|
|
Should UK outlaw heresy?
At least libel laws are subject to defense, wherein the defendant can prove himself innocent by proving the truth of what he said. With Holocaust laws the only truth that matters is that heresy has been committed.
Translation: THE HOLOCAUST is special because non-Arab Semites are special; the 20+ millions (mostly Christian) killed by the Soviets (wildly disproportionately non-Arab Semite) aren’t special. Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Thursday, January 4, 2007 at 04:34 PM in Free Speech, Revisionism Comments:2
Posted by Retew on January 07, 2007, 09:22 AM | # I’m opposed to legislation outlawing Holocaust denial in the UK, but i’d like to pick up on this “20 million under Stalin” business. How exactly do we know how many people the Soviets killed? I see the Nazi holocaust endlessly picked over by posters on Stormfront and elsewhere, and yet this one gets slallowed without a burp (yet the received statitics concerning the Ukrainian famine are disputed by Douglas Tottle, for example). 3
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on January 07, 2007, 08:31 PM | #
Another of the myriad examples of our opponents’ lack of perspective and sane priorities; somehow real people being put in prison for real laws outlawing heresy throughout western Europe, is equivalent to unorthodox holocaust revisionism. Somehow our potential hypocrisy on Hitler vs. Stalin is elevated as tantamount to non-Arab Semitic hypocrisy (Nazi: hundreds; Commies: 0). This general lack of sanity is exemplified by the issues I’m always pointing out vis-a-vis Israel: the west is far more concerned with long-dead white male “crimes” than they are with the ongoing crimes of a similar nature in Israel. They’d rather chase a few powerless WNs for their racist ideas than they would non-Arab Semite racists who run a racist state and commit systemic racist crimes against the other. By definition, if their priorities were straight and their motives honest, they’d have absolutely no time for us, having too much else on their plate coming from Israel, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, etc., etc., ad infinitum. 4
Posted by Orion Blue on January 10, 2007, 05:05 PM | # Surely this hypocritical inconsistency on the part of the left stems from two factors: 1). Diversity includes everything except Whites and recognition of the values of Western Civilisation. The Left often cites the sheer mechanical precision and planning behind the Holocaust as the basis for its being positioned as the apogee of human depravity, though I suspect that Show Trials and treachery even within families comes fairly close. Also, the fate of the Kulaks in the Ukraine - condemning them “guilty as a class” is only an economic version of Hitler’s Racial Hygiene laws which condemned Jewish people “guilty as a class [race]”. The Left is basically too busy trying to suppress knowledge of atrocities committed in the name of Socialism/Communism to be able to offer an objective perspective on this topic. The Left rams home every point it has to make by presenting dissenters of the multi-cult orthodoxy as supporters of genocide, no matter how muted people’s comments on immigration restriction might be. Criminalising Holocaust Revisionism is a retrograde step, especially for England or the rest of the UK. It was the UK (among others) who resisted the rise of Hitler, yet we seem to be being cast as the guilty party. There was never a substantial risk of NSDAP ideology taking a hold in Britain and that includes the Left’s peculiar penchant for seeing White self-interest as inherently Nazi-like, which brings me back to point 1). made above. The Left seems to have declared war on the Whites by tacitly declaring us ‘guilty as a class [race]’ and this is perhaps best exemplified by the recent Far Left alliance with radical Islam, in its efforts to whip up resentment among what might otherwise prove to be ostensibly passive individuals. It also has to be said that the Far Left is extremely opportunistic and cynical when they talk about the Holocaust for their own political advantage. Anyone who heard the Radio Four programme, The Moral Maze which featured Nick Griffin as one of the cross examinees will recall how the mushy-mouthed Social Gospel Universalist who was also on the show, kept on invoking the Holocaust as his basis for attacking Griffin’s politics. So in summing up, the Holocaust is not a political football to be used by the Far Left whenever it is deemed useful to do so, it should be returned to those to whom it belongs, for them to commemorate in the way the deem fit. 5
Posted by PF on January 10, 2007, 05:20 PM | # Responding to Orion Blue: Do historical events belong to groups of people? Does the Peloponesian War belong to the Greeks, for example? Does the hundred years war belong to the English? It would be interesting to know all the positive and negative things implicit in this concept of yours that historical events effectively belong to groups of people. 6
Posted by ben tillman on January 10, 2007, 05:25 PM | # “The Left rams home every point it has to make by presenting dissenters of the multi-cult orthodoxy as supporters of genocide, no matter how muted people’s comments on immigration restriction might be.” As with so many other things the Left have it precisely backwards, which is, of course, why they must monopolize the mass media. Genocide cannot happen in the absence of immigration. The surest way to prevent genocide is to prevent immigration. 7
