It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Anatomy of a "Holocaust Denier"

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 05:49 PM
link   
On November 14 last year this report appeared on Haaretz news service:

German deported from U.S. goes on trial for Holocaust denial


A 42-year-old German deported from the United States went on trial Tuesday on allegations of Holocaust denial.

Germar Rudolf, who published a study claiming to prove that the Nazis did not gas Jews at the Auschwitz concentration camp, faces a possible five-year prison sentence if convicted.
Link

The report neglected to inform the fact that Rudolph was a PhD. candidate at the renowned Max Planck Institute (chemistry) and that his findings concerning the gas chambers are scientifically-based.

Here is a link to the now infamous "Rudolph Report":
Rudolph Report

Reading Rudolph's autobiography on pp. 297-422 shows that this man is in no way a neo-nazi. In fact, he is a man opposed to any right-wing faction, and was a believer in the in the official Holocaust story.


First there was the natural repugnance aroused by a line of argument which tended merely to diminish a few numbers, although the issue is not really the actual numbers, but the intention behind the deed. My belief at that time was that Hitler had planned to exterminate the Jews, and had done whatever had been necessary to accomplish this goal. The actual 'how' and 'how many' were of secondary importance.


It was reading the work Was ist Wahrheit (What is Truth) by the French socialist Professor Paul Rassinier that started Rudolph out on his journey. Rassinier's work is probably the first of the "Revisionist" works. Was Rassinier a neo-nazi?


Paul Rassinier (1906-1967) was a French pacifist, political activist and author. He was also an anti-Nazi French Resistance fighter, and a victim of the German concentration camps at Buchenwald and Mittelbau-Dora. A journalist and editor, he wrote hundreds of articles on political and economic subjects, but is generally known, depending on one's viewpoint, as the Father of Holocaust Revisionism or The Father of Holocaust Denial.



By 1948, Paul Rassinier had been a history teacher for over twenty-two years, and was distressed to read stories about the concentration camps and deportations that he claimed were not true. He was also appalled at the unilateral condemnation of Nazi Germany for crimes against humanity that from his experience in Morocco, he didn't consider unique, and feared that nationalistic hatreds and bitterness would divide Europe. As he explained it in The Lie Of Ulysses:

"...one day I realized that a false picture of the German camps had been created and that the problem of the concentration camps was a universal one, not just one that could be disposed of by placing it on the doorstep of the National Socialists. The deportees — many of whom were Communists — had been largely responsible for leading international political thinking to such an erroneous conclusion. I suddenly felt that by remaining silent I was an accomplice to a dangerous influence."
Link

Poor Rudolph, he must have been under the impression that honest revisionism, like that of Rassinier still had a place in society without being branded a criminal or a neo-nazi (Not that Rassinier didn't meet with those who branded him one of those that he fought against).

How wrong he was...


Since the initial report in Haaretz, I have been following Rudolph's trial in Mannheim with interest.

His battle with the U.S. legal system: Link

The following is a summary of the initial ten days of the trial of a "Holocaust Denier".

As reported by Gunter Deckert. Deckert has experience in this area and is reporting on yet another man being railroaded into prison.


A German educator, party leader, writer, public speaker and publicist, Deckert won fame for being tried and convicted after he simultaneously translated an English-language lecture by Fred Leuchter in Germany into German. He was at first acquitted by a German judge who found him to be an upright and decent patriot, then recharged and convicted by a different judge after an artificially created international media uproar. Now German prosecutors keep piling court case after court case on Deckert while he is in jail. He bravely keeps fighting on.
Link



[edit on 24/2/2007 by Beelzebubba]




posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Day One: 14 November 2006


MANNHEIM, GERMANY -- The trial of chemist Germar Rudolf for the German
legal equivalent of the "crime" of "Holocaust' denial" is set for 9 a.m.
and begins at 9:12 a.m., thus much more punctual than the Zündel court
headed by Judge Meinerzhagen.

Present at the Trial:
Presiding Judge Schwab. Around age 50, speaks regional dialect not of
the Mannheim region. He probably comes from south of Karlsruhe; never
pronounces endings of verbs for example "habe" instead of "haben."

Two professional female judges, both around age 40.

A male and a female lay judge - she younger than her male counterpart,
who looks about 50 years-of-age.

District Attorney (DA) Grossmann. After 9:30 he is joined by Chief DA
Heiler in reading the indictment.

Defense Attorneys Sylvia Stolz and Ludwig Bock. Attorney Rieger is
apparently no longer part of the defense team. Bock, appointed by the
Court, is not much help, according to Rudolf.

Two Staatsschützer or "staschu" (Federal political police in civilian
clothes); two bailiffs and six policemen in uniform, all armed.
Presumably the State is trying to make this prisoner of conscience look
like a violent desperado. Continues
revisionistreview.blogspot.com



[edit on 24/2/2007 by Beelzebubba]

Mod edit: added links.
Quoting Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 25-2-2007 by sanctum]



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Day Two: 16 November 2006


MANNHEIM, GERMANY -- The trial of chemist Germar Rudolf for the "crime"
of the German legal equivalent of "Holocaust' denial." Scheduled to
begin at 9 a.m., the trial began at 9:05 a.m.

The following members of the court were present:
1. The same judges as on opening day, Schwab presiding;
2. District Attorney Grossmann with female assistant;
3. Defense Attorneys Stolz and Bock;
4. One bailiff, five armed uniformed policemen and 2 plainclothes
political police ("staschus");
5. Representatives of press and media - none (scared off, presumably);
6. Others: Around 50 spectators whose composition changed from time to
time, including Dr. Rolf Kosiek of Grabert Publishing House. Nine
schoolchildren were present at opening of morning session, six still
present at lunch break, none after lunch.

Judge Schwab opened proceedings and allowed Germar Rudolf to continue
speaking.
Rudolf informed the Court that he was considering several motions that
he wished to discuss with his attorneys, whereupon the Court recessed
at 9:07 a.m. and resumed at 9:27 a.m.

Defense Attorney Stolz then objected that Germar had once again been
placed in leg irons.
Judge Schwab remarked that during the previous session he had ordered
the leg irons removed while the prisoner was inside the courthouse. He
said he would see to it that in future, Germar would not be transported
from Heidelberg Prison in irons...Continues holocaust.nu



[edit on 25-2-2007 by sanctum]



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Day Four: December 6, 2006


Scheduled to begin at 9 a.m., it began at 9:14 a.m. with the usual
tardiness known in Germany as "the academic quarter."

Present were: 1. The usual members of the Court with Judge Schwab
presiding. 2. District Attorney Grossmann. 3. Both Attorneys for the
Defense. 4. One bailiff, two uniformed policemen, both armed. In
addition, one state security policeman ("Staschu"). 5. News media: none
present. Why? Is the media really so disinterested, or is it afraid to
report what goes on? 6. Spectators: 36, including Frau Haverbeck of the
"Collegium Humanum" in Vlotho as well as a Dutch chemist named Hans
D....

As on all preceding trial days, Germar was brought into the courthouse
chained hand and foot. Defense Attorney Stolz asked why Germar was still
in chains since Judge Schwab on previous occasions had ruled that he
should not be so fettered. Schwab said once again that he would see to
it that Germar was not brought into court in chains, since he does not
consider Germar to be a security risk. It appears that the government is
attempting to create a perception of Germar as a violent and desperate
criminal...Continues revisionistreview.blogspot.com





[edit on 25-2-2007 by sanctum]



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Day Five: December 21, 2006


Slated for 9 a.m., the proceedings began at 9:20. Eighteen selected
observers were present in the courtroom when proceedings began, as well
as the Court in its usual composition; District Attorney Grossmann; no
one from the media(?); only a few policemen (armed); one bailiff and
two "Staschu" (State Security agents.)

An unpleasant surprise awaited the large number persons who had come to
observe today's proceedings. Because of a trial of "exotic drug dealers
and their German flunkies" (16 defendants altogether), Germar's trial
was moved to a small adjoining chamber that could seat only 18 persons.
At least 50 persons had come, some from far away.

These included Dr. Kosiek and the Grabert Publishing House in Tübingen,
as well as my French translator Claude Virieu of Paris. The security
inspection was carried out this time without the usual x-ray apparatus.
It was very elaborate and time consuming since only three of the six or
seven intendants were actually doing anything. Dr. Meinerzhagen, the
presiding judge of the Zündel Court, who has the reputation of being
somewhat cantankerous, relented on account of the relocation of
Germar's trial. He allowed the public to sit in the front row of seats
that are normally reserved for the media, in case no official reporters
appeared...Continues revisionistreview.blogspot.com



[edit on 24/2/2007 by Beelzebubba]

[edit on 25-2-2007 by sanctum]



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Day Six: January 10, 2007

Scheduled for 9 o'clock, the trial began at 9:29. No reason was given
for the delay. Seven policemen and one policewoman were on hand with a
police car visible in front of the entrance. The security procedure
was the same as usual except that it was speedier, more efficient and
was not accompanied by bullying.

