Denying Denial : The Holocaust Exposed

By  Jonas E. Alexis et al

Jonas Alexis and three revisionists put Deborah Lipstadt on trial for her book on Holocaust denial. They find Lipstadt and the Hollywood movie makers of ‘Denial’, based on the David Irving court case, guilty of lying. 


David Merlin: The movie Denial is the Holocaust Establishment’s latest insult to the intelligence of the public.  Denial is loosely based on the defamation trial between British historian David Irving and Holocaust studies professor Deborah Lipstadt and is loudly promoted as an “incredible, unbelievable story of two people pitted against each other in a battle over truth, history and integrity.”

In fact, the movie’s screenwriter David Hare seems to have stood truth on its head with distortions of fact, misstatements of events and omissions of inconvenient evidence.

Hare and Lipstadt’s partisans have gone as far as claiming a messianic role for Lipstadt (always a good way to deceive the people,) announcing her as “a latter-day Jewish heroine of truly biblical proportions,” and claiming mystical premonitions, “mother always said there was going to be an event. I was picked out, she said. I was chosen.”

But claims of being a biblical heroine or “chosen” aside, Lipstadt did not win the litigation for reasons of divine intervention but because of millions of dollars poured into the case; estimates are of $12,000,000 spent on the defense.  One member of Lipstadt’s vast legal team boasted that,

“I helped raise the funds, and worked with the lawyers, graduate students and experts, sometimes from London, and sometimes from my home in Brooklyn (where [during the Trial] the courtroom stenographer’s real-time transcript appeared on my computer, and I could communicate with a paralegal with a vibrating cell phone in the courtroom, if need be).”[3] 

Jonas E. AlexisDenial was never about telling the whole truth. If it were, then producers of the movie would have brought certain facts on the big screen which would have almost certainly stunned moviegoers everywhere. For example, the movie should have brought the fact there were at least 150,000 people of Jewish descent in Nazi Germany—and Hitler knew about this![4]

If there were a deliberate and clear order to exterminate all the Jews in Germany, then the Jews in Nazi Germany would have to be executed as well, an unpersuasive and unarticulated argument which can only make sense to those who have already subscribed to the Holocaust narrative.

As it turns out, the Holocaust narrative continues to thrive in society because, as Norman Finkelstein puts it, it is an industry which exploits real Jewish suffering.[5] Flaming Neocon Charles Krauthammer himself has said that the Holocaust narrative has become “the dominant feature of Jewishness in America.”[6] Last year alone, Georgetown University got $10 million “for Holocaust research.”[7]

Did the movie ever point out how the Holocaust establishment exploits what really happened in Nazi Germany? Did they tell viewers that Hollywood produces at least one or two Holocaust movies every single year but has yet to release a single movie on the Bolshevik Revolution or on Stalin’s genocide or on Mao’s Great Leap Forward or on any other Jewish revolutionary movement? Is that really fair and honest?

Moreover, if historian Norman M. Naimark is right in saying that “genocide has been a part of human history from its very beginnings,”[8] why are we memorializing one genocide to the exclusion of all the others? Can the Holocaust establishment explain this phenomenon for us?

David Merlin: The most brazen lie of the film is that the Trial “proved the Holocaust.”  The Trial judge (Charles Gray) specifically stated:

“It is no part of my function to attempt to make findings as to what actually happened during the Nazi regime.”   Judgment 13.3.

Irving opened the case telling the court, “I have never held myself out to be a Holocaust expert, nor have I written books about what is now called the Holocaust.”   Trial Transcript Day 1, page 13.

The case is better described as a wide-ranging questioning of Irving’s competence as a historian; an ex-post-facto effort to substantiate Lipstadt’s claim that Irving had falsified the historical record.

Judge Gray broke the alleged falsification of historical facts into 4 elements:

“(a) 19 specific individual criticisms of Irving’s historiography [which covered esoteric points like Hitler’s 1924 trial or a mistranslation of a telephone log entry for Deceber 1, 1941]; (b) his portrayal of Hitler… (c) his claims in relation to Auschwitz (d) the bombing of Dresden.”

Item (c) (Irving’s claims in relation to Auschwitz) received the most media attention. It was also the area in which Irving had little knowledge or experience. Irving ended up having to defend his “tasteless” comments made off-the-cuff before some right-wing groups.

The technical questions of whether certain buildings could have been homicidal gas chambers only related to Auschwitz and not to Treblinka, Sobibor or any other alleged “Extermination Camps.”

In fact, Irving really only challenged the operation of one gas chamber at Auschwitz, Krema II. Neither was the operation of the Einsatzgruppen addressed at the Trial. Ironically, the claim that the Trial “proved the Holocaust” is a falsification of history similar to Lipstadt’s accusations against Irving.

Jonas E. Alexis: Needless to say, neither Hare nor the promoters of Denial wanted to hear Irving’s side of the story. Irving said that the producers of the movie never contacted him to get his point of view. He said:

“Ridley Scott was directing the original version, but the newspapers say he quit when HBO asked him to include fictional elements. I have not seen anything of ‘Denial’ but bits of trailers: the opening scene, of my first confrontation with Lipstadt in Atlanta in November 1994, is fictional; it happened, but my actual challenge, waving $1,000 in notes in the air, was: ‘If you will now show this audience the actual blueprint you just told this audience that you have, I will give you these notes.’ See our video of the scene, posted on YouTube. They have changed that wording materially.”

Irving, in my humble opinion, made a cardinal mistake when he challenged Deborah Lipstadt in court. Instead of challenging an entire empire in court, Irving should have meticulously read Lipstadt’s diatribes and carefully responded to them point by point in a book. That would have killed the Holocaust establishment—and Lipstadt in particular—with a bang.

Let us just say in passing that Lipstadt will not listen to the voice of reason at all. She is a thought-police, therefore any criticism of Israel—such as Zionism is racism or Israel is an apartheid state—is anti-Semitism.[9]

If Lipstadt can call the so-called alternative right “white supremacists” who are “just like Holocaust deniers”[10] without an scintilla of serious arguments, then one can say that this lady is struggling mightily to string two coherent thoughts together. In fact, she came to teach at Emory not because of her serious scholarship, but because of the Jewish influence.[11]

One can say that Lipstadt’s “scholarly” endeavor began when she started to assign the book Fragments: Memories of a Wartime Childhood 1939-1948 to her students. The Holocaust memoir of Benjamin Wilkomirski, Fragments came out in 1995 and enjoyed immediate success across Europe and the English-speaking world.[12]

As it turns out, the whole story was a complete hoax, a fabrication by a non-Jew who was not even in any of the camps. Despite the revelation of Fragments as a hoax, Deborah Lipstadt stated the book was still “powerful as a novel.”

This brings to light the driving ideology behind those who use the Holocaust as a weapon to subvert history. Lipstadt in particular has been using the so-called Holocaust to beat the Goyim over the head.[13] As Norman Finkelstein points out, the “Holocaust industry” exploits real Jewish suffering.[14]

But if the Holocaust industry wants to produce and reproduce lies and fabrications and deceptions, as in the case of Lipstadt’s Denying the Holocaust and Michael Shermer’s Denying History, then a meticulous historian like Irving should have refuted those lies in a historical and scholarly study, not in a courtroom where the odds, not the truth, are obviously against you. Would Irving do it again? He said:

“I would do it again—she is ignorant beyond words. Her ongoing astonishment at finding that in England libel law requires that you can prove what you claim says it all. The fact is that the judge despite all found her guilty of the other easy libels she uttered. She stayed out of the witness box, on no doubt good advice. She wrote that I spoke to extremists like Hezbollah in Sweden: I had never been in that country and that is still true, and have never dealt with Hezbollah.

“She wrote that I stole the Goebbels diaries from the Moscow archives in 1992, a very wounding allegation, which a simple query to me or Moscow would have shown to be untrue: she wrote that I had a large painting of Hitler in my study, untrue. Ditto. And so on. What should I do? If I leave the small lies uncontested, the big liars win. The judgment agreed that these were libels, but…

“I sued after her lies were published, not before. That is the difference. My lawsuit asked for token damages from her and her UK publisher, the amount being only five hundred pounds, to be paid to a charity for limbless amputees in memory of my oldest daughter. The publishers showed themselves willing to settle on that basis—and were threatened then with legal action by their joint tortfeasor, Lipstadt. These are all unknown facts.”

To do the trial again would not be wise, in my opinion. Irving already has the historical background to refute promiscuous claims about Nazi Germany and World War II, and if he wants people to learn more about the truth of what truly happened, he should certainly be thinking about a scholarly and historical study of how the “traditional enemy of the truth,” as he calls the establishment, has perverted, inverted, and subverted his words for ideological purposes. Deborah Lipstadt, as Jim W. Dean rightly put it, is

“a holocaust terrorist and it is time to get that phrase into the lexicon as she plays a roll similar to the Jihadi head choppers, to sew fear in the ranks of all non-believers…

“Her handlers fed her hoaxed research, like Irving having a huge painting of Hitler in his office behind his desk, and that his father served Franco in the Spanish Civil War, and much more. None of this was true but Lipstadt had no problem with putting it in.”

Be that as it may, the movie does contain some information which may lead the careful viewer to start doing serious investigation. During an interview after the movie was released, Lipstadt declared that she told the producers to “tell the truth” in the narrative.

The whole truth? Not really.

In the movie, Lipstadt’s team declared that they sent the questions to Irving long before the trial, so that he wouldn’t be surprised about the “plot.” I asked Irving whether that was true. He responded: “Completely untrue.”

More importantly, how can the movie be completely accurate when Irving was not even invited to provide his take on it? The producers may not like his comments, but at least they should have given him the opportunity to say something—good or bad. So for Lipstadt to say that the movie is completely accurate is categorically false. Michael Hoffman comments:

In the movie, Lipstadt is outraged that her lawyers will not call on ‘survivors’ to testify. The head of her defense team, Anthony Julius, has a response. We first meet Julius while he is holding a copy of the book he authored which, we see from the cover, traduces the reputation of the esteemed Christian poet T.S. Eliot. Julius informs Prof. Lipstadt that he will not call the ‘survivors’ because he wants to spare them the disrespect which Irving (who acted as his own attorney), would demonstrate toward them in cross-examination.

“It’s a weak alibi. The honchos of Holocaustianity are painfully aware that putative ‘homicidal Auschwitz gas-chamber eyewitnesses’ were eviscerated under cross-examination by lawyer Doug Christie during the 1985 trial in Canada of Ernst Zündel, for spreading ‘false news.’ This was the actual reason there was no appearance by them at Lipstadt’s trial. At this point in the film, as I sat in the theater I jotted in my review notes, ‘Movie omits to mention Zündel trial’s discrediting cross-examinations of Judaic witnesses.’

“Later in the movie however, Lipstadt demands once again that “Holocaust survivors” testify, and this time a more-candid Julius, albeit in rapid-fire dialogue, tells her that he can’t call on them because, ‘The survivors were torn apart at the Zündel trial.’

“Exactly correct! When so-called ‘eyewitness Holocaust survivors’ were cross-examined in the Zündel case, as detailed in this writer’s The Great Holocaust Trial, not one departed the witness stand with his credibility intact—and it is Hollywood’s Denial movie that reminds the world of this shocking and embarrassing fact, which shatters the main pillar upon which Auschwitz execution-gas-chamber mythology depends: the ‘undeniable’ testimony of ‘eyewitnesses.’”


David Merlin: This is confirmed by a report from behind the scenes, “One of the main themes is the lawyers’ clarity…that no survivors would be called to testify. Lipstadt was on board with those decisions more easily than the film portrays.”[15]

Hare left many inconvenient facts out of the movie.  Stern notes a few without seeing the reason for the omissions, “The ‘behind the scenes’ work on the case was not portrayed in the movie, and many of the in-court events of note weren’t either, including testimony from world-class historians such as Peter Longerich and Christopher Browning.”

The immense effort going on behind the scenes was “forgotten” by Hare because, in fact, Lipstadt did little during the trial except to dodging testifying and spending the days sitting in court looking confused.  Showing the huge expensive defense team would tarnish what little bit of “Erin Brockovic shine” the director and screenwriter managed to paint Lipstadt with.  It would also underscore the economic disparity of the parties and the highlight the injustice of a system where money buys the result.

Christopher Browning needed to be left out for a very important reason: He agreed with Irving that there was never a Hitler Order for the mass killings of European Jews. Irving’s revelation has thrown Holocaust believers into confusion over the German decision-making process regarding the alleged program of organized mass killings.  No one seems to have made a decision!   Brown testified in the Trial,

“What had not been studied before you published was a particular focus on decision-making process and Hitler’s role. That is one part and, insofar as we can confine ourselves to that, indeed, your publication of Hitler’s War was the impetus for the research in that area.”

Peter Longerich was the defense witness who claimed that, (since there was on Hitler Order or sign of Hitler’s involvement) the Germans communicated with “a secret code.  But Judge Gray dismissed the theory, writing,

“Much of the argument revolved around questions of translation. I did not derive much assistance from the debate as to how words such as ausrotten, vernichten, abschaffen, umsiedeln and abtransportieren are to be translated.”

Jonas E. Alexis: There are some truths in the movie. It claims that Fred Leuchter took some samples without permission from the authorities and wrapped them in his “dirty underwear.” I asked Leuchter about the claim, and here’s his response:

Fred Leuchter:  Yes, I took Forensic Samples from the alleged execution facilities in Poland without permission from the Authorities in Poland. I was acting as an Expert Forensic Engineer seeking the Truth for a Court as I had done a number of times in the past.  I am not aware that investigating a lie is illegal in Poland or anywhere else.

I did not damage anything and no one could tell where I had been without my scientific record as presented to the Court!  Those who would perpetuate the lie would have prevented my getting the Forensic Samples to a proper laboratory for analysis.

So yes, I mixed the samples (which were properly sealed in sample bags) with dirty underwear hoping that the customs agents would not search the same. They did not and the Truth was forthcoming from the Laboratory Analysis for the Court.

I do not know what other erroneous pronouncements were made about my work in the Movie but, if you advise me, I would be happy to comment on them and set the record straight.

Jonas E. Alexis: One of the characters in the movie makes a good point: ‘Be that as it may, we can criticize his (yours) methods but it is his conclusions we have to discredit.’ That’s a very good question. What makes your conclusions true? Did you fabricate things as you go along? Were you being honest with the material?

Fred Leuchter: My methods were in conformance with my instructions from a Forensic Chemist from Dupont (who was familiar with HCN).  All my samples were religiously preserved for their scientific integrity.  My conclusions were true and correct to which any unbiased expert chemist will attest.  HCN acts a certain way in the environment and the testing was done in accordance with the nature of the chemical.  I fabricated nothing.  I was honest and forthcoming here as I had been in the past with my other forensic work in court.

I have a reputation which was well earned.  I would do nothing to tarnish it.  I did not expect all the problems that I faced.  I believed that an expert witness is an adjunct to the Court System and was inviolate as are judges, lawyers and legislators in the performance of their duties to the court and the law.

I did not expect the lies that would come forth about me.  If an expert Witness cannot function with personal impunity within the court system then our system fails in its attempt to seek and find Truth and without Truth there can be no Justice.  This whole affair has been a sad commentary on our legal system.

For more than a quarter of a Century I have maintained this position and I will retain this backbone ’till I die.  I have been threatened, I have been firebombed, I have been chased by the Mossad and have been offered bribes.  My business was destroyed, my life disrupted and I still adhere to the Truth.

If anyone can question my honesty they must be crazy.  I began my work as an Expert on Execution Technology to prevent torture with the return of the Death Penalty in the United States.  In this I have failed because the Jewish Groups that came after me also came after the Wardens and a State Officials who dealt with me.

By frightening them they managed to remove me from the equation and the torture not only continued but increased.  In the past quarter century all of the Executees who have been tortured are the responsibility of these Jewish Groups that have attempted to discredit me. These people should be ashamed of themselves.”

Jonas E. Alexis: Have independent scholars and researchers looked at your samples, methods and conclusions and declared that they are right in line with forensic research? How have been able to hold up through the years, despite of what they have written about you?

Fred Leuchter: Yes they have. I have held up well except they destroyed my business and livelihood!

Jonas E. Alexis: Menuhin, what’s your take on the whole issue here?

Gerard Menuhin: I also watched a long David Irving interview which was one of the videos attached. Of course he’s a real and respected historian, whereas I’m not even an amateur historian, just an observer. But I was disappointed at his assumption that — as I gathered — about 2 million were gassed, after all. This is based on his research, interpretation of German documents, visits to sites, etc.

My conclusion is the same as Faurisson’s and others, and expressed in my book. Being only a primitive commentator, I had to bolster my instinct with my personal experiences of Germans and Germany, earned primarily during my schooldays there. Apart from the evidence provided by numerous scientific as well as historical sources, it’s not in the German character to murder defenceless men, let alone women and children, on racial or any other grounds.

However, it was in their enemy’s character to starve to death millions of the invented-for-the-purposes-category of ‘Disarmed Enemy Forces’ (actually POWs) in the Rheinwiesenlagers. It’s demonstrably true that attributing your own crimes to your enemy is their regular strategy (gas vans, cattlecars of the ‘Russian’ Revolution).

Irving should not have sued Lipstadt, or, having decided to sue her, he should at least have engaged a lawyer to advise him about the legal, as opposed to the historical, aspects of the case. Britain has been infiltrated by the enemy since 1066, and controlled and largely guided by them since at least 1694 (Bank of England).

So any attempt to win in court is fraught with inherent hindrances. Once one has accepted that they lie as a matter of policy, there is little point in suing them for anything they say.

“He invents new lies daily, against which his opponent must from then on defend himself, and the result is that he, through self-justification, never gets to what the Jew really fears: to attacking him. Now the accused has become the accuser, and, with much clamour, he presses the accuser into the dock. One cannot discuss the Jewish question with Jews.” (Dr. J. Goebbels, 1929)

I disagree with Hoffmann’s optimistic conclusion that one should thank ‘Hollywood’ for the film, on account of its unwilling revelations. ‘Denial’ will be debated as serious history by movie-going audiences who swallowed ‘Schindler’s List’ and other pap, as if it were mandatory research for a doctoral thesis.

When a ‘post-truth’ era is being broadcast by parties promoting their interest in such a fact-free environment, the subtleties Hoffman (an informed viewer) mentions will pass them by.  An effective antidote to this visual vacuity might have been a gritty documentary, in which the hideous Lipstadt would have been trapped into revealing her ignorance of history and her shameless prejudice.

David Merlin: Instead, alas, the vast monetary resources and media influence which crushed Irving and allowed the defendants to succeed at Trial have continued their work with the production of a movie that is little more than a brazen web of deceit.

(12-minute video)

[1] See Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman, Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2002).
[2] Deborah Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory (New York: Plume, 1994), 177.
[3] Kenneth S. Stern, “My behind-the-scenes ‘Denial’ story,” Jewish Journal, September 15, 2016.
[4] See Bryan Mark Rigg, Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers: The Untold Story of Nazi Racial Laws and Men of Jewish Descent in the German Military (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2002); Lives of Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers: Untold Tales of Men of Jewish Descent Who Fought for the Third Reich (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2009); for similar studies, see also Bryan Mark Rigg, Rescued from the Reich: How One of Hitler’s Soldiers Saved the Lubavitcher Rebbe (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004).
[5] Norman Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering (New York: Verso, 2000).
[6] Charles Krauthammer, “The Holocaust and Jewish identity,” Washington Post, March 10, 2016.
[7]  Nick Anderson and Michelle Boorstein, “Georgetown gets $10 million for Holocaust research as Jewish studies grow at Catholic school,” Washington Post, February 24, 2016.
[8] Norman M. Naimark, Genocide: A World History (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), 1.
[9] See E. Michael Jones, “Holocaust Denial and Thought Control: Deborah Lipstadt at Notre Dame,” Culture Wars, May 2009.
[10] “The Risks Of Normalizing The So-Called Alt-Right,” National Public Radio, November 27, 2016.
[11] D. D. Guttenplan, The Holocaust on Trial (New York: W. W. Norton, 2001), 67-68.
[12] Melissa Katsoulis, Literary Hoaxes: An Eye-Opening History of Famous Frauds (New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2009), 237.
[13] For those who would like to pursue this issue further, I would recommend Germar Rudolf’s book, Fail: “Denying the Holocaust”: How Deborah Lipstadt Botched Her Attempt to Demonstrate the Growing Assault on Truth and Memory(Uckfield: Castle Hill Publishers, 2016).
[14] Norman Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering (New York: Verso, 2000).
[15] Kenneth S. Stern, “My behind-the-scenes ‘Denial’ story,” Jewish Journal, September 15, 2016.

David Merlin has a Bachelor of Arts degree in history and economics from the University of California, Berkeley. He also has a Juris Doctor. He is currently writing a book on the “Irving vs. Lipstadt” trial. He is a frequent contributor to the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust,
Gerard Menuhin is a British-Swiss journalist, writer, novelist, and film producer. He is the son of Jewish parents, the American violinist and conductor Yehudi Menuhin, who is considered “one of the greatest violinists of the 20th century.” Menuhim’s mother was a ballet dancer and died in 2003 at the age of 90. He graduated from Stanford University and is the author of the new book Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil.
Fred A. Leuchter has a Bachelor of Arts degree in history from Boston University in 1964. He holds patents for a geodetic instrument and an electronic sextant. The New York Times admitted back in 1990 that Leuchter “was the nation’s leading adviser to states on capital punishment and who supplied lethal injection systems to four states.” Leuchter also wrote A Technical Report On The Execution Of The Gas At Mississippi State Penitentiary Parchman, Mississippi back in 1972.
But Leuchter’s prosperous career that came to an abrupt end after he began to question the validity of the gas chamber stories in Nazi Germany in 1988. The Holocaust establishment quickly condemned him as a forger and hoaxer.[1] Deborah Lipstadt declares that Leuchter used “his pseudoscientific work to assault the truth.”[2]

Sourced from CODOH
(originally published on Veterans Today)

75 thoughts to “Denying Denial : The Holocaust Exposed”

  1. I guess that the most accurate aspect of the film is degree of similarity between Lipstadt and Weisz.

    fine work by Jew Central Casting, although my choice would have been Whoopi Goldberg, a child of slavery survivors, victim of yet another Denial.

    All other fabrications are much more glaring and obnoxious.

    1. Lobro –

      I agree….

      Jew Central Casting REALLY missed it…!!

      Gary Busey should have played Deborah Lipstadt. 🙂

  2. Exceptionally good article. Thank you! More articles on the Holocaust would be appreciated.


    I am wondering if anyone on this site can give me good advice on Alzheimer’s and Parkison’s. This is not for myself but for my father. He is becoming increasingly forgetful and sometimes does not even recognize my voice when I call him on the telephone.

    I am wondering if any of you guys have any hot tips that may help to arrest the process of decline and even reverse it? Take a look at this article below and let me know if you think this could be the big “breakthrough”.

    Your advice would really be appreciated and put my mind at rest.

    Thank you.

    Plaque-busting plants take on Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s

    1. Anonymous –
      [off-topic reply]

      I have some Parkinson’s relate symptoms, but no diagnosis and no memory loss. Over the years I have found a lot of information on associated conditions.

      This MIGHT be helpful.

      Cholesterol levels below 170 cause MEMORY LOSS…. And most doctors shoot for 100 or lower..!!

      Even though the docs want me to have lower cholesterol. I refuse their statins.

      Memory loss is increased by statins – cholesterol-lowering drugs.

      Retired brain surgeon, Dr. Russell Blaylock breaks down the neurological research and effects of statins on the brain and central nervous system.

      FACT: Yes, it’s true that heart disease is the #1 killer in the United States. And men over 40 are particularly vulnerable. But, who else will tell you that 50% of all strokes and heart attacks have absolutely nothing to do with elevated cholesterol levels?

      But if you visit your doctor and have even slightly elevated cholesterol, he is quick to fill out a prescription for a statin drug such as Lipitor™, Mevacor™, Pravachol™ and Zocor™.

      The Statin Myth — It’s Inflammation, Not Cholesterol

      1. Many thanks to all the people who have helped to provide me with this useful information as requested. I am truly grateful. Do you think if my father came off statins that his conditions might improve? He has been on statins only for the last 6 months. BTW, he has also begun to experience muscular pains recently.

      2. “Do you think if my father came off statins that his conditions might improve?”

        I’m not a doctor and don’t give medical advice, but I do know that you have to be your own advocate and question everything that you hear coming out of the ‘sickness industry’. Keep in mind that they don’t make money unless you’re sick. So if your dad continues feeling muscle pain and/or weakness there’s a good chance they’ll push for heart surgery – pays better than taking him off statins.

      3. Anonymous –

        Glad to help – –

        Statins are the most prescribed drugs in US.

        It is a Pharisee-Jew trick to destroy memory.

        A huge portion of the brain is cholesterol.
        The brain is 70 percent fat, yet scientists have known little about how fats, or lipids, or cholesterol are metabolized and transported within it.

        The smartest people may have the highest cholesterol..!!! 🙂

        Very few medical professionals will think like that…. they go for..$$$!!

        BTW – every cell in the body uses cholesterol. The body produces its own supply FOR A REASON..!!

        Connect the dots. You decide.

    2. go to youtube and look at the riordan clinic channel. Also look into ozone therapy for parkinson’s. Do Direct Injection with someone experienced and avoid the doctors selling autohemotherapy. also search alpha lipoic acid and try ph balancer. there’s lots of help out there. 3 main principles: Detox metals and chemicals, Support nutrient deficiencies. Find a good osteopath/manual therapist to get everything functional again.

  3. Excellent article and video. Every reference sourced and verified. The end of this nightmare will only occur when the average man and woman in the West lose their fear of the Jews and being labelled “anti-semitic”! I realise how lucky I am to live in a country where one can make any anti- Jewish remarks and extol the virtues of any authoritarian leader, such as Sarit Thanarat, Hitler or Franco, without fear of arrest or social sanction. Here it is regarded as freely expressing one’s political opinions. I’m also free to express my prejudices without let or hindrance. And Thailand is supposedly a military dictatorship. This is why I feel freer here than in any so called democracy in the West.

  4. ADMIN> I hate to tell you this, but my latest comment this morning is not appearing. As Sr. M. directed, I used a new email address to thwart the automatic placing in Monitoring. It hasn’t worked.

    In my old address, my comment appeared as Waiting for Moderation.

    Have you identified the problem? I hope it is not external. I have posted almost 8,000 times on Disqus with close to 18,000 up votes. A great proportion of my comments are “anti-Semitic” and Libertarian in bent. Anti-Establishment to be sure, with liberal use of the word traitor for traitors. I am banned from commenting on Frontpage, American Renaissance, WND, CNS News, Counter-Currents (for questioning directly the editor), and one or two more that I cannot remember. Occasionally Breibart and InfoWars deletes one of my comments, but I have never been banned from either of those. My comments on the Pretendendcy of Barry the TrySexual have been extremely caustic.

    My computer has been doing strange things in the last few months, despite re-installs, virus programs, Hard Drive utilities, etc, etc. See Sheryl Atkinson:

    So, I am sure that I am on one of several lists. Either your software is doing backflips for an internal reason or an EXTERNAL ONE.

    1. @ Poupon

      Please read the latest comment addressed to you and Arch Stanton. (By Admin). This explains the situation. You are not the only person experiencing this problem. Maybe you need to update in some way. Pat may be able to advise you.

      Re the email address, please continue with the old one and forget the new one you used — that obviously hasn’t helped at all.

      Good luck, and realize this is probably a problem originating in your own computer. Nothing to do with us.

      1. OK, Sr. M. This message is from another computer at my house. If it goes to moderation then I will go to another IP address.


  5. “So yes, I mixed the samples (which were properly sealed in sample bags) with dirty underwear hoping that the customs agents would not search the same. They did not and the Truth was forthcoming from the Laboratory Analysis for the Court.” – Fred Leuchter

    Oh the poetic humor of it all!

    1. @ Arch Stanton
      @ Poupon Marx
      @ Others

      If your comments suddenly begin to go for automatic mnonitoring, please understand that this is because of some technical glitch beyond our control. It may have something to do with your computer. We are not responsible for this.

  6. Easily-read and informative article! The sad thing is that the longer these lies flourish, the more difficult it will become to expose them. The only thing any of us, as individuals, can do to combat them is ignore the vendors and the product.

  7. Yes, and the longer LONG articles flourish, the more difficult it will be to stay awake. LONG articles are very much like LONG posts that way, wouldn’t you agree, Uncle?

  8. My views on the Holocaust have changed over the past 30 years. I used to believe that 6 million Jews had been gassed with cyanide and turned into lampshades and soap; not now. My doubts were awakened when I discovered that there had been a hospital, a pharmacy, a theatre, an orchestra, a choir and a swimming pool at Auschwitz, in a death camp?

    Also the numbers didn’t add up. According to the American Jewish Committee figures there were 15.3 million Jews in the world in 1933 and 15.7 million in 1948. How could that be if 6 million Jews had died in the Holocaust? There are many other inconsistecies, but they are never raised in the media, or to my knowledge by University historians.

    It is a crime in 17 countries to raise questions about the 6 million figure. These are mainly European countries, but also, to my surprise, include Canada.. Is it really criminal to ask questions about what is supposed to be the worst crime ever….??????

    1. “How could that be if 6 million Jews had died in the Holocaust?”

      C’mon Mr K. Don’t you believe in Bible stories?

      What’s so hard to understand about a group of people losing 40% of their members and then repopulating all in a period of 10 years? Get with it, will ya?

      It was a miracle. Plain and simple.

      1. I’m aware of that. Just thought I’d take the opportunity to provide a ‘rational’ explanation. 🙂

  9. A prime, grade A number one example of making hay with a false narrative to create a false history and shoved down the throats of University graduates who had Holocaust studies and genuflecting to the mythical 6 million each and year before making their way out into the Jew world order.

    1. JFC

      The problem was/is in properly identifying the “filthy skypes”. If there ARE 6 million of them (they live), they’re scattered throughout the globe, although we DO know the whereabouts of many of them, especially the head honchos.

      And they’re NOT of hebraic descent. Who among you isn’t seeing this? Whoever says “it’s anybody’s guess”, I’m gonna reach through the cyberspace and put my hands around yer neck!

      Whether you realize it or not, some of these guessing games are over

    2. “So what” is right, think of all the lives that would have been saved throughout the world if the Culture Destroyers had indeed been gassed or turned into lampshades. Most obvious is the plaque at auschwitz-birkenau originally claiming 4 million dead skypes, changed in 1990 to 1.5 million. There goes the kabbalisitc magic number 6,000,000, but still they quote it…6,000,000,6,000,000,6,000,000… eye of a newt, babies blood and semen stirred in a big black kosher cauldron…6,000,000! 6,000,000! 6,000,000! ISRAEL is now the NEW WORLD CAPITAL! Our biblical myths have been brought to life! YHWH has not forsaken us! The world is ours and the goyim our slaves! Rejoice brother skypes!

      1. I have a solution that is “humane” as has been historically successful. Remove ALL the Jews from the West, compensating those who did not OVERTLY harm or demonstrably were neutral. That would be about 20% or less. I realize “no harm” is relative, but some compensation should reflect the superior morality of the Gentile. I’m talking pennies on the dollar.

        Remove them all and deposit in Israel. Withdraw all support from Israel of any kind. They would be on their own. If you use the disease/parasite/tumor/infection analogy and model, only removal will allow the Gentile Corpus Universalis to begin recovery and rehabilitation. A benign tumor won’t cut it. Inactive viruses like Herpex hiding in nervous tissue or malaria protoza eggs dormant, etc, etc.

        Expulsion and removal. This is nothing more than justice, and revenge, which is a tautology. Pay back.

        I had two cancerous lymph nodes removed years ago. Without that excision, I would be died. From that point on, we could operate the guillotines on the traitors, enablers, the virtual Jews, and Far Leftish scum and effluent.

      2. By George! Karen has hit the filthy skype right smack in the middle of his big long lying nose!

        The key to understanding the Holocaust myth — for it is purely a myth — is in understanding the six million figure.

        The figure of six million (6,000,000) is the number 6, followed or mirrored by 6 zeros. In other words, the figure of 6,000,000 is the numerical equivalent of 2 intertwined equilateral triangles or Star of David!

        The Star of David is a hexagram and a hexagram (6-pointed star) has long been used by Jews in practices of the occult and ceremonial magic. The 6-pointed star for Jews is used both as a talisman and for conjuring spirits and spiritual forces. It’s on their national flag, for Pete’s sake.

        Six million is the magical number, the sin qua non Jewish Voodoo number conjured up from thin air to create IsraHELL. Get it?

        Normal folks like you and me just can’t make this stuff up. Only filthy skypes could make this up.

  10. David Irving was regarded as one of the top historians of WW II and he was regarded as “the” top expert on Nazi Germany, with several other historians explicitly stating this. That was before Lipstadt began attacking him and the world’s media gave her virtually complete support. He was the top expert and is still the top expert on WW II. One of the things I liked about him was his statement that if someone comes along and proves him wrong about something, he’s not going to get upset and fight to make himself look correct. He wants to get to the truth.

    He is an archivist and only deals with authentic, first order documents (not books or magazine articles). He goes into great detail to get things right, including discarding fraudulent documents (which were created). This helped propel him to further fame when he exposed the “Hitler Diaries” (a world sensational find) in the early 1980’s as a fraud. This is a speech David Irving gave around the time of a big trial in Canada in which a Canadian (Ernst Zundel) was put on trial for what he wrote about the holocaust. This is where forensic evidence was first examined and presented to disprove the holocaust claims.

    Up until that time, the holocaust promoters presented Auschwitz as the main camp where a majority of the claimed killing was done and as a result of this trial and other research by the revisionists, the authorities at Auschwitz dropped their claim from four million murdered at Auschwitz to one million. Since then the holocaust promoters don’t talk numbers when discussing Auschwitz and now have upped their numbers of those killed in other areas of Europe and again their research is sloppy and they are not above lying. Just so I’m not misrepresenting David Irving’s point of view, he believes Jews were murdered en-mass in what are called the Reinhard Camps, further east, and in this speech he is focusing on Auschwitz.

    I frankly don’t care. As far as I’m concerned, when they showed that Auschwitz was a lie, the Holocaust was also shown to be a lie. They have never dug up any supposed execution sites to present any proof and they haven’t done this for one simple reason. They know they don’t have proof and any digging would most likely come up empty and make them look like liars or fools.

    This is a fascinating speech about how the so called holocaust story developed into what it eventually became. A document was supposedly smuggled out of Europe into the USA during the war (where Mr. Irving found it in FDR”s archives). The man who supposedly smuggled it out disappeared when the Nuremberg Trials began and then appeared forty years later at the trial in 1988 (or someone claiming to be that person) to give evidence. The whole thing sounds like a complete sham and Irving illustrates the importance of propaganda during war. But when the war ended the lies were never retracted and took on a life of their own.

  11. Winston Churchill ,Eisenhower , and de gaulle , never mentioned in their biographies anything about the extermination of 6 million Jews in a car garage using a couple of cans of bug spray ?
    I’ll tell why , the holocaust lie did not appear until the late seventies .

    1. The primary “horror” of the camps was their insufficiency of food provisions caused by the Allied bombing. Those incarcerated in the camps were certainly not composed completely of Jews – and those who I actually KNEW who had been involved in that war never mentioned anything about a primarily ‘jewish’ “Holocaust”. The German “death” camps were no more than the equivalent of modern “FEMA camps” – and the best lesson learned from them is to recognize that history repeats itself when historians are not allowed to voice their findings.

  12. The Jews are a problem, yes, but you people realize that things are now far, far, beyond the Jews even.

    The entire world system is going to come apart, and now we have some 7.3? billion souls while most of the easy to find fossil fuels have long ago been burnt up.

    You do the math.

    1. if 6 million is correct, then there should be some oil underneath auschwitz.
      i should apply for exploration license
      plus according to leftover jews, we don’t have a soul, so that 7.3 billion becomes zero.
      things are looking up.

    2. Hi Dolph,
      Yes Jewish Power is mainly in the west, but their control of currencies and the US military makes sure that they are heard. They influence decisions all over the world.

      Regarding energy.; there is a revoltion taking place now using Photovoltaic cels. I think within 20 years most cvehicles wll be driven by electricity, and photcell and batterytechnology is improving.

      Stony deserts like North Afria and central asia will be the source of plenty of power.

      1. John,
        I don’t want to be a prophet of doom but concerning energy, the crucial issue is the surplus of energy available after the effort to extract, surplus that allows the development of a civilization. The ratio of energy produced and energy invested is ERoEI for the Anglos.
        In 1900, the fantastic ERoEI for US oil was 100:1, one unity of energy invested for 100 recovered.
        In 1990, it dropped to 35:1 and now it is 11:1. The average ERoEI for conventional oil around the world is between 10:1 and 20:1. I let you guess which countries have the highest oil ERoEI.
        Tar sands ERoEI is between 2:1 and 4:1, agro fuels between 1:1 and 1.6:1 and 10:1 for ethanol sugar, nuclear between 5:1 and 15:1, shale oil is circa 5:1, natural gas 10:1 and coal 50:1 in US and 27:1 in China. Coal is the real revolution of the last 10 years especially in China, cough cough. All those ERoEI are not only in decline but an accelerated decline.
        ERoEI is not only for fossil energies. In USA, solar concentration with great mirrors in the desert is 1.6:1. Wind power is at first sight encouraging with 18:1 return but If you take into account the intermittence and the necessity to backed it with a storage system or a power plant it drops to 3.8:1.
        For photovoltaic, the best return is in Spain with 2.5:1. Only hydroelectricity would bring a comfortable return between 35:1 and 49:1 but it disturbs natural habitats and would only increase electric production in negligible proportion.
        In summary, renewable energies have not enough power to compensate the decline of fossil energies and there aren’t enough fossil energies, or mineral ores which is another issue, to massively develop renewables to compensate the decline of fossil energies. The problem with Occidental societies is the need of a minimal ERoEI, between 12:1 and 13:1, to provide the full range of services for modern mostly urban life and to avoid the collapse of the financial system as a debt-based system is in bulimic need of growth, thus energy.
        “We are bing told, “Renewables will save us,” but this is basically a lie. Wind and solar PV are just as much a part of our current fossil fuel system as any other source of electricity. They will only last as long as the weakest link–inverters that need replacing, batteries that need replacing, or the electric grid that needs fixing. We are being told that these are our salvation, because politicians need to have something to point to as a solution–not because they really will work.”

        Hope the greatest jobs president God ever created has a smarter plan than building more Ford.

      2. Almost.

        If one is to believe Jewish eyewitnesses who “saw dis vith mine own eyes”: “Germans stood around with satanic smiles on their faces, radiating satisfaction over their foul deeds. They drank toasts with choice liquors, ate, caroused and enjoyed themselves near the warm fire.” The Germans clapped rhythmically as Jews danced with abandon among the flames. A goot time was had by all.

  13. Great article. As long as David Irving is tied up in court battles and law suits his capacity to further research and write about events during WW2 is greatly diminished at the same time putting him under enormous financial strain which unfortunately benefits the shekel shifters…for the time being.

  14. The power of the Jewish Lobby is declining. Given time the full truth usually surfaces. There are just too many holes in th official story.

    “The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews constitute one and the same historical lie, which made possible a gigantic financial-political fraud, the principal beneficiaries of which are the State of Israel and international Zionism, and whose principal victims are the German people — but not their leaders — and the entire Palestinian people.”

    1. Can you explain on which facts you conclude that the power of the jewish lobby is declining? Truth will never change a status quo. You need especially power and money to change that!

  15. Phil,

    Excellent post. Good data and empirical evidence leads to sound conclusions.
    Wind power: very intermittent. It only works efficiently in a band of blade speed related to wind speed. They are very costly, very complicated (variable pitch propellers or not) with rectification issues, step up voltage requirements, long distances to consumers, and UGLY. They ruin landscape beauty, kill birds and bats by the MILLIONS, make psychosis inducing low frequencies, and use a tremendous amount of resources in total. They last for 20 years, then they are trash.

    The electric car: uses relatively rare earth lithium, an element that has to be MINED, as in ripping up huge amounts of the earth-just what Greens are SUPPOSED to hate. Each electric car has used approximately 7 years of resource consumption of a conventional car of the same size. Has anyone priced these electric cars WITHOUT the “GREEN” Gummint subsidy? Add a minimum of 40% to the price you see in the show room.

    Solar Panels: Work intermittently and not at all at night. Many days could go by and they would not deliver squat. So, if your community needs X amount of kilo-megawatts for power, you will have to have STANDBY THERMAL POWER, as in gas turbines or banks of diesel engines of that exact amount. Capisce?

    So what’s the solution? Burn fossil fuels until the price rises and nuclear power becomes competitive and then takes over. One day, nuclear fusion will be available, though when is a matter of much conjecture.

    Oh, wave action, geothermal. The former is a plaything, for make believe Gaia Enviros. A Rube Goldberg heavily subsidized junk for virtue signaling. Geothermal is only available in very limited areas and has many constraints.

    1. And in a related development:

      >>Wind turbines ‘less efficient than claimed’
      Wind turbines are 25 per cent less effective than the renewable energy industry claims, according to research.
      The John Muir Trust (JMT), one of Scotland’s leading conservation bodies, has challenged the common assertion that wind farms run at an average of 30 per cent capacity over a year.
      A study carried out for the Trust into the energy generated by dozens of wind farms, the majority of which are in Scotland, between November 2009 and last month, found they actually ran at 22 per cent of capacity.
      Campaigners insist the figures, drawn from data provided by the National Grid, challenge the role of wind farms as an efficient source of renewable energy.
      They said hundreds of wind farms had secured planning permission across Scotland based on inaccurate assumptions of their output.
      “This analysis shows that over the course of a year, the average load factor fell well short of what the industry claims, yet the 30 per cent figure is peddled at every public inquiry into a proposed wind farm,” said Helen McDade, head of policy at the JMT. “This data is needed to counter that hype.”

      Soooooooo……Liar, liar, pants on fire. Lies and misrepresentation are very common among the “Sustainable/Renewable Unwashed.” If a Wind Turbine is rated at 1 megawatt, that means that you will receive an average of 220 to 250 kilowatts of power over the course of the year. Some days/weeks, you will receive nothing.

    2. Hi Phil and PM,
      It is off-topic but a vital and very interesting side track. The first point being that there is no shortage of energy. If you want really cheap energy go for hydro. There is no need for dams. If you take a pipe from high to low altitudes (say 10,000 ft) you have a massive head (of water) and a small flow will give a lot of power.

      If you want heat it is there a few thousand feet under your feet, anywhere on the planet..

      The solar energy hitting the deserts could keep us all supplied with electricity if we can sort out the engineering problems. Photovoltaic cells seem to be the best method now, but transmission across lattitudes and longitudes would be required. That is from the tropics to the temperate zones, and sideways form daylight to darkness. High voltage DC is gaining favor with engineers. They are mainly engineering problems, and can be solved.

      There is no shortage of oil at present. It could drop to $20 in the next few years.

      Never underestimate the ingenuity of mankind.

      1. Hi Arch,
        I do tend to see the glass as half full, and the recent electoral revolution has boosted my optimism. That cloud on the horizon is Trump’s pro-Zionist stance, which could lead to disaster.

        The Zionists stole a country, and the owners want it back.

      2. John –

        “The Zionists stole a country, and the owners want it back.”

        The “owners” still own it. The Vatican never released its claim on ALL the land in the world… or universe, the definition of catholic. Inhabitants have no claims, just temporary visitation.

        The BIBLE is the source of EVERY popes’ claims:

        The power given by the Donation to the Roman Church was further enhanced by that inherent in the papacy itself. As the direct successors of Peter, the popes were the only true inheritors of the might of the Church, and hence of whatever and whoever were under her authority.

        The theory ran as follows:

        ‘Christ is the Lord of the whole world. At his departure he left his dominion to his representatives, Peter and his successors.

        Therefore the fullness of all spiritual and temporal power and dominion, the union of all rights and privileges, lies in the hands of the pope.

        Every monarch, even the most powerful, possesses only so much power and territory as the pope has transferred to him or finds good to ALLOW him.’

        This theory was supported by most medieval theologians. It became the firm belief of the popes themselves.

  16. It’s fascinating and depressing to see the way Jews largely control the dialogue here, still, in a similar way to the Christ myth still influencing huge numbers of people who ought to grow out of it. The underlying theme is that Jews were victims, or something, not the truth they caused vast numbers of deaths. This film was obviously made in the same style as vast numbers of press articles, books, plays and both ‘documentary’ and ‘fiction’ films; its box office failure is an irrelevance, since Jews can print money ad lib–except in the sense it proves public indifference. I haven’t bothered to check reported figures for films such as ‘Justice at Nuremberg’ or the Eichmann one or ‘Sophie’s Choice’ etc but I’d expect the figures were far higher than for ‘Denial’, especially since cinema attendances have plummeted. Probably there’ll be Jewish interest in viewing when ‘Denial’ is ‘released’ to TV.
    I’m unlikely to watch this film (though – as someone who was there – I’d be interested to see how accurately, if at all, the courtroom and site of the Royal Courts of Justice were shown. Hare is presumably a Jewish playwright, used to small sets, so I’d predict a claustrophic low-budget feel.
    I haven’t seen anyone comment on the fact that the court transcripts are online. (I believe this is true for Zundel’s trials too) so that online research is fairly easy.
    Michael Hoffman II’s review draws attention to the fact that the few viewers of the film will indirectly be informed of contentious points, and thus perhaps become revisionists if they weren’t already. A similar point obtains with Lipschutz: her book was published just before the Internet became popular, and seems to have been a great help to people who’d never heard of people like Austin App. Maybe Lipstadt had a secret urge to publicize the truth — admittedly, an improbable hypothesis.
    NB Irving’s site called the film ‘Dental’; I wondered if this might be a reference to ‘Professor’ Evans, who had something like an undershot or overshot jaw; or perhaps to Lipstadt’s dentition. NB there are limits to David’s unearthings: unlike Jews, who see a world war merely as part of a chain of actions, he treats it as a single event, with a beginning and end. But then life is short.
    Completely different angle: considering the increasing effects on human micro-evolution of humanity’s own activities, has anyone considered the effects of the invention of language on human evolution? Is it possible that different modes of language, notably (it would seem) as scientific truth telling, vs camouflage and deceit, differentiated almost at the start of the language-acquiring stage of evolution? Just a thought.

    1. RR –
      “has anyone considered the effects of the invention of language on human evolution?”

      Sort of. To a degree, John Harland’s small book “Word Controlled Humans” does that by showing the “evolution” of human behavior based on words.

      He said, “Government are ‘serpents’ to be slain.”

      —Word Controlled Humans By John Harland—

      “The processes that turn individual humans into monstrous group organisms is the significant aspect of history on which this book focuses. “Civil” and “religious” groups, growing into powers by destruction of individual souls and control of individual will, receive the same examination — with no glorified generalities glossing over the horror that sharp focus reveals. Concerned primarily with the word conditioning that now dominates America and Europe, this work highlights the need to first remove the obstructions from our own eyes — before trying to correct the faults of others. The history and current practices in our own conditioning are examined from a new perspective. No issues are dodged. A surprising view of Christianity is controversial and cogent.”

      Here is a portion of the book:


      Paperback: 117 pages
      Publisher: Sovereign Press (1981)
      Language: English
      ISBN-10: 0914752138
      ISBN-13: 978-0914752134



      BTW – I changed my writing style at age 20 and changed my personality quite a bit. Using ‘block’ letters…. I became very independent….. and ‘mule-headed’… 🙂

      1. Thanks. I looked at your online book. it’s not really what I meant.
        I remember a book on varieties of wheat under cultivation. Some strains are unresponsive to fertilizer; they behave as thought they’re thinking, well, good times maybe, but I’ll ignore this. Other strains ‘respond exuberantly’ to fertilizer: they grow fast and fat. There’s no correct answer from their point of view; they can’t know they will be fed fertilizer, if their luck lasts. When language was new, there must have been evolutionary changes: but it’s hard to say what they were. some recipients of language messages were sceptical; others believed it all. I’m wondering if there were several groups which separated out, with different fundamental ‘attitudes’ to language, though this would be unconscious. Maybe Jews will never be honest: maybe Lipstadt and her crew of scum are permanently locked out of science.
        The problem with Sardonicus and others is (roughly) that they think they’re being ‘spiritual’ when they quote some stuff they’ve been told shows breadth of spirit etc. I don’t think they appreciate the materialistic nature of biology: people feel content/ happy/ rested/ satisfied according to things adapted to their biology – others may feel different effects. I recall a woman in the audience at a Dawkins talk talking of spirituality; he said, in a rather irritated way, he didn’t know what she meant. There’s a long tradition of people who make money from the ‘religious’ system, trying to justify this by appeals to spirituality etc, and, if they make their money, that’s a justification of sorts.
        NB there’s no connection between atheism and attempts at rationalism.
        PS has anyone else seen ‘Denial’? Another attack of course is against actors: they are presumably happy to take money, despite in effect telling lies about the tens of millions who died in WW2. I can’t be the only person who thinks they are scum.

    2. I recommend S. I. Hayakawa, “Language in Thought and Action: Fifth Edition”, from Amazon.
      It used to be required reading for all underclassmen. Maybe it still is, as Hayakawa was not “White” (Har, has, guffaw). The book is about semantics , although some feminists might object to that word, since it contains “man” in the middle.

    3. @ Rerevisionist

      It’s fascinating and depressing to see the way Jews largely control the dialogue here, still, in a similar way to the Christ myth still influencing huge numbers of people who ought to grow out of it.

      An excellent comment, marred only by your condescension in thinking that your disbelief in Christianity means that Christianity is a “myth” only for low-IQ morons such as me. 🙂

      It’s not clear to me how I and my entire family are of inferior intellectual stock to you for begging to differ with you on the so-called “mythical” nature of Christianity. Why spoil the cake for other people by badmouthing it — just because you have an allergy to its ingredients?

      Are you aware that the philosopher-mathematician Blaise Pascal was a devout Christian? Feel yourself a cut about Pascal, do you? Do you know what the mathematical calculus it? In case you don’t, Pascal invented it.

      Heard of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky? Both were committed Christians.

      Best not to patronize your betters, it seems to me. Disbelievers have a right to disbelieve, but they make fools of themselves when they attempt to ridicule and sneer at the religious beliefs of their intellectual and moral superiors.

      1. People who disbelieve in God (Christian or otherwise) are vitamin deficient. The vitamin in question is a brain vitamin that feeds the spiritual centers of the brain. Unfortunately, this particular vitamin cannot be bought in a bottle as a health supplement. It is obtained only through meditation.

      2. “… People who disbelieve in God (Christian or otherwise) are vitamin deficient. The vitamin in question is a brain vitamin that feeds the spiritual centers of the brain…”

        That is a very materialistic way of making a spiritual argument !

      3. You obviously don’t know anything about calculus. But no matter. You should grow up – believing in tales made up by Jews to damage you is a bit foolish. But maybe you’re genetically unable to do this. I’m a complete determinist.

        1. @ Rerevisionist

          And you, presumably, know more about Christianity and the religious instinct than Blaise Pascal, Tolstoy and Dostoevsky? Pity all you’ve accomplished in life is an obscure blog called “Big Lies”!

          Rerevisionist? —Revising the revisionists, are you? Faurisson not good enough for you?

    4. “I’m unlikely to watch this film (though – as someone who was there – I’d be interested to see how accurately, if at all, the courtroom and site of the Royal Courts of Justice were shown.”

      It would be most interesting to hear your views on the trial. In fact, I found your simple description about the court setting most enlightening. Why not write a short article and post it as a comment or see if Darkmoon will publish it as an article. It is helpful to hear varying viewpoints on a given event as personal perspectives make for greater insight.

      Every honest eyewitness provides new and different ideas about an event. Kurosawa’s movie Rashomon drives this point home. Given enough viewpoints, a fairly accurate assessment can be made of the event.

      My own encounter with Mr. Irving was most interesting, like something out of a spy thriller. It was a first-hand experience that demonstrated the kind of flack he encounters when approaching the target.

      Hopefully, one day men like Mr. Irving will be able to say: “Jews away! Let’s go home.”

  17. Franklin,

    You are right. But I speak (half) metaphorically. The word “vitamin” is used as an analogy.

    We know for certain that our thoughts, images, visualizations and emotions produce physical changes in the brain. Neurons and synapses are constantly interacting and producing physical changes.

    Thus we learn from a Darkmoon article that pornographic images combined with compulsive masturbation over a long period alter the actual physical structure of the frontal lobes, effectively causing brain damage. This is not just LD’s own idea, it is supported by a tremendous amount of scientific research with links and quotes given from learned academic periodicals.


    My argument is this: if involvement in pornography can cause marked physical changes in the brain, brought about by the stimulation of dopamine and other psychotropic chemicals, you can be sure that meditation has similar physical effects on the brain — but entirely beneficial effects.

    Belief in God — increase in faith — can be generated simply by meditation. Ramakrishna mentions this, comparing meditation to the slow and systematic churning of milk into butter.

  18. Ludwig Wittgenstein, philosopher, Tractatus, difficult to read from a man who worked on Language and its limitations, but probably the most important on the subject.

  19. On language, nobody’s really seeing my point. I’m talking about the effects of language when new – the timespan could be thousands of years. Let me give another comparison. ‘s author says that many women think soaps on TV are real. They don’t understand it’s script, acted etc. Whether true or not, it suggests there could be at least two attitudes to language: instant absorption (could be useful in many circumstances) and instant wariness and investigation. Just as some people look at (say) big spiders and feel repulsed, and others investigate. Jewish language *may* be something direct and simple, with language as it were directly plugged into the brain. Lipschutz may be a dumpy ‘jew’, but also a simple-minded believer in whatever her group tells her. I just think that, as with inventions such as boats, the wheel, the plough, metals, paper, there must be genetic effects.

    1. RR –

      Pain is the best teacher. Pavlov used electric shocks.

      I always wondered about this innate fear demonstration:

      Silhouette of “hawk/goose dummy” supposedly used by Lorenz and Tinbergen in their 1937 experiments showed innate fears in birds.

      Such a silhouette released escape behavior in young, experimentally naıve turkeys when flown to the right (as “hawk”): “fixating, alarm calling and marching off to cover”
      No escape behavior was released, however, when the model was flown to the left (as “goose”).


      1. RR –

        The Hebrew language may not allow any positions other than parasitic ones to be fulfilled. Maybe not applied genetically, but at the personality and emotional levels. Learned levels. Passed through instructions, for instance… at synagogues… even unknowingly.

        AND… Pounded in at the Wailing Wall… 🙂

  20. English started as a patois, probably in the North of England. It is a mixture of German, Norse, Celtic, Latin and French. The multiple sources accounts for the huge number of words in the language. Because it was the speech of ordinary people, not the elites, they simplified it and got rid of inanimate gender and stopped declining nouns and conjugating verbs. So although the spelling is diverse (to say the least) the grammar is simple compared to German or Latin.

    I visited Holland (Philips) and Germany (Siemens) and was told many times by Engineers that when they had to think through some technical matter they chose to speak and think in English.

  21. Amsterdam has already its intergalactically famous Anne Frank(enstein) house. Since last year it has a National Holocaust Museum.

    The Dutch word Jodenstreek (litt. meaning jew lie, lie by jews) surprisingly does not have a similar equivalent in English. A good name for this pathetic new museum would be in Dutch: Jodenstreek Museum

Comments are closed.