SUPPORT THIS PROJECT--Over 11,000 photos of Philadelphia, Albuquerque, Allentown, Ann Arbor, Ardmore, Ashland (PA), Atlanta, Atlantic City, Austin, Baltimore, Battle Mountain, Bellows Falls, Bensalem Township, Berkeley, Bethlehem, Bolivar, Boston, Bordentown, Boulder, Brooklawn (NJ), Buffalo, Burlington (NJ), Cambridge, Camden, Carbondale, Carlisle, Carmel, Cedar Rapids, Centralia, Charleston (SC), Charlotte, Chelsea (MI), Cherry Hill, Chester, Cheyenne, Chicago, Claymont (DE), Cleveland, Collingswood (NJ), Columbus, Cupertino, Daly City, Denver, Des Moines, Detroit, Dexter (MI), Dupont, Durham, El Cerrito, El Paso, Emeryville, Ewing Township (NJ), Fort Indiantown Gap, Fremont, Gary, Glassboro, Glenside (PA), Gloucester, Grinnell, Haddonfield (NJ), Hammonton, Harpers Ferry, Harrisburg, Hoboken, Houston, Jackson, Jersey City, Joliet, Kansas City (KS), Kansas City (MO), Kennewick, Knoxville, Lancaster, Langhorne, Laurel Springs (NJ), Levittown (PA), Lindenwold (NJ), Livonia, Los Angeles, Los Gatos, Marcus Hook, McCook, Media (PA), Millville, Milpitas, Minneapolis, Mount Laurel, Mountain View, New Haven, New Orleans, New York, Newark, New Harmony, New Holland, Normal, Norristown, North Charleston, Oakland, Old Forge, Omaha, Orlando, Osceola, Overland Park, Palmyra (NJ), Palo Alto, Pasco, Penndel, Pennsauken, Pine Barrens, Pittsburgh, Pittston, Portland, Providence, Raleigh, Redford (MI), Redwood City, Reno, Richmond, Richmond (CA), Riverside (NJ), Riverton (NJ), Roebling, Rutland, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Bruno, San Francisco, San Jose, San Leandro, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Santa Monica, San Xavier del Bac, Sausalito, Savannah, Scranton, Somerdale (NJ), South San Francisco, Springfield (IL), St. Louis, St. Paul, Steelton, Stockton, Stratford (NJ), Sunnyvale, Taylor (PA), Trenton, Tucson, Union City (NJ), Ventnor, Vineland, Washington, West New York, Westmont (NJ), Wichita, Wilkes-Barre, Williston, Wilmington, Wolf Point, Woodbury (NJ) and Youngstown, etc. Outside USA: Akreiy Ksatr, Alforja, Arles, Barcelona, Batam, Ben Cat, Ben Tre, Berlin, Beziers, Binh Chanh, Binh Duong, Brighton, Bu Dang, Budapest, Buon Ma Thuot, Burgazada, Cai Be, Cambrils, Can Tho, Castres, Certaldo, Chanthaburi, Chau Ly, Cu Chi, Da Huoai, Da Lat, Dresden, Ea Kar, Ea Kly, Florensac, Frankfurt, Girona, Gorlitz, Grimma, Hanoi, Halle, Hong Kong, Istanbul, Johor Bahru, Juarez, Kawasaki, Kiev, Kinaliada, Krong Buk, La Gi, Lap Vo, Leipzig, London, Long Xuyen, Luban, Markkleeberg, Marseille, Matsudo, Mexico City, Montreal, Olargues, Osaka, Phan Thiet, Phnom Penh, Prades, Prague, Puigcerda, Quy Hop, Reus, Reykjavik, Ripoll, Rivne, Saigon, Salou, San Juan Teotihuacán, Sete, Singapore, Soc Trang, Taipei, Tarascon-sur-Ariege, Tarragona, Tepotzotlán, Thanh Mai, Thep Nimit, Thuan An, Thuan Nam, Tokyo, Toluca, Toronto, Toulouse, Van Loi, Vic, Vinh Chau, Vinh Long, Vung Tau, Wegliniec, Wurzen, Zgorzelec.
If you have a PayPal account, you can save me the fees by sending money directly to my email address: . Thanks!

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

Jeff Bezos, Amazon endorse holocaust denial!

By Kevin Barrett, Veterans Today Editor

In what amounts to a ringing endorsement of the claims of Holocaust revisionists, has apparently concluded that their books cannot be effectively refuted – and therefore must be banned.

M.S. King, author of The Bad War, has been notified that his book has been banned from Amazon. The explanation:

We’re contacting you regarding the following book: The Bad War: The Truth NEVER Taught About World War II. During our review process, we found that this content is in violation of our content guidelines. As a result, we cannot offer this book for sale.

Amazon did not explain precisely which guidelines had been violated, nor did it cite specific passages. Therefore the “violations” claim is an obvious lie. The real reason King’s book and others were banned is that Jewish-Zionist pressure groups have mounted a campaign (timed to accompany the “cemetery desecration” PR stunt?) aimed at making Holocaust revisionism books unavailable. Obviously they believe the revisionists’ claims are irrefutable — and have convinced Amazon that such is the case.
Are the same people who are knocking over headstones in cemeteries also pressuring Amazon to remove holocaust revisionism books? That would certainly fit their standard “problem-reaction-solution” methodology.

After MS King emailed me about the suppression of his book, I searched Amazon to see if the handful of holocaust revisionism titles I’m familiar with were still there. (Disclaimer: I have only read a few books on this subject and am not a revisionist, just an open-minded truth-seeker and defender of freedom of inquiry.)

So which books have been taken down?

Thomas Dalton’s Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides is by far the best book I have read on the Holocaust controversy. It is thorough, precise, well-documented, and lays out a convincing prima facia case that holocaust revisionism needs to be taken seriously. Scholarly, dispassionate, and utterly lacking in anything that could remotely be called “hate” or bigotry, Debating the Holocaust is no longer available on Amazon. And that is an outrage.



So what's next? Will YouTube ban videos questioning any aspect of the official Holocaust narrative? Until that happens, "ONE THIRD of the HOLOCAUST" is still available. It is excellent. Do watch it:



Jonathan Revusky said...

What I find striking about this is that there is no equivalent ban on 9/11 Truth literature or any of the books on the JFK assassination. You'd think that these would be far more sensitive topics at this point in time. The Powers That Be surely don't like all that stuff but no, the material that they really feel compelled to ban is WW2 Revisionism, in particular any dissenting view on the Holocaust.

You would think they would be far more intent on persecuting 9/11 Truthers than so-called "Holocaust Deniers", no? But clearly, it's quite the opposite.

Why exactly is that?

I think this really is a question worth pondering.

jesuit said...

Mr Dinh, I appreciate your writings very much. I am from Turkey but I read American literature extensively and I consider you a modern day Bukowski with better prose skills. That said, this issue of 'holocaust denialism' is a complex one and the term 'truth-seeker' is widely used by many revisionist-genocide deniers whether be it jewish or armenian genocides. As for the non refutal of their claims; their claims are in fact many times and conclusively refuted and there is no reason to repeat it every few years. there are many good books on the subject; I'd suggest raul hilberg's, destruction of the european jews, which is considered the benchmark for holocaust studies. Also, jewish does not necessarily mean 'zionist' which is a fairly recent ideology and many outspoken critics of zionism and israeli policies are jewish, like chomsky and particularly norman finkelstein, the author of 'holocaust industry'. Please forgive my impudence.

Linh Dinh said...

Hi jesuit,

Many thanks for your comment. Jewish power is an extremely touchy subject. People who have helped me see this more clearly include Gilad Atzmon, Israel Shamir and James Petras, among others.

The first commenter, Jonathan Revusky, has also written superbly on media and historical distortions, of which the Holocaust narrative is one of the most significant.

By the way, I was fortunate enough to visit Turkey in late 2016. I certainly hope to return before I drop dead! What a magnificent country.


Jonathan Revusky said...

"...their claims are in fact many times and conclusively refuted..."

Are you sure this is really true or is this just what the "Holocaust Establishment" wants you to believe?

I would pose two questions for you to consider:

1. Why is there any need to ban books by Holocaust Revisionists?

Think about it. If the claim is true that these people are just the intellectual equivalent of flat earthers or people who say Elvis Presley is still alive, then what they are saying is simply absurd anyway, no? Or, another way of putting this is that, given that this material is such trash anyway (or so it is claimed) then it would even make sense to encourage people to read it, since it's such obvious nonsense that it would tend to discredit itself, no?

BUT... that is not what is going on here. Why is that?

2. Have you yourself read any of the books that are being banned by Amazon?

Elizabeth said...

I've been thinking about Jonathan's question: why ban revisionist Holocaust texts but not those promoting 911 or JFK conspiracy theories? Maybe questioning the first suggests that if it's possible that the heroic allies were not unquestioningly "good" fighting ultimate evil, then the assumption that the US must be the world's policemen, with bases everywhere, has to be questioned as well. Who dares question that narrative? One immediate answer could be someone with Nazi tendencies. I mean, there are plenty of things to think about, so why choose that one?

OK, so how is that more menacing than 911 or JFK conspiracies? Those lead people to believe that our government is itself a criminal enterprise, that there have been actual coups. It’s OK to admit that all sorts of coups have been enacted by the US, but not in our own country, under our noses, for God’s sake! That's a terrifying concept which most people really, really do not want to consider, so most won't. I recall when I was doing my research into 911, the progressive articles always put something in the beginning about how some of those Truthers are also UFO nuts, and who wants to align with UFO nuts? In other words, guilt by association and just plain fear takes care of any “inside job” narrative that could have serious cultural impact. That and editors like those over at Counterpunch or The Nation. For the first couple of years, up till 2003, some discussion was fairly mainstream, but the propagandists took care of that, just shut it down.

As an interesting side note, I remember my Republican father, a respectable type, taking my family to a talk at the local public library about UFO sightings witnessed by people who didn’t appear to be nutters, pilots and such. This was in the 60s, when I was a young kid. Somehow that was a more respectable matter of inquiry back then than 911 "conspiracy theories" are now.

Like Linh says, "Jewish power is an extremely touchy subject." I suspect that's because despite all the identity politics, an awful lot of people still harbor the idea that the northern European Christians are more "evolved," even though those neo-Darwinian theories have been pretty much debunked. And they also still mostly unconsciously hold to the idea that the Jewish people are somehow culturally nefarious, but fight against these notions because they lead to White Power thinking, and few want to be seen as siding with those lunatics. Gilad Atzmon once said something to the effect that most Jews hold onto their victimhood, despite Israel’s victimizing. They speak of all those times they were thrown out of countries, the pogroms and exiles, and Atzmon asks, ‘So what part in that did our ancestors have?’ What a taboo question! The narrative goes that Israel is necessary because otherwise the western world just won’t be able to help itself from oppressing and murdering Jews. I used to be married to a Jewish man, and that sentiment was deeply impressed upon the children every Sabbath dinner.

Ach, I’m writing myself into corners, perhaps, but I think my point is that people are not nearly as rational as they think they are, even the ones who test high on IQ exams. Our emotions and desires to fit in, our feelings of comfort, are much more compelling than those pesky “facts.” We’ve deluded ourselves into believing that ours is a scientific, rational culture, and if we can just stomp out any remaining religious, magical thinking, we can build a better society. Somehow I don’t see that happening, but there are definitely costs for such heretical thinking.

Jonathan, I read your essay “A Framework for Reclaiming Reality”—good stuff! When I taught I always assigned Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language” in English 101.

Jonathan Revusky said...

"I've been thinking about Jonathan's question: "

Hi, Elizabeth. I also have been thinking about Jonathan's question. LOL. I mean to say, the fact that I pose a question does not mean that I definitely know the answer to it!

As best I can figure, the whole "Good War" synthetic narrative, which is the "We're so good and they were so evil" comic book version of the history -- this is like the central synthetic narrative. Maybe it's like the aircraft carrier in a carrier group, the mother ship of the Armada. You can lose a few of your supporting frigates or destroyers or whatever, but if they sink the mother ship....

You see what I mean? So, if the "Good War" synthetic narrative is so central to the propaganda matrix and the Holocaust part is so key in that, then it's really the heart of the whole thing. (Or it's like the Death Star in Star Wars??? I dunno...)

I suspect that if you stop believing all the "Good War" narrative, then you largely become immune to most of the political propaganda out there, because it somehow so much revolves around this.

Well, there's also that the Holocaust narrative is central to the Zionist movement and founding of the State of Israel. That can hardly be discounted either! But the fact remains that you can express the most outlandish things about all kinds of other topics without much worry, yet they really will try to destroy you if you question this.

I'm glad you enjoyed the "Reclaiming Reality" essay. I think I've read about everything Orwell ever wrote at some point or other, since he actually didn't write that much in total volume. I recently ran across an essay that I had read before but when I first read it, it did not make such a great impression on me.

It's just uncanny. This is a fascinating sentence towards the end:

"In the last analysis our only claim to victory is that if we win the war we shall tell fewer lies about it than our adversaries."

He wrote that in early 1944.

Elizabeth said...

“Maybe it's like the aircraft carrier in a carrier group, the mother ship of the Armada. You can lose a few of your supporting frigates or destroyers or whatever, but if they sink the mother ship....”

Now there’s a great analogy, Jonathan! That’s what I was trying to say, but I was having trouble being clear about it, having just been faced with your question.

As for Orwell’s line--“In the last analysis our only claim to victory is that if we win the war we shall tell fewer lies about it than our adversaries”—I’m not sure I agree with that. He also wrote

“A certain degree of truthfulness was possible so long as it was admitted that a fact may be true even if you don't like it. Even as late as the last war it was possible for the Encyclopedia Britannica, for instance, to compile its articles on the various campaigns partly from German sources. Some of the facts -- the casualty figures, for instance -- were regarded as neutral and in substance accepted by everybody. No such thing would be possible now. A Nazi and a non-Nazi version of the present war would have no resemblance to one another, and which of them finally gets into the history books will be decided not by evidential methods but on the battlefield.”

I think the last line of that essay comes closer to the point: “Is it not a strange commentary on our time that even the casualties in the present war cannot be estimated within several millions?”

Same as today. Take for example the question of how many “innocents” have been killed in Iraq since the US invaded. Estimates on MSM TeeVee always say tens of thousands; less widespread accounts have said up to 1.5 million (and the last I checked was maybe six years ago, so there’d have to be some added to that). According to the US military, any male of military age cannot be an innocent as those are our “enemy combatants” in a “war” that even patriotic veterans will tell you isn’t really a war, but an invasion based on lies (or should we say bad intelligence). Wouldn’t Orwell have had a field day analyzing politics and the English language these days!

Orwell is arguing for what he terms a “liberal” frame of mind (that word’s meaning has altered over the decades), by which he means a disinterested accounting of what we can know. (My reply would be that this idea that people can be disinterested in matters of war is largely highly unlikely.)

Elizabeth said...


Getting back to the Holocaust denial question in relation to Orwell’s line “In the last analysis our only claim to victory is that if we win the war we shall tell fewer lies about it than our adversaries,” I’ll tell you a teaching anecdote. This was ten years back or so. I was teaching a cluster of readings on the obedience studies (Asch, Milgram, Zimbardo) and we were discussing Milgram’s assertion that his studies explained the Holocaust; that is, they explained how an authority, in this case the Nazis, could get ordinary citizens to participate in the most heinous acts. After all, Germany was a highly civilized country with a highly educated public, and a Christian one.

I happened to have an Orthodox Jewish woman and a guy from Germany in that class, and things got a bit ugly between them. The woman was disgusted by Milgram’s conclusions because they gave the Nazis a pass. The man told us he’d left Germany because he couldn’t tolerate all the lies he was force-fed in schools there. For one, he refused to accept the contention that most Germans knew about the Holocaust in the first place. He said he’d moved to Amerika because at least you can speak your mind here.

I wanted to say, “Good luck with that, buddy,” but held my tongue. I asked the class how many would have carried the Milgram experiment to its conclusion and only one person raised his hand. I said, “According to the evidence most of you are deluded about yourself.”

Linh would be better able to tell us what Germans learn in school, having taught there recently, but the point is that neither were capable of being anything like objectively analytical on the subject. The class was already bursting into chaos, and imagine what would have happened if I’d started questioning whether all the stories of the Holocaust are actually true? For one, I’d have been fired immediately.

Jonathan Revusky said...

I wrote a rather sarcastic essay about synthetic reality here. Increasingly, there really are just these synthetic events, things that just didn't happen!

The one problem with that Orwell essay, as prescient as it is in some ways, is that Orwell still believed, more or less, in the moral superiority of the Anglo-American side of the war. So, he took it as a given that the Anglo-Saxons would be more honest than the Nazis if they won. Increasingly, I suspect that the opposite may be the case. A German version of the events might have actually been more honest than what we have been force-fed all our lives. Or maybe not. But, at the least, I see no no reason to believe that it would be more dishonest than our History Channel version of the war!

Here is something from an email that I wrote Linh in private about a week ago:

"What I feel increasingly though is that, whether one is a German or a Jew, finally not believing in the "Good War" narrative and the Holo stuff and coming to a more real understanding of the history is finally very psychologically liberating. I really feel that. I mean, there's all the bullshit, all of the synthetic narratives we carry around in our heads, but the central biggest heap of it is this Good War thing. You stop believing in that and most of the fog dissipates."

I myself believed, until maybe just two or three years ago, that the Holocaust narrative was broadly true. However, even by then, I was having problems with the whole thing, in particular the notion of the collective guilt of the German people. (to be continued)

Jonathan Revusky said...

Of course, even if one assumed for the sake of argument that the Holocaust narrative is broadly true (though it ain't) there is no way that the average German person of the time would know that the Jews (and gypsies and other "undesirables") were being exterminated. They would of course just believe the cover story that these people were being resettled to the East. Even if they heard rumors about extermination centers, almost nobody would believe it. They would dismiss these things as "conspiracy theories" basically. And even then, the problem remains that if a typical German believed that the Jews were being exterminated, what was he or she supposed to have done about it anyway?

Certainly if you compare the situation with the war crimes carried out by the U.S. over the last couple of decades, you have a situation where the information about this is publicly available and also, in the U.S. people can protest without much in the way of negative consequences. (It doesn't change anything, of course, but they can register their protest.) Yet, most of the population is indifferent to the whole thing. Or, if you compare what was being done to the Palestinians in 1947-48, you can certainly make the case that large numbers of the Jewish population knew about it certainly. So all of this continual nonsense about the collective guilt of the Germans and their paying reparations and wearing sackcloth and ashes until the end of time, it's all outrageously unfair. I mean, even if one were to assume that the whole Holocaust thing was the pure truth...

"imagine what would have happened if I’d started questioning whether all the stories of the Holocaust are actually true?"

Well, of course, this latest thing with Amazon banning the books really is a tacit admission that this is just an enforced dogma like some Catholic dogma at the time of the Holy Inquisition. I believed all this Holocaust narrative until at most a few years ago and now, I look at it and I realize how little it can withstand any scrutiny. For example, not too long ago, I came across this:

This is part of the official Holo narrative. Read through that and tell me what you think. In a way, just looking at the official narrative with a critical mindset is more damning than reading the actual Holocaust revisionist literature (that Amazon banned).

"For one, I’d have been fired immediately."

Yes, certainly. I would venture the guess that you could introduce all sorts of materials about 9/11 Truth and whatnot in your classroom and you might be able to survive that, but Holocaust denial is considered the worst of the worst.

And certainly, you could say that in 1947/48, all the Palestinian Arabs left their ancestral villages of their own free will, i.e. you could repeat whatever Zionist lie, and your job would be secure, no?

Well, we know what we're talking about here. There surely is a growing groundswell of awareness about this and people are getting fed up with it. And that's why you're getting the hysterical reaction from the Judaeo-Zionist Holocaust Establishment of banning books and even imprisoning people for thought crime. Still, the most striking thing about all this is that most of the Goyim go along with all this. Some, it's because they are thoroughly brainwashed, but others, it's just fear. They understand they can lose their privileged sinecures and whatnot and that's enough to keep them in line.

Elizabeth said...

OK, Jonathan, since you keep giving me reading assignments, let me share one of my foundational authors, Kenneth Burke.

Start with The Grammar of Motives, then read the Rhetoric of Motives. If'n you want, that is.

Ian Keenan said...

I liked “jesuit’”s post too. The main phase of my reading about the Holocaust was when I was about 20-21 and I was in the university library for long stretches.. since then I’ve read about it off and on and watched some documentaries like Night and Fog. The focus on my reading has not been on verification. I started watching the recommended ‘denial’ video and it didn’t leave me curious, and I’m not a seasoned historian in verification matters, but there is a compelling, wide variety of anecdotal sources suggesting an extermination campaign imho.

I believe in the first amendment and of course oppose suppressing books like this.. I can see a private company suppressing certain malicious ‘how to’ books but not an historical argument. Suppressing an historical argument means you think that one ‘spin’ will prevail over objective scholarship and it ought to be yours, and certainly the persistent ‘Likudniks’ that use the Holocaust to bolster their position are of that mindset, and unlike (to speak to Jonathan’s original question) those who would cover up the JFK assassination, 9-11: they’re not unwilling to go on the record in many cases.

Ian Keenan said...

re: Johnathan's question: Victor Ostrovsky's accounts of how intimidation of the press make for good demystification of the matter.

Ian Keenan said...

delete "how" in the above..

Elizabeth said...

Jonathan: “I would venture the guess that you could introduce all sorts of materials about 9/11 Truth and whatnot in your classroom and you might be able to survive that, but Holocaust denial is considered the worst of the worst.”

Actually, I didn’t look into 911 until about 2008, when my moron boss gave me a packet of readings about education to teach. One was an article in Time, of all places, and it spoke of some guy teaching philosophy in high school who assigned Loose Change, and the philosophical question he gave the class was something about the explosions people claimed to hear, to wit, can we assume there were explosions just because some people said they’d heard explosions?

I thought, what a bizarre question! Whenever I taught an essay I’d always consider any questions the class might ask, so I thought I’d better watch Loose Change myself. But seriously, you cannot assign stuff like that. Just suggesting people might want to look into it gets you branded a loon, and fired.

Jonathan: “And certainly, you could say that in 1947/48, all the Palestinian Arabs left their ancestral villages of their own free will, i.e. you could repeat whatever Zionist lie, and your job would be secure, no?”

There are a lot of Palestinians around here, so no, I wouldn’t have ever told that lie. I got to know this one Palestinian family because three of them took my classes at one time or another. I told them they should start inviting me to their holiday dinners, but never got an invitation. Anyway, one of them became the university paper’s editor, and she wrote an editorial from a Palestinian’s point of view. She got so much hate mail that she stopped writing altogether for two years. She was afraid for her life, and seriously, she had cause.


About Me

Born in Vietnam in 1963, I lived mostly in the US from 1975 until 2018, but have returned to Vietnam, where I live in remote Ea Kly. I've also lived in Italy, England and Germany. I'm the author of a non-fiction book, Postcards from the End of America (2017), a novel, Love Like Hate (2010), two books of stories, Fake House (2000) and Blood and Soap (2004), and six collections of poems, with a Collected Poems apparently cancelled by Chax Press from external pressure. I've been anthologized in Best American Poetry 2000, 2004, 2007, Great American Prose Poems from Poe to the Present, Postmodern American Poetry: a Norton Anthology (vol. 2) and Flash Fiction International: Very Short Stories From Around the World, etc. I'm also editor of Night, Again: Contemporary Fiction from Vietnam (1996) and The Deluge: New Vietnamese Poetry (2013). My writing has been translated into Japanese, Italian, Spanish, French, Dutch, German, Portuguese, Korean, Arabic, Icelandic and Finnish, and I've been invited to read in Tokyo, London, Cambridge, Brighton, Paris, Berlin, Leipzig, Halle, Reykjavik, Toronto, Singapore and all over the US. I've also published widely in Vietnamese.