Empire Files: Israeli Army Vet’s Exposé – “I Was the Terrorist”

 

 

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

Palestinian Martyred in Al-Quds after Stabbing two Occupation Soldiers

Israeli occupation soldiers shooting

March 13, 2017

Israeli occupation police killed on Monday a Palestinian after he attacked and wounded two border with a knife near an entrance to the old city of al-Quds (Jerusalem).

The attacker, who was a resident of occupied East al-Quds, entered a border guard post and wounded the two before being shot dead. One of the guards was seriously injured, the other more lightly, occupation police added.

Occupation authorizes annexed Arab East al-Quds after the 1967 war.

The occupied territories have been since October 2015 rocked by a wave of unrest due to strict Israeli measures especially in al-Quds and near al-Aqsa Mosque, with Zionist settlers, backed by IOF, repeatedly storming the holy compound.

Palestinians have been retaliating for the Israeli attacks by stabbing attempts. However, the occupation authorities have been using such attempts as a pretext to kill Palestinians.

Since October 2015, 255 Palestinians have been martyred while 40 Israelis have been killed.

Source: AFP

Related Articles

Palestine news

The Real Zionist Colonial Project how this led to the murder of baby Ali

 

ISRAEL – Colonization 101 :

It began in the 1920’s long before the holocaust long before Israel was created. It was the ultimate colonization project to create the Jewish Homeland. The men that met during these first Zionist Congresses knew that there were already people living in Palestine which was owned by the Ottomans. Their plan was simple it was to get enough rich Jews to donate money and buy the land from the Arab owners. To their dismay this didn’t work. Even though they offered exorbitant prices for the land most of the owners wouldn’t sell. They needed another way to get more land and WW2 gave them the opportunity. By making the rest of the world feel guilty for not stopping the Nazis before millions of people were killed, they got Britain to partition Palestine. Of course that meant they still didn’t have enough land, but believing in the power of money they figured they could get the poorer Arabs to leave by removing from them all ways of making a living and paying off the rich landowners who really didn’t care to stay in Palestine but were using its land for investment purposes. All this was done including the first Boycott in the holy land used by the Jews against the Arabs by refusing to hire them to work the land they made their living from and stopping others from buying from Arab stores. It was a planned and well calculated campaign to try to get the Palestinians that were trying to survive packing. Although in their marketing campaign to get more Jews to come to Palestine they told the world that it was a land without a people for a people without a land ,they knew that was a lie. It was very effective though and fooled people all across the world.

In 1895, Herzl, the founder of Zionism, wrote in his diary:

“We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly. Let the owners of the immoveable property believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than they are worth. But we are not going to sell them anything back.” (America And The Founding Of Israel, p. 49, Righteous Victims, p. 21-22)

Sad to say the original Jewish inhabitants of Palestine did try to stop these European usurpers warning them when they realized what they were planning that it would start a war, but the Palestinian Jews that had gotten along with their Arab neighbors for hundreds of years had no power over the Europeans. They watched in horror as the coexistence they had treasured was destroyed and made the Arab was redefined as “the Enemy and the Other” that had to be expelled to fulfill the dream of taking over the holy land. For the Europeans this was no problem because ignoring the fabulous civilization and technology the Arabs had, they saw them as primitives which would make easy pickings to get rid of.

Next step was to get the poor Jewish emigrants to be their army. They took these scared tired people who had just run from the Nazis and put uniforms on them and told them that the evil Arabs were trying to steal the land from them and unless they attacked and killed them the Arab civilians would finish the job the Nazis hadn’t been able to do. These people who didn’t speak Hebrew understood very little, Most were about 18 – 21 years of age and just followed orders. They didn’t even know what they were doing.

It was a gift to them that the Arabs didn’t accept the partition plan (coordinating with the British occupiers, the zionists knew that the Arabs wound agree to split Palestine). It just made it easier to find an excuse to steal more land to create a larger Jewish Homeland. It was obvious from the first the Arabs were disorganized and had no real army to fight and the Jews in comparison had been well trained in Military techniques from the British before they bombed the King David Hotel and got the British to leave.

