oldiesman

Garth, please feel free to make your points, but without your personal insults please? Fair enough, I might not have been as exposed/involved/interested in this topic, had Dr. Wierwille not had those books in the twi bookstore... Just like I might not have been as exposed/involved/interested in the works of Bullinger, Kenyon, Stiles, Leonard, and so forth. I have already explained what my motives/concerns are, in previous posts. But in the final analysis, the information must itself stand or fall on its own, independent of the works of VP Wierwille.

Abigail, there are others, but the study of this man's works may be among the most informative: Paul Rassinier

Abigail, You are free to form whatever conclusions you wish to, from the information posted. As I have suggested in previous posts, I think Zionism and its promotion may prove to be a destructive idea for the U.S., costly in money and lives; ... and if this information alerts us to a purported Zionist Lobby who is helping to form U.S. opinion/policies, it may be worth further examination by all of us. Even if the "six million" is all true, the propaganda of it and subsequent U.S. actions therefrom, is a concern to me. I think it is worth examining all sides. Feel free to post yours.

The examination is a work in progress. Why do I have to be loyal to one side or another? I am simply examining information. You are free to do likewise.

Thought I would post some interesting revisionist thought/data, for Greasespot perusal: Zgram- "Holocaust 101" - Part I

There are eyewitnesses on both sides. If you read some of the revisionist books, they quote many writings of direct eyewitnesses. Most of the believable information from Jews themselves (and these Jews are not neo-Nazis). That is what makes this topic so controversial.

I have mixed emotions about this. On the one hand, yeah, one should distance oneself from all of this. On the other hand, I respect folks wanting to get out "the truth" or true facts as they see them and it doesn't hurt hearing some of this stuff or being vigilant. But I do not necessarily equate all revisionist thinkers (for instance, like Carto, Butz, & CO.) with extremists and neo-nazis. I see them as Americans who want to get what they perceive to be the truth, "out there." Because these revisionists want to get the truth out there, they are labelled as neo-Nazi. The labelling isn't necessary and I think may be dangerous and grossly unfair. I would rather let the facts they are communicating, speak for themselves. If you have evidence that these people are neo-Nazis, feel free to share it.

There is evidence out there, but there is evidence from the revisionists of their point of view, as well. Therefore, I keep an open mind on this topic and want to continue to hear both sides.

All of this is very interesting and thought provoking, those are my thoughts. I made the comment that I thought what Dr. Wierwille said ("maybe we fought on the wrong side of WWII") was in the context of Wierwille's view of Hitler fighting "communism"... I didn't mean to say or infer anything about Hitler or Hitler's goals himself, but "Wierwille's view"... Maybe it will not help, but I will try to explain my position a little more clearly. Way back in those "good old days" of twi, when us old timers were around, you will recall there was a book in the bookstore called "None Dare Call It Conspiracy" (NDCC) This book was central, I believe, to Wierwille's beliefs about communism and world government, and what really threatened the U.S.. To him, communism was more than just an "economic theory". It was, as described in NDCC "an international, conspiratorial drive for power on the part of men in high places willing to use any means to bring about their desired aim -- global conquest." These were, as explained in that book, International Bankers and Insiders bankrolling the Boleshevik revolution and world communism, so as to use that method to control more and more people and eventually the whole world through their communist globalist empire (a.k.a one-world government). That information, plus information Wierwille was getting in the 70's from "The Spotlight" and other stuff, led him to believe that we fought on the wrong side of WWII, I believe, because we didn't fight this communist menace, which was being bankrolled and supported by these Insiders. Instead we were eradicating the force that would or might eventually destroy this menace. Now granted, I don't think Dr. Wierwille was totally correct, because he didn't take into account that the same Insiders who bankrolled the Bolesheviks could have been bankrolling Hitler. After all, one dictatorship is no better than another and who says Hitler can't be bought by these superbillionaires? But I was just pointing out that I could understand why Wierwille might say and think something like that, seeing communism as the tool for this worldwide conspiracy he did in the '70s... You may infer what you will from Wierwille's statement, but that is the way I see it and it makes sense to me.

I thought that the promises of God we were taught in twi were far better than the "I don't know, maybe, if it be God's will, we don't know, etc. etc,., of the religion of my youth.

Certainly as real a relationship there is "available". If it wasn't real, what is? All suggestions are welcome. :)

Ok now that we know there are some posters who believe Dr. Wierwille was a Nazi who supported the killing of Jews and others in WWII, having no problem wearing his embroidered swastika on his uniform while drugging young girls, may we count you in? Come on Raffy, let the other shoe drop will ya? I really want to know.

Golly Mo, that is pretty sick and accusatory thinking. Now folks are being thought of supporting the killing of Jews and others because of a supposed "attitude" you observed? Or the books they read? Gee, that's awefully considerate of you. My goodness, I wouldn't even label a revisionist himself a supporter of killing Jews and others without solid evidence of same; let alone labelling Wierwille and folks in twi that way. shame shame. For me to actually believe what you're suggesting I'd have to sit down and have an in-depth conversation with Dr. Wierwille, asking him exactly what he meant, what context, and so forth. Which of course I can't do. I'm not taking your word for it Groucho, you're just too darn anti-Wierwille and twi for me to think you'd deliver fair, non-accusatory information that is other than your usual all-negative thinking about them.

It was that part of what Hitler was doing that, I opine, Wierwille agreed with and that was why Wierwille said "we fought on the wrong side of WWII." You don't actually think that Wierwille supported the killing of the Jews and others, and/or world global conquest of Hitler, do you? THAT... would be ridiculous, really. But if you do, it is sheer speculation, with no evidence whatever to back it up. By the way, with regards to the world communist threat, we DID fight on the wrong side of WWII. Patton should have been allowed to kick their butts...

Yes, if he "admired" Hitler the way he is being accused of in this thread, yes, he was wrong. But as I opined before, he was heard saying that "we fought on the wrong side in WWII", and that was because Hitler was fighting communism, not because he was a glassy-eyed admirer of Hitler and fascism. Wierwille believed in oodles of other things contrary to fascism, like the Constitution, freedom of speech & religion, U.S. war veterans, etc. He believed in celebrating Memorial Day in the US. Fascists don't act like that.

Ha... spoken like a true believer in communism. :) Shows your bias, Tom. You will readily accept anything negative about Wierwille, but do not accept evidence to the contrary. Or if you do accept, you explain it away. Bias bias bias...

There is so so much out there, on this topic. Call it "spin" if you want and maybe it is, but thank God we have brains to accept/consider other viewpoints. Here's some interesting reading:

If Dr. Wierwille did "admire" Hitler, it was probably due to Hitler's fight against world communism and the Soviets, more than anything else; not the way Hitler treated Jews per se (although it has been said that Wierwille agreed with Hitler's plan for the emigration of Jews from Germany). But I can see VP saying we were on the wrong side in WWII, because with respect to communism, WE WERE. Some also may recall that Wierwille was an admirer of our World War II vets; he spoke highly and respectfully of them, my father included. So if Wierwille were truly this glassy eyed lover of Hitler and fascism, as some posters love to portray him, it doesn't make sense he would admire and speak well of those who fought against Hitler and fascism. Regarding the Mermelstein affair, I googled and received this response from the IHR website:Best Witness-Mermelstein My response to this would be, two wrongs don't make a right...

There is no evidence that Dr. Wierwille supported the killing of the Jews. Maybe because Hitler built the autobahns, and his mother was Jewish? :)

How can he wholeheartedly support it? He didn't even believe it existed, let alone know anything about it when it was happening. It is extremely unfair to equate lack of believing in the holocaust, with supporting it...

What the Hey, did you happen to check out the "U.S. Financial Aid to Israel" link that I provided? Pretty staggering isn't it?

Yes we should work toward not being dependent on their oil, as well. But I didn't infer that my "solution" was the perfect answer... I infer that it is much safer, and much more cost efficient, for the U.S. to quit supporting Zionism which exposes the U.S. (if not the direct cause, a BIG cause) to being entangled with decades of war with the middle east, costing thousands of lives and billions of money. Would the terrorists cease their attacks against U.S. if the U.S. showed a good faith effort to cease support of their enemies? I don't know, nobody knows for sure.. but it puts the U.S. in a safer position than what exists today. ha ha ha... sorry for the typo...

Encouraging is one thing, being mired down with decades of war with the middle east, costing many lives and much $billions, is another...

It really wouldn't be the U.S.'s job to "convince"; it would be honorable for U.S. to make this program available because of the continued support of the people of that region of the world, bearing in mind our desire to cease espousing Zionist causes. What is the current population of Israel? 6 billion? We could absorb that many, with a multi-year program. In the long run, it would save much money and so many lives, it's a no-brainer. We need a President who has enough courage to buck the trend of the last few decades, which might be the most unlikely of all tasks.

Tom, no matter how much aid we give the Italians (which I am not necessarily in favor of either, depends on the reasons), it PALES in comparison to Israel.Check this out: U.S. Financial Aid to Israel: Figures, Facts, Impact