77. Het woord Holocaust

Fighting with Words: the word "Holocaust" - Peter Myers; October 24, 2000; update September 2, 2010.
(Deze blog is tijdelijk, omdat iemand me schreef dat Peter Myers site niet 'te openen ' was. De hele lay pout is weggevallen. Het is dus beter om op de site van Myers te lezen. 
Bijzonder is dat deze blog binnen 12 uur na verschijning al een comment kreeg. Een hasbara met een robot, vermoedelijk. )

My comments within quoted text are shown {thus}; write to me at contact.html.

You are at http://mailstar.net/holocaus.html.

(1) The word "Holocaust" (2) The word "The" (3) "Holocaust Denial" (4) Disentangling the History, the Religion, and the Industry (5) John Sack on the "Holocaust Deniers" (6) 'Where the neonazis deny a single genocide, those embracing the exclusivist posture of "Jewish uniqueness" deny many. Indeed, they deny everybody's holocaust but their own' (7) Don't Deny Trotsky's (8) Selective Deconstruction - or Can the Nazi Holocaust be "Deconstructed"? (9) The Heroic Model cf the Victim Model (10) I choose to live, by Sabine Dardenne (11) Jewish history as a series of holocausts (12) Purim Giftbaskets - eating Haman's Ears - prayer for death of Iranian President (13) No Exodus, No Holocaust? (14) David Cole's Auschwitz video (1992) (15) JDL (Jewish Defense League) calls David Cole "a low-life beast" ... "does not deserve to live"

"How can we tell who is ruling the world? Normally, the conqueror imposes his religion on the conquered.What is the dominant religion in the world today? I submit that it is the Religion of the Holocaust. I submit that in this way we can tell who rules the world."

- Phil Eversoul (born Phil Podolner - from a Jewish family), in an email dated Tue, 28 Nov 2000 letters.html

In early 2009 I finally got around to intensively studying both sides of the Holocaust Debate. I concluded that it did happen, and became concerned that too many internet dissidents were jumping on the Denial bandwagon:holocaust-denial.html.

On that account, I launched a debate within my email list (of over 400 people). It raged for over three weeks, and presented the best material - some never before on the internet: holocaust-debate.html.

But, even though I believe it did happen, the question still arises:
Why are 6 million Ukranians less important than 6 million Jews?

"This was a system which, in time of peace, artificially created a famine causing six million persons to die in the Ukraine between 1932 and 1933. They died on the very threshold of Europe. And Europe didn't even notice it. The world didn't even notice it. Six million persons!"

- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, speech delivered in Washington on 30 June 1975. In Alexander Solzhenitsyn Speaks to the West (London: Bodley Head, 1978), pp. 15-6.

You may deny the 6 million Ukraine famine without penalty; you may deny the 30 million death-toll of Mao's Great Leap Forward; but denial of the 6 million Jewish holocaust can land you in jail, cost you big fines, lose you your job, and make you a pariah.

The media, academia and the courts only allow one viewpoint to be put. Many dissident scholars have been jailed, fined, or lost their job because of books they wrote.

If Hitler killed his friend Roehm, and if he got rid of Gregor Strasser and other members of the Socialist Left in the NSDAP, during the Night of the Long Knives, one should not be surprised at anything he might have done to Jews, especially in wartime after the tide had turned at Stalingrad. But many valid questions have been raised, not least the sharp revision down of the Jewish toll at Auschwitz, after which one might think that the 6 million figure might have been reduced as well - but it wasn't.

Robert Faurison wrote in his paper Auschwitz: The Dwindling Death Toll

{quote} It was not before 1989, that is 44 years after the liberation of the POW and concentration camp complex known as Auschwitz, that an international dispute started about the actual number of victims who had died in this camp complex. For 44 years, the Polish authorities and with them most of the world's mass media had been claiming that some four million inmates had perished there, but in 1989 they suddenly changed their minds and reduced this figure drastically. As a consequence, the memorial plates on display in the camp Auschwitz-Birkenau were removed in 1990, which had propagated the four million figure in many languages. Following this dispute, an investigative commission was formed to come up with a more acceptable number of victims.[1] When this commission published its results in summer of 1990, it was widely distributed by the international media.[2] The most astounding admission came perhaps from a prominent Polish journalist, who stated that the old, exaggerated figure was an "anti-fascist lie."[3] New memorial plates were installed in Auschwitz in 1995, claiming an alleged "final" victim count of 1.5 millions.

{endquote} http://www.vho.org/tr/2003/1/Faurisson17-23.html

The above website includes scans of newspaper articles saying that the Auschwitz toll has been lowered to 1 million. Here is a news report on that lowering:

Archive/File: pub/camps/auschwitz/press/death-toll-estimate-reduced

Last-Modified: 1996/01/01
Source: The Washington Times, Tuesday, July 17, 1990

Poland reduced Auschwitz death toll estimate to 1 million

By Krysztof Leski and Ohad Gozani London Daily Telegraph

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/auschwitz/ftp.py?camps/auschwitz//press/death-toll-estimate-reduced.

LONDON - Poland has cut its estimate of the number of people killed by the Nazis in the Auschwitz death camp from 4 million to just over 1 million.

The vast majority of the dead are now accepted to have been Jews, despite claims by the former Polish communist government that as many Poles perished in Hitler's largest concentration camp. ...
{endquote}

In normal arithmetic, a reduction of 3 million for Auschwitz would have led to a modification of the 6 million total. But in Holocaust arithmetic, it didn't. There seems to have been a view that 6 million Jews perished, regardless of the minor details such as where; but this also begs the question of whether 6 million were gassed, or some died of hunger, shooting, disease etc. In wartime, food and other supplies are scarce, especially for prisoners in camps when an opposing army is closing in.

Whatever Hitler's sins, he's not running the world today. Plenty of other people have sins too - big ones. Some of them are the ones putting Roger Garaudy, Germar Rudolf and others through hoops for their books.

In major US and Israeli media, propagandists for Israel have likened Jimmy Carter's book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid to Mein Kampf and the Protocols of Zion.

Jimmy Carter's Kampf: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/6757

The Protocols of the Elder Carter: http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11126

These propagandists insist that if there is ANY Jewish conspiracy, then it is the same Jewish conspiracy the Protocols describes.

But the Protocols is a forgery. Therefore, all these other books are also wrong.

If, on the other hand, there IS a Jewish conspiracy - and Benjamin Ginsberg's statements on Jewish control of the US media surely attest to one (see item 8 below) - their argument comes undone, and the Protocols may not be a forgery after all: toolkit.html.

When one considers how they've destroyed Norman Finkelstein's academic career, and even smeared Jimmy Carter as a Nazi, one must say that it takes courage to defy the "Holocaust Industry".

Roger Garaudy wrote in his book The Mythical Foundations of Israeli Policy (Studies Forum International, London 1997):

{p. 133} The term "Holocaust", applied to the same tragedy from the Seventies onwards, from Elie Weasel's book La Nuit (1958) and made famous by the title of the film: Holocaust, shows even more clearly the determination to turn the crime committed against the jews into an exceptional event without any possible comparison with the massacres of the other victims of Nazism, or even with any other crime in history because their suffering and their dead had a sacred character: the Larousse Universel (2 volumes, Paris 1969, p. 772) thus defined the "holocaust": <<Sacrifice practiced by the Jews, in which the victims was completely consumed by fire.>>

The martyrdom of Jews thus became set apart from any other, because of its sacrificial nature, it wasintegrated into the divine Plan, like the crucifixion of Jesus in Christian theology, thus inaugurating a new age. {endquote} garaudy.html

(1) The word "Holocaust"

The word "Holocaust" denotes exceptionality. It's not just a name; it conjures up emotions, a view of history, a turning point in history, a pivotal event as the Crucifixion used to be presented.

In its bundling of facts with judgments and emotions, the word "Holocaust" is like the expression "Female Genital Mutilation". This expression can be contrasted with "Female Circumcision", a name for the same object but without the emotion or judgment. It can be seen that, in any discussion between adversaries,to use the second name is to leave the debate open, but to use the first name is to predetermine the outcome. The second name is suitable for research, for debate, for reason, for Intellect - the first, for Religion or Propaganda.

The uniqueness of the Nazi Holocaust is not to do with numbers. 30 million died in Mao's Great Leap Forward, but the media does not care to make this a pivotal event in History, from which we must draw lessons for our daily living.

Nor is attempted genocide the issue, since the destruction of many native peoples is much less memorialised than the Holocaust. And the Jewish conquest of Palestine was also a genocide, according to the Jewish Bible itself: guthridge.html.

No, what's unique about the Holocaust is that it happened to the Jews.

The Jewish religion has always depicted Jews as persecuted victims. What is "the Exodus", if not escape from a Holocaust in Ancient Egypt? What is "the  Return" from Babylon, if not escape from the Holocaust of the Assyrian Empire? The Purim feast is celebrated as deliverance from a would-be Holocaust in the Persian Empire. The Roman suppression of the Jewish uprising of 66-70 AD was also a Holocaust: jewish-revolt.html.

Here is part of a statement from Temple Mount Faithful, a religious lobby advocating demolition of the Dome of the Rock, and an "Endtime" war in the Middle East.

Note the portrayal of Jewish history as one long series of holocausts by the goys against God's people.

In keeping with this viewpoint, Binyamin Zev Kahane wrote,

"The revolution against the Romans and siege on Jerusalem which resulted in the destruction of the Second Temple, produced one of the worst holocausts in Jewish history."

Note the plural "holocausts in Jewish history" .

Kahane wrote this in The Holocaust That Is Overshadowed by the Destruction of the Temple, translated by Lenny Goldberg: http://kahane.org/parsha/h11.html.

It was formerly at http://www.kahane.org/parsha/h11.html#1996, and is archived athttp://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.kahane.org/parsha/h11.html#1996.

Is Temple Mount Faithful (TMF) trying to frighten the Jews?

http://www.templemountfaithful.org/News/20030429.htm

{quote} Holocaust Day in Israel Commemorating the 6,000,000 Jews (Including 1,500,000 children ) Murdered by the Germans During WWII

Today (29th April, 2003) at 10AM sirens were sounded throughout Israel to commemorate the Holocaust perpetrated by the Germans on the Jewish People in Europe and other places that they occupied during the Second World War. This was the most terrible persecution committed against the Jewish People.

The persecution of the Jewish People started 4000 years ago right from the start when G?d called Abraham and created the Jewish People for an eternal mission to the seed of Abraham and all the nations. Millions of Jews have been murdered since that time in the wars that nations have conducted against Israel in the Biblical times, in the two destructions of the Israeli kingdom and then again in the exileof almost 2000 years in the pogroms, the Inquisition and other terrible persecutions. The most terrible of all, and all of them were terrible, was the Holocaust which could only have been committed by the messengers of satan in our time. ...  They made soap from their corpses, mattresses from their hair and many other terrible atrocities ...

A third of the Jewish population was murdered in the Holocaust by the Germans. They were murdered simply because they were Jews. The Germans checked back for 10 generations and if there was any Jewish blood even that far back they were murdered. ...

{end of quote from Temple Mount Faithful (TMF)}

The whole history of Judaism is depicted as one of Holocausts. Is there any other group which depicts its history this way?

And this raises the question: if Jews present their 3000-year old history as one long catalog of antisemitism, what does this mean? Why should it be so? Why don't other peoples and tribes present their history this way?

The implication is that Jews are persecuted by non-Jews, precisely because they are the People of God.The persecution, itself, is evidence or testimony that Jews are indeed God's People.

