mercredi 27 novembre 2013

De l'incohérence d'attribuer à Adolf Hitler et à l'Holocauste la paternité de l'État juif en Palestine: la "mémoire de l'Holocauste" n'a pris d'assaut la psyché américaine que dans les années 1960-70, dans la foulée du procès Eichmann et des guerres israéliennes. Les Sionistes les plus influents de l'époque ont eu grand peur que l'extermination des juifs d'Europe sonne le glas du sionisme. Quel intérêt peut-il y avoir à systématiquement assimiler le sionisme aux nazis? À faire croire que c'est toujours la faute aux nazis? Et à qui cela profite-t-il?

Suivant l'exemple des désinformateurs patentés Alex Jones et Jim Marrs, qui pointent du doigt sans cesse les nazis comme étant "l'élite du nouvel ordre mondial", certains soi-disant penseurs se font un point d'honneur de systématiquement faire remonter l'origine de tous les complots à une filière nazie. Ces gens se croient permis de qualifier de "nouveau nazisme" ce système sioniste que nous combattons, car de toute manière, tout est toujours la faute aux nazis. Toujours le même refrain...


Encore la faute aux nazis!

Pensons logiquement: comment l'extermination des juifs peut-elle avoir été une bonne chose pour Israël et le sionisme, considérant que si Extermination des juifs il y a, il ne reste plus de juifs pour immigrer en Israël? Dans ce cas, l'option sioniste devient obsolète et impossible. C'est très simple à comprendre, pourtant plusieurs se sont laissés séduire par les propos rabbiniques du Rav Ron Chaya!

Esther Benbassa, Suffering as Identity--The Jewish Paradigm

Extraits de The Holocaust in American Life, par Peter Novick: 

Selon l'auteur Peter Novick, qui critique la récupération de la "mémoire de l'Holocauste" par les sionistes (voir aussi THE HOLOCAUST IS OVER--WE MUST RISE FROM ITS ASHES, de l'Israélien Avram Burg), le "poids de la culpabilité pour l'Holocauste des juifs" ne peut avoir été un facteur déterminant de la création de l'État juif, pour la simple et bonne raison que la "mémoire de l'Holocauste" ne pesait pas très lourd à l'époque de la partition de la Palestine (1948). Pour preuve: la nation qui a été la plus blâmée pour son "inaction" face à l'Holocauste--la Grande-Bretagne--a rejeté la proposition de partition de la Palestine.

L'auteur rappelle tout au long du livre que la "mémoire de l'Holocauste" n'a pris d'assaut la psyché populaire qu'au milieu des années 1960-70, en conséquence de l'affaire Eichmann et des premiers grands conflits armés d'Israël.

Somme toute, on pourrait dire que c'est plutôt à la défaite cuisante d'Hitler--et non à l'Holocauste--que l'État juif doit son existence.











 R.I.P. Peter Novick

Selon Peter Novick, le terme "judéo-chrétien" a été inventé par le bureau américain d'information de guerre (U.S. Office of War Information) du gouvernement américain dans le but de convaincre la population américaine d'entrer en guerre contre l'Allemagne sous prétexte que Hitler allait détruire le christianisme.

Michael Collins Piper discusses experts questionning the reliability of Holocaust witnesses (for instance, about the dubious ubiquity of infamous Dr Josef Mengele, quoting from in Peter Novick in The Holocaust in Anerican Life :

Michael Collins Piper writes in his book Ye Shall Know The Truth---101 Books American Nationalists Need To Read and Understand Before 'They' Burn Them (p.255-260), about Novick's book The Holocaust in American Life:

Voici un extrait de la lettre que Wiesel a écrite en opposition à Carter qui tenait à ajouter cinq million de non-juifs au nombre établi par les sionistes de "six millions de victimes juives de l'Holocauste":

"The Shoah is woven, to varying degrees, into almost all of Israel's political arguments; over time, we have taken the Shoah from its position of sanctity and turned it into an instrument of common and even trite politics. It represents a past that is present, maintained, monitored, heard and represented." (The Holocaust is Over, We Must Rise From Its Ashes, Avraham Burg)

"We must admit that present-day Israel and its ways contribute to the rise in hatred of Jews.  The responsibility for anti-Semitism is not our, yet the mere existence of Israel is a thorn in the side of those who do not like us and requires more serious investigation and discussion than the shallow notion that “the world is against us no matter what we do.” " (The Holocaust is Over, We Must Rise From Its Ashes, Avraham Burg)
"Israel accentuates and perpetuates the confrontational philosophy that is summed up in the phrase, ‘The entire world is against us.’ I often have the uneasy feeling that Israel will not know how to live without conflict. An Israel of peace and tranquility, free of sudden outbreaks of ecstacy, melancholy, and hysteria will simpl not be. In the arena of war, the Shoah is the main generator that feeds the mentalities of confrontation and catastrophic Zionism." (The Holocaust is Over, We Must Rise From Its Ashes, Avraham Burg)

August 17, 1999
Vexing NewBook

THE HOLOCAUST IN AMERICAN LIFE By Peter Novick. 373 pp. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. $27.
In his vexing new book, "The Holocaust in American Life," Peter Novick proposes to look at such questions as why has the Holocaust "come to loom so large" in contemporary American culture, what its cultural visibility says about American Jews and American society at large and what consequences its heightened place in our collective memory has on our thinking and our foreign policy. In addressing such issues, Novick, the author of "The Resistance Versus Vichy: The Purge of Collaborators in Liberated France" and a founder of the University of Chicago's program in Jewish studies, takes a willfully contrarian attitude toward the Holocaust and those he dismissively refers to as "Holocaust-memory professionals."
NovickHe argues that there are no "useful" lessons to be drawn from the Holocaust, and he suggests that the high level of Holocaust awareness in American society stems in large measure from decisions made by Jews who "occupy strategic positions in the mass media" -- remarks that echo assertions made by revisionist historians who play down the Nazi crimes of World War II.
Throughout this book, Novick contests the view that the United States should have done more during World War II to help the Jews, arguing that such "guilt talk" has simply provided useful leverage in persuading Americans that they have a continuing obligation to support Israel. He argues that the question of Allied bombing of the railway lines to the Nazi concentration camps "can be dismissed immediately," because "massive experience" taught us that "bombing rail lines was hardly ever effective," and adds that there were "dim practical possibilities" for other rescue attempts of the Jews.
As for the question of why the United States did not ease its restrictive prewar immigration policy to allow more Jews sanctuary, he writes that America was "still not out of the Depression, with unemployment still high" and that "anti-immigration sentiment was so strong in Congress and among the general public that to open the question for debate seemed likely to worsen rather than to ease conditions; better to leave bad enough alone."
For the first 20 years or so after World War II, Novick observes, the Holocaust was "hardly talked about": survivors were encouraged not to look back but to look forward to building new lives, and the upbeat, universalist Zeitgeist of those postwar years made the Holocaust "an inappropriate symbol of the contemporary mood." In addition, he says, the Cold War -- which taught that the Soviet Union, not Germany, was the new enemy, and totalitarianism, not Nazism, the great evil -- made "the Holocaust the 'wrong atrocity"' for purposes of galvanizing this new thinking.
EichmannIn the 1960s, all this began to change, as the Eichmann [left] trial raised consciousness of the Holocaust "as an entity in its own right, distinct from Nazi barbarism in general." The anxious prelude to the Six-Day War of 1967 fed fears of a renewed Holocaust among American Jews -- fears heightened further during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, which left many with the image of an isolated and vulnerable Israel.
"After 1967, and particularly after 1973," Novick writes, "much of the world came to see the Middle East conflict as grounded in the Palestinian struggle to, belatedly, accomplish the U.N.'s original intention. There were strong reasons for Jewish organizations to ignore all this, however, and instead to conceive of Israel's difficulties as stemming from the world's having forgotten the Holocaust. The Holocaust framework allowed one to put aside as irrelevant any legitimate grounds for criticizing Israel, to avoid even considering the possibility that the rights and wrongs were complex."
While concerns about Israel's security declined in the 1980s and 90s, Novick says, the Holocaust became more of a focal point for American Jews during those same years because it "offered a substitute symbol of infinitely greater moral clarity" than the problematic Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At the same time, he suggests, the rise of identity politics and the "culture of victimization" made it acceptable, even fashionable, for American Jews "to embrace a victim identity based on the Holocaust." In his view, the Holocaust became "virtually the only common denominator of American Jewish identity in the late 20th century" as assimilation and intermarriage led to a thinning sense of Jewish commitment among the young.
It is Novick's startling contention that while "there's nothing wrong with the affirmative lessons the Washington Holocaust Museum attempts to teach," such lessons "seem, if not useless, hardly necessary." He argues that the very extremity of the Holocaust and "the extremity of the circumstances in which it unfolded" seriously "limit its capacity to provide lessons applicable in our everyday world," adding that "an unintended consequence of our making the Holocaust our central symbol of atrocity" may in fact be a "desensitization" to other cases of mass death.
In support of this theory, he notes that the Persian Gulf war was motivated by geopolitical considerations, not moral outrage, and that the 1994 Rwandan genocide elicited "not the slightest will in American political circles for any U.S. intervention." He does not address the Kosovo crisis at all (though his book may have well gone to press before NATO air strikes began).
Although Novick has some useful things to say about the dangers of dwelling in the memory of oppression, although he can be eloquent on the sectarian use of the Holocaust as an easy moral touchstone, such observations are completely overshadowed by this volume's deliberate cynicism. Novick writes that survivors' memories "are not a very useful historical source." He glibly tosses around phrases like "the gold medal in the Victimization Olympics" and "Jewish moral capital." He asserts that for Jewish organizations intent on capturing the attention of a younger generation, "the Holocaust looked like the one item in stock with consumer appeal."
This flippant tone reflects Novick's determination to not merely demystify the Holocaust, but to diminish its place in the collective imagination. While he argues that Hitler would triumph if Jews were "to tacitly endorse his definition" of them "as despised pariahs by making the Holocaust the emblematic Jewish experience," the words of the scholar Emil Fackenheim remain a potent warning of the real dangers of forgetting the past: "We are commanded [to remember] the martyrs of the Holocaust, lest their memory perish," he declared in 1967. "We are forbidden . . . to deny or despair of God . . . lest Judaism perish. . . . To abandon any of these imperatives, in response to Hitler's victory at Auschwitz, would be to hand him yet other, posthumous victories."

Ex-Knesset speaker confirms Israel’s possession of nukes

"L'Holocauste" on en a assez et vous les juifs devriez décrocher une fois pour toute. C'est rendu maladif votre affaire...

Holocaust memorial Yad Vashem was already being planned in 1942

Posted by editor in Uncategorized on February 2, 2014
During the mass murder of Jews in Europe, one man had already a vision of a Holocaust memorial in the Holy Land.
Read the rest of this entry »


Norman Finkelstein

  • The Holocaust in American Life by Peter Novick
    Houghton Mifflin, 320 pp, £16.99, June 1999, ISBN 0 395 84009 0
The Holocaust is more central to American cultural life than the Civil War. Seventeen states either demand or recommend Holocaust programmes in their schools; many colleges and universities have endowed chairs in Holocaust Studies; hardly a day goes by without a Holocaust-related story appearing in the New York Times. Polls show that many more Americans can identify the Holocaust than Pearl Harbor or the atomic bombing of Japan. Consider the media attention given to Daniel Goldhagen’s Hitler’s Willing Executioners, published in 1996 and hailed as Time’s ‘most talked about’ book of the year. It has become an international bestseller and its author has become a ubiquitous presence on the Holocaust ‘circuit’.
In A Nation on Trial, a book written with Ruth Bettina Birn, I sought to expose the shoddiness of Goldhagen’s book. Birn, an authority on the archives Goldhagen consulted, first published her critical findings in Cambridge University’s Historical Journal. Refusing the journal’s unprecedented invitation for a side-by-side rebuttal, Goldhagen instead enlisted a London law firm to sue Birn and Cambridge University Press for ‘many serious libels’. Demanding an apology, a retraction and an undertaking that Birn not repeat her criticisms, Goldhagen’s lawyers then threatened that ‘the generation of any publicity on your part as a result of this letter would amount to a further aggravation of damages’. Soon after my own critical findings were published in New Left Review, Henry Holt agreed to publish both essays as a book. The forward warned that Holt was ‘preparing to bring out a book by Norman Finkelstein, a notorious ideological opponent of the State of Israel’. Alleging that ‘Finkelstein’s glaring bias and audacious statements ... are irreversibly tainted by his anti-Zionist stance,’ the head of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, called on Holt to drop publication of the book: ‘The issue ... is not whether Goldhagen’s thesis is right or wrong but what is “legitimate criticism” and what goes beyond the pale.’ ‘Whether Goldhagen’s thesis is right or wrong,’ one of Holt’s senior editors Sara Bershtel replied, ‘is precisely the issue.’ Elan Steinberg, the executive director of the World Jewish Congress, pronounced Holt’s decision a disgrace: ‘If they want to be garbagemen they should wear sanitation uniforms.’ ‘I have never experienced a similar attempt of interested parties to publicly cast a shadow over an upcoming publication,’ Michael Naumann, the president of Holt, later recalled.
Even after our book’s publication, the assaults did not relent. Goldhagen alleged that Birn, who has made the prosecution of Nazi war criminals her life’s work, was a purveyor of anti-semitism, and that I was of the opinion that Nazism’s victims, including my own family, deserved to die. Such a reaction is typical of the way that American Jewry now approaches the Holocaust.
Until the late Sixties, however, the Holocaust barely figured in the life of America, or of America’s Jews. As Peter Novick remarks, between the end of World War Tow and the late Sixties, only a handful of books and films touched on the subject. Jewish intellectuals paid it little attention. No monuments or tributes marked the event. On the contrary, major Jewish organisations opposed such a memorialisation.
Fear of alienating Gentiles by emphasising the distinctiveness of Jewish experience was always a problem for American (as well as European) Jews, and during the Second World War had inhibited efforts to rescue Jews in Europe. ‘Throughout the Fifties and well into the Sixties,’ Novick reports, the American Jewish Committee, Anti-Defamation League and other groups ‘worked on a variety of fronts’ to dispel the image of Jews as disloyal. The priority for these organisations was not to provide reminders of the Holocaust or to voice support for Israel but to support the US in the Cold War.
Although they eventually embraced the Zionist-led campaign for Jewish statehood in the aftermath of World War Two, mainstream Jewish organisations closely monitored signals coming from Washington and adjusted to them. Indeed, it seems that the AJC supported the founding of Israel mainly from fear that a domestic backlash might ensue if the Jewish displaced persons in Europe were not quickly settled. From early on, these organisations harboured profound misgivings about a Jewish state. Above all they feared that it would lend credence to the ‘dual loyalty’ canard. Moreover, in the years after its founding in 1948, Israel did not figure prominently in American strategic planning. To secure US interests in the Middle East, successive administrations balanced support for Israel and for Arab élites. Israel was only one of America’s several regional assets and Jewish organisations kept in step with US policy.
Novick convincingly argues that American Jews ‘forgot’ about the Holocaust because Germany was an American ally in the Cold War. The editor of Commentary urged the importance of encouraging Jews to develop a ‘realistic attitude rather than a punitive and recriminatory one’ towards Germany, which was now a pillar of ‘Western democratic civilisation’.
In contrast, Israel’s allegiances in the Cold War were less clear-cut. American Jewish leaders voiced concern that Israel’s largely East European, left-wing leadership would want to join the Soviet camp. Although Israel soon aligned itself with the US, many Israelis in and out of government retained strong affections for the Soviet Union. Predictably, Jews in America who weren’t on the Left preferred to keep Israel at arm’s length.
From the start of the Cold War, the mainstream Jewish organisations were eager for the fray. Faced with a stereotype of Jews as Communists or Communist sympathisers, they did not shrink from sacrificing fellow Jews on the altar of anti-Communism. The AJC and ADL provided government agencies with access to their files on alleged Jewish subversives and played an active part in the McCarthy witch-hunt. Before she became the doyenne of Holocaust studies, Lucy Dawidowicz kept tabs on Jewish Communists for the American Jewish Committee. Of the Rosenbergs she wrote in New Leader that one could not support the death penalty for Hermann Goering and oppose it for Jewish spies. The AJC stood aloof from the campaign to grant the Rosenbergs clemency. Anxious to boost their anti-Communist credentials, the majority of Jews who could expect to have their opinions listened to turned a blind eye as former members of the SS entered the country.
Conducting a survey on ‘American Judaism’ in 1957 the sociologist Nathan Glazer reported that the Holocaust made little impression on the lives of American Jews. Novick is right to give short shrift to the standard explanation for this: that, traumatised by the event, Jews ‘repressed’ the memory of it. In fact, as he says, those Jewish survivors of Hitler’s Europe who had arrived recently ‘wanted to talk about their Holocaust experiences and were discouraged from doing so’. [TO READ THE OTHER 3/4 OF THIS ARTICLE: BUY THIS REVIEW.]

PDF - Moral Philosophy and the Holocaust

PDF - The Holocaust in American Life. By Peter Novick
(Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1999. Pp. 1, 373. Cloth, $27.00)
In this engaging and important study, Peter Novick undertakes two primary tasks: to offer an historical account of how the Holocaust became such a prominent feature of American cultural and political life, and to question the widely held assumption that this prominence is an inherently good thing. In addition to these goals, Novick seeks to debunk the claim that the Holocaust stands apart from other atrocities as a unique purveyor of moral lessons. Indeed, he takes his case one step further by contending that, in the end, the Holocaust may actually offer no moral lessons at all. …

Régine Azria

Boston-New York, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1999, 373 p. (index)
Pagination de l’édition papier : p. 116-117
À l’origine de cette étude, une question : comment expliquer la place tenue par l’holocauste dans la vie publique américaine ? Depuis son ouverture en 1993, le Musée de l’Holocauste de Washington, érigé dans un espace où sont rassemblés les symboles les plus prestigieux de l’Amérique, voit défiler des millions de visiteurs ; la plupart des villes américaines ont leur monument dédié à la mémoire de cet événement survenu à des milliers de kilomètres des côtes américaines ; des budgets publics considérables lui sont consacrés ; des programmes scolaires obligatoires, des activités de sensibilisation, etc. Voir le film de Spielberg La liste de Schindler est considéré comme un devoir, un acte de piété, quasi obligatoire. Comment en est-on arrivé là, demande P.N., sachant d’une part qu’il n’en a pas toujours été ainsi et que, d’autre part, il n’existe actuellement aucun musée d’envergure nationale comparable rappelant le souvenir de la traite des esclaves ? Pour apporter une réponse à cette question, il a mené une enquête historique serrée. Laquelle révèle que la perception de l’holocauste par les médias, l’opinion, les instances dirigeantes autant que par les juifs américains eux-mêmes, est passée par des étapes on ne peut plus contrastées.
D’abord ignorée ou tue pendant les années de guerre, la véritable confrontation avec l’holocauste se fait au moment de la libération des camps par les troupes américaines. Cependant, les survivants que les G.I’s découvrent ne sont pas majoritairement juifs. Les camps de la mort, plus à l’Est, ont été soit déjà évacués, soit libérés par les troupes soviétiques.
Au sortir de la guerre, l’information sur l’holocauste passe au second plan. Elle est sacrifiée au renversement d’alliance imposé par la guerre froide : l’ancien allié soviétique devient le nouvel ennemi, tandis que l’ancien ennemi, l’Allemagne, tout en se refaisant une place parmi les nations, place d’anciens nazis à des postes importants et suspend, de fait, sa dénazification.
Désormais, Staline supplante Hitler comme figure du diable. Priorité est donnée à la lutte contre le communisme. Les juifs américains, soucieux de présenter une image conforme à l’ethos de leur pays, ne désirent pas se faire entendre sur cette question. L’holocauste reste dans le domaine du discours privé.
Le basculement dans la perception et les comportements s’opère dans les années 1960, avec le procès Eichmann. Avec ce procès et le scandale provoqué par les articles d’Hannah Arendt, avec le débat autour des silences de Pie XII et la sortie de la pièce violemment polémique du dramaturge allemand Rolf Hochhuth, Le Vicaire, les années noires reviennent sur le devant de la scène. C’est là qu’apparaît pour la première fois le caractère spécifiquement juif de l’holocauste. Quant aux heures d’angoisse qui précèdent la guerre des six jours, elles en réveillent le spectre. Cette guerre, et plus encore la guerre de Kippour, révèlent aux juifs et au monde la solitude d’Israël et sa vulnérabilité. Ce qui bouscule et réoriente l’agenda des juifs américains. Désormais, Israël y figure au premier plan. Pour sensibiliser l’opinion et la classe politique et renforcer le soutien de la diaspora, l’holocauste est appelé en renfort pour raviver les mémoires. Pourtant, au fur et à mesure que le conflit israélo-arabe apparaît dans toute sa complexité, l’holocauste prend peu à peu la place d’Israël dans la vie juive américaine. Il devient le symbole non-ambigu de la morale, le plus petit dénominateur commun d’un judaïsme américain socialement et idéologiquement très éclaté, Dieu et Israël étant par trop sujets à polémiques, nous dit l’auteur. De fait, les années 1970 marquent un tournant.
Alertés par la rapidité de l’assimilation, les responsables juifs tirent la sonnette d’alarme et laissent entendre que l’âge d’or serait derrière eux. Ils attisent le spectre d’un supposé retour de l’antisémitisme pour justifier le virage conservateur et la politique de repli qu’ils opèrent, rompant ainsi avec une tradition d’ouverture et de solidarité avec d’autres minorités, dont la minorité noire.
La priorité des années à venir n’est plus à l’intégration mais à la survie identitaire. Après les désillusions de l’après-Vietnam et le reflux du mouvement des droits civiques, l’Amérique est de moins en moins perçue comme une grande famille. Vient le temps des replis ethniques et de la demande de reconnaissance d’entités spécifiques : Noirs, femmes, homosexuels, juifs.
Alors que l’ethnicité invoque l’injustice et l’inégalité de traitement, les juifs, quoique surreprésentés dans les catégories aisées, se refusent à être mis au nombre des « oppresseurs blancs ». En rappelant leur lien avec l’holocauste, ils se réinsèrent dans les rangs des victimes de l’histoire et s’assurent ainsi une victoire facile dans la concurrence à laquelle celles-ci se livrent, loin devant les Indiens, les Arméniens et les Noirs. L’appropriation de la mémoire de l’holocauste s’accompagne d’une exigence de reconnaissance de son caractère exclusif. Tout déni de ce caractère est assimilé à une forme de négationnisme. Cette sacralisation, refusée par les milieux religieux, est essentiellement le fait du grand public juif. C’est ainsi qu’après avoir été marginalisé, l’holocauste se trouve au centre de l’identité juive américaine ; il passe avant la fréquentation de la synagogue, l’étude juive, le bénévolat communautaire, la visite d’Israël, l’observance religieuse. Le Musée en est le symbole, l’image adressée au monde des gentils.
Mais l’enquête de P.N. va plus loin. Que nous apprend-elle ? Depuis les années 1970, l’holocauste ne concerne plus seulement la mémoire des juifs américains mais la mémoire américaine, notamment grâce à l’influence des juifs dans le cinéma et les médias et au travail de sensibilisation qu’ils effectuent. En 1978, la diffusion de la série télévisée Holocaust fait l’effet d’un électrochoc. Jusqu’en Allemagne, où sa diffusion brise le silence autour du passé et de la période nazie. En même temps que la polémique s’installe autour de la « trivialisation » de la shoah, les émissions et les fictions sur le sujet se multiplient et interdisent désormais d’ignorer ce passé.
Cette sur-information prétend déboucher sur des « leçons » à tirer de ce passé. P.N. doute de l’efficacité de telles leçons. Elles lui paraissent d’autant plus inutiles qu’elles sont contradictoires. Ce que confirment les témoignages des survivants.
P.N. ouvre et clôt son ouvrage en faisant référence à Halbwachs. Il fait remarquer que les mémoires collectives qui reposent sur des communautés stables sont plus longues que d’autres.
Or l’espérance de vie des mémoires dans la société d’aujourd’hui apparaît très diminuée. Non seulement le rôle des survivants dans la transmission est essentiel, en raison de son pouvoir de dramatisation, mais une mémoire collective n’a de chances de se transmettre que dans un contexte où le passé participe à la fabrication du présent, où il alimente les controverses et les conflits, où les conditions qui l’ont rendu possible sont toujours là, comme l’oppression ou l’exil.
Il demeure que, quel que soit son degré d’institutionnalisation et les efforts entrepris en ce sens, l’holocauste n’appartient pas à la mémoire collective de l’Amérique. Il n’apporte pas aux Américains de réponse quant à leur identité. Il en apportera moins encore aux générations futures constituées en nombre croissant de Noirs, d’Asiatiques, d’Hispaniques. P.N. a le sentiment que le discours sur l’holocauste a surtout permis de détourner l’attention du public américain d’enjeux de mémoires plus directs et plus proches. Il met en garde de ne pas devenir prisonniers de choix tactiques passés. L’avenir offre de nouvelles possibilités pour définir l’identité qu’il convient de ne pas manquer. Gageons que cette sage mise en garde ne vaut pas que pour l’Amérique.
Référence(s) :
NOVICK (Peter), The Holocaust in American Life, Boston-New York, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1999, 373 p. (index)

Le texte ci-dessous est extrait du testament politique d’Adolf Hitler (février 1945) :
Les Juifs ont toujours suscité l’antisémitisme. Les peuples non juifs, au cours des siècles - et des Egyptiens jusqu’à nous - ont tous réagit de la même manière. Un moment arrive où ils sont las d’être expoités par le Juif abusif. Alors ils s’ébrouent comme l’animal qui secoue sa vermine. Ils réagissent brutalement, ils finissent par se révolter. C’est là une façon de réagir instinctive. C’est une réaction de xénophobie à l’égard de l’étranger qui refuse de s’adapter, de se fondre, qui s’incruste, qui s’impose et qui vous exploite. Le Juif est par définition l’étranger inassimilable et qui refuse de s’assimiler. C’est ce qui distingue le Juif des autres étrangers : il prétend avoir chez nous les droits d’un membre de la communauté tout en demeurant Juif. Il considère comme un dû cette possibilité de jouer simultanément sur les deux tableaux, et il est seul dans le monde à revendiquer un aussi exorbitant privilège.
Le National-socialisme a posé le problème juif sur le plan des faits : En dénonçant la volonté de domination mondiale des Juifs, en s’attaquant à eux systématiquement, dans tous les domaines, en les éliminant de toutes les positions usurpées par eux, en les traquant partout avec la volonté bien établie de laver le monde allemand du poison juif. Il s’est agi pour nous d’une cure de désintoxication indispensable, entreprise à la dernière limite, sans quoi nous eussions été asphyxiés et submergés.
Réussissant cette opération en Allemagne, nous avions des chances qu’elle fit tache d’huile. Cela était même fatal, car il est normal que la santé triomphe de la maladie. Les Juifs furent aussitôt conscients de ce risque, et c’est la raison pour laquelle ils décidèrent de jouer leur va-tout dans la lutte à mort qu’il déclenchèrent contre nous. Il leur fallait abattre le national-socialisme à n’importe quel prix, la planète dû t-elle être détruite. Aucune guerre n’a été aussi typiquement que celle-ci, ni aussi exclusivement, une guerre juive.
Je les ai en tout cas obligés à jeter bas le masque. Et même si notre entreprise se solde par un échec, cet échec ne saurait être provisoire. J’aurai ouvert les yeux du monde sur la réalité du péril juif.
Une des conséquence de notre attitude, c’est que nous avons rendu le Juif agressif. Or il est moins dangereux sous cette forme qu’à l’état sournois. Mieux vaut cent fois le Juif qui avoue sa race, que le Juif honteux qui prétend ne différer de nous que par la religion. Si je gagne cette guerre, je mets un terme à la puissance juive dans le monde, je la blesse à mort. Si je perds cette guerre, cela n’assure pas d’avantage leur triomphe - car, eux, ils en perdraient la tête. Ils pousseraient l’arrogance à un tel degré qu’il provoqueraient par la même le choc en retour. Ils continueraient, bien entendu, de miser sur les deux tableaux, de revendiquer dans tous les pays les avantages des nationaux, et sans renoncer à l’orgueil de demeurer de surcroît les membres de la race élue. Ce serait la fin du Juif honteux, remplacé par le Juif glorieux - aussi puant que l’autre, sinon plus. En sorte que l’antisémitisme ne saurait disparaître, les Juifs eux-mêmes l’alimentant et le ranimant sans cesse. Il faudrait que la cause disparût pour que disparût la réaction de défense. L’on peut faire confiance aux Juifs. L’antisémitisme disparaîtra qu’avec eux.

See: The Myth of German Villainy:

Is Germany the Ultimate ‘Rogue Nation’?

A TBR review of the new book The Myth of German Villainy
By Michael Collins Piper
Benton L. Bradberry’s The Myth of German Villainy is a book about which this reviewer can absolutely say, “I wish I’d written it myself.” The other thing that can be said with certainty about The Myth of German Villainy is this: Every American patriot needs to read this book, particularly those who have—quite unsurprisingly—bought into a lot of the nonsense about 20th century history pawned off by the controlled media and bought-and-paid-for historians shilling for the New World Order elite. Much of their nonsense has managed to find its way even into the “alternative” media (particularly on the Internet) today.
A United States naval officer and aviator for 22 years with a degree in political science and international relations from the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey, Bradberry has given readers a fast-moving, fascinating and well-written 440-page masterwork that accomplishes what few books can do. It deconstructs a complex and wide-ranging array of historical data (covering a broad expanse of time) and makes it accessible and interesting. More importantly, it explodes the lies and propaganda about the subject matter that has predominated in the mass media for what has now been several generations.
Scholarly—but nonetheless straightforward and easy to read—this is a comfortable book about many uncomfortable topics, precisely because it constitutes a comprehensive, head-on correction of the multiple historical distortions and outright lies that have accompanied standard “mainstream” and now even “alternative” writings on this subject.
And before more sensitive readers get too excited and sidetracked, let it be said right up front that The Myth of German Villainy is not a book about “the Holocaust” and whether it did—or didn’t—happen as New World Order-sponsored history books claim. Instead, this book focuses on the often-forgotten bigger picture: the perennial mischaracterization of Germany as the 20th century’s most audacious warmonger, an aggressive, armed colossus bent on conquest of Europe, if not the world itself.
While everyone today “knows”—having been told so repeatedly—that Germany under Adolf Hitler was the big, bad bully who started World War II, few remember (if they ever knew it in the first place) that the same people who decided Germany was guilty of causing the Second World War had also declared that Germany was responsible for provoking the First World War.
However, in The Myth of German Villainy, the author skillfully dissects a remarkable and complex conglomeration of diplomatic intrigue and global power politics at its highest and lowest order. He demonstrates, beyond any question, that Germany was the real victim of both World War I and World War II. Rather than being the instigator of war, Germany was instead the target of British aggression, precisely because the “new Germany” that arose under Hitler stood in direct challenge to the aims of imperial Britain, which had for all intents and purposes emerged as the global arm of the would-be world empire of the Rothschild banking family based in the City of London.
It’s all about money. And if you follow the money, it will take you right back to the international intrigues of the Rothschilds and their propagandists in the controlled media who have done so much to stilt the truths about history that Bradberry bends back into reality.
Among other things, the author accurately summarizes life in Germany under Hitler—the truth about which is far from the average depiction of a Gestapo-run tyranny, a popular (and quite mythical) image unfortunately perpetuated in a lot of “patriot” publications today.
Bradberry also delves into the ugly history of communism and how that failed system—at its pinnacle—was responsible for so much war and bloodshed that set the stage for Germany’s front-line challenge to this rampaging force that posed a direct challenge to the very survival of Western Christian Civilization.
There is much more that could be said about this wonderful book, but let this final point be noted: As an honest, objective primer on the long-hidden realities of 20th-century history as it relates to the events of both world wars—and their aftermath—you will search far and wide to find anything that does such a fine job in bringing history into accord with the facts.
Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and the U.S.

Get Your Copy of the January/February 2014 Issue of TBR
By Michael Collins Piper
The January/February issue of THE BARNES REVIEW is a very special issue of THE BARNES REVIEW. Why? There aren’t many magazines anywhere—maybe we should say “there aren’t any magazines anywhere”—that would take the position that Adolf Hitler, rather than being a monstrous mass murderer, was in fact a hero to his people.
Well, TBR takes that position, without hesitation and with no apology. And the reason for that is that no apology is necessary.
The truth is on TBR’s side and—as the wide-ranging material in this issue clearly demonstrates—the truth about Hitler and Third Reich Germany (both from a domestic standpoint and within the context of Germany’s role in global affairs prior to and during World War II) is far different fromwhat has been painted by the mass media and academia.
There’s much more to the story than just “the Holocaust”—that recurring mantra to which we are subjected on a relentless basis (and which TBR quite regularly addresses froma Revisionist standpoint,much to the dismay of those who worship at the altar of the Holocaust Industry)—and this issue of TBR tries to fill in some of the many missing pieces of the puzzle in the bigger picture.
That’s why we are so enthusiastic about this particular “theme” issue: It underscores the critical need for honest reporting about the people and events in history that have brought us to where we are today.
So we are especially interested in hearing from potential readers about what we have presented in the pages of this issue—the first issue of volume 20. It is entirely unlike anything they’ll have ever read in any mainstream magazine, newspaper or textbook. And that’s precisely what TBR’s underlying message is all about: Bringing history into accord with the facts and tearing down the wall of lies about history.
To get a copy of this issue for $10, send payment to TBR, P.O. Box 15877, Washington, D.C. 20003 or call 1-877-773-9077 toll free to charge. If you decide to subscribe to TBR after reviewing the issue, we will take $10 off the subscription price of $46 (U.S.) and send you all new issues as they are published (five more issues) for 2014! Mention the ad in AFP issue 6 when responding.

‘Best Ever’—‘Most Controversial’ Issue of TBR Yet?
By Michael Collins Piper
The January/February issue of THE BARNES REVIEW is a very special issue. Why? There aren’t many magazines anywhere—maybe we should say “there aren’t any magazines anywhere”—that would take the position that Adolf Hitler, rather than being a monstrous mass murderer, was in fact a hero to his people.
Well, TBR takes that position, without hesitation and with no apology. And the reason for that is that no apology is necessary.
The truth is on TBR’s side and—as the wide-ranging material in this issue clearly demonstrates—the truth about Hitler and Third Reich Germany (both from a domestic standpoint and within the context of Germany’s role in global affairs prior to and during World War II) is far different from what has been painted by the mass media and academia.
There’s much more to the story than just “the Holocaust”—that recurring mantra to which we are subjected on a relentless basis (and which TBR quite regularly addresses froma Revisionist standpoint,much to the dismay of those who worship at the altar of the Holocaust Industry)—and this issue of TBR tries to fill in some of the many missing pieces of the puzzle in the bigger picture.
That’s why we are so enthusiastic about this particular “theme” issue: It underscores the critical need for honest reporting about the people and events in history that have brought us to where we are today.
So we are especially interested in hearing from potential readers about what we have presented in the pages of this issue—the first issue of volume 20. It is entirely unlike anything they’ll have ever read in any mainstream magazine, newspaper or textbook. And that’s precisely what TBR’s mission is all about: Bringing history into accord with the facts and tearing down the wall of lies about history.
To get a copy of this issue for $10, send payment to TBR, P.O. Box 15877, Washington, D.C. 20003 or call 1-877-773-9077 toll free to charge. If you decide to subscribe to TBR after reviewing the issue, we will take $10 off the subscription price of $46 (U.S.) and send you all newissues as they are published (five more issues) for 2014! Mention the ad in AFP issue 7 when responding.

Lovin’ on Hitler
Nearly 70 years after Adolf Hitler’s death, you would think the record would be straight on the Third Reich and the Holocaust. After all, few periods in history have been subjected to as much detailed scholarly review as Hitler’s reign.
But then the denizens of The Barnes Review (TBR), a bimonthly journal dedicated to historical revisionism and denial of the Holocaust, aren’t really scholars. So it’s only a mild surprise that they’re now turning themselves inside out to make Hitler into a stand-up guy — the unfortunate victim of a slanderous campaign waged by those who worship at the “altar of the Holocaust industry.”
In TBR’s January/February issue, under the unambiguous title of “In Defense of Adolf Hitler,” the editors have thrown themselves behind the führer with all the enthusiasm of a Better Homes and Gardens special section dedicated to growing the best tulips. But even they understand they’ve crossed a line — a fact that Michael Collins Piper, a contributing editor, concedes in the lead editorial.
“[W]e should acknowledge that many of our new readers may, frankly, be startled by the theme of this issue, which — right up front — declares itself as standing ‘In Defense of Adolf Hitler,’” Piper wrote. “There aren’t many magazines anywhere — maybe we should say ‘there aren’t any magazines anywhere’ — that would take that position. Well, TBR does, without hesitation and with no apology.”
Well, color us unsurprised. When it comes to the distortion of facts in order to manipulate history, TBR remains in a class of its own. And it has pretty well always operated without hesitation or apologies.
Named after Harry Elmer Barnes, a prominent 20th-century anti-Semite and Holocaust denier, TBR was started and is still published by Willis Carto, who also founded the extreme-right Liberty Lobby and the Holocaust-denying Institute for Historical Review. Its mission over 20 years has been to bring “history into accord with the facts” in all kinds of cases. But in reality, it is obsessed with denying the Holocaust and denouncing the alleged evils of Jews. Today, it sells an “official” version of Hitler’s Mein Kampf, along with dubious books like Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence and The Work of All Ages: The Ongoing Plot to Rule the World From Biblical Times to the Present.
TBR even once suggested that Hitler was unfairly overlooked as a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize. Seriously.
Now, with its special issue defending “one of the most misrepresented figures in all of history,” you might expect a nice collection of intriguing questions from TBR’s intrepid editors. When he wasn’t plotting world domination, wasn’t Hitler an avid lover of animals? When he wasn’t dealing with the “Jewish question,” didn’t he have a reputation for being great with kids? What was his personal recipe for Wiener Schnitzel, anyway? They might even have offered an article on Nazi grooming — “The Toothbrush Moustache: Time to Bring it Back?”
But they didn’t. When you look closely, TBR’s defense of the Nazi mass murderer relies on criticizing the enemies of the Third Reich and lionizing Hitler’s programs. There’s an attack on the “air terrorism” of the British. There’s a defense of the “loving and caring” Lebensborn program for unwed mothers, where “pure” Aryan women were encouraged to mate with SS officers and which included the kidnapping of perhaps a quarter million children from their parents.
The same issue also carries “The Hitler Youth Vindicated,” by Daniel W. Michaels, a former Defense Department official who says the paramilitary group merely instructed children in “the promotion of love of country and people; enjoyment of honest and open combat and of healthy physical activity; veneration of ethical and spiritual values; the placing of the common good ahead of individual gain; and the rejection of all values originating from Jewry.”
Still, even TBR admits that Hitler had a drawback.
“His major fault, if he can be criticized for that, is that he cared for and loved his own people, the German working class, who were deprived and robbed of their wealth and capital by the international bankers,” Cassian d’Ornellas, a retired teacher, wrote in one essay. D’Ornellas’ comment comes in an article that contains an important and never-before-reported fact: Contrary to what readers of TBR might think, Hitler was not, in fact, secretly funded by the Rothschilds.

VIDEO - Red Ice Radio: VKC vs Nazi Conspiracy Theories - Hour 2
VIDEO - W.K. WW2 Historian on Joshua Blakeney's NAM

VIDEO - W.K. WW2 Historian - Ethnicity, Nationalism And Pseudo False Flags

VIDEO - W.K. WW2 Historian - The Union Jack

VIDEO - W.K. WW2 Historian - World Menace

VIDEO - W.K. WW2 Historian - Debunking Eustace Mullins Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3

VIDEO - W.K. WW2 Historian - Reichstag Fire And Kristallnacht

VIDEO - W.K. WW2 Historian - The Gleiwitz Incident: Nazi False Flag or Media Hoax? - Hour 1

VIDEO - W.K. WW2 Historian - Mengele Myths and More

VIDEO - W.K. WW2 Historian - Hitler HImmler Uncensored

VIDEO - W.K. WW2 Histroian - Hitler in Argentina?

VIDEO - W.K. WW2 Historian - Hess, Hitler And Swiss Bankers

VIDEO - W.K. WW2 Historian And Heink - Evil Nazis, Yanki Polls and Jewzi Emigration

VIDEO - W.K. WW2 Historian - Anti German Myths And Communist Subversion

Sur ce blog:

Bush, Rockefeller, Rothschild et Hitler

Devoir de mémoire, devoir de faire tomber l'axe Iran-Syrie-Liban

Un humoriste contre le "nouvel ordre mondial" des Terminators nazis qui ont fait taire et tué les pôvres juifs
Le jeu des comparaisons: l'islamisme radical est-il plus proche du nazisme ou des "inglourious basterds"?

Adolf le Grand diffamé par des "nationalistes" -- Y a-t-il un autre homme dans l'histoire, à part peut-être Jésus, qui ait été à ce point calomnié?

Le devoir de mémoire: source de motivation pour Alex Jones dans son combat, fondement du nouvel ordre mondial pour le B'nai Brith

REPÉRÉ: Un saboteur à la tête du "mouvement" pour la vérité

Mise au point sur la désinfo qui circule sur Hitler, les nazis, le nouvel ordre mondial, Bilderberg, etc.

Du mythe des "nazis pro-Israël" et de ceux qui voient des complots partout...

Les nazis ont fait la vie dure aux Rothschild, confisqué leurs avoirs

Le mythe des origines juives d'Hitler

Wikileaks révèle que Bilderberg perçoit le nationalisme comme étant « dangereux »… mais Infowars continue de prétendre que Bilderberg a été fondé par les nazis!

Gertrude Stein, juive: "le Nobel de la paix à Hitler!"

Le chef amérindien David Ahenakew félicitait Hitler

Le jeu des comparaisons: des ressemblances entre la période actuelle et celle précédant l'arrivée d'Hitler au pouvoir

Du mythe des nazis « pantins de la ploutocratie internationale »

Gordon Duff décline l'invitation de Carolyn Yeager sous prétexte qu'elle ignore que la "connexion Bush-nazis"

Duff a tort sur l’Holocauste et les prétendus liens Bush-Hitler

Une contre-vérité tenace: "Prescott Bush, un nazi!"

Jabotinski avait planifié l'assassinat d'Hitler et de hauts dirigeants du IIIe Reich

Waffen SS: le triomphe de la diversité

Pourim: notre ennemi traditionnel a gagné la Seconde Guerre mondiale

La Judée déclare la guerre à l'Allemagne
The Jewish War of Survival

L'Option Samson comme "justice ultime"

Guerres sionistes: vers la délivrance finale

L'Histoire contemporaine: une "fable convenue"

Le plus beau dans nos chères démocraties, c'est qu'on n'a pas à s'inquiéter pour sa liberté d'opinion et d'expression.... N'EST-CE PAS?

Pourquoi Zundel aime tant les États-Unis: un constitutionnaliste conservateur rejette la version officielle de la Seconde Guerre mondiale et dénonce les guerres par proxy du sionisme

Zundel et son avocate Stoltz emprisonnés pour avoir "porté atteinte à la mémoire des morts" en  questionnant la version officielle du 11 septembre

Netanyahou caricaturé le jour de la mémoire de l'Holocauste

Une comique juive au parlement israélien: je ne voulais pas heurter la mémoire de la Shoah en dénonçant le "cancer" de l'immigration africaine en Israël

The Worst Case of Ethnic Cleansing in Western History: The Holocaust of the Russians

La connexion secrète entre la Première guerre mondiale et la déclaration Balfour

Rupert Murdoch dénonce la "guerre contre les Juifs"