On the Anti-semitism that led to Two Holocausts, Past & Present

Shock & Awe Holocaust

While I do not wish, in any way, to belittle the Shoa or Holocaust of the 1940s I am amazed at the way the more recent Muslim Holocaust (1991 to the present) is --and I am tempted to say wilfully-- ignored by even those who might consider themselves to be liberals, of the left or of the anti-war movement. It isn't as if the figures to prove that Holocaust are not there. The Australian scientist, academic, lecturer, writer, author and artist, Dr Gideon Polya published these figures almost a year ago and his web-article is available here and a commentary here.

Dr Polya has also published a huge pharmacological text entitled Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds. A pharmacological reference guide to sites of action and biological effects (London & New York). He previously published a detailed book entitled Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History. Colonial rapacity, holocaust denial and the crisis in biological sustainability (Melbourne, 1998).

The latter dealt with the 2-century atrocity of British rule over India culminating in the man-made Bengal Famine of 1943/44 that killed 4 million people but which has been largely deleted from British histriography in a continuing process of sustained, racist, holocaust denial. His most recent book, Body Count, documents the similarly non-reported avoidable death of 1.3 billion people since 1950 on Spaceship Earth with the First World in control of the flight deck --for further details of Body Count, see http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com

Why is it then that the West is so obsessed with events that took place over half a century ago while it blocks out the reality of what is going on right now before us and as this is being written? I would maintain that in both cases it is because the First World or what preceded it in Europe remains stubbornly in denial of its anti-semitic past as well as the new anti-semitism it practises against the Muslim world.

At an extreme level we can see this caricatured in the traditionally anti-semitic, racist BNP allying itself with a Jewish Zionist in the hope of attracting Jewish votes! The new tactic of the opportunist BNP, it appears, is no longer an anti-semitism levelled at Jews but of one against Muslims. While at one level this appears to be totally opportunistic at another it gives us a fascinating if not horrific insight into the darker corners of the European psyche in which the racial memories of persecution against both Jews and Muslims remains embedded.


Crusading against the Antichrist

Europe has never really owned the huge karmic debt it created for itself in what we appropriately call the Dark Ages. As a result, it was condemned to relive those horrors, first through the Holocaust of the Nazis and now the Holocaust committed by the Anglo-Saxon Alliance, the new Nazis, against that other semitic people the Iraqis and the partly-semitic people of Afghanistan. Somewhere in the European mind a myth was formed centuries ago of the crusading Christian who would prevail over the shifty and usurious Jew as well as the fanatical Mohammedan.

Hitler constantly used the first caricature and described himself as a Christian doing the work of the Lord. How different was his claim to the one we hear from today's Christian Zionists who seek to pressure US Presidents to attack Iran and bring on a final, nuclear Armageddon? And both the current US and UK governments have carried out a calculated and sustained campaign ever since the fabricated 911 incident to demonise, scapegoat and terrorise Muslims as fanatics and devils.

None of this, I believe, could have been possible if it were not for the Myth of the Crusading Christ that runs so deeply in the psyche of the Anglo-American and primarily Protestant mind. The psychiatrist, Carl Gustav Jung, argued that the everyday lives of humans have always been governed by one or another form of Myth. Myths, he said, are important symbols of meaning to the human psyche. Without acknowledging the importance of that inner world, men would find themselves empty of meaning. Something else would fill the vacuum which had been previously filled by the old myths. He warned that that was happening with the growth of fascism and the new myth of the strongman Dictator.

But it is interesting that even the strongman Dictators found themselves having to cash-in on the popular Christian myth that turns the Jew into the Antichrist by blaming Christ's death on the Cross on the Jews! Basically the same myth that Sacha Baron Cohen alludes to while singing his outrageous song, Throw the Jew down the Well, to gullible American rednecks. Anti-semitism against both Jews and Muslims dwells deep down in the Anglo-American and European psyche.



Two Sociopaths of a Kind

The current political correctness over the Shoa Holocaust originates in the feelings of guilt that Europeans still collectively feel about the brutal reality of where that anti-semitism led them to sixty years ago. It was easy enough to blame it all on the Germans, a defeated nation. And especially so as it was an Austrian that the Germans had allowed to lead them into the Nightmare. But before the coming of Hitler, German anti-semitism was really no different in nature to European anti-semitism in general, including that of Britain, immortalised in Shakespeare's evil Shylock and past pogroms.