History, therefore, is not neutral; it's not just an art or a science. No, History is a Witness; History itself is a sacred story.

And who does these Holocausts? The Goyim (Pagans, Non-Jews). In effect the Goyim are the Devil, not a transcendent Satan but a living, material force always trying to exterminate God's People.

This is not just History, but Salvation History: History as Theology. Even atheistic  Jews belong to this religion - Judaism has an atheistic variant, just as Buddhism is a non-theistic religion. Once a Jew stops thinking in terms of Victimhood, Holocausts and  Redemption, he stops being a Jew. "Identity" resides in the mind.

The West has heard all this before - 2000 years ago. The Christians presented a similar view of History - except that their pivotal event was the Crucifixion, and the persecuted were not Jews but Christians; the persecutors, not Goyim but Pagans.

The Enlightenment has taught the West to question such religious presentations of history. Therefore, to sacralise the Holocaust - and especially to forbid questioning of it by scholars like Roger Garaudy, a Marxist with no axe to grind (see garaudy.html) - this is a profoundly anti-Enlightenment thing to do, a dangerous thing, a threat to Reason and Intellect.

All the more ironic that noted Intellectuals should be invited to endorse it, and see fit to do so. This is another Treason of the Clerks. What can we expect next - persecution of heretics? Isn't this what Political Correctness is?

(2) The Word "The"

I couldn't take up "Holocaust Denial", because I haven't studied the topic. Anyway, for all I know, much of the usual dogma may be true (even so, not all is likely to be true). I'm more interested in why OTHER holocausts - like the Bolshevik - are LESS important - irrelevant in fact. In other words, my interest is not "The" Holocaust, but the Politics (the Uses) of "The" Holocaust.

The focus should be on the word "The" rather than the word "Holocaust".

Talking about "The" Holocaust is like talking about "The" Crucifixion.

Each has moved out of the historical realm into the theological (i.e. that of interpretation).

For all that, there is an underlying physical reality.

In each case, the word "The" fixes the event as pivotal in history.

At first, Christians used Roman calendars, but later, they reset the zero to the birth of Christ. One day the zero might be re-set to the Nazi Holocaust.

(3) "Holocaust Denial"

The expression bears an implicit claim to Uniqueness. Ask, "Which Holocaust?" Ask why they're less concerned about the Bolshevik Holocaust - led by non-theistic Jews (not by all Jews, just as Hitler's persecution was not done by all Germans or all Christians). Or why Chinese blood - 30 million lost in the Great Leap Forward - is less memorable than Jewish blood, less a pivotal point in history.

Jews have not only been on the receiving end. The Bolshevik Government was (in contravention of Marxist theory) set up by Jews (not by all Jews, but by Jews), and they instigated the Red Terror. Upon the death of Lenin, Stalin was the only non-Jew in the ruling triumvirate, and it was he, and he alone, who returned power to the Russian people. Given that Stalin returned power to the Russian people, why must he be scapegoated?stalin.html

Point out the admission by Lazar Kaganovich's relative, that Bolshevism was imposed on the Russians by non-theistic Jews:  kaganovich.html.

Point out Trotsky's role in the Kronstadt Massacre:  kronstadt.html.

Point out Bertrand Russell's observation of the Jewish role in early Bolshevism:  russell.html. Why is this irrelevant?

The Jewish identities of Lenin and Trotsky:  lenin-trotsky.html.

Why is this Holocaust not important? Perhaps because it was inaugurated by Jews? Not by all Jews, but by Jews nonetheless.

Jewish political action, whether Zionist or Bolshevik, is seen by them as part of  Redemption, while the recipients see it as oppression. One group's Redemption is  another's Hell. This applies in the Nazi-Jewish case, the Christian-Aztec (and Inca)  case, and the Jewish-Palestinian case. Can there be any universality which transcends this dichotomy?

Norman G. Finkelstein calls The Holocaust Industry a "shakedown":
finkelstein.html.

(4) Disentangling the History, the Religion, and the Industry

One needs to disentangle

1. the history (what really happened) 2. the religion 3. the industry

With regard to item 2, the Jewish religion presents Jewish history as a series of holocausts, the focus of its holy days each year:

(a) the Exodus from Egypt - commemorated in the Passover feast
(b) invasion by the Assyrian & Babylonian empires, destruction of the First Temple, Exile of the leaders in Babylon (Cyrus of the Persian empire ordered a Return)
(c) Esther's deliverance of the Jews of the Persian Empire from destruction by Haman, Prime Minister under Xerxes - commemorated in the Purim feast
(d) the victory of Judah of Maccabee over the Syrian and Greek armies of 167 B.C. - commemorated in the Hanukkah holy day, the Feast of Lights
(e) the uprising against Rome, culminating in Masada. New soldiers entering the Israeli army are inducted at Masada
(f) Christian persecutions against Jews
(g) the Nazi holocaust, the foundation stone on which the modern state of Israel is built, and whose pivotal point in history is marked by the word "The". The terminology "The" holocaust is reminiscent of "The" crucifixion, and suggests the interweaving of history with theological interpretation.

No other religion presents its history this way; the implication is that the persecution testifies that the Jews really are God's people.

The problem is that the theological overlay has affected the ability of scholars to investigate what really happened at Nazi concentration camps, what Nazi intentions were, and whether those events were decided in response to the turning of the tide in the war against the USSR.

Does "denial" mean

1. denial of the physical events
2. rejection of the religious overlay
3. opposition to the industry, and to making the Palestinians pay for what others did, as the victims' victims orthe Jews' Jews?

All three are tangled up; the untangling involves 2 and 3, but 1 sometimes gets caught up in it too.

Most Jews, even universalist ones, are terrified about this theme, afraid for their safety, so it can't be treated in a provocative or confrontational way, as "deniers" sometimes do.

The plan to "Transfer" the Palestinians out of Israel sounds similar to what the Nazis say they were trying to do with the Jews - thus the currency of the whole issue. Are the Palestinians and Arabs any less afraid of the Jews, than Jews are of Nazis?

Consider "The" crucifixion, and its denial.

Notice that calling it "crucifixion" with a small "c" can be offensive to some, just as "holocaust" with a small "h".

Here are some examples of crucifixion "denial":

1. Both John Allegro and Robert Eisenman, two expert scholars involved in translating and interpreting the Dead Sea Scrolls, have suggested that Jesus never existed.

Allegro was probably once a devout Christian, but he turned against both the Jewish and Christian religions. Allegro wrote that "Jesus" was just a code-name for a sacred mushroom.

Eisenman seems to be Jewish, and hostile to Christianity. Eisenman wrote that James was the real leader of Christianity (ie Jewish Christianity) until Paul - the inventor of the bogus Christianity that has come down to us, but never a real Jew - overthrew him. James was really killed - Eisenman says that Paul attacked him and tried to kill him - whereas Jesus may never have existed.

2. Ahmed Osman wrote three interesting books:

Stranger in the Valley of the Kings alleges that the patriarch Joseph of Bible stories appears in Egyptian records as the vizier Yuya, vizier of the 18th dynasty King Tuthmosis IV. That is, he was adopted into the Egyptian royal house.

Moses, Pharaoh of Egypt, says that Yuya (Joseph) was the father of Queen Tiye, the mother of Akhnaten, and alleges that Akhnaten the "heretic" King who overthrew the old religion, was in fact Moses.

The House of the Messiah alleges that the name "Essa", which Osman says is the Arabic name for Jesus, and the only one used for him in the Koran, is related to the word "Essenes" (p. 38); that Jesus himself never existed; but that the theological stories of Jesus were woven from themes originally about Tutankhamun.

The first two of these books contain some interesting material, which does not mean that the overall thesis is correct.

The Egyptologist Donald B. Redford discusses evidence linking Moses with Akhnaten in his book Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times, but comes out against the theory. Osman re-interprets Redford's findings.

Anyway, my point here is that Osman denies that Jesus existed.

How is this relevant to "holocaust denial"? Dynasties and even whole civilizations are built upon an interpretation of history. The overthrow of the prevailing interpretation is associated with the collapse of the dynasty or civilization. Perhaps a new one succeeds it; perhaps chaos follows instead.

Denial of official history not only applies to events in our time; denial of the Bible's presentation of ancient history is now a serious issue in Israel.

Richard Friedman has shown that the Torah (including the Book of Genesis) was constructed by the scribe Ezra, in Babylon, around 458 BC, with the authority of the Persian Emperor: bible.html.

Mary Boyce shows that the Torah was composed under the influence of the Zoroastrian religion, the religion of the Persian Empire: zoroaster-judaism.html.

In A History of Zoroastrianism, Volume 2, Boyce claims that the Creation story of Genesis 1 was a late addition (p. 45). She writes:

{p. 192} ... the first chapter of the Book of Genesis, which gives an account of creation wholly different from that in the second chapter, with its story of the garden of Eden. The first account resembles the Zoroastrian cosmogony in two striking particulars. First there is the great declaration: 'In the beginning God (Elohim) created the heaven and the earth ... And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters'. This is the only place in the Old Testament where the Spirit of God is associated with creativity; ... It is precisely in such terms that scholars have sought to define Zoroaster's teachings about the Holy Spirit through which Ahuramazda is 'Creator of all things'. {endquote}

Archaeologists such as Israel Finkelstein are engaging in "Exodus Denial": Finkelstein says that most of the people who formed a new society and a culture without pork were Canaanites displaced by the invading Philistines. Finkelstein and other archaeologosis say that they have been unable to find any remains of the First Temple at the site of the Temple Mount (Dome of the Rock, Al Aqsa mosque), any evidence that it was on that site, nor evidence that Jerusalem was a large city in the 10th century BC as the Bible claims. There's no evidence that David or Solomon had a large empire at that time - from the Nile to the Euphrates - but evidence of a much smaller state, more a tribal one - a century later. Quite possibly the First Temple was in Samaria. In other words, the Bible as a written document is unreliable, composed long after the event by scribes pushing an ideology.

Egypt and other empires of the Middle East have archaeological remains and diplomatic records to prove their existence. Yet Israel, supposedly God's kingdom, does not; what it has, instead, is a book.

That book says that Jews once had an empire from the Nile to the Euphrates, and that it will be restored one day. Today's Zionists are determined to implement this.

The following quotes are from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of the Bible, copyrighted as are all modern translations. This human copyright on the Word of God is the reason why modern translations of the whole text of the Bible are not available for free on the internet; only old, out-of date translations like the King James are.

1 Kings 4:21 says: "Solomon was sovereign over all the kingdoms from the Euphrates to the land of the Philistines, even to the border of Egypt; they brought tribute and served Solomon all the days of his life."

Genesis 15:18 says: 'On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates ..."'

Exodus 23:30-31 says: "Little by little I will drive them out from before you, until you have increased and possessed the land. I will set your borders from the Red Sea to the sea of the Philistines, and from the wilderness to the Euphrates ..."

Deuteronomy 11:24 says: "Every place on which you set foot shall be yours; your territory shall extend from the wilderness to the Lebanon, and from the River, the river Euphrates, to the Western Sea."

Joshua 1:4 says: "From the wilderness and the Lebanon, as far as the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, to the Great Sea in the west shall be your territory."

