Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page

Free Speech - June 2000 - Volume VI, Number 6

Shielding Evil

by Dr. William Pierce

The horror in Rhodesia continues -- the ethnic cleansing, the murder and rape and dispossession of the Whites there by the Blacks -- and the media here continue to ignore what is happening there or to downplay it drastically, showing only happy mobs of Blacks chanting and dancing as they demand that more White farms be turned over to them. Certainly, I'll be talking about Rhodesia more in the future. Today, however, let's back off a little and look at some other things that are happening in our world that may not seem to have much to do with the genocide of our people in Rhodesia but that nevertheless can help us understand better why that genocide is happening and why the mass media here are ignoring it.

Let's begin today with a law suit that recently ended in a British court in London. It was a libel suit that the noted British historian and writer David Irving had brought against a Jewess, Deborah Lipstadt, who had written a book calling Irving a "Holocaust denier" and implying that he is neither an objective historian nor a truthful writer. Lipstadt's book, published in 1994, is Denying the Holocaust: the Growing Assault on Truth and Memory. Irving's position is that he is not a "Holocaust denier"; he is a "Holocaust" examiner. He is an objective historian who examines historical evidence and attempts to reach correct historical conclusions from that evidence. And, Irving said, the Jewess, Lipstadt, had damaged his professional reputation by falsely claiming otherwise. So he sued her for libel.

Now, I personally never have been involved in any sort of litigation in a British court, but I have observed the British courts in action, and it seems to me that they are approximately as corrupt as American courts. On that basis I certainly never would have sought justice in a British court. But Irving is a man of courage and conviction, and he did -- and the Jews around the world reacted with outrage. They reacted to his libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt as if he were suing each of them personally, as if each of them were being threatened personally by his effort to obtain a declaration from the court that the Jewess had libeled him by calling him a "Holocaust denier."

Let's try to understand the way in which the Jews use that term. Just from the customary meaning of the words, we would expect a "Holocaust denier" to be a person who claims that there was no "Holocaust": that all of the Jews' claims of being persecuted and killed by the Germans during the Second World War are lies. In other words, a "Holocaust denier" would seem to be a person who claims that no Jews were persecuted or killed. Well, there are such people. There are genuine "Holocaust deniers," and I have met one or two of them. But there aren't many of them. Their position is untenable. Jews were killed during the war. I've spoken with German soldiers who killed some of them. In Poland and Russia and the Baltic states, Jews made up substantial majorities of the Communist Party apparatus, including the secret police. They had committed horrible atrocities against the non-Jewish populations among whom they lived and were bitterly hated for it. And they were sympathetic to the Soviet side throughout the war, serving as spies, saboteurs, and anti-German partisans. The Germans often rounded up Jews as hostages when the Wehrmacht moved into a new territory in the east. Then when a German soldier or official was assassinated, a group of these Jewish hostages would be shot. Furthermore, every Red Army unit had a political commissar attached to it; his job was to watch for any signs of Political Incorrectness among the troops. A very high percentage of these political commissars were Jews, and the practice of many German commanders was to separate these communist commissars from captured Soviet troops and shoot them. As I said, I've spoken with former German soldiers who did some of the shooting and with others who witnessed the shooting of Jews.

And many Jews were rounded up, deported, and packed into concentration camps or forced-labor camps during the war, and many of these concentration-camp inmates died from disease and malnutrition in the camps, especially toward the end of the war, when it became very difficult for the besieged Germans to continue providing adequate sanitation and nutrition to the prisoners. It's difficult to estimate how many Jews lost their lives during the war as a result of German policies against them: perhaps half a million, perhaps a million, maybe even more. It's also difficult to estimate how many non-Jews -- Poles, Balts, Russians, Ukrainians, Croats, Germans -- lost their lives during and especially after the war as a result of the policies of the Jews or the Jews' allies against them: there were at least five million of these non-Jewish victims, perhaps as many as ten million.

