Holocaust Affirmation

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
astro3
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:52 am

Holocaust Affirmation

Postby astro3 » 1 decade 3 years ago (Sat Mar 03, 2007 6:34 pm)

Holocaust Affirmation

‘Holocaust’ means destruction by fire – as in ‘caustic,’ burning. I guess ‘holo’ is as in ‘hologram’, meaning whole or totality. The word thus alludes to an experience that is total and fiery. In the 20th century it has come to mean an event in which a million or more persons died.

The word is legally defined. It is enshrined in law, and therefore its proper meaning has to be used. Properly, it must allude to the 0.6 million Germans who died under the 1.6 million tons of bombs dropped upon them by the UK and US. (Plus, 0.3 million Japs incinerated also mainly from US bombs)

I suggest, that the use of this word should also properly allude to the one million Germans who died from deliberate famine in the US (also French) postwar concentration-camps. This was deliberate mass-extermination by Eisenhower.

It also seems reasonable that Germany should still be so traumatised by this event, that it should have a law prohibiting holocaust-denial. Because of the enormous meaning of what thus happened, I suggest anyone facing prosecution for ‘Holocaust denial’ should refuse to acknowledge the hijacking of this term, by Hollywood in the 1960s (or correct me if I’m wrong), for a fictional-gas event. It has to be fiery.

Holocaust Affirmation, means grieving with Germany for the trauma it has suffered. It is still in a catatonic condition and as such cannot endure to have the truth told to it. Collectively, Germany has been through the Holocaust. No-one else (in Europe) has. There is only one book I have come across which brings together the fictional ‘Holocaust’ story, with the postwar devastation inflicted by America upon Germany, and that is the work which Ernst Zundel recommends, ‘Imperium’ by Yorkey (1948).

Written in an Irish monastery! By an American lawyer who was sent to a postwar Nuremberg trial and walked out because of its phoney law and retributive justice. It may be (correct me if I’m wrong) that it is only since ‘Other Losses’ by James Bacque (1989) – another book recommended by Zundel – that the English-speaking world has been properly informed of the horror of America’s action in post-war extermination of Germans. It was an absolute violation of customary law to thus kill surrendered soldiers. The collective amnesia over this real Holocaust is just as remarkable as the fictitious memory of the Jewish-Polish ‘Holocaust.’ Thus Germany as a whole is suffering from False Memory Syndrome. Yorkey knew it in 1948 – but his book has no notes or references whatsoever, so I guess a lot of people wouldn’t have been too sure what he was talking about.

Yorkey is also the only author I’ve come across who discusses and grasps the unprecedented purpose of the war, as stated by Churchill in the House of Commons on September 3rd, 1939: it was, 'the destruction of Germany.’ The Holocaust was the fulfilment of that war-aim.

German law prohibits what it calls ‘hate-crime’ directed against Jews. Permit me here to suggest, that the latter are not primarily to blame for the illusion of getting the wrong Holocaust. The Great Illusion was fully fixed in place in 1946 at Nurenberg where it could not be questioned, by the US/UK. I suggest a post-Iraq perspective whereby Britain and America are primarily to blame, i.e. for generating absolute bloody lies. MI5 and CIA, its what they do, we all know that. In 1942 the BBC was broadcasting gassing stories and the RAF dropped propaganda leaflets over Poland with the gassing story. To be sure Jews may have put together stories, as many people in middle-Europe were hearing gassing-stories, maybe from the BBC, who knows, but on a recent analysis (www.codoh.com/newrevoices/nrillusion.html) they don’t deserve primary responsibility.

I’m suggesting that the Greatest Lie Ever Told should not be blamed primarily upon Jews. It may be that Yorkey (1948, p.534) makes America primarily responsible, although he does have a lot to say about Jews as influencing if not controlling US policy. Put it this way: if you want to believe that Zionists were secretly controlling the US and UK in their fixing the Great Lie at Nuremberg in 1946, then you are a conspiracy theorist. That could possibly be, as something behind the scenes. But, manifestly and palpably, it was the US and UK that were responsible. They set it up.