In his Complete Diaries, Vol. II. p. 711, Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, says that the area of the Jewish State stretches: "From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates":

{quote} Discussed with Bodenheimer the demands we will make.
Area: from the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates. Stipulate a transitional period with our own institutions. A Jewish governor for this period. Afterwards, a relationship like that between Egypt and the Sultan. As soon as the Jewish inhabitants of a district amount to 2/3 of the population, Jewish administration goes in force politically, while local government (communal autonomy) always depends on the number of voters in the community.
These are Bodenheimer's ideas, in part excellent.
A transitional stage is a good idea.
{endquote}

Source: The Complete Diaries of Theodore Herzl, Volume 2, p. 711 (New York: Herzl Press and Thomas Yoseloff, 1960).

For an image of the text, with the computerized call slip from the National Library of Australia, see herzl.jpg.

The Bible's denunciation of Egypt is the reason why Christians and Moslems wiped out its culture, even the transmission of its hieroglyphic language.

Yet David Ben-Gurion wrote in his book Ben-Gurion Looks At The Bible, (tr. Jonathan Kolatch, Jonathan David Publishers, New York 1972):

{p. 5} The idea which we have about Egypt from the Book of Genesis and the Book of Exodus is one-sided. According to what we learned in school, Egypt was a slave-camp in which our forefathers did back-breaking work; and the exodus from Egypt is accepted to this very day in Israel as an exodus from slavery to freedom. But in fact, ancient Egypt was one of the few nations in the world which created an original, advanced culture.

More than 5,000 years ago, in the days of Pharaoh Sneferu this land attained a lofty, cultural level and laid the foundation for several branches of science: arithmetic, engineering, chemistry and medicine; and, in the course of thousands of years, created a varied and rich literature in the fields of religion, history, morality, science, and works of poetry and prose ...

And the same was the case in Babylonia. Babylonia was superior to Egypt in its rich literature. ... Babylonia developed the science of measurement, medicine and engineering, and improved its system of jurisprudence long before other nations. The language of Babylonia was for a long time the international, diplomatic language in all the lands of the Bible which are today known collectively as the Near East.

The struggle of the Jewish people with these two mighty neighbors was not just political and military, but also cultural and spiritual.

{endquote} bengur-bible.html

Given the greatness of those two Afro-Asiatic cultures, why wage cultural war to destroy their heritage? Was not their demise a great loss?

Babylonia and Assyria were Semitic; Minoan Crete was probably Semitic; the Phoenicians, Carthaginians and Canaanites were Semitic; the Arabs and Islam are Semitic. Yet most Israelis are Ashkenazi Jews, descendants of Khazar converts; they are not Semitic.

Israel Finkelstein draws attention to Jeremiah 8:8, about "the lying hand of scribes" in composing (Biblical) texts which deceive:

'How can you say, "We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us," when, in fact, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.'

In Israel, the failure of Archaeology to corroborate the Bible's claims is a sensitive issue, interpreted as a threat to the state.

The Bible has created the Jewish people.

But the whole world has been affected by the false history of the Bible. Christians in the New World followed Biblical precedent and authorization. Today we stand on the brink of world war, on the basis of the same false history.

(5) John Sack on the "Holocaust Deniers"

John Sack wrote the book An Eye For an Eye, about Jewish vengeance on Germans, late in World War II.

http://www.johnsack.com/daniel_in_the_deniers_den_1.htm

Written for Esquire, February 2001

The people who say the Holocaust didn't happen asked me to speak at their recent international conference.The invitation surprised me, for I am a Jew who's written about the Holocaust and (for Chrissakes, I feel like adding) certainly hasn't denied it. To my eyes, however, the invitation, which came from the Institute for Historical Review, in Orange County, California, the central asylum for the delusion that the Germans didn't kill any Jews and that the Holocaust is, quote, unquote, the Hoax of the Twentieth Century, was not just a wonderment: it was also a golden opportunity, a golden-engraved temptation.  ... I wrote the Institute saying that yes, I'd come.

... All in all, the deniers that day and that weekend seemed the most middling of Middle Americans. Or better:despite their take on the Holocaust, they were affable, open-minded, intelligent, intellectual. Their eyes weren't fires of unapproachable certitude and their lips weren't lemon twists of astringent hate. Nazis and neo-Nazis they were certainly not.

Nor were they antisemites. I'm sure many antisemites say the Holocaust didn't happen (even as they take delight that it really did) but I met none that weekend. The only debatably antisemitic comment that I heard was on Friday night, when I dined in the downstairs restaurant with a prominent denier in a NO HOLES? NO HOLOCAUST! shirt, an Alabama man whose name is Dr. Robert Countess. ...

http://www.johnsack.com/daniel_in_the_deniers_den_2.htm

... Now about NO HOLES? NO HOLOCAUST! The first thing to know is, no one at that palm-filled hotel would deny that Hitler hated the Jews, that Hitler sent them to concentration camps, and that Hitler said, "I want to annihilate the Jews," as hundreds of thousands died in (a denier called them) - in God-forsaken hellholes like Auschwitz. It may surprise you, but no one at that hotel would deny that hundreds of thousands of Jews died of typhus, dysentery, starvation and exhaustion at Auschwitz or that their corpses went to the constant flames of five crematoriums night and day. The deniers even call this the Holocaust, and what they deny is that some of the Jews didn't die of natural causes: that some went to rooms that the Germans poured cyanide (or at four other camps, carbon monoxide) into. The Jews, say the Holocaust deniers, weren't murdered, and the Germans didn't deliberately murder them.

Tens of thousands of witnesses disagree.

... To this abundant evidence the Holocaust deniers say - and they're right - that one Auschwitz commandant confessed after he was tortured and that the other reports are full of bias, rumors, exaggerations, and other preposterous matters, to quote the Jewish editor of a Jewish magazine five years after the war. The deniers say, and again they're right, that the commandants, doctors, the SS and Jews at Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald, and a whole alphabet of camps testified after the war to cyanide chambers at those camps that all historians today refute. The deniers say, and they're right again, that at Auschwitz the witnesses said that the Germans poured the pellets through holes in the cyanide chamber roofs, even said that the Germans joked as they poured, "Na, gib Ihnen schön zu fressen. Well, give them something good to eat." It's there that the NO HOLES? NO HOLOCAUST! on the T-shirts comes in. The roofs at Auschwitz still stand (or, rather, lie collapsed, for the Germans blew them up in November 1944 so the world wouldn't know) and, the deniers say, you can't find holes in those former roofs for Germans to pour the cyanide through. ...

"If," said Irving triumphantly, "you were to go to Auschwitz with a trowel and clean away the gravel and find a reinforced concrete hole, I would abandon my action immediately. That would drive such a hole through my case that I would have no possible chance of defending it."

Not quite flying to Auschwitz, the author, publisher or professor apparently called up the Auschwitz Museum, for the Museum told the Times of London that it had started searching for the fabulous holes. A two-mile drive. A trowel. A camera - that's what the search entailed, but it's now nine months later and the Museum hasn't found them.

http://www.johnsack.com/daniel_in_the_deniers_den_3.htm

But lo! Someone did. Not someone from the Auschwitz Museum but Charles "Chuck" Provan, a letterhead printer in Monongahela, Pennsylvania, and another scheduled speaker here in California.

... "You have a bent towards evil," the chief denier from Australia, a man of German ancestry, told Provan. "You slander the German people. You believe in the Holocaust." "But Charles, if I may call you Charles, bring me the pudding," said the chief denier alive, a Frenchman and the man who coined the "No holes? No Holocaust!" motto. "Bring me the holes of twenty-five by twenty-five centimeters."

"Oh, I can't," said Provan.

"Where do you see a square of twenty-five by twenty-five?"

"Oh, not anymore. But this hole is big enough to have held it."

"But you don't have a square of twenty-five centimeters."

"I admit that."

...  Of course, the deniers would say it's Provan and I whose convictions weren't voided by Irving, and it may be a hundred years before we know whose views prevail. "We have won," an SS man told Primo Levi at Auschwitz. "There may be suspicions, but there will be no certainties, because we'll destroy the evidence together with you."

http://www.johnsack.com/daniel_in_the_deniers_den_4.htm

Provan, the only speaker (other than me) who believed that the Holocaust happened, spoke in the ballroom later on. He spoke about a Jewish coroner at Auschwitz and not about his "No holes? No Holocaust?" monograph or his one other epoch-making discovery. In the cyanide chambers at Auschwitz there are no cyanide stains, and the deniers, though they've never worn a T-shirt saying NO CYANIDE? NOBODY DIED! call this another proof that what we call cyanide chambers were, in fact, innocuous morgues. But according to Provan, the chambers have no stains because the Germans painted their walls.

Sixteen other speakers spoke on Saturday, Sunday and Monday, for this was a holiday weekend, and I counted six who'd run afoul of the law because of their disbelief in the Holocaust and the death apparatus at Auschwitz.To profess this in anyone's earshot is illegal not just in Germany but in Holland, Belgium, France, Spain, Switzerland, Austria, Poland and Israel, where denying the Holocaust can get you five years while denying God can get you just one. One speaker, David Irving, had been fined $18,000 for saying aloud in Germany that one of the cyanide chambers at Auschwitz is a replica built by the Poles after the war. A replica it truly is, but truth in these matters is no defense in Germany. Another speaker, a Frenchman, had been fined in France, and another speaker, a German, had been sentenced to fourteen months in Germany but, his landlord evicting him, his wife deserting him, had fled to England. Another speaker, an Australian, had come from seven months in a German jail for writing in Australia (alas, on the Internet, which Germans in Germany can read) that there were no cyanide chambers at Auschwitz. In his defense, he'd called on an expert witness, but the man couldn't testify or he'd be jailed too, the victim of the selfsame law. The fifth speaker was a Swiss, a man who I'd once roomed with (I'd met many deniers previously) and fed the kangaroos with in South Australia. He'll go to jail for fifteen months in Switzerland for questioning the Auschwitz cyanide chambers.

In the United States, thank God, we have the First Amendment. But even in that shuttered ballroom in California, the sixth speaker couldn't say all he wanted to, couldn't, for example, say the Germans didn't kill the Jews deliberately. A few hours earlier, he and I had debated this at a waffle breakfast, debated it in audible voices with no qualms of being arrested, indicted or imprisoned by Federal marshals. "But what about Eichmann?" I'd asked him. "He wrote that Hitler ordered the physical destruction of the Jews. He wrote about vergasungslager, gassing camps."

"John. The man was in Israeli captivity."

"Well, what about during the war? Hans Frank, the Governor General of Poland, said to exterminate all the Jews, without exception."

"He was only quoted as saying that, John."

"And what about Goebbels? He said a barbaric method was being employed against the Jews. And Himmler? He said the SS knew what a hundred, five hundred, one thousand corpses were like."

