Saturday, August 11, 2007

Exonerating Jan Milld

Earlier this week, after the initial discussion about the Swedish historian Jan Milld, I requested that readers send me textual evidence that Mr. Milld is not in fact a Holocaust-denier.

Strangely enough, the only response to my request came from IceViking, the blogger who originally brought Mr. Willd’s writings to my attention.

In his latest post, IceViking has translated another article by Jan Milld. This one establishes to my satisfaction that Mr. Milld not in fact a Holocaust-denier, though it does not (in my humble opinion) demonstrate a lack of anti-Semitism.

The relevant quotes are translated from an article in Blågula Frågor, reviewing another author’s book. Here’s the first quote:

Before we proceed — to avoid misunderstandings — what the revisionists have claims on is only regarding the three above points. Adelskogh: “What the revisionists on the other hand don’t deny is that the Germans subjected ethnic minorities, especially Jews, to persecution, deprived them of their property, expelled them, put them in concentration camps and forced labor.” Obviously the revisionists also don’t deny that millions of Jews were murdered, through executions or systematic hardships.

OK, that’s clear. Whatever he may feel about the Jews, Jan Milld is obviously not denying the series of atrocities that we now know as the Holocaust.

And here’s the second quote:
- - - - - - - - - -
What is clear is that certain power groups have an interest in that we all feel guilt towards Jews in general. It opens up possibilities of economic extortion and it helps the ongoing aggressions against the Palestinians . It can also be connected to Swedish critique of immigration and be used as mental oppression. [emphasis added]

The first part of this is true, to some extent: any philanthropic body that is organized around a particular grievance has a vested interest in seeing that grievance continue. If environmental degradation ceased to exist, Greenpeace and the Sierra Club would have to invent it, or face institutional death.

So the Jewish groups that organize around anti-Semitism have a vested interest in the sympathy and guilt felt by non-Jews towards the Jews — that’s true, but it’s a commonplace truth. And, more importantly, the Jews don’t have to do anything special to generate these conditions, unlike the environmentalists who invent and inflate environmental damage. Millions of people all over the world are all too ready to hate Jews without any additional prodding whatsoever.

In my experience, anyone who talks about Jewish “aggressions against the Palestinians” is either an anti-Semite or a leftist, or both. Maybe customs are different in Sweden, but from my vantage point it still quacks like a duck.

And anti-Semitism is unfortunately so widespread in Europe (not to mention in the USA) that it’s probably not even worth a discussion.

Mr. Milld made another point with which I whole-heartedly concur:

But there is also another — and important! — aspect to all of this. Questions about history and politics should be able to be discussed openly, facts should be able to be questioned by science. If a prohibition of thoughts is established in a certain area this can begin to spread, and then a society is in danger.

I’m in complete agreement.


A note to readers: Opinions found in the comments do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the owners of this blog. Discussion is left open to all points of view, provided that commenters obey the rules.


A note to commenters: If you want to voice your opinions here, I insist that you abide by the rules, namely that comments be civil, temperate, and respectful of others. If the thread degenerates, as previous ones have, into sneering, name-calling, and off-topic digressions and arguments, then I will close the comments.

If I were a government agency, this would be called censorship, but I’m not, and it isn’t.

These are just the rules we apply here at Gates of Vienna, where we have an irrational preference for reasoned discourse.

27 comments:

Ypp said...

It is amaizing how many people find that current liberal desorder is Jewish guilt. This is also associated with the Holocost denial. The deniers believe that by their denial (which is equivalent to blaming Jews for falcification) they resist the Political Correctness, and hence, the islamisation of the West. I agree that there was a mistake of European Jews to support the laws that enforce the Holocost (if they ever did it), because the same laws are now used against Islam critics. But the laws themselves as well as the tradition of enforcement of opinions have nothing to do with the Holocost or Jews. It is a European tradition. It is unfortunate that the Holocost is used as a justification of such a policy, but maybe it is a part of the evil plan. As the result, the policy that hurts Jews most of all will be again blamed on Jews.

Mission Impossible said...

The related article says:

What is clear is that certain power groups have an interest in that we all feel guilt towards Jews in general. It opens up possibilities of economic extortion and it helps the ongoing aggressions against the Palestinians . It can also be connected to Swedish critique of immigration and be used as mental oppression.

The issues of guilt and mental oppression are surely correct. Most politically active Jews appear to be in favour of unremitting immigration into any and all Western countries, which is certainly not in the best interests of Caucasians, and they know it. Having said that, they wouldn't enjoy such political influence if there were not legions of hare-brained Gentiles supporting the same, e.g. the Irish Catholic, Teddy Kennedy.

So far so good.

But, I don't see what the Palestinian issue has to do with this conundrum. I'll address that issue in a moment.

Economic extortion has been well documented. In fact, if the mass gassing of Jews in Concentration Camps during the 1940s turns out to be a hoax, as more and more thinking and intelligent people suspect it is, then the extortion issue becomes a very serious one, with the possibility of legal action against Jewish organizations in America to force the return of some of the funds and reparations given to them in good faith; and their leaders censured or put in jail.

And it gets worse, because predicated on the disproportionate and somewhat nauseating levels of sympathy shown to Jews in the decades following the Second World War, the United States allowed itself to be used as a vehicle to pioneer a whole raft of new and very liberal legislation (starting from the mid-1950s) that were floated by Jews taking advantage of their privileged status as the world's biggest "victims." Indeed, they had begun to position themselves to do this during the 1940s, or even before, as members of Franklin Delanoe Roosevelt's administration.

Since when, these laws (e.g., civil rights) and fashions (e.g. feminism) have undermined and weakened every single western nation. They were exported to Europe (and Australia) by Americans ... in both an official and private capacity. They enjoyed unquestioned influence because of the Cold War.

As for the Palestinians, the Jews in Israel have every right to self-defence. They have more right to the ancient land of Judah than anyone else. Jerusalem is their original and authentic capital. The Gaza Strip approximates the ancient location of Philistinia, so the "Palestinians" are exactly where they should be, but unfortunately they have been over-breeding instead of building a society and economy. Israel is already home to a sizeable population of Arabs who enjoy full political rights. Some border alterations (e.g., expansions, such as the Golan Heights) were justified by security issues. I have always supported the wall, which has demonstrated its worth by almost stopping all incidents of suicide bombings.

