Comments on: How Charles Krafft inadvertently forced the art world to deal with “holocaust denial”

By: Carolyn

Carolyn — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 15:35:14 +0000

Bert – I appreciate your comment but am not sure what you see as Charles Krafft’s point. His point about the holohoax or his point about the real intentions behind his art? Are you saying that when it comes to the holohoax, no one can or will listen to reason? And Jen knew she had Charles bagged at the time she wrote her article? You are a bit cryptic here and I would like to understand your comment.

I’ll just add that the imagery Charles used on his art was never and still isn’t the problem. It’s his simple statement “I think the holocaust is a myth,” uttered on my radio program. That’s what is not allowed. I wonder what is your own view and whether you have ever read a well-written, well-researched revisionist text?

By: Bert Graves

Bert Graves — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:42:33 +0000

Charles Krafft has a point, but his ability to make it (as well as yours to get it it out of him, Caroline) may as well be pointless. Jen knew this going in.

By: Armor

Armor — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 18:11:36 +0000

I’m a Holocaust and Tooth Fairy denier is a nice way to put it.

By: katana

katana — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 09:51:53 +0000

Armor
March 12, 2013 at 10:57 am
Katana,
If you think that the Jews’ holocaust story is rubbish, then you should just say that the Jews talk rubbish. There is no need to call yourself “a denier”, as if your identity was defined by your opinion about the holocaust story.
————

Armor, thanks for your reply.

I agree there is no need to go around calling yourself “a denier”, or defining your ‘identity’ in those terms. What I meant was that you should be up front and say that you do deny that a Holocaust occurred. That makes you a “Holocaust denier” in an everyday sense of the term, by definition.

Now depending on your situation it may pay to be pedantic and play the definition game.
All us heretics are going to burn in hell anyway, so let’s not hold back.

——-

Carolyn, I went to the site but voting was closed. The vote was easily in favor of Krafft.

By: Carolyn

Carolyn — Sun, 17 Mar 2013 18:42:33 +0000

Everyone should go to The Guardian article: Should Charles Krafft’s work still be on display? (Google it) and vote in the poll. Only 5 hours left to vote, it said. I already voted so can’t access the page where you can vote anymore with my computer … so I can’t give you a link.

Do it please.

By: Phil

Phil — Sun, 17 Mar 2013 03:18:31 +0000

P.S. I’m a Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy and Flat Earth denier too.

Phil

By: Phil

Phil — Sun, 17 Mar 2013 03:11:53 +0000

Holocaust myth denial is more correct. The only people holocausted in the truest sense of the word were Germans in Hamburg, Dresden and other cities that were firebombed by the genocidal Allies (the true war criminals) along with refugees fleeing west from the mass-raping and murdering Red Army and POWs held captive there.

The Jewish holocaust is bogus; it is a historical FRAUD and LIE.

Being interned in concentration and work camps DOES NOT in any way constitute a holocaust, no matter how many Jews died there (most certainly not six million!) because of old age, Typhus, other disease and malnutrition thanks to the ‘good’ guys relentless bombing of German supply lines that supplied the camps with food, water, medicine and other necessities.

Deny the LIE!

Phil

By: Collin

Collin — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 23:45:51 +0000

As a romanian I can tell you that we were crossed by a lot of migratory peoples that came just after the dacians were quasi entirely crushed by the legions of Trajan..
The slavic element did in fact played an important role in the course of our forming, altough an outsider can think that we are a latin people.
All in all we are White and that is what counts the most!
P.S. Doug Cristie died this week..A True Fighter!
Carolyn, you should make a podcast about This contemporary Hero!
All the best!

By: Tanstaafl

Tanstaafl — Thu, 14 Mar 2013 17:28:18 +0000

Stoddard wasn’t necessarily wrong. The nature of Slavishness seems to me analogous to the nature of Aryaness. Some people insist it is purely a matter of linguistics, but the common language is largely an expression of common culture and, ultimately, biological links. In other words, Slav has a distinctive genetic meaning, just as Aryan does.

By: Hadding

Hadding — Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:16:53 +0000

A Slav is anybody that speaks a Slavic language. Romanians speak a derivative of Latin — a Romance language. This is the simple reason why Romanians are not Slavs.

What Romanians are racially is surely a more complicated matter. Lothrop Stoddard says this:

The Rumanians are obviously of extremely mixed racial origin. Alpine Slav blood seems to be the largest element in their make-up, though there is also a considerable infusion of Mediterranean blood, together with diverse Asiatic strains. Nevertheless, the Rumanians speak a Latin language and proudly consider themselves full-fledged members of the “Latin Race” (there being, of course, no such thing). [Racial Realities in Europe]

Stoddard should have said simply Alpine instead of “Alpine Slav” since Alpines are a race that has lived in Europe since the New Stone Age, whereas the Slavic languages that many Alpines happen to speak only arrived circa 1500 B.C. along with other Aryan tongues.