Go Back   Club Conspiracy Forums > General Conspiracy Discussion > Alternate History
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-25-2005, 02:42 PM
rushdoony rushdoony is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 556
Default Holocaust or Holohoax ?


Why do you deny The Holocaust?

I don't deny the Allied holocaust against the German people, in which 600,000 civilians lost their lives in deliberate, premeditated, terror bombings of German cities. Several more million Germans were slaughtered by Soviet troops, starved to death in Siberia, raped and tortured, and killed in the post-war expulsions from the eastern territories.

Neither do I deny the Israeli holocaust against the Palestinians, the Jewish Bolshevik holocaust against Russia and Eastern Europe or Mao's holocaust against the people of China.

I certainly do not deny holocausts. I think it's more likely that you are the "holocaust denier."

The events you mentioned simply were not holocausts. It is racist to detract from The Holocaust the Germans perpetrated against Jewish people, by claiming there were other holocausts.

Well, then I guess history is racist because, like it or not, the facts of the documentary record clearly show that there have been many other holocausts.

How can you compare the unparalleled sufferings of God's Chosen People who, throughout time have been hunted, persecuted, massacred and finally, exterminated--how can you compare that colossal and appalling slaughter with the mere fights and wars that other people have experienced?

The squeaking wheel gets the most oil. The Jewish establishment has the highest profile in the mass media and therefore to the ignorant, all this Jewish public relations noise translates into some sort of definitive judgment of history.

What you're really peddling is racism--the racism that Jewish suffering, alone among all of the blood of the innocent spilled on this planet, has some special claim on our sensibilities.

I'm sorry, I don't believe it. My understanding of the documentary record doesn't support it. Auschwitz was a much safer place to be than Dresden or any other city of any size in Germany from 1943 onward.

Lenin killed ten million Christians, not six million.

Mao killed upward of fifty million, not six million.

The Israelis have wasted tens of thousands of Palestinians and Lebanese and expropriated 97% of the Palestinians' land. In context, what happened to the Jewish people under Hitler was very much in keeping with the disgusting record of this most horrible of all centuries--a minority was targeted for persecution and oppression--with the connivance of the Zionist leadership in Washington and London. It was most regrettable.

Unfortunately, as Albert Camus warned, the victims of the Nazis soon became the executioners of the Palestinians. In fact, it can be said that Hitler is the real founder of the Israeli state, which was what the Zionists intended.

Why do you deny that as a revisionist, you are surely a white separatist, a supporter of Hitler and a neo-Nazi?

Now you are revealing your bigotry and stereotypes. Everyone who doubts the holohoax religion must be made to fit into a Freudian psychoanalytical model.The dialogue is supplied for us, it is put into our mouths, so that we are made to speak of a "cabal" and of course we goose-step and we are neo-Nazis and so forth. The costume of a stock villain is trotted out. In this way, you true believers won't have to entertain our doubts. This is your line of defense-- your ridiculous stereotypes of revisionists. You project onto us the worst absurdities and then convince yourself that you know us and that you need not consider our facts and research. The ADL and the Wiesenthal Center supply these stock epithets. It's a regular industry--putting words into our mouth that we have never uttered.

So what are you saying revisionism is?

Revisionism is an adventure, a reality check, the original project of every thinking man: to wake up every morning and re-vision everything he holds dear in the secular realm.

You're just mouthing reasonable-sounding rhetoric and cliches to make your hatred palatable.

My hatreds don't need any window dressing. I hate compromise and cowardice, idolatry, and conformity and demands from authorities for obedience. I hate those who can't or won't think for themselves.

The Zionists react hysterically to any re-vision of their sacred dogma. Revisionists come along and say, "Hey let's take a look at this huge edifice of belief called, in the recent Newspeak, 'the Holocaust" and Jewish religious fanatics react and say, "How dare you?"

Then begins their process of name-calling and demonization intrinsic to every dogma and cult. Those who doubt the existence of homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz, must be demonized. Such doubters couldn't possibly be honorable, decent or honest. They have to have a hidden agenda. That's the classic response of the fanatic, the cultist and the true believer to any challenge from a skeptic--shut the doubters up by calling them witches and devils.

In the West there have always been individual thinkers, however. Our culture has a long heritage of that, of doubters, nay-sayers, obstreperous skeptics and curmudgeons who just will not be commissared or silenced.

We still pay lip service to that tradition nowadays, but in reality, as soon as someone stands up and doubts one of the contemporary sacred dogmas of our informal state relgion, these doubters lose all prestige and reputation and most likely their employment and maybe even their physical security.

What do you mean by a state religion?

I mean that the traditional religion of Western Civilization, Christianity, has been supplanted by a new state religion, which is Judaism, presented in the palatable guise of "Holocaust" Newspeak.

Can you seriously and honestly claim that your revisionist research is not motivated by Jew hate?

You have swallowed, hook, line and sinker, the hysteria of Jewish religious fanatics whose insecurity and fear of opposition are so great, they can't conceive of intellectual curiosity as a motivating factor for those who scrutinize their dogmas.

To the supremacist, Zionist mentality, those who question and doubt their sacred dogma must, ipso facto, be "haters." Being perfect, being God's Chosen, and in every way the superior people on the planet, the saints and martyrs of the cosmos, they can't conceive of opposition that is not satanic.

Hence they propound this very primitive notion, that the man who dares to contradict them has got to be banned.

This is the hidden irony buried at the core of the primitive nationalism informing the Deborah Lipstadt style of "denier" nomenclature. For all of their melodrama about victimization and martyrdom, it is these supposed "victims" and "martyrs" who currently are the most avid stokers of the fires of persecution for whoever would dare to ask skeptical questions of them.

Under a boatload of corrupt rhetoric about "human rights," revisionist writers in Germany, Canada, France, Austria and Australia are being beaten, sent to jail and ritually ostracized.

You are trying to diminish The Holocaust by making invidious distinctions which trivialize its uniqueness and reduce it to just another persecution or atrocity, thereby whitewashing it and preparing the groundwork for the rise of neo-Nazism again.

This is the theology in which you have been trained. It's your catechism answer. It doesn't represent your own reaction as a human being to my thoughts, but rather the pre-digested tractarianism of the Lipstadts and the other thought cops who police this discourse.

They don't want you and I to ever have a real conversation. That would humanize the 'revisionist devil,' and that must never be done!

Again you will note the hidden irony here, of a Jewish ideology that presents itself as an antidote to dehumanization, which is at the same time dehumanizing one special class --the revisionist sub-human skeptics-- or, in Lipstadt's canon, the "deniers."

Making these "invidious distinctions," as you term them, are what distinguish us from robots and bond-servants. It is precisely our ability to make distinctions, to sift and weigh and compare that qualify us as thinkers, as men and women who wrestle with notions promulgated by official sources and then discover for ourselves what is true and what we reject. That after all is the vocation of man, to think, to question authority, to strive for originality. It's an eminently normal and healthy response, which leads to growth both spiritual and intellectual.

But as soon as a person takes these normal and healthy attitudes and begins to apply them to the received opinion about World War Two, he or she encounters an incredible hysteria, a legion of traumatized true believers who will psychoanalyze and denounce the skeptic, as "sick, hateful, neo-Nazi" and so forth.

There is an inability on the part of the True Believer in the Gas Chamber Creed to conceive of the fact that a person isn't necessarily a "Jew-hater" or seeking the "revival of Nazism" just because one wants to do some individual thinking and exploration, independent of their prescribed formula.

One of the first things that someone who is free of the hysteria encounters in this realm, is the fact that history teaches that suffering and genocide are most assuredly not unique to one people or nation. Surely Bosnia, Rwanda, Soviet Russia, Northern Ireland and especially occupied Palestine, teach us that.

Why do you keep focusing on Israeli actions as bearing some special notoriety?

Because there you have as dogmatic and formal a philosophy of racism and hate as was ever expressed and formulated in Hitler's Germany.

That's an anti-semitic libel!

Here we go with the response from the catechism again. I can't help it if you haven't read the books and pamphlets issued by Zionist professors at the Israeli Bar Ilan University, such as The Order of Genocide in the Torah or the settler publication in praise of mass murderer Baruch Goldstein. There is a whole Talmudic ideology within the Israeli settler and Lubavitcher yeshiviot (schools), advocating the extermination of the Palestinians.

This racism is very deep-rooted in the Lubavitch orthodox Jews, whose founder referred to all goyim (non-Jews) as "superfluous garbage." This was his answer when his students in his kollel (Talmud school) asked why Gentiles were so numerous. His response was that there were a lot of Gentiles because they proliferated like garbage, because in fact they were garbage.

Just because you are hostage to a thought-control system that largely ignores the contemporary ravings of homicidal Israeli racism, does not make it less true or potent.

Reality has a rather odd propensity for chugging along on its redoubtable old track, whether or not true believers like yourself take note of it.

Recall that something is only a libel when it is untrue. If it's true, then we have the right to state it aloud. It may not be politic or prudent to do so, but we can shout the truth whenever we find the courage to do so, ever honing and refining that truth to an even higher level of magnitude by the constant process of revisionism--to which all historical perception should always be subject.

I don't see revisionists doing this re-vision that you claim. Revisionists are more committed to their fixed dogmas than those you accuse of having dogmas to protect.

Well, revisionists are a motley crew. We have elderly survivors of the Allied holocaust against Germany in our ranks, and they are probably not going to be as objective and dispassionate as an American revisionist college kid.

But there are many revisionists who have demonstrated a propensity for changing their views based on the excavation of new data. The most prominent of these is David Irving, who, upon discovering statements in Goebbels' diaries referring to mass liquidations of the Jews, has emphasized that massacres did occur to Jewish people but these were not "gassings." Killings of Jewish civilians was more an ad hoc process from the middle level commanders rather than some orchestrated "plot" from the executive level.

How dare you nitpick this mass murder! However it happened, it was an abominable crime.

Yes, of course, mass murder is always just as you, say, an abominable crime and by that criterion, as Dr. Faurisson has stated, war itself is a crime. However, I find it interesting that whenever we get down to the nitty-gritty of finding discrepancies in the Allied and Zionist account of World War Two, these are dismissed as "nit-picking."

Since the establishment has put the entire German nation on trial for genocide, then in fairness, we are duty-bound, as in any murder trial, to weigh the evidence both pro and contra and scrutinize it with a high degree of rigorous analysis, to determine what is true and what is a lie and what emanates from that middle ground of human foibles known as exaggeration.

