[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Israel/Zionism See other Israel/Zionism Articles Title: Thirteen Reasons Why I Am a Holocaust Revisionist Many people want to have a second look, a critical look, at the 7-decade old narrative of the Nazi killing of Jews en masse. Here are thirteen reasons why I want to have a critical look. In my high school in 1964, we were taught the “fact” that the cause of World War I was the 1914 assassination, in Sarajevo, of Austria’s archduke Francis Ferdinand. (Remember that one?) In Hobart in 1996, a young left-hand shooter was easily convicted of having killed many people at Port Arthur by shooting them very accurately with his right hand (Martin Bryant). In Germany, the female lawyer for revisionist Ernst Zundel was imprisoned for trying to defend him against the charge of “Holocaust denial” (Sylvia Stolz—she was physically carried out of the courtroom by guards in 2006). During World War II, before a cure for typhus was found, there were epidemics of typhus. The pesticide Zyklon B was widely in use to kill the fleas that were carrying typhus. In the 1990s, the museum at the Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland officially lowered its claim of the number of persons who died there, from 4 million to 1.5 million. The United States, during Lyndon Johnson’s presidency, denied that the crew of the US ship Liberty had been deliberately killed by Israelis. A man spent 3 months in prison in Australia, in 2009, for continuing to post anti-Semitic material on his Adelaide Institute website after a court told him to remove it (Fredrick Toben). Philip Roth’s 2004 novel The Plot against America shows how the people of the US could wrongly start to persecute Jews for anything, based on a rumor. Professional, paid witnesses at the 1945-1949 Nuremberg trials were relied upon for data about the Holocaust. A French historian was convicted, by a court in France, for his speech at the 2006 Teheran International Conference on the Holocaust (Robert Faurrison). The conference had invited persons with any point of view to state their case. In numerous publications of the 1920s and 1930s it was claimed that 6 million Jews were killed in the first World War. In Boston, the FBI created a hilarious case against a young lad for doing the bombing of the 2013 Marathon (Jahar Tsarnaev). An elderly lady in Germany has to fight for the right to talk about the loss of huge numbers of Christian people from her city of Breslau in the 1940s (Ursula Haverbeck). Where I Came into This Subject Matter Fools’ Paradise As you can see from #1, 2, and 12, I am inclined to historical revisionism of any kind, given that we now know how easy it is for a whole nation to be fooled. Millions of Australians in 1996, including myself, accepted unquestioningly that Martin Bryant was the Port Arthur massacre gunman. Earlier, the whole world had accepted that Lee Harvey Oswald (who once defected to Russia – “a hot clue!”) was the assassin of JFK. And regarding the “Archduke Ferdinand” bit in our textbooks, the basic truth wasn’t revealed until 2014, in a book by Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor entitled Hidden History. That is, it took a full century for people to learn the simple facts about the origin of World War I. (Namely, a coterie of Brits arranged the war.) Evidentiary Matters As you can see from #4, 5, 9, and 11, there are also many tidbits of research showing that the standard depiction of the Holocaust has real problems. Many years ago I came across the figure “6 million Jewish deaths” in a book published around 1928. It gave me pause, but as there was no public discussion going on, and I didn’t know what to make of it, I filed it away as just a curiosity. For strict methodologists, let me acknowledge that even a large number of documents stating incorrectly that 6 million Jews died in WWI do not PROVE that at a later date 6 million “didn’t die.” Likewise, the use of Zyklon B as an ordinary pesticide does not of itself tell us that such a chemical is never used as a murder weapon. All possibilities should be given an airing. Whatever Happened to Free Speech? Still, when citizens and scholars yak about those evidentiary matters and land in jail for so doing, you have to wonder how much of a suppression apparatus is out there. I feel moved by the persons in #3, 7, 10, and 13 — perhaps especially by the French guy, Faurrison, since he does not even have the impetus of feeling wronged as a Kraut, he being a Frog. (Note: “political correctness” disgusts me intellectually.) My Secret Motives That said, I have another more general motivation to go revisionist, and that is to protect my Jewish friends. It looks to me that this crackdown on revisionist historians has a long-term aim of stoking the flames against every Jew! In the list above, the only hint of this is at #8. Philip Roth’s book casually portrays, in fictional form, the way a people can turn against a “created” enemy. In that book, the false enemy consisted of American Jewry – hence all Americans citizens were expected to report on them and denounce them. In my lifetime I have seen two cooked-up enemies presented to us as worthy of our hostility – Communists and Muslims. And we the people humbly obeyed that command to hate “pinko’s and ragheads.” So it’s clear to me that Roth’s (fictional) prophecy could come true. I realize Jews are fond of pointing out that ever since the Middle Ages they have been shunted around. I believe that’s accurate history. Various rulers – usually monarchs in those days – would write a decree to oust all Jews from the country. Or at least keep them in ghettos outside the city walls. Had the Jews (or their leaders) done something to deserve this treatment? Possibly they did, in some instances. In other instances there may have been strategic reasons for such decrees that in no way justified turning folks into refugees. In any case, let’s never fail to register the all-important tactic of the powerful: nominate an internal enemy in order to take accusatory eyes off themselves! So Let Me Speak There – you see I’m not a nutter who has to get wedded to every conspiracy theory on the Internet, and I am not a lurking Jew-hater. I’m just a nice elder- age critic (of anything). In the last few years I have laboriously argued against truth-seekers who believe that “it’s the Jews” who are causing all the bad things in this world. Granted, the Rothschilds – who do happen to be Jewish, but could have been anything else – are major causes of our troubles through their clever weapon: banking. I’ll put money on that. My pet theory – and it can only be a pet theory given all the secrecy – is that there is a well-structured world government, and its players are ruthless to the nth degree. Research into organizations such as the Bilderbergers, the Council on Foreign Relations, or the Tavistock Institute, strikes me as very valuable. Pretty soon we should be able to find out who the top bosses are and their means of keeping their minions in check. (I wish more minions would look for a way out.) Three Lousy Effects Meanwhile, to say “It’s the Jews” has lousy effects. I’ll name three. First and foremost, it shuts down the search. So if perchance the world is run by some other ethnic group (though I, for one, think it isn’t an ethnic group), we will miss our chance to identify it. Here I take aim at Ken O’Keefe who does a really helpful job of lining his ducks up in a Youtube video (the ducks being Hebraic, to a man). I sincerely think O’Keefe does a sincere good job. He tells us what he knows. But he doesn’t bother to say that he may be missing certain things. It all sounds tightly wrapped up and final. Not good. Second, to say “the Jews” are doing all the bad things leave us without a name we can drag into court. Of course if you say the offending Jew is Mr So-and-So – for example Larry Silverstein, the leasor of the WTC on 9-11– well, OK. That’s a name you can file charges against. Or his Australian co-leasor Frank Lowy. Such charges could be filed against those two men without the slightest reference to their Jewishness. But some people seem to think Larry and Frank did 9-11 because of their Jewishness. That creates a logical problem: namely how can we account for the motives of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney? Surely – surely – Rummy and Cheney have blood on their rotten little mitts for the 9-11 deaths. Third, since everyone has been intimidated about “anti-Semitism,” there is a more complicated problem related to pinning the blame. People shy away from naming any 9-11 player with a Jewish name! THEN they think “Oh well, we’re blocked from handcuffing anybody, so let’s just swallow the idea that 9-11 bygones are bygones.” Eeks! Justice Alvin Hellerstein, in charge of all 9-11 cases Alvin Hellerstrin, US District Court judge for the Southern District of New York, has singlehandedly shut down all litigation that might up-end the theory of the 19 Muslim hijackers. Do you think Hellerstein does this because he is Jewish? Maybe he himself thinks he does it for Jews’ sake but I don’t think that is really why he does it! Note: I think many Jewish Americans think “the Jews” did 9-11. That is really bad for them; they are probably waiting for a Philip Roth-type pogrom to start. I wish they’d come out and say “Hey, brethren, we’ve got oodles of moral principle and can knock off this nonsense right now.” Or better ye come out and say “I know I’m not guilty and I am mad keen to find out who is.” Here is a way we can get past this loggerheads situation. I recommend we indict 6 people immediately for 9-11. Just for the hell of it let’s seek 6 indictments with one of the indictees being a Jew, one a Muslim, and 4 Christians. That won’t be too uncomfortable will it? USS Liberty, Anyone? Finally, to #6 on my list of 13 reasons why I am a Holocaust revisionist (actually, a revisionist wannabe). Namely, President Johnson stayed mum – or actually lied – when the Israeli military tried to sink a US ship. That occurred on June 8, 1967 during the Six-day war. Thirty-four US crew members died. We have somehow been prevented all these years from taking any action against the killers, or even from having officials of the US government admit what really transpired. Would that have been the case if the nation attacking the ship had been China, France, or New Zealand? No. It wouldn’t. So what’s the difference? Follow my logic. I myself have trouble blaming Israel for various things, as the taboo is so strong. But is it reasonable for the US to let an attacker of an American ship go scot-free because we’re tongue-tied by the “don’t be an anti-Semite” rule? Now get a load of this. I happen to think it was someone other than “the state of Israel” that ordered that attack on the USS Liberty. So – follow the further logic here — a genuine villain can do terrible things while hiding behind the coattails of Israel or “the Jews.” Eeks! Recommendations I recommend that we look into the sinking of the Liberty with the question “Who did it, and why?” As stated, I recommend we indict a few folks for 9-11. I recommend we look into the Holocaust-denial literature with the question “Who has slammed the researchers down and why?” The answers could be very surprising. Or they may not be surprising. But who’s to know until we investigate? Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Horse (#0)
Good job. I'm about the same age as the author and have also come to question just about everything. With good reason, as he points out here.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||