Earthlinggb's Blog

Who are the freaks of this world?

Posted in Geo-Political Warfare, Political History by earthling on December 31, 2015

No apologies for presenting this movie on here. I’ve seen and read a lot about these people and I’ve now had about more than I can stomach. They are simply repulsive. And before anyone even suggests this is anti semitic, I ask you to watch this and ask yourself: “Do people such as this scare me?” Because they do me. It is racist (or anti semitic) to hate a people just because of their race or religion (which I don’t and never have) but it is not racist or anti semitic to be repulsed by the inhumanity of people and those who support it. Remember, David Cameron (and untold numbers of others) support these people and their disgusting actions. It is neither racist nor anti semitic to be afraid of a people. Many are afraid of muslims (there are elements of their beliefs I have issues with also) but they’re not who I’m frightened of and, when I say frightened, I mean I’m afraid of the masses of gentiles (or goyim) who protect their actions and apologise for them and who just refuse to see the power they are given. I don’t get it – I DO NOT GET how these people are given a “multipass” for a multitude of sins. Of course, they are not sinning within their religion and in front of their “God”, after all, they INVENTED him FOR their purposes! But then who the HELL is their G-d anyway? A God that likes them cutting their children’s genitalia and sucking them off? Anyone heard the term “PAEDOPHILIA” or “CHILD ABUSE”? A God that demands they then slaughter animals in the fashion they do? ARE YOU SERIOUS?

Watch the goddamned movie and you tell me!

And find out who wanted to protect the animals by the way. Oh yeah, it was the big nasty dictator!

Now listen to this other jewish fellatio artiste as he defends this inhumane slaughter while the “Great Dictator” chose not to:

But he’s not the only one…..

And, of course, why did UKIP finally get the “ok” by the UK establishment? Well here’s on of the reasons….


Next, let’s consider your “beloved” Winston Churchill (another kosher fellatio artiste who started a war on behalf of the jews while he held vastly contradictory views on them – but then money does have the impact of changing one’s views doesn’t it? Especially when you’re an impoverished leader and the jews help you from facing bankruptcy):


Winston Churchill’s 1920 article, in which he highlighted the predominant Jewish role in the world-wide communist movement, is pretty well known. What is not discussed is how he misled his readers in essays and books published many years later. In many contemporary academic environments, it is held that the concept of “International Jewry”—groups of powerful Jews who operate on an international basis and feel that the world-wide Jewish community is united by racial bonds—is a “neo-Nazi” and “radically anti-Semitic” canard that should be immediately dismissed. Sir Winston and the British government showed us otherwise. Finally, it may raise the eyebrows of many when they find out what Churchill told the House of Commons in August 1946 about his knowledge of the Holocaust during the war.

Jews and Communism: Churchill’s Duplicity

During the early part of the twentieth century, Winston Churchill was very much aware of the decisive role that Jews played in the rise of Bolshevik Communism in Russia. Gilbert writes:

“He was familiar with the names and origins of all its leaders: Lenin was almost the only member of the Central Committee who was not of Jewish origin. Neither Churchill nor his colleagues, nor the Jews, knew that Lenin’s paternal grandfather was a Jew.” The Jewish historian adds an observation that, if stated by a non-Jew, could possibly earn him the dreaded “anti-Semite” label: “Churchill had studied the Bolshevik terror against political opponents, democrats and constitutionalists, and he knew the significant part individual Jews had played in establishing and maintaining the Bolshevik regime.”2

In a June 1919 telegram to a British general, Churchill pointed out the prominent role Jews played in the Bolshevik regime and the atrocities they were guilty of.3 In a 10 October 1919 letter to Lloyd George, Churchill again noted that Jews certainly “have played a leading role in Bolshevik atrocities.”4 Gilbert attempts to put this in historical context: “Not only was there a deeply anti-Semitic tradition in southern Russia and the Ukraine that had seen pogroms and massacres in both the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries, but after the Bolshevik revolution in November 1917 many Jews, hoping for a better break, had thrown in their lot with the Bolsheviks. A few Jews, whose deeds were much publicized and greatly feared, became political commissars, charged with the imposition of Bolshevik rule in southern Russia, and carrying out their tasks with cruelty and zeal.”5

Gilbert devotes a long discussion to Sir Winston’s famous 1920 article, “Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People.”6 Churchill pointed out that left-wing Jews were a major force behind Communist Marxism in many parts of Europe and Russia, which ultimately brought horror and suffering to millions. He discussed:

“the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all of them, have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxemburg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.”7

Churchill specifically stated that Jewish Marxists were causing major problems in Germany. He wrote:

“The same phenomenon [i.e., Jewish involvement with left-wing and Communist movements] has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers is astonishing.”8

More recent scholarship has vindicated some of Churchill’s views. Jewish-American political scientists Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter, and anti-National-Socialist historian Robert Payne documented the decisive role that Jews played in far left and Communist movements in Germany prior to World War II, although they may not believe that Jewish influence was as destructive as Churchill believed it to be.9

Despite Churchill’s 1920 exposé of the decisive Jewish involvement with Communism, in a November 1935 article he criticized Hitler and the German National Socialists for believing that Jews “were the main prop of communism.”10 Of course, this is precisely what Churchill had stated in “Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People,” when he wrote:

“There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution, by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews [Gilbert pointed out that Lenin’s paternal grandfather was a Jew. Ed.]. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders.”11

Furthermore, in his famous book, The Gathering Storm, written after the Second World War and widely regarded as a “classic,” Churchill again misled his readers. He insinuated that Hitler and his followers engaged in “delusional thinking” when they claimed that Jews played a major and destructive role in German Communist and Left wing groups. Describing the alleged fantasies of Hitler in regard to Jewish influence prior to and during the First World War, Churchill wrote: “As in a dream everything suddenly became clear [to Hitler]. Germany had been stabbed in the back and clawed down by the Jews, by the profiteers and intriguers behind the front, by the accursed Bolsheviks in their international conspiracy of Jewish intellectuals.”12 In fact, there is nothing in this “masterpiece” about the decisive role that Jews played in German communism, the international Bolshevik movement, and the threat this posed to Germany and the world, which Churchill had so vividly complained about in decades past.

On this issue, Churchill was deceitful. In 1935, he criticized National Socialists for holding beliefs that he himself had propounded years earlier. In 1948, when criticism of Jewish influence became taboo, he implied that the National Socialist idea of Bolshevism being a world-wide conspiracy of left-wing Jews that wreaked havoc in Germany was all a “paranoid fantasy.” He dishonestly failed to point out that this is very similar to what he emphatically stated in his 1920 article.

Churchill, the British Government, and the Reality of International Jewry

In his widely known works on National Socialist Germany, Jeffrey Herf asserts that the concept of “International Jewry” is a paranoid fantasy of “radical anti-Semites.” This allegedly false notion “rested on the belief that the Jews were a cohesive, politically active subject—that is, a group united on a global scale by racial bonds that transcended any allegiance to nation-states.”13 Of course, enlightened people of today should immediately reject this “canard.” The University of Maryland professor insists that Hitler was delusional, as he believed “International Jewry” to be an “actually existing political subject with vast power that was hostile to Germany.”14 According to Herf’s politically correct mode of thought, a world-wide Jewish entity that transcends the boundaries of nation-states had no existence whatsoever before, during or after the Second World War. Winston Churchill’s statements and behavior, and that of the British government, show us otherwise.

We remind the reader that in his 1920 article, “Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People,” Churchill referred directly to the “schemes of International Jews,” their “sinister confederacy” and “world-wide conspiracy.” Historian Gilbert, relying upon Churchill, defines “International Jews” as “those Jews who supported Bolshevik rule inside Russia and Bolshevik revolution beyond its borders.”15 (As we shall soon see, this is an incomplete and inadequate definition of the term, “International Jews.” To cite just one problem, it does not include international Jewish Zionists who were opposed to Bolshevism.)

What was the goal of these “International Jews?” Churchill believed that they were seeking “a world-wide communistic State under Jewish domination.”16 It is important to note that in The Gathering Storm, he correctly imputed this very belief to Adolf Hitler. In Churchill’s description, Mein Kampf promoted the idea that the aim of Soviet communism was the triumph of international Judaism.17 Of course, Churchill never informed his readers of the striking similarity between his 1920 article and Hitler’s book on this issue.

