This is a short film by Dieudonne. I don't speak French but even I can see that it spoofs the Holocaust.

Of course, 'The Jews' complain that such a film offends the feelings of those Jews who suffered in the thirties and forties under National Socialism - and they're not wrong. Many Jews did suffer horribly at that time (many of them were innocent) and yes, the film must offend them terribly. 

But again, if  'the Jews' complain about the suffering of innocent Jews, it is 'the Jews' who, by their relentless promotion of their false Holocaust ideology, have only themselves to blame.

This is from the Jewish publication The Tablet. 

Understandable and justified, it still gives me no pleasure at all - though I was pleased to see this quote:

"A minority of viewers, in an attempt to dispute the chant’s prejudice, have claimed that the protesters are not denouncing “Juif,” but rather “CRIF,” which is the acronym for the Representative Council of the French Jewish Institutions,"

‘Jew, France is Not Yours’ Chant Anti-Government Demonstrators in Paris

Chilling video captures rising anti-Semitism in France

From the blog of Robert Faurisson in 2008, this comes via the IHR.
Thursday, August 7, 2008

The secular religion of “the Holocaust”, a tainted product of consumer society

The religion of “the Holocaust” is a secular one: it belongs to the lay world; it is profane; in actuality, it has at its disposal the secular arm, that is a temporal authority with dreaded power. It has its dogma, its commandments, its decrees, its prophets and its high priests. As one revisionist has observed, it has its circle of saints, male and female, amongst whom, for example, Saint Anne (Frank), Saint Simon (Wiesenthal) and Saint Elie (Wiesel). It has its holy places, its rituals and its pilgrimages. It has its sacred (and macabre) buildings and its relics (in the form of cakes of soap, shoes, toothbrushes, …). It has its martyrs, its heroes, its miracles and its miraculous survivors (in the millions), its golden legend and its righteous ones. Auschwitz is its Golgotha. For it, God is called Yahweh, protector of his chosen people, who, as said in one of the psalms of David (number 120), recently invoked by a female public prosecutor, Anne de Fontette, during the trial in Paris of a French revisionist, punishes “lying lips” (by, incidentally, sending them the “sharp arrows of the mighty, with coals of juniper”). For this religion, Satan is called Hitler, condemned, like Jesus in the Talmud, to boil for eternity in excrement. It knows neither mercy, nor forgiveness, nor clemency but only the duty of vengeance. It amasses fortunes through blackmail and extortion and acquires unheard-of privileges. It dictates its law to the nations. Its heart beats in Jerusalem, at the Yad Vashem monument, in a land taken over from the natives; in the shelter of a 26-foot high wall built to protect a people who are the salt of the earth, the companions of the “Holocaust” faith rule over the goy with a system that is the purest expression of militarism, racism and colonialism.


A quite recent religion whose growth has been meteoric
Although it is largely an avatar of the Hebraic religion, the new religion is quite recent and has exhibited meteoric growth. For the historian, the phenomenon is exceptional. Most often a religion of universal scope has its origins in remote and obscure times, a fact that makes the task of historians of religious ideas and institutions rather arduous. However, as luck would have it for that type of historian, in the space of fifty-odd years (1945-2000), right before our eyes, a new religion, that of “the Holocaust”, has suddenly come into being and proceeded to develop with astonishing speed, spreading nearly everywhere. It has conquered the West and intends to impose itself on the rest of the world. Any researcher interested in the historical phenomenon made up by the birth, life and death of religions ought therefore to seize the occasion, never so much as hoped for, thus offered to study from up close the birth and life of this new religion, then calculate its chances of survival and the possibility of its demise. Any specialist of war watching out for indications of a coming conflagration would owe it to himself to survey the risks of a warlike crusade such as the one into which this conquering religion may take us.

A religion that embraces consumerism
As a rule, consumer society places religions and ideologies in difficulty or danger. Each year, growth in both industrial production and business activity creates in peoples’ minds new needs and desires, truly concrete ones, lessening their thirst for the absolute or their aspiration towards an ideal, factors that religions and ideologies feed on. Besides, the progress of scientific thinking makes people more and more sceptical as to the truth of religion’s stories and the promises it gives them. Paradoxically, the only religion to prosper today is the “Holocaust” religion, ruling, so to speak, supreme and having those sceptics who are openly active cast out from the rest of mankind: it labels them “deniers”, whilst they call themselves “revisionists”.

These days the ideas of homeland, nationalism or race, as well as those of communism or even socialism, are in crisis or even on their way to extinction. Equally in crisis are the religions of the Western world, including the Jewish religion, and in their turn but in a less visible manner, so are the non-Western religions, themselves confronted by consumerism’s force of attraction; whatever one may think, the Moslem religion is no exception: the bazaar attracts bigger crowds than the mosque and, in certain oil-rich kingdoms, consumerism in its most outlandish forms poses an ever more insolent challenge to the rules for living laid down by Islam.

