30 Comments Add your own

• 1. reckless G  |  October 7th, 2007 at 9:10 pm

  Good post Michael! This is where the concept of free speech gets tested. I’m glad to see you speak up for our rights. It will be interesting to see where Post bloggers stand and how it turns out for Grassroots.

  As you might know already, Steve Campbell is a friend of mine. Though our views differ widely on the events of 9/11 and the Holocaust, I respect his right and his courage to say what he believes needs to be said. I have questioned him on his motivation and purpose for airing these alternative Holocaust views, and found him to be quite without malice or hatred. He believes it is the truth and that the truth will allow us to dismantle the huge power structure that is ruining our lives and our planet.

  Like me, Steve sees US support of Israel as a big problem for America and the world. He believes that the world is held hostage by Israel because the Holocaust is used to justify their horrific human rights offenses in the name of self defense. He thinks if the world knew what he believes is the truth about the Holocaust, the Israeli’s wouldn’t be able to get away with violating International Law and the hundreds of UN Resolutions that have been brought against them.

  Of course his efforts will be labeled hateful and anti-Semitic. How could we expect otherwise? Probably only I and a handful of others will understand his real motive and his desire to bring to light certain facts he believes will help humanity attain understanding and balance.

• 2. aspenoakes  |  October 8th, 2007 at 6:39 am

  Yes, Grassroots should air this show. I would be interested to how it deals with all the evidence the holocaust.
  I also agree with Reckless G, that US policy in the mid east is a huge problem. How can 'we' think that 'we' can solve this problem. These poeple have been fighting since the begining of recorded history, and will be fighting until end of it as well. We cannot stop something that is probably genetic.

• 3. Mitch.Mulhall  |  October 8th, 2007 at 9:05 am

  I agree that grass roots should air their holocaust denial program, but not for the reasons you might think.

  One immutable truth in my ken is that the holocaust occurred. I personally have visited enough places and seen enough evidence that I cannot give credence to any person or position that suggests the holocaust did not occur. Where this evidence is concerned, I'll spare a considerable body of critical study and hold up two of the more influential pieces.

  First, my sixth grade teacher was Mrs. Marjorie Nicholson. Of all the teachers I had in my formative years, no teacher was a more effective in teaching me. She more than anyone instilled in me an inner need to take academics seriously, to do my school work well (though I must admit some serious lapses during high school). Mrs. Nicholson tended to wear long sleeve shirts to hide a numeric tattoo on her arm. I, for one, will remember her not for this bodily defect, but for the way she made me a better person.

  Second , when I was about twenty or twenty-one, I spent an unusually emotional day coming to grips with my naiveté about man's evil against man. As the gravel of the Dachau labor camp crunched under my Stan Smith's, I felt the unaffected simplicity of my youth leave me without so much as a fond farewell. Dachau was a labor camp, as opposed to an extermination camp, a fact that was not lost on me at the time. In retrospect, I'm haunted by the surety that had I walked the grounds of an extermination camp like Auschwitz-Birkenau or Bełżec instead, I may never have been able to lift the darkness that shrouded my soul that day.

  On the radio this morning, G managed to tie a tidy little knot connecting the holocaust and current US foreign policy.

  This connection may or may not be true. I am willing to listen to evidence for and against this connection. That said, in my opinion, any argument that attempts to mitigate the abject inhumanity of the holocaust or denies that the holocaust irreparably damages a position.

  So I say let Mr. Campbell air this program on grass roots TV. In fact, give him stage before and after the program to frame exactly what it is he wishes us to take away from seeing this program. In this way, we will all be able to see this position for the bag of hammers that it is.

  Cheers,

• 4. Wharf Rat  |  October 8th, 2007 at 1:21 pm

  It is appropriate that this topic is being discussed on Columbus Day (or perhaps Taino Extermination Day, based upon one's perspective). Should we presume that those who are protesting the Columbus Day parade in Denver are "bigoted" or "racist" against Italians or that their protest is "offensive not only to Italians in the world, but to any sensible person"?

  Let me first be clear in stating that I do not deny the existence of the Holocaust, nor do I deny the accuracy of its mainstream historical documentation. I visited Auschwitz-Birkenau and it was the single most emotional experience in my life to date. As I sit here reviewing the faded photos of the visit in my photo album, I believe there is virtually no way that a reasonable person could leave a visit to that concentration camp without concluding they were witnessing the remains of one of the worst atrocities committed by mankind in a supposed age of reason. I am not Jewish. I am not German. I am not Zionist. I am not an anti-Semite. I'd like to think I'm a fairly unbiased observer.

  I'm siding with the Con Man, Reckless, and Mitch on this one. Show the "documentary." I just watched it on the internet and, to be honest, I have no idea how it could be classified as "racist", "hate speech", or "an homage to [Joseph] Goebbels" (a statement attributed to GrassRoots TV Executive Director John Masters.

  At best it is an extremely unpersuasive piece of propaganda not-so-smartly dressed as a "documentary." The primary points made by the narrator are that: 1) "international Zionists" declared war on Hitler's Germany and Hitler was merely defending his country from the Zionist aggression [laughable]; 2) the alleged gassing and cremation of six million bodies would have been impossible based upon a variety of factors, including a lack of fuel and appropriate gassing facilities [mostly laughable, but the narrator does raise some interesting points]; and 3) the prisoners at the concentration camps were treated better than historically depicted [slightly less laughable in that the conclusion is based upon a few cherry-picked photos in which prisoners look to be in less dire physical straits]. I also note that the documentary readily admits that prisoners were executed at the prison camps.

  Nowhere, however, can the film be compared to, or characterized as, the depiction of "men in white hoods calling people niggers" (GrassRoots Board Member Bovino), "sexual exploitation of children" (Con Man), "a platform for racial bigotry" (GrassRoots Board Member Feldman), or "graphic violence and dismemberment" (Con Man). Notwithstanding the difficult chore in determining where the line should be drawn in terms of what content to broadcast, this "documentary" does not rate anywhere close to the proper placement of that imaginary line. By the way, Con Man, I know you were put on the spot but you might want to rethink your criteria for offensive, banned content--that is about as far from a bright-line test as one could imagine! Child porn--banned! Texas Chainsaw Massacre--banned!

  The bottom line is that people should be allowed to view this type of program on a public access channel. It can only serve to allow the viewer to ask more questions and perhaps read or view other more accurate accounts of the Holocaust. If nothing else, it will raise awareness and expose weak arguments for what they are. Honestly, for those afraid to air this--what are you worried about? If you are personally offended, do not watch it.

• 5. Wharf Rat  |  October 8th, 2007 at 1:39 pm

  By the way, Mr. Con Man, I hope you will get Steve Campbell on your talk show. You got busted by that guy Aaron that called in. If you can find a Christian insurance cooperative representative or a GrassRoots TV Board member in a matter of minutes, I'm sure you can pick up the phone and call Mr. Campbell. I'd bet Reckless could put you in touch with him instantaneously.

  Although I realize you like to portray yourself as a "both sides of the story" kinda guy, I can't help but be reminded of the so-called efforts to locate a guest that provided a counter-perspective to your "expert" McGarry on the immigration issue. Fortunately, after months of waiting, you finally "found" one--much to the betterment of your show. I enjoyed listening to McGarry get his hat handed to him!

• 6. reckless G  |  October 8th, 2007 at 1:40 pm

  This topic has been swirling around in my head all morning, I could hardly concentrate on my work. Michaels suggested I write a post, but I really don’t need to because here it is!

  Wharf, you are probably the only person who has actually seen the film. Steve has asked me to view it several times and I’ve declined, which I now regret. Thanks for taking the time to do that and for your report. You raise some good questions which I will partially echo here.

  Coincidentally, I ran into Steve Campbell on my way in to the office, and we of course chatted about this controversy. Steve is holding his ground because he believes this is a critical issue concerning the recent law passed in Congress on hate speech. Are we going to follow certain European countries’ lead and imprison people for deviating from the official Holocaust story? Because that’s the next step in the road we’re headed down.

  Which is why I so admire Michael’s position. While he finds the type of film Steve wants to air abhorrent, he still believes in his right to show it. Let the audience decide for themselves. Let those offended refrain from watching it. Bravo!

  But I still want to know why this film is considered dangerous and hateful. Especially why it’s considered hateful. I’ve been called hateful for talking about Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians. Where does that come from? You wouldn’t call a white person hateful if they quoted a statistic regarding the number of black people that are convicted of crimes in America. You wouldn’t call an Asian person hateful for quoting statistics about Caucasians getting lower grade scores than Asians.

  So why is it ok to call me hateful for quoting statistics regarding Israel’s human rights violations? Just because Israel is a country of Jews?

  Why is Steve hateful for wanting to present an alternative view of history? Just because that history involves Jews?

  So why do Jews get a pass? Because of the Holocaust! Because, allegedly, Muslim Extremists want to annihilate Jews…the way Hitler wanted to annihilate Jews. It’s all about the Holocaust. But we’re not allowed to discuss the Holocaust outside of the framework that has been given us.

  Why?

  What’s the worst that could happen if films like this get aired all over America? Let’s think it through. And Ira Jaffrey’s ridiculous assertion that Jews will drop dead of heart attacks doesn’t count.

• 7. Wharf Rat  |  October 8th, 2007 at 2:13 pm

  Reckless,

  I think the "hateful" allegation comes from a twist in logic; i.e., this documentary is hateful because it could only come from a person or organization with a perspective that is hateful toward Jews. Since the perspective of the proponent is presumed to be hateful, the body of work is therefore inherently hateful.

  If the "documentary" went a step further and, for instance, asked the anti-Semites of the world to rise up against the fraudulent Zionist oppressors based upon the alleged "facts" of the documentary, I'd ban it as hate speech in a nanosecond.

  The distinction I see mirrors the difference between yelling FIRE! in a crowded moviehouse as opposed to yelling THIS MOVIEHOUSE IS NOT CONSTRUCTED WITH TWO-HOUR FIREWALLS!

  By the way, I have no idea where Jaffrey came up with that gem--once again, I think the Con Man should be a bit more judicious in his annointment of certain callers/guests as "experts". A health "specialist" might be more appropriate phraseology, or at a minimum, the "expert" need hang up his cloak of expertorium the moment he delves into all matters conspiratorial.

• 8. Mitch.Mulhall  |  October 8th, 2007 at 2:26 pm

  [you are probably the only person who has actually seen the film.]

  Not anymore. It took about a minute to find on YouTube at lunch. You can see all nine ~10 minute segments by following this link:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiq4b5ygB1g&mode=related&search=Holocaust

  I'll watch the rest tonight, but, as Rat indicates, what I've seen so far is an absolute hoot. The film is created by "International Revisionist Video Productions" and is narrated by Dr. Frederick Tobin, he of Tehran's 2006 come-tote-Ahmadinejad's-water conference fame, where attendees included fellow holocaust denier Robert Faurisson and former KKK grand wizard David Duke, among others.

  More later, to be sure...

  Cheers,

• 9. reckless G  |  October 8th, 2007 at 3:17 pm

  I’m supposed to be working but I just can’t seem to leave this alone!

  So the film doesn’t deny that Jews, along with other people, were imprisoned and killed, it just questions how many and how and why they were killed, and whether what really happened constitutes a Holocaust, or just genocide, or merely a consequence of war. All of those people who haven’t seen the film are screaming that it denies that anything at all happened. That seems to be everyone’s main concern; that people will think that nothing happened.

  Well, so what if nothing happened? Would that change anything today? Yes, it would change one thing; no one would be able to defend Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians with such phrases as; “Never again!”

  Why is it so unbelievable that the official record of the Holocaust has some holes in it? Doesn’t any record of an historical event contain the possibility of error? I now know that the story of the US conquest of North American natives didn’t really happen the way my fourth grade textbook portrayed it. We’re just now learning that the official history of US involvement in Viet Nam is not correct.

  Official stories are often only partially correct and it isn’t like we don’t get “officially” lied to on pretty much a daily basis. I am outraged that FOX News airs pro-war programs and features “experts” saying the Iraqis think they are better off and conditions are better than they were under Saddam. I am disgusted and offended by the glorification of war and violence on TV. Here’s what I do to combat this perilous airing of dangerous and hateful views; I don’t watch.

  The difference between me and those that are offended by the revisionist Holocaust film, is that they aren’t content with not watching it themselves, they want to prevent other people from watching.

  That is un-American.

• 10. Mitch.Mulhall  |  October 9th, 2007 at 7:24 pm

  In an earlier comment, Wharfrat characterizes some key premises in the film Judea Declares War on Germany: A Critical Look at World War II as laughable. After an analysis of some of the film's claims, I think Rat’s characterization is far too generous.

  For example, one of the first scenes in this documentary depicts the narrator, Dr. Frederick Tobën, standing before what he calls an Auschwitz “air-raid shelter,” which is accurate. He actually stands before the rear door of the crematorium I at Auschwitz I, which did serve as an air-raid shelter for camp personnel. As the scene continues, Tobën steps before a heavy, metal door and points to what he calls a “peep-hole,” there presumably for observers to witness the last throws of life of the hapless victims of Nazi cruelty. Then he opens the door steps into a “vestibule,” spends a moment noting its confined dimensions, and then steps through an open passage from the vestibule into what is presumably the gas chamber itself. Then, he steps back into the vestibule and draws closed a rickety looking wooden door. The act of closing this door between the supposed chamber and the vestibule is done without narration, as if to ask, “What is this rickety little door doing here between a vestibule and a gas chamber?” What Tobën neglects to share is that the room behind the rickety wooden door is not the gas chamber.

  Similarly, in an effort to bat down the idea that prisoners were gassed with Zyklon B (hydrogen cynide, HCN)—forget about the fact that the Gerstein report indicates that carbon monoxide from gasoline combustion engines was more commonly used—Tobën points to the fact that Zyklon B leaves a blue residue on the walls and ceiling. The documentary then pans along the white-washed walls of the Dachau’s gas chamber—a gas chamber that was never used. What Tobën neglects to share is that at the war’s end, Dachau was in the process of being converted from a labor camp to an extermination camp.

  The film is replete with this kind of tripe, almost all of which can be refuted by little more than observation, common sense, and an internet search engine.

  Would it be an amusing exercise to refute all the claims in this film? Maybe. But I don’t have enough time to do things I enjoy let alone sort this load of soiled underwear. Nevertheless, Tobën makes three claims I think are disingenuous enough to merit correction: first, Tobën claims the U.S. entered World War I because Zionists blackmailed President Woodrow Wilson; second, Tobën claims Zionists controlled Great Britain; and third, Tobën claims the German Concentration Camp System did not kill six million people.

  Before I delve into these three claims, allow me a few words on Tobën’s selective historical perception.

  Tobën’s World War I Perspective

  Toward the end of the first 10 minute segment of the film, Tobën sits at a desk reading a transcript with the long, striated shadows of Venetian blinds radiating behind him as he recounts the historical events surrounding the propaganda he’s about to put forth. Tobën sets up his questioning of history’s accounts of human genocide in Nazi Germany thus (again, I can type fast, but this is not word-for-word):

  Two years into WWI, Germany, winning the war, offered a negotiated peace to Britain and France. To thwart this negotiated peace, German Zionists sought a deal with Britain. If Britain agreed to give Palestine to the Jews, the US would win WWI for Britain and France. The British agreed. Using blackmail, US Zionists pressured then-President Wilson, who relented. The US entered and won the war for Britain and France, and, as promised, Britain signed the Balfour Declaration of 1917.

  At the outset, understand that Tobën regards the holocaust as a hoax. Tobën’s message is that the heart of the problem is and always has been Zionism. He asserts that in WWII “International Zionism wanted to destroy Germany and Hitler, not the other way around.”

  Tobën relies heavily on the writings and speeches of one Benjamin H. Freedman, who claimed, among other things, that a Zionist banking and finance conspiracy sought to undermine Germany during World War I, and that these Zionists offered to embroil the United States in World War I on the allied side in return for British support for a Jewish Homeland in Palestine. Unfortunately, Freedman never offered evidence for these and other claims. When pressed for such evidence, he would reply, “I was there. I ought to know.”

  The Impetus for US Entry into World War I

  According to Tobën, we should attribute US entry into World War I to a lawyer named Samuel Untermyer. Tobën would have us believe that Untermyer, who would in 1933 act as head of the American delegation to the world conference of Jews in Amsterdam, blackmailed then President Woodrow Wilson. The film is conveniently non-specific as to the nature of this blackmail, but this assertion is not without at least a modicum of historical merit. I’ll come back to this in a moment.

  By contrast, according to mainstream history, the US entered WWI due to the “Zimmermann Telegram.” Arthur Zimmermann was the Foreign Secretary of Germany. Said telegram instructed the German Ambassador to Mexico Heinrich von Eckardt to propose a Mexico/German alliance against the US. Britain intercepted the telegram and revealed it to the US in January, 1917. The US Congress declared war on Germany the following April. In a speech before a Joint Session of Congress on April 2nd, 1917, then President Woodrow Wilson cited both the sinking of American ships by German u-boats and the Zimmermann memo as reasons for entering the War.

  So just how much merit is there to the idea that Untermyer blackmailed President Wilson? Very little. It is rumored that Samuel Untermyer was hired by a Princeton Professor who alleged an affair between his wife and President Wilson. Apparently, Untermyer presented Wilson with a breach of promise suit that demanded a $40,000 settlement, money Wilson did not have. As the story goes, Untermeyer offered to pay his client off if Wilson allowed him to suggest the next Supreme Court nominee, which, regardless Untermyer’s role in the nomination, was Louis Brandeis.

  Tobën neglects to mention that Wilson and Untermyer were friends, arguably close, life-long friends. Perhaps the kind of friends your grandmother said you could count on one hand…

  This is the extent of evidence I can find supporting Executive blackmail during the run-up to World War I, and corroborating evidence of this “blackmail” is sketchy at best, certainly not the caliber of proof I’d on which I’d base a documentary. Moreover, the accounts I do find are inflammatory in nature, and made even more dubious by the very websites on which I find them.

  Before I move on, consider how far you must leap to get from suggesting a Supreme Court nominee, if true, to getting a President to declare war on Germany. I’ll leave it to the conspiracy theorists to connect those disparate dots… No doubt they shall.

  Tobën Inflates Zionist Influence on Great Britain

  What Tobën’s brand of revisionism lets float under the bridge is that the Balfour Declaration of 1917 fell far short of Zionist expectations.

  Zionists wanted the reconstitution of Palestine as a Jewish homeland. The Declaration specifically stipulated that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” The Declaration at once stoked the hopes and the ire of Zionists, hopes for a homeland, ire for not getting it on their terms.

  In those days, the U.S. was extremely isolationist. We cared little about Middle Eastern politics, even if one day we would…

  Tobën characterizes Britain and the allied powers as a gaggle of Zionist toties, presumably because the allies tacitly endorsed The Balfour Declaration and its inclusion in the British “Mandate of Palestine,” approved by the League of Nations on July 24, 1922. But Tobën ignores the fact that Zionists were continually annoyed by Britain, even under Neville “the steel spine” Chamberlain’s leadership.

  In May 1939, the British government altered its policy on Palestine in the MacDonald White Paper. The policy set forth in this paper abandoned the “Mandate of Palestine” in favor an independent Palestine governed by both Jews and Arabs in proportion to respective population by 1949. This really put the Zionists’ knickers in a twist. If this weren’t enough, the MacDonald White Paper also recommended limiting the number of additional Jewish immigrants to Palestine to about 75,000 and ending Jewish immigration to Palestine altogether by1944. Of course, Zionists vehemently condemned this policy, accusing Britain of favoring the resident Palestinian Arabs of the region.

  While Tobën claims a cozy relationship between Britain and the Zionists, the truth is quite another matter.

  Labor Camps or Extermination Camps?

  At one point in the film, Tobën holds up a document signed by a Major Miller of the Allied Military Police in Vienna. The document stipulates that no prisoners were gassed in the following camps: Bergen Belsen, Buchenwald, Dachau, Glossenberg, Gross-Rosen, Mauthausen, Natzweller, Neuengamme, Niederhagen, Rabensbrück, Sachsenhausen, Stutthof, and Theresienstadt. According to my research, this assertion is absolutely, unequivocally true. In fact, other German camps fall into this category. Even so, the estimated number of prisoners who perished at these camps is about 850,000.

  The one thing these camps have in common is that with the exceptions of Bergen Belsen, which served as a collection point, and Theresienstadt, which was every bit a ghetto as it was a transit point, all were labor camps. In broad terms, you can classify German concentration camps into the following categories: 1) extermination camps, 2) labor camps (more commonly known as concentration camps), 3) collection points, and 4) transit camps.

  As its name implies, the function of a labor camp was labor. You know, that whole “Arbeit Macht Frei” thing.

  The function of an extermination camp was genocide.

  Major Miller’s assertion omits the following camps:

  Auschwitz
  Treblinka
  Belzec
  Sobibór
  Chelmno
  Majdanek
  Maly Trostenets

  These were extermination camps.

  I hope this examination sheds light on the kind of truth twisting Dr. Tobën employs in Judea Declares War on Germany: A Critical Look at World War II. I submit this film speaks directly to Dr. Tobën’s character. It should also tell you a whole lot about anyone who buys this horse shit.

  Cheers,

• 11. reckless G  |  October 9th, 2007 at 8:11 pm

  Thanks Mitch, well done. You and I are definitely of the same mind when it comes to approaching these types of films with skepticism and doing your own research.

  So, do you think the film promotes hatred of Jews?

  Does the film advocate taking any action against Jews?

  Is it pro-Nazi propaganda?

  If as it seems, it is just a shabby attempt to expose the influence of Zionism on world events, then what is the problem?

• 12. Mitch.Mulhall  |  October 9th, 2007 at 8:43 pm

  [do you think the film promotes hatred of Jews?]

  Yes.

  [Does the film advocate taking any action against Jews?]

  Yes.

  [Is it pro-Nazi propaganda?]

  No.

  [If as it seems, it is just a shabby attempt to expose the influence of Zionism on world events, then what is the problem?]

  This is no shabby attempt to expose Zionist influence on world events, it is an attempt to give freakishly greater weight to Jewish world influence than is warranted by historical fact.

  The problem is that there are people who want to air this crap on public television, and there are people who will lap this up.

  That said, I still say air this film. I have great faith in people... those I know... and those I've never met.

  Cheers,

• 13. reckless G  |  October 9th, 2007 at 9:52 pm

  Oh come on, elaborate a little. How does the film promote hetred of and action against Jews?

  [it is an attempt to give freakishly greater weight to Jewish world influence than is warranted by historical fact.]

  And this is a threatening and dangerous how?

  [The problem is that there are people who want to air this crap on public television, and there are people who will lap this up.]

  Still not getting the sense of impending danger here. There are people airing bigoted hateful views every day on Rush Limbaugh et al, and there are people lapping it up. So?

  This is still America, last time I checked, home of the free and the brave. Are Americans not free to say what they think, and brave enought to let others say what they think?

  Would the people who have a problem with letting Steve air his views like our government to control the content of our public media and citizen's forums? Do they want to see people imprisoned for violating "hate speech" laws? How far toward totalitarianism are they willing to take this?

• 14. reckless G  |  October 9th, 2007 at 9:54 pm

  (sorry for the typos, I ignored my own advice not to write in the comment box!)

• 15. Mitch.Mulhall  |  October 9th, 2007 at 10:11 pm

  [Oh come on, elaborate a little. How does the film promote hetred [sic] of and action against Jews?]

  You want elaboration? Quit asking yes/no questions.

  I have already given Mr. Campbell my official Okey-Dokey to air this horse shit on Grass Roots TV, for whatever that's worth.

  Apparently you and the Zionists have one thing in common: both of you want it your way.

  Cheers,

• 16. Wharf Rat  |  October 9th, 2007 at 10:38 pm

  Very well done, Mitch! I must admit that the perceived laughability of this film, although not at all either a literal description of the subject matter or a reflection of the importance it holds in contemporary history, is the primary attribute of the venture which would prohibit my academic examination of the content--in short, it doesn't even pass the sniff test. Thus I applaud you for finding the motivation to undertake such an exercise.

  The example you use regarding the list of "gas free" camps is a perfect illustration. If I remember correctly, it follows closely on the heels of the "what they don't show you in Auschwitz" argument, complete with extolling the virtues of the inmate swimming pool. However, after devoting considerable time to challenging the historical evidence of extermination at Auschwitz, the narrator then proceeds to scroll the list of "no gas" camps you mentioned--which clearly excludes mention of Auschwitz! It is that type of sophomoric ineptitude that makes the film laughable to me from an evidentiary and persuasion standpoint. Or perhaps it could be the top-notch use of sophisticated controlled experiments, including the compelling burning phone book demonstration. Insert eye-roll here....

  I'm glad the three of us agree that the film should be aired; however, I'm trying to stretch the bounds of my own limitations as I read your answers to Reckless' questions. (Caveat: any open-mindedness exhibited may be a temporary result of the magnificent '75 Springsteen concert playing on the telly, in which my agnostic proclivities are suffering from the aftershocks of a very visceral performance of "Thunder Road" in which it appears that the Boss is channeling an abundance of spiritual energy):

  1. [the film promotes hatred of Jews]

  I still don't see the form, but perhaps I see some shadows shifting in the dim light. The attenuation seems to be a problem there, but with some more rumination, I might be able to concede that the underlying, unstated motivations of the proponent, combined with the likelihood that the message will adopted by a limited number of persons with an already-existing, fully-realized anti-Semite arsenal of hate could denote some linkage between the film and hatred of Jews. However, your in-depth explanation as to why you think that linkage exists would be helpful.

  2. [the film advocates taking action against Jews]

  I just don't see how this translates, no matter how many virtual hallucinogens I ingest. Without question, that position is not overt, and I guess you'll have to connect the dots for me if it is nuanced.

  For better or worse, we all should be more prepared to critically analyze the position of Mr. Campbell, if we are provided the opportunity to hear his side of the "story".

• 17. Mitch.Mulhall  |  October 10th, 2007 at 9:29 am

  Rat,

  Regarding 1, above, allow me to direct your attention to the closing seconds of segment one and the opening 1:28 minutes of segment 2. Perhaps this section will tease that form out of the shadows for you:

  Ultimately the Zionists were also responsible for World War II… Accusing Hitler of planning world domination covers up the fact that plans for world domination already existed long before Adolph Hitler came to power… These plans, described in detail, how this internationalist elite intends to gain control over all sovereign nations, by various methods, of course, which include, driving them into debt, or war, just as they did to Hitler’s Germany. This group of internationalists not only destroyed Germany twice, they will attempt to destroy anyone who tries to get in their way. They will even try to stop you watching this video. In many parts of Western Europe, for example, just owning this video can get you a jail term. You are not supposed to learn these historical facts which are contained in this video. We do not offer you another version of historical truth, but historical facts, which we found in the camps themselves. You must decide what is true.
  ~Dr. Frederick Tobën, Judea Declares War on Germany: A Critical Look at World War II, Segment 2, 0:00-1:28

  Regarding 2, above, ask yourself what is the point of de-fanging the holocaust? Neutralize world opinion about the Holocaust and you abrogate the world community’s tolerance of Israel. Swaying world opinion is not, in itself, an action against Jews. Don’t be naïve about Ahmadinejad’s attraction to this thinking.

  Cheers,

• 18. reckless G  |  October 10th, 2007 at 2:22 pm

  Mitch,

  Your arguments are about as flimsy as the “evidence” in the video.

  1. Not a single mention of Jews in that narrative. Targeting Zionism, a primarily (though not exclusively) Jewish organization, is not the same as targeting Jews. My question was; does the film promote hatred of Jews. I fail to see how the narrative excerpt you provided proves that it does. Saying suspicion of Zionism is the same as hatred of Jews is like saying suspicion of the Bush administration is the same as hatred of Christians.

  2. Maybe tolerance of Israel should be abrogated. As has been my contention in this and other posts, the Holocaust is being used by Israel, Zionists and Jews the world over as an excuse to steal land from the Arabs of Palestine, and to carry out the most despicable genocidal policies. Take away the Holocaust card and you’re left with an unacceptable apartheid situation.

  Israel is not going to be destroyed by revisionist Holocaust films and it is in no danger of being destroyed by the Arabs or Persians, but Palestine is in great danger of being destroyed by the Israelis. We’re not allowed to criticize Israel though because…of the Holocaust.

  For defending the Palestinians, Rachel Corrie was bulldozed into silence by Israel. Now the Jewish community of the Valley is trying to bulldoze into silence anyone who criticizes Israel or questions the Holocaust. I resent that, and I intend to defend our ability to speak about these issues at the Grassroots meeting tomorrow.

• 19. Mitch.Mulhall  |  October 10th, 2007 at 3:15 pm

  G,

  The film makes no distinction between Zionists and Jews. In fact, the film uses the terms "Jews," "elites," "internationalists," and "Zionists" as though they are synonyms.

  While you may make a distinction between a Jew and a Zionist, the film does not. You can equivocate with me about this if you like. I trust my analysis of this film far more your passionate defense.

  Cheers,

• 20. reckless G  |  October 10th, 2007 at 3:23 pm

  I'm not passionately defending the film, I'm passionately defending my right to decide for myself and to let others do the same. Which sounds like your position too.

  I still don't see how it constitutes a threat to Jews. This may be our only point of contention.

• 21. Mitch.Mulhall  |  October 10th, 2007 at 3:34 pm

  [I still don't see how it constitutes a threat to Jews. This may be our only point of contention.]

  Perhaps not our only point of contention. Having shown the film to be a series of bald face lies and fabrications, I find myself favoring a strongly-worded preface by Grass Roots TV, framing the film as the horse pucky it is, prior to its airing.

  Of course, I have no influence on this question. Nevertheless, were anyone asking me, that's what I'd recommend.

  Cheers,

• 22. reckless G  |  October 10th, 2007 at 5:29 pm

  [I find myself favoring a strongly-worded preface by Grass Roots TV, framing the film as the horse pucky it is, prior to its airing.]

  Then you must have approved of Columbia President Lee Bollinger's introduction of Ahmadinejad.

  Hey man, we don't need no pissass introductions, we can think for ourselves.

• 23. Wharf Rat  |  October 10th, 2007 at 7:54 pm

  Reck,

  I mentioned this to Mitch--I'd like to see Grassroots take advantage of the awareness directed toward the Holocaust as a topic and show the film as part of a block of documentaries on the Holocaust. At a cocktail party of ideas, the audience need only meet, greet, and listen to truth and lies--no introduction is necessary.

• 24. Mitch.Mulhall  |  October 10th, 2007 at 9:02 pm

  Rat & G,

  You question my "introductory remarks" idea. I get that. On the surface my suggestion is supercilious.

  Is the ability to discern truth from lie in this film axiomatic?

  I’m not sure it is.

  Cheers,

• 25. reckless G  |  October 10th, 2007 at 9:40 pm

  Dammit Mitch, I wish you'd quit making me use my dictionary!

  Obviously it is not axiomatic; otherwise people like Steve would not have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker. It appeals to those who already have a proclivity toward conspiracy. Since I believe that conspiracy theorists and neo-Nazis comprise an extremely small majority, especially in the RF valley, I trust that this film will not cause a tidal wave of historical revisionism or anti-Semitism, despite the fears expressed in the letters to the editor.

• 26. Mitch.Mulhall  |  October 10th, 2007 at 9:46 pm

  G--You're probably right about the wave size...

  Speaking of dictionaries, wouldn't an "extremely small majority" be a minority?

  Cheers,

• 27. reckless G  |  October 10th, 2007 at 9:47 pm

  Wharf,

  I think there are quite enough Holocaust movies to satisfy anyone's need for information about the topic. All available at your local video store. I was under the impression that Grassroots provided a venue for ideas outside of the mainstream.

  BTW I visited another blog that was linked here on AP. This was the result:

  http://adamholland.blogspot.com/2007/10/911-truth-movement-leader-stopped-from.html

  Not quite the respect I get here, but then consider the source of the blog. I won't try that again!

• 28. reckless G  |  October 10th, 2007 at 9:50 pm

  [wouldn't an "extremely small majority" be a minority?]

  Oh yeah huh? Sorry, too many Shiner Bock's tonight for the old brain. I'd better get to bed, I want to be sharp for tomorrow's meeting. Should be a doozie!

• 29. Mitch.Mulhall  |  October 10th, 2007 at 10:12 pm

  [http://adamholland.blogspot.com/2007/10/911-truth-movement-leader-stopped-from.html]

  Not quite the respect you get here, indeed.

  heh, heh, heh... Would you like a glass of Chianti with your fava beans Mr. Holland?

  Did you wake up in a hotel bathroom full of ice cubes?

  Consider AspenPost a private school playground, for that's pretty much what it is.

  This is no slight.

  Cheers,

• 30. - » The Kind of Peo&hellip  |  December 28th, 2007 at 10:28 am

  [...] Some local residents even wrote letters to request the film be aired. While some were against the nature of the film, they still supported Free Speech–or what is left of it in America. http://www.aspendailynews.com/archive_22134 http://www.aspenpost.net/2007/10/07/con-games-free-speech-or-hate-speech/ http://www.aspendailynews.com/archive_21992 http://www.aspendailynews.com/archive_22146 [...]

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

Bloggers

Most Popular Posts

• CON GAMES: Love The War You’re With
• CON GAMES: God Bless Jerry Falwell
• CON GAMES: Honk If You’re Stupid
• Strength and Conditioning for Snowboarding
• That Bust You Never Heard About At Campo
• Who is Pat Smith? Look to San Luis Obispo...
• KUUR: Is It Really 'Your Radio'?
• Bode Miller Content with Memories of "Kick Ass Olympic Parties"
• Rubbing Elbows With The Stars
• Negligent Scoopers, Beware!

Home And Away

• A$pen: The Series
• Anderson Ranch Arts Center
• Aspen Chamber Resort Association
• Aspen Exposure
• Aspen Filmfest
• Aspen Historical Society
• Aspen Public Radio
• Aspen Spin
• Aspen Writers' Foundation
• Belly Up Aspen
• Colorado Mountain Express
• EatAspen
• Hudson Reed Ensemble
• Jazz Aspen Snowmass
• Kathryn O'Carra Photography
• Michael Faas Photography
• Snowmass Village
• Stay Aspen Snowmass
• The Aspen Club & Spa
• Theatre Aspen
• Wheeler Opera House

Categories

Get A Life

• The Blues Brothers including Steve Cropper, Eddie Floyd and special guest John Oates!
• Crimes of the Heart
• Earthworks in the Park with Penny Greenwell
• Tricky Tracks
• Aspen's Past to Present
• Tunes and Tales
• Aspen Music Festival highlights
• Ruthie Foster
• Ballet Boyz
• Summer Lecture Series - Larry McCleary
View this Month's Events »

RSS

• Entries (RSS)
• Comments (RSS)

XML












R|Mail

Learn About Blog Optimization