.
Pat Lang’s diary is about the Iranian president and the holocaust reference, my diary is about the American rhetoric on foreign policy and warmongering in the media versus Iran.
NYT & Patrick Lang Beating the War Drums ¶ Exacerbates Fear of Iran
Iranian Conference on the Holocaust ◊ by Patrick Lang
Mon Jan 16th, 2006 at 08:56:21 PM PST
- “Last month, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in a speech, “They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred, and place this above God, religions and the prophets.”
He added, “The West has given more significance to the myth of the genocide of the Jews.”
He argued that the “myth” of the Holocaust served as Europe’s pretext for the existence of Israel.” CNN
Did you say CNN translation and coverage can be trusted?
See the rubbish spouted by a Jewish rabbi Abraham Cooper from Simon Wiesenthal Center of Los Angeles. To be clear, I have great respect for Simon Wiesenthal, his courage and his work in Vienna, Austria. Los Angeles has become a center similar to AIPAC as a lobbyist organization with mostly propaganda.
More below the fold …
It would be nice by such a general statement “There are also many in those parts”, some proof is provided or a link. I personally have never heard of these protocols, so I had to do some research and added a link to the protocols.
This alinea scares me that an educated person can sustain a vision of confrontation with the Islamic World, instead of limiting his concern to the extremists present on all sides and of all biblical times. When U.S. policy has been adepted to a Clash of Civilization, you are confronting 1.3bln muslims globally.
Did he deny the Holocaust or try to proportion the same related to the importance of the Biblical Land and Jerusalem for all religions? The Jewish nation refers to the Holocaust as exclusive for their people, discounting the many other victims of extermination in the Nazi camps and the multiple of deaths caused by WWII.
- On December 8, 2005, Ahmadinejad gave a speech at a summit for Muslim nations in Saudi Arabia that denied the Holocaust and suggested Israel should be moved to Europe.
Saudi Arabia’s new ambassador to the United States denigrated in an interview with the Washington Post, the Iranian president’s description of the Holocaust as a myth. The ambassador said the “horrific genocide” is a “historical fact” no longer in dispute, adding that the Arab world has “made our peace” with the Jewish state’s establishment.
In the interview, Prince Turki al-Faisal said “As far as Saudi Arabia is concerned, [the Holocaust is] a historical fact, you cannot deny that, and people should move forward from that.”
Turki said the Arab world has “made our peace” with the creation of Israel. He noted that in 2002, the Arab League adopted a Saudi plan that committed Arab nations to a peace process that would result in the creation of Palestine and an acceptance of Israel, including normalization of relations, once it leaves territory occupied after the 1967 Six-Day War.
Another allegation and a general view of the Arab and Islamic world. I would appreciate to know, how this is substantiated. In general, I understand Islamic teachings of heretics as a fundamental problem – see Saudi Arabia and not in particular Iran. A simple generalization and poorly founded in historic context.
Hmmm … I googled for “zero-sum game” and “us versus them“
● Oil in the Caspian Region and Central Asia
– the Political Risk of the Great Game Continued
Contribution at a conference held in Boulder, USA, April 11th. 1998. Copyright: Øystein Noreng.
Interlocking Political Risk Dimensions
This article discusses the political risk involved in developing the oil and gas resources of the Caspian Region and Central Asia and in bringing the oil and gas to the market. The risks involved should be analyzed from at least three angles: the transportation problems, the great power involvement and the potential instability of the regimes in place. These three dimensions interlock.
● The New Regionalism ◊ by Allan Wallis, Ph.D.
The Western Powers have truly screwed up the region since the Ottoman Empire and the wars in Iraq by the British, CIA overthrow of regimes in Middle-East since WWII and the U.S. led invasion and occupation of the Iraq sovereign nation.
Pat Lang
Pat Lang provides little context to the circumstances and place of the Iranian rhetoric. A far better article on the topic can be found on the website of the Jewish Library with same biased Israeli rhetoric, however given in a fuller context. Most amazing alinea near the end:
- For years, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq served as a counterweight to the regional hegemonic designs of the theocrats in Tehran; however, the removal of Saddam from power, and destruction of his army, has left Iran as the most powerful nation in the Gulf. Iran is viewed by its Arab neighbors as a menace. Iran has a long record of coveting their resources and territory, and Iran’s radical Muslim leaders have consistently sought to export their revolution beyond their nation’s borders.
So, after supporting the Kurds and charlatan Chalabi to have Saddam removed and Iraq destroyed, the Israeli government and society are happy to continue the struggle by entertaining the West with continuous propaganda of other Arab and Islamic nations in the Middle East.
The occupation of Palestinian land of the West Bank and Gaza, the Golan heights of Syria, the invasion, occupation and destruction of Southern Lebanon and Beirut in the eighties, what is next for American soldiers to die for?
