Back to Main Page

Conspiracies and Underdogs

This document will cause emotional turmoil for most people, so try to read the entire thing before you make any decisions.

updated 8 Jan 2006

History is Warped

Our history books and encyclopedias tell us that Oswald killed Kennedy by himself, that lots of men walked on the moon, and that 19 Arabs attacked us on September 11. After investigating such events, my conclusion is:

American schools do not "teach history" to their students. Rather, they "deceive" students with "government propaganda".

An American with a Ph.D. in history does not have an "advanced degree in history". Rather, he has "extensive exposure to propaganda".

Americans with PhDs in history are often given the title of Doctor. A more appropriate title would be Victim or Fool.

Hundreds of people, including most of my relatives, have told me that astronauts did walk on the moon, and that I am a fool to think otherwise. Many people complain that I should stop promoting the nonsense that the Apollo is a hoax. They tell me that I am going to ruin my reputation and make the 9/11 movement look stupid.
If those people were dictators of the earth, they would remove the Apollo material from my web site, and they would prevent me from talking about it. They would do this for my own good, and for the good of the human race.

Should we have laws against Apollo conspiracies?
President Bush gave a speech to the United Nations in which he advocated that we do not tolerate "outrageous conspiracy theories" in regards to the September 11 attack.
If President Bush were to propose a law that prohibits "wackos" from promoting the "outrageous conspiracy theory" that the Apollo moon landing is a hoax, I would not be surprised if most of my relatives and millions of other people would support the law.
Would you approve of a law that prohibits outrageous Apollo conspiracies?

Explain, don't suppress
How would suppressing my opinions about Apollo make life better for anybody? If I am wrong about Apollo, wouldn't the best solution be to show me where I am making my mistakes?
Nobody benefits when somebody's opinions are suppressed if he has reasons for his opinions. It makes more sense to show him where he made mistakes in his reasoning.
Consider how this concept applies to children. Imagine you send your child to kindergarten, and the teacher asks him what two times two equals. He responds:

"Well, zero times zero equals zero, and one times one equals one, so I think two times times equals two!"

Would you approve of the teacher if he told your child to shut up, and if he sent your child to the principal for punishment? Or would you prefer the teacher explain to your child why his reasoning is incorrect?
Likewise, if people walked on the moon, why not show me where I am making a mistake? Why tell me to shut up? I have a Science Challenge about Apollo, and nobody has yet been able to explain where my mistake is. Until somebody can show me my mistake, I am not going to remove it.

A government is justified to demand evidence
If somebody were to accuse you of a crime, and if he had no supporting evidence, you would be upset. You would not consider his "baseless accusations" to be "free speech".
Both citizens and our government officials should demand people provide supporting evidence for their theories. Without supporting evidence, a person does not have a "theory", rather, he has something else, such as slander, libel, insults, defamation, or insane ramblings.
I am making a serious accusation when I say Apollo is a scam. I am accusing NASA of committing a major crime, and wasting enormous amounts of money. I am also accusing them of helping to destroy the morale of America.
If I did not have reasoning for my accusations, the government would be justified in telling me to remove my Apollo material from my web site. If I refused, they would be justified in arresting me.
However, since I have reasoning for my accusations, the government should show me where I am making mistakes.
There is a subtle difference between a government demanding that people support their accusations with intelligent evidence, and a government that suppresses the questioning of historical events. Judging by what is going on in Europe, I don't think many people can understand this subtle difference.

Why is Europe afraid to question historical events?
Europe has not passed laws against promoting conspiracy theories about Apollo, but six nations have laws that allow arresting people who promote conspiracy theories about the Holocaust. Some nations also stop conspiracy theories about Anne Frank's diary.
A few people have been arrested as a result of these laws, but the arrests seem more symbolic than serious. For example, some of the people have been given small fines, and some have been given jail terms of only a few months.
Some of the people arrested are university professors. The other professors, scientists, and engineers do little or nothing as these professors are arrested. Are Europeans becoming accustomed to the idea that their friends might go to jail for questioning the government?
If next year the European governments pass a law against questioning the September 11th attack, and if they locked a professor in jail for 15 years for questioning the official story about the September 11 attack, would the other professors complain? Or would they be so accustomed to watching professors locked in jail cells that they consider it just another routine arrest?

