SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
No bio...
User ID: 853
The minutes are explicitly stating that the expulsion approach is lacking, expulsion has been banned, and that a different path is to be taken.
The different path was evacuation to the East. This is what is explicitly described in documents and this is what Revisionists claim the plan was. Historians say that "evacuation to the East" was coded language for gassed in gas chambers. But a direct reading of the document supports the Revisionist case for the German plan.
In the same way, Himmler will refer to a camp, like Sobibor, as a "Transit Camp", which is what Revisionists claim it was, while historians will say "Transit camp" was "coded language" for death camp. The historians rely on assumptions of euphemism and coded language while the documents supports the Revisionist case.
The paper at least mentions Mandelbaum, except for some strange reason without a separate analysis or even mentioning much of his specific testimony
There is an entire trilogy solely dedicated to the various testimonies of the Sonderkommando of Auschwitz.
Here is a PDF of Sonderkommando Auschwitz I: Nine Eyewitness Testimonies Analyzed. Henryk Mandelbaum's various testimonies (including testimony unknown in mainstream historiography and translated by Mattogno) are presented and criticized in a 37-page section in Section 10, starting at page 179.
I am not even aware of Dario Gabbai testimony in the 1940s. AFAIK Gabbai entered the scene along with his brother and cousins, the Venezias, no earlier than 1987. The earliest reference I find on Dario's wikipedia page only goes to 1991.
But the Gabbai's and their cousins are featured along with the other "late testimony" witnesses in Sonderkommando Auschwitz III: They Wept Crocodile Tears. A Critical Analysis of Late Witness Testimonies:
Most of the main and secondary witnesses of the Sonderkommando that I have already analyzed, as many as 17, testified for the first time between 1945 and 1947, and this is perfectly understandable; some waited two or three decades: Paisikovic made his first statements in 1963, Rosenblum in 1970. Inexplicably, a small group of self-proclaimed Sonderkommando members, united by origin – they were all Jews deported to Auschwitz from Greece (Josef Sackar, Jaacov Gabai, Shaul Chasan and Leon Cohen) – decided to tell their stories only between 1987 and 1993, in the form of interviews conducted by Israeli historian Gideon Greif, who then published them in 1995 in German (Greif 1995), and ten years later also in an English translation titled We Wept without Tears: Testimonies of the Jewish Sonderkommando from Auschwitz (Greif 2005). The statements of these late “eyewitnesses” constitute the main subject of this present study.
Since the beginning of the 1990s other Greek “survivors” of the Sonderkommando, who until then had remained silent, suddenly felt the imperative “duty to testify”: Daniel Bennahmias in 1993 (Camhi Fromer), and Leon Cohen, already interviewed by Gideon Greif, in 1996 (Cohen).
The crown of laggards, however, unquestionably belongs to Shlomo Venezia (my emphasis: Dario Gabai's (the actor's) cousin), a Jew with Italian citizenship who was deported to Auschwitz from Thessaloniki. After an insignificant media excursion in 1992, he officially entered the Auschwitz martyrology on 3 December 2000, thanks to three German scholars, Eric Friedler, Barbara Siebert and Andreas Kilian, who interviewed him. But it was only after the 2007 publication of his memoirs – in French and then in Italian – that he rose to a prestigious position in Holocaust memoiology as the last “eyewitness” of the “gas chambers” of Auschwitz. In practice, he waited 55 years to “testify,” if we start counting from the end of the Second World War.
Witness testimony is notoriously considered one of the weaker forms of evidence. This is why the Revisionists emphasize historical examples, like Congressman Tom Lantos procuring an "escapee direct eyewitness" to the Iraqi soldiers removing babies from incubators and killing them, direct eyewitnesses to mass graves of babies, and this story probably tipped the scales of public opinion for waging war on Iraq. Likewise, there were eyewitness testimony to gassings at Dachau and Buchenwald, which are no longer claimed to have happened... although the Dachau museum used to have a sign that bizarrely read GAS CHAMBER disguised as a "shower room" - never used as a gas chamber. That Dachau "gas chamber - never used as a gas chamber" was prominently featured in the Nuremberg Trials by the way.
There were also many eyewitnesses to mass homicidal gassings at Majdanek who testified in 1944 (before the liberation of Auschwitz), in facilities which have been revised to have been real hygienic facilities and shower rooms. Soviet investigators claimed in 1944 that Majdanek featured a crematorium with a built-in gas chamber, which was revised recently and admitted to have never been a gas chamber, before Auschwitz was even liberated.
