Translate

Sep 14, 2010

Dershowitz–Finkelstein affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dershowitz-Finkelstein_affair

Peace.
Michael Santomauro @ 917-974-6367

What sort of Truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth?

Let's End Thought Crimes in the Twenty-first Century. -- to separate historical fact from propaganda…peace is patriotic!

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

From Time Immemorial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Time_Immemorial

Peace.
Michael Santomauro @ 917-974-6367

What sort of Truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth?

Let's End Thought Crimes in the Twenty-first Century. -- to separate historical fact from propaganda…peace is patriotic!

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Oren’s historical fiction about Lebanon war has long tradition in MSM hasbara

 

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/03/orens-historical-fiction-about-lebanon-war-has-long-tradition-in-msm-hasbara.html

Peace.
Michael Santomauro @ 917-974-6367

What sort of Truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth?

Let's End Thought Crimes in the Twenty-first Century. -- to separate historical fact from propaganda…peace is patriotic!

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Charlie Rose - Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal

 

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11032

Peace.
Michael Santomauro @ 917-974-6367

What sort of Truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth?

Let's End Thought Crimes in the Twenty-first Century. -- to separate historical fact from propaganda…peace is patriotic!

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Israel's Attack on Egypt in '67 was not 'Preemptive'

 

http://palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=16105

Peace.
Michael Santomauro @ 917-974-6367

What sort of Truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth?

Let's End Thought Crimes in the Twenty-first Century. -- to separate historical fact from propaganda…peace is patriotic!

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Did six million really die? [2 Attachments]


Begin forwarded message:

From: "Nick Maine" <nmaine@bigpond.net.au>
Date: September 14, 2010 10:39:34 PM EDT
 

 
 

  

Hitler's homosexuality

 

Sept. 14, 2010

As concerns The Hidden Hitler by Lothar Machtan:

I read this one--when it was fresh on the New Releases shelf--with great interest and an open mind, as it was a new approach to the subject. My method in such cases is to read the book straight through, as if it were a novel, in order to enjoy the authors narrative, and to let the material speak for itself. I then reread the volume critically, taking notes and perusing the footnotes. On first read, The Hidden Hitler was fairly compelling, mostly because it addressed the issues listed, and seemed to provide a viable thesis for consideration. The book is extensively researched and reads well, and the premise itself is worth perusing. So, it is easy to see why one would initially tend to except the ideas presented.

However, one is struck, upon a second read, by the fact that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever provided to support the idea, other than the purely circumstantial. There is not one shred of documentation that is not third-hand, and no physical evidence of any kind. The entire exercise is similar to any number of books that purport to 'prove' the extraterrestrial origins of UFO's without providing any physical evidence to support the contention. Sure, it is conceivable that such is the case, and it would explain a number of phenomenon if true, but this in itself is not enough to cause one to embrace the idea. One simply cannot prove anything without proof, no matter how elegant the proposed solution may seem to be. Whether it is UFO's, or Hitler's sexual preferences, proof is still required. Machtan provides no proof, and thus proves nothing.

The 'evidence' he points to consists of second or third-hand accounts by people who claim to have actually seen such evidence when it existed, but it has all since disappeared. This evidence allegedly includes police reports, affidavits, and even a porno film (perish the thought!) starring a young Hitler. The author claims that Hitler's agents destroyed this substantial body of evidence before it could fall into 'the wrong hands.'

> Hitler tried his utmost best to destroy his history. What did he have to hide so badly?

While it is a fact that Hitler did his best to keep his personal history under wraps, the motivation does not necessarily include hiding evidence of Hitler's homosexuality. In Mien Kampf, Hitler reinvented himself, playing fast and loose with the facts to make his 'rags-to-riches' history as compelling as possible. This included stating that his family was poor and struggling, when in fact they were prosperous and upper middle-class, and ignoring unpleasant facts, such as his Aunt Johanna's hunchback, the Schicklgruber
Name-change, the unknown paternal progenitor, his half-brother's police record, etc..

It is documented that Hitler did his best to keep these facts from the German electorate. But, seeing as all sources were available to researchers without restriction until January of 1933 in the case of his Munich days, and until the Anschluss in the case of Austria, it is apparent that this attempted cover-up was decidedly unsuccessful. Conrad Heiden and a plethora of his peers tore apart every available archive seeking every possible fact about Hitler long before he acquired the power to stop them. Had there been any evidence that Hitler was homosexual, it would have turned up then, and since all those researchers were journalists working for newspapers opposed to Hitler, such evidence would have immediately seen print. In the event, all of the dirt that was fit to print was indeed printed.


> 1. Hitler had feminine characteristics. Namely his poses, gestures, handwriting and appearance.

This is far too subjective. Even supposing that an objective observer would conclude that Hitler's mannerisms were effeminate--and millions of German women who worshipped Hitler as if he were a rock star would surely disagree--how many he-man artists can you name? Feminine is in the eyes of the beholder, and only Waite and a few others would venture to claim that Hitler came across universally as a girly-man. To many, he was an object of manly virility (though I would certainly not include myself in this group).

> 2. Hitler had inseparable relationships with men, such as Kubizek, in his early years.

This was Hitler's longest lasting friendship before the war, but it can hardly be described as 'inseparable.' Hitler and Kubizek were best friends from the autumn of 1905 until the autumn of 1908, at which time they went their separate ways.

> 3. Hitler more or less abandoned his so-called 'lover' Eva Braun and was undoubtedly sexually inactive with her.

Seems to me that he was with Eva far longer than he was best friends with Kubizek, and, far from in death being parted, they were united in death. Neither ever 'abandoned' the other, though their relationship was often rocky. As for whether or not Hitler and Eva were sexually active, there is documented evidence both ways, though in neither case is it definitive. I think that the following passage from Eva's diary can be interpreted to confirm that they were not 'inactive' at all:

March 11, 1935: There is only one thing I want. I would like to be seriously ill, and to hear nothing more about him for at least a week. Why doesn't something happen to me? Why do I have to go through all this? If only I had never set eyes on him! I am utterly miserable. I shall go out and buy some more sleeping powder and go into a half-dreamlike state, and then I won't think about it so much. Why doesn't that Devil take me with him? It would be much better with him than it is here. I waited for three hours in front of the Carlton, and had to watch him buying flowers for Ondra and inviting her to dinner. (That was just my mad imagination. March 16th.) He only needs me for certain purposes, otherwise it is not possible. This is idiocy. When he says he loves me, it only means he loves me at that particular instant. Like his promises, which he never keeps. Why does he torment me like this, when he could finish it off at once?


> 5. 15,000 homosexuals were prosecuted and killed. Surely the Nazis could've had a lot more killed?

In order to make this case, one would need hard data as to how many known homosexuals were in Germany at that time. Seeing as the lifestyle was suppressed to such a degree, it is impossible to determine such a quantity.

More to the point, even if all of the points above were conceded—and they are all somewhat arguable—they are still merely circumstantial.

In conclusion: Why is this considered so important to some? Is this whole line of inquiry just another variation of the "Hitler was not 'normal,' and thus his crimes cannot be laid on the doorstep of us 'normal' fellows" theory (leaving aside whether or not homosexuality can indeed be considered beyond the norm)? The idea that there was something wrong with Hitler that caused him to perpetrate his crimes is prevalent in the literature, whether it is an implication that he was insane, possessed, or otherwise abnormal. All of these popular explanations employ circular logic and spurious assumptions to make their points, and I, for one, remain unconvinced by any of them. However, such lines of inquiry are perfectly acceptable and should be encouraged. Perhaps a convincing theory will one day emerge. In my view, The Hidden Hitler fails to provide such a theory.

Wally

__._,_._

--

Being happy–is it good for the Jews? "Before Professor Dershowitz accused me of being an anti-Semite (news to me), I was a happy person. Since then, I'm still a happy person". –Michael Santomauro

An antisemite condemns people for being Jews, I am not an antisemite.--Michael Santomauro

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
MARKETPLACE

Hobbies & Activities Zone: Find others who share your passions! Explore new interests.


Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.


Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center.

.

__,_._,___

Tikun Olam : All Smiles at Sharm

 


Tikun Olam-תקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place
September 14, 2010 1:08 PM

All Smiles at Sharm

sharm peace talks

Hillary, Bibi and Mahmoud yuk it up at Sharm peace talks (Khaled El Fiqi/EPA)

Hillary Clinton and Bibi Netanyahu are shown all smiles today at the Sharm el Sheikh dog and pony show, in which Israel and the PA are attempting, with the intercession of various powers and allies like the U.S.




--

Being happy–is it good for the Jews? "Before Professor Dershowitz accused me of being an anti-Semite (news to me), I was a happy person. Since then, I'm still a happy person". –Michael Santomauro

An antisemite condemns people for being Jews, I am not an antisemite.--Michael Santomauro

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
MARKETPLACE

Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center.


Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.


Hobbies & Activities Zone: Find others who share your passions! Explore new interests.

.

__,_._,___

BOOKE REVIEW: Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides

 

REVIEW

Sept. 2010

Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides

by Thomas Dalton, Theses & Dissertations Press, 280 pages, 2009.

Martin Gunnels

Debating the Holocaust by Thomas Dalton

Thomas Dalton's Debating the Holcoaust. 
Cover photo published with permission from the author.

As we all know, Holocaust books tend to be pretty boring. Graphs, charts, numbers, rambling footnotes—when thrown together, page after page, the literature can be exhausting. Whereas most histories are driven by their narratives, by their tales of life, Holocaust scholarship follows a different path. Because reputable Holocaust histories can't really frame a coherent narrative out of such a mysterious and strangely undocumented event, Holocaust historiography constitutes a unique genre within contemporary history. Of course, Holocaust fans can also get their kicks by reading tales like The Diary of Anne Frank or Elie Wiesel's latest blockbuster. But as we all know, these texts aren't exactly "history": they tell us very little about what really happened to the Jews in the Reich.

Because orthodox Holocaustiography masquerades as both history and hard science, it has to take itself very seriously. Believing its own myths about unique evil and unprecedented criminality, Holocaust historiography operates in an unironic, funereal atmosphere where alternative possibilities simply don't exist. Yet Holocaust revisionism, on the other hand, does something completely different. It is disputatious, dialogical, and aggressive. Without the traditional Holocaust narrative, it couldn't exist. Dissent is revisionism's raison d'etre. It is an exercise in intellectual commensalism; it latches onto the gills of mainstream Holocaust scholarship, where it passes basically unnoticed as its gnarly host devours everything in sight.

The key word here, of course, is unnoticed. If the Holocausters paid attention to their little revisionist fellow traveler, the Holocaust, like all other historical events, would then be open to legitimate historical debate. And that's the last thing establishment Holocaust historians want. So we're not fooled when Thomas Dalton swears that he is not a revisionist, that he's merely a neutral observer trying to objectively present a scholarly debate. As far as the true blue Holocausters are concerned, there is no debate. By simply positing that a dialog exists—and by refusing to subtitle his book with some overblown, sensational reference to "assassinated" or "assaulted" memory—Dalton is throwing in his lot with the dark side. He is, alas, one of us.

Nonetheless, Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides is a new kind of revisionism. Because he is careful to appear nonpartisan, Dalton doesn't make any new discoveries or devise any new theories. What he does, however, is synthesize a wide range of mainstream and revisionist scholarship in an attempt to patch together the most important challenges that revisionism has posed to conventional Holocaust opinion. But because his work is a synthesis, he has to do more than recite the strongest work of Graf, Mattogno, Rudolf, and Faurisson (his favorite revisionists); he must also present the cases of Pressac, van Pelt, and Hilberg (his favorite Holocausters). Fortunately, Dalton knows both sides well, and so his text is especially valuable to non-experts who are interested in a straightforward presentation of how mainstream Holocaustiography measures up to its revisionist response. 
Dalton begins by reminding us why the Holocaust is so important to re-vise. "Why not let the Jews have their ol' Holocaust?," he poses to himself rhetorically. After giving the obligatory reply that we have to dedicate ourselves to historical truth, he quickly proceeds to the good stuff. He describes why we can't just move on and forget about the Holocaust debate:

"We are not allowed to forget about it, even if we wanted to. Coverage of the Holocaust is standard fare in every school curriculum. Children the world over read The Diary of Anne FrankNumber the StarsWaiting for AnyaButterfly. Students learn about the gas chambers and the six million, about the Nazi atrocities. We watch Holocaust miniseries on television,Schindler's List, and Night and Fog. We celebrate 'Holocaust Education Week,' and we acknowledge January 27 each year as the 'International Day of Commemoration' of Holocaust victims, as declared by the UN in 2005. School children collect six million pencils, or six million paperclips. We visit Holocaust museums. We take college courses (for full credit) from endowed chairs in Holocaust studies. This is not by accident. It is a deliberate plan, to make sure we 'never forget.' And if we can never forget, then we should at least get the story straight."

Dalton gets it. Instead of repeating the orthodox garbage about "never forget" and "never again," he reminds us that, if we're going to canonize a historical event in state and popular culture, and if we're going to let this historical event dominate our foreign policy rhetoric and guide the actions of our empire, we better keep an open mind about what really happened. By reminding us of the ubiquity of the Holocaust in our lives—and in the lives of the other 6 billion people residing under the jurisdiction of the United Nations—Dalton points out that, despite his earlier claims about needing to set the record straight for mere historical truth, the Holocaust really needs to be revised because of the tyranny it imposes upon the world's publics. Because of the Holocaust campaign, the old protest refrain we hear so often is as true for us as it is for anyone: "We are all Palestinians now." We have all been thoroughly colonized by the Holocaust, and to decolonize, we must first revise. As Dalton himself points out, by indicting one of the central myths of the postwar liberal order, "Revisionists challenge not only orthodoxy; they challenge the power of the State."

After describing what's at stake in the debate, Dalton moves onto the basic complaints of the revisionists: the unreliability of the eye-witnesses, the dubiousness of the six million figure, the strange dematerialization of most of the death camps (along with their millions of victims), the impracticality of the murder weapons, the wartime photos' failure to corroborate the mainstream narrative, the lack of any explicit order from Hitler or the Nazi bureaucracy, and the preponderance of "survivors" who somehow managed to live through the omnipotent, satanic Nazi death machine. After reciting a thorough list of standard revisionist "concessions"—among them the regrettable and atrocious persecution of Europe's Jews, at least hundreds of thousands of whom died—Dalton debunks several "myths" about revisionism. He trashes the clichés that circulate about revisionists: that they are all neo-Nazis, for example, or that they all believe that the Holocaust was some sort of "hoax," the unfortunate vocabulary of which evokes images of tinfoil hats and Luftwaffe exoduses to the moon.

Dalton breaks down the six "death" camps one-by-one, presenting the traditionalist narrative before detailing revisionists' critiques. What we get are not dry, feeble regurgitations of revisionist research; instead we find well-analyzed summaries of the work conducted by contemporary revisionism's strongest researchers. Further, Dalton's information is up-to-date, as he relies much more upon Rudolf, Mattogno, and Graf than he does the groundbreaking work of Arthur Butz. The work's strongest feature, indeed, is its scope: never before has an author written such an accessible yet comprehensive and critical synthesis of revisionist and traditionalist sources.

That's not to say that the book doesn't make some pretty weird choices. The cover, to my utter confusion, is adorned with a giant Star of David and an even more giant Swastika, as if those are the two "sides" of the Holocaust debate. Since Dalton spends so much time emphasizing that revisionists are not just Nazis, and that traditionalists aren't just Zionist Jews, this is a most bizarre, dissonant flaw; and because these images are emblazoned on the book's front cover, they're difficult to sweep under the rug. But despite this minor yet conspicuous mistake, I think Debating the Holocaust is an important contribution to the current state of revisionist scholarship, and I can only hope that, in future editions (this successful book is already in its third printing), the book's menacing, misleading cover will be replaced by something more befitting its reasonable and inoffensive content.

In closing, I want to address why this book is so important and timely. To put it bluntly, we needed a valuable addition to the revisionist literature. With Germar Rudolf out of commission, book-length revisionism has lost its most energetic contributor. It is heartening to see Theses and Dissertations Press alive and well, and we should commend them for continuing to bring us the kind of vital scholarship that keeps historical revisionism dynamic and alive. Along with the recent appearance of Inconvenient History, I'm hopeful that Dalton's new volume signals a reawakening of serious revisionist work. After all, the book is a very potent effort at setting the record straight about revisionist claims, and it's done in such a reasonable, straightforward way that you could give the book to your mom without apology. It is the kind of book that resists drowning its reader in statistics, opting instead for a concise, memorable, camp-by-camp analysis of what Dalton calls "the great debate." In Debating the Holocaust, the revisionist community now has the closest thing yet to an encyclopedic handbook of revisionist arguments. This is the work's most remarkable achievement, and I hope it will only mark the very beginning of Thomas Dalton's promising new career in the fight for historical truth.


--

Being happy–is it good for the Jews? "Before Professor Dershowitz accused me of being an anti-Semite (news to me), I was a happy person. Since then, I'm still a happy person". –Michael Santomauro

An antisemite condemns people for being Jews, I am not an antisemite.--Michael Santomauro

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
MARKETPLACE

Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.


Hobbies & Activities Zone: Find others who share your passions! Explore new interests.


Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center.

.

__,_._,___

Jeff Gates: "The Hate Mongers Among Us" -- a 4-part series

 

Sept. 14, 2010

Dear Friends, Colleagues and Editors:

Here are the latest analyses, a four-part series titled "The Hate Mongers Among us."




Editors -- please include a link to the Criminal State website and to Guilt By Association: How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War

Best regards,

Jeff Gates

1429 N. La Rosa Dr.
Tempe, AZ 85281
www.criminalstate.com



--

Being happy–is it good for the Jews? "Before Professor Dershowitz accused me of being an anti-Semite (news to me), I was a happy person. Since then, I'm still a happy person". –Michael Santomauro

An antisemite condemns people for being Jews, I am not an antisemite.--Michael Santomauro

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
MARKETPLACE

Hobbies & Activities Zone: Find others who share your passions! Explore new interests.


Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center.


Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.

.

__,_._,___

Link for: Envy, Guilt, and Self-Destruction

 



Envy, Guilt, and Self-Destruction

Bob Wallace 

September 14, 2010 

"White Guilt" is a term which, strictly speaking, has no meaning. No group can be guilty of anything, only individuals. You might as well speak of Black guilt, Asian guilt, French, Burmese or Klingon guilt. 



Peace.
Michael Santomauro @ 917-974-6367 

What sort of Truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth?

Let's End Thought Crimes in the Twenty-first Century. -- to separate historical fact from propaganda…peace is patriotic!


__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___