedy ever to befall a single people in written history – and perhaps not-unrelated decline of British power. The 1939 White Paper defined the official attitude of the United Nations toward the Holocaust as it was expressed even before the ill-famous Bermuda Conference in 1943. In 1943 British officials expressed their fears to the State Department that Germany might “change over from a policy of extermination to one of extrusion and aim at embarrassing other countries by flooding them with alien immigrants.”

Karski was prescient in his report The Jewish Problem in Poland Under the Occupation. He presented his observation to the government-in-exile while it was still in France, where he arrived as one of the earliest couriers of the Polish underground, during the first winter of the war:

Nazi policies toward the Jews found support in “a broad segment of Polish society,” Karski warned. With all the hatred that the German occupiers evoke in Poland, “this issue constituted a sort of narrow bridge where the Germans and a large part of Polish society meet in harmony.” Such circumstances, Karski continued, could “result in the demoralization of large strata of Polish society, which would create many difficulties for the future authorities of the Polish state undertaking its difficult reconstruction.” “To take a neutral attitude toward this state of affairs,” he wrote in the concluding section, “might bring the demoralization of Polish society (mostly of its lower strata) and all the dangers following from only partial, perhaps, but in many cases genuine agreement between the occupier and a large segment of the Poles.”

All the passages and all the conclusions of Karski's report, were suppressed by his superiors. He was ordered to rewrite them in a way that covered up the intensity of Polish Jewish antagonism before the report was translated into English and French, so that Allied governments would not learn the truth.” It is doubtful that the Allies were fooled by this deception, but most certainly Karski's recommendations were ignored by the Polish government. To accept them would have required it to take a series of forceful and forward-looking political steps, which would have to run counter to sentiments prevailing among the Polish public. After all, even gestures as timid as official greetings on the occasion of the Jewish New Year were rebuffed in the homeland.

The manuscript of Karski's report can be found in the Hoover Institution archives in California (Stanislaw Mikolajczyk Collection, box 12) with handwritten inscriptions across the cover page: (“Attention!! Pages 6+9+10+11 have double pages.” Indeed, the double pages (6a,9a, 10a and 11a) were carefully prepared. They begin and exactly in the same place (once including a hyphenated word), for easy substitution. Karski was instructed, as he told me when I queried him about the document, to draft a sanitized version, omitting his description of the anti-Semitism prevailing in Polish society, by Prof. Stanislaw Kot, a close confidant of then prime minister W. Sikorski, Polish raison d'etat vis-a-vis the Allies required that the matter be covered up, he was told. Karski's report was found in the archives by David Engel and published in Jewish Social Studies, vol. XLV, no. 1 (Winter 1983) (177)

In the “situational Report” for the period November 15, 1941, through June 1, 1942 (that is, in the middle of the bloodiest phase of Nazi killings of the Jews), the bureau of Information and Propaganda of the Home Army thus assessed the attitude of Polish society toward “national minorities” (“Nastroje spoleczenstwa. Stosunek do mniejszosci narodowych”). Bestiality toward the Jews generates compassion and condemnation of Hitlerite methods. Anti-Semitic attitudes are becoming less violent. But the desire for a quick solution of the Jewish question after the war – through voluntary or compulsory emigration of Jewish masses – is universal.” (Jan T. Gross. Fear Random House. 2006 , p.178)


Freya Stark to Undermine the Karski's Mission:
Polish or Anglo-American Death Camps?

*In the middle of the war, the British government sent Freya Stark (During World War II, she joined the Ministry of Information and contributed to the creation of a propaganda network aimed at persuading Arabs to support the Allies or at least remain neutral) , a pro-Arab archaeologist and author, on extensive lecture tour of the U.S. Her mission was to build American support for British policies, especially for those regarding Palestine. In other words, her mission was to logjam and undermine Polish emissary Karski's mission seeking political help of the Allies in in rescuing Jews from the exterminating policy of the Nazis. Miss Stark, a non-Jew, was impressed by the amount of anti-Semitism she ran across among well-to-do, well-educated Americans. Her activities were foreshadowed by a Nazi propaganda film Erbkrank.

In 1936, Laughlin purchased an English version of the move Erbkrank (Hereditary Defective), an important sterilization propaganda film of the racial Political Office of the Nazi Party, in order to show it at the Carnegie Institution in Washington. Erbkrank, which the Nazi censor administration evaluated as “national policy valuable”, and which received “the particular acknowledgment of the Fuehrer, “was the basis of a large propaganda campaign in Germany.

Although the film propagated the notion that Jews were particularly susceptible to mental retardation and moral deviancy, Laughlin asserted in Eugenic News that the picture contained “no racial propaganda of any sort.”