Posted by Orion Blue on January 10, 2007, 05:35 PM | # “It would be interesting to know all the positive and negative things implicit in this concept of yours that historical events effectively belong to groups of people.” Posted by PF on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 at 09:20 PM Historical events per se may not belong to groups of people, my point is that instead of the non-Jewish Radical Left appropriating the Holocaust for their own cynical political ends, it should be treated as an event in history, which those who were directly affected by it can commemorate in their own way. In as much as Jewish (and other) survivors/descendents of the Holocaust can be said to “own” it, this applies only in as much as they have an emotional stake due to grief and loss of family. This does not preclude historians continuing to research the matter, even if they advance views that are outside the conventional, orthodox framework. My point really was that The Far Left should stop using the Holocaust in its propaganda exercises, especially when there have been so many wrongs committed in the name of “social justice”, socialism and communism. This seems a better way of dealing with it than letting lots of ‘me-too’ political types continue to bang the genocide drum as a means of controlling what people can say, think or feel about an historical event. 8
Posted by Retew on January 11, 2007, 11:32 AM | # Svyatoslav_Igorevich wrote; ====================================== Another of the myriad examples of our opponents’ lack of perspective and sane priorities; somehow real people being put in prison for real laws outlawing heresy throughout western Europe, is equivalent to unorthodox holocaust revisionism. Somehow our potential hypocrisy on Hitler vs. Stalin is elevated as tantamount to non-Arab Semitic hypocrisy (Nazi: hundreds; Commies: 0). This general lack of sanity is exemplified by the issues I’m always pointing out vis-a-vis Israel: the west is far more concerned with long-dead white male “crimes” than they are with the ongoing crimes of a similar nature in Israel. They’d rather chase a few powerless WNs for their racist ideas than they would non-Arab Semite racists who run a racist state and commit systemic racist crimes against the other. By definition, if their priorities were straight and their motives honest, they’d have absolutely no time for us, having too much else on their plate coming from Israel, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, etc., etc., ad infinitum. ======================================= So what’s your point here Svy? That I should refrain from pointing out the flaws in White Nationalism as I see them because there are racist regimes elsewhere in the world (and I notice you don’t address me directly, which I always thought was an elementary courtesy in debate)? Anyway, I’ll answer your point. I happen to be a white person, and therefore you and your fellow WNs are proposing to act in my name and in my interest. Robert Mugabe, Ehud Olmert, the House of Saud etc. are not. That’s the difference, and why I consider it worth my time and effort to debate you. There are plenty of Jews who oppose what is going on in Israel, just as there are black Zimbabweans and other Africans who oppose Mugabe. No one is saying that others don’t have a right to a say on events in those countries, but it’s their voices who do and should carry the most weight. 9
Posted by ben tillman on January 11, 2007, 12:49 PM | # The point should be that any miscalculation of the victims of the Bolsheviks is harmless. An objective do-gooder would not worry about it. Now, if the purpose of insisting on rigor is to make our arguments more credible and thus more effective, that’s fine. The 20 million figure seems conservative enough to me, but I wince at the greater figures of up to 100 million victims. We do have the truth on our side, and it is compelling enough. There is no need to exaggerate. 10
Posted by Little Red Riding Brute on January 11, 2007, 01:47 PM | # “I happen to be a white person, and therefore you and your fellow WNs are proposing to act in my name and in my interest.” This is a point that needs to be addressed. Do “WNs” “propose to act” in the name of all whites? I believe the answer should be no, and, instead, such activists should “act in the name of”: - whites who want their group interests pursued However, those whites who should know better - for example who can read the material here, see the alternative views and who have the intelligence to understand the points made - and yet still reject the “WN” worldview, then, no, I don’t think anyone should speak “in their name” as whites. Why let them free-ride on the efforts of others? And, if you are going to point out that the mindless masses are free-riding as well, then let me introduce a new term: cross-riding. If free-riding is taking advantage of common goods without contributing to them, then cross-riding is taking advantage of common goods while - - actively destroying the common goods Most white politicians as well as white “anti-racists” are not merely free-riders, but cross-riders as well. I think that “WNs” should look askance at free-riders, while understanding the problem of ignorance, but should be intolerant of cross-riding. For example, as a theoretical exercise: if a white ethnostate is established, should those white politicians currently shilling for “immigration reform”, amnesty and open borders be allowed in (assuming they wish to be included, perhaps encouraged by racial warfare/animus against whites by non-whites)? I say the answer should be no. 11