Anyway, neither David Irving nor I am a "Holocaust denier," in the common-sense meaning of the term. But that's not the way the Jews use the term. To them the "Holocaust" is not simply the persecution or killing of the Jews during the war. It is a body of dogma consisting of thousands of specific claims, which non-Jews are required to swallow whole, without question or quibble. To the Jews a "Holocaust denier" is any non-Jew who has even one question or quibble about any of these claims. If one points out, for example, that the stories the Jews were circulating for many years after the war about dead Jews being skinned to make lampshades and about the bodies of gassed Jews being converted into soap are lies with no basis in fact whatsoever, one is called a "Holocaust denier." That's the way the Jews use the term, and it's also the way the people in their employ, such as journalists, use the term. A single quibble about fake lampshade photographs or whatever, and one is a "Holocaust denier." That certainly is cute of them to have their own definition of the term, but not to share that definition with the general public. When they accuse someone like Irving of being a "Holocaust denier," they want the lemmings to believe that he's some sort of flat-earth crackpot who believes he can walk on water and who really claims that there were no concentration camps, that no Jews at all were killed during the war, and so on. They want to destroy his credibility.

And so when Deborah Lipstadt, who is a professor of the very trendy and Politically Correct new academic discipline known as "Holocaust studies" at Atlanta's Emory University, called Irving a "Holocaust denier" he sued her for trying to damage his credibility as a historian, and the Jews of the world went berserk. At any given moment there are dozens of libel suits in progress in the courts, and very few of them attract any attention, but the Jews regarded Irving's suit against Lipstadt as a mortal threat. Mobs of shrieking Jews gathered outside the London courthouse, screaming death threats at Irving and throwing things at him each time he showed up for a hearing in connection with his suit: really remarkable behavior.

That reminds me of the sort of reaction that I often get from Jews. I was being interviewed on a New York radio talk show two weeks ago, the Alan Colmes Show, and a Jew who identified himself as "Bernie" called in from Brooklyn and was foaming with hatred as he announced how much he wanted to kill me. I thought about Brooklyn Bernie's reaction to me and the reaction of the Jews to Irving's law suit, and I contrasted this with the behavior of other people toward the Jews. I never have seen a Pole or a Latvian or a German or a Russian shrieking at a Jew in public that he wants to kill Jews because of what Jews or Jewish policies have done to his people. The Poles, for example, have suffered much more at the hands of the Jewish communists than the Jews suffered at the hands of the Germans. In 1940 Jewish communists tried to decapitate Poland. They rounded up as many of Poland's military officers and her writers and professors and scientists and poets and other intellectuals and leaders as they could and murdered them. Many of the victims were buried in the Katyn forest, and their graves were discovered later by the German Army, but other mass graves of Polish leaders still are being discovered in Russia today.

And what do you see today? Do you see Poles becoming hysterical in public and screaming at the Jews for being anti-Polish? No, what you see instead is Jews making a circus about how anti-Semitic the Poles are! What you see are delegations of Jews from the United States going to Poland and demanding loudly and arrogantly that Polish Catholics remove crucifixes from areas near places that the Jews have declared to be "Holocaust" memorials!

Sometimes it's difficult to decide how much of this Jewish behavior is calculated theatrical display designed to impress the lemmings and how much of it is based on a genuine conviction that Jews are entitled to do whatever they want to the Gentiles, and the Gentiles aren't entitled to defend themselves. If one sees the Jews outside the London court shrieking their hatred at David Irving or listens to Brooklyn Bernie on the radio in New York mouthing his hatred of me, one cannot help but remember that the Romans 2,000 years ago regarded the Jews as the most hate-filled race in their empire. But we also must remember that the Jews are in fact a theatrical people, whose whole existence has been based on illusion and deception.

In the case of David Irving's libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt, they really were worried that if the court decided that he wasn't a "Holocaust denier" for pointing out that some of the specific "Holocaust" claims are bogus, then their whole body of "Holocaust" mythology, of "Holocaust" dogma would come unraveled. If historians are permitted to examine and investigate the "Holocaust" piece by piece, instead of being required to swallow it whole, then it not only loses much of its substance as the bogus components are removed, it also loses its mythical quality; it loses its ability to inspire awe in the lemmings. And to the Jews this is extremely important. The "Holocaust" is a shield they use to cover many things, and it is an effective shield only when it is able to inspire awe.

Well, they really need not have worried about David Irving's libel suit. They had a Politically Correct judge who ruled against Irving and then went out of his way to denounce Irving on his own as a "Holocaust denier." And that really should not have surprised Irving. Two groups of people in our society who can be counted on absolutely to do the bidding of the Jews are journalists and politicians, and the unfortunate fact is that judges these days are more often than not politicians: soulless men on the make, without scruple or principle.

What really caught my attention about the Irving case was the reaction by the Jews to their victory. It was obscene. They were crowing about their own righteousness and spewing hatred at the defeated Irving. It reminded me of the way the communists in Italy -- many of whom also were Jews -- dealt with the defeated Benito Mussolini at the end of the Second World War. Not only did they murder him after he had surrendered, but then they murdered his mistress, Claretta Petacci, they kicked and stoned the bodies until the faces were unrecognizable, they danced around the bodies in glee, they urinated on them, and then they put the bodies on public display, hanging them upside down by their feet, so that Claretta's dress fell down around her shoulders.

The Simon Wiesenthal center in Los Angeles issued a statement crowing that the libel verdict was:

a victory of history over hate. . . . David Irving's career as a historian is over. . . . He will be relegated to the garbage heap of history's haters.

And virtually every major newspaper in America crowed along with the Wiesenthal Center. Mortimer Zuckerman's New York Daily News called the verdict "a powerful setback to the Holocaust denial movement" and editorialized:

By rejecting a libel suit brought by crackpot historian David Irving -- who denies the extent of the Holocaust -- Britain's High Court has sent a strong condemnation of those who try to rewrite history.

No reasonable person who has read one of Irving's meticulously researched and carefully written histories of the events of the Second World War would describe him as a "crackpot." And I think that not even the few thoughtful people remaining in our thoroughly corrupt judicial system or in Britain's equally corrupt judicial system believe that the proper role of the courts is to condemn those scholars who try to give us a more nearly correct understanding of the past.

The New York Times quoted Lipstadt's Jewish lawyer, Anthony Julius, who said:

It's important to secure definitive rulings against Holocaust deniers, to send them back into the anti-Semitic ghetto from which they came.

The New York Post referred in an editorial to Irving's "sinister campaign of Holocaust denial" and stated:

We don't expect David Irving to be silenced by Justice Grey's verdict, but hopefully it will cause those legitimate historians who have credited his crackpot theories to think twice before using him as a source of information.

Of course, the historians considered "legitimate" by the Jews and their lackeys in the media and the courts are those who already are so corrupt that they wouldn't even consider questioning any aspect of the "Holocaust" story, not even those already completely exposed as bogus, such as the claim that the Germans converted the corpses of dead Jews into soap and lampshades.

I said a minute ago that the reason the Jews become so nervous and defensive when anyone begins asking questions about any detail of the "Holocaust" is that they use it as a shield. They also make an enormous amount of money from the "Holocaust" story. But mainly it is a shield to cover some very questionable activities of theirs. Consider the state of Israel, for example. While we bomb other countries to rubble that are suspected of attempting to develop nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons -- Iraq for example -- we completely ignore Israel's development of a huge arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. While we impose a starvation blockade on Iraq, we actually facilitate Israel's use of military technology stolen from us to build doomsday weapons. We pretend not to notice when Israel thumbs its nose at the rules that apply to everyone else.

Why is that? Why do the ordinary rules of behavior not apply to Israel? Well, of course, it is the "Holocaust." Any criticism of Israel, any questioning of Israel, immediately brings the accusation of "anti-Semitism" and images of heaps of dead Jews, fake lampshades, gas chambers, crematoria, and so on. That's why Israel's arrogant, strutting, toad-like little prime minister, Ehud Barak, was among those Jews crowing about the Irving verdict last month. When the verdict was announced Barak told the New York Times about the importance of the "Holocaust" to Jews, and he concluded his statement by alluding to Israel's illegal arsenal of weapons of mass destruction when he boasted about his country's military strength, which, he said, is great enough now so that, "no one in the world will dare rise against the Jewish nation."

And the American taxpayers are still paying billions of dollars every year to maintain the Jewish nation's illegal arsenal, so that Barak can make that boast.

Of course, Israel's illegal weapons program isn't the only thing shielded by the "Holocaust." Have you seen some of the filth coming from Hollywood recently? Hollywood has launched a crash program to make sex between Whites and Blacks fashionable. And because Hollywood is Jewish from top to bottom, that means that it's a Jewish program. And it's not just coincidentally a Jewish program; it's not that Hollywood just happens to be Jewish, and this trendy new thing of trying first to make rap and other aspects of Black life fashionable among White teenagers and now promoting interracial sex just happened to come from Hollywood as some sort of natural development. No, this is entirely artificial; it is something the Jews have been planning and working toward for decades.

I've been telling you for a long time what they were trying to do, even when they were doing it very subtly and were denying that they were doing it. It wasn't so subtle, of course, that other perceptive observers didn't understand what they were up to, but most of them were afraid to comment on it. And the reason they were afraid was the "Holocaust." They were afraid that if they imputed any sinister motives to the Jews who own Hollywood, they would be accused of "anti-Semitism," and the whole "Holocaust" apparatus, with Jewish soap and lampshades and gas chambers and the rest, would be unleashed on them. But now all of Hollywood's subtlety in their race-mixing campaign is gone. Now it's all out in the open, all quite brazen and obvious.

Take a look at the latest race-mixing abomination to come out of Hollywood, Mr. James Toback's film Black and White. They are really gloating over the way they have corrupted and multiculturalized White teenagers in America. First they uprooted and alienated young Whites from their own heritage, their own racial community, their own folkways. They made them feel that they had nothing to identify with, nothing to belong to, nothing to be proud of. To be proud of one's European heritage, of the qualities and accomplishments of one's White ancestors, is to be racist. What is really cool is the hip-hop culture. It is cool to be Black. That is the poisonous message the Jews of Hollywood and Madison Avenue have been putting into the minds and hearts of many White teenagers. It is cool for a White girl to have a Black boyfriend. That is the deliberate, calculated message of Hollywood. And most of the people who see what they're doing to our people are afraid to call them to account for it because of the "Holocaust" myth.

And just about every White American who has some inkling of the horror now occurring in Rhodesia understands that the reason the television networks are remaining silent about that horror is that it is Blacks killing and raping and plundering Whites there, and that if it were the other way around their television screens would be full of it day and night. They understand that much, but they are afraid to carry their understanding much further and to connect Jewish ownership of the mass media with this anti-White bias, because to do so would be "anti-Semitic," with all of its connections to the "Holocaust" and gas chambers and lampshades.

That's what I mean when I say that the Jews use the "Holocaust" as a shield for their activities today. So if you ever wondered why "Holocaust" museums and "Holocaust" memorials are sprouting like poisonous mushrooms all over America -- if you ever wondered why Jews and their bought politicians are insisting that "Holocaust" propaganda be pounded into every White child's head in school -- now you know.

© 2000 National Vanguard Books · Box 330 · Hillsboro ·WV 24946 · USA

A cassette recording of this broadcast is available for $12.95 including postage from:
National Vanguard Books
P.O. Box 330
Hillsboro, WV 24946

Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page