………………………………………………………….
People are being put into jail now, because the police and magistrates are losing their grip upon the meaning of the word ‘crime.’ No victim, no crime. Crime means a person is harmed to some unacceptable degree. Anyone accused of ‘hate-crime’ needs to point this out, politely. Crime cannot be merely an attitude. The Enemies of Mankind want everyone to live in fear, and want to blur the meaning of the word ‘crime’ to this end – so we can all live in their perpetual war. Yorkey’s book points out, how the mythic Holocaust was used in this context. It nevertheless manages a brightly optimistic tone, believing in the spirit of Europe, Europa, that it will somehow win through! One would really like to hear Ernst Zundel explaining this a bit more …

User avatar
Sailor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 810
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:54 pm
Location: California

Postby Sailor » 1 decade 3 years ago (Sat Mar 10, 2007 8:56 pm)

astro3 wrote: People are being put into jail now, because the police and magistrates are losing their grip upon the meaning of the word ‘crime.’ No victim, no crime.
means a person is harmed to some unacceptable degree. Anyone accused of ‘hate-crime’ needs to point this out, politely.

You lost me here. Let us do it slowly.

Crime is an act which is punishable by law.

A crime is an act that violates a very important political or moral command.

The so-called 'Knebel' (gag) paragraph (§130) of the German StGB (penal code) makes it a crime, if a person approves, denies or belittles crimes committed by the National socialism, in order to incite, provoke or stir up the people.

Lawyers who are familiar with this paragraph tell me that it is written very poorly.

What are the crimes committed by the National Socialism? And who determines these?

And how can it be proven that people are incited, provoked or stirred up when I for example question the existence of homicidal gas chambers among friends?

Radar
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 2:25 pm

Postby Radar » 1 decade 3 years ago (Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:12 am)

The book Imperium was written by Francis Parker Yockey (not Yorkey). He was said to be a devotee of the ideas of Spengler's "Decline of the West" philosophy and one of the few Americans who saw the treatment of defeated Germany as the abuse that it was based in part on his experiences at the post-war trials.

User avatar
Sailor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 810
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:54 pm
Location: California

Postby Sailor » 1 decade 3 years ago (Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:35 pm)

There were others who questioned the legality of the post war Nuremberg trials by the victors against the vanquished:

For example:
"Reconsidering the Nuremberg Trials "
http://codoh.com/trials/trirecon.html

"No matter how many books are written or briefs filed, no matter how finely the lawyers analyzed it, the crime for which the Nazis were tried had never been formalized as a crime with the definiteness required by our legal standards, nor outlawed with a death penalty by the international community. By our standards that crime arose under an ex post facto law. Goering et al deserved severe punishment. But their guilt did not justify us in substituting power for principle."

U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
Kennedy, Profiles in Courage, (New York: Harper & Row, 1964),p.190.

astro3
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:52 am

Postby astro3 » 1 decade 3 years ago (Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:33 pm)

The Dutch philosopher Spinoza wrote books about just law, and I admire this conclusion of his:
Those laws which prohibit one from doing that which does no harm to one's neighbour, are fit only for ridicule.
This has the idea that a crime is something which involves unacceptable harm. It is a humanistic ethic that is here expressed, whereas a theocratic one would prohibit beliefs: for example, a few centuries ago heresy was a crime - one of the worst.

Coming to the question raised by 'Sailor':
the Problem is, that the FRG is obliged, under the terms of its 1949 Constitution, to accept the 'Nazi war crimes' as they had been defined - as were made up out of nothing - at Nuremberg, by the victorious Allies. That isn't justice, its oppression. If it had been a crime to pursue the Endlosung der Judenfrage, the goal- or final-solution of exporting Jews, then twelve other European nations were also guilty of having done that, with Britain having done it under King Edward I. The feeling of antagonism which lead to those expulsions (over a period of about three centuries) was always economically motivated, and was never on religious grounds: that did exist in Nazi Germany, but in addition there was also a perception that the Jews had caused them to lose the First World War. Well, let's not go into all that!

Let's hear an expression of that National-Socialist resolve to expel Jews, for which Germans today feel such deep shame*. This is from the year 1933:
For all its radicalism, our struggle against Jewry has never aimed at the destruction of the Jewish people, but rather at the protection of the German people. We have every reason to wish the Jewish people success in an honourable national development in a land of their own, so long as they lack the will or the opportunity to interfere ever again with Germany's national development. Hostility to Jews for its own sake is stupid and, in the last analysis, barbaric. Our oppositioin to Jews is based upon the desire to rescue our own people from spiritual, economic and political enslavement to Jewry. The basic idea of Zionism, to organise the Jewish people as a nation among nations in a land of their own, is -provided no ambitions of world-domination are involved - healthy and justified
(Dr Johann von Leers, quoted in Staeglich, The Auschwitz Myth, p.29.)

Holding that view was, clearly, no crime.

* In 2002 Germany paid 5 billion euroes to 800,000 'holocaust survivors.'

astro3
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:52 am

Postby astro3 » 1 decade 3 years ago (Fri Mar 23, 2007 1:48 pm)

Holocaust Affirmation

It is time the Allies cease 'denying' a literal holocaust (death or sacrifice by fire) that we perpetrated against about 900,000 Germans, mainly civilian women and children in phosphorous-aided firebombing raids. We deliberately burned them to death, thousands of them roasted alive in airtight bomb shelters ..... We literally roasted living people to death.

That was the Holocaust. (http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4164)

The figure earlier cited of 600,000 or 650,000 is a bare-minimum figure, being the number of definitely-counted Germans incinerated by Allied bombing. The true figure could easily be as high as 900,000 as here cited. Let's quote a bit more from this valuable new thread (contributed by Hannover):
it is time the US admitted how many hundreds of thousands (some say well over a million) of German prisoners we starved to death in open fields, with US guards, as ordered by Eisenhower, on pain of execution, not to provide any food or shelter whatsoever. The detainees ate all the grass available, drank rainwater and died in their hundreds of thousands. We did this. Also, the post-war forced winter march of several million ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe during which over two million starved or froze to death.

I find that most people are unaware of these several-million German deaths (see James Bacque, 1990, Other Losses), and in fact don't believe me if I try to talk about it.

Of the real, German Holocaust, a recent opus translated from the German said, 'It never became an experience capable of public decipherment' (W.G.Sebald, 1999 Luftkrieg und Literatur*) Germans experience numb anaesthesia and can hardly talk about it - which they need to learn to do - whereas the 'Shoah-business' story is the one we all get shoved in our faces. For comparison, around 400,000 Jews died in the German Labour-camps of WWII: but, not one of those deaths were fiery and so it therefore doesn't count as a 'Holocaust.' Roughly, doubling this figure gives us the number of currently-alleged 'holocaust-survivors,' as receiving funds form Germany, 800,000.


* Given the strange English title A Natural History of Destruction, 2003

User avatar
ASMarques
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 3 years ago (Sat Mar 24, 2007 8:26 am)

The "Holocaust" is not the historical equivalent of a shapeless amoeba. The "Holocaust" is a set of events -- historical if true, pseudo-historical if false -- just like the sinking of Atlantis, the donation of Constantine, or the virginity of Mary.

It's not void of form or contents, quite the contrary. The "Holocaust" is (definition follows, please pay attention): "the attempted racial extermination of the Jews by the Germans, largely through the use of homicidal gas chambers and industrial chain methods in selected extermination camps, resulting in approximately 6 million Jewish deaths."

If you believe this, you're a "Holocaust believer". If you don't, you're a "Holocaust denier."

No one is talking "persecution," or "racial laws," or "deportation," or whatever. We are talking (obviously failed) "extermination."

