The unstated premise of any academic work on the subject of anti-Semitism is that the Jew is never and nowhere to blame; there are rare exceptions, (1) but for the most part one can trawl through the vast catalogue of Jewish/anti-Jewish studies without finding so much as a hint that God’s Chosen are not quite the poor, persecuted, powerless people they would have us believe they are.
The reality of course is that, as any fool knows, but only the brave or the stupid will admit, the Jewish/Zionist Lobby (2) is incredibly powerful, often gets its own way on many matters, is totally ruthless, and will and does smear as anti-Semitic anyone who refuses to bow down and kiss the arse of Imperial Zion.
The real power of Organised Jewry is devolved, not as many anti-Semites and fellow travellers believe, from Jewish financial hegemony or from direct Jewish control of the press, but from the fear and spinelessness induced in the goyim by the incessant whining and wailing of a handful of powerful Jewish/Zionist organisations and their (mostly Gentile) fellow travellers in the Socialist International. In Britain, these organisations include, but are not limited to, the Board of Deputies of “British” Jews defence committee, the Institute of Jewish Affairs, and the Searchlight Organisation. One person who is intimately acquainted with all three is Dr Anthony Kushner, formerly Parkes Fellow and now Marcus Sieff Lecturer in Jewish/non-Jewish Relations in the Department of History, University of Southampton.
Kushner is the author of The persistence of prejudice: Antisemitism in British society during the Second World War, which was published by Manchester University Press in 1989. The theme of this book, and indeed of most of the good doctor’s whining and wailing, is “How could anybody ever hate us lovely Jews?” Anyone who reads his latest offering and who has so much as a gramme of critical faculty, will surely know the answer to that question, because if all “Jews” were like Dr Anthony wailing-and-gnashing-of-teeth Kushner, anti-Semitism would be less a social stigma than a painful duty.
So what is Kushner’s latest offering? The Holocaust and the Liberal Imagination is subtitled A Social and Cultural History. Published by the mainstream academic publishing house of Basil Blackwell, it reared its ugly head in late 1994. Reviewed by Marion Halcombe in the prestigious Libertarian journal Free Life, it drew scathing comments from this normally tolerant magazine. According to the reviewer, WE ARE ALL GUILTY. (3) As might be expected, Kushner’s chutzpah was attacked here primarily from a civil liberties angle, no comment was made on the inherent dishonesty of the book, nor the fact that, in defiance of all standards of scholarship it accepts uncritically the most outrageous and unsustainable assertions of Holocaust survivors and dismisses as mere anti-Semitic propaganda even the most meticulously documented Revisionist critiques. Sadly though this is nothing new. Without further ado then, let us take the bull by the horns.
We can ignore the social and cultural aspects of this book, which in spite of its title are the least important of its offerings. On page 267, using the inveterate pejorative of Jewish academics, Kushner takes a swipe at so-called Holocaust denial (ever the small d), and reveals, amazingly, that it began in 1943 with a certain Alexander Ratcliffe. Who was Alexander Ratcliffe? The good doctor doesn’t tell us, but for the reader’s information he was a Scottish Protestant, editor of a newspaper called The Vanguard, and an anti-Catholic bigot as well as an anti-Jewish one. Apparently, as early as 1943, Ratcliffe published a pamphlet which claimed that “there is not a single case on record of a single Jew having been massacred or unlawfully put to death under the Hitler regime”.
This statement hardly constitutes Holocaust Revisionism, notwithstanding the fact that one can play all manner of semantic games with such a pronouncement. (4) And whatever its factual content, such a statement hardly constitutes incitement or sedition; it doesn’t actually attack Jews at all, although it might imply that some of them were being economical with the truth. Perish the thought! All the same, Kushner laments the fact that “Herbert Morrison, the Home Secretary, refused to accept that a libel law [sic] was needed to protect the Jews”. (5) Yes, the good doctor really does think that a special law should have been passed “to protect us lovely Jews”.
