How will the conspiracy for world government complete the destruction of freedom of speech, which it must do to impose the totalitarian socialist world dictatorship that has always been its goal? Part of the answer is its present attempt to give control of the internet to the Communist UN. But that would merely destroy freedom to communicate, via the only medium still not controlled by the conspiracy. It would leave intact freedom of thought. Maybe you could no longer send it, but you still could think it, still could talk to yourself.
To prevent that, the conspiracy is conducting a literal reign of terror, as you know, in which the slightest public reference that could even fancifully be attributed to “homophobia,” to “racism,” to “sexism,” or some other ism—even if uttered by mistake—could be subjected to what atheist Lenin called “the fires of hell,” and then punished with job loss, divorce, public humiliation and mandatory brainwashing, etc.
It was I who coined the term “rockered” to describe the use of the technique on Atlanta Braves pitcher John Rocker, who made a trip to New York and then explained why he did not like what he saw. Rocker was “rockered,” publicly excoriated and subjected to brainwashing sessions. The landscape is littered with the figurative corpses of those who made similar mistakes, more proof that the KGB runs these united States. Thereby required to be Politically Correct, most people prudently keep their heads down and shut up.
Now comes an even deadlier application of the technique, the targets of which are generally known as “Holocaust Revisionists.” As best I can determine, there are three main kinds of these people. First, there are the complete coo-coos who say the thing called the Holocaust never happened; that no Jews were killed. They are Holocaust “deniers.” They say this while survivors with numbers on their arms are still walking around. The spaghetti-thin people wearing prison garb the invading U.S. Army discovered in the camps were apparently extras in a Steven Spielberg movie, according to this view.
Next is a group that says it happened, but that it was nowhere near as bad as Washington says it was. They are “revisionists.” Six million Jews were not killed, in this view. “Only” three, or four or even fewer than a million were killed. Could it be true? I don’t know, but if it is, I remain unimpressed. If “only” two million were killed would the horror be reduced by two-thirds? In our system, a man can be hanged, electrocuted or gas-chambered for killing one human being. So, we’re talking about a difference without a distinction and vice versa. It doesn’t deserve so much attention.
Finally, there are the writers who debate the minutiae surrounding the horror. Were there really gas jets at Auschwitz? Was the Holocaust physically possible? Did Hitler know? Were some of the guards Jews? Why and how did the Zionists collaborate with the Nazis? What is the meaning of orthodox Jewish anti-Zionism and the deadly conflict between Jews?
All of this is irrelevant, merely tangential, to my subject today. The conspiracy for world government is presently implementing an extremely malevolent tactic in which so-called “Holocaust deniers” are deported and thrown into jail. We are not talking about war criminals who participated in the horror, the perpetrators of some crime, but about people who write and talk about it.
A man named Ernst Zundel left Germany as a teenager, lived in Canada for many years, came to this country and married an American woman. Because he is a “Holocaust denier,” or a “revisionist,” the District of Criminals deported him back to Canada, which kept him in jail for a couple of years, then deported him to Germany. Presently, he is the defendant in a classic Soviet show trial, one highlight of which was the firing of his defense lawyers so the judge could appoint lawyers who will not defend, which makes no difference anyway, because no evidence will be allowed.
Another “Holocaust denier” or “revisionist” named Germar Rudolf is receiving similar treatment. One of the troubling aspects about all this is the fact that their “crimes” were committed in one country, by someone who lives in another country and will be tried in a third country. We saw an example of that a few years ago, in the attempt by a Socialist Spanish judge to jail Chilean President Augusto Pinochet in England, where he was living, for crimes allegedly committed in Chile.
Extradition used to be so well-settled a legal principle that it was required even to move an accused from one state to another inside this country, so he could be tried in the place where the crime was committed. That is still the case here, but it no longer applies in the tenuous connection between independent nations, the effect of which is to dilute that independence. Trying a crime where it was committed underlines the supremely important matter of venue, of place.
And now comes the latest in the series. English historian David Irving has been jailed in Austria, where he went on a one-day visit to make a speech. Irving faces ten years in prison because he too is a “Holocaust denier.” I have met David Irving only once, at an annual ABA (American Booksellers Association) Convention in Chicago where both of us had booths to promote our latest books.
As you may know, my wife is one of the most beautiful women in the Western Hemisphere—I would say “in all Christendom,” were it not for my legendary aversion to hyperbole—which no doubt explains why David could not help but flirt with her at his booth, where I had sent her to say hello, while I stood a few feet away in mine, perhaps proving that David Irving has enough chutzpah to be Jewish himself.