Professor Herf apparently believes that only “radical anti-Semites” promoted the concept of “International Jewry”—but Winston Churchill was a philo-Semite and Gentile Zionist who worked for Jewish interests his entire career, and was accused of being “too fond of Jews” by his friend and fellow parliamentarian General Sir Edward Louis Spears.18

In November 1917, the British Foreign Office issued the Balfour Declaration. It read: “His Majesty’s Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country”19 Gilbert reveals the beliefs that moved the British government to issue the Declaration: “The War Cabinet hoped that, inspired by the promise of a national home in Palestine, Russian Jews would encourage Russia—then in the throes of revolution—to stay in the war, and that American Jews would be stimulated to accelerate the military participation of the United States—already at war, but not yet in the battlefield. To secure these results, [Jewish-Zionist diplomat] Weizmann agreed to go first to the United States and then to Russia, to lead a campaign to rouse the pro-war sentiments among the Jewish masses in both countries.”20

In 1921, Churchill reiterated the British government’s position on the Balfour Declaration. One of the main reasons that it was issued is because the assistance of Jews from various parts of the world was needed to induce the nation states in which they lived to enter the war on Great Britain’s side.21 A similar agenda motivated Churchill during the late 1930s: he believed continuing British support for a Jewish home in Palestine would motivate American Jewry to help bring the United States to Britain’s side in the expected war with Germany. Here is a quote from a December 1939 Churchill memorandum:

“…it was not for light or sentimental reasons that Lord Balfour and the Government of 1917 made the promises to the Zionists which have been the cause of so much subsequent discussion. The influence of American Jewry was rated then as a factor of the highest importance, and we did not feel ourselves in such a strong position as to be able to treat it with indifference. Now, in the advent of [an American] Presidential election, and when the future is full of measureless uncertainties, I should have thought it was more necessary, even than in November, 1917, to conciliate American Jewry and enlist their aid in combating isolationist and indeed anti-British tendencies in the United States.”22

In order that there is no misunderstanding, we will quote Professor Cohen:

“[Churchill] believed that the Zionist movement commanded powerful political and economic influence, particularly in the United States. As late as in December, 1939, he lectured his cabinet colleagues on the important role Zionists could play in mobilizing American resources to the British war effort. He told them that it had not been for light or sentimental reasons that the Government had issued the Balfour Declaration in 1917, but in order to mobilize American support. In 1939, Churchill believed that history would repeat itself, that the Zionists, via their proxies across the Atlantic, could be influential in accelerating the vitally needed early entry of the Americans into the war.”23

Churchill’s beliefs regarding “international Jews” had validity: certain groups of Jews from one continent did engage in political actions that served the interests of Jews on other continents. As historian of the American film industry Neal Gabler pointed out in his An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood, Jewish screen writers and movie executives in Hollywood USA were concerned about the plight of their Jewish brethren across the ocean in Europe.24 These important Hollywood figures held a meeting in early 1936 during which they discussed what was to be done to combat Hitler’s Germany. Film producer David Selznick wanted to fight against Hitler “in the usual Jewish way of being on the fringes and not letting yourself appear as involved in it.” He further suggested: “Don’t get too public. Do it quietly. Behind the scenes.” Apparently, other screen industry figures present wanted to conduct a more open and straightforward campaign.25

In autumn 1936, the more conservative Jewish film industry figures began launching “tentative attacks upon the Hitler regime.”26 Film producer and studio executive Louis B. Mayer warned that war in Europe was looming, and he urged the United States to join forces with Britain. Before the US declared war following the Pearl Harbor attack in December 1941, certain Hollywood Jews were willing to use their influence to incite a pro-war sentiment in the United States. In a 20 May 1940 memo to President Roosevelt from studio executive Harry Warner, the latter stated: “[P]ersonally we would like to do all in our power within the motion picture industry and by use of the talking screen to show the American people the worthiness of the cause for which the free peoples of Europe are making such tremendous sacrifices.” A few months later motion picture mogul Nick Schenck offered to place his entire studio in the service of President Roosevelt’s campaign for war with Germany.27

Here we have another example showing the reality of International Jewry, as Churchill would have conceived of it. Viewing the fight against Hitler’s Germany as in the interests of Jews everywhere, Hollywood executives put their powerful instruments of mass persuasion in the USA in the service of Churchill’s across-the-Atlantic campaign for war with Germany.28 As Professor Cohen so rightly noted: “Until the American entry [into the Second World War], Jewish influence was naturally at its highest premium, as a solid force countering neutralist forces in the United States [groups that opposed US involvement in a war with Germany].”29

In March 1922, on Churchill’s instructions, the Middle East Department issued a defense of the Balfour Declaration. They wanted the Jewish National Home in Palestine to “become a centre in which Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride [emphasis added].”30 Churchill discussed the Zionist desire to build a Jewish state in Palestine in his 3 September 1937 Jewish Chronicle article: this political entity would serve as a “rallying point for Jews in every part of the world.”31

The reader should take special note of the beliefs that Churchill and his British government acted upon. At the time of the Balfour Declaration in 1917, the English promise to support a Jewish national home in Palestine would be used to enlist the aid of Jews from Russia and the United States to encourage their respective countries to keep fighting the First World War. In addition, an international Zionist diplomat would travel to these two nations to arouse pro-war feelings. Similar beliefs motivated Churchill in the 1930s prior to the Second World War. Supposedly, Jewish proxies across the Atlantic would help bring the US onto the British side in a war with Germany.

But just as importantly, the Jewish National Home would be of interest to Jews on the basis of race and religion, an entity that would galvanize Jewish support from all parts of the globe.32 Significantly enough, this is very similar to the viewpoint of German National Socialist Foreign Minister Constantin von Neurath, who said that a Jewish state in Palestine would provide an internationally recognized power base for Jews world-wide, like the Vatican for Catholics or Moscow for international communists.33

Directly refuting Jeffrey Herf and those who think like him, by enacting policies such as these, Winston Churchill and the British government clearly realized that many powerful and influential groups of Jews throughout the world in fact saw themselves as “a cohesive, politically active subject—that is, a group united on a global scale by racial bonds.” In other words, the entity “International Jewry” does in fact exist, although not all Jews should be considered a part of it.34 There are Jews from all parts of the world who feel little or no attachment whatsoever to any world-wide Jewish community. Nevertheless, this belief that Jews are an internationally organized, racial entity has survived the Second World War and is still held by many Jewish groups world-wide, influencing Zionist and Israeli thinking to this very day. One example should suffice to demonstrate my point.

A convinced believer in the traditional view of the Holocaust, Dr. Herf claims: “The radical anti-Semitism that accompanied and justified the Holocaust described Jews first and foremost as a racially constituted political subject.”35 Well lo and behold! Something strikingly like this “radical anti-Semitic idea” has led to Israel’s interest in scientific studies that delineate genetic/racial differences between Jews and non-Jews.

In an article that appeared in Natural History of November 1993, renowned Jewish scientist Jared Diamond discussed the genetic studies on how Jews differ from non-Jews. He made this astounding statement: “There are also practical reasons for interest in Jewish genes. The state of Israel has been going to much expense to support immigration and job retraining of Jews who were persecuted minorities in other countries. That immediately poses the problem of defining who is a Jew.”36 According to Diamond, Israeli policy asserts that Jews are a racially constituted political subject: they differ from non-Jews on a genetic/racial basis, and these biological differences may be used to determine who will be granted citizenship in the political entity of Israel.

The reader may scratch his head in wonder, asking: “So why do intellectuals like Jeffrey Herf deny the reality of International Jewry?” In the Twentieth Century, the Jewish community has emerged as one of the most powerful elements in the United States and Europe.37 If they become widely viewed as an international, racially constituted political entity that is separate and distinct from the surrounding culture, this could create suspicion and distrust in the minds of the non-Jewish peoples they reside among. Non-Jews might start saying: “Since certain segments of the Jews are separate and distinct from us and they form a hostile and alien elite, perhaps they should not wield the power over our society that they have.” If such ideas ever attained widespread legitimacy, it might spawn political and social movements that could bring about a marked reduction in Jewish power and influence. Jeffrey Herf’s denial of the existence of International Jewry may be based in a desire to maintain the Jewish community’s elite status in the Western world.

Churchill and Holocaust Revisionism

In June of 1941, British code-breakers at Bletchley Park were intercepting and reading the most secret communications of the German enemy. Gilbert claims that decoded top-secret messages about the alleged mass murder of Jews and non-Jews in the German-occupied Soviet Union were shown to Churchill. In response, the Prime Minister emphatically stated in his radio broadcast of 24 August 1941, that “whole districts are being exterminated,” and concluded with this judgment: “We are in the presence of a crime without a name.”38

On August 27, and September 1, 6, and 11, 1941, Churchill was shown German police decrypts reporting on the execution of thousands of Jews on Soviet territory.39 This information is consistent with the Holocaust revisionist position. As far back as the mid-1970s, Revisionist scholar Arthur Butz made the point that this is the one part of the Holocaust legend that contains a kernel of truth. During the war between Germany and the Soviet Union, thousands of Jews and non-Jews were shot by German police units and auxiliaries of local police in their attempt to stop the guerilla warfare being waged against them.40 Brutality was practiced by both the Soviets and the Germans.

