Six Million Jews? "German academic finds exceptional Hitler letter 'by coincidence' - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper"

I left a comment over there on Haaretz as follows:

"...six million Jews...." I see that all the time but have been informed that concerning Auschwitz alone, the estimated or claimed number has been reduced by well over a million [some 3 million]. How has the 6 million remained rather than being likewise reduced?

Also, I have been told on numerous occasions that Raul Hilberg is considered by most Jews to have been the foremost scholar concerning the number of Jews who died at the hands of the Nazis. Why then did Raul Hilberg say that his best estimate was 5.1 million [finally 5.3] while the 6 million persists to be used as if there is no dispute?

I'm open to hearing the reasons. I would like someone with hard documentary evidence to answer. Does Haaretz know or anyone else who would be willing to comment?

Lastly, let me say that I am no fan of Hitler, far from it. I just want the truth or at least to hear Jews who have been consistently saying 6 million to begin admitting that it is not definitive. I am not anti-Jew. I am opposed to ethnic bigotry, period. I realize "Jew" is an amorphous term these days, but I still say it.

I happen to be a Christian and don't hesitate in saying that Jesus was a Jew.

German academic finds exceptional Hitler letter 'by coincidence' - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper

See also: Nazi versus Zionist propaganda: The Jewish "holocaust"

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. Bookmark the permalink.
    • I have no idea why the commenting system did not inform me that your comment was in moderation.

      First, the 5.1 is Hilberg's. It is based upon false information such that, that number too is grossly exaggerated.

      As for the reason for bringing it up, it is against the law in a number of countries for me to say what I just said, even though I'm right about it.

      Now, if that doesn't trouble you, you have a problem with your own ethics.

      You also probably don't want to think about the impact the 6-million figure has had on the ability of the Zionists to milk sympathy while violating millions of Palestinian Arabs, regardless of what you may or may not think about Arab-inhumanity-to-Arab.

      By the way, did Haaretz approve my comment/question?

      • Paul A Norman

        "First, the 5.1 is Hilberg's. It is based upon false information such that, that number too is grossly exaggerated."
        Says who?
        "  even though I'm right about it. "
        Says who?  ... More mere 'argument by assertion'.
        "Now, if that doesn't trouble you, you have a problem with your own ethics."
        Why personalise such a discussion(?) and even so obviously a person who is not acting according to (your definition of their own ethics  - whatever that may mean) is not going to be troubled by not acting according to their own ethics (even if you define them for them).

        • What kind of question is it when you ask "Says who" to the person saying it? Says who? Says I. That's who.

          As for your "argument by assertion" idea, when I said "even though I'm right about it," I wasn't debating. I was stating a fact. I was making a point regardless of whether or not you would, or do, accept it. Are you locked in an Aristotelian time warp?

          Higher logic is beyond difficult for people who are going to follow rules made up by dumber people than those employing the higher logic.

          Have you ever bothered to read others who have also said the 5.1 million is grossly exaggerated? Don't tell me you don't know who they are or where to find their works?

          Listen, have you fact-checked Hilberg? Have you checked his sources? Some of them are so ridiculous that it's a wonder.

          Do you really believe it was as high as 5.1 million even though you know of all the lies that were told surrounding the whole story? Do you want to go through the list of lies? Are you one who will dismiss each as irrelevant one after the other after the other after the other...?

          If you do a site search here you should find most of the whoppers clearly stated. Take the time to do it before doing anything further here.

          Also, don't imagine I don't know about hasbara. You're the one who needs laws preventing people from academic inquiry concerning the propaganda surrounding the creeping ethnocentric holocaust.

          Just to be clear, I don't like Nazism; but I don't like Zionism either, not even slightly. Any Jew who is a Zionist is a fool for being so.

        • "Why personalise such a discussion"? Why not? Don't you take Zionism personally? You know you do. Where's the line to be drawn between the personal and impersonal and why? The people whose ancient olive orchards have been destroyed by Zionists hell bent upon taking the land take it very personally. I empathize with them. Why don't you?

          Why did the Zionists have to create a "Jewish" state? I'm primarily of Anglo-Saxon extraction. My ancestors came to America and dominated but did not create an Anglo-Saxon state the way the Zionists have created a Jewish one.

          If your answer is that the Arabs wouldn't have allowed it, then why did the Zionists go there rather than simply remaining where they were or move to the US, which has a huge population of Jews?

          Do you really think the Dreyfus Affair was reason enough as a real no-other-options tipping point?

          Herzl had wanted all European Jews to convert to Christianity. I don't agree with his motivation at the time, although I understand he was confused as to why Jews weren't 100% accepted. I think the Rothschilds proved that being Jewish was no obstacle to lording it over even Gentile Royalty in Europe.

          Anyway, the Zionists ended up becoming bound and determined to have Palestine, including at the cost of truth-telling. Look at the Lavon Affair. It's far from the only example. Doesn't that disturb you? Don't you think such false-flags are inherently evil? What about The King David Hotel bombing carried out by a future Israeli Prime Minister? Doesn't that bother you? Don't you think it was wrong? Do you trust the words of people who do such things? I don't. If they will do that, what won't they do or say to get the land? Will they always tell the truth about how many Jews died at the hands of the Nazis? Those are just some of the issues not even direct lies about the numbers who died and why in the concentration camps.

          As for not knowing the numbers lost in the Ghettos, etc., I was under the impression that the final number included them.

          Why did the total world population of Jews remain nearly constant pre- and post-war? If six million died and factoring for births during the period, wouldn't the total have gone down dramatically? However, the figures don't reflect it. Why is that? I'm not saying I know. I'm asking. Did someone rig the numbers against the Jews after the war? Can you show that via stats? I've never seen them even though I've asked. No Zionist has ever come up with them.

          Why did so many survivors lie about so many aspects of the prison camps? They set up displays of shrunken heads and Jewish-tattooed-skin lampshades and Jewish-fat soap and more. It apparently all turned out to be fabricated: a pack of lies. It elicited a great deal of sympathy (including from me before I wised up) is why so that rolling into Palestine would be much easier.

          Why after the war and after the liberation of the camp did they create the holes in the roof at Auschwitz and call those the holes the places where poison gas was dropped in? Why were walls and toilets removed that were inside the rooms? Why was the gas chamber door a simple interior, single-pane (has a glass window in it – not tempered glass either), wooden, office door? The frame and casing were also made for such a door, and there is no evidence that the frame was replaced? The Jewish curator said the metal door was around somewhere but never showed it. You know the answer. He also admitted on video that they had cut the holes in the roof.

          Why is there huge Zyklon B residue on the walls of the delousing chambers but hardly a trace in the so-called human gas chambers?

          This is just the tip of the iceberg. I can think of dozens more issues.

          The open-air fire crematory method that the survivors (3 or fewer?) claimed wouldn't even work. Stacking less wood under bodies 3 and 4 deep would not incinerate those bodies even remotely. Obtaining enough wood to even do what was suggested happened would have required a huge deforestation process and train service just for bringing it in everyday, not to mention keeping it all dry. The hand drawn maps of the camps just don't allow for any of that because the survivors just didn't think of it. They weren't very bright.

          The pits of the bodies were too small to accommodate the number of bodies and the method claimed. The tree limb visual screens around the camps would have dried out and caught fire. The prisoners could have accidentally on purpose allowed sparks from the supposed huge fires blow a mere 15 feet, was it, to the fences.

          One survivor claimed there was an elaborate system were the floor of the gas chambers would open up to allow the dead bodies to dump into open coal cars of the train that waited below. He made that up to answer the fact that the manner described by another survivor (a barber shaving the women's heads) for removing the dead bodies wasn't doable in the time he had claimed it happened. The barber said it all happened by hand in a matter of some 15 minutes or so, hour after hour, day after day, rain or shine.... The fellow made up the whopper about the train was a source for Hilberg but was so not credible that when he wanted to continue onto his whopper in a Nazi war-crime trial held by Jews, the judge told that he could not. It wasn't because he was being long-winded but rather that the court knew he was not credible sounding concerning the train story.

          The gigantic story, the aggregate "Holocaust" narrative, is built upon a small handful of survivors, most of whose stories have been debunked.

          I'm not claiming that every holocaust revisionist has all the details of his or her criticisms correct. I am claiming that there is definitely enough smoke that the world should check for the fire. Making it illegal to do so is the most obvious reason to do so.

          Where are the mountains of cremains in pits? Modern technology could certainly determine it without even disturbing the ground. I've never heard a claim of ash trains hauling it away, so it must be close by. We're talking what still, a million at Auschwitz alone (granted down from 3.5, is it?).

          Don't take any of this personally, to heart, though. You just might start wondering if you've been on the wrong side having been utterly duped by pathological liars. There are pathological lying Jews. You know that. Is there an ethnic group of a million or more without any? I don't know of any.