When I introduced the Gran Tabu at the Corto Creativo film festival in June, the trick for me was to prepare a Mexican mainstream academic and student film audience for what they were going to see. Americans would be in the audience, but even the largest percentage of those would be Hispanic.
I took it as a given that for the most part they would have no particular background in the Holocaust story, and even less about revisionist arguments that question the heart of the story. They would be largely unaware that in America revisionists risk financial and social ruin, while in Europe they risk those things and imprisonment on top of them. And I had to get the message that I am not a historian but am arguing, and why I am arguing, against suppression, censorship, and taboo regarding this one historical event. As it happened, it looks like I did it rather well. The audience understood.
I delivered the talk in Spanish, from the first word to the last. I began with a small "ice breaker." It worked. It got a good, and I think appreciative, laugh from the audience. (...)
The text of my intro follows.
Theater, like all art-and cinema is certainly theater-is dangerous to the culture in which it comes to life because it is often-times a revolt against what is held to be morally right by those who rule, and what has been accepted as being morally right by those who are being ruled. Cinema-as-art can be, and in some cases must be, a rebellion against what culture holds to be morally right.
We call our documentary The Great Taboo. The great taboo is meant to suppress, censor, and punish those of us who express doubt that during World War II the Germans used weapons of mass destruction (gas chambers) to murder millions of innocent, unarmed civilians.
It is considered morally right to believe in the unique monstrosity of the National Socialist German Worker's Party (Nazis), and morally wrong to suggest that they were fully human in the same way that, in America, Democrats and Republicans are fully human, no matter how many people they kill, or how they kill them.
It is well known all over the world that during World War II the Americans used weapons of mass destruction-great fleets of heavy bombers and nuclear bombs-to intentionally murder masses of innocent, unarmed civilians in all the cities of Germany and Japan.
The great taboo is meant to suppress the fact that German Nazis are held to one standard of justice and morality, while American Democrats and Republicans are held to a different one. The great taboo argues that while German Nazis were monsters for intentionally killing innocent, unarmed civilians for a "greater good," American Democrats and Republicans who did the same are heroes-indeed, we speak of them as "the greatest generation."
And finally, the great taboo is exploited to suppress, censor, and imprison writers and film makers who argue that it cannot be demonstrated that the Germans actually had weapons of mass destruction, unlike the Americans who clearly did, and who no one claims did not.
At this moment it might be well to consider a more recent weapons of mass destruction fraud. Iraq? Weapons of mass destruction? Where are they? Maybe they are in hiding someplace in the center of the earth, holding hands as it were, with those old German weapons of mass destruction which have not yet been proven to have existed.
What difference does any of this make? It makes a difference because it goes to the heart of what is morally right, and what is not.
The first weapons of mass destruction fraud morally legitimated the creation of a Jewish State on Arab land in Palestine. We all know what has come of that one.
The second weapons of mass destruction fraud was used to morally legitimate the invasion of Iraq by the United States. We all know what has come of that one.
And now, of course, there are the weapons of mass destruction being planned by the Iranian Government. Maybe they are, maybe they are not. Are we going to trust the United States Government to tell us the truth about Iranian weapons of mass destruction?
The truth is, the only State in the Middle East that actually has weapons of mass destruction is Israel. But in the United States, that is never talked about. Never. It too is part of the great taboo.
This afternoon we are going to watch 32 minutes of a documentary that I have been working on for three years. These particular 32 minutes are very simple. They are comprised primarily of interviews with two German writers [Ernst Zundel and Germar Rudolf] who immigrated to America to find a place where they could write as free men, in a nation that prides itself on being a bastion of intellectual freedom and a free press.
What happened to these two German writers in America? The American government cooperated with the German State in sending them back to Germany where, today, at this very moment, they are being held in prison for thought crimes.
They have been condemned to prison for having an opinion about history. What is the American professorial class doing about this? Nothing. The professors are in thrall to the State, and to the special interest organizations that assure their careers.
Six months ago, in December, I went to Tehran, the capital of Iran, to give a talk on the Holocaust story and the attempt in Europe and America to suppress, censor and imprison those of us who have found it necessary, on the basis of the evidence, to revise-not to deny but to revise-the orthodox account of those events. The title of my talk was: "The Irrational Vocabulary of the American Professorial Class with Regard to the Holocaust Question." My argument was that the American professorial class uses an irrational vocabulary to respond to revisionist arguments questioning the orthodox Holocaust story. That the decision of the American professorial class to exploit this irrational vocabulary is a deliberate decision to avoid communication. To avoid communication! Professors! In the university itself! That the purpose in choosing to not communicate as scholars to either students or colleagues is, effectively, to nurture and protect an academic environment in which it is taboo to question the "unique monstrosity" of the Germans during World War II.
That to question the "unique monstrosity" of the Germans during World War II would necessarily suggest that the history of the 20th century would have to be rewritten, and the nature of the role of the United States in that war, and in world affairs since that war, would have to be re-evaluated.
Here I will demonstrate a prime example of the irrational vocabulary of the American professorial class with regard to the Holocaust question.
First, let me say this. The State cannot imprison its writers without the overwhelming cooperation of the professorial class. And when things get tough, the professorial class, as a class, will always side with the State against the people-the writer who rebels against what the State has pronounced to be good, to be morally correct. (...)
My apologies to any American professor who might be here with us today. I am certain that you, yourself, are an exception to this rule.
During the 1990s I published essay advertisements in student newspapers at universities around America. My first full-page revisionist essay-advertisement ran in The Daily Northwestern, the student newspaper at Northwestern University near Chicago. It appeared on 04 April 1991. It was titled "The Holocaust: How Much is False?" The text was some 2,700 words. The text of this essay is online.
For the first time on an American university campus, core revisionist arguments challenging the orthodox Holocaust story were outlined in a university publication. Every observation we made reflected a commonplace revisionist argument. (...) Among them were these.
It cannot be demonstrated that the German State had a policy to exterminate the Jews of Europe, or anyone else, by putting them to death in gas chambers or by killing them through abuse or neglect.
It cannot be demonstrated that 6 million Jews were "exterminated" during WWII.
It cannot be demonstrated that homicidal gas chambers existed in any camp in Europe which was under German control.
It cannot be demonstrated that the awful scenes of the dead and emaciated inmates captured on newsreel footage at Dachau, Buchenwald and Bergen-Belsen-were the victims of intentional killing or intentional starvation.
It cannot be demonstrated, as the Holocaust Industry claims, that there are "tons" of captured German documents which prove the mass murder of Jews and others in homicidal gas chambers.
It cannot be demonstrated that, as was claimed during war crimes trials, that Jews were cooked to make soap from their fat, or skinned to make lampshades from their hides.
It cannot be demonstrated that during the war the Red Cross, the Pope, humanitarian agencies, the Allied governments, neutral governments, and prominent figures such as Roosevelt, Truman, Churchill, Eisenhower all knew about "gas chambers" but really did not want to talk about it. (...)
There it was. For the whole world to see. Standard Holocaust revisionist arguments. Nothing original.
One week after my ad appeared in The Daily Northwestern, the student paper printed a letter from a professor of history and German on that campus. His name was Peter Hayes. He taught a course on Holocaust studies. He still teaches it. If anyone at Northwestern University was capable of disputing any claim made in the text of our ad, Professor Hayes was that man.
This was a milestone for revisionism. The first time a real Holocaust revisionist text was printed in a university publication, and the first time that professional scholars had the opportunity to demonstrate in public where at least one revisionist argument was wrong and why it was wrong.
Professor Hayes, however, ignored the published text and-he did not address one assertion made in the text-not one. Rather in one modest column in a student newspaper, this Holocaust studies professor charged me with ... listen to this:
"manipulation," "deception," "distortion," "ignorance," "intimidation," "nastiness," "dishonesty," "duplicity," "maliciousness," "tastelessness," "browbeating" academics like himself, "conspiracy mongering," "implausibilities" and "disinformation." Not one word addressed any specific statement in the text of the ad.
If Professor Hayes letter were to have proven to be an exception to the rule, his language in the Daily Northwestern would not have been noteworthy. But that was not the case. He demonstrated at Northwestern what was to become the rule all over America.
Throughout the 1990s I ran essay-advertisements in student newspapers at hundreds of university and college campuses from one end of America to the other. Typically, each academic year I would write a new text. The response by the professorial class to these texts, year after year, was substantially the same as that of Professor Hayes. The text would be ignored, while its author would be attacked with an irrational vocabulary of insult, hysteria, and innuendo. For ten years. It was remarkable.
The few exceptions to this rule were typically written by student editors at student newspapers. None argued that any particular revisionist argument was sound, but a good number did argue that the Holocaust question should be open to a free exchange of ideas, just like any other historical question.
That was all I was asking. An open debate.
Fifteen years have passed since the Professor Peter Hayes incident at Northwestern University. Now we come to 2006. The following texts will demonstrate that the American professorial class is still committed to a vocabulary of irrationality-that is, a deliberate decision to not communicate-with regard to the Holocaust question.
Once again, we will be at Northwestern University.
In February 2006 there was an international uproar in response to Iranian President Ahmadinejad's contention that the Holocaust is a "myth." The Iranian News Agency, Mehr, interviewed Arthur R. Butz, author of The Hoax of the 20th Century, which was published in 1976, 30 years earlier. (S)
The Mehr interview with Professor Butz was reported all over the world. I thought, at last. Professor Butz and the President of Iran. Batman and Robin. A dynamic duo. There would be some academics, certainly one, among the professorial class in America, or at least at Northwestern University itself, who would take a sober look at Professor Butz and his The Hoax of the 20th Century. At the very least, they would argue that he had the right to express his skepticism about the German gas chambers.
Alas! I am a hopeless romantic.
The president of Northwestern University, Henry S. Bienen, issued a statement. President Bienen said nothing about any specific assertion of fact in anything Professor Butz had ever written or said, either in the Mehr interview, on his Web site, or in The Hoax of the 20th Century.
President Bienen, making a deliberate decision to not communicate, wrote only that Professor Butz's opinions are "reprehensible," and "a contemptible insult to all decent and feeling people."
The Religion Department at Northwestern University published a letter in which it did not address any assertion of fact in anything that Professor Butz has ever written. Rather, the Religion Department charged Professor Butz with
"fraud," "lying," "abuse," "hateful speech," "faking data," and "moral and intellectual failure." Sixty-one faculty members of Northwestern University's Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science-Professor Butz's own department-published a letter denouncing him. Not one of these professional scholars addressed directly anything Professor Butz has ever written.
His department colleagues wrote that they "utterly disavowed" and "condemned" Professor Butz. They charged that he is an "extreme embarrassment" to his colleagues, that his views are an "affront to their humanity" and beneath their "standards as scholars". They "repudiated" him and urged him "to leave" the Department. These were his own colleagues.
There are 1,800 professional scholars employed at Northwestern University. Not one of them stood up in public to argue that Professor Butz's The Hoax of the 20th Century should be examined before it is condemned, or that after 30 years one paper assessing Butz's writings should be published in one peer reviewed journal where Professor Butz would have the right of reply.
Not a chance. These academics, men and women, religious and secular alike, Jew and Gentile alike, are in a moral crises over this issue and do not have enough character to be willing to understand what it is.
The vocabulary used by the American professorial class with regard to revisionist scholarship is irrational because it deliberately does not respond to the materials it allegedly addresses, and because it deliberately ignores the findings of published revisionist work in order to keep those findings from becoming widely familiar.
So, with regard to the use of weapons of mass destruction to kill innocent, unarmed civilians, we are to continue to judge the actions of German National Socialists - los Nazis - by one standard of morality and justice, while we judge American Democrats and Republicans by a different one. A double standard of justice, and a double standard of morality.
You may be wondering: What difference does any of this make in the real world?
I am going to suggest what difference it does make. In the real world. Today.
If the Germans did not have weapons of mass destruction, the Jews of Europe were not "holocausted." The story would be a fraud.
If the Jews of Europe were not "holocausted," it would be a fraud to use that non-event to morally justify their conquest and occupation of Arab land in Palestine to create a Jewish state there.
If the United States Congress had not bought and paid for Israel for the last 60 years, using a fraud to morally justify it, Arab fanatics would not be able to morally justify-in their own eyes-their attack against America on 9/11.
If Arab fanatics had not attacked New York City and Washington on 9/11, the Americans would not be able to use a weapons-of-mass-destruction fraud to morally justify their conquest and occupation of Iraq.
And there we are. A red, bloody thread that reaches from the German gas-chamber fraud to the Iraqi gas-chamber fraud and to the horror of the American campaign in Iraq where more than half a million-more than half a million!-Iraqi civilians have been maimed, crippled and killed for what the American Government tells us is a "greater good."
Ask yourself: how many enemies did America have in the Middle East before Israel? How many enemies do we have now? And all of it morally justified because of a demonstrable fraud?
Now it is time to view a segment of the documentary we are working on. Again, these 32 minutes are very simple. For the most part they record interviews with two German writers who came to America to continue their research and to publish their findings. They were sent back to Germany, with the cooperation of the U.S. Government, to be thrown into prison as thought criminals, without a single bleep of protest from the American professorial class.
This is a moment when cinema becomes quietly dangerous, when it becomes a studied revolt against the good-that is, against what we are told is morally right for us to believe, and that we must believe because-it is morally right.
This is a moment when the quiet testimony of two writers imprisoned for thought crimes illustrates the moral decadence of those in government, and those in the American university, who fear a free exchange of ideas on a public stage, in an environment of good will.
This is a moment where I begin, using cinema as art, to open up this story for all to see.
Is this the same Smith as can be found at Iamthewitness.com? If so, IMHO treat with extreme caution as many people who've interacted with him have come off worse - sometimes greatly so.
His stance is far too sweeping; far too 'in yer face'; blatantly demagogic.
For sure there are quantitive queries within historical circles leading an unspoken consensus that Zionists did not have the interests of European Jews primarily at heart(!). Their present activities lend considerable weight to this consensus.
There is ample historical fact and statistic to clearly demonstrate that the Nazi atrocity cannot be viewed in isolation. There is dawning awareness that Zionism will do and say anything to maintain their beachhead in the oil trough and secure the supposed prize of Jerusalem.
Delving into the depths of both Aryanism and Zionism can only lead the honest, unbiased and impartial researcher to the conclusion that they tread parallel paths of arrogance, psychopathy and horrendously misplaced ideas of genetic supremacy.
Blackbear - Yeah I did read it. Essentially he's trying to mix up several unrelated themes in a desperate attempt to try to lend credence to his central thesis. For example, the fact that double standards regarding events that may be regarded as war crimes - e.g. the bombing of Axis civilians - is not surprising or unique and recognition of this is far from absent from much historical and political commentary that don't bat for Smith's team. By the same token, what Israel and America get up in the present day has exactly zero relevance to determining the empirical nature of prior historical events. Basically, he's mixing up more plausible ideas with the nonsense he's devoted his life to peddling and hoping people won't notice. Sounds to me like he's getting desperate. Curiously, you seem to buy into this specious reasoning yourself by assuming I support Israel. What I think of the Israeli state today has no relevance to what I think happened to the Jews sixty years ago.
I wouldn't need to e-mail Mr Smith anything. I am confident he is far more conversant in the available literature than I. He has, after all, forged a long career out of twisting and distorting it. He also knows better than me how many times in the last 30 years THOTTC has been shredded.
I quite like David Cole. He was my favourite. He actually made some genuinely interesting points and some of his (characteristically very frank) interviews from back in the day give some fascinating (and sometimes funny) insights into the wild world of far-right crackpotery. _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 2017 Location: Croydon, Surrey
Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 11:19 pm Post subject:
Dogsmilk wrote:
I quite like David Cole. He was my favourite. He actually made some genuinely interesting points and some of his (characteristically very frank) interviews from back in the day give some fascinating (and sometimes funny) insights into the wild world of far-right crackpotery.
I don't understand this comment. Listen.
I was born in 1950. I do not remembering the 'holocaust' becoming a big issue in the public domain until the late 60's or so when the media began to shock us all senseless with this horror story.
The biggest, most memorable fact that was hammered away at was that 4 million Jews had been exterminated in the gas-chambers of Auschwitz. The murder had been just like an industrial manufacturing process except that there were living human beings sent in at one end.....ashes out the other.
I believed that right up to 2005 after I came across the truth about 9/11.
One then follows one's nose on what is a very shocking journey.
The central role of Zionists and Zionism in this great crime is immediately obvious. When one becomes aware that all the mainstream media that one had hitherto respected are refusing to publish or discuss issues of obvious fraud....that could, if left unrecognised, result in our very extinction.....then one is forced to the conclusion that there is something going on that is very wicked indeed.
Such lies, such lies.
