please read and comment

by **Rigorous Intuition** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 2:06 pm

I saw the remark in another thread, "Attempted stifling is not a good thing in the context of open discourse." I believe effective discourse needs to set parameters for itself in order to avoid falling into gibberish. I see a lot of supposed skepticism here which is virtually indistinguishable from radical gullibility. The way I see it, when we first learn we've been lied to about important matters, it's easy to presume we've been lied to about everything. But it's also a juvenile mistake, and one that can readily be exploited by dark actors with their own agendas and templates of falsehoods. The Holocaust is a lie, because they lie about everything, is perhaps the ugliest example of this. I'm not a libertarian. I'm not an absolutist with respect to free speech. I believe speech has a cost, and irresponsible speech can be costly. So I measure my own words. And as admin of the board, it means to some degree I need to measure yours, too. I'd like to ask you to make it easier for me, by respecting the parameters of discourse set forth in the guidelines posted. If you're uncomfortable with them, then I ask you to find a board with which you're comfortable.

by **Trifecta** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 2:17 pm

I dunno Jeff, was pearl harbour a lie, was 9-11, was Iraq, was iran etc. Is the global economy bankrupt, do elites practice black magik, is the media owned by the same people who own the banks, are generals bred? Is the global politic goverened by big business, is the pharma, fuel and water industries only about profits of the elites and thus unless a simultaneous policy was introduced how will this ever change, without an end time solution? Sound like a new world or a NWO? Radical gullibility depends on your own experience and who is pushing whoms buttons. Skepticalism of the big issues has no place given the above very brief examples, the minuatie is a different matter, focus is key. Anything and everything is possible, an enquiring mind is set to rise and fall dependant on their own discernment and as moderator of this board your skills need to be fine tuned and your intuition spot on.

by **heath7** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 2:39 pm

I am being misunderstood here, although I make some attempt to choose my words carefully. I am pasting here my last post to the alluded thread. I don't feel it contradicts anything I've said before: I have never acted as if no one ever suffered or died in a concentration camp in hitler's reich! I don't doubt that millions died. What you people who call me a monkey and a liar do is ignore the politics of the holocaust. The holocaust can be a lie and be real at the same time, or is that just toooooo impossible to understand. We will never start to question whether the holocaust was part of a bigger plan if we're not even allowed to talk about what really happened. I earnestly believe the holocaust was much bigger than hitler's evil, evil arse. Without the holocaust, there would not have been such a clear enemy in World War 2. Without the holocaust maybe the allies would have had to answer for things like city-wide firebombings, and atomic bombings. Before Hitler's rise, Germany was destitute for controversial reasons, not least controversial being World War 1. What really happened in World War 1, and to post-WWI Germany? Could it be that blaming everything on the holocaust is covering up some important underlying factors and remaining problems? Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I see contributors to this board trying very hard to make sure that holocaust history is not revisited, and that makes me uncomfortable. I don't think that the world wars can be fully understood without holocaust history beind seriously investigated, and at every turn it seems that investigation is ridiculed, and all investigators summarily labeled as Jew haters. And its bigger even than just the world wars I'm sure. As far as going elsewhere for this type of dialogue: I've always thought that this board was well populated by intelligent investigative types, it blows my mind that this topic cannot be approached. We all know that going elsewhere will find either the racists we are trying to avoid, or haters even worse than here. We can talk on and on about our pedophile leaders, but its out of bounds to question the particular truth of the holocaust? This bothers me very much.

by **bamabecky** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 3:02 pm

I was banned at DU for giving credit to Eustus Mullins for his contribution to our knowledge of the Federal Reserve (At the time I had no idea about the hate filled comments Eustus had made, didn't matter, they banned me anyway, GO FIGURE). I learned right there and then to NEVER EVER comment on anything remotely related to Jews again. It is just such a hot hot topic. I often observe rational discussions repeatedly turn into flaming throwing diatribes. Save your energy! Don't go there! It isn't worth it! There is so much else to work on and explore. This is just my two cents.<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"> Bama Be the Media! Write a personal essay to your friends and family, telling them what's going on and tell them how and where to find more info.

by **chiggerbit** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 3:54 pm

The two recent freedom of speech world news events--the cartoon crisis and the jailing of whathisname, would seem to be the opposite sides of the freedom of speech coin. What strikes me, though, is how both events have roots in the same source, that of Nazi/Aryan /racist thinking. The jailing one was obvious, but the cartoon one didn't strike me until I was watching one of those TV magazine evening shows, and as they were showing all these beautiful, drop-dead gorgeous Danes, the moderator was showing through interviews that the newspaper's purpose in printing the cartoons was because the majority of the Danish people were very resentful of the Middle Eastern immigrants in their country, and the paper's admitted position in printing the cartoons was to send the message that if you immigrants are going to live in OUR country, you are going to have to learn how to tolerate humiliation and abuse. The juxtaposition of the beautiful people in the background while they were talking about all this hateful attitude was appalling. I've always been an advocate of few restrictions on free speech, but I have to say that it sure can be ugly. With respect to this board, first let me say that I don't even know where the guidelines are. Could they be added to the top of the discussion page along with "my control center", "log in", etc.? Or are they in front of my nose? As you know, I've fallen into the Nasty Trap myself a time or two, and it left me feeling ashamed of myself. I think the anonymity of internet discourse encourages that. I had already been giving this subject some thought before Jeff brought up this thread. Here are a couple of my thoughts. Just because you strongly believe something to be true does not require anyone else to also believe it. Also, new ideas and new information may take time to absorb. Even after it is absorbed, your information may not be accepted. Don't take it personally. If you don't get the response you want, so what? Someday you may succeed in changing someone else's mind. OR, you may change your own mind. At least it will be an informed change. This is a great place for the exchange of ideas and information, so exchange and enjoy! Respect boundaries and respect individuals. We are all guests here on Jeff's board, and as Jeff's guests it is only common good manners to not call his other guests names, throw around accusations, make demands of others. Believe me, those tactics are not going to change anyone's mind. Just because someone baits you doesn't require that you strike at the bait. And, please don't be a baiter. Baiters enjoy the energy they suck off of others, gain energy from feuds. I've noticed that the best boards are the ones that have many facets, respectful disagreement. Don't try to harass people out of participation. You will only end up eventually with a clique that is very shallow, one-sided and boring.

by **nomo** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:12 pm

I agree that there ought to be a place for discussion of the role and the meaning of the Holocaust as both fact and myth in history.  The problem is that too often such debates get hijacked by folks who claim it never happened, or who see Jews behind every world event. You see a similar dynamic at work when discussing the truth of 9/11 for example: someone will inevitably poison it by bringing up explosions, pods and holograms. I don't know what to do about it. It's unfortunate. But once a thread has dissolved into a pissing contest, no one stands to learn anything anymore and you might as well kill it.

by **professorpan** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:13 pm

Heath7, here are your actual words: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Guess what, the holocaust is a lie. No one knows what really happened because its not allowed to be investigated; that makes it a lie simply because the truth, whatever it may be, is not allowed to be cleared up.<hr></blockquote> That's what you wrote. The. Holocaust. Is. A. Lie. No, it isn't. There is a wealth of documented evidence that a vast, orchestrated campaign of murder was responsible for the deaths of millions of people -- Jews, gays, the "unfit," gypsies, political dissidents, etc. When someone says "the holocaust is a lie" it shows a serious lack of historical awareness, at miminum. For someone who claims to "choose [your] words carefully," that is a pretty bold, unequivocal statement. That's why you caught heat, regardless of how you spun it after the fact. Whatever nuance you add to the statement -- after the fact -- your initial statement is no different than what the most odious Nazi apologists preach.

by **heath7** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:28 pm

On this board, it seems to me the discussions are poisoned more frequently by those who wish to squash the discussion rather than those who seek to make the discussion objectionable. I hardly ever tread into fire-pit destined threads because I don't see the value. I treaded into one last night because I get so sick of the underhanded scheming wrought by certain elements to make sure certain topics remain untouchable, and their promoters appear sickos. Well I'm not a sicko, and I'm not a racist, and I will proudly add my voice to the chorus singing 'what the hell are you supposedly open-minded people afraid of?'

by **heath7** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:34 pm

I HAVE NEVER SAID THE HOLOCAUST DIDN'T EXIST OR DIDN'T HAPPEN; I SAID IT WAS A LIE! There is a major frickin difference, so stop acting like I said something that I didn't! Can you people comprehend the words spelled out before you?

by **Dreams End** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:39 pm

I predict this will be the first thread actually started by Jeff that hits the firepit. And bamabecky, can you HONESTLY claim that you don't see the difference between "commenting on anything remotely related to Jews" and the sorts of stuff put out around here about how the Jews run the world? It really doesn't seem that hard to distinguish, in my view. For example, this by Eustace Mullins from his "classic work", The Biological Jew. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The Jew has always functioned best as a panderer, a pornographer, a master of prostitution, an enemy of the prevailing sexual standards and prohibitions of the gentile community.... We must remember that there is no Jewish crime per se, since the existence of the Jewish parasite on the host is a crime against nature, because its existence imperils the health and life of the host... This religious ceremony of drinking the blood of an innocent gentile child is basic to the Jew's entire concept of his existence as a parasite, living off the blood of the host... The Jews do not want anyone to know what Nazism is. Nazism is simply this--a proposal that the German people rid themselves of the parasitic Jews. The gentile host dared to protest against the continued presence of the parasite, and attempted to throw it off. It was an ineffectual reaction, because it was emotional and ill-informed... <hr></blockquote> This is, in a nutshell, a great example of the problem. Maybe Bamabecky didn't bother to learn about Mullins and his point of view. But if someone else comes around and points it out, they get accused of "stifling" or worse... being a Talmud Merchant or even asked if they are Jewish (and then have that post deleted and then REPRINT IT). Partly this is an issue of faulty logic. I know that the elites are up to no good and person X "exposes" the elites so what he says must be true. Followed by the corollary that anyone else who disagrees with the thesis of the person X must themselves support the elites or be working for them directly. I find it fascinating that on the one hand some claim an overarching conspiracy that has secretly run most of world events for centuries or even millenia and on the other claim to know exactly what their secrets are. They can't be very good secret elites if their secrets are so easily discovered. I personally believe in elite conspiracies. I post about them constantly...or used to. But I also admit my complete inability to understand the big picture...exacty who the players are, the shifting alliances, the ultimate goals. And it's not because I, or any of us, are stupid, it's because they don't typically ADVERTISE...so our information is not particularly good. And since they are also fairly clever about introducing misinformation into the system our task is more difficult still. In addition, history is complex because people are complex, and history is made of (at present) over 6 billion people. It's just not a neat and tidy package. Increasing complexity leads to increasing chance for error and since history to a great degree is a chaotic system, small "errors" or changes can often lead to very big changes overall. This is why context is SO important to me. Sure, just because someone calls Jews parasites, as Mullins does, doesn't mean everything he says is false. He may remark to a neighbor that it's a nice day and it indeed may be warm and sunny. But why utilize someone who clearly puts out easily discredited material on the one hand to prove something else? Why trust that person? With so much information out there and most of us unable to become experts in any given field, or to access government classified documents or whatever, THE INTENT, HISTORY AND IDEOLOGY OF THE WRITER ARE VALUABLE TOOLS IN DISCERNING VALIDITY. It's not a perfect system. It is quite possible that crazy Nazis put out some factually accurate material. In fact, the nature of disinformation is to mix factual material with lies to discredit the former and spread the latter. And everyone here knows that. And yet so many continue to post information from folks who've been so thoroughly discredited. I could easily write a 20,000 word post just on Mullins. But a Google search will do. And yet he continues to be quoted around here. Another thing that frustrates me is that many of us have put forward our objections in a coherent way and then someone new comes along and puts out some line of BS and we are forced to do deal with the same crap over again or be accused of "not answering" their challenges or whatever. I guess I should just bookmark some of the most common posts that deal with these issues. And finally, and I think many will agree, it's not just the smear of Jews per se that is the problem here, though that is a bad problem. It's also a matter of being able to discern credible information. When I can easily track a conspiracy theory as being virtually unchanged from certain unmentionable documents or old "blood libel" theory (the Medieval accusation that Jews killed Gentile babies and used their blood in Matzoh) I don't rush to point it out just to defend Jews or defend Israel, but also to say, "Hey, this wasn't credible the first time around, so this is not a fruitful area of research." But if you do THAT, more accusations of "stifling." I mean, folks, if you read Mein Kempf...you will find theories so similar to what is often put forward on this board that one would think you'd want a TAD bit of proof before repeating them.

by **Floyd Smoots** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:57 pm

I smell "wee-wee" already, and it's not just coming from one person. Well, there went reasonable, discussive disagreement, right out the closed window. Didn't anyone else here, hear the glass break? Durn! <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/frown.gif ALT=":(">

by **heath7** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:58 pm

9/11 is a lie and real at the same time. The Iraq war is a lie and real at the same time. All future wars will be lies and real all at the same time. Am I disrespecting the memories of all those who have and will lose their lies by pointing this out? How do I disrespect the memories of those who died during and survived the holocaust by pointing out its a lie? How are my disparagers not exposing their own biases by attacking me on this?

by **Qutb** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:10 pm

All right, heath7, let's discuss. First of all, the holocaust has been seriously investigated, by serious historians. And serious investigation of it has never been stifled, or ridiculed. You have to understand that what the IHR and their like-minded are doing is not honest or serious investigation, which is why it is frowned upon and ridiculed, and rightly so. As for your contention that the holocaust may have been part of a larger plan, by whom? Some other group or force that had control over or influence on Hitler and the Nazis - even to the point of compelling them to kill millions of Jews, that they would otherwise not have killed? Who would that be? Is there any evidence that would point to such a group? What would their motivation be? The establishment of Israel? If so, why? I'm just trying to figure out what it is that you're proposing, and if there's any factual basis for it or if it's just speculation. Of course, many have proposed just that - and it's usually the Illuminati (according to David Icke, it was a group of Jewish bankers). The evidence for such an extraordinary claim has never been presented though. Or are you instead suggesting that the Holocaust was "invented" after the fact, or at least "embellished"? Many have claimed that as well... notably the IHR crowd, Zündel, Irving, Faurisson and their ilk. This is demonstrably false. It did happen. As for the exact number, there are no precise data on this - would you expect there to be? During the first couple of years, before gas chambers were implemented, Jews in Eastern Europe were simply rounded up and gunned down. It may have been 6 million, or perhaps "only" 5. Recent data from the former communist block seem to suggest that it may have been even more than 6 million. We'll never know for sure. I hope you understand the political ramifications of the idea that the Holocaust is a lie though, and why some people with certain agendas might be interested in advancing this idea. Because if it were true, it would mean that... - Jews/Zionist (or some other group such as the "Illuminati") as a group are extremely powerful and able to control what becomes accepted as history. This is usually explained by their supposed dominance of the banking sector and the media. - The Nazis weren't that bad... and have been the victims of a horrible Zionist smear. - The state of Israel was founded on a lie. - Jews/Zionist as a group are in general evil, sneaky, conniving bastards. - Something has to be done to break this Zionist stranglehold on the world... This is, of course, exactly the message people like Zündel and Irving want to convey. You will find that holocaust "revisionists" usually are sympathetically inclined towards Nazi Germany, have ties to neo-Nazi/extreme right movements (and/or radical Islamists), and have seriously distorted ideas about Jewish/Zionist power in the world. This is not "smear", it's quite simply the truth. Show me an exception.

by **professorpan** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:13 pm

Heath7, I have never said you were a racist, or a liar, or anything else. I pointed out that your *words* were rather crass, and, in fact, are the same words Nazi apologists hammer into their followers. It's true -- they say "the Holocaust is a lie" ad nauseum. You'll have to excuse me if I see that as a red flag. That's the continuing problem with many people who post here -- everything is construed as an attack on them, personally. Any attack on the information they bring up is a personal attack. If you would post some examples of what the holocaust lies are, maybe we could address some specific data. Abstractions ("all future wars will be lies and real at the same time") don't tell us anyting of relevance about your original premise of the holocaust as a lie. There -- no personal attacks on your or your motives, just a question. What are the lies about the holocaust?

by **havanagilla** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:18 pm

From the Middle East - no trust here given to the sudden care by Europeans or North americans about the holocaust, all of a sudden when Iran is involved. perhaps another little maneuvering of the natives here...we see through. Free Irving (only to prevent some of us from puking, at the new levels of cynicism by austereich).

please read and comment

please read and comment

Re: please read and comment

Re: please read and comment

Lord have Mercy

Re: please read and comment

Re: please read and comment

Re: please read and comment

Re: please read and comment

Re: please read and comment

Re: please read and comment

SNIFF, SNIFF....

Re: please read and comment

Re: please read and comment

Re: please read and comment

Re: please read and comment

Who is online