The Motto of the Holocaust Deniers

Contradictory agendas are pretty common with humans, conflicted critters that we are. Back in my doper days I used to run across dopers who were adamant about how much they hated dope, but yet there was a punch line at the end. Their song went: “I hate dope! Dope sucks! Only losers do dope! You do dope? You’re a loser! You’re a scum!…Speaking of which … Dope … Hey! … Got any? The Holocaust Denier sings a similar darkly humorous tune: “The Holocaust never happened, but let’s do it again, and this time let’s finish the job!” Yeah right. You guys expect us to fall for that? How dumb do you think we are? You don’t even believe in Holocaust Denial yourselves. That’s just for the consumption of others, huh? You’re lying and you know it. SMH.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet 20

115 thoughts on “The Motto of the Holocaust Deniers”

  1. Here is one in defense of sexism by a capitalist, a racist and a sexist.
    Indeed, Bill, isn’t it interesting how often those three things, capitalism, racism, and sexism, are found in the same individuals and in such abundance in the same societies? How do you explain such a coincidence anyway?
    It’s also very interesting that fascists, who are almost always racists, always seem to hate women too. Incredible coincidences.

    Joe Biden, the Democrat from Delaware and running mate of Barack Obama, proclaims to the world: “I am a Zionist”. Indeed. Just like every other AIPAC bought and paid for politician in Congress. If Joe were slightly more erudite he could recite: “Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land… (Arthur James Balfour, Paris, August 11, 1919)
    Of course Joe Biden is a Zionist. He is a Zionist just like Lord Alfred Milner, Lord Robert Cecil, Arthur James Balfour, Leo Amery, Herbert Samuel and dozens of others who swooned at the idea of a recreated temple in Arab Palestine. To be a Zionist is to be noble, progressive and lavishly funded come election time. Joe Biden knows nothing about the history of Zionism and could care less. Arabs do not have much political influence in Delaware and there is no America-Palestine-Public Affairs Committee to supply the devoutly Zionist Mr. Biden with crib notes on grave historical problems. Zionism is good for the American Empire, just as it was good for the British Empire. Both the Arabs and the Jews shall prosper under Zionism in Palestine, because Senator Lieberman has just handed Senator Biden a musty old White Paper from 1922 saying so. We must not sneer too greatly at Senator Biden and his learned ignorance. He is, after all, merely another Winston Churchill type. His job is to recite the approved lines, to graciously accept his daughter’s marrying into the tribe and to serve in the Knesset while sitting in the Senate. Prostitutes do not study State Department documents and historical texts; they dance their lips to the pulling of strings. Joe Biden will always be a Zionist, for Joe Biden never won an election by telling the truth about Arab Palestine. Joe Biden is a Richard Meinertzhagen, a William Ormsby-Gore and a Wyndham-Deedes all rolled into one. He is quite right that one need not be Jewish to be a Zionist. Joe Biden’s Palestinian state shall always lie somewhere to the west of a line running from Aleppo in the north to Homs, Hama and Damascus in the south-and John Shucksburgh of the Senator’s Colonial Office shall always be ready to explain which vilayet was, or was not, included in those somewhat loosely defined borders. Sir Henry McMahon has taught the Senator from Delaware well-and should be well satisfied with the “mental reservations” his protégé has developed on all subjects dear to his constituency.

  3. The answer is very simple, Robert. Capitalism, sexism and racism are the products of clear thinking minds – unlike socialism, feminism and racial equality, which are diseases of the political left. Has it ever occured to you that there is a great similarity between the chosen people and the chosen sex?

    1. It is the opposite. The mindset of the capitalist is probably malignant from the start. Further, he is opposed to equality by nature. Since he is opposed to equality, he gravitates to anti-equality philosophies such as racism and sexism. It’s a rare racist who is pro-equality. Most White racists don’t support socialism period, even when no Whites are involved.
      The reasoning is simple – the White racist, by his nature, opposes equality in any set of humans. Due to his White Supremacy, he assumes that he will be a natural elite in any society. Due to his male supremacy, he assumes the same.
      Truth is that all civilized societies are somewhat socialist. Racial equality is simply a moral proposition. If one is moral, one supports it. Any decent human supports feminism, not radical feminism. Equal rights for females is a no brainer supporter by most females and many males across the planet. Once again, a no brainer.

    2. I have not met a single White racialist (fancy name for racist) yet who is not some sort of supremacist. They’re all supremacists. That’s what drives it.

    3. Actually, I have been conducting this investigation with an open mind. Maybe there are some White racialists who are not supremacists? Not really, if by racialists one means White nationalists. I’ve been searching and searching. I’m always looking. They just don’t exist. Every now and then I think I find one, then I realize that I’m wrong again.
      I’ve also never met a single White nationalist who doesn’t hate most, if not all, non-Whites. A few don’t mind Amerindians or Hispanics. A larger group actually likes NE Asians. A few others may like SE Asians.
      The one thing driving almost all WN’s and White racialists for that matter is a very strong hatred for Blacks. This is the one thing that ties them all together, the single uniting factor.

    4. but it’s true that racialism requires at least a mild dislike of the racially unlike.
      I guess that’s my problem with it right there, then.
      You also hit the nail right on the head, though. Good one.

    5. The Japanese and Koreans, yes. The East Indians? No way. For one thing, there really is no Indian race. They are just this incredible mishmash. They’re not so much ethnocentric as into their caste.
      If one understands that the racially unlike imperil his racial existence, dislike is understandable
      I think you hit it on the head once again.
      But they dominate the ranks of racialism so I’m forced to put up with them.
      Of course they do. And I have noticed that other ethnic nationalists are quite similar. Hispanic nationalists, Chinese nationalists, Black nationalists, Turkish nationalists, Jewish nationalists, Greek nationalists, Russian nationalists, Arab nationalists, Persian nationalists, Hindu nationalists, Vietnamese nationalists, they’re all pretty much alike. That freaked me out, but I guess it all makes sense. All ethnic nationalism is the same, only the group differs.
      I don’t think you realize how much we on the Left hate that stuff, though. That’s like the worst poison on Earth to us. The problem with that attitude is that we react by saying there is no such thing as race, let’s open the borders and let the world flood in, let’s discriminate against Whites, and all sorts of internationalist insanity.

    6. You’re right, they hate tolerance. And they’re furious at me for slamming racism. Hell, I wish these guys would come right out and say they were racists. They are racists, so what the Hell, admit it and fucking take pride in it. LOTS of people are racists, and there’s lots worse things to be…I’m just not into hating people on an individual basis due to their race.
      But I assure you that I have a pretty low opinion of a lot of these ghetto Blacks and even barrio Hispanics around here. But it’s not due to their race. It’s due to their general fucked-upedness. I can’t see hating all Blacks or all Hispanics. That is so messed up. I happen to like quite a few of both groups, and I hate lots of them too.
      One more thing though. Even when there’s Blacks and Hispanics who deserve hating, lowlifes, ghetto people, just scumbags, I’ve found that if I even think bad thoughts about them, that they pick up on this, and guess what? They tend to act even worse! So what I do a lot of times is even if I think they’re scumbags, I just get myself out of that thought pattern and work myself into thinking their ok, or even wonderful.
      I mostly do that just to get along with em. And even scumbags are humans. A lot of times I look at em and think, “Damn you’re low,” and they look all hurt. I’m such a wuss that that really bothers me. I feel guilty for hurting their feelings.
      When I talk about anti-racism, I’m not saying don’t hate people. You can hate people if they act like scumbags. I don’t mind. But don’t just hate people only based on their race, assuming they are otherwise likeable. That’s almost evil to me.
      I think White racists need to STFU about anti-White racism though. What? Only their kind is ok? Screw that man. If they get to be White racists, everyone else gets to be racist right back at em. Fair’s fair.
      Yeah, Dienekes is a nationalist. He’s a hardcore Greek nationalist, he’s sort of a Med nationalist (Med equivalent of a Nordicist) and quite honestly, he’s a bit of a White racist too. It’s clear that he does not like Blacks at all. It’s just bizarre the way these guys totally freak out at the notion that they might have 3-5% Black blood in em. They’ve got the fucking Freudian mother of all complexes about it.
      Nationalists, to me, just act like retards. It’s that simple. And I don’t dig acting like a retard.
      A Yugoslav nationalism would have been cool. Those wars were so retarded. I even supported the Kosovars, but as soon as they got in, they turned into just as bad of nationalists as the scumbags they were fighting.
      You’ve coined a phrase “defensive nationalism.” I like that. Maybe “patriot?” Al of the good about nationalism without any of the dumbfuckery.
      I don’t begrudge Indians for saying only Indians can become citizens. I think a lot of states have rules like that, actually. The Japs and Koreans want the future to look Japanese and Korean, respectively. I deny that this is racist. You can make your immigration policy any way you want to. Immigration is like my front door. I don’t have to let anyone in here.

  4. Robert:
    You reason from false premises to a false conclusion.
    Equality is a fantasy; inequality is a fact of life. The racial egalitarian wishes to believe that all humans have an inalienable right to a certain status in society; the fact that nature guarantees no such status is completely lost on him. In other words, the socialist wishes to deny reality in favor of wish fulfillment.
    When you find the time to read my postings, you will discover that your characterization of feminism as a doctrine upholding “equal rights” for both men and women is simply wrong Feminism advocates no such thing and never did. What feminism really aims at is superiority over men. I will not elaborate all the abundant evidence for this claim; you can read the links I have already posted to get the information. I will reccomend an old book to your attention. It is “The Fraud Of Feminism” by the British Marxist E. Belford Bax, published around 1910, available on line. I reccomend the book, not because I endorse Bax’s Marxism but because on this particular subject he is very insightful. You should also read Correa Moylan Walsh’s old classic, “Feminism”, published around 1917.
    There was tremendous opposition by women themselves to giving women the vote. Some of the arguments presented in favor of giving women the vote were purely racist by today’s standards. Thus, white supremacist suffragettes would argue that the votes of white women, added to the votes of white men, would counterbalance the votes of blacks and ghetto bolsheviks from New York. Elizabeth Cady Stanton was a flaming white supremacist and would have nothing to do with Frederick Douglas when she was living in New York. These feminists were also adamantly opposed to abortion and predicted that giving women the vote would close down the abortion clinics. (Cloudy crystal ball on that one.) Two political scientists named Lott and Kennedy have correlated an immense increase in government spending in all states where women were given the vote. This is because women regard citizens as “children of the state” who must be taken care of. I am sure you will regard this as a good reason why women should be given the vote; I draw precisely the opposite conclusion.
    Ancient Rome also had quite a feminist movement on its way down; naturally these Roman feminists never wanted to fight and die in the legions that created the empire. Women, historically, have been very good at starting wars and fighting them with the opposite sex’s blood, which should clue you in to the kind of “equality” they really want.
    You no doubt think I am an arch reactionary; you are completely correct. But my arguments are not based on ignorance. I know far more about many subjects than those who criticize me. Out of touch with the times I certainly am; reasoning in defiance of the facts I am not.

