- Mr. Holland:
-
- Normally, I would have ignored this rant
but a lot of people on my list are asking why anyone would question the
holocaust. First, let's deal with some of your allegations. Your comparison
of the Lipstadt v. Irving litigation to a debate is just wrong. In her
book "Denying the Holocaust" Lipstadt called Irving just about
everything but a child molester. Specifically, she accused him of being
a nazi, consorting with known terrorists, and someone who loved Adolph
Hitler. Irving sued ipstadt for libel in the British courts. This case
had little to do with the holocaust, but it had a lot to do with Irving's
softball treatment of Adolph Hitler. Thus Mr. Irving now carries the derisive
title of "revisionist." Nevertheless, Lipstadt made the holocaust
an issue in the trial.
-
- Lipstadt spent over $6,000,000.00 and
over twenty man years in her defense. Hmmmm... I wonder who paid all those
bills? Do you think maybe that Lipstadt, as chief scribbler for the holocaust,
was determined to make a statement? Incidentally, she never testified
in her own defense, and thus has never been subject to cross examination.
Hmmmm... Irving, on the other hand represented himself. Do you think
maybe the outcome of this trial was a forgone conclusion? In plain English,
Irving was run over by a zionist bulldozer---sort of like Rachel Corrie.
Mr. Irving clearly understood this was going to happen? More importantly,
the factual issues in a trial for libel are very distinct from the issues
that would be raised in a debate concerning the nature and extent of the
holocaust. (We will get to that later.) So, the trial resolved nothing.
-
- You mention other debates. What other
debates? Where are they? Where were they held? Who participated? More
generalities unsupported by facts? I am certain these so-called debates
you talk about could not have been held in a University forum. The wailing
and screaming from coast to coast would have been deafening. The jack
booted "thought police" at the ADL would surely have been called
in to crush this heresy. You claim that Mr. Butz declined to debate.
I don't know if this is true, but if it is what does that prove? Not a
thing. You seem to infer that he has conceded the issues. Based on his
recent public statements, I think he has conceded nothing. If he declined
to debate it could have been for any number of reasons not the least of
which he wanted to save his life. More likely it was because he did not
want to lose his lucrative job as a tenured professor at Northwestern University.
In any event I doubt if any serious debate on this hot button subject
has ever occurred.
-
- Your assertion that those who would deny
the holocaust have the burden of proving that it did not happen is just
nonsense. Under English common law (and thus American) the one making
a factual allegation has the burden of going forward and proving the truth
of the matter. Your assertion that "holocaust deniers" have
the burden of proving that the holocaust did not occur is the same as demanding
that someone prove a negative. This is not only contrary to established
procedural law, it is a logical impossibility.
-
- Just recently a friend asked "do
you believe in the holocaust?" Frankly, It is not important what I
believe. I am not interested in articles of faith and I am not impressed
by those who are. I am only interested in facts, and what someone can
prove by a preponderance of the evidence. And therein lies the philosophical
dissonance for this very important issue. The holocaust has become an
article of faith never to be either questioned or doubted. Yet, the global
community grows both weary and suspicious of the incessant chattering from
the prostitute news media. (It is not just those pesky Iranians.)
-
- A day cannot pass that the masses are
not reminded of the holocaust and the unbearable suffering of the Jews
during WWII. Yehuda Bauer, a professor at Hebrew University, and another
oracle of the holocaust, was quoted recently to wit: "Whether presented
authentically or unauthentically, in accordance with historical facts or
in contradiction to them, with empathy and understanding, or as monumental
kitsch, the holocaust has become a ruling symbol of our culture. Hardly
a month passes without a new TV production, film, a number of new books
of prose or poetry dealing with the subject, and the flood is increasing
not abating." That pretty much sums it up. And, of course, we
cannot forget all the holocaust museums that seem to pop like mushrooms---built
at the taxpayers expense, of course.
-
- This "noise" seems to reach
a crescendo when the Israelis need another "inoculation" or "special
absolution" for the latest atrocity committed against the Arabs.