Roman Catholicism, for its part, is stricken with anaemia: to use Céline’s phrase, it has become “christianaemic”. Amongst the Catholics whom Benedict XVI addresses, how many still believe in the virginity of Mary, the miracles of Jesus, the physical resurrection of the dead, everlasting life, in heaven, purgatory and hell? The churchmen’s talk is usually limited to trotting out the word that “God is love”. The Protestant religions and those akin to them are diluted, along with their doctrines, in an infinity of sects and variants. The Jewish religion sees its members, more and more reluctant to observe so many peculiar rules and prohibitions, deserting the synagogue and, in ever greater numbers, marrying outside the community.

But whereas Western beliefs or convictions have lost much of their substance, faith in “the Holocaust” has strengthened; it has ended up creating a link – a religion, according to standard etymology at any rate, is a link (religat religio) – that enables disparate sets of communities and nations to share a common faith. All in all, Christians and Jews today cooperate heartily in propagating the holocaustic faith. Even a fair number of agnostics or atheists can be seen lining up with enthusiasm under the “Holocaust” banner. “Auschwitz” is achieving the union of all.

The fact is that this new religion, born in the era where consumerism expanded so rapidly, bears all the hallmarks of consumerism. It has its vigour, cleverness and inventiveness. It exploits all the resources of marketing and communication. The vilest products of Shoah Business are but the secondary effects of a religion that, intrinsically, is itself a sheer fabrication. From a few scraps of a given historical reality, things that were, after all, commonplace in wartime (like the internment of a good part of the European Jews in ghettos or camps), its promoters have built a gigantic historical imposture: the imposture, all at once, of the alleged extermination of the Jews of Europe, of camps allegedly equipped with homicidal gas chambers and, finally, of an alleged six million Jewish victims.


A religion that seems to have found the solution to the Jewish question
Throughout the millennia, the Jews, at first generally well received in the lands that have taken them in, have ended up arousing a phenomenon of rejection leading to their expulsion but, quite often, after leaving through one door, they have re-entered through another door. In several nations of continental Europe, in the late 19th and early 20th century, the phenomenon appeared once more. “The Jewish question” was especially put in Russia, Poland, Romania, Austria-Hungary, Germany and France. Everyone, beginning with the Jews themselves, then set about looking for “a solution” to this “Jewish question”. For the Zionists, long a minority amongst their coreligionists, the solution could only be territorial. The thing to do was to find, with the accord of the imperial powers, a territory that Jewish colonists could settle. This colony might be located, for example, in Palestine, Madagascar, Uganda, South America, Siberia, … Poland and France envisaged the Madagascar solution whilst the Soviet Union created in southern Siberia the autonomous Jewish sector of Birobijan. As for National Socialist Germany, she was to study the possibility of settling the Jews in Palestine but wound up realising, from 1937, the unrealistic nature of the idea and the great wrong to the Palestinians that such a project would entail. Subsequently the 3rd Reich wanted to create a Jewish colony in a part of Poland (the Judenreservat of Nisko, south of Lublin), then in its turn, in 1940, it seriously considered creating a colony in Madagascar (the Madagascar Projekt). Two years later, beset by the necessities of a war to wage on land, sea and in the air and taken up with the more and more distressing concerns of having to save German cities from a deluge of fire, to safeguard the very life of his people, to keep the economy of a whole continent running, a continent so poor in raw materials, Chancellor Hitler made it known to his entourage, notably in the presence of Reichsminister and head of the Reichskanzlerei Hans-Heinrich Lammers, that he intended to “put off solving the Jewish question till after the war”. Constituting within her a population necessarily hostile to a Germany at war, the Jews – in any case a large portion of them – had to be deported and interned. Those able to work were made to do so, the others were confined in concentration camps or transit camps. Never did Hitler either desire or authorise the massacre of Jews and his courts martial went so far as to order the death penalty, even in Soviet territory, for soldiers found guilty of excesses against Jews. Never did the German State envisage anything else, as concerned the Jews, than “a finalterritorial solution of the Jewish question” (eine territoriale Endlösung der Judenfrage) and it takes all the dishonesty of our orthodox historians to evoke incessantly “the final solution of the Jewish question” and deliberately evade the adjective “territorial”, so important here. Up to the end of the war, Germany kept on offering to deliver interned Jews to the western Allies, but on condition that they then stay in Britain, for example, and not go and invade Palestine to torment “the noble and valiant Arab people”. There was nothing exceptional about the fate of Europe’s Jews in the general blaze of war. It would have deserved just a mention in the great book of Second World War history. One may therefore quite rightly be astonished that today the fate of the Jews should be considered the essential feature of that war.

After the war it was in the land of Palestine and to the detriment of the Palestinians that the upholders of the “Holocaust” religion found – or believed they’d found – the final territorial solution to the Jewish question.

A religion that, previously, groped along with its sales methods
(Raul Hilberg’s recantation)
I suggest that sociologists undertake a history of the new religion by examining the extremely varied techniques in line with which this “product” was created, launched and sold over the years 1945-2000. They can thus measure the distance between the often clumsy procedures of the beginning and the sophistication, at the end, of thepackagings designed by our present-day spin doctors (crooked “com” experts) for their presentations of “the Holocaust”, henceforth a compulsory and kosher mass-consumer product.

