Jewish supremacist says: ridicule Islam but not holocau$t

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
friedrich braun
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2003 4:40 am

Jewish supremacist says: ridicule Islam but not holocau$t

Postby friedrich braun » 1 decade 3 years ago (Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:36 pm)

One seldom sees so much double standards and mendacious obscurantism masquarading as "reason."

Take this as an example:


Civilised discourse analyses and defines scientific truths, historic truths and matters of fact relating to knowledge, not to faith.

Revisionists are precisely the ones to appeal to scientific and historic truths...it is the holocau$t peddlars who want everyone to just "believe" and refrain from "doubting." And if you begin asking uncomfortable questions and arriving at different conclusions than the ones established by judicial and/or political fiat you will be fined and/or jailed. Who are the dogmatists and fanatics here? The holocau$t has all the characeristics of an intolerant religion...holocau$t promoters are just as bad as Islamists who jail those who blaspheme against Islam...actually they're even worse because they refuse to admit that they're doing all this to safeguard their holy dogmas, instead they pretend that they're only sheltering "scientific truths"...scientific truths don't need to be sheltered...only lies need legal and political protection...What are Glucksmann and his fellow coreligionists afraid of?


Separating truth and belief

For French philosopher Andre Glucksmann, poking fun at a belief and joking about genocide are not on a par.

The anti-caricature campaign started by attacking a newspaper. It then focussed on Denmark as a defender of the freedom of the press, and now it has all of Europe in its sights, which it accuses of having a double standard. The European Union allows the Prophet to be denigrated with impunity, but it forbids and condemns other "opinions" like Nazism and denial of the Holocaust. Why are jokes about Muhammad permitted, but not those about the genocide of the Jews? This was the rallying call of fundamentalists before they initiated a competition for Auschwitz cartoons. Fair's fair: either everything should be allowed in the name of the freedom of expression, or we should censor that which shocks both parties. Many people who defend the right to caricature feel trapped. Will they publish drawings about the gas chambers in the name of freedom of expression?

Offence for offence? Infringement for infringement? Can the negation of Auschwitz be put on a par with the desecration of Muhammad? This is where two philosophies clash. The one says yes, these are equivalent "beliefs" which have been equally scorned. There is no difference between factual truth and professed faith; the conviction that the genocide took place and the certitude that Muhammad was illuminated by Archangel Gabriel are on a par. The others say no, the reality of the death camps is a matter of historical fact, whereas the sacredness of the prophets is a matter of personal belief.

This distinction between fact and belief is at the heart of Western thought. Aristotle distinguished between indicative discourse on the one hand, which could be used to reach an affirmation or a negation, and prayer on the other. Prayers are not a matter for discussion, because they do not state: they implore, promise, vow and declare. They do not relate information, they perform an act. When the Islamist fanatic affirms that Europeans practise the "religion of the Shoah" while he practises that of Muhammad, he abolishes the distinction between fact and belief. For him there are only beliefs, and so it follows that Europe will favour its own.

Civilised discourse analyses and defines scientific truths, historic truths and matters of fact relating to knowledge, not to faith. And it does this irrespective of race or confession. We may believe these facts are profane or undignified, yet they remain distinct from religious truths. Our planet is not in the grips of a clash of civilisations or cultures. It is the battleground of a decisive struggle between two ways of thinking. There are those who declare that there are no facts, but only interpretations - so many acts of faith. These either tend toward fanaticism ("I am the truth") or they fall into nihilism ("nothing is true, nothing is false"). Opposing them are those who advocate free discussion with a view to distinguishing between true and false, those for whom political and scientific matters – or simple judgement – can be settled on the basis of worldly facts, independently of arbitrary pre-established opinions.

A totalitarian way of thinking loathes to be gainsaid. It affirms dogmatically, and waves the little red, or black, or green book. It is obscurantist, blending politics and religion. Anti-totalitarian thinking, by contrast, takes facts for what they are and acknowledges even the most hideous of them, those one would prefer to keep hidden out of fear or for the sake of utility. Bringing the gulag to light made it possible to criticise and ultimately reject "actually existing socialism". Confronting the Nazi abominations and opening the extermination camps converted Europe to democracy after 1945. Refusing to face the cruellest historical facts, on the other hand, heralds the return of cruelty. Whether the Islamists - who are far from representing all Muslims – like it or not, there is no common measure between negating known facts and criticising any one of the beliefs which every European has the right to practice or poke fun at.

For centuries, Jupiter and Christ, Jehovah and Allah have had to put up with many a joke. The Jews are past masters at criticising Yaweh – they've even made it a bit of a speciality. That does not prevent the true believers of any confession from believing, or from respecting those of a different faith. That is the price of religious peace. But joking about gas chambers, raped women and disembowelled babies, sanctifying televised beheadings and human bombs all point to an unbearable future.

It is high time that the democrats regained their spirit, and that the constitutional states remembered their principles. With solemnity and solidarity they must recall that one, two or three religions, four or five ideologies may in no way decide what citizens can do or think. What is at stake here is not only the freedom of the press, but also the permission to call a spade a spade and a gas chamber an abomination, regardless of our beliefs. What is at stake is the basis of all morality: here on earth the respect due to each individual starts with the recognition and rejection of the most flagrant examples of inhumanity.

*

The article was originally published in French in Le Monde and in German on Perlentaucher on March 3, 2006.

André Glucksmann is a French philosopher who was active in the protest movement of the 1960s and opposed the communist regimes of Eastern Europe. His most recent book, "Le Discours de la Haine" (The discourse of hatred) recently appeared in German as "Hass".


http://www.signandsight.com/features/640.html

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9875
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 3 years ago (Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:14 pm)

Andre GLUCKSMANN may live in France, but is not French. Read on.

We have classic judeo-supremacist projection. Glucksmann is projecting what's wrong with his laughable 'gas chambers & 6,000,000' fantasy upon Revisionists as friedrich braun points out:
Civilised discourse analyses and defines scientific truths, historic truths and matters of fact relating to knowledge, not to faith.

It is transforming the absurd 'holocaust' into a religion which sustains it's dangerous and violent path. And yes folks, this new religion advocates violence against heretics. IT is a threat to humanity.
Confronting the Nazi abominations and opening the extermination camps converted Europe to democracy after 1945. Refusing to face the cruellest historical facts, on the other hand, heralds the return of cruelty.

This silly boy is utterly disconnected from reality.

And what facts would that be Andre? There were no 'death camps' as your religion says. This forum and numerous Revisionist works have simply demolished the 'death camp' myth with the greatest of ease. This Glucksmann charlatan would be undressed in 5 minutes at this forum.

Europe converted to democracy? How hilarious, that takes some nerve to say. 1/2 of Europe was swallowed up by Communists, who were a repressive totalitarian form of rule that was guided and nurtured by judeo-supremacists from it's very start. Sorry Andre, you're not getting away with your lies.
But joking about gas chambers, raped women and disembowelled babies, sanctifying televised beheadings and human bombs all point to an unbearable future.

Oh please. Here his agenda becomes more blatant. He equates the desperate acts of those fighting against the genocidal policies of filthy Israel and it's proxies with the laughable and debunked tall tales of German 'gas chambers' and other thoroughly discredited myths about the Germans. He wishes his readers would equate the Muslims with the 'evil Nazis'. This Gluckmann is a scary Zionist. Lie after lie.

What we have here is an irrational judeo-supremacist trying to pass himself off as 'French', and who insists on maintaining a different standard for the special interests of Jews and their thread bare 'holocau$t'.

It's agenda driven liars like Glucksmann who are the dangerous ones.

Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurdity of the 'holocaust' lie is the message.

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

Rashid Metwan
Member
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 9:57 am
Location: Gaza, Filastin

Postby Rashid Metwan » 1 decade 3 years ago (Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:03 am)

I have no doubt that Glucksmann is being fed his words from Israel. It would not surprise me if he was a duel citizen.

Hannover makes a good point. No matter where a Jew lives, he remains a Jew first and everything else second.


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

Who is online

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