"John, I don't know. They might have said it. But," the sixth speaker told me, "it isn't true that genocide was a German national policy." A few hours later, the speaker didn't dare repeat this up in the ballroom, for he's a Canadian citizen

... The man's name is Ernst Zündel, he's round-faced and red-faced

... I can sympathize with the Germans, for I've seen the same denial among the Jews. Seven years ago, I ruefully reported in An Eye for an Eye that thousands of Jews who'd survived the Holocaust had rounded up Germans and beat, whipped, tortured and murdered them - German men, women, children and babies -in 1,255 concentration camps run by Jews. This little holocaust (it wasn't so little to Germans) was corroborated by 60 Minutes and The New York Times but not by Jewish leaders. They, pardon the expression,denied it, writing reviews whose titles were The Big Lie and False Witness and Do Me a Favor - Don't Read This Book. If Jews feel pressed to deny what happened to sixty thousand Germans, then Jews might forgive the Germans, like Zündel, who choose to deny what happened to six million Jews. ...

http://www.johnsack.com/daniel_in_the_deniers_den_5.htm

My own speech was on Monday afternoon. It was about An Eye for an Eye, which the Germans among the deniers wanted to hear about so they could share their parents' guilt with the Jews, their parents' victims. No longer did I want to tell the deniers off, but I did want to edify them (and I did) that I and the Jews in An Eye for an Eye devoutly believe that the Holocaust happened. But also I wanted to say something therapeutic, to say something about hate. At the hotel, I'd seen none of it, certainly less than I'd seen when Jews were speaking of Germans. No one had ever said anything remotely like Elie Wiesel, "Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set aside a zone of hate - healthy, virile hate - for what persists in the German," and no one had said anything like Edgar Bronfman, Sr., the president of the World Jewish Congress. A shocked professor told Bronfman once, "You're teaching a whole generation to hate thousands of Germans," and Bronfman replied, "No, I'm teaching a whole generation to hate millions of Germans." Jew-hatred like that German-hatred, or like the German-hatred on every page of Hitler's Willing Executioners, I saw absolutely none of, but I saw that some people, all Germans, had had to struggle to suppress it.

At the hotel, the Germans didn't hate the Jews - not yet - just what the Jews were saying. "The tone of the Jewish establishment," said Zündel, the Canadian citizen, at another breakfast in the airy downstairs restaurant with me, "is so strident, offensive, grating, so denigrating of Germans, there's going to be - '' He stopped short.

"We are so sick of the Holocaust!" a German woman with us took up. "Gentiles have it thrown in their faces morning, noon, and night without relief. Do the Jewish people know that?"

"They convict us, imprison us, make us into outcasts," said Zündel, who was now being prosecuted in Canada for truthfully saying that Germans didn't make soap out of Jews. "Teachers lose their jobs. Professors lose their tenure," said Zündel truthfully, "and I say this isn't good for the Jewish community."

"I see dissatisfaction," said the German woman, "that I shudder about. I think the Jewish community has to try to lessen it. This censorship! This terrorism!" In no way did her or Zündel's jaw get twisted like a twisted rubber band into the outward contours of hate, but the woman's quivered at the edges somewhat.

So at the lectern in the grand ballroom on Monday, I spoke about hate. "There are," I said, "eighty-five thousand books about the Holocaust. And none has an honest answer to, How could the Germans do it? The people who gave us Beethoven, the Ninth Symphony, the Ode to Joy, Alle Menschen werden Brüder, all men are brothers, how could the Germans perpetrate the Holocaust? This mystery, we've got to solve it, or we'll keep having genocides in Cambodia, Bosnia, Zaire. Well," I said, "what I report in An Eye for an Eye is Lola," the heroine, the commandant of a terrible prison in Gleiwitz, Germany - "is Lola has solved it. The Jews have solved it. Because in their agony, their despair, their insanity, if you will, they felt they became like the Germans - the Nazis - themselves. And if I'd been there," I said, "I'd have become one too and now I understand why. A lot of Jews, understandably, were full of hate in 1945, they were volcanoes full of red-hot hate, they thought if they spit out the hate at the Germans, then they'd be rid of it."

"No," I continued. "It doesn't work that way. Let's say I'm in love with someone. I don't tell myself, uh-oh, I've got inside of me two pounds of love, and if I love her and love her, then I'll use all of my love up, I'll be all out of love. No, I understand and we all understand that love is a paradoxical thing, that the more we send out, the more we've got. So why don't we understand that about hate? If we hate, and we act on that hate, then we hate even more later on. If we spit out a drop of hate, we stimulate the saliva glands and we produce a drop-and-a-quarter of it. If we spit that out, we produce a drop-and-a-half, then two drops, three, a teaspoon, tablespoon, a Mount Saint Helen. The more we send out, the more we've got, until we are perpetual-motion machines, sending out hate and hate until we've created a holocaust." I then said emphatically, "You don't have to be a German to become like that. You can be a Serb, a Hutu, a Jew - you can be an American. We were the ones in the Philippines. We were the ones in Vietnam. We were the ones in Washington, D.C., for ten thousand years the home of the Anacostia Indians. They had one of their campgrounds at what now is the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum."

"We all have it in us to become like Nazis," I said. "Hate, as Lola discovered, hate is a muscle, and if we want to be monsters all we have to do is exercise it. To hate the Germans, to hate the Arabs, to hate the Jews. The longer we exercise it, the bigger it gets, as if every day we curl forty pounds and, far from being worn out, in time we are curling fifty, sixty, we are the Mr. Universe of Hate, the Heinrich Himmler. We all can be hate-full people, hateful people. We can destroy the people we hate, maybe, but we surely destroy ourselves."

The people who say the Holocaust didn't happen applauded. Loud and long they applauded, and a number of German deniers stood up. Some asked questions on Auschwitz, like why did I think that Germans meant for Jews to die, but one from Berlin, named Wolfgang, later confessed to me, "I believe that Auschwitz became unsanitary. The Jews were worked very hard, I grant you that. They died. And they had to be gotten rid of. And after they died, the SS put them into crematoriums. I won't deny that. And maybe to scare some, the SS told them, "You're next, you're going to go up in smoke.' And maybe ... "

The conference ended on Monday. No one was ever attacked by the Jewish Defense League. The deniers (revisionists, they call themselves) meet next in Cincinnati, and they have invited me to be the keynote speaker there. I've said yes.

{end}

(6) 'Where the neonazis deny a single genocide, those embracing the exclusivist posture of "Jewish uniqueness" deny many. Indeed, they deny everybody's holocaust but their own'

An American Holocaust? The Structure of Denial, by Ward Churchill

www.sdonline.org/33/ward_churchill.htm

http://www.socialismanddemocracy.org/33/ward_churchill.htm

The first question people ask about my book A Little Matter of Genocide is where it came from or why I wrote it. My purpose was to be able to really stretch out, explain, and fully contextualize my use of the term genocide and the appropriateness of its application to the question of what happened - and is still happening - to American Indians over the past five centuries. And part of my objective is always to bring consideration of American Indians into the main currents of global intellectual discourse, rather than playing to the idea that we're an exotic sideline, of relevance only to "specialists" of one sort or another. This brings up a personal hook in addition to my intellectual motives. It comes with the fact that I am myself of Muscogee and Creek descent on my father's side, Cherokee on my mother's, and am an enrolled member of the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians. I'm also married to an Ojibwe woman of the Lynx clan, from the Onegaming Reserve in Northwestern Ontario. The truth is, although I'm best known by my colonial name, Ward Churchill, the name I prefer is Kenis, an Ojibwe name bestowed by my wife's uncle. So there's that, and I suppose it speaks for itself.

There were also a few galvanizing experiences which help explain what propelled this particular book into being. The first was something that happened during the run-up to the 1992 Columbian Quincentennial Celebration - to use the official designator - while I was working as a visiting professor at Alfred University. I wrote a little op-ed piece for the campus newspaper that was picked up by the paper in Rochester, in which I made a comparison between Columbus and Heinrich Himmler, and received two very interesting responseson the same morning. One came by mail from an official of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith in Rochester. The other was by telephone from a visiting faculty member from Germany. Both individuals were absolutely livid and wanted to stand me corrected with regard to the comparison I'd made.

The letter argued that the comparison was invalid since Himmler was in a position of power, a highly placed official with policy-making prerogatives who implemented that policy with catastrophic results for a targeted group of human beings, while Columbus - as we all know - was merely an adventurous explorer, a common seaman who happened upon the so-called New World. While the results of his "discovery" may well have proven catastrophic for those discovered, the results themselves were not personally attributable to Columbus. The German, who at an earlier stage of his career had been a member of Rudi Dutschke's SDS, said virtually the same thing. So basically we have a politically conservative Jewish individual and a radical-liberal German expressing a precise confluence of opinion on this particular question. And I had to stop myself and, since they are not only both wrong but wrong in exactly the same way, I had to ask "why?" So there's one catalyst. Another came with the publication in 1993 of a book by Deborah Lipstadt, a fairly prominent Judaic scholar at Emory University, entitled Denying the Holocaust. It deals with Holocaust deniers of the neonazi persuasion. I found two things especially striking about the book. One was the system of classification Lipstadt uses. I found that very useful, and entirely applicable to the context with which I deal. So, if that's all there were to it, I'd have relied upon her method with thanks and attribution, and that would've been the end of it. In the second half of the book, however, she goes into a sort of extended polemic having to do with the inappropriateness of suggesting that there might be other peoples who have suffered experiences in any waycomparable to that of her own during the nazi genocide.

Here, she focuses on denouncing Afrocentrism, including, presumably, its characterizations of the effects of the transatlantic slave trade on American blacks as genocidal - interestingly, she fails to discuss the impact on the societies of subsaharan Africa - and repudiating the idea that the camps in which the U.S. placed Japanese Americans during World War II might be comparable to some of the nazi concentration camps. A couple of points are worth highlighting here, beginning with the fact that a page after they're first mentioned theJapanese Americans have somehow been transformed into "Japanese." From there, they quickly mutate into a sort of "racial fifth column," real or potential, at least in the quite reasonable perception of U.S. policymakers, and thus their mass internment is presented as an "unfortunate" but entirely justifiable national security measure. Unfortunately for Lipstadt, the nazis often used an identical rationalization, picked up by postwar deniers like Harry Elmer Barnes, to explain why it was "necessary" to intern the Jews. At another level, she appears to deliberately conflate concentration camps and death camps, thus setting up a straw man to rebut. It's true, as she implies, that comparing Manzanar to Auschwitz would be absurd. But I'm unaware - and she offers no examples - of anyone who's actually made such a comparison. To compare Manzanar and Dachau, on the other hand, which several serious scholars have done, is another matter entirely. What to make of this? One is left to conclude either that Lipstadt is abjectly ill-versed in her subject matter - a possibility the quality of her performance in the first half of the book renders utterly implausible - or that she's quite consciouslyengaging in exactly the same pattern of obfuscation, distortion and outright deception she so ably exposes, and quite rightly reviles, as the stuff of neonazi pseudoscholarship. In other words, it wasn't accidental or mere sloppy scholarship. She knew what she was doing. Her goal, of course, is different from that of the neonazis. Where they deny that the Holocaust occurred at all, she wants people to believe that it happened, but that it happened only to Jews, "uniquely" so, and that for any other people to contend that any aspect of their historical experience is in any way genuinely comparable, is to degrade and dishonor the memory of the nazis' Jewish victims, and thus to be objectively guilty of antisemitism, and thus on the same moral footing as the neonazis. Wow!

What I've found is that this is very much a standard theme in "responsible' or "respectable' Holocaust scholarship. Where the neonazis deny a single genocide, those embracing the exclusivist posture of "Jewish uniqueness" deny many. Indeed, they deny everybody's holocaust but their own. With this in mind, I couldn't wait to see how Lipstadt dealt with the destruction of indigenous peoples which attended the U.S. exercise in "nation-building." I mean, she had to deal with it, right? She's an American scholar purporting to explain why the concept of genocide is inapplicable to the understanding of American history. So, you'll understand why, when I reached the end of Denying the Holocaust, I thought maybe I'd been too eager, that I'd read too fast and somehow missed the part about the campaigns of "extermination" - that's an official term, not something I made up for effect - conducted against American Indians. I didn't want to go back and reread the whole second half of the thing, so I flipped through the index, trying to figure out where I should look.Nothing under "American Indians." Nothing under "Native Americans." We're never dignified with so much as a passing reference anywhere in the book's 250-odd pages. We're treated as if we're either nonexistent or utterly irrelevant. I'm not sure which, and I really don't care, because I submit to you that, either way, it's impossible to conceive of being any more denied than that.

