9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom

Dr. Chaim Weizmann spoke at the Zionist Congress of 1937


’The truth about Weizmann is that he was stirred by the Jewish dream of a New Zion, which somehow did not include the Jews of reality —— of Petticoat Lane, Hester Street, the Warsaw Nalevki, and the ghetto of Pinsk.

“in the 1930s, Dr. Weizmann made many eloquent speeches explaining the aims of his Zionism lie offered the world a picture of a Zionism toiling to turn Palestine into a Tiffany’s window for glittering Jews, and not another ghetto for pushcart vendors and lowly talus— wearers."

source
Ben Hecht
book “Perfidy”

The US State Department suppressed the reports. R. Borden Reams, the State Department Specialist on Jewish Issues, said at the time that if the reports kept getting out, “the way will then be open for further pressure from interested groups for action that might affect the war effort. Six months later, the State Department went so far as to cut off all reports.

FDR released a statement that there would be no Allied reprisals for Nazi war crimes. The Assistant Secretary of State in the Roosevelt Administration was named Breckinridge Long. In his previous post as ambassador to Italy, Long had been an effusive admirer of Mussolini. In a letter to FDR in 1933, he called the fascists “the most interesting experiment in government to come above the horizon since the formulation of our constitution 150 years ago. Many men are in uniform. The Fascisti in their black shirts are apparent in every community They are dapper and well dressed and stand up straight and lend an atmosphere of individuality and importance to their surroundings.” Throughout the war everything connected with the relief of Jews in Europe – from visas, to distribution of food and medicine – fell under this man’s supervision. Long helped craft one of the most deadly U.S. policies during the war – the refusal to open the border to fleeing refugees. During the three and a half years that the U.S. was at war with Germany, a mere 21,000 refugees were admitted into the country just a tiny percent of the numbers that could have emigrated.


let me guess
they dont teach you about Breckinridge Long in holocaust classes
Dr. Chaim Weizmann?

so please look at the facts
american and zionist money financed hitler
america avoided helping the jews being butchered
america refused to join the war
zionists avoided providing money to help jews escape by transport or bribery despite pleas
why didnt the allies bomb auswitz?
these are facts
if the americans disagreed with what hitler was doing why did they refuse to allow jews to emigrate?
21,000 visas granted
6,000,000 murdered
even if the six million is wrong surely america should have accepted more than 21,000
why dont they publicise these facts?

Anthony Lawson wrote:The Last Post

Well now, Stelios is obviously someone else who has done some reading, and has appeared just I was about to pack up my keyboard and tiptoe out of the forum. Unfortunately, I am unable to access the videos, because the Thai government is still blocking U-Tube. Never mind, you make your points very clearly, in the text.

The name is Anthony, EmptyBee, and my position on the Holocaust is that I would like to be able to read and listen to a variety of opinions about that period of history, particularly from historians and other interested parties who are able to back up their dissenting arguments with what appears to be valid documentation. One of the main reasons for this is that my suspicions are always aroused when I get the distinct feeling that there are those who want to prevent me from accessing certain information. So the question naturally arises: What have they got to hide? And that makes me curious.

The fact that one of the documents I quoted related only to German concentration camps was to illustrated that, up until about 1975—that is 30 years after the end of WWII—the once supposedly proven story of "extermination camps" in the territory of the old German Reich was admitted to be without substance, even by Simon Wiesenthal. So if that was conceded, could there not be other discrepancies? I also said that the website I gave was a good place to start looking at what other people had written, and I gave a few examples. Whether or not anyone wants to pursue this suggestion is their choice, of course, but criticising others without doing even a minimal amount of research can be a counter productive.

The most infamous concentration camp was in Poland: Auschwitz, and further reading has made me doubt that there were extermination gas ovens there, although there were huge numbers of deaths due to disease, and, I am sure, brutal executions were regular events. What seems to be accurate is that Zyklon-B was certainly used; to delouse clothing. Typhus is one of several diseases caused by louse-borne bacteria, and it was rife in the concentration camps, and in much of Europe, during WWII.

Anyone really interested in learning more about this should search for material by, or about Germar Rudolf, once a scientist at the renowned Max Planck Institute, who dared to analyse the paint in an alleged gas chamber at Auschwitz, and found no evidence of sufficient residue of the amount of Zyklon-B which would have been necessary to kill the number of people who were said to have been killed, by gassing. In your search, should you choose to undertake one, you may also find evidence that the ‘gas chamber’ shown to visitors was built after the war, by the Russians. This fact was admitted by a former custodian of the Auschwitz Museum.

Not only did Germar Rudolf lose his job and had to flee Germany, because he dared to question the established story, but on March 15, the Mannheim District Court sentenced Germar Rudolf to two years and six months in prison for inciting hatred, disparaging the dead, and libel. This is, I think, the same court which sentenced another researcher, Ernst Zundell, to a five year prison term, following a trial where the judge forbade his defence council to even quote from the sources necessary to prove that what Zundell alleged may well have been true. The judge refused to hear certain witnesses, and even threatened to put Zundell’s lawyer in jail, for repeating what her client had told her he believed to be true. Zundell’s troubles started in Canada, in the ‘90s, when he was hounded down and tried for the same ‘crimes,’ then illegally extradited to Germany.

Robert Faurisson, a French historian who has been charged and fined heavy sums, in France, for his research and publications, has recently had a lecture forcibly cancelled, at a university in central Italy, his sponsor saying something like “Why cancel the lecture? Why can’t they (the dissenters) come and question Professor Faurisson about his views.” But to no avail. Even an informal gathering at a restaurant had to be abandoned.

British historian David Irving was also tried and sent to prison, in Austria, for ‘Holocaust Denial’, which will soon be a European Union crime, with a three year prison sentence if one is found guilty. Certain people call Irving a Nazi sympathiser, although I have yet to find any evidence for this, but I’m still looking. (His entire history output is now available, free, to download. I am currently reading ‘Hitler’s War’. Gosh, I wonder is it okay to do this?)

Why, I ask again—if ‘official’ accounts are historically accurate—is it necessary to gag people who seem to be able to produce documentary evidence that indicates that at least some of the ‘facts’ do not add up?

Why is properly-documented historical research not being met with reasoned dissent, where those who believe that their facts are the right ones, are prepared to put them up against the facts of others in a genuine effort to find out where the truth lies? Instead, anyone who holds contrary views, or who is interested in finding out more about the era, is immediately called a Nazi sympathiser, as has just happened to me.

I am not a Nazi sympathiser, and using the slur is unwarranted, although it does point up the fact that Zionist propaganda does work. However, I will continue to maintain that expressing reasonable doubts about the ‘official’ history of a period which shaped the second half of the twentieth century—the repercussions of which are far from over—does not make me, or this forum inclined towards sympathy for the Nazis or any other extremist group. Quite the reverse, as I abhor the extremism of Israel, and those who call the Palestinians extremists, when it is their land which was stolen by the Zionists, and the theft continues while the rest of the world is exhorted to feel sorry for what the Jews suffered.

I feel sympathy for everyone who suffered, during WWII, and that includes some members of my own family and their friends, at the hands of the Japanese—building the Burma railway was no picnic, as my step father could have told you, were he alive today—but it doesn’t give me the right to push over someone else’s house with a bulldozer, or plough up their orange groves, or wall them into their villages, or put them into refugee camps and then massacre them with American-funded weaponry, while I build an American-funded house on their stolen land. And please don’t quibble about where the money comes from. Israel could not exist without U.S. funding. Look it up.

Read Robert Fisk’s harrowing book: The Great War For Civilization — The Conquest Of The Middle East, and Web of Deceit by Mark Curtis, then get back to me about how unimportant you think it is to get historical facts straight.

As I see it, and I am far from being alone, the Zionist’s purpose for keeping the Jewish Holocaust at the forefront of people’s minds is to dull them to the ongoing Palestinian Holocaust, for which they are responsible, and it seems to be succeeding.

If you want your taxes to support that, then so be it. But don’t be surprised what else they might be used for, in the not-so-distant future.

Thank you for an excellent post Anthony. I await Dogsmilk's reply with excitement.

The Subject is Holocaust Propaganda, Not Hitler

If you want to discuss how various historians view Hitler, Dogsbreakfast, start a new thread, don’t try to hijack this one. And don’t make any assumptions about who my favoured historian might be.

Anyone with half a working brain cell will be able to see through your inept attempt to connect my beliefs to those of the person who wrote the book which Mark Weber was reviewing. That Hitler was an evil genius, is beyond dispute, and laypersons, as well as historians would do well to study, and attempt to understand, how and why an obscure Austrian corporal was able to reunify a shattered Germany into a force that very nearly conquered the world.

Those who are unable to see through the motives for your most recent post are not worth worrying about.

Brilliant post Anthony.

I have been trying to say exactly the same thing on this site for some time but have failed to do so with an equal clarity.

Like yourself, I have been called a Nazi. Some of the reactions on this thread are fairly typical, if more polite than usual.

Maybe one can become oversensized in perceiving Zionist bias but yesterday, for instance, there were major items on Breakfast TV and elsewhere about a film being premiered at Cannes starring Angela Jolie.

The film is about the kidnapping and beheading of the (Jewish) journalist Daniel Pearl and this publicity will run and run throughout the summer.


....Pearl's death was a terrible tragedy and his own and his wife's suffering must have been very great. No doubt the film will depict this with great sensitivity.

However, one feels like crying out...Where are the films about arab suffering, about muslim suffering about the suffering and trials of those who suffer at OUR hands.

Answer....nowhere.

Therefore, it is difficult not to perceive all this stuff as primarily propaganda designed to mould our sympathies and our thinking.

Anthony Lawson wrote:The Last Post

Well now, Stelios is obviously someone else who has done some reading, and has appeared just I was about to pack up my keyboard and tiptoe out of the forum. Unfortunately, I am unable to access the videos, because the Thai government is still blocking U-Tube. Never mind, you make your points very clearly, in the text.

The name is Anthony, EmptyBee, and my position on the Holocaust is that I would like to be able to read and listen to a variety of opinions about that period of history, particularly from historians and other interested parties who are able to back up their dissenting arguments with what appears to be valid documentation. One of the main reasons for this is that my suspicions are always aroused when I get the distinct feeling that there are those who want to prevent me from accessing certain information. So the question naturally arises: What have they got to hide? And that makes me curious.

The fact that one of the documents I quoted related only to German concentration camps was to illustrated that, up until about 1975—that is 30 years after the end of WWII—the once supposedly proven story of "extermination camps" in the territory of the old German Reich was admitted to be without substance, even by Simon Wiesenthal. So if that was conceded, could there not be other discrepancies? I also said that the website I gave was a good place to start looking at what other people had written, and I gave a few examples. Whether or not anyone wants to pursue this suggestion is their choice, of course, but criticising others without doing even a minimal amount of research can be a counter productive.

The most infamous concentration camp was in Poland: Auschwitz, and further reading has made me doubt that there were extermination gas ovens there, although there were huge numbers of deaths due to disease, and, I am sure, brutal executions were regular events. What seems to be accurate is that Zyklon-B was certainly used; to delouse clothing. Typhus is one of several diseases caused by louse-borne bacteria, and it was rife in the concentration camps, and in much of Europe, during WWII.

Anyone really interested in learning more about this should search for material by, or about Germar Rudolf, once a scientist at the renowned Max Planck Institute, who dared to analyse the paint in an alleged gas chamber at Auschwitz, and found no evidence of sufficient residue of the amount of Zyklon-B which would have been necessary to kill the number of people who were said to have been killed, by gassing. In your search, should you choose to undertake one, you may also find evidence that the ‘gas chamber’ shown to visitors was built after the war, by the Russians. This fact was admitted by a former custodian of the Auschwitz Museum.