Why complicate simplicity itself? The "denier" label, in my view, is highly accurate and convenient. To deny is to refuse to believe in something you're required to believe in. It's the word religious bigots use to designate someone who does not accept the religious claims imposed by their factual authority.

Am I a "Holocaust denier"? Sure I am: in the precise sense I am, for instance, a "historical Christ denier" and -- to use Butz's well-known parallel -- a "Donation of Constantine denier."

So what? Why reject such a useful and indeed correct word that brings to attention the dogmatic religious character of the "belief requirements" imposed on you?

User avatar
Sailor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 810
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:54 pm
Location: California

Postby Sailor » 1 decade 3 years ago (Sat Mar 24, 2007 8:32 pm)

ASMarques wrote:It's not void of form or contents, quite the contrary. The "Holocaust" is (definition follows, please pay attention): "the attempted racial extermination of the Jews by the Germans, largely through the use of homicidal gas chambers and industrial chain methods in selected extermination camps, resulting in approximately 6 million Jewish deaths."


Wikipedia defines the Holocaust as:

»The Holocaust is the term generally used to describe the killing of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, as part of a program of deliberate extermination planned and executed by the Nazi regime in Germany led by Adolf Hitler.«
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust

If you don't believe in the existence of homicidal gas chambers, you may be a "homicidal gas chamber denier" (which I am), but not necessarily a "Holocaust denier".

fge

User avatar
ASMarques
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 3 years ago (Sat Mar 24, 2007 10:45 pm)

Sailor wrote:Wikipedia defines the Holocaust as: »The Holocaust is the term generally used to describe the killing of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, as part of a program of deliberate extermination planned and executed by the Nazi regime in Germany led by Adolf Hitler.«


Anyone remotely familiar with the "Holocaust" and the "gas chambers testimony" absolutely central to it (remember the all-important role claimed for the "survivors" that bear witness and the frantic efforts to record their "eyewitnessing") knows the gas chambers and other exotic industrial mass murder methods play the central part in the above mentioned "deliberate extermination." Anyway, even by that definition, if you don't believe either in the "approximately 6 million" or in the "deliberate extermination" plans, then you're a "Holocaust" denier. So, where's your problem?

Sailor wrote:If you don't believe in the existence of homicidal gas chambers, you may be a "homicidal gas chamber denier" (which I am), but not necessarily a "Holocaust denier".


Not at all. If, for instance, you believe 6 million Jews were killed as a result of anti-partisan warfare in the Eastern front (an utterly preposterous claim, by the way) that's not the "Holocaust" at all. What defines the "Holocaust" is its claimed uniqueness and thoroughness, not a simple quantitative variation from your latest Vietnam-like body counting. Leave Wikipedia alone and try to read the literature on the subject since 1945. You simply cannot cancel what has gone before and redefine your meaning every time you feel like bringing some new content into the same old emotional package.

I don't understand why people go along and make it so easy for the liars to keep lying. I suppose if Wikipedia one of these days decides to state that not only doesn’t the "Holocaust" involve any gas chambers, but it doesn't even involve any body counts in the range of the millions, then you'll be glad to redefine your views on the subject as well, according to requirement and with no end in view...

Okay. Post me when you reach the conclusion that the "Holocaust" was actually two Jews bludgeoned to death by Hitler in his Munich apartement, and we'll proceed with this little discussion from there. Until then, please spare me the weekly updates and the wiki-type authority. I know what the "Holocaust" is. Anyone who has been alive for the last decades outside the deepest Amazonian jungle does.

Henry
Member
Member
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 1:23 pm

Postby Henry » 1 decade 3 years ago (Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:04 pm)

Since you 'know' what the 'Holocaust' is, would you kindly share with the rest of us exactly what it is? The H-Industry can't seem to keep its story straight.

User avatar
ASMarques
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 3 years ago (Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:51 pm)

Henry wrote:Since you 'know' what the 'Holocaust' is, would you kindly share with the rest of us exactly what it is?