In 1961, Raul Hilberg, first of the “Holocaust” historians, “the pope” of exterminationist science, published the first version of his major work, The Destruction of the European Jews. He expressed in doctoral manner the following thesis: Hitler had given orders for an organised massacre of the Jews and all was explained as somehow coming of those orders. This way of displaying the merchandise was to end in a fiasco. With the revisionists asking to see the Hitler orders, Hilberg was compelled to admit that they had never existed. From 1982 to 1985, under the pressure of the same revisionists asking to see just what the magical homicidal gas chambers, in technical reality, looked like, he was led to revise his presentation of the holocaustic product. In 1985, in the “revised and definitive” edition of the same book, instead of taking an assertive, curt stance with the reader-customer, he sought to get round him with all sorts of convoluted phrases, appealing to a supposed taste for the mysteries of parapsychology or the paranormal. He expounded on the history of the destruction of the European Jews without in the least bringing up any order, from Hitler or anyone else, to exterminate the said Jews. He explained everything by a kind of diabolical mystery through which, spontaneously, the German bureaucrats told themselves to kill the Jews to the very last.“Countless decision makers in a far-flung bureaucratic machine” took part in the extermination enterprise by virtue of a “mechanism”, and did so without any “basic plan” (p. 53); these bureaucrats “created an atmosphere in which the formal, written word could gradually be abandoned as a modus operandi” (p. 54); there were “basic understandings of officials resulting in decisions not requiring orders or explanations”; “it was a matter of spirit, of shared comprehension, of consonance and synchronization”; “no one agency was charged with the whole operation”; “no single organization directed or coordinated the entire process” (p. 55). In short, according to Hilberg, this concerted extermination had indeed taken place but there was no possibility of actually demonstrating it with the aid of specific documents. Two years previously, in February 1983, during a conference at Avery Fischer Hall in New York, he had presented this strange and woolly thesis as follows: “What began in 1941 was a process of destruction not planned in advance, not organized centrally by any agency. There was no blueprint and there was no budget for destructive measures. They were taken step by step, one step at a time. Thus came about not so much a plan being carried out, but an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus-mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy”. To sum up, that vast project of destruction was executed, magically, by telepathy and by the diabolical workings of the “Nazi” bureaucratic genius. It can be said that with Hilberg, historical science has thus turned cabalistic or religious.

Serge and Beate Klarsfeld, at their end, wanted to set off on the same road of fake science when they called upon French pharmacist Jean-Claude Pressac for assistance. For several years the poor Pressac strove to sell the tainted product in a pseudo-scientific form but, realising the imposture, in 1995 he did a complete turnaround and admitted that, all things considered, the dossier of “the Holocaust” was “rotten” and fit only “for the rubbish bins of history”; such were his own words. The news of his change of heart was to be kept hidden for five years, emerging only in 2000 at the end of a long book by Valérie Igounet, another Shoah peddler, entitled Histoire du négationnisme en France (Seuil, p. 652).

A religion that has at last discovered the up to date sales techniques
It was then that the spin doctors came onto the scene. What with the product having become suspect and potential customers starting to ask questions, the “Holocaust” religion’s management had to steer an altogether different course and give up defending the merchandise with ostensibly scientific arguments: their new approach would be a resolutely “modern” one. It was decided to set only the very least store by efforts at logical argumentation and to replace serious research with appeals to sentiment and emotion, in other words with art: the cinema, theatre, historical novels, shows, story telling (the contemporary art of throwing together an account or framing a “testimony”), the media circus, stage designs in museums, public ceremonies, pilgrimages, worshiping of (false) relics and (false) symbols (symbolic gas chambers, symbolic numbers, symbolic witnesses), incantations, music and even kitsch, the whole thing matched with assorted ways of forcing people to buy it, including various kinds of threats. The filmmaker Steven Spielberg, a specialist in dishevelled and extraterrestrial fiction, has become the leading instigator for holocaustic films as well as for the casting of 50,000 witnesses. In order to sell their tainted product better in the long term, our fake historians and real junk dealers have sought and obtained the primary school “franchise”, with which they instil a taste for “the Holocaust” in the very youngest clientele: for it’s in the earliest years that appetites are acquired, making so that, later on, the customer need hardly be enticed: he’ll demand on his own what he enjoyed as a child, be it sweets or poison. Thus has it come to be that no one involved could care less about history: all serve the sole cause of a certain Remembrance, that is a jumble of legends and slanders that give the public the pleasure of feeling good andrighteous, ready tosing the virtues of the poor Jew and curse the intrinsically wicked “Nazis”, to call for vengeance and spit on the graves of the defeated. At the end it only remains to collect a flood of cold hard cash and receive new privileges. Pierre Vidal-Naquet was but an amateur: in 1979, he had shown himself from the outset to be too basic, too rough in his “Holocaust” promotion. For example, when asked by the revisionists to explain how in blazes, after a gassing operation with hydrogen cyanide (the active ingredient in the insecticide “Zyklon B”), a squad of Jews (Sonderkommando) could enter unharmed into a room still full of that terrible gas, then handle and remove up to a few thousand corpses infused with poison, he, along with 33 other academics, replied that he simply need not provide any explanation. Spielberg, a more skilful man, was to show in a screen drama a “gas chamber” wherein, for once, “by a miracle”, the showerheads sprayed… water and not gas. Subsequently, in his turn, Vidal-Naquet had, quite awkwardly, attempted to answer the revisionists on the scientific level and made a fool of himself. Claude Lanzmann, for his part, in the film Shoah, sought to produce testimonies or confessions, but his result was clumsy, inept and hardly convincing; that said, at least he’d grasped that the main point was to “make movies” and occupy the public forum. Today there is no longer a single “historian” of “the Holocaust” who makes it his business to prove the reality of “the Holocaust” and its magical gas chambers. All of them do like Saul Friedländer in his latest book (L’Allemagne nazie et les juifs / Les années d’extermination, Seuil, 2008): they leave it as understood that it all existed. With them history becomes axiomatic, although their axioms aren’t even drawn up. These new historians proceed with such self-assurance that the reader, taken aback, doesn’t realise the trick being played on him: the smooth talkers go on endlessly about an event whose reality they haven’t established in the first place. And so it is that the customer, believing that he’s bought some goods, has actually bought the smooth talk of the one giving him the sales pitch. Today’s world champion of holocaustic bluff is a shabbos goy, Father Patrick Desbois, one hell of a trickster whose various productions dedicated to “the Holocaust by bullets”, notably in the Ukraine, seem to have reached the very peaks of Judeo-Christian media hype.