Posted by Retew on January 11, 2007, 01:50 PM | # Perhaps Ben, but let’s take it on a step further. Suppose that I were a neo-Stalinist claiming that “socialism in one country” and collectivisation of my country’s industry and agriculture were the answer to its problems, and moreover that this could be done without loss of life or indeed significant harm to my country’s inhabitants. Furthermore, suppose that I were to hail Stalin as a great leader, a man of vision and foresight, and make the claim that the massacre of the kulaks etc. never happened. Would my historical inaccuracies be harmless then, in the context of the fact that I was relying on them to reassure people of the That’s why historical accuracy matters. 12
Posted by Guessedworker on January 11, 2007, 02:15 PM | # Brute, That’s a very interesting and creative contribution. I was tempted to say that since we are in the brave new age of Transgender Rights, a term other than cross-riding might be appropriate. But I can’t think of one! Obviously, in the happy event of a safe haven state becoming available for white Americans the traitorous could not be granted entry. Their due would be a lifetime spent in the presence of those diverse delights they were only too pleased to force on their own people. 13
Posted by Voice on January 11, 2007, 02:43 PM | # GW, Interestingly(or not) enough, people are fleeing Calfornia for the safe havens of Montana and the like and bringing their (im)moral politics with them. I think we need to alert Kmac that whites practice self-deception as well-or stupidity. 14
Posted by Billy Joe Daniels on January 11, 2007, 03:09 PM | # GuessedWorker says: “Obviously, in the happy event of a safe haven state becoming available for white Americans the traitorous could not be granted entry. Their due would be a lifetime spent in the presence of those diverse delights they were only too pleased to force on their own people.” Almost the only way this could be maintained is the Israeli way, namely ownership of all land in a collective with 99 year leases to home owners, and a requirement of collective approval for new residents, heirs, and purchasers. Otherwise the defiant daughter will move in with her special lover, and they will proceed to rip the community apart. It would have to be subtle and below the radar, and probably linked with land ownership in the name of a private K-13 educational institution, not a church or religion. 15
Posted by Billy Joe Daniels on January 11, 2007, 03:28 PM | # Retew says: “I happen to be a white person, and therefore you and your fellow WNs are proposing to act in my name and in my interest.” There is such a richly-textured variety within European and European American, Euopean Canadian, and European Australian thought about the problems presented here that it simply cannot be reasonably said that this web site proposes to act in the name of all white persons. I can say that from observation of the web site as well as from observations of white persons that opinions, goals, thoughts, and ideologies vary so much that no one web site can be identified as acting in the name of all white persons. There is no unanimity even in the concept you identify as “WN.” Some of us are “WLs.” So the idea would be to contribute novel interpretations and scientific facts to reach the 25% of European-origin peoples who are reachable. The Jewish experience is telling…they emphatically seek marriage within their ethnic group, but lose up to 10%-20% each generation to the larger society. White persons, without the benefit of shared values or statutory rights, will have this happen, too. But I predict that there will be many experiments, some virtual (horizontal) across the nations, some within one nation (vertical), and some in communities and cul-de-sacs throughout the European-origin world (local). Some day we will even get around to holding annual and legitimate Euro World Congresses to debate issues and solutions. There’s really no reason we couldn’t do it now provided the congress was truly Eurocentric as opposed to Semiticentric or Afrocentric, two deviations from Eurocentrism. 16
Posted by Retew on January 14, 2007, 08:04 AM | # Some good points here from Billy and others, only I would go further; I look forward to the day when we can all sit down and discuss these questions in an amicable manner, whichever side of the race debate we happen to be on, but pretty obviously we’re a long way from that at the moment and few people who debate these questions even seem to want it - it’s much more fun apparently to demonise one another. I think we’re all agreed that the non-white population of the UK (the country I know best, for obvious reasons) has skyrocketed since World War II. No one as far as I know seriously doubts that there are problems associated with this, least of all anyone in the UK (who suffered a terrorist outrage in July 2005) or the US with 9/11, although some would argue that the US Government or Mossad had a hand in that one. The question is whether or not that justifies wholesale separation of the races, up to and including deportation of non-whites from the UK. Compared to most people here who call your “race realists,” I seem to have been lucky on the whole in my experience of non-whites and perhaps somewhat *unlucky in my experience of some members of my own race, so it’s harder for me than it it is for most of you to believe the notion that an all- white state is something to aspire to. Even I’m not sure I’d want to be part of a white minority in my own country, however, which is projected to happen by the end of the century, and I wouldn’t want Islamic legal concepts incorporated into our legal system which is at least a possibility in the distant future if the Muslim community in the UK continues to grow in size and influence, so we do have some ground in common. Maybe we should look at this spectrally, with someone like MuadDib at one end of the spectrum with his insistence that nothing less than an all-white and Jew-free America will do, and anarchistic advocates of open-borders at the other? Sincerely, Retew. BTW, what’s WL an abbreviation of - White Living Space? * I recall Svy for example saying on Stormfront that he’s been beaten up by blacks but never by whites; it’s the other way round in my case (unless you count my one time martial arts teacher - just joking). 17
Posted by alex zeka on January 14, 2007, 08:42 AM | # retew, WL means white liberationist, I presume. Given that the liberation sought is of the national variety, it’s little different from WN, altho’ that can also mean somebody who believes in practising white identity politics in a multiculti state. A WL (which is what I’m closer to) would advocate abolishing it. I should also add that the opposite of an all-white advocate isn’t an anarchist, but a comouslory integration, welfare for immigrants, force people to allow foreigners into their (state-owned) schools n’ hospitals Commissar. It’s the difference between allowing ‘em in and making sure they can not only get in but stay here quite comfortably. 18
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on January 14, 2007, 03:37 PM | #
My point is that you wouldn’t be here if you weren’t a hypocrite. If you weren’t a hypocrite, you’d have far too much else to do to worry about little ol’ us.
In your name? No. In your interest? Yes. (you have no choice in your interests, whether you recognize them or not; EGI, food, sleep, they’re not up for debate as interests)
So, you feel your whiteness long enough to act, as a white person, against those who propose to act in white interests, but not long enough to act against those who actually are working against white interests. And, you eschew opposing racism per se. Do I have that right?
Obvious cop-out. “Plenty” is a weasel-word here, since “plenty” is obviously far from enough. Way more than plenty oppose WNism, in fact that’s the mainstream position and a requirement of polite society. Also, practically no one but a few WNs highlight the obvious hypocrisy and injustice of American non-Arab Semitry (racial self-abnegation and panmixia for thee, ethnostate for me); do you? As an American (I assume), your tax dollars are going to support Israel. Do you care? If you do, do you act? If you do, is your action proportionate to reality (talk from WNs, actual U.S.-backed Apartheid state in Israel)? Am I correct that you founded mootStormfront? If so, proving proportionality, or at least indications, shouldn’t be difficult. 19
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on January 14, 2007, 03:42 PM | # Ah, I see from your post you’re from the U.K.; my mistake. 20
Posted by Retew on January 14, 2007, 06:00 PM | # My reply to Svy’s post above (which was long and detailed) didn’t show up for some reason. I may try again when I’ve got more time. Perhaps I’ll take a leaf out of Svy’s book and save my posts in a text editor first, but for now, has the site sioftware been tested for a variety of browsers? I’m using SeaMonkey. Best, Retew . 21
Posted by Retew on January 14, 2007, 06:02 PM | # That one went through, same browser as well, so I don’t know what the problem was. Oh well. 22
Posted by Guessedworker on January 14, 2007, 06:15 PM | # Retwe, The reply didn’t post because the security code changed while you were preparing it. You can reload without losing your work, then upload it to the page. 23
Posted by Billy Joe Daniels on January 14, 2007, 08:55 PM | # To Retew: To this writer, “WL” means white liberation from restrictions on our freedoms of association & speech, as well as an end to anti-white defamation & discrimination. As alex zeka pointed out above, WL can carry several interpretations in addition to the obvious or literal interpretation. 24
