Semites, Self-Pity, Aggressiveness, and Censorship, Part 2: Freedom of Meech

Pug’s paw: Mark Meechan’s hate-crime

Go to Part 1.

New Labour served Jewish interests in another very important way. Jews do not like free discussion of Jewish behaviour, racial differences and the consequences of Third-World immigration. New Labour obligingly strengthened Britain’s already harsh laws against “hate speech.” The taboo on discussing Jewish behaviour is apparent even in those who criticize New Labour’s laws. We can see this in the reaction to the conviction of a White man called Mark Meechan. In March 2018, he was “found guilty of breaching Section 127 of the 2003 U.K. Communications Act, which prohibits ‘grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, or menacing’ electronic communications.”

How did Meechan fall foul of this New Labour law? He posted a YouTube video of his girlfriend’s pug “perform[ing] a Nazi salute when he said ‘Sieg Heil’ or ‘gas the Jews’.” This was, according to the judge, “grossly offensive” and a clear breach of the 2003 Communications Act. Prominent British comedians like Ricky Gervais and the repulsive David Baddiel (who is Jewish) have criticized the conviction and defended Meechan’s right to free speech. They say that a highly subjective test like “offensiveness” is completely wrong for comedy, which should have the freedom to break taboos and question everything. I agree with them and with the other British liberals who are saying the same thing. But I note that all of these liberals are silent on some highly relevant aspects of the case. For example, they don’t say that it was effectively a blasphemy conviction under Britain’s new state religions of Holocaustianity and minority worship.

Nor do they point out that the “Jewish community” fully supported Meechan’s prosecution and are pleased to see him convicted:

During the trial, Ephraim Borowski, director of the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities (SCoJeC) told the court the video was extremely offensive. “In many ways, the bit I found most offensive was the repetition of ‘gas the Jews’ rather than the dog itself”, he said. “The other thing that struck me was the explicit statement that this was intended to give offence and intended to be the most offensive thing he could think of and then he says he isn’t a racist. But unfortunately we hear that all the time from people.

Ephraim Borowski, enemy of free speech

“I’m no historian but it is the marching signal of the Nazi stormtroopers who contributed and supported the murder of six million Jews, including members of my own family, and I take this all slightly personally”, Mr Borowski continued, adding that the SCoJeC website had been “bombarded with abusive comments” after the video appeared online. “Material of this kind goes to normalise the antisemitic views that frankly we thought we had seen the last of”, he said. “The Holocaust is not a subject for jocular content.” (Man who taught dog Nazi salute found guilty of hate crime, The Jewish Chronicle, 20th March 2018 / 4th Nisan, 5778)

In his satire Candide (1759), Voltaire said that the British execute an admiral from time to time pour encourager les autres — “to encourage the others.” In 2018 Mark Meechan was convicted of hate-speech pour décourager les autres — “to discourage the others” who might feel inclined to blaspheme against the Holocaust. Some British liberals are calling the prosecution absurd because, they say, Meechan was clearly seeking to be funny rather than to promote Nazism or attack Jews. They are entirely missing the point. Crushing a harmless individual for a trivial offence is a very effective way for an ideology to demonstrate its power and instil fear in others.

“Belsen was a Gas”

In 2018, the most powerful ideology in Britain is Holocaustianity, which insists that Jews are powerless, blameless victims whose historic suffering grants them spotless virtue and entitles them to control all Western nations. Back in the 1970s, when the Second World War was still a vivid memory for millions of people, the “punk icon” Siouxsie Sioux appeared in public sporting a swastika armband. She was not prosecuted. Nor were the Sex Pistols prosecuted later for their monumentally tasteless “Belsen was a Gas”:

[“Belsen was a Gas” in The Great Rock’n’Roll Swindle (1980)]

Belsen was a gas, I heard the other day,
In the open graves where the Jews all lay:
“Life is fun and I wish you were here!”
They wrote on their postcards to those held dear
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear!
Dentists search their teeth for gold,
Frisk the Jews for bank-notes rolled.
When they found out what they’d got
Line them up and shoot the lot!
Kill a man, be a man, kill a man… (Lyrics for “Belsen was a Gas”)

But the more the Holocaust recedes into history, the more important it becomes for its High Priests and their shabbos goyim to insist on its sacred and singular nature. New Labour introduced Holocaust Memorial Day (HMD) to Britain’s religious calendar in 2001 as a symbolic way of capturing the twenty-first century. HMD is held on 27th January, the date of the liberation of Auschwitz, which is a symbolic way of capturing the year ahead and placing Jews where they like to be: at the centre of attention as the archetypal victims. And HMD is now an excellent way for politicians to make ritual obeisance to Jewish victimhood and to placate Jewish power. For example, when she signed “the Holocaust Educational Trust’s Book of Commitment” on 27th January 2018, the shabbos shiksa Theresa May informed the nation that:

The pages of this book unite us in a commitment to remember all those who suffered during the Holocaust. We stand together to honour the lives lost and those who survived. As Prime Minister, I pledge to do everything in my power to ensure we never forget where prejudice and hatred can lead. The new national memorial to the Holocaust will sit in the shadow of Parliament alongside a world class learning centre to do just that. It will make a permanent statement of our promise to remember and our commitment to teach future generations to fight hatred in all its forms. By supporting the HET and all its patrons, we will safeguard the memories of survivors and learn the lessons for generations to come. (Theresa May’s Holocaust Memorial Day message: ‘We must never forget where prejudice can lead’, The Jewish Chronicle, 26th January 2018)

This Shoah shrine “in the shadow of Parliament” will insist on what even Jewish historians have called “the lachrymose history of the Jewish people.” It will not point out that the nasty Nazis and their “prejudice” killed far fewer people than the caring Communists did in their pursuit of equality. Nor will it name “Stalin’s Willing Executioners,” that is, the Jews who enthusiastically and disproportionately participated in murder, torture and oppression in the early Soviet Union.

Open borders and closed mouths

Admittedly, Nazism wasn’t in power so long or over so many people as Communism, but the lessons of history are not so clear-cut as the High Priests of Holocaustianity want to pretend. Furthermore, while Holocaustianity in gentile nations condemns all opposition to mass immigration as bigoted, racist and xenophobic, it follows entirely different principles in Israel. This explicitly Jewish nation, which might be expected to know the lessons of the Holocaust better than any other, does not permit mass immigration. Instead, it seals its borders against ethnic enrichment and deports what is calls “infiltrators.” In gentile nations, Jews would describe the same people as “desperate and vulnerable asylum-seekers.”

But Holocaustianity does have some universal principles. While it mandates that Germany have open borders and Israel have sealed borders, it also mandates that “Holocaust denial” be illegal in both nations. Free speech is not a Jewish tradition, as honest Jews like the American historian Paul Gottfried are happy to admit:

Jews in public life and in academe have trouble living in an intellectually open society, because it would allow those whom they fear and/or loathe to be heard in open forums. This is something that Jewish organizations and Jewish intellectuals seek to avoid at all costs, through “Hate Speech” laws, academic speech codes, and associating dissent with the Holocaust or anti-Semitism.

During forty years in “higher education”, I never ceased to be amazed by how allergic most of my Jewish colleagues were to open discussion. Never did they wish to see opened a question that they collectively decided to close, allegedly for the sake of combatting prejudice and discrimination. (It goes without saying that everything featured on would qualify as off-limits.)

But this war on forbidden thoughts does not end with what dares to discuss. My Jewish colleagues and the ones I read in academic journals never tire of invoking certain guilt-infused taboos, reminding their subjects about how little they had done to atone for racism, sexism, and other currently condemned attitudes. … One cannot have both a free society and one controlled by the current crew of Jewish intellectuals and journalists. There is a contradiction here and one that will only be resolved once the teachings and taboos of this priestly class are emphatically rejected. (A Jewish Conservative Wonders: Is Free Speech Really A Jewish Tradition?, VDare, 21st July 2011)

Gottfried’s observations apply equally well to Britain and other European nations. It’s no coincidence that as Jewish power has risen across the West, free speech has declined. And there’s a great historical irony here. The Dutch-Jewish philosopher Spinoza, promoted by modern Jewish historians as the founding father of the Enlightenment, would not have survived if Holland had been controlled by Jews. He was execrated and ostracized by his fellow Jews for heresy. In a Polish shtetl or German ghetto, he would probably have been murdered and his writings burnt. Damnatio memoriae would then have blotted him and his ideas from history.

Highway to Hell

But Spinoza was able to live away from Jews among more tolerant and less violent Dutch gentiles, whose own Protestantism was a heretical breakaway from Catholicism. Free speech and free enquiry were essential ingredients in the rise of Protestantism, despite the determination of rebels like Luther and Calvin to prevent others from following their lead. Early Protestants rebelled against Catholicism but retained the authoritarian Catholic mindset and its belief in an exclusive, infinitely valuable truth that had to be defended by censorship, torture and execution. After all, it wasn’t simply ideas that were at stake in doctrinal disputes: it was eternal souls. If you believe that wrong beliefs send human beings to Hell, then censorship is not only justified, but virtuous.

That is why the Catholic church maintained an Index Librorum Prohibitorum, or “Index of Prohibited Books,” until 1966. The Index listed books and authors forbidden to the Faithful, ranging from Émile Zola to David Hume. And I have never seen the justice and virtue of censorship better defended than in an introduction written to the 1930 edition of the Index:

Through the centuries the Holy Church has sustained tremendous persecutions, slowly multiplying the heroes who sealed the Christian faith with their own blood; but today Hell promotes a far more terrible battle against her, sly, bland and harmful: the wicked printing press. No greater danger than this threatens the integrity of Faith and morals, so the Holy Church will never cease to indicate it to Christians, that they may be aware. And the Church, constituted by God as infallible master and sure guide of the faithful and for this reason provided with all necessary powers, could not do otherwise: it has the duty and consequently the sacrosanct right to prevent error and corruption — however disguised — from contaminating the flock of Jesus Christ. … [The] Church, as a provident mother, admonishes the faithful with timely prohibitions so that they do not draw their lips to the easy chalices of poison. It is not from fear of the light that the Holy See forbids the reading of certain books, but out of that great zeal with which God inflames it and which does not tolerate the loss of souls — teaching the same experience that man, fallen from the original justice, is strongly inclined towards evil and is consequently in great need of protection and defence. (Introduction to the 1930 edition of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, translated by Rafael Merry del Val)

Censorship is indeed justified and virtuous if one accepts those two premises: that wrong beliefs send men to Hell and that the Church is “constituted by God as infallible master and sure guide of the faithful.” Luther, Calvin and other early Protestants accepted the first premise but rejected the second, replacing the Church’s authority with their own. That is why they too believed in censorship and the execution of heretics. But their successful rebellion had set an unmistakeable precedent and fatally weakened the idea of an infallible central authority setting out what all men must believe on pain of damnation.

Highway to the Holocaust

Protestantism also fatally weakened the idea of Hell and damnation. No authoritarian government or ideology in the modern West would justify censorship on the ground that censorship saved vulnerable souls from Hell. Such a claim would simply be laughed at. Instead, authoritarians justify censorship on the ground that it saves vulnerable minorities from a second Holocaust. Recall what Paul Gottfried said about the Jewish tactic of “associating dissent with the Holocaust or anti-Semitism.” The Holocaust is a secular Hell lying both in the past as an actual horror and in the future as a potential horror. Western nations must avert that potential horror by fighting hate and crushing racism. Performing her ritual obeisance to Jewish victimhood in January 2018, Theresa May said this: “I pledge to do everything in my power to ensure we never forget where prejudice and hatred can lead.”

Where can “prejudice and hatred” lead? To a second Holocaust, of course. This is another reason for Jews and their shabbos goyim to support open borders. The more “vulnerable” minorities there are in a White nation, the more they need protection from the cruel and potentially genocidal White majority. And here we see why Labour councils up and down Britain have turned a blind eye to Muslim rape-gangs. It’s not simply because the victims are in the White working-class, to whom Labour is now hostile. It’s also because Holocaustianity preaches the immaculate virtue and victimhood of minorities. Left-wingers cannot admit that brown-skinned Muslims prey on Whites or pose any threat to Whites. Nor can they admit that by balkanizing the United Kingdom, they are creating all the necessary conditions for the civil wars seen after the demise of Communist Yugoslavia and Ba’athist Iraq, which were very racially and religiously diverse countries.

Free Speech is a White Thing

A second Yugoslavia is far more likely in Britain than a second Holocaust. But neither would have been possible here without mass immigration, which was imposed on an unwilling White majority by a hostile and treacherous elite. Harsh laws against “hate speech” were an essential part of suppressing White resistance to the invasion of their homeland by non-Whites.

And the non-Whites who entered Britain became valuable allies of the authoritarian Jews responsible for the laws. Free speech is not a Jewish tradition. Nor is it a Muslim or Black tradition, as the pages of the Guardian constantly remind us. In March 2018, the non-White female journalist Nesrine Malik proclaimed that “Hate speech leads to violence” and rhetorically asked “Why would liberals defend it?” She was celebrating “Britain’s banning of three rightwing extremists,” who had wanted to deliver speeches at “Speakers’ Corner in London’s Hyde Park,” a traditional bastion of free speech. With millions of non-Whites like Malik now in Britain, is it any wonder that the White British tradition of free speech is dying? Nevertheless, three genuine liberals criticized Malik’s article on the Guardian’s letters-page, defending free speech even for the “far right.”