A success story of the great powers
A veritable success story in the art of selling, the holocaustic enterprise has acquired the status of an international lobby. This lobby has blended with the American Jewish lobby (whose flagship organisation is the AIPAC) which itself defends, tooth and nail, the interests of the State of Israel, of which “the Holocaust” is the sword and shield. The mightiest nations in the world can hardly allow themselves to annoy such a network of pressure groups which, under a religious veneer, was at first a commercial concern only to become later on military-commercial, constantly pushing for new military adventures. It follows that if other countries, called “emerging”, want to be in good graces with a certain more powerful one, then they would be well advised to bend to its wishes. Without necessarily professing their faith in “the Holocaust”, they will contribute, if need be, to the propagation of “the Holocaust” and to the repression of those who dispute its reality. The Chinese, for example, although they have no use at all for such nonsense themselves, keep well away from any calling into question of the “Jewish Holocaust”; this enables them to pose as the “Jews” of the Japanese during the last war and so point out that they too have been victims of genocide, a formula which, they think, may open the way to financial reparations and political profits, as it has done for the Jews.

A particularly mortal religion
The future trouble for the religion of “the Holocaust” lies in the fact that it is too secular. Here one may well think of the Papacy, which, in centuries past, drew its political and military strength from a temporal power that, in the final analysis, ended up causing its downfall. The new religion is hand in glove with, all together, the State of Israel, the United States, the European Union, NATO, Russia, the big banks (which, as in the case of the Swiss banks, it can force to knuckle under if they show unwillingness to pay out), international racketeering and the arms merchants’ lobbies. This being the case, who can guarantee it a solid base in the future? It has made itself vulnerable by endorsing, de facto, the policies of nations or groups with inordinate appetites, whose spirit of worldwide crusade, as may be particularly noted in the Near and Middle East, has become adventurist.

It has come to pass that religions disappear with the empires where they used to reign. This is because religions, like civilisations, are mortal. That of “the Holocaust” is doubly mortal: it spurs countries to go on warlike crusades and it is rushing to its doom. It will rush to its doom even if, in the last instance, the Jewish State vanishes from the land of Palestine. The Jews then dispersed throughout the world will have only one last resort, that of bewailing this “Second Holocaust”.


***
Translator’s note: The italicised English words are in English in the original.

NB: Already in 1980, in my book Mémoire en défense contre ceux qui m’accusent de falsifier l’histoire (“Statement of case against those who accuse me of falsifying history”, La Vieille Taupe, Paris), I dealt with “the new religion” of “the Holocaust” (p. 261-263). In 2006 I wrote two articles on the subject: “La ‘Mémoire juive’ contre l’Histoire ou l’aversion juive pour toute recherche approfondie sur la Shoah” (“‘Jewish Remembrance’ versus History, or the Jewish aversion to any thorough research on the Shoah”) and “Le prétendu ‘Holocauste’ des juifs se révèle de plus en plus dangereux” (“The Alleged ‘Holocaust’ of the Jews is proving ever more dangerous”).

The second may be found here in English translation.

Posted by Codoh Admin
Labels: Hilberg, Vidal-Naquet

From the Daily News

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu's son sparks uproar by dating non-Jewish Norwegian
News that Yair Netanyahu, 23, has a non-Jewish girlfriend is deeply troubling to many who subscribe to Orthodox Judaism, which prohibits intermarriage.

THE ASSOCIATED PRESSMONDAY, JANUARY 27, 2014 - Norwegian college student Sandra Leikanger is said to be dating the son of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Yair Netanyahu.