What then would he have made about the statement which was reported in the Jewish Chronicle ten years prior to Ratcliffe’s claim? An editorial on page 5 of the April 14, 1933 issue reported that “Truth Must Out”, and made the remarkable claim that “...certain Jewish organisations abroad circulated exaggerated atrocity stories.” Yes, the Jewish Chronicle accused certain Jewish organisations of circulating anti-German atrocity propaganda. If the Jewish Chronicle could make such a claim in peace time, then surely there could be some truth in the claim made by Ratcliffe that atrocity propaganda was being used against the enemy in war-time. After all, haven’t we all heard many times that the first casualty of war is truth?
Whatever the ravings of this one anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish bigot, Dr Kushner is less concerned about the challenges to atrocity stories in war-time (6) than with the contemporary assault on the assertions put forward by his co-racialists who survived the Nazi death camps.
On the very same page he whines: “For survivors, whose need to give testimony has often been an essential part of their post-war life, Holocaust denial has been particularly disturbing. Yet attempts in Britain to ban such material in the late 1980s and early 1990s have been rejected on the same grounds outlined by Morrison. The liberal British state has refused to protect one of its most vulnerable minorities - even though it now has the most powerful anti-racist legislation in Europe. Individual liberty has been put on a higher plane than the sensitivities of those who have suffered some of the worst abuses of the twentieth century. Apart from the hurt caused to survivors and others, the general influence of Holocaust denial is difficult to assess. There can be little doubt that its purveyors are motivated by antisemitism...”
There is a lot here, so let’s take it a little at a time. To begin with, no survivor [sic] needs or has needed to give testimony, certainly not outside of the context of legal proceedings. Two such survivors named here are Kitty Hart and Elie Wiesel. Kitty Hart née Felix is a survivor who is undoubtedly well known in certain circles, but is hardly a recognised spokeswoman for Jewry. She is now a British citizen. Elie Wiesel is of course an internationally recognised figure, and a Nobel Laureate. Incredibly. Let’s deal with these two survivors one at a time.
Mrs Hart gets a mention in Kushner’s book on page 262. She is said to have made a TV documentary called Return to Auschwitz in 1979, a documentary Kushner describes as “important and harrowing”. I haven’t seen this documentary, but I have read the book of the same name; I have also read Mrs Hart’s earlier autobiography and have analysed both these texts in considerable detail elsewhere. (7) And I saw Mrs Hart when she appeared on TV in another programme, Another Journey By Train. (8)
Again, Kushner is wrong, Kitty Hart didn’t need to publish either of her books, and she certainly didn’t need to invent stories about the SS man who threw a baby into an oven, nor any of the other nonsense that appears in either book. Although Mrs Hart did undoubtedly suffer during World War II, she was not the only person who suffered, just as her race was not the only race that suffered, and there were very many people, most of them white Gentiles, who suffered more. For example, Mrs Hart reports that in Auschwitz, prisoners organised concerts; a group of Hungarians were even said to have staged a ballet! Obviously such entertainments were heavily improvised, but there must have been not a few soldiers serving at the front - in all armies - who would have envied Kitty Hart and her co-racialists in Auschwitz, and who would have readily changed places with her.
Nobel “Peace” Prize winner Elie Wiesel didn’t need to write about the Holocaust either; he certainly didn’t need to write his book Night, in which he claimed that he saw babies thrown alive into a burning pit, and in which he reported other nonsense.
Kushner’s claim that survivors such as Kitty Hart and Elie Wiesel have found Holocaust Revisionism particularly disturbing is unquestionably true, and the reason for this is not far to seek: as evinced here, many of these very same survivors have been exposed as bare-faced liars by the most basic textual analysis. (9)
Next we come to Kushner’s claim that “attempts in Britain to ban such material in the late 1980s and early 1990s have been rejected on the same grounds outlined by Morrison.”
And that “The liberal British state has refused to protect one of its most vulnerable minorities - even though it now has the most powerful anti-racist legislation in Europe.”
In other words, the liberal British state has refused to suppress a) open debate on this subject and b) to throw into gaol anyone who has the temerity to brand the likes of Kitty Hart shameless liars, as indeed they are.
“The liberal British state has refused to protect one of its most vulnerable minorities - even though it now has the most powerful anti-racist legislation in Europe.”
This is complete eyewash. The liberal British state has refused, to its credit, to protect the lies of people who Kushner claims are “one of its most vulnerable minorities”. In the same breath he admits that Britain “now has the most powerful anti-racist legislation in Europe.” And who was responsible for foisting this Draconian piece of legislation on Britain? That very same vulnerable minority! In October 1993, the forever wailing-and-gnashing-of-teeth Jewish Chronicle boasted that the Jewish peer Lord Lester was “one of the architects of Britain’s Race Relations Act”. In the same article, Lester was said to have clashed with Home Secretary Michael Howard over the need to instigate an even stronger and more repressive race act. (10) This same vulnerable minority was outraged when Michael Howard put his commitment to freedom of speech and liberal values on a higher plane than bowing to and appeasing his hate-mongering co-racialists. (11)
Exactly how much protection - apart from protecting their lies - does this vulnerable minority need? The answer is of course that it needs no more protection than the rest of us. There are no pogroms in this country, and there are very few anti-Jewish incidents which are anti-Jewish in any meaningful sense of the word. True, there have been occasional desecrations of Jewish cemeteries, but this happens to Christian cemeteries as well. There are no murders and there is no organised violence against Jews as Jews; the same cannot be said of Asians and blacks, although even this very real problem has been greatly exaggerated. The only violent acts worthy of mention to have been directed against Jews in Britain in recent years were the 1994 bombings of the Israeli Embassy and Balfour House in North London. And these were not anti-Jewish acts, they were acts of terrorism directed against the entity of political Zionism, (12) in exactly the same way that IRA terrorism on the mainland is not anti-British. (13)
What “anti-Semitism” exists in Britain amounts to people sending ritual murder leaflets through the post, people who like to hear Jews scream, because nobody screams either so loudly or so frequently with so little justification as these overgrown children - like Kushner - who interpret any dissent on any issue or any disagreement with them as rabid anti-Semitism.
There are other people who might reasonably be called anti-Semites, some of them in a very mild way, and these are the people who are sick to death of the whining, wailing and mendacity of Kushner and his cabal, and who extrapolate from Organised Jewry to Jews in general.
Back to Kushner’s book: “Individual liberty has been put on a higher plane than the sensitivities of those who have suffered some of the worst abuses of the twentieth century.”
This is an obvious reference to Kitty Hart, Elie Wiesel and other survivors. Whilst it is unquestionably true that many Jews suffered persecution in Nazi Germany, and whilst it is equally true that many suffered in World War Two, and that many were murdered, not only by the Germans, it must be added, it is likewise a documented fact that the peoples of virtually every nation suffered some form of hardship in that senseless bloodbath. The Japanese people suffered terribly: Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the firebombing of Tokyo to name but three. The Chinese suffered; the peoples of Eastern Europe suffered; the people of Britain, the United States and many other nations gave freely of their blood. The major sufferers though were white Gentiles. (14) Furthermore, not all Jews suffered, and indeed, many Jews suffered less than many Germans, Britons, French people, and so on. We have already seen that Kitty Hart, who was interned at Auschwitz as a young (and obviously extremely impressionable) girl, suffered, this is not denied. However, the most significant damage done to the likes of Mrs Hart is clearly psychological, because fifty and more years on, she and her kind are still obsessed with the uniqueness of their suffering - real and imagined - and believe it to be so much more serious, and terrible, for Jews to suffer than for anybody else.
Kushner again: “Apart from the hurt caused to survivors and others, the general influence of Holocaust denial is difficult to assess. There can be little doubt that its purveyors are motivated by antisemitism...”
There can be a great deal of doubt, indeed most of its purveyors are most definitely not motivated by anti-Semitism. Whilst it is undoubtedly true that Holocaust Revisionism is peddled by anti-Semites, and white nationalists, (15) and whilst it is equally true that some Holocaust Revisionists often speak in less than glowing terms about “us lovely Jews”, the most cursory inspection of the credentials of Holocaust Revisionists reveals a wide cross section. Including Jews! Indeed, one of the earliest purveyors of Holocaust Revisionism was the late Josef Ginsburg, who gave evidence for Ernst Zundel at his 1985 trial and denounced the gas chambers as a tissue of lies. A much more recent Jewish convert is the extremely youthful David Cole.
Another very early Holocaust Revisionist was the former Times correspondent Douglas Reed, whose anti-Nazi credentials were impeccable. On page 224, Kushner refers to Reed’s work as “paranoid rantings about Jewish conspiracies” which were apparently published by the respectable publishing house of Jonathan Cape.
Whilst it is true that Reed did possess some strange and undoubtedly erroneous ideas about the Jewish Question, it is most definitely not true that his views on the Holocaust were paranoid rantings.
In his 1951 book FAR AND WIDE, Reed poured scorn on the claims of six million dead and said that: “In my judgment the figure of six millions was a grotesque exaggeration which an unintimidated press would never have published, save to expose.” (16) Four decades and more on, the exaggeration is still grotesque, and the intimidation increases daily.
So much for the antecedents of Holocaust Revisionists; their motivations are just as varied. On the other hand, the motivations of Kushner and his ilk are all too transparent, in short, the good doctor is not, first and foremost, an historian, but a professional Jewish propagandist who peddles the twin theories of Aryan evil and Jewish suffering in much the same way an earlier generation of cranks peddled the Jewish world conspiracy and the Protocols Of Zion.
Kushner’s tacit suggestion that the sensitivities of damned liars (and unquestionably propagandists such as himself) should be put on a higher plane than individual liberty is typical of the inveterate liars and mischief makers of Organised Jewry. Indeed, he goes much further. In the Jewish Chronicle for April 14, 1995 he reviews, glowingly, the polemical Denying The Holocaust, by his fellow academic, whiner and co-racialist, Deborah Lipstadt. Unlike Kushner’s book, Lipstadt’s is concerned with the Holocaust as a central issue. It is also an incredibly venal and dishonest book, for while it makes a number of valid criticisms about the techniques of certain Revisionists lumped together with ad hominem attacks on their (supposed) ideologies, it studiously avoids the real issues. For example, although Professor Butz’s book is covered in some depth, there is no mention either of the early Jewish Revisionist the aforementioned Josef Ginsburg, or of the exhaustive study by retired judge Wilhelm Staeglich. (17)
Naturally Kushner applauds Lipstadt’s book; he also attacks the Journal of Historical Review as “pseudo-academic” and a purveyor of “hard-core pornography”. No, this doesn’t mean that the JHR has gone down market, this is, it would appear, a new term for Holocaust Revisionism. Kushner praises Lipstadt for her dedication to what is surely “sickening work”.
He praises Lipstadt too for “generally avoid[ing] the pointless exercise of re-proving [sic] the Holocaust and instead concentrat[ing] on the deniers themselves.” An open admission that her book is far more polemical than scholarly. Curiously, he claims that Lipstadt’s book is less incisive than its “more sophisticated predecessor”. Incredibly, this is a reference to a book by a Yorkshire-based Jewish “academic”, Gill Seidel; The Holocaust Denial: Antisemitism, Racism & the New Right was published in 1986 by Beyond the Pale. (18) Its sophistication includes the absurd claim that Holocaust Revisionism is the latest update of the Protocols Of Zion (19) and the only marginally less absurd claim that the anti-Zionist Jew Lenni Brenner is a rabid anti-Semite! (20)
Kushner accepts Lipstadt’s self-penned axiom that it is crucial to avoid debating with the Revisionists. (21) So, if they can’t be debated, what then? “...she is perhaps too negative about legal means used to silence them [which] have been used successfully on the Continent”. And so, Kushner is revealed in his true colours: we can’t debate them, therefore they must be silenced by legal means. (22) He also identifies, inadvertently, the real vulnerable minority which needs protecting from quasi-fascist tyranny, calumny and organised liars: the Revisionists.
Returning to his book, Kushner says on page 26 that: “Survivors such as Elie Wiesel and Saul Friedlander have put great stress on the dangers inherent in making the Holocaust ‘accessible’ to the general public in an age of mass media. Wiesel in particular has criticized fictionalized, televised and film versions of the Holocaust where viewers ‘get a little history, a heavy dose of sentimentality and suspense, a little eroticism, a few daring sex scenes, a dash of theological rumination about the silence of God...”
Hmm, Elie Wiesel should be one of the very last people to criticise fictionalised representations of the Holocaust. In vindication of this, let us quote a brief passage from his book Night, (which we have already alluded to).
“Not far from us, flames were leaping up from a ditch, gigantic flames. They were burning something. A lorry drew up at the pit and delivered its load - little children. Babies! Yes, I saw it - saw it with my own eyes...those children in the flames. (Is it surprising that I could not sleep after that? Sleep had fled from my eyes.)” (23)
And what do the so-called deniers (small d) have to say about this? Well, one of the leading DENIERS, Professor Faurisson, says: “Here Wiesel the false witness had some bad luck. Forced to choose from among several Allied war propaganda lies, he chose to defend the fire lie instead of the boiling water, gassing, or electrocution lies. In 1956, when he published his testimony in Yiddish, the fire lie was still alive in certain circles. This lie is the origin of the term Holocaust. Today there is no longer a single historian who believes that Jews were burned alive.” (24)
There can be no doubt whatsoever that Kushner has read Wiesel’s testimony, and that he realises what utter garbage this particular passage is, and that he realises too what utter garbage and how utterly worthless most such survivor testimony is, yet it is Faurisson he denounces rather than Wiesel and other fantasists. He also authenticates, or at best does not condone, lies which, rather than written by the obviously disturbed Elie Wiesel, were penned by Communist propagandists for purposes which, unlike Wiesel’s, have not even the pretence of nobility.
On page 134, Kushner chirps up: “In January 1942, limited coverage was given in the democracies to a note from the Soviet Union on German atrocities.” He is referring here to The Molotov Notes On German Atrocities, which were published in London - incredibly - by HMSO! (25) It may have been that these notes were published as a sop to Stalin, at any rate, whatever their PR value they are utterly worthless as evidence of war-time atrocities, as the press clearly realised at the time, and as Kushner’s comment reveals. (26)
On a similar subject, on page 242, Kushner cites, with approval, Lord Russell of Liverpool’s The Scourge of the Swastika. Anyone who would take this nonsense seriously deserves to be lied to; obviously Kushner doesn’t take it seriously, although just as obviously he wants his readers to. (27) What about Kushner’s claim that Holocaust Denial has been particularly disturbing to survivors? Surely the quid pro quo of this is that officially sanctioned lies about the Holocaust related by survivors, and sensationalists such as Lord Russell of Liverpool, are extremely disturbing to the much libelled Germans? The claim for example that prisoners in Buchenwald were crushed with rocks and drowned in manure. (28) The claim by Kitty Hart (and many others) that soap was made from the bodies of gassed [sic] Jews. (29) No suggestion is ever made by Kushner and his ilk that such lies should even be denounced, must less that the people who spread them should be dragged into court, as has happenedto sincere Revisionists on many occasions.
On page 138, Kushner claims that much of the Holocaust was rejected at the time in both Britain and the United States as war propaganda. As indeed it deserved to be. Kushner’s fellow whiner, Wiener Library Director David Cesarani, claimed in November 1993 that “The Foreign Office knew in August, 1942 about the Holocaust as a result of evidence supplied by the Jewish underground in Poland.” (30) Undoubtedly the Foreign Office did know about the Holocaust, but it also knew, and still knows, and the government knew, and still knows, what damned liars you people are.
Another concern of Kushner’s is educating the gullible goyim about the true nature of the Holocaust, (and poisoning the minds of the next generation of schoolchildren). Of all races. “Some problems remained. A crude universalistic tendency was present in the unsophisticated lumping together of Auschwitz, Hiroshima and Dresden as ’casualties of war’.” (31)
This is yet another example of special pleading: our suffering is much greater than yours, our suffering is more important, our suffering is unique, we need special laws to make sure that our suffering is always considered special, and that both our suffering and ourselves are above criticism.
It would be nice to dismiss this as the opinion of a lone and obviously disturbed Jewish academic, unfortunately, this is not the case. Rather, this is the considered opinion of Organised Jewry on both sides of the Atlantic, indeed throughout the entire world, and it has been so for many, many years. In the aftermath of Hiroshima, the Jewish Chronicle editorialised thus: “The Japanese civilians who fell victims to the atom bomb were bitter enemies, and pitiless. The Jewish men, women, and children who perished, had not taken up arms; their offences were only their birth and their utter helplessness.” (32) That was the case then, and it remains the case still.
On page 263, Kushner laments that no courses are available on the Holocaust at British Polytechnics, and on page 265 he speaks favourably of both Searchlight magazine and the Wiesenthal Center, and their “war crimes” campaigns. This is surely the pits, and if any excuses could be made for Kushner this far, by citing these two entities, particularly the former, he proves himself to be totally beyond the pale.
In April 1994, the current writer published a pamphlet on the Searchlight Educational Trust [sic]; this was one of a series of pamphlets, part of an ongoing exposé of the many tentacles of the Searchlight octopus. In that pamphlet I wrote that Kushner was one of a number of respectable front people who had been recruited by this organisation’s evil controllers to lend it a veneer of respectability that it clearly doesn’t deserve. I was still of that opinion sometime later. In July 1994 I received a letter from Dr David Cesarani telling me that I would not be permitted to use the Wiener Library anymore. He had seen my exposés of the Searchlight Organisation, and took umbrage at them, because, he told me, I was using the Wiener Library to engage in personal and political vendettas.
David Cesarani wasn’t the only one, the Jewish Chronicle has for some time been running a hate campaign against me. I have documented all this elsewhere, so will not repeat myself here, (33) but basically this too concerned my exposés of the Searchlight Organisation and its head honcho and Machiavellian schemer, Gerry Gable. In March 1994 I published an open letter to the Jewish Chronicle which proved that Gerry Gable and his friends at Searchlight lie to them as freely as they lie to the gullible goyim of the so-called anti-fascist left. One might then have expected the paper to put as much distance between itself and Gable as possible. Not one bit. In March 1995, when Searchlight celebrated [sic] its twentieth anniversary, the paper published a full page spread on Gable and an in-depth interview with him repeating the same lies.
Likewise, to the best of my knowledge, Dr Kushner is still closely associated with the Searchlight Educational Trust, and the Board of Deputies of “British” Jews is still staunchly behind both Gable and his evil pseudo-anti-fascist organisation. Many people on the far right interpret this “clannishness” amongst Organised Jewry as part of an intricate, all-pervasive conspiracy. This belief is understandable, but flawed. It is flawed because Occam’s Razor gives us a far more plausible explanation. Strangely, it was only the release from gaol of former world heavyweight champion (and convicted rapist) Mike Tyson that made me realise the prosaic but ugly truth.
The rise and fall of Mike Tyson is too well known to need documenting in any detail here, but briefly what happened is this. Iron Mike, former child delinquent, rose to be the youngest heavyweight champion of all time, potentially the greatest heavyweight or even the greatest fighter of all time, then went off the rails. In the space of a few years he went through a disastrous marriage, lost his title to a thirty-five to one underdog, got involved in a street brawl, and finally ended up charged with, and convicted of, rape.
