Sid Walker “Jewish… conspiratorial networks are increasingly winning out over - or swallowing up - their competitors”

[Michael Hogan]

Is there anyone participating in this thread that has read the sixth edition of Piper's Final Judgement?

[Len Colby]

1. On the question of Sid: It's not my business to speak for another member but Sid's post which created additional controversy here was:

Which network of individuals.....is so powerful and aggressive that it has enforced its PREFERRED HISTORICAL NARRATIVE in numerous jurisdictions on pain of imprisonment

I see this as simply stating that some jurisdictions have imprisoned holocaust deniers. It doesn't specifically state the holocaust never happened. Maybe Sid can clarify. The morality of jailing holocaust deniers can be debated ad nauseum. When analysing another's post, one should try not to display small parts from a sentence when the remainder lends meaningful context to the author's intent. This occurs too often on the Forum, IMO. On the remainder of Sid's points from post #2 on this thread: Well, there's a lot of big claims there. They are interesting claims but, while I have a feeling that the Israel lobby may be a little more pervasive on a global level than many would have us believe, I'm far from convinced that a global conspiracy exists on the scale alluded to by Sid

Mark you seem to be in denial of / willfully blind to the truth about (Sid) Walker and your ability rationalize his comments is quite remarkable.

That line about "preferred historical narrative" is not absolutely indicative of Holocaust denial but it's the kind of statement that raises a red flag because it implies that this is the "Jewish version" of something under dispute which is of course absurd. I notice that you didn't acknowledge his post on the other thread which I posted here. Your comment was (yet another) strawman because you ignored the strongest piece of evidence them claim that the case is inconclusive. Read what he wrote, then tell me if there really is any doubt in your mind. I doubt he will ever say outright that he doubts the Holocaust because he knows he would lose credibility but I don't see how else we can interpret his comments.

If you still aren't convinced you might find it illuminating to know that he was banned from a blog / forum in Australia for his continuous postings on Holocaust denial. Out of curiousity I googled "sid walker" +holocaust and the first site that came up was the blog of Irfan Yusuf aka Hamish called "Webdiary". Walker was a lot less coy there about his beliefs. I didn't spend a lot of time looking at the site but apparently he was quite persistent on the topic.

At one point Hamish finally had enough and wrote "it remains Webdiary policy that we do not publish material denying the atrocities of Hitler's Nazi regime, though anything published to date will stay. Sid, if you persist in wasting editors time by posting comments that you know are unacceptable, you will be banned." http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1134

To which Sid replied (in part) "But I'd also add that what the crimes of the Nazis actually were is at issue. One doesn't wish to be an apologist for anyone's crimes - but it is nice to be able to discuss them. Freely. How interesting that there's such a vicious campaign - in western society as a whole - to close down debate on that topic."

He finally got banned for posting this link, http://revisionists.com/ , on this page http://tinyurl.com/je4oo .

On the same page the blogger wrote "I have just banned Sid Walker. He has been warned many times, by Margo and myself"

Sid or one of his apologists could argue he had free speech rights violated but the people who run the blog have the right to run a forum free of what they consider offensive postings and he insisted on violating that right.

One poster had this reaction to his banning

"…there is nothing at all ironic about the remarks, or the link posted by Sid Walker. He has been talking in a not so subtle code for a long time. When everything seems to lead back to a conspiracy, with of course Jewish Involvement…Oh, and I think it is wrong to ban people like Sid, as repungant as I find the views. You are far better served to let them write, so everyone can see what they are."

2. Re Piper: ...he was... regularly attacked for his association with other groups or individuals. The basis for his theory on the assassination was rarely discussed. Against that, it should be noted that he did have the opportunity to address specific questions afforded to him by John Simkin, Jeff Dahlstrom, Pat Speer and myself, among others. His failure in this regard was disappointing. His sense of being the subject of unfair treatment may have caused this. I agree with Daniel that his anti-Semitic reputation diminishes his credibility on the assassination.

For Piper's entire career as a journalist he has worked for / been published by Willis Carto perhaps America's preeminent of anti-Semites, one of the fathers of Holocaust denial and one of the major players in the post WWII resurgence of the white supremacy movement in the US.

It was my impression he did want to engage in serious debate the evidence in the two chapters he posted was quite weak and circumstantial. As you note he had the chance to answer specific questions but passed it up, instead he fanned the flames by suggesting Jewish involvement various other conspiracies among other stunts. He also proved to be quite hypocritical saying something like "racism should be tolerated" yet he continues to work for Carto and hang out with Holocaust deniers, white supremacists etc. On a similar note, he condemned Deborah Lipstadt for supposedly saying Jews shouldn't intermarry but works along side Christopher Bollyn who agreed with his host while being interviewed by David Duke that interracial relationships were something deplorable foisted upon Americans by the "Jews who run Hollwood". True this has nothing to do with the assassination but indicates a strong bias and an inability to remain objective. For a researcher to take a book seriously they need to have confidence that the author is being straight with them otherwise they will need to check every source he cites and let's not forget that he wrote proudly about having committed intellectual fraud in his youth.

I would also add that while Piper's anti-Semitic reputation has a negative effect on his credibility, it could be argued that anyone who states that the Israeli Govt/Mossad had a role in the assassination is likely to be branded anti-Semitic from the start.

The Israelis weren't the only Jews he tied into the plot it also supposedly involved Bloomfeild and the Jewish mob. In one of the two chapters he posted he tried to tie in a few dozen prominent Jews from New Orleans and Dallas. He claimed that Meyer Lansky was the true head of the mob a claim I've never seen elsewhere.

[Len Colby]

Owen,

Thanks for the heads up. I will try and check the quote or find others...

Unfortunately, CAMERA are not really the org to convince me. They are as pro-israeli as AIPAC.

Do you have other sources?

Steve you've got the burden of proof backwards do you have a primary source indicating that he said that? Any evidence that CAMERA is not a reliable source (i.e. that thay report false information?

The points you raise are legitimate ones but they're a bit out of place here, perhaps you should start a new tread so as to not furthur confuse two seperate issues which are too confused already. Another option would be Owen's thread about America's policy towards Israel and the PLO.

Len

Edited July 22, 2006 by Len Colby

[Mark Stapleton]

1. On the question of Sid: It's not my business to speak for another member but Sid's post which created additional controversy here was:

Which network of individuals.....is so powerful and aggressive that it has enforced its PREFERRED HISTORICAL NARRATIVE in numerous jurisdictions on pain of imprisonment

I see this as simply stating that some jurisdictions have imprisoned holocaust deniers. It doesn't specifically state the holocaust never happened. Maybe Sid can clarify. The morality of jailing holocaust deniers can be debated ad nauseum. When analysing another's post, one should try not to display small parts from a sentence when the remainder lends meaningful context to the author's intent. This occurs too often on the Forum, IMO. On the remainder of Sid's points from post #2 on this thread: Well, there's a lot of big claims there. They are interesting claims but, while I have a feeling that the Israel lobby may be a little more pervasive on a global level than many would have us believe, I'm far from convinced that a global conspiracy exists on the scale alluded to by Sid

Mark you seem to be in denial of / willfully blind to the truth about (Sid) Walker and your ability rationalize his comments is quite remarkable.

That line about "preferred historical narrative" is not absolutely indicative of Holocaust denial but it's the kind of statement that raises a red flag because it implies that this is the "Jewish version" of something under dispute which is of course absurd. I notice that you didn't acknowledge his post on the other thread which I posted here. Your comment was (yet another) strawman because you ignored the strongest piece of evidence them claim that the case is inconclusive. Read what he wrote, then tell me if there really is any doubt in your mind. I doubt he will ever say outright that he doubts the Holocaust because he knows he would lose credibility but I don't see how else we can interpret his comments.

If you still aren't convinced you might find it illuminating to know that he was banned from a blog / forum in Australia for his continuous postings on Holocaust denial. Out of curiousity I googled "sid walker" +holocaust and the first site that came up was the blog of Irfan Yusuf aka Hamish called "Webdiary". Walker was a lot less coy there about his beliefs. I didn't spend a lot of time looking at the site but apparently he was quite persistent on the topic.

At one point Hamish finally had enough and wrote "it remains Webdiary policy that we do not publish material denying the atrocities of Hitler's Nazi regime, though anything published to date will stay. Sid, if you persist in wasting editors time by posting comments that you know are unacceptable, you will be banned." http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1134

To which Sid replied (in part) "But I'd also add that what the crimes of the Nazis actually were is at issue. One doesn't wish to be an apologist for anyone's crimes - but it is nice to be able to discuss them. Freely. How interesting that there's such a vicious campaign - in western society as a whole - to close down debate on that topic."

He finally got banned for posting this link, http://revisionists.com/ , on this page http://tinyurl.com/je4oo .

On the same page the blogger wrote "I have just banned Sid Walker. He has been warned many times, by Margo and myself"

Sid or one of his apologists could argue he had free speech rights violated but the people who run the blog have the right to run a forum free of what they consider offensive postings and he insisted on violating that right.

One poster had this reaction to his banning

"…there is nothing at all ironic about the remarks, or the link posted by Sid Walker. He has been talking in a not so subtle code for a long time. When everything seems to lead back to a conspiracy, with of course Jewish Involvement…Oh, and I think it is wrong to ban people like Sid, as repungant as I find the views. You are far better served to let them write, so everyone can see what they are."

2. Re Piper: ...he was... regularly attacked for his association with other groups or individuals. The basis for his theory on the assassination was rarely discussed. Against that, it should be noted that he did have the opportunity to address specific questions afforded to him by John Simkin, Jeff Dahlstrom, Pat Speer and myself, among others. His failure in this regard was disappointing. His sense of being the subject of unfair treatment may have caused this. I agree with Daniel that his anti-Semitic reputation diminishes his credibility on the assassination.

For Piper's entire career as a journalist he has worked for / been published by Willis Carto perhaps America's preeminent of anti-Semites, one of the fathers of Holocaust denial and one of the major players in the post WWII resurgence of the white supremacy movement in the US.

It was my impression he did want to engage in serious debate the evidence in the two chapters he posted was quite weak and circumstantial. As you note he had the chance to answer specific questions but passed it up, instead he fanned the flames by suggesting Jewish involvement various other conspiracies among other stunts. He also proved to be quite hypocritical saying something like "racism should be tolerated" yet he continues to work for Carto and hang out with Holocaust deniers, white supremacists etc. On a similar note, he condemned Deborah Lipstadt for supposedly saying Jews shouldn't intermarry but works along side Christopher Bollyn who agreed with his host while being interviewed by David Duke that interracial relationships were something deplorable foisted upon Americans by the "Jews who run Hollwood". True this has nothing to do with the assassination but indicates a strong bias and an inability to remain objective. For a researcher to take a book seriously they need to have confidence that the author is being straight with them otherwise they will need to check every source he cites and let's not forget that he wrote proudly about having committed intellectual fraud in his youth.

I would also add that while Piper's anti-Semitic reputation has a negative effect on his credibility, it could be argued that anyone who states that the Israeli Govt/Mossad had a role in the assassination is likely to be branded anti-Semitic from the start.

The Israelis weren't the only Jews he tied into the plot it also supposedly involved Bloomfeild and the Jewish mob. In one of the two chapters he posted he tried to tie in a few dozen prominent Jews from New Orleans and Dallas. He claimed that Meyer Lansky was the true head of the mob a claim I've never seen elsewhere.

You were going OK until you dropped the clanger about Meyer Lansky. If you say you've never heard Lansky's name mentioned as head of the mob, then you haven't seriously researched his career. Maybe you should start a thread on it and see how your belief about Lansky's insignificance travels.

Concerning the stuff about Sid Walker, you may have a case. When I get time I might look at some of your links, but I have other priorities at the moment. That's OK isn't it? I have a natural aversion to being told by others to denounce someone. It stinks of the old Soviet style communism or 50's style McCarthyism. I'll tell you what--when I start telling you who you must denounce, then you can start telling me.

Is there anyone participating in this thread that has read the sixth edition of Piper's Final Judgement?

Michael,

Yes, I have a copy of the sixth edition, which I have read. MCP sent it to me after his brief appearance on the Forum.

[Sid Walker]

I notice this thread has been busy – and I’m grateful to all moderators for providing the space for what is, I believe, an important discussion.

I’d also like to thank those participants who have made interesting points backed with ‘must-read’ references – and most importantly, have argued strongly for the principle of free speech.

While the subject matter under discussion - both historical and contemporary - is important in its own right, I believe free speech IS the key issue here.

On numerous occasions in the run up to the Iraq Invasion of 2003, mainstream commentators and politicians referred to the experience of the 1930s, urging us not to repeat the mistakes of Chamberlain’s “Appeasement”. So, we should reflect on the past and its contemporary relevance. That’s one reason, in my opinion, why this forum occasionally sports excellence. It serves a cluster of well-informed participants with an interest in both past and present – and allows discussion to roam across both.

Now, please bear with me while I develop a line of thought…

There are a lot of Zionists in the world, and many of them hold quite different views about many things.

All believe there should be some manner of Jewish State in the Holy Land (they are Zionists, after all) but there are many differences within Zionist ranks.

Some abhor and criticize the way Israel has treated the Palestinians and responded to their opposition. Others do not.

Some believe that Israel should take a more conciliatory line towards Palestinians – others do not.

Some believe that Palestinians are an ‘inevitable enemy’ because their culture has become poisoned by terrorist ideology – others do not.

Some believe that Palestinians are genetically inferior – others do not.

Some believe that non-Jewish people should enjoy equal rights within Israel – others do not.

Some believe that Palestinians are part of an ‘Axis of Evil’ that extends across the Arab/Moslem world – others do not.

Some believe that Palestinians are inherently dangerous because of their (mostly) Moslem religion – others do not hold this view.

Some believe that Palestinians smell bad. Other’s don’t.

Some deny th4e existence of a ‘Palestinian people’. Other’s don’t.

Some believe that Palestinians mainly left the Holy Land voluntarily in 1948 – others believe that they were driven from the land.

And so on, and so forth.

I happen to disagree with all of these folk in one key respect, because I don’t believe there should be a ‘Jewish’ State in the Holy Land at all. I hold the view that there should be a single, pluralistic State in that region, with a one-person one-vote democracy – at least as long as the rest of the world is organized into nation States as well. A distinctively ‘Jewish’ State, in my opinion, was a great mistake and it increasingly appears that there are going to be serious dangers and problems for the world as a whole as long as it persists. In that respect, I agree with the Iranian President. Israel should be “removed from the pages of history” (to translate the Farsi more accurately than the mischievously incorrect translation “wiped off the map” – see HERE)

Such notable intellects as the late and lamented Edward Said held this same view. Today, in my opinion, Israel Shamir expounds it most articulately. It was the majority view in international Jewry itself until the middle of the 20th century. Some orthodox and secular Jews hold the same anti-Zionist view to this day.

Back to the varying views of Zionists. I agree with some of them to some extent. I vehemently disagree with others.

To give a couple of obvious examples, I agree with those Zionists who believe the Palestinians should get a (much) better deal) in respect of that particular view. It doesn’t mean I agree with everything else they say – I don’t!

I disagree with those Zionists who believe that Palestinians are genetically or ‘spiritually’ inferior when compared to Jews. I think they are completely wrong about that. I may also disagree with them about lots of other topics – yet still be able to find some areas of common ground. We might both agree, for instance, that Jerusalem is a beautiful city. I believe that in some cases, even such limited agreement can be an important basis on which to build dialogue.

I would not seek to ban the free expression of ANY of these views. They all, in my opinion, deserve an airing, however much I dislike them.

What about views I find both irrational and obnoxious? Why not seek to ban them? How about banning expression of the view that Palestinians are genetically and / or spiritually inferior to Jews. How about banning the view that Palestinians (and Arabs in general) are pre-disposed to ‘terrorism’?

The reason IS reason. Let's call it The Enlightenment 101.

Although, in my opinion, some views are plain silly and do not stand up to scrutiny if fairly considered, I am confident that the evidence will weigh against them – and that in a fair public debate, the truth will out. As I really do believe what I claim to believe – I have enough confidence to put it through the scrutiny of open debate.

But what if, in open, fair and rational debate, the proposition that Palestinians are genetically inferior to Jews began (unexpectedly) to gain ascendancy? Would I then support censoring these views – views that I find not only deeply unpleasant, but also believe could be ‘dangerous’ in the sense that they appear to be gaining ground and may be used to justify discriminatory policies of which I disapprove?

The Enlightenment tradition says no. I should not seek to censor these beliefs, however obnoxious I find them. Truth is truth. In the unlikely event that these propositions are accurate, better we all know all we can about the topic and deal with the consequences.

Of course, the concept of truth and its relationship to belief is complex. For one thing, majority beliefs on different issues can and do change over time. Perhaps the real question is how to maximize the prospect that truth-based beliefs will prosper over time?

Socrates and his intellectual successors claim that the answer is through full, open and fair debate. Such debate offers the best chance that the community will discover the truth, in time, later if not sooner. Of course the majority view at any one time may be incorrect – and that may become apparent in a future time. But free, open and fair debate is not only most likely to lead to the truth being recognized in the present. It also provides the best safeguard that mistaken majority beliefs will be corrected as time goes by.

I accept there is an alternative view – the view that people cannot be trusted to know the truth about certain matters and the consequential view that free and open debate about these matters should not be permitted. But I strongly disagree with that view.

As soon as one entertains the view that censorship is necessary in relation to certain topics – one must accept the need for censors. But who is to do decide what’s banned – and on what basis?

Once the expression of certain beliefs is made a criminal (or banning) offence, a further step looms. Discussion about the very basis on which the offending views are banned must also be prohibited– lest the banned beliefs be voiced within that discussion. This is no theoretical imagining. It’s actual practice in various trials underway in Germany this very year, most notably the trials of Ernst Zundel and Germar Rudolf, both deported from the USA to face trial for their beliefs in a land where those beliefs are illegal (without a murmur, as I recall, from Amnesty International). In Zundel’s case, his chosen defense lawyer was banned from the court – and even risked imprisonment – for attempting to explain her client’s beliefs to the Court and argue their rationality. His beliefs are viewed, under current German law, as inherently indefensible. Truth is no defense. This is downright Kafkaesque. Not only are historical views subject to legal sanction - one may not even seek to explain or justify them!

I’ve tried to establish why I would never try to censor the views of any Zionists – even those with whom I disagree. I agree with Voltaire. I might loathe views, but I defend the right of others to articulate them. I trust that the truth will out – in full and fair debate. I welcome knowing the truth and don’t believe that I – or my fellow citizens – should be shielded from it. Now I’ll go further. If someone seeks to censor information or views, it makes me suspicious. Why seek to ban debate on topics over which – they claim - the truth is blatantly obvious?

I’d like to consider the reverse case.

Non Zionists and anti-Zionists also hold a plethora of beliefs and opinions. Some think the middle east is a never-ending source of strife and trouble; others don’t. Some believe in UFOs. Others don’t. Some believe in global Jewish conspiracies. Others don’t. Some believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. Others don’t. Some believe the current official narrative of Jewish suffering during the Second World War. Others don’t. Some believe that the Chinese are the greatest threat to world peace – others disagree. Some claim that England should have won the 2006 World Cup. Others don’t. And so on and so forth…

I’ve deliberately mixed up a few beliefs there, some of which may seem ludicrous, some upsetting, some bizarre, others irrelevant or trivial. Some topics may seem unworthy of discussion on the grounds that the truth, in that case, is ‘obvious’. But which topics – and who decides? On what rational basis should one take the decision not only to disparage a belief – but to seek to ban it?

A general strategy employed by Zionists, in my experience, having observed the functioning of several politically oriented internet forums and keeping an eye on media from several western countries, is to sew division in the ranks of opponents. It makes sense to do this if one’s key goal is to promote a given version of the truth as opposed to ascertaining the truth. Sadly, I have found that trait to be true of most of the Zionists I have encountered in cyberspace and elsewhere.

The key thing has been establishing that some views are utterly and totally beyond the pale, There appear to be two of these at present – but in theory at least, the list may vary over time. The first is doubt about the veracity of the current official narrative of Jewish suffering during World War Two. The second is belief that Jewish power and influence within key sectors of the economy such as the mass media is disproportionate and that collusion occurs between powerful Jewish individuals and between some Jewish organizations such as AIPAC, the ADL and The Mossad..

Anyone who expresses these beliefs is portrayed as a willful purveyor of lunatic and malicious falsehoods. It is typically alleged that because they raise questions the answer to which is already ‘obvious’ - and because their only possible motive for doing so is irrational hatred - they should be excluded from mainstream discussion, including many internet forums. It is often further alleged, by way of explanation, that these ‘deniers’ must be Nazis, or more accurately ‘neo-Nazis’, because only individuals on the far right wing of politics, with a fondness for white supremacism, hold these views (although the pesky Moslems and Arabs are increasingly catching the ‘disease’).

I deny these propositions. I don’t believe they are true. Furthermore, I believe they are used, systematically and repeatedly, to exclude many critics of Zionism and entire subject areas from mainstream discussion. This has served the Zionist cause well – but has distorted and caused damage to the discourse of the community as a whole. It has led to grave injustices. Perhaps worst of all, it has created a false ‘center’ for public opinion, by shifting the argument towards the Zionist cause. If perceived pro-Zionist extremism is permitted and openly expressed, but perceived anti-Zionist extremism is banned and hounded out of the public domain, the ‘center of gravity’ of the debate shifts in a Zionist direction. Nice trick.

The strategy employed by Zionist also makes use of the principle of “guilt by association”.

It’s not just a matter of removing someone like Michael Collins Piper – from mainstream discourse on the basis of his alleged ‘neo-Nazi’ tendencies. (His books are never reviewed by the mainstream media. He’s never gets invitations to be a TV talking head. He is harassed on talkboards such as this).

If someone like Sid Walker quotes Mr Michael Collins Piper in Sid’s posts, and refuses to disown MCP when allegations of “anti-Semitism”, “neo-Nazism” etc are made against him – well then, Sid must be an anti-Semite and neo-Nazi also. And if someone like Mr Mark Stapleton stands up for Sid he might want to watch his step as well.

I object to this approach on several levels. First, “guilt by contamination” is a false principle. I may support some of the views of a neo-Nazi (or a Zionist, Communist, Mormon or Atheist) but disagree with others. If I cite – or stand up for – another person, it doesn’t mean I share all their views.

Second, even if we were discussing Hitler (and he, most assuredly, was a real Nazi), I should be able to support some of his views without being branded a Nazi. The simple equation Nazi = Evil was useful war propaganda, but that war is over. Historians need to do better than sort the characters of the past into goodies and baddies, heroes and villains. History was more complex. Hitler may well have done some very bad things in his life, as did Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin. But do we really need to make constant, almost mechanical reference to the fact that we loathe and detest him – like witches issuing ritual curses? Should we feel scared about ever making positive comments about some of the things he did, if we believe we’re speaking the truth? After all, if we’re wrong in making those comments, the truth will out in free, open and fair debate, won’t it?

This approach to argumentation – entailing villainization of certain views combined with guilt by association - offers fantastic possibilities for silencing whole areas of thought. I submit it has been used in this way by Zionists, quite ruthlessly and for a long period of time.

Well, I, for one, refuse to play this game any more. I won’t play by those rules. I will listen to – and read – any sources I choose. I’ll do so without apology. I’ll make up my own mind – then try to speak the truth as best I understand it. I need no “free pass” or “permission” from Zionists or anyone else to do that, and I’m disgusted by the arrogance of Zionists who believe they have a right to grant or withhold such permission.

For reasons I gave in one of my first posts in this forum, I believe the entire notion of “anti-Semitism” an absurd and mischievous misnomer. Now I also want to say that the notion of ‘Holocaust Denial’ is also a deliberate attempt for strategic reasons to create a false category. It is a loaded expression, used as a tool used by Zionist strategists (and their dupes, Zionist and non-Zionist) to stifle discussion about what really happened in World War Two and to disallow reconsideration of events that might undermine simple equations we’ve all learnt by heart from childhood.

I refer to equations such as Nazi = Evil, Hitler = The Devil Incarnate, The Axis = Bad, The Allies = Good, Germans = Elected a Maniac, Jews = Suffering Victims. It’s not that any of these propositions are wholly untrue. They may have elemtns of truth and elements of falsehood. Real historians would be concerned about these nuances. Historians under pressure from Zionist orthodoxy tend to overlook them, for the sake of their careers if for no other reason.

But, I hear some exclaim, the Nazis WERE ultimate evil. Hitler WAS the most evil man ever.

That’s arguable, in my opinion - and should be open to free and unfettered argument. After all, it was American-made nuclear bombs dropped under the orders of an American president that unleashed a nuclear holocaust on Japan, on two separate days in 1945. The Germans, by contrast, in World War Two, eschewed the use of WMDs. It was the British who systematically bombed German cities with ‘conventional weapons’, causing vast numbers of civilian casualities – on a scale far greater than any bombing campaigns conducted by the Luftwaffe. In World War Two, German and Russian lives lost were measured in ten digits – considerably more than the six million claim for Jewish deaths.

The belief that HITLER = UNADULTERATED EVIL mainly draws its strength from the official narrative of Jewish suffering in World War Two. Because Hitler (is alleged to have) ordered the death of millions of Jews – and because he and his followers (allegedly) used gas chambers to carry out this genocidal act – the equation is seen to be correct, inevitable and essential. A moral necessity, indeed! The Allies (Goodies) may have killed lots of people, and some if it wasn’t pretty and involved civilian deaths on massive scale, but they were justified acts of war incidental to the Allies War Effort. The deliberate destruction of Jews for no other reason than that they were Jews, however, was of a different nature. A conscious act of racist genocide!

Now, one might wonder why the Red Cross, which had access to concentration camps such as Auschwitz, apparently never reported on this genocidal frenzy at the time. One might wonder about the logistics and the seeming lack of forensic evidence for mass killings on that scale. One may wonder about the apparent gap, in the archival records, which I understand have failed to turn up any evidence of direct orders from the Fuhrer to carry out the mass gassing of Jews.

But of course, there’s first hand testimony, including testimony from the Nazis themselves at the Nuremburg Trials.

Indeed there was – and now I’ll explain why I use the term “current official narrative of Jewish suffering in World War Two” is more appropriate than The Holocaust (a term that, when I was a boy, was most often associated with the dreaded prospect of nuclear holocaust).

Nazis - such as the former Commandant of Auschwitz - admitted to many things at Nuremburg. They admitted to genocidal gas chambers, slaughtering millions of Jews, and they often sought to pass the blame up the chain of command.

Interestingly, they also admitted to things that now are not part of the current “official narrative of Jewish suffering in World War Two”. There was a confession, for instance, that fat from Jewish corpses was used by the Germans to make soap. The story persisted for some time. I recall being told of this horror in the 1960s.

In 1981, Deborah Lipstadt, who serves these days as one of the chief custodians of orthodoxy for the current official narrative of Jewish suffering in World War Two, wrote that the Jewish soap story had no basis in fact at all. In other words, it had been invented. So much for the reliability of Nuremburg testimony! One might wonder if perchance prisoners were pressurized into making false statements? Tortured? Threats to family? Perish the thought! Brits and Americans would surely never do that!

Here’s another reason why “current” needs to be welded to the term “official narrative of Jewish suffering in World War Two”, a narrative which has been amended over time, inclkuding incoprorpationn of the term 'Holocaust' itself decades after the event…

Around 1990, the official tally of deaths at Auschwitz was reduced by more than half. Millions of deaths were simply sliced off the official figure. Yet as far as I know, the has been no subsequent change to the orthodox figure of “six” million Jewish deaths. As most of the people allegedly slaughtered at Auschwitz allegedly were Jews, how can this be?

I don’t claim – and as I understand their position, I don’t believe that imprisoned Revisionists such as David Irving, Ernst Zundel and Germar Rudolf claim - that the current official narrative of Jewish suffering in World War Two is wholly and utterly bogus. Not at all. There were clearly many Jews sent to concentration camps by the Nazis because they were Jews. A lot of Jews experienced great suffering and many died. Hitler and the Nazi Party had strong anti-Jewish sentiments. Of these matters, there appears to be no dispute.

Yet in a growing number of jurisdictions, it is illegal to question the number of Jewish deaths, the causes of Jewish deaths and Hitler’s genocidal intent. Raising questions on these topics and expressing views about them that do not conform to current orthodoxy is routinely used as sufficient grounds for banning participants from many discussion boards on the internet – forums that in other subject areas have a strong commitment to free speech.

Why should that be – if the current official official narrative of Jewish suffering in World War Two has such a secure factual foundation?

So much for World War Two (and may we never, ever participate in such colossal mass slaughter again – a real holocaust for tens of millions of people of many creeds, ethnic origins and political affiliations!)

Turning now to the topic of Jewish power, influence and collusion – the other ‘no-go’ area proscribed by Zionists and their dupes…

It stands to reason, we’re informed, that there’s nothing to see here. Move along please!

Since World War, playing on fears of a Nazi revival and mass guilt over Jewish suffering during World War Two, the topic has been chased out of public discourse, especially on the left. The argument ran something like this. Nazis believed that… didn’t they? Therefore, only crazed Nazis now raise questions about Jewish power, influence and collusion.”

The other tactic often used to stifle debate about this topic is setting up a straw man. It’s asserted that because the person raising these questions is indubitably “anti-Semitic” (virulently and irrationally anti-Jewish), they also believe that every Jewish person can’t be liked or trusted and is part of the alleged Grand Jewish Conspiracy.

Just for the record, that’s not what I believe.

Apart from anything else, some of the most articulate whistleblowers on this subject are of Jewish origin. Isarel Shamir (whose very mention so offends poor Owen’s sensibilities) is one of these. Jeffrey Blankfurt, Gliad Atzmon and Paul Eisen are others - fine intellects with penetrating analyses of the contemporary world, who confirm that there is indeed something here to discuss that’s important to our common future.

The truth, in my opinion, if far more complex than the “Great Jewish Conspiracy” straw man created by Zionist strategists and their dupes – but that straw man is useful to ridicule and marginalize the growing view that a ruthless elite, centering around but not limited to Jewish Zionists, is taking the whole world for a very bumpy ride.

Today in Counterpunch I read a remarkable mea culpa by Tom Hayden which has some bearing on this discussion. I’ll provide a link to it HERE. It seems a fitting way to end this lengthy post.

________

A final note. I try not to be unecessarily offensive, and realise that some people may take offence at my use of the term 'dupes' in this post. Perhaps I could have found a kinder word?

Happily, I believe the condition is not terminal. I was one such dupe myself, until quite recently. Now I'm not. I won't shout down others to enforce beliefs I haven't fully researched, understood or critiqued on behalf of a third party whose full agenda I do not comprehend.

Why we, the inheritors of Western Civilisation, should discard a glorious intellectual heritage that has survived at least 2,500 years, a tradiition of respect for free discusssion and open inquiry, is beyond me. I look forward to a time when the very idea of it will seem preposterous and any proposal to do so seem outlandish and offensive.

Edited July 22, 2006 by Sid Walker

[Steve Rymer]

Len,

Your points are valid. However, Owen's CAMERA source is no more valid than any other and is the primary source for the hoax claim, but as stated I will attempt to find other references.

As for your second point:

The points you raise are legitimate ones but they're a bit out of place here, perhaps you should start a new tread so as to not furthur confuse two seperate issues which are too confused already. Another option would be Owen's thread about America's policy towards Israel and the PLO

I thought my post was relevant to the discussion topic. I was attempting to raise the issue of disproportionate influence amongst Western politicans by Israel - one of the points raised by Sid.

His use of the word 'conspiritorial' in his original heading was unfortunate and has slightly derailed the topic. If he re-worded it as simple Israeli influence, we may not be discussing some of the side issues which have arisen. Yes, it's conspiratorial in nature, as are all objectives involving groups of people executing action plans, but the use of the word has now been co-opted and corrupted to discredit people.

[Sid Walker]

This is in reply to Daniel Wayne Dunn's post in this thread (post no 9)

QUOTE

Suggest to me which other network of individuals, self-identifying as an 'in-group', plays a key role in international finance, the western/international mass media, entertainment and publishing industries - and international organized crime?

This is a specific claim that we have to assume is meant to indicate Jewish people as the "network of individuals, self-identifying as an 'in-group,'" right? No need to cite evidence here, as it is generally well-known that Jewish Americans have indeed risen to play key roles in American and global society; probably has a lot to do with education and "drive" (a result of having to co-exist in hostile territory as a major "out-group" within western societies). Jewish Americans have, admittedly, had one extraordinary advantage in their favor: they are white folks.

OK. We are agreed, then, it seems, on what I regard as the most important ‘plank’ of my overall case. Without very substantial power within - and an element of co-ordination between - these sectors, a conspiracy on the scale I believe occurred in the case of the assassination of JFK and 9-11 would have been impossible. Participants operating within other sectors – such as the “intelligence services” must also have been involved. With enough cash – and a free pass from scrutiny by the mass media – one imagines many of these additional participants can be bought and paid for.

QUOTE

Which other network of individuals, self-identifying as an 'in-group', contributes a decisive proportion of campaign donations to both major US political parties and is both feared and revered by most members of Congress?

No need to cite evidence here, but obviously (at least to many Americans) this same observation applies to a large range of networks of individuals, "self-identifying as an 'in-group,'" who do the same thing---it's called buying influence, and it works extremely well for all but the majority of Americans. Given a choice, though, I would much prefer Jewish Americans buying influence rather than the NRA or any number of conservative lobbies buying influence; because at least Jewish people have been shown to actually have some human values to work with and some rationality to reason with. That can't be said for most conservative lobbies.

I believe you greatly understate the policy impact of such a high level of Jewish finance in American (and increasingly in British) politics. But I’m pleased that once again, we are in agreement to some extent.

QUOTE

Which other network of individuals, self-identifying as an 'in-group', is so powerful and aggressive that it has enforced its preferred historical narrative in numerous jurisdictions on pain of imprisonment?

This occurs quite often, particularly in totalitarian countries and in authoritarian countries in general. You could even make a strong argument that it occurs everywhere, to one degree or another (as in people in power enforce a "preferred historical narrative" over whole societies). Please specify what "preferred historical narrative" you are referring to.

Yes indeed, Daniel. No one claims that Jews or Zionists invented censorship and the persecution of critics.

What’s at issue in my question, however, is whether there really is another network of individuals, self-identifying as an 'in-group', that has the power and the will to enforce its narrative of certain key events in the mass media and other major public forums for discussion, in numerous jurisdictions in the western world? I can’t think of another - other than the Zionist lobby.

Can you?

PS. If you read my previous post, you’ll be clear what I refer to here.

QUOTE

Which other network of individuals, self-identifying as an 'in-group', has so much influence on popular discourse in the western world that it seeks - with considerable success - to punish anyone who publicly challenges its role and power?

Again, we're talking about white folks by and large, although it occurs everywhere. I don’t think so, Damien. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. I beg to differ.

Daniel, if a British politician stringly criticizes France, Germany, China or even the USA, it’s politics as usual. If a British politician strongly criticizes Israel, it’s HOT. Same in the USA. Same in Australia. Note is taken. Pressure is applied. Recidivism is a very serious matter and is often fatal to his/her career.

If a western author writes a book claiming that the Jesuits rule the world, it may well make the best seller list. If, however, an Austrlaian author (or a Briton, or American) writes a book claiming that Zionists have effectuive control of the global polity, his/her book will, at best, make it into a few alternative bookstores and possibly Amazon.com - that's it!

There is a real difference here, a difference that, I believe, should be explained, critiqued and challenged.

QUOTE

Which other network of individuals, self-identifying as an 'in-group', routinely "polices" bulletin boards such as this, seeking to ban, ridicule or otherwise marginalize critics and trying to ensure that debate falls only within boundaries which meet its stamp of approval?

We may still be talking about (conservative) white folks. All kinds of games are being played on these online forums, IMO, but the Jewish "police" aren't nearly as worrisome as many others. And nowhere near as stupid...

I think the turn of events on this topic alone neatly demonstrates my point here, Daniel. I know of no such move to ban anti-American, anti-British, anti-German or indeed ‘anti-white’ posters.

Let's be clear and blunt about this, Sid. Instead of posting a list of rhetorical questions which apparently are or contain their own answers, why not just admit that you're talking about (and want to talk about) JEWS? There's no reason to be subtle about it, if that's your main interest and preoccupation. I'm willing to hear you out, but I hate anti-Semitism with a profound hatred, and have hated it ever since I read Bill Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and understood in a limited and detached way what the Nazi New Order represented and was. Since then I've also grown to recognize how virulent anti-Semitism is, largely since it has been codified and approved for nearly 2,000 years in the Christian belief system (beginning with the New Testament Gospels themselves, and argued so forcefully by the earliest "Church Fathers" and later by Luther).

If you read any of what I posted in a discouraging exchange with young Parsons on the subject of "US supports PLO, not Israel," you would presumably recognize where my own beef with Israel lies. That beef being in essence a turning-its-back on much of what it ought to mean to be Jewish (ie, making excuses for keeping another people under military rule; treating that other people as "lesser" human beings; turning out to be a highly chauvinistic, highly militaristic society where the individual has been submerged into the ideal of "the State" as the highest value). I may be wrong, but I believe I stand on solid ground in my critique, all the more so since I despise anti-Semitism so thoroughly. If you want to beg the questions or avoid the issues, go ahead, but don't expect anyone to take your critique seriously when it seems so much informed by something that some of us find so wrong.

I trust that, after reading my previous post, you won’t think I’m being so coy any longer.

I believe your account of the history of the Christian-Jewish relationship over the long-term is extremely one-sided. One might as well argue – and I believe there is easily as much evidence for – the proposition that anti-Christianity has been codified and approved for nearly 2,000 years in the Jewish belief system (check out the Talmud).

There it is again… the pro-Jewish paradigm, and the somewhat arrogant, implicit assertion that this paradigm is utterly self-evident and necessarily correct. (In this case, Christians = Wicked and/or foolish haters; Jews = long-suffering innocent victims).

I don't share that simplistic paradigm, Daniel. Historical events were a lot more complex than that, and that particular coin has two sides, not one. I'm interested in a paradigm that takes both into account and that explains complexity instead of denying it.

Edited July 22, 2006 by Sid Walker

[Len Colby]

You were going OK until you dropped the clanger about Meyer Lansky. If you say you've never heard Lansky's name mentioned as head of the mob, then you haven't seriously researched his career. Maybe you should start a thread on it and see how your belief about Lansky's insignificance travels.

Concerning the stuff about Sid Walker, you may have a case. When I get time I might look at some of your links, but I have other priorities at the moment. That's OK isn't it? I have a natural aversion to being told by others to denounce someone. It stinks of the old Soviet style communism or 50's style McCarthyism. I'll tell you what--when I start telling you who you must denounce, then you can start telling me.

Is there anyone participating in this thread that has read the sixth edition of Piper's Final Judgement?

