Talk:Benjamin H. Freedman/Archive 1

It is the chemistry of my sentences that will demand your attention:

I will design the most brutally powerful weapon system known to man and genie, and I care not who controls the nations wealth.

The destruction of my soul is infinite, due to your parasitic foolery.

If God had made my rage a combustible entity, this universe would have been destroyed.

I will have Satan's head on my left hand, hold your dear "Samson Option" on my right, and show you how a real warlord mastermind truly looks like.

This is the declaration of war. Prepare yourselves.

Follow this IP, it will lead you towards a dead-end.

Smallish Edit Regarding "Businessman" and "Anti-semite"

I just edited the opening text of the article, giving more light to Friedman's first occupation, "businessman" (according to the dis-ambiguation page). I also, since it is a disputed fact, given the usual antisemite accusations a more objective, less authoritative place, while still respecting the existing sources. I might still make some minor changes to my change, to try and be the most objective possible. MVictorP (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

User Diannaa edited some of my changes (which is alright), but his/her work let to believe that the New York Times qualified Freedman as being anti-semite, whereas what I can see of the article, it rather adressed him as an anti-zionist (a fact that's pretty much undisputed). As much of the "anti-semite" accusations are from the usual zionist watchdogs (what have we here anyway; two of these accusations are from Griffith, another from "Jews against Prejudice" author, and finally a conservative) rather than neutral observers, it's important that their opinion do not translate as gospel, right there in the first paragraph. Come on.

Expect some more changes. The French version of this article is much more elaborate, and objective, IMO.MVictorP (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that; I put in that change without looking closely enough at the source. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

No sweat, and thanks for the good work. MVictorP (talk) 13:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

"known for his antisemitic views and writings"

This article is textbook propaganda. The fact that some people resort to online name-calling, defining a certified academic as an "antisemite" is ludicrous. Wikipedia is not a tool for far-right zionist brainwashing. The sources are questionable at best, libel at worst. The people in charge of the quality of the information provided should be ashamed.

WIKIPEDIA IS A ESTABLISHMENT PROPAGANDA SH*THOLE!!!

F*CK YOU WIKIPEDIA AND DOUGHNUT EATING TROGLODYTE RAT "EDITORS"(PROPAGANDIST)!!!

oh my. such language! I guess anti-zionism should be a more precise word. In any case, Freedman was an eccentric crackpot who fabricated history as he went (e.g. the Balfour Declaration being the reason why the US joined the war on side of the entente. What nonsense.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:540:6B80:CD86:562B:8246:D79C (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

--

Actually, the Balfour Declaration was not the reason why the USA joined WWI on the side of the Entente and BHF never said that. It was the "reward" (aka payback) given to the World Zionist Congress (Theodore Herzl) by the British Government and ultimately the QoE herself for the role the WZC played into modifying USA public opinion thus influencing its government (essentially Woodrow Wilson) to hijack congress into entering the war. Now as far as the article's introduction, it is "interesting" how ANYone who expresses a dissenting opinion to the established Zionist narrative is immediately labeled an antisemite, racist, etc. Especially in the case of BHF who was Jewish himself, the accusation of "holocaust denier" is so ludicrous it an only be explained if we understand the vast difference between a Zionist and a Jew.

--

This man invokes incredibly relevant questions into the motives of why the U.S. went into World War 1. He claims first hand knowledge of such matters and spoke to thousands about these things with the intention of spreading truth. it is incredibly unfair to simply stamp him as a loon and end it there and no fair minded view would do that. This is History not a character assassination. Secondly, just because his claims may seem like " nonsense" to you does not make them untrue or less worthy of further study. Those claims should be stated here blatantly as they hold historical significance and even if not true to his life and message. He would not be the first person in history who believed something that was false, but his impact is non-the-less there and should be recorded fairly. That is the basis of history-- to give the facts as they happened not some summed up judgement. Not to mention, He gives a compelling case worth looking into-- a case that many would shy away from due to the obvious bias of this article. As previously mentioned, if there is really nothing to those claims then people will find that for themselves and decide what they think of him. However, as it stands this article is the definition of propaganda and does much more harm to the Jewish community than anyone else. It also robs those who wish to view history through an unbiased lens.