A third galvanizer was Steven Katz's Holocaust in Historical Context, which was published a year earlier than Lipstadt's, but I didn't get into it until after I'd read hers. I think it's both fair and accurate to describe this tome - it comes to about 600 oversize pages of dense-packed prose - as the definitive formulation of the Jewish exclusivist position. All 600 pages are devoted to elaborating in excruciating detail exactly why we're supposed to conclude that there has been one, and only one, "true' genocide in all of human history, that it was inflicted by the nazis upon the Jews during the period 1941-45,11 and that while other peoples have suffered horrendous persecution from time to time - he runs down a whole series of examples, from Carthage to Cambodia, and, yes, he does stop off to "visit" the fate of American Indians - the conclusion in each case is thatwhatever happened was something other than genocide, per se. In substance, Katz's bottom line - like Lipstadt's, and using the same methods, only much more so - is that if you weren't at Auschwitz, you didn't suffer genocide. Of course, in order to make it appear that his thesis holds up, he has to radically - and, given the way he does it, one dares say duplicitously - alter the definition of the word itself (he calls it a "phenomenological' definition).

Finally, there's a statement by Edward Alexander which snapped the whole thing into focus for me.Sufferance of genocide, he said, can be considered as "moral capital' in the political arena. His implication is that there is only a certain amount of this "moral capital," and that sharing the fact of genocidal suffering with anyone else would thus correspondingly diminish the quantity of this capital available to Jews. You have to admire his honesty in a way. His is a "make no bones about it' articulation of the motives underlying "uniqueness" scholarship - that is, the insistence that the Holocaust was the only "real" genocide, and that the Holocaust happened only to Jews - and the quasi-official adoption of this "historical interpretation" by the State of Israel. Alexander, by the way, is none too shy about equating Jews to Israel, so there's a great deal of consistency in his position.

I'm going to challenge this "the Holocaust happened only to Jews" business right now. You see, there's this little matter of the Gypsies (Sinti and Roma - or Romani - as they call themselves). Katz and Yehuda Bauer - an acknowledged dean of Israeli Holocaust scholars - and others have spent quite a lot of time and energy trying to explain why the Gypsies, who were exterminated by the nazis in numbers proportionally as great or greater than the Jews, usually in the same camps and by the same methods, should not be viewed as coequal victims of the Holocaust. Their arguments are truly arcane: The Gypsies were not defined in precisely the same way as the Jews (of course not, they were Gypsies), not slated for total extermination (actually certain groups of Jews - the Karaimes and Tats, for example, and there were others - were exempted as well), and so on. You really have to read this stuff to believe it, and even then it''s hard to wrap your mind around the idea that "respectable" scholars are producing it. The punctuation mark on this is that it's all and patently false. There's a 1938 Himmler decree placing the Gypsies on precisely the same legal footing as the Jews, to be "processed" by the SS in precisely the same way. End of distinction.

There is something else that needs saying in this regard. Every Gypsy who turns to a standard reference work like Louis Snyder's Encyclopedia of the Third Reich must feel just like I felt when I finished Lipstadt's book, because there's not a single mention of Gypsies, Sinti, Roma, Romani or anything remotely related to them. The same is true in cinematic depictions. Take Escape from Sobibór, for example. That's a death camp in which thousands upon thousands of Gypsies, as well as Jews, were exterminated. Yet, in the movie, the inmate population is composed exclusively of Jews. The only reference to a Gypsy is the name of a dog. An entry on Gypsies is included in The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, but Yehuda Bauer was selected to write it, and it's devoted mainly to explaining why Gypsy victims shouldn't be seen as genuine counterparts to Jewish victims. Small wonder, given this sensibility, that when it came time to conduct the official Israeli/Polish commemoration of the Holocaust at Auschwitz in January 1995, a group of Gypsies whose ancestors had died there, and who therefore wished to participate, were actually locked out.

Obviously, Holocaust denial takes a few forms Deborah Lipstadt neglected to mention. Maybe that's why there's no more reference to Gypsies than there is to Indians in Denying the Holocaust. The point is that the neonazis hold no monopoly on Holocaust denial. The sort of Holocaust scholarship I've been talking about, and it's the predominating mode, also comprises a form of denial. And it's an especially ugly and insidious form, consciously undertaken by one people victimized by genocide at the direct expense of another, a smaller, weaker people victimized in the same genocide. If you're gathering the impression that I feel a great deal of affinity for the Gypsies, you're correct. I do. And that's true not only on the basis of what I've been saying, which is I suppose rather academic, but also on the basis of direct experience. ...
{endquote}

(7) Don't Deny Trotsky's

Ward Churchill then goes on to present a fairly Chomskyist account of the genocide of native Americans. But, to put it in perspective, it does omit to mention the sins of Communism - in particular, Lenin and Trotsky, who usually get off lightly in this type of literature.

The Black Book of Communism by Stephane Courtois et al, tr. Jonathan Murphy and Mark Kramer (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Ma 1999):

{p. 13} First, we should consider the possibility that responsibility for the crimes of Communism can be traced to a Russian penchant for oppression. However, the tsarist regime of terror against which the Bolsheviks fought pales in comparison uith the horrors committed by the Bolsheviks when they took power. The tsar allowed political prisoners to face a meaningful justice system. The counsel for the defendant could represent his client up to the time of indictment and even beyond, and he could also appeal to national and international public opinion, an option unavailable under Communist regimes. Prisoners and convicts benefited from a set of rules governing the prisons, and the system of imprisonment and deportation was relatively lenient. Those who were deported could take their families, read and write as they pleased, go hunting and fishing, and talk about their "misfortune" with their companions. Lenin and Stalin had firsthand experience of this. Even the events described by Fyodor Dostoevsky in Memoirs from the House of the Dead, which had such a great impact when it was published, seem tame by comparison with the horrors of Communism. True, riots and insurrections were brutally crushed by the ancien regime. However, from 1825 to 1917 the total number of people sentenced to death in Russia for their political beliefs or activities was 6,360, of whom only 3,932 were executed. This number can be subdivided chronologically into 191 for the years 1825 - 1905 and 3,741 for 1906 - 1910. These figures were surpassed by the

{p. 14} Bolsheviks in March 1918, after they had been in power for only four months. It follows that tsarist repression was not in the same league as Communist dictatorship.

From the 1920s to the 1940s, Communism set a standard for terror to which fascist regimes could aspire. ...

{p. 15} But the intransigent facts demonstrate that Communist regimes have victimized approximately 100 million people in contrast to the approximalely 25 million victims of the Nazis. ... And even though many Communist palties have belatedly acknowledged Stalinism's crimes, most have not abandoned Lenin's principles and scarcely question their own involvement in acts of terrorism.

The methods implemented by Lenin and perfected by Stalin and their henchmen bring to mind the methods used by the Nazis, but most often this is because the latter adopted the techniques developed by the former. Rudolf Hess, charged with organizing the camp at Auschwitz and later appointed its commandant, is a perfect example: "The Reich Security Head Office issued to the commandants a full collection of reports concerning the Russian concentration camps. These described in great detail the conditions in, and organization of, the Russian camps, as supplied by former prisoners who had managed to escape. Great emphasis was placed on the fact that the Russians, by their massive employment of forced labor, had destroyed whole peoples." ...

From the end of the 1920s, the State Political Directorate (GPU, the new name for the Cheka) introduced a quota method - each region and district had to arrest, deport, or shoot a certain percentage of people who were members of several "enemy" social classes. These quotas were centrally defined under the supervision of the Party. The mania for planning and maintaining statistics was not confined to the economy: it was also an important weapon in the arsenal of terror. From 1920 on, with the victory of the Red Army over the White Army in the Crimea, statistical and sociological methods made an appearance, with victims selected according to precise criteria on the basis of a compulsory questionnaire. The same "sociological" methods were used by the Soviet Union to organize mass deportations and liquidations in the Baltic states and occupied Poland in 1939-1941. As with the Nazis, the transportation of deportees in

{p. 16} cattle cars ushered in "aberrations." In 1943 and 1944, in the middle of the war, Stalin diverted thousands of trucks and hundreds of thousands of soldiers serving in the special NKVD troops from the front on a short-term basis in order to deport the various peoples living in the Caucasus. This genocidal impulse, which aims at "the total or partial destruction of a national, ethnic racial, or religious group, or a group that has been determined on the basis of any other arbitrary criterion," was applied by Communist rulers against groups branded as enemics and to entire segments of society, and was pursued to its maximum by Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge. ...

Time and again the focus of the terror was less on targeted individuals than on groups of people. The purpose of the terror was to exterminate a group that had been designated as the enemy. Even though it might be only a small fraction of society, it had to he stamped out to satisfy this genocidal impulse. Thus, the techniques of segregation and exclusion employed in a "class-based totalitarianism" closely resemble the techniques of "race-based totalitarianism."

{p. 17} Yet scholars have neglected the crimes committed by the Communists. While names such as Himmler and Eichmann are recognized around the world as bywords for twentieth-century barbarism, the names of Feliks Dzerzihinsky, Genrikh Yagoda, and Nikolai Ezhov languish in obscurity.

... But the revelations concerning Communist crimes cause barely a stir. Why is there such an awkward silence from politicians? Why such a deafening silence from the academic world regarding the Communist catastrophe, which touched the lives of about one-third of humanity on four continents during a period spanning eighty years? Why is there such widespread reluctance to make such a crucial factor as crime - mass crime, systematic crime, and crime against humanity - a central factor in the analysis of Communism? Is this really something that is

{p. 18} beyond human understanding? Or are we talking about a refusal to scrutinize the subject too closely for fear of learning the truth about it?
{endquote}

More at courtois.html

Quotes from Trotsky's 1920 book The Defence of Terrorism (also published as Dictatorship Vs. Democracy), a reply to Karl Kautsky's book Terrorism and Communism:

{DoT p. 58, DvD p. 55} But terror can be very efficient against a reactionary class which does not want to leave the scene of operations. Intimidation is a powerful weapon of policy, both internationally and internally. War, like revolution, is founded upon intimidation. A victorious war, generally speaking, destroys only an insignificant part of the conquered army, intimidating the remainder and breaking their will. The revolution works in the same way: it kills individuals and intimidates thousands. In this sense, the Red Terror is not distinguishable from the armed insurrection of which it is the direct continuation.

{DoT p. 63, DvD p. 60} As for us, we were never concerned with the Kantian-priestly and vegetarian-Quakerprattle about the "sacredness of human life". We were revolutionaries in opposition, and have remained revolutionaries in power. To make the individual sacred, we must destroy the social order which crucifies him. And that problem can only be solved by blood and iron.

{DoT p. 64, DvD p. 61} The man who recognizes the revolutionary historic importance of the very fact of the existence of the Soviet system must also sanction the Red Terror. {end quotes}

The Soviet Union was supposed to be based on workers "taking control" of the workplace, but the Kronstadt massacre, ordered by Trotsky, put an end to that illusion.

More at worst.html

Dmitri Volkogonov, Trotsky: the Eternal Revolutionary, tr. & ed. Harold Shukman, HarperCollinsPublishers, London 1996.

