SOB’s Grins & Grumps

Everything Between Heaven and Earth and Beyond

  • Copyrights and Contact

    Henric C. Jensen
    All images and Artwork are
    © 2006-2018 Henric C. Jensen
    Mail

  • July 2022
    S M T W T F S
     12
    3456789
    10111213141516
    17181920212223
    24252627282930
    31  
  • Categories

  • Meta

  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

Archive for the ‘European Politics’ Category

The fear of being Racist at the core of European Immigration Problems

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on March 31, 2008


IslamEurope3

“Until now I was only in it to uphold freedom of speech. With that I mean: ‘When there is a tendency to muzzle speech with violence, or threats of violence, you ought to stand up for the person who wants to say his part, even if you don’t agree with him, or them, or don’t understand what he is talking about.'[…] Islam is the new religion immigrated from different nations with different cultures and the struggle to adapt them to our secular society is a hard one. Politicians ignored the integration question for 30 years and left the immigrants out to dry. That’s why some people are still living within their old traditions and groups and some even don’t speak Dutch. Especially women from Islamic cultures who are kept in the house. This is an important and difficult debate where the groups involved can feel insulted, but I also think it needs to be dealt with. I don’t think Wilders has the right way to do it, but I support his freedom to make some havoc about it that this debate can be addressed publicly.” (Marc Gartmann)

The Nations in the European Union are largely responsibility for their own “immigrant problems” – something that they refuse to acknowledge, just as they refuse to discuss the hard issue of what should be expected of immigrant communities, as well as what the immigrant communities can expect from their adopted Societies. This is true about ALL immigrants to the various European Nations. This refusal has given intellectual birth to people like Geert Wilders and his ideas.

The resentment that he directs at the Muslim Immigrants should rightfully be directed at the Dutch Government. In my opinion, the only Nation in EU that has a successful history of dealing with their immigrants and their racists is Finland. What has Finland done that makes me say this?

1. They have realized that their Society has limits, and that it cannot accommodate immigrants in their thousands.

2. Made sure that the immigrants they have accommodated are properly taken care and integrated from day one of their stay.

3. Worked closely and parallel with the Immigrant Communities and the Finnish Society they have been inserted in to avoid misunderstandings and resentments.

4. Consistently seen immigrants as resources and positive additions to Society, that have something to give, rather than take.

5. Treat immigrants and non-immigrants equally in terms of expectations and privileges.

This can only be accomplished if and when a society honestly looks at its resources, the needs of its citizens, both new and old, and fit them to each other and add them up to make sure they do not out-weigh each other.

In a few words – Finland has, compared to most other nations in the EU, a very restrictive, but realistic immigration policy that takes into consideration both Society as a whole and the Immigrants. Finland has also consistently been criticized as being less willing to receive immigrants. If only the rest of the EU had emulated Finland’s example! Then we would not have had the problems that we see in England, Holland, Sweden, Denmark, France or Italy.

As for the debate that Marc is pointing to as crucial and tough. One reason that it is so difficult to initiate and have is that it has become politically incorrect (i.e racist) to want to limit the influx of immigrants or have expectations of those immigrants that is allowed in. It’s good to be liberal, but if a nation is so liberal that it can no longer see its own limitations, financially, socially and culturally, it is no longer healthy.

To deny cultural differences out of fear of being labeled racist and then react negatively when those differences comes back to bite you in the ass is just another form of racism.

Geert Wilders, and I agree with Marc that he is not Racist, is just the top of an iceberg, and his criticism of elements of Islam, that don’t merge well with Dutch Society is not only warranted but necessary. His methods are not acceptable, but his criticism should be.

Is it racist to expect people to learn the language in their new country?

Is it racist to expect that people try and become versed in the social and cultural codes of their new country, and learn how to apply them?

Is it racist to expect that people obey the laws of the country they adopt?

I really don’t think so. The failure to have those expectations of immigrants is the root of all immigrant problems in Europe and it’s a root that has been growing by the minute since the mid 60’s. Now we reap the fruits, in the form of the Arab European League and Geert Wilders.

