For One Democratic State
in the whole of Palestine (Israel)


FOR One Man, One Vote



Who Needs Holocaust?

By Israel Shamir

Our good friend Gilad Atzmon proposed a new idea, that the Anglo-Americans are particularly vile, and that they need the Holocaust narrative to justify and persist with their nastiness. In Gilad’s own words, “I believe that it isn't the Jews who impose this Holocaust narrative. It is actually the Anglo-Americans who need Auschwitz, just because it allows them to kill in the name of freedom...” He stated it in his Re-Arranging the 20th Century: Allegro, non Troppo, and in his interview to Lasse Wilhelmson, Gilad says: “I am totally convinced that H isn't a Zio narrative. I put a major blame on the Anglo-Americans”. Lasse asked him: “So the post war imperialists created the H narrative to be able to use Zionism ideologically and the Jews as a scapegoat?” Gilad replied: “… Auschwitz allows the Anglo-American to kill in the name of democracy”.

Now, I beg to disagree. This narrative is Jewish, it belongs to Jews, and it has no meaning but as manifestation of Jewish supremacy, as we shall explain below, and it is not necessary to put it over on the much blamed Anglo-Saxon. By creating the “Second Villain” (the Anglo-Americans) Gilad sins against Ockham and multiplies entries beyond necessity. Though Gilad wrote his text as an exercise in dialectics, it can be utilised by less scrupulous men as a “guilt-shifting”.  

Gilad: But in fact, it isn’t Jews alone who are capitalising on ‘Auschwitz the message’. It is in the shadow of that very message that Americans allow themselves to kill millions of innocent civilians in the name of democracy and freedom.

Objection! The Americans kill Iraqis and whoever else on behalf of their Jewish mind-benders and masters. Thus is it still Jewry that “capitalises on Auschwitz the message”. When the Americans killed Vietnamese and Cambodians, or the Brits killed Kikuyu and Malays, they did not ever mention the Polish village and its German-run camp. So they really do not need this message in order to kill whoever they wish.

In order to sustain his thesis, Gilad tries to prove that the Anglo-Americans did not care for Jews during the war. He says:

The British Empire was reluctant to help European Jews escape their doomed fate. It was Lord Bevin’s 1939 White Paper that stopped Jews from immigrating to Palestine when danger for their lives was immanent.

Here Gilad repeats verbatim some Zionist propaganda from Israeli high school. Not many people thought that the European Jews were “doomed” at that time. One may read the book by Shabtay Beit Zvi, <> based on the archives of the Jewish Agency to find out that the Jewish leaders did not think so, nor in 1939, neither in 1942. In the same 1939, all Polish Jews could find refuge in the Soviet Union. Many did (like my father) and survived. Others, like Elie Wiesel, preferred to go with Germans to escape the Red Army. 

Gilad reiterated: It was the RAF that repeatedly dismissed the necessity of bombing Auschwitz.

Another go of Zionist propaganda. The camp was perceived as an internment facility, attended by the Red Cross (as opposed to the US internment centre in Guantanamo). If it were bombed, the internees would die – or as a result of the bombing, or due to starvation for the supplies would not arrive. Indeed, would Gilad advise to bomb Guantanamo? This idea of “bombing Auschwitz” makes sense only if one accepts the vision of “industrial extermination factory”, and it was formed only well after the war.

Gilad: Roosevelt did very little to help European Jews during the war. The American administration didn’t change its immigration laws between 1933-45 in order to allow mass immigration of European Jews into the USA.

Another Zionist bite. Why should the US invite Jews, and not all other people who suffered under the German occupation? Again, no reason at all, for the “doomed” narrative of holocaust came into being much, much later.

Gilad exceeds himself by asserting that Jews are the victims of the Holocaust Industry.

“It isn’t only the Palestinians who happen to suffer from the politicisation and industrialisation of the Holocaust personal narrative. Once the Holocaust had become ‘the new Jewish religion’, it was the real, genuine victim who was robbed of his own intimate personal biography. The very private disastrous narrative has now become collective Jewish property. The real singular Holocaust survivor, the one who lived the horror, has been robbed of his very personal life experience. “

Forgive me for laughing instead of crying: this “robbery” is the fate of a participant of every historical event, be it a war, a revolution, a battle, or even a bout of inflation. The public discourse displaces a personal narrative. Monsieur de La Palisse < > was alive until he died.

The Jewish discourse is integrated as a central part of Western consciousness. Furthermore, the West needs the Jewish neurosis.

The West needs the Jewish neurosis like a fish needs boots. The West managed fine without it, and it would manage fine but it was forced by the Jews to swallow this neurosis. We see there are non-Jewish elite forces that started to use the great argument of Michael Neumann: John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt for the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University said that the Jewish designs contradict the American Imperial Interests.

The two Gods, Holocaust and Democracy, are cleverly set in a complementary relationship. The message is clear: unless Democracy is in place, a Holocaust is inevitable.

This is a clear case of misunderstanding. Just recently Hamas was democratically elected to rule Palestine, and it was not approved by the US and Israel. Russia had a democratically elected Parliament in 1993, but it was not approved by the US and Israel. Belarus has a democratically elected President but he is not approved by the US and Israel. Thus, Democracy is not required: a regime should be approved by the Jews. And no regime will be approved by the Jews, unless it is controlled by the Jews. Thus we arrive to another truism: unless a country is controlled by the Jews, a Holocaust is inevitable. Or, even in simpler form: it is Yisrael, or Esau. If Yisrael can’t control Esau, Esau will kill him. This is a traditional Jewish point of view.

Though the baddies speak recently of Democracy, it does not naturally mesh with the H narrative. If you wish to decode the H message, it is rather an antidemocratic message of Strauss and Hobbes, that the majority should be ruled in and controlled by the wise and noble men. Democracy is permitted (rather than ordered) if the disobedient [to the Jews] parties are banned or marginalised, and the media and wealth are concentrated in the Jewish hands.

The H’s message is anti-native, for H is a crime the natives committed against the foreigners in their midst. As non-Jewish elites are native, they have no need for the H discourse. Indeed, similar crimes occurred in the colonial context: the Black Hole of Calcutta, the story of mistreatment of the Brits by the Indians in 1756, and the Haiti revolt of Toussaint L’Ouverture when “the Haitian slaves executed all Frenchmen they could find” <>.  In both cases, they did not become central for the Western thought.

The last fault I find in Gilad’s texts is philosophical one. He writes:

“The positivist school insisted that we should become more scientific and far less philosophical. The Vienna Circle, a group of [Jewish] philosophers and scientists, aimed at eradicating any traces of metaphysics out of the body of scientific knowledge. Logical positivism wasn’t just an attack against emotional and spiritual expression, it was also a clear offensive on German philosophy. … these three outlaws: Irving, Zundel and Germar, the three rightwing historical revisionists who happen to be locked behind bars, question the validity of the personal narrative; foolishly they aim at establishing a rational, dynamic, lucid empirically grounded narrative based on forensic evidence. The three criminals are applying logical-positivistic methods. Pathetically, they follow the tradition of Carnap, Popper and the Vienna Circle. I wonder whether they realise that they happen to follow an academic tradition set by a Jewish secular Germanic school. Those ugly revisionists are aiming at truth-values, correspondence rules, empiricism.”

This is witty but all wrong. The Logical-Positivist school was a Judaic attack formation in the philosophical discourse aiming to emasculate the Christian spirit. Science was just a cover for their purely religious and metaphysical task: to de-spiritualise the West. Likewise, the revisionists have religious and metaphysical tasks, even if they use some scientific words and concepts. Jurgen Graf made it clear in his important book, but the same was stated by Mahler, Zundel and others. No, Gilad, they did not follow “an academic tradition set by a Jewish secular Germanic school” but denied it. Empiricism loaded their discourse with some least interesting footnotes, but at its best, revisionism is a purely metaphysical denial of Jew-worship.