Fraser Anning and the Smugness of Australian “Values”
Be wary of the self-satisfied and morally soothed. The complacent have a habit of giving the game away, glorifying themselves in satisfied satiation. Australia’s parliament seemed to be very self-congratulatory in their condemnation of the newly arrived Senator of the Katter Australia Party, Fraser Anning. Last month, the rough, seemingly untutored Anning became the convenient freak show for his fellow parliamentarians; his more seasoned colleagues, versed in the dark arts of hypocrisy, duly rounded on him. How dare he express what many of them have either felt or ignored?
Anning has volunteered himself as yet another scrounger who played the gargantuan race card, peppering his inaugural address to the Senate with the dross that has been fairly ordinary in Australian politics. It was meant to have resonances with Pauline Hanson’s vulgarly rich delivery in 1996, and it is worth noting the parallels. In the former, there was an initial gasp, horror and pondering. What Hanson was saying as the new federal member for Oxley was hardly shocking to Prime Minister John Howard.
Hanson’s views struck home with a domestic, comforting fury; her prejudices stirred the blood: suspicions of racial swamping, the nightmare of Asiatic miscegenation were hardly alien to a prime minister who, as opposition leader in the 1980s, felt that Australia was at risk of yellowing. Howard’s rat cunning took hold: use Hanson’s indignation at Big Picture politics and elitism, and also, as best as possible, destroy her.
Anning evidently thought he could ride that same wave. He had been told by KAP advisors that he needed to be controversially relevant. This was not going to be an easy task; Australian politics has assimilated a good deal of intolerance since the late 1990s, and the new senator needed to do something to stand out. But rather than being a savvy racist, he came across as a barking enthusiast who had lost the plot. He quoted Sir Henry Parkes, “Father of our Federation” and his reference to knowing “the value” of Australia’s “British origin”. He believed that there was no “retrograde force” in the world more conspicuous than Muslims. “I believe that the reasons for ending all further Muslim immigration are both compelling and self-evident.”
He wishes for immigration policy to be wrested from government and taken to a plebiscite, the outcome, he hopes, being a return to the White Australia policy. “The final solution to the immigration problem is, of course, a popular vote.” Had Anning avoided those words of finality, his speech would read as anything Hanson has given in the past. Instead, he gave parliament a red line.
The now deposed Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull described Anning’s observations as “appalling”. “We are a nation that does not define its nationality, its identity, by reference to race or religion or cultural background or ethnic background.” Reference to a “final solution” on immigration was a “shocking insult” to the Jewish people. Opposition leader Bill Shorten considered the Anning performance “repugnant and disgraceful”. Even Hanson felt that the former One Nation member was “appalling”, claiming that the speech was “straight from the Goebbels handbook for Nazi Germany”. Politicians hugged; tears were shared in unity.
As Australian politicians immerse themselves in orgiastic satisfaction that their country is the tip of the civilised community, a twelve-year-old refugee child on Nauru is mounting a hunger strike against a distinct interpretation of tolerance shown by Australian authorities. “This particular child, like many other children,” came the grim summation of Doctors For Refugees president Barri Phatarfod, “has just completely lost hope.”
It was Australian values, shorn of substance but obsessively anti-humanitarian, that created multi-tiered levels of refugees and asylum seekers in sneering defiance of the Refugee Convention. Hanson’s fear of remorseless Asiatic absorption has shifted: in place of the industrious citizens of Southeast Asia and China have come fears of the theocratic, wailing Mullahs worshiping the Koran and African mobs.
Australia’s parliament, in another more accurate depiction of its values, also did itself proud by passing amendments on asylum legislation to affirm that detaining 1,600 asylum seekers was lawful. (Only three members in the House of Representatives voted against it: Greens MP Adam Bandt, and independents Andrew Wilkie and Cathy McGowan.)
The Migration (Validation of Port Appointment) Bill 2018 was given the easiest of passages to the Senate, legitimising the status of “a proclaimed port in the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands”. It further seeks to ensure “that things done under the Migration Act 1958 which relied directly or indirectly on the terms of the appointment are valid.” Both sides of the aisle want to inoculate themselves against any future litigation, and few tears were shed, or hands held, over that consensus.
What Anning did give to other politicians was an opportunity to be nauseatingly smug, cringingly self-satisfied in having condemned the racial genie long out of the bottle and roaming at will. To that end, he could be condemned as a person who did not share the values of parliament, the, dare one say it, un-Australian representative, who had actually expressed views common to many backbenchers. An odd spectacle, given that the Australian parliament will always be characterised by its first gesture: legislating for a White Australia.
Labor’s Senator Penny Wong herself was also something of a treat in that regard, a fine figure when it comes to shifting values and raising the moral platform. This is a politician who publicly asserted a stance in her party against same-sex marriage in 2010 (politics is politics), telling the Ten Network that, “On the issue of marriage, I think the reality is there is a cultural, religious and historical view around that which we have to respect.” This dramatically altered last year, when Wong became ebullient, tear-shedding in the aftermath of amendments to the Marriage Act regarding same-sex marriage.
Now, Wong presented herself again, as a high priestess of moral worth, seeing in Anning a bête noire worthy of her condemnation. Anning’s speech “was not worthy of this Parliament.” It “did no reflect the heart of this country. We saw a speech that did not reflect the strong, independent, multicultural, tolerant, accepting nation that we are.”
Anning presented a perfect alibi. Australian politicians could speak about “values” and a contingent tolerance that remains vulnerable to erasure and sparing to asylum seekers and refugees (unless they so happen to be white South African farmers). They could extol a non-existent exceptionalism, ignoring the obvious fact that this is a country troubled by race and insecurity, wealthy yet spoiled by it. To take the issue of immigration to a plebiscite would be a truly democratic measure, but many Australian politicians fear the outcome. They might well find that the heart of the country remains soured by a managed paranoia.
268 total views, 2 views today
26 commentsLogin here Register here
How might Wong’s partner have felt about that Senator’s dishonest stance against marriage equality? Why didn’t she jump ship?
There is a very good chance that the matter was discussed at home before the parliamentry vote was taken.
Political Party Pragmatism and all that.
And in the process, anning achieved his aim of becoming known, to out poorline’s attempts at beating the racist drums. After all, any publicity is good publicity. Now his electorate know they have their man.
And the stench of hypocrisy fills the air, choking the airwaves and lungs as these arseholes vent their spleens on this noxious fellow traveller.
“Howard’s rat cunning took hold: use Hanson’s indignation at Big Picture politics and elitism, and also, as best as possible, destroy her” ….. and subsumed her policies to the bosom of the Liarbral Party ….. so that being South African experienced in apartheid practices became a pre-requisite for a job at the Department of Xenophobia, Fascism, Racism and Illiberal Inhumane Policies.
There is little doubt that Anus Anning brings a complete repertoire of “the dark arts of hypocrisy” into a Parliament where deceit, theft, dishonesty and disloyalty are the preferred features.
Personally I am disappointed that Bob Katter approved of this outrage, but then, the KAP as a very minor party demanding decentralisation of government jobs to urban regional centres, as has been said, “any publicity is good publicity.”
Well may we say, “God save the Queen, because nothing will save Benito Dutton.” (Apologies to Gough).
A side effect of the public airing of the likes of Anning, Hanson , Katter and that poster boy of the neo-Nazis has been the parade of high profile racists such as Nigel Farage, Lauren Southward(?) et al visiting this country, and treating us to their vitriol.
Not happy with their own racist warbling in their own countries, these opportunists see an easy buck and a ready made audience of idiots in Australia waiting for their guidance on how to make the world a worse place.
Another thoughtful analysis, Dr Kampmark.
Evidently, a significant ability towards hypocrisy is a necessary “value” in politics.
Neither major parties can claim to hold superior moral virtues.
Bring on the election, let it be a “Red Wedding” of an election, after all we cull kangaroos don’t we?
To misquote Johnathon Pie;
‘”Fraser Anning is an attention craving twat!” they shout, giving him the attention that he so desperately craves.
“He’s only doing this for political gain!” cry the politicians, who, in doing so, are in no way trying to gain politically.
And, as per usual, an important and rather complex subject requiring rational and intelligently informed debate is reduced to acts of inflammatory trolling by some parties and some pretty dramatic pearl-clutching from the rest.’
Of course, in the absence of any sensible discussion from the political mainstream about what would constitute sustainable levels of immigration, which is a subject about which many Australians currently express concern, the national conversion around immigration has become the patented property of the far-right, to whom it remains a conveniently popular chew-toy.
For sense of broader perspective, here is some recent info on public polling;
In April, Essential Polling conducted a survey including questions on community attitudes to population and immigration.
Of the total respondents, 64% stated that they felt current levels of immigration were too high, 23% said they were about right and 5% supported increased levels of immigration.
Similar ratios applied regarding Labor voters (62%, 24% and 6%).
A unwelcome side effect of the public airing of the likes of Anning, Hanson , Katter and that poster boy of the neo-Nazis Blair Cotterill, has been the parade of high profile racists such as Nigel Farage, Lauren Southward(?) et al visiting this country, and treating us to their vitriol.
Even Trump’s ex-besty, Steve Bannon of Brietbart fame, feels he will have an appreciative audience for his advice on how to revile refugees and immigrants.
Not satisfied with their own racist warbling and sowing of division in their own societies, these opportunists see an easy buck and a ready made audience of idiots in Australia waiting for their guidance on how to make the world a worse place.
Thank you Sky, Morrison and Dutton for making Australia ‘safer’ and less sane.
Oops. Didn’t realise I’d already posted this! Apologies.
He Lookd Drunk like the three amegoes
I do not remember the exact circumstances in 2010 when Senator Penny Wong is supposed to have opposed same-sex marriage. My feeling at the time was that she did not want to stir the hornets’ nest, what she perceived as a “cultural, religious and historical view around that which we have to respect”.
She was quite right, of course, and she would have known about it as all LGBTI people would have known. And still do, because that “view” is still with us, as we see with the Right calling for “free speech’ generally and more specifically with regard to “religious freedom of speech”.
The wasps’ nest has not gone away. It was something that was pointed out before the plebiscite. It was something which many hoped would be muffled by Parliament itself passing a Bill without a public plebiscite which brought out some of the worst prejudices in some people. A fairly recent example of that was when a person said publicly that “unrepentant” gay people would burn in hell.
No wonder Penny was so ebullient and relieved when the plebiscite was won years later beyond 2010. But the wasps are still buzzing with some kind of “virtue signalling” and lack of understanding of human sexuality. They seem to think that the Creator of life places them higher than LGBTI people – and above people of colour, and people of other religions – even their children, imprisoned indefinitely in rotting prisons.
Adrianne Haddow @1.01pm mentions Nigel Farage and @1.48pm mentions Steve Bannon. These names make my “skin curl” (crawl, ScoMo? Oops, there’s another one!)
Bannon on Four Corners was the typical American patriarchal white male know-all, a puffed up, self-appointed leading light in “populist global revolution”. It seems that he and the USA Republicans and Trump are going to show us all how to confront China and to develop our very own workers paradise making things and making our sovereign countries, bereft of foreign sojourners and cashed up entrepreneurs into what we should have been (or once were); ie, “Great Again!”
Is that not a wonderful vision for the world? As if the USA under Trump is a model of economic brilliance and shining light of exemplary values for all its citizens.
I find people like this, who speak not of cooperation but of coercion and bullying, where a country such as the USA says it will not be a “tributary state” to China – where does trump get his steel from? – yet the USA treats Oz as a vassal state even now, and we follow it religiously. It is mind-boggling to hear of this man who is of the Right and supports the moneyed elite 1% of the USA should claim that he says he supports the workers when he also says that there will be hard times and workers will lose their jobs and just have to toughen up! Heard that before? Jordan Peterson, anyone?
So we have the UK setting out to divest itself of Europe – and no one knows how that will turn out. And other European countries putting up real or imaginary walls.
And here in Oz, how are we viewing the world? Hungering for investors – but providing no sense of security with our lack of Climate Change policy or energy policy or environmental security for food or water or icons such as the Great Barrier Reef, proposing massive infrastructure construction but only in the form of pork-barreling a la Howard – and spending huge money on the military to protect us from our trading partners, China!
Somehow, we have been misled by fake news, blurring of important debates, stalling and procrastination – and propaganda. Perhaps we need a populist revolution – but I would not look the Farage, Bannon and other Right-wing demagogues to be the instigators.
guest… well said on Penny Wong.
Whenever I hear calls for a White Australia Polic from pond scum like Anning, I can’t help but wonder how it makes indigenous Australians feel. Like many Australians, members of my family were killed in WW2, fighting against the very vileness that Anning, Hansen and Katter spout – and more image-conscious politicians silently applaud.
