| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Mike" |
| Date: |
20 Nov 2004 02:25:43 PM |
| Object: |
Darwin, The Father Of Holocaust |
Genocide and Darwinism
by Theodore D. Hall, Ph.D.
THE SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND OF THE NAZI "RACE PURIFICATION" PROGRAM, US
& German Eugenics, Ethnic Cleansing, Genocide, Population Control ...
In the conclusion of his remarkable book The Nazi Doctors--Medical
Killing and the Psychology of Genocide, Robert Jay Lifton writes of a
visit to Auschwitz: "I went to the camp a few years ago and was shown
the many exhibits maintained there, exhibits that leave nothing to be
added concerning the evil human beings can do to other human beings.
But the one that left the most profound impression on me was the
simplest of all: a room full of shoes, mostly baby shoes."
Genocidal campaigns are not new. They occurred before the Holocaust;
and they are occurring at this moment. What distinguishes the Nazi
"race purification" extermination program from other genocidal
campaigns is its "scientific" character. At a mass meeting in 1934,
Nazi Deputy Party Leader Rudolf Hess stated, "National Socialism is
nothing but applied biology." "The entire Nazi regime was built,"
Lifton writes, "on a biomedical vision that required the kind of
racial purification that would progress from sterilization to
extensive killing." As early as the publication of Mein Kampf
(1924-26), Lifton indicates, "Hitler had declared the sacred racial
mission of the German people to be 'assembling and preserving the most
valuable stocks of basic racial elements [and] . . . . slowly and
severely raising them to a dominant position.' . . ."
Where did the "biomedical vision" of Hitler and his party originate?
The primary sources were: Darwinian biology and evolutionary theory;
Social Darwinism, the evangelistic dissemination of Darwinism; and a
pseudo-science called "eugenics." In the first several decades of the
twentieth century, eugenics was considered by many as humanity's best
hope for the future. It played the role now played by "genetic
engineering." It was applied Darwinism. The following outlines,
briefly, the nature of these related sources:
Today, our orthodox theory of biology and evolution is
"neo-Darwinism." Neo-Darwinism combines what is called "classical
Darwinism" with modern genetics. Classical Darwinism dates from 1859,
the year in which English naturalist Charles Darwin published On the
Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, subtitled (note
carefully) The Preservation of the Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life. Despite the fact key premises underlying Darwin's theory were
unproven scientifically, the theory was embraced by numerous
scientists and intellectuals as if it was gospel -- the Gospel of
Science. In a relatively short time, the Origin replaced the Bible as
western civilization's preferred authoritative text on the subject of
the nature of life on Earth. In 1871, Darwin published the even more
controversial The Descent of Man.
The major premises of Darwinism may be summarized as follows:
(1) The first premise, the concept of the evolutionary transformation
of one species into others, was derived from the "Transformism" of
Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who founded evolutionary science in 1809 with
the publication of Philosophie Zoologique. In his History of Creation
(1873), evolutionist Ernst Haeckel writes, "To him [Lamarck] will
always belong the immortal glory of having for the first time worked
out the Theory of Descent, as an independent scientific theory of the
first order, and as the philosophical foundation for the whole science
of Biology." Indeed, the very term "biology" was coined by Lamarck.
Darwin became acquainted with the work of Lamarck through his friend
and mentor, the eminent geologist Charles Lyell. Volume II of Lyell's
Principles of Geology, which contains a long exposition of the Lamarck
theory, was received by Darwin in South America in 1832, in the first
of his five years engagement as ship's naturalist on the H.M.S.
Beagle.
(2) The second premise of Darwin's theory is that "natural selection"
is the cause of divergence in species, i.e., the origin of species.
The first published mention of the idea of Nature-as-selector is in
Rousseau's "Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality
Among Men" (1755). In a discussion of the conditions of life in
ancient Sparta, Rousseau writes, "Nature used them precisely as did
the law of Sparta the children of her citizens. She rendered strong
and robust those with a good constitution and destroyed all the
others."
A more immediate source was the evolutionary theory of English
naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace, who committed to paper a theory of
evolution by natural selection prior to the completion of Darwin's
work. In June of 1858, Wallace submitted to Darwin an unpublished work
titled "On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the
Original Type." Shortly thereafter, Darwin wrote to Lyell, "Your words
have come true with a vengeance -- that I should be [could be]
forestalled. You said this when I explained to you here very briefly
my view on Natural Selection depending on the struggle for existence.
I never saw a more striking coincidence; if Wallace had my M.S.
written out in 1842, he could not have made a better short abstract!
Even his terms now stand as heads of my chapters . . . . "
Had Wallace simply published his manuscript, he would have had
priority with regard to the concept of evolution by natural selection.
Instead, priority went to Darwin. The questionable means by which
priority was conferred on Darwin are discussed in a fascinating book
by Arnold Brackman titled A Delicate Arrangement. Darwin's
understanding of natural selection derived from his work with
breeding. The breeding of plants and animals Darwin called "artificial
selection;" the breeding that occurs in "the wild" he called "natural
selection." Early in the Origin, Darwin defines natural selection in
these (anthropomorphic) terms: "Natural selection is daily and hourly
scrutinizing . . . . every variation, even the slightest; rejecting
that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently
and insensibly working . . . . at the improvement of each organic
being . . . ." In effect, Darwinism replaces the traditional belief
that order in nature is the result of a divine presence (God) with the
idea it is the result of a natural presence (Natural Selection).
(3) The third premise in Darwinism is that the drive behind evolution
is the sexual-reproductive instinct. Given the tremendous influence of
this drive, life is an incessant struggle for existence:
"A struggle for existence inevitably follows from the high rate at
which all organic beings tend to increase. Every being . . . must
suffer destruction . . . otherwise, on the principle of geometrical
increase, its numbers would quickly become so inordinately great that
no country could support the product. Hence, as more individuals are
produced than can possibly survive, there must in every case be a
struggle for existence, either one individual with another of the same
species, or with the individuals of distinct species, or with the
physical conditions of life. . . ." The basic premise ("the high rate
at which all organic beings tend to increase") and the "principle of
geometrical increase" are, as Darwin indicates, "the doctrine of
Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable
kingdom. . . . "
The Malthus in question is the Rev. Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834),
famous "pessimist" and author of one of the most influential essays in
modern times -- the "Principle of Population" (1798). In this essay,
Malthus argues that because "all animated life [tends] to increase
beyond the nourishment prepared for it," there can never be real
progress or happiness for mankind. Give man a little more bread than
usual, he'll breed more than usual, wiping out his little gains.
Populations increase by geometrical progression, Malthus asserted,
while the means of subsistence increase by only mathematic
progression. Thus man is doomed to procreate himself into destitution.
Malthus, one of the founders of the "dismal science" of economics,
painted visions of a future filled, inescapably, with starving and
diseased multitudes.
Before Malthus and his nightmarish visions, the rulers of Europe
looked upon large populations as assets; after the "Principle of
Population," they began to view the same populations as liabilities,
potentially disastrous liabilities. The revolution in America and the
abortive revolution in France had made it very clear that masses can
be lethal to the ruling classes, and Malthus provided just the
perspective the rulers of Europe were looking for. The masses are
totally unprincipled. Populations must be strictly controlled. In
1789, the first year of the French Revolution, the European country
with the largest population was France. The statistics were on the
wall, and the rulers of Europe were not slow in reading them.
In the opening half of the nineteenth century, throughout Europe,
members of the ruling classes gathered to discuss the newly discovered
"Population problem" and to devise ways of implementing the Malthusian
mandate, to increase the mortality rate of the poor: "Instead of
recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary
habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more
people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the
country we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and
particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome
situations," and so forth and so on.
The Reverend Malthus, who took the understandable precaution of
publishing his "Population" essay anonymously (in 1798), is the
prototype of the Nazi-style social theorist. "Malthusianism," as it
was called, found adherents throughout Europe, but few of these dared
to express their opinions outside the private chambers of fellow
believers. By the end of the century, however, the Malthusians were
out of the closet.
In Germany, "racial scientists" openly advocated the killing of
unwanted members and segments of the population. One of these
scientists, Adolf Jost, "issued an early call for direct medical
killing in a book published in 1895 . . . The Right To Death (Das
Recht auf den Tod)." Jost argued that for the sake of the health of
the social organism, the state must take responsibility for the death
of individuals. Adolf Jost was a mentor to Adolf Hitler, who agreed
100 percent. "The state must see to it that only the healthy beget
children," Hitler said. "The state must act as the guardian of a
millennial future. . . . It must put the most modern medical means in
the service of this knowledge. It must declare unfit for propagation
all who are in any way visibly sick or who have inherited a disease
and can therefore pass it on."
Between the first decade of the nineteenth century and the last, what
was it that occurred that made Malthusianism "respectable?" Darwinism.
Specifically: Darwin's adoption of the "Malthus doctrine" as his third
premise. In the third premise is a foundation of the Third Reich. In
effect, if not intent, Darwinism is Malthusianism, re-presented in the
guise of true science. Under the banner of Darwinism, "The Only True &
Sacred Biology & Evolution," the Malthusians and their masters were
able to wreak havoc in our civilization. Among their legacies are the
ravages of the imperialists in the late nineteenth century, the lethal
socialisms that have plagued our century, the world wars, holocaust
after holocaust, and very possibly one or more of the serious diseases
which now afflict humanity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Palo Alto, early 1994, I attended a lecture on evolution by a
distinguished Stanford professor. The professor began his lecture with
the bald statement, "Today, the science of evolution is synonymous
with Darwinism." The professor paused, smiled. There were no
challenges from the audience, and so he continued, repeating the
"truisms" of Darwinism, truisms that are not true but only seem so
because they've been repeated so often. Unlike any other scientific
theory I know of, Darwinism has survived refutation after refutation.
In 1971, Norman Macbeth, a Harvard-trained lawyer who made the study
of Darwinian theory his avocation for many years, published quite a
good critique of Darwinism -- Darwin Retried. One of Macbeth's major
concluding points, which is well documented, is that most Darwinists
have little confidence in their own theory. The eminent Karl Popper
calls the book "an excellent and fair, though unsympathetic retrial of
Darwin." (What "sympathy" has to do with science I do not know.) It is
1995, almost twenty-five years later. Darwinism is still our orthodox
biology.
In 1986, Australian scientist Michael Denton published Evolution: A
Theory in Crisis, a thoroughgoing critique of Darwinism which
concludes that the much-celebrated theory is "the great cosmogenic
myth of the twentieth century." "One might have expected," Denton
writes, "that a theory of such cardinal importance, a theory that
literally changed the world, would have been something more than
metaphysics, something more than a myth." Practically in the same
breath, Denton remarks that "Darwinism remains . . the only truly
scientific theory of evolution."
Denton's confusion is understandable. It is difficult to believe that
a theory with so little merit could have become so profoundly
entrenched in our science -- and in the conventional wisdom. Isn't
science supposed to free us from myth? Darwinism may remain the teflon
orthodoxy for another twenty-five years. That should not dissuade us
from the vital work of critique. So far, we've analyzed Darwinism into
its three basic premises. How valid (strong) are those premises?
(1) The strength of Darwinism is in the first premise, the Lamarckian
premise of the evolutionary transformation of one species into others.
Lacking sufficient data, Lamarck viewed the evolutionary line as
strictly linear. Species A produces B, B produces C, C produces D, and
so on. In 1855, Alfred Wallace re-articulated the premise,
arguing that the evolutionary line may be branched, i.e., Species A
may produce C as well as B, B may produce D, E and F, etc. Further,
Wallace argued, evolutionary steps are not necessarily "progressive"
(more and more perfect), as Lamarck had maintained.
The Wallace articulation came to be known as "the Sarawak Law." Every
species has come into existence coincident both in time and space with
a pre-existing closely allied species. The long and short of it is:
When the Lamarck-Wallace premise fell into Darwin's hands, it was in
good shape scientifically. It was, and is, a valid premise, supported
by much evidence.
(2) Darwin's second premise, that natural selection is the cause of
divergence in species, is what is called an "empty generalization." It
sounds good, but it tells us nothing. If I were to tell you that the
cause of divergence in species was the "environment," would you find
that an adequate explanation? No, of course not. "You must be more
specific," you would say. "What is it, specifically, in the
environment that causes divergence?" "Natural selection" is no more
specific than "environment."
It is not difficult to understand why so many scientists have accepted
the premise of natural selection uncritically. It does seem to be an
explanation more in the scientific direction than "Zeus," for
instance, of "Jehova." Nevertheless, natural selection is simply a
"false scent" that takes us nowhere, except deeper and deeper into the
woods. Darwin himself was uneasy with the term. In the sixth and last
edition of the Origin, he says that survival of the fittest is a "more
accurate" expression of what he had previously called natural
selection. Interestingly, the phrase "survival of the fittest" was
coined not by Darwin, but by philosopher-evolutionist Herbert Spencer
some seven or eight years before the publication of the Origin. By
1872, the phrase had become the common catchword (slogan) for
Darwinism. Darwin laid claim to it ("selected" it, we should say),
preferring it over the meaningless natural selection.
Further, the concept of natural selection was tied too closely to
Alfred Wallace, the talented young evolutionist who had been totally
eclipsed by Darwin. (When the famous theory of evolution was first
presented, it was called the "Darwin-Wallace" theory. A correct title
would have been the "Wallace-Darwin" theory.) The phrase "survival of
the fittest" was the product of one of Darwin's most ardent apostles.
Mr. Spencer was quite delighted Darwin adopted the phrase.
(3) Darwin's third premise -- the so-called "Malthus doctrine" -- has
no scientific validity, and it never did. In the modern jargon of
critique, we would call the Malthus doctrine an example of "reductive,
or simplistic, sexual determinism." (Sigmund Freud is whipped
routinely by contemporary commentators for having fallen into the trap
of sexual determinism.) The idea that "all animated life" is governed
exclusively by the sexual-reproductive drive was suggested to Malthus
by early eighteenth century reports regarding goats that had been
released by buccaneers on certain of the Galapagos islands circa the
1670s. The reports indicated that the goats had multiplied to the
point that scarcely a bit of vegetation was left.
Malthus read the reports and concluded that human beings, if left to
their own devices, would do the same thing. They would reproduce
themselves right out of house and home, to the point the entire
population would be left without a can of beans. This conclusion is
the pseudo-scientific basis of the "Malthus doctrine" that Darwin so
enthusiastically embraced, and amplified -- by his declaration that it
"applied . . . to the whole animal and vegetable kingdom."
Any form of reductive determinism is the intellectual equivalent of a
tar pit. Malthus was trapped in his own tar. In later life, he
endeavored to correct the erroneous doctrine, but by then, it was too
late. The doctrine had become a part of our common stock of "true
ideas about the way things are." Thus it is that Darwin writes with
such certainty, that "There is no exception to the rule, that every
organic being naturally increases at so high a rate, that if not
destroyed [Italics mine], the earth would soon be covered by the
progeny of a single pair . . . ."
"Even slow-breeding man has doubled in twenty-five years," Darwin
continues, "and at this rate, in a few thousand years, there would
literally not be standing room for his progeny." This "Malthus-Darwin
doctrine," let us call it, was the basis for much hysteria in the
ruling classes of the last century. The Malthus-Darwin doctrine
clearly suggested that the human population of the planet had become a
problem. "If not destroyed," to use Darwin's phrase, this population
would soon leave the planet as barren as the goat-infested Galapagos
islands. The Malthus-Darwin doctrine had no scientific basis
whatsoever; it was based on the erroneous reasoning of Malthus. Darwin
should have known better. Perhaps he did. Whatever the case, the
doctrine was a big hit with the rulers of the last century, a strong
incitement -- sanctioned by science -- to over-run the planet before
others did so.
Suddenly, the nations of Europe found themselves with "surplus
populations." The Age of Imperialism was born, as nation after nation
entered the race to acquire foreign lands and foreign countries, not
because of greed, but because of national survival. The nations that
would survive into the future would be those in possession of vast
tracts of land for the dumping of surplus population. In a very short
time, all of Africa was carved up by the European nations. Aboriginal
peoples of that continent who objected to slavery were slaughtered.
Many great tribes -- tribes that for thousands of years had existed in
balance with their environment -- were eradicated in the "African
Holocaust."
Imperialistic competition for "empire" (i.e., colonies throughout the
world) was probably the principal reason for World War I. In 1901,
Arthur Dix, the editor of two Berlin journals, writes, "A timorous
people, which knows not how to use its elbows, may of course put a
stop to the increase in its population -- it might find things too
narrow at home. The superfluity of population might find no economic
existence. A people happy in its future, however, knows nothing of an
artificial limitation; its only care can be to find room on the globe
for a livelihood for other members of its own race."
In Britain as Germany's Vassal (1912), German Social Darwinist (and
retired general) F. Von Bernhardi writes, "In the interest of the
world's civilization it is our duty to enlarge Germany's colonial
empire. Thus alone can we politically, or at least nationally, unite
the Germans throughout the world, for only then will they recognize
that German civilization is the most necessary factor in human
progress. We must endeavor to acquire new territories throughout the
world by all means in our power, because we must preserve to Germany
the millions of Germans who will be born in the future, and we must
provide for them food and employment. They ought to be enabled to live
under a German sky, and to lead a German life." Given such attitudes
-- not only in Germany, but throughout Europe -- war became
inevitable. It was inevitable for another reason as well:
War was viewed by Bernhardi and his many Social Darwinist colleagues
in Europe as "an indispensable regulator" of populations. "If it were
not for war," Bernhardi writes, "we should probably find that inferior
and degenerate races would overcome healthy and youthful ones by their
wealth and their numbers. The generative importance of war lies in
this, that it causes selection, and thus war becomes a biological
necessity."
The German word for "colonies around the world in which to dump
surplus populations" was "Lebensraum" -- living space. For the
Germans, the loss of the First World War meant, among other dire
things, the loss of their lebensraum. The punitive reparations
demanded by the victors was a serious matter; far more serious was the
fact that Germany was physically contracted and stripped of her
colonies. This contraction of Germany was, from the point of view of
the Darwinists in that country, a death sentence. With the
empire-building option blocked (momentarily at least), German social
planners began to focus more exclusively on internal options for
guaranteeing the survival of the German race.
In 1923, Fritz Lenz, a Germany physician-geneticist who became a
leading ideologue in the Nazi racial purification program, complained
bitterly that Germany under the Weimar Constitution was falling far
behind America in the all-important field of eugenics, the science of
improving the race by means of "selection" of degenerate individuals
and groups for sterilization: "Lenz complained that provisions in the
Weimar Constitution (prohibiting the infliction of bodily alterations
on human beings) prevented widespread use of vasectomy techniques;
that Germany had nothing to match the eugenics research institutions
in England and the United States (for instance, that at Cold Spring
Harbor, New York, led by Charles B. Davenport and funded by the
Carnegie Institution in Washington and by Mary Harriman)." Mary
Harriman was the widow of the railroad tycoon E. H. Harriman. Both E.
H. Harriman and Andrew Carnegie had been great admirers of Herbert
Spencer, who was the chief conduit in America for Darwinian dogma.
In historical context, "eugenics" may be defined as applied Darwinism.
The founder of eugenics is Francis Galton, a cousin of Darwin's and
the author of several highly influential books on heredity, including
Hereditary Genius (1869), Inquiries into Human Faculties (1883), and
National Inheritance (1889). Not long after Galton published the
last-named book, a group of so-called "racial scientists" became quite
active in Germany. (Also influential in the formation of the group was
German Social Darwinist Ernst Haeckel, who declared that the various
races may be defined as separate species.) One of these scientists was
Adolf Jost, previously cited as the author of The Right to Death
(1895). The main thesis of this book is that the final solution to the
population problem is state control over human reproduction. The book
is couched in the rhetoric of (Darwinian) natural rights. The state
has a natural right and a sacred responsibility to kill individuals in
order to keep the nation, the social organism, alive and healthy.
Later advocates of state-medical killing, such as law professor Karl
Binding of the University of Leipzig and Alfred Hoche, professor of
psychiatry at the University of Freiburg, would stress the therapeutic
value of destroying "life unworthy of life." The destruction of such
life is "purely a healing treatment." Between the world wars,
sterilization became the most preferred tool for the control of
population. The fact the Weimar Constitution did not allow
sterilization was no small matter; Social Darwinistic scientists and
their followers saw it as a dire threat to the nation. "If the power
to fight for one's own health is no longer present," Hitler wrote,
"the right to live in this world of struggle ends."
To understand why sterilization was such an important issue for the
Social Darwinists, we need not look far. "In civilized man," Ernst
Mayr (America's dean of Darwinism) writes, "the two components of
selective value, adaptive superiority and reproductive success, no
longer coincide. The individuals with above-average genetic endowments
do not necessarily make an above-average contribution to the gene pool
of the next generation." Indeed, Mayr continues, "shiftless,
improvident individuals who have a child every year are certain to add
more genes to the gene pool of the next generation than those who
carefully plan the size of their families. Natural selection has no
answer to this predicament. [Italics mine} The separation [in] the
modern society of mere reproductive success from genuine adaptedness
poses a serious problem for man's future."
In other words: When humans are in the state of nature, their numbers
(and their quality as biological organisms) are effectively controlled
by natural selection. In the struggle for existence, the fittest
usually win, and the weakest usually lose. The winners get to pass on
their winning genes; the losers get to skulk away and die. When man
becomes "civilized," however, the game changes. The weak are no longer
destroyed. Indeed, the weak are protected by unnatural do-gooder
religions and philosophies. They are given advantages they have not
earned. They have nothing to do in life but reproduce, and reproduce
they do -- "a child every year," according to Mayr. While those who
are unworthy of life proliferate right and left, the genuinely
superior find themselves more and more restricted, more and more
disadvantaged in the evolutionary struggle.
Thus it is Mayr issues his dark prognosis . . . this situation "poses
a serious problem for man's future." Mayr's view is essentially a
contemporary re-statement of the old eugenics propaganda. When Hitler
and his Nazis commenced their programs of sterilization and
extermination, they were operating on the firm conviction that for the
sake of the German people and the future of man, National Socialism
must take over where Natural Selection left off. In Darwinism -- both
classical and neo-Darwinism -- natural selection is the only ordering
principle in nature. If the principle of natural selection is thwarted
by misguided man, what is the inevitable result? Disorder, degeneracy,
and destruction.
In a great many ways, the Nazi movement was a crusade against what
they perceived as degeneracy, a crusade in the name of the new god . .
.. Science. The legacy of the Malthus-Darwin doctrine is sad indeed.
The mandate it gave our rulers was, "Control population and progress .
.. . or perish." From this mandate arose two political strategies that
were to make the twentieth century the most cruel and barbaric on
record. One of these strategies was strictly Malthusian: "Do nothing
for the masses except that which accelerates their destruction." This
was called "laissez-faire" . . . don't interfere. The other strategy
saw in totalitarianism, the complete control of society by the state,
the only satisfactory answer to the population problem. Most of the
"socialisms" of our century fall in this category.
This article Copyright © 2003 by by Theodore D. Hall, Ph.D..
According to the author, the text on this page may be freely
reproduced and distributed.
http://www.totse.com/en/fringe/fringe_science/thescientificb168788.html
.
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin, The Father Of Holocaust |
20 Nov 2004 05:33:37 PM |
|
|
Auschwitz was occupied by the Communists on January 27,1945. They
made reports about what they claim to have found. These initial
reports had not yet been adapted to allied propaganda. The reports
were published on February 1 and 2, 1945 in the Soviet propaganda
organ Pravda. Here are some things it said:
"the Germans in Auschwitz began to remove the traces of their
crimes"
"They leveled the burial grounds."
"They removed and destroyed all traces of the electric conveyer
system, where hundreds of people at one time were electrocuted."
"The stationary gas chambers in the east side of the camp were
remodeled."
"This huge death mill was equipped with the latest style of fascist
technology..."
The Communists did not even claim to have seen any killing
machines or rooms. Supposedly it was all destroyed or remodelled. The
did not allow the other allies to enter the camp, and they did not
supply any pictures or blueprints or any physical evidence.
Nevertheless, the United Press correspondent, Henry Shapiro,
obediantly echoed the Soviets story.
The Soviets said that the Auschwitz complex was entirely a "murder
machine". There was not a single word to indicate that the camp was
part of the German armament industies, as we now know it clearly was.
Even if the Germans had "leveled" the alleged huge grave pits the
bodies would still be present. However anyone familiar with the matter
knows that in Auschwitz no large grave sites were ever found.
The Communists did not allow any inspection of the camps by foreign
observers for many months afterwards and their claims conflict with
what "holocaust experts" say today. Today the experts all talk of gas
chambers is Birkenau, a part of the camp far to the west. This is much
different from where the Communists initially claimed that they were.
The Communists said the gas chambers were "remodelled", while today
the experts say the gas chambers were completely destroyed. The
Communists said the gas chambers were made to look like "harmless
garages". But they did not supply a single photo of one.
The initial Communist reports also do not mention things that are
now claimed to have been there. There is no mention of a pile of
eyeglasses, or hair, or shoes. There is no mention of underground gas
chambers. There is no mention of "farmhouses" remodelled to be gas
chambers. There is no mention of the rivers clogged with human ashes.
Today the experts are forced to admit that there were no gas
chambers in Germany. We are now told that "gassing" and
"extermination" camps were located exclusively in what is
now Poland, in areas captured by the Soviet Red Army and made
off-limits to
western investigators.
Today tourists can go to Auschwitz and be shown a "gas chamber".
This is admitted by the experts not to be genuine.
Brian Harmon <harmon@msg.ucsf.edu> wrote in article
<080620000051136373%harmon@msg.ucsf.edu>...
"You're confusing Krema I with Kremas II-V. Krema I is a
reconstruction, this has never been a secret. Kremas II-V
are in their demolished state as they were left."
Charles Don Hall <cdhall-nospam@erols.com> wrote in article
<8F4CB71B7NukuNuku@news.erols.com>...
"Certainly not! The word "fake" implies a deliberate attempt to
deceive.
"The staff of the Auschwitz museum will readily explain that the Nazis
tried to destroy the gas chambers in a futile attempt to conceal their
crimes. And they'll tell you that reconstruction was done later on. So
it
would be dishonest for me to call it a "fake". I'll cheerfully admit
that
it's a "reconstruction" if that makes you happy."
