Trial begins for revisionist handed over by the U.S.

[Starr]

MANNHEIM, Germany: A 42-year-old German deported from the United States went on trial Tuesday on allegations of Holocaust denial.

Germar Rudolf, who published a study claiming to prove that the Nazis did not gas Jews at the Auschwitz concentration camp, faces a possible five-year prison sentence if convicted.

In his opening statement, prosecutor Andreas Grossmann said Rudolf used the Internet to spread documents attacking historical truths.

"He represented the Holocaust as invention," Grossmann said.


The flip side of Naples's gangland imageRudolf was sentenced in 1995 in Germany to 14 months in prison for Holocaust denial, but then disappeared. He applied for political asylum in the United States in 2000, but was rejected and was deported last year to serve the 1995 sentence.

He was arrested when he appeared at an immigration office in Chicago to apply for a green card based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen.

Rudolf is being tried in the same state court in Mannheim that is currently hearing a similar but unrelated case against Ernst Zundel, a German deported from Canada last year.

The Rudolf trial is expected to last until at least the end of January.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/14/europe/EU_GEN_Germany_Holocaust_Denial.php

[Commander]

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/SAL_HANG.JPG

This type of thing, sort of a modern day Salem Witch Trial (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/SALEM.HTM) should help the NPD in the next election.

[Ahknaton]

Countries that seriously believe in Free Speech should refuse to extradite people to countries where they will go on trial for offences such as these, similar to the way that some countries refuse to extradite criminals to countries with the death penalty if they are charged with capital crimes.

[Stick to the Facts]

Countries that seriously believe in Free Speech should refuse to extradite people to countries where they will go on trial for offences such as these, similar to the way that some countries refuse to extradite criminals to countries with the death penalty if they are charged with capital crimes.

First of all, I think laws outlawing this stuff are plain stupid. Much better to do like we do in the US - let the nuts say what they want so everyone can see how foolish they look, realize there is nothing to cover up, and find another club to join.

That said.....

I think this article was written a bit vaguely. Normally the extradition treaties between nations only provide for extradition when the law that was broken was also against the law in the country where the perp is found.

What I suspect really happened here was this:

He applied for asylum in 2000, was denied it, and had to leave the country. Then, when he turned up in 2004 to apply for a green card, he was arrested for being in the country illegally (since he had been denied asylum in 2000.) When he was arrested, he was deported back to germany, where they grabbed him and made him serve the earlier sentence.

I know that it said he was 'deported .... to serve the sentence', but sometimes reporters get little details wrong.

In short, I doubt he was extradited on the basis of that crime. Rather, I think he was deported for being in the US illegally, and was then grabbed by the german authorities on arrival (no doubt they knew he was coming....)

[Insidium]

Holocaust deniers and revisionists seem fairly analogous to creationists and intelligent designers in respect to science. However, this does not mean one should prosecute them for speaking their views even if they are deranged.

[Scryllak]

Germar Rudolf, who published a study claiming to prove that the Nazis did not gas Jews at the Auschwitz concentration camp, faces a possible five-year prison sentence if convicted.

Frightening sentence. What a ridiculous legal paradigm.

[Dan Dare]

I believe that Sticko has it right for once and that Germar Rudolf was deported for what were perceived to be immigration violations rather than in response to an official extradition request from Germany. It does beg the question however as to how Rudolf came to be singled out in this respect rather any of the other 12 to 20 million other illegal aliens currently in the US.

The official story is of course that Rudolf was not entitled to claim asylum because Germany’s insistence on prosecuting those who dissent from the official history of the events transpiring between 1939 and 1945 does not amount to persecution.

[kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman]

What can I say. I think these people are wrong but they shouldn't be locked up for being wrong.

[Starr]

Why is it that these people are persecuted other than the fact that certain people like to assert their dominance, and of course, give the holocaust some kind of unique religious like status(a truth above all questions,etc.) There are no other plausable explanations. Honestly, does anyone pay much attention to revisionists, anyway? This attention is given to them, however when they are arrested and tried for having unapproved thoughts, and to any thinking person, these laws must seem unjust in a so-called free society. that is why these laws are such an incredibly stupid decision to those who enact and push for them.

[kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman]

I understand why jewish people are paranoid. But I think they need to calm down a bit. Hitler is gone, lol.

[Starr]

What is the paranoia, really? Questioning aspects of the story is, for example, an entirely different thing than saying it was a good thing or anything along those lines.

[kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman]

The people who flip out when they question stuff are paranoid.

[Jake Featherston]

Countries that seriously believe in Free Speech should refuse to extradite people to countries where they will go on trial for offences such as these, similar to the way that some countries refuse to extradite criminals to countries with the death penalty if they are charged with capital crimes.

That used to be the way we did things here in the United States. The fact we no longer do gives one a pretty clear indication just how much love our current elites have for the First Amendment.

[Stick to the Facts]

I believe that Sticko has it right for once and that Germar Rudolf was deported for what were perceived to be immigration violations rather than in response to an official extradition request from Germany. It does beg the question however as to how Rudolf came to be singled out in this respect rather any of the other 12 to 20 million other illegal aliens currently in the US.

The official story is of course that Rudolf was not entitled to claim asylum because Germany’s insistence on prosecuting those who dissent from the official history of the events transpiring between 1939 and 1945 does not amount to persecution.

He wasn't picked up until he showed up to apply for a green card, he was probably just in a database like everyone else.

The second part is correct - 'persecution' is a specific thing and it doesn't include simply being subject to incarceration for breaking the law. Depends on the law tho, in some circumstances, depending on the law, it could be grounds for asylum.

[Commander]

Of course the Jews are doing great harm to their "Holocaust" religion's credibility. Starr is right, it would be in their best interest to leave these people alone, how many people, when they get home after work, think about this stuff?

The Jews are not rational people, they are like rabid animals, they have to lash out at all those who oppose them, they cannot control themselves. Or, at least it sure seems that way, they always overplay their hand.

[Stick to the Facts]

Of course the Jews are doing great harm to their "Holocaust" religion's credibility. Starr is right, it would be in their best interest to leave these people alone, how many people, when they get home after work, think about this stuff?

The Jews are not rational people, they are like rabid animals, they have to lash out at all those who oppose them, they cannot control themselves. Or, at least it sure seems that way, they always overplay their hand.

It is a pretty safe bet the Jews in Germany aren't scheeming to keep these laws in place, considering that there practically aren't any left.

[kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman]

This is coming from someone who frequently defends jews from attacks. I seriously think hatred towards jews would subside if radical jews were just a bit less extreme.

The days of rabid anti-semetism and religious bigotry are over in the west. It's time for the most extreme jews to get with the times. These attempts to fight hatred bring more hatred. This fire fuels fire. Jews need to put some ice on the fire by backing down a bit.

[Evil_shah]

I understand why jewish people are paranoid. But I think they need to calm down a bit. Hitler is gone, lol.
Jews know that it wouldn't take that much free speech for another "anti semitic plague" to spread. They are aware that it doesn't take much for people to despise them

[cerberus]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6147400.stm

Do you think it is all a hoax to sell books ?

[calvin]

Rudolph seems to have made a mockery of the Cracow Institutes "forensic" examination of Auschwitz. Even if Rudolph is wrong he should not be on trial for saying that on the basis of forensic evidence, as he understands it, the holocaust could not have happened in the way that eyewitnesses have claimed that it happened. Gloating over the machinations of the European holocaust inquisition lends your cause no credibility whatsoever Cerberus.

[Globus]

Rudolph seems to have made a mockery of the Cracow Institutes "forensic" examination of Auschwitz.

Actually, he made a fool of himself.

Even if Rudolph is wrong he should not be on trial for saying that on the basis of forensic evidence, as he understands it, the holocaust could not have happened in the way that eyewitnesses have claimed that it happened.

Of course he should. He broke the law in his native country and then fled like a common criminal. Apparently deniers think citizens should be able to pick and choose which laws they obey.

[Kriger]

EXCERPT:

Of course he should. He broke the law in his native country and then fled like a common criminal. Apparently deniers think citizens should be able to pick and choose which laws they obey.

You say this like your so-called deniers are the only ones who pick and choose laws to break. The truth is, there are many more people who do this than not, and most of them could care less about how many jews got killed in the second World War, let alone be classified as a "denier".

Typical example of how you take facts and then misrepresent them.

[Globus]

EXCERPT:


You say this like your so-called deniers are the only ones who pick and choose laws to break. The truth is, there are many more people who do this than not, and most of them could care less about how many jews got killed in the second World War, let alone be classified as a "denier".

No, there are not.

But the fact is Rudolf was convicted and then fled. He continued violating the law for many years thereafter. When he was deported to his native country he had to face the music.

Typical example of how you take facts and then misrepresent them.

Typical of you not to be able to back up your assertion.

[Kolchab]

I have never heard of a Cuban refugee who fled his country, where he was to be jailed because he criticized the communist system, was returned by the USA back to Cuba.

Kolchab

[Winston]

I have never heard of a Cuban refugee who fled his country, where he was to be jailed because he criticized the communist system, was returned by the USA back to Cuba.

Kolchab

Good analogy. These dirty little holocaust fanatics are the ones who should be in jail, if anyone is to be imprisoned.

[Globus]

I have never heard of a Cuban refugee who fled his country, where he was to be jailed because he criticized the communist system, was returned by the USA back to Cuba.

Kolchab

Which attempted analogy fails miserably!

[calvin]

In my initial post I said that Rudolph “seemed” to have made a mockery of the Cracow Institute’s forensic investigation. The word “seemed” was included because I do not have the relevant chemical qualifications to judge whether or not Rudolph’s complex analysis of the chemical residues in the facilities of Auschwitz were accurate.

Globbers on the other hand is apparently an expert chemist. I’m greatly impressed, because Globus is also, apparently, an expert demographer, an expert in historical documents, an expert engineer and an expert historian, who is able to pronounce with definitive certainty upon opposing hypotheses in any of these departments.

Do please give us mere mortals a full list of your academic accreditations Globbers, some of us were assuming that your expertise lay in judicious use of the cut and paste facility, that is when you even deign to back up your assertions of course.

What’s more likely; Rudolph was pursued all the way across the Atlantic Ocean because he made a fool of himself, or Rudolph was pursued all the way across the Atlantic Ocean because he made a fool of the establishment?

[cerberus]

CalvinRudolph seems to have made a mockery of the Cracow Institutes "forensic" examination of Auschwitz. Even if Rudolph is wrong he should not be on trial for saying that on the basis of forensic evidence, as he understands it, the holocaust could not have happened in the way that eyewitnesses have claimed that it happened. Gloating over the machinations of the European holocaust inquisition lends your cause no credibility whatsoever Cerberus.
Calvin - he has not done what you think he has !
BTW - His publishing firm had about £200,000 in the bank so he was doing OK.
I am not gloating - I hope the news coverage reports accuurately what he is charged with and what goes on.
Above all I hope his report is tested, intersting that you say "as he understands it" - he is right or he is wrong , if he is wrong - it does not matter much about how he understands anything.
As I understand it wheels are not square and square ones don't go round.
Good analogy. #AS I recall someone tried toi get amnesty International involved in either the Zundel or the Rudolf case - they said that it was not within their remit - the analogy is actually very poor.

[Winston]

As I understand it wheels are not square and square ones don't go round.
#AS I recall someone tried toi get amnesty International involved in either the Zundel or the Rudolf case - they said that it was not within their remit - the analogy is actually very poor.

What you just said doesn't even relate to the analogy I praised, which was about the criminality of a person fleeing political persecution and his being deported.

[Trojan]

I have never heard of a Cuban refugee who fled his country, where he was to be jailed because he criticized the communist system, was returned by the USA back to Cuba.

Kolchab

Cuba is not a democracy, and there are no diplomatic relations between the two countries.

Rudolf had his day in the US court system, ironically, if he had not have missed his meetings with the INS he may still be here. His appeal was partially upheld by the Circuit court.

[calvin]

intersting that you say "as he understands it" - he is right or he is wrong , if he is wrong - it does not matter much about how he understands anything

Cerberus, the point I’m trying to make is that non-chemist are not qualified to make definitive evaluations about chemical forensics. I think it’s fair enough to come to a qualified conclusion. It seemed to me that Rudolph’s critique of the Krakow report was quite strong, this impression was compounded by the tone of the responses to Rudolph in the subsequent correspondence between the institute and Rudolph. I do acknowledge, however, that I am not qualified to make a definitive evaluation. My objection is to pretensions of expertise coming from Globus. I seriously doubt that Globus is any more qualified in Chemistry than I am, and yet he assumes that we must accept his evaluation of conflicting chemical analyses as being definitive. Bollocks!

[Globus]

In my initial post I said that Rudolph “seemed” to have made a mockery of the Cracow Institute’s forensic investigation. The word “seemed” was included because I do not have the relevant chemical qualifications to judge whether or not Rudolph’s complex analysis of the chemical residues in the facilities of Auschwitz were accurate.

Then rest assured he didn't.

Globbers on the other hand is apparently an expert chemist.

One only needs to be liberally educated to follow the argument.

Is this an admission?

I’m greatly impressed, because Globus is also, apparently, an expert demographer, an expert in historical documents, an expert engineer and an expert historian, who is able to pronounce with definitive certainty upon opposing hypotheses in any of these departments.

Again, liberally educated enough to follow the arguments offered by such people. Denier apparently aren't though, because they ignore experts in favor of halfwits who know little of the subjects they discuss.

What’s more likely; Rudolph was pursued all the way across the Atlantic Ocean because he made a fool of himself, or Rudolph was pursued all the way across the Atlantic Ocean because he made a fool of the establishment?

Here is a perfect example of denier ability. He wasn't pursued at all. He was deported.

And his name is Rudolf.

[calvin]

Pursued in judicial terms, doughnut.

Your facility in the field of ad-hom is inversely related to your ability to post meaningful content, Globbers, get back to me when you actually have something to say old chap.

[cerberus]

Integ.What you just said doesn't even relate to the analogy I praised, which was about the criminality of a person fleeing political persecution and his being deported.
It was not meant to.
Rudolf was not making a politcail statement about Germany - he was ( according to him) trying to show that genocide could not have taken palce between the years 1942-44 at Auschwitz.
Your analogy had to do with politics , his research ( according to him) was to do with science and history.

[Globus]

Pursued in judicial terms, doughnut.

That was the point, feckless name caller. He wasn't pursued judicially. He showed up in Germany and they arrested him.

Your facility in the field of ad-hom is inversely related to your ability to post meaningful content,

No, it's related to the size of the target and the manifest opportunity the target offers.

You, for example!

But thanks for showing us your frustration at trying to present an intelligent face to denial.

[calvin]

Quite! As I said in my previous post..........................................................

[Globus]

Quite! As I said in my previous post..........................................................

Yes, that was it!

[Winston]

Integ.
It was not meant to.
Rudolf was not making a politcail statement about Germany - he was ( according to him) trying to show that genocide could not have taken palce between the years 1942-44 at Auschwitz.
Your analogy had to do with politics , his research ( according to him) was to do with science and history.

But the point is that his persecution (and prosecution) were/are political, which is why I praised the analogy. If a Cuban was to be jailed for making apolitical comments about communism, he would not be deported from the USA to face his punishment. That's speculation that I think we can both agree on.

[eggheadbanga]

But the point is that his persecution (and prosecution) were/are political, which is why I praised the analogy. If a Cuban was to be jailed for making apolitical comments about communism, he would not be deported from the USA to face his punishment. That's speculation that I think we can both agree on.

Cuba doesn't have due-process as the US sees it. Germany does. You can only claim asylum if you have legitimate fear of persecution that will place you at physical risk (e.g. torture).

[Felix the Cat]

Am I the only one who clicked on "Rudolf" expecting to read a story about Christmas?

[calvin]

Yes, that was it!

Deprived of ad-hom Globbers has nothing to say (once again).

[Helios Panoptes]

Actually, he made a fool of himself.



Of course he should. He broke the law in his native country and then fled like a common criminal. Apparently deniers think citizens should be able to pick and choose which laws they obey.

Lex mala, lex nulla.

[Globus]

But the point is that his persecution (and prosecution) were/are political, which is why I praised the analogy. If a Cuban was to be jailed for making apolitical comments about communism, he would not be deported from the USA to face his punishment. That's speculation that I think we can both agree on.

But Rudolf's crime is not political.

[Globus]

Deprived of ad-hom Globbers has nothing to say (once again).

If you'd only say something, Calvin. It seems you unloaded everything you had long ago.

[eggheadbanga]

Am I the only one who clicked on "Rudolf" expecting to read a story about Christmas?

He's not called Rudolf the red-nosed Reindeer for nothing, you know.:)

[Globus]

Lex mala, lex nulla.

WHich is nothing more an a pseudo-intellectual characterization of deciding which laws should be obeyed based on personal, subjective assessment.

[Helios Panoptes]

WHich is nothing more an a pseudo-intellectual characterization of deciding which laws should be obeyed based on personal, subjective assessment.

As opposed to thoughtless obedience to the status quo.

[Globus]

As opposed to thoughtless obedience to the status quo.

Those aren't the only choices to the thoughtful.

[Helios Panoptes]

Those aren't the only choices to the thoughtful.

Let us conduct a thought experiment. Imagine that you inabit a state which by happenstance has instituted a genocidal program, making it illegal to harbor jews and even to know where they were hiding without reporting them. You happen to know where some jews are being hidden. When an agent of the state(i.e., a representative of the law) conducts searches and asks you if you're aware of anyone harboring jewish parasites, will you allow your "personal, subjective assessment" to get in the way of your responsibility to the law of your nation? Hmm...

[Basil Fawlty]

But Rudolf's crime is not political.This is surely one of the most idiotic statements so far.

[Winston]

Cuba doesn't have due-process as the US sees it. Germany does. You can only claim asylum if you have legitimate fear of persecution that will place you at physical risk (e.g. torture).

lol, I understand that, but you're straying too far from what was originally meant. Globaum said that Rudolf broke the law and then fled like a common criminal, trying to paint the whole situation sordid and insinuating that Rudolf supporters are somehow supporting of criminal acts. The Cuba analogy was good because it shows how people would think differently of a different type of politically motivated persecution. It's purely an analogy of perception rather than a direct comparison of the legal situation. That's how I took it and I thought it was clear.

[eggheadbanga]

lol, I understand that, but you're straying too far from what was originally meant. Globaum said that Rudolf broke the law and then fled like a common criminal, trying to paint the whole situation sordid and insinuating that Rudolf supporters are somehow supporting of criminal acts. The Cuba analogy was good because it shows how people would think differently of a different type of politically motivated persecution. It's purely an analogy of perception rather than a direct comparison of the legal situation. That's how I took it and I thought it was clear.

Rudolf claimed political asylum. The application was dismissed as 'frivolous' by INS (now ICE). Rudolf then fell into the machinery of immigration and asylum, and into the appeals process, which resulted in his deportation after failing to appear at a hearing. I've zero sympathy for him on procedural grounds, since I too would get the boot from the US if I tried to scam the system like this.

The reason why his application for asylum was dismissed at every level to the federal appeals court: because it is not the role of the US asylum system to enforce the US constitution on the rest of the world. There have been cases where Iranians, found guilty in Islamic courts for selling dirty videos and thus sentenced to prison, have lost asylum applications. The US very vocally and publicly hates Iran, but still this guy got booted out.

What qualifies someone for asylum is legitimate fear of persecution. Prosecution and sentencing under due process (defense permitted, appeals process after the fact, prisons regarded as tolerable by international standards) is not 'persecution' in the sense that a US asylum court would regard it. The fact that Rudolf wouldn't have been sentenced to 14 months imprisonment in the US is in this regard irrelevant. Rudolf had every opportunity to defend himself against the West German charge, his case was appealed all the way to the highest German federal court, the sentence was not excessive in relation to the tariff, the prison he would have been jailed to cannot be compared with a hell-hole, he was not going to be tortured physically, etc etc etc.

Rudolf was also hoist on a petard of his own making, for having argued like many revisionists that his work was scientific, he was now forced to claim it was political. Contradiction. The statute he was sentenced under in Germany relates to racism and defamation.

Virtually no German citizens have tried to claim asylum in the US in the past 15 years since unification. Those that have, and been successful, have usually been naturalised minorities fleeing potential skinhead attacks, and there haven't even been many of them. The only other ethnic German who tried to claim asylum was a Scientologist, citing religious persecution. That in itself was hyped up, the case in question has some exceedingly dodgy aspects.

Rudolf fled the UK before he even tested the willingness of the British courts to protect his rights against possible German extradition. There was some debate at the time, in relation to how we interact with the EU, and how the discrepancies in the laws regulating free-speech might pan out. Rudolf then opted to try his luck in what any immigration lawyer would have told him was a hopeless case, in the US, by claiming asylum. He would have been better off finding a willing bride to give him residency status, and that is eventually what he did, but only long after making such a pig's ass of his asylum case that he was eventually caught up in the system and deported. One can only assume that part of him wanted to be a cause celebre; if so then more fool him.

[Globus]

This is surely one of the most idiotic statements so far.

Whatever interferes with your rather odd views strikes you that way.

The law has nothing to do with politics, but with public order.

[Kolchab]

Holocaust hoaxers don’t like Rudolf who expressed serious doubts about the homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz/Birkenau in his “The Rudolf Report”. They hate him and would prefer to tar and feather the man.

quotes Juergen Langowski on AHF
[...]Germar Rudolf is one of the most productive authors of the "revisionist" quoting cartel. Under at least half a dozen pseudonyms he writes and quotes - preferably himself. This becomes especially bizarre when Ernst Gauss (Germar Rudolf) edits a book with a contribution by Manfred Koehler (Germar Rudolf), who in turn dutifully thanks Ernst Gauss (Germar Rudolf) for material made available and a few footnotes later refers to Germar Rudolf (Germar Rudolf).[...]
Thus, motion one is to ignore everything Rudolf has to say on the grounds that he seems to suffer from multiple personality disorder.
Langowski is an idiot. He is a professional interpretator and judging by his site has no idea about the Holocaust.
He never read “The Rudolf Report” . He is probably unable to dig into the technical contents of the report. All he found and criticized was Rudolf’s use of pen names.


Kolchab

[Globus]

Let us conduct a thought experiment. Imagine that you inabit a state which by happenstance has instituted a genocidal program, making it illegal to harbor jews and even to know where they were hiding without reporting them. You happen to know where some jews are being hidden. When an agent of the state(i.e., a representative of the law) conducts searches and asks you if you're aware of anyone harboring jewish parasites, will you allow your "personal, subjective assessment" to get in the way of your responsibility to the law of your nation? Hmm...

Absolutely.

But you see, thoughtful people will understand that on occasion moral outrages so obscene occur that disobeying laws is the morally correct thing to do, especially when they are perpetrated by an authoritarian regime who's very policy violates not only the laws of the nation, but of international law, and accepted moral precepts of a rather universal nature.

So you'll see, I'm sure, that your worst case scenario does not fit the current situation. Unless you believe genocide was permitted under the laws of Nazi Germany? Hmmm!

Now if Rudolf's real concern was free speech, and not just pursuit of a lie motivated by Jew hatred, he could have easily undertaken well respected civil disobedience in the pursuit of some higher good. That would have involved an act of defiance of the law for the express purpose of exposing what he believed to be its moral repugnance, but doing so recognizing that ultimate respect for law requires one to submit to the punishment the law imposes. Such actions focus the spotlight on the moral outrage, without resort to rather simplistic notions that citizens can willy nilly chose which laws are morally acceptable to follow and expect to be able to violate them with impunity by taking flight.

[eggheadbanga]

Holocaust hoaxers don’t like Rudolf who expressed serious doubts about the homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz/Birkenau in his “The Rudolf Report”. They hate him and would prefer to tar and feather the man.

Langowski is an idiot. He is a professional interpretator and judging by his site has no idea about the Holocaust.
He never read “The Rudolf Report” . He is probably unable to dig into the technical contents of the report. All he found and criticized was Rudolf’s use of pen names.

Kolchab

As if that's the only criticism that's been made of Germar 'chemistry is not the science' Rudolf.

[Helios Panoptes]

Absolutely.

But you see, thoughtful people will understand that on occasion moral outrages so obscene occur that disobeying laws is the morally correct thing to do, especially when they are perpetrated by an authoritarian regime who's very policy violates not only the laws of the nation, but of international law, and accepted moral precepts of a rather universal nature.

It is a "thought experiment." It's not intended to be picked at by mentioning that international law is being violated. I could easy amend it to say that international law is not being violated because it has been changed. I simply did not bother with such qualifications because I assumed that the reader would grasp the point and not respond obtusely.

Your reply is also vague. I am interested in philosophy, not moralizing. Words like "obscene" carry very little weight in rational discourse. It is imperative that you outline clearly the principles which allow one to judge whether it is moral in a situation to violate the law or not. I'm sure you can see that emotive adjectives are insufficient to accomplish this.


So you'll see, I'm sure, that your worst case scenario does not fit the current situation. Unless you believe genocide was permitted under the laws of Nazi Germany? Hmmm!

Hmm, you lost me. Please elaborate. I do not understand what you're driving at.

Now if Rudolf's real concern was free speech, and not just pursuit of a lie motivated by Jew hatred, he could have easily undertaken well respected civil disobedience in the pursuit of some higher good. That would have involved an act of defiance of the law for the express purpose of exposing what he believed to be its moral repugnance, but doing so recognizing that ultimate respect for law requires one to submit to the punishment the law imposes. Such actions focus the spotlight on the moral outrage, without resort to rather simplistic notions that citizens can willy nilly chose which laws are morally acceptable to follow and expect to be able to violate them with impunity by taking flight.

So then, your objection to his actions is that he fled arrest. That even if he acted justly, it is his duty to accept punishment, nevertheless. Understood. I will accept this as long as you would willingly accept the punishment that you would incur for violating the law in my thought experiment.

[Globus]

Originally Posted by Globus
Absolutely.

But you see, thoughtful people will understand that on occasion moral outrages so obscene occur that disobeying laws is the morally correct thing to do, especially when they are perpetrated by an authoritarian regime who's very policy violates not only the laws of the nation, but of international law, and accepted moral precepts of a rather universal nature.

It is a "thought experiment."

And I took the liberty of adding some thought to it.

It's not intended to be picked at by mentioning that international law is being violated. I could easy amend it to say that international law is not being violated because it has been changed. I simply did not bother with such qualifications because I assumed that the reader would grasp the point and not respond obtusely.

Didn't like having a little thought in your thought experiment, did you!

Noting that your "thought" experiment included the specific mention of violating the law of your country, I thought it might be important to point out that not just international law, but no German law, permitted genocide. If you think such fundamental defects in your thought experiment are just nit picking and bothersome qualifications then I suggest you learn to construct better thought experiments.

Your reply is also vague.

LOL!

I am interested in philosophy, not moralizing.

That has to be the funniest thing I've ever seen written in this group.

Words like "obscene" carry very little weight in rational discourse.

Oh poppycock!

If you don't think committing genocide is a moral obscenity than you are simply bereft of tools to categorize moral issues.

It is imperative that you outline clearly the principles which allow one to judge whether it is moral in a situation to violate the law or not.

I did.


So you'll see, I'm sure, that your worst case scenario does not fit the current situation. Unless you believe genocide was permitted under the laws of Nazi Germany? Hmmm!


Hmm, you lost me. Please elaborate. I do not understand what you're driving at.

I think I answered it.



Now if Rudolf's real concern was free speech, and not just pursuit of a lie motivated by Jew hatred, he could have easily undertaken well respected civil disobedience in the pursuit of some higher good. That would have involved an act of defiance of the law for the express purpose of exposing what he believed to be its moral repugnance, but doing so recognizing that ultimate respect for law requires one to submit to the punishment the law imposes. Such actions focus the spotlight on the moral outrage, without resort to rather simplistic notions that citizens can willy nilly chose which laws are morally acceptable to follow and expect to be able to violate them with impunity by taking flight.


So then, your objection to his actions is that he fled arrest.

I think you better work on your school assignments. You clearly are not ready for serious discussion.

[Helios Panoptes]

And I took the liberty of adding some thought to it.

This is unresponsive.

Didn't like having a little thought in your thought experiment, did you!

Noting that your "thought" experiment included the specific mention of violating the law of your country, I thought it might be important to point out that not just international law, but no German law, permitted genocide. If you think such fundamental defects in your thought experiment are just nit picking and bothersome qualifications then I suggest you learn to construct better thought experiments.

The point of the thought experiment was the law vs. one's own moral compass - which will triumph? The bit about international law was completely irrelevant because, as I said, the question can easily accommodate your objection with the addition of qualifications. I overestimated your intellect and assumed that you'd grasp what I was getting at. It won't happen again.

Additionally, I never said anything about what German law permitted. You are, evidently, not following this conversation very well.

LOL!

Unresponsive.

That has to be the funniest thing I've ever seen written in this group.

Unresponsive.

Oh poppycock!

If you don't think committing genocide is a moral obscenity than you are simply bereft of tools to categorize moral issues.

I take your refusal to engage me rationally by explicating your ethical theory as evidence of its weakness(or nonexistence).

I did.

Untrue, you did not. I asked you to explain the ethical principles which allow one to determine whether the law should be violated or not. No response was forthcoming.

I think I answered it.

Yes, you did. You revealed that you are not processing this conversation for whatever reason. N.B. I did not say anything at all about what German law permits or has permitted in the past. Reread my posts and see for yourself.

I think you better work on your school assignments. You clearly are not ready for serious discussion.

Unresponsive.

[Globus]

This is unresponsive.



The point of the thought experiment was the law vs. one's own moral compass - which will triumph? The bit about international law was completely irrelevant because, as I said, the question can easily accommodate your objection with the addition of qualifications. I overestimated your intellect and assumed that you'd grasp what I was getting at. It won't happen again.

Additionally, I never said anything about what German law permitted. You are, evidently, not following this conversation very well.



Unresponsive.



Unresponsive.



I take your refusal to engage me rationally by explicating your ethical theory as evidence of its weakness(or nonexistence).



Untrue, you did not. I asked you to explain the ethical principles which allow one to determine whether the law should be violated or not. No response was forthcoming.



Yes, you did. You revealed that you are not processing this conversation for whatever reason. N.B. I did not say anything at all about what German law permits or has permitted in the past. Reread my posts and see for yourself.



Unresponsive.

Don't worry, you'll do better next time!

[Helios Panoptes]

Don't worry, you'll do better next time!

I suspect that you are a troll. No one could post such tripe and actually think he was doing well. I refuse to believe that.

[Globus]

I suspect that you are a troll.

Says the person who offered a laughable "thought experiment" which he was embarrassed to have exposed, making some rather odd statements about philosophy and morality, and pretending that refusing to help the Nazi genocide was a violation of law similar to Rudolf's violation of law.

I suspect you are a student with much to learn.

[Helios Panoptes]

Good work. I am becoming slightly annoyed by your persistent stupidity. That's good trolling, I suppose.

[cerberus]

CalvinCerberus, the point I’m trying to make is that non-chemist are not qualified to make definitive evaluations about chemical forensics.
I remember being somehwat baffled by Rudolf when presented with it by Basil - who suggsted that I try and come to grips with it.
Agood stalling and spoiling tactic , at best .
Bottomline is in any situation when a complex piece of evidence is presented it is best to have an expert witness to make sense of it for the layman.
You will recall Calvin that this is precisely what Lipstadt and penguin Publishers did when presented with "Rudolf" by Irving.
They spent a considerable amount of money to have the Rudolf papers critially examined and to have a comprehensive reply made to them.
Irving when presented with this knew the game was up - that is why he withdrew.
Integ.But the point is that his persecution (and prosecution) were/are political
No it was not political , if anything it was racial.
I refer you again to the atempt by some of Zundels supporters to involve Amnesty International on his behalf - in a similar way Rudolf could not be deemed to be a political issue .
Popular revisionist opinion might be that they are and they are presented as such - truth is they are simple liars and prone to distortion of fact - both by means of pseudo science and denial of the historical record.

[Winston]

No it was not political , if anything it was racial.
I refer you again to the atempt by some of Zundels supporters to involve Amnesty International on his behalf - in a similar way Rudolf could not be deemed to be a political issue .
Popular revisionist opinion might be that they are and they are presented as such - truth is they are simple liars and prone to distortion of fact - both by means of pseudo science and denial of the historical record.

Project much?

I still cannot see how the attempt to gain the help of AI (or anything else that you have said) has any impact on what I said. Anti-revisionist laws are political, those who are imprisoned under them are political prisoners. I don't care who disagrees with me, because I am capable of making that judgement myself.

[calvin]

“You will recall Calvin that this is precisely what Lipstadt and penguin Publishers did when presented with "Rudolf" by Irving.
They spent a considerable amount of money to have the Rudolf papers critially examined and to have a comprehensive reply made to them”

Which indicates to me that they were seriously troubled by Rudolf’s assertions, Cerberus. Lipstadt’s defence spent a considerable amount on every aspect of this case, it’s a bit bogus to single out the evidence that was withdrawn and pretend that the defence had spent a disproportionate amount on crafting a refutation of this evidence alone. Money seemed to be no object to Lipstadt so let’s not pretend that allocation of resources is indicative of strengths and weaknesses in Irving’s case

[Globus]

Good work. I am becoming slightly annoyed by your persistent stupidity. That's good trolling, I suppose.

Get used to being annoyed, and having your "thought experiments" exposed.

[Globus]

Project much?

I still cannot see how the attempt to gain the help of AI (or anything else that you have said) has any impact on what I said. Anti-revisionist laws are political, those who are imprisoned under them are political prisoners. I don't care who disagrees with me, because I am capable of making that judgement myself.

No, they are not political. They are viewed as issues of public disturbance since they invariably antisemitic tirades.

[Globus]

=calvin
Which indicates to me that they were seriously troubled by Rudolf’s assertions, Cerberus.

No, it indicates that is there responsibility under English libel law to address them.

Lipstadt’s defence spent a considerable amount on every aspect of this case,

Of course they did. Lawyers expect to be paid. And you don't ask half a dozen scholars to spend months of their time on research to do so for nothing.

But the money is irrelevant to the facts.

And the fact is it cost Irving no money to submit Rudolf's report, nor did it save any when he withdrew it. It was withdrawn because it was thoroughly exposed by Dr. Richard Green.

[cerberus]

Integ.

A.I. said it was not political , but having said that Integ. - your own opinion is your own view I don't want to try and push mine down your throat.
When does one become another ?
Your view - up to you.

[Helios Panoptes]

Get used to being annoyed, and having your "thought experiments" exposed.


You have exposed nothing except your deficient reading comprehension and woeful analytic skills.

[Globus]

You have exposed nothing except your deficient reading comprehension and woeful analytic skills.

Yeah, console yourself!

[cerberus]

CalvinWhich indicates to me that they were seriously troubled by Rudolf’s assertions, Cerberus. Lipstadt’s defence spent a considerable amount on every aspect of this case, it’s a bit bogus to single out the evidence that was withdrawn and pretend that the defence had spent a disproportionate amount on crafting a refutation of this evidence alone. Money seemed to be no object to Lipstadt so let’s not pretend that allocation of resources is indicative of strengths and weaknesses in Irving’s case

calvin , given that the costs to date ran to something close to £2,000,000 pounds do you honestly think that when going into an appeal process against new evidence that it would not be prudent to take every step to counter that new evidence ?
It is common sense calvin , even to you that much must be clear.:confused:

Tell me this calvin , if the new evidence was so convincing and so strong why did Irving with draw it giving no reason ?
It might seem that he was more troubled , or do I read this all wrong.

Bottomline is I do hope that Rudolf has his report exaimed in the full light of day and it can at last be seen to be what it is - a clever but none the less worthless document.
But fear not - sales of it will rocket , after all adject failure has not dulled the sale of Leutcher's "Report" - "the Rudolf Report" will have a life of its own , that it is worthless matters not - "as long as it sells."

[Helios Panoptes]

Yeah, console yourself!

I don't need to console myself. Anyone who reads the thread can see that you are punching well above your weight.

[Burrhus]

Originally Posted by Globus
Don't worry, you'll do better next time!

I suspect that you are a troll. No one could post such tripe and actually think he was doing well. I refuse to believe that.

Come now, Helios, that's pretty harsh, insulting trolls by comparing them to Globus.

[Globus]

Come now, Helios, that's pretty harsh, insulting trolls by comparing them to Globus.

Ah, another smarting boy!

[Burrhus]

The 'crime' that Rudolf was convicted of in Germany was giving testimony as an expert witness (in chemistry) at the trial of a man accused of questioning the 'holocaust' story. If that's not a political crime, then the term has no meaning.

Rudolf was living in Chicago prior to his extradition to Germany. I met him here and found him to be a very decent, calm, intelligent man. He is not a wild-eyed jew-hater as some of the philo-semites here portray him. I liked him. He is a nice guy.

I get a very upset when I think of him sitting in a jail and his wife and child left without his love and support. For what? Testifying at a trial? That's a crime?

Things will change someday. And treason is a real crime.

[Globus]

The 'crime' that Rudolf was convicted of in Germany was giving testimony as an expert witness (in chemistry) at the trial of a man accused of questioning the 'holocaust' story. If that's not a political crime, then the term has no meaning.

No, the crime that Rudolf was charged with is denying the Holocaust. And that is not a political crime.


I get a very upset when I think of him sitting in a jail and his wife and child left without his love and support. For what?

Apparently for wanting to lie about history and Jews more than he wants to be a husband and father.

[Burrhus]

Originally Posted by Burrhus
Come now, Helios, that's pretty harsh, insulting trolls by comparing them to Globus.

Ah, another smarting boy!

That's smart, Glob, not smarting and, man not boy. Smart man. Your having no experience with being either, I can see how you would be confused.

[Globus]

That's smart, Glob, not smarting

Certainly not the former, based on your performance to date. And the latter is correct.

[Starr]

The law has nothing to do with politics, but with public order.


Holocaust denial laws are needed to preserve public order? I could draw some conclusions from that statement.

There was another thread about this guy also, btw.

[Burrhus]

See first link below for Rudolf's side of the story. Second link is to a site Rudolf helped create.

When justice and honor return to the West, Germar Rudolf will be hailed as a hero of his people.

http://germarrudolf.com/

http://www.vho.org/

[Grapple]

I think this article was written a bit vaguely. Normally the extradition treaties between nations only provide for extradition when the law that was broken was also against the law in the country where the perp is found.
Why not look at what the US government says is the reason they deported him. Below is the official press release of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency and the lead paragraph points out that what they consider most important about Mr Rudolf is that he was a denier. So the reporter was just following official US government statements.

ICE DEPORTS “HOLOCAUST REVISIONIST” TO GERMANY

CHICAGO — A well-known revisionist and holocaust denier, wanted in Germany for inciting racial hatred by denying that thousands of Jews were gassed to death at Auschwitz, was deported last night by the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Link to “ICE DEPORTS “HOLOCAUST REVISIONIST” TO GERMANY” (http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/newsreleases/articles/051115chicago.htm)

[Trojan]

See first link below for Rudolf's side of the story. Second link is to a site Rudolf helped create.

When justice and honor return to the West, Germar Rudolf will be hailed as a hero of his people.

http://germarrudolf.com/

http://www.vho.org/

His page is about two years out of date - he had his day in US court.

[eggheadbanga]

Why not look at what the US government says is the reason they deported him. Below is the official press release of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency and the lead paragraph points out that what they consider most important about Mr Rudolf is that he was a denier. So the reporter was just following official US government statements.

Link to “ICE DEPORTS “HOLOCAUST REVISIONIST” TO GERMANY” (http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/newsreleases/articles/051115chicago.htm)

The crucial part as to the 'why' of his deportation is here:

Rudolf applied for political asylum in the United States in 2000, claiming political persecution in Germany. A federal immigration judge denied Rudolf’s asylum claim and ordered him deported in June 2003. Rudolf’s appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) was dismissed in September 2004. Both the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and the United States Supreme Court have denied Rudolf’s requests to stay his deportation pending federal appeal. Although he is no longer present in the United States, Rudolf’s appeal of the BIA’s decision will continue before the Eleventh Circuit.

Rudolf was ordered to present himself to the Chicago ICE office for deportation April 7, but he defied the order and remained in the U.S. as a fugitive alien. On Oct. 19 he appeared at the Chicago office of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to apply for a green card based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen. A records check revealed his outstanding order of deportation and he was immediately taken into federal custody.

Rudolf was deported to Frankfurt under the escort of two ICE officers and turned over to the custody of the German Federal Police.

Rudolf had a good run if it took them 3 years to come to a preliminary decision and another year for an appeal. It's fairly normal now for countries like Britain, Australia and many continental EU countries to decree that appeals can be heard.... from outside the country. When such principles were introduced, they were aimed at Afghan boat people, Sangatte refugee camp Moroccans and other bete noires of the WN demi-monde. What comes around, goes around.

:D

[Berianidze]

Countries that seriously believe in Free Speech should refuse to extradite people to countries where they will go on trial for offences such as these, similar to the way that some countries refuse to extradite criminals to countries with the death penalty if they are charged with capital crimes.
Agreed. I am by no means an advocate of free speech, or freedom of any sort for that matter, I think it's hypocritical that a country would extradite someone for breaking a speech code in another countries. Many countries exercise their own judgments and refuse to extradite anyone accused of political crimes (unless the political crime was violent in nature) regardless of whether the death penalty is involved.

[Grapple]

The crucial part as to the 'why' of his deportation is here:
The Why is what the title and lead paragraph says, the legal excuse is what you quote. The US government crows about deporting a “denier” while at the same time denying that he is a political refugee.

[eggheadbanga]

The Why is what the title and lead paragraph says, the legal excuse is what you quote. The US government crows about deporting a “denier” while at the same time denying that he is a political refugee.

Rudolf could always have sought asylum in Iran. :D

[Globus]

Holocaust denial laws are needed to preserve public order? I could draw some conclusions from that statement.


Anything's possible!

[eggheadbanga]

Agreed. I am by no means an advocate of free speech, or freedom of any sort for that matter, I think it's hypocritical that a country would extradite someone for breaking a speech code in another countries.

Rudolf was NOT extradited. He applied for asylum, his claim was rejected three years later, an appeal in-country was rejected another year later, a deportation order was issued six months later. The entire process took from 2000 to 2005. He had at least six months' notice to get out of the country if he wanted to avoid deportation back to his country of origin.

:nopity:

If he'd been a regular German citizen not making a fuss, how long would he have been allowed in the US? 90 days without a visa.

:nopity:

[Grapple]

Rudolf could always have sought asylum in Iran
So you think that Iran has more freedom then the US or Germany?

[Ahknaton]

Rudolf could always have sought asylum in Iran. :D
Is it legal to assert the Holocaust in Iran?

[eggheadbanga]

So you think that Iran has more freedom then the US or Germany?

For Germar Rudolf, yes. For the average person, no.

[eggheadbanga]

Is it legal to assert the Holocaust in Iran?

There was a case this year of an Iranian academic being jailed for alleged oppositional statements, who affirmed the historicity of the Holocaust. Borderline.

Khatami, the previous Iranian President, contradicted Ahmadinejad's public rhetoric in newspaper interviews. He's still at liberty.

[cerberus]

It would seem that death by hanging is a very common sentence in Iran, people are hanged in public using modern industrial cranes - a country to be proud off ?
Would you want to "hang out there " ??

You could always watch a woman being stoned to death if the football was particularly bad .
The average citizen might not be better off.

[Basil Fawlty]

He could have come to Ireland where there is no extradition for political offences.

[eggheadbanga]

He could have come to Ireland where there is no extradition for political offences.

Silly Germar....

:nopity:

[Burrhus]

He could have come to Ireland where there is no extradition for political offences.

If I recall correctly when I spoke to him in Chicago, his German passport had expired and he couldn't travel without one. I suggested that he go to Mexico but he had a pregnant wife and still hoped that the US would do the right thing. It didn't. He seemed resigned to his fate if things went badly. He struck me as a stoical man.

[Burrhus]

Silly Germar....:nopity:

Germar Rudolf is an eminently decent man unlike you, eggheadbanga (now that's a silly name) and you are not worthy to carry his jockstrap. Ridiculing your betters is all too indicative of who you are.

A traitor. Remember,egg, treason is a real crime.

[Basil Fawlty]

Germar Rudolf is an eminently decent man unlike you, eggheadbanga (now that's a silly name) and you are not worthy to carry his jockstrap. Ridiculing your betters is all too indicative of who you are.Its a shameful thing to do alright. Anyone prepared to make those kinds of sacrifices for [their] higher cause should be respected regardless of whether one agrees with them or not.

[eggheadbanga]

Germar Rudolf is an eminently decent man unlike you, eggheadbanga (now that's a silly name) and you are not worthy to carry his jockstrap. Ridiculing your betters is all too indicative of who you are.

A traitor. Remember,egg, treason is a real crime.

And whose law am I supposed to have violated? Here you are bleating about free-speech and you'd deny me mine. Hypocritical asshole.

[Burrhus]

Milhouse Van Houten: And whose law am I supposed to have violated?

NOUN: Treason
Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
A betrayal of trust or confidence.

MVH: Here you are bleating about free-speech and you'd deny me mine.

Please direct me to one post here or anywhere else where I have used the word free-speech.

Keep talking. It will all be available when it is needed. Nothing ever truly disappears from the internet.

MVH: Hypocritical asshole.

Watch your language, young man, this is not the lounge.

[Trojan]

NOUN: Treason
Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
A betrayal of trust or confidence.



Please direct me to one post here or anywhere else where I have used the word free-speech.

Keep talking. It will all be available when it is needed. Nothing ever truly disappears from the internet.



Watch your language, young man, this is not the lounge.

You didn't answer his question.

[Basil Fawlty]

You didn't answer his question.I think he did.
Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.By shoring up a lie that is used to undermine the goyish population.
Whether or not you agree with this interpetation of things (the H, etc), Burrhus is entirely consistent in laying this accusation.

[eggheadbanga]

Watch your language, young man, this is not the lounge.

Youuuung maaannn!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Christ, you are pompous.

Quote:
Milhouse Van Houten: And whose law am I supposed to have violated?

NOUN: Treason
Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
A betrayal of trust or confidence.

This is really interesting. So I've violated my allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, have I? Please show me where I did that.

Quote:
MVH: Here you are bleating about free-speech and you'd deny me mine.

Please direct me to one post here or anywhere else where I have used the word free-speech.

Please then explain on what grounds Germar Rudolf should have been granted political asylum in the USA, and on what grounds Germar Rudolf should have not been convicted in the BRD in 1994.

It'd help if you advanced a realistic explanation relevant to the situation as it exists now, instead of your day-of-the-rope fantasies.

Keep talking. It will all be available when it is needed. Nothing ever truly disappears from the internet.

when it is needed, :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[eggheadbanga]

By shoring up a lie that is used to undermine the goyish population.


how does this work, Basil? Please elaborate.

[Basil Fawlty]

how does this work, Basil? Please elaborate.Most Germans think they have the mark of Cain upon them. The holocaust is very useful for bashing expressions of tradtional nationalism and suppressing dissent against the multicult. It is a weapon wielded by the left frequently and ad nauseum. It is also used by Zionism as a weapon. But anyway you know all this so why ask?

Congrats on your 1,000 post, btw.

[Trojan]

how does this work, Basil? Please elaborate.

I think we are about to encounter the Celtic Patriot school of logic. :deadhorse:

[Trojan]

I think he did.
By shoring up a lie that is used to undermine the goyish population.
Whether or not you agree with this interpetation of things (the H, etc), Burrhus is entirely consistent in laying this accusation.

Forget consistent, Basil, is he correct? Are we (Egghead, I and others) guilty of treason?

[Basil Fawlty]

Forget consistent, Basil, is he correct? Are we (Egghead, I and others) guilty of treason?Why should we forget consistency? The hallmark of a good theory is that it should be at least internally consistent, and explain the facts better than the rival theories.

[Globus]

Most Germans think they have the mark of Cain upon them.

No they don't. This is just the whining complaint of those who long for a prideful memory of National Socialism and are completely pissed off that subsequent generations of Germans have properly recoiled from it.

[Globus]

I think he did.
By shoring up a lie that is used to undermine the goyish population.
Whether or not you agree with this interpetation of things (the H, etc), Burrhus is entirely consistent in laying this accusation.

Except that surprisingly you haven't shown how Milhouse has satisfied this criteria.

[eggheadbanga]

Why should we forget consistency? The hallmark of a good theory is that it should be at least internally consistent, and explain the facts better than the rival theories.

By this standard, 'historical revisionism' fails as a good theory.

:thanks:

[Globus]

By this standard, 'historical revisionism' fails as a good theory.

:thanks:

Well now, that's completely unfair!

[Basil Fawlty]

By this standard, 'historical revisionism' fails as a good theory.

:thanks:Your say so does not make it so - and please don't mention again for the nth time how many PhD's you have or how many documents you have read that you won't show us blah, blah, blah. It impresses no one.

[Der Sozialist]

Your say so does not make it so - and please don't mention again for the nth time how many PhD's you have or how many documents you have read that you won't show us blah, blah, blah. It impresses no one.
Since he has a phD in history, with a specialization in the Holocaust (I am assuming)—this makes him many more times more qualified than any other poster here to talk about the Holocaust.

I think any reasonable poster can comprehends this.

[Basil Fawlty]

Since he has a phD in history, with a specialization in the Holocaust (I am assuming)—this makes him many more times more qualified than any other poster here to talk about the Holocaust.
I think any reasonable poster can comprehends this.Only for those unfamiliar with the genetic fallacy. ;)

[Der Sozialist]

Only for those unfamiliar with the genetic fallacy. ;)

It is interesting, since in these debates with egg, I haven’t seen you participate. Neo has, god knows Globus, Trojan, and Cerebrus have.

During the formal debate challenge—I saw posts from Sulla, Potty, and Dan Dare but you didn’t make any posts. I am starting to wonder if you have any argument supporting Revisionism because I have never seen you make one. But that aside,

Assuming that egg’s word carries more weight than, say yours, is not a "genetic fallacy". Of course, you might be able to make a good argument but I would have to asses that when you actually make an argument.

[Globus]

Your say so does not make it so - and please don't mention again for the nth time how many PhD's you have or how many documents you have read that you won't show us blah, blah, blah. It impresses no one.

