Andrew E. Mathis: “Get with the f*cking program.”
Andrew E. Mathis is at it again, making a complete fool out of himself. Why doesn’t that man think before he opens his mouth? How embarrassing it must be for him 
Andy wrote this as a comment to the embedded video above:
Here’s something I wrote seven ago. When are you people going to get with the fucking program?
“Auschwitz and Majdanek also had large labor division [sic], and even Treblinka seems to have occasionally served as a transit camp for small numbers of Jews fit for labor, sent from there to Majdanek concentration camp.”
I posted that at HC blog on December 26, 2006. Why doesn’t Denierbud read his critics?
One more thing: Why not give us some interviews with Belzec survivors or Chelmno survivors? Certainly if these were transit camps, there would be as many survivors of these camps as of Treblinka and Sobibor, right?
The producer (Mr. Hunt) replied to Andrew E. Mathis with the following comment:
This video is not concerning 2006, or denierbud for that matter. You need to get new canned responses because the evidence of thousands upon thousands of Jewish men women and children being transited to camps in Lublin as well as Auschwitz is a game changer. “Pure extermination camp” is bullshit. Transit camp is reality.
As the information age advances, exterminationists will no longer be able to go back to the 2006 status quo of it being near-impossible to find Treblinka transitees.
Some of us are going to push through the imprisonment and persecution and continue to research the subject.
Not like a Treblinka rest stop of a few hours on the way to another camp is memorable in the grand scheme of the war. As we’ve seen, in this video most didn’t see anything but a Polish field with flowers and birds chirping. Who cares to remark about a rest stop at Treblinka when they were abused in other camps or almost froze to death elsewhwere? One of the reasons there isn’t a flood of Treblinka talk is that it wasn’t a memorable place.
After all, why hasn’t Zisblatt talked about it more? She’s on the Mead registry of Treblinka survivors, and she was coming from the East of Treblinka to Auschwitz. She apparently stopped at Treblinka.
So another fact is suppression of this evidence. Arad and Peter Black ignore known documentation about Treblinka transports to Majdanek which isn’t even in dispute in order to shape their false narrative.
I’m going to continue to release even MORE information about entire transports of men, women, and children (totally worthless for labor) transited through the “pure extermination camp” Treblinka.
If given access to the same archives Arad, the Holocaust Museums of the World, I can easily trace many more transports FULL of Jewish men, women and children transited through Treblinka (just like I already did.)
You would think “absolute” Arad would admit his mistake and actually give Revisionists that very opportunity!
But I don’t necessarily need that opportunity. When one approaches the “Where did they go?” question and actually tries to trace these Jews (such as I did for the February 14th transport) instead of believing in the gas chamber monster it’s a foregone conclusion that more and more Treblinka transitees and entire transports will be found and traced.
Of course along with Sobibor and Belzec, which were transit camps similar to Treblinka on a smaller scale. There are many Sobibor and Belzec transitees too, of course, but I focused on Treblinka because it’s the big domino.
The Communist professor Mathis NEEDS gassed Jews to support his genocidal ideology. His profile photo of the Soviet flag over a decimated Germany clearly represents the lack of freedom and human decency Communists like him have to offer the world.
Communist exterminationists like Mathis love the gassed Jews lie because it lets them whitewash the Communist regime’s actual atrocities and murder camps.
But there’s no Shoah Foundation for 50,000 whining, lying Ukrainian Holodomor victims – because they’re dead!
Andrew E. Mathis replies with a threat:
For fuck’s sake, Eric, did two years in prison and another four on parole not do anything for you? Speaking of which, your parole was up in, when? August 2012? Did I hear something about your being barred from your “political” activities while that parole was still on? But you were interviewed by Carolyn Yeager in 2011. Hmmmm.
I’d advise you to be very, very nice to me, Eric.
[divider]Download this documentary[/divider]
Please visit gaschamberhoax.com to download it.
Holocaust Controversies’ Muehlenkamp Talks ‘Cowardice’
“The Gas Chambers”: Yet One More False Witness
Daily Mail: “Seven Dwarfs in Auschwitz” Story
About Author
k0nsl
k0nsl is a programmer, server administrator, designer, moderator, spokesman and factotum of a wide-variety of web pages. You can reach k0nsl via e-mail — i.am@k0nsl.org.
Eric Hunt wrote the following comment at the CODOH Revisionist Forum:
GENTILES IN HALACHA
Foreword — Daat Emet
In this article R’ Bar-Chayim discusses the attitude towards “Gentiles” in the Torah and in the Halacha and comes to an unambiguous conclusion:
“The Torah of Israel makes a clear distinction between a Jew, who is defined as ‘man,’ and a Gentile.”
That is to say, any notion of equality between human beings is irrelevant to the Halacha. R’ Bar-Chayim’s work is comprehensive, written with intellectual honesty, and deals with almost all the aspects of Halachic treatment of non-Jews. It also refutes the statements of those rabbis who speak out of wishful thinking and, influenced by concepts of modern society, claim that Judaism does not discriminate against people on religious grounds. R’ Bar-Chayim shows that all these people base their constructs NOT on the Torah but solely on the inclinations of their own hearts. He also shows that there are even rabbis who intentionally distort the Halachic attitude to Gentiles, misleading both themselves and the general public.
For the English readers’ convenience we will briefly mention the topics dealt with in R’ Bar-Chayim’s article:
Laws in regard to murder, which clearly state that there is Halachic difference between murder of a Jew and of a Gentile (the latter is considered a far less severe crime).
A ban on desecrating the Sabbath to save the life of a Gentile.
A Jew’s exemption from liability if his property (e. g. ox) causes damage to a Gentile’s property. But if a Gentile’s property causes damage to a Jew’s property, the Gentile is liable.
The question of whether robbery of a Gentile is forbidden by the Torah’s law or only by a Rabbinic decree.
A ban on returning a lost item to a Gentile if the reason for returning it is one’s sympathy towards the Gentile and compassion for him.
The sum which a Gentile overpays in a business transaction due to his own error is forfeit; whether a Jew is permitted to intentionally deceive a Gentile is also discussed.
One who kidnaps a Jew is liable to death, but one who kidnaps a Gentile is exempt.
A Jew who hurts or injures a Gentile is not liable for compensation of damage, but a Gentile who hurts a Jew is liable to death.
One who overcharges a Gentile ought not return him the sum that the Gentile overpaid.
A Gentile — or even a convert to Judaism — may not be appointed king or public official of any sort (e. g. a cabinet minister).
One who defames a female proselyte (claiming that she was not virgin at the time of her marriage) is liable to neither lashes nor fine.
The prohibition to hate applies only to Jews; one may hate a Gentile.
One may take revenge against or bear a grudge towards Gentiles; likewise, the commandment “love your neighbour” applies only to Jews, not to Gentiles.
One who sees Gentile graveyards should curse: “Your mother shall be greatly ashamed…”
Gentiles are likened to animals.
If an ox damaged a Gentile maidservant, it should be considered as though the ox damaged a she-ass.
The dead body of a Gentile does not bear ritual impurity, nor does a Gentile who touches the dead body of a Jew become impure — he is considered like an animal who touched a dead body.
One is forbidden to pour anointing oil on a Jew, but there is no ban on pouring that oil on a Gentile because Gentiles are likened to animals.
An animal slaughtered by a Gentile is forbidden, even if the ritual slaughter performed was technically correct, because Gentiles are deemed like animals. (Daat Emet does not agree that this is the Halachic reason for invalidating a Gentile’s ritual slaughter — but this is not the place to delve into the subject).
Their members (genitals) are like those of asses” — Gentiles are likened to animals.