But, to be brutally frank, the screaming from the "amen lobby"
is beginning to wear thin, and people throughout the world think it is
time to put up or shut up. That includes the so-called revisionists. That
is why It is time for an international debate.
-
- In your rant to Mr. Carlotti, you demand
that the facts of the holocaust cannot be questioned. Nevertheless, the
benighted all over the world are waking up and they are starting to ask
lots of questions. Sorry, your demands to the contrary will not change
that. You also assert, ipse dixit, that the evidence for the murder of
6 million people is overwhelming. Well, again, the nature and extent of
the holocaust is being questioned. (Except, of course, in most of Europe
where such inquiry can land you in prison.)
-
- So, let's define what is meant by the
holocaust. Then let's see the evidence, and let's test it under cross
examination with the application of the traditional rules of evidence.
And, please don't embarrass yourself and insult me by reminding me that
the Yad Vashem memorial has collected over three million names of the victims.
The idiocy of such a statement is self evident. And, in your dialogue
with Mr. Carlotti, your reference to the tape recording of Himmler as
proof of the holocaust was just as embarrassing. Himmler admitted that
the SS was killing Jews!!!! Wow! Now that is a shocker. Accusing the
SS of committing murder is sort of like accusing a baker of using flour
to make bread. Everyone knows that the SS killed Jews and anyone else
that got in their way. But, I digress. Which brings me to the next
subject....How do you define what is meant by "the holocaust?"
-
- Let me identify what I think are the
parameters of this debate. We can stipulate as true what is obvious. There
is not a single historian in the world who would deny that the Germans,
under Hitler, constructed concentration camps where Hitler incarcerated
Jews, gypsies, communists, homosexuals, and just about anyone else that
was considered an enemy of the German State. ( By the way, we also have
detention camps in the U.S.A.) And there is not a single historian in the
world that would deny that thousands of people died in these camps from
exhaustion, starvation, and disease. Is there anyone in the world who
has not seen the horrific photos of the piles of corpses and the cadaverous
near dead camp inmates? And, yes, it is undeniable that thousands more
were in fact executed---some were executed in the camps and some in the
ditches of Russia.
-
- Nobody denies that. But you know that
what I just described is not the definition of the holocaust. And, this
is where the so-called revisionists sharply part ways with Lipstadt, and
all the zionist spear carriers. It is not enough that the Jews were murdered
in the same manner as all the other victims of the third Reich. Jewish
death must be the subject of special veneration. Thus, the high priests
of the holocaust insist that the holocaust theology rests on a tripod of
three specific allegations. Those allegations, (premises,) are as follows:
-
- First, the German government, in World
War II, established a national policy to deliberately, and intentionally
exterminate a race of people known as the Jews. In other words, the German
government formally established a policy of genocide toward the Jews.
The end result of this government policy was allegedly the extermination
of six million people.
-
- Second, to accomplish this monstrous
task the German government used mass execution facilities in the form of
cyanide gas chambers.
-
- Third, to dispose of the bodies, and
thus the evidence of the crime, the German government cremated the victims.
-
- In essence, the theology of the holocaust
demands that the world accept unconditionally that the Germans constructed
nothing less than "Death Factories" which they used to both murder
and incinerate millions of people.
-
- The first premise, I admit, raises issues
that are very problematic. I have never seen any evidence, real or circumstantial,
of a conscious decision by any German official to initiate a program of
genocide against the Jews. This was allegedly to have occurred at the
"Wansee" Conference, but that is all that I have "heard."
I have, on the other hand, heard of documents like the "Schlegelberger
Memo" which appears to be exculpatory and thus supports an opposite
conclusion. But I would be the first to agree that this issue is hardly
resolved. An easy answer is that there is nothing in writing and no evidence,
either incriminatory or exculpatory.
-
- The argument from the holocaust lobby
is that the Germans did not want to leave any written evidence of their
crimes. I consider this unlikely knowing the German proclivity for following
procedure. They are compulsive record keepers and pathologically "followed
orders."
-
- The Russians can attest to this since
they recently released the records they captured intact at Auschwitz.
They are very detailed records and very thorough. According to the Russians,
about seventy thousand people died, from all causes, at Auschwitz. According
to the International Red Cross about 300,000 people died in ALL the camps
combined. Seems to be a difference of opinion here. However, I would
be the first to agree that arguing over the numbers of victims is, in
my view, both a diversion and a false issue----an issue that can never
be resolved. And, the results of such an argument are both outrageous
and ludicrous. If you prove that the Germans only murdered one million
people, is it any less of a holocaust? Obviously not.
-
- The second premise is where things get
difficult for me, because the second premise is about what the Germans
actually did rather than what everyone says they did. When I was a little
boy I was taught the litany of horrors. I learned in the most solemn
tones of the ashtrays made from Jewish skulls, lampshades from Jewish skin,
and soap from Jewish fat. I remember vividly, my Grandmother telling me,
with absolute seriousness, that the Germans had built a soap factory at
Buchenwald. And, then there was the medical experiments and the bayonet
practice etc. etc. I could go on, but you get the idea. I once asked
how do we know these horrific things actually happened. "Well, it
was in the newspapers." Oh!! Okay. But of course, all of these
"truths" were later found to be monstrous lies. Wow! Is it
any wonder why people have stopped reading newspapers. I mean what can
you believe? Not even Elie Weisel mentions these whoppers. (You have got
to love that name.) Speaking of Elie, in his book "NIGHT" ( Kind
of a dramatic title for a book don't you think?) he implied very strongly
that the preferred method of execution was burning people alive in ditches.
You have to admit that is pretty special. Of course that particular
horror was also proven to be "an exaggeration."
-
- Then, in high school I was taught, again
in the most solemn tones, of the massacre of thousands of Polish army
officers in the Katyn Forrest. Again, it was those evil Germans who did
it. Admittedly, this is not part of the Jewish holocaust, but I mention
it here because it is part of the pantheon of great lies that have come
out of WWII. There seems to be a pattern here. And I hasten to add that
men, German officers, were actually put to death at Nuremberg for this
crime. But, I digress. The truth? Well, the Russians, Mr. Gorbachev
himself, confessed to this crime. It was the Bolsheviks that actually
murdered over 25,000 Polish officers in the Katyn Forrest. The Bolsheviks
did it the old fashioned way--- a bullet in the back of the head. The
Bolsheviks were pretty good at that sort of thing. (While we are on the
subject of genocide have you ever noticed that the prostitute media never
mentions the 13 million people murdered in Russia by the Bolsheviks?)
Of course, Gorby had no choice but to admit this crime, since the forensic
pathologists and ballistic experts had already figured this out. Can you
believe it? There is a difference between German bullets and Russian bullets.
-
- And the gas chambers? I think you would
agree that the so-called gas chambers are the sine qua non of the holocaust.
Without them, there is NO holocaust. This is where Fred Leuchter comes
into the picture. As you know, he was a consultant and expert witness
in the Zundel trial. (Held in Canada.)
-
- Mr. Leuchter is supposed to be an expert
in executions by toxic gas and has actually built gas chambers. I guess
it takes all kinds. Mr. Leuchter went over to Auschwitz and examined
the so-called gas chambers and testified at the Zundel trial that not only
was there no cyanide gas ever used in these buildings, but it would have
been fatal to everyone concerned, including the executioners, if cyanide
gas were ever used in these facilities.
-
- Apparently, that hydrocyanic gas is pretty
nasty stuff. It leaves indelible stains on everything it comes in contact
with. The chemists call it "Prussian Blue." Go figure. And
then it is so corrosive that it will eat through just about anything.
Believe me, when that stuffs leak out of your gas chamber it can ruin your
whole day---and most of next week. I would have never guessed it, but
just building a gas chamber to safely contain cyanide gas is a daunting
task. It requires extensive engineering and expertise. I know you disparage
the credibility of Mr. Leuchter, but his findings have been corroborated
by others more than once. (Yes, I admit this is not the kind of revelation
you will ever see either on CBS or read in the evening newspaper. )
-
- Mr. Germar Rudolf comes to mind. He
is a chemist, and graduate of the Max Planck Institute. But, we can't
talk to Mr. Rudolf. Because of his heresy, he is now in solitary confinement
in a German jail....hmmmmm. Something about "disparaging the dead!"
My God, not even George Orwell could have made this up.
-
- There may be a very logical explanation
why Leuchter, Rudolf and others could not find the telltale chemical stains
in the Auschwitz "gas chamber."
-
- According to the recent admission by
one of the curators at Auschwitz, the gas chamber at Auschwitz was built
AFTER WWII. (This is not the first time this hapened.) It was built by
the Russians. I wonder why the Russians would do that? Do you think it
might have something to do with the fact that Jewish Bolsheviks were in
control of Poland and Russia at the end of WWII??? Then again, maybe Mr.
Leuchter had the wrong gas chamber.
-
- Regarding the third premise, there is
no doubt that there were crematoriums at the camps. People died and the
bodies had to be disposed of. I never thought much about this allegation
until I learned that it takes anywhere from three to six hours at two and
half thousand degrees Fahrenheit to incinerate a human body. And that
process only consumes the flesh. The bones are left and have to be crushed.
Whew!!!! Those bodies are really tough to get rid of. But, according
to the theology of the holocaust, we are told that millions of bodies went
up in smoke at Auschwitz, Treblinka, Dachau etc.
-
- Now consider this: Germany was so desperate
for gasoline and diesel fuel in WWII they had to synthesize fuels out of
coal and natural gas. Coal was more precious than gold. Possessing it
was the difference between life and death. And yet, we are asked to believe
that the Germans, fighting for their national existence, consumed billions
of cubic feet of gas to incinerate literally millions of people. I know
that this is argument. And, I realize that this point is simply impossible
to prove one way or another. What I am saying is that the premise on
its face is logically absurd and casts considerable doubt on the whole
story.
-
-
- So, at least one of the legs of the tripod
(the second) has been severely damaged, and the other two are showing signs
of severe stress. I think you would agree, that If either one of these
legs collapses, (especially the part about gas chambers,) then the holocaust
becomes myth to be relegated to the dustbin of history. So much of the
holocaust story has been shown to be lies. I think you can understand
why people all over the world are beginning to suspect that maybe the
holocaust is really just another wartime lie created for political and
economic advantage. I, of course, have serious doubts.
-
- As a student of history I have read Churchill's
six volume tome "The Second World War." (I have the set in my
library.) The last volume "Triumph and Tragedy" was copyrighted
in 1951, and published in 1953----eight years after the end of WWII and
almost eleven years after the so-called Wansee conference, which establishment
historians claim was the formal commencement of the Holocaust. This publication
is considered to be a definitive history of WWII. It was, of course,
written by Winston Churchill, the prime minister of England during WWII.
He was not only one of the most prominent historical figures of the
twentieth century, but was clearly "on the inside "of every
major event in WWII.
-
- Now, keep that thought in mind. Can
there be any doubt that the holocaust, according to establishment historians,
is the defining moment in the history of WWII? Yet, there is not one
single word about this crime against humanity in any of the six volumes
written by Winston Churchill.
-
- I have not read General Eisenhower's
book "Crusade for Europe," but, I have spoken with people who
have read it. And again, I am told, not one word about the holocaust.
Charles Degaulle, in his works, neglected to do the same thing. Very
strange.
-
- Then we have a subject that is very near
and dear to my heart ---- the prisoners of conscience. Men have been beaten
nearly to death, some in fact murdered, and quite a few others incarcerated
in European jails for committing the heresy of either doubting or questioning
the theology of the holocaust. This not only offends me deeply but it
raises my suspicions. Only liars, tyrants, and people who have something
to hide, would do such a thing. If the truth of the holocaust is so well
established then the controversy over the holocaust WOULD HAVE BEEN PUT
TO REST A LONG TIME AGO. You do not attack ideas that offend you with
violence. You attack them with other ideas, facts, and evidence. This
is an Hegelian process and, I assure you, ultimately the truth will come
out. If history has taught us anything it is this: There is nothing
more powerful than an idea whose time has come.
-
- You and I both know why this issue has
become so important at this time in world history. But, in case you don't
let me spell it out for you.
-
- This is about LIES. Is there any doubt
that the history of the twentieth century rests upon a foundation of one
monstrous lie after another? All the great lies of WWII are slowly being
revealed one by one for what they are and people all over the world are
learning the real reasons for fighting that awful global war.
-
- In fact, lies are at the root cause of
every war fought by the USA in the last 100 years. Is the current "Gulf
War"in Iraq any different? Would it serve any useful purpose to list
the sea of lies propagated by the prostitute media? Today, once again,
the world stares into the abyss. We are on the cusp of World War Three,
and this war will undoubtedly go thermal-nuclear.
-
- Of course, if you are, as I suspect,
one of those people who call themselves Christian-Zionist, then you probably
think it would be just peachy to have a thermal nuclear war in which millions
of people will die -- preferably Arabs and Muslims, of course. How does
it go? After we have Armageddon, (that is the best part) then we have
the antichrist, then the tribulation, then the rapture etc.,etc. Is that
about right? After all, who would Jesus bomb?
-
- So, let me get to the point. It is the
international Zionists and their goal of creating "greater Israel"
that are driving the world into an expanding war in the middle east. This
point is not debatable. So don't bother to try. It is the existence of
the holocaust that provided the so-called "moral imperative"
for the establishment of the State of Israel.
-
- It is the belief in the holocaust, that
provides the "moral cover," the "automatic absolution,"
for zionist atrocities committed against whoever happens to get in their
way. And when the bombs start falling on Iran, the zionists, and their
allies, the christian nutcase dispensationalists, those people who accept
the holocaust as an article of faith, will undoubtedly seek cover under
the protective mythology of the holocaust.
-
- The message, which will emanate throughout
the world from the prostitute media, will be as predictable as a broken
record: "To save Israel from an Iranian thermal nuclear attack Israel
had to attack first. We cannot afford another holocaust. Never Again!!!"
-
- That, Mr. Holland, is why we MUST ask
the question: what if the holocaust is just another great wartime lie conjured
up for power, profit and political advantage by people who had the means,
the method and the opportunity to do so?
-
- Before millions die for more lies, the
world must know the answer.
-
- ============
-
- ----- Original Message -----
-
- From: Doug Holland
- To: Thomas R. Ascher; William C. Carlotti
- Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 3:47
PM
- Subject: Re: statement by University
President
-
- What you "folks" don't seem
to understand...or want to acknowledge...is that these "debates"
have occurred...David Irving had his day in court..and was humiliated.
The IHR had the opportunity to present their "case" in court...and
they were exposed as a fraud. Artie Butz has been challenged to debates
in the past - Walter Peltz for example - and he has meekly declined.
-
- The comparison to the "debate"
between "intelligent design" and evolution shows a glaring lack
of understanding of the issue. There's a world of difference between
questioning HOW something happened versus, despite voluminous evidence
- source documentation, audio and video (including Himmler himself, ON
TAPE, discussing the deliberate slaughter of the Jews), testimony from
victim, liberator AND perpetrator, claiming something DIDN'T happen.
-
- The ADL and JDL aren't the problem for
the frauds who make up the dwindling ranks fo Holocaust "deniers."
The problem is that they accept a premise that's akin to saying that
the sky is blue because God colored it with food coloring. The problem
is that the burden of proof is on THEM to prove that the Holocaust DIDN'T
occur. Unlike Evolution, the Holocaust is not a "theory"...it's
a fact. There is infinitely more evidence of the Holocaust than of other
facts of history - including the horrific atrocities committed by Stalin
and Mao.
-
- It's not just that you're fighting a
losing battle. You're fighting an infinitely stupid one.
-
- =============
-
- Subject: Fw: Statement by University
President
-
- Dierdre:
-
- I was wondering how long it would take
for this fight to get to this point. Mr. Martin has made an excellent
and reasonable proposal. If the holocaust is a "well documented fact"
then a debate makes perfectly good sense. After all, what is there to
fear? It would give both sides the opportunity to either put up or shut
up. They must prove up their case. Of course you would first have to get
Mr. Irving, Mr. Rudolf, and Mr. Zundel out of jail. I am sure they would
want to testify.
-
- I would really like to hear what both
sides have to say. And I would like to see their evidence. That way we
can get this ugliness behind us. Better yet, why not format the debate
in the form of a trial, and televise it. Each side would get opening
statements. Each side could present its evidence. And then each side
would be cross examined by the other side. How exciting. Imagine the TV
ratings. And really, is this not what a university is all about? The FREE
interchange of ideas.......
-
- Oh yeah, if this is going to be done
it should be done soon. Because the day will probably come when just discussing
this subject (never mind arguing the issue) will be a felony----like it
is in Europe.
-
- Think this is going to happen???? Pigs
will fly to the moon before this ever occurs.
-
- ============
-
- ----- Original Message -----
-
- From: Deirdre
- To: Deirdre
- Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 4:52
PM
- Subject: Re: statement by University
President
-
- jack.martin1@xxxxxxx
-
- To: jack.martin1@xxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 16:04:17 -0700
- Subject: Re: statement by University
President
- From: jack.martin1@xxxxxx
-
-
- The recent fuss over Professor Arthur
Butz's comments to the effect that the "Holocaust" is a hoax
seems to have excited much weeping and gnashing of teeth.
-
- Students at Northwestern University have
circulated a petition of protest and the university's president, Henry
S. Bienen has issued a statement in which he declares, inter alia, that
"there is no question that the Holocaust is a well-documented historical
fact." The issue seems to have greatly upset certain people at the
university, repeatedly, ever since Professor Butz's book, "The Hoax
of the Twentieth Century," was published some thirty years ago. And
yet the solution to the problem should be obvious to all. University President
Bienen averred that "there is no question that the Holocaust is a
well-documented historical fact."
-
- There certainly can be no question that
an enterprise of such magnitude as the alleged "Holocaust" would,
perforce, have left such an abundance of documentation and other evidence
as to leave absolutely no doubt whatsoever concerning its reality. Since
the matter is so disturbing to some and since these persons are so confident
of the correctness of their position on the question they should be more
than willing to agree to a proposal that should make the problem go away
once and for all. Shortly after Professor Butz's book first appeared, an
alumnus of the university made an offer to sponsor, at his expense, a debate
to take place at the university to consider the questions raised in that
book. A spokesman for the university promptly and adamantly declared that
no debate of that kind would be permitted. Perhaps that seemed a reasonable
response at the time. But since the problem has not gone away and has,
in fact, grown larger over the years, maybe it is now time to reconsider
such a proposition.
-
- Certainly those who have the truth on
their side have nothing to fear from such a debate and, in any case, no
one of integrity should have any objection to the truth of this or any
other matter being put under the light of scrutiny. If the truth is as
University President Bienen represents it, there should be no difficulty
in finding people on his faculty having sufficient competence to defend
that position - after all, the university does provide holocaust courses
so numerous as would leave any propoganda minister green with envy. Professor
Butz and/or other competent proponents of the contrary point of view should
be given a free hand to defend their position. If they are wrong, an open
debate will prove that conclusively, since, according to University President
Bienen, "there is no question that the Holocaust is a well-documented
historical fact".
-
- The revisionist position will, in such
case, be shown to be ridiculous and the matter will have been permanently
disposed of. Failure to conduct a debate of this kind either at Northwestern
or elsewhere will only result in the furtherance of the controversy which
will continue to grow and upset many until such time as it is decisively
dealt with through honest inquiry.
-
- Jack Martin
-
-
|
