JOHN SACK: Rest in peace

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
code yellow
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 8:07 am

JOHN SACK: Rest in peace

Postby code yellow » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sun Apr 04, 2004 1:54 am)

:cry: John Sack, the author of the controversial book, An Eye for an Eye(the untold story of Jewish revenge against Germans), has died. You can find info., including a story about his being cancelled from speaking at the US holocaust memorial museum at the Jeff Rense web site.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10000
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sun Apr 04, 2004 2:17 am)

I met & chatted a bit with John Sack, a fine man. He had no problem speaking at Revisionist gatherings and generally mingling with Revisionists; he was a Revisionist in his own way.

Although he 'believed in' the gas chambers (he was less than competent when questioned on the subject), he had no problem with those who chose not to accept the standard storyline. He did not fear or attempt to stifle debate on any historical topic. That tolerance and openess resulted in him being labeled 'a self-hating Jew'.

The judeo-supremacist 'holocau$t' Industry has met the enemy, it is their own hate.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

steve
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2002 3:24 pm
Location: Maryland

Postby steve » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sun Apr 04, 2004 7:40 am)

Hannover,

I usually am in complete agreement with you. However, in this case, I can't disagree more. (So much so that this is my first post in a very long time!)

How can you have any kind words for Sack after that cheap, backstabbing article he wrote in Esquire a few years back? Comparing revisionists to Elvis watchers, for example.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: Unless a jew acknowledges NO gassings, NO 6e6, NO deliberate plan to exterminate jews, then he fails the litmus test. I mean, listen, if the nasty Germans did indeed deliberately kill off millions of jews, simply "because they were jews" (and NOT because of typical parasitic, predatory, jewish behavior), then who could blame the jews for ANY of their rotten behavior today? Who could blame them for their actions described in Sack's book? I wouldn't. However, as anyone with half of a brain who gets into this topic soon realizes, the Big H is indeed a Big Lie. Period. Only sheer stupidity or willful ignorance prevents one from realizing that. I do not believe Sack, Shamir, Finkelstein, etal are stupid. So, they are being willfully blind. In their specific case, they are behaving like typical jews, hiding under the cover of the Big H.

I have not one ounce of sadness for John Sack's passing.

Steve

code yellow
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 8:07 am

Postby code yellow » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sun Apr 04, 2004 11:17 am)

steve wrote:Hannover,

I usually am in complete agreement with you. However, in this case, I can't disagree more. (So much so that this is my first post in a very long time!)

How can you have any kind words for Sack after that cheap, backstabbing article he wrote in Esquire a few years back? Comparing revisionists to Elvis watchers, for example.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: Unless a jew acknowledges NO gassings, NO 6e6, NO deliberate plan to exterminate jews, then he fails the litmus test. I mean, listen, if the nasty Germans did indeed deliberately kill off millions of jews, simply "because they were jews" (and NOT because of typical parasitic, predatory, jewish behavior), then who could blame the jews for ANY of their rotten behavior today? Who could blame them for their actions described in Sack's book? I wouldn't. However, as anyone with half of a brain who gets into this topic soon realizes, the Big H is indeed a Big Lie. Period. Only sheer stupidity or willful ignorance prevents one from realizing that. I do not believe Sack, Shamir, Finkelstein, etal are stupid. So, they are being willfully blind. In their specific case, they are behaving like typical jews, hiding under the cover of the Big H.

I have not one ounce of sadness for John Sack's passing.

Steve
:) What about David Cole?You bring up very good points,although I will not defame a dead man.Jews talk of not defaming the dead,when in actuality through their arrogant lies they are defaming their own dead.He at least went half way,but I would have to agree that on this subject you need to go 110% of the way,or not at all because we are facing an extremely influential foe.That's a good point though.Do you think because they are Jews they wouldn't take the plunge into gas chamber revisionism?David Cole is the only Jew I am aware of that has questioned gas chambers.Wait a minute,I seem to remember some Jews in high places,some not,that made comments that go against the gas chamber story.It sounded if they wanted to ditch out of the game before for the bubble burst.I will get back with the names and quotations of these people.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10000
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sun Apr 04, 2004 12:44 pm)

Steve:

You raise valid points, they are points which have not escaped me.

You should remember that the Esquire article was centered on Charles Provan, probably a deliberate ploy by Esquire to choose a less than rational man who they could cast as a bumbling hillbilly (the last of the racist stereotypes that is still accepted by 'the media'), thereby attempting to paint all Revisionists as such; and yes Sack played along and it infuriated many, myself included (I met Provan too, may he rest in peace also, but he was an absurd individual and most informed Revisionists simply laughed him off). I may be wrong, but I feel Sack was playing a sort of suck-up, make-up game with the judeo-supremacists at that point; much like what Irving has attempted to do on occasion (yes, I've met & chatted with Irving as well, later on that :roll:).

Nonetheless, as I said, I observed Sack firsthand (pre-Esquire article) and he was a gentleman and accepting of Revisionists . It could be he was faking it for his own purposes, I didn't get that impression.

Also, I agree with you, 'revenge' in Sack's book title implies the German guilt of 6,000,000, & gas chambers; which we know is a fraud.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

steve
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2002 3:24 pm
Location: Maryland

Postby steve » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sun Apr 04, 2004 6:50 pm)

Code Yellow,

My impression of David Cole was that I thought he was sincere. He certainly appeared, from his writings, to be quite intelligent, especially for his age. I do believe his 'recantation' was made solely out of fear, to get the terrorist organization, the JDL, off his back. Actually, his 'recantation' was so ridiculous, so unlike the David Cole who wrote about Auschwitz, that I wondered if he was sending a message to indicate it was not to be taken seriously. It is astounding, yet typical, that the jews actually claim, based on that ridiculous 'recantation', that David is no longer a 'denier'.

The only other jews, by name, that I know who disputes the H, are a Mr. Burg, who testified at the Zundel trial, and former chess champion Bobby Fischer. Now I read 3 different books concerning the Zundel trial, and I recall Burg being kind of not too credible. Not a liar, but seemed kind of 'out of it'. My guess is, if he came off as totally sound, he'd have been persecuted big time. Now, Fischer, who not only says the H is a big Lie, but denounces World Jewry, in no uncertain terms, has some kind of arrest warrant out on him, if he returns to the US. At least that is the way I understand it. It certainly would not look good for the H Industry if someone as well known as Fischer calls it a fraud.

As for why there are not more jews taking a stand against the Hoax, I can venture a few guesses. One, the majority of jews, just like the majority of people in general, believe the Lie. For 'higher up' jews, who should know better, some are just outright liars. Others like Shamir, Finkelstein, etc., my guess is, though I am aware of just how inadequate this may sound, is that they are still jews, and hence enjoy having a monopoly on victimhood, fabricated or not. To go into the 'why' further would be too cumbersome in writing.


Hannover,

While I am generally civil to everyone I meet, I would never claim to anyone, jews included, that I 'understand' and am sympathetic to H believers, and then write an article calling them delusional or fraudsters, parasites, etc. (I would certainly do the latter; but never the former.)
I never liked the title of his book, An Eye for an Eye, for the reason you imply. Namely, that Morel and company were extracting (justified, but unfortunate) revenge. It tacitly implies there was a REASON for the revenge, namely, the Big H, which as you said, we know is indeed a fraud.

However, I understand your position. Probably if I had actually met John Sack and chatted with him, etc., I too would feel the way you do. Ah, we goyim are such easy marks, aren't we?

As for Irving, I admit, though I have been into this arena for 6 years, I still do not know what to make of him!

Steve

code yellow
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 8:07 am

Postby code yellow » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sun Apr 04, 2004 8:24 pm)

:) To Steve;In a nutshell,it has become clear to me that Irving's stand is also of a half and half position.Although I admire his work(incidently,I learned from him that he will be releasing a himmler bio in 05,Great!),it is clear that his purpose is to exclude Hitler in any alleged liquidations of Jews,and point the blame else where(Himmler,Heydrich),and that there exists no plan for the extermination of "ALL" Europes Jews.He does give in to the gas van story.

kk
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 451
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 11:24 pm

Postby kk » 1 decade 5 years ago (Mon Apr 05, 2004 12:19 am)

Come on guys,
every one has an ounce of sadness for John Sack's passing away.
He may not have been a true revisionist, but his book, flawed as it may be, has shown to the world a reality that wasn't known.
I think he was a good man.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: realitycheck and 11 guests