Is this going to be another hatchet job on the truth? I am really hoping for some facts. Although on a topic with two poles, either sides will say, I have already made up my mind, don't confuse me with facts. So, maybe there is no hope.
shareI want to know why when a person questions the Holocaust they are charged as bring "racist"?
As to the Holocaust itself and studying the context of this next quote I would agree to this quote wholeheartedly
?most of the memoirs and reports of Holocaust survivors are full of preposterous verbosity, graphomanic exaggeration, dramatic effects, overestimated self-inflation, dilettante philosophizing, would-be lyricism, unchecked rumors, bias, partisan attacks??
?Samuel Gringauz, ?Jewish Social Studies? (New York), January 1950,
Vol. 12, p. 65
I want to know why when a person questions the Holocaust they are charged as bring "racist"?
Scratch a Holocaust denier, find a Jew-hater. It really is that simple.
Having read the whole debate in this thread, especially yours with jmiller, I think that this is an oversimplification, and a dangerous one, if we include Holocaust doubters among the denialists.
Here's what I think is a recipe for becoming a Holocaust doubter who is not a Jew-hater:
1) Begin with no knowledge of Jews or Judaism, and especially no knowledge of the long history of anti-Semitism that derives from the Gospels. Without this knowledge, the idea of the Holocaust seems a little outlandish.
2 or 3) Add early exposure to denialist claims.
3 or 2) Add the notion that the Holocaust may be at least in part a fiction manufactured for Jewish gain. Those deeply ignorant of the pre-Nazi history of anti-Semitism might leap to this idea without any exposure to denialism, which would then strengthen it. Those with only a passing knowledge might require the prior exposure to denialist claims before conceiving of this suspicion.
4) Frost with an uncritical mind that never stops to consider if it's remotely credible that all the world's historians might conspire to create the orthodox view of the scope of the Holocaust.
5) Bake in the oven of cognitive inflexibility. A lot of people are hard-wired to have difficulty changing their minds once they're made up -- that's essentially what defines a conservative. These people will continue to be Holocaust doubters even after all the denialist claims have been debunked. (To jmiller's credit, after you blocked him he conceded the history of the 4 million sign at Auschwitz, so maybe there is hope for him.)
For this reason, you're likely to find other conservative claptrap coming from the doubters. I don't think that makes them hard-core racists, misogynists, etc., either. I actually have some pity for those who have been duped by big, dangerous, lies (especially since nearly all such folks end up voting against their economic self-interests). So I think that the Holocaust doubters need a very different approach than the hard-core denialists (who are best simply called out for their anti-Semitism). Yes, explain that their "facts" are nothing of the sort, but try to give them the big picture: why they have been misled into doubting the Holocaust, and why that's so dangerous.
I think that ignorance of the pre-Nazi history of anti-Semitism is the crucial element here. Once you understand the Holocaust as the culmination of nearly 2000 years of history, it suddenly makes sense ... and the true nature of Holocaust denialism, as a continuation of that history, comes into perspective. But if you view the Holocaust without that lens -- if you think the Jews were targeted as just one of many "impure" groups, and were not especially scapegoated as the source of all of society's evils -- then the scope of the Holocaust becomes hard to believe. And Holocaust denialism, already credible without the proper historical context, itself becomes shorn from its roots in centuries of anti-Semitism.
There's no understanding why Holocaust denialism is such an emotionally-charged issue, or why it constitutes hate speech, without some understanding of the full history of anti-Semitism. Ultimately that means tracing the Holocaust back to its roots in the Gospels. And of course that's not quite taught in schools.
Prepare your minds for a new scale of physical, scientific values, gentlemen.share
It's been my experience that those who are not already inclined to anti-Semitism quickly come to see the anti-Semitic conspiracy ideology that's baked into "Holocaust doubting." It's not a place people stay for long. They generally work through it pretty quickly. They either take the rational way out, or they let their anti-Semitism drive them through the vestibule and into the halls of Holocaust denial.
The simple question, "Where did all the Jews go, if they weren't killed?" is going to pop up sooner or later in the thoughts of anyone weighing the issue. And that's the point where you either go "Holocaust denial makes no sense," or you go "Not my problem, as long as the Nazis are exonerated and the Jews are called liars." Personal character determines which path you take from there.
