This is my last comment for the year as we are off to spend Hogmanay as the guests of an Ambassador in Paris. Out of deference to my family, who have had the brunt of it these last few days, I am definitely not taking the laptop, so I will no longer be able to take part in the popular new bloodsport of proving your loyalty to the SNP by being nasty to Craig Murray.
My parting thought is that, as every year of my entire life, it has been a disastrous one for the Palestinians. Yet more land occupied, settlements built, homes destroyed, olive trees uprooted, shipping vessels sunk and yet another murderous onslaught on Gaza.
I warmly recommend this rare public appearance by Col. Larry Wilkerson, ex-Chief of Staff to Colin Powell and a fellow recipient of the Sam Adams Award for Integrity. His brief musings here on Israel and Syria come from a deep store of knowledge and a razor-sharp intellect.
Do have a wonderful celebration. The future will be good. We are closer to a transformational change in society than you may realise.
I’m very surprised that evidence that had been acquired through torture was accepted at Nuremburg, and to me it throws to process into doubt. This is a great shame, because this is the ultimate defence against someone doing something stupid/despicable and saying “I was only following orders”.
What happened in Germany cold have happened to any society in the 1930s with the rise of radio as a means of mass communication. Look at how Orson Welles managed to elicit mass hysteria with his broadcast of “War of the Worlds”.
One of the most controversial post-ww2 novels was “Lord of the Flies” by William Golding (any relation, Mark?) We studied this in depth at school, and it really brought home how thin this veneer is that we call “civilisation”, and how quickly people can go to a default position/program under stress (or peer pressure, or both) which is very violent. Little is spoken about this nowadays, it seems.
Best populist reference I came across was “The Wall”, and the lyrics of “Thin Ice”, and that was quite some time ago. Ironic that The Wall was played in 1990 or 1991 after the Berlin wall fell, but as a direct cause of that action, Yugoslavia’s thin ice was broken…
I haven’t used that assumption as a basis for anything other than stating the confession and psychologists report are questionable.
Hitchens does not say “Irving says”; Hitchens says “These are, however, the now-undisputed findings of all historians and experts on the subject”, he lists three points which are the now-undisputed findings of all historians and experts on the subject, one of which is that “the “confession” of Rudolf Hoess, commandant of Auschwitz, was extracted by force and contains his claim to have killed more Jews than was “humanly” possible?” It’s a straight quote.
I’ll take Hitchens word for it that these are the now-undisputed findings of all historians and experts on the subject, I think he would have been damned sure I hope of his facts, and sure enough to satisfy the mainstream publications that carried the article, before stating it so boldly and unequivocably. This diverse group of experts, might possibly have included David Irving or “revisionists” and or “deniers”, but is by no means at all limited to them, nor does it imply that Hitchens agreed with these historians and experts on one or more or all of these three points, though the clear inference is he that did, he conceded these by then uncontroversial points.
I’m leaving the subject there, now before any more red herrings are brandished.
” I can’t believe that people are still arguing about the collapse of the towers. There was clearly a controlled explosion at the base, ”
Which made them collapse from the top down… (or almost the top).
A bit old-fashioned too, conspiracy nuts are increasingly moving away from high explosive or mini-nukes to ray-guns fired from satellites and the whole thing being faked using CGI. Of course all the witnesses, bereaved families etc are “crisis actors” in the pay of the NWO.
Quite funny really, especially watching the various camps tear into each other.
Without incurring a slow burn here Peacewisher if we continue on this thread – the ’19 group’ 9, 1 and 9+1=10 thus 911 labored the necessary way the BAE/Ratheon ‘Black project’ remotely controlled aircraft with substantial fail-safe autopilot equipment could be destroyed beyond recognition.
Sadly BAE board director and UAV expert Robert Penniger and others were splintered and turned to dust when UA flight 93 substitute was demolished.
Special thanks to Thomas R. Olmsted, M.D for ‘taking a substantial risk’ to gather truth.
http://physics911.net/olmsted/
No prob, Mark. What I was trying to say was… there are enough unanswered questions along conventional lines without invoking hypotheses that could be eagerly grasped upon and ridiculed by the mainstream media. If twin towers were destroyed from below to destroy evidence, why did the third tower also fall?
As you say, getting to the truth of that one will be a slow burn. I think it was a cock up (of US defence) rather than a conspiracy, although no doubt that there were conspirators. The matter of MH370 is still, however, an intriguing enigma, and it must be heart-breaking for the friends and relatives of the victims.
Hungary to be the next candidate for “regime change?”:
http://rt.com/news/219519-hungary-protests-orban-communism/
[craigmurray.org.uk – this comment went to the moderation queue at 10:13 reason unknown – update: it was caught by a keyword which has now been removed from the keyword list]
This is the Zionist who is now defending the fifth in line to the British ‘throne’ in the Epstein scandal. Birds of a feather etc etc.
The Guardian rejects Dershowitz ad on ‘human shields’ in Gaza
Harvard University professor, whose ad questioned claims that Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas in the world, accuses paper of anti-Israel bias.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.611084
~~~
He is also infamous for hounding Norman Finkelstein after Finkelstein accused Dershowitz of plagiarism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dershowitz%E2%80%93Finkelstein_affair
Regarding the UK abstention on Palestine, in the UN…
It must be assumed that David Cameron ordered the British Ambassador to abstain. I wonder how democratic that decision was considering that we are supposed to have “Cabinet Government”, and MPs were overwhelmingly in favour of recognising Palestine as a state.
Cabinet Government means that the Lib Dems should have agreed, which they are likely to have done anyway if part of a European Union common position. If MPs really don’t like it they can vote out the Government on a confidence motion.
The condition of the Scottish nurse with Ebola has deteriorated and is now critical. Very sad.
Yes, Mary, very sad. No thanks at all to Katie Hopkins for bringing racial hatred into the mix.
Thanks for the prompt, Tim.
Here is the Liberal Democrat Friends of Palestine’s position:
http://www.ldfp.eu/2014/12/31/ldfp-statement-on-un-security-councils-rejection-of-palestinian-statehood-bid/
PS. It ends with Vive La France!
technicolour 3 Jan, 2015 – 11:15 am :
“It’# quite simple. Tony M and Herbie (there’s an unexpected connection) are both attempting to say that the confession of Rudulph Hoess, the Auschwitz commander, that he was responsible for the deaths of two and half millions Jews, was a forced one. They use this assumption as a basis for questioning the the number of Jewish people killed by the Nazis.
Why they would want to do this I do not know. They are Holocausts Deniers/Revisionists, and if neither of them is David Irvine, and I would imagine his prose style was rather more practiced, then they are, in the words of Christopher Hitchens “Nazi revivalists, crackpots or conspiracy theorists”
I’ll let Tony M speak for himself, but Herbie is presumably now asleep after being up half the night, explaining to you, repeatedly, patiently and clearly, that he was saying no such thing. Here’s one example:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/12/happy-new-year/comment-page-4/#comment-500157
You repeatedly and perversely ignored his explanations and tried to turn the argument into a Holocaust denial issue. Now that he’s not here to defend himself, you’re at it again. You should be ashamed of yourself, and you should apologise to all Jews for abusing the Holocaust.
Re Pious Prince Andrew, and the alleged sexual assault of a minor, I fear even if the charge is proven that nothing will become of it, and here’s why.
……………………..
The Royal Family is to be granted absolute protection from public scrutiny in a controversial legal reform designed to draw a veil of secrecy over the affairs of the Queen, Prince Charles and Prince William.
Letters, emails and documents relating to the monarch, her heir and the second in line to the throne will no longer be disclosed even if they are in the public interest.
Sweeping changes to the Freedom of Information Act will reverse advances which had briefly shone a light on the royal finances – including an attempt by the Queen to use a state poverty fund to heat Buckingham Palace – and which had threatened to force the disclosure of the Prince of Wales’s prolific correspondence with ministers.
Lobbying and correspondence from junior staff working for the Royal Household and Prince Charles will now be held back from disclosure. Buckingham Palace confirmed that it had consulted with the Coalition Government over the change in the law.
The Government buried the plan for “added protection” for the Royal Family in the small print of plans called “opening up public bodies to public scrutiny”.
https://archive.today/M6zgX#selection-1635.0-1655.400
……………………..
In essence Old Droopy Chops, and her defective brood, have been given “Carte Blanche” to do just about whatever they want, and face no repercussions at all, in fact we won’t even get to know about it in the first place.
Oooh. Slander and Libel, eh.
The saintly Hitch.
Let’s see what Max Blumenthal says, and just ask ourselves why he’s saying it:
“since you described me as “cowardly” for pointing out your habit of enabling Holocaust-deniers — I wanted to provide you with some new tunes to dance to.”
“In December 1993, in a Vanity Fair piece called “Whose History Is It?” you tried to verify one of Faurisson’s charges: that the Holocaust Museum contains false information on the Holocaust. You asked the Institute for Historical Review, the premier center for Holocaust denial research, to give you their “best shot.” They provided you with an essay by Faurisson which claimed that one of the commandants at Auschwitz, Rudolf Hoss, had been tortured by the British into “confessing to a fantastic and unbelievable number of murders.” (2.5 million). You also interviewed esteemed Holocaust scholars Christopher Browning and Deborah Lipstadt, whom you incredulously referred to as “counter-revisionists.” You quoted Browning as saying, “Hoss was always a very weak and confused witness.””
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/dance-hitchens-dance_b_1707.html
It’s very clear that Hitchens was attempting to open the story of the Holocaust to review. I mean, that’s all he’s doing. You know, getting both sides to present their best case.
But he gets abuse for even that. He’s not taking sides. He just wants to referee.
He likely thought he was doing some normal historiography. Silly boy.
But anyway, in terms of the discussion here the point is that he did arrive at some conclusions.
Those conclusions are contained in this article:
http://articles.latimes.com/2001/may/20/books/bk-144
Tech points out that he makes many criticisms of revisionists. That’s true. But he also allows some of what they argue, which was the subject of TonyM’s original post.
The point is, let’s take all that he’s saying and not exclude bits because we don’t like them.
And that folks is all that this has been about.
The broader question of course is why this history is shrouded in so much taboo. Not just taboo. In some European countries it’s an offence to question the historical account. Some have even gone to jail.
It’s very curious that doing history can land you in prison. But that’s where we are.
Whatever it is. It certainly isn’t freedom. But those who’ve been paying close attention will know that already.
UK media, sounding out a possible coalition government, of Labour and the Tories, in order to thwart UKIP and the SNP.
Both the Guardian and the Times are pushing this story as viable and preferable.
And since there’s virtually NO difference between the two parties, it may well be an idea that comes to fruition.
It would certainly sound the death knell of Labour, north of the border.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-union-of-the-snakes/
@RoS: I was about to say “that will never happen!” But labour and con are now so in love with our nukes (under US control… on the grounds that there is a Russian threat…) that they would probably do that to stop the SNP closing Faslane. If the people don’t even have a spark of a voice, revolution would certainly be in the air.
MPs, please represent your constituents, and do not be part of such a coalition. Start off by taking Cameron to task over that Palestine vote…
A node – thanks for your contribution. I presume you have not read my replies, in which I patiently and clearly explained that Hitchens was not writing in support of people who believe Hoess’ confession was invalid. Since the reference to Hitchens’ writing was the only proof offered of the assertion that Hoess’ confession was invalid, I asked for other evidence. No other evidence was given. Instead both commentators insist on repeating Hitchens, but not, for example, this part of the same piece: (my caps)
“To manifest the first point, then, LET US SUMMARISE THE BEST CASE THAT THE REVISIONISTS CAN MAKE. Would it surprise you to know that:
1) there were no gas chambers or extermination camps on German soil, in other words, at Belsen or Dachau or Buchenwald;
2) there were no Jews made into soap;
3) the “confession” of Rudolf Hoess, commandant of Auschwitz, was extracted by force and contains his claim to have killed more Jews than was “humanly” possible?
These are, however, the now-undisputed findings of all historians and experts on the subject. And IF THEY ARE SOUND then it means that much “eyewitness” testimony is wrong. It necessarily changes our attitude toward the everyday complicity of average Germans. It also means that much of the evidence presented and accepted at Nuremburg was spurious. Of course, we knew some of this already–the Nazis were charged by Soviet and Allied judges with the massacres at Katyn in Poland, which had obviously been ordered by Stalin and are now admitted to have been. And every now and then, a bogus Holocaust merchant makes an appearance. The most recent was the fantasist “Binjamin Wilkomirski,” whose book, “Fragments,” was a whole-cloth fabrication by someone who had spent the entire war in Switzerland. This did not prevent him from receiving several awards and the warm endorsement of Goldhagen. Earlier, a high Israeli court found the evidence of witnesses useless, ruling that John Demjanjuk had not been at Treblinka in the mythical shape of “Ivan the Terrible.”
The confrontation between Irving and the consensus was therefore long overdue.”
He then proceeds to test Irving’s veracity, and finds him utterly discredited.
“It’s not too much to say that by the end of the trial, the core evidence for the Holocaust had been tested and found to be solid. The matter of Irving’s reputation as scholar and researcher–which was the ostensible subject of the hearing–was so much “collateral damage.”
The Germans did not keep records of the numbers of people murdered in Auschwitz. Estimates of numbers vary between 1.1 million to 2.5 million people murdered there.
The key piece is this:
“These are, however, the now-undisputed findings of all historians and experts on the subject.”
He’s saying there that these are the views of ALL historians and experts on the subject.
He’s not saying that they’re the views only of revisionists.
That’s clear enough.
When he says, “if they are sound”, he’s making a statement about the current view of ALL historians and experts on the subject.
Not just revisionists.
He does this because generally history is a work in progress, well at least most history is a work in progress.
But he’s giving the currently stated view of ALL historians.
When he goes on to demolish Irving and others he’s just demolishing claims beyond that current agreement of ALL historians and experts on the subject.
He isn’t as Tech claims demolishing the current view of ALL historians as stated above.
He’s demolishing revisionist claims beyond that.
That’s clear enough.
Clearly, Hitchens was positing a hypothesis.: the “best case the revisionists can make”. It would be nonsense for him to say, and believe, for example, that all historians and experts agree on undisputed evidence that there were no gas chambers at Dachau. A cursory look at the evidence shows that many historians and experts have documented the existence of a gas chamber at Dachau:
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/camps/dachau/gas-chamber.html
– and are of course attacked for doing so.
technicolour 3 Jan, 2015 – 5:00 pm
A node – thanks for your contribution. I presume you have not read my replies, in which I patiently and clearly explained that Hitchens was not writing in support of people who believe Hoess’ confession was invalid.
I was lurking last night and watched the entire ‘discussion’ develop. I read all your replies. It seemed to me that you didn’t want to concede or even discuss Herbie’s perfectly valid point about the specific Hitchens quote at issue. Instead you repeatedly tried to broaden it into a general argument about Hitchens’ views and called both Herbie and Tony M “conspiracy theorists” and “Holocaust deniers.” Not many on this blog will be fooled by the cheap debating trick of dismissing an argument by calling it a “conspiracy theory.” However the accusation of “holocaust denier” is more serious. It can destroy reputations and careers. To use it fraudulently as you have done is an attempt at vicious bullying.
I repeat, you should be ashamed of yourself, and you should apologise to Herbie, Tony M, and all Jews.
The reason he says, “the best case the revisionists can make”
is precisely because those elements of their argument are
“the now-undisputed findings of all historians and experts on the subject.”
He’s just pointing out there the consensus between revisionist historians and mainstream historians.
That’s straightforward.
He establishes what is agreed, and then takes it from there. The bog standard academic approach, in other words.
You could I suppose argue that he has mischaracterised the consensus. That would be fair enough, but perhaps something you should have done at an earlier stage.
But even had he mischaracterised the consensus it doesn’t change our dispute which is over what the Hitch is himself saying.
That’s as fair as I can be on this.
You can say what you like in the US. There is so much freedom of expression.
http://russia-insider.com/en/2015/12/31/2188?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
“I repeatedly tried to broaden it out into a general argument about Hitchens’ views?”
I repeatedly placed that out of context quote in context.
“not many on this blog will be fooled by the cheap debating trick of dismissing an argument by calling it a ‘conspiracy theory'”
The words ‘conspiracy theorists’ were used by Hitchens to describe revisionists. I quoted them.
To refresh your memory, this was Tony M’s original point:
“I’m sure you’re aware that the ‘admissions’ of Hoess were made under the severest torture by British and Soviet ‘investigators’, he was several times beaten nearly to death and his family (wife and young child) threatened with deportation to Siberia. Most of his testimony, probably all of it, then, and even more so in later years were proved to be preposterous fabrications of his interrogators. His ‘memoirs’ clumsy post-war Soviet fabrications.”
I have found nothing to substantiate this sweeping statement except (unusccessful) attempts to do so in the works of two people Hitchens describes in the piece as ‘extremists’ – Irving and Faurisson. I asked for other evidence. I was given the out-of-context Hitchens quote.
You should be ashamed of yourself for telling me to be ashamed of myself.
Per A.Node I was lurking and reading the thread with interest.
I concur with A.Node’s assessment and suggest Technicolour desist from such venal and baseless accusations.
I was interested in your background/”investment” in the subject and would suggest you do a bit of research of your own, with an open mind and allowing the chips to fall as they will based on the evidence as regards the role of the communist “resistance” (as you put it) in the camps.
I don’t pretend to be an expert but there is some disturbing testimony regarding communist organisers within some of the camps.
I’ve followed the surreal exchanges between Technicolour, Tony M & Herbie, with a mixture of bemusement & despair, as I’ve been down this same road with Technicolour more than once before; disputes & arguments often occur because of misunderstandings, false impressions, and these in turn are often because of a failures of perception by somebody, as two people can read the same thing, yet draw different understandings. Unfortunately Technicolour has a habit of doing this in the worst way possible, in that most people will interpret one way, but Technicolour in another, in her “unique” way.
I once stated “Technicolour means well but is one of those people who always does more harm than good, a danger to herself, & everybody else”, this is just yet another example.
The only relevant part of the quote begins with the number “3” and ends with the “now-undisputed findings of all historians and experts on the subject.” Even this which is less than quoted before is not selective quoting but quoting only that which is relevant.
In citing Hitchens I’m citing his writings, not second-guessing his own unknowable beliefs, nor trying to read his mind as you are. If he says ALL experts and historians of a subject say something specific, that’s good enough for me, he’s reliable on that score as to recording or reporting the word of the experts, the reliable and settled opinion that has formed. You still don’t get that “ALL experts and historians of the subject” does not equal David Irving, how many times must this be pointed out, are you being deliberately obtuse? Hitchens’ own beliefs whatever they may be, are neither here nor there in that context. He was clearly surprised by what he learned, it forced him to rethink a great deal, he thought others would also be likewise surprised.
It obviously does surprise you, Technicolour, to know, so much so that still you don’t accept it, you don’t accept the now-undisputed findings of all historians and experts on the subject; that’s fine, no one is asking anything more from you. Even Hitchens had doubts himself that’ll be why he said “If sound […]” when he switched from recording and reporting expert opinion, to chewing over their facts and the ramifications of them.
I had tried to distance myself from this by looking at it rather askance:
The plot for the benefit of Clark:
As I see it Anon made an absolutely diabolical post, a gigantic cut and paste of falsehoods from somewhere he/she won’t divulge but clearly the work of an absolute fanatic Islamophobe. Julius Streicher would have been proud of such a disciple of his method. Technicolour joined the outraged charge against Anon, but others, including Clark and Macky already had Anon on the run; after an intermission we then had the sad spectacle of Habbaduk flapping on the sidelines in sympathy with the by then sheepish looking Anon, yelling like some lager lout, for Anon to find some backbone.
Technicolour started doing very badly, and got worse after that, seemed to be throwing the match as his/her dissappointingly withering engagement with Anon fizzled out as Anon sensed weakness, not in the case against, but in his new untested opponent, and got down dirty and personal; after another lull, battle resumed with Anon looking smug and Technicolour recklessly deciding to also take on Jemand (of Oz) who was also being very naughty, but this only let Anon off the hook, who slipped away for some back-slapping with Habbaduk and to share one of his cans after such thirsty work and some ticklish and sweaty moments, and still very much in disgrace.
I wasn’t trying to undermine Technicolour but simply hoping they’d see the importance of a little more rigour in their argument would go a long way in making their case, any case, but also to divert a little hoping someone else would take over trouncing Anon where they had left off before, and were winning hands down, as Technicolour was making such a (deliberate?) hash of it.
Should no-one have mentioned that the Hoess material is so widely repudiated?
Of course if people wanted to know what Hitchens view on the number murdered at Auschwitz then they could have searched for the answer. Hitch wrote the following
in a piece entitled “Whose History Is It?” from the December 1993 issue of Vanity Fair:
“And Professor Lipstadt directed me to page 188 of her book, which is quite a page. It says…that while the memorial stone at Auschwitz itself lists the number of victims—Jews and non-Jews—at 4 million, the truer figure is somewhere between 1.5 and 2 million. Since Hoess was the commandant of the place for only part of its existence, this means that—according the counter-revisionists—an important piece of evidence in the Holocaust Memorial is not reliable. A vertiginous sensation if you like.”
So Hitchens view, although he did not accept Hoess’s claim was based on the evidence provided by Deborah Lipstadt – who I don’t think usually falls with the either the holocaust revisionist or denier camps. I look forward to the apologies from Herbie and TonyM for their misrepresentation of Hitch’s views – but I won’t hold my breath.
Technicolour, I found this on the Wikipedia article for Höß:
The source is given as:
Piper, Franciszek & Meyer, Fritjof. “Die Zahl der Opfer von Auschwitz. Neue Erkentnisse durch neue Archivfunde”, Osteuropa, 52, Jg., 5/2002, pp. 631–641, (review article)
http://en.auschwitz.org.pl/m/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=334&Itemid=8
Before the curtain closes, and I appreciate your understanding Peacewisher, I ask travellers here to revisit the link at Mark Golding 3 Jan, 2015 – 12:31 pm and consider all possibilities, perhaps using Occam’s razor, on the all pages using the drop-down links and then cross reference to other available information.
The evidence by empirical and scientific method, has taken 14 years to reach conclusions today and I believe the love, rationality, coherence and awareness of Craig’s team here would provide and prepare our friends across the pond, who blow hot and cold from loyalty, flag waving, fear, indoctrination or unknowing on the circumstances or paradox of the 2001 attacks on American soil, a way to deal with a hard and painful truth and without doubt provide a valuable, important and treasured benefit to future generations of American people. Even a consensus of a dozen peeps here will evoke the power of intention if we truly believe that doing the right thing is paramount.