Fekete and Borowski vs Free Speech

Those defenders of free speech were called Michael Meadowcroft, Brian Wilson and Roger Fisken. Is it a coincidence that they all appear to be White males? I would say not. It’s certainly not a coincidence that their defence of free speech was in turn criticized by a High Priestess of Holocaustianity, the Jewish “anti-fascist” Liz Fekete:

Those taking issue with Nesrine Malik’s fears about far-right propaganda (Letters, 24 March) are not those at the butt end of far-right violence. Across Europe, far-right groups are forming paramilitary organisations, arming themselves and preparing for race war — as the growing catalogue of racist murders, attacks on asylum centres, mosques and synagogues attests. It is the privileging of freedom of speech over freedom to life that has emboldened identitarian and neo-Nazi activists, who are experts at manipulating naive liberal arguments about freedom of speech. (Freedom of speech or freedom to life?, Guardian letters, 25th March 2018)

Busy Lizzy: Jewish “anti-fascist” Liz Fekete

I’ve written about Liz Fekete before at the Occidental Observer: she is one of Britain’s many Friends of Rape. Back in 2012 she was working hard to conceal the horrific reality of non-White sex-crime. Six years on she’s still hard at work as a “Director” at the “Institute of Race Relations.” That’s a dishonest name for something that would be better called the Institute of Racial Rancour. Liz Fekete is not interested in truth, reality or racial harmony. Instead, she’s interested in undermining the White majority and promoting minority worship within the wider cult of Holocaustianity.

Ephraim Borowski, “director of the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities,” is interested in the same things. That’s why he was a hostile witness when the White male Mark Meechan was prosecuted for the absurd and trivial crime of teaching a small dog to give a Nazi salute. Meechan’s conviction sends a clear threat to Britain’s White majority: “Worship the powerless Jews or else.” But that censorship is built on lies about human equality and those lies are crumbling fast. The science of genetics cannot save us on its own, but it will prove an extremely useful ally in the fight to re-take the West.

46 replies
  1. Michael Adkins
    Michael Adkins says:

    “they are creating all the necessary conditions for the civil wars seen after the demise of Communist Yugoslavia”

    The author is correct without doubt!

  2. Irene
    Irene says:

    Talking about Semites: Have you noticed that God chose the most displeasing race, the Semites, to receive his word, and the most disagreable climate and scenery (semitic lands) as the scene of his various “miracles”?
    It’s only the christian myth that gives the Jews an undeserved aura of holyness. Without the support of the christian churchs Jews would just be considered as an unpleasant alien race.

    • Franklin Ryckaert
      Franklin Ryckaert says:

      @ Irene

      Not all of the “semitic lands” consist of deserts and their climate is variegated.
      Generally Arabs are hospitable and courteous. Christian Arabs are often pleasant people. It is their Islamic religion that makes them problematic. Same with Jews. Genuinely Christian Jews are not problematic at all.

      • Jerry
        Jerry says:

        Franklin, there is no such thing as a Christian arab, Chinese, Japanese or jew or whatever other race. You have to be a descendant of Adam and the promises were only made to one lineage, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and his sons. No where in scripture are they any promises for any one else. Your modern day pastors are so deceived they can’t even get thru Genesis chapter 1 without lying. They believe the word man means every one on the planet when that word is adam in Hebrew and a common noun in English. Of course Genesis tells that this is the book of the generations of Adam and no one else.

    • Curmudgeon
      Curmudgeon says:

      Semites are not a race. Generally speaking, a Semite may refer to a person speaking one of several languages of Middle Eastern origin, which Arabic is the most important currently.
      The above link is only for the purposes of identifying those languages. Dr. Ashraf Ezzat has a different opinion of the origins, particularly where the Hebrew Bible is concerned.

      • jerry
        jerry says:

        This is jewish nonsense. All of these people are descendants of Adam thru Noah who are white. Luke 3:23-38 is the genealogy of Christ and sem/shem is in verse 36. Sem is the Greek and Shem is the Hebrew. Jews deny Christ to this day, have you not read the Talmud?

        • Curmudgeon
          Curmudgeon says:

          No, I haven’t read the Talmud, and have little interest in doing so. “Semitic” applying to people only started in the 17th century, about the same time the word “Jew” was invented.
          Dr. Ezzat has exposed the fraudulent translation of the Old Testament.

  3. tadzio308
    tadzio308 says:

    In the matter of Meechan’s Pug the statute criminalizes that which is “grossly offensive”. The offended party, Borowski, states ” I take this all slightly personally”. Only a Talmudic “scholar” could equate “grossly” with “slightly”. No intelligent person would.

    • Occidental Fan
      Occidental Fan says:

      To be fair to Mr Borowski, he’s using understatement or meiosis: “In rhetoric, meiosis is a euphemistic figure of speech that intentionally understates something or implies that it is lesser in significance or size than it really is.” (Wikipedia) When our relatives die, we don’t usually take it “slightly personally”.

  4. Carolyn Yeager
    Carolyn Yeager says:

    This is an excellent Part 2 to a pretty good Part 1 EXCEPT … it goes along with the major lie that there was such a thing as the Holocaust – totally ignoring the un-refuted discoveries of Holocaust revisionism.

    First, what is excellent about the article is it’s clear pointing out how Jews/Leftists benefit from the belief in the Holocaust – picturing it not only in the past, but also as potentially occurring again in the future – therefore giving them a justification for multiculturalism and open borders as a preventative. This is all well and good but doesn’t go far enough to achieve results for white Britons, and only results count.

    The actual FACTS of the matter are that the “Holocaust” never happened, so why pretend that it did? This is not even in doubt, since revisionists have proven (many years ago already) that there were no homicidal gas chambers, there was no Fuehrer order, plan or budget for the mass murder of millions of Jews, nor is their any viable evidence that 6 million (or anything close to that) were “murdered.” The claimed bodies have never been found. These three fallacies being the “pillars” the entire Jewish Holocaust rests on, these FACTS pull the rug out from under the arguments for criminal prosecution of holocaust denial or “hate speech” in one clean sweep.

    What prevents this “clean sweep” is the widespread British attachment to their faulty WWII narrative which portrays them as a heroic and brave nation that fought the good fight against evil and won. While this is a firmly-held position of all UK governments, it is mainly the Jewish-owned media empires that keep that ‘history’ in place because it benefits the Jews much more than it benefits the British. In fact, all Brits should now see that what they thought was for their glory and what justified their morally questionable actions against Germany, has turned against them and is working for their destruction.

    The full truth is the only antidote to this. Even with mustering all the arguments against the Jewish narrative, yet stopping short before the best argument for which Jews have no answer, you are in actuality helping your Jewish rulers to put the noose around your neck.

    • Franklin Ryckaert
      Franklin Ryckaert says:

      Right, the “gassing of Jews” never happened (after you read the information of CODOH* you will be convinced of that), still to say “gas the Jews” is a call for genocide of a definable group and that should not be allowed, even if it is clearly done not in earnest but for fun. There are certain lines that should not be crossed, even in “humor”. For the rest I agree with the article.

      *) See : The Auschwitz “Gas Chamber” Illusion, here :

      • Carolyn Yeager
        Carolyn Yeager says:

        Boy, whose side are you on?

        There are plenty of lines against other people that are crossed all the time, but for the Jews we must be specially careful? It is this kind of catering to Jews that keeps them in a power position. And look at the picture of that Borowski – that is who you are protecting?

        All that should have happened to Meechan is that his video be taken down, he apologize, and he promise never to do anything like that again. Isn’t he a first time offender?

        • Franklin Ryckaert
          Franklin Ryckaert says:

          I mean the call to genocide of any definable group, not only Jews. So that includes the call to genocide of Whites. A person like Noel Ignatiev who calls for the “abolition of whiteness” (obvious code for white genocide) should not be allowed to teach.

          How people look is not important for their basic human rights. Whether they look like like the hideous Ephraim Borowski or like the mouse-faced, club-footed dwarf Joseph Goebbels 🙂

          I agree that for Meechan a public apology would be enough, but with his joke “gas the Jews” he is not a poster boy for the struggle for white rights in particular or free speech in general.

          • Curmudgeon
            Curmudgeon says:

            All gases are not lethal. Helium is a gas that makes people’s voices squeaky. Oxygen is a gas that is necessary for us to survive. Carbon dioxide is a gas necessary for plants to survive. There are many other examples. “Gas the Jews” on its own is meaningless. Had Meecham been smart, he would have shut his mouth and said nothing. Proving intent is difficult.
            As for the “Scot” Borowski, if he testified that 6 million were killed, he perjured himself. Even a few Israeli historians claim the 6 million is not credible, given that there weren’t 6 million in all of Europe.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            But Noel Ignatiev IS allowed to teach, and there is no law under which he could be taken to court, as there is for antisemites.

            Joseph Goebbels was in no way a “dwarf” and his club-foot was hardly noticeable. To compare him to ‘that hideous jew’ Borowski is offensive, but you think it’s funny, so there you go. Different strokes.

            You condemn Whites for minor infractions against Jews, yet defend Jews for major crimes against Whites. It was Jews who invented the calumnious gas chamber lies against Germans, for which they have not been held accountable. They never will be because even revisionists allow that those who repeated the lie were fooled into believing “rumors” and it originated as “war propaganda” which is always forgiven, no matter how vile. And then there is the fact that the liars won the war.

          • Peter
            Peter says:

            I’ll admit I find the guys joking round a little uncomfortable, but that is what I think he is doing. I don’t think he’s calling for violence against Jews. I think he’s mocking their more than 70 years of lies. Forty years ago the soap and lampshades stories were accepted as fact, as everything else regarding the holocaust is, even though virtually all historians now agree the soap and lampshades stories are not true.

            If the holocaust story had not been driven into virtually everyone’s head as absolutely true, all of it, and someone who had never heard the story before was told about this one day, he would probably call it a conspiracy theory and the people spreading the story “conspiracy theorists”. The holocaust story as presented is so outrageous that contrary to the Jews claims that “deniers” are “conspiracy theorists”, they sound like conspiracy theorists. Many people have doubts about the Jews claims now and some others are just taunting the Jews for their relentless hate mongering, which is how many gentiles probably see it. Whatever is going thru Mark Meechan’s mind, he’s just not willing to treat it with reverence, the way the Jews demand. And many others feel the same way. The outrageously politically incorrect and offensive Daily Stormer is hugely popular for making fun of Jews and the holocaust in addition to other minorities.

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            Even a few Israeli historians claim the 6 million is not credible, given that there weren’t 6 million in all of Europe.

            Notably Yehuda Bauer, who first broached a max of 2.5 million in the eighties (perhaps earlier). I understand he wouldn’t bridle at claims of 4.5, but no more.

            Needless to say, Bauer is no friend of our cause, but I still smile when I see his name because he publicly expressed contempt for Daniel Goldhagen, whom he called Little Danny, and for the “willing executioner” claim, which was unsupported by history and psychology. Bauer declared in effect that Harvard’s granting Danny a doctorate made nonsense of its academic credibility.


            (Mod note: Welcome back, Pierre. Glad to see you here.)

          • Franklin Ryckaert
            Franklin Ryckaert says:

            @ Carolyn Yeager

            That all kinds of people (Jews, Blacks but alas also Whites) are calling for the genocide of Whites (openly or in code terms) is of course due to the by the Jews artificially created anti-White climate. But that they are allowed to do so, has to be ascribed to the inactivity of Whites. It has been said before on this forum : Whites need their own ADL. This also to combat inequality of justice in the case of interracial crime.

            Well, my remark about Goebbels was of course made facetiously, but fact is that in his time he was called by enemies of NS but also by rivals in its ranks
            nachgedunkelter Schrumpfgermane, which means “shrinked German who became dark afterwards”. See Wikipedia Schrumpfgermane (only in German). To compensate for the offense you felt for the comparison of Goebbels with Borowski, here is a picture of an archetypically hideous Jew :

            Holocaust revisionism will remain marginal as long as we don’t control the mass media and politics. The masses will always believe the “official truth” even if it is a Big Lie.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            You really hunt hard to find anything derogatory to say about any National Socialist, especially a high-ranking one. That tells us how much you hate everything to do with the Third Reich. Okay, that being understood and accepted, your complaints against Jews controlling current European societies is hypocritical to say the least. And now you blame white people!!

            Sure, there are many who can be blamed, yet it is people like you who are the most responsible for the power of anti-White Jews. That’s because it comes largely from the demonization of Adolf Hitler, which you love to engage in. To defend the Third Reich is the most anti-Jewish thing we can do. Please explain how it can possibly work that we engage in anti-Hitler/NS rhetoric, and at the same time defend ourselves against Jewish animosity and overweaning influence. If we condemn Hitler it becomes impossible to remove Jews, so we are left with trying to control Jews, which has never worked anywhere. Jews have always required physical force to be used against them.

            My conclusion: you are not anti-Jewish. You are anti-Nazi – and you can’t be both.

            You also say that Holocaust revisionist arguments are hopeless unless we first control mass media and politics. How is that going to happen? It isn’t. So forgive me if I cannot believe you are an honest broker.

    • Trenchant
      Trenchant says:

      There’s been no lack of Jewish activism to have Holocaust revisionism criminalized in the UK. It bodes ill for the truth.

      • Carolyn Yeager
        Carolyn Yeager says:

        Yes, this is the bigger problem here. Tobias Langdon wrote a good piece, but he doesn’t go beyond how the so-called Holocaust is USED to control European society. My point is that without debunking the Holocaust itself (which can be done; has been done), the Jews continue to hold their trump card.

        Why the reluctance to take that trump card away? Franklin Ryckaert acknowledges “no gas chambers” but still sympathizes with Jews on many other holocaust-related charges. Sympathy for Jews is deadly for Europeans. My position is: If you defend the ‘Holocaust’ **in any way**, even if only passively, you are helping the Jews destroy us.

        By the way, Paul Gottfried says he believes in the Holocaust, whatever that means. I would be glad to debate both Gottfried and Ryckaert on the issue as long as they were not allowed to dodge and run away from facts presented. This is what they do.

        • T. J.
          T. J. says:

          Professor Gottfried believes that belief is interchangeable with evidence.

          “It happened, in my mind.”

          • Charles Frey
            Charles Frey says:

            Identical to May asserting, that they reached the CONCLUSION that Putin PROBABLY gave the Salisbury order.

        • Trenchant
          Trenchant says:

          I agree. It’s a massive but essentially fragile weapon in the Jewish psychological domination armory. Had I not viewed One Third of the Holocaust I probably would never have arrived here.

  5. Barkingmad
    Barkingmad says:

    Never mind Meechan. What became of the dog? How much do you want to bet he’s going to be euthanized?

  6. The AntiLoser
    The AntiLoser says:

    I don’t see anything offensive in the lyrics to Belsen was a Gas. It’s not an anti-Semitic song, which is the main consideration. Sex Pistols’ bassist Sid Vicious often wore a shirt with a large swastika on it. That seems more offensive, but perhaps people thought he was too uneducated to know what it meant or else they figured offensiveness was the whole idea behind punk music so let it go for now. The Ramones sang a song Today Your Love, Tomorrow the World with Nazi references (I’m a shock trooper in a stupor, gonna fight for Fatherland), but the group was 2/4 Jewish so I guess it didn’t bother anyone. The main test is whether Jews are offended and they tend to take into account whether the person seems hostile or not. Michael Jackson wore a Nazi uniform in one of his halftime shows and also sang the line “Don’t sue me, don’t Jew me” perhaps prompted by lawsuits related to alleged pedophilia. Soon he was talking to rabbis about converting to Judaism. The rapper Professor Griff of Public Enemy got into trouble for mimicking a Yiddish accent apparently belonging to a music industry executive and saying “Tell the rab to get off the rag.” He was made to go through sensitivity training but remains an anti-Semite to judge from later remarks.

  7. Niker
    Niker says:

    Liberalism is about forced ignorance. One American historian of polish roots said that he wouldn’t be able to teach the military or intelligence in some schools about the Quran, because… what?

    From this liberalism naturally leads to strict control of words one can use because “hate speech leads to violence”. Liberals want really to destroy philosophy and reduce vocabulary to a minimum. In their world one shouldn’t even think of reading big and important books which shaped cultures like the Quran or the Talmud.

    Is quoting how a jew or a muslim are justified by their religious texts to deceive goyim/kuffars a hate speech?

    In the end liberalism is about either lobotomy or violent terror so that ANY cognition which goes beyond certain words and books is dangerous. You don’t have to read the Talmud or Quran – all people are equal and shut up!

  8. jerry
    jerry says:

    First of all the National Socialist salute is the Roman salute, Germans knew they were the descendants of Rome and indeed they are. The swastika is one of the oldest Christian symbols there is. Where did this word Nazi come from? The jews imagine themselves to be descendants of Gomer and Ashkenaz which would make them jephites . They use ashkenaz to mean Germany although it does not mean that in Hebrew. Then they call themselves Ashkenazi. Those last four letters give us the word Nazi. Germany defeated the communist jews that had virtually taken over the Weimar Republic in the early 1900’s. As soon as Hitler won election and assumed authority over Germany, world jewry declared an economic boycott of Germany in 1933 which is when the second world war actually began.

    • Curmudgeon
      Curmudgeon says:

      “The swastika is one of the oldest Christian symbols there is.”
      Christianity may have adopted the swastika, but it predates Christianity by about 10,000 years.

  9. jerry
    jerry says:

    To Irene: God choose the Hebrews who were descendants of Shem and they were the least of all of the Adamic peoples. None of the patriarchs in the Old Testament or New are ever called jews anywhere is the bible. Jews just claim it to be so and everyone just believes it. It is false! Additionally they have redefined what a semite is. One has to be 100% white to be a semite. The true semites are the white nations of the world n on of whom were ever called jews!

    • PaleoAtlantid
      PaleoAtlantid says:

      What’s all this “God choose the Hebrews” stuff! Who said so, where is the evidence? Isn’t it about time we as a people stopped using and quoting the narratives of an alien and hostile people. We have our own noble histories and narratives and many of us are thoroughly fed up with various desert deities being imposed upon us.

  10. jerry
    jerry says:

    Sorry had some typos. Sentence 2 should read in not is the bible. Last sentence should read world none of whom were…

  11. Robert Henderson
    Robert Henderson says:

    From personal experience I can vouch for the fact free expression has been severely eroded in England.

    On 10 November 1999 Sir Richard Body MP put down this Early Day Motion (EDM) on my behalf in the House of Commons :


    Sir Richard Body

    That this House regrets that the Right honourable Member for Sedgefield [Tony Blair] attempted to persuade the Metropolitan Police to bring criminal charges against Robert Henderson, concerning the Right honourable Member’s complaints to the police of an offence against the person, malicious letters and racial insult arising from letters Robert Henderson had written to the Right honourable Member complaining about various instances of publicly-reported racism involving the Labour Party; and that, after the Crown Prosecution Service rejected the complaints of the Right honourable Member and the Right honourable Member failed to take any civil action against Robert Henderson, Special Branch were employed to spy upon Robert Henderson, notwithstanding that Robert Henderson had been officially cleared of any illegal action.

    This motion is now part of the official House of Commons record.

    The EDM gives the bare bones of a truly bizarre story. On 13 March 1997, during the six most important weeks of Blair’s life – the 1997 General Election campaign – Tony and Cherie Blair tried to have me put in prison. Through Belgravia Police – Parliament’s local nick – they attempted but comprehensively failed to have me prosecuted for three separate and utterly disparate criminal offences, namely common assault and breaches of the Malicious Communications and Race Relations Acts. The attempt was immediately and unceremoniously rejected by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) who returned the papers within a few hours of them being submitted to them by the police.

    After the Blairs’ humiliating failure to have me prosecuted, I was quite illegally placed under surveillance by the state – I used the Data Protection Act to prove that Special Branch and MI5 had opened files on me and a Daily Mirror story of 25 3 1997 stated that Special Branch were involved (“ Special Branch, who organise protection for MPs, have been informed of the situation”). This surveillance was instigated despite the fact that the CPS had said no crime had been committed and I had never made anything which could have been construed as a threat against them. Tellingly, despite having taking the time to make a complaint against me alleging criminal activity, they refused to take civil action against me despite the much lower evidential test for civil actions (the balance of probabilities test rather than the criminal case standard of beyond a reasonable doubt).

    The background to the affair

    I had written to Tony and Cherie Blair (as a last resort) seeking (1) help for my mistreatment by the media and (2) action against a number of members of the Labour Party including my own MP, Frank Dobson, Before approaching Tony Blair I had literally exhausted every other avenue open to me, including the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), the Broadcasting Standards Commission (BSC) and my MP.

    My letters to the Blairs

    As might be imagined from Richard Body’s willingness to put down the EDM, my letters to the Blairs contained no threat, gross abuse or obscenity. They were short in length and reasonable in number. (I sent Tony Blair 9 letters over ten months, his wife 4. The combined text of my letters to Tony Blair totalled 2675 words: to Cherie Blair 755 words.)

    The only racial references the letters contained concerned instances of publicly reported racism within the Labour Party. Moreover, I only raised those matters after (1) my MP, Frank Dobson, gratuitously called me a racist and (2) the black Labour MP Diane Abbott had sent me an unsolicited and abusive letter. I sent 13 letters only because I persistently failed to obtain any meaningful reply to my complaints.

    My letters to the Blairs have also been viewed by the Crown Prosecution Service, three editors of political magazines who have published articles in support of me and a charity, Presswise, which supported me. Perhaps most tellingly, the police never approached me about the matter at any time.

    • David Ashton
      David Ashton says:

      @ Robert Henderson

      The charity is now called The Mediawise Trust.

      I have had a problem with the “Daily Mail” which dragged me into its massive campaign against Sir Oswald Mosley’s son Max and its linked minor campaign against Labour MP Tom Watson. Comments I made on this website were taken out of context and given a contrary spin. My brief letters in reply were totally disregarded. I am in effect described online as “evil” and “unrepentant” for views I never held and actions I never committed. There is little comeback by mere citizens against financial power intent on defamation, and I can see why Max Mosley, with whom I have actually had no contact for over 50 years, is hated for trying to get some facility for real redress over media interference in private life – I was on a dossier which included false statements – and dishonest journalism. Free speech should extend to victims of the press.

  12. Karen T
    Karen T says:
    The moderator insists that all links include an accompanying text. So, holocaust in Greek means burnt offerings and if prophecy was to be fulfilled and the Jews returned to the ‘promised land’ 6 million sacrifices were necessary. But like most of what they sell authenticity wasn’t necessary. In the age of the Kali Yuga the simulacrum will suffice.
    Anyone reading here who hasn’t seen it yet, please watch the 5+ hour documentary, currently on you tube (for how much longer before being banned?). For more information……. Thank you, Kyle Hunt.

  13. Pierre de Craon
    Pierre de Craon says:

    (Mod. Note: Well done, Pierre! And I’ll add that I’m not the only one who welcomes your presence back among the TOO commentariat, and wishes you nothing but the best! Your respect for the site owner and the TOO mission shines brightly in all of your comments.)

  14. JessicaR
    JessicaR says:

    Sometimes an act contains its own punishment. The guy teaching his dog to give the Hitler salute has just revealed himself as a man with a cruel and juvenile sense of humor–to the whole world. This clip will follow him his whole life. Therefore, there is no need for legal action.

Comments are closed.