Draper and the Pioneer Fund undertook to finance the distribution of the Nazi movie. In cooperation with the Eugenics Research Association, the Eugenics Record Office sent a flier advertising the film to biology teachers in 3,000 high schools. The Pioneer Fund, the Eugenics Record Office, and the Eugenics Research Association anticipated a favorable response because of the attractive medium and the low cost to viewers. The movie played twenty-eight times between March 15, 1937 and December 10, 1938.

Dr. L. M. Birkhead, a Protestant clergyman and close observer of anti-Semitic trends, traveled through the Midwest in 1943. He found vicious anti-Jewish attitudes rampant not only among extremist groups, but also in the “best circles.” The respectable elements, he thought, would probably not support violence, but neither would they oppose it. It was during the war, too, that anti-Jewish hatreds that had been sown and nurtured for years ripened into some extremely bitter fruits. In the opinion of the British elites and their American admirers such as for example, Clare Booth Luce, the lower classes and the Jews were considered the mongrel i.e. weak, subhuman races of the world, and as such, should be exterminated, which, by the way became the core teaching of the present New Agers.

Al Gore, Former Vice President went so far as to blame over-population on Third World countries for global warming (Washington Times, Third World Birth Control Tops Gore's List of 'Global Warming' Cures, Oct. 1997 – How an abundance of dark-skinned babies can affect global temperatures more than an abundance of American cars, power plants, shopping malls and air conditioners is a mystery many are still pondering. The fact that the man wasn't laughed out of office provides yet more food for thought) (http://philologos.org._eb-trs/naB.htm)

In 1943 British officials expressed their fears to the State Department that Germany might “change over from a policy of extermination to one of extrusion and aim at embarrassing other countries by flooding them with alien immigrants.” In 1944 both British and American officials worried that “Germans might play the card of offering an unmanageable number of refugees to the UN.” The fate of Jewish people was thus sealed. The Jewish cause still had formidable foes in Washington; for example, Gen. George C. Marshall, the Chief of Staff of the Army and a powerful figure in the capital, was able to kill a proposed Senate resolution in 1944 favoring free emigration to Palestine in order to promote “a free and democratic Jewish commonwealth” when he cited military problems it would cause in the Middle East. Later, Marshall would oppose the creation of a Jewish state altogether.

In an editorial A Dwarf Between Giants in the Chicago Tribune of Sunday Feb. 6, 1944, appears a statement that the British Foreign Office has generally run America’s foreign affairs for fifty years, and that for the past eleven years the British have had no difficulty in guiding our policy.

In 1944 both British and American officials worried that “Germans might play the card of offering an unmanageable number of refugees to the UN.” The fate of Jewish people was thus sealed. After the war, pressure on US President Truman resulted in his timid appeal to the British government in 1945 to admit 100,000 Jewish refugees from Europe into Palestine. The British responded by inviting the US to participate in an Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry into the whole Palestinian situation. The Committee in its 1946 report agreed that Palestine could absorb 100,000 more Jews from the camps of Europe but rejected both partition and independence. (Encyclopedia Americana ed. 2001). Now, suddenly, there is enough room for 3 million Palestinians in Israel! And they accept partition! The British Empire wants to regain its Palestine Mandate!

During WWII the people in the State Department who were most closely associated with the rescue of Jews were Assistant Secretary Breckenridge Long and several middle-level officials. They included George Brandt, Long’s executive assistant, James Dunn and Wallace Murray, departmental advisers on political relations, Ray Atherton, acting chief of the Division of European Affairs, Howard Travers, chief of the Visa Division, and a number of lesser officers, especially R. Borden Reams. These men were indifferent to the tragedy of the European Jews. Randolph Paul of the Treasury Department described them as an American “underground movement…to let the Jews be killed.” That was confirmed by an eighteen-page memorandum on State Department obstruction entitled Report to the Secretary (of Treasury) on the Acquiescence of This Government in the Murder of the Jews. Led by DuBois, the Foreign Funds Control staff prepared this searing indictment, which charged that the State Department was “guilty not only of gross procrastination and willful failure to act, but even of willful attempts to prevent action from being taken to rescue Jews from Hitler.

