Free Speech’s Jewish Problem

Facebook’s Holocaust-Denial Hate-Speech Problem, Lloyd Grove, The Daily Beast, 18 Aug 2011 (my emphasis):

Is Facebook in denial about Holocaust denial?

For years, international organizations opposing anti-Semitism have been urging the planet’s preeminent social-networking platform to delete any content that asserts the Nazi-orchestrated extermination of 6 million Jews never took place.

And for years, officials of Facebook, boasting more than 750 million active users, have refused, insisting that mere denial of the Holocaust, however “repugnant and ignorant,” doesn’t constitute “hate speech” as defined by Facebook’s Terms of Service policy prohibiting “content that: is hateful, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.” (Which gave a huge opening to TechCrunch founder Michael Arrington, who noted that while Facebook was meticulously removing photos of breast-feeding women, it was allowing the proliferation of Holocaust-denial pages. His mordant headline: “Jew Haters Welcome At Facebook, As Long As They Aren’t Lactating.”)

Facebook’s critics—including such groups as the Anti-Defamation League and the Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism, which describes itself as an Israeli-led “alliance of statesmen, parliamentarians, diplomats, journalists, legal experts, NGOs and scholars”—argue that Holocaust denial is, by definition, an expression of hatred for the Jewish people.

“Holocaust denial is basically a form of classic anti-Semitism,” said Deborah Lauter, ADL’s director of civil rights and its cyber-hate response team. “It’s anti-Semitism per se because it serves as a powerful conspiracy theory that basically says the Jews have manipulated history to advance their own worldview, whether to create sympathy or world domination. In other words, we have fabricated this monstrous event in history in order to further our own hidden agenda.”

Facebook spokesman Simon Axten doesn’t see it that way.

“We find Holocaust denial to be repugnant and ignorant, just as we object to many of the other ideas expressed on Facebook,” Axten told me via email this week. “We’ve come to the conclusion that the mere statement of denying the Holocaust is not a violation of our policies. We recognize people’s right to be factually wrong about historical events.”

The controversy surrounding Facebook’s free-speech position isn’t especially new. It has been a matter of anxiety among Jewish groups at least since November 2008, when blogger and attorney Brian Cuban—the less-famous brother of Dallas Mavericks owner and Dancing With the Stars contestant Mark Cuban—sounded the alarm and prompted a spate of media attention.

But the issue bubbled up anew last month when a group of survivors of the Nazi death camps wrote to Facebook asking that the company’s broad-minded policy be reversed. It came up again on Tuesday, when Australian computer scientist Andre Oboler and Canadian lawyer David Matas, co-chairmen of the Global Forum’s Online Anti-Semitism Working Group, released a letter they sent to Facebook founder and chief executive Mark Zuckerberg after they attended what Oboler calls a “frustrating” video conference with an executive of Facebook’s European operations. The Facebook exec politely listened to the group’s concerns, Oboler told me from Melbourne, then reiterated the company line.

“We call on Facebook to abandon its insistence on treating Holocaust denial in a context-free manner, in which it is considered nothing more than the rejection of a historical event,” Oboler and Matas wrote to Zuckerberg. “The context makes it clear that there is no meaningful distinction between Holocaust denial and incitement to hatred against Jews … We ask that Facebook recognize Holocaust denial as a form of hate speech, issue a statement to this effect, and do its utmost to remove Holocaust denial from the Facebook platform.”

In his email, Facebook’s Axten stated that “in practice, we end up removing the vast majority of Holocaust denial content that’s reported to us because it’s explicitly hateful or threatening. Most instances of Holocaust denial on Facebook (or anywhere else) are accompanied by threats or clearly anti-Jewish statements, which run afoul of our policies. We remove these as quickly as possible when they’re reported to us, and the result is that there is actually very little of this kind of content on Facebook.”

ADL’s Lauter gives Facebook, and especially Axten, credit for “seriously engaging” on the issue, and supports his claim that the company has been responsive to reports of hate speech. She notes that she has led several workshops in Palo Alto, Calif., with key Facebook employees to alert them to the nuances of Holocaust denial, anti-Semitism, and related concerns. But she disputes Axten’s assertion that there is “very little of this kind of content on Facebook.”

“We’re talking probably hundreds of thousands [of Facebook-hosted pages and postings] as a general problem,” she told me. “The metrics are hard to do. We would love it if, as part of their internal operations, Facebook would help with a system for coming up with those metrics, so we could see benchmarks—is it getting worse or better? How do you quantify the incidence of anti-Semitism? The whole flood of the Internet shows that, and you can’t even document the number of people expressing their hate thoughts.”

Oboler pointed out that Holocaust denial is codified as hate speech and thus against the law in 13 European countries, including Germany and Austria, and that Facebook manages not to violate local ordinances by blocking the various denial pages in the relevant jurisdictions. He said his colleagues, “who have been approaching Facebook with an open mind and in a spirit of cooperation to solve this problem, are becoming increasingly frustrated with Facebook’s irrational stubbornness on this issue and their attempts to blur the issue.”

The irony, of course, is that Zuckerberg and many of his employees are Jewish, and Oboler speculated that “maybe, as a result, they are bending too far in the other direction to let everybody know that they support free speech.”

Facebook’s Axten acknowledged in his email: “Many of us at Facebook have direct personal connection to the Holocaust, through parents or grandparents who were forced to flee Europe or relatives who could not escape. We believe in Facebook’s mission that giving people tools to make the world more open is the best way to combat ignorance and deception, though we recognize that others may disagree.”

The irony here is not in the good-jew/bad-jew theatrics. Despite their phony concerns about free speech the article makes clear that the “vast majority” of the content any self-righteous jew regards as repugnant, ignorant, or hateful is removed as quickly as possible. The hyperventilating and special pleading here is about removing what remains. Their jew-centric debate is about just how special the special protection for jewish sensibilities should be.

If there’s any irony here it’s in so many hyper-sensitive, hyper-critical jews portraying themselves as a group as the victims while they argue amongst themselves about just how far to push the victimization of those who vex them.

(Examples of the consequences of jewish hostility and the kind of criticism they don’t want to hear can be found in UK Thought Criminals Sheppard and Whittle Jailed in LA.)

36 thoughts on “Free Speech’s Jewish Problem”

  1. “We call on Facebook to abandon its insistence on treating Holocaust denial in a context-free manner, in which it is considered nothing more than the rejection of a historical event,” Oboler and Matas wrote to Zuckerberg. “The context makes it clear that there is no meaningful distinction between Holocaust denial and incitement to hatred against Jews … We ask that Facebook recognize Holocaust denial as a form of hate speech, issue a statement to this effect, and do its utmost to remove Holocaust denial from the Facebook platform.”

    But the teaching of what passes for western history (largely a Jewish construct) these days is, of course, not racist against whites. What could be racist about vilifying whites and casting them as the villains of history? The entire black “American” narrative of “American” history is entirely kosher, of course.

  2. Jews know they have supported reducing Whites to a minority and are culpable in this moral crime. Their pushing the Holocaust and self-righteousness increase with their guilt towards Whites. This makes it more incumbent on us to push for Whites more explicitly.

    Richard Cohen Jews in a Whisper in the Sunday Aug 21 2011 New York Times and the comment thread are worth looking at. This was as of Sunday morning a solid self-righteous hate thread against Whites.

  3. The holocaust narrative is the most monstrous anti-White libel of all. This narrative, together with the libel that Whites stole non-White land and enslaved non-Whites, is the basis for the anti-White regime’s non-White preferences and the genocidal levels of immigration.

    The idea that what’s good for “the jews” is good for us all, or equivalently, that a holocaust will engulf them (and everyone else) if they don’t get what they want, has become the touchstone in every major political debate. And it is this way because “the jews” make it so. First they inject their opinion into any and all debates, informing everyone of their superior qualifications as jews, then they insist that “the jews” must be off limits to criticism or opposition as jews.

  4. The Joos are the Ones that will be Blamed For Everything.

    The More they protest the More Hot Coals they Add to the Fire of their own destruction.

    Nobody Believes their Lies Anymore, thats why they are starting to scream and whine…

  5. In part the Holocaust is used by jews to hide the identities and actions of jews within our own society.

    The consequences of Jew denial (or any exposure of jews) is hate speech directed against Whites, all Americans (true Americans, and not various of the faked imposters) and against freedom-loving people anywhere in the world. Those consequences are not just recent ones, but are now an established part of the historical rhectoric which allows more hatred to be expressed against Whites.

    There are three videos with the words of Joeseph McCarthy in the section above, all which deserve full attention.

    The jewish communists, most of whom had arrived in the US during the early part of the 1900’s as “immigrants” from Russia, certainly would not have liked McCarthy’s comments beginning at 5:20 on the first video above. Could this be because those remarks refer to the already being instituted jewish plans for JNO/NWO?

    Regardless of the [historically speaking] recent propaganda taught that jewish-communism is not monolithic, it is (or should be) quite apparent that it is monolithic in it’s direction and source.

    There are only regional differences, or differences in the various messengers chosen for the implementation and delivery of communism – and those exist only as to further the overall aims of the centralized jewish-communistic(/masonic) politiburo, and for the dialectical tactical advantages which accrue to the use of the centralized communals (kehillahs) which hide behind a false front of religion.

    The monolithic nature of jewish directed communism applies worldwide, and it is only the centers for the various dialectical applications of communistic strategies which seem to shift among those various kehillahs, whether it is in Moscow or New York, or to London, and/or Tel Aviv, or to a venue [UN-EU] appropriate for all of jewry. Regardless of the location or the messengers, they are jewish centered and controlled.

    Before Whites and Americans can escape what is planned for them, they must awaken – and they must realize that the main job for the implementors of the JNO/NWO communists is to keep the masses of them unaware (and unorganized) until it is too late. The jewish use of the holocaust narrative helps to hide those true holocausts which jews have engaged in against Whites, Christians and others. Eustace Mullins reviewed some of those, and explains:

    “We are asked to weep only for the Jews, and to ignore the many millions of actual victims of world terrorism in the past one hundred and fifty years, a chronicle of such horror that one scarcely can bear to put down this bloodstained record, not merely in fear that the world might put away its business in order to mourn these countless victims of international Communist terrorism, but that the tragic fate of these innocents, most of them women and children, is one of such pathos that one’s heart could break from the full impact of its terrifying implications for everyone alive today.”


  6. …I survived (six years of imprisonment in ghettos, labor camps and concentration camps as a child during World War II)… When, as a nine-year-old, I spent a month in Buchenwald, it never occurred to me that those of my fellow-inmates who were Gypsies, Soviet prisoners of war, or Danish policemen arrested for helping the Jews escape, were undergoing experiences that were different from mine…. Ever since, for over half a century, I have not been able to accept the singling out of this one front, horrible as it may have been, as a unique epoch-making event that requires its own grandiose name, its own capitalized dictionary entry, its own academic discipline called “Holocaust studies.”… But the recent, officially accepted revision of the number of Auschwitz victims from four million to a million or so has made me wonder. One of the precursors of denialism, Paul Rassinier, who died in 1967, asked: “Were Jews murdered?” and answered: “Yes, but not as many as one thinks. Were there any gas chambers? Yes, but not as many as one thinks.” … For those who believe in ethnic cleansing, the leap from resettlement to massacre is not as great as some of us may think; and if the Nazis were, perhaps, no more evil than the Interahamwe of Uganda, the Bosnian Serb paramilitaries led by Karadžić and Mladić, or the anti-independence militias of East Timor, there is no reason to suppose that they were less so…. Both of my parents survived, and I had no siblings. I have no tattoo (though I sometimes perversely envied those who had them). I was never beaten or starved. After the War I went on with school at the normal grade level. And when I recently visited the Buchenwald memorial site, the foremost thought in my mind – unrepentant cinephile that I am – was to find the location of the barrack where I saw my first movie; never mind that my first screen image was of a smiling Hitler on horseback, introducing a newsreel. The search for the site of the barrack where I actually lived took second place. … I spent the last months of the War, after Buchenwald, in the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp…

    Robert in Arabia

  7. Robert, thanks. I find the testimony of “survivors” like Rassinier and Lubliner especially fascinating.

    The idea that the Nazis set out to exterminate the Jews in their grasp during WWII simply does not hold up. Had they done so, there would be no survivors. Lubliner, like Anne Frank (and no doubt, many others) were moved from camp to camp. Why would the Nazis do this with people they simply wanted dead?

    The Nazis apparently wanted the Jews dead as much as the Riddler wanted Batman dead; not enough to simply kill the bastard.

    The reply is always “they needed them for slave labor,” bla bla bla. Yes, well, then they didn’t simply want to kill them, now did they? And the goal was not simply to kill them, now was it?

  8. “The holocaust narrative is the most monstrous anti-White libel of all.”

    Yes. This is why “Daybreaker” – or Doorstopper as I call him – is so emotionally-actively invested in defending the historical fiction of a German National Socialist plan to eventually exterminate all Jews they could lay hands on. Doorstopper wishes to keep this myth (I know, he probably actually believes the standard holocaust account, but a mere defense of truth is not the primary well-spring of his motivation for defending said) pedestaled as a morally persuasive (and if people believed it were not literally true, but mere myth, it would certainly not be as morally persuasive, if at all), shame-inducing cultural set piece precisely because he knows of its power to induce shame in Whites and thus act as a limiting factor on Whites’ inclination to take action against Jews.

    Tan’s description of the standard holocaust telling as a “libel” is pregnant in that such implies that said is not merely “monstrous” in that it harms Whites (i.e., it is “anti-White”) but additionally that the holocaust myth per se is the account of something which Whites according to their intrinsic moral constitution consider morally “monstrous”. Otherwise, why would the traditional holocaust narrative be damaging to the reputation of Whites from which Whites experience actual harm to themselves (i.e., a “libel”) if Whites were incapable of experiencing shame prohibitive enough to stop them exterminating the Other and punish themselves to harmful effect as a result of this shame? In fact, some Whites experience SO MUCH shame as an effect of their belief in the standard holocaust account that they think it a better thing that their people cease to exist than that any chance, no matter how small, of another extermination attempt of the Other remain possible. This is certainly a sign of a robust, nay hypertrophied, moral constitution. Empathy for Jews on steroids injected by the Jews.

  9. I think the “Final Solution” to the Jewish question was going to be to dump the Jews in the Asian hinterlands east of the Urals at which time they would be expected to fend for themselves. Hitler repeatedly stated when asked by subordinates that he didn’t wish to be bothered with niggling details about the removal of Jews from Nazi occupied Europe as he was consumed with conducting Germany’s war effort and that he would delay an ultimate decision as to their final destination until after the war was won. Madagascar and Palestine seem less likely as potential German-intended Jewish homelands, assuming Germany won the war, as the giving of these would no doubt have ruffled the feathers of France and Britain since these were their colonial possessions.

  10. Svigor said: “The reply is always “they needed them for slave labor,” bla bla bla. Yes, well, then they didn’t simply want to kill them, now did they? And the goal was not simply to kill them, now was it?”

    The Nazi regime wanted to kill the Jews, and advance their own war effort at the same time. They acheived this by using them as slave labor, ON A STARVATION DIET.

    The Jews either died of the bad conditions, or were gassed when they become so weak that they were no longer useful.

    The Nazis thus extracted the energy stored in the fat cells and muscles of their victims before killing them.

  11. NONSENSE!!! Just look at how fervently jews today believe in their “holocaust”, when all they have to go on is hearsay. Why don’t you learn something other than lies conjured up by jews, jew? Hitler wanted to remove the jews from Europe and resettle them elsewhere. This was called the final solution, and if I’m not mistaken, that term was made up by the jews themselves. There were no gas chambers save those which were used to delouse clothing. It’s been proven. All you have to do is look into the overwhelming evidence and documentation put together by scientists, forensic pathologists, and researchers.

    Please, please, Moishe …. don’t bother posting any pictures of emaciated prisoners or piles of unidentified corpses.

    Enough about the “poor” jews. Jews who lived in Germany betrayed that country and it’s people. Not only that, international jewry declared war on Germany in 1933. Jews were the self-declared enemy of the German people. In reality, these traitorous parasites suffered far less than they deserved. What should have happened to them is what they have falsely claimed happened to them for the past 50 years. Unfortunately, jews are congenital liars. The holyhoax is a hoax of colossal proportions. Get a grip!

  12. “They acheived this by using them as slave labor, ON A STARVATION DIET.”

    This is idiocy. You cannot labor on a starvation diet. This was evident in Nazi occupied Western Europe. French production fell drastically, in part, because rations were unsustainable. Rations were unsustainable, (i.e. Germany could not feed its own population let alone occupied W. Europe) because of the blockade of Anglo-Judea. The Soviet Union was invaded in a last ditch effort of survival. The Wehrmacht was to feed itself off the land, but that plan failed miserably. Anglo -Judea’s strangle hold on W. Europe resulted in a food distribution plan that favored Germany and the Wehrmacht. The real question is “Why did Anglo Judea care little or nothing for the suffering of the people of E. Europe and the Soviet Union, including the Jews?”

  13. “Jews were the self-declared enemy of the German people.”

    All power needed to save ourselves rests within us. If it did not, there would be little point in this very blog’s existence as its efforts would ultimately prove vain. It is not in vain.

    “In reality, these traitorous parasites suffered far less than they deserved. What should have happened to them is what they have falsely claimed happened to them for the past 50 years.”

    Surely that would be a profound dishonor to us as it is not needed to secure our survival. Need I tell you why? Just in case I do: Survival must come first; yet if the White race had for all the generations of its existence satisfied itself with what would engender mere survival it would have never risen above the station of barbarism. Even taking the example of a single man, it is self-evidently not in his interest to live all his days as a barbarian for one day, if he has a brain in his head, he will wish to consolidate his ruthlessly gotten gains. To have the aristocrat latent in himself come to the fore so that his newly minted estate may bloom. And later, certain rules of conduct which he demands of himself that he knows are essential to the maintenance of his estate he will not dispense with in pushing off unwanted interlopers for he wishes to also keep his estate.

  14. “The Soviet Union was invaded in a last ditch effort of survival.”

    If mere survival for Germany was the order of the day then why risk war in the first place by going into Poland in 1939? It was the millenarian fervor to bring all Germans together in the Reich and more which accomplished this.

    And if survival was all that mattered to Germans, nothing else, then what was there to lose in exterminating the Jews, as the war turned ineluctably against Germans, when there was every reason to believe the former would be denied to Germans? Simply that it was beneath German honor to do it.

    Yet as I’ve stated here before, their ‘honor’ was not necessarily as we conceive our own. National Socialist Germans, I presume, didn’t refer to themselves as a “Master Race” for shits and giggles; as some kind of privately insincere ra-ra speech only intended to fire up the team. No, they weren’t dicking around. They intended to rule what they conquered as, you know, masters.

    Do you believe if Germany had succeeded in beating the Soviet Union Hitler would have just handed the land back to Slavs with effusive expressions of his gratitude for letting him borrow it? Sure.

  15. “Surely that would be a profound dishonor to us”

    Apparently the Germans did not understand the extreme evil these parasites represented. All that death and misery of the Second World War, was instigated and caused by the jew. The Germans are an honorable people, but jews don’t know the meaning of the word. I merely speculated as to what the jews deserved. The jews, of course, did survive because Hitler, an honorable man, never had a plan for their extermination, but if he did, gassings and the other hideous fables the jews made up, wouldn’t enter our consciousness.

    But today, in hindsight, we only need to ponder the results of those honorable Germans allowing these parasites to survive. But even in light of their survival, the jews have convinced most of the world, by outlandish lies of this “holocaust”, that the Germans were fiends. What honor is in that? Shall we repeat that “honor” again? If the Whites of today, ever come to their senses, I can assure you that disastrous mistake won’t be repeated.

  16. why risk war in the first place by going into Poland in 1939?

    “And though the victories of the German army in 1940 and 1941 were undoubtedly spectacular they were inconclusive. We are thus left with the truly vertiginous conclusion that Hitler went to war in September 1939 without any coherent plan as to how actually to defeat the British Empire, his major antagonist.

    Why did Hitler take this epic gamble? This surely is the fundamental question. Even if the conquest of living space can be rationalized as an act of imperialism, even if the Third Reich can be credited with a remarkable effort to muster its resources for combat, even if Germany’s soldiers fought brilliantly, Hitler’s conduct of the war involved risks so great that they defy rationalization in terms of pragmatic self-interest.3 And it is with this question that we reconnect to mainstream historiography and its insistence on the importance of ideology. It was ideology which provided Hitler with the lens through which he understood the international balance of power and the unfolding of the increasingly globalized struggle that began in Europe with the Spanish Civil War in the summer of 1936. In Hitler’s mind, the threat posed to the Third Reich by the United States was not just that of conventional superpower rivalry. The threat was existential and bound up with Hitler’s abiding fear of the world Jewish conspiracy, manifested in the shape of ‘Wall Street Jewry’ and the ‘Jewish media’ of the United States. It was this fantastical interpretation of the real balance of power that gave Hitler’s decision-making its volatile, risk-taking quality. Germany could not simply settle down to become an affluent satellite of the United States, as had seemed to be the destiny of the Weimar Republic in the 1920s, because this would result in enslavement to the world Jewish conspiracy, and ultimately race death. Given the pervasive influence of the Jews, as revealed by the mounting international tension of the late 1930s, a prosperous future of capitalist partnership with the Western powers was simply impossible. War was inevitable. The question was not if, but when.”

    Tooze, Wages of Destruction p. XXV

  17. The Nazi regime wanted to kill the Jews, and advance their own war effort at the same time. They acheived this by using them as slave labor, ON A STARVATION DIET.

    Sorry, German behavior during the war is simply not consistent with a desire to simply exterminate the Jews. I’ve read too many stories about Jewish prisoners being evacuated west in the face of the encroaching red army to believe that. You don’t evacuate people you want dead while you’re retreating and losing a war. You kill them and move on.

    The Jews either died of the bad conditions, or were gassed when they become so weak that they were no longer useful.

    The gassing thing’s pretty thin IMO. At least on any significant scale. As for dying of bad conditions, Germans were dying of bad conditions toward the end of the war. There were severe food shortages (and rationing throughout the war). They were supposed to feed the people in concentration camps first?

    The Nazis thus extracted the energy stored in the fat cells and muscles of their victims before killing them.

    Lol. Are you for real? Or are you taking the piss?

  18. All you have to do is look into the overwhelming evidence and documentation put together by scientists, forensic pathologists, and researchers.

    Well, I’ve looked at revisionism occasionally over the past few years, and I don’t see it with the certitude you do. All I can say is, I smell a big fat rat and I see no reason to take the orthodox HOLOCAUST!!! narrative seriously when its purveyors don’t seem to; they’ve made no effort at open inquiry, which is how you dispel the kind of cloud the revisionists have kicked up. In short, where’s the forensics?

    Aliens could be real, but I see no reason to believe that stuff either. If Santa Claus wants me to believe in him, he should come and see me, and bring his miracles.

  19. To put it another way, I don’t see the burden of proof as being on the revisionists, but on the orthodox, and so far they’ve failed miserably. I can’t take Jewish testimony seriously, because Jews’ word is worth less than shit; you can fertilize crops with shit. And without that testimony, the whole thing falls apart.

    Maybe the orthodox historians should collect a body of testimony by non-Jews? That would hold a bit of weight.

  20. Well, you see, the jews have nothing but hearsay; no evidence. How can you not be certain? Jews are world class liars and storytellers. There have been forensic investigations on the alleged gas chamber locations, showing no evidence of gas residue, and on bone fragments, also showing no signs of gas poisoning, and the undeniable fact that what the jews allege, this extermination of such huge proportions, as jews have contended, was just physically impossible.

    Not only that, jews have made it a serious crime to bring forth evidence that shoots holes in the jew narrative of the holocaust. Jail time and heavy fines are hardly an impetus for anyone to publicly expose jew lies. Because of these outrageous laws, jews don’t even have to defend their lies. Just the fact it is a serious crime punishable with up to 10 years imprisonment, to publicly question the holohoax in 15 countries proves the holohoax is a gargantuan fraud. 6 million indeed … it’s preposterous.

    There were no DEATH CAMPS. This is what jews have labelled them in the thousands upon thousands of books and publications jews have written since the end of the war. They were called and in fact were “relocation camps” because the plan was to remove the trouble-making, traitorous, jews from Europe. There were never any written extermination orders as evidence from the German High Command, or anyone else. It’s pretty obvious why such documentation/orders would absolutely need to exist in written form. The Germans, a fastidious people, being even more fastidious record keepers, certainly would have had written and documented commands ordering something as serious as the extermination/genocide of a particular people. There is none because the whole episode is a jew fabrication.

  21. “To put it another way, I don’t see the burden of proof as being on the revisionists, but on the orthodox”


    That comment goes straight to the heart of the Holocaust revisionism controversy, and it’s relevance to the well-being of White Americans.

    I think the revisionists, by establishing an unrealistically high standard of proof for mass murder, work against White American interests.

    Both Jews and White Americans, for the most part, have a false conception of Jews as having a “unique history of victim hood” and being “always victims, never perpetrators”.

    This false historical consciousness has negative consequences for White Americans for at least two reasons: 1. It gives Jewish ethnic activists self-righteous vehemence. 2. It makes White Americans reluctant to advocate their own ethnic interests, particularly if such advocacy involves any criticism of Jews.

    A judicious historian can disabuse all parties by pointing out that Jews are not the only ethnic group which was the victim of ethnically motivated mass-murder in that part of the world during that time period. There were other instances, in some of which Jews were perpetrators.

    In 1875, all of Eastern Europe (except Greece) and most of the Middle East was controlled by three multi-ethnic Empires: Russian, Hapsburg and Ottoman. By 1957, all of Eastern Europe and parts of the Middle East had been reorganized into de facto ethno-states, with a surface veneer of Communism in most of Eastern Europe. The transition period 1875-1957 included WWI, the Russian Revolution, WWII, many lesser wars and revolutions, ethnically motivated mass expulsions – and a series of ethnically motivated mass murders.

    The first instance was the mass murder, by the Turks, of the Bulgarians in 1875-77. Historians estimate 15,000 dead – a small number compared to what was to come. According to orthodox estimates, 100,000 Armenians were killed by the Ottomans in 1894, 80,000 Jews were killed in pogroms in the Ukraine in 1918, 20,000,000 East Slavs were murdered by the Soviet regime 1918-1953, during WWII 6,000,000 Jews and 200,000 Gypsies were killed by the Nazis and 500,000 Serbs were killed by the Ustasa, and 1,000,000 East Europeans were killed by Communist regimes 1945-1957.

    The Jews are evidently not unique victims during the era of Eastern European reorganization. A larger percentage of the Armenians were killed, and a larger total number of East Slavs were killed. Furthermore, Jews bear some responsibility for some of these massacres. Western Jews such as Disraeli propped up the Ottoman Empire against the Russians, partially out of gratitude for the Ottoman Empire for providing refuge to Sephardic refugees after 1492 and partially out of resentment towards the anti-Semitic policies of the Russian Empire. Without this Jewish inspired Western support, the evil Ottoman Empire would not have been able to last as long as it did, and thus would not have carried out as many massacres as it did. The Jews of Constantinople and the Dohnme were loyal to the Ottoman state until the bitter end, in spite of its evil deeds. Jews were also highly over represented among the Bolsheviks, especially at the highest levels (4 of 7 on the original politburo, and one of the 3 gentiles, Lenin, was 1/4 Jewish) and among the Cheka, especially during the years when the Soviet regime was at its most deadly. Cossacks, Ukrainians and the Russian upper class, against all of whom the Jews held bitter grudges, were highly over represented among the victims of the Soviet Regime. Jews were also highly over represented in the post-war Communist regimes of Eastern Europe, deadly for the local East European population collectively suspected of being Nazi collaborators.

  22. Unfortunately, the Holocaust revisionist’s unrealistically high standards of proof make the judicious historian’s task more difficult. The Nazis were “caught red handed” (hence, lots of evidence), while the Leninists and Ottomans “got away with it”(hence, less evidence). Skepticism is raised high enough to create disbelief in Ottoman and Leninist atrocities, but not high enough to create disbelief in Nazi atrocities, thus reinforcing the Jewish self image “unique victims, always victims, never perpetrators”. This obviously is not in the best interests of the White American people. However, it does enable neo-Nazis to maintain their delusion that Hitler was a saint without spot or wrinkle – and that, after all, is the whole point.

  23. The Nazis were “caught red handed” (hence, lots of evidence)

    This evidence, lots of it….

  24. during WWII 6,000,000 Jews

    Even lying jews had to admit that this number was an extreme exaggeration. There was no 6 million, so what were you saying? If you’re other accounts are accurate, I surely don’t know but asserting less than 6 million heebs is the only statement that will get you jailtime.

  25. The Nazis were “caught red handed” (hence, lots of evidence)

    When you provide some evidence … more than heresay from hysterical lying jews … you’ll be the first.

  26. What did judicious historians say about the “pogroms” in Poland in 1918?

    “What was the truth?
    According to British historian Norman Davies:

    Press reports in the West of “Pogroms in Poland” though accepted by Jewish
    commentators, were repeatedly discredited by the investigations of independent British and American observers. The so-called pogrom in Lwów, in November 1918, turned out to be a military massacre where three times more
    Christians died than Jews. The so-called pogroms in Pińsk in March 1919 turned out to be work of a panicky lieutenant, whose order to execute thirty-five suspected Bolshevik infiltrators was described by a US investigator as
    “fully justified by the circumstances” the pogroms in Wilno in April 1919 and
    again in October 1920 were occasioned by the Red Army’s hasty retreats, and by military reprisals against suspected collaborators.”139
    In turn, Polish émigré historian Adam Zamoyski, presenting typically
    Polish evaluation of the situation, wrote:

    The collapse of law and order in November 1918 produced a rash of anti-Jewish outrages in country areas and in towns such as Lwów and Pińsk. Further
    violence and some shootings took place in the wake of military operations between the Poles and the Bolsheviks, since some leaders of the [Jewish]Bund had called on all Jews to further international revolution by supporting the Red Army. Hostility to wards the Jews was inadvertently heightened by American and British Jewish pressure groups at Paris Peace talks of 1918. It was at their insistence that such states such as Poland were made to
    sign “Minorities Treaties”, which subjected their treatment of their Jewish citizens to international scrutiny. As well as encroaching on their sovereignty,
    it was an insult to the Poles with their long tradition of toleration… In the
    first two years of Polish independence, powerful groups of American and British Jewry were seen to be advocating the curtailment of Polish sovereignty
    apparently in unison with German interests, while Jews were in the
    forefront of the Bolshevik invasion of 1920. The average Pole felt the Jews were not on the same side as him.140

    What one can probably easily agree on is that Gibson’s outlook on the Jewish question was consistent with views of the US government. American
    historian Frank W. Brecher characterized the main features of these views
    in the following way:

    • The East European Jew was closely associated with, if not the actual leader, of the Communist world movement, which represented the major extant threat to Western interests in Europe and elsewhere
    • If the Jew was the victim of popular violence, it was largely his own fault, due to his revolutionary activity, rapacious economic behavior using business
    methods “that would not be tolerated in the United States,” cultural separatism,
    and political disloyalty to his particular country of residence
    • Religious bigotry hardly played a role in anti-Jewish persecution”

    139 N. Davie s, God’s Playground, vol. II, pp. 262-3.
    140 A. Zamoyski, The Polish Way. A Thousand Year History of the Poles and their
    Culture, New York 1988, p. 345.

    Interestingly, fifteen years before Hitler came to power an American diplomat, THE US AMBASSADOR IN WARSAW HUGH GIBSON was saying that an element of Jewry was an extant threat. Of course he was dubbed an anti-semite who “had done more mischief to the Jewish race than anyone who had lived in the last century” by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis and his associate Felix Frankfurter.

Comments are closed.