I also believe we were right to invade Iraq, in order to topple Saddam Hussein's regime. But, unfortunately, after the initial brilliance shown whilst capturing Baghdad, the first 12 months of occupation was very badly managed, thus undoing or undermining what should have been a magnificent democratising project. Iraq's borders were left open instead of being sealed from the outset, because the Americans preferred to hunker down in the Green Zone, as if Iraq was to be a re-run of the Alamo.

Finally, too many unthinking idiots think anti-Semitism is the same as expressing a legitimate irritation and impatience with this constant obsession with Jewish issues, sensibilities, and wants; as if Jewish-Americans were the most important people on Earth. Unfortunately for the future of the Western World, it appears White Americans have already grown too accustomed to being ruled by Jews and Jewish interests. This is why (presumably) no European is now able to say 'boo to a ghost' before some silly American dhimmi rushes to accuse him of anti-Semitism.

The mystery over why Americans tolerate a near total Jewish monopoly over their Mass Media and Entertainment industries (to mention only two areas of undue influence) is just one example. If these monopolies were being run exclusively by guys from Albania or Tuvalu, I and others would have exactly the same concerns. It is truly sad to see white Caucasians in America being reduced to a second or third rate ethnic community; even a minority status on current trends.

If Americans want to continue in this vein then that is their choice, but I and other Europeans have the right to get very angry if Americans then have the cheek and the arrogance to impose their views on the rest of the Western world. Understand this ... Europeans will work out their own relationships with their Jewish communities, and find their own way to deal with the sickos who represent Islam. Most of us have had a gut full of your creepy One World ambitions. We don't need any more lectures from you, because in truth America is the source of the Western World's current social and cultural problems. Let us not forget, the last time American forces entered Europe, it was to bomb Christians in defense of Muslims.

I have lost all faith in American leadership, if indeed it ever existed. The country is busted and in a state of political and increasingly economic disarray. I would like to help; do try and have tried, but it seems most ordinary Americans citizens are too proud, aggressive, and arrogant to listen. You always want the last word. I am British so I must be a hick so their thinking goes. The contempt shown for Britain and for British history by Americans (especially in the politically significant North East) has been well documented. The same contempt was recently shown for 'Old Europe.'

Perhaps all of this is because they have deluded themselves into thinking the American nation is also on a holy mission. The Jewish-Americans and Evangelicals all singing hosanna and allelujah together. What a bl**dy mess. Beam Me Up Scotty.

gun-totin-wacko said...

Mission Impossible,

Could you elaborate on the following quotes?

'...the United States allowed itself to be used as a vehicle to pioneer a whole raft of new and very liberal legislation (starting from the mid-1950s) that were floated by Jews taking advantage of their privileged status as the world's biggest "victims."'

'Since when, these laws (e.g., civil rights) and fashions (e.g. feminism) have undermined and weakened every single western nation.'

I'm not sure what your point is- that allowing Blacks to vote is A Bad Thing? That Jews were the driving force behind universal suffrage?

I'm trying to be polite here, but I just don't see it.

------

And there's this one: "I would like to help; do try and have tried, but it seems most ordinary Americans citizens are too proud, aggressive, and arrogant to listen. You always want the last word. I am British so I must be a hick so their thinking goes. The contempt shown for Britain and for British history by Americans (especially in the politically significant North East) has been well documented."

I'm not sure what parts of America you've been to, but not the Midwest, South, or Southwest. Granted, I've never been to New England, but I've never- never- seen people show "contempt" for British history or Britain. Is there a feeling now among some people (I'd argue this is an opinion held by many GoV readers) that John Bull has lost his way? Sure. But you clearly feel that America has lost our way as well. Fair enough. But does that give the Baron and me the right to try and help you "fix" your country?

*In my experience*, if either party- British or American "citizens" holds the other in contempt, it flows from your side. Most of my friends/family are Anglophiles, and the ones that aren't tend to be Irish, which opens up a whole different can of worms.

ln said...

Once upon a time a neat and amiable man called Neville was thoroughly duped which got terrible consequences. Today a probably no less honourable man named Unspiek sitting in his casle at the end of beyond is willingly gettng led by his nose to almost the same extent not knowing what he is contributing to. Poor Baron Unspiek Bodissey! Now the battue is rolling.
- - - - - -
Quote from http://www.israpundit.com/2006/?p=5464
- - - - - -
*A holocaust-denier in sheep’s clothing*
At times, holocaust-deniers can be found where one expects them least. IceViking has just posted an article, Jan Milld is a Holocaust-denier, giving an interesting example of this.
IceViking’s article concerns Jan Milld, who in some ways even earned the “imprimatur” of Fjordman. Yet, the same Jan Milld surfaces as one who defended David Irving!
Because the allegations levelled by IceViking against Jan Milld are very serious, the author went to great length to provide documentation and translations from Swedish to corroborate his statements. The article is indeed worth reading.
Posted by Joseph Alexander Norland @ 4:36 pm |

Ypp said...

Some "nationalists" care more about Palestinian state than about their own. The result of their aspiration is that Palestinian state is emerging inside their countries. Probably, they don't like their own states because they are supposedly controled by Jews. Isn't killing Jew-controlled Europe a revenge of nationalists to Jews?

whiskey_199 said...

The Holocaust is a very difficult issue for Leftists, Islamists, and the usual NGO-types because of it's powerful lessons:

1. The League of Nations, international groups, "human rights" and the presence of Stalin did nothing to stop the mass killing of Jews in Concentration camps or on the spot by the SS extermination groups.

2. International treaties, the West, men of goodwill, Ghandi, and the rest did nothing to stop the Holocaust, and had little ability to do so once it had begun on a massive scale after the Wansee Conference.

3. The ONLY thing that worked to stop some of the mass killings of Jews was large-scale Armed Resistance. Non-violent resistance was completely useless.

Thus the lessons of self-reliance, contiguous ethnic states, a nuclear and conventional force capable of acting as a deterrent from extermination, are all the irresistible conclusions of the Holocaust. The UN, human rights, treaties, goodwill, the West are useless as a snowsuit in the Sahara to prevent ethnic or religious based extermination.

As for the Holocaust itself, the Germans left MASSIVE documentation, not to mention the documentation first hand of the pitifully few survivors, and US, British, and Red Army forces who overran the Death Camps. What is forgotten is the massive scale of the death camps themselves and how much industrial effort the Nazis devoted to killing Jews and others instead of the War Effort.

The Camps killed 6 million Jews, but also another 5 million Gypsies, Communists, Slavs, and handicapped, "undesirable" and political opponents. So we are talking about the organized murder of 11 million beings on an industrial scale. Requiring the well-documented diversion of resources AWAY from such things as ME 262 Jet Fighter production, the StGWh 43 Automatic Rifle, and Tiger Tanks.

Simply put, if Germany had not conducted the Holocaust it might have just won the War OR at least fought to a stalemate.

The reason Germany did not allocate resources wisely is that it's open ideology of exterminating Jews, which Hitler had written about in Mein Kampf many times, was more important than winning the War.

This last lesson is perhaps the most dangerously and depressingly useful lesson of the Holocaust: believe what enemy leaders speak and write of their ideology. It matters. They will stick to their ideology and beliefs even over winning.

Hitler and the Nazis embraced a dangerously deranged mixture of fantasized Pagan pre-Christian Germanic greatness with Caesarist Rome. This toxic witches brew echoes in some sense the fantasy of a revived Caliphate with "pure" Islam conquering the World.

The lesser lesson of Hitler and the Holocaust is that good old-fashioned nationalism was not enough after WWI, nor was it enough for the French, British, or even the Russians. A post-nationalist Europe is a dangerously unstable place where any idiot ideology can settle.

I suspect Holocaust Denial is really all about the inability of it's adherents to process the lessons and reality of the Holocaust and Europe's non-response.

ln said...

Just a casually note!
As probabely all commentors and even the Baron know, the murdering and extermination of jews started early, long before the idea had really come to maturity in heads of the nazi elite. These two well known books "authenticate" this fact, do they not?
(1) Leon Feuchtwanger publiched a book "documenting the extermination": Der Gelbe Fleck: Die Ausrottung von 500.000 deutschen Juden (Paris, 1936);
and (2) the German Jewish commie Hans Beimler: Four Weeks in the Hands of Hitler's Hell-Hounds: The Nazi Murder Camp of Dachau, New York 1933
No other part of the WWII-history has given rise to so many lies as the 'jew-extermination' yet everyone knows for certain the right undisputable truth. Password is: FEEL GUILT!

Mission Impossible said...

gun-totin-wacko ... with all due respect, I am not surprised "you don't see it." What I am referring to isn't common knowledge. Truth often shocks. I owe a debt to those who first identified such information.

I would be happy to elaborate further, but if I did so, it would consume too many hours, and only invite another barrage of questions, most likely from you, which would lead to another round of explanations. It would appear (to me at least) you have insufficient knowledge of your own country's recent history. I cannot repair that through the agency of someone else's blog.

I'm not sure what your point is- that allowing Blacks to vote is A Bad Thing? That Jews were the driving force behind universal suffrage?

You occasionally have a problem with reading and understanding my arguments. This is revealed by your habit of attributing tangential meanings that don't exist.

Where did I say I was against voting rights for Blacks? Is that all Civil Rights legislation means to you? Of course I believe that Blacks were fully entitled to the vote.

But the Bussing legislation to enforce a particular leftist/Jewish ideology upon the White Majority (and thus stuff it to the still hated Southern States ... all those bad Christian Fundamentalists, which is what New Yorkers believe) and the banning of individual, Statewide anti-miscegenation laws are another matter entirely. The Federal lawmakers had no real constitutional right to dictate what individual states wished to do in these (more traditional) respects. That smells to me -- an ignorant Brit -- like vindictive cultural vandalism.

It is a straightforward fact, that the lawyers who acted on behalf of the nacent Civil Rights movement in the USA (starting in the 1950s) were all Jewish. There are several other key Jewish connections in the whole sorry story also. Why don't you look up some of the details yourself? You don't have to visit any so-called 'neo-Facist' websites. The information is out there, you just have to piece it together.

When doing so, ignore those who try to call you schoolyard names, like "anti-Semite." These sad and pathetic people are running scared because they are afraid more people will at last learn the truth. Once the tipping point is reached, there will be a revolution of one kind or another.

Where you White Americans have gone sadly wrong is that you are following the wrong model: the Melting Pot. You think you will end up as a perfectly hybrid race after 60 more years. Every living human being having genes : 35% white, 15% black, 25% Mexican, 10% Cuban, 10% Filipino, and 5% Amerind. They even teach this garbage in your colleges of "higher" education.

In fact, if we were honest with ourselves, 60 years from now, it is almost certain the relatively few genuinely white survivors of the original pre-WW2 population of America will be living in guarded ghettos within selected states, that have effectively declared themselves separated from multicultural Federal control. Most of the rest of America will be relatively lawless, semi-barbaric ganglands, divided between Jewish controlled (northeast), Mexican controlled (south and west), and Black controlled (deep south and Ohio) regions. Florida will no longer be the right place for elderly Caucasians to retire to.

In once 85% - 90% White, sunny California, Caucasians are already abandoning the world's favourite nut-case State in droves. The percentage is now down to around 40% and falling.

Meanwhile, White homosexuals will flock and congregate to Vermont and Massachusetts as they are already doing, to be under the protection of their New York Jewish patrons.

===============================

Perhaps you need to consider how your society has "improved" since the passing of those over-hyped, Civil Rights laws during the mid-1960s.

(1) According to the 'latest' [MI: my Australian source gives no year but it might be year 2000] US Department of Justice survey of crime victims, more than 6.6 million violent crimes (murder, rape, assault and robbery) are committed in the US each year, of which about 20 per cent, or 1.3 million, are inter-racial crimes.

(2) Most victims of race crime -— about 90 per cent -— are white, according to the survey "Highlights from 20 Years of Surveying Crime Victims", published in 1993.

(3) Almost 1 million white Americans were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by black Americans in 1992, compared with about 132,000 blacks who were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by whites, according to the same survey.

(4) Blacks thus committed 7.5 times more violent inter-racial crimes than whites even though the black population is only one-seventh the size of the white population. When these figures are adjusted on a per capita basis, they reveal an extraordinary disparity: blacks are committing more than 50 times the number of violent racial crimes of whites.

(5) According to the latest annual report on murder by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, most inter-racial murders involve black assailants and white victims, with blacks murdering whites at 18 times the rate that whites murder blacks.

