The following is my commentary on WANTED – A psychiatric diagnosis of Nazi holocaust denial - Alan Hart:
You are certainly not a gatekeeper. You are not a crypto-, reverse-psychology Zionist. However, you are lumping way too many people together way too much, even if only somewhat.
You have differentiated between racists and non-racists in mentioning "deniers" but barely. There's a huge difference. It matters. You have also only slightly, almost imperceptibly differentiated between total "deniers" and those who simply want to know the degree to which Zionists have been intentionally lying for decades about a whole host of aspects surrounding the internment of European Jews before and during WWII.
You ask, "Does it really matter HOW Jews were exterminated in Nazi concentration camps?" I'm writing this before reading the comments of others here. If my comment repeats the obvious, so be it.
"Exterminated" is an allegation concerning the intentions of the Nazis/Hitler. The Zionists forward the "final solution" idea. Was there ever an order from Hitler to exterminate all the Jews in Nazi-controlled territory? If not, then why have the Zionists pushed the idea as fact rather than speculation, perhaps (likely) weak at that? Doesn't it matter? The Zionists are stomping all over the Palestinians – have been for decades. Haven't those Zionists use the alleged "final solution" as a means to get non-Jews to look the other way? Haven't hundreds of millions of non-Jews done just that? Didn't most non-Jews buy into the "soap from Jewish bodies" lie? Didn't they buy into the false evidence against the Nazis in the forms of Jewish shrunken heads and lampshades from Jewish tattooed skin? Where are the ends of the lies? Haven't they hammered on the "6 million" when their most lauded "holocaust" scholar, Raul Hilberg, put the figure at some 700,000 lower and did so using very poor secondary source materials (out right fabricators who told whopper after whopper against the Nazis impeaching themselves such that their "witnessing" should have been thrown out wholesale). Isn't it true that most non-Jews don't even know to this day that there were tens of thousands of Jews in the German military during WWII, many of those Jews also being officers and some quite high-ranking?
Yes, Hitler was a racist by his own words, but aren't millions of the Zionists who moan and groan over the "Holocaust" racists themselves? Look at their treatment of the Arabs. Read their words about the Arabs and other non-Jews. Look even at the Zionists' recent treatment of the Black Jews in Israel with many of the Black females given birth control without their knowledge or consent but rather via lies.
I can't for the life of me understand why you don't, or didn't, grasp the significance concerning these revelations about huge, deliberate lies designed to garner sympathy for the Zionists so that those Zionists would then be granted extremely special victim-status (the most special in all history; more special than the sinless Jesus crucified at the behest of the Pharisees – the theological ancestors of the Talmudic, Zionist rabbis of today in Israel) to the extent that when combined with the Old-Testament Biblical emphasis about the Jews being the one and only "chosen people" of God (despite the New Testament Jesus Christ making clear that God will take the kingdom away from those who do not bring forth worthy results, and the occupation and colonization of Palestinian lands by brute force and cunning lies of all sorts are not worthy), those Zionists could treat the Palestinians in a manner not dissimilar to the genocidal commands from Moses:
"But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee." (Deuteronomy 20:16-17)
However, there is this that the Zionists seek to overshadow with their neo "Holocaust" religion: "Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." (Matthew 21:42-43) That ought not be read in isolation but be understood within this context (commandment of Jesus to the Jews and to all): "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:39)
Now do you get it?
Peace to you, Alan.
I'm going to add a few things as an update. That's because I don't disagree with Alan Hart that the Nazis did horrific things to all sorts of people and did have a particular disliking for Jews in general. I want to stress though that the Nazis considered Bolshevism (the anti-democratic form of Communism typically known as Marxist-Leninism-Stalinism) to be a Jewish invention and to be extremely pernicious — a main enemy along with Jewish money (international financiers) of the German people as the Nazis saw German-ness.
After writing my commentary on Alan Hart's article, I read his other recent articles touching upon "the holocaust" and Alan's views about "denial" and revisionism, etc.
Here's an important section of one of Alan's articles:
The Nazi leader who most frequently and explicitly committed his thoughts about exterminating the Jews to paper was Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Minister of Propaganda. Here, for example, are just a few of his diary entries:
5 February 1942: The Jewish question is again giving us a headache; this time, however, not because we have gone too far, but because we are not going far enough.
14 February 1942: The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that has now overtaken them. Their destruction will go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness.
18 February 1942: ...We must show them no mercy and no indulgence. This riffraff must be eliminated and destroyed.
6 March 1942: ... the greater the number of Jews liquidated, the more consolidated will the situation in Europe be after this war.
20 March 1942: ...the Fuehrer is as uncompromising as ever. The Jews must be got out of Europe, if necessary by applying most brutal methods.
27 March 1942: The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only about 40 per cent can be used for forced labour,
29 April 1942: Short shrift is made of the Jews in all eastern occupied areas. Tens of thousands of them are liquidated
14 December 1942: Jewry must pay for its crime just as our Fuehrer prophesied in his speech in the Reichstag; namely, by the wiping out of the Jewish race in Europe and possibly in the entire world.
9 March 1943 ... (Hitler) approved of my measures and specifically ordered me to make Berlin entirely free of Jews.
13 May 1943: There is therefore no other recourse left for modern nations except to exterminate the Jew....
The extent to which Goebbels spoke for Hitler on the matter is not known. The Nazi high command did not think as a monolith — not excusing what Hitler did do, which was bad enough without Zionist embellishments/lies.
Then I sat thinking about where it was that I saw some fairly compelling evidence for massive Nazi war crimes where the Jews were often particularly targeted (keep in mind the anti-Bolshevism sentiments mentioned above). I recalled that it was in the video series on "The German Wehrmacht." I had happened to save the videos to a YouTube play list and went back through them quickly looking for the sections I remembered dealt with the subject. Here's the quick-and-dirty result. It will open in a new window/tab so you may refer back here for the part numbers and times to which to slide the slider at the bottom of the videos to the proper times. I didn't enter the end time of each such segment/snippet, but I believe it is rather self-explanatory when the subjects change off the "war crimes":
Part 3 @ 14:18 Felix Romer
20:30 Norbert Kunz
Part 4 @ 12:00 Christian Streit
16:30 Johannes Hurter
20:15... Johannes Tuchel
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)