Michael,

Yes, I have a copy of the sixth edition, which I have read. MCP sent it to me after his brief appearance on the Forum.

You're right Mark I was wrong about Lansky it was not an issue I had looked into very much too tell the truth, I stand by the rest of the post. I guess you won't have to check my links Walker made his case for Holocaust denial in his latest post, so you can take your head out of the sand. And despite his insinuations I don't think that YOU are a bigot, he however quite clearly is

As for MCP's Final Judgment, an ad for the book claims that it revealed that JFK planned to attack China but that was called off by LBJ. I started a thread about that but no one replied (see link below). I'll give it a bump perhaps you (or anyone else who read the book) could outline his case and tell us if you were convinced

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...amp;#entry69763

Len

Edit - link added

Edited July 22, 2006 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

Len,

Your points are valid. However, Owen's CAMERA source is no more valid than any other and is the primary source for the hoax claim, but as stated I will attempt to find other references.

Thus you admit that there is no firm evidence either way. They say absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but in this case is. It’s evidence NOT proof, hard to believe that Sharon could have said that and there not to have been any contemporaneous reports, I also find it hard to believe Sharon would say such a thing publicly if that was how he felt. So at best you could argue he ‘might’ have said it.

As for your second point:

The points you raise are legitimate ones but they're a bit out of place here, perhaps you should start a new tread so as to not furthur confuse two seperate issues which are too confused already. Another option would be Owen's thread about America's policy towards Israel and the PLO

I thought my post was relevant to the discussion topic. I was attempting to raise the issue of disproportionate influence amongst Western politicans by Israel - one of the points raised by Sid.

His use of the word 'conspiritorial' in his original heading was unfortunate and has slightly derailed the topic. If he re-worded it as simple Israeli influence, we may not be discussing some of the side issues which have arisen. Yes, it's conspiratorial in nature, as are all objectives involving groups of people executing action plans, but the use of the word has now been co-opted and corrupted to discredit people.

The conspiracy that Walker is claiming exists is much broader than what you are talking about, the later is a legitimate question that should be discussed the former is bigotry. I think it would be in your own interest that we discuss your theory, which some people unjustly I think, claim is anti-Semitic, separately from clearly anti-Semitic ‘theories’ like Holocaust denial.

[Sid Walker]

Len,

Your points are valid. However, Owen's CAMERA source is no more valid than any other and is the primary source for the hoax claim, but as stated I will attempt to find other references.

Thus you admit that there is no firm evidence either way. They say absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but in this case is. It’s evidence NOT proof, hard to believe that Sharon could have said that and there not to have been any contemporaneous reports, I also find it hard to believe Sharon would say such a thing publicly if that was how he felt. So at best you could argue he ‘might’ have said it.

As for your second point:

The points you raise are legitimate ones but they're a bit out of place here, perhaps you should start a new tread so as to not furthur confuse two seperate issues which are too confused already. Another option would be Owen's thread about America's policy towards Israel and the PLO

I thought my post was relevant to the discussion topic. I was attempting to raise the issue of disproportionate influence amongst Western politicans by Israel - one of the points raised by Sid.

His use of the word 'conspiritorial' in his original heading was unfortunate and has slightly derailed the topic. If he re-worded it as simple Israeli influence, we may not be discussing some of the side issues which have arisen. Yes, it's conspiratorial in nature, as are all objectives involving groups of people executing action plans, but the use of the word has now been co-opted and corrupted to discredit people.

The conspiracy that Walker is claiming exists is much broader than what you are talking about, the later is a legitimate question that should be discussed the former is bigotry. I think it would be in your own interest that we discuss your theory, which some people unjustly I think, claim is anti-Semitic, separately from clearly anti-Semitic ‘theories’ like Holocaust denial.

It seems that Len is trying hard to make some of my points, such as the Zionist tendency to demonize certain beliefs to close down unwelcome areas of debate, the use of the "gulit by association" in an attempt to foster division among opponents - and Zionist stand-over tactics in general.

According to Len, one may believe in, even criticise, the Israel Lobby (have you checked this with Daniel Pipes and Horowitz, Len... better be sure you don't get into trouble!). However, len claism that any suggestion of a broad conspiracy equates to bigotry, no ifs or buts! No room for doubt about motive - bigotry is the only possible motive for such an assertion. The very idea of a broad conspiracy centering around Zionist interests is too absurd to discuss (and no discussion should be entertained on the subject). Move along please!

"anti-Semitic ‘theories’ like Holocaust denial" - in this phrase, Len brings together the two most loaded terms which he seems to believe has the right to assert about me, despite the fact that I deny them both - and will continue to deny them until the cows come home, if for no other reason than that I believe they are deliberate false categories, terms used to confuse, not clarify, the underlying issues. It seems that nuanced discussion that takes complexity into account isn't possible for Len on these topics.

Oh and by the way Steve... you have been given a hot tip from one who 'knows'.

It would be "in your interest" to discuss your theories elsewhere.

Don't risk contamination from Holocaust Deniers, anti-Semites, lepers or vampires. That would not be "in your interest" You have been warned.

[Mark Stapleton]

I notice this thread has been busy – and I’m grateful to all moderators for providing the space for what is, I believe, an important discussion.

I’d also like to thank those participants who have made interesting points backed with ‘must-read’ references – and most importantly, have argued strongly for the principle of free speech.

While the subject matter under discussion - both historical and contemporary - is important in its own right, I believe free speech IS the key issue here.

On numerous occasions in the run up to the Iraq Invasion of 2003, mainstream commentators and politicians referred to the experience of the 1930s, urging us not to repeat the mistakes of Chamberlain’s “Appeasement”. So, we should reflect on the past and its contemporary relevance. That’s one reason, in my opinion, why this forum occasionally sports excellence. It serves a cluster of well-informed participants with an interest in both past and present – and allows discussion to roam across both.

Now, please bear with me while I develop a line of thought…

There are a lot of Zionists in the world, and many of them hold quite different views about many things.

All believe there should be some manner of Jewish State in the Holy Land (they are Zionists, after all) but there are many differences within Zionist ranks.

Some abhor and criticize the way Israel has treated the Palestinians and responded to their opposition. Others do not.

Some believe that Israel should take a more conciliatory line towards Palestinians – others do not.

Some believe that Palestinians are an ‘inevitable enemy’ because their culture has become poisoned by terrorist ideology – others do not.

Some believe that Palestinians are genetically inferior – others do not.

Some believe that non-Jewish people should enjoy equal rights within Israel – others do not.

Some believe that Palestinians are part of an ‘Axis of Evil’ that extends across the Arab/Moslem world – others do not.

Some believe that Palestinians are inherently dangerous because of their (mostly) Moslem religion – others do not hold this view.

Some believe that Palestinians smell bad. Other’s don’t.

Some deny th4e existence of a ‘Palestinian people’. Other’s don’t.

Some believe that Palestinians mainly left the Holy Land voluntarily in 1948 – others believe that they were driven from the land.

And so on, and so forth.

I happen to disagree with all of these folk in one key respect, because I don’t believe there should be a ‘Jewish’ State in the Holy Land at all. I hold the view that there should be a single, pluralistic State in that region, with a one-person one-vote democracy – at least as long as the rest of the world is organized into nation States as well. A distinctively ‘Jewish’ State, in my opinion, was a great mistake and it increasingly appears that there are going to be serious dangers and problems for the world as a whole as long as it persists. In that respect, I agree with the Iranian President. Israel should be “removed from the pages of history” (to translate the Farsi more accurately than the mischievously incorrect translation “wiped off the map” – see HERE)

Such notable intellects as the late and lamented Edward Said held this same view. Today, in my opinion, Israel Shamir expounds it most articulately. It was the majority view in international Jewry itself until the middle of the 20th century. Some orthodox and secular Jews hold the same anti-Zionist view to this day.

Back to the varying views of Zionists. I agree with some of them to some extent. I vehemently disagree with others.

To give a couple of obvious examples, I agree with those Zionists who believe the Palestinians should get a (much) better deal) in respect of that particular view. It doesn’t mean I agree with everything else they say – I don’t!

I disagree with those Zionists who believe that Palestinians are genetically or ‘spiritually’ inferior when compared to Jews. I think they are completely wrong about that. I may also disagree with them about lots of other topics – yet still be able to find some areas of common ground. We might both agree, for instance, that Jerusalem is a beautiful city. I believe that in some cases, even such limited agreement can be an important basis on which to build dialogue.

I would not seek to ban the free expression of ANY of these views. They all, in my opinion, deserve an airing, however much I dislike them.

What about views I find both irrational and obnoxious? Why not seek to ban them? How about banning expression of the view that Palestinians are genetically and / or spiritually inferior to Jews. How about banning the view that Palestinians (and Arabs in general) are pre-disposed to ‘terrorism’?

The reason IS reason. Let's call it The Enlightenment 101.

Although, in my opinion, some views are plain silly and do not stand up to scrutiny if fairly considered, I am confident that the evidence will weigh against them – and that in a fair public debate, the truth will out. As I really do believe what I claim to believe – I have enough confidence to put it through the scrutiny of open debate.

But what if, in open, fair and rational debate, the proposition that Palestinians are genetically inferior to Jews began (unexpectedly) to gain ascendancy? Would I then support censoring these views – views that I find not only deeply unpleasant, but also believe could be ‘dangerous’ in the sense that they appear to be gaining ground and may be used to justify discriminatory policies of which I disapprove?

The Enlightenment tradition says no. I should not seek to censor these beliefs, however obnoxious I find them. Truth is truth. In the unlikely event that these propositions are accurate, better we all know all we can about the topic and deal with the consequences.

Of course, the concept of truth and its relationship to belief is complex. For one thing, majority beliefs on different issues can and do change over time. Perhaps the real question is how to maximize the prospect that truth-based beliefs will prosper over time?