JERUSALEM — The love life of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's son is setting off sparks — in Israeli politics.

News that 23-year-old Yair Netanyahu is dating a non-Jewish Norwegian university student has generated interest not just in gossip columns but has also prompted an uproar from religious lawmakers. Orthodox Judaism prohibits intermarriage.

According to reports in Norwegian media, the Israeli prime minister boasted to his Norwegian counterpart, Erna Solberg, about the relationship during a meeting at the World Economic Forum in Davos last week and informed her that his son recently visited Norway with his girlfriend.



Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu , second left, together with his wife Sara and sons Yair and Avner, pose to have their picture taken after voting at a polling station in Jerusalem, Tuesday Jan. 22, 2013.

Netanyahu is a fervent Jewish nationalist and history buff, speaking out strongly against anti-Semitism and other threats facing the Jewish people. He has steadfastly demanded that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish homeland as part of any peace agreement.

In his younger days, Netanyahu was married a non-Jewish woman who later converted.

Yair, a university student, is the son of Netanyahu's third wife, Sara.

Netanyahu's office has declined to comment on the matter.

This is some journalist in The Independent rubbishing Dieudonne.

They've fined him - it didn't work, they threatened him - it didn't work. So they banned him and that doesn't seem to have worked. Now they try to rubbish him and that won't work either.

An act of cruelty: An audience with Dieudonné M'bala M'bala, the man behind the 'quenelle' salute

Dieudonné M'bala M'bala is the man behind the 'quenelle' salute. His fans claim the stand-up represents free speech. Others say he is just a hateful anti-semite. John Lichfield joins the crowd at his latest gig
JOHN LICHFIELD
Tuesday 28 January 2014

Dieudonné M'bala M'bala appears on stage to a feral roar from the audience, with his arms held aloft, more politician than comedian.

Which is he? No politician in France generates such raw excitement. No comedian produces such an intoxicating and disturbing cocktail of self-righteous laughter and joyous anger among his fans.

Howls of gleeful fury greet Dieudonné's every reference to a French politician, or to his alleged "persecution" by the French establishment. Louder howls and boos greet every reference to a Jew or to a Jewish organisation.

Dieudonné M'bala M'bala – the man who invented the controversial "quenelle" arm gesture performed by the Premiership footballer Nicolas Anelka – has belatedly started his 2014 stand-up Tour de France. The show replaces a performance banned by the French authorities earlier this month for inciting racial hatred against Jews.

Mostly, it is the same show, with the provocative anti-semitic quips taken out or replaced by pauses, which the audience cheers with passionate indignation.

Dieudonné is a compelling presence on stage: bearded, balding, black, very large and sometimes funny.

"What the fuck are all you lot doing here?" he asks. "The media and the politicians and the thinkers have ordered you not to come. You must all be crazy anti-semites, assassins and wicked sorcerers. I almost didn't turn up myself."

In Pictures: The controversial 'quenelle'








The performance is in the Bordeaux ice-rink – appropriate for a man who has been skating on thin moral and political ice for almost a decade. The audience of at least 5,000, which fills the venue to capacity, is predominately male. It is mostly white and working class. There are older people and some students, but the great majority seem to be in their thirties and forties. This is different from his usual audience in Paris, which is dominated by conspiracy-loving, far-leftist, bourgeois bohemians.

Dieudonné, half-Breton and half-Cameroonian, was born in the Paris suburbs 47 years ago. He first made his name as a cheeky, anti-racist comedian in a stand-up double act with a Jewish performer, Elie Semoun (one of the Jewish names booed at the Bordeaux show). He had several parts in movies, such as Asterix and Cleopatra. He campaigned, on and off the stage, against racism. He was, he said, a black man who refused "to dance the calypso with a banana stuck up my arse".

From about 2004, for reasons never explained, he metamorphosed into a French version of Louis Farrakhan, the controversial leader of the Nation of Islam in the US.

From the IHR

The Strange Life of Ilya Ehrenburg

Mark Weber

Ilya Ehrenburg, the leading Soviet propagandist of the Second World War, was a contradictory figure. A recent article in the weekly Canadian Jewish News sheds new light on the life of this "man of a thousand masks." [1]

Ehrenburg was born in 1891 in Kiev to a non-religious Jewish family. In 1908 he fled Tsarist Russia because of his revolutionary activities. Although he returned to visit after the Bolshevik revolution, he continued to live abroad, including many years in Paris, and did not settle in the Soviet Union until 1941. A prolific writer, Ehrenburg was the author of almost 30 books. The central figure of one novel, The Stormy Life of Lazik Roitschwantz, is a pathetic "luftmensch," a recurring character in Jewish literature who seems to live "from the air" without visible means of support.

As a Jew and a dedicated Communist, Ehrenburg was a relentless enemy of German National Socialism. During the Second World War, he was a leading member of the Soviet-sponsored Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. (At fund-raising rallies in the United States for the Soviet war effort, two leading members of the Committee displayed bars of soap allegedly manufactured by the Germans from the corpses of murdered Jews.)

Ehrenburg is perhaps most infamous for his viciously anti-German wartime propaganda. In the words of the Canadian Jewish News: "As the leading Soviet journalist during World War II, Ehrenburg's writings against the German invaders were circulated among millions of Soviet soldiers." His articles appeared regularly in Pravda, Izvestia, the Soviet military dailyKrasnaya Zvezda ("Red Star"), and in numerous leaflets distributed to troops at the front.

In one leaflet headlined "Kill," Ehrenburg incited Soviet soldiers to treat Germans as sub-human. The final paragraph concludes: [2]

“The Germans are not human beings. From now on the word German means to use the most terrible oath. From now on the word German strikes us to the quick. We shall not speak any more. We shall not get excited. We shall kill. If you have not killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day ... If you cannot kill your German with a bullet, kill him with your bayonet. If there is calm on your part of the front, or if you are waiting for the fighting, kill a German in the meantime. If you leave a German alive, the German will hang a Russian and rape a Russian woman. If you kill one German, kill another -- there is nothing more amusing for us than a heap of German corpses. Do not count days, do not count kilometers. Count only the number of Germans killed by you. Kill the German -- that is your grandmother's request. Kill the German -- that is your child's prayer. Kill the German -- that is your motherland's loud request. Do not miss. Do not let through. Kill.”

Ehrenburg's incendiary writings certainly contributed in no small measure to the orgy of murder and rape by Soviet soldiers against German civilians.

Until his death in 1967, "his support for the Soviet state, and for Stalin, never wavered," the Canadian Jewish News notes. His loyalty and service were acknowledged in 1952 when he received the Stalin Prize. In keeping with official Soviet policy, he publicly criticized Israel and Zionism.

The Canadian Jewish News further writes:

“ … The recent disclosure that Ehrenburg arranged to transfer his private archives to Jerusalem's Yad Vashem library and archive, while still alive, comes as a stunning revelation. The reason this information has come to light only now is that Ehrenburg agreed to transfer his archive on condition that the transfer, and his will, remain secret for 20 years after his death. On Dec. 11 [1987], with the 20-year period expired, Israel's daily Maariv related Ehrenburg's story…”

The collection includes material about the important wartime Jewish partisan movement. Among the documents in the collection is one concerning a pogrom in Malalchovka, a village near Moscow, which took place in 1959.

This new revelation about one of the most influential figures of the Stalinist regime shows that, whatever he may have said for public consumption, Ehrenburg never privately disavowed Zionism or forgot his ancestry.



Notes

1. Rose Kleiner, "Archives to throw new light on Ehrenburg," Canadian Jewish News (Toronto), March 17, 1988, p. 9.

2. Alfred de Zayas, Nemesis at Potsdam (London: Roudedge & Kegan Paul, 2nd edition, 1979), pp. 6546, 201; Erich Kern (ed.), Verheimlichte Dokumente (Munich: FZ- Verlag, 1988), pp. 260-61, 353-55.

This is Roger Tucker writing on One Democratic State

The Real Quenelle: Why French Gefillte Fish Isn't Kosher

Roger Tucker

The quenelle is first inserted into the cavity...

A couple of weeks ago I posted here about the growing awareness in France of the need to confront abusive Jewish power and how people were beginning to laugh at Jewish power.

In my fear, I suggested what ordinary decent Jews in France and elsewhere could do. First, that they immediately disassociate themselves from their leaders and organisations and then, if they could, do the following: 

• Press publicly and immediately for the repeal of Holocaust denial and all 'thought-crime' laws, full and free historical enquiry into the Holocaust and all World War II history and the cessation of all reparation payments to Holocaust survivors.

• Press publicly and immediately for Israel to acknowledge the crimes of 1948, agree to the principle of the Palestinian Right of Return and begin meaningful talks with everyone and anyone on how to immediately improve the terrible situation in Israel/Palestine.

• Publicly distinguish between 'anti-Semitism' and Jew-hatred (You can change the words if you want) - the one being a legitimate opposition to an abusive Jewish power, the other being a blind hatred of all Jews simply because they are Jews. Acknowledge the legitimacy of the one and the illegitimacy of the latter.

This clip is of David Frost interviewing Sir Oswald Mosley in 1967 and it's interesting how the same issues come up.  

For you non-Brits who may not know, Mosley was in the thirties our very own British fascist and, second only to Adolf Hitler himself, was the big bogey-man of my childhood. So, like any other Jewish kid growing up in the fifties and sixties, I was thoroughly immersed in tales of fascist terror in the then Jewish East End and of Jewish heroism heroism à la the Battle of Cable Street.

Like with so many things, it was only later that I heard the other point of view so my guess now is that the picture of Sir Oswald as evil personified is wildly inaccurate - though I'm sure he wasn't quite as innocent as in this clip, he would have us believe.  
Of one thing I'm sure. Whatever Oswald Mosley may or may not have been he could never match the horribleness of the young, bumptious and ever- sneering, David Frost. 

This comes from  Jewish Journal via Professor Robert Faurisson. you can see the film that all the fuss is about here

International holocaust day 2014: Holocaust denial - becoming scarily reliable

By Noga Gur-Arieh




When lies become reliable, is the time for us to worry.