    1. We believe in relative equality, not absolute equality. Further, if Blacks are genetically inferior as you state, then it is not their fault that they fuck up, and the state needs to equalize things vis a vis Blacks. If Whites really are genetically superior as you state, they succeed through no effort of their own, and they do not deserve their excess wealth.
      Socialism works very well in many places. Many social democracies are very egalitarian places. The Arab World is socialist. The most civilized places in Latin America, Cuba, Costa Rica and Chile, are the most socialist. Socialism has brought enormous gains to China. Even Eastern Europe in still socialist. In fact, all of Europe is socialist.
      The “natural order of things” does not work. For a fact: it engenders, in our modern era, inevitable and unstoppable revolutionary forces, some of which are armed with weaponry.
      Radical feminism wants superiority over men. Sensible feminism only wants equal rights. As a Supremacist, you are psychologically ill. Hence, you project constantly. It is not you who is Supremacist and wishes to subject others, it is your enemies.

  5. Robert:
    You have a problem thinking clearly. Every statement you make is in defiance of both the facts and logic. Since you are offended by the reality of inequality, you wish to enforce equality by state diktat. It cannot be done. Neither is there anything moral in trying to bring the fit down to the level of the unfit. That merely destroys anything good.
    As to your statement that “socialism works very well”, the evidence is conclusive that it doesn’t. Socialist countries like China and India were stagnating cesspools of backwardness and poverty until they began to adopt market economics. Europe, which has been socialized for decades is dying out. The state has made everyone so comfortable that European whites are now dying out because of insufficient birth rates. One of the big reasons people used to have large families was to have someone to take care of them when they grew old. With cradle to grave social security, people now rely on bankrupt socialist governments to take care of them. It is the kiss of death, Robert.
    I am constantly accused of having psychological problems by my opponents. It is the charge routinely leveled against the intellectually competent in an age that has lost its reason. Domination of one group by another is the reality of the world. Equality does not exist and cannot exist in the real world, just as an internal combustion engine cannot run on H2O. If you look at the way things really work (as opposed to the way you want them to work), you will see that the only effecet of “equality” is to replace the priveleges of the old ruling class eith the priveleges of the new ruling class. The mythical equality remains as elusive as ever.
    Your statement that feminism seeks equality with men, not supremacy, is counterfactual and false. Does feminism support men take all divorce court, automatic custody for fathers, massive child support and alimony payable to men only, exemption of men from military service, men first onto the lifeboats when the Titanic sinks, etc.
    ? Come now, Robert, you are fantasizing. Feminism seeks only equality with men in the job market, without equal divorce court expenses to go with it. Get a grip on reality, Robert.
    The problem here is that your values and mine are completely different. That being the case, the bridge cannot be crossed. I will not convince you; you will not convince me. There the matter must rest. But your readers can judge for themselves which of us is evaluating the facts from correct premises.

  6. ‘But your readers can judge for themselves which of us is evaluating the facts from correct premises.’
    Allow me.
    ‘Europe, which has been socialized for decades is dying out. ‘
    France, one of the more defiantly socialistic (or at least, non-Anglosaxon) countries , is doing pretty well in the financial crisis. The UK, which in recent decades has been all-out free market, is in very bad shape.
    And as everyone knows, multiracial socialist Cuba has a far better health system than the US.

  7. This thread started out about the stupidity of holocaust denial. I picked up a paperback potboiler about a decade ago entitled WANTED! The Search for Nazis in America by Howard Blum. I’d already happened on Eugen Kogon and Tadeusz Borowski’s books of graphic concentration depravity years before and believed every word in them.
    Blume’s chapter on the deportation case against Romanian Archbishop Valarian Trifa (the OSI’s first big media success story) led me down the rabbit hole of revisionism. It also introduced me to the sublime writings of E. M. Cioran and Mircea Eliade, two giants of 20th century philosophy who are now getting a drubbing from the PC Left for their youthful flirtation with autochthonism (Romanian Orthodox Christian anti-Bolshevik nationalism).
    I got so swept up in the study of interbellic Romania that I went at my own expense to find a document purportedly found in the Securitate archives proving the grisly story about hundreds of Jews being marched into a Bucharest abattoir in l941 on their hands and knees and slaughtered Kosher style and their bodies left hanging on meat hooks by marauding Iron Guards. IRCC the Nizkor site features a version of this tale in which a six-year old girl was found vivisected and rubber stamped “Suitable for human consumption.”
    In pursuit of the paper trail to prove it, I ended up in a creepy old deserted synagogue in a creepy part of Bucharest talking to a creepy old Jewish woman who claims to have found the documents that prove this atrocity. Guess what? I got lured into a creepy bait and switch game and returned home empty handed. So, until someone shows me the government report I went looking for (and not more Ilya Ehrenburg inspired footnote footsie from creepy old precision placed OSS/CIA enabled ex-Commie academic exiles writing about Romania in the West) I ain’t going along with creepy old Romanian Nobel Laureate Eli Wiesel’s Oprah and Obama approved Shoahbiz shenanigans

  8. Sandra is most amusing.
    Has she noticed that in virtually all European countries the white birth rate is well below replacement level? Most of the births in Europe are coming from Arabs and Turks who have no interest in maintaining European civilization. China and India have booming economies based on precisely the market economies to which enlightened Sandra objects. Cuba? Come now, Sandra. Cuba’s economy has been a backward flop ever since Castro took over from Batista.
    Sandra’s characterization of Britain and America’s economies betrays an abysmal misunderstanding of the meaning of words. Classical capitalism was based on the gold standard, limited taxation, capital accumulation and sound money. America’s economy has been running on uncontrolled government spending, inflated, depreciating currency and capital consumption for decades. Instead of putting the blame for the problems where it really belongs, socialist Sandra wants more socialism to cure the failures of socialism. How typical of a female “mind”.
    WhoDaresSwing is right on the money about Holocaust fables not holding up. Again and again, when one looks for the evidence behind the claims, the evidence is not there. He has found another example. I know of many others. There was the recent “Romulus and Remus” of the gas chambers fable in the Polish forest that turned out to be a hoax, there was Mr. Wilkomirski’s well-known fraud and then there is Mr. Elie Wiesel, who constantly escapes from different camps simultaneously. The survivor accounts are ridden with so many inconsistencies, internal contradictions and statements in violation of known facts established by the camp records that nothing they say can be accepted without independent verification.
    The basic problem with Holocaust Denial is that people do not want to deal with the unpleasant implications of the fact. It is ridiculously simple to establish that the Jews of Europe were not exterminated during WW2. But to accept that the story is a hoax, one must face the fact that there is a very sinister international force in the world, capable of deception on a global scale. That frightens people – as well it should. Unfortunately, it also causes them to shut off their minds. Thus, the problem revisionists face is not factual; it is psychological.
    I thank WhoDaresSwing for his flattering comments on my essays. I try my best. Maybe I even succeed in clarifying things for some readers. If so, my efforts are their own reward.

    The Vatican and Zionism: Conflict in the Holy Land, 1895-1925 is an informative study of Catholic opposition to Zionist plans to create a Jewish state in Palestine. The Vatican’s opposition was two-fold: to the creation of the Zionist state itself and concern for the holy sites of Christendom if they were seen to fall into the hands of infidel Jews. The latter problem was to have been decided by an international commission as stipulated at the San Remo conference in 1920. However, the international commission never came into existence for a variety of reasons. Rivalry between the various Catholic countries of Europe, particularly Italy and France, problems of conflicting authority between the proposed commission and the British Mandate authorities, Protestant-Catholic-Orthodox disputes and a host of other problems made it impossible to agree on such a commission. Ultimately the problem of protecting the holy shrines of Christianity devolved upon the British High Commissioner for Palestine.
    By far the most interesting section of the book deals with the Vatican’s profound opposition to Zionism as an ideology. The Church’s position on the incipient Zionist theft of the Holy Land was first stated by the Vatican Secretary of State, Rafael Cardinal Merry de Val, in his interview with Herzl on January 22, 1904.
    “The Cardinal: I do not quite see how we can take any initiative in this matter. As long as the Jews deny the divinity of
    Christ, we certainly cannot make a declaration in their favor. Not that we have any ill will toward them. On the contrary,
    The Church has always protected them. To us they are the indispensable witnesses to the phenomenon of God’s term
    On earth. But they deny the divine nature of Christ. How then can we, without abandoning our own highest principles,
    Agree to their being given possession of the Holy Land again?” (Emphasis added)
    The Vatican position remained essentially the same until Nahum Sokolow’s audience with Pope Benedict XV on May 4, 1917. Although Sokolow spoke nebulously, (as was then the habit) of a Jewish “national home”, not a Jewish national state, the Pope closed the interview with ambiguous words which the Zionists took as a stamp of approval of their political ambitions. “We shall be good neighbors.” It is probable that the Pope was thinking of the 1916 Sykes-Picot treaty which originally envisaged Palestine divided into several regions, the central one of which was to be internationalized and in which the Vatican would surely have some influence. According to one Zionist author:
    “The Pope’s assurances of good neighborliness to Sokolow must therefore be read not in the spiritual but the
    geographical context.”
    In any event it soon became apparent that virtually every Catholic prelate in Palestine or with any knowledge of the developing situation was vehemently anti-Zionist. Filipo Cardinal Giustini who visited Palestine in October 1919 held views very similar to those of the Custos Frederic Diotallevi who:
    “…is clearly opposed to Zionism, and stress that the Christians are of one mind with the Moslems in this deep hos-
    tility, and are even now prepared to slaughter the Jews. In his opinion, Zionism is only a pretext for establishing
    Jewish rule at the gates of Europe, for the absolute benefit of the Jews, who are already all-powerful in the old
    Continent (Europe) and the new (America).” (Emphasis added)
    Like the Italian Cardinal Giustini the French Cardinal Dubois also saw great evil in Zionism:
    “The Jewish home the British wish to found is a dangerous step and is full of threats for the future.”
    (Emphasis added)
    Dubois warned of a civil war and the dangers of Pan-Islamism. The French Catholic newspaper La Croix was very prophetic on the danger facing the Arabs. Writes Minerbi:
    “According to this paper, non-Jewish natives of the Holy Land would be no more than strangers, more or less tolerated
    at first, but afterward oppressed, tortured and robbed with each new wave of Jewish immigration.”
    (Emphasis added)
    The Englishman Francis Cardinal Bourne visited Palestine between December 1918 and March 1919. He echoed the views of his compatriots. In January 1919 he sent a revealing telegram to the British Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary (Lloyd George and Balfour):
    “The Zionists here claim that the Jews are to have the domination of the Holy Land under a British protectorate. In
    Other words, they are going to force their rule on an unwilling population of whom they form only 10%.
    (Emphasis added)
    When I first visited it (the Holy Land) in 1919, the situation was distinctly menacing. There was a tendency on the part of
    Certain immigrant Jews to claim and assert domination in no way in harmony with the Balfour Declaration. This nat-
    urally aroused a fierce resistance on the part of the indigenous native Arab population, both Moslem and Christian.
    Men of every class come to see me with a loud and emphatic protest against Mr. Balfour’s promises and against the projects.
    of the Zionists…These projects went far beyond the mere establishment of a home for nationless Jews…”
    (Emphasis added)
    A claim repeated over and over again in the Catholic commentaries of the time is the charge that the Zionists and the Communists were one and the same. For instance, Cardinal Gasparri, the Vatican Secretary of State in December 1918 told the Belgian representative to the Holy See:
    “There is talk of a Jewish state. I do not believe that the big Jewish bankers of England and of the United States will be
    so unaware of the opinions of many of their faith as to support this plan. Do we not see the Jews at the head of the
    revolutionary movements in Russia and Poland?” (Emphasis added)
    Nor were such opinions those of the Vatican alone. Such views were also very common in the foreign offices of all European countries. An English diplomat for example, wrote:
    “This is only the sorrowful beginning of our troubles in Palestine, once we are with the mandate, and I share the Pope’s
    anxiety regarding the most extreme intentions of the Zionists. He must be thinking of something more vague and frightening
    than merely earthly aspirations.; he forsees a spiritual campaign against Christianity. Is the anti-Christ not a Jew according
    to Roman tradition? Judaism, under the cover of Bolshevism, already destroyed the Orthodox Church, could Bolshevism
    not do the same to Rome?” (Emphasis added)
    It is important to realize that all of these observers were writing in the same period as the appearance of the mysterious Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion which were receiving massive publicity in the English newspapers of the time. In assessing the controversy Osservatore Romano, the newspaper of the Vatican, commented as follows. Although questioning the authenticity of the book the paper concluded that the plan the book described was real and that the Jewish Bolshevik leaders in Russia were actually carrying out the plan. This analysis was essentially the same as that of Henry Ford and other commentators on the Protocols. The Vatican position on the dangers and probable development of Zionism was very percipient and has been abundantly confirmed by subsequent events. An excellent summary of the essential case against Zionism was attributed to Cardinal Gasparri.
    (1) The Zionists are not religious and are even anti-religious, and therefore Zionism cannot be regarded as the fulfillment of prophecy. Zionism has no connection with the promised return of the Jews to the Holy Land.
    (2) Zionist immigration will sweep the Christians out of Palestine and destroy its Christian character.
    (3) The possibility that a Jewish government might be formed was intolerable.
    The Vatican position was further outlined on June 23, 1921 in an analysis by C. Crispolti in Osservatore Romano. Per Sergio Minerbi’s summation:
    In 1917, when the Balfour Declaration was issued, France and Italy were not concerned with the future of Palestine. The Latins
    did not then understand the danger that one enemy of Christianity would be replaced by another, more real and greater than the
    traditional enemy: Judaism. The British government, which was controlled by the Jewish international, altered the term ‘national home’
    and consented to establish a Jewish national center…Crispolti went on to say that a minority should not rule over the majority
    and that the riots (the riots of 1920 and 1921) should be seen against this background…The Latin nations must insist on revisions
    in the draft submitted by Britain, for otherwise the Holy Land would be lost to Christians, and an attempt would be made, with the
    Great Powers consent, to erase two thousand years of (Christian) history and to place a new and heavier burden on the land of Jesus.”
    (Emphasis added)
    As many observers have noted the arguments of the Catholic Church paralleled in many respects the arguments of the Palestinian Arabs (a significant number of whom were Christians, both Greek Orthodox and Catholic). This was a simple recognition of the justice of the situation, not any residual preference for the Ottoman Turks transferred to the Palestinians. The Vatican saw no reason why an Arab population of many centuries standing should be dispossessed to please a swarm of Christ killers with pronounced pro-communist sympathies. The papal position also received a respectful hearing in the London Times whose chief proprietor was Lord Northcliffe. The partiality of the Times to anti-Zionism was bitterly noted by Baron Alfredo Porcelli, a renegade Catholic who supported Zionism. In a letter to Chaim Weizmann, Porcelli warned:
    “Beware of the Times, and other Northcliffe papers. They have sent a special ‘commissioner’ (one of their own staff) to Palestine, and
    are publishing a series of articles on ‘The truth about Palestine’…You will find that Zionism will fare badly at his hands – for Rome has a finger in that pie, as in all Northcliffe papers.” (Emphasis added)
    The Vatican did not, of course, succeed in its opposition to Zionism. But until very recently the Vatican refused to either recognize the Zionist state or to establish diplomatic relations with it. This principled position, maintained for approximately nine decades, contrasts very favorably with the craven surrender in 1948 by a U.S. president who, by his own admission, had to answer to far more Zionist Jews for his re-election prospects than he did to dispossessed Arabs in a far off little land.
    The Vatican and Zionism: Conflict in the Holy Land, 1895-1925
    By Sergio Minerbi, Oxford University Press, Inc.

    Kindly note the constant flow of 17-18 million through the gulag camps . Bump off one bunch, send another bunch through to be bumped off. Then calculate the deaths of incalculable numbers who died shortly after release because they were human wrecks. Stalin improved life expectancy did he? I don’t think so.
    Recalculate your numbers.

    1. Johnson is a liar. He’s worse than you are. 1.2 million died in the gulags under Stalin. Of those, only 300,000 were political prisoners. The rest were just common criminals. The life expectancy figures under Stalin are well known and have been validated by the US Congress. He set a world record for doubling life expectancy in the shortest period of time! Something you Rightists could never dream of doing, because you care about money, not life. And your Nazi cult you love so much was nothing but a Death Cult. In contrast, Communism is a Life Cult. It’s all about Life! The greatest gift known to man.
      Joseph Stalin is one of the greatest humanitarians that mankind has ever seen.

  11. You must be the only imbecile on the face of the planet who can possibly believe that Joseph Stalin was the greatest humanitarian who ever lived. If you ever apply for entrance to a lunatic asylum, you will also be the only one denied admittance because of your stark, raving insanity. Congratulations. You are truly one of a kind.

  12. I do not have much regard for Solzhenitsyn. He was a famine denier, just like you. I never said 110 million killed in the USSR. I did point out that the Soviet gulag statistics were cooked – and pointed out the evidentiary problems you overlooked.
    I also read, in your previous threads, your nonsensical “explanations” of the purge trials, your pretense that Stalin was an innocent, unoffending victim of a wicked Nazi “sneak attack”, your outrageous claim that communism improved the standard of living of the Russians and all the rest of the bilge that flows from your upside-down think, diseased leftist “mind”.
    In case no one ever told you, this same BS was everywhere in the 1930’s. Kindly get Eugene Lyons “The Red Decade” and “Muggeridge’s “Wimter In Moscow” and read same. Also, the industry of the USSR that you praise so highly was actually built by Ford Motor Company and the other western capitalists you despise. Your beloved communists had to import the technology and the capital from the west, because their voodoo communist economics couldn’t do the job. Or did know one ever tell you?

    The history of Arab Palestine was turned upside down by a Zionist pseudo-historian named Joan Peters. Miss Peters absurdly claimed that the Arabs moved into the land they had already inhabited for centuries to take advantage of the enormous prosperity the Jews were supposedly creating. It was total nonsense, of course. Now the upside down think tribe claims that gas chambers lack any hydrogen cyanide residue because:
    (1) It takes less hydrogen cyanide to kill humans than insects;
    (2) Hydrogen cyanide supposedly does not adhere to gas chamber walls the same way it adheres to other surfaces;
    (3) The Germans washed it all away with water before it could stick.
    Like Joan Peters who simply ignored all the Zionist settlers to Palestine who testified to the land already being settled by Arabs, the Joan Peters of the “gas chambers” simply ignore al the facts that do not fit their fantasies. They ignore the facts that the “gas chambers” were nothing more than morgues for storing dead, diseased bodies before they are burned. They ignore that the rooms of the “gas chambers” could never have held the claimed numbers of bodies. They ignore the lack of proper sealing, ventilation and heating. They ignore the camp records which document the use of Zyklon B for delousing purposes. They ignore the disposal capacity of the crematoria, consistent with a natural death rate but inconsistent with a mass extermination program. These charlatans cannot explain the total absence of any German orders for an extermination, the absence of six million bodies or the fact that nobody in the actual camp itself noticed the extermination that was supposedly taking place. That includes the underground intelligence groups operating out of the camps, the free Polish labor that was employed in the camps and the Polish farmers surrounding the camp who had clear visibility into the camps through the wire fence surrounding them.
    Nor can these quacks explain the huge numbers of Jews still alive after the war. They are silent on the huge numbers of Jews who retreated into the interior of the Soviet Union ahead of the German advance, of the hundreds of thousands of Jews who left Germany before the war or were transferred to Palestine. They ignore the communist satrapies of Eastern Europe which were top heavy with Jewish commissars, 1945-1950. They ignore all the Jews who migrated to the Americas disguised as Poles, Romanians, Hungarians, etc. They cannot explain the huge numbers of Jews who collect reparations for this extermination when they should have all been killed long ago. Still less can they explain the huge Jewish presence at the Nuremberg Trial where all the bogus evidence “proving” the extermination was put together. They offer no comment on the fact that 2400 out of 3000 personnel at the trials were Jewish. They are silent on the fact that it was the Jewish organizations in New York who sold the Allied powers on the idea of the trial. They have nothing to say on the fact that the German defendants were hung in the middle of the high Jewish holidays in October 1946. They ignore that all the German records showing what was really going on at the camps were seized by the Soviets and withheld from the “trial”. They say nothing about the torture of the defendants and the innumerable forgeries that were offered in evidence. They ignore the criticisms that respectable jurists around the world offered of the Nuremberg kangaroo court. They ignore that all the testimonies that they regard as irrefutable proof of an extermination program were offered under the aegis of a bogus tribunal where normal rules of evidence were not followed and where no prosecution witness has ever been prosecuted for perjury.
    They ignore all this while they shriek that:
    (1) Millions of human beings were killed by minute quantities of insecticide;
    (2) Hydrogen cyanide residue would not be found in the chambers where millions of human beings were supposedly “gassed”;
    (3) The Germans washed it all away with water.
    “From Time Immemorial” had nothing on these quacks. Their apologia should be entitled “From Gas Chambers Immemorial”.

  14. John Thames is like some bad parody of an internet conspiracy theorist. Hates women too. Must have been rejected one time too many – maybe because he was rambling on and on about “the so-called holocaust”.

  15. I see we are back to the usual ploy of accusing the profoundly learned of having psychological problems. Actually, I get a lot of offers from women, some of which I accept, some I reject.
    The real problem here is that:
    (1) I know what I am talking about:
    (2) I can think correctly.
    That puts me two up on my critics. And no, I don’t hate womem; I hate brainwashed feminists.

    Jews, as we all know, are the most reasonable and enlightened of people. They tell us so all the time. That is why it is necessary to pay close attention to the behavior of our newly created character based on ancient antecedents called “Enlightened Rabbi”. Enlightened Rabbi is ferociously attacking the blockbuster new movie, “West Bank Story”. Listen to the Rabbi rave.
    “This movie is mischlinge miscegenation propaganda! How dare you suggest that an Orthodox Jewish Jet marry a Palestinian Shark? It is outrageous! Why, if this nonsense spreads, it will destroy the racial purity of the Jewish people forever. Just ask Jonathan Pollard. Since when did the world conquering Aryans ever practice this racial equality crap they preach to God’s Chosen People? And this crap about “hatred”? As a Yeshiva student, you know that the Talmud enjoins Jews to hate non-Jews. Palestinian Sharks are animals in human form. Instead of marrying them, you should be bulldozing their homes, like Officer Schmuckne and Lieutenant Shrank! Have you read what that hypocritical capitalist press in Anglo-America has been saying about this film? They have been praising it to the skies, saying how it shall cure Jews of their centuries old Ghetto Nazism. Why, they are even claiming that it will promote the peace process by making Jews and Palestinians indistinguishable! What is the matter with you? ‘West Bank Story’ should be banned as Zionist propaganda. It is just as bad as Holocaust Denial.”

    As all students of the subject know, the Jews are lying about their hoax of six million of their number supposedly killed in non-existent “gas chambers”. We pose the following question. Who created?
    (1) The Civil Rights;
    (2) The Feminist;
    (3) The Racial Equality;
    (4) The Socialist;
    (5) The Communist
    And other movements that have so transformed the American landscape? Answer: The same Jews who created the “gas chamber” hoax. Is not the source of the subversion clear?

    Polish director Wadja has made a film of the famous murder of 22,000 Polish officers by the Soviet NKVD. The method of execution was to blindfold the prisoners before lining them up before a ditch, removing the blindfold and shooting them in the back of the skull. Wadja has been praised for his bravery in making the film but actually he was rather coy. The executioners are uniformly portrayed as Russians in Soviet garb. Since it is a known fact that the Soviet secret police, the dread NKVD, were two-thirds Jewish in those years, the uniformly Russian faces of the executioners appear to represent a massive distortion of the facts. Remember that the murdered were Poles; forget that the killers were Jews. Is this equal justice?
    The bodies of the murdered Poles have been found, perfectly preserved in the clay in which they had been buried. The bodies of the six million “gassed” Jews have disappeared forever, magically cremated into missing ashes. The Katyn Kike Paradigm is very instructive. It shows the difference between a real mass murder and a propaganda legend. It also shows that although it is now intellectually respectable to condemn the crimes of communism, the Jews behind communism must be written out of the history textbooks forever.

    1. The NKVD certainly was NOT 2/3 Jewish in 1940. Probably no more than 6% Jewish in that year. The Jewish era in the NKVD was over by 1936 for sure.
      Get your facts straight, Nazi.

  19. Mr. Lindsay:
    You’re the one who needs to get his facts straight. I never have that problem.
    The historical mythology is that Stalin purged the Jews in 1938-1939. As Yuri Slezkine shows in “The Jewish Century”, the percentage of Jews in the liquidations of those years was less than the percentages of other nationalities liquidated. The real anti-Jewish purges came in the last years of Stalin’s life, 1950-1953. I’ve read the book, you haven’t. The Communist secret police in Poland after the war were 75% Jewish.
    For someone who believes that the purge trials of the 1930’s really were valid tribunals, that poor, innocent Uncle Joe was the victim of a Nazi sneak attack, etc. , you really should not be accusing anyone of not getting facts straight. One other thing, acid head. If you mixed a little high grade Zyklon B with your next trip, it might help restore your sanity.

    1. As Yuri Slezkine shows in “The Jewish Century”, the percentage of Jews in the liquidations of those years was less than the percentages of other nationalities liquidated.
      Right, but by 1936, Jews were down to 6% of the NKVD. The Jewish years of the NKVD were only about 1932-1936 or so, maybe 4 years max.
      The Communist secret police in Poland after the war were 75% Jewish.
      For a short while, then they ran them all out and it was all Gentiles in the Secret Police. Stalin put Jews in because he did not trust Poles.
      that poor, innocent Uncle Joe was the victim of a Nazi sneak attack
      Indeed, this is what mainstream historians agree. The only folks who disagree are Nazis like you.
      For someone who believes that the purge trials of the 1930’s really were valid tribunals
      Some were, most were not. There was a plot that went all the way up near Stalin. Trotskyites working with Nazis. They cut a deal whereby after the Nazis invaded, the Trots would give them Ukraine and Belarus if the Nazis let the Trots run the rest of the USSR.
      Regarding Trots, never was an icepick put to better use!
      One more thing, acidhead is one word. I thought I told you that already.

    The Israeli lobby and its apologists have come up with a catchy public relations slogan: “Anti-Zionism id Anti-Semitism”. This is priceless. Anti-Semitism and its inevitability – is the founding premise and guiding principle of Zionism. The original Zionists of Theodore Herzl’s time sought alliances with the anti-Semites of their day – because they could be used to promote Zionism. Yet now these Zionists say that: “Anti-Zionism is Anti-Semitism”. Was there ever a more contemptuous example of preying upon the ignorance of the public?
    Did not Chaim Weizmann, the eminence grise behind the Balfour Declaration, state tat “whenever the number of Jews in any society exceeds the saturation point, that society reacts against them? Did he not further state that “this is a universal law of history and cannot be confused with anti-Semitism in the ordinary and vulgar sense?” Did not Jacob Klatzkin, the Zionist and editor of the Jewish Encyclopaedia, state that the anti-Semites were right and that Jews were an alien force in gentile life? Did not Herzl himself state that Zionism could only achieve its aims through collaboration with gentile governments who wished to be rid of their Jewish populations? Did not Adolf Hitler model his definition of Jewishness on the definition formulated by the German Zionist rabbis, Joaquim Prinz and Leo Baeck? With a background like this and such documented statements to their credit, how can contemporary Zionists now say that “Anti-Zionism is Anti-Semitism”? They can do it for the same reason that they once said that there were no Arabs in Palestine, the same way that they deny Jewish commissars and the same way they affirm fictional “gas chambers”.
    The Jews are a people of the lie. They can tell lies like “Anti-Zionism is Anti-Semitism” because no one will stand up to them. Fear of Jewish political and economic power trumps truth. Woe to he who would impeach them with their own documented statements.

