Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Indeed the mere fact that uncensored blog comments are now being allowed is highly significant.
We are indeed living at a moment of great transition, so that in a few years on the notion of large cyanide lethal gas chambers will exist only in the museum of yesterday’s superstitions.
- It yet remains socially unacceptable to say this however, which is why web-posts are so important, because any nom de plume may be used. Here are three recent news-items summarised, plus one blog article, giving in each case a breakdown of the web-comments.
1. 24.12.11 ‘Stop teaching about the Holocaust…’ Daily Telegraph. A former UK education minister calls for Holo-education not to be taught in schools, says it causes anti-German feeling. Five hundred comments appear – this is surely the first time uncensored blog comments on this topic have been permitted? And, its in the Telegraph newspaper, a pillar of the British establishment. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/ed ... Baker.html
There were 589 comments (February 2012) I sorted them by ‘best rating’ then counted the first hundred: 41 were ‘revisionist’ i.e. rejecting the accepted narrative, 35 were pro-H and 23 were undecided or unclear. I suggest this could be the first time the British have been able to freely express their opinion on the matter, and it is surely the first time ever that a clear majority have come out against the accepted Holo-narrative.
2. 17.11.11 Guy Walters, The Curious Case of the “break into Auschwitz” by Guy Walters, New Statesman. This is a review of Dennis Avey’s book. Avey got a heavenly six-figure advance sum for his book, in which he finally (after half a century) remembers he was at Auschwitz. Prime Minister Gordon Brown awarded him a ‘Hero of the Holocaust’ award, brewed up especially for him – BUT the NS says this book needs to be ‘withdrawn from circulation, as it looks like another bogus holo-story. The main problem seems to be, that Avey’s story involved him getting into the camp by swapping with someone, but who? The person he names has to be a real person of course. The war-papers of this real person turn out not to put him anywhere near Monowitz where Avey’s story has him. http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/guy-w ... -auschwitz viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6458&p=49213&hilit=Avey&sid=26933b8a57e4b043773e7abd2bec167f#p49213
The Blog Comments: 87, I counted a few dozen, they were about 3:1 against believing Avery’s story, of those which expressed an opinion.
3. 14.1.2012 Daily Mail British ‘archaeologist destroys Holocaust deniers' argument with mass grave find at Treblinka’ Birmingham University visits Treblinka – Ms Crolls has got her PhD on this topic, and the BBC news hypes her study as proving that here are 800,000 Jews buried there. Her team is not allowed to disturb the ground, Jewish law forbids desecrating etc; and the Ground-penetrating radar she is using cannot actually detect human remains (‘'no geophysical methods will reveal conclusively what is below the soil - they do not detect human remains’). There is no doubt, etc. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... linka.html
Also she does detect some brick-type structure under the ground, ‘probably the gas chambers’ she explains. Now, were the British people convinced by this hocus-pocus?
Of the 59 comments ‘moderated in advance’: clicking ‘best rated’ I got seven skeptical of the whole story, one believing it. So, people were actually very skeptical. viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6804&p=49358&hilit=treblinka+Crolls&sid=26933b8a57e4b043773e7abd2bec167f#p49358
4. The US history of Science journal Isis reviewed the prestigious two-volume Biographical Encyclopaedia of Astronomers, and concluded it needed to be pulped. The problem was, the ethically-damned status of one of the contributors, viz myself. I had three biographical essays published in it, about Newton, John Flamsteed and John Couch Adams. The Emeritus professor Jim Fetzer complained about this to the US History of Science Society, after all it’s their journal, and in January 2012 they deliberated and decided that it was quite OK, i.e they could not see anything wrong with a review calling for a large Encyclopaedia to be pulped.
-After all, one of its contributors was a Revisionist.
Jim Fetzer posted an article about this on the big-hitting site Veterans Today, and more or less all of the quite interesting blog-comments were supportive! Phew now that is quite a change! Therapy even, after the way bloggers descended upon my in April 2008 after I’d been chucked out of my college. You may find this one of the more edifying open-public-discussions of the H you have come across… http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/04 ... ur-career/
This is the Turning of the Tide.
Engel wrote:Anyone with any common sense would see it was only a matter of time. You can't fool the world forever.
Well, let's hope so. But I'd be careful to make a prediction. Most lemmings still buy into the orthodox Holocaust narrative, while they may admit to a lie or two. It's a bit different with people that are interested in historical subjects who can think out of the box. There I see more comments and posting on forums that dispute the orthodox Holocaust narrative or essential parts of it.
Remember that most of the people here did initially believe in the orthodox Holocaust narrative, because that's what has been written in books, taught in schools and told in the media. Surely most, if not all are people that investigated the matter themselves and were able to think out of the box. What happened with us, can happen with others.
On the other hand It also seems that people have become more hysterical regarding the matter. I recall reactions of people I tagged on Facebook on pictures of the Auschwitz swimming pool, some went really berserk.
If they really want to, intellectual people will actually find a rational way to argue for their belief in something that is actually baseless, which will lead to a shell game. That's why I prefer to point people to some evidence (or lack thereof) and tell them to make their own conclusions. No pressure from my side.
Engel wrote:That is a good point, but shed enough light on contradictions in the story, and eventually it will collapse under it's own weight. The only thing would be the time it takes for that to happen. Keep in mind the western world once believed the Sun orbited the Earth, and anyone who questioned that belief was persecuted, now though, it's regarded as common knowledge.
While the geocentric view was once a scientific dogma, it is not true that everyone challenging it was persecuted. In fact Copernicus could postulate heliocentric ideas and even the famous Galileo was only persecuted after he got smeared by a jealous colleague. And even during his trial he was given ample chance to present his case, which is more then Revisionists usually get. Don't forget that the geocentric view seems to be perfectly obvious unless you start observing and recording tiny astronomical details. Then one needs to resort to all kind of complicated math to support the geocentric view, while the heliocentric one makes more sense. With the Holocaust the lies are far more obvious, if one only has access to the forest of documentation and facts.
Ok so its Press TV, but I counted comments: 42 sceptical, 9 pro (March 1st.)
But on US site, comments were 100% against Jones: http://oaklawn.patch.com/articles/repub ... happened#c
http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/cul ... oss?page=1
an interview with relative of Anne Frank
The balance of comments are:
12 Holo-sceptics, 10 believers, 3 unsure.
My post didn't go up, but Kingfisher's did.
What's interesting about Anne Frank's Diary, is that it ONLY mentions
the gas chambers in the year 1942 as something she has heard about on
the BBC news. Obviously that was the year the BBC first started
broadcasting the story, of big human lethal cyanide gas chambers.
Her Father was in the hospital at Auschwitz and he recovered - didn't he?
Then (correct me if I'm wrong) when the Auschwitz camp was liberated
by the Soviets, Anne frank chose to go Westwards with the retreting
Germans, rather than Eastwards with the Russians
I counted the first few, 18 pro-H and 35 sceptical, with some neither. So that is nearly 2:1 in favor of a Revisionist viewpoint.
So I decided to take a pro-H video, the top one came up as 'The Holocaust in color' with over a million views and 15 thousand counts.
I counted the first few comments, they gave 5 pro-H and 13 sceptical.
I conclude that there is now general phenomenon, that on web-articles AND youtube videos a majority of comments are now sceptical of the Holohoax story.
"HECTOR" While the geocentric view was once a scientific dogma, it is not true that everyone challenging it was persecuted. In fact Copernicus could postulate heliocentric ideas and even the famous Galileo was only persecuted after he got smeared by a jealous colleague. And even during his trial he was given ample chance to present his case, which is more then Revisionists usually get. Don't forget that the geocentric view seems to be perfectly obvious unless you start observing and recording tiny astronomical details. Then one needs to resort to all kind of complicated math to support the geocentric view, while the heliocentric one makes more sense. With the Holocaust the lies are far more obvious, if one only has access to the forest of documentation and facts
1) Copernicus was a catholic priest. His book was circulating with the Church stamp. Jesuits taught commonly the Heliocentric theory.
The Galileo book circulated too with the official Church stamp.
2) The Galileo trial (1633) had nothing to do with the question of the Heliocentric theory, nor he risked anything great, and he knew that.
He was sentenced to say the psalms once a week for two years. He never was jailed, nor he risked to be.
He went to the Villa (beautiful house) of one of his many powerful friends, Cardinal Piccolomini, then he went to his Villa in Arcetri. He was free to go where he wanted, the only duty he had was to notify his change of address.
Galileo was not a man alone, as he was painted, he had half Church with him and the powerful Medici family.
3) The indictments, at the trial of Galileo, were 3.
A) To have explained the theory not for hypothesis but as a dogma, notwithstanding the many repeated friendly advises to speak for scientific hypothesis, but not in absolute doctrinary terms.
B) To have violated the 1616 edict.
C) The motion of the tides (a scientific question). Galileo was accused of falsifying some data about the tides to support his position. He admitted he did.
(At that time there was not a good explanation for the tides. Only Kepler, many years after, explained.)
Well, I guess that every Revisionist would like to have a trial like Galileo had.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Kretschmer and 6 guests