I am astounded at man's capacity to harm other humans. I feel deep grief and hopelessness when witnessing/remembering what has been done to the so-called "other."
With regard to Gaza, I am in disbelief how some Jews (certainly not all in Israel or elsewhere) can know the history of their people being so persecuted and then turn around and do the same thing to others. A couple of psychological theories come to mind (maybe a stretch on my part):
Many years ago I read a book by Alice Miller (I think it was The Drama of the Gifted Child) in which I believe she mentioned Hitler's father was a Jew who beat him daily when Hitler was a child. Maybe it's a stretch to think that could have influenced his hatred of Jews?
Also Stephen Miller (Trump's man at the helm of immigrant persecution) who's ancestors were so persecuted that they emigrated to this country? What is it with him? Is it self-hatred of his ethnic identity that makes him project onto others their "inferiority" or lack of "belonging." Does that enhance his "value."
Could being the victim of cruelty result in one's mind being so warped into becoming the persecutor?
For some, being the victim, makes them more compassionate towards others who are.
Why some people become better and others monsters, I wish I knew.
I highly doubt that Hitler had Jewish ancestors. But his physical appearance certainly did not match what became the (mythical) image of the "Aryan," blue eyes and blond hair. Which was stuff and nonsense from the outset, since the real Aryans came from northern India! As for Stephen Miller, I doubt he is driven by Jewish self-hatred. He is a disgusting POLITICAL OPPORTUNIST, spewing the racist drivel that keeps him in Trump's Favored Inner Circle. Kissinger was precisely such an opportunist.
I'd have to delve deeper into Hitler's ancestry to verify the book's reference (not sure I'd want to, but maybe I will).
Was more implying, with the use of S. Miller example, that persons who come from what others have considered "sub-optimal" backgrounds and are persecuted/discrimiated against for whatever reason related to that, may act out of not wanting to identify with "belonging" to the "wrong" people. He's not deporting Jews, that I've heard of.
We've really learned nothing from all of our history. A world of nuclear weapons shows many nations have the ability - if not the intent - to commit genocide.
When I served on a boomer, and was part of the authentication team, we told ourselves that by being willing to launch, we knew we wouldn't have to (i.e., the MAD doctrine). But what if we actually had gotten the order? Would we have done it?
In any question of genocide this is an ugly question I sometimes ponder. We thought we were decent honorable men - but could we contribute to the destruction of most of the human race? Would we have been any better than those committing past genocides?
It's seriously too bad, our Generation of Leaders don't have the Wisdom of President Kennedy who said this in his April 1963 PEACE SPEECH, that unfortunately got him killed a few months later: "Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy–or of a collective death-wish for the world.”
A concise, informative article, thank you for sending along. Or should I call it an indictment instead? I think I may have mentioned this in a previous post, despite all of humankind's advances - learning how to feed (most of) us, conquest of (some) disease, material well-being (for maybe half of all of us?) - it still seems that we haven't advanced, perhaps can't advance, beyond updated iterations on the first twenty minutes of "2001: a Space Odyssey."
Does Faulkner's Noble Prize acceptance speech still hold up? Disturbing just to ask that question.
A mild digression: last night I watched the original 1975 movie "Rollerball," starring James Caan and helmed by the great director Norman Jewison. Hadn't seen it since its original theatrical release. Rollerball is a very violent sport designed to entertain the masses, a la Bread and Circuses for the Romans. But the premise of the movie is sheer nonsense: nation states have faded away and the whole world is simply ruled/administered by global corporations. The teams competing at Rollerball are sponsored by the corporations. Like the premise of "Network," which presents a similar Capitalist "Utopia" where corporations rule everything, this does not pass the plausibility smell test. (Yes, yes, I know, this is all fiction, not documentaries.) In "Rollerball" we are asked to believe that Capitalism unfettered has eliminated poverty and disease and everyone lives a pampered life of leisure. Now, to be sure, corporations only get more powerful with the passing years, regulations being rolled back by regimes such as the one we are currently "blessed" with in USA, but the notion that they are all going to join hands and rule benignly rather than remain ruthless rivals of one another is what is nonsensical about these movies. End of sermon.