  21. A few small concessions to truth, I see.
    You are wrong about only Nazis believing that the Nazi attack was preventive, as claimed. Quite a few Russian historians are coming to the same conclusion, based on discoveries from their own archives. You learn very slowly. I am much faster on the uptake.

  22. Actually, Jews dominated the Soviet secret police from the very beginning, as under Moishe Uritzky.

  23. RL:”I think it was mostly Latvians if I am not mistaken.”
    Latvians of native Latvian ethnicity, or Latvians of non-native Jewish ancestry?
    “Jewish group objects to ‘Great Famine’ case”
    June 15, 2009
    KIEV, Ukraine (JTA) — A Jewish group in Ukraine is objecting to a criminal case brought over the “Great Famine” committed in the 1930s.
    The nation’s security service is pressing the case against a list of former Soviet officials accused of committing the Holodomor, which caused the deaths of millions in Ukraine in 1932-33. Most of the names on the list were Jewish.
    Ukrainian lawmaker Aleksandr Feldman, leader of the Ukrainian Jewish Committee, said last week that it was “a farce” to press the case.
    “All organizers of the Great Famine are dead,” he said.
    Last July, the Ukrainian Security Service released a list of high-ranking Soviet state and Communist Party officials — as well as officials from NKVD, the police force of Soviet Russia — that essentially blamed Jews and Latvians responsible for perpetrating and executing the famine because most of the names on the list were Jewish.
    The Ukrainian Jewish Committee called on the secret service to revise the list, which incited interethnic hatred, in order to clear up the “inaccuracy.”
    Feldman believes there is a danger that the “Holodomor Affair” materials are being used for political purposes.
    In late May, security service head Valentin Nalivaychenko claimed at a meeting with representatives of the World Congress of Ukrainians that “Ukraine has collected enough evidence to bring a criminal case regarding the famine, which was artificially created by the Bolshevik regime and caused mass death of citizens.”
    Through the World Congress of Ukrainians, Nalivaychenko turned to leading foreign lawyers with a request to help find out the circumstances connected with preparing and committing the genocide.

    1. Good article and no doubt that was probably the case. Nonetheless, note the situation nowadays is less extreme, and a lot of the neo-Nazi hatred has become more of a crutch than anything. Most of these neo-Nazis could afford more job training and education, yet lack of self esteem massively plagues them, and they keep blaming non-whites and Jews for all thier problems.

      1. That’s a hilarious double-standard. Nonwhites get their betters to pay for them, whites “could afford more job training and education”.
        As to low self-esteem, have you ever considered white-shaming like yours might be the culprit? PLUS Affirmative Action and this bullshit about “White Privilege”?
        What next? Are you going to say nonwhites DON’T blame whites for all their problems? “We’d be a lot better off if whitey wasn’t holding us back” and so on? Even though they get Affirmative Action, minority-only scholarships, even grants from the taxpayers’ involuntary generosity?
        PLUS they don’t get killed when they riot.
        I would say the Government is doing a lot more to hurt whites to help the minorities than the opposite, wouldn’t you?

  24. Wow, that John Thames guy was a little harsh, but sorry mr. Robert… have you ever heard of David Irving? He may be a racist but is a damn fine independent historian. You like to call yourself liberal… why are you so bothered by this subject anyway? Why not let others revise history as much as they want? If they´re right, they´re right. If they´re wrong, they´re wrong. But why is it that only this subject is soooooo important noone can even question it? Put people in jail for doing research? It´s Galileo all over again. Come on… no way can you call yourself a liberal and think a subject has to be some holy ground on which no one can step.

      1. Great hate-speech!
        Forbidding anyone from speaking their mind is plain Censorship and an assault on personal liberty. There should be no law for controlling what people are or aren´t allowed to say. German people have no free speech. That´s just wrong and you know it. Otherwise you wouldn´t discuss race so much and insist it should be allowed as a normal conversation topic. I really like your blog and respect your ideas, but I can see there´s a major hang-up with some Jewish issues, which, if you were Jewish would be fine and understandable, but since you say you are not… those subjects should not be so important to you and should certainly not get you so worked up about them. You seem very emotionally attached to jewish issues and get nervous when someone argues against them. I´ll leave you alone. But I think it would be best if you stated your love of everything jewish… I don´t know, maybe someome in your family is jewish. Then, people would know where you really stand and they would also understand that you can´t be objectively neutral on jewish issues, which is ok… it is understandably difficult to be neutral if they are part of your ancestry. But don’t go about telling people you´re neutral and then being so angry everytime someone says even the slightest thing about holocaust or other jewish issue.
        Best regards. Enjoyed your blog so far.

    1. One of the more distrubing things would have been when the Nazis burned synagogues down with the Jews inside the building. I wonder what kind of excuse these neo-Nazis etc.. will give to claim that didn’t happen.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)