Socrates and his intellectual successors claim that the answer is through full, open and fair debate. Such debate offers the best chance that the community will discover the truth, in time, later if not sooner. Of course the majority view at any one time may be incorrect – and that may become apparent in a future time. But free, open and fair debate is not only most likely to lead to the truth being recognized in the present. It also provides the best safeguard that mistaken majority beliefs will be corrected as time goes by.

I accept there is an alternative view – the view that people cannot be trusted to know the truth about certain matters and the consequential view that free and open debate about these matters should not be permitted. But I strongly disagree with that view.

As soon as one entertains the view that censorship is necessary in relation to certain topics – one must accept the need for censors. But who is to do decide what’s banned – and on what basis?

Once the expression of certain beliefs is made a criminal (or banning) offence, a further step looms. Discussion about the very basis on which the offending views are banned must also be prohibited– lest the banned beliefs be voiced within that discussion. This is no theoretical imagining. It’s actual practice in various trials underway in Germany this very year, most notably the trials of Ernst Zundel and Germar Rudolf, both deported from the USA to face trial for their beliefs in a land where those beliefs are illegal (without a murmur, as I recall, from Amnesty International). In Zundel’s case, his chosen defense lawyer was banned from the court – and even risked imprisonment – for attempting to explain her client’s beliefs to the Court and argue their rationality. His beliefs are viewed, under current German law, as inherently indefensible. Truth is no defense. This is downright Kafkaesque. Not only are historical views subject to legal sanction - one may not even seek to explain or justify them!

I’ve tried to establish why I would never try to censor the views of any Zionists – even those with whom I disagree. I agree with Voltaire. I might loathe views, but I defend the right of others to articulate them. I trust that the truth will out – in full and fair debate. I welcome knowing the truth and don’t believe that I – or my fellow citizens – should be shielded from it. Now I’ll go further. If someone seeks to censor information or views, it makes me suspicious. Why seek to ban debate on topics over which – they claim - the truth is blatantly obvious?

I’d like to consider the reverse case.

Non Zionists and anti-Zionists also hold a plethora of beliefs and opinions. Some think the middle east is a never-ending source of strife and trouble; others don’t. Some believe in UFOs. Others don’t. Some believe in global Jewish conspiracies. Others don’t. Some believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. Others don’t. Some believe the current official narrative of Jewish suffering during the Second World War. Others don’t. Some believe that the Chinese are the greatest threat to world peace – others disagree. Some claim that England should have won the 2006 World Cup. Others don’t. And so on and so forth…

I’ve deliberately mixed up a few beliefs there, some of which may seem ludicrous, some upsetting, some bizarre, others irrelevant or trivial. Some topics may seem unworthy of discussion on the grounds that the truth, in that case, is ‘obvious’. But which topics – and who decides? On what rational basis should one take the decision not only to disparage a belief – but to seek to ban it?

A general strategy employed by Zionists, in my experience, having observed the functioning of several politically oriented internet forums and keeping an eye on media from several western countries, is to sew division in the ranks of opponents. It makes sense to do this if one’s key goal is to promote a given version of the truth as opposed to ascertaining the truth. Sadly, I have found that trait to be true of most of the Zionists I have encountered in cyberspace and elsewhere.

The key thing has been establishing that some views are utterly and totally beyond the pale, There appear to be two of these at present – but in theory at least, the list may vary over time. The first is doubt about the veracity of the current official narrative of Jewish suffering during World War Two. The second is belief that Jewish power and influence within key sectors of the economy such as the mass media is disproportionate and that collusion occurs between powerful Jewish individuals and between some Jewish organizations such as AIPAC, the ADL and The Mossad..

Anyone who expresses these beliefs is portrayed as a willful purveyor of lunatic and malicious falsehoods. It is typically alleged that because they raise questions the answer to which is already ‘obvious’ - and because their only possible motive for doing so is irrational hatred - they should be excluded from mainstream discussion, including many internet forums. It is often further alleged, by way of explanation, that these ‘deniers’ must be Nazis, or more accurately ‘neo-Nazis’, because only individuals on the far right wing of politics, with a fondness for white supremacism, hold these views (although the pesky Moslems and Arabs are increasingly catching the ‘disease’).

I deny these propositions. I don’t believe they are true. Furthermore, I believe they are used, systematically and repeatedly, to exclude many critics of Zionism and entire subject areas from mainstream discussion. This has served the Zionist cause well – but has distorted and caused damage to the discourse of the community as a whole. It has led to grave injustices. Perhaps worst of all, it has created a false ‘center’ for public opinion, by shifting the argument towards the Zionist cause. If perceived pro-Zionist extremism is permitted and openly expressed, but perceived anti-Zionist extremism is banned and hounded out of the public domain, the ‘center of gravity’ of the debate shifts in a Zionist direction. Nice trick.

The strategy employed by Zionist also makes use of the principle of “guilt by association”.

It’s not just a matter of removing someone like Michael Collins Piper – from mainstream discourse on the basis of his alleged ‘neo-Nazi’ tendencies. (His books are never reviewed by the mainstream media. He’s never gets invitations to be a TV talking head. He is harassed on talkboards such as this).

If someone like Sid Walker quotes Mr Michael Collins Piper in Sid’s posts, and refuses to disown MCP when allegations of “anti-Semitism”, “neo-Nazism” etc are made against him – well then, Sid must be an anti-Semite and neo-Nazi also. And if someone like Mr Mark Stapleton stands up for Sid he might want to watch his step as well.

I object to this approach on several levels. First, “guilt by contamination” is a false principle. I may support some of the views of a neo-Nazi (or a Zionist, Communist, Mormon or Atheist) but disagree with others. If I cite – or stand up for – another person, it doesn’t mean I share all their views.

Second, even if we were discussing Hitler (and he, most assuredly, was a real Nazi), I should be able to support some of his views without being branded a Nazi. The simple equation Nazi = Evil was useful war propaganda, but that war is over. Historians need to do better than sort the characters of the past into goodies and baddies, heroes and villains. History was more complex. Hitler may well have done some very bad things in his life, as did Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin. But do we really need to make constant, almost mechanical reference to the fact that we loathe and detest him – like witches issuing ritual curses? Should we feel scared about ever making positive comments about some of the things he did, if we believe we’re speaking the truth? After all, if we’re wrong in making those comments, the truth will out in free, open and fair debate, won’t it?

This approach to argumentation – entailing villainization of certain views combined with guilt by association - offers fantastic possibilities for silencing whole areas of thought. I submit it has been used in this way by Zionists, quite ruthlessly and for a long period of time.

Well, I, for one, refuse to play this game any more. I won’t play by those rules. I will listen to – and read – any sources I choose. I’ll do so without apology. I’ll make up my own mind – then try to speak the truth as best I understand it. I need no “free pass” or “permission” from Zionists or anyone else to do that, and I’m disgusted by the arrogance of Zionists who believe they have a right to grant or withhold such permission.

For reasons I gave in one of my first posts in this forum, I believe the entire notion of “anti-Semitism” an absurd and mischievous misnomer. Now I also want to say that the notion of ‘Holocaust Denial’ is also a deliberate attempt for strategic reasons to create a false category. It is a loaded expression, used as a tool used by Zionist strategists (and their dupes, Zionist and non-Zionist) to stifle discussion about what really happened in World War Two and to disallow reconsideration of events that might undermine simple equations we’ve all learnt by heart from childhood.

I refer to equations such as Nazi = Evil, Hitler = The Devil Incarnate, The Axis = Bad, The Allies = Good, Germans = Elected a Maniac, Jews = Suffering Victims. It’s not that any of these propositions are wholly untrue. They may have elemtns of truth and elements of falsehood. Real historians would be concerned about these nuances. Historians under pressure from Zionist orthodoxy tend to overlook them, for the sake of their careers if for no other reason.

But, I hear some exclaim, the Nazis WERE ultimate evil. Hitler WAS the most evil man ever.

That’s arguable, in my opinion - and should be open to free and unfettered argument. After all, it was American-made nuclear bombs dropped under the orders of an American president that unleashed a nuclear holocaust on Japan, on two separate days in 1945. The Germans, by contrast, in World War Two, eschewed the use of WMDs. It was the British who systematically bombed German cities with ‘conventional weapons’, causing vast numbers of civilian casualities – on a scale far greater than any bombing campaigns conducted by the Luftwaffe. In World War Two, German and Russian lives lost were measured in ten digits – considerably more than the six million claim for Jewish deaths.

The belief that HITLER = UNADULTERATED EVIL mainly draws its strength from the official narrative of Jewish suffering in World War Two. Because Hitler (is alleged to have) ordered the death of millions of Jews – and because he and his followers (allegedly) used gas chambers to carry out this genocidal act – the equation is seen to be correct, inevitable and essential. A moral necessity, indeed! The Allies (Goodies) may have killed lots of people, and some if it wasn’t pretty and involved civilian deaths on massive scale, but they were justified acts of war incidental to the Allies War Effort. The deliberate destruction of Jews for no other reason than that they were Jews, however, was of a different nature. A conscious act of racist genocide!

Now, one might wonder why the Red Cross, which had access to concentration camps such as Auschwitz, apparently never reported on this genocidal frenzy at the time. One might wonder about the logistics and the seeming lack of forensic evidence for mass killings on that scale. One may wonder about the apparent gap, in the archival records, which I understand have failed to turn up any evidence of direct orders from the Fuhrer to carry out the mass gassing of Jews.

But of course, there’s first hand testimony, including testimony from the Nazis themselves at the Nuremburg Trials.

Indeed there was – and now I’ll explain why I use the term “current official narrative of Jewish suffering in World War Two” is more appropriate than The Holocaust (a term that, when I was a boy, was most often associated with the dreaded prospect of nuclear holocaust).

Nazis - such as the former Commandant of Auschwitz - admitted to many things at Nuremburg. They admitted to genocidal gas chambers, slaughtering millions of Jews, and they often sought to pass the blame up the chain of command.

Interestingly, they also admitted to things that now are not part of the current “official narrative of Jewish suffering in World War Two”. There was a confession, for instance, that fat from Jewish corpses was used by the Germans to make soap. The story persisted for some time. I recall being told of this horror in the 1960s.

In 1981, Deborah Lipstadt, who serves these days as one of the chief custodians of orthodoxy for the current official narrative of Jewish suffering in World War Two, wrote that the Jewish soap story had no basis in fact at all. In other words, it had been invented. So much for the reliability of Nuremburg testimony! One might wonder if perchance prisoners were pressurized into making false statements? Tortured? Threats to family? Perish the thought! Brits and Americans would surely never do that!

Here’s another reason why “current” needs to be welded to the term “official narrative of Jewish suffering in World War Two”, a narrative which has been amended over time, inclkuding incoprorpationn of the term 'Holocaust' itself decades after the event…

Around 1990, the official tally of deaths at Auschwitz was reduced by more than half. Millions of deaths were simply sliced off the official figure. Yet as far as I know, the has been no subsequent change to the orthodox figure of “six” million Jewish deaths. As most of the people allegedly slaughtered at Auschwitz allegedly were Jews, how can this be?

I don’t claim – and as I understand their position, I don’t believe that imprisoned Revisionists such as David Irving, Ernst Zundel and Germar Rudolf claim - that the current official narrative of Jewish suffering in World War Two is wholly and utterly bogus. Not at all. There were clearly many Jews sent to concentration camps by the Nazis because they were Jews. A lot of Jews experienced great suffering and many died. Hitler and the Nazi Party had strong anti-Jewish sentiments. Of these matters, there appears to be no dispute.

Yet in a growing number of jurisdictions, it is illegal to question the number of Jewish deaths, the causes of Jewish deaths and Hitler’s genocidal intent. Raising questions on these topics and expressing views about them that do not conform to current orthodoxy is routinely used as sufficient grounds for banning participants from many discussion boards on the internet – forums that in other subject areas have a strong commitment to free speech.

Why should that be – if the current official official narrative of Jewish suffering in World War Two has such a secure factual foundation?

So much for World War Two (and may we never, ever participate in such colossal mass slaughter again – a real holocaust for tens of millions of people of many creeds, ethnic origins and political affiliations!)

Turning now to the topic of Jewish power, influence and collusion – the other ‘no-go’ area proscribed by Zionists and their dupes…

It stands to reason, we’re informed, that there’s nothing to see here. Move along please!

Since World War, playing on fears of a Nazi revival and mass guilt over Jewish suffering during World War Two, the topic has been chased out of public discourse, especially on the left. The argument ran something like this. Nazis believed that… didn’t they? Therefore, only crazed Nazis now raise questions about Jewish power, influence and collusion.”

The other tactic often used to stifle debate about this topic is setting up a straw man. It’s asserted that because the person raising these questions is indubitably “anti-Semitic” (virulently and irrationally anti-Jewish), they also believe that every Jewish person can’t be liked or trusted and is part of the alleged Grand Jewish Conspiracy.

Just for the record, that’s not what I believe.

Apart from anything else, some of the most articulate whistleblowers on this subject are of Jewish origin. Isarel Shamir (whose very mention so offends poor Owen’s sensibilities) is one of these. Jeffrey Blankfurt, Gliad Atzmon and Paul Eisen are others - fine intellects with penetrating analyses of the contemporary world, who confirm that there is indeed something here to discuss that’s important to our common future.

The truth, in my opinion, if far more complex than the “Great Jewish Conspiracy” straw man created by Zionist strategists and their dupes – but that straw man is useful to ridicule and marginalize the growing view that a ruthless elite, centering around but not limited to Jewish Zionists, is taking the whole world for a very bumpy ride.

Today in Counterpunch I read a remarkable mea culpa by Tom Hayden which has some bearing on this discussion. I’ll provide a link to it HERE. It seems a fitting way to end this lengthy post.

________

A final note. I try not to be unecessarily offensive, and realise that some people may take offence at my use of the term 'dupes' in this post. Perhaps I could have found a kinder word?

Happily, I believe the condition is not terminal. I was one such dupe myself, until quite recently. Now I'm not. I won't shout down others to enforce beliefs I haven't fully researched, understood or critiqued on behalf of a third party whose full agenda I do not comprehend.

Why we, the inheritors of Western Civilisation, should discard a glorious intellectual heritage that has survived at least 2,500 years, a tradiition of respect for free discusssion and open inquiry, is beyond me. I look forward to a time when the very idea of it will seem preposterous and any proposal to do so seem outlandish and offensive.

Sid,

Banquet of food for thought there. Normally I would expect certain others to slice it up like a sausage, regularly taking pieces of it out of context but after reading this and Steve's contributions, they might resist.

In fact, think I saw Len heading for the hills.

[Owen Parsons]

Sid,

Banquet of food for thought there. Normally I would expect certain others to slice it up like a sausage, regularly taking pieces of it out of context but after reading this and Steve's contributions, they might resist.

In fact, think I saw Len heading for the hills.

Mmmm mmmm, oh yes, what a delicious banquet.

Mark, your views on Sid Walker, the intellectual fraud, are seriously delusional. I don't say this as a member of the "Jewish Lobby." Get a grip.

I will now proceed to demolish everything he has written below that purports to be factual information related to the Holocaust, as that is all I am really interested in at this point.

That's arguable, in my opinion - and should be open to free and unfettered argument. After all, it was American-made nuclear bombs dropped under the orders of an American president that unleashed a nuclear holocaust on Japan, on two separate days in 1945. The Germans, by contrast, in World War Two, eschewed the use of WMDs.

Yes, and I'm sure thats why the Nazis were attempting to make nuclear weapons.

Now, one might wonder why the Red Cross, which had access to concentration camps such as Auschwitz, apparently never reported on this genocidal frenzy at the time.

"Inasmuch as it is impossible for the International Committee to visit the camps where these people are interned, the Committee is not in a position to check on the distribution of relief supplies. For this reason these concentration camps are not included in the category of internment camps to which the Blockade authorities allow relief supplies from overseas to be sent, Furthermore, the International Red Cross Committee does not receive any lists of the names of the Detained Civilians."

See here and here.

One might wonder about the logistics and the seeming lack of forensic evidence for mass killings on that scale.

Please see here, here, here, and here, for instance, about the alleged "lack of forensic evidence" and the "logistics."

One may wonder about the apparent gap, in the archival records, which I understand have failed to turn up any evidence of direct orders from the Fuhrer to carry out the mass gassing of Jews.

Uh huh. See here and here.

Interestingly, they also admitted to things that now are not part of the current "official narrative of Jewish suffering in World War Two". There was a confession, for instance, that fat from Jewish corpses was used by the Germans to make soap. The story persisted for some time. I recall being told of this horror in the 1960s.

There was no "confession." What you have written is a pile of crap.

One British POW at Auschwitz reported that the inmates were threatened that they would be turned into soap and that "Though I have no personal knowledge, I got the impression that the manufacture of soap from inmates was being done at Auschwitz by rendering the fat from the gassed bodies."

Thats it.

However, two British POWs did say that there were limited experiments of this nature at the Danzig Anatomic Institute. See here.

In 1981, Deborah Lipstadt, who serves these days as one of the chief custodians of orthodoxy for the current official narrative of Jewish suffering in World War Two, wrote that the Jewish soap story had no basis in fact at all. In other words, it had been invented. So much for the reliability of Nuremburg testimony!

This is bogus. What Lipstadt denied was that there was any sort of mass production. Lipstadt didn't make a turn around, she never held this belief in the first place.

Around 1990, the official tally of deaths at Auschwitz was reduced by more than half. Millions of deaths were simply sliced off the official figure. Yet as far as I know, the has been no subsequent change to the orthodox figure of "six" million Jewish deaths. As most of the people allegedly slaughtered at Auschwitz allegedly were Jews, how can this be?

You guys (and by guys I do mean Holocaust denying hoaxsters) really need to drop this bogus argument. Piper used this before and I debunked it before. I may be mistaken, but I don't remember him ever responding. The phony 4 million number for Auschwitz was provided by the Soviets and then accepted by the museum. This is true. HOWEVER, most historians doubted this and used the 1 million number long before the tally at the museum was changed. The 4 million figure was not used to calculate the standard number of 5-6 million holocaust victims. This is a red herring. See this series (here, here, here).

Apart from anything else, some of the most articulate whistleblowers on this subject are of Jewish origin. Isarel Shamir (whose very mention so offends poor Owen's sensibilities) is one of these.

Oh yes, poor me. I do find Shamir's strange notion that some Jews in the middle ages ritually murdered Christian children to be offensive. Nor am I the only one. There is a man you may have heard of, Nigel Parry, who runs an invaluable little website called Electronic Intifada. Also Ali Abunimah (a co-founder of EI) and Hussein Ibish. See here and also here. As I said before, I seriously doubt Shamir is Jewish. He has lied all over the place about his background.

Edited July 23, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Sid Walker]

Sid,

Banquet of food for thought there. Normally I would expect certain others to slice it up like a sausage, regularly taking pieces of it out of context but after reading this and Steve's contributions, they might resist.

In fact, think I saw Len heading for the hills.

Mmmm mmmm, oh yes, what a delicious banquet.

Mark, your views on Sid Walker, the intellectual fraud, are seriously delusional. I don't say this as a member of the "Jewish Lobby." Get a grip.

I will now proceed to demolish everything he has written below that purports to be factual information related to the Holocaust, as that is all I am really interested in at this point.

That's arguable, in my opinion - and should be open to free and unfettered argument. After all, it was American-made nuclear bombs dropped under the orders of an American president that unleashed a nuclear holocaust on Japan, on two separate days in 1945. The Germans, by contrast, in World War Two, eschewed the use of WMDs.

Yes, and I'm sure thats why the Nazis were attempting to make nuclear weapons.

