We Can Now Dismiss Auschwitz

Frau Ursula Haverbeck Declares Victory: “We can now dismiss Auschwitz!”

Ursula Haverbeck - The End of AuschwitzIn a new YouTube video entitled ‘Auschwitz – Media lies or the truth at last?’ (below) produced by Lady Michelle Renouf, Frau Ursula Haverbeck, speaking publicly at a conference in the German State of Saxony-Anhalt, has declared a victory for Germans in “dispensing with Auschwitz as the ‘scene of the crime’ of the holocaust.” She said “According to official statements, Auschwitz is no longer considered the scene of the most wicked crime in history – the alleged murder of six million Jews. So the question arises: where did this crime take place? Where is the scene of the German’s crime? This is the burning question of the six million. Where are they?”

“Over a period of five years”, says Frau Haverbeck, “I have challenged in writing, various German authorities, including judges, the chamber of lawyers, German-Jewish organizations and the ministers of the various German states, to ‘define the scene of the crime’. If not at Auschwitz, then where did it happen?” The ‘authorities, she contends, must demonstrate where it happened, and she feels that they have had more than ample time, but have not done so. Which begs the question: “why not?”. Frau Haverbeck says “they have failed to reply, because they have no answer! And if they have no answer, then I must conclude that there is no evidence to substantiate the official narrative concerning the murder of six million Jews!”

“We can now dismiss Auschwitz!” concludes Frau Haverbeck. “And I say this publicly here in the state of Saxony-Anhalt. Seventy years after the war, it is high time that we [Germans] accept our rights, as publicly proclaimed by European leaders, that we have Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Opinion, and the Freedom to Demonstrate. These freedoms, according to those leaders, are the most sacred rights enjoyed by citizens in a democracy. I, therefore, claim them for myself. Thank you!”

Frau Haverbeck has organized a public conference to take place on January 31st, 2015, in Saxony-Anhalt on the topic of “The Liberation of Auschwitz” and has invited the Minister of the Interior to attend. As we previously reported, in December of 2014, Frau Haverbeck laid criminal charges against the Central Council of Jews in Germany for False Prosecutions.

In the introduction to this video, Richard Edmonds also challenged Russian President Vladimir Putin to re-investigate the lies of the Soviet Commission in 1945, which formed the basis of the deceitful postwar histories of both the Katyn Massacre and the Auschwitz camp.

We have, in numerous previous posts, also challenged Mr. Putin to open all of the former Soviet war archives and to officially come clean about the lies concerning World War II, particularly relating to the alleged “unprovoked attack by Hitler on the Soviet Union” which is demonstrably false, according to many notable historians, including several Russians, as well as, documents in the German archives and in the private archives of Marshall Mannerheim of Finland. But also, regarding the heinous crimes committed against Germans in the final months of the war, as well is in the aftermath, including the forged evidence presented at the Nuremberg trials, and the use of torture to induce confessions.

Where are the photos that were taken by the Soviets during the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp?

The Soviet Army reached Auschwitz on 27th January 1945. On that day many pictures were taken of those approximately 7,500 inmates whoauschwitz real2 were left behind. These photographs, however, are almost never shown to the general public; the relatively well-fed people do not fit so well into the popular image of “extermination camp” Auschwitz.

One also wonders why the Soviets did not take a single photo of that gas chamber, which through decades has been presented to millions of tourists as the place where millions of Jews had been gassed.

Instead, Pravda reported six days after the liberation of Auschwitz of mass killings on electric conveyors and cremations in blast furnaces (see footnote 3) but said not a word about Zyklon B, the main weapon of the alleged Holocaust.

British IMT Prosecutor Sir Hartley Shawcross, in a speech on 16th March 1984 expressed the following, belated insight into Hitler’s alleged war intentions:
shawcross2
“Step by step I am more and more of the conviction that the aims of Communism in Europe are sinister. I indicted the Nazis at Nuremberg. Together with my Russian colleagues I condemned Nazi aggression and the Nazi terror. (But) Hitler and the German people did not want war! Following our policy of balance of power and inspired by “Americans” [31] around Roosevelt, we declared war on Germany in order to destroy it. We have not responded to the numerous pleas of Hitler for peace. Now we have to realize that Hitler was right. Instead of a cooperative Germany, which he had offered us, stands the huge imperialist power of the Soviets. I feel ashamed and humiliated to have to see how the same goals, which we assumed Hitler had, are being pursued under a different name, and the same tactic is being used without restrain.”[32]