From then on it was easy. The Arabs had no organization. Scaring them off with an assassination in the center squares of village here and there. Burning the roofs of houses and if they didn’t move fast enough shooting at their feet as they ran as fast as they could. Then to make sure they would have no place to come back to the militants bulldozed the homes and other buildings so all that was left behind was rubble. They saved the nicest homes and moved Jewish immigrants in without even taking out the personal belongings and furniture of the owners.

https://youtu.be/yhfEWqBvav0 as illustrated here in a interview about the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine .

Although this was the intent from the start by manipulating the historic records they were able to keep this a secret for years. Instead these people who eventually called themselves Israelis told the world that they were a quiet and peaceful people and the big bad Arabs wouldn’t stop attacking them. To the worlds sorrow they fooled us completely and we all believed this until social media revealed all.

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Articles/General/Story2321.html  original article from the San Francisco Chronicle in 2007

Instead of the Arabs attacking them, reality was that in the goal of continued colonization the Israelis never left their Palestinian neighbors alone. It wasn’t good enough chasing them from their own homes in Israel proper, the Zionists wanted more. They chased thousands of people to Gaza and then decided that was a mistake they wanted Gaza for their own. Same happened inthe West Bank.

The war of 67 allowed them to take much of the land there also. Still not enough they bullied taunted and wouldn’t stop until the Palestinians rose up. This might have worked but America had done too good a job making sure the Israelis never had to deal with the consequences of their own actions. Like the children they were America spoiled them. Not only gave them weapons to protect them and use to attack but they let these uncontrollable colonists steal secrets and even create their own nuclear bomb program.

After that these spoiled brats started to think they were made of Teflon and everything they wanted to do they could because no one could stop them. They started to believe they really were the “Chosen” which up until that time was not part of the “Jewish People” but something Christian Zionists had called them. It seemed they thought they were the new royalty and the rest of the world should bow down to them and sacrifice to protect them. The closest way to describe them is they truly believe like the Roman gods and goddesses of the past Jewish Israelis are protected by some sort of Magical powers.

This has led to the Israeli present belief that the expansion of Israeli borders is the ultimate goal. Some even believing every Jew in the world needs to move to Israel so the state has to be big enough to hold them all. The end all of this colonization project is to get as many Arabs out of the holy land and get them to move to Jordan or Egypt. Unfortunately this plan has never worked and instead has made the Palestinians want to resist more. Despite Abbas attempt to mollify the Israelis by working as their puppet, the majority of the Palestinians wont and can’t just give up and let the Israelis have their way.

“Occupation by definition is a criminal and degenerate status that contradicts the principles of human rights, the UN Charter, international law and international morals and ethics. The Israeli occupation is hateful and despicable by nature and it works against the people. It subjects the lives, interests and property of the Palestinians to constant danger. The occupation is oppressive and brutal and innovative in finding new ways to control people and keep them fearful. It always works to spread terror in the hearts of those living under it. In the circumstances, holding the occupation responsible for killing people and confiscating their property is considered to be an attempt to avoid the problem.

“While some supporters of Israel may criticize Israeli security forces for what they perceive as a failure to perform their duties, the bitter truth is that these security forces are part and parcel of the same colonial project that has been expelling, ghettoizing, and killing Palestinians since the inception of the state.

This explains why Israel’s vaunted security apparatus and networks of collaborators have been unable – or perhaps unwilling – to apprehend the suspects in the firebombing. Given the Israeli government’s complicity with the movement that burned baby Ali, any investigation will ring hollow without prosecution of responsible officials at the highest levels.”apprehend the suspects in the firebombing. Given the Israeli government’s complicity with the movement that burned baby Ali, any investigation will ring hollow without prosecution of responsible officials at the highest levels.” https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/middle-east/20212-who-burnt-ali-dawabsheh-to-death#st_refDomain=m.facebook.com&st_refQuery=/

Theresa May wants British people to feel ‘pride’ in the Balfour Declaration

Source

By Robert Fisk

Balfour initiated a policy of British support for Israel which continues to this very day, to the detriment of the occupied Palestinians of the West Bank and the five million Palestinian refugees living largely in warrens of poverty around the Middle East, including Israeli-besieged Gaza. Surely we should apologise

Theresa May told us that Britain will celebrate the centenary of the Balfour Declaration this summer with “pride”. This was predictable. A British prime minister who would fawn to the head-chopping Arab autocrats of the Gulf in the hope of selling them more missiles – and then hold the hand of the insane new anti-Muslim president of the United States – was bound, I suppose, to feel “pride” in the most mendacious, deceitful and hypocritical document in modern British history.

As a woman who has set her heart against immigrants, it was also inevitable that May would display her most venal characteristics to foreigners – to wealthy Arab potentates, and to an American president whose momentary love of Britain might produce a life-saving post-Brexit trade agreement. It was to an audience of British lobbyists for Israel a couple of months ago that she expressed her “pride” in a century-old declaration which created millions of refugees. But to burnish the 1917 document which promised Britain’s support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine but which would ultimately create that very refugee population – refugees being the target of her own anti-immigration policies – is little short of iniquitous.

The Balfour Declaration’s intrinsic lie – that while Britain supported a Jewish homeland, nothing would be done “which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” – is matched today by the equally dishonest response of Balfour’s lamentable successor at the Foreign Office. Boris Johnson wrote quite accurately two years ago that the Balfour Declaration was “bizarre”, a “tragicomically incoherent” document, “an exquisite piece of Foreign Office fudgerama”. But in a subsequent visit to Israel, the profit-hunting Mayor of London suddenly discovered that the Balfour Declaration was “a great thing” that “reflected a great tide of history”. No doubt we shall hear more of this same nonsense from Boris Johnson later this year.

Although the Declaration itself has been parsed, de-semanticised, romanticised, decrypted, decried, cursed and adored for 100 years, its fraud is easy to detect: it made two promises which were fundamentally opposed to each other – and thus one of them, to the Arabs (aka “the existing non-Jewish communities”), would be broken. The descendants of these victims, the Palestinian Arabs, are now threatening to sue the British government over this pernicious piece of paper, a hopeless and childish response to history. The Czechs might equally sue the British for Chamberlain’s Munich agreement, which allowed Hitler to destroy their country. The Palestinians would also like an apology – since the British have always found apologies cheaper than law courts. The British have grown used to apologising – for the British empire, for the slave trade, for the Irish famine. So why not for Balfour? Yes, but…. Theresa May needs the Israelis far more than she needs the Palestinians.

 

Balfour’s 1917 declaration, of course, was an attempt to avoid disaster in the First World War by encouraging the Jews of Russia and America to support the Allies against Germany. Balfour wanted to avoid defeat just as Chamberlain later wanted to avoid war. But – and this is the point – Munich was resolved by the destruction of Hitler. Balfour initiated a policy of British support for Israel which continues to this very day, to the detriment of the occupied Palestinians of the West Bank and the five million Palestinian refugees living largely in warrens of poverty around the Middle East, including Israeli-besieged Gaza.

This is the theme of perhaps the most dramatic centenary account of the Balfour Declaration, to be published this summer by David Cronin (in his book Balfour’s Shadow: A Century of British Support for Zionism and Israel), an Irish journalist and author living in Brussels whose previous investigation of the European Union’s craven support for Israel’s military distinguished him from the work of more emotional (and thus more inaccurate) writers. Cronin has no time for Holocaust deniers or anti-Semites. While rightly dismissing the silly idea that the Palestinian Grand Mufti, Haj Amin al Husseini, inspired the Holocaust of the Jews of Europe, he does not duck Haj Amin’s poisonous alliance with Hitler. Israel’s post-war creation as a nation state, as one Israeli historian observed, may not have been just – but it was legal. And Israel does legally exist within the borders acknowledged by the rest of the world.