Sure, but I already did that (see above). Here we go again:

"Holocaust" (definition): the attempted racial extermination of the Jews by the Germans, largely through the use of homicidal gas chambers and industrial chain methods in selected extermination camps, resulting in approximately 6 million Jewish deaths.

This, of course, is not a recognition of any truth contents, but simply the description of the alleged historical event we are talking about, regardless of its truth or falsehood.

Henry wrote:The H-Industry can't seem to keep its story straight.


Their problem, not mine, yours, or the historian's. If a burglar gets caught and cannot keep his story straight it's the burglar's problem, not the society's at large.

Let me try to explain why we cannot accept the "Holocaust" as a fact or even a partial fact. We can construe complex sets of events into "single historical facts" and maintain an epistemological validity to our discourse if a clear understanding of our meaning exists. Historical narrative would be a desert of intractable minutiae if we didn't do just that. Thus, the Second World War may be called "a fact", much like any simple empirical truth such as "this message is being posted to the CODOH forum". This is because, in spite of the great complexity of historical events, we establish definitions and understand them: a "war" is a state of belligerence between states, a "world war" is a war of global world significance, and "the Second World War" is the particular world war that took place from 1939 to 1945. Similarly, the "Holocaust" is a relatively precise set of allegedly historical events involving an attempted extermination of the Jews and resulting in approximately 6 million of them being murdered, mainly in the German homicidal gas chambers, during the Second World War. As I said, anyone who has been around for the last half century, living anywhere but in the deepest Amazonian jungle, is familiar with this.

If we are to discuss the truth of the "Holocaust" as a set of alleged historical events, rather than a pseudo-historical vague set of religious-like beliefs the truth of which no one really cares about, we should get hold of its historical contents and avoid constant redefinitions that will make it impossible for us to pin down the meaning of the word. For instance, a biblical holocaust is simply a sacrifice consumed by fire, and "ill-will towards the Jews", "persecution of the Jews", "the shooting of one's Jewish grandfather in Russia" or "some mass killings of Jews" are not "the Holocaust", the one historians are talking about when they capitalise the noun. It is impossible to debate the supposedly historical "Holocaust" if, alone among alleged historical facts, it is allowed to remain an open concept devoid of meaning and form.

In this sense then, we are perfectly entitled to deny the "Holocaust" and claim that the "whole thing is a fiction", since all the above claims are false: no extermination (real or attempted), no 6 million (not even approximately), and no homicidal gas chambers (not even in the supposed "extermination camp" of Auschwitz-Birkenau where by far the largest part of the presumed gassings is supposed to have taken place).

Of course, if we choose to define the "Holocaust" in a different manner, say as a proto-religious teaching based on vague war propaganda, claiming that undefined, formless but terrible, events, many of them miraculous, happened to Jews in such a manner that they are collectively entitled to financial compensation and exemption from the basic standards of civilised behaviour, then the "existence of the Holocaust" might indeed be considered "a fact" -- though the "Holocaust" itself would hardly be any longer an appropriate subject for historical debate. But this is not what is usually meant: while the few authorised "Holocaust historians" that concern themselves with factual history insist in the extreme importance of their subject matter, they do not subcribe to such a definition, and therefore, a rigorous debate of the "Holocaust" as historical fact vs. proto-religious myth, should be in order, precisely for the sake of preserving the evidence and dismounting the legend. This is why we should stick to the definition of the "Holocaust" and avoid going along with the liars and falsifiers by playing their endless redefinition game.

astro3
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:52 am

Postby astro3 » 1 decade 3 years ago (Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:23 pm)

The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘holocaust’ as
1. A sacrifice wholly consumed by fire; a whole burnt offering.
2. A complete sacrifice offering. A sacrifice on a large scale.
3. Complete consumption by fire, or that which is so consumed; complete destruction, especially of a large number of persons; a great slaughter or massacre.
Its fourth meaning is the ‘Holocaust,’ introduced by historians ‘during the1950s, probably as an equivalent to the Hebrew Shoah’.

Central to this ghastly nightmare were ‘the burning pits in which the Jews were consumed’[1] at Auschwitz. We were assured that these pits, dug a couple of metres deep, could burn up to 2,500 dead bodies in a few hours, with ‘white-hot flames’ leaping up [2]. The red hue of these macabre funeral pyres could be seen from far away, added another witness-survivor, Perry Broad.[3] These nightmares were essential, I suggest, for the takeover of meaning of that impressive-sounding word, ‘Holocaust.’ Spielberg’s film Schindler’s List had piles of ‘magically-burning corpses’ as an essential part of the whole phantasm (whereas outdoor cremation actually requires a lot of fuel, but let’s not go into that). It was a tremendous collective hallucination, as if Hell had appeared on Earth - abruptly halted by Fred Leuchter going over there, and noting that the high water table in the area would have prohibited any such outdoor fires.

Is this relevant? Anyone is free to take ASMarques’ view (above): he adopts the Zionist definition of the word, and gets angry with anyone who disagrees. This thread is meant to have quite a legal context, and laws are framed in words. Anyone in Germany accused of Holocaust Denial is free to accept ASMarques’ view – plead guilty, and go to jail. End of story.

By all means, call the view I am here suggesting, traditionalist. For many centuries, this word has had a fairly definite meaning. This word, in its traditional meaning, would have totally and exactly fitted what happened to Germany in WWII. Here I’d like to quote Germar Rudolf:
The genocide against the German people, perhaps the biggest genocide in the history of mankind, is nearly forgotten. [4]
He then explains how other mass killings may have been larger in number, eg that of Mao in China, however they were not planned as ethnic cleansing, as was that by the Allies against Germany. I.e., what was done against the German people fully fits the definition of the Genocide Act (1946) in that it was planned against an ethnic group.

In a court of law, I am merely suggesting that one could affirm categorically that the Holocaust did really and truly happen, in the most profound and full and exact meaning of this important word – and insist on one’s right to give a traditional, centuries-old meaning of that word, one which is non-Zionist. So – not guilty, M’Lord!

I'm really just making a suggestion on how to stay out of jail. So calm down a bit Mr ASMarques. I’m not as keen as you are, on being labelled a ‘denier.’ It is surely a golden rule of politics to define one’s goals in positive, rather than negative, terms.

1. Filip Muller, Eyewitness Auschwitz, Thee Years in the Gas Chambers, Chicago 1979, foreword quote by Terrence Des Pres in The New Republic
2. Ibid, p.130.
3. Nazi Mass Murder: A Documentary History of Use of Poison Gas Ed. E. Cogon et al., YUP, 1993. p. 170.
4. Dissecting the Holocaust, 2003 Ed. Germar Rudolf p.34

User avatar
ASMarques
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 3 years ago (Fri Mar 30, 2007 7:45 pm)

astro3 wrote:Anyone is free to take ASMarques’ view (above): he adopts the Zionist definition of the word, and gets angry with anyone who disagrees.


Neither assertion is true. There is no specific "Zionist" definition and I'm not angry at all (what made you think that?). In fact the eternal problems around the "Holocaust" word end up by amusing me. Instead of recognising the spirit of the anti-revisionist laws for what it is (basically "it's open season and anything goes against revisionists, no matter what they say or what they call themselves"), some revisionists will insist in the letter of the law and proclaim their sincere belief in some sort of cloudy "Holocaust" concept of their own, not to be confused with everybody else's "extermination / gas chambers / 6 million"... only to find themselves thrown in jail all the same...

This thread is meant to have quite a legal context, and laws are framed in words. Anyone in Germany accused of Holocaust Denial is free to accept ASMarques’ view – plead guilty, and go to jail. End of story.


If you think they'll take a close look at what you're saying, once they notice you're not saying what they want you to say "Holocaust"-wise, you're fooling yourself.

In a court of law, I am merely suggesting that one could affirm categorically that the Holocaust did really and truly happen, in the most profound and full and exact meaning of this important word – and insist on one’s right to give a traditional, centuries-old meaning of that word, one which is non-Zionist. So – not guilty, M’Lord!


You mean you imagine yourself denying, say, the gas chambers and proclaiming in court "yes, I am a firm believer in the Holocaust, only it's the literal burning down of the German cities I mean by Holocaust" and then you'd expect the judge to congratulate you and send you home? Is that some sort of Monty Python sketch similar to the "killer joke" one?...

I’m not as keen as you are, on being labelled a ‘denier.’ It is surely a golden rule of politics to define one’s goals in positive, rather than negative, terms.


Depends on the matter at hand. Take for instance witches riding their flying brooms to the sabath in order to copulate with the devil. Would you like to try discussing that in "positive, rather than negative terms", just to make your idea clear to me? Thanks.

astro3
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:52 am

Postby astro3 » 1 decade 3 years ago (Sat Mar 31, 2007 4:43 pm)

(I don't wish to reply to ASMarcus, his tone is too scornful)

For comparison with what Germany attempted, here are the years when the nations of Europe expelled their Jews, starting with Edward I:
1290 England
1306 France
1348 Saxony
1360 Hungary
1370 Belgium
1380 Slovakia
1420 Austria
1440 Netherlands
1492 Spain
1495 Lithuania
1498 Portugal
1540 Italy
1551 Bavaria
Hungary, again - 1582, Slovakia, again 1744. Did the Renaissance happen after this liberation of the European economies? This list, and that argument, comes from Carr's classic, Pawns in the Game. Its a forbidden topic, one feels guilty just thinking about it. But if we want Germany to emerge from its present schizoid condition of burning books and locking up its intellectuals, then I suggest it needs to be discussed, to give a historical continuity to what it earlier tried to do.

'... we shall let loose a spiritual and a material war of the whole world against Germany' (1) wrote the founder of 'Revisionist Zionism' in 1934 - following a speech in 1933 by the president of the World Jewish Economic Federation, Mr Saumel Untermeyer, about 'The holy war in the cause of humanity in which we are embarked.' This was a 'sacred war,' against Germany (2). That was the war which Germany lost. In The Nameless War (p.54) the British Conservative MP Arthur Ramsey wondered if these comments made by various Jewish sources in the 1930s, - only two of which are here quoted - meant that whatever sources had written the Protocols of Zion were indeed able to bring about war - as they claimed in Protocol 7. I suggest that the chapter in Ramsey's book, 1933: Jewry declares war may be of interest here.

We are surely all aware of how AIPAC was a major stimulus in causing Washington to go to war with Iraq (3), and how it is now making every effort to do likewise with a war against Iran. I suggest therefore that we should permit ourselves to think about these things, even though they have long been deeply forbidden. Although, no doubt ASMarques will find more to scoff at in these comments.

1. by Mr Jabotinsky, in Natcha Retch Jasnuary 1934: A Ramsey The Nameless War 1950, p.54.
2. Reported in New York Times 7 Aug 1933: Ramsey, Ibid.
3. If you're not, try reading Mike Ruppert's magnum opus Crossing the Rubicon The decline of the American empire at the end of the Age of Oil, 2004, Ch.15 Israel, p.266 re 'the power of AIPAC.'

User avatar
ASMarques
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 3 years ago (Sat Mar 31, 2007 7:57 pm)

Astro3, I'm sorry I completely miss your point. I certainly agree with you about Jewish warmongering. And I would even add that the "Holocaust" is an extremely powerful weapon in the warmonger's arsenal. Just pay attention to the "Hitler of the week" contest in US foreign policy and the ridiculous sort of warlike slogans like "Ahmadinejad (yup, the biggest "Hitler" since Saddam's demise) wants to exterminate the Jews" and so on...


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests