IceViking

Time to let go, for now at least

2007-08-18T21:28:00.000+02:00

Dear All,

I must once again let go. As I said on the previous occasion I hope I will be able to return as soon as possible but I`m discontinuing this blog, for now at least. I don`t know if I`ll return or not. I`m sorry.

Best Wishes,

IceViking

Why Islam Should Be Wiped Off the Map

2007-08-18T14:00:00.002+02:00

From Professor Paul Eidelberg`s e-mail list (which you can sign up for at this site):

Why Islam Should Be Wiped Off the Map
by Prof. Paul Eidelberg

"I studied the Quran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. So far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion more to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself."

Alexis de Tocqueville

"[Islam’s massacres in India] are unparalleled in history, bigger in sheer numbers than the [Nazi] Holocaust, or the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks."

Serge Trivkovic

"However much institutions, attitudes, and customs have changed, the Muslim approach to politics derives from the invariant premises of the religion and from fundamental themes established more than a millennium ago."

Daniel Pipes

Anyone who has read the Quran as well as Ibn Warraq (Why I Am Not a Muslim), or Robert Spencer (A Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam), or Bernard Lewis (The Crisis of Islam), or Bat Yo’er (Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide), or Kenneth Timmerman (Preachers of Hate: Islam and the War on America), or Raphael Patai (The Arab Mind), or D. F. Green (Arab Theologians on Jews and Israel), or Melanie Phillips (Londonistan)—anyone, I say, who has read these books knows that Islam, by any other name, is Islam, and that the Quran is the Islamic equivalent of Mein Kampf, as Winston Churchill indicates in his history of the Second World War.

We are now in the midst of a Third, but more subtle and deadlier, World War, and we had better know and vigorously confront the enemy.

It will be infinitely more difficult for freedom-loving nations to win this war if only because their leaders obscure the nature of the enemy. We know there are many Muslims who deplore jihadists. Daniel Pipes estimates that “only” 10 to 15 percent of world’s 1.3 billion Muslims support the jihadist agenda. That’s equivalent to 130 to 195 million Muslims—hardly comforting. Other scholars estimate at least 50 percent of the world’s Islamic population identifies with jihadists—that’s 625 million Muslims!

No less worrisome, Bernard Lewis, the doyen of Islamic scholars, tells us that “Even when Muslims cease believing in Islam, they may retain Islamic habits and attitudes.” Various scholars have shown that the distinction between Islamic “moderates” and “extremists” is problematic, affected by changing circumstances. If only for strategic reasons, Islam, regardless of any “politically correct” adjective, should be deemed Islam.

Since the West, as Lewis and Samuel Huntington have shown, is involved in a clash of civilizations with Islam—a clash emphasized by Muslim theologians, writers, and rulers down through the ages—it is exceedingly dangerous to obscure this clash of civilizations when at stake are nothing less than freedom and the sanctity of human life.

Apart from fear of being denounced as “racists,” Western statesmen are afraid—reasonably so—that naming the enemy will arouse unruly passions and trigger attacks against law-abiding Muslims. However, by obscuring the nature of the enemy and the magnitude and profundity of the Islamic threat, the leaders of Western nations minimize their people’s awareness of this threat and readiness to support the arduous and even cruel measures required to overcome it.

Notice the anti-Iraq war movement in the West even while England and Europe are being Islamized. Notice the widespread hostility toward Israel despite its having been attacked by Hezbollah, the proxy of Iran, whose president, Mahmoud Ahmaninejad calls for “wiping Israel off the map” and for “a world without America”—meaning a world without Christianity and Judaism.

Nevertheless, America’s very Christian president trivializes Ahmaninejad’s Islamic genocidal designs by seeking to prevent Iran’s development of nuclear weapons by means of diplomacy (or bribery). The president, who referred to the perpetrators of 9/11 as “evil-doers,” does not seem to see the driving, historical inspiration of those evil-doers in the hatred of “infidels” inscribed in almost every page of the Quran.

This is why sanctions are not going to prevent Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. But inasmuch as such weapons would enable Iran not only to destroy Israel but also dominate Saudi Arabia and thereby control the oil on which the world’s economy depends, the Iranian regime and its nuclear facilities must be destroyed—and without being squeamish about civilian casualties.

Yet this will not suffice to win the war against Islamdom. Islam is animated by an envious hatred of the West. This envy indicates that Muslim leaders know that Islam is decadent. Two months before the Six-Day War of June 1967 a Syrian army magazine published an article referring to Islam as one of the “mummies in the museums of history.”

In The Dream Palace of the Arabs, the renowned Lebanese-born scholar Fouad Ajami of Johns Hopkins University agrees with the most prominent literati of the Arab world who sorrowfully behold the “death of Arab civilization.” Daniel Pipes sees in the Muslim world “a pervasive sense of debilitation.”

One should add desperation, because Muslim leaders know that Islam’s power rests on oil, which will eventually be exhausted or replaced by another form of energy discovered by Western science—and then Islam will succumb to “infidels.” Therefore: Islam, in its cultural death throws, must employ the science of the West to destroy the West so that Muslims, whose life blood is honor or pride, will no longer feel degraded and tormented by the West’s superior civilization.

The enemy’s desperate hatred of the West and lust for vengeance and self-immolation cannot be assuaged. It must be destroyed before it destroys us.

Here let us learn from the enemy. Wherever Islam has conquered, it has destroyed the symbols of other religions, has demolished churches and synagogues and erected mosques upon them.

If the United States dismantles Iran, it had better go further and destroy Mecca and Medina and take over Saudi Arabia, the benefactor of thousands of mosques that have been preaching jihad.

It must be seared in the consciousness of Muslims that despite the teachings of the Quran and Allah, Islam, like Zoroastrianism, is but a shadow of the past, having been conquered by “infidels.”

Report from The Swedish Integration Board on Swedish attitudes towards Islam, Muslims and related topics

2007-08-18T12:32:00.001+02:00

2004 Swedish report from The Swedish Integration Board on Swedish attitudes towards Islam, Muslims and related topics- Integrationsbarometer 2004 från Integrationsverket

Quotes (the translation from Swedish is mine):

"A clear majority has a negative view of the Muslim culture and Muslim values. For instance, sex out of ten reject that Islam has created an impressive culture and nearly eight out of ten regard Islam as incompatible with the Western World. A very small percentage has a solidly positive view of Muslim culture"

"A majority says that values within Islam are incompatible with basic values in the Swedish society"

"Group 1 - Consider Islam`s vaules as compatible with those of the Swedish society (29,7 percent).
Group 2 - Consider large parts of Islam`s values to be incompatible with those of the Swedish society (36,0 percent).
Group 3 - Consider Islam`s vauels to being absolutely incompatible with those of the Swedish society (30,4 percent)."
All in all two thirds consider Islam to be incompatible with Swedish values."

"Six out of ten state that they feel mistrust when socializing with Muslims and six out of ten state that they would not want to move to a neighbourhood with many Muslims in it."

"All in all 37 percent have a negative view of the building of mosques in Sweden."

"42,5 percent have a negative view of building mosques in the area that they themselves live in; about 27 percent have a very negativ view and about 16 percent are have a rather negative."

"For example, nearly six out of ten reject the claim on limiting muslim immigration and even somewhat more people reject the view that the number of Muslims in Sweden create feelings of alienation."

Baron Bodissey, Conservative Swede and Jan Milld

2007-08-12T19:19:00.017+02:00

Before you read my post below I suggest you read my four previous posts about Jan Milld which can be found online here, here, here and here, where the context of my writings and links below will be found.

The Swedish Holocaust-denier Lars Adelskogh has in his book "An empty bag cannot stand" taken the position that all of the following points are true:

1. The Germans didn`t plan and methodically carry out
the murder of Jews from 1941 to 1944.

2. The Germans didn`t use gas-chambers for the
purpose.

4. The only thing that the Nazis ever did to the Jews during World War II was that they subjected them to persecution, deprived them of their property, expelled them, put them in concentration camps, used them as forced labor and furthermore murdered millions of them through executions or systematic hardships.

5. Far fewer Jews than is officially claimed were actually murdered.

Jan Milld suggested that such a position was true in a review of Mr. Adelskogh`s book, whereby Baron Bodissey wrote that Mr. Milld was hereby, quote, "exonerated" from the charge of Holocaust-denial since, quote, "Whatever he may feel about the Jews, Jan Milld is obviously not denying the series of atrocities that we now know as the Holocaust."

In the interest of giving the complete picture, here are the links to all of Baron Bodissey`s posts regarding the recent events relating to Jan Milld:

The Strange Bedfellows Syndrome, Monday, August 06, 2007, by Baron Bodissey

Dancing Around Holocaust-Denial, Wednesday, August 08, 2007, by Baron Bodissey

Exonerating Jan Milld, Saturday, August 11, 2007, by Baron Bodissey

And according to blogger and Milld-defender Conservative Swede, suggesting that Adelskogh`s position on the Holocaust was true, as Milld did, didn`t constitute even being, quote, "skeptical" about the Holocaust (see the comments section below Baron Bodissey`s blogpost). Also Conservative Swede stated that Adelskogh`s claims are, quote "minor issues". Furthermore Conservative Swede stated a few days earlier that he wanted the quote, "myths" and quote, "dogmas" of the Holocaust to be, quote, "scrutinized" (see the comments section below Baron Bodissey`s blogpost).

Another translation of Milld

2007-08-09T19:23:00.004+02:00

Before you read the piece below by Jan Milld and his colleague Anders Sundholm I suggest you also read my three previous posts about Jan Milld which can be found on this blog here, here and here.

From Blågula Frågor I translate the following piece:

"What can be discussed?

A book has arrived to the BGF-editorial staff for reviewing. It is Lars Adelskogh`s book "An empty bag cannot stand", published by Nordiska förlaget in 2002. (Price 199 kr, pg 365682-4. The subject is the "Holocaust" and Adelskogh presents "revisionist" stances. Should such a book be reviewed, should it be devoted attention to? Aren`t the facts of this subject already solid and more than proven?

BGF`s own experience show that even moderate cricism of Swedish immigration policy can cause a book not to be reviewed in the mass media. Spontaneously it invites us to participate in the suppression of other books, that tackle important subjects.

We therefore choose to review the book "An empty bag cannot stand". Even if one has problems with taking to heart everything that Alskogh presents in there, there is reason to discuss the book. Enormous space has, not least through government campaigns the last few years, been devoted to the "Holocaust". The circles behind this campaigning must reasonably think that Alskogh is wholly wrong. If he is altogether wrong then this should not be difficult for them to prove.

In other words: facts and arguments should be met with facts and arguments. In this regard there threatens EU-legislation with prohibition of every questioning. This is worrying. What then will the next subject be for prohibition of discussion and thought?

Over to the book. In the notion of the "Holocaust" there are three points:

a) The Germans planned methodological murder of Jews from 1941 to 1944.

b) The use of gas-chambers for the purpose.

c) Six millions were killed as a result.

The questioning of even parts of these three points have rendered judgments, labeling as "revisionist" and reprisals in the form of prohibition on working and the like. Lars Adelskogh no less makes an investigation of arguments that has been brought forth by "revisionists". His starting point is the following:

"It has become a figure of speech that the "Holocaust"... is the worst crime against humanity of all times. If that were the case, shouldn`t it be the more important to make the best homicide investigation in all of history get all of the evidence for this crime, to judge them against as strict scientific methods as possible and with these determine with absolute certainty the facts of the case?"

Adelskogh claims that this has not happened. He speaks of three forms of evidence - a) technical evidence b) documentary evidence c) evidence in the forms of witnesses - and means that all of these are lacking.

One Truth though has been determined, a truth that cannot be questioned. No less has this truth been dislocated. What was true about the "Holocaust" 50 years ago is no longer true today, and responsible for this dislocation has been representatives of the official truth. The "extremists" as Adelskogh calls them.

Before we proceed - to avoid misunderstandings - what the revisionsists have claims on is only regarding the three above points. Adelskogh: "What the revisionists on the other hand don`t deny is that the Germans subjected ethnic minirities, especially Jews, to persecution, deprived them of their property, expelled them, put them in concentration camps and forced labor." Obviously the revisionists also don`t deny that millions of Jews were murdered, through executions or systematic hardships.

For the one who really wants to learn of Lars Adelskog`s statements should of course read the book, here are but a few examples:

A. 6 million Jews were killed in total, that is an official number. How does that square with the changing of the numbers killed in Auschwitz? First there were memorials with the claim that 4 million were killed. 1990 these numbers were replaced with 1,5 million killed in Auschwitz, in other words 2,5 million less. If the 4 millions were part of the total number of 6 million the later should then reasonably be revised to about 3,5 million.

B. From the beginning there was a truth that gas-chambers were present in concentration camps not only in Poland but on German homeland territory. Now this is no longer claimed, now this only applies to a number of camps in German occupied Poland.

C Claims of how many vicims were crammed in the gas-chambers each time would have meant, 10-19 people per square meter. Adelskogh asks: why then use gas, why not only let the victims die of suffocation? The use of gas would, he writes, have meant considerable risks for those that handled the process.

Spontaneously one can think that it is of secondary importance if 6 or 2 million Jews were killed, of secondary importance if this was done in one way or the other. It is in all circumstances bad enough.

But there is also another - and important! - aspect to all of this. Questions about history and politics should be able to be discussed openly, facts should be able to be questioned by science. If a prohibition of thoughts is established in a certain area this can begin to spread, and then a society is in danger.

What is clear is that certain power groups have an interest in that we all feel guilt towards Jews in general. It opens up possibilities of economic extortion and it helps the ongoing aggressions against the Palestinians. It can also be connected to Swedish criticism of immigration and be used as mental oppression.

Jan Milld and Anders Sundholm"

Here follows the original text in Swedish:

Vad får diskuteras?

En bok har inkommit till BGF-redaktionen för recension. Det är Lars Adelskoghs bok "En tom säck kan inte stå", utgiven på Nordiska förlaget 2002. (Pris 199 kr, pg 365682-4). Ämnet är "Förintelsen" och Adelskogh presenterar "revisionistiska" ståndpunker. Ska en sådan bok recenseras, ska sådant ägnas uppmärksamhet? Är inte fakta i detta ämne redan fastslagna och med råge bevisade?

BGF:s egen erfarenhet är hur även måttfull kritik av svensk invandringspolitik kan göra att en bok inte blir recenserad i massmedia. Spontant bjuder det oss emot ett medverka till ett förtigande av andra böcker, som tar upp viktiga ämnen.

Vi väljer därför att recensera boken "En tom säck kan inte stå". Även om man har svårt att ta till sig allt som Adelskogh där skriver finns skäl att diskutera boken. Enormt utrymme har ju, genom inte minst regeringskampanjer de senaste åren, ägnats "Förintelsen". Kretsarna bakom detta kampanjande måste rimligen anse att Adelskogh är helt fel ute. Har han raktigenom fel bör det inte vara svårt för dem att påvisa detta.

Med andra ord: fakta och argument ska mötas med fakta och argument. I just denna fråga hotar en EU-lagstiftning, med förbud av varje ifrågasättande. Det är oroande. Vad blir då nästa ämne för diskussions- och tankeförbud?

Över till boken. I begreppet "Förintelsen" läggs tre moment:

a) Tyskarnas planmässiga mördande av judar 1941 till 1944.

b) Användandet av gaskammare för ändamålet.

c) Sex miljoner dödade som resultat.

Ifrågasättande av ens delar av något av dessa tre moment har renderat fördömanden, etikettering som "revisionist" samt repressalier i form av yrkesförbud och liknande. Lars Adelskogh gör inte desto mindre en genomgång av invändningar som rests från "revisionistiskt" håll. Hans utgångspunkt är denna:

"Det har blivit ett talessätt att 'förintelsen'... är alla tiders värsta brott mot mänskligheten. Om så vore fallet, borde det då inte vara desto viktigare att göra alla tiders bästa mordutredning skaffa fram alla slags bevis för detta brott, att värdera dem och med så strängt vetenskapliga metoder som möjligt komma fram till absolut visshet om fakta i målet?"

Adelskogh hävdar att så inte skett. Han talar om tre former av bevis - a) sakbevis (tekniska bevis) b) dokumentbevis c) vittnesbevis - och menar att brister finns beträffande samtliga.

En Sanning har ändå slagits fast, en sanning som inte får ifrågasättas. Inte desto mindre har denna sanning förskjutits. Det som var sant om "Förintelsen" för 50 år sedan är det inte längre idag, och för denna förskjutning har företrädare för den officiella sanningen stått. "Exterministerna" som Adelskogh kallar dem.

Innan vi går vidare - för att undvika missförstånd - vad revisionisterna har synpunkter kring gäller bara de tre momenten ovan. Adelskogh: "Vad revisionisterna däremot inte förnekar är att tyskarna utsatte etniska minoriteter, i synnerhet judar, för förföljelser, berövade dem deras egendom, fördrev dem, satte dem i koncentrationsläger och tvångsarbete." Uppenbarligen förnekar revisionisterna inte heller att miljoner judar faktiskt mördades, genom avrättningar eller systematiska umbäranden.

Den som verkligen vill ta del av Lars Adelskogs uppgifter ska naturligtvis läsa boken, här bara några exempel:

A. 6 miljoner dödade judar totalt, det är en officiell siffra. Hur stämmer den med förändringen av antalet dödade i Auschwitz? Först fanns där minnestavlor med uppgift om 4 miljoner dödade. 1990 ersattes dessa med uppgifter om 1,5 miljonder dödade i Auschwitz, alltså 2,5 miljoner färre. Om de 4 miljonerna ingick i totalsiffran 6 miljoner bör den senare rimligen också revideras, till ca 3,5 miljoner.

B. Från början var det en sanning att gaskamrar förekommit i koncentrationsläger inte bara i Polen utan även på rikstyskt område. Nu hävdas inte längre detta, nu gäller detta bara ett antal läger i det tyskockuperade Polen.

C. Uppgifter om hur många offer som trängts in i gaskamrar åt gången skulle ha betytt 10-19 personer per kvadratmeter. Adelskog frågar: varför då använda gas, varför inte bara låta offren dö av kvävning? Gasanvändningen skulle, skriver han, ha betytt avsevärda risker för dem som hanterade processen.

Spontant kan man ju tycka att det är sekundärt om det dödades 6 eller 2 miljoner judar, sekundärt om det skedde på det ena eller det andra sättet. Det är under alla omständigheter illa nog.

Men här finns dock en annan - och viktig! - aspekt. Frågor om historia och politik ska kunna diskuteras öppet, faktauppgifter ska kunna utsättas för vetenskaplig granskning. Upprättas tankeförbud på ett område kan detta börja sprida sig, och då är ett samhälle farligt ute.

Klart är att vissa maktgrupper har intresse av att vi alla ska känna en skuld gentemot judar i allmänhet. Det ger möjligheter till ekonomisk utpressning och det underlättar de pågående övergreppen mot palestinierna. Det kan också kopplas till svensk invandringskritik och användas till mentalt förtryck.

Jan Milld Anders Sundholm

Milld e-mails IceViking, here is the translation

2007-08-06T18:49:00.006+02:00

Before you read the translation of Milld`s e-mail (that I discovered in my e-mail box this morning) below I suggest you read the previous two posts of mine regarding Milld that are online here and here.

Relevant before you read the translation is that the Swedish word "ni" is more or less the equivalent of the English word "you". The word ni is used in
Swedish as you is used in English: both when speaking to a singular person and when speaking to more than one person.

But at the same time Mr. Milld`s usage of the word ni can also charitably be interpreted as the in Sweden more or less extinct way
of using the word ni: to be higly courteous to a singular person, although I suggest that you nevertheless also try to put it in relation to the other things that
Mr. Milld`s done and that I`ve written about on this blog:

"What to you mean?

To the responsible parties of the website
"Icevikings"

You have on your website put out an attack on me, with
an accusation of me being a "Holocaust-denier."

Regarding this, a question:

What more exactly to you put into that notion?

What is it that I`ve denied?

Jan Milld"

Here is the e-mail in the original Swedish:

"Vad menar ni?

"Till
ansvariga för webbsidan "Icevikings"

Ni har på er webbsida lagt ut ett angrepp på mig, med anklagelse för
att vara en "förintelseförnekare".

Med anledning av detta, en fråga:
Vad lägger ni, mer exakt in i det begreppet?

Vad är det som jag har förnekat?

Jan Milld"

Milld`s public response translated

2007-08-03T23:13:00.004+02:00

Before you continue I suggest you first read my first and previous post about Milld.

Furthermore there are two additional things you should know:

1. It is a well-known and established fact of history that the gas-chambers on display in Auschwitz today are built after the war.

2. The Swedish word for "Holocaust-denier" is "förintelseförnekare".

Here follows below my translation of Jan Milld`s entire public response from his personal blog (hyperlinks in the original at his site):

"The 2nd of August 2007:

And icecold gust of wind

1997 is an important year for Blågula Frågor.

It was then that Anders Sundholm`s and my name were put up on the website "World Antisemitism Report". That was done by Stephane Bruchfeld.

When we asked him about the cause of this the answer was that we had talked about a "media dictatorship" and that the mass media in Sweden worked as an occupational power.

Here Bruchfeld was a step ahead of us. He assumed that the mass media in Sweden were dominated by Jews. That was obviously true, but at the time we were not quite aware of this.

Bruchfeld though didn`t claim we were anti-Semites. Yet he still refused to take us of the list.

Obviously this listing has worked as a black-listing: Since 1997 it has shown itself impossible for me to get articles published in any major newspaper. It is not even a certainty that my letters to politicians and authorities get answered.

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

Now something is happening again and this time one has brought forth a rougher artillery.

There is a website called "Icevikings blogspot". At the bottom of the page one notices that it`s part of a "webring", that is adorned with an Israeli flag and a text about "truth in the Middle East".

There one has now a text about me, under a heading that I`m a "holocaust denier", in other words a "förintelseförnekare" (whatever that exactly means!). The text is in both Swedish and English.

The focus is on something that I wrote about on my website over a year ago under "Millt said": "Two verdicts".

There I reacted against the verdict in Austria against David Irving, with the following lines:

"Already a jail-sentence on account of opinions or statement of fact (or the abscence of fact) is of course absurd. Democracy is... based on it`s citizens putting up with taking in things that they don`t like.

Behind the notion of "Holocaust-deniers" there is a whole parcel of ideas that must be accepted and where not even details are allowed to be discussed. In this parcel is included the figure of 6 million - that many Jews were murdered by the Nazis. From the beginning however it was claimed that there were four million that were executed only in Auschwitz, subsequently official numbers for Auscwitz has been reduced with about 2-3 million. Does not simple mathematics tell you then that the total number of 6 million should be reduced to a corresponding degree?"

In the article I also wrote:

"There is no technical evidence regarding the presence of gas-chambers, what is now in Auschwitz is built after the war. The writing of history in this context is based entirely on witness testimony."

This latter quote of mine was possibly uncareful to have written, because actually I haven`t devoted as much interest to this issue that I know this with a certainty. On the other hand: is there anyone that claims that the facilities that are now on display for tourists in Auschwitz är built before the war?

In that case then I back out from that claim - it is not an issue that I want to take a fight on. Overall I don`t see this as an issue for presently - more than 60 years after the Second World War - to be put high on the agenda.

For me it is the problems of today - and they are big! - in Sweden as well as in the world at large, that deserves attention.

But what provokes me is this anti-Intellectualism and this demand for submission, through giving a declaration of faith.

Regardless how many Jews died during the Second World War and regardless in what way this happened, I regard this as horrible. And ditto for the death of 20 million Russians.

The most important thing is that we in the future try to avoid that more Jews have to die. As well as Russians, Palestinians or other people having to die.

I belong to them that celebrates the principle of everybodys equal value...

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

Why does this attack on me come at this moment in time?

Can it have anything to do with the launch of "Sweden`s Free Radio"? Does one fear that this activity by dissidents will grow to something that may threaten the media dictatorship in Sweden?"

The post in the Swedish original follows below:

"Den 2 augusti 2007:

En iskall vindpust

1997 är ett märkesår för Blågula frågor.

Det var då som Anders Sundholms och mitt namn sattes upp på webbsidan "World Antisemitism report". Det omsörjdes av Stéphane Bruchfeld.

När vi frågade honom om orsaken blev svaret att vi talat om en "mediadiktatur" och att massmedia i Sverige fungerar som en ockupationsmakt.

Här var Bruchfeld steget före oss. Han förutsatte att massmedia i Sverige dominerades av judar. Det var uppenbarligen sant, men inget som vi då var riktigt medvetna om.

Bruchfeld påstod dock inte att vi var antisemiter. Ändå vägrade han att plocka bort våra namn från listan.

Uppenbarligen har listningen fungerat som en svartlistning: Sedan 1997 har det visat sig helt omöjligt för mig att få in en debattartikel i någon större dagstidning. Det är inte ens givet att jag får svar på brev när jag skriver till politiker eller myndigheter.

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

Nu är man igång i igen, och denna gång har man plockat fram ett grövre artilleri.

Det finns en webbsida som heter "Icevikings blogspot". Längst ned på sidan framgår att den ingår i en "webring", försedd med en israelisk flagga och en text om "truth in the Middle East".

Där har man nu en text om mig, under en rubrik om att jag är en "holocaust denier", dvs en "förintelseförnekare" (vad det nu exakt innebär!) . Texten är på både svenska och engelska.

Fokus ligger på något som jag skrev på min hemsida för över ett år sedan, under "Millt sagt": "Två domar".

Jag reagerar där över domen i Österrike mot David Irving, med följande rader:

"Redan en fängelsedom på grundval av åsikter eller påpekande av fakta (eller frånvaro av fakta) är naturligtvis helt absurd. Demokrati bygger ... på att medborgarna står ut med att ta del av även sådant som de inte gillar.

Bakom begreppet 'förintelseförnekare' ligger ett paket av föreställningar som måste accepteras och där inte ens detaljer får ställas under diskussion. I paketet ingår siffran 6 miljoner - så många judar mördades av nazisterna. Från början hävdades dock att det var 4 miljoner som avrättades i bara Auschwitz, därefter har officiella siffror för Auschwitz reducerats med 2-3 miljoner. Säger inte enkel matematik att då även totalsiffran på 6 miljoner i motsvarande grad måste ändras?"

I kolumnen skrev jag också:

"Det saknas teknisk bevisning beträffande förekomsten av gaskamrar, vad som nu finns i Auschwitz är byggt efter kriget. Historieskrivningen i detta sammanhang bygger helt på vittnesuppgifter."

Detta senare var möjligen oförsiktigt att skriva, för egentligen har jag inte ägnat denna fråga ett så stort intresse att jag med säkerhet vet. Å andra sidan: finns det någon som hävdar att de anläggningar som nu finns att beskåda för turister i Auschwitz är byggda före kriget?

I så fall backar jag på det påståendet - det är inte en fråga jag vill ta strid på. Jag ser överhuvudtaget inte detta som en fråga att idag - mer än 60 år efter andra världskrigets slut - sätta högt upp på dagordningen.

För mig är det dagens problem - och de är stora! - i Sverige såväl som i världen i övrigt, som förtjänar uppmärksamhet.

Men vad som provocerar mig är denna antiitellektualism och detta krav på underkastelse, genom avgivande av en trosbekännelse.

Oavsett hur många judar det var som dog under andra världskriget och oavsett på vilket sätt som detta skedde, så anser jag att det var hemskt. Detsamma gäller 20 miljoner ryssars död.

Det viktiga är att vi fortsättningsvis försöker undvika att fler judar behöver sätta livet till. Liksom att ryssar, palestinier eller andra människor behöver göra det.

Jag tillhör ju dem som hyllar principen om alla människors lika värde...

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

Varför kommer detta påhopp på mig just nu?

Kan det ha att göra med lanseringen av "Sveriges Fria Radio"? Befarar man att denna dissidentverksamhet ska komma att växa till något som kan hota mediadiktaturen i Sverige?"

The "prophet" Mohammad burns once again in Denmark and the Quran gets burned with bacon on it and peed on

2007-08-03T21:35:00.000+02:00

Watch the video here.

Jan Milld is a Holocaust-denier (this post has been updated since it was originally published)

2007-08-01T16:56:00.094+02:00

The Swedish magazine Blågula Frågor (which is translated to "BlueYellow Topics" at their website), or BGF for short, writes on this page of their website that:
"The prime mover within BGF is Jan Milld who is the editor of the magazine and the website, and Anders Sundholm who is the association`s chairman."

The above quote in the original Swedish: "Drivande inom BGF är Jan Milld, som är redaktör för tidskriften och webbsidan, och Anders Sundholm, som är föreningens ordförande."

Mr. Milld did a favorable and uncritical interview in 2001 with Jonas de Geer. Mr De Geer was at the time of Milld`s interview the editor of the Swedish magazine "Salt". In Milld`s interview De Geer was, among other things, complaining about the fact that Salt took heat after they interviewed David Irving.

See, BlågulaFrågor, nr 2/01: Intervju med Jonas De Geer:
Hur bota ett sjukt samhälle?, at this hyperlink for the full interview in Swedish.

According to the David Irving Press Library, Salt wrote the following summary about the interview they published with Irving:

"At the beginning of this year there was a trial in London, which attracted global attention -- even in Sweden. The controversial historian and author David Irving had sued the American Jewish Professor Deborah Lipstadt and her publisher Penguin for libel. Irving, whose books about Nazi-Germany and the Second World War have been translated into many languages and reached a wide circle of readers all over the world, has during recent years attracted most attention because of his critique of the official version of the Holocaust

The editorial staff of SALT has not the historical competence to decide whether Irving is right or not. But how many actually do have such a competence?

Something is wrong in any case when someone is judged as a falsifier of history by journalists, who themselves hardly know when the Second World War began or ended.

It is particularly sickening that certain circles: etc. are continually attacked and insulted as "racists" and "deniers" by the establishment press, while at the same time they are forbidden to speak out and defend themselves.

This is the reason why we visited David Irving in London, in order to get his version of the trial and what lead to it."

In this context however, IceViking would like to state that while Holocaust-denial is a dangerous and despicable act I don`t think it should be againt the law.

There is no other word in Sweden that is spelled "milld" (as in Jan Milld), with two l`s. Furthermore there is no word in the Swedish language which is spelled "millt", with two l`s. There is the Swedish word "mild" which tranlsates to English as "mild" but it is spelled with only one l. This adjective can be declined into "milt" which translates as "mildly".

Below follows a translation of an article from March 2006 with the phrase "Millt said" or alternatively "Millt put" (in the Swedish original "Millt sagt") above it. It is a word-play on the fact that the phrase in Swedish resembles the phrase "milt sagt", which translates as "mildly put". That means that it`s part of a series of columns with the name "Millt sagt". The author behind the series is Jan Milld which he also admits at his own personal website.

Relevant to the understanding of this translation furthemore is the fact that both "Metro" and "Stockholm-City" (from which Milld collects brief quotes that he uses in the article) are regular and legitimate Swedish newspapers.

From Millt sagt:

"March 2006
Millt said

Two verdicts

During the month that passed two verdicts were pronounced, both of them directed at freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas.

VERDICT NO 1

One of these verdicts was pronounced in Lucknow, India.

Stockholm City on the 21st of February 2006:

"INDIAN COURT: EXECUTION IS A DUTY

An Islamic court in northern India has sentenced the twelve Danish Muhammed-cartoonists to death.

The court Idar-e-sharia darul kaza in Lucknow in the state of Uttar Pradesh on monday pronounced a fatwa, a religious decree, that the cartoonists should be killed. According to the court it is every Muslims duty, no matter where he lives to carry out this verdict if the opportunity arises for him."

Similar news has arrived from Pakistan where a Toyota is promised to the one who kills a cartoonist.

These are hardly verdicts that are meant to decrease the talked about "Islamophobia" in the world.

Already a death sentence because of a few cartoons is absurd. Democracy is based on it`s citizens putting up with taking in things that they don`t like.

It becomes even more absurd when people in India make claims on deciding what is published in Denmark.

Spokesmen for Muslims in Sweden officially denounce the threats of violence, but nevertheless they agree with the demands:

the Danish government should apologise for the publication in Jyllands-Posten - a government is in other words to be considered responsible for everything that is published in the country in the manner of a publisher.

not only obvious lampooning cartoons but every representation of Muhammed (possibly also other individuals), should be prohibited - because otherwise some Muslims might feel "offended"!

Being offeded here becomes a political weapon, an instrument to drive through one`s will and move forward the postitions for Islam in the Western countries.

The seriousness of the threats coming from Asia are underlined by the fact that there are now many millions of Muslims in Europe. It is enough in principle that one of these individuals responds to this fatwa, in order for it to be carried out.

VERDICT NO 2

The second verdict was pronounced in Vienna, Austria.

Metro on the 21st of February 2006:

"HOLOCAUST-DENIER SENTENCED TO THREE YEARS IN JAIL

The British historian David Irving was sentenced to three years in jail by a court in Vienna because he 17 years ago... claimed there were no gas-chambers in the Nazi death-camp Auschwitz."

Relevant here is the fact that David Irving today says he has changed his mind. This was not enough for him to escape jail.

On the other hand his changing of positions is devoid of credibility. From the beginning this was less a matter of expressing an opinion than stating a fact,
There is no technical evidence regarding the presence of gas-chambers, what is now in Auschwitz is built after the war. The writing of history in this context is based entirely on witness testimony.

The sentencing of David Irving is more fit to increase the "anti-Semitism" in the world. It clearly means increased anti-Intellectualism.

Already a jail-sentence on account of opinions or statement of fact (or the abscence of fact) is of course absurd. Democracy is as said previously based on it`s citizens putting up with taking in things that they don`t like.

Behind the notion of "Holocaust-deniers" there is a whole parcel of ideas that must be accepted and where not even details are allowed to be discussed. In this parcel is included the figure of 6 million - that many Jews were murdered by the Nazis. From the beginning however it was claimed that there were four million that were executed only in Auschwitz, subsequently official numbers for Auscwitz has been reduced with about 2-3 million. Does not simple mathematics tell you then that the total number of 6 million should be reduced to a corresponding degree?

There was a time when the earth was flat. Scientists who questioned this dogma could be sentenced to death. Now a similar dogma has been created regarding the Holocaust -in other words something which cannot be discussed and that cannot be treated with scientific methods.

The Second World War is now more than half a century away. It is increasingly unlikely that we will see a rerun. It is high time that Jews left their role as vitims behind themselves!

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

The two verdicts consequently have something in common.

The talk of "Islamophobia" is designed to declare someone stupid, the talk of "anti-Semitism" is designed to shame someone.

In both cases it`s about creating a "distance of respect" in order to avoid criticism."

Here is the original article in Swedish with more material following below it:

"Mars 2006
Millt sagt

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

Två domar

Under månaden som gick avkunnades två domar, båda riktade mot yttrandefriheten och det fria meningsutbytet.

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

DOM NR 1

Den ena domen avkunnades i Lucknow, Indien.

Stockholm City den 21/2 -06:

"INDISK DOMSTOL: AVRÄTTNING EN PLIKT

En islamsk domstol i norra Indien har dömt de tolv danska Muhammedtecknarna till döden.

Domstolen Idar-e-sharia darul kaza i Lucknow i delstaten Uttar Pradesh utfärdade på måndagen en fatwa, ett religiöst dekret, om att tecknarna ska dödas. Enligt domstolen är det varje muslims plikt, oavsett var han bor, att verkställa dödsdomen om han får tillfälle till det."

Liknande nyheter har kommit från Pakistan, där en Toyota utlovas till den som dödar en tecknare.

DET ÄR KNAPPAST DOMAR, ägnade att minska den omtalade "islamofobin" i världen.

Redan en dödsdom på grundval av några teckningar är naturligtvis absurd. Demokrati bygger på att medborgarna står ut med att ta del av även sådant som de inte gillar.

Än mer absurt blir det när människor i Indien gör anspråk på att bestämma vad som ska få publiceras i Danmark.

Företrädare för muslimer i Sverige tar officiellt avstånd från hoten om våldsdåd, inte desto mindre ansluter de sig till kraven i sak:

den danska regeringen ska be om ursäkt för publiceringen i Jyllands-Posten - en regering ska m.a.o. betraktas som ansvarig utgivare för allt som publiceras i landet.

inte bara uppenbara nidbilder utan varje avbildning av Muhammed (kanske även andra personer), ska vara förbjuden - eftersom en del muslimer annars kan känna sig "kränkta"!

Kränktheten blir här till ett politiskt vapen, ett instrument att driva igenom sin vilja och flytta fram positionerna för islam i västländerna.

Allvaret i hoten från Asien understryks av att det i Europa nu finns många miljoner muslimer. Det räcker i princip med att en av dessa individer hörsammar fatwan, för att den ska kunna verkställas.

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

DOM NR 2

Den andra domen avkunnades i Wien, Österrike.

Metro den 21/2 -06:

"FÖRINTELSEFÖRNEKARE DÖMD TILL TRE ÅRS FÄNGELSE

Den brittiske historikern David Irving dömdes till tre års fängelse av en domstol i Wien för att han för 17 år sedan... påstod att det inte fanns några gaskamrar i det nazistiska förintelselägret Auschwitz."

Till saken hör att David Irving säger sig idag ha ändrat hållning i frågan. Detta räckte inte för att han skulle undgå fängelsedomen.

Å andra sidan var den ändrade hållningen föga trovärdig. Det var ju från början mindre fråga om uttryckande av en åsikt än påpekande av ett faktum, Det saknas teknisk bevisning beträffande förekomsten av gaskamrar, vad som nu finns i Auschwitz är byggt efter kriget. Historieskrivningen i detta sammanhang bygger helt på vittnesuppgifter.

DOMEN MOT DAVID IRVING är närmast ägnad att öka "antisemitismen" i världen. Helt klart är att den betyder ökad antiintellektualism.

Redan en fängelsedom på grundval av åsikter eller påpekande av fakta (eller frånvaro av fakta) är naturligtvis helt absurd. Demokrati bygger som sagt på att medborgarna står ut med att ta del av även sådant som de inte gillar.

Bakom begreppet "förintelseförnekare" ligger ett paket av föreställningar som måste accepteras och där inte ens detaljer får ställas under diskussion. I paketet ingår siffran 6 miljoner - så många judar mördades av nazisterna. Från början hävdades dock att det var 4 miljoner som avrättades i bara Auschwitz, därefter har officiella siffror för Auschwitz reducerats med 2-3 miljoner. Säger inte enkel matematik att då även totalsiffran på 6 miljoner i motsvarande grad måste ändras?

Det fanns en tid då jorden var platt. Vetenskapsmän som ifrågasatte denna dogm kunde dömas till döden. Nu har man skapat en liknande dogm kring förintelsen - dvs något som inte får diskuteras och inte kan behandlas med vetenskapliga metoder.

Andra världskriget ligger nu mer än ett halvsekel tillbaka i tiden. Det blir allt mindre sannolikt att det kommer att gå i repris. Det är hög tid att judar lämnar sin offerroll bakom sig!

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

De två domarna har alltså något gemensamt.

Talet om "islamofobi" är ägnat att dumförklara, talet om "antisemitism" ägnat att skuldbelägga.

I båda fallen handlar det om att upprätta ett "respektavstånd" för att slippa kritik."

David Irving only changed his opinions for a brief period out of tactical reasons that he himself admitted later when he again changed his mind. Also Milld`s statement that "The writing of history in this context is based entirely on witness testimony." is not true.

The material about Irving that follows below is taken from The Nizkor Project although it didn`t originate at that site.

QC ACCUSES HISTORIAN OF 'MOCKING' HOLOCAUST VICTIMS by Cathy Gordon, PA News PRESS ASSOCIATION NEWS FILE, UK, 03.02.00 (as well as) TIMES LONDON 03.02.00 Irving challenged over 'cynical anti-Semitism' BY MICHAEL HORSNELL :

"I don't see any reason to be tasteful about Auschwitz. It's baloney, it's a legend. Once we admit the fact that it was a brutal slave labour camp and large numbers of people did die, as large numbers of innocent people died elsewhere in the war, why believe the rest of the baloney?" Irving said.
He added, "I say quite tastelessly, in fact, that more women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber in Auschwitz."

He went on, "Oh, you think that's tasteless, how about this? There are so many Auschwitz survivors going around, in fact the number increases as the years go past, which is biologically very odd to say the least. Because I'm going to form an Association of Auschwitz survivors, survivors of the Holocaust and other liars, or the ASSHOLS."

More about Irving from The Jewish Telegraph (Scottish Edition) via The Nizkor Project:

The Jewish Telegraph (Scottish edition),
Fri May 28th, 1993, p11

"Isreal has only 10 years left, says Holocaust row man
BRITISH Holocaust-denier David Irving who was refused entry into Australia, still managed to get his message across to the public. He used interviews, conducted from abroad with the local media. In an interview on the national Network 7 in Australia, Irving claimed his campaign would bring about "the destruction of the state of Israel". He added that the sight of black cricketers competing for England gave him a "queasy feeling." Irving predicted that Israel would be destroyed within 10 years because that is how long it would take him and his colleagues to overturn the belief in the holocaust.

On national ABC Radio, Irving claimed that Hitler was anti-Jewish "up to 1933" but that he had no reason to believe Hitler was responsible for the murders of "up to hundreds of thousands of Jews." Asked if he was a racist, Irving replied that he was a nationalist and a patriot and that was the basis of his objection to non-Anglo-Saxon involvement in British public life. Renewed interest in Irving followed the denial last week of his visa application to Australia and, afterward, widespread opposition to his plans to reach the public via a videotape of a speech he would have given had he been permitted to enter Australia."

You can continue reading about Irving on The Nizkor Project site`s section on him at this adress.

Thursday, 12th of June, 2008, UPDATE:

"Nationaldemokraterna" is a Swedish political party. Their party name is abbreviated as ND. "Nationell Idag" is an official party-organ of Nationaldemokraterna. In the fall of 2007 Nationell Idag did an interview with Jan Milld (the Jan Milld whom this post is about). This interview is published in it`s entirety at Mr. Milld`s own personal website. It can be read in full by clicking this hyperlink.

Below this paragraph follows an excerpt from this interview. The excerpt is translated by me. In the excerpt Mr. Milld is asked how he views "Nationell Idag".

Nationell Idag Interviewer:

What is your view of our paper Nationell Idag?

Mr. Milld:

It`s a paper that is needed! My hope is that it will have a broad outlook so that it won`t appeal solely to members of ND, but to all of the Swedes that now have to suffer because of multiculturalism and the disintegration of society. A paper is needed, around which an opposition to the madness can gather.

Allow me to add one thing. Refugee- and immigration-politics must also take an interest in the causes of why so many people emigrate. That can make a good poster for ND with the poster having as catchphrase, "USA OUT OF IRAQ - IRAQ OUT OF SWEDEN!". I think that captures something important. The West should leave Muslim countries alone and at the same time Muslim countries should stop colonizing western countries.

Whether we look at Chile and other latin american countries during the 70s, the Balkans in the 90s or Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan today a clear pattern emerges, namely how the United States, with it`s interventions - directly or indirectly - creates large streams of refugees.

And pay for it will Sweden not least.

Here is the excerpt above in the original Swedish with more following afterwards:

"Hur ser du på vår tidning Nationell Idag?

- Det är en tidning som behövs! Min förhoppning är att den ska få en bred framtoning och vända sig inte bara till ND:are, utan till att alla de svenskar som nu får lida av mångkulturens och samhällsupplösningens effekter. Det behövs en tidning, kring vilken en opposition mot galenskaperna kan samlas.

- Låt mig gärna tillägga en sak. Invandrings- och flyktingpolitik måste intressera sig också för orsakerna till invandringstrycket, till att så många människor migrerar. Där har ND en bra klisterdekal, med texten "USA UT UR IRAK - IRAK UT UR SVERIGE!". Det tycker jag fångar något väsentligt. Västvärlden ska lämna muslimska länder i fred, samtidigt som muslimska länder upphör med sin kolonisering av västländer.

- Vare sig vi ser på Chile och andra latinamerikanska länder under 70-talet, Balkan på 90-talet eller Irak, Somalia och Afghanistan idag så finns ett tydligt mönster, nämligen hur USA genom sina interventioner - direkt eller indirekt - stampar fram stora flyktingströmmar.

- Betala får då inte minst Sverige."

Mr. Milld`s column Millt sagt is today a regular feature in Nationell Idag, all with the permission and cooperation of Mr. Milld of course.

The following quotation and translation is from the section "Questions & Answers" at the main party site of Nationaldemokraterna (click here to visit and read the page from which I took the quotation below):

Q: What is your position on Zionism?

A: Zionism is a a designation with more than one meaning to it. Some say that it`s the idea that Jews should have their own country, as it was formulated by Theodor Herzl in the book Der Judenstaat. Nationaldemokraterna supports such an aspiration because we regard the different peoples of the world as having a right to states of their own. We also regard the Palestinians to have that same right of course.

Another meaning of Zionism is the aspiration for world-domination through taking over important national industries, primarily the media and banking, in other peoples` countries. Nationaldemokraterna opposes such an aspiration because it violates every people`s right to self-determination and liberty.

Here follows the above quotation in the original Swedish:

"Hur ställer ni er till sionism?

Sionismen är en tvetydig benämning. Vissa menar att det är tanken om att judar ska ha ett eget land, så som den formulerades av Theodor Herzl i boken Der Judenstaat. En sådan strävan stödjer Nationaldemokraterna eftersom vi anser det vara en rättighet för de olika folken i världen att ha en egen stat. Vi anser förstås även att palestinier har samma rätt.

En annan innebörd av sionism är strävan efter världsherravälde genom övertagande av viktiga näringar, främst media och bankväsende, i andra folks länder. En sådan strävan är Nationaldemokraterna motståndare till eftersom den just kränker alla folks rätt till självstyre och frihet."

Nationaldemokraterna participated in the May 20-22, 2005 European-American Conference in New Orleans, hosted by David Duke. At the conference Nationaldemokraterna engaged in a panel debate with David Duke and delegates from Stormfront.org and National Vanguard, among others.

Jonas De Geer (who figured earlier in this post) wrote a foreword to the Swedish edition of David Duke`s book "Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening to the Jewish Question" (or in Swedish "Den judiska rasismen") in 2004 when that book was published by the far-right publishing house Nordiska Förlaget. Nordiska Förlaget has published international authors such as David Duke and David Irving as well as Swedish ones, like Holocaust-denier Lars Adelskogh.

Here follows a quote from that foreword:

As a matter of fact, as David Duke shows in detail, the Jews are perhaps the most ethnocentric and well-organized people in history. In addition to that is the fact that within Jewishness there is an ancient tradition of suspicion, hostility and hatred towards non-Jews. The Jewish contempt for non-Jews has not solely been an understandable and justified reaction towards a permanently hostile environment, the Jewish ethnocentrism, racism and xenophobia is actually an integral part of traditional Judaism, codified in it`s holiest documents, Torah and Talmud.

Furthermore, in Mr. De Geer`s foreword, he wrote about the dangerous global power of the Jews of today. Also, in that foreword, Mr. De Geer referred favorably to Kevin MacDonald, something that Mr. De Geer still does on his Swedish blog. Furthermore Mr. De Geer still refers favorably to David Duke on his Swedish blog. And Mr. De Geer still writes about the dangerous global power of the Jews on his Swedish blog.

In the paragraph below follows my translation of a quote from a recent post at Mr. De Geer`s Swedish blog (the post can be read in full at this hyperlink). In the post Mr. De Geer focuses on the American State Department`s "Report on Global Anti-Semitism", which was submitted by the State Department on December 30, 2004:

Obligatory is of course the mention of the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the document which virtually no one has read yet everybody knows is a "forgery". If they are so scared of the protocols, why is a political agenda waged on the domestic policy level in all western states, no less so in Sweden, as well as on the foreign policy level in the Jewish-dominated USA, that is completely in accordance with what some anonymous antisemite was to have romanced about at the end of the 1890s?

Here follows the above translated quote from Mr. De Geers blog in the original Swedish:

"Obligatoriskt nämns naturligtvis också Sions Vises Protokoll, dokumentet som praktiskt taget ingen läst men alla vet är en ”förfalskning”. Om de nu är så rädda för protokollen, varför förs det en politik på det inrikespolitiska planet i alla västerländska stater, inte minst i Sverige, såväl som på det utrikespolitiska i det judiskdominerade USA som är helt i linje med vad någon anonym antisemit skulle ha fabulerat i slutet på 1890-talet?"

In 2002 Milld published a book written by him with a foreword by Jonas De Geer. That book is still advertised prominently at the frontpage of Mr. Milld`s personal website. According to the page with the description of the book (which can be read at this hyperlink, that will take you to a page at Mr. Milld`s personal website) the foreword by Mr. De Geer is still part of the book. There is no criticism of Mr. De Geer on the page with the description of the book. Also, on that page a hyperlink is offered which takes you to another page at the same website. On that page one can still read the foreword by Mr. De Geer.

When I tried to search Mr. Milld`s personal website, looking for any critism of Mr. De Geer, I was unable to find what I was looking for.

Furthemore, when I tried to search Blågula Frågor (the magazine that figured earlier in this post), looking for any critism of Mr. De Geer, I was unable to find what I was looking for.

In the year 2000 Blågula Frågor published an uncritical review of Norman Finkelstein`s book "The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering" (the full Swedish text of that review can be read at this hyperlink).

With regards to Mr. Finkelstein and his work I would like to quote from the article "DeNial at DePaul -- the Thomas Klocek Affair" by Steven Plaut in FrontPageMagazine.com on April the 18th, 2005:

"Note how dramatically the DePaul vindictiveness stands in sharp contrast with the university's record regarding Norman Finkelstein, arguably the most openly anti-Semitic Jew on the planet and one of the worst anti-Semites in American academia. DePaul recruited Finkelstein as an assistant professor in political science after Finkelstein was fired from two New York-area adjunct teaching jobs (at New York University and Hunter College) because of his pseudo-scholarship and fraudulent rantings against Jews and Israel. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) openly calls Finkelstein a "Holocaust denier" and accuses him of pursuing an anti-Semitic agenda. Finkelstein is almost universally regarded as a Holocaust Denier, a Jewish traitor and anti-Semite, and at the very least a fraud and pseudo-scholar.

Finkelstein makes Ward Churchill look like a careful objective scholar. He is a disciple of Holocaust denier David Irving and claims Irving is an authoritative historian. Finkelstein refers to the six million Jews murdered by the Nazis as the "Six Million" in quotation marks, and says that nearly every Holocaust survivor is a fraud, a thief and a liar. (Finkelstein's own parents are Holocaust survivors and Finkelstein has long tried to capitalize on this as a way to legitimize his own anti-Semitism.) In his Die Welt interview he says: “Not only does the '6 Million' figure become more untenable but the numbers of the Holocaust industry are rapidly approaching those of Holocaust deniers." The psychiatry department at DePaul might have interesting things to say about this.

Finkelstein may be most famous for his comments justifying Holocaust Deniers: "Indeed, the field of Holocaust studies is replete with nonsense, if not sheer fraud."

In The Holocaust Industry, Finkelstein said, “’If everyone who claims to be a survivor actually is one,’ my mother used to exclaim, ‘who did Hitler kill?’" He added that most 'survivors' are bogus and that too much money is spent commemorating the Nazi genocide.

Finkelstein routinely libels Holocaust survivor, philosopher and writer Elie Wiesel in scurrilous terms. Finkelstein is the star on every Holocaust denial neo-Nazi web site on earth, serving as the "Jew who proved there was never any Holocaust." He has been denounced as a fraud and anti-Semite by Alan Dershowitz, historian Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, Dennis Prager, Professor Omer Bartov from Brown University, the World Jewish Congress, and just about every other academic to comment on him, gentile or Jew. Jonathan Freedland wrote in the British Guardian – a strongly pro-Palestinian newspaper - that Finkelstein was "closer to the people who created the Holocaust than to those who suffered it.”

The New York Times compared Finkelstein's book to the old czarist forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, ever popular with Saudis and Counterpunch columnists."

"In The Holocaust Industry, he described Holocaust reparations as a corrupt "racket"… He has also challenged the characterization of the Holocaust as a uniquely evil historical event, and likened Israeli security to the Gestapo. Finkelstein has openly endorsed Arab terror against Jewish civilians."

What Hitler publicly and repeatedly said about the annihilation of the Jews

2007-07-31T15:33:00.000+02:00

From The Nizkor Project:

David Irving on 'Ausrotten'

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

One of the first tasks which any Holocaust-denier must undertake is to explain, if Hitler never intended to exterminate the Jews, why he said so repeatedly in public.

On January 30, 1939, speaking before the Reichstag:

Today I want to be a prophet once more: if international finance Jewry inside and outside of Europe should succeed once more in plunging nations into another world war, the consequence will not be the Bolshevation of the earth and thereby the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.

September, 1942:

...if Jewry should plot another world war in order to exterminate the Aryan peoples in Europe, it would not be the Aryan people which would be exterminated but Jewry...

November 8, 1942:

You will recall the session of the Reichstag during which I declared: if Jewry should imagine that it could bring about an international world war to exterminate the European races, the result will not be the extermination of the European races, but the extermination of Jewry in Europe. People always laughed about me as a prophet. Of those who laughed then, countless numbers no longer laugh today, and those who still laugh now will perhaps no longer laugh a short time from now.

The phrase "annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe" in the 1939 speech is, in German, die Vernichtung der jüdischen Rasse in Europa. This is unambiguous; and there is no question as to its proper translation, even from Holocaust-deniers. If your computer supports RealAudio, you can listen to that portion of the speech, as it was excerpted in the Nazi propaganda film Der Ewige Jude.

But David Irving says of these speeches, and other Hitler speeches, that Hitler's meaning was not really extermination. The German word for "exterminate" and "extermination," in the 1942 speeches, is ausrotten. According to German dictionaries, it means one thing and one thing only when referring to living beings: to kill. (See next page.) The nature of the killing is often rendered as "exterminate" or "extirpate" in English, but the meaning is the same: to kill.

Yet Irving, who is fluent in German, claims that:

it really means "stamping out" or "rooting out." For example, Irving (1977) translates a conversation between Hitler and Alfred Rosenberg, the Nazi Reich Minister for the Eastern Occupied Territories. In the Rosenberg's discussion of handling the Jews, Irving infers "stamping out" for the word ausrotten, and then concludes that Rosenberg meant transporting Jews out of the Reich (p. 356n).

The above is from an article in Skeptic magazine by Dr. Michael Shermer, who interviewed Irving in 1994.

When confronted with a native-speaking professor of German who informed Shermer that the word did mean "exterminate," Irving's response was:

The word ausrotten means one thing now in 1994, but it meant something very different in the time Adolf Hitler uses it.

How does Irving know this? Let's start with what he told Shermer in 1994:

Different words mean different things when uttered by different people. What matters is what that word meant when uttered by Hitler. I would first draw attention to the famous memorandum on the four-years plan of August, 1936. In that Adolf Hitler says, "we are going to have to get our armed forces in a fighting state within four years so that we can go to war with the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union should ever succeed in overrunning Germany it will lead to the Ausrottung [1] of the German people." There's that word. There is no way that Hitler can mean the physical liquidation of 80 million Germans. What he means is that it will lead to the emasculation of the German people as a power factor.

By extension, Mr. Irving is saying that when Hitler spoke of the "Ausrottung" of the Jewish people, he meant only that they would be "emasculated ... as a power factor."

Ten years earlier, Irving had said very nearly the same thing at the 1983 "International Revisionist conference" of the IHR. You can find a complete transcript of his speech on the CODOH website. He said:

I made a card index of every instance where he used that word in the 1930s. About 15 documented instances. Look at his memorandum on the Four Year Plan of August 1936. [...] in that document is the following phrase: The Wehrmacht has got to be ready in four years to fight the Soviet Union (which is significant, because he's only ever looking eastwards) because if the Soviet Union should ever succeed in invading and conquering Germany it will end with the "Ausrottung" [1] of the German people, of the German Volk. And I say to the historians: Is Hitler really saying here that if the Soviet Union succeeds in invading all Germany and conquering them, it's going to end up with the liquidation, the murder, of 80 million Germans? Of course he's not: he's just saying it means the end of Germany.

Again, Irving argues by comparison that Hitler only referred to "the end" of the Jewish religion or Jewish culture, not necessarily to the murder of millions of Jewish people.

Irving makes a good argument. The only trouble is, it just isn't true.

And since Irving has paid such close attention to where Hitler has used that word, he surely knows it isn't true.

The Context
Let us see exactly what Hitler means by the word "ausrotten" -- the word he uses repeatedly and publicly to describe what he will do to the Jews.

What was Germany's war situation at the time?

By May 26th, 1944, Germany was on the losing side of the war, and was sliding fast. The great Allied offensive had begun in summer 1943; with Italy captured and Germany's air force decimated, Allied bombers were destroying nearly any target they pleased in Europe.

"Toward the end of 1943 at the latest," the now unemployed General Halder would later write, "it had become unmistakably clear that the war was militarily lost." [2]

By May of 1944, the Allied invasion of France was expected at any minute (and D-Day was in fact just two weeks away).

Hitler and the Nazi leaders insisted, even when things were hopeless, that victory would be theirs -- but, in order to secure that victory, the German people would have to fight to the bitter last -- down to the last man, woman, and child. This commitment to total war had been part of Hitler's rhetoric from the beginning, but became more important as the Allied armies approached the German border.

Hitler's May 26th Speech
To establish this fixated suicidal determination in the people, the army, and the officers of the army, required that Nazi leaders convince them that death, and worse, was the price of defeat. Hitler stressed this point over and over. The war may look hopeless, he repeated, but surrender or defeat would mean such utter destruction that the war must be fought at all costs.

To communicate this image of utter destruction, on May 26th, 1944, Hitler painted a vivid picture of what a German loss would mean:

Meine Herren Offiziere, wir stehen in einem Kampf auf Leben und auf Tod. Wenn in diesem Kampf unsere Gegner siegen, würde das deutsche Volk ausgerottet werden. Der Bolschewismus würde Millionen und Millionen und Millionen unserer Intellektuellen abschlachten. Was nicht durch Genickschuß stürbe, würde abtransportiert. Die Kinder höherer Schichten würden wegkommem und beseitigt werden.

In English:

My dear generals, we are fighting a battle of life and death. If our enemies are victorious in this struggle, the German people will be extirpated. The Bolsheviks will butcher millions upon millions of our intellectuals. Those who escape the bullet in the back of the neck will be deported. The children of the upper classes will be taken away and got rid of.

This speech was met with loud applause.

Hitler's aim in this part of the speech was to emphasize the total destruction which awaited defeat, and to make it appear so horrible that no one could do anything but fight to the very end.

And how did Hitler describe this butchery? What word did he choose to underscore the horrible slaughter of millions, to communicate the brutality which awaited the German Volk?

...das deutsche Volk ausgerottet werden.
...the German people are to be extirpated.

"Ausgerottet werden" is the present passive infinitive of the verb "ausrotten."

Ausrotten
Recall from the previous page that David Irving had quoted Hitler:

If the Soviet Union should ever succeed in overrunning Germany it will lead to the Ausrottung [1] of the German people.

Because this was the same word used by Hitler to describe his plans for the Jews, Mr. Irving sought to nullify its meaning:

There's that word ("ausrotten"). There is no way that Hitler can mean the physical liquidation of 80 million Germans.

But this is what Hitler meant, excepting the exact figure: the "butchery" of "millions and millions and millions."

Hitler's words, regarding what would happen to a defeated Germany, could have referred to the Holocaust of European Jews with great accuracy. Shall we say that the Holocaust was the butchery of millions and millions, including children, and the deportation of those who survived execution? If Mr. Irving or anyone else wishes to say that, no historian will argue.

Recall that Hitler said repeatedly: [3]

[...] it would not be the Aryan people which would be ausgerottet, but Jewry [...]

[...] the result will not be the Ausrottung of the European races, but the Ausrottung of Jewry in Europe.

Was Irving Unaware?
Mr. Irving has clearly ignored the May 26th speech. But can he claim he was not aware of it?

The answer is no. The translation above is David Irving's.

It is David Irving's translation, from the 1977 edition of his book Hitler's War, p. 631. In fact, it is only thanks to Mr. Irving that Nizkor became aware of this speech at all! [4]

So what are we to make of Mr. Irving's "card index" of Hitler's usages of this word? Perhaps his card index really only applied to the 1930s, and perhaps he somehow overlooked this usage in 1944 (even though he had translated it himself). Or perhaps he will expect us to believe that, despite Hitler's continuing to use the word to refer to the destruction of European Jews throughout the war, [5] he was correct to turn a blind eye to its meaning in this speech.

Did the Meaning Change?
And what are we to make of his claim that "the word ausrotten means one thing now in 1994, but it meant something very different in the time Adolf Hitler uses it"?

Words do change meaning over time, it is true, but German dictionaries tell us that "ausrotten" has not changed at least in this century. [6]

But, since Mr. Irving doubts the dictionaries, it would be interesting to see him try to explain how the word changed meaning between page 51 of the transcript of Hitler's speech and page 53!

On page 53, Hitler says:

Ich habe auch hier eingegriffen, und auch dieses Problem wird nun gelöst werden, wie ich überhaupt sagen muß: der Jude hat als Programm aufgestellt die Ausrottung des deutschen Volks. Ich habe am 1. September 1939 in Deutschen Reichstag erklärt: wenn jemand glaubt, durch einen solchen Weltkrieg die deutsche Nation auszurotten, dann irrt er sich; wenn das Judentum das wirklich arrangiert, dann wird derjenige, der ausgerottet sein wird, das Judentum sein.

In English -- again, the translation is Mr. Irving's, along with the bracketed comment:

If I may say this: the Jews had as their program the extirpation [Ausrottung] of the German people. On September 1, 1939, I announced in the Reichstag, if any man believes he can extirpate the German nation in a world war, he is wrong; if Jewry really tries that, then the one that will be extirpated is Jewry itself.

The other words that he translates "extirpate" are also ausrotten.

As we have seen, he has later explained how Hitler did not mean literal killing of people -- only "emasculation" and so on. So perhaps he can also explain how the meaning changed from the "butchery" of "millions and millions" on p. 51, to "the emasculation of the [Jewish] people as a power factor" on p. 53.

Of course, even if he could explain this, Hitler's other speeches on the ausrotten of the Jewish people would remain.

Or, on the other hand, perhaps he can admit that his theories are wrong, and that Hitler really did speak, publicly, of the extermination of the Jewish race in Europe.

Notes

Note that both Shermer's and CODOH's transcription of what Irving said are almost certainly wrong. Irving would know better than to use the verb "ausrotten" as a noun, or to fail to capitalize the noun, "Ausrottung." Because these are transcriptions of spoken text, I am giving Irving the benefit of the doubt, and silently correcting these errors.

Shirer, William, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, 1960, pp. 1009-1010.

Please see previous page.

My thanks go out to Nizkor volunteer Laura Finsten for finding and copying the microfilm of Himmler's transcript of Hitler's speech. As Irving's book indicates (p. 883n), it is at the National Archives on microfilm, Microcopy T175, roll 92, pp. 3475 et seq. Nizkor has scanned ten pages of the transcript; the section quoted is on page 51.
I do not claim that Mr. Irving's translation is perfect; I use it mostly so that no supporter of his can accuse me of mistranslation.

See e.g. Shirer, op. cit., p. 964. Regarding Hitler's 1939 prophecy to the Reichstag, quoted on the previous page, Shirer says "he repeated it five times, verbatim, in subsequent public utterances." Two of those occasions are also quoted on the previous page, once directly above.

See for example the 1906 edition of the Muret-Sanders enzyklopädisches englisch-deutsches und deutsch-englishes Wörterbuch, published in Berlin-Schöneberg by Langenscheidtsche Verlagsbuchhandlung:
aus-rotten I v/a. (21) b. sep. 1. [...] Volksstämme, Wölfe zc.: to exterminate.

Translation:

aus-rotten 1. [...] Tribes or races of people, wolves, etc.: to exterminate.

Or, Der Sprach-Brockhaus. Deutsches Bildwörterbuch für jedermann, published in Leipzig by F. A. Brockhaus in 1935 (this is the complete entry):

die Aus rottung, -/-en,
voellige Vernichtung.

Translation:

die Aus rottung, -/-en,
complete annihilation.