If you’re under 75 years old and grew up in a ‘western’ country, chances are you remember from childhood that one of the things that made the Nazis especially wicked was their notion of ‘racial’ supremacy and Hitler’s lunatic ambition to spawn a ‘Master Race’.

Whether via my parents, school education, books, comics, movies or the mass media – from a fairly early age I absorbed the notion that under Adolf Hitler’s leadership, the Nazis – and they alone – sought to promote their ‘race’ to superdude status.

Wicked Uncle Adolf: we learnt at school that he wanted a Master Race, of people like him (with blonde hair)

I can’t recall the number of times I’ve heard reasoning along the following lines:

The Nazis believed the Aryans are a Master Race and wanted to lord it over the rest – didn’t they?

That’s why we had to fight them to the end – wasn’t it?

Sure, the 60 million or so deaths (and tens of millions of refugees) of World War Two were a lot of ‘collateral damage’ – but it was all worth it, wasn’t it?

After all, we can’t take chances with nutcases who want to take over the world – can we? Thank heavens for Winston Churchill! etc. etc.

It’s scary, persuasive stuff that may well have convinced all but the most recalcitrant pacifists to join the military struggle against Nazi Germany.

This is a natural successor to the earlier post Mom and Dad mean business.

There are Portuguese subtitles on this YouTube version of a recent (American) ABC TV feature about the Rosenblats (watch below). You can also see Good Morning America’s interview with Mr Rosenblat here.

Herman and Roma Rosenblat: it was all true 'in their imagination'

Mr and Mrs Rosenblat are a couple of elderly, romantically-inclined Jewish American fantasists.

Their book Angel at the Fence is an Adam and Eve-style tale of love and apples in a Nazi concentration camp. It held America spellbound for years. But the spell lost some of its charm when it became widely apparent that their story is untrue…

The Rosenblats remain unrepentant. Herman Rosenblat says he’d do it all over again – despite the excruciating embarrassment he’s caused his own son. He claims the book continues to do good and work wonders.

This is an account of the saga from the Huffington Post in December 2008: “Angel At The Fence,” Holocaust Memoir, Publication Canceled

The publisher of a disputed Holocaust memoir has canceled the book, adding the name Herman Rosenblat to an increasingly long list of literary fakers and ending with a heartbreaking crash his story _ embraced by Oprah Winfrey among others _ of meeting his future wife at a concentration camp.

“I wanted to bring happiness to people,” Rosenblat said in a statement issued Saturday through his agent, Andrea Hurst. “I brought hope to a lot of people. My motivation was to make good in this world.”

If you follow politics, you’ve probably heard plenty of politicians complaining about the lies of their opponents.

It’s a staple diet of democratic political discourse. Does a day go by when Parliament (or Congress) is in session in which copious accusations of lying aren’t hurled across the chamber? If so, I must have missed them.

Arlen Specter: these days, he a Senatorial liar; Adolf would not have been surprised

But how many politicians do you know who admit to telling lies? Telling lies themselves, that is – and not just lies but really big lies. Politicians like that are certainly unusual.

I’ll thicken the plot. How many politicians do you know who brag about telling really big lies in a best selling book published before their political career gets underway? Such a politician would be rare indeed.

Yet that’s what a lot of people seem to believe about Adolf Hitler. If they don’t actually believe this, they certainly like to make out they do.

Take this quotation, which has become famous thanks to its frequent repetition on the Internet:

Australians are frequently reminded of the deep gratitude we should feel to the USA, which ’saved’ us from Japan in World War Two. The American Alliance, we’re told, is the essential bedrock of our freedom…

USS Essex: a warship America can't afford pissing on a post it doesn't need to foul

Over the last few days, a US warship has been berthed in Cairns, less than 50 kilometres from where I sit. The USS Essex may be bearing nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. Longstanding US policy is to ‘neither confirm nor deny’ whether weapons of mass destruction are carried on its military vessels into friendly ports.

Raise any complaint about this, and before too long at least one Australian will venture the standard opinion that “if it wasn’t for the Americans, we’d all be speaking Japanese!” (They never seem to explain why, fond as Australians are of sophisticated Japanese technology and its tasty cuisine, we should consider speaking Japanese a fate literally worse than death.)

Actually, the comfortable official saga of how our genial American cousins preserved Australia from the dreaded “yellow peril” in the 1940s leaves out some rather significant elements of a very complex story. As a reaction against the conformist verities that stultify debate and fresh thinking about contemporary ‘Defense’ policy, here’s another view on Australia and World War Two. I’ll call it the ‘Neutral and Pro-Peace version of events’. I admit it’s selective too. I’ve just selected different facts from those emphasised incessantly in the mainstream narrative…

After being seduced by Zionist cash in the mid 1930s, the corrupted British politician Winston Churchill proceded to sell out British national interests – and the interests of people under British protection by Leaugue of Nations mandate – to his sponsors.

It’s true that Churchill had the most repulsive supremacist attitudes to most people in the Briitsh Empire. Even so, his bias towards the Zionist cause in Palestine – to the detriment of the indigenous Arab population – stands out like the proverbial ‘dogs balls’.

A scenario for partition suggested by the 1937 Peel Commission: were Zionist aspirations the real trigger for World War Two?

Here’s an extract from David Irving’s biography of Churchill (vol i) -Struggle for Power – about the 1937 Peel Commission into the future of Palestine. This was the inquiry that led to a House of Commons vote in March 1939, strongly opposed by Churchill, that put severe limits on further Jewish immigration to Palestine out of respect for majority opinion in the British Protectorate.

In the following comments, we hear a ‘bought-and-paid-for’ politician. In contemporary  vernacular, consider Churchill’s behaviour ‘cash for comments’ – or a quintessential MP’s ‘expenses scandal’: (emphasis added)

He (Winston Churchill) testified to the Peel Commission on March 12th, 1937. His startling proposal was that all Palestine be turned over to the Jews. He spoke of their right to immigrate and Britain’s ‘good faith’ toward them.

By the 1930s, it seemed the long political career of Winston Churchill was all but over.

He was a man out of time – an old imperial War Horse in an era when the patience of the British people for war-mongering was wearing thin. While Winston fulminated against Indian independence and beat the old imperial drum for more military spending, the world seemed to be moving on.

Winston Churchill: catspaw for Zionist interests?

The Great War of 1914-18 had bled the British people dry. Gandhi’s non-violent campaign for Indian independence was earning widespread respect. The peace movement was on the ascendant, having won support from some of the country’s finest intellects such as Aldous Huxley. Many hoped the age of British militarism was drawing to a close – and a slow, dignified decolonisation process lay ahead. In that scenario, Britain would remain a prosperous, productive and uniquely well-connected society – but a nation at peace.

Yet by May 1940, Britain was again at war and Churchill was Prime Minister. Rejecting German peace overtures, he immediately committed the British Empire to a ‘no holds barred’ fight-to-the-death: total war with the Axis powers. Eventually, after forging alliances with the USA and Soviet Union, Churchill led an exhausted, bankrupt nation to ‘victory’ five years later.

Winston Churchill suffered decisive electoral defeat in the 1945 post-war general election, then returned to power in 1951 for an undistinguished finale as Prime Minister.

Mid-2009 Anti-Fascist Update

Who won World War Two?

Despite the re-surfacing of unpleasant memories in Normandy – memories triggered each year by the arrival of an international media circus to celebrate the anniversary of the D-Day landing – there’s no questioning the answer. Anti-Fascists won… didn’t we?

Yet pesky doubts persist.

Take that, Grandma!

From time to time the victorious American people get an insight into what occupied people may have experienced from US ’security forces’ while under occupation. Watch an American great-grandmonther tasered in this Fox News video. Consider that next time you query a traffic ticket.

Meanwhile, in the Mother of Democracies, school children are trained to accept a lifetime of fingerprinting and video surveillance.

Australia – another enthusiastic ‘anti-Fascist’ nation back in 1944 – now sports a new high-profile advocate who’d like to ‘re-engineer’ the Internet so it’s safer (for YOU, of course).

Professor Michael Fraser says cleaning up the internet needs to be a proactive process rather than a reactive one. He proposes that law enforcers, software companies and security groups get organised on an international basis to completely re-engineer the way the internet works.

Professor Fraser: Australia's latest 'anti-Fascist' pest?

MICHAEL FRASER: And I don’t mean just for this worm or for that piece of malware or for this kind of security software. I mean building into the world wide web a security system as part of the way it operates.

We can do better

Omaha Beach at low tide, June 6th 1944

There are two videos on YouTube at present, in which articulate Britons speak about the events of World War Two.

Both of them are known as critics of Israel and were strongly opposed to the invasion of Iraq, but there are major differences in these presentations…

One gives a monologue; the other faces hostile questioning.

One refers to a book he’s reading; the other to numerous named orginal documents.

One is proudly ‘anti-Fascist’; the other is often labeled a ‘Fascist’.

One appears often on TV and radio; the other is rarely interviewed (not for over a decade, here in Australia).

Why not watch them both and make your own evaluation?

Which Man Shows More Respect
for the Truth and Civil Liberties?

George Galloway	David Irving
Politician	Historian
Proudly 'Anti-Fascist'	Often labeled a 'Fascist'
Respectably Maverick	Widely Vilified
YourTube Video	YouTube Videos: Pt 1 Pt 2

Can you guess which of these men refers to the other and says:

“I think (his views) should be an offence here in Britain too.
I think (he) should have been in prison…. And I think they should have thrown away the key!”

______________________

Which man has  ’Fascist’ attitudes to the civil liberties of the other?

______________________

In 2009, what does the word ‘Fascist’ mean
What purposes does it serve?

________________________

The so-called ‘Holocaust Denier’, Frederick Toben, was sentenced on May 13th 2009 by an Australian Court to three months in jail for ‘Contempt of Court’.

Dr Toben: so paranoid he seems to believe the Jewish/Israel Lobby is trying to gag him

The Court determined Dr Toben had breached previous court orders ordering him not to publish material deemed by an earlier judicial decision to be in breach of Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act.

Dr Toben was granted two weeks to lodge an appeal. Unless this succeeds, he will be the first Australian jailed for breaching Australia’s Federal ‘racial vilification’ laws.

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s Radio National has a weekly Law Report which covers legal topics in some depth. On the 19th May 2009, The Law Report, presented by journalist Damien Carrick, covered the Toben case .

The ABC has put a transcript of the interview and the audio file online. In the interests of a more comprehensive review of the issues at stake, I’ve annotated the parts of the transcript that concern the Toben case.

I will make it clear, at the outset, that I consider this particular program to be a quite outrageous – yet sadly predictable – instance of blatant bias by the ABC.

Those who couldn’t care less about the fate of Fred Toben or the facts about World War Two might bear in mind that, in my opinion at least, the ABC is no less blatant in its biased coverage (and/or non-coverage) of a range of other significant and more recent events, such as: