Re. brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Aetyr Aetyr at nc.rr.com
Tue Oct 1 17:33:47 EST 2002


My Father liberated Dachau, and Bergen Belsen.  He told us very
graphically what he saw.
It sickens me that they couldn't wait at least until ALL the
eyewitnesses were dead before they started that lying crap.
Once I asked him if it were true if the Germans did not know of
those camps, and he said, No.  You couldn't miss the smell, and
nothing else smells like mass death.
Pip
"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote in message
news:cDkm9.94783$S32.6300099 at news2.west.cox.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Continued from "Nuremberg: The Crime That Will Not Die" :
>
>
> That was the reality. Judge Jackson, handling the prosecution
of Nuremberg's
> most important trials was a man with presidential ambitions who
needed a
> high profile carved out of a self-serving stage: The Nuremberg
Trials were
> to be the launching pad of his presidential race. The Nuremberg
court was
> not selected from, or composed of, judges of the neutral Swiss,
or the
> neutral Swedes, or some more distant African, Asian or Latin
American
> countries. American civilian judges to a large extent made up
the core of
> the Allied judges--not military career officers, who might have
had some
> understanding and compassion for what the military leaders and
the civilian
> government under extreme war time conditions lived through.
They could have
> undoubtedly had a greater appreciation of why some of the
wartime measures
> were undertaken by Germany in the desperate days of the war.
The "liberal
> country club" experienced set of small town American judges
could not.
>
> Furthermore, the Allied victors blatantly carried on their war
against the
> Germans by other means long after the shooting had stopped--not
by bombs and
> bullets but this time by falsely diagnosing psychologists or,
worse, by
> giving torturers a free hand: cynical and brutal investigators
who could,
> and frequently did, mistreat, beat, whip, starve, suffocate and
mutilate
> their prisoners into giving confessions and statements which
were as cruelly
> extracted as were the confessions from witches during the
disgusting
> witchcraft trials of the Dark Ages.
>
> The injustice of the Nuremberg Trials was testified to not only
by Harlan
> Fiske Stone, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United
States, but
> also Iowa Supreme Court Justice Charles F. Wennerstrum, a man
of the
> Midwest, who sat on one of the tribunals trying lesser alleged
Nazi war
> criminals after the war.
>
> Wennerstrum pointed out in a celebrated and controversial
interview given to
> a reporter of the Chicago Daily Tribune that frequently the
interrogators
> and some of the prosecutors were Jews who had fled Nazi Germany
and came
> back in Allied uniforms to torment and seek revenge on the
National
> Socialists who had wanted to expel the Jews from European
living space
> because they considered them harmful to the war effort and to
Western
> European civilization.
>
> Here is how the article described the lot that came to post-war
Germany to
> settle private scores, as seen through Justice Wennerstrum's
eyes, after he
> quit in disgust:
>
> "If I had known seven months ago what I know today,"
(Wennerstrum) told
> friends as he packed to leave for America, "I would never have
come here. .
> . The initial war crimes trial here was judged and prosecuted
by Americans,
> Russians, British and French with much of the time, effort and
expenses
> devoted to whitewashing the Allies and placing the sole blame
for World War
> II upon Germany.
>
> "What I have said of the nationalist character of the
tribunals," the judge
> continued, "applies to the prosecution. The high ideals
announced as the
> motives for creating these tribunals has not been evident.
>
> "The prosecution has failed to maintain objectivity aloof from
> vindictiveness, aloof from personal ambitions for convictions.
It has failed
> to strive to lay down precedents which might help the world to
avoid future
> wars.
>
> The entire atmosphere here is unwholesome. Linguists were
needed. the
> Americans are notably poor linguists. Lawyers, clerks,
interpreters and
> researchers were employed who became Americans only in recent
years, whose
> backgrounds were embedded in Europe's hatreds and prejudices. .
. (emphasis
> added) (Chicago Daily Tribune, 23 February 1948)
>
> In other words, the Allies supplied the interrogators, most of
them Jews--as
> some of the victims, who had had a lifetime of experience in
dealing with
> Jews and thus recognized them, have stated. Those of us who are
German and
> can speak German can easily discern the ethnicity of some of
the accusers by
> their mere accents and patterns of speech, even in radio
broadcasts and
> newsreels.
>
> Most of the evidence in the trials was "documentary," selected
by the Allies
> from the large tonnage of captured records. The document
selection was made
> by the prosecution. The defense had access only to those
documents which the
> prosecution considered material to the case and were made
available to the
> defense. The Allies could choose to release or to hide and/or
destroy any
> documents which did not fit their post-war strategy or plans at
Nuremberg.
> The Allies admitted elsewhere that their propaganda Ministries
and
> Intelligence Services had previously forged Nazi stamps, Nazi
passes, Nazi
> passports, orders, ID cards etc. which fooled the Nazis many
times because
> they were so perfect and over which the Allied propagandists
gloat to this
> day. It does not take a great leap of the imagination to think
what these
> same Allied Government agencies, their personnel and forgers of
documents
> could do now with all the captured genuine German
document-producing
> facilities, the captured type writers, rubber stamps and tons
of letter
> heads of all sizes and description and of any National
Socialist
> organization you care to mention.
>
> Even setting aside questionable "documentary" evidence, let's
look at some
> of the accused's "testimony"--how it was extracted, and what it
really
> means.
>
> Like vile exclamation marks, at the heart of the Nuremberg
Tribunal stand
> certain words: "Genocide" "Gas chamber." "Six million." These
words, and the
> value judgment concepts they connote, were derived largely from
the
> admissions and affidavit of one man, Rudolf Hoess, the one-time
war-time
> Kommandant at Auschwitz.
>
> Rudolf Hoess was the Allies' most important witness to the
"Holocaust." His
> affidavit and his testimony were quoted extensively both by the
prosecution
> and in the judgment of the IMT at Nuremberg, as well as by the
press. It was
> his testimony which laid the foundation and validated the claim
of the ". .
> . extermination of millions of people by gas at Auschwitz."
Hoess's
> "confession" is heavily relied upon by historians like Raul
Hilberg and
> others as a primary documentary source to this day.
>
> It is true that Hoess witnessed at Nuremberg to horrendous
"atrocities," and
> he also confirmed the "truth" under oath of an affidavit which
he agreed to
> sign for the prosecution. In it, he confessed to having given
orders for the
> gassing of millions of victims. The affidavit, by the way, was
in English, a
> language he did not speak or understand, according to family
members.
>
> We now know from the book "Legions of Death" that Rudolf Hoess
was beaten
> almost to death by Jewish members of the British Field Police
Force upon
> capture and badly mistreated thereafter until he gave this very
devastating
> "testimony" and "affidavit" used by the Allies propagandists
ever since. You
> be the judge. Here is an excerpt from this book by Rupert
Butler, published
> by Hamlyn Paperbacks, page 235:
>
> At 5 PM on 11 March 1946, Frau Hoess opened her front door to
six
> intelligence specialists in British uniform, most of them tall
and menacing
> and all of them practiced in the more sophisticated techniques
of sustained
> and merciless investigation.
>
> No physical violence was used on the family: it was scarcely
necessary. Wife
> and children were separated and guarded. Clarke's tone was
deliberately
> low-key and conversational.
>
> He began mildly: "I understand your husband came to see you as
recently as
> last night."
>
> Frau Hoess merely replied: "I haven't seen him since he
absconded months
> ago"
>
> Clarke tried once more, saying gently but with a tone of
reproach: "You know
> that isn't true." Then all at once his manner had changed and
he was
> shouting: "If you don't tell us, we'll turn you over to the
Russians and
> they'll put you before a firing squad. Your son will go to
Siberia."
>
> It proved more than enough. Eventually, a broken Frau Hoess
betrayed the
> whereabouts of the former Auschwitz Kommandant, the man who now
called
> himself Franz Lang. Suitable intimidation of the son and
daughter produced
> precisely identical information.
>
> When they found Hoess, here is how the capture played out.
Clarke, one of
> the participants, recalls it vividly:
>
> "He was lying on top of a three-tier bunker wearing a new pair
of silk
> pyjamas. We discovered later that he had lost the cyanide pill
most of them
> carried. Not that he would have had much chance to use it
because we had
> rammed a torch (flashlight) into his mouth."
>
> Hoess screamed in terror at the mere sight of the British
uniforms.
>
> Clarke yelled: "What is your name?"
>
> With each answer of "Franz Lang," Clarke's hand crashed into
the face of the
> prisoner. The fourth time that happened, Hoess broke and
admitted who he
> was.
>
> The admission suddenly unleashed the loathing of the Jewish
sergeants in the
> arresting party whose parents had died in Auschwitz following
an order
> signed by Hoess.
>
> The prisoner was torn from the top bunk, the pyjama ripped from
his body. He
> was then dragged naked to one of the slaughter tables, where it
seemed to
> Clarke the blows and screams were endless.
>
> Eventually, the Medical Officer urged the Captain: "Call them
off, unless
> you want to take back a corpse."
>
> A blanket was thrown over Hoess and he was dragged to Clarke's
car, where
> the sergeant poured a substantial slug of whiskey down his
throat. Then
> Hoess tried to sleep.
>
> Clarke thrust his service stick under the man's eyelids and
ordered in
> German: "Keep your pig eyes open, you swine." . . .
>
> The party arrived back at Heide around three in the morning.
The snow was
> swirling still, but the blanket was torn from Hoess and he was
made to walk
> completely nude through the prison yard to his cell. It took
three days to
> get a coherent statement out of him.
>
> This statement, tortured and terrorized out of him, was the one
we are all
> familiar with--the "proof" for the so-called "gassing of the
Jews."
>
> Historians today are finally admitting that Hoess is a totally
unreliable
> witness--and is it any wonder? He spoke of a concentration camp
"Wolzek"
> which does not even exist. He swore that 2,500,000 people were
gassed and
> burned at Auschwitz and a further half million died of disease,
for a total
> dead of three million. The Toronto Sun of July 18, 1990 claimed
1.5 million.
> The Washington Post, on the same date, also mentioned 1.5
million. Quoted
> from an article by Krzyszlov Leski, we have the following:
>
> Poland has cut its estimate of the number of people killed by
the Nazis in
> the Auschwitz death camp from 4 million to just over 1 million.
>
> The vast majority of the dead are now accepted to have been
Jews, despite
> claims by the former Polish communist government that as many
Poles perished
> in Hitler's largest concentration camp. . .
>
> The new study could rekindle the controversy over the scale of
Hitler's
> final solution."
>
> Shevach Weiss, a death camp survivor and Labor Party member of
the Israeli
> Parliament, expressed disbelief at the revised estimates,
saying: "It sounds
> shocking and strange." . . .
>
> Shmuel Krakowsky, head of research at Israel's Yad Vashem
memorial for
> Jewish victims of the Holocaust, said the new Polish figures
were correct.
>
> "The 4 million figure was let slip by Capt. Rudolf Hoess, the
death camp's
> Nazi commander. Some have bought it, but it was exaggerated." .
. .
>
> But the Polish authorities said accurate estimates of the
number killed
> could only be made by studying German documents seized by the
Soviet Union.
> But Moscow has refused to return the archives.
>
> A most convenient excuse! In 1989 I organized a write-in
campaign to
> persuade the then-Soviet Leader Gorbachev to release the
Auschwitz Death
> Registers captured in 1945 when the Red Army took over the
Auschwitz
> complex. A few months afterwards this actually happened.
Gorbachev released
> these all-important documents to the Red Cross, which showed in
minute
> detail why people had died in Auschwitz, the cause and time of
death, their
> birth, address etc.
>
> 74,000 names of people who had died were listed, of which only
approximately
> 30,000 were Jews, along with an almost equal number of Poles
and members of
> other nationalities.
>
> The incredibly shrinking Holocaust! The "millions" that we have
heard about
> for half a century and that we hear and read about still today
all started
> with the "testimony" beaten out of poor Hoess on that horrible
night in
> defeated Germany.
>
> Historian Christopher Browning finally had to admit in a recent
Vanity Fair
> article that Hoess was an unreliable witness. Browning stated
that
>
> ". . . Hoess was always a very weak and confused witness. The
revisionists
> use him all the time for this reason, in order to try and
discredit the
> memory of Auschwitz as a whole." (Holocaust Revisionism Source
Book, 1994,
> p. 1)
>
> But does that invalidate the Revisionist claims or their
strategy? Not at
> all. On the contrary. After all, Hoess's testimony was used as
the skeleton
> on which the entire Holocaust myth about mass gassings was
constructed in
> the first place. Revisionists have concentrated on Hoess
precisely because
> he is probably the most important source for Holocaust
historians'
> conclusions on and exaggerations about the Holocaust. Raul
Hilberg, who
> wrote the "Bible" of the "Holocaust," The Destruction of the
European Jews,
> (Holmes & Meier, Revised Edition, 1985 ) relies on Hoess's
testimony
> heavily, and Hoess was the primary witness relied upon by the
Nuremberg
> Tribunal in their judgment regarding the "extermination of the
Jews," even
> though he told the court of having been savagely tortured.
>
> What's more, Hoess's treatment by the Allies and the total
unreliability of
> his "evidence" are not unusual. We don't know how many of the
accused at the
> Nuremberg trials were badly mistreated, since references in the
trial
> transcripts to their mistreatment was expunged from the record.
(Read this
> again! Material damaging to the Allies was expunged from the
Nuremberg trial
> transcripts!)
>
> An example is Streicher's testimony. Streicher was reported in
the London
> Times as having testified that he was tortured, whipped, spat
on, and forced
> to drink from a latrine. (Streicher Opens His Case, The Times,
April 27,
> 1946). His testimony was later expunged from the record of the
trial with
> the active participation of the prosecution, the president of
the Tribunal,
> and even his own defense lawyer!
>
> Other traces of the brutal treatment of the Nuremberg
prisoners, however,
> have survived. One of these witnesses was Gauleiter Sauckel's
reference to
> threats to his family, which did remain in the transcript.
During his
> testimony in May of 1946, Sauckel testified that he signed a
document, even
> though he did not know what was in that document, after his
family of 10
> children was threatened with deportation to Russia.
>
> And finally, it must not be forgotten that t his is the only
judicial
> proceeding conducted in the name of civilized nations where
there was no
> appeal mechanism to a parallel or higher authority for a review
of the
> proceedings or any verdicts that this so-called international
military
> tribunal arrived at. Their judgments over the leadership of
Europe's most
> populous state, against whom they had just fought a murderous,
near
> genocidal war, were final and deadly.
>
> Keep all that in mind as you read, watch and listen to all the
emotional
> hype in the mass media on television and radio of these days.
And for what?
>
> The Jewish leader Nahum Goldman spells it out for you in his
astounding
> book, The Jewish Paradox, Pages 123-125, admitting to the
mother of all
> frauds. In his own words, at the conclusion of the agreement
Goldman
> obtained from Dr. Adenauer, the German Quisling State's first
> Allied-appointed chancellor,
>
> ". . . the Germans will have paid out a total of 80 billion. .
. Without the
> German reparations that started coming through during its first
ten years as
> a state, Israel would not have half of its present
infrastructure: All the
> trains in Israel are German, the ships are German, and the same
goes for
> electrical installations and a great deal of Israel's industry
. . . and
> that is setting aside the individual pensions paid to
survivors. Israel
> today receives hundreds of millions of dollars in German
currency each year
> . . . In some years the sums of money received by Israel from
Germany has
> been as much as double or treble the contribution made by
collections from
> international Jewry. Nowadays, there is no longer any
opposition to the
> principle. (emphasis added)
>
> Not anywhere you look!
>
> After the Nuremberg Trials and Proceedings are stripped of the
hyperbole and
> smoke screens which surrounds them, it can be put quite
bluntly:
>
> The Allies did it all. The Allies fought a war on foreign
shores--in part to
> establish the State of Israel. The Allies lent a willing hand
to political
> ambitions that grew out of the Zionist camp. By means of the
Nuremberg
> trials, the Allies helped the establishment and financing of
Israel. So as
> to secure Israel, the Allies and their personnel became
accusers,
> researchers, interrogators, prosecutors, judges and
executioners--all in
> one! The Allies supplied the "experts" who sifted through the
German
> documents, which were all totally in Allied control,
highlighting
> incriminating documents, discarding exonerating evidence. These
> investigators were told only to "find" incriminating documents
against the
> hapless accused, as I was told by the American scholar Charles
Weber, Ph.D.,
> who had been one of these Allied researchers, and who testified
at my own
> trials. These researchers were told were told to ignore the
documents that
> might have spared the lives of the accused German leaders. When
all was said
> and done, there was not even an appeal.
>
> U.S. Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, speaking of the American
Chief
> Prosecutor, Jackson, finally had this to say, as mentioned in
the Viking
> Press hard cover, cited before, p. 746 :
>
> "Jackson is away conducting his high grade lynching party in
Nuremberg," he
> remarked. "I don't mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate
to see the
> pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to
common law.
>
> This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my
old-fashioned ideas."
>
> Some sanctimonious fraud!
>
> Some record for the Allies to be "proud of"--to have helped
manufacture such
> a sick, perverted Marxist/Zionist inspired legal farce that
would condemn to
> death the leaders of the only military effort ever undertaken
to stop the
> "evil empire" from bringing to us all their "hate law"
ideology.
>
> Are now the chickens coming home to roost? That's how America
and the "free
> world" have showed their gratitude to the defenders of Europe
and Western
> Civilization: by hanging brave and honest men who tried so
valiantly for so
> long to stop the decadence and the hypocrisy of what we now
call,
> shuddering, ". . . the coming New World Order"!
>
> I bow my head in reverence to those who were judicially
murdered at
> Nuremberg. They were the world's martyrs, not villains. Not one
of them
> would have been condemned to death in a fair trial. Not one!
Let's not
> forget they sacrificed an entire nation, and in the end
themselves, to save
> Western civilization. They were defeated by thugs in robes and
gangsters in
> uniform and by the conspiracies hatched by shysters from the
ghettos and
> shtetls of Eastern Europe.
>
>
>  The concepts expressed in this document are protected by the
basic human
> right to freedom of speech, as guaranteed by the First
Amendment of the
> Constitution of the United States, reaffirmed by the U.S.
Supreme Court as
> applying to the Internet content on June 26, 1997.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
> ----
> E-Mail us! Ingrid Rimland: irimland at zundelsite.org .
> Only in case you found grammar, spelling, layout or programming
errors,
> please contact our webmaster: webmaster at zundelsite.org
> Subscribe to our world famous ZGrams
>
> Contact the Zundelsite
> 3152 Parkway #13, PMB109,
> Pigeon Forge, TN,
> 37863, USA.
>
>
>
>





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list