What is going on in Europe?
These laws to stop people from promoting conspiracy theories about the Holocaust are justified as a method to protect us from Nazis who are trying to make Hitler look better.
Here is the Jewish version of why these laws are needed: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/denial.html

Most Europeans seem to be thankful that their government is protecting the truth about the Holocaust. Most Europeans do not seem to understand (or maybe they just don't care) that the truth does not need laws to protect it.
The difference between a law against libel and a law against conspiracy theories seems too subtle for most people to grasp. Here is one way to describe the difference:

A law against libel is intended to suppress accusations with no supporting evidence. This is justifiable.

A law that stops conspiracy theories will stop people who disagree with the government. There is no justification for a government to suppress serious investigations or serious theories.

So why would European governments pass a law to stop conspiracy theories about the Holocaust? Are they trying to prepare people for laws that prevent conspiracy theories about September 11th, or an even bigger scam that has not yet occurred?

Why is it illegal to question the Holocaust?
As of today (March 2005), American University professors are legally permitted to create conspiracy theories for every historical event. Of course, only a few professors bother to use their freedom. One exception is professor Norman Finkelstein. His research can help us understand one of the reasons some people are supporting laws against questioning the Holocaust.
Finkelstein's mother and father were prisoners in Nazi camps. After they got out of the camps they met each other on and got married. They told their son Norman about life in the camps. Eventually Norman noticed that the official story did not exactly match the stories from his parents. Finkelstein was confused, so he looked more deeply into the events of World War II.
Finkelstein eventually wrote a book in which he complains that enormous numbers of Jews are pretending to be survivors of the Nazi prison camps in order to get money from the German and/or other governments. He says his mother made the sarcastic comment:

"If everyone who claims to be a survivor actually is one, who did Hitler kill?"

Paul Rassinier was a prisoner at both the Buchenwald and Dora camps. During the 1950's and 1960's (he died in 1967) he wrote several books to dispute the gas chambers. His reason for writing about the camps was:

"Then one day I realized that a false picture of the German camps had been created ...

...I suddenly felt that by remaining silent I was an accomplice to a dangerous influence."

Professor Robert Faurisson in France has been complaining for decades about the distortions about the Nazi camps. These professors complain that a lot of Jews have grossly exaggerated the camps in order to extort money from European nations and America.
A lot of Americans would respond that the Jews are justified in exaggerating the Holocaust. The problem with allowing people to distort history for revenge or financial benefit is that our history books become lies rather than an accurate description of human life.
Unfortunately, most people don't care about history, so they don't care whether history books are accurate. Most people are interested only in football games, Star Trek fantasies, and alcohol. Millions of people would complain if television announcers got the football scores mixed up, but they would not care if history books are distorted in order to cover up government scams, or to allow people to extort money.
Only a few people care that the Holocaust has been exaggerated. Some of them are professors, and some of them were prisoners of the camps. They are upset because they would like to see honest and accurate history books, not books that have been contaminated by criminals.

The Incubator Babies

As I describe in How do we distinguish Truth from Lies, there were stories circulating in America in 1990 about the evil Iraqi soldiers throwing babies out of their incubators.
There were eyewitnesses to this atrocity, such as this adorable girl who is holding back tears as she tells the world about those horrible Iraqis.
Millions of Americans were enraged that the evil Iraqis would behave in such a savage manner, and this anger helped to bring support for the war in Iraq. The glorious, righteous Americans charged off to battle and slaughtered the evil Iraqis.
Am I allowed to ask, how many babies were thrown out of the incubator? Am I an Incubator Baby Denier for asking such a question?
Some people claim that zero babies were thrown out of incubators, and that the entire story is a hoax in order to enrage the Americans.
Do you think history books should teach children the truth about the incubator babies? Or do you think the truth is irrelevant?

Deniers? Or Truth Seekers?
The people who complain that the Holocaust has been distorted are often referred to as "Holocaust Deniers". This is as deceptive as calling people "conspiracy nuts", or "anti Americans" or "unpatriotic" for questioning the official story about the September 11 attack.
These "Holocaust deniers" are not denying that the Nazi camps existed, nor are they denying that people died in the camps. Rather, they are complaining about the distortions and lies about the camps.
The term “Holocaust denier” was certainly created to give these people a bad image. A more accurate term for these people would be “people who are disgusted by the inaccuracies and lies in our history books.” An even better phrase would be “Holocaust Truth Seekers”.
The Holocaust Truth Seekers want an accurate record of history. Some of these Holocaust Truth Seekers were prisoners in the camps, or children of prisoners, so they ought to be able to describe their experiences in the camp. Why should the government stop them from describing what they saw?
The primary complaint of the Holocaust Truth Seekers is that the Nazi camps were slave labor camps, not extermination centers. The Holocaust Truth Seekers claim that most of the deaths were caused by typhus epidemics due to lice, and shortages of food during the final years of the war, not gas chambers.
I think most people would respond,

“What difference does it make whether the Nazi camps were intended for slave labor or for extermination? In either case, it was unimaginable abuse.”

What happened at the Abu Ghraib prison?

If you don't think there is any difference, or if you think that the Jews are justified in exaggerating the Nazi camps for their financial benefit, how would you feel if the Iraqi people exaggerated the crimes at the Abu Ghraib prison?
I don't know much about what really happened at the prison, but news reports had admitted that some American and British soldiers embarrassed or frightened some Iraqi prisoners.
There may have been a few murders and some serious torture, but to most of the prisoners, Abu Ghraib must have seemed like a country club compared to the prisons of World War II and the American Civil War. In fact, the ordinary Iraqi prisons may have been worse.
The Iraqis outside the prison often suffered from incredible bombings, food and water shortages, and crime. If I was an Iraqi, and if I had to make a choice between being outside the Abu Ghraib prison or being a prisoner, I would ask for a tour of the prison before I made my decision.
If you think my remark seems absurd, consider how it applies to Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.. He was an American soldier during World War 2, captured by the Germans, and put in a prison camp in Dresden. He almost died when the Americans and British bombed the city for no apparent reason, other than to kill German civilians.
It is possible that some of the Jews that survived the prison camps came from cities that were bombed simply for the purpose of killing Germans. If those Jews had been living in Dresden, they might have died. When those Jews were released from the prison camps, they should have thanked the Germans for getting them out of Dresden.
The more I looked into World War I and World War II, the more I realized that our history books are full of lies. If it is OK with you that the Jews lied about the Germans, how would you feel if people lie about the Americans and British?
How would you feel if the new Iraqi government decides to exaggerate the Abu Ghraib prison in order to extort money and sympathy from the American and British people?

Imagine Iraq exaggerating Abu Ghraib
Imagine an announcement from the Iraqi government that the Iraqi universities have investigated the Abu Ghraib prison and discovered thousands of bodies in mass graves.
Weeks later the Iraqi government releases another report that states that further excavations at the prison have discovered dozens of additional mass graves. The total for the dead Iraqis is now up to 2 million.
They also claim that many of these Iraqis were raped before being killed, and many of them were children. To further increase anger towards the American and British soldiers, they claim that many of the Iraqi children were raped after they were killed, and some were eaten.
How would those news reports affect the world? I think that most of the British and American soldiers who worked at the prison would be shocked, and make remarks similar to:

"I knew that a few Iraqis died, but millions? And I never knew about the raping or eating of dead bodies. I am ashamed of my nation. I am ashamed to be a soldier."

Then imagine a few weeks later the Iraqi government releases another report to announce the discoveries of more mass graves. They also discover mass graves of Iranians and Turks. The total for the Abu Ghraib Holocaust is now up to 6 million dead Iraqis, 3 million dead Iranians, and 1 1/2 million dead Turks.
Then imagine that the Iraqi government starts demanding enormous amounts of money from Britain and America as compensation for the Abu Ghraib Holocaust.
And imagine that millions of Iranians, Turks, and Iraqi citizens claim to be families of the victims or survivors of the camp, and they want compensation for the abuse, the rape, and the beatings.
If such a scam were to occur, a few of the British and American soldiers who worked at the prison would wonder:

"How could so many people have been killed at that prison without me knowing about it? I was in every area of that prison, and I never saw any mass killings. Which of my friends soldiers were doing the killings and the raping of dead bodies? And how did they they kill and bury so many people so secretly?"

Some of the Iraqi prisoners would also wonder how so many Iraqis could have been killed when they never saw any of the deaths.
Eventually these inquisitive soldiers and prisoners would look through photographs and other evidence and notice that there is no support for the claims that millions of people were killed. They would wonder:

"Did the the American and British military dispose of all the evidence so perfectly that not one trace of it remains? Or is the Abu Ghraib Holocaust a gross exaggeration?"

The Iraqi government would want to stop these people, and what better way than to pass a law against denying the Abu Ghraib Holocaust? The law would be justified as protecting the truth of the Holocaust.
If somebody complained that the Iraqi government was exaggerating the Abu Ghraib Holocaust, many American and British citizens would respond with such remarks as,
"The actual number of dead Iraqis is not important. Whether a million Iraqis were tortured to death, or 6 million, it was a terrible crime."

If it is OK for Jews, why not Iraqis?

If you would refuse to support the Iraqi people if they lied about the Abu Ghraib prison, why would you support the Jews who lie about the Nazi prisons?
If you believe it is OK for Jews to exaggerate the Nazi prisons, why not allow every other group of people to exaggerate?
If you allow one group of people to lie, it makes it difficult for you to reprimand other people for lying. If you are going to demand honesty from one group of people, you should demand it from all other groups.
One of the reasons this world has so many problems is that the majority of people are hypocrites. Most people demand honesty of other people; not for themselves. Most people want strict law enforcement for other people, but not for themselves.
The Holocaust Truth Seekers are not claiming that the Nazis were nice to the prisoners, rather, they are complaining that most of the prisoners died from disease and starvation, not gas chambers. Some of the Holocaust Truth Seekers are professors, and they want to teach their students history, not fiction.

Life is however you want to look at it
If you do not like my example of the Abu Ghraib Holocaust, here is another one for you.
Imagine that the Native Americans get control of America in the future. What do you think they would write in their history books about the creation of America?
I think they might describe the immigrants from Europe as criminals, alcoholics, and misfits. They might describe these immigrants as brutal savages who slaughtered the Native Americans, lied constantly, and used smallpox as a biological weapon of mass destruction.
They might refer to the slaughter of their ancestors as The Holocaust. They might describe North America as a Death Continent. They might describe the "Indian Reservations" as Death Camps. And they might describe the United States of America as a nation of corruption, slavery, crime, drug abuse, and immoral behavior.
They might describe the USA a cancerous nation that infested North America for centuries, and which caused worldwide chaos when they acquired nuclear weapons. They might describe the immigrants as "Europe's vile, human garbage".
What would you think if the native Americans passed laws that allowed them to arrest anybody who disagreed with those particular descriptions of history? Would you be happy to see professors arrested for "Holocaust Denial" when they complained that the "Indian Reservations" were not really "death camps"?
Should history books refer to the immigrants from Europe as pioneers who defended themselves from savages? Or were they Europe's Wretched Refuse who slaughtered the native Americans? Did those immigrants create the greatest nation in the world where people are free? Or did they create a nation of incredible corruption, immorality, and slavery? Should we refer to the camps as "Indian Reservations" or as "death camps"?
Life is however you want to look at it. We must be free to discuss all issues.

Will the hypocrisy ever stop?
Most Americans treat the killing of Native Americans as family entertainment. For example, when I was a child, a common game was called “Cowboys And Indians”, in which the kids pretended to Cowboys or Indians, and then they had fun killing the Indians. Toy companies provided props for these games, such as uniforms, guns, and bows and arrows.
If a German toy company provided props for a game called Nazis and Jews, in which the German children pretend to be Nazis who put Jews into prision camps, people around the world would probably condemn the Germans. So why is it acceptable for Americans to treat the killing of Indians as family entertainment?
Americans also look favorably at the slavery of this nation. Many Americans justify our slavery on the grounds that the Southern plantations needed the African slaves because only Africans could handle the heat. While it certainly seems true that Africans can handle heat better than Europeans, that does not explain why the Africans had to be slaves. It seems to me that an African citizen can tolerate heat just as well as an African slave.
I suppose if the people in Minnesota were using Alaskan Eskimos as slaves, they would justify it on the grounds that Eskimos are better at handling the cold weather.
Since Americans are permitted to create idiotic excuses to justify our slavery and our slaughter of the native Americans, why can't other nations devise idiotic excuses for their slavery and their killings?
Every nation behaves exactly like the nations they condemn. Every government and the majority of citizens appear incapable of intelligent reasoning. Selfishness is extreme all over the world.
If Americans truly were the greatest people in the world, we would set a good example for other nations, rather than behave in the same disgusting manner as the people we condemn.
We should encourage Europeans to get rid of their laws against questioning historical events. We should tell them that it is OK to discuss the Nazi camps, the September 11th attack, the Madrid Train bombings, and all other historical events.
I will start the by showing some interesting aspects of the Nazi camps.

What really happened in the Nazi camps?
The official story is that 6 million Jews, 3 million Poles, and millions of gypsies, criminals, and other people were executed at those extermination camps. However, it does not take much of an understanding of statistics to realize that the actual number could not possibly be exactly 6 million Jews or exactly 3 million Poles. Even when I was a young child I considered those figures to be just approximations to the nearest million.
But some people are complaining that those figures are not even rounded to the nearest million. Rather, they complain that only 3 million Jews were killed. Other people say it was less than one million Jews. I've seen one estimate of less than 40,000. How can there be such wild differences of opinion over what happened at those camps?
We can start by looking through the photographs. The US Military had photographers and news reporters with the troops, so there