Monday, April 30, 2012

Holocaust Education: From the Mouths of Babes

The self-glorifying "history" that every government crams down the throats of the young people they all force to attend school mostly goes ignored by its targets. Exceptional students take the trouble, for various reasons, to learn the material, and of these, a few take it seriously, absorbing some form or other of its ideological import.

But now and then, some governments so grossly overpromote such outrageously poor stuff that a contingent of the targets, typically in the teenage years where some are beginning to ask intelligent questions about what they are being told, actually rebels against the program they are being subjected to.

Such would seem to have happened, notably, in Israel, concerning a portrayal of the so-styled Holocaust in a play put on near Tel Aviv recently. A vocal part of the audience of a tired propaganda piece called Ghetto actually cheered those evil Nazis as they thrashed the hapless Jews in the cast. It's described in this article from The Times of Israel.

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Endless Holocaust, Endless War

US President Obama in a speech he made recently at the US Holocaust Memorial and Museum outlined the way Holocaust legendry is used to drag the United States and prospectively the rest of the world into wars initiated by Israel on the strength of its US backing.

Thursday, April 19, 2012

Fraudulent Moralizing Is SO Profitable

The Institute for Historical Review recently distributed this link to a review of the fraud perpetrated by author Alex Haley in his famous Roots book and television series.

The difference between Haley and Holo-fraudster Elie Wiesel?

Haley never got a Nobel Prize.

And why not, considering?

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

THE LAST DAYS OF THE BIG LIE

This text, which addresses Stephen Spielberg’s award winning documentary The Last days, is being copied to students, faculty, and administration at Universities across USA

**************************

THE LAST DAYS OF THE BIG LIE

The historical event known as "Holocaust" is in great part supported by eye witness testimony, seldom specifically corroborated . These testimonies have been a fundamental argument used by uncritical, conventional historians to publicize the "unique" monstrosity of the Germans during WWII, which is the uncontested Master Narrative of the Holocaust.

The murder of Jews in gas chambers is supported by eyewitness testimonies of inmates who "survived" different German camps. But there are "eyewitnesses" to gas-chamber murders that are so unbelievable, in fact so stupid, that those who tell them cannot and should not be believed.

Example: a Jewish lady, Irene Zisblatt, who claims that for months on end she swallowed the family jewels to keep them hidden from German monsters, pooped them out the next day and swallowed them again -- for month after month after month. In Auschwitz! Once maybe, but day after day for months on end? Is this a story full of s---, or what? Yet this video plays a major role in Steven Spielberg’s Hollywood award-winning documentary The Last Days.

In an unprecedented production, Eric Hunt has compiled some of the more brainless of these survivor testimonies, originally filmed by Hollywood hero Steven Spielberg. No Holocaust historian is making a fuss about this or any other episode of The Last Days. The US Holocaust Memorial Museum, dedicated to propagandizing "Holocaust", makes no public statement about the Zisblatt episode in Spielberg’s corrupt documentary. Why not?

Ms. Zisblatt, famous Holocaust eyewitness to a uniquely German monstrosity, is not alone in her lying about Germans and about herself. View the entire documentary by Eric Hunt -- The Last Days of the Big Lie:

http://youtu.be/80GgRWuXcO8

Contact Information:

Bradley Smith
Committee for Open Debate on the Holoacust
(Visit www.codoh.com for controversies on the Holocaust)
bradley1930@yahoo.com
PO Box 439016
San Ysidro, CA 92143
Telephone: 209 682 5327

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Copying Heinz Bartesch's letter to Peter Black, Senior Historian at USHMM

Peter Black, Senior Historian

US Holocaust Memorial Museum

Washington D.C.

E-mail: pblack@ushmm.org

Tel: 202.479.9728


Dear Professor Black:

Below you will find a letter by Heinz Bartesch, the son of Martin Bartesch, who you referred to in the talk you gave at Rhode Island College, as reported in the RIC Anchor of 27 March. Mr. Bartesch questions your facts and your moral assumptions as presented there.

This copy of Mr. Bartesch’s letter is for your information.

You may have missed it.

The Anchor, to its credit, posted it on its Webpage.

I will forward this to others at the USHMM and to the press.

Bradley Smith

========================================

Kathelin Hurd
News Editor news@anchorweb.org
The Anchor
Rhode Island College
Providence, Rhode Island

Your article would be considerably more truthful if it was entitled "Incorporating the Holocaust propaganda effectively into lesson plans" as I assure you this workshop, or anything promoted by US Holocaust Museum (USHMM) will be anything but true education as there will be only distorted facts presented and there won't be ANY opportunity for a student scholar to ask questions and present facts that dispute the presenters claims.


Let me explain by using a simple example from the 'facts' you site in the case of Martin Bartesch. I'm painfully familiar with the true facts as Martin was my father. First, let's begin with a little history lesson (which students assuredly won't get from the workshop); Martin was a 16 year old farm-boy living in Transylvania Romania when he was conscripted into the Waffen SS. I'll save you the details of what his life, and those of other ethnic Germans were like and how they were caught in a war they didn't ask for or want for brevity sake.

However, as a 16 year old inductee, he just happened to be stationed in Mauthausen for several weeks before he was shipped off to the Eastern front to fight the Russians. During this time, which was used as training for his anti-tank battalion, he was also stationed as a perimeter guard. He never set foot inside the camp and had no say in what was going on. All he knew was he had orders to shoot anyone trying to escape. And this is unfortunately what happened when he shot Max Ochsorn, who as interned as a money forger, a criminal who would be imprisoned by any government anywhere (another fact that I'm certain this 'workshop' won't bother to cover).

It should be noted (but it won't) that when my father shot the escaping prisoner, he had to fill a complete report and was immediately relieved of duty until it was investigated. Not quite the MO for a regime that was intent on mass genocide, don't you think? It should also be mentioned (but it won't be) that this is the exact same orders that US GI's were given at the Japanese internment (concentration) camps and that US GI's did indeed shoot and kill escaping prisoners (which isn't a war crime only because we won the war).

It should also be noted (but it won't) that even the Judges at the Nuremberg trials ruled that it was NOT a war crime for a perimeter guard to shoot an escaping prisoner.

Next, your comment, undoubtedly fed to you by the USHMM, that my father lied under oath to gain access to the US is blatantly a lie. Any reporter willing to do any real research would be able to reveal the real fact which is my father answered all the questions he was asked on the immigration form; he entered the fact he was in the Waffen SS, the Division he was in, and the dates. He was never asked to state all the places he had served, so saying he lied is nothing but propaganda (ie, a self serving lie to meet a political end).

It should also be noted (but it won't), that even serving at Mauthausen as a guard would not have been grounds for rejection into the US.

It should be noted (but it won't), that it only became a 'crime' with the signing and implementation of the Holtzman Ammendment which created the OSI. In effect, it's an ext post facto law - a law enacted which made something previously legal, illegal.

It should be noted (but it won't) that I won a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the OSI and then Director Neal Sher (who has since been disbarred for other reasons) that proved that the OSI had exculpatory evidence which they withheld from the court.

So, you see, when you say that "the workshop was designed to provide students with reference materials such as The State of Deception: The Power of Nazi Propaganda,-- You should say that the real "Power of Propaganda" now belongs to USHMM and that the real "Deception" is on the students.

And, lest you think I'm just a lone voice crying in the wilderness, a son who's angry at what happened to his father, I can assure you that there are countless cases of outright fraud and half truths. I pity the poor students who will be indoctrinated in this special kind of government approved propaganda, it's anything but real education - real education allows for cross examination and questioning of evidence, something our government and the USHMM could never, and will never allow.


Heinz (Bartesch)

"If my heart could do my thinking And my head begin to feel, I would look upon the world anew And know what's truly real." Van Morrison

REAL EYES REALIZE REAL LIES

Friday, April 6, 2012

Professor Faurisson forces the CRIF (French Jewish lobby) into a humiliating retreat

By Guillaume Fabien

April 2, 2012

The CRIF (Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France) is the closest thing France has to the United States Jewish lobby's flagship organisation AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee). Early each year, for example, the CRIF summons – more than it invites – to a solemn ceremonial dinner most of the country's government, starting with the President of the Republic, the Prime Minister, the Presidents of both the National Assembly and the Senate, and up to fifteen serving Ministers or Secretaries of State, not to mention a plethora of lofty figures from domestic and foreign political, economic, diplomatic and media spheres. On this occasion, ritually, those attending do not fail to listen religiously to the speech made by the CRIF's President. In flattering, complaining and threatening tones he gives his lesson to France and dictates to the government the conduct to adopt in the near future so as better to heed the chosen people's desiderata. The gove rnment representatives who've taken in this lecture then vie in their obsequiousness, undertaking to do even better in the year just begun in bending to the edicts of this mighty body. For the CRIF the rights and privileges of the State of Israel are the priority of priorities. Its current president is Richard Prasquier, a round little man whose nerves often seem quite on edge

The bête noire of this president is historical revisionism and, therefore, Professor Robert Faurisson. In February 2012, Faurisson's visit to Iran and meeting with President Ahmadinejad, who bestowed on him the first ever "award for courage, resistance and fighting spirit" and received him in a special audience, made Richard Prasquier lose control of his nerves. He posted three articles dealing with Faurisson on his organisation's website, all three under the name of an individual called Marc Knobel ("Faurisson and Ahmadinejad, the infernal couple" on February 15; "Far-right and Iran, the great love affair" on February 22; "Robert Faurisson, portrait of a Holocaust denier, [book] by Valerie Igounet" on March 15). The pitch of these pieces steadily rose to the point where an emboldened Marc Knobel, who had begun by writing that Faurisson had "probably" received a cheque for €120,000 from President Ahmadinejad, ended up stating without reservation that the Professor had w ell and truly received a cheque for that amount. There, at a stroke, probability had disappeared altogether; there was now just confirmation, a calm certainty.

In France there is a law enabling any person named or designated in an article to exercise what is called "the right of reply", and those in charge of the publication in question will have, upon receipt of the "reply" text, a period of five working days in which to publish it. One must be aware that the drafting of such a text is a consummate art. The gist of Professor Faurisson's letter to the CRIF was in the following sentence:

The truth is as follows: neither before, during nor after my stay in Tehran did I receive, either from the Iranian president or any of his representatives, "a cheque for 120,000 euros" nor any other sum of money at all either by cheque, cash in hand or any other means.

Such wording adhered strictly to the requirements of legislation and case law. The CRIF was therefore obliged to publish the text, but decided not to do so.

Nonetheless news of the matter began to spread, notably with the publication, in Italy, of the brief paper the Professor had presented in Tehran ("Against Hollywoodism, Revisionism"). This occurred in the daily Rinascita on February 21. That very day, the Jewish community of Rome demanded nothing less than the banning of the newspaper! It did so in an article entitled "Faurisson oltraggia la Shoah" (Faurisson's outrage against the Shoah). In France, the CRIF website, in its press review of March 2, cited that article but – a noteworthy detail – without mentioning its demand for Rinascita's closure. Soon afterwards, realising that the Professor was preparing to take them to court, Richard Prasquier and friends saw they were caught in the trap of their "aggravated lie" and, as the criminal or civil code puts it, of their "refusal of the right of reply" and the "personal injury" or "defamation" that they had brought about.

Thus did the almighty CRIF suddenly find itself forced into the most humiliating of back-downs. On March 21 the site posted, with the by-line of its trusted liar, Marc Knobel, a formal retraction: no, the Professor had received no cheque, no money! ("Précision concernant un article sur Robert Faurisson" – Clarification concerning an article on Robert Faurisson).

The entertaining bit is that, when making his retraction, the liar found a way to slip in two "lies of omission" (of lesser calibre, it's true, than the original lie). Marc Knobel began by omitting the fact that after his article of February 15 he had, on February 22, reoffended, aggravating the charge made in his first piece. Then he left out the fact that the information prompting his back-down had come from a certain text whose existence he avoided mentioning at all: this was, precisely, the Professor's "right of reply" letter (see: "Mensonge, reculade, et nouveau mensonge du CRIF" – Lie, back-down, and new lie by the CRIF).

One may wonder whether this humiliation is the first of its kind ever endured by an institution which, drunk with power, believes itself to be above such a traditional and well-known French law as that of July 29, 1881 on "the freedom of the press".

As for Richard Prasquier, he incurs a heavy responsibility in all this business. For starters, by his refusal to grant Professor Faurisson a wholly justified "right of reply", he flouted the law. Then, to avoid the risk of a lawsuit, he turned to the liar Marc Knobel himself to have the lie corrected; the latter did that but, as we've seen, permitted himself two new lies in the process.

Even at the CRIF there must be honest people. Will they leave a President of the quality of Richard Prasquier in office for long?As for Marc Knobel, he seems to like staying in the shadows: thanks to the historian Paul-Eric Blanrue, here he is for once out in the daylight, in all his loveliness [omitted for technical reasons].

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Heinz Bartesch writes RIC Anchor about the Case of his Father, Martin Bartesch

Kathelin Hurd
News Editor news@anchorweb.org
The Anchor
Rhode Island College
Providence, Rhode Island

Your article would be considerably more truthful if it was entitled "Incorporating the Holocaust propaganda effectively into lesson plans" as I assure you this workshop, or anything promoted by US Holocaust Museum (USHMM) will be anything but true education as there will be only distorted facts presented and there won't be ANY opportunity for a student scholar to ask questions and present facts that dispute the presenters claims.


Let me explain by using a simple example from the 'facts' you site in the case of Martin Bartesch. I'm painfully familiar with the true facts as Martin was my father. First, let's begin with a little history lesson (which students assuredly won't get from the workshop); Martin was a 16 year old farm-boy living in Transylvania Romania when he was conscripted into the Waffen SS. I'll save you the details of what his life, and those of other ethnic Germans were like and how they were caught in a war they didn't ask for or want for brevity sake.


However, as a 16 year old inductee, he just happened to be stationed in Mauthausen for several weeks before he was shipped off to the Eastern front to fight the Russians. During this time, which was used as training for his anti-tank battalion, he was also stationed as a perimeter guard. He never set foot inside the camp and had no say in what was going on. All he knew was he had orders to shoot anyone trying to escape. And this is unfortunately what happened when he shot Max Ochsorn, who as interned as a money forger, a criminal who would be imprisoned by any government anywhere (another fact that I'm certain this 'workshop' won't bother to cover).


It should be noted (but it won't) that when my father shot the escaping prisoner, he had to fill a complete report and was immediately relieved of duty until it was investigated. Not quite the MO for a regime that was intent on mass genocide, don't you think? It should also be mentioned (but it won't be) that this is the exact same orders that US GI's were given at the Japanese internment (concentration) camps and that US GI's did indeed shoot and kill escaping prisoners (which isn't a war crime only because we won the war).


It should also be noted (but it won't) that even the Judges at the Nuremberg trials ruled that it was NOT a war crime for a perimeter guard to shoot an escaping prisoner.


Next, your comment, undoubtedly fed to you by the USHMM, that my father lied under oath to gain access to the US is blatantly a lie. Any reporter willing to do any real research would be able to reveal the real fact which is my father answered all the questions he was asked on the immigration form; he entered the fact he was in the Waffen SS, the Division he was in, and the dates. He was never asked to state all the places he had served, so saying he lied is nothing but propaganda (ie, a self serving lie to meet a political end).


It should also be noted (but it won't), that even serving at Mauthausen as a guard would not have been grounds for rejection into the US.


It should be noted (but it won't), that it only became a 'crime' with the signing and implementation of the Holtzman Ammendment which created the OSI. In effect, it's an ext post facto law - a law enacted which made something previously legal, illegal.


It should be noted (but it won't) that I won a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the OSI and then Director Neal Sher (who has since been disbarred for other reasons) that proved that the OSI had exculpatory evidence which they withheld from the court.


So, you see, when you say that "the workshop was designed to provide students with reference materials such as The State of Deception: The Power of Nazi Propaganda”, You should say that the real "Power of Propaganda" now belongs to USHMM and that the real "Deception" is on the students.


And, lest you think I'm just a lone voice crying in the wilderness, a son who's angry at what happened to his father, I can assure you that there are countless cases of outright fraud and half truths. I pity the poor students who will be indoctrinated in this special kind of government approved propaganda, it's anything but real education - real education allows for cross examination and questioning of evidence, something our government and the USHMM could never, and will never allow.

--
Heinz

"If my heart could do my thinking And my head begin to feel, I would look upon the world anew And know what's truly real." Van Morrison

REAL EYES REALIZE REAL LIES