Part of the reason that far-right ‘provocateurs like Bannon, Farage, Southern and Yiannopoulis book tours in Australia is that we have enough mouth-breathers with over-stuffed wallets willing to pay hundreds of dollars to to hear bigoted drive.
They are, after all, trying make money for their efforts, and Australia has enough far-right loons for them to fill venues.
But, of course, they seek not only to empty wallets but to bring hearts around to their cause (with the minds being dragged behind), and they know that ill-considered and over-reactive protests to their mere presence will generate sensationalist media headlines, which in turn arouse public sympathy.
When the roused rabble, often comprising elements from Socialist Alliance and Antifa, take to the streets to protest things like the visa entry of Lauren Southern (who has no criminal convictions to justify denial) the commercial media are quick to jump on board with sensationalist images and frame the narrative as a direct attack on freedom of speech.
Voltaire gets exhumed and cited, and the attendant media circus breeds public curiosity, which boosts both the profile and ticket sales of the visiting far-right ‘provocateurs’ in a way that plays directly into their agendas .
Similarly, without the black & red student brigades turning up, the ‘We-claim Straya’ rallies would have resembled an uninviting Australia Day event being held by a few hundred bigoted bogans and bikies.
Instead, the sight of black-clad people in balaclavas using sticks to attack people wrapped in our nation’s flag gave sympathetic publicity to the uber-nationalists, who, in the visual images, were made to look like patriots being assaulted by radicals.
In order to implement ground level changes in a democracy you have to sway the majority to siding with your cause, and this;
directly recruits sympathy for this;
the problem with commercial media is that they have to sell their brand of news – and good news is no news. They need to use – or invent – the sensational, even if it is trivial or even false.
So who are these people who claim they want to re-claim Australia – and from whom or what are they re-claiming it from? Their rhetoric is hysterical hyperbole dressed up as patriotism.
There are many examples of it. One thing that I hate is ‘journalists’ borrowing talking points from American journals and claiming that it is relevant to Oz. Another is the bare-faced misinformation paraded as fact on the subject of climate change.
Graham Lloyd in the Australian knows that what he presents as alternative facts on climate change is in fact garbage debunked many times over, yet he tries to pretend that he is merely trying to balance the argument/debate. He might be better off claiming the Earth is a flat disc on the back of a tortoise. I am sure he could rustle up some supporters.
It is disappointing to see the correspondence page of the Australian echoing and supporting Lloyd’s bizarre scribblings with their own weird claims and non sequitur arguments. We have people claiming there is no connection between energy production and climate change (they mean burning coal), no connection between CO2 and climate change (despite the role played by CO2 keeping the planet’s average temperature at about 14 degrees), claiming temperatures and humidity were much higher millions of years ago so that animals and plants grew to huge sizes ( but no mention there were no humans at that time, and no mention that water is good for plants too, but not in your fuel tank), and the claim that coal is a cheap way to produce energy (but nothing about the cost of cooking the planet).
I expect the time will come that the Murdoch media will tell us that they always knew burning coal was part of the problem, just as now they claim that they were the only ones who saw the sacking of Turnbull coming before anyone else.
Oh yes, and I meant to say that there are those religious people who claim the LGBTQI people can be ‘rescued’ from their sexuality by a bit of ‘conversion therapy’. Presumably they see LGBTQI sexuality as some kind of ‘lifestyle choice’. So no doubt the reverse could happen and their children might be deprived of their heterosexuality by sharp psychological manipulators. They would have no idea what Hamlet meant when he told Ophelia to “get thee to a nunnery!” (no wonder she went mad.) Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing when one is not at the point of the barb.
Kansas down under.
Not such a place for big ideas.
Apart from underlying profit motivation leading to a combination of paparazzi pablum and sensationalist opinion, the ‘big problem’ with Australian commercial media is that a disproportionate percentage is concentrated in the fithy mitts of a malignant anal-polyp who despises Australia enough to renounce his citizenship, yet still wants to control our governance and society.
Add in the cross-the-board administrative cost cutting that leads to lazy syndication in place of actual investigative journalism and you get the current media situation, where the whim of Rupert the yank can dictate the national narrative .
When the Murdoch press say they had early knowledge of Malcolm’s early demise, they would likely be right, since they probably knew of such the moment they received management directives to help make it happen.
The main goal was to topple Turnbull and install a more purist neo-con, and although ‘news’corp didn’t get their Dutton, they still got another corporate-humping climate-denier who happily brutalizes refugee children, so they won’t be too disappointed.
Who are ‘we-claim straya’?
A coalition of reactionary anti-Islamists promoting an uber-nationalist message to build a support base for the political ambitions of members of the far-right (eg ‘Liberty Alliance’) and neo-nazis (eg United “Patriot” Front’) by appealing to base parochialism.
In my opinion, their simplistic hardline message is being fed sympathetic oxygen not only by the commercial media, but also aided by the strategically stupid actions of the more radical amongst the counter-protesters.
As I said, anarchist-types getting kitted up in para-militarist street-riot fashions then conducting violent acts of public affray against the flag-wavers doesn’t exactly hurt the ‘we-claim’ cause, especially when the press are so selective with the imagery they choose to portray to the public.
By the way, since you mentioned LGBTQI issues, here was the ‘Antifa’ contribution to winning the hearts and minds of the undecided during the pre-plebiscite debate on non-hetero marriage rights;
I often wonder whether ‘Antifa’ aren’t the fifth column of the extreme far-right.
Freedom of speech can be harsh on the recipient targets, which is why we have both anti-vilification and slander/libel laws.
When clear transgressions occur there is such recourse, but until such lines are crossed, I believe the the best course is rational refutation rather than shrill shouts for selective censorship.
Ps, The Australian press on the subject of Climate change?
Don’t get me started.
So much of what Murdoch sets out to achieve relies on the ignorance of the general populace. While Murdoch might have known about the tenuous hold Turnbull had, it seems to me they supported the Coalition. One would need to go back to see where they had embedded contrary opinions in their general support. Van Onselen appears to be such a knowledgeable advance guard, despite his belief that Nazism is a form of socialism (or because of it?).
But the populace is not totally ignorant. When Turnbull tossed Abbott there was some hope Turnbull might be better, but it was not long before Turnbull’s muddling and procrastination betrayed his political weakness. As well, his opponents reminded him that they had promised not to imitate Labor’s assassination of its PMs.
Then there was the disastrous double dissolution, where Turnbull fell in by a single seat. People notice these things.
One thing I have noticed and wondered at recently is this drive by the Right (ie, Murdoch scribblers in particular), urged on by the culture warriors Kevin Donnelly et al for a Western Culture program in some university (any university?). Now there are some literati who are well read – at least in some aspects – of classic western writings (and we need to add art, music, architecture…), but how much reading of these classics do we suppose has been undertaken by Abbott, Howard and any number of these self-appointed advocates?
It is just a big charade. It is American. It is to be undertaken by select students of hugely high IQ. It is to be based on the positive aspects of Western culture – the less honorable aspects to be omitted/glossed over/denied. It all seems to be a big pretense. There are already large swathes of western culture embedded in university curricula.
So what is to be gained by the general student body by the presence of such a select group of elites. And what are these elites themselves going to do with it?
Anyway, have the advocates for this program actually read many of these texts? Unreadable? And for what purpose?
Next thing, there will be a cry for classic languages to be emphasised: Latin and ancient Greek – the languages which educated the bureaucrats of the British Empire!
According to the World Almanac the world population of Jews increased (!) between 1933 and 1948 from 15,315,000 to 15,753,000 a 438,000 increase. If the German government under Adolf Hitler had – as alleged – murdered six million Jews those losses should have been reflected in the Jewish population numbers quoted in the World Almanac (a very trusted world census).
The suspicions raised by above numbers concerning the veracity of the allegations made against the Hitler government are confirmed by the official three-volume report by the International Committee of the Red Cross, released 1948 in Geneva, according to which 272,000 concentration camp inmates died in German custody, about half of them Jews. The following article elaborates.
A Factual Appraisal Of The ‘Holocaust’ By The Red Cross
The Jews And The Concentration Camps: No Evidence Of Genocide
There is one survey of the Jewish question in Europe during World War Two and the conditions of Germany’s concentration camps which is almost unique in its honesty and objectivity, the three-volume Report of the International Committee of the Red Cross on its Activities during the Second World War, Geneva, 1948.
This comprehensive account from an entirely neutral source incorporated and expanded the findings of two previous works: Documents sur l’activité du CICR en faveur des civils détenus dans les camps de concentration en Allemagne 1939-1945 (Geneva, 1946), and Inter Arma Caritas: the Work of the ICRC during the Second World War (Geneva, 1947). The team of authors, headed by Frédéric Siordet, explained in the opening pages of the Report that their object, in the tradition of the Red Cross, had been strict political neutrality, and herein lies its great value.
The ICRC successfully applied the 1929 Geneva military convention in order to gain access to civilian internees held in Central and Western Europe by the Germany authorities. By contrast, the ICRC was unable to gain any access to the Soviet Union, which had failed to ratify the Convention. The millions of civilian and military internees held in the USSR, whose conditions were known to be by far the worst, were completely cut off from any international contact or supervision.
The Red Cross Report is of value in that it first clarifies the legitimate circumstances under which Jews were detained in concentration camps, i.e. as enemy aliens. In describing the two categories of civilian internees, the Report distinguishes the second type as “Civilians deported on administrative grounds (in German, “Schutzhäftlinge”), who were arrested for political or racial motives because their presence was considered a danger to the State or the occupation forces” (Vol. 111, p. 73). These persons, it continues, “were placed on the same footing as persons arrested or imprisoned under common law for security reasons.” (P.74).
The Report admits that the Germans were at first reluctant to permit supervision by the Red Cross of people detained on grounds relating to security, but by the latter part of 1942, the ICRC obtained important concessions from Germany. They were permitted to distribute food parcels to major concentration camps in Germany from August 1942, and “from February 1943 onwards this concession was extended to all other camps and prisons” (Vol. 111, p. 78). The ICRC soon established contact with camp commandants and launched a food relief programme which continued to function until the last months of 1945, letters of thanks for which came pouring in from Jewish internees.
The Report states that “As many as 9,000 parcels were packed daily. >From the autumn of 1943 until May 1945, about 1,112,000 parcels with a total weight of 4,500 tons were sent off to the concentration camps” (Vol. III, p. 80). In addition to food, these contained clothing and pharmaceutical supplies. “Parcels were sent to Dachau, Buchenwald, Sangerhausen, Sachsenhausen, Oranienburg, Flossenburg, Landsberg-am-Lech, Flöha, Ravensbrück, Hamburg-Neuengamme, Mauthausen, Theresienstadt, Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen, to camps near Vienna and in Central and Southern Germany. The principal recipients were Belgians, Dutch, French, Greeks, Italians, Norwegians, Poles and stateless Jews” (Vol. III, p. 83).
In the course of the war, “The Committee was in a position to transfer and distribute in the form of relief supplies over twenty million Swiss francs collected by Jewish welfare organisations throughout the world, in particular by the American Joint Distribution Committee of New York” (Vol. I, p. 644). This latter organisation was permitted by the German Government to maintain offices in Berlin until the American entry into the war. The ICRC complained that obstruction of their vast relief operation for Jewish internees came not from the Germans but from the tight Allied blockade of Europe. Most of their purchases of relief food were made in Rumania, Hungary and Slovakia.
Volume III of the Red Cross Report, Chapter 3 (I. Jewish Civilian Population) deals with the “aid given to the Jewish section of the free population,” and this chapter makes it quite plain that by no means all of the European Jews were placed in internment camps, but remained, subject to certain restrictions, as part of the free civilian population. This conflicts directly with the “thoroughness” of the supposed “extermination programme”, and with the claim in the forged Höss memoirs that Eichmann was obsessed with seizing “every single Jew he could lay his hands on.”
In Slovakia, for example, where Eichmann’s assistant Dieter Wisliceny was in charge, the Report states that “A large proportion of the Jewish minority had permission to stay in the country, and at certain periods Slovakia was looked upon as a comparative haven of refuge for Jews, especially for those coming from Poland. Those who remained in Slovakia seem to have been in comparative safety until the end of August 1944, when a rising against the German forces took place. While it is true that the law of May 15th, 1942 had brought about the internment of several thousand Jews, these people were held in camps where the conditions of food and lodging were tolerable, and where the internees were allowed to do paid work on terms almost equal to those of the free labour market” (Vol. I, p. 646).
Provided here is a scanned image of an Official International Red Cross document, proving the so-called “Holocaust” [the long-and-often-claimed-6-million Jews] is just plain wrong. Jews around the world have intentionally exaggerated and perpetually lied for the purpose of gaining political, emotional and business advantages for themselves.
