please read and comment

by **professorpan** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 8:26 pm

Thanks for replying, Heath7. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>First of all, I don't think its knee-jerk, but responsible to question the history of the holocaust when everything else about history is lied about. It doesn't help matters that nothing from 20th century history is as protected as the holocaust. Alarm bells ring in my head. The bankers (please don't assume that I'm referring to a Jewish banker cabal) financed Hitler, knowing who he was. I think its disingenuous of them to absolve themselves of guilt because they say they 'discovered' what he was doing. That the same bankers financed both sides of the war screams that there was a big game on, and I can only assume that the Holocaust was part of that 'game'. And as I said before, the Holocaust serves as a convenient fog to block the history of what actually happened to Germany in World War I and thereafter. We are not taught about the hardships that Germany suffered while the rest of the world roared throught the twenties, but we're taught more about the Holocaust in American schools than our own Civil Rights era. <hr></blockquote> I think the Holocaust should be studied -- and it has been. Extensively. Rigorously. The evidence is contained in thousands, if not tens of thousands, of books, films, and archival materials. And I do not think it is a "protected" field. When people push blatant lies -- as the revisionists do, if you read what they say and write -- the ADL jumps all over them. An overreaction? That's a matter of perspective. I side with those who strive to remain vigilant against the horrors of the getting whitewashed, whether it's Jews, American Indians, blacks, Central American nuns, or gays. I think Jews, in particular, have a profound interest in making sure the Holocaust "revisionism" doesn't gain traction. I'm not quite sure I understand what you're getting at with the bankers comment. I'm fully aware that Hitler and the Nazis were funded by Americans like Henry Ford, the bigwigs at IBM, and other internationalist types with allegiances to money over ethics. I don't know why that makes the Holocaust a lie, though. And every time I've studied the Holocaust in school, from middle school onward through college, discussion of the conditions which led to it -- including the harsh economic conditions of post-WWI Germany -- has been part of the discussion. It's hard to understand the rise of fascism without examining the soil in which it takes root, and that is usually a big part of the curriculum. We disagreed, and no one called the other bad names. I like it when it works like this.

by **heath7** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 9:23 pm

For me to reply further would require research time I do not presently have, but I hope to. I agree that it was a nice to be able to disagree amicably on this issue. Did we accomplish a first here? Could it be this thread won't blaze a trail straight to the Fire Pit? Maybe we can actually start piecing the history together right here on RI, hopefully starting back at World War I, or even before, and figuring out more precisely what enabled the rise of hitler. Plenty of societies through history have survived considerable hardship without resorting to the likes of a hitler, what was different about the German brew, circa 1930? Most importantly, how can we avoid similar pitfalls here in the states now that its clearly evident that many Americans would, both ignorantly and knowingly, allow such an enigma to ascend here. I hope that we can take advantage of creating understanding. Instead of sourcelessly declaiming IHR, let's create a sphincter tight argument against their agenda. I understand that some may not see this board as such a place, but the information available from all the threads, archived and not, constitutes a formidable encyclopedia. Why not round out its background history? If I were to archive a single site on the internet, it'd be Rigorous Intuition, and this board. Wikipedia would be second.

by **Dreams End** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 10:35 pm

One piece I found about ww2 is that Hitler espoused a difference between finance capitalists and industrial capitalists. And while there were plenty of financial capitalists (i.e. bankers) who weren't Jewish, he targeted them. And there were plenty of industrial capitalists who were scummy but fascism, by definition really, is the act of merging the state and corporate sectors. So they get a pass. so Jewish banks were seized and turned over to non-Jewish bankers. Here in the US and in the rest of Europe there was a big difference of opinion within Judaism, about how much to actively oppose Hitler through boycotts, etc. The more conservative, richer Jews, especially those with business ties to Germany were very much against making too much of a public fuss so as not to inflame the prevalent "Jews run the world" ethic and fuel Hitler's rampage. These were folks such as led the American Jewish Committee. A broader coalition formed and became the American Jewish Congress which pushed more public opposition to Hitler and conducted protests and ultimately pushed for a boycott. Ironically, the more conservative folks in the Committee, such as Warburg, were ANTI-zionist, seeing Zionism as a dream of the great unwashed masses of Eastern European Jews. As with much social analysis, class is often a big factor. The Committee had acted before, of course, such as to work against the oppression of Jews by the Tsar in Russia. But it was such a catch-22. To work, either openly or even behind the scenes to help Russia's Jews was to risk being seen as great Jewish manipulators, "proving" that they were running the world all along. And I think of this everytime someone here posts about the "illuminati" secretly creating Bolshevism. It was the Tsar, of course, who put the "protocols of Zion" to such effective use before Hitler used them in Mein kempf. Interestingly, one of Hitler's primary heroes was Henry Ford, whose book on the "International Jew" provided a blueprint for his own ideology. Ford was brought down by a Jewish boycott of Ford cars...or at least that was the perception as I think Chrysler came on the scene at the time, providing competition. Ford caved to this "Jewish pressure" (surely thought of as such by some at the time) and renounced his writings. Hitler had his dedication to Ford removed in the reprinting of Mein Kempf. All along, of course, no one is denying the role of big business in the Reich..in fact it's central to our understanding. Why the industrialists like IBM are often given a pass while only looking at bankers is probably related to the original nazi rhetoric against bankers as parasites...while simultaneously handing out seized assets to "good German" bankers. So those who want to point out the corporate backing of Hitler...yes indeedy. Why back fascists? Compliant workforce...because fascists destroy unions and destruction of human and labor rights...what a bargain. Wait a second, if that's part of the fascist agenda then the U.S......nah, couldn't be. But to single out a small group of bankers, whether or not you only think that Banker = Rothschild, is to miss a larger and important component of fascism. Namely, that the big business elites of all stripes benefit from fascism and other attempts at social control.

by **Qutb** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 10:38 pm

Slimmouse said (those are his exact words, no comma added or subtracted): "Qutb did a half quote out of context number, which you then repeated, despite the full quote being contained on the VERY SAME PAGE. This was Daniel anti -defamation- league Pipes at his very best." Look, if I wanted to twist what anti said, sort of Daniel Pipes-like, then it would be silly of me to do that just below the original post, wouldn't it? The point wasn't that anti asked him whether he was Jewish, or whether he was Freemason. The point, which is what I reacted to, was the insinuation that Pan had some sinister ulterior agenda. Anyone could see the full question just above my post, so I didn't see the need to replicate it in full. I didn't make it "worse" in any way, if anything, his question was even more ridiculous the way he posed it. This "Qutb lied" thing is just inane. And, of course, you compare me to Daniel Pipes because of that incomplete quote. Man, you crack me up.

by **NewKid** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 10:43 pm

Can't you just see the next Village Voice article profiling sites like this. 'See what these weirdos think. It's all the illuminati and the Jews.' "Noted expert Chip Berlet explains the rise in this phenomenon . . . " "The Nation's David Corn and Marc Cooper have extensive experience with the wild west of the conspiracy theory on the internet. As Corn says, 'It's like the Elvis sightings. No matter how many times you explain it to them . . .'" "Many are followers of David Icke, the new age conspiracy guru who believes George W. Bush and Tony Blair are actually reptilian shape shifters . . ."

by **slimmouse** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 10:43 pm

Have a look at this quote ; <blockquote>Quote:<hr>This "Qutb lied" thing is just inane<hr></blockquote> Having looked at it, then tell me where I ever said that ? Here is my sole reference to QUTB in this discussion; <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Qutb did a half quote out of context number, <hr></blockquote> Which is exactly what you did. What I actually said is there for all to see. Meanwhile, the studio decorators have appeared in force. Strangely enough, at just about the same time that I thought this thread was getting somewhere. But of course, we appear to be "the problem" here. How does anyone being reasonably rigorous arrive at such a conclusion ? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=slimmouse@rigorousintuition>slimmouse</A> at: 3/1/06 7:52 pm

by **antiaristo** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 11:34 pm

I'd hate to feel completely neutered, so let's see if I can make a coherent argument as to why what Qutb said is invalid. Qutb said just now <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I didn't see the need to replicate it in full.<hr></blockquote> But at the time in question Qutb said <blockquote>Quote:<hr>For the record, here's antiaristo's full question to Professor Pan, since deleted by Jeff, and I'm only reproducing it on anti's demand:<hr></blockquote> Qutb then produced a quote with these defects: - A single sentence was turned into two sentences. - A comma was removed and converted into a question mark. - A word was removed. When it comes to matters of evidence, important court cases have turned on the position of a comma. This is important to me because it is my reputation under attack (Stormfront) by the person that has doctored my words. That is why the argument put forward by Qutb is invalid.

by **MASONIC PLOT** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 11:38 pm

I have always enjoyed the work of Jeff Wells. I think he does a great job of getting people to think in ways that they may not be used to. I am quite disapointed, however, that he has decided to take the hard line against any discussion of alternative views regarding Holocaust history. While I certainly understand this is a hot button topic, I think it is extremely important that it remain a topic that people continue to discuss for many reasons. I think all topics, no matter how taboo or hot button, should be open for honest discussion and debate. In an attempt to understand why Jeff would decide to take such a hard line I did a little research. I looked into the Publishing company of his novel "Anxious Gravity." I found an article by a man whose book was rejected by a Jewish faction within this publishing group because they were offended by it. I am just wondering if there is any connection to Jeffs stance and the fact that the company that publsihes and markets his novel doesnt like Holocaust revisionaist dialogue. You can read that story here. <a href="http://www.michaelbradley.info/grail/Mazeltov.html">www.michaelbradley.info/g...eltov.html</a> I also looked at the books Dundrum group markets and found that one of their top sellers is one of the foremost authorities on anti semitism, you can see that book here: <a href="http://www.dundurn.com/bookid/0404">www.dundurn.com/bookid/0404</a> Also I think it is worth mentioning that there are hate crimes laws in place in Canada where Jeff lives that make it a pretty heafty crime to question the holocaust. In light of all of these interesting little tidbits I think it is safe to say that Jeff is looking out for number one. As much as I enjoy his work and understand that he has to feed his kids I have to say shame on you Jeff if this is indeed the case. I look forward to reading your work in the future Jeff, nothing has changed for me, but this does make me wonder. If this were simply about tolerance it seems unlikely you would slam Scientologists and Moonies as often as you do. It has to be about more than just tolerance Jeff. What we have found is a weak spot, and in the end, as always, it is likely all about THE CASH. I want to be wrong, believe me, I do. All I am doing is connecting the dots. Isnt that what Jeff has taught us all to do? =) Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=masonicplot>MASONIC PLOT</A> at: 3/1/06 9:00 pm

by **Qutb** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 11:43 pm

Antiaristo, you win.

by **slimmouse** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 11:47 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>That is why the argument put forward by Qutb is invalid.<hr></blockquote> But John, of course the devil is quite literally in the detail. Which is why on reflection, I fully understand how anyone being even reasonably rigorous should be clearly able to see your standpoint. Jeff Wells is an artistic master when dealing with the poetry of words. I love the blog. It fucking inspires me. But when it comes to the technicalities ( or hard faced mathematics of how words work - That is , according to the law ) with the greatest respect Jeff, you aint too clever. Not that I blame you. It then becomes a matter of logic, rather than art. Enter "the team". Enter the twisting and perverting of members opinions based upon the good old divide and conquer meme- The racism card. This whole religion thing is a great tool for those in control. In short, from the best of my understanding, enter the ADL and similar teams, roughly disguised in various forms or other, but all seeking a common goal ; Look after No 1. I still await a couple of answer to threads regarding " The truth behind the Iraq war", and "Total war; The new Al quaeda threat " Two apparently juxtaposing positions which essentially ( for anyone with half a brain ) amount to the same thing. Its about seeing this whole situation for what it truly is. A divide and conquer deal, with some kind of God appointed legal council ( I use this term with due contempt) overseeing the whole show. To quote Ghandi and Robbie Williams. First they ignore you , then laugh at you then hate you. Then they fight you, then you win. Perhaps its me, But I like the above attitudes. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=slimmouse@rigorousintuition>slimmouse</A> at: 3/1/06 9:28 pm

by **antiaristo** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 11:50 pm

MASONIC PLOT GO AWAY I ADMIRE WHAT JEFF WELLS IS DOING I WANT HIM TO KEEP ON DOING IT I AM HAPPY TO PLAY BY JEFF'S RULES THESE ARE DIFFICULT TIMES FOR US ALL

by **Qutb** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 11:59 pm

Wow, it's a MASONIC PLOT! Please note that I didn't forget the caps. Ok, this is the guy who's book was rejected by a "Jewish faction" of Dundurn press, quoting from the link: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>And what about monotheism? In his startlingly outspoken Chapter 7 of Swords at Sunset, Bradley re-introduces the geographical and anthropological arguments of his first major book to gain international recognition, The Iceman Inheritance: Prehistoric Sources of Western Man’s Racism, Sexism and Aggression (Dorset Publishing Inc., Toronto, 197<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> . "It is interesting," notes Bradley, "that Sigmund Freud wrote on page 18 of his Moses and Monotheism (1939) ‘religious intolerance came into the world with the introduction of monotheism.’" And where was this monotheism introduced from? "It is fairly easy to correlate, on maps anyway, the distribution of monotheistic conceptions with the Caucasus Mountains and the contiguous mountain ranges radiating from them," says Bradley. "In fact, with respect to contemporary Islamic fundamentalism, it is still easy to pinpoint the Chechnya fanatics in the Caucasus Mountains themselves, the Ayatollah Koumeni in the Zagros Mountains of Iran, Saddam Hussein in the Zagros-Elburz range which enters central Iraq, the Taliban in the Hindu Kush of Afghanistan and Pakistani extremists in the Pamirs and high Kashmir." "It is also easy to correlate this montane habitat with a ‘strain’ or ‘race’ of people called Neanderthals. Tendencies toward monotheism apparently developed among this group of humanity alone, whereas as all other human groups exhibited a clear tendency toward polytheism." "As every newspaper reader knows by now, there has been a concerted North American media campaign since July 1997 to try to convince everyone that Neanderthals did not interbreed with so-called ‘modern humans’", Bradley noted. "This is because one influential ethnic-religious group still retains marked Neanderthal characteristics from their Caucasus-steppe origins." "However, when CBC Radio’s "Quirks and Quarks" revisited this issue on March 27, 2004, its panel of international experts was forced to admit what the actual facts have indicated all along since at least 1968. Neanderthals did, indeed, interbreed with ‘modern humans’ and it also happened not so long ago." "The conflict between the psychosexually balanced Cro-Magnons of the Atlantic coast and Mediterranean lowlands on the one hand, and the psychosexually unbalanced and aggressive Neanderthals of the Caucasus-steppes on the other hand, has formed the basic pattern of Western history: successive ‘barbarian’ invasions from the Caucasus-steppes. In terms of religion, we see this most clearly as the gradual imposition of monotheism – with greater or lesser success – on formerly polytheistic and relatively peaceful people. "Christianity, for example, has retained a high degree of polytheism in its tripartite God, its many saints and in some places it is just thinly disguised Mary-worship. In these characteristics, much of even orthodox Christianity harks back some 10,000 years to reverence for the Great Goddess. True Christianity really has very little to do with Judaism and, in fact, is much older than Judaism." "Islam, however," says Bradley, "fell much more strongly under strict monotheistic influence than Christianity. Sigmund Freud pointed out that, at first, Mohammed and his followers were strongly tempted to adopt Judaism en masse. It was only after a lot of soul-searching that Mohammed decided to create a 'new' religion. But Islam of AD 622 still incorporated the strict monotheism of Judaism and retained most of Judaism's supposedly divine injunctions." "I believe that this is the real message of The Lord of the Rings," says Bradley who corresponded with J.R.R. Tolkien's friend, Robert Graves, on Mallorca until Graves's death in 1985. "Remember, there's only One Lord in the eastern land of Mordor, the Dark Lord Sauron. Mordor is an industrialized wasteland and there is no naturally biological regeneration or reproduction in Mordor. The West is fighting against Mordor's monotheism for the right to individual identity as a part of biological diversity." "From an anthropological point of view, it is clear that monotheism has much less to do with the supposed nature of God and 'His' alleged injunctions than it has to do with the genetic and mental proclivities of a certain group of people." And what about the Jews, the first known monotheistic people? "Well, most scholars concur that the biblical Jews originated in the southern Caucasus Mountains and were driven out of the Black Sea Basin by the great flood-out of 5600 BC. Oceanographers Walter Pitman and William Ryan of Columbia University documented the date and the huge extent of this flood only in 1996 in their book, In Search of Noah’s Flood. The biblical Hebrews were a contingent of the peoples that history knows as Hittites, Mittani, Hurrians, Hyksos and Hi-bi-ru ('Hebrews', in Egyptian). Migrating away from the great Black Sea Flood, they over-ran the entire Middle East, with their military innovations of chariots and composite bows, between about 2500 BC and 1500 BC. The Hyksos and associated Hebrews even invaded northwestern Egypt about 1700 BC." "They were expelled from Egypt about 1550-1350 BC by several rulers of the Eighteenth Dynasty, the last phase of which seems to have been the biblical Exodus." "As for the vast majority of Jews today, those people with Germanic or Slavic names called 'Ashkenazim' from Central and Eastern Europe, they are not related to biblical Israelites at all, either genetically or historically." "Their Caucasus-steppe ancestors, called Khazars, were converted to Judaism in AD 740. The Khazars, as several prominent Jewish historians have confirmed, were just a later name for the terrible Huns, once called 'the Scourge of God', who had invaded Europe between AD 449 and AD 453." "These 'Ashkenazim' also presently form the vast majority of Israel’s population. Perhaps that alone explains a great deal about the Palestinian conflict and other violent Middle Eastern confrontations." "If we refuse to understand the real genetic factors behind the chronic Middle East conflict in particular and "Western" aggression in general, I truly fear that it will soon be sunset for this expression of human civilization," Bradley said. "For example," Bradley mused, "just last week Mordecai Vanunu was released from Israel's Shimka Prison after serving a sixteen year sentence. It was Vanunu's revelations about Israel's Dimona nuclear facility that allowed U.S. and UK military intelligence experts to conclude, back in 1986, that Israel possessed the sixth largest nuclear arsenal in the world." "Okay," he continued, "the Anglo-American-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003 was justified as an attempt to find "weapons of mass destruction". But President Bush must have known all the time that the biggest cache of "weapons of mass destruction" in the Middle East was in Israel, not in Iraq." "Yet, to this day, in spite of all the evidence, Israel still officially claims that it has no nuclear weapons at all. Israel insists on playing the role of victimized innocence. And it has worked so far, among North Americans anyway. Europeans, though, are getting wise to the game. Between October 7-15, 2003 a poll of Europeans indicated that 78% of them thought that 'Israel was the greatest threat to world peace.' " "I truly fear that the mindset of these highly Neanderthalish people is to destroy utterly if they cannot control. I think they would rather see the entire world destroyed than to relinquish their identity-myths." "This holds equally true for both fanatical Moslems as well as Jews, but the Jews presently have vastly more economic, media and therefore political and military influence in the Western world." "Still," Bradley paused and seemed lost in thought, "I was trained in classical biology and studied anthropology. I must objectively concede that the historical expansion of Neanderthalish monotheism, anti-feminism and military, financial and cultural aggression seems definitely to be dominant and successful in the contemporary world. Is it, therefore, destined to be the ultimate expression of humanity?" "One would like to think, however, that humanity has progressed beyond purely biological evoluton. One would like to think that we can consciously over-ride purely biological determinates. That we could establish cultural values that are more humane, more gender-equitable, more responsible environmentally and much less psychotic in terms of how we regard the supposed injunctions of the Bible's and the Koran's intolerant and tyrannical 'God'." "But maybe that is just a humanistic delusion on my part." "But maybe also, just as in The Lord of the Rings, it is an ideal worth fighting for in a near-hopeless biological situation. For who would want to live in the psychosexually brutal and environmentally blighted world that the Neanderthalish mindset offers as an alternative?" ************* Some reporters and Parliamentarians may be interested that my research into psychobiological effects on history have had practical geopolitical results. In September 1979, I warned President Jimmy Carter in a private letter about an "imminent" Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. This invasion happened between December 24 and 27, 1979 and caught the CIA completely by surprise. I received a letter of thanks, commendation and recognition -- on instructions from President Carter -- from Hodding Carter III of the U.S. State Department. Much more recently, in the days of the Chrétien government, I advised the PM, Bill Graham, John McCallum and the Institute for Strategic Studies against yielding to any domestic Jewish or U.S. pressure to join the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Aside from the very dubious historical and religious motivations behind this war, not to mention the actual location of Middle East "weapons of mass destruction", I predicted inevitable and serious Arab retaliatory attacks against Canadian targets (as actually happened in Madrid, Spain on March 11, 2004). But I cannot state that my arguments (and offers of a detailed Ottawa briefing about interpreting psychobiological effects on historical events) had any effect on Chrétien's decision to avoid Canadian involvement in the Iraq war.<hr></blockquote> So let me get this straight: this guy's "thesis" is that both the Jews and the Muslims are actually descendants of the Neanderthals?

by **Rigorous Intuition** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:04 am

though a fair bit off-base. I'm unfamiliar with either book you linked to. I have no further business with Dundurn, and the business - as with most small presses in Canada, was absurdly marginal. My family can only wish it was about the cash. You are right about this, though: "I think it is worth mentioning that there are hate crimes laws in place in Canada where Jeff lives that make it a pretty hefty crime to question the holocaust." However, I'm not cowed by the law, I'm in agreement with it. I don't understand why, since I've written critically of deep power structures such as Scientology and the Unification Church, I should then be expected to embrace Holocaust revisionism.

by **Floyd Smoots** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:14 am

A good friend, who is also an R.I. reader/sometimes poster, privately wrote me today. My friend pointed out that our gracious host, Jeff, resides in Canada, the selfsame country that expeditiously shipped the infamous "Mr. Z" off to Das Vaterland, at their request, posthaste. Friend posited that because Jeff is a Canadian subject of the Crown, and "subject" to those same anti-freedom laws, He, too, if he let's his international internet-connected "herd of cats" stray too far from the One World government people's laws and guidelines(?), could possibly suffer the same fate. That is NOT something that a responsible new father, and breadwinner can afford to easily ignore! Sometimes, it's not just "All About the Money", it can be about your atomic (nuclear?) family's personal safety and peace of mind. What say you, Jeff? <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/indifferent.gif ALT=":|">

by **Qutb** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:22 am

So now we start to insinuate that Jeff doesn't embrace holocaust revisionism either out of cowardice, or because he fears for his family's safety? WTF? Have you no shame?

please read and comment

Holocaust

Re: Holocaust

Re: Holocaust

Re: You should be only too aware of that.

Re: afraid you've missed my point

Re: Jeff. have a look at this.

Re: Jeff. have a look at this.

interesting

Re: Jeff. have a look at this.

Re: Jeff. have a look at this.

Re: interesting

Re: interesting

That is interesting, Masonic Plot,

A Sad, But Simple Posit....

Re: A Sad, But Simple Posit....

Who is online