How positive you are that the Holocaust really occurred? That it is not one big fraud planned by the US and its allies? That the pictures that you see of piles of dead bodies are not just the bodies of Jews who fled to Europe from communist Russia and died from typhus disease? That the use of Zyklon B was not an attempt made by the Germans to stop the spread of this terrible disease? That when high-ranked Nazis admitted to committing terrible crimes against minorities and seeking to kill all Jews after they got arrested, weren’t forced to do so by the victors of the war? What would you say to a Holocaust survivor’s testimony that confirms that information? Where she explains that the reason the Nazis cut their hair was lice epidemic, and that they were lucky to sleep in cramped bunk beds that the Nazis managed to arrange for them, because the alternative was sleeping outside in the cold.

All of the above is part of a documentary named: “Adolf Hitler – the greatest story never told.” This three-hour long film is merely a small part of a growing list of conspiracy-based films proving the Holocaust never existed. Accompanied by an American narration and dramatic music, those films provide answers to every doubt that may arise while watching. They show documented proof to every single claim they make and are very convincing. They are also being sold on mainstream websites, such as Amazon, which provides them with another approval of authenticity.

The technology of the 21st century allows haters to deny the occurrence of the Holocaust with a simple editing program and some viral push in social networks. By disguising lies as solid facts, creators of those films fool thousands of unaware people every day. Lies that are easy for us to detect can seem as reliable facts to the many people who are not surrounded by the memory of the Holocaust.

Up until recently, those Holocaust deniers, wishing to spread hate throughout the world, had very little impact while facing Holocaust survivors and European citizens from those dark times. With time, though, the number of witnesses is decreasing rapidly. If I heard a testimony from a Holocaust survivor every year from first to 12th grade, my nine year-old cousin will not have that privilege. She will have to rely on the stories being told to her by her teachers and family members. She will also have to watch the films and documentaries that fill the entire broadcast schedule of the Israeli television during the Holocaust Memorial Day. She will have to visit Poland in the 11th grade with her class, as part of the ongoing national program. She will have to ask questions, be interested and remember.

Soon it will be entirely up to us, the second and third generation, to keep the memory of the Holocaust alive so that history could never repeat itself. Once the witnesses all rest in peace, all we will have left are stories, pictures and items that can be easily be claimed as fake. It will be us against them, and we must continue being the majority. Denying the Holocaust is now as easy as proving it occurred, and social networks are still unable to detect lies.

In recent years, anti-Semites and neo-Nazis are carefully stepping out of the shadows and managing to slowly sweep groups of fans after them. Making people believe they are not the ones to blame for their own troubles is easy, especially in times of financial struggle. Placing the blame on someone else is easier. Now, we can still fight them virtually, forcing them back into the darkness. We can still write to Amazon and ask them to stop working with contributors poisoning people’s minds with lies. We can still counter those lies online. We can no longer sit aside with confidence that “it will never happen again,” the time to act is now.

This is from The Vineyard of the Saker website and when I read it I get the feeling that I'm getting the very latest and the very truest from deep within France - and elsewhere.

I'm grateful to Shelby Tucker for sending me this.

This is from The Observer

Goodbye Gaza: our correspondent reflects on her time in the Middle East

This piece is called "Israel needs to learn some manners" and is from the New York Times. It comes to me via Dan McGowan.

JEWISH CHRONICLE – March 23rd 2001 

As one of the ‘new’ or revisionist Israeli historians, I have followed with interest the debate about Jewish participation in the London commemoration of the Deir Yassin massacre. Some details are still in dispute, but the broad outlines of the story are clear. It is very much to Israel’s credit that it allows access to its official documents under the 30-year rule. These documents leave no room for doubt that the Irgun and Lehi units that attacked the Palestinian village of Deir Yassin on 9 April 1948 committed a massacre.

It was probably not premeditated, but a massacre it was, and it claimed the lives of over a hundred Palestinians. Some of your correspondents would be well advised to consult Benny Morris’s 1988 book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949. Morris makes it clear that there was a prolonged firefight followed by a massacre.

Dr Colin Leci (JC February 23rd) is wrong to describe Deir Yassin as “a heavily armed Arab military post”. It was a small village that had concluded a non-aggression pact with the Haganah. Haganah forces assisted in the initial attack on the village with mortar fire but they took no part in the subsequent slaughter.

During the house-to-house fighting the Irgun and Lehi units did not save “40 women, children and elderly people who had been forced to remain”. After the fighting was over, the dissidents rounded up unarmed civilians and murdered dozens of them. There were cases of mutilation and rape. While irregular Arab forces did defend the village, there is no reliable evidence that some of them were dressed up as women.

Dr Leci described the inhabitants of Deir Yassin as “the victims of war”. The available evidence suggests that most of them were the victims of an atrocity committed by members of the Irgun and Lehi.

Rabbi Dr Sidney Brichto (March 2nd) advises Jews not to join in the commemoration of this sad event. He fears this would give a propaganda coup to the Palestinian authorities. True, there is a risk that the commemoration of a human tragedy which occurred 53 years ago may be exploited for propaganda purposes today. Rabbi Brichto is not obliged to run this risk. But the position he has adopted is not exactly a shining example of moral courage.

