http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/2010/11/konk-his-drawing-of-big-balloon-and-pin.html
Peace.
Michael Santomauro
@ 917-974-6367
What sort of TRUTH is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101112/bs_yblog_upshot/glenn-beck-draws-criticism-over-latest-holocaust-comments
Peace.
Michael Santomauro
@ 917-974-6367
What sort of TRUTH is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth?
Hope you sent it to Santomauro
From: Dagmar Brenne [mailto:danaemet1@bigpond.com]
Sent: Friday, 12 November 2010 11:24 AM
To: Fredrick Toben
Subject: Re: Holocaust Shoah Inversion as an academic topic
Thomas Dalton is a professor of HUMANITIES, not HISTORY. He is not credible on this topic. Neither is the engineer Butz, or the bishop Williamson. They all might hate Jews, but no professional historian will recognize their discrimination as factual
Oh these Jews! With this kind of reasoning I cannot make any viable observations about the Koelner Dom, as I am not an architect, on an ocean liner, because I am not a shipbuilder, the Mona Lisa, since I am not a painter or even on a herd of cows, since I am not a farmer.
But I might qualify as a reader of books, and from what I have read repeatedly that neither Churchill, Eisenhower or de Gaulle had much to say about any Holocaust death camps of Jews.
Dagmar
From: Fredrick Toben
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 8:19 AM
Subject: Holocaust Shoah Inversion as an academic topic
Michael, this is the usual pattern of sidelining substantial works and individuals who dare question taboo topics for the sake of truth. It's too cheap to dismiss Butz's works – and thoughts and it is Weinblatt who lacks credibility and academic integrity. I like his name because like all good Jews his German name is significant: wine-leaf, and perhaps this implied intoxication has blinded him to concepts such as truth in academia.
My prime example of how the censorship process works is the Hayward thesis affair of 1998-2000 when, upon urgings by Jewish groups, New Zealand's Canterbury University moved against its first Revisionist thesis, submitted in 1993, that stated there was no evidence of homicidal gas chambers ever having existed at Auschwitz.
Why did this affair happen? I had submitted this thesis in 1998 as evidence that this topic was indeed of academic value, when my accuser before the Australian Human Rights Commission claimed that nowhere in the world was there a university that legitimised Holocaust revisionism. The process of elimination took two years. The Jewish group demanded the MA honours designation be reduced to a BA but the university refused because there was no evidence that Hayward had been dishonest!
Chuck Weinblatt would possibly know about this Hayward affair – if not, then he could possibly be reminded how Hayward recanted because of received death threats, which is understandable, i.e. if you still have wife and young family to worry about. That is the brief background why so many 'Holocaust-Shoah Inversion' theses on this topic are compromised – they rest on the false and deceptive premise that IT HAPPENED and anyone who dares question the basic premise on which the Holocaust rests – 6 million, gas chambers, systematic killings – is labelled: hater, Holocaust denier, anti-Semite, racist, Nazi, etc. Weinblatt reveals this pattern of blocking and dismissing impulses that dare ask questions.
But you know all this.
Cheers
Fredrick
From: ReportersNotebook@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ReportersNotebook@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ReporterNotebook
Sent: Friday, 12 November 2010 6:38 AM
To: reportersnotebook
Subject: Re: Deconstructing doubletalk in the "Holocaust denial" debate on campus
From: Chuck Weinblatt <csw2@bex.net>
Date: Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 2:32 PM
Subject: RE: Deconstructing doubletalk in the "Holocaust denial" debate on campus
To: ReporterNotebook <reporternotebook@gmail.com>
1. Thomas Dalton is a professor of HUMANITIES, not HISTORY. He is not credible on this topic. Neither is the engineer Butz, or the bishop Williamson. They all might hate Jews, but no professional historian will recognize their discrimination as factual.
2. Freedom of speech is the hallmark of a liberal and progressive society. I can think of only one topic in which a society should alter this view. That topic is genocide. Note, I did not say "the Holocaust." I said genocide. If we allow our progeny to believe that a genocide is in reality a hoax, then they will not learn from it. They will not vicariously experience the abject terror, horror and brutality of genocide. Having lost this ability to learn from genocide, our progeny will then be subject to the same mistakes that led to the genocide.
3. Some European nations prohibit Holocaust denial for a very good reason. Anti-Semitism in Europe has not disappeared. In fact, it has been gaining strength over the past few decades. The very same public sentiment that created the Shoah remains today just under the daily radar screen. In other world, it can happen again and the most probable location for it is Europe. European nations counter the rise of anti-Semitism with sound laws that discourage displaying Holocaust denial in public. When the European public has learned to accept that Holocaust facts are indeed accurate, and when they have acquired tolerance towards Jews, there will no longer be a need for such laws. However, the massive immigration of Muslims in Europe might postpone that time far into the future.
4. All anti-Semites use the same false premise in blaming Jews. They blame "the Jewish lobby" for every bad circumstance under the sun. I guarantee that no "Jewish lobby" outside of Israel has the political strength to win a dog catcher job. This is the same mendacious "Jewish menace" propaganda that Nazi leaders used to encourage gentiles to hate Jews in the 1930s. It became a foundation for the Nuremberg Laws. In essence, it is pure BS. Jews represent a very tiny percentage of anyone's nation (except Israel). At less than 1% of the US population, Jews influence no one. Blaming "the Jewish lobby" is patently impossible and completely false. Virtually no professional historians or sociologists agree with it. The so-called "Jewish lobby" wields no significant political clout. At 1% of the population, they control nothing.
5. Thousands of thesis and doctoral research projects have all reached the same conclusion about Holocaust. These facts cannot be wrong. Wannsee Conference records reveal the plan for "The Final Solution of the Jewish Problem" in great detail, including architectural plans for massive death camps, gas chambers and cremation furnaces. The SS was tasked with manning death camps and their Einsatzgruppen testified to shooting more than a million innocent Jewish men, women and children (see Babi Yar). Nazi leaders admitted to murdering millions of innocent Jews (and many others). Camp guards, employees and nearby citizens have all testified to the death camp veracity. Survivors described it in detail. Six million Jews did not simply disappear without a trace. They did not all perish from typhus. What's most interesting about this is that Nazi leaders had an out at the Nuremberg Trials. They could have denied murdering millions of Jews. Instead, they all admitted to the genocide of European Jews, but said that they were "just following orders." Transcripts are readily available in English.
6. I could care less if you or anyone wishes to "review" history. By all means, knock yourself out! But, even if the real figure for Jewish Holocaust victims turned out to be four million, or even three million (and virtually all professional historians peg the number at between 5.5 million and 6 million), it would still remain the most egregious genocide against members of one religion in history. So, what could you possibly gain by "revising" history? The very same lesson would remain. Millions of innocent Jewish men, women and children would still have been murdered because of their faith. Hell, even if the number was one million, it would still be a ghastly genocide against Jews. Again, what would change if the numbers are not exactly accurate? Jews were still evicted from their homes, schools & jobs, forced into ghettos, concentration camps and slave labor and the weak and small ones were immediately murdered. You would need either a very low IQ or very significant bigotry to deny these facts. Virtually all professional historians will stake their career on the veracity of these facts. What could you hope to change? Do you think that more people would become anti-Semites? Is this a supercilious goal? So, what's the point in trying to revise it? What on earth do you hope to gain? Some people will always hate Jews, so why waste your time trying to exacerbate this bigotry?
CW
From: ReporterNotebook [mailto:reporternotebook@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 12:45 PM
To: Chuck
Subject: Re: Deconstructing doubletalk in the "Holocaust denial" debate on campus
Dear Charles,
Every sentence you write is based on a false notion. If the Holocaust narrative is so accurate, why do 17 nations have Holocaust Denial Laws? pushed by the Jewish Lobby worldwide--Israel was the first nation to pass such laws in 1986.
Can I send you a copy of a book in exchange for yours? Debating the Holocaust: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton. Which I can't even advertise virtually in any mainstream publication, with tens of thousands of dollars in my advertising budget, because of the power of the Jewish Lobby.
