Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Revisionists wondering how to reach a wider audience could learn a lot from this guy. Needless to say, we don't all have the necessary talents (or resources, or even time) to do the kind of work he's done, but the intelligence and satirical edge he's brought to the subject are an inspiration. No, it's not "revisionism" per se, but in a way it's something even better: it's entertainment that simply takes revisionism for granted. A perfect way to get people to laugh themselves out of their media-induced stupor and think about the issues critically for once.
There's at least one more of these I want to do (I've started working on it already). In the meantime, as always, I'd welcome any feedback on problems people might spot in these. The translations aren't exactly literal all the time--there were places where it seemed a better joke was to be had by fooling around a little. I'm sure you'll be able to spot them
Thanks to Kingfisher and especially hermod for help getting the subtitles this far.
-- D. Eckart Der Bolschewismus von Moses bis Lenin, "Er"
I liked the "Blondi" video.
"But, Blondi would be 85 years old now"
"That's alright.....Demjanjuk was 91 and we snagged him"
Also on the subject of Hololaughs and evil Nazi German Shepherds, we have this from Bradley Smith:
Nazi Smiled as Dog Ate Jew
I first came to Irv Rubin’s attention through a story I wrote for Prima Facie title “Nazi ‘Smiled’ as Dog Ate Jew.” The title was taken verbatim from a headline that appeared over a story in the Torrance Daily Breeze (17 October 84), Torrance being the Los Angeles suburb that had hosted the arson-destruction of the Institute. I thought the Breeze headline was disgusting on the face of it, and after I read the story I thought that it was loathsome as well. I saw the headline and the story together as exemplifying, in our own neighborhood so to say, the ignorance, bad faith, and sadomasochistic imagery American editors and publishers encourage in their reporting of survivor tales.
Following is the complete story printed by the Breeze, which noted that it was a “news service report” originating in Hamburg, West Germany. That is, by the time I saw it, the story had been reprinted all over the Western world.
Accused Nazi Gestapo officer Harri Schulz looked on smiling as his German shepherd dog killed an elderly Jewish man in a Polish marketplace in the summer of 1942, an American woman told a Hamburg court Tuesday.
Rita Ledor, a Polish-born Jew now living in San Antonio, Texas, said the old man had been dragged to the marketplace when he was found hiding from German officials in the Jewish ghetto of Zawierce in Nazi-occupied Poland.
“The old man lay screaming on the ground. Next to him Harri Schulz stood and watched as his German shepherd dog ate him alive,” Ledor said.
Schultz, 70, is accused of murdering seven people in the Zawierce ghetto and helping deport 5,000 to the Auschwitz death camp in 1942-43.
He has denied the charges and said he worked only for the Nazi border police in occupied Poland.-
Granted, this was a small story published in an insignificant suburban daily, but I felt disgusted by the way the Breeze had handled it. Breeze editors had had access to the work of the Institute(IHR) for seven years by then. The offices of the two publishing companies were within spitting distance of each other, yet the Breeze was unable to handle this small story about Jews and a German with even a modicum of professionalism or decency. It was as if the Breeze editor responsible for printing the story with such mock objectivity had been so dehumanized by 40 years of Holocaust hate propaganda that in his mind’s eye he was unable to see the scene his story depicted. I decided to take a look at it in print.
For example, didn’t that editor want to consider what size that bloody Nazi dog was and what size the old Jew was? Wouldn’t that information have some bearing on the credibility of the accusation made by the old survivor from San Antonio?
Let’s say the dog was an 80-pounder — hell, let’s say it was a 100-pounder! Now, let’s say the elderly Jew was small and frail, maybe only a 100-pounder himself. Is that fair? Is it reasonable? With respect to the elderly Jew and the Nazi dog then, the first question we want to ask ourselves is this one: How much of the one could the other really eat?
There aren’t a lot of hard facts to go on. There oftentimes are not when Jewish survivors make accusations against Germans. so I had to go with what there was, just like the Breeze editor did.
Through the force of my imagination I put myself in the place of that great bloody Nazi dog. It took a little concentration, but I was treating with an accusation of murder most foul, a scene flushed with the imagery of sadomasochistic brutality, and a claim of innocence by the accused party. I figured it was worth my time.
My technique was to begin by identifying with what I share in common with a German shepherd Nazi dog. I am a carnivorous being, for example, just as German shepherd dogs are, regardless of their political affiliations.
A great-grandfather, or a great-great-grandfather, carried the name of von Shmeeter so I am at least part German, again like the bloody dog in the Breeze story. At the National Writer’s Union Conference a few months earlier in New York I had been labeled an “animal” (Nazi swine) for expressing disbelief in the gas chamber stories, which is what every other bloody dog is labeled. Oh, we had plenty in common, that dog and me. All that was left to do then was to thrust myself imaginatively into the form of a bloody ferocious Hitlerian hound ready to obey every whim, no matter how disgusting, of my German Nazi master, Harri Schulz.
It wasn’t long, in my mind’s eye, before I was able to see an image of myself there at my master’s side, salivating at the sight of the elderly Jew. I could hear Harri’s guttural German voice ordering me to eat the old man “alive.” I leaped at it like any bloody Nazi dog would. The first 10 or 15 pounds slid down real smooth. I paused to gulp a little air but my Nazi master ordered me to get on with it. I gobbled down another five pounds or so, but the bloom was definitely off the rose. I gazed up at Harri, pleading for a little common sense, but instead I saw a fury gathering in his bloody German face. So, calling up a final tremendous surge of demonic Nazi dog power from deep within my dog heart, I tossed down four or five more pounds of my victim, but that finished it for me. Twenty-five pounds of the old fellow down the chute, my master Harry Schulz petting my neck, urging me on — those Nazis never did know when enough was enough — but I was ready to chuck up the whole bloody mess. I was ready to tell Harry to shove it along. Don’t get me wrong, I would have obeyed his command if only I could have — you know how we German bloody dogs are — but I was at my Nazi dog limit. I’d rather have gone straight to Nazi dog-hell than contemplate eating 55 more pounds of that old man. Let Harry eat it himself, the Nazi….! That’s how I felt about it.
The original story published by the Breeze used 126 words to compromise the German Schulz and ends with 18 words that could prove compromising to the Jewish survivor, Rita Ledor: “He (Schulz) has denied the charges and said he worked only for the Nazi border police in occupied Poland.” In my article for Prima Facie I asked if anyone had ever read in any newspaper a similar story where the Nazi proved to be an honest man and the Jewish survivor a liar. I hadn’t then, and I haven’t now.
One of those who I impressed most with my Nazi-Smiled-As-Dog-Ate-Jew story was the Jewish Defense League’s Irv Rubin. He rang me up at the office and said he would like to get to know me. There was and edge to his voice — more than an edge. He wanted to get together with me immediately, any place I chose. I demurred. He suggested I take him home and introduce him to my family. I demurred. He began telling me about his own dog, some great, humongous hound from Brazil that weighs in at 150 pounds and is trained to eat Nazis just as Harry Schulz’s dog had been trained to eat Jews.
I said from the sound of it, it was one hell of a dog.
“I guarantee you, Bradley — may I call you Bradley?”
“Sure, Irv,” I said.
“I guarantee you that my dog could eat a Nazi like you without much difficulty. You’re a big man from what I hear, Bradley, so he might not be able to finish you off in one sitting, but he could do the job in two at the outside. Would you like to meet my dog, Bradley? I’d like to introduce you to him. I really would. I think it would be good for your education. It would cure you of some of the snideness that gets into your writing.”
“I’d do almost anything to improve my writing,” I said. “But I’m going to take a raincheck on meeting you and your dog. Maybe when we get to know each other better.”
“Bradley, what are you afraid of? Do you think if we meet in public that I’d do something to you that would get me arrested? Be serious, Bradley. You’re a grown man, you’re old enough to be my father. I’d like to meet you, Bradley. Wouldn’t you like to meet me?”
“You didn’t like my Nazi-Smiled-As-Dog-Ate-Jew story, did you?”
“I’ll never forget it.”
“Do you want to talk about why I wrote it, what it was really about?”
“I know why you wrote it, Bradley. You’re a Jew-hating Nazi, you publish a Nazi rag, and you associate with those Nazi scum out in Torrance. I know why you wrote it.”
“Your perspective is flawed, Irv.”
“What I want to talk about, Bradley, is why you have no balls. You’re the one who’s flawed. Do you know what balls are? You won’t meet me right now because you don’t have them, Bradley. You insult my people, you insult the dead, you bring immeasurable grief to survivors of the Holocaust, but you’re a ball-less wonder.”
“Why don’t we talk about why I wrote the article? You might learn something.”
“It’s not worth the time I would have to spend on the phone. Nazi scum like you aren’t worth the ten cents it takes to call you. If you ever locate your balls, Bradley, call me up and we’ll get together.”
So ended out first conversation. A week or so later Rubin rang me up again and we had a more wide-ranging talk. It appeared that he was willing to talk if the conversation went where he steered it, if he was allowed to dominate it, and if I would not rise to his insults. He told me the story of his man-eating Brazilian hound again. After about 45 minutes he said: “I don’t know why we’re still talking. This is the longest I’ve ever talked to a Nazi scum bag.”
“Maybe we have something to talk about, Irv,” I said.
“I don’t have anything to talk about with Nazi scum,” he said. “If you ever locate your balls, maybe we can get together someday.”
One afternoon when Rubin rang me up I asked him if he’d seen the press report from Hamburg, West Germany, that Harry Schulz had been acquitted of the charges of having smiled as his dog ate a Jew.
The court ruled after a 15-month trial that the prosecutors had failed to prove beyond doubt that the defendant, Harri Schulz, 70, had shot three Jews and taken part in the killing of four others in Poland 1942 and 1943.
“I saw that report,” Rubin said.
“Do you think it’s possible that the old Jewish lady who testified that she had watched Harry Schulz smile while his dog ate a Jew was a little inventive in her testimony against Mr. Schulz?”
Rubin said: “The trouble with prosecuting these Nazi scum is that 40 years have passed. It’s not easy to get a strong case together.”
“Isn’t it possible though that the old Jewish lady gave false testimony, and that in this case the German told the truth?”
“I haven’t the slightest doubt that the Nazi scum is guilty. It happened too long ago and it can’t be proved. But I have no doubt, in my heart, that he’s guilty.”
- Valuable asset
- Posts: 2363
- Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
- Location: Northern California
2:21, second video, a topless woman with a chainsaw cutting down a cross. Is that really appropriate here? Plus, what a dishonest strawman against Catholic liberalism (I'm not Catholic.) The dishonesty is an example of what not to do as a revisionist artist. Revisionist art should stick out as truthful in contrast to mainstream media lies.
A dishonest strawman portrayal of gays too.
Carto's Cutlass Supreme wrote:I was disturbed by the pornographic baby stuff in the second video. I don't think stuff like this should be posted here. And the poster should let viewers know of content like this in the comments, so the viewer knows before watching the video.
Bernamej made that video when France was being agitated by the prospect of gay marriage and adoption of babies/children by gay couples. Bernamej patently disapproved that and his cartoon was of course intended to illustrate his belief that gay couples can't be good parents. No pornographic baby stuff, but anti-gay adoption caricature.
2:21, second video, a topless woman with a chainsaw cutting down a cross. Is that really appropriate here?
Not even a caricature. Girls of the feminist organization "Femen" really did that.
http://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/l ... -f0d18.jpg (Femen girl cutting down Christian crosses in Kiev, Ukraine, in 2012)
But I got to admit, the maker got some talent. I wonder if he uses a technique/ technology with the drawings (to manage, edit and animate them easily)? That may be software we should get as well.
Btw. What's the name of the theme music in the earlier part of the second video? It doesn't start straight at the beginning, but before the middle.
Carto's Cutlass Supreme wrote:I don't think stuff like this should be posted here.
You mean it should be like, um, censored?
I myself noted in my first post that Bernamej's stuff isn't technically "revisionism" per se, so I suppose you might have a point. But revisionists live in the larger world of politics too. And as hermod notes, the film was in part made in reaction to the "Marriage for All" movement that was agitating France at the time, and which resulted in the imposition of "marriage equality" legislation against the will of a substantial portion (depending on who you ask, the majority) of the French electorate. Is the imposition of mandatory "Holocaust remembrance" (including the repression of revisionism) part of the Cultural Marxist ascendancy that led to that happening? Well . . . I'm sure one could try to make the case that it isn't, but the fact of the matter is that a great many people think it is. Should they not have a voice in the Holocaust debate?
Satire pushes people's buttons, and it's bound to offend sometimes. Clearly you were offended by parts of "Christ and Punishment." I notice, however, that you make no mention of the second half of the video, in which traditional Catholicism is explicitly equated with "Nazism" (of the bad, non-revisionist kind, lol), and ultimate responsibility for "the Holocaust" is laid at the feet of the Church, an institution which is loved and revered by literally hundreds of millions of people around the world. Is that message not offensive? Why, of course it is. But it's also an equation that many on the left are only too happy to make when Catholics and other conservatives object to some development in public life which offends their sense of decency and morality . . . like, say, gay marriage.
Should Catholics be up in arms by the depiction of Bishops and Cardinals giving orders to heel-clicking Nazis to implement the "Final Solution"? Or should they laugh it off as a satirical reflection of the most lurid imaginings of their ideological enemies? You know, sort of the way the "suckling" scene earlier in the video does the same thing for the other side?
Revisionism in the narrow sense of the word has nothing to say about the uses and abuses of "Holocaust remembrance" in the larger political sphere but that doesn't mean that revisionists shouldn't.
-- D. Eckart Der Bolschewismus von Moses bis Lenin, "Er"
People are bound to disagree about such matters, and on the whole I think that's a good thing. It's the suppression of opposing views that's the problem. Perhaps you feel that the depiction of gays in "Christ and Punishment" is unkind, and that such images prejudice their chances to get a fair hearing in the public sphere. (There are subtle ways to shout someone down, after all.) But then, many on the other side of such questions feel that the big club of "the Holocaust" has been used to bully them into silence, and all too often. Are people who disagree with the idea of gay marriage and gay adoption "Nazis"? I'm not suggesting that you would say so, but let's be honest: the equation is made all the time in debates on such issues. So the video has a valid point to make, and frankly, I think it makes it very well indeed.
-- D. Eckart Der Bolschewismus von Moses bis Lenin, "Er"
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 6 guests