Dogsmilk wrote:
Quote:
Climate of fear Dogsmilk?
Climate of exasperation.
Then can I conclude that you will not put your position to the test? Please just answer, yes or no.
Originally I said that the climate of fear created by the threat of unemployment, persecution, jail was an effective tool for suppressing overt dissent. You changed that (typically misrepresenting) to a climate of fear surrounding
investigation of holocaust revisionism, suggesting there was none.
Not what I said, but still I say that there is, and suggested a way of trying to find out. I say that lifelong believers experience "fear" when they first look into the possibility that it's all a massive lie. I say you know that is the case (they experience fear), and everyone here knows it too.
You really should have replied in the other thread, where it would be easier for others to follow the discussion.
You seem to think what Lipstadt said about Irving was libel - but calling God knows how many survivors liars or deluded isn't?!
Whether it's libel depends on whether it's true. A judge saying it's true (or not) doesn't make it so (or not).
Germar Rudolf
The Persecution of a German Scholar
Imagine an expert in DNA analyses. He is asked to verify if a defendant is the father of a child. He complies and confirms the fatherhood of the defendant. With his testimony, however, the expert contradicts the statements of many witnesses who claim the opposite. Imagine the judge ruling not to admit the expert testimony because it makes spectators assume that the witnesses lied out of sinister motives. The judge even puts the expert witness on trial for inciting hatred against the witnesses and sentences him to 14 months in jail. You think it can’t happen? It does happen in Germany...
http://germarrudolf.com/index.html
Only God would seem to know how many surivivors there are. "Survivors" seem to be breeding, and passing on their "survival" to their offspring. There seem to be more now than at the close of WW2.
Quote:
Or heard of the thousands of other Germans fined or imprisoned for not believing what they are told?
Your evidence "thousands" of Germans have been imprisoned for denial is...?
I'll leave that as a typical example of your misrepresentation.
Yeah some obviously deranged Nazi fruitloop (follow link earlier in thread for her extraordinary outburst) got kicked out of court. The relevance of this is...?
To counter your glib assertion that "We have already seen arguments against the Holocaust discussed openly in court,"
You really should have replied in the other thread, where it would be easier for others to follow the discussion.
Quote:
Maybe. If (1) the trials were not secret. If (2) public access was permitted. If (3) I was prepared to put my head above the parapet by showing up.
1/No denial trials have been secret 2/Public access has not been debarred. 3/Supporters of deniers have historically been quite vocal.
Quote:
Then they'd be fined until they did or locked up or both.
How many 'name' deniers have backed down due to being taken to court? Is it more than zero?
All of the above deliberately ignores that I was talking about a hypothetical ban (raised by you as a diversion) on dissenting from official 911 truth. As I said:
Comparing current and now proposed laws forbidding dissent from the official truth of the holocaust with a hypothetical ban on 911 truth .. is about as much use as a chocolate teapot. None of your ...points are really parallel.
You really should have replied in the other thread, where it would be easier for others to follow the discussion, and harder for you to construct your own contexts.
For crying out loud Carlo Mattogno does archival work and I think even Graf (who you claim to have been reading) has done some with him. You even post Irving making wild claims about things he found in the archives in the same post. Basically, you are just making things up
My assertion was "officially sanctioned historians are granted privileged access, while dissidents are not". I didn't refer to any particular archives. I didn't "make it up", I just know it's true as a general principle, and so does everyone else reading this. To say otherwise is rather like supposing that a "journalist" from Class War could expect the same access to government ministers and documents as the “Chief Political Correspondent” of the BBC or The Times, as I said in the other thread.
You really should have replied in the other thread, where...oh never mind.
This is the best of all -
Quote:
Historians can't "testify" if they weren't there. At least I thought not, until today, this very afternoon. Hang on, I may be wrong. Perhaps historians who were not there can testify. If we apply the logic of the “Holocaust Educational Trust”, who are sending our kids off to Auschwitz to be “educated”, even our children may be able to “testify” in years to come.
Do the words "expert witness" mean anything to you? Or has this standard feature of the English legal tradition totally passed you by? Let's remember the original point was about the Holocaust being debated openly in court, including historians cross-examined by deniers. Both sides have called expert witnesses to testify as is not unusual in court cases.
Does the difference between the primary meaning of "testify" as in "I saw the accused do it" and "testify" as in "I think the murderer did it" mean anything to you? Let's remember I was making a counter point that the Holocaust Educational Trust assert that children sent to Auschwitz TODAY can be "eye-witnesses" to what happened during the Second World War."
Further, expert witnesses who are revisionists are often not admitted, or risk imprisonment. "Truth is no defence". "If you defend yourself, you compound your guilt, if you remain silent, you forego your defence".
No this is better (it's the patronising comments that tip it)
...........
I know you don't accept that this is what's happening, but I just don't believe that you are so unknowing of the techniques of propaganda to ask “What “central issue” is being distracted from?” You knew what I meant. Now it really feels like you're making work for me.
I presume by patronising you refer to the extract above. I wasn't being patronising. I was saying I don't think you're discussing this honestly.
Firstly, you seem to implying that people getting cross about Kola was some sort of 'diversionary tactic'. All I can say is – ?.
There is no 'debate' about whether graves should disturbed or not.
I think your statement:
the protest that accompanied Kola's work locating mass graves at Belzec ...
and the results of "searching <kola belzec> and 2m reading" I said I'd done are sufficient to say that there was a "debate".
I said "I will merely point out that creating a controversy along the lines of "The holocaust was uniquely evil etc. etc.... SHOULD we disinter, yes or no?" serves to distract from the central issue and re-enforce the "official truth"".
Which it does.
I would add that a reluctance to examine supposed physical evidence on the part of affirmers hardly inspires confidence in the story.
I see no reason why people should be exhumed to placate a handful of cranks.
Oh, right then. Not offending anyone is more important than examining physical evidence. I'll just trust you and HHP on the mass graves.
For example, you think I'm Mr Official History, but I certainly wouldn't say the holocaust was “uniquely evil” ... In fact, I personally take issue with the notion of the Holocaust as some unique event of ultimate importance.
Doesn't
quite gel with what you said here:
Dogsmilk said:
I think the Holocaust has a reasonable claim to unique significance.
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewt ... dd5e993628
I have the sense that you fine tune your position according to the extent you are boxed in on any particular thread, and to be fair, sometimes to the extent you appear to be bettering others. Your tactics of distortion, misrepresentation, ad-hom'ing, bogus extrapolation, sarcasm etc however, appear to be habitual.
Certainly the effort you put into defending the "official truth" of the holocaust implies it is more important to you than any other topic on this board. Which brings us back to my requests to tell us what other "official truths" "don't stack up" for you.
...I certainly wouldn't say ...that we particularly need more museums.
Amen to that. Not
particularly. I'm glad we agree on something. There are literally
hundreds of them, not to mention who knows how many "memorials". Hundreds of museums in the USA alone, I have read.
I would write about what I think the significance of that is, but since you claim that locking up people who question the official truth makes the official truth more believable, I doubt you'd get it.
I'd say reducing everything to a did it happen/didn't it happen dichotomy is a diversion from all the considerations about how it's presented, how it's used politically, how it's given meaning, how it's made 'exclusive' etc.
UN-F*CKING BELIEVABLE!!. NOW
THAT is "CHUTZPAH"!!
Do you want to edit your post? I mean we all make mistakes... Were you tired? HO-LEE-JUM-PING-nonsense.
Really, go on, delete that bit, I won't tell. I can't even begin to respond to that at the lengths necessary to detail the implications of what you just said, unless I know it will remain.
Here, you haven't constructed a straw man, you've built a great big wickerman and shut Edward Woodward inside it with some farm animals.
Good line, wish I'd thought of it. Doesn't change the facts though.
I say that smearing, persecution, fining and jailing of dissenters from official truth suggests it is
less likely to be true, and in the other thread you invert my argument and say that these things make it
more likely to be true. Are
you on a whack, sorry, on crack?
As well as denying the plain as the nose on your face argument, that suppression of open debate indicates something being hidden, you pointedly fail to answer whether there is
any other official truth is protected by a legal ban on dissent.
Thought of one yet?