Those who oppose Freedman's hypothesis that there was a link between the Balfour Declaration and the US declaration of war on Germany should offer a better explanation for US war entry. There are others who utter the same hypothesis. Freedman may have been a doubtful character in some aspects. That does not exclude that he was right in some of his theses. I found no evidence that he was a Holocaust denier. He discussed the number killed. Please correct me if I am wrong. All that I found about Freedman was highly controversial and contradictory. Discussing the number of Holocaust victims does not make him a denier. The whole article sounds like Hasbara or AIPAC propaganda intended to discredit him. As a proselyte he is a natural enemy for zealous Zionists. Aish HaTorah ("Fire of Torah“) with the Hasbara Fellowships became an international program to spread propaganda for the Likud govt. In 2007 this organisation appealed to target Wikipedia. Sadly Wikipedia thus loses more and more of its credibility. Ontologix (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

"known for his antisemitic views and writings"

With my apologies for placing my comment before everyone else's, I did so in an attempt to demonstrate why the term anti-semite and anti-semitism is at best a misnomer, a nonsensical word at worst. Further more, those who make use it clearly do so only when they can no longer debate: It is obviously a means of stopping any further discussion on an -apparently- uncomfortable subject, aimed at smearing and "assassinating the character" of their "opponents". So, until someone clearly and in an universally acceptable way is able to define this term, any use of it effectively renders any conversation into an attempt to prohibit free speech, therefore is an illegal action according to the laws and constitution of the USA. Please come forward with your thoughts.

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.149.131 (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

This allegation is cited with the opinions of one Fulton Lewis Jr (politically motivated conservative), one Stuart Svonkin (pro-Jewish lobbyist) and one Robert K. Griffith (yet another American). Laughable. — Jan Hofmann (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your concern. Is there a problem with using American sources for an American writer?   Will Beback  talk  23:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It may be better for the sake of accuracy to state Who? said he is an anti-semite, or viewed his writings as anti-semetic, as it is not a general view across the Jewish community, particular the less "involved" ones. I mean some of my friends call him lost, etc. So to improve the article, more accuracy is needed as to who view him as an anti-semite. Jesus could be argued an anti-semite. It depends who you ask, and the anti-semetic tag is not general across Jews, nor the world. How do you guys suggest this could be reflected in the article? --94.193.135.142 (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

How about the other two that is mentioned here. "Anti-Semetic" is politically charge here considering the fact that the Freedman disputed the meaning of the term and was openly anti-Zionist.

Freedman talked about Khazars. Is that antisemitic too? Before antisemitism there should be a Semite first. Uikku (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not antisemitic to "talk about" the Khazars, nor even to support the Khazar theory of Ashkenazi Jewish origin. This is not the reason for the description of Freedman as antisemitic. We have cited several reliable sources who describe Freedman as an antisemite. If you wish to bring a reliable source disputing this characterisation, feel free to do so; but that does not permit you to remove the sources which state the opposite. RolandR (talk) 07:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I have edited this page but removed nothing. I sought only to add balance to the authoritative claim that he was an anti-semite by including his own repudiation of the charge and moved the sentence about his business interests to the personal section to aid readability which was slightly disjointed. Searching for sources which support only one side of an argument is as dishonest as making citations up or plagiarism. Just something to think about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.242.236 (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You need to find reliable secondary sources. Instead, you brought unreliable primary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Freedman is Jewish himself, why would he be anti-semitic? Are you saying he wants to kill his parents, siblings and all his relatives? Are you saying he hated all his relatives because they were Jewish? The defintion of ant-semitic as I have read it is any statement made that is unfavorable towards Jews, regardless of its truthfulness. That also seems to be how the reliability of a source is determined by wikipedia. If the source says something unfavorable about Jews, wikipedia considers it unreliable. And after reading wikipedias entry on Benjamin Freedman, it seems to be saying he was an anti-semite because he supported Palestinian rights. I don't know how long wikipedia will be able to put forth these bizarre opinions before people start looking at Wikipedia as a Jewish or Israeli front organization. Much of the world views Israel as a brutal racist state, including Nobel Peace Prize winners like former President Jimmy Carter. Many people today might consider Freedman a human rights spokesman sixty years ahead of his time. Sixty years ago Palestinians were considered an inferior people to Jews. This is clear in the statements of various people that supported the Jewish cause, including Winston Churchill, who played an important role in the creation of Israel.Pgg804 (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why a Jew couldn't be an antisemite; please review, for example, Dan Burros. Regardless, Wikipedia depends on the views of reliable sources, not Wikipedia editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh yes those terrible 'self-haters' - Freedman was certainly Anti-Zionist, but not Anti-jewish. Vexorg (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You can not use subjective accusations of opposing groups and persons as a neutral and/or objective source for the label 'anti-semitic'. A Semite can't be anti-semitic. Anti-Zionist is obviously correct, but not anti-semitic. --94.216.140.192 (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. This is plain Hasbara, most of the article.

