In this shortish response to those in the comment space of my own web site and others including Veterans Today who criticised, ridiculed and condemned me for what I wrote in my last two posts (WANTED – A psychiatric diagnosis of Nazi holocaust denial, which was a follow-up to Understanding the real significance TODAY of the Nazi holocaust), I quote from a very long and in-depth interview with Samuel Crowell, the author of what some regard as the definitive books which make the case for Nazi holocaust revisionism.
On one very important aspect of the matter – in my view THE most important aspect – he and me are apparently in agreement. He says: “Revisionism tends to be extreme in its rejection of Nazi atrocities.” (Atrocities which he does not reject)
Though I put it in my own words that, actually, was more or less one of my own main points. But…
There is one thing I could have said, probably should have said, to give better context to what I did say. Holocaust denial is not mainstream in North America or Europe. What I mean is that most North Americans and Europeans are reasonably rational and don’t deny the generality of the holocaust – the generality being the fact that lots of Jews were killed, exterminated, whatever word one wants to use. In my post Understanding the real significance TODAY of the Nazi holocaust, I did actually say by obvious implication that there was, is, a case for revision in terms of the numbers. And here, too, it seems, Crowell and I are of one mind. He says, “The number of victims is an uninteresting argument.” I say it can be much more than that. It can be a diversion from the main point that many Jews were exterminated.
In my view those who do deny the generality are irrational and in some cases (some means not all!), as evidenced by comments on the Veterans Today web site, are driven by rabid anti-Semitism (loathing and even hatred of Jews).
One indicator of irrationality is in my view, and for example, the knee-jerk response to me quoting Dr. Hajo Meyer, my very dear anti-Zionist Jewish friend who survived Auschwitz. He has to be lying, quite of few of my critics have asserted. Why, I ask, does he have to be lying? (I know Hajo very well and have spent many, many hours in conversation with him over some years. We lectured and debated together in South Africa and he has shared public platforms with me in the UK). When he tells me Jews were gassed to death in Auschwitz, I believe him. I also note that Crowell does not exclude the possibility of evidence emerging to prove that some Jews were exterminated in gas chambers.
On the subject of the irrational ones I received the following advice from an American friend who campaigns for truth and justice.
“My advice to you Alan is to ignore them. I have had a LOT of experience dealing with them over the years and have concluded that they are some of the most irrational creatures on the planet. For the most part they are angry, disenfranchised, intellectually lazy and marginalized, with neither spouses nor children, and which I personally think forms the prime motivational energy for their ‘activism’ – the fact that they are bored, lonely and sexually frustrated.”
That is no doubt a considerable overstatement on my American friend’s part but I think there’s a good deal of probable truth in it.
I also think it’s more than possible that some of the deniers are doing Zionism’s business, paid or unpaid.
My main concern was and is that holocaust denial plays into Zionism’s hands. It reinforces in brainwashed Jewish minds the idea that the world has always been against Jews, always will be, and therefore anything and everything the Zionist (not Jewish) state does is justified.
I am NOT in principle against revising anything including the Nazi holocaust. (How could I be when my three-volume book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews is a complete revision of the whole history of the making and sustaining of the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel, exposing and then replacing Zionist propaganda nonsense with the documented truth of history? And thank God or somebody for Israeli “revisionist” meaning honest historians like my dear friend and ally in common cause Ilan Pappe). What I am against is revisionism of the kind that is denial by another name because, it bears repeating, that reinforces Zionism. (Those who read me on my own site know that I regard Zionism as evil).
In conclusion I have only this to say to those who assert that I am a clever propagandist for Zionism – You are bonkers (crazy)! Go see a psychiatrist and get some help. Or obtain and read my book – I dare you to do that.
If you liked this post, then...
- Share it with others using this button:
- Comment on it using the form below.
- Subscribe to my blog via email or RSS to get "new post" alerts.
- Follow me on Twitter (@alanauthor).
"We lectured and debated together in South Africa and he has shared public platforms with me in the UK). When he tells me Jews were gassed to death in Auschwitz, I believe him. I also note that Crowell does not exclude the possibility of evidence emerging to prove that some Jews were exterminated in gas chambers. "
"I believe him". And somehow we are expected to place this - your personal belief of a single anecdote - above scientific evidence beyond refute, from several solid sources, themselves conducted at great risk to their personal safety and reputation given the powers of the zionist lobby.
Belief, Alan, is not a powerful refutation of the genuinely perplexed comments that you have received in your last 2 posts. I am afraid that you are now floundering - an old man, past it - defending himself in the realms of anecdotage.
Why don't you actually do some real research work and attempt to dispute/discredit the real work done by the historical revisionists that refuse to pass on this (exceedingly bountiful) false history composed as part of the post-war false historiography to the exclusive benefit of but a single racial group?
Guess you won't even try, but continue to issue the Zionist slanders of anti-Semitic and Holocaust (cap H) denier against anyone who even chances (or dares) to examine the real evidence.
I used to admire your posts as representing someone from the MSM that at least had some clue. Now, you have just become another apologist. Pity.
ps
And please note that much of the truly racist 'hate' speech appearing in VT and other sites is promulgated by trolls paid for in Tel Aviv. I don't have an evidentiary link to hand but can chase it up if requested. So, so much for your utterly false theory that "Holocaust-Deniers" promulgate the Zionist agenda: the opposite is the case.
Final pps
Actually, looking back upon Alan Hart's career, his whole thesis and justification is based upon anecdotal evidence, whether gained 'in the field' or from contemporary "leaders". He has no personal insight whatsoever in any of his broadcasts or writings and has never presented a single thought that deviates from mainstream thinking. He must therefore be regarded as a useful stooge.
Gideon Cozens wrote:
"He [Alan Hart] has no personal insight whatsoever in any of his broadcasts or writings and has never presented a single thought that deviates from mainstream thinking."
I can't imagine that a person with any 'critical thinking skills' worthy of the term would ever say such a thing if he or she were actually familiar with Alan's writings -- unless his or her thinking skills were devoted less to the pursuit of truth than to the advancement of some sort of political agenda, like defaming Alan in order to convince those as yet unfamiliar with Alan's good work from looking deeper into it.
Dear Alan - You should know better than others that the so-called "revisionists" don't deny the ethnic-cleansing of the European Jews by Nazis which happened as result of the World Jewish Congress financial boycott of Germany in the 1930s. What these "revionists" deny are the inflated numbers of Jews killed by Germans or the existence of the "gas chambers" or the "Jewish soap bars". If one go by European history - the Catholic Church had in fact killed and expelled more Jews by the end of the 19th century - than Nazis could have done.