On 27 August 1941, the Bletchley Park code-breakers informed Churchill: “The fact that the [German] Police [in the Soviet Union] are killing all Jews that fall into their hands should by now be sufficiently well appreciated. It is not therefore proposed to continue reporting these butcheries specifically, unless so requested.”41

Gilbert admits there is nothing in Bletchley Park decrypts about the alleged mass shooting of 33,000 Jews at Babi Yar near Kiev in September 1941. Therefore, should one conclude that this atrocity never took place? Not according to Gilbert: he says that German police units in Russia were cautioned by Berlin “not to compromise their ciphers.”42 Gilbert encourages his readers to conclude that this alleged mass killing took place, although supposedly a top-secret message about it was never sent out.

Gilbert believes that Churchill received sufficient details from other sources about the mass killing of Jews in the Soviet Union, and in response, sent the Jewish Chronicle a personal message, which was published in full on 14 November 1941. It read in part: “None has suffered more cruelly than the Jew,” and he referred to “the unspeakable evils wrought on the bodies and spirits of men by Hitler and his vile regime.”43

In London on 29 October 1942, Christian and Jewish leaders led a public protest against the alleged mass murders of Jews that were supposedly taking place in the German concentration camps. Churchill, who was in the United States at the time, addressed the gathering by way of a letter that was read by the Archbishop of Canterbury. It stated in part:

“I cannot refrain …to protest against the Nazi atrocities inflicted on the Jews…The systematic cruelties to which the Jewish people—men, women, and children—have been exposed under the Nazi regime are amongst the most terrible events of history, and place an indelible stain upon all who perpetuate and instigate them. Free men and women denounce these vile crimes…”44

In December 1942, Churchill was shown a report from a Polish Catholic member of the Resistance, Jan Karski. He claimed to have seen Jews being forced with great brutality into cattle cars, and then taken to an unknown “extermination location.”45 In response, Anthony Eden of the War Cabinet wanted to issue a public declaration. “It was known,” he asserted, “that Jews were being transferred to Poland from enemy-occupied countries, for example, Norway: and it might be that these transfers were being made with a view to wholesale extermination of Jews.”46 (Notice that Eden said the exterminations “might be” happening, and not that they were in fact happening. This suggests that he was skeptical of the “evidence” regarding the alleged mass exterminations of Jews. More on Eden in a moment.)

The Allied Declaration, supported by Great Britain, the United States, the Soviet Union, and other members of the Allied cause, was published on 17 December 1942, and it had considerable political impact, just as Churchill wished. Its central paragraph condemned “in the strongest possible terms” what was described as “this bestial policy of cold-blooded extermination.”47

On 19 December 1942, Polish-Jewish official Samuel Zygielbojm appealed to Churchill to save the one and a quarter million Polish Jews who were still alive and were in danger of “being exterminated” by the Germans. As Cohen points out, there is no record of any reply from Churchill, and no Allied operation was initiated to halt the alleged slaughter.48

In June 1944, Churchill viewed a Jewish Agency report on the workings of the alleged “Nazi gas chambers” in the concentration camps. He sent a memorandum to Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden, asking: “Foreign Secretary, what can be done? What can be said?” The evidence indicates that Churchill wanted to issue another Allied threat of retribution, but the Foreign Office said that too many such pronouncements had already been made.49

On 6 July 1944, Foreign Secretary Eden informed Churchill of an appeal he received from Zionist diplomat Chaim Weizmann, that the British government should take steps to mitigate the “appalling slaughter of Jews in Hungary.”50 We let Professor Cohen pick up the story here:

“Now Weizmann reported mistakenly that 60,000 Jews were being gassed and burned to death each day at Birkenau (the death camp at Auschwitz II). Eden told Churchill that this figure might well be an exaggeration. But on the next day, Eden forwarded an additional report to Churchill, describing the four crematoria at the camp, with a gassing and burning capacity of 60,000 each day. Some 40,000 Hungarian Jews had already been deported and killed there. Over the past one year and a half, some one-and-a-half million Jews had been done to death in the camp.”51

Cohen, a firm believer in the traditional version of the Holocaust, still highlighted the exaggerations in the story. Buried in a footnote he writes; “It seems that the Zionist figure of 60,000 per day, should in fact have been 6,000.”52 As of the date of this writing, even anti-Revisionist Holocaust historians would point out that the figure of 1,500,000 Jews being murdered at Auschwitz-Birkenau is another exaggeration of around 540,000 deaths! Robert Jan van Pelt, widely considered to be a contemporary expert on the alleged mass murder of Jews at this concentration camp, wrote in 2002 that total number of Jewish deaths at the site was 960,000.53 The important lesson here is this: we have evidence from a respected academic source that, during the war, Churchill was being handed exaggerated atrocity information, to say the very least.

On 7 July 1944, Churchill approved the bombing of Auschwitz by the British Air Force, but the operation was never carried out.54 Four days later, on 11 July, Churchill issued his oft-quoted declaration on the Holocaust: “There is no doubt that this is probably the greatest and most horrible crime ever committed in the whole history of the world, and it has been done by scientific machinery by nominally civilized men in the name of a great State and one of the leading races of Europe.”55

At the end of August 1944, Churchill’s son showed his father a copy of the full report of four escapees from the Auschwitz “extermination camp,” an official document that had been published a month and a half earlier by the War Refugee Board in Washington. Before this, Churchill had only seen a summary version. Gilbert comments: “Not for the first time, Randolph had alerted his father to an aspect of the Jewish fate that had not reached the Prime Minister through official channels.”56

Gilbert points out that in the latter part of 1944, Berlin issued a statement denouncing at least some of the reports about the deportations to Auschwitz, claiming they were “false from beginning to end.”57 Gilbert is unclear on exactly what the Germans were claiming to be false.

Despite all of the authoritative declarations Churchill made or supported during the war with regard to the “reality” of the Nazi extermination of the Jews, when the war ended he made an astonishing statement that casts doubt on the sincerity of all of these wartime pronouncements. In a speech before the House of Commons on 1 August 1946, he emphatically declared that he knew nothing of the alleged Nazi mass murder of Jews while the Second World War was taking place. We quote him verbatim: “I must say that I had no idea, when the war came to an end, of the horrible massacres which had occurred; the millions and millions that have been slaughtered. That dawned on us gradually after the struggle was over.”58

As far back as 1985, Professor Cohen stated the dilemma in these terms. He says it is debatable how familiar the Prime Minister was with the Intelligence information regarding the alleged Nazi extermination camps, but by “July, 1944 at the very latest, Churchill was supplied by the Zionists with very precise details of the murderous capacity of Auschwitz.”59 In light of this, Cohen asks, how should we interpret Churchill’s August 1946 denial of knowledge of the mass murder of Europe’s Jews during the war?60

The reader should take careful note of the implications of Churchill’s words. If Sir Winston was not aware during the war of the alleged mass killings of Jews, and if he and his associates realized only after the war ended that these supposed mass murders took place, then all of his “authoritative” declarations we listed above about the mass murder of Jews taking place during the war were just unconfirmed and baseless allegations in his estimation.

Bizarre inconsistencies like this are exactly what the Holocaust Revisionist hypothesis would predict, and this is why even the most anti-Revisionist reader should consider Churchill’s statements from a Revisionist perspective. Revisionism states that many of the wartime claims of the Allies and Zionists in regard to the alleged extermination of the Jews were simply false propaganda, designed to serve ulterior Allied and Zionist political agendas.

Churchill was well aware that representations of the Jewish fate at the hands of the Germans were linked to plans for a Zionist state in Palestine. Indeed, Gilbert points out: “In Churchill’s mind, the Jewish fate in Europe and the Jewish future in Palestine were inextricably linked.”61 In his seminal Revisionist work The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, Arthur Butz made a somewhat parallel point: “”The Zionist character of the [Nazi extermination] propaganda is quite clear; note that, as a rule, the persons who were pressing for measures to remove Jews from Europe (under the circumstances a routine and understandable proposal) coupled such proposals with demands that such Jews be resettled in Palestine, which shows that there was much more in the minds of Zionist propagandists than mere assistance to refugees and victims of persecution.”62

Throughout his entire book, Gilbert discusses how the unrelenting Churchill, being wedded to Zionist policy, was up against the resistance of many factions within his own government and from around the world who were opposed to establishing a Jewish state in Palestine. They realized it would end in disaster for the indigenous people of the Middle East and for British interests in general.63 In a situation such as this, one can readily see how “Nazi extermination” propaganda would be useful to Churchill—it would silence opposition to Zionist aims and create mass sympathy for the future Jewish state.64 There is evidence that is consistent with this interpretation. In December 1942, Colonial Secretary Oliver Stanley put the request to the Prime Minister that 4500 Bulgarian Jewish children, with 500 accompanying adults, be allowed to exit Bulgaria for Palestine, adding that British pubic opinion had been “much roused by the recent reports of the systematic extermination of the Jews in Axis and Axis-controlled countries.” Churchill replied: “Bravo!”65

Professor Cohen notes the strange inconsistency between Winston Churchill’s public statements about the Holocaust and his lack of action to do anything to stop it: “But against the frequent expression of his horror at Nazi crimes, one must record the almost total absence of any meaningful gesture or action by him to save Hitler’s Jewish victims—either when in Opposition, or in the position of supreme power, which was his from 1940 to 1945.”66

I ask the most hard-core believer in the traditional Holocaust story to ponder this dilemma. During the war, Churchill was making authoritative pronouncements about the “etched-in-stone” fact of the Nazi extermination of the Jews—and after the war, he tells British parliament that he had no idea such “exterminations” took place during the war, and only realized their “reality” after the war was ended! To say the least, Churchill’s statements are consistent with the point that Professor Butz made decades ago: the first claims about the “Nazi extermination of the Jews” made during the war were not based on one scrap of credible intelligence data.67

Butz’s revisionist hypothesis is further supported by the fact that even academic “Holocaust experts” will have to admit that, during the war, Churchill was handed exaggerated data in regard to the number of Jewish deaths, as we have shown in this essay. Finally, Churchill’s public outcries regarding the alleged Nazi extermination of the Jews were declarations that, “coincidentally,” served British and Zionist military and political agendas.