These breathtaking disparities began to emerge in the mid-1960's, when there was a sharp increase in black crime against whites, an upsurge which, not coincidentally, corresponds exactly with the beginning of the modern civil rights movement.

Over time, the cumulative effect has been staggering. Justice Department and FBI statistics indicate that between 1964 and 1994 more than 25 million violent inter-racial crimes were committed, overwhelmingly involving black offenders and white victims, and more than 45,000 people were killed in inter-racial murders. By comparisons 58,000 Americans died in Vietnam, and 34,000 were killed in the Korean war.

===============================

You might also like to consider, that during the 10 years following the end of Apartheid in South Africa (1994) which many Whites actually celebrated, and deliriously, as if it were the actual Dawn of the Age of Aquarius, over 2,000, perhaps nearer 4,000, White Farmers, or their family members, were murdered, often brutally (after torture) in their isolated homes, or on adjacent land. Some of the photographs I have seen are beyond description, so horrific are they. An elderly white farmer, beaten to death so that his brain spills into the bath where he died. And no international condemnation! Is this not a truly distorted, hypocritical, and sick world?

These black-on-white racial assassination squads were, to all intents and purposes, gangs of young black thugs covertly sanctioned by ANC Authority. The farm land of those exterminated was then taken by the State to be distributed to black subsistence farmers.

Similar murder sprees (on a smaller scale) have occured in Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) against White Farmers there. The Zimbabwean case has received more publicity but still absolutely no word of condemnation from the United Nations. Whites do not have human rights because they don't belong in Africa. In which case, by the U.N.'s reasoning, no African belongs in Europe.

When was the last time you read or heard anything about just one incident of violence by Blacks against White Farmers in Africa, on your local, national, or international news-service?

Three Jewish agitators played prominent roles in the anti-Apartheid (realize that this is a polite way of saying 'anti-White' or 'anti-Caucasian') movement. Did you know that? Time we all did.

===============================

I guess your Grand-Pappy knew something about Blacks that your/my generation chose to ignore or overlook, right? Or perhaps they were bullied into doing so by State Troopers sent in by Robert Kennedy?

Anyway, I don't like the term 'Blacks' as it misleads. I once lived and worked in the Caribbean for 15 months, and I have also mixed happily with Ethiopians in Abu Dhabi (I dated one young beauty) and other national types when in North Africa. Angolans are different in temperament to Tanzanians. Nigerians are much more excitable than Namibians. Black Americans will have their own idiosyncracies, and that is what you folk should know all about.

I have visited both Texas and New York State. In addition, I have worked with and mixed with Americans who hailed from California, other New England States, New Mexico, Arizona, Alabama, Louisiana, and the Carolinas. I have never had a problem with people from the southern states of the USA. They are wonderful and warm people.

I travelled widely in New York State (I had a hire car) and almost reached Niagra. Spent a lot of time around Lake George and in the Adarondaks (spelling?). All I can say about New York is, beautiful country, shame about the people. Horrible people. Unreformable leftist bigots. It was easier to whistle to the birds than try and talk to the 'humans,' if we can call them that.

As for Texas, and Texans, I don't remember ever being made to feel more welcome by anyone, anywhere. Everywhere I went (Houston and Galverston) was the same. Great state, great people. Wish I'd been born there.

===============================

I have gone slightly off-topic here, but not as far as some may think at first sight. What I have just discussed are some of the consequences of Jewish-American sponsored legislation, enacted and oftentimes enforced upon the American people [to hurt or harm the very people who offered refuge to the Jewish immigrant in the first place] since World War Two.

Is that any clearer now?

The United States of America is no longer a White nation, but rather a Judified Fiefdom, serving the special interests and the "chosen people" obessions of a pathologically subversive minority. The whole edifice is being propped up by propaganda being promulgated by Jewish owned cable news networks, Jewish owned Newspapers, and Jew controlled Hollywood (did you know that over 70% of the Scriptwriters that give life and direction to Hollywood productions are Jews living in New York???). If these guys were from Samoa you'd be asking questions, right? But, because the monopoly is by Jews, you allow yourself to be intimidated or shamed into silence. Ever asked yourself why, or is this correct or healthy?

Think "of the box;" your survival, or certainly that of your children, will likely depend on you doing so.

Regards, M.I.

Archonix said...

You realise that your words are the essential justification Hitler used in mein kampf, right? The essential justification Marx used (yes, he had jewish antecidents but he wasn't jewish) in Das Kapital and the communist manifesto, right?

I have an aunt in Sweden by marriage, who sounds a lot like you. She constantly harps about the 'jewish' controlled media, and likes to inform me that Rupert Murdoch is jewish. Murdoch, runs the only right-wing network in the US, is a jew trying to take over the world according to her. Now, apparently you think that all the others are jewish. Would they work against each other? Would they have lasted if they worked against each other. In the words of one great jew, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

That works on several levels here. You play right in to the hands of islamist rhetoric, adopting their essential talking points. You play right in to the hands of the anti-western left, who viscerally hate Israel and the jews. You may say that leftists are often jewish, but so what? Jews, who have historically been prevented from owning land in many places, for many centuries, turned to pursuits that would allow them to prosper. Intellectualism, money lending and banking, and trade. The first two tend to align with leftist thought on a superficial level, and jews who have abandoned their faith tend to stick to that superficial allignment... the key point is "abandoned their faith". They are jews in name only; no longer believers, no longer working for the jewish people. They are like all leftists; self-hating narcicistic blowhards with very little in the way of brains and a tendency to shoot off their mouths at the slightest provocation.

You offer no proof to counter the well known details of the shoah and turn to insinuations and outright lies. SO what if 70% of hollywood writers are jewish? THe vast majority of nobel prize winners (in the sciences, not literature or the 'peace'prize I hasten to add) are jewish too, does that make the nobel prize committee part of the great world-controlling conspiracy?

I would advise you to look up the writings of Jon Ray before you go any further with this argument. You've fallen for this idea that jews control the world but you actually offer no real evidence for it, just supposition and hearsay.

There's a lot more I would say to you, sir, but decorum prevents me. Suffice to say, I recently found out that another aunt is jewish (she only found out herself recently), and this brings home alternatives of history that have a very profound effect on the way I look at the world. Forgive me for being blunt, but I am ashamed that you are one of my countrymen.

Archonix said...

Hm, my short paragraph on Mr Ray was truncated there. Odd.

Jonhn Ray. By the standards of the left he's an unreformable racist. You'd probably like him. :P I suspect his views on the jews are a little different to yours, though, which is why I want you to read what he has to say before you go on, as he's coming at this from essentially the same angle as you.

Ashamed etc.

ln said...

Wasn't this discussion supposed to be about 'holocaust denial' and about improperly
"feeling sorry" for the bl**dy 'palestinians' and carelessly having written it down?
- - - - -
About the 'jew-exterminations' that everyone knows the right undisputable truth about.

The truthful and respected Dr. Olga Lengyel, an Auschwitz inmate-doctor, an eye-witness, in her book 'Five Chimneys' (London, 1959), bitterly recalls Mengele's demeanor on the ramp:
"How we despised his detached, haughty air, his continual whistling, his frigid cruelty. Day after day he was at his post, watching the pitiful crowd of men and women and children go struggling past, all in the last stages of exhaustion from the inhuman journey in the cattle trucks. He would point with his cane at each person and direct them with one word: "right" or "left." He seemed to enjoy his grisly task."

You can see it, can't you, for your inner eye -- you have seen it (on film), havn't you?
Dr. Olga Lengyel have witnessed it -- that is why we know about it.
- - - - -
Olga Lengyel also makes reliable estimations of the camp's annihilation capacity. She in her book declares that it was possible to cremate no less than 720 carcasses an hour, that is around 17 280 per 24 h and when this capacity was not enough around 8000 carcasses could be burned in death graves said to be up to 6 meters deep meaning a totale maximun of some 24000 bodies per 24 h or on a yearly basis 8 500 000.
- - - - - - -
It must be said that the Auschwitz main camp was build on a moor meaning that the surface water almost all year round was standing some 0.5 meter under the ground surface. High capacity pumps must have been used to keep the death graves dry because no human body burns underneath water.

Ask you mortician how many cremation furnaces are needed to annihilate 17 280 carcasses in 24 hours (or one tenth of that number!) -- and to remove 20% x 60 kg bodyweight x 17 000 bodies = ca 200 000 kg skeleton residues with the help of bucket and shovel by death tired moribund inmates -- not to speek of all the coal and coke needed to keep the cremation running. Think !
Password is still: FEEL GUILT!

Mission Impossible said...

In ... yep, take your point. Sorry for the off-topic detour. Although I had acknowledged I had done so in my previous post. It is very easy to branch off isn't it, when trying to justify a line of reasoning. But first, I must deal with my next topic: someone with a very troubled mind.

===========================

archonix ... I am responding to your earlier post (8/12/2007 5:34 AM) because I have read your contributions many times before, and have until now, respected you.

You are getting far too emotional, to the point of getting carried away, and there is no justification for that.

I have never touched, let alone read, any copy of Mein Kampf. I very much doubt what I have written is within a thousand miles of that book's content.

I disagree with your assertion about Marx. Karl Marx was indeed Jewish, but as we all know, he did not practise the faith of Judaism. Please do not try and re-write history. All the principal players in the Bolshevik Revolution were Jewish, but they were not practising Jews. Most of the Jewish owners of America's media empires are Jewish only by virtue of them having a father or mother (but not both) who is Jewish. Sir Winston Churchill has a Jewish ancestor, and I adore and rever the man, as all Englishmen do.

Your emotions are clouding your judgement. I have never said 'the Jews' or 'all Jews' or even come close to saying so. I have merely stated fact and pointed to certain activities, ownership, and attitudes of certain Jews over an extended period of time. That is a very long way from condemning all Jews or of wanting to.

When I wrote that 70% or so of Hollywood Script Writers are Jewish, I did so to provide a measure of their group dominance of Hollywood. I did not suggest that all 70% of them were or are subversive, that they all cooperate, or that they all have identical political views. I didn't do so because I assumed my audience would be mature enough to reach the right conclusions without assistance from me.

I am sorry to see you immediately launching into a personal attack. It really does illustrate the mental hold this "anti-Semitism" malarky has over the minds of western people. Talk about a mind virus ... it is more like a contagion!!

archonix ... comparing me with someone I know nothing of -- Jon Ray -- is no way to conduct yourself. Furthermore, I have not suggested that "Jews Control the world" although only a fool or a child would deny they have enjoyed a disproportionate influence. I do not subscribe to the wild conspiracy theories that do the rounds on the Internet. You can reject the major conspiracy issues and still come to the same conclusions as me.

If you cannot follow what I am saying, and accept my integrity, when I am going right out on a limb to clarify for you, then all I can say is you are nothing more than a hysteric filled with malicious intent. I hope I am wrong.

===========================

You should also note, the Blog Owner has already clearly and explicity asked that people refrain from abusive personal attacks on this thread lest their comments be removed. We shall soon see if this rule can be enforced with equanimity, because I think you have gone well beyond the boundaries of what is acceptable. Your justifications for attacking me are limp, incoherent, contrived, and basically dishonest.

===========================

It is little wonder our civilization is in the mess it is in when we have people, who should know better, throwing wobblers as an excuse for having a debate.

The archonix's of this world are ultimately big-time losers. They are trapped in a cul-de-sac, or a deep pit of lies and delusions they have built for themselves. I can't be bothered to help those who truly want to die like sheep to the slaughter.

gun-totin-wacko said...

Mission,

Just a couple points. I agree that busing is/was a crappy thing that did a lot of damage to the US educational system. I just never looked at it as being part of the civil rights movement. Not a biggie.

I'd also point out one thing about the civil rights era that you didn't mention: The damage to the black family. Yes, that is due to the coincidence of civil rights and sexual revolution, but I've read reports that argue that blacks started a decline in education and income right about the same time. Nothing new (to me at least) there.

As for your experiences with Africans and other minorities, I'm on board. I lived for many years in a university town where there were many Africans. I had the chance to contrast them with the "indigenous" ones living nearby, and it was clear that one group understood the chances they were getting and was open-minded to the people around them. The other group had/has a lot of baggage regarding their role in society. I'll let you figure out which is which.

I still disagree with what you say about the Jews- yes your "facts" are correct, but I think your interpretations are off. But that's a matter of perspective/opinion/whatever.

But go easy on people. I think your comments to Archonix are a bit much. And certainly you've gone a hair beyond what's needed to me and others. We can disagree without calling names and insulting peoples' intelligence.

We're all on the same side here, you know?

Mission Impossible said...

gun-totin-wacko ... Ten-Four; your interpretations are your affair. No problem there. But, please try and muse over what I have written and then re-survey the scene in the USA after a space of a few months. I may have given you new perspectives that allow you to suddenly see what you were blind to previously.

A few tips and/or comments:

Over the past few days you've written too much opinion about 'me' or what you imagine is me (just as I have seen you do with some other blog commenters) and not enough about the topic at hand. Shoot me down with alternative facts and analysis if you can. That way I get a chance to learn something new and other readers don't get turned off. The frequent psychoanalysis makes it seem like you have little else to contribute.

My comments about archonix a bit much? Mmmm. That commenter was actually writing libel about me ... malicious rubbish, and written in bad faith; he even tried to attract audience sympathy by making references to his dear Aunt. How pathetic can you get? His posting was an utter disgrace, and from a regular poster. Frankly, I consider my response quite restrained under the circumstances. And indeed, the nearest I got to calling him anything was immediately qualified with the rider: "I hope I am wrong."

If you think I was insulting your intelligence then perhaps I was giving back as good as you were trying to give? I like to exchange viewpoints politely, as those who have read me over the years will know. But I carry a big stick and don't mind using it. It saves me time. I can take insults but I am not so tolerant of people who post mainly or only to write falsehoods or to misrepresent me. I have even intervened on behalf of others being targetted for the same, as I did earlier for Conservative Swede. It's a principle 'thaing' as they would sing at Motown.

In the final analysis, it is not possible to insult someone's intelligence if they have not yet shown any.

If we are all on the same side, then some blog commenters have strange ways of showing it.

Enough.

'Over and out' on this thread.

ln said...

Hey, wait a minute or two!

With my latest comment I was hoping I should irritate any exterminationist amongst you, but you are just bickering, nagging and answering back, aren't you? Who is interested in the point of the issue?
Let me make a try to provoke a revisionist. Hallo!
- - - - -
As everybody can assume the crematoria in Auschwitz were built according to latest technical knowledge and achievements, constructors and builders were Topf und Sohn, Huta AG, Kluge AG und Riedel AG. There were five functional crematoria: Krema I, II, III, IV and V. But there were more than 5 shimneys - seven I think! Krema II and III had a monthly capacity of 50-65 000 carcasses, Krema IV 36 000 and Krema V 37 000. Krema I, the first one built, had a monthly capacity of only 10 000 carcasses. The monthly incineration capacity of all four together was theoretically 195 000, on a yearely basis 2 316 000. With Kremas II to V running at capacity, and nr I as stand by, the Nazis could theoretically have incinerated up to 2 million bodies a year! At least january 1943, probably allready mid 1942 the Kremas II - V were ready to use. Suppose they were working full capacity for 2.5 - 3 years that is 5-6 million bodies. 300 kg of coke was needed to heat up and start a furnace (retort), then the burning bodies delievered enough energy to keep the process going. The worldly remains of a average human body was around 3-4 kg of skeleton residues, easely taken care of with the help of shovel, bucket or wheel-barrow.
- - - - -
The jewish site http://www.nizkor.org states:
"The scientifically planned crematoria should have been able to handle the total extermination project, but they could not. The whole complex had forty-six retorts, each with the capacity for three to five persons. The burning in a retort lasted about half an hour. It took an hour a day to clean them out. Thus it was theoretically possible to cremate about 12,000 corpses in twenty four hours or 4,380,000 a year."
- - - - -
2 million bodies a year or 4.380 million bodies a year. No big difference!
What is the official figure for Auschwitz TODAY - have I not seen 1.5 million somewhere?
- - - - -
Password is still: FEEL GUILT! Even for all of you born after 1945.
Be nice to the muzzies and they will be nice to you when they take over.

Archonix said...

I went back over my post trying to find the bit where I attacked you personally. I can't see it. As far as I'm aware I was attacking your arguments, not you, and the worst thing in my post was my expression of shame to be associated with your ideas by even the remote link of nationality. If you wish, I can apologise for saying that, but I don't believe I would be sincere.

I did not compare you to Mr Ray, I simply pointed you in his direction as he does apparently hold a lot of ideas that are similar to yours regarding what are currently "unpolitic" topics associated with race, religion etc. I assumed that someone with what appeared to be similar ideas to yours, yet assuming a different position to yours on this particular question, might be better placed to demonstrate why you're wrong to hold that particular idea. There are some things he says that I agree with, and others that I disagree with, but these things are as they stand. My point was simply to try and open up another avenue for study on the matter. Comparison as the last thing on my mind.

Marx himself denied he was Jewish. He was very clear on that point, having completely adopted German nationality. How, then, am I re-writing history if I point out that he had jewish antecedents but was not jewish himself by his own admission? The 'self hating' jew is quite common in those groups you point to. They try to deny they are jewish. They work hard to make their jewish identity something that is convenient to pull out when it suits them, but which they otherwise abrogate and hide.

If the statistic about the writers was not meant to prove anything, why bring it up? If anything it demonstrates that they are simply falling in to the same broad stroke of roles that jews have always adopted throughout history. As I said, for the manority of their history the jews were not allowed to own land, so they turned to pursuits that would allow them to get around that and provide a livelihood. At one time this was banking and money-lending; later, trade, writing, entertainment and other similar fields. Jews favour education and intellectualism because it provides a better chance to survive. Now as we know the intellectual types tend to swing to the left, because they tend to assume that they know everything. Jews are "over-represented" in intellectual fields and so they are over-represented in the politics that attaches to those fields. The assumption that they cause those politics is confusing cause and effect, I think.

My "dear aunt" was brought up because there are now very personal reasons for me to defend against the sort of ideas you are apparently promoting. Her grandmother on her mother's side was jewish. That makes her jewish by birth, which makes me highly sensitive to certain jewish issues as they now potentially have a direct influence on my family.

Your statements as written seemed to indicate that you did believe those wild conspiracy theories. You talked about jewish control of politics and banking. Evidently this was not your intent, but it was the impression I gained from what you wrote.

To end this, I have read Mein Kampf, and Das Kapital, as well as a few other related books, and that's why I started the way I did. Your words are dreadfully similar to those Hitler used to justify his slaughter. They are dreadfully similar to the words Marx used to create his terrible philosophy. When I hear you call American "judified", I can't help but think of the letters Marx rote that said almost the same thing. Whether you talk about "some jews" or "the jews" doesn't matter, because the arguments you use, the arguments that are supposed to convince me that I am somehow under a malign jewish influence, are the same arguments that justified hundreds of years of persecution and murder. Try as I might to remain rational when faced with such things, I'm afraid that my "hysterics" as you'd have them will just have to stand as they are.

==

It is unfortunate that guilt over the holocaust is used to beat us in to submission to islam, but it is not a fair comparison and not a fair use of the 'never again' argument. Rather than attacking jews and trying to get revenge on the easy target, we should be attacking the people that try to bounce us in to a guilt-trip we should argue back, refuse to be cowed. The holocaust was a terror that should not be allowed to happen again. In this case, it means we have to demonstrate that Islam will be the source of a new holocaust, and not the west; rather than misdirecting our anger and frustration at the jews we should use it to silence those who would have us bow down to an alien god in the name of guilt.

Mission Impossible said...

archonix ... when you tell someone: "your words are dreadfully similar to those Hitler used to justify his slaughter" ... you are only pretending to debate whilst taking the opportunity to demonize someone by employing 'association,' and therefore shut down debate in your favour. I detect a deep well of insincerity and deceit in your whole approach to me, and this matter.

I have not read Das Kapital, but I have read extracts and commentaries on Karl Marx's life. I know all about his attitude towards his Jewish heritage. But, his Jewish background had already helped to form him, so disowning it was only vaudeville. I have witnessed Englishmen disown there heritage overseas, but it did not stop them from being English. It simply cut yet another wound into our country. They behaved that way because their own country had made them that way! Can't you understand that?

I wrote about Jewish dominance of politics post World War II, in the United States of America. Nowhere did I use the word 'control.' I do not recall ever writing about Jewish banking, although I might have briefly mentioned it in passing.

**************************

Whether you talk about "some jews" or "the jews" doesn't matter, because the arguments you use, the arguments that are supposed to convince me that I am somehow under a malign jewish influence, are the same arguments that justified hundreds of years of persecution and murder.

This it total rubbish and utter balderdash. We are living in 2007 and not 1907. What you are effectively saying is none of us are allowed to critique or discuss anything related to Jews, and their contributions to the bloodiest century in human history. This might disturb your cosy little world, but if it hadn't been for disproportionate Jewish inputs and interventions into the Treaty of Versailles (which held Germany accountable for WW-1, when they were not) there would never have been a Hitler, a Mein Kampf, a Nazi Party, and thus World War II. Kindly get off your high horse Mr. archonix.

In your sanitized world, no Jew has ever been responsible for any ill, or calimity, anywhere. Paradoxically, I bet you are the kind of Englishman who meekly accepts, without question, every charge ever made that we only raped, pillaged, and ruined India. Am I right? I bet a £1,000 I am. And then you have the gall and temerity to announce publicly you are ashamed I own the same passport as you! Churchill would have packed you into his cigar and lit it.

***************************

My "dear aunt" was brought up because there are now very personal reasons for me to defend against the sort of ideas you are apparently promoting. Her grandmother on her mother's side was jewish. That makes her jewish by birth, which makes me highly sensitive to certain jewish issues as they now potentially have a direct influence on my family.

Thus your real motives are made clear. What is making you feel so vulnerable? Perhaps your place of abode in England is in close proximity to Muslim immigrants. I still don't see the connection between what I have written and your sense of bode. Frankly, you come across as hysterical, although don't mistake this criticism for any lack of sympathy on my part. I don't enjoy making another Englishman uncomfortable. But, you have taken this issue to extremes which frankly appear bizarre to me. And I don't like the way you keep twisting my words, meanings, and intentions to fit in with your exaggerated fears.

If the statistic about the writers was not meant to prove anything, why bring it up?

The statistic (approximate) helps to prove a Jewish dominance in Hollywood did and does exist. If you compare the great Hollywood movies of pre-1945, with those produced post-1950, you will see more evidence of this. As for the remainder of that 4th paragraph, you are telling me things I have already known for some considerable time.

If you can extract your other sly attempt to tarnish my contributions to this blog, by writing ... Rather than attacking jews and trying to get revenge on the easy target from your final paragraph, then I can say I fully agree with its broad meaning; with the final rider that I hold no animosity to any Jew, not even to Karl Marx. It the destructive behaviour and self-serving attitudes of some (a sizeable minority) that bothers me.

To sum up. You have amply demonstrated the hysteria that envelops any serious attempt to critique those contributions by radicals who were disproportionately made up of Jewish persons or of non-practising Jews. People like you inhabit our Universities and Media, which is why we must root them out before our culture goes the way of the Maya.

Archonix said...

I bet you are the kind of Englishman who meekly accepts, without question, every charge ever made that we only raped, pillaged, and ruined India. Am I right? I bet a £1,000 I am.

No, you are as wrong as wrong can be. In fact I have often argued that India was better off under our rule in many ways (Africa too, in fact) and I may even have made such points in the comments here in the past. We brought them modern medicines, english law and we started to dismantle the worst aspects of things like sutee.

you are only pretending to debate whilst taking the opportunity to demonize someone by employing 'association,'

Really. So any comparison between your words and the words of a historical figure who caused a great deal of strife are illegitimate? It is but a short leap from the sort of paranoia (yes, paranoia; if you want to keep calling me hysterical then I shall return the favour) you display to the outright hatred in that man's book.

What you said about versailles is almost word for word, incidentally. Is it worth pointing out that it wasn't jews but the french that made the treaty so onerous? They wanted revenge on the germans for the war.

Go on, call me hysterical again. Say I'm demonising you, or that I can't debate the facts and the arguments. Tell me that I'm a pathetic loser again. Hide behind that why don't you. your arguments are but a step away from his. Your interpretations are a step away from his. Why can't I point this out?

My foreboding is that if such ideas can take root in an otherwise entirely rational human being, then they can take root anywhere. My fears are that my previous attitude about this country, that the majority would side against the kind of arguments you espouse, is wrong. My fear is that people a little further along the spectrum of ideas you hold will hear muslim rhetoric on the jews and side with them.

My aunt-in-law (that would be the swedish one) is like you in every respect bar one. She doesn't talk about "some jews", but merely "the jews". Apart from that she says exactly the same things as you.

Mission Impossible said...

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

Archonix said...

In alio pediculum, in te ricinum non vides.

simulev said...

My own and free translation, might be some minor errors...

"Israel

A champions test of propaganda is displayed by the state of Israel and their supporters. The Israeli expansion and oppression of the palestinians is made possible as much as by control over the media and reality descriptions as by weapons force.

It can be talks first when the palestinians has quit using violence, explains the Israeli government. What it then deceives is that Israel since 1967 occupies palestinian territories. An occupied people have the right to do resistance.

The Israeli soldiers do not have any [business] to do in the palestinian areas. If there weren’t any Israeli soldiers or Jewish settlers there would not be any violence. The road to end the violence is that Israel at last fulfill UN:s resolutions!
[...]
PS. Was this a blue[and]yellow question? Yes, indirectly.

BfG does not only struggle for Sweden, we also struggle for certain principles. To that belongs to be positive towards national rights to self-determination and justice, against oppression and racism.


My comment on above:
Mr Mild seems to have something against Jews (or “settlers” as he names those who lives in Judea ) national rights in the only nation from times immemorial? Those who are living in the middle east only democracy, right at the frontlines against the rest of the backward mid evil barbarians, namely Jewish patriots that nowadays defends themselves from crazed jihadis and islamofacists and the rest of the savages under the PLO terror umbrella.

Conservative Swede said...

Hej Baronen!

I enjoy your formulation "does not demonstrate a lack of anti-Semitism", and I'm glad we are back to fading gray scales again, and not the very PC (well originally deeply Christian) concept that a tippity toe across that fine line and one is sucked all the way down into the hellish abyss.

There is more to be said about all this. Things that made my respect for you grow. But that will have to be another time.

Mission Impossible said...

conservative swede ... I like your "fading greyscales" analogy. If you have been reading all my comments of late you would have seen me refer to "Fuzzy Logic." This is the same deal as "fading greyscales." This approach is far superior to the old binary logic (B&W) approach.

In other words, a philosophy predicated on binary logic means ... say one un-PC word out of place and you are immediately condemned to purgatory. I would suspect, one reason why Naziism rose to power was that the German people had been prevented from discussing their grievances and sense of injustice for so long, they eventually erupted into a mode that tolerated unwise and extreme measures. In other words, if you don't vent a boiler once it has reached rated pressure, then at some point it will explode.

Therefore, applying this principle, it is those amongst us who keeping wanting, and keep trying, to censor every "wrong" word, thought, and attitude who will be the cause of any future problems; not those of us who want to reject the straitjacket of conformity NOW, and discuss the FACTS as they are, not how a beneficiary minority would want them to be.

Guilt is a very powerful drug, and it becomes poisonous to the body politic if it is ingested when there is no illness to heal. In other words, if you don't have cancer, you'd be insane to submit to chemotherapy.

We must get rid of our guilt, which has been imposed upon us through manipulation, and reject, and utterly, the notion that any minority can be allowed to call themselves "God's Chosen People," which can only lead to their arrogance.

Nobody on this earth is or are God's Chosen People, and tolerance of this nonsense has caused our society and Christian culture no end of problems.

Archonix said...

Apropos not very much, you bet £1000 that I was one of those strange people who thinks we did nothing but rape and pillage India, and I've demonstrated that I'm not. Shall I send you my bank details, or do you want to send a cheque? :P

Conservative Swede said...

Ypp wrote:
"The [Holocaust] deniers believe that by their denial (which is equivalent to blaming Jews for falcification) they resist the Political Correctness"


These are the most moronic people of them all. There's no people helping cementing the reigning PC rule more than them. They voluntarily jump up on the stage of the shadow theater in the Platonic cave with a self confessed "I'm evil". Nothing helps the dynamics of the shadow theater more than that. These are the greatest friends of the PC elite. Without them, the PC elite cannot uphold the image of themselves as brave fighters against evil (in fact a superficial fight against something completely harmless).

This is a deeply Christian pattern. We saw the same play under the heydays of the Catholic Church. Self-confessed sinners, satanists, etc. People with a negative self-image and full of Christian guilt (quite as your average neo-Nazi), indulging in the Christian concepts of self-sacrifice and original sin, throwing themselves onto the stage of the shadow theater. I cannot imagine any people who are more stuck in the box of Christian ethics. They just cannot leave the box. They stay within the box, but switch side to "evil" (and this is also how they see themselves). And listen to their arguments against Israel. The worst sort of Christian inversion of values where power is evil and the weak are good: Israel is bad because it's show strength; Israel is "racist", etc. Precisely as the worst sort of leftists. Perverted! And very very supportive of the reigning PC rule. The PC elite loves them.

Magnus Andersson said...

Late comment...

I would say that Jan Milld is a Holocaust denier.

Here he use arguments by Adelskogh, a well known Swedish Holocaust denier, when he argue against the banning of Holocaust denying in Europe. He obviously seems to see the arguments as facts. Also he don't like that we shall feel guilt towards jews and that this enables the ongoing assaults on Palestinians.

On this page Jamn Milld write that there is a bias that Swedish children in a poll don't answer that "the Jews" has too much power in the world today. "Political correctness" Milld cries out loud

Then we have "Moral or money?", a review of "The Holocaust Industry" by Finkelstein, where Milld is not at all critical. Quite much the opposite.

One more by Milld recommended denier, Åke Sandin. Less (2 million) died and not only Jews, and the gas chambers aint proved according to Sandin.

In another article Milld more focucize on the freedom of speech, and refer to Jews which also think that. (He define the law against denial as "mind control". I think it's not change peoples mind, but to put people in prison for not claiming facts I don't think is acceptable either.)

The last article was the last of five arbitrary chosen hits from this google search on Milld's site "Blågula Frågor" (except the 2nd article which is the second hit when the word judar is ommitted from the google search).


What I don't like is that most of the 42 google hits seem to be either somehow atisemitic or holocaust denying, or both. I assure you there are more examples as these above!

You decide if Jan Milld shall be removed from the list in the anti Islamization movement. (You know what I think! Negative.)

Magnus Andersson said...

(I'm positive to the removal of JM and bgf I mean. There are so many others things to do and the fight - not calender - seems to improve in importance each day. I'll sent a mail with Swedish suggestions and relevant info within some weeks or so.)