It's simple; Just find a source that share one's opinion on a polemic matter, and then give it undue (or even decisive) weight, while reducing the opposing views to non-credibility by connotative research. To put a nice finish on it all, use authoritative, automaton-like "letter of the law" bureaucratic argumentation to quell, by attrition, all those "spirit of the laws" non-initiates who would then want to get the train back in its tracks.

I edited the opening text, that's already a start. See section up there. MVictorP (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The way I understand the term 'anti-semitic' means that the Jews hate him, and not that he hates the Jews. Additionally the term 'anti-semitic' is very loaded so by using it at the beginning it sets the mood for the rest of the article. It would be better if it was omitted from the first paragraph and perhaps was moved to another section called CRITICISM plus the wording should be "he had been accused to be anti-semitic". That would make for a better article. Sad that Wikipedia's article is written in such manner.Snowonweb (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Antisemitism has been well defined on WP. It was even in the name of some parties in the 20th century. The term was coined by the perpetrators of hate against Jews. Freedman who was born a Jew claimed that his own ancestry as well as others who commonly referred to as Jews were actually a group of Khazars with a secret agenda to dominate the world. He alienated himself from the Jewish religion by converting to Christianity and from the Jewish people by claiming that he wished not to be part of it, and by accusing the Jews of (or what he and others who believe this hate talk would call "exposed the Jews for") various atrocities including all deaths in WWI, all deaths in WWII, inventing a false genocide termed "the Holocaust" and much more. All the openly antisemitic groups who call for the extermination of all Jews, have accepted Freedman as one of their main sources for their ideas. (I hope you do not agree with them). This is antisemitism.

Snowonweb, please return the Category:Antisemitism No one agreed to this. There has never been an RfC closure for rm category saying no individual or group can be marked with category antisemitism!! פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 13:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism is a euphemism for anti-Semitism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.203.65.7 (talk) 12:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Restored the description of him as an antisemite. Also noting that it's curious tha his views on Jews and Judaism were removed from the article. Drsmoo (talk) 05:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Anti-semitism is in my view assuming an attitude that the Jewish race is inferior to other races, e.g the so called Aryan race. Did Freedman utter such views? If so, he may rightly be termed an anti-semite. Ontologix (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

No it is not. Anti-semitism refers to the fact that there are Semitic people. I would accept a claim that Hitler, Goebbels and Himmler were anti-semitists. Anti-Zionism refers to the fact that there is a political ideology called as Zionism, comparable to other political ideologies. So, it should be obvious that because being a Semite does not equal being a Zionist, then Anti-Zionism is not an euphemism for Anti-Semitism. If someone misuses these words, that is another issue. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to call Freedman an anti-Semite. He was Jewish himself (regardless of conversion, he was still a cultural/ethnic Jew). The charges of anti-Semite was leveled against him by Zionists because Freedman spoke out against Zionism. I am a PhD student in political science and many Wikipedia articles have become nothing more than Zionist propaganda. I have actually edited Wikipedia articles and cited peer-reviewed academic journals, and a Wikipedia editor has deleted what I have written, claiming that my peer-reviewed sources aren't credible...insane. Personally, I hope Wikipedia folds. It has become a source of misinformation and propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.161.127.72 (talk) 02:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

As WP has a virtual monopoly it has become the target of influential propaganda institutions. The anoymous moderators or editors of articles high-handedly decide what becomes part ot the article and what not. Here we have an obvious example. I used to contribute to WP, but stopped for this reason. Ontologix (talk) 05:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Holocaust revisionist, not holocaust denier

Benjamin Freedman did not deny the holocaust. He refuted the number of 6 million Jews being killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexandraTruthWarrior (talk • contribs) 14:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

--

I second the above comment. There should be a clear distinction between a skeptic or a revisionist and a denier. However, again here (e.g. with the Holocaust) there are people who do not deny the persecution of the Jews at the hands of Nazi Germany in WWII, but disagree with the use of the term "Holocaust". Apparently the zionists behind all these misnomers (i.e. antisemitism, holocaust, etc) they have a tendency to be very sloppy with their etymology. E.g. semites are also the Arabs but antisemitism is restricted only against the jewish people and is actually unique in that respect. Also "Holocaust" (Ολοκαύτωμα) is a word from the ancient Greeκ language. its true translation is: Something that is being voluntarily offered in a complete burning by someone to a deity as a sacrifice to. Yoy see what I mean, tight. It has nothing to do with what the Jews suffered. But I also agree with the comment in the section above, it is no longer worth it and totally pointless to contribute to WP anymore, it has mutated into an unreliable platform suitable only for propaganda and topics are usually hijacked by demagogues, extremists and ideologues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.149.131 (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)