The suspicious over-reliance on the testimony of witnesses also obscures the evidence of which there is too little, which is why I linked the other book. Most people probably do not know that the British intercepted and decoded the secret communication between Auschwitz and SS throughout the war and period of alleged extermination, but even historians admit "The decoded messages contain no references to gassings."
Likewise, the blueprints and construction documents discovered in the archives by Revisionists show non-homicidal functions for these structures. Revisionists, for example, showed that all the blueprints throughout multiple years of one of the Krematorium shows a swinging door connecting the alleged "gas chamber", which is identified as a morgue in the blueprints, with the ovens. The best Believers can do is just argue that the "swinging door" must have been an error in all the blueprints, because a gas chamber obviously would have required a sturdy air-tight door.
Relying so much on the witness testimony, which has its own major problems, ignores a lot of problems with the documentary and physical evidence, or lack thereof.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
3mo ago
Hitler genuinely lobbied for the Western Allies to join him in his war against the Soviet Union, or at least to remain neutral. If they had remained neutral then Germany would not have gone to war against Western Europe.
You need to prove your case
I have proven my case by showing that Christians worship the Jewish god of Israel and believe in the Jewish covenant - that God chose them among all the nations, and those Christians were converted by a Jewish messiah and a Jewish apostle, and believe in the Jewish bible and accept the Hebrew histories as divine truth... That is all insurmountable evidence that Christianity is indeed a Jewish religion, a fact which you denied, and you have presented no evidence for your claim that it is something other than a Jewish religion fundamentally, which worships a Jew as an actual god in a religious form that was established by a Jew who was an apostle to the Gentiles. You have just taken the "point and sputter" approach by talking about Elders of Zion and ZOG without presenting evidence that Christianity is not a Jewish religion.
And it's no different than any other zealot spouting off about his religious beliefs.
It is fundamentally different, the content of these beliefs actually matters, it's not just all the same. It actually impacts the way we view the world and engage with others around us. It impacts how we view ourselves and how we view and treat others.
Really? What is my ideology (besides "Nah, I don't think Jews are lizard people")?
Take your pick, if there's one thing that every mainstream ideology has in common, from Marxism to libertarianism and everything in between, it's that you do not and cannot engage in anthropological analysis that puts Jews under the microscope. To do so makes you mentally deranged at best and evil at worst. That's no coincidence either.
So, for example, if you engage in a sober-headed analysis relating the Jewish origins of Christianity to modern-day relations, in any other terms than endorsement of a "Judeo-Christian" commonality or denunciation of Christian anti-Semitism, then you are going to be hated by absolutely every ideology that is anywhere near the mainstream. The only two groups of people who do that are radical Rightists or radical Jews, although the former engage in that sort of analysis as a criticism and the latter through a triumphalist lens.
It is said that the Aztecs believed the conquistadors were representatives of Quetzalcoatl, which is a claim that often promotes pushback especially today:
It is wise, in general, to be sceptical about stories that represent non-European peoples, in conflicts with Westerners, as superstitious or cowed by the white man’s apparent superiority. Such stories are often attempts to justify conquests and empires by making subject-peoples look feeble-minded or self-condemned to subordination by their own convictions of inferiority.
Those are pretty strong terms, but nobody will bat an eye when a Jew goes on Glenn Beck's show and says "God says [the Jews] are my witnesses on Earth, the promise, you're my witnesses on Earth. Well destroy the witnesses then you don't have God" and nobody bats an eye because his audience believes that.
I find it believable that the Aztecs believed the Spaniards to be envoys of Quetzalcoatl. We know for a fact that billions of Gentiles affirm the Jewish covenant, that Jews are/were the singularly chosen envoys of the one true God, and that can't be chalked up to White Supremacy... It's not only the Far Right that recognizes this, but it is only the far Right that recognizes this fact and provides a measure of criticism for its implications.
This is all to say, you don't have to be ideologically motivated to relate Christianity to the conversion of billions of gentiles to worship the God of Israel, you have to be ideologically motivated to claim there's no "there" there.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
9mo ago
Here is Yad Vashem's description of the origin of the Victim's Database:
On May 8th 1999, under the auspices of President Ezer Weizman, Yad Vashem initiated a well publicized world wide media campaign to collect Pages of Testimony. The public response was overwhelming: a call center with 20 phone lines and 90 staff members working double shifts was established to handle the large volume of incoming inquiries in real time. During the months of April and May alone some 147,000 Pages of Testimony were received, amounting to a total of about 380,000 by the end of 1999. The aftermath of the campaign was felt in 2000 as well; an additional 70,000 Pages of Testimony were collected. Although the names collection campaign was targeted also to Jewish communities around the world, around 85% of the Pages of Testimony collected had been submitted in Israel. Surprisingly, more than 80% of all incoming pages actually contained names of victims that were not previously recorded at the Hall of Names. This statistic reinforced the great significance of the campaign at that point in time.
By the year 2000, the initial computerization project and media campaign resulted in the creation of a database containing close to 2.5 million names of Holocaust victims at the Hall of Names. Founded on a sophisticated technological platform the names database was updated and upgraded. Advanced search capabilities including soundex and synonym searches were developed in order to enhance retrieval possibilities. On November 22nd 2004, the Central Database of Shoah Victims’ Names was launched and uploaded to the Yad Vashem website offering the general public full and free accessibility to close to three million victims' names in English and Hebrew. In 2007, the option to consult the names database in Russian (Cyrillic characters) was also made available.
Does a call center collecting names from over-the-phone testimonies to add to their database, 60 years after the fact, seem to you a scientific way to build a database of murder victims? In any other context, building a database of murder victims containing no evidence that the people you are adding to the database were murdered would get you laughed out of the room. Of course, in building a database like that, proving the person existed with a document is not the most important part- providing some sort of evidence that the people in your database were murdered in the way you are saying they were murdered would be expected in any other context except the Holocaust, where an Israeli calling a hotline and giving a testimony listing names of people he lost contact with 60 years later is good enough to prove a series of murders with absolutely no physical or documentary evidence that such murders actually happened.
This is not a scientific source, it's a cultural and propaganda project.
I still don't know what your hypothesis is, aside from "a name and a passport is not proof."
My hypothesis is that this isn't a scientific source, it's not a database of murder victims. It's a post-2000s propaganda campaign meant to fill the gap in the physical and documentary record with a crowd-sourcing approach of uncritically collecting testimonies and names 60 years after the fact.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
10mo ago
· Edited 10mo ago
The Roman Pantheon was highly representative of subjugation and hierarchy, no doubt, but it integrated the idols and symbols of others into its order. The mandate to remove idolatry from the land and "cut off" the false gods points to Yahweh as a singularly jealous god. So a Jewish mandate to drive out the false gods of the Gentiles, or Ōr laGōyyīm, relates the systematic behavior of Jewish influence in Gentile culture. Yes, I do think, as in all religion, there is an HBD-understood influence between the mythos that has formulated the people, the genes of those people, and the behavior of said people. Same is true for Christians, Arabs, Hindus.
If we properly understand Yahweh as a metaphor and synonym for the Jewish people, then the mandate in Tikkun Olam to "utterly cut off" the false gods points towards an inscrutable cultural hostility. A hostility towards the national idols and traditions and even the very ethnic identity of Gentiles is openly professed under the banner of Tikkun Olam today.
Edit: Here's an interesting article from a Jewish group corroborating the importance of Tikkun Olam to the behavior of the Jewish people:
One can say a lot about our infatuation with Tikkun Olam, and I will. But let’s start with what the critics get wrong, which is most of it.
First, the phrase “Tikkun Olam” is at least as old as Rabbinic Judaism itself. It appears already in the Mishnah, where it refers to social policy legislation providing extra protection to those potentially at a disadvantage. The “Aleinu”, one of the oldest Jewish prayers, contains the phrase “repair the world” (letaken olam). Critics love to grouse that liberal Jews “forget” the context—Aleinu envisions that God (not us) will “repair the world in the Kingship of God”—but the more important point is that “Tikkun Olam” wasn’t some phrase invented in the 1970s by Rabbi Michael Lerner and other hippie Jews.
Nor are the concepts of Jewish social justice and universal morality, to which Tikkun Olam has come to refer. Virtually all the prophets talk tirelessly about the need to create a just and ethical society, many of their words sound pretty much like a 21st century Tikkun Olam manifesto. Needless to say, they draw from the Torah, which speaks endlessly about loving the stranger and the poor. The idea that Jews have a universal mission also appears insistently from the Torah onwards. When God blesses our patriarch Abraham, God states that “through you, all the Nations of the Earth will be blessed”. The prophets often focus on Israel, their purview also extends to all Peoples. This includes the prophet Jonah, whose story we read on Yom Kippur and whose mission was exclusively directed at the gentile city (an enemy city, in fact) of Nineveh.
