The day YouTube banned (and restored) my channel

Another day, another battle. I do little more than fight antisemitism and false history and yet in the last six months I have had two attempts to silence me. The first was a denial of service attack on my website. Given the content of the threats that preceded the actual attack, there was little doubt that it was an antisemitic pro-Corbyn activist. Yesterday was different, yesterday it was the turn of mega-giant YouTube.

On Wednesday evening I received this simple email from YouTube:

YouTube email

YouTube channel violations

Apparently, my channel had ‘severe’ or ‘repeated’ violations of YouTube’s community guidelines. The email went on to tell me I was prohibited from setting up another account to replace it. Effectively YouTube accused me of ‘hate speech’. They did give me the option to appeal, so I did. I was presented with a simple form, which allowed me 900 characters to protest my innocence. I clicked submit and waited.

After a quick check I realised YouTube have recently changed their guidelines and were cracking down on extremist sites. All well and good, but a history book about Hitler isn’t the same as a neo-Nazi book, even if material from one is contained as examples in the other. On Thursday I still hadn’t heard anything, so I publicly tweeted about the banning. Within minutes both Stephen Pollard, Editor of the JC and Marc Gardner, Comms Director at CST attacked YouTube for the action:

YouTube Marc Gardner Stephen Pollard

The JC ran an article, contacted YouTube and shortly afterwards I received an email telling me the account was restored. I can only assume the sudden interest sped up the appeal process. YouTube even apologised for deleting my account ‘in error’. (*Until now I have mainly used it as a platform to upload videos just to support the blog. This is about to change. Please consider subscribing to the channel as I will be giving it a major facelift*).

In any event – account restored and another annoying and time-consuming saga over.

Clapping is not allowed on YouTube

When the account was restored – one of my videos was flagged and removed. It was footage I had taken when I went to see David Icke’s show in Watford:

Icke on YouTube

The video highlighted the applause that Icke had received at the conclusion of his Watford talk. I found it ‘chilling’. It is fascinating that this video needed removing, as Icke’s entire channel, containing hundreds of his videos is still up on YouTube:

For those who think David Icke is tame, they can always subscribe to David Duke’s channel.

But Holocaust denial is okay

In it’s statement, YouTube said that it was banning Holocaust denial. Yet a simple search for ‘H-o-l-o-h-o-a-x’, the most basic way to find such material, still returns material. Here is David Irving, ‘debunking the Holocaust in 3 minutes‘. Elsewhere, you can learn about how ‘wonderful’ the treatment of the camp inmates was in this Holocaust denial video. The channel behind it has been freely peddling hate on the platform for four years.

Speeches by Jew-hating Holocaust denier Eustace Mullins are widely available, but if his American accent puts you off and you seek a more authentic Nazi accent, there is always Ernst Zundel. You can even watch him giving a ‘stark warning‘ to Jewish people. The channel that uploaded the Zundel video appears to have spreading anti-Jewish hate on YouTube for over six years.

YouTube is still a sewer

There is little point linking to hundreds of such videos that I quickly found, and this isn’t even the tip of the iceberg. Brother Nathaneal isn’t a hate-preacher? He is okay – but I am not? And Rothschild Conspiracy? The very pillars of Rothschild Conspiracy rewrite history in order to place the blame for WW1 & WW2 at the feet of the Jewish people. What is that, if not an attempt to cleanse the Nazis, turning the Germans into innocent people that the evil Jews provoked. There are 1000s if not 10000s of such videos on the platform.

I went back to my 2018 Palestine Live report, which listed dozens of hard-core videos spreading hate, to see how many have been removed. Sadly, far too many of these videos are still live, years after they were originally uploaded.

Generally speaking, those trying to avoid capture, frequently change names and locations in order to continue doing whatever they are doing for as long as they can. That does not seem necessary on YouTube. There are channels who have been openly peddling hate for a decade. YouTube may talk about fighting Holocaust denial and Jew-hatred but it still seems as if only antisemitism campaigners and historians really have to be concerned by the new crackdown.



Help support this research

This blog is unique and I engage in deep undercover research. I expose antisemitism and address the false narrative spread from anti-Israel activism. The work is fully independent and many key stories on antisemitism have first been exposed by this research on this site. I was recently named as one of the J100 (‘top 100 people positively influencing Jewish life’) by The Algemeiner. All you really need to know is this – the other side are scared of my work. If you can, please consider making a donation.

You can make PayPal donations using the donate button above.

I have also opened a Patreon page. This is another way to donate a small amount monthly to support my work. Every contribution is both needed and truly appreciated.


128 thoughts on “The day YouTube banned (and restored) my channel

  1. pretty funny that an “antisemitism fighter” get taken down by Youtube, albeit temporarily. now you know how the rest of us feel. it’s so hurtful….

    and the censorship of “holocaust deniers” is increasing of course. shows the increasing desperation of those promoting this evidence-free narrative and the fear they will lose control of it. increasing repression is always the response. many young people have already made up their minds about this and no doubt they will find ways to bypass Youtube censorship through alternative channels. i would predict that when the current crop of young people come of age things will look very different.

    1. The putrid stench of Bullshit is strong with this one. He must spend a lot of time in the sewer or with his head stuck firmly up his arse.

      1. Speaking of “sewers”, chuckie’s head was stuck firmly up Linda SarSEWERs “arse”.

    2. chuckie, OK, I’ll bite.

      What OTHER events in world history were faked, exaggerated?

      Moon Landing? WW1? WW2? American Slavery? Nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Round Earth? Dinosaurs? Evolution?


      Or was it ONLY The Holocaust that was “faked, exaggerated”?

      Tell us you DUMB SACK of SOCIALIST SHlTler.

  2. ‘Holocaust Denier’ implies one who denies that there was ever a Holocaust.

    Is it used by others for anything else?


    1. No. It is used to describe those that either deny it outright, or because of their hate, twist the history so far, the Holocaust no longer resembles the Holocaust.

      1. There are those that claim 17 million people died in the Holocaust. Is that twisting the history?

          1. Ok, David, as long as you don’t take your ball home because of my question.

            So, stating that if 17 million died, 6 million of which were Jewish, and therefore a disservice is being done to the remaining 11 million by touting it as a Jewish centered catastrophe, could be classed,by those wishing to give a false impression, as ‘Holocaust Denial’.

      2. You replied “no”, then proceeded to show that the answer should have been “yes”.


  3. Michael,I must say that your friend Charles makes a compelling case above. Shall we sign up. I’ve dug out Uncle Leopolds striped PJs from the loft. He always said if you kept something long enough it would come back into fashion. I think he meant the clothes though, not the views.

    1. So, Charles is my friend, you say? Mmm.

      Was Uncle Leopold also Jewish?

      I do like though how he used “holocaust deniers”. It is of course a misnomer, well loved and used by David.

      1. Farmer as ‘misnomer’ is correctly defined as,

        “1 A wrong or inaccurate name or designation.
        1.1 A wrong or inaccurate use of a name or term.”

        When has David used the term that it could accurately be described as a ‘misnomer’?

        Or are you once again, much the same as an incontinent chimp, flinging your shit around your cage and hoping that some of it hits David?

        1. Indeed. Doesn’t “holocaust denier” imply one who denies the Holocaust ever happened, Gerald?

          1. Farmer the question I put to you was “When has David used the term that it could accurately be described as a ‘misnomer’?”
            With the follow up question of “Or are you once again, much the same as an incontinent chimp, flinging your shit around your cage and hoping that some of it hits David?”

            Look forward to your answers to the questions that I put to you

            1. On Youtube the ‘David Collier on Holòcaust Denial’ video shows David reading to the camera on the topic of Holocaust Denial.

              In it he features a tweet by one Ariyana Love. The tweet links to a red cross report on the nemer of Jews actually killed in the camps.

              Ariyana Love then puts the figure for those deaths at no more than 300,000. Not a denial of the Holocaust but an alternative figure.

              David labels her an Holocaust Denier.

              Now, Gerald, I have indeed answered your above question.

              1. Farmer sometimes it is hard to comprehend how poor your English language skills are.
                Based on the contents of YOUR post, David’s use of the term Holocaust Denier was definitely NOT a misnomer.

                I quote from the website of the USHMM,
                “Holocaust denial is an attempt to negate the established facts of the Nazi genocide of European Jewry. Holocaust denial and distortion are forms of antisemitism. They are generally motivated by hatred of Jews and build on the claim that the Holocaust was invented or exaggerated by Jews as part of a plot to advance Jewish interests.”

                Time for your next visit to Dr. Ian for some therapy.

                1. As you quote “Holocaust denial is an attempt to negate the established facts of the Nazi genocide of European Jewry.”

                  So, it’s NOT a denialof the Holocaust as I said. It is then a MISNOMER.

                  YOU previously posted….. ‘Misnomer’ is correctly defined as,

                  “1 A wrong or inaccurate name or designation.
                  1.1 A wrong or inaccurate use of a name or term.”

                  I was therefore correct and David is dishonestly using this misnomer in his propaganda.

                  1. Farmer trying to ‘cherry pick’ a part of my post only emphasises your problem with the English language and the truth.

                    You conveniently chose to ignore the next few sentences. Which are,
                    ” Holocaust denial and distortion are forms of antisemitism.”
                    And the sentence that definitely sinks you,
                    “They are generally motivated by hatred of Jews and build on the claim that the Holocaust was invented or exaggerated by Jews as part of a plot to advance Jewish interests.”

                    The first of the sentences you tried to ignore describes you and your ilk correctly.
                    The second of the sentences you tried to ignore describes correctly the twisted motivation for your failed attempts to distort the established facts of the Nazi genocide of European Jewry.

                    1. The museum that you quote puts the number of Holocaust victims at 17 million, 6 of which were Jewish.
                      It then claims that ‘ Holocaust denial and distortion are forms of antisemitism”
                      A nonsensical claim given the the museum itself puts puts Jews in the minority of its victims.

                      It’s an industry, Gerald. Can’t you see?

                    2. Farmer what I can see very clearly by that repugnant remark of yours about “It’s an industry…”
                      Is how apposite this sentence is about you and your vile ilk.
                      “They are generally motivated by hatred of Jews and build on the claim that the Holocaust was invented or exaggerated by Jews as part of a plot to advance Jewish interests.”

                      Now Piss Off Farmer you disgust me!!

                  2. Farmer I appreciate that reading your ‘posts’ is an incredibly tedious chore.
                    But above you wrote this,
                    “Ariyana Love then puts the figure for those deaths at no more than 300,000. Not a denial of the Holocaust but an alternative figure.”

                    In your next ‘post you quote from my post and claim it justifies your spurious claim against David’,
                    “As you quote “Holocaust denial is an attempt to negate the established facts of the Nazi genocide of European Jewry.”

                    So, it’s NOT a denialof(sic) the Holocaust..”

                    Claiming that “..the figure for those deaths at no more than 300,000” is a clear attempt to negate the established facts of the Nazi genocide of European Jewry, and as you accepted in your ‘post’ Holocaust Denial.

                    You owe David an apology.

                    1. That is why Holocaust Denial is a misnomer. Those accused of it DON’T deny the Holocaust.

                    2. David owes the ones that he accuses a decent explanation of why he terms them holocaust deniers when the actually do not deny that the Holocaust took place.

                      He conveniently uses the deceitful term.

                    3. I rather think you need to explain why you are protecting Holocaust deniers. The red Cross post is Holocaust Denial at its finest and if you cannot see this, you do not know what the Holocaust is, nor what Holocaust denial is. Might I suggest, given it is a source of such anguish in the Jewish community – that you simply do everyone a favour and stop talking about something you do not understand.

                    4. Farmer the hole you are digging for yourself is getting deeper and deeper.

                      Let us all know when you reach Australia.

                    5. David, I think you know why I find the term a deceptive one, but it’s a term you insist on using to slur others that DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU.

                      You have trumpeted that THE TRUTH MATTERS. Why then continue to use deceptive terms?

                      Must one be Jewish to weep at the butchery that the Nazis embarked on to attempt to rid the world of those they saw as undesirables?
                      Were Jews alone targetted in that endeavour?
                      Does the term Holocaust relate only to the Jewish victims?

                      To keep alive the memory of that foul endeavour is a necessary thing. Shouldn’t that be truthfully done without resorting to misnomers and double-talk?

                      Should I be confident that you will address these questions without the usual sneering accusations of ignorance … or not?

                    6. Mike – you have just said that putting the number of deaths at 300k (the Red Cross myth) is not denial but rather just an ‘alternative figure’. You have zero credibility with me and I imagine with anyone else here. Your readiness to attack jews, even if it means walking into blatant support for Holocaust denial is quite sickening. Fortunately I have long been immune to these sewer levels of spite and hate – the only emotion you really raise in me is one of pity. That a human being can justify spending his time reaching the depths you successfully manage to reach – continually reinforces the need for Zionism and Zionists. You constantly prove the pillars of my key arguments – time and time again.

  4. Michael, you’re actually quite tame really and it shows in this thread.

    Old Charles above is a balls out, unapologetic antisemite who’s quite comfortable “using any stick he can find to beat the Jew” – to misquote your friend Chris.

    You on the other hand are more inhibited, bless you. You stick to your semantics and activist tricks and seem reluctant to cross the threshold of real injurious Jew Hate even though you know that it would probably be more impactful on your targets.

    This is what I meant about you in an earlier post. You’re tactics are holding you back. The name calling and tepid tropary is in stark contrast to the Charles Approach and marks you out as far tamer character all round.

    I was going to award myself a star for the observation. Better ask Charles where I should wear it.

      1. Michael, are you asking me to share my diagnosis on a public forum? People may question whether I’m a real doctor and whether you’re a real antisemite.

        1. Ian, that Farmer is a real anti-Semite is beyond any shadow of a doubt.
          Whether he is Mike or Marie Farmer or Davy, I care not in the slightest. But that he does try to use different names to post under does testify about his character and credibility, or lack of both in Farmer’s case.

          If you are a real Doctor then at least get him booked into a clinic in Switzerland where they will be able to solve his problems permanently. Sooner rather than later, as he is beginning to bore me with his constant repetition of the same old lies and Bullshit.

        2. Is Dr. Ian frit of answering the question then? It’s only an opinion, unless you have sound evidence.

          1. I bring 53 years of medical practice, 28 as an expert witness and your symptoms are not knew to me Michael. Not unusual and not untreatable. You do have to want to be treated though.

            Perhaps you can bring all your new friends along.

            1. You need more practice, Ian. Obviously.

              Seems you’ve been unable to tease from me anything that can sensibly be described as antisemitic.

              Your cronies on this blog will feel that you’ve let them down, they need examples that confirm that people do actually irrationally “hate”Jews merely for being, well, Jewish.

              1. Michael, any first year psychiatry student will recognise your denial as a concerning indicator in a patient. You have to overcome this as an initial step before we can consider making any progress.

                Perhaps a start would be to revisit your contribution 5 blogs ago when you launched an ingenious defence of the 3 chaps that were recorded as saying “Hitler didn’t kill no fuckin’ Jews”. The strenuousness of your efforts on their behalf and the contortions into which you tied yourself were almost manic. Consider also that this followed on from the well chronicled episode some time earlier when you asserted that the killing of 6 million Jews was “still far less heinous” than when Israeli soliders kill terrorists attacking their border with intent to harm civilians.

                If we then set these examples against your alleged raison d’etre here; to counter the writings of the author, but in fact note that all you actually do is deploy the identical tactics of every other transient online Jew Hater, I fear that your problem is staring you in the face.

                It is the Jewish festival of Shavuot today so i will be unable to offer any more of my time to you. My advice would be to have a serious think about what I have said and message my office on Monday morning if you want a formal consultation.

              2. Farmer as you have use the term “..sensibly be described as antisemitic.” in your post.
                What, in your opinion can sensibly be described as anti-Semitic?
                Who, or what body, is to decide what is a sensible and what is not a sensible description of anti-Semitism?

                Perhaps you could also explain why, in your view, the IHRA working definition of anti-Semitism is not sensible?

                1. Gerald, i’ll tell you what can NOT sensibly be described as antisemitic, the Oligarch Mural.

                  1. Before you fly off at a tangent from the original questions I asked you let me remind you of what they are;
                    “What, in your opinion can sensibly be described as anti-Semitic?
                    Who, or what body, is to decide what is a sensible and what is not a sensible description of anti-Semitism?

                    Perhaps you could also explain why, in your view, the IHRA working definition of anti-Semitism is not sensible?

                    If you want to prolong your answers by listing all that, in your opinion, can NOT sensibly be described as anti-Semitic- fine. But I am more interested in what you consider can be considered as anti-Semitic and why.

                    1. “But I am more interested in what you consider can be considered as anti-Semitic and why.”

                      What : Attacking all Jews merely because they are Jews.

                      Why : Because it is not based on any deserving action of theirs.

                      Now Gerald, your turn.
                      How is the Oligarch mural in any way antisemitic?

                    2. I am concerned by your reply.
                      “What : Attacking all Jews merely because they are Jews.

                      Why : Because it is not based on any deserving action of theirs.”

                      Are you seriously suggesting that t is Ok to attack all Jews merely because they are Jews if they deserve it?

                    3. As for your question about some mural, I would need to see it for myself before I could reasonably be expected to pass any judgement on it.

                      You are still not answering my original questions to you about what can be sensibly described as anti-Semitic and who or what body should decide what is a sensible description of what is anti-Semitic. Is there a reason why you are so coy to answer them?

                    4. Gerald, you’ll find the mural online. Find it, study it and tell me your view as to whether it is or not antisemitic and the reasons for your decision, then we can continue the dialogue.

                    5. Farmer we can continue the ‘dialogue’ when you answer the questions about what should and what should not sensibly be described as being anti-Semitic.

                      Is there a good reason for your reluctance to answer the questions?

                      I warned you above about flying off at a tangent, yet there you go again. Faced with answering questions you attempt to divert attention or run away and hide.

                    6. Farmer just had a look at your mural. My view of it is best summed up by this quote.
                      “I sincerely regret that I did not look more closely at the image I was commenting on, the contents of which are deeply disturbing and anti-Semitic.

                      “I am opposed to the production of anti-Semitic material of any kind, and the defence of free speech cannot be used as a justification for the promotion of anti-Semitism in any form.”

                      Now Farmer I am still waiting for you to answer my questions and the concern I expressed about an earlier reply of yours.

                    7. Indeed, a quote by Mr. Corbyn(for some strange reason. Why is he bending over backwards to placate witchhunters? An attempt at PR?). I bet neither Mr. Corbyn, nor yourself, can explain HOW the mural is antisemitic. I note that you haven’t put forward any reason.
                      I have answered two of your questions and posed one for yourself.
                      Your turn I think.

                    8. A clue for you, Gerald.

                      ‘Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is hostility to, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews’

                      I assume ‘all Jews’.

                    9. No Farmer you are still failing to show what would be a sensible definition of anti-Semitism and who or what body would decide if a definition of anti-Semitism was sensible or not.
                      You have also failed to address my concerns about your earlier reply.

                      Copy and pasting from an online dictionary is weak and pathetic, even by your low standards Farmer.

                      As you are incapable of providing a sensible definition of anti-Semitism, even though I have asked you several times to provide one, and as you have failed to show why the IHRA definition is not sensible, or even address the question.
                      I am content to use the internationally recognised IHRA definition.

                    10. This isn’t a one-way street, Gerald. I’ve answered two of your questions. Time for you to commit to a two-way exchange. Your turn to answer of course.
                      Off you go.

                    11. Farmer No you have definitely NOT answered any of the questions I put to you.
                      You have definitely NOT replied to the concerns about your earlier reply I raised with you.
                      And definitely you have NOT attempted to explain why the internationally recognised IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is not sensible.

                      You have managed to criticise Jeremy Corbyn because you do not agree with his statement on the mural, although you are quick to condemn David for his alleged attacks on Corbyn, which makes you a hypocrite.

                      Now off you go.

                    12. Keep on digging your hole Farmer, it is getting deeper and deeper.

                      I love watching anti-Semitic clowns, such as you Farmer bury yourselves under your own bigotry and stupidity.

                    13. What is YOUR view on whether it is antisemitic …. and why?

                      Gnasher got yer tongue?

                    14. Gerald posted …..
                      ““But I am more interested in what you consider can be considered as anti-Semitic and why.”

                      Mike replied”What : Attacking all Jews merely because they are Jews.

                      Why : Because it is not based on any deserving action of theirs.

                      Now Gerald, your turn.
                      How is the Oligarch mural in any way antisemitic?”

                      Now Gerald says I haven’t answered any of his questions.

                      Gerald is an idiot.

                    15. The original questions, which you have still not answered were these;

                      “What, in your opinion can sensibly be described as anti-Semitic?
                      Who, or what body, is to decide what is a sensible and what is not a sensible description of anti-Semitism?

                      Perhaps you could also explain why, in your view, the IHRA working definition of anti-Semitism is not sensible?”

                      After you made a ‘reply’ I posted this;
                      “I am concerned by your reply.
                      “What : Attacking all Jews merely because they are Jews.

                      Why : Because it is not based on any deserving action of theirs.”

                      Are you seriously suggesting that t is Ok to attack all Jews merely because they are Jews if they deserve it?”

                      You have made no attempt to answer that either.

                      Farmer either you are completely illiterate or a liar, which is it?

              1. Remind Nadgers that it doesn’t take a vet. I’m happy to castrate Nadgers with a rusty Fray Bentos tin.

                You as well while I’m at it, then I’ll give you a discounted rate

  5. PLEASE get your channel to be https: . As it is, its VERY insecure and can be taken down easily and worse, people can inject malicious code to your visitors. For your own sake, and for the sake of all the decent people who come to this site, you MUST make this site secure ASAP

    It is not that hard.

  6. Gerald, Michael is neither boring nor the opposite of boring. He is simply a participant on one of a million social channels. His contributions and ours are totally pointless and irrelevant except and insofar as they will act as an archive record to show what online antisemitism and counter looked like at this time.

    Gulps and Guinnesses all round.

    1. Ian I beg to differ.
      Mike, Marie, Davy, and Uncle Tom Cobley and all. No matter which name he posts under is boring. Same failed tactics even though they are clearly not working. Repetition of the same tired and worn out ‘mantras’. A bit of originality is always to be welcomed in any debate or discussion, but Farmer is no more original than the ‘Protocols’ all those years ago.

      Perhaps we have different thresholds for our boredom levels Ian. Can I suggest that if you truly believe that Farmer is not boring you should consider going online and watch a Cheddar Cheese maturing. It does not say anything, but it makes more sense than Farmer and is a lot more interesting.

      1. What imaginings you all have, and such “hate”, which is the reason given for the perceived antisemitism that posters are glibly accused of.

        Clear as day that these accusations of antisemitism are merely to attack those that seek to reign in the wrongdoings of the Israeli state. It’s a excercise in deception.

        Davy and Tom? Mmm.

  7. the Red Cross figures for deaths in all the camps is 270 000, of which 20 000 were jews. the document is readily available on the internet. the great majority of the deaths were the result of disease, mainly typhus, exacerbated by Allied bombing. in fact the Allies were responsible for most of the deaths in the last stages of the war.

    Auschwitz was a low security labour camp for a synthetic rubber plant. the “gas chamber”, electric fences and watchtowers were constructed by the Russians in 1947.

    the three Aktion Reinhardt camps in Poland were transit camps for onward shipment to Russia. they are located at the break-of-gauge between the German and Russian railway systems. they came in on German trains and left on Russian trains. and they were shipped to Russia not exterminated. that’s why archeologists surveying Treblinka only find the remains of a few hundred bodies instead of the 750 000 claimed (the population of San Francisco). these are just the inevitable disease deaths.

    the people shipped to Russian cities such as Minsk lost touch with their relatives in the fog of war and assumed they had been murdered. but that’s just an assumption with no evidence. there are plenty of reports of long lost brothers running into each other years later, both assuming the other was murdered. there are books documenting this.

    Hitler never issued a “final solution” order. the two orders he did issue were that the jews were not to be harmed, and that the decision of what to do with the jews was left up to the local commanders. he had more important things to worry about than jews. like fighting a war. no doubt some of the local commandants did execute jews, but clearly there was no organised industrial scale extermination programme.

    1. International Committee of the Red Cross

      Holocaust deniers misrepresent and omit information contained in ICRC reports that contradict their claims.Critics argue that Richard Harwood in his “Did Six Million Really Die?” pamphlet could only claim that the ICRC had found no evidence of a policy to exterminate Jews by ignoring key sections of the 1948 report, where the ICRC explicitly states that the systematic extermination of Jews was Nazi policy.

      Harwood disputed the notion that homicidal gas chambers were disguised as shower facilities by citing references in the report where ICRC officials inspected bathing facilities. He used their responses to argue that showers functioned as showers and were not part of a killing installation. However this is considered misrepresentation by critics, as the passage Harwood cited is in reference to Allied camps for civilians in Egypt and thus had nothing to do with Nazi concentration camps.
      A letter from the Sonderstandesamt (special registry office) at Bad Arolsen regarding only deaths at Nazi concentration camps that were registered by this institution (not to be confused with the numbers of deaths officially registered in the camps themselves). This and similar correspondence is frequently misrepresented as the absolute death toll of the Holocaust by deniers. Note that the English translations are not a part of the original document and are incorrect: the document does not come from the Red Cross. “Anzahl” means “count”, “number” and not “Total Deaths”.

      Harwood also claimed that Die Tat, a Swiss tabloid newspaper, published statistics that concluded the number of people who died in Nazi prisons and camps from 1939 to 1945 based on ICRC statistics was “300,000, not all of whom were Jews”.The January 19, 1955 edition of Die Tat did indeed give a 300,000 figure, but this was only in reference to “Germans and German Jews” and not nationals of other countries. In the 1978 official bulletin, entitled “False Propaganda”, the ICRC denounced Holocaust denial and confirmed that the agency “Never published—or even compiled—statistics of this kind which are being falsely attributed to it” and stated that its mission was “to help war victims, not to count them”,and questioned how they would have even been able to obtain such statistics had they wanted to, given that they were “only able to enter only a few concentration camps…in the final days of the war”.The agency states that the figures used are “the number of deaths recorded by the International Tracing Service on the basis of documents found when the camps were closed”, and accordingly bear no relation to the total death tolls, since the Nazis destroyed much documentation, and that many deaths occurred in camps where prisoners were generally not registered. The ICRC considers this misrepresentation as “propaganda”, and because these claims regarding the ICRC were used for the defense of Ernst Zündel at his trial in 1985, critics state that despite the agency’s attempts to demonstrate the truth, Holocaust deniers have continued to rely on ICRC based disinformation.Archives of the International Tracing Service (located in Bad Arolsen) responding to such misrepresentation can be found here.In 1979, the ICRC stated a second time that they have “never tried to compile statistics on the victims of the war”, nor “certified the accuracy of the statistics produced by a third party”,and state that the authors of such material have “falsified” both claims that the document originates from the ICRC and refers exclusively to Jews.

      As well as in personal correspondence, the ICRC has also addressed this misrepresentation by several other means. In 1975, the ICRC wrote to the Board of Deputies of British Jews in London regarding Harwood’s citations, stating:

      The figures cited by the author of the booklet are based upon statistics falsely attributed to us, evidently for the purpose of giving them credibility, despite the fact that we never publish information of this kind.
      — Françoise Perret, Comité International de la Croix-Rouge, to Jacob Gerwitz, August 22, 1975.

      See link

    2. The final solution genocide against the Jewish People of Europe (and elsewhere) is probably the most well documented act of human depravity on record. Yet “sigerico” prefers not to rely on the many credible sources dealing with that tragedy, but to give credence to conspiracy theorists and antisemites.
      Stupid people believe stupid things, hold stupid views, say stupid things, and do stupid things. “sigerico” is no exception.

      1. Actually Edward that is a very interesting clip. With details I was unaware of. It confirms what we all know. The invasion of Normandy was wholly irrelevant to the outcome of the war. It wasn’t about the outcome of the war. It was about the outcome of the peace. All those American soldiers dying for nothing. Sigh.

        Thank you once again.

            1. WHY didn’t your National SOCIALIST Germany ever declare War on Ireland??????

              Nazi Germany and Ireland shared common values

              Nazi Germany and the Grand Mooofti’s “Pal-e-STINE” shared common values

                1. WHY didn’t your National SOCIALIST Germany declare War on Ireland??????

                  Because they were Allies?

        1. Stephen

          So the invasion on D-Day was irrelevant to the outcome of the war.
          So what would have been the results – some scenarios

          1) With the extra time tne Germans/Nazis would have been able to complete their job of exterminating the Jews – an idea that MAY have been applauded by some commentators on this blog
          2) The Russians may have won – and think of the extra millions that Stalin and his successors could have sent to the gulags, and/or murdered , and/or starved to death in mad communist schemes to reduce food production in their mad quest for modernisation

          Your historical revisionism leaves much to be desired

        2. Stephen

          If D-Day never happened – a few possible scenarios

          1) The Germans/Nazis would have had more time to complete their goal of wiping out and exterminating the Jews of Europe – an idea thaty may appeal to some commentators on this, and other blogs

          2) the Russians/Soviet Union would have overrun Europe creating even more victims for the Gulags, and the killing/murder of countless more millions, and the starvation/death of countless more millions by the hare-brained schemes to modernize the Russian Empire by destroying food production etcetera.

          The list goes on and on with endless examples to back it up, and endless examples of western apologists excuses for the millions of dead atthe hands of the so-called caring Communists/Socialists

          Historical revisionism is the province of fools

  8. So exactly who is it at Youtube that does the vetting of the videos for content? What is the process? Is this just another case of big tech’s lack of transparency? In other words, how could anyone in his/her right mind ever look at anything David does and come to the conclusion that it represents hate speech?
    The number of actual hate videos on Youtube is quite astounding. It is a real conundrum, for Youtube cannot really be trusted to do the job with accuracy and without expressing some of the political prejudices of its own leadership and employees. They have de-monetized and restricted videos for ‘hate’ where none exists, and left up videos by virulent antisemites and other knuckle draggers sometimes posing as refined Englishmen.
    If they’re going to err so big time, I’d rather they did so on the side of free speech.

  9. Michael, as I’ve pointed out to you here already when you write thing on social media they remain visible to everyone. Your remarks were clear and unambiguous. To bleat about misinterpretation after the event is as cowardly as it is implausible. If you simply accept you’re a Jew Hater we can at least start to discuss why.

    1. Ian, can I discern a slight hesitation in your desire to publish ‘Mike’s Best Bits’ where you were going to publish examples of ‘What Mike actually wrote’ paired with ‘What Ian says Mike wrote’?

      Could be titled ‘Perfidious Paraphrasings’, what do you reckon?

  10. For almost the first time I have read a ‘correspondence’ re DC to the end (???) and conclude that neither David nor the supporters of his arguments should waste a single minute reading or responding to the comments. Nothing, but nothing, will change the views of the sad people who clearly are jew-haters whatever their protestations.

    1. Do you think that David writes his hasbara to convince posters that his views are honestly held views that are factually correct? Really?

  11. This is why Jew hatred- Antisemitism is called the oldest hatred
    The Jews have become the lightning rod to which the uncertaities and fears of particular groups attach their prejudices and hates

    This is also witnessed by the inane and obtuse commentary offered by the resident antisemites and Jew haters who seem unable to resist offering up their malign suggestions and often incoherant attemps at discussion

    1. Noticed this online.

      Question …..What are some reasons a person would want to be disliked or hated?

      Answer …. some people just don’t know of any other way to meet our very basic human need to feel significant, other than to be just complete jerks to a lot of people because those are the only behaviors that they’re familiar enough with to associate feelings of noteriety, recognition, and significance to.. and it’s the only way they know of to get people to pay attention to them, so they continue to behave that way, and in turn, a lot of people end up hating them or disliking them.

      Any Doctors in the room that may like to comment?

      1. Wouldn’t want to be a Doctor, Michael. The intellectuals are always first to go when you lot start rounding us up. I’m just a humble PC repair guy from Blackpool with a little shop on the front. Look me up. It’s called The Fylde Solution.

        1. I see the humour’s returned. Bless.

          p.s. don’t forget the ‘He said’, ‘I twisted’ production.

          1. There’s nothing more “humourous” than Islam calling itself “The Religion of Peace”.

            See 9/11, London’s 7/7, Manchester arena, London and Westminster bridge attack, Pan Am 103, 1972 Olympics attack, beheading of Lee Rigby, Rotherham rape gangs, Easter Sunday in Sri Lanka attack, Mumbai, Nairobi, USS Cole, Fort Hood, Garland Texas, Charlie Hebdo, Bataclan, Bastille Day in Nice France, Boston Marathon, DC Beltway snipers, Orlando nightclub massacre, ISIS beheading videos, Luxor attack, attack on Coptic Christians in Egypt, 500,000 dead in Syrian “Civil War”, 1,000,000 dead in Iraq/Fascist Iran 8 year feud, Moscow subway bombings, Beslan school massacre, Poison gas attack on Halabja Iraq, destruction of 1,500 year old Buddahs of Bamiyan Afghanistan, …

            Happy Nakba your Ignorant Cow!

        2. Not so long ago I had an op. At the pre op I was given a list of the risks. The more I looked at it the more I realised that it wasn’t a list of inherent risks, it was a list of ” ways we might fuck it up” .

          In retrospect I might have thought of Ian.

          But anyway after a lifetime of fucking up on the horrible Fylde coast who wouldn’t have beat it to the med ?

          Did you know that for much of the day on the Fylde coast you can’t even see the sea and you are wondering how come this is called the seaside ? Then it comes in faster than you can run.

          I know this cuz I nearly drowned at St Annes. Not even Bill Beaumont cudda saved me

          Interesting that Ian counts doctors among the ” intellectuals ” Explains a lot

    1. Hey Hooty. I see you’ve let Michael take the flack on this one for a while before unleashing your awesome weapon of choice. He was out for the count there, but with massively powerful material like this, it’s a game-changer. I’m calling this a huge win for you. Played.

      I bet you’ve got loads more on those dickheads over on your blog site.

      1. Danny is hilarious. He has this tourist trap junk place in the arches just beyond the pier. He is a swivel eyed Christian Zionist nut job who has plans for you to convert of burn in hell Ian. Simple Si will be ok him being a pretend Jew and all.

        1. Double whammy Hooty! Christian Zios AND pretend Jews. You’re playing all your trump cards today. All you need now is a copy/paste of that wanky old twat that’s a real yid doing some of his shouting and we’ll be handing over the keys to Hamas and booking the cattle wagons to Poland. You’re flying son

          1. wanky old twat?

            That’s no way to talk about one of David’s work colleagues, ian.

            1. Wow! A prile of twats. Massive winning hand. You guys really know what you’re doing. Either you’re playing with a bent deck to get these awesome cards or we may as well stick our heads in your ovens now. Michael’s name calling and Hooty’s YouTube clips really are an irresistible force.

              1. Cattle wagons? Ovens? You’re not Roma, are you, Ian? … Disabled? …. Homosexual?

                1. Michael, as the acting Chief Rabbi of the Redbridge & Pikey LGBT Congregation (wheelchair access pending) I have to ask. When did you find the time to try out all these new prejudices when the Jew hate takes up such a big chunk of your day? Or are these just hobbies?

                  1. prejudices??!?

                    No, Ian, History.

                    Not that you’d learn much about them from the IHRA.

                    1. But Ignorant Cow, SHitler didn’t kill no fuckin’ Brits/Londoner’s – Those Buzz bombs were “bottle rockets”.

          2. So how are gonna deal with this Ian ? Are you gonna confess Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour or are you gonna courageously brave the flames ?

    2. Strange that one who professes to be a Christian supports the state of Israel.

      Perhaps he knows nothing about its actions.

      Suggest that he determines how the Israeli gov. treats the Palestinians and then ask himself ‘What would Jesus do?’

      1. Sloppy Cow, Your Taqiyya doesn’t work here…,

        We all know how Muslims treat Infidels.

        7/7 2005 London transport attack is a great example, as was the video beheading of British soldier Lee Rigby on the streets of London, celebrated by the blood stained hands of the Jihadi, car ramming of pedestrians on London and Westminster bridges, thwarted by “Smeato” Glasgow airport bombing, Brussels airport bombing, …

        Care to guess what the most popular name for new-born baby boys in London is?

              1. I reckon it’s Michael, after the patron saint of under-crackers and Jew hate.

                Ooops. Marks’s are yids. Antisemitic moi? tut tut!

                Banter !!!!!

                1. “Jew hate” … now that’s an interesting buzz-phrase.

                  What does it mean, Ian ….. is it as naughty as ‘Muslim hate’ … (cough. Edward)?

                  1. Dunno Michael. Go ask a Jew. They know better than us. Loads to choose from ’cause Hitler didn’t kill any of them, did he?

                    Booyak ! Zios for the win.

  12. Stephen

    The Vistula
    The river that the Nazis used to wash away the ashes of the dead Jews from the crematoria of Aushwiz,Birkenau

    1. Richard, Michael gets really cross if you fail to add that other minority groups were also washed away in the making of this Holocaust. This is his clever tactic in defending against Holocaust Denial and he thinks its a winner. I think he also goes on Roma, Disabled and Gay blogs and reminds them that Jews were also slaughtered on an industrial scale by Nazis. Oh no, sorry. He doesn’t.

Comments are closed.