This is why I place the issue in a different moral space than those who are sucked into anti-vaxxing or "trickle-down economics" or "intelligent design." Yes, the Holocaust denial movement has had a while to develop its snappy opening patter, and you see them wander into this board and try out this or that gambit (although the gambits themselves have been essentially unchanged for thirty years). So I can see that someone without a historical background or much knowledge of Jewish life in general might sit back and go "huh" -- but that "huh" stage doesn't last very long.
This is also why Holocaust denial has failed as a recruiting tool for white-power types: you've already got to be pretty far along the big-Jewish-conspiracy-to-defraud-the-goyim path before Holocaust denial even begins to sound coherent for more than three seconds at a time.
Of course it will be a biased hatchet job. Hollywood is run by Jews. The holocaust is their cash cow. It's like expecting Muslims to be unbiased about whether Mohammed was really a prophet or just a bloodthirsty lunatic. As for facts, a hell of a lot of people died during WW2. Many Jews were systematically shot in the East. But organised gassings of millions in specially designed chambers? With no relevant paperwork whatsoever? And several technical flaws? Fishy, to say the least.
shareMany Jews were systematically shot in the East. But organised gassings of millions in specially designed chambers? With no relevant paperwork whatsoever? And several technical flaws? Fishy, to say the least.
I've looked at both sides, and I have deep reservations about the official establishment narrative. You mentioned the Irving trial: Irving made a mistake in not calling Rudolf to the stand, so his evidence was not brought into the trial (while the other side, van Pelt's, was). This is greatly compounded by the fact that establishment media refuse to allow any examination of the matter, simply stating flatly that "it happened". Even more so, by the fact that in many supposedly democratic countries, people are thrown into prison for exercising their alleged freedom of speech to criticise the establishment version of events.
Beyond the forensic evidence, why was no documentary evidence ever found? The establishment narrative is that it was all hidden. Really? In the chaos at the end of a losing war, with enemies closing in, they really had the time and wherewithal to hide absolutely all the evidence, every last scrap of paper, so perfectly that none of it would ever be discovered? They weren't bothered about hiding the evidence of mass shootings of Jews in the East. Again, fishy. Worthy of a proper, open, free inquiry at the very least, rather than hysteria and prison sentences.
Irving made a mistake in not calling Rudolf to the stand
why was no documentary evidence ever found
Look at how emotional the defenders of the establishment narrative become when questioned.
It seems that many blameless Jews were unfairly treated during the era of the Third Reich. Many fled, leaving valuable possessions behind. Some perished (who will ever know the exact number?). Many Germans died too. See the bombing of Dresden- those people weren't "camp commandants" they were mostly the elderly, females, and children.
Also recall that Oppenheimer was working feverishly on the atomic bomb so that it could be dropped on Germany. Innocent lives on both sides of this discussion-Jew and Gentile- were lost. Since many Germans were starving towards the end of the war, it stands to reason that captive Jews also starved, and undoubtedly many perished from disease. As also happened in the American Civil War, and probably has also happened in most wars.
When people debate about the wars of history- and the great battles- disagreements arise about tactics, and even about corollary facts like casualty numbers amongst both combatants and civilians. See our recent war in Iraq for a modern example of contested casualties. I have seen many cool-headed arguments about Napoleon's invasion of Russia, for just one example. And even when Frenchmen and Russians argue, it seems the discussion can and often does remain quite civilized and fact-based.
Only on the Holocaust do the arguments quickly, if not immediately, become angry and emotional. I've seen Native Americans coolly discuss their displacement, but I seldom see a Jew remain calm during a debate about the concentration camps. There are notable exceptions, some available on YouTube, that aim at enlightenment instead of cowed silence.
This entire thread is a prime example of emotionalism triumphant. I'm Native American, and I can remain calm while discussing the Trail of Tears, which my own ancestral family was subjected to.
I suspect the reason for the fanaticism is that Jewish interests in the US, and in Israel, of course, are still somewhat dependent on the holocaust history to attain and secure their current political and financial support.
I don't believe there will be calm analysis of the holocaust as long as it is still an essential tool in the arsenal of Jewish arguments for open-ended (in perpetuity) financial and military assistance from other countries like Germany and the United States.
I'll keep it simple for you: it's because that in 99.99% of all cases where someone wants to "debate" the facts of the Holocaust, it is with one purpose in mind, and that is to deliberately diminish the scope of the Jews' suffering. Any such "debate" is thus a fixed match, with the denier's position predetermined and immovable, and thus any attempts to counter it are (as is the case with all other conspiracy theorists) dismissed out of hand as attempts by shadowy power figures to silence "the truth". You want to know why Jews get emotional when someone tries to "debate" us on this? It's because it's practically a surefire guarantee that the other personal is a hateful, sick-headed anti-Semite who already hates us and wants us dead. No one debates the amount of Iraqi dead out of Islamophobia.
Supermodels...spoiled stupid little stick figures mit poofy lips who sink only about zemselves.
This is one of the things that I hope the movie helps remind everyone. Holocaust denial isn't a product of historians, it's a product of anti-Semites dressing themselves as historians.
And nonsense is nonsense, even when it's spooned out in plummy tones by someone sneering that his opponents are just simply too emotional. As if the irremediably squalid matter of dispensing neo-Nazi lies denying a massive tragedy shouldn't make anyone mad.
Zort: "And nonsense is nonsense, even when it's spooned out in plummy tones by someone sneering that his opponents are just simply too emotional."
There is a reason criminal trials don't seat family members of the victims in the jury box: emotional states that are inclining towards vengeance, not justice. And I am not sneering as I type this, believe it or not!
If the Jews were willing to stop taking reparations money and "guilt" money from countries like the US and Germany, I believe they would find their need to discuss Holocaust sufferings on a constant basis would fade away in direct proportion. Vested interests and an in-group mistrust of the larger society are plain enough to see.
This debate is too cluttered by hatred and emotion to be sorted out by anyone but disinterested rational actors. And by "disinterested" I mean financially disinterested, which considering the drive to deprive Holocaust-deniers of their jobs, professions, and livelihoods means the truly disinterested may be hard to locate.
It's true that neo-Nazis seek to counter the received narrative for the obvious reasons. But it's equally true the accepted story pays real financial dividends to the pro-received narrative crowd.
MetFan: "I'll keep it simple for you: it's because that in 99.99% of all cases where someone wants to "debate" the facts of the Holocaust, it is with one purpose in mind, and that is to deliberately diminish the scope of the Jews' suffering."
Thanks for keeping it simple; there is really nothing better than simple straight-forward statement of position, is there? And no valid reason to make things more complex than they need be.
In a sense, the motive is irrelevant to the strength of the argument, although as I said in response to Zort we aren't getting any further with this debate because there is too much emotional freight all around. A consensus is extremely unlikely to result, I'd guess.
Thought experiment: Let's assume for a minute that the people who objected to that concentration camp sign at Auschwitz- the one that claimed four million Jews died there between 1940 and 1945- were genuinely interested in historical truth, with no real axe to grind against the Jews.
The new sign says 1.5 million perished there during that same time frame.
Let's assume the people in charge of placing the revised sign were genuinely happy to have better information and were glad to amend their figures, perhaps out of genuine respect for those who did truly die there. No point in exaggerating suffering; there is plenty to be found in this world, and it is something of an insult to the sufferers to assume numbers need to be inflated to achieve the desired effect.
Under those assumptions, nice people who care about history helped some other nice people who are caretakers of a historic site to set the record straight.
Now visitors see a truer version.
Alternatively, we could also assume the people who demanded the change were viscous anti-Semites, and they gleefully "caught" mendacious camp historians in a craven lie to make the camp seem even more dramatically evil. Forced to change the sign, those in charge did so with reluctance and bitterness.
Still, now visitors still see a truer version.
So, to some extent, even "bad" motives, applied through careful scholarship, still result in a superior grasp of the reality we are attempting to describe.
It would be a nicer world if scenario one was more likely than scenario two, but the result was the same, however it happened.
We don't have to "assume" anything for the reasoning. We know why it was changed.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/denial-of-science/four-million-01.html
Of particular relevance:
* "The four million figure was changed due to 'revisionist' findings."
This claim is clearly fallacious, as the revised figure is actually more in tune with the estimates of credible historians than the Soviet Commission's count. If anything, it was the easing of cold war tensions that allowed reexamination of the four million total rather than the research of "revisionist historians."
In fact, it was a study begun in 1980 by Franciszek Piper, head of the Historical Department at the Auschwitz State Museum that finally displaced the Museum's four million figure. Piper collected all available documentation on how many deportees arrived at Auschwitz, and subtracted from this all known transfers, releases, and escapees to arrive at his estimation. Here are his calculations:
Deportees to Auschwitz: 1,300,000
Transfers: -212,820
Released prisoners: -1,500
Escapees: -500
Liberated Prisoners: -8,000
----------
Total Dead: 1,077,180
Or about 1.1 million dead, which is not that different from Hilberg's estimate of one million dead at Auschwitz. Piper concluded that this figure is a minimum estimate, as this does not account for victims not listed in the records, particularly those who were killed immediately upon arrival. After the study's completion in 1986, Piper's findings were confirmed by a panel of historians appointed by Poland's Ministry of Culture. Shortly thereafter, the official death toll at the State Museum was lowered to 1.1 million.
Excellent. I see no problem here, and in fact this is exactly what we should be seeing, i.e., conscientious research and responsible reactions to same.
Now, realigning that sign could mean different things to different folks. Some will say the new total is still too many, that practically no Jews perished under the Reich; let them bring forth better research and convincing proof, or be silent.
Some others might say they have been deprived of an impressive number of victims and that the depth of Jewish suffering has been slighted by the revised sign.
I have no sympathy for the latter group of materialistic calculators, and fully expect the former group to be judged on the quality of their work, if they consider themselves historians.
Thanks for an informative, non-insulting post. Well done.
I've got jmiller on ignore, owing to his nasty habit of spewing anti-Semitic propaganda of neo-Nazi origins, but I'm guessing from your response that he's dusted off and tried to deploy the Auschwitz plaque gambit. Rockin' it old-school, isn't he. When will these guys learn? (The answer, obviously, is never -- educate a Holocaust denier, and what do you get? A former Holocaust denier.)
shareYes, Jmiller, yes.
I have no time or intention to dig for the real facts on this issue. One looks hard enough they can & will find evidence to support their claims (often even the most absurd ones).
If historians state the toll to be 6 million, while I do not know if that statistic is precise, I will take it on faith (due to all I've read in trusted works & otherwise).
But one thing is certain...not all Jews. All homosexuals, disabled, Catholics (yes, read up there. OH that's right...no one wants to hear about it), as well as those refusing to fight -or abated & assisted the "enemy" were also executed.
It does not in ANY diminish the plight or argument of the Jews (admitting all the other groups involved). But for some reason, they have to singularly OWN this when that's not factually the case entirely.
But THIS is my issue:
I think the overwhelming & majorly disappointing reality IS that there are MORE Holocaust-themed movies & material than any other tragedy since the dawn of man.
Yes, it was a horror of ALL horrors. I will not argue otherwise.
Do you honestly think it was the ONLY horror (worth documenting beyond reason) in history of the world?
There are countless other notorious & equal --or some trusted authorities legitimately argue-- even far more reaching genocides.
Stalin primarily sits in front seat here.
Read up on Holodomor. Oh that's right....we don't because there's little publicizing of this!
Bet most people never HEARD of this at all.
Why, because there are NO MOVIES, books, or hardly any mention of it anywhere.
As recently as 1975, look what took place in Cambodia, the genocide of 30% (some guess more) of their population.
Have yet to hear of ONE movie or documentary there (well honestly, I see them because I DIG. There might be one or TWO mainstream material to be had, at best).
My point ONLY being Holocaust movies are FRONT & center at all times, no matter what the human carnage is all around the world of many ethnic groups.
I seriously can't even count how many movies have been made devoted to this singular event when in reality, others get but a mere mention. And sadly, worse, NO ONE much knows they even occurred!
Very unfair & biased.
If they want THEIR story told, they better start running the media as that's the ONLY way in.
Yet to state the obvious, surely one gets called an Anti-Semite because of course it MUST be that when one enters into factual conversation.
I am no more antisemitic than I am a swordfish.
And yet, I am NOT a rock--far from it--so I can easily observe bias in what's designed to be kept MOST in the public view & what is not. That's called an agenda. It's deliberate & by design.
To say otherwise, is the biggest lie of all.
If you WANT to argue that it should be, then DO SO but don't try to argue it's not put in front of ANY other human tragedy since they first began.
Because then you are sure to witness your nose growing some!
And heck, maybe if I were Jewish I WOULD be for ONLY desiring THAT on everyone's mind (just as I would want slavery & Civil Rights movement & such, if Black) but you know what...seriously I doubt it, no tragedy deserves ALL the exposure & films at the expense of the rest (yes, there IS room for all but no interest in the "others" who suffered, because the film makers have myopic vision on Holocaust only).
Ridiculous really.
You guys claim you don't want the world to "forget" ---are you kidding me, THIS is the ONLY crime that is impossible to be forgotten when all the rest suffer NO such risk due to never have even gotten ONE second of recognition. How can something that is in your FACE 24/7 ever be forgotten?
But sure...again, those reasonable minds such as here that maybe question, desire or WANT attention given to some others must be purely Anti-Jew. Ridiculous!! Insulting & offensive!!
Knock the chip off your shoulder, because YOU KNOW I'm not wrong.
Do this:
Do a MOVIE check sometime, see what subject matter is persistently pushed & what is NOT! Only then talk to me about being a bigot.
Yes, I see your points clearly.
I'm Native American (Indian) and I don't expect everyone to walk around thinking about the Indian Wars and Removals. I'll even admit that the Indians committed atrocities in the back and forth attacks and the revenge attacks inspired by the first attacks.
Now, two groups seem to never be willing to let any injustice against them ever rest for even an afternoon. African-Americans and Jews. These two groups have a "suffering" image that they maintain scrupulously.
The reason, it seems to me, is that it pays dividends. African-Americans receive attention and preferential treatment; Jews receive billions of dollars in aid to Israel.
It is the "pay off" factor that disturbs me about these constant bids for the world's sympathy. If the sign at a concentration camp inflated casualties there, why didn't they change it sooner? Why even allow the *appearance* of playing fast and loose with numbers in the millions?
This does them more harm than good in the long-run, as we see now with actual anti-Semites using that sign as a cudgel against the entire Holocaust narrative. Why let something that sloppy happen in the supposedly somber midst of honoring the dead? Perhaps because intellectual honesty played second fiddle to profiteering.
When money is involved, the reasons for things have to be questioned just a little bit harder. Because there are obvious motives for exaggeration, if not outright duplicity.
History should be pursued as a search for truth, not a justification for today's wealth transfers.
Once again, Jm, Exceptionally well thought out & executed.
I didn't even touch on that, but honestly, should rightfully be the biggest grievance of all this uneven handling of historical atrocities.
Yes, of course there are dividends (of every sort) paid out when there is any ONE group gaining preferential exposure to their very indignities & sufferings throughout time.
Why? For many reasons, as you cogently outline.
One being we are a compassionate Nation of persons (for the most part!) who when hearing of horrific abominations, are often led to think there is something we MUST do---further, that it's our Moral, Civic, & personal responsibility.
Sometimes overt, sometimes nearly subliminal, but all the same...a Call to Action!.
NOW there is where all this gets dangerous when ONE situation gets highlighted to such an extent as to be towering over all the rest.
And there is a battle to be the top victim, both groups you name seriously tussle over that & from what I observe, many carry a certain vitriolic position toward the other for maybe JUST that reason: who, indeed, got dealt a worse hand & therefore, deserves more NOW!
Well, here's a reality check, many groups got dealt BAD hands!!
I find it very compelling to learn here you're Native American as your very own had it worse than anyone else when, in fact, your land got stolen & your people killed, enslaved & chased out (Just an aside...Neil Young's Pocahontas is one of my favorite songs just due to the visceral emotion, but also stunning execution of maybe one of his best works!).
What's also morally reprehensible is that when I was growing up (and maybe still today some places) history books in EVERY school depicted the Indians not only as savages but totally, in every instance, IN THE WRONG when in reality, well, of course that was all lies.
And taught in school for surely over 100 years, to every child thirsting for knowledge & truth.
And what THAT very situation taught me is to QUESTION everything.
Think about that, history books ALL wrong.
As a kid, you'd never THINK to question that (or for me, a TEACHER!)
You can get information on good authority & STILL have it be wrong.
So always good to seek truth, however, don't always believe all your findings---just keep on seeking & learn from MANY sources. Be smart about it.
Lastly YOU personally seem far more charitable & forgiving as I imagine I would NOT be quite so "over it" when I see how Indians were managed (continued to be cheated!) & how many live on the reservations today (with epidemic crime but most of all, drug abuse & hopelessness).
So it utterly fits into this topic at hand of historical atrocities! And other than Dances with Wolves, I can barely think of ANY films trying to get that period right. Heck, I can't even say THEY did, but like to believe they tried.
Most have John Wayne westerns depicting Native Americans in such insane inaccurate harsh light, one that is SO political misinformed, it's almost disgraceful they get airtime today!
Which leads one to ask, so WHERE are all the Native American's indignantly outraged & BOYCOTTING this earlier myriad display of fraudulent depiction (books, movies & TV)?
OH that's right, they are not because they likely don't care enough to (OR more the case... RUN the film industry!) to keep it on the front-burner like others have---heck, for you guys, don't think it ever even made it to the BACK burner!
They, instead, decided to try to move on with their lives. Shows more class than anything else really, as that IS part of life, pushing on forward.
So yeah, life is NOT one bit fair. So long as everyone understands this & tries NOT to pretend it is (all equal! C'mon.... NOTHING equal, fair or unbiased in Hollywood ever, which an agenda that exists longer than our Constitution).
Thanks for your kind reply, and I concur with your observations.
I don't get too self-righteous about the Indian Wars (almost genocide). Indian tribes were fighting among themselves before the first European set foot here. The ruthlessness factor went way up once the Europeans got involved. But there are no completely "innocent" parties in History.
For example, some very influential Jews "declared war" (though they weren't in control of any land mass at that time) in 1933 or 1934 on Hitler's Germany. There were news stories about this. So, technically, resident Jews in Germany might have been considered potential enemy agents. Well, in fact they were considered that by the new NatSoc Government, which tried to encourage their emigration.
Before everyone says how incredibly unfair that might have been (no doubt for Jews loyal to Germany, it was unfair) remember that the US rounded up Japanese people and interred them in camps during WWII. Now if the US had been as devastated as Germany was, and food and medicine for US citizens was as scarce as it was for Germans, think how much more badly the Japanese prisoners would have fared.
The city of Dresden was fire-bombed in a horrific manner, even though of little importance for an Allied military victory. I would guess 98% of the civilians who were scorched to death there had never harmed a Jew. So where is the moral high-ground?
All this means is that people have a history of mistreating other people. It's happened forever, it's happening right now.
The thing with the Jews that makes me uncomfortable, is that the USA, who did nothing wrong at all to the Jews during WWII, *also* is made to feel responsible for what happened in Germany, and the welfare of Israel is presented to us as largely our responsibility! 3.5 Billion dollars a year, and all kinds of diplomatic weight on the world stage, and endless policing of the Middle East for Israeli security.
Was the Holocaust terrible? Yes. Did the USA have any responsibility for it? No. Is the Holocaust the only large-scale human tragedy ever perpetrated? No. If you really want to see huge casualty figures, take a look at Stalin. Yet, how often do we hear about Stalin compared to Hitler? Probably one mention for Joseph to one hundred each for Adolf. But why are Stalin's victims less important?
Believe me, I don't ask for any "help" from the US GOV for Indian reparations- I think we are better off managing our own affairs- but a case could be made that the Indians deserved to be given money first, before any Jews or Israelis were given anything, since the US was at least responsible for their plight.
Nevertheless, all the people who were involved in the Indian Removal are dead now; I believe we are all better off to draw our lessons and move on. Why should you be taxed to help me when you have had nothing whatsoever to do with Indian Removal? It doesn't heal old wounds, it creates the atmosphere for new grudges to continue when Governments extract wealth from the grandsons and great-great-grandsons for "reparations" for something that happened long before they born.
But, yes, going all the way back to the original poster in this thread who asked if we could expect an unbiased movie from Hollywood, I'm afraid the answer is still "no". And the two reasons for that answer is that first the Holocaust is still valuable for shaping world policy and directing expenditures, and secondly the demographics in Hollywood are defensive of this valuable tool, and wish to see it remain in good working condition. And if you can get people to pay you for the privilege of consuming your propaganda, well, that's a pretty sweet deal.
Superb postings here. I really got lambasted on one forum by trolls where I said that the U.S. should have Native American Holocaust Museums scattered across the country in areas where massacres occurred. One book estimated about 100 million killed. Yes, there are many "holocausts" throughout history but the sensitivity over real investigation still exists. Consider the Armenian massacre that Turkey conducted and its' recognition by countries still causes international tensions to escalate. History is full of secrets. Why after 71 years are there still classified documents concerning WW2? Looking at this film and the true events surrounding it, it comes across as one of those propaganda events. I have always considered that in order to truly consider these types of highly emotional historical events, one does have to have the cold rationality of a lawyer that can consider the sometimes harsh facts of both sides of the story. It is hard to totally divorce one's emotions from such analysis but that is the challenge of such an investigation. There are too many agendas floating around. Question everything!
shareWhat truth? Is there such a thing? For all the fodder we are being fed, I highly suspect any filmmaker has the balls to present the war or the consequences as it is. All this holocaust hoopla is simply milking a cow. Forget bias, math doesnt support the claims nor logical reasoning. These so called researchers like deborah, caroline sturdy and even drama queens like Simon Wiesenthal have used this to gain popularity and dough. Every country involved on both sides in war were consumed by greed, savagery and pride. There were never any moral battles. Winner *beep* the loser.
To each their own
What truth? Is there such a thing?
Trying to squeeze me into that box I see. These so called historians wildly exaggerated the holocaust. The numbers, the methods and milked the *beep* out of it. Hitler did commit crime against humanity by sending jews into work camps. But so did the americans. There are a lot of factors for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of jews. Disease, discrimination and such. When you have bans imposed on producing evidence against holocaust, it is pretty much a fabrication from the start.
To each their own
These so called historians wildly exaggerated the holocaust.
Just so you know, I can simply say you are nothing but another brainwashed banana. That doesnt help my argument, does it? So scrap the name calling and concentrate on the REAL facts. *beep* the propaganda's, lets stick to basics.
To each their own
I can simply say you are nothing but another brainwashed banana
What ever makes you happy. You can live in your stupid bubble. I hate scum like you as much as the neo-nazis.
To each their own
Hilarious. People who reject what's demonstrably neo-Nazi, neo-fascist propaganda are "scum" in your world.
shareYou can't expect much else from people like Zort than name calling, buzz wording, taking things out of context and then promptly following it up by the word "racist!" or "neo-nazi!"
shareYou get what you earn, Sennachrib. Pack your posts with neo-Nazi crap, and -- lo! -- your post gets called "neo-Nazi crap." And there's nothing you can do about except feign offense.
sharePeople are laughing at the likes of you with your constant squealing of "eeek, racism! Neo-nazism!"
Enjoy your self righteousness while you still can get away with it in public, because soon, sooner than your clueless self has any idea of, every time you spill that crap it will never go unchallenged.
Remind me, troll, is this one of the posts where you're pretending to be Jewish, or one of the posts where you're an aggrieved Aryan tsk-tsking the pernicious Jew?
Enjoy your self righteousness while you still can get away with it in public
Of course we can't. (((Hollywood))) has made this film to combat the rising Revisionist movement that has for decades destroyed the exterminationist position. They use propaganda like this to easily influence the non-reading public into remaining part of Holocaustianity.
shareAh, a white-power boy right down to the use of the (((echo))).
https://mic.com/articles/144228/echoes-exposed-the-secret-symbol-neo-nazis-use-to-target-jews-online
Like I said, Holocaust deniers don't have an anti-Semitic wing and a not-anti-Semitic wing, they have an anti-Semitic-and-show-it wing and an anti-Semitic-and-hide-it wing. You're clearly of the former.
