THE AUSCHWITZ ALBUM

Maybe this photo album will help identify some Nazis still in hiding.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7011371.stm

But just as important as the Auschwitz players themselves, is the MACHINE THAT ENGINEERED AND CARRIED OUT THE PRECURSORS TO THE GENOCIDE.


I have said it once and I will say it again, without the PRECURSORS to the Nazi and Imperial Japanese genocides, these two countries would have simply carried out brutal and extremely heavy handed occupations.

From what I can tell it takes about 10 years of brutality training and hate mongering to produce a country , or a legion of men that are hateful and callous enough to kill en mass in a genocide mode. This is about the amount of time the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese spent grooming their soldiers and their populations to be capable of genocide.


This is what I call the "precursors to genocide."


A normal man or woman will cry and be destroyed by the mere TV image of a fictional murder. As Americans we are de-sensitized to these violent acts, and we almost need them in our media consumption menu to feel fulfilled and normal.


However, this is not a natural state of humanity. A natural human will cry at the sight of a murder, or of a violent act. This instinct has to be trained out of the human animal. To a certain extent this de-sensitization is good, we can't all go around crying at every violent thing we see, and our soldiers can't be full of tears in battle.


But the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese implemented the "precursor elements" to their individual genocides up to 15 years before the events themselves. This is why as a civilization, we need to identify THE PRECURSOR EVENTS TO A GENOCIDE for the purpose of seeing one coming down the road before it arrives.


The Auschwitz album will be telling, however, I am moderately concerned that Anti-Semitic holocaust revisionists may somehow use this as a propaganda tool citing the relaxed poses of the SS. If these relaxed and happy poses of the SS are interpreted to mean they did not witness horror every day, then this will impeach the actual historic facts of the event.

The album is interpreted to mean that these SS were so hateful and so callous that they were able to relax at the end of the day in spite of their crimes, then this will assist history to validate their individual inhumanities. Individual facts surrounding the Holocaust are dangerous to the memory of the murdered because if new facts are discovered that impeach long standing beliefs, then there is a tendency on the part of those wanting to turn away from the awful nature of the holocaust to do so.


For example, if the gas chambers in Auschwitz are not in their original condition, or if they show tampering or re-engineering, it could be hatefully argued that the volume of the murder victims is actually less than the historic maxims.


The fact is that a giant number of persons were murdered by the Japanese and Germans, and whether the publicized numbers are over or under the actual numbers by any percentage doesn't detract from the nature of the crime.


The crime wasn't that only that 4 or 6 million Jews were murdered, or that they died awfully, the crime was also that such a large amount of human destruction was wrought that it will be impossible to absolutely calculate and name the victims and their methods of death and disposal.

There is a man posting on youtube.com named DAVID COLE JEWISH TRUTH SEEKER. http://youtube.com/watch?v=2Y_zdhH6dEo

He has about 100 minutes of youtube footage where he is attempting to subvert the magnitude of the holocaust.

I have watched enough of him to understand that he is neither Jewish, nor a truth seeker. I have a feeling his movies on youtube are sponsored by a country, or entity.

His arguments while somewhat well engineered, are clearly not the arguments of a 20 something disenfranchised Jewish homosexual. Which, if he is Jewish, he is likely a queer from what I can tell.


His voice has been replaced by some kind of a robot, which leads me to believe the writers and producers of the David Cole series aren't even able to speak English fluently enough to make a film. David Cole, appears to have olive skin, and dark hair, but his facial features are not distinct enough for him to "look Jewish", if I may be so plebeian. There is nothing classically Ashkenazi or Sephardic about him that I could absolutely discern from the youtube footage.


Another words, he could have rode to Auschwitz on a camel. Or he could have died his blond hair black.


Anyway, the David Cole series is obviously sponsored by either a Nazi or Arabian/Persian anti-Semitic group.


The dialogue and production and organization are far too sophisticated to have been produced by a 20 something angry kid as the film vaguely hints Cole is.

As you know, I am good at constructing and deconstructing arguments. And the arguments made in the David Cole series are very well engineered to attack the validity of the crimes at Auschwitz in the minds of an impressionable audience.


I am only interested in understanding what entity has sponsored "David". I am also interested in understanding the techniques of very polished anti-Semitic holocaust revisionists. David Cole, or Iran, or the American Nazi party, or whoever is actually sponsoring the David Cole series, is obviously comprised of some very clever writers and debaters.


As you know, I am essentially fooled by nothing , or at least very little. But like I said, this kind of hateful revisionism is important because there are a percentage of people who don't think on a very high level, and they are susceptible to having their minds twisted. And they will warp the ideas of their children by imparting "the spirit" of David Cole's message to them, and in some small measure the victims of the third Reich will be injured just a little more in that their memories are revered just a little less.


David Cole bullshit is out there, and he/they/them are the types of people/countries/organizations that would try to misuse/abuse the new Auschwitz Nazi photos for their own benefits.

Michael Miller
Indianapolis,
2007

IRANIAN PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT VISIT GROUND ZERO

Mikes Vacation supports the decision by New York City officials to deny the Iranian President his request to lay a wreath at Ground Zero.

Mikes Vacation believes that the Iranian President had no personal culpability for the attacks on September 11, 2002, however it is my belief that the parties ultimately guilty for these attacks, would view his arrival at this site as some kind of triumph, and this wrongly perceived "triumph" would only serve to bolster their confidence and possibly inspire their strength and possibly aid future attacks against Americans.

The Iranian President has made a sincere request, and Mikes Vacation believes he would arrive at ground zero with a feeling of sorrow and solemnity in his heart for those lost on 9/11.

His request was sincere and legitimate, made for the purpose of showing respect to those who were murdered.

However, his personal security simply can not be assured by New York City officials as there are literally thousands of New Yorkers who might believe he is somehow mocking the dead, or that he had somehow played a part in the tragic deaths of their loved ones.

It is in the nature of the dead and grieving to not always think logically, and to want to take revenge on those they believe could "possibly" be somewhat responsible for their loved ones loss.

It would be reasonable and understandable for a New Yorker with a broken heart to attempt to assassinate the Iranian President at the ground zero memorial. It would not be difficult for one or even several persons to attempt to shoot the Iranian President with a hunting or sniper rifle from a nearby building. This would be easy for them to do, and difficult for the New York City officials to prevent. This same attack would become an international incident, and it would have long standing and terrible repercussions for New York City, and for Americans in general, and obviously for American Soldiers already under fire in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Iranian President has made a reasonable request that cannot be reasonably granted by the City of New York.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20942057/

Michael Miller
Indianapolis,
2007

THE IRONY OF BASHING ANTI-WAR MONGERS

Americans have forgotten a few important things about supporting wars and supporting soldiers.

Firstly, there is an important distinction between supporting a war and supporting a soldier. At the onset of our current War Crime Fiasco in Iraq, there was a lot of political sloganing about supporting soldiers under the main guise of not letting our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan face some of the "nasty anti-soldier sentiment" that faced returning soldiers from Vietnam.

This was George Bush's attempt to gain support for an invasion of Iraq by confusing Americans into thinking that by blindly supporting this current war we could somehow undo some of the negative experiences experienced by soldiers returning from Vietnam.

There was an uneasy feeling in the air in America that if you didn't somehow endorse a criminal invasion of Iraq, then you agreed to spitting on Vietnam vets and calling them "baby killers".

A giant part of America fell for this sham.

Before we look at the current war in Iraq, lets take a second look at the war and anti-war movement surrounding the Vietnam war.

Most men can agree with the standard definition of a "hero" as a man who charges a machine gun nest, or throws himself on a grenade to save his buddies. A hero could be a soldier or a Marine who shows no fear in the face of the enemy and rallies his friends in the field to extraordinary acts of courage and "saves the day". I agree with these standard images of what defines a "hero" . A hero is a man who uses unusual bravery and personal energy to cause more of his buddies to survive a war and come home to their families, often through personal sacrifice, or death. Heroes deserve medals, heroes save lives.

However, I think it is time to expand our idea of what defines a "hero of the Vietnam era." I think it is time to expand our minds on what or who actually saved lives in the Vietnam war.

As stated above, heroes come in a military form, but what about persons not in the military. Can they be considered "heroes" also? If the definition of a "hero" "a man who uses unusual bravery or personal energy to cause more of his buddies/fellow citizens to come home alive, often through personal sacrifice or death, then is a peach demonstrator of the Vietnam era a "hero" also.

A peace demonstrator, a hippie, a flower child, or whatever you call them didn't jump on any grenades, they didn't stand up against any machine gun fire. They didn't see anyone die in their arms. They bear no mental scars of witnessing a violent disaster every day. They don't wake up crying, or suddenly remember their hearts are still broken over their teenage friends that died in Vietnam.

How can a hippie, a flower child, or a peace demonstrator be mentioned on the same page as a "hero" , a real traditional hero from the Vietnam era?

The answer is that our mainstream political machine was in no hurry to bring our troops home from Vietnam. If it were up to them, we would probably still be there, still bleeding, and still dying. It was largely from INTENSE domestic political pressure did our government feel the need to pull our soldiers from Vietnam. Every day that the Vietnam war ended early SAVED LIVES!!

The Vietnam war was a difficult war to fight because our enemy used non-traditional methods of attack such as putting bombs on kids and having them run up to soldiers. Our soldiers were faced with the horrible task of sometimes firing at kids they suspected of carrying bombs. Sometimes our soldiers were correct, and sometimes they made mistakes. Our soldiers were ordered to raid villages at night, forced to fire into the darkness to kill an enemy before they could fire their weapons. Sometimes enemies were killed, sometimes Vietnamese civilians were killed. This was a dirty and heartbreaking war for our often teenage soldiers tasked to fight it. There was no clean or good way for our soldiers to survive the Vietnam war. They did exactly what the soldiers of any land would have done in their position.

Our bombers targeted enemy villages, sometimes they killed enemies, sometimes they killed innocent civilians, and sometimes both.

Returning soldiers from Vietnam were sometimes "spit upon" and sometimes called "baby killer". These same soldiers had recently come home after being in deadly jungle combat only days or weeks ago. Our country was not prepared to mend the psychological wounds of very young men who had recently been in terrible situations.

Our media and popular culture has confused a Vietnam era "peace protester" with the same kind of insensive ignorant clod who would "spit on" or yell "baby killer" at a returning veteran.

Our modern culture feels terrible about the lack of attention and the mistreatment of our Vietnam era veterans. And we should feel terrible about many aspects of their treatment.

However, modern culture has incorrectly lumped "peace protesters" and "anti-war mongers" together with the clods whose treatment of our returning Vietnam era vets have become some kind of a "hateful congealed mirage" that represents "all peace activist" and "all anti-war protesters".

This confusion on the part of modern America opened up a giant opportunity for the Bush war machine to "shame America" into not organizing an effective "anti-war machine" to resist his criminal actions in Iraq.

The idea that America shouldn't spit on or harass its returning soldiers is correct. The idea that protesting a war isn't helpful in saving soldiers lives is not correct. These are two completely different genre's of thought and action.

The irony of bashing , even subtly our countries anti - war mongers, or peace protesters is that they are partially responsible for saving the lives of our soldiers in Vietnam.

It is correct for Americans to be repulsed at the image of some drunken hippies yelling "baby killer" at a lonely Vietnam vet when he steps off the greyhound bus trying to get home to his mother. This is a sad and troubling image.

It is also correct to be similarly repulsed at the idea of some clod yelling "babykiller" at some guy in a small military parade when he returns home from "surving" in Vietnam.

However, it is Ironic and sickening that our own draft dodging President Bush should enjoy enjoy his war crime fiasco being protected by a morphed image of these jerks abusing vietnam era vets, and legitimate peace protesters of the same period.

Bush has piggybacked our country's shameful treatment of Vietnam era vets into a shield protecting his war crime.

This is Ironic because legitimate peace protesters in the Vietnam era saved lives in no small measure, and modern war protesters are saving lives in a similar fasion.

So when the Bush machine is denying the validity of an anti-war protester, he his denying life and survival to a certain number of soldiers currently in Iraq.

Michael Miller