‘Zionists’ promote nazism: the ultimate conspiracy theory

April 2, 2014 at 3:32 am (anti-semitism, AWL, Beyond parody, conspiracy theories, Galloway, Jim D, reactionay "anti-imperialism", Respect)

Trust Galloway to revive the ultimate conspiracy theory:

Sadly, such filth and madness is still widespread on both the ultra-right and sections of the so-called “left”, promoted by the likes of Galloway and Atzmon.  Sean Matgamna commented upon this sort of lunacy:

With Hitler on the road to Samara

Of course you know the story. A man is in the market place, and he sees Death, and Death looks at him intently, recognising him.

In a panic, the man runs to his horse and gallops away desperately, taking the road to the city of Samara.

As he gallops off, Death turns to his companion. “Strange,” he said, “that was so-and-so. I was surprised to see him here, because I have an appointment with him, tonight, in Samara.”

Death is all-powerful. There is no escape when he reaches your name on the list.

Consider now, and the association is appropriate enough, the fate of poor Adolf Hitler. This heroic son of the German people understood early in life that the Jews were responsible for all the evil in the world.

He knew that the Jews were behind everything! He knew that socialism and communism were Jewish, and that the Jews were also behind finance capital.

He knew that modern art was pornography and corruption, and modern culture decadent — and he knew that the Jews were responsible, as they were for everything decadent and evil in the world. This genius understood that Jewish Bolshevism and “Jewish capital” were all one. Despite the appearance of difference and antagonism between these things, Hitler could see that all of them — communism, socialism, finance capital, cultural and artistic decadence, etc. — were really one thing. They were aspects of one tightly organised and minutely directed world Jewish conspiracy.

And so Hitler fought the Jews. He roused much of Germany against them. In the middle of the 20th century, he re-created the medieval Jewish ghetto in some of the main cities of European civilisation.

When the Jews who ruled in London, Paris, Moscow and Washington declared war on the German Reich, Hitler set out to do the job properly: he organised the killing of six million Jews.

A quarter of these were children: but Hitler refused to be deterred. He knew the extent of Jew-Zion power. He understood that sentimentality would be fatal. And Hitler — before the Jews finally got him — managed to kill two out of every three Jews in Europe.

Now, you wouldn’t think, would you, that Adolf Hitler could have underestimated the power of the Jews?

The left at the time of Hitler used to say he was a criminal maniac. But the left just didn’t understand.

And neither did Adolf Hitler. This great man understood a lot about the Jews. But he didn’t understand everything. The truth is that even Hitler underestimated the extent and power of the World Jewish Conspiracy.

Not only communism and finance capital — those seeming mortal enemies — were tools of the international conspiracy of Zion — so were the Nazis, themselves! Hitler and his valiant warriors against Zion — farsighted men like Himmler, and Heydrich, and Streicher — were themselves tools of the world Jewish conspiracy.

The Holocaust? That was just Hitler galloping off down the road to his own Samara. The Holocaust, too, served Jewish interests! It may well, in its entirety, have been part of a Jewish conspiracy, a Zionist Grand Design.

Without the great anti-Jewish warrior for one moment guessing what was going on, the guiding centres of the world Jewish Conspiracy helped him in this work of killing Jews.

The Jews helped Hitler in all sorts of nefarious ways. For instance, by instructing the US government, before, during and after World War Two, not to let refugee Jews into America*. They did many other things to help the Nazis, some of them things that would need one cleverer than I am to unravel and chronicle for you.

Why did “The Jews” help Hitler kill Jews? That, you see, was the easiest way they could win a Jewish state.

By a process of reasoning inaccessible to the ordinary human intelligence, the Jewish super-conspirators decided that the best way to secure Israel was to kill six million Jews.

This idea is of course difficult to grasp. It is the political equivalent of that category of Catholic doctrine — for instance, the Trinity, the doctrine that God is both One and also Three Divine Persons — which is classed by the Church as a “Mystery of Religion.” A Mystery of Religion is something which, though certified true by the Church, and therefore certainly true, is simply beyond ordinary human understanding.

Don’t waste your time trying to understand. Neither formal logic nor Marxist dialectics will help you. The subtlety in the evil of the Elders of Zion has always puzzled the ordinary man, who is doing well if he becomes aware that this conspiracy exists, and has the courage to raise the alarm about it. Rational explanations are neither possible nor necessary. This is a Mystery of the World Zionist Conspiracy.

After all, it was too complicated for even Hitler to understand, and he devoted his life to probing into the Jewish Conspiracy. Even Hitler could not save himself from being made into an instrument of the omnipotent, omniscient International Zionist Conspiracy that he spent his life fighting.

All you need to know is that the Jews proved too clever for poor Adolf Hitler, who died confused, a Jewish dupe. Israel came into being, and it has never in all its history done anything but evil in the world.

The tale I have here sketched in is, of course, mad. Mad as Hitler? Madder than Hitler! It is a long stretch further down the road into the dark lands of paranoia and lunacy.

Yet one variant or another, one facet or another, of the crazy stuff which I have just set out in the form of a simple, straightforward story is now very widely accepted on the revolutionary left.

It is not usually expressed either as crudely or as candidly or as coherently as I have expressed it here.

The thesis of much of the “left” — the “left” that sees nothing wrong in “allying” in Britain with the British offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Muslim Association of Britain — is that “the Zionists” are and always were, racists; that they collaborated with the Nazis, and, therefore, that they — and the state of Israel which they created: that in particular — share more or less in the practical and moral responsibility for what Hitler did to Jews, and others. That is: they share responsibility with the Nazis for the massacre of Europe’s Jews, for the Holocaust. They are themselves the true heirs of the Nazis.

That’s what the Morning Star (like its high-Stalinist predecessor, the Daily Worker which pioneered such ideas in Britain), Socialist Worker and their smaller satellites, such as Socialist Resistance, say.**

Originating with the Stalinist rulers of the USSR, this sort of stuff has become part of the folk wisdom of the kitsch left.

To traduce Hitler’s victims, and those who were his potential victims, to blame Jews and Zionists even in part, for the Holocaust, outrages both common sense and known history; it outrages decency. It is plain bonkers!

How does the “anti-Zionist” “far left” attempt to make its case for such ideas?

• They indict “the Zionists” in the manner of a police prosecutor, and an especially unscrupulous one at that, selecting and presenting facets and shards of truth that serve to blacken the character of the accused. Some of the things they select are true, or half-true, or would be necessary aspects of a true and full historical picture.

• They isolate snippets of real history, stripping them of their social, historical and military context, and use them to misconstrue and misrepresent the thing as a whole. They use them to weave large, grotesque, lies. Here, their polemics are entirely Stalinist in character, typically: disloyal, tendentious, mendacious, unscrupulous, utterly contemptuous of truth, understood even on the level of the legal formula, “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”

• The Zionists, the Jewish nationalists, they tell you, wild eyed with surprise and indignation, were… nationalists and as narrow as other nationalists. Most of what they say is like that: banal. The critical cutting edge is given to the banality by the insistance that Jewish nationalism is not a “legitimate” nationalism; and by indentifying it with racism and fascism.

• They wax indignant on the fact that the Zionists, in concentrating their efforts on building up the Jewish nation in Palestine, were sometimes short sighted, factional-minded, politically sectarian and always combative towards their political opponents, Jewish political opponents included.

• They denounce them because they steered a single-minded Jewish nationalist political course through the rocks and reefs of a world hostile to Jews, and large parts of it murderously so.

• They present “Zionism” as some sort of historical deus ex machina on the Jewish people, not as what it was, something rooted in their experience and one legitimate response to it, and a response shared from some time in the 1940s by most surviving Jews. Jewish nationalism, they insist, and it is a pillar of their entire outlook on the Middle East, is an especially poisonous illegitimate nationalism.

• They insist that by choosing a nationalist response to anti-semitism, the Zionists thereby endorsed the racism of the anti-semites. Zionist nationalism is therefore, in its most fundamental notion, genetically, so to speak, racist. Jewish nationalism is and always was, essentially, a form of racism. It can not be anything else. It was racist when, fighting against great odds, the Israeli Jews defended themselves against Arab invasion in 1948. It is racist now.

• The early Zionists, they tell you, eyes blazing with horror and self-righteousness, did not scruple to try and harness to their own purposes the will of anti-semites — even, that of the Nazis — to be rid of the Jews.

They did that in the 1940s, when it was a matter of trying to rescue some Jews from the murder machine in which the Nazis and their allies had most of Europe’s Jews trapped and marked for death.

Like wild-eyed ultra-lefts or understand-nothing anarchists (though the SWP is a long way from ultra-left or anarchist) they denounce such activities on principle and scour the records for instances of it on which to mount charges of “collaborating with the Nazis” and as proof that “Zionism” shares the responsibility for what the Nazis did.

• In hellish situations, such, for instance, as in Nazi-occupied Hungary in 1944, some Zionists attempted to manoeuvre and negotiate with the powerful enemy at whose mercy they stood. Not only were some such things possibly misguided, actions by desperate people, but, say the kitsch left, they were ipso facto treachery and collaboration with the Nazis.

• In some such efforts, the distinction between actively striving to save some Jews, when only some could be saved, and implicit acquiescence at the fate of the others may sometimes got blurred.

In some cases, manoeuvrings by Zionists and others to save what could be saved, and compromises with Nazis and others (at gun point!) blurred the distinction between responsible efforts to save what might be saved and seeming to take responsibility for what the Nazis did, and collaboration in it, as for instance in the activities of the Zionist official Kastner in 1944 Hungary? The anti-Zionists, naturally, use such unfortunate things to smear all Zionists, everywhere.

• In the Nazi-controlled and Nazi-surrounded East Europe Jewish ghettos, some Jewish bourgeois and “notables” behaved as their class — of all creeds, nations and races — typically behaves. This too proves the affinity of “Zionists” and their persecutors. In some of the outpourings of the anti-Zionists the distinction between “Zionist” and “Jew” more or less vanishes. And so on. And so on.

The history of the Jewish people in the 20th century is an indescribably tragic one. The kitsch-left approach this history with all the empathy and sympathy with which one would look upon a head of cabbage ground under a ten-ton truck. And with all the understanding and breath of historical outlook, and empathy with the victims of Nazi mass murder. which that head of cabbage could be expected to bring to understanding the history of either cabbages or human beings.

• Incongruously, as we have said, they use ultra-left and anarchist attitudes — as in their opposition to Jewish nationalism. But they are not consistent opponents of all nationalism and nationalists. Indeed invariably they are people drunk on Arab nationalism and vicarious Arab chauvinists, who use their arguments against nationalist narrowness in general as tools of virulent Arab nationalism, and as the basis of an argument for destroying the Jewish national entity in the interest of the Palestinian Arab nation.

They present the displacement of 750,000 Palestinians in 1948 as unique and uniquely evil. They ignore the 600,000 Jews displaced from the Arab countries to Israel in the late 40s and after. They ignore such things as the displacement of 13 million ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe (10 million from what is now western Poland). They ignore the role of Arab states in denying the Palestinian refugees and their descendants the right to work and integrate – in keeping the refugees and their descendants refugees.

Their political conclusion? Not that the Palestinian nation should have its own independent state side by side with Israel, but that Israel must be eliminated! The Israeli Jewish nation forged in the terrible history of the Jewish people in the 20th century, must be deprived of self determination, in the only way that such a thing is now conceivable, by being conquered. What remains of the Israeli Jewish people after their conquest by the Arab states, will be incorporated against their will in a single Arab state, where they may have religious rights, but not national rights. They want not justice for Jews and Arabs, but the situation of Jews and Palestinians reversed.

This pile of ideological dung, laid down by the Stalinists in the 40s and 50s, is now domicile and diet to the “anti-Zionist” “Trotskyists”, who have lost both Marxist overview and working class historical perspective; who deal neither in historical truth nor in honest historical record.
In short the dominant “left” culture now is a culture in which necessary and legitimate criticisms of Israel are amalgamated with root and branch condemnation of the Jewish nation in Palestine for having come into existence at all and for defending its existence now.

A culture which purveys a malignant Arab-Islamist chauvinist account of modern Jewish, Israeli, and Middle Eastern history in which the Jewish victims of the convulsions of mid-20th century capitalist Europe are demonised for seeking a refuge from persecution in Palestine and for defending themselves against the invasion of five Arab armies in 1948. Demonised most of all for winning the right to survive in 1948 and after.

A culture in which the ostensible left is one of the main bearers of the most important modern version of anti-semitism, under the name of “anti-Zionism”. That is, hostility to the idea of a Jewish state, to its existence now, and to those, especially Jews, who accept and defend the Jewish state, critically or otherwise.

The elevation of this tissue of a-historical nonsense, one-sided anti-nationalism, one-sided anti-racism, into the place it now holds on the left is the index of what has happened to the left, or, better, perhaps, to the once upon a time left.

Just as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was forged by the Tsarist secret police, this contemporay “anti-Zionist” thesis, in its turn, was formulated by the anti-semitic Stalinist state in the USSR. It spread first, in the 1940s and 50s, to the Stalinist parties around the world, and then to a wide spectrum of the anti-Stalinist left. Books like Lenni Brenner’s Zionism in the Age of the Dictators recycle them; so did Jim Allen’s play, Perdition; so have dozens of articles and pamphlets.

Why have such ideas spread amongst otherwise rational people of good will and socialist aspirations?

Proper emotional solidarity with the Palestinian Arabs, and therefore emotional hostility to Israel, is the living root of the credulity with which the fantastic tales and the Hansel and Gretel “history” of grotesque constructions on real events are accepted on the left.

It is the source of the emotional and intellectual “demand” which “anti-Zionism” supplies, and of the willingness and even eagerness to identify Zionism and Israel with Nazism, or to come as close as sense can be stretched and often way beyond — to identifying them. In a welthering of righteous “anti imperialism”, “anti-racism” and, in some respects justified, but incoherent and hysterical, indignation against Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, the kitsch left, is like the hero in an old Hollywood film, who, sword-fighting with the villain in the final reel, moves closer and closer to the quicksand, or perilously close to the edge of a precipice. Except that the kitsch left long ago pitched itself head first into the pestilential morass.

Nihilistic “anti-imperialism” plays a central role here. Israel is identified as a mere stooge of Washington.

There is another root to the kitsch left’s identification of the Jewish nationalists with the Nazis. It is a way to escape the compelling logic, and the political conclusions, which 20th century history gave to the pre-war disputes on Zionism; a way to escape the obvious conclusions of modern history.

In Trotsky’s time, his movement opposed Zionism on two grounds. The whole project was possible only under license from the British imperialist overlord of Palestine, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, Aden, etc. The Zionists would be compelled therefore to ally with the British against the revolt of Britain’s Arab semi-colonies.

The second reason was that the Zionist project in Palestine was not in their opinion an answer to the mortal threat with which the Jews of Europe were faced. Trotsky, who had a sharp pre-vision of what Europe’s Jews faced was tragically proved right. (Trotsky was influenced perhaps in this by his pre-World War One experience as a war correspondent in the Balkans, where he had witnessed terrible ethnic and sectarian massacres.)

The colonisation of Palestine simply could not in the short term provide a refuge for all the threatened Jews of Europe. (Though it could have saved many more than were saved had they been allowed to go there.) Only the socialist revolution, argued Trotsky, can save the Jews. Two out of every three Jews alive in Europe on Sept 1, 1939, were not saved.

The experience of the war and the Hollacaust, however, threw a new light on the old disputes about Palestine. The Palestinian Jews survived. They might not have. The Nazis might, even temporarily, have overrun the area. The Jews might not have survived, but they did; and most of the Jews in Europe did not.

IMPORTANTLY too, the charge that the Zionists — that is, today, Israel, which is the point — “collaborated” with the Nazis, bear a share of responsibility for the Holocaust, are themselves Nazi-like, etc works to free people who start out with decent socialist and liberal instincts and attitudes from the tremendous moral pressure in favour of Israel which the fact of the Holocaust engenders. If Zionism-Israel share responsibility for the Holocaust in any degree then the Holocaust can be removed as a powerful argument for a Jewish state now.

The whole thing is radically incoherent. But if, the various “stories” now widely accepted and spread by so much of the ‘left’ are taken as true, that “the Zionists”, even while six million Jews were being kilied, were nevertheless able to control such things as whether or not the US government let in Jewish refugees, and as a movement, calculatingly, for their own long-term “Zionist” purposes, helped the Nazis kill one million Hungarian Jews in 1944, and so on (and there is a lot more of it, and one or other bit of it is widely accepted on the left) — then “they” had a high degree of manipulative control over what happened — even over the Holocaust.

The very idea, bluntly stated, is self-evident lunacy. But if “they” could do that during the war, then the Nazi theories of a powerful Jewish conspiracy before the war were wrong only in beibg understatements.

The prevailing “left” thesis about Zionism-fascism-Israel can rest on no logical ground except that of the pre-war Nazi world Jewish conspiracy theories.

Denouncing the Zionists as “Nazis”, they reproduce the old right wing and Nazi thesis, or at any rate a recognisable dialect of it, about the world Jewish conspiracy.

Hysterically identifying Israel (because of its treatment of the Palestinians, but not only that) with Hitler and Nazism, they embrace and propagate the core of the Nazi theories about the International Jewish Conspiracy!

Of course nobody on the left would explicitly tell the story I told about Hitler. The anti-fascist, anti-racist, and anti-imperialist feeling of the anti-Zionist left prevents them from grasping and understanding, from seeing it whole, and from spelling out, coherently, what, nevertheless, so many of them implicitly believe and propagate…

Yet — to repeat — that is the tale sections of the left implicitly tell now. Try to spell out, clearly and honestly, what is said about Zionist collusion with the Nazis to secure a Jewish state; open out the implications which are plainly there in what is said — then you must come up with some version of the story I told above. That is the real and only possible relationship that what is now said by the left can be seen to have with what Hitler said on the same subject.

And it is not a matter of parallels that never meet. The assertion about the Zionists’ co-responsibility, or part-responsibility, for the Holocaust ties it all together. An honest historical balance sheet from that point of view would have to place Hitler himself in the perspective of history, that is, of the post-Holocaust working-out of the “International Jewish Conspiracy”. Hitler lost: the Third Reich fell and Israel rose!

If those who demonise Israel would confront the logic of some of the things they say now. If they dared think it through without the constraint of powerful inhibitions rooted in our common hatred of Nazism, and of racism in general, then what the left says now would compel it to recognise that Hitler was informed and insightful and, in essence, correct on the “Jewish question”.

Most of the reasons why the “anti-Zionist” left do not tease out these conclusions speak in their favour, of course: horror of Nazism, disgust with racism, and so on. They are, after all, socialists, whose basic impulses and aspirations are the same as ours. Such people must denounce articles like this as foul slander.

Having done that, they will feel free to go on as before.

But this “good side”, which stops the kitsch-left thinking through the meaning of what they say, has a very bad consequence here. It allows them, fuelled by sympathy with the Palestinians and hatred of Imperialism, blithely to continue peddling a disguised and sanitised version of ideas and facets of ideas they would recoil from in horror if ever they were forced to look at what they say, in its wholeness, and to understand how what they say now relates to what the murderers of six million Jews — and many millions of others, too — said to justify their anti-semitism.

An anti-semitism that is now reproduced in the kitsch-left commitment to the destruction of the Jewish nation in Israel, and the comprehensive hostility to most Jews alive to which this inescapably commits them to.

There is a shift from what the German socialist, Bebel, said was “the socialism of the fools” to “the anti-imperialism of the idiots”, but hostility to Jews, and to the Israeli Jewish nation which emerged out of the terrible events of the 20th century is central to both.

We should support Israel’s right to defend itself; support the Palestinian Arabs in so far as it is a matter of them trying to gain control of their own territories from the Israeli army; and back the Israeli anti-chauvinists who want a just settlement with the Palestinians.
We should stand against the Islamist clerical fascists.

We should stand against the present upsurge of hysterical “anti-Zionism”. We should strip off the masks and the illusions behind which lurk ideas, like those I have explored here.

We are fighting for political sanity and against unreason on the left: therefore we should not let delicacy stop us from confronting our misguided comrades, brutally, with the brute — Nazi — logic, implications and ancestry of some of the ideas they have adopted from putrescent Stalinism. We must insist:

No, Hitler was not right!


  1. ‘Zionists’ promote nazism: the ultimate conspiracy theory | OzHouse said,

    […] Apr 02 2014 by admin […]

  2. Mike Killingworth said,

    Matgamna spends his energies furifying against the wrong target. The question is not, why did Hitler think as he did? but – why did the Germans listen? And (even more fun, this) – why did they not listen to Trotsky instead?

