Talk:Keke Geladze

Marriage vs. Child dates

She was born in 1860, she was married at "age 17," and she had her first child in 1876 (when she would've been 15 or 16). Was this child born out-of-wedlock? To a previous husband? Or is there a mistake in the text/sources?--Tim Thomason 03:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure she had her first son with Vissarion Dzugashvili-mart572 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.44.123 (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

death

it says in the article that she died on may 13, but on the template it says june 4, which one is true?

Writing style

This article is written more like novel than an encyclopedia...

Why is a Jew the source of all the information here? Why should I trust Montefiore or any other Jew when it comes to Russian history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.23.60.232 (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm from Russia, I met Louisa, I talked to doctors, Louisa is mother of Keke. Melania adopted Keke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.93.35.186 (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:RS and provide some sources that support your claim. Cannolis (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Apparently Louisa gave birth to Keke, and Melania adopted Keke.... but this will not be published. Oh the irony. But what should I expect, Wikipedia doesn't seek the truth anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.199.23 (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

If you could provide some sort of source other than yourself, that would be delightful. Cannolis (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Well there's that Russian witness, and we already provided a screenshot of Emily's Ancestry. But how would you purpose that we fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.199.146 (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm the cousin Emily was talking about. Are you going to tell us that you are going to believe some Jew who doesn't know what he's talking about? That's like trusting the teachers of history by Christians on the Native Americans. There's this witness that made sense to all this. She's probably in her 90s. A witness vs a book. Oh no, which one shall we believe. An anti-Stalin book or the witness. Jeez, so difficult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.199.23 (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm telling you that Wikipedia policy is to provide reliable sources for any changes. Ancestry.com is not considered to be reliable, nor is a random "witness" claiming they "met Louisa". As a counterclaim, I could as easily post from a Russian IP address and claim that Stalin is actually the spawn of a beluga whale and a rhesus monkey, both of whom were named Francois. We pick the author as he is a respected scholar in his field. Read through WP:RS, it describes how to identify reliable sources. Cannolis (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Erm, no you can't just post from a different IP address. It's based on country and service provider, which again, is based on country. But of course, let's pick a book over a logical witness. So how do you propose we fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.199.23 (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I mean it's so odd, right? That Louisa Almeda Claflin would have a big fight with her husband, and then traveling to Gerogia (the country), where she had an affair, and when the baby came, she put her up for adoption. Once that was done, she went back to the United States and pretended nothing happened. I'm not surprised, are you? We are talking about a time where a lot of people were gullible. I mean it's not like we are talking about a family who had intimacy problems and known to have affairs, oh wait! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.199.23 (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's act logical here. There's not even proof that Melania Homezurashvili even excited, beside the fact that a Russian witness came and spoke out just now. There's not even a Wikipedia page for Melania Homezurashvili, or any page for her really.

This will be my final reply if you continue to provide sources. There are things called Proxy servers with which one can rather simply use an IP address from anywhere in the world. Now, for the last time, WP policy is to use sources that are considered reliable, and Montefiore is considered to be a rather respected historian whose works are widely published and therefore subject to critical review by experts. This IP poster is not. We cannot write that Claflin was Geladze's mother and cite it to "some anonymous IP editor on Wikipedia who claims to have met Louisa". Provide proof, or otherwise further discussion is a waste of everyone's time. Cannolis (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

According to http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/185.93.35.186, the IP address is not a proxy. But since you won't accept our Ancestry, how do you propose we fix this? How do we provide "reliable sources", should we publish a book about this? That'll be a "reliable source", right? Lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.199.23 (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

She got back to me with a recording. Audio recording made by Anna Kulikova (woman of IP address 185.93.35.186) and doctor Jaroslav Kovalev. Both admitting that Louisa is the mother: www.filedropper.com/2051858 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.27.208 (talk) 09:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Wait... Louisa was born in 1837 and died in 1867. So either I talked to a ghost, or the translation was poor. Either way though, I have that recording proving the relations. So there, there's your proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.27.208 (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Funny, but it's a possibility that it was a ghost. I sure would do anything to get the truth out if someone mistaken my life, my history, or my family. But I try and reach for the most logical conclusion, and I believe it was a family member, someone related to her. Either way though, it doesn't really matter as the recording has been obtained and it proves the family relations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.27.208 (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:RS and WP:V are not optional in sources. If you would read both of these policy pages you could have avoided wasted your time making that recording. see WP:SPS, which your audio recording so obviously falls under. Cannolis (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't make the recording. But it's clear though that the recording proves the family relations. If you do not wish to consider a recording over a book, then I'm wasting my time talking to anti-truthers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.27.208 (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Ketevan "Keke" Geladze was born on February 5, 1858, in Georgia, the child of Louisa Almeda. She married Besarion Jughashvili on May 30, 1872. They had three children during their marriage. She died on June 4, 1937, in Georgia, at the age of 79, and was buried there. Am I surprised that people are now basing an anti-Stalin book as "reliable" and "trustworthy" source? No. Am I surprised that people actually believe Simon Sebag Montefiore? No. Am I surprised that Wikipedia does not wish to consider an actual recording to correct their wrongdoing on my aunt Keke? No. Am I surprised that everyone is listing the adopted mother (Melania Homezurashvili) as the mother of Keke? No I'm not. But in all fairness she was the one who took care of Keke so I understand the reasoning to not list Louisa. But this all goes to show just how unreliable and untrustworthy Wikipedia actually is. I support its abolishment.

I uploaded the recording for anyone who can now play it online: www.cl.ly/cvVb?_ga=1.118579721.1089897526.1441655493 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.27.208 (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong, eh Wikipedia? Let me just go ahead and proclaim what excuse you may try and pull on me.

"The first practical sound recording and reproduction device was the mechanical phonograph cylinder, invented by Thomas Edison in 1877 and patented in 1878."

I understand that you believe that, but this recording obviously debunks that statement. History is a gallery of pictures in which there are few originals and many copies. History is a set of lies agreed upon.

"Wealthy and powerful people tend to have first access to any technology, a President of the United States would almost certainly use it before some woman in Georgia."

Yes, they tend to have the first access to technology. But this is not always the case. History is known to be twisted, confusing, to be a lie, and to take credit away from someone else. You shouldn't be shocked that recording existed in 1858. History is a race between education and catastrophe. History is a people's memory, but whose memory and how powerful they are is what really matters when we speak of history.

So let's be honest, are you guys really going to trust an anti-Stalin book with no sources over an actual recording? Because if that's the case, it's no wonder Wikipedia's reputation is very low. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.27.208 (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am going to completely ignore your recording. It is entirely unverifiable. Historians are indeed known to lie on occasion. Fortunately, that rate is astronomically lower than the frequency that anonymous strangers lie over the internet. Cannolis (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad that you are going to ignore this recording over a book that cannot be verified, I can further my agenda to push for the discontinuance of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.27.208 (talk) 02:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I have found a birth record for Ketevan Geladze, and it shows her mother is Louisa Almeda Claflin. I also had a few people analyze the audio, and it turned out that it's fake. The outcome was disappointing, I enjoy correcting history when it's based on lies, and it would be pretty cool to be related to someone who pretty much invented audio, but nonetheless I was wrong regarding the recording, so I apologize.

http://s13.postimg.org/h7rg79rh2/867858943058830.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.27.208 (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

This also appears fake. Have your people analyze this as well. Cannolis (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not fake. Also I already did that before I published it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.27.208 (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm getting the feeling you simply want to believe that the author you approve of didn't lie or mess up. Simon Jonathan Sebag Montefiore did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.27.208 (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Or perhaps I've read WP:RS and WP:V. Also, I'm fairly certain Georgian birth certificates from 1858 were not typed up on a computer and printed out. Feel free to run that by your expert analysts. Cannolis (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Well this is the birth record. Handwritten with something. Most likely a typewriter. This is clear proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.27.208 (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

A book over a birth record? You are making yourself look stupid at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.27.208 (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll admit I was acting a bit stupid when it came to the recording, but this? This is taking stupid to the next level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.27.208 (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I would consider a birth record. But I have no reason to believe a poorly faked image is a true birth certificate. Next time maybe try actually signing for all parties by hand instead of typing names out on your computer. Cannolis (talk) 07:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Lol you're an idiot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.27.208 (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Crawl back into your rock when you came from and read some more Simon Sebag Montefiore. While you are at it, feel free to accuse more people without evidence and reason.

"You need to get your cranium checked you thinking like an alien and just ain't realistic." - Eminem — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.27.208 (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Birth record and information about Ketevan (indisputable)

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=66586220

Indisputable

I agree with the changes, the birth record clearly states the mother. Therefore, it's indisputable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.199.98 (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be based on evidence, right? The birth record showing who the mother is, but I do not understand why we have to rely on one person over a birth record. A book is not proof. There are a lot of people who do not correct the story. Anyone with a brain knows this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.27.208 (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

This findagrave website is clearly not a WP:RS. Just like Wikipedia, which we also do not consider a WP:RS, its content is user generated. Cannolis (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Wait, you are telling me that you don't even consider Wikipedia as a reliable source either? LMFAO. You must be fucking with me.

Well at least we can finally agree on something.

Yep. WP:WPNOTRS. Cannolis (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

So much for encyclopedia. And just in case if you don't know, encyclopedia means a set of >>facts<< on many subjects. This website can't even do that.

As if no one on Wikipedia has considered that. Read up on primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. clpo13_(talk) 19:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Question for 98.208.27.208: if you consider Simon Sebag Montefiore unreliable and not proof, what makes your birth record unquestionable? clpo13_(talk) 19:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

What makes a birth record unquestionable? It's a damn birth record! That's why. Not a book!

What's to say the birth record hasn't been made up out of whole cloth? Also, sign your messages, please. clpo13_(talk) 19:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It's like if I uploaded my birth record, and somebody questions it.... Nope! Sorry bud, this is not a conspiracy forum. Take your nonsense elsewhere! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.27.208 (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's take this to an extreme: if I type up and upload a birth certificate that says I was born on Mars in the year 2301, according to your logic, you can't question my certificate's factual accuracy because I say it's real. clpo13_(talk) 19:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. We have only your word that it is the true birth certificate. Parallel example - I just found Stalin's real birth certificate. http://postimg.org/image/5gnoy53xx/ Clearly, based on this totally real birth certificate, his parents were both delicious citrus fruits. Cannolis (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thats not possible to be born Mars. We are talking about birth record over abook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.93.35.151 (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Cannolis are you serious right now the movie idiocracy comes to mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.93.35.151 (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Shrug. You simply spent much more time fabricating yours than I did. Cannolis (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's clear that you either can't or won't understand Wikipedia policy, so there's nothing more to say to you. clpo13_(talk) 19:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. IP poster lacks sufficient common sense. Or is attempting to troll. Cannolis (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, so now I fabricated the birth record? Stay classy. I bet Obama's birth certificate is fake as well! Ha! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.27.208 (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I bet there's a lot of books from a lot of stupid people, but by all means let's not question them, only the evidence against these books. This is what's wrong with the United States! There are so many stupid people who think they know what they're talking about. Ffs

Ah forget it, it's like talking to a Republican. Well look, if you want this article to be a lie, fine by me! I really could careless because anyone with a brain would do their own research and see that I'm right. So great! Leave it up! It just goes to show that this website will not last. This game can go on forever! Trust me. But the facts remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.27.208 (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with 98.208.27.208. A birth record is a birth record. It looks real, it probably is real... it surely is old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.230.226.44 (talk) 02:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Sigh.... 98.208.27.208 is more than right. The birth certificate of this Keke person shows who the mother is. (192.255.249.136 (talk) 02:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC))

Okay.... so I've been following this article for awhile, and I must agree that the document is in clear standing. It shows the mother. I mean what more do you want? It's an old document! Looks like from the church even.... Since when did Wikipedia turn into some conspiracy forum? The document is a reliable source than a book. (162.250.169.190 (talk) 02:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC))

as much as i against communism and stalin i like the book but the document is truth.... sorry (211.110.5.106 (talk) 02:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC))

Let's get something straight. you are picking a book over the document? are you fucking serious? you might as well say the stalin-bashing book is what you believe it, brainwashed cunts. (163.47.20.184 (talk) 03:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC))

אני נהנה הלחימה קורה כאן. ואני חייב לומר למרות שהמסמך הוא אמיתי, כישראלי, אני חייב לומר שהקומוניזם הוא רע. אם כל דבר, מסתכלים על הממשלה שלנו! זה המערכת הטובה ביותר. אנחנו העם הנבחר של אלוהים. אנחנו אהבה. :) (82.80.17.114 (talk) 03:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC))

^ Мирные люди? Ты - идиот. Коммунизм это будущее, это рабочий класс! Так пошел на хуй, глупый еврей. А для записи, да, документ действительно реально! (94.242.58.6 (talk) 03:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC))

Yes

Document est une preuve évidente. Please change the name, ok? Mother is clearly shown (162.250.169.175 (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC))

All in agreement

It seems we are all in agreement that the document is real, but old. So, yeah. The document is reliable! (216.75.21.34 (talk) 03:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC))

Majority rules

Ight, so since we are all in agreement, I'll be going ahead to change the names, to correct this article. (104.143.15.208 (talk) 03:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC))

Yep. Go right and head 104.143.15.208. (162.253.64.103 (talk) 03:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC))

I've been following this as well. Sorry Cannolis! I disagree with you, respectfully of course. I say aye to change the article as well! Cannot change history, you shoulda known. (198.143.1.163 (talk) 03:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC))

I already done it. Du warst zu spät! Heh. (5.230.139.94 (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC))

The majority of actual people here agree that this is insanity, and you are a minority of one. Stop inundating the talk page with nonsense and find something useful to do. Everyking (talk) 04:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Everyking, Wot!? Are you serious mate? The majority actually agree with the document, at least that's what I see, no? You call this insanity! Oh no! I must be anti-Jewish for agreeing with the birth document than his book. Bloody fool. (163.47.20.184 (talk) 04:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC))

Oh yeah I almost forgot to mention, I agree with the document. It's proof yeah? It's insanity to say it's not. I'm from Australia (I'm quite educated mate, unlike your American ass). I agree with 98.208.27.208. The document stumps a book every time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.47.20.184 (talk) 04:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

.... it's a document. I don't understand how we are having this conversation. (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manoth901 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Everyone calm down!!

Hey, calm down Manoth901. Dutchy rue. Not all of us Americans are stupid, ya know? The majority here agree with the document. We don't consider a book a reliable source, so yep.... book is a no go! Document? Proof. Simple as that. So I agree with you, I don't even know why we are having this conversation. (199.36.107.113 (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC))

Wow

Wtf? Yeah I agree with 199.36.107.113. (104.244.156.10 (talk) 05:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC))

not able to edit?

Maneira de censurar a verdade. very disappointed that you guys would ignore the truth, you ignore us, we are a majority, and yet you disable all edits. very bad!! (176.221.34.99 (talk) 05:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC))

You might want to review what Everyking has stated above. Socking/meatpuppeting won't help whatever you're trying to do here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, review WP:SPEAKENGLISH. If your English is good enough to review the article, it's good enough to participate here in English. Using other languages for insults and aspersions will result in blocks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

What??

Socking? Meatpuppeting? Lol. Ya'll paranoid?? NeilN?? Ok so let's accuse anyone as fake (including me) who disagrees with ya. Seems dead on considering the amount of stupidity that ya'll are creating.... Ha!! (216.230.226.42 (talk) 05:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC))

This IP is geolocated to Houston. And just so happens to have a Texan accent...in text. You're laying it on too hard. The page is protected because there has been a lot of disruptive editing. First, one IP editor, and now a dozen or more after the first was blocked, all within minutes and hours of each other. That's very suspicious and doesn't look like normal editing behavior. Finally, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Discussion isn't over simply because the majority leans a certain way. There's been little substantial discussion over your proposed edits, partly because you refuse to acknowledge that there are serious verifiability concerns with the birth record you've presented. I'm sorry you think we're preferring a different source over yours, but you've given us little reason to believe it's anything substantial, whereas Simon Sebag Montefiore is a historian who, presumably, does his due diligence when researching a topic. It's not as if he made everything in his books up. clpo13_(talk) 05:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's be honest!

WP:DNFTT --NeilN talk to me 22:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The engine's runnin' but ain't nobody driving. I really believe ya'll should take the birth certificate into consideration here. I mean let's face the facts, sure the document is old and I understand where ya'll are coming from, but it's a document. And like most documents from the good ole' days they can't be verified, but look at the book, how can that be verified? It can't. Regardless what ya'll say, it just can't. A document is a document. A book is a book. Now tell me boy, if I write a book correcting this, where ya'll use that as some proof for the family? If I claim Nazi Germany never got the Holocaust, hire somebody to write the book in my name, and then I have it published, does that mean that the evidence in the book talkin' about will then be considered proof or something? Of course not, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.230.226.42 (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC) If ya want to talk about the rules.... and I mean if ya'll wanna consider the book and the birth certificate as an opinion then I guess that'll do, but from the looks of it this wiki is more like a novel than actual proof (such as documents, news articles, etc). This wiki is all based on a book. I mean no disrespect but this person isn't even worthy to be in Wikipedia, she ain't famous, she ain't done anything really, from what I see she shouldn't even be on here! (216.230.226.42 (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)) For the umpteenth time, read WP:V and WP:RS. Montefiore's book is a reliable source because he is a generally well thought of historian and his books sell fairly well, therefore critics take the time to read them. If there were glaring issues with his research or accuracy, that would've come to light. As Wikipedia editors, all we have to do is notice these reviews and use them to determine reliability. The "document" that was provided does not look old, it looks poorly fabricated. If you were able to get a book about Holocaust denial published by a real publisher and critics from sources like the New York Times were to actually read and then praise how well you'd researched your book, like Montefiore has, then it could be considered a RS. Cannolis (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Also, if you wouldn't mind dropping the act of pretending to be multiple people that would be peachy. Wikipedia has policies against sockpuppeting, and from your style of writing and recurrent undertone of antisemitism, it's pretty clear it's just one person. Cannolis (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Not to mention similarly bad accents. clpo13(talk) 05:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC) I agree with (I hardly say this) that Texan. He actually makes sense. And no we are not multiple people, we just sincerely disagree with you guys. You claim the document I obtained from the church is fabricated, but it's not, I scanned it and uploaded it. Also, how dare you claim that if a book was published saying that the Holocaust never happened and then being praised by the New York Times, it then becomes evidence for Wikipedia to consider a fact. That's a very dangerous statement right there. It's no wonder this website is failing with the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.27.208 (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC) Also, I personally, have nothing against Jewish people. I'm only anti-Israel and hate those that support these so-called "God's chosen people", legal genocidal maniacs. I trust no religious historian, and that's not personal it's just common sense not to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.27.208 (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC) If you can find an example of a piece of nonfiction supporting Holocaust denial that is well received by reliable critics(not ridiculous blogs or other "documents") in terms like "meticulously researched, authoritative", then I will concede the the point. Cannolis (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I dont know about anyone else, but I can surely do that... lets begin

im German and a proud National Socialist.

read the book, full of facts you might be just surprised! 'The Hoax of the Twentieth Century' you can get it here: http://www.amazon.com/The-Hoax-Twentieth-Century-Butz/dp/0967985692

you should know there are 50 reasons why you should not believe in the holocaust. It is our duty to emancipate our fellow humans from the most evil lie ever concocted.

It can take weeks or even years for people to get over the shock of finding out that the holocaust did not happen.

Arthur Butz discusses how looking back afterwards many arguments will seem obvious. www.ihr.org has his book " The Hoax of the xxth century" online.

He discusses the Donation of Constantine hoax and how those who debunked it used complicated arguments when with the benefit of hindsight it looks like they overlooked more simple explanations.

The problem is power. People didn’t question the donation of Constantine even though there were obvious reasons for it to be false.

Control of information is a vital ingredient of religious power.

For example: Hitler's driver was Jewish, this is in contradiction with the propaganda image the public has been conditioned with of Hitler.

Christianity endured for so long because of violence and intolerance of other worldviews.

The mass media performs the role the church did in the medieval world. If you have media power you can make people believe anything, remember Orson Well's war of the worlds? In many cases I find when leafleting that the problem is that people don’t want to realise that the world is so corrupt that History can be fabricated, they would rather rationalise revisionism away. This is why ZOGs imprison revisionists, to exploit this tendency. The Holocaust itself is so ridiculous that the fact that people are out questioning it is enough to wake up many people. Just to ask someone sharply " Are you really so stupid that you believed the human soap lie?" is often enough to wake them up. The media has been used to create a mass psychosis.

It is obvious to me that the holocaust satisfies some deep psychological needs in over-socialised people.

"A teacher at a leading private school has been in trouble for allegedly forcing a pupil to crawl across the floor with a spoon of water in his mouth and telling the other pupils to kick him if he spilled a drop. The boy's parents were furious when he came home with bruises from the £2,453-a-term King Edward V1 school in Southampton. Police cautioned religious teacher Timothy Tofts over the incident. Mt Tofts explained that he was merely trying to demonstrate to first-year pupils how the Jews must have suffered in Nazi Germany. (August 2003) "

Subconsciously most people I have leafleted have been woken up, but the political correctness tyranny, which has descended on the west, makes progress slow. It is twinned with the racial nihilism in many people.

Here are some of the arguments against the claim that the Nazis murdered 6 million Jews.

Common sense: if we had not all been hypnotised or intimidated into committing the logical fallacy of argument from authority. No proof has even been given that 6 million were murdered.

1:Butz’s argument: At the end of the war they were still there.

Douglas reed also mentions this in his book "Far and wide". The United Nations figure for Jewish world population given in 1947 was the same as that given by the League of Nations in 1938.So not that many Jews died in the war, not millions anyway.

2:Most people can’t understand that the media is not their friend, and has lied to them. They give an ostrich response and are neither intelligent enough nor brave enough to face the world without comforting fantasies. www.ussliberty.org: one of the most brazen examples of media cover-up. www.ukar.org: plenty of others.

"If some know-it-all tries to expose you, the others will not listen to him and will condemn him, because by exposing you he is proving them guilty of stupidity, and the crowd will not forgive this." From a text published in Tel Aviv in 1958.

The Media lied in WW1 and the British apologised afterwards.

3:People can’t understand how so many eyewitnesses can lie, they have seen the television programmes.

Well until 1960 the holocaust lobby said there were death camps all over Western Europe and there were plenty of witnesses to that, e.g. Dr blaha at Nuremberg. Then gas chambers were quietly dropped except at those camps where the commies could keep scrutiny out.

An Orwellian rewriting of History was effected and all our university Historians and Media swallowed it like the whores they are.

No evidence was given for this change, just one letter by martin brozstat in der zeit. A good article on this can be found at www.faem.com by Major Stano called "House of Orwell".

This is an argument I have found effective with some people if I can keep their attention on it. Too often people are intimidated by political correctness. Totem and taboo, these born slaves are genetically stuck down in Plato’s cave.

Another example of the brazen orwelling of history is the change of the plaque at Auschwitz. (See my leaflet for the before an after photos)

Jews complained about a holocaust in 1919! "Six million men and women are dying ... eight hundred thousand children cry for bread. And this fate is upon them through no fault of their own, ... but through the awful tyranny of war and a bigoted lust for Jewish blood. In this threatened holocaust of human life ..." --The American Hebrew (New York, issue 582 of October 31, 1919) The Talmud also has atrocity claims which demonstrate the Jewish mentality: Gittin 57b claims that four billion Jews were killed by the Romans in the city of Bethar. Gittin 58a claims that 16 million Jewish children were wrapped in scrolls and burned alive by the Romans.

4:Basic laws of chemistry and physics preclude Holocaust from having happened. Leucter etc .No Cyanide traces in alleged gas chambers. The establishment in Germany recently conceded this point see www.fpp.co.uk

In a sane society people would not have to disprove what common sense should be enough to tell you. The biggest psychological barrier people have to cross is the realisation that their society really is that corrupt, not anything to do with the holocaust story itself, which is really far fetched.

6: Revisionists have been imprisoned .If the holocaust was true it would be possible to have an open debate as those with the truth have nothing to fear from debate.

The lack of debate is indicative of a religious dogma, liberalism becoming a religion because of the power of the media to control info.

I heard one guy one the BBC saying most people thought the Germans who were massacred "got what they deserved", this attitude is a result of holocaust propaganda.

Revisionists are often accused of being Nazis by people as a circular logic propaganda trick and to the extent that some propagandised members of the public just assume this as almost a reflex. But surely if the Holocaust happened then maybe today neo-nazis would ignore it or blame it on one person like the left blames all its sins on Stalin. Denial of facts is very much a characteristic of the atavistic enemies of western civilisation, like those who tell us that race doesn't exist etc. The media doesn't even have to deny allied war crimes; it just doesn't bother to mention them.

The media has started generating prop to cover this point. I saw a programme with Irish journalist Fergal Keane on how the Turks deny the Armenian Genocide, and the comparison has also been made in responses from academics to me.

The three mass murders Trotsky (Jewish: real name bronstein), Lenin (I have seen many accounts of his ancestry) and Kaganovich (Jewish) are rarely mentioned in the controlled media.

The Brits put up a statue to bomber Harris who burned plenty of civilians. You see the Germans deserved it.

The fact that the media in the west suppressed information about the Jewishness of communism in the USSR was actually a causal factor of WW2.The holocaust is the tip of the iceberg of suppressed xxth century history.

7:The state of Israel would not exist if the holocaust had happened. World Jewry would have been too weakened.

8:The falsification of documents by the allies. Most people haven’t examined Nuremberg proceedings.

It takes about 5 minutes of reading the Nuremberg documents to realise that the holocaust is a hoax www.cwporter.com

9:Use of torture by allies in ‘War crimes trials’, commented upon by Senator McCarthy. Witch trial methods same methods proving similar impossibilities.

10:British letters by British ministry of Information, statements by Sefton Delmer.

Anyone Reading these would understand the politics involved and why the hoax was necessary for the allies.

11:Falsification of Photos and their use in books and television programmes. For example Spielberg’s survivor programme used false photos exposed by Udo Walendy to prop up weak survivor testimony.www.ukar.org has good article on this.

12:Violation of Occam’s razor, again and again. See Jurgen Graf’s demolition of Hilberg’s book.

Absurd rationalisations needed, Germans supposed to speak in code, when allies spoke bluntly of mass murder of Germans.

13:Quoting a few of the eyewitnesses is a good persuader, and don’t let the audience rationalise the examples away, for example the witnesses Hilberg uses in his ‘definitive’ book.

Elie Wiesel (who was given Nobel Prize) supposedly in Auschwitz but he never saw as chambers. Muller and bucket of jumping human flesh, lengyal and human sausages. Friedman in Zundel trial and colour-coded smoke by country of origin. Wiesel's geysers of blood.

And so on.

14:Red cross report from 1948 spoke of 300,000 deaths in camps mainly of disease, so holocaust not possible. Vatican also did not support allied genocide claims. Butz’s elephant in my basement argument. " I do not see an elephant in my basement, an elephant could not be concealed from sight in my basement, therefore there is no elephant in my basement"

Circular logic prop is used to try to shore up this leak, for example the various books making out the pope was a bit of a nazi, websites on clerofascism etc. people are so browbeaten by the orthodox consensus coming from all media and public figures that you see an orwellian crimestop reflex and people don't even stop to think about the absurdity of the claims because all dissent is so totally suppressed. Even the Internet is getting increasingly censored as the Jews work away at destroying this last refuge of free thought.

You get an exponential run away effect of absurdity just like with a religion where no part of the myth can be open to question.

15: The dropping of early absurdities such as steam chambers and electrocution platforms. This is not History but propaganda.

Famous Pravda article on Auschwitz."Last year, when the Red Army revealed to the world the terrible and abominable secrets of Majdanek, the Germans in Auschwitz began to wipe out the traces of their crimes. They leveled the mounds of the so-called "old" graves in the Eastern part of the camp, tore up and destroyed the traces of the electric conveyor belt, on which hundreds of people were simultaneously electrocuted, their bodies falling onto the slow moving conveyor belt which carried them to the top of the blast furnace where they fell in, were completely burned, their bones converted to meal in the rolling mills, and then sent to the surrounding fields. In retreat were taken the special transportable apparatuses for killing children. The stationary gas chambers in the eastern part of the camp were restructured; even little turrets and other architectural embellishments were added so that they would look like innocent garages. But even so one can see the traces of the murder of millions of people! From the stories of prisoners, liberated by the Red Army, it is not difficult to make out all that the Germans tried so carefully to conceal. This gigantic industrial plant of death was equipped with the last word in fascist technology and was furnished with all of the instruments of torture which the German monsters could devise."

16:Obvious Zionist need for the holocaust, though as most people are politically retarded this will go over their heads.

17:Need of entrenched oligarchies for the Hoax. False democracy possible, opposition is tabooed out of existence.

18:No budget, plan or order documentation for any genocide.

19:All the eyewitnesses who testify that there were no gas chambers or genocide are ignored or even imprisoned.

20: Much bigger crimes (and ones that actually occurred at that) are ignored, so there is something odd about the holocaust. The Holocaust lobby shot themselves in the foot, inadvertently damning themselves with overemphasis.

I remember as a child resenting that my history book called the killing of 6 million Jews ‘the most terrible crime in history’. Why would it be? Are Jewish lives worth more or something?

And if we are westerners why should we give a damn?

Are we too gentle to survive in a harsh world?

According to Dagobert Rune Hip Hip Hurray comes from a Roman toast celebrating the fall of Jerusalem.

Why 500 films about the holocaust and none (or none that I'm aware of) about the gulags?

Something is rotten in Denmark!

That the fantastical 6 million are treated as if they were 200 million should trigger some awareness on some level.

21:It created a myth or liberal righteousness, which many vested interests have found empowering; it allows every inverted group to whine against the old patriarchal western civilisation. It allows lefty sociologist to plot and execute the eradication of the old morality. It allows the cultural bolshevising of the west. This argument goes over most people’s heads. People with a priestly character will defend the myths they find empowering. Their will to power requires the holocaust. They don’t care if its true as long as it is believed to be true. They are immoral characters. University Historians have dug a hole so deep for themselves they don’t have the courage to even read revisionist books yet alone behave honourably. Many lie from ideological reasons. Most of these universities have speech codes these days. I remember the whimper of controversy when reading the announcement of such a thing when at UCD.

22:The myth has made a lot of money for Israel; they defend the source of their tribute payments. Jews dominate Hollywood and American media and the American media has world wide influence. The Holocaust makes Jews immune to criticism. It made state of Israel possible.

The English speaking world is a de-facto Jewish Empire.

Revisionism reveals the tyranny because it reveals the source of the propaganda and demonstrates the fraudulent nature of democracy.

23:The media and academia obey because the power is above them, at government level. The carrot and stick are their to make people obey, and while many are disgusted, they are plenty left to become lecturers, editors etc This is all out in the open in the 90’s rationalised under political correctness. Governments obey like the Swiss did because of the power of international Jewry, which after all won WW2 even if their serfs aren’t allowed to know it consciously.

24:Where are all the ashes, where did the Germans get all the fuel?

Most people are scientifically illiterate so the scientific impossibilities go over their heads.

There would be mountains of ashes but there are none.

25:Real war criminals like Solomon Morel are not prosecuted or even heard of. Hence the society is corrupt and so such a fraud is plausible.

See john Sack’s "An eye for an eye"

26:This is the kind of rubbish people believe in, man is a religious animal and the holocaust is sold as a religion.

Many people need to feel guilty.

The education system is quite poor and independent thinking is discouraged.

People are gullible and stupid. Go and do some revisionist activism and you will see yourself.

Everyone, in varying degree, is vulnerable to logical fallacies and irrationality and this is exploitable.

It was rather easy to piggyback the 6 million-figure etc when they had the photos of people dead and dying of typhus in the camps. Many people think that is what you mean when you mention the "holocaust" and the media uses this to effect by summarising revisionism in the one sentence "The Holocaust did not happen".

The media and establishment are waging a Psy-war versus their "own" people.

"Sir,

I am directed by the Ministry to send you the following circular letter:

It is often the duty of the good citizens and of the pious Christians to turn a blind eye on the peculiarities of those associated with us.

But the time comes when such peculiarities, while still denied in public, must be taken into account when action by us is called for.

We know the methods of rule employed by the Bolshevik dictator in Russia itself from, for example, the writing and speeches of the Prime Minister himself during the last twenty years. We know how the Red Army behaved in Poland in 1920 and in Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Galicia, and Bessarabia only recently.

We must, therefore, take into account how the Red Army will certainly behave when it overruns Central Europe. Unless precautions are taken, the obviously inevitable horrors which will result will throw an undue strain on public opinion in this country. "

From a letter from the British ministry of information.

If most people believe it, it isn’t necessarily fact. Remember the Middle Ages.

27:If the Nazis wanted to exterminate the Jews they could have easily just shot them into pits like the judeo-bolshevicks did, instead of wasting valuable resources transporting them.

If the nazis wanted to exterminate them, then as Heinz Weichardt, a German Jew, said they could have simply put up signs in the east declaring open season on Jews because Ukrainians etc all wanted revenge for what the Jews had done to them.

In fact the Germans applied the rule of law fairly and countless Jews alive today owe their lives to them.

28:Admiral Canaris was head of German Intelligence, and a traitor.

If there had been a Genocide policy he would have told the allies.

Hence there was no Genocide policy.

Similarly as politically Germany was divided between conservatives, many of who betrayed Hitler, and Nazis. It would be fair to assume that any Genocide policy would have not been politically realistic. German officers obeyed Hague and Geneva conventions and Manstein did not even implement commissar order to execute mass murdering communist commissars.

29: Nazis did not think that way. The only people talking Genocide were communists like Ilya Ehrenburg and American Jewish leaders.

Nazis did business with Zionists and top Nazis wanted to have Der Sturmer closed as an embarrassment. All the evidence is for an emigration policy.

30: Psychological war was judged as having won the first world war so there was a chance it would be used again. Atrocity propaganda is very effective. It was used in Gulf war also. Kuwaiti baby story later admitted false. Only limit is the credulity of the public.

31:Zionists needed anti-goy propaganda to get the Jews to go to Israel and the mobilise them. The Holocaust is the basis of Jewish identity today.

32:Atrocity propaganda was needed to cover Morganthau’s genocidal agenda towards Germany. His aim was to starve 30 million Germans.

Obliteration propaganda. Allies murdered millions of Germans under cover of the holocaust propaganda.

33: The amount of compensation claims towards Germany is itself proof that there was no genocide. Finkelstein mentions this.

Clearly there is a fraud one way or the other when something like 4 million have received cash from Germany.

34:The parallels with religious arguments should make intelligent people suspicious. No evidence, oh it all went up in smoke, how convenient. Very similar to resurrection religious beliefs. In the logical no-mans land, irrefutable but ridiculous.

In this case we have 6 million Jews summoned into existence who are not shown to have any demographic reality.

A ghost army of 6 million a bit like emperor chin’s terracotta warriors.

35:The blatant bias in the media wakes up intelligent people but intimidates them also. It was obvious to me as a teenager from the filthy degeneracy and retardation of modern art especially that the wrong side won but it was only when I found out that the holocaust did not happen did I realise that the decision of WW2 must be reversed somehow or western civilisation is doomed to oblivion.

The fact that you have never seen a television programme giving the Nazis side is proof that we live in a Totalitarian society where large scale frauds are possible.

36:Type of gas used would be a mad choice, and diesel is almost impossible to kill with. Even Patrick Buchanan commented that you can’t gas people with diesel after an incident where people survived for hours in a train tunnel constantly exposed to diesel fumes. Zyklon was used to save lives. Germans had producer gas and this could easily be used to gas people. The fact that the holocaust story claims two impractical gassing methods proves it is a fraud.

37: Holocaust historians such as Hilberg and Davidowitz give totally different figures for the numbers allegedly killed in camps and no evidence. Yet we are supposed to take their guesses as evidence and history.

38: Not a single gassed body has ever been produced and no one has ever been charged with operating a gas chamber.

39:The holocaust is an example of the big lie theory. Once you understand how it works you can see it being used everyday on television. Hitler was the genius who first described it and gave an example of its use by the Jewish media in Mein Kamph. Orwell had a similar concept called blackwhite. Chutzpah is the Jewish term that I even hear been used by some Anglo-Saxons these days.

40: Germans highly civilised and more so than the Brits and Yanks etc.

Only an idiot would believe in stories such as lampshades of human skin and soap. But Nizkor still defends lampshade story and Yad yashem talks of a rumour about Ilse Koch and lampshades. Discovery channel still repeats this nonsense. The BBC repeated soap claim, I saw it in the "World at war" series, narrated by Laurence Olivier, they showed a silly German woman who helped spread this story. Lipstadt and others have abandoned soap story even though it was used at Nuremberg.

It took the allies to stoop to the level of making things like that. Look up the use of Japanese bones as ornaments by Americans. That’s the effect of the hate propaganda that was part of the allied war effort. Perhaps people who are so dehumanised can more easily believe their enemies capable of this sort of behavior.

41: Germans needed labour.

42:Hitler ordered solution of Jewish problem postponed till after the war.

43:Films like pawnbroker and war and remembrance claim Jewish women were used as whores by Germans but it was illegal for a German to have sex with a Jew by the time of the war ‘racial defilement’

44: Schindler’s list gives impression that Jews could be shot out of hand but Germans were execute for killing Jews, law was applied fairly (see Robert Faurisson's work).

45:Jews could avoid going to camps through baptism, if the Nazis had a Genocide program this would not make sense.

46: Hungarian Jewish leaders led their people to the camps in 1944 even though the allies and the Zionists and communists had been going on about gassings and mass murder since 1942. The Jews themselves did not believe the stories.

47:Stony silence about allied war crimes from all information sources. Once you realise this and have heard a few of the allied atrocities you must also doubt whether you have been told the truth about the Germans.

48:Ask your local Historians and Journalists and see their response.

Ask them whether they would be willing to sign a document stating their belief in the gas chambers. Their mad neurotic responses will be more proof than any of the above.

49:If the Allies started the war and did terrible things, their only option would to be to lie. It has worked for them hasn’t it?

50:Reinhold Elstner burnt himself alive in protest against the holocaust lies. There is something wrong with a country that jails its old soldiers and doesn’t even give a decent burial to the million Germans murdered by Eisenhower and buried all over the Rhine meadows. Germany and Italy are still occupied by the enemy. German farmers are told to shut up if they find bones and try to arrange their burial.

and also....

1-The post WW2 books composed by the wartime pioneers Churchill, Eisenhower, and DeGaule never said any gas being utilized or any arranged, methodical eradication of anybody.

2-In Eli Weisel's book titled "Night" he doesn't specify gas being utilized and when the decision came that he would withdraw with the Germans or stay and be under the Soviet umbrella he decided to withdraw with the Germans.

3-if there would have been a large number of individuals killed then there would have been huge amounts of human stays covered some place and it would be an abundant excess to stow away for long. No huge amounts of human remains were ever found. What's more, in the event that they would have been cremated then there would have been huge amounts of fiery debris and no slag were ever found.

4-Auswitcz was a spot where synthentic elastic was being created and U.S. insight was centered around Auswitcz therefore. No U.S. insight reports ever gave any sign of gassing or mass annihilation.

5-Jews took an evaluation of their kin before WW2 and after and with the end goal there should have been 6 million individuals executed every single jewish female on this planet would need to brought forth something like 13 youngsters and that never happened. (5.230.139.94 (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC))