The Jewish Question, the Alt-Right, & authoritarianism; my most nuanced article yet?

The reason for me making this article is because there is a lack of serious, credible criticism that is also nuanced when it comes to criticizing Judaism and Jewish culture. It's either one direction, in which there is hatred promoted against the entire Jewish people, or the other direction, in which Jews can do almost nothing wrong and have done almost nothing wrong.

I want to bring on a nuanced discussion, & bring the topic out of the shadows, & into the light. The topics that are the most taboo, controversial, & make us uncomfortable are the topics we need to talk about the most.

TL;DR:

This video lays out the issue beautifully in under 9 minutes.

Ryan Dawson Animated talk about Zionist Neocons

If it's okay to criticize Islam & Muslim culture, & if it's okay to criticize Christianity & Christian culture, then it's okay to criticism Judaism & Jewish culture. Criticism is not the same as hatred.


I'll explain why I used the terms I've used toward the end.

When it comes to the discussion of both Zionism and Jewish supremacism, the mainstream presents anyone who criticizes Zionism (or Jewish supremacist power ) is an irrational antisemite, and the Zionist Occupied Government and Jews being over-represented in positions of power (in government, media, and business) is just an antisemitic conspiracy theory.

Basically, this;

(Ben Garrison's Exclusive Interview with Andrew Anglin)

What happens is that the media, instead of picking the most articulate people with nuanced views (such as Ryan Dawson), they pick people who are neither articulate nor nuanced, such as Neo-Nazi skinheads.

Or if someone who is articulate does get criticized, character assassinations are used and none of their strong points are actually addressed.

This even happens to well-known commentators, such Sargon of Akkad, who has very nuanced social and political views.

And I see this happen to David Duke (not that I agree with his views, but his videos about Zionist power and influence quite convincing to me), who has a Wikipedia article written about him.

When it comes to any other large group with a supremacist group in it, most notably the National Socialists for Caucasians, the main culture can separate themselves from said supremacist group. I don't see why Jews cannot separate themselves from, say, Zionism. I know that not all Jews are racists.

While there is a culture of in-group nepotism and victimhood, there is also a culture of paranoia. What is seemingly going on is that Jewish children are raised by their parents, teachers, and so on, is, as Ryan Dawson mentioned in a talk with Resurrect the Republic, to think "that everyone is out to get you all the time, that the next Holocaust is right around the corner, and you should be afraid of everyone all the time. And the only way to stop it is to get them first".

Ry Dawson the Anti-NeoCon on Resurrect the Republic with Tom Lacovara-Stewart (42:02)

I am not alone in thinking that both paranoia & a victim mentality is seemingly common among Jews;

Jewish Paranoid Extremism: ADL says "One Billion" People are "anti-Semitic"
Dr. David Duke Shreds the ADL's "One Billion Anti-Semites" survey!
On Kosher Statistics — Gilad Atzmon
Always Blame the Gentiles: Jewish Supremacist Reaction to ADL report

Survival instinct or Jewish paranoia?
Jewish paranoia, narcissism or chosenness?
The Limerick “pogrom”: Creating Jewish victimhood
The Jewish Cosmology of Victimhood
Must Jews always see themselves as victims?

Jewish "Victim Mentality"


Victim Mentality - precursor to cruelty

A short reflection on “Jewish victimhood” and Canadian university life

Solving the Puzzle of Schizophrenia: Jewish Paranoia

Jerusalem Post’s Norwegian Anti-Semitism Hoax
The European Anti-Semitism Hoax
Seattle Jewish Leader Turns Israel and Fear of Anti-Semitism into New Jewish Religion
Israel Lobby and the Anti-Semitism Hoax


‘Constructed crisis for political ends’: anti-Semitism claims are prime weapon for UK Israel lobby, Al Jazeera shows

This paranoid sterotype is no joke

"That's how most Jewish people write off any criticism of them: "You're just another anti-Semite." No need to actually address that was said, just label them "anti-Jewish" and suddenly you don't have to come to terms with how bigoted Jews can be.

Newsflash: I married a Jew."
https://anythingbuttheist.blogspot.com/2012/02/what-makes-jews-so-racist.html?showComment=1330006852860#c4185839675097148126

"Honestly, if I hated you and your people so much... why are you still allowed to comment here? Why don't I delete your comments? I won't, I just have to wonder what justification you can come up with for the fact that I tolerate you."
https://anythingbuttheist.blogspot.com/2012/02/what-makes-jews-so-racist.html?showComment=1330115848554#c4339622036400208578

I'm not the only one to talk about Jewish choosiness & exceptionalism:

Anything But Theist: What Makes Ultra-Religious Jews So Racist?

Jewish exceptionalism discussion on r/Judaism

American Jewish identity: Moving beyond ‘love for Israel’ and the Holocaust

Tomer Devorah Alumnae Shiurim - Some Thoughts on Jewish Exceptionalism

Jewish Exceptionalism Will Not Combat Antisemitism

Chosenness and Israeli Exceptionalism

The Centrality of Jewish Chosenness

Chosen, but Not Special

Are Jews 'Chosen'?

Chosenness and Bias in the Jewish Community

Israeli TV series exposes raw wounds from ethnic Jewish divide

Get triggered Gilad is here Athens over Jerusalem Model (35:54)

The way I see it, one can hardly be more hypocritical than being a Zionist partisan who hates Muslims (and especially the type who literally wants to kill all the Muslims in the world, mainly with nuclear weapons) while at the same time will unconditionally support the actions of the Israeli government.

Conservatives can see right through when a Black individual gets confronted for something and using their victimhood status to accuse the individual doing the confronting of being "racist". But when the same thing is done to a Jewish individual, if the Jewish individual cries "Antisemite!" and everyone accepts the accusation and shuts up.
Are there some people who criticize Obama for being multiracial? Yes. But do most people criticize Obama for being multiracial? No.

Think about it. What if Arabs created a religion in which their God only loved them or loved them above other groups? What if Whites created a religion in which their God only loved them, or loved them above other groups?

This is why, even though I support freedom of religion, I hate religion in of itself.The supernatural elements of religion is especially difficult to debate, & often makes it nearly impossible to change someone's mind.

I support predominately Jewish groups such as Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Orthodox Jews United Against Zionism, & Torah Jews | Against Zionism, along individuals such as Yaron Brook (who himself morally supports Israel), Jeff Blankfort, David Cole/Stein, Norman Finkelstein, Stephen Zunes, Rob Prince, Bob Tuskin, Gilad Atzmon, Peter Schiff, along with anti-communist Jews such as Herman Kahn, John von Neumann, & Edward Teller, & libertarians like Milton Friedman, David Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, Robert Nozick, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, & Israel Kirzner.
I also like Eric Yoffie's advocacy for religious & general social tolerance (I disagree with his stance on gun control, though I think that he is well-intentioned about it).


I doubt that this is genetic. This is probably environmental. I've read articles talking about Holocaust Survivor trauma genes and genetic diseases, but that will be a different article for the topic of Jewish genetics, genetic diseases and behavior, as that this one is about politics, social issues and philosophy, not genetics or anthropology, which isn't my forte.


One idea that I have is to tell people who are currently in Israel who are not Jewish supremacists to leave Israel & leave the real Jewish supremacists in Israel to suffer the consequences of their militarism, imperialism, aggression & overall violent behavior that gives the actual Jew haters the very reason for hating the Jewish people.
Despite what many will assert, I still will protect the individual, Gentile or Jew. 
For example, if I was in law enforcement, I would never search someone's house simply because they're Jewish; I would still get a warrant before doing that. Likewise, if I was a Judge, I will never make a decision on a search warrant, arrest warrant, or other legal order against someone on the basis of rather they are a Jew or Gentile.
Jew or Gentile, if we are serious about wishing to live in a truly free society, we must follow due process.

I am a believer in Blackstone's Ratio.

Another reason why I don't think that Israelis or the Jewish people are beyond redemption is that the Israeli Defense Forces has a problem with suicide rates, which, because it involves human suffering, I am not happy for, but at least we can tell that they probably do have some humanity in them, & are redeemable.

There is nothing wrong about Jews being successful in business, government, media or whatever. What is wrong is the identity politics that leads to one holding loyalties to some perceived ethnic or religious group & the lack of ethics that are inherent in identity politics.

One of the biggest problems that I have with the Alt-Right is how much they talk about problems caused by people who are Jewish & tend to blame Jews for almost every political problem faced by the west today, but don't seem to be against authoritarianism when it comes from their team (especially authoritarianism from other Christian Caucasians or at least Caucasians), & are virtually always authoritarians themselves.
Judging from the comments sections of videos where Ryan Dawson debates with White Nationalist types, it seems that they hate non-Whites and especially Jews more than they love freedom.

(Joshua Goldberg, Glue-Sniffing Troll ARRESTED)

I am against Jewish supremacism for the same reason why I am against White supremacism, Black supremacism, & so on, is because I oppose racial supremacism in general, because I am a libertarian, & I oppose coercion & the initiation of force or threats thereof, & the reason behind that would require more articles & videos.

Similarly, I oppose identity politics, in part because it will eventually lead to sectarianism. 

Let's take Iraq for example. If everyone's first identity was simply Iraqi, there wouldn't be fights between Sunni, Shitte/Shia, Kurds, & so on & so forth. This is basically a simplified version of what Ryan Dawson has said in several live streams.

Gilad Atzmon Explains the Murder of the West by Identity Politics - Introduction by Paul Craig Roberts:

I criticize Zionist Jews because they're the group most powerful in Western Politics now. 

But even after they are out of power, I will still take a stand against big government because big government is one of the largest causes of problems in society, mainly ruining the economy & education with regulation & interventionism, violating the rights of the people that live under them, & causing wars & being imperialistic.

One of the biggest problems I have with the Alt-right & related circles is that they seemingly hate Jews more than they love freedom.

When it comes to why I am saying "Jew" so much even though I am not referring to all or even the majority of Jews. The video "Do we call them Jews or Zionists?" explains this issue.

Thanks to the media, and thanks to genuine Jew haters that the former tends to concentrate on, while whenever we, say, criticize Italian organized crime, we don't have to make a disclaimer, but when one criticizes Zionism, let alone Jewish supremacy, if they aren't an actual Jew hater, they have to make a disclaimer that they're not Jews in general.

Note: if you're wondering about the tone for this article, this is somewhat directed to Israel supporters who go to great lengths  https://www.quora.com/As-an-Israel-supporter-how-would-you-respond-to-the-article-Why-Israel-supporters-should-stop-using-the-anti-Semite-or-Jew-hater-arguments (granted, the question was asked in part to find flaws in the article).  I don't know how to virtue signal much harder than this.

I guess Officer John Slugfish was right when he in the Spongebob Squarepants episode "Keep Bikini Bottom Beautiful" when he said "Some people never learn". 

On The Current International Zionist Smear Campaign  

Politics of Jewish identity By NEIL BERRY

The Banality of Good pt. 6: Jewish Power and Identity Politics

Counterpunch print edition: In Defense of Gilad Atzmon By Jean Bricmont

Assorted articles:

The cult of atheist Zionism posing as Judaism 

A Brief History of Racism in Israel and Talmudic Texts

Confronting anti-semitic discourses head on: How to avoid self-silencing

Why the UK Labour Party should not adopt the IHRA Definition or any other definition of anti-Semitism
Leading NY rabbi says opposition to Israel is ‘litmus test’ for Jews participating on left, and that’s anti-Semitic
Are you an auto-anti-Semite? Take this simple test


Comments & links for a future update (not that I endorse them).

https://youtu.be/MB29q1zheb0?t=7948

https://web.archive.org/web/20160421011918/https://www.timesofisrael.com/mk-merav-michaeli-wants-israel-to-stop-playing-the-victim-card/

https://web.archive.org/web/20181125073858/https://blog.therightstuff.biz/2018/11/04/the-jewish-victim-card-the-truth-about-violence-against-jews-in-america/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-G_6u8WTl8&lc=UgxEoN7rgg1x2MtoZ-54AaABAg 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-G_6u8WTl8&lc=Ugwskw-HVgCXVHvThMV4AaABAg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-G_6u8WTl8&lc=UgxsCLrmyAksK4kl8sV4AaABAg

Why is the US still in Afghanistan? And what is the US doing in Afghanistan in the first place?

Original article:
Why did the US really invade Afghanistan?

Note: this article will be slightly edited, mostly for links, not grammar or informational updates. 

"Why did the US really invade Afghanistan? pipes drugs and military sphere of influence
by Ryan Dawson
In the 1980s, the US had an alliance with both the Taliban and Usama bin Laden. The US actively supported the Mujaheddin, of which Bin Laden and his foreign fighters were a sub group of, in a war against the Soviets. The Afghans were purchasing American weapons with Saudi oil money and receiving training from the CIA and ISI. Tim Osman as the CIA called Bin Laden, had full support of the US and met with the likes of Zbigniew Brzezinski.
As Carter's national security adviser, Brzezinski told the President that "we have the opportunity of giving the U.S.S.R. its Vietnam war."  
Zibigniew Brzezinski with Pakistan special forces in Afghanistan.
(Brzezinski became a top foreign policy adviser for President Obama)

The war with the Soviets tore Afghanistan apart, conservatively killing 1.5 million Afghans and pushing one third of the population into refugee camps. Tens of thousands of Soviet troops were also killed. In many ways Afghanistan was the USSR's Vietnam, but in the same token, the USSR was also Afghanistan's America. In the aftermath of the Soviet withdraw (1989) there was a Civil War.

The USSR continued their fight in a proxy war by supplying the communists of Mohammad Najibullah. With the collapse of the USSR came the collapse of their support. Mohammad Najibullah was defeated in 1992 Yet no clear faction became the new replacement. Under the Peshawar Accords, several factions created a United Front. One outlier was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar a Mujaheddin leader who had gotten heavy support from the CIA and ISI during the war with the Soviets. His faction would be fighting with Ahmad Shah Massoud's group as well as the newly formed Taliban of Mullah Mohammed Omar. Pakistan supported the Taliban as did Usama bin Laden and by 1996 they had taken the capital and controlled 70% of the country mostly the South.

Usama's group which would later (post 911) be called "Al Qaeda" was just a term for the base of the foreign fighters within the Mujaheddin who were later the same thing with in the Taliban. The CIA's group simply sided with whoever was winning. And Usama bin Laden's network would be used in the coming years as privateers to fight in a number of conflicts including Chechnya, once again against the Russians. (Rebellion in Chechnya prevented Russia from building a pipeline connecting to Baku through Grozny.)

In spite of their human right violations and barbaric treatment of women, the US willing fostered the Taliban. The CIA had a repeat of its dealing with the Mujaheddin with the Taliban, some of whom were one in the same. In fact as late as May 17, 2001 Colin Powell then the Secretary of State, announced that a 43 million dollar aid package to the Taliban coupled with other recent aid made the US the main sponsor of the Taliban. The aid was packaged as relief against famine. (The US rarely is so generous with food humanitarian or not, often ignoring others who would need it, without an agenda. It's been a tactic to purposely starve others for political ends as the US was doing to Iraq simultaneously when this aid reached the Taliban.) Apparently that final gesture of good will/bribe didn't work because two months later in July of the same year the US was already drawling up war plans. The Taliban was falling apart. The US would need a pretext however. They got one two months later with September 11th and the following month, the US invaded Afghanistan with an occupation that has lasted a decade already surpassing Vietnam as America's longest war. It is currently (as of 2011) still ongoing.

So what really happened? Why are there 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, plus the added NATO troops and mercenaries? We know it is not to destroy al-Qaeda. (the base) When did the "freedom fighters" of Ronald Reagan become the "terrorists" of GW and Obama?

Did the US want to cooperate with Central Asia in order to get more oil or did the US want to control oil pipelines in order to hold leverage over and control Central Asia? Well there is a bit of both: with private companies having their own profit motives and government/MIC having its own geopolitical motives. They often overlap just as the composition of government and private enterprise also overlap. But they are not one in the same and oil is not the only prime resource in contention. Gas pipelines and the illegal drug trade are as vital of a market as oil pipelines and in some areas the drug trade surpasses everything.
Of the two, controlling Central Asia and not allowing Russia to control Central Asia, is the more dominate factor in this plan for a New American Century. (this has been literally spelled out). And it would require US intervention.

Pakistan’s strategy has depended on walking an impossible tightrope. On the one hand it needs a peaceful Afghanistan for the construction of pipelines into Pakistan for its desired trade, and for commercial routes to Central Asia. On the other hand, its neurotic fear of any Afghan independence has led to it actually encouraging something akin to “controlled chaos.”... It is for this reason that external intervention is crucial. Only the United States has this capability. April 2000 IASPS

To understand the real motivations for invading Afghanistan a lot of background is needed. You'll need to understand the pipeline history on both sides of the Caspian Sea, in particular in Azerbaijan and also Turkmenistan.

First of all, one needs to understand the importance of pipelines and also of ports. When a nation is landlocked the only feasible means of transporting oil and gas is by pipeline, but it can only go wherever the pipeline goes. The product can't reach the world market until it reaches a port. That is why ports are so vital. Wars have been fought over ports. (Russia and Japan fought over Port Arthur in what is now South Korea in 1904-5) Once it is sea bound it can be brought to world market. Every nation that a pipeline passes through benefits as they can charge transit fees. They all have the means to slow down or cut off the supply completely as well so they need to be friendly nations. Stability in pipeline regions is also crucial as no investor wants to back a project ranging in the billions which can simply be blown apart by violence. And for the US the Caspian Sea's energy is also a non-OPEC source of oil and an area until recently that was monopolized by the Russians. The US of course can not have a direct access so it would prefer the gas and oil to reach ports and hit the open market. Iran, China, and Russia have land access to Caspian energy via pipelines. The US is in a chess match with these powers of the Middle East, Asia, and Europe over the Caspian resources.

Iran built a small lite gas pipeline the Korpezhe-Kurt Kui gas pipeline, coincidentally dubbed the KKK [zero relation to the American group.] KKK runs to Turkmenistan fields. It has been open since 1997. It's capacities were rather low being a small line, but Iran was early in the game.

"Although Iran holds substantially larger proven gas reserves, with 29.6trn cubic metres (tcm) compared with Turkmenistan's 7.94tcm (BP Statistical Review of World Energy, June 2009), Iran's gas production and infrastructure are insufficient in meeting the country's consumption and distribution needs respectively. Iran therefore remains a net gas importer, with gas brought in from Turkmenistan to supply the north of the country." International Business Monitor

Iran opened a second larger gas pipeline in 2010 also to Turkmenistan. The original line was too small to increase capacities. This second line to Iran, with a line to China completed just months before it, broke the Russian monopoly and their ability to dictate prices.

Europe And Eurasian Gas Reserves

this chart is excluding Russia (43.3tcm); [nearly 6 times that of Turkmenistan]
Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy, June 2009

China was late in the game, but may have potentially the most stable positions. In 2005 China threw its hat into the mix scoring an oil pipeline through Kazakhstan directly to China, the KCP. China opened a gas pipeline to Turkmenistan in December of 2009. An advanatge here is the line is a one to one negotiation in a relatively stable area and it doesn't pass through a third party who can charge transit fees or cause additional problems. China did however greatly overpay for the oil line. In the future it may prove a wise decision as China's growing energy needs are written on the wall.

Russia is still the big boss man. As of 2007 Russia provided 90% of Western Europe's gas and the majority of its oil. If Russia were able to control the Caspian energy resources, then combined with its own oil and gas, Russia would be able to become a petroleum power to rival the Middle East. Russia holds the largest shares in the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC) which runs from Kazakhstan to the Russian port of Novorossiysk. That has been open since 2001. And Russia has a number of lines from Azerbaijan and oil and gas lines in former Soviet states. The Russian hold is starting to crack. Soviet satellites Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan were once controlled by Moscow. The road and rail roads travel north into Russia. However recently both have allowed natural resources to flow to China and Turkmenistan desired to cooperate with the US for a planned gas pipeline to go through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the open sea. The TAP line has had set back after set back. Another proposal is for a TCP gas line that cuts under the Caspian Sea from Turkmenistan or Kazakhstan across to Azerbaijan and hooks into the existing lines such as the BTC.


Because of politicking, logistics, and investment, pipelines can easily take a decade or more to construct as was the case of the BTC line running from the Caspian via the capital Azerbaijan Baku to the capital of Georgia Tbilisi on out to Ceyhan a port in Turkey.

It slides neatly between Russia and Iran avoiding both.

In Azerbaijan there are presently the Baku-Tbilis-Ceyhan, Baku-Supsa, and Baku-Novorossisk oil pipelines, all of which start in Baku from the ACG fields (Azeri–Chirag–Guneshli fields in the Caspian Sea). Prior to the BTC line Russia had a monopoly on the region. Heydar Aliyev, former KGB and mob affiliate who had been the leader of Soviet Azerbaijan from 1969 to 1982 was back in power in 1993 becoming the president. And the issue of contention there for his election, which assisted his return, was resolving the Nagorno Karabakh conflict with Armenia. The man largely responsible for the early Russian success was the Russian Oligarch Alekperov of LUKoil (Langepas, Urai and Kogalym) who was born in Baku. Unlike many of the other oligarchs who openly engaged in criminal activity, Vagit Alekperov did some actual work. Aliyev was friendly with Vagit Alekperov who was then deputy minister of Soviet oil and started Langepas-Uray-Kogalymneft which out maneuvered the Western oil giants and took control of lines pulling from Azerbaijan’s ACG field. The field itself has a consortium of investors with BP currently holding the largest stake. LUKoil was facing in-fighting at home. [...]

The BTC line was agreed upon between Turkey and Azerbaijan in 1993. It almost went through Armenia, rather than Georgia, since that would have been the more direct route, but the dispute in Nagorno Karabakh an area in Azerbaijan with a majority Armenian population, made the decision to go through Georgia easy.

Obviously Russia didn’t want the BTC line to break their monopoly, and the timely incident that forced the line through Georgia, and then to Turkey a NATO member, wasn’t favorable either. When negotiations failed, Russia tried to end or slow down the process of the BTC indirectly through NGOs. They used a number of excuses from environmental groups to human rights as a means of deterring the project. But the BTC line was finally completed in the Summer of 2006. LUKoil shocked everyone when they later sold their shares of ACG field to the Japanese, but that’s another can of worms (I think it was to grab the quick cash buy up Slavneft and get rid of a head-ache and still rob the Western powers by locking it in with Japan who will never ever ever let go of oil and are about as flexible as a cast-iron ball. At the time Putin was kicking Oligarchs out of the country and throwing oil oligarchs in jail, the chance to gobble assets within mother Russia was too sweat to pass up, but fast capital would be needed.)

The largest importers of oil from the BTC line are Italy and Israel. Israel is also pushed to make itself the last middle man in the chain to deliver BTC oil to East Asia by tanker from Eilat. This is important to recognize. This oil isn't going to the US or Britain. The US purchases a small portion of it but primarily other states are buying the oil. After BP, Azerbaijan has the largest stake in the consortium with American companies grabbing just 10% with seven other companies. The importance of the line isn't just profits for the 9 companies splitting the cake, and certainly isn't about feeding America's oil needs. The larger factor in the project is busting the Russian monopoly and how the line itself holds leverage over three nations it passes through. In May 2006 a gas pipeline opened also from Baku that runs alongside the BTC line in the BTE line which completes its journey in Erzerum Turkey.

Pipelines are a political weapon. In 2009 facing off against the Ukraine's president Viktor Yushchenko Russia simply shut down gas going through the Ukraine. Yushchenko's government owed 2.4 billion in debts over gas and so Gazprom closed the lines for 13 days. Western favored Yushchenko had come to power in the Orange Revolution defeating Viktor Yanukovych after a re-vote in 2004. The Ukrainian election became some what of a bad drama with an accusation by Yushchenko of dioxin poisoning. Yushchenko claimed to have been poisoned, apparently the poisoner decided to gamble with a highly ineffective choice of dioxin rather than any number of poisons which could have certainly killed him. His opposition claimed Yushchenko faked his blood test results by adding dioxin to his blood samples. As a consequence of shutting down the gas lines for 13 days both nations took economic hits. Russia lost an estimated 1.5 billion dollars in revenue something the large nation can absorb, where as the Ukraine took a devastating blow to their economy. The following year, 2010, the election was a rematch, and this time Yushchenko lost to Yanukovych. And the Orange Revolution faded to black. For more on the Yushchenko drama see these.

It's easy to see the importance of pipelines to the Caspian particularly from Azerbaijan. It took a full 11 years to get the BTC operational. Azerbaijan has benefited greatly from its diversified distribution of oil and gas. The money doesn't trickle down very well though. Much of the nation's roads remain unpaved even in the capital and there is a massive "informal" economy largely derived from heroine coming out of Afghanistan.

According to a study (dead link) entitled, “Shadow Economies and Corruption All Over the World: New Estimates for
145 Countries,” by Fredrich Schneider of Johannes Kepler University in Linz, Austria, the informal
economy in 2004/05 was equal to 59.4% of GDP. (p.19)

The largest shadow economies were in Georgia and Azerbaijan. The drug route takes the same route as the oil route. Going from Azerbaijan to Turkey where it is then splashed onto European black markets. Afghanistan is the heart of the Golden Crescent the hub of opium trade. Holding leverage over illegal drugs is considerable leverage over these vital pipeline barring countries. Energy Drugs and Weapons are among the largest most lucrative markets in the world.

Afghanistan is not only positioned as the final slot for the TAP pipeline the equivalent of a Eastward BTC line to feed oil hungry Asia, it is also undoubtedly the world's capital for opium production. Unlike oil lines, drugs will flow violence or no violence. In fact they loop back on one another as the revenue form drugs sales abets black-market weapon sales. For a large scale professional example of this just take a look at Iran Contra Affair where factions in the CIA and NSA were engaged in this very thing: the drugs, weapons, violence gambit. Drug money is off the books cash which allows plausible denial for governments for their intelligence agencies criminal behavior. The opium wars never ended.

A number of factors went into planing the line to go from the Caspian port in Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan. As early as 1995 Turkmenistan and Pakistan were on board to work with an Argentinian company Bridas Corporation but Afghanistan was still in a civil war. No investors are going to place their money in region not only prone to but in the middle of tribal warfare. An American company with deep ties to Bush administration officials Unocal made consortium (CentGas) for the TAP pipeline. During this time Pakistan and the US threw their support behind the Taliban.

Unocal's investors desired a unified leadership in Afghanistan. By 1996 the Taliban with full support of the CIA, bin Laden and Pakistan took the Capital. The public face in the US was to dismiss the Taliban for its treatment of women and numerous barbaric practices, but private face was creating a warm relationship. In 1997 Taliban leaders were invited to Texas to discuss the TAP line. For the Taliban's part, they wanted UN recognition so far only the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan had recognized them, the gas pipeline was their leverage. Months later in January of 1998 the Taliban agreed on a deal with the Unocal consortium over Bridas. Unocal and Delta Oil of Saudi Arabia became the two main partners to set up the line. The agreement for CentGas was made the same day that Halliburton agreed to provide technical services and drilling for Turkmenistan. (Unocal would later subcontract to Halliburton KBR and then merge with Chevron-texaco.) Interestingly, another financier with Delta Oil and Unocal was Amerada Hess from the US, whose director was Thomas Kean, who was later appointed as Chair of the 9/11 Commission, and was very fond the comic version of the 911 commission report.



The turn around of the US’s privateers in 1990-1 came from a couple obvious huge events. 1 the collapse of the USSR 2 US invasion of Iraq where upon the US built bases in Saudi Arabia which really angered UBL. MEK became the new medium of finance to “al Qaeda” after BCCI fell out. It was BCCI that was used in Iran Contra as well. Notice how MEK was ignored with the second invasion of Iraq. Things were looking good for the TAP line in early 1998 and then UBL threw a monkey wrench.

On August 7, 1998 terrorists bombed US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. August 7th was the 8th anniversary of the US putting bases in Saudi Arabia in what is considered holy land by religious people. This same complaint was allegedly echoed by Osama bin Laden after the 911 attacks. The US quietly complied as well, removing the bases. For Osama bin Laden, a religious fanatic, this was a deeply troubling issue that wasn't resolved until after 911. However with the mountains of dirt from the Soviet war with Afghanistan as well as the delicate negotiations for the TAP project with the Taliban, Osama bet correctly that he could get away with the embassy bombings. The Sudan had offered to turn over bin Laden to Clinton who refused them. The US at best looked the other way being either intentionally lackadaisical or inconceivably incompetent after the USS Cole bombing, participants of which would come back to haunt them later. Even as late as 2001 Osama may have been treated in an American hospital in Dubai on July 4th no less. And according to a CBS report Osama was again getting treatment in Pakistan on September 10th the day before 9/11.

Theories about Osama bin Laden's status with the CIA and COG vary greatly. The official conspiracy theory of 911 being planned and directed by Osam bin Laden is an extremely hot topic in the US for a public that has seemingly been lied to about everything else from the Iraq War to Banking fraud. What is known that as a response to the embassy bombings or possibly personal legal troubles Bill Clinton launched a cruise missile attack that hit targets in Sudan and Afghanistan. Oddly the target in Sudan turned out to be a pharmaceutical plant which may have been an honest mistake, but even more strange were the targets in Afghanistan. Clinton didn't attack Kandahar where Osama was based, he attacked Jalalabad and Khost. There was no real threat to bin Laden. However on August 22, 1998: Unocal announced that CentGas had not secured the financing necessary to begin the work, and the same day Unocal suspended construction plans due to the continuing civil war in Afghanistan. Whether or not the timing had anything to do with Clinton's strikes is unknown. It is doubtful that in two days they suddenly were unable to secure enough investments. Back in June before attacks in Africa, objections to Afghan pipeline deal by some shareholders at Unocal's annual meeting. (p 174) had already been made. These road bumps had been occurring all year. Unocal stressed that the pipeline project would not proceed until an internationally recognized government was in place in Afghanistan. Although the Taliban had control, the way they viciously obtained and maintained that control, made it an international nightmare to recognize them as the legitimate government. So even with Turkmenistan, Pakistan, and the Taliban in Afghanistan all lined up, the project is crushed again this time on the investors' end.

The US had not given up. In 1999 Russia got its second line out of Azerbaijan completed, and at this time the US still hadn't completed the project for the BTC line to bring oil to open markets on the West side of the Caspain Sea and wouldn't see any oil from there for another 7 years. The battle for the Eastern side for the TAP line was just as furious.

The Bush administration renewed working with the Taliban on the TAP deals, not only was there pressure from TAP but more deals for gas lines from Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan were also in place IF the Afghanistan situation could be solved. The US fully supported Islam Karimov the "president" of Uzbekistan with Draconian levels of violence, rape, torture, murder, kidnapping, boiling prisoners alive, censoring the press etc. But he was friendly to Enron and Unocal. Bush sent the dictator more than a billion dollars.

Later in July 2000 the Taliban did something that hurt black markets across the globe. Mullah Omar banned opium for a year. It worked too, with the narcotics use falling to negligible levels. This was a decision that certainly did not sit well with other Central Asian nations, as mentioned before Azerbaijan and Georgia or Turkey. May of 2001 seemed to be the final line drawn in the sand in dealing with the Taliban as that was their last known meeting with US officials and were still receiving tens of millions of dollars in aid up to that point. A stable government needed to be created in Afghanistan, that or permanent occupation. Preferably one that would re-open the opium trade, which the US did end up doing.

poppy cultivation in Afghanistan
But a pretext would be needed before the American public would ever accept going to war with a country many had never heard of. It wouldn't help Bush's claims of chasing Al Qaeda either after installing the Afghan Prime Minister Hamid Karzai who had been a paid consultant of Unocal. It also looks bad that he appointed Zalamy Khalilzad as a special envoy to Afghanistan, a man who was also an employee of Unocal and who had written several pro-pipeline op eds in 90s for US news papers. And it also didn't look good when two US paid puppets Pakistani President Musharraf and Karzai announce their agreement to cooperate on the gas pipeline connecting to Pakistan running through Afghanistan just months after the US invasion, Feb 8, 2002. And this looked simply terrible. They did not find any of the famous caves complexes we all saw cartoon pictures of and did not implement or even push for women's rights as had been promoted in televised propaganda before the war. But the pipeline deals were back on the table. One thing the US did underestimate was the resistance of the Taliban. Also interesting is how the British were conveniently in place to attack Afghanistan having deployed huge task-force for “fictional” conflict on Sep 3.

Oddly after 911, the US bases were removed from Saudi Arabia as Osama bin laden has wanted, and the US invaded Iraq as Israel had wanted. Although gas lines are still in negotiations as of December 2010 an agreement was made for lines to go from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan and India, the future doesn't look bright. MIC contracts trump gas lines. We're talking pipelines with tens of billions vs defense spending in the hundreds of billions sometimes reaching a trillion. The drug trade is back open and the low level conflict justifies a large US presence in Afghanistan which borders Iran. On the other side of Iran the US has also built permanent bases in Iraq. Iran is unapologetically an Israeli target. And when push comes to shove between Israel and anyone else, Unacol, Enron, even the American people, Israel is the winner. Pipelines may have been a pipe dream but on a list of motivations, they ranked third in invading Afghanistan.

Fighting Al Qaeda has become the replacement for the Cold War. A war on terror is endless as it is a war on a tactic much like the over milked cow of fighting an economic ideology: communism (while simultaneously supporting dictatorships and fascism). Osama bin Laden was in Afghanistan, although none of the alleged hijackers were from there, a nation was collectively condemned over the actions of associates of a man who originally worked for the US. How much of 911 is true and false is a different can of worms. But with the drug/energy/global positioning all in Afghanistan the US had billions of reasons to desire an invasion. It's a little too convenient that bin Laden, who was supposed to already be wanted for previous crimes, would give the US it's pretext. Why there was a war rather than a mark of reprisal to go after bin Laden is simple, war involves far more industries and in the modern era war is its own resource. There is no larger umbrella corporation than the Military Industrial Complex and nothing more historically dishonest either.

Look for more war Propaganda against Iran coming from the US and Israel in the near future. Time is running out and the neocons will put this issue into over drive durring the 2012 US presidential elections you can be sure."


Video playlist:

Holocaust revisionism debunk challenge

Note: I may change the title for this. An article addressing both Zionists & the Alt-Right/Neo-Nazis/other people who hate Jews should be out in a few weeks.
This articles does NOT support/promote collective anti-Jewish hatred or any type of collective hatred for that matter. Rather, it is to shed light on content about the Holocaust that I feel that is not talked about enough, & if anything is incorrect or missing, hopefully someone will address it.

Some comments by Ryan Dawson:


"It is not promoting Holocaust denial. It is rejecting Holocaust exaggerations and nonsense. If someone said nukes and holograms were not used on 911, that would not be 911 denial. If someone said 2,900 people died from either fire or the buildings collapsing or the planes crashes themselves, but not from electric floors and not 20,000 people. That is not 911 denial. Saying Al Qaeda did not make human soap is not pro Al Qaeda. Its pro reality. Fact is 16 of the 22 camps did not have gas chambers. that is agreed upon by everyone. Of the remaining six two only have a couple sentences attributed to them as evidence and none of the 6 had physical evidence of gas chambers. Promoting dumb war propaganda as history will get people to throw the baby out with the bath water. Holocaust exaggerations are the main cause of Holocaust denial. There was a Holocaust. It was bad enough on its own. Starvation, shootings, disease, beatings and being worked to death. You dont need to add extraordinary bullshit to it like soap lampshade gas and ovens and 6 million. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki though the allies needed something huge and grotesque to out do that horror."
- The most Taboo topic

"Questioning the truth claims of the Holocaust is no more pro Hitler than opposing the war in Iraq would be Pro Saddam. Demanding real investigations into crimes of the allies likewise is no more anti-jewish than investigating potential war crimes in Iraq is anti-American. It is vital to know who really killed who and how, because to ignore the this total war mentality of the allies in WWII and to allow them pass off some of their own crimes onto their enemies only allows those who believe they can control the media to continue war crimes brought about by the ideology of total war. British and American forces purposely starved people as a tactic and as a result the militaries they were fighting, the civilians, and prisoners in those countries all starved, but in the reverse order."
Germar Rudolf on the Ethnic Cleansing of Germans Post WWII and his own persecusion.


"The American Empire is every bit as guilty of the same crimes that were done in the past which are so rightly demonized. I for one to not buy into the number of Six million or the gas chambers I think saying Zero is even crazier I do not believe in the other theatrical stuff about soap and lampshades etc. But there were labor camps people did starve and were worked to death! That is enough. However the allies were guilty of all the same things. My stance is not good vs evil but evil vs evil. That's the nature of GOVERNMENT it's wicked."
American Nazis? How are the empires different besides who lost?

"I do not want any pro-nazi or anti-jewish or zionist anti-arab/white/whatever BS in the comments. If it gets to be an emotional crap fest I will turn comments off completely. Act like rational adults and have a serious discussion."
Description of Could some of the Holocaust be exaggerated? Auto-vilification 2.

Me:
Let's say a bank robbery happens. The prosecutor claims that the robber stole $6,000,000, when the evidence shows that the robber stole only $500,000.
Am I denying that a robbery occurred if I simply question the numbers involved based on facts and evidence?

Are Revisionists Anti-Semitic?

Revisionism and the Promotion of Peace

The Crime of Politicizing the Holocaust

The Great Holocaust Trial

Holocaust why the numbers do matter:
https://youtu.be/H8NaKFw50-g

Holocaust Denial Videos:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120613232902/http://holocaustdenialvideos.com:80/

Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust

Ryan Dawson's videos against racism:

Fritz Berg vs Eric Hunt Debate:

Documentaries:

Links:

Holocaust, Hate Speech & Were the Germans so Stupid? (35:00)

ONE THIRD of the HOLOCAUST (4:15:18)

The greatest lie ever told - The Holocaust - 2015 Documentary HD (1:17:21)

More than Taboo (1:32:24):

Buchenwald a Dumb Dumb Portrayal of Evil (Full Video) (2:21:37):

Talks:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sut Jhally will not be coming to LA (his letter to me):

"I’m certainly not anti Semitic nor do I push wild conspiracies. I do tell history from the point of view of the losing side. It does not make me agree with the losing sides. There are anti Zionist who are actually anti Semitic, there are always wolves in Sheep’s clothing. I am not one of those. All of my work has always been on my site as is my biography. I have not censored and hidden anything. You can look at all my guests on different topics. None of these people are hateful or promoting “the Illuminati runs the world” or anything like that. Its been consistently anti-war, in Syria, in Iraq, in Libya, in Ukraine, in Afghanistan, and yes even WWII and the Civil War the two “good wars” that I do not think were so good. No war is good.

First the confederacy https://youtu.be/tLlXC4WUUx0 please tell me what is so offensive about that? A quarter million Southerners died in that war and whole cities were burned to the ground. The main reason people fought was to defend their own property, not slaves or tariffs or taxes. You’ll never hear me defend barbaric practices. That war was coming long before 1860 and secession movements started after the Mexican War. Also Lincoln personally wrote to governors after the Corwin amendment which the North introduced and passed which constitutionally protected the institution of slavery. All the southern states had to do was stay in the union and ratify it. They seceded anyway, because that was never the primary reason for secession. It was tariffs, and that’s how the war started by SC firing on Fort Sumpter, where the export taxes were physically collected. That is a fact. It was also after Lincoln put a naval blockade on three of his own states to collect taxes. That’s why North Carolina seceded. Without NC, Virginia would have been surrounded and the war over in a few months, if it even began. Lincoln had also made mass arrests in Maryland with no due process, including judges he didn’t like and the army fired on and killed civilians Baltimore. It’s in their state song. Maryland my Maryland.
Secondly the flag
Below is the symbol for the Mississippi Freedom Party which was endorsed by Martin Luther King. The flag was a symbol of THE SOUTH not The racist south. Black homes were burned by Northern armies too… I hope this is not the first time you have heard or thought about this. The flag started becoming so racist around 1990 when Mtv and HBO made it so. I grew up with the flag in every form of culture from TV shows like Dukes of Hazards to Kid Rock concerts, to high school mascots. It was never a racist symbol. It’s the battle flag of Virginia and honors the dead. Yeah the Klan, which is like what a hundred people max, waves it around, they wave the American flag around too so what? That’s like saying BLM supports killing police because some extremist calling himself BLM shot some police. I defended the south after that idiot in SC shot people and I defended Black Lives Matter too after the same kind of incident.

Sierra Exif JPEG

 

This clear cut good vs evil reason for the civil war is what is a crass and conspiracy theory. It’s childishly ignorant of the complexities of the war. Calling the South racist (any more than the North) is on the same level of ignorance as thinking everyone in Japan does Karate. It’s a horrible stereotype that is not ground in reality in 2016. The South is the most racially integrated area on the US. Of course they have racial conflicts, that’s where most Blacks, Latinos, etc live. The South also had to restart in education and economically post Civil war because their major cities centers had been burned and looted. It really set things back for the people who lived there the overwhelming majority of which had nothing to do with the war. The reason for adding the stars and bars to state flags was not the civil right movement it was the centennial of the civil war. People of SC changed their flag and that is fine because it is their flag. It’s not up to people who do not live there.
WWII:
The US did not enter WWII to save the Jews. They didn’t care about any particular ethnic minorities. They had their own economic interest. They had their own post war propaganda too. Yes even America lies. The death toll done by the Axis has been played up and the death toll by the allies has been played down. There is no way in a city of 380k that Hiroshima’s instantaneous bombing killed only 100k people. The post war starvation in all the losing countries is also glossed over. The only thing separating Allied crimes from Axis crimes is the Holocaust. Otherwise its just like WWI a pointless war of imperialist fighting each other by sacrificing their poor. Both my grandparents were in that war one killing Nazis one killing Japanese. The one sent to Germany was also in the Korea War. His father was in WWI and his grand father was in the Civil War. He helped invent the submarine. And his ancestors were in the Revolutionary War. Betty Washington married into our family. A Dawson was chancellor of W&M when Thomas Jefferson went to school there. My mother’s dide was opposite all American Indians and a few pirates. I remember asking my surviving grandfather about WWII and Korea. I thought he was a hero. He said, “no, Ry by the time I was in Germany they were just starving. They used to send little girls to the kitchen begging for food, after the war.” Did you give them any?” No,” he hung his head. How about Korea? Weren’t use in a tank? Yes we had three tanks, but listen to me and don’t forget this. “There was no point or purpose of that war.” That’s all he would say about it. And later I found out he had pulled dead North Koreans out from where they had shelled them and looking at them and how young they were he just cursed the whole situation. My Native grandfather I never met but he was island hopping and burned Japanese to death with a flame thrower. He was shot through the leg but lived. Ironically I married a Japanese woman and had a child. I feel like I gave one life back.
Please don’t confuse Eric Hunt with Kyle Hunt. Kyle Hunt is racist white nationalist trash. Eric is a school teacher and historical revisionist. Yes he gets trashed on the internet again so what everyone does who talks about politics. He doesn’t deny the Holocaust. He just doesn’t think it was six million. No one studying it actually does. That ought to be good news. I am happy believe less people died and many of them made it out. Raul Hilberg placed the number at 5.5m people and that’s the highest it ever was. I had a different revisionist on right after, Dave Stein, saying Majdanek probably did have gas chambers and that though the gas disguised as showers was a war time myth that’s not a reason to dismiss gas chambers and that that spot had previously had them but they were destroyed. We have witnesses and confessions from these other camps. No one sane would deny it. We also had false claims about the western camps like Dachau which did not have gassing saying they did then later admitting they did not. It did have thousands of people worked to death and shot. They were also marched to the Tegernsee camp and killed over there. It’s important to point these things out and explain them because naysayers will point to evidence of labor camps which did exist and then say ah ha they were all like that. They were not. I’m the guy actually engaging these people instead of screaming racist and dropping the mic and walking away. That simply doesn’t work. I got Eric to admit on record millions were killed. I met Marc Gould who befriended Nazis and turned on them and put them in jail. He spoke at the Knesset and has one of the only two 100% voted they ever made which was to convict SS Lieutenant Colonel Bernhard who Marc had befriend. The press completely turned on him and attacked him because he released info about the Holocaust that Frank had records of showing names of people who had died with kill orders and stamps. It wasn’t the number they wanted and so he has been attacked. Now I know this guy. He’s Jewish and very proud of it, he has three daughters. I’ve met them. He doesn’t have a ill bone in his body. but google his name and look at what has been said about him. No one will defend these people, because it is easier to throw them under the bus and not get associated with it. I interviewed David Cole too who had the shit beat out of him by the JDL on Thanksgiving when he was walking home form the grocery store. He’s also Jewish. I have been to his home and seen his dying mother who was about 90lbs sleeping in the kitchen. He takes care of her. He and Hunt do not get along but both at some point in their life have reduced the numbers killed in the Holocaust and for that lost everything. It isn’t right. Even if both were wrong it’s not right.
I have a great number of videos defending Jewish people on my channels from the insane collectivism they must put up with. I have to make these from time to time because if you defend Palestine it must be because you hate jews.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu70koRyU-g Israel vs Jews Learn the difference. And boycott Israel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3LYsfysaRg Blame the Jews not a Zionist crowd taken to the woodshed
https://youtu.be/S2L-IFqvr1E Me defending and attack from Adam Holland
That guy smeared me and the SPLC and ADL picked up his report and attacked me too. Shockingly the ADL removed it after I wrote to them so did the SPLC but later they put it back.
It’s also important to ask why one genocide towers above others the Congo, Bengal, Native Americans (which is my people) Vietnamese, Koreans, Iraqis etc. the US has killed millions post WWII. The reason they dont get the same weight is because WWIIs rescue story, though true, is the excuse for every war after it. And the more it is reduced the less of a weapon it is. I am standing up for justice. I do it in more unsafe circles. If you let people get away with saying human soap and skin lampshades or gas out of showers, then a large portion of people are going to reject the whole thing as false.
It’s no different than saying Bush did 911. It is a ridiculous statement. But that doesn’t mean there wasn’t any state sponsorship of the event or that it was not wrongly tied to Iraq because in both cased it was. I call it the shield of ridiculousness. You say something way out in left field and dismiss it with the only alternative being the official narrative, in order to hide the official narrative from more legit questions and opposing evidence. If you dont take the shield of ridiculousness away you can’t uncover crimes. Its like saying Hamas wants to push the Jews into the sea. Iran’s leader said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map, and babies on incubators. These are myths that broke or are breaking others are myths than did not. Sure I can be wrong about what I think is a myth and what isn’t but that’s the point of open dialog and discussion. I don’t shut anyone off no matter how black the sheep is. I even invited David Duke on so I could argue with him about racial determinism and show how stupid it is, he got wind of what I was going to do and backed out. He goes on news shows all the time and they dont call him out on WHY he is so wrong they just say he is and call him names. I would have picked his idiot philosophy apart.
I like Max. I met him twice. Not a big fan of his father, but I like Max. His film about African migrants is also on my site.

You might like my own film about Neocolonialism in Africa https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmP22Kanv3M
Max’s views about the Civil War however are based on prejudice and poor public school education. A liberal so wants to believe racism is behind everything bad that they accept that as an answer and stop looking at anything else. You made an anti southern comment on my show when I was interviewing you. I’m pretty certain you’ve never lived there. People from the south change their accent on purpose because there is so much acceptable prejudice toward it. They have to or they can’t get hired in some places. Hollywood constantly trashes the south and southern culture. People are made to feel ashamed just because of the chance location of their birth. Have you ever thought about how people from the south feel when you made anti-southern comments as if they are just matter of fact trivia?
I’m going to suffer greatly financially by you not coming. So I’m going to have to read your email over YouTube and defend my poisons. Everyone knows I’m not anti Semitic or racist. It just going to make you look like a typical reactionary Liberal professor. Being surrounded by students who are easy to boss isn’t healthy. it makes your head big. I understand though that you are a teacher and the cowardly thing to do is to protect yourself from being associated with people accused of nasty things instead of standing up for that person. I have never ever ever been racist or defended racist practices.
It’s really arrogant that you’d think I’d learn anything from your film that I didn’t already know. It’s a great film but don’t talk down to me. I started the BDS movement in 2001. We just didn’t call it BDS. No credit for that though. And I worked with the Presbyterian church on divesting the whole time. Look it up it predates 2005. We had the PSM at Duke back then and I worked with Diana Buttu. I have always stood up for the bullied even when it is the hardest like the Germans and Japanese, the South, the Communists, and no I am not a communist, even ISIS I understand it. Make no mistake I want them gone, but I still can understand why a young man after witnessing nothing but war and starvation would flock to the leader on the hill.

I’ve been advocating Palestine rights openly my whole life back when you were too afraid to do it. You do not have to come screen your own movie over a difference in historical opinion if you don’t want. But don’t call me anti Semitic or a wild conspiracy theorist. Also I’m not pro confederacy. I very much like the US having all 50 states. Pointing out the real causes (plural) for the Civil War doesn’t mean I agree with the civil war on either side. The north also had slaves and killed Indians and later enslaved the Chinese. The 1860s were a very racist and sexist society all around the world. So was the 1940s.
I don’t dismiss great people over one thing like say Thomas Jefferson because he had slaves or Socrates because he had sex with boys or Einstein because he has sex with his cousin. I just point out the good and the bad. Most of us maybe all of us are gray onions not black or white. Most of History is too. The “bad guys” also had their reasons and beliefs. Even Zionist have their reasons. I don’t agree with them but I try to understand them. I’d hope you’d understand my position as a journalist for letting all people speak in free speech especially those with the least popular or even jail-able opinions. I Equally no, much more seek out opinion I agree with and give them the platform. The guess who spoke before you was a Republican state senator from Virginia (Richard Black) couldn’t be any more different on 99% of things. But he disagreed with the war in Syria and saw that the US was fostering terrorist groups covertly. He might have gotten mad that I had you on talking about Palestine. In fact, a lot of people would be. I do it anyway. If I wanted money or a bigger audience I would be a partisan hack and stick to safe issues. That is how I am, I let everyone speak and I let them get challenged too and you’re more than welcome to voice your opinion about the Civil War or WWII."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Holocaust Revisionism and Neo-Nazism:

"One of the most damaging, oft-repeated and false accusations leveled against Holocaust revisionism is that it is part of an extremist neo-Nazi movement, the ultimate purpose of which is to destroy democratic political systems and reintroduce Nazi totalitarianism. Expressing this widely held sentiment, a major opponent of Holocaust revisionism, Dr. Michael Shermer, described Holocaust revisionists as a "small but vocal group of anti-Semites, neo-Nazis, and political radicals who would like to see the return of National Socialism."[1] Shermer imputes to all revisionists a covert desire to restore the Third Reich, or bring on a Fourth. A cursory review of the evidence will easily demonstrate the falsity of this claim. 

Laird Wilcox, an expert on political extremism, estimated in 1989 that a minority (up to 25%) of Holocaust revisionists were Nazi apologists, which means of course that the vast majority (75%) at the time were not.[2] In the decade that followed Wilcox's estimate, revisionism has attracted a much wider audience which surely reduces this figure significantly. Holocaust revisionism's opponents like Shermer make it a point to ignore this important piece of evidence whenever they invoke the "revisionism-equals-Nazism" canard.

The father of Holocaust revisionism, Paul Rassinier, was a pacifist, former Communist and left-wing socialist who opposed the Nazis during WWII, and because of his activities in the French Resistance was interned by the Germans in Nazi concentration camps.[3] Indeed, this association of liberal and left wing intellectuals with Holocaust revisionism has continued in France to this day. The French-Jewish historian and bitter opponent of revisionism, Pierre Vidal-Naquet, has noted that at the core of revisionism in France is a left-wing , revolutionary group, La Vielle Taupe.[4]

The French revisionist scholar, Dr. Robert Faurisson, is a life-long apolitical liberal who never had any sympathies with Nazism. Another prominent, left-of-center French intellectual who is sympathetic to Holocaust revisionism is Serge Thion.

The famous French political philosopher, Roger Garaudy, is a former leftist Communist theoretician who converted to Islam. He is also a noted proponent of Holocaust revisionism in France.

One of the premier spokesmen for Holocaust revisionism in America is Bradley Smith. His present wife is of Mexican descent and his ex was Jewish. For numerous years prior to his involvement with revisionism he was a liberal free speech advocate who described himself as a Libertarian. Clearly, he hardly fits the mold for a neo-Nazi.

Prominent American revisionist author and activist Michael Hoffman II has expressed stringent criticism of Adolf Hitler and Nazism. He wrote:

"Hitler was a disaster for Germany. He took fully legitimate ideas about organic community and rootedness to the soil and twisted them into a modern counterfeit. In the name of fighting the Bolshevik police state, he created one of his own. In the name of military prowess, he rendered his people defenseless before the merciless devastation of RAF bombers of the British Empire. He crusaded against Communism and ended up Communizing half of Europe. Hitler is the pre-eminent failure and incompetent of this historical era."[5]

Regarding Nazism as a political system, Hoffman's judgment is equally harsh and accurately reflects the consensus of opinion among many revisionists who I have associated with:

"The Nazi system was suited to an ant-hill comprised of servants, lackeys and toadies automatically obeying 'supreme leaders' whose vision was corrupted by the mindless adulation they commanded. How I chuckle sardonically when I stand amid howling Jewish mobs and bands of know-nothing reporters as they accuse all revisionists of trying to 'revive Hitler' and having a 'secret agenda' of 'neo-Nazism.'"[6]

Clearly, this is hardly the talk of a "neo-Nazi."

The fact of the matter remains that Holocaust revisionists cannot be politically stereotyped, as they represent a wide range of political opinion, leftist, liberal, libertarian, centrist, conservative, rightist. There is indeed also a visible minority of neo-Nazis that consider themselves Holocaust revisionists, but the vast majority of revisionists cannot be categorized as such. Holocaust revisionism is an historical school of thought and not a political movement.

In their Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why do They Say It? , Michael Shermer and co-author Alex Grobman write: "Some Holocaust deniers, particularly those with extremist right-wing leanings, might gain greater acceptance if the crime (of the Holocaust) attached to fascism had never actually happened. Without the Holocaust perhaps fascism would be a more acceptable alternative to democracy."[7]

Long before the Holocaust legend, a majority of people in the Western democracies rejected totalitarian fascist movements, thus showing that fascism is not an acceptable alternative to democracy in the minds of most European peoples.

Stephen Roth, a former director of the Institute of Jewish Affairs (London), proceeds to explain why he believes that Holocaust revisionism is the most effective weapon in the "neo-Nazi" arsenal:

"If the crimes of the Nazis can be wiped off the record of history, if the Nazi regime can be whitewashed and made to appear as admittedly somewhat disciplinarian and tough on law and order but basically harmless and more efficient than our allegedly lax Western democracies with their growing disorder, their crimes, violence, and riots, then the neo-Nazis would have won a great victory. The system advocated by them would also look harmless and acceptable, and the ideological resistance to it, largely based on awareness of the horrors of the past, would be undermined, particularly among younger people who have no personal experience of Nazi rule."[8]

Should the revisionists succeed in convincing the peoples of the Western democracies that the "gas chambers" never existed, the vast majority would still harbor considerable resistance to the philosophy, political system, and policies implemented during the Third Reich. The National Socialists advocated a command state, with one-party control of society and censorship of the press. By contrast, inherent in the modern political culture of the West is acceptance of a multi-party state, independence of the press from overt political control, and a disdain for open regimentation.

Indeed, historian Francis Nicosia considers this an important factor in England's refusal to ally with National Socialist Germany during the 1930s. He points out that there was a fundamental irreconcilability between the National Socialist and English political philosophies and systems.[9]

Furthermore, the populations of the democracies, particularly America, seem fixed in the belief that a certain quota of disorder and dishonor, from riots and street crime to political and economic corruption, is an acceptable price to pay for the maintenance of the democratic society.

If Holocaust revisionism is not a neo-Nazi movement, why do its opponents and critics continually label it as such?

What they are trying to accomplish, I believe, is very simple. If people end up believing that Holocaust revisionism is, in essence, a neo-Nazi movement, many will be convinced that due to this association that the principal tenets of revisionism are false and perhaps even evil. This is an ad hominem line of "reasoning" which is logically fallacious but very psychologically appealing to large segments of the population. The truth or falsity of a theory (such as Holocaust revisionism) is independent of the political leanings of its proponents. As the philosopher of science Karl Popper noted, it doesn't matter where hypotheses come from, only whether they explain the evidence they are based on, whether they are subject to disproof, and whether they can hold up to attempts to disprove them.[10]

In short, this "revisionism-equals-Nazism" accusation is simply an ideological battering ram utilized by revisionism's opponents to discredit and undermine Holocaust revisionism."