One wonders how such a small sect has managed to become empowered to the point that they can imperil the lives of all humanity. The fuel of Zionism is the 'holocaust story', be that story true, false or something in between.
I was flabbergasted watching the David Cole documentary......not least by his revelation (the first time I had heard it) that the number of deaths at Auschwitz had been officially lowered from 4 million to 1.1 million. That's nearly 3 million less. 3 million people who had not been gassed and rendered into ashes!
.....and the fact that most people still hold the 4 million story as fact is a scandal. Was this not a big story when the official story changed. Why were we not bombarded with this fact when the history was changed. Was this not worthy of detailed examination in the public domain?
I was so staggered by this I sent an email to Yad Vashem and got a casual reply that, "Yes, the Auschwitz figure was 1.1 and not 4 million....that this figure had always been dubious..."
Oh, really?
How can we be expected to believe anything on trust after such a gross misrepresentation of the facts (whatever they were).
I also asked Dr Rozett why, if the figure at Auschwitz had reduced by 2.9 million how come the total figure for Jewish deaths in the holocaust remains at 6million?
He said that we know the population of European Jews was 6million less after the war than it was before. Simple.
Maybe he is right.....but I still want to see the truth for myself. I've had enough of being lied to by fiends with a hidden agenda.
Are you suggesting that 'funny' David Cole is some sort of crypto-fascist? Go on, tell me I'm thick, like you tell everyone else.
David Cole with his skepticism and yamulka (is it?) tore the official Auschwitz story to shreds. He got people to admit that the 'gas chamber' in Auschwitz had been subject to 'reconstruction' in 1946. There was no blue staining on the wall, as there was in the delousing unit outside the main gate where 'Zyklon B' was definitely used (to keep the inmates healthy).
The document you present by Mr Pressac was published in 1989. I am inclined to suspect that this was a rearguard action in response to the unsustainable earlier Auschwitz narrative (though I could be wrong). The 'horror of horrors' seems to have shifted a short distance down the road to the Birkenau and not the Auschwitz camp itself as we were all first informed.
Why should anyone believe any of this stuff after such lies?
Gita Sereny interviewed Franz Stangl, the Nazi beuraucrat who led and was responsible for what seems to have been a real program of extermination at Treblinka. Even she says in her book about Stangl, that Auschwitz was not a death camp....that there were three such camps, Treblinka and two others (one was Chelmo, I think). I trust Sereny because I have read other of her works and she is clearly an honest investigator.
There is little doubt there was some kind of genocidal program in place during the last times of the war....what is much less certain is the real scale of the outrage.
The big prize for the parties that funded both sides (including Hitler) throughout the war was the 'Israel project'.....and how well the holocaust horror has served this end.
As Christianity and other faiths have been demoted and determinedly driven from our culture and from our children's minds, the 'holocaust' has become the western world's only true religion. We must hold the '6 million dead' as an article of faith. You just dare to question it.....anywhere in Europe. Do you mind a spell in jail?
Spit on Mohammed or Christ if you so wish but a word that violates this taboo and you can be in real trouble.
By the way. My family are Irish. In the 1850's there was a famine in Ireland. The British and their landlords could have fed the desperate people but they chose not to. The population of Ireland was 9 million before the famine and about 3 million shortly after. I notice that there are not museums commemorating this holocaust (sorry, does this one count?) all across the western world, nor even across Ireland.
Good job too.
There was a bigger holocaust of Ukranians in the 1930's. 10 million mostly starved to death by Russian Bolsheviks whose leadership were, as it happens, predominantly Jews.
The point is that the exceptionalism and dubious history of the Jewish holocaust is the living engine of a thoroughly obnoxious political enterprise that dominates the political reality of the western and even the entire world.
No one wants to sneer at any death nor belittle any real suffering......but there is something else going on here........and that something must be resisted.
Kbo - I've posted repeatedly on this forum about the 4 million figure. It was the Soviet estimate, based on flawed methodology, was never the 'official figure', Raul Hilberg and others never even used it etc etc etc.
There never was and never has been an 'official story'. The history of the Holocaust is an ongoing debate - as is the history of pretty much everything else.
Everyone in the field already knew the gas chamber tourists get shown was a reconstruction. It was no big secret. Cole made a big fuss about it and claimed all kinds, but as far as I can tell he was just going off on one.
David Cole was no crypto-fascist, IMO. He spoke fairly frankly about the far-right atmosphere of revisionist circles and in one interview goes on about bringing his big black best friend to a revisionist do at which were (inevitably) white supremacists. As I said, I think he said some interesting things. He was against woolly evidencing of the Holocaust of which I approve. He actually stirred up the revisionist camp a lot by debunking Faurrison. Some people say he was leaned on to retract his views - maybe so, it's certainly plausible - but he also demonstrated a willingness to consider evidence that didn't fit his denier thesis. Regarding Zyclon B, this is in interesting start.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/irving-david/rudolf/affweb.pdf
Third time I've posted it on this forum.
It's re Germar Rudolf, but it's basically the same stuff.
How on earth is Pressac engaged in a 'rearguard action'?! Pressac was a colleaugue of Faurisson who changed his mind and wrote a book about the gas chambers. Rather than assume malign intent, it would perhaps be better to actually consider what he says. For example, why do you think you'd need to fit a gas tight door and dummy shower heads in the same place? I realise all the former inmates and SS are stinking liars, but it's curious how it exactly fits what they claimed, no?
The laugh of it is, over the years the evidence base regarding Auschwitz has increased as new archives are opened and trawled through, and it all seems to fit with there being gas chambers.
You are misinterpreting Gita Sereny. Auschwitz never was a death camp as Treblinka, Sobibor, Chelmno or Belzec were. The latter were simply extermination camps. Auschwitz was an enormous concentration/slave labour camp which held Poles before any Jew set foot in there. Part of its function was extermination, a role which evolved over time. She herself is clear on this.
Quote:
The use of Zyclon B cyanide gas was a parallel technique, used only later in the gas chambers of Auschwitz, and on a limted scale in Majdanek, both of which were primarily labour camps with added extermination facilities
Albert Speer: His battle with truth by Gita Sereny p.344
In Into that darkness, the book where she interviews Stangl she mentions
Quote:
Birkenau, the extermination section of Auschwitz (where 860,000 Jews are believed to have been killed)
(p.100)
Funny in a book published in 1974, she's another one defying the 'official figure' for Auschwitz, eh? (I assume she refers to 860,000 specifically for gassing, but considering other deaths are a lesser figure, there's no way you'd get 4 million)
What 'Israel project'? Britain spent half of the war trying to keep Jews out of Palestine (what about the struma?) and how come:
Quote:
A top-level British government memorandum linked to the film (this was -terror methods of Germany') and post-war atrocity material stressed with regard to German documentation that
preference (was to be given) to those which specify the nationality and.or religion of the victims and documents should be selected involving as great a variety of nationalities and religions as possible. It is especially desirable to document the extent to which non-Jewish German nationals were the victims of the German concentration camp system
the Holocaust and the liberal imagination by Tony Kushner p.216
Kushner spends a lot of time looking at the varied and quite complex ways in which the Holocaust was presented and the reasons behind these.
Whether or not the Holocaust is over-egged in relation to other atrocities has exactly jack nonsense to do with whether it actually occurred. If Germay had won the war, it would have been completely buried. Americans still celebrate Thanksgiving which is essentially a celebration of genocide. Except maybe that never happened either? I've never seen a photo of any Indians being genocided. Maybe the deaths were exaggerated? Or the Armenians? It strikes me the evidence base for the Armenian genoocide is directly comparable to that for the Holocaust. I see no logical reason why one should question one and not the other.
Ironically, I suspect the highly vocal deniers have played a major part in keeping it centre stage.
I'm aware I've stomped round this forum regarding this issue. If I'd found clear evidence the Holocaust was a lie, I'd accept it. But the more I see, the more willful distortion, semantic games and lies I come across. Zionist tub-thumpers may exploit the Holocaust for their own political agenda - that is a specific issue regarding the use of historical atrocity for a political agenda. Though I can understand how some people get very angry with Holocaust denial. If you were there, if your relative was there or died there, it must be highly offensive for someone to come along and call you a liar, called your relative a liar or say your relative wasn't killed there. From your family's perpective, I assume you find it at least somewhat annoying if people claim Britain's treatment of Ireland has been consistently benign.
I also think there is a concerted effort in some quarters to piggyback this stuff on to trutherism or justified outrage at Israeli antics. Holocaust denial has not had a long association with a certain political perspective by accident. I've said it before, but I simply cannot get my head round how people can be righeously cynical about government propaganda, yet chuck their critical faculties out the window when it comes to what anyone else is saying. Governments aren't the only people who understand propaganda.
I think I probably need to leave this stuff alone. I've got so preoccupied with it, I've forgotten 911. It just gets on my tits how human suffering and death can become a plaything for forwarding various agendas.
I also don't understand how specifically 'Zionists' are responsible for everything bad happening in the world. Pardon my naivity, but I don't get how the drive to bag and hold Jewish homeland is frequently invoked as being implicated in anything and everything.
At times, this forum is like a time warp to Germany in 1933. I'm just surprised Henry Ford hasn't put in an appearance.
I haven't watched the videos. My assumption, but I doubt it's anything I haven't seen before. I'm getting bored of the same tired old arguments from years ago.
I agree with Tony it's more appropriate for controversies. If people want to discuss this, then that's up to them, but whatever you think of it only an idiot would fail to appreciate it gives a certain irresistable ammunition to certain parties.
Or maybe people would prefer the forum become '911, the bigger picture, the quest for truth and holocaust denial'. _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
By the way - what's all this about TG and JW not being moderators any more? I thought AJ was going to do his own forum? What's the score? _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 2017 Location: Croydon, Surrey
Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 2:13 pm Post subject:
Dogsmilk wrote:
Kbo -
There never was and never has been an 'official story'.
The media broadcast a single version of events on this issue for many years. To say the story was not 'official' is pretty meaningless. Surely what is 'official' is that which is approved for widespread dissemination to the masses.
Dogsmilk wrote:
The history of the Holocaust is an ongoing debate
Then how come it is a criminal offense to debate it?
Dogsmilk wrote:
Everyone in the field already knew the gas chamber tourists get shown was a reconstruction. It was no big secret.
In what field? The people who showed Cole around seemed pretty confused about the issue. If such a significant edifice was a reconstruction then it should have said so in huge capital letters on a sign at the door. There was no such sign. It is my strong impression that tourists were given the impression that this was the actual gas chamber in which the massacres took place.
The point is that you are saying that all these issues have been dealt with in a way that is entirely open, transparent and above board.
I am saying, as one who feels deceived, that this is not the case.
I do not seriously doubt that there was a holocaust. You are much more than likely right right about Pressac, Sereny etc. You certainly know more than I do about the history of this event.
However, it is also obvious that the holocaust is, as well as a real event, an on-going psy-op. Very little of the monies extorted from Swiss banks by Jewish-American political muscle has gone to survivors. Most has been plied into the holocaust propaganda machine.....new museums, educational trusts etc.
What is the point of all this? Norman Finkelstein has lambasted this industry (and look at what has happened to him. Sacked by his University). Are the powers pushing this issue concerned with humanity and genocide in general? I don't think so.
They are manufacturing a civilisation that is cowed by the very idea of contradicting a Jew on so-called Jewish issues. This could turn out to be very bad for Jews.
Dogsmilk wrote:
......What 'Israel project'?
The bankers have adopted Zionism (IMO) as a tool to divide and rule. It is a conflict-creating device to assist them in their ultimate intention......creating a one-world global state whose money is created by them. Thus they will control the whole world. Many documents spell out this aim.
This is not a global state controlled by Jews. It is a state controlled by the super-rich, who have used 'the Jews' to get them to their destination.
Zionism is likely to prove to be a great disaster for Jews.
Alan Hart, ex senior BBC reporter for Panorama and the like, has written a book on this issue, "Zionism, the Enemy of the Jews."
Dogsmilk wrote:
Whether or not the Holocaust is over-egged in relation to other atrocities has exactly jack nonsense to do with whether it actually occurred.
Agreed.
But I am not denying that it occurred. What I am saying is that people like myself who have been genuinely confused by the presentation of history should have our doubts and questions addressed in major public forums, not on silly little web-sites like this.....in the same way that the original story was disseminated. The numbers is not a small issue.
Dogsmilk wrote:
Ironically, I suspect the highly vocal deniers have played a major part in keeping it centre stage.
Rubbish. It would have been centre-stage anyway.
When 'deniers' or 'Nazis', or whoever you think they are, raise their heads it important to the psy-op that it is demonstrated to the wider world that these people and such ideas will not be tolerated.
Dogsmilk wrote:
From your family's perpective, I assume you find it at least somewhat annoying if people claim Britain's treatment of Ireland has been consistently benign.
This is not any kind of issue for me or my family. The history is not much disputed and all those whose background is the peoples who came under the heel of the British Empire know what that enterprise was all about. We tend to understand the wickedness and dishonesty of those who hold great power and the stupidity and vulnerability to propaganda of the masses who largely supported their government in all their great crimes.
Dogsmilk wrote:
I think I probably need to leave this stuff alone. .
Me too. I feel ill talking about it, but feel I must.
The school I have started teaching in is taking a party to Auschwitz next Easter holiday. I know that if I talk about this inside the school or raise questions about the purpose of the 'holocaust industry' it is quite likely that I will be sacked....such will be the offence taken by all parties to the raising of any critical issues at all.
This is not a healthy situation. These children are young adults and, if the spirit so takes them, they could possibly be out in the middle-east shooting brown-skinned people within twelve months.
The media broadcast a single version of events on this issue for many years. To say the story was not 'official' is pretty meaningless. Surely what is 'official' is that which is approved for widespread dissemination to the masses.
Approved by who? The media isn't some monolith dispensing approved news from a central source. The mass media tend to stick to broad simplistic stories, frequently concocted by journalists who know relatively little of what they're talking about. What I'm saying is there is no "This is it. It happened exactly thus. Case closed". People are still bringing new interpretations to the history of Rome, something with an immeasurably smaller set of sources to draw on. There is still a debate over whether the Holocaust was planned early on or evolved incrementally (I favour the latter).
Deniers moan about the apparently rigid 'official history', yet cum in their pants and say it's backtracking when historians decide new evidence. research or analysis requires a reassessment. It's like they want it both ways - to complain about history being set in stone and complain about history being prone to re-interpretation. Unless it's theirs.
Quote:
Then how come it is a criminal offense to debate it?
It's not an offense to debate it, but it is to deny it. Which is dumb if you ask me.
Ask the politicians. I don't think it should be. Nor do many of the people who wrote the 'official history'. The only sympathy I do have is, as I said, the major offense it can cause some people. I just don't know what it must feel like to go through something like those camps and have people go on to say you're bullsh!tting about your recollections.
Anyway, it won't work. It's easy to find this stuff on the net. We're debating it now, but I'm assuming the coppers aren't kicking down your door.
Quote:
The bankers have adopted Zionism (IMO) as a tool to divide and rule. It is a conflict-creating device to assist them in their ultimate intention......creating a one-world global state whose money is created by them. Thus they will control the whole world. Many documents spell out this aim.
This is not a global state controlled by Jews. It is a state controlled by the super-rich, who have used 'the Jews' to get them to their destination.
Zionism is likely to prove to be a great disaster for Jews.
Alan Hart, ex senior BBC reporter for Panorama and the like, has written a book on this issue, "Zionism, the Enemy of the Jews."
Why would bankers be specifically concerned with the notion that Jews should return to Israel as their homeland? There already is pretty much a one-world global state controlled by multinational corporations. I fully agree the super rich pull the string and they don't need Jews, Zionism or Israel to do this. I agree with the general antipathy to Zionism, I just think it's inflated out of all proportion to some huge bogeyman. Essentially, the current economic system exists because we choose to participate in it. If you want to talk about media brainwashing, why not consider the current notion that business, profit, personal wealth are the overriding messages sent. Why we allow so many cheap consumer goods produced in basically slave labour conditions abroad while our own labour organisation rights are eroded, the 'flexible labour market' undermines our job security and the gap between rich and poor widens as vast economic disparity is seen as some sort of inevitable law of nature. Placing all the blame on some mythical 'Zionist' cabal detracts from the stark reality we've allowed ourselves to be beguiled by trinkets and cashed in the rights our forefathers fought for. We do it to ourselves as much as anything for choosing to play the game.
I am aware of the Hart book though I haven' read it - Amazon keep sticking it in their book recommendations to me. But from his own description, it appears he's saying something slightly different to what you allege:
Quote:
The underlying thesis is that because of the settlement facts pork-barrel American politics (and the impotence of the Arab regimes) have allowed to be created on the ground, it’s now too late for any U.S. administration to call and hold the nuclear-armed Zionist state to account; and that only the Jews of the diaspora, the majority of Jews in the world, have the influence to do it – cause Israel to change its ways and make peace on terms which almost all Palestinians and Arabs everywhere can accept. But… I also say that it’s unreasonable and unrealistic to expect the Jews of the diaspora to play their necessary part in bringing the Zionist state to heel, and averting a Clash of Civilisations, unless and until they receive the maximum possible in the way of reassurance about their security in the mainly Gentile world of which they are citizens. And this is why I call in my Epilogue, The Jews As the Light Unto Nations, for a New Covenant, not between the Jews and their God, but between the Jews and the Gentiles. (The primordial point here is that deep down almost every diaspora Jew lives with the unspeakable fear of Holocaust II and thus the perceived need, if only in the sub-consciousness, for Israel as the refuge of last resort; which is why, without the maximum possible in the way of reassurance, they won’t even think of obliging Israel to be serious about peace).
I do not blame the Zionist lobby for exercising its influence, now in shocking and awesome alliance with America’s born-again Christian fundamentalists and the neo cons, in association with oil interests and the MIC (Military Industrial Complex). The Zionist lobby, I say, has merely played the game, ruthlessly to be sure, according to The System’s rules. I blame most of all America’s pork-barrel politics. I say that American politicians, including presidents, always had a choice. They did not have to do the Zionist lobby’s bidding when doing so was putting America’s own longer term and best interests at great risk. They chose to do the lobby’s bidding to serve their own short-term (personal and party) interests. And I say in passing that with American politicians as friends, the Jews do not need enemies.
But I am not denying that it occurred. What I am saying is that people like myself who have been genuinely confused by the presentation of history should have our doubts and questions addressed in major public forums, not on silly little web-sites like this.....in the same way that the original story was disseminated. The numbers is not a small issue.
I kind of agree. But the blunt fact is no-one knows the real numbers and never will. Except there is relative certainty within a specific range. No-one knows exactly how many American Indians, Cambodians or Armenians died. Concrete numbers get pushed forwards, but they're all estimates. The more you read into it, the more hectic it gets as the more the disputes over minutiae become apparent. History never gives 'the truth', it only offers an approximation of what the current total body of evidence taken as a whole suggests is most likely. In this case pretty overwhelming likely.
Quote:
Rubbish. It would have been centre-stage anyway.
When 'deniers' or 'Nazis', or whoever you think they are, raise their heads it important to the psy-op that it is demonstrated to the wider world that these people and such ideas will not be tolerated.
Maybe, maybe not.
What 'psy-op' is this then? Banning things just draws attention to them and makes them more exciting.
Quote:
This is not any kind of issue for me or my family. The history is not much disputed and all those whose background is the peoples who came under the heel of the British Empire know what that enterprise was all about. We tend to understand the wickedness and dishonesty of those who hold great power and the stupidity and vulnerability to propaganda of the masses who largely supported their government in all their great crimes.
Not necessarily. Some people argue that the British Empire functioned to bring civilisation and its benefits to what were essentially backwards countries. I heard this guy on Radio 4 a couple of months back basically 'revising' the notion of the Empire as oppressive.
If I said hardly any Irish died, it was basically their anti-British propaganda , despite the fact it was a long time ago, wouldn't that bug you just a bit?
Quote:
In what field? The people who showed Cole around seemed pretty confused about the issue. If such a significant edifice was a reconstruction then it should have said so in huge capital letters on a sign at the door. There was no such sign. It is my strong impression that tourists were given the impression that this was the actual gas chamber in which the massacres took place.
The point is that you are saying that all these issues have been dealt with in a way that is entirely open, transparent and above board.
I am saying, as one who feels deceived, that this is not the case.
I do not seriously doubt that there was a holocaust. You are much more than likely right right about Pressac, Sereny etc. You certainly know more than I do about the history of this event.
The field of Holocaust research.
They were museum tour guides. They say the same thing day in day out probably not knowing a huge amount about it. I wouldn't necessarily expect them themselves to be sure if it was a reconstruction or not. IIRC, their English wasn't good, so I'm not surprised they were confused.
I agree it should have said explicitly it was a reconstruction. I suspect a degree of 'showmanship' was employed to enhance the horror of it. If so, it's a bit unessesary and rather distasteful, not to mention inaccurate.
But this is a museum run by the Polish, not the grand statement by the emissaries of the Holocaust or even the Zionists. How the museum runs itself is its own affair and theirs alone.
Cole presents a smoke and mirrors argument by trying to confuse the notion the punters weren't aware it's a reconstruction with a serious challenge to it actually happening. In a funny way, he did a service by bringing attention to it, but tries to make it mean things it doesn't.
Don't take my word on anything. Do your own research. I know b* all about the Holocaust. I have discovered there is such a vast amount to read it would take years. I just get exasperated by the straw man tactics of much of the denier stuff. I wonder why they do it.
Quote:
The school I have started teaching in is taking a party to Auschwitz next Easter holiday. I know that if I talk about this inside the school or raise questions about the purpose of the 'holocaust industry' it is quite likely that I will be sacked....such will be the offence taken by all parties to the raising of any critical issues at all.
This is not a healthy situation. These children are young adults and, if the spirit so takes them, they could possibly be out in the middle-east shooting brown-skinned people within twelve months.
This is very interesting. you could probably be sacked for questioning the validity of the armed forces as a career that involves simply being a contract killer for big business.
I think examining how the significance of a historical event can be framed by different parties should be a valid exercise, but that's just me.
Working with young people, one has to be wary as o how one's own ideas can be thrust upon vulnerable minds - how one's opinion can be put forward as 'fact'. Yet everything that is taught is someone's opinion.
I currently work with young people and know I'd be sacked if I spoke my mind on several areas. In some ways I think that's ok - I'm not there to propagandise - but on the other you can find yourself tacitly reinforcing the status quo. I suppose you can only encourage people to make up their own mind and encourage them to think critically in general.
Heh - Fancying a change from Social Work, I nearly went into teaching. Last year I had a place on a PGCE, but dropped out before I quit my job. Talking to people I know who teach, I think I had a lucky escape.
ukginger wrote:
I have interviewed a survivor of Belsen.
The Nazis tried to kill my Mother and my Father.
If it isn't too intrusive to ask, I would be interested to hear more about this. _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 2017 Location: Croydon, Surrey
Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 5:59 pm Post subject:
Dogsmilk wrote:
.....I nearly went into teaching. Last year I had a place on a PGCE, but dropped out before I quit my job. Talking to people I know who teach, I think I had a lucky escape.
Yes, you probably had. I feel on the brink of a nervous breakdown recently and, as much as I need the money, I know I can't keep doing this.
Joined: 03 Aug 2006 Posts: 431 Location: North East England
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 2:52 am Post subject:
Is it really as bad as that? I've been seriously considering doing a PGCE in the next year or two, but if teaching is as bad as the horror stories I've been fed so far, I'll give it a miss and continue with the relentless grind and misery of my current job......
What I think of the Israeli state today has no relevance to what I think happened to the Jews sixty years ago.
Once again you are belaying evidence of your brainwashing.
The New York money grabbing lawyers version of the Holocaust has been thoroughly disproven by every scholar who has studied it. Not least of all because of the census evidence which clearly proves that there were less than 6,000,000 Jews in Europe before the Holocaust, so how could more than the sum total have perished?
Secondly your version of the Holocaust ignores the overwhelming evidence that zionists financed Hitler and prevented the exodus of Jews to safe havens such as offered by many countries.
Thirdly you ignore the fact that it was Jews who were killed while Ashkenazis who form the bulk of the Apartheid state otherwise known as Israel did not perish meaning Ashkenazis became dominant.
Perhaps you did not watch the video or read the story i posted about Israel's own Holocaust when the ashkenazis poisoned over 100,000 SEPHARDIC Jews by giving the lethal doses of radiation in a program of ethnic cleansing purpotrated by Golda Meyer and Shimon Peres in 1952.
Look up the Ringworm Children unless you want to keep your head stuck firmly in the pro zionist sand it has been for so long.
The brainwashed public is repeatedly told a twisted version of history and it is used to fleece the German and Swiss taxpayers of Billions every year even now. Becoming a truthseeker means rejecting all the lies we have been forced to believe.
You can deny God
But deny the New York lawyers' holocaust and you go to jail in many countries.
What kind of world is it that we are in when people are jailed for a NON belief?
Without the Holocaust the British Labour party would not have able to create the state of Israel. _________________
What I think of the Israeli state today has no relevance to what I think happened to the Jews sixty years ago.
Once again you are belaying evidence of your brainwashing.
The New York money grabbing lawyers version of the Holocaust has been thoroughly disproven by every scholar who has studied it. Not least of all because of the census evidence which clearly proves that there were less than 6,000,000 Jews in Europe before the Holocaust, so how could more than the sum total have perished?
Secondly your version of the Holocaust ignores the overwhelming evidence that zionists financed Hitler and prevented the exodus of Jews to safe havens such as offered by many countries.
Thirdly you ignore the fact that it was Jews who were killed while Ashkenazis who form the bulk of the Apartheid state otherwise known as Israel did not perish meaning Ashkenazis became dominant.
Perhaps you did not watch the video or read the story i posted about Israel's own Holocaust when the ashkenazis poisoned over 100,000 SEPHARDIC Jews by giving the lethal doses of radiation in a program of ethnic cleansing purpotrated by Golda Meyer and Shimon Peres in 1952.
Look up the Ringworm Children unless you want to keep your head stuck firmly in the pro zionist sand it has been for so long.
The brainwashed public is repeatedly told a twisted version of history and it is used to fleece the German and Swiss taxpayers of Billions every year even now. Becoming a truthseeker means rejecting all the lies we have been forced to believe.
You can deny God
But deny the New York lawyers' holocaust and you go to jail in many countries.
What kind of world is it that we are in when people are jailed for a NON belief?
Without the Holocaust the British Labour party would not have able to create the state of Israel.
I think you're betraying your lack of rudimentary logic.
There were a lot more than 6 million Jews in Europe. For God's sake, at the Wannsee conference, the Nazis themselves estimated (IIRC) 11 million were left in Europe. To refer to it being proven by "every scholar" otherwise is simply false. Name some.
You've said before Zionists financed Hitler. I asked you for evidence. You gave me a list of books that say nothing of the sort. I asked you again. You didn't respond. If they did, point me in the direction of the evidence.You can add evidence that Zionists actively prevented Jewish emigration while you're at it. Obviously, Zionists wanted Jews in Palestine and did co-operate with the Nazis to this end, but quite how they dictated to other countries regarding their immigration policies I do not know.
Ashkenazis are Jews. What your point means I don't know. I'm unfamiliar with the spread of Jews on the 30s and 40s, but I strongly suspect the notion that Europe had "Jews", Palestine had "Ashkenazis" is bogus. Ashkenazis originated in Germany and spread East. According to you, they'd all f*cked off en masse by the time Hitler arrived.
Thinking it looked interesting, I downloaded the torrent for the ringworm children last week. It's taking forever to download. If you have it on torrent, please seed it. Though what relevance it has here is beyond me. Are you saying because Israelis did nasty experiments on children this means the Holocaust never happened? If not, what's the relevance? Governments do bad things. Not just Zionists or Jews. Governments. Other governments have done nasty experiments where they could get away with it.
It's true Israel would not have been formed (at least when it was) without the Holocaust. I see no relevance regarding it being a Labour government when this occurred.
You demonstrate my point. You chuck out loads of (mainly highly dubious) factoids about Zionists as if this says one jot about the Holocaust as an event in history. You may as well say Catholics were never persecuted in England on the basis the Vatican has done bad things so it can't have happened.
You confuse saying the Holocaust happened with support for Zionism, which is breathtakingly illogical.
I think you've been brainwashed by just believing any old nonsense you see on the internet that says it's 'giving you the red pill' or whatever.
I stand by the point you quoted. You cannot determine whether a historical event occurred by drawing moral judgements about what has occurred subsequently. That is patently absurd and should be obvious to anyone. _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Is it really as bad as that? I've been seriously considering doing a PGCE in the next year or two, but if teaching is as bad as the horror stories I've been fed so far, I'll give it a miss and continue with the relentless grind and misery of my current job......
I know a few teachers and they are all pissed off and stressed out. A friend of mine is looking to jack it in only two years after qualifying. _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
There were a lot more than 6 million Jews in Europe. For God's sake, at the Wannsee conference, the Nazis themselves estimated (IIRC) 11 million were left in Europe.
please on this occasion look at them properly especially the last one which is actually labelled The Brutal Zionist Role in the Holocaust.
These websites are 100% Jewish and so 100% the real deal.
These real Jews do not accept your view of the Holocaust. I would rather trust what they say than what you say who isnt even Jewish just a brainwashed atheist.
xxxxxxxxx
I also assume you did not watch the video of israel's own genocide against the SEPHARDIC Jews
download http://bitoogle.com/torrent/535450/
Israel's Channel Ten television screened a documentary film which exposes the ugliest secret of Israel's Labour party founders: the deliberate mass radiation poisoning of nearly all Sephardi youths of a generation.
"The Ringworm Children" (translated in Hebrew as "100,000 Rays"), directed by David Belhassen and Asher Hemias, recently won the prize for "best documentary" at the Haifa International film festival, and in the past year has made the rounds of Jewish and Israeli film festivals around the world. Copies can be purchased. But it had yet to come to Israeli television screens. The subject is the mass irradiation of hundreds of thousands of young Israeli immigrants from Middle Eastern countries -- Sephardim, as they are called today. The story goes like this:
In 1951, the director general of the Israeli Health Ministry, Dr. Chaim Sheba, flew to America and returned with seven x-ray machines, supplied to him by the American army. (Jews Sans Frontieres describes him as Israel's Mengele)
They were to be used in a mass atomic experiment with an entire generation of Sephardi youths to be used as guinea pigs. Every Sephardi child was to be given 35,000 times the maximum dose of x-rays through his head. For doing so, the American government paid the Israeli government 300 million Israeli liras a year. The entire Health budget was 60 million liras. The money paid by the Americans is equivalent to billions of dollars today.
To fool the parents of the victims, the children were taken away on "school trips" and their parents were later told the x-rays were a treatment for the scourge of scalpal ringworm. 6,000 of the children died shortly after their doses were given, while many of the rest developed cancers that killed thousands over time and are still killing them now. While living, the victims suffered from disorders such as epilepsy, amnesia, Alzheimer's disease, chronic headaches and psychosis.
That is the subject of the documentary in cold terms. It is another matter to see the victims on the screen. To watch the Moroccan lady describe what getting 35,000 times the dose of allowable x-rays in her head feels like. "I screamed make the headache go away. Make the headache go away. Make the headache go away. But it never went away."
To watch the bearded man walk hunched down the street. "I'm in my fifties and everyone thinks I'm in my seventies. I have to stoop when I walk so I won't fall over. They took my youth away with those x-rays."
To watch the old lady who administered the doses to thousands of children: "They brought them in lines. First their heads were shaved and smeared in burning gel. Then a ball was put between their legs and the children were ordered not to drop it, so they wouldn't move. The children weren't protected over the rest of their bodies. There were no lead vests for them. I was told I was doing good by helping to remove ringworm.
If I knew what dangers the children were facing, I would never have cooperated. Never!"
Because the whole body was exposed to the rays, the genetic makeup of the children was often altered, affecting the next generation. We watch the woman with the distorted face explain, "All three of my children have the same cancers my family suffered. Are you going to tell me that's a coincidence?"
The majority of the victims were Moroccan because they were the most numerous of the Sephardi immigrants. The generation that was poisoned became the country's perpetual poor and criminal class. It didn't make sense. The Moroccans who fled to France became prosperous and highly educated. The common explanation was that France got the rich, thus smart ones. The real explanation is that every French Moroccan child didn't have his brain cells fried with gamma rays.
The film made it perfectly plain that this operation was no accident. The dangers of x-rays had been known for over forty years. We read the official guidelines for x-ray treatment in 1952. The maximum dose to be given a child in Israel was .5 rad. There was no mistake made. The children were deliberately poisoned.
DAVID DERI MAKES THE POINT THAT ONLY SEPHARDI CHILDREN RECEIVED THE X-RAYS: "I WAS IN CLASS AND THE MEN CAME TO TAKE US ON A TOUR. THEY ASKED OUR NAMES. THE ASHKENAZI CHILDREN WERE TOLD TO RETURN TO THEIR SEATS. THE DARK CHILDREN WERE PUT ON THE BUS."
The film presents a historian who first gives a potted history of the eugenics movement. In a later sound bite, he declares that the ringworm operation was a eugenics program aimed at weeding out the perceived weak strains of society. The Moroccan lady is back on the screen. "It was a Holocaust, a Sephardi Holocaust. And what I want to know is why no one stood up to stop it."
David Deri, on film and then as a panel member, relates the frustration he encountered when trying to find his childhood medical records. "All I wanted to know was what they did to me. I wanted to know who authorized it. I wanted to trace the chain of command. But the Health Ministry told me my records were missing." Boaz Lev, the Health Ministry's spokesman chimes in: "Almost all the records were burned in a fire."
We are told that a US law in the late '40s put a stop to the human radiation experiments conducted on prisoners, the mentally feeble and the like. The American atomic program needed a new source of human lab rats and the Israeli government supplied it. Here was the government cabinet at the time of the ringworm atrocities:
Prime Minister - David Ben Gurion; Finance Minister - Eliezer Kaplan; Settlement Minister - Levi Eshkol; Foreign Minister - Moshe Sharrett; Health Minister - Yosef Burg;
Labor Minister - Golda Meir; Police Minister - Amos Ben Gurion.
The highest ranking non-cabinet post belonged to the Director General of the Defence Ministry, Shimon Peres.
That a program involving the equivalent of billions of dollars of American government funds should be unknown to the Prime Minister of cash-strapped Israel is ridiculous. Ben Gurion had to have been in on the horrors and undoubtedly chose his son to be Police Minister in case anyone interfered with them. Finance Minister Eliezer Kaplan was rewarded for eternity with a hospital named after him near Rehovot. But he's not alone in this honor. Chaim Sheba, who ran Ringworm Incorporated, had a whole medical complex named after him. Needless to say, if there is an ounce of decency in the local medical profession, those hospital names will have to change.
After the film ended, there was a panel discussion which included a Moroccan singer, David Edri, head of the Compensation Committee for Ringworm X-Ray Victims, and Boaz Lev, a spokesman for the Ministry Of Health.
TV host Dan Margalit tried to put a better face on what he'd witnessed. He explained meekly that "the state was poor. It was a matter of day to day survival." Then he stopped. He knew there was no excusing the atrocities which the Sephardi children endured.But it was the Moroccan singer who summed up the experience best. "It's going to hurt, but the truth has to be told. If not, the wounds will never heal."
There is one person alive who knows the truth: Shimon Peres. The only way to get to the truth and start the healing is to investigate him for his role in the mass poisoning of over 100,000 Sephardi children and youth.This is how David Shasha of Sephardic Heritage Update describes the man most responsible for the programme that blighted the lives of so many Jews from North Africa for generations:
Dr. Chaim Sheba, the first Surgeon General of Israel (died 1971) and an avowed racist who believed in the principles of using Eugenics as a social tool, was loath to accept the immigration from North Africa. Sheba demanded as a health official that any immigrants with family members who had health problems be barred from moving to Israel.
And when the first immigrants came from Morocco, he demanded that they be treated for ringworm.....Dr. Sheba, according to his writings, became obsessed with this ringworm issue in regard to the North African immigrants.
In his role as a public health minister he demanded that all North African children be sent to health centers to receive RADIATION THERAPY.
But here is why that won't happen. The film was aired at the same time as the highest-rated TV show of the year, the finale of Israel's talent-hunt show: "A Star Is Born." The next day, the newly-born star's photo took up half the front pages. There was not a word about "The Ringworm Children" in any paper, nor on the Internet. Until now.
The real homeland for the white, Ashkenazi Jews is near the Caspian and Black Seas, not Palestine. Their ancestors picked up the Jewish religion many centuries ago. When they converted enmasse. The modern day name for this area is probably Georgia and may have been called Khazaria in the past.
Most of the Jews who died in the Holocaust were HASAIDIC
After World War 2 the Ashkenazis became the dominant force
http://www.erichufschmid.net/TFC/Koestler13thTribe.htm http://www.erichufschmid.net/HoloHoax/Holocaust-Deniers.html
Dont get me wrong i am not saying Ashkenazis are bad. But it must be recognised that zionists have persecuted and killed many Jews to further their own aims.
When do you see Israeli MPs dressed like Jews or follow any sort of Jewsih codes of conduct?
Approximately 11 million Jews will be involved in the final solution of the European Jewish question, distributed as follows among the individual countries:
Country Number
A. Germany proper 131,800
Austria 43,700
Eastern territories 420,000
General Government 2,284,000
Bialystok 400,000
Protectorate Bohemia and Moravia 74,200
Estonia - free of Jews -
Latvia 3,500
Lithuania 34,000
Belgium 43,000
Denmark 5,600
France / occupied territory 165,000
unoccupied territory 700,000
Greece 69,600
Netherlands 160,800
Norway 1,300
B. Bulgaria 48,000
England 330,000
Finland 2,300
Ireland 4,000
Italy including Sardinia 58,000
Albania 200
Croatia 40,000
Portugal 3,000
Rumania including Bessarabia 342,000
Sweden 8,000
Switzerland 18,000
Serbia 10,000
Slovakia 88,000
Spain 6,000
Turkey (European portion) 55,500
Hungary 742,800
USSR 5,000,000
Ukraine 2,994,684
White Russia
excluding Bialystok 446,484
Total over 11,000,000
The number of Jews given here for foreign countries includes, however, only those Jews who still adhere to the Jewish faith, since some countries still do not have a definition of the term "Jew" according to racial principles.
The handling of the problem in the individual countries will meet with difficulties due to the attitude and outlook of the people there, especially in Hungary and Rumania. Thus, for example, even today the Jew can buy documents in Rumania that will officially prove his foreign citizenship.
The influence of the Jews in all walks of life in the USSR is well known. Approximately five million Jews live in the European part of the USSR, in the Asian part scarcely 1/4 million.
The breakdown of Jews residing in the European part of the USSR according to trades was approximately as follows:
Agriculture 9.1 %
Urban workers 14.8 %
In trade 20.0 %
Employed by the state 23.4 %
In private occupations such as
medical profession, press, theater, etc. 32. 7%
Under proper guidance, in the course of the final solution the Jews are to be allocated for appropriate labor in the East. Able-bodied Jews, separated according to sex, will be taken in large work columns to these areas for work on roads, in the course of which action doubtless a large portion will be eliminated by natural causes.
The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly, because it is the product of natural selection and would, if released, act as a the seed of a new Jewish revival (see the experience of history.)
That is at least what the Nazis thought at the time. Now, are you going to tell me which "scholars" dispute the number of Jews in Europe.
While you're at it you can evidence your claim on another recent thread which said something like "most scholars" dispute the Holocaust. You seem to be currently using vague references to "scholars" to obscure your lack of actual arguments.
I'm not sure how the fact a website is Jewish means it's the 'real deal'. Thank you for the links. Not having read them thoroughly, I notice some things I'm aware of and agree with (Zionists putting their ideology before the welfare of Jews), some I've never heard and would want to know the context/accuracy of (Jews to be shipped to Spain....Spain?) and so far an absence of anything to say Zionists financed Hitler. Like I said I haven't read them thorughly, so of you could point to a page I may have missed, please do so. You do say Zionists financed Hitler a lot.
Quote:
I also assume you did not watch the video of israel's own genocide against the SEPHARDIC Jews
I haven't yet watched it - Perhaps you should try reading my previous post.
This has no relevance to the Holocaust.
I'm not getting into this Ashkenazi stuff. You appear to want to have a set of 'untrue' Jews that allow you to say negative things about Jews without saying negative things about 'proper' Jews. I am saddened that you feel the need to cite Huffy's website, including a Holocaust page so shockingly bad I'd be embarrassed if I were you. Huffy doesn't even appear to know Auschwitz was originally conceived of and functioned as a concentration camp for 'dissident' Poles, then a labour camp with extermination being a side function that evolved as the Holocaust progressed. If he doesn't even know the most rudimentary facts, what hope is there for the guy? If this is the kind of nonsense you base your opinions on, no wonder you're so confused.
I do not understand what point you are trying to prove by linking to film of women in bikinis, though I'm not complaining. I assume you are blissfully unawhere of the influence of Western consumer culture across the globe. Did Ashkenazis invent this? Did they engineer the Western influence you see among Hindus in India? Did they influence the people I've known who call themselves Muslims, go to the Mosque, read the Koran yet drink beer, take drugs and go clubbing? - down to the Ashkenazis?
However, if the Ashkenazis are going to routinely put attractive women in bikinis, I say go Ashkenazis!
I haven't read Bryan Rigg's book, but thanks for the heads up on it - one for the list. I did, however, already know about that phenomenon. Apparently Deutschblutigkeit, certificates of bloodline, were issued to some Jewish men who wished to serve in the army who typically had distinguised service records from WWI. It was most frequently applicable to those with partially Jewish families - remember a Jew to the Nazis was someone with 'Jewish blood', not someone who goes to the Synagogue. We do not, of course, know how these guys would have been treated if the Germans won the war and had a lesser need for good soldiers. They also let other 'racially inferior' groups into the army, like 'subhuman' slavs, particularly as the war progressed and they got short of men. What relevance this has to the Holocaust I don't know. Are you now suggesting the Nazis didn't persecute Jews?
Your arguments the Holocaust didn't happen appear to move ever further away from talking about the, er, Holocaust.
I have noticed I respond reasonably comprehensively to that which is put to me, but the favour is not returned. I have posted several items pertaining to the Holocaust that are ignored. I may return to some of these. In the meantime, if you are so convinced of the 'fakness' of the Holocaust, perhaps you could peruse the Pressac chapter linked to above and tell me where he's going wrong?
Perhaps you could stop obfuscating for a moment and tell me exactly what function you think a room with a gas tight door and dummy shower heads actually had? _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
In fact, I think it is very one-sided that I do my best with my limited knowledge to address questions raised by deniers, yet people don't address the questions I put forward.
What do you believe he is talking about? Here is a clue - there is a denier argument regarding this which you should presumably be familiar with. It is, however, * and quite clearly so.
The only answer thus far presented is that Rodin has used his 'expert opinion' to say that he thinks it is a fake. Based on nothing more than he has decided it is a fake because he thinks it is.
Here is what David Cole said about it.
Quote:
As an example, I'll point specifically to Faurisson's response to
David Irving's "Journal of Historical Review" essay/conference speech
on the Goebbels diary, appearing in the letters section of the
current "Journal of Historical Review" (March/April '95). Faurisson
quotes from the March 27, 1942 Goebbels diary entry, and then writes
"In itself, this last sentence ("Broadly speaking, one can probably
say that 60 percent of them will have to be liquidated, while only 40
percent can be put to work" - Goebbels) tends to show that the Reich
Minister of Propaganda did not know for sure that there was a German
policy to physically exterminate the Jews, either totally or in
part."
"IN PART?" What does he think Goebbels is referring to, if not a
liquidation IN PART. Faurisson is pulling an old "exterminationist"
trick here by quoting a passage and then TELLING us what we've just
read, hoping we won't notice any incongruity between the passage and
Faurisson's explanation. Faurisson is quoting a passage that speaks
of exterminations in part - AT LEAST in part, and then he TELLS us
that we in fact HAVEN'T just read what we've read - with no
explanation given to clarify why Goebbels isn't actually saying what
he so clearly seems to be saying. I think Faurisson has grown too
used to having his word taken as gospel. Naked emperors don't only
exist on the "exterminationist" side. Faurisson's description of the
March 27 Goebbels diary entry reminds me of page 120 of dear old Mel
Mermelstein's book, where he shows a picture of Krema 1 and writes in
the caption "note the pipes and shower heads above").
The importance (to me of this Goebbels diary passage is that for the
first time we have a reliable piece of evidence which points to a
plan of separation between those Jews fit for "labor" and the rest,
who "have to be liquidated." Hate it though some of us may, this fits
the "exterminationist" model much better than it does the revisionist
one. If revisionists wish to explain this passage some other way,
they'll have to do better than the explanation offered by Faurisson.
For myself, I can say that the meaning of this Goebbels diary
passage, IN RELATION to events occurring at that time, has yet to be
adequately explained by any revisionist.
You will notice leading Holocaust deniers themselves do not regard the diary as a fake.
So what is Goebbels talking about?
Then I would like you to account for the sustained, repeated lying of eyewitneses. Let's stick strictly with Jews for now -
Former sonderkommandos, women who worked in the 'Canada' section of Auschwitz and the like.
These people spoke explicitly about what was going on. They could not have been mistaken.
How were they got to lie so repeatedly and consistently?
Why did they choose to lie so repeatedly and consistently?
How did some of them (like Olere (sp?) give very accurate descriptions of the facilities...accuracy that was not ascertained until the subsequent discovery of the Auschwitz blueprints.
Let's be clear - these people have to be lying for the Holocaust not to have happened. Please account for this. Then we can perhaps move onto the SS testimony, non-Jewish Polish Auschwitz inmate testimony, and others.
Let us also consider other modes of extermination - for initial clarity, do you or do you not accept what is reported regarding the actions of the einsatzgruppen. To wit - basically death squads rounding up and shooting Jews in the East.
These - together with Pressac's array of documents - should not peturb anyone who is confident enough to assert mass extermination of Jews by gassing and other methods did not take place, particularly as there is, shall we say, quite a bit of other stuff. So let's get these out the way as a start. _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
The narrative is based upon the young history researcher's interview with ex-Wehrmacht soldiers, who were of partial Jewish origin and were hence classified as "Mischlinge" - the Nazi term for an individual who is not of purely Aryan origin. The author provides an overview of the grey area where these people were living in Nazi Germany, and in particular refers to those of them who had served in the German Army and fought in World War II.
Despite what the title of the book suggests, these people were not Jewish. People who were classified by the Nazis as Jews had no presence in the army whatsoever, and the author himself confirms that. They were outcasts and were later physically annihilated. The title suggests that these people were an integral part of the Wehrmacht. This would have no doubt been an exciting historical revelation, but after finishing the book, it is clear that there is little connection between the title of the book and its contents.
The book tells the story of the Mischlinge in the German army. Soldiers, often of higher ranks, who were of mixed origin. They were not regarded as such by the authorities (either the civil ones or the military ones), they were not regarded as Jews by the Jewish communities, and just as much - they very seldom regard themselves as Jews. They might have had a Jewish grandmother or were married to a person with one. This was not a rare thing in a society where the presence of Jews dated back to 1000 years earlier, and were inter-marriages were very wide spread from the middle of the 19th century. In most cases the Mischlinge themselves had been baptised and maintained no connection whatsoever to Jews or Judaism. Such connections were only revealed where those individuals chose voluntarily to associate themselves with the Jewish community, or were married to "full Jews". In most cases those people were left alone. Other than a few Nazi fanatics, most Wehrmacht commanders did not bother. If only for practical reasons...
Other than the misleading title, the book is characterised by random anecodes and sporadic hearsay recollection. The story usually repeats itself: "Yes, my wife had a Jewish great-grandmother, but I did not mention it on the forms".
It is not worth to be called a history book.
- the solitary review on Amazon is kind of putting me off investing in Bryan Rigg's book. Do you agree with this review, or did you find it more stimulating? _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Dogsmilk wrote the following:
Germany proper 131,800
Austria 43,700
Eastern territories 420,000
General Government 2,284,000
Bialystok 400,000
Protectorate Bohemia and Moravia 74,200 please explain i have never heard of a country called General Government
Latvia 3,500
Lithuania 34,000
Belgium 43,000
Denmark 5,600
France / occupied territory 165,000
unoccupied territory 700,000
Greece 69,600
Netherlands 160,800
Norway 1,300
B. Bulgaria 48,000
England 330,000
Finland 2,300
Ireland 4,000
Italy including Sardinia 58,000
Albania 200
Croatia 40,000
Portugal 3,000
Rumania including Bessarabia 342,000 according to the world Jewish Congress there were 428,312 Jews in Romania in 1947 a greater number than yours
Sweden 8,000
Switzerland 18,000
Serbia 10,000
Slovakia 88,000
Spain 6,000
Turkey (European portion) 55,500
Hungary 742,800
USSR 5,000,000
Ukraine 2,994,684
White Russia
excluding Bialystok 446,484
you know this bit is made up
ukraine was part of the USSR
I am not sure what these stats mean. Most of these countries are unrecognisable. Where is Central Government for example. Please explain your stats further and what census was used to compile the figures because every census i have seen puts Germany's number as 400,000 pre 1933 of which half left before 1939 so what year was your figure of 131,000?
Good to see that you are including England (not Britain) 330,000. What about Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland?
And for comparison why not publish the after 1945 figures from the same sources. UK figure certainly went up as did Portugal. I wonder what happened to the figure from this country called Central Government?
SO WHAT IS THE TOTAL AFTER REMOVING DOUBLE COUNTING AND NON EXISTENT COUNTRIES?
why have you missed out Poland? _________________
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
