The Power of the Holocaust Lobby in Britain

Francis Carr Begbie — Occidental Observer Feb 1, 2015

London Bridge Potter's Feild

When it comes to a crude illustration of who has power in Britain you could hardly do better than take a look at the plans for the massive new Holocaust Memorial complex to be built in the centre of London (“Britain’s Promise to Remember: The Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission Report”). This gleaming new temple of worship for the state religion of the Holocaust will be located, most likely, beside Tower Bridge making it an indelible part of the London skyline and as much a city landmark as Big Ben.
It will be the largest of its kind in Europe and will rival similar memorials such as the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, adjacent to the National Mall in Washington, DC, and the National September 11 Memorial and Museum in New York. The British taxpayer is contributing £50 million to this project on the understanding that at least the equivalent is met from private sources. Doubtless this will multiply before it is all over.
In announcing it on Holocaust Memorial Day Prime Minister David Cameron  was keeping the solemn promise he made to the Jewish people, that “Ensuring that the memory and lessons of the Holocaust are never forgotten lies at the heart of Britain’s values as a nation.”  The British Government has agreed that it has to do much more to step up its indoctrination of British schoolchildren.
With only weeks to go before the next general election this Memorial announcement has given Cameron a golden opportunity to bend the knee and demonstrate his obeisance.  Whether it is in front of the Knesset, on a visit to Auschwitz or celebrating Jewish holy days, he never misses a chance to declare his devotion and unswerving loyalty to Jewish power.
It is far from the first structure built to remind Londoners of their subjugation. The Tower of London on the Thames was built by William the Conqueror as a castle keep but the real message conveyed by its forbidding stone walls could hardly be clearer — remember who your masters are now.
A thousand years later the message of this new monument to power will be more understated but equally unambiguous. Cameron said “The evidence is clear that there should be a striking new Memorial to serve as the focal point of national commemoration of the Holocaust. It should …  make a bold statement about the importance Britain places on preserving the memory of the Holocaust.  It will “be a place where people can pay their respects, contemplate, think and offer prayer.”
The announcement came at the end of perhaps the longest propaganda bombardment that the British public has endured in peacetime.  For in the days leading up to Holocaust Memorial Day it has been impossible to open a newspaper or turn on TV without Holocaust remembrance shoved down our throat.
From approximately 2017, generations of schoolchildren will be processed through the doors of this Learning Centre building to be indoctrinated.  Via the modern miracle of virtual reality headsets they will be able to enjoy total 360 degree immersion into a Jewish ghetto or a German town of the 1930s and to learn about the horrors first hand.
No expense will be spared in providing lectures, seminars, theatre enactments.  A professorship will be launched. There will be fellowships.
And it cannot come a moment too soon. There is an urgent need for it because, despite the tens of millions of pounds already spent on Holocaust indoctrination, the mandatory teaching in the schools, the specialised school courses, the endless BBC documentaries, anti-Semitism in Britain seems to be at an all-time high.
Which may have something to do with the Israel’s atrocities on the West Bank that have led to the deaths of around 2,200 civilians in a procedure known as “mowing the lawn.” Ever since then, as the British public has been daily informed by a tireless media, the incidents of anti-Semitism have ticked relentlessly upwards.  Not a day passes without a fresh headline on this.
It is not as if there is any shortage of Holocaust monuments in Britain. From the Lake District to Cornwall there are more than 100 plaques, statues, memorial gardens. There is the huge Hyde Park Memorial erected in 1983. There are Kindertransport statues at Liverpool Street and Maidenhead railway stations.
But the Jews who made up the Memorial Commission insisted that more needed to be done. Not only that, but Britons themselves need to be firmly reminded their record was tarnished. “As the number of refugees from Germany increased during the 1930’s, there was constant pressure to restrict immigration, mainly due to high unemployment. Britain refused to accept any more refugees.” “In 1937 violence in the region led Britain to curb immigration [into Palestine].” Jewish MP Ian Austin said Britain could have done more.  The message is clear — Britain must shoulder its share of Holocaust guilt.
British schoolchildren too are failing to come up to scratch. Research showed deficiencies in children’s understanding. And there is no hiding the tone of irritation in the report.
People must understand who carried out the Holocaust. The Holocaust was not carried out by a few key actors but with widespread complicity. There is already a great deal of education on perpetrators’ roles but not enough on the role of society and bystanders.
And it is not just British schoolchildren who need to do more work.
Education does not only apply to those of school age. The Holocaust may have been authored by the Nazi leadership but it could only be executed with the complicity and actions of broad based society, in particular that part of society who would be ordinarily be expected to protect and nurture the downtrodden and the oppressed. Therefore training programmes for people becoming police officers, judges, doctors, nurses and other public servants would include lessons from the Holocaust. This would enable trainees to examine the role their professions played in the Holocaust and challenge them to reflect upon their professional and personal responsibilities in a democracy today.
At times the Holocaust Commission document verges on the shrill:
Of primary importance is that future generations understand the historical facts of the Holocaust. It is such an unimaginable and significant event that people must always understand what happened, why it happened and to whom and what the consequences were. They must understand the enormity of the Holocaust. They must understand the Holocaust in the context of over a thousand years of anti-Semitism in Europe.
All of Europe was complicit. Europe must therefore pay the ultimate price — complete surrender to Jewish interests, Third World immigration and the loss of cultural and political sovereignty. The same could be said about European-derived societies in North America, Australia, and New Zealand.
All of which of course begs so many questions that it hard to know where to start. One of the most striking aspects of the report is that it does not even begin to ask the question as to why should so much attention be paid to one massacre and none at all to others for which people in Britain have equal interest.
On why, exactly, the Jewish experience should be so privileged, the Holocaust Commission report does not even attempt to answer this question.
In considering the design of the new Memorial, the Commission debated at length the important question of whether and how to represent the fate of other victims of Nazi persecution. The Commission resolved that, at its heart the Memorial must represent the experience of the Jewish victims, determinedly and systematically targeted for total construction based not on lifestyle or belief system but on genetic origins.
However it would be an injustice to the memory of those other victims not to reflect upon their tragic experiences too. Amongst these victims were members of the Roma community, Jehovah’s Witnesses, political dissidents, homosexuals and people with mental and physical disabilities … . So the Commission believes it is essential that the new Memorial recognises the persecution of non-Jewish victims, whilst maintaining the centrality of the six million murdered Jews.
As I’ve written previously:
One question never asked is why is the teaching of political violence so selective? Surely it would be more appropriate for Muslim and Hindu school students to learn about the million plus who  were killed during the partition of India. And what about the Armenians who proportionately suffered one of the worst massacres of the twentieth century at the hands of the Turks who themselves are now one of the biggest immigrant populations in London and whose application to join the European Union Britain is supporting.
And if we are looking for patterns of political violence, how can it be right to avoid mentioning the massacres and cultural annihilation that everywhere follow the spread of Islam, not to mention the recent massacres of Christians in Pakistan and Nigeria.
Then there is the largest omission of them all — of the biggest campaign of extermination of the twentieth century carried out by the Bolsheviks in which between 12 and 14 million were exterminated by planned starvation and liquidation.
By any standards the Communist menace was as much of a threat to British security as Nazi Germany. They were an enemy for far longer, had nuclear weapons pointed at our cities, and their agents and sympathisers were deeply entrenched in our establishment.
Is it the hugely disproportionate presence of Jews among the Soviet communist leadership at the time the reason that this subject seems to be so off-limits in the West today?  Does the kinship that our cultural Marxist overlords feel for their revolutionary Marxist predecessors mean they are off limits when it comes to criticism?  Certainly the organised financial and political power of the Jewish community seems to be the biggest deciding factor when it comes to deciding which massacres contain warnings from history and which ones don’t.
*    *    *
Reminders on who has the real power in Britain come at such a dizzying speed it is hard to keep up these days. Take a hapless Church of England vicar called the Rev Stephen Sizer who has been forced to apologise following complaints from the Board of Deputies of British Jews following his Facebook statement in which he linked the 9/11 bombing to Israel. Despite the apology his Church of England bosses have still launched an investigation. The Rev Sizer has a history of disputes with Board of Deputies over his previous comments about Israel and the Palestinians.Liberal Democrat MP David Ward was also disciplined by his party leader for tweeting his disgust that the Israeli leader Netanyahu had attended the Paris march after the Charlie Hebdo massacre. He wrote “#Netanyahu in Paris march – what!!! Makes me feel sick.” This led to a furious complaint from the Israeli ambassador. There were similar complaints two years ago and Ward was suspended by his party in 2013 after the Board of Deputies complained that he had said that Jews had not learned the lessons of the Holocaust.
At that time Ward wrote that he was “saddened that the Jews, who suffered unbelievable levels of persecution during the Holocaust, could within a few years of liberation from the death camps, be inflicting atrocities on Palestinians in the new State of Israel and continue to do so on a daily basis in the West Bank and Gaza”.
David Aaronovitch of the Times takes such a firm view of freedom of speech that he encourages anyone who is not happy with it to leave Britain. Clearly his co-religionists at the Board of Deputies have yet to get the message. If only David Ward MP or the Rev Sizer had such an eloquent and prominent media spokesman in their corner. If only they enjoyed the freedom of speech of the late Rabbi Schneerson.
Hard on the heels of Holocaust Memorial Day came the lavish public celebrations to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the death of Winston Churchill. TV schedules were cleared to show the massive re-enactment of his funeral barge being taken down the Thames accompanied by a flotilla of Royal Navy vessels.
At first blush this massive display — baffling to most Brits — would seem to confirm not only that Britain is turning into a gigantic historical theme park, but that there is a determination to hang onto our rich historical heritage. But alas that would be far too generous an interpretation.
In a time when the changes are coming at hallucinatory speed our political masters have decided it is good for us to be allowed some trappings to hang on. There is something inevitable about the co-opting of the Churchill myth in the service of Israel. In his Churchill speech Prime Minister David Cameron was determined to announce that one of Churchill’s achievements was the creation of the State of Israel. It has already been discovered that Churchill was Israel’s “forgotten friend”.
For it is through the hollowing out of Britain’s institutions that we are being transformed. There is no danger of such institutions such as the Royal Family or the armed services ever being dismantled. Instead they are being re-engineered internally. The Prince of Wales has said that instead of representing the Church of England he wishes to represent “faiths.” Today the newspapers feature admiring interviews with the wife of a senior army officer whose “bravery” is to be celebrated because he is about to come out as gay.
And that is how a traditional society is dismantled.

Source

Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.