The Polish delegate to the UN, Drohojewski said on May 11, 1949:

“It was not long since the British Foreign Office had tried and failed to prevent the creation of Israel. United Kingdom and US diplomacy had been ready to betray the new State before its birth. The US Government’s change of policy with regard to Israel had occurred for reasons of political expediency divorced from any sense of justice or faith in Israel’s future. That should not be forgotten…”

Let me remind here that the Nuremberg Trial Indictment prepared by the four big powers (presently known as the Quartet) had been sharply attacked in July of the same year by the Polish, governmental organ Rzeczpospolita which blamed the US, the UK, the Soviet Union and France for trivialization of the crime of genocide committed on the Jewish people. The war-time policy of the United Nations is still reflected in the Encyclopedia Americana; the entry Nuremberg War Crimes Trials does not simply mention the Jewish victims of the Nazi genocide; it universalizes the Jewish Holocaust as "crimes against humanity." And yet the Wannsee Conference was not about humanity, but about Jews!

During a recent appearance sponsored by the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Harvard Law School professor A. Dershowitz asked American Jews “to undertake an aggressive information offensive if they are to prevent a dangerous wave of worldwide Antisemitism from infecting the minds of the next generation of US leaders. Dershowitz said the “megaphone effect for anti-Israel, anti-Zionist speech” on campuses like Harvard is so pervasive that even many Jewish professors with tenure have been afraid to speak out against it. Recently, he got a call from a professor who whispered to him, “Thanks for speaking up.” Dershowitz said the call from this academic, who urged the attorney not to identify him as a supporter of Israel, is nothing out of the ordinary. “(The situation at universities) has become so bad,” Dershowitz lamented, “that a Jewish student told me he was afraid to speak up for Israel because if he is perceived as a Zionist, he won’t be able to get dates.” Dershowitz called France “the lavatory of Antisemitism.” – “God cursed those who are the sons of Israel…Those people, God made monkeys and pigs.” (Sami Al-Arian; Fired from tenured position at University of South Florida). What bitter fruits will this hate ripen into?


Why Do They Hate FM Lieberman so much?

The commander of the Home Army, Gen. Stefan Rowecki, in a well-known dispatch to the government-in-exile in London dated September 25, 1941, framed the issue as follows:

I report that all decisions and declarations of the Government (in London) and members of the National Council about Jews in Poland evoke the worst possible impression in the country. They really facilitate unfriendly, indeed inimical, anti government propaganda. This applies to the “Day of the Jews” (Dzien Zydostwa, an official seminar held in London and attended by members of the government and the National Council), to the speech by Schwarzbart (a moderate Zionist who was a Jewish representative on the National Council), to the nomination of Lieberman (a well-known lawyer, a Pole of Jewish origin appointed minister of justice in London), and to the official greetings (published and broadcast over the radio to occupied Poland) on the occasion of the Jewish New Year. Please accept it as a fact that the overwhelming majority of the country is anti-Semitic. Even the Socialists are not an exception. There are only differences about tactics. Almost nobody recommends emulating German methods. These methods evoked felings of compassion, which diminished after the two occupations were unified (that is, after the Germans invaded Russia) and people got acquainted with Jewish behavior in the east.



Lieberman: I Have No Regrets
Av 14, 5769, 04 August 09 08:08
by Maayana Miskin

(Israelnationalnews.com) As police announced plans to indict him for bribery, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said he has no regrets. “I am at peace with everything that I have done. If I had the chance to do things over, I would do it all the same way,” he said, in a meeting of the Constitution, Law and Justice committee.

Lieberman expressed no concern over the possibility that he will be indicted. On the contrary, the Yisrael Beiteinu (Israel Our Home) head said he was happy. “I am glad that after many efforts, and the Supreme Court petition I filed, the investigation has finally reached a conclusion,” he said. Earlier this year Lieberman filed a court case against police for allegedly dragging out an investigation into his affairs for more than a decade (!).

www.IsraelNationalNews.com
© Copyright IsraelNationalNews.com


Twitter trembles with riots in Iran and parades for Michael Jackson. Are we living in 1984 or a Brave New World? For decades, book clubs have debated whether Huxley or Orwell got it right. Here’s what Neil Postman says about the difference between their two conflicting dystopias in his brilliant, still-relevant Amusing Ourselves to Death:

Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think. What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture... In 1984, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure (of sex, for instance. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us. Judging from breaking news stories over the past week, though 1984 may reign in Iran, Brave New World describes the United States. Fear them both. (www.examiner.com/ Riots in Iran and Parades for Michael Jackson. Are we living in 1984 or Brave New World?)


Reassessing A. Hitler’s Artistic Genius

William College Museum of Art in the United States sponsored an exhibition entitled Prelude to a Nightmare: Art, Politics, and Hitler’s Early Years in Vienna, 1906-13.The curator of the exhibit, Deborah Rotschild (naturally, to make it more credible!) stated that Hitler “was fueled not by the usual political motives but by the aesthetic ambition to ‘beautify the world.’

