Tuesday, January 17, 2017

Israeli Attack on the Liberty Was No Accident



By James Ennes
Published: 2002-07-27

James M. Ennes was serving as a US Navy lieutenant on board the USS Liberty when it was attacked by Israeli forces on June 8, 1967. He is the author of Assault on the Liberty, a detailed account of the attack published in 1980 by Random House. Born in 1933 and now retired, he served with the US Navy during most of his adult life.
This interview, published in the Iranian newspaper Jam-e-Jam, July 27, 2002, was conducted by Ali Jafar. The text is posted on-line at:

Question: When did you join the USS Liberty and what position did you serve on June 8, 1967?

Answer: I joined the ship in April 1967. I was a lieutenant and was assigned to be the ship’s Electronic Materiel Officer, responsible for the maintenance and repair of all of the ship’s electronic equipment. I also stood watches on the bridge as Officer of the Deck.

Q: There have been many cases of “friendly fire” and misidentification in wartime. Unlike other cases, the attack on the USS Liberty has lingered for 35 years and still remains unresolved. Israelis claim that the attack on the Liberty was also a case of mistaken identity, and that they misidentified the Liberty for an Egyptian horse carrier, El Quseir. One of the reasons that they present for their argument is that the attacking jets circled the ship three times looking for a flag, but no flag was flown. Do you agree with that statement?

A: “Friendly fire” is a brief, accidental attack. This was a prolonged, carefully coordinated attack. It has been called the most carefully planned “accident” in the history of warfare. The Israeli account of the attack is untrue. We flew a flag at all times, and it stood out clearly displayed in a good breeze. Israeli jets circled us 13 times during the several hours before the attack, and during that period we heard their pilots informing their headquarters by radio that we were American. When the attack started, the attacking jets passed high overhead once, then turned 180 degrees and came down the centerline firing without any attempt to identify us. Long after the attack I was contacted by an Israeli pilot who told me that on his first flight over the ship he saw our American flag and informed his headquarters that we were American, but was told to ignore the flag and attack anyway. He refused to do so and returned to base where he was arrested. I was told by an Israeli in the war room that they knew we were American. I have been told by several American intelligence analysts who read, or in some cases heard, the messages between the pilots and their headquarters that these messages make it very clear that the pilots and their headquarters knew we were American.

Q: You have written a book titled Assault on the Liberty. What are some of the most convincing reasons or evidences you presented in that book to prove that the Israelis knowingly attacked the Liberty?

A: Among other things, the extensive reconnaissance, the fact that the attack continued for 75 minutes, and the fact that they compiled a totally false account of what happened. After the torpedo explosion the torpedo boats examined our name in English on the stern and our American flag on the mast from less than 50 feet away, and continued to fire from close range for another 40 minutes. As US Secretary of State Dean Rusk said later, an accident may occur for a few minutes, but there is no way our very distinctive-looking ship could have been fired upon for 75 minutes from close range without it being recognized as American.

In the hours after the attack a “consensus report” was written reflecting the view of all American intelligence agencies that the attack was deliberate. This report was circulated, but was withdrawn and cancelled and all copies destroyed because it was too embarrassing politically to be allowed to stand.

Q: Being small in size and population, Israelis have always relied on spying to get intelligence information. They have spied on many Arab and non-Arab countries including the US. In October 1954 quite a few of the Israeli spies were arrested and two of them were executed in Egypt. Elias Cohen was the Israeli spy who was caught in 1965, and later executed in Syria, and I am sure you know about Jonathan Pollard, the Israeli spy whose spying activities cost the lives of America’s most loyal and best agents in the Communist world. Generally speaking, how could the Israelis not have known that El Quesir was not even there?

A: They could not have made such a mistake. Israeli naval officers have told me they are embarrassed by the claim that they could been so incompetent as to make such a mistake.

Q: It has been reported that after the Liberty radioed for help, two aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean responded by launching fighter aircraft, but they were recalled before reaching their destination to help the Liberty. Can you tell us who gave the orders, and why they were recalled?

A: Secretary Robert McNamara ordered the recall of rescue aircraft. He has refused to discuss the matter. The recall order was confirmed by President Lyndon Johnson. President Johnson later said that he would not risk shooting down Israeli aircraft, even if Americans died as a result.