Courage, humanity, and a sense of justice are some of the qualities displayed by Rabbis John Rayner and Jeffrey Newman. They recognise that the issue of the distribution of responsibility is a complex one. But they also note that the Palestinian tragedy is a by-product of the Zionist enterprise. Their position strikes me as eminently reasonable and I plan to follow their example by attending the Deir Yasssin Memorial Day.

(Professor) Avi ShlaimSt Antony's College, Oxfordavi.shlaim@st-antonys.oxford.ac.uk

He did attend the event and I think the next day Dan, Issam and myself traveled up to Oxford to meet him and pose with him for that photo.

I didn't know Avi Shlaim well but I remember a sweet, gentle and good man. He is also a good Israeli and a good Jew so it's no surprise to me that in the article below he is completely unable to acknowledge (even to himself) the pernicious Jewish role in America 

Israel Needs to Learn Some Manners
By AVI SHLAIM
JAN. 30, 2014

This is from The Occidental Observer and is about growing tensions in San Francisco.

I've been a Bob Dylan obsessive all my life but my obsession just comes and goes - and it comes and goes in tandem with my obsession with my, and also his, Jewishness (which also comes and goes)

Jews and Arabs have lived together in one state since 1948 - the one state solution is already here.

Jews and Arabs have lived together in one state since 1948; Israelis and Palestinians have lived together in one state since 1967. This country is Jewish and Zionist, but not democratic for everyone. Its Arab citizens are deprived, while the Palestinians in the territories are disinherited and lacking rights. Yet the one state solution is here - and has been for quite a long time.

It has been a solution for its Jewish citizens and a disaster for its Palestinian subjects. The ones who are frightened by it - nearly all Israelis - ignore the reality that the one state arrangement already exists. They only are terrified by a change in its character - from a state of apartheid and occupation to an egalitarian state; from a binational state in practice that is disguised as a nation state (of the ruler), to a binational state in principle. Either way, Jews and Palestinians have lived in this one state for at least two generations, albeit apart. It’s impossible to ignore.

Relations between the two peoples in this one country have known changes: from a military regime over the Arab-Israelis until its abolishment (in 1966), from a calmer and freer period in the territories through stormy periods of murderous terror and violent occupation. In Jerusalem, Acre, Jaffa, Ramle, Lod, the Galillee and Wadi Ara live Arabs and Jews, and the relations between them are not impossible.

Relations with the Palestinians in the territories have also changed - but over the years we lived in one country, even if by the sword.

For 47 years, the possibility of withdrawing from the territories and contributing as such to the longed-for Jewish and democratic character of the state has stood before the Israelis who fear a change in its character. They chose not to. It is perhaps their right - most doubtfully - but it is their duty to offer another solution.

Under this banner, they established the settlement enterprise, whose goal was to thwart partition. This enterprise succeeded to the point that it became irreversible. And there’s no arguing with success: no one speaks anymore of evacuating over half a million settlers - and therefore no one speaks anymore of a just solution of two states.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s proposals, which also deter a large number of Israelis, do not guarantee a just solution, so they do not promise a solution. “Settlement blocs” will remain in place. Ariel has long been inside, and leasing Ofra and Beit El are possibilities. “Security arrangements” will be made for the Jordan Valley, perhaps its settlements will also be allowed to remain. The proposal says no to return or a solution to the refugee problem. Meanwhile, the prime minster makes a commitment not to “evacuate one Jew” and proposes keeping settlers under Palestinian sovereignty - as unabashed spin.

With all that, it may be possible to go to the corner grocer, to formulate and even sign another document (without any intention of implementing it) that resembles remarkably to all its predecessors since the 1969 Rogers plan, through the Clinton parameters to the Road Map. All of them are kicking up dust, deep in some filing cabinet. But it’s impossible to solve the conflict with such a plan. The refugees, the settlers and the Gaza Strip; the lack of good intentions; and the lack of justice will all remain as they are.

Anyone who supports the two-state solution - apparently most Israelis - must offer a real solution. Kerry’s proposals do not bode well. Israel might just accede to them, but only to maintain its relations with the United States and the world and to push the Palestinians to the wall, certainly not to establish peace or impose justice.

From this general "no" rises the "yes:" yes, to one state. If Israelis truly want to maintain the settlements they established, and to remain in the Jordan Valley and on the mountain ridge, in Gush Etzion and in Maale Adumim, in East Jerusalem and leading in Beit El - let them do so, but then there won’t be two states. If there are no two states, there is only one state. If there is one state, then the discourse must change: equal rights for everyone.

The problems are many and complicated, and like them so are the solutions: division into districts, federation, joint or separate governance. But there will be no demographic change here - because the state has long been binational - but rather just a democratic and conscious change. And then the question will arise in full force: Why is it so scary to live in an egalitarian state? Indeed, all other possibilities are much scarier.

This appeared in the Guardian. It seems that Dieudonné's been banned from Britain. That's bad news but there's worse.