By Frank Scott
During an exceptionally rude introduction of President Ahmadinejad of Iran, a university president announced that the holocaust was the most documented event in history. While this overstatement was in keeping with most of his remarks, it provokes a question: exactly what do we mean when we say “the holocaust”?
When someone is called a “holocaust denier,” what is being denied? Confusion over those words is being used to cloud minds and threaten another war in the Middle East, once again for reasons that cannot be substantiated in the material world but are simply political excuses to commit mass murder.
Those who express doubt about some key aspects of the story of Nazi persecution of Jews in Europe during the Second World War are often imprisoned or face threats to their very lives.
We witnessed the spectacle of a head of state invited to speak at an American university and introduced with the most scurrilous language imaginable, all provoked by that leader’s alleged “denial” of the holocaust, along with his supposed existential threat to the Jewish state of Israel. And when speaking of one, the other must be addressed, since there is no rationale for the Jewish state of Israel without “the holocaust.”
There is no question about the dreadful treatment of European Jews by the Nazis, their racist persecution, their deportation from homelands to concentration and labor camps where tens of thousands died under the most deplorable conditions. Nor is there any question that many suffered massacres outside of camps, whether conducted by Germans or others acting under their rule. These things, as the crude academic claimed, are well documented. And there is little doubt about them, except for honest questions about the actual death toll.
But critics wonder about the centrally organized and secret plan to annihilate all the Jews of Europe, and the use of mass extermination gas chambers to murder hundreds of thousands, or even millions of people.
No such devices were ever found, and verification of their existence depends entirely on stories told by traumatized survivors, confessions made under severe stress if not outright torture, and photographs of empty buildings or reconstructed ruins said to have once been used as gas chambers.
Consider whether we would uncritically accept the reality of America’s ugly racist history of lynching, with no more evidence than hearing stories of the horror told by miraculous survivors, and seeing photos of trees alleged to have once had bodies hanging from them.
Any critical person can wonder, but millions of us have been so shocked at films of the terrible conditions of the liberated camps, and especially the piles of emaciated dead bodies, that little thought is given to asking how those terrible scenes of suffering and death could have had anything to do with gas chambers, let alone crematoria. And if a plan was afoot to secretly murder millions and cremate their bodies to remove evidence, why and how could so many have been left plainly exposed to public view?
The near total physical breakdown of Germany near the war’s end never seems to enter consciousness as a possible reason for some of the drastic scenes revealed at those camps. While many German cities were devastated by bombing, with their citizens reduced to homeless refugees often near starvation, should we imagine that under such conditions prison camps, which were dreadful places to begin with, would somehow be able to furnish adequate food, shelter and medical care to all inmates?
When President Ahmadinejad referred to myth surrounding the story, he was not denying that Jews suffered, anymore than holocaust revisionists -- who are slurred as “deniers” -- make such a charge. But they, and he, and thousands the world over who have read critical works that barely see the light of day in the West, join in questioning vital aspects of that story. Bigots who smear them with nasty labels are playing with words, and in lethal fashion.
Anyone who would deny the racial madness of the Nazi ethnic cleansing of European Jews might be an idiot, or simply consumed by hate. But those who deny the right to question the existence of gas chambers or other details of the story, and vilify those who dare to do so are either ignorant, or more likely, driven by a more dangerous hate.
Anything forbidden to be questioned must be held suspect by thinking people, and the more that criticism is suppressed, the more dangerous the possibilities for the world, and not just the suppressors.
Ahmadinejad repeatedly says that whatever crime Europeans committed against Jews is no reason for the terrible persecution and suffering inflicted upon the Palestinians, who were guilty of nothing. Most of the world agrees with him, as do many in the West, though hardly anyone in American politics will risk stating that obvious fact.
The power exerted by the Israel lobby is such that even when a former president, or establishment scholars site the moral injustice and the threat to our nation posed by one-sided policies in the Middle East, they are slandered as anti-Semites, the way that revisionists are smeared as deniers.
While thousands of Jews in Iran are apparently living without fear, thousands of Jews in America have been led to believe that Ahmadinejad threatens them with another holocaust.
That is not just irrational, but dangerous for all humanity. This situation is being used to help provoke a further bloody war in the Middle East, but reason must prevail over fanatical beliefs and psychotic fears or all of us will suffer.
The war over these words and their clear meaning must not be allowed to perpetuate more injustice, and worse, threaten a global disaster.
Copyright © 2007 Frank Scott.
All rights reserved.
This text may be used and shared in accordance with the fair-use provisions of U.S. copyright law, and it may be archived and redistributed in electronic form, provided that the author is notified and no fee is charged for access. Archiving, redistribution, or republication of this text on other terms, in any medium, requires the consent of the author.
Submitted by erlenda on Sun, 2007-10-21 11:51
- erlenda's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 120 reads
-
thank you very much.
The Nazis, including Hitler, discredited themselves.
They wrote down their belief systems.
They were racists, who see humanity in categories of higher and lower types. They were followers of Nietzsche and no different from todays power-elite in their way of thinking.
They wrote about non-worthy life and they did indeed kill the innocents.
They killed handicapped people. There are records about it.
They hated Christianity, because they considered it weak and persecuted Christians.
There is enough in Nazi papers about that.
They wrote about ethnic cleansing in their own books, making "Lebensraum" for the Germanic over-men race.
The Nazis were the mirror-image of the Zionists. They had a very similar philosophic foundation.
And because they indeed had laid the groundwork by their own propaganda and behavior that´s why the people around the world would believe the Holocaust story, and most still do. People would not put anything beyond those characters, even a genocide, because of the Nazis´own word and their behavior.
what are the Nazis to you?
Why do you defend Hitler?
You are far too well-informed to defend him just because he opposed Jews.
You would know, that he actually collaborated with the Zionists.
The Nazis became benefactors for Zionism. It was not until later, that they made a deal with the Mufti of Jerusalem.
The Zionist flag was the only one next to the Swastika allowed in Germany.
You should know that.
So tell me, what is Hitler to you?
Frank Scott is not right-wing, neither is the Online Journal.
The reason why the revisionists have so much trouble to be heard is, that they are framed as ultra-right wing racists, who lie because they hate Jews and love Hitler.
I know that some revisionist do not fit that profile. I believe, for instance Professor Faurisson, when he says that he is non-political and just interested in the truth.
The first revisionist was a French socialist who had been an inmate in Dachau, and the author Garaudy was also an ex-socialist who converted to Islam.
But most supporters are there to defend the Nazis.
And of course this makes sense, since one needs a strong motivation to be able to withstand the pressure of the Zionists, who denounce everyone supporting Holocaust revisionism as being sub-human.
This is until now.
It is changing, the Holocaust narrative will soon loose it´s taboo, when people of all political sides, who want peace and no more war, will start to scratch at the surface.
Of course, there will be every attempt made to paint them with the same brush as the Hitler-loving Nazi-defenders.
But if there are enough non-Nazis this will not work any more.
It does not matter how many Zionists pretending to be Neo-Nazis, will try to muddy the waters.
Hitler wanted Jews and Bolsheviks to be out of power, and preferably out of Europe. The first alternative was to move Jews to the French colony of Madagascar, but the Nazis did not have enough ships or money to do this. When they approached the World Zionist Congress in Zurich for donations, they were refused.
The next alternative was to move Jews to the USA, but the World Zionist Congress against refused. So did Samuel Bronfman, the zionist leader in the USA / Canada. The next alternative was Palestine, but Arabs in Iraq agreed to let the Nazis have oil if the Nazis did not move Jews to Palestine.
Therefore the Jews were put into labor camps. The plan was to keep them there until after the war, and then move them to a new Jewish homeland to be established somewhere in Russia. You may twist this and call it “collaboration” if it makes you happy.
Hitler was also obliged to cooperate at first with Jewish banking interests and with Wall Street until Germany became fully functional and self-sufficient. Again you may twist this into “collaboration:” if you choose.
As far as the Zionist flag being the only flag next to the Swastika allowed in Germany, this was a limited and temporary phenomenon. Did zionist flags hang beside Nazi banners at the Nuremberg rallies (1923-38)? Did they hang beside Nazi flags on government buildings? Or were zionist flags limited to places with Jews that cooperated with the Nazis? By 1933 the Nazi Party was the only legal party in Germany. How is that “collaboration”?
Indeed, who “collaborated” with who?
Textbooks are full of lies and half-truths. For example, they say the Nazis forced Jews to wear yellow stars, but zionists chose to wear yellow stars. It was their idea. After the Jews declared a global boycott against Germany (1933), Germany declared a boycott against Jewish goods and Jewish stores. On 1 April 1933, some Nazis (responding to the world boyvott) painted yellow stars on shops owned by Jews. Four days later, German Zionist leader Robert Weltsch published an article titled "Tragt ihn mit Stolz, den gelben Fleck" ("Wear the Yellow Badge with Pride"). Thus, Jews started to wear yellow stars long before the Nazis thought of it, and they wore stars voluntarily for five years until Kristallnacht (1938). At a meeting on November 12, 1938, Reinhard Heydrich made the first suggestion about a mandatory badge, but the Nazis did not become fully serious about it until the Allies declared war on Germany in September 1939. After that, the Nazis required Polish Jews to wear stars, since Polish Jews had helped massacre of thousands of Germans in the Danzig corridor. Then all Jews were required to wear stars.
Of course the textbooks never discuss these kinds of things.
You automatically assume I “defend” Hitler, when I merely challenge people to question their school textbooks. People have learned to challenge everything else, so why not challenge what the textbooks claim about Nazi Germany? Or is that a taboo subject, like the holo-hoax?
Some Germans feel that only they are qualified to comment on Nazi Germany. This is arrogant nonsense. Americans are qualified to comment on a country they went to war with.
That is all I have to say on the matter.
I might have a different perspective though. Nazism is dead. Any discussion pro- or anti-Nazism is academic, hobby, and void of substantiation on the ground. I am not against such discussions, but I would never get too serious about it. I have same attitude towards life in other galaxies (not that it is a dead idea, but that it is academic, so far).
What I think has been successfully used by mongurk (mongoloid turks) forces on us is the exhaustive use of the concept of "plausibility", instead of "facts". If you look at pretty much all of their brain products (anti-Semitism, holocaust, feminism, homosexuality, communism, global warming, neonazism, ...) they all share one thing: plausibility. What all of these concepts also lack is verifiable scientific data by nonpartisan scientists. The lack of verifiable data has been masterfully compensated by "emotional special effects". If you visit Auschwitz, you will find yourself utterly shaken up by the lack of any substantive evidence, and repulsively uncomfortable by seeing so much cheap aggressive assaults on your emotions (shoes, hair, nail scratches on the wall, pictures and lighting, music, ...).
To me, Hitler doesn't have to be a good leader or a bad one, in order to investigate if he has done some thing "they" say he has, or not. We can say the same thing about Saddam Hussein. We have to set aside our judgment when we are looking for evidence of a crime. Remember, Hitler and Saddam having done horrible things, bring "plausibility" that they can do much more horrendous things too. But have they?, is the question.
Also, in the article the author seems to expect us to assume that Judaics receiving harsh treatments were innocent (without saying it of course). But were they?
What they did to Germany was very similar to what they have done to America today. The reason that Germany was a magnet for them was the German's open mindedness and generosity, the same exact reason so many of them are here today.
Just a few percent of the population, they run more than 30% of porno industry, more than 90% of abortion clinics, gambling, media, kosher tax, ...
I am more than sure if one day table is turned against them (those who run these industries-who don't have to be Zionist btw) will be put on trains to ports and from there off to Australia (where they have bought islands for that rainy day-or today's equivalent of Palestine).
My point here is that they better not expect double whoppers with French fries and ice coke for lunch. And we don't need a Hitler to do that either. What would we feel if some body writes an article 50 yrs from now that 'racist Americans abused the judaics on the way sending them out to Australia'?
But I disagree.
The past is not academic. And it does very much matter, if the theft of land from the Palestinian people is being justified by the misrepresentation of the past.
And Kats I´m not interested in your Mongolic, Turk, Finn and Kazar teachings, you have elaborated enough on them many times before.
There is nothing new to it.
This kind of racism might scare a lot of people away from listening to the truth.
Racism doesn´t care, if somebody has done anything wrong to somebody else. Just being a member of a certain "race" makes him your enemy, subject to your "revenge", if you had anything to say about it.
But you see, not even all the efforts of the racists to scare the heck out of people works any more.
I have never met this kind of racism in real life, never, except in Palestine. I have seen it from Zionist Jews, both secular and religious.
Palestinians are normally not racist, they make differences between those Jews who oppress them and those who don´t.
The Nazis had this kind of racist teachings and so have the Zionists.
And as you pointed out Kat, the Nazis are dead.
Your creative "photo-shop art" with "this man, about whom I should no believe what is told about him" tells me a lot.
Remember, a picture says more than a thousand words.
But the beauty of the picture is always, plausible deniability.
And that seems a bit strange to me. You see, the people who actually defend Hitler and the Nazis, because they believe they weren´t so bad after all, normally don´t deny that they defend them.
To put a picture like this under an article questioning the Holocaust, is like saying: "Nazi"!
So why did you do it?
As for your history lesson: I read Lenni Brenner, I know about all the documents which proof collaboration between the
Zionists and the Nazis.
But for all collaboration there always both sides which collaborate with each other.
I also read enough of revisionist material to know, about the resettlement plans of the Nazis.
That doesn´t make it right either. If the Nazis had not tried to ethnically cleanse Jews from Europe, very few European Jews would have ended up in Palestine, the Zionist project would have had no chance for lack of Jewish foot-soldiers, and the Palestinians would still have their land.
Unlike you, I have not found any thing in your writings particularly distasteful to me. So don't take this as an off hand retort. I just wish you addressed some of the facts I hilited, instead of holding your nose and walking out.
Racism, just like communism, nazism, antisemitism, global warming, ... is a human produced "hypothesis" (for abuse) which has disastrously failed to prove it is reflecting a "fact on the ground".
Unfortunately, there are still people who haven't got themselves unhooked of it yet. The bitter fact is though that they exist in both so called "racist" and "anti-racist" camps. What is common in both of them is their seriously compromised faculty to deal with the facts on the ground. Of course they are not moral equivalents, but both victims of the same hoax and hurting the situation by their self righteous attitudes.
First of all, there is no racist or non-racist camp.
There is nowadays a vast majority consent all over the world, that the behavior of human beings is not predetermined by genetic factors, but far more influenced by environmental factors.
There are a few isolated traits, which can be attributed to genetic factors, something like a potential to be irritated faster than other people or be calmer and slower to react than others.
There might also be a connection with intellectual abilities, like an ability to do mathematics or music.
But even there are problems, since there is indeed a physical factor in one half of the human population which makes them less capable of doing math than the other,namely in us women.
Our brain seems to be wired different from men. And still there are lots of women running around who do math a whole lot better than most men.
It seems that our brain hardware seems very susceptible to our own soft-ware over-write. With other words, if we want to, we can train our brain to do math pretty good.
As for the behavioral factors: You cannot even connect a certain behavior within a family to some genetic factors, let alone to a whole ethnic group.
And besides this general agreement, there are small groups of people, who are xenophobic for cultural and historic reasons, which I will elaborate on in another place.
And there are a small bunch of scientists, clinging to a 19.century theory, who want to prove their own superiority by doing twin studies and political motivated "administrators" who demand all students and college applicants in America check forms where they are asked to what "race" they belong.
And even with these twin studies they could not prove more than that some physical or mental illnesses have probably a genetic factor.
Now lets see: Not even identical twins are really proven identical in the traits which can be easily pin-pointed.
And even if they have similar or identical traits you can´t be sure if they might not have been influenced by prenatal or postnatal environmental factors.
With fraternal twins and siblings their is even less coalescence, although they share half of their genes.
And you, Kat, want to pin-point the assumed political motivation of a giant ethnic group of people from the Ashkenazim Jews to the Turks, the citizens of Mongolia and some parts of China and the Finnish people to a genetic trait which they all supposedly share?
That´s crap science, as far as I can see.
It´s a simplification for people who want it simple, so they can justify their own normally unjustifiable behavior.
Like suggesting ethnically cleansing a minority without even giving them "Big Macs".
Our brain is so flexible, that sometimes even in a physical accident causing brain damage, areas of thinking, moving and acting and reacting can be recovered or relocated by training.
We are not even predetermined by our brain structure.
We are not predetermined, period.
Our social and political behavior is influenced by our culture, the amount of information we can access and our economic circumstances.
And even those factors do not predetermine our behavior. There is still the matter of choice. All factors combined will give us the frame-work in which we still can make choices.
And people who live under the same conditions often make different choices.
I wish you read my short note. The synopsis of your long winded treatise is in the second paragraph. It's always good to know what is it that you are responding to.
Ethnic names are anthropological nomenclatures, not "racial" designations. They were created and used to make anthropological studies easier in the beginning. Then politicians started abusing them for their own advantage. That's how the concept of racism started. and then some 'court-scientists' chipped in to make it sound legitimate. It's only about 350 years old practice. So racism does not exist on its own, only racists and anti-racists debate about it. It's as comical as UFO believers and nonbelievers passionately debate without noticing or caring if the UFO themselves exist or not.
When we say Italian mafia, Japanese Orgami, Chinese Marjan (a game like chess), Indian dance, etc. it's because it would be awfully inaccurate to say roman catholic mafia, shintoist origami, confucius marjan, or Buddhist dance.
We do the same exact thing in botany nonchalantly. If you like Sakura (flower), but have no taste for heart pine, if you want to keep wasps away from your home, but run a honey bee farm, you just say so, you do so without expecting some body hysterically call you botanical or entomological racist.
Anthropological, like botanical or entomological nomenclatures are based on visual characteristics not biology. Its a tool of convenience with as much accuracy as possible.
It seems like you care for being scientific and ethical. Can you show me then one of the quotes out of my comments, that you ostensibly are responding to, that is in the original form? One is enough.
Kats you said:
I´m sorry Kats, that you find it so hard to read longer "treatises" and even harder to find the references I made to your own posts. I thought you would find it easy to read them, at least.
Oh yes, you will say, I only meant that one day those who run those industries might be deported to Australia. (Why Australia, b.t.w., what did the Australians do to get all the Porno bosses dumped on them?)
But the context is quite clear.
You meant, all Jews, not just Porno industry bosses or the other bosses you mentioned, since you said it in the context of defending Hitler and the Nazis. And Hitler wanted to deport all Jews out of Europe.
And anyway, wouldn´t it just be easier to make hard-core pornography illegal and push the soft-core stuff back under the counter of sleazy video stores? And then you arrest those who don´t play by the rules.
But then, you are not really interested in law enforcement, you are just interested in labeling according to your pseudo-science.
Since you have a hard time reading, I would have a hard time explaining anything to you, but let me try.
You said, Kat:
So who would want to compare human beings with vegetables or animals, even insects?
Let´s see:
Nazis (comparing Jews with rats) and Zionists (comparing gentiles with cattle and Palestinians with cockroaches in a bottle)
But let´s come to the point, your anthropological views have nothing to do with the physical differences in appearance.
You want to label people to determine their value as human beings.
Anthropology has from it´s inception been a political science, where Europeans could justify their conquest of other peoples´lands by categorizing them as being sub-human. The European rulers who payed those "scientific gentlemen" then assumed conveniently that those not quite evolved sub-types of the species homo sapiens would not be able to rule themselves anyway.
Now racism, itself, has nothing to do with UFOs (once again you are using a rethorical trick).
Racism in ordinary people is normally started by Xenophobia, the fear of strangers, of people who are so different from yourself, that you can´t understand their habits and mannerism, let alone their language.
It is fueled by prejudices, which generalizes the actions of some people in the stranger group to all their members, actions you either observe yourself or hear about as rumours from others.
But Kat your kind of racism, is very much different from that.
Yours is a political motivated and controled racism which is warped in the disguise of science.
It has a history since the 19. century and the "facts" you base it on, are the ones you produce yourself by selecting unrelated pieces, connecting them and leaving out everything that might contradict your views.