If anyone in this discussion (other than the pathetic Holocaust denier who chipped in comments) has never seen "Night and Fog," the fairly short documentary by renowned French film director Alain Resnais, you should check it out. You will learn that stealing property from Jews sent to the death camps was not enough for the Nazis. They systematically removed any gold fillings found in the mouths of victims and even put their hair to use (prisoners were subjected to "baldy" haircuts upon arrival--just like we received upon entering the US military back in the day!) And then there was Ida Koch (I think that was her name) who had lampshades made for herself from the skin of murdered Jews. [Historical note: the name of the documentary in English is derived from the German code name for the "disappearing" of Jews from their communities: Nacht und Nebel. Night and Fog.]
What I find so sad and dangerous, 80 years after the end of the Nazi regime, Israeli Jewish settlers are the latest incarnation of Hitler's Brown Shirts, terrorizing Palestinians like the Brown Shirts terrorized Jews, and the West remains wilfully blind to it as I point out to PM Carney after all the praise he got for his Davos speech,
Ray Joseph Cormier @RayJC_Com
@MarkJCarney @CanadianPM
Prime Minister Carney,
Yesterday, I posted a comment in The Toronto Star applauding the political courage of your Davos speech. I noted that you, unlike others, seemed to fear God more than a man.
That applause has curdled into dismay.
Your statement on Holocaust Remembrance Day contained this line: "Today, we remember the consequences of ignorance, hatred, and complicity – and acknowledge that looking away is not a passive act, but an active betrayal."
Sir, you have written your own indictment.
For you are looking away. The world sees the genocide in Gaza—enabled by arms from allies including Canada—yet you refuse to name it. Your speech was a monument to past horrors while actively being complicit in a present one. This is not passive; it is, by your own definition, an active betrayal.
The Nazis had no value for Jewish life. Your moral failure lies in having no public value for Palestinian life today. Your subordination to the Israeli hegemon voids the courage you displayed at Davos. In God's balances, the weight of this omission crushes your earlier words.
You are in a minority position today because of this failure. I warned you of this last Easter. The consequence remains.
The greatest incitement to antisemitism in our time is not memory, but the present-day genocide being conducted in the name of Jewish safety. Your silence fuels both.
The Plains of Abraham speak of struggle and consequence. You stand on them, giving speeches about healing, while your policy aids in massacre.
This is your moment of accounting. The world is watching. Will you continue to look away?
Great point once again, Bill. Unfortunately it makes you a so-call antisemite for pointing out this similarity. Linking as usual @https://nothingnewunderthesun2016.com/
I don't know where you got your knowledge about the holocaust from, but you need to do a deep dive into that rabbit hole. There is overwhelming evidence that is the biggest hoax of the 20th century.
Some points for you to ponder re 6 million Jews gassed by the Nazis.
* How come it took the Jews 20 years to discover 6 million of them were missing? n fact, right after the war the world's Jewish population was registered at the same number in 1945 as in 1939. Huh?
* Where is the forensic evidence that there were homicidal gas chambers?
* Most of those allegedly killed at Auschwitz were Jews. There was a memorial plaque outside the concentration camp that said 4 million people were killed there. In 1991 that plaque was replaced by another one that said 1½ million were killed there. How come the 6 million were not revised down?
I'll leave you with these 3 points, but the list is endless.
I have done plenty of research on the Holocaust and refer you to "The Holocaust Encyclopedia," edited by Walter Laqueur, published in 2001, among many other sources.
It's not that I "cannot" address your "3 simple questions." It's that I choose not to.
They are dishonest questions posed by Holocaust deniers. If I answer those three, you will pose three more, and so on, because your motive is to deny or diminish the horrific nature of the Holocaust.
The Nazis were very plain what their "final solution to the Jewish question" was about. It was about extermination. To this end, they built death camps such as Auschwitz-Birkenau, Sobibor, and Treblinka. The Nazis kept extensive records and there are plenty of eyewitness accounts of exactly what happened in these death camps.
There is no need or reason to question or diminish the horrific crime of the Holocaust. Documentation and other forms of evidence is 100% conclusive.
So I urge you to do a "deep dive" into books written by reputable historians. There are plenty of documentaries as well.
I wish you well as you do more research in reputable sources.
No, I would not need to answer 3 others because those 3 frame pretty much of it, and I know you could not give fact-based answers.
The "Final Solution" did not refer to extermination but to ship Jews out of Germany. When Raul Hilberg was confronted with this issue during the 1st Ernst Zündel trial (he did not have the guts to attend the 2nd), he head to resort to explaining an extermination plan by a "meeting of minds of the leadership" because there was no order from Hitler.
Eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. It is eye witnesses who claimed lamp shades and soap were made of Jews' skins and fat, Curiously, that narrative has quietly disappeared, even holocaust survivors dismiss it.
Why is it that that "horrific crime" needs to be protected by laws? Why is it that nobody is allowed to question it? Isn't history always about examining, re-examining, challenging established theories? What makes the holocaust an exception?
I'll tell you the 1 simple answer to all these questions: because the event would be exposed as a hoax. The Red Cross inspected the camps regularly and never mentioned mass executions of Jews. In 1984 the Arolsen archive stated their records showed the total deaths in 16 German-_controlled_ labor-camps (15 major ones plus “others” p.82) amounted to 282,000. The Red Cross last revised the number in 1993 to 296,000.
That is why, in their combined 7000 pages of memoirs, neither De Gaulle, nor Stalin nor Churchill (6 volumes) mentioned the horrific crime against the Jews? I think you'd agree they would only be too happy to describe it in great detail to further vilify the Germans.
I urge you to do a deep dive into books that are not prescribed by the Jews themselves, try to think for yourself and have the courage to face reality.
I am astounded at man's capacity to harm other humans. I feel deep grief and hopelessness when witnessing/remembering what has been done to the so-called "other."
With regard to Gaza, I am in disbelief how some Jews (certainly not all in Israel or elsewhere) can know the history of their people being so persecuted and then turn around and do the same thing to others. A couple of psychological theories come to mind (maybe a stretch on my part):
Many years ago I read a book by Alice Miller (I think it was The Drama of the Gifted Child) in which I believe she mentioned Hitler's father was a Jew who beat him daily when Hitler was a child. Maybe it's a stretch to think that could have influenced his hatred of Jews?
Also Stephen Miller (Trump's man at the helm of immigrant persecution) who's ancestors were so persecuted that they emigrated to this country? What is it with him? Is it self-hatred of his ethnic identity that makes him project onto others their "inferiority" or lack of "belonging." Does that enhance his "value."
Could being the victim of cruelty result in one's mind being so warped into becoming the persecutor?
For some, being the victim, makes them more compassionate towards others who are.
Why some people become better and others monsters, I wish I knew.
I highly doubt that Hitler had Jewish ancestors. But his physical appearance certainly did not match what became the (mythical) image of the "Aryan," blue eyes and blond hair. Which was stuff and nonsense from the outset, since the real Aryans came from northern India! As for Stephen Miller, I doubt he is driven by Jewish self-hatred. He is a disgusting POLITICAL OPPORTUNIST, spewing the racist drivel that keeps him in Trump's Favored Inner Circle. Kissinger was precisely such an opportunist.
My search definitely said Hitler had no Jewish Ancestry!
My search sounded indeterminate. Some sources sound like they feel surer than others. I'm not convinced either way.
Maybe his stepfather (or whatever man lived in his childhood household) was Jewish?
Maybe Hitler (like the Holocaust according to some) didn't even exist.
Just did a cursory Hitler ancestry search. (not interested enough to spend more time on it)
Looks as though it's almost impossible to determine.
(Maybe that's what his problem was?)
I'd have to delve deeper into Hitler's ancestry to verify the book's reference (not sure I'd want to, but maybe I will).
Was more implying, with the use of S. Miller example, that persons who come from what others have considered "sub-optimal" backgrounds and are persecuted/discrimiated against for whatever reason related to that, may act out of not wanting to identify with "belonging" to the "wrong" people. He's not deporting Jews, that I've heard of.
We've really learned nothing from all of our history. A world of nuclear weapons shows many nations have the ability - if not the intent - to commit genocide.
When I served on a boomer, and was part of the authentication team, we told ourselves that by being willing to launch, we knew we wouldn't have to (i.e., the MAD doctrine). But what if we actually had gotten the order? Would we have done it?
In any question of genocide this is an ugly question I sometimes ponder. We thought we were decent honorable men - but could we contribute to the destruction of most of the human race? Would we have been any better than those committing past genocides?
I have no answers.
It's seriously too bad, our Generation of Leaders don't have the Wisdom of President Kennedy who said this in his April 1963 PEACE SPEECH, that unfortunately got him killed a few months later: "Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy–or of a collective death-wish for the world.”
President Kennedy's PEACE SPEECH: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vGH741Qmsg
Ray, I was too young (11 on that November day to have known of his June speech - or to know the deeper significance of what we lost that day.
A concise, informative article, thank you for sending along. Or should I call it an indictment instead? I think I may have mentioned this in a previous post, despite all of humankind's advances - learning how to feed (most of) us, conquest of (some) disease, material well-being (for maybe half of all of us?) - it still seems that we haven't advanced, perhaps can't advance, beyond updated iterations on the first twenty minutes of "2001: a Space Odyssey."
Does Faulkner's Noble Prize acceptance speech still hold up? Disturbing just to ask that question.
A mild digression: last night I watched the original 1975 movie "Rollerball," starring James Caan and helmed by the great director Norman Jewison. Hadn't seen it since its original theatrical release. Rollerball is a very violent sport designed to entertain the masses, a la Bread and Circuses for the Romans. But the premise of the movie is sheer nonsense: nation states have faded away and the whole world is simply ruled/administered by global corporations. The teams competing at Rollerball are sponsored by the corporations. Like the premise of "Network," which presents a similar Capitalist "Utopia" where corporations rule everything, this does not pass the plausibility smell test. (Yes, yes, I know, this is all fiction, not documentaries.) In "Rollerball" we are asked to believe that Capitalism unfettered has eliminated poverty and disease and everyone lives a pampered life of leisure. Now, to be sure, corporations only get more powerful with the passing years, regulations being rolled back by regimes such as the one we are currently "blessed" with in USA, but the notion that they are all going to join hands and rule benignly rather than remain ruthless rivals of one another is what is nonsensical about these movies. End of sermon.
MONEY is the de facto god of this World!
Permit me to tag another on, "The President's Analyst," with James Coburn and Godfrey Cambridge, 1967. Funny, sophisticated, underappreciated.
If anyone in this discussion (other than the pathetic Holocaust denier who chipped in comments) has never seen "Night and Fog," the fairly short documentary by renowned French film director Alain Resnais, you should check it out. You will learn that stealing property from Jews sent to the death camps was not enough for the Nazis. They systematically removed any gold fillings found in the mouths of victims and even put their hair to use (prisoners were subjected to "baldy" haircuts upon arrival--just like we received upon entering the US military back in the day!) And then there was Ida Koch (I think that was her name) who had lampshades made for herself from the skin of murdered Jews. [Historical note: the name of the documentary in English is derived from the German code name for the "disappearing" of Jews from their communities: Nacht und Nebel. Night and Fog.]
What I find so sad and dangerous, 80 years after the end of the Nazi regime, Israeli Jewish settlers are the latest incarnation of Hitler's Brown Shirts, terrorizing Palestinians like the Brown Shirts terrorized Jews, and the West remains wilfully blind to it as I point out to PM Carney after all the praise he got for his Davos speech,
Ray Joseph Cormier @RayJC_Com
@MarkJCarney @CanadianPM
Prime Minister Carney,
Yesterday, I posted a comment in The Toronto Star applauding the political courage of your Davos speech. I noted that you, unlike others, seemed to fear God more than a man.
That applause has curdled into dismay.
Your statement on Holocaust Remembrance Day contained this line: "Today, we remember the consequences of ignorance, hatred, and complicity – and acknowledge that looking away is not a passive act, but an active betrayal."
Sir, you have written your own indictment.
For you are looking away. The world sees the genocide in Gaza—enabled by arms from allies including Canada—yet you refuse to name it. Your speech was a monument to past horrors while actively being complicit in a present one. This is not passive; it is, by your own definition, an active betrayal.
The Nazis had no value for Jewish life. Your moral failure lies in having no public value for Palestinian life today. Your subordination to the Israeli hegemon voids the courage you displayed at Davos. In God's balances, the weight of this omission crushes your earlier words.
You are in a minority position today because of this failure. I warned you of this last Easter. The consequence remains.
The greatest incitement to antisemitism in our time is not memory, but the present-day genocide being conducted in the name of Jewish safety. Your silence fuels both.
The Plains of Abraham speak of struggle and consequence. You stand on them, giving speeches about healing, while your policy aids in massacre.
This is your moment of accounting. The world is watching. Will you continue to look away?
Great point once again, Bill. Unfortunately it makes you a so-call antisemite for pointing out this similarity. Linking as usual @https://nothingnewunderthesun2016.com/
The follow-up Question ~ inspired by Ngungu's comments ~ is "What is Genocide Denial?" Or in this case, "Holocaust Denial?"
For details, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial .
It's an unpopular subject, as I've found out myself, but thank you for the reporting.
I don't know where you got your knowledge about the holocaust from, but you need to do a deep dive into that rabbit hole. There is overwhelming evidence that is the biggest hoax of the 20th century.
Some points for you to ponder re 6 million Jews gassed by the Nazis.
* How come it took the Jews 20 years to discover 6 million of them were missing? n fact, right after the war the world's Jewish population was registered at the same number in 1945 as in 1939. Huh?
* Where is the forensic evidence that there were homicidal gas chambers?
* Most of those allegedly killed at Auschwitz were Jews. There was a memorial plaque outside the concentration camp that said 4 million people were killed there. In 1991 that plaque was replaced by another one that said 1½ million were killed there. How come the 6 million were not revised down?
I'll leave you with these 3 points, but the list is endless.
No. The Holocaust was not a "hoax."
I have done plenty of research on the Holocaust and refer you to "The Holocaust Encyclopedia," edited by Walter Laqueur, published in 2001, among many other sources.
Is that why you cannot address my 3 simple questions?
TBH, I prefer Germar Rudolf's work, among many others, and his Holocaust Encyclopedia.
Furthermore, here are some real analyses, well researched books that are available for free: https://holocausthandbooks.com
You will probably refuse to open even 1 of them, but someone else who checks out these comments might be interested.
It's not that I "cannot" address your "3 simple questions." It's that I choose not to.
They are dishonest questions posed by Holocaust deniers. If I answer those three, you will pose three more, and so on, because your motive is to deny or diminish the horrific nature of the Holocaust.
The Nazis were very plain what their "final solution to the Jewish question" was about. It was about extermination. To this end, they built death camps such as Auschwitz-Birkenau, Sobibor, and Treblinka. The Nazis kept extensive records and there are plenty of eyewitness accounts of exactly what happened in these death camps.
There is no need or reason to question or diminish the horrific crime of the Holocaust. Documentation and other forms of evidence is 100% conclusive.
So I urge you to do a "deep dive" into books written by reputable historians. There are plenty of documentaries as well.
I wish you well as you do more research in reputable sources.
No, I would not need to answer 3 others because those 3 frame pretty much of it, and I know you could not give fact-based answers.
The "Final Solution" did not refer to extermination but to ship Jews out of Germany. When Raul Hilberg was confronted with this issue during the 1st Ernst Zündel trial (he did not have the guts to attend the 2nd), he head to resort to explaining an extermination plan by a "meeting of minds of the leadership" because there was no order from Hitler.
Eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. It is eye witnesses who claimed lamp shades and soap were made of Jews' skins and fat, Curiously, that narrative has quietly disappeared, even holocaust survivors dismiss it.
Why is it that that "horrific crime" needs to be protected by laws? Why is it that nobody is allowed to question it? Isn't history always about examining, re-examining, challenging established theories? What makes the holocaust an exception?
I'll tell you the 1 simple answer to all these questions: because the event would be exposed as a hoax. The Red Cross inspected the camps regularly and never mentioned mass executions of Jews. In 1984 the Arolsen archive stated their records showed the total deaths in 16 German-_controlled_ labor-camps (15 major ones plus “others” p.82) amounted to 282,000. The Red Cross last revised the number in 1993 to 296,000.
That is why, in their combined 7000 pages of memoirs, neither De Gaulle, nor Stalin nor Churchill (6 volumes) mentioned the horrific crime against the Jews? I think you'd agree they would only be too happy to describe it in great detail to further vilify the Germans.
I urge you to do a deep dive into books that are not prescribed by the Jews themselves, try to think for yourself and have the courage to face reality.
https://holocaustacademy.com