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!
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 10, 2006 8:09 am)

Tom wrote:Perhaps the reason the Revisionist have won the debate but the message is not getting through better is that Revisionists are presenting scientific facts and the opposition is arguing back with Faith (religion-knowingly or unknowingly).


Exactly so. I would recommend that all revisionists who react unfavorably to the treatment of Holocaustomania as a religion with its tenets accepted by faith, because they don't like to use those words in negative context, should pay a lot of atention to your post. The next doubt, of course, may be: "Okay. So what? What should revisionists do they are not doing at present?"

Here is a suggestion:

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.

Do not say "I'm a very good Methodist (or whatever) myself and I have a lot of respect for all the religions and all the tiny creatures in the World, but the 'Holocaust ' religion is a wrong way to worship the Heavens". This is the wrong approach. :oops:

Say instead: "The 'Holocaust' is a f*****g religion and should be treated as one; I don't need and won't have any f*****g clergy or its f*****g intellectual errand-boys and f*****g police telling me what I should or should not believe and worship". This is the right approach, though you may substitute "g*dd****d f*****g" for "f*****g" if you're not a religious type yourself. :evil:

Not that I'm really asking to be "moderated"; I simply want to reinforce my point... :roll:

People who consider themselves free-thinkers, libertarians, atheists, resisters to intellectual opression, but who have little or no information on the actual historiography of the "Holocaust", may start considering our points from a new perspective that, of course, is the same one they adopt when confronting dogmatic authority backed by state and/or clergy.

Free-thinkers, libertarians, anti-dogmatists and their organisations, should be the natural friends of anyone confronted with religious Inquisitions, even if a few of us feel inclined to sympathise with political authoritarianism, respect for religion etc. I am not one of those, but apart from my own personal opinion on the subject, I think all revisionists should ponder with care what may look like an alignment with religious bigots fighting their own religious wars (and, incidentally, persecuting their own dissidents).

By all means always insist in free speech; but I certainly wouldn't recomend trying to be over-zealously nice to any religious types in power anywhere. If you look at some of the images of, and comments on, the Teheran event, you may notice that revisionism is -- and probably will be -- in much the same shape, but anti-revisionists who will visit Töben's site will now have some ammunition concerning the admiration "we" have for the achievements of the "Islamic Revolution". I think Butz produced the wisest words on this subject, and a lot of caution should be in order. I might throw a few comments of my own on Jurgen Graf's admiration for the Iranian prohibition of pornography (Duke interview) or Töben's feelings about Iranian university life, but I will restrain myself to this short mention (and I don't recommend that others start new threads on the subject). I simply ask: is this really the best way to acquire the new allies and the "outside" help we need? I have some doubts. From the strict viewpoint of usefulness, Irving's ill-fortune -- unhappy about it as I most certainly am -- was worth a thousand bows in the direction of any Meccas, because -- in spite of the overwhelming stupidity of the ignorant masses -- it brought revisionism in contact with free-minded people who might as well been living on the moon until then, as far as the meaning of "Holocaust" revisionism is concerned.

In short: in my opinion, the view that presents the "Holocaust" in the context of a fight against a dogmatic religion should be insisted upon, at least to balance any need to look towards religion-based societies for help in what is begining to look to me like a coming war of religion (on both sides).

And certainly Israel should at all times be pointed to as the religious mad dog of the World it is, instead of the tolerant and democratic society it claims to be. I, at least, know of no other modern case of a people dispossessed by another on an exclusively theological basis, followed by the imposition, by violent means, of the same depraved theology, under the guise of a pseudo-historical "Holocaust", on the rest of the World.

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

Postby Radar » 1 decade 3 years ago (Fri Mar 10, 2006 3:16 pm)

We're getting into deep and potentially divisive waters here. The notion that the word religion has to be qualified with terms like "bigot" and "dogmatic" has no place in this discussion and only reflects a personal anti-religion views of the speaker. The point was that Zionist theory and Holocaust promotion have no real religious significance at all even though they are treated in our time and in our societies as articles of faith, meaning that they are beyond the realm of scientific discussion as revisionists see the matter. That's the area of religious faith and not appropriate for those subjects. Communism and Nazi racial theory had some similar phony "religious" charcteristics. That's all. One does not have to be an atheist or agnostic to be a revisionist.

"Religion: Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator or governor of the universe." American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9892
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 3 years ago (Fri Mar 10, 2006 3:55 pm)

Lest I put words in his mouth, I think ASMarques is rather dramatically saying that the 'holocaust' is a religion, and just like other religions, people should not be forced to adhere to it. Very simple, quite correct.

and he said this:
I simply ask: is this really the best way to acquire the new allies and the "outside" help we need?

We didn't acquire them, they acquired us. And if they want to advance the cause of debunking the 'holocaust' scam, then I say the more the merrier.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

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

Postby Tom » 1 decade 3 years ago (Fri Mar 10, 2006 3:56 pm)

Hi Radar,

I do not get the feeling that anyone here is trying to
be divisive. I certainly am not. Just pointing out facts
is not being divisive in my opinion... Just being realstic
and speaking the truth.

It may not fit your, and certainly not my or the dictionary
definition of religion but:

It is a fact that the Holocaust is being intergrated into
mainstream Protestant and Catholic churches both in
America and Europe.

It is a fact that "The Holocaust" as Religion (and Ethics)
is being taught by hundreds - maybe thousands - of
Universities, Divinity Schools and all kinds of Institutions.


And yes, The Holocaust Religion is very real to many
(millions?) of people and yes the words "bigot" and
"dogmatic" fit it very well, don't you think?

I certainly intend no ill will or wish to be divisive. Oh,
and I am not an athiest by any strech of the imagination.

Apologies if offense was conveyed.... None at all was intended,
I assure you.

Tom

SAS
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 4:09 am

Postby SAS » 1 decade 3 years ago (Fri Mar 10, 2006 3:58 pm)

ASMarques wrote:I simply ask: is this really the best way to acquire the new allies and the "outside" help we need?


I would go as far as to say that it's not just the best way, it's the only way. Look at the amount of suppression of free speech, indimitation, terrorism and loathe in the media that goes on in the western media against revisionism. Western world has become a police state, Orwell's 1984 world, where people are brainwashed to believe their government first and foremost. I live in Europe and I see it everyday: subtle nuances, words taken out of context, selective reporting, pretexts for war. What does the West have that is so superior to East? Nothing. West has nothing to export when it comes to values. The West has died. Now we rely on the free world, the world where there is values other than money, the world where Holocaustianity is no religion. It's not productive for us to create factions between revisionists, rather we need to unite more than ever. Our enemy is united, so should we. Let's welcome any and all revisionists to our troops, we need them all. The time when we could simply grab our rifle and exclaim "we can take care of ourselves" is long gone. Our nemesis is global, so should the resistance be global. We need allies to beat the dragon.

As far as Iran's freedom of speech: Have you ever been to Iran? I have, twice. While I do not claim to be an expert on the subject, I think Iran has generally speaking more freedom of speech than some Europian countries. One time I was watching Iranian TV and President Ahmadinejad was speaking. Suddenly, a woman rose among the audience and started shouting to Ahmadinejad, making accutations against him (I don't understand Farsi very well so I don't know what she said exactly). Ahmadinejad looked mixed up for a moment but then started to smile and let the woman continue her rant. Nobody interrupted her. Imagine if this woman had started to rant and rave before Bush -- she would've been escorted out in no time. No one in Iran, when I was there, was afraid to express their opinions whether they were for or against the current Iranian regime.

BTW, I'm an agnostic, in case you're wondering.

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 10, 2006 8:29 pm)

Radar wrote:We're getting into deep and potentially divisive waters here.


I don't mind in the least being a little divisive if it will help to clarify a few important things.

Radar wrote:The notion that the word religion has to be qualified with terms like "bigot" and "dogmatic" has no place in this discussion and only reflects a personal anti-religion views of the speaker.


I didn't say the word religion had to be qualified with any words. In fact, I was qualifying it with the words you mention precisely because I wished to make clear the meaning I was attributing to it.

Radar wrote:The point was that Zionist theory and Holocaust promotion have no real religious significance at all even though they are treated in our time and in our societies as articles of faith, meaning that they are beyond the realm of scientific discussion as revisionists see the matter.


No religious siginificance at all? Seriously? In what planet have you been living lately?

Here is the news you've been missing: not all Jews are Zionists or "Holocaust" promoters, but all who are, are actively peddling the modern day version of their ages-old religion (possibly the greatest intellectual disaster of all time to hit mankind).

You know what the Jewish millenium is? Let me tell you about it in a few short words: it's Israel as a light upon Nations, the United Nations in Jerusalem, the gentiles looking towards the Chosen in much the same way ordinary Jews look on the priestly Levites and paying spiritual and material homage to them, and an enforced common religion -- in fact Judaism extended to the non-Jews -- binding the whole sorry lot.

Do I have to spell the name of the new religion -- or rather, the new name of the old religion's extension -- for you? Do I need to enumerate the sacred rites, the miracles, the deadly hate of free inquiry, the sacrificial goats and the total absence of charity, the empowered clergy, the faithful and the meretricious followers, the places of worship, the unceasing thirst for universal control?

The great novelty used to be the concept of a jealous God, but, of course, gods are made in the image of the beholders, and ours is no longer a godly age...

Radar wrote:That's the area of religious faith and not appropriate for those subjects. Communism and Nazi racial theory had some similar phony "religious" charcteristics. That's all. One does not have to be an atheist or agnostic to be a revisionist.


"Religion" has nothing to do with the concept of "god" (or, by the way, "morality"). There are both plenty of atheist religions and non-atheist non-religious philosophical speculations (both ancient and modern) on the concepts of divinity and morality. Some of those atheist religions are better and less opressive than others: originally Taoism and Budhism were atheist religions, same for modern-day Soviet Marxism with its enforced scholastic system of dialectical materialist dogma etc.

Radar wrote:"Religion: Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator or governor of the universe." American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition.


I suggest a different, more classic and less americanized, meaning:

"Religion, n: belief in, recognition of or an awakened sense of a higher unseen power or powers, with the emotion and morality connected with such; rites or worship; any system of such belief or worship; devoted fidelity [...] Latin religio, -onis, n, religiosus, adj, perhaps connected with religare to bind." The Chambers Dictionary, 1993.

Let me add that I use the word with a slightly more restricted meaning:

FAITH: Certainty without reason (in a sense, reason is also a kind of faith: the one that works in the World of conscious experience).

RELIGION: The organisation and/or entrapment of faith in a social system of belief.

And, of course:

HOLOCAUSTOMANIA: Not only qualifies on both grounds, but requires the religious dimension to be fully understood.

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

Postby Radar » 1 decade 3 years ago (Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:08 pm)

Tom,

My comment was not directed to you. I was trying not to be too personal but it was directed at brother Marques whom I do consider a brother in this struggle.

I'm prepared to end the discussion with just one final comment. If one defines religion as a form of irrational superstition as I take it some here do then I would concede that Holocaustism is indeed a form of religion. That is not my definition as I think you can tell, nor I dare say that of the majority, not that that matters. If you accept my definition for the sake of this discussion then I hope you can understand why I object to its use in that regard.

Christians can't prove through scientific evidence that Jesus was divine and rose from the dead. That is religious faith. That's not the kind of thing we are debating with the Holocausters - at least from our standpoint!

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

Postby Tom » 1 decade 3 years ago (Fri Mar 10, 2006 11:16 pm)

Radar wrote:Tom,
If one defines religion as a form of irrational superstition as I
take it some here do then I would concede that Holocaustism
is indeed a form of religion.


Hi Radar,

I dare say that if we take 10 diferent dictionaries and look
up the words faith, belief, religion etc we could argue/discuss
over the many various definitions for days.

I am not really interested in debating or even discussing
the definition of the word religion.

I am simply pointing out what (the facts) is happening out
there in the real world and and how that affects the future
for not only for revisionists, but for everyone!

The death of free speech in the very near future...
The return of the Inquisition. Prision (and maybe much worse)
for those who dare to speak the truth.

Radar, I hope that clears up any misunderstanding.

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 (Fri Mar 10, 2006 11:30 pm)

SAS wrote:
ASMarques wrote:I simply ask: is this really the best way to acquire the new allies and the "outside" help we need?


I would go as far as to say that it's not just the best way, it's the only way. Look at the amount of suppression of free speech, indimitation, terrorism and loathe in the media that goes on in the western media against revisionism.


I agree with most of what you say on the current state of so-called "free speech" in the West, but I don't think substituting the uncritical admiration of the theocratic values prevailing in most Islamic states for our own values, as enshrined in our own traditions, such as the American Bill of Rights and the similar guarantees that rose elsewhere on its wake, will lead to great results, either for revisionism in general or for our own self-respect.

If you want to understand what I mean, look for the Adelaide Institute pages on the new Persian marvels. Was all of this really necessary? Does one have to swear eternal love and allegiance for a simple encounter of mutual convenience in some god-forsaken Middle Eastern theocratic motel? Even more to the point: is this useful?

SAS wrote:Western world has become a police state, Orwell's 1984 world, where people are brainwashed to believe their government first and foremost. I live in Europe and I see it everyday: subtle nuances, words taken out of context, selective reporting, pretexts for war. What does the West have that is so superior to East? Nothing.


Wrong. The West has a unique tradition of intense intellectual freedom and resistance to unrepresentative authority, practically unknown anywhere else.

SAS wrote:As far as Iran's freedom of speech: Have you ever been to Iran? I have, twice. While I do not claim to be an expert on the subject, I think Iran has generally speaking more freedom of speech than some European countries.


You remind me of those folks who always say "Have you been to Auschwitz? I have!"

I don't want to argue Iranian or Islamic politics because that sort of thing would quickly develop into an off-topic discussion. Still, I won't resist asking you if they have some sort of Sha'aria Bill of Rights down there, perhaps dictated by the Archangel Gabriel...

SAS wrote:One time I was watching Iranian TV and President Ahmadinejad was speaking. Suddenly, a woman rose among the audience and started shouting to Ahmadinejad, making accusations against him (I don't understand Farsi very well so I don't know what she said exactly).


May I infer -- since you don't give the slightest hint as to her possible subject -- that in fact your "not exactly" is a way of saying you don't know what she was saying at all? If you only know the pitch of her voice, that's what I call absolutely free speech, since she might in fact be saying anything at all. As far as you know, she may have been complaining of moderate policies and excessive free speech in her neighbourood.

Nice anecdote. Better luck next time. Maybe having an interpreter with you would have been a good idea in order to judge how politically incorrect the speech was. Probably not much, since you saw it on the state run television...

SAS wrote:Ahmadinejad looked mixed up for a moment but then started to smile and let the woman continue her rant. Nobody interrupted her. Imagine if this woman had started to rant and rave before Bush -- she would've been escorted out in no time. No one in Iran, when I was there, was afraid to express their opinions whether they were for or against the current Iranian regime.


You know, I'm Portuguese and I followed very closely what happened here in the mid-70s, when we had a (failed) attempt by our local communists to take over the country. For a few months they were really in power (and, by the way, managed to ruin the country in that short lapse of time). I guarantee you that the most histrionic sort of speeches I ever saw were the ones that went on in the leftist meetings where the assorted shades of militants heard and spoke back to their leaders. Only, I understood my own language and could make up what they were saying. May I add that what those folks were generally indulging in were fine points of doctrine, or complaints about how slowly the revolution was going and how soft the repression of free speech in the press was?

SAS wrote:BTW, I'm an agnostic, in case you're wondering.


WeIl, I'm not (wondering). It's not relevant, anyway.

Let me state my point more clearly: what I'm complaining of is not the attempt at spreading revisionism to the Islamic World. That's a perfectly sound strategy. Nor do I have a bad impression of Ahmadinejad (but this is solely an a priori feeling: I have no real data on him, other than that he looks honest and doubts the "Holocaust").

What irks me is this odd love affair with theocratic states by some people, apparently such as yourself, who profess to go there for utilitarian purposes, and then proceed to lecture me on how perfect those nice theocracies really are on the political level, and how complete freedom of speech exists, with no need at all for trifles similar to the American Bill of Rights etc.. Since you don't talk the native language, may I suggest that in your next trip you attempt to connect to what we would call politically incorrect sites (in their view, naturally) on the Internet? Now that would be much more conclusive than your decibel level measurements of unknown voices...

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

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 3 years ago (Sat Mar 11, 2006 12:35 am)

Radar wrote:Christians can't prove through scientific evidence that Jesus was divine and rose from the dead. That is religious faith. That's not the kind of thing we are debating with the Holocausters - at least from our standpoint!


Okay. This is an useful example to make one of my points clear.

I'll make a few comments and consider the discussion closed, as you suggest, to avoid non-holocaustic running battles. Yours is a good example of exactly the same kind of thing we are debating (as you say) with the Holocausters: it's religious faith (on their part) trying to insert in History false events that never took place and avoiding discussion like the plague. The enormous difference between savage and civilized (or tamed) religion is the possibility of actual repression.

Christianity, an older religion, has become more civil in recent times and behaves in much better ways than younger religions. No one will arrest you for studying the figure of Christ in historical context, exercise biblical criticism, study sources, freely extrapolate using your own reasoning power etc. Not only are Christians not able to prove Jesus rose from the dead, et pour cause (since he didn't), but informed non-Christians are even able to show with a high degree of probability that he didn't rise from the living, meaning he wasn't even a real character with an earthly biography. And no one will get at your throat for denying Christ's existence.

Now, the difference between Jesus the historical person and Jesus the legendary character is exactly the same as the difference between the "Holocaust" as the attempted extermination of the Jews, resulting in 6 million dead, mainly in homicidal gas chambers, and the "Holocaust" as war propaganda, turned into a hoax for power and money. In ordinary language, it's the difference between religious falsehood and factual truth.

SAS
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 4:09 am

Postby SAS » 1 decade 3 years ago (Sat Mar 11, 2006 3:52 am)

ASMarques wrote:I agree with most of what you say on the current state of so-called "free speech" in the West, but I don't think substituting the uncritical admiration of the theocratic values prevailing in most Islamic states for our own values, as enshrined in our own traditions, such as the American Bill of Rights and the similar guarantees that rose elsewhere on its wake, will lead to great results, either for revisionism in general or for our own self-respect.


I didn't mean we should embrace their values, nor do I think we should lecture them about values. I'm just saying that revisionists come from all walks of life, from different backrounds and cultures. There are right wing revisionists, left wing revisionists, Atheist, Christian, Muslim and Jewish revisionists and I don't see a point of them bickering things unrelated to revisionism. Not right now. It's not like all Iranians are borg units who think alike and share the same vision about religion, politics and everything. They're all individuals. I think it's not prudent to turn our backs on them, whatever you think about the current Iranian regime. Nor do I think it's prudent to wallow in the supposedly great past of the West. We need to focus on the current situation, which is: Iran is right now probably the most revisionist-friendly country in the world. Why not take advantage of it?

I would also like to point out that there are very few "Islamic states". Actually, Iran is about the only one. Most of the Muslim countries are run by Western backed up dictators.


You remind me of those folks who always say "Have you been to Auschwitz? I have!"

I don't want to argue Iranian or Islamic politics because that sort of thing would quickly develop into an off-topic discussion. Still, I won't resist asking you if they have some sort of Sha'aria Bill of Rights down there, perhaps dictated by the Archangel Gabriel...


If that's what the majority of people over there want, why not let them have it? But that's not relevant. What's relevant is that Iran is a country where revisionist historians can get together, air their views and publish material without having to fear being thrown to jail.

May I infer -- since you don't give the slightest hint as to her possible subject -- that in fact your "not exactly" is a way of saying you don't know what she was saying at all? If you only know the pitch of her voice, that's what I call absolutely free speech, since she might in fact be saying anything at all. As far as you know, she may have been complaining of moderate policies and excessive free speech in her neighbourood.

Nice anecdote. Better luck next time. Maybe having an interpreter with you would have been a good idea in order to judge how politically incorrect the speech was. Probably not much, since you saw it on the state run television...


Actually I had an interpreter, sort of... but unfortunately the gist of her complain was lost in the translation. I agree that my example was not the best kind, but I still prefer my own biased observations over the observations of the poodle media which is currently beating the war drums and hurling accusation after another against Iran.

SAS wrote:BTW, I'm an agnostic, in case you're wondering.


WeIl, I'm not (wondering). It's not relevant, anyway.


I was merely trying to emphasize that I have no axe to grind.

Let me state my point more clearly: what I'm complaining of is not the attempt at spreading revisionism to the Islamic World. That's a perfectly sound strategy. Nor do I have a bad impression of Ahmadinejad (but this is solely an a priori feeling: I have no real data on him, other than that he looks honest and doubts the "Holocaust").

What irks me is this odd love affair with theocratic states by some people, apparently such as yourself, who profess to go there for utilitarian purposes, and then proceed to lecture me on how perfect those nice theocracies really are on the political level, and how complete freedom of speech exists, with no need at all for trifles similar to the American Bill of Rights etc.. Since you don't talk the native language, may I suggest that in your next trip you attempt to connect to what we would call politically incorrect sites (in their view, naturally) on the Internet? Now that would be much more conclusive than your decibel level measurements of unknown voices...


I didn't mean to lecture you, I'm just giving my opinion. According to my observations free speech is worse off in the Western countries than many realize, but then again I don't know everything, I'm biased and looking things from my own perspective, just like everybody else.

And that you for your suggestion. I will take heed of it.

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

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 3 years ago (Sat Mar 11, 2006 9:40 am)

SAS wrote:Iran is right now probably the most revisionist-friendly country in the world. Why not take advantage of it?


A quick reply:

I don't criticize "taking advantage". I criticize going ecstatic over the Iranian regime and showering public praise on its political / religious aspects. I feel a mutual interest in exposing the "Holocaust" sham doesn't call for Western revisionists who want an end to mandatory religious orthodoxy at home to act as cheerleaders for Islamic theocracies abroad. Besides being in bad taste, it's also bad morals and bad public relations.

Of course, what people choose to do in their own name is not my business. I simply give you my opinion on the subject. If you look for other messages of mine on the planned Teheran conference you'll see that I was entirely in favor of it.

You ask, regarding my mention of the Sha'aria law (i.e. the confessional law that establishes, among many other things, which beliefs should be allowed free expression and political organisation and which shouldn't):

SAS wrote:"If that's what the majority of people over there want, why not let them have it?"


Assuming you've been following the impressive reaction of hostility from nearly all Western quarters to David Irving, let me put back to you a similar question, concerning our own societies:

"If the Holocaust cult is what the majority of people over here want, why not let us have it?"

I know the answer. Do you?

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

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 3 years ago (Sat Mar 11, 2006 10:03 am)

Incidentally to your appreciation of freedom in Iran, I suggested you should investigate their access to the Internert, the one and only lifeline of revisionism, possible only as long as the First Amendment will hold fast in the U.S.. Here is a few lines on the state of web access in Sha'arialand:
http://www.opennetinitiative.net/studies/iran/

"Iran's filtering regime is backed up by an extensive series of laws that control the publication of sensitive information. The press is restrained through a broad set of media-related laws, especially the Press Law of 1986, which includes licensing and substantive regulations. Individuals who subscribe to Internet service providers (ISPs) must promise in writing not to access "non-Islamic" sites. The law requires ISPs to install filtering mechanisms that cover access to both Web sites and e-mail. Punishment for violations of content-related laws can be harsh."

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

Postby Radar » 1 decade 3 years ago (Sat Mar 11, 2006 10:24 am)

ASM,

I know I said I would cease on this topic but your insistence on venting your village atheist views which you apparently somehow relate to revisionism is going to drive away non-atheists who might venture onto this board. Folks, do not be frightened away. Comments such as those you have seen denouncing Christian beliefs are not dogmatic tests for joining here. Nor are any religious views, however defined.

I was in Portugal during their most recent unfortunate left experiment too. The less said about that the better also. Let us move on.

Bergmann
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 382
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 4:29 pm

Postby Bergmann » 1 decade 3 years ago (Sat Mar 11, 2006 2:13 pm)

I don’t believe that the Jewish Holocaust can be considered as a religion.
Religion is something else, it is a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.

Holocaust believers however may insist that the Holocaust myth be respected similar to a religion.

The Holocaust myth grew out of WWII anti-German war propaganda, which was then after the war sort of established as a fact during the IMT trial.

The “Holocaust myth” and the German “guilt myth” belong together and actual form a unit. The question is, can one exist without the other?
I am using the word “myth” here in the sense that a myth is something which is believed to be true by a large number of people, although it does not hold up to a rational review.

In order for the revisionist to get anywhere, he should never deny the fact that the Jews were persecuted under Hitler’s regime, forced to emmigrate and were later deported to incredible hardships and losses, and many or most perished.

It also should not be denied that many Jews lost their lives during a vicious partisan war in the Soviet Union.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot], Pon and 2 guests