blackcatte, Catte, featured, free speech2, media watch

Free speech, censorship & the right to be wrong…

by Catte



Do we have a responsibility to silence views we consider morally repugnant or simply untrue? Claims that the Holocaust didn’t happen are insane and revolting. Should we prevent people from airing those views? Refuse to debate with them? Should we declare that some opinions do not deserve to be heard?

It’s a good question. Not an easy one to answer maybe. It’s offensive to listen to people excusing or even denying hideous crimes against humanity. The instinct is that they should be stopped somehow. That’s why questioning the reality of the Holocaust is a crime in some countries.

But what about the other side of that? If we – however honourably – designate any opinion to be worthy of unconditional censorship have we not created a dreadful precedent? Holocaust-denial might be a no-brainer for condemnation – but what about “HIV-denial”? “climate-denial?”

In fact “Denialism” is now a designated pathology that could probably be adapted for almost any contingency. The latest one is “vaccine-denial”, made trendy by the recent reporting on the documentary VAXXED: from cover up to catastrophe:

I haven’t see this film, which created much media hysteria and was pulled from the Tribeca Film Festival in 2016, so I can’t comment on its merits. But I can’t help noticing that the recent media storm that followed when the film’s director, Andrew Wakefield, dared to visit the UK for a private screening, had less to say about the evidence for or against the MMR/autism connection and more about how Wakefield ought to be censored. David Robert Grimes was quoted thus in the Telegraph:

giving Mr Wakefield a platform on vaccines is a grievous mistake, given that we’re still reeling from the damage his falsehoods inflicted on public health….Not only are his claims devoid of evidence, they are vividly disproven by the overwhelming scientific data to date.

Meanwhile the Independent reported with apparent approval that the organisers of the screening had found it very difficult to get any venue to host the event.

The Curzon cinema in Soho and the European Parliament were previously lined up as venues for the event…but these were abandoned following criticism and attendees were told to make their way to Regent’s University London hours before it began.

Leaving nothing ambiguous about how we are supposed to view this man, the Indy’s piece ran with the screaming headline:

…MMR fraud doctor Andrew Wakefield ‘returns to UK for secretive screening of anti-vaccine film…

Let’s remember – Wakefield is not a Soviet era traitor or a multiple child-murderer. He’s just the man who has (allegedly, I haven’t researched it in total depth) had his research debunked.

Unsurprisingly Regents University, the unhappy hosts of last resort, quickly caught on to the witch-hunt message and promptly fell into line, saying :

Oh indeed. We can be sure RU will be very careful to check with prevailing media hate-lists before it decides what ideas can be aired on its premises in future. And, with any luck, after this roasting no one will agree to host another screening of this film anywhere – so we will all be saved from the danger of further cognitive dissonance.

But hold on – if Wakefield’s claims are really “devoid of evidence” etc. then why do we need to be protected from them? Why is the new reflexive response not to point out his mistakes or lies, but to demand he be silenced? Is anything good derived from that? If he is talking nonsense, so what? Let him talk and be exposed for what he is. Silencing him only makes him a martyr instead of a liar.

If he’s telling the truth, or some potential truth at least, he deserves to be heard and we deserve to hear him.

I don’t know about you but I don’t feel completely comfortable with the idea that questioning the potential danger of vaccines should be ruled a priori inadmissible. What moral ground can justify that?

The same can be said about that other trendy “d” issue – “climate-denial”. I put my cards on the table here as a former member of the Green party and longstanding eco-bore. Obviously I have a natural sympathy for anyone who wants to save the planet from our rapacious consumption, but I still don’t understand why we are supposed to approve the BBC Trust’s advice to its staff not to give “undue attention to marginal opinions” on science matters, with particular reference to climate change.

Who can read this lamentable bit of Newspeak and think it’s going anywhere good?

“…The coverage of science by the BBC continues to be a hotly debated issue. One of the key findings of the report which still resonates today is that there is at times an:

.. ‘over-rigid’ (as Professor Jones described it) application of the Editorial Guidelines on impartiality in relation to science coverage, which fails to take into account what he regards as the ‘non-contentious’ nature of some stories and the need to avoid giving ‘undue attention to marginal opinion’. Professor Jones cites … the existence of man-made climate change as [an] example of this point.”

This is a matter of training and ongoing shared editorial judgement. The Trust notes that seminars continue to take place and that nearly 200 senior staff have attended workshops which set out that impartiality in science coverage does not simply lie in reflecting a wide range of views, but depends on the varying degree of prominence (due weight) such views should be given.”

Incredibly this inference that the BBC was being directed to suppress most, if not all, “climate denial” from its coverage was greeted in the media and elsewhere as a great step forward. presented it as a move to “improve accuracy”. As recently as September 2016 the Guardian was welcoming the BBC’s attempts to censor “denialists”, but was worried it wasn’t going far enough:

While the BBC no longer gives climate denial and science equal air time, it continues to struggle with creeping false balance

Hmmm…but isn’t this sort of pre-selection what makes the difference between information and propaganda? Isn’t it exactly to prevent this that the BBC’s (ignored) charter requires “balanced” reporting?

Ah no. Remember that crucial word “false” quoted above. You’ll find it in several outlets that report on this question. It turns out, you see, that not all balance is actually, well…balanced. It appears in fact that some balance is actually unbalanced – and very very dangerous, because it can make people confused about what is true and what is not true…

Judging the weight of scientific agreement correctly will mean that the BBC avoids the ‘false balance’ between fact and opinion identified by Professor Jones. The Trust welcomes the Executive’s decision to hold a further course this year for staff who may not have been in position at the time of the previous workshops and as a refresher on a complex area.

How long did it take you to spot that this was weasel-worded balderdash? The “false balance between fact and opinion”? Oh please. All science, all analysis of anything is inevitably a mix of fact and opinion. You present your facts and draw conclusions from them. Being human you probably tend to select those facts which support your view and elide those that don’t. But that’s ok. It’s fine – provided we have an open forum where all opinions – and consequently all facts – can be presented. Once you decide only certain opinions and/or facts are acceptable you are nothing but a propagandist – even if what you are propagandising for happens to be objectively true.

You see – newsflash – being right doesn’t entitle you to censor everyone who is wrong. That’s the central safeguard against tyranny, because even truth would be a tyranny if it didn’t allow opposition. Free speech – real free speech – has to include the right to be wrong, rude, stupid, offensive and a lying jerk. Because once you outlaw any of that – you’ve effectively ended free speech for all of us forever.

Just as a thought experiment, what do you think would be made of an exiled Russian doctor being treated, by the Russian media and political Establishment, in the way Andrew Wakefield was treated here in the West? How many thousands of words would Luke Harding fire off about the egregious example of totalitarianism exemplified by the man’s inability to find a host for his screening, and the media hounding of the only venue that stepped up? And he’d be right too up to a point. It is potentially totalitarian to assume that certain opinions can be outlawed simply on the basis of what they are. Yet we make that assumption now, here in the west, every day. Without even seeing what we do. As David Scott points out so eloquently in Defending the Indefensible

“…This is how the game is played. Some extreme view is suggested as a straw man. It may be a view held by only a handful of powerless, marginalised people in the entire country. It may be a view that exists only in the fevered imagination of the social justice warrior (SJW) who poses the challenge; it might in fact be held by no one at all. You will be asked to condemn it. You will be asked to agree that the viewpoint in question is so appalling that is should never be heard. If you do not agree to this proposition, you will be condemned yourself as a supporter of that marginal or imaginary viewpoint, or an apologist for it. You will be called nasty names.

…The most popular weaponised names are Misogynist, Antisemite, Homophobe, Conspiracy Theorist, Racist, Fascist, Nazi and, funnily, “Literally Hitler”.

Let us be honest: that paints a pretty unappealing picture. There are few of us who would not be hurt and offended to be called such things. So we yield instead, just a little. We move off the high principle of freedom of speech, we condemn the marginal in our society, for they are weak after all and can do us no harm. We live another day without being condemned and socially shamed. We move a little closer to the swamp; we become a little more cowed; a little more cowardly. The process is repeated daily, even hourly, via the BBC, the Guardian, the Times, and the Independent. It is echoed in the street and in the pub. It is reinforced by celebrity tantrums at glamorous award shows. If all else fails, it is defended by the sticks, stones, boots and fists of the black clad thugs who take to the streets to “protest” against “hate”. Incrementally, little by little, freedom dies. Truth, a difficult concept which needs oxygen to thrive, is suffocated in such conditions.”

In this context of creeping intolerance, the word “denial” or “denier” is being used to lever us away from reason, in fact the perceived pathology of “denial” is now a rationale for wholesale disengagement from the process of debate.

“…Whatever the motivation, it is important to recognize denialism when confronted with it. The normal academic response to an opposing argument is to engage with it, testing the strengths and weaknesses of the differing views, in the expectations that the truth will emerge through a process of debate. However, this requires that both parties obey certain ground rules, such as a willingness to look at the evidence as a whole, to reject deliberate distortions and to accept principles of logic.

A meaningful discourse is impossible when one party rejects these rules. Yet it would be wrong to prevent the denialists having a voice. Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they employ and identifying them publicly for what they are. An understanding of the five tactics listed above provides a useful framework for doing so.

Don’t debate the facts, in other words, just turn the very act of questioning (which is often what is meant by “denial” in this context) into a symptom of mental derangement.

Stalin would have been proud to work with these people.

Do we even see the focus narrow, the field of acceptable discourse grow smaller and smaller? Do we see how polarisation and belief take the place of debate and the willingness to entertain new or challenging ideas? Public discussion now is terrifyingly constrained and entirely driven by what is called “consensus”, whose condition of reality is never checked or evaluated. Do these consensus beliefs reflect truth? Who knows? Who cares? Who any longer dares to ask? We are all told and all obediently believe. Opinions are acquired in bulk and sans data. Doubt is increasingly a dirty word, the corrupt tool and necromancy of dark and benighted Others who don’t think right – like proper people do.

The real evil of the new liberal agenda is that it, even if unintentionally, promotes the very ignorance, prejudice, hysteria and hate it claims to oppose.

So, to answer the question posed in my opening paragraph. No. I don’t think we do have a responsibility to silence views we consider morally repugnant or simply untrue. In fact I think we have the responsibility to defend their right to exist and be heard – however wrong and repulsive they might be. I think a lie is better opposed with truth than censorship, and nothing can ever be so true that evidence doesn’t matter any more.

The really frightening thing is that not so very long ago this would not have needed to be said.


  1. We’re closing comments on this piece soon as, with over 100 comments on it, the page is becoming very laggy. We’ll be opening a “free speech” open thread for the continuation of these discussions.

  2. Brian Burgess says

    Fascinating how the comments section of this excellent article on free speech has turned into a debate on the nature and extent of the holocaust/whether or not there were human gas chambers etc. The original point of the article was to ask the question whether or not some views were so horrendous that they should be prevented from being aired. On that point the consensus seems to be strongly in favour of free speech regardless of how unpopular the particular view.

    Whilst I am in favour of free speech I wonder whether this is the right place for debates on such sibjects as the Holocaust, or whether or not it has really been scientifically debunked that the MMR vaccine is lonked to autism (or whether there has been a cover up and Dr Wakefield has been wrongly discredited) etc. etc.

    But since it seems a lot of people here seem to think this is the appropriate place to post such comments and have such debates I would like to add my six penneth. I have now actually watched the documentary “Vaxxed” directed by Dr Wakefield aftwr following the link in the main article and I have to say that it certainly paints the official story in a completely different light. I wonder whether certain so-called “reviewers” of the film have actually even bothered to view it?

    Havibg actually eatched the movie it is no wonder the establishment is trying to prevent the documentary from being screened. For example the documentary contains secret recordings taken of a certain Dr Thompson who is a very senior staff member at the Centers for Disease Control in the USA and who helped author a study supposedly debunking Dr Wakefield’s claims of a possoble link between MMR vaccine and imcreased rates of autism. We hear Dr Thompson describing in detail how the CDC manipulated it’s own data which he says in fact did show a strong correlation between MMR vaccine and autism (and a particularly strong assosciation amongst black males.) Dr Thompson actually wants to be subpeonaed to Congress so that he can legally give evidence as to what the CDC did. He says “I can’t believe we did it but we did” (I.E. LIED about the fact they KNEW that there IS an association between MMR vaccine and autism.) Dr Thompson says he is now suffering terrible guilt over all the unnecessary suffering that he says has been caused.

    You would have to see the documentary for yourself to make your own judgements but according to the documentary the much maligned British doctor Dr Wakefield who authored the original discredited studdy suggesting MMR may be linked to certain cases of increased incidence of autism isn’t even anti vaccination as he has been portrayed. He merely suggested that the Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccines be given separately to children until more research could be done on the association between the MMR vaccine and increased incidence of “isolated autism” (i.e. autism without developmental delay prior to the vaccination) in children. Sounds pretty reasonable dorsn’t it? And what was the reaction of the vaccine producers? They WITHDREW the separate vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella from the market and are now FORCING parents to use the combined MMR vaccine which is the very vaccine that has been allegedly shown in the CDC’s own studies to be associated with increased autism rates.

    This is exactly the kind of thing that needs to be out there so it can be debated and the truth can be determined. If there is any possibility at all that the allegations in this documentary are true then it would be perhaps the biggest medical scandal ever in human history and the human misery caused would be every bit as big as the Holocaust itself. Yet despite (or perhaps because?) of this the very debate itself is being shut down by powerful vested interests. Regardless of your present views on the particular issue surely this kind of censorship of free speech/one whole side of the story on such an important issue as pur children’s health and welfare can’t be good?

  3. Peter O'Kelly says

    Do we have a responsibility to silence views we consider morally repugnant or simply untrue? NO, debate yes, prove wrong, silence? NO.

    Claims that the Holocaust didn’t happen are insane and revolting. Why?

    • Again the shorthand of a broad polarising brush.
      What the term is used to mean has different narrative levels of meaning.
      What those meanings are used for includes repeated and legally protected exposure to ‘insane and revolting’ acts that are depicted as Nazi evil, as German guilt, as European Guilt – extending to guilt assigned to any who in any way are seen to have colluded in or obstructed the addressing, opposing and acting to remedy or oppose such acts. It is all about guilt, and the consciousness that is tyrannised by such guilt – as well as aligning under the ‘righteous correctness’ such guilt demands.

      Guilt operates mind-capture. If you don’t vaccinate your kids, Bill Gates accuses you of murdering children.
      The giveaway of guilt-wielding is when people accuse the other of exactly the act they are themselves engaged – as in accusations of ‘fake news’. People identifying insanely may BELIEVE that their beliefs are necessary to impose upon others. They may BELIEVE in eugenics or population culling as ‘necessary’ and they will of course BELIEVE that those who disagree are cranks or indeed a danger to ‘society’.

      Cultural identities are formed from their history – and from their way of rising up from challenges and enduring tragedies. One of the things this then does is make suffering sacred and hold the image of it as a perpetual identity – such as a suffering Jesus as the sign of guilt – or the risen Jesus as the sign of renewal in the Holy Spirit.
      Some aspects of cultural identity are energetically carried and some are more ritually carried and reflected – with the surface being open to artifice of contrived identity – such as tartan kilts to represent Scottish Highlanders.

      The modern era is one where an awareness of the dark arts of ‘statesmanship’ or power struggle and control are more pervasive and perhaps less able to disguise themselves as ‘control’.
      But there is nothing new about it – since fig leaf thinking was interposed upon a mind divided against itself.
      Who told you , you were guilty? is very close to “Who told you you were naked?” (shame).
      Fake news is either falsely sourced or distorted in the telling. The narrative that is accepted is the framing of the thinking that then runs upon or within its setting. Therefore the ability to set the narrative is mind-capture. The good v evil predisposition is already active in any mind divided – and grafting onto this enables association of self-survival or self-worth with supplied imagery – which of course can be something any self-respecting person should be seen to do – or should never be seen to do.

      A cultural integrity holds itself in some balance against falling prey to destructive ideas but a mere top-down force becomes the destructive and corrupted influence that sells out its own. One of the known liabilities of power without true accountability is the personalisation of the leader or ruling group, with the nation or people they were supposed to be functioning . So they believe they speak for, decide for and legislate to protect their people – where such choices become framed in the establishment narrative beliefs – such as if its bad for the Economy (banisters) it’s bad for the people. So we have a split mind writ large – where the power class cannot see or hear anything that does not support or conform their invested identity – and have enough influence over their people to undermine or subvert any new movement that could bring fresh ideas, often via very devious means – that become justified in comparison with feared evils of a worse outcome – and so ‘lesser evils’ are not only tolerated – but become built into the apparatus of state and the modus oparandi of society.

      One thing in common is that we all hate to relive hateful episodes or events and this operates much more forcefully as denied and suppressed psyche. In which case the dissociation is such as to allow no reflective consciousness at all – regardless of any attempt to communicate ‘rationally’ from a surface perspective that does not really see or accept the fear (conflicted confusion) or rage (hurt), guilt (shame and blame) – and so is perceived by the one in triggered dissociation as the problem.

      So it is that to voice criticism of Israeli or Jewish politics – will immediately be assigned to be anti-Semitic – (pro-hate of the worst kind), of a unique and most hateful racism – above any other in its call for guilt and denial. This is directly the result of the state enforced narrative of a special and terrible evil assigned a unique and special status. Which is used to assert a unique exceptionalism and indeed a supremacist identity.

  4. Frank says

    During the time of the old DDR I visited Buchenwald concentration camp. Above the gates was the motto – Jedem Das Seine (to Each his Own). Prisoners from all over Europe and the Soviet Union—Jews, Poles and other Slavs, the mentally ill and physically-disabled from birth defects, religious and political prisoners, Roma and Sinti, Freemasons, Jehovah’s Witnesses (then called Bible Students), criminals, homosexuals, and Soviet prisoners of war—worked primarily as forced labor in local armaments factories. I saw the ovens where the corpses were transported and incinerated; and there were two particular shrines among many which were of particular interest. One to British and Canadian paratroops, one wonders how they got there, and another to Ernst Thalmann leader of the pre-war German Communist Party (KPD) who was murdered in Buchenwald in 1944. This was also the venue where hideous medical experiments were carried out on inmates. The facility was very close to the historic cultural centre of Weimar a place – a bit like Oxford – steeped in culture and learning, with a statue of the two giants of German culture, Goethe and Schiller standing together outside the famous theatre. I was struck by the juxtaposition of civilization and barbarism.

    I really find it difficult to believe it was all a hoax. But there you go, if this is what some people wish to believe, that is their prerogative. There is an English word for this – Cranks!

    • Why does the mind polarise into ‘if some believe it was ALL a hoax?’

      Illusions depend on truth to mask in or pass off as. Sorting the chaff from the wheat is the signal from the noise.
      Polarised assertions operate the jamming signal to the possibility of – for oneself – feeling true resonance – for ‘truth’ cannot be codified or engraved into tablets but that even these be read and truly received.

      Who benefits? – and to what end? – remains a test of truth – because when anything is used to serve a private or partial agenda – it suffers distortion and censor to fit to such purpose. Peace is never the outcome of such purpose – and while it runs, is effectively usurped by forced narrative identity – as the mind of such purpose – and perhaps wilfully so – but blind to the true fruits that peace restores.

      So as with anything in the world be it 9/11, climate change, zika, vax, or any other drama that has suffering within it – be wary of the emotional reaction in which the mind is led unquestioning to its capture and abuse.

      That inhuman experimentation went on in some of these camps isn’t in my mind in doubt – but some of the ornamentation of such is highly questionable. However, the US – and of course others – is known to do the same to its own and to others – not as a legitimate process of transparency and accountability – but as a covert or black op, working outside proper jurisdiction and protected by enforced and maintained secrecy.

      However – apart from what was done to camp inmates – which includes starvation and sickness as a result of the allied bombing at the last part of the war – the issue of the official and toothed ‘Jewish’ narrative has been elevated above all other suffering – and shaped – and still shapes the world order under which many struggle to understand why nations, corporatare indebted and impotent to change.

      The capture of the mind is the ‘soft’ power and economic power is wielded, with hard power as goodcop/badcop ‘options’.

      So whatever exactly did or did not occur and however different elements say and experienced what occurred – the USE of it remains a freedom of the mind – or an assertion unto which the mind is sacrificed. Man’s inhumanity to man continues unabated and in ever more terrible forms – out in the open and yet unseen because the mind-captured cannot believe – or allow their current belief to break to knowing different.

      We don’t have to – and in truth cannot change another’s belief against his or her will – (though we may induce them to generate a defence in some conformity to our force if they cannot otherwise evade or overcome it).
      Nor do we have to demonize others for their belief just because we hate that belief in ourself and fear what it invokes or brings up. But the use of guilt, blame, demonisation – and punishment of invalidating and denying worth, depriving of voice or freedom and inflicting of pain – is the accepted currency of a world founded in manipulative deceit.

      I was more horrified at the capacity to use such an event for purpose of manipulative deceit, under which ‘my world’ operated unknowing, than that human beings acted and suffered the act of such inhumanity. But then I also see that such world worships power that is identified with wielding or being protected from pain as the terror behind any form of tyranny.

      The internet of alt-news is full of the hurt-rage of those who feel they have been betrayed and deceived in fake educations, news, politicians, science and so on. It is easy to throw out the baby with the bathwater in the polarisation of identity that occurs when trust is felt to be betrayed. It is easy to hate and to blame and to point the finger. This ‘energetic’ is attractive and easily manipulated by those whose sense of humanity is exclusive to their own private agenda. But then is that not the nature of vengeance?

    • No one said it’s ALL a hoax.
      What is being said by some, like me, is that all the available evidence demonstrates conclusively that THERE WERE NO HUMAN GAS CHAMBERS IN AUSCHWITZ. Not one. There were gas chambers for killing lice in clothes to prevent the spread of typhus i.e. for keeping prisoners HEALTHY (these are still there to be seen, though ‘holocaust’ tourists are not shown them (I wonder why) … but there are no HUMAN gas chambers to back up that nightmare hallucination that is the centrepiece of the ‘Holocaust’ religion and the ONLY unique feature of ‘The Holocaust’ that elevates it above many other similar disgraceful human genocide/ ‘holocausts’.

      You have referred to “ovens” where “the bodies” were taken.

      Well, we have “ovens” where “bodies” are taken in Croydon and Morden and many other parts of London ON THIS VERY DAY. When bodies die this is simply a way of hygienically disposing of them. NOW as it was then.

      For you to present your post as evidence that people are deluded who argue for the non-existence of human gas-chambers and the industrialised extermination of a race only demonstrates that YOU are a deluded fact-free crank.
      Present relevant evidence or stop posting straw man bollox that does not address the issue.

  5. The Polemicist says

    nice post. I find this “denialist” charge very dangerous. Are liberals and lefties really comfortable ignoring, accepting, or even applauding what’s going on here? Do they really want to embrace the discourse of “There is no debate!” on a subject like vaccines? Can the most culturally influential of them, so enthusiastically, with such militant, “scientific” self-righteousness, discipline their friends and colleagues with: “Shut up! I will not permit any discussion of the subject. It is literally beyond question by rational minds.”? Can they seriously issue a mandate that we all must reject—and, indeed, actively shut down—any critical discussion, any cultural expression, of the potential risks of any medication called a vaccine, as if it were equivalent to discussing whether the earth is flat? Can they also mandate that we regard parents, doctors and scientists who do raise doubts about any of the scores of concoctions of pathogens and adjuvants injected into the bloodstreams of their children as some combination of stupid, anti-scientific, and—by some bizarre leap of illogic—reactionary?

    Frankly, I think such an attitude is ridiculous—scientifically, ethically, and politically ridiculous.

    Somehow, liberal-minded folks, who are so sensitive to corporate (including pharmaceutical company) greed and corporate-government collusion, are completely buying into the idea that those concerns should never be raised when talking about one particular corporate pharmaceutical product.

    What Catte says here echoes much of what I said in my post about the censorship of Wakefield and Del Bigtree’s movie Vaxxed, at Vexed by Vaxxed.

  6. Boo Radley says

    Excellent article. Once upon a time I understood the logic of the following:

    “It’s offensive to listen to people excusing or even denying hideous crimes against humanity. The instinct is that they should be stopped somehow. That’s why questioning the reality of the Holocaust is a crime in some countries”.

    Not any more, arguably the reason it is a crime is to protect a very vulnerable narrative from forensic evidence being examined by people with an open mind.

    The use of the word denier now send me a clear signal that whatever is being ‘denied’ required some serious investigation.

  7. Now that the lying MSM has been outed–repeatedly–how much of what we’ve been told in the past is true?

    We’ve been told a mountain of lies about 9/11, about the illegal Iraq, Libya and Syrian wars and what’s taking place in the Ukraine. Ditto for the first Iraq war in 1991.

    We’ve been lied to about Wall Street gangsters and Obamacare.

    We’ve been lied to about the Vietnam War, JFK’s murder, Iran-Contra and the CIA’s role in the drug war. We were lied to about Soviet bomber, missile and nuclear weapons, so we built more and more and more…

    The only safe thing to do is to investigate for yourself, using a variety of sources and determine if what you’ve been told is true or propaganda…until they also outlaw doing historical research as being dangerous to ‘national security.’
    Then when investigating is outlawed, you’ll know you’re fully immersed in a police state.

    • Husq says

      Power Behind The Government Today (1963) Lassell

      In her book Helen Lassell writes that The Council on Foreign Relations, an organization supported by The Rockefeller Foundation, The Carnegie Corporation and others, made up its mind that no “revisionism” was to be encouraged after World War II: The following is an extract from the 1946 Report of The Rockefeller Foundation, referring to the Council’s work:

      “The Committee on Studies of the Council on Foreign Relations is concerned that the debunking journalistic campaign following World War 1 should not be repeated and believes that the American public deserves a clear and competent statement of our basic aims and activities during the second World War.”

      Accordingly, a three volume history of the War was to be prepared under the direction of Professor William Langer of Harvard , in which (one must gather this from the use of the term “debunking”) no revisionism was to appear. In other words, the official propaganda of World War 1 was to be perpetuated. – and the public was to be protected against learning the truth.

  8. The Holocaustic imprint on my child-brain was the first conscious exposure to unthinkable horror. It was unthinkable to me that anyone would plan and execute or comply such treatment on other human beings – including passively being treated so. I believed what was printed because and remember the response of my Soul – which rises from a silence; “one has to be willing to blank another human being, and in that ‘gap’, anything can operate”.

    The holocaust religion is something else than what did or did not exactly occur in its specifics – its context and its supporting evidence as opposed to extremely polarized assertions backed by extremity of horror that then operates a guilting terror of invalidation on European cultural identity but extending beyond to anyone Jew or not – who can be associated with the evil such horror invokes. The use of the holocaust as religion also imprints anyone of ‘Jewish’ descent with a pre-rational fear of being attacked by ‘everyone else’ and killed for no reason but such descent – such as to work against assimilation, deter challenging the narrative and operate a basis for common cause of an identity lobby among and across extremely diverse people.

    To an extremely polarized position – anyone not conforming to being ‘for’ is seen as ‘against’. The emotional blackmail that a socially proscribed ‘evil’ operates – is that once associated with it, your life, your career, your social status and opportunities are marred, curtailed, such as to walled out or excluded. Everyone instinctively learns where the power operates by what ISN’T able to be openly talked about – and that power operates within and upon our minds as a cultural induction.

    Identity in power seeking that embodies in part as the power class is transgenerational, and operates through whatever pathways are available because it is primarily the willingness to use everything and anything to achieve its purpose. Where many think of things as material objects, the things the power seeker uses are ideas, identities, fears, hopes as the hacking of the mind of others while feeding them self-specialness or a mitigation or protection from sacrifice (privilege). So ‘mafia’ of organised crime consolidates as a power class of predators over those who are ‘weak’ and suckered or tricked into believing and reacting in opposition to their own good – through the setting up of contrasting image and symbol in which concepts seem to make sense within an intended framing. One of the key features of such manipulation is that no one knows where the power really is – and all sorts of shifting shadows and puppet agencies operate to keep obscure exactly who sets and executes the compliance and conformity of the ‘agenda’ or even what its purpose really is! Disintegration of the mind is part of the psyop of its war – because war is its purpose – having sacrificed anything and everything to achieve it.

    The appearances of war can be peace envoys and freedom movements – just as it can take the forms of anything and everything. But there is an integrity of being to be grounded in – prior to the conditioned mind – of the imprint (and top up vax) of terror. War against terror is itself terrorism. In fact any ‘war against’ polarisation is the blanking of other human beings under the assertive right to ‘take them out’, eradicate them, invalidate and deny them worth or voice.

    The attempt to ‘get rid of’ something that is part of us – even if we hate or fear it – is the way to keep it. But in tricky disguise such that most all of the feared and hated is focussed, seen and attacked in and as the Other. And this is the basis for the private self assertion of a masking or secret intent.

    Fear is a self-fulfilling prophecy – where the very means to ensure it will never happen again, set up the very thing feared. The willingness to profit from the fears of others makes for predatory ‘market’ forces. A negative ‘economy’ plunders and undermines the true creative endeavour, just as a cancer starves the body while usurping its defences. And as the attack on evil-assigned symptoms suppresses, toxifies and ‘manages’ them – along with all else.

    Fear is the pattern the tricky mind operates to obscure and evade and put onto someone else. The tricky mind is the false framing narrative identity whose core purpose was to protect you from re-living an intolerable and overwhelming experience. Words and concepts operate a way to limit communication – until and unless the mind of such diversion is neglected or given disregard – and an already movement of being communicates Itself as you – WITH everything – as joy in being – as an intimacy of being – and not as a defined substitution for joy in self-specialness.

    Evil story runs on the screens that subscribe and support it – but fear brought to conscious awareness is now a basis of a need to know – a need for sanity and true grounding alignment in purpose. The mind is very quick – and no part of it can out-fox its strategy. But the already quality of awareness is the power to notice and discern – and it is here that awakening to a choice between true and false operates as the foundational alignment in being – and not the mind’s usurp of the role of judge over Creation. For there is no ‘outside’ and ‘apart’ from Creation – excepting the fear that such could be true, believed and actively asserted.

    Who can act apart from their currently active belief? – is the personal sense.
    Who is the capacity to notice the currently active belief? – is the pausing of the personal sense in desire and willingness for true.

    The willingness to force truth to serve a hate is the wish that reality conform to my mind’s dictate. One would laugh – but fleshed out in time, the tragedy of such misery is incalculable. The First Fact of our existence is the Intimacy of existence Itself. The ‘mind’ cannot get this – or in thinking it can it gets only further lost in its own spin. The horror is both the act upon and reaction of our Feeling being. Using the Will, the Receptive and the Mother of All – as a slave and a dumping place for guilt – is a false mind dominance that cannot but carry deep guilt for its ‘existence’ and cannot but seek escape in the terms it set – and is thus compelled or driven by the conditions it generates.

    The original lie was to cover a fear that in its moment was highly charged and put ‘out-of-mind’ while dealing with an emergence. But the lies that are then called to cover the lie sets the ‘evolutionary’ structure of development of the mind as a thing apart and operating ‘over’ or upon the Life it depends upon and beneath all appearance – simply is. Perhaps that’s the note to pause on now. That Life simply is – and the full being of that is only denied by the insistence of investment in story. A new story is not a remake – but truly New. The ‘mind’ of past conditioning can ONLY cognize what happenED – and so the willingness to Feel our way is of a different foundation in which the mind holds focus and gives form to the movement of our true desire. Of course this is what the ‘world’ demands the sacrifice OF. So of course it is a different world that such discernment meets – even if the old-mind shouts to regain ‘control’ in the ways it knows because it made them by believing them.

    • correction – I believed what was printed because I still trusted the society into which I was born.

  9. Husq says

    Denial of a ’rounded education.?

    And us, the Jews? An Israeli student finishes high school without ever hearing the name “Genrikh Yagoda,” the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century, the GPU’s deputy commander and the founder and commander of the NKVD. Yagoda diligently implemented Stalin’s collectivization orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system. After Stalin no longer viewed him favorably, Yagoda was demoted and executed, and was replaced as chief hangman in 1936 by Yezhov, the “bloodthirsty dwarf.”,7340,L-3342999,00.html

    • Catte says

      But if we have to be aware of political motivation you also have to acknowledge there is a concerted and often highly dishonest movement that has gained traction in recent years, to rehabilitate the Nazis and rebrand the Soviet Union as the “real” bad guy.

      This is a POV that is sneaking in to many neoliberal outlets, including the Guardian. Once again, as in the 1930s, we can see Nazis being advocated for as a “lesser evil” than Russia. Remember Yatsenyuk, the Ukraine PM, alleging Germany had been “invaded” by Russia in 1944?

      This is a dangerous and dishonest sort of revisionism. When you accept the horror stores of Russian anti-semitism unconditionally while rejecting the stories of German anti-semtiism as “propaganda” you yourself are being selective and propagandist.

      • Husq says

        while rejecting the stories of German anti-semtiism as “propaganda” you yourself are being selective and propagandist.<

        I’m not rejecting it at all. I have found it to be very complicated and not as binary as some would think.

        Read “The Millions That Could Have Been Saved” by I.DombIt is an historical fact that in 1941 and again in 1942, the German Gestapo offered all European Jews transit to Spain, if they would relinquish all their property in Germany and Occupied France; on condition that: a) none of the deportees travel from Spain to Palestine; and b) all the deportees be transported from Spain to the USA or British colonies, and there to remain; with entry visas to be arranged by the Jews living there; and c) $1000.00 ransom for each family to be furnished by the Agency, payable upon the arrival of the family at the Spanish border at the rate of 1000 families daily.

        The Zionist leaders in Switzerland and Turkey received this offer with the clear understanding that the exclusion of Palestine as a destination for the deportees was based on an agreement between the Gestapo and the Mufti.

        The answer of the Zionist leaders was negative, with the following comments: a) ONLY Palestine would be considered as a destination for the deportees. b) The European Jews must accede to suffering and death greater in measure than the other nations, in order that the victorious allies agree to a “Jewish State” at the end of the war. c) No ransom will be paid This response to the Gestapo’s offer was made with the full knowledge that the alternative to this offer was the gas chamber.

        These treacherous Zionist leaders betrayed their own flesh and blood. Zionism was never an option for Jewish salvation. Quite the opposite, it was a formula for human beings to be used as pawns for the power trip of several desperadoes. A perfidy! A betrayal beyond description!

      • Husq says

        while rejecting the stories of German anti-semtiism as “propaganda” you yourself are being selective and propagandist.<

        Interesting talk between Gilad Atzmon and Rabbi Shapiro. The Zionists weren’t very friendly to Jews it seems?

      • Husq says

        European Jews must accede to suffering and death greater in measure than the other nations, in order that the victorious allies agree to a “Jewish State” at the end of the war. <

        “In war-time, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.”

        • The problem is that you are busy spinning a subtle slant that you yourself don’t seem to be twigging to: your story is about “sides,” each of which is to some degree guilty of malicious intent, but one of which is especially more mal-intended than the other and, therefore, since there really are degrees of evil, is guiltier than the other, and by implication, by comparison, in the comparison that you are making, this greater guilt mitigates the lesser of the other, and what the whole of your indictment by comparison and contrast hinges on, is that the guiltier party is guiltier because of the two, it is more subtly perfidious, better at scheming in hidden treacherous deceit, while the other is more openly straightforward in what it intends and, therefore, by implication, more “honest” and, thereby, also more innocent. This is the story that you tell.

          In other words, whether you want to admit it to yourself or not — what is quite obvious to some of the people reading your comments and observing the categories at play in your argument — you are groping to exculpate one group of criminals of their war crimes at the expense of another, no matter how guilty or not.

          That is the paradigm from inside of which you are operating, and though you deny any antipathy toward “Jewishness,” your scheming Zionists, who are guiltier than the Germans could ever be, are unquestionably if only seemingly coincidentally</ b>) Jews, that is to say, JEWS.

          What is the expression? “Unconscious bigotry,” maybe?

          • Husq says

            That is the paradigm from inside of which you are operating, and though you deny any antipathy toward “Jewishness,” your scheming Zionists, who are guiltier than the Germans could ever be, are unquestionably if only seemingly coincidentally</ b>) Jews, that is to say, JEWS.<

            No bigotry here. Just a wider pespective that also goes back to the beginnings of WW1 and the various cabals that were operating at that time.
            I certainly don’t take sides. Just aware that there are many more aspects to it than meets the eye.

              • Husq says

                In 1949, Professor Carroll Quigley (1910-1977), later Bill Clinton’s mentor at Georgetown University, wrote a detailed and incisive account of the activities of the Milner Group (“The Anglo-American Establishment”, 1949) Although he himself was in broad agreement with the aims of the group, he came to this conclusion:

                “No country that values its safety should allow what the Milner group accomplished – that is, that a small number of men would be able to wield such power in administration and politics, should be given almost complete control over the publication of documents relating to their action, should be able to exercise such influence over the avenues of information that create public opinion, and should be able to monopolize so completely the writing and the teaching of the history of their own period.”

                On Start the Week Andrew Marr looks back to the end of Empire when government officials systematically destroyed the records of imperial rule, and he explores the impact of outside organisations on a nation’s ability to govern.


  10. I know what you are going to say: “Norm, you’ve already posted that once before.” Yup. But you had forgotten about it, hadn’t you? It was buried out of sight and therefore completely out of your mind despite being directly pertinent to the issue of “vaccination” here raised and being discussed. Otherwise you yourself would have posted it. I waited, but you didn’t come through.

    So for those of you who haven’t seen it, when you get the chance — I promise — it will be 15 minutes of your life that will have been well spent, and then you as a bonus, you will finally have heard about Dr. Chris Busby:

  11. “I don’t know about you but I don’t feel completely comfortable with the idea that questioning the potential danger of vaccines should be ruled a priori inadmissible. What moral ground can justify that?” You’re absolutely right about that, Catte.

    Two words: Informed consent. From “Big Pharma’s agenda: Assault on informed consent, by James F. Tracy” (

    “For example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is, alongside the Food and Drug Administration, the most powerful bureaucratic arm utilized by the global pharmaceutical cartel to elicit compliance with the federal vaccine schedule for children from the medical profession and broader population. Of the article sample referenced above, close to one-third (517) reference the “Centers for Disease Control” or “CDC” in their text, suggesting citation of the agency and its policies to persuasively instruct readers on vaccine efficacy and safety.

    In contrast, the same body of over 1,500 press releases, news stories and editorials reference “informed consent” only three times—and when the term is used it is done so either in passing or to disparage the practice itself.”

    I see there’s a few other relevant articles about the subject on the Bulletin website (“Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on vaccines: Big Pharma captured regulatory processes” + “Big Pharma’s agenda: Assault on informed consent”). I haven’t read those, but I will.

    I am I NOT anti-science. However, Wouldn’t it be nice if those who were so concerned about our health (our concerned, and unconcerned, family doctors, all those receiving a ‘paycheque’ for public service activities, in the private sector) talked about things like industrial food, the chemical cartel, etc.? Powerful special interests don’t want that though. We are all cogs in the machinery of this gangster corporatocracy. The only issue is, Do you resist?

    Similarly, Look at what passes as caring and compassion (and security) among our elites in these areas: education, entertainment, AI: “Sacrifice ‘for’ the children or ‘of’ the children?” (

    I’m not even completely through this article. Forgive me. I’m racing the clock here in this coffee shop that is about to close. But this is bookmarked. If I had read the article before my last blog post, I may very well have added something in about vaccines and informed consent. I may yet.

    • I packed up my laptop and went down the street to Starbucks where I was able to finish the article and check out a few of the links. I had already discovered, and bookmarked, UK Column, which appears to be a worthwhile website.

      The only other thing I could possibly add, at this point, is the observation that allowing those with views we disagree with and call odious to have and publicize them, in no way means that, as individuals, we ‘must’ consider them. I don’t have the time to be distracted by saboteurs leading me into rabbit holes. But I don’t think that is contradictory to my pro position on free speech. It is, afterall, only be my exposure to a view that was ‘permitted’ to exist that I was able to form an opinion, whether quickly or not. As well, Not every purveyor of nonsense has bad intentions. I can get it wrong. If he (or…) was shut down on my say so, then others could not engage with that person – to correct him or to get the full story and the full measure of the error, which would allow one to warn others (in an authoritative rather than authoritarian, manner).

      • John says

        I have not been inside a Starbucks for years.
        When they start paying their fair share of taxes, I might reconsider this.

        • I applaud your position. I hate Starbucks, the company and I don’t love the coffee, although I can drink it. I do Starbucks when I have to kill time and there’s no where else to go. The baristas are usually stellar and don’t get paid stellar. But yes, I’m a big fan of shouting from the rooftop about tax evaders. I’ve been doing that for years.

    • Steve says

      “I don’t know about you but I don’t feel completely comfortable with the idea that questioning the potential danger of vaccines should be ruled a priori inadmissible. What moral ground can justify that?”

      I agree that such questioning should not be ruled a priori inadmissible. In answer to the question of what moral ground COULD justify that I guess the answer would be “the greatest good of the greatest number. ” Let’s say for the sake of argument that the MMR vaccine did indeed cause autism in say 1 percent of the child population. Let’s also say for the sake of argument that if parents were to en masse refuse to take the risk of ending up with an autistic child and were to thereby refuse the MMR vaccine that the consequent resurgance of measles, mumps and rubella combined would cause permanent disability, death and distress to 5% of the child population worldwide. The moral ground that may be used to justifying suppressing the truth would then be “the greatest good of the greatest number”, I.E. better that 1% of children end up with a permanent disability than that 5% of children end up permanently disabled or dead.

      Note I am not agreeing with this justification, nor am I suggesting that the MMR Vaccine does in fact cause autism. I am merely answering the question posed by Catte of “what moral ground can justify [ruling it a priori inadmissible to question the safety of vaccines]?”

      Personally I believe that human rights, truth and freedom of speech each outweigh any consequentialist justification for the idea of ruling the questioning the potential danger of vaccines a priori inadmissible. Whenever we are not even allowed to even ask a particular question this would seem to be a red flag that certain powerful vested interests fear that asking the question may possibly reveal an inconvenient and perhaps unthinkable truth. In this example it could also result in expensive lawsuits. The tobacco industry long maintained that no link had been proven between smoking and cancer and it proved surprisingly difficult to prove beyond all doubt that there was a link. Imagine if nobody had even been allowed to question the safety of cigarettes or show a documentary about it. Is that the kind of society we want to live in? But whilst many believe in consequentialist justifications such as that outlined above such a situation can occur.

      • I’ve replied. I assume it’s in moderation. If not, I’ll reply again. Let’s give it some time.

        • siigh…as we have said many times – no one is ever “in moderation’ here. individual posts are sometimes automatically held up by our spam filter, or occasionally just disappear. That is all.

          There’s unfortunately no post of yours in the pending queue by the way. Make a copy of anything lengthy before posting is the best advice.

          • oops I clicked the thumb down in some freudian click!
            But as noted recently – posting here is suddenly erratic for me- and I don’t know why nor have found a way that consistently works.

            • email us ( the text of any comment that gets smushed and we’ll try to figure what is going on. As you know comments are held back if they contain more than two hyperlinks, but currently you have no comments in the pending queue at all.

  12. Husq says

    Why were Camp Commandants and officers executed by the SS for maltreating camp inmates if they were going to kill them anyway?

    • Admin says

      Rhetorical and unsourced questions are rather pointless. No doubt, if what you say is true, it was considered desirable to keep the inmates alive long enough to get a decent amount of work out of them. Let’s not lose all sense of reality and suggest the Jews of Europe were dispossessed and herded into camps for the good of their health.

      • Husq says

        Konrad Morgen was a German judge who joined the SS and was assigned the task of investigating crimes in the concentration camps. His tenacity in pursuing the course of justice earned him the nickname ‘the bloodhound judge’. Following reports of irregularities at Buchenwald he sent a team of investigators to the camp. They spent several months in the camp investigating charges by interviewing guards and prisoners. As a result the camp commandant, Karl Koch, was tried for having two prisoners killed. He was convicted and hanged. In two years, Morgen directed more than 800 investigations into crimes in the camps.

        • Source? And what do you see that implying? Are you arguing that imprisoning people in camps because of their race is ok provided certain standards of hygiene and decorum are maintained?

          • Husq says

            nd what do you see that implying? Are you arguing that imprisoning people in camps because of their race is ok provided certain standards of hygiene and decorum are maintained?<

            Not at all. Were all Jews put into camps?

            • Don’t play dishonest word games. If you have a point make it – this dodging and eliding makes it seem as if you are promoting a POV you don’t want to own up to.

              • You are unable to back up your assumptions with facts and unable to contradict evidence forwarded … so you resort to familiar smears.

                You are obviously finding it hard to internalise the notion that others who disagree with you might, like yourself, be possessed of good intentions.

                It’s OK. It is understood that confronting this issue can be painful. I told the person who put me on to this…”You must be mad to say a thing like that.”

                • This is not a discussion about my, or anyone else’s, failures of comprehension. Husq was asked to stop making oblique allusions and answer a direct question directly. That’s all.

            • This kind of comment projects the kind of assumption with which anyone who challenges Holocaustianity is very familiar. ….That we are “haters” who harbour ill-will against Jews and are probably (in the worst sense) Nazi sympathisers…. I.e. spiritually and morally vicious.

              No. This denier does not favour locking up or harming ANYONE because of their race… although we did it to the Italians and the Boers and the Yanks did it to the Japanese and the Americans and French starved one million German prisoners of war to death in the Rhine Meadows camps immediately after WW2. This real Holocaust has been written out of history. Zero public angst is expressed regarding this TOTALLY PROVABLE war crime.

              What if we are simply passionate about truth and believe that nothing else can save us?

          • Husq says

            Source? <


            Then Morgen turned maverick. Going beyond his brief, he extended his investigation to include murder. He discovered that Koch had developed a system of eliminating all the inmates who had witnessed his corruption, disguising these killings with fictitious medical records stating that they had died of natural causes. He also killed off two hospital workers who had treated him for syphilis, so as to keep his condition secret. Astonishingly, within an organisation which helped to run the machinery of the Holocaust, Morgen managed to prosecute a senior SS figure for the illegal murder of Jews. Tried and sentenced to death, Koch was executed by SS firing squad on 5 April 1945.


            • Jen says

              The link that Husq was forced to provide shows that the judge prosecuted crimes occurring in the concentration camps because the camps were being run in a corrupt way, and that way happened to include people being killed in ways that did not conform to standard protocol, for reasons to do with covering up corruption, not because the camps themselves were inherently unethical.

              Husq, you ought to be ashamed of yourself for trying to insinuate that the SS executed camp commandants for mistreating camp inmates when the executions were done for other reasons.

      • Husq says

        Let’s not lose all sense of reality <

        Wiesel tells a story about a visit to a Rebbe, a Hasidic rabbi, he had not seen for 20 years. The Rebbe is upset to learn that Wiesel has become a writer, and wants to know what he writes. “Stories,” Wiesel tells him, ” … true stories”:
        About people you knew? “Yes, about people I might have known.” About things that happened? “Yes, about things that happened or could have happened.” But they did not? “No, not all of them did. In fact, some were invented from almost the beginning to almost the end.” The Rebbe leaned forward as if to measure me up and said with more sorrow than anger: That means you are writing lies! I did not answer immediately. The scolded child within me had nothing to say in his defense. Yet, I had to justify myself: “Things are not that simple, Rebbe. Some events do take place but are not true; others are—although they never occurred.”

          • Jen says

            While we know that Elie Wiesel and lots of others lived off the Holocaust literature industry, that fact does not mean that all the stories of the people (Jewish and others) who survived the Nazi death camps are false. Wiesel and others like him are disgusting for exploiting other people’s suffering for profit.

    • As I understand there are records documenting complaints of mistreatment by the guards and that a significant number of these were found against the guards – who may have received some disciplinary caution or penalty – but I doubt were executed!

      Amidst a polarised controversy upon which the World Order since WW2 has been set, disinformation is very likely to operate like tares in the wheat. And if even one error can be highlighted in someone’s assertion, they can be invalidated thereby regardless what else their character or example demonstrates.

      There were different camps with different contexts – the work camps in Germany were geared for industrial production. Slave labour – but not a design to be worked to death. The biggest lies can’t be believed to be tellable, for it takes one to know one. So the dawning recognition that a narrative reality is not true will ‘break’ open the mind to aspects of its own consciousness that it was formerly ‘protected’ from by the false narrative.

      The scapegoat is the sacrificial recipient for collective sins that are then killed, driven out, outlawed, made taboo, punished for. Such operates the society ruled under fear – or manipulated and farmed for its fear.

      Our default reaction to the exposure in such fear is the projection/denial displacement. And so the tendency to polarise against those associated with the deceit – who may live quite a different set of intentions than is ‘assigned’ them in hate. But the pattern of blind action-reaction operates the willing blindness of a ‘self-protective’ aversion and evasion of self-conflict, dissonance, communication breakdown. If a lie is your believed life – would you not simply steal the ‘f’ and make a lie of life – to at least seem to have one?

      Learning from mistakes is not the same as demonising mistakes as a way to deny learning anything other than fear dictates. Demonising projects or insinuates evil as an act of stealing power from another – and of course it can begin with flattery. Power-stealing is a scarcity belief. The more you do it the less you have and the more you have to do. Another may say – ‘surely you have enough’ – but fear of loss grows with the possession identity. Addiction.

  13. Brian Burgess says

    Excellent article. Spot on.

    Those who formulated the intellectual underpinnings of modern Western democracy such us J.S. Mill, the famous British philosopher who wrote ‘On Liberty’, would be turning in their graves at the treatment of people holding “unpopular” views in our contemporary society.

    According to Mill a view should bever be silenced simply because the majority believe that view to be wrong. Mill provided logical reasons for this view.

    First, the supposedly “wrong” view whilst unpopular may eventually be found to have been correct (think Galileo.) By suppressing the airing of “unpopular” views society ends up in a “dark age” where new truths can not emerge and knowledge cannot progress.

    Second, the view whilst unpopular and objectively wrong should still not be censored because those who hold the factually true view can better elucidate and defend the reasons why their own view is correct by “witnessing its collision with error.” For example if MMR vaccines do not cause autism then by allowing Dr Wakefield to air his allegedly “objectively wrong” views and thereby stimulating debate then the pro-vaccine medical consensus will be able to better demonstrate why MMR vaccines are indeed safe and do not cause autism by exposing the errors in Dr Wakefield’s arguments. By shutting him down it almost looks to parents of autistic kids (of which I by coincidence happen to be one myself) like they are terrified he may be right and that Wakefield may be in a similar position to how Galileo was treated during his lifetime. (Not saying this is the case mind you. Just that a reasonable person may get this impression from the censorship.)

    Finally, as pointed out in the article once we start banning certain viewpoints we are in very dangerous territory and the search for Truth is the ultimate casualty. Who decides which viewpoints shoukd not be aired? What makes them the final arbiters of truth? Yes, the scariest part is that this even needs to be stated.

    • Sav says

      Wakefield’s status allowed him to run the MMR scare for a good while. Media were quite happy to take his word because of it. 3rd hand news being reported down the line. A journalist could have investigated the claims much earlier but it didn’t happen.

      • Admin says

        What is the state of evidence in the case exactly? On what grounds was the fraud charge made and upheld? Does this equate with there being no evidence for a causal link between MMR and autism?

        No one at OffG has looked into this enough to know how much substance there is to the allegations, or how directly they relate to the safety of the vaccine. If you have we’d be interested in hearing more.

        • Sav says

          His whole study was financed by a lawyer looking to start a class action against MMR producers. Wakefield was making serious money and up to his neck in financial dealings surrounding it. None of which he had declared. His study of the 12 children was also rigged.

          You can read more by Brian Deer –

          • Admin says

            Yes, that’s one side of the story, but the other claims that Deer himself has lied and/or distorted, possibly at the behest of the Murdoch press. And it’s not clear at the moment how even if the funding is as claimed this discredits the research. Financial irregularity doesn’t preclude the possibility the studies (which were authored by several other doctors beside Wakefield) could have value.. It’s a dismissal by association. It’s a complex issue and it would take some time to get the full picture. You may well be correct, but it’s not clear to us at this point.

            • Sav says

              I’m the first to be sceptical about any ‘investigation’ or whatever we get told in papers. But there appears to be more than enough evidence of Wakefield making good money out of this, without any journo embellishment. With that kind of financial incentive there’s no way he can be taken credibly.

              That’s not to say vaccines are all amazing and great and can’t cause issues. Of course that is possible. But Wakefield was no great crusader against vaccines. He was trying to develop his own to sell in place of MMR.

              • Admin says

                Sorry no. Financial incentive might suggest his credibility is in doubt, but it can’t disprove his research. That’s exactly the kind of a priori and evidence-free dismissal this article is critiquing.

                The only thing that can disprove his research is data – about his research.

                • Sav says

                  But the research itself was skewed. It’s well documented and easily available to see online.

                  • Well then lead with that and not with the tales of corruption. But does the data actually show there is no demonstrable link between MMR and autism, or does it simply have technical shortcomings that can be used to dismiss it even though they don’t directly impact on the research and conclusions?

                • Sav says

                  Well then lead with that and not with the tales of corruption.

                  Both apply and it was mentioned in my second comment.

                  • No, you didn’t mention, and still haven’t mentioned, any reason why the research is invalid. We aren’t suggesting you’re incorrect, merely that you have not quoted any evidence for the claim you are making.

      • Wakefield’s sin was and is listening to patients, taking them seriously and being an advocate on their behalf. He was one of a number conducting the study in which the statistical correlation with combined MMR and outcomes including autism merits further investigation.
        He was not willing to betray the trust of this who sought his help not of his primary calling – and so ‘wakefielded’ is a term by which others are kept in line. It is simply terrorism operated by a protection racket. Thompson is a CDC whistleblower who revealed the wilful manipulation and destruction of data in which the autism link could not be massaged away. The irony of modern genocide is that is is often significantly self inflicted and self protected. Hook line and sinker.

    • Frank says

      Like the man said: ”Not the violent conflict between parts of the truth, but the quiet suppression of half of it is the formidable evil. There is always hope when people are forced to listen to both sides; it is when they attend to only one that errors harden into prejudices, that truth itself ceases to have the effect of truth, by exaggerating into falsehood.” J.S.Mill – On Liberty, Of Thought and Discussion.

      Pearl of Wisdom or what!? How strange and enlightening such views seem in our diseased, journalist-ridden age.

      • Frank says

        And while I’m at it.

        ”It seems evident, from the attitude of the capitalist world to soviet Russia, of the Entente to the central empires, and of England to Ireland and India, that there is no depth of cruelty, perfidy or brutality from which the present holders of power will shrink when they find themselves threatened …

        The present holders of power are evil men, and the present manner of life is doomed …”

        Bertrand Russell 1920.

        Seems about right. Continuation of the status quo ante necessarily entails suppression of any opposing view and the manufacture of hysteria.

  14. Husq says

    Being in control of the media allows you to control what questions get asked and what questions don’t get asked.

  15. Husq says

    I deny that there there are seperate Races.

    “I am an African American,” says Duana Fullwiley, “but in parts of Africa, I am white.” To do fieldwork as a medical anthropologist in Senegal, she says, “I take a plane to France, a seven- to eight-hour ride. My race changes as I cross the Atlantic. There, I say, ‘Je suis noire,’ and they say, ‘Oh, okay—métisse—you are mixed.’ Then I fly another six to seven hours to Senegal, and I am white. In the space of a day, I can change from African American, to métisse, to tubaab [Wolof for “white/European”]. This is not a joke, or something to laugh at, or to take lightly. It is the kind of social recognition that even two-year-olds who can barely speak understand. ‘Tubaab,’ they say when they greet me.”

    n fact, “There is no genetic basis for race,” says Fullwiley, who has studied the ethical, legal, and social implications of the human genome project with sociologist Troy Duster at UC, Berkeley.

    Race and Diversity like you wont hear discussed today

    • I don’t believe that Race is anything more than an official excuse for enacting Racism, but it saves time for me to say “Black” rather than go into all the stuff about my Dutch/ English/ Scots/ African/ African American / Native American ancestors every time I’m questioned on it (I get asked if I’m “Arab” several times a month, in Europe; that’s one thing I’m not). It’s nonsense, this Race stuff, but I also think it’s unseemly, as a member of the congenital underclass, to “protest too much” about it: if tens of millions of others are forced to be the N-word here in the West, I don’t mind being it with them. Sticks and stones and all that. Humans are at least ten generations from transcending the matter, in any case, no matter what a few intellectuals decide.

  16. Husq says

    Alone the fact that one may not question the Jewish “holocaust” and that Jewish pressure has inflicted laws on democratic societies to prevent questions—while incessant promotion and indoctrination of the same averredly incontestable ‘holocaust’ occur—gives the game away. It proves that it must be a lie. Why else would one not be allowed to question it? Because it might offend the “survivors”? Because it “dishonors the dead”? Hardly sufficient reason to outlaw discussion. No, because the exposure of this leading lie might precipitate questions about so many other lies and cause the whole ramshackle fabrication to crumble.”

    Gerard Menuhin / Revisionist Jew, son of famous violinist

  17. Stay away from possible thought censorship. People are going to believe what they want to believe regardless of the truth. The whole World knows the facts of the holocaust and that will never change. Don’t make it illegal to think or say otherwise or you will set a precedent and create martyrs to free thought.

  18. We’re all on different tracks as we slowly wake up to the depth, breadth and persistence of The Big Lies we were born into… we each will pass through several deja vus of Denial, Disorientation, Discovery and Liberation as very tough onionskins of delusion are ripped away. I draw the lines only at “Flat Earth”, “Paul is Dead (John is alive)” and “Shape-Shifting Lizards”… everything else appears, as I seem to be hitting the mid-point of my journey, to be a plausibly ticking time-bomb of revelation. I’ve sneered at “Apollo Hoaxers” and “Climate Change Deniers” in my youth… but each time, the Facts very gently (but firmly) smiled back. I’m smarter than I was back then but dumber than the me I will be.

    PS The “Vaxx” “debate” should be about product safety, most of all, but it isn’t, because that’s the battlefield on which Big Pharma finds it hardest to bullshit. It’s not why? but WHAT? are you injecting into the perfection of your newborns’ bodies….

    • Hi StAug
      That you can simply assign vaccine as ‘product’ is a measure of your ‘education’. (I don’t say this as a personal insult – but as a feedback to ‘accepted thought’.
      Vaccine is firstly the inoculation of ideas – followed by inoculation of a cocktail of ingredients that I suspect you have never seen.
      If you knew the what – and the results – and the suppression of any transparency or accountability around the testing, safety and provenance of the what and the way of the what – you would have to wonder why.
      Politics as framed is a sideshow to the politics of a captured and subverted medical establishment.
      The best I can give on the why is that to protect a lie, demands ever more destructive lies – such that what started out as an error in self illusion grows to degrade and destroy life on Earth.
      The protection racket is fear-fuelled. Fear of exposure as false impels those whose sense of power, status and privilege depend on keeping the truth hidden, to use that power to do so. While it is easy to point the finger at the ‘elitists’ – the truth is that the many actively subscribe and support the same core beliefs – and all tacitly conspire to deny the Messengers of a truth they do not want to hear.
      In any case ‘Vaxxed!’ centres upon the CDC whistle blower William Thompson’s revealing of falsification and destruction of data – that inluded pre-knowledge of autism as a ‘significant risk’ resulting from the MMR – particularly when administered early. This was not acted upon but buried – with many families betrayed and lives radically changed. the show trial and ‘debunk’ by Media was then used as ‘proof’ by which to deny recompense from the so called vaccine ‘court’. (One cannot sue a vaccine manufacturer or supplier – but if after enough bad statistics their ‘product’ is withdrawn – you will see it then goes out to ‘help’ the somewhere else in the world – usually nations of already malnourished and deprived people.

      The movement for mandatory vaccination is an open assault upon sovereignty – and the term medical rape is not too strong. By all means allow those who want vaccinations to be free to choose to do so – with the proper regulation and protection against fraud or malpractice.

      How insane does ‘reality’ have to become before the ‘normal’ is recognized as ‘mind-capture’?
      Health is not a susceptibility to sickness requiring toxic interventions that degrade health under promise of lifetime immunity – delete that – regular top-up shots for partial ‘immunity’ – but if you still get hit – blame it on the unvaxxed!

      Before the internet gets shut down – look into the true history of vax, germ theory, cancer racket, rockefeller-carnegie takeover of medical education, capture of regulators, medical mafia – and yes some folks are just fine with their meds, crap diet, toxic exposures etc – but the issue is reliable information and choice. A degraded consciousness diminishes the capacity to think!
      Regulatory capture is a corporate state capture that operates under belief and conformity under the power to help and protect from harm – and from quackery and fraudsters – regardless the efficacy and safety of their services. If it isn’t ‘scientifically’ approved, it ‘deprives’ sick people of ‘proper treatment’! That such a response comes from footsoldiers is a ‘mind-capture’ for who believes they know has no need to look – and looks only in the official narrative at best.

      Reproducibility of studies? Pharma funded studies? Internal Pharma studies brought to light as a result of legal proceedings? Fake medical news?

      • Hey, Binra! I’m not sure you picked up on the intent of my comment, re: vaccines; I think you’ve sort of sprinted rather a long distance, on a false start, off the assumptions you’ve built on a semantic misreading of one clause in my comment.

        I’m deeply skeptical of current vaccine-culture beliefs, consider Big Pharma a kind of cackling satan, think that most ailments are down to the toxic “foods” we guzzle and haven’t popped a pill of any kind (except some borrowed pain killers for a tooth ache) in 40 years. I’ve also never smoked anything or swallowed booze and I _____ my Beautiful Wife at last a couple of times week (thrice when I wash the dishes) without chemical (or electric) assistance.

        On the other hand, I’m quite sure you don’t have a med lab of your own or more than a cursory understanding of biochemistry; some “Western Medicine” sort of works, in my experience. I’ve seen two Hippie acquaintances die of treatable cancers because they thought hemp oil (or whatever it was) would cure anything. They were wrong. Both ends of the Ideological Spectrum are a bit too faith-based, IMO, and some degree of triggered-immunity-response protocol probably works. Mercury-based preservatives (among others) in vaccines are, obviously, as gratuitously toxic as industrial fluoride in drinking water. Further, considering the fact that quite a few 1%-ers would like to see a whopping reduction in the number of Serfs on the planets (like, down to a billion or fewer?), how can any of us be sure that the total-anti-vaxx lit out there isn’t a psyop? Forgive me if your certainty is meaningless to me, since “certainty” comes so cheaply and the corrections of certainties can be so brutal.

        We all, around here, I think, are so used to being treated as though we’re insane in comment threads among the Norms, and so used to bottling up our worldviews, that the slightest trigger can make us blow our corks and spew screeds! Laugh. I have no problem withstanding sudden-explosive-screed-blasts but don’t expect me to go wide-eyed when I read stuff I’ve read so many, many times before on the same sites we all regularly visit.

  19. Sav says

    I’m generally in agreement with the author but it also depends on what weight, if any, those opposing a certain view have in the public arena. Fine on something like this forum where I can present a reply.

    There’s also the total double standard of MSM, left and right, of trumpeting the Free Speech banner, in examples like Je Suis Charlie and totally ignoring legislation across Europe that prevents people from denying the Jewish holocaust. Yes, people like Irving are unsavoury characters but how is that a hate crime? If there is good reason to have such legislation then there needs to be consistency on how it is applied.

  20. Quote: “Claims that the Holocaust didn’t happen are insane and revolting.”
    This is possibly true when you buy into the full details that have been pressed onto the public mind for the past 50 years. Although about 20 minutes of nonsensical testimony from a single individual was presented at The Nuremberg Trials (1945), the narrative was not launched in the public domain until around 1968 and amplified powerfully by Jeremy Isaacs “World at War” documentary in 1973.
    I am old enough to remember the days when “The Holocaust” was not our collective religion. The memoirs of Churchill, De Gaulle and Eisenhower never mentioned “the greatest crime in human history”.
    It is well to understand that “Deniers” do NOT deny the persecution of Jews during WW2. We do NOT deny that official German policy was the ejection of Jews from Germany nor the deaths of thousands of Jews in Concentration Camps.
    What is denied is the unique element that is claimed relating to this persecution … that Jews were systematically exterminated under a planned program of mass extermination in HUMAN GAS CHAMBERS. The reasons for this denial are scientific and documentary.
    There is ZERO physical evidence supporting the existence of these gas chambers. This is a provable fact that establishment liars REFUSE TO DEBATE IN PUBLIC. The evidence for their non-existence is retrievable to this very day but its discussion is forbidden. Chemical analysis of the walls of the alleged “human gas chamber” through which the public are paraded in Auschwitz reveals that their cyanide content is the very same as that of the walls of dormitories and kitchens (2 to 3 parts per million ferrocyanide) while the concentration of the cyanide in the REAL gas chamber that survives at Auschwitz (that visitors are not shown) is 5000ppm!!! The REAL gas chamber was used for delousing clothes to keep prisoners HEALTHY … the thousands who died in Auschwitz succumbed to Typhus outbreaks in the late summers/early autumns of 1941 and 1942. The Bletchley Park intercepts contain communications between the German high command and the various Camps with the order to reverse the disastrous typhus death rates. That the prisoners must be kept healthy to do the necessary work.
    Bodies could not be buried at Auschwitz because it stood at the confluence of 3 rivers and the water supply would have been polluted by the burying of corpses. Hence the crematoria were built and Carlo Mattogno has carried out an intensive analysis of the coke delivery records (which still exist) demonstrating that there is no contradiction between the official records of Auschwitz deaths and the volume of coke recorded in these deliveries (it is well-known how much coke is required to burn a single body.
    The evidence that DOES exist supporting the existence of human gas chambers was ALL delivered verbally. Hoss’s confession (I killed 3 million Jews in gas chambers) was extracted under torture …. as detailed by establishment British historian Rupert Butler in his 1983 book “Legions of Death”. Franz Stangl’s (head of Treblinka) confession was delivered while he was in jail waiting for his APPEAL AGAINST his conviction for “crimes against humanity”. He, usefully died in jail before his ‘confession’ was published, leaving him (obviously) unable to deny Gita Sereny’s allegations against him.
    The evidence of “witnesses” is (sorry to use this word but it fits) laughable. Those who describe the corpses of the gassed describe those corpses as being “blue”. The fact is that corpses that are killed by cyanide poisoning are bright pink because of all the burst blood vessels just under the skin surface.

    The UNIQUE HORROR of “The Holocaust” is the human gas chambers and this story IS A LIE.

    Off-Guardian, being interested in truth should carry out an open investigation into this issue. BECAUSE….

    The establishment that have created all the outrageous falsehood against which this website rails HIDE BEHIND THE JEWISH PEOPLE and their manufactured innocence and super-victimhood.

    We now live under this DOMINANT WORLD RELIGION wherein Christ has been replaced by “The Jewish People” (The Talmud’s only God), The Cross by the ‘human gas chambers’, Calvary by Auschwitz, The Vatican by Vad Yashem, The Devil by Hitler, The demons of hell by “the Nazis” etc…etc…

    An unholy job has been done on humanity.
    No one should blame Jews for this. They were the first to be deceived. Most gentiles, having believed and accepted this religion are, today, de facto Jews.

    Humanity cannot escape its current nightmares without confronting this issue. THIS MUST HAPPEN.

    PS Here’s what the Head of the British Intelligence Service had to say about the “human gas chambers” story in 1943.

    • Catte says

      So, you only “deny” the existence of the gas chambers – not the persecution and murder of Jewish people en masse?

      But aside from these confessions there simply must be quite a lot of physical evidence that the gas chambers were actually there? And were there not thousands of witnesses to their construction and use? Is that not rather strong evidence?

      • Husq says

        Here’s Gilad Atzmon. I certainly don’t believe that there was any intention of exterminationof the Jews(whoever they are).

        If, for instance, the Nazis wanted the Jews out of their Reich (Judenrein – free of Jews), or even dead, as the Zionist narrative insists, how come they marched hundreds of thousands of them back into the Reich at the end of the war? I have been concerned with this simple question for more than a while. I eventually launched into an historical research of the topic and happened to learn from Israeli holocaust historian professor Israel Gutman that Jewish prisoners actually joined the march voluntarily. Here is a testimony taken from Gutman’s book

        “One of my friends and relatives in the camp came to me on the night of the evacuation and offered a common hiding place somewhere on the way from the camp to the factory. …The intention was to leave the camp with one of the convoys and to escape near the gate, using the darkness we thought to go a little far from the camp. The temptation was very strong. And yet, after I considered it all I then decided to join (the march) with all the other inmates and to share their fate ” (Israel Gutman [editor], People and Ashes: Book Auschwitz – Birkenau, Merhavia 1957).

        I am left puzzled here, if the Nazis ran a death factory in Auschwitz-Birkenau, why would the Jewish prisoners join them at the end of the war? Why didn’t the Jews wait for their Red liberators?

        I think that 65 years after the liberation of Auschwitz, we must be entitled to start to ask the necessary questions. We should ask for some conclusive historical evidence and arguments rather than follow a religious narrative that is sustained by political pressure and laws.

        Exactly who is it that is in ‘Denial’?

      • Husq says

        But isn’t there quite a lot of physical evidence that the gas chambers were actually there? <

        There’s evidence from a woman who survived ‘gassing’ three times.
        Here’s evidence of mass cremations as told by an inmate.

        • Catte says

          I think the problem people have here is that it seems like quibbling about something way too dreadful to be quibbled over. What matters is the institutional intent to murder – and we all know this was a fact. Focusing on the exact process can seem a little obscene and avoidant of the point. Genocide happened. And genocide is a terrible crime that no one should ever excuse or mitigate.

          • “I think the problem people have here is that it seems like quibbling about something way too dreadful to be quibbled over.”

            On the other hand, we have to be careful with that emotional limit on discussion and debate, because the same circle of fire is drawn around “9/11”, “Sandy Hook”, et al , in precisely the same terms, no? No topic should be too dreadful to quibble about. As they say: the Devil is in the details.

            I have no reason to disbelieve the “normal” narrative of the Holocaust, but I also have no reason to fear/avoid hearing alternative theories.

            • Sav says

              I’d say most avoid it because they don’t want to be tarred with the nazi brush.

              • Catte says

                That too of course, though we should all be up to understanding that historical investigation or debate is not the same as alleging the Holocaust was a good thing!

            • My feeling is: if we can talk about King Leopold in the Congo, or the Hutu/Tutsi conflict in Rwanda, fairly dispassionately (as people often do), or Pol Pot, et al, The Holocaust (or make that “The European Holocaust”) shouldn’t get its own special category of “off limits atrocity”. I’m leery of people who consider some topics “inappropriate” for discussion, in any case. And I’m glad we can discuss it freely on the OffGuardian! Thanks for your response! S

            • The mind can ‘rationalise’ the felt existence in denial of feeling – as a kind of anti-emotional dissociation, or intellectualism as an exclusion zone.
              The mind can also affect emotionalism as a mask or manipulation to ward off, or keep out intrusion into a dissociative isolation.
              The range of strategies all serve the same agenda.

              Hence the form something takes is not its meaning – for forms can be masked in – and masked out!

              Who speaks openly in critical relation to tyranny when the result is severe penalty?

              What else but guilted fear operates tyranny of any kind.
              I say guilted – because fear that masks or that hides, is different from fear owned and lived as transformative experience. Fear is protected from awareness by a mind of reaction that seeks to cover its exposure.
              “And who told you you were naked”
              came to mind when I wrote that.

          • Husq says

            What matters is the institutional intent to murder – and we all know this was a fact. <

            And your evidence is?

      • Sorry didn’t tick box to receive notifications of replies.
        I have searched for this physical evidence at Auschwitz (the centrepiece of the narrative) and can find none. None at all. It is for people like you to demonstrate that there is physical evidence of human gas chambers. It appears to me that the people who demand we believe the story have failed to provide it. It is not as if they have not had enough time.
        The stories about human gas chambers were first broadcast on the BBC in early 1943 (I think). You might have read Bentick’s reaction to these stories (linked). The Head of British Intelligence described them as “war propaganda”.
        All the RETRIEVABLE physical evidence at Auschwitz demonstrates the non-existence of the instruments of this nightmare hallucination.

        ….and yes, there are many (not thousands, but many) “eye witness” accounts. Not one describes what would have been the most obvious feature of the corpses produced by such a process….that the bodies would have been bright pink. This strongly indicates that these eye-witnesses were manufactured rather than real, thankfully very casually created without reference to what might have been the physical reality of this (what appears to be) fiction.

        I’m open to new information (but would be naturally skeptical of any stunning new find) but believe, on the basis of all the physical (reliable and recoverable) evidence I have seen, that the story is a fiction. The Jewish people have been used and abused in more ways than they understand.

        I do not state and defend this position because I hate Jews but because I have looked at the evidence and believe what I say to be true. The fact that the evidence cannot be debated openly and that “deniers” are intensively vilified as evil anti-Semites should tell you that there is something very dishonest going on here. In my opinion the reality goes something like this:

        The global ruling elite, not all white, nor all Jews but a highly organised alliance of what can best be described in a single word as ‘Satanists’ HIDE BEHIND THE JEWISH PEOPLE. Jewish people are more intensively brainwashed than the rest of us, though that doesn’t stop the VAST majority of gentiles being devotees of this satanic religion (Holocaustianity) as well, on the basis of nothing more than relentless repetition of the lie.
        Christ, who warned the Jews against their leaders, has been pushed aside. So have his sublime teachings and injunctions (“The Kingdom of Heaven is Within”, “Love your Enemies” etc..). The new sacrifice is “The Jewish People”, the Satanic Talmud’s only God.
        If and when we recognise what has been done to us everything is set up so that the natural rage of people who have been lied to and betrayed will AGAIN identify Jews as the enemy of gentile mankind. The elite behind this scam will most likely walk away unscathed as they always do.
        I pray that Jews themselves, most honourable people like Paul Eisen (who recognises the hoax and whom I personally know) will work this out for themselves and finally take the advice they were given by Christ 2000 years ago.
        Thus, the Jewish People might save us all.
        These people are central to the narrative that has and will define human destiny whether we like it or not. God’s purpose has been made manifest in them whether and whenever they have stood on the side of heaven or the side of hell.

        • “Jewish people are more intensively brainwashed than the rest of us. . .”

          Don’t be so sure . . . one of the things about being brainwashed is that the brainwashed don’t notice the depth and breadth of their brainwashing.

          • It takes different forms that is all. The fear that everyone ‘else’ can turn on you may not be rational, but when was fear ‘rational?’
            The ab-use of one’s own people/population via the war on terror tactic is not new – but awareness of this is may be growing.
            The tragic irony is that those who manipulate such ‘power’ make a sacrifice of their own to gain the appearance of it.
            This pattern also shows up in the confessions of an economic hit man. If you DON’T sell your Own to an evil fate – you are taken out. Shut down.

            Any differentiation of self as better than or superior to others is an invitation to arrogance and to then meet reaction to such arrogance. This isn’t confined to any race or grouping or people, it is a kind of ‘physics’.

            But in various ways self-specialness operates – whether openly or in disguise to undermine or invalidate others so as to inflate or bolster the ‘self’ image.

        • Jen says

          “… I pray that Jews themselves, most honourable people like Paul Eisen (who recognises the hoax and whom I personally know) will work this out for themselves and finally take the advice they were given by Christ 2000 years ago …”

          You sound like one of those fundamentalist Christians who believe that the Second Coming of Jesus must be preceded by mass conversions of Jews to the Christian religion or else they’re all going to be consigned to Hell. An anti-Semite viewpoint if ever there was one.

          • Absolute bollox.
            You shouldn’t air your own presumptions and bigotry in such a Cavalier fashion. The advice given by Christ (the very mention of whom appears to have deeply offended you) to Jews was that THEY SHOULD STOP FOLLOWING THEIR SATANIC LYING LEADERS.
            Excellent advice then.
            Excellent advice NOW.

            Keep your offensive projected fantasies about “consignment to hell” to yourself.

            • @physicsandmathsrevision – No abuse please. Other people’s opinions are not “bigotries” because you don’t share them. Also you need to clarify that you are not advocating Jewish people abandon their faith and convert to Christianity. People are understandably very sensitive about this.

              • From your failure to publish my response to your comment it is very clear whose feelings we are allowed to be sensitive about and whose we are not. Please remove your own previous post. This is indicative that you, when push comes to shove, align with MSM machinery by skewing discourse in favour of the usual establishment peoples and powers.

                • Every comment we have received from you has been published. Nothing has been deleted and nothing is in pending. Comments go missing from time to time, which is why we advise people to keep copies.

                  If we were into suppressing discussion, do you think we would be allowing this debate at all? Many people would approve of us silencing some of the viewpoints on display here, but we are upholding the right of free speech. Not much sense in bothering with any of it if we are censoring your comments is there? We might as well take the easy option and shut the whole thing down.

            • Jen says

              I have not aired any presumptions about the Christian religion at all. I simply only mentioned that there exist some fundamentalist Christians for whom the Second Coming of the Messiah will be heralded by several events, among which is supposed to be the mass conversion of Jews of Christianity and their destruction if they don’t.

              Instead you’re the one who has insulted Jewish people and their beliefs by insinuating that they follow leaders who are essentially evil and who continually lie. I think you’ve just given yourself away as a bigot.

              What is the advice that Christ gives about judging people?

              From the King James Bible (Matthew 7:1 – 5)
              1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
              2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
              3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
              4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
              5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

    • Jen says

      I should think that one complicating factor is that the death camp in the Auschwitz concentration camp complex was located in Birkenau which is three kilometres away from the main camp. Is it not possible that people who only know of the Auschwitz main camp but know nothing of the Birkenau camp are taking measurements only at Auschwitz? Are the guides employed at Auschwitz aware of the distinction? If people are taking measurements of cyanide levels at Auscwhitz but not at Birkenau, and the guides don’t tell them about Birkenau’s existence, then any evidence collected is as good as nothing.

      • The hygenic (real ) gas chamber that still exists is in Birkenau. Tourist are not shown this small chamber with its turquoise-stained (ferrocyanide) walls that was used to keep inmates healthy. The human gas chamber that is presented to tourists as such has been intensively investigated and demonstrated to have not been a gas chamber at all. The Director of Auschwitz admitted to David Cole that it was constructed in 1946 (that’s after WW2 for those who might not know).
        Are “deniers”, having demonstrated that the narrative and evidence presented to the world as the most evil event in human history is FALSE, now responsible for finding evidence of human gas chambers that is actually TRUE.

        Let it be admitted that the current narrative is false first ….. then we’ll think about getting to the full truth behind this ongoing (what most certainly appears to be) GREAT LIE.

        Without human gas chambers the Jewish persecution and genocide during WW2 was one of many throughout human history. The Soviet genocide was FAR larger and (as many have documented) largely directed by jews. The Chinese massacres under Mao were far larger. The Irish famine was larger. I’m Irish. Can I manufacture a world religion out this horrible event (that hardly ever crosses my mind)? What would be the point of such an exercise.
        The construction of the Holocaustianity religion is a very pointed exercise that has many powerful purposes. These purposes are costing the lives of millions to this very day. We should reflect on this reality if we care anything for the well-being of our children (and the ultimate fate of The Jewish People).

        “Love you enemies”…. Matthew 5:44
        “Then you will know the Truth and the Truth will set you free”…. john 8:32

        • “The Soviet genocide was FAR larger and (as many have documented) largely directed by jews.”

          What “evidence” can you point to support this claim? How do you know that, whereas the Holocaust may be an attempt to exaggerate the crimes of the Third Reich so as to minimize or even distract attention away from those of the Allies and today justify those of the state of Israel against the Palestinians, that “The Soviet Genocide” isn’t itself one of “those” stories fabricated in exactly the same spirit, namely, to demonize an “enemy?”

        • Jen says

          The Holocaust is not just a numbers game. What makes it different from other genocides past and present is the extent to which it was planned to serve an agenda, the speed and efficiency with which the murders were carried out, the resources (including buildings, the transport networks) needed for the killings and the bureaucracy required to administer and manage the killings.

          In case you haven’t noticed, the Holocaust also included mass shootings such as the 1941 Odessa mass murders of 25 – 34,000 Jews by Germans and Romanians, the 1943 Operation Harvest mass shootings conducted by the SS at Majdanek concentration camp and the 1941 Babi Yar mass shootings of over 33,700 Jews among others.

          Carbon monoxide gassing of people in gas vans and gas chambers in most death camps (apart from those gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau) was used as well.

          • John says

            No one is denying the fact that the Nazi regime was murderous.
            We are all fully aware of units like the Einsatzgruppen.
            We are also fully aware that they did not just target one group of individuals.
            Mentally and physically disabled people were targeted for extermination on alleged genetic grounds.
            So too were Roma, homosexuals, Jehovah Witnesses and anyone else who did not “conform” to Nazi “ideals”.
            Massive numbers of Russian fighters, prisoners of war and civilians lost their lives at the hands of the Nazis.
            What is at question is the mythical figure of 6 million in one group being exterminated.
            The actual figure of 6 million appears to have been chosen long before the war ended – or even began.
            It is used in an attempt to justify and legitimise an illegal zionist state, based on terror, theft and murder.
            That is why so many perceive the holohaux industry as being completely unacceptable.
            It is not anti-Jewish to state that.
            Jews like Professor Norman Finkelstein say it too – as do many other Jews.

            • Jen says

              I’m not disputing that the Nazi German regime killed many millions but my comment to which you responded was in response to an earlier comment that claimed that the regime’s murders of Jewish people without gas chambers are just another genocide among many . But rather than argue which was worse based on numerical comparisons, we also need to note those aspects of this and other 20th century genocides (and maybe those of previous centuries) that made them distinctive and unique. In the case of the Nazi German genocides of Jews and other groups, we need to note the extent to which these were planned in the service of a long-term agenda that would drastically alter the demographics of a continent, and the extent to which modern forms of industrial management and industrial processes and technology were used to speed the process of killing people along with using collaborators in eastern Europe to torture and kill.

              • Clearly the reason the previous rebuttal failed was because I directly quoted parts of The Talmud (obscene and horrible content). What kind of “Holy Book” is beyond the pale in terms of indecency? Should ordinary Jews understand the project to which their “spiritual” leadership is committed?

          • Oh? Are you agreeing there were no human gas chambers in Auschwitz?
            Sounds like it. That is no small concession. This is ALL that most revisionist/deniers like myself are asserting.

            • BigB says

              @physicsandholocaustrevision: I’m calling you out – stop obsessing – can you conclusively prove that there were no gas chambers at all – at Auschwitz II Birkenau – but also at Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka or Lublink-Majdanek?

              These were the main Einsatz Reinhard extermination camps and I have provided you with irrefutable documentary evidence (from a BP decrypt that you yourself linked to) that 1,274,166 deaths occurred in these camps in 1942 alone.
              You need to supply fact based verifiable evidence as to how this industrial murder was perpetrated. Not “I don’t need to as others have” – you, you provide the references, links, etc.

              You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Facts please?

              [edited by Admin at request of author]

    • First off, I want to emphasize that on this issue, unlike that of 9/11 or the myth that we have been fed about the Rwandan Genocide, or that that we were assured was being perpetrated by the Serbs against the Croats at about the time that the Hutu slaughtered 1.2 million Tutsi though three-hundred-thousand of the latter survived an original number of six-hundred-thousand, which was itself in total less than half of all of those murdered, I am undecided as to what to believe, though of course, if should factually turn out to be that there were no gas chambers, then that would be “par for the course” — wouldn’t it?

      I’m also extremely uncomfortable broaching the subject publicly simply because I know that nothing would comfort an anti-Semite more than any “proof” that the war atrocities committed by the fascists were no more, if in fact no less, than those committed by the Allies, and would therefore serve to buttress his twisted sense of righteousness in his despicable and monstrous ideology.

      Now having said that, I have myself come across what I take to be evidentiary grounds for questioning the “official version” of the holocaust, but again (and at the risk of being tiresomely repetitive), this “evidence” most emphatically does not in any way, at least in my mind, mitigate the “absolute” savagery of what was done to the European Jew while not forgetting also the millions more who similarly were in fact enslaved by the Germans and effectively worked to death in the camps, many tortured and others executed by whatever means.

      To my mind, whether there was only or not even a single gas chamber is in this sense neither here nor there.

      For the context was war. Or rather, it was total war. And the Germans, even if no more than the Allies, therefore indubitably committed the most reprehensible and unspeakable of crimes, maiming and murdering and traumatizing countless millions, men, women and children – and this cannot be denied.

      Consequently, the ‘gas chamber’ as an issue is in its essence a trivial detail, a footnote, the truth or falsehood of which, rationally but especially morally speaking, weighs for next to nothing in the balance of the overall horror that was World War II, and though the other imperialist powers were guilty of equivalent crimes, the Germans, and especially the fascists among them, were also most assuredly “guilty.”.

      But what, then, of any evidence to the contrary? Well, for people who may be curious, there is one website that I have stumbled upon which contains at least some work by some people who seem less motivated by an irrational and murderous hatred than by a genuine desire to “know” what the “facts” of the matter really are and were.

