Holocaust Denial Law

[PenguinHunter]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4730832.stm

"Holocaust denial is a criminal offence in Austria."

Until I read this article, I didn't realize that denying the Holocaust was a criminal offense in Austria (Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Switzerland).

I can understand that denying the Holocaust could serve as a vehicle for the development of racism and hate crime but this law still seems really bizarre to me. Isn't this law itself inherently racist? It seems like it detracts from the significance of other genocides... it is ok to deny the Armenian Genocide but not the Holocaust...? Sure the Holocaust was a bit bigger but how do you make a call like "hmm... a 1.2 million person genocide just isn't quite enough to make its denial a criminal offence"?

I'd be curious to hear some European perspectives on this. (And anyone else interested of course)

[Dom]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4730832.stm

"Holocaust denial is a criminal offence in Austria."

Until I read this article, I didn't realize that denying the Holocaust was a criminal offense in Austria (Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Switzerland).

I can understand that denying the Holocaust could serve as a vehicle for the development of racism and hate crime but this law still seems really bizarre to me. Isn't this law itself inherently racist? It seems like it detracts from the significance of other genocides... it is ok to deny the Armenian Genocide but not the Holocaust...? Sure the Holocaust was a bit bigger but how do you make a call like "hmm... a 1.2 million person genocide just isn't quite enough to make its denial a criminal offence"?

I'd be curious to hear some European perspectives on this. (And anyone else interested of course)

I think that this is a geography thing, it is banned in places where they fear there could have been a resurgence of nazi ideals,

the shear horror and collective guilt felt by europe was where the law came from, I agree it does feel like ti makes light of other geneocides, but few have ever reached the scale of 6 million. Some nations do have similar laws to make sure certain eveils of their past are not forgotten.

Just a thought

[charred_heart]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4730832.stm

"Holocaust denial is a criminal offence in Austria."

Until I read this article, I didn't realize that denying the Holocaust was a criminal offense in Austria (Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Switzerland).

I can understand that denying the Holocaust could serve as a vehicle for the development of racism and hate crime but this law still seems really bizarre to me. Isn't this law itself inherently racist? It seems like it detracts from the significance of other genocides... it is ok to deny the Armenian Genocide but not the Holocaust...? Sure the Holocaust was a bit bigger but how do you make a call like "hmm... a 1.2 million person genocide just isn't quite enough to make its denial a criminal offence"?

I'd be curious to hear some European perspectives on this. (And anyone else interested of course)
This saying applies here: "No one helps those who cannot help themeselves"

While there are a number of genocides that have occured during WW2 around Europe, no group has advocated protecting the memory of the atrocities committed against them as hard as the Jewish people. It would still remain a huge tragedy and be given the same significance, but if they hadn't spent the effort, I believe these laws wouldn't have been introduced in most of Europe.

[Vagabond]

It is ridiculous to police people's beliefs (as opposed to actions), no matter how stupid and outrageous they are.

[Lee]

This saying applies here: "No one helps those who cannot help themeselves"

While there are a number of genocides that have occured during WW2 around Europe, no group has advocated protecting the memory of the atrocities committed against them as hard as the Jewish people. It would still remain a huge tragedy and be given the same significance, but if they hadn't spent the effort, I believe these laws wouldn't have been introduced in most of Europe.I would suggest that the effort spent in protecting those memories of the holocaust is a reaction to the unusual amount of effort spent in trying to deny that that the events ever occured.

[ApeTheDog]

What it comes down to is that nobody can, for example, publish a pamphlet on which it says the holocaust never happened. It has happened, and this law serves to prohibit this.

It is wrong to outlaw peoples beliefs, but is it healthy to arrive at the situation they found themselves in in Germany during world war 2?

(ps, as with all laws, this one is administered very slowly, and requires a court of law to reach a verdict. There is a racist party in belgium which has been publishing an anti-muslim/immigrant newspaper for years, full of hatespeeches and 'jokes', and they're still at it. The only consequence they've suffered is that they've had to change their name at one point, because they were convicted. The political party. Not individual people)

[Purple-Silver Fox]

Denying the Holocaust is a standard strategy of far-right groups and parties, vamping up the nazist and fascist policies and reducing the credibility of criticism. All in the name of free speech, of course. Holocaust denial is very specific and the danger of misusing it is not that big, so there have been higher priorities most of the time than changing that law.

As the joke goes:
Hitler and Göring are sitting in a pub, explaining their policies to the bartender.
H: "I'm going to kill millions jews and a clown."
B: "But why the clown?"
G: "I told you Adolf, nobody cares about the jews!"

It might as well go like this:

Hitler and Göring are sitting in a pub, explaining their policies to the bartender.
H: "I'm going to kill millions of gypsies, handicapped and senile people and six million jews."
B: "But why the jews?"
G: "I told you Adolf, nobody cares about the gypsies, handicapped and senile people!"

[Dom]

I would suggest that the effort spent in protecting those memories of the holocaust is a reaction to the unusual amount of effort spent in trying to deny that that the events ever occured.

I find myself agreeing with Lee!!!!

[cjs55]

A] Irving is probably lying (about his views on the holocaust) at the moment to get a lenient sentence. At the very least he IS an expert on the holocaust, that is a flat out blatant lie.

B] These sort of laws worry me. For instance, Irving didn't entirely deny that the holocaust occured, just challenged the extent of it (whether the gas chambers existed to kill, and whether there was an organized final solution of extermination). Whether these are correct or not, it's not as if they are entirely outrageous arguments that can be easily proven false and thus could be proven to be lies used to stir up anti-jewish sentiment, at least to my knowledge. I doubt Irving is necessarly more correct than common opinion (the truth lies somewhere else most likely), but I can't see what he has done that could be considered criminal.

From an online article:

""This article will focus on the transition from a revisionist approach, which presents a historical picture different from the one commonly accepted in World War II and Holocaust scholarship, to the adoption of views which question the uniqueness, and indeed the very historical veracity, of the Holocaust."

Note that these two are definitely not mutually exclusive. Why special laws would have to be built to protect and hold up the holocaust specifically is beyond me. Actually, that quote Swift had in his signature comes to mind (wow, if anything invalidates me permanently on this site, that will be it).



Isn't this law itself inherently racist?

Damn. Immanent system implosion in 3...2...1...

[Snowflake]

Just a lot of pissed off people who don't want others to deny that reality.

Or, a very good experiment on how to create fake history and make people believe it without question.

[Dom]

A] Irving is probably lying (about his views on the holocaust) at the moment to get a lenient sentence. At the very least he IS an expert on the holocaust, that is a flat out blatant lie.

B] These sort of laws worry me. For instance, Irving didn't entirely deny that the holocaust occured, just challenged the extent of it (whether the gas chambers existed to kill, and whether there was an organized final solution of extermination). Whether these are correct or not, it's not as if they are entirely outrageous arguments that can be easily proven false and thus could be proven to be lies used to stir up anti-jewish sentiment, at least to my knowledge. I doubt Irving is necessarly more correct than common opinion (the truth lies somewhere else most likely), but I can't see what he has done that could be considered criminal.

From an online article:

""This article will focus on the transition from a revisionist approach, which presents a historical picture different from the one commonly accepted in World War II and Holocaust scholarship, to the adoption of views which question the uniqueness, and indeed the very historical veracity, of the Holocaust."

Note that these two are definitely not mutually exclusive. Why special laws would have to be built to protect and hold up the holocaust specifically is beyond me. Actually, that quote Swift had in his signature comes to mind (wow, if anything invalidates me permanently on this site, that will be it).

Damn. Immanent system implosion in 3...2...1...
I think the issue is, that unless you are a properly trained historian who has become an expert in this field, it is probably very difficult to remove subjective thought from ones thoughts.

The law is not there to prevent historical investigation into the holocaust and it's organised extent or not, (of which there is a lot of health debate) the law is there to protect social memory from individuals who would use research to another more sinister purpose to create sympathy for far right thought with in the general populous. The populations who'd most like to be able to deny this event are the ones who have this law.

They don't want revisionists, who have a purpose other than historical accuaracy, to alter public opinion which may result in the rise of far right thought in those nations.

[Claverhouse]

Just study the Rules of Political Correctness (http://www.randomnotes.co.uk/other/rules.htm) of Andrew Zalotocky, and you'll find most of the answer in Rule Ten.


Rule One: Humanity can be neatly divided into a small number of groups, based on race, gender, sexual orientation and class. The world isn't nearly as complex as people say.

Rule Two: Each group consists entirely of Victims or Oppressors. Oppressors will always try to dominate and Victims will always try to resist. Co-operation between Victims and Oppressors is impossible. Society is therefore a zero-sum game played by two teams.

Rule Three: Victims are always blameless, and Oppressors are always guilty. It follows that the demands of Victims must always be supported and the demands of Oppressors must always be opposed. It also follows that cultural diversity is to be encouraged, as long as its effect is to reduce the cultural dominance of Oppressor groups.

Rule Four: Groups should be designated as Oppressors or Victims according to their position in the social hierarchy in the early 1960s, when civilisation is assumed to have begun. Any apparent social changes since that time can safely be ignored, on the grounds that they merely obscure the underlying power structures.

Rule Five: Victims must by definition be powerless, so the powerful must always be Oppressors. America is the most powerful nation on Earth so logically it must also be the biggest Oppressor, and therefore must always be opposed with particular vehemence.

Rule Six: Each individual is completely and permanently defined by the group to which he or she belongs. It follows that nobody can ever change from Victim to Oppressor or vice-versa. To do so would also violate Rule Three, since it would require a Victim to adopt behaviour that was not blameless and an Oppressor to adopt behaviour that was not guilty. Oppressors may do penance for their crimes by turning against their own group, but can never achieve the purity of a true Victim.

Rule Seven: Victims might fail to express the correct attitudes for their group as a result of False Consciousness. Oppressors will usually lie. Therefore Victims should only be represented by enlightened activists who understand their true condition, and Oppressors should not be represented at all.

Rule Eight: Victims must be given preferential treatment to compensate for their oppression. But their status as Victims is immutable, so they will always have a right to further privileges.

Rule Nine: Acts of hatred or violence committed by Victims are a natural reaction to their oppression, and are therefore the fault of the Oppressors. Acts of hatred or violence committed by Oppressors are proof of their innate evil.

Rule Ten: Any failure to obey these rules will only benefit the Oppressors at the expense of the Victims, so to question them is itself an act of oppression. It follows that no other opinions can exist, since anyone who disagrees must be an Oppressor and therefore wrong.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[cjs55]

I think the issue is, that unless you are a properly trained historian who has become an expert in this field, it is probably very difficult to remove subjective thought from ones thoughts.


Not even if you are a properly trained historian will you be removing subjective thought from the issue. Irving may be just simply be a neo-nazi looking for excuses, but that doesn't necessarily make him more biased than the historians enforcing the standardized history, who certainly have an agenda as well.

Everyone has an agenda.


the law is there to protect social memory from individuals who would use research to another more sinister purpose to create sympathy for far right thought with in the general populous.

And, just saying, if research actually supports their sinister purpose, you would censor the TRUTH!? (you know what I'm asking though, all sarcasm aside)



Just study the Rules of Political Correctness of Andrew Zalotocky, and you'll find most of the answer in Rule Ten.


Funny yet sad.

[Heather Harrison]

Laws like this bother me. I have always held firmly to the idea that even the most unpopular opinions should still be protected speech.

Given the history of the region where these laws are in place, it might have made sense to have them for a few decades after World War II (especially in the countries which perpetrated the crimes), but eventually these laws need to expire and people need to move on. Those who deny the holocaust or engage in various forms of offensive speech can talk all they want; we can refute their claims without having to silence them by legal means. These laws may even strengthen their cause by making martyrs out of them. We can preserve social memory of these events without putting people in jail for saying stupid things.

These laws are also giving ammunition to those who look for hypocrisy in the West. When some newspapers publish anti-Muslim cartoons, we holler "Free Speech", but when someone denies the holocaust, he ends up in jail. This situation is not helping us explain our values to the rest of the world; people see us as inconsistent.

In the United States, the First Amendment would effectively nullify such a law, so we don't have anything like it here. We have our fringe groups - a few neo-Nazi groups, the infamous Ku Klux Klan, and a variety of other kooks and crazies. Generally, they don't create a great deal of trouble because they aren't numerous enough (although certain groups have had their moments). They can spout off all they want about their wacky ideas, but very few people listen to them. The only laws we need to control these groups are the laws that are invoked when they cross the line from peaceful speech into violence and intimidation.

We should, by now, be mature enough as a civilization that we don't have to try to suppress unpopular opinions that are expressed peacefully.

Heather

P.S. If you want to check out the website of one of our nutty fringe groups, this one is rather strange. Imagine Green Nazis! This has to be seen to be believed.

http://www.nazi.org/

[Claverhouse]

Imagine Green Nazis![/URL]

The real nazis were founders of the Green cause; particularly Walter Darré, Reichsminister of Food and Agriculture. It stemmed from their affinities with the Wandervögel of the early 20th century, apart from their natural beliefs in Soil and cleanliness etc.. Heidegger also had reactionary green beliefs, and he was as near to a nazi as dammit.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

Here's the Lew Rockwell lot whining about vegetarianism:




First and foremost, it is important to understand that German National Socialism (Nazism) was a "green" movement. Adolf Hitler was a biocentric environmentalist who saw National Socialism (Nazism) as a religion of nature. Just like a pack of wolves culls a crippled elk from a herd (thus "purifying" the gene pool), Nazis sought to reestablish the German people’s connection with nature by reviving primitive agrarian culture and ridding Germany of everything (and everybody) that was "unnatural". Nazi leaders believed German society needed to be purified in a manner that promoted biological fitness through "racial hygiene" and euthanasia. Hitler and his henchmen played the role of the wolves (culling/managing the gene pool) while millions of non-Aryans paid with their lives. If the biocentric credo "a boy, is a dog, is a pig" becomes politically mutated to where a Jew is no more desirable to nature (i.e. the German "social ecosystem") than a crippled elk, then genocide could be justified to "purify" Germany so that it could be reunified, as a whole, with nature. Nazis became the predators and undesirable non-Aryans became the prey.
If all of this sounds too shocking to be true, then I suggest that you read Dr. Alston Chase’s fabulous book [URL="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0395608376/lewrockwell/"]In a Dark Wood: The Fight over Forests and the Rising Tyranny of Ecology (http://www.nazi.org/). Make no mistake, ethical vegetarians and green socialists (which are closely allied) do not advertise their irrefutable linkage to Nazism. So here are some more points, from Dr. Chase’s book, that show the frightening parallels between Nazism and today’s ethical vegetarianism and green socialism.

The Nazis blamed capitalists for driving farmers off the land and into towns in an effort to obtain cheap labor, thus undermining rural culture and promoting factory farms that used poisonous synthetic chemicals.

Soon after seizing power in 1933, the Nazis launched a ruralization program to create a new, more primitive Germany. Subdivisions and private property were declared illegal. It was believed that private property promoted commercialism, consumerism, and urbanization. Thus, private property lead people to adopt unnatural and non-German values.

Hitler’s Germany became the first European country to establish nature preserves. Hitler believed that forests and wildlife, symbolizing Germany’s pre-Roman past, had to be preserved.

Nazis favored organically grown foods and studied the effects of artificial fertilizers for fear that they may have degenerative affects.

The training of Nazi SS Troops included a respect for animals of near Buddhist proportions.

Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler were both biocentric vegetarians.



blah, blah, blah...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/englund4.html


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[tinribz]

British historian David Irving is jailed for three years in Austria after pleading guilty to Holocaust denial. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4733820.stm)

This is for something he said 17 years ago.

And he admits his views have changed since then. It does seem to be pushing it but I have a feeling you have to be a Euro to really understand this?

As previously mentioned it is a propaganda tool used by the far right and I would go further and say it borders on a method to brainwash. They state the holocaust was invented by the Jews as part of a world domination agenda or some such nonsense. But instilling such doubt of authority and previously accepted beliefs in the angry and vulnerable opens their mind to accepting whatever they want you to believe.

There is / was also a whole generation in denial thing going on in Germany too.

[Zephyrus055]

Thought laws? The victims of it aren't generally thinking.

Why would you broadcast viewpoints that are perceived as extreme or odious? All it does is create resistance in those who never asked for it. What n00bs!

I wage strategic wars, including psychological ones, and consequently I will rule long before they ever will.

[Dom]

In the United States, the First Amendment would effectively nullify such a law, so we don't have anything like it here. We have our fringe groups - a few neo-Nazi groups, the infamous Ku Klux Klan, and a variety of other kooks and crazies. Generally, they don't create a great deal of trouble because they aren't numerous enough (although certain groups have had their moments). They can spout off all they want about their wacky ideas, but very few people listen to them. The only laws we need to control these groups are the laws that are invoked when they cross the line from peaceful speech into violence and intimidation.


Yes but as nutty and awful as some of your fringe groups are, they did not murder 6 million people in the space of a few short years, and they didn't preceipitate the largest war the world has ever seen, which only ended with the unleasing of weapons whose power is God like?

And Also you didn't have a situation where a very large proportion of your population had agreed with and/or supported this group!

The laws should expire soon, The chap is lying about being repentant, he was after a more lenient sentence.

This law is so specific and applies in areas which are specific that I see little problem in it, anythign which protected euro from a potential resurgent in far right thought after WW2 is welcome, but i'd suggest once the victims of this holocaust , who are still alive, and the generation which may or may not have supported it, has passed then we can expire these laws.

Just think of the angst, if you watch your family go into the Gas Chambers just to hear on telly how some guy from Britian, a member of our far right group, says they never existed???

[Claverhouse]

Just think of the angst, if you watch your family go into the Gas Chambers just to hear on telly how some guy from Britian, a member of our far right group, says they never existed???

WTF would anyone care ? Apart from the fact that of the 300,000 odd survivors left today ( 2005 (http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/people/survivor.htm) ) 65 years later, none were likely to have watched their families being put into gas chambers, since they too would have been put in immediately after, how can it affect them that anyone denies it ? Law isn't there to protect hurt feelings.

And most of these people would have been dead now anyway, just like most people who fought or suffered in WWII. In which 50 million people are supposed to have died in various awful ways. It's not a crime to deny that a Tutsi murdered Hutus or vice versa, nor to deny that Pol Pot's regime murdered half of Cambodia ( a very dubious claim ), nor to deny that Napoleon's war in Spain produced worse atrocities than happened on the Eastern Front in WWII if you so wish. ( One French General was boiled alive in a cauldron of water. ) People kill each other and have killed each other since time began: this has nothing especial to protect it's memory. The African Slave Trade has been going on for over a 1000 years and is a far worse testament to man's inhumanity. The fact that Africans were/are complicit makes it rather more horrible. Soviet communism obviously --- since it ran longer that the 3rd Reich, and since it murdered people in peacetime as well as wartime --- killed and tortured ten times as many as the 6 Million. If you want to deny that you are free to do so; whilst at the same time a feared revival of communism is far more likely than a feared revival of nazism. And it is right that you should be able to deny Lenin and Stalin etc. did that, if that is your sincere or insincere belief.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Vagabond]

Why the hell would I care if any fruitcake denies the history of my people, or the fact that my people was slaughtered, or the fact that my family was slaughtered... oh wait a minute. It already happens. Do I care? No. Every idiot is entitled to his idiocy.

[Swift]

There is no such thing as Holocaust denial, just Holocaust revisionism.

Nobody denies transports, camps, suffering, ...

The revisionists basically argue about three main points:

1. The number of jews that died is (a lot) less than 6 million.
2. There were no gas chambers that were used to kill humans.
3. There is no proof whatsoever that the Nazi's planned a genocide.

Truth does not need any legal protection to hold its own.

The fact that revisionists have to be silenced by legal or other force (one revisionist has already been murdered), proves that revisionists have something worthwhile to say.

These laws are not meant to stiffle the rise of right wing parties, since one does not need revisionism to set up and maintain a right wing party.

And they certainly aren't going to expire, since in most country's these laws have been recently introduced.

(And what has my sig got to do with this?)

[KuJo]

Well, if people are put in jail for denying the holocaust, shit, our government should be prosecuted for denying Sudan help.

[Claverhouse]

What it comes down to is that nobody can, for example, publish a pamphlet on which it says the holocaust never happened. It has happened, and this law serves to prohibit this.

Since a historical event has been agreed to have happened, it therefore becomes illegal to deny it ? If I deny that Napoleon died on St. Helena, I can be put it jail ?


It is wrong to outlaw peoples beliefs, but is it healthy to arrive at the situation they found themselves in in Germany during world war 2?

That situation appears to have arisen anew when nazi laws against other people's belief are implemented.


(ps, as with all laws, this one is administered very slowly, and requires a court of law to reach a verdict. There is a racist party in belgium which has been publishing an anti-muslim/immigrant newspaper for years, full of hatespeeches and 'jokes', and they're still at it. The only consequence they've suffered is that they've had to change their name at one point, because they were convicted. The political party. Not individual people)

About 10,000 to 15,000 Germans a year are prosecuted for this; and Zundel was deported back to face German law ( he's still in jail ) despite having lived in Canada since the war ( when he was a kid, not a... )

No-one should be prosecuted for saying what they think: nazis, communists, jews or muslims.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[tinribz]

No-one should be prosecuted for saying what they think: nazis, communists, jews or muslims.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

Think you are being a little naive and idealistic here. What about the imfamous Mr Hook?

[Claverhouse]

Think you are being a little naive and idealistic here. What about the imfamous Mr Hook?

If you think that's idealism... I don't care if people decide to react and kill each other, that's their affair. Once you start saying only official things can be said, then you are in deep deep trouble.

What about him ? WTF shouldn't he say all westerners should die if he wants to ? It's when people commit actions one should respond, not to their words.
Words may lead to actions, but they're going to keep thinking them even if you seal their mouths.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Serotonin]

Without claiming expert knowledge on the topic, it seems that the deniers are standing on a very weak platform.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial

http://www.holocaust-history.org/


Guess a resignation to skirting around the issue and pushing the "free speech" argument is a tacit admittal of defeat:

http://www.ihr.org/

Principles violated or not, it's fairly clear that the commonly known historical accounts are the most accurate.

[last_caress]

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/539354_1dde065c5e.jpg

[Claverhouse]

Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf is now living in the United Emirates. And why not ? Never heard that he did anyone any harm.


Claverhouse:ph34r:

[Serotonin]

Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf is now living in the United Emirates. And why not ? Never heard that he did anyone any harm.


Claverhouse:ph34r:

Oh. Now the U.S's wobbliness over the shipping port issue seems more justified.

"They will be slaughtered at the gates!".

Not that I have anything against the UAE. Their airline is the world's best, bar none.

[Lee]

3. There is no proof whatsoever that the Nazi's planned a genocide.Oh, I see... it was all just an unfortunate accident, an administration error perhaps.

"Nine, nine Gunther! that vas supposed to be 6 million cattle for zee tranzport to the slaughter howzes and 10 Jews to zee factorees to make veapons, you filled out zee wrong form... oh this iz terrible, cowz cannot make veapons!"

[Swift]

Oh, I see... it was all just an unfortunate accident, an administration error perhaps.

"Nine, nine Gunther! that vas supposed to be 6 million cattle for zee tranzport to the slaughter howzes and 10 Jews to zee factorees to make veapons, you filled out zee wrong form... oh this iz terrible, cowz cannot make veapons!"A huge operation like this requires thousands of written orders. None have ever been found, despite the fact that the administration of some camps fell intact into the hands of the Allies.

[imfrellinggay]

I think the laws are good for one simple reason: it squashes an argument a group could use to stir up trouble and recreate a group that killed millions and took much of Europe 60 years ago. Even though I'm a huge flaming liberal, I don't think that denying the Holocaust is what is meant by "freedom of speech." That in mind, what Claverhouse said (ie. - Pol Pot's gov't didn't murder millions in Cambodia) should also not be protected under freedom of speech. Just like hate crimes are against the law, so should SOME hate speech. Not to say, for example, no one could say "I hate fags" or "I hate n*****s" (word omitted because I hate it, but its an anti-blacks word, so use your imagination.) Just no outrageous claims.

Also, going back to something Claverhouse said,


( One French General was boiled alive in a cauldron of water. )

That still happens today. The Uzbek president Karimov (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3943.htm) kills his opponents by boiling them (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3943.htm). (Note: links contain horrific images, not for the squeemish.)

[Claverhouse]

Oh, I see... it was all just an unfortunate accident, an administration error perhaps.

"Nine, nine Gunther! that vas supposed to be 6 million cattle for zee tranzport to the slaughter howzes and 10 Jews to zee factorees to make veapons, you filled out zee wrong form... oh this iz terrible, cowz cannot make veapons!"

According to Raul Hilberg the event occurred not through any direct chain of command, but because of the individual responses of various lesser functionaries such as camp-commanders.


what began in 1941 was a process of destruction not planned in advance, not organized centrally by any agency. There was no blueprint and there was no budget for destructive measures. They were taken step by step, one step at a time. Thus came not so much a plan being carried out, but an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus-mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy.

You can consider him a raving nazi denier if you wish.


That still happens today. The Uzbek president Karimov kills his opponents by boiling them. (Note: links contain horrific images, not for the squeemish.)

Yup, I've mentioned this here. Also the fact that because he's a good friend of the USA and valuable ally against the Terr'ist International, the use of old Mongolian punishments is unimportant...


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[bergenski]

According to Raul Hilberg the event occurred not through any direct chain of command, but because of the individual responses of various lesser functionaries such as camp-commanders.



You can consider him a raving nazi denier if you wish.



Yup, I've mentioned this here. Also the fact that because he's a good friend of the USA and valuable ally against the Terr'ist International, the use of old Mongolian punishments is unimportant...


Claverhouse :ph34r:

Hmmm...boiled Uzbeki....

[imfrellinggay]

Hmmm...boiled Uzbeki....

Tastes like chicken (or so I've heard.)

[mgb]

Tastes like chicken (or so I've heard.)

Hey, if it's not the Jews they're going after, it's probably the gays. (maybe that little joke wasn't so funny)

[Lee]

A huge operation like this requires thousands of written orders. None have ever been found, despite the fact that the administration of some camps fell intact into the hands of the Allies.This is false, complete anti-semetic nonsense.

Oh, a man who is adjusting the dates of a particular massacre in light of new evidence is revising history, that person is a Holocaust revisionist. The guy who denies most of it happened, ignores half the evidence and concocts and irrational conspiracy theory about how the jews fabricated it all in order to garner sympathy, he doesn't even qualify as a historian, the words holocaust denying crackpot bigoted conspiracy theorist seem more apt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examination_of_Holocaust_denial

[Shimpei]

Being Hungarian and knowing the mentality of Eastern European nations (former Soviet bloc countries where the biggest number of Jews were killed) I would like to tell my experience about anti-semitism.
First, anti-semitism is deeply rooted in this region. It seems to me it will never cease here. In Poland almost all Jews (about 1M) were killed during WWII and now only a few thousand Jews (2-3000? not more) live there. Poland (population 38M) has always been a very hard place to live for Jews. Anti-semitism could be that strong because the vast majority of Jews were orthodox believers who mostly didn't even speak Polish! Therefore the gap between Jews and Poles was very-very deep. And it was always very easy to blame the Jews who never wanted to assimilate for everything. The tendency is still there. A Polish friend of mine said that rural people still tend to blame Jews even for the low crop yield. Can a few thousand Jews be liable for all the economic problems in Poland?
Typical Eastern European narrow-mindedness.
Not to mention that the present government was formed by right-wing, nationalist and ultra-conservative, xenophobe parties.

The mentality is similar in Hungary too. Though the political situation is better than that in Poland. (600 000 Hungarian Jews were killed during WWII.)
If you're of Jewish origin living in Central-Eastern Europe you shouldn't tell it to others. You never know who is a ranting anti-semitic person.
There are way too many demagogue, racist, xenophobe, nationalist, chauvinist, revisionist and irredent voices here.

Anyway, I agree with Moridin.
This law has its justification.

[mgb]

Being Hungarian and knowing the mentality of Eastern European nations (former Soviet bloc countries where the biggest number of Jews were killed) I would like to tell my experience about anti-semitism.
First, anti-semitism is deeply rooted in this region. It seems to me it will never cease here. In Poland almost all Jews (about 1M) were killed during WWII and now only a few thousand Jews (2-3000? not more) live there. Poland (population 38M) has always been a very hard place to live for Jews. Anti-semitism could be that strong because the vast majority of Jews were orthodox believers who mostly didn't even speak Polish! Therefore the gap between Jews and Poles was very-very deep. And it was always very easy to blame the Jews who never wanted to assimilate for everything. The tendency is still there. A Polish friend of mine said that rural people still tend to blame Jews even for the low crop yield. Can a few thousand Jews be liable for all the economic problems in Poland?
Typical Eastern European narrow-mindedness.
Not to mention that the present government was formed by right-wing, nationalist and ultra-conservative, xenophobe parties.

The mentality is similar in Hungary too. Though the political situation is better than that in Poland. (600 000 Hungarian Jews were killed during WWII.)
If you're of Jewish origin living in Central-Eastern Europe you shouldn't tell it to others. You never know who is a ranting anti-semitic person.
There are way too many demagogue, racist, xenophobe, nationalist, chauvinist, revisionist and irredent voices here.

Anyway, I agree with Moridin.
This law has its justification.


Sounds a lot like how the Turks (http://www.flwi.ugent.be/cie/umanco/umanco5.htm) are being treated in Europe right now.

Canada is glorious.

[Swift]

This is false, complete anti-semetic nonsense.An anti-semite used to be somebody that disliked jews. Nowadays everybody that jews dislike is called an "anti-semite".

How could arguing about figures be anti-semite?

[Swift]

Sounds a lot like how the Turks (http://www.flwi.ugent.be/cie/umanco/umanco5.htm) are being treated in Europe right now.If they don't like Europe they can still go back to Turkey. Nobody is stopping them.

[Lee]

An anti-semite used to be somebody that disliked jews. Nowadays everybody that jews dislike is called an "anti-semite".

How could arguing about figures be anti-semite?The vast majority of holocaust deniers make no secret their anti-semitism.

Only such inane bigotry or pathological paranoia (probably both) could motivate such a selective misinterpretation of history, don't try and hide their racism behind a facade of honest intellectual discussion.

[philonightmare]

Swift, where is your proof for this statement:

Nowadays everybody that jews dislike is called an "anti-semite".

I can understand that denying the Holocaust could serve as a vehicle for the development of racism and hate crime but this law still seems really bizarre to me. Isn't this law itself inherently racist? It seems like it detracts from the significance of other genocides... it is ok to deny the Armenian Genocide but not the Holocaust...? Sure the Holocaust was a bit bigger but how do you make a call like "hmm... a 1.2 million person genocide just isn't quite enough to make its denial a criminal offence"? As for the Armenian Genocide, I know that America as a state (and a few other developed countries) do not call it that for political reasons --they have to keep up strong relations with Turkey. To offend them now wouldn't serve their purposes.

Other countries have already done so, though their stake in Turkey isn't as high.

just some more info on it: AG. (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/22/1339201)

[Swift]

The vast majority of holocaust deniers make no secret their anti-semitism. Well, if contradicting a jews point of view is anti-semitism, then ALL Holocaust "deniers" are anti-semitic of course.

The first revisionists by the way, were not nazi's, fascists or anti-semites. They were French communists that had been locked up in concentration camps like Dachau. That was in the time that some people still claimed that people were gassed in Dachau. When it became apperent there were never any gassings in Dachau, those claims were silently dropped from the official story.


Only such inane bigotry or pathological paranoia (probably both) could motivate such a selective misinterpretation of history, don't try and hide their racism behind a facade of honest intellectual discussion. I'm not going to start a revisionist discussion here. That would take me too much time, whereas everything that you need to know has already been written down. Read a revisionist book. Test your knowledge of the Holocaust. Then judge.

Look, I'll help you to take a small step.

Officially, 6 million jews died or were murdered in the Holocaust, right? But since then, the number of jewish and other casualties of most camps has officially been reduced. Even the official placques in the Auschwitz camp were changed. (See attachment.) Then why is it anti-semite to claim there were less than 6 million jewish casualties?

[wildcat]

Well, if contradicting a jews point of view is anti-semitism, then ALL Holocaust "deniers" are anti-semitic of course.

The first revisionists by the way, were not nazi's, fascists or anti-semites. They were French communists that had been locked up in concentration camps like Dachau. That was in the time that some people still claimed that people were gassed in Dachau. When it became apperent there were never any gassings in Dachau, those claims were silently dropped from the official story.

I'm not going to start a revisionist discussion here. That would take me too much time, whereas everything that you need to know has already been written down. Read a revisionist book. Test your knowledge of the Holocaust. Then judge.

Look, I'll help you to take a small step.

Officially, 6 million jews died or were murdered in the Holocaust, right? But since then, the number of jewish and other casualties of most camps has officially been reduced. Even the official placques in the Auschwitz camp were changed. (See attachment.) Then why is it anti-semite to claim there were less than 6 million jewish casualties?
There is no reduction of the number of the victims of the Holocaust. Six million Jews were murdered in the extermination camps. Concentration camps were altogether an other thing.

[wildcat]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4730832.stm

"Holocaust denial is a criminal offence in Austria."

Until I read this article, I didn't realize that denying the Holocaust was a criminal offense in Austria (Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Switzerland).

I can understand that denying the Holocaust could serve as a vehicle for the development of racism and hate crime but this law still seems really bizarre to me. Isn't this law itself inherently racist? It seems like it detracts from the significance of other genocides... it is ok to deny the Armenian Genocide but not the Holocaust...? Sure the Holocaust was a bit bigger but how do you make a call like "hmm... a 1.2 million person genocide just isn't quite enough to make its denial a criminal offence"?

I'd be curious to hear some European perspectives on this. (And anyone else interested of course)
Armenian Genocide did not take place on European soil. As a European, I support the law the Balkan wars made actual. It is not only about history or about the Jews.

[wildcat]

I think that this is a geography thing, it is banned in places where they fear there could have been a resurgence of nazi ideals,

the shear horror and collective guilt felt by europe was where the law came from, I agree it does feel like ti makes light of other geneocides, but few have ever reached the scale of 6 million. Some nations do have similar laws to make sure certain eveils of their past are not forgotten.

Just a thought
Once upon a time there was a son of a cobbler. He won the war. The victors write the history books.

[charred_heart]

Well, if people are put in jail for denying the holocaust, shit, our government should be prosecuted for denying Sudan help.
what kind of help are you talking about?
I'm asking this because I still haven't met anyone not from the Sudan who has a clear idea about the situation and can suggest a workable solution for it.

[charred_heart]

news for us for a change ??? (http://www.nationalvanguard.org/)

[MacGuffin]

news for us for a change ??? (http://www.nationalvanguard.org/)
Don't sweat it.

[Hustler]

I don't believe the Jews exist. And don't try to list off examples, because I know that's all just a conspiracy concocted by the Je...I mean, by someone who wants us to believe in Jews. There are no Jews!

[Shimpei]

I don't believe the Jews exist. And don't try to list off examples, because I know that's all just a conspiracy concocted by the Je...I mean, by someone who wants us to believe in Jews. There are no Jews!

what do you mean by not believing in their existence?

[charred_heart]

what do you mean by not believing in their existence?
LOL!

[Hustler]

what do you mean by not believing in their existence?

I don't believe the Jews exist. You know, like Santa Claus.

[Shimpei]

I don't believe the Jews exist. You know, like Santa Claus.

Preposterous.

[booyalab]

In a sense, it's true that Jews dont exist since, if they use the definition as one who is descended from the Ancient Hebrews, all caucasions are Jewish. (and arguably, blacks are too) If the definition is that they follow the religion of the Biblical Hebrews, they dont do that either!

[charred_heart]

In a sense, it's true that Jews dont exist since, if they use the definition as one who is descended from the Ancient Hebrews, all caucasions are Jewish. (and arguably, blacks are too) If the definition is that they follow the religion of the Biblical Hebrews, they dont do that either!
that's sounds too far-fetched. The human race was composed of thousands of tribes during the time the Hebrews lived.

[booyalab]

that's sounds too far-fetched. The human race was composed of thousands of tribes during the time the Hebrews lived.

it sounds far-fetched that Anglo-Saxons are descended from the Ancient Hebrews?

as far as Africans go, there is historical evidence that suggests it-though doesn't prove it

[earwax]

it sounds far-fetched that Anglo-Saxons are descended from the Ancient Hebrews?

as far as Africans go, there is historical evidence that suggests it-though doesn't prove it
There are African tribes who claim to be Hebrew descendants.. and there seems to be DNA evidence to support their claim.

[Claverhouse]

Actually, the population of the different parts of the world was so small then that most people now would have some connection with at least those then living in those different parts or adjacent parts ( eg: a northern European is probably related eventually to those from Europe, Slavic Asia and the Middle East; but not to Japanese living then [ although some Japanese claim to be descended from Hebrews, just as the British Israelites claimed Britons did: those Ten Tribes certainly got around ]).

Even failing that most Europeans would have some Hebrew blood from all those who converted to christianity and blended in during the Middle Ages.

But as I pointed out elsewhere, I don't count them as Jews, a race, but as jews, a religion. As the strictly orthodox, which generally means rejection of Israel the modern state, since the jewish Messiah has not yet arrived, are the only ones to practice the Hebrew religion ( unless you add in the kabbalists ), the numbers of religious jews are quite small compared with those who claim to be jews solely through having a jewish mother.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[charred_heart]

Even failing that most Europeans would have some Hebrew blood from all those who converted to christianity and blended in during the Middle Ages.
They would be distinctly marked as Jews, even with the european blood, in the same way that children of blacks and caucasians were termed 'colored' in Europe and the US for decades. The Middle Ages were a time of extreme racism and xenophobia. As I recall it took the Jews of Europe hundreds of years to blend in.

[charred_heart]

There are African tribes who claim to be Hebrew descendants.. and there seems to be DNA evidence to support their claim.
I only know one that is genuinely of Hebrew descent - the Falasha of Ethiopia.

[charred_heart]

it sounds far-fetched that Anglo-Saxons are descended from the Ancient Hebrews?

as far as Africans go, there is historical evidence that suggests it-though doesn't prove it
all caucasians are anglo-saxon? The Ancient Hebrews originated from Egypt and Israel. I can't see how they could be mistaken for caucasians then.

[Claverhouse]

They would be distinctly marked as Jews, even with the european blood, in the same way that children of blacks and caucasians were termed 'colored' in Europe and the US for decades.

Not in England, we kicked them out in Edward I's time ( just as, like the Jesuits later, they were eventually kicked out of most countries ) and they didn't come back until the 17th century ( or in Scotland, as a separate country, until the early 19th century ) in the meantime some preferred to stay and having been christened their children would have just been treated as christians. It was more different in Spain, before they kicked them out, because even as converts ( before and after ) they often kept practising as jews in secret.

And even had they been, that wouldn't invalidate the fact that large infusions of jewish blood entered our bloodstream.


The Middle Ages were a time of extreme racism and xenophobia.

Fuck off, what time isn't ?

And much of the Middle Ages were far more tolerant of race than say the 19th century. The Church was far more concerned with heresy than race up until the renaissance.


As I recall it took the Jews of Europe hundreds of years to blend in.

They blended in ? See above for modern day Poland.

One trouble is that everyone marks life as if modern day America, the 'melting-pot' as jews christened it is the norm for all humanity. It is merely one place at one particular time, and not only will it disappear, but it's values will not endure.

The other trouble is that people always believe that the anti-semitism of places like 19th century Poland or Russia was totally unfounded and that jews are always automatically innocent victims. Some jews did do bad stuff, anywhere jews have settled; it is completely unfair to blame the other jews, but considering that they kept to themselves, and that they shielded the bad jews and often fostered revolutionary movements, you can see how both an impoverished Polish peasant and a Russian government might feel it best not to have them as neighbours: just as you wouldn't want a large family of mainly hard-working and honest gipsies next door if only 5% were violent thugs.

And... speaking of boiling alive: back in the 1830s the Russians found that pious Rebbes insisted on keeping their own flock in order and avoiding Russic laws; one of these holy gentlemen was found supervising the drowning of a disrespectful lay jew in the baths, with extremely hot water. Not just hot, but hot enough to kill a lobster.

Not all innocent victims and not all people you want next door. Most yes, but not all.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[charred_heart]

And even had they been, that wouldn't invalidate the fact that large infusions of jewish blood entered our bloodstream.
That's true. It doesn't mean that the Jews were the ancestors of blacks and caucasians. That would be unfair to the phoenecians, Nubians, Abyssinians, Assyrians, Samaritans, Sumerians, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Kushites etc... and that german tribe that got creamed in Gladiator. What were they called?
EDIT: Not to mention the Mongols and Saracens for all you dark haired caucasians

The Hebrews were one segment of a multi-cultural world. The difference is they are one of the few that have still kept their heritage alive. My ancestors were citizens of ancient Nubia, and all I have in common with them are a few physical resemblences.

[charred_heart]

Fuck off, what time isn't ?

The middle ages were totally fucked up. You'd probably be burning on a steak if you had a discussion like this in the middle ages ;)

[last_caress]

The middle ages were totally fucked up. You'd probably be burning on a steak if you had a discussion like this in the middle ages ;)

Claverhouse on a porterhouse?

[Claverhouse]

No; people have extraordinary ideas about the Middle Ages. Apart from the fact it comprehends a vast amount of different times and places, it was usually the ( comparative, since a 14th French village was richer and higher tech than an Inuit settlement, or some 20th century African towns ) poverty rather than religion which got you down; and there was extraordinary intellectual ferment for a smallish population The Roman church burned very few people, and that was towards the end of the Middle Ages, and after.

Not that they should have burnt anyone at all.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Hustler]

The notion that all white people are descended from Jews is pretty ludicrous. I mean, besides the fact that there are no Jews, there is also the problem of how there were white people in Europe tens of thousands of years before the alleged ancient Hebrew culture was around (not that it ever was, because there are no Jews and never were, but you know, just for argument's sake).

[Claverhouse]

The notion that all white people are descended from Jews is pretty ludicrous. I mean, besides the fact that there are no Jews, there is also the problem of how there were white people in Europe tens of thousands of years before the alleged ancient Hebrew culture was around (not that it ever was, because there are no Jews and never were, but you know, just for argument's sake).

That would in no way disqualify all white people from being descended from the Hebrews: booya didn't say they descended exclusively from Hebrews; more that they would have intermarried with those 'white' people in Europe so that present-day people would be descended from both.

Southern Europeans on the Mediterranian will usually have some African, not necessarily negroid, but certainly Moorish or Berber, ancestors if you go back quite a time. Places like Sicily have predominently European ancestors and culture, but a wide variety of other ancestry as well.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Hustler]

That would in no way disqualify all white people from being descended from the Hebrews: booya didn't say they descended exclusively from Hebrews; more that they would have intermarried with those 'white' people in Europe so that present-day people would be descended from both.

That interpretation of booyalab's absurd post is about 85% as absurd. I guess that's an improvement. If you think that a small population from the middle-east which is apparently ~5700 years old managed to bequeath unto 100% of white Europeans its genetic heritage, then you are entitled to that (very far-fetched) belief. For the record, all Europeans and Asians (and their descendants elsewhere) can trace their heritage back to a single genetic progenitor (and most of us to his peers), but that guy is like 70,000 years old. That's more than an order of magnitude more distant in history than the time period when these alleged "Hebrews" are said to have lived (not that they ever did because, once again, there are no Jews and never were).

[earwax]

I only know one that is genuinely of Hebrew descent - the Falasha of Ethiopia.
Are they the ones who claim to have the Ark of the Covenant?

There is another tribe in S Africa that also claims to be Hebrew... And sorry, but I do not remember their name.

[Claverhouse]

Certainly they can, if I'll accept your word for this particular Adam; but they also would have had a, sometimes small, intermixture of genes from other races or peoples.

You once mentioned you had Welsh ancestry: well the people of North Wales are mostly from a different original stock from the people of South Wales ( by blood groups and all that jazz ) whichever you came from, they would also have additional ancestors from other sources, not merely Irish & English, but from either groups of incomers, including even the Phoenicians; or random selection, as a Welsh archer might bring back a French wife. My own Welsh ancestry includes a Russian girl met by a Welsh sea captain. ( I'm not too thrilled that her surname means 'Long Arms', but there you go... )


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[charred_heart]

Are they the ones who claim to have the Ark of the Covenant?

There is another tribe in S Africa that also claims to be Hebrew... And sorry, but I do not remember their name.
The Falasha are authentically Jewish, and have held to this claim for thousands of years. They are well known in eastern Africa as the Jewish people. As for the rest that started claiming they were jewish just recently, well...

[Superstring]

Certainly already pointed out but this is also criminal in Canada. It's good because it's had one gay ass German immigrant teacher deported for trying to teach students (possibly children?) that the holocaust didn't happen.

It's a good law not only because it did that, but because honestly; who the f*** is to say that the holocaust didn't happen? Very stupid people, that's who; contagiously stupid. I think it's a unique line to be drawn where within a democratic society, some things are so dumb they should be illegal.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4730832.stm

"Holocaust denial is a criminal offence in Austria."

Until I read this article, I didn't realize that denying the Holocaust was a criminal offense in Austria (Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Switzerland).

I can understand that denying the Holocaust could serve as a vehicle for the development of racism and hate crime but this law still seems really bizarre to me. Isn't this law itself inherently racist? It seems like it detracts from the significance of other genocides... it is ok to deny the Armenian Genocide but not the Holocaust...? Sure the Holocaust was a bit bigger but how do you make a call like "hmm... a 1.2 million person genocide just isn't quite enough to make its denial a criminal offence"?

I'd be curious to hear some European perspectives on this. (And anyone else interested of course)

[Superstring]

The Falasha are authentically Jewish, and have held to this claim for thousands of years. They are well known in eastern Africa as the Jewish people. As for the rest that started claiming they were jewish just recently, well...

This is why I fear for the future of humanity.....Eastern Africa "knowing" who the "real" jews are totally explains these stories I hear about people in this area who idolize Hitler, shave Hitler moustaches for themselves and have swastika posters in their bedrooms, not to mention why Passion of the Christ became the most poplular worldwide film of all times.

Is it plausible for us to think of all this as being harmlessly funny?

[Superstring]

That's more than an order of magnitude more distant in history than the time period when these alleged "Hebrews" are said to have lived (not that they ever did because, once again, there are no Jews and never were).

Do you think judaism being passed on from one parent only makes the whole culture fraudulant? Or maybe all these historical records in the last few millenia are doctored by a strange cult of people who enjoy faking a Roman nose while bickering about miniscule amounts of money?

Oh really? That's your answer? Let me tell you something; you suck. I don't know if I've ever heard anything as insane as 'there never were jews' but there certainly have been for a while, will someone can this schmuck?

[Nyairj]

It's alarming to me that you can be arrested in a supposedly free society for disputing the state-sanctioned view of history. It doesn't matter if questioning it is "stupid" or not; free speech protects the right to express your opinion regardless of its validity or perceived dangerousness. Simply put, you haven't cornered the market on the Truth and neither have I. We've thrown out numberless ideas we once believed with firm conviction and replaced them with "dangerous" ideas like a heliocentric solar system. In all likelyhood, we haven't arrived at perfect knowledge, so the competition of ideas should be allowed to continue unabated.

The reason why questioning the holocaust is not permitted is, like much else, politics. It's about power. Are you Jewish? Thanks to your protected status as one of the world's Official Perpetual Victims, you get some very sweet perks. If anyone criticizes you, slam them with the "anti-semite" label. Being anti-semitic is almost as bad as being a child molester, and, conveniently enough, almost any criticism, no matter how fair, no matter how mild, qualifies as "anti-semitic". Such a policy is the only thing seperating the Jews from the next Holocaust, if you didn't know.

It's the "make the bastard deny it!" (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/6562575/fear_and_loathing_campaign_2004/) strategy:


Back in 1948, during his first race for the U.S. Senate, Lyndon Johnson was running about ten points behind, with only nine days to go. He was sunk in despair. He was desperate. And it was just before noon on a Monday, they say, when he called his equally depressed campaign manager and instructed him to call a press conference for just before lunch on a slow news day and accuse his high-riding opponent, a pig farmer, of having routine carnal knowledge of his barnyard sows, despite the pleas of his wife and children.

His campaign manager was shocked. “We can’t say that, Lyndon,” he supposedly said. “You know it’s not true.”

“Of course it’s not true!” Johnson barked at him. “But let’s make the bastard deny it!”

Johnson — a Democrat, like Bill Clinton — won that election by fewer than a hundred votes, and after that he was home free. He went on to rule Texas and the U.S. Senate for twenty years and to be the most powerful vice president in the history of the United States. Until now.

It works. No one in congress dares to criticize Israel's actions. Not even "the most powerful man in the world" has that kind of power. Think maybe America's close relationship with Israel is producing too many terrorists? Better think again. It goes without saying that you'd better tread carefully if you want to criticize the holocaust industry or think too much of the fact that the architects of the Iraq War were nearly all Jews.

[charred_heart]

This is why I fear for the future of humanity.....Eastern Africa "knowing" who the "real" jews are totally explains these stories I hear about people in this area who idolize Hitler, shave Hitler moustaches for themselves and have swastika posters in their bedrooms, not to mention why Passion of the Christ became the most poplular worldwide film of all times.

Is it plausible for us to think of all this as being harmlessly funny?
I'm not following you...

[Superstring]

It's alarming to me that you can be arrested in a supposedly free society for disputing the state-sanctioned view of history. It doesn't matter if questioning it is "stupid" or not; free speech protects the right to express your opinion regardless of its validity or perceived dangerousness. Simply put, you haven't cornered the market on the Truth and neither have I.

Hey you're right maybe the holocaust didn't happen at all. Maybe the war didn't happen. Maybe Helen Keller was just faking it, maybe rabies is a myth, maybe that black person on the bus does want to steal your wallet. Who the hell knows, right?



We've thrown out numberless ideas we once believed with firm conviction and replaced them with "dangerous" ideas like a heliocentric solar system. In all likelyhood, we haven't arrived at perfect knowledge, so the competition of ideas should be allowed to continue unabated.

I completely agree with that statement 100%, but I also think that your country gives shining examples of this notion being taken a little too far sometimes. Like "intelligent design"? What part of this being legal to teach in schools is intelligent again?


The reason why questioning the holocaust is not permitted is, like much else, politics. It's about power.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. It's about this funny thing programmed into our DNA which causes humans to be obsessed with jews, and the endless world of hurt it causes them and has always caused for millenia...these days especially with the holocaust having not occured too far in the past. It's simply time that people learned to view each other as people and not come up with these baseless crackpot theories about each others' nationalistic identities.


Are you Jewish? Thanks to your protected status as one of the world's Official Perpetual Victims, you get some very sweet perks. If anyone criticizes you, slam them with the "anti-semite" label. Being anti-semitic is almost as bad as being a child molester, and, conveniently enough, almost any criticism, no matter how fair, no matter how mild, qualifies as "anti-semitic". Such a policy is the only thing seperating the Jews from the next Holocaust, if you didn't know.

Not jewish. Official perpetual victims? It's not untrue. That's why prejucide against jews has its own special 'label' as you put it, there's a sick and twisted human element behind this phenomenon that deserves some special attention. And did you just threaten a holocaust? This is my second time saying this already but; will someone can this reject?




It works. No one in congress dares to criticize Israel's actions.

You don't know how things really are then. The White House actively interferes in Israeli actions, they mediate a lot of the extreme things Israeli parliament would like to do sometimes. Washington blocked the Israelis from blocking Palestinian voting for Hamas in Jerusalem just a few weeks ago.


Not even "the most powerful man in the world" has that kind of power. Think maybe America's close relationship with Israel is producing too many terrorists? Better think again. It goes without saying that you'd better tread carefully if you want to criticize the holocaust industry or think too much of the fact that the architects of the Iraq War were nearly all Jews.

WOW, someone has a hidden agenda here, and it ain't the jews buddy boy. wanna cookie? :banana:

[Superstring]

I'm not following you...

I'm just posing a general question to anyone with an answer; is it a problem for mankind that the same kind of demented misinformation and blame for jews that spread through empoverished 1930's Germany is now spreading through the entire third world? History would perhaps teach that this is an issue that needs to be addressed, but also maybe it's not such a huge deal....I just think it's one of those interesting things about the state of the world today.

Edit: I made a mistake, I thought you were saying Africans think that Ethiopian tribe were the only real jews and the European ones were frauds. Sorry for the pointless tangent, lol..

[Snowflake]

God forbid you should be in denial. HOW DARE YOU BE BLIND TO THE TRUTH.

[Superstring]

God forbid you should be in denial. HOW DARE YOU BE BLIND TO THE TRUTH.

What is the truth, and who's blind to it?

[Snowflake]

All those who deny the holocaust, that's who!! :dieemo:

[Superstring]

All those who deny the holocaust, that's who!! :dieemo:

Honestly. :banned:

[Snowflake]

:rules:

[wildcat]

Actually, the population of the different parts of the world was so small then that most people now would have some connection with at least those then living in those different parts or adjacent parts ( eg: a northern European is probably related eventually to those from Europe, Slavic Asia and the Middle East; but not to Japanese living then [ although some Japanese claim to be descended from Hebrews, just as the British Israelites claimed Britons did: those Ten Tribes certainly got around ]).

Even failing that most Europeans would have some Hebrew blood from all those who converted to christianity and blended in during the Middle Ages.

But as I pointed out elsewhere, I don't count them as Jews, a race, but as jews, a religion. As the strictly orthodox, which generally means rejection of Israel the modern state, since the jewish Messiah has not yet arrived, are the only ones to practice the Hebrew religion ( unless you add in the kabbalists ), the numbers of religious jews are quite small compared with those who claim to be jews solely through having a jewish mother.


Claverhouse :ph34r:
At the earliest state the Egyptian language was throughly of Hamitic descent (3000 BC). Step by step, from dynasty to dynasty, the language became semitized. The Aton (sun worship) cult (Akhnaton later made so famous) lived long before him. It was an aggressive, expansive and monotheistic religion. Missionaries were sent to northwestern Africa, and from there to the British isles, and on again to what we now call Denmark. Egyptian has had a strong impact on the syntax of the southern Scandinavian dialects of today.
Jewish religion may have a cognate with Atonism. Surely the missionaries cannot be called Jews, who as a people did not exist at the time. The Egyptian missionaries and the high Atonite priests constituted but a scanty upper class in Britain and in Denmark. They spoke a different language from that of their subjects. They had their own ways but did make an impact on the local culture and language. They introduced agriculture. Their genetic impact however on the present population is nil.

[Dom]

At the earliest state the Egyptian language was throughly of Hamitic descent (3000 BC). Step by step, from dynasty to dynasty, the language became semitized. The Aton (sun worship) cult (Akhnaton later made so famous) lived long before him. It was an aggressive, expansive and monotheistic religion. Missionaries were sent to northwestern Africa, and from there to the British isles, and on again to what we now call Denmark. Egyptian has had a strong impact on the syntax of the southern Scandinavian dialects of today.
Jewish religion may have a cognate with Atonism. Surely the missionaries cannot be called Jews, who as a people did not exist at the time. The Egyptian missionaries and the high Atonite priests constituted but a scanty upper class in Britain and in Denmark. They spoke a different language from that of their subjects. They had their own ways but did make an impact on the local culture and language. They introduced agriculture. Their genetic impact however on the present population is nil.

Hmmm this is all around 3000 BCE to 2000 BCE??

I was wondering were you learned all this from?

[Dom]

Superstring? Are you Jewish? I just wondered?

As I posted earlier in this thread I'll restate it now, this law is justified in the short terms. While there are still perputrators and victims of the holocaust then it is perfectly justifiable to protect social memory from potential decention.

Many people suggest it's ok because we then have a debate, prove it did happen and off we go. However, Ihave met lots of people who are unsure whether the gas chambers existed. They say isn't there soem historical debate about that.

Well no there isn't it's almost undeniable. When 'whatshisface' said they did not he sowed into the social memory the seed that it may not have happened. That has already grown into doubt. In the academy professional historians don't worry about it at all. But other people do.

Lets face it whether we are German, Austrian, French, British, American etc etc there is part of all of us that would rather think we humans wouldn't do something like that. The idea that it didn't happen could have a huge effect on people.

While the victims and perputrators are still alive. Leave the law alone. Once they are gone, then in the name of free speach remove it...

Lets remember this is a pretty specific event.

[Superstring]

As I posted earlier in this thread I'll restate it now, this law is justified in the short terms....Once {the old} are gone, then in the name of free speach remove it.

Absolutely, I'd say that sums up my opinion as well.

And I'm not a jew, I just hate seeing friends, colleagues, neighbours, and ex-girlfriends indirectly victimized by easily corrected stupidity! Ya know?

[cjs55]

The funny thing about Irving is that he's more opposed to the holocaust industry/current jewish issues than being a holocaust denier, for certain.

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/i/irving-david/australia/2gb-transcript-0795.html

And sometimes I wish I could live in Superstring's world, where there's black and white, evil-doers and victims. Most of the time, I would rather be sane, however.

I'll give you a hint though (regarding jewish strife) from a quote I'm stealing from elsewhere: 'Xenophobic, racially hateful, spiteful, revengeful tribal religions suck.'

[Superstring]

The funny thing about Irving is that he's more opposed to the holocaust industry/current jewish issues than being a holocaust denier, for certain.

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/i/irving-david/australia/2gb-transcript-0795.html

And sometimes I wish I could live in Superstring's world, where there's black and white, evil-doers and victims. Most of the time, I would rather be sane, however.

I'll give you a hint though from a quote I'm stealing from elsewhere: 'Xenophobic, racially hateful, spiteful, revengeful tribal religions suck.'

I don't see what is so black-and-white about my perspectives, but please feel free to explain that to me. All I'm saying on this thread is that laws against having enthusiasm for dumb opinions puts a smile on my face; if not for the justice, then for the shutting the hell up.

[cjs55]

Ok, sure. Your view of this law is very black and white, where only 'retards' get punished as you say (and I'm usually all for that). But, for instance, one could be called a holocaust denier for questioning something specific about the holocaust: I could ask, "Were there no extermination gas chambers?", which is not nearly such a retarded question as "Was there no persecution of jews by germans?" And then go to jail. It could be extended even further. If I claim that there was jewish anti-german sentiment pre-war, and that there was indeed a cultural battle of sorts being waged, I could be called a holocaust denier as well. Holocaust denier can become many things, and censorship them becomes a very dangerous thing.

Your view that anti-judaism is in our DNA is very 'black and white' in the context you put it in. Basically, you are stating that it has nothing to do with any Jews themselves, or Jewish culture/religion, again painting a black and white picture of Jews always being victims of something beyond their control that hates them for no reason whatsoever.

Not that I think that hate is a good thing. But thinking that there is no reason for it, that it is not a reaction to something is very naive. You can say that it is wrong, but don't try to play it off like there is no cause of it, and that Jews are always the victim of totally senseless hate.

[Claverhouse]

Actually, Irving is despised by the real holocaust deniers, for never having denied it as they do ( his main position was that it happened, although not to the numbers accepted, but Hitler didn't know about it, and didn't order it: he later moved more to denying, but then recanted and now accepts it did, but that Hitler wasn't directly responsible ) and for being a semi-racialist right-winger. Nearly all holocaust denial comes from the left or the libertarians who have no liking for National Socialism as a system. The rest comes mainly from those who like National Socialism or German Nationalists ( who both historically and presently are occasional allies of nazis ) who wish to clear Germany's name --- or those of it's allies, Ukrainians, Poles, French etc. who shared in the atrocities. Genuine neo-nazis are more likely to believe in the holocaust and rejoice in it having happened.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Superstring]

Ok, sure. Your view of this law is very black and white, where only 'retards' get punished as you say (and I'm usually all for that). But, for instance, one could be called a holocaust denier for questioning something specific about the holocaust: I could ask, "Were there no extermination gas chambers?", which is not nearly such a retarded question as "Was there no persecution of jews by germans?" And then go to jail. It could be extended even further. If I claim that there was jewish anti-german sentiment pre-war, and that there was indeed a cultural battle of sorts being waged, I could be called a holocaust denier as well. Holocaust denier can become many things, and censorship them becomes a very dangerous thing.


You wouldn't go to jail for any of those things, I have no idea where you got these ideas. The problem here is not with people being curious about the possibility that the holocaust was a conspired lie; laws like this exist to prevent these few cases we've seen of demented, neo-nazi-esque people bent on spreading their own obsessive fantasy that the holocaust was probably a hoax. So on that particular point yes, I suppose my opinion is black and white; much like any obviously incorrect denial would be a black and white issue.

And just because someone like Irving dresses an idea up and makes it look scientific and politely phrased doesn't make it any less baseless and fantastical. I believe Irving's thesis was "If the holocaust really happened, how could there possibly be so many of them left?" Real smart.


Your view that anti-judaism is in our DNA is very 'black and white'


I never said anti-semitism was in our DNA, I said a general obsession with the jews is....hence the regular jew tangents on this forum, for example. It doesn't need to be in a good or bad way. But you defending a stance unprovoked that 'jews can be blamed for things too' makes for good reading too, why the hell not.

[Architectonic]

Hitler and Göring are sitting in a pub, explaining their policies to the bartender.
H: "I'm going to kill millions of gypsies, handicapped and senile people and six million jews."
B: "But why the jews?"
G: "I told you Adolf, nobody cares about the gypsies, handicapped and senile people!"

I'm glad someone realises that it wasn't just about jews.....

[cjs55]

I never said anti-semitism was in our DNA, I said a general obsession with the jews is....hence the regular jew tangents on this forum, for example. It doesn't need to be in a good or bad way. But you defending a stance unprovoked that 'jews can be blamed for things too' makes for good reading too, why the hell not.

Eep. Well, sorry about that.

[Ferrus]

You wouldn't go to jail for any of those things, I have no idea where you got these ideas. The problem here is not with people being curious about the possibility that the holocaust was a conspired lie; laws like this exist to prevent these few cases we've seen of demented, neo-nazi-esque people bent on spreading their own obsessive fantasy that the holocaust was probably a hoax.
Is it not better for them to reveal themselves as idiots they are in the market place of ideas (through free speech) rather than artificially barring their message and making unjustified martyrs?

[Snowflake]

Seriously, I don't see what the big deal. This is nothing more than something being blown WAY out of proportion.

But also, it speaks volumes about the current state of the world. If we are making laws regarding what people can THINK once again, then we have problems, assuming of course you're a supporter of free speech and thought.

But then again, free speech doesn't necessarily equate to freedom of thought, does it?

[MacGuffin]

That's Europe for ya!

[Ferrus]

But then again, free speech doesn't necessarily equate to freedom of thought, does it?
No, but one is impotent without the other.

[Claverhouse]

That's Europe for ya!

Not really, they have proposed in most countries that holocaust denial and hate speech become crimes, and have 'persuaded' various eastern bloc countries and others to pass similar laws ( they haven't got a hope in Russia...); Canada and other non-european states have such laws despite not having been anywhere near the holocaust, and America is targeted: Shrub got an anti-semitism bill passed to monitor not merely America but the entire world VDare (http://www.vdare.com/francis/anti_semitism.htm) * ( Racialist, but not anti-semite ), and it's becoming clearer that the Patriot Act will curtail many American liberties, leading to bigger and better Patriot Acts in the future which may criminalise free expression. The bell tolls for thee, as well.

*

The pattern is the criminalization of thought—for "xenophobia," "racism," "white supremacy," "homophobia," "anti-Semitism," "patriarchalism," and any number of other isms, manias and phobias unknown to any language a few years ago.

Many jews are opposed to these laws, not only because they prefer to battle through argument rather than martyr-creating repression ( and some jews have also been revisionists, including the first J. Ginsberg ); but because eventually they create a world where they too can be jailed:


I wonder how many of you know an American Jewish historian, Bernard Lewis, was also convicted of Holocaust Denial in France? His crime? Minimizing the Armenian Holocaust. He expressed the opinion that the Armenian Holocaust didn't qualify as genocide. Where does it end?
Progressive U (http://www.progressiveu.org/134405-david-irving-three-years-in-jail-for-denying-holocaust)

This is a good article on internet censorship as proposed by the EU.
Why we need free speech online (http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CAB6E.htm)


The Council of Europe's Additional Protocol to the Convention On Cybercrime, which seeks to prohibit 'racist and xenophobic material' on the internet, defines such material as 'any written material, any image or any other representation of ideas or theories, which advocates, promotes or incites hatred, discrimination or violence, against any individual or group of individuals, based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, as well as religion if used as a pretext for any of these factors'. Can we presume that online versions of the Bible and the Koran will be the first things to go, under this regime?


This is an instance in which the proponents of hate speech regulation, while ostensibly guarding against the spectre of totalitarianism, are acting in a disconcertingly authoritarian manner themselves. Holocaust denial is one thing - debate over the scale and causes of later atrocities, such as those in the Sudan or the former Yugoslavia, and whether it is right to describe such conflicts in terms of genocide, is another, and there is an ongoing and legitimate debate about these issues. Yet the European authorities stand to gain new powers that will entitle them to impose upon us their definitive account of recent history, which we must accept as true on pain of prosecution.


Those who argue for the regulation of hate speech often claim that they support the principle of free speech, but that there is some kind of distinction between standing up for free speech as it has traditionally been understood, and allowing people to express hateful ideas. So when he proposed to introduce an offence of incitement to religious hatred into British law, former UK home secretary David Blunkett insisted that 'people's rights to debate matters of religion and proselytise would be protected, but we cannot allow people to use religious differences to create hate' (8).

Divvying up the principle of free speech in this way, so that especially abhorrent ideas are somehow disqualified from its protection, is a dubious exercise. After all, it's not as though free speech contains within it some sort of prescription as to what the content of that speech will consist of. Any such prescription would be contrary to the essential meaning of the word 'free'.

The Additional Protocol to the Convention On Cybercrime invokes 'the need to ensure a proper balance between freedom of expression and an effective fight against acts of a racist and xenophobic nature'. But this notion of 'balance' is questionable. Unless we're free to say what we believe, to experience and express whatever emotion we like (including hate), and to hate whomever we choose, then how can we be said to be free at all?


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Superstring]

Is it not better for them to reveal themselves as idiots they are in the market place of ideas (through free speech) rather than artificially barring their message and making unjustified martyrs?

Y'know what.... touché :duel:

EDIT: Honestly this forum RULES! It amazes me how sometimes people make me think differently about things here.....Goodnight all

[Zephyrus055]

Am I the only one who does not feel anything for the victims of the holocaust? I feel like it was just some event that occured out of yet more human stupidity. So consequently I feel like people are grossly overstating the historical and moral significance of the holocaust and taking it far too seriously. Is that bad? Do I need psychological treatment to have empathy for humanity?

[attila_the_hunny]

If I didn't see it, it didn't happen.

[CoHo]

So consequently I feel like people are grossly overstating the historical and moral significance of the holocaust and taking it far too seriously. Is that bad? Do I need psychological treatment to have empathy for humanity?

Nah, you just need Red Foreman to break his foot off in your ass

[Superstring]

Am I the only one who does not feel anything for the victims of the holocaust

STFU.

[Superstring]

K I take that all back, I stand firm in my stance that the idea of seeing someone dragged away in handcuffs because they keep insisting on saying improper things in "intellectual" sounding ways TOTALLY makes my day

[Superstring]

I feel like it was just some event that occured out of yet more human stupidity. So consequently I feel like people are grossly overstating the historical and moral significance of the holocaust and taking it far too seriously. Is that bad?

Any genocide needs to be recognized, and what makes the holocaust unique is that for the first time someone put up the fuss that such a crime deserves. Most genocide victims in history keep silent about it and feel too guilted for their own alleged inferiorities to make a big deal out of it, and so without the problem addressed history repears itself. It's good we every so often are reminded of how cruel we can wind up being to each other.

Should we feel sympathy for the sufferers? I guess that depends on how much you would have enjoyed being a victim of the holocaust. If you would have enoyed it, I'm guessing that would mean you have problems. If you feel no empathy, maybe you're serial killer material or maybe you just don't care, maybe I'm not one to decide.

Ok I guess that wasn't so hard to put down after all, back on the free speech side....again (YIKES)

[Ferrus]

Y'know what.... touché :duel:
To be fair it is probably one of my more mainstream veiws ;)

[Dom]

SuperString, love the avatar, I once had a poster of earthrise like this...... man it owuld be awesome to see it............

However I brain keeps adding a neon sign pointing at earth, blinking. It reads 'Mostly Harmless'.

An interesting thought when considering the nature of this thread........

[Ferrus]

SuperString, love the avatar, I once had a poster of earthrise like this...... man it owuld be awesome to see it............
I'm not sure here, but I think going into space would be something INTP style personalities would derive the most from. However I for one am unlike to ever be physically fit enough to do that, I'm not sure if that's a general trait.

[MacGuffin]

Not really, they have proposed in most countries that holocaust denial and hate speech become crimes, and have 'persuaded' various eastern bloc countries and others to pass similar laws ( they haven't got a hope in Russia...); Canada and other non-european states have such laws despite not having been anywhere near the holocaust, and America is targeted: Shrub got an anti-semitism bill passed to monitor not merely America but the entire world VDare (http://www.vdare.com/francis/anti_semitism.htm) * ( Racialist, but not anti-semite ), and it's becoming clearer that the Patriot Act will curtail many American liberties, leading to bigger and better Patriot Acts in the future which may criminalise free expression. The bell tolls for thee, as well.Hey Canada is quasi-European and Eastern Bloc countries are Euros!

[Snowflake]

If I didn't see it, it didn't happen.

Really? There are plenty of pictures, books. Movies!!

You'd better believe it, because there's a lot of pissed off people glaring at you.

Now hop to it and sit there AND WEEP dammit, because if you're going to accomplish NOTHING, you might as well do it while not denying the holocaust.

[Snowflake]

STFU.

Oh, come on.

One doesn't have to feel ANYTHING.

Are there rules requiring me not only to think the holocaust happened,

BUT THAT I HAVE TO FEEL SYMPATHY FOR THEM??

:soap:

Like I said, if you're going to accomplish NOTHING, you might as well do it while crying over a cup of spilled milk.

[Snowflake]

Any genocide needs to be recognized, and what makes the holocaust unique is that for the first time someone put up the fuss that such a crime deserves.

So you'd like to solve the problem by repeating history? Controlling what people think is only the start of a far greater problem.

Although to be honest, there are far better ways to control what people think than by passing such draconian laws.

Sounds to me like these laws are a warning sign of just how soon the world could see another Hitler.

[Superstring]

Oh, come on.

One doesn't have to feel ANYTHING.

Are there rules requiring me not only to think the holocaust happened,

BUT THAT I HAVE TO FEEL SYMPATHY FOR THEM??

:soap:

Like I said, if you're going to accomplish NOTHING, you might as well do it while crying over a cup of spilled milk.


That's 100% correct. There are laws against YOU not having sympathy for holocaust victims. I love the whiny tone in your post though, very non-annoying.

[Superstring]

SuperString, love the avatar, I once had a poster of earthrise like this...... man it owuld be awesome to see it............

However I brain keeps adding a neon sign pointing at earth, blinking. It reads 'Mostly Harmless'.

An interesting thought when considering the nature of this thread........

hehehe I still need to download a copy of that movie that wasn't filmed in the theatre on videocamera....not to mention read the book (I really need to, who hasn't?)

[dubbeltop]

if you cant prove the holocaust didnt happen then shut the f up or do the time. This law is perfect because know people can never deny the holocaust and therefore is the greatest moment to the holocaust survivors. But on the other hand we all know that a lot of Austrians still admire the nazis but of course dont say it out loud. Only if the Austrian government is overthrown or this law is changed the nazis can return to power.So this law is a little safeguard for the austrian goverment.Break the law and you are attacking the democracy of Austria.

[tatsutahime6]

Slightly off-topic, but something that pisses me off with regards to WWII war crimes...

http://www.sjwar.org/htm/germany.html

[Snowflake]

That's 100% correct. There are laws against YOU not having sympathy for holocaust victims. I love the whiny tone in your post though, very non-annoying.

As non-annoying as you, asshat.

[Superstring]

Japan didn't execute genocide though, did it? Were they not on a colonialist expansion which is a little different from psychologically and physically torturing a targeted population within the confines of closed off neighbourhoods and then forced labour camps over the span of over half a decade? I know they had war camps, but then who didn't.

[Snowflake]

if you cant prove the holocaust didnt happen then shut the f up or do the time. This law is perfect because know people can never deny the holocaust and therefore is the greatest moment to the holocaust survivors. But on the other hand we all know that a lot of Austrians still admire the nazis but of course dont say it out loud. Only if the Austrian government is overthrown or this law is changed the nazis can return to power.So this law is a little safeguard for the austrian goverment.Break the law and you are attacking the democracy of Austria.

You're an idiot.

People CAN still deny the holocaust, they'll just pay the time for it if they admit it. And this is supposed to do what for the holocaust survivors?

I'd be surprised if many of the survivors were even left.

And at that, this law doesn't say much for their egos. It really speaks of arrogance, to me.

Also, what is more scary is that laws like this are allowed. I can think what I want, and I shouldn't have to pay time for it, sort of like saying you should be banned because I don't like the tone of your voice.

[tatsutahime6]

Japan didn't execute genocide though, did it? Were they not on a colonialist expansion which is a little different from psychologically and physically torturing a targeted population within the confines of closed off neighbourhoods and then forced labour camps over the span of over half a decade? I know they had war camps, but then who didn't.

Well, if you define genocide as targeting ONE specific population, I guess not. However, if you count raping, pillaging, slaughtering, conscripting, or working to death any non-Japanese Asian for the sole reason thay they are a NON-Japanese Asian as genocide, then I guess that's a different story...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to Japan-bash or anything. It's just that I live among this kind of thing, and I see the racist attitude that many (but not all) Japanese hold towards non-Japanese Asians on a regular basis.

[dubbeltop]

yeah lifes a bitch

[wildcat]

Hmmm this is all around 3000 BCE to 2000 BCE??

I was wondering were you learned all this from?
Archeology of North Africa and of the British isles. Egyptology (enough to get hold of the syntax) in Uppsala. Studies of the syntax of the southern Scandinavian dialects.
The Megalith Culture. Studies of stone craftmanship.

[Superstring]

As non-annoying as you, asshat.

Good one. No: great one.

[wildcat]

Well, if you define genocide as targeting ONE specific population, I guess not. However, if you count raping, pillaging, slaughtering, conscripting, or working to death any non-Japanese Asian for the sole reason thay they are a NON-Japanese Asian as genocide, then I guess that's a different story...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to Japan-bash or anything. It's just that I live among this kind of thing, and I see the racist attitude that many (but not all) Japanese hold towards non-Japanese Asians on a regular basis.
During WWII, the Japanese did not entertain a mass rape. This was more of a thing of the Allies.

[MacGuffin]

During WWII, the Japanese did not entertain a mass rape. This was more of a thing of the Allies.Never heard of the Rape of Nanking?

[Ferrus]

This was more of a thing of the Allies.
Neither the US nor the UK condoned mass rape, individuals cases did happen but they do in all wars, although mass pillage did occur.

French forces in the French admistered Germany after the war were said to have engaged in large rapes but it was tiny compared to the scale that Japan in Nanking, Germans in Norway or the USSR in Berlin.

[tatsutahime6]

During WWII, the Japanese did not entertain a mass rape. This was more of a thing of the Allies.

One word: Nanking.

Edit: I suppose I should finish reading threads before I post, as the one word has already been posted elsewhere...

[Ferrus]

One word: Nanking.
Also in Hong Kong to a lesser extent. But it's bound to happen in a war because law and order breaks down, observe the looting that occured in Baghdad after it fell to American forces.

[Claverhouse]

Neither the US nor the UK condoned mass rape, individuals cases did happen but they do in all wars, although mass pillage did occur.

French forces in the French admistered Germany after the war were said to have engaged in large rapes but it was tiny compared to the scale that Japan in Nanking, Germans in Norway or the USSR in Berlin.

*sigh*

This has been discussed here, and I agree most came to the same conclusions as you do, but in real life the Germans did not engage in mass rapes, though they did have mass shootings; even individual rape was comparatively uncommon; same with the Italians. The Japanese didn't rape so much, but did force women into becoming camp prostitutes, which is less violent but comes to the same thing. The French certainly did their bit, but the champion rapists of WWII were the Russians, with the Americans coming second,


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[wildcat]

One word: Nanking.

Edit: I suppose I should finish reading threads before I post, as the one word has already been posted elsewhere...
Right. I was wrong.

[MacGuffin]

the champion rapists of WWII were the Russians, with the Americans coming second,Humph. The judges were biased!

[wildcat]

if you cant prove the holocaust didnt happen then shut the f up or do the time. This law is perfect because know people can never deny the holocaust and therefore is the greatest moment to the holocaust survivors. But on the other hand we all know that a lot of Austrians still admire the nazis but of course dont say it out loud. Only if the Austrian government is overthrown or this law is changed the nazis can return to power.So this law is a little safeguard for the austrian goverment.Break the law and you are attacking the democracy of Austria.
Very true. The Austrians are the last surviving National Socialists in a large scale. One of their greatest joys is to beat foreigners senseless, especially Americans.

[david2341.]

likely possibilty that the holocaust did not happen
america is israel's lapdog and will kill any and all muslims that object

[wildcat]

likely possibilty that the holocaust did not happen
america is israel's lapdog and will kill any and all muslims that object
Die Fahnen hoch
Die Reihen dicht geschlossen
S.A. marschiert mit ruhig festem Schritt

Kameraden! Die Rotfront und Reaktion erschossen!
Es schaun aufs Hakenkreuz voll Hoffnung schon Millionen
Der Tag fuer Freiheit und fuer Brot bricht an

Sieg Heil!

[david2341.]

can you translate please

[zhang_bob]

Is it something like-The flags highly
The rows closely closed
S.A. marched with calmly firm step

Comrade! The red front and reaction shot!
It on the swastika fully hope already millions for
The day for liberty.
Hail to Victory!

Edit: I don`t have a clue what you on about.I just made that up.

[Snowflake]

Very true. The Austrians are the last surviving National Socialists in a large scale. One of their greatest joys is to beat foreigners senseless, especially Americans.

No shit, those fucking assholes.

[Shimpei]

Quote:
Originally Posted by dc3
likely possibilty that the holocaust did not happen
america is israel's lapdog and will kill any and all muslims that object

Read all you guys what a self-titled christian said today. If this is christianity, I'd rather go to hell.
But anyway, I want to remind you, dc3 that your Jesus never denied his Jewish identity: now his title in Heaven is: The Lion of the tribe of Judah. JUDAH JUDAH (Rev 5,5)

[david2341.]

whoa ... good feedback

holocaust may not of happened ... at least not the way it was portrayed

dont doubt that jesus did not deny his jewish identity ... the jews were originally the chosen people to spread god's word but they rejected their messiah so all who accept jesus now becomes spiritual jews as the gentiles were welcomed to be adopted into god's family


proclaimed "purported" christian and not so much self titled ...
being a nothing and a nobody and having already affirmed worthylessness to god brings light to the fact that you looking at christianity negatively doesnt do any good. the christian path is learning to be what god originally intended us to be and does not signify that person to be perfect (at the particular moment). 99% of mainstream christian does not recognize or try to follow by the 4th commandment so the term christianity is misleading or is being made to be misleading.

just pop ... popping off words/partial jibber jabber in all the previous posts ...

by the way ... how is it in austria ?

[Shimpei]

whoa ... like your feedback shimpei

holocaust may not of happened ... at least not the way it was portrayed

dont doubt that jesus did not deny his jewish identity ... the jews were originally the chosen people to spread god's word but they rejected their messiah so all who accept jesus now becomes spiritual jews

listen now carefully. I have some pieces of first-hand information: 1. my Dad is a holocaust survivor. 2. he is actually a historian who made a lot of research in the field of holocaust. You can argue with him if you want.
As for the Jews: read Romans 11, 22-27 carefully, esp. 26a.

[david2341.]

as the gentiles were welcomed to be adopted into god's family as well

dont want to be fostering antisemitism here ... but after reading stuff about how jews are persecuted ... become suspicious of why the holocaust is important when there are massive genocides occuring in other places.

but if the holocaust did occur ... in a small scale massacre ... then fault is expressed.

the word christian has been tarnished ... dont even prefer the term christian ... prefer "a worthyless person that needs to be washed off of all this filth" term.

[Shimpei]

i am nothing and a nobody

i accept it.
if you're nothing and nobody, please don't argue over things (holocaust) that you have nothing to do with.
As for theology, okay, I leave it to you. Every denomination has its theology and reasoning in this field seems absolutely futile. One theology finds the 4th commandment the most important, the other that hypothesis that there is no holy trinity nor hell, and that Jesus was merely an angel, another that Mary is a mediator-corredemptrix-theotokos and she's still virgin etc. I don't care.
But I find it repulsive that some so-called christians puff up with self-conceit and have a nerve to pick on the Jews (or anyone else).

[david2341.]

what an experience it is right now with "white people"

nerve to pick on jews ? self-conceit ?

its "purported" christian

do you believe the jews presently are the chosen people and jesus will return after the holy temple is rebuilt ?

finished modifying

[Shimpei]

i'll wait till you finish modifying your post

[david2341.]

a

[david2341.]

expressing inferiority here ... and hope you change your stance on accepting eternal death

woman is under man as a helper and man is under jesus so a woman is more endearing when there is some form of submissiveness.

[Shimpei]

what an experience it is right now with "white people"

nerve to pick on jews ? self-conceit ?

its "purported" christian

do you believe the jews presently are the chosen people and jesus will return after the holy temple is rebuilt ?

finished modifying

first please explain what you have said a few hours ago ("likely possibilty that the holocaust did not happen").
I don't care whether you are white, black, yellow or blue or pink. But know that you are responsible for what you say - especially as a christian. Your statement above made me very angry.
I believe in God's word. I don't believe that this or that theology saves people.
Finished.

[Shimpei]

woman is under man as a helper and man is under jesus so a woman is more attractive when there is some form of submissiveness.

ha ha! Thank you! :whyi: :smooch:
wait: I'm not your wife.

[david2341.]

there should be a warning on the main page advising youths to post or proceed with caution

deeply expressing partial faultiness as hard evidence is not available to back up particular claims

[Shimpei]

you still haven't answered my question as to what your earlier statement was to mean?

[david2341.]

apparently dc3 is talking out of his ass

oop ... adjourned and disengaging ... not fit to debate right now

[Shimpei]

apparently dc3 is talking out of his ass

ELF's from cell phones can be agitating people

:wtf:

[Shimpei]

oop ... adjourned and disengaging

hypocrite!

[david2341.]

*house partially insulated in aluminum foil*

[Claverhouse]

Is it something like-The flags highly
The rows closely closed
S.A. marched with calmly firm step

Comrade! The red front and reaction shot!
It on the swastika fully hope already millions for
The day for liberty.
Hail to Victory!

Edit: I don`t have a clue what you on about.I just made that up.

It's the Horst Wessel song. And I believe a Salvation Army tune before that, eg: different words. Red front were the bolsheviks; Reaction were the monarchists. The nazis fought against both.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[wildcat]

Is it something like-The flags highly
The rows closely closed
S.A. marched with calmly firm step

Comrade! The red front and reaction shot!
It on the swastika fully hope already millions for
The day for liberty.
Hail to Victory!

Edit: I don`t have a clue what you on about.I just made that up.
They did not sing so heartily after the Night of the Long Knives. The Röhm Putch put en end to the S.A. power. Hitler was at the time in Rhineland, in his favourite hotel Dreesen near Godesberg. When he came to the hotel, he had not yet made up his mind. It was a difficult decision for Wolfie. After all, Röhm was a buddy. The army wanted to get rid of an unpredictable rival. Ernie was in the way and he had to go. It was a good oppoturnity to get rid of Schleicher, Klausener, Strasser and some others who had never understood National Socialism. Blind faith and stupidity gives one a long life.
He walked on the Rhein terrace, alone. He returned to his hotel and when the telephone rang, he gave the order.

[david2341.]

taking a shower/bath is not clean enough

[htb]

The Japanese didn't rape so muchThe Imperial Army used katanas to finish the act, for goodness' sake. Soldiers took photographs, which Chinese residents were forced to develop.


I would suggest that the effort spent in protecting those memories of the holocaust is a reaction to the unusual amount of effort spent in trying to deny that that the events ever occured.And there we have the fitting last words on the subject, there, lonely now, on the first page. Some of us aren't so indisposed to suspecting that Daniel Bernard's cocktail sentiments might not be unique to a French ambassador.

[david2341.]

not fit for claim supporting right now



the jews keep their trash (howard stern) hidden



haha

[Snowflake]

i accept it.
if you're nothing and nobody, please don't argue over things (holocaust) that you have nothing to do with.
As for theology, okay, I leave it to you. Every denomination has its theology and reasoning in this field seems absolutely futile. One theology finds the 4th commandment the most important, the other that hypothesis that there is no holy trinity nor hell, and that Jesus was merely an angel, another that Mary is a mediator-corredemptrix-theotokos and she's still virgin etc. I don't care.
But I find it repulsive that some so-called christians puff up with self-conceit and have a nerve to pick on the Jews (or anyone else).

This statement is ironic.

If dc3 is "nothing and nobody" then why even get worked up over the statements he is making?

I don't see any reason that any old person can't accept or deny anything about what they are told to believe. Are you honestly as arrogant as I think you are, for telling us how to think of a given event in the history of humanity?

Nobody is PICKING on anyone by denying that the holocaust happened. In fact, from the point of view of someone who denys the holocaust, the conceit is on the other end of the accusations being made.

Lastly, the holocaust was NOT simply about the jews. In fact, that is only about half the picture. There were lots of other people than the jews who were victimized by the holocaust. Anyone who claims that it was only jews has a shoddy view of history, in my book.

I suggest you stop, take a look around at where you are, and STFU, because all you're doing is making yourself look conceited, pompous, and arrogant.

[Snowflake]

listen now carefully. I have some pieces of first-hand information: 1. my Dad is a holocaust survivor. 2. he is actually a historian who made a lot of research in the field of holocaust. You can argue with him if you want.

Are we supposed to believe what some anonymous user wrote on some random forum?

I don't believe either of the claims you've made here, sorry, and even if I did, I don't want to argue with or through you, I want to argue with your father <_<

[david2341.]

once again expressing fault for the inept connotative obligatory swaggeringly exaggerated disparaging efficacious unsubstantiated complacent preponderant preferential assertions made which may of caused disdain and dismay to incur not knowing that you were not in concordance with ... now wishing to remain compensatory while attenuating pretentiousness.

[Shimpei]

Are we supposed to believe what some anonymous user wrote on some random forum?

I don't believe either of the claims you've made here, sorry, and even if I did, I don't want to argue with or through you, I want to argue with your father <_<

you have every right not to believe what I say. I leave it to you. I was arguing with dc3 who recently deleted all his posts (see all the quotes in my posts a few pages before) because it was very inconvenient for him that he was confronted with his allegations. Instead he must have said something plausible.
I would gladly introduce you to my father but unfortunately he doesn't speak English. Do you speak Hungarian? or Esperanto?

[wildcat]

dc3 has a long history of nazi precedents. Organization of National Socialist Christians was established at the close of the Weimar Republic. In the summer of 1933 it had already gained control of most Protestant Churches. Those pastors who remained true Christians set up the Confessional Church. The pastors of the Confessional Church were influential in trying to prevent the planned full scale mass murder of handicapped and neuroatypical people. These were eventually put to death during the war.
Along with six million Jews, a million Poles, a half million gypsies, and a varying number of Communists, Monarchists, Free Masons, Homosexuals, to name a few groups.
Those who claim that the Holocaust did not take place are ignorant of history or antisemites, or both. Shame on them.

[Snowflake]

Shame on them.
:rolleyes2

[Shimpei]

This statement is ironic.

If dc3 is "nothing and nobody" then why even get worked up over the statements he is making?

I don't see any reason that any old person can't accept or deny anything about what they are told to believe. Are you honestly as arrogant as I think you are, for telling us how to think of a given event in the history of humanity?

Nobody is PICKING on anyone by denying that the holocaust happened. In fact, from the point of view of someone who denys the holocaust, the conceit is on the other end of the accusations being made.

Lastly, the holocaust was NOT simply about the jews. In fact, that is only about half the picture. There were lots of other people than the jews who were victimized by the holocaust. Anyone who claims that it was only jews has a shoddy view of history, in my book.

I suggest you stop, take a look around at where you are, and STFU, because all you're doing is making yourself look conceited, pompous, and arrogant.

ok, I admit I was a bit freaked out but I still hold that I too have every right to find dc3's statement preposterous and revolting.
Of course I know that the Holocaust wasn't about Jews only but also about Gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, gays/lesbians, political opponents of the Nazi regime, the disabled etc. Please read that statement of his that I quoted (red, bold and enlarged letters): it was about Jews and not about the other victims of the Holocaust.

[Shimpei]

dc3 has a long history of nazi precedents. Organization of National Socialist Christians was established at the close of the Weimar Republic. In the summer of 1933 it had already gained control of most Protestant Churches. Those pastors who remained true Christians set up the Confessional Church. The pastors of the Confessional Church were influential in trying to prevent the planned full scale mass murder of handicapped and neuroatypical people. These were eventually put to death during the war.
Along with six million Jews, a million Poles, a half million gypsies, and a varying number of Communists, Monarchists, Free Masons, Homosexuals, to name a few groups.
Those who claim that the Holocaust did not take place are ignorant of history or antisemites, or both. Shame on them.

Shame on them.

[wildcat]

It's the Horst Wessel song. And I believe a Salvation Army tune before that, eg: different words. Red front were the bolsheviks; Reaction were the monarchists. The nazis fought against both.


Claverhouse :ph34r:
Horst was a Berliner. He came from the Bezirk or "Southside" of Prenzlauer Berg. Friedrichshain had many of his kind. The milieu has not changed; as Kreuzwald has been cleaned up, the pimps and the petty thieves from there now reside in Friedrichshain in addition to the original pimps and thieves.
Friedrichshain was a lousy place for Jews to live in the 1930s. Especially for the schoolboys. So it was in Wedding and Neukölln. In comparison the people of the bourgeoise districts such as Charlottenburg and Schöneberg were remarkable civil toward Jews.
After 1933 the Wessel song became the Second National German anthem.
In Russia the anthem chosen during the war by Stalin has become again the national anthem. With different words- the message is obvious though.

[david2341.]

shimpei can you state why you're defensive about assertions made falsifying holocaus

once again expressing fault for the inept connotative obligatory swaggeringly exaggerated disparaging efficacious unsubstantiated complacent preponderant preferential assertions made which may of caused disdain and dismay to incur not knowing that you were not in concordance with ... now wishing to remain compensatory

snowflake - paul dano

apology for snowflake being hard on you

[Shimpei]

shimpei can you state why you're defensive about assertions made falsifying holocause

http://www.remember.org/1/holocaust-fact.html

I forgive you. Even God forgives you this fault of yours. Remember, everything is forgiven except the sin against the Holy Spirit. :)

[Shimpei]

who is paul dano?

[david2341.]

paul dano - actor

shimpei jewish ?

[Dom]

dc3 has a long history of nazi precedents. Organization of National Socialist Christians was established at the close of the Weimar Republic. In the summer of 1933 it had already gained control of most Protestant Churches. Those pastors who remained true Christians set up the Confessional Church. The pastors of the Confessional Church were influential in trying to prevent the planned full scale mass murder of handicapped and neuroatypical people. These were eventually put to death during the war.
Along with six million Jews, a million Poles, a half million gypsies, and a varying number of Communists, Monarchists, Free Masons, Homosexuals, to name a few groups.
Those who claim that the Holocaust did not take place are ignorant of history or antisemites, or both. Shame on them.

Considering 'Liebersraum' couldn't we throwing in the murdered slavs in Russia?

I guess, however, that it is only fair and accurate to note that the Jews WERE given primaricy in the Holocaust, certainly it was not only about them, but they were the head of the international consipriacy and lets remember that the Wansee Conferences, was primarily to answer the question of the European Jews (I've just had to study the origional invitation)

I haven't read the full history of the debate going on here, just the last 10 or so posts, so........

Please remember that the holocaust was wider than just the Jews, but certainly the Jews have done the best PR job of keeping the plight of their people firmly in the public's mind.

However this debate is exactly why I support the denial laws, while surviours remain, how can we allow people to claim what they experienced never happened? If someone/something had starved you, and murdered your family, how would you feel if other people, known for their hard right views, were able to claim it never happened?

You never received compensation, never had the satsifaction of a criminal conviction for what happened to you, in fact you're concentration camp guard could live on the same road as you. And there is nothing you could do about some ass claiming it never happened?

No until the surviours have all passed on, we need to show respect for their suffering, and protect them from further harm.

[Dom]

Remember, everything is forgiven except the sin against the Holy Spirit. :)

Care to define that? lol

[Dom]

listen now carefully. I have some pieces of first-hand information: 1. my Dad is a holocaust survivor. 2. he is actually a historian who made a lot of research in the field of holocaust. You can argue with him if you want.
As for the Jews: read Romans 11, 22-27 carefully, esp. 26a.

A branch planted into the vine becomes part of the vine, it draws strength from the vine. Is the vine. Branches which were not fruitful are cut out of the vine.

To paraphrase a parable, the gentile belivers are branchs planted into the vine, the cut out ones are some of the Jews.

And lets not forget howmuch Paul MOURNED that the Jews didn't accept Jesus as the messiah, and please tell me you accept that the Jews executed him?

[david2341.]

once again expressing fault for the inept connotative obligatory swaggeringly exaggerated disparaging efficacious unsubstantiated complacent preponderant preferential assertions made which may of caused disdain and dismay to incur not knowing that you were not in concordance with ... now wishing to remain compensatory

snowflake - paul dano - actor

apology for snowflake being hard on shimpei

god sends the holy spirit to work on a person ... purportedly when the person continually resists ... there would be nothing else that could be done to bring that person closer to god. blaspeming holy spirit means rejecting holy spirit. father or son sends the holy spirit, the 3rd person of the trinity.

[Shimpei]

paul dano - actor

shimpei jewish ?

13 people of Shimpei's family were executed in Auschwitz and Buchenwald. This is a fact.

[Shimpei]

Care to define that? lol

so many preachers and teachers have all kinds of theories concerning it. Many of them are available on the net (e.g.: http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/qsinspirit.html). I don't want to get into apologetics.

[david2341.]

shimpei whats your thoughts on asian(chinese) people ?

do you believe all jews are destined for god's(YHWH) world ?

how do you see the differentiation between christianity and judaism ?

[Shimpei]

A branch planted into the vine becomes part of the vine, it draws strength from the vine. Is the vine. Branches which were not fruitful are cut out of the vine.

To paraphrase a parable, the gentile belivers are branchs planted into the vine, the cut out ones are some of the Jews.

And lets not forget howmuch Paul MOURNED that the Jews didn't accept Jesus as the messiah, and please tell me you accept that the Jews executed him?

pfwtpkltrsprr
Actually Jesus was executed by Roman soldiers by the order of a Roman governor. And it was the Jewish clerical circle (Pharisees and Sadducees) that originally instigated the mob to refuse Jesus.

As for Romans 11, read this if you like. Just found it:

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/romans/romans11.htm

[Dom]

Also, what is more scary is that laws like this are allowed. I can think what I want, and I shouldn't have to pay time for it, sort of like saying you should be banned because I don't like the tone of your voice.

You still can think what you want! You can merilly go through life without accepting the holocaust happened, the law is to prevent you from saying it never happend, it's to try to prevent you form convincing others (or them using your words to support their own quiet beliefs). It's also to prevent you from making money out of the suggestion by writing books etc.

It is not much different the laws we have hear against stiring up racial or religous hatred,

[Shimpei]

shimpei whats your thoughts on asian(chinese) people ?

do you believe all jews are destined for god's(YHWH) world ?

i like asian and esp. Chinese people. A lot of Chinese people live in Hungary and they set a good example of diligence here. Hungarians are a lazy people. :)

Romans 9:27

[david2341.]

this is coming from an asian dude here ... shimpei, consider looking at all the perspectives for your eventual own self interest and whats best for you <<<nevermind probably wasnt necessary to say

shimpei how about non-jews as it relates to god (YHWH) ?

is there a requirement to convert to judaisim ?

wouldnt you say that there is a gap of understanding between asian and 'white' people ? <<unnecessary question

running off to ralphs supermarket right now at 1:40am to buy some vinegar

[Shimpei]

this is coming from an asian dude here ... shimpei, consider looking at all the perspectives for your eventual own self interest and whats best for you <<<nevermind probably wasnt necessary to say

shimpei how about non-jews as it relates to god (YHWH) ?

is there a requirement to convert to judaisim ?

wouldnt you say that there is a gap of understanding between asian and 'white' people ?

I'll pm you on this a bit later .

[Dom]

god sends the holy spirit to work on a person ... purportedly when the person continually resists ... there would be nothing else that could be done to bring that person closer to god. blaspeming holy spirit means rejecting holy spirit. father or son sends the holy spirit, the 3rd person of the trinity.

Does he know? I rather thought baptism in the holy spirit comes after conversion....

And I'm pretty certain conversion could happen at any time, not merely when God's choose's for it too, but then my theology is based heavily on Free Will.

I know who the holy spirit is. I utterly disagree with your understanding, you're suggesting that rejectign the holy spirit is an unforgiveable sin. This would suggest many in orthodox faiths, who dillergently and earnestly believe in salvation from Christ, would be condemned to die for rejection of the holy spirit.

I think this must be something else, Blaspemy normally suggests a mis defining or misuse, Claiming to be God, when you're not, is Blaspemy. SO I think it's more about claim soemthing is something it's not.

One defination is to attribute works of the Holy Spirit to Satanic forces but not sure I like that one either.

The best I'd heard a rpeacher say, is "If you're worried, unsure about whether you have or havent commited this Sin, then you haven't. It requires such action that you'd be well aware that you had" But that still deosn't define what it is!

[wildcat]

Considering 'Liebersraum' couldn't we throwing in the murdered slavs in Russia?

I guess, however, that it is only fair and accurate to note that the Jews WERE given primaricy in the Holocaust, certainly it was not only about them, but they were the head of the international consipriacy and lets remember that the Wansee Conferences, was primarily to answer the question of the European Jews (I've just had to study the origional invitation)

I haven't read the full history of the debate going on here, just the last 10 or so posts, so........

Please remember that the holocaust was wider than just the Jews, but certainly the Jews have done the best PR job of keeping the plight of their people firmly in the public's mind.

However this debate is exactly why I support the denial laws, while surviours remain, how can we allow people to claim what they experienced never happened? If someone/something had starved you, and murdered your family, how would you feel if other people, known for their hard right views, were able to claim it never happened?

You never received compensation, never had the satsifaction of a criminal conviction for what happened to you, in fact you're concentration camp guard could live on the same road as you. And there is nothing you could do about some ass claiming it never happened?

No until the surviours have all passed on, we need to show respect for their suffering, and protect them from further harm.
The murdered slavs in Russia? You mean Ukraina? You must be joking. Well, they did hang or shoot some Ukranians; they were not as "benevolent" there as they had been in Holland and Belgium and France. But for the most part it was the other way around. In a large scale, the Ukrainians hailed the Nazis as liberators. The original fears of the wily Georgian proved justified. In killing Jews, the Ukrainians were far more eager than the Germans. They were put in use by the SS. They were allowed and encouraged to murder Jews all over in the eastern (occupied) realm. And they did. The Germans marvelled at their lust at murder, whisch was far greater than their own. The Ukrainians were the primary executioners of Jews not only in Ukraina but in Lithuania, Poland, Latvia, and Germany itself. In a lot of places they did most of the killings.
The one who killed the Ukranians in a large scale was Koba. He had done it before, murdering a large part of the population of Ukraina. After the war he enjoyed his revenge. Many Ukranian blood hounds, as they were called, escaped to America. There they were pitied and pampered, the poor "victims."

Holocaust began with Barbarossa. It was, besides Lebensraum, a primary cause of the war. Nor was Wannsee the place of the set off. Wannsee was a propaganda meeting within the ranks. The place where the Nazi spirit was boosted up.
Wolfie had it all worked up in his mind in Landsberg. The final set off date was 31 July 1941. Hitler did not socialize with Heydrich. They had nothing in common, least of all ideology. Hitler discussed the matter in detail with Goering.
Goering appointed Heydrich to take charge of the Total Solution.

[david2341.]

conversion happens when a person accepts jesus
the holy spirit works on non believers as well
baptism of the holy spirit likely does come after conversion but the holy spirit is trying to work on non-believers as well
accepting one is accepting all 3 but rejecting one is rejecting all 3

rejecting the holy spirit is an unpardonable sin because there would be no way god can have a free flowing channel to us.

there are people who honestly believe in christ and he who believes in christ will be saved. but a person's works will be a reflection of their faith. faith without works is dead. a person can't be judged on whether they are doing god's will, the judging is left to god because he knows whats in a persons heart.

the holy spirit continually works on a person and its continually rejecting the holy spirit that contains the risks. rejecting the holy spirit is an unpardonable sin because as 'sinners' we are living under grace so its a continual walk towards keeping god's laws where the holy spirit assists in bringing a person closer to jesus. people who accepted jesus already has the holy spirit working in them but its still a process where a person can choose to turn down salvation at any time. its not when a person accepts jesus that they are saved. its when a person accepts jesus and does the will of god which will require continual assistance from holy spirit to follow his guidelines. and following his guidelines(commandments) is done out of love and then obedience. no obedience without love. those who love jesus keeps the commandments but no one can keep it by themselves.

presently its not once saved always saved.

even satan and his angels believe and recognize god's power

if a preacher says "If you're worried, unsure about whether you have or havent commited this Sin", then its likely a yes

for those who become what christ wants(when christ comes), they wont even have a thought of adulteration, stealing, lying or pride in them.

once again people ... be a good idea to look into the seventh day sabbath as it will be a very important central issue in the near future.

and remember ... god wants and does not need a person to share and be good ..

[Dom]

pfwtpkltrsprr
Actually Jesus was executed by Roman soldiers by the order of a Roman governor. And it was the Jewish clerical circle (Pharisees and Sadducees) that originally instigated the mob to refuse Jesus.


Was he? Hmm I always thought that he washed his hands, and allowed him to be executed to settle the crowd, as Pilate said, he could find no fault in him, he had not breach Roman law. THe executes was allowed only because of the intense pressure that Tiberius was pushing on Pilate to keep the provinece in control, in fact Pilates life had been threatened. Jesus was not executed in accordance with Roman law, the only law he was considered to have broken was Jewish law where the Sahedrien had found him guilty of Blasphemy.

Pilate tried to get him off, he washed his hands and gave into to the crowds demands. Hence why I feel it fair to attribute his execution to the Jews, it was they who arrested him, they who demanded his execution, agaisnt the judgement of Roman law, they who forced Pilates hand.

[Shimpei]

Was he? Hmm I always thought that he washed his hands, and allowed him to be executed to settle the crowd, as Pilate said, he could find no fault in him, he had not breach Roman law. THe executes was allowed only because of the intense pressure that Tiberius was pushing on Pilate to keep the provinece in control, in fact Pilates life had been threatened. Jesus was not executed in accordance with Roman law, the only law he was considered to have broken was Jewish law where the Sahedrien had found him guilty of Blasphemy.

Pilate tried to get him off, he washed his hands and gave into to the crowds demands. Hence why I feel it fair to attribute his execution to the Jews, it was they who arrested him, they who demanded his execution, agaisnt the judgement of Roman law, they who forced Pilates hand.

There's an interesting book on that: "Who Killed Jesus: Exposing the roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus" by J.D. Crossnan.
In fact the execution WAS authorized by Pilate. He was a hypocrite by washing his hands. Actually that was all eye-wash.
I know you don't imply that the Jews as a race are responsible for the death of Jesus, but still the question hangs in the air. And it's interesting that mostly christians are toying with this question.
(Are Germans as a race responsible for the Holocaust?)

[david2341.]

once again people ... be a good idea to look into the seventh day sabbath as it will be a very important central issue in the near future.


and remember ... god wants and does not need a person to share and be good ..

[Dom]

conversion happens when a person accepts jesus
the holy spirit works on non believers as well
baptism of the holy spirit likely does come after conversion but the holy spirit is trying to work on non-believers as well

rejecting the holy spirit is an unpardonable sin because there would be no way god can have a free flowing channel to us.

there are people who honestly believe in christ and he who believes in christ will be saved. but a person's works will be a reflection of their faith. faith without works is dead. a person can't be judged on whether they are doing god's will, the judging is left to god because he knows whats in a persons heart.

the holy spirit continually works on a person and its continually rejecting the holy spirit that contains the risks. rejecting the holy spirit is an unpardonable sin because as 'sinners' we are living under grace so its a continual walk towards keeping god's laws where the holy spirit assists in bringing a person closer to jesus. people who accepted jesus already has the holy spirit working in them but its still a process where a person can choose to turn down salvation at any time. its not when a person accepts jesus that they are saved. its when a person accepts jesus and does the will of god which will require continual assistance from holy spirit to follow his guidelines. and following his guidelines(commandments) is done out of love and then obedience. no obedience without love. those who love jesus keeps the commandments but no one can keep it by themselves.

presently its not once saved always saved.

even satan and his angels believe and recognize god's power

if a preacher says "If you're worried, unsure about whether you have or havent commited this Sin", then its likely a yes

for those who become what christ wants(when christ comes), they wont even have a thought of adulteration, stealing, lying or pride in them.


I am glad I don't live by your form of Christianity, you take grace and wreck it,

There is no evidence for losing ones salvation in the bible, much less for it being restored again, the sin i was refering too is that of blaspheming the holy spirit but lets get to work on the main problem with you're suggestion.

You are suggesting that all people, (including non belivers) have the holy spirit at work upon them, trying to convince them or draw them to Christ/God. You maintain that resisting this is the Unpardonable Sin. This means we are all condemned to Hell, for none of us came to a true faith without conflict within ourselves. We all resisted the Holy Spirit efforts (as you call it) for awhile. Hence commited the unpardonable sin. How then can anyone enter the Kingdom of Heaven?

Faith without works is Dead, but this statement is often used out of context, it is used in many demonmiations to support a theology where WORKS form part of ones salvation, this I reject. I rejected it because it lessens Grace and promotes legalism and a feeling that a person can earn favour. This doctrien would also lead to people comparing themselves with one another and the inevitable judgement that follows would lead many to become biggoted and self rightous. The statement Faith, without works is dead. Is a comment aimed at the health of your Faith not your Works. I.E If you have geniue Faith you will do Good Works, not because it earns Salvation or to qualify your Faith but because you will want too. It is a natural consequence, the statement means if there are no good works, then your Faith is great, not that good works must be seen for salvation, good works can merely be how one interacts with people, Chirst-like-ness is a good work.

Any human effort to live by God's laws will fail, and at best result in a lack of confidence and a rejection of grace as the subject finds they are not worth and at worst a puffing up that becomes self rightous judgement of others. One can never full escape sin and will contravene God's laws, every character in the Bible did this bar one (Christ). To attempt to lay aside all Sin is an exercise in futility, accept Grace, and work toward knowing God. Love is the only escape from Sin. When you have a partner you do things that will please them and refrain from doing things that will displease them, the motivation for this is Love. The same with Sin, love God and you'll naturally have motivation to please him, he will merrily work with you to resolve real issues, do not let others tell you to give up this that or the other, if God is not already talking to you about it. This leads to legalism and that kills Love and Faith.

anyway preach over I have work to do.

[Dom]

There's an interesting book on that: "Who Killed Jesus: Exposing the roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus" by J.D. Crossnan.
In fact the execution WAS authorized by Pilate. He was a hypocrite by washing his hands. Actually that was all eye-wash.
I know you don't imply that the Jews as a race are responsible for the death of Jesus, but still the question hangs in the air. And it's interesting that mostly christians are toying with this question.
(Are Germans as a race responsible for the Holocaust?)

No certainly not (Germans as a race responsible and Jews alike) my discussion is one merely of Historical and middly Spiritual interest. It would seem very Human for the chosen people to have caused the execution of their own Messaih (and also let us not forget, this allowed Christ redemptive work to happen at all, after all he had to die for it to work). And yes he was, he (Pilate) was after all a Politico.

Anti-Semitism in the gospels is a curious question, why would people who were Jews (the gospel writers) want to present an anti-semitic view? Where is their motivation for it? More than anything they wanted the Jewish people to accept Christ, this would hinder that goal?

Let us remember that it wasn't until later in Acts that God starts taking the Apostles to hand for their continued rejection of teaching the gentiles.

As for the question of the race being responsible, most Christian's don't think further than the end of their noses. It is ridiculous to hold a race responsbile, and lets not forget, if he hadn't been crucified I (as a gentile) would still have to rely on the 'God in my conscence' that Paul talks about in Romans, to get me in....

[Snowflake]

However this debate is exactly why I support the denial laws, while surviours remain, how can we allow people to claim what they experienced never happened? If someone/something had starved you, and murdered your family, how would you feel if other people, known for their hard right views, were able to claim it never happened?

So in other words, you support the repeat of history that led to the events of the holocaust?

How can you do this?

It's exactly this type of thinking that LED to the Nazi movements and the brainwashing that they did.

It's disgusting, and once it starts, where does it end? Do you honestly think it will end here?? Fuck no it won't.

The US first ammendment of free speech MUST be upheld, at all costs.

Fuck if I care what some poor survivor thinks of me. They hold no value to me moreso than anyone else, and WHY SHOULD THEY? Yes, they went through some horrible times, but these events should not make them more important than anyone else. I don't have to think any damn thing for them, why should they get a fucking law in their favor?

It's bullshit, all around. Bullshit by people who are emotionally out of controll, and SHOULD NOT be making laws.

[Shimpei]

Anti-Semitism in the gospels is a curious question, why would people who were Jews (the gospel writers) want to present an anti-semitic view? Where is their motivation for it? More than anything they wanted the Jewish people to accept Christ, this would hinder that goal?


Of course there isn't anti-semitism in the Gospels.
The problem of Christian anti-semitism lies in their mistaking of the envious Jewish clergy and top spiritual leaders for the whole Jewish race.
Anyway, I do agree with you on the rest.

[david2341.]

hey snowflake is that ali larter... looks so much like scarlett johanssen

a teacher in colorado was suspended when a student recorded his speech about the israeli occupation and bush's servitude to zionists.

btw snowflake, where did your ancestors come from ?

[Snowflake]

hey snowflake is that ali larter... looks so much like scarlett johanssenIt's Scarlett Johannson
a teacher in colorado was suspended when a student recorded his speech about the israeli occupation and bush's servitude to zionists.I hadn't heard about this, but then I don't keep up with the news much.

Free speech is going down the tubes man. The world is rescinding into another middle age, again. Totally blows. You can blame a lot of it on Mr. Bush too, that fascist!
btw snowflake, where did your ancestors come from ?My anscestors came over to this country on the Mayflower. They were pilgrims in search of religious freedom from England. On the other side of my family, they were all French-Canadian. No history of any ancestors who were part of the holocaust, sorry.

[david2341.]

even if the holy spirit isnt working on non-believers, jesus definitely is. its not legalism when its done out of love

any human effort to live by god's laws will fail when one tries to follow them by their own self.



is a person a jew by following judaism or being born into a jewish race or both ? ... because this chinese dude would like some clarification

[wildcat]

This thread is about whether there should be a Holocaust Denial law. To find out we have to examine the Holocaust as a historical process. At least Snowflake discusses the subject. I do not agree with Snowflake but he has the right to examine his standpoint. I express the humble wish we stay on the subject matter of this thread.
It is only a humble wish. An Uriah Heep kind of wish.

[zhang_bob]

I am convinced in my previous life I was a red squirrel,and I got killed by a gray squirrel.

Anyone who is in Denial about the Holocaust needs therapy.

[Dom]

So in other words, you support the repeat of history that led to the events of the holocaust?

How can you do this?

It's exactly this type of thinking that LED to the Nazi movements and the brainwashing that they did.

It's disgusting, and once it starts, where does it end? Do you honestly think it will end here?? Fuck no it won't.

The US first ammendment of free speech MUST be upheld, at all costs.

Fuck if I care what some poor survivor thinks of me. They hold no value to me moreso than anyone else, and WHY SHOULD THEY? Yes, they went through some horrible times, but these events should not make them more important than anyone else. I don't have to think any damn thing for them, why should they get a fucking law in their favor?

It's bullshit, all around. Bullshit by people who are emotionally out of controll, and SHOULD NOT be making laws.

I think you'll find that holocaust denial laws do not exist in either the US or the UK. I merely said I understand why they exist, and even turn my Nup to full I can't quite understand why you feel this type of law would encourage or is similar to the issues which started the holocaust int eh first place, I assume you are refering to the unfair nature of the Treaty of Versaille (or however the heck you spell it). With regard to Austria, one can understand completely, that without some form of regulation the rise you fear, coudl very easily happen again. Your arguement that it would be better out in the public arena where people could argue and convince others doesn't hold up.

Would people be convinced?

I remeber you and I having a long chat about whether debate was of use, and I didn't think you liked it?

The law is imperfect, and unfortunate, but I understand why it exists and I'm not sure how removing it would improve the situation, I.E better defend against a rise in Nazism or Anti-Semitism.

[wildcat]

I am convinced in my previous life I was a red squirrel,and I got killed by a gray squirrel.

Anyone who is in Denial about the Holocaust needs therapy.
The squirrels are wiser than humans. They do nor kill each other on the base of colour.

[david2341.]

even if the holy spirit isnt working on non-believers, jesus definitely is. accepting jesus means accepting the father and holy spirit as well.

hey shimpei, are you asking papa for advice ?

[zhang_bob]

The squirrels are wiser than humans. They do nor kill each other on the base of colour.
So why did all the red squirrels get killed by the gray squirrels then?;)

[Snowflake]

Your arguement that it would be better out in the public arena where people could argue and convince others doesn't hold up.

Wrong. You haven't given me any reason as to why, you merely state "it doesn't hold up." Lame.


Would people be convinced?

I don't know, but please don't make hasty generalizations about whether or not people would be convinced by my argument.


The law is imperfect, and unfortunate, but I understand why it exists and I'm not sure how removing it would improve the situation, I.E better defend against a rise in Nazism or Anti-Semitism.

If you're not sure how removing it would improve the situation, then how does leaving it in place do any good?

It does more harm than good to leave the law in place. Like I said, laws like this indicate the beginning of a far bigger problem. Anti-Nazi, Anti-Anti-Semitism my ass!

You can't control the way people think, and locking them up doesn't do anything more than strip a person of his/her rights. AGAIN, we resort to dehumanization merely to control what a group of people think, in order to prevent the very thing we don't want (dehumanization)?

Talk about fucked up.

[Dom]

This thread is about whether there should be a Holocaust Denial law. To find out we have to examine the Holocaust as a historical process. At least Snowflake discusses the subject. I do not agree with Snowflake but he has the right to examine his standpoint. I express the humble wish we stay on the subject matter of this thread.
It is only a humble wish. An Uriah Heep kind of wish.

Agreed, sorry for my participation on the derail.

Free speach is a tough right to debate,

My mother argues you should lose you're right to free speach when the subject you talk about/preach inpinges on the freedom's of others.

She'd ban the BNP etc etc.

I disagree, but only because I'm a idealist.

The Idealism, of free speach is great and to be pursued. However, it also needs to be tempered. Public debate is just that, Public. If you're public is capable of understanding a reasonable arguement and following the evidence, then there is no need for any type of censureship.

But, being honest, the vast majority don't. It was when I tired to explain why passing legislation which allows an elected member of the government to lock up whomever he wants, for however long he wants, without judical review, with no right to know why the said person was being held, was a bad idea to some of my work colleauges that I finally understood why censurship exists.

Under the legislation he could have locked up whomever he wanted, trying to explain that meant, members of parliment who voted against him, or me for voting agaisnt him etc etc, they laughed and said He wouldn't do that, and you have nothing to worry about if you have nothing to hide.

I could not budge him from this mantra, "nothing to hide" He couldn't understand, what no charges meant. He couldn't understand what lack of judcial review meant or why it was important.

The question then becomes this, in populations that want to interpret (or may want to) certain events in a particular manner, and may be resistent to the debate, should it be right for that government to be able to censure the debate to try to stop the spreading of misinformation?

I have met an Austrian who denied the Holocaust, I asked him what he felt about the museums and all thousands of first hand reports, even teh confessions of some guards etc....

He calmly said "All Lies, confessions for smaller sentences, the rest lies from the Jewish Conspiracy"

No amount of debate is going to convince him, and how many could he 'convert' if uncensured and this stuff was able to be printed in the press or on TV dressed as Historical Revisionism....

I want to be and normally am an Idealist, but sometimes I can see the pragmatism of an imperfect solution.

[Dom]

Wrong. You haven't given me any reason as to why, you merely state "it doesn't hold up." Lame.

Fair enough, it was lame, little time, need loo,


It does more harm than good to leave the law in place. Like I said, laws like this indicate the beginning of a far bigger problem. Anti-Nazi, Anti-Anti-Semitism my ass!

See your above comment on Lameness! Please indicate how this is the begining of a far bigger problem?


You can't control the way people think, and locking them up doesn't do anything more than strip a person of his/her rights. AGAIN, we resort to dehumanization merely to control what a group of people think, in order to prevent the very thing we don't want (dehumanization)?

Talk about fucked up.
We do resort to dehumanization, mainly because nothing else works! It's not great, but again I ask for an alternative before we start opening our prisions, after all the objection to dehumanization would extend to criminals too?

[david2341.]

hitler was aiming to unite the 7 of 10 countries that broke off from rome (germany france switzerland poland portugal spain england)

[Shimpei]

This thread is about whether there should be a Holocaust Denial law. To find out we have to examine the Holocaust as a historical process. At least Snowflake discusses the subject. I do not agree with Snowflake but he has the right to examine his standpoint. I express the humble wish we stay on the subject matter of this thread.
It is only a humble wish. An Uriah Heep kind of wish.


I've already posted my opinion on the original question (post #38). I didn't want to derail the thread just to point out that christians shouldn't be anti-semitic. Unfortunately the mainline churches did a shameful job of collaborating with the governments in the Axis Allies.

[Dom]

hitler was aiming for world domination ...

Was he really? &lt;_&lt;

[david2341.]

just noticed that arguments dont occur between two INTPs

actually like how snowflake comes off

[wildcat]

I've already posted my opinion on the original question (post #38). I didn't want to derail the thread just to point out that christians shouldn't be anti-semitic. Unfortunately the mainline churches did a shameful job of collaborating with the governments in the Axis Allies.
Snowflake has expressed valid points about the principle redarding free speech. It would be stupid to ignore his remarks.
He is wrong about history.
He is not wrong about the philosophy of free speech.

[Snowflake]

He is wrong about history.

Not surprising.

[david2341.]

hey moridin you look like a guy or one of those guys for a subway sandwich commercial

really resemble a guy who was in other tv commercials

[david2341.]

hey moridin would you have anymore final objections about the holy spirit ? and what is your religious belief moridin ?
*asking in an unprovoking manner*

even if the holy spirit isnt working on non-believers, jesus definitely is. its not legalism when its done out of love

[Snowflake]

No amount of debate is going to convince him, and how many could he 'convert' if uncensured and this stuff was able to be printed in the press or on TV dressed as Historical Revisionism....

Well at least I was right about one thing. This is an issue of free speech.

If that's the case, and with the overwhelming reaction of this thread against those deny the holocaust, why is it even important to make laws protecting the survivors??

Are you people honestly that insecure?? Why the fuck does it even matter?

Stop crying over a glass of spilled milk.


See your above comment on Lameness! Please indicate how this is the begining of a far bigger problem?

If you'd have understood my argument, you'd understand this point.

[Dom]

If you'd have understood my argument, you'd understand this point.

I could say exactly the same with regards to my own comment you called lame!

Yes it is a free speach, I'm only uncertain about repealing the censure only because I do feel insecure about how the general public comes to it's opinions...

There are people who really do belive the rubbish printed in our press etc.
etc.

There are people who think that if they have seen a historical documentary on TV, that it must be true!

It is these people who seem so easily influenced, that lead me to feel insecure. Get a nation full of them, that want to believe the misinformation then you could have the whole thing kicking off again in a short while!

[Shimpei]

Snowflake has expressed valid points about the principle redarding free speech. It would be stupid to ignore his remarks.
He is wrong about history.
He is not wrong about the philosophy of free speech.

he has every right to speak as freely as he wants. I have every right to not agree with him. Tell me what remarks of his did I ignore? As far as I remember I replied to his posts meant for me.
I try to understand his points, and if I were him, I would probably think the same way. But I'm not Snowflake.

[Snowflake]

There are people who think that if they have seen a historical documentary on TV, that it must be true!

Yes, I agree.

But it's for this very reason I have no proof that the holocaust ever happened. And speaking to a survivor doesn't really appease me either, no matter how offensive it is to said person to hold a viewpoint that the holocaust didn't happen.

[Dom]

Yes, I agree.

But it's for this very reason I have no proof that the holocaust ever happened. And speaking to a survivor doesn't really appease me either, no matter how offensive it is to said person to hold a viewpoint that the holocaust didn't happen.

Are you suggesting then that you're a holocaust denialist yourself? Or just that you have no first hand evidence to rely upon to substanciate that it did take place?

There is overwhelming evidence that it. The issue isn't with the authenticity of the event (apart from some details, I.E where gas chambers only at Aufswitch or not, how aware where the german people etc)

However, it only takes one TV program, or book to be read, to sow doubt. present that TV show somewhere where people may want to disavow it (like Austria) and blam, you have people justifying their continued belief in Nazi ideals on the basis that they were ok really, but get a bad press from the Jewish Conspirasists!

That is why the law exists, maybe you don't think the old adarge "The ends justify the means" is fair, I don't either (Idealist hat on again) but whether or not the ends justify the means is 'right' (Idealogically) it is pragmatic!

[euterpenc]

instead of saying you can't deny it, why not just make it overwhelmingly clear that it DID happen?

[Superstring]

instead of saying you can't deny it, why not just make it overwhelmingly clear that it DID happen?

That would be like writing a homoerotic fantasy letter personally addressed to Hitler. If you're really keen on holocaust gossip you can always turn on the History channel.

[wildcat]

That would be like writing a homoerotic fantasy letter personally addressed to Hitler. If you're really keen on holocaust gossip you can always turn on the History channel.
John Irwing is not a historian. He tried to make money by feeding the ultraright and the ignorant.
I have read nearly a thousand books about the Holocaust. The Holocaust has been recorded better and more trustworthy than any other thing in history. We know beyond any doubt the Holocaust took place. The Nazis murdered six million Jews. If you deny this fact do not go to Germany or Austria. I hope this law will be a part of the EU legislation. But we must not forget the crimes of Russia. Everyone who denies the crimes committed by Russia should be thrown to jail.
The proles had their day. They should be denied the right to vote.

[Dom]

John Irwing is not a historian. He tried to make money by feeding the ultraright and the ignorant.
I have read nearly a thousand books about the Holocaust. The Holocaust has been recorded better and more trustworthy than any other thing in history. We know beyond any doubt the Holocaust took place. The Nazis murdered six million Jews. If you deny this fact do not go to Germany or Austria. I hope this law will be a part of the EU legislation. But we must not forget the crimes of Russia. Everyone who denies the crimes committed by Russia should be thrown to jail.
The proles had their day. They should be denied the right to vote.

Hmm it's a toughy, (about it being legislated) you're right it's authenticity is beyond any doubt.

I'd love for it to be impossible for a nation to whitewash it's past but how to to do that, without stifling historical debate (we are going further than just the holocaust now) I do not know.

[wildcat]

Hmm it's a toughy, (about it being legislated) you're right it's authenticity is beyond any doubt.

I'd love for it to be impossible for a nation to whitewash it's past but how to to do that, without stifling historical debate (we are going further than just the holocaust now) I do not know.
The Russians have done the whitewash just perfectly.
It is a sad history. The aim of their beloved Koba was to initiate the Second World War and he succeeded in his endeavour with the Help of Wolfie. After the death of Pilsudski Poland was in a state of dissolvement and parlamentary anarchy. Stalin wanted to liquidate Poland and the Baltic states and to pave his way through Bessarabia onto the Mediterranean Coast. Hence the Cheka was active in Bulgaria.
Koba made his famous secret speech immediately after Munich. Subject: To initiate WWII.
Date: The First of August 1939.

[TelecomClone]

Liquidate holocaust-deniers. Use their corpses to fertilize lawns.
If their descendants complain, we can just deny it happened.

[Snowflake]

Liquidate holocaust-deniers. Use their corpses to fertilize lawns.
If their descendants complain, we can just deny it happened.

Fuck you.

[wildcat]

Liquidate holocaust-deniers. Use their corpses to fertilize lawns.
If their descendants complain, we can just deny it happened.
Corpses do not fertilize lawns. Read agriculture.

[TelecomClone]

Corpses do not fertilize lawns.
Irrelevant.


Read agriculture.
Boring.

[wildcat]

Irrelevant.


Boring.
Was macht mein Kindlein?
Schl&#228;ft in der Wiege fein.

[TelecomClone]

Was macht mein Kindlein?
Schläft in der Wiege fein.
The post obviously went over your head, wildcat.

[Snowflake]

I agree, he had to whip out the german in order to counterbalance his insecurity at the misunderstanding of your post :ph34r:

[TelecomClone]

I didn't say or imply anything about insecurity.