I don’t know for sure what he says about the Holocaust, what constitutes his denial, but I have read Churchill’s War and his book on the Dresden Fire Bombing, both of which are valuable additions to World War II scholarship. Neither book has anything to do with the Holocaust and you can read some of the same startling revelations they contain in books by other authors.
For instance, F.J.P. Veale was not just another Englishman; he was a judge. He was certainly not a “Holocaust denier.” In Advance to Barbarism, he writes that it was Churchill and England who started World War II bombing of German cities and civilians. Judge Veale says Churchill committed that war crime to trick Hitler to retaliate. When he did, the Communist media took over. I want to know this, if it is true.
Now here’s my question: where are all the liberaloid disciples of Voltaire’s who say they may disagree with what you say, but will fight to the death for your right to say it? Is everything they say a fraud? Tom Anderson used to say he wouldn’t believe the page numbers in one of their magazines unless he counted them himself. This is why.
Such liberaloid gasification is supposed to apply to unpopular speech—popular speech needs no defense—and I can’t think of any speech more unpopular, and more stupid, than the assertion that there was no orchestrated Nazi plan to exterminate the Jews. And, by the way, where are the Duke of Wellington’s disciples? He said, “Publish and be damned!”
So now a historian could be imprisoned for ten years for something he has written. Do you see anything dangerous here? Remember that totalitarianism usually creeps in on little cat feet. First it establishes a precedent the judges can be told to use in court. And it does that not by attacking Mother Teresa, but by attacking the least popular people it can find; for instance, coo-coo birds who say there was no Holocaust.
Remember the RICO statutes and property seizures? The liars who gave them to us swore up and down they would be applied only to organized crime. In fact, they have been applied to pro-life demonstrators outside baby-killing abortuaries, and in one case to a Michigan lady who had no idea her husband was soliciting prostitutes in her car, which was seized.
Americans used to believe that truth will prevail where sufficient pains are taken to bring it to light. Whatever somebody says, let it stand forth in the stark light of day. If it is nonsense, wrong, a lie or whatever, exposure to the light will kill it. If the “Holocaust deniers” are as crazy as the powers that would like to be say they are, the light will destroy them. What do the latest arrests accomplish instead?
Typically, by suppressing what they say, the conspirators make sure it will fester. It will inspire ever more deluded recruits. It will do just the opposite of what the Communist media say they want. Most important, it will add even more nails to the precedent that if the conspiracy doesn’t like what you say, it can throw you into jail. Which historian could be next? My tongue-in-cheek candidate is Thomas DiLorenzo.
Here is a “historian” who has utterly destroyed the benevolent, paternal reputation of Abe Lincoln painstakingly taught us in the government schools. He paints a picture of Honest Abe Lincoln as a psychopath who typically lied even when he could just as well tell the truth, as a monster that destroyed our federal system—our first Communist President—a man who even threw a Congressman into jail for disagreement and set the stage for today’s totalitarian interventionism.
DiLorenzo could just as well have concealed the fact that Honest Abe was a consummate racist who foul-mouthed blacks and wanted to send them to Africa. Instead, DiLorenzo chose to publicize all this. The professor is obviously someone who needs reeducation in one of the rumored Patriot Act concentration camps.
In fact, the David Irving situation could cement a 1984 theme by making it impossible even to think certain thoughts. Remember the Goebbels principle: censorship begins at home. So far, I haven’t seen a peep from the Antiamerican Communist Liars Union or the Communist Broadcasting System.
Why do the Communist media and the District of Criminals go to such inordinate lengths to destroy anyone who threatens the authorized version of the Holocaust they tell, even anyone who quibbles about the details? Notice that Hollyweird and television treat the long gone Holocaust as if it happened last week, while thousands of stories about the gulag and the laogai—which exist today—languish waiting to be told.
The obvious answer is that after all these years the Holocaust has become less the actual horror it was than a devastating propaganda weapon the conspiracy for world government uses to inspire guilt, guilt that neutralizes opposition to its schemes by fancifully connecting that opposition to the Nazis.
It is a very lucrative technique the conspiracy will not willingly surrender. Consider that we are still being blamed for slavery almost a century-and-a-half after the War of Northern Aggression. Some years ago, I was the guest on a local talk show, the host of which was black. He asked me how much guilt I felt for slavery. He was flabbergasted when I explained that because I wasn’t here at the time and that, indeed, my family had not even been in this country at the time, I felt none.
I’m for the First Amendment. Are you?
“Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”