Translate

Showing posts with label Hitler. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hitler. Show all posts

Saturday, 7 May 2016

A narrow and broad definition of anti-Semitism

Some sophisticated people are saying that while an antisemite used to be a person who hates Jews, he is now a person who the Jews hate. 

https://engageonline.wordpress.com/2016/05/06/the-job-of-labours-inquiry-is-to-navigate-the-party-back-into-thebroad-rational-consensus-on-antisemitism-david-hirsh/

at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Friday, 18 December 2015

What can be done to save America from its politicians and political system?




Nobody is really in charge of America because the political classes in reality have very little power and are at the beck and call of the lobbyists.

Can you imagine a dictator being told what to do by the arms manufacturers? He would soon tell them where to go.

It has always been a fallacy that democracies are always more peaceful than dictatorships. Athens was not exactly peaceable, nor did its democracy last very long. Whatever the nature of the government, it will find itself wanting to assert itself, show off and posture when it feels itself to be weak and losing power.  Failing empires who call themselves democracies are just a likely to do this as any petty tyrant in a tinpot dictatorship. Think of short men who take on larger than life personalities to over-compensate for their lack of height.

In any group 51% of its members are stupider than the other 49%. In a democracy, we submit to this majority of the stupid.

Indeed, a democracy only works if all voters are wise, and we already know that most voters are venal, morally corrupt, ignorant, intellectually lazy and easily led.

A wise ruler with wise advisers would best be able to keep the lobbyists and other enemies of society at bay, but not members of a political class riven with factionalism trying to do outdo each other while worrying about their status and the income that needs to go with it.

Can you imagine, for example, a Caliph being at the beck and call of his arms manufacturers? Granted, Hitler and Mussolini were hardly peaceable in their urgency to build their empires, but then again Franco had no interest in foreign adventures nor did Salazar. The Chinese one-party system would be best for the Americans. It will be interesting to see the debates they will have when they decide to change their constitution and abolish their oligarchy.

Dictator Trump would be a hopeful start, since the Americans already clearly adore him.





Does China Produce More Competent Leaders Than America?

https://www.facebook.com/Why-not-have-a-one-party-state-if-it-makes-more-sense-353471931432677/?fref=ts
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Thursday, 22 May 2014

What Charles should now say about comparing Putin to Hitler

Proposed Statement from Charles:

"I really don't know what came over me. Of course Putin isn't like Hitler, unless anyone who invades another country is like Hitler, and I do not feel, now that I have thought things through properly, that the British who once had a world empire and is even now behaving in a way that can only be described as an unedifying display of unseemly military aggression disguised as liberal interventionism, is in a position to get on their high horse on this matter. The British are after all these days merely poodles of America.  If the Americans want us to bark at the Russians then we bark at the Russians.

When we fought the Crimean War in 1834 it was was against the Russians, and they have always regarded the Crimea as their backyard.

As for what I said about Hitler, I can only say that I really really really did not mean anything by it.  I was in the presence of a Jewess who was also a Holocaust survivor. This situation made me feel socially obliged to bring Hitler into the conversation to show that I sympathised with her on the one hand, and on the other relate it to something that was topical.  That really was all. Although that tiresome man Edward Lucas has rushed to my defence at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2635617/Hitler-Putin-Charles-right.html there really was no need, and I entirely disagree with him about Winston Churchill, who lost the British their world empire in his fits of drunkenness, depression and the desire to take reckless risks in order to aggrandise himself as a wartime leader.  

If, as A J P Taylor said, WW2 was a continuation of WW1 then what was WW1 really about? Belgian neutrality? Surely not.  The military opportunism the Germans displayed during WW1 was probably because they felt left out in the scramble for Africa and wanted a place in the sun over which they could place their towel, but they are good people really. Perhaps we should blame ourselves for not being more nicer to the Germans who are after all our Teuton cousins who also brew good beer. It seems incredible that the British could have lost their empire over something as trivial as Belgian neutrality.  I suspect the British lost their empire because their policy of being nasty to the Germans for the sake of being nasty to the Germans turned around and bit their sorry asses.  It is now perhaps time to question our political system that allows only fools and knaves to govern us. There.  Why don't you people put that in your pipe and smoke it?"

