Tuesday, August 5, 2008

The U.N. General Assembly rejects ... either in full or part.

I’ve slowed down the past few weeks with a quietly growing fatigue. It’s new for me. I don’t know yet how to get around it. It interferes with the work. Luckily, I suppose, August is one of those months when the whole revisionist outreach enterprise slows down, particularly if you are working with any audience on campus.

A couple months back when I wrote Dr. Shapiro at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum asking if he could produce the name, with proof, of that one fantastical person who was killed in a gas chamber at Auschwitz, I was able to copy the letter to close to half a hundred of his associates at the Museum. I thought then to repeat the process at Yad Vashem. Why not? As it happens, Yad Vashem is not so easy to work with as the USHMM. The key players at Yad Vashem are not so easy to contact as they are in the American museum. From the Yad Vashem point of view, it’s the practical thing to do. I understand that. Still. . . .

One interesting Yad Vashem page is called

“The Holocaust and the United Nations Outreach Programme.”

Hadn’t occurred to me that YV would have an outreach program targeting the United Nations. Why would they not? Straight to the top of the budding, though stumbling, World Government. Headlined there I find Secretary-General-Designate Ban Ki-moon telling us (14 December 2006):

"Denying historical facts, especially on such an important subject as the Holocaust, is just not acceptable. [ … ] Again, it is a historical fact, and denying historical facts, especially such a very important historical fact as the Holocaust, is not acceptable. It is not acceptable.”

There we are. A new guy on the block, the main guy at the main world organization. Chinese. No difference. The recipient of three thousand years of elegant and intellectually sophisticated culture and Mr. Ki-moon doesn’t appear to be any wiser about the Jewish Holocaust scam than your average American pub crawler.

Looking around a bit I find the:

“Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on the Holocaust Remembrance (A/RES/60/7, 1 November 2005)

The Resolution includes:

“Reaffirming the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which proclaims that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind, such as race, religion or other status [excepting Palestinians].

“Recalling article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person [except Palestinians].

“Recalling also article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which state that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion [except Holocaust revisionists].

“Bearing in mind that the founding principle of the Charter of the United Nations, "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war", is testimony to the indelible link between the United Nations and the unique tragedy of the Second World War [that is, while other holocausts are mentioned in passing, if you look into the money-trail you will find that it is the uniqueness of the “Jewish” holocaust that is featured, and profits, throughout the West].

“Recalling the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which was adopted in order to avoid repetition of genocides such as those committed by the Nazi regime [not the Soviet regime, not ever, which was significantly forwarded by Jews rather than against Jews].

“Recalling also the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind [except for Palestine].

“Taking note of the fact that the sixtieth session of the General Assembly is taking place during the sixtieth year of the defeat of the Nazi regime ….

“Recalling the twenty-eighth special session of the General Assembly, a unique event, held in commemoration of the sixtieth anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi concentration camps [no commemoration for the liberation of the Soviet camps. Slavs of course, not Jews.]

3. “Rejects any denial of the Holocaust as an historical event, either in full or part….”


I know. This is all old stuff. But the last line quoted here, noting that the United Nations General Assembly (!) would put itself on the block to defend the idea of standing against “any denial of the Holocaust as an historical event, either in full or part . . .” is remarkable. Those representing the entire world! The United Nations General Assembly has not, to my knowledge, published a definition of what the Jewish Holocaust was. How do we know what we can and cannot question if we do not have before us the definition of the event/s we find questionable?

And then there is the silliest part of the equation. The United Nations General Assembly “Rejects any denial of the Holocaust … either in full or part…”

In part?

What does “in part” mean?

Who decides what it means?

If we question eyewitness testimony entered into the records at a War Crimes Trial that accuses Germans of having skinned the corpses of exterminated Jews to make hand gloves and riding breeches of their hides, and no proof of such happenings can be produced, are we in danger of “denying” the Jewish Holocaust “in part?”

Who decides? Someone represented in Norman Finkelstein’s Holocaust Industry?

Who else would bother?

I’m just beginning to look into this, but I think it might be better to work with the United Nations folk than those at Yad Vashem. One advantage is that the UN, as opposed to Yad Vashem, is full of folk who already question the historical accuracy of the Jewish Holocaust story, question the moral justification of the U.S. alliance with Israel against the Palestinians, and question Jewish influence within the U.S. Congress and U.S. media. Granted, most of these doubters are Arabs and Muslims, but what can you do? When you can’t work with the “best” you are left to work with the others.

I don’t know. I’m going to poke around at it.


terry said...

Mr Smith,

I admire your chutzpah, but must remind that the present Secretary General is of Korean, rather than chinese, extraction.

Bradley R. Smith said...


Thanks. I thought to check on this -- why was a Chinese allowed to claim such a post? -- but let it slide. No excuse for such sloppiness. I will note in passing that if I were to edit the post I would have only to change the word "Chinese" to "Korean." The cultural and historical references would remain about the same.