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. 

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