{p. 130} The Red Army's crushing of the Kronstadt revolt, which occurred during the Tenth Party Congress of March 1921 when the once-loyal garrison rebelled against Bolshevik policies, gave a perfect illustration of Trotsky's capability in this sphere. When he was told about the uprising, he at once dictated an address:

{quote} To the population of Kronstadt and the rebellious forts. I order all those who have raised their hand against the socialist Fatherland to lay down their arms immediately. Recalcitrants must be disarmed and handed over to the Soviet authorities. Commissars and other representatives of the regime who have been arrested [by the insurgents] must be released at once. Only those who surrender unconditionally can count on the mercy of the Soviet Republic. I am simultaneously issuing instructions to prepare to crush the insurgency and the insurgents with an iron hand. {end quote}

The address was signed by Trotsky, as People's Commissar, S.S. Kamenev, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, commander of 7th Army Tukhachevsky, and chief-of-staff Lebedev. ...

{p. 175} Repression was in Trotsky's view a component part of military structure, a method for educating both officers and men. A telegram he sent to the Revolutionary Military Committee of the Western Front in 1919 is characteristic: 'One of the most important principles of educating our army is never to leave a single crime or misdemeanour unpunished ... Repression must follow immediately upon a breach of discipline, for repression is not an end in itself, but is directed towards didactic, military aims ... Breaches of discipline and disobedience ... must be subjected to the harshest punishment.' It was Trotsky's belief that the threat of harsh punishment would compensate for the low level of awareness, conviction and training of the army rank and file. Curiously, like Lenin, Trotsky regarded consciousness as the foundation of discipline, yet he stressed that fear and arrest should be used to instil discipline.

He told his commanders to set an example in the field, but also to command with an iron fist and not to flinch from using their weapons to maintain order. When someone pointed out to him that not all commanders and commissars had revolvers, he at once cabled Lenin: 'The absence of revolvers creates an impossible situation at the front. It is impossible to maintain discipline without a revolver. I suggest Comrades Mironov and Pozern requisition revolvers from everyone who is not on active duty.' The threat of punishment gradually entered the structure and functioning of the army, and also entered people's minds as a moral norm, 'revolver law', the revolutionary imperative, proletarian necessity.
{endquote}

Use of the expression "The Holocaust" implictly denies those other genocides.

(8) Selective Deconstruction - or Can the Nazi Holocaust be "Deconstructed"? by Peter Myers, November 5, 2005; minor update February 12, 2006.

Much of Western History has been "deconstructed". But the practitioners of this art are selective, never turning their attention to the dominant ideology of our time - that of the Nazi Holocaust.

History is not decided by courts; nor does memory suffice as a substitute for scholarly analysis and forensic investigation.

Why does the UN single out one event for commemoration? What about the millions of victims of other holocausts during slavery, colonisation and in the Soviet Gulag? Why should 6 million Jews be more important than 6 million Ukranians? Why should Jews receive reparations, but not Palestinians? Whyshould we rectify one holocaust by creating another?

We of the Greek philosophical tradition are accustomed to hearing both sides of an argument before pronouncing judgment. But today, those who would put the other side are being punished for doing so; such a mindset looks to Jerusalem rather than Athens. The net is increasingly trapping scholars from the Left: Roger Garaudy, Norman Finkelstein, and now Israel Shamir.

One can deny all other holocausts without punishment; one can criticise all groups other than Jewish. Is this not a demonstration of Jewish power, the very phenomenon that is said not to exist?

Benjamin Ginsberg, Professor of Political Science at John Hopkins University, wrote in his book The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State (University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1993):

{p. 1} Today, though barely 2% of the nation's population is Jewish, close to half its billionaires are Jews. The chief executive officers of the three major television networks, and the four largest film studios are Jews, as are the owners of the nation's largest newspaper chain and most influential single newspaper, the New York Times.

{p. 2} That fully three-fourths of America's foreign aid budget is devoted to Israel's security interests is a tribute in considerable measure to the lobbying prowess of AIPAC and the importance of the Jewish community in American politics. ...

As a general rule, what can and cannot be said in public reflects the distribution of political power in society; as Jews gained political power, politicians who indulged in anti-Semitic tactics were labeled extremists and exiled to the margins of American politics. Similarly, religious symbols and forms of expression that Jews find threatening have been almost completely eliminated from schools and other public institutions. Suits brought by the ACLU, an organization whose leadership and membership are predominantly Jewish, secured federal court decisions banning officially sanctioned prayers in the public schools and creches and other religious displays in parks and public buildings. {endquote}

More from Ginsberg at ginsberg.html.

Our universities are replete with deconstructionists. Here is what Jacques Derrida said of it in a lecture at Stanford University:

DECONSTRUCTION What is it?

http://prelectur.stanford.edu/lecturers/derrida/deconstruction.html

{quote} Deconstruction: A school of philosophy that originated in France in the late 1960s, has had an enormous impact on Anglo-American criticism. Largely the creation of its chief proponent Jacques Derrida, deconstruction upends the Western metaphysical tradition. ...

In her book The Critical Difference (1981), Barbara Johnson clarifies the term:

"Deconstruction is not synonymous with "destruction", however. It is in fact much closer to the original meaning of the word 'analysis' itself, which etymologically means "to undo" -- a virtual synonym for "to de-construct." ... If anything is destroyed in a deconstructive reading, it is not the text, but the claim to unequivocal domination of one mode of signifying over another. A deconstructive reading is a reading which analyses the specificity of a text's critical difference from itself." ... {endquote}

Surely it is legitimate to apply this method to studies of the Nazi Holocaust, and also the current mandatory view of the Protocols of Zion. In the latter case, what would be deconstructed is the assertion - to which no argument is deemed admissable - that this text was forged by the Tsar's secret police. Those who assert this do not even bother to cite the authorities by which this is known (who would have to be Herman Bernstein & Norman Cohn). A connection with Nazism is usually made, even though the Protocols was first circulated by "white Russians" opposed to the Bolsheviks, people in Solzhenitsyn's camp who did not want to be invaded by Germany: toolkit.html.

{end}

(9) The Heroic Model cf the Victim Model - Peter Myers, April 6, 2006

Sabine Dardenne is the young Belgian woman who was kidnapped and repeatedly raped.

She has written a book, titled I choose to live, to reclaim her normalcy.

She insists she isn't a victim; renounces her right to pity; and has refused therapy.

What a woman! Without knowing it, she is a Joan of Arc in the Culture War.

Compare her style with the current penchant for Victimhood ... claimed by "Gays", "Women", ethnic minorities, "Children" etc - all sharing vicariously in the Victimhood of the leading group, the Jewish lobby.

One never hears the end of their woes. They deny others the right to debate key issues, and even insist on a change of speech.

Until a few decades ago, a Heroic ethic prevailed. People strove against adversity without Welfare, without Rights, and without the numerous Big Brother ("Nanny state") laws that encumber us today.

They carried heavy loads; endured isolation. They built their own houses: by helping one another, they acquired such skills. They gave birth without drugs or cesarians, sewed their own clothes, and reared their children without daycare. They fixed their own cars and appliances, and made them last far beyond their use-by date. And things were made fixable, and of sufficient quality to be worth fixing. They endured life's hardships without psychiatric medication. They talked of duties, not rights. And they did all this without complaining.

In my local town, there used to be a vibrant weekly market, on the highway, attracting passing traffic.

On one occasion, a shopper at the market tripped over a tree root, and threatened to sue for damages over it. She had not been watching where she was going.

In the end, she changed her mind; but local authorities got cold feet, and shut the market down. It moved to a back street, where passers-by could not see it. From being weekly, it changed to fortnightly, then monthly, then three-monthly. The number of stalls and customers plummeted; and with it, community spirit was affected, because markets are meeting-places.

In the days of the Heroic Model, we lacked the Public Liability laws and lawyers, and the need for expensive insurance, that we have now. If you walked into a tree because you were not looking, it was your own responsibility.

Now, many community events have either closed down, or charge higher fees to cover insurance costs, i.e. legal costs.

In Australia, the Welfare State was begun in the mid 1970s, by the Whitlam government. Prior to that, our economy was quite self-sufficient, largely publicly-owned and managed for the common good. After that time, we began to import more, until our manufacturing industry had disappeared - except that, nowadays, we count breakfast cereals as "manufactures". In the past, they were classed, instead, merely as "processed" primary products.

Our benefactors could not have done that without Welfare. If Welfare had not been available, the workers, perceiving Free Trade as the threat that it was, would have taken to the streets. But Welfare pacified them.

Before Welfare, Aborigines worked on cattle stations as stockmen, admittedly for lower wages than whites. But their were independent, living in the bush, and maintaining their tradition.

After Rights and Welfare were introduced, they moved to settlements and cities, becoming Welfare-dependent, alcoholic and criminal, inflicting violence on each other, and losing their culture. In remote areas, the older generation despaired to see the children destroying their brains by sniffing petrol. Welfare inflicted as much harm on them in 30 years, as Invasion had done in 200.

The Victim model is Jewish, because the Jewish religion has always depicted Jews as persecuted victims.

(10) I choose to live, by Sabine Dardenne

Sabine Dardenne with Marie-Therese Cuny

Virago

Reviewers Juliette Hughes and Lucille Hughes

June 4, 2005 http://www.theage.com.au/news/Reviews/I-choose-to-live/2005/06/02/1117568312912.html

What you see here on the book cover is eminently what you get: Sabine Dardenne is photographed holding a photograph of herself at 12 - the age when she was dragged from her bike as she was cycling to school, bundled into a van, imprisoned in a hidden concrete cell, drugged, starved and continually, relentlessly raped, for nearly three months. ...

Her account is a steely challenge to her unsought celebrity and its pressure to fulfil the role of pathetic broken doll for the media's sentimental hysteria and/or prurient imaginings. She defies all such, including any psychological treatment that would seek to define her and throw her back to herself unrecognisable, digested according to another's preconceptions. What she wishes for most of all is normalcy: the book is all she can give us to make us leave her in peace.

Dardenne says that she has written so that people should understand, that there should be an end to the strange looks, an end to the questions, once and for all and forever. Above all, she says, so that the judicial system never again frees a pedophile for "good behaviour".

She has reason for her argument: Marc Dutroux, her kidnapper, had murdered at least four other young girls, and was committing his crimes unchecked while on parole after serving less than a quarter of a 13-year sentence for having raped two other under-age girls. ...

There are no salacious genital details in I Choose To Live: fans of Peter Sotos-style lustmord can look elsewhere for their sick kicks. Dardenne spares us (and herself) when recalling what Dutroux did to her; what she chooses to tell is terrible enough. Notably, and hearteningly, she never allows him to seem as grandiose and Nietszchean as he would portray himself, (shades of Moors murderer Ian Brady trying to be Hannibal Lecter, writing about the why of serial killing in his pompously titled Gates of Janus).

No - she describes him as ce type, an untranslatable French term for a loser. She also calls him a pig, a pathetic slug. What he does to her she calls his circus or putting himself through his paces. This isn't minimising the crimes he committed against her. She is showing her scorn, preserving her dignity: he is the undignified one, not she.

Dardenne and Laetitia Delhez (whom he kidnapped comparatively briefly to be a companion for her) both asked Dutroux in court why he had done this to them. His replies were rambling, self-deluded and ultimately no answer at all. This is indicative of the poverty of experience in such people; they are black holes of solipsism, able to manipulate and control but incapable of feeling and giving. That is partly why they try to steal life and joy from others. Yet Dardenne has triumphantly wrested back the girl-Sabine and made her the core of her survival.

This is a harrowing but rewarding book, one that everyone should buy. Her testament is finally inspiring in its courage and unsinkability. And for the global legions of other victims, silenced, betrayed and traduced by society's attitudes in the aftermath of sexual assault, Sabine Dardenne's witness is an example of dignified outrage and integrity. ==

Don't waste pity on me

Kidnapped, tortured and abused as a child, Sabine Dardenne still insists she isn't a victim. Louise France on her bold, vivid memoir, I Choose to Live

Louise France Sunday May 15, 2005 The Observer

I Choose to Live by Sabine Dardenne with Marie-Theérèse Cuny Virago £12.99, pp192

http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/biography/0,6121,1484040,00.html

Although I Choose to Live is a compelling memoir, I was heartily relieved to turn the final page. It is Sabine Dardenne's account - vivid, matter of fact - of what it was like to be kidnapped by one of Europe's most notorious paedophiles, Belgian Marc Dutroux.

On 28 May 1996, Sabine was just like any other 12-year-old cycling to school. One month later, her picture - toothy grin, unruly hair, still too much of a little girl to care what she looked like - would be on 'missing' posters throughout Belgium.

Precisely 80 days after she was hustled off her bicycle and into the back of a rusty van, the police would find her trapped inside a hidden cavity - 'the makeshift tomb' - in a house in a rundown suburb. By which time, everyone in Belgium would believe they knew 'pauvre petite Sabine'.

This 21-year-old's memoir, which has been published to acclaim in Belgium and France, begins with the cycle ride and ends with her dramatic appearance in the court case last year which saw Dutroux sentenced to life imprisonment for the kidnapping and rape of six young girls and the murder of four of them.

Although she reserves the right not to reveal the extent of her abuse, which, according to court reports, included countless incidents of rape and sexual assault, her account is vile and vivid. The horror is in the detail - the nights when she is padlocked to her torturer; the starvation diet of mouldy bread; the rancid mattress; the shared baths when he insisted on scrubbing her raw.

She clearly despises this 'slug', but she insists on addressing Dutroux with the polite 'vous', so that he never imagines she actually wants to be intimate with him. As the narrator, she can sound detached but it was undoubtedly this ability to cut off that helped her to survive.

Every day, she tries to wear him down with her questions and her demands. She has the presence of mind to keep a secret calendar and to discover his real name; she even copies out her homework from her satchel in an attempt to keep her mind occupied. But the one thing she doesn't realise is that Dutroux is lying to her: he convinces her that he is her only ally: her parents have failed to produce the ransom money demanded by the fictitious men he pretends are his bosses: 'I'd swallowed his story like chocolate buttons.' It is in the letters she writes to her parents (Dutroux promises to post them but he hoards them until they are found by the police) which are the most moving parts of the book. They express a raw emotion Sabine has since endeavoured to bury.

She wonders what she's done wrong. Do they not love her enough to pay up, to find her? At the same time, she asks after their news: her sister's birthday, her grandmother's arthritis, the progress of the radishes she'd planted.

In the second half of the book, Sabine describes life since her ordeal. It is rare to read about the aftermath, not least because few emerge from this kind of experience alive. The problem is that she is trapped once again, this time by a nation obsessed with her. The press stalk her with long-range lenses. It is impossible to go out without being hassled by autograph hunters. She fights with her mother, who is terrified to let her out of her sight: 'You can always lock me in the cellar,' Sabine shouts. You are struck by how everyone here is suffering.

Without doubt, I Choose to Live will help relatives learn to listen to survivors. In her experience, not all people are victims, cowed by their experiences.

Meanwhile, Sabine is not interested in scoring political points. She avoids the controversy surrounding the case, in which the police were criticised for incompetence. Most of all, she wants to forget. She has refused therapy since her rescue; perhaps writing the book has served as some kind of cure.

This is a bold and dignifed book, but it is impossible really to connect with what she went through. As she says: 'My suffering was my suffering and nobody else's.'

{end}

(11) Jewish history as a series of holocausts

Binyamin Zev Kahane wrote, in his article The Holocaust That Is Overshadowed by the Destruction of the Temple, (translated by Lenny Goldberg):

"The revolution against the Romans and siege on Jerusalem which resulted in the destruction of the Second Temple, produced one of the worst holocausts in Jewish history."
http://www.kahane.org/parsha/h11.html#1996.

The Jewish religion has always depicted Jews as persecuted victims. What is "the Exodus", if not escape from a Holocaust in Ancient Egypt? What is "the Return" from Babylon, if not escape from the Holocaust of the Assyrian Empire? The Purim feast is celebrated as deliverance from a would-be Holocaust in the Persian Empire. The whole history of Judaism is depicted as one of Holocausts.

This is because Jews are the People of God. Is there any other group which depicts its history this way?

And who does these Holocausts? The Goyim (Pagans, Non-Jews). In effect the Goyim are the Devil, not a transcendent Satan but a living, material force always trying to exterminate God's People.

This is not just History, but Salvation History: History as Theology. Even atheistic Jews belong to this religion - Judaism has an atheistic variant, just as Buddhism is a non-theistic religion. Once a Jew stops thinking in terms of Victimhood, Holocausts and Redemption, he stops being a Jew. "Identity" resides in the mind.

Jews have not only been on the receiving end. The Bolshevik Government was (in contravention of Marxist theory) set up by Jews (not by all Jews, but by Jews), and they instigated the Red Terror. Upon the death of Lenin, Stalin was the only non-Jew in the ruling triumvirate, and it was he, and he alone, who returned power to the Russian people: zioncom.html.

Jewish political action, whether Zionist or Bolshevik, is seen by them as part of Redemption, while the recipients see it as oppression. One group's Redemption is another's Hell. This applies in the Nazi-Jewish case, the Christian-Aztec (and Inca) case, and the Jewish-Palestinian case. Can there be any universality which transcends this dichotomy?

Ian Guthridge on The First Holocaust (the Bible's account of the genocidal conquest of Palestine):guthridge.html.

Fghting with Words - the Word "Holocaust": holocaus.html.

Sigmund Freud wrote in his last book, Moses and Monotheism,

"{p. 116} The deeper motives of anti-Semitism have their roots in times long past ... the jealousy which the Jews evoked in other peoples by maintaining that they were the first-born, favourite child of God the Father ... {p. 133} We know that of all the peoples who lived in antiquity in the basin of the {p. 134}Mediterranean the Jewish people is perhaps the only one that still exists in name and probably also in nature ... it has ... earned the hearty dislike of all other peoples. ... There is no doubt that they have a very good opinion of themselves, think themselves nobler, on a higher level, superior ... They really believe themselves to be God's chosen people; they hold themselves to be specially near to him, and this is what makes them proud and confident. According to trustworthy accounts, they behaved in Hellenistic times as they do today. The Jewish character, therefore, even then was what it is now, and the Greeks, among whom and alongside whom they lived, reacted to the Jewish qualities in the same way as their {p. 135}"hosts" do today. {p. 158} We set out to explain whence comes the peculiar character of the Jewish people which in all probability is what has enabled that people to survive until today. Moses created their character by giving to them a religion which heightened their self-confidence to such a degree that theybelieved themselves to be superior to all other peoples. They survived by keeping aloof from the others.":moses.html.

There is no record of Esther in Persian writings; Esther is an Aramaic name for the goddess Ishtar.

Frank E. Smitha writes, in Zoroastrians and Judaism, to 400 BCE:

{quote} Among Persian writings no record of any queen named Esther or a Persian minister named Mordecai or Haman have been found. Esther is an Aramaic name for the goddess Ishtar. Mordecai means worshiper of Marduk. The story of Esther resembles an ancient Persian story about the shrewdness of Harem queens. The description in the Book of Esther of the parade through the streets dressed in royal robes, the mock combat and other happenings are similar to the Persian celebration of the New Year. This celebration had mock combat between one team representing the old year and other team representing the New Year, with the old year being hanged in effigy. Apparently, Jews also took part in this New Year celebration, and eventually the story of Esther had been invented to explain the celebration and to turn it into a Jewish celebration - much as Christians were to change pagan holidays into Christian holidays.
{endquote} http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/ch08.htm

It looks as if Judaism has made an event that never happened into a national festival that penetrates deep into its psyche, like the Exodus, which also never happened.

(12) Purim Giftbaskets - eating Haman's Ears - prayer for death of Iranian President

(12.1)

(12.2) Kids pray for death of Iranian President

JPost.com » Jewish World » Jewish News » Article

Feb. 26, 2007 1:55 | Updated Feb. 26, 2007 8:59

Kids' prayers aimed against Ahmadinejad

By MATTHEW WAGNER

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1171894518348&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Hoping for a modern-day reoccurrence of Purim's miraculous story of redemption from a Persian ruler, a Jerusalem-based kabbalist hopes to battle Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's nuclear threat with children's prayers.

On Sunday at the Succat David elementary school, Rabbi David Batzri, head of the Shalom Yeshiva, launched a nationwide campaign to enlist 10,000 young children in a prayer rally against Ahmadinejad before Purim.

"The children are praying that God annul any negative heavenly decree against the Jewish people," said Rabbi Yitzhak Batzri, the kabbalist's son. He denied that the children were praying for Ahmadinejad's death. ...

{end of article}

But a photo that goes with the article has the caption "Ultra Orthodox boys attend a special prayer calling for the death of Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad , at a religious school in Jerusalem, Sunday. Photo: AP".

(12.3) Purim Giftbaskets - courtesy of the Jerusalem Post

An ad from the Jerusalem Post appearing with the above article reads

"Purim Giftbaskets Show you care - send a delicious gift basket."

And the Jerusalem Post has a webpage devoted to such GiftBaskets:

The Jerusalem Post GiftBaskets

>> Categories PURIM 2007!

http://www.koshergiftbaskets.com/index.php?org=8&osCsid=d56855049bf029d2667ac0274a123d26

(12.4) Eating Haman's ears

http://judaism.about.com/od/purim/a/purimfood.htm

{this website says it is "A part of The New York Times Company"}

Hamantashen (Haman's ears) are traditionally eaten on Purim.

Lisa Katz

...

According to one Jewish joke, the theme of all Jewish holidays is: "They tried to kill us. We survived. Now let's eat!"

Hamantashen Recipes

Hamantashen is a triangular-shaped, filled pastry which is traditionally served on Purim. While today the pastry is filled with a variety of sweet options, it is most traditional to fill the pastry with poppy seed filling. The source of the pastry was poppy seed treats called "Mantashen".

The name was intentionally distorted to "Hamantashan" which means "Haman's pockets" in Yiddish. Some say that Haman wore a three-cornered hat, and that is why the pocket of dough is triangular.

In Hebrew, the pastry is called "Oznei Haman" which means Haman's ears. This name may have come from the midrash which says that when Haman entered the King's treasury, he was bent over with shame and humiliation (literally with clipped ears). ...

Mishloach Manot Ideas

Mishloach Manot (literally "sending of portions") is another Purim food tradition. These are baskets filled with cakes, cookies, nuts, fruits and other treats given to neighbors, friends, and especially the needy. Hamantashen is often the centerpiece of these food baskets. ...

Seudat Purim

It is traditional to have a Purim Seudah (feast) on Purim day. At this meal, some serve an especially long, braided challah (in memory of the rope used to hang Haman), soup with kreplach (triangular shaped in memory of Haman's hat), and turkey (in memory of King Ahasuerus's reign from India ("Hodu") to Ethiopia and of his foolishness). Others have a vegetarian meal since Esther ate as a vegetarian in order to keep kosher in the King's Palace. Of course, for dessert there is hamantashen. ...

©2007 About, Inc., A part of The New York Times Company. All rights reserved.

{end}

(13) No Exodus, No Holocaust? Peter Myers, August 26, 2008

The expression "No Holes, No Holocaust" is a challenge issued by Deniers, to Affirmers, to draw a diagram of a gas chamber showing how and where the poison was put in. To supply important minor details. Details matter; and debate matters. History is not decided by courts.

Norman Finkelstein, some of whose ancestors perished in German concentration camps, has noted in his book The Holocaust Industry that the Jewish case is based overwhelmingly on Memory - first-hand testimonials of eyewitnesses.

{quote} Novick's central category is "memory." Currently all the rage in the ivory tower, "memory" is surely the most impoverished concept to come down the academic pike in a long time. {endquote; p.5}.

{quote} I sometimes think that American Jewry "discovering" the Nazi holocaust was worse than its having been forgotten. True, my parents brooded in private; the suffering they endured was not publicly validated. But wasn't that better than the current crass exploitation of Jewish martyrdom? Before the Nazi holocaust became The Holocaust ... {endquote; p.6}

Having ousted him from his academic career, the Holocaust lobbyists gloated over his demise:

A Pariah In Exile: Norman Finkelstein

The Jewish Week (New York)

Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / 25 Av 5768

http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c36_a12821/News/New_York.html

No more loyal students, no more lectures to prepare, no more radio debates with his arch-enemy, Alan Dershowitz, no more national spotlight; Finkelstein is the man no one wants, and perhaps for good reason. ...

So the Pariah of Ocean Parkway is at the low point in his life, his academic career in shambles.

{end} More at finkelstein.html.

People of the Hellenistic world knew that the Pyramids showed the antiquity of Egypt; classical writers attested the antiquity of Babylon and other cities in Mesopotamia and Assyria. Yet, so persuasive was the Book of Genesis in presenting itself as a history of the world, that the Jews, who had left no ancient monuments but only a book, were deemed the originators of civilization.

That is the point of the story of Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac, to show that Israel/Judah was the first to abandon human sacrifice (in Egypt, Osiris was credited with the same). The story of Creation in Genesis Chapter 1 portrays the Jews as originators of the seven-day week.

There are two stories of Creation in the Book of Genesis, but the Order of Creation is different in the two stories. In Chapter One, God creates the plants, then the animals, then the people. In Chapter Two, God creates Adam (the first man), then the plants, then the animals, and then, after Adam does not find a mate among the animals, Eve, the first woman.

If God cannot get the order of Creation right, the Bible is man-made: bible.html.

The story of Noah and the Flood was taken as historical, until Archaeologists excavated cities in Sumeria and found clay tablets showing the original version in the Epic of Gilgamesh. S. G. F. Brandon showed that the story of Adam & Eve, in Genesis Chapter 2, is also derived from the Epic of Gilgamesh: adam-and-eve.html.

Those passages in Genesis were written by a master story-teller, but they were only stories, not history.

Current Egyptology and Archaeology find no evidence that there was an Exodus from Egypt. Instead, the Archaeologists say that this is a confused memory of the Expulsion of the Hyksos from northern Egypt:archaeology-bible.html.

The Hyksos were mainly Semites from Palestine, mixed with a minority of Aryans who had invaded the Middle East and brought the war-chariot: gimbutas.html.

Manfred Bietak excavated the Hyksos capital at Avaris, and found four-room houses of a type later characteristic of Hebrews/Israelites (but also some other semites): four-room-house.html.

Donald B. Redford, Israel Finkelstein & Neil Asher Silberman say that the geographical place-names in Biblical accounts are reliable for the 7th & 6th centuries BC, but not for earlier times, showing that it cannot be regarded as a "history" of those earlier times: archaeology-bible.html.

In the article refered to above, A Pariah In Exile: Norman Finkelstein, from The Jewish Week (New York), the date of the article is given as "Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / 25 Av 5768".

The date 5768 implies nearly 6000 years since Creation. The Marxist Jews ridicule Christian creationism, but have made no campaign against the creationist Jewish Calendar.

Accepting the fictionalized history in the Jewish Bible, the Roman Empire converted to Christianity, and divested itself of its temples, culture and values.

It was on the basis of this same fictionalized Jewish history that Christian Europe destroyed the cultures of ancient Egypt, North and South America, and Australia.

Islam, infected with the same ideas, destroyed as much of Hinduism and Buddhism as it could.

The Jewish religion, since Spinoza, has had an atheistic variant: spinoza-pantheism.html.

Jewish Communists follow Spinoza's exposition of Judaism: philos.html.

The atheistic variant of Judaism is dominant today. This, the Marxist movement, says it rejects the Jewish religion, yet is in some ways a mutation of it, dismissing all existing civilizations (as worthless) and trying to impose a "universal standard": anti-civ.html.

Communism fell, but that was Stalinism. The Jewish, Trotskyist, version lives on, and is triumphant through Feminism, the Gay, Green and other minority movements, all vicariously participating in Jewish victimhood. All make the Nazi Holocaust pivotal in their world-view.

Norman Finkelstein's remonstrations about the unreliability of memory should remind us of the way modern court-cases are conducted, not relying solely on testimonies, but with forensic evidence, DNA testing, etc.

Given the importance of the Nazi Holocaust as the pivotal event of history (in place of the Crucifixion), the accepted accounts should be verified with geophysical tests of burial grounds, exhumation of the remains of victims, working simulations of gas chambers etc.

If this is not done, we risk repeating what our ancestors did 2000 years ago, when they took the Jewish religion at face value.

(14) David Cole's Auschwitz video (1992)

January 14, 2008

David Cole is a Revisionist Jew who toured Auschwitz in 1992 wearing a yarmulke and videoing his discussion with the Guide and his interview with Dr. Franciszek Piper, head curator of the Auschwitz State Museum.

This video casts doubt on Holocaust orthodoxy more effectively than any number of books.

I'm not a Denier, but rather an Agnostic. The important thing is to keep approaching the truth, bit by bit, rather than to make doctrinaire statements. This path involves correcting errors.

David Cole's video may be downloaded here:

David Cole - The Truth Behind The Gates Of Auschwitz 1 of 2 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=976870941610001004

David Cole - The Truth Behind The Gates Of Auschwitz 2 of 2 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-441640420550012012

Home Page of Jewish Holocaust Revisionist David Cole http://www.vho.org/GB/c/DC/


Als de video moeilijk te vinden is : http://blogger.webcoat.net/2009/11/de-holocaust-hoax/

(15) JDL (Jewish Defense League) calls David Cole "a low-life beast" ... "does not deserve to live"

At the above David Cole site (www.vho.org/GB/c/DC/), one finds an article published by the JDL (Jewish Defense League) which calls David Cole "a human parasite" and "low-life beast". It says, "An evil monster like this does not deserve to live".

The JDL article is reproduced (with a comment) at David Cole's webpagehttp://www.vho.org/GB/c/DC/censtraitor.html

JDL had put the article at http://www.jdl.org/Traitor_amer.html - but is no longer there.

However the Internet Archive has archives of this webpage (http://www.jdl.org/Traitor_amer.html) for Nov 08, 1996, Jan 04, 1997, and Jun 03, 1997.

Visit the following Internet Archive webpage to see the original fatwah issued against Cole by the JDL:

http://web.archive.org/web/19961108005625/http://www.jdl.org/Traitor_amer.html

JDL in America David Cole: Monstrous Traitor

By Robert J. Newman

He has managed to stir the gullible masses with hatred, lies and deception. Just like a low-lying snake that slithers from dark place to dark place, he spreads his venom to innocent victims.

This is David Cole, who takes pride in his demonic occupation: Holocaust denier of the Six Million Jews.

Cole is a young Jewish man with an evil plan: To alter history and to deny documented facts. A revolting and horrible monster is this so-called Jew.

He rubs shoulders with the neo-nazi criminals who do their evil deeds for Adolf Hitler and who, to this day, continue to spread anti-Semitism through the guise of Holocaust revisionist denial.

What is a David Cole? Is it a sickness? Is it a mental disease? Is Cole merely a human parasite who clings to his ardent Nazi supporters and friends who back his ideas whole-heartedly? After all, this Cole mania that the media have played on, don't you think it's time that we flush this rotten, sick individual down the toilet, where the rest of the waste lies? One less David Cole in the world will certainly not end Jew-hatred, but it will have removed a dangerous parasitic, disease-ridden bacteria from infecting society.

David Cole laughs in the face of his own people. He takes pride in seeing Jewish Holocaust survivors suffer. He laughs and snickers when someone mentions the words Auschwitz, gas chambers and crematoriums.

Cole's denial is really a denial toward his own people. He hates the very fact that he was born into this world a Jew. But more than anything else, his denial is an enormous crime against humanity.

This despicable low-life beast is worse than the Julius Streichers and Joseph Goebbels. He is more evil than they were-because he is a Jew! This pathetic excuse for a human being is a neo-Nazi traitorous sell-out to his own Jewish people.

An evil monster like this does not deserve to live on this earth. All the news stories about his life only encourage Cole to feed his sick ego even more, bringing attention to his depraved lifestyle. Cole is an abominable psychopath who must be stopped.

The word revisionist is a direct insult to the Jewish community, to Holocaust survivors and to the memory of the millions murdered. It is especially insulting to us Jews who are out to crush these vicious Holocaust-denying Nazis.

Just as we must get rid of this monster, Cole, we must also get rid of the word "revisionism" from our vocabulary. This awful word and Cole, too, must be eliminated altogether. There is no argument. There needs to be no more debates, only the elimination of the Holocaust deniers.

Cole is a sickness, a horrible aberration that is spreading like a cancerous sore. David Cole is being used by and manipulated by the neo-Nazis to further promote their agendas of hate.

He is a Jewish puppet for the Ernst Zundels, Bradley Smiths, Willis Cartos and all the white supremacist, Nazi-loving, murderous gangster thugs. They would love to see all the Jews of the world gassed and incinerated again in the burning furnaces of Treblinka, leaving smoldering ashes in its wake.

This world would be a happier place, indeed, when all the Jew-baiters and Jew-haters have disappeared, especially the most vicious hater of them all, David Cole.
==

This JDL webpage http://www.jdl.org/action/action/cole_letter.shtml says "When JDL made its debut on the Internet, it featured a hard-hitting essay about Cole by Robert J. Newman. Later on, a photo of Cole (pictured right) was added to the page. More recently, JDL offered a reward for information leading to the whereabouts of Cole."

At David Cole's website http://www.vho.org/GB/c/DC/Traitor_amer.html,

the text of that reward is given as:

"Reward for Information
JDL wants to know the location of Holocaust denier David Cole, pictured above. Anyone giving us his correct address will receive a monetary reward. Contact us through e-mail immediately if you have information leading to the current location of David Cole."

After that threat to his life, Cole sent a retraction to the JDL.

Wikipedia says of JDL:

{quote} In its report Terrorism 2000/2001, the FBI referred to the organization as a "violent extremist Jewish organization" and stated that the FBI was responsible for thwarting at least one of its terrorist acts. The Terrorism Knowledge Base states that during the JDL's first two decades of activity, it was an "active terrorist organization;" even so, the JDL was specifically referenced by the FBI's Executive Assistant Director Counterterrorism/Counterintelligence, John S. Pistole, in his formal report before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States.
{endquote} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Defense_League

{end}

Am I an Anti-Semite? antisemite.html.

Back to the Zionism/Communism index: zioncom.html.

Write to me at contact.html.

HOME