Lionel Nation – More Calls for the Internet Kill Switch and Suspending the First Amendment

March 26, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

 

History needs David Irvings

"History needs David Irvings" says LSE history professor Donald Cameron Watt

“History needs David Irvings” says LSE history professor Donald Cameron Watt

March 26, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

Introduction by Gilad Atzmon:

I learn from the Times of Israel that the LSE (London chool of Economics) is “investigating anti-Semitic comments at (Professor Richard) Falk’s event”.  The LSE will look into “alleged hate speech at an event they hosted on Monday night, when audience member Gilad Atzmon, told students to read the works of notorious Holocaust denier David Irving.”

I look forward to hearing from the LSE ‘investigating team’,  just so I can remind them that recommending human beings to read books is actually what universities are for.

But I will also mention to the LSE investigatory unit, that my views of Irving’s importance are actually identical to those of one of LSE best historians , Professor Donald Cameron Watt who, in 2000, claimed that “History needs David Irvings” and “The truth needs Irving’s challenges to keep it alive.”

Sooner or later, the LSE will have to decide whether it is an Athenian institute subscribing to Logos and free intellectual exchange, or whether it prefers to engage in Jerusalemite book-burning. It will have to choose whether it endorses Karl Popper’s vision of the ‘Open Society’ or whether it prefers  to switch sides and become simply the ‘Enemy’

What follows is Professor D.C. Watt’s article, as published by the London Evening Standard,  April 11, 2000

History needs David Irvings

 

By Donald Cameron Watt

The libel case brought by historical writer David Irving against Penguin Books and American academic Professor Deborah Lipstadt ends today. Professor Lipstadt had, so Mr Irving complained, accused him of being a “Holocaust denier”, in the words of her counsel, “not a historian but a falsifier of history”.

“Holocaust denial” is a clumsy term for those who deny that the Holocaust, Hitler’s deliberate attempt behind the cloak of total war to exterminate the entire Jewish population of Europe, happened, and alleges that the notorious “death camps”, Auschwitz, Birkenau, Theresienstadt and others, equipped with gas chambers and mass crematoria in which upwards of six million men, women and children were done to death, were inventions of Soviet or British intelligence or propaganda or both.

Eight months before the case came to court, The New York Times asked a number of leading American and British historians whether they regarded Irving as being a historian “of repute”. The large majority of those polled, ranging from the ultra-conservative Right to the ex-communist Left, answered yes. Only those who identify with the victims of the Holocaust disagreed. For them Irving’s views are blasphemous and put him on the same level of sin as advocates of paedophilia. In a number of countries “Holocaust denial” is a crime. In Britain and America pressure is brought on publishers not to print works embodying this version of history. Irving claimed the accusation to be a threat to his livelihood; he sought compensation; and he sought to silence his critics. Make no mistake, however. Both sides in this action were engaged in what that great historian R H Tawney once called “the gladiatorial school of historical controversy”.

Penguin was certainly out for blood. The firm has employed five historians, with two research assistants, for some considerable time to produce 750 pages of written testimony, querying and checking every document cited in Irving’s books on Hitler. Show me one historian who has not broken into a cold sweat at the thought of undergoing similar treatment.

For what it is worth, I admire some of Mr Irving’s work as a historian. Thirty-five years ago I collaborated with him in the publication of a lengthy German intelligence document on British policy in the 12 months before the British declaration of war on Germany in September 1939. Ten years ago he published, on his own in German, a revised version of the book. From every point of view it was a considerable advance on the work I had collaborated on. He had found a lot more documents and had identified and inter-viewed a number of officers of the organisation in question. In the American archives he had found a lengthy post-war American evaluation of the organisation, incorporating a British intelligence document, which will now, we hope, be released to the Public Record Office. Irving’s book, The Rise and Fall of the Luftwaffe, is still recommended by historians of the war in the air.

That is one side of Irving.

As a historian he betrays some of the characteristic faults of the self-taught. He refuses to look beyond the documentation. Like every victim of con-artistry he is beguiled rather than warned by evidence which seems to confirm his views. He can be seduced by the notion of conspiracies, to mislead, to cover up the misdeeds of the “good guys”. He has a flair for self-publicity. He has also an encyclopaedic knowledge of the truly enormous mass of German documentation which fell into the hands of the victors in 1945. Moreover, his first book, on the bombing of Dresden, opened to him private papers, diaries and so on, previously unknown, of “respectable” German officials who had gone along with the Nazis. No book of his has ever failed to come up with new evidence.