Not only did Germar Rudolf lose his job and had to flee Germany, because he dared to question the established story, but on March 15, the Mannheim District Court sentenced Germar Rudolf to two years and six months in prison for inciting hatred, disparaging the dead, and libel. This is, I think, the same court which sentenced another researcher, Ernst Zundell, to a five year prison term, following a trial where the judge forbade his defence council to even quote from the sources necessary to prove that what Zundell alleged may well have been true. The judge refused to hear certain witnesses, and even threatened to put Zundell’s lawyer in jail, for repeating what her client had told her he believed to be true. Zundell’s troubles started in Canada, in the ‘90s, when he was hounded down and tried for the same ‘crimes,’ then illegally extradited to Germany.

Robert Faurisson, a French historian who has been charged and fined heavy sums, in France, for his research and publications, has recently had a lecture forcibly cancelled, at a university in central Italy, his sponsor saying something like “Why cancel the lecture? Why can’t they (the dissenters) come and question Professor Faurisson about his views.” But to no avail. Even an informal gathering at a restaurant had to be abandoned.

British historian David Irving was also tried and sent to prison, in Austria, for ‘Holocaust Denial’, which will soon be a European Union crime, with a three year prison sentence if one is found guilty. Certain people call Irving a Nazi sympathiser, although I have yet to find any evidence for this, but I’m still looking. (His entire history output is now available, free, to download. I am currently reading ‘Hitler’s War’. Gosh, I wonder is it okay to do this?)

Why, I ask again—if ‘official’ accounts are historically accurate—is it necessary to gag people who seem to be able to produce documentary evidence that indicates that at least some of the ‘facts’ do not add up?

Why is properly-documented historical research not being met with reasoned dissent, where those who believe that their facts are the right ones, are prepared to put them up against the facts of others in a genuine effort to find out where the truth lies? Instead, anyone who holds contrary views, or who is interested in finding out more about the era, is immediately called a Nazi sympathiser, as has just happened to me.

I am not a Nazi sympathiser, and using the slur is unwarranted, although it does point up the fact that Zionist propaganda does work. However, I will continue to maintain that expressing reasonable doubts about the ‘official’ history of a period which shaped the second half of the twentieth century—the repercussions of which are far from over—does not make me, or this forum inclined towards sympathy for the Nazis or any other extremist group. Quite the reverse, as I abhor the extremism of Israel, and those who call the Palestinians extremists, when it is their land which was stolen by the Zionists, and the theft continues while the rest of the world is exhorted to feel sorry for what the Jews suffered.

I feel sympathy for everyone who suffered, during WWII, and that includes some members of my own family and their friends, at the hands of the Japanese—building the Burma railway was no picnic, as my step father could have told you, were he alive today—but it doesn’t give me the right to push over someone else’s house with a bulldozer, or plough up their orange groves, or wall them into their villages, or put them into refugee camps and then massacre them with American-funded weaponry, while I build an American-funded house on their stolen land. And please don’t quibble about where the money comes from. Israel could not exist without U.S. funding. Look it up.

Read Robert Fisk’s harrowing book: The Great War For Civilization — The Conquest Of The Middle East, and Web of Deceit by Mark Curtis, then get back to me about how unimportant you think it is to get historical facts straight.

As I see it, and I am far from being alone, the Zionist’s purpose for keeping the Jewish Holocaust at the forefront of people’s minds is to dull them to the ongoing Palestinian Holocaust, for which they are responsible, and it seems to be succeeding.

If you want your taxes to support that, then so be it. But don’t be surprised what else they might be used for, in the not-so-distant future.

Why Does Anthony Always Need To Use a Banner Headline?

frustrated tabloid journalist? I've never worked it out. At least he's gone easy on the bold type this time.

But, I'm glad it's the 'last post' - I keep trying to avoid this subject, and keep getting drawn back into it.
IIRC, the destruction of the european jews was first published in 1961 and that was, I understand, not dismissed back then as being 'without substance', so I'm not sure what you're saying in the first bit. I've seen documents like the one you quote referenced in the standard literature - it's common knowledge that slave labour was important to the Germans and widely acknowledged that there was concern when the death rate at some camps among labourors contributed to labour shortages. The Germans tended to select those unfit for the brutal physical labour they imposed for death. Or where did all those old people go? Auschwitz rest home? At some points, concerns were expressed that otherwise useful labourers were being sent to be killed. You're quoting nothing that isn't already fully explored in the existing literature.
I notice you don't address Emptybee's point about death camps on german soil, but there you go.

Again Anthony, you make one of your usual unsubstantiated assumptions. I've read a reasonable amount about the subject, and from both sides. Have you? Or do you just read stuff on the internet?

And, again, you miss the point (do you ever attempt to understand what people are trying to say, or just see what you want to?) - at no point have I accused you of being a nazi sympathiser. What I have done is to imply your sources are (frequently) derived from nazi sympathisers. Is that too complex a distinction for you to understand? Do you understand, when you go on about Zionist propagandising, that other people might use their notion of 'historical truth' for propaganda purposes too? Or do only Zionists do that?

What constantly bemuses me is people go on about looking for the 'agenda' behind the scenes, but when it comes to material produced by people who, on a fairly cursory examination, have a very clear agenda to make nazism look great, this cynicism goes out of the window - It challenges standard 'official theories' so it must be good! I have yet to see anyone who supports this stuff actually acknowledges the bias of its proponents, something I find rather odd. Nobody - whatever 'the facts' - seems to acknowledge that there are people out there for whom the belief the holocaust was 'Zionist propaganda' serves very well their political objectives.
Germar Rudolf? The guy David Irving was going to use in the Lipstadt trial and had to withdraw because his 'evidence' was so incoherent. Great.
Robert Faurisson? If freedom of speech for him is such a big issue, why does he appear in manufacturing consent saying he doesn't care about freedom of speech "and all that". It's funny how a bunch of neo-nazis so often get so righteous about freedom of speech when generally it's the last thing on their mind.
Whether or not Irving is a nazi sympathiser, he certainly hangs around with quite a few and seems certainly to be something of a racist.

But - and yet again you don't notice what I've said (do you actually read people's posts beyond a word or phrase you decide you don't like?), I fully agree that people should not be gagged for their beliefs. It's one of the things that separates me from fascists. I do not agree with people being prosecuted or censured for holocaust denial. And, again, many historians don't agree either. Raul Hilberg has said he finds 'revisionist' work useful as it stops him making assumptions and alerts him to errors he may have made. And, as I keep finding myself saying over and over again on this forum, it does not therefore follow there is 'something to hide'.
I would also say Israel has used the holocaust politically - this has nothing to do with the accuracy or otherwise of the history - even many people who believe the 911 OCT will agree it has been used politically - using the holocaust to 'justify' contemporary actions is despicable and is a kick in the teeth to the victims. Anyone who thinks the holocaust justifies Israeli actions in 2007 is a moron.

I think the actions of Israel are appalling too. And trying to re-write the history of WWII does precisely f*ck all to help the plight of the Palestinians. If you think 'challenging' the holocaust is going to help Palestinians you're deluded. Britain has actually condemned Israeli actions on several occasions but, of course, will actually do nothing. Except sell them a few arms. I feel sorry for what the Jews suffered and I'm vehemently opposed to Israel. Funnily enough, I know loads of people who think the same way. Quite why teaching children about the holocaust will turn them all into bloodthirsty pro-Zionists is beyond me. Israel gets away with what it does because America lets it for its own strategic purposes. If America cut arms and aid to Israel, the Israeli war machine would collapse. America does not arm Israel because it 'feels sorry for the Jews'.
I do think it is important to get history as accurate as history can be - but I guess you think a view of history that is different to yours means otherwise. As I said, I have read a fair bit of 'revisionist' stuff.

And then we're back to your moral outrage that - horror! - an amount of money you make no effort to put in the context of overall government educational expenditure is being used to educate children about the holocaust. You declare it's 'propaganda' but make no effort to explain how Zionists are controlling the national curriculum - basically you posted some mundane article, made grandiose proclamations about its enormous significance ('indoctrination'?) and have subsequently made zero effort to evidence them.

By the way - I'm bemused at you thinking I hijacked the thread. You start quoting Max Weber and then get cross when I point out he might have his own propaganda perspective? Extraordinary.

However, I just want to highlight something Stelios said - they raised the issue of nothing being said about gypsies - and I totally agree. The apparent absence on literature relating to Romany people and the holocaust is pretty lamentable and somewhat out of order (there's seemingly only a couple of readily available texts on gay people and the disabled too). Personally, I agree that it's not just about the Jewish people. I'm actually predominantly interested in T4 myself, but I'd like to find any decent books (if any) that have been written about the plight of the Romany people - if anyone can point me to any, I'd really appreciate it.

Anthony Lawson wrote: The name is Anthony, EmptyBee, and my position on the Holocaust is that I would like to be able to read and listen to a variety of opinions about that period of history, particularly from historians and other interested parties who are able to back up their dissenting arguments with what appears to be valid documentation. One of the main reasons for this is that my suspicions are always aroused when I get the distinct feeling that there are those who want to prevent me from accessing certain information. So the question naturally arises: What have they got to hide? And that makes me curious.

Firstly, sorry for getting your name wrong Anthony, In a mental lapse I must have confused you with Andrew Johnson for some reason.

I think there's a point that needs to be made about propaganda. Propaganda is disseminated with the intention of manipulating public opinion, but this does not mean propaganda automatically equates to lies. Propaganda should certainly be scrutinised carefully, but any propagandist knows that the truth is often the most effective propaganda, especially when it's as shocking as the holocaust.

The propagandising of the holocaust to promote the idea that the Jewish people were cruelly wronged in WWII and that the best solution to ensure such a situation never recurred was a Jewish state in Israel/Palestine wasn't exactly a hard sell after the war.

There's so many witnesses to what went on, and so much corroborating evidence that the suggestion that the whole thing was fabricated by Zionists seems to me to be extraordinary in the extreme, and only sustainable by an extremely selective approach to the available evidence. Hell, even Eichmann never denied it when his life was at stake "Remorse is for little children" I believe he said.

I would agree that there is a problem with the fact that holocaust denial is basically a "thought crime" (literally in some nations as David Irving found out). I think that's a problem because ruling out debate is never a good thing, and it in fact encourages (wrongly in my view) the belief that there's something to hide.

The fact that Israel today is transgressing human rights on an appalling scale is pretty obvious to anyone with eyes to see, but until they start deliberate programs of mass murder I think comparisons with the Nazis are completely out of order. The most logical comparison is rather to South Africa under apartheid, but I don't see any leader of Fatah, Hamas or Islamic Jihad being idolised by the left like Nelson Mandela any time soon. Unfortunately that's because of the evident willingness of jihadists to target civilians in "martyrdom operations", not because of "Zionist propaganda." although perhaps some of you actually believe there's no actual suicide bombings in Israel, only false-flag Mossad operations.

I have to say I find the popularity of theories disputing the existence of a systematic program of extermination, both in pogroms and in extermination camps including Auschwitz, Belzec and Treblinka, frankly rather disappointing. You only need to read Mein Kamf to see Hitler himself was an ardent believer in Zionist plots, and in fact later perversely blamed Zionists for WWII. Association with such odious beliefs isn't exactly the best way to enhance the credibility of the 9/11 truth movement, and I for one would much rather this stuff was at least relegated to "Other Controversies." But if it's actually mainstream within the Truth Movement then perhaps it's people like me who should be relegated to "Critics Corner."

Anthony Lawson wrote:The fact that one of the documents I quoted related only to German concentration camps was to illustrated that, up until about 1975—that is 30 years after the end of WWII—the once supposedly proven story of "extermination camps" in the territory of the old German Reich was admitted to be without substance, even by Simon Wiesenthal. So if that was conceded, could there not be other discrepancies? I also said that the website I gave was a good place to start looking at what other people had written, and I gave a few examples. Whether or not anyone wants to pursue this suggestion is their choice, of course, but criticising others without doing even a minimal amount of research can be a counter productive..

