I was put under the impression that V. P. loved the jews and also had people read "The Hiding Place" by Corrie Tenboom as a way of being prepared in your heart if it were ever to happen again.
It's true that Veepee promoted the book "The Hiding Place"...but I think it was more of a case of the example set of tenacity and determination than it was pro Jew.
In my considerable experience with Wierwille, he seemed extremely anti-semetic...as did Martindale as well.
Jihad, or struggle, has a double meaning in Arabic and the Islamic religion.<BR><BR>The first and most common usage is in regard to the internal struggle against evil in a person's own life. The closest thing to relate it to in Christianity is Romans 7:15ff. <BR><BR>The Sixth Tenet in TRUE Islam has to do with this usage, the person's continued internal struggle to overcome evil.<BR><BR>The second meaning is most misused, is in regards to Holy War which is waged against those who are enemies of Islam. <BR><BR>This interpretation of the word jihad has been perverted by an extreme right wing cult (the Wahhabi of Saudi Arabia) that has hijacked the True Islamic religion and is trying to overthrow the more moderate sects, destroy their teachings, and whose goal is world conquest.
There is a major difference between Christianity and Islam. Christianity went through a reformation to get it out of the clutches of medieval Roman Catholic Empire. This brought it back closer to it’s origins of the 1st century church.
Islam’s origin is medieval and a reformation would only bring it deeper into the dark ages. The only hope for Islam is a free market system. Free-market enterprise is what started the reformation and might liberate the people of Islam.
There are two sides to Islam. First, the conquer\convert by the sword. Once conquered and converted one must live peaceably together. That is the second side to Islam. Very similar to the Roman Catholic Empire before the reformation. Unfortunately with out a reformation, you can’t separate the first from the second. And Islam can’t have a reformation. Free market democracy is their only hope.
There is a major difference between Christianity and Islam. Christianity went through a reformation to get it out of the clutches of medieval Roman Catholic Empire. This brought it back closer to it’s origins of the 1st century church.
Islam’s origin is medieval and a reformation would only bring it deeper into the dark ages. The only hope for Islam is a free market system. Free-market enterprise is what started the reformation and might liberate the people of Islam.
There are two sides to Islam. First, the conquer\convert by the sword. Once conquered and converted one must live peaceably together. That is the second side to Islam. Very similar to the Roman Catholic Empire before the reformation. Unfortunately with out a reformation, you can’t separate the first from the second. And Islam can’t have a reformation. Free market democracy is their only hope.
I was put under the impression that V. P. loved the jews and also had people read "The Hiding Place" by Corrie Tenboom as a way of being prepared in your heart if it were ever to happen again.
hi grand-daughter and welcome to Greasespot Cafe.
Thanks for mentioning this, I've seen Dr. Wierwille love all races equally, and Jews were always welcome in twi.
After getting involved with TWI in 1980, I was shocked to learn about the two books against the FACT of the holocaust of the Jewish people in World War II.
Weren't those books concerned with disputing the NUMBER of Jews killed by the German Nazi regime? PLEASE correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think they disputed that the above killings happened. A very wide disparity with the "accepted" six million, yes, but still I think the main point was disputing the number.
As far as VPW's reason (s) for showing "The Hiding Place", I dont know if it matters much. From my knowledge of Nazi thinking, gleaned from my (plentiful?) WWII and preceeding years studies, I believe the showing of such a filf for any reason would be repugnant to a true Nazi, since the film displays persecution and killing of Jewish people.
Weren't those books concerned with disputing the NUMBER of Jews killed by the German Nazi regime? PLEASE correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think they disputed that the above killings happened. A very wide disparity with the "accepted" six million, yes, but still I think the main point was disputing the number.
The Thirteenth Tribe claimed the modern Jews were essentially counterfeit Jews.
(DNA testing has disproven this one entirely.)
Myth of the Six Million...
Here's what wikipedia says about the author, David Hoggan...
"In 1955, Barnes encouraged Hoggan to turn his dissertation into a book, which was published in West Germany as Der Erzwungene Krieg (The Forced War), a book which blamed the outbreak of World War Two due to an alleged Anglo-Polish conspiracy to wage aggression against Germany headed by the British Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax and the Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain who were allegedly assisted by Polish Foreign Minister Colonel Józef Beck in what Hoggan called a monstrous anti-German plot. Hoggan argued that Hitler's foreign policy was entirely peaceful and moderate, and that it was Nazi Germany that was in Hoggan's opinion an innocent victim of Allied aggression. Moreover, Hoggan accused the Polish government of engaging in what he called hideous persecution of its German minority, and claimed that the Polish government's policies towards the ethnic German minority were far worse then the Nazi regime's policies towards the Jewish minority. Hoggan justified the huge one billion Reich-mark fine imposed on the entire Jewish community in Germany after the 1938 Kristallnacht pogrom as a reasonable measure to prevent what he called "Jewish profiteering" at the expense of German insurance companies and alleged that no Jews were killed in the Kristallnacht. A particular area of controversy centered around Hoggan’s claim that the situation of German Jewry before World War Two was extremely favorable to the Jewish community in Germany, and that none of the various anti-Semitic laws and measures of the Nazis had any deleterious effects on German Jews.
In the early 1960s, Hoggan's book attracted much attention, and was the subject of a cover story in Der Spiegel magazine in its May 13, 1964 edition. Hoggan’s thesis was widely attacked as wrong-headed. Further increasing fanning the flames of the criticism was the revelation that Hoggan had received his research funds from and that he himself was a member of several neo-Nazi groups in the United States and West Germany, and the charge that Hoggan had wilfully misinterpreted and falsified historical evidence to fit his argument. Another source of controversy lie with Hoggan's choice of publisher, the firm of Grabert Verlag which was run by former Nazi who made little secret of his belief that Germany should have won World War Two. When Der Erzwungene Krieg was translated into English in 1989, it was published by the Institute for Historical Review.
One of Hoggan's leading detractors was the historian Hans Rothfels, the director of the Institut für Zeitgeschichte (Institute for Contemporary History), who used the journal of the Institute, the Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte to attack Hoggan and his work, which Rothfels saw as sub-standard pseudo-history attempting to masquerade as serious scholarship. In a lengthy letter to the editor of the American Historical Review in 1964, Rothfels exposed Hoggan's membership in a neo-Nazi group. Another leading critic was the U.S. historian Gerhard Weinberg, who wrote an harsh book review in the October 1962 edition of the American Historical Review. In response, Barnes and Hoggan wrote a series of letters attempting to rebut Weinberg's arguments, who in his turn wrote letters replying to and rebutting the arguments of Hoggan and Barnes. The exchanges between Hoggan and Barnes on one side and Weinberg on the other became increasing rancorous and vitriolic to such an extend that in October 1963 the editors of the American Historical Review announced that they cease publishing letters relating to Hoggan’s book in the interests of decorum.
In a 1964 article, the German historian Helmut Krausnick, who was of the leading scholars associated with the Institute for Contemporary History accused Hoggan of manufacturing much of his "evidence". Hoggan’s former professors at Harvard described his book as bearing no resemblance to the PhD dissertation that he had submitted in 1948. Another point of criticism was the decision of two German historical societies to award Hoggan the Leopold von Ranke and Ulrich von Hutten Prizes for outstanding scholarship; many such as the historian Gordon A. Craig felt that by honouring Hoggan, these societies had destroyed the value of the awards. The majority opinion of historians was that Hoggan’s work was a worthless book that merely sought to acquit Adolf Hitler of responsibility for World War Two.
In following years, Hoggan maintained a close association with various neo-Nazi and Holocaust denial groups. In 1969 Hoggan wrote a book The Myth of the Six Million denying the Holocaust and another one in 1985 called The Myth of New History that once again denied the Holocaust. In the 1980s, Hoggan was a leading member of the Institute for Historical Review (I.H.R) and a featured speaker at the I.H.R.’s Sixth Conference in 1985. Hoggan died in Menlo Park, California. Hoggan's work has remained popular with anti-Semitic groups, but is generally dismissed by historians as little more than an apologia for Nazi Germany. In the opinion of historians such as Lucy Dawidowicz and Deborah E. Lipstadt, Hoggan was a pioneer of the Holocaust Denial industry in the 1960s, and he has been accused of blazing a trail that many subsequent Holocaust deniers followed."
Here's what Wikipedia has on him & it in their 'Holocaust denial' entry...
"A prominent early Holocaust denier was the American historian David Hoggan, who wrote a book in 1961 called the Der Erzwungene Krieg (The Forced War), which was primarily concerned with the origins of World War Two, but also down-played or justified the effects of Nazi anti-Semitic measures in the pre-1939 period. Subsequently, Hoggan wrote one of the first books denying the Holocaust in 1969 entitled The Myth of the Six Million, which was published by the Noontide Press, a small Los Angles based publisher noted for specializing in anti-Semitic literature. Hoggan became one of the early stars of the Holocaust denial movement, because he had a number of professorships at prestigious universities."
And wikipedia on "the Hoax of the Twentieth Century"...
"The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry is a book by Arthur R. Butz. It has been seen as having formed the basis of much of the Holocaust denial movement, of those who deny that the Germans attempted to exterminate the Jews of Europe during World War II. It has been subject to a number of attempts to prevent its display at library events, and its importation to Canada.
It was first published in 1975 by Historical Review Press (Great Britain)."
And wikipedia on its author, Arthur Butz....
"Arthur Butz is an American Holocaust denier and professor of electrical engineering at Northwestern University. He has been tenured there since 1974.
In 1976, Butz wrote The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry, in which he asserted that the Holocaust (a) did not occur and (b) has been deliberately contrived in order to justify the creation of the state of Israel.
Most recently, Butz attracted attention when he issued a statement in which he agreed with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's alleged statement that the Holocaust is a "myth." In a press release dated December 18, 2005, Butz wrote, "I congratulate him [Ahmadinejad] on becoming the first head of state to speak out clearly on these issues [the alleged fabrication of the Holocaust], and regret only that it was not a Western head of state. His political remarks receive no comment on my side. By 'political remarks' I mean those that deal with questions of what ought to happen now." "
=================
Looks to me like those books "dispute that the above killings happened."
You're welcome.
:)
As far as VPW's reason (s) for showing "The Hiding Place", I dont know if it matters much. From my knowledge of Nazi thinking, gleaned from my (plentiful?) WWII and preceeding years studies, I believe the showing of such a film for any reason would be repugnant to a true Nazi, since the film displays persecution and killing of Jewish people.
I don't think twi was a neo-nazi or any other kind,
but he sure expressed a lot of pathos and sympathy for them,
and never seemed to condemn them in the middle of all that.
Most of his anti-Jew, anti-Israel stuff seemed to be US-grown conspiracy stuff
swallowed whole after being manufactured from whole cloth by the
Weren't those books concerned with disputing the NUMBER of Jews killed by the German Nazi regime? PLEASE correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think they disputed that the above killings happened. A very wide disparity with the "accepted" six million, yes, but still I think the main point was disputing the number.
Lifted up, not quite ... together with disputing the 6 million number, the books give facts and opinions for advancing the idea that the deaths were caused by reasons other than genocide.
The Thirteenth Tribe advances the idea that some modern Jews came from the Khazars, not from one of the 12 tribes. That idea has not been proven false. What has been proven false is to say that ALL OF TODAYS JEWS or ALL ASHKANAZI JEWS are from the Khazars. That has been disproven, thru DNA as Wordwolf said.
Lifted up, not quite ... together with disputing the 6 million number, the books give facts and opinions for advancing the idea that the deaths were caused by reasons other than genocide.
The books support every idea except that
A) Hitler and Nazi Germany decided to attempt to exterminate Jews in Germany,
B) and then carried out a program to exterminate Jews in Germany,
C) and thus succeeded in killing millions of Jews in Germany.
Feel free to review the 20-page discussion we had, which I linked to.
Almost all of us view the evidence that they did all of those is conclusive and
non-equivocal.
Allan and Oldiesman claim the opposite position.
(Is it a coincidence that the only supporters of the neo-Nazi position
are those who are diehard vpw supporters? Some think it's not....)
The Thirteenth Tribe advances the idea that some modern Jews came from the Khazars, not from one of the 12 tribes. That idea has not been proven false. What has been proven false is to say that ALL OF TODAYS JEWS or ALL ASHKANAZI JEWS are from the Khazars. That has been disproven, thru DNA as Wordwolf said.
(Wikipedia again.)
"Koestler's thesis that Ashkenazi Jews are not Semitic has become an important claim of many anti-Semitic groups. Some Palestinian advocates have adopted this thesis quite eagerly, since they believe identifying most Jews as non-Semitic would seriously undermine their historical claims to the land of Israel."
Koestler's position, in and of itself,
was that the Ashkenazi Jews are Khazars and NOT Semetic AT ALL.
Period. Not even a little. All Khazars who converted.
THAT idea HAS been proven false thru DNA evidence.
Now, some people (like vpw and lcm) took the content of Koestler's book and misread its
contents and implications, so they came away with the idea that
"all today's Jews are from the Khazars and not Semetic at all, not even a little, only
Khazars who converted."
That, technically, was not the book's contents, but an exaggeration of its contents.
The actual contents WERE disproven, and the exaggeration is ridiculously false.
That having been said,
if vpw said it, some people will make that the final word in any discussion.
(Reminds me, I wonder how our little friend's anti-GSC messageboard is doing?)
If there is DNA evidence, it would suggest (not prove) that there are some (not all) Eastern European Jews that descended from Isrealite Jews. Kevin Alan Brook (author of: The Jews of Khazaria) shows convincing evidence that Eastern European Jews descended from both the Khazarian and the Israelite Jews.
Almost all of us view the evidence that they did all of those is conclusive and non-equivocal.
Allan and Oldiesman claim the opposite position.
(Is it a coincidence that the only supporters of the neo-Nazi position
are those who are diehard vpw supporters? Some think it's not....)
Wordwolf, I guess you can't help spinning. I don't know where Allan stands on his beliefs regarding this topic, he can speak for himself, but I've stated that I don't know quite what to believe regarding the holocaust. I support reading all the books, to get all viewpoints. I support someone reading the books from twi, to get the revisionist view. But that's not the same as endorsing the books as truth, or the same as being a neo-nazi or anti-semite. If you think it is, that's your problem. I support free speech and the freedom to read and consider opposition viewpoints. Please don't misrepresent my position.
What I DO think is that there's an existing propaganda machine that uses the holocaust issue as propaganda, to have Americans fork over billions of dollars to Israel every year.
If there is DNA evidence, it would suggest (not prove) that there are some (not all) Eastern European Jews that descended from Isrealite Jews. Kevin Alan Brook (author of: The Jews of Khazaria) shows convincing evidence that Eastern European Jews descended from both the Khazarian and the Israelite Jews.
[spinning: when WordWolf says something Oldiesman can't refute with evidence or
facts, requiring him to make accusations and personal attacks if he's to
hang on tightly to his pet positions]
I don't know where Allan stands on his beliefs regarding this topic, he can speak for himself,
[Ok, I made a mistake there.
I didnt mean Allan, I meant What They Hey-
as WTH has just reminded me.
Just swap their names in the previous post.]
but I've stated that I don't know quite what to believe regarding the holocaust. I support reading all the books, to get all viewpoints. I support someone reading the books from twi, to get the revisionist view.
[up to a point, skepticism is good.
Considering all viewpoints and reading all viewpoints works up to a point.
After that, it's either postponing an unpleasant decision,
or refusing to declare one's position because it's unpopular.
We see this every election year when candidates suddenly get silent
or evasive on specific issues.]
But that's not the same as endorsing the books as truth, or the same as being a neo-nazi or anti-semite. If you think it is, that's your problem. I support free speech and the freedom to read and consider opposition viewpoints. Please don't misrepresent my position.
[Please don't misrepresent MY position.
I never called you a neo-nazi nor an anti-semite.
I said you supported the position that Neo-Nazis put forth.
That they are the ones putting this forth should be obvious by now,
and I can supply links if you wish to contest this and waste time.
That leaves whether or not you "supported" the position.
All parts of their supposed evidence have been refuted
(in 20 pages of thread),
yet you continue to post as though it has not,
and that there's equal amounts of evidence supporting both sides.
If you prefer,
I can just say that you've argued FOR their position and maintained
that it has merit even after it's been completely refuted.
That's obvious from previous posts,
and most people WOULD call that "supporting" one side,
and NOT maintaining an objectivity or neutrality.
If you don't want to call it that, whatever.]
What I DO think is that there's an existing propaganda machine that uses the holocaust issue as propaganda, to have Americans fork over billions of dollars to Israel every year.
[That puts you in agreement with certain groups you don't want me to mention
the name of, but me not naming them doesn't mean the other posters
I can just say that you've argued FOR their position and maintained
that it has merit even after it's been completely refuted.
That's obvious from previous posts,
and most people WOULD call that "supporting" one side,
and NOT maintaining an objectivity or neutrality.
If you don't want to call it that, whatever.][/b]
I support the right for folks to read and consider an unpopular position like the revisionist literature without having to apologize for doing so, and without being labelled anti-semitic and neo-nazi.
Thank God we live in America. This stuff is banned in Germany and Israel.
The assertion was that the Khazar bloodline REPLACED the Jew bloodline entirely in Ashkenazi Jews, and that was what the book said. That was DISPROVEN.
You were/are asserting DNA evidence has provided and conclusively disproven all of this.
The truth is, all existing genetic studies fail to compare modern Jewish population DNA to ancient/medieval Khazarian Judean DNA. Although advanced genetic testing has helped to determine which Jewish communities likely descended from Israelites and which did not, those genetic studies are not conclusive. Additional research is needed, and may take many years to sort it all out.
For a good connection (which is more likely to be a tangental, fellow-traveller connection than anything else), the reader should probably refer to these threads, which have discussed the topic ad nauseum:
I support the right for folks to read and consider an unpopular position like the revisionist literature without having to apologize for doing so, and without being labelled anti-semitic and neo-nazi.
Thank God we live in America. This stuff is banned in Germany and Israel.
Ok,
at the moment,
I'll leave that as-is,
and say that this particular statement-
about being free to read and consider-
is something we both agree on.
========
Perhaps if WTH reads more,
he'll understand enough on the DNA testing to understand
how Koestler's assertion was disproven.
(I'd bet real money against it, but it could happen.)
I have to say, I don't see how genetics makes one bit of difference in all of this.
Regardless of whether the Ashkenazi Jews are genetically linked to the Jews of O.T. times or not, Hitler BELIEVED these people were Jews and committed genocide against them.
In terms of the right here and now - I am Jewish, whether or not you can genetically link me to the Jews of O.T. times.
I am Jewish not because of DNA alone (in fact that really bears no impact on me at all). I am Jewish because of what I believe religiously and because of the cultural background of my family.
While there may be some Jews who hold fast to the DNA aspect of things and are not practicing religiously. I would bet that the majority of people who consider themselves Jewish (and who really care whether or not others view them as Jews), do so based on cultural and religious beliefs and not DNA. In fact, it is possible to convert to Judaism, regardeless of your genetics.
To me, arguing about the genetic structure of today's Jews is akin to arguing about whether the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge was an apple or a fig. It really bears no import, and is simply a diversion from the real point.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
8
8
6
8
Popular Days
Jun 3
25
Jul 11
13
Jun 4
11
Jun 8
4
Top Posters In This Topic
oldiesman 8 posts
Catcup 8 posts
WordWolf 6 posts
Trefor Heywood 8 posts
Popular Days
Jun 3 2005
25 posts
Jul 11 2006
13 posts
Jun 4 2005
11 posts
Jun 8 2005
4 posts
grand-daughter
I was put under the impression that V. P. loved the jews and also had people read "The Hiding Place" by Corrie Tenboom as a way of being prepared in your heart if it were ever to happen again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
grand daughter...welcome to the GreaseSpot!
It's true that Veepee promoted the book "The Hiding Place"...but I think it was more of a case of the example set of tenacity and determination than it was pro Jew.
In my considerable experience with Wierwille, he seemed extremely anti-semetic...as did Martindale as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MountainTopCO
There is a major difference between Christianity and Islam. Christianity went through a reformation to get it out of the clutches of medieval Roman Catholic Empire. This brought it back closer to it’s origins of the 1st century church.
Islam’s origin is medieval and a reformation would only bring it deeper into the dark ages. The only hope for Islam is a free market system. Free-market enterprise is what started the reformation and might liberate the people of Islam.
There are two sides to Islam. First, the conquer\convert by the sword. Once conquered and converted one must live peaceably together. That is the second side to Islam. Very similar to the Roman Catholic Empire before the reformation. Unfortunately with out a reformation, you can’t separate the first from the second. And Islam can’t have a reformation. Free market democracy is their only hope.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
So, in other words:
and maybe even:
Thanks for pointing out the Truth of the matter.
Whew!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
hi grand-daughter and welcome to Greasespot Cafe.
Thanks for mentioning this, I've seen Dr. Wierwille love all races equally, and Jews were always welcome in twi.
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Looks like Jack Chic has come out with a new version of his anti-Catholic spewag---errr, material.
I prefer Dilbert comics, thank you. <_< besides, Dogbert has a far better plan for world domination.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
Weren't those books concerned with disputing the NUMBER of Jews killed by the German Nazi regime? PLEASE correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think they disputed that the above killings happened. A very wide disparity with the "accepted" six million, yes, but still I think the main point was disputing the number.
As far as VPW's reason (s) for showing "The Hiding Place", I dont know if it matters much. From my knowledge of Nazi thinking, gleaned from my (plentiful?) WWII and preceeding years studies, I believe the showing of such a filf for any reason would be repugnant to a true Nazi, since the film displays persecution and killing of Jewish people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
The Thirteenth Tribe claimed the modern Jews were essentially counterfeit Jews.
(DNA testing has disproven this one entirely.)
Myth of the Six Million...
Here's what wikipedia says about the author, David Hoggan...
"In 1955, Barnes encouraged Hoggan to turn his dissertation into a book, which was published in West Germany as Der Erzwungene Krieg (The Forced War), a book which blamed the outbreak of World War Two due to an alleged Anglo-Polish conspiracy to wage aggression against Germany headed by the British Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax and the Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain who were allegedly assisted by Polish Foreign Minister Colonel Józef Beck in what Hoggan called a monstrous anti-German plot. Hoggan argued that Hitler's foreign policy was entirely peaceful and moderate, and that it was Nazi Germany that was in Hoggan's opinion an innocent victim of Allied aggression. Moreover, Hoggan accused the Polish government of engaging in what he called hideous persecution of its German minority, and claimed that the Polish government's policies towards the ethnic German minority were far worse then the Nazi regime's policies towards the Jewish minority. Hoggan justified the huge one billion Reich-mark fine imposed on the entire Jewish community in Germany after the 1938 Kristallnacht pogrom as a reasonable measure to prevent what he called "Jewish profiteering" at the expense of German insurance companies and alleged that no Jews were killed in the Kristallnacht. A particular area of controversy centered around Hoggan’s claim that the situation of German Jewry before World War Two was extremely favorable to the Jewish community in Germany, and that none of the various anti-Semitic laws and measures of the Nazis had any deleterious effects on German Jews.
In the early 1960s, Hoggan's book attracted much attention, and was the subject of a cover story in Der Spiegel magazine in its May 13, 1964 edition. Hoggan’s thesis was widely attacked as wrong-headed. Further increasing fanning the flames of the criticism was the revelation that Hoggan had received his research funds from and that he himself was a member of several neo-Nazi groups in the United States and West Germany, and the charge that Hoggan had wilfully misinterpreted and falsified historical evidence to fit his argument. Another source of controversy lie with Hoggan's choice of publisher, the firm of Grabert Verlag which was run by former Nazi who made little secret of his belief that Germany should have won World War Two. When Der Erzwungene Krieg was translated into English in 1989, it was published by the Institute for Historical Review.
One of Hoggan's leading detractors was the historian Hans Rothfels, the director of the Institut für Zeitgeschichte (Institute for Contemporary History), who used the journal of the Institute, the Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte to attack Hoggan and his work, which Rothfels saw as sub-standard pseudo-history attempting to masquerade as serious scholarship. In a lengthy letter to the editor of the American Historical Review in 1964, Rothfels exposed Hoggan's membership in a neo-Nazi group. Another leading critic was the U.S. historian Gerhard Weinberg, who wrote an harsh book review in the October 1962 edition of the American Historical Review. In response, Barnes and Hoggan wrote a series of letters attempting to rebut Weinberg's arguments, who in his turn wrote letters replying to and rebutting the arguments of Hoggan and Barnes. The exchanges between Hoggan and Barnes on one side and Weinberg on the other became increasing rancorous and vitriolic to such an extend that in October 1963 the editors of the American Historical Review announced that they cease publishing letters relating to Hoggan’s book in the interests of decorum.
In a 1964 article, the German historian Helmut Krausnick, who was of the leading scholars associated with the Institute for Contemporary History accused Hoggan of manufacturing much of his "evidence". Hoggan’s former professors at Harvard described his book as bearing no resemblance to the PhD dissertation that he had submitted in 1948. Another point of criticism was the decision of two German historical societies to award Hoggan the Leopold von Ranke and Ulrich von Hutten Prizes for outstanding scholarship; many such as the historian Gordon A. Craig felt that by honouring Hoggan, these societies had destroyed the value of the awards. The majority opinion of historians was that Hoggan’s work was a worthless book that merely sought to acquit Adolf Hitler of responsibility for World War Two.
In following years, Hoggan maintained a close association with various neo-Nazi and Holocaust denial groups. In 1969 Hoggan wrote a book The Myth of the Six Million denying the Holocaust and another one in 1985 called The Myth of New History that once again denied the Holocaust. In the 1980s, Hoggan was a leading member of the Institute for Historical Review (I.H.R) and a featured speaker at the I.H.R.’s Sixth Conference in 1985. Hoggan died in Menlo Park, California. Hoggan's work has remained popular with anti-Semitic groups, but is generally dismissed by historians as little more than an apologia for Nazi Germany. In the opinion of historians such as Lucy Dawidowicz and Deborah E. Lipstadt, Hoggan was a pioneer of the Holocaust Denial industry in the 1960s, and he has been accused of blazing a trail that many subsequent Holocaust deniers followed."
Here's what Wikipedia has on him & it in their 'Holocaust denial' entry...
"A prominent early Holocaust denier was the American historian David Hoggan, who wrote a book in 1961 called the Der Erzwungene Krieg (The Forced War), which was primarily concerned with the origins of World War Two, but also down-played or justified the effects of Nazi anti-Semitic measures in the pre-1939 period. Subsequently, Hoggan wrote one of the first books denying the Holocaust in 1969 entitled The Myth of the Six Million, which was published by the Noontide Press, a small Los Angles based publisher noted for specializing in anti-Semitic literature. Hoggan became one of the early stars of the Holocaust denial movement, because he had a number of professorships at prestigious universities."
And wikipedia on "the Hoax of the Twentieth Century"...
"The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry is a book by Arthur R. Butz. It has been seen as having formed the basis of much of the Holocaust denial movement, of those who deny that the Germans attempted to exterminate the Jews of Europe during World War II. It has been subject to a number of attempts to prevent its display at library events, and its importation to Canada.
It was first published in 1975 by Historical Review Press (Great Britain)."
And wikipedia on its author, Arthur Butz....
"Arthur Butz is an American Holocaust denier and professor of electrical engineering at Northwestern University. He has been tenured there since 1974.
In 1976, Butz wrote The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry, in which he asserted that the Holocaust (a) did not occur and (b) has been deliberately contrived in order to justify the creation of the state of Israel.
Most recently, Butz attracted attention when he issued a statement in which he agreed with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's alleged statement that the Holocaust is a "myth." In a press release dated December 18, 2005, Butz wrote, "I congratulate him [Ahmadinejad] on becoming the first head of state to speak out clearly on these issues [the alleged fabrication of the Holocaust], and regret only that it was not a Western head of state. His political remarks receive no comment on my side. By 'political remarks' I mean those that deal with questions of what ought to happen now." "
=================
Looks to me like those books "dispute that the above killings happened."
You're welcome.
:)
I don't think twi was a neo-nazi or any other kind,
but he sure expressed a lot of pathos and sympathy for them,
and never seemed to condemn them in the middle of all that.
Most of his anti-Jew, anti-Israel stuff seemed to be US-grown conspiracy stuff
swallowed whole after being manufactured from whole cloth by the
John Birch Society and the Liberty Lobby.
BTW,
we had 20 pages of discussion on this here...
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...c=9836&st=0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Lifted up, not quite ... together with disputing the 6 million number, the books give facts and opinions for advancing the idea that the deaths were caused by reasons other than genocide.
The Thirteenth Tribe advances the idea that some modern Jews came from the Khazars, not from one of the 12 tribes. That idea has not been proven false. What has been proven false is to say that ALL OF TODAYS JEWS or ALL ASHKANAZI JEWS are from the Khazars. That has been disproven, thru DNA as Wordwolf said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
The books support every idea except that
A) Hitler and Nazi Germany decided to attempt to exterminate Jews in Germany,
B) and then carried out a program to exterminate Jews in Germany,
C) and thus succeeded in killing millions of Jews in Germany.
Feel free to review the 20-page discussion we had, which I linked to.
Almost all of us view the evidence that they did all of those is conclusive and
non-equivocal.
Allan and Oldiesman claim the opposite position.
(Is it a coincidence that the only supporters of the neo-Nazi position
are those who are diehard vpw supporters? Some think it's not....)
(Wikipedia again.)
"Koestler's thesis that Ashkenazi Jews are not Semitic has become an important claim of many anti-Semitic groups. Some Palestinian advocates have adopted this thesis quite eagerly, since they believe identifying most Jews as non-Semitic would seriously undermine their historical claims to the land of Israel."
Koestler's position, in and of itself,
was that the Ashkenazi Jews are Khazars and NOT Semetic AT ALL.
Period. Not even a little. All Khazars who converted.
THAT idea HAS been proven false thru DNA evidence.
Now, some people (like vpw and lcm) took the content of Koestler's book and misread its
contents and implications, so they came away with the idea that
"all today's Jews are from the Khazars and not Semetic at all, not even a little, only
Khazars who converted."
That, technically, was not the book's contents, but an exaggeration of its contents.
The actual contents WERE disproven, and the exaggeration is ridiculously false.
That having been said,
if vpw said it, some people will make that the final word in any discussion.
(Reminds me, I wonder how our little friend's anti-GSC messageboard is doing?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
If there is DNA evidence, it would suggest (not prove) that there are some (not all) Eastern European Jews that descended from Isrealite Jews. Kevin Alan Brook (author of: The Jews of Khazaria) shows convincing evidence that Eastern European Jews descended from both the Khazarian and the Israelite Jews.
Are Russian Jews Descended from the Khazars?
A Reassessment Based upon the Latest Historical, Archaeological, Linguistic, and Genetic Evidence
by Kevin Alan Brook
Edited by What The HeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Wordwolf, I guess you can't help spinning. I don't know where Allan stands on his beliefs regarding this topic, he can speak for himself, but I've stated that I don't know quite what to believe regarding the holocaust. I support reading all the books, to get all viewpoints. I support someone reading the books from twi, to get the revisionist view. But that's not the same as endorsing the books as truth, or the same as being a neo-nazi or anti-semite. If you think it is, that's your problem. I support free speech and the freedom to read and consider opposition viewpoints. Please don't misrepresent my position.
What I DO think is that there's an existing propaganda machine that uses the holocaust issue as propaganda, to have Americans fork over billions of dollars to Israel every year.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
The entire point that is made of the supposed Khazar connection has nothing to do with
including the Khazars in the family tree.
It is ENTIRELY about EXCLUDING THE JEWS from the family tree.
Are some Khazars in some bloodlines of some Eastern European Jews?
Yes, and nobody ever questioned that.
The assertion was that the Khazar bloodline REPLACED the Jew bloodline entirely
in Ashkenazi Jews, and that was what the book said.
That was DISPROVEN.
Then vpw & lcm came along and said ALL Jews are descended from Khazars
and not from Jewish bloodlines not Khazars EVER.
That was never even on the table for discussion,
but they taught it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[spinning: when WordWolf says something Oldiesman can't refute with evidence or
facts, requiring him to make accusations and personal attacks if he's to
hang on tightly to his pet positions]
[Ok, I made a mistake there.I didnt mean Allan, I meant What They Hey-
as WTH has just reminded me.
Just swap their names in the previous post.]
[up to a point, skepticism is good.
Considering all viewpoints and reading all viewpoints works up to a point.
After that, it's either postponing an unpleasant decision,
or refusing to declare one's position because it's unpopular.
We see this every election year when candidates suddenly get silent
or evasive on specific issues.]
[Please don't misrepresent MY position.I never called you a neo-nazi nor an anti-semite.
I said you supported the position that Neo-Nazis put forth.
That they are the ones putting this forth should be obvious by now,
and I can supply links if you wish to contest this and waste time.
That leaves whether or not you "supported" the position.
All parts of their supposed evidence have been refuted
(in 20 pages of thread),
yet you continue to post as though it has not,
and that there's equal amounts of evidence supporting both sides.
If you prefer,
I can just say that you've argued FOR their position and maintained
that it has merit even after it's been completely refuted.
That's obvious from previous posts,
and most people WOULD call that "supporting" one side,
and NOT maintaining an objectivity or neutrality.
If you don't want to call it that, whatever.]
[That puts you in agreement with certain groups you don't want me to mention
the name of, but me not naming them doesn't mean the other posters
don't see the connection without me....]
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I support the right for folks to read and consider an unpopular position like the revisionist literature without having to apologize for doing so, and without being labelled anti-semitic and neo-nazi.
Thank God we live in America. This stuff is banned in Germany and Israel.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
You were/are asserting DNA evidence has provided and conclusively disproven all of this.
The truth is, all existing genetic studies fail to compare modern Jewish population DNA to ancient/medieval Khazarian Judean DNA. Although advanced genetic testing has helped to determine which Jewish communities likely descended from Israelites and which did not, those genetic studies are not conclusive. Additional research is needed, and may take many years to sort it all out.
Jewish Genetics: Abstracts and Summaries
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Thanks for that information What the Hay.
Lots of stuff to consider and process.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
For a good connection (which is more likely to be a tangental, fellow-traveller connection than anything else), the reader should probably refer to these threads, which have discussed the topic ad nauseum:
As for the subject matter expert on that topic, I think that Sunesis.is about the foremost expert on TWI's involvement with this movement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Ok,
at the moment,
I'll leave that as-is,
and say that this particular statement-
about being free to read and consider-
is something we both agree on.
========
Perhaps if WTH reads more,
he'll understand enough on the DNA testing to understand
how Koestler's assertion was disproven.
(I'd bet real money against it, but it could happen.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
I have to say, I don't see how genetics makes one bit of difference in all of this.
Regardless of whether the Ashkenazi Jews are genetically linked to the Jews of O.T. times or not, Hitler BELIEVED these people were Jews and committed genocide against them.
In terms of the right here and now - I am Jewish, whether or not you can genetically link me to the Jews of O.T. times.
I am Jewish not because of DNA alone (in fact that really bears no impact on me at all). I am Jewish because of what I believe religiously and because of the cultural background of my family.
While there may be some Jews who hold fast to the DNA aspect of things and are not practicing religiously. I would bet that the majority of people who consider themselves Jewish (and who really care whether or not others view them as Jews), do so based on cultural and religious beliefs and not DNA. In fact, it is possible to convert to Judaism, regardeless of your genetics.
To me, arguing about the genetic structure of today's Jews is akin to arguing about whether the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge was an apple or a fig. It really bears no import, and is simply a diversion from the real point.
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
oh.... we're still 'discussing' this?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.