Q: Quite often the American government is referred to as a “government of the people, for the people, by the people.” In 1967 your responsible officials, by recalling the launched aircraft, left you practically unprotected, and since then, your government not only blocked every effort to launch an investigation, but in fact did everything it could, to cover it up for 35 years. Is there any doubt in your mind that the very government, that you put your life on the line to protect, betrayed you and your shipmates?

A: Someone in our government certainly failed to protect us after promising that we would be protected.

Q: There are certain motives behind any crime that is committed. If indeed, as you believe, the Israeli attack on the Liberty was premeditated, what was their motive for attacking the Liberty?

A: The USS Liberty was an intelligence ship. Clearly someone in Israel feared that we would learn something that Israel did not want the US to know. Some American intelligence experts have said that they believe this was the pending invasion of Syria to capture the Golan Heights.

Q: In recent years an impressive number of American officials, including Admiral Thomas Moorer, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) at the time of the Liberty incident, have gone on record insisting that the Israeli action was, in fact, deliberate. Are you optimistic that after 35 years of cover up, the truth may finally come out?

A: No. I fear that Israel has so many friends in the Congress and the White House that no effective investigation is ever likely to be conducted. But we can continue to report the facts so that the world may learn the truth. In 1956 President Eisenhower forced the Israelis to cease their advance toward Suez. This was still a bitter memory in Israel in 1967. The Israelis did not want to risk having to withdraw from the Golan Heights as they had from Suez, so they disabled the USS Liberty in the hope that the US could be kept in the dark until the Heights were in Israeli hands.

This week a Navy Times survey of its readers showed that about 90 percent support a call for a new investigation of the attack. Yet few members of Congress are likely to support an inquiry, as it would certainly prove embarrassing to Israel.

Q: Generally speaking, in an incident like the Liberty attack, one would feel that the most valuable, viable and valid sources of information would be people such as yourself, who were present on the battlefield on June 8, 1967. A. Jay Cristol, a pro-Israeli federal judge and one of the most outspoken critics of the Liberty story, is the author of a book titled The Liberty Incident. He supposedly has done extensive research, and has interviewed many of the survivors. It has been reported that you refused to cooperate with him. Was there any particular reason that caused you not to cooperate?

A: After a brief telephone conversation, I did not trust him to treat the subject fairly or objectively. His dissertation and his later book proved that judgment to be valid, in that he has distorted many of the facts.

For instance, his book makes much of what he claims is the visual acuity of fighter pilots, yet experienced pilots tell me that pilots can see much more than Cristol claims, and could easily have seen our flag. Cristol discounts as untrue the unanimous eyewitness reports of American survivors, but accepts as true virtually every false claim by the Israelis. He relies upon the Court of Inquiry, which is itself false and has been discredited by its own legal counsel. He claims Liberty’s radio intercept range was only 25 miles, which is dead wrong. He claims the Liberty had no radio telephone contact with Washington, which is untrue. He claims only a few survivors regard the attack as deliberate, yet the truth is that survivors are unanimous in calling the attack deliberate. He claims our radios were not jammed, when even the corrupt Court of Inquiry says they were. He claims he came to Seattle to interview me, and that I broke a promise to see him, which is untrue. In fact, he had asked only to talk to me by telephone during a layover in Seattle, and I chose not to take the call because I realized that his intent was to try to discredit us, not to report our story objectively.

In fact, Cristol claims to have made numerous trips to Israel and to have interviewed over 200 people for his book, but his research is very unbalanced, drawing primarily from Israeli sources while ignoring or discounting most eyewitness reports. He has interviewed few survivors, and those only very briefly. He brands Liberty’s senior intercept officer a liar, yet made no attempt to interview him. His research appears to be aimed entirely at attempting to discredit survivors, not to investigate the attack objectively. He claims to be the world’s foremost expert on the attack, but I have never heard from a survivor who believes he can be taken seriously.

Q: Upon returning to the US, the Liberty crew members were ordered and in fact threatened to be silent. Who gave the order and why?

A: Survivors were visited in hospitals all over the US by many different officers and warned to be quiet. Aboard the ship, Admiral Kidd called men together in groups and warned them never to talk about the attack with anyone, not even their wives and mothers, or risk being sent to prison.

Q: In November of 1979 the Iranian students in protest to the US government policy of letting the former Shah of Iran in the US for medical treatment, stormed the US embassy in Tehran and held 52 American hostage for 444 days. ABC news almost immediately launched a new [television] program by the name of “Nightline,” with correspondent Ted Koppel reporting on the condition of the hostages as well as the developments of the story itself, night by night. The title of the nightly report was: “The Iran Crisis: America Held Hostage.” As I am sure you know, the hostages finally came home safe and sound, and were given a hero’s welcome, and “Nightline” has continued its special reports on important events, including many interviews with former hostages. By comparison, the brutal and tragic Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, in which 34 innocent young Americans were killed and 171 others were badly wounded, is something that most Americans, who are well-informed about President Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky, may not even be aware that it ever took place. You know, Mr. Ennes, one wonders why there wasn’t a similar program like “Nightline” launched for the Liberty and her survivors? What would have been wrong if ABC news had a nightly report with a title such as “The Middle East Crisis: Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty”? It seems as if the mainstream mass media had a tacit agreement with the US government to keep the public in the dark about the Liberty and the plight of its survivors. Don’t you feel that they have acted very selectively, and in fact unfairly, in regards to the Liberty incident?

A: There is much opposition in this country to this story being told. Ted Koppel is an interesting case. In 1982 Ted Koppel invited several survivors to his studios in Washington, DC, where we filmed a full report on the attack. It was edited and scheduled for broadcast, and then on the very day it was to be broadcast Israel invaded Lebanon, and that bigger story replaced the Liberty story. Later, when broadcasters planned to present the Liberty show, the films had mysteriously vanished from the file room, never to be found.

Q: Jean-Paul Sartre, the famous French philosopher, has said, and I quote, “Man is a product of time and place.” By reading chapter six of your book, one can see that on June 8, 1967, you experienced perhaps the worst day of your life. The political officials who were supposed to help you, betrayed you. The president and military officials who were supposed to rescue you and your shipmates, recalled the aircraft and left you unprotected against the attacking Israeli jets. The mass media, which was supposed to give extensive coverage to the Liberty and the plight of its survivors, has acted with deafening silence, and finally, taking your experience with A. Jay Cristol into consideration, one could say that the pen that should have elicited the facts and told the truth, has distorted it. Can you please tell us how the Liberty incident has affected your life?

A: I published the first edition of this book in 1980, expecting to go on to other things. To my surprise, the story lives on. Twenty-two years later I continue to get daily mail and phone calls. I have created the web site at http://www.ussliberty.org to help answer the many questions that still arise.

Q: Is there anything else that you would like to say regarding the Liberty or in general.

A: My shipmates and I have tried for 35 years to tell the truth about the attack to the American public and to the world. We appreciate the opportunity you have given us to tell the story to the Iranian people. We wish you peace.




Candor About War Against Iraq

 

"Those who favor this attack [by the US against Iraq] now will tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel."
-General Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander. Interview in The Guardian (Britain), August 20, 2002.

War: Enemy of Freedom

 

"Of all the enemies to liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war [and] the power of raising armies... A delegation of such powers [to the president] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments. The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted."
-James Madison, Political Observations, 1795

On America's Foreign Policy

 

"Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her [Americas] heart, her benedictions, and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. But she is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banner of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom."
-John Quincy Adams, 1821

Lincoln On the President's Power to Make War

 

"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose, and you allow him to make war at his pleasure.

"... Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect... If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us,' but he will say to you, 'Be silent; I see it, if you don't?'"
-Abraham Lincoln, The Writings of Abraham Lincoln (ed., A. Lapsley), vol. 2, pp. 51-52.



"For those who have Awareness,
a hint is quite enough.
For the multitudes of heedless,
mere knowledge is useless."
- Haji Bekdash, circa 1200 AD



"You can muffle the drum, and you can loosen the strings of the lyre, but who shall command the skylark not to sing?"
- Khalil Gibran

Saturday, January 14, 2017

The Anti-Revisionist Hollywood Movie Attacking Historian David Irving Is a Flop

Denial. BBC Films. 109 minutes.


By Michael Hoffman

This reviewer was expecting that it would be a tedious ordeal to sit through Denial, Hollywood’s attempted canonization of the obnoxious thought cop Deborah Lipstadt, which was supposed to also serve as the final confirmation of the libel trial in London in 2000 that saw historian David Irving’s reputation supposedly shredded (cf. Revisionist History no. 86).

Actually, the imps of contrariness have seen to it that Denial rehabilitates Irving. While the film’s production values are high and the cast is A-list, the director, Mick Jackson, is no Steven Spielberg and his movie backfires. Denial gives new impetus to World War II revisionism, which heretofore was assumed by many to consist of a coterie of drooling crackpots. Even in a movie that detests Irving, he nonetheless comes off as a formidable advocate.

There are two challenging questions for any Hollywood director seeking to lens Prof. Lipstadt’s courtroom battle and maintain minimal credibility at the same time: why she never took the stand, and why no “Holocaust survivor” was brought to testify by her defense team. According to Denial, Lipstadt (played by Rachel Weisz), was forbidden to testify by her lawyers, who wanted to keep the focus on putting Irving (Timothy Spall) on the defensive, and not her. It makes sense, but whether it is true or not we can’t determine. After all, Lipstadt refused to speak to the news media during the long trial (a fact the movie omits). The latter refusal would seem to indicate a fear of exposure of her ignorance of World War II history. Meanwhile, Mr. Irving was extensively cross-examined in court and spoke volubly to the press on nearly every occasion.

The second daunting question turns on an even more-perilous and potentially highly damaging issue: why were there no “Holocaust survivors” on the witness stand? Here David Hare, the film’s scriptwriter, really goofs and apparently no one on the production team caught his blunder, though many in the audience will spot it. In the movie, Lipstadt is outraged that her lawyers will not call on “survivors” to testify. The head of her defense team, Anthony Julius, has a response. (Julius is rendered as an expressionless, one-dimensional, and in many respects unsympathetic character, played deadpan by actor Andrew Scott, known for roles as the villainous Moriarity in the BBC Sherlock TV series, and the traitorous head of the British Secret Service in the 007 film, Spectre). We first meet Julius while he is holding a copy of the book he authored which, we see from the cover, traduces the reputation of the esteemed Christian poet T.S. Eliot. Julius informs Prof. Lipstadt that he will not call the “survivors” because he wants to spare them the disrespect which Irving (who acted as his own attorney), would demonstrate toward them in cross-examination.

It’s a weak alibi. The honchos of Holocaustianity are painfully aware that putative “homicidal Auschwitz gas-chamber eyewitnesses” were eviscerated under cross-examination by lawyer Doug Christie during the 1985 trial in Canada of Ernst Zündel, for spreading “false news.” This was the actual reason there was no appearance by them at Lipstadt’s trial. At this point in the film, as I sat in the theater I jotted in my review notes, “Movie omits to mention Zündel trial’s discrediting cross-examinations of Judaic witnesses.”

Later in the movie however, Lipstadt demands once again that “Holocaust survivors” testify, and this time a more-candid Julius, albeit in rapid-fire dialogue, tells her that he can’t call on them because, “The survivors were torn apart at the Zündel trial.”

David Irving at the 1988 trial of Ernst Zündel. Photo from codoh.com

Exactly correct! When so-called “eyewitness Holocaust survivors” were cross-examined in the Zündel case, as detailed in this writer’s The Great Holocaust Trial, not one departed the witness stand with his credibility intact—and it is Hollywood’s Denial movie that reminds the world of this shocking and embarrassing fact, which shatters the main pillar upon which Auschwitz execution-gas-chamber mythology depends: the “undeniable” testimony of “eyewitnesses.” (The statement about the Zündel trial is made in a stream of verbiage from the Anthony Julius character. It is not said slowly or with emphasis. One has to be alert to catch it in the film).

The movie is haunted by the specter of Zündel, whose two trials (1985 and 1988) are landmarks in revisionism. The film’s opening scene has Prof. Lipstadt in a classroom writing on a chalkboard the four main points of “Holocaust denial.” The last two are borrowed from Prof. Robert Faurisson, the Zündel defense team’s research head, as he stated them in an explosive essay in 1978 in France’s leading newspaper, Le Monde. Lipstadt’s point four is straight from Faurisson and rings true: The gas-chamber myth was concocted to “extort money from the Germans and gain sympathy for the state of Israel.” Bingo!

