Connecting the Dots
 

Why No Scholarly Holocaust Debate?
by Victor Thorn
 
 

  • Lampshades made out of human skin: a lie.
  • Bars of soap formed from the fat of Jewish holocaust victims: a lie.
  • The chimney at Auschwitz built after WW II.
  • No Zyklon B (which was actually a delousing agent) used in the internment camps.
  • Altered and doctored photographs.
  • The Red Cross and census numbers not even remotely matching the mythical “six million” figure.
  • Direct Zionist collaboration with the Nazis during WW II (including Adolf Eichmann).
  • Jewish financing of Hitler and the bloody Bolshevik Revolution.

    Do you agree or disagree with the above statements?

    Whatever the case, in some parts of the world (and “polite” society in general) you’re not even allowed to weigh-in on this subject because it is “off limits.”

    And yes, the above list could continue for pages, but the biggest question right now is: why can’t we discuss these issues? Why, in a country based on freedom of speech and freedom of the press, can’t these topics be laid on the table for serious, intellectual debate? More so, in an alternative media which is supposed to epitomize an open forum for such pursuits, why are authentic scholarly Holocaust investigations so vehemently shunned?

    In fact, why are so few of the leading figures in our movement not openly (and adamantly) questioning what some individuals say is quite possibly the biggest hoax of all-time? Where are their voices?

    Furthermore, why aren’t more truth-tellers speaking out against the imprisonment, deportation, detainment, persecution of, and crimes against such investigators as David Irving, Ernst Zundel, Germar Rudolf, Robert Faurrison (who was nearly beaten to death), Arthur Butz, Frank Walus, and dozens of others?

    These men seek historical accuracy, and whether you agree with their perspective or not, they have a right to research any topic they so desire. In my opinion, it is disgraceful how many of our peers remain silent, despite the barbaric tactics against them. If political correctness or pressures from the “powers-that-be” prevent us from discussing this subject, then what differentiates us from the controlled, corporate mainstream media? Likewise, what other topics will soon be deemed “too controversial” for discussion?

    Everybody should think about this notion, for it says a lot about the legitimacy and courageousness of our “alternative media.”

    • Home | Submissions | Bookstore | Past Issues | Donations | Contact Us
    Copyright © 2004, WING TV ®  All rights reserved. Website by pcStudios.