SOURCE: shoabloger.wordpress.com/texts/the-forbidden-truth-2/

auschwitz-death-toll-reduced-300x216As Prof. Robert Faurisson has previously pointed out “The Nuremberg judges never visited Auschwitz. And they even never asked for a forensic report. They took judicial notice of Soviet document USSR-008 stating that 4,000,000 died at Auschwitz camp. In 1995, it was decided by the camp’s authorities that 1,500.000 was the real figure. Later on, a plaque in the camp indicated 1,300.000. [And since lowered again]. He adds:

The beginning of Article 19 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal (IMT) states: “The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence …”

The beginning of Article 21 says : “The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof …”

The real organizer, responsible for the IMT, was Robert H. Jackson, US Attorney General, who said on 26 July 1946: “This Tribunal represents a continuation of the war efforts of the Allied Nations” (IMT, vol. XIX, p. 398).

At the IMT it was forbidden to dispute the content of documents such as USSR-008; one had to take judicial notice thereof.”

In the Federal Republic of Germany, “holocaust denial” is illegal and the courts there have always maintained that the “holocaust” is a “fact of common knowledge”, that it is “obvious” and cannot be called into question, under pain of fines and lengthy terms of imprisonment. To present contrary evidence in ones own defence is also illegal. Well, “obviously” such a law, combined with the silence and complicity of German leaders in enforcing such a law proves a continuation of the Allied Nuremberg process, and that Germany is still under occupation, with no independent government or judiciary. It is, undeniably, “a continuation of the war efforts of the Allied nations”. Not a single one of the Allied nations which declared war against the German Reich has ever offered a peace treaty. Nor for that matter has “Judea” which declared war on Germany on March 24th, 1933.

WAHRHEIT MACHT FREI!

We Germans are still awaiting our “liberation”. The truth shall set us free, and that can be the ONLY reason for criminalizing it!

***

Many thanks to Frau Ursula Haverbeck for her diligence, courage and honour on behalf of all Germans. Thanks to Lady Michelle and Richard Edmonds for this video and their efforts, and to Prof. Faurisson for informing us of it, as well as, for his many years of struggle for the truth on behalf of our people.

Stefan Molyneux on Israel and the Nature of Judaism

edpressmanPRESSMAN NOTES:  The ongoing slaughter of Palestinian children by jews in Israel is provoking criticism and insight from quarters that have typically been silent on the matter. A few days ago we featured the recent video by Stefan Molyneux – clearly a departure from the norm for this well known philosopher, historian, libertarian. By way of follow up we reprint below a succinct commentary on the Molyneux video by Kevin MacDonald of The Occidental Observer.

One of talmudic judaism’s core principles is that it is a system of situational ethics. What is deemed a good action today maybe deemed a bad action tomorrow. Good or bad is determined by the qualifier “Is it good for the jews”. This absence of ethics (the term ‘situational ethics’ is a contradiction in terms) ensures continual conflict, a situation the rabbis have been keen to sustain due to the retention of power that it gives them. It is not possible to solve any dispute, perceived or real, if one party adheres to situational ethics. Hence the lack of peace now or at any point in the past. The act therefore of communicating with rabbi’s and the other attendant extremist leaders of the jews in Israel is one of futility. No peace can be brokered under this condition. As there is no desire to transform this condition then the only solution is separation.

As descendants of Khazars, Edomites and Canaanites, jews possess no biblical blood in their veins and hence their claim to Palestine is founded on myth. The true place for their homeland was created bv Stalin in the 1930’s. Birobidzhan is a town and administrative center of the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, Russia, located on the Trans-Siberian Railway, close to the border with China. It is the size of Switzerland and has been awaiting their arrival en masse for over 80 years. There will be no requirement to kill any children to settle there peacefully.

To Birobidzhan Stefan, to Birobidzhan.


Stefan Molyneux on Israel and the Nature of Judaism

Kevin MacDonald
Occidental Observer
August 6, 2014

A while ago Mondoweiss banned comments implying that Israel’s bad behavior had anything to do with the nature of Judaism. So it’s a safe bet that Stefan Molyneaux would be banned from the site. As a libertarian with a knowledge of history, Molyneaux finds the root cause of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the natural outgrowth of trends within Judaism going back hundreds of years—a view that is quite compatible with a biological perspective.

The essential plot line is as follows. Drawing on Israel Shahak (e.g., Jewish History, Jewish Religion and Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel), he paints a picture of historical Judaism in Eastern Europe as communities ruled by autocratic rabbis who had absolute control over life and death of their subjects. These were communities in which free speech and tolerance of dissent were ruthlessly suppressed, with ne’er-do-wells sometimes murdered. Then came the Enlightenment which is the origin of all the trends libertarians hold dear. Rabbis began to lose control of their congregations, and there was the rise of secular Judaism in Western societies.

Fearful of loss of power and the specter of assimilation, rabbis needed a new idea to retain control (13:33). They therefore welcomed Zionism because it prevented assimilation and would provide a new opportunity to create closed communities under strong rabbinical control. This is something of an oversimplification of the forces within the Jewish community favoring Zionism and their motives. For example, fear of assimilation and intermarriage also motivated the racial Zionists, many of whom were not religious, who were very prominent in early Zionism (see here, p. 157ff). In the words of Jewish racial Zionist Elias Auerbach, Zionism would return Jews “back into the position they enjoyed before the nineteenth century—politically autonomous, culturally whole, and racially pure” (John Efron, Defenders of the Race: Jewish Doctors and Race Science in Fin-de-Siècle Europe, 1994, 136).

Molyneaux often quotes prominent Zionists to show the strong racial/nationalist tendencies within Zionism from the beginning. For example, Abraham Kook (Chief Rabbi of Palestine, 1920-1935) stated “the difference between Jewish souls and non-Jewish souls — all of them, in all different levels — is greater than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle”), and notes that such a statement is more extreme than any statement by defenders of South African apartheid. But Kook’s ideas are foundational; the idea for the religious right in Israel is to recreate pre-Enlightenment Jewish society in Israel. At 24:00 he notes a Haaretz article pointing out that Israel is far closer to Tehran than to Stockholm (see “The Jewish Ayatollahs“). It has become a xenophobic theocracy.

At 26:00 he also cites King’s Torah which provides guidelines for justified killing of non-Jews. This is an excellent example of the particularistic morality that has always characterized Judaism — vastly different ethical norms for Jews than for non-Jews. Thou shalt not kill really means thou shalt not kill other Jews. Killing babies is justified if the babies could grow up to harm Jews.

The roots for such thinking run deep in Judaism At 27:20 he quotes from the Talmud: a heathen who smites a Jew must die. A heathen who studies Torah must die. A girl as young as 3 must be killed if she has sex with a Jew, the reason being because she got the Jew in trouble.

Violence against the Arabs was part of the plan from the beginning. At 32: 40 he quotes racial Zionist Ze’ev Jabotinsky on the need to forcibly remove Arabs. (Jabotinsky has been the inspiration for the pro-expansion, pro-settler Likud Party—racial Zionism in all but name.  As Geoffrey Wheatcroft has pointed out, at the present time Israel “is governed by [Jabotinsky’s] conscious heirs.”) Later he describes the massacres and rapes at Deir Yassin and Bassa and the ethnic cleansing of Arabs during the 1948 war.

At 34:00 he discusses the Balfour Declaration as a quid pro quo in which American Jews successfully promoted American entry in WWI on the side of Britain. He also notes in passing that this contributed to Hitler’s attitudes on Jews, and that  the victory of the French and British then enabled the Treaty of Versailles which led to WWII.

At 51:00 he discusses the consequences of America’s support for Israel as fueling anti-American hostility among Arabs and in particular Osama Bin Laden.

So the bottom line is that he is not optimistic about the future of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. At 54:00 he has a nice discussion of rationalism in the West versus irrationalism combined with xenophobic authoritarianism and an End Times mentality in the Middle East; this leads to a fight to the finish.

There is little to disagree with here, and it is certainly true that Israel has come under the control of the fanatics.