The columnist in the Wall Street Journal noted: “She not only turned history on its head but turned the heads of some art critics to the extent that they took Ms. Rotschild’s eccentric thesis far beyond what she ever intended. Thus, some art critics suggested “adding Hitler to the list of the great artists of the 20th Century;” that “Nazism was a program to remodel (sic) the world according to a certain taste.” (Actually, the Nazis were to remodel the world according to the taste of a certain Hermann Ahlwardt as expressed in his book Der Verzweiflungskampf der arischen Voelker mit den Judentum (The Desperate Struggle of the Aryan Peoples with Jewry), which was inspired by the ideas of Anglo-Israelitism.
The New York Times praised the show for its wealth of fascinating material. “Ms. Rotschild suggested that Hitler exterminated the Jews because their physical appearance offended his sensibilities,” wrote the Wall Street Journal. Apparently, there is no greater crime that the victim can perpetrate on his killer than “offending his artistic sensibilities.” Keep in mind that A. Hitler’s favorite piece of art was Leda with Swan in front of which he used to stand for hours in the Berlin Museum. A. Hitler was a gay.

Berel Wein in his paper Aesthetic Adolf for The Jewish Herald commented on this exhibition as follows: “Apparently all that we are missing is a little Wagner in our lives, and an appreciation of Hitler’s true desire to beautify the world. Ah, if we only had that, all problems, disputes and violence would waft away on the wings of stirring music and kitsch watercolors. However, in the real world that we are forced to live in, exhibitions of Hitler’s watercolors only encourage the activities of the neo-Nazi skinheads and Palestinian terrorists who proliferate in Western society. Blaming the IDF for all imagined wrongs in our current struggle only encourages the Hamas bombers. Get real guys! The Hague Court is not going to indict Ismail Haniya ever, no matter what! They are only after us, because we are not, and never have been acceptable to Nordic and/or Aryan latent and over anti-Semitic “tastes.” These supermen only wish to “beautify the world,” and we are not aesthetically beautiful enough in their eyes to justify our existence as a nation, a state, or even as a faith.” I guess this artistic “genius” would send to crematoria all obese people, including Americans, to preserve the aesthetic genes of the Aryan World.
Idolizing the Woman who Turned Hitler into the Aryan Savior
who Saved the World from the Elders of Zion

Once we come to power, you must make my films. -A. Hitler to Leni, 1932. The laws of the Gestapo alone will not suffice. The masses need an idol. - Adolf Hitler

Triumph of the Will played for eight months in a single cinema in San Francisco in the 1950, a few years after the Holocaust! A long run at the New Yorker theater on Manhattan's heavily Jewish Upper Side roused protests; someone tried to burn down an exit door.

Among those most eager to reevaluate Leni's work after Olympia played in England were the cineastes at London's British Film Institute. In April 1960, the invited her to lecture at the National Film Theatre on “My Work in Films” as part of a series of celebrity screenings. Among Leni's defenders was the venerable documentarian John Grierson. He reportedly kissed her foot in public and said, Lenin Riefenstahl is one of the greatest filmmakers in the world, and certainly the greatest female filmmaker in history. Incidentally, the films that made her famous were banned in her homeland.

The script assignment for the remake of The Blue Light which was supposed to put into oblivion The Blue Angel with Marlene Dietrich a refuge from the Nazi Germany, went to L. Ron Hubbard, an American with Nazi sympathies living in England. His controversial distinction as science fiction writer and the founder of Scientology (highly unpopular in Germany) lay in the future, but he had a comfortable flat in London where Leni was welcome to stay and advise on the script he would write with Hudsmith.




Shimon Peres versus the Brits
By EFRAIM KARSH, 02/08/2010

Was the president really wrong when he called the British establishment ‘deeply pro-Arab’ partly due to anti-Semitic dispositions?

  Shimon Peres, Israel’s 87-year-old president doesn’t usually arouse antagonism among Europeans.

A tireless peace advocate for decades, and architect of the Oslo Process for which he received the Nobel Peace Prize, he has long presented Israel’s moderate face to the outside world.

Yet last week he provoked anger among British politicians and Anglo- Jewish leaders when he told a Jewish website that the British establishment had always been “deeply pro- Arab ... and anti-Israel,” and that this was partly due to endemic anti- Semitic dispositions. “I can understand Mr. Peres’ concerns, but I don’t recognize what he is saying about England,” said James Clappison, vice-chairman of Conservative Friends of Israel. “Things are certainly no worse, as far as Israel is concerned, in this country than other European countries. He got it wrong.”

But did he? While few arguments have resonated more widely, or among a more diverse set of observers, than the claim that Britain has been the midwife of the Jewish state, the truth is that no sooner had Britain been appointed as the mandatory power in Palestine, with the explicit task of facilitating the establishment of a Jewish national home in the country in accordance with the Balfour Declaration, than it reneged on this obligation.

AS EARLY as March 1921, the British government severed the vast and sparsely populated territory east of the Jordan River (“Transjordan”) from the prospective Jewish national home and made Abdullah, the emir of Mecca, its effective ruler. In 1922 and 1930, two British White Papers limited Jewish immigration to Palestine – the elixir of life of the prospective Jewish state – and imposed harsh restrictions on land sales to Jews.

Britain’s betrayal of its international obligations to the Jewish national cause reached its peak on May 17, 1939, when a new White Paper imposed draconian restrictions on land sales to Jews and limited immigration to 75,000 over the next five years, after which Palestine would become an independent state in which the Jews would comprise no more than one-third of the total population.

Such were the anti-Zionist sentiments within the British establishment at the time that even a life-long admirer of Zionism like prime minister Winston Churchill rarely used his wartime dominance of British politics to help the Zionists (or indeed European Jewry). However appalled by the White Paper he failed to abolish this “low grade gasp of a defeatist hour” (to use his own words), refrained from confronting his generals and bureaucrats over the creation of a Jewish fighting force in Palestine, which he wholeheartedly supported, and gave British officialdom a free rein in the running of Middle Eastern affairs, which they readily exploited to promote the Arab case. In 1943, for instance, Freya Stark, the acclaimed author, orientalist, and Arabian adventurer, was sent to the US on a seven-month propaganda campaign aimed at undercutting the Zionist cause and defending Britain’s White Paper policy.

That this could happen at the height of the Nazi extermination of European Jewry of which Whitehall was keenly aware offered a stark demonstration of the mindset of British officialdom, which was less interested in stopping genocide than in preventing its potential survivors from reaching Palestine after the war.

So much so that senior Foreign Office members portrayed Britain, not Europe’s Jews, as the main victim of the Nazi atrocities.

THIS ANTI-ZIONISM was sustained into the postwar years as the Labor Party, which in July 1945 swept to power in a landslide electoral victory, swiftly abandoned its pre-election pro-Zionist platform to become a bitter enemy of the Jewish national cause. The White Paper restrictions were kept in place, and the Jews were advised by Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin not “to get too much at the head of the queue” in seeking recourse to their problems.

Tens of thousands of Holocaust survivors who chose to ignore the warning and to run the British naval blockade were herded into congested camps in Cyprus, where they were incarcerated for years.

“Should we accept the view that all the Jews or the bulk of them must leave Germany?” Bevin rhetorically asked the British ambassador to Washington.

“I do not accept that view. They have gone through, it is true, the most terrible massacre and persecution, but on the other hand they have got through it and a number have survived.”

Prime Minister Clement Attlee went a step further by comparing Holocaust survivors wishing to leave Europe and to return to their ancestral homeland to Nazi troops invading the continent.

While these utterances resonated with the pervasive anti-Semitism within British officialdom (the last high commissioner for Palestine, General Sir Alan Cunningham, for instance, said of Zionism, “The forces of nationalism are accompanied by the psychology of the Jew, which it is important to recognize as something quite abnormal and unresponsive to rational treatment”), Britain’s Middle Eastern policy also reflected the basic fact that as occupiers of vast territories endowed with natural resources (first and foremost oil) and sitting astride strategic waterways (e.g., the Suez Canal), the Arabs had always been far more meaningful for British interests than the Jews.

As the chief of the air staff told the British cabinet in 1947, “If one of the two communities had to be antagonized, it was preferable, from the purely military angle, that a solution should be found which did not involve the continuing hostility of the Arabs.”

One needs look no further than David Cameron’s statements on the Middle East to see this anti-Israel mindset is alive and kicking. In the summer of 2006, when thousands of Hizbullah missiles were battering Israel’s cities and villages, he took the trouble of issuing a statement from the tropical island on which he was vacationing at the time condemning Israel’s “disproportionate use of force."Four years later, while on an official visit to Turkey, he went out of his way to placate his Islamist host, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, by criticizing Israel’s efforts to prevent the arming of the Hamas Islamist group, which, like its Lebanese counterpart, had been lobbing thousands of missiles on Israel’s civilian population for years.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

The writer is professor of Middle East and Mediterranean Studies at King’s College London, editor of the Middle East Quarterly and author, most recently, of Palestine Betrayed.