Thursday, May 28, 2009

Tucker Carlson, David Ray Griffin & Holocaust Denial

Facebook Under Fire for Allowing Holocaust Deniers
"Hate on the Internet is growing like wildfire," said Deborah Lautner, director of civil rights for the Anti-Defamation League. In the past year, she said ADL has seen a 100 percent increase in the number of complaints from the community about hate speech online.
"For us, Holocaust denial is fundamentally anti-Semitic and therefore it is hate and violates their terms of use," she said. "The fundamental core of Holocaust denial is that Jews are so powerful and have such control that they could make up this outrageous lie. At its core, not only is it offensive to the 6 million people who perished and those who survived, but at its core, it's an anti-Semitic theory of world control? And it does not deserve a forum on Facebook."

Tucker Carlson in The Situation Room on MSNBC, for August 9, 2006: An Interview with David Ray Griffin

CARLSON: Well, you did not get a word of that from the 9/11 Commission, nor did you get a word of it from National Public Radio, the “New York Times,” the “Washington Post,” ABC news, NBC news, MSNBC. You are suggesting...

GRIFFIN: Exactly, but we did in papers in other countries.

CARLSON: Right, but, I mean, as someone who has been in journalism his whole adult life and grown up in a family of journalists, I can tell you people who point to the journalism of Great Britain are almost always pointing to journalism with very low standards.

Here‘s my obvious point. You‘re alleging not simply a cover-up by the U.S. government but by the entire American media. It‘s totally implausible. We would report that if it were true..

GRIFFIN: Tucker, not quite entirely...



Subsequently, Tucker Carlson unintentionally reveals the relationship between the American press and the powerful they report on, during a discussion with Gerri Peev of The Scotsman, the reporter who wrote that Obama advisor Samantha Power had referred to Hillary Clinton as a "monster."
CARLSON: What -- she wanted it off the record. Typically, the arrangement is if someone you're interviewing wants a quote off the record, you give it to them off the record. Why didn't you do that?

PEEV: Are you really that acquiescent in the United States? In the United Kingdom, journalists believe that on or off the record is a principle that's decided ahead of the interview. If a figure in public life...


PEEV: Someone who's ostensibly going to be an advisor to the man who could be the most powerful politician in the world, if she makes a comment and decides it's a bit too controversial and wants to withdraw it immediately after, unfortunately if the interview is on the record, it has to go ahead.

CARLSON: Right. Well, it's a little...

PEEV: I didn't set out in any way, shape...

CARLSON: Right. But I mean, since journalistic standards in Great Britain are so much dramatically lower than they are here, it's a little much being lectured on journalistic ethics by a reporter from the "Scotsman," but I wonder if you could just explain what you think the effect is on the relationship between the press and the powerful. People don't talk to you when you go out of your way to hurt them as you did in this piece. Don't you think that hurts the rest of us in our effort to get to the truth from the principals in these campaigns?

PEEV: If this is the first time that candid remarks have been published about what one campaign team thinks of the other candidate, then I would argue that your journalists aren't doing a very good job of getting to the truth. Now I did not go out of my way in any way, shape or form to hurt Miss Power. I believe she's an intelligent and perfectly affable woman. In fact, she's -- she is incredibly intelligent so she -- who knows she may have known what she was doing. She regretted it. She probably acted with integrity. It's not for me to decide one way or the other whether she did the right thing. But I did not go out and try to end her career (March 7, 2008)


Visit for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

It would seem to me that in the conspiracy to launch the astronomically sized lie of the false-flag attacks of September 11th by the United States, to its people and the world, that the utmost planning and preparation would have been undertaken in advance of the triggering event. And since the hawkish community at the heart of this big lie is long accustomed to simulating and modeling potential outcomes in reality---weighing the tactical risks to the strategic benefits, in various combinations of moves, as if on some grand chessboard...

That, then, somewhere in here, the great increase in the power of massive super-computers would factor in---but such a tool is only as good as the input data...

Before anyone would dare the hubris of attempting to manifest a concept like the story of 9/11, wouldn't there have to be existing models of a big lie---ones that had been successfully told and maintained? Some reference point, which would give rise to all the variables and factors and outcomes one would require to place under advanced computer-thrashed consideration?

Now, since we collectively understand that we were lied into the war in Iraq by our leaders, doesn't it also make sense that we could have been lied out of a war as well? That European Jews did not suffer under German rule disproportionately more then the other concentrated groups---the intellectuals and political prisoners, for instance; or the peoples collaterally damaged by the economic and political forces at play during the era---like the seven million Ukrainians who starved in induced famine in the 1930's? That the archetypal images of the starving stick figures who were left when the camps were liberated, came as the result of typhus or typhoid epidemics very late in the war, when American and British war crimes were impacting life for many? And doesn't "holocaust denial" make for the perfect bug bear to shield a subsequent deceit behind? What comes next pray tell?

No comments:

Post a Comment