I'm a holocaust denier, but I also believe the Nazis planned the extermination of the Jewish people

[---]

I'm a holocaust denier, but I also believe the Nazis planned the extermination of the Jewish people



By Kevin Myers

Wednesday March 04 2009

Let me say from the outset; I'm with Bishop Richard Williamson on this. There was no holocaust, (or Holocaust, as my computer software insists) and six million Jews were not murdered by the Third Reich. These two statements of mine are irrefutable truths, yet their utterance could get me thrown in the slammer in half the countries of the EU.

Why, they could in the right circumstances even get me extradited for trial in Sweden, a country which heroically kept the Third Reich supplied with iron ore, even as the last victims of the Nazi genocide were being murdered.

What? I admit that there was murder and genocide (or Genocide, as my spell-check wants me to call it) but almost in the same breath, insist that there was no holocaust? How is this possible? Well, if you turn historical events into current political dogmas, (believed even by my computer) you are thereby creating a sort of secular, godless religion, which becomes mandatory for all who wish to participate in public life. Yet dogmas, by definition, are so simplistic and crude that they are usually not merely wrong, but are also probably so.

It is an offence in German law to say that six million Jews did not die in the holocaust. Very well then. I am a criminal in Germany. For efficient though the Nazis were, they were not so clinically precise as to kill six million Jews -- not a Jew more, or not a Jew less.

As it happens, the figure 'six million' was originally a round-estimate of the total numbers of concentration camp victims of the Third Reich: this was then turned by popular perception, aided by activists such as the Simon Weisenthal Centre, into the Jewish death toll.

However, there is not even a scientific or documentary basis for this number. Its enduring appeal -- the digit six, with the six zeros which follow it -- depends upon a fairly basic human predilection for numerological magic. It is, very likely, a subconsciously appealing version of the diabolical, 666.

Moreover, there certainly was no holocaust. For if the word is to have any literal validity at all, it must be related to its actual meaning, which comes from the Greek words holos, 'whole', and caust, 'fire'. Most Jewish victims of the Third Reich were not burnt in the ovens in Auschwitz. They were shot by the hundreds of thousands in the Lebensraum of the east, or were worked or starved to death in a hundred other camps, across the Reich.

This programme was begun informally by Nazi armies in 1941, and only took organised form after the Wannsee conference in January 1942. Thus was born one of the most satanic operations in world history, in which millions of Jews were murdered. To be sure, you can use the term holocaust to describe these events, but only as a metaphor.

However, to turn that metaphor into a political dogma, a denial of which can result in imprisonment, is to create a religio-penal code of which Torquemada would have approved.

Now, I've done an extensive internet search on Bishop Williamson, and I truly have no idea what he actually said about the Third Reich; though he is everywhere called a 'holocaust denier', as if this term has some universal meaning.

It hasn't. I'm a holocaust denier; but I also believe that the Nazis planned the extermination of the Jewish people, as far as their evil hands could reach. And because the Nazis lost, the free-speech party won. So, this means that the bishop can believe, and even publicly state, if he wants, that Auschwitz was an ice-cream parlour and the SS was a dance troupe.

That is the nature of free speech. Any one of us should be able to declare any old counter-factual and even offensive nonsense, without being sent to jail, provided we preach hatred for no one. It's a free and equal world.

Or is it?

Across Europe, there are countless Islamic madrasahs, in which imams regularly preach hatred for Jews, and where the holocaust is routinely denied.

Which member-state of the EU will pursue such conveyors of hate, or seek the extradition of an imam who says that the holocaust was a Zionist hoax? None of them. We know this.

For the EU has tolerated the creation of an informal historiographical apartheid. So, on the one hand, a single, eccentric (and possibly deranged) Christian bishop may be hounded for his demented historical beliefs: but on the other, there is a deafening silence over the widespread and virulent distortion of the 'holocaust' by Islamic preachers.

If Bishop Williamson has an agenda, it is so bonkers as to rank alongside that of The Lunar Cheese Society.

Yet he, and other Christian cranks like him, could even be imprisoned for their stated beliefs, as other 'men of God', working to an infinitely more sinister and far more politically inspired agenda, are simultaneously ignored.

This disparity is now effectively an EU policy.

You can reasonably call such double-standards many things, but the words 'rational', 'wise' or 'consistent' are not among them. 'Suicidal' and 'insane', however, certainly are.

kmyers@independent.ie

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnis...le-1660201.html

[mastermg]

Islamic madrassah? Madrassah is Arabic for school, and the one I went to taught us about it. However, most Arabs take a different perspective than the West's in that they know it was used as propaganda to take over Arab land, so they choose not to make a big deal out of it in schools.

[hurricanehugo]

Well your partly right and partly wrong.

The "Holocaust" was not a term created by the Nazi's but by historians after to describe the experience of Jewish Genocide at the hands of the Nazi's.

The Nazi's never used the word Holocaust; they used a more ambiguous term; The Final Solution.

However the Final Solution was only part of the entire Nazi paradigm of changing the shape, character and makeup of their civilization.

The Nazi ideology called for not just the extermination of Jewish people but to everyone they considered "undesirable."

The Nazi ideal of undesirable people extended beyond just Jews. Homosexual, socialists, people born with deformities or defects and generally any Slavic or Russian people fell under the classification. In fact; as much as Hitler and the Nazi regime were rabid anti-Semites they had just the same level of hatred towards the Soviets and most Eastern Europeans.

But the Nazi ideology called for more than just the elimination of undesirables.

Parallel to the effort made at removing people from their society the Nazi's also sought to repopulate Germany and Europe with their Aryan master race. This concept was formalized in the Lebensborn program; where unwed mothers with SS fathers were cared for. This also resulted in any child born of SS soldiers to be taken by the state and raised in the Nazi system. Also the Nazi's forcibly abducted "aryan" looking children from other European nations and gave them to German families for adoption.

Another plan the Nazi's had was the repopulation of Eastern Europe. It was the hope of Hitler to forcibly depopulate most of Eastern Europe; make the survivors slave; and migrate Germans to those lands. This explains why the Nazi's were extremely brutal in Eastern Europe.

So your partly right; the Nazi Genocide of the Jewish people was never called the "Holocaust." And your right they were interested in killing more than just Jews. However Jews comprised the lion share of the casualties inflicted by the Nazi's in the name of reshaping their society. In other words; Jews as a group were singled out and made a specific target for extermination and they comprise a big percentage of those killed in this way. And it was an express goal of Hitler to exterminate the Jews.

The word Holocaust is only used to specifically describe the Jewish experience of being a target for extermination by the Nazi's.

[---]

The word holocaust, burnt offering, derives from the Greek holos, whole, and kaustos, burn. The Hebrew-derived equivalent term is shoah, catastophe. Note the term holocaust implies a sacraficial purpose to the slaughter (i.e., gives it some transcendental meaning), whereas the term shoah, catastrophe, implies a neutral car-accident-like quality.

Quote:1942 News Chron. 5 Dec. 2/2 Holocaust... Nothing else in Hitler's record is comparable to his treatment of the Jews....The word has gone forth that..the Jewish peoples are to be exterminated....The conscience of humanity stands aghast.

Any ideas why the 6,000,000 number was being toted in Jewish press articles DECADES before..was it just prescience on the part of the authors?


Holocaust Denial And Uncomfortable Truths

By Robin Davis

06 June, 2009
Countercurrents.org

It has always been those few who can see through the political correctness and hypocrisy of popular attitudes who are considered dangerous.

"Holocaust denial laws" are now in place in about a dozen countries. Defenders of these laws claim that the expression of unconventional views about the Jewish genocide is "hate speech" and "incitement to violence" and therefore must be suppressed.

But history shows the greatest purveyors of lies, hatred and incitement to violence are those with the power to spread their poison by manipulating popular opinion via the control or complicity of the mass media. Through a purposefully constructed lens of political correctness the despicable becomes normal. It is by this insidious process that tyrants make it normal and acceptable to murder those whom they consider threatening or inferior. We have only to turn on the television to see that process at work.

It is not the unpopular views we should fear but the popular.

