Tuesday, 27 May 2008

Holocaust exhibition for children

Autzwich Concentration Camp

I was just about to turn off the machine and have a life, when I landed on the following disturbing news item about a planned new exhibition aimed at very young children.

The exhibition is about the killings during the second world war of anything up to six million Jews and others considered to be undesirable by the Nazi Government.

Now personally I think that the permanent exhibition at the Holocaust Centre in Laxton, Nottinghamshire is a good idea. However it does not go far enough.

There should be included within the site, an exhibition on the Holocaust against the Russian people by Stalin during which 10 million died. The genocide of the Armenian's by the Turks and the 25 million murdered by Mao Tze Tung.

And what about atrocities such as the Katyn Massacre, where 21,768 Polish Officers and civilians were brutally murdered by the Russian Communists in 1940? The communists did not own up to that little lot until 1989. Until then they continued to cast the blame on the Nazis. Surely crimes like that should also be remembered and the children taught about the evils of Marxism?

Then we have the modern genocide against the people of Darfur by the Moslems that is going on now. Or are we only concerned with one historic holocaust?

All of those Holocausts were terrible events and should be remembered equally, but either way, I am not sure that the age of educating our children about such horrors is when they are nine years old. Especially when the real reason is to plant a little seed of hatred in their minds for the future.

But there is something that concerns me even more. Ed Ball MP, Secretary of State for brainwashing Children, Schools and Families said whilst touring the centre:
"I think it is a really brilliant centre and I am really looking forward to coming back and seeing the exhibition open. This is really relevant to our society today - whether we have the British National Party and racism in our society or whether we have genocide in parts of Africa.
Just what does he mean by that remark about the British National Party? What is he trying to do by linking the fastest growing political party in the country to the events of over 70 years ago?

The British National Party condemns all holocausts and the people who committed them and those that commit them now and I as a member of the BNP and an ex-serviceman find it totally offensive and insulting to be compared to mass murderers from a foreign country that my father fought to remove.

But of course. That is Labours dirty little game. The shameful use of the deaths of six million people to attack the BNP is evil beyond believe. They hope that by repeating such huge lies, that the British Public will associate the patriotic BNP with the evils of the Nazis and turn away from their increasing support for the party.

No, that planned statement by one of the Labour in crowd was more of that dirty Marxist party's infamous spin. For seeing examples of spin in action(American style) check out this site).

Now I am not sure about Ed Balls and his political background but I do know that many of the current top circle of the Liebour Party are "supposedly" ex communists who saw the light. Yeah right.

Remember it is the communists who have been responsible for the terrible deaths of over 25 million people around the world in their drive to create a one world government.

No Labour are the ones linked to an evil political creed bred in a foreign land. The BNP is only concerned with Our Country and Our People with our own political creed. British Nationalism.


Anonymous said...

Putting it bluntly, the rank and file of Jews are ok people, but there is a certain upper echelon which is as hell-bent on being top-dogs as the Moslems are. This upper echelon finds it indispensable to the management of their power base in the rank and file of Jews to paint people like the BNP as being anti-semitic. See Protocol IX of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion which states in part:
"THEIR ANTI-SEMITISM IS INDISPENSABLE TO US FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF OUR LESSER BRETHREN. I will not enter into further explanations, for this matter has formed the subject of repeated discussions amongst us."
I hope that you will publish this comment, as this issue needs to be tackled at some stage, for our survival.

Sir Henry Morgan said...

And since their beginnings, the Muslims have been responsible for something like 270 million violent deaths in THEIR drive to create a one-world government (80 million in India alone).

Plus a minimum of 140 million (and that's not even counting the tens of millions from India - the 140 million is Africa only) enslavements - 90% of which died en-rote back to Arabia because of brutal treatment.

Let's have that in there too, especially as Nazism, Communism etc are now all but gone, but Islam is still beavering away.

Anonymous said...

