These people are not satisfied that the race laws in Britain are now every bit as Draconian in some (but different) respects as those in Nazi Germany. Now they want a different category of assaults to be invented, ie assaults with a racial element to be treated more severely. It is also no secret that they want the police to be able to enter premises “without warrant” and to be able to seize property the way they seized mine.
Being black, Mr Boateng, you might think this is a law you should welcome, but consider first the following scenario. You are asked to sign a petition condemning human rights abuses in Israel. You do so. As a result of this, some little scumbag at Woburn House gets wind of it and decides to smear you as an anti-Semite. At six o’clock in the morning, a squad of flat-footed policemen turn up on your doorstep, and to prevent you destroying any possible evidence, they smash down your door with a sledgehammer, drag you, your wife, and your kids out of bed. Your youngest one is four years old and is clearly terrified. The police are in plain clothes, you don’t recognise them as police officers, you are disoriented having been working very late the night before, you get into an altercation with them and are assaulted, thrown to the floor and handcuffed.
The police take away your computer and files, they arrest your wife, and take your kids to a special unit where they are questioned by social workers. “Does your Daddy like Jewish people? Has your Daddy ever said anything nasty about Jewish people? Has he ever used the word kike? [Easily confused with Mike, bike, kite, etc.] Has your Daddy ever told you a joke about Jews being rich or greedy?”
Needless to say, it doesn’t end there. The officer who arrested me tried to infer that one of my publications was anti-Semitic because I had used in it the phrase “The Talmud and homosexuality”, I kid you not. I asked him what he would have said if it had contained the phrase “police and thieves”.
So, by this time the police, having dragged you into the station still in your pyjamas, are interrogating your wife in the next cell. Your computer is sent to the police laboratory where all your personal files, including much sensitive information, is studied by a specially appointed and – surprise, surprise – Jewish “anti-hate squad” liaison officer. Some of your files have been encrypted. Why? they ask you. Because they’re personal, you reply. If you haven’t done anything wrong, you’ve got nothing to hide. Only a criminal or an anti-Semite would encrypt data on his computer. And anti-Semites are the worst type of criminals. You are told to decrypt the data, if you don’t then you become guilty automatically under the Hatred Against Jews Act, 1996. This provides that anyone who is reasonably suspected of possessing anti-Semitic material – in whatever form – can be tried summarily, and sentenced to up to six months imprisonment. Without evidence of having actually possessed anti-Semitica. And of course, “anti-Semitica” would be (and is) defined in such sweepingly general terms that almost any less than complimentary reference to any Jew or any aspect of Jewishness could be (and is) interpreted as such by the servants of Imperial Zion.
If you think all this sounds like something out of a poorly written science fiction novel, think again: 1984 arrived eleven years ago. We have already seen such hysteria and use of Draconian state powers in such nonsense as the Cleveland and Orkney ritual child abuse scandals. And don’t think that being black will absolve you from being smeared by these damned liars and hatemongers. In the United States, the power centre of world Jewry, the likes of Jesse Jackson have been smeared along with countless white people, simply because Jackson, as a black man empathises with the “oppressed” Palestinians. In exactly the same way that you as a black man – and a socialist – empathise with them.
Still in this connection it is worth mentioning the case of Colin Jordan. Mr Jordan is Britain’s longest-running Nazi and a self-professed Jew-hater. I know he is a Jew-hater because he told me. When I wrote to him a while ago I suggested that it wasn’t the Jews he hated but their leaders and “anti-fascist” hatemongers, like Gerry Gable. He wrote back assuring me that he did indeed hate the Jews and looked forward to the day when they were expelled from these islands. All of them. In the wake of the Gulf War, Mr Jordan (is alleged to have) published a supposedly anti-Semitic cartoon. I have seen a copy of this cartoon; it may caricature the Jew, but it is certainly no more offensive than some of the extremely risque “humour” which is published by the likes of Viz and other “adult” comics. And it is certainly not a threat to public order. As a result of (allegedly) publishing this cartoon, and of its being brought to the attention of the authorities by a Jewish MP, Mr Jordan, an old man suffering from arthritis, was subjected to a police raid, had his property impounded and held onto for months. Bear in mind that Mr Jordan is supposed to be an advocate of the Gestapo, not a victim of it.
After spending a considerable sum of money: travelling, studying law books and seeking a legal opinion, he finally got his property back, and subsequently settled out of court with the police for a five figure sum. The same people who didn’t shed a tear over Sabra and Shatila and countless other outrages against humanity, screamed like spoilt children because a hate-filled old man (allegedly) depicted them the same way their co-racialists in Hollywood are forever depicting the Germans. But the question I would like you to answer is: how will this make Colin Jordan stop hating the Jews? Will he hate them any less? Will his followers? Will anyone? Just as important, while the police and other legal authorities were spending (wasting) heaven knows how many man hours and how much public money processing this non-crime, these scarce resources could have been applied to solving and processing real crimes. A burglary at Mr Patel’s off licence, perhaps.
Returning to the hypothetical scenario, you, being a sophisticated, intelligent individual, would probably blame such “insensitivity” on the police, but not everybody is of the same mindset, and it’s odds-on that many people who had been put through such a harrowing experience at the behest of those wonderful people who gave you Sabra and Shatila, if they didn’t hate Jews when they went into that police station, would certainly hate them by the time they came out.
The plain truth is that any Jew who supports this sort of tyranny – and the vast majority of the Jewish Establishment does – deserves to be hated. When most people talk about “the Jews” it is such people as these that they mean: the Mike Whines and Neville Naglers of this world, not the local rabbi.
Returning to my pamphlet Charity Begins At Home; it is claimed that this (and other publications) which “[demonise] the Israelis as Nazis” is “an example of anti-Zionist discourse which is plainly also antisemitic”. Is the inference here then that the Nazis were demons? The plain truth is that until the inception of the so-called extermination programme, the treatment of the Jews by the Nazis was much more lawful and much more humane than the treatment meted out to the Palestinians by the Zionists. The reason you clearly believe otherwise is because you have been reading the wrong books, or more likely watching documentaries into which Gerry Gable’s filthy cabal have had considerable input, or even, worst of all, watching anti-German hate propaganda spewed out by Hollywood.
Over a period of several months I read every issue of the Jewish Chronicle for the entire Nazi era, and some of the things I found astounded me. In particular, the news reports from Germany made it clear that assaults on Jews – “individual acts” – were punished by the courts, sometimes severely, and state brutality was virtually non-existent. The one act before the start of World War Two which has echoes of state organised violence is the Kristallnacht, and even this has been hotly disputed. Frankly, a dispassionate examination of the evidence for and against leads one to the inevitable conclusion that the Kristallnacht was no more state-sponsored than the LA riots, or the earlier riots we saw here in Brixton, Handsworth and elsewhere.
Again, you may find this surprising, or even unbelievable, but it is true nevertheless. For example, the Jewish Chronicle for March 24, 1933 reported that “The anti-Semitic campaign in Germany is...lessening and giving way to the deadlier weapon of economic persecution.” The February 23, 1934 issue reported that two nineteen year old artisans were jailed, each for a month, for demanding money with menaces from a Jewish merchant. The January 4, 1935 issue reported that several partners in a textile firm applied to the High Court to exclude Jewish partners. The court gave judgment in their favour, but the Supreme Court overruled the decision! A Jew and an Aryan girl were charged with living together. They were acquitted “after a declaration made by both of them that they had intended to get married.” Their landlord was fined 50 marks! An Aryan girl dismissed by her employer for refusing to part with her Jewish fiance sued and was awarded damages. The Labour Court in Berlin ruled in favour of a Jew dismissed without notice simply because he was a Jew and awarded him 3 months’ wages. The July 5, 1935 issue reported in an article ...Nazi Hooligans at Work that crowds had sided with Jewish shop owners against Streicher’s pickets, and “...as a result of representations made to Hitler by Dr. Schacht...the authorities are not permitting the attempts of Streicher to develop his anti-Jewish propaganda in Berlin itself.”