When the suppression of free speech serves no purpose other than to silence unconventional opinions we should be alarmed. We should be even more alarmed when to question oppressive laws is to risk vilification, in this case by the smear of "Holocaust denier" and "anti-Semite".

Appropriation of the term "The Holocaust" to the Nazi extermination of the Jews minimises the significance of other genocides, including those that are happening right now. Should these crimes also be closed to opinions that question the accuracy of the official "truth"?

Stifling open discussion and debate also does an injustice to the other millions of victims of the Nazi concentration camps: the Roma, Blacks, Polish and Russian prisoners, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals and the mentally and physically disabled. It sidelines the slave labourers starved, beaten and worked to death in German war industries and the horrors suffered by anyone expressing anti-Nazi views.

It is likely that most people regard the real deniers of the Jewish genocide - the ones who say the extermination crimes never happened at all - in the same light as those who espouse any number of other oddball ideas. Do we need laws to protect us from those who make obviously unsupportable claims?

The real threat posed by "deniers" is that others might be influenced to undertake serious study and uncover embarrassing facts that would refute Israel's "victim" status. This would threaten Israel's moral legitimacy, underpinned by the world's collective shame for looking the other way. All it takes to invoke that shame is the term anti-Semite, either stated or implied.

But opinions that question the widely accepted WWII Jewish genocide history are not anti-Semitic any more than opinions that question the accepted history of the Ukraine genocide (1) are anti-Russian. That we are led to label any deviation from the official history as "Holocaust denial" and "Holocaust denial" as anti-Semitism is no accident. It has come about by the same semantic sleight of hand that would have us believe anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are one and the same. They are not.

Many Christians are Zionists while many Jews throughout the world, perhaps even the majority, are anti-Zionist. Anti-Zionism has nothing to do with persecution of the Jews. It is simply anti-racism and anti-colonialism as applied to the occupation of Palestine and the subjugation of its indigenous population. (2)

When anyone goes to great lengths to stifle open inquiry and debate on any subject, alarm bells should ring. Invariably the motivation is suppression of uncomfortable truths. The uncomfortable truth of the Jewish genocide is that millions of lives would certainly have been saved had it been the priority of the Zionist leadership to save them. Their priority instead was establishment of the state of Israel. And then, as now, the suffering of Europe's Jews and the world's collective guilt was exploited to that end. (3)

Ironically, when millions of refugees were trying to escape from Europe before the war, and even while the genocide was in progress, prominent leaders of the Zionist movement were "Holocaust deniers". When the truth could no longer remain hidden, the Zionist leadership opposed attempts to save the European Jews though financial and humanitarian aid and emigration. The exception was migration to Palestine, and even the relative few who were saved were selected not according to their plight but according to their perceived value to the future state of Israel.

One proposal by 270 members of the British Parliament, as a part of diplomatic negotiations with Germany during the height of the killings, was to evacuate 500,000 Jews from Europe and resettle them in British colonies. This offer was rejected by the Zionist leaders with the observation, "Only to Palestine!" (3)

It is clear from the statements and actions of the Zionist leadership that they considered the suffering of the European Jews advantageous in securing future international support for the establishment of the Zionist state.

Shocking? That uncomfortable truth is well documented for those who care or dare to study the subject.

Throughout history Jews, like many other minorities, have indeed been persecuted, but the modern state of Israel never was the victim. Since its inception it has been the coloniser, aggressor, tormentor and oppressor. Exploiting the memory of Hitler's victims to perpetuate the myth of "victim Israel" is cynical. To do so while attacking its neighbours and inflicting Nazi-style state terrorism, apartheid and genocide on the Palestinians is cynical in the extreme.

While "deniers" are jailed for expressing unacceptable views, the real criminals - those responsible for the agony and death of millions - manipulate popular opinion to make crimes against humanity, war crimes, contempt for international law and indifference to human suffering seem normal and acceptable. And they do so with impunity.

(1) http://www.bigeye.com/111703.htm
(2) http://pilger.carlton.com/page.asp?partid=519
(3) http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/
rabbi_quotes/weissmandl.cfm

http://www.countercurrents.org/davis060609.htm