Obviously, informed people don’t swallow their lies.

[Street Juice]

Jews have never shied away from slaughtering their own to achieve what they felt to be overarching goals. Here’s David Ben Gurion in the late 1930’s: “If I knew that it was possible to save all the [Jewish] children in Germany by transporting them to England, but only half by transporting them to Palestine, I would choose the second.”

I think you could add something to that. Jews don’t take things lying down. There was no threat to Jewish lives in Germany in the 30’s. There was discrimination and the Jews, particularly international Jewry, strongly objected to this and ratcheted up propaganda around the world against Germany in an effort to start WW II. This goal was achieved in 1939. In addition to everything else they were doing, the Jewish leadership in Great Britain began paying Winston Churchill huge sums of money to make war on Germany in 1937. Germany was aware of many of these things, as the propaganda was for everyone to see. Jews played a huge role in pushing the world to war so when for instance 50,000 Germans were killed in 5 days of bombing in 1943 in Hamburg, Germans might not be so inclined to speak out on Jews behalf, considering they paid Churchill to do that.

David Irving has copies of the original correspondence between Winston Churchill and Chaim Weizmann, the leader of British Jewry and later, first President of Israel. In a letter to Churchill in the late 30’s, Weizmann says Jews are the most united force in the USA in their firm determination that there should be a war against Germany. He says from the poor peddler to the rich banker, they are united in this belief. He also adds Jews played a big role in pulling the USA into WW I on the allies side and they can do it again if Churchill is more helpful to them. Germany was not oblivious to Jewish propaganda and politicking and when Germans were being burned alive in their cities I’m sure they wanted to hit back at those that did that to them.

But Jews insist they were just innocent bystanders with no power and they played no role in anything that might explain why numerous countries in Europe considered Jews a hostile enemy. Just like they would claim the Jews had no responsibility for anything bad that happened in the Soviet Union. The fact that they made up 80 to 85% of the Soviet government, which genocided 66 million Russian Christians by the time all was said and done, is irrelevant to them. Obviously, informed people don’t swallow their lies.

 

[Starlette]

Isn't David Irving the "historian"/writer who was discredited in court by Deborah Lipstadt? He's not exactly a reliable source lol.

Also, considering I had 2 German Jewish grandparents who were lucky to escape Nazi Germany, I know quite a bit about that time in history and you couldn't be more wrong about the state of affairs in the 30s. My grandfather was arrested in the early 30s & was lucky to be released and then get a visa to the United States (let me add, he served in the American army during the war. Landed at Normandy and was part of the Battle of the Bulge). My grandmother's family wasn't able to get out till later, and she told me what it was like to live through Kristalnacht which was in the 30s by the way. She spent hours and hours walking with her uncle through a park because it was too dangerous for him to go home, and having a teen girl walking with him gave him more cover. In the end, he didn't survive anyway as he, his wife, and 3 sons (my grandmother didn't remember her cousins' names because I think she must've blocked them out of her mind) were deported and killed a few years later....

Also, you might want to read the fascinating and very well written book, Hitler's First Victims. It was based on the investigation of a German homicide detective in the 1930s regarding the deaths at a political prison camp set up by the Nazis. It wasn't only Jews there, but the Jewish prisoners were murdered in what he uncovered was a staged (by the Nazis) supposed escape attempt.

I have lots more I could say believe me!

 

[Street Juice]

Isn't David Irving the "historian"/writer who was discredited in court by Deborah Lipstadt? He's not exactly a reliable source lol.

rving is an individual of uncommonly strong scholarly integrity, and as such he is unable to see things in the record that do not exist, even if it were in his considerable interest to do so, nor to fabricate non-existent evidence. Therefore, his unwillingness to dissemble or pay lip-service to various widely-worshiped cultural totems eventually provoked an outpouring of vilification by a swarm of ideological fanatics drawn from a particular ethnic persuasion. This situation was rather similar to the troubles my old Harvard professor E.O. Wilson had experienced around that same time upon publication of his own masterwork Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, the book that helped launch the field of modern human evolutionary psychobiology.

These zealous ethnic-activists began a coordinated campaign to pressure Irving’s prestigious publishers into dropping his books, while also disrupting his frequent international speaking tours and even lobbying countries to bar him from entry. They maintained a drumbeat of media vilification, continually blackening his name and his research skills, even going so far as to denounce him as a “Nazi” and a “Hitler-lover,” just as had similarly been done in the case of Prof. Wilson.

During the 1980s and 1990s, these determined efforts, sometimes backed by considerable physical violence, increasingly bore fruit, and Irving’s career was severely impacted. He had once been feted by the world’s leading publishing houses and his books serialized and reviewed in Britain’s most august newspapers; now he gradually became a marginalized figure, almost a pariah, with enormous damage to his sources of income.

In 1993, Deborah Lipstadt, a rather ignorant and fanatic professor of Theology and Holocaust Studies (or perhaps “Holocaust Theology”) ferociously attacked him in her book as being a “Holocaust Denier,” leading Irving’s timorous publisher to suddenly cancel the contract for his major new historical volume. This development eventually sparked a rancorous lawsuit in 1998, which resulted in a celebrated 2000 libel trial held in British Court.

That legal battle was certainly a David-and-Goliath affair, with wealthy Jewish movie producers and corporate executives providing a huge war-chest of $13 million to Lipstadt’s side, allowing her to fund a veritable army of 40 researchers and legal experts, captained by one of Britain’s most successful Jewish divorce lawyers. By contrast, Irving, being an impecunious historian, was forced to defend himself without benefit of legal counsel.

In real life unlike in fable, the Goliaths of this world are almost invariably triumphant, and this case was no exception, with Irving being driven into personal bankruptcy, resulting in the loss of his fine central London home. But seen from the longer perspective of history, I think the victory of his tormenters was a remarkably Pyrrhic one.

Although the target of their unleashed hatred was Irving’s alleged “Holocaust denial,” as near as I can tell, that particular topic was almost entirely absent from all of Irving’s dozens of books, and exactly that very silence was what had provoked their spittle-flecked outrage. Therefore, lacking such a clear target, their lavishly-funded corps of researchers and fact-checkers instead spent a year or more apparently performing a line-by-line and footnote-by-footnote review of everything Irving had ever published, seeking to locate every single historical error that could possibly cast him in a bad professional light. With almost limitless money and manpower, they even utilized the process of legal discovery to subpoena and read the thousands of pages in his bound personal diaries and correspondence, thereby hoping to find some evidence of his “wicked thoughts.” Denial, a 2016 Hollywood film co-written by Lipstadt, may provide a reasonable outline of the sequence of events as seen from her perspective.
Yet despite such massive financial and human resources, they apparently came up almost entirely empty, at least if Lipstadt’s triumphalist 2005 book History on Trial may be credited. Across four decades of research and writing, which had produced numerous controversial historical claims of the most astonishing nature, they only managed to find a couple of dozen rather minor alleged errors of fact or interpretation, most of these ambiguous or disputed. And the worst they discovered after reading every page of the many linear meters of Irving’s personal diaries was that he had once composed a short “racially insensitive” ditty for his infant daughter, a trivial item which they naturally then trumpeted as proof that he was a “racist.” Thus, they seemingly admitted that Irving’s enormous corpus of historical texts was perhaps 99.9% accurate.
I think this silence of “the dog that didn’t bark” echoes with thunderclap volume. I’m not aware of any other academic scholar in the entire history of the world who has had all his decades of lifetime work subjected to such painstakingly exhaustive hostile scrutiny. And since Irving apparently passed that test with such flying colors, I think we can regard almost every astonishing claim in all of his books—as recapitulated in his videos—as absolutely accurate.

The Remarkable Historiography of David Irving

I'm very pleased to announce that our selection of HTML Books now contains works by renowned World War II historian David Irving, including his magisterial Hitler’s War, named by famed military historian Sir John Keegan as one of the most crucial volumes for properly understanding that conflict...

www.unz.com

 

[fncceo]

Obviously, informed people don’t swallow their lies.​

 

[Street Juice]

Isn't David Irving the "historian"/writer who was discredited in court by Deborah Lipstadt? He's not exactly a reliable source lol.

Since Ames was merely an ignorant political hack transmitting the opinions of others, I focused on Lipstadt, his key source. Anyone who has spent much time on the comment-threads of relatively unfiltered websites has certainly encountered the controversial topic of Holocaust Denial, but I now decided to try to investigate the issue in much more serious fashion. A few clicks on the Amazon.com website, and her 1993 book Denying the Holocaust arrived in my mailbox a couple of days later, providing me an entrance into that mysterious world.

Reading the book was certainly a tremendous revelation to me. Lipstadt is a professor of Holocaust Studies with an appointment in Emory University’s Department of Theology, and once I read the opening paragraph of her first chapter, I decided that her academic specialty might certainly be described as “Holocaust Theology.”

The producer was incredulous. She found it hard to believe that I was turning down an opportunity to appear on her nationally televised show. “But you are writing a book on this topic. It will be great publicity.” I explained repeatedly that I would not participate in a debate with a Holocaust denier. The existence of the Holocaust was not a matter of debate. I would analyze and illustrate who they were and what they tried to do, but I would not appear with them…Unwilling to accept my no as final, she vigorously condemned Holocaust denial and all it represented. Then, in one last attempt to get me to change my mind, she asked me a question: “I certainly don’t agree with them, but don’t you think our viewers should hear the other side?”

Lipstadt’s absolute horror at having someone actually dispute the tenets of her academic doctrine could not have been more blatant. Surely no zealous theologian of the European Dark Ages would have reacted any differently.

The second chapter of her book supported that impression. Since many of the individuals she castigates as Holocaust Deniers also supported the Revisionist perspective of the underlying causes of the First and Second World Wars, she harshly attacked those schools, but in rather strange fashion. In recent years, blogger Steve Sailer and others have ridiculed what they describe as the “point-and-sputter” style of debate, in which a “politically-incorrect” narrative is merely described and then automatically treated as self-evidently false without any accompanying need for actual refutation. This seemed to be the approach that Lipstadt took throughout her rather short book.

For example, she provided a very long list of leading academic scholars, prominent political figures, and influential journalists who had championed Revisionist history, noted that their views disagree with the more mainstream perspective she had presumably imbibed from her History 101 textbooks, and thereby regarded them as fully debunked. Certainly a Christian preacher attempting to refute the evolutionary theories of Harvard’s E.O. Wilson by quoting a passage of Bible verse might take much the same approach. But few evangelical activists would be so foolish as to provide a very long list of eminent scientists who all took the same Darwinist position and then attempt to sweep them aside by citing a single verse from Genesis. Lipstadt seems to approach history much like a Bible-thumper, but a particularly dim-witted one. Moreover, many of the authors she attacked had already become familiar to me after a decade of my content-archiving work, and I had found their numerous books quite scholarly and persuasive.

Barnes, in particular, figured quite prominently in Lipstadt’s chapter and throughout her book. The index listed his name on more than two dozen pages, and he is repeatedly described as the “godfather” of Holocaust Denial, and its seminal figure. Given such heavy coverage, I eagerly examined all those references and the accompanying footnotes to uncover the shocking statements he must have made during his very long scholarly career.

I was quite disappointed. There was not a single reference I could find to his supposed Holocaust Denial views until just the year before his death at age 79, and even that item is hardly what I had been led to believe. In a 9,300 word article on Revisionism for a libertarian publication, he ridicules a leading Holocaust source for claiming that Hitler had killed 25 million Jews, noting that total was nearly twice their entire worldwide population at the time. In addition, Barnes several times applied the word “allegedly” to the stories of the Nazi extermination scheme, a sacrilegious attitude that appears to have horrified a theologian such as Lipstadt. Finally, in a short, posthumously published review of a book by French scholar Paul Rassiner, Barnes found his estimate of just 1 million to 1.5 million Jewish deaths quite convincing, but his tone suggested that he had never previously investigated the matter himself.

So although that last item technically validated Lipstadt’s accusation that Barnes was a Holocaust Denier, her evidence-free claims that he was the founder and leader of the field hardly enhanced her scholarly credibility. Meanwhile, all the many tens of thousands of words I had read by Barnes suggested that he was a careful and dispassionate historian.

A notorious incident that occurred soon after the Bolshevik Revolution came to my mind. Eminent philologist Timofei Florinsky, one of Russia’s most internationally renowned academic scholars, was hauled before a revolutionary tribunal for a public interrogation about his views, and one of the judges, a drunken Jewish former prostitute, found his answers so irritating that she drew her revolver and shot him dead right there and then. Given Lipstadt’s obvious emotional state, I had a strong suspicion that she might have wished she could deal in a similar fashion with Barnes and the numerous other scholars she denounced. Among other things, she noted with horror that more than two decades after his 1940 purge from public life, Barnes’ books were still required reading at both Harvard and Columbia.

All of us reasonably extrapolate what we already know or can easily check against what is more difficult to verify, and the remaining chapters of Lipstadt’s book left me very doubtful about the reliability of her work, all of which was written in a similar near-hysterical style. Since she had already been vaguely known to me from her well-publicized legal battle against historian David Irving more than a dozen years earlier, I was hardly surprised to discover that many pages were devoted to vilifying and insulting him in much the same manner as Barnes, so I decided to investigate that case.

I was only slightly surprised to discover that Irving had been one of the world’s most successful World War II historians, whose remarkable documentary findings had completely upended our knowledge of that conflict and its origins, with his books selling in the many millions. His entire approach to controversial historical issues was to rely as much as possible upon hard documentary evidence, and his total inability to locate any such documents relating to the Holocaust drove Lipstadt and her fellow ethnic-activists into a frenzy of outrage, so after many years of effort they finally managed to wreck his career. Out of curiosity, I read a couple of his shorter books, which seemed absolutely outstanding historiography, written in a very measured tone, quite different from that of Lipstadt, whose own 2005 account of her legal triumph over Irving, History on Trial, merely confirmed my opinion of her incompetence.

Lipstadt’s first book Beyond Belief, published in 1986, tells an interesting story as well, with her descriptive subtitle being “The American Press and the Coming of the Holocaust, 1933-1945.” Much of the volume consists of press clippings from the American print media of that era interspersed with her rather hysterical running commentary, but providing little analysis or judgment. Some of the journalists reported horrifying conditions for Jews in pre-war Germany while others claimed that such stories were wildly exaggerated, with Lipstadt automatically praising the former and denouncing the latter without providing any serious explanation.

Lenni Brenner’s remarkable book Zionism in the Age of the Dictators had been published three years earlier. Although I only discovered it very recently, any half-competent specialist in her own topic would surely have noticed it, yet Lipstadt provided no hint of its existence. Perhaps the reality of the important Nazi-Zionist economic partnership of the 1930s, with Nazi officials traveling to Palestine as honored Zionist guests and leading Nazi newspapers praising the Zionist enterprise might have complicated her simple story of fanatic German Jew-hatred under Hitler steadily rising towards an exterminationist pitch. Her faculty appointment in a Department of Theology seemed very apt.

Lipstadt’s wartime coverage was just as bad, perhaps worse. She cataloged perhaps a couple of hundred print news reports, each describing the massacre of hundreds of thousands or even millions of Jews by the Nazis. But she expressed her outrage that so many of these reports were buried deep within the inside pages of newspapers, a placement suggesting that they were regarded as hysterical wartime atrocity propaganda and probably fictional, with the editors sometimes explicitly stating that opinion. Indeed, among these under-emphasized stories was the claim that the Germans had recently killed 1.5 million Jews by individually injecting each one of them in the heart with a lethal drug. And although I don’t see any mention of it, around that same time America’s top Jewish leader Rabbi Stephen Wise was peddling the absurd report that the Nazis had slaughtered millions of Jews, turning their skins into lampshades and rendering their bodies into soap. Obviously, separating truth from falsehood during a blizzard of wartime propaganda was not nearly as easy as Lipstadt seemed to assume.

Ordinary Americans were apparently even more skeptical than newspaper editors. According to Lipstadt:

Writing in the Sunday New York Times Magazine, [Arthur] Koestler cited public opinion polls in the United States in which nine of ten average Americans dismissed the accusations against the Nazis as propaganda lies and flatly stated that they did not believe a word of them.

Lipstadt convincingly demonstrated that very few Americans seem to have believed in the reality of the Holocaust during the Second World War itself, despite considerable efforts by agitated Jewish activists to persuade them. Over the years, I have seen mention of numerous other books making this same basic point, and therefore harshly condemning the American political leaders of the time for having failed “to save the Jews.”

American Pravda: Holocaust Denial

Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement

www.unz.com

 

[Street Juice]

View attachment 583734

In other words, ya got nuthin

 

[BULLDOG]

I think you could add something to that. Jews don’t take things lying down. There was no threat to Jewish lives in Germany in the 30’s. There was discrimination and the Jews, particularly international Jewry, strongly objected to this and ratcheted up propaganda around the world against Germany in an effort to start WW II. This goal was achieved in 1939. In addition to everything else they were doing, the Jewish leadership in Great Britain began paying Winston Churchill huge sums of money to make war on Germany in 1937. Germany was aware of many of these things, as the propaganda was for everyone to see. Jews played a huge role in pushing the world to war so when for instance 50,000 Germans were killed in 5 days of bombing in 1943 in Hamburg, Germans might not be so inclined to speak out on Jews behalf, considering they paid Churchill to do that.

David Irving has copies of the original correspondence between Winston Churchill and Chaim Weizmann, the leader of British Jewry and later, first President of Israel. In a letter to Churchill in the late 30’s, Weizmann says Jews are the most united force in the USA in their firm determination that there should be a war against Germany. He says from the poor peddler to the rich banker, they are united in this belief. He also adds Jews played a big role in pulling the USA into WW I on the allies side and they can do it again if Churchill is more helpful to them. Germany was not oblivious to Jewish propaganda and politicking and when Germans were being burned alive in their cities I’m sure they wanted to hit back at those that did that to them.

But Jews insist they were just innocent bystanders with no power and they played no role in anything that might explain why numerous countries in Europe considered Jews a hostile enemy. Just like they would claim the Jews had no responsibility for anything bad that happened in the Soviet Union. The fact that they made up 80 to 85% of the Soviet government, which genocided 66 million Russian Christians by the time all was said and done, is irrelevant to them. Obviously, informed people don’t swallow their lies.

Interesting post. So you're saying the Jews made the Germans put them in those gas chambers. You know, kinda like that woman that made her husband beat her.

 

[Street Juice]

those gas chambers.

lol, yes, gas chambers. but only the ones they weren't keeping aside to skin and turn into lampshades lol lol

 

[BULLDOG]

lol, yes, gas chambers. but only the ones they weren't keeping aside to skin and turn into lampshades lol lol

As far as your silly little question, I have no need or desire to even try to give a definition your warped brain would accept. Your use of terms, like "blood libel" shows you to be scum with no redeeming qualities, and I will deal with you as such. Go away you piece of shit.

 

[fncceo]

Interesting post. So you're saying the Jews made the Germans put them in those gas chambers. You know, kinda like that woman that made her husband beat her.

Don't waste your breath breath arguing with a Nazi. All of their leaders took their own lives, the only remnants left of their poor, pathetic cult is anonymous cretins posting in whatever forum doesn't ban them.

They have to post anonymously on The Internet because they would have their arses handed to them if they espoused their lunacy in public.

Pity them.

 

[BULLDOG]

Don't waste your breath breath arguing with a Nazi. All of their leaders took their own lives, the only remnants left of their poor, pathetic cult is anonymous cretins posting in whatever forum doesn't ban them.

They have to post anonymously on The Internet because they would have their arses handed to them if they espoused their lunacy in public.

Pity them.

Ridicule them
Laugh at them
But never pity them.

 

[Street Juice]

As far as your silly little question, I have no need or desire to even try to give a definition your warped brain would accept. Your use of terms, like "blood libel" shows you to be scum with no redeeming qualities, and I will deal with you as such. Go away you piece of shit.

Ever wonder why the only flag it was legal to fly in Nazi Germany was the Star of David, you clueless twat? Ever wonder why Mr. Hitler came out of nowhere, flush with money, and took power in Germany almost overnight just when the Zionist project looked like it was going to expire? (1927 saw a net out-migration of Jews from Palestine). And do you think the German Sephardic Jews who fled to Palestine are the objects of solicitous concern to the Russian Chazars--the Ashkenazim who came later? The Ashkenazim are a Turkic people, not Semitic. It is classic Talmud mind-fuckery that in this world, if you raise your voice against the mistreatment by the Israelis of the Palestinians--the only Semitic people in large numbers in Palestine--you will be called antisemitic. Isn't that funny? Talmudic venom is the poison of humanity.

 

[Street Juice]

Don't waste your breath breath arguing with a Nazi. All of their leaders took their own lives, the only remnants left of their poor, pathetic cult is anonymous cretins posting in whatever forum doesn't ban them.

They have to post anonymously on The Internet because they would have their arses handed to them if they espoused their lunacy in public.

Pity them.

haha, poor little Chazar. You just hate exposure, huh?

 

[Street Juice]

Ridicule them
Laugh at them
But never pity them.

Hey, you know where I can get some of that jew-fat soap? hahahaha I want to clean my jewskin lampshades bwahahaha

 

[Lipush]

Oh boy. It's one of THOSE again.

 

[Street Juice]

Oh boy. It's one of THOSE again.

The gap left by the collapse, in 1917, of the legend of "Jewish persecution in Russia" was filled by "the Jewish persecution in Germany" and, just when Zionism was "helpless and hopeless," the Zionists were able with a new cry to affright the Jews and beleaguer the Western politicians. The consequences showed in the outcome of the ensuing war, when revolutionary-Zionism and revolutionary-Communism proved to be the sole beneficiaries.

 

[marvin martian]

I think you could add something to that. Jews don’t take things lying down. There was no threat to Jewish lives in Germany in the 30’s. There was discrimination and the Jews, particularly international Jewry, strongly objected to this and ratcheted up propaganda around the world against Germany in an effort to start WW II. This goal was achieved in 1939. In addition to everything else they were doing, the Jewish leadership in Great Britain began paying Winston Churchill huge sums of money to make war on Germany in 1937. Germany was aware of many of these things, as the propaganda was for everyone to see. Jews played a huge role in pushing the world to war so when for instance 50,000 Germans were killed in 5 days of bombing in 1943 in Hamburg, Germans might not be so inclined to speak out on Jews behalf, considering they paid Churchill to do that.

David Irving has copies of the original correspondence between Winston Churchill and Chaim Weizmann, the leader of British Jewry and later, first President of Israel. In a letter to Churchill in the late 30’s, Weizmann says Jews are the most united force in the USA in their firm determination that there should be a war against Germany. He says from the poor peddler to the rich banker, they are united in this belief. He also adds Jews played a big role in pulling the USA into WW I on the allies side and they can do it again if Churchill is more helpful to them. Germany was not oblivious to Jewish propaganda and politicking and when Germans were being burned alive in their cities I’m sure they wanted to hit back at those that did that to them.

But Jews insist they were just innocent bystanders with no power and they played no role in anything that might explain why numerous countries in Europe considered Jews a hostile enemy. Just like they would claim the Jews had no responsibility for anything bad that happened in the Soviet Union. The fact that they made up 80 to 85% of the Soviet government, which genocided 66 million Russian Christians by the time all was said and done, is irrelevant to them. Obviously, informed people don’t swallow their lies.

You're a good DemoKKKrat.

 

[Street Juice]

You're a good DemoKKKrat.

dumb ass

 

[BULLDOG]

Ever wonder why the only flag it was legal to fly in Nazi Germany was the Star of David, you clueless twat? Ever wonder why Mr. Hitler came out of nowhere, flush with money, and took power in Germany almost overnight just when the Zionist project looked like it was going to expire? (1927 saw a net out-migration of Jews from Palestine). And do you think the German Sephardic Jews who fled to Palestine are the objects of solicitous concern to the Russian Chazars--the Ashkenazim who came later? The Ashkenazim are a Turkic people, not Semitic. It is classic Talmud mind-fuckery that in this world, if you raise your voice against the mistreatment by the Israelis of the Palestinians--the only Semitic people in large numbers in Palestine--you will be called antisemitic. Isn't that funny? Talmudic venom is the poison of humanity.

Not interested in your Nazi rhetoric. Try the Proud Boys. They eat that shit up.

 

[Street Juice]

Not interested in your Nazi rhetoric. Try the Proud Boys. They eat that shit up.

Because, like a typical Bolshevik, you have no legitimate response. Liars and criminals never do.