July 4th Declaration of Independence from 'Israel'

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
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9834
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

July 4th Declaration of Independence from 'Israel'

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 2 years ago (Wed Jul 04, 2007 2:43 pm)

A special 4th of July post in the name of freedom and truth.

We are forced to accept anything that supports 'Israeli' interests, period.

There is no bigger canard used by judeo-supremacists than the so called 'holocaust'.

The liars about the 'holocaust' are the same ones that lie about US and Israeli interests being the same.

The liars about the 'holocaust' are the same ones that lied and continue to lie about fictitious weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Iran, Syria.

The liars about the 'holocaust' will say anything that is in the interest of the judeo-supremacist hate state of 'Israel'.

- As long as American blood is being spilled instead of 'Israeli' blood, the judeo-supremacists will demand that the US be their enforcer.

Read here as we see the results of 'holocaust' lies and judeo-supremacist control of the US government and media.

Truth is freedom.

- Hannover

Truthdig

A Declaration of Independence From Israel
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200 ... om_israel/
Posted on Jul 2, 2007
By Chris Hedges

Israel, without the United States, would probably not exist. The country came perilously close to extinction during the October 1973 war when Egypt, trained and backed by the Soviet Union, crossed the Suez and the Syrians poured in over the Golan Heights. Huge American military transport planes came to the rescue. They began landing every half-hour to refit the battered Israeli army, which had lost most of its heavy armor. By the time the war was over, the United States had given Israel $2.2 billion in emergency military aid.

The intervention, which enraged the Arab world, triggered the OPEC oil embargo that for a time wreaked havoc on Western economies. This was perhaps the most dramatic example of the sustained life-support system the United States has provided to the Jewish state.

Israel was born at midnight May 14, 1948. The U.S. recognized the new state 11 minutes later. The two countries have been locked in a deadly embrace ever since.

Washington, at the beginning of the relationship, was able to be a moderating influence. An incensed President Eisenhower demanded and got Israel’s withdrawal after the Israelis occupied Gaza in 1956. During the Six-Day War in 1967, Israeli warplanes bombed the USS Liberty. The ship, flying the U.S. flag and stationed 15 miles off the Israeli coast, was intercepting tactical and strategic communications from both sides. The Israeli strikes killed 34 U.S. sailors and wounded 171. The deliberate attack froze, for a while, Washington’s enthusiasm for Israel. But ruptures like this one proved to be only bumps, soon smoothed out by an increasingly sophisticated and well-financed Israel lobby that set out to merge Israeli and American foreign policy in the Middle East.

Israel has reaped tremendous rewards from this alliance. It has been given more than $140 billion in U.S. direct economic and military assistance. It receives about $3 billion in direct assistance annually, roughly one-fifth of the U.S. foreign aid budget. Although most American foreign aid packages stipulate that related military purchases have to be made in the United States, Israel is allowed to use about 25 percent of the money to subsidize its own growing and profitable defense industry. It is exempt, unlike other nations, from accounting for how it spends the aid money. And funds are routinely siphoned off to build new Jewish settlements, bolster the Israeli occupation in the Palestinian territories and construct the security barrier, which costs an estimated $1 million a mile.

The barrier weaves its way through the West Bank, creating isolated pockets of impoverished Palestinians in ringed ghettos. By the time the barrier is finished it will probably in effect seize up to 40 percent of Palestinian land. This is the largest land grab by Israel since the 1967 war. And although the United States officially opposes settlement expansion and the barrier, it also funds them.

The U.S. has provided Israel with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons systems and given Israel access to some of the most sophisticated items in its own military arsenal, including Blackhawk attack helicopters and F-16 fighter jets. The United States also gives Israel access to intelligence it denies to its NATO allies. And when Israel refused to sign the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, the United States stood by without a word of protest as the Israelis built the region’s first nuclear weapons program.

U.S. foreign policy, especially under the current Bush administration, has become little more than an extension of Israeli foreign policy. The United States since 1982 has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members. It refuses to enforce the Security Council resolutions it claims to support. These resolutions call on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.

There is now volcanic anger and revulsion by Arabs at this blatant favoritism. Few in the Middle East see any distinction between Israeli and American policies, nor should they. And when the Islamic radicals speak of U.S. support of Israel as a prime reason for their hatred of the United States, we should listen. The consequences of this one-sided relationship are being played out in the disastrous war in Iraq, growing tension with Iran, and the humanitarian and political crisis in Gaza. It is being played out in Lebanon, where Hezbollah is gearing up for another war with Israel, one most Middle East analysts say is inevitable. The U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is unraveling. And it is doing so because of this special relationship. The eruption of a regional conflict would usher in a nightmare of catastrophic proportions.