Sounds a lot like stereotyping to me. Nothing I've said has anything to do with "white-power." Do you deny that Hollywood is predominately run by powerful Jewish producers? Recognizing this doesn't make a person antisemitic, nor would criticizing the subversive propaganda that these Jews often shove down our throats. There are many Jews in the world that are rightfully outraged against this behavior from their peers, and they would laugh at the way the word "antisemitic" is thrown about.
I'm sure there are Holocaust revisionists that are antisemitic and proud of it. I think that's a terrible attitude to have, but it by no means reflects most of us.
Sounds a lot like stereotyping to me. Nothing I've said has anything to do with "white-power."
Most of it is, and my recognizing this fact doesn't make me antisemitic. If I point out that most athletes in the NBA are black, does that make me a racist?
shareAre you, in doing so, trying to impute to them a gigantic hoax, the way you're trying to with what you call the (((media)))?
You're really very new at trying to argue this stuff in a mainstream forum, aren't you? Loads and loads and loads of newb errors.
Of course not, what kind of hoax would that be? What reason do I have? After all, I would only call something a hoax when I have thoroughly analyzed it and to the best of my ability am forced to conclude that it is nothing other than that.
sharewhen I have thoroughly analyzed it and to the best of my ability
I'm working on a masters in English, so I have demonstrated a pretty solid ability to critically-approach texts and by extension the rest of the world. Indeed, after subjecting this and other matters to the scrutiny of analysis and reason, I'm forced to conclude that the Holocaust myths are utter lies and falsehoods, and that there is no relatable phenomenon in the NBA.
shareI'm working on a masters in English
I have demonstrated a pretty solid ability to critically-approach texts and by extension the rest of the world
I'm forced to conclude that the Holocaust myths are utter lies and falsehoods
Aw, what the hell.
I have demonstrated a pretty solid ability to critically-approach texts and by extension the rest of the world
Meanwhile, at swojtak's house...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lQXwMv-YOs
NOPE, NEVER! HOLLYWOOD IS THE KNOWN ENEMY OF ALL EUROPEAN GENTILES, AMERICAN DESCENDANTS OF THOSE EUROPEANS & ASIANS TOO. THEY ARE THE ONES TRYING TO MAKE OUR LIVES MISERABLE & KILL US ALL OFF IF THEY CAN...
________________________________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/loveunderlaw
That is a bit extreme but you failed to mention the _ews media.
shareMAYBE IT IS FOR SOME, BUT SOMEONE NEEDS TO EXPOSE THEM BEFORE THE WEST FALLS! ANOTHER THING, I DON'T HATE ALL JEWISH FOLKS, JUST THE ONES THAT PRACTICE GENITAL MUTILATION ON CHILDREN THAT CAN'T CONSENT, ONES THAT TRY TO DESTROY A NATION'S FAMILIES(STRAUGHT & GAY), AND ONES THAT TRY TO MAKE GENTILES(ESPECIALLY EUROPEAN GENTILES OR DESCENDANTS OF)THINK WE ARE TRASH & DESERVE TO DIE.
I'M DISGUSTED WITH THE WHOLE PHILOSOPHY, & MY PARENTS ARE ABRAHAMICS & THEY WANT NOTHING MORE TO DO WITH ME BECAUSE I SAID THAT "THE ABRAHAMIC "GOD" IS AN ANTI-LIFE TYRANT, & NO ONE SHOULD GROVEL BEFORE THAT BEAST". SO THEY CUT ME OFF BASED ON ORDERS FROM THEIR CONGREGATION ELDERS WHICH I FIND REALLY PATHETIC. THEY ARE ALL ABOUT DOGMA & BEING SUBSERVIENT TO EVIL(JUST READ THE BIBLE SOMETIME TO SEE WHO OUR REAL ENEMY IS).\
ANYWAY IMO THEIR WAY OF DOING THINGS HAS ONLY EVER BROUGHT SADNESS, TRAGEDY, & DEATH TO HUMANITY. TIME TO MAKE A BETTER DAY & LEAVE THAT CRAP IN THE DUNGHEAP OF HISTORY...
________________________________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/loveunderlaw