REVISIONISM: A CRIME OF THE MIND
Stephen Smith of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust writes that Holocaust “denial” (that is, free inquiry, skepticism, historical investigation, public debate, intellectual freedom) is a “crime of the mind.” Who benefits? Among others, The Holocaust Memorial Day Trust. I suppose the Trust has access to a good amount of money. Follow the money. It is a crime of the mind to do anything that will undermine the influence of those who are getting the money. This is why some revisionists play with the word “holocau$t.”
David Golding of the Israeli Embassy in Dublin wants an apology because Keating’s article questions “our God and our religion.” It is very much like a “crime of the mind” to question what has been written about Golding’s God and his religion. Those who forward the concept of “crimes of the mind” to restrict public discourse are themselves the primary beneficiaries of such charges, and of the “crimes” themselves, which are in turn forwarded as fundraisers to forward the need for laws against crimes of the mind.
Justin Keating on Israel
The Dubliner, November 2005
I have reached the conclusion that the Zionists have absolutely no right in what they call Israel, that they have built their state not beside but on top of the Palestinian people, and that there can be no peace as long as contemporary Israel retains its present form. I hasten to make clear that none of this gives me any pleasure, but in the great scheme of things my personal wishes do not weigh heavily in the scale pans of history. I wish I did not think what I do, I hope I am wrong. My conclusions are based on the answers to five questions.
Read more
http://www.honestreporting.com/a/dublinerarticle.htm
In London, Stephen Smith, chairman of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, said: “Holocaust denial is a crime of the mind. It is designed to insult the dead, humiliate the survivors and to make us disbelieve the scarcely believable.”
Spokesman David Golding of the Israeli Embassy in Dublin requested an apology from the Dubliner, “I found [the article] offensive and hurtful … it questions our God and our religion. I am very angry and disappointed that an eminent Irish historian could produce such revisionist rubbish.”
Read more
http://www.thejewishpress.com/news_article.asp?article=5820
Stephen Smith of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust writes that Holocaust “denial” (that is, free inquiry, skepticism, historical investigation, public debate, intellectual freedom) is a “crime of the mind.” Who benefits? Among others, The Holocaust Memorial Day Trust. I suppose the Trust has access to a good amount of money. Follow the money. It is a crime of the mind to do anything that will undermine the influence of those who are getting the money. This is why some revisionists play with the word “holocau$t.”
David Golding of the Israeli Embassy in Dublin wants an apology because Keating’s article questions “our God and our religion.” It is very much like a “crime of the mind” to question what has been written about Golding’s God and his religion. Those who forward the concept of “crimes of the mind” to restrict public discourse are themselves the primary beneficiaries of such charges, and of the “crimes” themselves, which are in turn forwarded as fundraisers to forward the need for laws against crimes of the mind.
Justin Keating on Israel
The Dubliner, November 2005
I have reached the conclusion that the Zionists have absolutely no right in what they call Israel, that they have built their state not beside but on top of the Palestinian people, and that there can be no peace as long as contemporary Israel retains its present form. I hasten to make clear that none of this gives me any pleasure, but in the great scheme of things my personal wishes do not weigh heavily in the scale pans of history. I wish I did not think what I do, I hope I am wrong. My conclusions are based on the answers to five questions.
Read more
http://www.honestreporting.com/a/dublinerarticle.htm
In London, Stephen Smith, chairman of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, said: “Holocaust denial is a crime of the mind. It is designed to insult the dead, humiliate the survivors and to make us disbelieve the scarcely believable.”
Spokesman David Golding of the Israeli Embassy in Dublin requested an apology from the Dubliner, “I found [the article] offensive and hurtful … it questions our God and our religion. I am very angry and disappointed that an eminent Irish historian could produce such revisionist rubbish.”
Read more
http://www.thejewishpress.com/news_article.asp?article=5820
posted by Bradley R. Smith | 11:16 AM
5 Comments:
Mr. Smith, this is an off-topic post, but I'm just interested in your opinion on the issue as a "revisionist".
Most of you, "revisonists", of course claim that gas vans are a myth.
What, then, do you make of this excerpt from "Taetigkeits- und Lagebericht der Einsatzgruppe B fuer die Zeit vom 16. bis 28. Februar, 1 March 1942":
"Die am 23.2.42. in Smolensk eingetroffenen Gaswagen wurden wie folgt verteilt:
EK 8:
LKW Saurer Pol 71 462
EK 9:
LKW Saurer Pol 71457
Beide Fahrzeuge kamen defekt in Smolensk an und wurden nach Behebung der Defekte den Einsatzkommandos zugeteilt.
Die beiden kleineren Gaswagen werden nach Abschluss des Einsatzes beim EK 8 dem SK 7a und dem SK 7b zugewiesen."
You could argue that this refers to producer-gas vans, not to homicidal gas vans.
But Mr. Meyer in his extremely flawed article about Auschwitz death toll supplied the following information:
"A gas van is said to have been used for smaller groups, namely in a sandpit by a special commando Ruryck (version of 1946: Ryryck), using a Saur lorry which had been in service in Russia, with the registration number Pol 71-462, 4m long, 2,5m wide, chauffeur: Oberwachtmeister Arndt. Friedman based his account on the report of a resistance group in Auschwitz which on 21.9.1943 sent the information to Cracow that "a gas van of the make Saur was stationed with an engine plough, in order to carry out executions with engine fumes on order of the police summary court martial"."
In your opinion, what is the probability of one completely innocent "producer-gas van" from USSR, among the (alleged) thousands of them, first belonging to a unit one of whose main aims was mass murder, then turning up in Poland, only to be described in a resistance message as a homicidal gas van?
Let's see if you have an honest answer without the usual dismissal of the documents in question as fakes. :-)
PS: Perhaps I should also mention that one of PS-501 documents, the letter of July 13, 1942, mentions "S-Wagen Pol 71463"...
Sergey:
Thanks for writing.
I don't do gas vans, or gas chambers, or anything else that needs an engineer, chemist, or other professional to sort out the wheat from the chaff. Never have. I suggest you go to Fritz Berg's page at www.nazigassings.com and write him directly.
You probably are aware of the Web sites for the Institute for Historical Review and Germar Rudolf's VHO. They all have materials on this matter.
Are you by any chance the Romanov who I occasionally see bendng his elbow at The Old World in Huntington Beach?
No, it must be another Romanov. I did have exchanges with Mr. Berg, which did not leave me with the impresson of him being very reasonable. I did present the first document to him, which he interpreted exactly as being a producer-gas van at the time, if I remember correctly. I will present him with the new information, but, of course, I expect only the usual handwaving dismissal of "communist forgeries", things of that sort.
Try The Revisionist Forum, and try the Carlos Porter Website. Porter is very good with documents.
That post sounded a lot like the ones from the Veritas Team (they also have a Portuguese language team, actualy, we formed the DIRLIP Group to argue back at them).
Post a Comment
<< Home