SoB

Posted in Bigotry, European Politics, Geert Wilders | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Arab European League Replies to Wilders and “The West”

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on March 30, 2008


The video above is Xianophobic, Antsemitic and hateful towards the West – not surprising at all. I would have produced something similar in response to the Fitna Movie, had I been the least inclined to practice “eye for an eye” or “tooth for a tooth”. What has the European Arab League achieved by creating and publishing this video? More hatred, more prejudice and more violence. Nice, well done! Sardonic
However, I knew all this already – what I do not know is why Wilders is wrong, and the AEL doesn’t answer my question. It doesn’t take the opportunity to educate me about Islam. It just perpetuates the cycle of hatred. It’s sad. Here there was a golden opportunity to show the peaceful nature of Islam, the tolerant nature of Islam, and the AEL blows it – right in my face. They just proved people like Connie and Wilders right.
It is their right under the idea of Freedom of Speech – they have a right to respond in any way they like, but forgive me for being disappointed when all I see is them being just as hateful and prejudiced as Geert Wilders.
1. Wilders’ Islamophobia is directly connected to his “Zionism”, according the the Arab European League.
2. To discredit Judaism and Jewish people, they use a “quote” they attribute to the Talmud. However this “quote” from Avodah Zara is a pure fabrication.

“A heretic Gentile you may kill outright with your own hands.”

Here is Avodah Zara 4b in English.

The “quote” doesn’t exist anywhere in Talmud.

That it is a fabrication, usually used by White Nationalists and some extreme Xians, can be arrived at by using logic:

Talmud is a purely Jewish Scripture, it is only concerned with Jews and Jewish Law. Why would it be concerned with Gentile Heretics? One is either Jewish or one is not, and since Talmud is concerned with Jewish Law, not Gentile Law, it wouldn’t make a ruling on what is a Gentile Heretic.

Pure Antisemitism – now, why respond to Islamophobia with Antisemitism? It makes no sense.

Posted in Antisemitism, Bigotry, European Politics, Geert Wilders | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Republic of Kosovo – World Nation # 197*

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on February 18, 2008


Kosovo Flag

Poor Albanians… You still don’t get it.

You are under educated as much as the Serbs are. Your incompetent little joke of “country” will never be independent. You have only changed the boss.

Do you really think Americans help you because they like you? Or because you suffered? Do you really believe in American fairy-tales about the world democracy and human rights?

I am pretty aware why US want Kosovo independent. In fact, they do not want it independent as much they want it OUT of Serbia.

I think most other people too are aware of why the US wants Kosovo out of Serbia, just as we all know why Russia and Serbia wants it to remain inside Serbia.

The reserves of Kosovo coal is enough for the needs of the whole Serbia in the next 200 years (17 billions of tons)
The soil samples from Kosovo indicate enormous reserves of the oil – though very deep in the ground (but not unreachable). Also, Manas Petroleum Corp. confirmed this researching oil reserves in North Albania (visit their website here)
The reserves of galena ore and zinc ores are practically inexhaustible. These ores are concentrated in the mine of Trepca (read: Trepcha), the second biggest lead and zinc producer in Europe
Big reserves of rare minerals such the ores of boron (used in nuclear technology), nickel and cobalt.
The agricultural potential is said to be bigger than the one in Vojvodina (Serbian North)
Fresh water – no comment

    It is obvious, very obvious. An Independent Kosovo is a very rich country in terms of raw materials.
    However, this has nothing to do with the reason why Kosovars want out of Serbia. They want out for the same reason Finland wanted out of Russia, East Timor wanted of Indonesia, India wanted out of the Brittish Commom Wealth, Palestine wants to be a Nation of their own and Abkhasia declared their independence – People have an innate desire for self-determination. They also have the right.
    Kosovars aren’t Albanians, nor are they Serbs, Turks, Romani people, Goranis, Bosniaks or other ethnic communities. They are Kosovars. That is why, ultimately, they want to be the Republic of Kosovo. That is why we should hail them as the newest member of the 194 country strong International Community, and support their efforts to remain independent and free of imperialistic interventions from the US, Russia and Serbia or any other nation who wish to strip Kosovo of her rich natural resources that are rightfully hers and her people’s.

    *“Definitions of what constitutes a country also vary. Some will go with the simple view that if it is a member of the United Nations(UN) it’s a country. By that reckoning there are 192 countries in the world. But Vatican City is undoubtedly a country, and not a member of the UN, so that means the total must now be 193! Oh and then there are Taiwan and Tibet – so that’s 195.” This site is not counting East Timor and Kosovo, so…that makes 197.

    Posted in Kosovo | Tagged: , , , , , , | 6 Comments »

    “Are Swastikas Offensive?”