The most infamous concentration camp was in Poland: Auschwitz

Anthony - I agree with some of what you and others have said in this thread - mainly that it's totally wrong to remember the Jewish holocaust above all else while, for example, the horrors experienced by the majority of the population of eastern Europe in WW2 (including 25-30 million Polish, Russian and other slavic deaths) are forgotten or occasionally get mentioned in dispatches as if they were just a bit of collateral damage.

It's also totally wrong to try to use the holocaust to justify Israel's ongoing oppression of the palestinians.

However - relying on sources like the IHR doesn't really help your case - they clearly have an agenda of whitewashing Nazi Germany. For example - I really don't see the relevance of the above quote. What does it matter where the camps were located? There were actually six Nazi death camps on what was Polish soil prior to WW2:

Auschwitz-Birkenau - located in territory that was incorporated into the German Reich in 1939-40, territory considered by the Nazis to be integrally German.

Chelmno - also located in territory that was incorporated into the German Reich in 1939-40, territory considered by the Nazis to be integrally German.

Treblinka, Belzec, and Sobibor were the camps built for "Project Reinhardt", the purpose of which was the annihilation of Polish Jews. They were in Poland because that was where the Jews were.

Majdanek - the only camp where the majority of the victims were non-Jewish (most of those who died at the camp were Polish gentiles and Soviet POWs).

It's self-evident that camps constructed, maintained and operated by the German government on territory occupied by Germany or annexed into the Reich, were indisputably German, whatever their location.

The Medical Casebook of Adolf Hitler by Leonard L. Heston and Renate Heston. Introduction by Albert Speer. New York: Stein and Day/Scarborough, 1982. 184pp. $9.95 pb. Careful, detailed reconstruction of the state of Hitler's health over the years, approached in terms of Hitler as just another patient for whose patient-history all available evidence is gathered and evaluated. Little extraneous discussion: the authors stick to their subject -- the result being probably the definitive study.

I wonder if this no doubt fascinating study tells us whether he really did only have one ball....

There are Plenty of Films About Arab Suffering

kbo234 wrote

Where are the films about arab suffering, about muslim suffering about the suffering and trials of those who suffer at OUR hands.

I hate to disagree with you, kbo234, after your favourable comment about my post, but I’m always seeing films about Arab Muslims suffering, like getting their asses kicked by the FBI or the CIA or a bunch of imported Ninjas or a girl’s hockey team when they fail to successfully carry out an aircraft or Greyhound-bus hijacking, or some other ill-planned atrocity, or when a drug sale goes wrong and they all wind up floating face down in San Francisco Bay, or wherever.

Credit where credit is due, these guys are getting some pretty good coverage, and that’s from Zionist controlled Hollywood, so don’t knock it.

But, once again, kbo234, I appreciate your support, and yours too, blackcat.

EmptyBee, I think that your post is very thoughtful and well argued, but I can’t agree with your conclusions. Propaganda means to disseminate selective material, which can, and often does involve lies of omission. These lies of omission are what I am trying to get at, and Stelios has listed facts which are passed over, ignored or suppressed, every time there is a discussion on the subject:

American and Zionist money financed Hitler
America avoided helping the Jews being butchered
America refused to join the war
Zionists avoided providing money to help Jews escape by transport or bribery despite pleas
why didn’t the allies bomb Auschwitz?
these are facts
if the Americans disagreed with what Hitler was doing why did they refuse to allow Jews to emigrate?
21,000 visas granted
6,000,000 murdered
even if the six million is wrong surely America should have accepted more than 21,000
why don’t they publicise these facts?


Why indeed. To my mind, the horrifying details of death and suffering are being used—to turn Churchill’s phrase around—as a bodyguard to protect these lies of omission, and to try and ensure that the details of what really went on never come to light.

I cannot agree with you that until the Israelis start deliberate programs of mass murder that comparisons with the Nazis are completely out of order. Not just because I am inclined not to believe that the Germans engaged in the systematic extermination of Jews, but because ethnic cleansing is an appalling crime, no matter how it is conducted, and that is what has been the stated aim of several Israeli politicians. The politics are very complicated, and, to my mind, the Israelis are playing a cynical game of making sure that the leaders of the various Palestinian factions are regularly culled, so that in-fighting becomes endemic. But never forget that what has been going on for 60 years was not started by the Palestinians. Zionists decreed, long ago, that Israel, with Jerusalem as its capital, was the goal, and not even one of the greatest thinkers that the world has ever seen could persuade them otherwise.

Albert Einstein, although in favour of a Jewish homeland, made it clear that he did not want it to become a nation state, and he warned that displacing other people to create one would lead to all sorts of problems. Having declined his offer to become Israel’s first president, in a letter to Chiam Wiezmann, Einstein wrote: "... Should we be unable to find a way to honest co-operation and honest pacts with the Arabs, then we have learned absolutely nothing during our 2,000 years of suffering...." The letter was written on November 25th, 1929. In the event, Weizmann became Israel’s first president; the Zionists ignored Einstein’s warning, and the suffering, on both sides, goes on and on and on.

EmptyBee, have the thread moved, to wherever you think it should be, but the problem of censorship is not going to go away. If the moderators remove it, altogether, I will join it, because this website will have given in to the most heinous kind of censorship, that of not protecting our right, in the face of outside pressure, to seek out the truth and to reveal whatever we believe to be false.

Gruts, Regarding you first point, this is a huge subject, and I singled out Auschwitz because it seems to be the name which springs to mind whenever these matters are being discussed. I have read a little about the other camps you mention.

I realise that the Institute for Historical Review is not looked upon with great favour by many people. However, I have read a lot of Mark Weber’s work, and listened to some of his broadcast interviews, and one thing which impresses me is that he seems to be able to back up every statement that he makes with references to documents which either he, or other historians have uncovered and studied. Perhaps my judgement is faulty, but I would rather believe someone who can back up what he asserts, than those who are hell bent on preventing others from forming their opinions, freely, without let or hindrance.

Anthony

Anthony Lawson wrote:......but I’m always seeing films about Arab Muslims suffering, like getting their asses kicked by the FBI or the CIA or a bunch of imported Ninjas or a girl’s hockey team when they fail to successfully carry out an aircraft or Greyhound-bus hijacking, or some other ill-planned atrocity, or when a drug sale goes wrong and they all wind up floating face down in San Francisco Bay, or wherever.

Don't want to be a pain...and I don't disbelieve you Anthony....but could you tell me the names of a couple of these films please? (Oh yes, just remembered, there was that George Clooney film last year, "Syriana")....Maybe I'm just focussed on the stuff I've decided represents bias and fail to notice anything else.

I'll be trying to look out for more of the same in future.

Can anyone point to evidence for the deliberate systematic extermination of the Jewish people?

I do not mean testimony made many years later by survivors.

A Prominent False Witness: Elie Wiesel

By Robert Faurisson

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?--

http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/wiesel.shtml

Imaginary Movies

I apologise, kbo234, my son tells me that I should have put a smilie emoticon on the post. What I was describing was the stereotypical Arab-Muslim fanatic or criminal, as depicted by Hollywood. You won’t actually see any films with the plot outlines I describe, what I wrote is what comes to my mind when I think of Arabs in movies: they are almost always the bad guys, doing awful things to other people. Please read it again, with that in mind:

I’m always seeing films about Arab Muslims suffering, like getting their asses kicked by the FBI or the CIA or a bunch of imported Ninjas or a girl’s hockey team when they fail to successfully carry out an aircraft or Greyhound-bus hijacking, or some other ill-planned atrocity, or when a drug sale goes wrong and they all wind up floating face down in San Francisco Bay, or wherever.

Credit where credit is due, these guys are getting some pretty good coverage, and that’s from Zionist controlled Hollywood, so don’t knock it .

Hey, the one about the girl’s hockey team could be worked up. Maybe Jerry Bruckheimer would be interested. Sandra Bullock is the coach with Reece Witherspoon as the team captain. They’re on their way to play in the European Schoolgirl Hockey finals when their plane is hijacked by three—no, make that five—swarthy Arabs, carrying plastic box cutters…. In the end, the girls overcome the hijackers, using only their hockey sticks and some well-aimed pucks, and Sandra Bullock lands the plane while Reece reads the instruction book, because both the pilot and co-pilot are unconscious. As the Arabs are led away to serve 15 consecutive life sentences each (anyone know how many players in a hockey team?), Reece and the team, cheered on by Sandra and the now-recovered pilot whom she’s just married, win the championship, even after such a harrowing ordeal.

What isn’t included in the movie is that the ‘Arabs’ were actually the five Israelis who were caught hi-fiving, cheering and taking videos of the Twin Towers collapsing, and that this was another false flag operation, sponsored by Dick Cheney in order to ramp up the War on Terror. And it works, with a Congress-approved injection of 50 trillion dollars. Just like before, the Israelis are quietly released and go back to their day jobs, working at Israel’s atomic weapons establishment where nuke number 202 is about to roll off the production line.

But seriously, compare the unsympathetic way in which Arabs are portrayed with the poignancy of Jewish suffering in films like Stephen Spielberg’s “Schindler’s List”, Werner Herzog's "Invincible"; Tim Blake Nelson's "The Grey Zone"; Roman Polanski's "The Pianist".

Hollywood really doesn’t give us a balanced view, does it.

False Accusations

I’m sorry to have to disappoint you, but a few rather more open-minded people began posting on this thread, so I thought I’d hang around to see where things go.

Dogsbody wrote:

And, again, you miss the point (do you ever attempt to understand what people are trying to say, or just see what you want to?) - at no point have I accused you of being a nazi sympathiser. What I have done is to imply your sources are (frequently) derived from nazi sympathisers. Is that too complex a distinction for you to understand? Do you understand, when you go on about Zionist propagandising, that other people might use their notion of 'historical truth' for propaganda purposes too? Or do only Zionists do that?

Answer 1: I always try to understand what people are trying to say, and complex distinctions are rarely a problem, not for me, at any rate. But they do appear to be a problem for you. For example: Have I ever accused you of accusing me of being a Nazi sympathiser?

No, I have not. Someone else came pretty close to accusing me of being a Nazi sympathiser, though. Snowygrouch:

Wow,
Another irellavent thread on a topic frequently used to totally discredit us as being Nazi sympathisers "day in day out".

Because I started this topic, I took this personally, and I may have been wrong to do so, but I still believe I had a right to put the record straight, which is why I wrote: “I am not a Nazi sympathiser, and using the slur is unwarranted.”

Answer 2: With that in mind, on your second point you would be wise to make sure that your accusations about some of my sources have merit, and that these people are proven Nazi sympathisers. To some, mentioning that Hitler liked his dog turns the person who made the remark into a Nazi sympathiser. To the Anti Defamation League (ADL), asserting that some elements of the ‘official’ Holocaust story don’t ring true brings an unqualified accusation of being a Nazi sympathiser and Holocaust denier, but never any attempt to prove that what was said or written was in any way inaccurate. Take a look at their website, and see how many references you can find to documentation which back up their statements.

You have to determine whether or not the accused was first called a Nazi sympathiser, on the basis that he or she had expressed certain views, or whether the views were expressed because the person in question is a Nazi sympathiser. It’s a chicken and egg situation. You know: Which came first? To establish whether or not any individual is a Nazi sympathiser, no matter whether what they assert to be true or false, they would have to agree with what the Nazis did, or what they planned to do, or, for example, with the principles behind Hilter’s idea of a Master Race. In that regard, I’m not sure whether considering oneself to be one of ‘God’s Chosen People’ would qualify one for being a member of a Master Race, but it might.

In David Irving’s writing I detect a certain amount of admiration for Hitler’s abilities—after all, he did come up through the ranks to reach the top job—but not for his methods of carrying out some of his more outrageous plans. Irving may associate with Nazi sympathisers, but you’d have to supply me with more details before I would take your word for that. Even then, guilt by association would be difficult to prove. I’ve had a drink with a few London villains, in my time, but only because I was of doing some research for a movie . Does that make me a villain?