Now, one might wonder why the Red Cross, which had access to concentration camps such as Auschwitz, apparently never reported on this genocidal frenzy at the time.

"Inasmuch as it is impossible for the International Committee to visit the camps where these people are interned, the Committee is not in a position to check on the distribution of relief supplies. For this reason these concentration camps are not included in the category of internment camps to which the Blockade authorities allow relief supplies from overseas to be sent, Furthermore, the International Red Cross Committee does not receive any lists of the names of the Detained Civilians."

See here and here.

One might wonder about the logistics and the seeming lack of forensic evidence for mass killings on that scale.

Please see here, here, here, and here, for instance, about the alleged "lack of forensic evidence" and the "logistics."

One may wonder about the apparent gap, in the archival records, which I understand have failed to turn up any evidence of direct orders from the Fuhrer to carry out the mass gassing of Jews.

Uh huh. See here and here.

Interestingly, they also admitted to things that now are not part of the current "official narrative of Jewish suffering in World War Two". There was a confession, for instance, that fat from Jewish corpses was used by the Germans to make soap. The story persisted for some time. I recall being told of this horror in the 1960s.

There was no "confession." What you have written is a pile of crap.

One British POW at Auschwitz reported that the inmates were threatened that they would be turned into soap and that "Though I have no personal knowledge, I got the impression that the manufacture of soap from inmates was being done at Auschwitz by rendering the fat from the gassed bodies."

Thats it.

However, two British POWs did say that there were limited experiments of this nature at the Danzig Anatomic Institute. See here.

In 1981, Deborah Lipstadt, who serves these days as one of the chief custodians of orthodoxy for the current official narrative of Jewish suffering in World War Two, wrote that the Jewish soap story had no basis in fact at all. In other words, it had been invented. So much for the reliability of Nuremburg testimony!

This is bogus. What Lipstadt denied was that there was any sort of mass production. Lipstadt didn't make a turn around, she never held this belief in the first place.

Around 1990, the official tally of deaths at Auschwitz was reduced by more than half. Millions of deaths were simply sliced off the official figure. Yet as far as I know, the has been no subsequent change to the orthodox figure of "six" million Jewish deaths. As most of the people allegedly slaughtered at Auschwitz allegedly were Jews, how can this be?

You guys (and by guys I do mean Holocaust denying hoaxsters) really need to drop this bogus argument. Piper used this before and I debunked it before. I may be mistaken, but I don't remember him ever responding. The phony 4 million number for Auschwitz was provided by the Soviets and then accepted by the museum. This is true. HOWEVER, most historians doubted this and used the 1 million number long before the tally at the museum was changed. The 4 million figure was not used to calculate the standard number of 5-6 million holocaust victims. This is a red herring. See this series (here, here, here).

Apart from anything else, some of the most articulate whistleblowers on this subject are of Jewish origin. Isarel Shamir (whose very mention so offends poor Owen's sensibilities) is one of these.

Oh yes, poor me. I do find Shamir's strange notion that some Jews in the middle ages ritually murdered Christian children to be offensive. Nor am I the only one. There is a man you may have heard of, Nigel Parry, who runs an invaluable little website called Electronic Intifada. Also Ali Abunimah (a co-founder of EI) and Hussein Ibish. See here and also here. As I said before, I seriously doubt Shamir is Jewish. He has lied all over the place about his background.

Owen,

Without checking your cited references before posting - and I will try to find time to do that today - I'll make a few quick points.

First, congratulations. For someone who, according to your bio, is still at High School, you have a remarkable grasp of a range of issues from a Zionist perspective - and show remarkable skill in presenting the Zionist perspective. You have an extensive knowledge of pro-Zionist sources. You are also extremely active and prompt in your replies whenever your nemesis pops up, as I do from time to time. I suspect you have a well-paid career ahead of you.

Second, I suspect this may not the appropriate place to get into the nitty gritty of the Shoah debate. My lengthy post, made earlier today, was made under some pressure to justify my stand - not only my stand on this forum, but posts I have made elsewhere. The topic is highly charged (a 'hot' topic, in this case, is an understatement) and I don't consider myself in the least an expert about the Second World War.

If detailed debate about this issue is acceptable on this forum, perhaps we should move to another area such as 'Debates in History'? The moderators may prefer the topic is not debated here at all - and although that would be something of a disappointment to me (I really do believe these matters should be openly debated) I could understand and respect that. After all, there could be legal implications in several countries.

None of this is to shy away from debate, Owen. However, I sense a deliberate attempt to get me banned over the issue. If debate continues here on this subject matter, I believe the ground rules need to be a little clearer for all concerned. At presnt, I trust that our moderators do permit links to site critical of the current official narrative of Jewish suffering in World War Two. I’d appreciate prior warning if there is, in fact, a rule against that of which I am currently unaware.

Web Diary, an Australian political forum from which I was banned earlier this year (as Len gleefully pointed out, no doubt in an attempt to generate the impression that I am a serial offender of the most loathsome of hate-motivated thought-crimes) apparently does not. Merely citing a link to a 'revisionist' website was deemed a banning offence in that medium. Nor does Web Diary even have the gumption to admit when it comes under deliberate harassment and intimidation (see HERE). I think John Simkin may be made of sterner stuff. But I don't want to place him - or this forum as a whole - in an impossible position. I welcome the freedom this forum does allow for open debate on some important aspects of history and current affairs. Len and yourself are the ones obsessing about this particular topic - not me. I haven’t made a post specifically on this subject. I suspect you and Len lead the debate in this direction, hoping I will walk into a trap, get banned and disappear entirely from the forum.

Third, Owen, after reading your response quickly, I think it generally helps add weight to my key point that there is, indeed, something to discuss here, and that at the very least it should be open to discussion. You have made criticisms and cited references. I could try to rebut them. Wouldn't it be nice to have a full and fair debate, with neither side subjected to intimidation? Who knows what the outcome might be? Perhaps you would convince me of the correctness of your position, not through intimidation or censorship - but through fair and open debate. Long term, if you (or anyone else), seeks genuine concurrence with the views you claim to hold, that’s the way to get it – not via bullying or stand-over tactics.

Fourth, to respond to your points and references in detail, it would be necessary to post references to websites that you, Len and your ilk have already deemed "beyond the pale”. This is partly because, for well over a decade, the Holocaust Lobby has declined any opportunity for open debate with its critics. I suspect, however, you may argue that any attempt at rebuttal on my part "proves" my guilt, as I must draw on references from sources that have already been declared heretical by your side of the debate. This was the approach of my Zionist opponents on the Web Diary forum - and I've seen the same practice applied elsewhere.

Fifth, I will risk posting a couple of links now that I believe may throw some additional light on why some people (myself included) doubt the veracity of the current official narrative of Jewish suffering in World War Two. I think it’s useful to do this, as I realize some people on this forum may find the subject matter deeply disturbing and doubt that anyone in their right minds has any basis at all for questioning these verities.

Via these links, you can listen to three individuals who, in my opinion, were clearly in their right minds at the time - and whose knowledge of the events in question goes way beyond my own.

I wanted to find something resembling an open debate on this topic, and finally encountered something of the kind - but it's well over a decade old. It took place on radio in the USA in the early 90s. You won't find a link to it on websites that you find acceptable. Yet I presume it's authentic? (Please correct me if you doubt its authenticity - I do not wish to purvey fraudulent information).

It's a rather long audio file, but in my opinion, well worth the time invested. The radio host, himself Jewish and disinclined to give credence to doubts about the official orthodoxy, nevertheless did a good job and was generally fair to both sides of the 'debate'. You can find the file - in two formats - under the title Mark Weber and Ted O'Keefe :: 1990 :: KFI AM640 Los Angeles in both Real Audio and MP3 formats at this location on the web (scroll down the page).

Finally, those with broadband access may also find the following link to David Cole’s video about Auschwitz of interest. Again, it’s a little dated – but worth the download time and the hour spent watching the video IMO. The link is HERE. Those without broadband can still read the transcipt on that page.

David Cole was a young Jewish American who visited the notorious concentration camp in the early 1990s, interviewed some of the staff, and made a video of his experience. A campus tour of the USA was planned – some ten years ago – in which Mr Cole was to present his video and discuss the content with students. The tour was abandoned when David Cole issued a public retraction, in the form of an open letter to Irv Rubin of the Jewish Defence League (the JDL, not be be confused with the ADL, was/is a Jewish terrorist organization, quite active in the USA at the time).

Whoever said that physical intimidation doesn’t work?

[John Simkin]

I cannot understand why people are motivated to discuss this issue. What was Len Colby's objective in starting this thread? He was clearly intent in stirring up trouble. He has a record of this. At the sametime, the Holocaust clearly happened. If we want to discuss conspiracies, maybe we should concentrate on the roles played by the UK, USA and the Soviet Union in allowing it to happen.

I would have thought that the current Israeli foreign policy that has the support of Bush and Brown is a more important issue to discuss.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7495

[Mark Stapleton]

I cannot understand why people are motivated to discuss this issue. What was Len Colby's objective in starting this thread? He was clearly intent in stirring up trouble. He has a record of this. At the sametime, the Holocaust clearly happened. If we want to discuss conspiracies, maybe we should concentrate on the roles played by the UK, USA and the Soviet Union in allowing it to happen.

I would have thought that the current Israeli foreign policy that has the support of Bush and Brown is a more important issue to discuss.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7495

Stirring up trouble (and getting Sid Walker branded as a dangerous fanatic) was precisely Len's motivation for starting this thread. However, this has backfired badly, IMO.

Sid has been branded a bigot, a fanatic and an intellectual fraud, charges which I believe are without foundation. He has responded to critics with courtesy, civility and even encouragement, using reason and logic to support his arguments. Part of the fascination here is that this type of debate is so rarely conducted...anywhere. Owen, while sometimes resorting to name calling, is a fine debater and thinker.

A very interesting debate. Thanks, Len.