portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

imperialism & war | political theory

A Counter-Finkelstein "Holocaust" Lecture


Here is a historical document on a Holocaust Revisionist Lecture in
Beirut, which I think is an excellant brief account of what Holocaust
Revisionism is REALLY about, and why it is important for the defense
It great to see the Arab Palestinians Standing strong, no matter what
price of "punishment" Hashemite Compradors wish to dish out, and
Ibrahim Alloush, Editor of the Free Arab Voice, is one such person
standing strong.
We see that fake Leftists and Liberal, under the guise of "fighting
anti-semitism" just can't tolerate Palestinian Frantz Fanons and Ho Chi
Minhs. In refering to the "Black Liberation" struggles against US
apartheid, their was the saying "too black, too strong", part of the
lyrics to the Revolutionary Hip-hop Group " Arrested Development".
Perhaps we could say "Too Arab to be K-K-K-osher" for FAKE anti-
Zionists to accept.

Here is ANOTHER clear outline on the MYTH of a "Jewish Holocaust",
and why such is an intellectually dishonest paradigm, and
INTENTIONALLY CREATED tool of world Zionism.

--John Paul Cupp,


A Counter-Finkelstein "Holocaust" Lecture

Dear Friends,

Under the sponsorship of Al Saha Cultural Club in Beirut and Samah
Idris of
Al Adab Bi-monthly Magazine, a lecture took place on Thursday,
December 20,
2001, at 7 PM in Beirut, Lebanon, to tackle the issue of
the "Holocaust" and
to provide a counter view to Finkelstein's approach to the subject,
in the
aftermath of the latter's recent visit to Beirut. The lecture was
by Ibrahim Alloush and it dealt with the following topics:

1) what the "Holocaust" and the myth of the gas chambers is. The
"Holocaust" has three pillars: a) the argument the
there was a Nazi policy to exterminate Jews in WWII. In fact, the
Nazi policy was to deport Jews from Germany, an objective
shared with the Zionist movement. b) the argument that five or six
million Jews died as a result of this Nazi policy. In fact, many
Jews died in WWII in concentration camps, but so did many
others who are non-Jews. These deaths occured as a result of
starvation and disease. c) the argument that the Jews who died in
WWII were exterminated in gas chambers. In fact, gas chambers
never existed, and no one was able to prove their existence.
Revisionist historians on the other hand have done a lot of work
proving that there was no such thing as gas chambers. The
response was their persecution, not their refutation.

2) what the political uses of the "Holocaust" are. The arguments
above lead to the conclusions that; a) the Jews need a safe haven,
or a homeland of their own, from which they can be safe from the
'anti-semitism' of this world. This leads to the moral necessity of
"Israel's" existence. b) the uniqueness of the "Holocaust" in human
history, which leads to the justification of Zionist policies and
violations of international law, under the pretext that the
uniqueness of Jewish suffering should allow them some leeway
with international law and double standards. c) the world is
morally responsible for the "Holocaust" and needs to compensate
for that by paying money and giving unlimited support to the
Zionist movement.

3) why we cannot separate the "Holocaust" from its political uses.
Each element of the "Holocaust" above has a specific political
application. Accepting the "Holocaust" while rejecting its political
applications is like accepting the tree while rejecting its fruit.
example, Finkelstein had to deny the uniqueness of the
"Holocaust" in human history to be able to reject Zionist policies,
practices, and double standards. But because he did not reject
the other aspects of the "Holocaust", like the gas chambers and
the alleged policy of Nazi extermination of Jews in WWII, he did
not reject Zionist settlement in Palestine, or the concept of a safe
haven. Technically, that is equivalent to saying that one accepts
"Israel" but not its practices. But is it possible for "Israel" to
without its practices?!

4) what is lacking in Finkelstein's approach and why tackling one
element only of the "Holocaust" myth is not enough. Finkelstein is
allowed a luxury gentiles (non-Jews) are not. He can criticize
certain aspects of the "Holocaust" without being accused of
'anti-semitism'. The U.S. government did not interfere to prevent
him from speaking in Beirut like it did in the case of Revisionist
Historians. Logically, Finkelstein's approach is faulty. The
argument of the uniqueness of the "Holocaust" is derived from the
three elements mentioned above. Indeed, if there had been a
Nazi extermination policy against Jews that killed millions of them
in gas chambers, that would have been unprecedented in human
history, and thus unique. So Finkelstein rejects the uniqueness
argument, the exaggeration of the figures of alleged "Holocaust"
victims, and SOME of the political uses of the "Holocaust". But
the uniqueness argument derives from the three elements of the
"Holocaust", and one cannot reject the uniqueness argument
without rejecting the other three elements. Definitely, Finkelstein
has condemned revisionist historians as cranks and crackpots.
Hence, he has rejected the mere discussion of the other elements
of the "Holocaust". He has taken steps towards rejecting certain
political uses of the "Holocaust", and has gotten in trouble for
tackling such a taboo subject, but not on sound basis. His is a
reformist criticism of the "Holocaust" at best, which leaves the
basis of the myth untouched.

5) why the U.S. government and ruling elites in the West need the
"Holocaust" to justify their colonial policies in the Arab World. In
fact, the "Holocaust" is necessary not only for the Zionist
movement, but western governments and ruling elites as well.
These elites need the "Holocaust" to justify their neo-colonial
policies and their unlimited support for "Israel" before their
peoples. In that sense, the "Holocaust" is a political weapon in the
hands of imperialism, not just the Zionist movement.

In this context, the works of Arthur Butz, Germar, and others were
out. In fact, on the subject of the gas chambers, whole paragraphs
read out in Arabic from the section dealing with that topic in Dr.
Faurisson's paper that was to be presented in the cancelled Beirut
conference. The issue of why Finkelstein was allowed to speak in
whereas Faurisson and other revisionists were not was also brought up.
Finally, the standing challenge from Dr. Faurisson to prove that any
of his
conclusions were incorrect was delivered to the audience.

Following the lecture there was extensive debate as some members of
audience seemed to have imbibed totally some of the myths of
the "Holocaust"
from Dr. Finkelstein during his trip to Beirut. Some of the audience
concerned that Finkelstein was being attacked unjustly by the
lecturer as he
was fired from his job, subjected to attacks from the Zionist lobby,
and was
almost prevented from speaking at the American University of Beirut
[eventually he was allowed to speak, but not in a public lecture, but
to students and faculty]. Furthermore, many pointed out that the
fact that
they listened to Finkelstein doesn't mean that they agree with
everything he
says. However, that doesn't mean we have to accuse him of objectively
serving the interests of the Zionist camp by supporting the myth of
"Holocaust" as the lecturer claimed, according to some members in the
audience. Most of the audience, in fact, kept an open mind on the
issue of
the gas chambers [that is, they seemed to accept the position of
historians on the matter], but remained sympathetic to Finkelstein
Arab activists generally have a soft spot for anyone who is targetted
by the
Zionist lobby, even if they are not one hundred percent]. Finally,
some of
them insisted that they were told by Finkelstein that he does NOT
know if
the gas chambers are real or not, but that he focuses on the
political uses
of the "Holocaust" only. Some suggested a debate between Finkelstein
lecturer, to which lecturer responded that he would gladly do it but
that it
would be better to prove his case (about the double standard applied
revisionists but not others) if there was a debate as well IN BEIRUT
Finkelstein and one well-known revisionist from Europe or North
America like
Robert Faurisson or Mark Weber. The lecturer added that it would be
interesting to see if Finkelstein is willing to discuss the matter
revisionists in the open, since they have displayed a great
willingness to
have the results of their research debated publicly.

Ibrahim Alloush
The Truth 18.Jun.2004 10:10

All Hail John Paul Cupp!

Yep - six million Jews in Europe merely went on a extended vacation, and never came back.

Yo - John Paul - you like Stalin so much - remember that it was Soviet troops who liberated the death camps and documented the atrocities. Are you saying that the Soviet Union was lying about the Holocaust as well?

To Whom it May Concern: A Reply 18.Jun.2004 22:44

John Paul Cupp

You bring up some very good points. Let me address them and some things I would like to add as well.

First a Bit of Background on just how far back Zionist Infultration of the Left Goes:

1. Understand Zionist Infultration was huge in the former Soviet Union. It has been historically shown that as the proletariat seizes state power more and more reactionary elements plot against it, and the class struggle becomes fiercer and fiercer.

Up until about the late 30's the Soviet Stance, of Lenin and Stalin was in line with the general Marxist stance on "The Jewish Question", in that it rejected outright the illusion of their being a Jewish "nationality", and realized that such said call of Zionism or Israel,( that is territorialism instead of assimilation/integration)to be a reaction scheme which
a. granted self-determination to a religion, at the expense of a valid nation(s) right to self-determination
b.could only serve to aid Capitalism, because it divides and seperates one religion from another in efforts at building and maintaining socialism and class struggle.
c. would inevitably be a human base for imperialism
d. Lenin correctly pointed out that Zionism IE "israel" would only produce a giant ghetto for "jews".
E. Lenin also pointed out that Zionism, even as far back as his era, was far and away more dangerous to the working class movement than "anti-semitism" ( and frankly, he should have used better terminology, but you "get the picture").
F.Marx is famous for having stated; "Money is the Jealous god of Israel ( ie the illusions of a Jewish Nation and hence its "right to self determination) in the face of which no other god can exist."
and (apologies if I am a word or too off on the next one)
"The god of the Jews has become secularized. The bill of exchange is the real god of the jews."

If such sounds harshly critical of Judahism, understand marx then goes on to explain, that essentially, the primary basis of monotheism, in his era of industrialism, was the bases of God = Money, and an estranged relationship with nature, that is that the meaning of "god" had become bastardized, due to exploitative social relations, etc.

G. Ultimately, though Zionism is a secular movement, (often taking the thrid positionist and crpto-fascist tactic of claiming to be a national liberation, leftist, or socialist ideology) despite such said secular ideology, none the less ,it is 1,000 more dangerous, perverse, and reactionary, than the "Fundamentalist" (usually a referance to Islam) could hope or dream of being, even if such said, were deserous of creating a Theorocracy, because this false Nationality of "the Jews" rests on the arrogance of being a Chosen People, and inevitably such said "nationality's" illegitamite "self-determination" must rest on the back of National liberation in general, and one or more nation states, in particular.


Let's Look at the Flaws of the Stalin Era, and Its Hold Over:

First, understand that the Soviet Union was the first attempt at building socialism, was created in an era, or Imperialism, and due to the Limitations of Marx's era, he never forsaw the Imperialist Era. Such said required creative new adoptations. I think all in all I would give Stalin a Lower grade than Mao or Kim Il Sung, but would still give him a passing grade, particularly, his accomplishments in linguistics, humanity, socialist contruction ( heavy industry) etc. That said, I do not consider myself a "Stalinist" ( which I would define as Marxist-Leninism, as applied by Stalin).

But Let's rap this section up ( If you want to discuss Stalin with me, and can act in a civil way, my e-mail is available), Zionist Infultration of the Communist Movement, goes back 150 yrs, to its origins. Lenin Fought hard to kick out the Jewish Bund, and also Kicked out the Zionist Communists ( openly called themselves such) from the second internation, which was in control of eurocetril socio-imperialists, and built the third international in a way to fight them. Both Lenin and Stalin, heroicly led the charge to send several to their just graves.

That said, Zionist Agents have been burying through the left, playing on the idea of "unity" when the ideological struggle is negated even for a second. Such definately holds true today, to an even great level. For example suggesting that setter colonialists constitute a nationality or "ethnicity" ie "israeli" as opposed to "a good one is a dead one" military targets ( Objectively being an intentional human base for imperialism dividing the east wing of the arab nation from the west, via the implied force of arms and finance capital)

In the third International, Georgi Dimtrov was clearly part of or influenced by, such elements. His understanding and theoritical understanding of fascism, was unparralled, in its day, and still even provides fresh and militant struggle for us in opposing "globalization", but he also was very ifluencial in the partition of Palestine, by the United Nations, and friendly to Zionist "communists" who had climbed throught the ranks, and buried their way in, including by nepotism.

In eastern Europe, such as Poland, their were waves and waves of efforts, to create the Zionist Entity, many trying to dampen the USSR, as objectively the main anti-imperialist force's resolve to fight such said project. This, of ,consisted of well documented neo-bundist tactics, etc plus many more. The Jewish "Hollowcause" is not the reason, or even a reason, but rather an EXCUSE for the Zionist Partition in 1947. Understand that, by such said date, Pravda, the State Paper of the USSR, had already declared that the Zionists, including Goldy Meier, were pioneers, essentially of the Bolshevik type. Now, does it explain that the soviet account can not be fully trusted. Undersand also, that ZIonist onslaught, in Palestine, began actively in the early 1900s, and zionist congresses, etc existed long before that

1. has never been proven to have supported the USSR support of the Partition of Palestine, but has not document proving he stopped it. Later it was revealed that the Soviet Agent to the UN, was Capitalist Roader, but I agree with your inclination that STALIN CAVED IN ON A MATTER OF GRAVE PRINCIPLED, WITH REGARDS TO THE ARAB IDENTITY OF PALESTINE.

2. Understand, a "holocaust" ultimately does not rest on the absurd and intellectually dishonest 5-6 million, but rather, ON THE UNIQUENESS AND SUPERIORITY OF "jEWISH" LIFE ( and hence death). On a very paradigm level it is dishonest. Do I suggest being in a "concentration camp" was fun and exciting, and that such said individuals, whatever their nationality or religion, shouldn't fight back? Of course not. The thing is that WW2, was far from a giant "pogrom", frankly the "gas chamber, as we are taught to understand it ,is dishonest and unscientific, 6 million is way exagerated, and were millions of people perished in hiterlite human catastrophe, ultimately the Nazi policy was to displace and not annihilate European Jewry, and hence why Nazi recieved such vast amounts of capital for Zionist interests.

Their have been as much damage cause by FAKE revolutionaries, comrade as Good From real ones. Were the Capitalist Roaders of Eastern Europe who capitulatied with zionist interest real socialists, of course not

What Exactly is a Holocaust

The Gas Chamber

Final Thoughts

Stalin And Israel 20.Jun.2004 11:22

All Hail JCP!

Perhaps the fact that the Arabs (the Mufti of Jerusalem, etc.) generally supported Hitler during the Great Patriotic War, while the Jews supported the Soviet Union, had something to do with Comrade's Stalin support of the establishment of the State of Israel.

Support your friends, punish your enemies...