They committed willful, criminal FRAUD upon millions of trusting people around the world!
IMHO I Agree.
There are many witnesses still alive who know what actually happened.
Get in touch with people still bearing the scars of the nightmare … not all were Jewish either …
Jewish encyclopaedia Soros himself. “I’m going to bring down the United States by funding black hate groups. We will put them into a mental trap and make them blame the white people. The black communities are the easiest to manipulate”; George Soros. Hungarian Jew, in an interview with Germanys BILD, Sept, 2014
The Israeli Lobby UK
In the first of a four-part series, Al Jazeera goes undercover inside the Israel Lobby in Britain. We expose a campaign to infiltrate and influence youth groups, including the National Union of Students, whose president faces a smear campaign coordinated by her own deputy and supported by the Israel Embassy.
In part two of The Lobby, our undercover reporter joins a delegation from the Israeli Embassy at last year’s Labour Party Conference. The programme reveals how accusations of anti-Semitism were made against key Labour Party members – and how a former official at the Israeli Embassy was upset when her background was revealed
In part three of The Lobby, our undercover reporter travels to the Labour Party Conference, revealing how accusations of anti-Semitism by group within Labour targeted Israel critics and saw some investigated
In part four of The Lobby, the senior political officer at the Israeli Embassy in London discusses a potential plot to ‘take down’ British politicians – including a Minster of State at the Foreign office who supports Palestinian civil rights.
Eisenhowers death camps……https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSgIap8mCnA&t=2819s
Israelis bomb USS Liberty 124 US marines killed the ship was flying a large American flag at the time.
there are many Holocaust deniers. The one we have heard most is David Irving. He has many critics. Why is that?
Think about the numbers. You say only “272, 000 concentration camp inmates died in German custody, about half of them Jews”.
Wikipedia tells us there were 42,000 Nazi ghettos and camps throughout Europe 1933-1945. So an average of 6.5 people died in each those places according to you, of which a half were Jewish ie, 3 Jewish people.
But it is not as simple as that, is it?
According to Wikipedia, 15-20 million people died or were imprisoned in such places and you say only 272,000 of them died.
But notorious slave labour camps had many sub-camps. Gross-Rosen had 100 sub-camps. Auschwitz had 44. Stuttgart had 40 and alone imprisoned 28,000 Jews.
But then there were extermination camps; eg, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. The problem for them with regard to numbers is that prisoners sent to them for extermination were not even registered. The Wikipedia list of extermination camps and the numbers of deaths easily outnumbers your 270,000.
See also the number of ghettos under Nazi rule where thousands upon thousands died, of disease, starvation and execution.
As for your references to various sites, I wonder why there is this list and at the same time other entirely different and more plausible lists supplied by Wikipedia camp by camp, ghetto by ghetto.
Wikipedia is Jewish controlled
ok is Wikipedia is Jewish controlled ?
There are many more sources of information about deaths in Nazi camps than just Wikipedia. And I would be surprised if all these other sources are Jewish, or people who have been hoodwinked by the Jewish people.
Just look again at the numbers: 15-20 million imprisoned, only 272,000 killed (you say).
You yourself rely on only a couple of sources, one of which says that world population of Jews increased between 1933-1948 by a mere 438,000 in 15 years! Are you serious? Is there not a little problem with the arithmetic?
Another source is the Red Cross which I am sure did not service 42,000 Nazi camps, or even a large number of them, having served only from 1942-1945 with some reluctance from the Germans. Look at the small amount of food sent in that time (4,500 tons – did it all get to camps?). As well, the report was made in 1948, which might very well have not made use of all information. The statement about Eichmann’s assistant in Slovakia looks very suspicious, given the infamous Eichmann trial conducted years later.
Then we have an “undercover agent” from Al Jazeera “exposing” Jewish activists plotting against supporters of Palestine. No surprise there. Does Al Jazeera support Palestine or Israel?
Do Jews support Wikipedia? Are all Holocaust proponents supporters of Jews? Are all Holocaust deniers supporters of Nazism? Are survivors of Nazi camps liars?
Looking at facts helps – and when I look at what you say here, Jim, with respect I have my doubts about the arithmetic.
Would it not be a little more comforting if all that Holocaust history was after all mostly a bad dream? But I fear it is in fact a horrible reality.