The great irony is that while it is now politically correct to genuflect in atonement of their past sins against the Jewish people, Anglo-Americans project their inner guilt by murdering millions of those other semites, the Muslims, while at the same time seeking to revile and demonise them as terrorists and criminals! In tribal wars you have to do this. You have to justify your lust for murder by blaming it all on the evils of those you are just about to murder. The Zionists, on the other hand, seem to have no problems working with today's anti-semites. Why should they after having worked so closely with Hitler before?

It is totally understandable that the children of the victims of the Shoa should never forget how their parents and grandparents were murdered in the name of some absurd political dogma. But it is equally understandable that the relatives (if there are any left) of the eight million Muslims who died during the Anglo-Saxon coalition's Shock and Awe tactics in Iraq and Afghanistan should feel the same. The West rightly tried and punished earlier war criminals who happened also to be on the defeated side. How long, I wonder, and under what circumstances of a required defeat will it be before the war criminals of the West are similarly tried and punished?

President Evo Morales calls for 'reparations to the earth'



At UN forum on indigenous issues, Bolivian president calls for global economic overhaul 10 hours ago.

President Evo Morales outlined a plan at the UN on Tuesday to rescue the world from environmental degradation and injustice. Drawing connections between free-market economics, excessive consumption, environmental problems and social injustice, the Bolivian leader urged the world to “put an end to the exploitation of human beings and the pillage of natural resources” by rejecting free-market theory and reallocating the money spent on war to fighting environmental and climate problems.

Alex Jones: Officer Jack Boot



Alex Jones missed his vocation as an actor. But he makes the point. Our societies' mindset is being militarised in the most insidious way. I have heard British cops talking about 'civilians' as if the police were something other than civilians.

Either this is being done through sheer ignorance of police regulations or despite them and deliberately to create the idea that the police are part of the military.

A third possibility is that the police, having in reality become para-military in nature (which I believe they have), are reflecting the true nature of things.

The police should be kept constantly under public control & reminded of their inherently civilian status.

Nazis in the BBC's Closet?

I know the BBC is nothing more than a conduit for the government's ideological sewage but I was still alarmed at the way someone in the BBC is stirring-up racial differences in Britain by highlighting that madman, Enoch Powell's, Rivers of Blood speech as it did today.

Why does the BBC have to keep on digging-up this stuff from the sewers of the British psyche? Is it the BBC's intention to revive Powell as some sort of martyred national hero in the eyes of a generation that has little or no memory of the racial strife and persecution this country went through in the 'sixties and more particularly under that very-British fascist, Margaret Thatcher?

How many black people have died and suffered at the hands of British white supremacists already? Is it the BBC's hope that they should be joined by many more in a Britain torn apart with economic and social turmoil?

As one who migrated to these islands nearly 50 years ago, I must say it in public: thanks to the BBC I have been made to feel like a Jew in Hitler's Germany.

Ol' Macky's Back in Town

Oh yes, there are certainly Nazis inside the BBC as there are in this abomination of a Nu Labor government and the Tories who are deliberately seeking to stir-up racial and nationalist turmoil with the intention of creating unrest and lawlessness so that they have an excuse to declare martial law and replace parliament altogether with a dictatorship.


The old-time Socialist, Louis Armstrong, knew exactly what he was singing about, warning the USA of McCarthyite, fascist racism!

I have said it many times before: Britain today is in a similar state to the last days of the German Weimar Republic when the Nazis were already taking over. The government has already scape-goated British Muslims as its surrogate Jews (a different slant on the traditional anti-semitism if you will). Already, anti-war campaigners are being persecuted by Britain's men-in-black. Thatcher destroyed the Trade Unions and turned Britain plc into one, vast concentration-camp.

Those who blame it all on "Europe" clearly have no idea of the domestic origins of the British police state. And while chattering on about 'national sovereignty' they forget that not only is the idea of a nation-state a feudal, capitalist concept but that any sovereignty the people had --and in imperialist Britain they never did have any-- has been superseded by a fascist state masquerading as a democracy.

And now, the BBC quite calculatedly revives the spectre of racism. It's clear to this new Jew why it is they're doing it ..

Tweedledum & Tweedledee in the Great British Non-Debate

Nowhere in Europe can the issue of Europe have become so polarised as it has in Britain. Yet the issue of a Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty has been confused (and I suspect deliberately so) with the question of whether Britain should remain or withdraw from the EU.

Whereas there is a strong outcry for a Referendum in certain quarters the prospect of withdrawal remains much less popular. Britain's anti-EU campaigners know this and seek to cloud the issue by using the call for a Referendum as proof of the unpopularity of the EU. It's no accident that anti-EU newspapers like the Sun, the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph are all the most vociferous when it comes to demanding a Referendum. And David Cameron's Tory Party, not known for its love of things European, is no different.

