Solzhenitsyn's Forbidden Book - 200 Years

Solzhenitsyn's Forbidden Book 

 

Morgoth's Review

 Alexander Solzhenitsyn is the Nobel Prize winning author of ''The Gulag Archipelago''. He was embraced by the Western establishment as a Russian Nelson Mandela, a brave dissident speaking truth about a regime the West was hostile towards. However, his final work entitled ''200 Years Together'' which explores the tumultuous relationship of Russians and Jews, is yet to be published in the English language, for reasons which remain mysterious. Fortunately it is published in French and thanks to an amazing writer and translator we can take a peak at a work which has the Western establishment rattled. You can read the full essay here, I highly recommend you read the full piece but here are some quotes, I have left F.Roger Devlin's text in only to provide context.


For several weeks the membership of the Executive Committee was not even divulged:

. . . several of the members hide behind pseudonyms and for two months refused to appear in public: no one knew exactly who was governing Russia. Later it came out that there were ten stupid soldiers in the EC for show, kept at arm’s length. Among the rest—the thirty active members—more than half were Jewish socialists. There were Russians, Caucasians, Latvians, and Poles, but the Russians amounted to less than a quarter of the whole. A moderate socialist, Stankevitch, noted that “the most striking thing about the composition of the EC was the number of foreign elements . . . out of all proportion with their numbers in Petrograd or in the country.” (p. 47)


In the course of the summer and autumn of 1917, the Zionist movement continued to gather strength in Russia: in September it had 300,000 adherents. Less known is that Orthodox Jewish organizations enjoyed great popularity in 1917, yielding only to the Zionists and surpassing the socialist parties. (p. 54)

 “It must be stated clearly that the October Putsch was not led by the Jews (except for the glorious Trotsky and the young and dynamic Grigori Chudnovsky)” (p. 80).

 “immediately after October, it was the Jews who saved the revolution by breaking the resistance of the civil servants” (p. 105).

He accepts the common argument that the Jewish Bolsheviks were renegades, i.e., “not Jews in spirit.” He points out, however, that the same was true of Russian Bolsheviks and denies that any nation may simply disown its renegades: “for if we release ourselves from all responsibility for the actions of our national kin, the very concept of a nation loses any real meaning” (p. 132).

There are many Jewish authors who to this very day either deny the support of Jews for Bolshevism, or even reject it angrily, or else—the most common case—only speak defensively about it. The matter is well-attested, however: these Jewish renegades were for several years leaders at the center of the Bolshevik Party, at the head of the Red Army (Trotsky), of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (Sverdlov), of the two capitals (Zinoviev and Kamenev), of the Comintern (Zinoviev), of the Profintern (Dridzo-Lozovsky), and of the Komsomol (Oskar Ryvkin, then Lazar Shatskin). (p. 91)

Marxists are officially “internationalists,” of course, and Trotsky was especially emphatic in rejecting his ethnic heritage. But does it necessarily follow that he was not influenced by it? “To judge by the appointments he made,” Solzhenitsyn observes, “Jewish renegades were closer to him than Russian renegades” (p. 92)

The author goes on to discuss the roles of the Jews Uritsky, Drabkin, and Sverdlov in dispersing the Constituent Assembly, concluding with one of his strongest formulations: “by these sorts of operations the new Jewish form of government was sketched out” (p. 93).

He reproduces the remarks of some contemporary observers:

F. Nazhivin records the impressions he received at the very beginning of Soviet power: at the Kremlin in the administration of the Sovnarkom “you see nothing but Latvians upon Latvians, Jews upon Jews. I have never been an anti-Semite, but here there were so many it leapt out at you, and each one younger than the next.”

[The writer Vladimir] Korolenko himself, liberal and hypertolerant as he was, entered into his Journal in the Spring of 1919: “Among the Bolsheviks there are a great number of Jewish men and women. Their tactlessness, their self-assurance are striking and irritating. . . . In their ranks, and above all in the Cheka [the secret police], you constantly see Jewish physiognomies, and this exacerbates the still virulent traditional feelings of Judeophobia [among the population].” (p. 99)

“the section charged with combating black marketers—the least dangerous and most lucrative—was in the hands of Jews” (p. 94

In 1918 [writes Solzhenitsyn] Trotsky, with the aid of Sklianski and Yakov Sverdlov, created the Red Army. Jewish soldiers were numerous in its ranks. Several units of the Red Army were composed entirely of Jews, as, e.g., the brigade commanded by Joseph Forman. Among the officers of the Red Army, the share of Jews grew in number and importance for many years after the Civil War. (p. 135)

 “the proportion of Jews in the position of Political Adjuncts was especially high at all levels of the Red Army” (p. 136).

Of special interest to students of Communism is the Cheka, the secret political police who carried out the Red Terror and eventually built the Gulag. In their early phase, national minorities composed almost 50 percent of the central apparatus of the Cheka, and nearly 70 percent of the responsible posts. An inventory on 25 September 1918 reveals, besides a great number of Latvians and a not insignificant number of Poles, a good showing by Jews. And of the judges assigned to the struggle against counter-revolution—by far the most important section in the structure of the Cheka—half were Jews (pp. 142–43).

The Ukrainian Cheka, in what used to be the Pale of Settlement, was composed about 80 percent of Jews (p. 150). In Kiev, which was 21 percent Jewish in 1919 (p. 156), key positions in the Cheka were “almost exclusively” in Jewish hands. Of the twenty members of the commission which decided people’s fate, fourteen were Jews (p. 148).

Vasily Shulgin, an old political ally of Stolypin, witnessed an enormous exodus from Kiev on October 1st, 1919 as the town was about to be occupied by the Bolsheviks. Some 60,000 Russians, according to his estimate, left on foot with nothing more than they could carry. At the time, there were some 100,000 Jews living in Kiev. “But there were no Jews in this exodus; you could not see any among these thousands of Russians. They did not want to share our destiny.” Even the wealthiest “bourgeois” Jews preferred to take their chances with the Bolsheviks (pp. 149–50).

“In the towns of southern Russia, especially the Western half of the Ukraine which changed hands several times, the advent of Soviet power gave rise to ostentatious sympathy and the greatest joy in the Jewish quarters, and often nowhere else” (p. 150).

The proportion of Jews in the Bolshevik movement in Hungary was said to be about 95 percent; in the German Communist Party it was also greatly out of proportion. “That the directors of the communist revolts were Jews—this was one of the main reasons for the revival of political anti-Semitism in post-revolutionary Germany” (p. 153). In the 1920s, “the assimilation of Bolshevism to Judaism became a fashion followed by everyone,” i.e., it was not peculiar to traditionally anti-Semitic milieus (p. 188).

Jews numbered some 200,000 among the refugees (i.e., 10 percent), and about half of them went to Germany. They were particularly active in the field of publishing: “In 1922, these publishers brought out more Russian books and publications [in Berlin] than German language editors did in all of Germany” (pp. 182–83). A surprising number of the Jewish exiles continued to cherish an idealized image of Soviet Russia as a promised land of equality and social justice. Among the Jewish refugees who settled in the United States, notes the Jewish Encyclopedia, “pro-Bolshevik ideas had no difficulty proliferating” (p. 196). “One cannot say that the Jewish emigration [as a whole] was pro-Bolshevik,” concludes Solzhenitsyn, “but for it the Bolshevik regime was not the principal enemy, and many were those who maintained a benevolent attitude towards it” (p. 196).

. . . these discriminatory measures were not extended to Jews because they belonged to a “nation persecuted by the tsarist regime.” The Jewish youth, even ofbourgeois origin, were greeted with open arms in the universities. Jews were forgiven for not being proletarian. (p. 221)

One often saw Jews among those who first enriched themselves under NEP. The hatred directed against them was also due to their operating within the field of Soviet institutions, not only those of the market: many of their undertakings were made easier by the relations they enjoyed with those in the Soviet apparatus. (p. 255)

In fact, the Soviet Penal Code of 1926 contained provisions against “incitement to national hatred and divisiveness” [have the EU bureaucrats been studying Soviet law?], expanded in 1927 to include “diffusion, authorship or possession of written documents” (p. 252, italics added). Solzhenitsyn remarks: “The most rabid anti-Semite could not have discovered a better means of getting the people to identify Soviet power with that of the Jews” (p. 253).

A myth is in course of formation: “the Jews were always second class citizens under the Soviet regime.” And rare indeed are those who are willing to admit not only the participation of Jews in the deeds perpetrated by the barbaric young State, but also the virulence which certain of them demonstrated.

In the 1990s, a Jewish author [G. Shurmak] declared: “For decades, Jews were proud of their compatriots who made a brilliant career out of the revolution, without much reflecting upon what that career cost the Russian people in real suffering. . . . It is striking with what unanimity my compatriots deny any responsibility in the Russian history of the twentieth century.”

Words like these could be salvation for our two peoples if they were not so hopelessly rare. Because it is the truth: in the course of the twenties, numerous were the Jews who rushed to serve the Bolshevik Moloch, without thinking of the unhappy country which would provide the field for their experiments any more than of the consequences which would result for themselves. (pp. 298–99)

The author reviews more than one attempt to portray the Jewish Communists of the 1930s as victims. Solomon Schwartz asserts that “under Soviet conditions, [the Jews] had no chance to survive except State service,” to which Solzhenitsyn responds:

One is ashamed to read this. What sort of situation of oppression and despair is it which leaves you no other chance of survival than to occupy positions of privilege? What about the rest of the population? They enjoyed full liberty to wear themselves out on collective farms and in prison camps, digging ditches with pickaxes, carrying loads on the sites of the five-year plans . . . (p. 335)

The Israeli writer Yu. Margolin is another who tries to engage our sympathy for the Jewish Communists, “victims of the Soviet dictatorship, used and then liquidated without pity when they were no longer useful.” Solzhenitsyn is not buying it:


A lovely explanation! But were these persons really used for twenty years? Did they not pour all their zeal into being the engine of that same dictatorship, and before being “no longer useful,” did they not take a vigorous part in the destruction of religion and culture, in the annihilation of the intelligentsia and several million peasants? (p. 323)

If I had wanted to generalize by saying that the Jews in the camps had a particularly harsh life, no one would have stopped me, and I would not have been covered with reproaches for having generalized unjustly. But in the camps I knew it was different: insofar as one can generalize, the Jews lived there with less hardship than others. (pp. 358–59)

[T]he very structure of the totalitarian regime meant that the weakening of the Jewish share in the leadership of the country could only be initiated by Stalin himself.

But neither Stalin’s devious character nor the hardened character of Soviet propaganda allowed an open course of action. The first transformations in the composition of the State apparatus occurred—almost imperceptibly, it is true—after the rapprochement of Stalin with Hitler in 1939. The Jew Litvinov was replaced by Molotov and “purges” took place in the Commissariat of Foreign Affairs. And military and diplomatic academies were closed to Jews.


From the end of 1942, actions were taken to remove Jews from artistic institutions such as the Bolshoi, the Moscow Conservatory, [and] the Moscow Philharmonic. Later there were attempts to initiate a prorated repartitioning of [Party] cadres according to national origin, which in practice amounted to removing Jews from decision-making positions. Over the course of the years and according to circumstances, Stalin sometimes encouraged and sometimes hindered these initiatives. (pp. 424–25)

Let us note that none of these malevolent judgments upon the “Russian soul” provokes protest. If someone does not like anything Russian, holds it in contempt, or even says “Russia is a garbage dump,” this is not immoral in Russia. Here, no one addresses Presidents, Prime Ministers, Senators, or Congressmen to ask anxiously “what do you think of this incitation to hate a group of human beings because of their nationality?” (pp. 498–99)

“They(Jews) have forgotten,” marvels the author, “quite sincerely—they have entirely forgotten. How difficult it is to remember the evil one has done!” (p. 490).

I have noticed that Jews more often than others insist that no attention must be paid to nationality. “What does it matter, one’s nationality?” they repeat; “national ‘traits,’ national ‘character’—do these even exist?”
But, with my hand on my heart: it is precisely Jews who scrutinize and strain to discern national peculiarities more jealously, more attentively, more secretly than others: those of their own nation. (p. 502)

Political Correctness - Communist Propaganda

Via WRSA


“Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”
— Theodore Dalrymple

Diversity + Proximity = War: The Reference List

From Chateau Heartiste

Diversity + Proximity = War: The Reference List

Courtesy of reader chris, a large (and growing) reference list of studies finding strong and accumulating evidence for the Chateau Heartiste maxim that Diversity™ + Proximity = War by Various Means.
Feel free to link to this post on social media platforms or drop it in a clown world combox whenever a shitlib smugly wanders into your shitlord kill zone, begging for a hail of hot Realtalk™. Pounding an equalist dingbat over the head with real world events happening right before his eyes that contradict his religious teachings doesn’t work as well as pounding him over the head with peer reviewed SCIENCE!, for nothing flatters the shitlib ego as much as his carefully manicured belief that he is on the side of science. And nothing pleases yer ‘umble Destroyer of Ids more than witnessing the exact moment when a shitlib’s ego is rent in two.
***
– Social trust is negatively affected by ethnic diversity, case study in Denmark from 1979 to the present. Link.
– Ethnic homogeneity and Protestant traditions positively impact individual and societal levels of social trust. Link.
– “In longitudinal perspective, [across European regions], an increase in immigration is related to a decrease in social trust.” Link.
– Immigration undermines the moral imperative of those who most favor welfare benefits for the neediest. Link.
– The negative effect of community diversity on social cohesion is likely causal. Link.
– In Switzerland, social peace between diverse factions isn’t maintained by integrated coexistence, but rather by strong topographic and political borders that separate groups and allow them autonomy. Link.
– “Our analysis supports the hypothesis that violence between groups can be inhibited by both physical and political boundaries.” Link.
– Diversity hinders between-group cooperation at both the one-on-one and group levels. Link.
– The best chance for peace in Syria is better borders (intrastate or through the creation of new states) “suited to current geocultural regions”, and tribal autonomy. Link.
– Using data from US states, study finds a negative relationship between ethnic polarization and trust. Link.
– Diversity is associated with more White support for nationalist parties, except at the local level where large immigrant populations cut into vote totals for nationalist parties. Link.
– In Australia, ethnic diversity lowers social cohesion and increases “hunkering”, providing support for Putnam’s thesis finding the same results in the US. Link.
– After controlling for a self-selection bias, study finds that ethnic diversity in English schools reduces trust in same-age people and does not make White British students more inclusive in their attitudes towards immigrants. Link.
– In Germany, residential diversity reduces natives’ trust in neighbors, while it also reduces immigrants’ trust but through a different pathway. Link.
– Increasing social pluralism (diversity) is correlated with increased chance of collective violence. Link.
– “[E]thnic heterogeneity [diversity] explains 55% of the variation in the scale of ethnic conflicts, and the results of regression analysis disclose that the same relationship more or less applies to all 187 countries. … [E]thnic nepotism is the common cross-cultural background factor which supports the persistence of ethnic conflicts in the world as long as there are ethnically divided societies.” Link.
– Genetic Similarity Theory (GST) could help explain why diverse groups in close proximity increases ethnic conflict and ethnic nepotism. Link.
– Genetic diversity has contributed significantly to frequency of ethnic civil conflict, intensity of social unrest, growth of unshared policy preferences, and economic inequality over the last half-century. Link.
– Using social science data and computer modeling, researchers found that policies that attempt to create neighborhoods that are both integrated and socially cohesive are “a lost cause”. Link.
– The numbers and the genetic distance matter. Minority groups that get above a certain critical mass, and that are culturally distant from the majority culture, begin to self-segregate from the majority, moving society toward division and away from cooperation. Link.
– Using data from Copenhagen school registers, researchers found that native Danes opt out of public schools when the immigrant population concentration hits 35% or more. Link.
– In the most liberal region in the US, San Francisco and surrounding suburbs, White parents are pulling their kids out of public schools that are becoming increasingly asian. Link.
– School integration (forced proximate Diversity) will not close race achievement gaps. Link.
– Exclusionary dating is a natural consequence of racial diversity. Link.
– As diversity increases, politics becomes more tribalistic. Link.
– Company diversity policies don’t help minorities or women, and they psychologically discriminate against White men. Link.
– Greater classroom and neighborhood diversity is linked to stronger tendencies to choose same-ethnic rather than cross-ethnic friends. Link.
– A longitudinal test of the impact of diversity finds that it makes existing residents feel unhappier and more socially isolated. Link. (alternate link)
– Internal dissension stoked by ethnic, social, political, and religious diversity, rather than environmental degradation, caused the collapse of the urbanized Cahokia Indian Tribe. Link.
– The volunteer participation rate in America hit a record low last year, declining 0.4% from the previous year, and has been declining since 2005. Not coincidentally, the racial composition of America has become more fragmented during the same time. Link.
– A sense of social cohesion with the people who live around us is as happiness-inducing as love for the place itself. Link.
– Our desire for ‘like-minded others’ is hard-wired. Link.
– “The Evolutionary Dominance of Ethnocentric Cooperation”

Recent agent-based computer simulations suggest that ethnocentrism, often thought to rely on complex social cognition and learning, may have arisen through biological evolution. From a random start, ethnocentric strategies dominate other possible strategies (selfish, traitorous, and humanitarian) based on cooperation or non-cooperation with in-group and out-group agents. Here we show that ethnocentrism eventually overcomes its closest competitor, humanitarianism, by exploiting humanitarian cooperation across group boundaries as world population saturates. (Link)

– A wealthy Virginia county that is rapidly racially diversifying is getting poorer and less socially cohesive. Link.
– Gender diversity does not promote nonconformity in decision-making bodies. (But individual ability diversity does.) Link.
– High ethnic diversity has a negative effect on innovation, but high “values diversity” has the opposite effect, as long as ethnic diversity is low. The best innovation happens in countries that are ethnically homogenous but diverse in values orientation. Link.
– Growing racial diversity in Houston is contributing to declining construction standards and aggravating the impact of natural disasters. Link.
– As an explanation of recent voting behavior, ethnic origin trumps class differences. “…the political salience of white ethnicity persists, suggesting that ethnic groups do not simply dealign or politically “assimilate” over time.”
***
Chris summarizes,

In short: diversity gives us violence, conflict, less welfare, less trust, less cohesion. Merkel knew what she was doing. So do other elites. They are responsible. All the negatives of immigration and refugees are predictable and backed up by scientific evidence. Ergo each act of violence can be considered to be done from the hands of the elites themselves.
Merkel raped those women.

The ruling Western elite have native White blood and the rapes of native White women on their hands. Historically, what was done to ruling elites who displayed such open, traitorous contempt for their people? I’ll leave the imaginative answer to this question as an exercise for the readers.
Related to the above thought exercise: president Butt Naked is on record declaring he wants to turn America into a “hodgepodge of folks”, i.e., he hates White people and wants to see them demographically swamped by nonWhites.
This reference list will be updated periodically as new studies arrive and older ones are rediscovered.

Society Is A Racial Construct (Culture = Civilisation)

Society is a racial construct - VoxDay/Chateau Heartiste

Le Chateau spells it out, in support of Rep. Steve King's statement of the obvious.

Steve King ✔ @SteveKingIA
Wilders understands that culture and demographics are our destiny. We can't restore our civilization with somebody else's babies.

• Society is a racial construct.
• There is no magic dirt that will transform, say, Somalis and Syrians into lovers, defenders, and disciples of Constitutional republicanism.
• Race matters.
• Once more…..RACE MATTERS.
• In fact, race is the primary source pool of civilization and culture; all other variables are commentary in comparison.
• Culture isn’t a costume. It can’t be worn like a Turinic shroud with the expectation that it will reverse-imbue the intrinsic character of any people who happen to hop the border and adopt its most superficial trappings.
• Culture is an emergent property of the people that comprise it, who themselves are properties of their genes and of the predispositions and beliefs and behaviors and temperaments and aptitudes with which they are endowed by their genes.
• America is not a nation of immigrants. America is a nation of colonists who, along with their descendants, created, built, and nourished America into a great nation, perhaps the greatest the world has ever known. Immigrants came later, and they were for a long while chosen from stock populations that were not too dissimilar from the founding stock of America (African slaves stand as a glaring exception). It was not until relatively recently (1965 onward) that immigrants significantly deviated in numbers and racial congeniality from the historical norm of immigration into America.
• Quite simply, the myth of American exceptionalism is just that. American ideals aren’t spread by osmosis into the deep psyches of different races of people; rather, a very specific race of people — White Europeans of primarily Anglo-Celtic-Germanic descent — breathed life into the American ideals, and without them their ideals wither from neglect and misuse in the care of their usurpers.
• We are not created equal under Nature, and this truism applies to races as it does to individuals. Memorable exceptions only prove the wisdom of pragmatic generalizations.
• The Constitution, or any stirring stanza of words written by Whites for White sensibilities, will not change a Chinaman into a heartland Chad. Racial foreigners can mouth the words, but if they don’t feel it in their bones they’ll have no trouble betraying those words when its personally advantageous or when the Law isn’t hovering closely to motivate their observance.
• A civilization is the sum total of the people that inhabit it. Change the people, change the civilization.
• Some cultures really are superior to other cultures. If it were not so, millions of those from the lesser cultures would not be escaping into the homelands of the better cultures.
• Finally, the character of a nation is not established by a founding document; instead, the founding document chronicles the character of a nation. PEOPLE MAKE THE NATION, THE NATION DOES NOT MAKE THE PEOPLE. If the people change, so does the nation, into whatever form the replacement people find most familiar, which usually means a facsimile of their native homelands they left behind.

Steve King is right. You can wave your final goodbye to White American civilization if some other tribes are having all the babies. The future belongs to those who show up, and the shape of that future depends on the innate character of its inheritors. That’s Stone Cold Truth 101, and it’s the truth that has bedeviled suicide signaling leftoids for generations, and driven them into increasingly insane postures of delusional doublethink, obscene hypocrisy, and hoary lies.

THERE IS NO MAGIC DIRT.

NATIONS ARE GROUPS OF PEOPLE, NOT LINES ON A MAP.

THERE ARE NO MAGIC WORDS.

AMERICA IS A NATION. AMERICANS ARE A PEOPLE.

X CAN NEVER ALSO BE NOT-X.

CIVILIZATION IS NOT GUARANTEED.

DIVERSITY + PROXIMITY = WAR.

Truth Obligates - The Thinking Housewife

Truth Obligates  - The Thinking Housewife

February 28, 2017

GERARD MENUHIN was born in Scotland in 1948. He is the son of Jewish parents, the great violinist Yehudi Menuhin and British ballerina Diana Rosamund Gould. His brother is the pianist Jeremy Menuhin. Their grandfather was Moshe Menuhin, the great, great grandson of Shneur Zalman of Liadi, the founder of Chabad Hassidism and an anti-Zionist. Gerard is an actor, novelist and journalist, a graduate of Eton and Stanford University who lived in Germany and England as a child. In his latest book, Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil (2015), Menuhin rejects many of the official and popular accounts of World War II and thus has earned the hateful slur of “Holocaust denier.”
Menuhin is a courageous man — a cultured intellectual reduced to the most infantile, bigoted and deceitful characterizations by a herd of infantile, bigoted and deceitful propagandists. He is not a “Holocaust denier,” but a hero.
Perhaps only a person of Jewish ancestry could write so fearlessly on such a forbidden topic. His book is filled with important historical information from primary sources and daring opinions. Menuhin believes the war should not have been fought at all.
At times, his opinions are harsh, as Jews sometimes can be toward themselves, and I don’t agree with them all, but he is not a “Holocaust denier” and, in fact, there are no “Holocaust deniers,” at least not any that are taken seriously. No one sane questions the fact that hundreds of thousands of Jews died in concentration camps in Germany, a terrible disaster brought about toward the end of the war when the Allies bombed the supply lines into the camps, where Jews, whose leaders had declared war on Germany in 1933, worked in armaments factories and miserably awaited deportation. What Menuhin and many other abused, hounded and slandered historical revisionists do deny is that anywhere close to six million died, that gas chambers existed and that there was a plan to exterminate European Jewry. Menuhin has thus earned more slurs: “self-hating Jew” and “anti-Semitic Jew.”
A reviewer at Amazon writes:

Mr. Menuhin does more to honor the real victims of the Holocaust, than any other, since he shames the lies proliferated in their names, and restores their dignity and well earned memory. Furthermore, this is the kind of literature that will contribute to mitigating antisemitism, and not the EU Holocaust laws passed to penalize and imprison those who express those sentiments.

Another reviewer writes:

I have still not managed to finish the book. I had to stop several times because for an half-awakened, still half-indoctrinated German it was too much to take in. Many times I reread parts with tears in my eyes. Too many lies. So much hatred against us which we just ignored. So much destruction of our country, our culture our people we were told was deserved but in fact was just to crush our natural economic development. I now believe that our biggest weakness is our honesty. It makes us incapable to recognize the lies against us. A musician myself I am proud to say that I have met Yehudi Menuhin in person but I now believe that his son Gerard will leave an even deeper mark in human history than his father.

In writing his book, Menuhin fell into one of the most vilified of coteries. Who knows how long it will be before he is arrested and put in jail. In the Spanish Inquisition, people were incarcerated for telling lies. In the modern Inquisition, people are jailed for telling the truth.
He writes of his motives:

I, perceiving the truth about past and present events, merely tried to correct their interpretation, not realizing when I started, that any revelations I might experience and try to communicate in no way disturbed this sequence, could not upset its sway, and only endangered me and made me ridiculous to those in the know and, with the exception of a few, unintelligible to those who are not.

Yet, as the German saying has it: “Truth obligates; who keeps silent concurs.” (Wahrheit verpflichtet, wer schweigt stimmt zu.)

Peace between humans should be the norm on Earth. Yet to achieve this normal state requires all our energy. My father said:“Peace may sound simple—one beautiful word—but it requires everything we have, every quality, every strength, every dream, every high ideal.”

My father tried to generate peace with his music. I have inherited a duty to do the same in the only way I can.

Tell the Truth intersperses history with memoir. (His method is confusing at times.) Menuhin is an atheist. I don’t share his lack of regard for the faith of the ancient Israelites. He is not the only historical revisionist who does not believe in, appreciate or understand God’s former Covenant with the Jews. Nevertheless, despite this blindness, his book is a compelling account of an historical and personal awakening.
Here is an excerpt:

As the captive audience of my mother’s recollections of the Blitz, I habitually tuned out or deleted most of her repetitive anecdotes, out of resentment. I regret this now, as a clearer firsthand account of life in wartime London, however edited, would have been informative. But the very manner of my mother’s monologues hindered questions, which would have been considered mere interruptions of the scheduled broadcast.

Associated topics included the “Wirtschaftswunder” years, the miracle of postwar German industrial reconstruction, to which my mother alluded during my parents’ few visits to my German school, in 1957. At nine, I was unsurprisingly unaware of this phenomenon, or of the incongruity of two advanced Anglo-Saxon nations destroying each other. About fifteen years later, I heard an irascible colonel on American radio voice a fitting verdict: “For the British and the Germans to be fighting each other was an inappropriate encounter situation.” All the Germans I knew were unfailingly pleasant and remarkable only for seeming each to possess the same model of shiny dark blue suit, in retrospect perhaps in itself an indication of their striving toward a return to bourgeois standards. The schoolchildren at Hermannsberg were also models of normality, in that, in their free time, they were chiefly occupied with games/sports, amusement, music and outdoor pastimes. That their ancestors and mine could have been incited to kill each other never occurred to me. The only reference to the war that I remember is of a glancing remark I overheard as I was drying myself after the morning shower, when two older boys were exchanging hearsay about the fate of German POWs in Russian captivity. Although it was typical of schoolboys’ gossip, the morbid subject naturally impressed me at the time.

Since then, I have learned much, some of it by reflection, some from books and records of and about the time, which by their copious footnotes and corroborative contents and cross-referencing, confirm that the sympathy I have always felt for this much-maligned and mistreated people is justified. In fact, I never gave the subject much thought, occupied as I was with my daily drudgery, until the Nineties, when, while I was ordering the contents of my deceased grandparents’ house, I chanced on a copy of the National Zeitung, the patriotic German newspaper to which my grandfather had contributed a column for several years during the Sixties. He had devoted his life, by means of books and articles, to supporting the Palestinians, among whom he had lived as a boy, during the first decade of the 20th century. A Russian-Jewish immigrant, he had experienced much kindness from the local Arabs and had taken stock of the attitude and expectations of some of the Jewish settlers.

The newspaper commanded respect, with its simple Maltese/Iron Cross logo and boldly independent informative stance. Although it entered my thoughts only intermittently, my ambition to communicate with its publisher and friend of my grandfather’s grew over the years, in measure as I was subjected to various revelations.

No mission to discover a universal truth inspired me, rather a wish to understand my times and the development of the world, in particular to explain to myself this catastrophic caesura during the1940s, a warp not only in time, but in Western European character, during which the fathers and grandfathers of my German classmates had allegedly done the unspeakable.

So hideous and shameful had been their crimes then that they had even acquired their own appellation.By inducing a particular bias into a hitherto neutral English word, a commodious new orthodoxy was invented, so powerful that its regular, ubiquitous invocation by the media had placed the entire Western world under its spell. How could this be?

Due to the exceptional nature of the twelve years of National Socialism, a large and growing body of lurid fiction and alleged fact has materialized, based on its dramatic superficialities rather than onany study or comprehension of its socialist policies, and inspired by a particular agenda. Sobriety rejects sensationalism. A perusal of reputable historical sources, some of them quite hard to find, helped me to form my own opinion. The most powerful persuasion, however, did not come from the rather dry accounts in my reading, but from the perfectly straightforward deduction that a people with the traditions and culture of the Germans did not almost overnight become barbarians and commit mass murder. Their military did not lose its humanity just because it was accustomed to obeying orders.

Most tellingly, the descendants of these reputed monsters could not have been the absolutely average children who surrounded me daily while I was at school in Germany, children who could have come from anywhere.

Three of the best known works on the Second World War are General Eisenhower’s Crusade in Europe (New York: Doubleday [Country Life Press], 1948), Winston Churchill’s The Second World War (London: Cassell, 6 vols., 1948-1954), and the Mémoires de guerre of General de Gaulle (Paris: Plon, 3 vols., 1954-1959). In these three works not the least mention of Nazi gas chambers is to be found. Eisenhower’s Crusade in Europe is a book of 559 pages; the six volumes of Churchill’s Second World War total 4,448 pages; and de Gaulle’s three-volume Mémoires de guerre is 2,054 pages. In this mass of writing, which altogether totals 7,061 pages (not including the introductory parts), published from 1948 to 1959, one will find no mention either of Nazi “gas chambers,” a “genocide” of the Jews, or of “six million” Jewish victims of the war. Robert Faurisson, “The Detail (the alleged Nazi gas chambers),” The Journal of Historical Review, March-April 1998 (Vol. 17, No. 2), pages 19-20)

[….]

The 6 million figure, in connection with the claimed suffering of European Jews, appeared regularly in North American newspapers of record at least since 1915 (The Sun, June 6, 1915), presumably to prepare the ground among emotionally labile readers for the time when testimony to support such a claim could confidently be manufactured. The use of “holocaust” in this context was introduced as early as 1936 (New York Times, May 31, 1936). [emphasis added] “Russian imperial leaders had long been suspicious of the Jews, and largely banished them to the so-called Pale of Settlement that was established in western Russia in the 1790s. Beginning in the 1880s, western media issued exaggerated reports of slaughters, pogroms, and assorted massacres among the Russian Jews there, whose aggregate numbersof victims were nearly always recorded—astonishingly—as ‘6 million.’” The New York Times carried periodic such reports. See, for example: January 26, 1891: “Rabbi Gottheil says a word on the persecution of the Jews: ‘. . . about 6 million persecuted and miserable wretches’.”),

September 21, 1891: “An indictment of Russia . . . a total of 6,000,000 is more nearly correct.” June 11, 1900: “[In Russia and central Europe] there are 6,000,000 living, bleeding, suffering arguments in favor of Zionism.” March 23, 1905: “We Jews in America [sympathize with] our 6,000,000 cringing brothers in Russia.”

March 25, 1906: “Startling reports of the condition and future of Russia’s 6,000,000 Jews. . . .” The situation led a former president of B’nai B’rith to a prophetic exclamation: “Simon Wolf asks how long the Russian Holocaust is to continue.” (November 10, 1905) (Inconvenient History)

Forty years before the Holocaust story gradually took shape in 1942, both the number and the precise terminology were used:

Startling reports of the condition and future of Russia’s 6,000,000 Jews were made on March 12 in Berlin to the annual meeting of the Central Jewish Relief League of Germany by Dr. Paul Nathan, a well-known Berlin publicist, who has returned from an extensive trip through Russia as the special emissary of Jewish philanthropists in England, America and Germany, to arrange for distribution of the relief fund of $1,500,000 raised after the massacres last autumn. He left St. Petersburg with the firm conviction that the Russian government’s studied policy for the “solution” to the Jewish question is systematic and murderous extermination. (New York Times, March 25, 1906) (author’s italics)

One does wonder who these “philanthropists” were, who sent the good doctor on his mission.

How dare the smooth talkers, the clever official blabbers, open their mouths and boast of progress. . . . Here they hold jubilant peace conferences in which they talk against war. . . . But the same righteous Governments, who are so nobly, industriously active to establish the eternal peace, are preparing, by their own confession, complete annihilation for 6 million people, and there is nobody, except the doomed themselves, to raise his voice in protest although this is a worse crime than any war. . . . (Max Nordau, Zionist Congress 1911, Basel/Perfidy by Ben Hecht, page 254, 1962; author’s italics)

***

The Appeal—To save Six million Men and Women in Eastern Europe from Extermination by Hunger and Disease. The Obligation—It is the duty of every person in New York to give the utmost he can spare to relieve the greatest need the world has ever known (advertisement, New York Times, May 5, 1920)

[…]

The Bible is full of “burnt sacrifices,” which evidently pleased God (e.g., Leviticus 1:14-17 details all the mumbo-jumbo pertaining to burnt sacrifices). Apparently, Jewish prophecies in the Torah require that 6 million Jews must vanish before the state of Israel can be formed: “You shall return minus 6 million.” Those 6 million had to disappear in “burning ovens.” So 6 million Jews had to be gassed and end up in burning ovens to fulfill the prophecies and satisfy the Talmud Torah dogmatists—a necessary adjunct to the financial entrepreneurs—of Israel’s legitimacy, according to their covenant with their God.

There have been—and indeed continue to be—many efforts to memorialize the Jews murdered in the Holocaust, but this effort of the surviving Hassidic masters stands out. The Zohar records that there are 600,000 letters in the Torah. Truth be told, our scrolls have far fewer letters—304,805 to be exact. Thus the number 600,000 cannot refer merely to a different text of the Bible, for the discrepancy is too great. The number 600,000 could therefore be considered a symbolic number.

One of the later mystics, Rabbi Natan Nata Shapiro of Krakow (Megaleh Amukot, 1585-1633) wrote that this number corresponds to the 600,000 Jewish souls that exist. Sure there are more people than that, but each soul can mystically animate more than one person. Moreover, the Hebrew name for Israel—Yisrael—is an acronym for Yesh Shishim Ribbuy Otiyot Latorah, there are 600,000 letters in the Torah. (Jerusalem Post, June 1, 2012) (author’s italics) So could the number 666 ‘be considered a symbolic number’.

The Bible declares: “Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred three score and six.” (Revelation 13:18) Useful superstitions about “The Beast” or Antichrist can thus be traced to this hokum around the number “6.”

All material evidence to the contrary is stubbornly declared insignificant, as was the exonerating evidence at the Nuremberg show trials. The only relevant fact is:

The holocaust dogma of Judaism is an article of faith and a doctrine of belief of Jewish religious history adjudicated by their rabbis according to Talmudic law and Kabalistic tradition. (Ben Weintraub, The Holocaust Dogma of Judaism: Keystone of the New World Order)

So we have “‘’faith,” “doctrine” and “belief.” What we don’t have is hard physical proof. “Faith means you don’t know,” as someone has said. If you don’t know that a crime has occurred, how can you punish someone for perpetrating it?

As Jewish jazz musician and author Gilad Atzmon says, “The Holocaust is a complete forgery, initiated by Americans and Zionists.“ (Ruhr-Nachrichten 2005)

More astounding because it appeared in a major mainstream French newspaper, as summary to a long pseudo-historical article under the general title “Menace negationniste” (“Menace of holocaust denial”), was the assertion:

Everyone is free to refer to this or that kind of explanation, everyone is ultimately free to imagine or to fantasize that these monstrous events did not take place.

Unfortunately they did take place and nobody can deny their existence without abusing the truth. One must not ask oneself how such mass murder was technically possible. It was technically pos-
sible because it took place. (Le Monde, February 21, 1979)

This pledge of allegiance to the faith was signed by 34 French historians, all presumably keen to keep their jobs. One assumes that they were also familiar with the French fantasist Rabelais, who com-
posed five satirical books entitled The Horrible and Terrifying Deeds and Words of the Very Renowned Pantagruel King of the Dipsodes, Son of the Great Giant Gargantua.

As “6 million” merely represents some token in Jewish dogma, some cabalistic hocus-pocus, there is no reason to attach any special importance to its numerical value. It is only rational to recall that there were never 6 million Jews under German control during the war.

The claim that 5.7 million Jews were murdered is not true. The number of Jewish victims can only range between 1 and 1.5 million, because there were not more Jews within Hitler’s reach. (Ferdinand Otto Miksche, colonel in the French army and a close aide to Charles de Gaulle, The End of the Present, Herbig, Munich, 1990, p.107)

Statistics for 1919 show 615,021 Jews in the whole of Germany. (Flächeninhalt und Bevölkerung, October 8, 1919) Official statistics and censuses before and after the war show hardly any changes in the numbers of Jews.

This was demonstrated by Swedish author Einar Aberg in 1959, who, citing official organs  of Jewry such as the American Jewish Committee and mainstream American publications such as The World Almanac, showed that they did not document a substantially sharp decline during the years of the war. It stated that in 1936 there were 15,753,633 Jews worldwide; while in 1949 there were 15,713,638.

These Holocaust deniers are very slick people. They justify everything they say with facts and figures. —Chairman, New Jersey Commission on Holocaust Education (Newark Star-Ledger, Oct. 23, 1996, p. 15)

An estimate based on documents held by the International Tracing Service of the Red Cross arrives at a figure of 74,000 deaths at Auschwitz, based on the “Auschwitz death books.” The death books themselves are wartime German camp records, which were captured by the Soviets toward the end of the war and hidden in Soviet archives, until released to the Red Cross in 1989 by Mikhail Gorbachov.

The International Red Cross made frequent visits to Auschwitz:

We had not been able to discover any trace of installations for exterminating civilian prisoners. This corroborates a report which we had already received from other sources. . . . (USA-Today, Friday, May 2, 1997, page 14A)

***

Furthermore, there exists since 1979 a document from the Bureau of Vital Statistics in Arolsen, which lists the certified deaths in each concentration camp of the Third Reich (total 271,304 cases of which 52,389 in Auschwitz). (Bureau of Vital Statistics Arolsen, case officer Herr [Redacted], Az. I/V-050-Schw. May 11, 1979)

[…]

In conclusive proof, both of the nature of Auschwitz concentration camp and of the implausibility of the charge that Jews were gassed there—or anywhere at all—the records of the Auschwitz Kommandantur (commander’s headquarters) appeared in 2000 (Institut für Zeitgeschichte, Munich, 604 pp.). Here are a few extracts:

Commandant’s headquarters order Nr. 9/40. Auschwitz, November 28, 1940. Communication with prisoners in protective custody. It must be yet again be affirmed that some SS-men still call the prisoners to the fence to give them shoes or items of clothing to be repaired. I must point out that such behavior is not only forbidden, but that it is also life threatening. . . . The Comman-
dant of Auschwitz concentration camp. Signed Höss, SS-Major.

***

Commandant special order 1/42. Subject: work on Sundays. If a prisoner is to produce a full amount of work, it is necessarythat he should also have enough strength, rest and readiness to approach each week’s stint. For this, he needs Sunday to rest. In this regard, it is vital to ensure that prisoners in future bathe once a week, and that the calm of Sunday be used to maintain clothes and all other items of daily use, which the prisoner needs for his personal care. Signed, Höss, Major and Commandant.

***

Sunday work for prisoners. I forbid the assembly of work details on Sundays for work that is not absolutely necessary or essential. Prisoners should report for disinfection, bathing etc. and with this to undertake the necessary change of clothes, bed linen and mending of clothes. (author’s italics)

Standortbefehl Nr. 51/43. Auschwitz, November 16, 1943.Häftlingseigentum. Prisoners‘ property. I have occasion to point out, for the last time, that prisoners’ property, no matter what it consists of, or where it is or is seen, must remain untouched. . . . I expect from every orderly, decent SS-member—and that will be the majority—that he keeps his eyes open and helps to remove swiftly

[Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil, Barnes Review, 2015, pp 7-14]

Menuhin responds to the idea that he is a “self-hating Jew:”

If you are Jewish yourself, and you point the finger at Jews for their skulduggery, you must either be insane or hate yourself, or possibly both, they say. You hate them, so you hate yourself. Hmm. The only sense I can make of this is that, having recognized the terrible harm Jews have done to the world and continue to do to it, some Jews hate themselves for being Jewish. Well, that may indeed be so.

The first “Jewish self-hater” may have been the Judean Jesus himself, the itinerant preacher who castigated the money-lenders, thus revealing to the Pharisees that he was not the useful leader they had been expecting, and sealing his fate. In my case, as I’ve said, not being actually a Jew according to their laws, I can’t hate myself for this. Hatred is, in any case, a consuming emotion and thus an unhealthy one. [p. 389]

Let reason be silent when experience gainsays its conclusions

Let reason be silent when experience gainsays its conclusions