Archive for the ‘Holocaust Revisionism’ Category

Holocaust Controversies: Murray Rothbard, Lew Rockwell and …

Rothbard was a historical revisionist, in the tradition of Harry Elmer Barnes, so there is a historical overlap with Holocaust revisionism /denial, even if Rothbard himself did not write about the Holocaust. Some of Rothbard’s themes …

In his review of Herrnstein and Murray’s ‘The Bell Curve’, Murray Rothbard praised the book for “expressing in massively stupefying scholarly detail what everyone has always known but couldn’t dare to express about race, intelligence, and heritability”. Rothbard reached the following conclusion:

SO: WHY TALK ABOUT RACE AT ALL?

If, then, the Race Question is really a problem for statists and not for paleos, why should we talk about the race matter at all? Why should it be a political concern for us; why not leave the issue entirely to the scientists?

Two reasons we have already mentioned; to celebrate the victory of freedom of inquiry and of truth for its own sake; and a bullet through the heart of the egalitarian-socialist project. But there is a third reason as well: as a powerful defense of the results of the free market. If and when we as populists and libertarians abolish the welfare state in all of its aspects, and property rights and the free market shall be triumphant once more, many individuals and groups will predictably not like the end result. In that case, those ethnic and other groups who might be concentrated in lower-income or less prestigious occupations, guided by their socialistic mentors, will predictably raise the cry that free-market capitalism is evil and “discriminatory” and that therefore collectivism is needed to redress the balance. In that case, the intelligence argument will become useful to defend the market economy and the free society from ignorant or self-serving attacks. In short; racialist science is properly not an act of aggression or a cover for oppression of one group over another, but, on the contrary, an operation in defense of private property against assaults by aggressors.

Rothbard was proud to be a ‘racialist’ because racialism exposed the true source of inequality in a free market, namely genetics. A belief in biological racial inequality was, for Rothbard, part of the libertarian project, because racial inequality was simply how markets reflected nature. Moreover, this was no sudden conversion: Rothbard promoted the same view, as early as 1973, here.

Rothbard’s article was published in the Rockwell Rothbard Report. His partner in that journal, Lew Rockwell, is the founder and Chairman of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Rothbard and Rockwell were involved in Ron Paul’s 1988 Presidential election campaign. In early 2008, this article revealed that “a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists—including some still close to Paul” had identified Rockwell as the “chief ghostwriter” of the Ron Paul newsletters published from “roughly 1989 to 1994.” Some of those articles had a racist theme and can be viewed here.

Rothbard advocated support for ex-Klansman David Duke:

It is fascinating that there was nothing in Duke’s current program or campaign that could not also be embraced by paleoconservatives or paleo-libertarians; lower taxes, dismantling the bureaucracy, slashing the welfare system, attacking affirmative action and racial set-asides, calling for equal rights for all Americans, including whites: what’s wrong with any of that? And of course the mighty anti-Duke coalition did not choose to oppose Duke on any of these issues.

This led one disaffected libertarian to write:

The idea that it’s fine to [buddy] up with open racists just because they are for limited government is ridiculous though. Is the idea that with their help it will just be a tiny racist government?

A racist using the pseudonym Peter Bradley posted a tribute to Rothbard, reproduced here:

Murray Rothbard was the founder of modern libertarianism and was also a proponent of voluntary racial separation. I never met Rothbard, but Sam Francis and several others told me he was on the same wavelength as American Renaissance on racial issues. Michael Levin was a frequent contributor to the RRR for the four years I subscribed to it. He wrote very honestly about things such as black crime, race and IQ, and the media whitewash of black failure. Hans Hoppe, who favors immigration, wrote that America could keep its racial identity and still have immigration by selecting immigrants based on IQ and race. Jared Taylor’s book of essays, The Real American Dilemma, received a favorable review by Paul Gottfried in a 1998 issue of RRR. The RRR’s forthrightness on race got it lambasted by David Frum in his 1994 book Dead Right. Frum was particularly displeased about an unflattering essay on the moral character of Martin Luther King.

In 1993, Rothbard wrote about Malcolm X and discussed the possibility of a separate state for blacks, but concluded that it would “require massive “foreign aid” from the U.S.A.”. He also described black nationalism as “a phony nationalism” that was “beginning to look like a drive for an aggravated form of coerced parasitism over the white population.” The overall impression created by the article was that Rothbard was using black nationalism as a straw man with which to complain about black ‘parasitism’ and the supposed inability of blacks to form independent, self-sufficient communities without welfare support from whites.

Rothbard stated that “There is no question that black nationalism is a lot more libertarian than the compulsory integration pushed by King, the NAACP, and white liberals.” This says more about Rothbard than it does about black nationalism. A separatist state, with restricted migration to ‘the USA’, does not seem to be a free one, nor would black nationalism in its Muslim form have offered women the range of liberties that Rothbard took for-granted in the case of white men.

Rothbard also advocated during this period that “Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they are in error.” The implication clearly was that the cops would be white and the recipients black. The latter thus had no entitlement, according to Rothbard, to due process under the law. The irony that a libertarian should believe that public officials ought to possess those draconian powers was lost on Rothbard. As Matt Welch noted, “Empowering police to mete out street justice on dark-skinned youth does not square with any notion of limited government I’m familiar with.”

Moreover, Rothbard’s Jewish background did not deter him from taking dubious positions relating to Jewish questions. He fixated here on the roles of ‘Jewesses’ and ‘top Jewish financiers’ in the rise of the Welfare State, without explaining why their “ethnic” [his term] origin should be relevant. His reference to an 1860’s “cohort” of such women did not establish an explanation for the existence of that cohort. He appeared to be inviting readers to draw their own inferences.

Rothbard’s public views on antisemitism constituted a minimization strategy. He insisted here on a narrow definition of antisemitism and that Pat Buchanan could not be an antisemite, even though Rothbard cited this article which discusses Buchanan’s views on the Treblinka death camp. Although Treblinka ‘skepticism’ is not proof of antisemitism, it is indicative of a willingness to believe that Jewish witnesses participated in a monstrous fabrication. At the very least, the article showed that Buchanan was ‘fellow traveling’ with antisemites: “Much of the material on which Buchanan bases his columns is sent to him by pro-Nazi, anti-Semitic cranks.” It is therefore revealing that Rothbard omitted any discussion of Buchanan’s views on the Holocaust from an article in which Rothbard was supposedly proving that Buchanan was not an antisemite. It suggests that Rothbard was insincere and that his real suspicions concerning Buchanan’s views on Jews differed from the conclusions which he expressed in the article. He concealed those suspicions by erecting a straw man definition of antisemitism and excluding beliefs that may have shown that definition to be inadequate.

Rothbard’s work on race and politics, eulogized and promoted by Rockwell, therefore poses major problems for his current supporters and potential new followers. Even Ron Paul recognized this problem, belatedly, when he claimed that “Libertarians are incapable of being a racist, because racism is a collectivist idea.” If this statement is true, it would mean that Rothbard was not a true libertarian. If the statement is false, it would mean that at least one brand of libertarianism was racist, and Rothbard’s present and future supporters must decide if they wish to wear that brand.

Here is the original post:
Holocaust Controversies: Murray Rothbard, Lew Rockwell and …

Fair Usage Law

July 6, 2010   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Book Review: “churchill & the Jews”

Martin Gilbert is a historical writing phenomenon; a historian without peer in many areas; and an intellectual giant in Churchilliana. Again he has produced another valuable niche product in the vast compendium of Churchill related works, this one centred on Churchill’s 70-year relationship with Jews, Zionism and post 1947 Israel. Even if you are not found of Churchill, the book should be read by those who desire to know more about the Middle East, the current Israeli-Arab struggle, and why in modern times, Israel was created as a backdrop to current events; Gilbert has produced a valuable canvass.