There were many in the American foreign policy establishment and State Department who saw this situation coming. The decision to throw our lot in with Israel in the Middle East was not initially a popular one with an array of foreign policy experts, including President Harry Truman’s secretary of state, Gen. George Marshall. They warned there would be a backlash. They knew the cost the United States would pay in the oil-rich region for this decision, which they feared would be one of the greatest strategic blunders of the postwar era. And they were right. The decision has jeopardized American and Israeli security and created the kindling for a regional conflagration.

The alliance, which makes no sense in geopolitical terms, does makes sense when seen through the lens of domestic politics. The Israel lobby has become a potent force in the American political system. No major candidate, Democrat or Republican, dares to challenge it. The lobby successfully purged the State Department of Arab experts who challenged the notion that Israeli and American interests were identical. Backers of Israel have doled out hundreds of millions of dollars to support U.S. political candidates deemed favorable to Israel. They have brutally punished those who strayed, including the first President Bush, who they said was not vigorous enough in his defense of Israeli interests. This was a lesson the next Bush White House did not forget. George W. Bush did not want to be a one-term president like his father.

Israel advocated removing Saddam Hussein from power and currently advocates striking Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons. Direct Israeli involvement in American military operations in the Middle East is impossible. It would reignite a war between Arab states and Israel. The United States, which during the Cold War avoided direct military involvement in the region, now does the direct bidding of Israel while Israel watches from the sidelines. During the 1991 Gulf War, Israel was a spectator, just as it is in the war with Iraq.

President Bush, facing dwindling support for the war in Iraq, publicly holds Israel up as a model for what he would like Iraq to become. Imagine how this idea plays out on the Arab street, which views Israel as the Algerians viewed the French colonizers during the war of liberation.

"In Israel,” Bush said recently, “terrorists have taken innocent human life for years in suicide attacks. The difference is that Israel is a functioning democracy and it’s not prevented from carrying out its responsibilities. And that’s a good indicator of success that we’re looking for in Iraq.”

Americans are increasingly isolated and reviled in the world. They remain blissfully ignorant of their own culpability for this isolation. U.S. “spin” paints the rest of the world as unreasonable, but Israel, Americans are assured, will always be on our side.

Israel is reaping economic as well as political rewards from its lock-down apartheid state. In the “gated community” market it has begun to sell systems and techniques that allow the nation to cope with terrorism. Israel, in 2006, exported $3.4 billion in defense products—well over a billion dollars more than it received in American military aid. Israel has grown into the fourth largest arms dealer in the world. Most of this growth has come in the so-called homeland security sector.

"The key products and services,” as Naomi Klein wrote in The Nation, “are hi-tech fences, unmanned drones, biometric IDs, video and audio surveillance gear, air passenger profiling and prisoner interrogation systems—precisely the tools and technologies Israel has used to lock in the occupied territories. And that is why the chaos in Gaza and the rest of the region doesn’t threaten the bottom line in Tel Aviv, and may actually boost it. Israel has learned to turn endless war into a brand asset, pitching its uprooting, occupation and containment of the Palestinian people as a half-century head start in the ‘global war on terror.’ ”

The United States, at least officially, does not support the occupation and calls for a viable Palestinian state. It is a global player, with interests that stretch well beyond the boundaries of the Middle East, and the equation that Israel’s enemies are our enemies is not that simple.

"Terrorism is not a single adversary,” John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt wrote in The London Review of Books, “but a tactic employed by a wide array of political groups. The terrorist organizations that threaten Israel do not threaten the United States, except when it intervenes against them (as in Lebanon in 1982). Moreover, Palestinian terrorism is not random violence directed against Israel or ‘the West’; it is largely a response to Israel’s prolonged campaign to colonize the West Bank and Gaza Strip. More important, saying that Israel and the US are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: the US has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around.”

Middle Eastern policy is shaped in the United States by those with very close ties to the Israel lobby. Those who attempt to counter the virulent Israeli position, such as former Secretary of State Colin Powell, are ruthlessly slapped down. This alliance was true also during the Clinton administration, with its array of Israel-first Middle East experts, including special Middle East coordinator Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk, the former deputy director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC, one of the most powerful Israel lobbying groups in Washington. But at least people like Indyk and Ross are sane, willing to consider a Palestinian state, however unviable, as long as it is palatable to Israel. The Bush administration turned to the far-right wing of the Israel lobby, those who have not a shred of compassion for the Palestinians or a word of criticism for Israel. These new Middle East experts include Elliott Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, the disgraced I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and David Wurmser.

Washington was once willing to stay Israel’s hand. It intervened to thwart some of its most extreme violations of human rights. This administration, however, has signed on for every disastrous Israeli blunder, from building the security barrier in the West Bank, to sealing off Gaza and triggering a humanitarian crisis, to the ruinous invasion and saturation bombing of Lebanon.

The few tepid attempts by the Bush White House to criticize Israeli actions have all ended in hasty and humiliating retreats in the face of Israeli pressure. When the Israel Defense Forces in April 2002 reoccupied the West Bank, President Bush called on then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to “halt the incursions and begin withdrawal.” It never happened. After a week of heavy pressure from the Israel lobby and Israel’s allies in Congress, meaning just about everyone in Congress, the president gave up, calling Sharon “a man of peace.” It was a humiliating moment for the United States, a clear sign of who pulled the strings.

There were several reasons for the war in Iraq. The desire for American control of oil, the belief that Washington could build puppet states in the region, and a real, if misplaced, fear of Saddam Hussein played a part in the current disaster. But it was also strongly shaped by the notion that what is good for Israel is good for the United States. Israel wanted Iraq neutralized. Israeli intelligence, in the lead-up to the war, gave faulty information to the U.S. about Iraq’s alleged arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And when Baghdad was taken in April 2003, the Israeli government immediately began to push for an attack on Syria. The lust for this attack has waned, in no small part because the Americans don’t have enough troops to hang on in Iraq, much less launch a new occupation.

Israel is currently lobbying the United States to launch aerial strikes on Iran, despite the debacle in Lebanon. Israel’s iron determination to forcibly prevent a nuclear Iran makes it probable that before the end of the Bush administration an attack on Iran will take place. The efforts to halt nuclear development through diplomatic means have failed. It does not matter that Iran poses no threat to the United States. It does not matter that it does not even pose a threat to Israel, which has several hundred nuclear weapons in its arsenal. It matters only that Israel demands total military domination of the Middle East.

The alliance between Israel and the United States has culminated after 50 years in direct U.S. military involvement in the Middle East. This involvement, which is not furthering American interests, is unleashing a geopolitical nightmare. American soldiers and Marines are dying in droves in a useless war. The impotence of the United States in the face of Israeli pressure is complete. The White House and the Congress have become, for perhaps the first time, a direct extension of Israeli interests. There is no longer any debate within the United States. This is evidenced by the obsequious nods to Israel by all the current presidential candidates with the exception of Dennis Kucinich. The political cost for those who challenge Israel is too high.

This means there will be no peaceful resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It means the incidents of Islamic terrorism against the U.S. and Israel will grow. It means that American power and prestige are on a steep, irreversible decline. And I fear it also means the ultimate end of the Jewish experiment in the Middle East.

The weakening of the United States, economically and militarily, is giving rise to new centers of power. The U.S. economy, mismanaged and drained by the Iraq war, is increasingly dependent on Chinese trade imports and on Chinese holdings of U.S. Treasury securities. China holds dollar reserves worth $825 billion. If Beijing decides to abandon the U.S. bond market, even in part, it would cause a free fall by the dollar. It would lead to the collapse of the $7-trillion U.S. real estate market. There would be a wave of U.S. bank failures and huge unemployment. The growing dependence on China has been accompanied by aggressive work by the Chinese to build alliances with many of the world’s major exporters of oil, such as Iran, Nigeria, Sudan and Venezuela. The Chinese are preparing for the looming worldwide clash over dwindling resources.

The future is ominous. Not only do Israel’s foreign policy objectives not coincide with American interests, they actively hurt them. The growing belligerence in the Middle East, the calls for an attack against Iran, the collapse of the imperial project in Iraq have all given an opening, where there was none before, to America’s rivals. It is not in Israel’s interests to ignite a regional conflict. It is not in ours. But those who have their hands on the wheel seem determined, in the name of freedom and democracy, to keep the American ship of state headed at breakneck speed into the cliffs before us.

Image
AP Photo/Hatem Moussa
Armed Palestinian women burn Israeli and U.S. flags during a protest against Israel’s operations in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

_Mads_
Member
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:47 am

Postby _Mads_ » 1 decade 2 years ago (Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:12 am)

This is a good post, Hannover.

Hannover wrote:
We are forced to accept anything that supports 'Israeli' interests, period.



I beg to differ, I have a more positive view. I believe they do not want us to realize how weak they are, as they really have no options left right now. Concerning the "holocaust", which is, as you note, vital to the preservation of their power, they can choose either suppresion and criminalizing, or they can choose ridicule and to simply ignore revisionism, hoping that people will assume that it really is insane to "deny the holocaust". However, neither the first nor the second approach will work now, and it is a sign of panic that they are using both simultaneously in a rather confused way. These two methods contradict each other, and many people have noticed that.

They would probably like to throw all revisionists into jail, but given the fact that that is impossible at present, they shouldn´t have taken this approach at all, because it has only created attention to the issue.

So I believe that if we have ever been forced to anything, that is quickly coming to an end now. They would like us to believe that they are almighty and that there is nothing we can do, but, fortunately, it is the other way round and they are increasingly losing power.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9834
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 2 years ago (Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:46 am)

I beg to differ, I have a more positive view. I believe they do not want us to realize how weak they are, as they really have no options left right now. Concerning the "holocaust", which is, as you note, vital to the preservation of their power, they can choose either suppresion and criminalizing, or they can choose ridicule and to simply ignore revisionism, hoping that people will assume that it really is insane to "deny the holocaust". However, neither the first nor the second approach will work now, and it is a sign of panic that they are using both simultaneously in a rather confused way. These two methods contradict each other, and many people have noticed that.

Well yes, their position is unsustainable in the long run, but in the meantime, judeo-supremacists who have seized control of the US government and media, are pulling all their many strings, using all of their power to make Americans and others tow the line. They have no problem in taking everyone down with them.
They would probably like to throw all revisionists into jail, but given the fact that that is impossible at present, they shouldn´t have taken this approach at all, because it has only created attention to the issue.

They know their position is unsupportable in lieu of increasing Revisionist efforts. Their only option, aside form facing up to the truth, which won't happen, is to pass legislation against 'holocaust' Revisionism a la much of Europe. Is there any issue that they have put before the US Congress that they have not had their way overwhelmingly? No. There will be a move to imprison Revisionists, guaranteed.
So I believe that if we have ever been forced to anything, that is quickly coming to an end now. They would like us to believe that they are almighty and that there is nothing we can do, but, fortunately, it is the other way round and they are increasingly losing power.

A wounded beast is a dangerous animal, and they still have absolute dominance over both the Democrats and Republicans. They are bound and determined that if they go down, many others go down with them.

Will US leadership step forward and end this madness?

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

_Mads_
Member
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:47 am

Postby _Mads_ » 1 decade 2 years ago (Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:06 pm)

Hannover wrote:They know their position is unsupportable in lieu of increasing Revisionist efforts. Their only option, aside form facing up to the truth, which won't happen, is to pass legislation against 'holocaust' Revisionism a la much of Europe. Is there any issue that they have put before the US Congress wheere they have not won overwhelmingly? No. There will be a move to imprison Revisionists, guaranteed.


I don´t know about America, but I don´t see them having much success in trying to impose such laws on Italy, Scandinavia and Great Britain. The new EU-agreement is vague and will prove ineffective. I sincerely doubt that anybody will ever go to jail because of it. What´s more, the Swiss government may actually remove the anti-revisionist laws.

A wounded beast is a dangerous animal, and they still have absolute dominance over both the Democrats and Republicans. They are bound and determined that if they go down, many others go down with them.


Quite right, most of it. On the other hand, when these people lose power, they often tend to simply adapt to the new reality. They are generally not very inclined to initiating fights which they don´t have a fair chance of winning. If your cause wasn´t just anyway, you´re not going to be brave, that is a general rule. I don´t think we have reason to be worried in any way.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9834
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 2 years ago (Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:55 pm)

I don´t know about America, but I don´t see them having much success in trying to impose such laws on Italy, Scandinavia and Great Britain. The new EU-agreement is vague and will prove ineffective. I sincerely doubt that anybody will ever go to jail because of it. What´s more, the Swiss government may actually remove the anti-revisionist laws.

Italy has such a law:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/817994.html
Italy approves law making Holocaust denial a crime
By DPA
Last update - 21:35 25/01/2007

Italy's government Thursday approved a bill that makes denying the Holocaust a crime and stiffens prison sentences for those found guilty of inciting racial hatred.

The decree, submitted by Justice Minister Clemente Mastella, received unanimous approval by the Romano Prodi cabinet. Italy will celebrate Holocaust Memorial Day on Saturday.

Ministry officials said those found guilty of spreading ideas about a race being superior to another would now risk up to three years in prison while acts designed to incite racial, ethnic, religious or sexual violence would be punishable with a maximum four- year prison sentence.

Initially conceived to target Holocaust deniers, the bill was broadened to include all forms of intolerance after some members of Prodi's centre-left coalition had expressed reservations about the appropriateness of using the criminal code to honour the millions of Jews killed in the Shoah.

There has been discussion of the Swiss retracting their 'denial' law, but so far it's still in place, just ask Juergen Graf.
As for Sweden, they appear reluctant, but have indeed imprisoned Revisionists under their 'hate crime' law, see:
'Which countries have 'denial' laws?
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=2569

Indeed, the EU Constitution, as it stands, is dead in the water, thank God for that, but for how long? The individual countries' Thought Crime laws are in full force.

As for the US, recall that Ernst Zundel was deported by the US, to Canada, to Germany and then imprisoned for violations of German Thought Crime laws. The US govt. knew exactly what they were sanctioning.
Recall that the US govt. (via the Orwellian 'Department of Homeland Security', under Zionist, Michael Chertoff) approvingly deported the irrefutable Scientist / Revisionist, Germar Rudolf, knowing that Rudolf was headed for a German prison for debunking the 'holocaust'.

The US govt., as it is comprised now, fully supports anti-Revisionist measures. The question is whether the US public can be conditioned to accept legislation when it is passed.

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

BradleySmith
Member
Member
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:55 am
Location: Baja, Mexico
Contact:

Postby BradleySmith » 1 decade 2 years ago (Thu Jul 05, 2007 4:01 pm)

Has it been noted that Chris Hedges (his article is VERY good) is currently
"a senior fellow at The Nation Institute and a Lecturer in the Council of the Humanities and the Anschutz (sic) Distinguished Fellow at Princeton University...."?

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9834
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 2 years ago (Thu Jul 05, 2007 4:52 pm)

BradleySmith wrote:Has it been noted that Chris Hedges (his article is VERY good) is currently
"a senior fellow at The Nation Institute and a Lecturer in the Council of the Humanities and the Anschutz (sic) Distinguished Fellow at Princeton University...."?

So, I guess you're implying that things are changing in academia. Shocking, if true. But IMO, men like Chris Hedges are a trickle against a flood of Zionist misinformation.

Recall the firestorm of attacks upon Harvard's John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, the authors of: 'The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy', see text: http://www.antiwar.com/orig/mearwalt.php?articleid=9573
Harvard, under intense presure, later disassociated itself from the paper.

Let's hope I'm wrong, but the beast has the US Congress under it's thumb.

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

BradleySmith
Member
Member
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:55 am
Location: Baja, Mexico
Contact:

Postby BradleySmith » 1 decade 2 years ago (Thu Jul 05, 2007 5:13 pm)

What caught my attention as I read quickly through the article was that I did not see the guy wonder how the U.S. alliance with Israel was morally justified. It's a catastrophe for the U.S., but how is it morally justified? He didn't touch on it. You noted in your intro that the H. is at the root of it. I suppose most of us would agree. In the article itself, the H. was avoided utterly. Reminds me of Finkelstein: he's a hero with regard to the H Industry, yet remains a true believer with regard to the core H story. There's a curious firewall there. I'm not saying anything that all of us here are not already aware of, only remarking on how this latest very good article is another example of it from a guy who really has his finger on the matter--on one side of the firewall. On the other side there is only empty space.

User avatar
Haldan
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1371
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 9:56 pm
Location: <secret>
Contact:

Postby Haldan » 1 decade 2 years ago (Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:41 pm)

BradleySmith wrote:On the other side there is only empty space.


It reminds me of a quote from a film of which I cannot remember the title of, I believe it might have been something along the lines of "Pet Cemetery" or something similar, I'm not sure. The quote goes like this:

"The side was not meant to be crossed. The side is sour."

-haldan
<?php if ($Holocaust == false ) {deny_repeatedly(); } else { investigate(); } ?>
Homage to Catalin Haldan

Frederik Jensen
Member
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:48 am

Postby Frederik Jensen » 1 decade 2 years ago (Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:27 am)

Bradley Smith,
when you wrote "on the other side there is only empty space", did you mean it that way, to which Haldan apparently alludes, that the zionists will slaughter off the revisionists like pets as in a kind of horror movie?

User avatar
Haldan
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1371
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 9:56 pm
Location: <secret>
Contact:

Postby Haldan » 1 decade 2 years ago (Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:51 am)

Frederik Jensen wrote:Bradley Smith,
when you wrote "on the other side there is only empty space", did you mean it that way, to which Haldan apparently alludes, that the zionists will slaughter off the revisionists like pets as in a kind of horror movie?


I don't think that is what Herr Smith is refering to. In my own understanding it is like this; if a person crosses the other side (holocaust) they will be attacked and their reputation most likely destroyed, their career will be severely damaged. However, if you only keep it the way the author above has done, there will be minimal attacks, if any - perhaps some criticism.

-haldan
<?php if ($Holocaust == false ) {deny_repeatedly(); } else { investigate(); } ?>
Homage to Catalin Haldan

_Mads_
Member
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:47 am

Postby _Mads_ » 1 decade 2 years ago (Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:28 pm)

Hannover,

Well, in any case, the ridicule-and-ignore strategy is not their main approach anymore. Their only chance is to outlaw revisionism completely, and they know it.

Obviously, as you also allude to, the question is whether the general public will accept these laws without becoming suspicious. They must win the battle for the public mind; there will always be independent thinking individuals, but if the great majority of people can be tricked into believing that questioning or denying the "holocaust" is evil and that revisionists deserve to be imprisoned, then they have won.

Assuming that you are right and that our future is probably bleak, I have a question for Bradley Smith. I obviously believe that your film and the way it was recieved on the festival was a great achievement. But, forgive me if this will sound like criticism, where are the good reasons behind not getting it out to the market quickly? You have mentioned what support you have experienced. If you have 1400 friends on the "My Space" site (I think that was the number), then that it only a tiny portion of the possible market.

I personally believe you could sell 100.000 copies of this film in a month or two, if properly advertised. Why not do it? I don´t understand why waiting is a good idea. If the important battle right now is simply about winning the battle against the threat of outlawing, shouldn´t we instantly do everything to win it? Without having seen your film, I think it would be excellent in regard to the issue of free speach. I think it could make a difference.

Apart from the fact that I plan to slow down and use most of my spare time on the beach or similar reasonable activities, instead of trying to figure out things I had perhaps better stay ignorant about, I and most others like me don´t have the possibility to reach out to the majority of the public. Maybe we can reach out to a few people, but not to, say, hundreds of thousands. But you right now are in the position to do that, and if Hannover is right about the situation, shouldn´t we act quickly?

Goethe
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 3:41 am

Postby Goethe » 1 decade 2 years ago (Fri Jul 06, 2007 4:37 pm)

_Mads_ wrote:Assuming that you are right and that our future is probably bleak, I have a question for Bradley Smith. I obviously believe that your film and the way it was recieved on the festival was a great achievement. But, forgive me if this will sound like criticism, where are the good reasons behind not getting it out to the market quickly? You have mentioned what support you have experienced. If you have 1400 friends on the "My Space" site (I think that was the number), then that it only a tiny portion of the possible market.

I personally believe you could sell 100.000 copies of this film in a month or two, if properly advertised. Why not do it? I don´t understand why waiting is a good idea. If the important battle right now is simply about winning the battle against the threat of outlawing, shouldn´t we instantly do everything to win it? Without having seen your film, I think it would be excellent in regard to the issue of free speach. I think it could make a difference.

Apart from the fact that I plan to slow down and use most of my spare time on the beach or similar reasonable activities, instead of trying to figure out things I had perhaps better stay ignorant about, I and most others like me don´t have the possibility to reach out to the majority of the public. Maybe we can reach out to a few people, but not to, say, hundreds of thousands. But you right now are in the position to do that, and if Hannover is right about the situation, shouldn´t we act quickly?

It seems that Bradley Smith has far too many secrets about his film. I'm not sure how well secrecy and free speech mix.
"The coward threatens when he is safe".
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Lamprecht and 4 guests