Monday, May 27, 2013

Exposing Holocau$t Lies


This is rather lengthy, but well worth the time.

“We cannot have all of our policies made in Jerusalem […] I am aware how almost impossible it is in this country to carry out a foreign policy not approved by the Jews. Marshall and Forrestal learned that. I am going to try to have one.”

1956 Quote from President Eisenhowers’s Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles

James Forrestal, the nation's first Secretary of Defense, who put the wants and needs of America first and not Israel's, found out the hard way there is a price to pay for that type of patriotism.

53 years ago, Israel controlling our political process was a sobering thought, now it is accepted dogma that Israel controls our foreign policy, the Federal Reserve, those 'Too Big to Fail' Wall Street banks and the Pentagon and most importantly, the MSM.

What helped this sad state of affairs come about?

Because of a finely tuned brainwashing of America, covered up by holocau$t worship.
The Non-Jewish Stake in the Holocaust Mythology: Why the Continued Success of a Failed Ideology? by Paul Grubach

The Enigma Surrounding the Holocaust Doctrine

During the past four decades mainstream historians have made some surprising admissions with regard to the traditional Holocaust story, the alleged premeditated mass murder of six million Jews by the Germans during WWII, mainly with the use of “gas chambers.” Let us review some of them.

Holocaust historian Leon Poliakov pointed out in the late 1970s that there are no documents to prove that the Nazis ever had any plan to murder the Jews of Europe. He wrote: "[T]he campaign to exterminate the Jews, as regards its conception as well as many other essential aspects, remains shrouded in darkness. Inferences, psychological considerations, and third- or fourth-hand reports enable us to reconstruct its development with considerable accuracy. Certain details, however, must remain forever unknown. The three or four people chiefly involved in the actual drawing up of the plan for total extermination are dead and no documents have survived; perhaps none ever existed."1 In short, the "evidence" that "proves" the existence of an alleged Nazi plan to exterminate the Jews is simply the guesswork of Holocaust historians. Hard documentary proof is missing.

The late Holocaust historian Lucy Dawidowicz would presumably concur with Poliakov. In her The War Against the Jews: 1933-1945, she revealed how weak and flimsy the evidence that supports the traditional view of the Final Solution (the alleged premeditated Nazi plan to exterminate the Jews) really is. Dawidowicz admitted "the abundant documents of the German dictatorship have yielded no written order by Hitler to murder the Jews..."2 Even more importantly, she conceded there is no documentary evidence to prove her orthodox version of the Final Solution: "If Mein Kampf is the terminus ad quem for the conception of the Final Solution, does its beginning indeed go back to November 1918, as Hitler himself claimed? It is a hazardous task to construct a chronology of the evolution of this idea in Hitler’s mind. The historical evidence is sparse and no doubt would be inadmissible as courtroom evidence. The very idea of the destruction of the Jews as a political goal demanded, when Hitler first began to advocate it, camouflage and concealment. Its later consummation demanded, within limits, secrecy. Consequently, there is a paucity of documents, and even those we have handicap the search for definitive evidence because of the problem of esoteric language."3

So there you have it. The evidence for the orthodox view of the Final Solution would be inadmissible as courtroom evidence. Nevertheless, in many European countries, courts send people to prison for rejecting this orthodoxy!

Two crucially important pieces of “evidence” for the traditional view of the Holocaust are the testimonies of SS Lieut.-Colonel Adolf Eichmann (Head of the Jewish Office of the Gestapo, 1940-45) and former Auschwitz Commandant Rudolf Höss. Christopher Browning, widely considered to be one of the foremost academic experts on the National Socialist Final Solution, admitted that both Eichmann and Höss are unreliable witnesses. Hidden in a footnote of his magnum opus, we learn that “the testimonies of especially Höss and to some extent Eichmann are confused, contradictory, self-serving, and not credible.”4 In a 2003 collection of essays, he pointed out Eichmann’s testimonials, traditionally considered to be a pillar of the Holocaust story, “contain calculated lies for legal defense.”5

At the first, high-profile Holocaust trial of Revisionist publisher Ernst Zündel in Toronto in 1985, the premier Holocaust historian, the late Raul Hilberg, admitted that scientific proof for the existence of the "Hitler gas chambers" is missing. No authentic and genuine autopsy report exists to show that Jews were killed with poison gas.6 Furthermore, no one has ever produced any photographs of Jews being gassed. Just three years later in 1988, Princeton historian Arno Mayer admitted that the evidence supporting the existence of the “Hitler gas chambers” is scant and untrustworthy. In his own words: "Sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable."7

In his 2008 collection of essays on the Nazi Final Solution and the Holocaust, a British authority on Germany’s Third Reich, Professor Ian Kershaw, was just one step away from admitting that credible evidence supporting the “Nazi gas chamber” story is non-existent. "Recorded comments about the murder of Jews refer almost invariably to mass shootings by the Einsatzgruppen [anti-guerilla warfare units of the German army],” the academic historian pointed out, “which in many cases were directly witnessed by members of the Wehrmacht [German army]. The gassing, both in mobile gas-units and then in extermination camps, was carried out much more secretly, and found little echo inside Germany to go by the almost complete absence of documentary sources relating to it."8

Holocaust historian Robert Jan van Pelt conceded that the wartime claims that Jews were electrocuted en masse in "electrocution chambers" at the Belzec concentration camp and on "electric conveyor belts" at Auschwitz are falsehoods.9 If the evidence that "proves" that Jews were electrocuted en masse is bogus, isn’t it also possible that the "evidence" that "proves" that Jews were murdered in "gas chambers" is also bogus, or at least very suspect?
5.27.13 photo Liars_Poker_zps5393b2c5.png
The bitter critic of “Holocaust denial”, Professor Deborah Lipstadt, conceded that the story that the Nazis made soap from Jewish corpses is another war time falsehood.21 Another Holocaust era historian, Richard Breitmann, made a similar finding: the claim that the Nazis manufactured fertilizer and fats from corpses is erroneous.

Dr. Lipstadt also pointed to evidence that casts doubt on the value of Holocaust survivor testimony, the form of “evidence” that comprises most of the "proof" of the traditional view of the Holocaust. She wrote: “For a variety of reasons some [former Nazi concentration camp] inmates did and still do embellish their experiences. Others sometimes adopt the experiences of fellow survivors as their own.”

Although Lipstadt argues that there are ways to vindicate Holocaust eyewitness testimony, she goes on to make this eye opening statement in regard to the testimonies in the possession of Israel’s national memorial to the Holocaust, Yad Vashem: “[T]he Institute for Historical Review published a report from the Jerusalem Post in which the director of Yad Vashem’s archives reported that more than half of its testimonies from Holocaust survivors are ‘unreliable.’ According to Yad Vashem officials, these testimonies have never been used as evidence in Nazi war crimes trials because survivors who wanted to be ‘part of history’ may, in fact, have allowed their imaginations to ‘run away with them.’”

In early 2010, Professor van Pelt made another eyebrow raising admission. He stated that there is no physical evidence to prove ninety nine percent of what is known about the alleged Auschwitz extermination camp story...
There is no need to 'embellish' the truth as truth can stand on its own, protected from any assault by the simple fact of it being true. Only lies need to be protected.

The "Holocaust Tycoon." Do you have what it takes to manage a German slave-labor camp?

“The most fun you can have outside a Gulag!” says one of the 9/11 FALSE FLAGS/INSIDE JOB masterminds, Ehud Barak

"Almost as much fun as shooting Palestinian kids in the head," laughed Israeli CRIME MINISTER BETTY NUTTYAHOO.



3 comments:

dublinsmick said...

Must see

http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.com/2011/09/amartya-sen-gets-nobel-prize-for.html

MachtNichts said...

"Under our influence the execution of the laws of the goyim has been reduced to a minimum. The prestige of the law has been exploded by the liberal interpretations introduced into this sphere. In the most important and fundamental affairs and questions judges decide as we dictate to them ..." ad nauseam. Prot. XV

So, in order to cover up what didn't happen the proliferation of lies is no surprise.

One court, I forgot which one, decided that 'truth is no defense' in regard to the holohoax.

http://realityblogger.wordpress.com/2013/05/26 shows some dimension of the rabbit hole. I'm sure it goes much deeper.

And they still are not satisfied: http://the uglytruth.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/

I like this one:
http://vimeo.com/32096214

Anyways, Greg, I hope you keep exposing.

Greg Bacon said...

The one thing these fraudsters fear is the truth, they'll run from that like it was the plague.

Fair Use Notice

This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance the understanding of humanity's problems and hopefully to help find solutions for those problems. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. A click on a hyperlink is a request for information. Consistent with this notice you are welcome to make 'fair use' of anything you find on this web site. However, if you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. You can read more about 'fair use' and US Copyright Law at the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. This notice was modified from a similar notice at Information Clearing House.

Blog Archive