KKK's David Duke Tells Iran Holocaust Conference That Gas Chambers Not Used to Kill Jews

I wonder if Pat Buchanan was also invited as a guest speaker.

Seems like he should have been, that's for sure.

"No, it's just that we forget about all the bad things that happened in the past."

That's not true of everyone.

"I can't imagine anything as bad today as the Southern Jim Crow laws that kept blacks at the back of the bus."

Really? You think racial segregation is worse than homicide bombing?

Personally, I think affirmative action in med school admissions is worse than Jim Crow.

But then, I am fairly aware of the exaggerations in the descriptions of Jim Crow.

Yes it is possible and under the circumstances perhaps warranted.

Unfortunately our country does not have the resolve to do much of anything at the moment.

What Duke is doing is not exercising his freedom of speech.

He is inciting violence

"David Duke is really a neo-nazi."

He continues proving it.

For some years now I have been feeling like the frequency and magnitude of bad events has been increasing. When I have brought it up, people have said, "No, it's just that we hear about more now than we used to because of our communications technology."

You are not imagining anything, and your "feelings" are not only prompted by the increased communications/news technology.

Very bad times are right around the corner (imo). And if I may add, I think much of all this future madness is purposeful.

****

Check out the devaluation of the dollar of late --- bad indication.

Build the big road, boys, and get it over with (SPP).

David Duke and Mahmood Amhadinutjob. Perfect together.

Don't forget Michele was there too.

****

Michele Renouf, an Australian socialite supporter of "Holocaust skeptics," called Ahmadinejad "a hero" for opening a debate about the Holocaust. Renouf, a blonde former beauty queen, addressed the audience wearing a green robe and Islamic headscarf, abiding by Iranian law requiring women to cover their hair.

****

Michele Renouf (born 1946) is an Australian-born, British-based socialite, who came to the wider attention of the public when she sat at the side of David Irving during his failed legal action against the Jewish author Deborah Lipstadt in 2000. Born Michele Mainwaring, she became a model, dancer and beauty contestant, winning the title of Miss Newcastle 1968. Her first marriage was to Daniel Griaznoff, a descendant of Russian aristocracy, which, she claims, granted her the title of Countess. In 1991 she entered into her second marriage, to tennis legend Sir Frank Renouf, when he was 72 and she was 44. The marriage collapsed after a few months when Sir Frank was informed about his wife's humble origins. Renouf had told Sir Frank that she was the ex-wife of a Russian nobleman and that her father was dead, only to have Sir Frank learn that, in fact, her father was a truck driver named Arthur and still very much alive.

Sir Frank described the union as a "nasty accident". Nevertheless, her marriage to Sir Frank allowed her to assume the title of "Lady Renouf".

****

What a woman. (barf)

I am sure David was there and knows what he is talking about. A Nazi wouldn't lie . . . .Would they?

KKK's David Duke Tells Iran Holocaust Conference That Gas Chambers Not Used to Kill Jews

Right, they were just used to put Jews to sleep until their bodies were cremated in the ovens.

Related Anagrams

Holocaust revisionists claim ~
vicious racism is not so lethal.

Holocaust Revisionist Conference in Teheran =
Nutcases hone in on recent historic era of evil.

-- by Richard Brodie of Anagrammy.com

KKK's David Duke Tells Iran Holocaust Conference That Gas Chambers Not Used to Kill Jews

David Duke says that gas chambers were not used to kill Jews.

Michelle Renouf agrees.

Michele Renouf , an Australian socialite supporter of "Holocaust skeptics," called Ahmadinejad "a hero" for opening a debate about the Holocaust. Renouf, a blonde former beauty queen, addressed the audience wearing a green robe and Islamic headscarf, abiding by Iranian law requiring women to cover their hair.

****

Well, isn't that special!

****

Putting a rather beautiful face on Holocaust Denial, eh???

;-)

Fair and Balanced ......... (kidding)

Really? You think racial segregation is worse than homicide bombing?

okay, okay, I could have used a better example. The Holocaust was a better example. It's really not a contest and I could have used better phrasing than ""I can't imagine anything as bad today as ...".

The point was people have been doing bad stuff to each other since the dawn of time. Every generation thinks now is the worst ever. One of them will be right but I doubt it's this generation.

But then, I am fairly aware of the exaggerations in the descriptions of Jim Crow.

Maybe they will have a conference in Tehran on this.

I remember hearing something, back when Clinton became President.

What I heard was in reference to a prediction of how the world would change during the Clinton Administration. I even think I remember that it was Bill Clinton that said it.

(Paraphrased) "White is black, black is white. Up is down, right is wrong, wrong is right."

At the time, I absorbed it, much like one absorbs information in a science fiction book. Really interesting, but no way will things ever be that way.

But now.....

"Holocaust was a better example. It's really not a contest"

The 20 million Ukrainians murdered by Stalin is no comparison with the 6 million Jews murdered by Hitler? How about the Turks' attempt to wipe out the Armenians?

"The point was people have been doing bad stuff to each other since the dawn of time."

Yes, that's true.

"Every generation thinks now is the worst ever. One of them will be right but I doubt it's this generation."

There's no need to phrase it as a dichotomy of "worst ever" and "all in your imagination." Things do get better and worse in given locations over the centuries and even decades. It seems to me that things in Western Civilization are getting much worse very quickly.

"Maybe they will have a conference in Tehran on (the exaggerations in the descriptions of Jim Crow)."

Whether they do, or whether they don't, it won't affect the truth at all.

For instance, one piece of information that is now nearly impossible to find is that the Montgomery Jim Crow law that Rosa Parks violated did not have broad support among the white citizens of Montgomery.

It was ramrodded by a minority cabal of strident racsists who managed to seize power in the Montgomery City Government that was out of proportion to their support in the population.

The bus company at first refused to enforce the law, until the cadre of radicals used force, in the form of armed policemen, to coerce them to discriminate against their Negro riders.

That doesn't mean that the Jim Crow law was acceptible, but it should force a re-thinking of "the South" and its people.

There's no need to phrase it as a dichotomy of "worst ever" and "all in your imagination." Things do get better and worse in given locations over the centuries and even decades.

I'm reminded of a story I heard about the Soviet Union. They had a severely restricted press during most of their existence and did not get to read much about the periodic bad things that happen anywhere. Once the Soviet Union fell the people there started reading about plane crashes and became worried about the sudden steep decline in the safety of their airlines. Of course we all know planes were crashing all along but stories of crashing planes weren't allowed in their newspapers.

I think cable news and the internet has brought us a similar situation. Things we would never read about when there was one newspaper and a couple of short newscasts a day are sensationalized in our new media. That doesn't mean it's all bad, just different. It takes some getting used to.

I know close to my home there was a horrible crime where a high school senior pretended to be an air conditioning repair man to get some young children home alone to let him in their house. Once inside he murdered them for the thrill of it. That happened in the early ninety's and was front page news here locally for about a week. It certainly wasn't national news. Of course today it would be fertilizer used to fill endless hours of "news" over months.

You're right that things do get better or worse periodically. But if you look at the big picture we are pretty lucky to live in this time. We live in an amazing country that has been a beacon of hope to the world for over 200 years. Democracy and freedom are on the march all around the world. We are benefiting from amazing advances in health care, communications, transportation, productivity and economics. Think of the health care advances alone, A little over a century ago someone was as likely to die of infection from a gunshot wound as they were from any damage the bullet did. Remember, President Garfield likely died from the germs on fingers being stuck into his wounds by doctors.

the Montgomery Jim Crow law that Rosa Parks violated did not have broad support among the white citizens of Montgomery.

True, but the good people of the South let it happen with little active resistance. Much the same as the good people of Germany didn't really support the Nazis but let WWII happen. The Jim Crow situation in the South wasn't as severe as the Holocaust in terms of deaths but morally it was still plenty bad. Let's not forget the lynchings and terrorist attacks the Blacks had to endure. Also, the Jim Crow laws were not restricted to Montgomery but were in place in much of the South. Montgomery definitely wasn't a unique situation.

That doesn't mean that the Jim Crow law was acceptible, but it should force a re-thinking of "the South" and its people.

I think the good people of the South (I'm a native Texan myself) deserve forgiveness as much as the people of Germany or Japan do. I don't hear many people looking down on the citizens from those places and I don't think the people of the South should be looked down on today. One of the tenants of Martin Luther King's leadership was to solve the problem in such a way that all of the citizens of the South could benefit. Much better than the violent solution advocated by Malcolm X or the Black Panthers.

I don't think there is any reason to minimize the odiousness of the Jim Crow South to forgive the people there any more than we need to minimize the odiousness of the Holocaust to forgive the people of Germany.

But we do need to keep in mind the lessons of this period of history. One I think is especially important is to defend the freedom of your neighbors before you need to defend your own. The good people of the Jim Crow South would have benefited from applying this rule as the good people of the modern South do.

“Of course we all know planes were crashing all along but stories of crashing planes weren't allowed in their newspapers….Things we would never read about when there was one newspaper and a couple of short newscasts a day are sensationalized in our new media.”

That probably has an effect, but there are other indicators that are less subjective…number of crimes, number of prisoners, age of violent criminals, etc. Further, things seem to be getting worse even if we look only at local news.

“That happened in the early ninety's and was front page news here locally for about a week. It certainly wasn't national news. Of course today it would be fertilizer used to fill endless hours of "news" over months.”

I don’t think you can see the trend if you take the nineties as your starting point. I would argue that your murder wasn’t national news because we had become inured to news of such crimes by the nineties as a result of their frequency.

In earlier times such “local” crimes did often become national news, because of their heinous nature. Lizzie Borden, Sacco and Vanzetti, Leopold and Loeb, the St. Valentine’s Day massacre…we used to hear about heinous crimes, even when the only media were print and radio.

For your point to have validity, then, it would have to be true that there were other, equally heinous crimes that we did not hear of, in numbers proportionate to those we hear about today. I have not seen the evidence that this is so.

“we are pretty lucky to live in this time.”

Oh, absolutely. However, in which direction are we headed?

“Much the same as the good people of Germany didn't really support the Nazis but let WWII happen. The Jim Crow situation in the South wasn't as severe as the Holocaust in terms of deaths but morally it was still plenty bad.”

Um…woah. “There are 2805 [documented] victims of lynch mobs killed between 1882 and 1930 in ten southern states. Although mobs murdered almost 300 white men and women, the vast majority—almost 2,500—of lynch victims were African-American.” From Stewart E. Tolnay and E.M. Beck, A Festival of Violence: An Analysis of Southern Lynchings, 1882-1930. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992.

Are we really going to compare a state policy of racial eradication that led to 6,000,000 murders in ten years with mob action that led to fewer than 2,500 murders over 48 years?

One thing I always wonder about is, how many murders occurred in northern states during the same period that would have been termed lynchings if they had been in Southern states?

“Montgomery definitely wasn't a unique situation.”

Neither have discriminatory practices and laws been restricted to the South.

“I don't think there is any reason to minimize the odiousness of the Jim Crow South to forgive the people there any more than we need to minimize the odiousness of the Holocaust to forgive the people of Germany.”

The word “minimize” is one with which I have often quarreled. When I hear “minimize,” I think “reduce to the minimum possible level.” When something has been exaggerated, though, a return to accuracy requires that it be seen as less severe, without in any way seeking to minimize anything.

For instance, if we arbitrarily set the wrongitude of Jim Crow at X, but the media and academia continually show it at 3X in their propaganda, any effort to present this history accurately will see one presenting it as significantly less bad than most people have been told. This is usually when the “M” word is brought out and used to paint its object as a liar who is seeking to defend the indefensible.

Some people seem to think that a consensus that something or someone is or was bad is a license to exaggerate their badness without limit. I think this is a very dangerous practice that needs to be stomped out wherever it raises its ugly, leftist head.

“The good people of the Jim Crow South would have benefited from applying this rule as the good people of the modern South do.”

I think sometimes we fail to understand how difficult it is to stand alone against one’s entire society.

That probably has an effect, but there are other indicators that are less subjective…number of crimes, number of prisoners, age of violent criminals, etc. Further, things seem to be getting worse even if we look only at local news.

I agree that less subjective data is better. From what I remember the FBI statistics about violent crime show a continual decline in the crime rate from at least the early nineties. The late eighties were the high point if I remember right. I'd get a link to the statistics but I'm packing to drive to Colorado in the morning and a little in a hurry.

The local news is one that really bugs me. In any large collection of people you can find a few bad things that happen each day. The way these few bad things are presented on the evening news makes it appear that the city of origin is a very dangerous place. No matter what city you're in they present the same amount of bad stuff every night. It gives a very subjective view of the cities crime rate and an individual's safety there. The reality is usually quite different. I hear my mom talk about what a dangerous place she lives in after watching the local news when in fact it's quite safe.

Of course some places are more dangerous than others and in any case we should always strive to do better. But sometimes this presentation of the news makes us worry about the wrong things.

So I think we agree about the need for objective data in spite of the fact that I provided you anecdotal evidence earlier :).

In earlier times such “local” crimes did often become national news, because of their heinous nature. Lizzie Borden, Sacco and Vanzetti, Leopold and Loeb, the St. Valentine’s Day massacre…we used to hear about heinous crimes, even when the only media were print and radio.

True, but at nowhere near the rate that we hear about today. The news pipe was smaller and couldn't carry the volume of cases that is carried today. The coverage of these crimes make them more like live soap operas than crimes. The crime of the century seems to happen about once a quarter these days in spite of a generally falling crime rate.

For your point to have validity, then, it would have to be true that there were other, equally heinous crimes that we did not hear of, in numbers proportionate to those we hear about today. I have not seen the evidence that this is so.

An interesting research project I would love to do if I had time :). I think the closest we can get is the FBI crime statistics.

Are we really going to compare a state policy of racial eradication that led to 6,000,000 murders in ten years with mob action that led to fewer than 2,500 murders over 48 years?

Absolutely not, I specifically said they didn't compare in terms of the numbers of deaths. I did say morally the Jim Crow policies were pretty bad. Lynchings were the extreme and I assume even most racists were not in favor of them.

The real point was that both situations came about because good people kept quiet when they shouldn't have. What were the good people thinking when these moral atrocities were proposed? Why didn't more people stand up against them? There must have been more than a few people who were in favor of them.

Neither have discriminatory practices and laws been restricted to the South.

Absolutely. In the North there was a lot of racism and discrimination also but it wasn't enshrined in law the way it was in the South.

Martin Luther King also tried to take his methods to Chicago but found Northern discrimination a hard nut to crack. The Jim Crow laws gave something concrete to protest against. But how do you fight against someone's thinking? We can make people do certain things but we can't make them think anything. Laws are a lot easier to change than other people's thinking.

So yes, all parts of America had a lot of racism, but the South decided to enshrine theirs in law taking it to another level. The South was especially angry about the Civil War and Reconstruction and probably took their anger out on the Negro. But all of America had sins to atone for.

In my original post I said:

I think the good people of the South (I'm a native Texan myself) deserve forgiveness as much as the people of Germany or Japan do. I don't hear many people looking down on the citizens from those places and I don't think the people of the South should be looked down on today. One of the tenants of Martin Luther King's leadership was to solve the problem in such a way that all of the citizens of the South could benefit.

I thought it was interesting that you didn't comment on the point above. The people of Germany and Japan had much more guilt to atone for then the Jim Crow South. Japan actually made Germany look quite tame in comparison to their atrocities. Yet in most people's mind modern Japanese and Germans are considered our friends and their countries our allies. Each of their societies looked inward and resolved their problems. The South has done the same and I think is looked at positively by most people.

When something has been exaggerated, though, a return to accuracy requires that it be seen as less severe, without in any way seeking to minimize anything.

No doubt. But I have never heard people discuss the numbers of people lynched, or even imply it was more than it actually was. As far as the persecution and humiliation that Negroes suffered in the South I think it's pretty much documented. I'm not sure what you feel has been exaggerated.

If there's history that is inaccurate then it should be corrected. This happens all the time as more facts are known anyway.

I think sometimes we fail to understand how difficult it is to stand alone against one’s entire society.

Ah yes, but that's how heroes are born.