Tuesday, 12 February 2013

ALAN HART, VINCENT REYNOUARD, HOLOCAUSTS AND ZIOPEDIA

  Why the Holocaust Denial?

The "official" establishment version of the Holocaust suggests that during World War II six million Jews were taken captive and exterminated in Nazi concentration camps. This may very well be the case, but as we know the winners write history, and in order to maintain control the Zionist globalist establishment must firmly defend their version of events even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If six million really did die, then questioning this figure, researching the facts and scrutinizing the evidence surrounding the Holocaust should and would prove their story. But thanks to organizations like the Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center, AIPAC, and other Zionist apologist groups, simply questioning the official version of the Holocaust has become dangerous.

All over Europe "Holocaust Denial" (their Orwellian pigeon-hole term for questioning "official" history) is ILLEGAL and has resulted in many lengthy imprisonments! Authors, professors, and researchers like Sylvia Stolz, David Irving, Germar Rudolf, Dr. Frederick Toben and many others have all spent years behind bars for simply speaking out about this taboo subject. One man, Ernst Zundel, has spent over 7 years behind bars simply for re-publishing a small, fascinating book called "Did Six Million Really Die?"

So what are some of the arguments made by these "criminal" Holocaust "deniers?" To begin with multiple Jew and Gentile sources alike confirm that there were no more than 3 million Jews in Germany during the Holocaust anyway. At the time, the entire Jewish population of Europe was only 6.5 million, and over half of them can be accounted for as living outside of Nazi Germany. The "official" story says that millions of Jews were put to death in gas chambers, but the chambers at Aushwitz, Dachau, and Mauthausen supposedly responsible for millions of deaths do not have the necessary sealed doors, frames, or tall chimneys required and forensic examinations of the sites have revealed no residue of anything toxic ever being used there. Establishment historians claim that Treblinka and Belzec are the sites of mass graves where hundreds of thousands of Jews were buried, yet scientists have shown using ground penetrating radar and core samples with 100% certainty that there are no mass graves and the ground has never even been disturbed.

Of course, atrocity propaganda is nothing new. It has accompanied every conflict of the 20th century and doubtless will continue to do so. During the First World War, the Germans were actually accused of eating Belgian babies, as well as delighting to throw them in the air and transfix them on bayonets. The British also alleged that the German forces were operating a “Corpse Factory”, in which they boiled down the bodies of their own dead in order to obtain glycerin and other commodities, a calculated insult to the honour of an Imperial army. After the war, however, came the retractions; indeed, a public statement was made by the Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons apologizing for the insults to German honour, which were admitted to be war-time propaganda.

No such statements have been made after the Second World War. In fact, rather than diminish with the passage of years, the atrocity propaganda concerning the German occupation, and in particular their treatment of the Jews, has done nothing but increase its virulence, and elaborate its catalogue of horrors. Gruesome paperback books with lurid covers continue to roll from the presses, adding continuously to a growing mythology of the concentration camps and especially to the story that no less than Six Million Jews were exterminated in them. The ensuing pages will reveal this claim to be the most colossal piece of fiction and the most successful of deceptions; but here an attempt may be made to answer an important question: What has rendered the atrocity stories of the Second World War so uniquely different from those of the First? Why were the latter retracted while the former are reiterated louder than ever? Is it possible that the story of the Six Million Jews is serving a political purpose, even that it is a form of political blackmail?

So far as the Jewish people themselves are concerned, the deception has been an incalculable benefit. Every conceivable race and nationality had its share of suffering in the Second World War, but none has so successfully elaborated it and turned it to such great advantage. The alleged extent of their persecution quickly aroused sympathy for the Jewish national homeland they had sought for so long; after the War the British Government did little to prevent Jewish emigration to Palestine which they had declared illegal, and it was not long afterwards that the Zionists wrested from the Government the land of Palestine and created their haven from persecution, the State of Israel. Indeed, it is a remarkable fact that the Jewish people emerged from the Second World War as nothing less than a triumphant minority. Dr. Max Nussbaum, the former chief rabbi of the Jewish community in Berlin, stated on April 11, 1953: “The position the Jewish people occupy today in the world—despite the enormous losses—is ten times stronger than what it was twenty years ago.” It should be added, if one is to be honest, that this strength has been much consolidated financially by the supposed massacre of the Six Million, undoubtedly the most profitable atrocity allegation of all time. To date, the staggering figure of six thousand million pounds has been paid out in compensation by the Federal Government of West Germany, mostly to the State of Israel (which did not even exist during the Second World War), as well as to individual Jewish claimants.

In terms of political blackmail, however, the allegation that Six Million Jews died during the Second World War has much more far-reaching implications for the people of Britain and Europe than simply the advantages it has gained for the Jewish nation. And here one comes to the crux of the question: Why the Big Lie? What is its purpose? In the first place, it has been used quite unscrupulously to discourage any form of nationalism. Should the people of Britain or any other European country attempt to assert their patriotism and preserve their national integrity in an age when the very existence of nation-states is threatened, they are immediately branded as “neo-Nazis”. Because, of course, Nazism was nationalism, and we all know what happened then—Six Million Jews were exterminated! So long as the myth is perpetuated, peoples everywhere will remain in bondage to it; the need for international tolerance and understanding will be hammered home by the United Nations until nationhood itself, the very guarantee of freedom, is abolished. -Excerpt from Did Six Million Really Die?







http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6TK80BA55D0/TzZoo8Mp1wI/AAAAAAAADdg/oy0ONEtDT3M/s730/beautiful_nature_waterfall-wide.jpg



VINCENT REYNOUARD 

 Chères amies, Chers amis,

L'équipe de Sans Concession a le plaisir de vous annoncer la diffusion de trois nouvelles vidéos.
Une première vidéo en deux parties intitulée : Le mythe des "camions à gaz" (première partie, deuxième partie). D'après la thèse officielle, les Allemands auraient asphyxié 700 000 personnes dans des "camions à gaz". Dans cette nouvelle vidéo, Vincent Reynouard se fonde sur des documents historiques et sur des considérations techniques (celles notamment développées par Pierre Marais) pour démontrer que les "camions à gaz" allemands n'ont jamais existé. Ils sont le fruit de rumeurs qui n'ont guère eu de succès en Pologne mais qui, à partir de 1943, se sont répandues grâce à l'action de la propagande soviétique (procès de Krasnodar).
 NB -
"L'utilisateur a supprimé cette vidéo. Opération impossible".

Dans la deuxième vidéo, très courte, intitulée La vérité sur la conférence de Wannsee, Vincent Reynouard explique que les nationaux-socialistes ne voulaient pas exterminer les juifs. Leur objectif était de les refouler hors de la sphère d'influence allemande en les faisant travailler près du front de l'Est. 
 Ils prévoyaient certes que bien des juifs mourraient lors de ce refoulement, mais ils y voyaient une occasion de renaissance de ce peuple (avec ses éléments les meilleurs). 
Pour consulter les vidéos sur notre site internet, PHDNM, cliquez ici
Vite, avant la censure !

NB
 Chères amies, Chers amis,
La vidéo intitulée La vérité sur la conférence de Wannsee, le 20 janvier 1942 a été légèrement modifiée et elle est consultable sous un nouveau lien : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UpDXfS2QkE
Si vous cliquez sur l'ancien lien (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_Rd1jX9Wpo), vous trouverez le message suivant : 
"L'utilisateur a supprimé cette vidéo. Opération impossible".
A bientôt avec d'autres vidéos,
    Vincent Reynouard et l'équipe de Sans Concession

Alan Hart and the "Nazi" holocaust


common sense

By Rebel of Oz
The other day, Alan Hart sent me an article titled ‘Understanding the real significance TODAY of the Nazi holocaust.’ In his article, he quoted himself in his book Holocaust – Jewish Death, Zionist Life, Chapter 9 of Volume 1 saying,

“Holocaust denial (and most aspects of holocaust revisionism) is something I cannot get my Gentile mind around. It strikes me as evil on a par with the commissioning of the slaughter and the slaughtering itself.”

Wow, I thought to myself when reading it, this sounds pretty Jewish to me, in spite of the reference to his “Gentile mind”, which seems to indicate that Alan is at least part Gentile, if you know what I mean. Of course, this could all have to do with his many Jewish friends, Alan likes to mention in his articles, such as “Auschwitz survivor” Dr. Hajo Meyer.

“He told me, and I believed him without reservation, that some of his Jewish “comrades” in Auschwitz were assigned the task of removing the corpses from the gas chambers and transferring them to incinerators for burning. He added that the smoke and fumes from the chimneys of the incinerators could be seen and smelled all over the camp.”

Alan is obviously one of those people who believe their friends whatever they tell them, regardless of common sense, pesky scientific and legal technicalities or forensic evidence. Here just a few examples:
  • The Leuchter Report and later again Germar Rudolf’s scholarly examinations have proven beyond reasonable doubt that no Zyklon B has been used as alleged in the shower rooms of the Auschwitz, Majdanek or any other Nazi concentration camp for that matter.[1]
  • The outstanding documentary “One third of the holocaust” did an equally excellent job at debunking allegations that the concentration camps in Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec had been death camps, in which supposedly one third of the Holocaust victims had been murdered.[2]
  • The allegations that the Germans were using in Treblinka the exhaust fumes from a captured Russian tank to gas over a million prisoners are obviously nonsense since diesel exhaust fumes do not contain poisonous levels of carbon monoxide, which is why diesel vehicles are widely used in underground mining.
  • The confessions made by Nazi leaders in the Nuremberg and other war crime tribunals have been proven to be the result of rampant torture and coercion, such as crushed testicles and threats to hand over wife and daughters to the Russians for gang rape purposes.
Holocaust revisionists such as Arthur Butz, Carlo Mattogno, Germar Rudolf and Robert Faurisson have sufficiently proven, under biggest personal sacrifices I might add, that the entire Holocaust narrative is a vicious hoax. [3]
Since Alan is a longstanding contributing author to the Rebel site and I value freedom of expression, I posted it in spite of my reservations. However, I added some of my objections and also sent him an email saying:
“Alan, the most disturbing thing for me about the official holocaust story is when seemingly intelligent people like yourself don’t get that something that you cannot question without being systematically and viciously destroyed, even imprisoned, must be a lie, irrespective of the country, not just Communist China or North Korea.”
Alan’s reply to me was:
“Perhaps I am more intelligent than you think I am and you are less intelligent than you think you are. The fact that by its blackmail Zionism has made questioning the holocaust a crime in some places etcetera is not evidence of any kind that the holocaust is a lie. It’s all part of Zionism’s process of using and abusing the holocaust as a blackmail card.”
Since Alan has such a high opinion of his intelligence and is convinced that he’s right, I decided to have a closer look at the evidence he is providing for this claims that the Nazi holocaust narrative actually happened, other than the hearsay statements made by his Jewish friends.
Alan claims that the Nazis decided to mass-murder the Jews because the Brits reneged on the Balfour declaration and the Transfer Agreement they had with Hitler about forcedly resettling the European Jews in Palestine. In other words, since the Palestinians didn’t want them and the Brits were unwilling or unable to force the Palestinians to accept them, Hitler decided to exterminate the Jews instead. Plausible, I admit, but that doesn’t get rid of the problem that the alleged methods of mass murder are nonsense, as demonstrated by the revisionists.
Alan then quotes from speeches held on the Wannsee conference and from Goebbel’s diary. It would appear that Alan – in spite of writing books on the topic – is completely oblivious not only to the work of the above mentioned leading revisionists, but also to the most eminent historian on the era of World War II, David Irving. [4] If he wasn’t, he wouldn’t have come to his libelous interpretations, unless, of course, he’s consciously peddling a false narrative to please his Jewish friends and publishers. Crime pays, after all. There is an even more awkward explanation possible though. Maybe, it’s the other way round, and it’s Alan Hart who is not as intelligent as he thinks.
Footnotes:
[1] Fred Leuchter, Robert Faurisson, Germar Rudolf: The Leuchter Report, Critical Edition, http://therebel.org/books/475030-the-leuchter-reports-critical-edition
[2] One Third of the Holocaust (2006) and related documentaries can be found in the online video section of the Rebel site (http://therebel.org/videos).
[3] You can find PDF versions of many of the books of above mentioned authors in the online books section of the Rebel site (http://therebel.org/books)
[4] e.g. David Irving, Revelations from Goebbels’ Diary (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v15/v15n1p-2_Irving.html




 
 

Alan Hart and the Jewish Dark Art of Gatekeeping

dresden_dees
By Rebel of Oz
This article is the second part of yesterday’s editorial on the Rebel site titled ‘Alan Hart and the Nazi holocaust ’. For some reason, Alan Hart didn’t have the balls to directly respond to the first part. He did however reply to an email containing the article forwarded to him by a fellow activist together with his comments.
Alan’s response was remarkable:
As for “science”, it’s like economics, people can make it mean whatever they want it to mean. Most of the world’s scientists are agreed, for example, that man-made global warming is a real threat to the future of humankind, but other scientists (most if not all of them stooges for the MNC’s) say their science proves the majority are wrong. So I say in relation to the Nazi holocaust – Fuck science!
Funny how he picked exactly that area of science that proves like no other what prostitutes scientists have become in recent years: climate change. I could understand if he was trying to support his argument that you can’t trust scientists, but no, he portrayed it as an area of science where everybody agrees, which is utter bullshit. Alan knows this. So why did he use that example? To prove to our ruling parasites how ‘politically reliable’ he is? Is that how he sells his books?
The next thing I heard from Alan was the submission of a new article that he had just posted on his site titled ‘WANTED – A psychiatric diagnosis of Nazi holocaust denial’ suggesting in best Judeo-Bolshevik tradition that Holocaust revisionists needed psychiatric attention.
He then went on to support his view that “holocaust denial (and most aspects of holocaust revisionism) is evil on a par with the commissioning of the slaughter and the slaughtering itself” making the following point:
Does it really matter HOW Jews were exterminated in Nazi concentration camps? Even if you chose to believe that gas chambers were not part and parcel of the Nazi extermination programme, there is irrefutable evidence that Jews were shot, hanged, burned, injected and starved to death and, also, that many died from diseases that were only terminal because of the conditions of their incarceration.
Alan sounds like a boy whose big brother had just pointed out to him that the Santa Claus story stinks because the chimney Santa supposedly uses to drop off the presents is fake and responds saying that in that case Santa must come into the house a different way. Is Alan Hart really so naïve to believe that it would be totally out of character for Jews to lie for financial and political gains or is he – as one commentator on his site suggests – a classic case of a gatekeeper? His remarks concerning the undisputed nature of climate change ‘science’ suggest that way.
But back to his arguments why it doesn’t matter whether there were gas chambers because there have been enough other killings to support the extermination claims. Yes, there have been executions of Jews inside and outside of Nazi concentration camps. Nobody disputes that. The main points revisionists are making is that there was no extermination programme, no gas chambers and no six million murdered Jews. The only holocaust that happened in Europe during World War II was the murder of over 1 million German civilians in the Allied terror bombing of German cities, most notably in the orgy of fire in Dresden in which more civilians were murdered than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. And let’s not forget the 1.5 million civilians and prisoners of wars that were frozen and starved to death in General Eisenhower’s concentration camps along the Rhine river, the millions of German civilian refugees that were slaughtered by Soviet troops and the millions of German women gang raped by them. That’s a real holocaust and not one person got punished for those crimes against humanity.
The “Jewish Holocaust” on the other hand is a fiction. The International Red Cross, who throughout the entire war had unrestricted access to the Nazi concentration camps and at no time suggested any wrong-doings, performed immediately after the war a thorough investigation of the number of deaths in Nazi concentration camps. The figure they came up with were around 200,000 death cases, most of them due to diseases such as typhus and only slightly more than half of them Jews, which made the Nazi concentration camps a safer place than being a civilian on the outside. To blame those deaths on the camp administration, like Alan Hart does, is nothing short of malicious slender. If he had done his due diligence as someone who writes books on the topic, he would know how hard the SS worked to keep the deaths by typhus and other diseases to a minimum. If he wants to blame anyone for the deaths, he should blame the people responsible for the Allied terror bombing which made it at times impossible for the SS to provide the camps with the necessary food, medication and the fumigant Zyklon B used for the delousing of the prisoner uniforms.
“But why would anybody want to deny the Nazi holocaust when there really is so much irrefutable evidence that many Jews were exterminated?”,
asks Alan Hart in his new article. Doesn’t he get that it doesn’t matter how many sob stories Jews come up with ‘witnessing’ the alleged murder, if the methods suggested in their ‘testimonies’ have been proven to be bullshit?! And doesn’t he get that if the main method suggested by the ‘witnesses’ has been ruled out in all likelihood the rest of the story is bullshit too?! In no proper court of law, such unreliable witnesses would be believed even one more thing.
In particular, Alan refers to the ‘witness statements’ published on the BBC website concerning the concentration camps in Buchenwald and Bergen-Belsen. Those concentration camps were used by the Germans to quarantine prisoners with typhus. Anyone interested should research how long it takes for a healthy and well fed person infected with typhus to look like a skeleton. Ask your doctor, and he will tell you that it doesn’t need more than a couple of weeks. The Allieds’ psychological warfare specialists used the two camps for their propaganda purposes to distract from the war crimes committed against German people, such as the destruction of 95% of the civilian infrastructure.This is why those shockingly thin prisoners on the photos published by the Allieds were naked. Does anyone seriously believe the German SS would have made them run around naked? And what kind of person humiliates prisoners he just freed by making them line up naked to be photographed?!
Alan asks in his article in all seriousness why people think he is Jewish.
“Something else that puzzles me is why some holocaust deniers feel compelled to assert that I am Jewish when I am NOT. I quite often use the term “the Gentile me” to signal that fact. Obviously they have a need not to believe me.”
Well, Alan, maybe it’s got something to do with that you sound like a Jew. To say stuff like Holocaust revisionism was just as evil as commissioning or committing the alleged mass-murder of six million Jews makes you sound like one of them. And phrases like “the Gentile in me” don’t exactly instill much confidence in your non-Jewishness either. It’s exactly the kind of expression some weaseling mixed Jew would use to disguise his Jewish blood.
One last point I would like to make concerning a claim Alan routinely makes that Holocaust revisionism would help the Zionists. Now that’s downright idiotic. The Holocaust hoax is the Achilles heel of the Zionists. Left untouched, it is a shield that makes the Zionists invulnerable against pressure concerning their crimes committed against Palestinians and others, but debunked and exposed as a hoax in the mind of a critical mass of people the Zionist project will collapse like a French soufflé. Maybe that’s exactly what Alan Hart is trying to prevent.
Related:
Apostle Paul and the Jewish Dark Art of Gatekeeping
The treacherous role of the Jews in the pro-Palestinian movement
The Jewish Holocaust and the New World Order
Pro-Palestinian Activism and the Holocult: A Modern Tragicomedy
Video: Buchenwald—A Dumb Dumb Portrayal Of Evil (2008)
Video: One Third of the Holocaust (2006)
Video: David Cole: The Truth Behind The Gates Of Auschwitz

2 thoughts on “Alan Hart and the Jewish Dark Art of Gatekeeping” 

 

Part 3: Alan Hart and his pathetically imploding case against revisionists and ‘deniers’

peres dees
By Rebel of Oz
Over the course of a week and three articles which have been duly debunked and ridiculed, Alan Hart’s whole case against Holocaust revisionism has now collapsed to little more than a quote of a guy called Samuel Crowell whom he calls “the author of what some regard as the definitive books which make the case for Nazi holocaust revisionism.” He quotes Crowell as saying “Revisionism tends to be extreme in its rejection of Nazi atrocities.” Now, neither me nor the fellow activists I spoke to about Alan’s latest article title The Nazi holocaust: My response to my critics have ever heard of Samuel Crowell, in spite of his Jewish first name. The revisionist scholars we are familiar with, Germar Rudolf, Juergen Graf, Robert Faurisson, Arthur Butz and Carlo Mattogno, do NOT reject the notion of Nazi atrocities. They reject the three law-enforced dogmas of the Holocaust faith: the claim that the Nazis had a plan to exterminate the European Jewry, that they did indeed kill them by the millions and used the delousing fumigant Zyklon B and the (non-toxic) exhaust fumes of a diesel engine for the purpose. But even if revisionist scholars did go too far in their rejection of Nazi atrocities, where exactly would that change anything about the validity of their arguments against the mainstream Holocaust narrative?

Alan Hart also quotes Samuel Crowell as saying “The number of victims is an uninteresting argument.” and adds, “It can be a diversion from the main point that many Jews were exterminated.” John Friend in an email to me points out that
Alan Hart keeps insisting that the “Nazis” did in fact murder lots of Jews and committed grave atrocities and war crimes, so who cares about the specifics, the numbers, the methods of execution, etc.? Who cares if many of the “survivors” and “eye-witnesses” are total frauds making up complete fables to perpetuate this “Holocaust” myth? Who cares if the entire “Holocaust” narrative has been manufactured by organized Jewish groups?
Alan only cares about that the Nazis killed “many Jews”, not how many or how. For some reason he desperately wants to preserve the notion that Nazis were the bad guys and the Jews the victims. He also desperately wants to believe his Jewish friend Hajo Meyer whom he knows for many years and – like so many other professional ‘Holocaust survivors’ has made a career out of selling the Holocaust myth. Finkelstein calls it the ‘Holocaust industry’. What exactly makes Alan think that Hajo Meyer would put his livelihood as risk by admitting that the gas chambers were a hoax? Selfish financial interests aside, all Hajo Meyer has to support his claims is unreliable hearsay anyhow: fellow prisoners telling him things that have been proven to be falsehoods, because if they had entered the alleged gas chambers as claimed without powerful exhaust fans, gas masks and heavy protection clothes, they would have died before being able to tell anyone.
Who is being irrational here, the Holocaust revisionists or Alan? Alan now extends his expert psychological diagnosis of revisionists from his previous article as requiring psychiatric attention to requiring more sex. His words (and photographs, I might add) speak for themselves.
The remainder of Alan’s presentation isn’t any more impressive. He repeats his mantra that Holocaust revisionism was helping Zionism, again without providing any supporting logical argument. It’s pretty obviously that the opposite is true. As long as people still believe the official Holocaust story, the Zionists can keep coercing Western governments into subsiding it with billions of dollars every year in financial and military support. It can keep intimidate its critics by portraying them as anti-Semites who were trying to finish ‘Hitler’s job’. On the other hand, with a critical mass of people knowing that the Holocaust story is just a hoax, Western people will no longer be afraid of investigating and thoroughly debunking the Zionist case for a Jewish state on Palestinian land. The whole project will collapse. The Holocaust story is the Zionists’ most powerful weapon. If we ever want to defeat them we must wrest it out of their blood soaked hands and turn it against them.

 

Alan Hart

The Nazi holocaust: My response to my critics

Question Mark Image

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...

George Galloway - Again, What right did Britain have to grant you (Jews) somebody else's country?

 

No comments:

Post a Comment