The burden of proof is on those who say that there was a gas chamber at one time in that building. Do they have any evidence at all to support that claim? In my tenure as a Holocaust revisionist, I'm sure if there was any, I'd have seen it. I can also add that those questionable four holes in the roof of the building are not detectable in any of the aerial photograph blowups that I've seen. To get to the truth of this matter, there are some other pertinent questions that can be asked. If there was at one time a functioning gas chamber in this building, why was its operation halted, especially if the Nazis were running Auschwitz as an extermination center? Well, Dr. Pieper has an answer for that one too.

In an essay published in the Polish book Auschwitz, Pieper writes that exterminations were moved to new gas chambers in the Auschwitz-Birkenau complex because it had become too difficult to keep the gas chamber at the Auschwitz main camp a secret from the inmates. This has apparently become part of official Auschwitz lore because it's something that Alicia repeated to me on the tour. In spite of, this crematorium was next to blocks where the prisoners lived. That's why extermination was moved to Birkenau. That's why four crematoriums with gas chambers were built in Birkenau. Now, let's be perfectly clear about this.

They say that exterminations were moved to Birkenau because the gas chamber at the main camp was too close to the inmates and therefore they could know what was going on. But is this even remotely accurate? Let's refer back to our map of the main camp. Now here's the gas chamber right there. And there's the rows of inmates' barracks. As you can see, the gas chamber is well outside of the prison compound and is hidden from view by the three SS buildings, which effectively hide it from the inmates' sight. Plus, we're told that arrivals who were going to be gassed would be taken in through here, thus avoiding any and all contact with the other inmates. This was a gas chamber that could have functioned completely isolated from anybody's notice. Now this is Auschwitz-Birkenau in an Allied aerial photo from September 1944.

These are the two crematoriums and gas chambers with the crematoriums above ground and an L-shaped below ground rooms that were either gas chambers or mortuaries. And here you have the rows and rows of inmates' barracks. Now the thing that becomes immediately clear is there is nothing but a barbed wire fence hiding the inmates' barracks from the gas chambers. And this over here was the Auschwitz sports field right next door to the gas chambers. And another thing to notice is not only could you see the gas chamber parallel with the barracks, but you could see diagonally to the one across the way from you. Nothing was hidden from the inmates. Another interesting thing was the train that would come up carrying the doomed inmates, you would have thousands of inmates being marched off the trains into one of these two gas chambers in full view of the entire camp.

This was a spectacle that nobody at the camp could miss. They would see thousands of people marching into those buildings and nobody coming out. These were gas chambers that were not isolated from anyone and indeed when these aerial photographs were released in the late 70s they contradicted many supposed eyewitness claims about how the Nazis had tried to camouflage the gas chambers at Birkenau. I spent several days here at Birkenau and the footage I have, which is available on a separate tape, dramatically shows everything I've just been saying. Frankly, I don't think Pieper's claim holds any water. Another question that should be asked, is there any Zyklon B residue in the gas chamber, knowing that cyanide gas would, in fact, leave a residue?

In 1988, execution equipment expert Fred Lutzer conducted forensic examinations on the gas chambers at Auschwitz. To answer that question, he took samples from the four gas chambers at Birkenau, the one at the main camp, and a control sample from one of the disinfestation chambers that we know did use Zyklon B. Now, the gas chamber samples showed almost no appreciable traces, whereas the disinfestation sample literally went right off the scale. More importantly though, in 1990, the Institute of Forensic Research in Krakow decided to conduct their own forensic tests to see if they could refute Fred Lutzer's findings. And they did this with Dr. Pieper's help. And their own tests got back the same results.

So since then, the question has not been, are there any appreciable traces of Zyklon B residue in the gas chambers, but instead why are there not any appreciable traces? I put this question to Dr. Pieper. I asked him why are there so few appreciable traces in the homicidal gas chambers compared to the large amounts of traces found in the disinfestation chambers. operated very short time, about 20, 30 minutes during 24 hours and in disinfection rooms. It was, it operated the whole day and night. Such was the procedure of using this in disinfection rooms and in the gas chamber. Now let's be perfectly clear about what Dr. Pieper is saying. I ask him, why is the residue count high in the de-lousing chambers but low in the homicidal ones?

And he answers, because the de-lousing chambers were used, quote, day and night, whereas the homicidal ones were used, quote, about 20-30 minutes during 24 hours, which would account for roughly one gassing a day. Now, not only does this contradict the eyewitness testimonies, which speak of repeated homicidal gassings going on day and night, but Dr. Pieper also manages to contradict himself, because later on in the interview I ask him how many groups of people a day would be gassed, and he too speaks of repeated gassings. How many groups of people every day were gassed in Crematorium 3? It's difficult to say, because there were periods when gas chambers were used every day.

So it's somehow, it's just anxious and repeated, so gas and burn, gas and burn, and so on. We have to ask this question. Could the high death rate at the camp have occurred if the gas chambers were used only 20, 30 minutes during 24 hours as Pieper initially claimed they were? In a New York Times article about the aforementioned book by Jean-Claude Bressac written to refute revisionists. New York Times writer Richard Bernstein writes that, according to Pressack, it would have been necessary for the extermination rooms to have been emptied of corpses and refilled with new victims every half hour or so, as would have been necessary for such a large number of victims. In other words, he realizes that for such a high death rate, multiple gassings every day at an extremely fast pace would have been necessary. So what we have here is a contradiction. The concept of limited use of the chambers could conceivably explain the lack of residue, but limited gassing contradicts eyewitnesses and makes the high gassing death rate technically impossible.

Also, the concept of limited gassing makes ridiculous the idea of German intent to completely wipe out the entire Jewish population. Literally, to support one part of the Holocaust story, Pieper ends up jeopardizing another. Unfortunately, what passes for Holocaust history has become such a complex balancing act of rationalizations. This is why its proponents prefer you not ask too many questions, like the ones concerning Zyklon B. And what about the gas itself? We are shown many canisters of Zyklon B gas as proof of the final solution, but apart from delousing, which everyone agrees on, and harmicidal gassings, which the Auschwitz officials maintain, did the gas have any other uses? So also upon the dissipation of the buildings. So there was such a... Was it routine for the buildings to be disinfected? Sometimes, sometimes.

Such a... They tried to work it out. To remove all the lice. Now let's recap again. We now know that Zyklon D gas was used to de-louse clothes, to disinfect buildings, and if you'll remember the calculations of Holocaust supporter Jean-Claude Pressac, over 95% was used for disinfection, with only 5% or less used for homicide. This seems like a great amount of effort on the part of the Germans to preserve the health of people who were meant to be exterminated. And I think at this point we can move on. We return now to our job of trying to decide between the two alternate views of the reconstructed gas chamber. Is it a fake or a faithful reconstruction?

One very important question is this. Can we trust the Soviets to have faithfully reconstructed the gas chamber? Since there is no wartime proof of there ever having been four holes to where they had originally been and reconstructed, instead of fabricated, a gas chamber. If we're going to try to establish Soviet intent, we need to look at what precedent there is concerning Soviet truthfulness regarding the Holocaust story. Do the Soviets have a history of fabricating Holocaust evidence or using deception to support the concept? Well, as we've already shown, the Soviets quite brazenly exaggerated the figures of dead at Auschwitz by at least four times. But was this simply a well-intentioned error on their part?

We are told in the Auschwitz guidebook and also by other sources that the reason it was so difficult to ascertain the number of victims at Auschwitz was because the Nazis had destroyed the appropriate records. This concept was also repeated to me by Dr. Pieper. Who initially came up with the figure of 4 million people dying in Auschwitz? It was estimated by some that the accomplishing by the Nazi group It would be faster to take it, since the Nazis destroyed it, and still documents are secure. But in fact, the Auschwitz camp death records were held by the Soviets, not released until 1989. These documents were not destroyed by the Nazis.

I think we can assume that during all those years the Soviets were handing out their exaggerated death figures, they knew they had these books in their possession. We can also look at discredited charges made by the Soviets and supported by the other allies at the Nuremberg trial. The Soviets claimed that there were steam chambers for killing inmates at the Treblinka camp in Poland. Now, of course, that claim has been quietly dropped. Also dropped are the claims of electrochambers. Most interestingly, we have the Soviets at Nuremberg claiming that it was the Nazis, not the Soviets, who murdered the thousands of Polish officers in the infamous Katyn Forest Massacre.

These days, of course, the Soviets have admitted that they are the ones responsible, and most legitimate historians knew this all along. But at Nuremberg, the Soviets claim that the Nazis bribed and threatened people to falsely blame the Soviets. The now discredited atrocity stories of Nazi created shrunken heads and human skin lampshades were also exhibited as fact. And in an almost inconceivable charge, it was claimed that the Nazis exterminated Jews with an atomic bomb. Also presented as fact was the story that the Nazis made soap from the bodies of Jews. Let's examine this one a little more closely. Now, the Soviets actually submitted supposed Jewish soap at the Nuremberg trial, but today, Holocaust scholars like Raoul Hilberg, Yehuda Bauer, and Deborah Lipstadt agree that these accusations are groundless.

But let's be more specific here. Simon Wiesenthal, perhaps one of the most recognizable names in the Holocaust arena, wrote in 1946 in a series of articles for an Austrian Jewish paper about boxes of Jewish soap. On the boxes were the initials R.I.F. Pure Jewish Fat. These boxes were destined for the Waffen-SS. The wrapping paper revealed with complete cynical objectivity that this soap was manufactured from Jewish bodies. The civilized world may not believe the joy with which the Nazis and their women and the general government thought of this soap. In each piece of soap they saw a Jew who had been magically put there and had thus been prevented from growing into a second Freud, Ehrlich or Einstein. How very fiendish! It's not hard to imagine such devilish behavior after decades of seeing two-dimensional Nazi villains in movies and on TV. The soap story has also been immortalized in William Shire's best-selling Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, as well as in countless other Holocaust articles, books and even school textbooks. But can we speak with such certainty about this incredible atrocity?

Nowadays, those designated as Holocaust experts are as firm as Wiesenthal and Shirer regarding the Sob story, except that they say it isn't true. In 1981, professor of modern Jewish history and Holocaust expert Deborah Lipstadt wrote in a letter to the Los Angeles Times The fact is that Nazis never used the bodies of Jews, or for that matter anyone else, for the production of soap. The soap rumor was prevalent both during and after the war. It may have had its origin in the cadaver factory atrocity story that came out of World War I. The soap rumor was thoroughly investigated after the war and proved to be untrue. Now that's pretty clear. director of archives at Israel's Yad Vashem Holocaust Center, confirmed in a Chicago Tribune article titled, A Holocaust Belief Cleared Up, that historians have concluded that soap was not made from human fat.

Now I have a few reasonable questions. First, has anyone told Simon Wiesenthal that he's wrong? Secondly, if there was no soap made from Jews, then that means the Nuremberg soap and the testimony about human soap at Nuremberg is wrong. Third, Deborah Lipstadt speaks of a thorough investigation of the soap story, and Shmuel Krakowski speaks of historians having concluded that the soap story is wrong. By speaking of a thorough investigation and a consensus by historians, Lipstadt and Krakowski are able to drop the soap story while at the same time affirming their faith in the soundness of establishment Holocaust history. But is that faith appropriate? Not only was the soap story not thoroughly investigated and refuted after the war, but even today there is no consensus among historians and experts concerning the soap story. As recently as 1991, village voice columnist Nat Hentoff was still talking about having seen Jewish soap with his own eyes. And Dr. Pieper? Well, he still supports the discredited soap story.

There was such an intense abuse of soap in the Holocaust in the Jewish camp where they were shooting fire with lights. So that was where it was done? So it was made such an offense. done. As you can see, the Holocaust experts prove themselves hypocrites when they tell you that there is no need to question the Holocaust story, that it has already been proven beyond question. And here I don't mean to suggest that the soap story is the only thing the experts are not in unison about. Far more importantly, even though they present a united front in support of the gas chamber concept, many of them realize that there is little documentation for it, which brings us to the real myth of the Holocaust.

The myth is that the existence and use of homicidal gas chambers is well documented. In fact, the thing that really got me interested in this subject in the first place was the lack of documentation for gas chambers presented in the standard Holocaust works, and the contradictions and guesswork inherent in the evidence that was presented. Several times now we've mentioned the book by Jean-Claude Pressak. This book was published in 1989 by the famed Nazi hunting duo the Klarsfelds and heralded as the final refutation of Holocaust revisionism. In this book, Pressak offers this damning condemnation of what has passed for for Holocaust history among traditional historians.

Bresak says that his book demonstrates the complete bankruptcy of the traditional history, a history based for the most part on testimonies, assembled according to the mood of the moment, truncated to fit an arbitrary truth, and sprinkled with a few German documents of uneven value and without any connection with one another. Also in 1989, Jewish Princeton professor and refugee from Hitler's Europe, Arno Meyer, wrote in his Holocaust book, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken, that sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable. Meyer also wrote that more Jews died in Auschwitz of natural causes than by gassings or shootings, and his book angered other Holocaust experts who've called it everything from dangerous and ugly to a perversion of the Holocaust.

My point is, when the experts tell you that there is no room for debate about the gas chamber story, they are hiding the fact that they debate each other about it frequently. Oftentimes the reason for a reluctance to answer hard questions about the gas chambers comes from the fact that the experts secretly realize that the gas chambers are simply not well documented and that much of the documentation we have has already been discredited. Indeed, the specter of fraudulent Holocaust evidence from the Soviets has reared its head in more current events like the prosecution of Ukrainian-American John Demyanyuk, whose incredibly flawed war crime's conviction was based, in part, on faulty Soviet evidence. And speaking of fraudulent evidence, some Holocaust experts seem to have difficulty explaining the difference between what's fraudulent and what's real.

We return briefly to Jean-Claude Pressak's book on Auschwitz, a book meant to refute revisionists. Here, he shows us a picture of a gas-tight door from a de-Lausing room which he claims the Soviets falsely represented to be from a homicidal gas chamber. Yet several pages later, he shows us a door which he claims is a genuine homicidal gas chamber door because of the metal hemispherical grid protecting the peephole. Presak offers this door as a proof that homicidal gassings occurred, but there's just one unanswered question. How does Presak know that this door too isn't a Soviet put on. If we admit that the Soviets went around misrepresenting and reconstructing things, how can we tell a difference between what's real and what's not? In the case of that supposedly genuine door with the metal grid over the peephole, I asked Dr. Pieper if I could see it for myself.

a gas-type door with a metal grid around the peephole. Is that still around any place? Does that still exist? It is in one of the rooms of crematorium. Crematorium one? Yes, in crematorium one. Is it possible for me to see that? Your main promise is a direct view of the door. Because it is, and all of it, and all of it. But doesn't it seem normal, throwing up trusting that?

I very much like to see that. Well, guess what? After the interview, we went to the director's office, got the keys, and explored every room in crematorium one, and no homicidal gas chamber door with a metal grid over the peephole. No one knew where it went. I guess it simply vanished, like magic. So, in answer to our question about precedent regarding Soviet trustworthiness, I think we've established that we can't really accept anything on faith, because evidence certified as real one year might be considered fake the next. Evidence you are told is genuine can in fact be a so-called reconstruction. And if the Holocaust experts themselves can't agree on what's real and what's not, then surely they prove themselves hypocrites when they insist that homicidal gassings cannot be questioned.

With all this talk about Soviet deception, I think it's necessary to put this matter in its proper historical perspective. You see, we live in a time now when the old Soviet Union has fallen apart, and it's now okay for both liberals and conservatives, as well as everybody else, to speak ill of the dear departed communist state. But it was not always that way. During World War II, the Soviets were more than just a military ally. Their anti-Nazi propaganda was readily accepted by the other allies because it served all of their purposes. It has to be understood that Russia's communists and Germany's fascists had had a long-running propaganda battle, both before the Hitler-Stalin non-aggression pact, and of course after, with the outbreak of war.

Both Stalin and Hitler were men capable of, and quite adept at, propaganda. Yet the vestiges of our acceptance of Soviet propaganda still linger to this day. German poster, we most likely immediately dismiss it as paranoid Nazi anti-communist propaganda. Yet are we so conditioned to dismiss a similar Soviet work as paranoid anti-fascist propaganda? The point is that we have a hard time realizing that Stalin's anti-German propaganda was just as virulent as Hitler's anti-Soviet propaganda, and that, as the victors, the Soviets got to commit their propaganda to the history books as fact. But all charges and counter charges made during World War II must be re-examined with the 2020 hindsight we now have, the knowledge of Stalin's despotism and the KGB's history of misinformation and deception. And this re-examination must include the charges of genocide made against the Nazis, especially considering that for Auschwitz, as well as the other camps in Poland, Majdanek, Belzec, Chelmno, Treblinka and Sobibor, we've had to rely on the Soviets for most of our information.

And if the Soviets exaggerated the number of dead at Auschwitz, who's to say they didn't also do it at the other camps? Why would they exaggerate Auschwitz by four times and then be brutally honest about Treblinka? However, lest I appear to be unfair, it should be added that our own army and propaganda department did not sit idly by and let the Soviets have all the atrocity propaganda fun. After the war, it was claimed at the Dachau camp that people were gassed. In fact, the army produced several propaganda films supporting that notion. Hanging in orderly rows were the clothes of prisoners who had been suffocated in a lethal gas chamber. They had been persuaded to remove their clothing under the pretext of taking a shower for which towels and soap were provided.

Yet now it is no longer claimed that anyone ever died in a Dachau gas chamber. This is a clear case of wartime propaganda. It should also be added, in fairness, that it was the British who obtained, by torture, the confession of Rudolf Hirs, Commandant of Auschwitz, before turning him over to the Soviets and Poles. This has been confirmed in a book published in 1983, titled, Legions of Death, which contains the recollections of British Sergeant Bernard Clark, who brags about having tortured Hirst to get a confession out of him and of threatening his family.

Which brings us back to Auschwitz. It was here, behind the building we've talked so much about, the supposed gas chamber, that Hirst was hanged for running an extermination camp. But can we say now that that was a just sentence, with the main evidence being a confession obtained by torture and a reconstructed air raid shelter. Perhaps you will answer that the sentence was still a just one, since there did run an internment camp where people did indeed die in high numbers from disease and malnutrition. Yet if you consider internment of citizens based on their race a crime worthy of hanging, then what should have been done with the American soldiers who ran our internment camps in the United States for Japanese Americans? And if you consider running a camp with such a high loss of life a crime punishable by death, what should have been done with General Eisenhower and his soldiers who ran post-World War II prison camps where anywhere from several hundred thousand to over a million Germans died from disease and malnutrition?

nutrition. Camps that prompted Lieutenant Ernest Fisher of the 101st Airborne Division and former senior historian of the United States Army to remark in the recent book Other Losses that starting in April 1945 the United States Army and the French Army casually annihilated about one million men, most of them in American camps. Eisenhower's hatred passed through the lens of a compliant military bureaucracy, produced the horror of death camps unequaled by anything in American military history, an enormous war crime. Clearly, the only thing that separates Auschwitz from what the Allies did is the concept of exterminations, of genocide, of homicidal gas chambers. If you remove the exterminations from the Auschwitz equation, you are left with a tragedy, yes, but not a unique tragedy. A war crime that was duplicated by the Allies during World War II. So our question regarding the authenticity of the Auschwitz main camp gas chamber takes on an added importance. Was it a real gas chamber or a simple air raid shelter redone to look like one? And if we haven't reached a definite answer to that question in this short video, at least hopefully I've shown that it is a legitimate question to ask.

And although there might not be any easy answers, one thing is for certain, this issue is far from over. I had wanted to have an open reading of what is Zionism? What are we talking about as we move from the Nazi Jewish quote problem? Who were the real Nazis? What was the German lineage? What happened during that period of time before the war? How was it that the laws were being changed in Germany bought up, taken over by the Jewish element. I don't want to get sidetracked onto Jewish versus anything else, any more than they should be. Projecting lies, you see, I consider the revisionists are the ones who first revised history.

And yet they managed to even turn it around so that you don't know who they are, we are, you are, and thus and so. So that who is the revisionist? This young man says, well, I am a revisionist. He is also Jewish. He puts on his yarmulke and he goes to the camps. But he proclaims himself as being Jewish, although he says, I proudly am an atheist. Well, is atheism a different religion now? Or does that leave him Jewish by race, by religion? What in the world is he talking about? So you have the revisionists, if you will, coming along in the form of such as this young man, who has done a great service, actually. actually, or is it these that will write these kinds of books? People, the same people, the same, I can't think of a word bad enough that's printable to use.

But the same ones who wrote the Old Testament wrote the New Testament, and because you have to have a fulfillment of prophecy according to what is laid down by the ones that are going to end up controlling the world, don't you see that you have just the next edition? You can't say even that Christ came to fulfill the prophecies. Jesus was created to fulfill the prophecies. Don't you see? Not that this was not a fine man, maybe a Christed man. I am going to argue this point if we're going to debate it at all. On the basis of I'm not going to take sides about it, let's be objective. What more proof do you have that Jesus existed, then certainly these ones are offering you in this motion picture a total lie. You know that you had vistas from outer space because they're pictures.

Not just verbiage, they're pictures. On caves and walls, etc. You have history back to Egypt, two thousand years at least before the young master supposedly came through. the Old Testament written by the same bizarre bunch of people. Don't you see that there had to be a fulfillment of the prophecy of quote, the first coming. Now you have to have a second coming. Let's not confuse these with migrations as the ancients would project that as you moving from this world and migrating elsewhere. You have a whole series of biblical stories that matches exactly what they want you to do and hear.

Exactly. So am I saying that there was no teacher. Well, as a matter of fact, the Jews had set up this young Esau Emmanuel to be their king. He was supposedly from the line of King David. But But it got all confused, didn't it? The young teacher that they had was a hippie. He believed in God, in nature, in goodness, and all those right things. His parents taught him well, but the siblings would not even speak with him when he would come into the village. They resented him. So you don't have, even in the biblical stories laid forth, you don't even have the truth there.

There were many siblings for even the one they called Jesus, Esau Emmanuel. So when I refer to Judean Jesucians, I really should say Judean-Hessusians, and it would be closer to the pronunciation of the day and time in which you were exposed to this tale. Number one, Saul of Tarsus never became a friend. I don't care whether he was blinded or not, he was an idiot. He was the prime enemy of this young man. And he never changed. Although they all saw a way to use this new, quote, doctrine that could be birthed out of this confusion, and he traveled all over the known world at that time with his story. And all you have to do is read Acts of the Apostles to see that Paul was very interesting in his opinions about almost everything. That you have later said, well that's not Christly or Godly and we're going to, it's not even fair to the women.

He didn't like women, I want to tell you. So we reinterpret. So the next thing that you have are books like this that are literally dedicated to Jesus Christ, with the stress on Jesus. So let's look at the word Jesus. What does it mean? The anointed one. What does that mean? It doesn't mean anything. You can anoint with words, you can anoint with oil, you can anoint with water, so you drop a little on and smear it around. But the inference is that this is the Son of God, creatures, and he was changed from his name because you did have a body walking around there that this could be related to. And about the only valid interpretation of the Gospels, there are others, but the same ones who wrote the stories chose what would be in the Bible.

So of some 22 or 24 now known Gospels, not to even discuss the one of Judas Iscariot, the one that we have presented here from the original scrolls of the man that traveled with Esau, Emmanuel, all of his life. That one's not even considered. So you've got 24 others, and of those, only four were chosen. And they were in such bad condition that they could be fudged to sort of go along. They were the ones that told the most nearly likable, likely story. In other words, they meshed with each other.

I don't want to have any of you even begin to remotely misunderstand that we're here about Christ. And in a sense, being anointed by God is also a very emotional thing. So Jesus could, in fact, be an emotional term of status or recognition. But that's not why Paul did it. Jesus into his own interpretation of man, human, physical. And the point I want to make is you can't have one without the other. You can pull down the Jewish Zionists in their interpretation of the Bible, but if it is the same Bible they wrote that you try to use as truth, you lie. And you have done a great, great disservice to your brothers. The German people, the true German people, are your line, your ancestors. I don't care where you are. I don't care if you're in Asia.

I don't care if you are black or brown or red or purple. The true German lineage is You have become hybridized, just as the Greeks were blue-eyed blondes, they became infiltrated or merged with the Turks. So they become, between the Turks and the Italians and so forth, a darker breed. I guess that would be a word. So there are very few true races on your globe anymore. And it doesn't matter because the image of God is the energy of God. So as long as you can go through life misinterpreting, mistranslating, you have one thing as a Christian group to confront. Number one, are you a Christian? Well, if you believe, believe in the laws of God, those are Christ's laws. A state of being in goodness. It is an attainment, an I would like to be perfect enough to say that I am Christ-like.

Most of us don't measure up there, because we're too fragmented into the human aspect of expression. But you know whether or not your intent is toward goodness, or toward mostly ego gratification. You don't have to be bad, and I don't know that there's bad or good. There are negative and positive experiences, and yes, I think there's right and wrong. And you know the difference. A child knows the difference, and yet he will just push and push and push until he is taught the difference. So we don't get off with this old, well I just don't know.

Yes you do. Yes you do. You want it proven to you. Well that's alright too. But you have to open your eyes. You have to open your mind. And you have to stop quibbling over, well this is alright, boy that really gets those Zionists. There weren't any six million, well were there ten million, ten thousand, ten Christians killed? There were millions of Christians killed. But nobody notices it. Because you see, you have to have six million Jews. And you see, the word Jew did not exist until 1767, I believe.

is a mistranslation. That's not what they were called. Because the word itself was coined in 1767. That's the 18th century. And if you recognize that, you have to recognize there are going to be errors because the New Testament, the purpose of the Jesus, was to fulfill the prophecies in the New Testament.