In another of Lipstadt’s classroom points she asserts that any allegation that Judaic casualty figures are exaggerated constitutes “denial.” But unknown to the movie audience, she is herself on record saying that the high casualty figure for German victims of the Allied firebombing of the city of Dresden is exaggerated. The Talmudic double standard makes it perfectly respectable for her to lay a charge of exaggeration against the history of the Dresden bombing. Ordinary mortals do so with regard to Auschwitz at the risk of forfeiting their employment and reputation.

Early in the movie the viewer is taken on an actual tour of Auschwitz-Birkenau in Poland, where Lipstadt and her defense team stumble around among the sacred relics. She admonishes her barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson) over his insufficient awe and reverence (he makes tearful amends later). The familiar propaganda about the camp is retailed, until the movie gets to a nearly intact old building. Before entering, it is unambiguously stated that to defeat the deniers’ position on Auschwitz homicidal gassings, one must defeat the Leuchter Report. By now I was wondering if my hearing was faulty, so welcome was this acknowledgement of that momentous study, which is usually demonized by media hacks and academics as a worthless trifle.

The Leuchter Report was commissioned by Zündel in the course of his 1988 trial. It reported a forensic, chemical analysis of physical material taken from the walls of buildings in Auschwitz. Revised by former Max Planck Institute chemist and historian Germar Rudolf, the Leuchter Report remains one of the most-devastating exposes of the hoax ever published, and here in a Hollywood movie its formidable potency is acknowledged—and never satisfactorily refuted in the course of the film! Although he is not mentioned, when the movie arrives at the courtroom proceedings themselves, the first day concludes with Dr. Faurisson’s signature aphorism concerning, “No Holes—No Holocaust.”

On another day of the trial, Rampton holds aloft two different editions of Irving’s classic history, Hitler’s War, and points out that the 1977 first edition upholds the genocide of Judaics, while the reissued and revised 1991 edition does not. True, but the movie omits what made the difference. Between 1977 and 1991 the two Zündel trials took place with the demolition of “survivor” testimony in the first, and the Leuchter Report issued at the second, which impressed Irving so much that he revised his Hitler book to reflect the Leuchter revelations which Zündel had made possible.

On occasions after Irving has spoken in court, the camera turns to Lipstadt’s character, showing her in paroxysms of frustration and agony. Conversely, when her own lawyer scores a legal or historical point she casts a venomous glance at Irving, suffused with undisguised hatred. The filmmakers have done her image no favors with this less-than-noble—but quite possibly accurate—depiction of her person and reactions.

Another fatal error in the movie’s goal of vindicating Lipstadt is that it fails to dispel the David vs. Goliath impression of a stacked legal battle. Irving is shown as a lone warrior up against a legal team that fills a room with solicitors, researchers, historians, archivists and the barrister. The audience watching the mustering of this throng must feel that they’ve been cheated: after having it shoved down their throats for decades that doubting homicidal gas chambers is the easiest thing in the world to discredit, it takes a host of lawyers, clerks and historians years of research and more than a month in court to refute one Doubting Thomas?

The unintended consequences become more obvious near the end of the movie, when, in a news conference, Lipstadt makes an analogy between revisionist historians and those who doubt that Elvis Presley is dead. Among the theater audience with whom I saw the film, her parallel went nowhere. It is too palpably jejune to gain traction in the face of the battle the viewer has just observed her multi-million-dollar team having undertaken, with several close shaves for them in the courtroom, and the verdict far from a foregone conclusion.

Denial is pompously self-righteous and foolishly bereft of the tedium-relieving humorous moments which clever directors use to leaven even the most serious cinema. Lipstadt is at first presented melodramatically as Destiny’s Heroine of the Jewish People From The Beginning of Time. After that gas bag is floated, the movie attempts to deflate it slightly with a few attempts at levity, which are aimed at showing her to be a good sport in spite of her carved-in-marble stature; but these fail. She comes off not as one of the guys but as a yenta with a foul mouth: “What the f**k just happened?” she demands to know when the judge states that anti-Semitism can be an honest belief; not necessarily a result of a desire to deceive. Meanwhile, in devastating contrast, Irving is depicted as always in form as an English gentleman, even if at times sarcastic and wounding.