There lies the present crisis for us all: for the outrageous right-wing government of Benjamin Netanyahu is speeding on with the mass colonisation of Arab land in territory which is not part of Israel, and on property which has been stolen from its Arab owners. These owners are the descendants of the “non-Jewish communities” whose rights, according to Balfour, should not be “prejudiced” by “the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. But Balfour’s own prejudice was perfectly clear. The Jewish people would have a “national home” – ie, a nation – in Palestine, while the Arabs, according to his declaration, were mere “communities”. And as Balfour wrote to his successor Curzon two years later, “Zionism … is … of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices [sic] of 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land”.

Cronin’s short book, however, shows just how we have connived in this racism ever since. He outlines the mass British repression of Arabs in the 1930s – including extrajudicial executions and torture by the British army – when the Arabs feared, with good reason, that they would ultimately be dispossessed of their lands by Jewish immigrants. As Arthur Wauchope, the Palestine High Commissioner, would write, “the subject that fills the minds of all Arabs today is … the dread that in time to come they will be a subject race living on sufferance in Palestine, with the Jews dominant in every sphere, land, trade and political life”. How right they were.

Even before Britain’s retreat from Palestine, Attlee and his Cabinet colleagues were discussing a plan which would mean the “ethnic cleansing” of tens of thousands of Palestinians from their land. In 1944, a Labour Party statement had talked thus of Jewish immigration: “Let the Arabs be encouraged to move out as the Jews move in.” By 1948, Labour, now in government, was announcing it had no power to prevent money being channelled from London to Jewish groups who would, within a year, accomplish their own “ethnic cleansing”, a phrase in common usage for this period since Israeli historian Illan Pappe (now, predictably, an exile from his own land) included it in the title of his best-known work.

The massacre of hundreds of Palestinian civilians at Deir Yassin was committed while thousands of British troops were still in the country. Cronin’s investigation of Colonial Office files show that the British military lied about the “cleansing” of Haifa, offering no protection to the Arabs, a policy largely followed across Palestine save for the courage of Major Derek Cooper and his soldiers, whose defence of Arab civilians in Jaffa won him the Military Cross (although David Cronin does not mention this). Cooper, whom I got to know when he was caring for wounded Palestinians in Beirut in 1982, never forgave his own government for its dishonesty at the end of the Palestine Mandate.

Cronin’s value, however, lies in his further research into British support for Israel, its constant arms re-supplies to Israel, its 1956 connivance with the Israelis over Suez – during which Israeli troops massacred in the Gaza camp of Khan Younis, according to a UN report, 275 Palestinian civilians, of whom 140 were refugees from the 1948 catastrophe. Many UN-employed Palestinians, an American military officer noted at the time, “are believed to have been executed by the Israelis”. Britain’s subsequent export of submarines and hundreds of Centurion tanks to Israel was shrugged off with the same weasel-like excuses that British governments have ever since used to sell trillions of dollars of weapons to Israelis and Arabs alike: that if Britain didn’t arm them, others would.

In opposition in 1972, Harold Wilson claimed it was “utterly unreal” to call for an Israeli withdrawal from land occupied in the 1967 war, adding that “Israel’s reaction is natural and proper in refusing to accept the Palestinians as a nation”. When the Palestinians first demanded a secular one-state solution to Palestine, they were denounced by a British diplomat (Anthony Parsons) who said that “a multinational, secular state” would be “wholly incompatible with our attitude toward Israel”. Indeed it would. When the PLO opposed Britain’s Falklands conflict, the Foreign Office haughtily admonished the Palestinians – it was “far removed” from their “legitimate concerns”, it noted – although it chose not to reveal that Argentine air force Skyhawk jets supplied by Israel were used to attack UK forces, and that Israel’s military supplies to Argentina continued during the war.

A year later, Margaret Thatcher, according to a note by Douglas Hurd, included “armed action against military targets of the occupying power” as a definition of “terrorism”. So the Palestinians could not even resist their direct occupiers without being criminals.

On an official visit to Israel in 1986, Thatcher said that she regarded discussion of Jerusalem as “internal politics”. In 2001, Tony Blair’s government granted 90 arms exports licences to Israel for “defensive” weapons – including torpedoes, armoured vehicles, bombs and missiles. There is much, much more of this in Cronin’s book, including Blair’s useless and disgraceful period as “peace” envoy to the Middle East and the growing business contracts between British companies and Israeli arms providers – to the extent that the British army ended up deploying Israeli-made drones in the skies of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Outside the EU, Theresa May’s Britain will maintain its close relations with Israel as a priority; hence May’s stated desire less than a month ago to sign a bilateral free trade agreement with Israel. This coincided with an Israeli attack on Gaza and a Knesset vote to confiscate – ie, steal – yet more lands from Palestinians in the West Bank.

From the day that Herbert Samuel, deputy leader of the Liberal Party and former (Jewish) High Commissioner for Palestine, said in the House of Commons in 1930 that Arabs “do migrate easily”, it seems that Britain has faithfully followed Balfour’s policies. More than 750,000 Palestinians were uprooted in their catastrophe, Cronin writes. Generations of dispossessed would grow up in the camps. Today, there are around five million registered Palestinian refugees. Britain was the midwife of that expulsion.

And this summer, we shall again be exhorted by Theresa May to remember the Balfour Declaration with “pride”.

Supporting Palestinian Intifada Tops Closing Statement of Iran Conference

February 22, 2017

Conference

The closing statement of the sixth International conference “To support the Palestinian Intifada” held in Tehran highlighted on Tuesday the importance of the Palestinian cause, calling on supporting it and avoiding marginalizing it amid the regional crises.

The statement also hailed the Lebanese and Palestinian resistance movements, stressing their role in confronting the Zionist entity.

It also called on the international organizations to denounce and deter the Israeli aggressions, warning some Arab and Muslim countries against normalizing ties with the Zionist entity.

The statement added that the US administration intention to move the Zionist entity capital into Al-Quds must draw a response from the Arab and Muslim states by closing their embassies in the United States.

Finally, the statement highly appreciated the Iranian people sacrifices for the sake of the Palestinian cause.

The Iranian capital, Tehran, hosted on Tuesday and Wednesday an international forum in support of the Palestinian cause, with hundreds of foreign guests, including senior Palestinian leaders and officials of Muslim nations, in attendance.

Source: Al-Manar Website

Related Videos





















Related Articles

Exactly who is it that is in ‘Denial’?

February 16, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

A somewhat biased film review

By Gilad Atzmon

In her book Denying the Holocaust (1993), Deborah Lipstadt confessed that it was David Irving’s considerable reputation as an historian that made him “one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial.” “Familiar with historical evidence,” she wrote, “he bends it until it conforms with his ideological leanings and political agenda.” Irving responded by claiming that Lipstadt’s words were libellous and filed a legal case against her and her publisher Penguin Books.

Was Irving brave or naïve in putting the Holocaust on trial? Probably both. Back in 1996, was Irving a hero or just grossly miscalculating in believing he stood a chance in taking on the Holocaust, still the most popular Jewish religion? Again, probably both.

The other day, I watched Mick Jackson’s ‘Denial’. The film tells the story of Irving’s 2000 defeat in court – a disaster he voluntarily brought upon himself and indeed, Irving has clearly made some mistakes in his life. Yet, in 2017 it is impossible to deny that, back in 2000, Irving was well ahead of most of us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYcx43AmAyY

Watching the film in the aftermath of Brexit, the Trump victory and the surge of Right Wing consciousness in the West in general, it is clear that Irving, undoubtedly one of the greatest living biographer of Hitler, understood human nature better than the British judge, Lipstadt’s legal team, the BBC and probably the rest of us altogether.

Back in 2000, the Holocaust narrative was as solid as a rock. The Jews were perceived as the ultimate victims and their plight at the time of World War II was unquestionable.  No one dared ask how is it is possible that, three years after the liberation of Auschwitz, the newly-born Jewish state ethnically cleansed Palestine of its indigenous population? At the time of the trial, no one dared ask why is the Jewish past just a chain of holocausts – that is, no one except David Irving (and a few others).

At the time of the trial, I read an interview with David Irving that opened my eyes to the idea that history is a revisionist adventure, an attempt to narrate the past as we move along. I realised then that the past is subject to changes. It morphs along with humanity.

In that interview, Irving was quoted as‘ blaming the victims.’

“If I were a Jew,” he said, “I would ask myself why it always happens to us?”

At the time, I was a still Jew but I took up Irving’s challenge. I looked in the mirror and didn’t like what I saw so I decided to leave the tribe and I stopped being a Jew.

But Irving is no longer a lone voice. Two weeks ago, on Holocaust Memorial Day, it was actually the American president himself who managed to universalize the Holocaust by omitting to mention the Jews or their shoah. As we Westerns obliterate country after country with our immoral interventionism, the Holocaust is no longer a Jews-only domain and all the time more and more people grasp that it is actually Israel and its affiliated Jewish lobbies that are pushing us into more and more unnecessary global conflicts.

‘Denial’ was made to sustain a ‘progressive’ vision of the past. In this progressive but misguided universe, people ‘move forward’ but their past remains fixed, often sacred and always untouched. Nationalists, on the other hand, often see the past as a dynamic, vibrant reality. For them, nostalgia, is the way forward.

But some Jews are tormented by this nostalgia. They want their own past to be compartmentalized and sealed, otherwise, they are fearful that some people may decide to examine Jewish history in the light of Israeli crimes.

In the film, Irving is an old style British gent who sticks to his guns and refuses to change his narrative just to fit in with any notions of correctness. Irving states what he believes in and stands firmly behind it.

For Irving, one of the most damaging pieces of evidenced presented to the court was a little ditty he wrote to his daughter when she was just a few months old, and conceived by the court as the ultimate in crude misanthropy.

 

“I am a Baby Aryan,

Not Jewish or Sectarian.

I have no plans to marry-an

Ape or Rastafarian.”

 

On the day of the verdict, Irving visited the BBC Newsnight studio to be grilled by Jeremy Paxman who read the little ditty to Irving.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Anx4ZRgpQbY&t=23m7s

“What’s racist about that?” Irving wondered. “You are not being serious,” was Paxman’s  reply. Paxman, one of Britain’s best TV journalists, was, like the rest of us, trained to react to soundbites. “Aryan is a racial categorisation” he insisted.

Back in 2000, Paxman probably failed to see that,

if Jews are entitled to identify politically as a race, as a biology or as set of cultural symptoms then Whites, Muslims and everyone else must surely be entitled to do the same.

Back in 2000, Irving understood this potential Identitarian shift. Sixteen years later, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage translated this Identitarian shift into a victory. The Clintons, the Soros’ and the Deborah Lipstadts of this world are still struggling to make sense of it.

‘Denial’, is actually a film about righteousness, exceptionalism and victimhood.  It is about the condition of being consumed by self-love, that blind belief that justice is always on your side, that you are the eternal victim and the other, namely the ‘Goy’ is always the murderous aggressor.

But this type of ‘denial’ can be dealt with easily and here is just one example: The Jewish press in Britain  complains constantly that antisemitism is soaring. The more funds the British government dedicates to fighting antisemitsm, the more antisemitic incidents are recorded. I guess the time is ripe for Jews to listen to David Irving and ask themselves why?

If Jews want anti-Semitism to come to an end once and for all, all they need do is to self-reflect. However, my personal experience suggests that once you do that, you may stop being a Jew.

Note: It is worth mentioning that, since the 2000 trial, Irving is on record on numerous occasions as revising his views on the Holocaust and on the destruction of European Jews. Certainly, as he moves along, David Irving at least is able to revise the past.

 

%d bloggers like this: