But if blackcat can post 'information' about Ann Frank's diary he clearly hasn't even bothered to check out elsewhere, I feel I should be able to make a couple of points in the context of this particular thread and to make a particular point.
But the whole point is that someone else is stating this "information" and I am unaware of whether it is true or not. Like many posts I make I am offering a view which is up for discussion. Since you seem to imply that this "information" is bunk then educate us all by informing us what it is that you know about this and we will all be the wiser. Isn't this what a forum like this is all about or do you support the clampdown on " Holocaust "denial" " which exists in many countries, in spite of your claims to the contrary? You imply that you know something but don't even bother to illuminate us with the truth. Do so instead of bleating that I am wrong. I am often wrongly informed and rely on others to correct me just like on the wingdings thread I was able to correct others about the Q33NY myth. Put me right and spread the truth. _________________ "The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell.
Joined: 22 Mar 2006 Posts: 1107 Location: Free Scotland!
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:09 am Post subject:
Reading about the attacks against Nick by Ms Have-you-read-my-latest-book-Rachel-North I decided to pay a visit to her famous blog and leave my visiting card as it were.
I suggested that as she was intent on attacking an ageing hippy (sorry, Nick, I'm one as well!) on his views about the Holocaust she might be a bit more even-handed by mentioning the more recent Muslim Holocaust of 8 Million deaths. She replied with a long list of things she had done against war but without mention of ever having mentioned Dr Polya's figures.
(As of Saturday 26 April, I note that Aunty Rachel has entirely removed all my comments from her lead article!)
So I challenged her again, asking her how it was possible that she could have missed reading the Polya article, here given sticky status:
She never replied and the specific question was not published. Instead she seems to have got all in a tizz announcing she was off with her beloved for the weekend, saying Bye-bye in a rather snide manner.
You will discover that Rachel NEVER answers questions prefering to respond with unrelated sideswipes.
I am not aware of anything she has done against any war. Everytime she appears on tv or on the radio or in the press she keeps hammering the same Islamophobic line parrot fashion.
After reading many of her posts and her total refusal to engage in issues such as Mossad subsiduary Verint having been awarded the contract to handle London Underground security in 2004 by so called friend of the Palestinians - Ken Livingstone.
It is very aparant that she is what is known as a Christian Zionist just like Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
ps:
Since World War II history was banned on this forum it appears there has been little else but WW2 discussed! _________________
Joined: 22 Mar 2006 Posts: 1107 Location: Free Scotland!
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:44 am Post subject:
Right, all in all she's rather a nasty (damaged?) piece of work, I'd say. Justin is kinder about her, I know. I didn't expect even my first comments to be published but it was convenient for her to have done that before bringing down the guillotine.
In my book, researchers like Nick Kollerstrom should be defended & supported by 911 Truthers for courageously standing up to the Mind Mafia. Here's what Nick has to say in his Paper:
Quote:
Europe needs, more than anything else, a truth and reconciliation forum to get to the bottom of these matters, and to try and exorcise the demonic hate-images. Ever more nations are passing laws that prohibit citizens from expressing doubt - Germany, France, Austria, Poland, Romania, Belgium, Switzerland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Collectively, we need to work through our despair, rage, and ideas of blame, to try and access the real historical record.
and,
Quote:
We are not likely to get important insights unless the ‘thoughtcrime’ penalty is lifted from the German people, and they are allowed to review their own past.
And he is to be applauded for having said that. For too long we have been lied to and brain-washed and it is courageous trail-blazers like our Nick who prepare for us the exits from that ideological pantechnicon.
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 2017 Location: Croydon, Surrey
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:08 am Post subject:
ian neal wrote:
kbo I disagree. If you want to expose the evil oligarchs behind the 'war on terror' genocide arguing the toss over holocaust does not help indeed is extremely counter productive. The unanswered questions of 9/11 and 7/7 are the key issues to focus and in terms of exposing Israel false flag terror issues like USS Liberty or the Lavon affair are far more relevent and less sensitive than holocaust discussion. Surely you can see this?
In a way you're right Ian. Realising the truth about 9/11 induces a huge paradigm shift in the thinking of most people.....
....and this is quite enough to understand the depth of the control exercised over our collective thinking by unknown parties. Then it is up to all of us to try and do something about it.
The contentious issue we are discussion is a powerful element in that mind control. Even if the commonly accepted WWII narrative is completely true this does nothing to minimise the scurrilous way the issue is hammered into our consciousness day-on-day, week-on-week....for (and this is the point) ulterior motives.
If the story were entirely fictional (which {just in case anyone gets the wrong idea} of course it isn't) and its purpose was to consign all genocide and other intra-species violence to the dustbin of history then I'd be all for it. The problem seems to me to be that it serves precisely the opposite purpose.
I am frankly sick of this subject but find it necessary to object when people say it is not important.
Forgive me for pleading personally in my own defense but I believe that I am in no way 'anti-semite'. Most of my personal heroes in the arts and the political arena are (or were) Jewish. The Jewish people, a small group, have been at the very forefront of all human development, the good as well as the bad.
....but they are, understandably, blinder to the malign consequences of holocaust propaganda than we are.
I hope and pray some Jewish people point out the great dangers of what is going on to their own people ....and the rest of us.
Then we might, as a collective entity, really start getting somewhere.
(It might seem prejudiced to say it, but when Jewish people step forward to make a statement, it gets reported in the mass media.....the likes of ourselves will continue to be routinely ignored. Remember last week's shocking but unsurprising story where ex-Israeli soldiers made a big noise about the abuse of Palestinians in Hebron......
......this is just the ways things are.)
......I am not alone in believing that we are all in the process of going down the plughole..........and there isn't much time.
Its not really about questioning the Holocaust as such.
Its about questioning the 'right' to Israels existence.
This cannot be questioned one iota. If it is you will be branded a 'holocaust denier'.
Being a '9/11 conspiraloon' pales into insignificance in being a Holocaust denier. Denying the Holocaust ie questioning it in whatever way one chooses, is the number one cardinal sin. Let us forget all the other Holocausts though, the Late Victorian ones, the Black, Aboriginee, etc.
But if blackcat can post 'information' about Ann Frank's diary he clearly hasn't even bothered to check out elsewhere, I feel I should be able to make a couple of points in the context of this particular thread and to make a particular point.
But the whole point is that someone else is stating this "information" and I am unaware of whether it is true or not. Like many posts I make I am offering a view which is up for discussion. Since you seem to imply that this "information" is bunk then educate us all by informing us what it is that you know about this and we will all be the wiser. Isn't this what a forum like this is all about or do you support the clampdown on " Holocaust "denial" " which exists in many countries, in spite of your claims to the contrary? You imply that you know something but don't even bother to illuminate us with the truth. Do so instead of bleating that I am wrong. I am often wrongly informed and rely on others to correct me just like on the wingdings thread I was able to correct others about the Q33NY myth. Put me right and spread the truth.
That's fair enough, but usually when I challenge what you say you tend not to be very happy about it!
And I was just using you to justify raising Holocaust points.
And where have I ever said Holocaust denial isn't illegal in several countries? I have challenged the notion this means it's somehow more likely to be true.
And when have I ever said anything other than I disagree with a ban on denial?
I do not actually think a forum "like this" is the best place to discuss the Holocaust. I think there are other forums far more appropriate for that. Why would you expect a 911 forum to be the best place to get informed opinion on the Holocaust?
I didn't "illuminate" you because I'm not getting into all that stuff again and because it's very easy for you to do it yourself.
mer-curious wrote:
But we're discussing it! I think NK has stuck his neck out (which may have been a very stupid thing to do) but personally, I admire that kind of bravery.
And what - exactly - are we discussing?
All he has done is post some articles on the internet that have provoked a fairly predictable reaction once certain people eventually noticed them.
He's found himself in a nasty situation and I feel for him as a human being whose life is being turned upside down by things he wrote on the internet (perhaps in a totally well meaning way - I have no way to judge) and which I think are probably being used as much as a means of attacking the TM and this forum in particular (by people who don't like either) as any genuine antipathy to the views he has expressed, but I do not think he is any kind of hero, trailblazer or standard bearer for truth. I think he's at best naive.
A few days ago he was saying -
Quote:
Hi, I note you seem to object to my having defended the proposition that:no German ever put a Jew into a gas chamber. You call that Holocaust Denial, well I’m proud to be associated with it. I’m happy to defend, it any time, any place. It happens to be true!
My statement in that essay cannot be summarised by saying ‘no Jews were gassed’ – which is part of the character-assassination program against me now going round the web for example there could have been loads of carbon-monoxide gassings in lorries or wherever you want them to have happened – traditionally one-third of ‘the Holocaust.
Well a gas van is a kind of gas chamber (and for some reason he's trying to claim gas vans made up a "third of the Holocaust" which he will know is false so is seemingly trying not to mention the static gas chambers of Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka). I know he specifies "that essay", but what he's said in the last few days makes his self-contradiction more striking.
That's on top of what JohnnyVoid pointed out.
That said, Rachel boldly declares -
Quote:
Meanwhile, over in la-la land everyone and anyone criticising Kollerstrom's views is a pro-war Nazi. * Yawn*
Really? Oh well - er...I guess I must think you're a pro-war Nazi then!
Nice to see you're avoiding hysterical blanket accusations.
You pro-war Nazi you!
Quote:
why can't we discuss this without reacting in a hysterical manner? What the hell is wrong with asking questions and looking beyond what was crammed down our necks in GCSE history?
I agree. Though I think it has to be remembered that routinely calling concentration camp survivors liars or deluded (which Holocaust denial has to do) is a touchy subject. Try telling a Pole Stalin and Hitler weren't so bad or an Armenian that the Turks didn't really commit genocide - in the name of 'discussion' - and you may find they get a bit annoyed, particularly if someone in their family happened to be caught up in the events up for 'discussion'.
It has nothing to do with GCSE history.
Quote:
Did he approve of the murder of millions of people?
No, but saying the murder of millions of people never actually occurred is interpreted by many as an attempt to act as apologist. Whether you agree or disagree with that interpretation, that's how it tends to get seen. After all, I've lost count of the number of times people round here have accused people who defend the official 911 narrative of being apologists for Bush, the Zionists or whatever (or conversely I've seen people on JREF accuse truthers of being apologists for Islamic extremists. Maybe in critics corner here too, I can't remember), so it's hardly a unique type of reaction.
I just think people need to take on board how people tend to react - I'm not defending this reaction.
Quote:
NK's "crime" is that he is ahead of our time--we're not ready to discuss what he sees as important just yet
How is he ahead of our time by trotting out arguments in some cases decades old whilst simultaneously ignoring all the responses to those arguments? If anything, he's way behind our time.
Welcome to the forum btw.
Rory - how he's a "healer" is beyond me. He's more Doctor Crippen than Mary Seacole as far as I'm concerned.
karlos wrote:
Since World War II history was banned on this forum
????
Last edited by Dogsmilk on Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:48 am; edited 2 times in total
That's fair enough, but usually when I challenge what you say you tend not to be very happy about it!
I could say the same about you. It would be equally untrue.
Dogsmilk wrote:
And where have I ever said Holocaust denial isn't illegal in several countries? I have challenged the notion this means it's somehow more likely to be true.
And when have I ever said anything other than I disagree with a ban on denial?
That's not the first time you have failed to see what I am saying. I KNOW you disagree with a ban.
Dogsmilk wrote:
I do not actually think a forum "like this" is the best place to discuss the Holocaust. I think there are other forums far more appropriate for that. Why would you expect a 911 forum to be the best place to get informed opinion on the Holocaust?
I don't and never said it was. It happens to be the one I am on and the subject was raised so I posted, rather like you did in fact. Why do you post on it if you think there are others more appropriate? At least I post on a range of topics not "specializing" in this one as you seem to do. Do you believe the official version of 9/11?
Dogsmilk wrote:
I didn't "illuminate" you because I'm not getting into all that stuff again and because it's very easy for you to do it yourself.
Yet you quoted my post and made a response. How tantalising. "All that stuff again" happens to be new to me as I had never heard about it before. Having done some research now the ball point pen stuff seems to be bunk, however I am now none the wiser as to whether the diary is genuine or not, although I never even realised there was any doubt previously. But then again 9/11 has changed my perception of reality completely and everything is now up for questioning, especially anything that gives sympathy to the Israeli "cause". I can reasonably question elements/details of the "Holocaust" without being a denier. I know millions of Jews were murdered in WW2. Systematically and targetted. I have said so before yet you still accused me recently of trying to justify Nazism. _________________ "The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell.
I could say the same about you. It would be equally untrue
Come now - do I really need to go searching for posts where you've accused me of propagandising or whatever? You're just trying to make me waste away my saturday you scoundrel.
Quote:
That's not the first time you have failed to see what I am saying. I KNOW you disagree with a ban.
If I have misunderstood you, please point out how I have done so.
Quote:
I don't and never said it was. It happens to be the one I am on and the subject was raised so I posted, rather like you did in fact. Why do you post on it if you think there are others more appropriate? At least I post on a range of topics not "specializing" in this one as you seem to do. Do you believe the official version of 9/11?
I started posting on it because Holocaust denial material being raised and I thought it shouldn't go without challenge. I have learned practically everything I know about it since encountering it here. I don't think I have ever actually raised the subject myself as opposed to respond to posts concerning it. But I admit it has become something of a hobby horse - I did used to post more generally! - it's basically because I've always thought denial would be used as a big stick to discredit some very hard work people have done. And since I think denial is a big crock of nonsense, I consider that to be something of a tragedy. If loads of other people were taking on denial, I'd probably have stayed out of it.
I don't believe the official version of 911, though I'm probably a lot less concrete (and perhaps more cautious) in my views than many here. In fact, I am really quite confused regarding what I think as there is no single narrative I'm happy with. I don't trust the official narrative and I don't trust the likes of Alex Jones. That's why I'm here. It interests me because I don't have a fixed belief as to what is 'the truth'. And there seems to be ever more claims to try and judge the reliabilty of.
Though I am 100% sure actual planes hit the twin towers, Nico Haupt is totally deranged and NYC was at no stage a CGI giant revolving platform.
And I am 100% sure the 911 commission report was not 'the truth'.
And I am 100% sure 911, 7/7 and the like have been cynically exploited as political tools.
As for what really happened...?
I'm also a bit behind in my reading because I got a bit sidetracked into a certain aspect of history. I like history anyway so it's easy to get distracted. Particularly because I know totally where I stand on this subject.
Quote:
et you quoted my post and made a response. How tantalising. "All that stuff again" happens to be new to me as I had never heard about it before. Having done some research now the ball point pen stuff seems to be bunk, however I am now none the wiser as to whether the diary is genuine or not, although I never even realised there was any doubt previously. But then again 9/11 has changed my perception of reality completely and everything is now up for questioning, especially anything that gives sympathy to the Israeli "cause". I can reasonably question elements/details of the "Holocaust" without being a denier. I know millions of Jews were murdered in WW2. Systematically and targetted. I have said so before yet you still accused me recently of trying to justify Nazism
Yes - I will concede I was perhaps a bit tight in what I said to you about justifying Nazism and I apologise. You may have noticed I added a sig accusing you of justifying Nazism but deleted it very quickly (within an hour I think) - this was because I thought I was being a bit nasty.
I think the debate round here becomes a bit confused as the issues of 'controversial' details of the Holocaust (like all this big business backing Hitler stuff. I think that's just capitalism for you and I see no reason why big business wouldn't back Hitler but there you go) /how the Holocaust is portrayed in a mass media or political sense/Holocaust denial all seem to become conflated with one another.
Though maybe that's just me, I dunno.
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 1:51 pm Post subject:
Quote:
I started posting on it because Holocaust denial material being raised and I thought it shouldn't go without challenge. I have learned practically everything I know about it since encountering it here. I don't think I have ever actually raised the subject myself as opposed to respond to posts concerning it. But I admit it has become something of a hobby horse - I did used to post more generally! - it's basically because I've always thought denial would be used as a big stick to discredit some very hard work people have done. And since I think denial is a big crock of nonsense, I consider that to be something of a tragedy. If loads of other people were taking on denial, I'd probably have stayed out of it.
I don't believe the official version of 911, though I'm probably a lot less concrete (and perhaps more cautious) in my views than many here. In fact, I am really quite confused regarding what I think as there is no single narrative I'm happy with. I don't trust the official narrative and I don't trust the likes of Alex Jones. That's why I'm here. It interests me because I don't have a fixed belief as to what is 'the truth'. And there seems to be ever more claims to try and judge the reliabilty of.
Though I am 100% sure actual planes hit the twin towers, Nico Haupt is totally deranged and NYC was at no stage a CGI giant revolving platform.
And I am 100% sure the 911 commission report was not 'the truth'.
And I am 100% sure 911, 7/7 and the like have been cynically exploited as political tools.
As for what really happened...?
Good posting Dogsmilk: admirable self honesty here
I've been monitoring this "drama" over the last few days and it strikes me that its actually your sensible and balanced position which is most threatend by the actions of Rachel and Mr Void
Astro3/Nick Kollerstrom didn't mean anything much to me before this situation was whipped up. Its a ludicrously easy thing to do to trawl an entire broad community until one finds just the target one is looking for to acheive an ulterior aim, and that is clearly what has happened here: Kollerstrom has been looked for, targeted and used by Rachel and Johnny Void for their own agenda. I would suggest that being seeking to control and frame the demand for an enquirey into 7/7 and limiting the remit of what such an enquirey can consider, investigate, and conclude
Kollerstrom has been involved in putting forward information challenging the official 7/7 account: that information is NOT his: its gleaned from the pool of information available to eveyone seeking real answers. But by pilloring Kollerstrom for his other views (as foolish as I personally consider them to be) and agitating to interfere in his personal and proffesional life and relationships, this is a clear warning: "We have the blogging power to do this to you: conform or we will target you"
That is of course disgraceful
Rachel's ambitions have clearly expanded a great deal beyond the simple position she held as a 7/7 victim a while ago: that is a victim of stupid dumb fate who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time
She has made herself into an internet personality, complete with favourite movies and a named cat, and dragged into the public arena her personal life story including trauma beyond and unconnected to 7/7, in order to expand that role... and of course further fueled by the power of being able to publish in the mass media via the Times
Now it is clear she sees herself as a political player playing political games, which includes seeking to harm the position in society of another person simply becuase he holds some stupid views and doing so advances her personal political aims
But worse: it is VERY clear she wishes to define you Dogsmilk, and me, and the thousands of others, who dont blindly accept either the offical story of 7/7, or what Rachel considers acceptable for views to be held by anyone desiring the social justice of a 7/7 enquirey, as apologists for tyranny and mass murder: most especially anyone who considers it possible a small group of muslims were not responsible or only partly responsible for the murder in London that day
Well damn you for that Rachel North, I utterly reject your base tactics and behaviour, your slur on MY character, your represive and repugnant attitudes, and the net result is that you have lost a great deal more here than you might think to gain
In this game you are busying yourself playing you may find, in the fullness of time, that you lost before you started, and I dont envy you the pain of that fall: certainly you are far more transparent than you might comfortably imagine yourself to be: understand I say that purely on a person to person basis: I'm not alledging any unknown connections to any outside agency: simply the consequences of your own choices and actions, as you present them to be
We will see _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
Joined: 22 Mar 2006 Posts: 1107 Location: Free Scotland!
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 2:20 pm Post subject:
Quote:
Its a ludicrously easy thing to do to trawl an entire broad community until one finds just the target one is looking for to acheive an ulterior aim, and that is clearly what has happened here: Kollerstrom has been looked for, targeted and used by Rachel and Johnny Void for their own agenda. I would suggest that being seeking to control and frame the demand for an enquirey into 7/7 and limiting the remit of what such an enquirey can consider, investigate, and conclude
Quote:
But by pilloring Kollerstrom for his other views (as foolish as I personally consider them to be) and agitating to interfere in his personal and proffesional life and relationships, this is a clear warning: "We have the blogging power to do this to you: conform or we will target you"
That is of course disgraceful
Quote:
Rachel's ambitions have clearly expanded a great deal beyond the simple position she held as a 7/7 victim a while ago: that is a victim of stupid dumb fate who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time
She has made herself into an internet personality, complete with favourite movies and a named cat, and dragged into the public arena her personal life story including trauma beyond and unconnected to 7/7, in order to expand that role... and of course further fueled by the power of being able to publish in the mass media via the Times
Now it is clear she sees herself as a political player playing political games, which includes seeking to harm the position in society of another person simply becuase he holds some stupid views and doing so advances her personal political aims
But worse: it is VERY clear she wishes to define you Dogsmilk, and me, and the thousands of others, who dont blindly accept either the offical story of 7/7, or what Rachel considers acceptable for views to be held by anyone desiring the social justice of a 7/7 enquirey, as apologists for tyranny and mass murder: most especially anyone who considers it possible a small group of muslims were not responsible or only partly responsible for the murder in London that day
Well damn you for that Rachel North, I utterly reject your base tactics and behaviour, your slur on MY character, your represive and repugnant attitudes, and the net result is that you have lost a great deal more here than you might think to gain
Quote:
In this game you are busying yourself playing you may find, in the fullness of time, that you lost before you started, and I dont envy you the pain of that fall: certainly you are far more transparent than you might comfortably imagine yourself to be: understand I say that purely on a person to person basis: I'm not alledging any unknown connections to any outside agency: simply the consequences of your own choices and actions, as you present them to be
We will see
Many thanks, John, for putting this entire business into perspective. Yours is an admirable post if I may say. The above is what Ms Rachel 'North' and Johnny Void are really about & they should be repeatedly exposed until the message is embedded on the Net!
Joined: 22 Mar 2006 Posts: 1107 Location: Free Scotland!
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 3:03 pm Post subject:
Quote:
Why are so many people in denile about the present day holocaust against muslims.?
Is it a tribal thing.?
I keep asking myself the same question.
In part, I believe, it is tribalism: we Good, dem Bad.
But it goes deep into the collective psyche.
We cannot come to terms with the reality that what our governments are doing in our name makes them & us on a par with Hitler & the Nazis. Having been brainwashed into believing that we were on the side of the Angels we can't come to terms with discovering that those we mistook for Angels were really Devils all along.
It goes deeper still.
Anti-semitism against Jews was a European phenomenon that goes a long way back, at least to the time of the Jewish Pale in eastern Europe. The Vatican and the Lutherans practised it. The Israeli academician, the late Dr Israel Shahak in his book, The Weight of 3000 Years, has identified how it originated.
Similarly, anti-semitism against Muslims was a Christian political phenomenon going back to the Crusades. It was revived for entirely political reasons by the Washington Neocons in order to justify their rapacious, 21st Century imperialist adventure alongside their British sidekick.
The (nominally) Christian world remains in total denial of its past. Our children are not taught the truth. So it's easy for our rulers to keep repeating the same wicked karma ad nauseam.
The Shoa Holocaust was presented to the world essentially as a Public Relations exercise by the Zionists and the Allies who both had their respective agendas to achieve by so doing. The reality of what happened got totally lost in that process (hence the importance of research such as that conducted by NK).
All that, as well as the Nuremburg Trials, was possible because the Allies were the victors. No doubt it would have been a different story if Hitler had won.
The post-WWII world was managed by the Allies (now essentially the USUK or Anglo-Saxon Alliance). So they called the shots and all the crimes they have committed during WWII and ever since have been kept quiet. Only when the Anglo-Saxon Alliance finally takes a psychological hammering (as it is now beginning to do) will the truth begin to come out and the sheeple awake to become people again.
The task that the Truth Movement plays is, therefore, a vital one for the future of our species on this Planet.
Joined: 22 Mar 2006 Posts: 1107 Location: Free Scotland!
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 3:37 pm Post subject:
Quote:
Rory - how he's a "healer" is beyond me. He's more Doctor Crippen than Mary Seacole as far as I'm concerned.
What I meant by that, Dogsmilk, is that in his Auschwitz Paper NK is calling for a European Truth & Reconciliation forum on the entire question of War Crimes and War Guilt:
"Europe needs, more than anything else, a truth and reconciliation forum to get to the bottom of these matters, and to try and exorcise the demonic hate-images."
As well as this we simply have to stop being self-righteous about the Germans. In any case, after the Muslim Holocaust, we have no grounds to be so!:
"We are not likely to get important insights unless the ‘thoughtcrime’ penalty is lifted from the German people, and they are allowed to review their own past."
We have to stop projecting our tribal demons onto 'the Other', in this case those wicked Germans. To wake up from the age-old Trance.
Most of all, we have to recognise our Common Humanity & stop all this tribalistic nonsense. We have to see the terrible things we visit upon ourselves as a species on this Planet.
And only when we stop living in Denial of our collective Pasts can we begin to heal the running wound of unresolved, collective karma. In that sense, research contributions such as those of NK's are important however painful the past they resurrect might be.
In this broken world, we are both the persecutors and victims. All refugees from the recurring nightmares of our Past. This song says it all. Everytime I hear it the tears come to my eyes. How long, Lord, how long?
Aboriginals, Slavs, Arabs, Gypsies, Inuits, Zulus, Armenians, etc are not worthy of having their genocides compensated for and the villains punished.
The reason is simple, the New York Lawyers have trademarked the entire concept for themselves and turned it into a huge money making enterprise.
And only when we stop living in Denial of our collective Pasts can we begin to heal the running wound of unresolved, collective karma. In that sense, research contributions such as those of NK's are important however painful the past they resurrect might be.
In this broken world, we are both the persecutors and victims. All refugees from the recurring nightmares of our Past.
Joined: 22 Mar 2006 Posts: 1107 Location: Free Scotland!
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 11:31 pm Post subject:
Some Observations on Nick's Paper
Having read Nick Kollerstrom's paper, The Auschwitz 'Gas Chamber' Illusion, I would like to make some observations. I do not pretend to be an expert on matters concerning the Shoa or Holocaust so my comments are clearly those of a lay-person attempting an objective reading:
NK observes argues that, "Europe needs, more than anything else, a truth and reconciliation forum to get to the bottom of these matters, and to try and exorcise the demonic hate-images." He expresses deep concern that, "Ever more nations are passing laws that prohibit citizens from expressing doubt - Germany, France, Austria, Poland, Romania, Belgium, Switzerland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Collectively, we need to work through our despair, rage, and ideas of blame, to try and access the real historical record."
Great T couldn't agree more. Our societies today are living in deep denial of both their past and their present. The masses are manipulated in the most cynical and tribalistic way by politicians who serve little but their own self-interest and who are themselves controlled by unseen, unelected powers. The end result of all this is that the common person is induced into a trance or spell right from the moment of birth and most likely goes through an entire lifetime with hardly an inkling of the manner in which he or she is being controlled. Ideologies and social mores are fed us and the importance of thinking for oneself is either ignored or actively discouraged. The process is too painful. Much easier to shut up, not think and simply accept the way things are in our 21st Century dystopia.
That's one side of the Matrix, the world of the Blue Pill. The other, that of the Red Pill, is to understand that we live in times of a huge, planetary awakening, that even while everything around us appears to be dying something is being born in the consciousness of humanity. Some call it the End Times, others the Second Coming, Parousia, the end of the Mayan Calendar &c. What all these interpretations have in common is that they all seem to point to a finite moment, a cataract in time when a huge paradigm shift will take place.
It is within the context of these great changes that Truth and Reconciliation become so important. Collectively we have to grow up and to wake up out of this age-old trance to recognise our common humanity. And it is precisely within the process of that awakening that the old shibboleths need to be questioned, reassessed and, where necessary, either discarded or revised.
Although I do not know him personally, I suspect that something along these lines of thought may have been in Nick Kollerstrom's mind who, being a perfectly decent and good person, felt an over-riding need to challenge aspects of the Holocaust as being not only questionable but of being part of a huge demonisation process which served the self-serving agenda of both the western Allies and the politics of Zionism. And in doing so he came into direct collision with the Great Taboo of the western hemisphere.
He tries to approach the subject as an objective researcher, making comments such as the following:
On the Gas Chambers:
Quote:
"The ‘gas chambers’ at Auschwitz had water pipes in their ceilings, indicating that they were designed as shower units. They generally lacked tight-seal doors, which would have been essential, even though these were easy to install – the Leuchter report cited the absence of such seals as one reason why the alleged ‘gas chambers’ would never have functioned."
Is this true? Were the pictures that we have seen on TV showing us sealed doors? Or did we simply accept what we were told?
Quote:
"The gas-chamber legend was born in December 1941, when the German author Thomas Mann declared on the BBC that, in German hospitals, the severely wounded, the old and the feeble were culled with poison gas. This was the ‘first appearance of gas chambers in propaganda.’"
Well, that may be so. I have seen photographs of vans specially adapted to feed back carbon-monoxide into the rear compartment. I understand they were the prototype of the more sophisticated chambers built. But I understand that proof exists of contracts having been tendered for the building of chambers.
Quote:
"In August of 1943, Cordell Hull, Secretary of State, warned the U.S. ambassador in Moscow by telegram that in planning a joint Allied statement on "the German crimes in Poland", it would be advisable to eliminate any mention of the gas chambers, since, as the British pointed out, there was "insufficient evidence" in the matter."
That may well have been true at the time. But that was 1943, before the Allies had invaded the defeated Reich to discover whatever lay there to be discovered. So this statement alone cannot be taken as proof.
Quote:
"Not only is there no trace of ‘Third Reich’ documentation[39] for what is alleged, but no photographs exist showing anything resembling such a group-gassing procedure. Do you believe that Jews both male and female stripped then marched into the gas chambers, then were hauled out in piles? If so, are you willing to believe that neither the very-thorough Germans nor the clever Jews wanted or were able to get a single picture of this ultimate horror? Go to Google and search – you’ll find rows of emaciated bodies, dead of typhus, will that do? I don’t think so."
It would, to say the least, have been difficult to take pictures! And even if some were taken, it would be by guards not by inmates. And why would those guards wish to reveal to all the world that they had been complicit in the gassing of innocent civilians? Was there no documentation, showing blueprints for the construction of gas chambers? I recall seeing such blueprints in TV documentaries. Were they faked or genuine? More questions.
Quote:
"The nearest we have to primary-source documents concerning what went on within the camps, comes from the bulky, three-volume International Red Cross Report published in 1948. This and especially Volume III describes the couple of thousand regular, routine inspection-visits that its doctors made through the war years to the Polish labour-camps. Their report never hints at any gas-chamber, nor any mass-cremations. While maintaining a politically neutral position[32], it confirms that mortality in the camps was to a large extent caused by the allied terror-bombing.[33] Likewise Winston Churchill’s bulky, six-volume account of the War gives no allusion to the subject, especially volume Six, Triumph and Tragedy where one would expect to have some allusion if he believed it had happened.[34]"
If there is any truth in the above then the need for a proper, objective re-examination of all the available documentation is required. Can we rely simply on the word of the victors who had their own political and ideological agenda to serve?
Quote:
"‘The reality, therefore, is that the bulk of the 'evidence' for the Holocaust derives from a corpus of documents that was expressly manufactured by the OSS and OCC in 1945-46 for the purpose of incriminating the leaders of the former German government at Nuremberg. The procedure went roughly along these lines: the Documentation Division in Paris created 'copies' (in English only), certified them as true, and sent them to the prosecution in Nuremberg, while the original documents (if they ever existed) were never seen or heard of again. German translations of the original English texts were then prepared and sent to the defense in Nuremberg, where they arrived as late as possible so that the defense had insufficient time to worry about such matters as their authenticity…."
Is this true? I am willing to keep an open mind about these allegations. In the chaos and disorganisation of the defeated Reich it would have been very easy for the western secret services to have managed such a forgery factory. This surely requires exhaustive research?
Quote:
"At the recent Tehran conference, Faurisson summed up his case more succinctly –
• They cannot invoke a single document proving the crime.
• They are unable to provide the least representation of the crime weapon.
• They do not possess any proof nor even any evidence.
• They cannot name a single truthful witness"
These allegations are intriguing. Again, I keep an open mind.
Quote:
"The ‘Final Solution’ of Adolf Hitler retained a single meaning right through WW2, central to the program of ‘National socialism,’ and signified the deportation of Jews, generally eastwards to Poland and Russia[23]. This program did not change at any point, e.g. the Wannsee conference of 1942,[24] to signify deliberate extermination. If that practice ever happened, it was not a centrally-directed policy and did not involve gas chambers: many tons of documentation of ‘third Reich’ policies remains, and no-one has been able to find therein any hint of such a meaning – of intentional genocide. The historical record fails to show any central decision to exterminate Jews by Nazi Germany."
Certainly there was no talk of intentional genocide as being the meaning of the Final Solution. No mention of genocide was mentioned in Hitler's blueprint, Mein Kaempf, which was so faithfully fulfilled. So when did deportation become racial genocide? Was it never centrally-directed? Most of us were led to believe that it was ...
Quote:
"We are not likely to get important insights unless the ‘thoughtcrime’ penalty is lifted from the German people, and they are allowed to review their own past."
And this last, in my mind, really sums up the entire matter. Only when the German people themselves are allowed to review their own past in a truthful manner (and there is no reason to believe that such a thing is not possible) can we expect to get some idea of what really happened in those dark years.
An objective reading of Nick Kollerstrom's paper results in an awful lot of questions arising from what were previously assumptions that were fed us by countless documentaries which most of us simply accepted as the truth. Only the most cynical amongst us would have considered that what we were being fed was really a process of ideological brain-washing. But then, we were young and our minds were malleable. Looking back with hindsight can we be really so sure that all we were told was the truth?
I am not suggesting that Nick's allegations are all true. No, it's not that at all. What I can see, however, is a man who is trying to relive a horrific past and to see it through childlike eyes, to see things as they are and not what they were made into by deceitful adults. He tries to do so through the process of scientific analysis, the discipline he has learnt in adult years. But essentially it is the eternal child within the man who I hear speaking to me, asking yet again why it is that the Emperor has no clothes.
Joined: 22 Mar 2006 Posts: 1107 Location: Free Scotland!
Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 12:24 am Post subject:
Quote:
Tony Blair thought he could detect a national interest in fighting Saddam because he was so anxious to emulate Churchill and defeat "evil".
Did he really? That's a nice, comfortable, Grauniadlike view, still covering-up for that nasty sociopath, Blair. It omits the fact that Bush and Blair planned the war a long time before the WMD nonsense and that it was always a resource war meant to secure Iraq's huge oil resources.
Blair might have been many things but naive he was not. He was a willing accomplice in the Blueprint for a New American Century, requiring the securing of Oil in Iraq and Gas in Afghanistan. That's why Tommy Atkins was sent out to both countries as a blood sacrifice.
One thing i find perplexing is this.
Croatia, Hungary and Romania all carried out acts of genocide during WW2 as well.
So why havent they been forced to pay billions in compensation?
When Holocaust is carried out against Muslims/Slavs/Gypsies/Indians/Aboriginals/Inuits/Zulus etc it is called
Ethnic Cleansing _________________
It is within the context of these great changes that Truth and Reconciliation become so important. Collectively we have to grow up and to wake up out of this age-old trance to recognise our common humanity. And it is precisely within the process of that awakening that the old shibboleths need to be questioned, reassessed and, where necessary, either discarded or revised.
Although I do not know him personally, I suspect that something along these lines of thought may have been in Nick Kollerstrom's mind who, being a perfectly decent and good person, felt an over-riding need to challenge aspects of the Holocaust as being not only questionable but of being part of a huge demonisation process which served the self-serving agenda of both the western Allies and the politics of Zionism. And in doing so he came into direct collision with the Great Taboo of the western hemisphere.
Yes, but there is simply no point in doing so if you are not going to bother to learn the history you wish to attack. It also raises the question as to why you'd feel the need to state bluntly what you are saying "happens to be true" - a very bold pronouncement which is not saying "I have a few questions I would like answering and wish to discuss it", it is saying "I am right" - when you have written some crappy articles that barely even scratch the surface of the subject you are talking about. (and I'm not of a mind to start rooting stuff up and starting a 'debate here'. Like I keep saying I'm don't know much about this stuff. Nick seemingly doesn't either though).
You don't ask questions then form a firm conclusion based on apparently zero effort to find the answers.
Quote:
"The ‘gas chambers’ at Auschwitz had water pipes in their ceilings, indicating that they were designed as shower units. They generally lacked tight-seal doors, which would have been essential, even though these were easy to install – the Leuchter report cited the absence of such seals as one reason why the alleged ‘gas chambers’ would never have functioned."
Though use of the word 'generally' is very sly. AFAIK, evidence for all the gas tight doors you'd expect does not exist - this does not mean they were never there and a quick visual inspection of the ruins of blown up buildings by someone unqualified to perform such an analysis fifty years later is, of course, irrelevant. However, here is the very famous 'gas tight door and 14 shower heads' document for crematorium III. Nick doesn't even mention it.
OTTOMH there's at least one known to have been fitted in crematorium II as well. I'm not checking where all the known gas tight doors were - the point is Nick seems to think 'generally lacking' (or more accurately can't be definitively proven to have been present in x doorways) means that the known presence of actual gas tight doors is thus somehow explained. Deniers have tried to 'explain' the presence of these doors (by inventing other functions for the buildings eyewitnesses curiously omit to mention and other documents tend not to support), but Nick doesn't even go there. He simply assumes that he doesn't have to explain the actual presence of some proven gas tight doors at all while trying to suggest that the lack of definitive proof for some of them means they were never there and in fact somehow renders the known ones irrelevant.
I'm sorry, but that smacks of deliberate obfuscation to me.
Btw - his comment about "designed as shower units" is a sly way of saying "I'm just ignoring everything that's known about the evolution of crematorium III" (it's in reference to there particularly he's got that from, I suspect).
Quote:
"‘The reality, therefore, is that the bulk of the 'evidence' for the Holocaust derives from a corpus of documents that was expressly manufactured by the OSS and OCC in 1945-46 for the purpose of incriminating the leaders of the former German government at Nuremberg. The procedure went roughly along these lines: the Documentation Division in Paris created 'copies' (in English only), certified them as true, and sent them to the prosecution in Nuremberg, while the original documents (if they ever existed) were never seen or heard of again. German translations of the original English texts were then prepared and sent to the defense in Nuremberg, where they arrived as late as possible so that the defense had insufficient time to worry about such matters as their authenticity…."
Actually, the reconstruction of the history has frequently involved looking at documents held the West and eyewitnesses who ended up in the West matching documents held in the East and eyewitnesses who stayed in the East. In some cases documents that lay in archives for decades. For te Holocaust to be a hoax, it basically must be the case that America, Britain, the USSR and God knows how many private individuals were in on it and planting documents in dusty archives years in advance.
Go and ask at RODOH if you don't believe me and people with a lot more knowledge than me will wheel you out a few examples.
But for God's sake, he totally ignores the fact the Auschwitz was liberated by the Soviets and the Poles did their own postwar investigation including forensic tests for the presence of cyanide. David Cole blamed the commies for the 'hoax'. It is simply impossible to blame the British/Americans or the Soviets or the Poles (or the Jews for that matter) for 'inventing' the Holocaust without close collusion from all other parties.
The first sentence is simply false. In fact, an awful lot of evidence relating to the Holocaust has emerged from dusty archives decades later.
Quote:
"At the recent Tehran conference, Faurisson summed up his case more succinctly –
• They cannot invoke a single document proving the crime.
• They are unable to provide the least representation of the crime weapon.
• They do not possess any proof nor even any evidence.
• They cannot name a single truthful witness"
This is just rhetorical nonsense. I mean, no "single document" proves the crime. Thousands of documents (witnesses etc) all converging to one logical conclusion prove the crime. For Christ's sake, does any truther expect to ever find a single document that proves the crime?! (you will notice that if you observe the methodology of truthers who are also Holocaust deniers, they tend to employ double standards in their treatment of evidence relating to the respective events. It's simply amazing how ultra-cynical 'conspiracy theorists' are suddenly desperate to find benign explanations for everything). I mean - when faced with a bunch of people saying people were gassed after they were told they were having a shower and you've got a crematorium with a 'morgue' containing gas tight doors, shower heads and an "undressing room"...
But the clincher here is this expectation that you can get back-of-a-crisp-packet factoid answers. One of the reasons I find the discussion here frustrating is that it has to be - "this, this, this and this prove the Holocaust". Whereas in reality it's "this document here fits with that witness statement from them which fits with that document from over there which fits with that diary entry which fits with that other witness statement which indicates this particular event happened like this". And I do not pretend I myself have the grasp of the evidence other people spend years attaining.
"They cannot name a single truthful witness" is just bullsh!t. It simply hinges on the fact that deniers will not accept any testimony that doesn't fit their beliefs. Faurrison does it by attempting to apply his own brand of literacy criticism to real world testimony (which is a dumb approach from the outset). On the other hand, deniers merrily wheel out anyone that says what they want to hear. For example, cap'n K happily wheels out Staglich while conveniently neglecting to mention he's on record as saying he never even saw the crematorium buildings (which weren't exactly tiny and which shows he wasn't exactly hanging around Birkenau). But an AA gunner who reckons he didn't see owt is beyond reproach as a witness.
Quote:
"The ‘Final Solution’ of Adolf Hitler retained a single meaning right through WW2, central to the program of ‘National socialism,’ and signified the deportation of Jews, generally eastwards to Poland and Russia[23]. This program did not change at any point, e.g. the Wannsee conference of 1942,[24] to signify deliberate extermination. If that practice ever happened, it was not a centrally-directed policy and did not involve gas chambers: many tons of documentation of ‘third Reich’ policies remains, and no-one has been able to find therein any hint of such a meaning – of intentional genocide. The historical record fails to show any central decision to exterminate Jews by Nazi Germany."
Right then cap'n K - Please refer me to any specific transportation records demonstrating Jews were deported to Russia - thanks.
Please also explain such phenomenon as records existing showing Jews being 'deported' (in some cases East) to Treblinka but zero records showing where they went from there.
Please explain why you expect the Nazis to have kept a central document ordering genocide, let alone not had the elementary common sense to make some effort to cover their tracks. Please explain why you fail to make any reference to the complex debates in historical scholarship concerning exactly when, how and why extermination began.
Please explain how stuff like Goebbel's diary, the Posen speech and Hans Frank's 1941 speech -
Quote:
...One way or another - I will tell you that, quite openly - we must finish off the Jews. The Fuhrer put it into words once: "should united Jewry again succeed in setting off a world war: then the blood sacrifice shall not be made only by the peoples driven into war, but then the Jew of Europe will have met his end". I know that there is criticism of many of the measures now applied to the Jews in the Reich. There are always deliberate attempts to speak again and again of cruelty, harshness, etc.: this emerges from the reports on the popular mood. I appeal to you: before now I continue speaking; first, agree with me on a formula: we will have pity, on principle, only for the German people, and for nobody else in the world. The others had no pity for us either. As an old National-Socialist, I must also say that if the pack of Jews were to survive the war in Europe while we sacrifice the best of our blood for the preservation of Europe, then this war would still be only a partial success. I will therefore, on principle, approach Jewish affairs in the expectation that the Jews will dissappear. They must go. I have started negotiations for the purpose of having them pushed off to the East. In January there will be a major conference on this question in Berlin (Wannsee - Jan. 42) to which I shall send State Secretary Dr. Buhler. The conference is to be held in the office of SS Obergruppenfuhrer Heydrich at the Reich Security Main Office. A major Jewish migration will certainly begin.
But what should be done with the Jews? Can you believe that they will be accommodated in settlements in the Ostland? In Berlin we were told: why are you making all this trouble? We don't want them either - not in Ostland or in the Reichskommisariat; liquidate them yourselves! Gentlemen, I must ask you to steel yourselves against all considerations of compassion. We must destroy the Jews wherever we find them and wherever it is at all possible, in order to maintain the whole structure of the Reich...the views that were acceptable up to now cannot be applied to such gigantic, unique events. In any case, we must find a way that will lead us to our goal and I have my own ideas on this.
The Jews are exceptionally harmful feeders for us. In the Government-General (Poland & surrounding occupied areas), we have approximately 2.5 million, and now perhaps 3.5 million together with persons who have Jewish kin and so on. We cannot shoot these 3.5 million Jews, we cannot poison them, but we will take measures that will somehow lead to successful destruction; and this in connection with large-scale procedures which are to be discussed in the Reich, the Government-General must become as free of Jews as the Reich. Where and how this is to be done is the affair of bodies which we will have to appoint and create, and on whose work I will report to you when the time comes.... .
Betray no 'intentionality' whatsoever. You didn't in your marvellous essay.
Quote:
Not only is there no trace of ‘Third Reich’ documentation[39] for what is alleged, but no photographs exist showing anything resembling such a group-gassing procedure. Do you believe that Jews both male and female stripped then marched into the gas chambers, then were hauled out in piles? If so, are you willing to believe that neither the very-thorough Germans nor the clever Jews wanted or were able to get a single picture of this ultimate horror? Go to Google and search – you’ll find rows of emaciated bodies, dead of typhus, will that do? I don’t think so."
Ridiculous argument.
I notice he makes no effort whatsoever to evidence his claim all those emaciated corpses in camps liberated by the West died of typhus or account for accounts of food stores in and around said camps.
And so on.
This isn't a great post on my part - I'm not going round finding references to attack terminal bibble on a sunday morning - and I'm not trying to engage in a 'refutation' - I'm just trying to indicate he's mickey mouse passing himself off as A J P Taylor.
Quote:
What I can see, however, is a man who is trying to relive a horrific past and to see it through childlike eyes
And that's the problem - he's still in kindergarten. I am too and I know it. He doesn't.
That's why I feel for him. He's made himself look such a tit.
I mean, does he seriously think he's 'found' anything??????
Whatever grandiose claims about months in the British library he may have made, anyone here could cobble together a similar article in a few hours simply by browsing Holocaust denial websites (and lets not forget that's what the bulk of his references are to).
He claims to override history as it is written while clearly demonstrating he hasn't studied it. This is not a good way to approach 'truth and reconciliation'.
And you don't need to deny the Holocaust to have a problem with the existing laws against it.
Though I think it must at least be understood that denial is undeniably historically closely linked with neo-Nazism, so it's just not surprising Germany and Austria have a particularly full-on attitude towards it.
Quote:
As well as this we simply have to stop being self-righteous about the Germans
Can I just say -
Germans rule. Their outstanding and ongoing role in the development of post-industrial music constitutes a worthy contribution towards human betterment. And their solid contribution to thrash metal in the 1980s is also worthy of note.
Quote:
But you may well be right that Europe's Jews might have been deported had it not been for a prolonged war fought for national, capitalist interests and certainly not as a crusade in the interests of those "unfortunate people".
They might have dumped them on Madagascar or Siberia given the chance , but let's not forget this wouldn't have been cheery - the 'Madagascar plan' entailed dumping huge numbers of urban Jews on an island that was mostly jungle with (IIRC) virtually no provision for their needs. You'd still have had mass deaths.
I'm drawn to the notion that racial ideology framed the parameters and economic factors and circumstance pushed the final solution. A 'socially unacceptable' population that couldn't, in the long term, stay. Deniers like to argue that extermination entailed using valuable resources but, aside from your nominated slave worker Jews, it's easier in the long term just to get rid of an inconvenient population you don't want, particularly when they're taking up space, consuming resources (even really nonsense rations add up) and running black markets to survive. Though I simply don't know enough to say anything other than I think it's worth looking at. But let's not forget stuff like their furniture and what have you being used to help out German victims of bombing. In the introduction to Hitler's beneficiaries (I've just started reading it this morning), German historian Gotz Aly makes a poignant observation -
Quote:
As I was writing this book, I found I could no longer take pleasure in several beautiful pieces of antique furniture in my home. My wife and I had inherited them from my in-laws in Bremen, whose house had been bombed during the war. As I now know, Germans bombed out by Allied air raids on Bremen were resupplied with furniture taken from Dutch Jews who had been deported and murdered. In Bremen alone, many hundreds of freight cars and dozens of ships full of furniture were unloaded. Their contents, which ran the gamut from the basic to the luxurious, were handed out to Germans according to social class for refurnishing their homes. My in-laws are now dead, but the uneasy question remains:what are these heirlooms that I have in my own home? In Germany even now antique furniture can be a troubling legacy from the past
But don't worry! Since -
Quote:
We are not likely to get important insights unless the ‘thoughtcrime’ penalty is lifted from the German people, and they are allowed to review their own past
Aly and all the other German Holocaust historians simply aren't allowed to review their own past and are unlikely to be making important insights, so he's obviously talking cobblers.
And Rory -
Quote:
And only when we stop living in Denial of our collective Pasts can we begin to heal the running wound of unresolved, collective karma. In that sense, research contributions such as those of NK's are important however painful the past they resurrect might be.
You really are an old hippy aren't you!?
mer-curious wrote:
n addition to the post above, the use of the term "genocide" or "holocaust" can be debated without hysterics in terms of what happened to the population of the Native American peoples, a simplified example which can ce found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_American_indigenous _peoples
This might be because it has never been properly acknowledged and rather downplayed. I'd say it's the largest scale genocide in human history whose surviving victims haven't received anything approaching the recognition they deserve. I think I might welcome a bit more...passion about it!
But it's interesting - I think we should pay more attention to the atrocities that have been forgotten (or are happening now) than try to pretend one in particular never happened.
I will try my hardest to shut up about it now.
I am going away today and may or may not have net access (depends whether my old dears have sorted out their broadband) so that may or may not help.
Oh yeah - Interesting post from John.
Quote:
I utterly reject your base tactics and behaviour, your slur on MY character
Well, quite.
I'd like to add I find it extraordinary how if this site tolerates denial it means we're all Nazi anti-semite baby-eating monsters, yet as soon as a moderation decision about it is made, it's a desperate effort to hide it. Well I hereby accuse every other forum on the internet that bans Holocaust denial and has thus deleted or hidden such material or banned users who post on it as hiding their little dirty secret and every one that doesn't as being solely populated by Nazis and their apologists. So there.
Joined: 22 Mar 2006 Posts: 1107 Location: Free Scotland!
Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 12:13 pm Post subject:
Quote:
You really are an old hippy aren't you!?
`
Afternoon, Dogsmilk. Yes, Guilty as Charged! The Doors of Perception & all that revelatory stuff!
Many thanks for troubling to make such an intelligent and interesting rejoinder. Very much appreciated & hopefully our assailants will take note that on this Forum we can discuss even Taboo subjects without screaming at each other.
The Sun's shining & I'm off on a long walk with my doggy friend. Enjoy the rest of your weekend!
Joined: 28 Jul 2005 Posts: 274 Location: North West London
Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:08 pm Post subject:
I think in a Truth forum, posts that are obviously being written under uncontrollable hate and rage, and I’m here referring to one or two of the ‘Dogsmilk’ contributions above, should be deleted. One can’t have constructive discussion, or indeed any discussion, with this degree of misrepresenting of positions going on. Having said that, I’d be happy to have a public debate with Mr Dogsmilk anytime, and would be fairly confident of winning the argument. The subject I would propose is, ‘Working of the cyanide-based German gas chambers during WW2.’ I like CODOH Mr Dogsmilk because contributors do not rant on like you do (But, NB, I liked your first posting here).
As regards the textbooks, I suggest that the primary reference has to be Dissecting the Holocaust: The Growing Critique of "Truth" and "Memory” ed. Germar Rudolf, 2003. It has twenty or so different authors, six hundred pages of small print. This banned-and-burnt book with its editor now in jail has managed to establish a new and truthful basis on which ‘holocaust’ discussion now needs to take place. On any aspect of the topic, I suggest that one should keep one’s mouth shut until one has read the relevant section: vho.org/GB/Books/dth/
Also one should try to read at least one of these: Arthur Butz, The Hoax of the 20th Century, 1977, 2003; W. Staeglich, Auschwitz – a Judge Looks at the Evidence’ 1986; Germar Rudolf, The Rudolf Report Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the Gas chambers of Auschwitz 2001 (has a chemical focus); Heresy in 21st Century France: a case of insubmission to the “Holocaust” dogma by Georges Theil 2002 (Theil is now being jailed in France for writing this). (1)
To answer Mr JohnnyVoid’s query, my short article ‘School Trips to Auschwitz’ was published in ‘Smith’s Report on the Holocaust controversy’ March 2008. (This is edited by Bradley Smith, who co-ordinates the CODOH site.) (2) As such it will go online in due course. I had posted it up separately, but decided to take it down after persons like himself were yelling and screeching their rage and disdain over it. The sole point of everybody’s interest appeared to be, my comment that Auschwitz inmates could swim in a pool (from 1944 onwards). This provoked rage and disdain on dozens of sites, and is the only time ion my life I’ve been quoted all round the place. Even the Jewish Chronicle, in their article about my being thrown out of UCL, quoted me on this in a sub-heading. Swimming in a pool, it was too much! First checkout pics of the stylish, elegant pool at http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4332&highlight=
and www.heretical.com/miscella/swimpool.html Carlos Porter's "Made in Russia: The Holocaust" has a photo on the cover of two inmates with the swimming pool and diving board in the background. Prof Faurisson has an article, The Auschwitz Swimming Pool, quoting former inmate Marc Klein: ‘Football, basketball, and water-polo matches (in an open-air pool built within the perimeter by detainees) attracted crowds of onlookers.’ This was enough for JohnnyVoid to start yelling that I was a crypto-fascist and would my college UCL please chuck me out? They did and I hope he feels good about it. I guess I ought to forgive him, he was only doing what Rachel told him. Mr Dogsmilk here witters on about 'Butlin's' - is that really the best he can manage? Auschwitz was a camp for industrial production especially for rubber products, vital for the German war-effort.
Mr Dogsmilk needs to appreciate, that Revisionist argument is more based on physical records and available documents, while traditional pro-Holocaust texts rely more upon stories. A decisive turning-point came in November 2006, when the manager of the Arolsen archives (all of the ‘Holocaust’ records are kept in Bad-Arolsen in North Germany, and have gradually accumulated there over half a century) answered a question as regards how many cases of death by cyanide poisoning were in his archives. None, he replied – not one. Here is his letter:
Quote:
"unfortunately, we cannot reference a single document listing the death of a detainee due to gassing by Zyklon-B. As a rule, the Nazis gave other causes of death for inmates, who perished in the concentration camps.
With kind regards,
U. Jost Archival Manager" (3)
And that confirms what an eminent US army pathologist Dr Charles Larsen had ascertained, when he visited the camps in 1945, for the specific purpose of ascertaining cause of death. (4). Piles of them had died of typhus, in his professional opinion. Somehow, Larsen’s reputation survived his refusal to diagnose cyanide as a cause of death in the German labour-camps.
Likewise from the Arolsen archives we get the total number of Jews who died within the German labour-camps of WW2, and its around two hundred thousand. Those are identified, recorded persons. Some have suggested that this figure be doubled to include non-identified deaths. That would give a ball-park figure of under half a million. (5) Ever wonder why this is never discussed in the media? There is no other available source of these figures, than Bad-Arolsen. Higher numbers than that, and you run into trouble with the cremation-ovens: all Auchwitz deaths had to be cremated, because of the high-water table in the area, and the data on coke consumed by these ovens, which is intact over a couple of years, gives a limit to mortality rate in the Auschwitz camps. That is how Revisionist reasoning works, based on the physical evidence. Whereas, traditional Holocaust books will have huge piles of magically-burning human corpses, outdoors - as if the spectator had somehow been transferred to Hell! I’d guess Mr Dogsmilk will believe in these. See the film ‘Schindler’s List’ for images of them. Just murmur very quietly that human bodies don’t burn, or that the ground around A. was far too damp for anything much to burn …. This horror-image was necessary to appropriate the word ‘Holocaust’ which means fiery sacrifice.
We exorcise horror, by thus re-visioning the past. If it couldn’t happen, it didn’t happen. Mr Dogsmilk is furious that I don’t believe the story or ‘confession’ that Rudolf Hoss came out with at Nuremberg, after he had been tortured for three days and three nights by a British army team. All the world believes it now, sixty years later, don’t they? What happened in ‘Hoss’s half-hour’? Two thousand naked people were somehow made to march into a chamber with space for say a few hundred, and the doors sealed. I’d say that was not feasible. Then Zyklon-B was sprinkled in through holes in the roof. I’d say there were no such holes, because the rooms were just washrooms. Then after half an hour everybody was dead. I’d say that even if the Zyklon-B could have been thus sprinkled into such large chamber, only rather few would be dead by that time. Hoss always insisted that everyone was dead after that half-hour period – IMO he was salvaging his integrity by describing something of absolute physical impossibility. Remember Zyklon-B is designed for quite slow release of the gas, that’s what made it ‘safe’ for use! Then you have to believe that guards came in and pulled out all the corpses mingled with still-emitting Zyklon B after an hour or two, with just ordinary-sized doors: at every stage this process is impossible. Then finally you have to have all this going on repeatedly, hour after hour, day after day, with no discernible cyanide infusing into the porous walls – because modern measurements don’t show the elevated iron-cyanide that would have resulted. This whole story was just a nightmare-delirium, can we not now leave it in the past?
Quoting from my chemical essay,
Quote:
Rudolf Hoss issued an order on 12th August, 1942, that, when a disinfection chamber was opened to the air, members of the SS not wearing gas-masks must keep at least 45 feet away from it, for at least five hours. That would have been after the chamber has been evacuated for 15 minutes, to remove the cyanide gas. So this is as it were the real Hoss speaking, before torture - one who was proud of his camp. This shows us the process which really happened, safe and efficiently designed, as one would expect from the Germans - in contrast with the hallucinatory nightmare today imagined by the world.’ (6)
There are today around five thousand parts per million cyanide in the walls of these actual gas chambers, i.e. the delousing chambers, while there are 1-2 parts per million of cyanide in the alleged human gas chambers, not differing significantly from those in the residential quarters. That evidenced is decisive. As for Mr Dogsmilk’s claim that ‘the Poles did their own postwar investigation including forensic tests for the presence of cyanide,’ I suggest he consults my chemistry thread, where he will find some detailed discussion of that survey. NB I hold the definitive thread on the subject of cyanide chemistry at Auschwitz. (6) Just so he quotes me properly, that is the only aspect of the subject where I would claim some expertise: he clearly knows far more about European history than I do.
I’m painfully aware that most readers will be saying, whatever, but can you take it off the 9/11 site please! Well I would have snuffed out this thread but here it is and I’m being asked to defend my position. Maybe the ‘Prophetic soul of the wide world dreaming of things to come’ has some role for a wider Truth movement, I don’t know. We need to be open to the future. Mr Dogsmilk is frothing because I have pointed out that there are no photographs at all, anywhere, of an Alleged Human Gas Chamber, that was in any sense working. But there are photos of the actual gas chambers, showing the clothes hung up outside: after being de-loused in the chamber with the cyanide, the inmates’ clothing was hung up for a few hours outside, to ventilate. Would these do instead?
There are no Holocaust-deniers - of course ‘The Holocaust’ happened. The question is rather, who is in control of the definition of this term? Can we leave off this hate-language? In the Jewish Chronicle article of last Friday, about my being expelled from UCL, I fortunately managed to get an interview (thanks, KG!) for what it had to run as its front-page lead story: it quoted me as saying ‘he prefers to call himself a revisionist rather than a denier. Revisionists, he said, “want to look at European history without quite so much hate and bitterness”. (7) And that is where I'm coming from.
1. I consulted Richard Widmann in the US and he added: The Holocaust on Trial by Robert Lenski * The Man who invented Genocide by James J. Martin * The Holocaust Story and the Lies of Ulysses by Paul Rassinier * The Real Eichmann Trial by Paul Rassinier * The Confessions of Kurt Gerstein by Henri Roques * Lectures on the Holocaust by Germar Rudolf * The Dissoluton of Eastern European Jewry by Walter Sanning * "Confessions of a Holocaust Revisionist" by Bradley Smith * the booklet Did Six Million Really Die, by Richard Harwood * the set of journals that comprise "The Journal of Historical Review" * and Germar Rudolph's journal "The Revisionist."
There is a hard-to-get opus (to answer Rory W’s query) by Jean Pressac Auschwitz: Technique and operation of the Gas Chambers, 1989, that gives in detail the design-plans for Auschwitz. What are there designated as Gaskammer, gas-chambers, are the disinfestation chambers, for de-lousing clothes, and that was the first major opus to point out the existence of these real, actual gas chambers – after the trailblazing Leuchter Report of 1988 had sort of done so, and taken a wall-sample from one of them.
Mr Dogsmilk asks me about pro-Holocaust texts. Ed Shapiro, Truth Prevails, Demolishing holocaust Denial, 1990; Anatomy of the A. Death Camp 1994, Ed Gutman & Berenmbaum; Deborah Dwork & Robert Jan van Pelt, Auschwitz, 1270 to the Present' NY 1996; Van Pelt, The Case for Auschwitz, 2002, will that do? One wishes that, somewhere in Europe, there was a university Holocaust course that asked students to read these, and also the above-mentioned revisionist texts. Then maybe they could sort it out.
Look, I've gotta get on the road, so this will be fairly brief.
But you really seem to be losing the plot -
Quote:
I think in a Truth forum, posts that are obviously being written under uncontrollable hate and rage, and I’m here referring to one or two of the ‘Dogsmilk’ contributions above, should be deleted. One can’t have constructive discussion, or indeed any discussion, with this degree of misrepresenting of positions going on. Having said that, I’d be happy to have a public debate with Mr Dogsmilk anytime, and would be fairly confident of winning the argument. The subject I would propose is, ‘Working of the cyanide-based German gas chambers during WW2.’ I like CODOH Mr Dogsmilk because contributors do not rant on like you do (But, NB, I liked your first posting here).
What "uncontrollable hate and rage"?????
I can assure you I feel neither.
Why would you want to debate me when I keep emphasising my lack of expertise? Why don't you take your bold challenge somewhere where people really know what they're talking about? You seem to have made zero effort to do so up to now.
Take your arguments to RODOH. I dare you. And if you don't, then please shut the f*ck up about how you'll debate anyone.
Quote:
As regards the textbooks, I suggest that the primary reference has to be Dissecting the Holocaust: The Growing Critique of "Truth" and "Memory” ed. Germar Rudolf, 2003. It has twenty or so different authors, six hundred pages of small print. This banned-and-burnt book with its editor now in jail has managed to establish a new and truthful basis on which ‘holocaust’ discussion now needs to take place. On any aspect of the topic, I suggest that one should keep one’s mouth shut until one has read the relevant section: vho.org/GB/Books/dth/
I like the way you emphasise how suppressed it is then tell us where you can get it on the net.
And look, if you're going to emphasise the supposed importance of a water reservoir that was used as a swimming pool (for favoured inmates too I think), then you're seemingly trying to push a "Auschwitz wasn't so bad meme". After all, who would think it was desperately significant that such a thing might exist in a camp that size with various catagories of inmate, in the same way who would think Eddie Rosner's gulag jazz band means the gulags weren't the hell they're generally accepted to have been? Exactly why do you think the swimming pool is significant? It's like the brothel. Big deal. It's already known about. Even your despised Mr Rees talks about it.
And what on earth are you coming out with about bad arolsen????
I may reply to that later. I think you may be a bit confused.
Quote:
We exorcise horror, by thus re-visioning the past. If it couldn’t happen, it didn’t happen. Mr Dogsmilk is furious that I don’t believe the story or ‘confession’ that Rudolf Hoss came out with at Nuremberg, after he had been tortured for three days and three nights by a British army team
No - try reading my post. I point out you totally ignore a point made in a book you cite - a point you just ignored again.
Hoess wasn't even in British hands when he wrote his memoir - not his initial confession, his memoir - in which he described his torture at British hands and talked about gas chambers. You could have attacked this point if you'd found some argument - or did they torture him into saying he'd been tortured? - but the fact you ignored something so totally f*cking obvious shows you're either ignorant or being highly selective about what you cite.
Have you actually read this totally vital text?
Quote:
Mr Dogsmilk asks me about pro-Holocaust texts. Ed Shapiro, Truth Prevails, Demolishing holocaust Denial, 1990; Anatomy of the A. Death Camp 1994, Ed Gutman & Berenmbaum; Deborah Dwork & Robert Jan van Pelt, Auschwitz, 1270 to the Present' NY 1996; Van Pelt, The Case for Auschwitz, 2002, will that do?
That's it???????
That's your "I'm an authority on history, me. I know there was no Holocaust"????????
Not even Pressac?????? (it's not "hard to get", it's available free online at HHP ffs.)
You haven't read anything!!!!!
Well at least I can feel smug - I was totally correct that you haven't bothered to study "official history".
Look - this is my main point - I do not dislike you, I don't know you, I have nothing against you. Like I said, I think you're being called all kinds with no actual evidence you are those things.
But you are flailing round - under your real name - claiming you're some big authority who'll debate anyone (while religiously avoiding RODOH, alt.revisionism, axis history forum etc), who knows it all and you're relying on crappy old denier arguments, seriously claiming Arthur Butz is 'essential' or whatever you said and pretending you're suddenly some leading authority on the Holocaust when you've read a couple of books and a big pile of Holocaust denial tracts. Get a grip. It'd be funny if it wasn't so tragic.
Look, you may have a Phd in growing cabbages under Uranus or whatever , but this does not qualify you to declare yourself the new Messiah of WWII history, particularly not on the back of what you've been coming out with up to now. Get back on the lunar lander and start back to earth for God's sake. You are messing up your life for NOTHING.
It doesn't matter what most of us argue about here - I don't know who Brian or Alexander are, they don't know who I am. We both think the other person talks rubbish and that's all. This has personal impact on you though. You have not found 'the truth' and I'm sorry but you're very arrogant or very stupid if you think you have.
I'm off
Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 4:12 pm Post subject: holowhat?
dogsmilk says :
well...quite a lot, but also has the magnaminity to wish "very arrogant or very stupid" a good luck...
What you need to understand dogsmilk is that several people are currently in jail for the crime of asking or posing questions about details of ssh...u no wat. Yes the capital h olocaust. When you begin to grasp...if ever...the significance or implications of
jailtime
for
thoughtcrime
then you may begin to see the truth - which you apparently feel that you alone know. Just an impression, of course.
Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 4:44 pm Post subject: Re: holowhat?
alwun wrote:
dogsmilk says :
well...quite a lot, but also has the magnaminity to wish "very arrogant or very stupid" a good luck...
What you need to understand dogsmilk is that several people are currently in jail for the crime of asking or posing questions about details of ssh...u no wat. Yes the capital h olocaust. When you begin to grasp...if ever...the significance or implications of
jailtime
for
thoughtcrime
then you may begin to see the truth - which you apparently feel that you alone know. Just an impression, of course.
eh..good luck..
cheers Al..
Uh huh
I do not feel I alone "know the truth" whatsoever and I do not think I have ever suggested I do.
I do know that because a subject is censored it does not automatically follow that that subject is any more likely to be true than if it wasn't.
As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, denying the Armenian genocide is illegal in France. I suggest:
1/The introduction of this legislation in no way meant the Armenian genocide was suddenly less likely to have actually occurred.
2/The Armenian genocide is not less likely to be true in France than here where denial of it is not illegal.
Do you disagree? Or are you into this logic mangling idea that if it's banned in some countries there must be something in it?
"Oh it's a 'thoughtcrime' in some countries. Right I'll believe in it then!"
Yeah, great.
Good luck denying the Armenian genocide!
And I hear China bans all kinds of stuff - get yourself there and you can go believing all sorts of things!
The German Nazis used to say 1 German soldiers life was worth approximately 200 hundred locals.
If present day Zionists are saying 1 zionist life is equal to 1,000 Arab ones, then we are surely going forwards to barbarism... which leaves open the question was nazism ever truly defeated or only suspended to re-emerge from lethargy x5 more potent this time dressed in USA's anti-Nazi garb...
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
)
