Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old February 23rd, 2007 #41
Celtic_Patriot
Senior Member
 
Celtic_Patriot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,670
Default





Please cite the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Article 19

ARTICLE 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Quote:

"Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

Footnote [1]
ARTICLE 19

Full Text:

Quote:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(other language versions)
Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948

On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the full text of which appears in the following pages. Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories."

PREAMBLE

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.

(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.


Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
Ingrid Zundel: A Call to Telephone the German Embassy in Washington D.C. USA.

Quote:
*** CALL THE GERMAN EMBASSY! 202-298-4233 ***

To all:

This is really, really important! I just had word that, apparently, people are calling the German Embassy, complaining angrily about what has happened to Ernst! I have been told they are "really shook up!"

Please do me a favor - and CALL! The person to ask for is Mr. Kruger. His direct line is 202-298-4233.

If Mr. Kruger is not available, ask for Jose Schulz. I have been told that Mr. Schulz is quite rude - so don't let yourself be intimidated.

Please be polite and to the point. It does not help to be abusive - we are civilized, classy people.

Footnote [2]
When you call the German Embassy use the higher Moral Ground.

Be Kind, Respectful, and clearly and with compassion in your voice, lodge a formal protest for Germany's legal system being in direct violation of the United Nations.

Repeatedly, kindly, and consistently drive that point home to them.

THE GERMAN EMBASSY.......202-298-4233

_____________________________________

References

[1] UN Article 19, Universal Declaration of Human Rights: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

[2] Zundelsite: http://www.zundelsite.org/english/ne...ter_before.php
 
Old February 24th, 2007 #42
Celtic_Patriot
Senior Member
 
Celtic_Patriot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,670
Default

*** Breaking: Supreme Court of Canada struck down Security Certificate !!! ***

Quote:
To All -

very, very BIG news - and, for us, maybe the beginning of the end of a horrendous nightmare of the Zundel kidnapping and deportation to Canada, where he was held in nightmarish conditions in the Toronto West Detention Center for two years!

His attorney just sent me this:

The Supreme Court of Canada has struck down the Security Certificate law as unconstitutional!

Of course, this occurs conveniently after Ernst Zundel has been deported under this illegal law. He is the only one.


Chi-Kun Shi,
Canadian Attorney for Ernst Zundel
[1]

This looks to be an interesting development.

____________________

References

[1] Zundelsite: http://www.zundelsite.org/english/ne...titutional.php
 
Old February 25th, 2007 #43
Celtic_Patriot
Senior Member
 
Celtic_Patriot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,670
Default

The Jews have to prove the existence of 6,000,000 deaths.
Burden of Proof in capital murder cases lies with the Plaintiff.

Burden of proof in U.S. Federal law is termed...."Offer of Proof", for a case to proceed.

US Code Title 28, - Rules of Evidence.
Article I
Rule 103 (a) (2) "Offer of proof."
http://lii.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht..._sq5notes.html

Federal Rules of Evidence, United States Code.


Quote:
ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS Rule 101. Scope. 102. Purpose and construction. 103. Rulings on evidence. (a) Effect of erroneous ruling. (1) Objection. (2) Offer of proof.


ARTICLE II. JUDICIAL NOTICE 201. Judicial notice of adjudicative facts. (a) Scope of rule. (b) Kinds of facts. (c) When discretionary.

http://lii.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht..._sq5notes.html
Offer of Proof (Article I) supercedes Judicial Notice (Article II) under US Federal Rules of Evidence.

Proof for the crime of the alleged mass homicide of the Holocaust must be offered under Federal Rules of Evidence, Article I, Rule 103 (2).
The "Holocaust" has not been proven to have killed six million persons, by a U.S. Federal Grand Jury.

Teeth, dental records, birth records, all of these will have to be made available to a jury to prove six million Jews ("The Holocaust") actually were murdered.

1. Physical evidence (teeth, bones, hair, DNA)

2. Written evidence (birth records, other records)

Both have to be satisfied before Jury and Judges, by those claiming a murder occured in the alleged case of the "Holocaust".

A Federal Grand Jury can be instructed to disregard any and all prior Judicial Notice.

In criminal cases, such as murder, Judicial Notice is not required to be taken, whatsoever.
 
Old March 1st, 2007 #44
Celtic_Patriot
Senior Member
 
Celtic_Patriot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,670
Default




The Holocaust simply did not exist as the Jews have been trying to make it.
 
Old March 2nd, 2007 #45
Celtic_Patriot
Senior Member
 
Celtic_Patriot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,670
Default

Jew population graphs.


Encyclopedia Britannica population graph.

The Magenta square markers are the Encyclopedia Britannica numbers

Obviously the world population dropped for Jews after WW II because of displacement. There is no reflection of populatiion drop at the 1948 point and not until 1952 actually.

Usually after a war family members get in immediate contact to see if all is well and find out who is missing, within 1-2 years. By 1948, the final numbers should have been in.

Encyclopedia Britannica shows a drop between 1952 and 1954, seven years after the war.

More Jew pop. graphs. School project, can you Kids find the missing 6 million?
 
Old March 3rd, 2007 #46
Celtic_Patriot
Senior Member
 
Celtic_Patriot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,670
Default

Churchill, DeGaulle, Eisenhower never mentioned any holocaust at all.


Quote:
Churchill, De Gaulle and Eisenhower wrote a total of 7,500 pages of the history of WW II and the events, and in 7,500 pages, not one, not a single mention of gas chambers or extermination camps.


Richard Lynn
Professor Emeritus,
University of Ulster

[1]
The Holocaust was a creation, a lie, to pull on the world, including world Jewry, in order to obtain land near the Oil in the middle east. Rothschild took over the Ottoman oil leases of Kirkuk and by 1939 was collecting 25% of the profit of 4 million tons a year shipped through Haifa.

We Whites have the Moral higher ground. It's up to the Jews to learn to give up their Supremacy fantasy.

___________________________________________

[1] Rense: http://rense.com/general69/porof.htm
 
Old March 9th, 2007 #47
Celtic_Patriot
Senior Member
 
Celtic_Patriot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,670
Default

Gassing Experts Refutes Extermination Story

America's leading gas chamber expert, Fred A. Leuchter, carefully examined the supposed "gas chambers" in Poland and concluded that the Auschwitz gassing story is absurd and technically impossible.

Leuchter is the foremost specialist on the design and installation of gas chambers used in the United States to execute convicted criminals. For example, he designed a gas chamber facility for the Missouri state penitentiary.

In February 1988 he carried out a detailed onsite examination of the "gas chambers" at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek in Poland, which are either still standing or only partially in ruins. In sworn testimony to a Toronto court and in a technical report, Leuchter described every aspect of his investigation. He concluded by emphatically declaring that the alleged gassing facilities could not possibly have been used to kill people. Among other things, he pointed out that the so-called "gas chambers" were not properly sealed or vented to kill human beings without also killing German camp personnel. [1]

Dr. William B. Lindsey, a research chemist employed for 33 years by the Dupont Corporation, likewise testified in a 1985 court case that the Auschwitz gassing story is technically impossible. Based on a careful on-site examination of the "gas chambers" at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek, and on his years of experience, he declared: "I have come to the conclusion that no one was willfully or purposefully killed with Zyklon B [hydrocyanic acid gas] in this manner. I consider it absolutely impossible." [2]

_____________________________
References

[1] The Leuchter Report: An Engineering Report on the Alleged Execution Gas Chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek (Toronto: 1988).

[2] The Globe and Mail (Toronto), Feb. 12, 1985, p. M3
 
Old March 11th, 2007 #48
Celtic_Patriot
Senior Member
 
Celtic_Patriot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,670
Default

Jews have obtained control over our societies, and our economy and thus women, by taking the higher moral ground. By playing the innocent victim, of being right.

Most real men are smart enough to fight the corruption to regain their nation, that means fighting the Jew enemy in the same propaganda field.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Sidious View Post
Whereas most REAL men have sex on their mind, the kikes have the holohoax on theirs. That should show you what type of filth we are dealing with.
Jews use the Holohoax to control our media and money so they can spend all their free time going after our blond women at night.


Judicial Notice


We often hear from the Jews about "Judicial Notice", well, it only has to be taken in civil cases and not criminal cases in the U.S..

So if the Jews claim a murder of Jews was committed, then it automatically becomes a criminal case and the Federal Rules of Evidence must be followed.

Advisory Committee Notes to the
Federal Rules of Evidence That
May Require Clarification


Fordham University School of Law


The Most Important Congressional Changes to the Advisory
Committee’s Draft Federal Rules

What follows, by way of introduction, is a short discussion of some of
the major changes that Congress made to the Federal Rules of Evidence
as proposed by the Advisory Committee. These are the rules that pose
the most serious risk of misunderstanding when compared to the original
Advisory Committee Notes.
Quote:
1. Judicial Notice—Rule 201(g)

Federal Rule 201(g) determines the instructions that a court must give
when a fact satisfies the standards for judicial notice proscribed in Rule
201(b). (Rule 201(b) provides that a fact is subject to judicial notice when
it is not subject to reasonable dispute, either because it is generally known
within the jurisdiction or because its accuracy can be readily determined
by reference to unimpeachable sources.) The Advisory Committee Note
to Rule 201(g) states as follows:

Proceeding upon the theory that the right of jury trial does not extend to
matters which are beyond reasonable dispute, the rule does not distinguish
between criminal and civil cases.

In fact, however, the rule does distinguish between civil and criminal cases.
In civil cases, the jury must accept a judicially noticed fact as conclusive;
in criminal cases, the court must instruct the jury “that it may, but is not
required to, accept as conclusive any fact judicially noticed.”
Congress
rejected the Advisory Committee proposal on the ground that a mandatory
instruction was “contrary to the spirit of the Sixth Amendment right
to a jury trial.”
Judicial Notice is not required to be taken in criminal cases.

Please see footnote [1]



201. Rule 201. Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts

Quote:
201(g) Instructing jury.

In a civil action or proceeding, the court shall instruct the jury to accept as conclusive any fact judicially noticed. In a criminal case, the court shall instruct the jury that it may, but is not required to, accept as conclusive any fact judicially noticed
Judicial Notice doesn't have to be taken if it's a criminal case, such as the Holohoax murders.

Please see footnote [2]

_________________________

References

[1] Fordham University School of Law: http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/Capra.pdf/$file/Capra.pdf

[2]Federal Rules of Evidence (Article II): http://expertpages.com/federal/a2.htm
 
Old March 15th, 2007 #49
Celtic_Patriot
Senior Member
 
Celtic_Patriot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,670
Default

VNN now has the leading Holocaust Resource thread on the Web.

It seems the Jews have managed to delete the other Holocaust threads on some of the other WN boards.

Good to see VNN taking the academic lead.

Below is a map of the German work camps during WW II. Notice how they are all grouped around major German industrial factory centers, such as the Ruhr valley. Berlin, Munich, Hamburg, all major cities in fact.

Which is a testament that they were designed as Work Camps.



VNN, the leading archive for Holocaust Theory studies.
 
Old March 15th, 2007 #50
Celtic_Patriot
Senior Member
 
Celtic_Patriot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,670
Default

Witnesses to the Gas Chambers of Auschwitz[*]

Robert Faurisson

http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndwitness.html


1. Summary

Eyewitness testimony must always be verified. There are two essential means of verifying such testimony in criminal cases: confronting the account with the material elements (in particular, with expertise as to the crime weapon), and the detailed cross-examination of the witness on what he/she purports to have seen. Thus, in the proceedings where it had been a question of the homicidal gas chambers of Auschwitz, no judge nor any attorney was able to claim any kind of expertise regarding the weapon of the crime; moreover, no lawyer ever cross-examined the witnesses by asking them to describe with precision even one of these chemical slaughter-houses. That is, up until 1985. When witnesses that year were finally cross-examined on these subjects during the first Zündel trial in Toronto, their rout was total. Because of this resounding set-back and by reason of other calamities previous to or following 1985, the defenders of the thesis of Jewish extermination have begun to abandon a history of Auschwitz primarily founded on testimonies and are obliging themselves, at the present time, to replace it with a scientific basis, or, at least, one which appears scientific, founded on factual research and proofs. The 'testimonial history' of Auschwitz in the manner of Elie Wiesel and Claude Lanzmann is discredited. Its time has passed. It remains for the exterminationists to attempt to work like the Revisionists on the facts and the evidence.

In the present study, 'gas chambers' are intended to mean homicidal gas chambers, or 'Nazi gas chambers.' By 'Auschwitz', it is necessary to understand this as Auschwitz I or Auschwitz Stammlager, as well as Auschwitz II or Birkenau. Finally, by 'gas chamber witnesses', I am indiscriminately designating those who claim to have participated in a homicidal gassing operation at these locations and those who are content to say they either saw or perceived a homicidal gas chamber there. In sum, by 'witnesses', I mean those whom one usually designates as such, whether it is a matter of judicial witnesses or media witnesses; the first have expressed themselves under oath in the docket of a legal proceeding, while the second have given testimony in books, magazine articles, films, on television or the radio. It so happens certain witnesses have alternately been of both the judicial and media types.

This study is devoid of any psychological or sociological consideration for the Auschwitz gas chamber testimonies, as well as any consideration along the lines of what is physical, chemical, topographical, architectural, documentary, and historical by which these testimonies are unacceptable. It aims above all to make evident a point which the Revisionists have so far not mentioned but which is nonetheless of prime importance: up until 1985, no judicial witness of these gas chambers had been cross-examined on the material nature of the facts reported. When, in Toronto, at the first Zündel trial in 1985, I was able to cause such witnesses to be cross-examined, they collapsed; since this date, there are no longer any gas chamber witnesses presented in court except perhaps at the trial of Demjanjuk in Israel where, there again, the witnesses revealed themselves as false.[1]

To begin, I will digress upon the grievous causes by which, since 1983, Simone Veil[2] was led to recognize that there existed no witnesses of the gas chambers.



2. The Thesis of Simone Veil

After the end of the war, the illusion that there were innumerable witnesses to the Auschwitz gas chambers was gradually accepted. By the end of the 1970s, with the arrival of historical revisionism into the media arena, particularly in France, it began to occur to certain individuals that these witnesses were perhaps not as numerous as one had believed. It is thus that, during the preparations for a major trial in which Jewish organizations had intended against me during the early 1980s, their lawyers and in particular, Robert Badinter, the future Minister of Justice, experienced severe difficulties uncovering evidence and witnesses. With staff in hand in the manner of the pilgrim, they were obliged to go to Poland and to Israel so as to bring back, if possible, that which they could not find in France. All for naught!

My first trial took place in 1981, followed by the appeal in 1983. Not one single witness took the risk of appearing in court. On April 26, 1983, the Paris Court of Appeal rendered its verdict. Naturally, I was found guilty, as one might have expected, for "harm to others" which is in fact to say for harm caused to Jews for the exposition of my theses in the mainstream press. Yet the court coupled this verdict with remarks sufficient to cause my adversaries a fair degree of consternation. My work was judged to be serious and yet dangerous. It was dangerous because, in the opinion of the judges, it appeared I allowed other persons the possibility of exploiting my discoveries for reprehensible ends! All the while, this same work was serious in the sense that, in the opinion of the court, one could uncover neither negligence, frivolousness, willful ignorance, nor lies - and this contrary to what had been affirmed by the adversarial party, which had accused me of "causing harm to others by falsification of history." (sic)

On the subject of testimonies, the court went so far as to pronounce:

"The researches of Mr. Faurisson have dealt with the existence of the gas chambers which, to believe multiple testimonies, would have been used during the Second World War to systematically put to death a portion of those persons deported by the German authorities." (my emphasis)

The court perfectly summarized what it called my "logical thread" and my "reasoning" by specifying that, for me,

"[...] the existence of the gas chambers, such as usually described since 1945, conflict with an absolute impossibility, which suffices by itself to invalidate all the existing testimonies or, at the least, to stamp them with suspicion." (my emphasis)
Finally, the court, drawing a practical conclusion from these considerations, decreed the right of every Frenchman not to believe in the evidence and witnesses of the gas chambers. It stated:

"The value of the conclusions defended by Mr. Faurisson [as to the problem of the gas chambers] rests therefore upon the sole appreciation of the experts, the historians and the public."

Two weeks later, Simone Veil publicly reacted to this judicial decision - upsetting for her and her co-religionists - with a declaration of extreme importance. She admitted the absence of proofs, of traces and even witnesses of the gas chambers, but added this absence was easily explained because:

"Everyone knows [she asserts] that the Nazis destroyed these gas chambers and systematically eradicated all the witnesses."
To begin with, "everyone knows" is not an argument worthy of a jurist. Furthermore, Simone Veil, believing perhaps to be getting out from behind the eight-ball, made her case only worse; in effect, in order to uphold what she was claiming, it would have been necessary for her to prove not only that the gas chambers had existed but that the 'Nazis' had destroyed them and that they liquidated all the witnesses: a vast criminal undertaking about which one wonders on what order, when, with whom and by what means the Germans would have carried it out in greatest secrecy.

But what does it matter? We shall take note of this concession by S. Veil: there is neither proof, nor traces, nor witnesses to the gas chambers. It so happens that, in trying to reassure her circle, S. Veil clothed this surprising concession with conventional parlance. Here is, therefore, in her own words, what she confided in an interview-event for France-Soir Magazine (May 7, 1983, p. 47), of which the title was: "Simone Veil's warning in regard to Hitler's diaries: 'We risk banalizing genocide'":

"What strikes me nowadays is the paradox of the situation: someone publishes a diary attributed to Hitler by sheer dint of publicity and a great deal of money without, it seems, taking very great precautions to assure himself of its authenticity, yet, at the same time, in the course of a trial brought against Faurisson for having denied the existence of the gas chambers, those lodging the complaint are obliged to apply a formal proof about the reality of the gas chambers. Yet everyone knows that the Nazis destroyed these gas chambers and systematically eradicated all the witnesses."
A choice so full of consequences as that of S. Veil is not to be explained solely by the disaster of April 26, 1983, but by an entire series of events which, for her, made 1982 a dark year in terms of the history of the gas chambers and the credibility of witnesses. I will recall here but three of these events:

1.

On April 21, 1982, historians, politicians and former deportees founded an association in Paris having as its objective the research of evidence for the existence and operation of the gas chambers (ASSAG: Association pour l'étude des assassinats par gaz sous le régime national-socialist; Association for the study of killings by gas under the national-socialist regime); one year later, this association had still not discovered any proof [this is still the case today, since, envisioned according to its own statutes for a "duration limited to the realization of its objective", this association has not disbanded];

2.

In May, 1982, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs launched a noteworthy "Deportation Exposition, 1933-1945" in Paris; this exposition was supposed to continue by touring throughout France; I immediately sent out a text in which I demonstrated the fallacious character of this exposition: no evidence - except fraudulent evidence - nor any precise testimony for the existence of 'Nazi gas chambers' was able to be shown to visitors; additionally, Ms. Jacobs, the person responsible for this initiative by the Ministry, took it upon herself to immediately cancel this would-be vagabond exposition;

3.

From June 29 to July 2, 1982, an international symposium was held at the Sorbonne on "Nazi Germany and the extermination of the Jews". This colloquium had been announced as a decisive reply to the revisionist offensive in France; while it was supposed to have concluded with a resounding press conference, in reality, it was totally different. The first day of the proceedings, we distributed in the Sorbonne's entrance hall recent copies of my Response to Pierre Vidal-Naquet (not without risk to ourselves).[3] The colloquium was carried out behind closed doors and in a turbulent atmosphere. Finally, during the press conference, the two colloquium organizers, historians François Furet and Raymond Aron, weren't even mentioning the words 'gas chamber(s).'
I often say it's on this date of July 2, 1982, that the myth of the 'Nazi gas chambers' and their associated witnesses died or entered their final death throes, at least on the level of historical research. At the very heart of the Sorbonne, one had thus disconcertingly discovered the absence of any solid proof and any witness worthy of trust. Notwithstanding, one had previously trumpeted that this colloquium would put an end to "the ineptitude of Faurisson" by bringing forth a mass of evidence and testimonies. Such a silence after all that fanfare was truly eloquent.



3. The Written Testimony of Fajnzylberg-Jankowski

I said earlier that at my trial not a single witness took the risk of appearing before the court. At the last minute, my accusers had nonetheless provided the written testimony of a Jew who was living in Paris but whom they intentionally kept from appearing in the dock. This Jew was the famous Alter Szmul Fajnzylberg, born in Stockek, Poland, October 23, 1911. This former Polish waiter, an atheistic Jew and Communist political delegate for the international brigades serving in Spain, had been imprisoned during a period of three years at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

In his brief written testimony, he essentially stated that, working in the Auschwitz crematory (the Altes Krematorium, or Krematorium I), he had spent a good deal of his time locked up with his comrades in the coke-room, for, on each occasion that the SS gassed Jews in the adjoining room, the SS took the precaution of sequestering the Sonderkommando in the coke-room so that no Jew might visibly confirm the gassing operation! Once the gassing operation was completed, the Germans freed the Sonderkommando members and made them collect and incinerate the victims. Thus, the Germans would have concealed the crime and yet revealed its results!

This unseeing witness is equally known by the names Alter Feinsilber, Stanislaw Jankowski or Kaskowiak. One can read his testimony in another form in the Auschwitz Diaries.[4]


http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndwitness.html

http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/found.html

_____________________________


References:

[*] This chapter was translated from the French original by Daniel D. Desjardins.

[1] Cf. E. Loftus, K. Ketcham, Witness for defense, St. Martin's Press, New York 1991, as well as the contribution of A. Neumaier in this volume (editor's note).

[2] S. Veil, maiden name Jacob, former President of the European Parliament, was interned in the concentration camp of Auschwitz in WWII, especially in subcamp Bobzek.

[3] R. Faurisson, Réponse à Pierre Vidal-Naquet, La Vieille Taupe, Paris 1982; Engl.: "Response to a Paper Historian", The Journal of Historical Review, Spring 1986, pp. 21-72.

[4] "Handschriften von Mitgliedern des Sonderkommandos", in Hefte von Auschwitz, Sonderheft (I), Verlag Staatliches Auschwitz-Museum, Auschwitz 1972, pp. 32-71.
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndwitness.html
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/found.html
 
Old March 16th, 2007 #51
Celtic_Patriot
Senior Member
 
Celtic_Patriot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,670
Default

Hey,Don Black, why did you delete that Holocaust thread? Nice Jew work, buddy.
More Holohoax information banned from Jewfront.

The Controversy about the Extermination of the Jews

An Introduction

Germar Rudolf
(currently in prison for Thought Crimes)

"No student, no researcher and no layman should believe any facts to be
'conclusively proven', even if the textbooks present them as such."[1]



http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndintro.html


2. The Central Taboo of Our Time

But does this discussion, conducted in a spirit of partnership, also include the Holocaust? Whatever happened to the Jews in Hitler's sphere of control between 1941 and 1945, was it not bad enough in any case? Does any specific how and how much even matter? And so, isn't any discussion of it superfluous?

Let us assume for a moment that how and how much do not matter; to an extent, this view is certainly morally justified. Why then is there a need today for official insistence, backed up at least in most countries of Europe with threats of criminal prosecution, that things were exactly as we are being told they were, and not a whit different? If the details really do not matter very much at all, then why is there such adamant refusal to discuss them and to consider other opinions? If no one questions the morally reprehensible nature of the persecution of the Jews per se, why should it not be possible to discuss individual aspects of this persecution in a controversial manner? Is it a social taboo that must be respected, as Professor Arnd Simon said?[9] In the mid-1980s, the theories of the German historian Professor Ernst Nolte caused a stir because he not only demanded a scientific comparison between National Socialism and Stalinism,[10] but also introduced arguments regarding the motivation behind the National Socialist persecution of the Jews which had previously been the sole province of right-wingers, and which therefore were frowned upon.[11] That alone sufficed to warrant criticizing Nolte severely for these breaches of taboo. Since historical and political developments as well as recent findings following the opening of the archives of former Eastern Bloc nations confirmed Nolte's position as being self-evident, the hue and cry has now died down.

However, Ernst Nolte was not content with this, and elaborated his point further: in 1993 he published his work Streitpunkte, an overview of the topics which are still in dispute regarding the historiography of the Third Reich.[12] He included not only such points of contention as are accepted by establishment historians, but also focused emphatically on the theories of 'radical revisionism' which dispute, and attempt to refute, any planned genocide of the Jews by the Third Reich, specifically through the use of poison gas in stationary or mobile gas chambers. According to Nolte this thesis "can no longer be dismissed as merely absurd or malicious [...]."[13]After careful examination of the revisionist body of literature, which he outlines in part, along with its theses or claims, he grants that the revisionist school of thought is based on a scientific standard which, as far as a comprehension of source materials is concerned, is at least equal to that of the establishment historians,[14] even though he concludes that he cannot share the opinions of the Revisionists.[15] No doubt the statements he made in his book represent a much greater breach of taboo than did those which led to the 'Historians' Dispute', since after all in this book he rendered the Revisionists and their theories and arguments socially acceptable - something which, according to Nolte, had been carefully avoided previously by means of rejection, slander or simply hushing-up. Nevertheless, his professional colleagues as well as the media kept perfectly quiet after his publication.

Needless to say that the radical leftists did take counter-measures - not in the form of published rebuttals, but in the form of violence. When Nolte was to give a lecture in Berlin in early February 1994, he was attacked and prevented from speaking by some 30 persons; not by anarchists, but by normal 'anti-fascist' intellectuals, who attacked him verbally with cries of "Nazi!", as well as physically with tear gas, blows and kicks. The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung correctly called it "terrorism of conviction" in the Federal capital.[16] I wonder whether Professor Nolte still accuses Robert Faurisson, the French Professor of Text and Document Criticism, the best-known Revisionist world-wide, of being himself partly to blame for the violent assaults against him, since after all he had allegedly phrased some of his theories in a polemic and aggressive manner?[17]



Free Germar Rudolf and all those currently in prison for thought crimes.

Hey, Don Black, why did you delete that Holocaust thread? Nice Jew work, buddy!
More Holohoax information banned from Jewfront.
__________________________________________

References

[1] Academic American Encyclopedia, Grolier Inc., Danburry 1991

[11-17] Dissecting the Holocaust. The Growing Critique of ‘Truth’ and ‘Memory’, Germar Rudolf : http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndintro.html

Translated by Victor Diodon
Chicago (Illinois): Theses & Dissertations Press, August 2003
Second, corrected, paperback edition
ISBN 0-9679856-2-5
ISSN 1529-7748
 
Old March 16th, 2007 #52
1588
Junior Member
 
1588's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: GB
Posts: 47
Default

What a mine of information this thread is.

I was very interested to read about the jew Morgenthau; I've never heard of him before.

A few weeks ago I came across a web site that was saying the Rothschilds planned the "holocaust" as they didn't want all the poor jews of Europe flooding into their planned new state of Israel after the war. Although the Rothschilds have been manipulating European politics for hundreds of years I thought this theory a bit far fetched. Now I'm wondering if Morgenthau was connected with the Rothschilds?

Quote:
MORGENTHAU PLAN: STARVATION LED TO TYPHUS OF JEWS.

The Morgenthau Plan that was okayed in Sept. 1944, made the Allied bombing shift from strategic targets to food, and transportation of food to create the deliberate starvation of occupied German territory, which included the Jewish work camps of Dachau and Auschwitz.
Fascinating stuff.
 
Old March 16th, 2007 #53
1588
Junior Member
 
1588's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: GB
Posts: 47
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Celtic_Patriot View Post
HOLOHOAX: Data on "The Holocaust"

The following is a compilation of Holohoax data.

Red Cross

Red Cross: "46 death books containing 74,000 names from Auschwtiz Microfilm copies released to the International Commitee of the Red Cross (ICRC) by the Soviet Union."

It says 74,000 Jews died at Auschwtiz. Please study footnote [1]

In addition here is the Red Cross Arlosen actual records, note the Red Cross document states 52,389 dead at Auschwitz.



Footnote [2]
_______________________

References

[1] Soviet Union releases Auschwitz archive Death Records: http://www.redcross.org/services/int...ace/facts.html

[2] Red Cross document:http://judicial-inc.biz/pics/paarrge_2.jpg

Yet the Red Cross web site has this on it's FAQ's:

Quote:
Does the Holocaust and War Victims Tracing Center serve only Jews?

A.
No. The Holocaust and War Victims Tracing Center serves anyone who wishes to obtain documentation or learn the fates of loved ones missing since the Holocaust or WWII. The criteria for accepting a case is that the separation occurred in Europe between 1933 and 1957 as a result of Nazi actions.

It is well known that the Nazis and their collaborators imprisoned or killed more than 11 million people including 6 million Jews who were especially targeted for extermination. Polish Catholics, clergy, gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, Ukrainians, Russian soldiers, homosexuals, and the disabled were also targets for forced labor, medical experiments, and murder.
WHY are they persisting with this silly 6 million jews nonsense??
 
Old March 18th, 2007 #54
Celtic_Patriot
Senior Member
 
Celtic_Patriot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,670
Default

VNN continues to lead the way in Academic Holocaust study material as well as stimulating conversaton among WN.

Why did Don Black delete the Holocaust Thread at Stormfront?


4. The Unraveling of the Witnesses at the First Zündel Trial (1985)

http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndwitness.html

The important victory won by revisionism in France on April 26, 1983, would go on to confirm itself in 1985 with the first Zündel trial in Toronto. I would like to dwell a moment on this trial in order to underscore the impact on one's point of view, and especially as far as the testimonies on the Auschwitz gas chambers are concerned: for the first time since the war, Jewish witnesses were subjected to a regular cross-examination. Moreover, without wanting to minimize the importance of the second Zündel trial (that of 1988), I should like it to be understood that the 1985 trial already contained the seeds for all that was attained in the 1988 trial, including the report by Leuchter and all the scientific reports which, in the aftermath, would proliferate in the wake of the Leuchter Report.

In 1985, as also afterwards in 1988, I served as advisor to Ernst Zündel and his lawyer, Douglas Christie. I accepted this heavy responsibility only under condition that all the Jewish witnesses would, for the first time, be cross-examined on the material nature of the reported facts, bluntly and without discretion. I had noted, in effect, that from 1945 to 1985, Jewish witnesses had been granted virtual immunity. Never had any defense lawyer thought or dared to ask them for material explanations about the gas chambers (exact location, physical appearance, dimensions, internal and external structure), or about the homicidal gassing (the operational procedure from beginning to end, the tools employed, the precautions taken by the executioners before, during and after execution).

On rare occasions, as at the trial of Tesch, Drosihn and Weinbacher,[5] lawyers formulated some unusual questions of a material nature, hardly troublesome for the witness, but these always found themselves on the fringes of the more fundamental questions which should have been asked. No lawyer ever demanded clarifications on a weapon which, indeed, he had never seen and that no one had ever shown him. At the major Nuremberg Trial of 1945-46, the German lawyers had manifested total discretion on this point. At the proceedings against Eichmann in Jerusalem in 1961, the lawyer Dr. Robert Servatius had not wanted to raise the question; in a letter on this subject dated June 21, 1974, he wrote me: "Eichmann hat selbst keine Gaskammer gesehen; die Frage wurde nicht diskutiert; er hat sich aber auch nicht gegen deren Existenz gewandt" [Eichmann himself had not seen any gas chamber; the question was not discussed; but neither did he raise the issue of their existence].[6]

At the Frankfurt Trial of 1963-65, the lawyers showed themselves to be particularly timid. I should mention that the atmosphere was rather inhospitable for the defense and the accused. This show trial will remain as a blot on the honor of German justice as on the person of Hans Hofmeyer, initially Landgerichtsdirektor, then Senatspräsident. During more than 180 sessions, the judges and juries, the public prosecutors and the private parties, the accused and their attorneys, as well as the journalists who had come from around the world, accepted as a complete physical representation of the 'crime weapon' a mere map of the camp of Auschwitz and a map of the camp of Birkenau, whereupon five minuscule geometric figures were inscribed for the location of each of the alleged homicidal gas chambers, with the words, for Auschwitz: "Altes Krematorium", and for Birkenau: "Krematorium II", "Krematorium III", "Krematorium IV", and "Krematorium V"! These maps[7] were displayed in the courtroom.

The Revisionists have often compared the Frankfurt trial with the 1450-1650 trials against witchcraft. Nevertheless, at least during those trials, someone sometimes bothered to describe or depict the witches' sabbath. At the Frankfurt trial, even among the lawyers who made difficulties for a witness like Filip Müller, not one asked of a Jewish witness or a repentant German defendant to describe for him in greater detail what he was purported to have seen. Despite two judicial visits to the scene of the crime at Auschwitz, accompanied by some German lawyers, it seems not one of the latter insisted on any technical explanations or criminological expertise regarding the murder weapon. To the contrary, one of them, Anton Reiners, a Frankfurt lawyer, pushed complacency to the point of having himself photographed by the press while raising the chute cover by which the SS supposedly sprinkled Zyklon B granules into the alleged Auschwitz gas chamber.

And so at Toronto in 1985, I had fully decided to do away with these anomalies, to break the taboo and, for starters, pose, or rather have Douglas Christie pose, questions to the experts and Jewish witnesses as one normally poses in every trial where one is supposed to establish whether a crime has been committed and, if so, by whom, how and when.

Fortunately for me, Ernst Zündel accepted my conditions and Douglas Christie consented to adopt this course of action and to pose to the experts and witnesses the questions that I would prepare for him. I was convinced that, in this manner, all might change, and the veil woven by so many false testimonies could be torn away. While I was not counting on Ernst Zündel's acquittal and we were all resigned to paying the price for our audacity, I nevertheless had hope that with the aid of this far-sighted man of character, and thanks to his intrepid lawyer, history, if not justice, would at last carry him into historical prominence.

From the moment of the first cross-examination, a tremor of panic began to creep its way amid the ranks of the prosecution. Every evening and throughout most of the night, I would prepare the questions to ask. In the morning, I would turn over these questions, accompanied by the necessary documents, to lawyer Doug Christie who, for his part and with the aid of his female collaborator, conducted the essentially legal aspects of the effort. During the cross-examinations, I maintained a position close to the lawyer's podium and unremittingly furnished, on yellow notepads, supplementary and improvisational questions according to the experts' and witnesses' responses.

The expert cited by the prosecution was Dr. Raul Hilberg, author of The Destruction of European Jews. Day after day, he was subjected to such humiliation that, when solicited in 1988 by a new prosecutor for a new trial against Ernst Zündel, Prof. Hilberg refused to return to give witness; he explained the motive for his refusal in a confidential letter wherein he acknowledged his fear of having to once again confront the questions of Douglas Christie. From the cross-examination of Dr. Raul Hilberg, it was definitively brought out that no one possessed any proof for the existence either of an order, a plan, an instruction, or a budget for the presumed physical extermination of the Jews. Furthermore, no one possessed either an expertise of the murder weapon (whether gas chamber or gas van), or an autopsy report establishing the murder of a detainee by poison gas. However, in the absence of evidence regarding the weapon and victim, did there exist witnesses of the crime?

A testimony must always be verified. The usual first means of proceeding to this verification is to confront the assertions of the witness with the results of investigations or expert opinion regarding the material nature of the crime. In the case at hand, there were neither investigations, nor expertise relative to the alleged Auschwitz gas chambers. Here is what made any cross-examination difficult. Yet, this difficulty should not serve as an excuse, and one might even say that a cross-examination becomes ever more indispensable because, without it, there no longer remains any way of knowing whether the witness is telling the truth or not.


Which asks the questions: Why did Don Black delete the Holocaust Thread at Stormfront?

_____________________

References

[1] http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndwitness.html

[5] On the cross-examination of the witness Dr. Charles Sigismund Bendel by attorney Dr. Zippel, see "Excerpt from transcript of proceedings of a Military Court for the Trial of War Criminals held at the War Crimes Court, Curiohaus, Hamburg, on Saturday 2nd March, 1946, upon the trial of Bruno Tesch, Joachim Drosihn and Karl Weinbacher", transcript, pp. 30-31 (doc. NI-11953). Regarding this abominable trial, it is indispensable to read: Dr. William Lindsey, "Zyklon B, Auschwitz, and the Trial of Bruno Tesch", The Journal of Historical Review, 4(3) (1983), pp. 261-303 (online: vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/4/3/Lindsey261-303.html). This study has been reproduced in part by Udo Walendy in Historische Tatsachen, Nr. 25 (1985), pp. 10-23.

[6] While waiting for his trial in Jerusalem, Eichmann, in his cell, was fed like a Christmas goose. He ended up no longer knowing what he had heard, what he had seen, what he had read. Here, for example, is a very important passage from his interrogation by the Israeli government commissioner regarding the 'gas chambers' directly from Transcripts, J1-MJ at 02-RM:
"The Commissioner: Did you talk with Höß about the number of Jews who were exterminated at Auschwitz?
Eichmann: No, never. He told me that he had built new buildings and that he could put to death ten thousand Jews each day. I do remember something like that. I do not know whether I am only imaging that today, but I do not believe I am imaging it. I cannot recall exactly when and how he told me that and the location where he told me. Perhaps I read it and perhaps I am now imaging what I had read I heard from him. That is also possible."

[7] For a representation of these two maps, see Hermann Langbein, Der Auschwitz-Prozess, Eine Dokumentation, 2 vol., Europäische Verlagsanstalt, Frankfurt 1965, 1027 p., pp. 930-933. For an authoritative study of the trial, see Dr. Wilhelm Stäglich, Der Auschwitz Mythos, Legende oder Wirklichkeit? Eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme, Grabert Verlag, Tübingen 1979, XII-492 pp. (online: vho.org/D/dam).
 
Old March 19th, 2007 #55
Celtic_Patriot
Senior Member
 
Celtic_Patriot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,670
Default

5. Jewish Witnesses Finally Cross-Examined:
Arnold Friedman and Dr. Rudolf Vrba


http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndwitness.html

For those persons interested in the technical and documentary means by which we were nevertheless in a position to severely cross-examine the two principal Jewish witnesses, Arnold Friedman and Dr. Rudolf Vrba, I can do no better than to recommend a reading of the trial transcript.[8] Pages 304-371 cover the questioning and cross-examination of Arnold Friedman; the latter breaks down on pages 445-446 when he ends by acknowledging that he in fact saw nothing, that he had spoken from hearsay because, according to him, he had met persons who were convincing; perhaps, he added, he would have adopted the position of Mr. Christie rather than that of these other persons if only Mr. Christie had been able to tell him back then what he was telling him now!

Dr. Vrba was a witness of exceptional importance. One might even say about this trial in Toronto that the prosecution had found the means of recruiting 'Holocaust' expert number one in the person of Dr. Raul Hilberg, and witness number one in the person of Dr. Rudolf Vrba. The testimony of this latter gentleman had been one of the principal sources of the famous War Refugee Board Report on the German Extermination Camps - Auschwitz and Birkenau, published in November 1944 by the Executive Office of President Roosevelt. Dr. R. Vrba was also the author of I Cannot Forgive,[9] written in collaboration with Alan Bestic who, in his preface, declares with regard to him:
"Indeed I would like to pay tribute to him for the immense trouble he took over every detail; for the meticulous, almost fanatical respect he revealed for accuracy." (p.2).
,Never perhaps, had a court of justice seen a witness express himself with more assurance on the Auschwitz gas chambers. Yet, by the end of the cross-examination, the situation had reversed itself to the point where Dr. R. Vrba was left with only one explanation for his errors and his lies: in his book he had, he confessed, resorted to "poetic license" or, as he was wont to say in Latin, to "licentia poetarum"!

In the end, a bit of drama unfolded: Mr. Griffiths, the prosecutor who had himself solicited the presence of this witness numero uno and yet now apparently exasperated by Dr. Vrba's lies, fired off the following question:
"You told Mr. Christie several times in discussing your book I Cannot Forgive that you used poetic license in writing that book. Have you used poetic license in your testimony?" (p. 1636).
The false witness tried to parry the blow but prosecutor Griffiths hit him with a second question equally treacherous, this time concerning the number of gassing victims which Vrba had given; the witness responded with garrulous nonsense; Griffiths was getting ready to ask him a third and final question when suddenly, the matter was cut short and one heard the prosecutor say to the judge:
"I have no further questions for Dr. Vrba" (p. 1643).
Crestfallen, the witness left the dock. Dr. Vrba's initial questioning, cross-examination and final questioning filled 400 pages of transcripts (pp. 1244-1643). These pages could readily be used in an encyclopedia of law under a chapter on the detection of false witnesses.

_____________________

References

[1] http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndwitness.html

[8-9] Queen versus Zündel, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, beginning January 7, 1985.
Bantam Books, New York 1964.
 
Old March 20th, 2007 #56
Celtic_Patriot
Senior Member
 
Celtic_Patriot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,670
Default

VNN continues to be the leading academic source on Holocaust Studies.


6. The Prosecution Gives up on Calling Witnesses

http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndwitness.html


Three years later, in 1988, during the second trial against Ernst Zündel, the public prosecutor deemed it prudent to abandon any recourse to witnesses. Canadian justice had apparently understood the lesson of the first trial: there were no credible witnesses to the existence and operation of the 'Nazi gas chambers'.

Little by little, every other country in the world has learned this same lesson. At the trial of Klaus Barbie in France, in 1987, there was talk about the gas chambers of Auschwitz but no one produced any witnesses who could properly speak about them.[10] The attorney Jacques Vergès, courageous yet not foolhardy, preferred to avoid the subject. This was a stroke of luck for the Jewish lawyers who feared nothing so much as to see me appearing at the side of Mr. Vergès. If this gentleman had accepted my offer to counsel him, we in France might have been able to strike a tremendous blow against the myth of the gas chambers.

All the while in France, during several revisionist trials, Jewish witnesses sometimes came to evoke the gas chambers but none of them testified before the court as to having seen one or having participated in a homicidal gassing by hauling bodies out of the 'gas chambers'.

Today, gas chamber witnesses are making themselves extremely scarce and the Demjanjuk trial in Israel, which once again has revealed how much false testimony is involved in the matter, has contributed to the suppression. Several years ago, it happened that I was aggressively questioned at the rear of a law court by elderly Jews who presented themselves as "living witnesses to the gas chambers of Auschwitz", showing me their tattoos. It was necessary for me only to ask them to look me in the eyes and to describe for me a gas chamber that inevitably they retorted:

"How could I do this? If I had seen a gas chamber with my own eyes I would not be here today to speak with you; I myself would have been gassed also."

This brings us back, as one can see, to Simone Veil and her declaration of May 7, 1983, about which we already know what we should think.


___________________________

References

[1] Germar Rudolf: http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndwitness.html

[10] http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndwitness.html
 
Old March 21st, 2007 #57
Celtic_Patriot
Senior Member
 
Celtic_Patriot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,670
Default

VNN continues to be the leading academic source on Holocaust Studies.




Aside from the judicial witnesses, there are media witnesses to the gas chambers, or homicidal gassing, at Auschwitz or Birkenau. Here one thinks of the names of Olga Lengyel, Gisela Perl, Fania Fénelon, Ota Kraus, Erich Kulka, Hermann Langbein, André Lettich, Samuel Pisar, Maurice Benroubi, André Rogerie, Robert Clary,... My library is full of these accounts which duplicate themselves over and over. Paul Rassinier was the first to show us in what manner the falsehood of these testimonies might be demonstrated; he did this notably for Auschwitz in Le Véritable Procès Eichmann ou les Vainqueurs incorrigibles (The True Eichmann Trial or, the Incorrigible Victors), where Appendix V is devoted to Médecin à Auschwitz (Doctor at Auschwitz) regarding Miklos Nyiszli.[11]

From the 1950s to the 1980s, the Revisionists found merit in undertaking studies critical of testimonies. Nowadays, it seems to me this exercise has become superfluous. Let us abstain from chasing after ambulances and instead leave the care of criticizing this sub-literature to the Exterminationists themselves, and in particular Jean-Claude Pressac, because - so far as one can determine at present - the most virulent anti-Revisionists end by putting themselves into the school of the Revisionists. The result is sometimes rife with pungency. In October 1991, the periodical Le Déporté pour la liberté (Deportee for Liberty), an organ of l'Union nationale des associations de déportés, internés et familles de disparus (UNADIF; National Union of Associations of Deportees, Prisoners and Families of the Missing), announced on its cover-page:

"In the inner pages of this issue, part one of the testimony of Henry Bily, one of the rare escapees from a Sonderkommando."
In his follow-up of November 1991, Mr. Bily continued the account of his Auschwitz experience under the title of "Mon histoire extraordinaire" (My Amazing Story).

However, in the following installment of Déporté pour la liberté, that of December 1991-January 1992, there appeared a "Clarification regarding insertion of the text of Henry Bily in our columns." The review's director and editor uncovered the falsehood: in the major portion of his testimony, Mr. Bily had proceeded to:
"copy word for word without any citation of references, from passages (notably chapters 7 and 28) of the book by Dr. Myklos Nyiszli: Médecin à Auschwitz, written in 1946 and translated and published in 1961 by René Julliard publishing house. Unfortunately, the original errors committed by Dr. Nyiszli have also been repeated; finally, the most extensive borrowing has to do with the description of the Sonderkommando functions at Auschwitz-Birkenau, in which Henry Bily declares [deceivingly] to have worked... The result of this analysis is that it is in no way possible to consider Henry Bily's text as an original and personal testimony."
To an attentive reader of this declaration, the sentence "Unfortunately, the original errors committed by Dr. Nyiszli have also been repeated" might allow one to perceive that, worst of all, Mr. Bily, a petty Jewish tradesman, had recopied a testimony which itself had already been false. As I have recently mentioned, Paul Rassinier had long ago proved that Médecin à Auschwitz, a work dear to Jean-Paul Sartre who in 1951 published parts of it in les Temps modernes, could only be one of the greatest impostures. Many Revisionists, and in particular Carlo Mattogno,[12] have since confirmed this assessment. As for me, in my report regarding Jean-Claude Pressac's book Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers,[13] I have inserted a section entitled: "Pressac's Involuntary Comedy Apropos M. Nyiszli." I recommend the reading of this section to people interested in false testimonies on Auschwitz, false testimonies which pharmacist J.-C. Pressac tries to defend at any price by way of convolutions, laborious inventions and flighty speculations, thus unintentionally discrediting them once and for all.[14]


Vhat? You don't believe the Holohoax Religion?

___________________________

References

[1] Germar Rudolf: http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndwitness.html

[11 - 14] http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndwitness.html
 
Old March 25th, 2007 #58
Celtic_Patriot
Senior Member
 
Celtic_Patriot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,670
Default

VNN continues to be the leading academic source on Holocaust Studies.
Don Black deleted the large Holocaust thread on Jewfront.


8. False Witnesses Elie Wiesel and Primo Levi

http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndwitness.html


A few words force themselves to our attention in regard to Elie Wiesel and Primo Levi.

Regarding the former, I come back to my article "Un grand faux témoin: Elie Wiesel".[15] In Night,[16] a biographical account particularly regarding his internment at Auschwitz and Buchenwald, Mr. Wiesel does not even mention the gas chambers but it appears, by way of a sort of universal media convention, that he is considered as a witness par excellence on the 'Holocaust' and the gas chambers. According to him, if the Germans exterminated large numbers of Jews, it was by forcing them either into raging fires or ovens! The conclusion of his testimony includes an extremely curious episode (pp. 129-133) over which I have been waiting years for Elie Wiesel to furnish us an explanation: in January 1945 he tells us, the Germans gave him and his father the choice between staying behind in the camp to await the arrival of the Soviets, or leaving with the Germans; after agreeing between them, the father and son decided to depart for Germany with their executioners instead of staying in place to await their Soviet liberators...[17]

Curiously, for several years now, Primo Levi has been posthumously elevated by the media to the rank of first importance among witnesses of the Auschwitz gas chambers. He is the author of Se questo è un uomo.[18] The first part of the book is the longest and the most important; it comprises 180 pages (pp. 7-186) and was edited in 1947; the author says, starting on page 19, that it was after the war he learned about the gassing of the Jews at Birkenau; he himself was working at Buna-Monowitz and had never set foot in Birkenau; also, he only spoke in extremely vague terms and but six times about "the" gas chamber (pp. 19, 48, 51, 96, 135 and 138) and on one occasion about the gas chambers (page 159); he is satisfied to nearly always mention it in the singular and as a rumor about which "everyone is talking" (page 51). Suddenly, in his "Appendix" written in 1976, being some 30 years later, the gas chambers make a forceful entry: in the space of 26 pages (pp. 189-214), which, in view of their more compact typography, can be considered as 30 pages, the author mentions on 11 occasions (page 193, two times; page 198, three times; page 199, once; page 201, two times; pages 202, 209 and 210, once each); on two occasions, he speaks of "gas" and on nine occasions of "gas chambers" (always in the plural); he writes as if he had seen them:

"The gas chambers were in effect camouflaged as shower rooms with plumbing, faucets, dressing rooms, clothes hooks, benches, etc." (page 198)

He does not even fear to write additionally:

"The gas chambers and the crematory ovens had been deliberately conceived to destroy lives and human bodies by the millions; the horrible record for this is credited to Auschwitz, with 24,000 deaths in a single day during the month of August 1944." (pp. 201-202)

Elie Wiesel and Primo Levi are not the only ones to have thus 'enriched' their recollections.

Primo Levi was a chemical engineer. Regarding his crack-up or delirium from a scientific point of view in If This Be A Man, one should consult Pierre Marais' En lisant de près les écrivains chantres de la Shoah - Primo Levi, Georges Wellers, Jean-Claude Pressac [A Close Reading of the Siren Writers of the Shoah - Primo Levi, Georges Wellers, Jean-Claude Pressac];[19] see in particular "Le chimiste, la batterie de camion et... les chambres à gaz" [The Chemist, the Truck Battery and... the Gas Chambers], the chapter which involves Primo Levi (pp. 7-21). The latter died on April 11, 1987, (a probable suicide, we are told). It was to his very nature of being a Jew that he owes not having been shot by the Fascist militia on December 13, 1943, at the age of 24:

"The Fascists had captured him in the role of a partisan (he was still carrying a pistol), and he declared himself a Jew in order not to be immediately shot. And it is in the role of a Jew that he was delivered over to the Germans. The Germans sent him to Auschwitz [...]"[20]


VNN moves further into the lead of a WN resource and meeting place where some of the best data and most earnest discussion about WN is published.

VNN contintues to move ahead as the leading resource for Whites and rises above the petty egotism of the little name monikers outcast from Jewfront, still smarting from the affront to their vanity and "screennames".

_____________________

References

[1] http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndwitness.html

[15-20] [15] (A Prominent False Witness: Elie Wiesel) Annales d'histoire révisionniste, Spring 1988, pp. 163-168; see also "Un grand faux témoin: Elie Wiesel (suite)" (A Prominent False Witness: Elie Wiesel (Continued)), Nouvelle Vision, September 1993, pp. 19-24).

[16] La Nuit, Preface by François Mauriac, Les Editions de Minuit, Paris 1958.

[17] One point which cannot fail to be interesting is that in the German translation of this book (Die Nacht zu begraben, Elisha, with German translation by Kurt Meyer-Clason, Ullstein, Munich 1962, pp. 17-153), the crematory ovens of the original French version are done away with to be replaced by gas chambers (which also applies to Buchenwald). I owe this discovery to the Swiss Revisionist Jürgen Graf and I am indebted to A.W., a German Revisionist living in France, for a list of 15 instances where the German translator thought it good to use the word 'gas' where it was not used in the original text (see Annex). In December 1986, I made my way to Oslo to attend the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Elie Wiesel. Assisted by friends, I distributed a tract previously titled "Elie Wiesel, A Prominent False Witness." Some months later, Pierre Vidal-Naquet, one of my most implacable adversaries, denounced Mr. Wiesel as a man "who talks any rubbish that comes into his head [...] It suffices to read certain of his descriptions in Night to know that certain of his accounts are not exact and that he ends by transforming himself into a Shoah peddler. He commits an injustice, an immense injustice to historical truth." (Interview by Michel Folco, Zéro, April 1987, page 57).

[18] French: Si c'est un homme (If This Be A Man), Julliard Press, pocket edition, Paris 1993.

[19] La Vieille Taupe, Paris 1991, 127 pages.

[20] Ferdinando Camon, "Chimie/Levi, la mort" (Chemistry/Levi, death), Libération, April 13, 1987, page 29)
 
Old March 26th, 2007 #59
Celtic_Patriot
Senior Member
 
Celtic_Patriot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,670
Default

VNN continues to become the leader in WN Holocaust studies.


Jews Admit being killed, in POLAND, by Allied (Morgenthau) Bombs
Polish factories full of Jews were indeed bombed by the Allies.

Young men in their twenties were automatically selected for work.
The Nazis began to mobilize Jewish labor in Berlin in May of 1940 (174).
Quote:
Marion Kaplan writes, "All Jewish men between 18 and 55 and Jewish women between 18 and 50 had to register with the division in charge of forced labor in their communities"

(174).

"Many Jewish women were forced to work in various factories in Europe.

Ferderber-Salz worked in a clothing factory during her time in Bergen-Belsen. One of her main tasks in the factory was to sew the clothing Nazi officers would wear." Quote from footnote [1]

A camp at Plazów, Poland deliberately damaged anti-aircraft shells they were working on (Karay 293).
Quote:
Another example of resistance was by one woman who refused to go to the bomb shelter when her camp came under attack, preferring to have the bombs kill her instead of the Nazis (Kaplan 180).

"While suicide is not normally seen as a form of resistance, many felt that if they were going to die, they were not going to die at the hands of the Nazis. Their last act of defiance was to die on their own terms." Quote from footnote [1]

So there goes that whole myth that the Jews were stuffed into Poland and the Allies didn't bomb Polish Factories.


Poland was bombed. Jews were in the factories that the Allies bombed in Poland.


VNN is now the leading Holohoax research center on the web. Featuring cutting edge research over the events of WW II.
______________________

References

[1] http://www.iusb.edu/~journal/2001/piasecki.html
 
Old March 31st, 2007 #60
Burrhus
From the next paradigm
 
Burrhus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 638
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Celtic_Patriot View Post
HOLOCAUST victims died in Allied Bombings

Estimated 850,000 Jews died in the factories from Allied bombings.
Estimated 150,000 Jews died in the camps from Typhus, food shortages.

Here is a documentation of Jews in factories.

The SS offered Jewish slaves for hire to large German factories and industries such as, glass works, textile factories, and iron works. [1]

Marion Kaplan writes, "All Jewish men between 18 and 55 and Jewish women between 18 and 50 had to register with the division in charge of forced labor in their communities" Many Jewish women were forced to work in various factories in Europe. [2]

"The SS offered Jewish slaves for hire to large German factories and industries such as stone quarries, coalmines, glass works, textile factories, brickyards, and iron works. Holocaust survivors claimed they had to work under Allied bombing raids. [3]

485 RAF Lancasters bombed the Simens AG factories in Berlin.


Case Study of Siemens AG

This gives us a base sample for percentages of Jews who died in the German factories from Allied bombing.

With Siemen's there were 2,200 Jew survivor claimants out of a total of 50,000 Jews of a Siemens AG workforce of 250,000. Just the Jews is 2,200 out of 50,000 which means 98% of all Jews in the Siemens AG factories died. 2% of all Jews in the Siemens AG factories survived the Allied bombings. Based on Siemens figures and Jewish claims.

GERMAN FACTORIES - JEWISH LABOR CLAIMS

List of German Industrial Companies Holding Millions of Jews as Slave Labor under the Allied Bombing.

1. Allianz
2. BASF
3. Braunkohle-Benzin A.G.
4. Daimler Chrysler
5. Hoechst
6. Austrian construction firms of H. Rella and A. Porr.
7. Büssing had employed concentration camp labor at its Braunschweig (Brunswick) plant to manufacture trucks for the Germany army.
8. BMW
9. Ernst Heinkel A.G.- Oranienburg factory for 24 months while a prisoner at the Sachsenhausen concentration camp.
10. Bayer
11. Rheinmetall-Borsig AG - was the second largest armaments producer for the Third Reich and had employed forced laborers in its munitions plants, paid a total of 1,507 claimants. (which correlated with the Siemens case, comes out to 42,000 Jew deaths in the factory bombings)
12. Volkswagen
13. Leonhard Moll AG. (Munich), Philipp Holzman AG. (Frankfurt), Industrial construction of factories.
14. Dresdner Bank
15. Daimler-Benz automobile company - 300-plus company conglomerate.
16. Telefunken AG -The amount was split between 2,223 survivors. (55,575 Jewish deaths in Allied bombings) estimates based on the Siemens AG study.
17. Degussa-Huels
18. The Krupp Concern - Records show that 3,090 survivors (77,250 Jewish deaths in Allied bombing raids)
19. Deutsche Industrie-Werke GmbH - 3,600 survivors (90,000 Jewish deaths in Allied bombing raids)
20. AEG Kabelwerk Oberspree - 1,237 survivors (30,925 Jewish deaths in Allied bombings)
21. Hammerwerke, Haspe Gebr. Kettler GmbH & Co. KG (Unknown number of 17- 18,000 total)
22. Eisen- und Tempergiesserei Fried. Eduard Gerhards GmbH & Co. (Unknown number of 17000-18000 total)
23. Hagener Feinstahl GmbH (Unknown number of 17- 18,000 total)

More than 6,000 German companies have contributed to the Foundation, including Deutsche Bank, Volkswagen, Daimler-Benz, Bayer, Siemens, and Krupp. . 40% of slave labor was Jewish [8]



SURVIVORS/KILLED 1/22, or 2% survial to 98% death. We can extrapolate the amount killed by the survivor numbers.

Working from offical Jewish records of survivor labor claims from this source [4][5][6], which is from the 1949 ITS Arolsen records. [7].
We take the labor claims survivor of Jews, multiply the survivor number by x 1.22.
  • Deutsche Industrie-Werke GmbH - 90,000 Jews holocausted, 3,600 survivor Jew claims.
  • Krupp factories - 77,250 Jews holocausted
  • Telfunken AG - 55,575 Jews holocausted
  • Siemens AG - 48,007 Jews holocausted, 2,200 survivor Jew claims.
  • AEG Kabelwerk Oberspree - 30,925 Jews holocausted
_______________________________
Total for 5 companies = 301,107 Jews holocausted (incinterated in Allied bombing).


13.5 million forced laborers, 11 million survived the war.[7]

2.5 million forced laborers died in the war.

40% of them were Jewish. [8]
So the total Jews was likely 1 million who died. 850,000 in factories (Allied bombing) and 150,000 in camps (Typhus, starvation).

Program for Former Slave and Forced Laborers. In August 2004, the Claims Conference distributed a second payment to all eligible living Holocaust survivors who had applied, effectively concluding the program's payments to survivors. In one day, approximately $401 million was sent to 130,681 survivors in 62 countries.[9]

With 130,000 slave labor survivor claims, at the 1/22 ratio is 2,860,000 deaths. With 40% Jewish is close to 1 million Jewish deaths.

The March 4, 1939 Decree Regarding Employment of Jews led to the forced labor of Jews in Germany. The plan was implemented in coordination with German businesses that would then integrate camp labor into their industries. Dachau, for instance, established over 30 satellites near armaments factories in southern Germany, employing 30,000 prisoners in the production of armaments.[10]

In conclusion, the total Jewish deaths was about 1 million with 850,000 occuring in the factories under the Allied bombing.

In the Holocaust, 850,000 Jews were killed in factories by Allied bombing, incinerated. 150,000 more died in the camps. Who was responsible for the Allied bombing? The Jew Morgenthau.

Morgenthau pushed for bombing of factories and then later cities, railroads, canals, anything that could carry food. A Jew, Morgenthau, was responsible for the "Holocaust".

Jew Morgenthau - Killer of Jews, holocauster of Jews.


Morgenthau circumventing US Army to bomb German civilians/jews in factories: [11]

It was Morgenthau's Sacrifice, like Abraham's Sacrifice. Jews had to be killed so the oil state of Israel could be created. Morgenthau knew he was killing Jews.



Morgenthau is on memo records as going over the heads of the US Military so as to bomb the factories, which everybody knew were full of Jews under the 1938 German laws.

The Holocaust was Jews (Morgenthau) killing Jews, to create "The Holocuast" and thus the sacrifice needed for the Oil State of Israel. It's classic Abrahamic Hebrew sacrifice for the tribe.

Morgenthau knew that Jews had been forced to work in those German factories, everybody in the FDR administration new the Germans had legally passed laws to force the Jews into those factories. Morgenthau then went against the US Army Chief of Staff and pushed to bomb those very factories. All the evidence is on the record.
____________________

Rreferences

[1] Jews in Factories: http://www.rossel.net/Holocaust09.htm

[2] Jews in Factories: http://www.iusb.edu/~journal/2001/piasecki.html

[3] US Holohoax Memorial Museum: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php...uleId=10005180

[4] German Firms That Used Slave Or Forced Labor During the Nazi Era (January 27, 2000): http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...germancos.html

[5] List of Companies: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...germanco1.html

[6] German Companies and Jewish Labor statistics: Catalogue of Camps and Prisons in Germany and the German-Occupied Territories, published in July 1949 by the International Tracing Service (ITS) in Arolsen, Germany. The book was reissued in 1990 by Martin Weinmann under the title Das nationalsozialistische Lagersystem, Verlag Zweitausendeins: Frankfurt, 3 Ed., 1999. The sources for companies currently in operation are two major registers of German companies, Mittestaendische Unternehmen 1999, Vol. 1 - 3, Darmstadt, Hoppenstedt: 1999 and Handbuch der Grossunternehmen 1999, Vol. 1-2, Darmstadt, Hoppenstedt: 1999.

[7] Total slave labor numbers: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/...21950260208661

[8] 40% of slave labor Jewish. Jewish Political Studies Review 17:3-4 (Fall 2005): http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-urban-f05.htm

[9] Claims slave labor statistics: http://www.claimscon.org/

[10] Laws forcing Jews into factories: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/berga/beyond/labor.html

[11] Morgenthau push to bomb factories: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/...-Plans-10.html
Excellent post. Thank you. A fresh perspective on the numbers game.

Incidentally, a philo-semitic race-traitor on the Phora has challenged you to come there and debate him, if you're interested.

Quote:
Trojan (on the Phora): Celtic Patriot on VNN

Our favorite Nuzi has found a new home. After being booted by Stormfront as nutty (wow - what a low standard that must have been ).

http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...68&postcount=5

Oh, the humanity ... does VNN know how pathetic and weak this character is?

Anyone with an account on VNN care to invite Celtic over to play?

Not only does he fail in logic, math also is not one of his better subjects (2,200 out of 50,000 is what % dear Celtic?).

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=22460
__________________
The man who believes that he has free will is more easily controlled since he will never think to look for the chains--Burrhus

The jews are a problem--not our ONLY or SOLE problem, not responsible for EVERY problem faced by gentiles, not some ALL-POWERFUL race that we shouldn't bother trying to resist, not an EXCUSE for avoiding responsibilty for problems of our own making --but nonetheless, A REAL, SERIOUS PROBLEM.--Burrhus
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:22 AM.
Page generated in 0.47274 seconds.