Vile execration of Irving is on ample display: “Irving’s words are like s**t on your shoes,” says Anthony Julius. In a meeting in her hotel room between Lipstadt and her barrister Rampton, it is made clear that Irving is to be hated, “Look the devil in the eye and tell him what you feel,” Rampton advises. God help anyone who would dare to advise us to look upon Deborah Lipstadt as a devil.

The foul-mouthed banter and palpable hate are supposed to, on one hand endear us to the humanity of Lipstadt and her team, and on the other, to make sure we get the message that a doubter like Irving is to be hated, given the sacred subject which he has dared to question. But Timothy Spall, who plays Irving, despite the phony Etonian accent he adopts and perpetually high-pitched, straining voice (which little resembles Irving in real life), comes across as somewhat sympathetic. After the verdict is read we see Irving gallantly approach the barrister Rampton, congratulating him and offering to shake hands. Irving is rebuffed. There is a fundamental decency that permeates his underdog status and it is part of his appeal in Denial.

Lipstadt thinks it’s outrageous that Irving believes there are actually two points of view on World War II history. There is only one point of view, she hectors. But don’t the best parents and teachers convey to their youthful charges the truism that there at least two sides to every issue? Yet in Lipstadt’s inquisitorial, claustrophobic “Holocaust” world, there can only be one.

Yet another unintentionally exculpatory factor for Mr. Irving is the realization that a regiment of Lipstadt’s researchers pored over every extant speech he ever gave, and the several million words he wrote, in search of an error (about dozen or so were found). If any one of us had every word we wrote or spoke through most of our lives examined, there would be plenty of grist for any detractor’s mill. Only two Irving errors are submitted: a questionable interpretation of a morgue at Auschwitz, and misattributed words in a note by Heinrich Himmler; these are not exactly earth-shaking derogations of his historiography.

Meanwhile, the original grounds for Irving’s libel suit against Lipstadt and her publisher, Penguin Books—that they lied about his having stolen from the Moscow archives in Russia, and by claiming that he was associated with Hamas and other Arab terror organizations—are indeed found to be lies, just as David said. He was indeed libeled by Penguin and Lipstadt. Few who watch Denial will know that fact, or know of the intimidation tactic aimed at presiding Justice Charles Gray (Alex Jennings), when the Israeli ambassador with a full retinue of gun-toting guards, seated himself prominently in the courtroom during the trial. The message conveyed could not have been lost on the judge, nor the audience: a sovereign state, armed to the teeth, had a vested interest in an outcome of the trial favorable to their heroine, Dvora. (Lipstadt refers to herself by that Hebrew variant of her name when recalling her mother’s prophecy about her).

Other revelations from the makers of this movie:

· Denial informs us there were never any photographs of any of the millions of “Jews” in any of the gas chambers because (wait for it): the Germans would not allow it; which doesn’t explain why no German personnel took photos surreptitiously, or were not bribed to do so, or why photos of an event that is said to have happened tens of thousands of times, were not otherwise leaked.
· Denial informs us that Auschwitz was never designed as an extermination camp. From the beginning it was a labor camp and it only later changed its function. 
· During the trial, Irving’s “no holes no holocaust” challenge to Auschwitz “expert” Robert Jan van Pelt (Mark Gatiss) is never answered, even though an answer is promised in the next court session.
· If we are listening carefully, we hear a reporter state, albeit as an audio voiceover on a scene of jostling media, that Justice Gray praised Irving’s skill as a military historian.
· In London, a grim-faced woman with a cinematic aura of sanctity identifies herself privately to Lipstadt as a “Holocaust survivor.” Lipstadt informs her defense team that this woman is indeed a “Holocaust survivor” who is qualified to testify. What is the basis of “renowned historian” Lipstadt’s corroboration of the woman’s identity and credentials as a witness? She showed Lipstadt some faded numbers tattooed on her arm. This is proof? What a joke.

If you’re already a true believer, the film may further cement your belief, but for thinking individuals who are paying attention, Denial alerts curious minds to the existence of a substantial body of dissent, going so far as to feature Mr. Irving’s website on-camera, as well as the covers of his books. Viewers of the film who follow up with an Internet search for the Leuchter Report or the “Zündel trial” (few though these may be) are going to encounter a world of revisionist discovery and intellectual challenge.

As we often remind our readers, our enemies are not invincible, any more than they are infallible. Their victory is not inevitable. They make big mistakes and Denial is one of them: a 109-minute commercial of sorts for a valiant writer whose reputation is still very much intact.

We seldom have the occasion to write the following words, but it is delightful to do so now: Thank you, Hollywood!                                                        
This article originally appeared in Revisionist History No. 87, November 2016.
Copyright© 2016 Michael Hoffman

Thursday, January 12, 2017

Jew Admits Jews Dominate Hollywood and American Culture



Joshua Hammerman, a rabbi writing for the Times of Israel suggests a Joscars category for film awards. “The criteria for a Jos-car nomination is simple: the Jewish aspect of a film can include Jewish subject matter, Jewish values, or Jewish participation.” Then he admits its not really necessary because “With these criteria, you can find something “Jewish” in almost every film.” So does this mean the Jews control Hollywood?

Every film? Jewish? This brings to mind the classic anti-Semitic claim that “the Jews own Hollywood.” Of course that is ridiculous, but not for the reason you might think. If the claim is that Jews are significantly represented at all levels in the production and dissemination of culture, which includes movies, books, music, drama, journalism, dance, the visual arts and the humanities, my response is “guilty as charged.”

He mocks those involved in less important roles in the film industry.

Incidentally, have you noticed just how many gaffers, grips and best boys are Jewish? Neither have I.

The implication here is that “best boy” might as well be called “best goy”. We get the goy to do all the menial jobs, while we Jews do everything important, haha!

Those who subscribe to grand Jewish conspiracy theories are typically those who have the least familiarity with real live Jews. The ADL’s Global survey of 100 nations discovered that people living in countries with larger Jewish populations are less likely to hold anti-Semitic views than people living in countries with smaller Jewish populations. The same is true of places in America. It’s true with other groups too: familiarity reduces bigotry. In this case, absence makes the heart grow hateful.

Or to put it another way, people in countries without large Jewish populations are most likely to hold anti-Semitic views because Jews have not established a dominating influence in their culture, politics or media and used that influence to pump out philosemitic propaganda and marginalise anyone who challenges their agenda by pointing out the truth. They are able to accurately perceive the facts, free of Semitic filtering.

The rabbi then boasts of how Jewish domination of the instruments of cultural production prevents European patriots achieving their goal of preserving the existence of European peoples.

But I will say this — proudly. The influence of Jewish values, those principles Jews have long held sacred, has been most profound on the American cultural scene.

…These values, which are neither exclusively left nor right, but Jewish through and through, include humility, love and freedom and dignity. They clash markedly against the “values” of the “traditional” anti-Semite, who, as defined by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, tends to be xenophobic, anti-intellectual, populist, racist, brutish and, if unchecked, ultimately genocidal.

And here’s the rub — the part that drives anti-Semites absolutely bananas. The influence of popular culture, in the US and throughout most of the world, continues to be far, far more pervasive than that of any government or branch of government. When Chief Justice Roberts (who is decidedly not an anti-Semite) wrote about the “undeniable appeal” of arguments of social fairness and equality in the 2015 same-sex marriage case, he was speaking of the undeniable influence of TV programs like “American Family” and current films like “Loving,” whose influence on the culture continue to be profound.

So when anti-Semites say “The Jews control Hollywood,” or “The Jews control the media,” they are really cursing the fact that their agenda can never achieve the ultimate triumph they seek until the instruments of culture are co-opted. And, yes, I can proudly say that Jews are continuing to hold up our end of the bargain, not by owning Hollywood, or by propagating any particular agenda, but by driving haters crazy.


Another story in the Times of Israel tells of how Jewish Hollywood mogul, Arnon Milchan (12 Years a Slave), has been involved in supplying Netanyahu with cigars and Israel with weapons. And some other Hollywood Jews have also apparently been involved in helping Israel over the years.

Peres, who was president at the time, said he recruited Milchan. “Arnon is a special man. It was I who recruited him … when I was at the Ministry of Defense. Arnon was involved in numerous defense-related procurement activities and intelligence operations,” said Peres.

Milchan also said he tried to get other Hollywood figures involved in his clandestine work, notably the late director Sydney Pollack. Pollack was allegedly involved in buying arms and military equipment for Israel during the 1970s and, according to Milchan, knew just what he was getting into. “Pollack knew, but I didn’t want to scare him because he’s American… He could have said ‘no,” Milchan said. “He said ‘no’ many times, but he also said ‘yes’ many times.”

He used Hollywood pull to lure a “US nuclear scientist” to a private meeting. What tribe was this scientist a member of? We can only speculate.

Milchan, who is part-owner of Israel’s Channel 10 television company, also admitted trying to use an unnamed big star to entice a US nuclear scientist to a private meeting in the actor’s house, although the interview didn’t clarify if the rendezvous ever took place. A number of actors feature in the Channel 2 documentary, including Russell Crowe, Ben Affleck and Robert De Niro, who is a personal friend of Milchan’s. De Niro told Dayan that he had heard things about Milchan; however nothing that was ever confirmed. “I wasn’t sure,” he said.

What was the purpose of this meeting with a scientist? No doubt obtaining classified information that would be of benefit to Israel.

Two years ago, authors Meir Doron and Joseph Gelman published a book titled “Confidential: The Life of Secret Agent Turned Hollywood Tycoon Arnon Milchan,” in which they asserted that Milchan was acting for Israel’s now defunct Bureau of Scientific Relations, known as Lekem. The clandestine bureau focused on obtaining information for secret defense programs that reputedly included Israel’s rumored nuclear weapons research and development program. The bureau was disbanded in 1987 after US Navy specialist Jonathan Pollard was caught spying for Israel.

So Milchan was involved with an Israeli agency that inveigled American Jews into committing treason against their “own country”. This is the same guy who produced 12 Years a Slave, a film that pushes the Blame Whitey slave narrative which stigmatizes Europeans and incites African-Americans to hate European-Americans.

Friday, January 6, 2017

Megacaust


By Mike Walsh


The holocaust mantra that falsely claims six million lives is drummed into our heads since early childhood. It then comes as a shock to learn that the fuhrer’s accusers between them take full responsibility for multiple acts of genocide that claimed no less than 164 million lives.

According to R. J. Rummel, Power Kills: Genocide and Mass Murder (Journal of Peace Research): Murder by government claimed the lives of 170 million people during the last 100 years.

If Hitler’s Germany is supposed to have accounted for six million of these unfortunate victims who takes responsibility for the 164 million victims whose plight is airbrushed off the West’s news pages and television screens? Eerily, we learn that the culprits responsible for 18 times the ‘Death by Government’ murders attributed to the Reich are Hitler’s accusers.

Name and shame; who was primarily responsible for the genocide of 164 million non-Jewish victims of genocide; racial and ethnic extermination? Why the endless clamour over six million alleged Jews but a deafening silence falls when one asks, ‘what about the other 164 million’?

Taking their places on the Dais of Death is the dwarfish ex-bank robber Bolshevik Russia’s Joe Stalin and America’s Franklin D. Roosevelt; beside them stands the toad-like half-American dilettante and notorious sexual deviant Winston Churchill. The fourth of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse riders is China’s Mao tse Tung.


Shockingly, MEGACAUST by Michael Walsh convincingly argues that most of the 164 million ‘death by government’ victims could have been prevented by a mainstream media that chose instead to collaborate with history’s greatest mass murderers.

The legendary Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are Death, Famine, War and Conquest. If one wants to bring into stark relief the images of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse one needs look no further than Josef Stalin, Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt and China’s Mao tse Tung).

In 1917 ~ before the Russian Tragedy, the population of Imperial Russia stood at 182 million. The 1990 census revealed that Russia’s population had dramatically decreased to 143 million over the 73 intervening years in which Bolshevism ravaged Imperial Russia. Over the same time period Britain’s population increased by 25 per cent despite suffering the haemorrhage of World War Two and unprecedented migration.

Had Russia’s population been allowed to keep pace by 1990 one would have expected Russia’s population to stand today at 230 million. In 1939 Germany’s population stood at 80 million but by 1950 was just 68 million. Interestingly, according to the Jewish World Almanac the only population that remained the same before and after World War Two and throughout the Russian Tragedy was the Jewish population of 13 million. How do we explain this?

All is revealed by Michael Walsh in his just published MEGACAUST. Available only from Amazon and Kindle this game-changing exposé is likely to tear apart the arguments of those who claim that Hitler’s Germany was responsible for the deaths of six million Jews. MEGACAUST is the ultimate and final riposte to the myth of the six million.