Important note: Images and videos posted on this
website are very graphic. Viewers discretion is strongly advised!
The Open Society and its Enemies -
The Story of Auschwitzby Gilad Atzmon
Sixty years after its liberation, Auschwitz has become an international political event. It is not a matter of coincidence,
and I feel that we should spare a moment asking ourselves: why now, why Auschwitz?
Living in a scientific technological environment, it is natural for most commentators to judge any given narrative reflecting
on its positive contents, i.e. the story it tells, the facts it picks up on and the message it conveys. When it comes to Auschwitz,
it is always the terrifying numbers, Mengele and the selection, the clinical mass murder, the Gas Chambers, the trains, the
famous Arbeit Macht Frei above the front gate, the death march just before liberation, etc. And yet, I would argue that it
is at least as enlightening to expose that which the Auschwitz narrative is there to conceal. Every historical tale can operate
as a smoke screen; narratives are very effective in encouraging collective blindness. Auschwitz and the Holocaust narrative,
in this sense, are no different.
As it seems, without engaging ourselves with the many questions concerning the validity of the widely accepted Holocaust
narrative, we can safely ask what the Auschwitz Narrative is there to serve. Who benefits from the Auschwitz account? We are
entitled to ask why the official Holocaust narrative is so widely promoted by different and opposing political institutions.
Is it a result of highly sophisticated and orchestrated Jewish propaganda? I am not so sure anymore.
On the surface, the answer to these questions seems simple, the devastating image of the Auschwitz and the Nazi Judeocide
is a self-sufficient argument against nationalism, racism and totalitarianism. Within the state of acceptance of the Holocaust
tale, any of these three is regarded as an enemy of humanity. But then, one must admit that it is neither nationalism, racism
nor totalitarianism that killed so many innocent human beings in Auschwitz. Ideologies do not kill, it is always people who
kill, regardless of their ideologies.
But it goes a bit further, with the image of Auschwitz in the back of our minds, our Western liberal thinkers and politicians
are enthusiastically depicting a naive vision of our social reality, presenting us with a simplistic binary division. On the
one hand, we find the open society, on the other, we find its many enemies. Following this world view, there is only one open
society, but many different enemies; and yet, it is important to mention that the open society is an empty signifier, in practice
it means very little, if not to say nothing. As it seems, in order to become a member of the exclusive open club, one simply
must join the right wars. President Bush, a man who is far from being eloquent when verbal capabilities are concerned, was
unexpectedly articulate in presenting that very post-Auschwitz Western axiom: you are either with us or you are against us.
Being with us, namely being amongst the open, means that one believes that it was us who liberated Europe, it was us who
liberated Auschwitz, it was us who saved the Jews, and it is us who still are bringing the notion of democracy to the most
remote corners of this boiling planet. Being with us means that you accept the fact that we are the voice of the free world.
It means as well that you know that you are unconditionally free. It is basically a new form of tautology: you are free even
if you aren’t. Being with us means that you believe that the world is rapidly progressing towards a greater divide,
namely a cultural clash, in which you are a good, innocent Judeo-Christian enlightened being, and the rest are dark fundamental
evils or at least potentially evil. Being with us means that you are not supposed to ask too many questions about our own
immoral conduct. For instance, you don’t ask why Bomber Harris & Co. murdered 850,000 German civilians, targeting
German cities rather than Nazi industrial infrastructures.
Being a free being in an open society means that you should never raise questions about Hiroshima. In case you are stupid
enough to raise that issue, you had better be clever enough to accept the official lie: it was the best way to bring such
a horrible war to an end. Being a free being you won’t raise questions regarding the morality behind leaving 2,000,000
fatalities in Vietnam. Being with us means that you don’t have to ask all those silly annoying questions because Auschwitz
is the ultimate in evil. Auschwitz is the bedrock of human wickedness and don’t you ever forget that it was us who put
it to an end.
Let us put the truth in place, Auschwitz was beyond any doubt a horrible place, but unfortunately it isn’t the ultimate
evil, for the reason that evil has neither limit nor scale. But, to be historically accurate, it wasn’t even us who
liberated Auschwitz. As it appears, it was Stalin, the other evil. It was Stalin who gave so many Jewish, POWs, political
prisoners, gypsies and inmates the chance to see daylight. But again, being a free being in an open society you really aren't
required to pay attention to minor historical details.
It would seem that Auschwitz is essential within our righteous Western self image. When Iraqi oil is in demand, the American
president will equate Saddam with Hitler. Next we will learn that the Iraqi people should be liberated from their ‘Auschwitz’.
We already know the inevitable consequences.
Since Auschwitz is so crucial for the American policy makers, it isn’t surprising that not too far from the residency
of the American president, there is a big Holocaust museum dedicated to the memory of the Jewish people and their heroic liberators.
This museum is not about people or even about crimes against humanity, it is about the maintenance of the illusion of the
open society. It is about the maintenance of a very specific narrative. It is all about how we are right, and they, whoever
they are, are categorically wrong.
This museum is not really about Jewish suffering. I assume that there will be some basic facts that the museum won’t
share with its visitors: for instance, it will not tell the passing crowd that the American government adopted a highly restrictive
immigration policy that was never modified between 1933-1944, in order to block Jewish immigration. It will avoid the fact
that the American government refused or obstructed German offers of negotiation to remove Jews from Nazi controlled territories.
Mostly importantly, it will hide the clear fact that the US Air Force was not instructed to interrupt the Nazi killing machine.
Neither railways to Auschwitz nor Auschwitz itself was ever bombed by the RAF or by the American Air Force. It seems as if
a real murderous negligence was involved in American decision-making on the issue alongside the war. For instance, on 20 August
1944, one hundred twenty-seven Flying Fortresses escorted by one hundred Mustang fighters successfully dropped their bombs
on a factory less than five miles from Auschwitz. Not a single plane was diverted to attack the death camp.
These stories won’t appear in the American Holocaust museum. They simply don’t fit into the heroic and righteous
American self image. The history of Auschwitz is in fact a story of brutal Anglo American negligence. The acceptable Auschwitz
narrative is basically a myth that is in place to support the American expansionist practice. Auschwitz is the moral pillar
of the American ideology.
The Holocaust museum is there to tell Americans what may happen when everything goes wrong. As sad as it may sound, in
contemporary America everything is going wrong, despite the museum. The reason is simple, when the image of evil is brewed
within your cultural heritage as the discourse of the other, you may as well become blind to the fact that you yourself are
already evil. Like their Israeli brothers, the Americans forgot how to look at themselves.
In the case of America, the Holocaust narrative serves the right wing expansionist philosophy. In order to prevent another
Auschwitz, the Americans will send their armies to Vietnam, Korea, Iraq. They are always the liberators. Until the end of
the Cold War, there were Communists to fight with, a real concrete evil; but now the evil is becoming more and more abstract.
In fact, the only way to materialise the vague enemy is to equate it with Hitler.
Europe’s case is slightly different. As strange as it may sound, in Europe it is the parliamentary left that is capitalising
on Auschwitz. As long as Auschwitz is there, deeply entrenched within the daily discourse, the right wing can never raise
its head. The European mainstream left is totally dependent on the Holocaust narrative and the Auschwitz tale. As it seems,
Auschwitz is the last barricade of the left against the possibility of right wing revival. In Europe, any sense of national
aspiration, or even just a demographic concern that may sound like xenophobia is immediately addressed as an awakening of
Nazism. Within this oppressive world view, people are not allowed to express any affection towards their land. Furthermore,
being politically dependent on the image of the Jewish innocent victim, the European mainstream left can never fully support
the Palestinian cause.
As it may seem, Auschwitz stands as a symbol of partnership between the European parliamentary left and the American expansionist
right. For both, Auschwitz stands as an icon of threat against the image of open society. Within the prospect of this fatal
bond, any genuine European left is destined to be pushed to the margin. Any form of genuine left inspired by red aspirations
is doomed to be presented as a subversive and radical outlook. In March 1998, Robin Cook, the then British Foreign Secretary,
paid a diplomatic visit to Israel. While there, Cook rightly refused to visit Yad Vashem, claiming that he was more concerned
about the future rather than about the past. It wasn’t long before Cook lost his job. The refusal to bow to the Auschwitz
tale cost Cook his job. It wasn’t the Jews who ousted him out of the Foreign Ministry. It was the Labour party that
kicked him out, a parliamentary European left institute.
So, Auschwitz is there to maintain the myth of open society; it is there to present an illusion of liberated Western identity.
As long as Auschwitz is there, in the core of our discourse, we are everything but liberated. There is life after Auschwitz
and this life belongs to us. We had better do something with it. If there is something we should never do, then that is taking
other people’s lives in the name of Auschwitz. And apparently, this is exactly what we are doing.
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
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, http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres4/Beitzvi.pdf
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 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 http://www.miscellanees.com/c/palisse.htm
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” http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/DIASPORA/HAITI.HTM
. 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.