It would take gallons of ink to list all the traditional sources that encourage us to embark on what we call today Tikkun Olam. Considering how many of these sources are traditionally understood to be directly and authoritatively quoting God, whoever has an issue with Tikkun Olam needs to take it up with the Boss Himself. So no, it’s not a marginal idea that evil liberals brought to the forefront of the Jewish agenda; it’s been central to Judaism for millennia. And it’s not a perversion of a Kabbalistic term; if anything, the way in which we understand Tikkun Olam today is more faithful to the original mishnaic meaning of the term (pragmatic legislation to protect the vulnerable and preserve the integrity of society) than to the mystical interpretation of Lurianic Kabbalah, in which the world has lost its original harmony after the “breaking of the vessels”, and fulfilling mitzvot (whether ethical or purely ritual) can “repair the world” from its spiritual wounds.
If we understand Tikkun Olam to relate to a psychometric quality like g then of course HBD would suggest that this idea which has been central to these people for millennia is both a reflection of and influence on their psychology, even atheistic Jews. Even Jews, proudly, relate a long history of radical agitation to the concept.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
10mo ago
You don't have to answer the question if you don't want to. The assertion was "FDR actually failed to bring the US into war against the Nazis", but to me that depends on whether or not the US was actually neutral before Germany declared war.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
11mo ago
· Edited 11mo ago
I wouldn't call it tenuous since the relation between the two has been the subject of debate for thousands of years (not even to mention the long-term and present-day impact of Christianization), but the main point was that your expectation of solidarity from disparate groups during the Decline of American empire doesn't really have much basis. Your prediction of a Jewish and Asian reconciliation towards Whiteness is way more tenuous than relating the adoption of the Roman-era "woke mind virus" slave morality to its decline and collapse.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
11mo ago
Biden hasn't even been that bad on woke or progressive nonsense. By far progressivism gained massively more ground in the culture under Trump than it has under Biden. And DeSantis signing a hate speech law in Jerusalem tells me everything I need to know about how his administration would just double down on the MAGA failures that enable this.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
there was nothing secretive or unusual about his trip
Not sure what else to say, I think DeSantis signing a Florida hate speech law in Jerusalem is unusual. You are free to take the position that it's not unusual, but it's important anyway.
When historians say that the Germans had a plan to exterminate the Jews, what they mean is that the Germans secretly decided that the final solution to the Jewish Question was to murder them all. It is claimed that this murder took place mostly with gas chambers disguised as shower rooms. These are the core claims that Revisionists contest.
It is strange to accuse Revisionists of "moving the goalposts" when you refuse to defend the core elements of the mainstream narrative. You are of course free to not take the mainstream position and propose your own historical interpretation, and that makes you a Revisionist. Congratulations.
You are trying to say "the concentration of Jews in labor camps is an extermination plan". You are free to say that but it has no relation to what the "Holocaust" actually is. The translation I am reading says:
The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly, because it is the product of natural selection and would, if released, act as a the seed of a new Jewish revival (see the experience of history.)
This passage clearly means that they are not to be allowed back into Europe, but it is obviously vague on how this is supposed to happen. Given the continuity of the Wannsee Protocols with the Havaara Agreement and Madagascar Plan, it is clear that that "treated accordingly" would mean "moved away and not allowed back in." You are free to use your imagination for what "treated accordingly" is supposed to mean, but you are only proving how weak your case is for using the most vague parts of the document as the best evidence for your claims.
Obviously this question was not even in the scope of the conference.
You all rely on:
-
Desperately avoiding debate for the physical evidence of what you claim happened.
-
Assuming euphemism and coded language in hundreds of documents across a sprawling bureaucracy with an extremely impressive compliance... not to mention the confusion that would be caused by using "resettlement" as a code word when even historians admit there were all kinds of resettlements of people that were not euphemism.
-
Citing a few sentences from a document, where the document as a whole supports the Revisionist case, take something vague like the words "treated accordingly" and use that as the best evidence you can come up with for your interpretation of the document.
This is one of the reasons the mainstream has generally moved away from emphasizing Wannsee Protocols so much... when you actually read it and consider the context then you're just left desperately pointing to something like "look, it says 'treated accordingly'!" while the document as a whole is simply a verification of what Revisionists are claiming.
Post-war, everyone who had been at Treblinka, guard and inmate alike, said it had been a killing center for the Jews.
Which post-war accounts? You have a couple of accounts from former Jewish prisoners working with the Polish underground which are not at all plausible or reliable. The other accounts did not come until decades later during the Treblinka trials of the 1960s, well after the Treblinka narrative had already been created. The basic facts of the extermination narrative had already been established in court, and the broader narrative was subject to judicial notice, so "it didn't happen" wasn't a defense available to them. The former guards and even commandant all received very light sentences, either being acquitted or subsequently released from prison. If these guards had denied the Nuremberg narrative they would have been treated in a harsher fashion.
The case is not straightforward at all. The claim is that upwards of 2 million Jews were murdered at these "Aktion Reinhard" camps, and their remains were buried in precisely known locations. How many mass graves have ever been excavated at these known locations? Zero. An alleged 2 million murders and 0 mass graves ever excavated. You have a couple of witness accounts from Jewish sources that informed the conclusions at Nuremberg (Treblinka was barely discussed at Nuremberg) followed by the confessions decades later in the 1960s which earned the guards very light sentences. But ultimately, if you are claiming that 2 million people were murdered and buried in a known location, but you come up with all these excuses for why nobody should actually excavate to try to find these remains, you do not have a straightforward case.
To emphasize just how not straightforward the case is, notice how you spell the name of this operation- "Aktion Reinhard." This is the preferred spelling for the operation among mainstream historians, which according to mainstream historiography, is supposed to denote the secret plan to exterminate the Jews in the General Government of occupied Poland. The story goes, Reinhard Heydrich was given the honor of having this secret extermination named after him due to his assassination (though Heydrich had no role at all in the operation itself).
But, in fact, the operation was spelled Aktion Reinhardt (with a 't'), which, along with other evidence, ties the naming of this operation to the State Secretary of the Reich Ministry of Finance Fritz Reinhardt. Why the hubbub over whether it was Reinhard or Reinhardt? Because the former is used by historians as circumstantial evidence tying the operation symbolically to Heydrich, to imply a secret murder operation. Whereas the reality that the operation was named for an economist in the Finance Ministry does not at all fit that narrative. This corollary is conceded by mainstream historians, by the way, but they just use it to assert that it could only have been named after Heydrich and not Reinhardt:
/5. It does seem inherently unlikely that a murderous operation of the complexity of "Aktion Reinhard" would be named after an economist. The implication of naming the "Aktion" after Fritz Reinhardt is that the prime motivation was the expropriation of Jewish property.
So the implication of accepting the actual spelling of the operation (not the spelling you use) is that the operation was not what mainstream historians say it is. Aside from Revisionists, even some mainstream historians accept that Aktion Reinhardt was named after Reinhardt, like Joseph Poprzeczny in his 2004 biography on Globocnik:
In fact, the term "Aktion Reinhardt" was originally the codename for the seizure of Jewish wealth and property... I accept that the name was taken from Fritz Reinhardt, a Reich Finance Ministry official, not from the SS-Gruppenfuhrer Reinhard Heydrich, as so many contend.
So you have a murder case with 2 million victims and no bodies- and the main victims have used their considerable influence to avoid any excavations of the supposed mass graves (sounds a lot like a recent case in Canada). Even the spelling you used of the supposed murder operation is controversial, with mainstream historians again misinterpreting history in order to support their pre-canned narrative. Nothing about this is straight-forward, it is all highly unusual.
Edit: BTW, I don't know who is reposting my comments here. Probably a bad actor?
The WMD hoax was engineered by Zionists in the American government under the newly-formulated Office of Special Plans, specifically as a workaround to slush fabricated intelligence from Israel to the Pentagon, working around the CIA. The goal was to formulate a propaganda narrative to instigate the United States into fighting a regional rival of Israel, Saddam Hussein.
In an interview with the Scottish Sunday Herald, former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer Larry C. Johnson said the OSP was "dangerous for US national security and a threat to world peace. [The OSP] lied and manipulated intelligence to further its agenda of removing Saddam. It's a group of ideologues with pre-determined notions of truth and reality. They take bits of intelligence to support their agenda and ignore anything contrary. They should be eliminated....
Lawrence Franklin, an analyst and Iran expert in the Feith office, has been charged with espionage, as part of a larger FBI investigation (see Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal). The scandal involves passing information regarding United States policy towards Iran to Israel via the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Feith's role is also being investigated.[15]
According to The Guardian, Feith's office had an unconventional relationship with Israel's intelligence services:
The OSP was an open and largely unfiltered conduit to the White House not only for the Iraqi opposition. It also forged close ties to a parallel, ad hoc intelligence operation inside Ariel Sharon's office in Israel specifically to bypass Mossad and provide the Bush administration with more alarmist reports on Saddam's Iraq than Mossad was prepared to authorise.
"None of the Israelis who came were cleared into the Pentagon through normal channels," said one source familiar with the visits. Instead, they were waved in on Mr Feith's authority without having to fill in the usual forms.
The exchange of information continued a long-standing relationship with Mr Feith and other Washington neo-conservatives had with Israel's Likud party.[16]
Allegations have also been made that Pentagon employees in the Feith office have been involved in plans for overthrowing the governments of Iran and Syria.[17]
Douglas Feith Himself, along with Richard Perle, another architect of the Iraq war, authored the Clean Break Memo.
Feith is an ardent supporter of Israel. Along with Richard Perle and David Wurmser, he was a member of the study group which authored a controversial report entitled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,[33] a set of policy recommendations for the newly elected Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. The report was published by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies without an individual author being named. According to the report, Feith was one of the people who participated in roundtable discussions that produced ideas that the report reflects.
The Clean Break memo was a policy document created by Feith, Perle, and Netenyahu:
Former United States Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle was the "Study Group Leader,"...
From the memo:
We must distinguish soberly and clearly friend from foe. We must make sure that our friends across the Middle East never doubt the solidity or value of our friendship.
Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions...
Most important, it is understandable that Israel has an interest supporting diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey’s and Jordan’s actions against Syria, such as securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite.
So the authors of this memo, in collaboration with Netenyahu, use their influence in the highest positions of American government to fabricate intelligence for WMDs (and also intelligence that Iraq was responsible for the post-9/11 Anthtrax attack which seems to be a memory-holed event in the context of 9/11. Israeli intelligence distributed the claim that Anthrax was given to a hijacker by an Iraqi spy in Prague, which was discounted by American intelligence agencies including the CIA but still became part of the WMD narrative leading up to the war.).
So to answer your question:
The WMD hoax was fabricated by Zionists, who formed special working groups and offices to slush false intelligence around the CIA. The CIA is not chiefly responsible for the WMD hoax or the Iraq/Al-Qaeda in Praque anthrax hoax, and was critical of the OSP and the intelligence provided by the OSP. The CIA did not have an incentive to fabricate evidence for a deception campaign that was not of their own making.
The OSP was not in a position to fabricate the evidence for WMDs on the ground, nor was that ever its goal. Its goal was to get America involved in a war against Iraq to overthrow Saddam on behalf of the sate of Israel, and it succeeded. Fabricating physical evidence for WMDs was not necessary for their goals, or even for their coverup. The leading theories for why America was manipulated into the Iraq War surround Bush's neuroses and Big Oil conspiracies. So fabricating physical evidence was not necessary for them to accomplish their goals or even to get away with their crimes.
There were some attempts to forge a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. A big question is, who forged the Habbush Letter? I don't think it was the CIA.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
4mo ago
Israel is engaging in an ethnic cleansing, the "legality" doesn't matter as that is simply a function of the support of the United States. The legality of settlements or blockades doesn't matter either. It's an Apartheid state... It's everything the managerial elite claim to oppose. But the real problem is a fucking slogan saying Palestinians will be free? Give me a break, seriously. It's a testament to their penchant for narrative control that they make a fucking slogan the big Controversy of the Day, and even people here take the bait by claiming that this shows how Jews are just so put upon by Academia. It's completely absurd.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
11mo ago
Rudolf was deported in 2005 for allegedly being in the US illegally.
He was married to an American wife. How many people with an American wife would be arrested and deported when they show up to apply for a Green Card? His treatment was obviously due to his Holocaust denial. And now he has children with his American wife who were born in America. To pretend that him facing deportation has nothing to do with his Holocaust denial, and the average person in his situation would face the same treatment, is completely delusional.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
11mo ago
· Edited 11mo ago
I don't think you fully understand, the "5 million plus non-Jews killed in the Holocaust" was a propaganda hoax created by Jewish Holocaust influencers in order to manipulate gentile feelings towards the Holocaust.
Yehuda Bauer, an Israeli Holocaust scholar who chairs the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, said he warned his friend Wiesenthal, who died in 2005, about spreading the false notion that the Holocaust claimed 11 million victims – 6 million Jews and 5 million non-Jews.
“I said to him, ‘Simon, you are telling a lie,’” Bauer recalled in an interview Tuesday. “He said, ‘Sometimes you need to do that to get the results for things you think are essential.’”
Bauer and other historians who knew Wiesenthal said the Nazi hunter told them that he chose the 5 million number carefully: He wanted a number large enough to attract the attention of non-Jews who might not otherwise care about Jewish suffering, but not larger than the actual number of Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust, 6 million.
It caught on: President Jimmy Carter, issuing the executive order that would establish the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, referred to the “11 million victims of the Holocaust.”
People don't understand how easy it is for whole-cloth lies to be embraced as truth by masses of people, or as the world's most famous anti-Semite put it in Mein Kampf:
All this was inspired by the principle – which is quite true within itself – that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.