He has earned a considerable income from his books, especially since the first volume of his Hitler studies. He is translated into numerous languages. And he has taken up positions which have led to his being banned from entry into various countries. The defence made much of this in court. There are videos of him addressing neo-nationalist audiences in Germany – he speaks German fluently, having learned it as a steel worker before he began writing – in which he both looks and sounds uncannily like Hitler.

Professional historians have been left uneasy by the whole business. Many distinguished British historians in the past, from Edward Gibbon’s caricatures of early Christianity to AJP Taylor, are open to the accusation that they allowed their political agenda and views to influence their professional practice in the selection and interpretation of historical evidence.

As for conspiracy theorists, I see that yet another book on “the Hess conspiracy” and yet another allegingthat President Roosevelt had prior knowledge of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor are about to appear. There are prominent American academics whose careers suffered no setback despite their denying the scale and scope of Stalin’s purges. All “round objects”, of course, but I have not noticed any books attacking the perpetrators of such twaddle.

The worst outcome of this case could be to drive the Holocaust denial school back into the depths from which Irving “outed it”. The process has begun already with the circulation of a private newsletter soliciting support. This is how it used to be, with privately printed pamphlets arriving on one’s desk in plain brown envelopes. There are always those who believe that what “they” won’t let one read must be true. A lot of them work in the media. And any criminal nonsense can be defended by calling it “controversial”.

I know the Holocaust happened. I grew up among those who were fortunate to escape it. But what happens when the witnesses are all dead, if the reality has not been thrashed out? The truth needs an Irving’s challenges to keep it alive.

If they want to burn it, you want to read it!

Gilad Atzmon

Jewish history is a chain of disasters: inquisitions, holocausts and pogroms. Time after time, throughout their history, Jews find themselves discriminated against, persecuted and expelled and, to most Jews, this continuum of tragedy is largely a mystery. Yet one would expect that Jews, clever people for sure, would peer into their past, understand it and take whatever measures necessary to change their fate.

I was born and raised in Israel and it was many years before I realised that Israel was Palestine. When I was a young Israeli boy, the Holocaust and Jewish suffering were somehow foreign to me and my peers. It was the history of a different people, namely the diaspora Jews and we young Israelis didn’t much like their Jewish past. We didn’t want to associate ourselves with those people, so hated by so many, so often and in so many different places. Erasing two thousand years of imaginary ‘exile’, we saw ourselves as the sons and daughters of our Biblical ‘ancestors.’ We were proud youngsters and we were disgusted by victimhood.

So Jewish suffering has, in many ways, been a riddle to me. But yesterday, at the London School of Economics (LSE), I witnessed a spectacle of Jewish bad behaviour, so incredible, that much that hitherto had been unclear, suddenly became all too clear.

Yesterday, at a talk given by one of the greatest humanists of our generation, Professor. Richard Falk, it took Israel-advocate Jonathan Hoffman just sixty minutes of intensive hooliganism to cause him to be ejected from the hall.  As Hoffman and his associate were thrown out of the building, the entire room expressed their feelings by shouting “Out, out, out”

Hoffman wasn’t just a run-of-the-mill thug. Waving his Jewish nationalist symbols, he was acting openly as a Jewish-ethnic activist. Later I learned that he is associated with many Jewish and Zionist institutions: BOD, Zionist Federation and so on.

Behaving as he did with total disrespect to an academic institution, did Hoffman think that the LSE was some kind of yeshiva or perhaps just his local synagogue? I guess not. My guess is he just assumed that, like so many spaces in our country today, the LSE was simply ‘occupied’. It seems that merely the presence in a room of just one Zionist is enough to transform that room into occupied territory.

Never in my life have I seen an entire room so united in its outrage and if anyone within the Jewish community believes that hooliganism a la Hoffman & co is going to make Jews popular, they are wrong. Judging by the reaction I witnessed in the LSE yesterday, there is now total fatigue with Zionist thought control, book burning and brutality.

But I would also like to use this opportunity to issue a sincere apology. In Falk’s book launch yesterday, I suggested to a Palestinian supporter that, rather than reading Jewish historian David Cesarani on the Holocaust, he may like to give David Irving a try. Some Jewish students were outraged by my comment so I would like here to correct my statement, to make it more inclusive and categorical. Don’t just read David Irving. If you genuinely want to understand the world around you, make sure you hear every voice these people want to suppress and read every text these people try to burn.

If they want to burn it, you want to read it!

Once you’ve read it, you decide whether the text should make it to your bookshelves – or to the pyre.

So to Jewish thought-controllers and book burners, both Zionist and ‘anti’: You have clearly launched a war against academic freedom. You are engaged in thought-control and book burning. You have begun a fight with core Western values: openness, scholarship, tolerance. All those things associated, not with Jerusalem, but with Athens. I have no doubt that in this war you may win some battles, you may manage to cancel a talk here and there, you may even manage to burn a book or two.  But you will lose the war. Freedom will prevail, for the yearning  for freedom is engraved in the human soul.

I urge Jews and Jewish institutions to consider carefully whether their behaviour really serves Jewish interests. As the author of the most read book on Jewish identity politics, I can see in the making, a disaster.

Beware.

Stephen Pollard, David Duke and Victor Ostrovsky

By Gilad Atzmon

From the Jewish press we learn that Britain’s House of Commons Home Affairs Committee has summoned executives from Google, Twitter and Facebook for a hearing in order to slam the social media giants for failing to block ‘hate speech’ and ‘anti-Semitic’ content from their platforms. It seems that Labour MP Yvette Cooper took issue with the refusal of YouTube to remove a video in which David Duke accused Jewish people of “organizing white genocide” and Zionists of conducting ethnic cleansing.

I’m left wondering, what it is that motivates British MPs to launch a war against freedom of speech?

Can MP Yvette Cooper or any other British MP for that matter, tell us, once and for all, what exactly are the boundaries of our freedom of expression? Is calling Israel an ethnic cleanser a crime in the UK? But what if Israel is an ethnic cleanser? Is truth not a valid legal defence in modern Britain?

Astonishingly, it was, of all people, Stephen Pollard, Britain’s arch-Zionist and editor of the Jewish Chronicle who stood up for Duke’s elementary freedoms. In The Telegraph Pollard wrote. It’s clear that the video is indeed antisemitic. In it, Mr Duke says: ‘The Zionists have already ethnically cleansed the Palestinians, why not do the same thing to Europeans and Americans as well? No group on earth fights harder for its interests than do the Jews. By dividing a society they can weaken it and control it.’ So there’s no debate that this is Jew hate in all its traditional poison.”

Is it really hateful to admit that Zionists ethnically cleansed Palestine? By now, this is an established historical fact that is sustained by current Israeli Law of Return, designed to prevent ethnically cleansed Palestinians from coming back to their land. Is it really hatefulto suggest, as does David Duke that “no group on earth fights harder for its interests than do the Jews.” In fact, Yvette Cooper’s grilling of the Google CEO on behalf of the Labour Friends of Israel only confirms Duke’s observation.

I’m left wondering whether George Orwell was, in fact,  the last of the prophets. After all, he did foresee British Labour transitioning into a tyrannical institution.

Yet, later on in his piece, Pollard, takes an unexpected turn. He clearly accepts that interfering with elementary freedom is a dangerous development:  “Had the video told viewers that their duty was to seek out Jews and attack them – as many posts on social media do – then clearly it should be banned. Incitement to violence is an obvious breach of any coherent set of standards.” Pollard then concludes that banning views simply because many, or even most, people find them abhorrent is a form of mob rule dressed up in civilised clothes.”

I find myself in complete agreement with this ultra-Zionist: “mob rule dressed up in civilised clothes” is a poetic, yet still truthful, description of current progressive populism. Incitement to violence should obviously be strictly banned, but if we wish to maintain Western ‘values’ then surely open debate in our system must be sustained. If Yvette Cooper doesn’t agree with Duke, she should invite him to the House of Commons and challenge him to debate rather than using her political power to silence him, or anyone else.

But one question remains. What led Yvette Cooper to operate so openly in the service of one particular Lobby group.  I guess that veteran Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky may have an answer to offer…

https://youtu.be/jyJYwCZOCD4

Alliel – A Window Into Tribal Arrogance

March 16, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

This video is a spectacular glimpse into Jewish Identity Politics. In the music clip, Alliel, an  arrogant yeshiva boy is subject to a historical continuum of harassment.   Seemingly, Alliel didn’t bother to ask himself why is he chased and abused time after time by so many people in so many places.  Humanity, for him, is a pictorial remote entity united by Jew hatred. For him the only thing that matters is that Am Israel Chai The Jew always prevail. But then, if this is the case, if the Jews see themselves as omnipotent superheroes why do they expect the rest of humanity to regard them as hopeless victims?

