Great work as always from Denierbud however with some important caveats...
ON BLACK SLAVERY AND THE AMERICAN INDIANS
39:50 - "[A major problem with the Holocaust myth is] it takes away from real tragedies like the decimation of American Indians and black slavery."
Regarding black American slavery, Denierbud gives the example of the "Roots" TV series but perhaps is not aware that this series was made possible in large part by Jewish producer David Wolper and by Jewish-owned ABC Studios (Fred Silverman), with Leonard Goldberg (Jewish) as its head of programming. These men have had the opportunity to approve (move forward) or deny (move on) likely hundreds, if not thousands, of different TV show proposals in their careers. They chose to "green light" this TV show, so it begs the question as to why they decided this. The director of the show was Marvin Chomsky (Noam Chomsky's cousin), which is also interesting.
Denierbud may also be unaware of the origins of black slavery which began with African traders specializing in the trade of enslaved human beings for
millenia prior to Europeans ever reaching the continent. But more importantly: the transatlantic slave trade was an extraordinarily-Jewish enterprise for its first couple hundred years, originally limited to South America, where many Jews traveled across the Atlantic to control vast plantations. When considering Jewish vs. overall European involvement on a per capita basis, the proportion of Jews involved in this trade was staggering. Jews expanded their disproportionate involvement in this trade into North America in the 18th-19th centuries, as documented voluminously by the Nation of Islam's (NOI) "The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews" Volumes I and II. NOI also documents how Jews
have concealed their own role in the transatlantic slave trade while also
magnifying the alleged role and abuses of non-Jewish European participants, such as with portrayals in the "Roots" TV series.
Other key facts and context of the transatlantic slave trade which must be carefully understood:
- Africa as a continent had practiced slavery far more in total scale and proportion than any other continent or nation for many centuries prior to Europeans having ever arrived there. In fact, subsaharan Africans in general had no concept of land ownership -- all notions of social hierarchy status were associated to how many human beings one 'owned'.
- When European traders arrived, African slave-traders were all too eager to receive exceptional-quality European goods in exchange for the human beings enslaved under them. Europeans did not immediately and eagerly have use for these offerings (hence why no massive African slave plantations in Europe) but Jewish traders moving into Brazil demonstrated African-worked plantations as an extraordinarily profitable business model, gradually promoting this among other Jews (and some Europeans) as a common practice for the first 150 or so years of the transatlantic trade's existence.
- As time passed, and with developments in North America, the need for additional labor became more prevalent, so Europeans more broadly began accepting black slaves. Still, only a tiny fraction of non-Jewish Europeans participated (some ~1%, as I recall), whereas it is documented per NOI that a much larger proportion of Jewish families had at least one slave. More importantly, evidence suggests that the largest trading volume of black slaves in North America was in the hands of Jewish slave auctions (which were frequently closed on Saturdays for the 'Sabbath' -- a Jewish holiday).
- Gradually, Americans began to recognize that their Christian values were at odds with this practice of the human slave trade. This resistance was present even in the American South, often assumed to have promoted cruel abuses of black slaves in general, which pro-Dixie authors like Lochlain Seabrook have shown to be extraordinarily exaggerated and sometimes outright false both in certain specific narratives and overall impressions. In truth, slavery was "on its way out" in the South even before the Civil War, and only through black market piracy operations (often on Jewish-owned ships with deplorable conditions) did it remain so prevalent much longer. Eventually, in any case, Christians in America and globally made it their mission to abolish slavery not just in the Americas but also across Africa and much of the Arab world and beyond. No other people have done so much to halt or inhibit the intended enslavement of human beings as have European (white) people, and Christians in particular.
Denierbud also mentions the "decimation of American Indians" but he may not be aware:
- American Indians' deaths were overwhelmingly due to the spread of disease which was NOT intended by the Europeans who, themselves, had already been decimated by these same diseases, just centuries earlier. The deaths of these Indians was inevitable -- they would have encountered these diseases eventually, one way or another, and without modern science, these would have necessarily spread in the same way that was actually observed. Even mainstream historiography admits that some 90% or more of the American Indian deaths which occurred since the arrival of Europeans was due to disease, specifically. A key point is that the "disease front" (the rate and geography at which these diseases had spread) outpaced the movement of the Europeans themselves -- these American Indians were most often dead before the Europeans had even arrived.
- Conflicts between American Indians and European settlers were bi-directional, over hundreds of years, and looked different between one group of settlers and Indian tribe versus another. An extreme over-simplification of both the range of time and circumstances of these conflicts is necessary in order for the mainstream characterization of the "[evil European] decimation of American Indians" to remain concrete as is commonly portrayed. But in fact, this chapter of history is also a house of cards. Where conflicts did arise, Europeans ultimately had superior technology and organization, and so generally won in situations where those conflicts persisted for great periods of time.
- The concept of "land theft" with regard to Europeans and American Indians is also relatively absurd. Many Indian tribes were nomadic -- having no interest nor valuation on land ownership and frequently switching locations between seasons (e.g. between modern South Carolina down to Mexico, then back north). Based on this willingness to freely relocate (and due to a general abundance of open land), many tribes were willing to trade exclusive title to portions of land for the high-quality European goods that had impressed them. As war between Indian tribes was also common, certain tribes were even more motivated to trade a great deal for European goods, which eventually included things like gunpowder/firearms. Sometimes, due to misunderstandings (such as related to farming and livestock, as was the case in an early conflict in Jamestown), the native tribe would attack the European settlers, who would respond in kind. But overall, positive and friendly trade relations between European settlers and the local Indian tribes were frequently the norm.
- As conflicts advanced in certain periods and locations, there is no question of specific examples of European abuses of American Indians, some even at large scale (e.g. certain governors promoting policies of expulsion or even genocide against Indian tribes), but these are just as frequently exaggerated or stripped of important context. Any inference to implications are typically generalized far beyond any objective interpretation. Again, the scale of time and circumstances was extreme -- some 200 years' worth of interactions must be recognized, with proper understanding.
ON CHRISTIANITY AS A 'MYTH'
Also in his "Five Reasons Why the Holocaust Myth is Bad" segment (around 32:08), Denierbud emphasizes Christianity as a "myth", attempting to draw parallels between both narratives. He adds that "there is no such thing as the Jews of the Bible because the Bible is fiction." Denierbud is laying his personal views quite thick into his narrative here, so it is worth addressing briefly:
- Denierbud shares the same false assumption which many modern Christians do: that Jesus was "a Jew" as is commonly understood today. This is a semantic misconception -- Jesus did NOT share the same ideology as "Jews" today have. All Jews today are of the ideological strain of the Pharisees whom Jesus repeatedly opposed and fought against, and who ultimately killed Him for it. This is proven by the fact of the "Oral Torah" (spoken traditions of the elders among the Pharisees) which became the basis for the Talmud -- the most revered text in modern Judaism -- which was precisely what Jesus rejected and condemned, over and over again (see the book of John, Chapter 8). Jesus was therefore NOT "a Jew", unless we wish to clarify the important caveats about how a "Jew" in Biblical times meant something very different than it does today.
- It is fascinating that Denierbud claims the "Bible is fiction" despite it being made very clear that what he recognizes to be among the chief enemies of mankind today is precisely the same enemy that Jesus Christ fought against in His lifetime, and the same enemy which mankind has struggled with ever since, for now thousands of years. Maybe that's just a fascinating coincidence, maybe it has no divine basis at all. Yet, it seems, given the fall of many nations and subversive racial miscegenation being implemented globally, that perhaps one of the only forms of collectivization which can now save mankind is religion -- Christianity in particular (although I do think an alliance between Christianity and Islam may be necessary and mutually beneficial, based on shared interests and common principles of divine righteousness [rather than the materialistic ambitions which are central to Judaism]).
ON THE CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF 9/11
Another unfortunate take of Denierbud is his view on Osama bin Laden and, by extension, on 9/11. Here is the translation of what bin Laden actually says (from the caption of the YouTube video Denierbud provides of him speaking in Arabic):
SOUNDBITE (Arabic) Osama bin Laden, Leader of Al Qaeda:
"
This America, God struck it in its heart and destroyed its biggest buildings, so we have to thank God for that. America was filled with terror from the north to the south and from east to west. What America is living through today is nothing compared to what we have been living through for decades. Our nation has been living for more than 80 years with this kind of oppression. Its people are being killed and slaughtered and its religious symbols attacked but nobody listened or responded.
But now God blessed a group of Muslims and opened His doors before them, so they were able to destroy America and I hope God will exalt them and welcome them in His heaven."
Repeat of set up shot
SOUNDBITE (Arabic) Osama bin Laden, Leader of Al Qaeda:
"After what has happened all the important American officials headed by the international atheist Bush, started turning even Muslim countries against us (referring to the international coalition) they started a war against Islam in the name of combatting terrorism."
https://web.archive.org/web/20200701215 ... HInbQcyg2Y
Nothing about this suggests he is admitting to having done 9/11, he is simply justifying it as a reaction to a many years of Muslim oppression, which he explains elsewhere as due to America as a puppet state of Israel/Jews.
More importantly, it seems Denierbud may be unaware of the
overwhelming evidence that Israel was in fact at the center of the 9/11 attacks -- not Muslims. While there were no doubt some Muslim 'patsies' on-board the flights, likely with their own true motivations or even intentions to actually crash these planes into American buildings (whether or not led in some way by bin Laden), there is far more evidence that Israeli operatives incentivized and coordinated the actions of these hijackers at
every phase, as one small part of a much bigger operation which Jews in key positions in the US were in control of (this is quite conclusively shown by researchers like Christopher Bollyn and others), and ultimately benefited from. This is a much larger topic so I will not go much further into it here, but it needed to be said.
ON CAPITALISM AS THE 'TRUE EVIL'
Moving onto another of Denierbud's interesting takes, he puts emphasis on "capitalism" being a core problem in global society and politics, such as with:
49:18 - "That's what global capitalism wants. [...] [Elon Musk] means the world as a collection of historical monocultures instead of one big global capitalism culture with its sex-forward cultural production coming out of Hollywood, and its religion, the Holocaust myth."
Of course, it is patently absurd to suggest that "capitalism" is the core ideology driving racial amalgamation of all European nations. Not only is it
distinctly Jewish names and organizations at the very center of all of these amalgamation/miscegenation efforts now taking place across every majority-White nation (and not only was it Israel/Jews at the center of 9/11, which created the wars and 'refugees' often being used in this amalgamation effort), but there is no explanation as to why or how "capitalists" in general would be so driven to promote such an outcome, whereas these motivations are
abundantly clear with regard to Jews and Judaism. The notion of "capitalism" being the core evil of society stems from early 20th-century Marxist views prevalent in the Soviet Union and its ideological subversion attempts globally. While it is true that capitalism allows subversive elements and centralized power that is certainly NOT good for any nation (hence why Hitler also opposed capitalism in its American form), capitalism is only one of the tools used by the networks most hostile to mankind -- it is not the core evil, in itself. Consider that communism/Bolshevism (ostensibly the antithesis to capitalism) was every bit as evil, or worse.
FINAL THOUGHTS
Overall, I have always enjoyed Denierbud's work but I think that he, as with many others in Holocaust revisionism, may have overstretched his knowledge about certain other topics into his analysis on the Holocaust. The truth of historical manipulation (and Jewish nature and involvement thereof) often goes far beyond what many of those in Holocaust revisionism are inclined to assume.