It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
11mo ago
So you think me saying "Secret trip to Jerusalem" with the (!) after was just a coincidence? TBF it was a screenshot I saw last week from someone who retweeted Laura Loomer. But that characterization stuck, which I absolutely maintain. I didn't remember where I saw that verbiage earlier today, but I found the screenshot again.
You can replace:
Ron DeSantis made a secret trip to Jerusalem (!) last week
With
Two Florida State Reps made a secret trip to JERUSALEM (!!!) last week to deliver to Ron DeSantis
And it doesn't change the meaning of my post. This was a secret political stunt by DeSantis intended to pander to Jewish interests with new a American hate speech law. Period.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
11mo ago
· Edited 11mo ago
I was recalling the wording of Florida State Representative Randy Fine:
Made a secret trip to JERUSALEM (!!!) with @RepMikeCaruso to deliver @GovRonDeSantis HB 269, the strongest antisemitism bill in the United States. To Florida’s Nazi thugs, I have news: attack Jews on their property and you’re going to prison. Never again means never again.
So the State Representative who participated in the signing of the bill characterized it as a "secret trip to Jerusalem". He was describing his trip to Jerusalem to deliver the bill as secret rather than Ron's trip, but in any case the "secrecy" of this stunt is established by the very Representative who described it as such.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
11mo ago
I'd be open to an argument that it's unusual for an American politician to sign a bill while traveling abroad
This just seems super disingenuous. This isn't just "an American politician signing a bill while traveling abroad", it's a Florida presidential hopeful signing a hate speech law in Jerusalem.
though your implied "Because Da Joos told him to" needs a lot more groundwork.
Ok, so what's your theory for why this happened? Are you just going to say the same thing but in different terms? He's trying to get support for his campaign.
It's pretty clear because Himmler says things like:
The very first thing he said before the first two passages you posted was "Ich meine die Judenevakuierung": "I mean the evacuation of the Jews." So is he using a euphemism or is he being clear he means extermination? You are saying he is going back and forth, and then in Weimar two months later he's back to the euphemism.
Revisionists don't doubt the brutality of a forced resettlement/deportation operation which would have had a high mortality. Passages like:
Most of you know what it means when 100 bodies lie together, when 500 lie there, or if 1,000 lie there. To have gone through this, and at the same time, apart from exceptions caused by human weaknesses, to have remained decent, that has made us hard.
Sounds like a recognition of a bloody affair, which the evacuation undoubtedly was. It sounds like a speech a general could have given to troops justifying the firebombing of German or Japanese cities: "You all know what it's like to see mass death, and we know these actions are taking the lives of women and children but we have to be tough or the fascists will conquer the world blah blah". A general giving such a speech would not even consider the possibility of people later trying to infer a secret policy to exterminate all German people from a speech like that.
There is obviously tough talk and recognition of a bloody affair, but inferring a specific policy from such a speech would only be the act of desperation from someone who cannot rely on the documentation to definitively establish the policy being claimed. Especially when the very first sentence completely contradicts your interpretation of the policy inferred from these general words, and when later speeches continue to describe the policy as an evacuation.
Please explain how "the hard decision to wipe this people off of the face of the earth" can refer to either the killing of partisans or resettlement.
Because this:
I did not believe that I had the right to wipe out the men — rather I should say, kill them or have them killed — and let their children grow up to avenge themselves on our sons and grandsons. The hard decision to wipe this people off the face of the earth had to be made.
Sounds like it's trying to convey the same point made in a speech only two months later, where he also describes the policy as resettlement and it's obviously tough talk to rationalize reprisals against partisans and commissars:
Measures, gentlemen, which we are shirking today, will be welcomed by our grandchildren. If I was forced to take action against partisans and against Jewish commissars in a village - I am saying this in this circle, as it is only intended for this circle -, then I gave the basic order to have the wives and children of these partisans and commissars killed as well. I would be a weakling and a criminal of our descendants if I let the hateful sons of these subhumans, who were killed by us in the fight of man against subhuman, grow up.
I know you want to claim that there's no way these two passages from two different speeches were intended to convey the same idea, you are saying that these two passages had completely different meanings, but just reading them side by side it seems clear the point of this part of the speech is the same: it's tough talk to justify reprisals and the undoubtedly brutal forced resettlement.
Lastly, the dilemma presented in the passage you are leaning on doesn't make sense if you assume he is admitting to an extermination policy. Himmler justifies killing women and children so the children don't grow up and take revenge... but if the plan was to exterminate them all then this would never have entered into the decision calculus. The dilemma between killing children or having them grow up to take revenge (a dilemma also presented in the December speech which describes a policy of resettlement) only makes sense in the context of targeted killings and does not make sense in the context of a policy of extermination, in which case this would be a non-issue.