During the recent House of Commons debate on the Lisbon Treaty it was significantly the Tories who felt threatened by the prospect of a European Defence Force which they see as a threat to the present Anglo-American 'special relationship' and alliance. Cameron claims that the 'special relationship' is in his and the Tory party's DNA. It shouldn't take much analysis to understand what he means.

And whereas it is perfectly understandable that writers like Susan George should denounce the Treaty as a blueprint for 'neo-liberal' exploitation and for the people of France and Holland to have rejected the proposed Constitution for similar reasons we should be much more cautious with the British Right as well as the caravan of anti-EU nationalists which follows on behind it.

A major reason the British Right is fighting the Lisbon Treaty is because it sees the creation of a European Defence Force as the first step towards a military bloc which would seriously challenge not only the present Anglo-Saxon Alliance but the imperialist military power behind it.


Now Eire is under threat from Nato

When reminded of the paradox in their 'independence' argument the anti-EU nationalists have no answer. For how can they really be serious about a British 'independence' which in the cruel light of day simply does not exist? And if the nationalists on the Left are, as they often profess to be, anti-Nato and against the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan how can they square this with their hostility to a EU which is feared by US analysts as a growing threat to US foreign policy?

Opposition to the EU in Britain tends to come from a deeper source of resentment than just concern for the threat of unemployment resulting from the Treaty's 'neoliberal' economic policies. It is something to be found in the well-springs of national identity or now rather a lack of one following a post-imperial hangover. It is probably no accident that there exists no serious interest here in a debate about the need for more democracy within the EU. Why bother when you can get your opinions ready-made from the Sun? And yet how many who read the Sun know that Rupert Murdoch, a naturalised US citizen, is a mortal enemy of the EU? And if they did would they trouble to join up the dots?

Unlike Eire with its Dublin Castle Forum debate the people of the UK are not being allowed any debate over the Lisbon Treaty. The British must rely on the paucity of --even then grossly distorted-- information it receives from the national mainstream media and a government whose attitude to the European Project is in a word ambivalent. While on the one hand successfully blackmailing the EU with threats to veto the Treaty if not allowed major opt-outs concerning industrial relations and civil rights Gordon Brown returns to our shores claiming these opt-outs to be an "achievement"! An achievement for whom, the people or a reactionary government going busily about turning Britain into a police-state?

There never was a time when Britain more needed an intelligent, informed national debate about where this country is headed for. But that need is not even on the agenda of an unelected Brown government whose deeply undemocratic nature makes even the Tories look like the champions of freedom. Of course, they are not. If Labour and the Tories have one thing in common it is that they share a deep belief in the Atlantic alliance between Britain and the USA.

That Alliance, while in the interests of Anglo-American capital, is certainly no friend of the people. Both Labour and the Tories would like to keep Britain in the EU to act as a trojan horse for US interests and interventionism. And that is why Tweedledum and Tweedledee do not want a national debate on Europe or, indeed, anything else.

While campaigning for a more democratic Europe the reality of the Anglo-American status quo should never be forgotten. What European democrats should be working towards is not only a decentralised and democratic European Federation --one that is truly people-friendly-- but for a Europe that has the economic, diplomatic and military teeth to present itself as a defensive counter-force in a new, multipolar world of powers.

Paul Carline from the Initiative & Referendum Institute, Marburg, comments:

An excellent analysis. There are very good reasons for believing that a federated Europe based on popular sovereignty and direct-democratic rights (citizen-initiated referendums and obligatory referendums on key issues - as is already the case in the Irish Republic) would be a safer and more prosperous place.

There's every reason to think that Britain would also be better off as a federal country, like Switzerland and Germany.

In fact, Switzerland, with its 26 sovereign cantons, each with its own constitution based on popular sovereignty, is a great model for an EU which now has 27 member states.
Academic studies in Switzerland show that the more direct democracy there is i.e. the more the people have real rights of political decision-making and initiative, the happier people are and the more efficient and prosperous the economy is.

When anti-EU people speak of 'national sovereignty', they are talking about an undemocratic claim to exclusive power by an unrepresentative parliament and government in which a tiny handful of people around the prime minister can take momentous decisions such as committing Britain to illegal wars (incidentally making those who promoted and supported those decisions war criminals in international and domestic law. cf. the Campaign to Make Wars History at www.makewarshistory.org).

Is that the kind of sovereignty we want?

from Campaign for a Democratic Europe