Sobering thoughts

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
vincentferrer
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 362
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:19 pm
Location: Zionist country

Postby vincentferrer » 1 decade 3 years ago (Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:01 am)

I have begun to contact the signers of the letter from the religion department at the university which has condemned one of the most respected revisionists in America.

Based on preliminary feedback I am a bit shocked.

At the SWC , the so called Museum of Tolerance, one can actually carry on a conversation. No such luck with those who call themselves 'religion professors' .

Tom
Member
Member
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 9:34 pm

Postby Tom » 1 decade 3 years ago (Wed Mar 22, 2006 12:02 pm)

vincentferrer,

I will be very busy for the next few days so I will not be able to post much.

I certainly do hope you will post some of their replies. I really want to read
them and I will check in whenever I can.

It is quite obvious that the Holocaust Lobby (promoters) has drasticaly
expanded their outreach programs to the American public and plan to
soon expand it even more.

I suspect we will see much truth in that what ASMarques wrote in the first
post in this thread:

2) In the West the "Holocaust" has developed into a fully fledged faith, with
all the usual -- both on the individual and collective levels -- religious
means of coercion behind it. Revisionists often have a hard time accepting
this, but it's the truth.


I have to say a word of thanks to ASMarques here for this thread which
really woke me up to this matter.

I was really not aware of all the inroads the Holocaust Promoters have
made into all the various religious denominations, university religion
schools etc. until this thread prompted me to begin to look into it.


Tom

vincentferrer
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 362
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:19 pm
Location: Zionist country

Postby vincentferrer » 1 decade 3 years ago (Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:02 pm)

I have only two contacts at this point, being it is spring break.

Here is my first exchange.


The first brief exchange was a question about why the harsh condemnation in the letter. This was answered by a reference to the "sources used" in a Wall Street Journal article. ( 2004 written by Tim Ryback ? )

If you are scratching your head saying , "well, what about the sources,
", you are not alone. But you have just run up against something.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

I guess that was the buzzer on the 20 second holocaust question clock, because 20 seconds is all I got.

Is that any way to treat the parent of prospective :wink: student ? I tried once more. :shock:


Call #2.

A different person on a different day. The clock has been reset, except this time it is a 5 second clock. Serious.

ah hmmm. " I would like to ask a question about the Dr. Arthur Butz letter, you signed. " :lol:

Answer: I have nothing to say about that". :x dial tone.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

and there you have the extent of the intellectual debate on this matter
to date. :P

Stay tuned. :wink:

Tom
Member
Member
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 9:34 pm

Postby Tom » 1 decade 3 years ago (Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:48 pm)

vincentferrer,

You have just made my day! Thank you__ :mrgreen: __ I don't know
when I have laughed so hard.

I sure hope you keep making inquiries... at that religion dept. and many
others also! And please keep posting the very thoughtful responses you
get....:shock:

As ASMarques noted on page2 of this thread:

"Once you start to pin the "religion" label on the "Holocaust" lobby -- exactly in the same way it pins the label of "denial" on us -- and insist in hammering away this view, you contribute to show it for what it really is, and indeed is crying out loud to the World it is, when it resorts to such a purely religious-like sin as that of being a denier. Yes, the right answer to the imposition of religious dogma is the straightforward denial of religious dogma: this should be a revisionist leitmotiv."


As the old saying goes: What's good for the goose is good for the gander.___ :mrgreen:

Tom

User avatar
ASMarques
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 3 years ago (Thu Mar 23, 2006 5:23 pm)

Tom wrote:As the old saying goes: What's good for the goose is good for the gander.___ :mrgreen:


That was the main idea behind my original post. The line might be: "Am I a denier? Okay, I'm one, provided "Holocaust" peddlers agree they're religious believers, in fact religious inquisitors, etc." I remember at one point, Faurisson requiring membership in a French atheist association, looking for support in his fight against judicial persecution.

Back then, Faurisson's move wasn't successful, except, I think, in the measure that it launched an inner debate within the said association, quickly dominated by its p.c. sector, but that was then and now is now.

Sooner or later, people who oppose, or have past experience of, the same sort of abuse we face, are bound to start noticing that fact and the menace that punishment of "Holocaust denial" poses to their own views, even if they don't feel concerned specifically with WW2 topics.

I would place two main groups as potentially very significant to "Holocaust revisionism", besides the obvious "card carrying civil libertarians" (the "Amnesty International" sorry sort, who, at least in Europe, apparently don't give a damn) and they are: 1) political libertarians (meaning the active "ideological" kind) and 2) people with rationalist views, interested in religious debates, separation of Church & State etc.

After the Irving trial, with all the other cases -- and indeed Irving's own appeal -- hopefully not going away in silence, outreach should be the main concern.

Radar
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 2:25 pm

Postby Radar » 1 decade 3 years ago (Fri Mar 24, 2006 3:26 pm)

We've about run this thread into the ground or perhaps met its own tail coming around with the last post of ASM who started it all, when he returns to his dreary - dare I say it - "religious" belief - that revisionism is somehow the preferential territory of (1) card-carrying civil libertarians, (2) idiological "libertarians" [a bit obscure], and (3) "rationalists", meaning to him not traditional religious folks I believe [Aristotle and Aquinas would shudder!]. Others presumably can tag along but I would assume only as lesser lights.

If you want a losing plan, that's it.

I prefer a simpler plan, open to all: the search for the truth about the so-called Holocaust. All welcome. Left, right, believers of all creeds and others of none.

User avatar
ASMarques
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 3 years ago (Fri Mar 24, 2006 5:19 pm)

Radar wrote:We've about run this thread into the ground or perhaps met its own tail coming around with the last post of ASM who started it all, when he returns to his dreary - dare I say it - "religious" belief - that revisionism is somehow the preferential territory of (1) card-carrying civil libertarians,


I'm sorry for my less-than-perfect English but I believe I have just stated the exact opposite: it isn't but it should become.

(2) idiological "libertarians" [a bit obscure],


I meant by that people whose all-around political convictions are "libertarian" (i.e. those people of an anti-socialist, anti-authoritarian persuasion, generally thus designated, both on the left and on the right). By "civil libertarians" I meant those concerned with civil rights, but not necessarily "political libertarians".

and (3) "rationalists", meaning to him not traditional religious folks I believe [Aristotle and Aquinas would shudder!]. Others presumably can tag along but I would assume only as lesser lights.


I'm not concerned with other people's shudders (or, by the way, your perception of them). I meant by "rationalism" a modern active interest in the mechanisms of belief and faith, anti-religious debate etc.

If you want a losing plan, that's it.


If you want a losing plan, mix up disbelief in one kind of miracles and activism against popular credulity in them, with reluctance to face professional miracle-peddling at large.

I prefer a simpler plan, open to all: the search for the truth about the so-called Holocaust.


Not a different plan. That's the basic rationalist one, in case you haven't got the message. Concerning the "Holocaust" or any other pseudo-historical belief. Otherwise, if the undivised truth doesn't appeal to you at all, chances are all you'll be doing is peddling away a peculiar brand of political snake oil with no deep meaning behind it.

All welcome. Left, right, believers of all creeds and others of none.


Sure. I suppose believers in God's modern gift to his favorite people will be glad to offer you their own miraculous truth and join your club.

Tom
Member
Member
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 9:34 pm

Postby Tom » 1 decade 3 years ago (Mon Mar 27, 2006 12:21 pm)

ASMarques wrote:
Tom wrote:As the old saying goes: What's good for the goose is good for the gander.___ :mrgreen:


Sooner or later, people who oppose, or have past experience of,
the same sort of abuse we face, are bound to start noticing that
fact and the menace that punishment of "Holocaust denial" poses
to their own views, even if they don't feel concerned specifically
with WW2 topics.


ASMarques,

It looks like the ganders are beginning to get goosed____ :shock:

Here is a quote just posted by Michael A. Hoffman II:



John L. Kucek on the Afghan Muslim-Christian controversy:

"Now that President Bush has made a plea for the release of the Afghan
prisoner who does not believe in the Muslim fairy tale, when is he going
to make a plea for release of the European prisoners (Rudolf, Zündel and
Irving) who do not believe in the 'Holocaust' fairy tale?"



Tom

User avatar
ASMarques
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 3 years ago (Tue Mar 28, 2006 9:49 pm)

It looks like the ganders are beginning to get goosed____ :shock:

Here is a quote just posted by Michael A. Hoffman II:

John L. Kucek on the Afghan Muslim-Christian controversy:

"Now that President Bush has made a plea for the release of the Afghan prisoner who does not believe in the Muslim fairy tale, when is he going to make a plea for release of the European prisoners (Rudolf, Zündel and Irving) who do not believe in the 'Holocaust' fairy tale?"



Yes, that's a nice one.

The amazing Jewish success in protecting their "Holocaust" addition to what has really become a Judeo-Christian symbiotic creed is an inspiration for censors everywhere. Those who think I'm the only one connecting the religious dots should notice the following apparently well-reasoned, but in fact fallacious, defence of censorship as a means of protecting "respect for religion" in an Indian magazine. It's quite representative of many similar arguments I've been reading in the non-Western press (mainly, but not exclusively, the Islamic one). The argument is also being used by Christians and crypto-Fascists nostalgic for the "good old times" when respect for the "true" set of beliefs was supposed to be enforceable by the Church or State authority

I'm not transcribing the article because it's a rather long one, but I strongly recommend that this sort of thing should be carefully read and critically understood for the venomous danger it presents. One should never give up to people who confuse such situations as the defence of honor against libellous falsehoods with the old "shouting fire in a theater" red herring that opens the door to the criminalisation of speech. Take the following passages:

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/stories/20060407001107800.htm

In no civilised country is freedom of speech absolute or unrestricted. Such a freedom for which the Danes, others in Europe and many Americans now contend is a licence to anarchy. One of the great champions of free speech, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes of the United States Supreme Court, propounded the test in a judgment that ranks as a classic. "The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre, and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree" (Schenck vs. The U.S. (1919) 249 U.S. 47 at page 52).

[...]

There is another aspect to blasphemy. It is the use of blasphemous writing to express and spread hate - as in the Danish cartoons. The Human Rights Committee set up by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ruled in 1996 in Favrisson vs. France that Article 19 of the Covenant (on free speech) was not infringed by the punishment of a person who made statements promoting anti-Semitism.

David Irving was convicted by a Viennese court for denying that the Nazis used gas chambers to murder Jews at Auschwitz and for declaring Hitler innocent of that crime.

Is this defensible? David Cesarani, author of Eichmann: His Life and Crimes, thinks it is. How? Is it not just perverse, dishonest rewriting of history? But Cesarani says it "amounts (sic.) to propaganda for the neo-Nazi cause" and "reinforces the stereotype of Jews as powerful, merciless and conspiratorial". Voltaire and Mill wrote for a small elite. The situation is different now. "All that decent people can do is agree to reasonable limits or what can be said and set down legal markers in an attempt to preserve a democratic civilised and tolerant society."

This is precisely what Muslims have been clamouring for since the Rushdie controversy erupted in 1988-89. Their case did not need building an argument on an argument. This is why the Secretary-General of the Arab League, Amr Mousa, asked whether this was not another case of double standards. "When Islam is insulted certain powers raise the issue of freedom of expression."

In this writer's opinion, if history is written intentionally perversely and in language calculated to hurt religious feelings, it can fall within the reach of the law.

[...]

The contrast with justified intolerance of anti-Semitism is glaring. It will be long before we see the end of the West's double standards on Islam - if ever.


The author, of course, is quite right on the "double standards" issue, but definitely wrong on the kind of "single standard" he proposes.

Justice Holmes's "border case" has been quoted by would-be censors since he first articulated it, but the censors have it all wrong: prohibiting or punishing "fire shouts in theaters" as such would be a very silly measure, if for no other reason, because theaters do catch fire and fire shouts can save lives. Using speech to fraudulently sell property that one doesn't own to some unknowning victim is not a free speech issue; and neither should using speech to purposefully provoke a panic in a multitude be. Of course one behaves criminally if one tells a blind man on the brink of a precipice that he may safely step forward! But one should not argue that since a given criminal act may require words to be committed, then the words themselves should constitute a specific class of criminal speech, as if the truth of what was being asserted could be thrown overboard as irrelevant to the matter. This, and not what the censors construe, is what Justice Holmes is really saying.

In short: if a theater did catch fire and someone shouted in time to alert the public and conduct a successful evacuation of the premises, should that be a crime because a given sort of "criminal speech", defined a priori by a pannel of censoring lawmakers, had been used? Of course not!

So where does this leave us vis-à-vis "respect for religion"?

Simple. Some folks say all systems of belief based on faith are equally true and therefore all of them deserve respect and should not be called lies. Others say this is rubbish because they contradict one another and therefore many of them must be false. Most of these will say only one faith is actually true, with rationalists among them, since they opt for a pragmatic "worldly working order" criterium before choosing reason as their faith, and epistemological nihilists (the foremost eccentrics) as well, since they claim the non-existence of absolute truths is an absolute truth.

Therefore, even to the most deeply committed believer in any given faith, whatever it may be, one fact should be obvious: this is the one field of intellectual human endeavour where the most simple truths are the most mangled beyond recognition on a daily basis, by at least a very large part of mankind.

Since the objective judicial tests of "truth" that any admission of free speech "border cases" would, at the very least, require, cannot be applied to religion, it follows that absolutely free speech on religious matters should not only be acceptable, but actually the most clearly and entirely acceptable of all forms of conflictual speech.

Although I'm not optimistic on the short run, I'm glad to notice that more people of the right kind are taking in the right message on the issue of "Holocaust" censorship. Take these nice folks, for instance:

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/banned_for_speaking_out.html

Paul Topete and his rock band, Poker Face, have been entertaining audiences—young and old and of all races and creeds—at concerts and gatherings up and down the East Coast for over a decade. But Topete and the band have also carved out a particular niche in what has been called the “patriotic” movement because there is a distinct pro-freedom slant in the lyrics to some of their songs.

Because of this—plus because the group’s music is just plain great—Poker Face has become well-known for its appearances at patriot gatherings. The Poker Face band members believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and bring a message of peace and liberty in their appearances.

Despite all this, Topete and Poker Face recently came under savage assault from a tiny yet bellicose left-wing pressure group, calling itself the One People’s Party (OPP). The OPP was determined to keep the band from playing at the state convention of the Libertarian Party of New Jersey, an event being held on the campus at Rutgers University. In fact, this would have been a repeat performance for Poker Face, which played at last year’s Libertarian convention.

OPP began a loud and aggressive smear campaign, raising a ruckus not because of anything in the music of Poker Face. The group went after Poker Face because its web site featured, among other things, commentary critical of prosecutions of thousands of people in Europe—including internationally-known best-selling historian, David Irving, sentenced to three years in jail in Austria—on thought control measures that level criminal charges and imprisonment upon those found guilty of the ambiguous accusation of “denying the Holocaust.”

[...]

Topete comments: “The real haters hate the truth. Period.”


Now, that's what I call a great quote: "The real haters hate the truth. Period." ':D'

User avatar
Rapier
Member
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 5:59 pm

Postby Rapier » 1 decade 2 years ago (Wed Jun 20, 2007 2:24 am)

Hannover wrote:
All of this craziness, all of this spite, is puzzling until you start to understand what (not who) it is you're up against. It's not really "the Jews". It's what the Jews invented for posterity, long ago, and never let go since then. It cannot be explained away by pretending people in general are shuting up and it's only the vocal judeo-supremacists doing the talking. It's a religious cult and people are reacting in much the same way old-fashioned Christians would react to debates on virgin births or today's Muslims if you tell them that angels don't dictate books to illiterate camel shepherds, or whatever.





The West's media and educational system have been engorged by Jewish led corporations. Do as I say not as I do, fingerpointing, has become a divisive norm of Western Culture. Christianity is maligned for its intolerance of other faiths. Whites are declared racists and bigots if they don't accept intermarriage and the eventual end of the white race.

A Holocaust of mythical proportion has painted Jewish history invisible and lily white at the same time.


As the West lurches left against right the media is actually bouncing it up and down.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: HMSendeavour and 3 guests