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Chuck <csw2@bex.net> wrote:
Virtually all professional historians agree that Holocaust facts are valid; so what are the credentials of those who disagree? Why should we believe them? Have they uncovered some profound new data to challenge the known fact that millions of innocent Jewish men, women and children were murdered because of their faith? If so, why has no one produced such new data? Instead, they simply cry out in the wilderness, "Historical facts about the Holocaust are not true!" Is this the mind of an empirical researcher with tenure as professor of history at a major university? Or, is this the cry of an anti-Semite who simply can't stand that Jews have obtained a measure of sympathy in the shadow of the Shoah, the greatest genocide against any religious group in history?
Anyone can shout in the Internet that the Holocaust is a hoax. Proving such an impossible allegation is another story. We await their "evidence."
Meanwhile, the only real question is why would anyone try to distort or deny that which thousands of thesis and dissertations have proven so elegantly? Why would someone try to deny the words of Nazi leaders themselves, who admitted that they did indeed murder millions of innocent Jews, but that they were "just following orders" (see Nuremburg trial records). The Wannsee Conference records prove that Nazi leaders planned the extermination of Europe's Jews. Nazi leaders admitted to performing it. Camp guards and workers corroborated it. Survivors described it. And now, suddenly and without any evidence, we are asked to disregard a mountain of evidence that convicted Nazi Germany of the world's greatest genocide. Again, why should we believe the deniers?
Charles Weinblatt
Author, Jacob's Courage
Michael, this is the usual pattern of sidelining substantial works and individuals who dare question taboo topics for the sake of truth. It's too cheap to dismiss Butz's works – and thoughts and it is Weinblatt who lacks credibility and academic integrity. I like his name because like all good Jews his German name is significant: wine-leaf, and perhaps this implied intoxication has blinded him to concepts such as truth in academia.
My prime example of how the censorship process works is the Hayward thesis affair of 1998-2000 when, upon urgings by Jewish groups, New Zealand's Canterbury University moved against its first Revisionist thesis, submitted in 1993, that stated there was no evidence of homicidal gas chambers ever having existed at Auschwitz.
Why did this affair happen? I had submitted this thesis in 1998 as evidence that this topic was indeed of academic value, when my accuser before the Australian Human Rights Commission claimed that nowhere in the world was there a university that legitimised Holocaust revisionism. The process of elimination took two years. The Jewish group demanded the MA honours designation be reduced to a BA but the university refused because there was no evidence that Hayward had been dishonest!
Chuck Weinblatt would possibly know about this Hayward affair – if not, then he could possibly be reminded how Hayward recanted because of received death threats, which is understandable, i.e. if you still have wife and young family to worry about. That is the brief background why so many 'Holocaust-Shoah Inversion' theses on this topic are compromised – they rest on the false and deceptive premise that IT HAPPENED and anyone who dares question the basic premise on which the Holocaust rests – 6 million, gas chambers, systematic killings – is labelled: hater, Holocaust denier, anti-Semite, racist, Nazi, etc. Weinblatt reveals this pattern of blocking and dismissing impulses that dare ask questions.
But you know all this.
Cheers
Fredrick
From: ReportersNotebook@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ReportersNotebook@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ReporterNotebook
Sent: Friday, 12 November 2010 6:38 AM
To: reportersnotebook
Subject: Re: Deconstructing doubletalk in the "Holocaust denial" debate on campus
From: Chuck Weinblatt <csw2@bex.net>
Date: Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 2:32 PM
Subject: RE: Deconstructing doubletalk in the "Holocaust denial" debate on campus
To: ReporterNotebook <reporternotebook@gmail.com>
1. Thomas Dalton is a professor of HUMANITIES, not HISTORY. He is not credible on this topic. Neither is the engineer Butz, or the bishop Williamson. They all might hate Jews, but no professional historian will recognize their discrimination as factual.
2. Freedom of speech is the hallmark of a liberal and progressive society. I can think of only one topic in which a society should alter this view. That topic is genocide. Note, I did not say "the Holocaust." I said genocide. If we allow our progeny to believe that a genocide is in reality a hoax, then they will not learn from it. They will not vicariously experience the abject terror, horror and brutality of genocide. Having lost this ability to learn from genocide, our progeny will then be subject to the same mistakes that led to the genocide.
3. Some European nations prohibit Holocaust denial for a very good reason. Anti-Semitism in Europe has not disappeared. In fact, it has been gaining strength over the past few decades. The very same public sentiment that created the Shoah remains today just under the daily radar screen. In other world, it can happen again and the most probable location for it is Europe. European nations counter the rise of anti-Semitism with sound laws that discourage displaying Holocaust denial in public. When the European public has learned to accept that Holocaust facts are indeed accurate, and when they have acquired tolerance towards Jews, there will no longer be a need for such laws. However, the massive immigration of Muslims in Europe might postpone that time far into the future.
4. All anti-Semites use the same false premise in blaming Jews. They blame "the Jewish lobby" for every bad circumstance under the sun. I guarantee that no "Jewish lobby" outside of Israel has the political strength to win a dog catcher job. This is the same mendacious "Jewish menace" propaganda that Nazi leaders used to encourage gentiles to hate Jews in the 1930s. It became a foundation for the Nuremberg Laws. In essence, it is pure BS. Jews represent a very tiny percentage of anyone's nation (except Israel). At less than 1% of the US population, Jews influence no one. Blaming "the Jewish lobby" is patently impossible and completely false. Virtually no professional historians or sociologists agree with it. The so-called "Jewish lobby" wields no significant political clout. At 1% of the population, they control nothing.
5. Thousands of thesis and doctoral research projects have all reached the same conclusion about Holocaust. These facts cannot be wrong. Wannsee Conference records reveal the plan for "The Final Solution of the Jewish Problem" in great detail, including architectural plans for massive death camps, gas chambers and cremation furnaces. The SS was tasked with manning death camps and their Einsatzgruppen testified to shooting more than a million innocent Jewish men, women and children (see Babi Yar). Nazi leaders admitted to murdering millions of innocent Jews (and many others). Camp guards, employees and nearby citizens have all testified to the death camp veracity. Survivors described it in detail. Six million Jews did not simply disappear without a trace. They did not all perish from typhus. What's most interesting about this is that Nazi leaders had an out at the Nuremberg Trials. They could have denied murdering millions of Jews. Instead, they all admitted to the genocide of European Jews, but said that they were "just following orders." Transcripts are readily available in English.
6. I could care less if you or anyone wishes to "review" history. By all means, knock yourself out! But, even if the real figure for Jewish Holocaust victims turned out to be four million, or even three million (and virtually all professional historians peg the number at between 5.5 million and 6 million), it would still remain the most egregious genocide against members of one religion in history. So, what could you possibly gain by "revising" history? The very same lesson would remain. Millions of innocent Jewish men, women and children would still have been murdered because of their faith. Hell, even if the number was one million, it would still be a ghastly genocide against Jews. Again, what would change if the numbers are not exactly accurate? Jews were still evicted from their homes, schools & jobs, forced into ghettos, concentration camps and slave labor and the weak and small ones were immediately murdered. You would need either a very low IQ or very significant bigotry to deny these facts. Virtually all professional historians will stake their career on the veracity of these facts. What could you hope to change? Do you think that more people would become anti-Semites? Is this a supercilious goal? So, what's the point in trying to revise it? What on earth do you hope to gain? Some people will always hate Jews, so why waste your time trying to exacerbate this bigotry?
CW
From: ReporterNotebook [mailto:reporternotebook@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 12:45 PM
To: Chuck
Subject: Re: Deconstructing doubletalk in the "Holocaust denial" debate on campus
Dear Charles,
Every sentence you write is based on a false notion. If the Holocaust narrative is so accurate, why do 17 nations have Holocaust Denial Laws? pushed by the Jewish Lobby worldwide--Israel was the first nation to pass such laws in 1986.
Can I send you a copy of a book in exchange for yours? Debating the Holocaust: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton. Which I can't even advertise virtually in any mainstream publication, with tens of thousands of dollars in my advertising budget, because of the power of the Jewish Lobby.
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Chuck <csw2@bex.net> wrote:
Virtually all professional historians agree that Holocaust facts are valid; so what are the credentials of those who disagree? Why should we believe them? Have they uncovered some profound new data to challenge the known fact that millions of innocent Jewish men, women and children were murdered because of their faith? If so, why has no one produced such new data? Instead, they simply cry out in the wilderness, "Historical facts about the Holocaust are not true!" Is this the mind of an empirical researcher with tenure as professor of history at a major university? Or, is this the cry of an anti-Semite who simply can't stand that Jews have obtained a measure of sympathy in the shadow of the Shoah, the greatest genocide against any religious group in history?
Anyone can shout in the Internet that the Holocaust is a hoax. Proving such an impossible allegation is another story. We await their "evidence."
Meanwhile, the only real question is why would anyone try to distort or deny that which thousands of thesis and dissertations have proven so elegantly? Why would someone try to deny the words of Nazi leaders themselves, who admitted that they did indeed murder millions of innocent Jews, but that they were "just following orders" (see Nuremburg trial records). The Wannsee Conference records prove that Nazi leaders planned the extermination of Europe's Jews. Nazi leaders admitted to performing it. Camp guards and workers corroborated it. Survivors described it. And now, suddenly and without any evidence, we are asked to disregard a mountain of evidence that convicted Nazi Germany of the world's greatest genocide. Again, why should we believe the deniers?
Charles Weinblatt
Author, Jacob's Courage
Anti-Semitism in Europe has not disappeared. In fact, it has been gaining strength over the past few decades.
The ADL, for example, are forever trying to turn factual statements into hate speech, if there is even a whiff of it being directed at Israel, a Jew or a Zionist for their bad behaviour.
People who do nasty things cannot be granted immunity simply because they are Jews or because their relatives have suffered a lot. Some of my relatives have suffered a lot, for various reasons, but that should not excuse me for doing the kinds of things that the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians, for example.
As Ye sow, so shall Ye reap.
Anthony Lawson: Self-proclaimed anti-NastyPeopleite.
From: Chuck Weinblatt <csw2@bex.net>
Date: Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 2:32 PM
Subject: RE: Deconstructing doubletalk in the "Holocaust denial" debate on campus
To: ReporterNotebook <reporternotebook@gmail.com>1. Thomas Dalton is a professor of HUMANITIES, not HISTORY. He is not credible on this topic. Neither is the engineer Butz, or the bishop Williamson. They all might hate Jews, but no professional historian will recognize their discrimination as factual.
2. Freedom of speech is the hallmark of a liberal and progressive society. I can think of only one topic in which a society should alter this view. That topic is genocide. Note, I did not say "the Holocaust." I said genocide. If we allow our progeny to believe that a genocide is in reality a hoax, then they will not learn from it. They will not vicariously experience the abject terror, horror and brutality of genocide. Having lost this ability to learn from genocide, our progeny will then be subject to the same mistakes that led to the genocide.
3. Some European nations prohibit Holocaust denial for a very good reason. Anti-Semitism in Europe has not disappeared. In fact, it has been gaining strength over the past few decades. The very same public sentiment that created the Shoah remains today just under the daily radar screen. In other world, it can happen again and the most probable location for it is Europe. European nations counter the rise of anti-Semitism with sound laws that discourage displaying Holocaust denial in public. When the European public has learned to accept that Holocaust facts are indeed accurate, and when they have acquired tolerance towards Jews, there will no longer be a need for such laws. However, the massive immigration of Muslims in Europe might postpone that time far into the future.
4. All anti-Semites use the same false premise in blaming Jews. They blame "the Jewish lobby" for every bad circumstance under the sun. I guarantee that no "Jewish lobby" outside of Israel has the political strength to win a dog catcher job. This is the same mendacious "Jewish menace" propaganda that Nazi leaders used to encourage gentiles to hate Jews in the 1930s. It became a foundation for the Nuremberg Laws. In essence, it is pure BS. Jews represent a very tiny percentage of anyone's nation (except Israel). At less than 1% of the US population, Jews influence no one. Blaming "the Jewish lobby" is patently impossible and completely false. Virtually no professional historians or sociologists agree with it. The so-called "Jewish lobby" wields no significant political clout. At 1% of the population, they control nothing.
5. Thousands of thesis and doctoral research projects have all reached the same conclusion about Holocaust. These facts cannot be wrong. Wannsee Conference records reveal the plan for "The Final Solution of the Jewish Problem" in great detail, including architectural plans for massive death camps, gas chambers and cremation furnaces. The SS was tasked with manning death camps and their Einsatzgruppen testified to shooting more than a million innocent Jewish men, women and children (see Babi Yar). Nazi leaders admitted to murdering millions of innocent Jews (and many others). Camp guards, employees and nearby citizens have all testified to the death camp veracity. Survivors described it in detail. Six million Jews did not simply disappear without a trace. They did not all perish from typhus. What's most interesting about this is that Nazi leaders had an out at the Nuremberg Trials. They could have denied murdering millions of Jews. Instead, they all admitted to the genocide of European Jews, but said that they were "just following orders." Transcripts are readily available in English.
6. I could care less if you or anyone wishes to "review" history. By all means, knock yourself out! But, even if the real figure for Jewish Holocaust victims turned out to be four million, or even three million (and virtually all professional historians peg the number at between 5.5 million and 6 million), it would still remain the most egregious genocide against members of one religion in history. So, what could you possibly gain by "revising" history? The very same lesson would remain. Millions of innocent Jewish men, women and children would still have been murdered because of their faith. Hell, even if the number was one million, it would still be a ghastly genocide against Jews. Again, what would change if the numbers are not exactly accurate? Jews were still evicted from their homes, schools & jobs, forced into ghettos, concentration camps and slave labor and the weak and small ones were immediately murdered. You would need either a very low IQ or very significant bigotry to deny these facts. Virtually all professional historians will stake their career on the veracity of these facts. What could you hope to change? Do you think that more people would become anti-Semites? Is this a supercilious goal? So, what's the point in trying to revise it? What on earth do you hope to gain? Some people will always hate Jews, so why waste your time trying to exacerbate this bigotry?
CW
From: ReporterNotebook [mailto:reporternotebook@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 12:45 PM
To: Chuck
Subject: Re: Deconstructing doubletalk in the "Holocaust denial" debate on campus
Dear Charles,
Every sentence you write is based on a false notion. If the Holocaust narrative is so accurate, why do 17 nations have Holocaust Denial Laws? pushed by the Jewish Lobby worldwide--Israel was the first nation to pass such laws in 1986.
Can I send you a copy of a book in exchange for yours? Debating the Holocaust: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton. Which I can't even advertise virtually in any mainstream publication, with tens of thousands of dollars in my advertising budget, because of the power of the Jewish Lobby.
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Chuck <csw2@bex.net> wrote:
Virtually all professional historians agree that Holocaust facts are valid; so what are the credentials of those who disagree? Why should we believe them? Have they uncovered some profound new data to challenge the known fact that millions of innocent Jewish men, women and children were murdered because of their faith? If so, why has no one produced such new data? Instead, they simply cry out in the wilderness, "Historical facts about the Holocaust are not true!" Is this the mind of an empirical researcher with tenure as professor of history at a major university? Or, is this the cry of an anti-Semite who simply can't stand that Jews have obtained a measure of sympathy in the shadow of the Shoah, the greatest genocide against any religious group in history?
Anyone can shout in the Internet that the Holocaust is a hoax. Proving such an impossible allegation is another story. We await their "evidence."
Meanwhile, the only real question is why would anyone try to distort or deny that which thousands of thesis and dissertations have proven so elegantly? Why would someone try to deny the words of Nazi leaders themselves, who admitted that they did indeed murder millions of innocent Jews, but that they were "just following orders" (see Nuremburg trial records). The Wannsee Conference records prove that Nazi leaders planned the extermination of Europe's Jews. Nazi leaders admitted to performing it. Camp guards and workers corroborated it. Survivors described it. And now, suddenly and without any evidence, we are asked to disregard a mountain of evidence that convicted Nazi Germany of the world's greatest genocide. Again, why should we believe the deniers?
Charles Weinblatt
Author, Jacob's Courage
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