Present in the courtroom were:
1) The usual members of the Court, Judge Schwab presiding;
2) District Attorney Grossmann;
3) The two lawyers for the defense, Stolz and Bock;
4) 1 "Stachu" (Staatschutz) or state police agent, 1 bailiff and 2
uniformed policemen, all armed.
5) Media: Once again, no representatives of the media were present. Are
they officially discouraged from covering the proceedings? Boycotting
of their own volition?
6) Visitors: Initially 50, increased to 60, including Frau Haverbeck of
Collegium Humanum in Vlotho/Weser, Dr. Rolf Kosiek of Grabert Publishing
House and Lady Michelle Renouf from London. After noon the "Stachu"
agent did not return and the uniformed policemen were relieved by two
others.

Germar Rudolf appeared at 9:17, some time before the Court officially
convened. Today he was not brought into court in chains.

The proceedings took place in the large chamber, which has seats for 80
visitors and 48 reporters. When Germar entered, the visitors rose in
greeting and respect. This was ignored by the police, who usually warn
the visitors against showing support for the defendent.

At the beginning of the session Judge Schwab announced his ruling on the
materials to be included in Germar's testimony, saying he would allow
him to read only such material from his book "Lectures on the Holocaust"
as was relevant and written in German. This is because German is the
language of the Court. The judge then asked members of the Court if
they had read the book. The two female judges as well as the district
attorney answered in the affirmative...Continues revisionistreview.blogspot.com




[edit on 24/2/2007 by Beelzebubba]

[edit on 25-2-2007 by sanctum]



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Day Seven: January 22, 2007

Today the security procedures began earlier and were handled more
skillfully and casually than heretofore. I counted only 7 policemen in
the building. The trial session, scheduled for 9 o'clock, began at
9:08.

Present in the courtroom were:

1) The usual members of the Court, Judge Schwab presiding;
2) District Attorney Grossmann;
3) The two lawyers for the defense, Stolz and Bock;
4) 4 "Stachu" (Staatschutz) or state police agent, including two new
faces; 1 bailiff and 2 uniformed policemen, all armed;
5) "Establishment" Media: Once again, incredibly, none present!
6) Visitors: Initially 32, with others coming later. These included Dr.
Rolf Kosiek of Grabert Publishing House and F. Duswald of Linz, Austria
with colleagues from the liberal-patriotic magazine Aula, which is
published in Graz. Other visitors came from a considerable distance,
including Berlin, the Rheinland and Switzerland.

Judge Schwab opened the proceedings and asked the members of the Court
whether they had read the Internet printouts dated 29 June 2004 and 2
July 2004, as well as the verdict of Stuttgart District Attorney.
Germar Rudolf had not received the printouts. The two lay judges said
that they had now read Germar's "Lectures on the Holocaust" (available
on the Internet at (vho.org/dl/ENG.html) in its entirety, except for
those portions not written in German. Their affirmations were entered
into the record by the court historian.

Germar began by discussing at length the book by scientist and
philosopher Karl Popper (1902-1994), "Objective Knowledge: An
Evolutionary Approach," dealing with science and the scientific method.
Popper is best known for repudiating the classical observationalist
method. He advanced the principle of "empirical falsifiability" as the
correct criterion for distinguishing between valid and invalid science.
He was a vigorous defender of liberal democracy and the principles of
social criticism that make it possible for the open society to flourish...Continuesrevisionistreview.blogs pot.com




[edit on 25-2-2007 by sanctum]



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Day Eight: January 29, 2007


Only a few uniformed policemen were present. Most of the time there
were just five of them, and the routine security check was rather
haphazard. Germar was not brought into court in chains today.
Proceedings took place in the main courtroom. Scheduled for 9 O'clock,
they began at 9:16.

The following were present:

The usual members of the Court, Judge Schwab presiding;
District Attorney Grossmann;
The two attorneys for the defense, Bock and Stolz;
Three "Staschu" (Staatschutz) or state police agents, including an
Anlernling (trainee). They did not remain in the courtroom the entire
time. In addition, there was one bailiff and one court policeman, both
armed.
Continuing their boycott of the Rudolf trial, the "Establishment"
media sent no one to cover the proceedings. A retired former reporter
for FAZ (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung) was there. We became
acquainted and exchanged addresses.
Visitors: 43, including Dr. Kosiek of Grabert Publishing House and
several observers who had traveled long distances, some from Berlin.

Judge Schwab called the court to order and asked the attorneys for the
Defense if they had read the 1995 verdict of Stuttgart District Court in
its entirety (Germar was tried in absentia and given a sentence of 14
months). Attorney Stolz replied that she had been unable to read it
because the copy given her was illegible. Judge Schwab ordered that she
be given a legible copy...Continues revisionistreview.blogspot.com






[edit on 25-2-2007 by sanctum]



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Days Nine and Ten: Feb. 12-13, 2007

Again we are in the small court room with only 24 audience seats + 12
Seats reserved for Media Representatives in the first row (only one
journalist is in attendance). 4 Police, including one female one, were
present for "crowd control". All seats in the court were occupied by
8:55 a.m.

At the request / suggestion of defense lawyer Stolz, which was
transmitted to the presiding Judge of the Court, Schwab, Judge Schwab
permitted the seating of the first row, with the proviso, that the seats
would be vacated if journalists appeared. The trial was to start at
9:00 o'clock. Defendant Germar Rudolf was brought into the hall by
guards at 9:08 o'clock; his supporters stand in his honor; the Court
beings at 9:12 a.m.

Present: 1) the Court in the known configuration; Judge Schwab 2) State
Prosecutor Grossmann ) both Defense Lawyers 4) 1 State Security
("staschu"); 2 policemen + 1 Court Clerk - all armed 5) Media: "dpa"
Blondie 6) Spectators, 33.

Judge Schwab opens and notes the presence of all parties. He informs
(us) that Germar Rudolf wishes to add another comment to his (previous)
Statements regarding the facts and gives him the floor. Germar replies
to some descriptions in the Prosecution's Writ regarding his critique of
the Reparation payments to "Survivors" in Germar's book "Vorlesungen
ueber den Holocaust" ("Lectures on the Holocaust") and explanations by
Jewish critics. He hands the Court four books for closer study. He
wishes to refer to these, to demonstrate, that many Jewish persons also
criticize such reparations much stronger and more drastically than
Germar did, but are not being prosecuted, while he is....Continues revisionistreview.blogspot.com



Important notice: This report is based on my personal observations. It is not based on any literal transcription that I have made and certainly not on the official court transcription. It is a rendition of the course of the proceedings as I observed them. Whoever makes use of this report, in whole or in part, please be so kind as to mention my name as the source.Thanks! Gunter Deckert.


[edit on 25-2-2007 by sanctum]



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Hi Beel thats some thread, Do you think that one day we will have 9/11 deniers? The fact that there are those who wish to silence any who challenge the official view should be that you must challenge the official view.

The ADL is like some ultra Nazi organisation, a kind of political Mafia, there to silence, jail, ruin or worse any who challenge them or their beliefs.

There is no dispute that Germany killed Millions but so did Stalin, the point of argumant is was it organised genocide. Who was behind it is conjecture, but the Zionist feature prominantly in this story. They say that to change things sometimes its done quickly and sometimes it takes decades.

My own personal view is that yes the Germans killed Jews but its the Zionist who were behind it. In a way they are just another Terrorist group, who would kill their own just for the cause, just like all extremists do.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Hi magicmushroom,

There is no doubt that an effort is being made to connect 9/11 research with anti-semitic movements.

The Screw Loose Change site is a prime example:


And they're all going to look like buffoons, because they didn't check out the guy who's heading up the conference. The Conference Director is Eric D. Williams. And Mr Williams is, to put it mildly, a rather interesting gentleman.

He's written a couple of 9-11 Denial tracts (calling them books would be an exaggeration. He also recently completed a work of Holocaust Denial that is staggeringly awful. (Scroll down to The Puzzle of Auschwitz).

Note that he has recently added a "disclaimer" about his book, knowing that his Holocaust Revisionism was going to be highlighted in the New Times article...



We have talked about this in the past, but there is an interesting overlap between 9-11 Deniers and Holocaust Deniers. Perhaps the classic example of this is Eric Hufschmid, who goes so far as to call Dylan Avery and the Louder Than Words crew "Holocaust Promoters".

In a way, the convergence of 9-11 Denial and Holocaust Denial is not surprising. First, both groups posit vast plots to deceive the people as to a major historical event. Second, many anti-Semites immediately leapt on the idea of the Mossad as being behind the 9-11 attacks, putting them early in the 9-11 Denial Movement. And third, you have an intersection of many people wanting to move the story off 19 Islamofascist hijackers, including Muslims, Neo-Nazis and 9-11 Deniers.
Link

Is this a deliberate attempt to discredit the 9/11 movement? Are some of the more extreme neo-nazi Holocaust deniers being planted within the 9/11 movement to make findings easier to ridicule?


"No Planes and No Gas Chambers"
Holocaust deniers push hoaxes that sabotage 9/11 Truth Movement
Link

It's a well known fact that the FBI and CIA have agents provocateur within the neo-nazi movement.


A paid FBI informant was the man behind a neo-Nazi march through the streets of Parramore that stirred up anxiety in Orlando's black community and fears of racial unrest that triggered a major police mobilization.
Link

In Germany and France there is a concerted effort being made to portray 9/11 researchers as anti-semitic as is shown in the BBC documentary 9/11 Didn't Happen. Unfortunately I can't find a link to this documentary, but it is well worth tracking down.

As far-fetched as it may seem to some, I believe there will come a time when 9/11 revisionism will be vilified as much as Holocaust revisionism.





[edit on 24/2/2007 by Beelzebubba]



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Hi Beel, I have seen the program and yes your right tie 9/11 to the holy cow of the Holocaust and you can do anything. the problem is how do we stop this, is it the Neocans, is it the Zionists or other groups hell bent on enslaving all of us for there own greed and profit.

I must admit that I cannot decide is it the Jews controlling the World or some other entity controlling them so they get the blame. One thing is for sure though that when the statement comes out that the Jews have been persecuted throughout their history you have to ask the question why.

Some say that they are like leeches sucking the life blood out of a country to the point were the indigenous people rise up and rebel against them.
But I think overall that most people regardless of their race or background just want to live a normal life and get on and do not have ambitions to hurt anyone.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beelzebubba
The report neglected to inform the fact that Rudolph was a PhD. candidate at the renowned Max Planck Institute (chemistry) and that his findings concerning the gas chambers are scientifically-based.


Rudolph published results that claimed to show that, because there was little to no Prussian Blue (and here we can see where those monstrous girls got their band's name from) in the gas chambers, that therefore they weren't used for gassing.

Neverminding that they were fake showers, with outgassing vents, and neverminding that the use of cleaning material to clean out the vomit, feces, and blood and tissue that was the result of gassings would've also removed Prussian Blue, and never mind that other researchers have proven that there was Cyanide Gas in the killing chambers, and nevermind that at other killing chambers there WAS Prussian Blue found to still be present.

But no, Rudolph is just an honest researcher, being punished for telling 'the truth', even though its not the truth.



www.nizkor.org...


was reading the work Was ist Wahrheit (What is Truth) by the French socialist Professor Paul Rassinier that started Rudolph out on his journey

Go figure, a doode who buys into the writtings of " The Father of Holocaust Denial" ends up a holocaust denier, publishing 'scientific results' that no one else can replicate. Whoda thunk it.

Rassiner denies that there was any policy of extermination at all, are you saying that there wasn't?



magicmushroom
The ADL is like some ultra Nazi organisation

The ADL is like an ultra version of a group that exterminated millions of prisoners, waged the most destructive war in european history, and nearly destroyed european civilization itself?

Um, no, its not.


[edit on 24-2-2007 by Nygdan]



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 01:12 AM
link   
While I have my own views of the holocaust, which I am not going to
mention in this thread, as I get tired of having to defend myself, it is
deplorable that this man was arrested for stating his belief on something.

In essence, he was arrested because he practiced free speech, and
because it is not the popular opinion. he was arrested.



As to the ADL, I think outright callling them a NAZI like group is a going
a little far, however that's not to say they don't have traits that could be
attributed to such a group.

The ADL is a right wing group, that supports the Israeli state (Zionism)
blindly, and defends Israeli war crimes.

I'm sure if they had there way anyone that disagreed with there beliefs
would be put in life for prison, or worse.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
While I have my own views of the holocaust, which I am not going to
mention in this thread, as I get tired of having to defend myself, it is
deplorable that this man was arrested for stating his belief on something.

In essence, he was arrested because he practiced free speech

And free speech does not exist in germany. Thats really a german matter. Every country has limits on speech. IN the US, you can't legally say 'lets violently overthrow the government', for example. The HOlocaust DEniers are essentially pushing nazi propaganda. Since Nazism is illegal, Holocaust Denial is illegal.


however that's not to say they don't have traits that could be
attributed to such a group.

They haven't killed a single person. THey haven't used violence to break up meetings. They haven't done anything infact.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
And free speech does not exist in germany. Thats really a german matter.


Well, even if it is'nt enshrined inany of there legal documents, it is a U.N.
human right, and Germany is a member of the U.N.




Every country has limits on speech. IN the US, you can't legally say 'lets violently overthrow the government', for example.


You could say it without getting arrested, if you activerly do it, than
you would, but you would'nt just for saying it.
You would probably be watched though.




The Holocaust Deniers are essentially pushing nazi propaganda. Since Nazism is illegal, Holocaust Denial is illegal.


No they are not.
Just because someone may deny the holocaust happened, does not
mean they are NAZIs, or pushing a NAZI agenda.

And besides that, what constitutes denying the holocaust.



They haven't killed a single person. They haven't used violence to break up meetings. They haven't done anything infact.


Which is why I said they have some attributes that could be attributed,
they are far right, and they hold extreme views.

[edit on 2/25/2007 by iori_komei]



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
You could say it without getting arrested,

You do not have the legal right to say it. Chances are, no one would even take notice if a random person said it. But if you were in any position of influence and calling for it, then you'd be subject to arrest. Its why the communist party was illegal.






The Holocaust Deniers are essentially pushing nazi propaganda. Since Nazism is illegal, Holocaust Denial is illegal.




Just because someone may deny the holocaust happened, does not
mean they are NAZIs, or pushing a NAZI agenda.

I agree, just because a person, who perhaps hasn't really looked into it, thinks it didn't happen, doesn't mean they are a nazi.
But most of the holocaust deniers that are getting arrested are people that have made utterly bogus claims, sheer falsehoods, and yet, they still front them, as if they haven't been refuted. They still push them, out of a political agenda, not out of some 'honest scholarly investigation'.

And, regardless, its a matter for the Germans, they suffered terribly under the nazi regime, if they want to eradicate all vestiges of nazism, they're certainly free to.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Hi subject matter expert, my reference to the Adl being like the Nazis is from an ideology point of view. The Nazis saw themselves as superior to all others the ADL is just a front to the Zionists who see themselves superior to all others. They may not kill but they discredit any who oppose anything about Judaism and not just the Holocaust. Maybe the real reason to make it a sacred cow is that they do not want people to realise that they were behind it.

Just like 9/11 is turning into the same thing, oh you cannot discuss that thousands of jewish workers who should of been in the twin towers were not that day, and speculation that Mossad was involved, they and others label everybody Anti Semite the minute they speak out.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Hi subject matter expert

Click on it. It has nothnign to do with this forum, this topic, or anything that you seem to think it does.



my reference to the Adl being like the Nazis is from an ideology point of view.

Nazi ideology was that aryans are supermen who need to rid themselves of semitic pollution in order to reach their full potential.

The ADL does not beleive that.



The Nazis saw themselves as superior to all others the ADL is just a front to the Zionists who see themselves superior to all others.






They may not kill but they discredit

Well thats a heckuva critical difference.

You are saying "The ADL are like nazis, only they don't kill anyone, and don't consider other people to be subhumans, and don't beat people up to silence them, and don't kidnap entire towns and move them into camps".



Maybe the real reason to make it a sacred cow is that they do not want people to realise that they were behind it.

So, the jews 'did the holocaust' eh?


Just like 9/11 is turning into the same thing, oh you cannot discuss that thousands of jewish workers who should of been in the twin towers were not that day, and speculation that Mossad was involved, they and others label everybody Anti Semite the minute they speak out.

The label is applied iwth good reason, its A LIE that jews got special warnings about 911. Its A LIE that the holocaust didn't happen. Its A LIE that the jews did the holocaust.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join