Posted by Retew on January 15, 2007, 02:55 PM | # Thanks for replying Svy, here are my answers; 1 / My point is that you wouldn’t be here if you weren’t a hypocrite. If you weren’t a hypocrite, you’d have far too much else to do to worry about little ol’ us. Misplaced priorities (if I am guilty of them) are not the same as “hypocrisy.” Hypocrisy is the profession of virtues you don’t in fact possess, something I don’t think I’m guilty of merely because I post here. 2 / In your name? No. I’d say yes, as I am white and you are White Nationalists, though I know others here think differently. 3 / In your interest? Yes. (you have no choice in your interests, whether you recognize them or not; EGI, food, sleep, they’re not up for debate as interests) Fair enough, at least as far as you think so, but judging by what I read on SF you (I mean WNs generally) make a lot of assumptions about what a white man “should” be, which are very conservative and pre-1960s and may well conflict with who or what I want to be. 4 / So, you feel your whiteness long enough to act, as a white person, against those who propose to act in white interests I’m not acting against anyone. I’m making use of the facilities offered to me here and elsewhere to state my point of view; you and anyone else are free to rebut me if I’m wrong. 5 / but not long enough to act against those who actually are working against white interests. You mean the people you call non-Arab Semites? I know your views on them, but I think the West is big enough for both of us. 6 / And, you eschew opposing racism per se. Do I have that right? No, I don’t like anyone judging me because of my race, although in some circumstances it is understandable IMO; I wouldn’t expect a warm welcome in the former Belgian Congo, for example, and nor would you if you know the history of that country and its inhabitants under King Leopold. 7 / Obvious cop-out. “Plenty” is a weasel-word here, since “plenty” is obviously far from enough. Not at all, if I thought there were “far from enough” I wouldn’t have used the word “plenty.” It’s not a question of numbers . To take a different example, over a million Brits marched against Blair’s illegal war in Iraq in Februalry 2003, but because they had no power, Blair ignored them. Another million or so would have made no difference. The same applies to Olmert and Mugabe , especially the latter who takes no notice of elections whatsoever. Olmert’s a bit different because he’s elected, but only by Israeli Jews. He’s free to ignore the complaints of liberal British Jews about his government’s actions. 8 / Way more than plenty oppose WNism, in fact that’s the mainstream position and a requirement of polite society. It depends what you mean by “polite”. If you mean ordinary folk in the UK, I wouldn’t be so sure, talk to people on the street and in their homes and 9 / Also, practically no one but a few WNs highlight the obvious hypocrisy and injustice of American non-Arab Semitry (racial self-abnegation and panmixia for thee, ethnostate for me); do you? If you’re talking about Republican support for Israel, all I can say is that Would you want “friends” who hoped to see your country destroyed? BTW, if you think American conservative Christians are pro-Jewish, see what happens if their daughter wants to marry one. She gets a lecture about “the Jews killed Christ!” 10 / As an American (I assume), your tax dollars are going to support Israel. Do you care? I’m British not American as you’ve realised above, but of course I do, the unquestioned support Israel enjoys in the Middle East makes it possible for its government to ignore the imperative to talk to Hamas, who whatever you think of them are the government of the Palestinians. Pull away that safety net and they’d have to talk, and you’d get a two-state settlement a lot sooner. 11 / If you do, do you act? If you do, is your action proportionate to reality (talk from WNs, actual U.S.-backed Apartheid state in Israel)? Probably not in all honesty. However, there aren’t many states in the world who have to constantly fight for their very existence and that should always be borne in mind when considering Israel’s actions; as Kamandi pointed out on MSF, Israel’s denial of land to the Palestinians is at least in part due to their desire to avoid a Palestinian standing army at all cost. 12 / Am I correct that you founded mootStormfront? No I didn’t. I joined in August 2005, nearly a year after it was founded. Incidentally, I had a brief conversation with you by E-mail under my real name, about British Muslims, soon afterwards and you invited me here as a result. 13 / If so, proving proportionality, or at least indications, shouldn’t be difficult. I offer no defence there except to say that the forum’s suffering at the moment because most of our best debaters are busy or otherwise not posting there (I’m a minnow by comparision with the best of them), so you Best, Retew . 25
Posted by Retew on January 15, 2007, 03:04 PM | # P.S. Svy; I’ve just realised what you mean in 9 / by American non-Arab Semitry, so my comments didn’t apply to your point. It’s not a term I’m familiar with. Heaven’s sake man, if you mean Jews say Jews, it’s a lot easier all round and shorter too. 26
Posted by Retew on January 15, 2007, 03:40 PM | # My final comment was probably a bit inflammatory and over the top; sorry Svy. I’d edit it if I could. 27
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on January 15, 2007, 05:16 PM | #
You’ve provided my response:
So you do oppose racism, per se. Ergo, you’re a hypocrite because you preach anti-racism, but practice anti-WNism.
No. It’s pretty widely accepted in WNism that we don’t champion white Uncle Toms, defectors, anti-racists, race-traitors - whatever the label.
You’re changing the subject.
But you are. When you oppose racial nationalism, ethnocentrism, whatever, you’re acting against humanity’s interests. When you oppose white racial nationalism, ethnocentrism, whatever, you’re acting against white people’s interests.
I mean those who are actually working against white interests. My point was you apparently only feel white long enough to oppose people who purport to act in accord with white interests. I just find that odd.
Then you’ve no grasp on reality.
Haha, so in other words you oppose WNs because they’re powerless, and have given up on the Israelis, the Tories, the Mugabe regime, because they’re powerful. Hey, at least you’re honest.
I mean that your doctrines (relatively speaking) are taught in schools, entrenched in academia, preached from the pulpit, propagated by the teevee, required in government, enshrined in law, etc. I mean that opposing them is verboten.
Gimme a break. The entire American political establishment falls all over itself to show who can more rabidly support Israel.
Uhm, if the “hope” involved waiting for a big bearded guy to part the skies and come down to do the destroying, and the friendship involved lots of unconditional money and political support, yes.
Pigswallow. American conservative Christians tend to worship non-Arab Semites. As an American (I assume), your tax dollars are going to support Israel. Do you care?
And how does a comparison of how the west treated Apartheid South Africa and how it treats Apartheid Israel strike you? Doesn’t the stark contrast strike you as odd, to say the least?
This is where the discussion always goes off the tracks for me. The assumption that Israel has a right to exist as a non-Arab Semite state, that her founding was legitimate, is not justified by the mainstream western Zeitgeist. In fact, I’m having a hard time thinking of any justifications that aren’t Machiavellian, Darwinian, or racial nationalist.
My mistake, I thought you were the guy who offered me a mod position there.
Heh, not much of a defense.
I have my reasons. Your alternative has become a loaded word for westerners. Rather than rehabilitate it, in certain venues I change to a non-loaded term, thus obviating decades and billions of dollars worth of propaganda investment.
Bah, you know I’m thicker-skinned than that (and too prone to insult and inflammatory myself to go casting stones). 28
Posted by alex zeka on January 15, 2007, 06:14 PM | # He’s free to ignore the complaints of liberal British Jews about his government’s actions. Ergo, they are free to pontificate all they want without it affecting either them or their co-racials. 29
Posted by Andrew Milner on March 21, 2007, 09:53 PM | # Austria has really shot itself in the foot. Negative publicity when they arrest, try and imprison histporian David Irving. More of the same when they release him early. In order to clamp down on Fascist apologists they have to behave like Fascists themselves. So it’s hardly surprising that Austria is a country in denial. Face it, “Birthplace of Adolph Hitler” is hardly something you’d put on your tourist promotion literature. But now they’ve topped even that; “Austria, no stinking freedom of speech here.” Jailing a 66-year-old historian for an utterance made some 17 years earlier; you shake your head in disbelief. I thought David Irving was raising a perfectly innocuous academic point. I mean, it wasn’t like he was saying the Jews cause all the trouble in the world. Or German Jews caused the US to enter WWI (1917), thus precipitating the defeat of Germany. Austria, the thought crime capital of Europe. Although it should be said the vast majority of European countries have Holocaust denial laws. You might want to keep this in mind when planning your emigration. Asia starts to look a good bet. 30
Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 21, 2007, 11:22 PM | # Andrew, the Holocaust is on the way out. These arrests, trials, and prison sentences tell everyone loud and clear that the preponderance of evidence supports Holocaust doubts going against Holocaust assertions. 31
Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 21, 2007, 11:24 PM | # That was garbled. try this: the preponderance of evidence supports Holocaust doubts and goes against Holocaust assertions. Next entry: Bold Hypothesis: Jews Are an Islamic Weapon Previous entry: What would happen to homosexual equality if parents could choose to have a normal child? |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. Classic Sparkle commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 12:07 PM. (go) (view) Adalberto Deavers commented in entry 'The compassion of the court' on 05/24/12, 12:00 PM. (go) (view) Optigmata commented in entry 'More thread wars' on 05/24/12, 11:08 AM. (go) (view) payday loans commented in entry 'ANTI-JEWISM: The Deadly Plague of White Nationalist Slave Morality' on 05/24/12, 10:27 AM. (go) (view) Verlene Zumwalt commented in entry 'Ireland Worshipping at the Holocaust Shrine' on 05/24/12, 10:16 AM. (go) (view) Cobus commented in entry 'A genocide in South Africa' on 05/24/12, 10:14 AM. (go) (view) pay day loans commented in entry 'Heidegger: The West Texas Translation' on 05/24/12, 09:59 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 09:49 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 08:54 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 07:41 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 07:18 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 06:53 AM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/24/12, 06:48 AM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/24/12, 06:47 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 06:32 AM. (go) (view) Guest commented in entry 'The Torment of the Mulattoes' on 05/24/12, 06:17 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/24/12, 03:05 AM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:31 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:03 AM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:08 PM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 09:13 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:47 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'Indian beauty' on 05/23/12, 12:52 PM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 12:45 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'More on the Indian beauty question' on 05/23/12, 12:31 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:43 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 11:32 AM. (go) (view) Mellaba Pechios commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:55 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 03:51 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:26 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:23 PM. (go) (view) 7 Year BA commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 09:19 PM. (go) (view) DARYL commented in entry 'A repeatable comment for mass-pasting on American public message boards' on 05/22/12, 08:57 PM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime
General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by Billy Joe Daniels on January 04, 2007, 10:27 PM | #
Svyatoslav Igorevich says:
“Translation: THE HOLOCAUST is special because non-Arab Semites are special; the 20+ millions (mostly Christian) killed by the Soviets (wildly disproportionately non-Arab Semite) aren’t special.”
One thing that must never be left out of a discussion on this topic is the mystery of the number six millions. One thing particularly interesting about it is the fact that it was given on at least three occasions during the twentieth century as the number of non-Arab Semitics suffering, likely to die, or dead. To check this out, go to:
http://www.historiography-project.org/documents/documents.html
The first article to mention six millions suffering is dated June 11, 1900.
Two more articles mention six millions suffering and dying and are dated September 29, 1919, and October 31, 1919.
And ever since 1975, non-Arabic Semites in hundreds of contexts have loomed large and loud in the public square about the loss of six millions of their relatives in the 1940’s.
I think by now we all understand that the number six millions has a profound meaning within Judaism, but what is not clear is why we are demanded to believe IN the number, as opposed for example to just believing the number.
The best theory for believing the number on the part of non-Arab Semites that I have heard is that it is part of a tactic to deceive God and usher in the age of the in-gathering of Jews into their own nation-state. The history of Judaism is replete with examples in the Talmud of rabbis who insist that they can trick, fool, or deceive God. Some have claimed to be of higher intelligence than God.
The mystery is why we are required to bend the knee and kiss the whip of the number of six millions, and profess to believe IN it when it is so clearly of religious import, not literally true at all.
For an enlightened age, we live surrounded by the most repulsive superstitions that have distorted our lives and hopes. Examples will be provided on request.
Police and Security Minister Tony McNulty says:
“The MCB is wrong to boycott Holocaust Memorial Day, whatever they feel about other events in history, it misses the point. For all the other atrocities in history, the Holocaust was so mechanised, so formal in a way we have not seen before and happily not since.”
For a short reminder on the many, many mechanized ways for which sworn testimony was offered on executions, go to:
http://www.historiography-project.org/nonsense/nonsense.html