United against Freedom…

March 10, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

In Britain, the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) ,  a ultra  Zionist body, is crudely interfering with elementary human rights. It seems as if the campaign that was formed to fight Jew-hatred, has achieved the complete opposite. These developments can only hurt British Jews…

Alan Dershowitz – The Key To Athens

 By Gilad Atzmon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH1vaZXgbd0

In his recent address to the ultra-Zionist and war-mongering Stand With Us, Alan Dershowitz said;

people say Jews are too powerful, too strong, too rich, we control the media, we’ve too much this, too much that and we often apologetically deny our strength and our power. Don’t do that!”

Elder Zionist Dershowitz who acquired for himself the reputation of a “remarkable liar” (Chomsky) and a “serial plagiarist”  (Finkelstein) probably decided, just before he meets his creator, to give truth one last try.

In our world, no one can deny that Jews are “too powerful,” “too rich” or that they “control the media.” Yet no one can ignore that Jews themselves are rarely apologetic about their extensive and overblown power.  In fact, as with Dershowitz, most Jews tend to boast about the various facets of Jewish domination and, while boasting, use every trick in the book to silence anyone else who points to that power. As I have been arguing for several years, Jewish power is the ability to suppress the discussion on Jewish power.

Actually, Dershowitz’ approach here is rather refreshing. He admits that Jews are overwhelmingly powerful yet insists on presenting a rationale as to why Jews should never apologize about this overbearing and abusive power.

“WE (the Jews, presumably) have earned the right to influence public debate, WE have earned the right to be heard, WE have contributed disproportionately to success of this country.”

One may wonder who is included in that‘WE’ that has contributed so much to the ‘success’ of America. Is he referring to his client and close friend Jeffrey Epstein who pimped under-aged girls for the elites? Does Dershowitz’ ‘WE’ include Alan Greenspan who led the country to class genocide? Or perhaps his ‘WE’ denotes all those Wall Street Jewish bankers, like the Goldmans, the Sachs and  the Soroses – those who, on a daily basis, gamble on the American future and the global economy. And almost certainly, Dershowitz’ ‘WE’ includes Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson who have managed to reduce American politics into merely an internal Zionist affair.

Don’t get me wrong, there is no doubt that some Jews have contributed greatly to America’s culture, science, finance and so on. Yet, the notion of the Jewish ‘WE,’ which Dershowitz is here pushing is highly problematic and must be questioned. While it is obvious that the Saban and Adelson lobbies for Israel and Jewish interests subscribe to Dershowitz’ ‘WE,’ it is far from clear whether the likes of Philip Roth have been contributing to American literature as an ordinary American or whether he also is part of the Dershowitz ‘WE.’

It didn’t take the old ethnic-cleansing enthusiast long to deliver his punch line.

“Never ever apologize for using our (Jewish) strength and influencein the interest of peace.”

Considering Dershowitz’ role as an advocate of wars and an apologist for a criminal state, I was perplexed by his pronouncement. I asked myself, “Who are those Jews who so use their strength and influence in the interest of peace?  Is it the Neocon school aka The Project for the New American Century, an immoral interventionist global-Zionist collective that managed to pull America and the entire West into a global war with no end? Or maybe it is the ‘pacifist’ Albert Einstein who practically launched the Manhattan Project and introduced our planet to the imminent danger of eradication? Or perhaps Dershowitz is referring to Sidney Blumenthal who enthusiastically lobbied Secretary of State Clinton into a Libyan imperial intervention while he himself invested in the rebuilding of that state. Or is it the Jewish lobby that pushes constantly for intervention in Syria and war with Iran?

I’d better admit that I’m not aware of many Jews who genuinely use their ‘influence in the interest of peace,’ but when such Jews do appear, Alan Dershowitz is always the first to throw mud at them – as Norman Finkelstein and Richard Falk can testify.

Like Dershowitz, I don’t think Jews should apologize for the crimes of their state – I’m not sure such an apology would mean anything at all.  I don’t know whether Jews should apologize for their power – for Greenspan, Wolfowitz, Madoff or Dershowitz – again, such an act would mean very little. But I do think thatwhenever you see or hearDershowitz spreading his lies, calling for wars or celebrating his usual legalist, non-ethical symptoms, bear in mind that he is a spokesperson for the Jewish national project. Everything that is wrong with choseness and tribal supremacy is personified in this man. As such, Alan Dershowitz is a valuable window into the heart of Jerusalem, there to remind us how painful the flight from Athens has been.

But at the same time, the rejection of Dershowitz and everything he stands for, is for the Western mind, a homecoming, a key to Athens, a return to forever.

The rejection of Dershowitz and everything he stands for, is the key to Athens...

The rejection of Dershowitz and everything he stands for, is the key to Athens…

%d bloggers like this: