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.

Iranians have a special reason for remembering Churchill’s leadership; he was the prime mover behind Britain’s invasion in the 1940s – and in the British meddling in Iranian internal affairs after nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil company in the early 1950s.

When next you hear about the Anglo-American sponsored  ‘coup’ against Prime Minister Mossadeq in 1953, for which US President Obama recently made a public apology, think of Winston Churchill (and Gordon Brown, yet to apologize to Iran for his own country’s imperial malfeasance).

But I digress. I intended to focus on one of modern history’s puzzles… How did Winston Churchill get a new lease of political life in the late 1930s?

David Irving, the British historian who’s allegedly so dangerous that the Australian Government won’t even let him visit his daughter in Brisbane, has been suggesting an answer for some time. His comments about the ‘Weizman letter’ of 1941 are of particular interest:

I don’t have an exact date for the video, but it was probably filmed during one of Mr Irving’s 1990s north American tours.

In 1986, Harvard-trained historian Ted O’Keefe wrote a fascinating article entitled Irving on Churchill. O’Keefe relates some of the British historian’s findings about Churchill, after he’s undertaken an extensive trawl through original source documents from the 1930s and 40s while researching a biography of the British wartime leader. Not all of Britian’s official archives from the period were available at that time for scrutiny; significantly, that remains the case to this day – more than 60 years after the end of World War Two!

The entire article by O’Keefe is intriguing. Here’s an excerpt on Churchill’s mysterious financial backers, which in the 1930s centered around ‘The Focus’:

Irving on the Focus:

The Focus was financed by a slush fund set up by some of London’s wealthiest businessmen. Principally, businessmen organized by the Board of Jewish Deputies in England, whose chairman was a man called Sir Bemard Waley Cohen. Sir Bernard Waley Cohen held a private dinner party at his apartment on July 29, 1936. This is in Waley Cohen’s memoirs … The 29th of July, 1936, Waley Cohen set up a slush fund of 50,000 pounds for The Focus, the Churchill pressure group. Now, 50,000 pounds in 1936, multiply that by ten, at least, to get today’s figures. By another three or four to multiply that into Canadian dollars. So, 40 times 50,000 pounds — about $2 million in Canadian terms — was given by Bernard Waley Cohen to this secret pressure group of Churchill in July 1936. The purpose was, the tune that Churchill had to play was, fight Germany. Start warning the world about Gennany, about Nazi Germany. Churchill, of course, one of our most brilliant orators, a magnificent writer, did precisely that.

For two years, The Focus continued to militate, in fact, right through until 1939. And I managed to find the secret files of The Focus, I know the names of all the members. I know all their secrets. I know how much money they were getting, not just from The Pocus, but from other governments. I use the word “other governments” advisedly because one of my sources of information for my Churchill biography is, in fact, the Chaim Weizmann Papers in the State of Israel. Israel has made available to me all Churchill’s secret correspondence with Chain Weizmann, all his secret conferences. It is an astonishing thing, but I, despite my reputation, in a kind of negative sense with these people, am given access to files like that, just the same as the Russian Government has given me complete access to all of the Soviet records of Churchill’s dealings with Ivan Maisky, Joseph Stalin, Molotov and the rest of them. I am the only historian who has been given access to these Russian records. It is a kind of horse trading method that I use when I want access to these files, because it is in these foreign archives we find the truth about Winston Churchill.

When you want the evidence about his tax dodging in 1949 and thereabouts, you are not going to look in his own tax files, you’re going to look in the files of those who employed him, like the Time/Life Corporation of America. That’s where you look. And when you’re looking for evidence about who was putting money up for Churchill when he was in the wilderness and who was funding this secret group of his, The Focus, you’re not going to look in his files, again you’re going to look in the secret files, for example, of the Czech government in Prague, because that is where much of the money was coming from.

Irving then revealed further details of Churchill’s financing by the Czechs, as well as the facts of Churchill s financial rescue by a wealthy banker of Austro-Jewish origins, Sir Henry Strakosch, who, in Irving’s words, emerged “out of the woodwork of the City of London, that great pure international financial institution.” When Churchill was bankrupted overnight in the American stock market crash of 1938, it was Strakosch, who was instrumental in setting up the central banks of South Africa and India, who bought up all Churchill’s debts. When Strakosch died in 1943, the details of his will, published in the London Times, included a bequest of £20,000 to the then Prime Minister, eliminating the entire debt.

There’s further background on this rather important nuance of recent history in David Irving’s Churchill’s War vol i – Struggle for Power. Refused publication by MacMillan, this book was first published in Australia in 1987, where it stayed for some weeks on the Sydney Morning Herald best-seller list including a spell at No. 1 (not a fact you’re likely to be reminded about anytime soon by Australia’s mainstream media.)

Churchill’s War vol i was subsequently published by Hutchinson (Arrow Books, London) and Avon Books (New York). It’s available via Amazon.com – or through Mr Irving’s website, either in printed or electronic form as a free download. You won’t however, find it in mainstream booksellers in Australia these days. The anti-free speech Zionist Lobby has seen to that.

Why?

Is it possible that the very public Zionist angst over ‘The Holocaust’ is something of a smokescreen to forestall re-opening broad-ranging discussion about the real origins and history of World War Two?:

Here’s more about that memorable letter from Zionist leader Chaim Weizman to Prime Minister Churchill in September 1941, a letter mentioned in the video above and discussed in Triumph in Adversity, Volume ii of Irving’s Churchill biography:

Excerpt from Chapter 5: ‘We Did It Before – and We Can Do It Again!

On September 10th 1941, Weizmann therefore wrote an outspoken letter to the prime minister in which he recalled how the Jews of the United States had pulled their country into war before; he promised that they could do it again – provided that Britain toed the line over Palestine. Two years had passed since the Jewish Agency had offered the support of the Jews throughout the world – the Jewish ‘declaration of war’ on Germany; a whole year had passed, he added, since the P.M. had personally approved his offer to recruit Jews in Palestine for service in the Middle East or elsewhere.

For two years the Agency had met only humiliation. Ten thousand Palestinian Jews had fought in Libya, Abyssinia, Greece, Crete, and Syria, he claimed, but this was never mentioned. ‘Tortured by Hitler as no nation has ever been in modern times,’ Weizmann continued, ‘and advertised by him as his foremost enemy, we are refused by those who fight him the chance of seeing our name and our flag appear among those arrayed against him.’Artfully associating anti-Zionists with the other enemies populating Churchill’s mind, Weizmann assured him that he knew this was not of his doing – it was the work of those responsible for Munich and the ???? White Paper on Palestine. ‘We were sacrificed, in order to win over the Mufti of Jerusalem and his friends who were serving Hitler in the Middle East.’

Then Weizmann came to his real sales-pitch: ‘There is only one big ethnic group [in the USA] which is willing to stand, to a man, for Great Britain, and a policy of “all-out aid” for her: the five million Jews. From Secretary Morgenthau, Governor [of New York State] Lehmann, Justice [Felix] Frankfurter, down to the simplest Jewish workman or trader, they are conscious of all that this struggle against Hitler implies.’ British statesmen, he reminded Churchill, had often acknowledged that it was these Jews who had brought the United States into the war in 1917. ‘They are keen to do it – and may do it – again.’ All that he and the Jews of the United States were asking for, therefore, was the formation now of a Jewish Fighting Force

Finally, two mere footnotes re: ‘other losses’ during World War Two

1. ‘Other Losses‘ by James-Bacque is mentioned in the video above.
2. See also An Eye for an Eye by John Sack.

In total, more than 50 million human beings died as a direct result of World War Two.

Never again!

_________

While they pontificate about Iran, China, Russia – anywhere, really, except their own backyard – the pro-censorship manipulators of the western world edge forwards stealthily.

It’s become increasingly apparent to observant independent observers around the world – those of us who aren’t bought and paid for, that is – that there’s a widening gulf between current affairs and modern history information available via the Internet and the mainstream media’s dominant narrative.

It's been a while since the German people last had to hack down a Wall

The situation isn’t stable. As things stand, given Internet access to alternative narratives about history and current affairs, popular demand for genuinely free media will eventually become a deafening roar.

A few years ago, in a society such as Australia, disparaging comments about a distorted mass media narrative were relatively unusual; it’s my observation they have become significantly more common.

The key fission line in this Internet-era battle between freedom and censorship has been – and continues to be – Zionism.

Zionist ‘opinion formers’ – in cahoots with a compliant, corrupted mainstream mass media – stand to lose most from an untamed Internet. That’s because they’ve been successful in getting their preferred narrative of history and politics ‘enforced’ through the principle channels of information in the western world. It’s their very dominance of the MSM that’s the reason for the disparity between mass media ‘consensual’ verities and internet-facilitated questions that don’t receive serious answers. The result is a growing mass media ‘credibility gap’. Zionists are necessarily the focus of blame for this; it is they who have used media dominance in a duplicitous and self-serving way, not only in recent years but going back over several generations.

When promoting their pro-Internet censorship case, leading Zionists have been careful to stay well out of the limelight. The main tactic has been to portray moral panic on the part of ‘fundamentalist Christians’ as the primary force behind Government moves to introduce censorship – and to insist the real target of censorship is ‘child pornography’.

It’s nonsense, of course. Not that many Christians – and other religious folk – wouldn’t like to see the Internet censored more widely to block pornography – and not that there aren’t legitimate concerns about the display of pornographic images of children and childrens’ exposure to pornography. But these are side show issues for the easily-deceived.

A group of mainstream media consumers sit down to watch TV news; nothing odd about this living room!

The real push to censor the Internet comes from the same delightful folk behind 9-11 and the USS Liberty cover-up, to name but two recent historical events that have been systematically distorted by the mainstream western media. They would like to re-write history – in real time if possible. They’ve had a successful track record, to date, in pursuing this crazed Orwellian agenda.

But they have some problems… Once engaged, the rational mind of most of humanity reels against the notion of compulsory Internet censorship by governments operating in secrecy. In Australia, opponents to the Rudd Government’s ‘internet filtering’ proposals mounted an online campaign, during 2008, of unprecedented ferocity. The Australian Government’s attempt to introduce ISP-level ‘filtering’ is currently stalled in trials.

It was always going to be harder to keep Germany’s internet free, where not only are the major political parties Zionist-dominated, but in addition the current Government is a conformist coalition. Germany already has laws in place, dating back to the first post-war occupation decade, that provide for censorship of heterodox historical views about the Nazi era. The trap could be sprung shut on Germans more easily than Australians – and I suggested as much back in January: First They Went for Canberra… Now They Want Berlin!

Not unexpectedly, I copped spurious allegations of ‘anti-Semitism’ for publishing the article. Few other blogs and news sites in Australia – sites generally keen to cover minor nuances of the campaign against compulsory ‘Internet filtering’ – have run stories about the parallel debate that’s been underway in Germany. It doen’t fit the simplistic but popular ‘Christian Lobby’/child porn hypotheis of what’s really driving censorship.

Most Australians – decent progressive folk that they are – are trapped by false consciousness that’s a lifetime’s habit; they’re petrified of straying from what they understand to be the dominant norms of inoffensive discourse. They don’t want to suffer criticisms experienced by commentators with the audacity to mention a live-in elephant. They’d rather put up with ‘an elephant in the living room’, by staring steadfastly out of the window and scrutinizing the walls.

What's the point of A1 propaganda if people make up their own (well-informed) minds?

Yesterday, moves to censor Germany’s Internet moved forward one more ratchet. Even so, I surmise there may well be deep unease, not only within the German populace as a whole but also within its political elite, about where this is really heading. According to an early report (see below), the new law as enacted delivers little in terms of new political censorship. It does, however, get German ISPs used to complying with a Government censorship regime. It’s more bricks in a new Wall – but the Cyber-Wall is far from complete. Brick by brick…

In the initial stage, Germany’s ‘filter’ may well be used only to label unpleasant pornographic sites; it’s possible the whole experience proves so farcical that in three years time, the sunset clause will actually kick in and Germany’s new ‘compulsory filter’ law will become history. Apparently presidential approval is also still needed – and there’s a possibility of judicial review.

The topic was extensively covered by Slashdot last week:

• A Black Day For Internet Freedom In Germany (June 16th 2009)
• German Parliament Enacts Internet Censorship Law (June 19th 2009)

The following article is from Deutche Welle, June 19th 2009:

German Parliament passes bill in fight
against child pornography sites

The German lower house of parliament, the Bundestag, has adopted a new set of laws making it possible to block child pornography Web sites.

The legislation requires Web hosting companies to post “stop” signs when internet users try to access child pornography sites. The bill still has to go through several stages before it becomes law.

The motion has been the subject of a protest petition, with opponents claiming it is a first step towards Internet censorship. The petition has gathered 130,000 signatures calling for the bill to be scrapped.

The proposed law has been promoted by Family Affairs Minister Ursula von der Leyen, who claimed it was an “important sign from society.

“We in Germany won’t stand for it any longer that images of children being raped can be called up on the Web,” said Leyen.

Lawmakers modified the bill to respond to the criticism and added a sunset clause whereby the legislation would expire after three years.

Others claimed that the bill did not go far enough in restricting access to child pornography.

Internet users will still be able to access child pornography sites even after the stop sign appears, but they will have to click through the warning, which informs them that viewing child pornography is a crime.

Once the legislation passes, police officials will have to draw up a list of Web sites that feature child pornography and send the list to all telecommunications companies.

The bill also requires Germany’s chief privacy commissioner, Peter Schaar, to regularly view the lists. Schaar has opposed this, saying it is not his job.

Professor Alan Wolfe

Alan Wolfe has been a busy man for a long time.

He’s an American academic with many books to his name and maintains connections with several east coast universities.

His Boston College bio says:

Alan Wolfe is Professor of Political Science and Director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College. His most recent books include Does American Democracy Still Work? (Yale University Press, 2006) Return to Greatness: How America Lost Its Sense of Purpose and What it Needs to Do to Recover It (Princeton University Press, 2005), The Transformation of American Religion: How We actually Live our Faith (Free Press, 2003), and An Intellectual in Public ( University of Michigan Press, 2003). He is the author or editor of more than ten other books including Marginalized in the Middle (1997), One Nation, After All (1998), Moral Freedom: The Search for Virtue in a World of Choice (2001) and School Choice: The Moral Debate (editor, 2002). Both One Nation, After All and Moral Freedom were selected as New York Times Notable Books of the Year.

His achievements go on and on:

In the fall of 2004, Professor Wolfe was the George H. W. Bush Fellow at the American Academy in Berlin.

Such a busy man can be expected to make a few slip-ups from time to time. In the late 1970s, it would appear, a much younger Professor Wolfe made a beauty.

Professor Arthur Butz: has survived more than one chorus of demands for his dismissal

He joined a chorus of angry, outraged complaints about publication of ‘The Hoax of the 20th Century’ by Arthur Butz. Butz was (and remains) an academic at based at Northwestern University in Illinois. Wolfe decried the ‘incompetence’ and ‘moral turpitude’ of the author.

But it seems Professor Wolfe didn’t do basic homework. Here’s a short extract from the third edition of Butz’ notorious book published in 2003. It’s a book that is banned in numerous western countries and has never been available via highstreet booksellers in the English-speaking world (emphasis added):

I have suggested that the negative reactions to revisionists of the Final Solution have been on the whole emotional, and I made no distinction between reactions of professional scholars and laymen. This was no oversight. I am sad to report that to an extent that stunned me the reactions of very many scholars have been what one might have expected from a hyperemotional Jewish grandmother.

In the early stages of the public reactions to my book one Prof. Wolfe of New York University made a fool of himself by writing to the New York Times that Northwestern University should bring me up on charges of “academic incompetence” and “moral turpitude” for authoring and publishing the book whose title, he reported in his letter, was “Fabrication of a Hoax.”

Clearly he had seen the New York Times story about the book, which reported an incorrect title, and he had not seen the book itself.

That was an extreme case but it is still true that scholars who should know better have made a lot of noises while saying almost nothing of substance…

IF the actions of Professor Wolfe were inaccurately reported by Professor Butz in that extract – AND/OR if the Professor Wolfe concerned is not the same Professor Wolfe as the gentleman identified above – I will amend this article accordingly and/or issue a prompt and prominent retraction.

It’s important to clarify the historical record. At least, I believe so. After all, on these touchy topics – thanks to a sustained campaign over many decades by people like the censorious Professor Wolfe – a great deal can be at stake. In some countries, it’s a matter of a jail sentence.

As things stand, I have to wonder about the credibility of an academic who hastens to call for the academic persecution of another scholar over an ‘offending’ book whose title he misquoted and which he apparently hadn’t read. Let’s hope Wolfe’s major academic endeavours meet a higher standard.

Just to be clear, the correct title/subtitle of Butz’ book is not Fabrication of a Hoax. It is The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry.

In the 1970s, when this brouhaha first erupted, some scholars had access to an early variant of Internet, but there was limited material online and no easy-to-use World Wide Web with fast, powerful search engines such as Google.

New York Times: carefully controlled media, sometimes sloppy too

At that time, to check the title of a book a critic had to actually sight a copy – or at minimum quote from a reliable source. Presumably Professor Wolfe thought the New York Times is such a source? It’s a common error…

Today, even in distant lands such as Australia, it’s possible to verify the title of this book for yourself via the web.

In places such as public service offices, schools or in Parliament House, Canberra – where Internet connections are already ‘filtered’ – you may currently find the URLs inaccessible. But when you retire to the privacy of your home Internet connection, you can easily locate the book via Google – and in this case read it online.

For now, that is…

Last week was most eventful for Wikileaks, the international anti-censorship website.

Springtime in Germany

It published a list that purported to be Australia’s ‘blacklist’ of sites as prepared by ACMA – twice. Wikileaks also lobbed a legal threat at Australian Communications Minister Senator Conroy, all the way from Sweden where Wikileaks is based. Throughout this period, the Wikileaks.org website suffered a remarkable amount of downtime.

Wikileaks legal grenade was in retaliation against Senator Conroy’s threat to ‘hunt down’ the list leaker – a threat which seemed to contradict Conroy’s insistence that the lists weren’t genuine. As the week progressed, the Minister fulminated, blustered, banned and threatened. What a performance! No wonder he never seems to get any real work done (such as the long-promised rollout of new high-speed communications infrastructure).

Today Wikileaks reports that police in Germany raided the Dresden and Jena houses of Theodor Reppe, who holds the domain registration for ‘wikileaks.de’. News Corp has just picked up the story.

As I pointed out in an earlier article, the German regime may have a keen interest in Australia’s experiment with foisting Internet censorship on an unwilling populace; it recently announced similar plans itself.

Should we score this round to Senator Conroy? It’s not clear. He may well deny that he had anything to do with the raid of an individual whom, it appears, has no operational involvement in the Wikileaks project.

I hope he denies it. The alternative is that Senator Conroy and his minions stoop so low as to summon cops in Germany to harass Australia’s anti-censorship activists and our overseas supporters.

Power, it is said, corrupts. Are the Ruddites now vying for Absolute Power – in yet another curious case of life imitating art?