What does one say to People that think all Holocaust Revisionists are Neo Nazis ?

[bobsmith1800s]

Hi my question is what does one say to' People that think all, Holocaust Revisionists are Neo Nazis or White Racists or' White Supremacists ? I ask because I have even heard a Neo Nazi say, that a lot of the Holocaust Revisionists are not Racist he' said many of them, are married to Non Whites or Married to Jews. I understand that the Holocaust Story or, the Holocaust Propaganda is used to promote Multiculturalism I have even met people that support Holocaust Revisionism that are Non White. I met Two Blacks that were Holocaust Revisionists I have heard of Communists promoting Holocaust Revisionism as well my understand is that, many of the first Holocaust Revisionists were; Socialists like Paul Rassinier and on the Far Left Wing but I know the' ADL promotes that idea' that Holocaust Revisionism is a Far Right Wing Movement of Racists. I am a White American myself or Caucasian I am of European Ancestry. I have' read the writings and Books by Kevin MacDonald the Professor therefore I understand that the ADL or the Anti Defamation League promotes' Multiculturalism and Mass Immigration out' of Jewish Self Interest just like the ADL supported the Civil Rights Movement' of the 1950s and the 160s out of Jewish Self Interest. I don't believe' that one needs to be Racist to understand that because even a Newspaper in Saudi Arabia in 2002 printed a article saying this. Also I have heard Black Nationalists like Khalid Abdul Muhammad who the Spokesman for Louis Farrakhan from the' Nation of Islam say this. I think' the point' is that Israel is' a Ethnic State but the Jewish Leadership promote' Multiculturalism in the White Christian Majority West Israel has Laws that favor' Jewish Immigration to prevent, a Jewish Minority to keep Israel Majority Jewish.


Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A Historical Review
By Kevin MacDonald

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/books-immigration.html


Black-Jewish Relations: Khalid Abdul Muhammad - In His Own Words

On The Holocaust

"Tell us you lost 6 million. Historians, scholars, scientists, they went to some of the death camps. . . . It wasn't 6 million, it wasn't 5 million, it wasn't 4 million, it wasn't even 3 million. . . . Some of them say we'd be hard-pressed to get 1 1/2 million. Reports on the 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis were bloated, exaggerated, probably fabricated."

Brooklyn, NY, March 29, 1994


https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/kh ... -own-words


Did Six Million Really Die?
by Richard E. Harwood







Introduction





Of course, atrocity propaganda is nothing new. It has accompanied every conflict of the 20th century and doubtless will continue to do so. During the First World War, the Germans were actually accused of eating Belgian babies, as well as delighting to throw them in the air and transfix them on bayonets. The British also alleged that the German forces were operating a "Corpse Factory," in which they boiled down the bodies of their own dead in order to obtain glycerine and other commodities, a calculated insult to the honour of an Imperial army. After the war, however, came the retractions; indeed, a public statement was made by the Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons apologising for the insults to German honour, which were admitted to be war-time propaganda.

No such statements have been made after the Second World War. In fact, rather than diminish with the passage of years, the atrocity propaganda concerning the German occupation, and in particular their treatment of the Jews, has done nothing but increase its virulence, and elaborate its catalogue of horrors. Gruesome paperback books with lurid covers continue to roll from the presses, adding continuously to a growing mythology of the concentration camps and especially to the story that no less than Six Million Jews were exterminated in them. The ensuing pages will reveal this claim to be the most colossal piece of fiction and the most successful of deceptions; but here an attempt may be made to answer an important question: What has rendered the atrocity stories of the Second World War so uniquely different from those of the First? Why were the later retracted while the former are reiterated louder than ever? Is it possible that the story of the Six Million Jews is serving a political purpose, even that it is a form of political blackmail?

So far as the Jewish people themselves are concerned, the deception has been an incalculable benefit. Every conceivable race and nationality had its share of suffering in the Second World War, but none has so successfully elaborated it and turned it to such great advantage. The alleged extent of their persecution quickly aroused sympathy for the Jewish national homeland they had sought for so long; after the War the British Government did little to prevent Jewish emigration to Palestine which they had declared illegal, and it was not long afterwards that the Zionists wrested from the Government the land of Palestine and created their haven from persecution, the State of Israel. Indeed, it is a remarkable fact that the Jewish people emerged from the Second World War as nothing less than a triumphant minority. Dr. Max Nussbaum, the former chief rabbi of the Jewish community in Berlin, stated on April 11, 1953: "The position the Jewish people occupy today in the world -- despite the enormous losses -- is ten times stronger than what it was twenty years ago." It should be added, if one is to be honest, that this strength has been much consolidated financially by the supposed massacre of the Six Million, undoubtedly the most profitable atrocity allegation of all time. To date, the staggering figure of six thousand million pounds has been paid out in compensation by the Federal Government of West Germany, mostly to the State of Israel (which did not even exist during the Second World War), as well as to individual Jewish claimants.



DISCOURAGEMENT OF NATIONALISM

In terms of political blackmail, however, the allegation that Six Million Jews died during the Second World War has much more far-reaching implications for the people of Britain and Europe than simply the advantages it has gained for the Jewish nation. And here one comes to the crux of the question: Why the Big Lie? What is its purpose? In the first place, it has been used quite unscrupulously to discourage any form of nationalism. Should the people of Britain or any other European country attempt to assert their patriotism and preserve their national integrity in an age when the very existence of nation-states is threatened, they are immediately branded as "neo-Nazis". Because, of course, Nazism was nationalism, and we all know what happened then -- Six Million Jews were exterminated! So long as the myth is perpetuated, peoples everywhere will remain in bondage to it; the need for international tolerance and understanding will be hammered home by the United Nations until nationhood itself, the very guarantee of freedom, is abolished.

A classic example of the use of the 'Six Million' as an anti-national weapon appears in Manvell and Frankl's book, The Incomparable Crime (London, 1967), which deals with 'Genocide in the Twentieth Century.' Anyone with a pride in being British will be somewhat surprised by the vicious attack made on the British Empire in this book. The authors quote Pandit Nehru, who wrote the following while in a British prison in India: "Since Hitler emerged from obscurity and became the Führer of Germany, we have heard a great deal about racialism and the Nazi theory of the 'Herrenvolk' . . . But we in India have known racialism in all its forms ever since the commencement of British rule. The whole ideology of this rule was that of the 'Herrenvolk' and the master race . . . India as a nation and Indians as individuals were subjected to insult, humiliation and contemptuous treatment. The English were an imperial race, we were told, with the God-given right to govern us and keep us in subjection; if we protested we were reminded of the 'tiger qualities of an imperial race'." The authors Manvell and Frankl then go on to make the point perfectly clear for us: "The white races of Europe and America," they write, "have become used during centuries to regarding themselves as a 'Herrenvolk.' The twentieth century, the century of Auschwitz, has also achieved the first stage in the recognition of multi-racial partnership." (ibid., p .14)



THE RACE PROBLEM SUPPRESSED

One could scarcely miss the object of this diatribe, with its insidious hint about "multi-racial partnership." Thus the accusation of the Six Million is not only used to undermine the principle of nationhood and national pride, but it threatens the survival of the Race itself. It is wielded over the heads of the populace, rather as the threat of hellfire and damnation was in the Middle Ages. Many countries of the Anglo-Saxon world, notably Britain and America, are today facing the gravest danger in their history, the danger posed by the alien races in their midst. Unless something is done in Britain to halt the immigration and assimilation of Africans and Asians into our country, we are faced in the near future, quite apart from the bloodshed of racial conflict, with the biological alteration and destruction of the British people as they have existed here since the coming of the Saxons. In short, we are threatened with the irrecoverable loss of our European culture and racial heritage. But what happens if a man dares to speak of the race problem, of its biological and political implications? He is branded as that most heinous of creatures, a "racialist". And what is racialism:of course, but the very hallmark of the Nazi! They (so everyone is told, anyway) murdered Six Million Jews because of racialism, so it must be a very evil thing indeed. When Enoch Powell drew attention to the dangers posed by coloured immigration into Britain in one of his early speeches, a certain prominent Socialist raised the spectre of Dachau and Auschwitz to silence his presumption.