I suggest that in a real sense Israel can’t change its direction. … The extremists are in charge and have been so at least since the 1967 War. Any attempt to make a meaningful withdrawal from the West Bank and Jerusalem and to allow a viable Palestinian state would produce a civil war among Israelis and likely provoke a strong response by the lobby on the side of the nonaccommodationists. The fate of the Oslo peace process, the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, and the support by the lobby of the most radical elements within Israel certainly argue that there is little chance of a successful move in this direction.

As throughout Jewish history, it is the most committed members who determine the direction of the entire group.21 This is doubtless true of most groups, but it is especially the case with Jews where there is a long history of fanaticism. I am reminded of Christiane Amanpour’s depiction of Jewish fanatics in her excellent TV documentary, God’s Jewish Warriors. These West Bank settlers and Jewish activists are massively ethnocentric, and, unlike the propaganda put out by the lobby, they are not at all democratic. They live in a completely Jewish world where their every thought and perception is colored by their Jewish identity. Theirs is an apartheid world separated by high concrete walls from their Palestinian neighbors, where even tiny settlements are necessarily protected by the Israeli army. And at a time when Americans are constantly being encouraged by Jewish organizations like the ADL to be ever more tolerant of all kinds of diversity, these people are anything but tolerant. Calls for expropriation and expulsion of the Palestinians are commonplace among them. Israel has created a classic Middle Eastern segmented society in which different groups live in an ingroup/outgroup world, completely isolated from each other. (Review of Mearsheimer and WaltThe Israel Lobby, 50-51)

The horror, of course, is that Jewish activist groups in the West have spearheaded the move for immigration and multiculturalism as models for Western societies while at the same time supporting Israel’s xenophobic nationalism. And since the libertarian values that Molyneaux holds dear are an exclusive Western creation (which all of our experience in the Middle East confirms overwhelmingly, not to mention the very high-profile support by Jewish organizations in the diaspora for controls on free speech), we must be very pessimistic that Western libertarian values can survive ethnic Westerners becoming minorities in the societies they created. Libertarians should be on the front lines opposing the displacement-level immigration that threatens all Western societies.

NOTE: When you google Molyneux, four of the five "also searched for" people are Jews.  Peter Joseph could also be a Jew.

The Blood of Palestine is on the Hands of the Bribe-Takers

Another excellent video presentation by Anthony Lawson. Originally published on 30 Jul 2014

The blood of the thousands of Palestinians who have been killed by the so-called Israel Defence Forces since the beginning of the siege of Gaza, stains the hands of each and every politician who has done nothing to censure Israel for this cruel and illegal act of virtual imprisonment, or who has taken any kind of bribe to bolster his or her election-campaign coffers, in return for turning their backs on the quite obvious fact that Apartheid Israel has never had any intention other than to genocide the Palestinian people.

References:
bribe –bribery definition: Black’s Law Dictionary
Gideon Levy article:
http://www.intifada-palestine.com/201…
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premi…

Although Levy often comes out strongly against Israel’s actions, so much so that he now has to have a bodyguard, he is dead wrong to try to blame HAMAS for anything. Israel started everything, by having themselves plonked down in Arab territory.

Goldstone Report
http://redactednews.blogspot.com/2009…

Rabbi Ovadia Yousef
http://www.timesofisrael.com/5-of-ova…

Ayelet Shaked: Called for the killing of Palestinian women in a Facebook post, quoting these words: which were written by one of Benyamin Netanyahu’s speechwriters, the late Uri Elitzur.

She has since denied that her post was racist or offensive, by pointing out that she was quoting from an article by the late Uri Elitzur, which was written 12 years ago. But her denial simply doesn’t hold water, because in her Facebook introduction to it she wrote: “It is as relevant today as it was at the time.”

The Truth About Israel and Palestine

Stefan Molyneaux from Freedomain Radio makes a detailed presentation of the key current and historical events regarding Israel and Palestine. ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE

The Israel-Palestine conflict has been raging on for decades and there seems to be no end in sight.

On July 8, 2014, Israel launched operation Protective Edge, carrying out airstrikes on 50 cities in the Palestinian Gaza Strip. The Israeli government claimed this was retaliation against rockets fired from Palestinian territories controlled by the Islamic political movement Hamas.

The July events are the latest of a series of bloody attacks between Israel and Palestine. What is the cause of all this violence and why are both sides so committed to it?