Tyson’s victim was beauty contestant Desireé Washington. In the early hours of July 19, 1991, Tyson raped Miss Washington in his hotel room in the American city of Indianapolis. Because of the circumstances of the rape, Tyson’s legal team did their best to destroy the victim’s character. What sort of woman would go to a man’s hotel room at that time of the morning? Especially a man with a reputation like Tyson’s? And so on. It was all innuendo of course, but had Desireé Washington been any sort of good time girl, a well-known slut, free with her sexual favours, or even a bit of a raver, the defence would surely have succeeded. Desireé Washington was none of these things, she was as respectable as a young woman could be. True, she showed extremely poor judgment, she was blinded by Tyson’s fame, by his aura, and she obviously like him. And she was just as obviously raped in that hotel room. (34)
In March 1992, Tyson was sentenced to six years in gaol, and would be out in three with full remission. As a long time boxing fan, and indeed a Tyson fan, seeing him reduced to this gave the current writer not the slightest satisfaction. Indeed, the trashing of Mike Tyson was, I felt, a tragedy not only for boxing, but for a generation of young black kids to whom Tyson was the perfect role model. He had that rare quality of being pro-black without being anti-white, he obviously so desperately wanted to do the right thing, and he was well on his way to fulfilling all that had been promised of him, and more. All that has fallen by the wayside now. (35)
After Tyson’s conviction there was much talk that he had received a raw deal; the case was the subject of political gerrymandering by campaigners who tried to make it both a race issue and a sex issue. (36) And that would, or should, have been the end of it. But for the entire three years of Tyson’s incarceration, the boxing world hardly stopped talking about him, from the day he was sent down until the day he was released. And his release was heralded not just by the boxing world, but by the world in general; the world’s press and broadcast media literally queued up outside the prison gate awaiting his release. He was treated more like the Prodigal Son than a convicted rapist out on parole. On his release, the British boxing trade paper Boxing News published a full page colour poster of him announcing that he was “OUT OF GAOL AND IN A HURRY” to reclaim the crown that was rightly his.
Was it then that the only people who believed that Desireé Washington had been raped in that hotel room were her friends, family and the twelve men and women of the jury, and perhaps a few noisy, militant, man-hating feminists? Did not only the boxing press but the world media believe that Iron Mike had received a raw deal, that he had been sent down on a bum rap? No, the prosaic truth is that probably the only person in the world who sincerely believes that Mike Tyson didn’t rape Desireé Washington is Mike Tyson himself. Surely even his closest friends know the truth: his adoptive mother, his trainers, his entire team. The simple fact is that the world knows Mike Tyson raped Desireé Washington, AND IT DOESN’T CARE. (37)
If all the above appears to have taken us a long way from the Holocaust, I hope that the message is now clear. After David Cesarani told me that I could not use the Wiener Library anymore, I wrote to him and tried to reason with him. The short, hysterical reply I received is not worth printing here. Cesarani is an intellectual prostitute, ditto Kushner, ditto Lipstadt, ditto all the other Jewish - and non-Jewish - academics who research this supposedly so difficult subject. Like the world at large who know the truth about Mike Tyson, they know the truth about the Holocaust, and they don’t care.
In retrospect I am astounded at how naïve I was about Cesarani; I should have realised that he, that all these so-called academics, are far, far worse than the Gerry Gables of this world. Because the academics know the truth, and they don’t care. James Randi, that great debunker of psychic charlatans, has written “It is a common aspect of all religious groups that they simply do not wish to know the truth, but they are fond of saying that they seek the truth; in some cases, they do seek truth, but on their terms and with their definitions”. (38) The Kushners, Cesaranis and Lipstadts of this world don’t even want to know the truth on their own terms, rather they are preaching their own religion, their own dogma. Facts which don’t fit into their paradigm of Jewish persecution, Jewish innocence, Jewish scapegoat, Jewish victim, Jewish martyr, and Aryan evil, are consigned to the memory hole.
