Edward Said
Culture is creative and healthy as long as basic questions are debated over and over...
WTFN—Oscar Preview 2012
by Greg Felton
Monday, February 27th, 2012
(THE SCENE: WTFN’s annual Oscar show. Host Lance Boyle and critic Miriam Kale are in their usual high-backed upholstered chairs amid the predictable movie posters and Oscar bric-a-brac. The floor director comes up to the stage: “…and we’re on in 5…4…3…2…” backs away pointing to Boyle. Theme music starts up.)
LANCE BOYLE: (to camera) “Welcome to WTFN’s Oscar Show, the annual event when Hollywood pats itself on the back, and critics kick it in the butt. Joining me in our West Coast studios for this special edition of “The Cutting Room,” is WTFN’s resident movie maven Miriam Kale.” (turns to face her and the camera pulls back into a two-shot)
MIRIAM KALE: Hi Lance! Got my boots on.”
BOYLE: “Well, let’s get at it, and let’s start with one of your predictions that came true—the list of Best Picture nominees still stands at 10.”
KALE: “Curse my accuracy! I could understand this increase if there were a surfeit of great movies, as there was in 1939, but today, when schlock is Paramount and also a Universal blight, a film now merely has to be good or even average to get a nomination. Eventually, though, the one, two or three creditable movies will garner the most votes and then we’re back focusing on the best five. All this fatuous padding does is expose Hollywood’s pathetic need to inflate its own image because it can’t compete with foreign films.”
BOYLE: (laughs) “Well, how about starting on a less pessimistic note. Usually we end the show with your pick for The Leni, so this time let’s begin with it.”
KALE: “Great idea! First, for those who don’t know, The Leni Riefenstahl Award is a new Oscar category for Holocaust® propaganda films. This year there a few worthy nominees, but my pick goes to The Debt, an espionage thriller about retired Mossad agents and the (supposedly) botched kidnapping/assassination of a Nazi war criminal.”
BOYLE: “Good choice, but before we get to your analysis, let’s look at two films I had on my list that you didn’t pick: first, Footnote, the serio-comic Israeli film about duelling Talmudic scholars.”
KALE: “I considered it, but decided the subject matter to be too esoteric. Admittedly, the Talmud has numerous passages that are cited to justify Jewish exceptionalism and the violent mistreatment of non-Jews, and this is clearly relevant to what we see today in Occupied Palestine and throughout the Middle East. However, The Leni is not a religious award. Moreover, since all organized religion is fundamentally irrational and can be exploited by militant lunatics to justify atrocities in the name of “god’s will,” nominating Footnote risked conflating Jews with Zionists, and that would itself have been an act of Holocaust® propaganda!”
BOYLE: “Very logical! I hadn’t thought of that. OK, what about In Darkness, the Agnieszka Holland-directed story of Catholic Poles hiding Jews in the sewers of Lviv to keep them safe from Nazis?”
KALE: “I debated a long time over this. The film clearly meets the Leni criteria of promoting the Jew-as-victim stereotype that drives the Israel-has-a-right-to-exist mantra. It also perpetuates our habit of compartmentalizing fascism to the Nazi era. As much as German fascists persecuted Jews, Jewish fascists are today persecuting Arabs. Gaza is recognized as the world]s largest ghetto, and the Israeli press is very open about the extreme brutality, even bestiality, of Israeli settlers and soldiers toward Palestinians. The more we regurgitate World War II stereotypes the more easily we give ourselves permission to gloss over this reality.”
BOYLE: “So, why didn’t you select it?”
KALE: “Essentially, because it is based on a true story, and as such has a defensible historical component. It also shows Catholics being compassionate towards Jews, and this counters the argument that Polish Catholics were anti-Jewish. It, therefore, has some value.”
BOYLE: “Now, tell us about The Debt and why you picked it to win The Leni.”
KALE: “The Debt takes place both in 1997 and in 1965 as two sets of actors portray the central agents: Rachel Singer (Helen Mirren) and Stephan Gold (Tom Wilkinson) and a former colleague David Peretz (Ciarán Hinds) play the contemporaries, while Jessica Chastain, Marton Csokas, and Sam Worthington, respectively, play them as younger Mossadniks. The Nazi in question is Dr. Dieter Vogel, a Joseph Mengele trope played by Jesper Christensen, perhaps best known for his role as the odious ‘Mr. White’ in the two most recent James Bond films.
“In 1965, Vogel is bound and gagged and being guarded by our three agents in an East Berlin apartment because the plan to smuggle him out of East Berlin to stand trial in Israel for war crimes falls through. Vogel manages to free himself, slash Rachel’s face and escape. Rachel manages to grab a gun and shoots at him as he flees, but did she kill him or did he get away?”
BOYLE: “Sounds like a typical spy movie, and vaguely similar to Mossad’s kidnapping of Adolf Eichmann from Argentina to stand trial in Israel for war crimes.”
KALE: “It should because it’s based on that event, though this is not a true story. In fact it‘s a remake of an fictional Israeli film of the same name! So this is recycled, Anglicized propaganda!”
BOYLE: “I take it that the Leni nomination comes from the movie’s heroic depiction of Mossad.”
KALE: “In part, yes. This slick film reinforces the perverse myth of the Mossad agent as hero. In reality, Mossad agents are international criminals. They have been behind the assassination of Iranian scientists, the World Trade Centre attack, and even plots to assassinate American politicians, like former senator James Abourezk. This film celebrates Jewish terrorism by making these criminals out to be crusaders for justice.”
BOYLE: “But as a Mengele figure, Vogel is supposed to have conducted medical experiments on people. Can’t a case be made for kidnapping a war criminal to be brought to justice?”
KALE: “We have Interpol and other police agencies to arrest people to stand trial. If you condone Israeli vigilantism, you condone criminal behaviour. But because Vogel was a Nazi, he is placed beyond the moral law, and so it is easy for us to subvert our respect for the law and endorse whatever is done to him and at the same time endorse the Israeli mindset. The irony is that Vogel isn’t really so terrible.”
BOYLE: “What!”
KALE: “Psychological and mental torture, including medical experiments, still goes on today at the Guantánamo Bay
BOYLE: “You can’t be serious!”
KALE: “Ever hear of David Hicks? He was the Australian drifter who became one of the first detainees at Gitmo because of the World Trade Centre attack. He was arrested in Afghanistan on a false charge of being a terrorist, and held in seclusion for five and half years. He describes in detail the torture he endured, including medical experimentation, in his book Guantanamo: My Journey, which has been banned in the U.S. and cannot even be sold on-line, despite being published by a large company like Random House Australia. According to Hicks:
‘There were many pills and injections, plus constant blood tests over the years. Everybody regardless of their citizenship should acknowledge that medical experimentation, whether on human beings or animals, is unacceptable. As with animals, we were held as prisoners when these procedures were forced upon us against our will. And as with animals, we were voiceless.’
“In short, ‘Vogel’ is alive and well and working at Gitmo. He isn’t a villain; he’s one of us. If kidnapping or assassinating Vogel is supposed to be morally defensible, why shouldn’t Israelis, Americans, Canadians or other Westerners who are complicit in the Gitmo torture facility also be kidnapped or assassinated?”
BOYLE: “Earlier, though, you said the depiction of Mossad was only part of the reason you picked this film. What’s the other part.”
KALE: “This has to do with the film’s title and the transparent lack of justice driving the latter-day agents. Killing Vogel is all about selfishness and ego. In 1997, Rachel’s daughter penned a book extolling her mother’s honour killing of Vogel, but when an old man in a Ukrainian nursing home surfaces claiming to be Vogel and the press gets wind of it, the book is put in jeopardy. If this old man turns out to be Vogel, Rachel must kill him to settle “the debt” she owes for taking credit for a 30-year-old killing that she apparently didn’t do. Essentially, the The Debt is concerned with public relations as a justification for premeditated murder. So much for justice and the great reputation of Mossad!”
BOYLE: “Anything else?”
KALE: “One last point. The film garners inflated credibility from its excellent cast, especially Helen Mirren in the lead role. When an A-list actress like Mirren, and A-list actors like Wilkinson and Worthington lend their collective talent and reputation to such a movie, the propaganda can easily pass for truth.”
BOYLE: “You make a convincing argument, as always. Before we move on to the other categories, there is one prediction you made last year that didn’t come true.”
KALE: “Yes. I thought that Bruno Lustig‘s inability to find funding for his film about Jews in Shanghai—of all places—was one sign that Hollywood was finally getting the message that the Holocaust® genre was creatively, morally and politically exhausted. Even the Jewish Telegraph Agency speculated that the Holocaust® movie had been done to death. Alas, there is more pro-Israel propaganda on the way, including a new Steven Spielberg version of Moses, the same Moses that Shlomo Sand said never existed. Where are the scripts about Cast Lead, Mavi Marmara, Qana or some other aspect of our modern Holocaust® featuring an updated fascist villain?”
BOYLE: “Have you forgotten who runs Hollywood?”
KALE: (sighs) “No, I haven’t. As the saying goes: ‘There’s no business like Shoah business,’ so I guess we’ll be talking about The Leni for some time.
BOYLE: “We’ll have to wait to see if the Academy agrees with your choice, but I can’t see how it could disagree.”
CLICK HERE TO SEE THE WINNER
BOYLE: “We’ll be back with more of Miriam’s Oscar picks after this commercial message.”
(Theme music and fade out)
Other posts by 40 Responses to WTFN—Oscar Preview 2012
You must be logged in to post a comment Login
Social Network buttons
Media Gallery
Paul Eisen speaks with Gilad Atzmon
An insightful conversation between Gilad Atzmon and Paul Eisen. It takes a deep look into their minds and the troublesome relationship they hold with ‘Jewish identity politics’, ‘Jewish ideology’,’Jewish power’ and Jewish history alongside their prolonged intellectual and political activism.
adn oyed
February 28, 2012 at 12:31 am
I’m puzzled. Is this meant to be an anti-Zionist satire or an anti-Jewish one?
Greg Felton
February 28, 2012 at 1:13 am
Anti-zionist.
adn oyed
February 28, 2012 at 2:07 am
Then why bring up the Talmud? Is the Talmud a Zionist book?
Greg Felton
February 28, 2012 at 5:53 am
The Talmud, and Judaism in general, is used instrumentally to justify the zionist occupation and to reinforce the myth of Jewish moral superiority over Palestinian Arabs. This dogma is basic to Israel, the zionist entity. The fact that Footnote is an Israeli film automatically put it into consideration for The Leni, since any victory for an Israeli film would have been a zionist propaganda coup. Having said that, the essentially religious nature of the film precluded it from serious consideration since its connection to the political reality of zionism was too far removed.
Hope that clears things up.
adn oyed
February 29, 2012 at 12:12 am
I’m having trouble accepting your argument. You’re not saying that “The Footnote” was about the passages in the Talmud that you refer to here, are you? But if not, then your Talmud reference is just sort of a collateral-damage drive-by attack on Judaism.
Hence the confusion about whether you *intended* your satire to be anti-Jewish.
Greg Felton
February 29, 2012 at 8:29 am
I’ll try one more time, but that’s it. The fact that Israel produced Footnote led it to be discussed in connection with The Leni. It is a fact that sociopathic rabbis like Ovadia Yosef exploit the Talmud and the Torah to promote the extermination of Palestine’s native semitic Arab population. Therefore, Judaism is connected to the zionist enterprise, if only instrumentally. In the end, of course, Footnote was rejected because it was religious, not political, which seems to be your point.
Finally, the propaganda value of an Israeli film, any Israeli film, was proven after the awards. Despite Footnote and In Darkness being passed over in favour of an Iranian film (!) some Jewish guests at an after party tried to claim a victory of sorts because the winning director of The Artist, Michel Hazanavicius, is a French Jew—as if anyone cares. Later Israeli Documentary filmmaker Dan Katzir optimistically observed: “with each year, Israel gets closer to winning an Oscar.”
Had Footnote won, it would have represented that long-awaited propaganda coup. That’s why it was included. Period.
ariadna
March 12, 2012 at 8:41 pm
I agree with Oded Yinon (hope I solved the anagram correctly).
The Talmud is off limits. Don’t even mention it. You don’t get to throw darts at religions based on what you find absurd or reprehensible in them and in their application by those in power.
The criterion is entirely different. You cannot touch the religion of those under the shield, as the ancients said, only those ON it.
Besides, there is no BALANCE in your piece. Nothing about the Koran. It doesn’t need to be new and creative; the 99 virgins thing is still popular.
And is it so hard to remember that you should not say “Jews” when referring to the Israelites, or in fact to any… ahem.. jews? It’s, you know, anti-semitic.
In your defense I suspect you’re not Jewish: only Jews know when the word “jews” is appropriate. I could give you a few pointers, like, use it when discussing Nobel prize winners or anti-zionist zionists, etc. But I am not sure you are entirely educable.
Greg Felton
March 18, 2012 at 12:48 am
Dear Ariadna:
First of all you did not get the anagram right, probably because “adn oyed” isn’t an anagram. An anagram is a series of letters that can be rearranged. You cannot derive “Oden Yinon” from “adn oyed”, which is probably nothing more than a pun on adenoid, a generally useless gland in your throat.
Oded Yinon is an Israeli journalist who exposed Israel’s hegemonic imperial ambitions in the Middle East. (See page Chapter XV, p.392 of my book The Host and the Parasite
Regarding your other points, the Talmud is not off limits and I’ll throw as many darts at it, or any religious book, as I want. No topic is off limits in a free society. If you had actually read my piece, you would have noted that I repeatedly said that I rejected Notebook for The Leni precisely because it is predominantly religious, so your criticisms are groundless.
You also should know that “anti-semitic” is a nonsense word that has no credible meaning. It was invented by a German to reinvent Jews as an ethnic group (which they are not) so that they could be discriminated against.
Finally, and most importantly, Jews have no monopoly on the use of the word “Jew”. I can use for whatever purpose I please, whenever I please. There is no such thing as a private “Jewish” language wherein only certain people are permitted to use certain words.
“Jew” is a common word, and non-Jews do not need a Jew to “give them pointers” on how to use it. Jews are not special. Jewish fascism, Jewish terrorism, Jewish conceit, and Jewish gangsterism are all legitimate topics that I have written about and will continue to write about, especially in satires like this one.
The cult of Jewish exceptionalism, the moral root of Jewish fascism, needs to be debunked, and to do that The Talmud and all aspects of Judaism are fair game for scholarly criticism and analysis.
It is you who is not educable.
Jay Knott
March 18, 2012 at 6:10 pm
LOL – Greg – Ariadna was being sarcastic – you’ve been ironically challenged – and you’re not even American!
ariadna
March 18, 2012 at 9:43 pm
Jay, I’m glad you got it but even gladder that Greg did not because it goes to show that zionist ravings are very hard work for a satirist.
No matter how grotesque the pastiche, it retains amazing verisimilitude.
I really enjoyed yours, Greg and shared it widely.
Greg Felton
March 19, 2012 at 12:11 am
Well, you got me!
True, I did not perceive Ariadna’s satire because it is indistinguishable from the standard zionist rant. Ariadna is right: zionist ravings do not lend themselves to satire. However, the last line—“But I am not sure you are entirely educable”—undermined the satire, making it look like a personal attack.
At any rate, I’m glad you both enjoyed my piece. I e-mailed the organizer of the “Razzie” awards to see if he’d be interested in including “The Leni”, but haven’t heard back.
ariadna
March 19, 2012 at 1:05 am
Why, the personal attack made it perfect, I thought. Attacking the messenger is obligatory in zioprop. I can see how it could confuse: too true to form.
Your Oscar preview could so easily be turned into a video to place on youtube–it’s all there!
aemathisphd
March 19, 2012 at 4:26 am
I would suggest that any of you looking to throw barbs at the Talmud begin by knowing thing one about it.’
This place is loaded with people who spout off at the mouth without knowing thing one about their topics.
Greg Felton
March 20, 2012 at 5:14 am
Can you back up that charge, or are you just spouting off?
aemathisphd
March 20, 2012 at 12:38 pm
I would, to begin, suggest you familiarize yourself with those passages in the Talmud that clearly forbid Zionism as heretical to classical Jewish thought. You are, of course, aware of those passages, no?
Jay Knott
March 20, 2012 at 4:48 pm
The Abrahamic religions are notoriously contradictory – there’s something for everyone in each of them. There are passages that forbid various things, and passages which mandate them. God is merciful, slay the idolators, etc. etc..
aemathisphd
March 20, 2012 at 4:55 pm
It is impossible to justify Zionism on the basis of Jewish religious law. It simply can’t be done. There’s a reason why Zionism was the creation of irreligious Jews and why religious Jews were relative latecomers to the party.
Jay Knott
March 20, 2012 at 5:03 pm
1 Samuel 15
aemathisphd
March 20, 2012 at 5:35 pm
Two points, Jay:
(1) The books of Samuel don’t constitute Jewish Law. In fact, even the Torah (first five books of the Bible) by itself does not constitute Jewish Law, although I suspect you know this. No, you’ve got to go a little further than that to mount a challenge.
(2) I can’t even see how the passage you quoted supports Zionism. Please help:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+15&version=NIV
aemathisphd
March 20, 2012 at 5:39 pm
By the way, if you’re looking for the warrant for genocide against the Amalekites from the Torah, it’s at Deuteronomy 25:17-19.
And no, that’s not a warrant for Zionism, as the Amalekites are being punished for ambushing the Israelites. It’s also not entirely clear that the Amalekites are Canaanites, and therefore, settlement of the Land of Israel would not have required their destruction.
Sort of a double fail.
Jay Knott
March 20, 2012 at 6:19 pm
We are all Amelakites, being punished for ambushing the Israelites!
ariadna
March 20, 2012 at 8:17 pm
I have come to agree with haematisPhD now that he finally made it crystal clear that your quotes are not from the Talmud, about which none
of you knows the first thing, but from the Torah, about which you also know nothing since you can’t tell a deuteronomy from diddley squat, and the
Torah has nothing to do with Jewish Law, and so it has nothing to do with Israel, which was started by the zionists who are not religious
since the religious jews were late comers, and the quotes do not mean what you think they mean because the Amalekites most likely did not originate
in Canaan but came there later to ambush the israelites, in case you were about to make false territorial and compensation claims in their name and their genocide was not perpetrated by Israel but by Israelites who had not yet arrived in Israel because Israel did not exist yet.
I have bibliography.
At any rate jews are separate from judaism, and judaism from zionism and zionism from some jews, but if they are zionists they are jews because jews are always jews unless they are self-hating Jews, which you can tell because they hang out with anti-semites.
aemathisphd
March 20, 2012 at 9:06 pm
You’re an asshole.
solar
March 21, 2012 at 12:34 pm
That’s all she’s got. I’ve learned that there’s a very simple way to get rid of her: just ask her to do anything that requires actual thought or reading, rather than spewing hatred. Just ask her to back up what she says with actual fact. And she will silently tiptoe away.
ariadna
March 21, 2012 at 1:56 pm
I must admit I am very intimidated by your doppelganger ever since he dropped the big bomb on us:
aemathisphdReply
March 21, 2012 at 1:16 pm
Are you aware my doctorate is in English literature?
I just want to know if you have a doctorate also so as to decide if I want to ‘silently tiptoe away.’
Greg Felton
March 22, 2012 at 2:05 am
Why the hostility? What did Ariadna say that was so wrong?
aemathisphd
March 22, 2012 at 2:39 am
Want the whole list, or just the top ten?
Greg Felton
March 22, 2012 at 4:51 am
Let’s start with five.
Greg Felton
March 21, 2012 at 2:42 am
Well, that certainly was fun!——lots of good back and forth.
aemathisphd is correct:
1. the Talmud does forbid zionism, given that the Jews aren’t supposed to move back to Palestine until the prophet Elijah heralds the return of the messiah. So far as I can tell, that hasn’t happened.
2. The zioJews that created Israel were irreligious; in fact, they despised the religious Yiddischer Jews and so helped the Nazis round them up for concentration camps.
Ariadna’s last comment was satirically delicious.
solar
March 21, 2012 at 12:37 pm
Greg, you’re simply wrong on this. Please find a citation in the Talmud that forbids Jews from returning to their homeland before the messianic era. You won’t be able to.
aemathisphd
March 21, 2012 at 1:13 pm
Correct; rather, it’s the issue of how the Jews return, in what numbers, and what form of government under which they should live.
Quite simply, the Talmud forbids the Jews from using force to occupy Palestine, and it forbids them rising up against the pre-existing governments in any country in which they live.
Greg Felton
March 22, 2012 at 2:03 am
OK, I take your point. I conflated the Elijah story from the Torah with the Talmud. Sorry. Aemathisphd, however, is correct about the Talmud forbidding Jews from rising up against governments. This is the reason that many Jews traditionally opposed zionism, and why Israel, strictly speaking, is not a “Jewish” state.
I was under the impression that only after Elijah swans down from heaven were Jews permitted to regather in Palestine. Is this not correct?
aemathisphd
March 22, 2012 at 2:41 am
Well, it’s true that mass Jewish settlement in Palestine is not supposed to take place before the coming of the Messiah, and the Messiah’s arrival is supposed to be heralded by the return of Elijah. So technically, yes. See, e.g., Malachi 4:5: “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD…”
aemathisphd
March 22, 2012 at 2:55 am
I would add that solar is not necessarily wrong: Certainly it has to do with the third element of the laws under which Jews in the Diaspora are enjoined to live. To review:
(1) Do not enter Palestine en masse using force
(2) Do not rise up against Gentile governments
(3) The Gentile nations ought not persecute the Jews too gravely
The argument put forward by the Hardal set is that the third prong was tripped by the Holocaust. Ergo, Jews may return to Palestine using whatever means are necessary and certainly MUST establish their own government there. The father of this development within Orthodox Jewish theology was undoubtedly R’ Avraham Yitzhak Kook, who was the first Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Palestine, and who is the spiritual ancestor of the Religious Zionist set, even though he himself was a Mitnagid (non-Chasidic ultra-Orthodox).
Notably, however, there are large schools of thought that deny Kook’s point of view, and the mainstream within Orthodox remains adherent to that stream. E.g., even an outwardly Zionist organization like Chabad-Lubavitch is not Zionist per se, as it opposes what it views as going around Jewish Law to establish the state. However, they oppose giving any conquered land back to whomever on the basis that this too violates Jewish Law (which, of course, it does). Other Chasidim and Mitnagdim in Israel run the gamut from benign neglect of the state (most of them), to willful participation in government but not military (Agudas Yisroel), to outward hostility (Edah HaChareidis
R’ Yoel Teitelbaum pretty much wrote the book (Va’yoel Moshe) on religious anti-Zionism, and he bases his argument wholly on the three prongs noted above. I’ve not read it, so I’m not sure how he deals with Rule #3, but I’ve heard it’s on the basis that the Holocaust happened because of Zionism; therefore, it can’t be used to justify that the Gentiles violated Rule #3.
That’s a thumbnail sketch of the issue but pretty thorough.
aemathisphd
March 22, 2012 at 2:56 am
Oh, and very notably, Kook formulated his opinions on Zionism before the Holocaust, so clearly he thought pogroms were sufficient to justify Zionism.
Greg Felton
March 22, 2012 at 7:16 am
R’ Yoel Teitelbaum is quite right. Gentiles were not solely responsible for the Jewish persecution. Zionist Jews, like Ben Gurion and Shamir, actively colluded with the Nazis to rid Europe of its Jewish population. See, for example,
http://www.gregfelton.com/middle/2005_07_07a.htm
and
http://www.gregfelton.com/middle/2005_07_12.htm
In addition, the “6 million” figure predates the end of World War II by 26 years, so the “holocaust” is more of convenient excuse than a reason for Israel. As Ben Gurion told Nahum Goldmann, future head of the World Jewish Congress:
“If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?”
aemathisphd
March 22, 2012 at 12:39 pm
“In addition, the “6 million” figure predates the end of World War II by 26 years”
Oh, for Christ’s sake…
Greg Felton
March 23, 2012 at 4:20 am
It’s true, believe it or not.
The first mention I have of “6 million” being used in connection with violence against Jews dates to 10/31/1919. This citation comes from a hysterical rant called “The Crucifixion of Jews Must Stop” from the American Hebrew, written by former NY state governor Martin H Glynn:
It begins:
“From across the sea, six million men and women call to us for help, and eight hundred thousand little children cry for bread.”
The number “six million” is repeated four times!
The number is apocryphal, not real.
aemathisphd
April 22, 2012 at 2:40 am
Regarding the six million figure being “apocryphal,” please see my note here:
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/04/thomas-dalton-responds-to-roberto_29.html
Greg Felton
April 24, 2012 at 7:44 am
This is mildly interesting but not persuasive. In fact, the evidence that the 6 million figure is bogus is compelling.
I will respond to you shortly on the thread of my Gilad Atzmon/Ali Abuminah piece. I consider this topic on this thread closed.