Sanctifying Dubious Historical Narratives as Secular Religion

As video killed the radio star, so science and reason threaten to kill the religious leader, or at least make many immune from his manipulation. What is to be done?? Enter the secular religion. Sacred, inviolable narratives to guide our actions and thoughts, with dissent become heresy and an earthly hell created to hold over the heads of infidels as punishment for their transgressions.
Breaking 'Sacred Ground' - The Religion of the 9/11 Official Story
The state sanctioned and sponsored religion of 9/11 broke sacred ground yesterday on another 'holy' site.
SHANKSVILLE, Pa. – With the words "Let's roll" — the command issued by United Flight 93 passenger Todd Beamer to lead the passenger revolt — U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and 39 victims' relatives and dignitaries turned shovels of dirt at a groundbreaking ceremony Saturday for a permanent national memorial.
With Beamer's words, passengers rushed down the airliner's narrow aisle to try to overwhelm the hijackers after learning of the coordinated attacks. The commission concluded that the hijackers downed the plane as the hostages revolted. It was the only one of four hijacked planes that day that did not take a life on the ground.
Salazar said the victims did something profoundly democratic which the terrorists could never understand: They took a vote on whether to fight for control of the plane.
"These heroes did not cow down to fear," he said. {more}
The elements of the new religion inspire awe and reverence.
Symbolism

The centerpiece of the memorial landscape is the landform known as the Bowl. The memorial design frames the Bowl, as a Field of Honor, with trees circling the entire bowl in a national gesture of embrace that orients visitors toward the Sacred Ground.
Majesty

Large memorial walls will frame the sky where the plane flew overhead as the passengers and crew bravely fought their winning battle to not have the plane continue to DC. Between these memorial walls will be the park’s interpretive center.
The Altar

A ceremonial gateway for family members will occur along the fight path between two walls, depicting the very location where the heroes of Flight 93 fought and overcame the terrorists.
The online Flight 93 sacred words and images.
Deniers of the religion are ridiculed. Heretics are closely watched by the 'keepers of the word.' Persecution could follow.
Twice this week we have been 'blessed' in the symbolism, sacrament and ceremony of our evolving 'religion.'
The 'first communicator of the word' often relates a tale of a vengeful god.
"We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al-Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority."
Barack Obama - Oct. 7, 2008
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/after-all-i-am-a-proper-zionist-jew-by-gilad-atzmon.html
The Holocaust is a relatively new religion (4). It lacks mercy or compassion, instead it promises revenge through retribution. For its followers, it is somehow liberating because it allows them to punish whoever they like as long they gain some pleasure. This may explain why the Israelis ended up punishing the Palestinians for crimes that were committed by Europeans. It is rather clear that the newly emerging religion is not just about ‘eye for an eye’; it is actually an eye for thousands and thousands of eyes.
A month ago, while visiting in Auschwitz, Israeli defence minister Ehud Barak left a note in the official visitors book: ‘a strong Israel is both the comfort and the revenge’(5). No one could summarise the aspiration of the religion any better. The Holocaust religion doesn’t offer redemption. It is a crude violent manifestation of sheer collective brutality. It cannot resolve anything, for aggression can only lead to more and more aggression. In the Holocaust religion there is neither room for peace or grace. Take it from Barak, revenge is where they find comfort.
To deny the danger posed by the Holocaust religion and its followers is to be complicit in a growing crime against humanity and against every possible human value.
(4) The Israeli Philosophy professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz was probably the first to define the holocaust as the ‘new Jewish religion’.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
The secular religion of “the Holocaust”, a tainted product of consumer society
The religion of “the Holocaust” is a secular one: it belongs to the lay world; it is profane; in actuality, it has at its disposal the secular arm, that is a temporal authority with dreaded power. It has its dogma, its commandments, its decrees, its prophets and its high priests. As one revisionist has observed, it has its circle of saints, male and female, amongst whom, for example, Saint Anne (Frank), Saint Simon (Wiesenthal) and Saint Elie (Wiesel). It has its holy places, its rituals and its pilgrimages. It has its sacred (and macabre) buildings and its relics (in the form of cakes of soap, shoes, toothbrushes, …). It has its martyrs, its heroes, its miracles and its miraculous survivors (in the millions), its golden legend and its righteous ones. Auschwitz is its Golgotha. For it, God is called Yahweh, protector of his chosen people, who, as said in one of the psalms of David (number 120), recently invoked by a female public prosecutor, Anne de Fontette, during the trial in Paris of a French revisionist, punishes “lying lips” (by, incidentally, sending them the “sharp arrows of the mighty, with coals of juniper”). For this religion, Satan is called Hitler, condemned, like Jesus in the Talmud, to boil for eternity in excrement. It knows neither mercy, nor forgiveness, nor clemency but only the duty of vengeance. It amasses fortunes through blackmail and extortion and acquires unheard-of privileges. It dictates its law to the nations. Its heart beats in Jerusalem, at the Yad Vashem monument, in a land taken over from the natives; in the shelter of a 26-foot high wall built to protect a people who are the salt of the earth, the companions of the “Holocaust” faith rule over the goy with a system that is the purest expression of militarism, racism and colonialism.
A quite recent religion whose growth has been meteoric
Although it is largely an avatar of the Hebraic religion, the new religion is quite recent and has exhibited meteoric growth. For the historian, the phenomenon is exceptional. Most often a religion of universal scope has its origins in remote and obscure times, a fact that makes the task of historians of religious ideas and institutions rather arduous. However, as luck would have it for that type of historian, in the space of fifty-odd years (1945-2000), right before our eyes, a new religion, that of “the Holocaust”, has suddenly come into being and proceeded to develop with astonishing speed, spreading nearly everywhere. It has conquered the West and intends to impose itself on the rest of the world. Any researcher interested in the historical phenomenon made up by the birth, life and death of religions ought therefore to seize the occasion, never so much as hoped for, thus offered to study from up close the birth and life of this new religion, then calculate its chances of survival and the possibility of its demise. Any specialist of war watching out for indications of a coming conflagration would owe it to himself to survey the risks of a warlike crusade such as the one into which this conquering religion may take us.
A religion that embraces consumerism
As a rule, consumer society places religions and ideologies in difficulty or danger. Each year, growth in both industrial production and business activity creates in peoples’ minds new needs and desires, truly concrete ones, lessening their thirst for the absolute or their aspiration towards an ideal, factors that religions and ideologies feed on. Besides, the progress of scientific thinking makes people more and more sceptical as to the truth of religion’s stories and the promises it gives them. Paradoxically, the only religion to prosper today is the “Holocaust” religion, ruling, so to speak, supreme and having those sceptics who are openly active cast out from the rest of mankind: it labels them “deniers”, whilst they call themselves “revisionists”.
These days the ideas of homeland, nationalism or race, as well as those of communism or even socialism, are in crisis or even on their way to extinction. Equally in crisis are the religions of the Western world, including the Jewish religion, and in their turn but in a less visible manner, so are the non-Western religions, themselves confronted by consumerism’s force of attraction; whatever one may think, the Moslem religion is no exception: the bazaar attracts bigger crowds than the mosque and, in certain oil-rich kingdoms, consumerism in its most outlandish forms poses an ever more insolent challenge to the rules for living laid down by Islam.
Roman Catholicism, for its part, is stricken with anaemia: to use Céline’s phrase, it has become “christianaemic”. Amongst the Catholics whom Benedict XVI addresses, how many still believe in the virginity of Mary, the miracles of Jesus, the physical resurrection of the dead, everlasting life, in heaven, purgatory and hell? The churchmen’s talk is usually limited to trotting out the word that “God is love”. The Protestant religions and those akin to them are diluted, along with their doctrines, in an infinity of sects and variants. The Jewish religion sees its members, more and more reluctant to observe so many peculiar rules and prohibitions, deserting the synagogue and, in ever greater numbers, marrying outside the community.
But whereas Western beliefs or convictions have lost much of their substance, faith in “the Holocaust” has strengthened; it has ended up creating a link – a religion, according to standard etymology at any rate, is a link (religat religio) – that enables disparate sets of communities and nations to share a common faith. All in all, Christians and Jews today cooperate heartily in propagating the holocaustic faith. Even a fair number of agnostics or atheists can be seen lining up with enthusiasm under the “Holocaust” banner. “Auschwitz” is achieving the union of all.
The fact is that this new religion, born in the era where consumerism expanded so rapidly, bears all the hallmarks of consumerism. It has its vigour, cleverness and inventiveness. It exploits all the resources of marketing and communication. The vilest products of Shoah Business are but the secondary effects of a religion that, intrinsically, is itself a sheer fabrication. From a few scraps of a given historical reality, things that were, after all, commonplace in wartime (like the internment of a good part of the European Jews in ghettos or camps), its promoters have built a gigantic historical imposture: the imposture, all at once, of the alleged extermination of the Jews of Europe, of camps allegedly equipped with homicidal gas chambers and, finally, of an alleged six million Jewish victims.
A religion that seems to have found the solution to the Jewish question
Throughout the millennia, the Jews, at first generally well received in the lands that have taken them in, have ended up arousing a phenomenon of rejection leading to their expulsion but, quite often, after leaving through one door, they have re-entered through another door. In several nations of continental Europe, in the late 19th and early 20th century, the phenomenon appeared once more. “The Jewish question” was especially put in Russia, Poland, Romania, Austria-Hungary, Germany and France. Everyone, beginning with the Jews themselves, then set about looking for “a solution” to this “Jewish question”. For the Zionists, long a minority amongst their coreligionists, the solution could only be territorial. The thing to do was to find, with the accord of the imperial powers, a territory that Jewish colonists could settle. This colony might be located, for example, in Palestine, Madagascar, Uganda, South America, Siberia, … Poland and France envisaged the Madagascar solution whilst the Soviet Union created in southern Siberia the autonomous Jewish sector of Birobijan. As for National Socialist Germany, she was to study the possibility of settling the Jews in Palestine but wound up realising, from 1937, the unrealistic nature of the idea and the great wrong to the Palestinians that such a project would entail. Subsequently the 3rd Reich wanted to create a Jewish colony in a part of Poland (the Judenreservat of Nisko, south of Lublin), then in its turn, in 1940, it seriously considered creating a colony in Madagascar (the Madagascar Projekt). Two years later, beset by the necessities of a war to wage on land, sea and in the air and taken up with the more and more distressing concerns of having to save German cities from a deluge of fire, to safeguard the very life of his people, to keep the economy of a whole continent running, a continent so poor in raw materials, Chancellor Hitler made it known to his entourage, notably in the presence of Reichsminister and head of the Reichskanzlerei Hans-Heinrich Lammers, that he intended to “put off solving the Jewish question till after the war”. Constituting within her a population necessarily hostile to a Germany at war, the Jews – in any case a large portion of them – had to be deported and interned. Those able to work were made to do so, the others were confined in concentration camps or transit camps. Never did Hitler either desire or authorise the massacre of Jews and his courts martial went so far as to order the death penalty, even in Soviet territory, for soldiers found guilty of excesses against Jews. Never did the German State envisage anything else, as concerned the Jews, than “a final territorial solution of the Jewish question” (eine territoriale Endlösung der Judenfrage) and it takes all the dishonesty of our orthodox historians to evoke incessantly “the final solution of the Jewish question” and deliberately evade the adjective “territorial”, so important here. Up to the end of the war, Germany kept on offering to deliver interned Jews to the western Allies, but on condition that they then stay in Britain, for example, and not go and invade Palestine to torment “the noble and valiant Arab people”. There was nothing exceptional about the fate of Europe’s Jews in the general blaze of war. It would have deserved just a mention in the great book of Second World War history. One may therefore quite rightly be astonished that today the fate of the Jews should be considered the essential feature of that war.
After the war it was in the land of Palestine and to the detriment of the Palestinians that the upholders of the “Holocaust” religion found – or believed they’d found – the final territorial solution to the Jewish question.
A religion that, previously, groped along with its sales methods
(Raul Hilberg’s recantation)
I suggest that sociologists undertake a history of the new religion by examining the extremely varied techniques in line with which this “product” was created, launched and sold over the years 1945-2000. They can thus measure the distance between the often clumsy procedures of the beginning and the sophistication, at the end, of the packagings designed by our present-day spin doctors (crooked “com” experts) for their presentations of “the Holocaust”, henceforth a compulsory and kosher mass-consumer product.
In 1961, Raul Hilberg, first of the “Holocaust” historians, “the pope” of exterminationist science, published the first version of his major work, The Destruction of the European Jews. He expressed in doctoral manner the following thesis: Hitler had given orders for an organised massacre of the Jews and all was explained as somehow coming of those orders. This way of displaying the merchandise was to end in a fiasco. With the revisionists asking to see the Hitler orders, Hilberg was compelled to admit that they had never existed. From 1982 to 1985, under the pressure of the same revisionists asking to see just what the magical homicidal gas chambers, in technical reality, looked like, he was led to revise his presentation of the holocaustic product. In 1985, in the “revised and definitive” edition of the same book, instead of taking an assertive, curt stance with the reader-customer, he sought to get round him with all sorts of convoluted phrases, appealing to a supposed taste for the mysteries of parapsychology or the paranormal. He expounded on the history of the destruction of the European Jews without in the least bringing up any order, from Hitler or anyone else, to exterminate the said Jews. He explained everything by a kind of diabolical mystery through which, spontaneously, the German bureaucrats told themselves to kill the Jews to the very last.“Countless decision makers in a far-flung bureaucratic machine” took part in the extermination enterprise by virtue of a “mechanism”, and did so without any “basic plan” (p. 53); these bureaucrats “created an atmosphere in which the formal, written word could gradually be abandoned as a modus operandi” (p. 54); there were “basic understandings of officials resulting in decisions not requiring orders or explanations”; “it was a matter of spirit, of shared comprehension, of consonance and synchronization”; “no one agency was charged with the whole operation”; “no single organization directed or coordinated the entire process” (p. 55). In short, according to Hilberg, this concerted extermination had indeed taken place but there was no possibility of actually demonstrating it with the aid of specific documents. Two years previously, in February 1983, during a conference at Avery Fischer Hall in New York, he had presented this strange and woolly thesis as follows: “What began in 1941 was a process of destruction not planned in advance, not organized centrally by any agency. There was no blueprint and there was no budget for destructive measures. They were taken step by step, one step at a time. Thus came about not so much a plan being carried out, but an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus-mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy”. To sum up, that vast project of destruction was executed, magically, by telepathy and by the diabolical workings of the “Nazi” bureaucratic genius. It can be said that with Hilberg, historical science has thus turned cabalistic or religious.
Serge and Beate Klarsfeld, at their end, wanted to set off on the same road of fake science when they called upon French pharmacist Jean-Claude Pressac for assistance. For several years the poor Pressac strove to sell the tainted product in a pseudo-scientific form but, realising the imposture, in 1995 he did a complete turnaround and admitted that, all things considered, the dossier of “the Holocaust” was “rotten” and fit only “for the rubbish bins of history”; such were his own words. The news of his change of heart was to be kept hidden for five years, emerging only in 2000 at the end of a long book by Valérie Igounet, another Shoah peddler, entitled Histoire du négationnisme en France (Seuil, p. 652).
A religion that has at last discovered the up to date sales techniques
It was then that the spin doctors came onto the scene. What with the product having become suspect and potential customers starting to ask questions, the “Holocaust” religion’s management had to steer an altogether different course and give up defending the merchandise with ostensibly scientific arguments: their new approach would be a resolutely “modern” one. It was decided to set only the very least store by efforts at logical argumentation and to replace serious research with appeals to sentiment and emotion, in other words with art: the cinema, theatre, historical novels, shows, story telling (the contemporary art of throwing together an account or framing a “testimony”), the media circus, stage designs in museums, public ceremonies, pilgrimages, worshiping of (false) relics and (false) symbols (symbolic gas chambers, symbolic numbers, symbolic witnesses), incantations, music and even kitsch, the whole thing matched with assorted ways of forcing people to buy it, including various kinds of threats. The filmmaker Steven Spielberg, a specialist in dishevelled and extraterrestrial fiction, has become the leading instigator for holocaustic films as well as for the casting of 50,000 witnesses. In order to sell their tainted product better in the long term, our fake historians and real junk dealers have sought and obtained the primary school “franchise”, with which they instil a taste for “the Holocaust” in the very youngest clientele: for it’s in the earliest years that appetites are acquired, making so that, later on, the customer need hardly be enticed: he’ll demand on his own what he enjoyed as a child, be it sweets or poison. Thus has it come to be that no one involved could care less about history: all serve the sole cause of a certain Remembrance, that is a jumble of legends and slanders that give the public the pleasure of feeling good andrighteous, ready tosing the virtues of the poor Jew and curse the intrinsically wicked “Nazis”, to call for vengeance and spit on the graves of the defeated. At the end it only remains to collect a flood of cold hard cash and receive new privileges. Pierre Vidal-Naquet was but an amateur: in 1979, he had shown himself from the outset to be too basic, too rough in his “Holocaust” promotion. For example, when asked by the revisionists to explain how in blazes, after a gassing operation with hydrogen cyanide (the active ingredient in the insecticide “Zyklon B”), a squad of Jews (Sonderkommando) could enter unharmed into a room still full of that terrible gas, then handle and remove up to a few thousand corpses infused with poison, he, along with 33 other academics, replied that he simply need not provide any explanation. Spielberg, a more skilful man, was to show in a screen drama a “gas chamber” wherein, for once, “by a miracle”, the showerheads sprayed… water and not gas. Subsequently, in his turn, Vidal-Naquet had, quite awkwardly, attempted to answer the revisionists on the scientific level and made a fool of himself. Claude Lanzmann, for his part, in the film Shoah, sought to produce testimonies or confessions, but his result was clumsy, inept and hardly convincing; that said, at least he’d grasped that the main point was to “make movies” and occupy the public forum. Today there is no longer a single “historian” of “the Holocaust” who makes it his business to prove the reality of “the Holocaust” and its magical gas chambers. All of them do like Saul Friedländer in his latest book (L’Allemagne nazie et les juifs / Les années d’extermination, Seuil, 2008): they leave it as understood that it all existed. With them history becomes axiomatic, although their axioms aren’t even drawn up. These new historians proceed with such self-assurance that the reader, taken aback, doesn’t realise the trick being played on him: the smooth talkers go on endlessly about an event whose reality they haven’t established in the first place. And so it is that the customer, believing that he’s bought some goods, has actually bought the smooth talk of the one giving him the sales pitch. Today’s world champion of holocaustic bluff is a shabbos goy, Father Patrick Desbois, one hell of a trickster whose various productions dedicated to “the Holocaust by bullets”, notably in the Ukraine, seem to have reached the very peaks of Judeo-Christian media hype.
A success story of the great powers
A veritable success story in the art of selling, the holocaustic enterprise has acquired the status of an international lobby. This lobby has blended with the American Jewish lobby (whose flagship organisation is the AIPAC) which itself defends, tooth and nail, the interests of the State of Israel, of which “the Holocaust” is the sword and shield. The mightiest nations in the world can hardly allow themselves to annoy such a network of pressure groups which, under a religious veneer, was at first a commercial concern only to become later on military-commercial, constantly pushing for new military adventures. It follows that if other countries, called “emerging”, want to be in good graces with a certain more powerful one, then they would be well advised to bend to its wishes. Without necessarily professing their faith in “the Holocaust”, they will contribute, if need be, to the propagation of “the Holocaust” and to the repression of those who dispute its reality. The Chinese, for example, although they have no use at all for such nonsense themselves, keep well away from any calling into question of the “Jewish Holocaust”; this enables them to pose as the “Jews” of the Japanese during the last war and so point out that they too have been victims of genocide, a formula which, they think, may open the way to financial reparations and political profits, as it has done for the Jews.
A particularly mortal religion
The future trouble for the religion of “the Holocaust” lies in the fact that it is too secular. Here one may well think of the Papacy, which, in centuries past, drew its political and military strength from a temporal power that, in the final analysis, ended up causing its downfall. The new religion is hand in glove with, all together, the State of Israel, the United States, the European Union, NATO, Russia, the big banks (which, as in the case of the Swiss banks, it can force to knuckle under if they show unwillingness to pay out), international racketeering and the arms merchants’ lobbies. This being the case, who can guarantee it a solid base in the future? It has made itself vulnerable by endorsing, de facto, the policies of nations or groups with inordinate appetites, whose spirit of worldwide crusade, as may be particularly noted in the Near and Middle East, has become adventurist.
It has come to pass that religions disappear with the empires where they used to reign. This is because religions, like civilisations, are mortal. That of “the Holocaust” is doubly mortal: it spurs countries to go on warlike crusades and it is rushing to its doom. It will rush to its doom even if, in the last instance, the Jewish State vanishes from the land of Palestine. The Jews then dispersed throughout the world will have only one last resort, that of bewailing this “Second Holocaust”.
- gretavo's blog
- Login to post comments

Dont know why you wanted to
Dont know why you wanted to go here G.
You were winning the battle for demolition, but fighting for 911 truth alongside holocaust denial is a bridge too far for most people.
yep, trying to bring that bridge closer
what you disparage as "denial" is no such thing. believe it or not, it's actually important for some people to know the truth about their own history--that's what motivated David Cole, and what motivates Gilad Atzmon, Shlomo Sand, Norman Finkelstein and so many others. The fact is that a sacred secular historical narrative is a tool of tyrants, and your knee-jerk reaction and others like it to a rational analysis of facts is what enables that tyranny. before long, people will understand that blind support of a false narrative is not actually in their interest. that those who peddle those false narratives do so not to help them but to control them. that by being discouraged with threats and irrational condemnation without inquiry (see Albert Einstein for that particular definition of the height of ignorance) they are being manipulated into surrendering their freedom of thought and action to gangsters who would ensnare them and everyone else in a cynical protection racket.
Also what do you mean "you were winning the battle for demolition"? I'm not fighting to win a battle for anything but the truth. Demolition is a pretty obvious one and I am not the "winner" when that fact becomes known--we all are, even those who don't realize it because of their devotion to their ideologies, religion, or false historical constructs. The "battle for demolition" has been won, it only remains to make sure everyone knows it. The process that begins with any one of these, pardon the word, revelations, is not one that will naturally confine itself to a narrow context. We are engaged in a liberation of the human heart, mind, and soul along the lines of the (big E)Enlightenment. It is *movement* as much as *a movement* - it is evolution, not intelligent design.
I would much rather history and future generations judge me to have been correct than you or anyone else here and now judge me to be a swell guy in your sadly narrow mind.
I'll ignore the insults, and
I'll ignore the insults, and just offer my humble opinion that if you are trying to change the world, the chances of you doing it through your work here and your focus on 911 truth just got a lot smaller.
ok then.
I'll ignore your clear insinuation that only hateful people would subject the official holocaust narrative to the same scrutiny as any other historical events. And to quote Shlomo Sand, "I don't believe that a book can change the world, but when the world changes, it begins to look for new books." I, like Shlomo, don't think my work is what will change the world. The world will change--it *is* changing. What I want to do is leave something like what I wish I had been able to find when I began looking for answers to my questions so many years ago. A pity you don't seem to understand this. Others do, others will.
I was not insinuating
I was not insinuating anything. I do know about these subjects and was not passing any Judgment on them, nor do I argue that they should not be discussed
I am only interested in one thing, and that is change.
I believed until a month ago that 911 truth could play a major role in achieving change.
In that month I have learnt a lot , some of it from this site.
My singular point was that by linking 911 truth to the "Holocaust" you have not done this potential any favours.
I know you are an intelligent bloke and I appreciate your work here.You have made a bold move here and I hope it works for you.
I however am more interested in change,
[anonymous posts may not be attributed, sorry -gReT]
thanks for clarifying
I would certainly like to see "change" but I don't presume to be the catalyst for that change. Each of us (and our websites, demonstrations, etc.) are part of a large tapestry of points of view. Our individual and collective actions certainly contribute to the emergence of new paradigms--nothing we can do or not do changes that. When I decided it would be the purpose of my life to seek out the truth about the world (whether or not that is something that can even be "found") I didn't do it conditionally. To the extent that strategy and tactics are important I certainly do tailor my message to my audience as appropriate. This site is intended as a clearinghouse of ideas, discussion, and debates, not a PR vehicle for the truth movement.
Those who believe that the association bewteen "holocaust denial" and "9/11 truth" threatens to doom the latter to failure would seem to be giving up any chance of it being otherwise, since we cannot by our own decisions prevent that association from being made. No matter how much we censor ourselves, the association would still be promoted, and by the worst possible people--those who have no regard for the truth behind either subject.
The argument you are making is the exact same argument that I heard ad nauseum during my years as an active member of the anti-war movement. "Look", I was told, "9/11 skepticism hurts the anti-war movement, prevents it from being taken seriously, and opens us up to criticism that distracts us from much more important efforts." And many variations on that. Yet here we are, the anti-war movement an abject failure, and 9/11 truth gaining support by the day. Who was right in that case? How might things have turned out differently, how many lives might have been saved, families spared the agony of losing children to senseless warfare, had more people seen the folly of such an argument? And here you are saying essentially the exact same thing. "Look", I hear, "Holocaust skepticism hurts the 9/11 truth movement, prevents it from being taken seriously, and opens us up to criticism that distracts us from much more important efforts." And gosh does it also sound like "Look, speculation on physical evidence hurts the 9/11 truth movement, prevents it from being taken seriously, and opens us up to criticism that distracts us from much more important efforts."
The mistake made in each of the cases above is to believe, as our adversaries (those opposed to the truth about any number of things becoming known) depend on us to, that thinking, or that admitting to thinking, is dangerous. That there "will be consequences" for not respecting dogma. That what is more important is not what is true but what the majority, or the powerful minority believes or wants others to believe is true. And yet as Gandhi said "An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." He also said "Whenever you have truth it must be given with love, or the message and the messenger will be rejected." And of course, "Be the change you wish to see in the world." That last one is often used by 9/11 activists, and I interpret it to mean that we cannot make change happen by force, but best by example. What kind of example would I be setting if I chose the safe path, what kind of change could I expect? Follow your conscience, and I'll follow mine. Who knows, someday we may meet again. I certainly hope so.
PLEASE DO NOT PUBLISH THIS
PLEASE DO NOT PUBLISH THIS IN COMMENTS ---CONTAINS PERSONAL EMAIL ADDRESS
Gretavo, I have no desire to have a row with you in public, my use of the term holocaust denier obviously angered you, but It was used as it will be by people who use it against you.
You must know the biggest shit Chomsky ever got in was when he merely argued for free speech
rights of Robert Faurisson, he was a "holocaust denier" just for that.
I am not in opposition to the views you have linked/expressed, but am not sure this tactic is wise here at this time.
The 911 truth movement has still not broken thru, it has achieved nothing to date. The Jon Gold idiot is still controlling 911 blogger, is this the right time to start this fight on a second front? This will only play inr=to his hands.I understand the need for its discussion, but what is there to gain by linking 911 truth to the issue now and likely maim chances 911 truth might have? We needed you to keep the pressure on 911Blogger and the like, but now you will be too easily dismissed (By others)
If you should wish to discuss this privately you can email me at
[IDENTIYING INFO REDACTED -gReT]
PLEASE DO NOT PUBLISH THIS IN COMMENTS ---CONTAINS PERSONAL EMAIL ADDRESS
there's no point in "keeping the pressure" on controlled sites
You're doing so much to validate my POV, Anonymous. Some have speculated that Chomsky is allergic to 9/11 truth because of the shit he caught over his support of Robert Faurisson's right to think and speak his mind. I don't personally buy that, since I no longer believe Chomsky to be sincere. No doubt Chomsky's endorsement of Faurisson's rights to freedom of thought and speech were heavily prefaced with some variation of "he's wrong but he has a right to be and by letting him air his views we may best discredit them." The implication of course is that unpopular speech should be allowed only when it is wrong, but that unpopular truths are not something Chomsky is going to advocate.
Furthermore, the suggestion that I should "watch what I say" for the sake of those engaged in "the good fight" against the obvious agents of the cover-up at 911Blogger would carry more weight if 911Blogger weren't so obviously a vehicle for manipulating and controlling the discourse on 9/11. Having been banned from the site years ago, I have no interest in helping it to maintain any semblance of legitimacy. I want people to see 911Blogger for what it is--a sophisticated charade parading ostensible diversity masking actual uniformity, and perfidiously harming the cause of 9/11 truth by defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.
Finally, I think we need more rows in public in this movement, not fewer. But not staged "conflicts" the purpose of which is to lead people to side with one of the controlled parties over the other. We need real debate, real discussion, real truth. And thanks for the offer, but I have no interest in carrying on private discussions about 9/11. Whatever needs saying should be able to be said in the open, no?
I don't think there is
I don't think there is anything more to be said. Its been a fine month to try to give up smoking!
in life there are smokers and non-smokers
pick one, and go with it!
I'm a joker, I'm a smoker
I'm a midnight toker.
Apparently anonymous wasn't visiting during the Lazlo days. If you're still around anonymous, I suggest you read this: http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/282
(Note to Gret: anything you can do about the symbols (â€) that have replaced quotation marks in the old content?)
I credit this site with opening my eyes to not only some serious existing questions about the holocaust but to recognizing the way it's all handled (with silencing shouts of anti-semitism) and the linkage to 9/11 truth through both zionism and the methodology of "the big lie."
thx T
um, it'll be kind of a chore to fix those things everywhere (it's a problem all over the blog that I can't explain!) but I'll try to get to it when I have some spare time!
Well I wasn't expecting you
Well I wasn't expecting you to manually edit all of them one by one, there's got to be a magical incantation to get them all at once. Maybe this could help? http://drupal.org/node/171554
Either way no big deal, I just noticed it when I went to look for "Wired for Terror"
does anyone know where Lazlo has gone?
i don't think that pseudonym comes up for other blogs. can we invite him back yet? after all, his spouse was dying when he was headed down, and I'd like to read the completeion of Wired for Terror, at least.
another vote for Lazlo
I drop the first Wired For Terror link on almost every site I visit(that I'm not banned from yet). Still one of the most impressive pieces ive read.
"I think we need more rows
"I think we need more rows in public in this movement, not fewer. But not staged "conflicts" the purpose of which is to lead people to side with one of the controlled parties over the other. We need real debate, real discussion, real truth."
Very well said. I couldn't agree more. I appreciate this site not because I agree with everything that is expressed by the site regulars, but because it is one of the few sites that does not gatekeep information or enforce adherence to any particular group or "leaders" or purpose (beyond prohibiting what would be considered hate-speech or racist bigotry, which is fine).
The mirror opposite is the True Faction example, with its "Guiding Principals" (read "Thought Control and Acceptable Beliefs") and the complete joke and laughing stock it has become in which it has made itself the ultimate septic tank collection site for the most obvious LIHOP Fakes and their brainless groupies who straight up admit that their purpose is PR, NOT the truth. The absurd level of group-think and enforced lock-step points of view consistently displayed on that site is beyond creepy.
Yes, you have to have pretty thick skin to subject yourself to the "meta-critiques" of the site regulars here, especially when confronting Gratevo's brashness in exploring any and every possible angle of mistrust and suspicion. But, then again, it's been said more than once that he is not in this truth movement/advocacy in order to make friends, but rather, to expose and destroy any and every possible level or node of deception and deceit that he can. Which means that this site will probably never become a "mainstream"-anything type of place.
I used to care at one point about how popular or "mainstream" this site potentially could become for the 9/11 truth movement, but I no longer think that is as important as the "clearinghouse" function that this site superbly provides. And, I think that a site in which people agree with each other 100% is beyond boring. I mean, what would be the purpose of blogging with a bunch of people who you predictably agree with 100% all the time? Why would you bother? I'll take the topsy turvy of novelty and unpredictable rancorous disagreement that can be expected on this site over the alternative any day.
aw thanks man :)
"Gratevo's brashness in exploring any and every possible angle of mistrust and suspicion"
but I'm sure I've overlooked a few. actually, I'm currently mulling a VERY iconoclastic theory, but I have to wait to see how a few things play out before I float it...
What's wrong with the formatting on this page?
It seems that the comments are being stripped of the hard returns, causing paragraph blocks to melt together?
How about Holocaust HISTORY versus DENIAL?
With them history becomes axiomatic, although their axioms aren’t even drawn up. These new historians proceed with such self-assurance that the reader, taken aback, doesn’t realise the trick being played on him: the smooth talkers go on endlessly about an event whose reality they haven’t established in the first place. And so it is that the customer, believing that he’s bought some goods, has actually bought the smooth talk of the one giving him the sales pitch.
It boggles the imagination that any 911 Truther can read a passage like this and not see the obvious similarity to the historical treatments of 9/11 and even behavior within the 9/11 Truth movement. To take as one example, someone like Nafeez Ahmed provides what may be astute analysis of the remnants of our anti-Soviet mujahideen project in Central Asia, and fake truthers take it and run with it without ever having to prove the connection between al Talibanda and the events of 9/11. The porkchop transfer STILL makes certain people salivate although to my knowledge no one has EVER suggested a plausible use of the money and their reasoning is perfectly circular: money was transferred to Atta, we know Atta did 9/11 because he received the money, therefore the money was used for 9/11.
"Axiomatic history" is not history. History should be a constant revision -- re-visioning the events of the past from the constantly shifting perspective of the now. When a particular narrative is literally rendered in stone (concrete, glass, etc) and declared off-limits to doubt or reshaping, that should be an immediate clue that something is very wrong. 9/11 is obviously not the only time this has happened -- and the closest parallel is the Holocaust as it has been narrated by supporters of Israel. I'm truly sorry if that makes you uncomfortable. It used to make me very uncomfortable.
Try to separate form from content for a moment. Axiomatic history is not history. Artificially petrified narratives can't be true (truth acts as its own preservative).
I would never say that the
I would never say that the Holocaust "didn't happen" just like I wouldn't say that 9/11 "didn't happen" but the facts in both cases are shady at best. The parallels are obvious. The bloody flags of both events will sadly be waved to justify more killing and expansion. If I'm called a "9/11 denier" in the future I'll wear it like a badge of honor.
Exactly... I began to translate
the way I responded to having a complex, nuanced counter-narrative for 9/11 absurdly reduced to "Oh you think 9/11 didn't happen" into how people, particularly people like David Cole, might respond to having their WW2 interpretations reduced to "Holocaust denial." Actually, it's like the ultimate straw man argument, very elegant and compact: "You're saying it DIDN'T HAPPEN!" obviates any need for/possibility of discussion about who/what/why/where/how it happened!
brilliant analysis as usual, C455!
and thanks for being honest about the process involving discomfort--as strident as I may sound, this is ground I did not siomply charge into--I tiptoed for years, feeling the tug of my own brainwashing trying to shame me into disregarding the issue out of hand. David Cole will always be a personal hero of mine--his intellectual ability, drive, and above all his courage are examples to humanity that should never be forgotten, especially since threats succeeded in silencing him (for now...?) I put myself in his shoes and know that I would want people to pick up the baton if I was ever forced to drop it (or pry it from my cold dead hands if necessary!) Talk about a REAL light unto the nations. Throw in folks like Faurisson, Shlomo Sand, Israel Shahak, the "anarchists against the wall", and so many others and one wonders why anyone would ever declare ours a lost cause, except out of the very real fear that it is the very opposite of that.
The porkchop transfer STILL makes certain people salivate...
guilty!
me three!!
nyuk nyuk!
-------------------------------------
Do these pants make my ass look big? Would you tell me if they did?
9/11 Memorial Built in Jerusalem
J'lem dedicates 9/11 monument
Eight years after deadly terror attack on United States that took thousands of lives, including those of five Israelis, Jerusalem dedicates monument to victims, including all 2,980 names, nationalities
Tal Rabinovsky
"All the feelings that we've been through came back to me, tears simply fell from my eyes," said Miriam Avraham, who lost her daughter Alona in the New York City World Trade Center attack eight years ago. Abraham attended a ceremony dedicating a new Jerusalem monument in memory of the victims of the September 11 attack on the United States.
The monument, which was designed by artist Eliezer Weishoff at an estimated cost of NIS 10 million ($2.6 million) is nine meters high and is made up of a waving American is transformed into a memorial flame. This is one of the only monuments outside of the US that features the names of all the 2,980 victims of the attacks as well as their home countries. Five Israelis are among the dead.
Weishoff began thinking of a way to honor the memories of the terror attack's victims eight years ago. He originally thought of designing a medallion. After receiving then Jerusalem Mayor Ehud Olmert's blessing and the approval of environmental organizations, the sculptor contacted the Jewish National Fund and built the monument together with the JNF.
The monument in Jerusalem (Photo: Gil Yohanan)
"The concept was a burning torch with the American flag waving with its folds creating the upward flow of lines," Weishoff explained, "I made sure that the New York City municipality sent us a piece of the ruins from the Twin Towers and we planted it as a basis for the statue itself."
This is not the first time Weishoff's work is dedicated to terror victims. He also designed the monument commemorating the three women killed in the Apropo coffee house bombing in Tel Aviv in 1997.
The Jerusalem monument is not the only one in Israel dedicated to the victims of September 11. Rishon Lezion, Ness Ziona and Beersheba all have monuments commemorating the victims.
"I would go to the park in Rishon Lezion," Avraham said, "I would place flowers and light a candle. Them they built us a monument in Ashdod (the city she lives in) and now I have another place to go. This is a central location; across it you see the graves on the Mount of Rest."
Just two years ago the US authorities announced that Avraham's daughter, Alona's remains were found at Ground Zero. "I lived in uncertainty for six years, as if she was alive," the mother told Ynet.
"She wanted to come back to Israel so bad for Yom Kippur. There are isolated cases where you hear a plane explodes and remains are found. In a case like this, in such a situation, finding remains for us after six years is as if she wanted to come home."
Along with the bereaved families, former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was present at the event, as well as US Ambassador to Israel James Cunningham and other ambassadors of countries that lost nationals in the attacks.
World JNF Chairman Efi Stenzler said, "The events of September 11 and the attack on the World Trade Center are criteria for the free world's approach towards terror organizations operating against the State of Israel since the dawn of Zionism."
lemme get this straight...
the monument is an american flag on fire? that's freakin', uhhh... hilarious?
you want hilarious?
Check out this comment printed in today's Chicago Tribune in their love/hate thingy in the Live section.
"I hate... the annoying vendors at kiosks in malls hawking beauty products and always trying to stop you with "Excuse me, may I ask you a question?"
-- Deb Gavalick, Tinley Park
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-1112-love-hatenov12,0,49...
BWAHAHA
Sure, if you answer one for me--do you have a work visa?
I was at a mall in PA here
I was at a mall in PA here recently and the Israelis were selling "zoom copters" at kiosks. Same ones from the spy ring stories. Kind of creeped me out.
I think I get it...
it's a "little holocaust" (holocaust meaning of course a ritual sacrifice that is wholly burnt). i think the flag-burning aspect must have been over-looked, I mean, what kind of people would find such an inside joke remotely funny? the ACLU, maybe?
the most salient part...
...of the "controversial" Faurisson essay above, viz 9/11 truth, is I think the next to last paragraph:
caricature drawing banned on facebook
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_qUFDMUpk9jE/Se6g6XBBJ3I/AAAAAAAAR3U/X7c4D1j7h8s/s1600-h/normanfinkelstein.gif