and the left's antisemitism
revisionism has amounted to an attempt to re-define
"antisemitism" in such a way that it is now being
claimed to be a Nazi phenomenon or invention. That is,
the historical account is being re-written to make the
following claim: that without the Nazis "antisemitism"
would never have happened. And, "antisemitism" is
claimed to have been introduced by the Nazis as if the
Nazis, specifically Adolf Hitler, invented it, and
that it first appeared in Mein Kampf.
Therefore to write about adopting the sentiments
expressed by Hitler in Mein Kampf, can be made to
mean, according to such an historical revisionism,
something that it cannot possibly mean: that being
that, since Hitler invented these sentiments, by
writing such a thing can be said to mean adopting the
theories advocated by Adolf Hitler. Nothing is further
from the truth.
This pertains to the current court case in which
Cripps, assisted by a complicit legal system, has been
accorded the ability to introduce such historical
revisionism into his defamation claim against me and
claim that this revisionist history is instead the
Accepting this revisionism in which pre-Nazi German
antisemitism has been erased, makes it mean that the
sentiments of "antisemitism" expressed by Hitler
(sentiments which were not Hitler's creation, as these
were the sentiments of antisemitism of Germany) that
were expressed by Hitler in Mein Kampf, are Hitler's
own personal sentiments even though this is
historically false - Hitler never had a hand in
The court, in allowing Cripps' claim, is supporting
the revisionist idea that Hitler's sentiments
regarding antisemitism were specifically those of
Hitler, Hitler's own personal creation, when they are
not. On this basis, the court is permitting for it to
be claimed that what I am writing is that the
political Left have adopted "Hitler's 'antisemitism'",
when instead what I wrote of is the adoption by the
left of the sentiment of "antisemitism"
which IS ACTUALLY expressed by Hitler in Mein Kampf,
which is an HISTORIC reality; the point is that the
antisemitism expressed by the political left is the
antisemitism that as a matter of history has been
expressed by Hitler - and that knowledge
of what Hitler wrote is unnecessary for someone to
have adopted those sentiments that have been
expressed by Hitler in Mein Kampf.
I write in New Left Nazis
large number of the "conscientious" Left are
(or claim to be) oblivious to what Hitler
actually wrote, but denounce him for for
what they claim is his racism. Nevertheless,
this "conscientious" Left have adopted what
Hitler wrote in the Mein Kampf, and express
these very same sentiments as a
demonstration of the sincerity of their good
Hitler and the Nazis were a manifestation of
Left in Australia are a manifestation of antisemitism;
is, the left are a manifestation of the same hatred
that festered in pre-Nazi Germany that produced Adolf
Hitler, and it was this antisemitism (of pre-Nazi
Germany) that was expressed by Hitler in Mein Kampf.
Hitler was therefore a manifestation of (German)
The sentiments of pre-Nazi germany were anti Jewish.
- These anti Jewish sentiments pre-existed the Nazis.
- These sentiments are not predicated on the existence
of Nazis to have come about.
- These sentiments pre-existed Hitler and are not
predicated on Hitler for their existence.
- These sentiments continued to exist after the defeat
of the Nazis.
- These sentiments never disappeared.
- These sentiments are expressed today by the
- It is these sentiments that were expressed in Mein
Kampf by Hitler.
- And, it is these sentiments that the Left have
adopted - in which knowledge of what is written in
Mein Kampf is unnecessary.
The Left refuses to acknowledge that the sentiments
Hitler held and expressed were those of his society
and not Hitler's own personal invention, and that
HITLER WAS A MANIFESTATION OF ANTISEMITISM, not its
Just because someone has not read Mein Kampf does not
make it that their sentiments are not those expressed
in Mein Kampf by Hitler, and does not mean that they
have not adopted the sentiments expressed in Mein
Kampf simply because they have not read it. It means
such people have adopted the sentiment of
antisemitism, and that the same antisemitism was
expressed in Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler and that they
are ignorant of Mein Kampf. It is a matter of history.
Robert Cripps is suing me because he defines himself
by the ideas he holds which I point out had been, as a
matter of history, expressed by Hitler in Mein Kampf
before him. Cripps claims that, as he is defined by
the ideas he holds he can sue me to prevent criticism
of the ideas he holds by claiming that he is defamed
because I can show that Adolf Hitler expressed these
same ideas. Cripps is suing to prevent the criticism
of ideas that he holds. Cripps is suing to protect
ideas from criticism.
Cripps, left, who ran the failed GLG, realised and
accepted he was racist to hate Jews ("self-confessed
racist" means just that). He preferred to call me
"racist" in my critique of Islamic doctrine (the
Koran) because he preferred to blame "the Jews and
their state in Palestine" for a conflict that was
not mentioned in my criticism of religions.
Supporters of the "Palestinian cause" call "racist"
any critic of Islam - as they did recently in
Melbourne, Australia, when they organised
pro-"Palestine" protests against a critic of Islamic
Author: Demetrios Vakras 30 November 2013
are petitioning the Australian government to amend the
Defamation Act of 2005 to make Australian law
consistent with its international obligations.
Support our petition here:http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/the-hon-mark-dreyfus-qc-mp-amend-the-australian-defamation-act-2005