I have read all of Gilbert’s works, and pretty much everything there is on Churchill, and this book served up two pleasant surprises. The first, is the not inconsiderable politically incorrect pro-Zionist narrative found in Gilbert’s prose acted out by Churchill’s 70-year affinity for the cause of ‘Jewishness’ and Zionism. When world ‘opinion’ and outrage is so consumed by sympathetic revisionism seen in pro-Arab, pro-Palestinian and extreme tolerance towards all things Muslim, it is heartening to read intelligent reality based commentary which disavows genuflection to the Arab-Islmaic-Mulit-Cult, anti-modern program. The second surprise was to read of Churchill’s constancy in his support of Jews, in spite of political opprobrium over so many decades. He even once described Judaic ethics as, “incomparable the most precious possession of mankind, worth in fact the fruits of all other wisdom and learning put together.” The gutless political wonders of today wouldn’t have the courage or intellectual understanding to utter such a thing. Besides the Arab feminist gay vote would cry and be pouty. It takes a rare man to stand so long on principle even as political and public ‘opinion’ support erodes.

But neither Churchill nor Gilbert are ordinary men. Churchill’s career, as Gilbert highlights, is one intertwined with, and supportive of, ‘Jews’ and Zionism, especially the idea of a Jewish home, where the long persecuted race could find security and safety. Churchill always rejected, ‘the anti-semitic lines of prejudice’ both in and outside Britain, feeling that with applied intelligence and patience, Jews and Arabs could peaceably prosper in a flourishing and modern Palestine. Unfortunately the Arabs then as now, show little inclination to live in the modern world.

From 1904 to 1908 Churchill, the 30 to 34 year old politician represented a minority Jewish constituency in Manchester. Jewish concerns were thus imprinted upon Churchill’s world view early in his career. As Gilbert elaborates, Churchill during his lifetime had many Jewish friends, publishers, researchers, political allies, and even financiers. (Churchill almost went bankrupt in the 1930’s, saved by the intervention of some notable Jewish families). As a Cabinet Minister in 1921 and 1922, charged with determining the future status of a Jewish home in Palestine; through World War Two and the holocaust, as Prime Minister from 1951-1956; and as a historian puzzling over the relationship between Jews and Arabs; Churchill was profoundly associated with Jewish concerns and the complexity of Arab Jew interaction in Palestine.

Though fond of Jews (and too fond according to one critic), Churchill was at times evisceratingly critical of Jewish extremism or inflexibility. Not surprisingly Churchill knew of the depth of Jewish leadership in the Russian bolshevist movement (all top Bolsheviks, including Lenin were indeed at least partially Jewish), calling upon Jewish leaders to denounce bolshevism and instead elevate true Jewish ethics instead. Likewise during the 1930s and 1940s, when fringe Jewish terrorist groups were attacking and murdering British Subjects and innocents in the Palestine mandate, Churchill adjured Jewish leaders to strike down such evil elements lest a Jewish home became a political and social impossibility.

In short, if you analyze his career and statements, Churchill was not Hitler’s caricature of a drunken, Jewish knave, promoting capitalism as the smiling, materialistic face of neo-imperialist slavery. He was instead a politician who believed in the Judeo-Christian tradition and who had the power to help realize Britain’s 1917 Balfour Declaration guaranteeing Jews a Palestinian home (done to gain support of Jews in Russia and America to prosecute the war against Wilhelmina Germany). If you look at the historical record, the Jews owe Israel’s very existence, at least in part, to Churchill’s exertions.

In 1922 Churchill as a Cabinet Minister responsible for Palestine, produced the Churchill White paper; which laid the foundation of an Israeli State. Churchill’s White Paper, which addressed the partition of Britain’s mandate between Arabs and Jews (Palestinians were a separate ‘people’ created by the U.N. and Arabs circa 1967), was decidedly pro-Zionist, allocating perhaps 12% of the mandate to the Jews and 88%, including present day Jordan, some of Syria, and current ‘Palestinian’ holdings to the Arabs. In terms of geographical coverage the Arabs won in terms of legitimacy, the Jews had their necessary and powerful, political support. Churchill’s plan was to increase civilizational development for 1000 years. As Churchill commented, the Arabs had done nothing with the land. As Jews increased from 80,000 people in 1922, economic development would dictate the levels of Jewish emigration. It was Churchill’s hope that the 500,000 Arab residents in 1922 would not feel overwhelmed by a rising Jewish population.