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Why-not-have-a-one-party-state-if-it-makes-more-sense/353471931432677 
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, 21 May 2014

What Charles can do to retrieve the situation after comparing Putin to Hitler

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2634400/Putin-behaving-just-like-Hitler-says-Charles-Princes-controversial-verdict-Russian-leaders-invasion-Ukraine.html

Scenario on D-Day, 6 June 2014

Putin gives Charles a hurt look, turns on his heel and flounces out of the room.

Cue Charles to follow him into an empty room so that he can explain himself to Putin

If Putin and Charles do not emerge from that room arm in arm smiling happily, the British will actively consider abolishing monarchy.

If Charles negotiates an advantageous treaty between Gazprom and Britain we make him absolute monarch.  
at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Friday, 5 April 2013

Legalising gay marriage is the ultimate act of desecrating marriage



That the West has prospered since feminism is an illusion since it was fueled by consumerism and reckless borrowing and lending by individuals and governments. People only appear to be prosperous if they practise conspicuous consumption and spend extravagantly and ostentatiously.

In fact, what the Liberal West did was to dissipate and consume the wealth that was acquired by the by its ancestor, the Imperial West, without replacing it, whom it now affects to despise for being sexist, racist, homophobic, nationalistic, militaristic and imperialistic.

They are like the idle rich children of wealthy parents, who have no idea how  their ancestors acquired their wealth and who could not care less, as long as they had money to spend.  Indeed, most of them even affect to despise their parents and their ancestry.

It goes without saying that they do not respect the institution of marriage.  Indeed, they do not even now know its original purpose nor what they have to do to respect it.  These days, it is practically compulsory to be a fornicatress if you are a woman in the West.   Most Western men insist on “trying before buying” and a woman who insists on being a virgin bride is looked upon with pity and contempt, for the West is now the land of compulsory fornication, and Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland describes it perfectly.

Such is its corruption that even senior Catholic priests cannot bring themselves to say that a fornicatress is a slut, and that even one act of fornication makes a woman a fornicatress and therefore a slut.

Just one act fornication makes you a slut?  That is so harsh, non-judgmental liberals will cry, quite forgetting all that they have learnt in human reproduction, for a woman who has sex just once could be impregnated, and therefore ruined if she is not already married.  

Why would any rational man want the responsibility of providing for another man's child, especially if he is an ill-bred brat whose mother is a stupid slut?  

But most women in the West are sluts and most women have the baggage of another man's offspring so Western man must take their women as they are, or find foreign women whom they believe are not as promiscuous as their own.  

The best they can do now is to grade their women according to degrees of sluttery.  http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/degrees-of-sluttery.html

Soon, most of the West will have legalised gay marriage.  If you wanted to desecrate marriage and make a mockery of it, there is no better way of doing that than by legalising gay marriage.

When the man who proposes this is in fact the leader of the Conservative Party, then you must accept that social conservatism is now considered odd, if not actually “extremist”, for anything that deviates from the extremist liberal norm must by definition be labelled extremist.

It is actually not much fun being a social conservative saying no to everything that might give people pleasure, which is why Man created God to keep himself on the straight and narrow.  Without a general belief in God, a society would have to rely on dictators like Hitler, Franco and Mussolini to keep most people on the straight and narrow, for the exercise of moral restraint is necessary to prolong the life of your race, nation and ultimately your civilisation and perhaps the human race.

Liberal atheists in practice worship like a deity the idea of tolerating sex between consenting adults.  This means that they tolerate extramarital sex, under the impression that sexual morality has no bearing on general moral standards.  When it is pointed out to them that there is a clear link between illegitimacy and crime, they get very angry.  Their tactic is to deny that there is a link or deny that it affects them or anyone that they know, until they themselves become a victim of crime.  