I remember the six rabbis who attended the 2006 Tehran Holocaust Conference - had agreed that Nazis could not have killed more than one million Jews. Even the new sign at Auschwitz Museum says: "2.5 Million Died".
Hajo Meyer wrote in his book, "The End of Judaism: An Ethical Tradition Betrayed", wrote: "My great lesson from Auschwitz is whoever wants to dehumanize any other, must first be dehumanized himself. The oppressors are no longer really human, whatever uniform they wear".
British Jewish writer, author and blogger, Paul Eisen, who wrote on December 5, 2012, ‘Why I Call Myself a Holocaust Denier?’.
“For my money, a child of six can see that something’s not right about the Holocaust narrative, and the science simply confirms what I already suspect. But I differ from the Holocaust Revisionists. They are scholars – historians and scientists who apply ‘truth and exactitude’ to determine the truth or otherwise of the Holocaust narrative. I’m no scholar. I care nothing for the chemical traces in brickwork or the topological evidence for mass graves. But I’ve read the literature, and it just doesn’t add up."
http://rehmat1.com/2013/02/07/from-nazi-salute-to-understanding-holocaust/
Dear Alan:
As a long time Holocaust Denier, let me compliment you on your trilogy "Zionism:The Real Enemy of the Jew". It is a magnificent effort, second, I think, only to Dr. Robert John's "The Palestine Diary".However, you have many mistaken ideas about Holocaust Deniers. Let me help you with an analogy. Questioning the Holocaust is no more irrational per se than disbelieving the official 09/11 story. Note that both 09/11 skeptics and Holocaust Deniers are similarly demonized. The identical smearing should raise certain questions in your mind.
Many deniers think that they are on to something "big". Indeed they are which may help to explain overenthusiastic comments. Also, Alan, please understand that many Deniers have had their careers and livelihoods destroyed because of their outspokenness. I personally have suffered twenty years of unemployment because of it. Than God for my inheritance.
Now to the substance of the issue.It ismuch more than a mere question of numbers, which I believe to be in the 1-2.5 million range.If the Holocaust is a hoax, it demonstrsates that there is indeed a very evil power in the world capable of massive distortion of the facts.Indeed, it even suggests that the infamous "Protocols of Zion" are true. Now, before you dismiss this as merely an apolgia for Adolf Hitler, Alan, please remember that both Winston Churchill and the American State Department once took an essentially similar position. (The State Deparment produced in 1919 a document entitled "The Power and Aims of International Jewry". I have the copy from the National Archives.)
The basic problem with the Holocaust, Alan, is that too many of them were still alive after the war. You may ask: If they were not exterminated, where did they go? The simple answer is: Into Russia. Much evidence exists that both in 1939 after the invasion of Poland and in 1941 during the invasion of Russia approximately 1-1.5 million Jews were evacuated into the interior of the U.S.S.R. After the war these Jews occupied the leading commissars positions in Eastern Europe (Berman in Poland, Rakosi in Hungary, Pauker in Romania, etc.) Large numbers of others passed through the Balkans to invade Arab Palestine, still other wen to the Americas camoufaged as Poles, East Germans, etc.
The other Jews were being used as labor for the German war effort. Auschwitz, the main supposed killing center, was a giant industrial production center for the Germn war effort. It produced synthetic rubber and oil from coal for the German war effort.It had thirty-eight satellite camps and three main camps. It was located in a very marshy swampy area in Ploand at the junction of three rivers. In the summer of 1942 Auschwitz was stricken by a typhus epidemic and the camp was shut down for six months. Typhus is carried by lice, Alan. The Germans were using the Zyklon B as a delousing agent for clothes and barracks, not to kill people. They built crematory ovens to burn the bodies of people who died of disease. The disposal rate of the crematory ovens was consistent with the epidemics.
An American specialist in prison executions, Mr. Fred Leuchter, was retained to go to Auschwitz to take brick and mortar samples from the supposed "gas chambers". He did so, videotaped his efforts, and had the samples analyzed by an American forensic laboratory. The results showed no Prussian Blue stain in the areas where Jews were supposedly being "gassed". Leucter's results and findins were subsequently verified by several additional investigations, including one by the Polish Communist authorities themselves. They deep-sixed the report.
Thus, Alan, the forensic ionvestigations are consistent with what the buried German camp records show. Those records show a total of 150,000 deaths at Auschwitz, only a fraction of which are Jews. These records were carted away after the war by the Soviets and concealed from the Nuremberg kangaroo court. They only emerged after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. Grounds, perhaps, for a mistrial, Alan?
But what about the testimonies and the great Nuremberg Trial? Good question, Alan. Let us look closely at same. It was Zionist Jews, specifically the Robinson brothers of the Institute for Jewish Affairs of the World Jewish Congress, who sold the allies on the idea of a trial. It was the Zionist New York Jew, David "Mickey" Marcus, who picked all the personnel for the trials. According to Hungarian author Louis Marschalko in his book "The World Conquerors", 2400 out of 2000 total personnel at the trials were Jewish. Some of the more important names were Marcus, Ernst Englander and Robert Kempner. The German defendants were hung in the middle of the Jewish High Holidays in October 1946. The executions were carried out between the day o atonement and the day of final judgement. The German Jew,Wolf Frank,read the sentences. The Brooklyn Jew, John Wods Short, dropped the gallows. Coincidence, Alan?
Torture and coercion were liberally employed at Nuremberg. Two of the favorite methods were threatening the prisoner to deportation to Soviet Russia if hefailed to perjure himself. The other method was to deprive relatives to death by starvation by withholding food rations. Very effective, don't you think, Alan?It addition testicles were smashed beyond repair and prisoners had their faces rubbed in their own excremement.Why did the prisoners testify as they did, Alan? Because of these methods. But there was an even more basic reason. The court was committed, a priori, to the fiction that the Germans had "gassed" millions of Jews. Therefore, a prisoners only viable method of exculpating himself was to agree that there was an extermination program, but it was someone else who did it. Thus, all the finger pointing.
I could also mention all the crude Soviet forgeries about steam basing machines, chlorine poisoning and all the rest of it but surely you begin to get the picture. Now the one part of the story that is true, Alan, is that the Germans did kill a lot of Jews in Russia. That is easily understandable. Communism was a heavily Jewish system in those days. Large numbers of Jews were fighting in the Red Army and the commissariats were very heavily Jewish. So lots of Jews were killed in the fighting. The Germans also shot many thousands of Jews just because they had no way to house or feed them and basically did not like them. However, the extermination claims are all based on the Einsatzgruppen reports back in Berlin. The reports to the commanders in the field have all disappeared. Perhaps this is because those reports contain much lower kill totals.
And there we have the hoax, Alan. I apologize for the lengthy dissertation but it really is only a thumbnail sketch of the facts. Remember, too, Alan, that the truth does not change because of possible unpleasant consequences. It is undoubtedly true that many uncharitable people will conclude that the fake extermination should be replaced by a real extermination. That is obviously going too far but the reaction will be considerable.
We "deniers" are not the monsters our critics make us out to be, Alan. But the other side does not play fair when their unholy lie is exposed.Many of us have suffered terrible personal and financial consequences for blowing the whistle on the "Mother of All Lies". So cut us some slack, Alan, and open your mind to the fact that you have been conned. It is tugh to take - but isn't the unpalatable truth really the better medicine?
Sorry, Alan, but you are simply letting loyalty to a friend cloud your judgment. You must be aware that eyewitness testimony is the most unreliable form of evidence, and that what someone tells you may be untrue for a whole range of reasons that do not necessarily make him a liar. If you aren't aware of it, start with the Wikipedia article on Eyewitness Testimony and follow it up by reading The Invisible Gorilla. I have lost count of the number of times I personally have asserted something with conviction, only to discover later that I was mistaken, had confused separate events or got times and places wrong, and your friend is dealing with a time when he was young and impressionable as well as being in an environment where everything predisposed him to think the worst of his captors.
Your only other argument appears to be ad hominem. A lot of racist Jew-haters support Revisionists so Revisionists must be wrong. It doesn't work like that; the same racist Jew-haters also support Palestine.
"...the generality of the holocaust... being the fact that lots of Jews were killed, exterminated, whatever word one wants to use."
So were lots of Poles, Ukrainians, Russians, Serbs, Croats, Germans, Japanese, Chinese... Many, most even, of them were targeted because they were Poles, Ukrainians, etc. by both sides in the conflict. Were they all murdered too? Where do you draw that fine line between "murdered" and "died in the war"? If you do not find the evidence for a deliberate policy of racial extermination of the Jews, different to any of the other cases (and I do not), then these deaths are all equivalent and no one qualifies for exceptionalism in the form of a Holocaust or even a holocaust.
Of course I forgot to mention Ingush, Chechens, Crimean Tatars... But is anyone surprised? Who remembers them today?
Thank you for your hard work Alan. Some of these deniers really have nothing better to do than to try and complain to anyone they can for more attention. What they don't understand is that no one cares about them because none of their points are valid or amount to anything but minor quibbling. The evidence has been widely available for decades. Millions of Jews perished. Until they show those same Jews are living no one will give a rat's behind what tree they are barking up. The case has been closed.
Now the question is where to go from here. Deniers would like to go back to the 1940s, but I am with you: let us live in the 21st century!
If you believe in the historicity of the holocaust you are not as smart as I thought.It's religious dogma, devised with the help of numerology as explained by Rabbi Weintraub's book.Of course many jews died in WW2 but many more Christians died. (I will take Solzhenitsyn as a credible source. Anyhow, how could there have been so many holocausts with the exact number of 6 million dead? Also..the Internatl Red Cross inspected the German camps and said tere was no extermination. Of course the Russians wouldn't allow the Red Cross in Aushwitz. Coincidence? I don't think so.
Those who think you are a Zionist tool have not read your volumes on Zionism.
It is certainly true that many "activists" are found among those otherwise not engaged, including the lonely, unemployed and "hard up." I am in retirement and qualify for all three attributes. That said -- you can not dismiss the content of an argument on the basis of the life style (or lack thereof) or attributes of the author. That's how a small comment "betrays" an "anti-semite" as ADL or SWC would have it. It is their way of dismissing the argument and the facts and you do it, as well, by characterizing someone actively "holocaust denying" as just plain lonely or unhappy. It may be so, probably is so, but it is irrelevant to the issue. One can be unhappy and still have a valid opinion. Certainly, though, the "holocaust deniers" are simply wrong. This bad thing did happen though not entirely the inflated way it is marketed by Zionists.
Alan, When in this Day and Time Few People Who ARE in a Position TO Speak With Any real Authority on The Subject of zionism...Dares Do so...For Fear OF Some Reprisal Or PushBack..Simply Do not Have The ""Wherewithal'sic.. To Open their Mouths ( Cowards That They ARE )...SO The Clarity you Present Is more Needed >>And Welcome..Than You May Be Thinking ! Ignore The Nasties Who Are Paid ( Or Unpaid ) Agents OF That Bunch Of MisFits. Hundred Of Thousands OF People oerished Before>Any More. Isn`t that A Neat Breakthru ?? And You Can Take THE Primary Credit For THE Truth Of THIS BEing Uncovered. Please Don`t Stop Telling It Like It is. Too Few People Do that . Thank YOU Mr. Alan Hart >
Add me to your List OF Admirers ( Of The Truth ! )
Alan, I first became aware of you when I saw your interview with Stephen Sizer, who is a friend and colleague. I was impressed and thereafter looked forward to your postings.
As a fellow journalist, radio and television talk show host, author and blogger, I don't just write my opinions, I try to write the truth as best as I can glean from a myriad of sources. I subscribe to many magazines and websites, and even to many Jewish publications in an effort gain a sense of what is really going on in this troubled world, and hopefully try to be a guide to my fellow Christians, concerning who they can trust, based on the word of God. In your interview with Stephen, I sensed greatly that you agreed with him (and me) that Christian Zionism is a destructive belief and a nefarious agenda.
I ran across an article written by (historical revisionist) Michael Hoffman, who is known and praised for his in-depth research. Following is an excerpt where he deals with the issue everyone has been discussing on this topic. Hopefully you will read it and provide us with a response other than dismissing his comments with an ad hominem aimed at Hoffman, who appears to have studied this issue for decades. I thank you in advance for your response:
Israeli power has expanded commensurate with the expansion of "Holocaust" propaganda, as noted by the Israeli author Moshe Leshem: "Israelis and American Jews fully agree that the memory of the Holocaust is an indispensable weapon--one that must be used relentlessly against their common enemy...Jewish organizations and individuals thus labor continuously to remind the world of it. In America, the perpetuation of the Holocaust memory is now a $100-million-a-year enterprise, part of which is government-funded." ( Balaam's Curse, p. 228)
This is why Edgar Bronfman, the billionaire Canadian Seagram's whiskey merchant and chairman of the powerful World Jewish Congress says, "The growing numbers of revisionist supporters cannot be ignored. We must use every resource to stop revisionism now, before it's too late."
The reason it must be stopped is because revisionism could prevent the holy people from finishing the job they started in Russia and Bavaria, only this time they are using intellectual means to achieve the same end.
Consider the fact that the people who bear the brunt of contemporary Jewish racist hatred and invective, the Germans, have among the lowest birthrates and the highest abortion rates of any nation in the world. Far more Germans die every year than are born.
The self-hating Germans are not the only targets of corrosive gas chamber guilt, however. Organized Christianity (more accurately called Churchianity) nowadays is little more than one huge turkey flock, truckling, toadying and crawling in search of Judaic sanctification and approbation. Their savior called the Jewish leadership of his time, "the children of hell" (Matthew 23:15) but those who presume to speak in His name today, call them the saints and sages of the cosmos.
Only in such a profoundly falsified world soaked in fraud could the international media sit by, uninterested, as the great-great grandson of the blood-drenched Jewish Red Army commander Leon Trotsky, David Axelrod, shot to death an elderly Palestinian couple in November of 1990, as part of an Israeli, "Kach" terror group raid.
But imagine--if you can--the hubbub if a grandson of a Nazi war criminal had shot a Turkish couple in Germany. The weeping, wailing and never-ending references to "Never Forget" and "lessons of history" would seep out of the collective TV sets of the earth like waste from a toxic septic tank, because what is clear from such a double standard is that the true lessons of history are not being learned and recollection itself is hostage to the diorama of Zionist monomania.
Sixteen million ethnic Germans were forcibly expelled from Silesia, Moravia and the Volga regions of the eastern territories at the end of the Second World War. On this trail of tears, two million perished--shot to death, starved, raped and beaten. Ask one in one thousand, one in ten thousand people on the street today-- "Have you heard?" The answer will be no.
The Steven Spielberg movie images of cattle cars jammed with human cargo are reserved for Jewish victims alone. The 800,000 mostly Muslim Chechens deported by Judaic commissars and savagely stuffed into railway cars to Kazakhstan, where a quarter of a million died enroute, do not meet Hollywood's standard of cinematic focus.
The Soviet cattle car deportations afflicted more than a half-million Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian Christians who were shipped to the Gulag. 12% of the entire Baltic population was either deported to Siberia or executed by the Jewish Soviet Secret Police. Who knows of it? Who cares? Who tries to keep this history from repeating? Instead, in 1995 the president of Lithuania made a pilgrimage to the Israeli gas chamber shrine at Yad Vashem to grovel and beg "forgiveness" for his people who were the victims of the Jewish Communist murderers. To seek forgiveness in all humility is ordained when it is predicated on the truth. To do so based on false witness in order to idolize the Pharisees is a mockery of justice.
In the Bolshevik era, 52 percent of the membership of the Soviet communist party was Jewish, though Jews comprised only 1.8 percent of the total population (Stuart Kahan, The Wolf of the Kremlin, p. 81)
The following is a list of some top Judaic Communist murderers, commissars, spies, assassins and propagandists (aliases are listed in parentheses). This list is by no means comprehensive. To catalog all of the Judaic Communist involved in crimes would require hundreds of pages."
Alan, who should we believe unless we ask questions without fear of being called Anti-Semitic?
Joe Ortiz
https://sites.google.com/site/joeortizassociates/Home/joe-ortiz-associates
Mr. Hart,
You are in good company in having been sincerely deluded into believing in the obscenity of homocidal gas chambers disguised as delousing showers, genocidal extermination as the Nazi "final solution" of the "Jewish Problem", and the historically recurring sacred number of 6,000,000 European Jews systematically killed by the Nazi Reich.
Stop flailing away at your honest and well-meaning critics with wretched ad hominem attacks, and come to grips with the truth that we have all been deceived by an obscene imposture.
You cannot seriously suggest that honest intellectuals such as your countrymen Gilad Atzmon and Paul Eisen are to be lightly dismissed as loony for questioning the Holocaust narrative for the sake of truth.
Take a few days to read and absorb Paul Eisen's account of the stages of his conversion from Holocaust believer to denier. Pay close attention to what he denies and what he doesn't deny.
http://pauleisen.blogspot.ca/2012/12/how-i-became-holocaust-denier-by-paul.html
Quoting Mr. Eisen:
Ø I do not question that the National Socialist regime brutally persecuted Jews.
Ø I do not question that Jews in Germany were discriminated against, violently assaulted, dispossessed, imprisoned in camps and expelled and that many Jews died as a result.
Ø I do not question that Jews in countries occupied by Germany or within the German sphere of influence were pitilessly assaulted, dispossessed and subjected to brutal deportations, many to forced labour camps where many hundreds of thousands died.
Ø I do not question that many Jews were executed by shooting in the East.
But enough of this negativity – here’s what I do question:
Ø I question that there ever was an official plan on the part of Hitler or any other part of the National Socialist regime systematically and physically to eliminate every Jew in Europe.
Ø I question that there ever existed homicidal gas-chambers.
Ø I question the figure of six million Jewish victims of the Nazi assault and I believe that the actual figure was significantly less.
And finally, one more thing I do not and do question: I do not question the horror of what was done to Jews by National Socialists or the right of Jews (including myself) to regard that horror any way they wish. I do, however, question their right to compel the rest of the world to feel the same.
http://pauleisen.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/but-how-could-holocaust-not-be-true.html
Thanks for an interesting read. I tried commenting on your other article dealing with the same subject, but you rejected it because I said I didn't believe in those "gas chambers" :-/
It may be a sensitive topic for you, but a lot of people around the world don't believe in them, and much more.
Faithfully,
-k0nsl
Looks to me that some people don't understand the difference between holocaust denial and holocaust revisionism.
Kindly note that I, too, do not capitalize "holocaust" and I think we should all make an effort not to capitalize it. And yes, "capitalize" is an intended pun.
Atzmon and Eisen are not holocaust deniers. Like many, they call for a re-examination of the historical narrative and the documentation that has been compiled over the years. I hope someone will undertake this in a sincere effort to give us a true picture, devoid of emotional bias and without the attendant zionist pressure to skew the results.
Alan, as always, thank you for your courageous writing. Don't let the bastards get you down.
@ Maryam. Thank you for clearing Atzmon's name as a holocaust denier.
There is so much proof that a holocaust against the Jews (and others) occurred that it is silly to carry on the argument. I have discussed with members of my own family who lived through it, enough to know that it happened. Much of the literature: Shoah, even Norman Finkelstein, Hajo Mayer, Saul Friedlander, et al., are enough for me.
The problem is not whether or not the holocaust actually took place or not, rather the Zionist's use of it, twisting it for their own justification for Israel's intransigence.
When I was a child, my grandmother had holocaust survivors living in her neighborhood. Everyone knew who they were, and that they had had family members who went to the gas chambers. This is "evidence" enough for me.
I agree, Gene - the crime is that the holocaust is being used by zionists to obtain second hand pity, and justification for their utterly monstrous and psychopathic behavior towards the Palestinians.
We both are regular commenters on Richard Silverstein's blog. I wish he would pick up this topic, but I think he is unable to approach it, just as he is afraid to give up on calling himself a "progressive zionist."
Dear Alan,
Having now read all of the comments on your "Holocaust" articles in Veterans Today, Information Clearing House and also here at your own site I feel that I owe you a great apology for questioning your lack of curiosity on the subject - accounting for your lack of knowledge - and even suggesting that you may be 'past it' because of your age. Indeed now, au contraire, I would like to offer my congratulations.
As an admirer of John Le Carre I finally appreciate your strategy. Brilliant.
It did seem strange that as a genuine anti-zionist that you would be unfamiliar with the work of Atzmon and others showing that for many zionists the Holocaust has replaced and supplanted Judaism as the true religion, complete with its own temples, symbolism, myths and high priests. It does not make sense that you would not be aware of this and, having interviewed Finkelstein, you are clearly well aware of the exploitation of this story.
There is also the fact that you are not afraid of telling the truth as you see it. Quite apart from your book with its provocative title, your interview with Alex Jones on 9/11 was an absolute classic; when you mentioned the possible role of Mossad he almost went into apoplexy. So that is not a reason either.
Next was the strange style and tone of your writing in these pieces. As noted, your writing can be provocative but never before have I read anything that you have written as being downright rude to those whom you might disagree with, but also to be disparaging without even any consideration of their evidence and argument. These articles do not fit with your previous style of lucid fact-based arguments and gentle persuasion.
So, why were those pieces written at all?
The penny finally dropped for me when I read the massive response that these articles generated. This, despite the fact that - apart from the inflammatory titles - they stated nothing that was not consistent with the MSM agenda. Your outrageous statement that questioning the Holocaust only strengthened the zionist cause also was a give-away. You will be well aware of the fact that zionists utterly rely on the holocaust myth to keep their flock in fear and under control and that many religious jews are quite sick of this constant propaganda.
The final clue that you revealed in the present article entitled - your response to your critics - also was brilliant. Totally devoid of any facts or details, or indeed any considerations of the points raised, some in great detail with copious links, it presented a flaccid, somewhat pathetic defence essentially reiterating what had been said before.
That's when it clicked. You are genuinely pro-jewish and anti-zionist so how best to help? Destroy the Holocaust myth, of course.
But how can Alan Hart help to do this when so many historical revisionists have almost totally failed to get their work recognised by the MSM? Well, in the spirit of Le Carre, why not write a bland, somewhat weak MSM-acceptable piece with a highly provocative title, then wait for the comments to come in. The MSM will happily pick up the pieces because of the acceptable titles but, unwittingly, will provide hitherto unimaginable exposure for the revisionists.
I hope and pray that this is the true reason for these articles and that your strategy works.
@ Gideon: Your lengthy screeds deter one from bothering to read them. Why don't you just say what you mean instead of obfuscating your anti-Zionism/anti-Semitism? Let it be said that the holocaust is NOT a myth nor should it be forgotten. But we can, as Avram Burg in his book, "The Holocaust is Over", teaches us, put it behind us. The issue now is, how to deal with Zionist, entity that persecutes the Palestinians.
@ Maryam: Indeed, I was a regular contributor to Tikun Olan, but no longer. I find Richard simplistic, and in many cases, dead wrong. And if you attempt to call him on his errors, he merely bans you rather than engage you. I haven't commented there for some time, nor do I bother reading him.
I posted this yesterday, but it hasn't appeared. I can't see anything objectionable in it.
Sorry, Alan, but you are simply letting loyalty to a friend cloud your judgment. You must be aware that eyewitness testimony is the most unreliable form of evidence, and that what someone tells you may be untrue for a whole range of reasons that do not necessarily make him a liar. If you aren't aware of it, start with the Wikipedia article on Eyewitness Testimony and follow it up by reading The Invisible Gorilla. I have lost count of the number of times I personally have asserted something with conviction, only to discover later that I was mistaken, had confused separate events or got times and places wrong, and your friend is dealing with a time when he was young and impressionable as well as being in an environment where everything predisposed him to think the worst of his captors.
Your only other argument appears to be ad hominem. A lot of racist Jew-haters support Revisionists so Revisionists must be wrong. It doesn't work like that; the same racist Jew-haters also support Palestine.
"...the generality of the holocaust... being the fact that lots of Jews were killed, exterminated, whatever word one wants to use."
So were lots of Poles, Ukrainians, Russians, Serbs, Croats, Germans, Japanese, Chinese... Many, most even, of them were targeted because they were Poles, Ukrainians, etc. by both sides in the conflict. Were they all murdered too? Where do you draw that fine line between "murdered" and "died in the war"? If you do not find the evidence for a deliberate policy of racial extermination of the Jews, different to any of the other cases (and I do not), then these deaths are all equivalent and no one qualifies for exceptionalism in the form of a Holocaust or even a holocaust.
2500 years of Western logic and thought down the drain. No longer is it nessecary for the asserter to prove an assertion. Simply make questioning the assertion a crime and jail anyone who does so. Quackheads like Geoge Orwell used to call such crimes "thought crimes". But then, as "cattle" and "animals put on Earth in human form" to serve the Jews" (as some rabbis and Jewish religious books maintain)what do we need logic and rules of discourse for? We have no human soul (only an animal soul) and hence any pretense at thinking is a mere psychiatric delusion.
Dr. Mayer was not necessarily lying at al.. It is easy to see how the 'gas chambers' myth could have come into existence, gained ground, got passed on, been believed and then manufactured as an historical fact that it actually was not (being a very useful story indeed to certain parties).
I, as one of your cited 'critics', never thought you were a clever propagandist for Zionism. That really would be bonkers. I read your "Zionism, the Enemy of The Jews" and thought you a thoroughly and transparently decent man who happens to be 100% wrong on THE most crucial issue relating to Zionism..... a bit of a disaster for those of us who would like to take up arms on this anti-Zionism issue alongside you.
Some say there is no sin, only error...and that may well be true. As true for those of real Zionist faith as for ourselves, for all I know. Let no man judge another's soul.
I hope you can see that, if there were no 'gas chamber' exterminations that your, particularly your, defence of this meme would be massively reassuring to Zionists who know better.
The case was most brilliantly made by Jewish Londoner and revisionist Paul Eisen in this article posted on his blog yesterday.
Really, really worth reading. Hits nail straight on the head.
http://pauleisen.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/the-war-for-spirit-by-paul-eisen.html
Maryam,
Talk about 'gas chambers' has no weight compared to the scientific investigations carried out into this issue. Anyone really interested in the truth of this issue MUST start there. No amount of movies, talking head documentaries, newspaper articles etc can outweigh physical evidence, chemical and otherwise created at the time.
You try to characterise those who would argue with Mr Hart as 'haters' as in "don't let the bastards get you down".
Well, no one is trying to "get Mr Hart down". Perhaps we are not 'haters' at all (except of lies that have caused millions of postwar deaths[and I'm not blaming this on the Jewish people, but the Zionist elite, non-Jews included]). Perhaps we are lovers.
Lovers of truth? Any possibility of that?
@ Gene. I will let pass your arrogant comment on the length of my comments and simply assume that you are a typical blogger that finds reading anything beyond a paragraph too much to concentrate upon.
So I will keep this short.
You state that (I am) "obfuscating your anti-Zionism/anti-Semitism."
Can you please point to where I am doing this, and why. And - as you suggest that these epithets of abuse are one and the same - could you please expand upon this statement to my own (and perhaps Alan Hart's) enlightenment. Had you even glanced at the contents of Alan's book you might have noticed that he tends to differentiate between the two.
Finally, when you boldly state that "Let it be said that the holocaust is NOT a myth" that is a statement of your belief/opinion/religion but not an undisputed scientific fact. In truth, your opinion on this is utterly irrelevant to the facts and most certainly not entitled to a (capital) NOT as though somehow you were the final ultimate arbtrar of thousands of academic papers on this vexing subject.
Gideon, Assume what you will. I have no intention of getting into a dog fight with a bloviating, know-nothing, who likes to hear himself talk, but has nothing to say. I have read Alan's book carefully, and fully agree with it's contents. Apparently you haven't if you think it confirms your thinking. It doesn't.
@Gene
Fair enough. My comments were not really made to hear your response (as I expected nothing sensible or reasonable) but to elicit to the broader audience just how puerile is your "reasoning". But your childish abuse - "a bloviating, know-nothing, who likes to hear himself talk, but has nothing to say." - exceeds even my expectations. Thanks. Reasonable people can now form their own opinion.
@Gene, you have a good point about Richard. He absolutely cnnot stand to be wrong. Unfortunately, recently he has had some embarrassing problems with credibility which I am not sure he can recover from. I admit, I have lost some respect for him not least because he attacked both you and other commenters unfairly. I still read his blog but if I see any further lapses of credibility or decorum, that will be the end.
I'm a bit confused here as to just what the problem is with Mr. Cozens. I suspect he is a rather verbose troll and that it might be better simply to address him as such. I find Alan much more credible than Mr. Cozens and I've been reading his blog much longer.
Here is a link to Eric Hunt's investigative article on Holocaust published on September 3, 2011.
Knowing Gilad Atzmon for the last ten years - I can say though he has claimed to be ashamed of being born and raised in Israel - he never denied great Jewish sufferings (holocaust) under Nazis. However, he don't believe Jewish sufferings to be unique. He believes, the Israeli Jews are committing a greater holocaust of Palestinians than their ancestors suffered at the hands of Nazis.
Miko Peled, son of Israel's 1967 war hero, Gen. Peled, who addressed a Vancouver meeting on February 7, 2013 - expressed similar views.
http://www.holocaustdenier.com/spielberg%E2%80%99s-cabal-banned-me-from-stanford-libraries/
Dear Alan,
You appear to admit that Samuel Crowell who (fits the criteria which is used to apply the ad hominem epithet of 'holocaust denier') is not a person who needs psychiatric help. Yet you do not appear to acknowledge that this is a pseudonym, which a leading and sane academic is forced to use to avoid the censure and personal attacks (against himself and his family) that his work would otherwie attract.
You might also want to read up on the Nuremberg court deposition of SS Judge Konrad Morgen.
Here is an excerpt:
Q. Did you gain the impression - and at what time - that the concentration camps were places for the extermination of human beings?
A. I did NOT gain this impression. A concentration camp is NOT a place for the extermination of human beings. I must say that my first visit to a concentration camp, namely Weimar-Buchenwald, was a great surprise to me. The camp was on wooded heights, with a wonderful view. The installations were clean and freshly painted. There were grass and flowers. The prisoners were healthy, normally fed, sun-tanned, working...
THE PRESIDENT: When are you speaking of? When are you speaking of?
A. I am speaking of the beginning of my investigations in July, 1943.
...Q. How did you come to the investigations in the concentration camps?
A. At the order of the Reichsführer SS [Himmler], because of my special abilities in criminology, I was detailed by the SS Judicial Department to the Reich Criminal Police Office in Berlin,... I was given this special power of attorney by the Reichsführer [Himmler].
Q. Now, how extensive did these investigations become?
A. I investigated Weimar-Buchenwald, Lublin, Auschwitz, Sachsenhausen, Oranienburg, Herzogenbosch, Cracow, Plaschow, Warsaw, and the concentration camp at Dachau. And others were investigated after my time.
Q. How many cases did you investigate? How many sentences were passed? How many death sentences?
A. I investigated about 800 cases, or rather, about 800 documents, and one document would affect several cases. About 200 were tried during my activity. Five concentration camp commandants were arrested by me personally. Two were shot after being tried.
Q. You caused them to be shot?
A. Yes. Apart from the commandants, there were numerous other death sentences against Führers and Unterführers.
...I was asked whether from my impressions of the concentration camps I gained the idea that they were extermination camps. I replied that I did NOT get that idea. I did not mean to say that the concentration camps were sanatoria or a paradise for the prisoners. If they had been that, my investigations would have been senseless.
...According to my exhaustive investigations, I can only say that... I really met commandants who did everything humanly possible for their prisoners. I met doctors whose every effort was to help sick prisoners and prevent further sickness.
A large majority of the horrible conditions in some concentration camps at times did not arise from deliberate planning, but developed from circumstances which in my opinion must be called evil, for which the local camp leaders were not responsible. I am thinking of the outbreak of epidemics. At irregular intervals many concentration camps became victims of typhus, spotted typhus and other sicknesses caused especially by the arrival of prisoners from the eastern areas in the concentration camps. Although everything humanly possible was done to prevent these epidemics and to combat them, the death rate which resulted was extremely high. Another evil was the irregularities in connection with the arrival of prisoners, and the insufficient shelter. Many camps were overcrowded. The prisoners arrived in a weakened condition because, due to air raids, the transports were under way longer than expected. Towards the end of the war, there was a general collapse of the transportation system. Deliveries could not be carried out to the necessary extent; chemical and pharmaceutical factories had been systematically bombed; and all the necessary medicines were lacking. Finally, the evacuations from the east further burdened the camps, and crowded them in an unbearable manner.
Q. That is enough on this point.
...THE WITNESS: Yesterday I described the four plans of the Criminal Commissar Wirth, and referred to the camp Auschwitz. By "Extermination Camp Auschwitz" I did not mean the concentration camp. It did not exist there. But I meant a separate extermination camp near Auschwitz, called "Monowitz. "
THE PRESIDENT: What were the other ones?
THE WITNESS: I do not know of any other extermination camps.
- - - - -
N.B. The accepted history is that Auschwitz 1 had one extermination gas chamber; Auschwitz 2 (Birkenau) had six gas chambers; and Auschwitz 3 (Monowitz) had no gas chambers. Yet this SS Judge who investigated, tried and executed camp commanders and camp staff for illegal acts and for murder, gave evidence under oath that defies the accepted version of Auschwitz and the Jewish Holocaust. Plus he said that he knew of NO other extermination camps. So... Who and what to believe?
Thanks, maryam.
Well, Mr. Cozens asked that reasonable people form there own opinions. You have provided him with one. I shall henceforth ignore him, as I do Silverstein, and restrict future comments to Alan's stimulating musings.
Well Alan, it seems your response is just an insult to some very good questions. I note you have not addresses a single concern.
No one denies that Jews died in WW2. But I think many peoples died. The issues seems to be the political mileage and the embellishment and by contrast the disrespect to other people. The Jews were just a tiny fraction of the people that died in WW2 and half or less than half that died in the holocaust but somehow their deaths are promoted as more important and rewarded as such. This action detracts from the struggles of other people, which gives the false impression of making both the losses and efforts of others appear less important.
So it seems the points you highlight as being of no importance are those that give advantage to the zionist cause.
Lets look at some of your highlighted points.
“Revisionism tends to be extreme in its rejection of Nazi atrocities. (Atrocities which he does not reject)”
You must understand that the conversation taking place is one where zionists are taking one side of the debate. As such inflammatory words such as "extreme" give a false impression. If someone was arguing in opposition to zionist rhetoric, they will "emphasis" on an ongoing basis the dishonesty of those components of the zionist argument. You should also realise that this was WW2, and atrocities were happening every day. Every single day. So once again it is a matter of contrast against the backdrop of the war.
"The number of victims is an uninteresting argument.” I say it can be much more than that. It can be a diversion from the main point that many Jews were exterminated."
This is simply an offensive and insensitive comment. The "number" is not an argument. The number is the number. What is of concern is the lack of honesty surrounding events.
The main point is not that many Jews were exterminated. That is not the main point at all. Jews made up just a fraction of those killed by Hitler.
"My main concern was and is that holocaust denial plays into Zionism’s hands."
Alan you insulting people's intelligence. It is a childish and transparent effort. I urge you to confront the very good questions asked.
Alan -- King makes some valid points. It is the "exclusivity" of the holocaust that is obnoxious and which is bandied about by Zionists and charlatans like Elie Wiesel. Suffering knows no race or religion or ethnicity or nation or people or tradition or whatever the hell it is.
Jews qua Jews were not national combatants in the war. To the extent that they served in national armies, even the German army, they were combatants, but not as a separate people or nation. From the Nazi viewpoint not only were Jews not combatants, and subject to combat death and injury, but they were sheltered in camps and not even casualties of Allied bombs as were ordinary civilian Germans. This was probably galling to Hitler who did, in fact, initiate a program to eliminate Jewry from Europe. But the suffering of the war extended to other groups as well, notably the Soviets and the Chinese who lost many more millions than the holocaust death toll claimed by Zionists.
The "exclusivity" of the holocaust is an attribute of Jewishness itself, the "chosen-ness" which has brought so much pain on everyone, including the Jews. This conceit is at the heart of the matter and is expressed even in universalist organizations like Jewish Voice for Peace and J Street. These liberalized organizations are manifestations of the same conceit and must eventually trip over the contradictions embedded in their missions eventually. By then, of course, they will have sopped up the energies of truly independent liberal Jews rendering such ineffective and harmless.
If a "holocaust denier" is someone who objects to the uniqueness and exclusivity of the "Holocaust", then they can count me in, as well. Enough with THEIR suffering and THEIR crappy racist state and enough with extortion of European states and American taxpayers. Enough already with $3.2 billion in foreign aid to Israel. Enough with Zionist bribery of politicians and states. Enough with laws restricting freedom of speech at the behest of Jews. Enough with an exclusively Jewish state! Enough with THEIR problems, lies, deceit, and obfuscations and enough with "dual loyalties" and that whole rigamarole. Enough.
bonkers they are, Alan. Anything can be revised but just go through hundreds of videos made by Nazis in camps and one does not need to be a historian/journalist to see the truth. Or the videos made by Zionists who infiltrated the SS guards?
British Liberal Democratic MP David Ward against all pressure from British Jewish lobby and his peers – has refused to apology for his earlier statement in which he said that it’s “important to ask” whether Israel’s behaviour toward Palestinians is “because of the Holocaust”. The Zionist-controlled mainstream media have called David Ward an “antisemite” for his criticism of Israel and a “holocaust denier” for his Holocaust analogy.
As a surprising twist to the on-going media tug-of-war, world’s renowned American Jewish scholar, professor Noam Chomsky, a friend of Israel, has come out in support of David Ward. On his personal website, Chomsky wrote: “I agree there’s nothing remotely antisemitic in his remarks, which are in fact familiar in Israeli discussions“.
David Ward claims that he had visited Auschwitz Museum (Poland) twice. In his Holocaust analogy, he did not question the Zionist narrative of the Holocaust (6 million Jews killed by Nazis), but wondered how the victims of Holocaust became oppressors in Palestine.
http://rehmat1.com/2013/02/13/british-mp-and-the-holocaust-debate/
Some good points by both Davey Wavey and Rehmat. I am at a loss to see how this viewpoint could be criticized. It is just advocating equal rights. It is just wanting to level the field and stop discrimination. Everyone should be treated the same and respected the same.
Quote: "In conclusion I have only this to say to those who assert that I am a clever propagandist for Zionism"
No one said that. They said you were a dumb believer in the biggest lie of all. The one that gives Zionists their strength. Therefore if you attack those who attempt to expose the lie that gives Zionists their strength, what are you then....
....never mind your intention. We understand that your intention is good. But what are you then in practice?
Just to throw a little oil on the fire -
Ron Rosenbaum analyses Holocaust remembrance. It seems to me he is just another Elie Wiesel-style Israel-firster who wants to preserve the Holocaust as a uniquely Jewish experience, and justify Israel's claim to represent all Jews. Before we get all carried away, I would suggest we read Avram Burg's "The Holocaust is Over: We Must Rise from its Ashes." Burg is an Israeli Jew, and former member of the Knesset, who recognizes that as horrendous as the Holocaust was, we cannot allow it to influence our actions today, and use it as a justification for Israel's policies against the Palestinians.
G.
nb. I have read his book on Hitler and have had email exchanges with him about it.
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/books/80150/faustian-bargain?print=1
Gideon Cozens: "I don't have an evidentiary link to hand but can chase it up if requested."
I'm very interested in seeing it.
"For the most part they ("dENIERS") are angry, disenfranchised, intellectually lazy and marginalized, with neither spouses nor children, and which I personally think forms the prime motivational energy for their ‘activism’ – the fact that they are bored, lonely and sexually frustrated.”
!?
Just how closely did your friend get to know these deniers, to have learnt so much personal information about them?
Mr. Hart,
I look forward to the opportunity to speak with you when you are the guest on Dr. Kevin Barrett's Truth Jihad this coming Friday.
I have read your excellent 3-volume history of Zionism and the Jewish state of Israel, and I have subscribed for several years to your perceptive articles on Palestine-Israel and the Zionist lobby.
You are seriously mistaken, however, not to capitalize the proper noun "Holocaust".
The powerful cabal who defined and propagated the meaning of the Holocaust intend to allude to the uniquely significant suffering of European Jews at the hands of the Nazi Reich: A human sacrifice -- a whole burnt offering to God -- the sacred founding event of an appalling religion: the new touchstone of Jewish identity, and the eternal shame of the Western world.
I trust you will have read today's updated version of Paul Eisen's magnificent essay "The War for the Spirit." Notice that he properly capitalizes the Holocaust.
The concluding sentences of Paul Eisen's essay go to the heart of the matter:
"Palestinians must know that they are not just facing the might of the Israeli state but also the power of organized world Jewry and its primary arm, the Holocaust. Perhaps Palestinians should consider lobbing a few stones in that direction. Perhaps we all should."
@Gene
Elie Wiesel is considered the "Holocaust Messiah" - and Simon Weisenthal, "Father of Holocaust Religion" by the Zionist crowd. The first was calle "Liar" by Dr. Finkelstein - while the later "fame-seeking myth-maker and an Israeli Mossad agent" by professor Tom Segev in his book "Simon Weisenthal: The Life and Legend".
With old age, Elie Wiesel, has terned into a Jewish Messiah. Not long ago, he slammed Netanyahu for comparing Holocaust with Israel's "existential" threat from Iran.
http://rehmat1.com/2012/04/20/elie-wiesel-dont-equate-iran-with-holocaust/
@rehmat:
Yes, I know all that. The point I was trying to make is that Rosenbaum has the same agenda as Wiesel, and thus not credible.
Dear Alan Hart,
In your article “The Nazi Holocaust: My Response to my Critics,” you ask “But why would anybody want to deny the Nazi holocaust when there really is so much irrefutable evidence that many Jews were exterminated?”
Well, I´m not into psychiatrics, but maybe I can shred some light on this question.
Denying the Holocaust fits all too well to a broader picture of a weltanschuung of lies. Lies about our principal equal walue, lie about oneself, about others. While not being consious about the uncounscious roots of these lies, they are projected upon others.
Those who hate others are often encaged in their own hate. They are taken blindly "from behind," which results in that the hate ocupies the whole scene of mind; then projected on a fearful and hateful world of dog eat dog.
The seed of Fascism/Nazism exists already in the basic norms of Western civilization: admiration for strength, contempt for weakness.
Press these norms and values just a little bit, and you will to a lesser or higher degree arrive at Nazism.
There may also be an element of planting seeds for the future in the denying of the Holocaust. Breivik didn´t expect to survive his two attacks, but expected to be seen as a visionary avantgarde in the future. Paving the road for a future comback for Nazi rule.
Many of the most persistent Holocaust deniers have cornered themselves so gravely that giving up the Holocaust denial would threaten their whole “ideological” set up. Better living in a lie, than living from nothing.
Denying the Holocaust could be a ticket, acid test, to entering the inner circles of Fascism/Nazism, a culture saturated by
megalomania and conspiracy. Well worth trying, even it is recognized as a lie.
Chris Hedges writes in an article, "White Power to the Rescue," in Truthdig 28 January 2013,
The steady rise of ethnic nationalism over the past decade, the replacing of history with mendacious and sanitized versions of lost glory, is part of the moral decay that infects a dying culture. It is a frightening attempt, by those who are desperate and trapped, to escape through invented history their despair, impoverishment and hopelessness. It breeds intolerance and eventually violence. Violence becomes in this perverted belief system a cleansing agent, a way to restore a lost world. There are ample historical records that disprove the myths espoused by the by the neo-Confederates, who insist the Civil War was not about slavery but states’ rights and the protection of traditional Christianity. But these records are useless in puncturing their self-delusion, just as documentary evidence does nothing to blunt the self-delusion of Holocaust deniers. Those who retreat into fantasy cannot be engaged in rational discussion, for fantasy is all that is left of their tattered self-esteem. When their myths are attacked as untrue it triggers not a discussion of facts and evidence but a ferocious emotional backlash. The challenge of the myth threatens what is left of hope. And as the economy unravels, as the future looks bleaker and bleaker, this terrifying myth gains potency."
However, Norwegian peace reseacher Johan Galtung was correct when he said about Breivik, "He is one of us."
That is, he is the fruit of our society, its implicit and explicit darkness. (Norway, and Sweden, is killing civilians in Afghanistan and Libya. In order to show loyalty to the Grand Duke, the U.S.)But Breivik should be part of the (Gandhian) solution: dialogue and conversion.
The remedy for those who hate and deny is to see the dark motifes (norms, values, and goals) straight in the face, and make them conscious. A long, painful, and hard work. Often connected with expulsion and social isolation.
But hate and denial is even more painful, because they shrink, or mutilate, our natural open mind, and capacity for compassion and affinity with the world as our home.
Cheers, Björn Lindgren
---
Alan, you may want to read this book (in PDF) which answered more questions for me about the Holocaust, including the rabbinical origins and the specific meaning as to why the "Six Million" figure is important to those who promote this so-called event.
"The Holocaust Dogma of Judaism" by Ben Weintraub.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0By9dVV_URABMT1pDUWx0SGZuVWc/edit?usp=sharing
I'm happy a person made the decision to reveal your own effort along with individuals such as myself. Ive already been seeking these details and also so far We merely discovered this complicated. Thanks.
Excellent post. I am dealing with some of these issues as well..