… There are other, non-jewish aspects of WW2 which are rarely mentioned or discussed, concerning German POW’s, Roma (gypsies), Poles and other Slavic peoples (esp Ukrainians), Communist party members (German) and physically handicapped people who also suffered greatly in WW2.
The Iranian president has issued many inflammatory, extremist statements. That being said, the issue of the holocaust and questions about it are not solely the province of nuts, anti-Semites and hatemongers.
RELATED READING ::
-
● Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran
Global Research by Michel Chossudovsky – 1 May 2005
● Prince Turki bin Faisal ibn Abdul Aziz Al Saud
On 19 January 2005 a US federal judge dismissed Saudi Arabia from 9/11 lawsuits. Richard Casey ruled that Saudi Arabia, Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan Prince Turki al-Faisal, and the country’s ambassador to Britain HRH Prince Turki Al-Faisal, all had immunity from the litigation.
● NYT & Patrick Lang Beating the War Drums ¶ Exacerbates Fear of Iran
“Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”
▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
You suggest that you don’t know whether or not the Iranian president denied the Holocaust. That is strange considering the extensive coverage both in the world media and on websites you frequent. Of course we all know that papers like The Guardian, Le Monde, Libe, and Der Spiegel are just neo-con propaganda organs. You’re also unsure about whether or not the Protocols are appreciated in the Muslim world, that in spite of the fact that there was considerable coverage of them forming the basis of special Ramadan TV series in Egypt and elsewhere. You talk about your ‘research’ – a quick google would have given you what you were looking for.
e.g.
Storm over ‘Elders of Zion’
Anti-Semitic series on Egypt TV stirs outrage
Egypt criticised for ‘anti-Semitic’ film
You want a broader take on the issue take a look at
Der importierte Hass
Nice beginning at deconstructing some of the prevalent demonizing rhetoric. Unfortunately, Ahmadinejad seems perfectly happy to feed the noise machine. Norman Solomon notes that both Ahmadinejad & now, Netanyahu . . .
Holocaust denials are nothing but a smokescreen & are totally irrelevant to today’s confrontation with Iran. The only reason to highlight & harp on his foolish remarks is to further demonize & dehumanize the Iranian people, a task accomplished through language that becomes unquestioningly repeated. Resisting that ‘group think’ vocabulary is one of the more important taks beofre us now.
Understanding the cultural (& domestic political) context in which Ahmadinejad’s remarks are made is important; debating whether or not the holocaust occurred is mere diversion. (Though I want to remember all the gays & lesbians — the pink triangles — who were also murdered in Germany’s camps.)
Lang’s words are instructive –not for the “analysis” — but for what they reveal about an institutional & cultural Jungian shadow, disgusted by the sight in the Other of what is known, but denied, to reside within U.S.:
Best brief psychological analysis of the the country presenting the pre-emininent threat to world peace today.
.
For concise statement and sailing by the underwater rifts this discussion entails.
On a long discussion of how the media failed to cover the facts before the Iraq invasion, the lies and deceit by the Bush cabal, collusion of MSM in covering the Iraq war and occupation, the role of the Likud, Israeli administration, AIPAC and DoD henchmen, the failure to tell the American people the truth before Congress cowardly accepted the dictate of Bush/Cheney in 2002.
When blood is shed, it’s not the politicians’ but the innocent bystander. War, yes in defense as last resort, but not by choice as Bush/Cheney send our troops into a sovereign Iraq. Never again the lies and deceit of Downingstreet 10.
The same coordinated rhetoric on Iran is displayed in the media for several years now. My latest diaries tries to distinguish the propaganda from facts and allegations, or at least give another view. I won’t get into any bs of anti-semitism, or discussion thereof, as I prefer to stick to differences in political opinion.
NYT & Patrick Lang Beating the War Drums Exacerbates Fear of Iran
“Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”
▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
are failing to cover the facts again, and they are busily beating the war dums if not cheerleading them as they happily dehumanise all Iranians this time.
We cant rely on the MSM to learn from their mistakes.
.
It started with a search for corporate media and Jewish corporate media, which led to websites on media influence on U.S. foreign policy. I recently wrote a diary Norman J. Pattiz – Chairman BBG Middle East Committee.
In another diary on the War of Words between Israel and Iran on new electronic devices for precision detonation of bombs in Itaq, I skirted some clearly anti-semitic sites, yet there was some worthwhile content to quote from.
Is this anti-semitism?
The Israeli Terrorist State and its Mossad Assassins ◊ by Dr. Israel Shahak
Jewish Assassination and Media Doublethink ◊ by Michael Hoffman II
I find this info interesting, as it is placed in the year 2001, Sharon as new PM of Israel after his February election victory, the setting in which the 911 attacks were executed.
State-Sponsored Assassinations by Agents of the Israeli Government ◊ by Michael Hoffman
Elie Hobeika, a key witness in the Sabra-Chatila war crimes case being pursued in a Belgian court against Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, was blown up outside his house in Beirut on Jan. 24, 2002, together with three bodyguards and a civilian bystander. The car-bomb was the work of professional assassins in the employ of Mossad, the Israeli secret service. The explosion occurred two days after Hobeika agreed to give evidence against Sharon in Belgium. Hobeika had met Belgian Senators Josy Dubie and Vincent van Quickenborne in east Beirut, agreeing to be a witness at any trial of Sharon for the Sabra and Chatila massacre.
Elie Hobeika
Belgian lawyers seeking to indict Sharon expressed their “profound shock” at Hobeika’s murder. “Mr Hobeika had several times expressed his wish to assist the Belgian inquiry on the massacres at Sabra and Chatila,” a statement from the Belgian lawyers said. “His determination to do so was reported widely on the eve of his assassination. The elimination of the key protagonist who offered to assist with the inquiry is an obvious attempt to undermine our case.”
Marwan Hamadeh, the Lebanese minister for refugees stated,”My initial evaluation is that of course Israel doesn’t want witnesses against it in this historic case in Belgium…” Israeli Prime Minister Sharon dismissed the charges: “I am simply saying, from our point of view, we have no link to this subject at all, and this is not worthy of a comment,” Sharon told reporters.
When a people lost 6,000,000 lives in Nazi Germany, where does its new nation place the boundary for collateral damage?
Additional reading: Victor Ostrovsky: How Mossad Got America to Bomb Libya & Vanunu’s Case – Israel Nuclear Power
≈ Cross-posted from my earlier diary —
Norman J. Pattiz – Chairman BBG Middle East Committee ¶ Al Hurra & Sawa ≈
“Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”
▼▼▼ READ MY DIARY
Again, you link to a an antisemitic site. This time to a Holocaust denier and to a well known racist Jewish convert to Christianity. The first time you did so I gave you the benefit of the doubt, thinking that it was inadvertent. This time the best case I can imagine is that your indignation with Israel’s occupation policy has driven you so mad that you feel that even racists are just fine – the equivalent of those who hated communism so much that they thought that the racist hacks who backed South African apartheid were some sort of brave souls struggling for freedom against Evil ™. And that is the best case…
For those who read this comment and find it over the top I suggest browsing some of the articles at the site
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/archives.html
Note the fricking name – ‘revisionist history’ is the code term for Holocaust denial.
PS. In a comment on Pat Lang’s thread in response to Soj’s defense of the Iranian conference I sarcastically suggested a conference on whether or not slavery existed as a widespread phenomenon in the South. Well lo and behold, Michael Hoffman, the friendly white supremacist Oui links to, argues that it was whites who were the slaves, and blacks privileged. To quote Hoffman “Real history tells another story, an account of black skin privilege which reveals the monstrous injustice of the Federal government’s misnamed “Civil Rights” policies.”
Black Skin Privilege
.
I gave you a 0 rating.
The diary and topic is on Iran and propaganda, I take serious offense against your call of anti-semitism.
Yes. I’m outraged with anyone or any state quilty of crimes against humanity and random assassination with collateral damage of innocent children, women and the elderly. You have a problem with that???
“Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”
▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
So lets see, calling you out for linking to a white supremacist site with the comment ‘is this antisemitism’ is harassment? Complaining that you have no twice in the past couple weeks linked to hate sites as reliable sources is harassment?
WTF? If someone was writing about crimes committed by African governments and had a habit of linking to white supremarcist sites as sources would you see that as just fine? Because you’re doing just that, only with respect to Israel.
This has nothing to do with criticism, but with racism.
Neither one of you is communicating your relative positions to each other. Having read both diaries, and the comments, it’s obvious Oui doesn’t understand the impact, and that you probably haven’t read many of Oui’s diaries.
Stalemate. Let it go.
And here is the Advisory Committee of Middle East Policy Council, hopefully there will be at least one member that is at least not entirely distasteful to everybody.
This can be a good chance for you to help educate people like me. I went to that site and not being familiar with author, I have to say the few articles I read did not strike me as overt hate speech.
I’m not a holocaust denier as far as I know, but it got me to thinking, what exactly determines holocaust denial?
If by “Holocaust” you mean that hundreds of thousands of Jews suffered and died at the hands of Nazi Germany and its agents, due to starvation, disease and gunfire, and that many other Jews were deported from Germany under conditions of cruelty and hardship, then by that specific and limited definition the “holocaust” word can be assigned to those specifics as an Orwellian exercize in pop Newspeak.
However, if by “Holocaust” you allege that millions of Jews were put to death in homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz, that Hitler and Himmler authorized it and that this suffering constitutes the most unparalleled catastrophe in the history of mankind, then I assert total skepticism for what is, in essence, a laughable and insupportable thesis.
The World War Two Revisionist FAQ
I think that’s pretty self evident.
Been wondering that myself. I tend to look at the wholesale displacement and murder of millions of Jews, Eastern Europeans, Gypsies, etc. at the behest of the Nazi regime to be horrifying. I also happen to view the Nazi genocide as hardly unique – the continents of North and South America were the scene of a holocaust carried out on a considerably larger scale and over a longer period. There are unfortunately scholars who in their zeal to promote the presumed uniqueness of the slaughter of Jews by the Nazis dismiss the significance of the American Holocaust – one could say that would make them “holocaust deniers” of sorts as well.
Here is an excellent illustration of the worst form of Holocaust denial, and as you might expect, I also have a blogrant on the subject:
In Defense of Holocaust Deniers
If you want to be really honest about it:
Add it all up (and more) and the Holocaust was unique, and uniquely discouraging. It still stands alone in the annals of history as the low point of humanity.
view.
However, since the rest of the world does not see itself as “farflung hostile heathens,” mass slaughter and genocide of them seems just as bad as mass slaughter and genocide of white westerners.
I know it is difficult for some to comprehend, but the most farflung and (to the west) alien cultures see themselves as every bit as human, their lives every bit as valuable, as white westerners or anyone else.
I’m afraid it is just another one of those irreconcilable disconnects.
And I would have to disagree with your contention that there was no profit from it. In fact, if there had been no profit, it might well have been “nipped in the bud,” and millions of lives might have been saved.
Some thoughts:
Like Ductape, I acknowledge that you do an excellent job in describing one point of view regarding the Nazi Holocaust. Unfortunately, I too see a disconnect between the Euro-American establishment view and the viewpoints of our nonwestern brothers and sisters.
On your last point, there is no question of the value of slave labor, but there is a big question about the profitiablilty of killing your slaves.
On the rest of your point, I thought it was obvious that I was presenting the argument from the perspective of Euro-American establishment.
But, having said that, it also represents a progressive critique.
For example, I have no problem thinking of Thomas Jefferson as one of the most enlightened people of his time, in spite of his plantation. Today I would think of him as worse than David Duke.
I am not suprised that a genocide might occur in Rwanda in the 1990’s, but I would totally shocked if one happened France.
Now, a lot of this is wishful thinking, in that the hope is that once you develop the knowledge and institutions of a modern representative democracy, abolish slavery, pass the Genevea conventions, establish the UN, unlearn dogma, engage in cultural anthroplogy, become a heterogenous society, establish religious freedom etc., that at that point, you do not expect to revert to death camps.
So, my point is that the genocide of native Americans took place outside of Europe, and for much of the time, it took place prior to the establishment and acceptance of Enlightenment principles, a lot of it was undertaken on the frontier in a piecemeal fashion, not necessarily under orders or on a schedule. Etc.
There is a sense in which a massacre in 3500 BC in the Nile Valley is just as inhumane and awful as one in Croatia in 1994. But there is a sense in which Croatia is worse, because we had hoped that we had progressed beyond that. And that adds to the horror.
Now, if you want to say people that reserve extra horror for such things are naive, then I suppose I would agree with you. Yet, I still would like to believe we can make progress, and I believe we have.
.
I’m pissed. After a personal attack on my integrity here at Booman’s Place, MarekNYC writes the same at European Tribune calling me a racist and anti-semite.
I therefore published my diary at EuroTrib and offered the same comment for the readers to make up their own mind. I have kept the same content, and changed the related links to other websites to avoid his manipulation of my intention with the diary.
Appreciate any support from regular EuroTribune readers. Thanks.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence. Everywhere I look I see women being mistreated and their oppression justified in the name of religion."▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
Oui, I do not think you are a racist or an anti-Semite. But he has a point about some of your sources. You will receive this same criticism from others if you rely upon them.
I vouch for your character, but I understand why Marek is leaping to the conclusions he has drawn.
All of these comments have certainly given me more to consider in trying to define a holocaust denial. The way I see it is that to hold an opinion of the entire tragic experience that doesn’t include at least a majority of the unbiased factors might be a denial. For instance, to portray it as only a loss of Jewish life or that it was not primarily a method of deliberate extermination would be equally deficient.
I’m in no way a history buff but didn’t Hitler first gain recognition as a local leader by rallying common workers in believing the Jews were a threat to take their jobs? Was he able to take a personal prejudice and inflame it into an accepted prejudice to be common in the public? From an uneducated perspective, I can’t imagine how one person could be capable of controlling the actions of others to enable the mass killing on such a large and acceptable (within his followers) scale.
Another incomprehensible contradiction is to hear one accuse anyone of being a holocaust denier while simultaneously putting the conspiracy theory label on the evidence that this same medical/psychological/social pathology continued after the war. Just because the time frame for the atrocity isn’t compressed into a few year period doesn’t mean that the same atrocity isn’t still occurring but with a different race/culture.
The (self-perceived)chosen ones who I believe are the forefathers of this, would and possibly have simply set up two groups to ultimately destroy each other. They seemed to be quite concerned about overpopulation, especially by what they felt were inferior races, across the globe. For them, the Holocaust is a never-ending obligation and responsibility of their birthright.
I just wanted to add something to those thoughts. As I sat here going over all of it, I knew in the back of my mind how the public, or at least enough to allow it can condone that thinking.
I’m not a queasy person but I had to fight back being physically ill to also think how close BushCo came to this. Gitmo was just a start and if he and Chertoff and the rest of gang had received permission from the courts to execute ‘detainees’ after their secret trials, it probably would have been ok with about 52% of the American people.
The way I see it is that to hold an opinion of the entire tragic experience that doesn’t include at least a majority of the unbiased factors might be a denial. For instance, to portray it as only a loss of Jewish life or that it was not primarily a method of deliberate extermination would be equally deficient.
Imagine that some other nation invades the US and institutes a brutal occupation policy, one that includes a good deal of random murder of whites, such that after five years some ten percent of all whites are dead. It also rounds up all blacks and kills them, makes attempting to hide blacks a capital crime, and in the end over ninety percent of all blacks are dead. Would it be wrong to say that there was something a bit different about the treatment of whites and blacks?
I’m in no way a history buff but didn’t Hitler first gain recognition as a local leader by rallying common workers in believing the Jews were a threat to take their jobs?
No. First of all his antisemitism was not the primary source of his popularity. More important for the topic at hand is that he wasn’t talking about Jews stealing jobs, but rather about Jews being the source of all evil, a cancer that destroys any society where they are present, destroying the economy, destroying morality, destroying patriotism, reducing the ‘native’ population to slavery, etc. As such in order to save the world Jews must be eliminated.
Was he able to take a personal prejudice and inflame it into an accepted prejudice to be common in the public? From an uneducated perspective, I can’t imagine how one person could be capable of controlling the actions of others to enable the mass killing on such a large and acceptable (within his followers) scale.
Racism against Jews was prevalent among German society (and other societies as well), though the extreme variant that Hitler espoused was only shared by a minority. I have no idea why you find it hard to imagine that ‘one person’ (actually a well organized bureaucracy) was able to get this done. In any case, there’s no need for imagination, it happened, so the only question is how.
The (self-perceived)chosen ones who I believe are the forefathers of this, would and possibly have simply set up two groups to ultimately destroy each other. They seemed to be quite concerned about overpopulation, especially by what they felt were inferior races, across the globe. For them, the Holocaust is a never-ending obligation and responsibility of their birthright.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. Please explain. Who are these ‘self perceived chosen ones’ who set up these unnamed ‘two groups’ for destruction and so on?
Here is a good example of the type of rhetoric Hitler used before taking power:
or there a Negro has become a lawyer, teacher, even clergyman, or even a leading opera tenor or
something of that kind. While the stupid bourgeoisie , marveling, takes cognizance of this miraculous training, filled with respect for this fabulous result of our present educative skill, the Jew knows very slyly how to construe from this a new proof of the correctness of his theory of the equality of men which he means to instill into the nations. It does not dawn upon this depraved bourgeois world that here one has actually to do with a sin against all reason; that it is a criminal absurdity to train a born half-ape until one believes a lawyer has been made of him, while millions of members of the highest culture race have to remain in entirely unworthy positions; that it is a sin against the will of the eternal Creator to let hundreds and hundreds of thousands of His most talented beings degenerate in the proletarian swamp of today, while Hottentots and Zulu Kafirs are trained for intellectual vocations. For it is training, exactly as that of
the poodle, and not a scientific ‘education.’ The same trouble and care, applied to intelligent races, would fit each individual a thousand times better for the same achievements” (MK, page 639-640).
There’s no progress in a discussion if words get twisted around.
Imagine that some other nation invades the US and institutes a brutal occupation policy, one that includes a good deal of random murder of whites, such that after five years some ten percent of all whites are dead. It also rounds up all blacks and kills them, makes attempting to hide blacks a capital crime, and in the end over ninety percent of all blacks are dead. Would it be wrong to say that there was something a bit different about the treatment of whites and blacks?
How exactly does this apply to the holocaust discussion?
No. First of all his antisemitism was not the primary source of his popularity. More important for the topic at hand is that he wasn’t talking about Jews stealing jobs, but rather about Jews being the source of all evil, a cancer that destroys any society where they are present, destroying the economy, destroying morality, destroying patriotism, reducing the ‘native’ population to slavery, etc. As such in order to save the world Jews must be eliminated.
I never said his antisemitism was the source for his poularity. I thought he first gained support by rallying the unemployed and poor by playing on their fears of losing their jobs to another group, in this case he exploited the Jewish people as the cause for jobs lost. His propaganda started early and it was more a play of xenophobia rather than antisemitism although both were involved. In other words, his driving force was nationalism and jobs but he used the exploitation of Jews to further another personal agenda.
Racism against Jews was prevalent among German society (and other societies as well), though the extreme variant that Hitler espoused was only shared by a minority. I have no idea why you find it hard to imagine that ‘one person’ (actually a well organized bureaucracy) was able to get this done. In any case, there’s no need for imagination, it happened, so the only question is how.
I see the same similarity with the manufactured hatred, prejudice paranoia and persecution of Muslims and those similar in culture, race or nationality, in this country. The one person here is the combination of forces in power behind Bush. It happens by manipulating the citizens to support the atrocities.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. Please explain. Who are these ‘self perceived chosen ones’ who set up these unnamed ‘two groups’ for destruction and so on?
THE Holocaust is just one of many similar programs that have been carried out through history to further the advancement of small groups of people. These circles of friends and families have parallel bloodlines and hold power in various countries. The ruling elite simply moves from one group to another to continue their atrocities.
you are making an illuminati argument. But you have some of your facts wrong.
The extermination of the Jews was Hitler’s driving force, not jobs. You have reversed the sequence. He gained support by talking about jobs, and blaming Jews.
Hitler also did not come from a bloodline that would qualify him as a member of the so-called illuminati. And any argument that attempts to blame, for example, Hitler’s decision to invade Poland on international industrialists, is ignoring the unique mind of Adolph Hitler.
You should read Mein Kampf. It explains pretty much everything about why Hitler did what he did.
As for why his people followed him? That’s complicated.
I understand that the extermination was his driving force but that’s not how he initially started gaing a platform to speak was it? Didn’t he first appeal to the basic needs and fears of the citizens….jobs?
Another lost factor is the widespread support he got from Christian antisemitism.
I don’t trust any author to be a reliable source anymore. I’m still an avid reader and author supporter but I’m too disillusioned with all of them having a hidden agenda that’s disguised in their work.
Hitler proved to be a man of his word. You can read his writing without fear of a secret agenda. It’s all on the table.
As for how he gained power, it is not really germane to the overall debate here. But if you are interested in that angle:
The world was in the midst of the Great Depression, which for Germany was really the second great depresssion, the other one occurring in 1923-24. Not only were jobs scarce and money subject to high inflation, but Germany was still paying reparations. Much of the former Germany belonged to other countries, and the Rhineland was occupied by the French.
Much like Wal-Mart is today, new department stores (often owned by Jews) were crowding out smaller shops and trades.
So, Hitler blamed the Jews for manipulating the markets, profiting off inflation that made people’s savings worthless, wiping out their trades, taking their jobs, etc. It was a kind of catch-all solution. Get rid of Jewish influence, banking, and businesses, and we can solve all these problems. But this was combined with an appeal to bigger businessmen too, who feared the prospect of communism (another Jewish conspiracy), and also an appeal to nationalism and restoring national pride.
Once in office he initially did a pretty good job at creating jobs and improving the economy and he had a string of successful showdowns with the international community (he kicked the French out of the Rhineland, he took back German speaking parts of the (now) Czech Republic, he united the country with Austria. And he got away with all without starting a war. This made him immensely popular, and gave him the stature and credibility to attack Poland.
But all of this was done with the eventual aim of killing off European Jewry. I don’t think he had any higher aim. It would have made no sense to attack Russia unless the Holocaust was his real aim, and not merely gaining some lebensraum.
Wasn’t he also embarrassed for the conditions Germany agreed to after WWI and he effectively played that nationalism into power? He appealed to the popular opinion and evidently the popular opinion supported what he said. I can’t see any madman being able to commit such atrocities in a vaccuum. The media he appealed to was already antisemitic, as you’ve related other points to. Isn’t that part of what pushed him into power…the relationship of propaganda promoted by both?
What about his spontaneous speech to the Workers Party on Oct 16, 1919 that sparked a realistic political career? Was it just by accident that The Protocols were released within a few days after that? Isn’t that eeriely similar to the Patriot Act’s residence on the shelf, waiting for the opportune time? I’m in no way comparing the two for their impact but suggesting that other forces behind the scenes are always at work.
my understanding is that the Protocols were written around 1903 by someone in the Tsar’s service. Not in 1919.
I took that from a Teacher’s Guide written in 1990 I found that had biographical facts. I’ll doublecheck and post at the end of the comments to spare the margin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion
I don’t even go to Wikipedia anymore.
I found a few references that mentioned the German translation being released in 1919 so maybe that’s what the piece I saw was talking about. I never looked too closely at the Protocols before but I see now they have a longer history than even 1905.
In part, weren’t they written to also counter Communism besides driving antisemitism?
yes, I believe the Tsar found them useful during the 1905 crisis.
The bottom line on the Protocols is that they are a hoax and a forgery. They have no relationship to the rise of Hitler, although he may have believed in them and made reference to them…he probably did.
You will also find that most illuminati literature is totally bunk.
Now, there are some very interesting connections between the Knights of Malta, the CIA, the Nazis etc. And the CIA did recruit former Gestapo agents into the new Germany’s intelligence agencies (we needed trained spies to spy on East Germany.. And we did give safe haven for some German scientists that might rightly have been imprisoned or executed.
That is different from taking these illuminati theories too seriously. There is more there than meets the eye, but IMO, much much less than is usually asserted.
As an example, much is made of the fact that Prescott Bush and John Foster Dulles were heavily involved in bankrolling Nazi Germany. And Prescott even had his business confiscated for trading with Germany after the war started. What’s rarely mentioned is that his son George went and fought in World War Two. As it happened, he was sent to the Pacific, but he could just as easily died fighting Nazis. How inclined do you think he was to be a friend to Nazis at the end of the war?
As for the Grandson, no Illuminati worth joining would have him for a member, and he’d probably get a wedgie if he showed up at the Bohemian Grove.
Hey!! Leave my Illuminati conspiracy theories alone already… they’re all I’ve got to hang onto in this crazy world… (and a prerequisite for joining my clique…) 😉
Next you’ll be telling me the moon isn’t made out of green cheese either.
Just burst all my bubbles why don’t you.
shhhhhhhh I’m going to call it Social-structured Freemasonry or a a (Bio)chip Off the Ole Block
I have trouble understanding your reluctance to consider relevant connections that happen in the world of politics.
Of course the Protocols were a fake but so were the Niger forgeries, does that make either one less effective for manipulating public opinion? To the contrary, I think it makes the sources of these deliberate manipulations worthy of close scrutiny.
I think 41’s father would’ve exploited his son’s death if he was lost in a war that would help hide the connections behind the scenes. You’re missing the goal of the greater good. You’re missing people being used as tools by those in power behind the scenes.
Forget the Illuminatti bullshit for a few minutes and just consider human nature at it’s worst.
Look at the history of eugenics.
I’m not missing that at all. I’m saying there is a whole world of ‘real history’ behind taught history, but that you can err badly when you start trying to connect up every event to the same players.
But it’s disingenuous to ignore those connections when they do apply.
In some of my random researching I saw a political research site that had some info on the Protocols. I have no idea of the bias of this site but it looked fairly moderate, but I guess not…Political Research Associates.
About PRA
Who We Are:
Founded in 1981, Political Research Associates works to facilitate public understanding of the threat posed to human rights by oppressive and authoritarian movements and trends in the United States.
Through our research and publications, and as a national resource and support center for activists, journalists and others, PRA helps to build the movement for progressive social change and promotes democratic values and principles. In addition, PRA is the premier national organization studying the full spectrum of the US Political Right – from ultraconservatives in the electoral arena to paramilitary organizations to supremacist groups.
about
————
The Protocols themselves are plagiarized from and inspired by earlier works that allege conspiracies, especially a satiric French work Dialogue in Hell between Machiavelli and Montesquieu by Maurice Joly published in 1865; and a German novel Biarritz by Hermann Goedsche published in 1868. Equally dubious documents purporting to reveal secret conspiracies have circulated for centuries.
———–
Antisemitic conspiracism can come in a variety of guises. Some conspiracist groups that claim not to be antisemitic appear to be unaware when they stray over the line. Others claim not to be antisemitic as a cover for their real hatred of Jews so as to not attract widespread public scrutiny. Coded rhetoric is a key feature in this milieu with the term “internationalist bankers” often clearly understood to mean “Jewish bankers.”
In their account of history, they paint everything with the nasty-ass conspiracy label and leave out important details we’ve discussed here. It only gives on side and that is a propagandized version at that.
The trouble with all of this conspiracy allegation and false accusation of antisemitism is that it removes the subject from discussion. It gets to the point where any mention is jumped on as one of the two to discourage looking closer at the real causes, which are neither conspiratorial or antisemitic.
posting in a comment that peace and tolerance were traditional Jewish values. (not on kos, somewhere else, a particularly ardent Likudnik took great exception to such a smear, sent me a nasty message, and reported me to the moderators, who dutifully reprimanded me for making such an objectionable allegation.)
I stood by my original comment, and still do.
Classic.
The history of the Mizrahim then would be a revisionist, conspiracy myth?
by conspiracies that they had to flee to Target.
Why do we call the Nazi mass murder of Jews* “The Holocaust” in stead of “a holocaust”. History as you point out is littered with holocausts. The use of “The” immediately gives it a unique identification effectively denying all the other holocausts.
It is good to see on here some metion of the gypsies, slavs, communists, gays etc who were also slaughtered by the Nazis. Too often these groups which in all likelihood were the majoriity are forgotten and rarely does Hollywood make movies about them.
There have been many holocausts throughout the history of mankind. It would serve us well as humans to rememebr them all and to try and learn and a become better humans because of this previous suffering of so many.
by this: “alinea”?
Thank you.
.
Used in Dutch, German and French meaning a new paragraph. I had to reread your question several times before realizing it was not an English word. Close to aline or alinement, but alinea is indeed not an English word … yet!
“Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”
▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
Dammit, Oui, I liked that word! Actually, there is an English word, alineation:
(Webster’s Unabridged)
So I was reding your (apparent) neologism as descriptive of the creation of meaning (the “imaginary line” above) by bringing disparate themes together in relation. Similar in fact to Pound’s (& all the poets who followed his poetics) technique of verbal collage, a paratactic patchwork f semantic possibility.
Sorry to see that this whole diary got side-tracked by the holocaust discussion. & is there any way to reach Booman & ask that he re-consider his repetiton of the “madman” meme?
So was the series. It had some freaky coincidences to the ‘behind the scenes’ alleged conspiracy theories too.
.
I usually link a reply to one of his recent comments without disturbing someone’s diary,
or if it’s personal, drop an email — admin at boomantribune dot com
On the diary hijack, I’m not too content with mr. MarekNYC, and as the Dutch saying goes: “the little mouse got a long tail”. I appreciated all support here, but I get very annoyed when same bs is repeated over at European Tribune out of context.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence. Everywhere I look I see women being mistreated and their oppression justified in the name of religion."▼▼▼ READ MY DIARY ▼
There was an Iranian poster at DailyKos, vsredthought, a generally liberal engineering student who got caught in a flamestorm when he started citing The Protocols — a terrible lesson for him, as he had no idea until then of its provenance.
It is evidence of racism it may or may not be evidence of naivete as well. Perhaps a parallel example will make that clear.
Imagine that in a thread relating to Katrina and the media’s initial portrayal of blacks as violent, lawless looters and rapists, too stupid and lazy to leave New Orleans, someone posted quotes from a Protocols era ‘scientific’ article ‘proving’ that that’s just the way blacks are. Let us further imagine that this person had somehow grown up without realizing that such articles were not science but simple racism – e.g. typical of Americans and others not so long ago. That ignorance would be an explanation for his racism, it would not change the fact that he was a racist. Similarly, anyone who can read the Protocols and see them as a credible source, regardless of the level of their historical ignorance, is a racist. That does not mean that he isn’t otherwise a progressive, caring, intelligent, generally nice guy – just as there were plenty otherwise progressive, intelligent and nice racists back when crude racism was the default belief, but racists they were.
I don’t want to risk any further hijacking but I have to wonder if I’m unique in a certain perspective. It goes to the heart of this discussion though about Holocaust Deniers and The Protocols.
Based on evidence that they were propaganda derived from forgeries, doesn’t it make their existence and use in history a more serious violation in promoting that unwarranted hatred? When I mention the subject, it’s not to argue the merits of the content but to attempt to discover what groups were so intent on establishing/promoting that persecution. It seems history shows the existence of that prejudice being fairly widespread and actually necessary for the Holocaust to occur.
I think any prejudice is deplorable and even more so when it’s allowed to accomplish what that particular kind did. It didn’t happen overnight and rarely does any world leader or politician advance without some influence working behind the scenes and the general consent of the public. I think that needs more public discussion to reduce the possibilities of those atrocities happening again to any group of people. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to be a good subject for discussion.
Anyway, even as part of the inadvertant hijacking, Oui, I was trying to help defend against the unwarranted accusations.
The Hatfields and the McCoys were a group of hillbillies in the southern United States around the turn of the last century. They were interrelated, cousins and such, but they got into a fued that went on for years, killing and fighting each other.
What a tempest in a teapot. The “Jewish Holocaust.” Here we have the Muslims and the Jews, both descendants of Abraham, like the Hatfields and the McCoys, engaged in a stupid fight.
The history of mankind is characterized by the wholesale mass slaughter and exploitation of one group by another. One holocaust after another. Most have gone unrecorded. The holocaust on native peoples, when the French and other merchant nations circled the globe, they went around the world spreading disease infected blankets as “gifts” and decimating millions of natives is just one such unreported holocaust.
This was as true when Oui’s ancestors were painting themselves blue and worshiping the moon as it is today. Last century, when the Jewish holocaust was occurring on the other side of the world almost as many Chinese were being decimated.
In my opinion, this is a silly discussion that just distracts our attention from the search for peace. It actually does a disservice to us all to put up Pat Langs article just to knock it down.
You are just providing a “straw man” to distract us from the real issues.