Atrocity Propaganda, Then and Now

[Stubble]

This documentary meanders a bit, but, it covers a lot of ground. AI has been used to narrate the work in the voice of Andrey Vyshinsky, the famous judge that oversaw The Red Terror and the Soviet team at Nuremberg, among others.

The piece also covers the Atrocity Propaganda surrounding 10/7.

The coincidental theory of jewsih identity I don't find compelling, but, it's there. Wrapping the pill in this way may be intentional to remove identity politics from the argument.

[Hektor]

When dealing with the issue of Atrocity propaganda one needs to know some basics on social psychology and how people are influenced and manipulated. So there is basic psychology to be considered and then the works of folks like Edward Bernays, Edgar Schein, Robert Jay Lifton, Kurt Lewin etc. (And yes, they are). The next step is to look how governments and political groups apply that as well as this works on populations.

That said, you can ask Grok, Chatpg, etc. about it... Also asked them about Holocaust Religion, Erinnerungskultur and the effects thereof.

[Stubble]

The work of 'The Tavistock Institute' is also worth investigating.

Yes, this is a very broad topic and there are MANY individual pieces that all connect, overlap and integrate.

I can't just point at one guy, one group or even one government and say 'it was (((them)))'.

Just too many pieces.

[Hektor]

The work of 'The Tavistock Institute' is also worth investigating.

Yes, this is a very broad topic and there are MANY individual pieces that all connect, overlap and integrate.

I can't just point at one guy, one group or even one government and say 'it was (((them)))'.

Just too many pieces.

Can be added, sure. One needs to know what the different figures or groups teach. And one can also noted what group/groups are overrepresented in that field.

[Nessie]

It is important to not conflate atrocity propaganda, with eyewitness evidence. They are very different.

[Stubble]

Just going to throw 2 more videos down here;

[Eye of Zyclone]

[Hektor]

..

Did that poetic license also apply to his War Refugee Board Auschwitz Report?

https://archive.org/details/WarRefugeeB ... witzReport

[Eye of Zyclone]

Did that poetic license also apply to his War Refugee Board Auschwitz Report?

https://archive.org/details/WarRefugeeB ... witzReport

Since his book was based on his mendacious report, it did. Of course. Once a liar, always a Jew, er... an actor.

[Nessie]

Vrba co-produced a report, in 1944, that made it clear he did not see everything he was reporting on. He was clear he never worked or even saw inside the Kremas, so of course any information from him is hearsay. In the 1960s and 1970s, he wrote books and gave interviews that at times blurred the lines, between what he saw and the hearsay. In 1985 he was cross-examined at a trial, where he was specifically asked about his blurring of the lines and he admitted to that. Vrba has been quite open about his mixing of hearsay and what he saw and it is easy to tell which is which. He did not work inside the Kremas, therefore everything he states about how they functioned inside, is hearsay.

[Hektor]

Vrba co-produced a report, in 1944, that made it clear he did not see everything he was reporting on. He was clear he never worked or even saw inside the Kremas, so of course any information from him is hearsay. In the 1960s and 1970s, he wrote books and gave interviews that at times blurred the lines, between what he saw and the hearsay. In 1985 he was cross-examined at a trial, where he was specifically asked about his blurring of the lines and he admitted to that. Vrba has been quite open about his mixing of hearsay and what he saw and it is easy to tell which is which. He did not work inside the Kremas, therefore everything he states about how they functioned inside, is hearsay.

Did he mention that in the report?
So how did he come up with the Krema drawings then?



The drawing is actually so bad, nobody that was longer than 5 minutes in Birkenau would have made that mistake.


Well, VRBA is classic case of a malicious liar then. He COULD not know at the time, but hey he was for sure right on that it happened, right... Because there are other 'witnesses' that said something similar.

[Nessie]

Vrba co-produced a report, in 1944, that made it clear he did not see everything he was reporting on. He was clear he never worked or even saw inside the Kremas, so of course any information from him is hearsay. In the 1960s and 1970s, he wrote books and gave interviews that at times blurred the lines, between what he saw and the hearsay. In 1985 he was cross-examined at a trial, where he was specifically asked about his blurring of the lines and he admitted to that. Vrba has been quite open about his mixing of hearsay and what he saw and it is easy to tell which is which. He did not work inside the Kremas, therefore everything he states about how they functioned inside, is hearsay.

Did he mention that in the report?

He was clear that he did not work inside the Kremas, so therefore he made it clear he did not see gassings, or the cremations.

So how did he come up with the Krema drawings then?


Is that his "rough" plan, that he typed out in English? Since he did not work inside the Kremas, I would not expect any plan he drew to be accurate.

The drawing is actually so bad, nobody that was longer than 5 minutes in Birkenau would have made that mistake.

Exactly. Vrba was not in the Kremas.

Well, VRBA is classic case of a malicious liar then. He COULD not know at the time, but hey he was for sure right on that it happened, right... Because there are other 'witnesses' that said something similar.

You have not proved he lied, rather than he made mistakes, and yes, the operations inside the Kremas, are well corroborated, by multiple sources of evidence, therefore they are proven.

[Eye of Zyclone]

Vrba co-produced a report, in 1944, that made it clear he did not see everything he was reporting on. He was clear he never worked or even saw inside the Kremas, so of course any information from him is hearsay. In the 1960s and 1970s, he wrote books and gave interviews that at times blurred the lines, between what he saw and the hearsay. In 1985 he was cross-examined at a trial, where he was specifically asked about his blurring of the lines and he admitted to that. Vrba has been quite open about his mixing of hearsay and what he saw and it is easy to tell which is which. He did not work inside the Kremas, therefore everything he states about how they functioned inside, is hearsay.

Did he mention that in the report?
So how did he come up with the Krema drawings then?


The drawing is actually so bad, nobody that was longer than 5 minutes in Birkenau would have made that mistake.

Well, VRBA is classic case of a malicious liar then. He COULD not know at the time, but hey he was for sure right on that it happened, right... Because there are other 'witnesses' that said something similar.

In 1944, the U.S. War Refugee Board sold it as "eye-witness accounts of events which occurred in notorious extermination camp," but 'omitted' to tell people that Vrba and Wetzler hadn't seen the core of the 'report' (i.e. the alleged murder factories of Auschwitz-Birkenau) with their own eyes (as Holohoaxers now claim for damage control purposes), or in other words, that the Vrba-Wetzler false report was 100% useless to document any alleged mass murder policy in Auschwitz.

[Nessie]

.....

In 1944, the U.S. War Refugee Board sold it as "eye-witness accounts of events which occurred in notorious extermination camp," but 'omitted' to tell people that Vrba and Wetzler hadn't seen the core of the 'report' (i.e. the alleged murder factories of Auschwitz-Birkenau) with their own eyes (as Holohoaxers now claim for damage control purposes), or in other words, that the Vrba-Wetzler false report was 100% useless to document any alleged mass murder policy in Auschwitz.

That states "eyewitness accounts of events", so not specific to the Kremas. Vrba was an eyewitness to many of the events he included in the report, so that description of him is not entirely inaccurate.

That headline describes them as "escapees". I cannot read the rest of the article, to see how else they are described, but the headline is not misrepresenting that they saw gassings.




[/quote]

Whoever drew the plan, did not produce a very accurate layout, but they acknowledge that, by describing it is "rough".

[Eye of Zyclone]

.....

In 1944, the U.S. War Refugee Board sold it as "eye-witness accounts of events which occurred in notorious extermination camp," but 'omitted' to tell people that Vrba and Wetzler hadn't seen the core of the 'report' (i.e. the alleged murder factories of Auschwitz-Birkenau) with their own eyes (as Holohoaxers now claim for damage control purposes), or in other words, that the Vrba-Wetzler false report was 100% useless to document any alleged mass murder policy in Auschwitz.

That states "eyewitness accounts of events", so not specific to the Kremas. Vrba was an eyewitness to many of the events he included in the report, so that description of him is not entirely inaccurate.

Yes, that was like the most-documented-genocide deception Holohoaxers love so much. Vrba was an eyewitness to insignificant things like the camp canteen menus and the color of the bath towels, but he saw nothing of the imaginary policy of mass murder that gave his people of land thieves a state they so ardently wanted.

That headline describes them as "escapees". I cannot read the rest of the article, to see how else they are described, but the headline is not misrepresenting that they saw gassings.

Come on. The title and subtitle "The Inside Story of Mass Murdering By Nazis" and "detailed accounts of the gassing and cremating of 1,765,000 Jews at Birkenau" of course implied that those alleged witnesses had seen those things with their own eyes. Huge bad faith detected.

And newspaper reports of that time stated that those alleged witnesses "saw the butcheries committed in the human slaughter-house where the Nazis slaughtered and exterminated by gas 1,765,000 Jews."

Whoever drew the plan, did not produce a very accurate layout, but they acknowledge that, by describing it is "rough".

It was not rough. It was all wrong.