Extramarital sex of course includes premarital sex ie sex with anyone you are not married to, which includes homo sex.   To get round this problem, liberals are now proposing same-sex marriage in rather the same way a murderer who wishes to escape the penalty for murder would legalise murder, quite ignoring the fact that if murder were legalised then murderers would in turn be murdered by the supporters of anyone they murder and bring about the breakdown of their society in an orgy of homicidal licence.

It has been said that the Conservative Prime Minister who proposes to legalise gay marriage is doing so at the behest of his wife and his gay Downing Street advisers.  So entirely without moral conviction is he that he cannot see anything wrong about this, even though he is supposed to come from the best family as well as going to the best school and university in the land.  Such alarmingly low moral and educational standards should be cause for alarm by all who live in this country and are subject to its laws, but most are complacent or indifferent to the fact that they are being led by a man without convictions who is either a fool, a knave, or both, and is not ashamed of being told what to do by his wife.



“Out of the corruption of women proceeds the corruption of races; out of the corruption of races, the loss of memory; out of the loss of memory, the loss of understanding, and out of this all evil.”

The Bhagavad Gita

http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/what-to-say-against-gay-marriage.html explains the long-term degenerative consequences of gay marriage.

at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Thursday, 12 July 2012

Hitler kind to his servants, Churchill horrid to his

British foreign policy has been disastrous since before WW1.  It remains disastrous.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_London_(1839)

So WW1 was about Belgian neutrality.

How many British lives were lost over Belgian neutrality?

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

WW2 was a continuation of WW1.

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

WW2 led to the loss of the British Empire which Churchill's ancestors acquired with their blood, sweat and tears.  He gambled it all away in the throw of a dice because he fancied being war leader.

How much did the British pay for Belgian Neutrality?

You work it out.


Interestingly, Churchill was horrid to his servants, while Hitler was nice to them.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1204388/I-Hitlers-valet-Memoirs-manservant-final-act-devotion-burn-masters-body.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1091768/Hitler-perfect-boss-Former-maid-breaks-silence-charming-dictator.html

Major Desmond Morton, Churchill's chief advisor on Intelligence, compared his tyrannical style to the bloodiest of Roman emperors, saying: 'Winston would have been a Caligula or worse.'

While one Whitehall mandarin, Lord Hankey, called Churchill 'a rogue elephant'.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1253039/A-N-WILSON-Sorry-bullies-make-best-leaders.html#ixzz20OXjzBOt

Do not forget that Churchill lost the British their empire. Why, then, is he now considered a good leader, or even a good man?

Hitler at least thought he was serving Germany when he did what he did. There is no doubt about the sincerity of his desire to advance the interests of the German people, even though it ended in disaster.

Poland has been the back yard for Germany since, oh, the last time they had a German King in the 1600s.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/german-king-of-poland-augustus-iii.html

Churchill only wanted a war because he thought it would be grand to be a successful war leader.

How interesting then that he is even now revered after he gambled away the colonies that his ancestors acquired with so much blood, sweat and tears, in one throw of a dice?

The real truth must be very hard to take and even now the British must be averting their eyes to the true cost of what they paid for Belgian neutrality in blood and land.

On both occasions the Germans banked on the British being reasonable.  On both occasions they were horribly tragically wrong.

Who are the good guys, really?
at 4 comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, 7 April 2012

Christians equate Christ with God. No wonder their religion is failing.

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/death-of-god.html



Just think: they equate their God with a failed revolutionary they decided to worship as a deity.

Not one Christian can honestly explain the Doctrine of the Trinity without ceasing to be a Christian.

Do you think the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury or York believe in the Doctrine of the Trinity?  Do they hell. What they are doing is paying lip service.

Do as I say, not as I do, they will say to you, when you have revealed their unbelief.

Have you noticed how Christians start looking shifty the moment you ask them about the Trinity? You should try it and see.  

The only reason why Christians believe Christ is God is because they don't want to do the hard work a Jew needs to do to remain a Jew and because they despise Muslims, who, like the Jews deny the Trinity and abhor the idea of a divine prophet.  

"It is a weakness of human nature to hate those whom you have wronged."     

http://quotationsbook.com/quote/18667/

How have Christians wronged Jews and Muslims?

Let me count the ways: the Inquisition, Crusades, the turfing out Muslim Arabs to make way for the Jews they have been persecuting for centures in Christian Europe in their ignorant and arrogant antisemitism.   In other words, robbing Peter Arab to pay Paul Jew.  

As for those who call themselves Christians but don't know they have to believe that Christ is God or else go to hell - because if you don't believe that you ain't Christian and all non-Christians go to hell, doncha know -  I only have pity for you and your ignorance.

Actually, only the non-white non-cultural Christian truly understands the nature of this bargain unlike the ignoramuses who think they are Christians because they are not Jews or Muslims (whom they despise), and call themselves Cultural Christians.  (That is why these Oriental converts and evangelists are always proclaiming Christ is Lord to all and sundry in that annoying way, to show everyone else that they believe, even if deep down inside they do not.) These Cultural Christians never enter a church save when they are called upon to attend a wedding.  They know they feel comfort a the sight of a church spire and feel alarm and distress when they see a minaret, and that is what makes them Christian, they think to themselves.  

Or they might go to church for a bit, until their children get into the church school of their choice, because they cannot afford school fees.

What else do these disgusting Christians do?

They pretend to eat the flesh of Christ and drink the blood of Christ like some cannibal who thinks that eating a dead human being, especially one that they also think is God, will give them special powers. Yep, that is what Christians call Communion and the Eucharist, don't you know.

What was it Hitler said about telling a big enough lie?

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

in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

How can believing in a lie and making others believe in the same lie possibly make you a better person and make your society a better society if you are so hypocritical and so cowardly you never condemn anything at all, not even gay marriage?

Instead of enjoining good and forbidding evil, as the Muslims are meant to do, the Christians spend their entire lives convincing themselves of a lie while tolerating all manner of evil and waste their compassion on the worst of people because theirs is a masochistic religion for women and slaves.  

There is a reason why Christianity and Hypocrisy go together like Horse and Carriage ....  

British Jews too have gone native in the land of Unctuous PC Extremist Liberalism.  When an Orthodox Rabbi brightly suggests on Woman's Hour to Dame Jenni who calls him "Zvi" that all who wish to marry should first become civilly partnered with the option  of converting it into marriage later, you know that the stench you are smelling is the rotten corpse of Western civilisation.
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/most-unorthodox-orthodox-rabbi-commends.html
at 9 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, 25 June 2011

Twelve questions for British historians

  1. Was it wise for Britain to enter the WW1 just to guarantee Belgian neutrality?
  2. If Germany had been allowed to keep Poland in 1939 would there have been a Second World War?
  3. Did you know that Poland had a Saxon (ie a German) king as recently as the 1700s?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_III_of_Poland
  4. Britain's empire spanned the world.  French had a smaller empire than the British.  Germany had no empire to speak of.  What would have been the problem with allowing Germany to keep Poland, especially as it had already had a Saxon king as recently as 1763?
  5. Was Churchill a warmonger?
  6. Compare and contrast the characters and personalities of Hitler and Churchill and how they were said to have treated their friends, servants, their relative sobriety and psychological health.  Whom would you regard as being more consistent, likable and trustworthy, as a friend and as an employer?
  7. Did Britain's declaration of war against Germany result in the loss of its empire? 
  8. If so, whom in the British government of the time would you regard as being most responsible for this loss?  (Although it was Chamberlain who declared war, it is certainly arguable that it was Churchill who bounced him into it.  The divisive party system made the swift and comradely resolution of differences impossible in their eagerness to score points over each other.  Churchill wanted war, Chamberlain didn't.  Chamberlain thought getting a piece of paper with Hitler's signature promising he would not invade Poland would allow him to claim "peace in our time".  When Hitler invaded Poland, Churchill crowed so insufferably that Chamberlain felt he had to declare war on Germany.) 
  9. Is it time for the British to stop hero-worshiping a man who could be said to have gambled Britain's colonies away in a throw of a dice, and lost?
  10. Can it ever be regarded as anything other than a sign of failure for an empire to lose its colonies?
  11. Does Britain have a history of participating in ruinous wars?
  12. Is Britain continuing to participate in ruinous wars?
at 9 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, 18 February 2011

Islam more advanced than liberalism

Do liberals have an agreed book of liberalism?  No.  Even the Marxists have the Communist Manifesto and an agreed set of principles.

Even the National Socialists had Mein Kampf.

Did you know that the Roman plebeians asked for their laws to be carved in stone in the forum so that they would know their rights, and this was indeed done?


Islam is the only religion that frankly admits that the difference between religion and politics is a distinction without a difference.

An objectionable law is an objectionable law, whether it is passed by a government that calls itself liberal or whether it calls itself a theocracy.

It seems obvious that  we should examine any law we find objectionable on the grounds of rationality v irrationality, good v evil, practicability v its opposite.

This obvious solution is for some reason rocket science to liberals (who have stupidity, intransigence, ignorance and arrogance bred into them after decades of being indoctrinated by decades of "progressive" education) who quake in terror at the thought of a theocracy or a one-party state.  They are the ones who cry most hysterically "four legs good! two legs bad!" apparently oblivious to the fact that the political cartel - the political oligarchy that rules them have long since emptied the contents of the bottles with labels saying "Liberalism", "Conservatism" and "Socialism", homogenised them and poured them back into their respective bottles.

Only the most wilfully blind cannot and will not see this.

Feminism - an unnatural mutation of liberalism and a manifestation of the liberal death wish - is now the ruling ideology.  Notice how no one at all dares to challenge feminism, except the Muslims.  In Britain, you can lose your job if you say anything at work that a woman might find offensive as Andy Graham and Richard Keys found to their cost.  You would have thought that some men might object, but it is the white liberal middle classes journalists who are too afraid to point this out, so feminised are they now.

The only way feminism can be sustained is through enormous state intervention (through the existence of totalitarian liberal anti-discrimination laws) and welfare support (sluts, slags and slappers are given child benefit at taxpayers' expense for breeding bastards).

Does liberalism have an authoritative handbook or a set of rules?  No, they make it up as they go along.

Does Islam?  Yes, even though the Muslims have difficulties interpreting it properly, but I can help sort them out.

res ipsa loquitur.  
at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, 7 June 2010

Hitler's contribution to the establishment of the state of Israel should be acknowledged

If it hadn't been for Hitler Zionism would still be dead in the water. Why do Zionists never acknowledge Hitler's contribution to the establishment of the State of Israel? The laws against Holocaust Denial are there to prevent the denial of Hitler's massive contribution of 5 to 7 million Jews.

When they celebrate the birth of their nation, does it occur to them to celebrate Hitler's birthday too? (It is 20 April 1889 if anyone's interested.)

This was what made Western Christian guilt kick in after they acknowledged centuries of being nasty to the Jews. Anti-Semitism was and remains endemic in the West. (It should be pointed out that the Semitic races include Arabs too. Hatred of Jews and Muslims remains sustained and visceral in 21st century Culturally Christian Europe.)

Now, is there something about Trinitarian Christianity that makes Christians particularly intolerant of any forensic analysis of its doctrine?

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

There used to be laws that made it very inadvisable to deny the Trinity if you want to hang on to your job or your life.

Why would people wish to deny the Trinity? Because it is reasonable to do so, I would have thought. It is such a dishonest and irrational doctrine that many ignorant white people who call themselves Christians are not even aware that they are supposed to believe in it. This is because of the "bums on pews" policy of desperation that lets anyone in, promoted by an Anglican Church who represent a religion that is no longer fit for purpose.

All the Abrahamic faiths are meant to promote family values. Anglican Christian doctrine does not quite manage this, does it?

Many Christians are made to recite the creed without comprehension. You can be sure it exists because it is only the non-European Christians who know what it's all about. They at least know what the deal is: believe that Christ is the Divine Son of God and you will be saved from hell, whatever your sins.

Still not quite getting it?

Let me simplify it then:

"It is not enough to believe in God. You have to believe that Christ is also Divine Son of God. Sorry, but this the non-negotiable essence of Christianity. That is why the Jews, Muslims and Unitarians are gonna roast in hell. The Inquisition was to save these people from themselves."

The Inquisition was what happened when too many Jews and Muslims started denying the Trinity. Only something like the Inquisition could shut them up good and proper.

The Koran explicitly denies the trinity because it is irrational and amoral. To say God is One in Three is still polytheism and idolatry. Well, it is, isn't it?

Does it sound a bit like a liberal democracy invading other countries to save them for themselves? For their own good? Like Iraq and Afghanistan? You betcha!

Christian guilt thus saw it is as politic to rob the land of Peter Arab to pay Paul Zionist as well as to conduct the occasional pogrom.

Why do the words "Christian" and "hypocrisy" go hand in hand?

We hate and fear the people we have wronged.

Does a religion that makes you declare a lie to be truth have an effect on your intellect and your morals and indeed your very civilisation?

It can be seen that the period of Roman decline can be linked to Constantine's conversion of his empire to the religion of women and slaves.

Is it not about time we disestablished the Church of England, and put something more fit for purpose in its place?

I don't suppose this country is quite ready for a Mosque of Britain, but it would probably be as well to start talking about it, to prepare the ground, rather as Cameron today is now gingerly preparing us for changes in our lifestyle expectations and what diminished expectations we ought to have have of the state for the next few decades ....

I can already think of a lecturer in divinity who would make an excellent Ayatollah of Cambridge.
at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, 21 October 2009

Irony of ironies: BNP and their Muslim-pleasing message

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2009/10/21/fury-as-bnp-chief-nick-griffin-demands-that-gordon-brown-tony-blair-should-be-hanged-as-war-criminals-86908-21762694/

Were Question Time to be cancelled tomorrow, I think there will be riots and possibly a revolution, so don't even think of it, Peter Hain.

Or perhaps we should dare you to stop it.

And if you do, then the British will have their revolution sooner rather than later.

The BNP have been the only party who have made politics emotional, absorbing and thought-provoking again. To be told things that we find interesting, to be given arguments that we find persuasive, to be intrigued and interested in politics at an emotional level, is something so rare these days that we must be grateful wherever we can find this.

The LibLabCon-trick have nothing to say for themselves except repeat the same old mantra that the BNP are evil racist fascists.

We will see, won't we, very soon, who is actually evil.

My definition of evil is the infliction of unnecessary suffering on another.

Whatever you think of their evil fascist racism, the BNP have started no unwinnable wars in Muslim lands, however much they dislike Muslims, they at least share the Muslim view that invading Iraq and Afghanistan was a bad idea and no good would come of it.

Perhaps the only way to appease our enemies now is to execute our warmongers, as a warning to others, if they will not do the decent thing. Hitler at least had the decency to shoot himself when he knew Germany had lost the war and it was all his fault.
at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, 3 February 2009

Replacing Holocaust Denial as a Concept

The elements of Holocaust Denial are (the questioning and ultimately) rejection of any of the following:

a) that the Nazi government had a policy of deliberately targeting Jews and people of Jewish ancestry for extermination as a people;

b) that between five and seven million Jews were systematically killed by the Nazis and their allies;

c) and that genocide was carried out at extermination camps using tools of mass murder, such as gas chambers.

Note that is quite easy to be accused of Holocaust Denial should you point out that:

1) The Madagascar Plan (formulated in 1940) is evidence of an intention by the Nazis to expel rather than exterminate. The 'Wannsee Protocol', to a few, contains little that links the conference directly to the Holocaust. The statements in it are open to interpretation, especially the phrase 'final solution'. But very many believe that it was a very clear statement of intent and that the Holocaust followed on from this meeting and document. Hitler himself did not attend the Wannsee Conference of 1942.

2) The figures are in dispute and may be lower.

3) Bishop Richard Williamson and David Irving are convinced that, although there were gas chambers for de-lousing concentration camp inmates, to systematically exterminate Jews using cyanide gas would have required air-tight doors and be very dangerous for those who came to empty the chamber of corpses later. They have repeatedly stated that no such air-tight gas chambers have been found and doubt their existence.

4) No one is denying that many Jews died at the hands of Nazis. What is in dispute is whether they died of exhaustion, disease and the conditions of the camps, or whether they were systematically exterminated. If they were being systematically worked to death, then there is surely at least a slave-master's interest in keeping one's slaves alive so that they may continue working?

You may be very wrong if you think you can discuss these matters in mixed company and escape accusations of Holocaust Denial. Those who question or deny all or any of the above elements would be Holocaust Deniers according to the following circular logic:

If you are a Revisionist (one of those who question the Intentionalist Official Version) you are by definition a Reductionist (ie one of those who would wish to reduce the culpability of Hitler and the Nazis).

If you are Reductionist, you are by definition a Holocaust Denier and therefore an Evil, Racist, Fascist Nazi Sympathiser and Unfit for Decent Society.

You may be accused, convicted and jailed, as David Irving was, if you live in Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and Switzerland. So beware when you discuss, if you dare, any of the points outlined in (a), (b) and (c) above.

(The BNP will not be touching that issue with a barge-pole because they do not wish their leader, if he were to become MEP, to be jailed. Why they would wish to spend time, energy and the hard-earned money of their hard-working donors in order to participate in an institution they have already declared a hostility to and a wish to withdraw from is of course one of The Great Mysteries of British Politics.)

http://www.holocaust.nu/printnow.aspx?aid=310

NOTES ON TERMINOLOGY

THE INTENTIONALIST SCHOOL adheres to the "purist teaching" that was produced at the Nuremberg trials, which - to summarize briefly - asserts that the extermination of the Jews originated exclusively from Hitler's initiative.

THE FUNCTIONALISTS, however, hold the position that the alleged exterminations had occurred and progressively increased, as it were by force of circumstance.

"HOLOCAUST" originally derived from the Greek word holókauston, meaning a "completely (holos) burnt (kaustos)" sacrificial offering to a god. Its Latin form (holocaustum) was first used with specific reference to a massacre of Jews by the chroniclers Roger of Howden and Richard of Devizes in the 1190s. Since the late 19th century, it has been used primarily to refer to disasters or catastrophes.

The biblical word SHOAH (also spelled Sho'ah and Shoa), meaning "calamity," became the standard Hebrew term for the Holocaust as early as the 1940s. Shoah is preferred by many Jews for a number of reasons, including the theologically offensive nature of the word holocaust, as a Greek pagan custom.

60 years on, isn't it about time we rationalised the terms of debate so that recent history may be discussed honestly and openly, without the cloud of Holocaust Denial hanging over anyone brave or naïve enough to attempt to do this?

Vote: Should we replace the concept of "Holocaust Denial" with "the Functionalist v Intentionalist debate"?

http://www.1party4all.co.uk/Home/Account/TopicForm.aspx?topicsId=127
at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

God behaving badly

1:03:00  CLAIRE  KHAW joins to say God in the Koran is more reasonable than God in the Old Testament, but there is only one Abrahamic God.  ...