Kevin Barrett to Host Holocaust Discussion

gretavo's picture

The following is from Kevin Barrett.  I realize that many people take issue with "mixing" holocaust and 9/11 revisionism, but as has been argued many times here before, and on other sites before those arguing for one of the sides (guess which) were banned, there are extensive parallels between "the holocaust" and 9/11.  Both were, for example,  legitimate tragedies that have been used to justify other tragedies, and both are narratives the details of which are hotly debated. 

I will, as usual, repeat that it is pointless and detrimental to draw these parallels among people who are being introduced to 9/11, i.e. the feckless "noob" of lore, and that the WTCD blog has never been intended for such people.  Among seasoned 9/11 truth activists however there is much to be gained by analysis of the phenomenon known varyingly as holocaust "denial" and "revisionism".  Every trick used by self-styled "9/11 Truth debunkers" had already been honed for years by self-styled "holocaust truth debunkers"--sometimes by the very same people (see Michael Shermer, e.g.) 

You would not know this of course if you haven't taken the time, and more importantly taken the difficult step of studying both sides of the debate dispassionately, or in the words of David Ray Griffin with an at least 30% open mind.  Like most people I avoided dipping my toes in those seemingly dirty waters for fear of being tainted somehow, thinking that the only people craven enough to call what I imagined such a well-document series of events into question were racists, bigots, in a word--haters.  That is until I learned the truth about 9/11 and realized the price that we all end up paying--some with our lives--when we become afraid to question--when we allow ourselves to be cowed by the frantic rhetoric of any given orthodoxy's supporters into silence.

 

 From Kevin Barrett:

 

Is holocaust revisionism legitimate? Thomas Dalton, Roberto Muehlenkamp, Andrew Mathis on Truth Jihad Radio!  http://truthjihadradio.blogspot.com/2010/04/is-holocaust-revisionism-legitimate.html  Truth Jihad Radio Sat. 4/24/10, 5-7 pm Central, American Freedom Radio (to be archived here.)

Dear Angela Merkel: How much do Raul Hilberg and I owe you? http://truthjihad.blogspot.com/2010/04/dear-andrea-merkel-how-much-do-raul.html

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

On this day in history, 394 years ago -- on April 23rd, 1616 to be exact -- the two greatest European writers of all time shuffled off this mortal coil. Both were famous for sidestepping or deflating the sacred narratives and windy generalities that often pass for wisdom, instead taking a tough but sympathetic look at the actual human condition.

The story of the Nazi Holocaust has become a sacred narrative underpinning a self-congratulatory American-Zionist narrative of World War II and its aftermath. Like other foundation myths (including Zelikow's pre-scripted events of 9/11/01), the Holocaust separates time into a "before" and an "after," justifying the "whole new world" created by the foundational event. For Americans, the "whole new world" is one in which the ultimate evil of the Nazis shows why the US must build the world's biggest military and remain perpetually at war; for the Zionists, it is a "whole new world" in which poor little Israel, endlessly threatened with annihilation, must use every available means, including mass murder and big lies, to preserve itself.

More than any other single story, the Holocaust is the foundation of the Zio-American empire's war against the world. It is the foundation of both the Palestinian holocaust, the Nakba, and the US military/CIA murder of millions that William Blum calls the American Holocaust.  Thus, if we are to end these holocausts, the original Holocaust story needs to be ripped out of its sacred setting and returned to ordinary, secular history. To achieve this, we must overcome the fear, horror and awe that has been drummed into us by the media and talk about the Nazi holocaust calmly, empirically, historically. Such fearless talk, whatever conclusions it may or may not reach, will help transfer the Holocaust story from the sacred to the secular sphere--a major step toward ending the ongoing genocides that are explicitly or implicitly justified by its sacredness. It will help U.S. Americans realize that the holocausts THEY committed and are still committing, whose body counts of tens of millions are protected by no laws and enshrined by few museums and whose "righteous victims" are unfinanced by reparations, are the ones that should get most of their attention...in order that the real lesson of all holocausts, "never again," can finally be achieved.

That's why, on tomorrow's Truth Jihad Radio, I'm shattering the taboo on discussing holocaust revisionism. I hope you'll agree that I'm doing it in the kind of fair and open-minded way that would be helpful to those who, like me, are new to the issue -- and to those who are not who can set aside their emotional prejudices and reflexive use of ad-hominems, and listen to three guests' well-informed yet wildly different perspectives on this fascinating and deeply repressed issue.

Kevin Barrett
McFarland, WI
4/23/2010

http://www.truthjihad.com
Author, Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters: http://www.questioningthewaronterror.com

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Adam Syed's picture

Looking forward to hearing this.

I believe Muehlenkamp and Andrew Mathis are from the holocaustcontroversies blogspot. This will be good, as defenders of the traditional narrative seldom engage in an open discussion with revisionists. As I was impressed with Dalton's book, I'll look forward to hearing this discussion.

I noticed that Barrett says he's of the same conclusion as Raul Hilberg, that 5.1 million Jews perished. I guess this means he rejects the more hard core revisionist line, espoused by Bishop Williamson, that only about two to three hundred thousand is the real number.

Annoymouse's picture

Bishop Williamson is not

Bishop Williamson is not really representative of revisionism, whether hard-core or otherwise. Take Arthur Butz if you want a specific name. The statement which you've cited from Williamson sounds like a muddle. I don't know of any credible revisionist who would allege that fewer than one million Jews died from all causes during World War II, and many would allow that the number might at least have approached 2 million. When the numbers of two or three hundred thousand have occasionally been tossed out this has been strictly in relation to the issue of deaths which occurred within a narrow set of camps that are usually referred to in orthodox literature as "extermination camps." Whereas orthodox history maintains that millions were exterminated within these camps, revisionists have maintained that the total number of deaths in these camps was in the hundreds of thousands and occurred from causes not involving gas chambers. But no one, revisionist or orthodox, claims that the entire body of Jewish deaths in the war occurred within these alleged "death camps" only. Two or three hundred thousand could only be plausible as a guesstimate for deaths which occurred within these camps. As such, it shouldn't be compared with Hilberg's 5.1 million.

Adam Syed's picture

True

And as Dalton points out, it also depends on when one believes the holocaust began. Some would say 1939, the year WWII started. Others say 1941 when the "Final Solution" was proposed at the Wannsee Conference. Hilberg, however, puts the starting year as 1933, the year Hitler took power. Obviously, the more time allowed for the holocaust, more deaths can be totalled.

I also agree that 200K-300K is likely the revisionist number for just the six extermination camps in Poland.

Annoymouse's picture

After it was clear to me

After it was clear to me that 9/11 was a Zionist designed plot...

http://www.how911wasdone.blogspot.com/

... discussed here on THE debunker site:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=128473

...I felt a strong urge to study the H-word as well. For the results see this ongoing study thread at JREF:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=148049

Regards,

9/11-Investigator

Adam Syed's picture

It's up

Annoymouse's picture

how can we argue with such ignorant people?

John Albanese doesn't know the difference between Romanians and the Roma. Where DO they find these people? Apparently hating muslims and arabs isn't enough--to be a professional shill it seems you have to also have to have a knack for revealing yourself as a moron now and then...

gretavo's picture

and the Americans...

Established camps where they interned all their Japanese citizens. Had the allies ended up losing the war, does anyone expect that the Japanese troops liberating those people would have found happy, chubby, healthy inmates? Probably not, especially if as a result of the war Americans everywhere were suffering lack of food/medicine/etc. And I bet the Japanese would then have milked the existence of those camps for all it was worth, holding show trials of Americans involved in their management. This of course AFTER the Japanese nuked Los Angeles and Boston to "prevent a long and bloody (to the Japanese) invasion with infantry..."

casseia's picture

It just gets better... I mean, worse...

A helpful soul offers John two wikipedia links to clear up this embarrassing gaffe, but he is not dissuaded!

The link you provided demonstrates that you are incorrect:

Quote:
The Romanians (dated: Rumanians or Roumanians; Romanian: români or -historically, but now a seldom-used regionalism- rumâni; dated exonym: Vlachs) are a nation and ethnic group native to Romania, who speak Romanian; they are the majority inhabitants of Romania.

'Romanians' is completely acceptable usage.

Here's a hint: the Roma/Sinti were not the majority inhabitants of any nation state. They were perpetual outsiders, and suffered as you might expect.

casseia's picture

The two links...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people

The Romani (also Romany, Romanies, Romanis, Roma or Roms; exonym: Gypsies; Romani: Romane or Rromane, depending on the dialect) are an ethnic group living mostly in Europe, who trace their origins to medieval India.

The Romani are widely dispersed with their largest concentrated populations in Europe, especially the Roma of Central and Eastern Europe and Anatolia, followed by the Iberian Kale in Southwestern Europe and Southern France, with more recent diaspora populations in the Americas and, to a lesser extent, in other parts of the world.

Their Romani language is divided into several dialects, which add up to an estimated number of speakers larger than two million.[17] The total number of Romani people is at least twice as large (several times as large according to high estimates), and many Romani are native speakers of the language current in their country of residence, or of mixed languages combining the two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanians

The Romanians (dated: Rumanians or Roumanians; Romanian: români or -historically, but now a seldom-used regionalism- rumâni; dated exonym: Vlachs) are a nation and ethnic group native to Romania, who speak Romanian; they are the majority inhabitants of Romania.

The Romanian people are a nation in the meaning of ethnos (Romanian: neam), defined more by the sense of sharing a common Romanian culture, descent, and having Romanian as mother tongue than by citizenship or by being subjects to any particular country. The Romanian citizenship law[25] legislated in March 1991 establishes the rights of second and third generation descendants of Romanian citizens to obtain a Romanian citizenship, if they speak fluent Romanian and are able to demonstrate sufficient knowledge in Romanian history and culture. 89.4 percent of Romania's people declared themselves as Romanians at the 2002 Romanian Census. In the world today, 24 million people have Romanian as their mother tongue.[26]

In one prominent interpretation of the census results in Moldova, Moldovans are counted as Romanians, which would mean that the latter form the majority in that country as well.[27][28] Romanians are also an ethnic minority in several nearby countries.

So yeah, "Romanians" is perfectly acceptable usage to talk about the inhabitants of Romania, Moldova, and populations in neighboring countries like Ukraine (although the ones I know who are from Ukraine like to be called "Bukovinian.")

Schrödingers Catnapper's picture

that thread is trying my last nerve

As much as I think it's important to keep a cool head, some of the users at truthaction seem to be deliberately provocational these days.

Freudian Bunnyslipper's picture

Knowing what I've come to know

about the characters over there, I don't find it too surprising that you're dismayed that they don't restrain themselves from some of their excesses of illogic.

gretavo's picture

yep, this is the guy...

...I want representing the truth movement. Actually, it evokes Kevin's wonderful assessment of Jon Gold, which to avoid an unfotunate compliment to the icky Webster Tarpley I will excerpt from here. It applies to JohnA as much as to JonG:

"The problem isn't that you're pugnacious. Nor is that intellectually, you're utterly mediocre, and that's being charitable ...all you DO, besides posting moronic home movies that even your dog wouldn't want to watch, and idiotically predictable commentary that even your mom wouldn't want to read, is attack people (mostly people who are at least 50 IQ points and oodles of education ahead of you) and start flame wars. The internet, which puts everyone--morons like you and erudite geniuses--on the same level, has contributed to your developing a wildly inflated opinion of yourself. Like the F student who protests the hardest against not getting an A, you're too dumb to realize how dumb you are. ...If you aren't an op, you might as well be. My best guess is that you're just an intellectually-mediocre pugnacious Zionist lihopper who has somehow come into enough money to spend your whole life wasting the 9/11 truth movement's time."

gretavo's picture

some interesting debate

http://truthjihad.blogspot.com/2010/04/everybody-likes-my-holocaust.html

Kevin does a good job when challenged on the question of what the holocaust has to do with 9/11...

What does 9/11 truth have to do with holocaust revisionism (& anti-revisionism)? Both official versions are ultra-powerful sacred stories whose primary beneficiary is the Zionist invasion, ethnic cleansing, and occupation of Palestine, and both are issues where free speech and inquiry have been curtailed (I lost my career for questioning 9/11, and lots of people have been imprisoned for questioning the dominant holocaust paradigm).

gretavo's picture

imitation: the sincerest form of moonbattery...

BWAHAHAHA! I love this! It comes to us courtesy of "the-site-of-last-refuge-for-unemployed truth-movement-rejects-and-Arab-and-Muslim-hating-LIHOP-shills" (who are, of course, gainfully employed by definition,) truthaction.org. Quite possibly the 9/11 truth association with the lowest average IQ of any out there (pending the creation of the "9/11 News Site Run by Veterans of this Movement"!) We must be doing something right--hmmm that *MIGHT* be calling out Zionist crimes while simulatneously opposing bigotry and hate? Because we thereby ruin the illusion that only haters could possibly be interested in holding Zionism responsible for the crimes committed in its name?

gretavo's picture

a good example

Toronto Star Letters to the Editor re: Griffin and Gage

Tuesday May 4th

Response to the article: U.S. skeptics to speak of 9-11 cover-up at three Canadian universities
As seen at: www.thestar.com

My first reaction to this story was rage. These 9/11 deniers do a huge disrespect to those innocent souls and the families of those who lost their lives on 9/11. The deniers are to 9/11 what Ernst Zundel was to the Holocaust. Rightfully we kicked Zundel out of Canada. Yet we tolerate the 9/11 deniers and offer them forums to spew their vitriol.

However, upon sober reflection, I believe that we conclude that democracy and free speech have won. The 9/11 deniers are allowed to voice their specious, disgusting dissenting opinions.

Boyd McAdam, Toronto