The November 15, 1935 issue reported that a man had been sentenced to six weeks’ imprisonment for blackmailing a Jew, and that the crime was aggravated by the fact that it was a German who was attempting to blackmail a Jew. Another report, of a somewhat similar case, reported that a certain Karl Heber, who claimed to be a member of the Nazi Party, asked a local Jew for a sum of money, promising to secure him various privileges. Heber was subsequently arrested. This is only a small selection of what I found. If you don’t believe me, look for yourself. Contrast this with the following.
As reported by the Arab human rights organisations Al-Haq (Law in the Service of Man) in its 1990 book Punishing A Nation..., the citizens of the West Bank, which was then under military occupation, were subjected to constant harassment, censorship and arbitrary arrest, while in the first year of the intifada, 400 Palestinians were killed and some 20,000 injured. (Al-Haq was one of the sources I used for the pamphlet Charity Begins At Home).
Other outrages documented by Al-Haq included Palestinians beaten at random with wooden, plastic and fibreglass truncheons, including children; demolitions and house sealings, 145 in the year documented, December 1987 to December 1988. Hundreds of homes were also demolished for allegedly being built without permits. In my pamphlet I mentioned also the most recent cases which involved the brave Israeli security services – those poor, persecuted, powerless people, remember – shooting dead, ie murdering, more than a hundred Palestinians, thirty of them under the age of seventeen, in the period December 1992 until May 27, 1993 (the date of the Amnesty International press release which documented these outrages). One of these “Palestinians” was an 11 year old girl murdered on her way to buy milk on December 19, 1992. Another was eight years old. For documenting these outrages, and for drawing them to the attention of Jews asking them not to send money to Israel where it would very likely be used to perpetuate this horror, Mike Whine referred ME to the Attorney General and demanded that I be prosecuted, and presumably thrown into gaol. Obviously one of us was inciting hatred against Jews in this instance, but it sure as hell wasn’t me. By his actions, Mike Whine was not only endorsing human rights abuses, but giving aid and comfort to them. People who do this sort of thing deserve to be hated, be they Jew or Gentile. As for the Israelis being demonised as Nazis, the Nazis never perpetrated such outrages. You can scan the Jewish press for the entire Nazi era up until 1941 and you will find not a single instance of German soldiers or SS men murdering Jewish children. Indeed, one report I found in the Jewish Chronicle as late as June 7, 1940, claimed that the Nazi wireless station in Brussels announced that 14 Belgian Nazis and 4 German soldiers had been executed as a means of stopping uncontrolled anti-Jewish excesses. Yes, by the Nazi authorities! The paper’s comment was that “The Nazis are nothing if not methodical.”
Again, it is not the Israelis who have been demonised by “anti-Semites”, it is the Nazis who have been demonised and are continuing to be demonised by the likes of Mike Whine and Neville Nagler to excuse or even justify the brutality meted out by the Israeli government, to whom these two gentlemen and Zionist Jews everywhere owe their first, and in many cases, their only, loyalty, however much they may whine and scream that anyone who suggests this is simply parroting anti-Semitic propaganda.
Incidentally, you Professor Ahmed, might like to consider the report in the Jewish Chronicle for July 21, 1939, that the Moslem University of Aligarh in India was said to be displaying “pro-Nazi propaganda”. The way I read this report, Jews (ie Zionist Jews) appeared to be have been hated there at the time more than the Nazis. One university professor published a pamphlet extolling Hitler as a great friend of Islam. It was banned by the University. The reason I make this point is to draw to your attention the nonsense about Hitler’s so-called Master Race theories; as far as I have been able to ascertain, neither Hitler nor any genuine Nazi (which does not include the likes of the BNP) ever uttered such a terrible phrase as “One million Jews are not worth a German fingernail.” Hitler’s Master Race theories are a piece of Zionist-inspired fiction, as is the claim that the Führer snubbed the American athlete Jesse Owens. Hitler did no such thing; this was a rumour which was started with malice aforethought by the New York Times, a Jewish-controlled (though at the time non-Zionist) newspaper. The real race-haters, the real preachers of the Master Race doctrine, are the Zionists, in particular the likes of Mike Whine who believe that Israeli soldiers have a God-given right to murder Palestinian schoolchildren, and that those who denounce such atrocities should be thrown into gaol.