Put well by Germar Rudolf:
Rudolf’s crime: he did not obey a German penal law that forces everybody to parrot
the official version of a detail of German history. You may wonder what detail
that may be, but to be sure, it does not matter, because a government that prescribes
the writing of history by penal law is dictating to its citizens what to think,
and that is the exact definition of a dictatorship. Period.
Quote:
To me "uproot" with "evacuate" is more coherent than "exterminate" with "evacuate", but maybe that's just me.
I'd say it is. But maybe that's just me.
It's just not worth going on about this. We see it differently.
I assume if someone had a 3 hour recording of Tony Blair speaking about EU banana import quotas and at 2.12 he says "And by the way I'd just like to spend five minutes talking about how Dick Cheney told me planes were going to hit the twin towers tomorrow on September 10th..."
Well he
wouldn't would he? Thanks for making my point for me.
At the end of the day, HHP are not going to waste bandwidth putting up three hours of waffle interesting only to a tiny minority of specialists to placate one disgruntled soul in cyberspace. Live with it.
Right. Just the "interesting bit". Ok.
The Protocols are boll0cks and their 'uncanny predictions' are only impressive to people who don't realise control and manipulation of the media etc are simply not modern concepts.
Do you not see how your acknowledgement that control and manipulation of the media is as old as the media itself undermines what you say (Protocols -boll0cks) and gives more credence to them?
BTW:
“What are you prating about? As long as we do not have the press of the whole world in our hands, everything you may do is vain. We must control or influence the papers of the whole world in order to blind and deceive the people.”
-Baron Moses Montefiore
I'm "agnostic" on the question of whether they are an official record of the 1896 Zionist conference as some people say, but it can hardly be doubted that they date from at least 1906. And if you fail to recognise the extraordinary prescience of whoever wrote them, that can only be because you're at some level afraid.
They are saying that what you are hearing has not been edited
But I'm not hearing it. I'm reading it.
This was always a minor point, but I believe you would use it if you saw it on a revisionist site. However, I've just realised it's possible that my browser doesn't render the page as yours does. Do you hear audio automatically when the page loads? I don't, and there is no link on that page to the movie. I will check it on IE/Windows when I get a chance.
No.
I am not doing some belief list of my (frequently rather complex and not easily reduced to soundbites) opinions for no apparent reason. I find it rather creepy.....What "implications"???? Are you on crack or something????
No. I have genuine doubts about your reasons for being here. I will expand on this elsewhere, when I've read more of your posts.
Well if you've "been studying it for a while", why do you need to say things like -
Quote:
And never that camp guards were court martialled for murdering Jews
Anything like this?
Quote:
The accused shall not be punished because of the actions against the Jews as such. The Jews have to be exterminated and none of the Jews that were killed is any great loss. ....
No, more like this:
So now do you understand? Even though the Nazi policy was unjust, there were Germans who were executed for mistreating Jews. If the German objective had been "extermination of the Jews," what need would there have been for punishment of this kind?
http://www.ihr.org/other/marco_polo.html
..and another source referencing murder and court martial that I can't find right now, but will search for.
To be fair you specify "camp guards" so I'm not exactly sure what exciting factoid you've plucked from a denier site.
Just as you plucked yours from an affirmer site.
And never the Zionist declaration (on behalf of Jewry en masse) of war on Germany.
Uh-huh. And what about the German Zionist delegation that tried to talk Stephen Wise out of backing any boycott? German Jews, of course, tended to be averse to any boycott - they were, after all, stuck in Hitler's Germany.
That makes sense. But were they stuck there in 1933? I didn't know that.
Though of course, in the real world, "Jewry" was not actually some borg-like hive mind...It was also in the interests of those into the boycott to portray themselves as representing Jews generally.
"We are a people - One people" -Theodore Herzl
"Let us all recognize that we Jews are a distinct nationality of which
every Jew, whatever his country, his station, or shade of belief, is
necessarily a member."
- LOUIS D. BRANDEIS, Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
Jewish religion is above all Jewish patriotism ... the Jews are something more
than mere 'followers of a religion,' namely, they are a race brotherhood, a nation"
Every Jew is, whether he wishes it or not, solidly united with the entire nation
- Moses Hess
Gilad Atzmon considers the different types of Jewish identity, from
that which evolves around Judaism, to that for which being Jewish is
incidental and marginal, to that for which Jewishness is the centrepiece
of identity, over and above all other traits. He focuses on the third
category, which he says is "the essence of Zionism", and argues that,
according to this definition, many Jews are in fact Zionists, even if
they deny it. He concludes that Jewish people who fall into this third
category tend to act in harmony, protecting one another and operating
as a global Zionist body shield.
...
However the third category is largely problematic. Clearly, its definition
may sound inflammatory to some. And yet, bizarrely enough, it is a general
formulation of Chaim Weizmann’s view of the Jewish identity as expressed
in his famous address at the First Jewish Congress:
“There are no English, French, German or American Jews, but only Jews
living in England, France, Germany or America.”
...
According to Weizmann, a prominent Zionist figure, Jewishness is a primary quality.
You may be a Jew who dwells in England, a Jew who plays the violin or even a Jew
against Zionism. But above all else you are a Jew. And this is exactly the idea
conveyed by the 3rd category. It is all about viewing Jewishness as the
key element in one’s being. Any other quality is secondary.
- re, Jewish identity, Zionism and Palestine
By Gilad Atzmon
The above were / are all Jewish of course. It's all very well for you to use a phrase like "some borg-like hive mind", but you are denying "Jewish Identity".
The following is from Henry Ford. Instead of having a hissy fit, I challenge you to deny the essence of anything Ford says here. You may be wrestling with your instilled notions of political correctness, but I assert that no honest Jew would so deny it, and that everyone here recognises what he says as true. You will note that nowhere do I suggest that these well known aspects of Jewish identity are malign, and you have no reason (unless you're anti-jewish or something) to construe them as such.
...Scattered abroad without country or government, he yet presents
a unity of race continuity which no other people has achieved...
Being dispersed among the nations, but never merging themselves
with the nations and never losing a very distinctive identity...
This distribution of the Jews over Europe and the world,
each Jewish community linked in a fellowship of blood, faith and suffering
with every other group, .. Not only were they everywhere ...
but they were in touch. They were organized before the days of
conscious international commercial organizations, they were bound together
by the sinews of a common life....
...that every Jew acknowledges every other Jew; that Jews
understand each other and are loyal to each other as against "outsiders";
that they ... stand together for Jewish defense,...
Jews of every shade of opinion, of every degree of religion and of unreligion,
can unite all round the world, and do unite, having their own news service,
their own telegraph service, their own "foreign department"
(as they themselves describe it), by which they keep themselves united and
informed for mass action. There is nothing even remotely approaching that among "gentiles."
I'm well aware this is "controversial", but I happen to
know that the above aspects of the Jewish psyche are frequently discussed among Jews, and indeed in the MSM, and I'm not afraid to say so.
I
think you're itching to say that I'm a bigot. Please don't hold back on my account. That would in my view demonstrate the bankruptcy of your argument.
So, no "borg-like hive mind", (rather tasteless phrase IMO) but there are sound reasons to believe the economic war was "waged" by the vast majority of Jewry, even judging only by it's impact, and sound reasons to believe that the decision was arrived at by an elite hierarchy of Jewry:
Nevertheless, the Jews of the world declared a boycott against Germany, and it was so effective that you couldn't find one thing in any store anywhere in the world with the words "made in Germany" on it. (Benjamin Freedman)
http://www.historicist.com/untermeyer/germany.htm
In 1933 Untermyer who was the head of the American delegation to the world conference of Jews in Amsterdam, was also the president of the conference. On his return, he addressed the nation in a noted speech made on WABC. Untermyer called for the declaration of a 'holy war' by the Jews against Germany, and appealed to the masses of non-Jewish humanity to boycott German-made imports and all merchants who have German-made items in their establishments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Untermyer
The Jewish boycott is generally reduced to a footnote in history.
An economic war is still a war, but otherwise you're quite right. In fact I'd be surprised if even 5% of people in this country have ever heard of it.
Funny that. I would have thought it key to understanding the run up to WW2.
Really? Exactly which Zionist group was this that had so much power? What year? - so exactly which Jews? Where to? - you're most certainly not referring to the aborted 'Madagascar plan'.
I've just realised how long I'm spending on this fruitless argument, while you DO NOT ACCEPT MY CHALLENGE. I will be brief from now on.
See above re Jewish declaration of war, and this link.
http://www.nkusa.org/Historical_Documen ... stions.cfm
Incidentally, I have heard of the Morgenthau plan. And?
Has been described as a planned genocide against the Germans. I've read about it. On the internet.
Himmler speech - no proof of anything except "plucked" from holocaustian sources.
Precious little evidence. - (other than frequently manifestly false witness statements, confessions extracted under torture and duress, victor's official history, and "re-constructed" "gas chambers")
That's what I think. Such "evidence" as there is, I have seen much of it convincingly debunked by revisionists, seen the affirmers' debunking of the debunking, and find the revisionists on the whole to be more convincing, though not in every case.
Elie Wiesal is a drama queen and he's one survivor I don't personally take at their word.
I say he is a professsional liar.
Interestingly, some c*nt on Zundel's defence team back in the day stated that survivors saw different smoke in different conditions and 'invented wild stories'
I thought it was said by Friedman in the trial, and on the transcript. Don't know.
Did it actually occur to you Friedman - doubtless traumatised - could have invented this notion to himself and that this does not automatically discredit everything else he said?
I say he is a liar. You will defend this to the end won't you?
If all these witness statements are manifestly false, let's start by having a look at David Olere.
Never heard of him, will try to read up. Anyway, why not start with a Nobel Prize winner, lol.
And exactly whse confessions were extracted under torture? Give me names.
The ones who didn't want their balls crushed any more and didn't want to be executed.
It wasn't until I encountered certain individuals determined to raise it here that I paid any attention to the subject.
You keep saying that. Sorry, I don't believe you.
Have you actually noticed how patronising youare?
I treat as I find. I'm not proud of my reaction to your "online persona", but think I've been quite restrained given how unpleasant you are. Anyone who has read my posts to others, and yours to others, can form their own judgement.
Mind you, you appear to think people in general are all morons
Most people know nothing but what the MSM tell them, so ignorant, trained to believe official truth, and not to think critically.
And AFRAID to even consider that it's all a big lie. As they're meant to be.
To frame something as 'suspicious' simply on the basis it's 'international' is pure tosh
If you're a globalist.
ICRC report: I'll number them this time:
1 - I said that I had read that: the report does not mention gas chambers.
2 - I said that I searched <red cross no mention gas chambers> and first hit was the 100% affirmer:
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/l/ ... py?people/ l/lipstadt.deborah//citations/red-cross.report
3 - I said that the page there shifts the issue to whether the report denied the existence of gas chambers.
4 - I said that I was left with the impression that the Red Cross report makes no mention of gas chambers.
5 - I said that this (if correct) is suspicious.
Which do you dispute? 1,2,3,4 or 5?
Amazingly, you totally ignore any reference to death camps and just say "well it doesn't say gas chambers".
Typically, you divert from the fact that my point was about it not mentioning gas chambers.
Basically I have neither the time nor inclination to get into whatever anti-semitic propaganda came out of Ernest Liebold's machinations.
Never heard of Liebold. So you cannot challenge the evidence, offer evidence to support your position, or justify your claim to know more about it than Churchill, contemporary writers cited, or indeed Henry Ford.
It's remarkable what saying "anti-semitic" can achieve. Almost like a get out of jail free card.
Well strictly speaking I think "National Socialism" comes more from "National Socialist German Workers Party" and is kind of its own thing.
So we'll soon be hearing "Labour", "Democrat", "Republican" used as psychological triggers, and taken to mean "uniquely evil mass murderers etc".
However, I am most certainly not a nationalist.
If you're not a globalist, then yes you are. Otherwise, please tell me which political philosophy is the antithesis of globalism, or stands in opposition to it.
Once again, please say explicitly whether or not you agree to accept my challenge, and participate in the research.
If you want to know who is really in control, ask yourself who you cannot criticise.
"The hunt for 'anti-semites' is a hunt for pockets of resistance to the NWO"-- Israel Shamir
"What we in America call terrorists are really groups of people that reject the international system..." - Heinz "Henry" Kissinger