I think this explains why they must foster hatred towards the nationalist party the BNP.
Read the lines about re-moulding.
Destroying first exactly what we've seen happen to our country.
The sheeps clothing is slipping off and we can see their end game clearly and their true selves..WOLVES.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is a member of the Fabian Society. [1]

The Fabians originally were an elite group of intellectuals who formed a semi-secret society for the purpose of bringing socialism to the world. Whereas Communists wanted to establish socialism quickly through violence and revolution, the Fabians preferred to do it slowly through propaganda and legislation. The word socialism was not to be used. Instead, they would speak of benefits for the people such as welfare, medical care, higher wages, and better working conditions. In this way, they planned to accomplish their objective without bloodshed and even without serious opposition. They scorned the Communists, not because they disliked their goals, but because they disagreed with their methods. To emphasize the importance of gradualism, they adopted the turtle as the symbol of their movement. The three most prominent leaders in the early days were Sidney and Beatrice Webb and George Bernard Shaw. [2] A stained-glass window from the Beatrice Webb House in Surrey, England is especially enlightening. Across the top appears the last line from Omar Khayyam:

Dear love, couldst thou and I with fate conspire

To grasp this sorry scheme of things entire,

Would we not shatter it to bits, and then

Remould it nearer to the heart's desire!

Beneath the line Remould it nearer to the heart's desire, the mural depicts Shaw and Webb striking the earth with hammers. Across the bottom, the masses kneel in worship of a stack of books advocating the theories of socialism. Thumbing his nose at the docile masses is H.G. Wells who, after quitting the Fabians, denounced them as "the new machiavellians." The most revealing component, however, is the Fabian crest which appears Between Shaw and Webb. It is a wolf in sheep's clothing!

Sarah and Gordo both Fabians!!
Mayor Bloomberg of NYC a Fabian.
Bush surrounded by Fabians as was Thatcher..kind of explains why they all look speak and act the same!
We became customers under the Tories instead of patients.
Changing us and all we thought. slowly.


Anonymous said...

I disagree communism is very far from dead calling a spade an egg does not change the spade.
When capitalism quits expanding then it turns towardS fascism.
Nazism Well.That only stands for German Nationalist party..socialism English in German they use a Z.
The one enemy is Nationalism to both communist and capitalist.
Think Yugoslavia.smashed because it offended both it being Nationalist.

In 1900 Socialists and Capitalists both realized there must be some way
to re-order the means of production and society to make consumption
equal to Capitalist production. Socialists and Capitalists alike
understood a very highly evolved form of Capitalism dominating society
must exist before The Flaw of Capitalism could be cured. They realized
this could not happen unless a global Free Trade system existed. They
collectively knew the strongly nationalistic European Aristocracies
(with their own respective domestic Capitalism) and the American
Constitutional Republic stood as major impediments to establishing a
global Free Market Economy. These impediments had to be removed. And
more importantly a unified Capitalism had to be created.

There was only one organization in existence in 1900 that had the
economic, political and social position to make this possible, The
Fabian Society. By the time 1914 rolled around the Fabians, dominated
the English government, American Big Business and Federal government and
the major international worker Socialist organizations (Mensheviks,
Bolsheviks and the Second International).

As World War I raged on, The English government pursued continuing the
war to weaken the European Aristocracies (to include the French Third
Republic). The heavily Fabian dominated Wilson presidency waged war on
the American Constitution. And Fabian English Capitalists in concert
with Fabian American Capitalists financed and politically supported the
Bolsheviks to be prepared to unleash Socialist revolutions at the end of
the war to over throw the European strongly nationalistic Aristocracies.

Just prior to America’s entry into World War I Woodrow Wilson
personally financed the creation of a very secret committee, known as
the Inquiry, to determine U.S. post-WWI policy. This body was under
direct control of the Fabian Mandel House. The organizing secretary was
the Fabian Walter Lippman. By the end of the war this committee created
Wilson’s Fourteen Point Plan for a world government to establish a
format to create an international Free Trade structure. The negotiating
teams for England and America sent to the Versailles Peace talks were
Fabian dominated.

What looked like a “slam dunk” in 1917 turned out to be a complete

The American Senate voted “NO” to this international treaty. Despite
the success of the Fabians in gutting the American Constitution (i.e.
creation of the Federal Reserve, the Income tax and destruction of the
Constitution’s built-in protectionism) the Fabians failed to prepare
America for World government. To correct this failure of policy, should
the opportunity of another devastating war develop, the Fabians created
the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) to ensure future success of
creating an International government.

Anonymous said...

Anyone really wanting to understand the link between Marxism and Christianity, and who Jesus (a good guy) really was, needs to read "Hitler's Table Talk" as published by Oxford University Press in 1998, and also Mein Kampf. Again these are issues which do not affect the rank and file of Jews who are ok people. Again, I hope that you will publish this comment, as it is essential for our survival that people get a clear and proper understanding of history.

Anonymous said...

fascism uses politics as the tool to transform society from atomized individuals into an organic whole. It does so by exalting the state over the individual, expert knowledge over democracy, enforced consensus over debate, and socialism over capitalism. It is totalitarian in Mussolini's original meaning of the term, of "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State." Fascism's message boils down to "Enough talk, more action!" Its lasting appeal is getting things done.

In contrast, conservatism calls for limited government, individualism, democratic debate, and capitalism. Its appeal is liberty and leaving citizens alone.

Goldberg's triumph is establishing the kinship between communism, fascism, and liberalism. All derive from the same tradition that goes back to the Jacobins of the French Revolution. His revised political spectrum would focus on the role of the state and go from libertarianism to conservatism to fascism in its many guises – American, Italian, German, Russian, Chinese, Cuban, and so on.

As this listing suggests, fascism is flexible; different iterations differ in specifics but they share "emotional or instinctual impulses." Mussolini tweaked the socialist agenda to emphasize the state; Lenin made workers the vanguard party; Hitler added race. If the German version was militaristic, the American one (which Goldberg calls liberal fascism) is nearly pacifist. Goldberg quotes historian Richard Pipes on this point: "Bolshevism and Fascism were heresies of socialism." He proves this confluence in two ways.

First, he offers a "secret history of the American left":

Woodrow Wilson's Progressivism featured a "militaristic, fanatically nationalist, imperialist, racist" program, enabled by the exigencies of World War I.
Franklin D. Roosevelt's "fascist New Deal" built on and extended Wilson's government.
Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society established the modern welfare state, "the ultimate fruition" (so far) of this statist tradition.
The youthful New Left revolutionaries of the 1960s brought about "an Americanized updating" of the European Old Right.
Hillary Clinton hopes "to insert the state deep into family life," an essential step of the totalitarian project.
To sum up a near-century of history, if the American political system traditionally encouraged the pursuit of happiness, "more and more of us want to stop chasing it and have it delivered."

Second, Goldberg dissects American liberal programs – racial, economic, environmental, even the "cult of the organic" – and shows their affinities to those of Mussolini and Hitler.

If this summary sounds mind-numbingly implausible, read Liberal Fascism in full for its colorful quotes and convincing documentation. The author, hitherto known as a smart, sharp-elbowed polemicist, has proven himself a major political thinker.

Beyond offering a radically different way to understand modern politics, in which fascist is no more a slander than socialist, Goldberg's extraordinary book provides conservatives with the tools to reply to their liberal tormentors and eventually go on the offensive. If liberals can eternally raise the specter of Joseph McCarthy, conservatives can counter with that of Benito Mussolini.

Dr Dan Pipes.

Fyrdist said...

I respect the fact that the Holocaust has come to light again: the atrocity and mass genocide of innocent men, women and children in one night of STATE TERRORISM should never be forgotten.

A few facts taken from the well-respected “APOCALYPSE AT DRESDEN” by R. H. S. Crossman (Esquire Magazine - November 1963)

1) “Out of 28,410 houses in the inner city of Dresden, 24,866
were destroyed; and the area of total destruction extended
over eleven square miles.”

2) “…even the German authorities -- usually so pedantic in their
estimates -- gave up trying to work out the precise total
after some 35,000 bodies had been recognized, labeled
and buried. We do know, however, that the 1,250,000
people in the city on the night of the raid had been
reduced to 368,619 by the time it was over; and it seems
certain that the death roll must have greatly exceeded
the 71,879 at Hiroshima. Indeed, the German authorities
were probably correct who, a few days after the attack,
put the total somewhere between 120,000 and 150,000.

3) “January 25 was the day when the decision was taken
that resulted in the blotting out of Dresden. Until then,
the capital of Saxony had been considered so famous
a cultural monument and so futile a military target that
even the Commander in Chief of Bombing Command, Air
Marshal Sir Arthur Harris, had given it hardly a thought.”

“A British sergeant estimated the death toll to be 300,000…” http://fpp.co.uk/History/General/Dre...pes050545.html

Why not take a look at how Dresden looked after the carpet bombing of a city WITH NO MILITARY THREAT: http://tippinthescales.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/rotterdam_1940.jpg

Colonel Wilberforce Buckshot said...

Between 1917 and 1948 upwards of 60 million died at the hands of the Bolsheviks. Ten million only accounts for the Ukrainians and Cossacks.

At least equal than number have been butchered in China to date and their slaughter continues apace as people are snatched away and dismantled like old cars to be sold on the organ transplant market.

Only an estimated 8 million jews lived in the whole of Europe in 1933 prior the the 'Judea declares war on Germany' edict which was world front page headlines on the March 24 1933 as Samuel Untermyer called for a worldwide boycott of Germany following the election of Hitler as chancellor on January 30 1933. Several million left Europe after that never to return.

Why do we need a holocaust memorial in Britain when we have never had a holocaust. Unless you count the millions of young British men who have been slaughtered in the fratricidal wars in Europe to keep communism at bay or the countless thousands literally worked to death in mines and mills over the centuries.

What is it that makes the alleged suffering of these people more important, more valid and more heinous that the suffering and persecution of other peoples throughout history?.

What about the millions who were murdered in the killing fields of Cambodia or the unknown numbers of people in the Punjab who were massacred by the Muslims in 1948, the millions of black people who still starve in Sub-Saharan Africa victims of globalist multinationals, where are their holocaust memorials?. To me it all smacks of instilling white guilt into innocent and impressionable young minds. To that end it is reprehensible beyond words.

Pip pip

Fyrdist said...

Fact of the day: parents have the right to remove their children from ANY LESSON THEY DEEM UNSUITABLE. They also have the right to access a copy o the National Curriculum that outlines what the stste suggests should be taught.

To put it simply, people, REMOVE YOUR KIDS from any lesson you disagree with. The school then has to arrange for someone to watch over your child as they sit nice and comfortably in the staff room with a spendid copy of the Readers' Digest's "History of Britain".

When will people realise the power they have and put to use this power?

Anonymous said...



Salford Supporter said...

I hadn't seen Balls's blatant agenda to link the BNP with the Holocaust in the minds of schoolchildren until this report, although I was fully aware that this was the intention behind this 'museum' Certainly gives new meaning to the term 'catch them whilst they're young'!

The 'values' of 'tolerance' which Balls talks of should be strongly challenged because it is nothing more than the ideological indoctrination of the young that is at issue here. The purpose of this venture and it's kind is, by absurd and bogus moral inference, to persuade us to be 'tolerant' and accepting of mass immigration and the presence of large numbers of 'ethnic minorities' in our country else we be guilty of- or be likely to commit - mass murder. It should be hammered home that multi-racialism and 'diversity' is as much an ideological construct as free market liberalism or any other ideology. Yes,surely education should discuss and explore these issues, however this should be in the spirit of enquiry and objectivity. However, what we are seeing here is sheer totalitarianism to impose an ideology or worldview ( in this case multi-racialism in Britain as a political ideal) as being outside and above moral or political questioning or critique.

I have written to The Salford Advertiser in the last few weeks on the proposals by Unison and Salford Council to send school children on visits to Auschwitz yet not, for instance, to Flanders(and they have published !). It is obvious that this is because a visit of British schoolchildren to visit the memorials to our own war dead does not suit the political purposes of the liberal/marxist alliance that stretches from the trade unions and Respect through to the modern day Tory Party. I hope, and would urge, that BNP councillors will be opposing and exposing this outrageous and sinister idoctrination in our schools.

Green Arrow readers will not be surprised to learn, however, that my letter to the Manchester Evening News pointing out that moves to rebrand the Manchester Jewish Museum as 'The National Centre for Tolerance' were rather risible in that we British are expected to be tolerant of eventualy becoming a minority in our homeland due to post war immigration - something which the Jews would never allow to happen to themselves in their own homeland of Israel! - went unpublished.

Anonymous said...

In this letter to the Gruniad "http://tinyurl.com/6a2u62" you will see at least one claim that "No one is suggesting that the Jewish people have a unique right to [Holocaust Memorial] day"

Really ? Because I distincly remember Radio 4 digging up at least one bloke - I suspect it may even have been the Chief Rabbi - saying PRECISELY THAT on air. That the Jewish people had suffered such a UNIQUE persecution that it was ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE that they AND THEY ALONE be remembered on this occasion. However, The Ministry of Truth has long since ensured that such doubleplus ungood rhetotic has been removed from the records. So if anyone has a link to that interview all those years ago, I'd love to see it.

This may be the one and only time that I actualy agree with ANYTHING the Muslim Council Of Britain said or did. Because, before they were persuaded to do a U Turn, they refused to recognise this day for precisely that reason.