But you cannot deny that there was a holocaust of Jews.

I would hesitate to apply that Newspeak word in the official sense it which it has been decreed, to the Jewish situation in World War Two.

It was the German people who were being burned alive in every major German city by the Allied air forces while some Jews were dying from typhus and gunfire.

If we're going to maintain fidelity for the integrity of our language, then the word holocaust cannot apply in its denotative sense, to the situation of the Jews.

Holocaust means death by fire. Few Jews were killed by fire. But more than a half-million German women, children and elderly died by that horrible means from Allied air force fire bombings.

I would agree however, that some Jews in Europe were recipients of a very harsh fate, and many suffered atrocities and massacres.

Anyway you look at it or attempt to explain it away, it still adds up to a Holocaust.

Well, this issue of nomenclature ought to be considered from the point of view of the science of Zionist propaganda, or as the Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky called it in Hebrew, hasbara.

For example the word "holocaust" was formerly applied by most objective observers, before circa 1978, to the German civilian experience during World War Two, at the hands of the tender mercies of Bomber Harris and the American Air Force.

But slowly, in a process of gradualism which we have observed before in other behavior modification models, Elie Wiesel and other hoaxers, used their prestige and aura of religious authority and sanctity, to slowly introduce, around 1978, the term "holocaust" as the exclusive, proprietary word for only the Jewish experience in World War Two.

But history shows that, at the very least, World War Two as a whole, with its mass fire bombings of every German city of any size and the atomic incineration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the siege of Stalingrad and Berlin, the mass shootings perpetrated by Tito's partisans, and by the French resistance, the Soviet Red Army and NKVD, and the Nazi Einsatzgruppen--in light of the full force of all that horror, it would seem a monumental absurdity to deny that World War Two itself was a holocaust for everyone involved and especially for the defeated peoples of the Axis nations.

No matter how much you cite other alleged war crimes against other people, these cannot undo the reality of the Holocaust against the Jews!

And therein in lies the particular propaganda utility of this Newspeak word coined circa 1978 with regard to the difficulties Jews experienced in the 1930s and 40s. The word "Holocaust" has come to mean anything you want it to mean. It has that Red Queen/Wonderland tenor: "A word is anything I say it is."

Some of the second rank revisionists have incorporated this Orwellian shorthand that Wiesel concocted and they incorporate it in their own statements, so that they say, "The holocaust never happened."

By that they mean there never were any mass killings in homicidal gas chambers and there was no executive document ordering an extermination.

But when the public hears or sees such a comment ("There was no holocaust"), they think the person making that statement, is denying the whole panoply of World War Two: the piles of dead bodies, the photo of the Jewish boy with his hands in the air, the deportations, the concentration camps and so forth.

The two groups are talking at each other, at cross purposes, thanks to the imposition of this circa 1978 neologism and this confusion is deliberately generated.

As long as you are talking about "The Holocaust," then, like the Red Queen, you can make that word mean anything you want it to mean. It's a brilliant maneuver, and most revisionists and almost all of the public have fallen for it.

If by "Holocaust" you mean that hundreds of thousands of Jews suffered and died at the hands of Nazi Germany and its agents, due to starvation, disease and gunfire, and that many other Jews were deported from Germany under conditions of cruelty and hardship, then by that specific and limited definition the "holocaust" word can be assigned to those specifics as an Orwellian exercize in pop Newspeak.

However, if by "Holocaust" you allege that millions of Jews were put to death in homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz, that Hitler and Himmler authorized it and that this suffering constitutes the most unparalleled catastrophe in the history of mankind, then I assert total skepticism for what is, in essence, a laughable and insupportable thesis.

The Holocaust is not a "thesis." All right-thinking people are obliged to believe what is in fact an undeniable truth. Any doubts about of it constitute a hidden agenda of pernicious racism or a case of full fledged insanity.

Once again you usher our conversation into the realm of psychoanalysis and pontificating about what is, effectively, an essential right of human beings--to doubt what they cannot in good conscience believe.

That his been the great contest throughout history, between those who regard their political and religious dogmas as self-evident truth which necessarily command assent from all "right-thinking people," and those who have examined this supposed "truth" and found that, in all honesty, they just can't believe it.

In medieval times such doubts were regarded as error and the ecclesiastical theorem was that, "Error has no rights."

Therefore the doubter could be ostracized, banned, beaten or killed, by stigmatizing him with any one of a number of heinous epithets: heretic, witch or demon.

Today the same process holds forth against the hapless doubter, who cannot find it in his conscience to give assent to the homicidal gas chamber dogma.

He can be ostracized, banned, beaten or killed and liberal and conservative editorial and moral opinion, from church pulpits to newspaper pundits, will applaud or condone it as long as the victim is labeled a neo-Nazi, a racist or an anti-semite.

The medieval doctrine is invoked today: the revisionist "error" has no rights.

We are compelled to believe. But why is it incumbent on any citizen to believe undocumented claims about a fifty year old event?

To doubt such claims is the most ordinary function of the thinking person's intellect. There is no need to be a Nazi or a racist or a Jew hater to doubt.

The Holocaust is the most documented event in all world history. To deny it would be like saying that the Civil War didn't happen.

Not quite. No revisionist says that the concentration camps "didn't happen" or that persecution of the Jews "didn't happen."

What revisionists raise is the question of what specifically did transpire in those camps.

So the accurate analogy would be to doubts concerning the official teaching about the Confederate prisoner camp in Andersonville and not to the Civil War itself. The Civil War analogy is a ridiculous one and reflects a constant need among the enemies of the revisionists to caricature and distort our actual beliefs.

If you want to say that questioning what went on in Auschwitz would be like questioning what went on in Andersonville, you'd be on historically valid ground. But then your hysterical accusation would have lost all its mystifying power because your audience would quickly perceive that it is perfectly legitimate to question what really transpired in Andersonville and why.

No Confederate historian today claims that the Andersonville prison camp didn't exist, but many do challenge the claims for what supposedly happened there and more importantly, the motivation for what transpired. By the same token, no revisionist denies that Auschwitz labor camp existed, but we do doubt the claims made for what supposedly happened there.

To answer the first part of your statement, it may be that "The Holocaust" is the most documented event, if by that you mean the persecution and deportation of Jews.

But since you refuse to stop using ambiguous Newspeak to mystify and will not be specific, what you are evading by this means is the fact that the engine that powered this so-called "holocaust--the homicidal gas chambers--are not documented at all.

Certainly, you can show me a mountain of film footage of trains chugging down tracks, Nazi soldiers goose-stepping, Hitler hollering, Jews with yellow stars sewn on their clothing, piles of dead bodies and you can mix those ingredients together and call the resulting hodgepodge, "The Holocaust." But you can't furnish a single autopsy report to show that even one Jew died from poison gas and that's why you hide behind "Holocaust" Newspeak and evade citation of specific accusations.

Alright then, I can say without fear of contradiction that the gas chambers are the most documented event in history.

Which ones?

What do you mean which ones? Are you saying there were two types of gas chambers?

Yes of course. The ones that actually existed and the fantasy ones.

This is very interesting in that you now do concede the existence of gas chambers that you've been denying all along. So I have you.

The only thing you have is a possibly congenital dose of credulity.

I have never said in the course of our debate that gas chambers didn't exist. I always qualify the gas chamber term by preceding it with the word, "homicidal."

This is not a debate. There is no possibility of debating The Holocaust.

The catechism has spoken. What, pray tell, are we doing then?

I am enduring your racist invective long enough to expose it for what it is.

In other words, when I distinguish between real and imaginary gas chambers, it is racist of me to do so? Can you explain that?

I don't need to explain anything to the likes of you. There were no imaginary gas chambers. The gas chambers existed, it's a documented fact and your distinctions are just a smokescreen.

Well you certainly are confident. Perhaps I should feel the need to trust official pronouncements of historical "authorities," like you do, but I can't. The voice of doubt forever raises its impolitic head and off I sally, daring to doubt yet another fixture of your catechism.

The great irony of World War Two is that the German prophylactic for preserving the lives of the Jewish people in Auschwitz, the facilities for treating their clothing and bedding with the pesticide Zyklon B in order to help limit the typhus epidemic then raging, which is transmitted by a parasitic louse attached to clothes and bedding, has been turned against the Germans and used as the basis for false claims of homicidal gassings in Auschwitz.

You know very well that it was the Jews themselves who were viewed as the "pests" and the Zyklon B was for them.

I don't understand how you can "know" that without any evidence for it. Perhaps you have a crystal ball?

I know it from the testimony of the Survivors of The Holocaust.

The vast majority of the people who survived Auschwitz survived because the Nazis wanted them to survive. If there was an extermination program there, these people would not be around today to collect their pension checks.

So you are saying they are all liars?

Of course not. I do say, with the Jewish sociologist Samuel Gringauz, that the East European Khazar has a remarkable propensity for story-telling and embellishment, but to their credit--and this is obviously something you don't know because you haven't studied it independently--the vast majority of the Jewish people who lived through the war do not claim to have seen homicidal gas chambers in operation.

Rather, if you examine their testimony, they will say they heard rumors, they saw smoke, they guessed that this is what happened. Only a minority claim to have been in the supposed homicidal gas chambers, pulling bodies out and so forth.

So you're saying the Auschwitz gas chambers are merely a rumor?

Again you're failing to distinguish between real and imaginary gassing facilities. Must we convict the Germans of extermination by gas because they sought to exterminate the typhus bug? Facilities for gassing clothes and bedding existed.

Homicidal gas chambers on the other hand were indeed nothing but a rumor and the rumor was started as a cruel jibe of the Jewish concentration camp police--the kapos--who would torment their fellow Jews with stories of people being gassed. Under the circumstances of crowding, dislocation, fear, and death from typhus, such rumors are understandable, but we now know they are without substance.

Now you're the one expounding the omniscient knowledge.

Not at all. We "know" not based on some mystical confidence, but upon forensic examination. The Swedish investigator Ditlieb Felderer was the first researcher to thoroughly explore and document the Auschwitz museum facility in the 1970s. He discovered that the "homicidal gas chambers" advertised as such to tourists, were in fact fakes built after the war. This has since been confirmed by the head of the Auschwitz museum himself, in a conversation with the Jewish researcher David Cole, by the French magazine L'Express, by English historian David Irving, by Max Planck chemist Germar Rudolf and by the American execution technologist Fred Leutcher, among many others.

It's interesting to note that for years these fake gas chambers were upheld by all the top Jewish and Allied historians. But now that revisionists have risked their reputations, livelihood and even their lives to prove that these alleged homicidal gas chambers were fakes, the establishment media is beginning to drop hints of a change in their official World War Two liturgy. Here and there I have seen fleeting references in the media to the homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz having been "reconstructed after the war."

This is how they operate their damage control, rather like the Soviet encyclopedia that had the habit of making formerly featured claims and personages disappear from subsequent editions.

I predict that at some point in the future the establishment will hint--rather than proclaim--more as an aside than anything else--that mainstream academics never said that the homicidal gas chamber exhibits in Auschwitz were authentic.

But just a few years ago, even the idea of forensic examination of Auschwitz was considered a kind of sacrilege. Revisionists such as Prof. Robert Faurisson have forced writers like Yehuda Bauer and Raul Hilberg, to reassess their own quasi-religious axioms. They would have never done it on their own.

In fact many establishment historians used to regard forensic examination of Auschwitz as a blasphemous outrage. In 1961 Dr. Hilberg wrote a three volume "definitive" history of the supposed homicidal gassings, without ever having set foot in Auschwitz.

In 1978 he finally got around to going to Auschwitz for a one day tour.

Ditlieb Felderer spent months in Auschwitz in the course of 27 forensic explorations, taking thousands of photographs and measurements, for which he was denounced and eventually imprisoned in Sweden, at the behest of the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

So who is advancing human knowledge and discovery and who is following in the wake of this great intellectual adventure, issuing anathemas and scrambling to impose damage control?

In my book, The Great Holocaust Trial: The Landmark Battle for Freedom of Speech, I have reproduced a photograph of Pope John Paul II standing solemnly in Auschwitz, before a huge swarm of media, as he examines a series of massive stone tablets engraved with the figure of four million dead at Auschwitz and listing the alleged facts behind that figure. The pope decreed that anyone who doubted that sacred figure of four million, as promulgated by our great Jewish and Allied historians, was an anti-semitic racist.

In an accompanying photo in my book I show these same sacred tablets a few years later, after they had their inscriptions removed by the Auschwitz museum authorities. They lay there blank, defaced by the high priests of the homicidal gas chambers themselves. The Soviet-style explanation for this "slight alteration" in the unalterable dogma, is that the elite Jewish and Allied historians never accepted this 4 million figure in the first place; it was a figure supplied by the Poles. It's the fault of the Polish government. Yet just a few years ago, contrary to what these liars now say, to doubt that mythical figure of four million dead at Auschwitz, could, at the very least, cost you your reputation and your employment.

I notice that you limit yourself to Auschwitz. You say "Auschwitz homicidal gas chambers." What about the gassings in other camps?

Auschwitz is where the Shoah business impresarios have staked their prestige. It's where Spielberg placed his Hollywood cameras, although it's amusing that Spielberg never did try to show a homicidal gas chamber in his movie about Schindler, out of fear for the subsequent revisionist analyses of his depiction, that would have certainly followed in its wake.

The establishment churches have been among the most subservient and uncritical true believers in the homicidal gas chamber allegations. For them, in practice, if not in actual pronouncement, Auschwitz has replaced Calvary as the central ontological event of Western civilization.

So I think it's quite natural that we revisionists focus our investigation and our scrutiny on Auschwitz because that's the hub of the homicidal gas chamber hoax.

The Zionists and the Allies have staked their prestige on Auschwitz and I think that it is there that they will be symbolically defeated. This is quite fitting when one recalls that the town of Auschwitz was a pre-war transit center for the Jewish white slavery traffick in prostitutes bound for Jewish whore houses in Argentina. So in a sense, in the manner in which the Zionists have made Auschwitz the whore of their anti-Arab hegemony, the sense in which they have prostituted the actual suffering that did occur there to serve their extortionist political ends, the final overthrow of those ends at that site, will be most fitting..

But do you deny the gassings that took place in Treblinka, Sobibor, Chelmno, Belzec and the camps in the East?

It's a not a matter of denial. It is simply not incumbent on me to believe anything. If someone comes running up to me to announce that Santa Claus lives on the moon in an emerald castle, it doesn't make me some hateful "denier" if I smile, say, "I'm sorry I don't believe that. Won't you excuse me I must be on my way."

Belief is not incumbent. I can live my life and be a good, productive citizen without accepting a single iota of Jewish theology about their "Shoah." If Jews want to believe it, fine. Every religion is entitled to its own story. Mormons can believe the Angel Moroni gave Joseph Smith the golden plates. The Shakers can believe that Mother Ann was the Messiah. The Quakers can hold that George Fox was divinely inspired.

But if the Shaker or the Quaker, or the Mormon or the Jew, establish as criteria for citizenship in our nation at large, their peculiar religious notions as something necessary to be believed by all, on pain of excommunication from society, then they are going to find that they have a fight on their hands.

I will not be compelled to believe any superstition no matter who parades it or how loud the brass band that accompanies it or how august the personages who serve as its grand marshals.

As far as the camps like Treblinka and Sobibor goes, it's an open question as to what transpired. The means alleged for execution in those camps--diesel engine exhaust--have a little more credibility from a scientific and technical view than the Zyklon B nonsense alleged for Auschwitz.

But establishing the feasibility of a weapon doesn't mean it was employed. There has to be more evidence and I haven't seen it, but I'm keeping an open mind. I am willing to re-vision not just the dogmas of the Zionists and the Allies but of the revisionists too. Artaud said, "No more masterpieces." The radical wing of revisionism says, "No more dogma," and that necessarily translates into refuting any attempt to erect a revisionist dogma .

David Irving has been attacked by many other revisionists for "keeping an open mind," as you say, which goes to show that revisionists are as bad as the people they claim to be opposing.

I have noticed that people in general stink and revisionists, being people, stink no less. It is not revisionists that have my faith but the process of re-vision itself.

A radical commitment to revising all our secular beliefs in the face of new discoveries is the great charter of Western history. A lot of maps had to be thrown away once Francis Drake returned from his voyage and a lot of historical maps are being discarded as revisionism hoists its sails upon the roiling waters of the sea of history. I don't think one can make a dogma out of cartography or history and it's disastrous when a religion begins to establish a proprietary relationship between theology and history or when historians stake claim to a particular historiographical turf in defiance of new evidence to the contrary.

If some revisionists fall into the perennial temptation and they too make fixtures of the views they hold, it's just as tragic; though I am not surprised when it happens. However, it just means that such people are no longer revisionists. Revisionism itself is, I think, invincible. It can't be stopped. It's too interesting and too delightful.

Keep in mind that some revisionists are Jewish, like Dr. Israel Shahak, John Sack, Prof. Arno Mayer and others who, at great personal cost, have attempted to delineate between history and theology and to pursue fidelity to the documentary record without partisan prejudice.

Even if I were to concede that certain parts of the holocaust story were not true, one fact that is not dogma would remain and that is that the Jews undoubtedly suffered a catastrophe in World War II for which the German regime at that time--and the people who supported it--were responsible.

It was a catastrophe for the Jewish people and a catastrophe for the 54 million non-Jews who died. There is no argument there.

Then don't you see the essential contradiction in your argument? What separates us are only mere details. We both agree that something terrible happened to Jews and people are responsible for it and we should ensure that it never happens again.

These "mere details" are the crux of any historical issue. William Blake said that is was the scoundrel who dealt in generalities and that truth lay in "minute particulars." It's the disease of modernism to be exhausted by details and gloss over them in order to present a composite image that is supposed to substitute for it.

You haven't thought out the full implications of these "mere details." Taken together, they show that the persecution of the Jews in World War Two is actually part of a seamless garment of 20th century totalitarianism on the part of the Left and the Right, which targeted and massacred a whole host of ethnic groups--not just Jews. This is the missing context that must be suppressed in order for the Six Million propaganda to have the influence it does.

The theology of Jewish uniqueness, the racist exclusivity which Zionists claim in virtually every other field--from the "right" to establish segregated, for-Jews-only settlements in occupied Palestine, to the "right" to be exempt from Constitutional separations of Church and State in the U.S., to their demands for special immunity from criticism in politics and media--this macrocosm is mirrored within the official, approved accounts and interpretation of the history of World War Two.

I am not so much interested in saying "it" didn't happen to the Jews during World War Two, as I am in pointing out that the core truth--that hundreds of thousands of Jewish people were hounded and persecuted--has been embellished and wildly exaggerated to such an extent that it has become the cash cow of the Israelis, and the moral hammer with which they strike anyone who dares to criticize Zionists in any field of human endeavor. It has become part of the process whereby Jewish supremacists gain and maintain their power on earth.

It must be said that this so-called Six Million genocide against the Jews has been wildly exaggerated by them and shamelessly accepted without scrutiny by media and academia, until it has become a sacred belief and prerequisite for employment, socialization, education and in some cases, life itself.

Beyond pointing out the exaggerations and the perennial whining that amounts to an industry, is the need to place the Six Million story in the context of the other holocausts of the 20th century, and once you have done that, I don't think that the Nazi dictatorship will be rehabilitated, but rather that equanimity and balance will be reestablished and Israeli racism and persecution of Palestinians, curtailed and discredited. If skepticism toward Jewish theology disguised as history increases sufficiently, Nazism will not be rehabilitated. It will be seen as a very interesting but ultimately botched experiment in reviving the life force of the European people that went to seed in the soil of the satanic Age of Big Brother Modernism.

It is not revisionism that will revive Nazism but the hysterical aura of the forbidden and the damned with which the establishment media now surrounds Nazism, sans any shades of gray or mitigating circumstances.

In an era of unprecedented degeneracy, youth who are seeking a radical alternative to the diseased society they inhabit will inevitably gravitate toward that which the System condemns unreservedly.

Whatever is held up as the polar opposite of the current order will inevitably attract young reformers and angry revolutionaries. Nazism has been inflated into a supernatural level of potency by Jews and their retainers in media, education and government. Revisionism, on the other hand deflates Nazism, showing it to be another 20th century totalitarianian creed.

Any responsibility for the revival of Nazism rests with those in the Overclass who helped to mystify and mythologize it. The Hitler dictatorship and its crimes were hardly unique in the annals of the 20th century. In fact, of the triumvirate of Stalin, Mao and Hitler, there can be no question that it was Hitler who was the lesser evil.

An authentic re-vision of World War Two will reveal the extent to which the Zionist leadership deliberately provoked the Germans into acting as they did and deliberately left the Jewish middle class and proletarian Jews hostage to Hitler, after the Oberjuden had emigrated.

The Zionists sought to make a bloody point--that the only safe haven for Jews was in Palestine. Of course, Palestine is the least safe place on earth for Jews today, so we see another Zionist lie at work. But the full story of how Hitler was manipulated and guided by the Zionists --when these facts emerge it will truly shake the foundations of Israeli and Zionist financial and media power.

That is why the revisionist truth about World War Two must be suppressed at all costs and those who dare to bring it to the fore--especially in Europe--punished with fines, imprisonment and physical terror.

If there is a lesson to be learned from this city-of-dreadful-night that is the 20th century, it is indeed the clarion call of "Never Again." But this phrase is today just a cynical manipulation, a reference to defending Jews alone.

But if we commit ourselves to protecting any targeted population from annihilation, we will begin in Palestine, in protecting the Palestinian people from their holy executioners, and go from there to defend every group targeted by state power, be they Muslim, Christian or Jewish, African or Oriental or yes, even poor and working class Whites in the trailer parks of America.

There is a lot of blathering bullshit nowadays about keeping an "open mind." But if we are really serious about opening our minds to their greatest capacity, we will venture far beyond the shuttered claustrophobia of the reigning forces of religious fanaticism, and the timid liberals and conservatives who cooperate with it.

The vehicle for that venture is revisionism. The price of admission is courage and curiosity.
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/revisionist4.html

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-23-2005, 07:20 AM
Draken Draken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 896
Default Re: Holocaust or Holohoax ?

I urge anyone interested in the Nuremberg Trials to read the info on this site. Especially those people who think that calling criminals for what they are constitutes "hate" and should be punished in accordance to "hate laws".

And while they are at it they should also check out this thread: <a href="http://www.clubconspiracy.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&topic_id=1720&forum=3" > Could it be true? It was the victorious, not the vanquished who were barbarians</a>.

--------------------

<a href="http://www.cwporter.com/document.htm">DOCUMENTS USED IN "EVIDENCE"
AT THE NUREMBERG "TRIAL"</a>

by C W Porter

The standard version of events is that the Allies examined 100,000 documents and chose 1,000 which were introduced into evidence, and that the original documents were then deposited in the Peace Palace at The Hague. This is rather inexact.

The documents used in evidence at Nuremberg consisted largely of "photocopies" of "copies". Many of these original documents were written entirely on plain paper without handwritten markings of any kind, by unknown persons. Occasionally, there is an illegible initial or signature of a more or less unknown person certifying the document as a 'true copy'. Sometimes there are German stamps, sometimes not. Many have been 'found' by the Russians, or 'certified authentic' by Soviet War Crimes Commissions.

Volume XXXIII, a document volume taken at random, contains 20 interrogations or affidavits, 12 photocopies, 5 unsigned copies, 5 original documents with signatures, 4 copies of printed material, 3 mimeographed copies, 3 teletypes, 1 microfilm copy, 1 copy signed by somebody else and 1 unspecified.

The Hague has few, if any, original documents
. The Hague has many original postwar 'affidavits', or sworn statements, the Tribunal Commission transcripts, and much valuable defense material. They have the 'human soap', which has never been tested, and the 'original human soap recipe' (Document USSR-196), which is a forgery; but apparently no original wartime German documents.

The Hague has negative photostats of these documents, on extremely brittle paper which has been stapled. To photocopy the photostats, the staples are removed. When they are re-stapled more holes are made. Most of these documents have not been photocopied very often, and officials at The Hague say it is very unusual for anyone to ask to see them.

The National Archives in Washington (see Telford Taylor's Use of Captured German and Related Documents, A National Archive Conference) claim that the original documents are in The Hague. The Hague claims the original documents are in the National Archives.

The Stadtsarchiv Nurnberg and the Bundesarchiv Koblenz also have no original documents, and both say the original documents are in Washington. Since the originals are, in most cases, 'copies', there is often no proof that the documents in question ever existed.


Robert Jackson got the trial off to a start by quoting the following forged or otherwise worthless documents (II 120-142): 1947-PS; 1721-PS; 1014-PS; 81-PS; 212-PS; and many others.

1947-PS is a 'copy' of a 'translation' of a letter from General Fritsch to the Baroness von Schutzbar-Milchling. The Baroness later signed an affidavit stating that she never received the letter in question (XXI-381).

The falsified 'letter' from General Fritsch to the Baroness von Schutzbar-Milchling was recognized as such during the trial and is not included in the document volumes, where it should appear at XXVIII 44. Jackson was not, however, admonished by the Tribunal. (XXI 380)

The enthusiastic Americans apparently forged 15 of these 'translations', after which the original documents all disappeared (See Taylor, Captured Documents).

1721-PS is a forgery in which an SA man writes a report to himself about how he is carrying out an order which is quoted verbatim in the report. Handwritten markings on page 1 (XXI-137-141; 195-198; 425; XXII 148-150. See also Testimony Before the Commission, Fuss, 25 April, and Lucke, 7 May 1946). The National Archives have a positive photostat of 1721-PS, and The Hague has a negative photostat. The 'original' is a photocopy (XXVII 485).

1014-PS is a falsified 'Hitler Speech' written on plain paper by an unknown person. The document bears the heading 'Second Speech' although it is known that Hitler gave only one speech on that date. There are four versions of this speech, 3 of them forgeries: 1014-PS, 798-PS, L-3, and an authentic version, Ra-27 (XVII-406-408; XVIII 390-402; XXII 65). The third forgery, Document L-3, bears an FBI laboratory stamp and was never even accepted into evidence (II 286), but 250 copies of it were given to the press as authentic (II 286).[!!!!!/Draken]

This document is quoted by A.J.P. Taylor on page 254 of The Origins of the Second World War (Fawcett Paperbacks, 2nd Edition, with Answer to his Critics) giving his source as German Foreign Policy, Series D vii, No 192 and 193.

L-3 [that is, one of the forged documents mentioned above./Draken] is the source of many statements attributed to Hitler, particularly "who today remembers the fate of the Armenians?" and "our enemies are little worms, I saw them at Munich". 'Hitler' also compares himself to Genghis Khan and says he will exterminate the Poles, and kick Chamberlain in the groin in front of the photographers. The document appears to have been prepared on the same typewriter as many other Nuremberg documents, including the two other versions of the same speech. This typewriter was probably a Martin from the Triumph-Adler-Werke, Nuremberg.

81-PS is a 'certified true copy' of an unsigned letter on plain paper prepared by an unknown person. If authentic, it is the first draft of a letter never sent. This is invariably spoken of as a letter written by Rosenberg, which Rosenberg denied (XI 510-511). The document lacks signature, initial, blank journal number (a bureaucratic marking) and was not found among the papers of the person to whom it was addressed. (XVII 612).

81-PS is a 'photocopy' with a Soviet exhibit number (USSR-353, XXV 156-161).

212-PS was also prepared by an unknown person, entirely on plain paper, without any handwritten markings, date, address, or stamp (III 540, XXV 302-306; see also photocopies of negative photostats from The Hague).

This is, unfortunately, only typical. Document 386-PS, the 'Hossbach Protokoll', Hitler's supposed speech of 5 November 1938, is a certified photocopy of a microfilm copy of a re-typed 'certified true copy' prepared by an American, of a re-typed 'certified true copy' prepared by a German, of unauthenticated handwritten notes by Hossbach, of a speech by Hitler, written from memory 5 days later.[Come ON!!!/Draken] This is not the worst document, but one of the best, because we know who made one of the copies. The text of 386-PS has been 'edited' (XLII 228-230).

Thus 'trial by document' works as follows: A, an unknown person, listens to alleged 'oral statements' made by B, and takes notes or prepares a document on the basis of those alleged oral statements. The document is then introduced into evidence, not against A, who made the copy, but against B, C, D, E and a host of other people, although there is nothing to connect them with the document or the alleged statements. It is casually stated as fact that 'B said', or that 'C did', or that 'D and E knew'. This is contrary to the rules of evidence of all civilised countries. Nor are the documents identified by witnesses.

The forgery of original documents was rarely resorted to at Nuremberg, because the documents were not brought to court. The "original document" - that is, the original unsigned "copy" - was kept in a safe in the Document Centre (II 195, 256-258).

Then, 2 "photocopies" of the "copy" (V 21) or 6 photocopies (II 251-253) were prepared and brought to court. All other copies were re-typed on a mimeograph using a stencil (IX 504).

In the transcript, the word "original" is used to mean "photocopy" (II 249-250, XIII 200, 508, 519; XV 43, 169, 171, 327) to distinguish the photocopies from the mimeograph copies (IV 245-246).

"Translations" of all documents were available from the beginning of the trial (II 158-161, 191, 195, 215, 249-250, 277, 415, 437) but the "original" German texts were not available until at least two months later. This applies not just to the trial briefs and indictment, etc. but to ALL DOCUMENTS. The defense received no documents in German until after January 9, 1946 (V 22-26).

Documents which appear to have been prepared on the same typewriter include Document 3803-PS, a letter from Kaltenbrunner to the Mayor of Vienna, and the cover letter from this same Mayor sending Kaltenbrunner's letter to the Tribunal (XI 345-348). This letter from Kaltenbrunner contains a false geographical term (XIV 416).
__________________
Three things are sacred to me: first Truth, and then, in its tracks, primordial prayer; Then virtue–nobility of soul which, in God walks on the path of beauty. Frithjof Schuon
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-23-2005, 10:16 AM
truebeliever truebeliever is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,768
Default Re: Holocaust or Holohoax ?

WTF! Hitler kicking Chamberlain in the groin!

Wherever you hear first hand accounts of meetings with Hitler from Germans you hear the words...polite. Formal. Fatherly. Until the meth late 43.
__________________
[size=medium]\"The Office\" is the greatest comedy...ever. [/size]
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-20-2005, 08:34 AM
Draken Draken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 896
Default Re: Holocaust or Holohoax ?

