The "Hitler" Speech They (Don't) Want You To Hear..!

[Rocky_Shorz]

it goes further, I think the Pope has been setting us up to know evolution had some ET help...

[Milneman]

Posted by Rocky_Shorz (here)
it goes further, I think the Pope has been setting us up to know evolution had some ET help...

Ok I better unpack my argument so we don't get further away from it.

This relies on two beliefs. One, human beings can manipulate a process which up until now was totally random (which is false), and two, the genome was pure to begin with.

Ok so problem number one. Evolution, being a totally random process, is subject to alteration from the beings subject to evolution. I believe this is false because it's based on the idea #1 that evolution is unguided and #2 it is totally random. It's not controllable because it's already being controlled by a greater ... 'law'.

You guys must be sick of me quoting Plantinga. lol

If you believe that evolution is an unguided random process, then you believe that every species which evolves or is subject to the evolutionary process takes part in the process of random mutations that either kill off a species or make it more viable. As the viable or successful mutations take hold in a species, they change the species until all the members of that species have that mutation, and it's no longer considered a mutation. And then another mutation happens, and so on and on it goes. Which makes sense until you consider that the idea that a being has about a random mutation that is beneficial (just one mind you) has nothing to do with the behaviour. In fact, the chances that any rational beliefs that come about or are associated with that behaviour being true are about 50/50. The classic frog catching a fly argument Plantinga uses. The frog flicks out its tongue, catches the fly, good for the frog, not so good for the fly. The frog could be thinking about ethics, or quantum mechanics, but it only has a 50/50 chance of those thoughts being true. The more thoughts you have, the probability of the chance they are true begins to rapidly drop to very, very dangerous levels. So if you assume evolution is this type of process, and you believe it is the type of process that is random and unguided, you have a defeater for any rational belief you may have, including your belief about evolution and your belief about this belief or more importantly any ideas you might have about altering genomes!

So that leaves us with the probability that it is a guided process. Rocky's point about et help follows the same theory. Presumably, if aliens are helping in the evolutionary process, they too must be part of that process, which means they too are part of a bigger "plan" being operated by...well God. Otherwise, they too fall to the same defeater in rational beliefs if they believe the same process occurs.

Which puts us in a bigger dilemma. If it is a guided process, and this evil still occurred, why would God let it happen? That's another thread.

Was the genome pure to begin with? The 'arian' genome? Well if you go by what the most commonly held theory is today, we all 'evolved' (which is a gross oversimplification!) from a single child born from a woman in Africa between 5 and 8 million years ago (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/li...faq/cat02.html). This was not a white, blue eyed, blond haired individual. That came much later. Andrew what you're suggesting was the motivation for racial purity is like trying to breed a schnauzer with other schnauzers and expecting to get a wolf, or a super-schnauzer. It's simply not possible because a) it's not a process which can be manipulated by those within the system successfully (meaning you might be able to manipulate the genome to some perceived change, but it will come back to bite you in the arse!) and b) I'm not totally convinced the idea of the german super-man was grounded in reality. The best eugenicists at the time were, I suspect, operating from false premises to begin with. If you begin by building your house on sand, it will eventually crumble. Which is where I believe many people in the alt community end up.

The biggest conspiracy is the one in your own mind that you create for yourself. We all do it. The problem is very few people take the time to figure out why they do it, and then ask themselves if it's really of benefit to themselves or anyone else. The smart ones make money off it, or build web sights to stroke their egos. They're not the dumb ones. We are for backing it up. Supply-demand.

[Andrew]

Posted by Milneman (here)

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by Andrew (here)
The Extermination of Whites in Europe: “We Are the Last 3 German Children in Our School.”

Posted by Milneman (here)
You have neither provided evidence that an unguided evolutionary process can be changed/modified/altered for the benefit of human beings, nor have you demonstrated that the genome they wanted to preserve was pure to begin with. Instead, you provided links to extreme-right wing neo-nazi propaganda.

It seems to me you are less interested in a debate and more interested in promoting your own agenda.

As best as I can tell, one of the favorite tools of the bastards in power is to divide humanity against itself.

In this case, it seems that large scale immigration of Muslims of middle eastern (Turkish, Arabic, North Africa, ...) descent into traditionally Christian areas of northern Europe of Caucasian descent is causing the expected tensions. The communities being overrun by "foreigners" are outraged. Others are outraged at that outrage, finding it to be extreme racist propaganda.

There is truth in both views ... and deeply destructive and divisive aspects as well.

I recommend that we each do our best to protect and nuture that which is good in ourselves and our fellow humans, and minimize the energy we feed into these great divisions.

Agreed Paul. However, the original questions that I had asked have as of yet still remained unanswered. This is a tool of the rhetorician that knows they are entering into shaky ground they may not be able to defend: first of all, the argument is post hoc in that there is no peer reviewed evidence that meaningful immigration is being used to create diversity by governments. If it's out there, provide it please. It makes more sense to me, having spoken to immigrants in my own country, that a system has been created that has loop holes which immigrants more often than not take advantage of. All this proves is that politicians aren't intelligent in the way we need them to be, and human beings universally will take the easy route, even if it's the wrong thing to do, if it gets them what they want.

Neither of the points I challenged Andrew to defend have been defended thus far. Instead we get a sideline away from a key point in this argument that I think needs to be answered and defended.

So Andrew...I'm still waiting! Or alternatively I can go ahead and defend my own point and you can challenge it. Your call.

Please go ahead and explain your point.. but I cant see how you can prove evolution theory or manipulation of the Genome. Where also is there some proof Nazi's were manipulating the Genome? Sure they were investigating. I think they were just protecting themselves more than anything, I feel there was alot of hype to ridicule discredit and make look bad campaigns against those Germans.
I once read what somebody said (sorry cant recall who) that we dont see Monkey's walking out of the jungle either.

[Rocky_Shorz]

Dr Death ended up continuing his experiments for the NAZI's in South America, one town he was working with, Spanish population, after having his treatments, suddenly all the women were having Blond twins...

so yes, that is considered manipulation of genome...

"Although he was captured in a general round-up of leading Nazis by US forces in March 1945, he was released because his name did not appear on any of the lists of war criminals the Allies had quickly drawn up.

Heim became a gynaecologist in West Germany until 1962, when his past caught up with him in the form of the Austrian police, who were finally investigating him for his war crimes.

Heim was tipped off and he escaped, reportedly to Spain and then to Uruguay, where he opened up a gynaecological practice." link

trouble opening the link, but this expands on twin town in Brazil...

Blumenau Brazil, 1st language is German, 2nd Portuguese...

[Andrew]

This is an exclusive interview with the White Rabbit behind the white genocide memes going around. You may have seen these memes such "Diversity is a code word for white genocide" or "Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white." For some Tim Murdock, who is White Rabbit Radio's Horus the Avenger, is a controversial person. You may have seen his animations on the web such as "How The Whites Took Over America" or "Anti-Racist Hitler" or "Johnny Racist." The White European western world and culture is under attack. We'll discuss how opposing forces have infiltrated the western system, controlling the message that controls the society. We'll discuss contradictions in the system and how the Soviet Union was taken down by its own contradictions. Tim talks about the agenda of revenge on European people ultimately seeking to create a non-white blended European. Zionist Jews have openly stated their leading role at the center of this multicultural society. We'll talk about the plan to reduce Whites to a minority through various tactics, while not allowing them to have an exclusive homeland. The use of weaponized words, political correctness and double standards are predictably heard in media, entertainment and education to war against Whites, especially children. Later, we discuss how Russia, China and Iran stand in the way of multiculturalism and world hegemony. Lastly, we talk about a growing movement of well rounded people who break the mainstream stereotype of a White nationalist.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=lKDeyuM0-Og

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=j5tJAo6T9E8

[Milneman]

Scroll up.

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post836260

You missed it. Must be all that amazing endorphins distracting you while engaging with negative energy. Don't worry, I'm confident you will evolve past it.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by Rocky_Shorz (here)
Dr Death ended up continuing his experiments for the NAZI's in South America, one town he was working with, Spanish population, after having his treatments, suddenly all the women were having Blond twins...

so yes, that is considered manipulation of genome...

"Although he was captured in a general round-up of leading Nazis by US forces in March 1945, he was released because his name did not appear on any of the lists of war criminals the Allies had quickly drawn up.

Heim became a gynaecologist in West Germany until 1962, when his past caught up with him in the form of the Austrian police, who were finally investigating him for his war crimes.

Heim was tipped off and he escaped, reportedly to Spain and then to Uruguay, where he opened up a gynaecological practice." link

trouble opening the link, but this expands on twin town in Brazil...

Blumenau Brazil, 1st language is German, 2nd Portuguese...

Und vat aboot Doktor Mengele? (sp?)

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by Andrew (here)
This is an exclusive interview with the White Rabbit behind the white genocide memes going around. You may have seen these memes such "Diversity is a code word for white genocide" or "Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white." For some Tim Murdock, who is White Rabbit Radio's Horus the Avenger, is a controversial person. You may have seen his animations on the web such as "How The Whites Took Over America" or "Anti-Racist Hitler" or "Johnny Racist." The White European western world and culture is under attack. We'll discuss how opposing forces have infiltrated the western system, controlling the message that controls the society. We'll discuss contradictions in the system and how the Soviet Union was taken down by its own contradictions. Tim talks about the agenda of revenge on European people ultimately seeking to create a non-white blended European. Zionist Jews have openly stated their leading role at the center of this multicultural society. We'll talk about the plan to reduce Whites to a minority through various tactics, while not allowing them to have an exclusive homeland. The use of weaponized words, political correctness and double standards are predictably heard in media, entertainment and education to war against Whites, especially children. Later, we discuss how Russia, China and Iran stand in the way of multiculturalism and world hegemony. Lastly, we talk about a growing movement of well rounded people who break the mainstream stereotype of a White nationalist.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=lKDeyuM0-Og

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=j5tJAo6T9E8

Proof positive anyone who can draw can be a sophist. Likewise, anyone who can post the arguments. I've watched these. Straw man arguments I'm afraid.

[panopticon]

Posted by Milneman (here)
If you believe that evolution is an unguided random process, then you believe that every species which evolves or is subject to the evolutionary process takes part in the process of random mutations that either kill off a species or make it more viable. As the viable or successful mutations take hold in a species, they change the species until all the members of that species have that mutation, and it's no longer considered a mutation. And then another mutation happens, and so on and on it goes. Which makes sense until you consider that the idea that a being has about a random mutation that is beneficial (just one mind you) has nothing to do with the behaviour. In fact, the chances that any rational beliefs that come about or are associated with that behaviour being true are about 50/50. The classic frog catching a fly argument Plantinga uses. The frog flicks out its tongue, catches the fly, good for the frog, not so good for the fly. The frog could be thinking about ethics, or quantum mechanics, but it only has a 50/50 chance of those thoughts being true. The more thoughts you have, the probability of the chance they are true begins to rapidly drop to very, very dangerous levels. So if you assume evolution is this type of process, and you believe it is the type of process that is random and unguided, you have a defeater for any rational belief you may have, including your belief about evolution and your belief about this belief or more importantly any ideas you might have about altering genomes!

Please explain this argument a bit further because at the moment it really doesn't make much sense to me.

Firstly there are a number of ways in which organisms change over successive generations according to evolutionary theory. They can adapt to their environment in slow gradual ways (natural selection) or through quick jumps (usually the result of what is termed a beneficial mutation). In your above passage you appear to be mixing these two very distinct ways in which organisms vary between generations. So, yes, random mutations have absolutely nothing to do with behaviour, however natural selection does and to mix the two together really does nothing for my confidence that you understand your argument...

Also, frogs don't have the cognitive ability to undertake abstract thoughts such as ethics. It essentially is not part of their umwelt and they do not interact with the world in the same way as humans due to the obvious physical differences. The entire frog argument is actually a bit weird so I assume it is some sort of whimsical distraction...

I really am struggling to understand the entire "50/50, rational behaviour, thoughts are true" argument. Why does the frog only have a 50/50 chance of its thoughts being true (though I'd contend that frogs actually don't think in the way your passage alludes to)? My thoughts are often more than a 50/50 chance of being accurate. But that's just me I suppose... Also a frog, within its own behavioural patterns, would have a higher than 50/50 success rate otherwise its species would have died off through predation... It's almost like you were putting random words together to see if anyone was reading your posts... Where did the entire 50/50 argument come from? A species that is successful must have a higher than 50/50 successful instinctive response. It's pretty simple really. That's actually the basis of natural selection: Only the individual organisms with the highest success rate lives to breed... That's why beneficial mutations are so important as they can create new species fairly quickly which can out compete its predecessors. Hence the species evolves...

The only reason I'm asking is because you've used it as the basis of your follow on argument and it really looks like that's how you are saying that there must be someone/thing guiding evolution...

-- Pan

[panopticon]

Posted by Rocky_Shorz (here)
trouble opening the link, but this expands on twin town in Brazil...

Blumenau Brazil, 1st language is German, 2nd Portuguese...

Thanks Rocky, I hadn't seen that article before. Very interesting.

-- Pan

[Milneman]

Ok Pan! I know what you mean about this not making sense. I had to spend a few weeks trying to unpack it.

You first have to understand what a random mutation is. It's a behaviour that exists as a result of a mutation that is a) unguided and b) random (meaning that there's no design behind it, it's pure chance). So put it another way, does a coin have any ideas when it comes up heads or tails? No, it simply "mutates" to heads, or tails, as the case may be.

When one assumes evolutionary theory is an unguided and random process, that means that any rational thought associated with any given behaviour only has a 50/50 chance of being correct in relation to that behaviour and the senses of the organs associated with that behaviour, including say intuition. The more beliefs you have based on random processes you assume come about as a result of evolution (an unguided and random process), the chances of those beliefs drop exponentially. So by the time you get to the number of beliefs a human being has, your chances of those beliefs being true are about 1:1,000,000.

The bottom line is this: because the behaviour is random and unguided, the beliefs that occur in the mind of the frog are completely irrelevant to the behaviour. All that is relevant is the behaviour works to keep the species alive and mutating. So, because the random unguided behaviour of tongue flicking out to catch fly works, it doesn't matter if the frog is thinking about quantum mechanics. All that matters is that the behaviour works. Make sense?

So if you assert that evolution is in fact this kind of process, you end up having a defeater for ANY rational belief you may have about anything, including this belief about evolution, and any rational belief. Therefore, evolution by it's nature can't be unguided or random. Make sense?

[panopticon]

Posted by Milneman (here)
Ok Pan! I know what you mean about this not making sense. I had to spend a few weeks trying to unpack it.

You first have to understand what a random mutation is. It's a behaviour that exists as a result of a mutation that is a) unguided and b) random (meaning that there's no design behind it, it's pure chance). So put it another way, does a coin have any ideas when it comes up heads or tails? No, it simply "mutates" to heads, or tails, as the case may be.

When one assumes evolutionary theory is an unguided and random process, that means that any rational thought associated with any given behaviour only has a 50/50 chance of being correct in relation to that behaviour and the senses of the organs associated with that behaviour, including say intuition. The more beliefs you have based on random processes you assume come about as a result of evolution (an unguided and random process), the chances of those beliefs drop exponentially. So by the time you get to the number of beliefs a human being has, your chances of those beliefs being true are about 1:1,000,000.

The bottom line is this: because the behaviour is random and unguided, the beliefs that occur in the mind of the frog are completely irrelevant to the behaviour. All that is relevant is the behaviour works to keep the species alive and mutating. So, because the random unguided behaviour of tongue flicking out to catch fly works, it doesn't matter if the frog is thinking about quantum mechanics. All that matters is that the behaviour works. Make sense?

So if you assert that evolution is in fact this kind of process, you end up having a defeater for ANY rational belief you may have about anything, including this belief about evolution, and any rational belief. Therefore, evolution by it's nature can't be unguided or random. Make sense?

G'day Milneman,

I'm going to go and have a look at Plantinga's description of this and place it into some sort of context. Unfortunately I'm a tad busy at the moment and it appears this will involve extensive reading and a few of his lectures/orations to try and figure it out. I had come across some of his arguments before in passing (particularly his S5 argument) but as they were mostly badly done in the context of WL Craig & co's various apologetic arguments, or quasi-humours ruminations on Dawkins writings, I haven't given them much deep thought. I think my time would be best served going over Plantinga's original argument and then working out where it applies to your extension. From a quick review Plantinga appears to not be arguing against Evolutionary Theory but against Naturalism in conjunction with it and I understand that argument position because it is relatively neutral ground for a Christian philosopher. His railing against Dawkins is quite humourous at times and provides for some good laughs (his review/critique of Dawkins 'The God Delusion', which he titled 'The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum', is quite funny in places).

That having been said, and returning briefly to our behaviour/mutation discussion above, mutations in most instances have nothing to do with behaviour. A change in colour of a birds tail feathers may not necessarily alter behaviour though may make the male stand out from other males and more likely to breed. This same mutation could also make them easier to be seen by predators (leading to that mutation not continuing as the male doesn't live long enough to grow to maturity and pass the mutation along). In other words a mutation can only be continued on if it is not detrimental to the individual with the mutation and will likely only become the new norm (or maybe new species) if it increases the likelihood of successful breeding. The "randomised" mutation concept you are using is a common misunderstanding of evolutionary theory:

At the opposite end of the scale, natural selection is sometimes interpreted as a random process. This is also a misconception. The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random — but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way: genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't. Natural selection is NOT random!
Source

So, as I said previously:

A species that is successful must have a higher than 50/50 successful instinctive response. It's pretty simple really. That's actually the basis of natural selection: Only the individual organisms with the highest success rate lives to breed... That's why beneficial mutations are so important as they can create new species fairly quickly which can out compete its predecessors. Hence the species evolves...

If every decision/behaviour has a 50/50 chance of being correct, as appears to be asserted in the previous arguments you've said are part of Plantinga's above, then whether I apply the brakes in my car as I'm approaching a traffic light would only happen half the time... That is clearly not the case as humanity wouldn't even be able to flush a toilet every time with that success rate and we'd be wiped out (pardon the pun) due to unsanitary conditions leading to disease outbrakes from toilet blockages.

BTW, human's cognitive ability is not accurate. We do not necessarily see the world as best we could... In other words our evolution may have been successful but it certainly wasn't perfect as shown in a few examples.

The Blind Spot in the human eye illustrates this quite well.



Look at the image above. Cover your left eye and stare at the circle. Move in closer to the screen and you'll notice that the cross disappears. This shows that there is a part of our visual perception of the world around us that we simply fill in the rest, based on previous experiences (ie learnt behaviour), under certain circumstances.

Not satisfied with a cross and circle? Try this example of the incredible disappearing head! It is very good

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=O7jpJ12lBjg

In addition there are also limitations in the range of electromagnetic radiation we are able to perceive (eg we can't see into the infrared which would assist in surviving in a dark environment). This is part of the human umwelt. The physical way of perceiving the world around us (ie our environment) that is unique to our species. For example, a dog quite literally sees the world in black and white with shades of grey. Dogs also have a heightened sense of smell and hearing in comparison to humans. As such they perceive the world in a different way.

A dogs perception of their environment is different to a humans. If a dog is walking along and smells something that instinctively it views as dangerous (for example if the dog had escaped an attack by a mountain lion then it would remember the smell of the mountain lion and associate it with its instinctive "flight" or "fight" response) then it will move away from where the smell originates from. That's why humans need to be down wind to hunt (if they're upwind of the animal they are hunting the animal could smell them and run away)...

Another example of a widely acknowledged limitation to human perception is referred to as Change Blindness. This is another limitation on perception that illustrates how human evolution was flawed and while our neurological and cognitive processes are useful they are very far from perfect. (For a text describing these and more in detail try the chapter here). The following explains what Change Blindness is and how it is a natural part of our species perception of the world:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=9Il_D3Xt9W0

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Qb-gT6vDrmU

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=VkrrVozZR2c

I've only really covered a few of the limitations on the sense of "sight" (though briefly touched on smell) and there are many more relating to the other senses and combinations between them. Humans really only sense the world in which we move in a limited way and, as Daniel Simons illustrates in the videos above, not only do we only see in detail a very small part of our surroundings, but there are also variations between individuals as to how they perceive their environment. My partner has synaesthesia with words, numbers and music having a colour association. Try and imagine that perception of the world. In comparison to some species humans are almost blind, to others we're almost deaf and still others we'd be suffering with anosmia. I have no problem saying that our flawed physiology is likely the result of evolutionary processes.
Just wandering what & when the next step will be...

-- Pan

[Milneman]

The book you want to dig out is:

Where The Conflict Really Lies. It's published by Oxford University Press. Plantinga isn't saying evolution isn't possible. He's saying unguided evolution is highly improbable. Give it a read, it's hefty intellectually? But you're right in that this guy is fun to listen to, even if it takes a while to catch what he's saying. I love his story about the solipsist he met at Michigan State.

He's a Calvanist so part of his assertion is going to include what's called the "sensus divinitatus"....I'll let you unpack that. I'm working through a book right now that deals with the problems of relying on this argument and helps to shore up Plantinga's argument. Will give you the details on that one if you're interested as well. Written by a prof from South Africa I believe.

ANYWAY I'm pleased this thread is taking a dive into the intellectual rather than the banal. Refreshing, finally.

(re: intellectually hefty. I don't see you having any problems with that bud. Cheers!)

[Cidersomerset]

I just saw this article from BBC webpage and is worth putting here as he is probably
one of the last former SS guards to be prosecuted for WW11 war associated crimes.
He said he did see the crematoria and burning pits at Auschwitz and witnessed the
mass killings.


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



Auschwitz guard trial: Oskar Groening admits 'moral guilt'

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=gVfFHJE0e1g

Testemunho de Oskar Groening

8 hours ago
From the section Europe

Media caption
Oskar Groening interview from a 2005 BBC documentary

A 93-year-old former Nazi SS guard, known as the "Bookkeeper of Auschwitz",
has admitted he is "morally" guilty.

Oskar Groening spoke at the beginning of his trial for being an accessory to the
murder of at least 300,000 Jews at the concentration camp.He described his role
of counting money confiscated from new arrivals and said he witnessed mass
killings, but denied any direct role in the genocide.

If found guilty he could face three to 15 years in prison.

Addressing the judges, Mr Groening also said: "I ask for forgiveness. I share morally
in the guilt but whether I am guilty under criminal law, you will have to decide.''


This is expected to be one of the final trials for Nazi war crimes.


At the scene: Jenny Hill, BBC News, at the court in Lueneburg

Oskar Groening looked frail as he entered the courtroom leaning on a walking frame.
But his voice was strong and steady as he spoke for nearly an hour. Four survivors
from the notorious death camp faced him across the room. Much of his testimony
described his attempts to achieve his ambition of being an SS "executive", to work
as a bookkeeper for the Nazis.But there were haunting moments too; for a little
while we saw the horrors of Auschwitz through his eyes.

The survivors watched him impassively but their younger relatives shook their
heads in disbelief as he recounted his arrival at the camp as a young SS guard.
He'd been plied with vodka by officers there, he said. He even described the vodka
bottles. As they drank the officers told him that the camp was for deported Jews.
That those Jewish prisoners would be killed and disposed of. Later, he pulled out a
water bottle: "I'll drink from it like I drank from those vodka bottles in Auschwitz."

The nonagenarian has achieved notoriety as one of the few Germans to speak out
about their role in the genocide, a decision he say he took to stop Holocaust deniers.

" I saw the gas chambers, I saw the crematoria, " he told the BBC in the 2005
documentary Auschwitz: the Nazis and the "Final Solution".

"I was on the ramp when the selections [for the gas chambers] took place."


Oskar Groening in SS uniform. File image taken from BBC documentary Auschwitz:
the Nazis and the 'Final Solution'

Oskar Groening signed up to the Waffen SS and arrived in Auschwitz in 1942

Former SS guard Oskar Groening steps out of a car as he arrives at the back
entrance of the court hall prior to a trail against him in Lueneburg, northern Germany, 21 April 2015


Holocaust survivors will give evidence against Mr Groening in court

Profile: Oskar Groening, 'Bookkeeper of Auschwitz'

Mr Groening, who began work at Auschwitz aged 21, has always maintained that
his role as a guard was not a crime. "If you can describe that as guilt, then I am
guilty, but not voluntarily. Legally speaking, I am innocent," he told Der Spiegel in 2005.

Mr Groening served at Auschwitz between May and June 1944, when some 425,000
Jews from Hungary were brought there and at least 300,000 almost immediately
gassed to death.Charges brought against him in the 1980s were dropped because
of a lack of evidence of his personal involvement.

However, following a recent ruling, prosecutors believe a conviction may be
possible simply because he worked at the camp.

"What I hope to hear is that aiding in the killing machinery is going to be
considered as a crime," Auschwitz survivor Hedy Bohm told Reuters news
agency. "So then no one in the future can do what he did and claim innocence."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32392594

=====================================================

Auschwitz: Factories of Death 2 of 5

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=gHo1r5hx1wk

Uploaded on 21 Jan 2009


This is the third volume in a series that examines the Auschwitz death camp from
conception to implementation of the "final solution" which resulted in the execution
of over 1,100,000 people. This segment looks at the problems Nazi leadership
encountered in trying to fulfill their leader's wishes in executing millions of people.
We follow the logistical problems involved in mass-murder and how those issues
were overcome by the Nazi regime.

[Cidersomerset]

To put it in context I posted this précis on another thread after I posted this one.
But added it here for ref...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I posted this earlier today on Jackovesks Hitler thread as it was the larger thread
and then watched a couple of David Irvines later presentations this afternoon.
David Irvine is a war baby and obsessed with finding out the truth about Hitler.
He has certainly researched the subject thoroughly and he is very knowledgeable,
and does know a great deal about WW 11 and interprets it like many mainstream
historians in his own way. He has had direct access to former NAZI officers and
Hitlers staff and has done probably more research than most in the subject. Yet he
is flawed and can be charismatic and obnoxious during the same presentation. But
that is beside the point he is looking for facts and there is 'grey' everywhere wading
thru the myriad of wartime propaganda from all sides to actually finding the truth.

It boils down to the inter view below as he says the term 'holocaust ' was coined
well after the war and a justification for the creation of modern Israel at the expense
of the native population . Although Israel was conceived by Britain and France
after WW1 and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire when the two state solution
was first mooted. David Irvines main argument is that 'Holocaust' is a later political
term not historical fact. He does admit millions were murdered from all causes
including in the concentration camps, though he is still looking for written proof
the gas facilities existed large enough to kill the amount of people claimed to have
died in this manner.

We know many more millions died before , during and after WW 11 and the 20th
century seems the most violent and bloody in a long human history of such events.
This is only a few brief comments and the subject is much more complex , but
we know by definition of being on a forum like Avalon we do not blindly believe
what we have / are being told and events so far this century are not encouraging
on the 'bloodshed' / propaganda front, having already had 9/11 ,7/7 and other
false flags . Wars in Iraq , Afghanistan , Libya , Syria , Ukraine , Yemen and other
flash points and TPTB Neo -con/ Zionist piece de resistance. The on going 'War on
Terror' with Al Qaeda passing the baton to ISIS , who passed it to ISIL who will
pass it on to ???



====================================================
====================================================
====================================================

Sometimes U/tubes pop up out the blue when you are looking at completely
different subjects , and here is one of them . It gives David Irvines views into the
mass murders and atrocities carried out by the SS and others against the Jews
among many victims. As he says he revives his views the more evidence he finds ,
and he has never said millions of Jews did not die in WW11 . But how ? and that he
does not agree with the definition 'Holocaust' and the extent Hitler fully knew
about the the final solution.

This clarifies David Irvines position better for me, though this is a few years old, so
he may have revised his views further. Obviously these are sound bite interviews
and he has more detailed views and arguments in his long presentations.The sound
sink is slightly out but an interesting discussion.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=c82WPNFBNnM

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=-TCHnx19sl0

[Andrew]

Clip from December 26, 2007 - guest Eustace Mullins on the Jeff Rense Program.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=EVlQ5JZUq3c