      About it, to someone, I wrote: “The contributors to this particular website, some of whom, like Paul Eisen, are self-identifying Jews, cannot to my mind be characterized in their quest for historical accuracy and truth as being “Nazi” or “Fascist” apologists or sympathizers, which isn’t to suggest that some among the contributors to this line of research might not be that exactly — for I haven’t read all of the contributions — or that this kind work might not be easily and eagerly misappropriated and misused in such a hateful ideological vein.”

      So now in the name of Paul Eisen, you have a link to that site. (You might want to pay particular attention to the works of French scholar Prof. Faurisson and German chemist Germar Rudolf, whose names you can enter as search parameters at the site.)

      • Husq says

        HD1080 Gilad Atzmon rencontre Robert Faurisson 10 juin 2014.

        interesting what Raul Hilberg’s reply that was shown at the end.

        Why did PBS censor the most fascinating part of Professor Raul Hilberg’s speech about the Holocaust? What could the “father of Holocaust history” possibly have said to make PBS lop off his big opening anecdote? And what does this say about our fear of the “gray areas” that lurk in all historical fields? Hear the audio for yourself, and read my pithy commentary, in my latest piece at Taki’s Magazine.

      • BigB says

        I read the Paul Eisen piece, I won’t be reading another. I’m prepared to look at evidence , and if necessary change my POV – but there is none here. Frankly, even within the confines of this debate I find the equating of Holocaust belief with that of belief in astrology, fortune telling or the “magic bullet” as unnecessarily demeaning. That’s just my opinion, anyone else is entitled to a counter opinion though.

        • You are correct that in Eisen’s piece, there is no “evidence” as such. Eisen’s piece is written on the “basis” of a body of evidence already established by the works of people like French scholar Prof. Faurisson and German chemist Germar Rudolf. Already, the “body of evidence” is being taken for granted. I mentioned Eisen to back up my claim that some of the contributors to the site are “Jewish.” And because of the nature of Eisen’s piece, that is also why I suggest that you have a look at the works of Faurisson and Rudolf: evidence is pretty much all that they are about.

    • BigB says

      I read the Cavendish-Betinck transcript and it is at best ambiguous, at worst useless as a historical reference, as it refutes nothing. It starts “In my opinion” and the most salient clause “As regards putting Poles to death in gas chambers, I do not believe that there is any evidence that this has been done.” Cavendish-Betinck, having previously drawn a distinction between Poles and Jews; in this operative clause does not even reference the Jews. No smoking gun here, just an opinion in ’43. Does history record if Mr Cavendish-Betinck’s opinion changed in ’44/’45 when we were actually in Europe?
      Compare and contrast with the now famous Reigner Telegram (10th August ’42) warning of plans to “resolve, once and for all the Jewish question in Europe” that largely fell on deaf ears.

      • However you choose to spin this letter The Head of British Intelligence had access to a massive amount of evidential data at the time, including countless aerial photographs of Auschwitz-Birkenau and full access to The secret internal communications between the German High Command and the management leadership of the camps via the Bletchley Park Decrypts.
        Where is your evidence that “once and for all” does not refer to Germany’s OPENLY DECLARED policy of removing all jews from the land Germany. Where is your evidence that this phrase means committing racial genocide by exterminating all Jews is human gas chambers.

        You cannot go spinning verbal evidence one way and then the opposite just to suit your prejudice.
        Words as evidence are massively outweighed by measurable scientific fact as any investigating police detective knows.
        So, the question remains … why do you choose to believe such a tall tale when all the PHYSICAL evidence is against it?

        ….and there is NOT A SINGLE PRIVATE LETTER IN EXISTENCE from anyone who worked in those camps at the time expressing disgust at their participation in 9or even observation of ) this most unimaginably horrific crime.
        Do you believe that the Germans were not ordinary men and women, as we would recognise them, at all ….. but demons in human form?

        • BigB says

          “The Head of British Intelligence had access to a massive amount of evidential data at the time, including countless aerial photographs of Auschwitz-Birkenau and full access to The secret internal communications between the German High Command and the management leadership of the camps via the Bletchley Park Decrypts.”

          Did he (as of August 1943)? Can you provide links please because I am only aware of “chatter” – low level non-Enigma traffic that proved nothing. The only enigma decrypt he had was the Hoefle Telegram that tabulated the Einsatz Reinhard killings in 1942 – except it was mis-translated and its significance missed – so where is this “massive amount of evidential data”?

          Likewise, can you link to the “countless aerial photos” as I was not aware that we had the photo reconnaissance capability to penetrate into Poland in ’43. The earliest aerial photo I can find is 4th April 1944 – can you link to the ‘countless’ earlier photos please?
          Re: Reigner – you do know that a German industrialist, Eduard Schulte, risked his and his family’s lives by travelling from Poland to Zurich to pass on the information to Reigner to try and alert the world – did he risk all to pass on what he knew to be lies? Was he perpetrating a hoax?
          Why do you choose to believe such a ‘tall tale’ that render men like Schulte as misguided if not actual liars? Is it so prejudiced to choose to honour them as heroes?

          (Unfortunately, one of those who passed on the Telegram was Leland Harrison, a colleague of the neo-Nazi traitor Allen Dulles – Harrison did his best to make sure the State Dept. did not pass on the information.)

          • It is not my responsibility to provide further evidence that human gas chambers did not exist. Many have already done this.
            It is yours to provide evidence that they DID that outweighs the physical evidence that they did not.

            What one man believed were other people’s intentions doesn’t cut the mustard as any kind of proof. He might have been wrong about their intentions. He might even have been right. The point is …
            Check out some of the Bletchley Park evidence here:

            • John says

              Very interesting BP data and analysis, which largely bears out my own conclusions regarding the holocaust industry.
              I strongly suspect most concentration camp and work labour camp inmates died of incurable diseases like typhus.
              In the last months of the war allied bombing and a general route of German forces must have caused absolute chaos.
              Antibiotics like penicillin were not available to the Germans and medical supplies must have been hard to obtain.
              Food shipments and access to clean drinking water must also have been highly problematical.
              The fog of war is never thicker than at the very end of it.
              The 6 million dead Jews figure was already being referred to before and during the First World War.
              It represented a kabalistic prophecy considered essential to confer theological legitimacy on an illegal zionist state.
              It is now widely acknowledged as a made-up and false figure – the true figure may now never be known.
              Other accounts – like – are available.

              • “incurable diseases like typhus”
                I submit that if people are starved – deprived of nutrition – under insanitary conditions and indeed under an insanity – you will bring forth your ‘incurable diseases’ – and assign them to a status upon which to build a pharmaceutical globalist State.

                As I understand it – most incarceration in these camps was as a forced labour workforce – and as such they were maintained to conditions of usefulness. The scale and nature of the bombing of Germany – particularly toward the end brought starvation to very many who were not killed by such.

                While and ongoing power agenda of blame, hate and punishment operates as the power structure of the day – with certain assertions held as above or outside of critical evaluation, some version of ‘church and state’ operates as a forcefully maintained imprinting of the mind as a subject and an agency of such identity.

                Identifying in hate of the hating or hateful – generates a sense of justified and righteous power. Vengeance seeks to set the world in order – but the abused become the abusers in a never ending recycling of hate.

                Hate refuses to open to communication – and seeks to shut it down – and provoke a like-hateful response to PROVE the ‘weakness or treachery’ of so-called-communication, and refuel its right and justified assertion of denial – as power over perceived enemy or threat.

                As with starvation of nutrients, a deep sense of disconnection and inflammation under threat – activates the will to survive as a refusal to succumb to adversity – and the pathways that are forged often fuse identity in patterns that model disconnection and inflammation, as the reality into which they are inducted and persist as.

                I use the word identity for a strategy of survival under threat – in which attacking first is the best form of defence – and where the attack operates a pre-set judgement running beneath or behind the presented act of thought, word or deed. So the attempt to define a situation will be the framing of it that best serves a sense of masking identity in prediction and control of outcome.

                Because the personality structure grows out from – and upon – such pre-verbal consciousness of psychic emotional imprinting – it can only operate within the core cultural presumptions of its perceived and believed reality – unless and until they are raised to a conscious awareness. Where trauma is both denied re-contextualizing – and yet framed and used as a source of inducing and maintaining a ‘strong’ identity. The negative aspects of our past experienced are worshipped for protection against loss of self and loss of power and this includes the negative worship of the guilt or evil perpetrator – that likewise must never be released, forgot or allowed to be released from.

                Patterns of victim and victimiser are never isolate but always a complex of blind entanglement – in which blind action and reaction persists through generations as a largely unconscious matrix of recycled psychic material.
                The mind of vengeance attempts to remake reality to its own image and judgement – and is unwilling to receive another – believing there is no other! – and that threats to reality or to history – must be stamped out and made witness to the reality of the evil – from which one’s ‘power’ in righteous defence, depends.

                If some are chosen or have chosen to exemplify patterns of human behaviour that would otherwise be hidden – then they are the opportunity to un-hide it in ourselves. The extremity and the form of a blindness of Soul is not invalidating of its pattern or device of such blindness.

                Enacting fantasy of power over and upon others is Soul-blinding. The forms it takes – and then generates to become – are symptom to the underlying cause. The mind in reaction – in identity – may usurp the Soul in belief it knows – and rule out any other perspective – as if to rule alone.

                Only the re-cognition of Soul can re-contextualize what seemed to have violated and split and lost. This stirring may first be felt as deep disturbance – that initiates primal fear-reaction. This is where staying with and staying open, allows an expansion as a more embracing perspective from which to live a more aligned sense of being. But this calls for ongoing self-honesty for the mind unwatched becomes ‘running blind’.

                I see the power of mind to censor thought, being replaced with the power to pause the mind from triggered reaction, while receiving in truly desired alignment. As a willingness of accepting and honouring true desire as our self.

          • BigB says

            “In the main, the separate figures for the Reinhardt camps provided by Hofle’s radio telegram can be confirmed by published research. The document is a reliable source and will have to be considered in all future research concerning the numbers of murdered Jews in the General Government”
            Source: “A New Document on the Deportation and Murderof Jews During “Einsatz Reinhard” 1942″ by Peter Witte and Stephen Tyas. (This document is embedded in the link you gave me above, @physicsandmathsrevision.)

            The point is …

            I haven’t got time for the back and forth, so I’m going to spell it out. You are the one that is trying to make the case that disproving the methodology (human gas ovens) of the killing disproves the intent to kill (genocide.) I make no such claim and have been attempting to show that the intent to murder was present, irrespective of the methodology utilised.
            In the course of our discourse, you linked the document cited above, which is weird, as I was going to use it myself, but the URL is about a page long. Taking this document as a starting point:
            Irrespective of how they met their deaths, the Hofle Telegram proves (beyond reasonable doubt) that 1,274,166 Jews were killed in 1942 alone;
            As “Einsatz Reinhard” was the action plan agreed at the Wansee Conference and an enactment of the ‘Wansee Protocol’ – the meaning of the wording “Approx. 11,000,000 Jews will be involved in this final solution” (or “the final solution of the Jewish problem” or any other such euphemistic language) is clear. Murder.
            As this is almost the exact phrase (“in order to resolve, once and for all the Jewish question in Europe.”) this substantiates ‘a posteori’ the Reigner Telegram as a genuine attempt to warn the Allies – which makes Reigner, and more importantly Shulte, genuine heroes to be honoured – not dismissed as someone who was conflicted in his intention. So in answer to your ridiculous question, no I don’t think all Germans are “demons in human form.” Unfortunately, a minority that became their ruling class clearly were.
            Despite you trying to bluff me on the Bletchley decrypts – the HORHUG inmate returns wireless transfer captures prove nothing. They don’t mention gassing – so what? That appears to be your obsession, not mine. The one decrypt they had details 1,274,166 murders in a 12 month period. What more proof do you require?
            The Cavendish-Betinck transcript – for the reasons I have laid out – was bluster – the spin was his, not mine. He had no information (that has come to light) and the significance of the one decrypt he had (detailing 1,274,166 murders) was not realised until 2000. There was no photo reconnaissance evidence in ’43, and it was disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise.
            Unlike you, I’m not hung up on the methodology – the intent to murder on an industrial scale is clear and beyond doubt. Ergo – the Holocaust happened. Further proof would be the well documented activities of the Einsatzgruppen; who began systematic exterminations in ’41. If that is not proof of genocide, I don’t know what is – but incontrovertible proof does not seem to affect you.

            The Wansee Protocol:

            • John says

              From a purely logical perspective, the “solution” to the “Jewish problem” was not murder – but time.
              If you believed that you were living in a “Thousand Year Reich”, murder was simply not necessary.
              By separating the sexes into separate camps, it was only a matter of time before the problem was solved.
              Within – at most – 50 years, all of the Jews would have ceased to exist – so why murder them?
              While they lived, they provided labour power to the Nazi war effort – so why murder them?
              The cost of maintaining their labour was very cheap and very low – so why murder them?
              The only other explanation is the untermensch one, i.e. that they were sub-humans.
              Even then, they were under more-or-less complete control – so why murder them?
              Many of the camp commanders and guards were complete beasts themselves.
              Their excesses are what has misled many in the West to form incorrect assumptions.
              It is true that some of the camp commanders and guards were prosecuted by the German authorities.
              Ultimately, the Jews and other inmates had some value to the Nazis as long as they were capable of work.
              The holohaux industry only ever appeals to people’s emotions, never to their rational faculties.

              • But the Third Reich DID murder Jewish people – in large numbers, no? Even those who reject the reality of the gas chambers accept that.

                • John says

                  They did not kill them for no reason.
                  In the case of the Einsatsgruppen, it was assumed that any Jews captured in Eastern Europe were involved in leading the Communists and/or armed irregular groups. They were given lawful authority to execute any they found.
                  Their “intelligence” may have been faulty but their approach was not – in their opinion.
                  Another approach was that of race theory, by which Jews were assumed to be untermensch and lower than vermin.
                  In such a case, it was necessary to cleanse the Jews from human society to avoid pollution of the Aryan stock.
                  From their crazed perspective, all of this makes sense – rather like some of today’s settlers in Occupied Palestine.
                  One final point: if Jews [now Palestinians] are considered to be sub-human, then killing them is not murder – is it?
                  Killing sub-human animals is not generally considered to be on a par with killing humans – is it?
                  Today’s illegal settlers in Occupied Palestine would certainly agree with that principle – would they not?

                • There is absolutely no question that people were targeted for slaughter and slave-labour for no other reason than that they could be labelled, in one way or another, as being “Jewish.”

                  The fascists were fascists. End of fucking story. And the German oligarchy was expansionist or imperialistic just as much as any imperialist power of the times. The lot were mass-murderers and, indeed, continue to be so to this very day.

                  (I’m not directing that last sentence at you, Admin, but to those here who are quite ‘obviously’ trying to convince themselves that because the “crime” was what is to be expected under conditions of total war, well, it’s not a bigger deal than what anybody else may have done under those same conditions.

                  It isn’t about being a bigger or lesser deal.

                  Murder for plunder is murder for plunder, whatever the scale and whatever the means, and whether it’s one victim or entire societies, the lived and experienced misery that is inflicted on defenseless individuals is qualitatively the same and cannot by any comparison be minimized or exculpated, and especially not by comparing qualitatively identical crimes.

                  I find it shocking, actually, that people can even engage in these kinds of mental gymnastics. The basis for selecting the victims to be murdered is one thing (be it Jewishness or homosexuality or mental retardation or whatever), but the murder, in its motivation and pretexts and concrete execution, is always the calculated murder of a human being, and that and nothing but that is the obscenity. Stop trying to justify the unjustifiable. You degrade yourselves to the level of monsters.)

                  • It is definitely not the “end of the fucking story”. It is one thing for evil racially targeted murders to have taken place (a depressingly common occurrence throughout human history) and quite another to invent a fictitious super-satanic element to this (sadly routine if most terrible) crime that elevates a particular instance of murderous persecution into a WORLD RELIGION behind which the uber-criminal predatory parasites who control our societies can hide.
                    This lie has empowered the launching of wars and the slaughter of peoples in their millions since WW2.
                    If you don’t realise this, it is about time you woke up to how “The Holocaust” has been used against the western mind and those against whom our leaders choose to wage war. Holocaust “reparations” have shovelled literally billions of dollars into Israeli hands and they have used that money to buy control over the entire western political system.
                    This satanic racket serves neither the interests of Americans, Brits, Europeans, nor Jews for that matter.
                    It serves the interests of the age-old globalist banking conspiracy that invented these PROVABLE LIES.

                    Provide real and credible evidence (not he said, she said) that there was EVER A SINGLE homicidal human gas chamber in Auschwitz or shut your stupid suicidal mouth.

                    • Was anything in my comment remotely related to the assertion that there were “homicidal human gas chambers” anywhere?

                • In my last comment:

                  “I’m not directing that last sentence at you, Admin,”

                  Is intended to be read as,

                  “I’m not directing that last paragraph at you, Admin,”

                • Under the Nazi regime – very many were killed or died or suffered greatly as a result of conditions forced on them. But because of the use to which the history of the victors has been put, and the political world order instigated as a result, it becomes difficult to be sure of exactly what really happened in all regards. And the history doesn’t begin as a blank slate with the Nazis – for there are deep generational enmities running through such events – and a history of ideas unfolding, along with extended manipulations of through new technology.

                  This is no less true today. What exactly is ‘going on’? We each of us perceive through the lens of our beliefs and core self-definitions. Passionate hatreds of the ‘other’ are a driving identity of opposition. I feel that all and any hatred given the trigger finger is the same agenda regardless whose children pull the trigger or are in the targets.

                  I notice that the ‘history’ or narrative definitions that run or become dominant are nothing much to do with truth and everything to do with investment. Once core institutions are induced to participate within a frameworks of action based on an asserted or assumed premise, the society follows and any other perspectives are sidelined, rendered obsolete or regulated against. The unfolding of the climate change agenda being a case in point. But Pharma’s capture of ‘medicine’ another.

                  Egocentricity operates within an obfuscating or masking the true with filtered and distorted narrative account – that ‘runs’ on the charge of oppositional tension. “Divide and rule”.

                • BigB says

                  @physicsandmathsrevision: I am sure you feel exalted in your righteous crusade – but I have a suggestion – instead of resorting to ad homs, turn the other cheek, show some humility, attempt to be conciliatory and you may find that there are many more, including myself, who share some aspects of your broader POV.

                  Trying to ram a gas chamber down everyone’s throat is not the way to engage others – especially when you abdicate the burden of proof and expect others to negate your own peculiar obsession. Why?

                  This is intellectually dishonest as, in fact, you have provided not one shred of evidence to back up your vehemently held but blinkered belief.

                  It is also intellectually dishonest to ignore the evidence (some of which I have laid out and linked to) that proves that the Holocaust was real and not a “age-old globalist banking conspiracy” – but you don’t appear to have the eyes to see, or the ears to hear – unless it confirms your singularly enormous bias.

                  BTW, you didn’t read my comment below – but the immeasurable evil done in His name outdoes the Nazis and the elite global bankers by several orders of magnitude. If you want to critique the nature of our oppression, it all starts with God. You can see the mote…..

                  Good luck in your Messianic jihad.

                  [edited by Admin at request of author]

      • Hitler’s great crime, for which he had to be destroyed, was taking over the International Banks in Germany and printing his own money. This move temporarily killed (in Germany only) the debt parasite that owns the entire western system (and our governments) to this very day.

        The following is a quote by Mr. James Baker, III (the former US Secretary of State under Jimmy Carter) and was published in 1992 in the German magazine Der Spiegel.

        “Wir machten aus Hitler ein Monstrum, einen Teufel. Deshalb konnten wir nach dem Krieg auch nicht mehr davon abrücken. Hatten wir doch die Massen gegen den Teufel persönlich mobilisiert. Also waren wir nach dem Krieg gezwungen, in diesem Teufelsszenario mitzuspielen. Wir hätten unmöglich unseren Menschen klarmachen können, daß der Krieg eigentlich nur eine wirtschaftliche Präventivmaßnahme war!”

        –James Baker, ehemaliger US-Außenminister

        (DER SPIEGEL, 13/1992)

        This is how that Baker comment translates from German into English and it has been put it into capital letters to emphasize what he said:





        SOURCE: DER SPIEGEL, 13/1992

  21. Husq says

    The corpse factory and the birth of fake news

    Fake news, false stories that masquerade as real news are not new.

    In the spring of 1917 some of Britain’s most influential newspapers published a gruesome story that has been called “the master hoax” – and I think we finally have proof about where it came from.

    Britain was at the time trying to bring China into the war on the Allied side.

    In February a story appeared in the English-language North China Daily News that claimed the Kaiser’s forces were “extracting glycerine out of dead soldiers”.

    Rumours about processing dead bodies had been in circulation since 1915 but had not been presented as facts by any official source.

  22. Husq says

    Some of the Holocaust didn’t happen the way people were told.
    Maybe this is why enquiry and revision is not allowed?

    3 April 1945

    247 Lancasters and 8 Mosquitos of Nos 1 and 8 Groups to attack what were believed to be military barracks near Nordhausen. Unfortunately, the barracks housed a large number of concentration-camp prisoners and forced workers of many nationalities who worked in a complex of underground tunnels where various secret weapons were made. The camp and the tunnel workshops had been established immediately after Bomber Command attacked the rocket-research establishment at Peenemünde in August 1943.
    The bombing was accurate and many people in the camp were killed; the exact number is not known. The men working in the tunnels were unhurt. 2 Lancasters lost.

    The Last Days of Nordhausen- 71 Years Ago.

    Nordhausen was a sub-camp in the Mittelbau-Dora group. A large set of barracks on the edge of the town of Nordhausen had been converted into a hospital for inmates with the specific name Boelcke Kaserne, or “Boelcke Barracks.”

    On April 3 1945, 247 Lancaster bombers and 8 Mosquitos of Group Nos 1 and 8 of British Royal Air Force bombed and strafed the Nordhausen Camp hospital, killing thousands of inmates. The hospital doctors, nurses, and caregivers, (both German and detainee) fled the smashed hospital leaving the sick and wounded in a desperate situation.

    The next day, the British attacked again; this time sending 243 Lancasters, 1 Mosquito of No 5 Group, and 8 Pathfinder Mosquitos to bomb the town of Nordhausen and bomb the barracks. Thousands of German civilians and more inmates were killed in the second attack.

    Altogether, 490 bombers, each carrying 12,000 lbs. of bombs or almost 6,000,000 pounds of explosives, hit Nordhausen. The hospital was smashed, the doctors and staff scattered, the surrounding area devastated. The already difficult situation in the crowded hospital turned into a disaster. The death toll of hospital inmates and workers was approximately 3,500. The number of dead civilians has been given as approximately 8,000.
    On April 11 elements of the US 3rd Armored and 104th Infantry Divisions reached Nordhausen. The bodies of those who died in the bombing and its aftermath were pulled from the rubble and lined up for a “photo opportunity. ” No mention was made that the “props” were provided courtesy of the British air force.

    Cameramen A. Statt and Rosenmann had a keen eye for filming the horrors, focusing on details of the dead and sick. The filming was supervised by Major Frank Gleason of the JAGD 89th

    Here is Documentary Evidence
    Their work was packaged into numerous propaganda films and Nordhausen achieved a brief notoriety. An example of the propaganda use Gleason’s work was put to can be seen at; Universal Newsreel’s Nazi Murder Mills, an Official NewsReel. We are informed that, “The vile inhuman beasts took pride in their concentration camp at Nordhausen;” that the deaths were the result of “Germany’s organized carnage”, and “For the first time, America can believe what they thought was impossible propaganda. Here is documentary evidence of sheer mass murder. Murder that will blacken the name of Germany for the rest of recorded history.”

    • Well you are of course entitled to your opinion….as per the point made in the article

      • Husq says

        What happened at Nordhausen is a fact. Disprove it otherwise.

          • Husq says

            Good standpoint. It then make make look at the whole narrative and especially the grey areas, just as a policeman would when he found a flaw in a criminal’s narrative.

      • BigB says

        Disprove it, no; but contextualise it, yes. Dora-Mittlebau was the underground weapons facility where they assembled the V-1 rocket using slave labour. The idea of ‘caregivers’ needs to be contextualised then, to those who gave care so that the detainees of the camps could be forced by the SS to work to death in the underground munitions plant (1 in 3 died.) So if not “vile inhuman beasts” – then what – caring, life-affirming Socialists?
        Passing no moral judgement, and whether we like it or not now, in 1945 the town and camp of Nordhausen would have presented as a legitimate target for Bomber Command as one of the last remaining Nazi munitions factories. Total war is abhorrent, but within its context, the bombing of Nordhausen was a genuine mistake – which the American propaganda machine seized as an opportunity to do what it did best – lie. However, let us not turn this provable lie into something far worse – the rewriting of history.
        I am all for revisionism, otherwise we are merely endorsing the victor’s propaganda, to the vilification of the vanquished. Using Nordhausen as an example of an ‘inversion of history’ to justify a greater ‘Inversion of history’ – the derogation of the Holocaust (as the posted video does) is not enquiring into the grey areas so much as attempting a total rewrite. The Holocaust may not have happened exactly as we are told, but it did happen.

        [As a historical aside, Wernher Von Braun, the Nazi who put a man on the moon for the Americans – was a Major in the SS, and as an architect of the ‘V’ weapon program, visited Dora-Mittlebau on numerous occasions. Perhaps we should incorporate the grey and revise all of history beyond the Nazi bad, American good dichotomy?]

        • Can you forward any evidence that there were ever human gas chambers at Auschwitz?
          If no such industrialised extermination of a race occurred then “The Holocaust”, AS IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND WORSHIPPED (this is what happens within religions, isn’t it?) is a fraud.

          Treating Jews badly, cruelly, driving them to their deaths and murdering them is absolutely dreadful and terrible but in no way any kind of UNIQUE event in human history. Without “human gas chambers” the WW2 Jewish tragedy is overshadoweded by many greater ones.
          But we are not allowed to begin to think this, are we?
          And why?
          Because the owners of this planet who control resources and dominate global propaganda HIDE BEHIND THE AMPLIFIED INNOCENCE AND VICTIMHOOD OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE.

          The Holocaust story, a provable fraud in my view, is a weapon of Psychological Warfare that targets the entire human population. including ordinary Jews.

          We will remain in subjection and enslavement to these forces until we confront this CORE ISSUE openly.

          • BigB says

            @physicsandmathsrevision: Strangely enough, I agree with your conclusion, but not your premise. The fact that the persecution of the Holocaust led directly into another genocidal persecution, starting with the 1948 ‘Nakba’ – is irreconcilable. The justification given by the former, and the apartheid wall of silence built around the latter is unconscionable.
            I read some of your earlier comments above and draw the conclusion that in searching for the needle, you may have missed the haystack. With such tight search parameters as “pink corpses” you may have missed the activities of the Einsatzgruppen or mobile gas vans, or the existence of the Wansee Protocol, for instance?
            No one individual has been through the entire record, not least because the Jewish Archives remain closed to cover their own crimes in Palestine. I simply fail to understand how the millions of personal testimonies can be treated as lies because of a few incongruous details. Sometimes, it’s the sheer weight of witnessing that’s irrefutable.
            As for Auschwitz (never Belzec, Sobibor or Treblinka) – the remaining camp (Auschwitz 1) was one of three main camps and 40 sub-camps – so it pays to be specific. The gas chamber at Auschwitz 1 was indeed rebuilt post-war – this is not controversial – basing a denial on this or any readings taken there is – so my obvious retort is extraordinary claims (the Holocaust is a provable fraud) need extraordinary proof. So far, I’m far from convinced.
            In the spirit of free speech, and as you broached the subject, I feel the need to add that the immeasurable evil done in His name outdoes the Nazis by several orders of magnitude.
            TPTB may hide behind a cloak of Jewish anonymity now, but formerly they donned the vestments of the biggest lie of all, God. Is this a case of seeing the mote whilst missing the beam?

        • John says

          The high death rate appalled Albert Speer as he recognised the fact that new people had continually to be trained up to carry out relatively skilled tasks in constructing V1 rockets and guidance systems.
          The SS were stupid, not realising that their harsh treatment of prisoners meant that they effectively slowed down the rate at which reliable rockets could be produced.
          Speer, instead – for reasons of efficiency though not humanity – improved their working and living standards, as well as improving medical care for prisoners and forced labourers.
          Speer – a very senior Nazi – knew nothing of any holocaust policy.

Comments are closed.