And finally this woman brought us to the room filled with the graceful women purses, lampshades, wallets and the other leather goods. She said: "All of it is produced from the human skin". [I thought that had been debunked, just like the soap story.]
You will note the internal debate there as to just how many people were executed. It ranges from 4-4.5 million down to 400 thousand. It even says:
Modern Western historians perceive the number of 4 millions quite skeptically and they express the opinion that from 1.1 up to 1.6 million people were killed in Auschwitz.
These two links give a different view.
I am completely dissatisfied with the "official" Zionist version. It keeps changing, and they don't offer supporting evidence for each of their claims even though they also say that "The Holocaust," as they call it (there have been many), is the most documented event in history. Well, just how much of that documentation constitutes second-hand sources rather than original-source material?
The reason all of this matters is because the anti-Semitic Zionists have milked the sympathies (genuine; yours truly included but now I'm a skeptic) of billions of people in order to allow those Zionists to commit well-documented atrocities upon the Palestinians from whom the Zionists have quite literally stolen at a minimum 95% of Palestine. They had purchased only some 5% before the UN General Assembly gave them some 55% of Palestine out of sympathy but which resolution was reportedly never ratified by the Security Council before "Israel" (a misnomer since the Zionists were secularist against Jacob's "Israel's" God) unilaterally declared itself a nation-state.
Let me say that Theodor Herzl was anti-Judaism. He wrote all about it in his diary. He wanted the Jews to convert to Christianity not because he accepted Christ but because he wanted to be as good as the Gentiles and to be assimilated by them.
Read this, and wake up:
That's only just scratching the surface too. The more you learn, the more you'll realize it.
. It has subtitles in English. It does have English speakers. It's well worth watching the whole thing, even though it is a propaganda piece for the orthodox religious in Israel. It contains facts about Herzl and the founding of the Zionist Project and State of Israel. It doesn't deal with the error that is Talmudism because those orthodox religious in Israel are largely Talmudists and not Torah Jews. When that starts to load, it might be necessary for you to click on the horizontal slider knob to get it to start playing.
Here's more of the point of why I point to these things. If the Nazis did not do all the things that were alleged in the drumming up of the sympathy over Nazi concentration camps, then it is much less likely that the world would have concluded that the "Jews" (really Zionist, which is not the same thing, per se) were entitled to someone else's land, someone else who had not even committed the alleged holocaust offenses against the Jewish people. Why weren't the Germans required to give up part of Germany for the Zionists?
The Zionists have liked to point the finger at the particular Palestinian Grand Mufti Haj Amin Al-Husseini as having been a Nazi collaborator, as if that alone would justify Zionists stealing very nearly now the whole of Palestine; however, the Mufti was apparently put in place by the British and not necessarily supported in all of his views and actions vis-a-vis the Nazis or Jews by the Palestinian people. There were Palestinians who did not agree with everything the Mufti did.
Suffice it to say though that in the lead up to the rise of the Nazis, Zionists had already started pulling dirty tricks on Palestinian Arabs. In addition, there is the whole episode of Zionist collaboration with the Nazis in order that the Zionists could gain Palestine. Therefore, this whole area becomes a double-edged sword that can cut back at the Zionists likely much more so than against the Palestinian Arabs.
It is evil that discussing these issues is illegal in Europe. Many people want to make them illegal here as well. I say that the laws in Europe need to be rolled back to sanity so that the legitimate freedom of inquiry and academic freedom in the interest of getting at the unvarnished truth may prevail in all spheres. The truth is what matters, not the preservation of Zionist narratives.
In case you might take me as one who won't hear out the Zionists side, it's not true. I've read the following and much, much more pro-Zionism material.
This is a one-sided article. It is not seeking truth. It is only designed to boost the Zionists. There is no critical eye looking at all sides. You will note the absence of any facts about the Zionists working with the Nazis. It has been reported that tens of thousands of Jews served in the German military during WWII. Many high-ranking officers were reportedly known at the time to be at least partially Jewish by blood. Is it true? Information about these things though is difficult to come by not because they are necessarily untrue but because they don't serve the Zionist cause.
That articles states the following:
There was a significant radio broadcast to the Arabs on September 20, 1944. In this broadcast did the Mufti ask his Arab listeners if they were not able to turn away 11 million Jews. The total number of Jews at the beginning of the war was 17 million. The Mufti must have known, therefore, that 6 million Jews had died between September 1939 and September 1944.[91
However, I have been given to understand that the total number of Jews before the war was said to be 15 million and not 17 million and that interestingly, the figure immediately after the war was about 15 million but in any case, certainly not 6 million fewer than at the beginning of the round up of Jews in Europe to immediately after the war. I've not delved into that in any detail. I'd like to see the best figures and documented sources supplied by impartial people with nothing to gain but the truth (which is everything in the end).
Regardless, the statement that "The Mufti must have known, therefore, that 6 million Jews had died between September 1939 and September 1944" is illogical. Where did he get that 11 million figure? Could it have been that he was duped by the Zionists just as so many hundreds of millions of others have been?
Based upon that article, there is no proof that the Mufi "knew" that Nazis were exterminating Jews. The article jumps to conclusions that are convenient for ignoring any other way of taking things. That's evil. I question the sources. I can find scant info on Klaus Gensicke for instance. I'm not saying he's lying. I just wonder about the ultimate sources. Who has the original material? Has it been used in proper context? Has it been characterized fairly? I grant you that it's not always an easy thing to do. I can't always do it. One has to learn to sense what can or can't be trusted and on what level. That takes a great deal of exposing oneself to the various sides. Then it starts to become clear who's playing word and mind games rather than looking for the truth. I don't though doubt that the Mufi hated the Zionists and saw them as a violent enemy. They were.
There's this: Coming to Terms With the Nazi-Islamist Connection: An Interview with Jeffrey Herf. No doubt, there's plenty more within Zionist "History" circles. However, that piece is still blatantly Zionist. It tries to twist Islam into a "moderate" religion. Zionists are working over time to do that. Read my recent post though about Islam: "The Mind of Mohammed is Islam and is Judged by Jesus's Eternal Standards. His Word is Not the Law, and He Was Not a Prophet of God." He was also not a moderate. He was a supremacist, an elitist, an Arab-empire builder, who sought the subjugation of all other people and religions. (Mohammed's approach: Knuckle under, and we'll let you be. Step out of line and do not get right back in as ordered by Islam, and we'll wipe you out.)
To see just how "fair and balanced" that site is, I did a, the Jewish revisionist historian the Zionists love to hate as much or more than they hate Norman Finklestein.
The point of the militantislammonitor.org article is to convince people that the Zionists were and are justified. If it convinces you, then you are not aware enough.
Look, the Nazi Party was barbaric but so is the Likud and the other fascist-Zionist parties. I don't defend Nazism or Hitler or concentration camps or the Einsatzgruppen or however much "gassing" of whatever kind occurred. My issue isn't with denying Nazi mass killings. They did plenty of that during battle and otherwise. My issue is with condoning and facilitating land theft, ethnic and religious cleansing, and war crimes and the like committed by anyone against anyone, including the Zionists against the Palestinians. My issue is with turning a blind eye because of a historical error concerning just how sympathetic anyone should be that ends up condoning and facilitating the land theft, ethnic and religious cleansing, and war crimes that has clearly taken place against people who did not commit any holocaust against the Jews regardless of some Mufti's geopolitical maneuvering.
Also, that site, Militant Islam Monitor, is anti-9/11-Truth. It sells the official neocon-Zionist conspiracy theory that only so-called "Islamists" (there's no such thing as an Islamist; there are only Muslims) were behind 9/11. People who are anti-9/11-Truth refuse to address the facts presented by the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Now, why is that? Well, it's because certain of the neocons made 9/11 happen. If it weren't for them, it never would have happened. That's what I'm saying.
Moving on though and in addition, you also need to consider that Zionism is currently a mixture of the secular and religious that won't stand but more so, which religious part is founded upon Talmudic Judaism. It was the Talmudists, the Pharisees of the day, who clamored the loudest for Jesus's execution. The Babylonian Talmud is full of hate for Jesus and Christianity and Christian principles because Jesus did not, does not, and will never sanction entities such as the Herzl-Jabotinsky Zionist Project.
What you will find concerning the Talmud in the mainstream though is a load of very lame excuses. Consider that none of the Talmud was written until after Jesus taught openly. Consider making a direct comparison of the Gospels and the Talmud. The Talmud is (now changing) considered Holy by the Talmudists afterall. Why in the world did they write all of that when they had Jesus right there to choose instead? Not a single bit of the Talmud rises to the level of the message and exemplary life of Jesus Christ, yet these Talmudist saved every bit of the teachings of their leaders. Why didn't they throw out everything then that they knew was ridiculously immoral? They can attempt to make all the excuses they want. Doing that won't alter the fact that the Talmud is garbage no matter how much they try to obfuscate it's wicked teachings. Jesus preached no wickedness. That's all they need to know to stop holding up their Talmudic teachings. If you take away there oral, traditional teachings that Jesus said were not from God (and I believe Jesus) and take away their Talmud, they have nothing but the Torah, which points to Jesus and only Jesus, not Mohammed in any way, shape, or form. If the Jews and Muslims had followed Jesus rather than the ways they chose, just think of how wonderful this world would be. Of course, all those paying mere lip service to Jesus all these centuries should have been real Christians instead too. It would be the closest thing to Heaven on Earth now.
How could you follow the Pharisees who called for Jesus to be crucified? How could you build upon them? That's what everything called Judaism that isn't Torah Judaism does. Even the most "liberal" reformed Judaism comes out from the darkness of Phariseeism. How can it be the light rather than Jesus?
By the way, you know that Wikipedia is run by Jews, right? You know that what the Zionists call anti-Semitic isn't allowed to stand long on the Wikipedia, right? The Zionists pour over the Wikipedia looking for any thing that may beat the Zionists in an open debate. Please note that the sources are cited as emphatically correct. Contrary to Wikipedia's rules, the article is not written in a neutral manner. It does not use the term alleged. I really hate the kind of slanted writing in the Wikipedia article when the encyclopedia claims neutrality. I am not neutral, but I write in a more balanced way than that (not always but) right here on the scope of this post. Perhaps the defects in the Wiki article will be corrected. You will also note that it is stated matter-of-factly that certain authors are "anti-Semitic." These claims are not substantiated at all. The reader is being manipulated. An online encyclopedia is built to cross-reference to substantiating documentation. Such is not supplied. Only the statements of Zionists are supplied, as if we are to simply take their word for it that so-and-so is an anti-Semite. I don't buy Abe Foxman's definition of anti-Semitism for instance. He throws it around to simply mean any statement that shows any Zionist "Jew" in a bad light no matter how accurate.
Michael Hoffman is lumped in as an anti-Semite (even though that term doesn't even mean anti-Jew), but then the only refutation given is from Abe Foxman's Jewish Anti-Defamation League: "The Talmud in Anti-Semitic Polemics ADL report, ADL, 2003." It all comes down to personal views concerning the Talmud. I've read large swaths of it rather than just a few lines here and there to be sure not to be taking things out of context. You will further note that the Wikipedia article mentions how Jews have been distancing themselves from the Talmud more and more over time, but here they are defending it against the very criticism that causes them to be distancing themselves. Do you see the hypocrisy in that? That hypocrisy is consistent with why the Talmud ever came into existence in total in the first place. As I said, they had Jesus to choose. They still reject his moral teachings, let alone what most would consider his spiritual teachings. I don't divorce the two. They say now that much of the Talmud or none of it was written by God or even inspired by God. They have that right. So, why not denounce it as such? However, every word spoken by Jesus came out from God. No criticism of it has ever stood up without falling right back down again via refutations from Christians. I mean here concerning the divine logic of Jesus. I don't mean to the satisfaction of materialists who reject the spirit in any case and don't receive it for that very reason.
I must say that many of the attempted refutations of the negative critics of the Talmud are below weak. They are non-refuting. If anything, they make the situation of the Talmudists worse than if they simply said nothing in an attempt to refute the claims.
If the refutations are to be taken seriously, then they make the Talmud a hodge-podge at best that makes that brand of Judaism impossible to follow contrary to Jesus's consistent word.
Concerning the videos below, Michael Hoffman (Michael A. Hoffman) videos don't seem to stay on YouTube in one place very long. I had embedded a number of his videos only to find them taken down by YouTube. Of course, whole user accounts can be deleted; but it seems to me that Zionists complain and complain and complain until anti-Zionist videos on Michael's level often disappear. Of course, they pop back up on YouTube under different user names. So, if you want to hear or read more, use the YouTube search feature or Google his name.
He is a revisionist. He does deny aspects of what the Zionists call "The Holocaust." He is not a racist or ethnic bigot. He cannot be rightly called an anti-Semite. He is opposed, as he says, to the ideology that is Talmudism. So am I.
By the way, I do disagree with Michael concerning some of his views about "Americanism." I've address those differences on this blog.
I do not consider him a Nazi. I rather think that there are many aspects about Nazism that he finds reprehensible, as do I. He does deserve a fair and thorough hearing-out rather than being censored by the Zionists.
Here's a recent statement by Michael Hoffman:
Of course, once you open Pandora's box and fund and support hundreds of assassinations by U.S. "special forces" in western Asia, and by our Israeli "allies" in Lebanon, Iran and Palestine, then the genie is out of the bottle and the principle that "bad people" can and should be killed, is spread throughout the land. Americans may condemn Jared Lee Loughner's targets, but they cannot fail to vouchsafe his methods.
Amen to that.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)