Thus any rational discussion of the problems of Race and the effort to preserve racial integrity is effectively discouraged. No one could have anything but admiration for the way in which the Jews have sought to preserve their race through so many centuries, and continue to do so today. In this effort they have frankly been assisted by the story of the Six .Million, which, almost like a religious myth, has stressed the need for greater Jewish racial solidarity. Unfortunately, it has worked in quite the opposite way for all other peoples, rendering them impotent in the struggle for self-preservation.

The aim in the following pages is quite simply to tell the Truth. The distinguished American historian Harry Elmer Barnes once wrote that "An attempt to make a competent, objective and truthful investigation of the extermination question . . . is surely the most precarious venture that an historian or demographer could undertake today." In attempting this precarious task, it is hoped to make some contribution, not only to historical truth, but towards lifting the burden of a lie from our own shoulders, so that we may freely confront the dangers which threaten us all.

Richard E. Harwood


http://all.net/books/iw/mid-east/unity- ... /intro.htm

[hermod]

Hi my question is what does one say to' People that think all, Holocaust Revisionists are Neo Nazis or White Racists or' White Supremacists ?

2 possible replies in the form of questions:

1) Would an anti-Catholic or/and anti-clerical bias on Galileo Galilei's part change the fact that the earth revolves around the sun?

2) How many orthodox/antirevisionist/exterminationist books on the Holocaust would be left if all the books written by Zionist, pro-Zionist, Communist, Cultural Marxist and Jewish historians were to be dismissed because of their authors' obvious anti-Nazi bias? And must the conclusions of the Nuremberg show trials be automatically rejected because three fourths of the staff at those "trials" were Jewish and thus strongly biased against National Socialism and the Third Reich?

https://postimg.cc/TyZ6VX3G

Thomas Joseph Dodd (May 15, 1907 – May 24, 1971) was an American attorney and diplomat who served as a United States Senator and Representative from Connecticut. He is the father of former U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd and Thomas J. Dodd Jr., who served as the United States Ambassador to Uruguay from 1993 to 1997 and to Costa Rica from 1997 to 2001.

Dodd became vice chairman of the Board of Review and later executive trial counsel for the Office of the United States Chief of Counsel for the Prosecution of Axis Criminality at Nuremberg, Germany, in 1945 and 1946.

Dodd was given several awards in recognition of his work at the Nuremberg trials. Jackson awarded him the Medal of Freedom in July 1946 and President Harry Truman awarded him the Certificate of Merit, which Jackson personally delivered to him in Hartford in the fall of 1946.[5] Dodd also received the Czechoslovak Order of the White Lion.[3] In 1949, the Polish government had intended to award Dodd with a badge of honor called the Officer's Cross of the Order of Polonia Restituta, but Dodd rejected the medal due to his commitment to human rights and views that the Polish government was imposing a tyranny similar to that imposed by the Nazis, and accepting an honor from the President of Poland would be like accepting one from the Nazis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Dodd

[jarno]

Whenever I hear the terms Neo-Nazi, White Supremacist, etc. it no longer means anything at all to me. They're political terms that have emerged from our elite for the purpose of social control. You see our elite controls the public through fear, and there's a political narrative underlying those terms that roughly translates to anyone who is an enemy of the current order. I would also add "Holocaust Denier" to that list. When one comes to realize this than the meaning behind those terms begins to vanish. I've said this before on this forum, but Holocaust Revisionism is a scientific endeavor. There is absolutely nothing about it that's associated with a certain political view. Anyone can do it, regardless of their personal politics, nationality or race.

So when you hear those terms applied to revisionism be very weary. Chances are there is an ulterior motive, probably an attempt to discourage people away from it, because our elites have so much at stake in it.

[greatmystery]

Hi my question is what does one say to' People that think all, Holocaust Revisionists are Neo Nazis or White Racists or' White Supremacists ?

Honestly, I just say 'who cares'. It's just a tactic used to dismiss the idea of revisionism and distract from any arguments you may have. It is in the same vein as saying that being a revisionist is the same as being a flat earther. Also, if I'm not mistaken, this is a kind of ad hominem attack.

[Fred zz]

I would say "Calling names, the last refuge of someone with no answers and no arguments"
reworded but it comes from George Carlin

[Hektor]

If somebody argues that Social Democrats didn't gas conservatives in concentration camps and he himself is a Social Democrat, does that invalidate his statement?
Same would apply to Neonazis that 'Deny the Holocaust'. If that isn't logically to you, then you are the person that is biased.


It's of course a 'guilty by association' fallacy they are using, when they say "Holocaust Deniers are Neonazis". The unstated and implicated premise is that "Neonazis" are bad. Why are they bad, because they support National Socialism. And National Socialism did 'do the Holocaust' that's an 'undisputable fact' to many. Well, if you dare disputing it, you may go to prison in many countries. And it's a bit like circular reasoning as well. You still assume to be true, what you would have to prove, if you wanted to prove 'Holocaust Deniers' wrong. And well, word games aren't enough to do that. You need to prove the thesis first and that in an empirical way. So no running to books and media products that insist the Holocaust is true without proving the claim first empirically. Fortunately for the Holocaust promotors, most people aren't well-versed when it comes to methodology, logic, the scientific method and other rather abstract things that are foundational to gaining knowledge that can claim a basis in the truth. So the sensational photos, survivor stories, references to statements, etc. works perfectly well in that kind of propaganda. And the well is frequently poisoned there to keep people believing the Holocaust. Apparently nobody thinks that the promotors are biased.
"Oh, yes they are jews, but those Holocaust Educators only teach about the Holocaust, so it will not happen again". "And see, even the Germans say it is true". "Checkmate, Deniers". Well, you wouldn't need statements, if it was true, you'd have empirical evidence for this. You wouldn't need legislation directed against "Holocaust Deniers", neither. You could point to verifiable, physical facts that would prove your thesis. Just like I can prove that they pyramids in Egypt exist or that the WTC towers did crash, etc. Real events have real evidence to back up. I get that physical facts need interpretation. Especially when it is about something in the past. But the debate is less about interpreting the evidence, when it comes to core Holocaust claims. The arguments are about, WHY that evidence isn't there. Did it vanish or was it never there to begin with?


They can point to "dead bodies in concentration camps of course". But dead bodies somewhere, doesn't prove WHY those bodies are there. Or what they cause of death was. Otherwise all I had to do to frame someone with murder would be to point at a corpse on his premises. It would be the ideal condition for a frame up though. That's if media, courts, investigators would play along of course. And those were the conditions given in Germany 1945. Lots of vested interest to frame the Germans with atrocities, then. You'd think this would people make hesitate and think about the issue. But usually it doesn't. Rather grasp cop-outs and rescue devices, when somebody challenges core Holocaust claims.

The reality is that "Holocaust Deniers" are distributed over the whole political spectrum(s). There is liberals, conservatives, monarchists, nationalists, republicans, socialists, libertarians, anarchists, etc. disputing core claims of the Holocaust.

And well, if 'The Holocaust' was part and parcel of National Socialism, shouldn't National Socialists and Neonazi embrace the Holocaust and say something like "It's true and it was necessary". Yet, virtually nobody does seem to do that. So the charge that "Revisionists are Neonazis" is actually quite preposterous.

[Hydra]

I've said this before elsewhere, but I deny the narrative that Saddam Hussein had an illegal nuclear program, or that he was stock piling chemical weapons, or was building massive anthrax silos to destroy the world or take over the middle east or whatever. Or that he was a SUCH A NEFARIOUS EVIL TYRANNICAL VILLAIN that he deserved to be deposed from power and his country bombed to ruins, does saying this make me a "Neo-Baathist"?

Denying atrocity propaganda about a regime does not necessarily make you sympathetic or loyal to that regime. Yes, a former member of the Iraqi Baath party might have an interest in denying the atrocities of the government he was formerly apart of, at the same time he might have an interest to flip on the party and join the American cause to save his own skin. Either way me; an American with no direct ties to Iraqi politics other than my own government's war on Iraq, has no loyalty or reverence to Saddam or the Baath party. I deny Saddam's atrocities not because I have a deep affinity for a tin-pot Arab dictatorship, but because I believe my government fought a horrific war that reduced another country to ruin, and used lies to justify it. I want to refute those lies and expose the corruption behind the war and the people who started it and who tried to defraud the public. Same thing with the Holocaust

Hydra can you make the direction of travel in your posts more in line with the holocaust. Your comments about Iraq and Hussein are valid but really not much connection to the holocaust. MOD.

[Hektor]

I've said this before elsewhere, but I deny the narrative that Saddam Hussein had an illegal nuclear program, or that he was stock piling chemical weapons, or was building massive anthrax silos to destroy the world or take over the middle east or whatever. Or that he was a SUCH A NEFARIOUS EVIL TYRANNICAL VILLAIN that he deserved to be deposed from power and his country bombed to ruins, does saying this make me a "Neo-Baathist"?
.....

I doubt most of the Saddam tales as well. But this doesn't mean I'd say that Baathism was great or that Saddam was the best the world had to offer since, whatever.
I'd also deny certain tales about Nero, but it would be foolish to call me a Neo-Caesarist or something. Fact of the matter is that all political movements and/or leaders will have their problems and issues. Doesn't mean I believe all the tales told about them. What I'm interested in is 'can it be proven' and empirical stuff needs to be provable empirically, plain and simple. If you don't I'll dispute your thesis. I do the same with Darwinism/Evolutionism, CO2 induced climate change, COVID, etc. For sure I will do the same with Holocausts in Gas Chambers. And the later one is so obvious a fraud, because the purpose of the lies is to self-evident, if one goes through the sources and notices their lack of empirical evidence. Now if you gas a million people somewhere, you don't get just a work camp as remains. You will get close to be able to prove it. Yet the Holocaust crowd uses tragic heroines like Anne Frank as their flag ship. Don't they realize that her biography and related matters actually disprove their thesis on its own already? Or why do they think even Otto Frank believed until July 1945 that he would see his daughters again. Didn't he know that them Germans were 'gassing and exterminating the Jews'? Obviously he didn't believe that, when he was still in Auschwitz. So apparently he had no reason to do so. It is even plausible that he send his daughters back to West Germany out of fear what would happen to them, if Red Armists got hold of them. Yah know, of those detainees in Auschwitz had already had their experiences with this either during the 1939-41 period or even before that. But no, lets be grasp by the emotional narrative spun around Anne Frank and by extrapolation believe that the Nazi transported the Franks almost a 1000 km away to the East so they could be gassed there. This all should be obvious to attentive readers and historians, yet they don't even mention that what is published on the Frank LITERALLY IS a problem for their overall narrative on the matter.

And I mean, it doesn't stop there. The rest of materials makes the matter worse for them. JODL and KEITEL who were with Adolf Hitler during WW2 only heard about what came to know as Holocaust after the warm world war two was over. They considered that this was some sort of side-show ran by Heinrich Himmler. But guess what, he denied 'the Holocaust', too. He did so according the Norbert Masur who was a representative of the World Jewish Congress visiting him in the bombed out Germany. Now Masur wasn't a "Holocaust Denier" or "Neonazi" neither. He didn't really believe Himmler, he still wrote about the meeting with him. And so we could go on. But no, ignore all this, stick to the narrative at all cost. If you look very scholarly and earnestly, most people won't start laughing about your folly.

I recall a German phD in History (not on 20th century history though, but fairly knowledgeable) that told me 'how stuff works' in German history 'faculties'. He went as far to see that most Historians and their students actually knew that it was a fraud, but that they still would be silent on this (in public), for fear of becoming 'unemployable'. "Luegen wird Belohnt" he said, "Lying will be rewarded". Since his specialty was on late Middle-Ages/Early modern era (actually on witch trials) he won't be heard on this anyway. So rather challenge smaller notions of the narrative first, perhaps people start realizing that there are more problems. He wasn't a NeoNazi neither, rather an old school leftist. As most academics in Germany were. What actually got him conducive was the missionary attitude of his High School teachers. Must have been in the late 1970s/1980s, though. This was the time the "Holocaust" became "common knowledge" in Germany. Not that Germans were "Holocaust Deniers" previously, the NS-era was treated differently based on 'authoritarianism' and 'militarism'. The "Student Revolt" bears witness to that as well. More of a generational conflict in the post war era. One that still may have had some real issues to be about. Although also an ungrateful one. Most older generation Germans had worked their arses of so those brats could study and 'have a better life' in the future. The Baader-Meinhof-Gang was still more of the Utopian Marxist variety, but 'Marxism' was already taking the turn during that era. And I'd guess with most of their generation the influence was rather Neomarxist than old school Marxist. Which means that they don't join the Communist Party, but join other parties, trade unions, churches or become teachers, jurists, journalists and than sell the ideas under the respective label. Far more dangerous to society then a bunch of Commies with AK47s.

Be that as it may. The "If you don't believe what we do, than you are of the devil" sort of argument is on closer sight a really bad one. While superficially it is of course highly effective. But consider everyone making this the basis of their arguing. Rational truth, logic, empirical evidence in fact any truth statement would become irrelevant. And that mean Nothing could be functioning anymore, except some machines on autopilot of course. This is rather dystopian, but that's exactly where promoting and defending the Holocaust will lead, too.

[hermod]

I've said this before elsewhere, but I deny the narrative that Saddam Hussein had an illegal nuclear program, or that he was stock piling chemical weapons, or was building massive anthrax silos to destroy the world or take over the middle east or whatever. Or that he was a SUCH A NEFARIOUS EVIL TYRANNICAL VILLAIN that he deserved to be deposed from power and his country bombed to ruins, does saying this make me a "Neo-Baathist"?

Denying atrocity propaganda about a regime does not necessarily make you sympathetic or loyal to that regime. Yes, a former member of the Iraqi Baath party might have an interest in denying the atrocities of the government he was formerly apart of, at the same time he might have an interest to flip on the party and join the American cause to save his own skin. Either way me; an American with no direct ties to Iraqi politics other than my own government's war on Iraq, has no loyalty or reverence to Saddam or the Baath party. I deny Saddam's atrocities not because I have a deep affinity for a tin-pot Arab dictatorship, but because I believe my government fought a horrific war that reduced another country to ruin, and used lies to justify it. I want to refute those lies and expose the corruption behind the war and the people who started it and who tried to defraud the public. Same thing with the Holocaust

Many people now acknowledge that Hill & Knowlton could easily turn Saddam Hussein into a new Hitler in the public consciousness of Western countries 3 decades ago, but very few people are willing to acknowledge or even contemplate that similar companies or government services could as easily turn Hitler into a new Satan in the public consciousness of the same countries 8 or 9 decades ago.

https://postimg.cc/RqRp7vXm

https://postimg.cc/hXH2DvPL

https://postimg.cc/VSL0BrHt
https://postimg.cc/XGr8LDD9

Hill+Knowlton Strategies

Hill+Knowlton Strategies is an American global public relations consulting company, headquartered in New York City, United States, with over 80 offices in more than 40 countries. The company was founded in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1927 by John W. Hill and has been led since 2019 by Chairman & CEO AnnaMaria DeSalva. It is owned by the WPP Group.[1]

The firm has been involved in multiple controversial public relations campaigns over its history, most notably the false testimony by Nayirah and PR campaign on behalf of the Government of Kuwait in the lead up to the Gulf War.[2]

Starting in the 1930s, the firm became known for its representation of steel manufacturers, which it also did during the steel strike of 1952.[5][7] The company also represented the dairy industry during congressional debates on margarine regulation in the late 1940s.[7][8] Other early clients included the tobacco industry, which the firm worked for when smoking was first publicly linked to cancer in 1953, as well as many other industries including the aircraft industry, the American Shipbuilders Council, the National Retail Dry Goods Association, the National Fertilizer Association, and soap producers.[7][8][9][10]

Hill & Knowlton was hired in 1990 by Citizens for a Free Kuwait, a group predominantly funded by the Government of Kuwait,[4][13][18] to assist its campaign for U.S. intervention in response to the invasion and annexation of Kuwait by Iraq.[5][19][20] The firm arranged for a Kuwaiti girl, known only as Nayirah, to testify in October 1990 to the Human Rights Caucus of the United States Congress about events she had allegedly witnessed.[19] She reported seeing Iraqi soldiers remove babies from incubators in Kuwaiti hospitals and leave them to die. Her testimony was used to build U.S. public and congressional support for the Gulf War.[20] It was later discovered that she was the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the United States and that her story was false.[4][18][19][21] Hill & Knowlton was accused of spreading false information to increase support for the Gulf War, which the company denied.[20][22] The company received around $10 million for their work for Citizens for a Free Kuwait.[4][19][21]