In other fields of human knowledge, academia fights ignorance, only in this one area, researching the Holocaust, does academia form a willing partnership with the forces of darkness in order to suppress both dissent and the truth. (39) To take just one example, the media is constantly awash with stories relating to the professed psychic powers of spirit mediums, astrologers and the like, yet few and far between are the academics who will endorse such nonsense publicly. On the subject of the Holocaust though, academics do endorse the nonsense, they don’t simply fail to speak out against it, but give it aid and comfort. As always, the proof of the pudding is in the eating: no honest person could spend more than half a day in a Holocaust archive researching this supposedly so difficult subject without realising that we have been lied to on a colossal scale, and that the myriad lies of Holocaust survivors, Jewish, Zionist, Communist and Allied propagandists, are blatantly transparent, full as they are of contradictions, internal and other inconsistencies, outright fraud and wild fantasies which deny the most basic textual analysis, common sense, rational belief, or even the laws of physics.
The academics of the Holocaust, like Kushner, are well aware of this, and they have never once had the good grace to admit either that they were wrong or that the Revisionists were, in any respect, right. The Holocaust academics, the Tony Kushners, David Cesaranis and Deborah Lipstadts of this world, are, of course, the real problem. They are part of an unholy cabal which has insinuated itself into the fabric of our society, throughout the media, pressure groups, political parties, and, most of all, into our institutions of higher learning, where, like some foul virus, its minions inject their poison into the minds of, especially, the young. Anyone who dissents from their vacuous hypotheses, anyone who refuses to kiss their arses, can and will be smeared as an anti-Semite, a fascist, a Nazi, a bigot or a lunatic, denied funding, access to the media, access to academia, ignored, shouted down, hounded in their private and public lives, subjected to violence by more extremist groups, or even, as in the case of Ernst Zundel and others, dragged into court on the spurious pretext of defaming the dead. And all the time this goes on, the Kushners, Cesaranis and Lipstadts of this world look the other way, that’s if they don’t join in the baiting and call for even more repressive anti-hate legislation to give further spurious authority to their already officially sanctioned lies.
These people, of whom Kushner is unquestionably the most foul example, will do and say anything that furthers their agenda, the destruction of what little freedom remains, what little dissent there is, on any aspect of the Holocaust, or on any subject remotely connected with it.
Marion Halcombe’s review of Kushner’s book in Free Life hits the nail bang on the head, but then comes to entirely the wrong conclusion: “There are people who will call Dr Kushner a hate-crazed fanatic, whose sole end is the destruction of what little freedom we retain. Having read his book, I must confess to a less flattering belief about him: Dr Kushner is not evil - just stupid.”
The reviewer does Kushner a great injustice, he is not a stupid man, not only by virtue of his holding such a prominent academic post, but by virtue of the fact that he knows full well what he is doing: consciously paving the road to Hell with bad intentions.
This is a Hell Kushner and his kind - Jew and Gentile - have sought to impose on the rest of us since the end of the Second World War, if not considerably earlier. As long ago as 1926, a correspondent for a British political journal wrote: “In The Patriot of 5 July, 1923, and 23 October, 1924, it was made perfectly clear that there is a Jewish Question of world-wide importance, and that there had been accumulated around it for several generations a barricade of journalistic, political, and commercial influence, which has succeeded in destroying our freedom of speech on this one subject, by branding as anti-Semitic anyone who dares look over the barricade.” (40)
At that time, the barricade concerned matters that were largely of a mystical and frivolous nature, including such obvious nonsense as the Protocols Of Zion, although this absurd document was taken seriously at the time (41) by even influential newspapers, politicians, and, perhaps most incredibly of all, by the intelligence services! (42)
That being said, the remedy for the Protocols was free and open debate, and indeed that (together with much other anti-Jewish nonsense) was subsequently exposed and consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs. But Kushner and his cabal are not the slightest bit interested in open debate on any aspect of the Holocaust, except, again, as James Randi points out, on their own terms. Such a debate is of course no debate at all, and the Hell which these monsters are designing for the rest of us draws ever closer with each day that people allow themselves to be cowed into submission on this one subject by fear of being branded anti-Semitic if they, like the current writer, dare to look over the barricade, and see that the Emperor has nothing on.
Back To Front Cover
To Notes And References
Back To Baron Pamphlets Index
Back To Site Index