<a href="http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/wiesel.shtml">A Prominent False Witness: Elie Wiesel</a>
By <a href="http://www.revisionists.com/revisionists/faurisson.html">Robert Faurisson</a>

Elie Wiesel won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986. He is generally accepted as a witness to the Jewish "Holocaust," and, more specifically, as a witness to the legendary Nazi extermination gas chambers. The Paris daily Le Monde emphasized at the time that Wiesel was awarded the Nobel Prize because: [1]

These last years have seen, in the name of so-called "historical revisionism," the elaboration of theses, especially in France, questioning the existence of the Nazi gas chambers and, perhaps beyond that, of the genocide of the Jews itself.

But in what respect is Elie Wiesel a witness to the alleged gas chambers? By what right does he ask us to believe in that means of extermination? In an autobiographical book that supposedly describes his experiences at Auschwitz and Buchenwald, he nowhere mentions the gas chambers. [2] He does indeed say that the Germans executed Jews, but ... by fire; by throwing them alive into flaming ditches, before the very eyes of the deportees! No less than that!

Here Wiesel the false witness had some bad luck. Forced to choose from among several Allied war propaganda lies, he chose to defend the fire lie instead of the boiling water, gassing, or electrocution lies. In 1956, when he published his testimony in Yiddish, the fire lie was still alive in certain circles. This lie is the origin of the term Holocaust. Today there is no longer a single historian who believes that Jews were burned alive. The myths of the boiling water and of electrocution have also disappeared. Only the gas remains.

The gassing lie was spread by the Americans. [3] The lie that Jews were killed by boiling water or steam (specifically at Treblinka) was spread by the Poles. [4] The electrocution lie was spread by the Soviets. [5]

The fire lie is of undetermined origin. It is in a sense as old as war propaganda or hate propaganda. In his memoir, Night, which is a version of his earlier Yiddish testimony, Wiesel reports that at Auschwitz there was one flaming ditch for the adults and another one for babies. He writes: [6]

Not far from us, flames were leaping from a ditch, gigantic flames. They were burning something. A lorry drew up at the pit and delivered its load -- little children. Babies! Yes, I saw it -- saw it with my own eyes ... Those children in the flames. (Is it surprising that I could not sleep after that? Sleep has fled from my eyes.)

A little farther on there was another ditch with gigantic flames where the victims suffered "slow agony in the flames." Wiesel's column was led by the Germans to within "three steps" of the ditch, then to "two steps." "Two steps from the pit we were ordered to turn to the left and made to go into a barracks."

An exceptional witness himself, Wiesel assures us of his having met other exceptional witnesses. Regarding Babi Yar, a place in Ukraine where the Germans executed Soviet citizens, among them Jews, Wiesel wrote: [7]

Later, I learn from a witness that, for month after month, the ground never stopped trembling; and that, from time to time, geysers of blood spurted from it.

These words did not slip from their author in a moment of frenzy: first, he wrote them, then some unspecified number of times (but at least once) he had to reread them in the proofs; finally, his words were translated into various languages, as is everything this author writes.

That Wiesel personally survived, was, of course, the result of a miracle. He says that: [8]

In Buchenwald they sent 10,000 persons to their deaths each day. I was always in the last hundred near the gate. They stopped. Why?

In 1954 French scholar Germaine Tillion analyzed the "gratuitous lie" with regard to the German concentration camps. She wrote: [9]

Those persons [who gratuitously lie] are, to tell the truth, much more numerous than people generally suppose, and a subject like that of the concentration camp world -- well designed, alas, to stimulate sado-masochistic imaginings -- offered them an exceptional field of action. We have known numerous mentally damaged persons, half swindlers and half fools, who exploited an imaginary deportation; we have known others of them -- authentic deportees -- whose sick minds strove to go even beyond the monstrosities that they had seen or that people said had happened to them. There have been publishers to print some of their imaginings, and more or less official compilations to use them, but publishers and compilers are absolutely inexcusable, since the most elementary inquiry would have been enough to reveal the imposture.

Tillion lacked the courage to give examples and names. But that is usually the case. People agree that there are false gas chambers that tourists and pilgrims are encouraged to visit, but they do not tell us where. They agree that there are false "eyewitnesses," but in general they name only Martin Gray, the well-known swindler, at whose request Max Gallo, with full knowledge of what he was doing, fabricated the bestseller For Those I Loved.

Jean-François Steiner is sometimes named as well. His bestselling novel Treblinka (1966) was presented as a work of which the accuracy of every detail was guaranteed by oral or written testimony. In reality it was a fabrication attributable, at least in part, to the novelist Gilles Perrault. [10] Marek Halter, for his part, published his La Mémoire d'Abraham in 1983; as he often does on radio, he talked there about his experiences in the Warsaw ghetto. However, if we are to believe an article by Nicolas Beau that is quite favorable to Halter, [11] little Marek, about three years old, and his mother left Warsaw not in 1941 but in October of 1939, before the establishment of the ghetto there by the Germans. Halter's book is supposed to have been actually written by a ghost writer, Jean-Noël Gurgan.

Filip Müller is the author of Eyewitness Auschwitz: Three Years in the Gas Chambers, [12] which won the 1980 prize of the International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism (LICRA). This nauseous best-seller is actually the work of a German ghost writer, Helmut Freitag, who did not hesitate to engage in plagiarism. [13] The source of the plagiarism is Auschwitz: A Doctor's Eyewitness Account, another best-seller made up out of whole cloth and attributed to Miklos Nyiszli. [14]

Thus a whole series of works presented as authentic documents turns out to be merely compilations attributable to various ghost writers: Max Gallo, Gilles Perrault, Jean-Noël Gurgan (?), and Helmut Freitag, among others.

We would like to know what Germaine Tillion thinks about Elie Wiesel today. With him the lie is certainly not gratuitous. Wiesel claims to be full of love for humanity. However, he does not refrain from an appeal to hatred. In his opinion: [15]

Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate -- healthy, virile hate -- for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of the dead.

At the beginning of 1986, 83 deputies of the German Bundestag took the initiative of proposing Wiesel for the Nobel Peace Prize. This would be, they said, "a great encouragement to all who are active in the process of reconciliation." [16] That is what might be called "going from National Socialism to national masochism."

Jimmy Carter needed a historian to preside over the President's Commission on the Holocaust. As Dr. Arthur Butz said so well, he chose not a historian but a "histrion": Elie Wiesel. Even the newspaper Le Monde, in the article mentioned above, was obliged to refer to the histrionic trait that certain persons deplore in Wiesel:

Naturally, even among those who approve of the struggle of this American Jewish writer, who was discovered by the Catholic François Mauriac, some reproach him for having too much of a tendency to change the Jewish sadness into "morbidity" or to become the high priest of a "planned management of the Holocaust."

As Jewish writer Leon A. Jick has written: "The devastating barb, 'There is no business like SHOAH-business' is, sad to say, a recognizable truth." [17]

Elie Wiesel issues alarmed and inflammatory appeals against Revisionist authors. He senses that things are getting out of hand. It is going to become more and more difficult for him to maintain the mad belief that the Jews were exterminated or were subjected to a policy of extermination, especially in so-called gas chambers. Serge Klarsfeld has admitted that real proofs of the existence of the gas chambers have still not yet been published. He promises proofs. [18]

On the scholarly plane, the gas chamber myth is finished. To tell the truth, that myth breathed its last breath several years ago at the Sorbonne colloquium in Paris (June 29-July 2, 1982), at which Raymond Aron and François Furet presided. What remains is to make this news known to the general public. However, for Elie Wiesel it is of the highest importance to conceal that news. Thus all the fuss in the media, which is going to increase: the more the journalists talk, the more the historians keep quiet.

But there are historians who dare to raise their voices against the lies and the hatred. That is the case with Michel de Boüard, wartime member of the Resistance, deportee to Mauthausen, member of the Committee for the History of the Second World War from 1945 to 1981, and a member of the Institut de France. In a poignant interview in 1986, he courageously acknowledged that in 1954 he had vouched for the existence of a gas chamber at Mauthausen where, it finally turns out, there never was one. [19]

The respect owed to the sufferings of all the victims of the Second World War, and, in particular, to the sufferings of the deportees, demands on the part of historians a return to the proven and time-honored methods of historical criticism.
Summary

Elie Wiesel passes for one of the most celebrated eyewitnesses to the alleged Holocaust. Yet in his supposedly autobiographical book Night, he makes no mention of gas chambers. He claims instead to have witnessed Jews being burned alive, a story now dismissed by all historians. Wiesel gives credence to the most absurd stories of other "eyewitnesses." He spreads fantastic tales of 10,000 persons sent to their deaths each day in Buchenwald.

When Elie Wiesel and his father, as Auschwitz prisoners, had the choice of either leaving with their retreating German "executioners," or remaining behind in the camp to await the Soviet "liberators," the two decided to leave with their German captors.

It is time, in the name of truth and out of respect for the genuine sufferings of the victims of the Second World War, that historians return to the proven methods of historical criticism, and that the testimony of the Holocaust "eyewitnesses" be subjected to rigorous scrutiny rather than unquestioning acceptance.
Notes

1. Le Monde, October 17, 1986. Front page.
2. There is one single allusion, extremely vague and fleeting, on pages 78-79: Wiesel, who very much likes to have conversations with God, says to Him: "But these men here, whom You have betrayed, whom You have allowed to be tortured, butchered, gassed, burned, what do they do? They pray before you!" (Night, New York, Discus/Avon Books, 1969, p. 79). In his preface to that same book, François Mauriac mentioned "the gas chamber and the crematory" (p. 8). The four crucial pages of "testimony" by Elie Wiesel are reproduced in facsimile in: Pierre Guillaume, Droit et Histoire (La Vieille Taupe, 1986), pp. 147-150. In the German-language edition of Night (Die Nacht zu begraben, Elischa [Ullstein, 1962]), on 14 occasions the word "crematory" or "crematories" has been falsely given as "Gaskammer" ("gas chamber[s]"). In January of 1945, in anticipation of a Russian takeover, the Germans were evacuating Auschwitz. Elie Wiesel, a young teenager at the time, was hospitalized in Birkenau (the "extermination camp") after surgery on an infected foot. His doctor had recommended two weeks of rest and good food but, before his foot healed, the Russian takeover became imminent. Hospital patients were considered unfit for the long trip to the camps in Germany and Elie thus could have remained at Birkenau to await the Russians. Although his father had permission to stay with him as a hospital patient or orderly, father and son talked it over and decided to move out with the Germans. (See Night, p. 93. See also D. Calder, The Sunday Sun [Toronto, Canada], May 31, 1987, p. C4.)
3. See the US War Refugee Board Report, German Extermination Camps: Auschwitz and Birkenau (Washington, DC), November 1944.
4. See Nuremberg document PS-3311 (USA-293). Published in the IMT "blue series," Vol. 32, pp. 153-158.
5. See the report in Pravda, Feb. 2, 1945, p. 4, and the UP report in the Washington (DC) Daily News, Feb. 2, 1945, p. 2.
6. Night (Avon/Discus). See esp. pp. 41, 42, 43, 44, 79, 93.
7. Paroles d'étranger (Editions du Seuil, 1982), p. 86.
8. "Author, Teacher, Witness," Time magazine, March 18, 1985, p. 79.
9. "Le Système concentrationnaire allemand [1940-1944]," Revue d'histoire de la Deuxième Guerre mondiale, July 1954, p. 18, n. 2.
10. Le Journal du Dimanche, March 30, 1985, p. 5.
11. Libération, Jan. 24, 1986, p. 19.
12. Published by Stein and Day (New York). Paperback edition of 1984. (xii + 180 pages.) With a foreword by Yehuda Bauer of the Institute of Contemporary Jewry, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
13. Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz: un caso di plagio, Parma (Italy): 1986. See also: C. Mattogno, "Auschwitz: A Case of Plagiarism," The Journal of Historical Review, Spring 1990, pp. 5-24.
14. Paperback edition, 1961, and later, published by Fawcett Crest (New York).
15. Legends of Our Time (chapter 12: "Appointment with Hate"), New York: Schocken Books, 1982, p. 142, or, New York: Avon, 1968, pp. 177-178.
16. The Week in Germany (published in New York by the German government in Bonn), Jan. 31, 1986, p. 2.
17. "The Holocaust: Its Use and Abuse Within the American Public," Yad Vashem Studies (Jerusalem), 1981, p. 316.
18. VSD, May 29, 1986, p. 37.
19. Ouest-France, August 2-3, 1986, p. 6.

--------------

Background:

Robert Faurisson
is Europe's leading Holocaust revisionist scholar. He was educated at the Paris Sorbonne, and served as associate professor at the University of Lyon in France from 1974 until 1990. He is a recognized specialist of text and document analysis. After years of private research and study, Dr. Faurisson first made public his skeptical views about the Holocaust extermination story in articles published in 1978 in the French daily Le Monde. His writings on the Holocaust issue have appeared in two books and numerous scholarly articles, many of which have been published in the IHR's Journal of Historical Review.

Known as the dean of the world-wide devisionist movement and principal teacher of Ernst Zündel, Dr. Faurisson first discovered the technical and architectural drawings of the Auschwitz morgues, the crematories and other installations. He was also the first to insist that only a U.S. gas chamber expert could unravel the technical impossibility of the Auschwitz homicidal gassing story -- as falsely told to the public for over half a century. Zündel mentor, advisor and trial witness in the 1984 preliminary hearings and in the 1985 and 1988 Great Holocaust Trials. Slated as expert witness for the 1991 Munich trial of Ernst Zündel. (The prosecution dropped the Anne Frank Diary part of the charge in mid-trial after they learned that Dr. Faurisson was going to testify to that point.)

Repercussions:

At least 10 times physically assaulted by Holocaust Enforcers; on several occasions nearly killed. Jaws broken. Teeth knocked out. Hospitalized for weeks. Persecuted mercilessly in endless legal battles.
__________________
Three things are sacred to me: first Truth, and then, in its tracks, primordial prayer; Then virtue–nobility of soul which, in God walks on the path of beauty. Frithjof Schuon
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-29-2005, 10:53 AM
truebeliever truebeliever is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,768
Default Re: Holocaust or Holohoax ?

Robert Faurisson was defended by Noam Chomsky himself. At least his right to his point of view was defended by Chomsky.

Chomsky got such a hiding for this even HE backpedalled...does'nt happen often. But such is the desperation of the Holohoax lovers.

Chomsky may be a left gatekeeper but he is still a man of principal...well more than most anyway.

I think Chomsky's parting words were along the lines of..."it does a disservice to the victims of the holocaust to accept a central doctrine of their murder'ers".

I get the feeling even Chomsky has some difficulty with the standard line.
__________________
[size=medium]\"The Office\" is the greatest comedy...ever. [/size]
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-29-2005, 02:08 PM
psholtz psholtz is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 246
Default Re: Holocaust or Holohoax ?

It's undeniable that there was a Holocaust, and that the Nazis committed many and sundry atrocities against the people of all the lands they occupied. This is documented history, and to deny it is insanity, although admittedly in war *all* are - to some extent - guilty and certainly the Allies and Soviets committed their fair share of war crimes as well.

There are, however, two points concerning the Holocaust that are worth pointing out:

* Nazi persecution was directed against MANY minorities: political opponents, Catholics, Poles, Slavs, Gypsies, gays, and many others. Jews obviously were persecuted as well, but they were not the sole target of Nazi fury

* There is reason to believe that the "6 million murdered Jews" number is somewhat inflated.. even based on the film that truebeliever posted earlier, if the death toll from Auschwitz alone was more like 1 million, rather than 4 million, well then gee, I guess you've just cut that 6 million figure down by 50% .. Of course, this does not imply that there were 0 murdered Jews in WWII, or that there was *no* Holocaust.. To suggest this be insanity..
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-31-2005, 05:27 AM
john john is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 99
Default Re: Holocaust or Holohoax ?

Or HO-LOBBY... for a racist-elitist new world order?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-31-2005, 07:45 AM
Draken Draken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 896
Default Re: Holocaust or Holohoax ?

psholtz, hope you don't mind me getting involved in True's and your discussion.

You bring up the Jews in Prague's Jewish Quarter having been rounded up by the Nazis and deported to some unspecified "extermination" camp. Noting that you imply that these were innocent Jews, I have to question that implication. I myself is of Central European decent and have plenty of stories similar to yours from my family, but I have a few that differ significantly.

My parents grew up in Hungary during the last years of WW2; both of their first memories are of bullets flying past their ears, being on the run from the Russians, and my father was around 10-12 years old when the Russians squashed the Hungarian counter-revolution of 1956.

What happened in Hungary during these last years of the war has been utterly falsified by the victors of the war, i.e. the Jewish Bolsheviks that terrorized Hungary from the time they (illegally) seized power directly after the end of the war until the "regime change" of 1989-1990.

During the short period of time the last legitimate Hungarian government were allied with the Germans, a majority of the Jewish population were collaborating with the Jewish Bolsheviks of Russia and conspired against the Hungarian nation in which they lived, working towards their goal to destroy the remnants of one of the last Traditional constitutions in Europe. This, after they succeeded in destroying Czarist Russia.
So, the Jewish collaborators and traitors actually invited the Jewish Bolsheviks of Russia to occupy Hungary and install a Bolshevik government, which is exactly what happened.

Now, the Arrow Cross Party which legitimately ruled Hungary at this time, and in alliance with the Germans, realized that they will lose the war, but since Hungarians had an unpleasantly fresh memory of the events of 1919 when Béla Kun (Cohn) and his Jewish Bolshevik gangsters and murderers illegally seized power and terrorized and butchered the Hungarian population, naturally the leaders of the Arrow Cross Party led by Ferenc Szálasi refused to capitulate to the Jewish Bolsheviks of Russia. They told the Allied powers, though, that they agree to capitulate to Western forces, like British, American or French. The Hungarian Arrow Cross Party were totally unshakeable in their decision that they would NEVER capitulate to the Russians and that they will fight them to the last bullet and last drop of blood, which is exactly what happened.

Now, in all this going on, the Jewish population were actively collaborating with the enemy, i.e. the Jewish Bolsheviks of Russia, so when the leaders of the Arrow Cross Party went into exile, being the last legitimate government of Hungary, and tried to seek asylum in Austria, Switzerland or America and elsewhere in the West, the Jewish Bolsheviks of Russia demanded their extradition back to Hungary to be tried as "war criminals". Of course, the Jewish Bolshevik fifth columnists that had infiltrated the Allied military and intelligence organizations, especially the American ones, and these Jewish fifth columnists being the same gangsters who were responsible for the butchering of the Hungarian ruling and educated classes in the 1919 coup d'état and managed to flee back to Russia, were happy to comply and extradited the Hungarian members of the government.

Would these Hungarian leaders have been sent to be tried in Nuremberg they would've been released, like the Hungarian regent during the period between the World Wars, Nicholas Horthy, because they had not committed any crime.
But the Hungarian leaders were not sent to Nuremberg, on the explicit demands of the Jewish Bolsheviks who were now illegally in power in Hungary, but were "sentenced" in show trials and murdered en masse by the Jewish Bolshevik traitors and collaborators, charged with made-up crimes they were supposed to have committed against the "innocent" Jewish population of Hungary.

This chain of events starting somewhere before WW1 and culminating in the above description does in no way relate only to Hungary. Similar events with identical roots took place all over Europe; Germany, France, Italy, Romania, etc.

A very good summary for the reasons of Nazi-German anti-Jewish laws are given by <a href="http://100777.com/doc/54">Benjamin Freedman's excellent 1961 exposé</a> of behind-the-scenes Jewish conspiring. It's a fact that International Jewry declared war on Germany in 1933, resulting in a world-wide economic and trade embargo against anything produced in Germany. This brought Germany to it's knees, but like Freedman points out, the Germans didn't make a move against them. In fact, Germany didn't make its move until a <a href="http://judicial-inc.biz/Kristallnacht.htm">German diplomat in Paris was murdered by a Jewish activist, 17-year-old Herschel Grynszpan, on November 7th, 1938</a>.

The big question for me, which I'm still unable to answer fully is:

How many of those Jews deported, arrested, tried, sentenced and executed for treason, collaboration with the enemy were actually GUILTY of the crimes they were accused of?

The true identity of Bolshevism and Communism has been thoroughly established but if you for some reason still have your doubts, read this <a href="http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n1p-4_Weber.html">article by Mark Weber of IHR</a>.

To get to the point, in the appendix of the above mentioned article one can read:

Quote:
"The following lists of persons in the Bolshevik Party and Soviet administration during this period, which Wilton compiled on the basis of official reports and original documents, underscore the crucial Jewish role in these bodies. These lists first appeared in the rare French edition of Wilton's book, published in Paris in 1921 under the title Les Derniers Jours des Romanoffs. They did not appear in either the American or British editions of The Last Days of the Romanoffs published in 1920.

"I have done all in my power to act as an impartial chronicler," Wilton wrote in his foreword to Les Derniers Jours des Romanoffs. "In order not to leave myself open to any accusation of prejudice, I am giving the list of the members of the [Bolshevik Party' s] Central Committee, of the Extraordinary Commission [Cheka or secret police], and of the Council of Commissars functioning at the time of the assassination of the Imperial family.

"The 62 members of the [Central] Committee were composed of five Russians, one Ukrainian, six Letts [Latvians], two Germans, one Czech, two Armenians, three Georgians, one Karaim [Karaite] (a Jewish sect), and 41 Jews.

"The Extraordinary Commission [Cheka or Vecheka] of Moscow was composed of 36 members, including one German, one Pole, one Armenian, two Russians, eight Latvians, and 23 Jews.

"The Council of the People's Commissars [the Soviet government numbered two Armenians, three Russians, and 17 Jews.

"According to data furnished by the Soviet press, out of 556 important functionaries of the Bolshevik state, including the above-mentioned, in 1918-1919 there were: 17 Russians, two Ukrainians, eleven Armenians, 35 Letts [Latvians], 15 Germans, one Hungarian, ten Georgians, three Poles, three Finns, one Czech, one Karaim, and 457 Jews."

"If the reader is astonished to find the Jewish hand everywhere in the affair of the assassination of the Russian Imperial family, he must bear in mind the formidable numerical preponderance of Jews in the Soviet administration," Wilton went on to write.

Effective governmental power, Wilton continued (on pages 136-138 of the same edition) is in the Central Committee of the Bolshevik party. In 1918, he reported, this body had twelve members, of whom nine were of Jewish origin, and three were of Russian ancestry. The nine Jews were: Bronstein (Trotsky), Apfelbaum (Zinoviev), Lurie (Larine), Uritsky, Volodarski, Rosenfeld (Kamenev), Smidovich, Sverdlov (Yankel), and Nakhamkes (Steklov). The three Russians were: Ulyanov (Lenin), Krylenko, and Lunacharsky.

"The other Russian Socialist parties are similar in composition," Wilton went on. "Their Central Committees are made up as follows:"

Mensheviks (Social Democrats): Eleven members, all of whom are Jewish.

Communists of the People: Six members, of whom five are Jews and one is a Russian.

Social Revolutionaries (Right Wing): Fifteen members, of whom 13 are Jews and two are Russians (Kerenski, who may be of Jewish origin, and Tchaikovski).

Social Revolutionaries (Left Wing): Twelve members, of whom ten are Jews and two are Russians.

Committee of the Anarchists of Moscow: Five members, of whom four are Jews and one is a Russian.

Polish Communist Party: Twelve members, all of whom are Jews, including Sobelson (Radek), Krokhenal (Zagonski), and Schwartz (Goltz).

"These parties," commented Wilton, "in appearance opposed to the Bolsheviks, play the Bolsheviks' game on the sly, more or less, by preventing the Russians from pulling themselves together. Out of 61 individuals at the head of these parties, there are six Russians and 55 Jews. No matter what may be the name adopted, a revolutionary government will be Jewish."
There are plenty of examples of horrific Jewish Bolshevik crimes of mass slaughter of ethnic Germans BEFORE the outbreak of WW2, which can only be understood as terrible acts to provoke the Germans to lose their cool.

Quote:
"The Polish Bolsheviks kill 58,000 German Nationals in the Danzig corridor

In the months leading up to the German invasion the Polish Army and independent Bolshevik units had been slaughtering German nationals in the Danzig corridor. Mass killings of thousands of civilian ethnic Germans (Volksdeutsche) by both civilian and Russian NDVK Jews, who were confident that Poland would quickly defeat Germany. Many apparently expected to take possession of German farms and businesses. An estimated 58,000 German civilians lost their lives in the massacres carried out prior to the 1939 invasion.

Poles had been merrily slaughtering anything or anybody German since at least as early as April 1939, with smaller incidents stretching back to the close of WW I -- you haven't been told that by the Mass Media, or the fact that these atrocities were one of the main causes for the German invasion of Poland.

Germany had protesting in writing to the League of Nations literally dozens of times with no results."
(Quote from <a href="http://judicial-inc.biz/Broomberg.htm">"Why did Hitler invade Poland ?"</a>)

Other examples of Jewish war crimes can be read about in the <a href="http://www.ukar.org/mclell07.html">letter to Anne McLellan, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Letter 07 20-Feb-1998</a>, written by Lubomyr Prytulak, where he writes in the introduction:

"In every case, I ask you to notice that all my evidence comes from always reputable — and, in fact, usually distinguished — sources, and almost all of it also happens to come from Jewish sources."

These sources are mainly John Sack and Norman G. Finkelstein.

So, the important question for me that hasn't been asked is did the Nazis have a good/reasonable/legitimate cause to mistrust the Jews and to impose restricting laws on them?

Once the war had broken out, did the Nazis have good/reasonable/legitimate cause to route out and punish Bolshevik/Communist/Jewish agent provocateurs, collaborators, traitors and spies, not to mention the regular fighters/soldiers that openly opposed the Nazis?
Remember, there was a war going on, and soldiers are prone to get shot and killed; that's the price you pay for engaging in regular fighting on ANY side of a war.

Now, honest Jews will HAVE to deal with this dark side of their history and complicity, before they have any credibility when talking about being victims of "extermination". Clearly, they brought it on themselves. Of course not everyone: one of my distant relatives was Jewish and married into my family. After the end of the war a couple of her friends offered her the idea to go to Nuremberg to "testify" about their "experiences" in the Nazi "extermination camps". The idea was to tattoo numbers on their arms and be each others' "eye" witness to the "truth" that they were there. For this they would get "compensation" from Germany, they said - what a great little scam! Needless to say, neither of them had been anywhere near any form of camp whatsoever. I can only speculate where they got this "brilliant" idea from, and the confidence it would work.
My distant Jewish relative declined to take part in utter disgust.

So there will always be exceptions. We will have to take a view more from above, as detatched as possible to try to determine the facts without avoiding uncomfortable truths and taboos.

The historical facts reveal that Communism declared war on the entire world, and this war is still going on, although not for long if people don't wake up VERY soon.

If Communism is in fact Jewish racial war (article <a href="http://www.ety.com/HRP/rev/thejewishwar.htm">HERE</a> and <a href="http://www.ety.com/HRP/walshcomments/ritual_murders.htm">HERE</a>) against the rest of the world's races, which I'm getting more and more convinced about the more I study this issue, then it follows that this actually is a serious bid from International Jewry to take control over, and rule the world.

By the way, nomad, if you're reading this, and lately having turned into a Zionist supremacist proclaiming the superiority of Jewish intelligence and genes, do you mean that you think the Bolshevik Satanic slaughtering, murdering beasts giving animals a bad name are the crème de la crème of human intelligence and spirituality?

We live in the true Dark Age of the Kali Yuga, and the Jews rule the world.

That's not a racist statement, that is stating the facts. Would you not agree, nomad?
__________________
Three things are sacred to me: first Truth, and then, in its tracks, primordial prayer; Then virtue–nobility of soul which, in God walks on the path of beauty. Frithjof Schuon
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-31-2005, 08:42 AM
torchithill torchithill is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 95
Default Re: Holocaust or Holohoax ?

Quote:
Draken wrote:
psholtz, hope you don't mind me getting involved in True's and your discussion.

You bring up the Jews in Prague's Jewish Quarter having been rounded up by the Nazis and deported to some unspecified "extermination" camp. Noting that you imply that these were innocent Jews, I have to question that implication. I myself is of Central European decent and have plenty of stories similar to yours from my family, but I have a few that differ significantly.

My parents grew up in Hungary during the last years of WW2; both of their first memories are of bullets flying past their ears, being on the run from the Russians, and my father was around 10-12 years old when the Russians squashed the Hungarian counter-revolution of 1956.

What happened in Hungary during these last years of the war has been utterly falsified by the victors of the war, i.e. the Jewish Bolsheviks that terrorized Hungary from the time they (illegally) seized power directly after the end of the war until the "regime change" of 1989-1990.

During the short period of time the last legitimate Hungarian government were allied with the Germans, a majority of the Jewish population were collaborating with the Jewish Bolsheviks of Russia and conspired against the Hungarian nation in which they lived, working towards their goal to destroy the remnants of one of the last Traditional constitutions in Europe. This, after they succeeded in destroying Czarist Russia.
So, the Jewish collaborators and traitors actually invited the Jewish Bolsheviks of Russia to occupy Hungary and install a Bolshevik government, which is exactly what happened.

Now, the Arrow Cross Party which legitimately ruled Hungary at this time, and in alliance with the Germans, realized that they will lose the war, but since Hungarians had an unpleasantly fresh memory of the events of 1919 when Béla Kun (Cohn) and his Jewish Bolshevik gangsters and murderers illegally seized power and terrorized and butchered the Hungarian population, naturally the leaders of the Arrow Cross Party led by Ferenc Szálasi refused to capitulate to the Jewish Bolsheviks of Russia. They told the Allied powers, though, that they agree to capitulate to Western forces, like British, American or French. The Hungarian Arrow Cross Party were totally unshakeable in their decision that they would NEVER capitulate to the Russians and that they will fight them to the last bullet and last drop of blood, which is exactly what happened.

Now, in all this going on, the Jewish population were actively collaborating with the enemy, i.e. the Jewish Bolsheviks of Russia, so when the leaders of the Arrow Cross Party went into exile, being the last legitimate government of Hungary, and tried to seek asylum in Austria, Switzerland or America and elsewhere in the West, the Jewish Bolsheviks of Russia demanded their extradition back to Hungary to be tried as "war criminals". Of course, the Jewish Bolshevik fifth columnists that had infiltrated the Allied military and intelligence organizations, especially the American ones, and these Jewish fifth columnists being the same gangsters who were responsible for the butchering of the Hungarian ruling and educated classes in the 1919 coup d'état and managed to flee back to Russia, were happy to comply and extradited the Hungarian members of the government.

Would these Hungarian leaders have been sent to be tried in Nuremberg they would've been released, like the Hungarian regent during the period between the World Wars, Nicholas Horthy, because they had not committed any crime.
But the Hungarian leaders were not sent to Nuremberg, on the explicit demands of the Jewish Bolsheviks who were now illegally in power in Hungary, but were "sentenced" in show trials and murdered en masse by the Jewish Bolshevik traitors and collaborators, charged with made-up crimes they were supposed to have committed against the "innocent" Jewish population of Hungary.

This chain of events starting somewhere before WW1 and culminating in the above description does in no way relate only to Hungary. Similar events with identical roots took place all over Europe; Germany, France, Italy, Romania, etc.

A very good summary for the reasons of Nazi-German anti-Jewish laws are given by <a href="http://100777.com/doc/54">Benjamin Freedman's excellent 1961 exposé</a> of behind-the-scenes Jewish conspiring. It's a fact that International Jewry declared war on Germany in 1933, resulting in a world-wide economic and trade embargo against anything produced in Germany. This brought Germany to it's knees, but like Freedman points out, the Germans didn't make a move against them. In fact, Germany didn't make its move until a <a href="http://judicial-inc.biz/Kristallnacht.htm">German diplomat in Paris was murdered by a Jewish activist, 17-year-old Herschel Grynszpan, on November 7th, 1938</a>.

The big question for me, which I'm still unable to answer fully is:

How many of those Jews deported, arrested, tried, sentenced and executed for treason, collaboration with the enemy were actually GUILTY of the crimes they were accused of?

The true identity of Bolshevism and Communism has been thoroughly established but if you for some reason still have your doubts, read this <a href="http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n1p-4_Weber.html">article by Mark Weber of IHR</a>.

To get to the point, in the appendix of the above mentioned article one can read:

Quote:
"The following lists of persons in the Bolshevik Party and Soviet administration during this period, which Wilton compiled on the basis of official reports and original documents, underscore the crucial Jewish role in these bodies. These lists first appeared in the rare French edition of Wilton's book, published in Paris in 1921 under the title Les Derniers Jours des Romanoffs. They did not appear in either the American or British editions of The Last Days of the Romanoffs published in 1920.

"I have done all in my power to act as an impartial chronicler," Wilton wrote in his foreword to Les Derniers Jours des Romanoffs. "In order not to leave myself open to any accusation of prejudice, I am giving the list of the members of the [Bolshevik Party' s] Central Committee, of the Extraordinary Commission [Cheka or secret police], and of the Council of Commissars functioning at the time of the assassination of the Imperial family.

"The 62 members of the [Central] Committee were composed of five Russians, one Ukrainian, six Letts [Latvians], two Germans, one Czech, two Armenians, three Georgians, one Karaim [Karaite] (a Jewish sect), and 41 Jews.

"The Extraordinary Commission [Cheka or Vecheka] of Moscow was composed of 36 members, including one German, one Pole, one Armenian, two Russians, eight Latvians, and 23 Jews.

"The Council of the People's Commissars [the Soviet government numbered two Armenians, three Russians, and 17 Jews.

"According to data furnished by the Soviet press, out of 556 important functionaries of the Bolshevik state, including the above-mentioned, in 1918-1919 there were: 17 Russians, two Ukrainians, eleven Armenians, 35 Letts [Latvians], 15 Germans, one Hungarian, ten Georgians, three Poles, three Finns, one Czech, one Karaim, and 457 Jews."

"If the reader is astonished to find the Jewish hand everywhere in the affair of the assassination of the Russian Imperial family, he must bear in mind the formidable numerical preponderance of Jews in the Soviet administration," Wilton went on to write.

Effective governmental power, Wilton continued (on pages 136-138 of the same edition) is in the Central Committee of the Bolshevik party. In 1918, he reported, this body had twelve members, of whom nine were of Jewish origin, and three were of Russian ancestry. The nine Jews were: Bronstein (Trotsky), Apfelbaum (Zinoviev), Lurie (Larine), Uritsky, Volodarski, Rosenfeld (Kamenev), Smidovich, Sverdlov (Yankel), and Nakhamkes (Steklov). The three Russians were: Ulyanov (Lenin), Krylenko, and Lunacharsky.

"The other Russian Socialist parties are similar in composition," Wilton went on. "Their Central Committees are made up as follows:"

Mensheviks (Social Democrats): Eleven members, all of whom are Jewish.

Communists of the People: Six members, of whom five are Jews and one is a Russian.

Social Revolutionaries (Right Wing): Fifteen members, of whom 13 are Jews and two are Russians (Kerenski, who may be of Jewish origin, and Tchaikovski).

Social Revolutionaries (Left Wing): Twelve members, of whom ten are Jews and two are Russians.

Committee of the Anarchists of Moscow: Five members, of whom four are Jews and one is a Russian.

Polish Communist Party: Twelve members, all of whom are Jews, including Sobelson (Radek), Krokhenal (Zagonski), and Schwartz (Goltz).

"These parties," commented Wilton, "in appearance opposed to the Bolsheviks, play the Bolsheviks' game on the sly, more or less, by preventing the Russians from pulling themselves together. Out of 61 individuals at the head of these parties, there are six Russians and 55 Jews. No matter what may be the name adopted, a revolutionary government will be Jewish."
There are plenty of examples of horrific Jewish Bolshevik crimes of mass slaughter of ethnic Germans BEFORE the outbreak of WW2, which can only be understood as terrible acts to provoke the Germans to lose their cool.

Quote:
"The Polish Bolsheviks kill 58,000 German Nationals in the Danzig corridor

In the months leading up to the German invasion the Polish Army and independent Bolshevik units had been slaughtering German nationals in the Danzig corridor. Mass killings of thousands of civilian ethnic Germans (Volksdeutsche) by both civilian and Russian NDVK Jews, who were confident that Poland would quickly defeat Germany. Many apparently expected to take possession of German farms and businesses. An estimated 58,000 German civilians lost their lives in the massacres carried out prior to the 1939 invasion.

Poles had been merrily slaughtering anything or anybody German since at least as early as April 1939, with smaller incidents stretching back to the close of WW I -- you haven't been told that by the Mass Media, or the fact that these atrocities were one of the main causes for the German invasion of Poland.

Germany had protesting in writing to the League of Nations literally dozens of times with no results."
(Quote from <a href="http://judicial-inc.biz/Broomberg.htm">"Why did Hitler invade Poland ?"</a>)

Other examples of Jewish war crimes can be read about in the <a href="http://www.ukar.org/mclell07.html">letter to Anne McLellan, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Letter 07 20-Feb-1998</a>, written by Lubomyr Prytulak, where he writes in the introduction:

"In every case, I ask you to notice that all my evidence comes from always reputable — and, in fact, usually distinguished — sources, and almost all of it also happens to come from Jewish sources."

These sources are mainly John Sack and Norman G. Finkelstein.

So, the important question for me that hasn't been asked is did the Nazis have a good/reasonable/legitimate cause to mistrust the Jews and to impose restricting laws on them?

Once the war had broken out, did the Nazis have good/reasonable/legitimate cause to route out and punish Bolshevik/Communist/Jewish agent provocateurs, collaborators, traitors and spies, not to mention the regular fighters/soldiers that openly opposed the Nazis?
Remember, there was a war going on, and soldiers are prone to get shot and killed; that's the price you pay for engaging in regular fighting on ANY side of a war.

Now, honest Jews will HAVE to deal with this dark side of their history and complicity, before they have any credibility when talking about being victims of "extermination". Clearly, they brought it on themselves. Of course not everyone: one of my distant relatives was Jewish and married into my family. After the end of the war a couple of her friends offered her the idea to go to Nuremberg to "testify" about their "experiences" in the Nazi "extermination camps". The idea was to tattoo numbers on their arms and be each others' "eye" witness to the "truth" that they were there. For this they would get "compensation" from Germany, they said - what a great little scam! Needless to say, neither of them had been anywhere near any form of camp whatsoever. I can only speculate where they got this "brilliant" idea from, and the confidence it would work.
My distant Jewish relative declined to take part in utter disgust.

So there will always be exceptions. We will have to take a view more from above, as detatched as possible to try to determine the facts without avoiding uncomfortable truths and taboos.

The historical facts reveal that Communism declared war on the entire world, and this war is still going on, although not for long if people don't wake up VERY soon.

If Communism is in fact Jewish racial war (article <a href="http://www.ety.com/HRP/rev/thejewishwar.htm">HERE</a> and <a href="http://www.ety.com/HRP/walshcomments/ritual_murders.htm">HERE</a>) against the rest of the world's races, which I'm getting more and more convinced about the more I study this issue, then it follows that this actually is a serious bid from International Jewry to take control over, and rule the world.

By the way, nomad, if you're reading this, and lately having turned into a Zionist supremacist proclaiming the superiority of Jewish intelligence and genes, do you mean that you think the Bolshevik Satanic slaughtering, murdering beasts giving animals a bad name are the crème de la crème of human intelligence and spirituality?

We live in the true Dark Age of the Kali Yuga, and the Jews rule the world.

That's not a racist statement, that is stating the facts. Would you not agree, nomad?
THIS POST HAS BEEN PASSED ON TO OTHER JEWS WHO
WILL BE VERY INTERESTED IN YOUR COMMENTS.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-31-2005, 08:44 AM
Draken Draken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 896
Default Re: Holocaust or Holohoax ?

You are very predictable, torchithill. I hope they take note of the Jewish sources too. ;-)
__________________
Three things are sacred to me: first Truth, and then, in its tracks, primordial prayer; Then virtue–nobility of soul which, in God walks on the path of beauty. Frithjof Schuon
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Holocaust IlluSionS667 Alternate History 2 10-22-2009 12:10 PM
Nuclear Holocaust The effects of the NWO 4 07-06-2008 01:07 PM
What Does 'Holocaust Barbara Opinions 3 03-22-2007 10:59 AM
Why Do People Question The Holocaust? Barbara Opinions 5 03-22-2007 12:24 AM
The New Orlean's Holocaust!! North America 64 09-28-2005 12:09 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:29 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.