Controversies
As described above, the firm has been involved in controversial events over its history. These include the tobacco industry in the 1950s and 1960s,[39] the Bank of Credit and Commerce International from 1988–1990, the false testimony and PR campaign planned by Hill+Knowlton on behalf of the Government of Kuwait in the lead up to the Gulf War, and the Church of Scientology from 1987–1991. The company has also been criticized for representing governments seeking to improve their reputations despite accusations of human rights violations, such as Indonesia, Turkey, Maldives, and Uganda.[10][40] The company is one of a number of firms engaged by fracking interests in recent years.[41] Hill+Knowlton Strategies co-founded in the 1970s the Asbestos Information Association, which by denying the health risks of asbestos is responsible for thousands of lost lives.[42] Hill+Knowlton was also involved in similar practices concerning lead, vinyl chloride[43] and CFC.[44] During many of these operations Hill+Knowlton worked with Fred Singer.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill%2BKn ... Strategies

[Hektor]

I've said this before elsewhere....who started it and who tried to defraud the public. Same thing with the Holocaust

Many people now acknowledge that Hill & Knowlton could easily turn Saddam Hussein into a new Hitler in the public consciousness of Western countries 3 decades ago, but very few people are willing to acknowledge or even contemplate that similar companies or government services could as easily turn Hitler into a new Satan in the public consciousness of the same countries 8 or 9 decades ago.

....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill%2BKn ... Strategies

[/quote]


The thing is that people will naively believe that this was somehow a deception. OK passing the ambassador's daughter of as a 'nurse' from Kuwait that speaks almost perfect English is indeed a bit rich. Also rich: Tom Lantos who was heavily involved in this case was a 'Holocaust Survivor'.
That means he was probably the ideal person for that coup.

It stands to be wondered what the US-Elites actual interests were in Iraq, which wasn't really that unfriendly to the US (Given that they went against Iran for them, first). But it was a fairly wealthy country in the region that had medium size. And probably something that concerned the Israelis. For them being surrounded by failed Arab states is better than being surrounded by wealthy and politically independent one. That would be from their perspective now. A normal nation would think it is better to be surrounded by countries that 'do well' in some way and want to be at peace with them.

[hermod]

The thing is that people will naively believe that this was somehow a deception. OK passing the ambassador's daughter of as a 'nurse' from Kuwait that speaks almost perfect English is indeed a bit rich. Also rich: Tom Lantos who was heavily involved in this case was a 'Holocaust Survivor'.
That means he was probably the ideal person for that coup.

DEAN IREBODD: NAZI SHRUNKEN HEADS
A 24-MINUTE FREE VIDEO ABOUT LIES WHICH JUSTIFY WAR

(The part on Tom Lantos starts at 5:20)

And they did it again in 2003, even with a Rudolf Hoess ("The Curveball," der kommandant of a nonexistent factory making Saddam's nonexistent bacteriological weapons) and a smoking gun (Colin Powell's anthrax).

https://postimg.cc/gXVD5jXd

https://postimg.cc/Zv9qnB8z

It stands to be wondered what the US-Elites actual interests were in Iraq, which wasn't really that unfriendly to the US (Given that they went against Iran for them, first). But it was a fairly wealthy country in the region that had medium size. And probably something that concerned the Israelis. For them being surrounded by failed Arab states is better than being surrounded by wealthy and politically independent one. That would be from their perspective now. A normal nation would think it is better to be surrounded by countries that 'do well' in some way and want to be at peace with them.

According to U.S. General Wesley Clark, it was all about Israel. The Israelis didn't Saddam Hussein to have any nuclear weapon and they had already bombed Badgad's nuclear power plant in the 1980s in order to prevent another Holocaust of six million Jews (sic) from being perpetrated by Saddam Hitler.

https://postimg.cc/zH7tbPG9

http://buffalohair-jageannsjournalscoll ... 3_orig.png

Early life and education
Clark's father's family was Jewish; his paternal grandparents, Jacob Kanne and Ida Goldman, immigrated to the United States from Belarus/the Russian Empire,[9] in response to the Pale of Settlement and anti-Jewish violence from Russian pogroms. Clark's father, Benjamin Jacob Kanne, graduated from the Chicago-Kent College of Law and served in the U.S. Naval Reserve as an ensign during World War I, although he never participated in combat. Kanne, living in Chicago, became involved with ward politics in the 1920s as a prosecutor and served in local offices. He served as a delegate to the 1932 Democratic National Convention that nominated Franklin D. Roosevelt as the party's presidential candidate[10] (though his name does not appear on the published roll of convention delegates). His mother was of English ancestry and was a Methodist.[11]

Kanne came from the Kohen family line,[12] and Clark's son has characterized Clark's parents' marriage, between his Methodist mother, Veneta (née Updegraff), and his Jewish father, Benjamin Jacob Kanne,[13] as "about as multicultural as you could've gotten in 1944".[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark

https://postimg.cc/Hr79PQDX

[hannef]

I advise you to ignore these people. They are shallow and can't give you any lessons.

I questioned the Holocaust before I became an anti-Semite, and I became an anti-Semite only by the judgement of others.

[Otium]

Germar Rudolf put it best:

"To everyone who has ever suspected that revisionists are motivated by a desire to whitewash National Socialism, or restore the acceptability of right-wing political systems, or assist in a breakthrough of Nationalism, I would like to say the following:

While researching historical events, our highest goal must be at all times to discover how it actually was--as the 19th century German historian Leopold Ranke maintained. Historians should not place research in the service of making criminal accusations against, for example, Genghis Khan and the Mongol hordes, nor to whitewash any of their wrong-doings. Anybody insisting that research be barred from exonerating Genghis Khan of criminal accusations would be the object of ridicule and would be subject to the suspicion that he was, in fact, acting out of political motives. If this were not so, why would anyone insist that our historical view of Genghis Khan forever be defined solely by Khan's victims and enemies?

The same reasoning applies to Hitler and the Third Reich. Both revisionists and their adversaries are entitled to their political views. The accusation that revisionists are only interested in exonerating National Socialism and that such an effort is reprehensible or even criminal is a boomerang: This accusation has as a prerequisite that it is deemed unacceptable to partially exonerate National Socialism historically, and by so doing, always also morally. But by declaring any hypothetical exoneration based on possible facts as unacceptable, one admits openly not to be interested in the quest for the truth, but in incriminating National Socialism historically and morally under any circumstances and at all costs. And the motivation behind this can only be political. Hence, those accusing revisionists to misuse their research for political ends have themselves been proven guilty of exactly this offense. It is therefore not necessarily the revisionists who are guided by political motives--though quite a few of them certainly are--but with absolute certainty all those who accuse others of attempting to somehow historically exonerate a political system which has long since disappeared.

As a consequence, our research must never be concerned with the possible 'moral' spin-off effects of our findings in relation to politicians or regimes of the past, but solely with the facts. Anyone who argues the opposite does not understand scientific research and should not presume to condemn others on the basis of authentic research."

Germar Rudolf, The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz (Chicago: Theses & Dissertations Press, 2003), pp. 37-38. Cf. Germar Rudolf, Wolfgang Lambrecht (ed.), The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical and Techinical Aspects of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz (The Barnes Review, 2011), pp. 36-37.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter. What matters are the facts and how honestly the people who engage with them behave in presenting them. But this, of course, a very subjective thing.

[Hektor]

Germar Rudolf put it best:

[indent]"To everyone who has ever suspected that revisionists are motivated by a desire to whitewash National Socialism, or restore the acceptability of right-wing political systems, or assist in a breakthrough of Nationalism, I would like to say the following:

While researching historical events, our highest goal must be at all times to discover how it actually was--as the 19th century German historian Leopold Ranke maintained. Historians should not place research in the service of making criminal accusations against, for example, Genghis Khan and the Mongol hordes, nor to whitewash any of their wrong-doings. Anybody insisting that research be barred from exonerating Genghis Khan of criminal accusations would be the object of ridicule and would be subject to the suspicion that he was, in fact, acting out of political motives. If this were not so, why would anyone insist that our historical view of Genghis Khan forever be defined solely by Khan's victims and enemies?
....

Now if the Holocaust is necessary to disparage National Socialism so other political ideologies have a competitive advantage. Apparently the inherent qualities of those political ideologies and systems aren't really that overwhelming.


Now if I deny that Genghis Khan impaled six million Eskimos, does that mean that I want to turn the country into a mongolist system of politics and economics?!