With regard to Robert Faurisson. Does the following passage sound as though it was written by a Nazi sympathiser or ‘neo Nazi’ as you describe him?

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. (emphasis added, in case you miss the main point.)

This comes from a document whose link has already been posted in this topic, but here it is again: http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/wiesel.shtml

There’s another study of Faurisson’s which makes a case, pretty conclusively, that the book published as ‘The Diary of Anne Frank’ was a fraud. Of course, there are also many who refute this ‘vile’ accusation, but you’d have to look into both sides of the arguments to make up your own mind. (Hint: Look for the footnotes, where the references to available documentation can be found.)

Answer 3: Your final point is a little convoluted, and we have discussed the meaning of truth, as opposed to belief, before, but if, by what you call ‘historical truth’, you mean history ‘in accordance with reality’, then, as long as a writer or historian is able—to the best or his or her ability—to determine that something did, or did not happen, then what they perceive as being true should not be classed as propaganda, because it could not be described as being ‘part of an organized programme to disseminate selective information’. The key word, being selective.

All propaganda, by definition, will either include direct lies, or lies of omission, or what is often described as being ‘an economy of the truth’, where certain facts are omitted in order to misleadingly strengthen the case which is being made. A stand-alone truth—however you like to interpret the meaning of the word—cannot, therefore, be propaganda. On the other hand, a truth mixed up with lies, when widely disseminated, is propaganda.

Finally, I use headlines because I find that the space and typeface in the ‘Subject’ window is too small, at least on my computer’s settings. I use emphases, such as bold and italic, because, early on, I discovered that a lot of people, Super Duper posters, mostly, didn’t seem to have the time to read things properly, so I thought it wise to try to make my points as clearly as I could, to avoid having to explain them in another post.

I use other normal conventions, such as capitals because that’s the way I was taught to write, and I try to avoid using acronyms and sets of initials, such as IHR and IMHO, unless they are first spelled out in full, or they have been in common use for a long time, NATO; NASA, for example. (I’m sure you will have more comments to make about this, but they will be of no interest to me, so you can save yourself some time by not writing them down.)

On the topic of layout, presentation, etc., here’s one for you. Why do you copy a person’s entire post, and not break it up into the sections you wish to discuss or criticise? Can’t you spare the time to make things easier for your readers to follow? (You can treat those as a rhetorical questions.)

Anthony

education is education so who cares

its probably good people are reminded what happened

stelios wrote:so please look at the facts
american and zionist money financed hitler
america avoided helping the jews being butchered
america refused to join the war
zionists avoided providing money to help jews escape by transport or bribery despite pleas
why didnt the allies bomb auswitz?
these are facts
if the americans disagreed with what hitler was doing why did they refuse to allow jews to emigrate?
21,000 visas granted
6,000,000 murdered
even if the six million is wrong surely america should have accepted more than 21,000
why dont they publicise these facts?

usa ,the mighty democratic nation ,that fdr ran let in 987 jews in ww2

i remember the number because i had an accordian with that number as a serial number or it was 983

did you see movie "voyage of the damned:"?

A Big Fat Lie

I have just distilled, from Dogsmilk’s recent post, a big fat lie.

Germar Rudolf? The guy David Irving was going to use in the Lipstadt trial and had to withdraw because his 'evidence' was so incoherent. Great.

Challenge: Show me your justification for the statement that Germar Rudolf’s evidence was so incoherent that Irving withdrew it.

For those who are interested in the truth, go to: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Letters/trial/Price010105.html
For those interested in Germar Rudolf’s (now known as Germar Scheerer) research, please go to: http://www.germarrudolf.com/persecute/forensics.html

If you choose to look into Herr Scheerer’s work, you might ask yourself why a young scientist, with a career at the renowned Max Planck Institute ahead of him, would jeopardise it simply to find out whether or not some strangers had been gassed to death, during WWII.

I can only guess at the answer, but I don’t think that it was because he is or was a Nazi sympathiser. Could it be that, as a scientist, he was simply interested in finding out the truth, and knew not where it would lead him?

I’ve taken a passage, at random, from his web page, and, if it does nothing else, it shows that his communication abilities are far from deserving to be called: ‘incoherent.’

Ignoring Peer Opinions
Had the researchers found a scientific source which stated in a reliable way that Prussian blue cannot develop in walls exposed to hydrogen cyanide [the principle component of Zyklon-B], that would have made things easy for them, by rendering any new research obsolete. On the other hand, if they had discovered literature claiming in a scientific way that the formation of Prussian blue in walls exposed to hydrogen cyanide was possible, the scientific method would have compelled them to do either of two things: to abandon their position that Prussian blue cannot form thus, or to refute the opposing position by proving that it cannot form. That is what the scientific process is all about: verification or refutation of theses postulated by peers. Ignoring peer opinions is a strong indicator of unscientific behavior.

Shame on you, Dogsmilk.

Anthony Lawson wrote:False Accusations

I’m sorry to have to disappoint you, but a few rather more open-minded people began posting on this thread, so I thought I’d hang around to see where things go.

Dogsbody wrote:

And, again, you miss the point (do you ever attempt to understand what people are trying to say, or just see what you want to?) - at no point have I accused you of being a nazi sympathiser. What I have done is to imply your sources are (frequently) derived from nazi sympathisers. Is that too complex a distinction for you to understand? Do you understand, when you go on about Zionist propagandising, that other people might use their notion of 'historical truth' for propaganda purposes too? Or do only Zionists do that?

Answer 1: I always try to understand what people are trying to say, and complex distinctions are rarely a problem, not for me, at any rate. But they do appear to be a problem for you. For example: Have I ever accused you of accusing me of being a Nazi sympathiser?

No, I have not. Someone else came pretty close to accusing me of being a Nazi sympathiser, though. Snowygrouch:

Wow,
Another irellavent thread on a topic frequently used to totally discredit us as being Nazi sympathisers "day in day out".

Because I started this topic, I took this personally, and I may have been wrong to do so, but I still believe I had a right to put the record straight, which is why I wrote: “I am not a Nazi sympathiser, and using the slur is unwarranted.”

Answer 2: With that in mind, on your second point you would be wise to make sure that your accusations about some of my sources have merit, and that these people are proven Nazi sympathisers. To some, mentioning that Hitler liked his dog turns the person who made the remark into a Nazi sympathiser. To the Anti Defamation League (ADL), asserting that some elements of the ‘official’ Holocaust story don’t ring true brings an unqualified accusation of being a Nazi sympathiser and Holocaust denier, but never any attempt to prove that what was said or written was in any way inaccurate. Take a look at their website, and see how many references you can find to documentation which back up their statements.

You have to determine whether or not the accused was first called a Nazi sympathiser, on the basis that he or she had expressed certain views, or whether the views were expressed because the person in question is a Nazi sympathiser. It’s a chicken and egg situation. You know: Which came first? To establish whether or not any individual is a Nazi sympathiser, no matter whether what they assert to be true or false, they would have to agree with what the Nazis did, or what they planned to do, or, for example, with the principles behind Hilter’s idea of a Master Race. In that regard, I’m not sure whether considering oneself to be one of ‘God’s Chosen People’ would qualify one for being a member of a Master Race, but it might.

In David Irving’s writing I detect a certain amount of admiration for Hitler’s abilities—after all, he did come up through the ranks to reach the top job—but not for his methods of carrying out some of his more outrageous plans. Irving may associate with Nazi sympathisers, but you’d have to supply me with more details before I would take your word for that. Even then, guilt by association would be difficult to prove. I’ve had a drink with a few London villains, in my time, but only because I was of doing some research for a movie . Does that make me a villain?

With regard to Robert Faurisson. Does the following passage sound as though it was written by a Nazi sympathiser or ‘neo Nazi’ as you describe him?

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. (emphasis added, in case you miss the main point.)

This comes from a document whose link has already been posted in this topic, but here it is again: http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/wiesel.shtml

There’s another study of Faurisson’s which makes a case, pretty conclusively, that the book published as ‘The Diary of Anne Frank’ was a fraud. Of course, there are also many who refute this ‘vile’ accusation, but you’d have to look into both sides of the arguments to make up your own mind. (Hint: Look for the footnotes, where the references to available documentation can be found.)

Answer 3: Your final point is a little convoluted, and we have discussed the meaning of truth, as opposed to belief, before, but if, by what you call ‘historical truth’, you mean history ‘in accordance with reality’, then, as long as a writer or historian is able—to the best or his or her ability—to determine that something did, or did not happen, then what they perceive as being true should not be classed as propaganda, because it could not be described as being ‘part of an organized programme to disseminate selective information’. The key word, being selective.

All propaganda, by definition, will either include direct lies, or lies of omission, or what is often described as being ‘an economy of the truth’, where certain facts are omitted in order to misleadingly strengthen the case which is being made. A stand-alone truth—however you like to interpret the meaning of the word—cannot, therefore, be propaganda. On the other hand, a truth mixed up with lies, when widely disseminated, is propaganda.

Finally, I use headlines because I find that the space and typeface in the ‘Subject’ window is too small, at least on my computer’s settings. I use emphases, such as bold and italic, because, early on, I discovered that a lot of people, Super Duper posters, mostly, didn’t seem to have the time to read things properly, so I thought it wise to try to make my points as clearly as I could, to avoid having to explain them in another post.

I use other normal conventions, such as capitals because that’s the way I was taught to write, and I try to avoid using acronyms and sets of initials, such as IHR and IMHO, unless they are first spelled out in full, or they have been in common use for a long time, NATO; NASA, for example. (I’m sure you will have more comments to make about this, but they will be of no interest to me, so you can save yourself some time by not writing them down.)

On the topic of layout, presentation, etc., here’s one for you. Why do you copy a person’s entire post, and not break it up into the sections you wish to discuss or criticise? Can’t you spare the time to make things easier for your readers to follow? (You can treat those as a rhetorical questions.)

Anthony

Hi Anthony

Unfortunately, it appears to me distinctions may be a problem for you after all.
It is correct you did not specifically say I had accused you of being a nazi sympathiser (NS). However, given the somewhat vitriolic nature of your initial post to me and that I had gone on to suggest the IHR have some rather unsavoury politics I made an assumption that the comment was aimed at me. I grant you this assumption may have been incorrect.
Furthermore, considering I had made a post directly after SG backing the statement in question 100% it seems rather arbitrary and unfair you think he implied (or came close to implying) you were a NS and not me.
Finally, though it is presumptuous of me to speak for him (and he will surely correct me if I am wrong), I think you failed to make an important distinction in what he was saying:

How did he 'come close' to saying you were a NS? There is a very important distinction between saying that other people may perceive users of this forums as being NSs and suggesting those people are in fact NSs. Whether you like it or not, the blunt fact is HD (however you define it) is generally associated with the far right. If you go to JREF, they already use the popularity of 'challenging' gas chambers etc to denounce truthers as a bunch of nazis. Fair? no. Accurate? no. But there's still mileage in it.
I know some people see this as a symptom of a 'Zionist conspiracy' but, I'm more prone to ascribe this to the (IMO quite reasonable) 'guilt by association' you identify.

So, personally, I don't think anyone came anywhere near a 'slur' - more that you're laying yourself open to one from other quarters.

I will grant you that to identify that many 'revisionists' are proven nazi sympathisers can be somewhat rather slippery.
On one hand, someone like Ernst Zundel seems rather 'dodgy' - writing a book called 'The Hitler we loved and why', seeing no real problem with the nazi attitude towards 'euthanasia' and posing in a concentration camp inmate outfit at a demonstration calling for his free speech seems, to me, to at least hint at where his sentiments lie. Others, like David Cole, (apart from being Jewish) gives no impression of being a nazi (though if you read interviews with him, he does just seem generally quite confused).

I didn't actually mean to accuse Faurisson of being a nazi - but re-reading my post it was quite incoherent and it clearly comes across like I did - so my bad. What I wanted to point out was the irony of the constant freedom of speech cries that come from nazi quarters (e.g. Nick Griffin), given it's usually the last thing on the far right mind. Not that they're not entitled to freedom of speech, it's just rather ironic. Mind you, he is very chummy with Ernst Zundel (guilt by association? - don't worry I'm getting there). More GBA might be his little turn as star witness for Nick Griffin in 98 when Nazi Nick got busted for his 'challenging' of the holocaust - but, I don't think there's anything to prove he's a nazi (I did read an interview with him where he kept talking about 'the Jews' as if 'the Jews' were all one big homogenous group, but God knows where and that doesn't specifically imply anti-semitism).

Why you keep bringing up the ADL I don't know. They think everyone is an anti-semite. They'd think you're one and me too for talking to you. I'm not basing my opinions on what they say.

David Irving is a strange fish. He's certainly been to some 'dodgy' meet'n'greets and comes across as rather racist (I assume you know the infamous rhyme he taught his daughter) but, to be honest, I can't be arsed trawling the net for dirt on him right now.

Regarding Ann Frank, I have no real opinion on that - I've never actually read it nor Faurisson's critique. I suspect you may be over-egging it on the 'pretty conclusively bit' - there are refutations floating around, like this one - http://www.holocaust-history.org/anne-frank/index.shtml, but I'm not myself taking a stand either way - since you reference refutations I guess you've already read it.
The main point for me is - so what anyway? Often, 'revisionists' make great play of fakes regarding the holocaust. The thing is, no-one really denied some stuff is fake in the first place. In fact, it would be extraordinary if there weren't plenty of fake witnesses - there always are. But if, say, someone faked a diary of their experience of the Battle of the Somme, that doesn't suggest that battle never occurred.
Norman Finkelstein (a 100% holocaust 'believer' - his parents were in Auschwitz) looks at fake holocaust material in the holocaust industry which, if you haven't already read it, I totally recommend. He reserves particular venom for Elie Wiesel.

Personally, I think the IHR easily slides into propaganda territory. They would really be a damn site more honest if the called themselves the 'Institute for Holocaust Review'. They say they were -

Founded in 1978, the Institute for Historical Review is a public interest educational, research and publishing center dedicated to promoting greater public awareness of history, and especially socially-politically relevant aspects of twentieth century history. The IHR particularly strives to increase understanding of the causes, nature and consequences of war and conflict.

Sounds great. Yet even a cursory glance at their archive instantly displays a simply overwhelming preoccupation with the holocaust. Coming second is the 'Hitler wasn't such a bad chap' line of essay. A few other bits. Is there a study of the Native American in the 20th century? The deaths and chemical poisoning of untold Vietnamese civilians? The illegal British removal of the population of Diego Garcia so the yanks could have an airbase to later bomb Iraq from? I haven't checked, but I think we both know the answer. A lot happened in the twentieth century and it's a bit rich for them to see the Zionists or whoever as pushing the 'holohoax' all the time when thats all they ever go on about. Do you really believe these guys are impartial?!

You mention guilt by association and make a valid point. Indeed, Chomsky was tarred for defending Faurisson's freedom of speech, yet it's abundantly clear he's not in any way a NS.
However, if you spend, ooh, twenty minutes on google there's a curious consistency with which names come up time and time again. Nick Griffin. David Duke. Jean-Marie Le Pen. And, more obscurely, pretty much every bonehead nutter the west has produced. And the same 'revisionists' keep regular company with them, speak at their meetings etc. Unfortunately, I can't do linking here as it's against mod policy, but check out White Aryan Resistance. Check out Northwest Nationalists. Check out the BNP. Check out Combat 18. Whoever on the far right you like.
See who their hero historians are (and people are surprised that the truth movement may get linked with nazis!).
Referring to your analogy - if you hung around with villains on a regular basis, you gave speeches at their weddings, got on very well - do you think it unreasonable to suggest you most likely share a similar value base? That you get on well?

Now, logically, the overwhelming association of 'revisionism' to the far right does not therefore mean it is incorrect on the basis it's biggest fanbase is racist scum. Nor does it follow all revisionists are racists - Justin Timberlake may be mostly adored by teenage girls, but he's not one himself (well...) However, when people go on about the holocaust giving a 'convenient' boost to the establishment of Israel, they seem to neglect the 'convenient' dodging of probably the biggest PR gaffe possible for the far right. But! Not only did the holocaust (gas chambers, whatever) not happen - it was a Jewish lie!. You cannot deny that, as propaganda, that is f8cking brilliant. If I were a nazi I'd be pretty boody miffed that not only did the Jews survive, they got a bloody country out of it too. That's fertile ground for some sour grapes.

Now, people like the IHR would get nowhere fast by being overt nazis. It's too easy to shoot 'em down. Being 'professional historians' is way cleaner.

Now, I can't prove conclusively the IHR are nazis - as I have stated there is no logical basis for this and their essays are generally care fully worded. I believe their sentiments leak out - I gave some examples previously. I also believe everyone is biased whether they admit it or not. I'm biased against the far right. I'm biased against racism. I'm biased against capitalism. I'm biased against house music. I admit it freely. Irrespective of debates about 'truth', it is surely naive to think that any examination of history is 'impartial'. If you read a marxist historian, they'll see the world through the prism of marxism and so on.
To me, it is startlingly obvious where the bias of this stuff has a tendency to stem from. Others will make their own decisions. I just find it curious when people see 'Zionist propaganda' (and I'm not referring specifically to you here) everywhere, yet develop an enormous benefit of the doubt when it comes to this stuff. The underlying agenda seems fairly clear to me. But - not exclusively. I must be perfectly clear - I do not, repeat do not think questioning the existence of gas chambers etc makes one a nazi. Just as I don't think believing in Zionist plots makes one an anti-semite.

Whether we can really 'know' history or not is another big debate that is hotly disputed. "What is history?" by E H Carr is a good read on that.

Now, I do think you should stop getting in a tiz before you go accusing people of being liars. It is rather rude and doesn't become you.

Fan of dictionaries as you are, I think you'd agree that the act of lying generally involves knowingly stating a falsehood. I think you'd also agree that calling his evidence incoherent isn't a pernicious distortion of the language used here -

Rudolf's affidavit, presented by Irving as "fresh evidence" in the appeal process, was so convoluted, faulted and filled with falsehoods that Irving's counsel was forced to withdraw the document on the third day of the appeal process. That act alone proved that that Irving's lawsuit against Professor Lipstadt was frivolous, malicious and unwarranted. He went on to lose the case and has joined the ranks of disgraced and mendacious Holocaust deniers.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/denial/nym.shtml

You may dispute the accuracy of that article if you wish. I took it on good faith. There are other, similiar, articles that I cannot be arsed rooting out right now. Whereas I am honoured you are sufficiently motivated to have a second look at my posts to find more things to get cross about, accusing me of lying is rather presumptuous.
I do notice I stated "was going to use" and the article actually mentions the appeal process being the point of withdrawal. I can't be arsed pedantically checking for the exact withdrawal point, so I happily acknowledge a slight error on my part there. It was not intentional.

I don't pretend to be privy to the guy's motivations. What makes someone jack in their job and go and join the Moonies? Join the Labour Party? People do weird things.

However, I think you've also missed another important distinction. I (and the article) said his evidence was incoherent. Inexplicably, you state.

’ve taken a passage, at random, from his web page, and, if it does nothing else, it shows that his communication abilities are far from deserving to be called: ‘incoherent.’

...er, yeah, and...?

In Rome circa the 50s BC or whatever (just before Caesar crossed the Rubicon and all that), Cicero was generally regarded to be one of the greatest orators of his day. His communication skills were of high repute and beyond question. However, when asked to defend Titus Annius Milo when he was accused of the murder of Publius Clodius, Cicero presented highly incoherent evidence which essentially blew the case. Milo was subsequently exiled.
Just because one presents incoherent evidence, it does not mean one is incoherent par se.
Maybe it's to do with his crackpot theories, I dunno

At the end of the day we do get down to whether these 'revisions' hold water. On that I refuse to play. I have spent way too much time discussing the holocaust on this forum (before this little exchange). I have been inspired to read more on it too. I have made my own judgements on where I think the 'truth' probably lies. It is, however, an enormous distraction from 911, the war on terror and the contemporary fascists that are probably of more significance than the old ones who, admittedly, did have the coolest uniforms.

Writing this stuff is time consuming. I shall likely take a 'forum holiday'. I would have already had I not felt compelled to reply to this - so I may or may not reply to further posts on this issue.

However, I am struck that this exchange, the thread even has (*yawn*) gone back to them gas chambers when that was not how it started. You have conspicuously failed to explain why the initial article you posted was such a huge deal.
What strikes me is, if I were concerned that 'Zionist propaganda' was being impressed upon the fragile egg shell minds of the youth, I would start by looking at what kind of teaching there is concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict. Personally, I don't know, but there are innumerable examples of suggested teaching, resources, ideas for lessons etc on the internet. Would it not be more likely that pro-Zionist propaganda would most likely directly manifest in how schools teach the history of the Middle East? I don't know if the cover it now - it was on the syllabus when I was at school (though we never actually did it in the end).

For some reason, this post was doubled up. I have removed the earlier version in which the layout was incorrect.

The Importance of Cross Checking

Not having the resources of Scotland Yard, or a budget of a few million quid, I would not know where to begin an attempt to see if what Harry W. Mazal, OBE, has written has any merit regarding Germar Rudolf’s research or use of pseudonyms. However, having re-read David Irving’s account of why his appeal collapsed, I can find no reference to Rudolf’s testimony having been withdrawn on the basis of its ‘incoherence.’

To reduce the amount of material to be read, I will condense Irving’s account of why the evidence had to be withdrawn, which had nothing to do incoherence. It had to do with an error on the part of a newly appointed solicitor: Rudolf’s expert report, along with an affidavit of an Auschwitz survivor, had not been submitted to the Court of Appeal, prior to the hearing. Here are the final paragraphs of Irving’s reply to the question of why Rudolph’s report was withdrawn. The solicitor…

…had not provided to them copies of the expert report I had commissioned from Germar Rudolf on the chemistry of cyanide compounds in brickwork; he had failed to have the affidavit of Auschwitz survivor Zoe Polanska-Palmer sworn, and much else besides.

The evidence was vital to the appeal. We now made a miscalculation: we believed that having had to divest ourselves of Nigel Adams [the incompetent solicitor], this useless drag on the wheel, at the eleventh hour, the Court of Appeal would postpone the hearing (set down for just two days hence), by three weeks to enable me to instruct the new law firm (the seemingly respectable and efficient monolithic firm of Amhurst, Brown, Colombotti, ABC). ABC would then take the proper steps to repair the damage done by Adams.

I called an emergency hearing of the Court to hear our plight. ABC were in court and (having received some thirty thousand pounds cash from me that morning, which all but emptied our family's bank account) agreeable to coming onto the record. To our dismay, the three Judges of Appeal pointed out that they had a full calendar, they had read all the files in preparation, and they were the Court best constituted to deal with the matter. The hearing would go ahead in two days' time.

Learned counsel had no alternative therefore but to withdraw all the new evidence we had prepared, as you have stated, and to argue the appeal [June 2001] largely on matters of law alone.

So where did [the honourable?] Harry W. Mazal, OBE, get the information that the report was ‘incoherent’? Did he even see it? I can't see Irving sharing his paperwork with someone named Mazel, so the only reasonable explanation is that Mazel made it all up.

