The original headline of this article was: ‘The People Who Were Burned to Ashes on Ash Wednesday’
It was Shrove Tuesday, 1945 in the magnificent German art city of Dresden, which was packed with helpless Christian refugees fleeing the Red Army of the Stalinist USSR. Dresden’s native Lutheran and Catholic children, dressed in their festive Saxon folk costumes, were aboard a train taking them home after Mardi Gras parties at different points in the far-flung city.
Still merry from the night’s festivities, they cavorted on the train prior to Ash Wednesday, February 14, and the solemnities that would be observed even in wartime, in memory of the passion and death of Jesus. In the sky Allied fighter planes caught sight of the civilian train and opened fire on the children inside, whose blood was soon pouring out of the wreckage.
This carnage registers almost not at all in the American mind. The holocaust in Dresden, lasting two days and killing at least 100,000 people, like the atomic holocaust in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, usually merits not much more than a few sentences or a single paragraph in the back pages of metropolitan newspapers, unlike “Yom HaShoah (יום השואה) Holocaust Remembrance Day,” in April, which is observed with countless civic, educational and media events, hosannahs, apologies and genuflections, from the Vatican to the White House. The barely remembered German and Japanese victims of Allied war crimes were of the wrong race and religion.
In the spring of 1945, after prosecuting the bombing holocaust against every major German city, and with the end of the Second World War in sight in Europe, Winston Churchill began to consider his reputation in the post-war period, when the 500,000 German innocents he ordered incinerated could come back to haunt him and stain his prestige. On March 28, 1945 he issued a deceitful, back-stabbing memo blaming the mass incineration on his own Bomber Command and by insinuation, upon its commander Arthur Harris, whose force would be denied a post-war campaign medal, and Harris a peerage.
Harris and Bomber Command had been only following Winston Churchill’s explicit orders, yet Churchill attempted to shift responsibility onto the corps of airmen who had suffered among the highest casualties of any branch of the British military.
Churchill, like many others, endeavored to blame Germany for being the first to saturate civilians with terror-bombs —at Guernica in Spain on behalf of Franco’s forces, and in Rotterdam, during the war with Holland. In both cases Churchill stated that thousands had been killed. Even one death is regrettable of course, but less than 100 people were killed in Guernica according to historian David Irving, and less than a thousand in Rotterdam, when the Luftwafe accidentally struck a margarine factory and the flammable liquid burned houses nearby.
Churchill had said “thousands” died in Guernica, and that 30,000 perished in Rotterdam, which is more than what Deborah Lipstadt says died in the two-day inferno in Dresden (the absurdly low figure of 25,000 is now the officially fixed count to which the “news media” comform without deviation).
The Germans had pledged not to be the first to bomb civilian centers in Britain. Churchill had hoped they would carpet bomb London to give him the excuse to silence the large peace movement in England which was dogging him in 1940, at a time when the Germans had not dropped a single bomb on London, almost a year after Britain had declared war on Germany.
The British Prime Minister obtained his pretext toward the end of August, 1940, when a lone, wayward German bomber “lost its way flying up the Thames” river. It had orders to attack an oil refinery, but instead dropped its bombs on London’s East End. No one was killed thankfully, but Churchill was elated.
He had the excuse he needed to massively retaliate against Berlin, knowing Hitler would respond in kind, and that the British peace movement would vanish in the smoke and flames of the “Battle of Britain” and the “Blitz.” Churchill ordered a hundred bombers to attack Berlin. Royal Air Force (RAF) commanders warned him that the Luftwaffe would do the same to London.
At this juncture we pause to contemplate the bloody treason that was at the heart of Churchill’s soul: he wanted as many of his own English civilians in London to die as possible, so he could point to their deaths as the justification for a total war against Germany, and he succeeded in his objective.
Some of the victims of the Allied holocaust in Dresden
To this day the war crime the leaders of Britain and the United States perpetrated in Dresden is justified on the basis of the tired fable that “Germany did it first to Rotterdam and Guernica,” and “Look at the terror the Germans visited upon London.” Nothing that occurred in Guernica, Rotterdam, or for that matter London, begins to even approach the scale of the holocaust that the firebombs of the air forces of Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt inflicted on Dresden.
On September 4, 1940 Hitler gave a speech in which he stated that if the “mad drunkard” Churchill continued to attack Berlin, the Germans were not going to stand by and take it. It was Neanderthal thinking on the führer’s part: you club me over the head and I will club you. Hitler was almost always outfoxed by the clever machinations of the masonic treachery at the heart of Britain’s ruling class.
No matter what Churchill ordered, Hitler should have limited his air campaign to British military sites and munitions factories (the Luftwaffe never bothered to attack the factories that built Britain’s Lancaster bombers).
On September 6 the English people heard the ominous drone of a fleet of Luftwaffe bombers flying up the Thames. Some 3,000 Londoners subsequently died. Now Churchill had what he wanted. You won’t find these facts in the multi-volume history he wrote, or in the pages of the work of the conformist historians. To learn the truth one must read and study the revisionists, particularly the demonized David Irving, the preeminent military historian of World War II in the Atlantic theatre.
Irving’s nemesis, Deborah Lipstadt meanwhile, has taken it upon herself to deny the holocaust casualty figure of 100,000 for Dresden, but God help any one of us who would have the temerity to doubt the Six Million casualty figure of Holocaustianity, or even to apply the word “holocaust” to what happened in Dresden.
I challenge any reader to collect the legacy media’s descriptions of the bombing of Dresden from the 1990s onward and count how many term it a holocaust.
The extent to which we are imprisoned in an Orwellian dystopia of our own making is revealed when we consider the fact that it is regarded as highly insensitive or indeed “anti-Semitic” to violate the self-appointed Newspeak holocaust trademark appropriated by the Holy People, and apply it to the German cities that were incinerated, or to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, even though those war crimes were genuine holocausts by dictionary definition: “Destruction or slaughter on a mass scale, especially caused by fire. Origin: Greek holokauston, from holos ‘whole’ and kaustos ‘burned.”
Even in the liturgy of Holocaustianity it is not decreed that most Judaic victims of the Nazis perished by fire. A half-million German civilians and three-quarters of a million Japanese civilians (including the victims of the fire-bombing of Toyko), were indeed burned to death, yet it is a thought crime to say so. Tell me we are not all cowards for allowing truth itself to be forbidden. We live in Talmudic times.
This writer is sometimes accused, as a researcher in the field of the Babylonian Talmud, of seeing the Talmud where it is not. It is not so much the Talmudic texts themselves that we observe in our society, but the results of their influence. The single most remarkable dimension of Talmudic halacha is its narcissistic exceptionalism, born of the self-worship it inculcates.
Prof. Lipstadt, who has made an career out of stigmatizing anyone who doubts any aspect of the “Holocaust” narrative, as a diabolic “Holocaust denier,” is free to deny, without negative consequences, the holocaust in Dresden, because of her exceptional status as one of the Holy People. She may do as she likes with history, in ways that the rest of us may not. For that reason alone we cannot respect the religion of Holocaustianity.
It is not history. It is a product of Talmudic megalomania. Few of us tolerate fanatical egoism from Catholics, Protestants or Muslims. The very idea raises our secular indignation and “Separation of Church (or Mosque) and State!” is our cry, in the face of it. But to shout “Separation of Synagogue and State!” in nations where Holocaustianity is the last truly believed state religion in the otherwise agnostic West, would be unthinkable for anyone who valued their reputation, employment, personal safety, or in Europe, freedom from incarceration.
Beyond the “Jew and gentile” entanglement is the fratricide: Churchill and his top military circle were not Judaic, yet they set afire the medieval cities of their German cousins, who only two generations before had comprised the royal blood within the House of the German-speaking Queen Victoria.
A thousand years of national and religious wars in Europe had not managed to wreak the destruction which Mr. Churchill and U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt directed against the cultural treasure houses of western civilization, in cities like Dresden. They tossed a match into Dresden as casually as a drooling meth addict would torch an apartment building for revenge on the landlord who had evicted him.
Yet “conservative Christian” American university professors and administrators in institutions of higher learning such as Michigan’s esteemed Hillsdale College, which is the recipient of millions of dollars in donations from “Conservatives” seeking to preserve western civilization, have hallowed Churchill into a paragon of decency, courage and western leadership. This view of this mass murdering vandal is such a defect of vision as to be fatal spiritually, culturally and politically on a national scale.
If the powers that be decided, for example, that Russia needed to be fire-bombed, given sufficient pretext our “Conservatives” would do it all over again in the name of “civilization.” The blood of the innocent in Moscow and St. Petersburg would signify no more to the Hillsdale College type of crusaders than the charred bodies of the civilians in the apocalyptic wreckage of Dresden.
American civilization in 2018 is not worthy of the name. We have the illusion of a civilization, which we cherish for our own aggrandizement and nostalgia. “Conservative” America has made common cause with the Talmudic mentality, as did Antonin Scalia, another of its plaster saints.
At the start of Lent 2018, seventy-three years after the Allies’ mass murder in Dresden, we inhabit the money changer’s house, where Christ on the Cross is sold not just for a buck, but for a bucket of Talmudic vindication.
Source: The Unz Review
Rule number one of ‘Fight Club’ in China: The police always win | USA
The first rule of Fight Club in China is that the police always beat the criminals. The second rule is that buildings are not demolished. And the third is that if the ending is considered unsuitable, change it.
David Fincher’s 1999 cult film, which was shown just once in Chinese theaters during an edition of the Shanghai Film Festival, is now available on tech giant Tencent’s streaming services in China. But with a different outcome. Warning this article contains spoilers.
In the original, the narrator, played by Edward Norton, has just “killed” his imaginary alter ego, Tyler Durden, played by Brad Pitt, and watches the explosion of several nearby buildings with his girlfriend Maria, played by Helena Bonham-Carter. The anarchist revolution advocated by Durden is underway.
In Tencent’s version, on the other hand, there are no explosions and no scenes of Tyler and Maria holding hands as they watch the destruction. Instead, the screen turns black and writing appears, explaining that the police “arrested all the criminals, successfully preventing the bomb from exploding.” According to this alternative ending, Durden is sent to a psychiatric hospital, from which he is released in 2012. Screenshots of the new ending went viral last weekend in China, with comments mocking the changes. Although the film was shown just briefly in movie theaters, many fans have been able to watch pirated versions of the original over the past two decades, and considered the ending one of the film’s fortes.
“When a director comes to present his film in China, people will ask: director, why is your film so avant-garde that it completely dispenses with audiovisual language, ending it instead with just a poster and a story about respecting the law? Is it a satire on censorship in your country? And the director will answer: What? I filmed that?” wrote one user of Weibo, the Chinese version of Twitter. “Probably everyone in Ocean’s Eleven would also get arrested. And the whole Godfather family, too,” scoffed another. “But the ending was great! A bunch of foreigners in a terrible situation setting off terrorist bombs – a perfect scene to encourage [Chinese] nationalism,” joked another.
It is unclear whether it was Tencent or the film’s original producers who made the changes. On the Chinese movie review platform Douban, the original film is rated nine out of 10 and has 744,000 comments.
China currently has a flourishing movie market, one in which just over 30 foreign films are released on the big screen each year. In fact, it overtook the US market for the first time in 2020, due in part to a quicker recovery from the pandemic. And, according to research portal researchandmarkets.com, it is expected to gross $16.5 billion by 2026, annual growth of 30.1%, with respect to the $3.4 billion in 2020.
Within this market, Fight Club is not the only Hollywood movie to be changed. In 2019, scenes from Bohemian Rhapsody that alluded to Freddie Mercury’s homosexuality were carefully cut out in the Chinese version. While same-sex relationships are not illegal in the world’s second-largest economy, it is considered a sensitive issue and scenes portraying it are often, but not always, removed. Theoretically, they have been banned on television and also on streaming platforms since 2017.
Lord of War (2005) endured a similar fate to that of Fight Club. In its original version, the main character, an arms dealer played by Nicholas Cage, manages to escape prison and resume business. The film alludes to the fact that the five permanent members of the UN Security Council – the US, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China – are the planet’s main arms dealers. But the version for the Chinese market, which is half an hour shorter than the international version, removes the original ending and replaces it with a text stating that the Cage “confessed to all the crimes of which he was officially accused during the trial, and was sentenced to life imprisonment.”
High Court orders man to repay €30,000 awarded over fall on slippery tiles
The High Court has ordered a man who fell on slippery tiles on the porch of his rented council home to pay back €30,000 he received in part compensation.
Mr Justice John Jordan also ordered solicitors who acted for Thomas Keegan (53) to repay €20,000 received in part payment of fees.
The judge made the order in relation to monies paid by Sligo County Council as a condition of being allowed to appeal a €105,000 award made by the High Court in 2017 to Mr Keegan over the accident at his home at McNeill Drive, Cranmore, Co Sligo.
Mr Keegan, who previously worked as a paver, had claimed the slippiness of the terracotta tiling originally installed in the porch, as well as the angle of the porch to face the prevailing wind and rain in Sligo, created a particular hazard.
In 2017, the court found the council was liable and there was no contributory negligence on Mr Keegan’s part.
However, the council was permitted to appeal on the basis of paying €50,000, including the monies to Mr Keegan’s solicitors on his behalf.
Failed to prove
The Court of Appeal (CoA) ordered a retrial and, earlier this month, Mr Justice Jordan found that the plaintiff had failed to prove the council was “in any way responsible” for the accident. He also found it “artificial” for Mr Keegan to suggest he was a visitor to his home, which he rented and occupied.
The case came back before Mr Justice Jordan on Friday for the matter of costs in relation to the second High Court hearing.
Peter Bland SC, for the council, argued his client was entitled to those costs but he had no objection to a stay in the event of another appeal to the CoA. He sought the repayment of the €30,000 for Mr Keegan and the €20,000 for his solicitors given the outcome had been overturned.
John Finlay SC, for Mr Keegan, said he could not oppose the costs order or an order for the return of the monies.
Mr Justice Jordan granted the council its costs for the retrial with the exception of one day’s costs related to the evidence of an expert introduced by the council “who made a difference” to the case.
It was unfortunate the council did not engage this expert at an initial stage in the case and Mr Keegan might have been spared all of this time and expense that followed, he said.
He also ordered the return of the monies paid out but noted that if the council had difficulties with that money being paid as a condition of it being allowed to appeal, it could have appealed that matter itself but it did not.
The court heard the accident occurred on November 18th, 2013, when Mr Keegan was returning home sometime after 5pm after visiting a number of pubs in which he had consumed five pints of Guinness.
He suffered a significant injury to his left ankle, with X-rays revealing a fracture to his left distal tibia and fibula.
The council did not argue the consumption of this level of drink was an act of contributory negligence but argued it as a factor in regard to Mr Keegan’s duty to take reasonable care for his own safety and in his conflicting accounts of how the accident occurred.
Having heard expert evidence, Mr Justice Jordan was satisfied the unglazed tiles did not pose a danger.
Two fans sue Universal for $5 million for cutting Ana de Armas out of ‘Yesterday’ | USA
There are risks to being an actor. A common one is what’s known in the industry as “winding up on the cutting room floor.” You get hired for a project, and based on the script you’ve read and the time that you spend on the set, you assume that you are one of the characters; that is, until the day the movie is released and you realize that your scenes have been cut out entirely.
In the case of the Cuban-Spanish actress Ana de Armas, who featured in the latest James Bond movie No Time to Die and is on an unstoppable path towards Hollywood stardom, it went further than that: she actually appeared in movie trailers advertising Yesterday, a 2019 film by the British director Danny Boyle in which actor Himesh Patel plays Jack Malik, a struggling singer-songwriter who wakes up after an accident into a world where nobody has heard of the Beatles or knows any of their songs, except himself.
Almost three years after Yesterday’s release, two fans of de Armas are suing Universal Pictures for cutting her scenes out of the final version, claiming the studio engaged in “false, deceptive and misleading advertising.”
Conor Woulfe, a 38-year-old resident of Maryland, and Peter Michael Rosza, 44, from California, rented Yesterday on Amazon Prime Video for $3.99 (€3,52). In their federal class action lawsuit, they claimed that they only rented it because they thought De Armas would be in the movie after watching the trailer. In the promotional material, she is depicted as Roxane, a character who becomes a love interest for Malik – that is, until the movie creators realized that this would draw attention away from the main love story between the songwriter and a character played by Lily James.
It is unclear whether the plaintiffs are as interested in De Armas as they may be in the $5 million (€4.5 million) they could take home if a court rules in their favor. The lawsuit states that the case is being brought “individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated.” It also claims that “by paying to view the falsely advertised movie,” the plaintiffs “suffered injury-in-fact and lost money.”
Regardless of the case’s chances, the story illustrates a US penchant for resolving disputes in court with astronomical figures in the balance, as a first step in the conversation.
The entertainment news website Variety, which first reported on the case, noted the resemblance with a 2011 case brought in Michigan by a movie viewer who was disappointed with Drive, by Nicolas Winding Refn, which she expected to be a “high-speed action driving film” but turned out to be a tortured drama about a solitary driver who finally finds the right girl.
Cutting actors out of final versions is nothing unusual. Terrence Malick, the director of Badlands and The Tree of Life, has a habit of hiring more stars than he will later need on the screen. Adrien Brody, for example, showed up for the premiere of the 1998 The Thin Red Line, convinced that he would be one of the main attractions – in the end, he only showed up in a few scenes. But the prize probably goes to To The Wonder, also by Malick: Rachel Weisz, Jessica Chastain, Michael Sheen, Amanda Peet, Barry Pepper and Michael Shannon all wound up on the cutting room floor.
Detached homes see average values up £60k during the pandemic says Halifax
Rule number one of ‘Fight Club’ in China: The police always win | USA
California’s net neutrality law dodges Big Telecom bullet • The Register
The 1915 Armenian Genocide and its Russophobic Origins
What’s artificial intelligence best at? Stealing human ideas | Technology
The Religious Roots of Russia’s Mistrust towards the West
Current1 week ago
Have you overlooked these rental checks or has your landlord?
Global Affairs1 week ago
Macron promises strong EU borders
Culture1 week ago
Planned review of State agencies’ actions dropped in 2018
Current5 days ago
How to pick the right estate agent to sell your home
Global Affairs6 days ago
‘No embargo’ on meetings with Putin, EU says
Global Affairs1 week ago
Lawyers threaten action over new EU gas and nuclear rules
Global Affairs1 week ago
By 2050, a quarter of the world’s people will be African – this will shape our future | Edward Paice
Culture1 week ago
Suspects in UK citing ‘inhuman’ Irish jails to try halt extradition