As it turned out he need not have worried. By 1948 the Arab population in the British Mandate had tripled from 1922 levels to 1.5 million. The Jewish population had surged to about 800,000. Upon declaring statehood in 1948, post-British withdrawal, the tiny Jewish State was attacked by 5 Arab States with 50 times the population. Israel survived of course, humiliating the Arab armies. (It is a cautionary tale. However, for those who chatter about precipitate withdrawal from Iraq or Afghanistan, those Western allied governments will simply collapse if the West exits).

Gilbert’s book is in many ways required reading for our days and times. There is nothing wrong as Churchill’s example attests to, of having constancy and moral purpose in politics. Defending the Jews- a vital part of Western civilization- is noble and just. Affirming blame to Arab-Islamic intolerance when analyzing Middle-Eastern affairs is necessary and justified. Learning from Churchill, from history, and from cultural precedents is also to be embraced.

Churchill and the Jews is one known connection in this great man?s life story. The life of Churchill is peppered with issues and stories about how he was a great defender of the Jews.

Fair Usage Law

June 26, 2010   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Not a single Jew died in a gas chamber [Holocaust revisionism] The Tighe2001 vs MSM4U2POM Show



Please sign the petition of support: petitions.tigweb.org His view is that about 2-300 000 Jews may have perished in the Nazi working camps. – But not one of them died in gas chambers, Richard Williamson argues. “- Anti-Semitism can only be bad if it is against the truth. But if something is true, it cant be bad. I am not interested in the word anti-Semitism.” For a follow up, look at www.youtube.com and at www.youtube.com (“More info ….”). The Crucifixion of Bishop Williamson truthisbeauty.wordpress.com ” – As I observe the vilification of Bishop Williamson occurring in the Catholic blogosphere, I cant help but recall the gospel account of the crucifixion of Christ Himself. For with the exception of the Blessed Mother and St. John, the rest of His apostles had abandoned Him, quaking in their boots for fear of the Jews (John 19:38).” I believe in freedom of speech for Bishop Williamson revisionistreview.blogspot.com The John Paul II Theology of Pope Benedict XVI revisionistreview.blogspot.com ‘Holocaust bishop’ told to recant news.bbc.co.uk For a German translation of the interview: globalfire.tv .An English transcript at globalfire.tv More about Williamson at blog.balder.org at jackmyers.daylife.com and at www.tellingfilms.co.uk Bishop Richard Williamson’s own blog “Dinoscopus” at dinoscopus.blogspot.com ” – Amidst this tremendous media storm stirred up by imprudent remarks of mine on Swedish television, I beg of you to accept, only as is properly respectful, my

Fair Usage Law

June 26, 2010   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  24 Comments

Creationism in Schools: an Unethical Approach

http://www.defendingthetruth.com/articles/10637-creationism-schools-unethical-approach.html

Science and religion have seemingly always been at odds with each other. From the theories posed by Galileo to arguments regarding medical ethics today, science and religion have taken two opposing sides. The debate on whether or not creationism and intelligent design should be taught in schools is one such example. These theories with no basis in reality are being forced onto schools as a strategy of “teaching the controversy.” In this essay, it will be demonstrated that creationist thought runs not only counter to scientific theory, but also to the legal and educational standards of the public school system.

Many creationists and evolutionists alike argue for “teaching the controversy” simply for the reason of a fair and balanced education, but in concept this argument is flawed. For example, one would not support the teaching of holocaust revisionism or 9/11 conspiracy theories in school as “alternate viewpoints” because one cannot allow absurdity to enter the classroom (Scott 3). In perhaps the most well-known and celebrated rebuttal, Bobby Henderson, a 25-year old science student, wrote a letter to the Kansas State School Board (which had recently approved teaching “alternatives” to evolution) that he approved of the decision, but expressed concern over whether or not his views would be represented. He explained that he believed a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe in a mock religion and proceeded to send a crude diagram demonstrating the creation story of the new religion, conspicuously labeled “Pastafarianism.” Through this argument ad absurdum he proved that one cannot fairly teach all alternatives, so only the most religiously neutral viewpoint, evolution, is acceptable (Boxer 1). It is impossible to accommodate all viewpoints into a school curriculum, but it is logical to use the one viewpoint which has a fundamentally neutral stance on one’s personal beliefs.

Aside from that, theories such as creationism are simply inappropriate in an educational setting. First and foremost, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution was meant to establish a purely secular government and, thus, a religiously neutral educational setting. By teaching creationist thought, the principle of separation between church and state is violated. In the case of Edwards v. Aguillard the Supreme Court reinforced this position, ruling that creationism was a religious concept and its teaching in schools is unconstitutional (NSTA 4). Even worse, if both ideas are presented, it blurs the line between fact and fiction. Much of what is considered legitimate in the eyes of creationists is very suspect and remains unproven, if not flat out false. If it is taught in a classroom, students are at a great disadvantage. Essentially, they are being fed lies disguised as truth. As such, they will be unable to determine the difference between scientific facts from pseudoscience (AAAS 4). In addition, they do not learn an adequate amount of information pertaining to facts. Time spent learning creationism and intelligent design is time spent not learning evolution. It is also time spent exposed to ideas in direct contrast to everything science is about, which will be addressed later. On a practical level, students will not be prepared for standardized tests, college entrance exams, and higher education, which all agree on the validity of evolutionary thought (Scott 2). The classroom is a place of learning truth, which means that creationism is out of the question.

Perhaps the easiest way to illustrate the fallacy of allowing these theories into schools is the fallacy in the theories themselves. First and foremost, the scientific consensus is that evolution is a fact and that the only debate about it is not whether or not it happens, but how it happens (AAAS 2). Intelligent design simply isn’t science at all. Essentially, intelligent design is the idea that there are complex aspects in nature which cannot be chalked up to coincidence and, thus, are the product of a “first cause,” which is the equivalent to a supreme being, which had the mental capacity to design everything. There have been no tests and there is no evidence supporting intelligent design. Neither is the question scientific in nature, but rather philosophical. As such, even if it were placed in scientific terms, the label of “theory” is a misnomer for intelligent design. Rather, it is better termed as a hypothesis, which is essentially a wild guess which has yet to be substantiated with facts. Once it has sufficient facts to support it, then it is a theory. Likewise, the layperson’s definition of “theory” does not apply to the scientific definition. In common terms, a theory is the same thing as a hypothesis or inference. In a scientific context, however, theories are simply ideas which are unified and supported by enough evidence not to suggest but rather to prove validity (AAAS 2). Creationism itself, the most common form being biblical creationism, runs counter to the scientific method as well. Science is about explaining the world in purely empirical terms without resorting to mysticism or superstition. Under scientific theory, if you can tell it’s there, you can explain how and why it exists. (Scott 2) Creationism is a fundamentally flawed perversion of the scientific process. First, creationism uses a presupposed assumption that there was an intelligent designer involved, which is essentially giving a hypothesis the validity of a fact, the worst thing that any scientist can do and an action which would automatically discredit any theory in any scientific community. It is not an issue of science, but of religion and is something which one must remain agnostic towards in regards to scientific process. Religious conviction is instead a matter of personal choice, but is not applicable to the scientific process. Second, creationist thinkers work selectively by piecing together a patchwork of ideas, both proven and unproven, to support their position while ignoring that which runs contrary. This cherry picking leaves much to be desired when the unified theories based upon the pre-screened data are placed up to critical review. Third, and perhaps most important, creationism does not have the intellectual honesty of the scientific process. The goal of science is to constantly amend theories based on the discovery and verification of new evidence. As such, scientific thought improves over time. Creationism has the goal of proving a presupposed notion which is simply identified as fact. There is no critical review within creationist circles and no new hypotheses, because the one hypothesis they have is given the validity of a scientific law and cannot be deviated from (NSTA 3-4). Essentially, creationism and intelligent design cannot be taught in science classes simply because they do not qualify as science in any sense of the word.

The two “theories” of creationism and intelligent design are completely inappropriate in the classroom. They do not qualify as science, are not confirmed, defeat the purpose of the separation between church and state, create an unfair bias in favor of Christianity, and do not foster intellectual honesty. They are not acceptable “alternatives” to evolution, and they do not fulfill the basic goal of education as an institution which encourages critical thinking and independent reasoning. If one wishes to follow their own religious beliefs then that’s fine because it’s their business, but they have neither the authority nor the right to bring their beliefs into the public realm by pushing it as an equal to scientific fact.

Works Cited

American Academy for the Advancement of Science. “Intelligent Design is Unscientific.” World Religions. 2006. Opposing Viewpoints Series. OpposingViewpointsResourceCenter. Gale Group Databases. ClarkstownHigh School South Lib, NY. 15 May 2007. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC?vrsn=230&slb=SU&locID=win16990rpa&srchtp=basi c&c=1&ste=17&tbst=ts_basic&tab=1&txb=Intelligent+D esign+is+unscientific&docNum=X3010438219&fail=1&bC onts=1

Boxer, Sarah. “But is there Intelligent Spaghetti Out There?” The New York Times. 29 August 2005. The New York Times. 16 May 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/29/arts/design/29mons.html?ex=1179460800&en=6262e34a96254bc3&ei=5 070

Eugenie Scott, interviewed by Leo Lynn. “Creationism Should Not Be Included in Science Curricula.” Education. 2000. Opposing Viewpoints Series. Opposing ViewpointsResourceCenter. Gale Group Databases. ClarkstownHigh School South Lib, NY. 15 May 2007. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC?vrsn=230&slb=SU&locID=win16990rpa&srchtp=basi c&c=4&ste=17&tbst=ts_basic&tab=1&txb=Creationism&d ocNum=X3010129231&fail=0&bConts=79

National Science Teachers Association. “Creationism Should Be Excluded from Science Courses.” Education. Opposing Viewpoints Series. Opposing ViewpointsResourceCenter. Gale Group Databases. ClarkstownHigh School South Lib, NY. 15 May 2007. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC?vrsn=230&slb=SU&locID=win16990rpa&srchtp=basi c&c=1&ste=17&tbst=ts_basic&tab=1&txb=Creationism+s hould+be+excluded&docNum=X3010129260&fail=1&bConts =1

Fair Usage Law

June 26, 2010   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Holocaust Revisionism on KFI AM 640 (1990).mp3 » Full and free …

Holocaust Revisionism on KFI AM 640 (1990).mp3 download from hotfile, megaupload.

More:
Holocaust Revisionism on KFI AM 640 (1990).mp3 » Full and free …

Fair Usage Law

May 26, 2010   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Global Anti-Semitism and Racism News » Holocaust Revisionism on …

Holocaust Revisionism on KFI AM 640 (1990).mp3 » Full and free … Holocaust Revisionism on KFI AM 640 (1990).mp3 download from hotfile, megaupload. More: Holocaust Revisionism on KFI AM 640 (1990).mp3 » Full and free … …

See more here:
Global Anti-Semitism and Racism News » Holocaust Revisionism on …

Fair Usage Law

May 26, 2010   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Holocaust Revisionism on KFI AM 640 (1990).mp3 » Full and free …

Holocaust Revisionism on KFI AM 640 (1990).mp3 download from hotfile, megaupload. Holocaust Revisionism on KFI AM 640 (1990).mp3 bittorrent download, megashare.

Here is the original post:
Holocaust Revisionism on KFI AM 640 (1990).mp3 » Full and free …

Fair Usage Law

May 26, 2010   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Ernst Zündel interviews David Cole-part2 – Video



Ernst Zndel interviews David Cole-part2
thedissidentrags.blogspot.com In the early 1990s, a young Jewish man, David Cole, joined the burgeoning Revisionist movement. Controversial from the start, Cole did some excellent Revisionist work in the beginning, visiting concentration camps in Eastern Europe and ferreting out an important admission from Dr. Franciszek Piper, Director of the Auschwitz State Museum, Auschwitz, that the buildings marketed to tourists as gas chambers are, in fact, altered reconstructions after World War II. In this interview, widely acknowledged as a classic, Cole chats with a relaxed Ernst Zndel about the results of his fact-finding trips – and his incisive conclusions about the modus operandi of the Jewish Lobby that needs villains in order to cement and maintain its grip on a patently incorrect interpretation of history for its own political ends. Support the heroes of Revisionism…Get the full DVD at http Terror by Criminals and Communists “…The mixing of political and criminal inmates could have frightful consequences for the politicals, since the criminal inmates were often the dregs of the underworld, creating a veritable reign of terror in many camps. Whether the camp administration recruited the Kapos (trustees) from the Reds or Greens was a matter of life or death to many inmates. Austrian Jewish Socialist Benedikt Kautsky, who spent the years between 1938 and 1945 in a number of different concentration camps (Dachau, Buchenwald, Auschwitz and, once again, Buchenwald), wrote …From:kultbooksamerikaViews:8727 102ratingsTime:10:06More inPeople Blogs

Link:
Ernst Zündel interviews David Cole-part2 – Video

Fair Usage Law

October 28, 2009   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Holocaust Controversies: Murray Rothbard, Lew Rockwell and …

Rothbard was a historical revisionist, in the tradition of Harry Elmer Barnes, so there is a historical overlap with Holocaust revisionism /denial, even if Rothbard himself did not write about the Holocaust. Some of Rothbard’s themes …

Fair Usage Law

July 6, 2010   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Book Review: “churchill & the Jews”

Martin Gilbert is a historical writing phenomenon; a historian without peer in many areas; and an intellectual giant in Churchilliana. Again he has produced another valuable niche product in the vast compendium of Churchill related works, this one centred on Churchill’s 70-year relationship with Jews, Zionism and post 1947 Israel. Even if you are not […]

Fair Usage Law

June 26, 2010   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Not a single Jew died in a gas chamber [Holocaust revisionism] The Tighe2001 vs MSM4U2POM Show

Please sign the petition of support: petitions.tigweb.org His view is that about 2-300 000 Jews may have perished in the Nazi working camps. – But not one of them died in gas chambers, Richard Williamson argues. “- Anti-Semitism can only be bad if it is against the truth. But if something is true, it cant […]

Fair Usage Law

June 26, 2010   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  24 Comments

Creationism in Schools: an Unethical Approach

http://www.defendingthetruth.com/articles/10637-creationism-schools-unethical-approach.html Science and religion have seemingly always been at odds with each other. From the theories posed by Galileo to arguments regarding medical ethics today, science and religion have taken two opposing sides. The debate on whether or not creationism and intelligent design should be taught in schools is one such example. These theories with […]

Fair Usage Law

June 26, 2010   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Holocaust Revisionism on KFI AM 640 (1990).mp3 » Full and free …

Holocaust Revisionism on KFI AM 640 (1990).mp3 download from hotfile, megaupload.

Fair Usage Law

May 26, 2010   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Global Anti-Semitism and Racism News » Holocaust Revisionism on …

Holocaust Revisionism on KFI AM 640 (1990).mp3 » Full and free … Holocaust Revisionism on KFI AM 640 (1990).mp3 download from hotfile, megaupload. More: Holocaust Revisionism on KFI AM 640 (1990).mp3 » Full and free … …

Fair Usage Law

May 26, 2010   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Holocaust Revisionism on KFI AM 640 (1990).mp3 » Full and free …

Holocaust Revisionism on KFI AM 640 (1990).mp3 download from hotfile, megaupload. Holocaust Revisionism on KFI AM 640 (1990).mp3 bittorrent download, megashare.

Fair Usage Law

May 26, 2010   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Ernst Zündel interviews David Cole-part2 – Video




Ernst Zndel interviews David Cole-part2 thedissidentrags.blogspot.com In the early 1990s, a young Jewish man, David Cole, joined the burgeoning Revisionist movement.

Fair Usage Law

October 28, 2009   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed


Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."