Returning to the booklet proper, on page 31 the claim is made that “...nationhood is essential to Judaism...” Another claim echoed here is that “A second dimension of anti-Zionism which is usually antisemitic is the notion that Zionism is a racist ideology.” And it is here that the real agenda of this gratuitously inaccurate apology for Zionism shines through. Not only though does it betray its Zionist roots, it also demonstrates a total (and wilful) ignorance of what Judaism stands for. Nationhood – ie the State of Israel – is not just not essential to Judaism, it is the total negation of Judaism! Don’t take the word of a goy and an atheist to boot, ask the real Jews, the men in the black hats and caftans; you’ll find plenty of them in Stamford Hill. To them, the Neturei Karta – who practise the true, undiluted essence of Judaism – the State of Israel is an abomination.
The claim that Zionism is a racist ideology is “usually antisemitic” is almost too laughable for words. As far as such a thing as racism exists, as far as the word has any meaning, surely no ideology is better qualified to bear the epithet racist than Zionism. The true essence of Zionism was crystallised in that one terrible sentence uttered by the Zionist-indoctrinated rabbi, Yaacov Perrin at the funeral of the murderer Baruch Goldstein: One million Arabs – read one million of any goyim – are not worth a Jewish fingernail. Isn’t that racist enough?
This statement was condemned unequivocally by the real Jews, the Neturei Karta, who the following week, organised a demonstration in Central London against not only the Hebron massacre but the idea behind it, ie Zionism. It was also condemned, unequivocally, by the Chief Rabbi in articles in both the Jewish Chronicle and the Times. But was it condemned by the Zionist mafia at Woburn House? If they condemned it at all they did so in a whisper, and only because the entire world was watching. I am sure that you, Professor Ahmed, would much rather have been a Jew in Nazi Germany than a Palestinian at any time in the history of the State of Israel. Whether that will still be the case in three, five or even ten years time remains to be seen.
Most recently and most ironically the Law Society commissioned a report to investigate alleged war crimes and human rights abuses in Israel. Obviously it was felt by the Zionist establishment that it would be best to engage a Jewish lawyer to produce that report, one who would put his loyalty to the tribe above such trivialities as jurisprudence, and doubtless strings were pulled to that effect. Consequently the report was researched by a barrister named Bill Bowring and the well-known Jewish left wing lawyer Geoffrey Bindman. Unfortunately for Imperial Zion, whatever his views on race and race relations, Mr Bindman is both a man of integrity and a lawyer first, and a Jew second. The back page of the Jewish Chronicle for December 16, 1994 accuses Mr Bindman and his collaborator of being taken in by propaganda for daring to compare the treatment of Palestinians in Gaza and Jericho with the treatment meted out to blacks in the Black Homelands in South Africa under Apartheid. Had Mr Bindman been a Gentile he would doubtless have been branded an anti-Semite; he may yet be branded a self-hating Jew. The simple fact though is that Geoffrey Bindman is a genuine leftist who just happens to be Jewish and who refuses to apply different standards to Jews and Gentiles. For him, and people like him, human rights abuses are human rights abuses, whatever the race(s) of the perpetrators and victims.
I come now to the subject of Holocaust Revisionism, or Holocaust Denial as the Jewish academic and polemicist Deborah Lipstadt and others persist in calling it. As might be expected, this report contains nothing but misrepresentations and outright lies about the men who are supposedly rewriting history. The claim on page 32 that Holocaust Revisionism is the work of Nazi sympathisers and lately of Moslem extremists is Zionist/socialist propaganda pure and simple, while the claim made on page 45 that there is no evidence that so-called Holocaust Denial has spread beyond extremist organisations is not only a damned lie and a provable one, but wishful thinking of the most fanciful sort. Space does not permit a comprehensive rebuttal here, but I will point out that the two most outstanding early Holocaust Revisionists were the French socialist and pacifist Paul Rassinier and the recently deceased J.G. Burg (aka Josef Ginsburg). As might be expected, Rassinier was smeared as an anti-Semite while Burg was smeared as a court Jew of the new Nazis, and perhaps even mad. The fact remains however that Burg testified for the defence at the 1988 trial in Toronto, Canada, of Ernst Zundel, who was accused of the unforgivable crime of denying both the alleged extermination programme and the gas chambers.
As well as Burg, there are other Jewish Revisionists, in both the United States and France. THERE ARE EVEN BLACK REVISIONISTS. A while ago someone sent me a flyer which had been produced by a black American populist, Dr Robert Brock. Not only is Dr Brock black but he is a World War Two veteran, yet he too has been smeared not only as an anti-Semite but as a Nazi fellow traveller! He and other blacks have protested against the establishment of the Holocaust Museum, not because they are anti-Semites, but because they are every bit as sick to death of hearing Organised Jewry whine and wail about the uniqueness of Jewish suffering as the rest of us.
The so-called controversy over the gas chambers has also been debated in the United States media and elsewhere, including in Australia, and in spite of the almost universal hostility of the media to the Revisionists, every time they have been allowed to debate on equal terms with the proponents of the extermination hypothesis they have either won the argument or acquitted themselves admirably.
Although Organised Jewry and their fellow travellers have succeeded in making so-called Holocaust Denial a criminal offence in Germany, the truth cannot be contained forever by their smears, innuendo and lies. The two trials of Ernst Zundel in Canada in 1985 and 1988 led to some amazingly candid admissions by those who continue to perpetuate the Holocaust and to demonise Nazism (and the German people) for their own ends.
The reason you, Professor Ahmed, Mr Boateng and Reverend Harries, have been taken in entirely by the Zionist line, is probably as much to do with the fact that you pick up your information on Holocaust Revisionism from the likes of damned liars like Nagler and Whine, and from the media. The simple fact is though that while the media image of sex shop Nazism continues to be perpetuated to a credulous public, the academic journals say something entirely different. It is often admitted for example that the testimonies of so-called Holocaust survivors are fraudulent, or at best prove nothing. Yet damned liars such as Kitty Hart are still paraded as living witnesses to Nazi genocide. It has been long admitted that the scale of the alleged Nazi genocide is suspect. It has even been admitted that many photographs of the camps, survivors, and corpses of allegedly exterminated Jews have been faked, touched up or misrepresented in other ways.
I personally have corresponded with one academic who is anything but an anti-Semite who has virtually admitted that he doesn’t believe any of the crap we are still having forced down our throats by the media and Organised Jewry, but he is too afraid to stand up in public and say so. For if he does he will surely be smeared as anti-Semitic by those wonderful people who gave you Sabra and Shatila and by their lap-dogs just as much as I have, and just as much as you would be.
An article published in the North London newspaper the Hampstead & Highgate Express (March 12, 1993) reported on a lecture given at the Wiener Library by the Gentile academic Roger Eatwell claimed not only that he was outraged by so-called Holocaust Denial but that he had received five letters from sixth formers in the previous few months asking him about the subject, and that all but one of those letters were either neutral or sympathetic. Again, so much for the claim that this so-called Nazi propaganda has made no impact beyond extremist organisations.
Venal as are Nagler and Whine, there is someone even more venal in this connection. Antony Lerman of the Institute of Jewish Affairs sits on the Commission, and as he is an academic who specialises in these matters it is inconceivable that he is or was ignorant of any of the facts I have documented in the preceding paragraphs. In 1982, his organisation published a pamphlet arguing that Holocaust Revisionism should be made a criminal offence in Britain. I would suggest that if such a law is ever brought into force that the first people who should be brought to trial for incitement to racial hatred by spreading lies about the Holocaust are the Jews who have lied and continue to lie about it. Starting perhaps with the professional survivor Kitty Hart who claims to have paraded naked before the infamous Dr Mengele, and so-called Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal, a proven purveyor of fake photographs.
One final word about Antony Lerman; in recent months I have received several requests from him in his capacity as editor of Patterns Of Prejudice for review (ie free) copies of our publications. I doubt very much he would review them, but however much he and his kind may whine and wail about my alleged anti-Semitica, they can’t hate it so much if they send me begging letters. For the record, I published a book on the subject of the Holocaust on January 15; it runs to 179 pages, is indexed, illustrated, and retails for £8.50.
To Part Four Of This Pamphlet
Back To Part Two
Back To Part One
Back To Baron Pamphlets Index
Back To Correspondence And Open Letters Index
Back To Site Index