Myles Power Debunks Fred Leuchter’s Holocaust Denial: Part 2

A few days ago I put up a video from Myles Power, a YouTube vlogger who specialises in debunking pseudoscience. And some of the nonsense he debunks is really nasty. A couple of his videos attack the weird ideas of a Black American pastor, who seems to have been telling people to drink bleach. Another one also rightly attacks a similar weird cult that injected bleach into people in Uganda.

The video I put up was the third in a series of videos by him completely refuting the claims of Fred Leuchter, an engineer specialising in designing gas chambers for the American prison system, that Auschwitz wasn’t used to gas people. The video below is the second in the series, and I’m putting it up as it adds some more information about Leuchter and his claims. And it’s utterly damning.

First of all, it turns out that Leuchter doesn’t have any formal qualifications or training in engineering or chemistry. It turns out that he entered his highly limited profession as his father was a prison officer, who often got his son to help him. The young Leuchter got interested in methods of execution when one day he helped his father move the prison’s electric chair. Leuchter junior then started sending in suggestions for improvements, and his career went on from there. When it came to designing them, he got the job because real engineers, chemists or pharmacologists didn’t want it. And I’m not surprised. For a very long time Eire employed Britain’s hangman, Pierrepoint, to execute its murderers and other crims, because nobody in the Emerald Isle wanted the job. And I think Pierrepoint was the only person to apply for it in Britain.

Leuchter was employed by German-Canadian Nazi Ernst Zundl to go to Auschwitz to examine it in 1988 as part of his defence against a charge of anti-Semitism. Leuchter had no official permission to do any kind of scientific investigation, so he simply joined an ordinary tourist party. He scraped pieces off the walls in the gas chambers when nobody was looking, and in order to smuggle them in through customs wrapped them up in his dirty undies. He sent the samples away to a laboratory for analysis, but didn’t actually tell them what they were supposed to look for. This is important. In proper chemical analysis, the scientists are always given instructions on what they are supposed to look for and it what amounts. The laboratory didn’t find any traces of Zyklon-B, the gas used by the Nazis in their murder factories. Leuchter therefore declared that Auschwitz wasn’t used to gas people, and the results of his scummy investigation was published by the neo-Nazis as The Fred Leuchter Report.

In fact it isn’t surprising that he couldn’t find any trade of Zyklon-B. It doesn’t penetrate very far into masonry and brickwork, only a few micrometers. In the decades since the Second World War, the remnants of the gas would have been exhaled out into the atmosphere. Not that Leuchter’s testimony impressed the judge: he ruled it inadmissible because it was of such abysmal quality. One problem was that Leuchter simply wasn’t aware of the mass of documentary evidence supporting not just the Holocaust, but also Auschwitz itself. This includes testimony from its commandant, Rudolf Hoess. But as this video shows, it also includes plans and blueprints of the camp itself and its horrific machinery.

Leuchter also seems not to know how the gas was used to kill the millions of innocents murdered in the Holocaust. He seems to assume that the Nazis used a similar mechanism as that in American prisons to kill individual inmates. This, if I understand correctly, is by a pellet of the chemical dropped into a solution, which then produces the poison gas. Leuchter states that this method couldn’t have killed so many people, and so the Nazis weren’t gassing anybody. But the Nazis did, because that wasn’t the method they used. They pumped it into the chamber from cannisters. Incidentally, it says much for Power’s own humanity at this point in the video that he shakes his head, and says repeatedly, ‘This seems so wrong.’ You can understand why he is so uncomfortable. I think most decent people wouldn’t feel right trying to put themselves in the mental position of the Nazis and try to imagine the most efficient method of mass murder, even if it’s for a video debunking the denial of such horrific murders.

I think Power says, either here or in one of his other videos, that he’s particularly interested in Leuchter’s case, because Leuchter doesn’t seem to have been an anti-Semite or Nazi when he started out. Unfortunately, he certainly seems to have been sucked into that noxious milieu, as the video shows him trying to refute Power’s attack on his squalid claims in conversation with someone who definitely is a Nazi. The man’s clad in black, in a dark room, with a giant Nazi symbol in gold behind him. It’s the one of an eagle with the swastika in its claws. As the Nazis are also infamous for their notorious use of propaganda, that should simply on its own act as a warning to most people that lies and falsehoods were ahead.

As for Leuchter himself, I think there’s another moral here: you should know exactly what you’re getting into before becoming involved with extremists, if you don’t avoid it altogether.

The video also contains a wealth of additional information that is undoubtedly invaluable to anyone who wants a detailed refutation of some of the claims of the Holocaust deniers. It also shows you that there is serious money in American Nazism somewhere, as the quality of publication of the Leuchter Report seems high. It isn’t, unfortunately, a cheap pamphlet someone dashed off on their computer, or typed and then photocopied. And that high quality is dangerous, as it might impress some people that it is a serious document demanding proper respect and consideration.

Which makes videos debunking it, like Power’s, all the more necessary.

No Return Invasion of Afghanistan

According to mad right-wing internet radio host, Alex Belfield, parliament has been recalled to discuss the Taliban’s seizure of power in Afghanistan. Belfield made it very clear that we should not go back there. This was a country whose culture and way of life we would never understand. Four hundred British squaddies have already died during the invasion and occupation, and besides, we’ve too much on our plate here at home with domestic crises like the Plymouth mass shooting, rampant knife crime in London and the surge of illegal immigrants trying to cross the Channel in dinghies and other flimsy craft. I agree with him, but partly for reasons that are very different from his.

Firstly, like the invasion of Iraq, the British and American public were deliberately deceived about the invasion of Afghanistan. Yes, the invasion was an appropriate response to al-Qaeda’s attack on America in 9/11, although it was planned and executed by the Saudis. And there is very strong evidence that the responsibility for the atrocity goes all the way up to the highest levels of the Saudi state. But the American neo-Cons had been planning the invasion years before. They’d been in talks with the Taliban over the construction of a new oil pipeline to run through the country, allowing them to get around the Russian affiliated pipelines in the region. These talks stalled and eventually failed. So George Dubya Bush and his friends in big business got together and planned an invasion, waiting for a suitable opportunity to arrive when they could launch it. The liberation of the local people from a deeply repressive, bloodthirsty Islamist regime was never the real, primary objective.

As for Afghan society, this is a deeply conservative, tribal culture. The Taliban have their roots in their traditional way of life and particularly the very traditional Daobandi movement in Islam that stretches across into Pakistan and India. Hence, although extreme, the Taliban will appear to many Afghans to be fighting for their traditional values and society against those imposed upon them by force by the western invader. They have also been given support, supposedly, by elements within the Pakistani military. The Pathan tribe, I believe, form the core supporters of the Taliban, and their tribal territory extends across the border into Pakistan. They thus receive cross-border support from their fellow tribesmen over there.

Besides which, I don’t believe that the western occupation has done much to win hearts and minds. Hamid Karzai’s government was massively corrupt, and this corruption extended all the way down to the local level, where the police and government officials tried to find every way they could extort more money out of the ordinary citizens. The drone operations in the region have also done much to generate discontent. I recall reading cases where wedding parties were slaughtered in anti-terrorist drone strikes. However, instead of only killing the terrorist targeted, they also killed innocent people who just happened to be present.

A second invasion of Afghanistan would also be extremely expensive. And as this is a Conservative government which is already protesting about the expenses of dealing with the Covid pandemic, the funding for it would be through further cuts in welfare spending and the privatisation of whatever’s left of the state infrastructure. Which means the NHS. This will mean more poverty, starvation and misery for Britain’s great working people, and poor health as more services are given to private healthcare providers. Who will start cutting their provision so they can make a profit.

The Taliban are a deeply unpleasant organisation and their attitude towards women is particularly misogynistic. There have been reports that wherever they have taken over an area, they have gone to the local mosques to compile lists of the unmarried girls. These are then forcibly married, even though they may be barely into their teens. They do, however, have an age limit of 12. When the Taliban were in power, women were not expected to leave their homes except when they had. If they were out of the house, they had to make themselves as inconspicuous as possible. This meant that they had to be silent. I’ve read reports in the papers of Afghan women, who’d lost limbs during previous fighting, being beaten because their artificial legs made a noise. And this is apart from the ban on art, music and television, the restrictions on non-Muslim religions, the closure of football stadiums and their conversion into arenas for mass public executions.

Our invasion and attempts at nation-building have failed, and there are dangers in this. Al-Qaeda were encouraged to launch their attack from Afghanistan on 9/11 because of the success the Mujahideen had achieved fighting the Soviet occupation, although much of that was due to covert funding from the West and Saudi Arabia. I am very much afraid that with the withdrawal of western troops and the fall of the democratic Afghan government, the Taliban or some other Islamist terror group will similarly feel empowered and that they can launch another attack to destroy the west.

But Afghanistan is the proverbial ‘graveyard of empires’. We found it impossible to occupy the country in the 19th century, as did the Russians a hundred years later. Any further invasion is likely to fail again. As repulsive and dangerous as the Taliban are, we should not go back. We would not be helping its people, only the oil industry and big business who seek to exploit it. And the costs of the occupation would be borne in the lives and limbs of the servicewomen and men sent out to fight, and by Britain’s working people as the government slashes more services.

We should not go back to invading countries simply to make massive multinational corporations even more obscenely rich.

Reprieve Petition against the Execution of Political Protestors in Saudi Arabia

Reprieve, an organisation campaigning against the death penalty, sent me this message about their petition against the planned execution of 18 political prisoners in Saudi Arabia, which they hope to present ahead of tomorrow’s visit by the Saudi crown prince.

Dear David,

Tomorrow Crown Prince Muhammed Bin Salman of Saudi Arabia will be visiting the UK as part of his current charm offensive. He’s trying to convince world leaders that he’s leading reform in Saudi Arabia. We know differently.

Eighteen young men are currently facing execution in Saudi Arabia for the ‘crime’ of protesting against the government – some were arrested when they were children, all were brutally tortured.

Mohammed Bin Salman attempted to execute fourteen of them last year, but global outcry led by the petition you signed last year helped delay their executions.

But it was only a delay. Executions in Saudi Arabia can happen with no warning – they could still be executed at any time.

Mohammed Bin Salman cares more than most about good press and PR – by delivering the petition you signed during his visit tomorrow, we’re sure to get his attention. David, will you help us get as many signatures as possible before the hand-in by sharing the petition on social media?

I’ve been very happy to do my bit for freedom of speech and conscience and sign it. If you want to sign the petition, it’s at

https://act.reprieve.org.uk/page/content/saudiexecutions?source=SaudiMBS1shareE&utm_medium=email&utm_source=reprieve&utm_content=2+-+You+can+sign+the+petition+here+with+just&utm_campaign=SaudiMBSshare-push

Vox Political Against Islamophobia and the ISIS Terror Attacks You Don’t Hear About

Daesh’s Muslim Victims

Mike over at Vox Political has put up a couple of posts keeping the Brussels attacks in perspective. The attacks, as well as those in Paris, were a horrible atrocity committed by fanatics with no conscience or respect for the lives of innocents. But Mike also reminds us that there have also been Muslim victims of Daesh’s terror campaign, that have not received anywhere near the same amount of coverage and outrage. These people too deserve our sympathy, and we should also be outraged and disgusted at their suffering.

Mike has put up a list showing the numbers of people killed by ISIS’ thugs and butchers, not just in Brussels, Paris and San Diego, but also in Yemen, Tunisia, Ankara in Turkey, Afghanistan, Beirut, Libya and Baghdad. The atrocities committed in these places have also killed tens and hundreds of people. And Mike’s article reminds us that globally, ISIS have killed far more Muslims than non-Muslims. But it’s sad and unjust that their deaths haven’t received the same amount of coverage. For many papers, these atrocities aren’t frontline news.
This is needs to change if we are all to stand together to defeat these monsters.

See Mike’s article at: http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/03/24/why-concentrate-on-brussels-daesh-killings-of-muslims-far-outnumber-attacks-on-the-west/

Chris Herbert, Anti-Islamophobic Army Vet

Mike has also put up another piece on the disabled ex-squaddie, Chris Herbert. Herbert lost a leg fighting in Iraq. Despite that, he has come very firmly out against hatred of Muslims, citing his experience of the kindness of the Muslim medical professionals and others who treated him for his injury. He states that people have been trying to get him to add his voice attacking Muslims, but he has refused. Go read the article at: http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/03/25/after-the-brussels-attacks-heres-an-antidote-to-the-anti-muslim-hatred-were-seeing/

Women and Life in Occupied Raqqah

There are also a number of fascinating, but grim documentaries on Youtube on what life is actually like in Raqqah in Syria for those, who are unfortunate enough to be under ISIS’ perverted rule. This includes meting out flogging to women, who are out unaccompanied by a close male relative or another woman, including 13 year old girls; the judicial murders called ‘executions’ held in one of the town’s roundabouts; and throwing gay men off tower blocks. In addition to this, they closed down the local Christian church and turned it into their wretched headquarters, and blew up a beautiful ancient mosque. I’ve no idea why. Possibly the imam was too much of a peacenik, and the puritan hardliners decided that the stunning azure blue tiles covering the onion dome were a distraction, rather than a work of beauty pointing to that of the Divine (Latif – The Beautiful, is, I understand, one of the 99 Names of Allah in Islam).
Whatever, ISIS are an affront to human civilisation, and the dignity of God’s human world.

Secular Talk: Saudis Imprison Muslim Professor for Liberal Interpretation of Islam

This is another piece from the atheist news programme, Secular Talk, about Saudi Arabia. I know I’ve posted a lot of pieces from them about the Saudis up recently, but as the Saudis are a ruthless, oppressive absolute monarchy that has just executed 47 people, including a young man simply for attending a pro-democracy demonstration, this needs to be said. Especially as our government is fawning all over them.

In this edition of the programme, Kyle Kulinski reports on the sentencing of a Islamic preacher, Abdel-Karim al-Khadar, a professor of Islamic Studies, to ten years in prison, followed by a further ban on travelling abroad for another ten years after his release. He was convicted of disobedience to the sovereign and starting up a human rights organisation. His real crime is that he started teaching a liberal interpretation of Islam, based on the Qu’ran, that included mutual coexistence and women’s rights. And he was not any kind of atheist, but a Muslim scholar, who taught Islamic studies in his own home.

This was too much for the Saudis, whose government includes many, who are actively supporting and funding the Islamist terror groups al-Qaeda and ISIS. He states that America is being played for a fool. The Saudis have somehow got on to the UN Human Rights Council, despite the fact that they blatantly don’t believe in them. And they’re not even bothering to hide it. Kulinski makes it clear that he’s so disgusted with the situation, that if he were president, he’d ended America’s dependence on oil and cease trading with such a treacherous and oppressive ally.

I’m reblogging this as it directly concerns Britain and specifically David Cameron. It appears to have partly been due to Cameron’s wrangling that the Saudis got elected to the UN Human Rights council. And then Cameron tours Saudi Arabia selling them British armaments that they really don’t need, and which will be used to kill civilians in Yemen.

So despite all his verbiage about attacking ISIS and the War on Terror, Cameron actively supports those who share their poisonous ideology, and who are actively supporting them.

Empire Files: Saudi Arabia’s History of Thuggery

Yesterday I put up a number of posts criticising and attacking Saudi Arabia and its brutal use of the death penalty, following the complaint of the Saudi Foreign Minister, al-Jubair, that the kingdom had an image problem because of it, and moaning that people should respect their use of the death penalty ‘Because it’s the law’. This is another, very informative, and grimly fascinating video discussing Saudi Arabia’s long history of repression, violence and brutality from its very foundation. The video’s from Empire Files, which is another news agency specialising in criticising and documenting the corruption and political oppression committed by the American Empire.

Presented by Abby Martin, the video begins with shots of the western great and good meeting and praising various Saudi royals, mentioning the country’s election to the UN Human Rights Council. It then goes on to discuss the Saudi use of public executions. Among the crimes liable to the death penalty are atheism and adultery. 43% of all executions are for non-violent drug offences. It also discusses the execution of Ali al-Nimr, a democracy protester, by crucifixion and beheading. These cases are judged in secret courts, and other punishments include amputation and whipping.

The programme also goes on to examine the almost complete absence of rights for women in Saudi Arabia. Despite having been given the right to vote, women in Saudi Arabia require the permission of male relatives or guardians to go to school, work or even receive medical treatment. They may also be punished for their own sexual assault. The video cites a rape case, where the victim received more lashes than her attackers. Women constitute only 17% of the Saudi work force. 77% of female graduates are unemployed.

The kingdom has also been actively clamping down and suppressing protesters and activists campaigning for democracy. Many of these have been arrested and tried in secret courts. The punishments include execution, or transferral to re-education centres. The attacks on democracy campaigners escalated after 9/11. Before hundreds were being arrested. Now it’s thousands. Furthermore, no civil rights organisations are allowed in the country.

The programme then moves on to describe the history of the kingdom. It’s an absolute monarchy, ruled by a single dynasty. The current king’s personal wealth is estimated at $18 billion. Despite the obscene wealth of its rulers, 20% of its population live in abject poverty, with a youth unemployment rate of 30%.

Thirty per cent of the country’s population is composed of migrant workers, who are virtually slaves due to the system of kafala, sponsorship, through which they are imported. The programme describes their exploitation, with 15 – 20 hour working days, maltreatment, confiscation of passports on arrival, and adverts for runaway labourers and domestic workers, similar to those for de jure slaves in the American West.

Martin then talks to the Saudi dissident, Ali al-Ahmed, the head of the Gulf Institute. Al-Ahmed states that part of the problem is that the country’s vast wealth is confined to the king, his relatives and cronies. The present king can in no way be described as a great reformer. He imprisoned his four daughters for 14 years, and to this day no-one knows what happened to them. The king is an absolute monarch. The Saudi parliament is only partially elected. It is also partly appointed, and wields no power. As for the judicial system, al-Ahmed describes it as medieval and tribal. It deliberately excludes women, blacks, ordinary people and the Shi’a. It is similar to ISIS. And the bond between Saudi Arabia, America and the West is money. Bill Clinton and George Bush have both visited Saudi Arabia, probably secretly looking for Saudi sponsorship for their election campaigns. Al-Ahmed states that this should be investigated by the FBI. It appears to be a case of the Saudis trying to buy off prospective American presidents in the aftermath of 9/11.

The kingdom itself was founded after 20 years of warfare and campaigning by Ibn Saud, who declared himself king in 1925. Ibn Saud was aided in his rise to power by a religious militia. These later revolted, and so Ibn Saud had them massacred. The conquest of what is now Saudi Arabia was complete by 1932. Ibn Saud tried, and failed, to conquer and incorporate what is now Yemen.

The Saudi family struck oil after World War I, and invited the Americans in to exploit it. The Americans were only too pleased, after having been shut out of the rest of the oilfields of the Middle East by the triumphant European colonial powers. The American oil company, Chevron, staked its claim to the Saudi oilfields in 1933. This resulted in the formation of Arab-American Oil – Aramco. Despite the name, Aramco was 100 per cent owned by the Americans. It is the property of four American oil companies, including Chevron and Mobil. These oil companies paid a small proportion of their profits to the Saudi royal family as royalties.

Italian bombing during the Second World War severely disrupted oil supplies. In 1943 President Roosevelt declared that the defence of the Saudi oilfields was a national priority. Two years later, in 1945, Roosevelt signed a treaty with the Saudis giving them American protection in exchange for oil. This was the start of the network of American army and naval based in the country. In 1953 15,000 or so oil workers went on strike, demanding a union. The monarchy responded by assassinating the leaders and promulgating a royal decree banning working class organisations. In 1962 a left-wing revolution broke out in Yemen. Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the UK responded by supporting the royalist counterrevolution.

The relationship between Saudi Arabia and the West has not gone untroubled, however. There was a rift following the foundation of Israel. In response to Israeli victories during the Arab-Israeli wars, the Saudis launched their oil embargo, sparking the energy crisis of the 1970s. This did not, however, bother Nixon and Kissinger very much. If the worst came to the worst, they planned on bombing the kingdom in order to secure the vital supplies of oil. In the event, they didn’t need to take such drastic action. The Saudis were alarmed by the spread of Communism. So Nixon and Kissinger convinced the Saudis, along with the UAE, Qatar and Bahrein to back their war on Communism and specifically the conflict in Vietnam.

In the 1980s Saudi Arabia was the major backer of the Mujahideen. In 1979 there was a religious uprising in imitation of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. It was suppressed, and the 60 leaders executed. Saudi Shi’a were also attacked for celebrating a Shi’a religious festival. Following the killing of a student, there were mass demonstrations by the Shi’a, women’s organisations, the Communist party and the religious community. In retaliation, the Saudis deployed 20,000 soldiers, strafing the Shi’a communities with helicopter gunships. And Ronald Reagan pledged his support in suppressing any revolution. Saudi Arabia was, of course, the major American base in 1990 for the Gulf War.

The Saudis’ response to the Arab Spring was, predictably, also harsh. The regime issued a ban on all journalism that dared to question or criticise the monarchy, and the internet was subject to even heavier censorship. Saudi troops helped to crush the Arab Spring in neighbouring Bahrein. Despite this, people are still fighting and dying for their right to freedom in the east of Saudi Arabia. There was another uprising in 2013 following the shooting of another young person. Saudi Arabia has also responded to the threat by making massive purchases of arms. It is the biggest customer for American weapons, having bought $5.5 billion of them c. 2012. The kingdom is also a major financier of al-Qaeda and ISIS. This was admitted by Hillary Clinton in documents revealed by Wikileaks. They are estimated to have given $100 billion to terrorists.

They also had strong links to the 9/11 hijackers. 28 pages of the official inquiry into 9/11 remain classified, but the leader of the inquiry has stated that the material points to Saudi Arabia as a major funder. Nevertheless, the current crisis in the Middle East has alarmed them so much, that the Saudis have held secret meetings with Israel. The Saudis have also been active trying to suppress the rebellion in Yemen. So far, half of those killed have been civilians. Saudi arms have levelled the ancient and historic city of Sanaa, and there are cases where civilians and rescue workers have been attacked and killed.

This is a brutal, authoritarian and cruel absolute monarchy, responsible for the savage suppression of human rights and democracy throughout the Middle East. It is scandalous that the West continues to support this murderous regime, although not surprising given the vast profits from and the dependence of the West on Saudi oil, while western arms manufacturers make money from selling to them.

Secular Talk on Saudi Arabia’s Use of the Death Penalty, even against the Children and the Disabled

Okay, this is another piece I thought should be put up in response to Mike’s post, over on Vox Political, about the Saudis’ complaint about the world’s reaction to their mass execution of 47 people last week. Their foreign minister, al-Jubair, complained that they have a bad image because of it. They’re right, but that’s only one reason. Other reasons include the almost complete lack of rights for women, freedom of belief and conscience, and other barbaric parts of their legal code, such as whipping and amputation. Oh yes, and their enslavement of foreign workers, although it is never called that.

But to go on, al-Jubair also complains that the world should respect the death penalty in Saudi Arabia, ‘because it’s the law’. They maintain that they don’t look down on Britain, because we don’t have the death penalty.

I don’t think that’s quite the whole reason, why they’re offended because we don’t respect them for their use of the death penalty. Saudi Arabia is an Islamic state with shari’a law. My guess is that what really offends them is that the rest of the world hasn’t given their legal system the automatic respect they feel it deserves due to its religious basis. In Saudi Arabia, other religions apart from Wahhabism, even other forms of Islam, such as Shi’ism, are banned. Used to the automatic enforcement of respect for their religion in their home country, they’re annoyed and upset when the rest of the world doesn’t similarly acquiesce, and respect their legal code.

In this piece from the atheist news programme, Secular Talk from 2015, Kyle Kulinski discusses how the Saudis executed 102 people just that half year alone. This is up from the 127 people they executed in 2014. Those executed include children under 18 and the disabled. The crimes for which these people were killed included acts, which are not crimes in the West. Like adultery, apostasy, witchcraft and atheism. They also execute for crimes that aren’t considered so serious that they require the death penalty in the west, such as marijuana possession or smuggling.

Kulinski goes off at the end on a rant about how nonsensical Islam, and by implication, all religion is. I don’t share his atheism or secularism, and so don’t support his views in this part of the show. But apart from this, it makes excellent points about the injustice and brutality of the death penalty in Saudi Arabia. Kulinski, however, is not a hypocrite and makes it clear that he is opposed to the death penalty everywhere, including America. He states very clearly that Saudi Arabia should suffer the same kind of punishments that have been inflicted on other oppressive regimes, such as sanctions and the divestment of commercial interests.