Germar Rudolph’s report was ‘withdrawn’, by Council, not because it was incoherent, but because the Court would not accept any new material, on the basis that the three judges had already read all of the files which had been presented, up until that time, and were not prepared to read any more. The way I see it, Irving has mistakenly included Rudolph’s report in the material which he says was ‘withdrawn’, when, in fact, it had not even been submitted to the Court, because his solicitor had failed to do so. Considering the distress he must have been suffering, I do not find this error at all surprising.

In any event, nowhere is there any indication, whatsoever, from David Irving, his Council, or the Court, that Rudolph’s report was incoherent, and I have to conclude that Mazel’s version is malicious. Such a blatant misrepresentation of a seriously damaging event does not give me any confidence that Harry W. Mazal’s version of anything will not be tainted with similar prejudice.

If you think that I have misrepresented Irving’s explanation, please read it at:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Letters/trial/Price010105.html.

Had you done this before you passed on Mazel’s spurious accusation, regarding Rudolph’s competency, you could have avoided this exchange. Strange as it may seem, I do not enjoy pointing out that people are passing on lies, but I will not shrink from doing so if I believe that they are doing it as a way of advancing their own arguments, while accuracy suffers.

With regard to the rest of your post, I am really not interested in spending time replying to someone who is so quick to slag someone off as being a Nazi sympathiser, without producing any documentation, then to write:

I didn't actually mean to accuse Faurisson of being a nazi - but re-reading my post it was quite incoherent to suggest that this is an accurate description of the person in question…

You make a habit of this kind of thing, like jumping to the conclusion that I had accused you of calling me a Nazi sympathiser, which I did not, then rambling on about the motives of the person who inferred that I was. If you can’t even get your own thoughts straight, how can you hope to explain someone else’s?

Try some editing, as well as some research; it focuses the mind, and might prevent me from jumping all over your textual inaccuracies, and I really could do without this stressful kind of mental exercise.

Anyone heard of Udo Walendy?
Can people cast opions and knowledge?

I may perhaps follow up on your claims about Rudolf to check them myself, but in actually see little point - you have an uncanny knack of only acknowledging or responding at all to points you feel you can attack anyway. However, whereas you are correct that evidence is not usually submitted on appeal, if you look harder you may be surprised to discover counter-reports were commissioned to blow Rudolf's witterings out of the water - an unnecessary step if no-one was going to look at it. I need to point out I'm no fan of Deborah Lipstadt, but she does give a handy page reference you might wish to pursue on her blog, though you may of course disagree with her conclusions.

As some folks at The Holocaust History Project have observed, as a result of what happened to Irving in both trials, i.e. he was forced to recant his positions, deniers have begun to attack one another.

Deniers are, as one pundit put it, beginning to "eat their own."

In a letter from December 30, 2005, Germar Rudolf [who goes by many different names and whose so called study of the gas chambers we proved to be so full of holes that Irving's lawyer withdrew it without using it as evidence, see History on Trial, pp. 294-95] to Fred Tobin, a leading Australian denier:

"David Irving is a disgrace for historians and revisionists alike. He does not know what he is talking about."

And a similar kind of statement about Irving from the British Nazi newsletter "Final Conflict" [January 20, 2000]. This was written right after Irving was forced to acknowledge at my trial that there were gas buses that were responsible for the death of 97,000 Jews.

RUDOLF ATTACKS IRVING FOR BACKING DOWN:

Dear David,

I thought that this might end so. I don't know which devil rides you, but how can you make such a statement.... You disappoint me. I didn't expect you to do any better, though, as you are no Revisionist and obviously have hardly any idea about the odds and evens of the Holocaust story, but was that necessary? It doesn't look too good for you if you continue making such stupid admissions.

http://lipstadt.blogspot.com/search?q=rudolf

Mind you, if she lied there, I'm surprised Irving didn't sue!
I wonder why the 'apolitical' Rudolf was publishing letters in nazi newsletters...?
Just for the record, Final Conflict are unashamedly fascist, though tend to try and be all fluffy by getting cross about the left apparently being all nasty to them. They are pushing the booklet 'Fascism in England' -

A study of the relationship and backgrounds of the British Union of Fascists and the Imperial Fascist League.

FASCISM IN ENGLAND 1928 - 1940 is a timely booklet. For too long the people of England have been unable to openly discuss events surrounding the build up to World War 2 in an open and constructive way. We seem to have suffered the side effects of war propaganda, that's been carried on long after the war itself, to serve ulterior motives.

Now, at last, we can begin to look at various aspects of that period in history with an open mind.

The history of 'the victors' can be questioned in many regards. We all know of the brave historians and academics who have "dared" to ask questions about the alleged holocaust of six million Jews.

Now let us bring the history of the English Fascists out into the open as well. The brave men and women who stood by their patriotic banners and faced attacks, lies and jail deserve that at the very least.

Let the younger generation read and learn.

Those who will not read have no advantage over those who cannot read.

edit - I just had to include a quote about another of their booklets I found on the website as it is hilarious.

THIS BOOKLET is going to raise a lot of eye brows in the Nationalist Movement. Some people may be totally unaware about the Satanists and their attempts to infiltrate Nationalism. Others may have had an inkling at some time or another. This booklet will show you the depth of their involvement and exactly how they operate.

What becomes clear is that, despite apparent differences of political ideology and tactics, these people belong to quite a limited circle. However, they have become experts at being "all things to all men" and as such have entered the Nationalist movement at different levels and in different ways.

Especially worrying for FC readers is the Satanist involvement in music. Whilst we may be aware of 'Black Metal' with its 'shock, horror, Satanist' tactics, there is also a genre known as 'Industrial music' which people from the Church of Satan and others are behind.

Satanist groups from around the world are co-operating (as one would expect) and at least three "Nationalist" organisations in England are implicated. Indeed, as we go to press one has just had an interview published in 'The Nexus' a typical pseudo-babble Satanist journal, from New Zealand.

Anyway, to go into all the links and schemes would spoil your 'enjoyment' (if that's the right word) of the booklet. It is a blockbuster and deserves to be read by all Nationalists who cherish the Nationalist cause.

Nexus is 'satanist'?! Industrial music is 'satanist'? These clowns are great! I wonder if they play their records backwards...

However - and your unusually rigid mind may struggle with this one - it is perfectly plausible this may swing either way.
One one hand, if your evidence is looking dodgy, you are unlikely to say "sorry m'lud, our new evidence is a load of nonsense and the other side are likely to shred it.Forget about it."
On the other, it is highly likely that Lipstadt's crew would see the withdrawal of evidence they had prepared counter-evidence for as an acknowledgment their evidence would 'win', even if the actual reasons for withdrawal were different.
I know you struggle wth ambiguity, so appreciate that line of thinking may be difficult for you.
You, of course, are more apt to believe Irving is being honest than the 'other side'

(I followed the link you gave, but it came up '404 not found')

You appear not to understand the concept that one may acknowledge when one has made an error. Maybe because it is unfamiliar territory for you? One only learns by acknowledging when one is wrong. Indeed, you quite happily accuse SG of making a slur and me of making a 'big fat lie' (though I notice you have now quietly amended this to 'passing on a lie', to maintain the illusion you are infallible), yet lack the common decency to acknowledge your own errors. Regarding my comment about Faurisson, if I wished to be pedantic, I could point to the fact that nowhere in my post does it explicitly refer to Faurisson as being a nazi and, given my comment about nazis wanting freedom of speech directly followed me quoting him as not caring about freedom of speech, to assume the following line referred to him was rather incoherent. Read it again:

Robert Faurisson? If freedom of speech for him is such a big issue, why does he appear in manufacturing consent saying he doesn't care about freedom of speech "and all that". It's funny how a bunch of neo-nazis so often get so righteous about freedom of speech when generally it's the last thing on their mind.

Does it say F is a nazi? Is he a 'bunch of nazis'? Would that make sense? However, given I didn't structure the paragraph well, I give the reader the benefit of the doubt, acknowledge the meaning is unclear and acknowledge an error. To you, this is apparently some enormous deal. Grow up.

Again:

like jumping to the conclusion that I had accused you of calling me a Nazi sympathiser,

I made an assumption you were referring to me. I explained why I felt that to be a reasonable assumption. You have not challenged these arguments. At best, you yourself make an enormous assumption about what SG meant, and yet your assumption is somehow ok...?
I was not 'rambling' about the probable meaning of SG's comment. I was interpreting it in terms of a common argument that has been raised here before by myself and others. You have not attempted to challenge this interpretation. Your unwarranted invocation of ficticious 'slurs' does not, of course, constitute 'rambling'.
You are tying yourself in knots with your blanket refusal to be at all reasonable.

You are apt to have a tantrum when your opinions are challenged. It appears it is very important to you to always appear to be right and to assume that you are. This is probably not advisable for one who has absurdly rigid concepts of 'truth'. But that's up to you.

I notice you have adopted your usual tactic of ceasing to attempt a reasoned exchange and lapsed into throwing a sulky strop. It is an internet forum - you are not playing for the car. Get a grip.

I also needn't point out you have still not presented any argument to justify why the article this tread was started about in the first place was anything other than utterly banal. Have you looked into the national curriculum regarding the history of the middle east conflict yet? Have you placed the funding available in the context of total educational budgets? I await the revelation of your wisdom with baited breath. Though, of course, as long as the mental exercise does not prove too stressful.[/quote]

As some folks at The Holocaust History Project have observed, as a result of what happened to Irving in both trials, i.e. he was forced to recant his positions, deniers have begun to attack one another.

Deniers are, as one pundit put it, beginning to "eat their own."

In a letter from December 30, 2005, Germar Rudolf [who goes by many different names and whose so called study of the gas chambers we proved to be so full of holes that Irving's lawyer withdrew it without using it as evidence, see History on Trial, pp. 294-95] to Fred Tobin, a leading Australian denier:

"David Irving is a disgrace for historians and revisionists alike. He does not know what he is talking about."

And a similar kind of statement about Irving from the British Nazi newsletter "Final Conflict" [January 20, 2000]. This was written right after Irving was forced to acknowledge at my trial that there were gas buses that were responsible for the death of 97,000 Jews.

RUDOLF ATTACKS IRVING FOR BACKING DOWN:

Dear David,

I thought that this might end so. I don't know which devil rides you, but how can you make such a statement.... You disappoint me. I didn't expect you to do any better, though, as you are no Revisionist and obviously have hardly any idea about the odds and evens of the Holocaust story, but was that necessary? It doesn't look too good for you if you continue making such stupid admissions.

All I'm going to say (as I haven't read any Irvine or know him) Strange things happen in prison, lots of intimidation and threats. Who knows if the cat got his tongue?

Disco_Destroyer wrote:

As some folks at The Holocaust History Project have observed, as a result of what happened to Irving in both trials, i.e. he was forced to recant his positions, deniers have begun to attack one another.

Deniers are, as one pundit put it, beginning to "eat their own."

In a letter from December 30, 2005, Germar Rudolf [who goes by many different names and whose so called study of the gas chambers we proved to be so full of holes that Irving's lawyer withdrew it without using it as evidence, see History on Trial, pp. 294-95] to Fred Tobin, a leading Australian denier:

"David Irving is a disgrace for historians and revisionists alike. He does not know what he is talking about."

And a similar kind of statement about Irving from the British Nazi newsletter "Final Conflict" [January 20, 2000]. This was written right after Irving was forced to acknowledge at my trial that there were gas buses that were responsible for the death of 97,000 Jews.

RUDOLF ATTACKS IRVING FOR BACKING DOWN:

Dear David,

I thought that this might end so. I don't know which devil rides you, but how can you make such a statement.... You disappoint me. I didn't expect you to do any better, though, as you are no Revisionist and obviously have hardly any idea about the odds and evens of the Holocaust story, but was that necessary? It doesn't look too good for you if you continue making such stupid admissions.

All I'm going to say (as I haven't read any Irvine or know him) Strange things happen in prison, lots of intimidation and threats. Who knows if the cat got his tongue?

He was not in prison - this is an earlier trial where he took Lipstadt to court.