    Posted by Henric C. Jensen on September 23, 2007


    There is a subtle difference between the Ancient, non-offensive Swastika:

    and the distorted version the Nazis used:

    If you look at old photos from the WWII you will notice that the Nazi Swastika is ALWAYS “at an angle” – this is the offensive use of the Swastika.

    I think it’s important to know this difference and to be aware that it is only this swastika, and derivations of it in later times, that signify what Nazism stood for.

    As always it is a matter of education and information.”

    “It doesn’t matter at this point …what the swastika originally stood for … the common perception of the symbol today overrides any history prior to the Nazis.

    I’m a firm believer that, in most cases, people are offended by things because they choose so be. But when there are so many who are to strongly offended, then yes, it earns the label of “offensive.” -“

    “The line between where and when the swastika becomes obviously offensive does cross somewhere, even though I don’t think the line is so easily drawn. I think we have to go with the best we have: widespread agreement of its offensiveness, across many contemporary peoples and cultures.”

    “I’m thinking, just because the Nazis distorted the original meaning of the swastika, doesn’t mean we have to.”

    “I am not offended by a few scratches, I am offended by meaning.”

    Five different people, five slightly different opinions.

    The general consensus in that discussion was that, YES, the Nazi version of the Swastika is offensive to a majority of people.

    A minority in that discussion wanted to have his definition of it as “non-offensive” elevated to general consensus presumably in the name of Free Speech. Because he doesn’t find it offensive, it is not offensive. Pretty weird coming from someone who purports to defend freedom of speech – trying to impose a dictatorship on the rest of us.

    Is it offensive? Is it a violation of free speech to expect people not to use it in public?

    “I am not offended by a few scratches, I am offended by meaning.”
    “Well, […] – the Nazi Swastika carries meaningconnotations – for a majority of people born between 1933 and 1980 (I am going by when the youngest person I last spoke to about this, who could actually give a time line of the Third Reich, was born). That meaning is negative. In its “simplicity” it spells out genocide, hatred, discrimination, death, extermination, torture, racism, all things bad. That is what people “see” when they see a Nazi Swastika. They see the meaning, and they are offended – by the meaning it carries. The symbol carries that meaning and by removing the symbol, the meaning is removed.

    To many of us, the meaning of the Nazi Swastika is a pure physical feeling of up-chucking, fear, anger – the knowledge that someone in that area is prepared to kill us. If it doesn’t have that meaning for you – good for you, but to claim that it doesn’t signal those things, and therefore is not deeply offensive, is just simple lack of imagination, compassion and a down right denial of historical facts, as well as denial of the impact that symbol had on people’s lives and still have.”

    At least he is offended by the meaning of the symbol, even if he doesn’t get the connection between the symbol and the meaning of it.

    There are some things society as a general entity find so abhorrent that it will legislate against them, simply because the mere existence of those things is an affront to human society. Promoting genocide is one of those things, racism is another.

    In a modern society symbols that carry the meaning “genocide, hatred, discrimination, death, extermination, torture, racism” is automatically considered an affront to society, because those symbols cannot be used in any other or meaningful way, they cannot signal anything else.

    Of course people have the right to hold views that coincide with the meanings of those symbols, and to speak their opinions – but to expect that they can do so unopposed by either society or the general majority seems a bit naive, or even claim that when they are opposed, they are being silenced is just so much horse manure.

    Posted in Third Reich | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

    The Hitler Analogy – when is it acceptable?

    Posted by Henric C. Jensen on July 30, 2007


    The current president’s policies seem to be an extension of his grandfather’s thinking. Bush’s latest string of Executive Orders are so disconcertingly undemocratic and un-American that even the Right-wing is growing leery. Last week, Bush signed an order that would enable him to seize the financial assets of anti-war activists. And in his most troubling move to date, on May 9, Bush signed an order that states that in the event of another terror attack on U.S. soil, the legislative and judicial branches of government would become subservient to the executive. This move is precisely how Hitler concretized his power following the Reichstag fire.


    The Blog – JewSchool – raised an interesting question: “When is it okay to call someone a Nazi.?”

    It is interesting because the comparison to Hitler and Nazism is most often used when a debater has no arguments left for their position. It is considered bad form to use the comparison, and in most Discussion Forums it is a sure discussion killer. See Godwin’s Law.

    It has also been used as a hyperbolic propagandist argument against f.i Israeli politics in regards to the Palestinians, especially by debaters on the Far Left, who somehow think they gain points by using it as an insult.

    The interesting part appears when one is able to draw direct political lines between events today and those in the 1930’s and 1940’s Germany. Like the Blogger manages to do in the above quote.

    The Question raises another Question – how are we to learn from history, if references to historical events cannot be made? If Hitler, the Third Reich and the Holocaust take on sacrosanct proportions in the minds of people, don’t we then loose an instrument that can and should be used for education and raising awareness of similar events taking place in our own times? What about historical, sociological and philosophical analysis – how can that be conducted if the books on certain parts of history are hermetically closed due to sensitivities of some of the victims? Isn’t that just another denial? It seems like the the slogan “Never again!” has come to mean, not that it must never happen again, but that we must never think or speak about it again. For sure, we must not point out that history is about to repeat itself in some variation.

    It has been argued that the events leading up to and resulting in the Third Reich in the 1930’s were so unique that no events can be compared to them, not before and not after.

    But were they? Really? The misuse of power, the political machinations, the targeting of political undesirables, followed by elimination any possible dissent – are they unique to the Rise of the Third Reich?

    What about the Soviet Union? Or China? Uganda, Mozambique, Iran, Turkey, Iraq?

    How about the Serbian Rise in Former Yugoslavia?

    I know that Europe woke up to the plight of the Muslims in Serbia after images eerily resembling those from Bergen Belsen and Auschwitz were aired on TV – but that was long into the massacre, and for many the realization of what was happening came too late.

    Could those events have been predicted and intercepted if we had been allowed to believe that this kind of evil is repeatable, because it is NOT unique, because human evil is in fact very predictable? Would we not then also have been allowed to analyze and draw parallels between events in the 1930’s and 40’s and events unfurling in our own times?

    I believe that not only do we need to let go of the “sanctification” of the Holocaust and the events that led up to it as something unique, but we need to go of the permanent victimization, not just of the Jewish People and all other that perished then, but of our collective innocence. It cannot be repaired, so we might as well accept that it is gone, and live with it, learn from its demise and grow up.

    Posted in Hitler, Philosophy, Third Reich | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

    Iran – the First Jewish State

    Posted by Henric C. Jensen on July 16, 2007


    Iran – the First Jewish State

    According to journalist and author, Irshad Manji*, the official Wahabi teachings of Saudi Arabia are that the Shia brand of Islam is a Jewish conspiracy developed to divide Islam by planting Talmudic ideas into the minds of confused Muslims. As an offshoot of Judaism, Shias are considered dhimmis in Saudi Arabia, second-class citizens who along with Christians and Jews are stripped of their basic human rights. As such, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia should reconsider which Jewish state it should aim to oppose, Israel…or Iran.

    The pathological anti-Semitism inherent in this ridiculous notion shows how endemic anti-Semitism is within the Arab and Muslim world. Even before the enthusiastic import of the fraudulent “Protocols of Zionism” which have been digested into accepted Arab discourse, there was sufficient anti-Jewish fodder within the Islamic texts to allow for Judaism to become an iconic source of evil. These of course all pre-date the creation of the Jewish State…of Israel that is, not Iran. Irshad Manji even quotes an example of one Arab-Muslim country where the Mullahs banned the Pokemon card and toy series because, they claimed, Pokemon means “I am Jewish” in Japanese.

    The sad thing is, that like Medieval Catholicism, this pathological hatred only serves to bury its Arab and Muslim adherents even deeper within the bowels of ignorance. The real and eventual victims however, are as always the Jews. As with the Medieval and other contexts of intense anti-Semitism, we stand little chance of convincing our detractors of the errors of their beliefs. Any evidence aimed at contravening common, anti-Semitic notions are regarded as being nothing more than part of the broader Jewish/Zionist conspiracy. Any news medium arguing rationally how the “Protocols of Zion” were a Soviet fraud or that 20% of the victims on 9/11 were Jewish and did not stay home from work on the day of the attack, are merely co-conspirators peddling further propaganda which aims to protect their Jewish masters.

    The Western World does not yet understand why Jews take those who hate them so seriously. If someone says that they want to kill us, we generally believe them. Only now, for the first time in 2000 years, we have the ability to protect ourselves.


    The West doesn’t really get how deep the hatred for the Jews runs in the Arab World. Perhaps for the same reason it didn’t get what was going on in the Third Reich, until it was too late – it is unfathomable. In many ways it’s alien to any sensible person.  Fanaticism and fundamentalism is essentially the same thing – and there really is no difference whether it has political or religious under and over tones.It is a fact that antisemitism is being taught as a matter of fact in Islamist schools and society. It has nothing to do with the State of Israel, it existed long before 1948 in it’s own specific form – dhimmitude – the superiority of Islam over all other religious/political systems and the inferiority of anyone not Muslim. It existed in the Saladin Empire, it existed in the Ottoman Empire, and it exists in all the nations of the Arab League.

    The question is – is the West aware of this? Are the Anti-Zionists/Pro-Palestinians aware that they will be forced to subject to a system that will put them in a position of permanent servitude in a Palestine ruled by Hamas or Hezbollah?

    Posted in Iran, Israel, Third Reich | Tagged: , , | 5 Comments »

    Search:cursing bear

    Posted by Henric C. Jensen on July 2, 2007


    I have Blog Stats on my Blog. This: ‘search:venezuelan freedom of speech controversyhas the most hits today – 12. People even do searches on ‘search: hitler bear‘ – now who in their right mind would connect Hitler to a Bear?! or suggest ‘search: cursing bear‘?! Unless of course the Bear is cursing Hitler – now that would make perfect sense.

    The Blog stats are a very neat little tool – it gives me all sorts of ideas of what to write on – here’s one: silly camp names – All I will have to do is search the Internet for “Silly Camp Names”, and then list them here with some witty comments, right?

    How much can a blogger get out of: silly pictures of governments? Well, sure a lot of Bushco pictures, that’s for sure – but who would want Bushco all over their Blog? I sure don’t.

    On a more serious note we have: define term collateral damage – now there’s a Topic for you – how to define collateral damage. That is a good Blog Topic, but too heavy for tonight I am afraid. And if you just have to read about collateral damage tonight – there is an Entry here.

    I love this one: disabled normies – whoever did a search using those words sure had a knack for contradictions in terms. Sure there are times when I would definitely want to disable normies and keep them that way. I wonder if hysterically laughing at this specific search request would disable the normies?

    Posted in Freedom of Speech, Hitler | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

    The Difference of Words…

    Posted by Henric C. Jensen on June 23, 2007


    There’s a clear difference between legitimate criticism of Israel and Anti-Semitism:

    Clear criticisms of Israeli policy & its backers Antisemitic ideas often repeated by activists with no anti-Jewish intentions Lines emerging directly from neonazi & antisemitic organizations
    Israel has a repeated & ongoing record of human rights offenses. “Israel is a worse humans rights violator than most or all other countries.” “Israel is the root of the world’s problems.”
    Many Israeli soldiers justify their actions toward Palestinians by saying they’re ‘just following orders.’ “Israelis are just like Nazis.” “Israel is worse than the Nazis,” “This wouldn’t have happened if the Nazis were successful,” etc.
    The Zionist movement has included elements of racism from its early days, such as the claim that Palestine was “a land without a people for a people without aland.” Major Zionist factions have implemented conscious, intentional racist policy. Regardless of individual Zionists’ intentions, Zionism as a whole has had racist & oppressive results for the Palestinian people. “Zionism is racism.” “The Zionist conspiracy is behind this,” “Zionism is the root of the world’s problems today,” etc.
    AIPAC,* weapons lobbies & others give U.S. politicians incentives to push anti-Palestinian policies, & attempt to silence &intimidate both Jews & non-Jews who raise alternatives. “The ‘Israel Lobby’ is what is pushing America off track &away from its true interests,or caused us to go to war.” “Israel /The Zionists /The Jews /The Jewish Lobby…is controlling the U.S./ the world.”
    In this issue, as in so many, the corporate media provide one-dimensional, sensationalized coverage, usually biased toward whatever side the U.S. government is backing – when they cover it at all. “The media, controlled by Zionists, never talks about the plight of the Palestinians.” “Zionist control of the media is part of a vast web of Zionist power over banks & world governments, in their conspiracy to rule over humanity.”
    Lack of a resolution between Israel & Palestine is one of several major regional conflicts preventing justice & stability in the Middle East. Outside powers such as the U.S. & Europe have played & play a role in sparking & perpetuating these conflicts. “The Israel-Palestine conflict is the root of violence & instability in the Middle East / of America’s bad relationship with Arab countries.” “Everything would be better if Israel was destroyed,” etc.

    I agree with most of the statements in the LEFT column – I am not sure about the role of the US in the media coverage in Europe – nor am I sure that the US and/or Europe as such have directly fuelled the conflict – to me it seems more like they have been opportunists and used the situation to their advantage after the fact. Any way – the above table is exactly what I have tried to convey in discussions with violent Anti-Semites and Anti-Semitic statements – criticism of Israel is ok – when it is warranted – but don’t cross the line into Anti-Semitism, knowingly or unknowingly.The above Table is from “The Past Didn’t Go Anywhere,”

    Posted in Human Rights, Israel, Jewish People, Nazis, US, Violence, War, Zionism | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

    Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the Third Reich

    Posted by Henric C. Jensen on June 2, 2007


    “. . . To what extent the whole existence of this people is based on a continuous lie is shown incomparably by the Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion, so infinitely hated by the Jews. They are based on a forgery, the Frankfurter Zeitung moans and screams once every week: the best proof that they are authentic. What many Jews may do unconsciously is here consciously exposed. And that is what matters. It is completely indifferent from what Jewish brain these disclosures originate; the important thing is that with positively terrifying certainty they reveal the nature and activity of the Jewish people and expose their inner contexts as well as their ultimate final aims. The best criticism applied to them, however, is reality. Anyone who examines the historical development of the last hundred years from the standpoint of this book will at once understand the screaming of the Jewish press. For once this book has become the common property of a people, the Jewish menace may be considered as broken (Mein Kampf pp 307-308).”

    I read this, and am astounded. I know a man who sounds like this every time he mentions the Jewish people, Israel or Zionism. Now, here in 2007. But that is not the issue – the issue is how was the PEZ used in the Third Reich? The idea that denying something is proof that what is denied is true was not a new idea – the Roman Catholic Church had used it during the Inquisition – the logic goes like this “if there is nothing to deny, then why do you bother to deny it?” Damned if you do and damned if you don’t…if you float you’re a witch and will be killed, if you don’t float, then you are dead anyway.This meant that nothing that was said either by the Jews or by their non-Jewish supporters could or would make any difference. Anything would be taken as evidence that the Protocols were indeed true, after all, hadn’t the Tsarists been ousted in Russia due to this devilish plan, didn’t history show that where ever there were strife and riots, there were Jews? So the Protocols were indeed planted in fertile soil:

    Nora Levin states in her The Holocaust: The Destruction of European Jewry 1933-1945:

    …”it was in Germany after World War I that they had their greatest success. There they were used to explain all of the disasters that had befallen the country: the defeat in the war, the hunger, the destructive inflation (19).”

    Despite the fact that the Protocols had been exposed as a forgery as early as in 1921, it became the most popular book in Germany during the 20’s and 30’s – the Germans of that time ate it like candy. Why shouldn’t they have, after all it had all the trimmings of a good conspiracy theory – dark, clandestine meetings, money, a plan that threatens all of humanity and a clear perpetrator, that lived in the neighborhood? Hitler didn’t create Anti-Semitism, he merely played into Anti-Semitic sentiments that had been around since the times of the Romans. He refined it to a point where industrial extermination of the Jews not only became the order of the day, but a necessity. Something the German people had to do to survive as a national entity. In order to understand how an entire Nation can go psychotic, one has to understand that Anti-Semitism was not something unique to Germany – it was prevalent all over Europe and the US, and several countries did in fact have Anti-Jewish laws or restrictions and sentiments in place.

    The US

    “In 1939 a Roper poll found that only thirty-nine percent of Americans felt that Jews should be treated like other people. Fifty-three percent believed that “Jews are different and should be restricted” and ten percent believed that Jews should be deported. The United States’ tight immigration policies were not lifted during the Holocaust, news of which began to reach the United States in 1941 and 1942 and it has been estimated that 190 000 – 200 000 Jews could have been saved during the Second World War had it not been for bureaucratic obstacles to immigration deliberately created by Breckinridge Long and others.”

    The UK

    “Though there was some growing anti-semitism during the 1930s, this was counterbalanced by strong support for British Jews in their local communities leading to events such as the Battle of Cable Street where anti-semitism was strongly resisted. There was never wholesale persecution of the Jews before or during World War II in Britain. At the same time, however, Britain was not particularly receptive to Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazi regime in Germany, and the other fascist states of Europe.”

    Only in Germany was it ground into everyday thinking. It is human nature to grasp a straws, any straws when exposed to disaster, and that more than anything made it possible for Hitler to make the Protocols a document of truth. Also, let’s not forget that Hitler did bring Germany out of its depression, he built the industry and he did feed the hungry Germans. It’s very easy to then go along with whatever else such a leader might suggest.

    By the time of the end of WWII, approximately 6 million Jews had been murdered because of a document that 44 years earlier had been determined to be a forgery – something at least one high-ranking Nazi officer, Erich von dem Bach-Zelewsky, acknowledged:

    “I am the only living witness but I must say the truth. Contrary to the opinion of the National Socialists, that the Jews were a highly organized group, the appalling fact was that they had no organization whatsoever. The mass of the Jewish people were taken complete by surprise. They did not know at all what to do; they had no directives or slogans as to how they should act. This is the greatest lie of anti-Semitism because it gives the lie to that old slogan that the Jews are conspiring to dominate the world and that they are so highly organized. In reality, they had no organization of their own at all, not even an information service. If they had had some sort of organization, these people could have been saved by the millions, but instead, they were taken completely by surprise. Never before has a people gone as unsuspectingly to its disaster. Nothing was prepared. Absolutely nothing (20).”

    Thank G-d for small blessings…

    Other Entries in this series:

    Shalom!

    Posted in Hitler, Jewish People, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Third Reich | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

    The Protocols of the Elders of Zion – Hoax or Reality?

    Posted by Henric C. Jensen on May 28, 2007


    The Source and the Reason

    In 1864 French satirist Maurice Joly wrote a novel titled “Dialouge in Hell between Machiavelli and Montesquieu: or the Politics of Machiavelli int he nineteenth century” for those of you who read French – here’s a free E-book.

    In 1899 or 1901 a Russian secret agent of the Orahka branch in Paris was ordered to write something that would discredit the Bolshevihks. He used Maurice Joly’s novel as a base for his fantasies. So how come the Jewish people were implicated?

    Well the author – Matvei Golovinski – also got his hands on another novel. “Biarritz” written by Herrman Goedsche in 1868, in which Goedsche describes a fictional nightly meeting of Rabbinical representatives of the 12 tribes of Israel consorting with the Devil to plan a Jewish Conspiracy.

    The chapter “The Jewish Cemetery in Prague” in “Biarritz” was documented as non-fictional in France in 1871, and reached Russia in 1872. The rest is history.

    The only thing in the Protocols that identify the alleged authors behind it as Jewish is the use of the word “goyim” (gentiles) – and in this way it is both rather moderate and insidious, because “goyim” is probably the most well known Hebrew word out-side the Jewish Community it would send the message without much problem.

    So why implicate the Jews? Because they were there. And because there already was a strong Anti-Jewish sentiment in Russia and in Europe at the time. In 1881-1884 Russia was engulfed in Anti-Jewish riots following the assassination of Tsar Alexander II, which was alleged to have been carried out by Jews (the truth of this has later been investigated and found to be false – the only Jewish element in that assassination was the fact that one of the assassins had a Jewish friend…).

    It becomes pretty clear against this background that the Protocols had to “target” the Jews. Especially since a large number of Bolshevihks were indeed Jewish – and the Tsarists needed a “diversion” – something that would stir up enough emotions in the general Russian Public to hold off the Revolutionary elements that were threatening the Russian Empire.

    “Conspiracy theories are very “nice” – because they create a simply picture of complex matters, and they contain enough elements of plausibility to be believable. And they provide people with a scape-goat for the world’s ills. It doesn’t matter if it’s religious conspiracies, political conspiracies or just alien conspiracies – they all serve as proxy for a sense of powerlessness and in the right hands they can be deadly…”

    It is rather interesting how a French Novel that was meant to expose the Napoleon Empire came to play such a big role in the Russian Revolution…

    The Protocols of the Elders of Zion has been debunked and re-debunked so many times by so many that I really don’t need to do it again – I’ll just leave you with some links to Web Sites that discuss the Protocols.

    On Wikipedia

    Dickerson

    Skeptics’ Dictionary

    Holocaust History

    I will be back and deal with the particulars – such as the Banks, the Media in terms of their place in the Protocols.

    Other entries in this series:

    Shalom!

    Posted in Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Russia | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

     
    %d bloggers like this: