Many people are aware that Harry Potter, The Anarchist Cookbook and Stephen King books have been banned from schools around the country, but as many civilizations have figured out, censorship is a slippery slope. It is pretty strange to consider Shakespeare has not only been banned from public schools over sexual themes, but that censored editions have been out since the 1700s.
*Note: Plot summaries may include spoilers. I know all you Neatorama readers are pretty intelligent, so I wouldn’t doubt if many of you have read these books. I’ve included the summaries to give an idea as to why the books may have been banned.
Plot: A soldier, Henry, on the Italian front meets and seduces a young woman, Catherine. Their relationship continues as he heals a knee that was injured in battle. By the time his knee is fully healed, Catherine is three months pregnant. Unfortunately, Henry has to return to the war and the Germans break through the Italian lines. The Italians charge the soldiers for treachery for letting the Germans defeat them. Henry escapes during another officer’s execution and runs away to Switzerland with Catherine. They live happily until Catherine gives birth to a stillborn and then dies in labor.
Where it’s been banned: Published in 1929, this novel caused trouble immediately. Boston banned the magazine it was originally published in, claiming the story was too sexual. Italy banned the book because of its portrayal of the army’s retreat from Caporatto. The Nazis burned the book in 1933. In 1939, Ireland banned the novel. In modern America, plenty of school districts have banned the publication for sexual content.
Source | A Farewell to Arms on Amazon
Plot: The book’s plot uses the same story line as Tarzan. A couple of civilized people, Bernard and Lenina, enter a primitive society and bring a “savage” back into their modern society. The difference here is that these “civilized people” live in a futuristic world filled with castes, happy drugs, sex without reproduction and euthanasia. Love, sadness and families have become obsolete, as well as self-expression and exploration.
The Tarzan in this piece is the son, John, of an ex-civilized woman who now lives with the “savages.” John was raised with family, love and Shakespeare. When they return to the city, John becomes a spectacle for society types and even Lenina starts finding him interesting. John begins falling in love with Lenina even as he is disgusted with the modern world and her role in it. John finds he cannot escape this world and eventually kills himself to discontinue playing his role as a tourist spectacle.
Where it’s been banned: This text is one of the most frequently banned books in literary history. It was banned in Ireland the year it was published, 1932. Multiple school districts have restricted access to this book because the atheistic people in the futuristic society it depicts take drugs and have promiscuous sex to avoid emotional connections. There are a lot of people who try to compare this book to our modern society, but if that was accurate, would we still be banning it from school?
Source | Brave New World at Amazon
Plot: A teenage boy, Holden Caulfield, runs away to New York after being expelled from reform school. The book is a first person narrative and over the course of the story, you learn about his brother’s passing and how that has affected his present state of mind. Throughout his adventure, he drinks, smokes, hits on adult women, gets beaten up by a pimp, is hit on by a past teacher and deals with many other activities that a teen shouldn’t be going through. He constantly complains about other people his age, calling them “phony” or stupid. The novel explores Holden’s psychological need to grow up after his brother’s death. It also does an excellent job depicting his desire to protect young children from becoming adults.
Where it’s been banned: In 1960, a teacher was fired from her job for requiring her eleventh grade class to read the book. Between 1961 and 1962, it was the most censored book in high schools and colleges. This novel has been banned in schools throughout America for being anti-white, blasphemous, profane, racist and overtly sexual. How anything can be racist and anti-white, I don’t know.
Update: I meant this statement as how the book can be racist against both blacks and whites at the same time, which is what the people condemning the book seemed to imply. Personally, I don't think you can be racist against your self and persons of other races at the same time, I think it makes you more of a person hater than a racist. Although I'm sure many readers would still like to disagree with this.
Completely unrelated but interesting: many murderers read Catcher In The Rye shortly before committing their crimes.
Source | The Catcher in the Rye at Amazon
Plot: Considered to be the first modern erotic novel, there are quite a few naughty bits in this book, if you want to read a bit, there’s an excerpt on the Wikipedia page. The story revolves around a young country girl who must leave her village due to poverty. She is forced to work at a brothel, but escapes with her true love before she loses her virginity. When her love is forced to leave the country, she has to take on a variety of male “acquaintances” in order to survive.
Where it’s been banned: This book was monumental to both English and American obscenity standards. A year after the book was released, John Cleland and the publisher were both arrested and charged with “corrupting the king’s subjects.” They subsequently stopped publishing the novel, but it still managed to become popular thanks to pirated editions circulating the country. Cleland attempted to clean up the book and republished it in 1750, but he was arrested again, although this time the charges were dropped. The book continued to be published underground and in 1963 there was an obscenity trial against a book seller carrying the novel. Although the defense lost, it helped to shift public opinion about obscenity laws in Britain. In 1970, the unabridged book was legally published for the first time.
Over in the states, the book was banned for obscenity in 1821. In 1963, a publisher tried to re-release the book under the title John Cleland’s Memoirs of A Woman of Pleasure. The book was also banned under this title, but the publisher, G.B. Putnam, challenged the ban. The Supreme Court ruled the novel did not meet the standards for obscenity. This was the last book to be banned by the US federal government.
Source | Fanny Hill - Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure at Amazon
Plot: Set in 1930, it tells the tale of a Tom Joad, a recently paroled murderer, and his family of farmers. The group is forced to leave their home in Oklahoma that has fallen victim to the dust bowl storms. They hope to find better luck in California, though on their way out West, they constantly run into other families hoping for the same luck.
When they get to California, they find the farmers have bound together to exploit the massive amount of laborers offering their services. When workers begin to unionize, the Joads work as strike breakers and end up involved with a bloody strike, forcing Tom Joad to kill again. In the end, practically all of the family’s actions prove to be pointless as they are starving and homeless in California.
Where it’s been banned: Published in 1939, this Steinbeck story caused an uproar as soon as it was released. These days, the book seems to be fairly mild, with a few references to sex and some minor curse words, but the book was quite racy for its day. Kern county was one of the first places to ban the novel as they were insulted by how Steinbeck depicted their citizens. It was immediately burned by the East St. Louis library, banned from Buffalo, New York and Kansas City. Since then, it’s been banned in many high schools -mostly for bad language. A parent in Burlington, North Carolina said, "book is full of filth. My son is being raised in a Christian home and this book takes the Lord's name in vain and has all kinds of profanity in it."
Internationally, the book has had trouble too. In 1953, Ireland deemed the book obscene and banned it. In 1973, eleven publishers in Turkey were charged for “spreading propaganda unfavorable to the state.” Why Grapes of Wrath would be seen as unfavorable to Turkey, I have no idea. If you do, please tell me in the comments.
Source #1, Source #2 | The Grapes of Wrath at Amazon
Plot: Lady Chatterley’s husband has become paralyzed and impotent. She struggles to remain faithful to him, but ends up having an affair with the gamekeeper. The novel covers her struggle to live only mentally, although she proves to need physical stimulation as well.
Where it’s been banned: The Penguin Books 1960 British publication of Lady Chatterley’s Lover was one of the first novels tried under England’s 1959 obscenity law. This law gave publishers the right to release racy books, as long as the work was of literary merit. Penguin was found not guilty and the novel was legally available in England for the first time. The trial was later turned into a BBC show known as “The Chatterley Affair.”
Conversely, Australia not only found the book to be legally obscene, but also banned publication of a book depicting the British trial called The Trial of Lady Chatterley. A copy of the book was smuggled into the country anyway and published underground. Many people read the book and it eventually led to lesser censorship of books in the country.
Lady Chatterley's Lover at Amazon
Plot: Humbert Humbert, is invited to move in with a woman who wants to sleep with him. He is about to say no, when he sees her 12 year old daughter, Lolita, playing in the yard. The woman discovers his ulterior motive and plans to send Lolita to boarding school but she is hit and killed by a car. Humbert tries to drug the Lolita to have his way with her, but she instead seduces him.
Humbert becomes Lolita’s guardian and falls in love with her although she has very little interest in him. She escapes his guardianship by making plans with another pedophile. Humbert tries to find Lolita and her abductor, but gets nowhere. Two years later, a married and pregnant Lolita contacts him requesting money. He brings her money and tries to get her to leave with him. She refuses. She does, however, give him information on her abductor and Humbert tracks down the man and kills him. Humbert goes to jail, where he writes a novel called Lolita.
Where it’s been banned: The book was released in 1955 and received little attention until author Graham Greene sang its praises in an interview with The London Times. After reading the statement, the editor of the Sunday Express replied that the book was “sheer, unrestrained pornography.” That’s when the book was banned in Britain and all imported copies were ordered to be seized by the customs department. By December 1956, France followed suit, although both countries repealed the ban in 1959. Argentina and New Zealand both banned the book in the following years.
Surprisingly, the book wasn’t criticized as much in America, in fact, in its first three weeks available it sold over 100,000 copies.
Source | Lolita at Amazon
Photo Via florian.b [Flickr]
Of the Radcliffe Publishing list of the top 100 books of the past century, almost half have been challenged by schools, many are banned in whole countries. Here’s a few banned titles that just may surprise you:*Note: Plot summaries may include spoilers. I know all you Neatorama readers are pretty intelligent, so I wouldn’t doubt if many of you have read these books. I’ve included the summaries to give an idea as to why the books may have been banned.
A Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway
Plot: A soldier, Henry, on the Italian front meets and seduces a young woman, Catherine. Their relationship continues as he heals a knee that was injured in battle. By the time his knee is fully healed, Catherine is three months pregnant. Unfortunately, Henry has to return to the war and the Germans break through the Italian lines. The Italians charge the soldiers for treachery for letting the Germans defeat them. Henry escapes during another officer’s execution and runs away to Switzerland with Catherine. They live happily until Catherine gives birth to a stillborn and then dies in labor.
Where it’s been banned: Published in 1929, this novel caused trouble immediately. Boston banned the magazine it was originally published in, claiming the story was too sexual. Italy banned the book because of its portrayal of the army’s retreat from Caporatto. The Nazis burned the book in 1933. In 1939, Ireland banned the novel. In modern America, plenty of school districts have banned the publication for sexual content.
Source | A Farewell to Arms on Amazon
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Plot: The book’s plot uses the same story line as Tarzan. A couple of civilized people, Bernard and Lenina, enter a primitive society and bring a “savage” back into their modern society. The difference here is that these “civilized people” live in a futuristic world filled with castes, happy drugs, sex without reproduction and euthanasia. Love, sadness and families have become obsolete, as well as self-expression and exploration.
The Tarzan in this piece is the son, John, of an ex-civilized woman who now lives with the “savages.” John was raised with family, love and Shakespeare. When they return to the city, John becomes a spectacle for society types and even Lenina starts finding him interesting. John begins falling in love with Lenina even as he is disgusted with the modern world and her role in it. John finds he cannot escape this world and eventually kills himself to discontinue playing his role as a tourist spectacle.
Where it’s been banned: This text is one of the most frequently banned books in literary history. It was banned in Ireland the year it was published, 1932. Multiple school districts have restricted access to this book because the atheistic people in the futuristic society it depicts take drugs and have promiscuous sex to avoid emotional connections. There are a lot of people who try to compare this book to our modern society, but if that was accurate, would we still be banning it from school?
Source | Brave New World at Amazon
Catcher In the Rye by J.D. Salinger
Plot: A teenage boy, Holden Caulfield, runs away to New York after being expelled from reform school. The book is a first person narrative and over the course of the story, you learn about his brother’s passing and how that has affected his present state of mind. Throughout his adventure, he drinks, smokes, hits on adult women, gets beaten up by a pimp, is hit on by a past teacher and deals with many other activities that a teen shouldn’t be going through. He constantly complains about other people his age, calling them “phony” or stupid. The novel explores Holden’s psychological need to grow up after his brother’s death. It also does an excellent job depicting his desire to protect young children from becoming adults.
Where it’s been banned: In 1960, a teacher was fired from her job for requiring her eleventh grade class to read the book. Between 1961 and 1962, it was the most censored book in high schools and colleges. This novel has been banned in schools throughout America for being anti-white, blasphemous, profane, racist and overtly sexual. How anything can be racist and anti-white, I don’t know.
Update: I meant this statement as how the book can be racist against both blacks and whites at the same time, which is what the people condemning the book seemed to imply. Personally, I don't think you can be racist against your self and persons of other races at the same time, I think it makes you more of a person hater than a racist. Although I'm sure many readers would still like to disagree with this.
Completely unrelated but interesting: many murderers read Catcher In The Rye shortly before committing their crimes.
Source | The Catcher in the Rye at Amazon
Fanny Hill or Memoirs of A Woman of Pleasure, John Cleland
Plot: Considered to be the first modern erotic novel, there are quite a few naughty bits in this book, if you want to read a bit, there’s an excerpt on the Wikipedia page. The story revolves around a young country girl who must leave her village due to poverty. She is forced to work at a brothel, but escapes with her true love before she loses her virginity. When her love is forced to leave the country, she has to take on a variety of male “acquaintances” in order to survive.
Where it’s been banned: This book was monumental to both English and American obscenity standards. A year after the book was released, John Cleland and the publisher were both arrested and charged with “corrupting the king’s subjects.” They subsequently stopped publishing the novel, but it still managed to become popular thanks to pirated editions circulating the country. Cleland attempted to clean up the book and republished it in 1750, but he was arrested again, although this time the charges were dropped. The book continued to be published underground and in 1963 there was an obscenity trial against a book seller carrying the novel. Although the defense lost, it helped to shift public opinion about obscenity laws in Britain. In 1970, the unabridged book was legally published for the first time.
Over in the states, the book was banned for obscenity in 1821. In 1963, a publisher tried to re-release the book under the title John Cleland’s Memoirs of A Woman of Pleasure. The book was also banned under this title, but the publisher, G.B. Putnam, challenged the ban. The Supreme Court ruled the novel did not meet the standards for obscenity. This was the last book to be banned by the US federal government.
Source | Fanny Hill - Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure at Amazon
Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
Plot: Set in 1930, it tells the tale of a Tom Joad, a recently paroled murderer, and his family of farmers. The group is forced to leave their home in Oklahoma that has fallen victim to the dust bowl storms. They hope to find better luck in California, though on their way out West, they constantly run into other families hoping for the same luck.
When they get to California, they find the farmers have bound together to exploit the massive amount of laborers offering their services. When workers begin to unionize, the Joads work as strike breakers and end up involved with a bloody strike, forcing Tom Joad to kill again. In the end, practically all of the family’s actions prove to be pointless as they are starving and homeless in California.
Where it’s been banned: Published in 1939, this Steinbeck story caused an uproar as soon as it was released. These days, the book seems to be fairly mild, with a few references to sex and some minor curse words, but the book was quite racy for its day. Kern county was one of the first places to ban the novel as they were insulted by how Steinbeck depicted their citizens. It was immediately burned by the East St. Louis library, banned from Buffalo, New York and Kansas City. Since then, it’s been banned in many high schools -mostly for bad language. A parent in Burlington, North Carolina said, "book is full of filth. My son is being raised in a Christian home and this book takes the Lord's name in vain and has all kinds of profanity in it."
Internationally, the book has had trouble too. In 1953, Ireland deemed the book obscene and banned it. In 1973, eleven publishers in Turkey were charged for “spreading propaganda unfavorable to the state.” Why Grapes of Wrath would be seen as unfavorable to Turkey, I have no idea. If you do, please tell me in the comments.
Source #1, Source #2 | The Grapes of Wrath at Amazon
Lady Chatterley’s Lover by D.H. Lawrence
Plot: Lady Chatterley’s husband has become paralyzed and impotent. She struggles to remain faithful to him, but ends up having an affair with the gamekeeper. The novel covers her struggle to live only mentally, although she proves to need physical stimulation as well.
Where it’s been banned: The Penguin Books 1960 British publication of Lady Chatterley’s Lover was one of the first novels tried under England’s 1959 obscenity law. This law gave publishers the right to release racy books, as long as the work was of literary merit. Penguin was found not guilty and the novel was legally available in England for the first time. The trial was later turned into a BBC show known as “The Chatterley Affair.”
Conversely, Australia not only found the book to be legally obscene, but also banned publication of a book depicting the British trial called The Trial of Lady Chatterley. A copy of the book was smuggled into the country anyway and published underground. Many people read the book and it eventually led to lesser censorship of books in the country.
Lady Chatterley's Lover at Amazon
Lolita, Vladimir Nabokov
Plot: Humbert Humbert, is invited to move in with a woman who wants to sleep with him. He is about to say no, when he sees her 12 year old daughter, Lolita, playing in the yard. The woman discovers his ulterior motive and plans to send Lolita to boarding school but she is hit and killed by a car. Humbert tries to drug the Lolita to have his way with her, but she instead seduces him.
Humbert becomes Lolita’s guardian and falls in love with her although she has very little interest in him. She escapes his guardianship by making plans with another pedophile. Humbert tries to find Lolita and her abductor, but gets nowhere. Two years later, a married and pregnant Lolita contacts him requesting money. He brings her money and tries to get her to leave with him. She refuses. She does, however, give him information on her abductor and Humbert tracks down the man and kills him. Humbert goes to jail, where he writes a novel called Lolita.
Where it’s been banned: The book was released in 1955 and received little attention until author Graham Greene sang its praises in an interview with The London Times. After reading the statement, the editor of the Sunday Express replied that the book was “sheer, unrestrained pornography.” That’s when the book was banned in Britain and all imported copies were ordered to be seized by the customs department. By December 1956, France followed suit, although both countries repealed the ban in 1959. Argentina and New Zealand both banned the book in the following years.
Surprisingly, the book wasn’t criticized as much in America, in fact, in its first three weeks available it sold over 100,000 copies.
Source | Lolita at Amazon
the Catherine?
is she the only one?:P
Racism is racism REGARDLESS of the races involved or their position. It's ideas like that (only whites can be racist) show just how ignorant people are. If a black man calls me a honky or cracker, it's racism. Louis Farrakan is racist. The Black Panthers are racist. The NAACP is a racist organization based on the fact that they only recognize the blacks, regardless of all the good they have done. Any group that recognizes itself as a one race group is as racist as the Klan.
Period.
So get off their back, jeez.
I read all of those books before I was out of high school, early 60's. What I learned was not what I already knew about from the sob down the block and living on a farm but what possesses some people, sometimes good people, to do what they do. What is reality. What is cussing. Ever heard a youngster of 4 or 6 saying a bad word, no music, it is just a word. But I have had a 2 yr old daughter tumble across the back seat when I turned a corner too quick. Didn't know the words one but did she ever have the music.
Any social worker will tell you that Lolita is for real. The actions of a street wise girl of 14 or 16 is just like the book. It is called survival.
Racism is just that, someone doesn't like someone only because of his or her racial heritage. Not that the victim is a victim or could help it. It comes in all shapes and sizes. If you are mixed race, they all hate you, especially from the bottom up.
Grapes of Wrath banned in Turkey, because Turks have a couple of groups that are on the beatdown list, Kurds are favorites.
Finally, if the King James Bible isn't banned for sexual content, perversion, rape, incest, ect then nothing should, oh yes and violence.
we're rockin "racism" new school.
wait...
racism is a two-way street.
sorry about the rant.
I feel so sad for you.
:(
Not a very original thought.
About the "anti-white and racist" comment, it is a little naive (or arrogant) to assume that because something puts down one race, it automatically can't put down another.
I read some of those books - for the most part, they're really not that interesting.
I do not see how Brave New World is not our modern world. However, I am happy to be shown the error of my ways.
Well, there is the fact that as a human race, we still see childbirth and mothering as a virtue. In the book, it was a reviled behavior. Yes, everyone seems to have their own version of soma, but I think that's just human nature .. if it weren't anti-depressants, it would be alcohol. Also, most of are still in committed, monogamous relationships. Yes, people screw around, but not because it's a virture, just because some people lack impulse control.
Yes, we do sort of worship Ford, or T, or technology. Yes, we have birth control .. but it's a good thing to be able to control the size of one's family based on one's means.
And .. I'm sorta running out of steam here, but you get the idea.
Grow up.
The law is the "Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act" which took effect last Tuesday.
The instructions from the Federal government regarding children's books are very clear: If it was published after 1985 it is fine. If it was published in 1985 or before, and the resale value makes it uneconomical to have it professionally tested for lead content, it must be destroyed.
http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/smbus/cpsiasbguide.pdf
It is the responsibility of the person(s) communicating a message that it is made as clearly and understandably as possible in order for the intent of the message to be properly conveyed.
However, it is ALSO the responsibility of the person(s) who receive that message to ensure that they take in the message, and analyze it to ensure that they interpret it in the way it was intended (this necessarily - and, perhaps, especially - includes poorly constructed messages).
So, while the whole "...anti-white and racist..." remark may not have been the best-worded phrase ever uttered, I personally read it as I'm sure it was intended (as Rudy mentions in comment #6).
By flying off the handle, those who complain about that statement are only proving themselves as reactionary and unthinking as those who banned the books in this post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Book_of_Chemistry_Experiments
I laugh at them in a cruel and bitter laugh, the stewards of a dead past.
Humbert tries to drug the Lolita to have his way with her, but she instead seduces him.
the Lolita? Perhaps it is "the" as he later wrote a book about her. =)
Although in this case, I probably should have just used her name to avoid confusion.
And I thought Grapes of Wrath was banned because of the scene where Rose(of Sharon) gives her breast to a starving man. (Subversive as hell to a society that says people are poor because they deserve it and that also elevates motherhood.)
Where is my favorite banned book, Huckleberry Finn? Now it's banned because Twain used the N word, but in my childhood, it was banned for violence (like when Huck's friend is murdered) and slighting references to concepts of Southern gallantry. And, foremost, because it questioned the way Proper Folks live: I'm going to do the right thing, says Huck, even if it means I'm going to Hell! That's a tough statement, coming from someone who really believes in Hell.
It's still incomprehensible to me that a book can be banned and kept away from our children due to a word. TG for my hs English teacher who gave me a copy of Slaughterhouse Five anyway, and incited a love for me...
It's a sacrifice that surpasses Christ's. A child shall lead us, indeed.
/scarcasm
LoL yeah its not possible to be racist to white people because they are all the same, we should beat down some stupid fuckin crackers
I, for one, am finished using 'white' to represent a race of Caucasians. White in American society refers to clean, pure, untouched and/or sacred. Black usually refers to dirty, unclean, nasty, and most certainly impure.
From now on, I will refer to people as Caucasians and Negroid. If you have been so brainwashed as to associate those 2 races with clean/unclean or pure/impure...then you need to do a self-adjustment because that is the basic definition of a racist.
Also, anyone of the Caucasian race who insists on being called white is about as racists as you can get.
I don't think we need to worry too much about what Negroid persons want to be called because even they don't know, for the most part.
Maybe they need another 'leader' to help them figure that out.
I say that because after so many years of freedom it is easier to find a stable nuclear family of Native Americans than it is a Negroid family.
About the only thing Negroids seem to agree on is the lust to find a Caucasian woman...even if it means deserting the women of their own race completely.
But that's my opinion.
Widen the prism you see the world through. Then try again.
If you find racism against 2 groups to be incomprehensible, then I've got something that will blow your mind: some people actually are prejudiced against THREE GROUPS OF PEOPLE. Or FOUR.
If that's not bizarre enough, you'll be flabbergasted to learn that SOME PEOPLE DON'T LIKE THEIR OWN ETHNIC GROUP. Yes, Jill, its true. Sometimes they even desire to emigrate because of this.
Thanks Jill. I'm glad I could teach you something in between all that time you spend culturally enriching yourself with readers digest and family package tours.
In the 80s I drove a bus for the disabled of North London. A huge number of elderly people (20 or 30), some with Alzheimers, had tattoos from the camps. Many lost their whole families to the gas. My headmistress was the only member of her family to survive the Warsaw Ghetto and its dissolution.
They are now pretty much all dead, and people like you will allow their memory to be libelled. The Nazis not only left the evidence of the camps and their victims to be discovered by the allied advance. They wrote it all down; the best gas to use, the best way to use the resources taken from victims, the best way to dispose of the faeces left behind by the dying. It's all there to see in museums all across Europe, and I've spoken to survivors face to face, some so ill they wouldn't have the mental resources to make it up.
Maybe people who deny the holocaust shouldn't be locked up. But maybe they should be boiled alive in their own excrement.
Of course, this is the internet and you seem to be a general sh*t stirrer, so you probably didn't even read the article. You just found one thing you could start drama over, and jumped on it. Good job.
And then, to take it a step further, you decided that anyone who does not conform to your world view must be an idiotic follower that lives in the Mid West. How silly of me to forget the rules of internet trolls.
Go ahead and live in your silly little internet world, I'm sure you'll be very happy there pretending yourself to be so superior to everyone else. Have fun with that.
However, these books do challenge with devastating effect the notion that the Germans systematically murdered people, specifically with poison gas. Anne Frank died at Auschwitz from Typhus, transmitted by lice. In an effort to combat louse-borne Typhus, the Germans shaved prisoners' heads and fumigated clothing, mattresses, etc. with a product called Zyklon B. This is admitted by the modern establishment. The *real* gas chambers the Germans used for this purpose can be seen at Dachau, which is no longer alleged to be a "death camp" because critical scientists could access it during the cold war. These gas chambers are equipped with all the features of a modern penal execution chamber: steel walls, peep-holes, ventilation systems. The "gas chambers" at Auschwitz are a laughable fraud: drafty rooms. The Jewish Holocaust "denier" David Cole secured undercover footage of Auschwitz head curator F. Piper privately admitting to a fellow Jew that these "gas chambers" were post-war Soviet propaganda mock-ups, just as phony as the dozens of "holocaust" and "6 million killed" allegations leveled by New York Jews at the Germans and others BEFORE Hitler came to power (jaw-droppingly documented in THE FIRST HOLOCAUST, another *truly* BANNED book).
Thousands of other wild allegations were made, from human soap to human skin lampshades, and these have finally been admitted to be lies by the establishment. Why? Because it is so easy to simply test the artifacts. Auschwitz, however, is off-limits. This legend is the foundation stone of the state of Israel; it has financed 95+% of Israel's state infrastructure, including its massive arsenal of nuclear weapons. It is the legend that protects the critical immunity of the west's media barons, essentially all of whom are Jews, and where they aren't, their content directors are. Anybody who dares cross these people is hounded from his job, shunned by his colleagues (including the cowards who agree with him behind closed doors), and imprisoned. The effect is the drastically disproportionate and fantastic representation of early 20th century history.
Consider the Holodomor, in which tens of millions of mostly Ukrainian Christians were murdered by the Jew Lazar Kaganovich and his Jewish NKVD deputies. He told his nephew-biographer in the late 80s "Whatever is best for the Jews. Let only that guide your actions." And he did. The reason we never hear of him or his crimes is that the Ukrainians do not own Hollywood, they do not occupy and intimidate our parliaments and academies, our publishing houses, etc. And nor would they try, as their religion is open to all, not only some "chosen" few. I am not a Christian, but I admire the beauty if its compassion and love. Judaism, despite its brilliant public spin, is a religion of tribal unity and hatred. According to its holiest text, the Talmud, Jesus is in hell boiling in his own excrement. (Tractate Gittin 57a) And though I am quite sincere and entirely friendly to strangers, you say I should be there with him.
YOU, the television-lobotomized, hoodwinked Briton are the reason Britain criminalizes thought. Free Simon Sheppard and Luke O’Farrel! They are true Englishmen, by the standards of when England was English.
For a mind-blowing explanation of Jewish rule, read UCLB Professor Kevin MacDonald's THE CULTURE OF CRITIQUE.
For a mind-blowing explanation of the origins of WWII, Israel, the lies about Hitler and Germany, read speeches by Jewish hero Benjamin Freedman. The man was one of the top Zionists in the world, an advisor to several US presidents, a true power broker in 20th century Zionist destruction of Western civilization. One day he defected, and spent the rest of his life and massive fortune telling the truth. Your view of the world will never be the same.
Feeling progressive in hindsight isn't all that difficult. Who else is pushing today's envelope?
so i believe they were afraid of an uproar in laborer class
or..well.. something like that.. It's an educated guess at best :)
Banning Books is really scarey. I wonder if people know how scarey (dangerous) it is.
Happy Face,
If you're going to spout b******t, make it accurate. Anne Frank died in Belsen-Bergen, not Auschwitz. Zylon-B was developed by the Bayer Corp. The scientist who invented it acknowledged it was used in Germany on human beings. Given the HUGE amount of bodies found in all the concentration camps, how can you say no one was murdered or gassed? Stacks upon stacks of corpses (most of them Jewish) and they all happened to die of disease?
Perhaps there were gas chamber mock-ups found at Auschwitz, I don't know. What about all the other concentration camps? There were dozens. You want the world to believe all those gas chambers were mock-ups? Dayum, you Nazis are some clever dudes to mock-up the very evidence that damned you at the trials at Nuremburg.
STFD & STFU
I didn't say nobody was murdered. Millions passed through those prisons. Murders happen in cities that large, certainly in prisons that large. My contention is that nobody was gassed. Stacks upon stacks of corpses, and they all happened to die of gassing? Funny, because they sure look uniformly emaciated to me. Emaciation accompanies /starvation./
Do you mean to imply that there were dozens of gas chambers? That's news to me. Please name them, because this is a major development in the one truly forbidden debate with literally *trillions* of dollars and the fate of a powerful nuclear state at stake.
The "Nazis" weren't damned at Nürnberg by gas chambers, they were damned by a process referred to by Robert Taft as "Victor's justice" in "violation of the most basic principles of American justice and internationally accepted standards of justice," to the applause of US president John F. Kennedy.
I'm not going to invite you to STFD or STFU, I'd rather you simply obliged my questions. I'll check back in three months.