YouTube - Holocaust, Hate Speech & Were the Germans so Stupid?

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 20, Paragraph 2:

Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

The problem there is that intention is in the eye of the beholder, meaning people will differ over what constitutes advocacy to incite illegal forms of discrimination, hostility, or violence on account of nationality (ethnicity), race, and/or creed. It is subject to wide-ranging interpretation.

Anthony Lawson's March 22, 2011 video (in-full below) strikes many of the same arguments put forth by Benjamin Freedman. It's that the Zionists declared war on Germany. The place in Anthony's video where he focuses in on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gycNMf0xAc&feature=player_detailpage#t=553s (London Daily Express, March 24, 1933).

It's also the "Stab in the Back," in which Jewish/Zionist money (bankers, international financiers) cut off Germany in WWI and switched sides from Germany to England for the sake of gaining Palestine for themselves, the Zionists. Benjamin Freedman explains that aspect fairly well. It was one of the reasons in particular that Hitler hated those Jews (all Jews?). Certainly, Nazi propaganda lumped all Jews together as evil, but so too did American propaganda lump all "Japs" and "Krauts" together as evil (at least in some propaganda pieces). So, the pot calls the kettle black here when the Zionists complain about Nazi propaganda/ethnic stereotyping.

The Germans admittedly did to the Jews what the Americans did to the Japanese, which was round them up and put them in concentration camps. What is in dispute is the degree to which the Zionists' version of what happened in the German-run concentration camps is true or false.

Anthony supplied many links in the notes of his video. I haven't visited them all yet, so I don't know whether I would endorse them or not or to what degree were I to.

Let me also say that embedding Anthony Lawson's video here is not a blanket endorsement of all of his work. There are aspects of some of his videos with which I have stated clear exceptions. I do not, for instance, subscribe to his views vis-a-vis WikiLeaks and the Zionists. I don't know the degree to which Julian Assange does or doesn't support Zionism. I suspect that his views on the subject have evolved and will continue to do so. I am anti-Zionists. What I am not is a person willing to assume the worst concerning WikiLeaks without much harder evidence than has been supplied by a certain clique on the Internet that appears to me to run with nearly every unsubstantiated rumor that on the surface may appear to be connecting real dots but more often than not upon further inspection, turns out at best to be wild speculation.

You can read more about that here: WIKILEAKS SERIES Information

Nevertheless, even the best of us can succumb in the absence of vigilance.

Here are Anthony Lawson's links:

General References:
http://www.whale.to/b/rudolf_hoess.html
http://fathersmanifesto.net/hoess.htm
http://www.answers.com/topic/bernard-baruch#ixzz1EIP9oT5c

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Zionist_Organization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_concentration_camp
http://remember.org/Facts.aft.tri.nur.html
http://www.rense.com/general68/hoss.htm
http://www.zundelsite.org/debate/006_jam.html
http://www.holocausthandbooks.com/
http://www.ihr.org/main/leaflets.shtml

Rudolf Höss
öss.html

Charles F. Wennerstrum
http://www.iowacourtsonline.org/wfdata/frame1773-1463/pressrel68.asp

Robert Faurisson: Höss torture.
http://www.rense.com/general68/hoss.htm

Transfer Agreement Book
http://www.stockmaven.com/transfer_B5.htm

Japanese internment
http://archive.vancouver.wsu.edu/crbeha/ja/ja.htm

Palestine Mandate
http://www.mideastweb.org/mandate.htm

Agreement to bring America into WWI
.

At Basle I founded the Jewish state
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/mideast/history/history1.html

Claim: Auschwitz II-Birkenau, more than 20,000 people could be gassed and cremated each day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_concentration_camp

Cremation specialists disagree
http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/auschwitz.shtml

Stephen F Pinter: No gas chambers in German camps
http://www.real-debt-elimination.com/real_freedom/Propaganda/nature_and_condi...

"Not one case of death by poison gas was found."
http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20070406.htm
http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/libcamps.shtml

Interesting video: Israeli Minister "We always use the anti-Semitism trick or bring up the Holocaust" 14 August, 2002 Shulamit Aloni
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW3a1bw5XlE

There are falsehoods that were told by Jews and Zionists concerning what did and didn't happen in German-run concentration camps. The place in Anthony's video where he focuses in on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gycNMf0xAc&feature=player_detailpage#t=1212s

At Auschwitz, the room that was claimed to have been a gas chamber was remodeled after the war to make it more readily conform, albeit very poorly, to the statements of those who claimed it had been a gas chamber. Walls were removed, and no traces indicating gassing were ever found even though such traces were found where the gas had actually been used and that was for delousing clothes, etc., not for gassing people but to prevent lice and the diseases they spread.

"Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor, Lublin Majdanek, Auschwitz: Is 6 million Jews a huge, deliberate exaggeration?"

Something very important in Anthony's video is that all the equipment needed to ventilate the delousing rooms was intact and perhaps still is. It shows that the Germans knew that people would need the rooms ventilated before entering. Yet we've been told for years that people just entered the rooms full of dead bodies and carried those bodies out to be burned. They did this without protective clothing, masks, etc., but didn't die or even fall ill or weak, etc., even though the gassing pellets were supposedly still right there on the floor releasing gas. I don't know whether it's scientifically possible, but other aspects suggest the Zionists have been lying all along about most of it, which doesn't surprise me given the level of current lies about Palestine and Gaza, etc. and all the other lies surrounding the Zionist Project.

It's such a string of lies about Palestine, which lies are all well-documented. They tried to deny (censor) that they undertook ethnic cleansing but have miserably failed in that. The ethnic cleansing of Palestine is now common knowledge.

It needs to be said here that the stories about Jewish fat being turned into soap and Jewish skin being turned into lampshades and Jewish heads being shrunken and many other aspects of the Jewish holocaust story have turned out to be wholesale fabrications — in other words, deliberate lies to gain sympathy while destroying the German people. You can click on the "Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor, Lublin Majdanek, Auschwitz" link above for more on that. Of course, you can begin to do your own research on these matters.

Be forewarned though, you will run into super-racist, anti-Jew, Nazis out there who use the facts revealed by legitimate, non-racist, revisionist historians and researchers and mix in the most ridiculous, even wholly insane, ideas about Jewish DNA, etc. Be prepared to have to do some mighty sorting of truth from fiction on both sides: Zionist and anti-Jew.

Don't hesitate though to read/watch/listen to the worst on each side. You will find huge racist-Zionists while you'll find huge distortions and censorship efforts to keep you from discovering them.

Above all, don't be afraid. And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. (John 8:32 KJV)

Anthony Lawson's video, "Holocaust, Hate Speech & Were the Germans so Stupid?," on YouTube was taken down by YouTube for alleged copyright violations, but Anthony or someone else also uploaded it to Vimeo. I've embedded that upload at the end of this post. Anthony also posted the following video concerning the alleged copyright infringement (worth watching too):

I left this comment on the above video:

The litigious (not recommended) would sue Google & might prevail. Using legal discovery, the identity of the accuser could be ascertained. That accuser could be joined in the suit for damages even though the uploader is not for-profit. There are free speech & press, equal-protection, & reputation issues involved even though Google is a corporation. Google officially claims to support free speech & press. For that & other reasons, it has legal obligations. One might approach the ACLU & EFF. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sieMkGRcxuU

You might want to visit that video to increase its views and to favorite and/or like it and leave your own supportive comment(s).

Here's the hole where the original YouTube embed was:

YouTube - Holocaust, Hate Speech & Were the Germans so Stupid?.

Here's the Vimeo embed:

Holocaust, Hate Speech & Were the Germans so Stupid? from SomberImperil on Vimeo.

Donate


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)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Holocaust, WikiLeaks. Bookmark the permalink.