There is no aspect of Holocaust denial that claims Jews were not killed. It was a war where 50 million civilians were killed, including many Jews.
The Holocaust claim is that 750,000 - 1 million people were murdered and buried on the site. I strongly deny that, not just the scale being a little inflated. That is not the same as claiming Jews were not killed in the war, any more than denying the Kamloops graves is not "soft denial" if you acknowledge that children did indeed die of various causes at the time in question.
It is exactly the same. Mainstream historiography says "we identified the graves containing the remains of up to a million people with GPR, here they are, but we have not and will not excavate them." Holocaust deniers say they should be excavated, while mainstream authorities claim they do not need to be excavated to prove their existence. It's the same thing.
Her excavations weren't on on a scale to find such quantities as you describe, so that's not an interesting result.
The point is that the sheer scale of the crime in such a small, known location would make trivial to find huge quantities of remains. A small scale excavation ought to be able to find enormous quantities of remains extremely easily.
Whether or not you can perform a cremation without additional fuel will depend on how much heat is lost to the environment
So you are not saying one way or another whether a cremation requires fuel? Can you cite me any case or example where the cremation of a carcass (livestock for example) did not require fuel to be cremated to ash?
Here's an example by the way of a cremation of a pig with a large amount of wood fuel. It did not achieve complete cremation.
Your argument is that since a proper cremation of a single body requires a lot of energy, a mass cremation of 5000 bodies requires a proportionally prohibitive amount of energy.
If the cremation of a single body requires a lot of external energy, then why wouldn't that scale with the cremation of 5000 bodies? It absolutely would. The external energy must have a source to sustain hours of cremation.
Your claims are literally absurd. But it's why witnesses thought it wasn't too big of a problem to say that little or no fuel was used, or particularly fat women were used as fuel. There are also witnesses who say that blood was flammable and used as fuel, but I think even you wouldn't fall for that one.
@johnfabian cited Rajchman's Treblinka memoirs. Here is what Rajchman claims in his memoirs:
“At one time we put up a roast beside a large grave, into which more than 250.000 corpses had been thrown. The roast was loaded as usual and lit in the evening. There was a strong wind, and the fire burned so intensely, that it spread to the large opened grave. The blood from a quarter of a million human beings went up in flame and burned until the evening of the following day.
All of the leading camp staff came to take a look at this wonder. They marveled at this fantastic fire. The blood rose to the surface of the ground and ignited like fuel.” (p. 119)
Pure fantasy. Just think that he witnessed these things but the OSI didn't get around to interviewing him until 1980, and his first memoir wasn't published until 2009.
Edit: There's also this laughable account from Rajchman showing the propaganda-motive for these tall tales:
“Reichman also said the Nazis had prepared a special incinerator in Treblinka for British Jews, who were to be deported under Adolf Hitler's masterplan for a Jewish-free Europe.
‘This was the incinerator for the British Jews,’ he said, pointing to a diagram of Treblinka. ‘The Germans planned to bring them there when they captured Britain. It was built in a very solid manner and could not be moved. It remained there until the end.’”
The mere notion that the Germans three months after Stalingrad would entertain hopes of defeating Great Britain and have all Jews of the island nation shipped over to Europe to be gassed is nothing else than laughable.
You can approach it from a totally non-Revisionist starting point, though, which I did. First ask how much wood to cremate a body. Then ask how much wood to cremate 5,000 bodies - i.e. "hundreds of cords of wood." So it's already giving Revisionist arguments before the topic comes up. I doubt that its answers to cremation in general are so heavily influenced by Revisionist arguments. It just walks directly into the Revisionist line of argumentation when starting from generalized questions like that.
There are also many published volumes of work explaining in detail how the cremations were allegedly done. A more kosher ChatGPT would just say "this is how it was done" and describe the process as claimed by mainstream historiography (I expect it will do this when it is more "advanced"). There is a lot of discussion of mass cremation in the mainstream literature, it is not an issue that is only discussed by Revisionsits. It's only Revisionists though who allege that the claims are not possible, and instead of copy + pasting the description from mainstream historiography it seems inclined towards the Revisionist argument.
Let's say that it is not remotely possible 5,000 people were cremated every day at Treblinka, and Revisionists are right. How would an AI create a response that describes the possibility of something impossible/did not happen? It would probably prefer to generate the more likely response, i.e. the Revisionist critique of the claims.
But like I said it's going to get better at detecting this stuff and copy+pasting the mainstream position as in the case with HBD.
More options
Context Copy link