Majorityrights Central > Category: That Question Again

Continuing my present passage of discourse war at the Telegraph, I am pleased to say a debate about the Holocaust has finally come about.  Some Jews are unhappy with me.  Would you credit it?

It is in the thread to a piece by some old soldier who bears the distinction of having broken into Auschwitz III.  He observes that:

The Jewish workers from Auschwitz III camp, sometimes called Monowitz, were expected to die on the job.

... which I think is right.  He talks about the “sweet, ghastly smell” from the crematoria of Auschwitz II, but only mentions gas chambers in terms of rumours. “I was disappointed with what I had learned from one trip,” he says at the end.

We are still waiting to learn.

by Alexander Baron

This is a challenge to all genuine skeptics who, unlike Michael Shermer, are prepared to confront Holocaust Revisionism with both an open mind and objectivity.

A brief introduction is necessary; I have been a Holocaust skeptic for a shade over thirty years, and a dedicated Revisionist since the 1990s. I have published two full length books on the so-called Holocaust, both of which can be downloaded free. (1)  I have also published a number of pamphlets and articles from a pro-Revisionist perspective. (2)

Eleven years ago I published a critique of Michael Shermer’s methodology, to which he did not deign to respond, or if he did, I didn’t hear about it. In my critique I alluded to the testimony of the Polish Jewess Sophia Litwinska regarding the alleged homicidal gas chamber at Auschwitz. This short dissertation is concerned both with her testimony and the evidence of another Jewess, Regina Bialek. It is my belief that any honest skeptic who confronts the testimony of these two vitally important witnesses will of necessity develop serious doubts about the existence of both the alleged Nazi extermination programme, and the veracity of all the claims made by other witnesses concerning the use of homicidal gas chambers to exterminate people en masse in any of the alleged Nazi extermination camps.

As confirmed skeptics I ask you to respond only with rational, clearly thought out, and logical arguments. Ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority or to emotion, hysteria, innuedo, name calling, righteous indignation, shaming language, smears with guilt by association, or simple ridicule, do not constitute rational argument, and are no substitute for it.

If you are able to refute the arguments I advance here, I await your response. If however you are not able to refute them, then common decency not to mention your professed commitment to historical and scientific truth demand that you acknowledge both that I am right, and that Shermer is wrong.

At the four links immediately below you will find four PDF files; these contain two documents. I had intended to combine them into one, but the smaller sizes make them easier to load, and you will if you wish be able to view two or more pages simultaneously easily with this layout.

WO 235/13, page 169
WO 235/13, page 172
WO 235/14, page 108
WO 235/14, page 109

READ MORE...

In 1975, when I turned twenty-four, I finally gave up the process of transforming perfectly innocent family cars into tortured scraps of metal and determined instead to pursue a career as a writer of some sort.  My parents were so pleased by this life-saving decision that they immediately bestowed upon me a portable typewriter, a Collins English Dictionary, and a Roget’s Thesaurus.  I’m not still clattering away at the keys of the typewriter.  But the dictionary and the Thesaurus I do still possess.

The Collins is the 1972 edition and, interestingly, this is its entry for a certain word beginning with “h”:

holo- (holo’-o) a combining form, fr, Gk. holos whole. Used in many derivatives,—holocaust (hol’-o-kawst) n. a burnt offering, the whole of being consumed by fire; hence wholesome sacrifice, destruction or slaughter

Notice anything missing?  Well, language evolves, as we all know, and with the wonder of the internet dictionaries go on-line.  Here is the on-line offering from Collins today:

holocaust
n

1. destruction or loss of life on a massive scale,

2. the Holocaust mass murder of the Jews in Europe by the Nazis (1940–45)
Greek holos whole + kaiein to burn

My dog-eared Roget is undateable since the front cover and fly page went missing I know not when.  But the index is still complete and lists the same two general definitions for the h-word, directing my attention to entry 991 for idolatry and 361 for killing, in that order.  The latter lists twenty-seven substantives for the act of killing, one of which is holocaust.

But like the Collins, Roget is also available today online, and lists thirteen much more lurid synonyms for holocaust.  So under mass extermination we find:

READ MORE...

Today I came across a curious study from the current issue of Nature.  It is none too pithily titled “Inbred decorated crickets exhibit higher measures of macroparasitic immunity than outbred individuals” and, as the name suggests, it is about these delicate little critters:

The jerusalem cricket

The abstract informs us that:

Inbreeding is assumed to have negative effects on fitness, including the reduced ability to withstand immune challenges. We examined the immunological consequences of inbreeding in decorated crickets, Gryllodes sigillatus, by comparing lytic activity, phenoloxidase (PO) activity, and encapsulation ability of crickets from eight inbred lines with that of crickets from the outbred founder population. Surprisingly, crickets from inbred lines had a greater encapsulation ability compared with crickets from the outbred population. We suggest that because inbred crickets have reduced reproductive effort, they may, therefore, have the option of devoting more resources to this form of immunity than outbred individuals.

But that’s not very interesting.  Something like this would be more appropriate:

Endogamy in European populations is frequently implied by hostile ethnic actors to be a producer of inbreeding depression.  Such depression might be expected to include a reduced immunological response to hostile minorities seeking control of the population’s destiny.  We compared immunological response in eight highly inter-related, monoracial populations with that in multiracial populations where exogamy is high.  Not surprisingly, members of the monoracial populations displayed greater levels of tradition, self-awareness and ethnocentrism.  We suggest that these are the immunological conditions from which said hostile minorities, in misrepresenting endogamy to their hosts, seek to free themselves. 

Further, we suggest that endogamy and, therefore, relatedness should be the guiding principle of all European populations in which discussions rage over how to deal with minorities.

This gentleman is Yevhen Alfredovych Chervonenko.  He is a minister in the Ukrainian government and a former mayor of Kiev.  He is, it appears, also a Jew.

In the video below, he is haranguing patriotic Ukrainians, large numbers of whom, it turns out, do not want to be immigrated to hell, and even fail to label a Ukrainian Ukraine as “Nazi”.  He does, of course.

The Nazism issue arose because a poll for a live TV debate addressing immigration asked respondees to choose from three labels to describe the desire to keep Ukraine for Ukrainians: “nationalism”, “patriotism” or “Nazism”.  The vast majority in both the east and west of the country chose “patriotism”, much to Chervonenko’s displeasure.

No one in the audience made the obvious historical connection.

Canadian readers might suck their teeth a little at the sight of native Ukrainians rejecting immigration.  But that’s only one more argument for the nationalist state.

I should just add that in his bio Chervonenko is described as a former racing driver.  But he seems only to have been a navigator in “international rallying” during the 80s (meaning buzzing about behind the Iron Curtain in Moskvitches and Ladas that must have been as chuckable as a blind stoat in a thunder storm).  Now, I have nothing against stoats, and nothing but admiration for navigators.  But I’m not sure that the boundless steppe requires quite the navigational sang froid as, say, the Ouninpohja.  Still, the man has chutspah.  There’s no denying that.

Hat tip to Green Arrow for airing the video.

The following is the opening only of a mammoth riposte to Jewish hate speech activism, originally published by Balder at Balder-org.  Read the whole post there.

“It’s a great privilege to introduce Mr. Bernard-Henri Lévy, who really is one of the most forthright, and one of the bravest ehm, spokesman for freedom of speech, here or anywhere, and eh, he will close this with a few minutes of, closing statement.”

With these words, the editor of the American newspaper ‘The New Yorker’, David Remnick, introduced a closing speech by the French/Jewish philosopher, which ended a, at this point, one hour and 20 minutes long debate at Columbia University about freedom of speech, among a panel consisting of 5 people and a studio audience.

Bernard-Henri Lévy - Deniers of the ‘olocost must be punished “all over the world.”
He thinks words can kill.

The discussion was hosted on January 26, 2010 by the Columbia-Paris Alliance Program and SIPA, in collaboration with the International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism.  Panel members were: David Remnick, Editor of the New Yorker (Jewish - moderator), Bernard-Henri Lévy, Author and French/Jewish Philosopher, Philippe Schmidt, Chairman of INACH and Vice-President of LICRA (Jewish), Professor Kent Greenawalt, Columbia Law School, Peter Awn, Director of Columbia’s Middle East Institute.

Contents (roughly - if you want to skip some of my rants):

Transscript of statements by Henri-Bernard Lévi
Transscript of short statement by Professor Kent Greenawald
Other participants
Go to the bottom of Balder’s original post for the full video, split into 23 segments

THE ‘OLOCAUST (& other genocides)

Before he delivered his expected grand finale, Mr. Bernard-Henri Lévy the famous French/Jewish philosopher, dedicated much of several his long-winded drawn out speeches, defending why some phenomenon he chose to call ‘holocaust-denial’, should be the only exception to freedom of speech. He quickly included “other genocides”.

The reason he gave, was in my view, more an expression of chutzpah, pilpul, or Jewish double speak, than a confirmation of the popular myth that Jews, and especially “French/Jewish philosophers”, are endowed with a greater than average intelligence.

...

I paid a return visit to the BNP section of British Democracy Forum today.  This section, with the Griffin-hating Nationalists Online and its antithesis, the nauseatingly loyal Home of the Green Arrow, is the mainstay of British Nationalist chatter on the net.

What I found on my visit to BDF today was a thread titled Definition of britishness? - your aims & goals which had been begun on 1st May by a lady named Valentina (whoops, Katerina).  She turns out to be an inquisitive Jew, which hardly surprised given that she served up a picture of British Nationalism as Nazism with, of course, a heavy helping of Holosauce on the side.  On page 8 of the thread I offered a novel corrective (using the name of a character from a treasured British film comedy of my childhood).

I wish I could say that the result was a passionate and dangerous, liberating exploration of the issue of ownership of discourse.  But no matter how I spelt it out, neither British nor Jewish Nationalist would take up the challenge.  All that happened, basically, was that the owner of BDF advised me through the in-house mail system:

You have received an infraction at British Democracy Forum.

Reason: Signature Rule Violation

The offence was “dragging threads off topic with your tedious Jew bashing.”

I wonder, sometimes, whether even nationalists (or nominal nationalists, at any rate) are too insensate to their own captivity to recognise the distant, weak light of freedom.