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mani Deli" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin, The Father Of Holocaust |
20 Nov 2004 07:40:04 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 17:33:37 -0600, Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Today tourists can go to Auschwitz and be shown a "gas chamber".
This is admitted by the experts not to be genuine.
check out http://history1900s.about.com/cs/auschwitz/
Decide for yourself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Darwin, The Father Of Holocaust |
21 Nov 2004 05:13:19 PM |
|
|
I rarely click on opponants links. If they have a point they ought to
put it in their post.
Gas chamber fraud
Major French magazine acknowledges Auschwitz gas chamber fraud
One of France's most influential and reputable magazines, L'Express,
now acknowledges that "everything is false" about the Auschwitz "gas
chamber" that for decades has been shown to tens of thousands of
tourists yearly.
"Auschwitz: The Memory of Evil," a lengthy article by journalist and
historian Eric Conan, a dedicated anti-revisionist, appears in the
January 19-25, 1995, issue, pages 54-73 (and in the Jan. 26
international edition). L'Express is a liberal large-circulation
weekly news magazine, similar in format to Time or Newsweek.
L'Express also reports that, after a five-year battle among the
"experts," Polish president Lech Walesa has decided that the new,
revised number of dead to be inscribed on the Birkenau monument will
be 1,500,000. (For years the monument proclaimed 4,000,000 Auschwitz
deaths.)
Generally speaking, writes Conan, there have been many obvious
falsifications in the Auschwitz and Birkenau camp sites. Stefan
Wilkanowicz, vice-president of the International Committee of the
Polish government's Auschwitz State Museum (and director of an
influential Polish Catholic periodical), says:
The biggest blunders have been rectified but the principal
discussions
are never-ending and far from being settled. I can even say that
essential debates, distressing, sometimes unexpected, are only
beginning.
About the famous "gas chamber" in the Auschwitz I camp, Conan writes:
In 1948, when the Museum was created, Crematory I was reconstructed
in
a supposed original state. Everything in it is false [Tout y est
faux]: the dimensions of the gas chamber, the locations of the doors,
the openings for pouring in Zyklon B, the ovens (rebuilt according to
the recollections of some survivors), the height of the chimney. At
the end of the 70s, Robert Faurisson exploited those falsifications
all the better because at that time the Museum officials balked at
admitting them. An American revisionist [David Cole] has just shot a
video in the gas chamber (still presented as authentic): one may see
him questioning the visitors with his "revelations" [Emphasis added.]
In spite of this, Conan goes on to report, there are no plans to
alter
anything there. With regard to the famous "gas chamber," a staff
member of the Museum directors' office, Krystyna Oleksy, says: "For
the time being we are going to leave it in the present state, and not
give any specifics to the visitors. It is too complicated. We'll see
later on."
Victory for Revisionism
This feature article in a leading French magazine is a great victory
for Holocaust revisionism. On a key point, L'Express now
acknowledges,
the revisionists have been right all along.
In fact, the magazine concedes a point that revisionists have been
legally penalized for making. Dr. Robert Faurisson, Europe's foremost
revisionist scholar, was heavily fined after repeating it on numerous
occasions during his "thought crime" trials in France. (Will the
French government now prosecute L'Express magazine and journalist
Conan for their revisionist Holocaust views?)
In May 1992 a German court fined David Irving 10,000 marks (about
$6,000) for publicly saying what L'Express now openly admits. (See:
"Irving Fined $6,000 in German 'Gas Chamber' Trial," IHR Newsletter,
July-Aug. 1992, pp. 3-4.)
The court punished the British historian because he had told a Munich
meeting in April 1990 that the structure in Auschwitz that has been
portrayed for decades to tourists as an extermination gas chamber is
a
phony reconstruction ("Attrappe"), just like the one at Dachau.
Irving was found guilty of thus "disparaging the memory of the dead,"
a crime in Germany that effectively applies only to Jewish victims.
In
the case the Judge refused to consider any of the evidence presented
by Irving's attorneys, including a plea to permit Dr. Franciszek
Piper, Senior Curator and archives director of the Auschwitz State
Musueum, to testify in the case.
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin, The Father Of Holocaust |
21 Nov 2004 09:24:05 PM |
|
|
In article <r582q05c4v8hcvg875bmuf0ch3ho6ubev9@4ax.com>,
Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote:
I rarely click on opponants links. If they have a point they ought to
put it in their post.
Since Topaz has no point, it is a shame that he puts so much garbage in
his posts instead of leaving all that garbage in a link.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin, The Father Of Holocaust |
21 Nov 2004 01:24:32 PM |
|
|
Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<q0lvp01eh9c2n5f661o3qk14as3m1t7304@4ax.com>
US forces liberated Buchenwald, Dora-Mittelbau, Flossenbuerg, Dachau,
and Mauthausen. British forces liberated camps in northern Germany
including Neuengamme and Bergen-Belsen. They found the same kinds of
things the Soviets reported. Period.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Darwin, The Father Of Holocaust |
21 Nov 2004 05:16:08 PM |
|
|
On 21 Nov 2004 11:24:32 -0800, (Budikka) wrote:
Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<q0lvp01eh9c2n5f661o3qk14as3m1t7304@4ax.com>
US forces liberated Buchenwald, Dora-Mittelbau, Flossenbuerg, Dachau,
and Mauthausen. British forces liberated camps in northern Germany
including Neuengamme and Bergen-Belsen. They found the same kinds of
things the Soviets reported. Period.
by Theodore J. O'Keefe
Nothing has been more effective in establishing the authenticity of
the Holocaust
story in the minds of Americans than the terrible scenes US troops
discovered
when they entered German concentration camps at the close of World War
II.
At Dachau, Buchenwald, Dora, Mauthausen, and other work and detention
camps, horrified US infantrymen encountered heaps of dead and dying
inmates,
emaciated and diseased. Survivors told them hair-raising stories of
torture and
slaughter, and backed up their claims by showing the GIs crematory
ovens, alleged
execution gas chambers, supposed implements of torture, and even
shrunken
heads and lampshades, gloves, and handbags purportedly made from skin
flayed
from dead inmates.
US government authorities, mindful that many Americans who remembered
the
atrocity stories fed them during World War I still doubted the Allied
propaganda
directed against the Hitler regime, resolved to "document" what the
GIs had found
in the camps. Prominent newsmen and politicians were flown in to see
the harrowing
evidence, while the US Army Signal Corps filmed and photographed the
scenes
for posterity. Famous journalist Edward R. Murrow reported, in tones
of horror,
but no longer of disbelief, what he had been told and shown, and
Dachau and
Buchenwald were branded on the hearts and minds of the American
populace as
names of infamy unmatched in the sad and bloody history of this
planet.
For Americans, what was "discovered" at the camps -- the dead and the
diseased,
the terrible stories of the inmates, all the props of torture and
terror -- became the
basis not simply of a transitory propaganda campaign but of the
conviction that,
yes, it was true: the Germans did exterminate six million Jews, most
of them in
lethal gas chambers.
What the GIs found was used, by way of films that were mandatory
viewing for
the vanquished populace of Germany, to "re-educate" the German people
by
destroying their national pride and their will to a united,
independent national state,
imposing in their place overwhelming feelings of collective guilt and
political
impotence. And when the testimony, and the verdict, of the Nuremberg
Tribunal
incorporated most, if not all, of the horror stories Americans were
told about
Dachau, Buchenwald, and other places captured by the US Army, the
Holocaust
could pass for one of the most documented, one of the most
authenticated, one of
the most proven historical episodes in the human record.
A Different Reality
But it is known today that, very soon after the liberation of the
camps, American
authorities were aware that the real story of the camps was quite
different from the
one in which they were coaching military public information
officers, government
spokesmen, politicians, journalists, and other mouthpieces.
When American and British forces overran western and central Germany
in the
spring of 1945, they were followed by troops charged with
discovering and
securing any evidence of German war crimes.
Among them was Dr. Charles Larson, one of America's leading forensic
pathologists, who was assigned to the US Army's Judge Advocate
General's
Department. As part of a US War Crimes Investigation Team, Dr. Larson
performed autopsies at Dachau and some twenty other German camps,
examining
on some days more than 100 corpses. After his grim work at Dachau, he
was
questioned for three days by US Army prosecutors.
Dr. Larson's findings? In an 1980 newspaper interview he said: "What
we've
heard is that six million Jews were exterminated.Part of that is a
hoax." And what
part was the hoax? Dr. Larson, who told his biographer that to his
knowledge he
"was the only forensic pathologist on duty in the entire European
Theater" of Allied
military operations, confirmed that "never was a case of poison gas
uncovered."
Typhus, Not Poison Gas
If not by gassing, how did the unfortunate victims at Dachau,
Buchenwald and
Bergen-Belsen perish? Were they tortured to death or deliberately
starved? The
answers to these questions are known as well.
As Dr. Larson and other Allied medical men discovered, the chief
cause of death
at Dachau, Belsen and the other camps was disease, above all typhus,
an old and
terrible scourge of mankind that until recently flourished in places
where
populations were crowded together in circumstances where public health
measures
were unknown or had broken down. Such was the case in the overcrowded
internment camps in Germany at war's end, where, despite such measures
as
systematic delousing, quarantine of the sick and cremation of the
dead, the virtual
collapse of Germany's food, transport, and public health systems led
to
catastrophe.
Perhaps the most authoritative statement of the facts as to typhus and
mortality in
the camps has been made by Dr. John E. Gordon, M.D., Ph.D., a
professor of
preventive medicine and epidemiology at the Harvard University School
of Public
Health, who was with US forces in Germany in 1945. Dr. Gordon
reported in
1948 that "The outbreaks in concentration camps and prisons made up
the great
bulk of typhus infection encountered in Germany." Dr. Gordon
summarized the
causes for the outbreaks as follows:
Germany in the spring months of April and May [1945] was an
astounding sight, a
mixture of humanity travelling this way and that, homeless, often
hungry and
carrying typhus with them ...Germany was in chaos. The destruction of
whole cities
and the path left by advancing armies produced a disruption of living
conditions
contributing to the spread of the disease. Sanitation was low grade,
public utilities
were seriously disrupted, food supply and food distribution was poor,
housing was
inadequate and order and discipline were everywhere lacking. Still
more
important, a shifting of populations was occurring such as few
countries and few
times have experienced.
Dr. Gordon's findings are corroborated by Dr. Russell Barton, today a
psychiatrist
of international repute, who entered Bergen-Belsen with British forces
as a young
medical student in 1945. Barton, who volunteered to care for the
diseased
survivors, testified under sworn oath in a Toronto courtroom in 1985
that
"Thousands of prisoners who died at the Bergen-Belsen concentration
camp
during World War II weren't deliberately starved to death but died
from a rash of
diseases."
Dr. Barton further testified that on entering the camp he had credited
stories of
deliberate starvation but decided such stories were untrue after
inspecting the well
equipped kitchens and the meticulously maintained ledgers, dating back
to 1942,
of food cooked and dispensed each day.
Despite noisily publicized claims and widespread popular notions to
the contrary,
no researcher has been able to document a German policy of
extermination
through starvation in the German camps.
No 'Human Skin' Lampshades
What of the ghoulish stories of concentration camp inmates skinned for
their
tattoos, flayed to make lampshades and handbags, or other artifacts?
What of the
innumerable "torture racks," "meathooks," whipping posts, gallows, and
other tools
of torment and death that are reported to have abounded at every
German camp?
These allegations, and even more grotesque ones proffered by Soviet
prosecutors,
found their way into the record at Nuremberg.
The lampshade and tattooed-skin charges were made against Ilse Koch,
dubbed
by journalists the "***** of Buchenwald," who was reported to have
furnished her
house with objects manufactured from the tanned hides of luckless
inmates.
But General Lucius Clay, military governor of the US zone of occupied
Germany,
who reviewed her case in 1948, told his superiors in Washington:
"There is no
convincing evidence that she [Ilse Koch] selected inmates for
extermination in
order to secure tattooed skins or that she possessed any articles made
of human
skin." In an interview General Clay gave years later, he stated about
the material
for the infamous lampshades: "Well, it turned out actually that it was
goat flesh. But
at the trial it was still human flesh. It was almost impossible for
her to have gotten a
fair trial." Ilse Koch hanged herself in a German jail in 1967.
It would be tedious to itemize and refute the thousands of bizarre
claims as to Nazi
atrocities. That there were instances of German cruelty, however, is
clear from the
testimony of Dr. Konrad Morgen, a legal investigator attached to the
Reich
Criminal Police, whose statements on the witness stand at Nuremberg
have never
been challenged by proponents of the Jewish Holocaust story. Dr.
Morgen
informed the court that he had been given full authority by Heinrich
Himmler,
commander of Hitler's SS and the dread Gestapo, to enter any German
concentration camp and investigate instances of cruelty and
corruption on the part of camp personnel.
As he explained in sworn testimony at Nuremberg, Dr. Morgen
investigated 800
such cases, resulting in more than 200 convictions. Punishments
included the death
penalty for the worst offenders, including Hermann Florstedt,
commandant of
Lublin (Majdanek), and Karl Koch (Ilse's husband), commandant of
Buchenwald.
While German camp commandants in certain cases did inflict physical
punishment,
such acts had to be approved by authorities in Berlin, and it was
required that a
camp physician first certify the good health of the prisoner to be
disciplined, and
then be on hand at the actual beating. After all, throughout most of
the war the
camps were important centers of industrial activity. The good health
and morale of
the prisoners was critical to the German war effort, as is evidenced
in a January
1943 order issued
by SS General Richard Glücks, chief of the office that supervised the
concentration camps. It held the camp commanders "personally
responsible for
exhausting every possibility to preserve the physical strength of the
detainees."
Camp Survivors: Merely Victims?
US Army investigators, working at Buchenwald and other camps, quickly
ascertained what was common knowledge among veteran inmates: that the
worst
offenders, the cruelest denizens of the camps, were not the guards but
the
prisoners themselves. Common criminals of the same stripe as those who
populate
US prisons today committed many villainies, particularly when they
held positions
of authority, and fanatical Communists, highly organized to combat
their many
political enemies among the
inmates, eliminated their foes with Stalinist ruthlessness.
Two US Army investigators at Buchenwald, Egon W. Fleck and Edward A.
Tenenbaum, carefully investigated circumstances in the camp before its
liberation.
In a detailed report submitted to their superiors, they revealed, in
the words of
Alfred Toombs, their commander, who wrote a preface to the report,
"how the
prisoners themselves organized a deadly terror within the Nazi
terror."
Fleck and Tenenbaum described the power exercised by criminals and
Communists as follows:
The trusties, who in time became almost exclusively Communist
Germans, had the
power of life and death over all other inmates. They could sentence
a man or a
group to almost certain death ... The Communist trusties were
directly responsible
for a large part of the brutalities at Buchenwald.
Colonel Donald B. Robinson, chief historian of the American military
government
in Germany, summarized the Fleck-Tenenbaum report in an article
published in an
American magazine shortly after the war. Colonel Robinson wrote
succinctly of the
American investigators' findings: "It appeared that the prisoners who
agreed with
the Communists ate; those who didn't starved to death."
Additional corroboration of inmate brutality has been provided by
Ellis E.
Spackman, who, as Chief of Counter-Intelligence Arrests and Detentions
for the
US Seventh Army, was involved in the liberation of Dachau. Spackman,
later a
professor of history at San Bernardino Valley College in California,
wrote in 1966
that at Dachau "the prisoners were the actual instruments that
inflicted the
barbarities on their fellow prisoners."
'Gas Chambers'
In December 1944 US Army officers Colonel Paul Kirk and Lt. Colonel
Edward
J. Gully inspected the German concentration camp at
Struthof-Natzweiler in
Alsace. They submitted their findings to their superiors at the
headquarters of the
US 6th Army Group, which subsequently forwarded their report to the US
War
Crimes Division. While, significantly, the full text of their report
has never been
published, it has been revealed, by a historian supportive of
Holocaust claims, that
the two investigators were careful to characterize equipment exhibited
to them by
French informants as a "so-called lethal gas chamber," and to claim it
was
"allegedly used as a lethal gas chamber." (Emphasis added)
Both the careful phraseology of the Natzweiler report, and its
effective
suppression, stand in stark contrast to the credulity, the confusion,
and the blaring
publicity that accompanied official reports of alleged gas chambers at
Dachau. At
first, a US Army photo depicting a GI gazing at a steel door marked
with a skull
and crossbones and the German words for: "Caution! Gas! Mortal danger!
Don't
open!," was identified as showing the murder weapon.
Later, however, it was evidently decided that the apparatus in
question was merely
a standard delousing chamber for clothing, and another alleged gas
chamber, this
one cunningly disguised as a shower room, was exhibited to American
congressmen and journalists as the site where thousands breathed their
last. While
there exist numerous reports in the press as to the operation of this
second "gas
chamber," no official report by trained Army investigators has yet
surfaced to
reconcile such problems as the
function of the shower heads: Were they "dummies," or did lethal
cyanide gas
stream through them? (Each theory has appreciable support in
journalistic and
historiographical literature.)
As with Dachau, so with Buchenwald, Bergen-Belsen, and the other camps
liberated by the Allies in western Germany. There was no end of
propaganda
about "gas chambers," "gas ovens," and the like, but so far not a
single detailed
description of the murder weapon and its function, not a single report
of the kind
that is mandatory for the successful prosecution of any assault or
murder case in
America at that time and today, has come to light.
Furthermore, a number of Holocaust authorities have now publicly
decreed that
there were no gassings, no extermination camps in Germany after all.
(We are now
told that "gassing" and "extermination" camps were located exclusively
in what is
now Poland, in areas captured by the Soviet Red Army and made
off-limits to
western investigators.)
Dr. Martin Broszat of the Munich-based Institute for Contemporary
History,
which is funded by the German government, stated categorically in a
1960 letter to
the German weekly Die Zeit: "Neither in Dachau nor in Bergen-Belsen
nor in
Buchenwald were Jews or other prisoners gassed." Professional "Nazi
hunter"
Simon Wiesenthal stated in 1975 and again in 1993 that "there were no
extermination camps on German soil."
Dachau "gas chamber" No. 2, which was once presented to a stunned and
grieving
world as a weapon that claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, is now
described
in the brochure issued to tourists at the modern Dachau "memorial
site" in these
words: "This gas chamber, camouflaged as a shower room, was not used."
The Propaganda Intensifies
More than 50 years after American troops entered Dachau, Buchenwald
and
other German camps, and trained American investigators established the
facts as
to what had gone on in them, the government in Washington, the
entertainment
media in Hollywood, and the print media in New York continue to churn
out
millions of words and images annually on the horrors of the camps and
the infamy
of the Holocaust. Despite the fact that, with the exception of the
defeated
Confederacy, no enemy of America has ever so suffered so complete and
devastating defeat as did Germany in 1945, the mass media and the
politicians
and bureaucrats behave as if Hitler, his troops, and his concentration
camps
continue to exist in an eternal present, and our opinion makers
continue to distort,
through ignorance or malice, the facts about the camps.
Time for the Truth
It is time that the government and the professional historians reveal
the facts about
Dachau, Buchenwald and the other camps. It is time they let the
American public
know how the inmates died, and how they didn't die. It is time that
the claims of
mass murder by gassing are clarified and investigated in the same
manner as any
other claims of murder. It is time that the free ride certain groups
have enjoyed as
the result of unchallenged Holocaust claims be terminated, just as it
is time to end
the scapegoating of other groups, including Germans, eastern
Europeans, the
Roman Catholic hierarchy, and the wartime
leadership of America and Britain, either for their alleged role in
the Holocaust or
their supposed failure to stop it.
Above all, it is time that the citizens of this great Republic have
the facts about the
camps, facts they have a right to know, a right that is fundamental to
the exercise
of their authority and their will in the governance of their country.
As citizens and
as taxpayers, Americans of all ethnic backgrounds, of all faiths, have
a basic right
and an overriding interest in determining the facts of incidents that
are deemed by
those in positions of power to be significant in determining America's
foreign and
educational policy, as well as its selection of past events to be
memorialized in our
civic life.
Today the alleged facts of the Holocaust are at issue all over the
civilized world.
The truth will be decided only by recourse to the facts, in the public
forum: not by
concealing the facts, denying the truth, stonewalling reality. The
truth will out, and it
is time the government of this country, and governments and
international bodies
throughout the world, make public the evidence of what actually
transpired in the
German concentration camps in the years 1933-1945, so that we may put
paid to
the lies, without fear or favor, and carry out the work of
reconciliation and renewal that is
and must be the granite foundation of mutual tolerance between peoples
and of a
peace based on justice.
Summary
The conclusions of the early US Army investigations as to the truth
about the
wartime German concentration camps have since been corroborated by
all
subsequent investigators and can be summarized:
1.The harrowing scenes of dead and dying inmates were not the result
of a
German policy of "extermination," but rather the result of epidemics
of typhus and
other disease brought about largely by the effects of Allied aerial
attacks.
2.Stories of Nazi supercriminals and sadists who turned Jews and
others into
handbags and lampshades for their private profit or amusement were
sick lies or
diseased fantasies; indeed, the German authorities punished corruption
and cruelty
on the part of camp commanders and guards.
3.On the other hand, portrayals of the newly liberated inmates as
saints and
martyrs of Hitlerism were quite often very far from the truth; indeed,
most of the
brutalities inflicted on camp detainees were the work of their fellow
prisoners, in
contravention of German policy and German orders.
4.The alleged homicidal showers and gas chambers were used either for
bathing
camp inmates or delousing their clothes; the claim that they were used
to murder
Jews or other human beings is a contemptible fabrication. Orthodox
historians and
professional "Nazi-hunters" have quietly dropped claims that inmates
were gassed
at Dachau, Buchenwald and other camps in Germany. They continue,
however, to
keep silent regarding the lies about Dachau and Buchenwald, as well as
to evade
an open discussion of the evidence for homicidal gassing at Auschwitz
and the
other camps captured by the Soviets.
Institute For Historical Review
Post Office Box 2739
Newport Beach, California 92659
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin, The Father Of Holocaust |
21 Nov 2004 09:18:52 PM |
|
|
In article <jc82q0hi7mhvav7atb1ttsg4hni6k1qfeu@4ax.com>,
Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 21 Nov 2004 11:24:32 -0800, (Budikka) wrote:
Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<q0lvp01eh9c2n5f661o3qk14as3m1t7304@4ax.com>
US forces liberated Buchenwald, Dora-Mittelbau, Flossenbuerg, Dachau,
and Mauthausen. British forces liberated camps in northern Germany
including Neuengamme and Bergen-Belsen. They found the same kinds of
things the Soviets reported. Period.
[propaganda snipped]
Institute For Hysterical Review
Post Office Box 2739
Newport Beach, California 92659
Those who would deny history willbe condemned to repeat it.
And one can only hope that it will be those who deny it who will find
themselves in those camps next time. It is alleged to be much harder to
deny the camps from the inside.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Darwin, The Father Of Holocaust |
22 Nov 2004 05:37:45 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 20:18:52 -0700, Virgil
<ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote:
Those who would deny history willbe condemned to repeat it.
And one can only hope that it will be those who deny it who will find
themselves in those camps next time. It is alleged to be much harder to
deny the camps from the inside.
"There was a written order for the invasion
of the Soviet Union, a long and detailed order signed by Hitler
himself. It was labeled Directive 21--Operation Barbarossa. And there
were more directives as the war in Russia was raging. There was one
concerning the battle of Stalingrad. Hitler was fond of issuing
detailed orders to his armies, extending into both strategic and
tactical matters. You can find an English translation of Directive 21
at: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/1084/hitler_directives/dir21.htm
Now it's your turn. Show us one, just one, written order or
directive by Hitler relating to the murder of Jews. It doesn't have
to be detailed, just clear and unambiguous. Let's make it easier for
you. Just show us one, just one, order signed by anyone, of any rank,
in any position of authority, whether military or civilian, ordering
the gassing of Jews at any time, at any place, at any concentration
camp, in any country.
That should be pretty easy if indeed there was a Holocaust--if
indeed the Germans really did kill Jews by the hundreds of thousands.
Such a monstrous and wide-reaching program of mass murder simply could
not have been carried out without some written directions, without
some official orders passed down through the ranks, with multiple
copies to headquarters, without some reports passed back up the ranks
that the terrible orders had been successfully carried out. That's
the way military and civilian bureaucracies work--paper, paper,
paper--and the Germans were known to be meticulous record keepers. So
where, oh where, are all those documents on the ghastly gassings at
Auschwitz, Treblinka, Chelmno, Sobibor, Belzec, Mauthausen, and other
fabled "death camps?"
Morghus
Newsweek magazine May 15, 1989 says on page 64:
"the way the Nazis did things: the secrecy, the unwritten orders, the
destruction of records and the innocent-sounding code names for the
extermination of the Jews. Perhaps it was inevitable that historians
would quarrel over just what happened"
The real reason there are no records of an extermination plan is
because there was no extermination plan. The Germans planned to deport
the Jews out of Germany. The records show that they planned to move
them to Madagascar.
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mani Deli" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin, The Father Of Holocaust |
21 Nov 2004 03:43:16 PM |
|
|
On 21 Nov 2004 11:24:32 -0800, (Budikka) wrote:
Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<q0lvp01eh9c2n5f661o3qk14as3m1t7304@4ax.com>
US forces liberated Buchenwald, Dora-Mittelbau, Flossenbuerg, Dachau,
and Mauthausen. British forces liberated camps in northern Germany
including Neuengamme and Bergen-Belsen. They found the same kinds of
things the Soviets reported. Period.
Budikka
Its easy to understand those who feel it necessary to deny Holocaust
Nazi behavior was so disgusting that even fascist idiots are repulsed
by it to a degree that they feel it necessary to concoct myths. Like
other fanatics they swallow myths easily so its no problem for them.
No use trying to convince them. We must only make sure that others
don't forget.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Darwin, The Father Of Holocaust |
21 Nov 2004 05:16:57 PM |
|
|
"The orthodox holocaust story can not possibly be defended with
rational arguments because its absurdity is overwhelming. We are asked
to believe in the fata morgana of a vast slaughter in killing
factories which left no traces whatsoever - no documents, no bones, no
teeth, no ashes - nothing! We are further asked to believe that the
Allies, who had a large network of informers all over Europe and a spy
in the German leadership (Admiral Canaris, the head of the German
intelligence), did not become aware of this gigantic genocide until
the end of the war, for if they had known about the mass murder, they
would have acted to stop it. Finally, we are asked to believe that the
Jews in Poland, the epicentre of the holocaust, did not know anything
about the Auschwitz gas chambers as late as in August 1944, otherwise
the Jews from the Lodz ghetto would not have gone to Auschwitz
voluntarily - which is precisely what they did, as related by Raul
Hilberg in his standard work about the holocaust (Die Vernichtung der
europaeischen Juden, p. 543/544).
As the Zionist-controlled system of the "Western democracies" is
woefully unable to counter the revisionists with arguments, it resorts
to censorship and brute force in order to silence the dangerous
heretics. And the Jews are gradually transforming the holocaust into a
religion. This is a very clever strategy, for as Robert Faurisson
aptly remarks, one cannot refute a religion with scientific arguments.
Thus, the holocaust museums and holocaust monuments spreading like
mushrooms all over America and Europe are really temples of the new
religion, whereas professional "holocaust survivors" such as Elie
Wiesel are the priests of the new religion. To prove this assertion,
we only have to quote Wiesel himself: "The Holocaust is a holy
mystery, the secret of which is limited to the circle of the
priesthood of survivors" (Peter Novick, The Holocaust in American
Life, 1999, p. 211, 212, retranslated from the German). Another high
priest of the holocaust cult, Simon Wiesenthal, goes even further:
"When each of us comes before the Six Million, we will be asked what
we did with our lives... I will say: I did not forget you" (Simon
Wiesenthal in Response, Vol. 20, Nr. 1).
No critical questions about the holocaust are allowed because they are
a blasphemy: They cause immense distress to the eternal victims of
persecution, the Jews, and are an attempt to whitewash National
Socialism - the most evil ideology of all times which made the
holocaust possible! In today's Germany, it is even considered
inadmissible to compare the holocaust with the atrocities of communist
tyrants such as Stalin or Cambodian dictator Pol Pot because this is
regarded as a "relativisation" and "trivialization" of the worst crime
in history.
French Zionist propagandist Claude Lanzmann, the producer of a long
and unspeakably dull film about the holocaust (the title of this film
is Shoa, the Hebrew word for "catastrophe", which is often used by
Jews as a synonym for "holocaust") makes no effort to conceal that the
holocaust cult is to replace Christianity:
"If Auschwitz is something other than a horror of history, then
Christianity totters in its foundations. Christ is the Son of God, who
went to the end of the humanely endurable, where he endured the
cruellest suffering. (...) If Auschwitz is true, then there is a human
suffering with which that of Christ simply cannot be compared. (...)
In this case, Christ is false, and salvation will not come from him.
(...) Auschwitz is the refutation of Christ." (Les temps modernes,
Paris, December 1993, p. 132, 133.)
Nowadays, a large percentage of the Jews do not believe in God any
more, but virtually all of them believe in the Six Million. The
Zionist leadership cunningly exploits the holocaust to unite the
World's Jews by keeping them in a constant state of hysteria and
persecution mania, insinuating that only if the Jews stick together
will they be able to ban the threat of a new holocaust.
It goes without saying that very few Non-Jews are willing to embrace
the murky holocaust religion. While the overwhelming majority of
people in the West still believe that the official holocaust version
is essentially true (even if they suspect that the figures might me
somewhat inflated), they are thoroughly fed up with the eternal
lamentation about Jewish victims and Jewish suffering. They simply
don't want to hear it any more. In Germany, opinion polls showed that
a vast majority of the population was against the planned holocaust
monument in Berlin (which not a single major party, not a single
leading politician and not a single big newspaper dared to oppose).
Privately, the politicians are probably as profoundly disgusted with
the endless holocaust litany as the rest of the population, but they
cannot possibly afford to let the revisionists win because this would
shatter the very foundations of the "democratic" system to which they
own their careers and their wealth...
The ultimate weapon against Zionism and the state of Israel
At the end of the year 2000, Israel is a besieged country, but from
the military point of view, it is still vastly superior to its
neighbours, and it enjoys the unconditional support of the United
States. Should any of the Islamic states grow strong enough to
seriously threaten Israel, it would most probably be attacked and
militarily annihilated by America. Russia is not likely to risk a
confrontation with the USA for the sake of the Palestinians. We can
certainly admire the bravery of the Palestinians resistance fighters
who are willing to sacrifice their lives to liberate their homeland
from the alien intruders, but realistically, they have no chance to
win. The Palestinians have stones and slings. The Israelis have
helicopters and tanks. You can't destroy helicopters and tanks with
stones and slings.
When fighting one's enemy, one should always look for his weakest
spot. The weakest spot of Israel, its Achilles heel, is the holocaust
lie to which it owes its existence. The revisionists can give the
adversaries of Israel and international Zionism a terrible weapon. It
is quite true that many revisionists are by no means guided by
political considerations. Some of them - Carlo Mattogno is a good
example - are only motivated by intellectual curiosity: They want to
ascertain what really happened to the Jews during the Second World
War. But even if revisionism is not a political movement, its
political implications are tremendous. The revisionists are
endeavouring to find out the truth, and truth is the deadliest enemy
of Israel and international Jewry. Thus, the revisionists objectively
work against Israel and Zionism, even if subjectively their goals are
often purely scientific and devoid of any political ambition. This is,
of course, the reason why they are persecuted and their books burnt in
more and more countries.
In view of the total Jewish media control and the ever-growing
anti-revisionist repression in many Western countries, it is very
difficult indeed to achieve a revisionist breakthrough. We
revisionists are facing an uphill struggle which can only partly be
explained by our total lack of financial resources. Fortunately the
internet, which the Jews are unable to censure, has greatly improved
our possibilities to make the results of our research known to the
World, but all the same, we should not cherish naive illusions: Not
every citizen of the Western world who is informed about the
revisionist arguments will automatically become revisionist and
anti-Zionist. The average person in the West - and particularly in
Germany - has been so thoroughly brainwashed that a sudden exposure to
the truth can provoke a nervous breakdown or stomach cramps. I have
repeatedly witnessed this myself. Other people would gladly accept the
truth about the holocaust, but as they know that even the slightest
suspicion of revisionism leads to social ostracism, economic ruin and
legal persecution, they understandably prefer not to get involved.
However, if we want to win the war against those whom one of my
Russian friends called "the enemies of God and mankind"..
The logical consequence of all this is that those countries which are
authentically anti-Zionist and real friends of the oppressed
Palestinian people should make the breakthrough of holocaust
revisionism their foremost priority. A tank costs millions of dollars,
yet one soldier can destroy it with a single missile. The revisionists
can provide anti-Zionist freedom fighters with a weapon not even a
thousand missiles can destroy."
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin, The Father Of Holocaust |
21 Nov 2004 09:21:41 PM |
|
|
In article <8e82q0tvs0td167d40duolom7t281d9tdu@4ax.com>,
Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote:
[page upon page of lies which I have taken the liberty to snip]
Those who deny history will be condemned to repeat it, and if there is
any justice, those who deny the last holocaust will view the next one
from inside the camps.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Darwin, The Father Of Holocaust |
22 Nov 2004 05:36:11 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 20:21:41 -0700, Virgil
<ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote:
In article <8e82q0tvs0td167d40duolom7t281d9tdu@4ax.com>,
Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote:
[page upon page of lies which I have taken the liberty to snip]
Those who deny history will be condemned to repeat it, and if there is
any justice, those who deny the last holocaust will view the next one
from inside the camps.
The Jews control your media and everything you think you know is a
lie.
There was a book in ordinary bookstores called "An Empire of
Their Own". It was a pro-Jewish book but it showed that the Jews ran
Hollywood.
Here are some quotes from a magazine for Jews called "Moment".
It is subtitled "The Jewish magazine for the 90's" These quotes are
from the Aug 1996 edition after the Headline "Jews Run Hollywood - So
What?":
"It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish
power and prominence in popular culture. Any list of the most
influential pruduction executives at each of the major movie studios
will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names."
"the famous Disney organization, which was founded by Walt
Disney, a gentile Midwesterner who allegedly harbored anti-Semetic
attitudes, now features Jewish personnel in nearly all its most
powerful positions."
The head of Walt Disney studios is now the Jew Michael Eisner.
On studios that were bought out by the Japanese the magazine says:
"When Mitsushita took over MCA-Universal, they did nothing to
undermine the unquestioned authority of Universal's legendary - and
all Jewish - management triad of Lew Wasserman, Sid Scheinberg, and
Tom Pollack."
Here are some quotes from the paper "Jews Control the Media
and Rule America"
It may be rather out of date but it still explains why things are the
way they are.
"American Broadcasting Companies (ABC), Coumbia Broadcasting
System (CBS), and National Broadcasting Company (NBC). Each of these
three has been under the absolute control of a single man over a long
enough period of time--ranging from 32 to 55 years--for him to staff
the corporation at every level with officers of his choosing and then
to place his imprint indelibly upon it. In each case that man has been
a Jew.
"Until 1985, when ABC merged with Capital Cities
Communications, Inc...the chairman of the board of directors and chief
executive officer (CEO) of the network was Leonard Harry Goldenson, a
Jew...In an interview in the April 1, 1985 issue of Newsweek,
Goldenson boasted 'I built this company (ABC) from scratch.'"
"CBS was under the domination of William S. Paley for more than
half a century. The son of immigrant Jews from Russia..."
"There has been no move by top G-E management to change the
Jewish "profile" of NBC or to replace key Jewish personel. To the
contrary, new Jewish executives have been added: an example is Steve
Friedman..."
"The man in charge of the television entertainment division at
CBS is Jeff Sagansky. At ABC the entertainment division is run by two
men....nearly all of the men who shape young Amercians' concept of
reality, of good and evil, of permissible and impermissible behavior
are Jews. In particular, Sagansky and Bloomberg arre Jews. So is
Tartikoff. Littlefield is the only Gentile who has had a significant
role in TV entertainment programming in recent years."
"American Film magazine listed the top 10...entertainment
companies and their CEOs...Time Warner Communications (Steven J Ross,
Jew) Walt Disney Co. (Michael D. Eisner, Jew)...Of the 10 top
entertainment CEOs listed above, eight are Jews."
"The Newhouse media empire provides an example of more than a
lack of real competition among America's daily newspapers; it also
illustrates the insatiable appetite Jews have shown for all organs of
opinion... The Newhouse's own 31 daily newspapers, including several
large and important ones, such as the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the
Newark Star-Ledger, and the New Orleans Times-Picayune; the nation's
largest trade book publishing conglomerate, Random House, with all
its subsideries; Newhouse Broadcasting, consisting of 12 television
broadcasting stations and 87 cable-TV systems, including some of the
countries largest cable networks- the Sunday supplement Parade, with a
circulation of more than 22 million copies per week; some two dozen
major magazines, including the New Yorker, Vogue, Madamoiselle,
Glamour, Vanity Fair, HQ, Bride's, Gentlemen's Quarterly, Self,
Home&Garden...."
"Furthermore, even those newspapers still under Gentile ownership
and management are so thoroughly dependent upon Jewish advertising..."
"the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington
Post. These three...are the newspapers which set trends and guidlines
for nearly all others. They are the ones which decide what is news and
what isn't, at national and international levels. They originate the
news; the others merely copy it. And all three newspapers are in
Jewish hands...The Suzberger family also owns, through the New York
Times Co. 36 other newspapers; twelve magazines, including McCall's
and Family Circle..."
"New York's other newspapers are in no better hands than the
Daily News. The New York Post is owned by billionare Jewish
real-estate developer Peter Kalikow. The Village Voice is the personal
property of Leonard Stern, the billionaire Jewish owner of..."
"There are only three newsmagazines of any note published in the
United States: Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report....The CEO
of Time Warner Communications is Steven J. Ross, and he is a Jew.
"Newsweek, as mentioned above, is published by the Washington
Post Co., under the Jewess Katherine Meyer Graham..."
"U.S. News & World Report... owned and published by Jewish real
estate developer Mortimer B. Zucherman..."
" The three largest book publishers...Random House... Simon &
Schuster , and Time Inc. Book Co....All three are owned or controlled
by Jews...The CEO of Simon & Schuster if Richard Snyder, and the
president is Jeremy Kaplan; both are Jews too."
"Western Publishing...ranks first among publishers of childrens
books, with more than 50 per cent of the market. Its chairman and CEO
is Richard Bernstein, a Jew."
"Jewish spokesmen customarily will use evasive tactics. "Ted
Turner isn't a Jew!" they will announce..."
"We are doing more than merely giving them a decisive influence
on our political system and virtual control of our government; we also
are giving them control of the minds and souls of our children..."
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin, The Father Of Holocaust |
20 Nov 2004 04:16:43 PM |
|
|
"Mike" <brothermike277@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6abd7f3.0411201225.3dd36c4d@posting.google.com...
Genocide and Darwinism
by Theodore D. Hall, Ph.D.
Periodically we get idiots like you spewing this kind of inane garbage. You
are not the first and you won't be the last. Take consolation on this fact.
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tron" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin, The Father Of Holocaust |
21 Nov 2004 08:13:27 PM |
|
|
.....
Where did the "biomedical vision" of Hitler and his party originate?
The primary sources were: Darwinian biology and evolutionary theory;
Social Darwinism, / ... etc.
Those NSDAP-guys found the ingredients such a "biological philosophy" in the
biology of their day. But knowledge of biology doesn't lead to nazism; the
Nazi need to construct such a "biological philosophy" was rooted in
completely different problems and theories, like Political Geography.
T
.
|
|
|
| User: "JimC" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin, The Father Of Holocaust |
21 Nov 2004 08:50:37 PM |
|
|
"Tron" <tronfuru@frisurf.no> wrote in message
news:bXbod.18015$Km6.216178@news4.e.nsc.no...
....
Where did the "biomedical vision" of Hitler and his party originate?
The primary sources were: Darwinian biology and evolutionary theory;
Social Darwinism, / ... etc.
Those NSDAP-guys found the ingredients such a "biological philosophy" in
the
biology of their day. But knowledge of biology doesn't lead to nazism; the
Nazi need to construct such a "biological philosophy" was rooted in
completely different problems and theories, like Political Geography.
Hitler the South German demagogue : Berlin : :
Bush the Texas demagogue : the coasts
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin, The Father Of Holocaust |
22 Nov 2004 10:59:07 PM |
|
|
Tron wrote:
....
Where did the "biomedical vision" of Hitler and his party originate?
The primary sources were: Darwinian biology and evolutionary theory;
Social Darwinism, / ... etc.
Those NSDAP-guys found the ingredients such a "biological philosophy" in
the biology of their day. But knowledge of biology doesn't lead to nazism;
the Nazi need to construct such a "biological philosophy" was rooted in
completely different problems and theories, like Political Geography.
\
Basically, much of Nazi theory was based on old fashioned religous hatred
fostered for thousands of years and expressed by numerous progroms
during that time. The incredibly vile anti-semitism of Martin Luther
kept this alive and made it fertile ground for Hitler and his Germans.
Had Darwin never lived, this final pogrom would still have happened.
Darwin published his origins in 1959, but Count Gobineau had printed his
racist Inequality of the Human Races in 1853, years earlier and this was
the sort of work that fueled racsm, not Darwin.
And Gobineau was not the first racist writer by a long shot either, though
his book spread the idea of an Ayran race throughout Europe. This on top of
racist anti-semiticsm gave us the Holocaust, not Darwin. Who brought us
the concept of hybrid vigor, hateful to racists. Russian Marxist racist
strains of thought were based on Lysenkoism, the idea that one could be
molded to the perfect Soviet man, humankind of the future.
Those xian ***** monkies that smear Darwin with their bestial ignorance
need to be labelled as hate mongerers of the most virulient stupidity.
Shallow and hateful little men.
I spit on them all. And have utter contempt for those so ignorant that
they let these shallow men mislead them with their supporating, ugly
pseudoscientific religous drivel.
--
Kerry - two medals a silver and bronze star.
Bush? Well they don't give medals
for going AWOL, missing your medical and
getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool.
Kerry - a hero, Bush - a zero
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "xyz" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin, The Father Of Holocaust |
23 Nov 2004 01:44:38 AM |
|
|
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:cnuj40$6np@library1.airnews.net...
Tron wrote:
Darwin published his origins in 1959,
....I beg your pardon ?
--
Kerry - two medals a silver and bronze star.
Bush? Well they don't give medals
for going AWOL, missing your medical and
getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool.
Kerry - a hero, Bush - a zero
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin, The Father Of Holocaust |
23 Nov 2004 09:04:25 AM |
|
|
"xyz" <xyz@dot.net.ky> wrote in message news:<41a2ecbd_3@news1.prserv.net>...
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:cnuj40$6np@library1.airnews.net...
Tron wrote:
Darwin published his origins in 1959,
...I beg your pardon ?
He's not talking about "On the Origin of Species..." which was
published in 1859, but the little known episode of the Twilight Zone
("Origins") that was written by Elmer Darwin. ;)
B.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin, The Father Of Holocaust |
23 Nov 2004 02:53:25 AM |
|
|
"xyz" <xyz@dot.net.ky> wrote in message news:41a2ecbd_3@news1.prserv.net...
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:cnuj40$6np@library1.airnews.net...
Tron wrote:
Darwin published his origins in 1959,
...I beg your pardon ?
If you read the rest, you can see that it was a typo. In context, he
obviously meant "1859", since he mentioned just a few words later that
someone else published something earlier, in 1853.
Susan
--
Kerry - two medals a silver and bronze star.
Bush? Well they don't give medals
for going AWOL, missing your medical and
getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool.
Kerry - a hero, Bush - a zero
Cheerful Charlie
.
< | | | | |