Answering Specific Points

Okay, I will try to answer each of you points and questions, but some of them are not very clear, so I may need to ask you what you mean, exactly, before I will be able to respond, fully.

I may perhaps follow up on your claims about Rudolf to check them myself, but in actually see little point - you have an uncanny knack of only acknowledging or responding at all to points you feel you can attack anyway.

You are right, I do not answer all of your points, for several reasons:
1. I do not always understand what point you are making, or
2. I don’t really feel obliged to answer points that are off the subject, or which I feel that I have already answered, or
3. If you look at your opening sentence, you often first say that you may do something, then say that there is no point in doing it. So, here is my first question:
Question: Are you going to follow up on my claims about Germar Rudolph?

If not, I will not bother to answer any other points involving Rudolph’s research, except to say that, when I first read it, several years ago, I thought it looked impressive.

However, whereas you are correct that evidence is not usually submitted on appeal,

It is good of you to admit that, but you do not seem to even worry that:
Question: if the report was not even submitted to the Court, how could it have been judged, by Harry W. Mazal, OBE to have been ‘incoherent.’?

if you look harder you may be surprised to discover counter-reports were commissioned to blow Rudolf's witterings out of the water - an unnecessary step if no-one was going to look at it.

You really do have a habit of shooting yourself in the foot. First you say that you may or may not follow up on Germar Rudolph, then you describe a study, or studies of his as ‘witterings.’
Question — four parts:
a) How do you know that Rudolph’s report were ‘witterings’, if you have never read anything he has written?
b) Why do you think I would be surprised to learn that counter reports were commissioned?
c) Where are they, and have you read them?
d) If you have read them, how could you even guess that they might blow ‘Rudolf's witterings out of the water’ when you haven’t read any of Rudolph’s output?

To make things simpler, I have not copied the section regarding Deborah Lipstadt’s allegations or other comments, but I have read some of her blogs, and I am no fan, either. I have attempted to get at the source of some of her statements, but to no avail. As you brought her into the picture, perhaps you would like to find the references, if you think that they are important..……………..

Mind you, if she lied there, I'm surprised Irving didn't sue!
I wonder why the 'apolitical' Rudolf was publishing letters in nazi newsletters...?

Comment: He’d probably run out of money, and Deborah Lipstadt and her supporters hadn’t.

Question: Was Germar Rudolph’s letter merely published in Final Conflict, or did he write the letter to Final Conflict?

Just for the record, Final Conflict are unashamedly fascist, though tend to try and be all fluffy by getting cross about the left apparently being all nasty to them. They are pushing the booklet 'Fascism in England' -

Obviously I am not interested in reading this booklet.

Nexus is 'satanist'?! Industrial music is 'satanist'? These clowns are great! I wonder if they play their records backwards...
However - and your unusually rigid mind may struggle with this one - it is perfectly plausible this may swing either way.
One one hand, if your evidence is looking dodgy, you are unlikely to say "sorry m'lud, our new evidence is a load of nonsense and the other side are likely to shred it.Forget about it."

Comment: I don’t know what you are on about, here. I think that the excerpt from Irving’s letter was clear enough, without benefit of reading the entire article. The evidence was not submitted by a solicitor whom he subsequently fired for this bit of malpractice, therefore it could not have been withdrawn.

On the other, it is highly likely that Lipstadt's crew would see the withdrawal of evidence they had prepared counter-evidence for as an acknowledgment their evidence would 'win', even if the actual reasons for withdrawal were different.

I know you struggle wth ambiguity, so appreciate that line of thinking may be difficult for you.
You, of course, are more apt to believe Irving is being honest than the 'other side'
(I followed the link you gave, but it came up '404 not found')

Comment: Not much to answer, there, except to repeat that David Irving maintains that Germar Rudolf’s evidence was not submitted in time, which means that it could not have been withdrawn. Perhaps he was not telling the truth. How would I know? (rhetorical)

You appear not to understand the concept that one may acknowledge when one has made an error. Maybe because it is unfamiliar territory for you? One only learns by acknowledging when one is wrong.

Comment: I am always prepared to admit an error, but, so far, in this exchange, at least, I do not believe that I have made one.

Indeed, you quite happily accuse SG of making a slur and me of making a 'big fat lie' (though I notice you have now quietly amended this to 'passing on a lie', to maintain the illusion you are infallible), yet lack the common decency to acknowledge your own errors.

Comment: By using the term ‘passing on a lie,’ I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, in that you were probably unaware that it was a lie. Obviously, not the correct thing to do.
Comment: Read what Snowygrouch wrote, again:

Wow,
Another irellavent thread on a topic frequently used to totally discredit us as being Nazi sympathisers "day in day out".

Question: If that had been written about a thread you had opened, stating your views which some might consider to be sailing close to the winds of Holocaust doubt, denial or whatever, would you not suspect that a slur may have been made against you? (Only a Yes or No is required.)

Comment: In fact, I have tried all kinds of search combinations “Nazi sympathiser” + “British 9/11 Truth”… or “British 9/11”… or “9/11 Truth”… for example, and I’ve found nothing to suggest that this campaign is being discredited, day by day, because of accusations of Nazi sympathising. Not even week by week or month by month. I found only two references that could be applicable; both of them related to this thread.

Question: Can you, or Snowygrouch identify any statement that I have made, or which has been made by anyone else in this thread, as being sympathetic to Nazism?

Comment: If Snowygrouch didn’t mean to imply that I was a Nazi sympathiser, I wonder why he hasn’t cleared things up? (rhetorical)

Regarding my comment about Faurisson, if I wished to be pedantic, I could point to the fact that nowhere in my post does it explicitly refer to Faurisson as being a nazi and, given my comment about nazis wanting freedom of speech directly followed me quoting him as not caring about freedom of speech, to assume the following line referred to him was rather incoherent. Read it again:

Robert Faurisson? If freedom of speech for him is such a big issue, why does he appear in manufacturing consent saying he doesn't care about freedom of speech "and all that". It's funny how a bunch of neo-nazis so often get so righteous about freedom of speech when generally it's the last thing on their mind.

Does it say F is a nazi? Is he a 'bunch of nazis'? Would that make sense? However, given I didn't structure the paragraph well, I give the reader the benefit of the doubt, acknowledge the meaning is unclear and acknowledge an error. To you, this is apparently some enormous deal. Grow up.

Comment: You really are amazing, when you attempt to wriggle out of something. You give the reader the benefit of the doubt, because you ‘didn't structure the paragraph well’, then, in the next breath, accuse him of it being an ‘enormous deal’ that he thought you were accusing someone of being a neo-nazi; which he feels is a pretty unpleasant slur.

Well here is the remedy: You grow up and learn to structure your paragraphs so that they mean, to others, what they mean to you. Communications of this kind shouldn’t be a guessing game.

like jumping to the conclusion that I had accused you of calling me a Nazi sympathiser,

I made an assumption you were referring to me. I explained why I felt that to be a reasonable assumption. You have not challenged these arguments. At best, you yourself make an enormous assumption about what SG meant, and yet your assumption is somehow ok...?

I was not 'rambling' about the probable meaning of SG's comment. I was interpreting it in terms of a common argument that has been raised here before by myself and others. You have not attempted to challenge this interpretation. Your unwarranted invocation of ficticious 'slurs' does not, of course, constitute 'rambling'.
You are tying yourself in knots with your blanket refusal to be at all reasonable.

Comment: See my comment, above. If you make assumptions, without checking out if they are accurate assumptions, then what follows is down to you. You do ramble on, mostly when you are attempting to correct something which you got wrong in the first place. I am only human, and I sometimes lose my patience with people who are continually assuming that I know what they mean, when I don’t.

You are apt to have a tantrum when your opinions are challenged.

Question: Can you give me a clear for instance of my having a tantrum?

It appears it is very important to you to always appear to be right and to assume that you are. This is probably not advisable for one who has absurdly rigid concepts of 'truth'. But that's up to you.

Comment: It is important for me to be understood. Of course I assume that I am right, when I make a statement which I have carefully researched and grammatically constructed so that it is, hopefully, clear what I mean, otherwise I wouldn’t make it, without beginning with: ‘I may be wrong, but I’d always…’ I am also sufficiently cognisant with the rules of debate to realise that there are always two sides to a discussion, and that my position will inevitably appear to by ‘wrong’ to someone else. With regard to the truth, I will never concede that the word is interchangeable with ‘belief’.

I notice you have adopted your usual tactic of ceasing to attempt a reasoned exchange and lapsed into throwing a sulky strop. It is an internet forum - you are not playing for the car. Get a grip.

Question: To what are you specifically referring? And what does ‘playing for the car’ mean?

I also needn't point out you have still not presented any argument to justify why the article this tread was started about in the first place was anything other than utterly banal.

Question: If you needn’t point something out, why did you just do so? In any event, who asked me to justify opening this thread?

Comment: One or two people seemed to think that the thread had merit. Isn’t that what debate is all about? (rhetorical) Read my initial post. If I had to take one sentence from it, to try to convince others that I am right to be concerned, it is this one:

This ill-disguised, Zionist-instigated propaganda is designed to deflect attention away from the on-going holocaust, which began shortly after the end of World War Two: the holocaust still being visited by the State of Israel on the Palestinian people.

Comment: That is what I believe, and there is nothing that I can see, on the diplomatic or foreign-policy horizons of either the United States, Britain, or Europe to suggest that things are about to change.

Have you looked into the national curriculum regarding the history of the middle east conflict yet? Have you placed the funding available in the context of total educational budgets? I await the revelation of your wisdom with baited breath. Though, of course, as long as the mental exercise does not prove too stressful.

Comment: It is far more stressful having to put up with questions, when their answers should be obvious. I believe that, while little or nothing is being done for the Palestinians, or to try and put things right in Iraq, or to make sure that Iran is not next on the Coalition’s hit list, what is being spent to boost the sympathy level for the Israelis is money ill spent.

Personally, I think that the Arabs, Persians Afghans and certain other ethnic groups have been very restrained about the terrible injustices, massacres and other indignities that they have had to suffer since the end of the Second World War, while most Americans, British, Europeans and Australians still can’t seem to get a handle on the fact that you can’t steal from, manipulate and bomb other people into oblivion without it all blowing up in your face, at some stage or other.

Most of those who are members of this campaign believe that 9/11 was an inside job; a false flag operation, but if it had been done by Osama and the Boxcutters, should we have been surprised? If we were to be really honest with ourselves, wouldn’t we admit, deep down, that we had it coming?

Even if it is the greatest idea in the world to have Holocaust survivors paid to visit British schools, so that the children can learn what suffering is all about, don’t you think that the Palestinians might be just a little put out that their ongoing suffering means—to the British public and the politicians they elect—Nothing? (rhetorical)

Is it banal to try to warn someone that they are about to walk under a bus? Or fall backwards over a cliff? Or jump into shark infested waters? Or go down into a subway where there might be a ticking bomb wrapped around the waist of someone who had recently lost their mother, father, wife and children to another kind of bomb which had, written on its side: Made in Great Britain?

AAAAAARRRRGGGHHH!!!!!!!

Anthony - I just spent f*cking ages writing an epic response to your last post and somehow lost it at the preview stage. When this damn forum starting freezing on me. I will reply when I can face going through it all again.

The Lost Post and The Thin End of The Wedge

It is so maddening, when that happens. It used to lose a lot of material, that way; these days, unless it is something very short, I never post directly onto the site, then, if things go wrong, I’ve always go a copy. I’m looking forward to the re-write, because I find that these exchanges are helping me to understand how others think, particularly when it comes to the kind of information which is so readily available these days, but which is often quite inaccurate, for one reason or another.

There is one small point that I missed: Can you give me a reference for Faurisson saying that he was not interested in free speech. I’ve tried to find the reference by linking “Manufacturing Consent” with “free speech” and Faurisson, but most items were about Noam Chomsky’s error in allowing his name to be linked to Faurisson’s.

By the way, have you ever read any of Robert Faurisson’s work? It really is very well researched. I find the same thing with David Irving’s and Mark Weber’s writing, and the main reason that I have gone as far as I have into what I believe to be false accusations of them all being Nazi’s or Nazi sympathisers is that I have yet to find anything to indicate that they agreed with what the Nazis, under Adolph Hitler, did, or said about Jews or those he considered to be of inferior race or intellect.

Wouldn’t a pre-requisite for espousing Nazism be that you agreed with what the original Nazis had done? But the only places that I have ever seen material indicating that any of the above, or Germar Rudolph, are ‘Nazi sympathiser’, ‘Holocaust deniers’ or ‘revisionists’, has been in articles, mostly by Jews, who can only site, with copious footnotes, that these guys denied this, or disputed that, which led to accusations of them being Nazis, neo-Nazis, or Nazi sympathisers.

A book called ‘The Daughter of Time’, by Josephine Tey, first got me interested in historical research. It’s about a detective recuperating in hospital, and with nothing better to do, he (or it may have been she) decides to look into the deaths of the ‘Princes in the Tower’ to see if they had been murdered, either by Richard III or on his orders. I won’t spoil the ending, but it is a ‘fascinating read’ as they say in the blurbs, and still available although published in the 60’s, I seem to remember.

What fascinates me is the fact that historians and others who do not believe everything that they have been taught, or told about the Holocaust are invariably called ‘deniers’ or ‘revisionists’ or Nazi sympathisers. Norman Finkelstein, who wrote ‘The Holocaust Industry’ is reviled, probably more than most—if there can be degrees of reviling—because he is a Jew. But he’s not saying that Jews and other ethnic groups were not crammed into cattle trucks and transported, under the most appalling conditions, to the Nazi Death Camps. It is a matter of historical fact that they were, and that fact is indisputable. Other facts, however, are not indisputable, but they soon will be, if the Zionists have their way.

Here is another one of your points which I did not comment on, it is from your post of: Tuesday May 22, 2007 9:34 am.

And then we're back to your moral outrage that - horror! - an amount of money you make no effort to put in the context of overall government educational expenditure is being used to educate children about the holocaust. You declare it's 'propaganda' but make no effort to explain how Zionists are controlling the national curriculum - basically you posted some mundane article, made grandiose proclamations about its enormous significance ('indoctrination'?) and have subsequently made zero effort to evidence them.

My post, which opened this topic, was meant as a warning. The amounts of money involved are, indeed, paltry, for the moment but, if I were you, I would not so lightly ignore the concept of Zionists controlling the British National Curriculum, when they already control the American Congress. Ask yourself, why would they bother to celebrate this minor triumph, when the amount is so small? Could it be the thin end of an extremely large wedge?. Let me explain why I think it is.

Anyone who has listened to Nathan Milstein playing the violin concertos of Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Max Bruch, Mendelssohn and others, could not doubt his compassion for humanity, making him an almost unique voice to counter the outpourings of hatred from the likes of Alan Dershowitz against those who refuse to knuckle under and accept, without question, their extended version of the Holocaust, under pain of imprisonment. Here is what triggered his condemnation of Zionism, followed by what he wrote to Jeff Rense in April, 2005.

Global Holocaust-Deniers Bill Passed In Knesset — By Nina Gilbert — April 8, 2005

Legislation that would make Holocaust-denial committed overseas an offense under Israeli legal jurisdiction was approved unanimously in first reading by the Knesset on Tuesday.

The passage of the measure would enable Israel to demand the extradition of Holocaust-deniers for prosecution.

The bill was drafted by MK Aryeh Eldad (National Union) as a move against former Palestinian Authority prime minister Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) for his doctoral dissertation 20 years ago in which he estimated that the Nazis killed less than a million Jews.

It is likely to serve as a deterrence against Holocaust-deniers visiting Israel, although the possibility of countries consenting to extradition on the offense is unlikely.

The legislation expands the territorial jurisdiction of the Israeli law against Holocaust-denying outside of it borders.

Please Note: Anti-hate-speech-and-thought legislation is being progressed through the United States Congress and the European Parliament, ‘as we speak’. The European proposal is that a three year prison sentence will be imposed on anyone found guilty of transgressing the law.

Nathan Milstein wrote:

Jeff - I have read your site for years and often don't agree with the articles and essays on the site. However, as an American Jew, I cannot believe what has happened to my once peaceful and gentle people under the power and psychopathic dominance of Zionsim. This new 'law' is beyond belief.

I am repulsed by this supreme elitist idiocy. With this kind of megalomaniacal nonsense, Zionism continues to CREATE and fuel anti-Jewish sentiment around the world. Think about it. This Zionist lunacy only goes to confirm what many 'anti-semites' have been saying for years!

Americans must also keep in mind how Zionists have forced Bush/Cheney to install an entirely new division in the US Dept of State to monitor 'anti-semitism' everywhere on the planet. This is all utter madness.

'Anti-semitism', of course, has been recently redefined to include *any* criticism of the Zionist-controlled state of Israel and any of its inhuman policies towards the Palestinians.

I hope Americans can remember that all Jews do NOT condone or support this Israeli 'law'. And if anyone doubts the control Zionism has over Jews, just read the research articles by Jewish scholars Lenni Brenner, Dr. Henry Makow, Prof Norman Finkelstein and Israel Shamir among others. Thanks to Lenni Brenner, we now know that the Nazis had agreed to give all Jews safe passage out of Europe in 1942-43 for the paltry sum of $2 million dollars.

However, when top Rabbis went to Switzerland to world Zionist headquarters and asked for the money, the Zionists told them NO and to paraphrase the quote from Brenner: "Unless large amounts of Jewish blood is spilled during the war, we won't be able to so easily secure our new homeland in Palestine after the war."

So, in a pivotal sense, the Zionists were ultimately responsible for the Holocaust - as it was they who decided this catastrophe of death and suffering in the War had to continue to serve THEIR purposes. They sacrificed us - 'burnt offerings' - and they are still using us and Judaism today. Read it and weep: http://www.rense.com/general31/Zionist.htm

America must reject the new Zionist-Israeli 'law' and especially the idea that American citizens - or ANY citizen of ANY nation - might somehow be threatened with extradition to Israel to 'stand trial' for 'denying the Holocaust' ...which means, apparently, even asking questions about the 'official version' of what happened to us in the war.

As I said, this is total, utter insanity and seeks to destroy freedom of speech worldwide and instill fear of Zionist Israel and its masters. None of my friends that I have spoken to can believe this is happening...they think I am joking.

Wake up America, the clock is running and terminal madness is in the air.

It is also ticking for Britain and the European Union.

The New Israeli Supreme Court building is disturbing enough on its own

http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/r ... upreme.htm



It also looks like the Owl God Molech if you ask me!![/url]

Legislation that would make Holocaust-denial committed overseas an offense under Israeli legal jurisdiction was approved unanimously in first reading by the Knesset on Tuesday.

The passage of the measure would enable Israel to demand the extradition of Holocaust-deniers for prosecution.

Better be careful because i too believe we have been lied to.
Soon thinking will be a crime too.

Anthony - I'm not ignoring your posts - but currently have limited time to address all your points - and you keep raising more!

In the meantime, the Faurisson statement appears in the film manufacturing consent, an 80s documentary about Chomsky. F appears briefly in the segment of the film that looks at the controversy when Chomsky defended his right to freedom of speech. People bizarrely assumed this therefore meant he was defending F's theories and poor old Chomsky had a helluva time trying to get people to understand the difference between supporting an idea and supporting the right to express it.

I have read some of his work.

Wouldn’t a pre-requisite for espousing Nazism be that you agreed with what the original Nazis had done? But the only places that I have ever seen material indicating that any of the above, or Germar Rudolph, are ‘Nazi sympathiser’, ‘Holocaust deniers’ or ‘revisionists’, has been in articles, mostly by Jews, who can only site, with copious footnotes, that these guys denied this, or disputed that, which led to accusations of them being Nazis, neo-Nazis, or Nazi sympathisers.

I think it's more complex than that. For a start, as I've said, I don't think all revisionists like the nazis. I think people like the ADL make highly inaccurate sweeping statements when they try to imply everybody is. I also think it's not a matter of saying 'I like nazis' - quite a lot of revisionism seems to be more focused on saying Hitler wasn't actually so bad, which is a subtle difference. The the IHR archive for further details.If one does this, it may be the case one geuninely thinks Hitler got a bum rap or it may be an attept to sanitise atrocity because you like the politics.
Why I am so suspicious about the IHR is kind of like...
You come across a website that says it looks at 20th century history.
However, the vast majority of the site is devoted to demonstrating a particular soviet massacre didn't happen in the way described - far fewer people died, the history has been distorted, the soviets did do bad things, but this event has been wildly exaggerated etc.
Of the remainder, there are many articles seeming to suggest Stalin wasn't maybe so bad, he has been misrepresented, he didn't plan to massacre people in the way people say he did.
The website is popular with many people, but admirers of the Soviet Union tend to find it very appealing and cite it a lot.
The head of the website is happy with his work being distributed alongside literature for the pro-Soviet spartacist.
The actual information on the site may or may not be correct. Irrespective of that, would you or would you not at least suspect the website was perhaps sympathetic to the politics of Soviet Russia?

The reference to literature is inspired by -

However, he expressed no reservations about having his essay distributed alongside the National Vanguard pamphlet.

“I’m glad to see them distributed,” he said.

National Vanguard was unavailable for comment. Their website lists only P.O. box numbers—of which there is one in Boston—and several telephone numbers leading to prerecorded messages.

Weber said that, while he was in contact with individual members of National Vanguard, his Institute for Historical Review has no official ties to the Vanguard. “We don’t pool resources,” he said.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512619

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_V ... anization)

There is other stuff on Weber floating around, such as,

At 2:55pm on Friday, February 12, 1993, a man identifying
himself as Mark Weber called the number, requested a copy of The
Right Way, and left his P.O.B. address for mailing. The Center's
graphics department sent him a colorful subscription application
for the non-existent periodical, instead. This was apparently
enough to satisfy Mr. Weber's curiosity because he soon acceded
to Ron's request for a meeting.

That meeting took place on February 27, 1993 at the Cafe
Westminster in Westminster, California. It was filmed by a CBS
camera crew stationed in a van outside. Mr. Furey spoke to Mark
Weber at length about the "state of the movement" in Germany. To
help establish his credibility, he showed Weber several photos
picturing him and several German neo-Nazis together. Weber
correctly identified them all.

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/w/ ... /weber.swc

As I've said before, I just find it odd people round here are very quick to jump on any hint of Zionist agendas but just never seem to consider for a second that the far right just loves this stuff (I cannot link to the many examples, but look at the National Alliance, White Aryan Resistance, Stormfront, BNP etc etc etc and you'll see what I mean). I do look at the fascist press from time to time to see what they're saying.

Regarding Rudolf, it is difficult for me to conclusively discover exactly where the letter originated - the issue in question, it turns out, I would have to purchase...I hope you understand my reluctance to do so! I may be able to find out elsewhere on the net, but it is unlikely I will be arsed.

Wow,
Another irellavent thread on a topic frequently used to totally discredit us as being Nazi sympathisers "day in day out".

I still struggle to see how you could possibly stick to saying this could in any way have been referring to you since it seems clear to me the sentence indicated it was a third party who would have such sentiments.

I must go shopping, so will try to run through other points later. I found some stuff in the fascist press that is making me think this 'incoherent evidence' thing is going to turn out on whose word you believe, I have to try to dig it out again after losing the quotes in my lost post. In the meantime, if you wish to see why I find your dictionary based concept of truth so difficult, a very cursory overview might be of interest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

In the meantime, I will leave you with disturbing evidence that the lure of the far right has even transcended the human species.