    For Whom The Bell Tolls
    By Israel Shamir

    “Do not ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee,” said the
    English poet, John Donne. A shameful Austrian verdict bodes ill not only
    for the English historian David Irving (sentenced to three years of
    gaol) but for our freedom as well. Never has our feeling of justice been
    insulted like this! When an occasional dissident was jailed in
    Brezhnev’s Russia or Ne Win’s Burma, there was always an uproar of
    protest. Now the only response to the Irving verdict is stunned silence.
    When they sent innocent Muslims to the living hell of Guantanamo, we
    could think: they are people of the Third World -- different rules
    apply. A Batista policeman in Graham Greene’s Our Man in Havana had
    said: some people can be tortured, and some can not. When Ernst Zundel
    was kidnapped in the US and brought to trial in Germany, we could think:
    it is a German internal affair. Now an eminent man of letters, an author
    of widely read and acclaimed books, a recognized European figure was
    snatched from a civilised country and jailed for irreverence to the
    Jews.[1]

    Technically, David Irving was sentenced for so-called “holocaust
    denial”. But the concept of Jewish holocaust being the only enforced
    dogma of supposedly secular Europe has little to do with the Second
    World War and its atrocities. It has everything to do with the Jewish
    claim of superiority and exclusivity. There is a Jewish prayer saying:
    “Bless you, Lord, that you created me a Jew, that you separated between
    Jews and the earth folks, like you separated between the Holy and
    Profane, that our fate is not like their fate”. The Holocaust concept is
    just another form of this prayer. They say that even their death is not
    like the death of anybody else. We must deny the *concept of Holocaust*
    without doubt and hesitation, even if every story of Holocaust down to
    the most fantastic invention of Wiesel were absolutely true. Therefore
    the technical discussions of Jewish mortality are perfectly legitimate
    but superfluous, like the argument whether a whale could swallow Jonah
    is superfluous for an atheist.

    The legal enforcers of the Holocaust want us to bow down to the idol of
    Jewish superiority, or else! They won’t jail Deborah Lipstadt for denial
    of the Holocaust of Dresden, or Guenter Lewy who penned a lengthy piece
    entitled "Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide?" denying the
    genocide of native Americans. The Jews produced and published these
    denials for the same reason they published the Satanic Pictures - in
    order to emphasise the difference between a goy and a Jew. They want you
    to remember: you may profane Islam and Christianity, but not Judaism.
    You may discount the suffering of anybody but the Jews.

    Thus we should say: David Irving was sentenced for denial of Jewish
    superiority. His doom seals the reign of (albeit limited) freedom that
    began with the fall of Bastille. European history went full circle: from
    rejecting the rule of Church and embracing free thought, to the new
    Jewish mind-control on a world scale. Not only is Western Christian
    civilisation dead, but even its successor, secular European
    civilisation, has met its demise only a few days after its proud and
    last celebration by the Danish scribes. It was short-lived: about two
    hundred years from beginning to the end, the Europeans may once have had
    the illusion that they can live without an ideological supremacy. Now
    this illusion is over; and the Jews came in the stead of the old and
    tired See of St Peter to rule over the minds and souls of Europeans.

    In 1962, Look magazine invited founder of the Jewish state David
    Ben-Gurion to picture the world 25 years into the future. He predicted
    that World Government would already be in place by 1987, with the
    Supreme Court for Mankind (the higher ecclesiastic body) would be
    established in Jerusalem, along with a shrine there commemorating the
    Jewish role in the bringing-together of mankind. He was mistaken by only
    a few years. The world is not fully subdued yet, but it already knows
    its new master.

    In the 19th century, Europeans could not fully colonise China. But there
    was an obvious mark of their supremacy: the Settlement System. It
    divided the residents of China into two categories: the supreme human
    beings (the Europeans) and the lowly natives. A native who raised his
    hand against a superior European was tried by European colonial law, a
    European whose misdeed caused harm to a native was out of bounds of
    native justice. This system of “settlements” was dismantled by Chairman
    Mao after the Communist victory of 1949. Similar systems of colonial
    justice went down with the colonial empires that employed them, and for
    a short while afterwards, every country was sovereign over its land.

    Some time ago, the Knesset of the Jewish State revived the Settlement
    System for the non-yet-fully-colonised world: an offender against the
    Jews, wherever he lives, wherever he commits his offence, can be brought
    to the Jewish court. The offended Jew may have no connection whatsoever
    to the Jewish State, the offence may be not considered an offence by the
    local native law, but he still can be brought to Jewish justice in
    Jerusalem. This law claimed supreme sovereignty of the Jews over the
    rest of mankind. This law denied the sovereignty of all nations save
    one. Such a claim had to be treated as any hostile attempt of the
    nation’s sovereignty: as an act of war. But it passed in silence due to
    a marvellous Jewish invention: gradualness.

    This method was explained by Amira Hass, the Haaretz correspondent in
    colonised Palestine. She wrote: “If you throw a frog into boiling water,
    it will jump out and save its life. But a frog swimming in room
    temperature water that is gradually heated will grow used to the heat;
    by the time the water boils, it's too late and the frog dies. In the
    development of the Israeli system of control over the Palestinian people
    and their land, the Israeli occupation has raised to the level of genius
    the use of gradualness as a means of making people grow used to
    something.”

    This gradualness was used by the Jews – not only in regard to the Palestinians.

    The Settlement System started small: the Long Arm of the Jews snatched
    Adolf Eichmann in Argentina and brought him to Jewish justice in
    Jerusalem. Adolf Eichmann was a bad guy who did a lot of harm to Jews in
    a big way, so many countries chose to disregard this grievous
    infringement of Argentine sovereignty.

    But it was just the beginning:

    A few years later, the Polish court demanded the extradition of a Jewish
    mass murderer, Solomon Morel. This Morel tortured and killed with his
    own hands hundreds of ethnic Germans in a concentration camp in postwar
    Poland. His crimes were exposed by the late American journalist John
    Sack. Morel escaped to Tel Aviv, and the Jewish state replied to the
    Polish demand with imperial haughtiness: “What Chutzpah! These natives
    do not know their place!” Probably, Queen Victoria would reply like that
    if a native African chief were to demand the surrender of one of her
    officials to his justice.

    Since then, every country, big and small, has accepted the notion of the
    Jews being above the law. The wealthy Russian Jewish crook Nevzlin
    escaped Russia and lives peacefully in Tel Aviv, next to Flatto-Sharon,
    a French-Jewish crook, not far from a murderer of a Canadian child,
    within a reach from many other killers and crooks. A powerful Jewish
    organisation called Khabad wrote in its charter: there should be no Jews
    in goys’ jails. By bribes and persuasion they release Jewish criminals
    from jails and ship them to the Jewish state. The Khabad founder,
    Lubawitsch Rebbe’s birthday is celebrated as a holiday, “Education Day,”
    in the USA.

    In property cases Jews are also above the law. Jewish property is
    sacrosanct. They have demanded and received back all property that once
    belonged to Jews in Germany, Austria, France, Baltic states. If a Jew
    had no heirs, his property went to World Jewry. But 90% of goys’
    property was confiscated by the Jewish state in 1948, and since then 50%
    of the lands conquered in 1967. Even last year thousands of dunams of
    goys’ lands were taken over in Jerusalem area, for a goy has no real
    title to property, according to Jewish law.

    A taste of Jewish justice is provided in the case of an Israeli captain
    who murdered a schoolgirl, 13, in full sight of his soldiers. He emptied
    his gun unto her body and was found not guilty by the Jewish court.
    Actually, none of the non-Jewish children’ murderers (two hundred in the
    last three years) was ever punished by a Jewish court. Not many of them
    were even brought to justice, but whoever was - got off lightly. The
    settler Nachum Korman murdered a 10-year-old boy, Hilmi Shusha, in the
    village of Hussan. He was apprehended, taken to the court and forensic
    evidence against him was brought by the highest Israeli forensic
    institution, but the judge dismissed the evidence and sentenced the
    murderer to six months of social work. On mere suspicion of having
    committed such a crime against a Jewish child, a goy gets a life
    sentence.

    Jewish justice makes us look back at the Inquisition trials with some
    nostalgia. When Galileo repented, he was allowed to continue his studies
    unhindered. The repentance of Irving did not help him a bit. The judge
    said: “The regret he showed was considered to be mere lip service to the
    law.” And “independent expert” Dina Porat, head of Tel Aviv University's
    Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism and Racism, said
    that “Irving's purported repentance is motivated by his fear of a
    verdict that could amount to 10 years' imprisonment.”

    Now, Jewish justice is being enforced on a global scale. The European
    Jewish Congress is set to file a complaint in the International Criminal
    Court (ICC) in The Hague against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
    for “incitement to genocide”, but all attempts to bring Ariel Sharon to
    justice predictably failed. The greater Jewish state, the US, also
    adopted its smaller sister’s idea of unlimited supreme sovereignty. An
    offence against an American citizen can be brought to an American court
    wherever it occurred. Surprisingly, this Imperial claim, akin to the
    Settlement system of old, was also utilised mainly in the Jewish
    interests. Whenever Jewish settlers -- American citizens -- were killed
    in the course of the Middle Eastern conflict, American judges ruled
    against the Palestinian National Authority, Iran, Hamas and the whole
    world, and granted the victims’ survivors multimillion dollar damages.
    But nobody can sue the Jews: whether they kill Rachel Corrie, the
    American peace activist, with a bulldozer in Gaza, or they strafe
    American sailors on board USS Liberty or kill and maim American
    Palestinians.

    With the Austrian verdict, Jewish supremacy ceased to be a paranoid’s
    nightmare, and became a fact bound in law, like the Viking supremacy in
    Danelaw, in East Anglia of old, with this one difference: the Jewish
    supremacy has religious overtones while the Vikings relied upon their
    swords and their dogs.

    This is openly discussed in the Jewish world. “We live in the full
    blossom of Messiah Days, free from our political adversaries and soon to
    be freed from the satanic goys”, Uriel Tal wrote.[2] While Christians
    believe that the Second Coming of Christ will usher a completely new
    world of miracles, the Jewish view expressed by Maimonides is that the
    world in the Days of Messiah will not differ much from the world we
    knew, except for triumph of Jewish supremacy, Gedulath Israel (Hilchoth
    Teshuva 9:2). Based on this understanding, the Sanhedrin, the Jewish
    supreme religious court, was established a year ago to judge the world.
    It is led by Rabbi Adin Steinzaltz, and the goyim who observe the
    Noahide commandments made their obeisance to him.

    Some months ago I was brought to the police station in my Jaffa and
    asked to answer the complaint of the French Jewish organisation, LICRA.

    - “Did you write about Jewish supremacy and world dominion?” a policeman asked.

    - “So what if I did?” I replied. “Every second Rabbi has expressed this view.”

    - “Yes, but they see it in a positive light!” said the policeman.

    Thus there is no argument about the fact of Jewish supremacy, only about
    its assessment. If you think it is good, you may even be a US president
    -- if you think it is bad, your place is in jail! Meanwhile, Jewish
    supremacy is hard on those who challenge it as Irving did. Gradually --
    oh ever so gradually, so as not to frighten the frog from heating water
    -- the screw will tighten.

    Eventually it may become unpleasant: Jewish justice can give a handsome
    handicap to its nearest competitor in ruthlessness, Genghis Khan. It is
    partial, and proud of it. By Jewish law, a Jew vs. a Goy is always
    right, even if he is wrong. The Europeans will feel the tender mercy of
    the Jews, until now the exclusive privilege of Palestinians. There may
    well be poetic justice in this turn of events.

    Ordinary Jews aren’t going to enjoy the new-old order of things. If
    there is something Jewish justice likes even less than a goy, it’s a
    stray Jew. Apostates, that is Jews who turned to Christ, should be
    killed, according to Maimonides. The extremely clement Rabbi Asher tore
    off the noses of Jewish women who had intercourse with a goy, while
    Jewish men were normally flogged for this transgression. Well, some
    obligations coming with superior status.

    Christianity will probably dwindle; only its Jew-worshipping sects,
    similar to the US Christian Zionists, will survive. Others will be
    prosecuted for their antisemitism and will be disbanded. The churches
    will be destroyed, in accordance with the Jewish commandment. They
    should not be allowed to compete with the Temple in Jerusalem which will
    be rebuilt on the ruins of the al Aqsa Mosque. The rebuilding will be
    quite painless: after the forthcoming attack on Iran, Muslims will have
    other things to worry about -- for instance, their physical survival!
    This can’t be guaranteed, as they were proclaimed “Amalek”, and their
    mass annihilation is a religious duty of the Jews. The road to this
    future is opened by the fateful ruling of the Austrians.

    Always looking for the bright side of things: now the Europeans do not
    have to worry about the dark prophecy of the Protocols. The rule of the
    Elders of Zion is already upon us, and egad! -- it is not half as bad as
    we feared. At least, not yet.

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

    [1] Actually, I have read that a Mr Robert Edwards was the first denier
    of Jewish supremacy jailed in Britain in 1981 for comparing Auschwitz
    and Dresden.

    [2] Haaretz, 26 September 1984

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    IRVING LOSES AGAIN

    by Joe Sobran

    A few years ago I had lunch with David Irving, now sentenced to three
    years in an Austrian prison for the crime of what in this country is
    called exercising free speech. Wouldn't you know it, the Holocaust came
    up. He joked that in America, Holocaust memorials were sprouting up
    "like McDonald's." He added seriously, "I'm not a Holocaust denier. I'm
    a Holocaust sceptic."

    I've seen Irving several times since then, twice speaking at conferences
    he'd arranged, and never heard him say anything close to "Holocaust
    denial," the crime he has pled guilty to. The plea spared him a full
    ten-year sentence.

    It has become routine to refer to him as "Holocaust denier David
    Irving," but nobody ever seems to quote him actually uttering a thought
    crime. In court the other day he confessed the "mistake" of saying
    "there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz," but added, "In no way did I
    deny the killings of millions of people by the Nazis."

    And what if he really had denied it? Ten years in prison for an opinion?
    His lawyer called the proceedings "a message trial." Actually, of
    course, it was a blasphemy trial.

    The rationale, such as it is, for the Holocaust- denial laws of Austria
    (and several other countries) is that if people are allowed to deny that
    it happened, it may happen again. By this logic, the Holocaust is most
    likely to recur in the United States, since we have no such laws here.
    Freedom of speech could lead to a second Holocaust! Thomas Jefferson has
    a lot to answer for.

    Does that sound just a wee bit hysterical? It reminds me of the
    incredible uproar over Mel Gibson's film THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST,
    which, we were assured (in advance, by people who hadn't seen it), would
    cause hatred of Jews and even "violence" against them.

    Now that was a pretty clear test case of this peculiar theory of
    historical causation. And the result? Though the movie was a huge hit,
    it resulted in not a single incident of violence against anyone. Even
    one such incident would have made headlines. "See what we told you?"

    But when no pogroms occurred, nobody expressed surprise, relief, or the
    disappointment a prophet of doom experiences when things turn out all
    right. Mel Gibson made a lot of money, Abe Foxman made a lot of money,
    nobody got hurt. You'd think everyone would be contented with the
    outcome.

    Even the people who predicted violence didn't really believe it, of
    course. Nobody in his right mind expected violence. We are so used to
    prophecies of violence against minorities, especially Jews, that we
    don't bother keeping track of them, any more than we keep track of
    astrologers' predictions. In the real world, things don't happen that
    way. Predicting another Holocaust is like predicting another Reichstag
    fire.

    Deep down, we know this sort of talk is usually absurd. But we also know
    that it can be risky to say so. So we let the blowhards blow. That's how
    they exercise their freedom of speech.

    Nobody says, or thinks, that what Irving may have said in Austria in
    1989 -- the site and date of his alleged "crime" -- caused any violence
    to occur. Some rabble-rouser. He may have expressed his scepticism with
    rude bluntness (that would be just like him), but that wouldn't even
    have tended to inspire harm. It may have inspired more scepticism, but
    why is that a crime?

    Because to some people, on some subjects, scepticism is blasphemy, and
    the Holocaust is one of those subjects. Austria's law is aimed at
    "whoever denies, grossly plays down, approves, or tries to excuse the
    National Socialist genocide or other National Socialist crimes against
    humanity in a print publication, in broadcast, or [in] other media."

    Whew! That gives the prosecutor a lot of discretion, and the whole
    premise of the law -- that expressing an opinion of a calamity can cause
    the same calamity to recur under entirely different conditions -- is
    screwy.

    No doubt Irving's lawyer advised him to cut a deal in exchange for a
    show of contrition. He avoided ten years in the slammer, but from now on
    he will be, in the media, not just a "Holocaust denier," but a
    "convicted" Holocaust denier or "confessed" Holocaust denier. Not much
    hope of "reformed," "repentant," or "recovering" Holocaust denier, I
    suppose.

    Meanwhile, the Holocaust Prevention Confederation can claim another
    triumph. Over freedom of speech.

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

    No man escapes when freedom fails;

    The best men rot in filthy jails.

    And those that cried "Appease! Appease"!

    Are hanged by those they tried to please.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From Gilad Atzmon:

    My Dearest Israel

    It isn't cowardice, it is the other way around, Germans tend to 'feel
    guilty for not feeling guilty'. Once they love Shamir's writing they
    stop celebrating their guilt, something that makes them feel very
    guilty....

    Slightly dialectic, at the end of the day, dialectic is a Germanic
    intellectual property..
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lévy and Rushdie's Masterpiece of Hypocrisy

    Collaborators with the "old totalitarianism" mount a contemptible charade

    by Michael A. Hoffman II

    March 7, 2006 | http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com

    Orthodox Judaism's tyranny over the mind is not challenged anywhere to
    the degree that Islam is confronted by western intellectuals. The
    campaign against Islam allegedly based on a desire for freedom of speech
    and women’s rights, is a sham, since the religion of Orthodox Judaism,
    about which those who burn with indignation against "Islamism" are
    largely quiescent, is fervently opposed to both free speech and women's
    rights.

    The leading Orthodox Judaic rock star, Matisyahu, will not shake hands
    with women, in keeping with Talmudic law. Women are discouraged from
    driving automobilies in certain Judaic communities. One can make a list
    of almost every “male chauvinist vice" practiced by Muslims and discover
    the same being practiced among Judaics, with the exception that Judaic
    sexism is not an issue with western elites.

    On Feb. 28, the pompous Judaic-French intellectual Bernard-Henri Lévy
    issued, together with Salman Rushdie and ten others, a “Manifesto:
    Together Facing the New Totalitarianism," as follows: “...Islamism is a
    reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism
    wherever it is present. Its success can only lead to a world of
    domination: man's domination of woman, the Islamists' domination of all
    the others....

    “...We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being
    accused of ‘Islamophobia,’ an unfortunate concept which confuses
    criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers.
    We plead for the universality of freedom of _expression, so that a
    critical spirit may be exercised on all continents, against all abuses
    and all dogmas.”

    This manifesto would be more aptly titled, Masterpiece of Hypocrisy. In
    the final paragraph, for "Islamophobia," substitute anti-semitism, and
    for "Islam," Judaism. Now what happens to the campaign for "universality
    of freedom of _expression"? The silence of the grave!

    Lévy does everything he can to snuff out the rights of Robert Faurisson
    and other writers in France who have been repeatedly prosecuted, fined
    and beaten for scrutinizing in their books and pamphlets the gas chamber
    icons. Lévy wishes to excoriate Islam to his heart’s content, while
    protecting Judaism from any similar harsh treatment. Levy’s
    double-standard thrives thanks to the milieu of Judaic theocratic
    supremacy which permeates the media salons and government bureaus of
    Europe.

    Writers such as David Irving, Ernst Zündel and Germar Rudolf are
    imprisoned in Europe on what amounts to blasphemy charges and Lévy and
    the other manifesto signers have nothing to say in protest. The claim
    that these are intellectuals who desire to criticize “all dogmas,” is
    the joke of the month.

    They can only get away with their flaming phoniness because a media
    monopoly with roots in a Judaic theocracy protects them, by ensuring
    that radical criticism of their nonsense is limited to obscure blogs and
    other cobwebbed corners of the Internet. No “credentialed” European
    mediacrats so much as holler the words “David Irving” at Lévy and
    Rushdie, those disgusting poseurs. Instead, they encourage them to primp
    and preen for the cameras, posing as the daring exponents of human
    freedom -- as defined by the rabbis.

    Germar Rudolf, a research scientist, is in jail in Germany solely for
    having probed too deeply into the shrines and icons of Holocaustianity.
    But Monsieur Lévy and his co-signatories to the illustrious "manifesto"
    have not a single word of solidarity for this imprisoned heretic,
    precisely because they agree that he should be in jail.

    The empty talk, shameless affectation and puffed-up sanctimony of
    Rushdie, Lévy and the other signers of the “manifesto,” is beyond
    nausea. We would wish to vomit out of our souls these scoundrels who
    mock freedom, but they are so vacuous and spectral, one cannot locate
    them even in a puddle of vomit.

    Muslims of the world! Do not believe for a moment that Chafiq, Fourest,
    Ali, Lévy, Manji, Mozaffari, Namazie, Nasreen, Rushdie, Sfeir, Val and
    Warraq care anything for freedom of _expression for "anti-semites"
    (critics of murderous, racist, sexist rabbinic doctrines), for
    "negationists" (revisionist researchers who doubt the theology of
    Holocaustianity); for Robert Faurisson, Germar Rudolf and other
    "apostates." The twelve fakers who signed the "manifesto" desire only
    the freedom to silence, penalize, assault and and jail, if possible, the
    opponents of reactionary Judaism, and nothing else.

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