  3. Southpawpunch (@Southpawpunch) said,

    I’m wary of what this site may write about Galloway (or anyone really – considering I was insanely smeared here as some sort of Nazi sympathiser) but Galloway says something extraordinary here from his own mouth: “the Zionists sent gunmen to the Maidan in Kiev to help (the revolution)”.

    I don’t know what the context of this is and I do think it would be more natural speech to say (if this is what he meant) “the Israelis sent…” Is it possible some Ukranian organisation involved there is a supporter of Israel (possibly in much the same way that, I think, the BNP would now claim to be such) and that is what he is referring to, or does he really think Mossad was involved in the events in Kiev?

    It would be good to get a context for this. If it is ‘Mossad’, then this sounds quite doolally. Even if it is the other, to describe some Ukranians primarily as ‘Zionists’ in this context would be as dubious as writing something like ‘Zionist AWL involved in last week’s teachers strike’.

  4. Southpawpunch (@Southpawpunch) said,

    I’m sorry that I took your comment at face value and did search on that. I lingered for just as long as it took me to read “we must now work with every means at our disposal to precipitate World War III within five years” and “our Jewish American President Truman”. Why don’t you just fuck off.

  5. Babs said,

  6. Mike Killingworth said,

    It would be more courteous to provide a link yourself. Paul

  7. Sue R said,

    I looked up the accusation about the Israeli army assisting neo-Nazis in the Ukraine. Galloway cites Ha’aratz, so I went straight to the horses mouth. The story as printed there is that an Israeli citizen with military training who had a Ukrainian background was active in the Maidan. Now, it would be that this is exactly what you would expect a ‘black ops’ person to say (plausible deniability and all that) or it could just be true. I can’t tell except as a rule of thumb anything that George Galloway says is a half-truth, an evasion and a distortion of the truth. I think it shows that Bro Galloway is trying to balance his Stalinist loyalties with his Muslim faith. What’s his line on the missing Malaysian aeroplane?

    • Babs said,

      I’m not sure Galloway is a Muslim

      • Jim Denham said,

        He’s whatever type of religious bigot that its suits his purposes to be at any given time, But a reactionary, religious bigot he is, at all times.

        How sections of the so-called “left” (notably. but not only, the SWP) ever came to support this crook, shyster and anti-Semite remains a mystery and a source of shame.

  8. Babs said,

    @ Sue R

    Cheers for that. Here is the link for anyone who wants to read it.


    Your comment about Black Ops is half correct. Black Ops are supposed to work in the shadows and in secret. If their cover is blown than it’s mission failure and plan B would be plausible deniability and all the rest. If this was a Black Ops than it would be a very poor one and very unlike Israel who are masters of such tradecraft.

    What I took away from the Haaretz article is completely different to the way Galloway (mis)interpreted it. Seems like a Ukrainian Jew with Israeli citizenship who’s fighting for Ukrainian self determination and protection of his fellow citizens against state brutality. Like most Israelis he’s served in the IDF but what he’s doing has nothing to do with the State of Israel or Zionism or Judaism and everything to do with fighting back against a corrupt regime that was killing it’s own people. Though why on earth he’s taking orders from a fascist party beats me though he claims their anti-semitism is exaggerated. More like an unholy alliance against a common foe if you ask me just like members of Right Sector directly supported Jihadis in Chechnya such is their hatred for Russia.

    I don’t understand how Galloway came to his conclusion by reading that Haaratz article, he must of read a Press TV version of events or just put his own crazy spin on it. There’s no national security issue at stake for Israel to be involved in Ukraine, only concern at the rise of fascism that may bring harm to Jews in Ukraine. To be fair to him he doesn’t actually mention Israel but rather Zionists so I don’t think he’s blaming the Israeli state. It’s still a bizarre conspiracy with no facts to back it up and I wonder if Galloway is losing the plot. He’s getting worse and worse.

  9. Simon Burton said,

    While Paul Maleski is clearly some sort of crypto neo-National Socialist fellow traveller, and the Rabinovitch material he refers to is of course bogus (?), like the infamous ‘Protocols’, I feel he deserves a better (and more courteous) response than Southpawpunch’s witty ‘fuck off’.

    While all right-thinking socialists will abhor the inherent anti-Semitism of the the Rabinovitch/Protocols type we do have a problem, in that, regardless of the origins of the material, so much of the malign intention and Zionist rhetoric expressed in it seem to have come to pass. Its an uncomfortable fact that, regardless of how dire the Twentieth Century was for ordinary, non-Zionist Jews, Jewish-owned capital and media does seem to have come out of it rather well, more or less controlling a world in which proletarian consumers and workers are treated like cattle.

    And thinking the unthinkable – would the State of Israel exist today, without Adolf Hitler?

    • Jim Denham said,

      “Its an uncomfortable fact that, regardless of how dire the Twentieth Century was for ordinary, non-Zionist Jews, Jewish-owned capital and media does seem to have come out of it rather well, more or less controlling a world…”

      Bloody hell: and you claim to “abhor” anti-Semitism???

      Btw: you talk about “ordinary, non-Zionist Jews”: what about the much greater number of “ordinary” Zionist Jews?

    • Babs said,


      Most of the worlds industry, wealth and media is in the hands of a relatively tiny non-Jewish elite comprising of Caucasians, Slavs, Indians, Chinese, Latinos, Japanese…..


  10. R F McCarthy (@RF_McCarthy) said,

    The sewer gates have really opened down here….

  11. Simon Burton said,

    Jim, are you arguing that the majority of ordinary Jews are Zionists?
    Babs – are you really quoting Forbes as an objective source on this?
    Bill – lets see if we can keep this debate on a non-abusive level please.

    Now, can anyone answer the uncomfortable question I posed, without getting hysterical and running around shouting ‘anti-semitism’: ‘Would the State of Israel exist today without Adolf Hitler?’

    • Babs said,

      Simon what is your objective source?

      Forbes list is accurate, why would they lie about who’s the richest people in the world? If you have a better list, please include the link in your reply.

    • Zionism Is Not Racism said,

      Yes, an overwhelming majority of Jews are Zionists.

      If you stop to consider for just a few moments the way Jews have been treated throughout history it’s hardly astonishing that a huge majority are in favour of having the protection of a nation state, and always have been. Fortunately, contrary to the deluded rantings of “antizionist” organisations (where the Far Right and Far Left converge), most non-Jews feel the same way, and don’t view Jewish nationalism as different from anyone else’s.

      I know that fascistic, psuedo-“left” organisations such as PSC and Respect use the Neteuri Karta as a smokescreen for their antisemitism – having a tiny gaggle of miserable-looking bearded types in silly hats holding banners saying “True Torah Jews Oppose Zionism” at every demonstration is what has effectively kept PSC from being derided as a far-right organisation over the years – but the Neteuri Karta are entirely atypical. They are religious extremists who believe Israel is a blasphemous creation as the messiah has not yet arrived (of course, as soon as he gets here all of Israel will be given to the Jews, etc etc). they are aligned to fascist organisations and are great friends of the Iranian government so you can be assured that they really, really don’t represent contemporary Jewish thought. Nor does Tony Greenstein, obviously.

  12. Rosie said,

    I was sucked into responding to the polite, reasonable tones of some shitty anti-semites once (and you are one, Burton, so don’t think you’ve made a point by me calling you one.)

    Don’t respond to him but leave him there for educational purposes.

    • Simon Burton said,

      No Rosie, I am definitely not anti-Semitic – why would an intelligent person hate people based on Semitic origins? That would mean hating the vast majority of the Palestinian people, most of whom are genetically Semitic.

      You know nothing about my background, or racial, religious or cultural heritage and I find your name calling deeply offensive. I have an interest in understanding religious nationalism and zealotry, and the abuse of power to pursue nationalist ends. Why are you confusing that with anti-Semitism?

      Putting that to one side, why is it that no-one is courageous enough to respond to my question without throwing insults or becoming abusive, or defensive? It is not a trick, no paranoia is necessary, it is just a simple but important historical question which legitimately drops out of the original article, ‘Would the State of Israel exist today without Adolf Hitler?’ I am undecided on the answer and had rather hoped it would make for some interesting historical dialectic, but maybe it is too soon, or maybe the modern equivalent of political debate is name calling, or maybe no-one has enough knowledge of history? Someone please restore my faith in intelligent analysis by playing the ball, not the man.

      • Mike Killingworth said,

        Trust me, Simon: never, never get involved in a discussion here which has any connection, however slight, to Israel or Jews. And if I don’t get called an anti-Semite, or even a closet Nazi, on the basis of this comment I shall feel hard done by…

      • Zionism Is Not Racism said,

        Oh fer crying out loud – is there anyone left in the world who *genuinely* doesn’t know what the word “antisemitic” means? I don’t believe for one second that you think it refers to semitic peoples, i.e. Jews and Arabs…really, it’s not worth resorting to that particular lie, the people who read this blog aren’t twelve years old.

        As for pretending that “wanting Jews to move to Israel in order to get them out of your country is the same as being Jewish and wanting to move to Israel for your own protection, and therefore the Zionists had the same idea as Hitler” (that’s what your question implies, isn’t it?) – your representative in Brighton, Tony Greenstein, has devoted maybe half a million words to this theme on his lunatic blog and not one sentence does anything to alter the fact that this canard, so beloved of National Socialists, is nowt but lame fascistic drivel.

  13. Sue R said,

    Why do you hate Jews so much? You seem to have a pathological fear, envy and hatred of them. Is it worth pointing out the fallacies in what you say; probably not. Can you explain though why the Jews financed the Russian Revolution, what was in it for them?

  14. Babs said,

    “Well you can’t fault Hitler there. Within a few years of booting out the jew, Germany became a workers’ paradise. ”

    How on earth did Shiraz attract Nazi posters?

  15. Southpawpunch (@Southpawpunch) said,

    Or as I said more succinctly to maleski – “fuck off”. It’s not a good idea to encourage these scum by responding.

    The only complication is that the site owner here recklessly smears anyone disagreeing with him about some things as a ‘Nazi’. If there was less of that, it would be easier to identify the real-life Nazis of which there are some on this page.

  16. Ben said,

    Trotsky recognized in the late 1930s that a European war would bring about the mass murder of the Jewish population. He was coming round to the view that the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine was necessary to preserve the lives of Europe’s Jews. This recognition was an impressive reversal of his long-held opinions, and evidence of some positive quality in Trotsky’s character.

    The leaders of Britain took the opposite view. In 1939 they reneged on the Balfour declaration, published the infamous White Paper that closed the gates of Palestine to Jewish refugees, and thereby facilitated the Holocaust. It is no surprise, human nature being what it is, that many in Britain prefer to fulminate against the supposed “crimes” of the Zionists rather than face up to the enormity of their country’s betrayal of the Jewish people as they were being wiped out.

    Lenni Brenner’s book was praised by Conservative politician and long-time owner of The Spectator Ian Gilmour, who declaimed that “Zionists had indeed collaborated with the Nazis”. During the time of his ownership the letter pages of that magazine carried many contributions from the likes of Jordan, Tyndall, Hamm and their fascist/Nazi ilk. More recently, the Conservative MP Peter Tapsell, who started his career as private secretary to the evil antisemite and wartime Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden, dared to compare the inhabitants of the Gaza strip to the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. The inversion which Matgamna describes is not just a malady of the extreme left.

  17. Jim Denham said,

    We do our best to monitor comments and delete out-and-out anti-Semites and Nazis. Some slip through the net, or are replied to before we can take action. Sometimes they even serve a useful educative service.

    For the record, I do not believe that Southpaw, for instance, is himself a Nazi or even an anti-Semite. But he’s on record (in BTL comments here) defending alliances with Nazis.

    • Zionism Is Not Racism said,

      Well defending alliances with Nazis is not much better, really.

      Mind you it’s what the current Far “Left” in Britain specialises in – hence SWP/Respec’/PSC/Livingstone and their devotion to Hamas, Hezbollah, MCB, Hizb, etc etc….

      • Southpawpunch (@Southpawpunch) said,

        In 1932, there was a transport strike in Berlin (the BVG strike) in which there was some co-operation between KPD and Nazi strikers. The KPD justified this by saying that they were seeking to break the Nazi strikers from their leaders – ‘your leaders are in cahoots with the very capitalists we are striking against’.

        Denham writes as though I have passed some line here, but I would say most Lefts I have every heard mention this or similar events (very few, but including a leading AWL figure) think the KPD was correct.

        Not so long ago, I was at a demo against the EDL. Some idiotic EDL types (losers, really) were shouting mild abuse at our group and, then in the best socialist tradition (if a little reckless for his safety), a Socialist Party member walked towards them and started arguing politics with them only for the small advances he made to be then blown few minutes later when a SWP contingent turned up, and without bothering to assess the situation, just started hurling abuse at the EDL wastrels.

        I have seen the SP/Militant do similar over the years to low-level members of the BNP and NF and they have my admiration for doing so. I suggest Denham is in the minority with his outright condemnation of ‘defending alliances with Nazis’, which would be nothing more than an extension of what I saw when the SP guy said he ‘would march with them for jobs and better facilities on their estates’. He was being naive, maybe a little clueless and there was a little of that ‘white workers aren’t racist but confused’ fib the SP tell themselves, but he was also being a communist.

  18. Zionism Is Not Racism said,

    Hilarious! I do love a good parpdy of Nazis. More please!

    • Rosie said,

      Thanks for bothering to reply on the antisemitism thing. I think anyone who uses the “Palestinians are semites too” meme are a) grossly ignorant; b) grossly disingenuous. I can’t be arsed pointing out that saying, say, “Wagner was a famous antisemite” does not mean he had a thing about Palestinians, Arabs or whoever. I suppose it’s worth correcting the grossly ignorant but it’s a hiding to nothing arguing with the grossly disingenuous.

  19. Zionism Is Not Racism said,

    So what are you telling us Southpunchdrunk? That you’re “naive and a little clueless”?

    • Mike Killingworth said,

      Well, of course Marx claimed that all struggle is class struggle. IMHO he was being “naïve and a little clueless” – it’s only the question of ethnicity (Israel/Palestine) that gets people going on here. That should tell us something.

  20. Southpawpunch (@Southpawpunch) said,

    No, the SP guy was correct to approach but could have spoken better. In the circumstances of a strike (for something not reactionary), from either ,(clearly unlikely at present) support should be given to split the bosses from the workers (including any in EDL membership) – Marxist ABC.

  21. Jim Denham said,

    This comment has been allowed to remain in place solely in order to demonstrate that some sick, depraved holocaust-deniers still exist, and still need to be combated.

    • Simon Burton said,

      Jim, how about a robust, well researched historical rebuttal of Mr Maleski’s assertion instead of name calling? Calling Maleski a ‘Holocaust Denier’ doesn’t help your case – he is self-admittedly a Holocaust denier, and a well researched one at that. The left has got lazy, relying on labelling instead of reasoned argument. Tell Maleski why he is wrong – assuming you can?

    • Jim Denham said,

      This guy treats holocaust denying scum with the respect they deserve (ie none):

    • Babs said,


      If one denies the holocaust, then the research conducted to come to this conclusion is evidently very poor. There is ample information to show millions perished. The exact figures are disputed but generally speaking the genocide of 6 million Jews is the approx number given for the general public. Here is a list of books of the the most comprehensive studies of the holocaust.. Approx figures below-

      The Destruction of European Jews – 5.1 million
      The War Against Jews – 5.94 million
      The Holocaust – 6 million
      The Holocaust: A German Historian Examines the Genocide – 5.29-6.2 million.

      Also from the ICRC regarding the 271,301 figure:-

      Geneva, 10 May 1979

      Dear Madam,

      We have pleasure in acknowledging receipt of your letter of 12 April concerning the victims of the Second World War, together with the enclosed booklet. We did already have a copy of this document, which is not the only one of its kind. Indeed, the ICRC and several National Societies, in particular, the American Red Cross, have received a great deal of correspondence on this matter.

      The booklet in question supports its false allegations by two abridged quotations taken from two documents published by the ICRC:

      “Report of the International Committee of the Red
      Cross on its activities dueing the Second World War”
      (3 volumes)

      “The work of the ICRC for civilian detainees in German
      Concentration Camps” (1 volume)

      These two documents, which we are sending you under separate cover, contain the basic information which the ICRC possesses on the victims of the Second World War.

      Unfortunately, we are not able to provide you with the figures you are seeking, since the ICRC has never tried to compile statistics on the victims of the war and has never certified the accuracy of the statistics produced by a third party. In fact, the basic aim of the ICRC is to come to the aid of victims of armed conflicts and not to act as a commission of enquiry or a statistics service.

      With regard to the figure of 300,000 victims quoted on page 28 of the document you sent us, on 19 January 1955 the newspaper “Die Tat” published an article (of which a photocopy is enclosed) giving figures for the victims of the Second World War, including that of 300,000.

      As you will see upon reading this article, first, the figure of 300,000 was not given by the ICRC and, secondly, it refers only to the German victims (Jews and non-Jews) of the concentration camps. The authors of the booklet have therefore doubly falsified their information, by claiming that the figure relates to all the Jewish deportation victims and by naming the ICRC as its source.

      Finally, for your information, we are sending a copy of the ICRC information bulletin “The ICRC in Action” of 12 December 1975, the last page of which mentions the work of the ICRC in concentration camps.

      We hope this information will be of use to you.

      Yours faithfully,
      R. Gaillard-Moret
      Head of Documentation and Dissemination

      The ICRC never complied a list (this was done by the ITC) and never visited all the concentration camps (Just 13 according to the list complied by ITC: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/71/ICRC_letter_-_traceable_deaths_only.jpg )

      • Simon Burton said,

        Babs, I’m delighted to see that someone on the Left still has the integrity to do research, but I can’t help wondering whether there would today be equally august bodies making very different pronouncements if the Axis powers had been victorious. We can never really know the truth, and should be honest about it. But even so, I am tempted to say ‘I hope you are right’, but that would mean hoping that 6m Jews were killed, so I very much hope you are wrong and that Maleski is right. I will defend his right to voice his opinions regardless of how unpalatable they might be. I believe passionately in freedom of expression, and that includes the right to express views that make me very uncomfortable. Maleski – long may you continue to provoke us!

      • Babs said,


        I don’t think such things can stay hidden. Secrets always come out eventually especially the older they get. There’s a lot of scholarly research on the Holocaust and I don’t see why this should be dismissed. Saying we can never really know the truth is a cop out and can be said about anything. If the West was so good at keeping secrets then we’d never know the truth about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, Operation Northwood or the 1953 Iranian coup d’etat to name just a few. In modern times Wikileaks and Edward Snowden have spilled the beans on mass spying and war crimes.

      • Jim Denham said,

        I have to say that I find the idea of even debating this subject highly distasteful, and people like Burton, though they may deny being holocaust deniers, are clearly very dodgy, as is Atzmon. I’d suggest we end this discussion now.

  22. Sue R said,

    How do you autopsy charred ashes, which is all that was left of the people who were gassed? Or, are you talking about the mobile execution vans. Those victims were thrown into pits so I imagine they could have been autopsied. I believe the gas used in those cases was carbon monoxide from the vans’ exhausts.

    • Simon Burton said,

      So what you are saying Sue, is that the only rebuttal of Holocaust denial you can muster is ‘belief’. You are not alone, most people take their history on faith. They believe something because someone told them. Mr Maleski’s opinions might be unpalatable, they might be incorrect, but on the other hand he has done his historical research. We on the left have become the establishment, and have become intellectually lazy. All we can do is call names.

  23. Sue R said,

    Incidentally, there was an item on MEMRI about the missing plane. Apparently, the Israelis were behind it. An identical plane was kept in a hangar in Tel Aviv for them to practice on for the past year. Also, clinching argument this one, the group of Chinese scientists aboard were working on highly top secred semi-conductors. Six people in the world hold the patent on the new super-duper military substance, five of them perished in the ‘accident’, the sixth…is Lord Rothschild!!!!! (This was broadcast on Presstv).

  24. Admin said,

    Maleski is deleted. I thought he and his ravings were banned round here

    • Simon Burton said,

      Who was it who said ‘You are free to agree with me’ Stalin or Hitler?

  25. Jim Denham said,

    Galloway’s latest … time to consult your attorney, Tzipi:

  26. paul maleski said,

    The term ‘anti-semite’ is a convenient, propaganda etymological Slakhtal invention. Schlomo Sand puts real jewish history, from about 200-to 300 years old. (Sheridan and ‘Off the docks jews’– the Rivals). I go along with Schlomo’s assessment, he is no kike fool!

    • Jim Denham said,

      Maleski: the only reason that we have not deleted this comment from you, is so as to leave it on record that you, as an anti-Semite, are sympathetic to Schlomo Sand.

  27. Iakovos Alhadeff said,

    Conspiracy theories about Israel


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: