And anyone here can simply click on my name and read the links about CODOH and about the refusal of the moderator at the forum there, Jonnie "Hannover" Hargis, to debate outside of the very forum he moderates. Of course he "won" under those terms. I'd win every hand at poker if I had an extra deck of cards up my sleeve.

Bottom line: Holocaust deniers are liars.

Replies: @Wally

This is the last comment I'm going to make on this topic.

>If unstable hasbara Zionist Andrew Mathis had facts on his side he would not threaten Revisionists with harm. Mathis is obsessed with and apparently owned by this phantom “moderator Jonnie/Hannover”. Think about it, it’s just downright creepy, and illegal.

Illegal? Really?

I've already presented proof of who Jonnie "Hannover" Hargis is:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/10/why-jonnie-hargis-is-pathetic-and.html

Also see LGF link below.

>Not a single on-topic sentence from Andrew Mathis has ever been deleted, banned, or censored.

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/02/codoh-forum-that-moderated-itself-to.html

>But seriously, Unz Review folks, should any forum allow a dangerous obsessive like Andrew Mathis to:
- physically threaten it’s participants

Never done this.

>- to posts pictures & addresses of participants

Same was done to me. Suck it up, Nancy.

>- to call participants workplaces demanding they be fired

Called? Yes. Demanding a firing? No. See:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/251521_Largest_Holocaust_denial_forum

>- to stalk forum participants
>- to harass participants by phone

Nope and nope.

>Would Ron Unz allow such vile behavior? I think not.

>Andrew Mathis even threatened to turn Revisionists over to the FBI & CIA for using pseudonyms. Yes, he is a truly unstable little man. A Napoleon complex perhaps.

Wow. You're freaking delusional. I never did these things. I'm also taller than you, Jonnie, so back that one up, pal.

>BTW, all that I have stated is documented and the evidence has been carefully gathered by numerous Revisionists.

If you had any evidence whatsoever for what you allege, you'd have filed charges years ago.

>I invite anyone to review what Andrew Mathis has posted at forum.codoh.com and witness for themselves how his absurd arguments have been demolished. Just go there and look, very simple. I gave some links above.

See above link from HC blog.

>It’s not just Mathis who has posted there and been spanked, but countless others who have had complete freedom to make their points. Again, see for yourself. All views are available to read.

Ditto.

>I invite anyone here to register at the codoh forum and ask questions, give your views, and let the views flow. There are basic, no name calling guidelines … which Andrew Mathis agreed to when he registered.

>What is Andrew Mathis all about? Simple, he sees that the ‘holocaust’ storyline is crumbling under the weight of Revisionist research and is desperate to attack the messengers. He is not about truth, he’s a dangerous little man who wants to suppress free speech & free inquiry into the ‘holocaust’ narrative at the expense truth and freedom.

Sigh.

I already posted evidence of deleted threads above. I've made my point.

It would be one thing if Jonnie Hargis merely moderated the CODOH forum, rigged the debates in his favor, and let well enough be. Rather, what he did was do these things and then (probably because he actually believes it, which is super-mega-pathetic) brag publicly about winning. He was too God-damned stupid to hide his identity, so he baited people sufficiently and got himself dox'ed. Boo-hoo. I was dox'ed 20 years ago. Deal with it, Alice.

All I've *EVER* asked is a chance to debate Hargis in a neutral forum. That he won't do so is proof of the bankruptcy of his position.

That's all I've got to say. Mathis out.

Replies: @Wally

>Recall that the EU reps are not elected by the people.

Um, what?

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

"Elections to the European Parliament take place every five years by universal adult suffrage. 751 MEPs[1] are elected to the European Parliament which has been directly elected since 1979."

>Witness the mandates of higher taxes

Income taxes haven't moved more than 1% in either direction since the 1990s. Corporate rates in the EU are among the lowest in the world. Only VAT has gone up since the 1990s, and even then only by around 2%.

Except that unions will back you up when you do something stupid at work. In fact, to rely on one's union for such support and then to bash unions in the process seems utterly hypocritical.

http://www.americanlibrariesmagazine.org/archive/2001/november2001/uclaunionseeks

Replies: @Wally

Why no mention of corporate taxes? Why no critique of unions?

Because it is largely corporate propaganda BS.

If unions were the problem then why in an era of the lowest union participation in the private sector are companies still outsourcing like the company I left in the medical products field? We also cut everybody's pay on the production line by firing all the old timers 15 years ago and replacing them with people getting little more than minimum wage and that still wasn't enough for management.

As for the automotive industry. I doubt unions were the ones that decided to sell cars that nobody wanted like the Pontiac Aztec. The unions weren't the ones that decided it was cheaper to pay off the victims of the Pinto rear end crashes who were burned than fix the problem, The unions weren't the ones that decided to rush a diesel engine car to market by just changing the head on an old gasoline engine and leaving people with cars that quickly self destructed. The unions didn't take "economies of scale" to a ridiculous level where Chevy engines were put in Cadillacs and the only real difference between models was the color of the cheap plastic crap glued to the body. The unions didn't make the decision to emphasize styling over engineering and make cars that did not keep up with Japanese and European cars in engine and suspension technology. The unions didn't invent "more car per car" where you put in a 10 dollar radio and add 30 dollars to the sticker. Finally, who signed those union contracts?

More companies have been ruined by stupid management decisions than by unions or "lazy employees". That would be OK if the person doing the damage also owned the company. However, in most cases they are just hired hands drawing a salary like the guys on the line.

If corporate taxes are a problem to a company that has the capability to outsource, then they have lousy accountants and tax attorneys as the large corporations who are in the best position to utilize outsourcing seem to have no problem avoiding taxes. The small local businesses who can't outsource are the ones who only seem to pay those high taxes just like working slobs are the ones who pay the high income tax rates while the Romney's of the world only pay 11% on millions.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/01/news/economy/corporate-tax-rate/index.html

Replies: @Wally

>First of all, the person in question merely criticized US support of apartheid Israel in an email, which is what got him suspended. Only a hate mongering hasbara supremacist Jew would label such criticism as “stupid”, would try to defend the genocidal racist Israeli policies.

Well, a few things:
(1) I should clarify why I think the action was stupid. I think it was stupid because of the day on which the criticism was made and to whom. That is not the same as to say the spirit of the criticism was wrong, although certainly I would have worded it differently.
(2) I have never defended Israeli actions that are in violation of international law or that violate the human rights of Palestinian people. Ever. I defy anyone to reproduce any such statement that I've made that has ever indicated anything else.
(3) If I am "supremacist," I would remind "Bobby" that, as I'm a convert to Judaism, the vast majority of my blood relatives aren't Jewish by faith or ethnicity.

>Anyone who followed that story knows about the typical union incompetence involved. The suspended employee was forced against his will to pay union dues. The union was later dismissed from the case and the suspended employee went solo and got his pay returned and a formal written, official UCLA apology. He gave countless interviews including radio/TV broadcasts with alternative media, the UCLA Daily Bruin ran stories & interviews as front page in their political / viewpoint section.

Well, if what's alleged about the union involvement/lack thereof is true, then I withdraw the charge of hypocrisy.

>To this day he is contacted, congratulated, & revered by those who cherish free speech. Obviously hate mongering racist Jews are not included. So, in short, he cut racist supremacist Jews and their shills at UCLA a new one.

I think if one were to compare my Internet posting record with the man mentioned in this thread, most people would conclude that the latter person was racist and not the former.

That said, I was not aware that there were any Jews involved in the UCLA incident.

>Criminal Andrew Mathis

My "criminal record" consists of one arrest for underage drinking 25 years ago, on which I was not even charged.

> is a stalking hasbara Jew

No, no, and yes on that last one.

>has threatened physical violence against Revisionists

Nope, never.

>posts pictures, addresses, phone nos

Yes, I've done these things.

>of those he wants attacked

If I wanted the man in this thread physically attacked, don't you think I could have had that arranged? A single call to the JDL in Los Angeles would have done the job. And yet such a call was never made. Why not, do you think?

>as left threatening voicemail messages

Nope.

>on & on. All this illegal activity is documented by many, it’s ironclad

I would humbly submit that there is no such evidence.

>Such are those who fear free speech.

Such are those that operate forums in which they rig the debates, ban opposition, declare victory, and then bloviate like jerks.

But clearly the effective taxes are still much lower out of the country, it’s not like US corporations don’t have accountants working to lower those foreign taxes.

This is a stupid argument because the logical end of it is having NO taxes on corporations or people because you can always make the argument that there is a place with lower taxes.

You can make the same argument about unions or litigation or the EPA or workplace safety rules. There is always some "paradise" for employers.

So the US should resort to being a third world dump so the jobs stay?

Replies: @Wally

The argument here seems to be that outsourcing is the direct result of two factors: taxes and unions.

There are two ways of addressing that assertion.

The first is whether taxes and union power in the U.S. are inordinately great. I would argue that the taxes, at least in effective rates, are extraordinarily low -- so low, in fact, that many corporations pay 0% in corporate taxes, or even collect refunds. See this socialist rag:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2014/08/15/forget-inversions-these-20-huge-profitable-companies-already-pay-zero-tax/

Moreover, the assertion that effective tax rates in the U.S. are higher than effective tax rates elsewhere is also false:

http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/01/news/economy/corporate-tax-rate/

They aren't the lowest, but they are also consistently not the highest.

Regarding unions, there was a time when American unions, particularly in the automobile industry, were quite powerful. Those days are gone, having declined substantially and consistently since the Reagan administration. More to the point, however, it would seem that union power is significantly less than it is in European countries that build better cars, e.g., Germany. From the same red journalist production house:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2011/12/21/germany-builds-twice-as-many-cars-as-the-u-s-while-paying-its-auto-workers-twice-as-much/

The second way of addressing the assertion is to acknowledge that corporations will do what is necessary to maximize profits. If that means offshoring to pay lower taxes and avoid union power, then that's what corporations will do. The question is whether we want organizations that are already so empowered to do these things. I would argue that it's a bad idea. YMMV.

Everything you posted is the same libertarian gobbledygook I can read over a Reason where the millennials post their nonsense between bong hits and video games where they bray on about "liberty" or "you don't own those jobs".

There is a reason why nobody listens to libertarians.

>This reminds me of a scaled up version of ‘predatory lending’ that leftist apologists use in an attempt to remove responsibility from those who borrowed money to purchase houses they could not afford.

That's only true if the rest of what you allege about Greece is also true. Clue: It isn't.

>While I hope for the complete break-up of the unelected
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_to_the_European_Parliament
>totalitarian

https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2014#.VM_UKJ3F9Mc

>free speech hating

Having a law against Holocaust denial (which not all EU countries have), while not a great idea, isn't the same as "hating free speech."

>and all consuming EU, the specific issues for Greece are, IMO:

>- This is not really about their borrowing, but about their inability to carry their own weight.

I'm unsure where the difference lies.

>- Greeks were living above their means, otherwise the situation would not have occurred in the first place.

That's untrue.

First of all, look how the Greek economy grew over most of last 30-40 years. GDP grew robustly, while inflation remained relatively stable and low, with the exception of the 1970s, when inflation was high worldwide.

GDP: http://snipurl.com/29o55c3
CPI: http://www.inflation.eu/inflation-rates/greece/historic-inflation/cpi-inflation-greece.aspx

For the moment, note the big drop-off in GDP following the financial crisis in 2008.

Now, look at what is considered by many to be the key metric, which is national debt as a percentage of GDP. Again, for most of the period, Greece is healthy:

http://snipurl.com/29o56am

Some might think that the hitting the 100% mark is bad news, which Greece does in the early to mid-1990s. That's not necessarily true. First, look at this map of countries shaded on the basis of the ratio of government debt to GDP:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt#mediaviewer/File:Government_debt_gdp.jpg

The countries shaded dark red include not only the country under discussion (Greece) but also (among others) the U.S., Ireland, Iceland, the Sudan, and Japan. There isn't a lot of uniformity in the health of these economies comparatively speaking: Sudan is incredibly poor and underdeveloped, with a very low GDP and very high national debt. Clearly, the economy of the U.S. (and Ireland, and Iceland, and Japan) is far more healthy, but it's also shaded red. So what does this widely cited metric really tell us about the precariousness of any country's situation?

Not much, it turns out. Indeed, what makes far more of a difference is the percentage of GDP taken up by service on a national debt (i.e., how much the regular interest payments take up of a national economy). In the U.S., it's still pretty low (in the teens); for a comparison historically, on the eve of the French Revolution, France's service on its national debt was 50%, which was severely hurting the country.

Service on the national debt will become onerous if a combination of factors occurs, specifically a drop in GDP and a rise in the interest on the debt. Take the case of the U.S. Here's GDP over the last 10 years:

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD/countries/US?display=graph

A dip in 2008, as everywhere else, but relatively rapid recovery. Why? The stimulus, which kept GDP afloat, and frozen interest rates by the Fed since 2008.

Here's Greece's GDP over the same 10-year period:

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD/countries/GR?display=graph
It goes down and continues to fall. Why didn't Greece recover? Understanding why not has to do with understanding the Greek economy.

Greece's two largest industries are tourism and shipping. When a worldwide recession occurs, tourism drops. Also, when a worldwide recession occurs, countries export less, which means shipping drops. Greece's industries were among the hardest hit. That’s hardly Greece's fault.

The rejoinder, I imagine, would be that Greece still bears the brunt of the blame for its situation since it still spent like a drunken sailor. I would argue that Greece was in a perfectly reasonable place to spend as it did before the financial crisis. Where the rubber meets the road is what it's done since then, with its GDP having fallen as it has.

Since the worldwide financial crisis, Greece has made its largest public expenditures (and thus run its largest budget deficits) in Q4 of 2009 and then since late 2013. The problem with assuming that these big expenditures were the result of Keynesianism (see below) is two-fold. First, the governments that engaged in this spending were either center-right governments (pre-October 2009 and post-June 2012 until last month) or national unity governments -- not left-wing governments. Second, these big jumps in the deficit/increases in public spending weren't Keynesian-style spending (infrastructure, job creation, etc.). Rather, these were periods of austerity, usually imposed by the EU, during which jobs were cut, as well as Greece's April 2014 bond issue, which were Eurobonds and thus not strictly Greek sovereign debt. That means that Greece's "failure" to cut spending isn't really its fault either -- at least not entirely.

All this is not to say that Greece does not bear some responsibility. The government's inability to stem tax evasion and black markets are also big problems, but they are simply not on the level of the problems created by the world financial crisis. If corruption ended overnight and tax evasion disappeared, Greece would still be in dire straits. And while it certainly, in hindsight, would have been smart of Greece to have borrowed less, there's not really anywhere it can do about it now. The debt is there; the question is what to do with it.

- Having lived above their means they refuse to lower their expectations of an economy that even before the EU was unsustainable. The EU is just a messenger carry news about the failure of the Greek economy.

See above on this point.

- The Greeks assumed they would be carried by the EU in spite of their own unsustainable economy, hence they joined the EU.

And again.

>- Ultimately they should simply default and get back to being an independent Greece, print their own money and live with the consequences. There could be no blaming the messenger.

Well, on this point, perhaps, we agree. Clearly, being a member of the EU is doing Greece no favors, or vice versa.

>- The EU is unsustainable.

Depends on how one defines the term, I think.

>As if we need more warnings, this is a classic example of the destructive nature of Keynesian economics.

Except that's not what did it to Greece, now, is it?
Strictly speaking, Keynesian economics is short-term government deficit spending in times of economic recession. Thus, the term doesn't apply to Greece at all. First, before the crisis, it spent on deficits, but it wasn't in recession for most of that time, and the spending was long-term. Second, since the crisis, Greece has not engaged in either monetary policy or fiscal policy consistent with Keynesian principles. When it HAS engaged in Keynesian-style monetary policy, it has done so as part of the Eurozone and with the imprimatur of the EU.

Regarding fiscal policy, Keynesian economics would dictate short-term CUTTING of taxes (to stimulate aggregate demand by leaving more money in the pockets of consumers) -- Greece has raised taxes since the crisis, by as much as 9% in the early years of the crisis. Nor has Greece engaged in public spending to stimulate growth; its deficits and increases in public spending have been both erratic, and when they have occurred, they've had other reasons than government fiscal policy (see above).

Replies: @Threecranes

Hamas and Hezbollah actually do exist. They really do want to eliminate Israel.

Replies: @Palladino

Personally, I find the below map more informative:

http://users.humboldt.edu/ogayle/Axis_Powers_Zenith.png

Black indicates the Axis powers at their height, while green indicates Allied powers, including their colonies. Yellow indicates neutral countries, as well as the colonies of neutral countries (i.e., Portuguese and Spanish colonies in Africa) and the small number of independent countries in Asia that maintained neutrality (Afghanistan, Tibet [not yet occupied by China]).

If the imputation is that the British and French already held colonial empires taking up much of the eastern hemisphere (not to mention the Soviets' own empire in eastern Europe and central Asia), then I don't think any of us here disagree. If the imputation is that the Axis powers did not similarly seek -- and gain -- colonies, then I think that's wrong. If the imputation is that two wrongs make a right, then, again, I disagree.

Replies: @Wally

"To say, in the case of Germany, land occupied in war is tantamount to an empire lasting centuries is simply false."

Lasting centuries? No. An empire? Yes.

"There is absolutely no proof that Germany wanted to ‘conquer the world’, the size of their navy proves that. In fact, Hitler’s peace offeringss to Britain stated that he had no such desire to dismantle their empire."

The world? No. Europe? Yes. I accept that dismantling the British Empire was not on Hitler's to do list.

"Italy had colonial ambitions in Africa no doubt, still quite minor, and rather local in comparison."

Only, I think, because they took what had not yet been colonized at that point.

"Tiny Korea/Chosen aside, Japan is somewhat uncertain. Had it not been the need for resources due to the economic war on them by the US, a solid case can be made that occupations were temporary needs based."

Depends on where you're talking about. I can accept that assertion regarding Indonesia. I cannot accept it with regard to Korea (which was occupied in the late 19th century, or Manchuria (1931), or Nanjing (1937). Or Burma or Malaysia, for that matter.

By the way, I don't know if "tiny" is a correct assertion. Korea is about the size of Great Britain.

"Manchuria, who did have Manchurian head of state, is a debatable issue which was really not tenable long term, and again resource based."

I don't know that I'd call Puyi a Manchurian head of state. Manchurian, yes. Head of state? Puppet is more like it.

Nor would I justify any invasion of any country for the purpose of resources as anything but colonialism.

"And then we need to look at the USSR Empire’s seizure of Manchuria."

That's "land occupied in war"; see above your own point on Hitler's moves in Europe. And USSR didn't occupy Manchuria permanently.

"My point is that there is an unbelievable double standard in claiming the Axis powers were trying to “divvy up the world” when in fact it was the Allies that had and were truly divvying up the world."

Fair enough. But I don't think most informed people believe that the aim of the Axis was world domination.

Replies: @solontoCroesus

Hitler decided early that England was a desirable friend and even convinced Chamberlain to that effect. Next thing Hitler did was to attack France and Russia and started building and assembling barges for an invasion landing on the coast of Great Britain. Hitler did not want to conquer the world but as he went on he wanted to conquer the next easy target nation and then the next. He even decided that he could conquer two or three nations at a time which eventually did not work out too well for him.

Hitler wasn't interested in world domination.....He just wanted the next nation over the horizon. He called it Liebensraum!

Considering how much lesbians hate men, why do they then try to look and act like men?
This is all about mental illness. There I said it.
 

Replies: @anonymous-antimarxist

"9/11 is the raison d’etre for all that we are seeing. Taking it down is the only answer."

Agree 100% - the Zionists have manipulated the word "terrorist" to the point that the American people have become mindless.

Russia could never match US spending. In the end we had $600 hammers and they had cheap hammers and were beating the Berlin Wall to pieces. Now we have magic helmets and $6000 hammers. By 2030 we'll have corn powered fighters. Until then, get bombed.

Russia’s and China’s expenditures are a mere fraction of US’s outrageous expenditures.
 

Rather than reiterate all the points I made in response to your last post on this topic, I'll provide a quick link:

https://www.unz.com/pcockburn/as-in-1942-germany-must-show-restraint-over-greece/#comment-864450

A couple of points do bear mentioning/repeating:

(1) In the first instance of the application of the Truman Doctrine, Greece fought a civil war (U.S.-backed nationalists vs. USSR-backed communist guerrillas) in the late 1940s. After the communist side was defeated, the Communist Party of Greece (KKE) was banned until the 1970s.

(2) That pretty much leaves only since 1974 or thereabouts (fall of the six-year U.S.-backed dictatorship) that Greece could have been a "Marxist" state. However, a look at the list of prime ministers of Greece since free elections were instituted in 1974 shows that only for a little more than half of that 40 years could the governments of Greece even be characterized as left-wing (approx. 24 years):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_Greece#Third_Hellenic_Republic_.281974.E2.80.93present.29

But, in fact, the party holding power for those 24 years (PASOK) isn't really even properly a socialist party, nevermind a Marxist party. That's why Syriza won the election -- because there was no other party representing the true left.

(2a) Not to put too fine a point on it, but your allegation that Greece was a Marxist state pre-EU is even more ridiculous. Greece joined the EU in 1981. PASOK did not hold power AT ALL between 1974 and 1981. Remember: No communist party in Greece between 1949 and 1974.

(3) I would remind you as a final point that the existence of a welfare state in a country does not automatically make it "Marxist." Indeed, the first welfare state in Europe was the German Empire under Bismarck, which was specifically designed to draw support away from socialists and communists by providing social services commensurate with a modern state. Bismarck was hardly a "Marxist."

Again, please read the first link, which I wrote two weeks ago or so in response to you.

“It’s been wildly exaggerated by White Right types.”

"More extreme uninformed racist-leftism laid bare."

Stats and personal experience prove me right. I've lived near with many 'Hispanics'.
Yes, they do have problems--comparable to 'white trash' community(but then better in many cases)--, but they are nothing like the ghastly Negroes.

The problem with any definition of race is that the cut-offs between races are ultimately going to be arbitrary. You clearly imply that the peoples you mention -- Armenians, Turks, Arabs -- aren't "white." The obvious rejoinder would be to ask why not. Is there some geographic border that delineates these things? Tunisians and Sicilians are just a few miles away from each other; are the former not white but the latter white? What about Spaniards and Moroccans? Turks and Greeks?

To make it more specific, what about me? Although, indeed, one-quarter of my ethnic stock, including my last name, is fully Alpine-Gentile and (we must assume) white, the rest of my background is Mediterranean (Italian and Sicilian -- they're different) and Semitic (or, I suppose we could posit, "Khazar"). So am I white or not?

And maybe most importantly of all, who decides this? You? Me?

Just wondering: Why do you suppose it is that the crime rate is higher among blacks and Latinos than it is among whites?

"It was Democrat Obama who received vastly more from Wall Street in “donations” than did his Republican rivals."

Really?

Here's Obama's donations from 2012:

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=N00009638

Here's Romney's:

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=N00000286

Note: Nine of the top 10 Romney donors were investment banks or accounting firms; only one of Obama's was: Deloitte, which actually gave about $150,000 more to Romney.

"It was Democrat Obama who doubled the TARP “bailouts."

Nonsense. He couldn't have if he wanted to. The law was already passed before he became President, and the President doesn't have the power of the purse.

"It was Democrat Obama who insisted on more money for “defense”, aka: offense, than the Republicans and even what the Pentagon was asking for."

But it's the House of Representatives, which has been in the hands of Republicans for all but two years of Obama's Presidency, that can spend money.

"It is Democrat Obama who is demanding taxes on laughable “carbon footprints” in order to fight the non-existent “global warming."

Oh, dear...

So?
Buchanan's piece addressed the Republican Party, not the other thieves.

"This is laughable. The unproductive Greeks are struggling because of their Marxist economic policies which got them in this position to begin with."

You keep repeating the same nonsense on this topic. There was nothing even remotely "Marxist" about Greece's economic policies. It's beginning to look like you use the term to denote anything you don't really understand.

Replies: @Wally

What this has to do with the death-squads financed by an Israeli citizen Kolomoisky? The story of the Jewish oligarch is an illustration to the fantastic tolerance by Zionists towards the neo-Nazis and their financiers. The MSM has been avoiding to mention Kolomoisky' direct association with neo-Nazis, even if this information is available via Wikipedia. The half-wits at the Wall Street Journal even made Kolomoisky a hero: http://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-secret-weapon-feisty-oligarch-ihor-kolomoisky-1403886665. The supposedly liberal Guardian deletes any post that mentions the incongruity of Kolomoisky' Israeli citizenship with his financing of death-squads infested with local and West European no-Nazis. Obviously, the Friends of Israel in Britain cannot tolerate the bitter truth about certain "chosen."

Oh, dear, you really stepped in it this time. Let's see if I can break down the argument for us all and see precisely where the cheese slips off the cracker, eh?

(1) The first claim is this: "Detailed aerial photos of Babi Yar ravine at the time of the alleged event show nothing that is claimed."

That's not exactly true.

First, it should be noted that the lengthy quoted material is by Jürgen Graf, a Swiss Holocaust denier now living in Russia. Notably, when Graf details the lack of air photo evidence, his source is John Clive Ball's book Air Photo Evidence.

My old friend Sergey Romanov does rather a nice job of detailing just how badly Ball screwed up his analysis of Babi Yar:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/08/thats-why-it-is-denial-not-revisionism.html

(2) The second claim is this: "No verifiable excavations can show the human remains that are alleged to be there. None."

Again, not exactly true.

First, we should note that the number of people executed at Babi Yar is perhaps double the number that appears in the OSR of Oct. 7, 1941 -- because people were executed there on a regular basis for nearly two years more.

Second, we should note that even Graf concedes that remains were found at Babi Yar, although he states that they are insufficient in number to substantiate the claims of the numbers killed there.

Third, as "BobbyBeGood" is well aware, the bodies were by and large exhumed and cremated during Aktion 1005, led by Paul Blobel.

Fourth and finally, these excavations notwithstanding, there were still many bodies found at Babi Yar, as can be seen from the reports on the executions there filed in the Central State Archive of Film and Photodocuments of the Ukranian SSR. Interested readers should Google the following terms: "2-46031" and "Бабий Яр".

(3) As a final note, it's worth noting that history isn't studied by isolating events and examining them without context. It's well known that more than a million Jews were executed by the Nazis following the June 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union. It's a stock in trade of "BobbyBeGood" that there are no mass graves. He's wrong, of course. Blobel's Aktion 1005 was only partially successful.

I've offered in the past to go grave by grave with him, so I'll reiterate that offer here. He need only tell me how many graves I need to detail for him before he'll concede the point.

Try to keep up, Bobby. I didn't say Syriza wasn't Marxist. I said Greece didn't have a Marxist past. Unless you want to include the last three months in "the past," no Marxist party ever controlled the government in Greece before late last year.

Replies: @Wally

I'm tired of repeating myself on this point. See:

https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/greece-and-the-eurozone/#comment-876869

He's making it up. If he makes up a few other things, like, for example, that there is no such thing as a Palestinian he will likely be invited to speak before congress and cheered with 34 standing ovations. Seriously folks, if you thought that our Congress could not possibly go any lower today proved that there are still unexplored depths on Capitol Hill. Everyone who attended that speech should be impeached but, alas, they will more likely be reelected. They have sold out our sovereignty for a pocked full of mumbles from a war criminal.

Are you suggesting that Iran does not have a long range ballistic missile program? That it has been cooperative with the IAEA in allowing access to its atomic facilities?

Replies: @Wally

Here's what I don't see you doing: Debating this topic anywhere outside of CODOH, where you also moderate the forum.

Why not man up and give it a whirl, tough guy?

The Judeo-/christian nonsense is utterly meaningless and was deliberately injected into the culture of the West as the Zionist project picked up speed.
It would have been ludicrous to any educated person 100 years ago.


https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=judeo-christian&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cjudeo%20-%20christian%3B%2Cc0

The Israeli military is all hat and no cattle. Lazy welfare state mommy boys living in a shameful country that wouldn’t last a month without the handouts received from the US & Germany.
 

Replies: @Wally

"The U.S. taxpayers supplied / bailed out so called ‘Israel’ in “1956, 1967, 1973, 1982″.
Get it?"

Yeah, no.

History's not really your long suit. In '56, the United States, in fact, actively opposed Israel in its invasion of Egypt. Pressure from both the U.S. and USSR forced Israel to withdraw. In addition, Ike threatened to freeze U.K. assets in U.S. banks if the U.K. did not withdraw its material support from Israel in '56. So you're the most wrong on this one.

In '67, the U.S. was neutral. The Sixth Fleet, which is stationed in the Mediterranean, took part in an arms embargo against all forces involved in the war, Israel included. Among those who believe the sinking of the U.S.S. Liberty was deliberate, some argue that the strike was retaliation against the U.S. for the embargo.

In '73, the U.S. only entered the situation once it became clear that the USSR was prepared to massively resupply the Egyptians and Syrians, both of whom had faltered in their invasions of Israeli-held territory and were going to lose. If no superpower support had been pledged, it's likely Israel would have won anyway. A week into the dual invasion, the war was essentially over.

The war in Lebanon in '82 is the only case you mention that occurred after Israel became a recipient of major military aid from the U.S. So I'll give you that one, although the argument could be made that this war, like the one in '67, was a proxy war for the Cold War, with U.S.- and Soviet-backed states fighting each other. In '82, the Soviet-backed state was Syria. But you Holocaust denier guys aren't so big on the Cold War, so you can slide on that one too. You're welcome.

"Never has ‘Israel’ carried it’s own weight in any military action, or economically."

Well, on the former, see above and throw in its victory in '49.

On the latter, see the following, which tracks U.S. aid to Israel over the last 65 years:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html

So the thing to note in those data is that the amount of aid to Israel skyrockets only AFTER the last real military threat faced by Israel ('73). Which would kind of indicate that Israel defended itself pretty well when it needed to.

None of which is intended by me to defend current Israeli policy or, really, any policy by Israel since '67 at least.

"As more and more people are realizing the ’6M & gas chambers’ are impossible frauds..."

Really? You've been at this for how long, exactly? If I had to venture a guess, I'd say at least since the 1980s, maybe earlier. Faurisson hit big in the 1970s, Leuchter in the 1980s, and Irving in the 1990s into the early 2000s. Exactly how much headway has each of them made? What's the big revelation that we're supposed to have gotten?

I know, I know, I know. The Internet. Here, take a bite of the clue cookie: It's been around for twenty years, and the most you people have managed to accomplish a bigger audience of crazy people. But no impact. Ever wonder why not? I'll tell you.

Because you can barely contain your hatred for Jews long enough to make a coherent point. Every single one of you people is a knuckle-dragging Nazi who is only sad because he never had the opportunity to join the Einsatzgruppen and kill himself some Jews.

But by all means, do continue...

Replies: @Joe Walker

Here we go again...

Complete propaganda repeated by the indoctrinated. Most Germans said that they never heard of the impossible ‘gas chambers’ until after the war, IOW until the conjured propaganda was presented by the Zionist led Allied prosecution at Nuremberg.
 

Even more Germans challenged the impossible ’6M & gas chambers’.
Get your facts straight, see endless examples here:
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8165
 

It’s amazing how uneducated people are about WWII & Nuremberg.
see: http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9308

 

- “All but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases we investigated, had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair. This was Standard Operating Procedure with American investigators.”
- Judge E. L. van Roden, “American Atrocities in Germany”, The Progressive. February 1949, p. 21f.
- American judge, van Roden:
“Statements admitted as evidence were obtained from men who had first been kept in solitary confinement for three, four and five months..The investigators would put a black hood over the accused’s head, punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him and beat him with rubber hoses”

 

- Cobain added: “The most shocking discovery I made was that torture was employed quite widely by the British during the second world war
“The use of torture by the British is always concealed behind denials and obfuscation and lies. It was in the 1940s, and it is today.”
 

Actually, the soldiers, sailors and airmen in the US' armed forces are substantially better educated than the general population. First, the IQ cutoff for enlistment is 85 in the Army and 90 in the other branches. This means that more than half the population cannot enlist. Second, potential enlistees are rejected if they have criminal records or abuse drugs or are physically unfit, which further restricts and improves the pool. Observe also that commisioned officers all have degrees from good schools. Many senior NCO's also have degrees, even graduate degrees. And no commissioned officer reaches high rank without a graduate degree.

The real losers, the illiterate parasites are people like the blatant anti-semite BobbyBeGood.

Replies: @solontoCroesus

Well, unless you consider Jews being placed in work camps as your definition of the “holocaust”.
 

BTW, at a lower percentage than that of Japanese-Americans in the U.S.
 

Actually, Japanese from South America were also forced into U.S. concentration camps. All just because they were of Japanese origin.
 

The ‘gas chambers’ as alleged were scientifically impossible, in fact when rationally scrutinized the absurd ’6M’ is shown to be downright laughable.
 

Also note that there is not a single verifiable excavated mass grave that can be actually shown even though Jews claim to know exactly where these allegedly enormous mass graves are.
 

If there was ‘a plan to kill every Jew the Germans could get their hands on’ then why are there countless numbers of so called “survivor$? … who profit mightily.
 

And if the alleged ‘holocaust’ was fact, then why are there laws in Europe to prevent scrutiny of it? What kind of “truth” needs to imprison people to prevent free speech?

 

It actually doesn't take any type of genius to figure out that what he's saying is true. There are far more whites than Asians in the U.S. (72% vs. 5%). Therefore, whites commits more rapes.

How many Asians rape white women? Assuming that 2% of all perpetrators are neither white nor black, even if we assumed that every single person within that 2% were Asian (and that's not a fair assumption, but for the sake of argument, let's stick with this for now), and knowing that there about 100,000 rapes per year, then we can say that Asians are responsible for 2,000 rapes. Assuming that about two-thirds of rape victims are white, that makes around 1,300 rapes of white women by Asians per year. Again, that number is way too high, because it assumes that the whole 2% of non-black and non-white offenders are Asian, but we know they aren't. So that number is actually less than 1,300

How many whites rape Asian women? Again, starting with 100,000 rapes per year, 5.7% involve a non-white and non-black victim, so that's 5,700 rapes. If 48.1% of rapists are white, then that's more than 2,700 rapes of Asian women by white men per year, or roughly twice as many as our already inflated number of 1,300 rapes by Asians of white women.

Here's your statistics: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/SOO.PDF

You're welcome.

Replies: @Anonymous

Really? Did I surrender before or after you abandoned every thread I contributed to?

You don't really think you're going to keep posting this nonsense over and over without my rebutting it, do you?

Communist & Jewish supremacist profitable propaganda has absurdly transformed a labor camp where war materials were produced into a “death camp” with no scientific or physical proof whatsoever. All this discussion of ‘who liberated Auschwitz’ is a laughable con job.
 

The alleged Auschwitz ‘gas chambers’ were / are scientifically impossible as alleged,
 

Also note that the Germans gave Auschwitz inmates the choice of staying to await the advancing Soviets, or retreating with them, most by far chose to leave with the Germans.
 

There are no human remains at Auschwitz as alleged that can be shown.
Nor at any other location can the alleged enormous mass graves actually be shown in spite of the fact that Jews claim to know exactly where they are.
 

Think about that. An alleged 6M Jews and 5M ‘others’, yet not a single mass grave as alleged can actually be shown, not one.
 

Simply stated, the laughable ‘holocau$t, now a religion, cannot withstand scrutiny.
 

The ‘holocaust’ storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship and the elimination of free speech.
 

What sort of ‘truth’ is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.
 

anti-Semite = you

Let's make a deal: How about you respond to my responses; otherwise, I think you're just spamming your forum, in which case, you should stop it.

The scientific impossibility of the laughable ‘holocaust’ storyline makes Jewish supremacist propaganda vulnerable to free speech.
 

Hence, it is Jewish supremacists who are leading the assault on free speech under the guise of ‘hate’ and ‘racism’. As the world is rapidly realizing, it is Jewish supremacists who are the true haters and racists. Supremacist Jews are merely accusing Gentiles of behavior that they engage in, aka: projection.
 

The impossible and laughable ‘holocau$t, now a primitive & crude religion, cannot withstand scrutiny.
 

The ‘holocaust’ storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship and the elimination of free speech.
 

What sort of ‘truth’ is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.
 

Replies: @Chris Mallory

Who is it that wants to censor free speech via the “hate speech” canard.
Who runs the Federal Reserve?
Who runs Wall Street?
Who owns the US Congress
Who owns the White House?
Who forces acceptance of the fictitious & impossible ’6M & gas chambers’?
Who runs the media / entertainment?
Who dominates ‘academia’?
 

Why is AIPAC the most powerful, dominant lobby, which regularly writes the text of Congressional bills and resolutions.
 

Who is it the demands the US shed the blood of US troops for their interests?
 

Who are the biggest racists on the planet?
 

In a recent PCR interview with a European radio host (and I think I've listened to them all), PCR expressed a total lack of understanding and curiosity regarding the problem of mass Muslim immigration into Europe. I was as dumbfounded by how uninformed and naive his response was as the interviewer. I don't think PCR was being intentionally dismissive or disingenuous.

I've wondered what would happen if someone posed it to PCR directly: "We're talking about Jews, right?" Would he genuinely be nonplussed by the question?

Anyway, I agree that your list leads us in the right direction and only hasbaraniks-- whether they are conscious of being one or not-- argue otherwise.

Spam. You're now officially spamming. Answer my questions or admit that you're just here to shill for your Nazi website.

"The ‘holocaust’ storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted."

Let's not go crazy.

Look, I'm willing to bet there's a lot of lies, falsehoods, and exaggerations about the Holocaust.
Some of the stuff I was taught in school are now rejected even by Jewish professors. In the 70s and early 80s, some of the stuff about lampshades and soap were passed off as true.

Like all great historical events, there is surely much to be discussed and revised on the matter.

For instance, I often read that 8 million Ukrainians were killed by Stalin. But recent estimates come closer to 3.5 million, at most 4 million.

The estimates of dead in the Great Leap Forward range from 20 to 40 million dead.

How many did the Khmer Rouge kill? Estimates range from 1 to 3 million.

So, it would be absurd to fix any specific number on the Holocaust. Also, new studies, even by Liberal historians like Timothy Synder, accept that the number of Jews killed by gas had been greatly exaggerated and many more died on the fields by Nazi death squads.

So, this open for discussion.

But why is it that every time this subject is brought up in any forum, there's always a bunch of total-Holocaust-denying lunatics who say it was all just a lie, there was no mass extermination(when there obviously were), and etc. These same people then scream about how the evil Allies killed all those innocent-as-snow Germans in carpet bombings.

This is why the subject of Holocaust always fails. True, the censorious forces who wanna shut down debate are bad, but the discussion usually turns into loony tunes because every crackpot Holocaust-denying nutjob comes out of the woodwork.

Look, there was a time when commies, Stalinists, Maoists, and etc used to deny mass killings and apologize for those regimes too. But when the facts came out, they eventually accepted the fact that mass killings had taken place. Sydney Schanberg who covered Cambodia and initially sympathized with the Khmer Rouge did a mea culpa. He admitted his naivete.

But there are still Holocaust-denying crackpots who hold onto any 'new evidence' to deny the whole thing.
I suspect the Holocaust had been exaggerated but there's just no way a horror on that scale can be faked. (It'd be even more difficult than faking landing on the moon).
These crackpots are the gifts that keep on giving to the Jewish supremacist power. They keep showing the world that the Far Right does indeed have its share of cuckoo birds.

At any rate, the horror of the Holocaust cannot be measured in numbers only. It's the sheer absoluteness of it that sends chills down the spine. Wiping out everybody from child to granny?
This is why Hiroshima also continues to bother a lot of people. It killed everyone from new born baby to old granny living out her last days. It spared no one in between.

That said, the nuking of Japan was still a means to force surrender than to wipe out an entire people, but things got really sick with the Nazis.

Also, even if the Nazis hadn't a plan to kill Jews and hadn't killed a single Jew, they were still genocidal freaks who invaded Russia and planned to wipe out tens of millions of Slavs.
So, even if there had been no Holocaust, victorious Nazis would have carried out a massive Slavocaust.

It's time to give up on apologizing for Nazi mania.
There were some good things about National Socialism, but its evil was beyond evil, and I'm sick of the Far Right polluting itself with this garbage over and over.

I don't like Marine Le Pen sucking up to Jews and homos, but it's good that she got rid of the Nazi apologizing freaks. Enough already.

Replies: @SolontoCroesus, @solontoCroesus

Dear Spambot,

You wrote:

The laughable ’6M & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible lies. If it can’t happen as alleged, then it didn’t. There is no proof whatsoever. I challenge you or anyone to actually show us the proof.

 

Bobby - Fran Macadam has been a serious contributor to this site and also over at The American Conservative for many years. She is a careful observer and friend and is merely noting that sometimes the comments to my pieces are a bit over the top in how they express themselves, which gives the real hasbara an opportunity to attack and dismiss what we are writing and saying. The policy of Unz Mag is to let everyone say what they want to say as long as they are not being obscene or unacceptably ad hominem and I personally find that many of the comments add greatly to the discussion. Your quote that an antisemite has become anyone that Jews don't like came from the late and greatly missed Joe Sobran. How true!

Replies: @The Grate Deign, @Wally

Indeed, why are there laws against scrutiny of the ‘holocaust’ storyline?
 

Simply stated, besides the scientific impossibility and lack human remains that are alleged but cannot be shown, it is censorship of free speech on the ‘holocaust’ narrative that exposes it’s fraudulence.
 

The ‘holocaust’ storyline is the only alleged historical event that cannot be openly debated without fear for one’s well being.
 

We bring good news that 6M Jews were not gassed and shot into enormous pits, why aren’t Jews overjoyed with that fact?
 

Je Suis Revisionniste