We will end here with a short note regarding Churchill’s 1 August 1946 statement that the “reality” of the Holocaust “dawned on us gradually after the struggle was over.”68 Gilbert points out that Churchill used what was found at some German concentration camps at the war’s end as “proof” of the “Holocaust.”69 A thorough discussion of this is beyond the scope of this short essay, so I refer the reader to the Revisionist studies of the topic.70

Michael J. Cohen, Churchill and the Jews (Frank Cass, 1985); Martin Gilbert, Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship (Henry Holt, 2007); Jeffrey Herf, The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda During World War II and the Holocaust (Belknap Press, 2006).
Gilbert, p. 37.
Ibid., p.31.
Ibid., p.33.
Ibid., p.31.
Winston Churchill, “Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People,” Illustrated Sunday Herald, 8 February 1920. Online: Gilbert reproduces the article in facsimile, but it is virtually unreadable.
Gilbert, pp. 40-41.
Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter, Roots of Radicalism: Jews, Christians and the New Left (Oxford University Press, 1982), pp.84-89; Robert Payne, The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler (Popular Library, 1973), pp.124-125.
Gilbert, p. 104.
Ibid., p.40.
Winston S. Churchill, The Gathering Storm (Bantam Books, 1948), p.48.
Herf, p.7.
Ibid., p.3.
Gilbert, p.40.
Ibid., p.42.
Churchill, p.51.
Gilbert, p.xv.
Ibid., p.27.
Ibid., p.28.
Ibid., pp.69, 78-79, 112.
Cohen, p.195; Gilbert, p.165.
Cohen, p.328.
Neal Gabler, An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood (Crown Publishers, 1988), p.342.
Ibid., p.343.
Ibid., p.343.
Ibid., pp.342-343.
Cohen, pp.186-187.
Gilbert, p.74.
Ibid., p.132.
Gilbert, p.132.
Quoted in Francis R. Nicosia, The Third Reich and the Palestine Question (University of Texas Press, 1985), p.121.
For a further discussion of this topic, see Paul Grubach, “Does ‘International Jewry’ Exist?: Grubach Contra Herf.” Online:
Herf, p.265.
Jared Diamond, “Who Are the Jews?,” Natural History, November 1993, pp. 12-19.
The following is just a small sample of the works that document Jewish power and influence in the Western world. Alexander Bloom, Prodigal Sons: The New York Intellectuals and Their World (Oxford University Press, 1986); Neal Gabler, An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood (Crown Publishers, 1988); Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State (University of Chicago Press, 1993); Ernest van den Haag, The Jewish Mystique (Stein and Day, 1969); Jacob Heilbrunn, They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons (Doubleday, 2008); Paul Findley, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront the Israeli Lobby (Lawrence Hill & Co., 1985); Arthur Liebman, Jews and the Left (John Wiley & Sons, 1979); Alfred Lilienthal, The Zionist Connection II: What Price Peace? (North American, 1982); Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Praeger, 1998); Kevin MacDonald, Cultural Insurrections: Essays on Western Civilization, Jewish Influence, and Anti-Semitism (The Occidental Press, 2007); Janine Roberts, “The Influence of Israel in Westminster,” The Palestine Chronicle , 24 May 2008. Online:; Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter, Roots of Radicalism: Jews, Christians, and the New Left (Oxford University Press, 1982); Charles Silberman, A Certain People: American Jews and Their Lives Today (Summit Books, 1985).
Gilbert, p.186.
Ibid., pp.186-187.
Arthur R. Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry (Theses & Dissertations Press, 2003), pp.241-242. Online:
Gilbert, p.186.
Ibid., p.187.
Ibid., p.187.
Gilbert, p.192.
Ibid., p.194.
Ibid., p.195,
Cohen, p.271.
Ibid., p.290.
Ibid., p.294.
Ibid., p.368fn120.
Robert Jan van Pelt, The Case for Auschwitz: Evidence from the Irving Trial (Indiana University Press, 2002), p.116.
Cohen, pp. 294-296.
Cohen, p. 291; Gilbert, pp.215, 216.
Gilbert, p.219.
Ibid., p.220.
Gilbert, p. 257; Cohen, pp. 266-267.
Cohen, p.267.
Ibid., p.268.
Gilbert, p.188.
Butz, p.114.
Gilbert, pp. 46, 58-59, 71-72, 76, 77, 78, 93, 102, 117, 144, 154, 157, 202, 205, 222, 229, 230, 232, 235, 237, 246, 249, 285.
Ibid., pp. 109, 180, 213, 243, 245, 257.
Ibid., p.193.
Cohen, p.325.
Butz, p.113.
Gilbert, p.257; Cohen, p.267.
Gilbert, pp.240-241.
A good place to start would be Ernst Gauss, ed., Dissecting the Holocaust: The Growing Critique of “Truth” and “Memory” (Theses & Dissertations Press, 2000), pp. 285-309.

from the website “Inconvenient history”.


Then, finally, after “JUDEA DECLARES WAR ON GERMANY” in 1933 (THIS is the year WW2 started and let noone tell you differently), who, of all people, did Great Britain decide to have as SECRETARY OF WAR?

Well I never! A JEW!

And note, this jew was also responsible for the conscription of British men into the British Army to fight a battle with that “Great Dictator” on behalf of the jews.

One of the most mysterious episodes of the second world war was how did the Franco-British armies, superior in numbers to the Germans, whose French tanks were of higher quality than the Panzers, whose Franco-German border was protected by an impregnable defence, come to be crushed by the enemy?
The pre-war issue most exercising the Government was not Hitler, but what the press had termed “The Massacre on the Roads”. To solve this acute problem, the Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, appointed as Transport Minister a dynamic young man whose vigour, as a junior member of the government, had created quite an impact. He came from the “right” class. Had served with distinction in the First World War. He had been Mentioned in Dispatches.

His father had been an officer in the Royal Fusiliers, followed by a career as a cotton broker. His mother was similarly socially “correct”, with a finishing school background and also an author of children’s books. His family had been settled in England for hundred and fifty years and were committed to their Jewish faith. Indeed, he had only failed to make his public school’s Rugby team because it would have entailed playing on the Sabbath.

After the war, in which he reached the rank of Major, he served as a King’s Messenger; a role of extreme responsibility, which carried with it the onerous duty of personally delivering the most important of state documents. He then went on to Oxford University where he was elected President of the Union, became a Barrister, and then entered politics. Chamberlain appointed him Minister of Transport, and immediately the nation felt the impact of his personality.

He created driving tests, also a code of behaviour that had to be followed; Road crossings were introduced, marked by a flashing beacon. In a twelve-month period, in the face of increasing road traffic, Injuries were reduced by 12,805; Deaths by 822.

Isaac Leslie Hore-Belisha had arrived.

Hore Belisha

Hitler now dominated the Horizon. War was inevitable. The British Army was in a state of crises with twenty thousand men below strength and deeply unpopular. On the 25th May 1937 Belisha was appointed Secretary of State for War.

He called in Sir Isadore Salmon, head of Lyons Corner House to advise on catering. Barracks were to be centrally heated, provided with spring beds, showers, recreation rooms, radios. Married men could sleep with their wives out of Barracks. Soldiers under 21 could sleep at their parent’s home. Generous pensions were to be provided. Men with dentures were to be accepted. Soldiers leaving the service were to be trained, on full pay, for a civilian occupation. He replaced the tunic with the practical battle dress. Promotion was to be on merit.

The result was that recruitment rocketed with the Territorial Army doubling in size.

There now occurred an extraordinary side effect:

The British League of Fascists lost its most prominent member, General J.F.C. “Boney” Fuller. “Because,” he announced “of what a Jew was doing for the army”.

The Army at this stage was becoming mechanised and Belisha appointed a Tank officer to the command of what would become the 1st Armoured Division. The Chief of the Imperial General Staff opposed this because it would involve cavalry officers taking orders from an officer from the Army’s mechanical branch.

Belisha sacked him. He then sacked the Adjutant General, and went on to sack The Master General of Ordinance.

He now forced through, in the face of fierce opposition, conscription. In cabinet he was compared to Stalin. Never the less his actions delighted the Prime Minister.

At the outbreak of war France’s border was protected by the impregnable Maginot Line. Belgium, demonstrating “The Triumph of Hope over experience,” had declared itself neutral and forbade the extension of the Line along its border. This meant that an attack on France would come via Belgium.

The Allied plan, Plan D, was to advance into Belgium and there, because of overall superiority, defeat the Germans. Belisha, far from happy with this Plan, wanted the original defence system strengthened. This was to be done by building 240 pillboxes (small forts).

The Army told him it would take 3 weeks to construct a pillbox. Belisha ascertained that it would take 3 days. Accordingly he brought to France a team of Civil Engineers to do this. Unfortunately the Army resented them and gave minimal co-operation.

Belisha now visited France, and attended a meeting of senior officers, which included the commander of the British force, Lord Gort.

A shocked Belisha found that the 1st item on the agenda was “Over which shoulder should a soldier carry his steel helmet when it was not on his head?” He also found that only 2 pillboxes had been constructed.

On his return he reported the situation to the Army Council, and informed the Prime Minister who said that if he wanted to sack Lord Gort he would support him. Belisha refused to do this. Instead he sent General Packenham Walsh to convey to Lord Gort the Army Council’s disquiet at the state of his defences.

In doing this Belisha had committed a breach of etiquette. An officer can only be reprimanded by a senior. Packenham Walsh was junior to Lord Gort.

This faux pas increased the already deep hostility to Belisha to a blinding rage. Lord Gort referred to him as Belli; His Chief of Staff General Sir Henry Pownell now referred to him as a “Shallow brained, charlatan, political Jew boy”. Michael Foot, later to become leader of the Labour party thought of him as “a shit”. Chips Chanon a prominent socialite referred to him as “An Oily Jew”.

An army song went:

“Onward Christian Soldiers,
You have nothing to fear
Israel Hore-Belisha will lead you from the rear,
Clothed by Monty Burton
Fed on Lyons Pies
Die for Jewish freedom
As a Briton always dies.
Other officers were referring to him as Horeb Elisha.

Aware of this viscous attitude the Chief of the Imperial General Staff visited France. On his return he supported the Armies attitude, and reported to the King who called in the Prime minister. On January 4th 1940 Belisha was sacked.

On May 10th the Germans attacked through Belgium, and the British Army following plan D advanced to combat the enemy. They were then completely out flanked, and but for the miracle of Dunkirk would have been annihilated.

After this debacle Belisha was asked, “why were you dismissed?” “Jew boy.” was his reply.

from the July 2008 Edition of the Jewish Magazine


But freaks aren’t freaks when they can buy their way out of it.

HELLSTORM (or “Churchill was a genocidal c*nt!”)

Posted in "Terrorism" by earthling on May 21, 2015


Posted in Geo-Political Warfare, Political History by earthling on January 25, 2015

Who runs Germany? Not Germans that’s for sure.

You have been re-educated after the second World War to believe you genocided a people which you did not. Since then, that people and others have rewritten your Constitution, coerced you into keeping your mouths shut IF you DO your homework and recognise the truth and put you away if you dare speak out.

“Je suis Charlie” = “I am Israel”.

This lady is approaching the end of her life (I hope she is around to a very ripe old age) and your government will not have the guts to arrest her and put her on trial because, then, there would be an outcry and her story would get out – the last thing they wish for.


But the truth is, yes, there is going to be a huge anniversary of “Auschwitz liberation” where the Red Army are going to be heralded as liberating a “Death Camp” which didn’t exist PLUS what is going to be ignored is the little fact, fully admitted in 2010 by the Russian state, that the Katyn Forest massacre – blamed on the Nazis by Stalin and his jewish politburo – was actually carried out BY the Red Army.


You have your German economy, your BMW and Audi, Bosch and AEG, your “exacting standards” of precision in design and production and the pride which goes with it.

What’s missing is your soul. You gave that away almost 70 years ago and you’ve forgotten what it is.

A Brit! Speaking on behalf of Germany? I must be insane!

No. Not at all!

UK Parliament Archives: No Gas Chambers! German re-education

Posted in Uncategorized by earthling on December 21, 2014



This has to be dedicated to a German called Ernst Zundel.

Ernst Zundel

Ernst Zundel

I have no reason to love germans at all but then if I hated the population of a country because I despise one of that population for personal reasons, I’d be an idiot.

Germany was framed and is still being framed. And, contrary to Alex Harvey’s Hitler spin off of his song “Framed” where Alex is taking the piss out of Hitler, Hitler WAS framed! Just as Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gadaffi were.


I don’t know about you but I’m getting just a tad tired of a consistent flurry of outright, unbearable lies in life. I’ve had to endure them personally and, for the last 6 or 7 years (as this blog is a testament to in part) I’ve recognised (and verified) how deeply the deceptions go from a historical (even recent history, Iraq being a prime but not nearly the only example) and global perspective. It’s hard coming through the lies of a personal tragedy but when such events highly tune your antenna to widespread lies and deception throughout your entire life, perpetrated by what you took to be, somehow, the “well deserved” elite (granted that perception didn’t last long after my 10th or 12th year of life) – government, establishment who protected the people of this country (the UK) and/or the West in general from “bogeymen” and terrorists and potential “Nazis” who may arise again. Perhaps, even, the Falkland islanders would send ship-loads of sheep to the UK with nuclear dirty bombs hidden up their ass which the Falklanders procured from rabid crazies from Pakistan.

But sure, 40 odd years of believing that Hitler was a wanker creates a fairly large momentum such that, when faced with masses of evidence of fact (not theory, but pure fact) illustrating he wasn’t exactly as you were taught in your history classes and that there was a substantial body of fact which you had not been given about the circumstances, environment and timeline of WW1 and WW2, PLUS a total lack of evidenced ‘fact’ regarding those stories of gas chambers and 6 million jews gassed in Auschwitz and the other camps (4 million in Auschwitz literally being revised to 1.5 million as an example) and stories of soap and candlesticks etc.

Please first of all, watch this video covering points Ernst Zundel made regarding the re-education of Germany and recognise, then, David Cameron vowing to continue that re-education.

Please note from the following that there is not ONE mention of gas chambers or gassings at all within the concentration camps. The closest statement comes from Brendan Bracken in 1944 (He was, of all things, the British “Minister of Information” – George Orwell would have loved him then!). But while he is reported to have used the word “suffocation”, it is not “gassing”. Even after the war ended in 1945, there were no reports of gassings. I have trawled our Parliamentary archives searching for any mention of gas chambers whatsoever during and after the war. There are none.

However, what there is, is long speeches concentrating on the need to “educate” (or “re-educate”) the German people – in real terms: propagandise them to believe Allied propaganda – that the entire german people were involved in the genocide/homicide of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people. Even then, it is PEOPLE, not just jews! However, more than “gassings”, statements and fact actually point to typhus.

Of course, when it comes to the propagandising of Allied countries populations – that would be much easier to achieve considering we would never question our own “machine”! At the time of course. Today? Very different even though there are still millions who suck up and digest the putrid filth of lies our governments and media feed us.


HL Deb 13 July 1944 vol 132 cc916-34 916

I should like to say here with what great satisfaction I hailed the excellent speech made on July 6 by the Minister of Information. On that ocasion he was dealing with the wholesale massacre of Jews from Hungary in the suffocation camp of Auschwitz, and he then said that the General Staff were deeply involved in this. He was quite right; they are the real culprits for everything that has happened to afflict humanity for generations past. Mr. Brendan Bracken indicated that they will all be brought to trial, and I hope that he will insist on that.

He also said something further which I am sure will be highly unwelcome to the 922 right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Chichester, when he said that the German nation is responsible also for what is happening. Dead right too!

It is then interesting that, when one searches the parliament archives for all speeches made in July of 1944 by Brendan Bracken (Minister of Information), the July 6th speech has been removed. 

MOI Brendan Bracken



HL Deb 01 May 1945 vol 136 cc61-97 61
§ 2.7 P.m.



Now I want to say a word from a different angle. If I seem to end on a more controversial note I apologize in advance. As I see it, there is a great temptation for us in this country to focus all our thoughts upon the terrible happenings in these concentration camps and upon the way our British prisoners have been treated by Germans in prisoners-of-war camps. It may he easy and natural that that should be so, but the danger is that if we fix our attention too much upon the ghastly misdeeds of the Germans in these camps we may fail to see our own shortcomings in the past or our dangers in the future. I already see the red light. I do not know whether 68 your Lordships saw two letters which appeared in the Daily Mail, one last Friday and one last Saturday. Let me read the one which appeared on Friday, April 27: Sir,—Emaciated bodies [in atrocity pictures] are more probably evidence of typhus deaths, the result of Allied destruction of habitations. Now publish some pictures of civilian dead of Le Havre and other places destroyed by soldiery of Jew-blighted United Nations. Your one-sided presentation of horrors of war is un-English, and worthy only of slimy, Jewish owners of your paper.

§ The other letter is signed by a sergeant of the British Liberation Army. I will read the first part of it: Sir,—A story with a terrible lesson in it was told in Paris recently by Major-General G. W. R. Templer, Field-Marshal Montgomery’s Director of Military Government and Civil Affairs. Talking to correspondents in Paris, he said that while he was having his hair trimmed by his barber, a man from Wimbledon, the conversation turned to atrocities. ‘About those atrocity stories and those terrible pictures,’ said the barber, ‘is there any truth in them?’ General Templer confessed he was shocked. The barber confessed he was sceptical and added that when he went into a pub in Wimbledon none of his friends there believed a word of the stories from Belsen, Gotha and Buchenwald.

§ The letter goes on: There is a terrible prospect if there exists in this country now even a small body of opinion which will not accept this evidence. For if it is not accepted now there is little chance of its being remembered ten years from now, when, for reasons of self-interest or of intellectual fashion, there may be people who want to forget how narrowly we escaped the price of Nazism. I see the red light for another reason. Is this the time to vote against the continuance of that grand training corps for cadets, the A.T.C., or the continuance of the Army Cadet Force? Yet I see reports in the Press that at a local branch meeting of the Co-operative Society that was done, and it was also done at a meeting of a local council on which there is a Socialist majority. Ought we not at the same time as we look outwardly at Germany and at her unparalleled depravity, to look inwardly towards ourselves and vow that never again will we trust the Germans or be caught napping? What would have happened to the people of this country if these islands had been successfully invaded by Germany? In my belief it was only prevented by the mercy of Divine Providence which watches over the destiny of our race. Far worse would have happened here than has ever happened at Buchenwald or Dachau. Our 69 men, women and children would have had a fate beside which the fate of the luckless political prisoners of Germany would have been as nothing. If I may paraphrase a well-known saying, “There into these camps but for the grace of God went we.” We know something about the German plan. It was to reduce the population of these islands from 45,000,000 to 15,000,000 people. In other words, two-thirds of the population was to be deliberately put to death by starvation and by torture in a manner similar to what has been seen in these concentration camps. It is my firm conviction that what has happened at Dachau and Buchenwald would be but a pale reflection of what would have happened in German concentration camps set up in this country.

§ In the early part of my speech I ventured to make the suggestion contained in my Motion that the Government might take certain action for the reform of the Germans themselves. I now venture to make a second suggestion to your Lordships and especially to the Government. It is that, as the German nation has placed itself outside the pale of civilized nations, as a mark of the abhorrence of this country of all that the German nation has stood for and all the deeds of which they have been guilty, not for fifty years shall British nationality be given to any German. Let us not only look out at the Germans and do the right thing by them, but let us look in at ourselves and vow that never again will we be led away by the pacifism that won the East Fulham by-election in 1933, that never again will we leave ourselves unprotected, and never again will we allow this great country to run the danger of becoming soft. Rather let us remember that it is individual virility, the endurance and gallantry of the individual soldier, sailor and airman of both sexes, which have pulled us through this war, particularly during those grim twelve months when we stood unsupported by our gallant American and Russian Allies who since then have fought so magnificently side by side with us. Not till now have our eyes been opened to what our real danger has been. Not till a few weeks ago did the world know what was really happening in these concentration camps. Just as between the wars so many of us—and I am as guilty as anybody else—refused absolutely to believe that either Hitler or the German nation could be so evil as to plunge Europe into a second world war, so, up till now, have we all, or very nearly all, refused to open our eyes and to believe the stories which have been percolating through during the last twelve years. Now, we know the truth about these camps and other things, and from now on there will be no excuse if we do not guard ourselves against any possible repetition of our peril. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.


Now, please take particular note of what Earl Stanhope says and what he does not say:

EARL STANHOPE  Your Lordships will remember that the United States forces ran into Buchenwald camp on a Wednesday. It was taken over on the Saturday by a special medical unit—an Evacuation Unit it is called—and we only got to the camp exactly a week later, that is to say on the following Saturday. By that time the condition of that camp was, quite obviously, very different from what it had been when the United States forces first arrived ten days earlier. None the less, we were able, I think, to make a full investigation concerning what the conditions of the camp had been, and to satisfy ourselves of the truth of what your Lordships and the public had read in the Press.

The prisoners told us—and it was quite obvious—that there was no room to lie on their backs, because, of course, a man so lying takes up more than nine inches of space. The only way in which they could lie was on their sides supporting their heads on their elbows…….

They had nothing whatever to lie upon except bare boards. They were originally served out with a blanket each, but of course that went into rags, and they had nothing in the way of covering throughout the winter except such rags and such remnants of blankets as they could collect. That was bad enough if they had been in good health. But there was a hut similar to the one which I have described which was full of tubercular and dysentry cases. Your Lordships can picture what living conditions in those huts must have been with dysentry patients on the second, third and fourth shelves. Those were the conditions in which those men lived. They were given as food a thin bowl of soup and a chunk of bread, and they earned these only if they had a metal ticket showing that they were fit to do work, either in a munition factory situated nearby or in the quarries. If they failed to do that, the metal ticket, with its right to food, was taken away from them. How they lived in that case I really do not know. They told us that they scavenged among potato peelings and such like in order to keep alive.

Much the most painful thing that I saw was the condition of those who were still alive. The corpses we saw were merely skeletons covered with skin. They did not look like human beings. But living people who were lying on mattresses, and being carefully tended by the United States’ medical authorities, had thighs that were not so thick as my wrist. Men lifted up their legs to show me bruises and cuts which had been inflicted upon 72 them. Children whom we met were nothing but eyes. And we were told that in spite of all the wonderfully fine attention and skill devoted to them by the medical authorities of the United States Army, still a large number of those people would die. At the time when the United States Army reached the camp, deaths were taking place at the rate of a hundred a day. The day before we got to the camp the rate was still thirty-five. I can well understand, as my noble friend Lord Denham has said, that it is impossible for people in this country to realize that such things can be true. But they are true. We have seen them, and we have satisfied ourselves that what has been described in the Press and elsewhere is true. I met two Pressmen while I was out there. They were rather hurt that we should have been sent out to verify what they had already described. I said to them: “Well, you must remember that the public at home cannot realize that there are people of this kind in the world, and they think that perhaps you have been running this for a Press stunt. That is why we people have been sent here to see for ourselves, and to describe for ourselves.”

What are the facts? Why were these things clone? My noble friend Lord Addison and I have asked ourselves that question both during our trip and since. Why did not the Germans feed their prisoners sufficiently well to get a full day’s work out of them, and then when they were unfit any longer, from some cause or other, to do that work, shoot them? Why waste food in keeping them going for a few weeks longer? Why all these elaborate arrangements by which they were taken away in trailers to the crematorium and there put into ovens and their bodies burned? I do not know. I do not think that my noble friend Lord Addison or any of us really know. All we can say is that there seems to be some sort of sadism among the German people which encourages them to like that kind of thing. What is at the foundation of it all, however, is the fact that the German nation have been brought up to believe that they are a superior race; and they treat human beings of other races, and of their own when they disagree with them (because most of these prisoners were Germans), in the same way as a cruel little boy might treat a chicken, or as somebody might deal with a rat……

But the clearing up is going on steadily and rapidly, and when people go round them in some weeks time those camps will look very different from the way they look to-day. It must be remembered that the camps are all in the centre of Germany, or in Poland, far away from Allied bases. That means that the petrol and the stores and everything else have to be brought for very long distances. I know that General Eisenhower hesitated to ask even one delegation to visit them, because every one of us had to be taken there and back. Still more would that apply to the Germans. The Germans are isolated in their towns. There is no traffic of any sort; there are no motor cars, of course, and no trains.

This is much less a British problem than an Allied problem. So far as I know, there is only one of these camps, that at Belsen, within the British area; and that is obviously not one which ought to be visited, because it was discovered to be full of typhus, and we do riot want to add to our many problems in occupied Germany by spreading typhus in regions which I hope our troops are going to 74 occupy for many years. The worst of all these camps—so we were told by prisoners—were those at Auschwitz in Poland, fairly near to Cracow, and at Dachau, which has just been captured and which is near Munich. Neither of those is in the British area. I submit to your Lordships, therefore, that it is not really practical to think of sending Germans to see these camps. I think that the other suggestion made by my noble friend is very much more to the point, namely, that when things settle down and cinemas are opened, and the curfew, which now operates at six o’clock, comes to an end, the Germans should be compelled to go to the cinemas and see the photographs taken of these camps, taken soon after their occupation by Allied troops. I think that that would be wise. My noble friend seemed to imply, however, that the Germans did not know what was going on in these camps. It may be that they did not know the full details.


LORD VANSITTART   Now that was the position from 1933 to 1939 when the concentration camps were still few and sparsely inhabited. How much more did everyone know when they were filled to bursting with foreign slaves and prisoners, and when they were strung out in profusion all over Germany! You were told on the wireless last night, and very truly, that in 1939 there were only 1,600 people in Dachau—and God knows that was enough. Since then there have been 33,000, and that is typical. Of course they knew. And I would point out to the Germanophiles who seek to deny it that they are just contradicting themselves. At one moment they are saying that the Germans did not know, and in the next they are trying to explain the absence of any resistance movement in Germany comparable to that in occupied countries by saying that they knew so well that they were too terrified of the Gestapo and concentration camps to take any action. Does that make sense?

Only 33,000 people in the Dachau camp while it is then stated that this was “typical” (as a number) throughout the camps. 


From Wikipedia:

Dachau was the concentration camp that was in operation the longest from March 1933 to April 1945; nearly all twelve years of the Nazi regime. Dachau’s close proximity to Munich, where Hitler came to power and where the Nazi Party had its official headquarters, made Dachau a convenient location. From 1933 to 1938, the prisoners were mainly German nationals detained for political reasons. After the Reichspogromnacht or Kristallnacht, 30,000 male Jewish citizens were deported to concentration camps. More than 10,000 of them were interned in Dachau alone. As the German military occupied other European states, citizens from across Europe were sent to concentration camps. Subsequently, the camp was used for prisoners of all sorts, from every nation occupied by the forces of the Third Reich.[39]

In the postwar years, the camp continued in use. From 1945 through 1948, the camp was used by the Allies as a prison for SS officers awaiting trial. After 1948, when hundreds of thousands of ethnic Germans were expelled from eastern Europe, it held Germans from Czechoslovakia until they could be resettled. It also served as a military base for the United States, which maintained forces in the country. It was closed in 1960. At the insistence of survivors, various memorials have been constructed and installed here.[40]

Demographic statistics vary but they are in the same general range. History will likely never know how many people were interned or died there, due to periods of disruption. One source gives a general estimate of over 200,000 prisoners from more than 30 countries for the Third Reich’s years, of whom two-thirds were political prisoners, including many Catholic priests, and nearly one-third were Jews. 25,613 prisoners are believed to have died in the camp and almost another 10,000 in its subcamps,[41] primarily from disease, malnutrition and suicide. In early 1945, a typhus epidemic occurred in the camp caused by poor sanitation and overcrowding, followed by an evacuation, in which large numbers of the prisoners died. Toward the end of the war, death marches to and from the camp caused the deaths of numerous unrecorded prisoners. After liberation, prisoners weakened beyond recovery by the starvation conditions continued to die.[citation needed]
Survivors of KZ Dachau demonstrate the operation of the crematorium by pushing a corpse into one of the ovens.[42]
Over the 12 years of use as a concentration camp, the Dachau administration recorded the intake of 206,206 prisoners and deaths of 31,951. Crematoria were constructed to dispose of the deceased. Visitors may now walk through the buildings and view the ovens used to cremate bodies, which hid the evidence of many deaths. It is claimed that in 1942, more than 3,166 prisoners in weakened condition were transported to Hartheim Castle near Linz, and were executed by poison gas because they were unfit.[39] Between January and April 1945 11,560 detainees died at KZ Dachau.[43]

Together with the much larger Auschwitz concentration camp, Dachau has come to symbolize the Nazi concentration camps. Konzentrationslager (KZ) Dachau lives in public memory as the second camp to be liberated by British or American Allied forces. It was one of the first places that firsthand journalist accounts and newsreels revealed to the rest of the world.


LORD ADDISON    The second reflection in my mind is that if you can intensify the egotism of a nation in twelve years to the extent that the Nazis have done, so that they become regardless of the sufferings of others, that dreadful fact really gives some small ground for hope. It is an illustration of what you can achieve by intensified propaganda. It gives perhaps some little reason to think that if the Allied Nations deliberately arrange for the teaching of opposite doctrines to German children over a long period of years we may begin to have some hope that the national point of view will be improved. But I cannot help thinking that long continued propaganda amongst the Germans that the rights of others must be recognized—prompted and assisted by the occupying authority over a long period of years—will be essential.

In the second place, I consider that the Allied Nations must set up an organization which contemplates the occupation of Germany and its deliberate re-education over a long period of years. How successful that will be is a matter upon which we can only speculate. But one is impressed by the fact that well-directed, sustained propaganda, in these days, while on the one side it is an immense danger, does also, on the other side, present a certain degree of hope. It affords us ground for hoping that we may be able, with the aid of propaganda, if it is well directed, gradually to change the point of view of the German children during a long period of years. I feel no reason whatever to hope that the world will be secure in the future unless, at the same time as force is applied to prevent the recurrence of war, there is a deliberate and sustained endeavour to re-educate the German people and to remould their minds.


German Concentration Camps (Films)

HC Deb 30 May 1945 vol 411 c211 211
44. Mr. E. P. Smith asked the Minister of Information whether, owing to the present difficulties, especially for the inhabitants of remote rural districts, of getting into the towns to attend cinema performances, he will cause exhibitions to be held in village halls of the Buchenwald and other films showing Nazi characteristics; and if he is aware that there is a strong desire in these areas that this should be done.
Mr. G. Lloyd Yes, Sir. I will give instructions that the Ministry’s mobile film projectors should be available for this purpose.
§Mr. Silverman Will the Minister see to it that any film which is shown in that way is shown without the objectionable interpolations which Mr. Speaker indicated the other day ought never to have been made?
Mr. Lloyd Yes, Sir.


Yet, fast forward to decades later and you find, only then, all the stories and statements about lampshades and gassings being thrown around. It is clear as day that the holocaust stories of such atrocities have been created after the event. There is absolutely no doubt about this. 

War Crimes

HC Deb 12 December 1989 vol 163 cc868-910

Mrs. Llin Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme) Two weeks ago, one of my constituents rang me up and told me, slowly and painfully, “I have never telephoned or spoken to an MP before but I must ring you about the war crimes debate. My family—85 of them—were killed in concentration camps. I am the only member of the family left.” Can the House imagine how the fingers of pain have reached out over the years to hold that lady so tightly that she cannot escape living with the horrors of what happened to her family?

In 1945, a parliamentary delegation was sent from this House to Buchenwald. It was less than three weeks after the allies had liberated that camp. The delegation prepared a report to the House. The final paragraph of it states: In preparing this report, we have endeavoured to write with restraint and objectivity, and to avoid obtruding personal reactions or emotional comments. We would conclude, however, by stating that it is our considered and unanimous opinion, on the evidence available to us, that a policy of steady starvation and inhuman brutality was carried out at Buchenwald for a very long period of time; and that such camps as this mark the lowest point of degradation to which humanity has yet descended. The memory of what we saw and heard at Buchenwald will ineffaceably haunt us for many years. The report was signed by Earl Stanhope, Lord Addison, Colonel Tom Wickham, Sir Archibald Southby, Mrs. Mavis Tate, Mr. Ness Edwards, Mr. Sydney Silverman, Mr. Graham White, Sir Henry Morris-Jones, and Mr. Tom Driberg. My father was a member of that delegation. His name was Ness Edwards. He was the hon. Member for Caerphilly for 29 years. I remember him telling me about the horrors of what went on in that camp. They are engraved for ever on my mind and heart.

There has been much talk tonight about the passage of time. I was but a child on the day when I opened the door to my father on his return. He stood there, grey and drawn, and said, “Do not touch me. I am covered with lice. Everyone in the camps is covered with lice. We have been deloused many times, but I am still covered with lice.” He could not sleep for many weeks, and he had nightmares for many years. It is said that Mrs. Mavis Tate never got over what she saw in the camp, for she died a number of years later.

My father spoke to me and to my brothers and sisters about what he had seen in the camp. He told us of the hanging gibbets. Human beings were put on hooks and hung from under their chins until they died. He told us that the people in charge of the camp rather liked tattoos, and they skinned people and used their skins to make lampshades. They discovered that, when people die, their skin is given to shrinking too quickly, so they tried skinning them alive. My father showed me photographs of piles of bodies on carts. Three weeks later, the allies had not had time to remove them all. He showed me photographs of men in thin clothes, photographs of skeletons, and photographs of men with haunted eyes. I will always remember the look in those men’s eyes—the look of utter bewilderment and incomprehension. They had been starved and beaten, yet their spirit was still there.

There comes a point when something must be done. For too long the House has ignored that delegation’s report. Tonight, I hope that every hon. Member will pay tribute to our former colleagues for going to that camp on our behalf, for bringing back that report to the House, and for showing the suffering of so many people. I hope that all hon. Members will show their respect for and commitment to doing what every member on that delegation would wish them to do, and that is to support the motion.

7.34 pm
§Mr. Churchill (Davyhulme) The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) spoke with deep emotion about the victims of war crimes. All hon. Members share that emotion. The crimes that we are discussing are among the darkest in the annals of man’s inhumanity to man. No unbiased person can doubt either the horror or the scale of the crimes in which 6 million innocent civilians—men, women and children, including Jews, gipsies, Communists and homosexuals—were herded into the gas chambers of the Third Reich. Hon. Members unanimously acknowledge and condemn those crimes.


Now, it has been admitted that, in fact, the stories about soap and about lampshades were “MISTAKES” (of course, it’s never lies, just “mistakes” when they are caught out), BUT MP Lin Golding is STILL allowed to promulgate these lies (sorry – mistakes) in the British House of Commons with absolute impunity.

While, in the above video, the Professor (on the “Holocaust” side) actually states the admission, you see Phil Donahue totally ignoring a factual lie to continue the demonisation of the revisionist who is simply stating a truth.

Let’s look at another “Holocaust survivor” – a very high profile one for many years in America who wrote a totally fictitious book about his “experiences”, admits he lied but says he didn’t lie!!


And then what you get is TV shows who invite the revisionist on as if to say “We’re giving you the freedom of speech platform” while, in fact, it is a platform which uses people who have probably (obviously) never read a single book on the subject and certainly have done zero real research on the topic, touse ignorant groupthink to demonise the revisionist and keep the belief alive. While a jewish “scholar” from the Simon Weisenthal centre sits back and loves the ignorance which is entirely on his side and to his advantage.


Meanwhile, isn’t this just a little “coincidental”?


Source: The Worker (Brisbane, Qld)
Tuesday 4 January 1938


July 1939


12th Feb 1949

See “Justice for Germans:











Posted in Geo-Political Warfare, Law, Political History by earthling on October 21, 2011


I have NEVER been a fan of Hitler nor the Nazis, nor the IRA or any Dictator during the vast majority of my life. Who the hell would be if they were sane individuals?

But, in recent years – just the past handful – I have researched so much into history and particularly hidden history and peered beneath the surface because I was compelled to do so by events which unfolded in my own life and left me speechless about the lies, deception and guilt of my own government, judiciary and western governments in general, that my entire belief system has been turned inside out. I have to say that this “research” of mine has not been minimal in any shape or form. It has been wide and deep and has taken up 4 solid years of my life (luckily I have immensely enjoyed it) and the blinkers are off and the eyes are wide open.

I can’t point the reader to every single book and text and paragraph and documentary that I have read or watched, nor regurgitate the entirety of the hours and days I have spent reading congressional and parliamentary minutes so as to crystallize everything which has led me to the conclusions and statements I make in my blogs. I would love to write a book but it would be enormous and I wouldn’t know where to begin (or end), This jigsaw puzzle is just so immense such that it involves every single subject associated with life and history and sociology itself. I have two degrees: In Physics and in Business studies which took 6 years in total to complete but, incomparison to the time I’ve spent on this in the past 4 years, those studies were “part time”. If there was such a thing as a PhD in this overall subject, I’d have two of them by now!

So, what I write and blog about is really just short insights into subjects I have looked at and, for everything which I do post, I expect the reader, if they are interested either to confirm for themselves or for the purpose of challenging and denying, to research for themselves.

Not wishing to offend anyone but the more I read and learn of this character, the more I admire him and disbelieve the absolute shit we have been conditioned into believing of him. Further the more I understand of the zionist creeps, liars and thieves in our own governments and establishment, then even more to I admire this guy for his achievements. So very similar to Gaddafi’s. There is no doubt that we have been seriously deceived.
And no, I am no Nazi but I seriously question whether it would have been a bad thing.

Of course, from the amount I have to say negatively about Zionism – and those who would wish to consider this to mean all jewish people and is just a “front” for an assumed “Nazi” to be “anti semitic” – and now praising, or at least admitting admiration for Adolf Hitler, those who would wish to label me whatever will. For those people let me be blunt: I do not give a FCUK any longer. Your perception is just that and is coloured by what you wish to believe and your own prejudices.

So with that, I ask you to listen to this video speech by Adolf Hitler where he, in his own words, makes it quite clear that he never wished for war with America and had not with Britain either.


Now, of course, you are going to suggest “well that’s Hitler talking – a crazed genocidal dictator” etc etc. He lied.

Ok, sure I understand that. After all, that’s what we have been led to believe for decades. I don’t know about you though but I wasn’t born until well after the war and yet, what I see from “our side” re Hussein, Gaddafi etc, is a solid block of bullshit. Why should it have changed?

So here is someone else saying, concretely, Hitler did not wish for war with Britain:

“I received a telephone call from my friend ‘Putzi’ Hanfstaengi, who was at that time Hitler’s personal private secretary and court jester. He told me that the Führer had been reading my speeches with interest, and would like to see me at his headquarters in the Esplanade Hotel.

It is true that when I walked across the long room to a corner in which he was sitting writing, in a brown shirt with a swastika on his arm, he waited without looking up until I had reached his side, then sprang to his feet, lifted his right arm, and shouted ‘Hitler!’; and that I responded by clicking my heels together, raising my right arm, and shouting back: ‘Boothby!’

I talked with Hitler for over an hour; and it was not long before I detected the unmistakable glint of madness in his eyes. I was much impressed by his grasp of Keynesian economics at that time. He said that I was quite right about economic
expansion, and the means by which it could be achieved. But he added that this was now a political crisis, and that political forces would bring him to power. “After that,” he said, “I shall bend economics to my will; and I have in my hands the necessary instrument, a man called Schacht.” He had no sense of humour. He asked me how I would feel if Germany had beaten us in the last war, and driven a corridor between England and Scotland. I said: “You forget, Herr Hitler, that I
come from Scotland. We should have been delighted.” He did not smile. Instead he brought his fist down with a crash on the table and said: “So! I had no idea that the hatred between the two peoples was so great.” Perhaps this was one of the reasons why he sent Hess to Scotland in 1940, for I am sure that he did; and why he never bombed Edinburgh.

I then asked him, point-blank, what he was going to do to the Jews. I thought Hanfstaengi was going to faint, but only a flicker of irritation crossed his face. After a moment he said: ‘There will be no pogroms.’ I think that, at the time, he probably meant it. He had already planned to take over the whole of central and eastern Europe, and intended to deport all German Jews to those countries. What I cannot bring myself to believe is that he was unaware of what Himmler ultimately did to them.

That night I thought long and earnestly about the interview. I came to the conclusion that his plans were far more advanced than I had thought. He did not then wish to attack Britain and the British Empire, or even France. What he was determined to do was to bring the whole of central and eastern Europe under German control; and for this purpose Austria, and above all Czechoslovakia, were the key points”.

From Lord Boothby’s biography: “Recollections of a rebel” 1978. 

Boothby, while a homosexual and having a relationship with Ronnie Kray while the British government hushed it all up and told the Met Police to lay off – thereby allowing the Kray twins to carry on for another few years (says a lot about how the Police are controlled by a corrupt government doesn’t it?) – there is hardly any reason for him to lie about the intentions of Hitler when he was so ardently opposed to the regime and any threat to the British Empire. Yes they still spoke of the British Empire in those days because, in fact, that Empire still exists today but simply in another form and it is based upon the money power. Always was. Adolf was a serious danger to that money power as was Gaddafi today. 

So. What are you going to do? Say on one hand that people have freedomm of speech and of expression and when they encounter factual data which has them form their own conclusions which don’t quite agree with those the government demand they should have, you act in the very same way that you try to teach the population that this guy acted with his population? So it goes something like this: “Listen, if you start talking about a fascist dictator like he wasn’t quite a fascist dictator then we will come and shut you up and shut you down so that you cannot express freely your beliefs or conclusions but WE’RE not fascist dictators!”? Is that what you’re saying Officers?


Don’t let the bastards close you down!

Yes, that’s my MAC Officer. And YOU fcuking stole it! In total about 2 grands worth. You fcuking THIEVES! You ignorant dirty fcuking thieves make me sick with your ignorance and your excuse of “just doing our job”. You fcuking STOLE my property based upon BULLSHIT! And I intend getting it back and in poerfect working order or you will fcuking pay for it!