Banking on Our Ignorance: A holocaust denier is taken on by his cousin

The more ignorant or unfamiliar you are with and about statecraft, the easier people who want to perpetuate war can manipulate you. So committments to war or peace or radical sanity take form, and an intensifying radical's radical dialogue
"becomes" between two persons who like each other at face value (and some years of background history). This communication may be instructive for those who want to better understand aggression and its rationalizations in order to ju-jitsu the worst of what happens when beliefs are allowed to bear the ugly fruits of perpetual war.

"...the reality is that all of these [national political] players have studied statecraft in serious (and "elite") ways, and thus moved "up" through the ranks of that system, experiencing it along the way, and accepting such a system as valid, and etc. When they gained their position, they also gained the position of the normal ways in which that system, with all of its scientific ways of utilzing young people (i.e. policemen, soldiers, social workers, nuclear parents), has a habit (or addiction?) of playing out. Don't tell me that graduates of elite schools studying elite political science wouldn't have any idea of that!" --from the article below

Subject: Fw: *** A stunning summary of the importance of Revisionism by Dr. Robert Faurisson ***
...Here's some food for thought, forwarded from bro[ther] Karl. Take a big bite and chew hard.
E. (my cousin, a man in his upper 50s) (Note: Karl is known in the u.s. east for his public stands for holocaust revisionism; I'm not telling their whole names seeing that the content of the topic is more important than "outing" them here)

>From 1945 onwards, with the Second World War just ended, the Western European powers saw their colonies swiftly vanish.
===
Openly, anyway. In every other way, those colonies remained "theirs", i.e. their "values" were quite fully instituted in the minds of those traditional communities whose youth were impregnated with the ideals and lies of europeon governance. And many of those countries also remain "in debt" financially as well (the old debt trap). Their populations driven to the coerced values of their violently enthroned "masters." Not much of a "noble' ability, in my view, to be able to maim, threaten, and kill peoples unused to such terrorism, "diplomatic" or otherwise.

>  However it was precisely during this period that, paradoxically, two deviant phenomena, [South Africa and Israel become States]
==
So you are agreeing that statecraft is deviant? A curious word.

> both born in 1948, in the very midst of that general decolonization, were seen to arise and gain strength: in South Africa, the institution of apartheid and, in the Middle East, the creation, through violence, of a racialist and colonialist territorial entity that styled itself a "Jewish State" and endowed itself with a "Jewish Army".
===
As if all "young" States don't utilize violence and any other means at hand to ensure their "interests"... Race merely used as one more card to play the unwary masses against each other.

>South African apartheid provoked such a negative reaction on the part of what one may call the international community that it wound up disappearing.
===
More probably, South African methodology (utilizing racial "difference" as its main playing card to more smoothly utilize its "white" masses) was by then not in the lockstep with the rest of the world. The rest of the world had already been systematically challenged by the peoples it had smashed, and thus that game was no longer in "vogue" to use in statecraft. Not that the race card can't come back "into vogue"--as it is done by Israeli statecrafters and anyone else--i.e. the old Arab "menace" (never allowed to be viewed in thoughtful contexts).

> But the State of Israel, at its end, has maintained itself in the land of Palestine and is, today more than ever, financed and armed by the big Western powers, first and foremost Germany and the United States. It has even become a nuclear power.
===
This is where you gain my attention. That Israel was allowed to gain nuclear power, while all others in "that part of the world" are not allowed to get that (with the exception of India and Pakistan, yes?). I handn't heard that Germany is a major supplier of Israeli statecraft, though. How could this be? Are you saying that the Jews (?) have been able to gain some sort of special strength in the very State which made organized war on them and so many others only a relatively few decades ago? (Even in the u.s. the "Blacks" and other previously demonzed minorities have not been allowed this; that is, they're allowed to help implement policy; but actually formulate it? What's your take on the Condoleeza Rice placement?)

>The anomaly comprised by that brutal colonization of Palestine in the middle of a worldwide process of decolonization is easy to explain. In 1945, tricked by the Jewish and Zionist propaganda machine,
===
Just what kind of "machine" could a people, decimated by direct war on them (in all parts of the world, including the u.s.a.), accomplish? And as for propaganda, have you read Jacques Ellul? In his book _Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes_ he convincingly outlines how propaganda, to be truly effective, relies on a thorough 'machinery' over-arcing other interests and able to continue a systematic, continual presence. To compare the "best of" 1945 zionist nationalist interest-laden hype (if and when such is actually hype) with what was already "normalized" and continuing to be so (i.e. u.s./world elite "business as usual") is not comparable at all and i don't see how you and others can say this except with the intent to hype-up and mobilize people who for whatever reason, do not think these things through.  Come on, Eric, let's think about this together. How can the absolute worst of zionist hype compare at all with the everyday norms of u.s./world "elite" hype and true propaganda? (i.e. "Western Culture and Values are Good, cultures outside are "under-developed" and "primitive") Do you think that this comparison is unfair? How?

>Thus, in 1947, the reasoning of the members of the United Nations Organization, created in 1945, was somewhat as follows:
===
Somewhat? What does that mean? I don't think that's an accurate way to understand political games played by the u.n. or anyone else, given the context that groups of people are utilized as mere pawns in the profitable war games of world "elites". (i put "elite" in such quotes because i wish to ask just how "privileged" are these severely alienated people who come up with stupidities like war, and the insane imagination of war machinery)

> 1) in the recent war, the Germans inflicted hardships upon the European Jews amounting to an unprecedented martyrdom; 2) it is therefore imperative to come to the aid of the survivors of that community; 3) it is fitting to compensate these people by all possible means; 4) for exceptional sufferings, an exceptional remedy: it is of course not normal to grant, albeit only in part, to one people a land belonging to another people but, for the Jews, who have suffered so much, an exception will be made, to the detriment Å  of the Palestinians. ("Why not to the detriment of the European criminals?" wondered aloud the late British historian Arnold Toynbee, himself a believer in the "Holocaust").
======
Let's demystify this, shall we? Why don't we take another precedent from history and compare the political gamesmanship? Um, do you know of any? How about the persecuted "Americans"? Persecuted religiously, "we" needed a new place, and "God" gave "us" the continent of north america (including "our little territories"--as Bush I was heard saying--down to the south, i.e. Panama, and so on).

The more probable reality, given a basic education in statecraft methodology, is that the hardened zionists (and their political supporters) were able to organize a politically effective "gift" to world aggressors called "elites". They did what every "pragmatic" group (whether or not hardened by being directly demonized for hundreds of years or more) does in the face of "political reality." They studied the interests of the aggressors and found an in-road. They perhaps realized--in their "pragmatism" (beaten-down hardline perceptional reality)-- that they could gain their "promised land" AND assist the world elite chess game (i.e. the bid for "one world government") in continuining to gain its interests. So, if the zionists could "win" their "war" against the palestinians in the 1970s, they'd be allowed to play with "The Big Guys". And "gift" them a pivotal portion of the world from which to further launch their "one world government" scheme.

But it seems that your brother and yourself conceive that a long-demonized group (in the West, including WWII u.s.a. anyway), called 'the jews', have somehow been able to maintain some kind of world elite status and manuver the world elites! Or, have kept the world elites under their firm control! How is that?

How is it that a group being popularly demonized in the u.s.a., for one, can control that nation's elites?

Seems to me, and i'll say it here and now, again, that both of you (Karl and you, Eric) are being bamboozled by people who have a demonstrable and long history of having more true control of world elite perceived "interests". And this way of believing fits into your love of your father and the fabled country that you hail from (me, only a portion, as i'm a mutt when it comes to nationalistic "lines" across natural territory).

*This* subject, it seems to me, would be truly excellent to explore! Which subject? The subject of how so-called "elite" groups are able to organize and mobilize their constituencies with all manner of deceit and alienation war games. Not that i can articulate such as well as others.

Going on...

>    It is usually forbidden to grab hold of another's belongings,
===
Forbidden???? Hah! Any basic awareness of world national history proves this a damn lie!

> to chase a people out of its land through violence,
===
Another obfuscation, good only to incline the naive, i.e. young people --wanting, liking, enjoying trusting you, yet not allowed (?) to have an equal conversation abou things with equal awareness, or something so encouraged.

In my view, such beliefs and methods only reflect the lost alienation of the people *conditioned* (via State-ish imaginations) to utilize such stupidity. The assumption that entire groups of people would *be very very different* from the rest of us whom have been colonized, conditioned, enculturated, indoctrinated into "normal" Western divide and conquer cult ure is just stupidity, Eric! How can you say anything different?

Now, i'm not trying to abuse you as a human being. i also recall a cousin of ours calling *me* stupid for not voting nor wanting to. So, he looked at me from a certain ignorant vantage point together with his being mobilized to believe that voting can change things. And maybe i'm similarly mobilized to quickly categorize you! i can "give" you that. Why not? It's not like i am in a position of heavyshit influence or anything...i say, what's wrong with giving you "the benefit of the doubt"; i'll see what vibe that brings back from you (yeah, i'm thinking aloud) and continue to feel what it's like to wear such *while* inviting input from others as well.

> to seek to enslave that people, to deny it the right to a State of its own, an army, a currency, to dictate its law and lock it up in Bantustans, keeping it in a prison whose barriers are a good deal higher and more forbidding than the "Berlin wall". Nonetheless, that is what the Jews of the Diaspora, in defiance of the most basic rules and rights, have since 1948 managed to accomplish in Palestine. They have ignored all their promises to the UN to respect, in part, the Palestinians' rights and, afterwards, they have considered all the UN's calls to order null and void.
===
Sounds like typical examples by u.s. "interests" as well, as Chomsky has pointed out via 'reputable' sources. i figure Russia does this as well at its leisure, as well as every other state that thinks it can get away with such. Thus, as *we* know, the u.n. is a farce, just as all States are farces of so-called "law" and "promise" and "rights", unless those fall in line to meta interests of world elites as they're being organized for the "one world government" charade.

But of course such consciousness is not allowed to the general audience --at least not the audience "given" that "freedom" (i.e. anarchism-ists are given that 'right' to think this way, just as long as they mobilize for Left interests).

> Today, the Jews and the Zionists term whoever resists them with weapons a "terrorist". Whoever speaks out against their colonialism is declared an "anti-Semite".
===
Duh, such is the "normal" wargame of polytricks. Emotionally potent over-simplification the key manipulation tool.

>        "Terrorist", "anti-Semite", "denier" or "negationist": these words stamp the mark of Cain on your forehead.
===
A line particularly effective, no doubt, for those manipulated into trusting biblical perceptions.

> But the duty of the historian or researcher is to go and see, up close, the reality hiding behind those insults.
----
Duty? Certainly such a sentence is aimed at the naive youthful "historian" or "researcher". Such a sentence would never be spoken to a Bud Schultz or a Howard Zinn or a Reginald Major! They'd be "too sophisticated" for such word games.

> And the reality in question is that Jews and Zionists have been lying and continue to lie.
===
And now "the Jews" are heaped together with the naughty competitors of nationalism and world influence called zionists. Why is that? Who are "the Jews" here?

> Their alleged "Holocaust" is a historical lie, which is extraordinarily profitable for them and, from their point of view, must be safeguarded at all costs.
===
On the other hand, WWII was *enormously* profitable (as is all war) for world elites [i.e. general Smedley Butler's comments on such]. But world elites didn't really risk much (if their industry was smashed, all they had to do was rebuild after declaring 'bankrupcy'; and when war came to their "homeland"? Just move over to one of their other villas). The demonized groups, on the other hand, including their elites, get to work harder for the "right" to survive, as not every country is mandated to "allow" them in when they flee. Do you think i am off-center on these comments? Examples please.

As for the "must be safeguarded at all costs" comment, i'll say that this is completely normal for *any group* seeking A Place At the illusory Table of Security and Enjoyment of this planet. But i've said that previously in our interactions. To single them out as if they are the "only" players of such games is nothing but a warlike orientation---or perhaps ignorance of formalized world poly-tricks.

> In the light of this exorbitant lie and this swindle of near-planetary dimensions, the actions of both the Zionists, who have gone on robbing and killing the Palestinians, and the Diaspora Jews, who approve of Zionism and fund it, are all the graver.
=======
Interesting mystifying word, there, "diaspora"; i've heard it leveled at others before. As for the idea of some jews who "fund it" you're leaving out the context of where peoples, turned into groups for various heavy and not-so-heavy reasons, do things because their trusted "leaders" manipulate them, or perpetuate a climate where such manipulation is the routine. But again, it ain't just the jews and zionists. EVERY damn group that believes the Wizards of Oz and their spectacle of illusory grandeur plays and is played by this game. To single out one or a few groups as being the "only" ones is only showing your committments to war rather than claims of (?) wanting "peace" and sanity.

Think about *that* hard, and chew it!

>Hitler did effectively try to expel the Jews from Europe. A good number of other countries before Germany, through the millennia and up to modern times, had wished to proceed with an expulsion of the Jews from their respective territories. On the motives for this quasi-universal rejection, the first page of Jewish writer Bernard Lazare's 1894 book _Anti-Semitism: its history and causes_ is worthwhile reading. In a summing-up, he wrote that it was by their very own conduct, in every place and at every time, that the Jews, at first welcomed, in the long run brought on the natives' impatience and revolt.
====
Natives? Makes it sound like aboriginal peoples, in harmony with Mom Earth, could not help but to reject these allegedly abominable human beings. Sheesh!

Again, context context context. Unless, that is, you're thoroughly, for some reason or other, committed to war war war.

>  Before and during the war, on numerous occasions and even as late as in April 1945, Hitler and the National Socialist leaders publicly proposed that the Allies take the Jews of Europe into their own countries. "Have them, these Jews you find so wonderful; we'll make a present of them to you. Why do you hesitate?": the National Socialists put it in words clearly to that effect. Apart from a few rare cases, the Allies replied either with silence or refusal, for they knew perfectly well that Hitler was not at all going about exterminating the Jews. We have, for example, documentary proof that the senior Allied officials did not believe the madcap stories of gas chambers, a fact that explains why, either during or after the war, Churchill, De Gaulle, Eisenhower, Stalin, Benes and other
=====
The reality is that all countries around germany were using the jew card to continue to hype-up and hold fearing their "following" 'citizens' (whom've been socialized to trust them). It's like with the pedophile thing today. Or with the drug dealer/user thing. Formally, the trap has been laid on the group that gets to be demonized and scapegoated--until they can pull themselves out of the trap in some way; but in a severely alienated system of everyday war (as all formal systems are drunk with), the demonized have to do it pretty much themselves (and that's no easy task considering all the atomization that has been done to the 'citizens'), at least in any outward way. And maybe they'll gain the formal strength to make smashing them not so easy to do (like the gays have been and have to continue to be effective at, like any "rights" group); that's what the 'black' "civil rights" momentum did--and that's why South Africa was forced to stop *openly* utilizing that card. And, too, why 'the john birchers' are no longer using rascist hype--claiming to have "gotten beyond" that. Same old shit, different outward appearance!

And the Left plays right along as well, as i have related. After all, they're the left-side of statecraft; what do you expect?

Really, the "science" of faurrison can be so easily exposed for more social science-type tricks. Laden with all of these hype terms and without contexts! Same old song, like u.s. aboriginal warrior Russell Means says (in his "For America To Live, Europe Must Die" article; i feel he's talking about europeon mind-set, for those who think he's only about aboriginal nationalism, in case you wondered; take a read, it might do you sanity).

> Hitler, in reality, wanted to see a territory reserved for the Jews somewhere outside of Europe, but not in Palestine.
======
I don't know about this, and while I can imagine that hitler was a sort of 'fall guy' for world 'elite' terrorists --um, i mean, "powers", as a statesman he was no innocent. But I haven't studied hitler closely. I have studied saddam hussein and it looks to me like the two examples are similar in basis. Generally, two statesmen who subordinated their individualities to statecraft method, perhaps imagining that their constituencies might be allowed a serious Place At The Table (as if such is even possible amongst a perpetual war committed world severely alienated) and be spared the perpetual insanity of being their experimental 'proving grounds'.

Surely way too simplistic, yet perhaps a germ of truth. C.Wright Mills has written on the subject of 'elite' psychology. I myself would like to read something much more demystifying. Not even the post-left anarchists seem to have written on this...nor anyone else i've heard of. Have you heard of anything?

What makes world "leaders" tick? What do they really want? Who are they really for? What are they truly like with their families and at home?

Another significant question: Is there an example in history (or herstory) that tells of the entire world being so hood-winked by a relatively tiny group?
 
      
>In other words, to sum up, what Germany, a modern nation, had undertaken in order to save people's lives and ensure her survival
===
The survival of a feminine entity called a state? How "friendly".

> in a context of both war and a war economy, the Allies managed, by a clever propaganda, to present as an enterprise of the physical extermination of human beings. That propaganda knew how to exploit the old superstitions according to which the doctor, chemist and scholar are more or less hand in glove with the Devil.
===
Oh, there's the clincher--they've got to be "with the Devil"!

>          As for Germany, completely flattened as she was, there was no course open but to submit to the conquerors' will. At the Nuremberg trial and in a hundred other such courtroom spectacles, she was prevented from freely making a case in her defense and, without any veritable evidence, without any veritable technical or scientific investigation, her conquerors pronounced her guilty of incredible outrages.
===
How about after WWI. Why don't we see mention of that spectacle? How was germany so quickly rebuilt--so like iraq--to become such a formidable aggressor?

Why can't y'all talk about *that*? Surely you might burn "bridges" to cozy seats at illusory Tables, eh? That is, the industrialists who re-built "your country" and then inspired (?) its manipulators to 'get back with the program' by hyping up and mobilizing its masses to...what? An attempt to escape the status of the corralled group of human beings called german to become everyone else's convenient scapegoat?

What were the jews (and so many others) doing prior to the defeat in WWI? Were they amongst those naughty others leading the 'fight' against war altogether? Certainly they had to be stopped, and not allowed to crop up again...what better way to silence their principled dissent (?) than to categorically not allow them to speak... (hmmm, perhaps you are warning me, your likable cousin, in a round-about-way, to get in line with you for when the u.s. momentum is betrayed --by world elite interests (always tooling States)-- so i can escape the worst of the expected insanity...?

>The revisionists have amply demonstrated
===
Say what? Only for those who enjoy having their consent manufactured!

> that there never existed, nor could exist, a single order by Hitler to kill the Jews.
===
That's like saying that no u.s. president issued "a single order" against the native aboriginals. And that's also like saying that reagan never knew about the iran/contra scandal. And so on an so forth.

But the reality is that all of these players have, we assume, studied statecraft in serious (and "elite") ways, and thus moved "up" through the ranks of that system, experiencing it along the way, and accepting such a system as valid, and etc. When they gained their position, they also gained the position of the normal ways in which that system, with all of its scientific ways of utilzing young people (i.e. policemen, soldiers, social workers, nuclear parents), has a habit (or addiction?) of playing out. Don't tell me that graduates of elite schools studying elite political science wouldn't have any idea of that!

Consider the normal, routine ways that fbi and atf implementers of policy do their work. Say at Ruby Ridge or Waco. They are deployed to those situations and they are very very harsh. To say that statesmen know nothing of these things and have only the "love of their people" in mind is complete bullshit. To then seek to gum people up in the idea that "only" direct orders have any/all validity in the situation is more obfuscation/bullshit from faurrison (and you?).

> We have proof that, even during the war, German soldiers or officers guilty of killing even just one Jewish man or woman could be brought to court martial, sentenced to death and shot,
=======
What is the form and content of this "proof"? Was it a law? A federal-type law? A local law? A military law? Was it a law or promise similar to those given to aboriginal peoples (perhaps including germany) via the lie of 'treaty law'? I.e. made to placate or silence 'reputable' (i.e. "liberal") challengers so that they "cannot"--if they are to continue to play the meta game of their politics--bring adequate challenge to the early nationalist-socialist momentum? (i.e. "The Wizard of Oz says he doesn't do it, so of course he follows his own rules!")

> Nor did there exist any measures for the monitoring of the purported extermination project: no budget, no agency nor any official in charge of carrying out such a policy.
===
Perhaps something, if I am to take this at face value, like the underground funding of the nicaraguan contras. Or perhaps like all the illegal cia activities. Or for that matter, the illegal fbi activities.

> On January 20, 1942, at the gathering called "Wannsee Conference", fifteen German officials vaguely discussed for a few hours a program of expulsion of the Jews from the European domain and, provisionally, whilst awaiting the war's end, of putting to forced labor those among them, men and women, who were able to work.
===
Again, taking that at face value, how can one force someone to work if it is illegal for them to shoot/kill such persons?

> During the same meeting, there was envisaged a Jewish "renewal" somewhere outside of Europe after the war, with a "germinal cell" made up of the best elements, i.e. those Jews who would have survived the deportation and forced labor. Before the war, and still in the early stages thereof, the Germans had seriously considered as a solution the settling of European Jews on the island of Madagascar.
====
What? And forcing the aboriginal natives there to submit, no doubt?! How curious!

>In doing so they were taking up an idea that had been studied in 1937 by the Polish, French and British authorities, and even by the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, but, with the intensification of the conflict, they had to abandon that idea.
====
Had to abandon that idea? Wait a minute, all these non-jew authorities were, in their alleged good-intentions, trying to find a nice, adequate place "for" the jews? Oh, how nice and caring of them...(yeah, sure)

> As for the settling of European Jews in Palestine, they had ended up firmly opposing it.
====
Uh-huh...yeah, sure. And that's why the industrialists that own and run those countries never participated in even covertly supplying the israelies so that they could massacre the palestinian/arab opposition! Uh-huh, I don't think so!

So tell me, Eric, you can see that this communication is taking an increasingly critical turn. And I am perhaps getting a little too much on your nerves. Shall communication thus cease and desist? Shall you continue on your momentum, set in your ways? I think our family assumes this, and calls my intervention of sorts (yeah, right) naive. Surely i am!

And perhaps you remember my apparent weakness when we bicycled together on the mountain, when i fell (and if i hadn't had a helmet, would have been pretty heavy cuz my head smashed quite hard smack dab on a big rock) after being a little, um, inebriated with the rest of you. So I figure that you unwillingly accept the idea that i, being "gay" (an identity i find myself put into for wanting to be naughtily caring and affectionate with males--who are to be the soldiers and mustn't have "too much" 'weakness' and 'infirmity'), am also part of these problematic people (at best)? Yes? But you have been somehow moved to wander (dangerously) into grey areas with the truth of my solo bicycle trips. And you want to enquire, and thus have dropped this faurrison into my veritable lap. And, you tell me to "chew hard".

But let's not discuss how human beings might become so beleagured to appear "weak" and "infirm"! Let's not talk about how when whole societies judge a group of people that that group, usually persons *told* *what* they *are* (and further reduced from their already reduced position as "citizens"), cannot help but to be psychologically affected. And thus "give away" their power so easily, without "a fight", as if such values are the only conceivably excellent way to move.

So this has been a good exercise into mind-set. Where shall it take us? Perhaps we should fall back on the less sentimental, and throw our hurt feelings about the seeming truth of biological family being but another fallacy, except to pass "down" the rigid belief systems of those who bring us into the world. Or, more likely, family as yet a new way to tool masses of people into doing the bidding of those who cannot help but to betray them as they betray themselves and their own original (?!?) desire to be affectionate and listening and playing here in what has been a garden of eden.

>Iran and its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have put themselves at the forefront in the struggle against that double myth. It is not only Palestine and the Arabo-Moslem community that should be grateful to them but, as may be seen, the entire world, or just about.
=======
I wonder in what context the iranian formal politicos are involved? If they are like any other state, statecraft's pragmatics will be first and foremost. Thus, all manner of flowery decor around the viewpoint that "works" at a given time and place, since the masses must go along. This will change as changes are needed/wanted, and new enemies will continue to crop up at a continually alarming pace, until there is no one else to attack but "one's people" and each other.

As for the himmler statement, he was but a military general, a believing soldier internalizing the values of the orders he was given--yes? Thus he was a middle-man, or middle manager for the overall military/State policy of always rationalizing the value of scapegoating and demonizing a group of people (or, for that matter, individuals, if "important" enough) for "the good" of the interests of the State. If he did not adopt the values of the orders he was given he would not have been allowed to move up the ranks of the military construct. Period.