Yeah, especially when that would be irrelevant to the well thought out response you just made.

[Basil Fawlty]

It is interesting, since in these debates with egg, I haven’t seen you participate. Neo has, god knows Globus, Trojan, and Cerebrus have.

During the formal debate challenge—I saw posts from Sulla, Potty, and Dan Dare but you didn’t make any posts. I am starting to wonder if you have any argument supporting Revisionism because I have never seen you make one.Does it seem to you that I care what you have seen or not seen?
Assuming that egg’s word carries more weight than, say yours, is not a "genetic fallacy". Yes it is, by definition, because the source of the word is carrying the weight, not the word itself.
Of course, you might be able to make a good argument but I would have to asses that when you actually make an argument.This is your narcissism coming through once again: that I might be even remotely interested in your assessment of anything, especially after your recent tomfoolery with that Goebbels quote on Katyn, would be a drastic error on your part.

[Der Sozialist]

Yes it is, by definition, because the source of the word is carrying the weight,

No, only if the source is irrelevant. Egg is an expert in this area and thus the genetic fallacy does not apply in this particular situation.

that I might be even remotely interested in your assessment of anything, especially after your recent tomfoolery with that Goebbels quote on Katyn, would be a drastic error on your part.

I am sorry but 'find' could mean many things—though, I forgot that you are a mind reader. Are you asserting that the Germans didn’t execute Polish officers en masse?

[Der Sozialist]

The genetic fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacies) is a logical fallacy based on the irrelevant appraisal of something based on its origin.

It should be noted that there are some cases in which the origin of a claim is relevant to the truth or falsity of the claim. For example, a claim that comes from a reliable expert is likely to be true (provided it is in her area of expertise).--[source (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html)]

[Globus]

Only for those unfamiliar with the genetic fallacy. ;)

Including you?

http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Genetic_Fallacy

Definition
The genetic fallacy is an informal logical fallacy, where a participant argues that a belief is incorrect, not in its own right, but because of where it originated, typically an attribute of the person who originated or presented the belief. There are several different forms of this fallacy, often with their own names, but they tend to follow one of these two general structures, either

Person A claims that P
Person A is untrustworthy.
Therefore, P is false.
or

Person A claims that P
Person A is particularly trustworthy.
Therefore, P is true.
This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to its origin.

[edit]Examples
Example 1:

Protagonist: The newspaper says that four members of this administration have been indicted for corruption.
Antagonist: Yes, but the newspaper has always been biased against this administration, so I don't believe it.
Example 2:

Protagonist: California makes a much better burgundy than France.
Antagonist: Well, of course you say that. You own a California winery.
Example 3:

Antagonist: Paul de Man was a Nazi sympathizer in the Second World War; his theories on literary criticism must be wrong.
[edit]Exceptions to the Rule
It can sometimes be very difficult to evaluate the impact and appropriateness of a genetic argument, in part because the argument, although formally fallacious, is often appropriate and relevant. For example, the testimony of a jailhouse informant, who testifies against someone else in exchange for privileges or a lighter sentence, is often given little weight by trial jurors. A person clearly motivated by self-interest cannot necessarily be trusted to tell the truth, and conversely, a person acting against his own self-interest may paradoxically be more credible.

Similarly, in many cases a statement or opinion should be considered to be more credible because it comes from a recognized expert or group of experts in a relevant subject.
A key aspect of understanding the genetic fallacy is to determine whether the origin is relevant to the question at hand. A newspaper on a crusade might indeed (unethically) shade the facts in keeping with its mission, and a veterinary surgeon is likely to know more about animal anatomy than a member of the general public, but questions of Nazi membership are unlikely to influence someone's literary theories.

[Basil Fawlty]

No, only if the source is irrelevant. Egg is an expert in this area and thus the genetic fallacy does not apply in this particular situation.An expert, whoopy-do! It most certainly does apply. The value of his words rises and falls on the words themselves and not on how many qualifications he has or hasn't.
I am sorry but 'find' could mean many things—though, I forgot that you are a mind reader. Are you asserting that the Germans didn’t execute Polish officers en masse?'Find' in this context means frame-up. You obviously didn't bother to read the rest of the article from which you took that quote. Go back and read it again before you ask such silly questions.

[Der Sozialist]

An expert, whoopy-do! It most certainly does apply. The value of his words rises and falls on the words themselves and not on how many qualifications he has or hasn't.


Yes, an expert unlike you. Similarly, people don’t go to humanities majors for advice on Cancer treatment or solutions to a particularly difficult Physics problem.

So, no it does not apply—but you don’t have to believe me—two sources were presented that support, word-for-word, my assertion.

'Find' in this context means frame-up.

I am glad you are a mind-reader. Show me your source. Your word, as you said to egg, carries no weight.

You obviously didn't bother to read the rest of the article from which you took that quote.

Which article was that?

Go back and read it again before you ask such silly questions.

Does a disk have a circumference, Basil?

[eggheadbanga]

Your say so does not make it so

Of course my say-so doesn't make it so, Basil. Nor do qualifications have anything to do with it - per se. But, the statement you made as originally formulated -

The hallmark of a good theory is that it should be at least internally consistent, and explain the facts better than the rival theories.

- is exceptionally applicable to the debate which revisionism would like to have with orthodox historiography. The arguments of the revisionist side explain virtually nothing of the history of 1933-45 let alone 1945-2006, in relation to the fate of European Jews. Viz:

-lack of explanation for whereabouts of Jews claimed as not killed,
-lack of explanation for how the alleged conspiracy/process of myth-making by osmosis came about,
-ignoring numerous post-1945 facts of world events and
-ignoring even more before 1945.

I could go on, but those are the main ones. There are many more aporia in revisionist theory of events than there are in orthodox historiography.

So in saying :thanks: I was if anything trying to provoke a reasoned response, having thrown a gauntlet down over an issue that I think we can all agree would be rather crucial to the discussion.

Let's see how many posts you can manage before bringing up 'persecution', shall we?

- and please don't mention again for the nth time how many PhD's you have or how many documents you have read that you won't show us blah, blah, blah. It impresses no one.

I honestly can say that you and Dan bring up my CV more often than I have done lately.

[Basil Fawlty]

Of course my say-so doesn't make it so, Basil. Nor do qualifications have anything to do with it - per se.Quite.
- is exceptionally applicable to the debate which revisionism would like to have with orthodox historiography. The arguments of the revisionist side explain virtually nothing of the history of 1933-45 let alone 1945-2006, in relation to the fate of European Jews. I think it follows a fairly narrow and well-defined remit so it cannot be criticised for failing to fulfill the above mentioned criteria because it does not include that within its own remit.
-lack of explanation for whereabouts of Jews claimed as not killed,Not necessary to falsify gas chamber claims, Fuerherbefehl claims starting/ceasing extermination, show fatal contradictions withint the offical narratives, and discredit Nuremeberg process, etc.
-lack of explanation for how the alleged conspiracy/process of myth-making by osmosis came about, This has been done and there is always a lot more work to be done in that area. I find this particular question to be one of the most interesting of all and ditto for the following one, the after-life of the holocaust story. This is something I am prepared to spend some time making a substantial post as I mentioned to you during the week, both the formation of the narrative and the political aims it has served subsequently. However, that will take up a considerable portion of my free time, which is a somewhat rare feature of my life at the moment. :(
-ignoring numerous post-1945 facts of world events and
-ignoring even more before 1945. These are too vague to make any substantial response, what have you in mind?
I could go on, but those are the main ones. There are many more aporia in revisionist theory of events than there are in orthodox historiography.I disagree - on the basis of Revisionism's declared aim and remit.
Let's see how many posts you can manage before bringing up 'persecution', shall we?As long as you desist from gloating over the fate of your betters. Deal?
I honestly can say that you and Dan bring up my CV more often than I have done lately.Come off it, your always at it in some way shape or form!

[eggheadbanga]

I think it follows a fairly narrow and well-defined remit so it cannot be criticised for failing to fulfill the above mentioned criteria because it does not include that within its own remit.

Therein lies the problem, Basil. Revisionism draws its remit deliberately narrowly, and thereby fails to account for how the phenomena it proposes to explain, relate to other phenomena.

Quote:
-lack of explanation for whereabouts of Jews claimed as not killed,

Not necessary to falsify gas chamber claims, Fuerherbefehl claims starting/ceasing extermination, show fatal contradictions withint the offical narratives, and discredit Nuremeberg process, etc.

On the contrary, Basil, revisionism makes a specific set of claims relating to the fate of European Jews. Read the statements of intent at VHO if you don't believe me, or any programmatic essay/book. Among the specific set of claims made are the following, as argued by many name revisionists:

- the death toll for European Jews between 1939-45 is much lower than claimed
- Some of the Jews claimed to have been killed either emigrated or escaped German clutches
- Jews deported to the camps did not die there, but were taken to another location.
- the scale of shootings in the east was 'limited' in some fashion

These are claims made, and they've been made much more feebly than the excessive attention paid to the gas chambers. Whereas orthodox historiography has covered them thoroughly, and with ever-increasing coherence, the revisionist response seems stuck in a 1950s time-warp.

Quote:
-lack of explanation for how the alleged conspiracy/process of myth-making by osmosis came about,

This has been done and there is always a lot more work to be done in that area.

It has barely been argued, Basil.

I find this particular question to be one of the most interesting of all and ditto for the following one, the after-life of the holocaust story. This is something I am prepared to spend some time making a substantial post as I mentioned to you during the week, both the formation of the narrative and the political aims it has served subsequently. However, that will take up a considerable portion of my free time, which is a somewhat rare feature of my life at the moment.

I await this post with interest and anticipatory bemusement.

Quote:
-ignoring numerous post-1945 facts of world events and
-ignoring even more before 1945.

These are too vague to make any substantial response, what have you in mind?

In relation to some of the favourite bugaboos of revisionism, the exact details of the formation of Zionism, the state of the Yishuv in the 1930s-40s, the formation of the state of Israel, the relationship between Israel and the former Allied powers of the US, UK, France and the USSR.... just for starters.

I could go on, but those are the main ones. There are many more aporia in revisionist theory of events than there are in orthodox historiography.

I disagree - on the basis of Revisionism's declared aim and remit.

Orthodox historiography simply explains a larger source base more coherently than does revisionism. It explains a larger subject more coherently. Given these circumstances, the sensible response is to take revisionist arguments with a hefty pinch of salt, and given revisionist track-record of mendacious arguments, falsification and strawmen-building, yet more.

Quote:
Let's see how many posts you can manage before bringing up 'persecution', shall we?

As long as you desist from gloating over the fate of your betters. Deal?

Germar Rudolf is not my better, and is the ostensible subject of this thread. We therefore may wish to take this particular point 'outside'.

Quote:
I honestly can say that you and Dan bring up my CV more often than I have done lately.

Come off it, your always at it in some way shape or form!

Nope.

[Trojan]

Why should we forget consistency? The hallmark of a good theory is that it should be at least internally consistent, and explain the facts better than the rival theories.

The point of the question was, are we (the non-revisionists) quilty of treason?

[delete]

I belive Rudolf is a heretic in the medieval sence of the word. The governments who ban revisionism (denial) today, think they protect the public from deception in much the same way rulers of the medieval period protected their people from ethernal damnation.

Rudolf speaks agaisnt the orthodox theologians of holocaustianity, thus he needs to be silenced.

For the people who doubt that the holocaust is a religion read chapter XVIII from 'A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom'.

If you substitute myths from the old testament with myths from the holocaust the connection should be obvious.

'A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom'.
chapter XVIII :
FROM THE DEAD SEA LEGENDS TO COMPARATIVE MYTHOLOGY.
http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/White/#myth-1

How unsatisfactory all such rationalism must be to a truly theological mind is seen not only in the dealings with Prof. Robertson Smith in Scotland and Prof. Woodrow in South Carolina, but most clearly in a book published in 1886 by Monseigneur Haussmann de Wandelburg. Among other things, the author was Prelate of the Pope's House-hold, a Mitred Abbot, Canon of the Holy Sepulchre, and a Doctor of Theology of the Pontifical University at Rome, and his work is introduced by approving letters from Pope Leo XIII and the Patriarch of Jerusalem. Monseigneur de Wandelburg scorns the idea that the salt column at Usdum is not the statue of Lot's wife; he points out not only the danger of yielding this evidence of miracle to rationalism, but the fact that the divinely. inspired authority of the Book of Wisdom, written, at the latest, two hundred and fifty years before Christ, distinctly refers to it. He summons Josephus as a witness. He dwells on the fact that St. Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Hegesippus, and St. Cyril, ``who as Bishop of Jerusalem must have known better than any other person what existed in Palestine,'' with St. Jerome, St. Chrysostom, and a multitude of others, attest, as a matter of their own knowledge or of popular notoriety, that the remains of Lot's wife really existed in their time in the form of a column of salt; and he points triumphantly to the fact that Lieutenant Lynch found this very column.

In the presence of such a continuous line of witnesses, some of them considered as divinely inspired, and all of them greatly revered - a line extending through thirty-seven hundred years - he condemns most vigorously all those who do not believe that the pillar of salt now at Usdum is identical with the wife of Lot, and stigmatizes them as people who ``do not wish to believe the truth of the Word of God.'' His ignorance of many of the simplest facts bearing upon the legend is very striking, yet he does not hesitate to speak of men who know far more and have thought far more upon the subject as ``grossly ignorant.'' The most curious feature in his ignorance is the fact that he is utterly unaware of the annual changes in the salt statue. He is entirely ignorant of such facts as that the priest Gabriel Giraudet in the sixteenth century found the statue lying down; that the monk Zwinner found it in the seventeenth century standing, and accompanied by a dog also transformed into salt; that Prince Radziwill found no statue at all; that the pious Vincent Briemle in the eighteenth century found the monument renewing itself; that about the middle of the nineteenth century Lynch found it in the shape of a tower or column forty feet high; that within two years afterward De Saulcy found it washed into the form of a spire; that a year later Van de Velde found it utterly washed away; and that a few years later Palmer found it ``a statue bearing a striking resemblance to an Arab woman with a child in her arms.'' So ended the last great demonstration, thus far, on the side of sacred science - the last retreating shot from the theological rear guard.

It happened once again.

[Dan Dare]

...
Germar Rudolf is not my better ...


I'm given to understand that he has a rather more substantial oeuvre, a great many more citations, and even a much larger following.

Aren't those the relevant metrics in contemporary academia?

[Burrhus]

The point of the question was, are we (the non-revisionists) quilty of treason?

In my opinion, yes. Of course my opinion is not determinative. When the issue arises, a determination will be made in an appropriate manner.

[Basil Fawlty]

I'm given to understand that he has a rather more substantial oeuvre, a great many more citations, and even a much larger following.

Aren't those the relevant metrics in contemporary academia?The Prof. (to be) should be very concerned about this, particularly when the RAE's swing round. That is, if the learned bottom is ever to make contact with a chair.

[Globus]

I'm given to understand that he has a rather more substantial oeuvre, a great many more citations, and even a much larger following.

Aren't those the relevant metrics in contemporary academia?

And just who has given you that idea?

Are you including in that citation data his citations of himself, under a pseudonym with a fake degree in another field?!!

[Globus]

The Prof. (to be) should be very concerned about this, particularly when the RAE's swing round. That is, if the learned bottom is ever to make contact with a chair.

There we see the extent of Basil's ability to defend Holocaust denial and deniers.

When the discussion leaves personal insult, he runs for the hills!

[cerberus]

Dan DI'm given to understand that he has a rather more substantial oeuvre, a great many more citations, and even a much larger following.

Aren't those the relevant metrics in contemporary academia?
Dan does this include the number of times he thanked himself for his contributions to his own works ?

As for a following - some folks when looking for an excuse will swallow anything.
Irvings withdrawl of Rudolf's papers speaks for itself - bothsides knew the evidence and what had to be addressed , Irving withdrew it - damage control.

[Burrhus]

Burrhus: Watch your language, young man, this is not the lounge.

MVH: Youuuung maaannn!!!

Christ, you are pompous.

Darwin, you are immature and uncivil.

Milhouse Van Houten: And whose law am I supposed to have violated?

NOUN: Treason
Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
A betrayal of trust or confidence.

This is really interesting. So I've violated my allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, have I? Please show me where I did that.

I assume that Great Britain has a law against treason. The holocaust lie is damaging the West in general and GB in particular. The British in-group is in demographic decline and its survival is threatened by jewish in-group behavior supported in large part by the holocaust lie.

MVH: Here you are bleating about free-speech and you'd deny me mine.

Burrhus: Please direct me to one post here or anywhere else where I have used the word free-speech.

You accuse me of 'bleating' (an uncivil pejorative) about free-speech yet you cannot cite an example of my using that word. It would be best for you to apologize and admit your error.

Where have I advocated that your speech be restricted? I have only described it, as I see it, as treasonous.

MVH: Please then explain on what grounds Germar Rudolf should have been granted political asylum in the USA, and on what grounds Germar Rudolf should have not been convicted in the BRD in 1994.

The law under which he was convicted in Germany is politically motivated and is not in the best interest of the German people. Prohibiting open disagreement with the orthodox holocaust story maintains the lie and its negative consequences for the German people and the West in general.

MVH: It'd help if you advanced a realistic explanation relevant to the situation as it exists now, instead of your day-of-the-rope fantasies.

Tawdry rhetoric, putting words into an opponents mouth that he never spoke. Please cite my use of the phrase "day of the rope".

Burrhus: Keep talking. It will all be available when it is needed. Nothing ever truly disappears from the internet.

MVH: when it is needed,

When I write my book, Philo-semitic Traitors, a Threat to Western In-groups: What Is to Be Done?

[diabloblanco]

Actually, he made a fool of himself.



Of course he should. He broke the law in his native country and then fled like a common criminal. Apparently deniers think citizens should be able to pick and choose which laws they obey.

It is not only our right but our duty to break whims of tyrants hiding under the color of "the law". The government that imposed these illegal restraints on free expression are nothing more than criminal gangs using terrorism against their citizens under color of law

[Globus]

It is not only our right but our duty to break whims of tyrants hiding under the color of "the law".

And claiming that the modern democracies of Europe are tyrannical is ludicrous.

The government that imposed these illegal restraints on free expression are nothing more than criminal gangs using terrorism against their citizens under color of law

There is nothing illegal about these restraints. They are the product of representative government. Furthermore, every democracy has limits on free expression, with none permitting speech as an absolute right. The limits nations set are culture dependent, and while I think Holocaust denial laws are misguided and only provide societal rejects with a reason for living, I can certainly understand how nations who experienced the disaster of Nationalism during WWII might think this minor and insignificant limit on speech makes sense.

[diabloblanco]

And claiming that the modern democracies of Europe are tyrannical is ludicrous.



There is nothing illegal about these restraints. They are the product of representative government. Furthermore, every democracy has limits on free expression, with none permitting speech as an absolute right. The limits nations set are culture dependent, and while I think Holocaust denial laws are misguided and only provide societal rejects with a reason for living, I can certainly understand how nations who experienced the disaster of Nationalism during WWII might think this minor and insignificant limit on speech makes sense.

The "modern Democracies" of Europe are a fraud and a sham when citizens are jaile for longer terms than murders for not only the holocaust issue, but claiming that Whites have a right to exist. They are a sham and a fraud when the purpose of their existence is to exterminate their native inhabitants through innundation by non-White immigration and miscegenation. They are a sham and a fraud when they take the majority of their citiozens earnings to feed pestilental swarms of Bureaucrats, Negroes, Mongols, Dravidians, Semito-Negroids, Sodomites, Shirkers, Criminals and other human refuse

"There is nothing illegal about these restraints. They are the product of representative government. Furthermore, every democracy has limits on free expression, with none permitting speech as an absolute right."

Orwellian Jewspeak, spoken like a true multicult. Who cares whether tyranny is sanctioned by a majority vote b. Governments dop not grant rights, they merely SECURE them. There is no excuse for EVER restraining free speech unless it is part of a violent criminal action (eg, the command of a crime boss "Kill the rat")

Would you engage in mandatory homosexual sex rather than break "The law"?


"The limits nations set are culture dependent,"


Ok than I guess you are fine with the Nazis gassing Jews. After all the "culture dependent" limitations in Germany in 1933 did not extend to their protection

[Globus]

Originally Posted by Globus
And claiming that the modern democracies of Europe are tyrannical is ludicrous.

There is nothing illegal about these restraints. They are the product of representative government. Furthermore, every democracy has limits on free expression, with none permitting speech as an absolute right. The limits nations set are culture dependent, and while I think Holocaust denial laws are misguided and only provide societal rejects with a reason for living, I can certainly understand how nations who experienced the disaster of Nationalism during WWII might think this minor and insignificant limit on speech makes sense.

The "modern Democracies" of Europe are a fraud and a sham when citizens are jaile for longer terms than murders for not only the holocaust issue, but claiming that Whites have a right to exist.

There is nothing fraudulent about these democracies and your claims about sentences are lies. You confuse the refusal of human beings to accept your demons as a lack of democracy.

They are a sham and a fraud when the purpose of their existence is to exterminate their native inhabitants through innundation by non-White immigration and miscegenation.

What's wrong with that?

They are a sham and a fraud when they take the majority of their citiozens earnings to feed pestilental swarms of Bureaucrats, Negroes, Mongols, Dravidians, Semito-Negroids, Sodomites, Shirkers, Criminals and other human refuse

See, I was correct. You're just a racist who is furious that others don't agree with you. Some democracy you represent!

There is nothing illegal about these restraints. They are the product of representative government. Furthermore, every democracy has limits on free expression, with none permitting speech as an absolute right."

Orwellian Jewspeak, spoken like a true multicult.

In other words a pinprick of reality in your otherwise delusional word.

The point is exactly correct and proper. Your bleating about the rights of liars has nothing to do with your concern for free speech. You are only interested in free hate speech.

Who cares whether tyranny is sanctioned by a majority vote

You haven't shown why it's tyranny. Merely stating it is does not constitute an argument. And the vast majority of people care, so you are simple left on the sidelines. That's what really pisses you off.

The limits nations set are culture dependent,

Ok than I guess you are fine with the Nazis gassing Jews

Non sequitur.

I can see what you're problem is.

[diabloblanco]

There is nothing fraudulent about these democracies and your claims about sentences are lies. You confuse the refusal of human beings to accept your demons as a lack of democracy.



What's wrong with that?



See, I was correct. You're just a racist who is furious that others don't agree with you. Some democracy you represent!







In other words a pinprick of reality in your otherwise delusional word.

The point is exactly correct and proper. Your bleating about the rights of liars has nothing to do with your concern for free speech. You are only interested in free hate speech.



You haven't shown why it's tyranny. Merely stating it is does not constitute an argument. And the vast majority of people care, so you are simple left on the sidelines. That's what really pisses you off.





Non sequitur.

I can see what you're problem is.

You are mentally ill or profoundly evil if you think there is nothing wrong with a government exterminating its native population, and if you cant understand why its victims might deem such actions tyrannical. Its not a lie, you know full well its nearly impossible to spend more than several years in a country club prision in the EU no matter what you do unless you are a WN

YES I AM A RACIST. I love White women, I want them around, forever....got a problem with that?

Yes its hate speech. I HATE those that are trying to destroy me and mine as any and every normal living thing would that is npot a self-castrated drone
Ill tell you what. Of you want to stop us WNs from engaging in "Hate sppech" BE A MAN AND GO UP TO THE NEXT SKINHEAD YOU SEE AND TRY TO SHUT HIM UP. Not up to it eh? Didnt think so. People like you prefer to hide behind the skirt of the state and color of law
You know what, Id despise you on libertarian grouinds alone even if I were not a WN. Id despise your servile statism even if I were an anti!
Answer my question abour the Jews and gay sex. Its not a Non sequitor. You have advanced the proposition that the sate dervies its moral authority from its swetting in its times and culture. Someone that takes that position has no moral authority to protest the Holocaust. You have also advanced the proposition that a citoizen is under an absolute obligation to obet any legislation passed by a "representatiive government" Therefore, BEND OVER BUDDY! Im sure even many thoughtful more libertarian oriented Antis would agree with me on this

[eggheadbanga]

Darwin, you are immature and uncivil.

Uncivil, yes. Because you're a geriatric fool. Immature, perhaps that's how it seems to a prematurely senile old man.

This is really interesting. So I've violated my allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, have I? Please show me where I did that.

I assume that Great Britain has a law against treason. The holocaust lie is damaging the West in general and GB in particular. The British in-group is in demographic decline and its survival is threatened by jewish in-group behavior supported in large part by the holocaust lie.

You assume correctly that Great Britain has a law against treason. The rest of your assumptions make an ass out of U. You would search in vain to find any connection between the presence of ethnic minorities in the UK, or to find that cultural changes had been brought about 'because of the Jews', or to link these in any way, shape or form with the teaching of the Holocaust.

Burrhus: Please direct me to one post here or anywhere else where I have used the word free-speech.

I can direct you to this one.

You accuse me of 'bleating' (an uncivil pejorative) about free-speech yet you cannot cite an example of my using that word. It would be best for you to apologize and admit your error.

Unfortunately for you, you just walked into a door below.

Where have I advocated that your speech be restricted? I have only described it, as I see it, as treasonous.

That is a proposed restriction of speech, because it characterises my statements as a criminal act punishable by death under British law. Unless you are verbally incontinent and simply throw around words without meaning them, then you were proposing that in your ideal-world, my free speech should be punishable.

Otherwise you were just using 'tawdry rhetoric'. In which case you should shut up and make sure you get your afternoon nap more often.

Quote:
MVH: Please then explain on what grounds Germar Rudolf should have been granted political asylum in the USA, and on what grounds Germar Rudolf should have not been convicted in the BRD in 1994.

The law under which he was convicted in Germany is politically motivated and is not in the best interest of the German people. Prohibiting open disagreement with the orthodox holocaust story maintains the lie and its negative consequences for the German people and the West in general.

This is question-begging. You haven't even begun to demonstrate what 'negative consequences' there are.

Tawdry rhetoric, putting words into an opponents mouth that he never spoke. Please cite my use of the phrase "day of the rope".

Treason is a crime still punishable by death under British law. We used to hang people. Throwing around your own tawdry rhetoric about 'treason' deserves nothing but contempt and ridicule.

When I write my book, Philo-semitic Traitors, a Threat to Western In-groups: What Is to Be Done?

Do send me a copy, or will it be made available for free as a download from Stormfront/solargeneral/VHO etc?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Burrhus: I'm putting you on Ignore. Your droolings aren't worth responding to anymore. I hope I've insulted you enough that you've got the message. Goodbye.

[Globus]

You are mentally ill or profoundly evil if you think there is nothing wrong with a government exterminating its native population,

No one is eliminating the native populations.

YES I AM A RACIST. I love White women, I want them around, forever....got a problem with that?

Of course you are!

You're also someone who does not support democracy or free speech. They don't fit with your blind ideology.

[diabloblanco]

There is nothing fraudulent about these democracies and your claims about sentences are lies. You confuse the refusal of human beings to accept your demons as a lack of democracy.



What's wrong with that?



See, I was correct. You're just a racist who is furious that others don't agree with you. Some democracy you represent!





In other words a pinprick of reality in your otherwise delusional word.

The point is exactly correct and proper. Your bleating about the rights of liars has nothing to do with your concern for free speech. You are only interested in free hate speech.



You haven't shown why it's tyranny. Merely stating it is does not constitute an argument. And the vast majority of people care, so you are simple left on the sidelines. That's what really pisses you off.





Non sequitur.

I can see what you're problem is.

You haven't shown why it's tyranny. Merely stating it is does not constitute an argument. And the vast majority of people care, so you are simple left on the sidelines. That's what really pisses you off.

Sure I have. Revisionists (whom I largly disagree with BTW) are not negatively encroaching on the rights to life, liberty and property of anyone, nor on the collective rights of any race or nation to exist by peacefully advocating an alternate view of history. As Mr Jefferson said "Error may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." Such actions are therefore tyranny
If all you can offer in the defense of your position is that "most people dont like you" than you are just a lemming
Besides do most Whites REALLY dislike racism? Of course not. They still vote with their feet when Non-Whites move in their neighborhood, and in the US 97% of White females still breed within their race. What people may say out of fear, even to themselves, does not necessairily reflect what they REALLY believe. Their actions are a far better test of that

[diabloblanco]

No one is eliminating the native populations.



Of course you are!

You're also someone who does not support democracy or free speech. They don't fit with your blind ideology.

Of course I support free speech. Antis can advocate interracialism all they wish. Their rights end if they try to bring Non-Whites into our nations, deny Whites the right to have our own schools and communities or to associate only with Whites
I also support representative government. However there are certain fundamental rights, which no government, representative or otherwise, ought to encroach on

[calvin]

There is nothing fraudulent about these democracies and your claims about sentences are lies. You confuse the refusal of human beings to accept your demons as a lack of democracy

Over 70% of the UK population favours the restoration of the death penalty and has done so for decades. There has never been a time in UK history when a majority of the population has been in favour of mass immigration, and yet we have millions of immigrants and no death penalty. Is that democracy or fraudocracy Globby?

[Basil Fawlty]

Burrhus: I'm putting you on Ignore. Your droolings aren't worth responding to anymore. I hope I've insulted you enough that you've got the message. Goodbye.I'm posting this on request.
I am not putting you on ignore. That is a childish, emotional response to a situation that you find disturbing.

You have not insulted me at all. I can only be insulted by someone whom I respect and consider to be my intellectual equal or better. You do not qualify in either category.

Goodbye. I'll miss you. (Sarcasm)

[Globus]

Of course I support free speech.

Nah, you'd take it away from anyone who threatened the kind of world order your ideology would bring.

Antis can advocate interracialism all they wish.

You mean most thinking humans.

Their rights end if they try to bring Non-Whites into our nations, deny Whites the right to have our own schools and communities or to associate only with Whites.

See, you're not for democracy.

You're simply an ideologue.

[Globus]

You haven't shown why it's tyranny. Merely stating it is does not constitute an argument. And the vast majority of people care, so you are simple left on the sidelines. That's what really pisses you off.

Sure I have.

No, you've merely asserted it.


There is no tyranny as you describe. There are merely limits to what free people will allow your ideology to dictate.

[Globus]

Over 70% of the UK population favours the restoration of the death penalty and has done so for decades.

So you claim.

But then voters must not consider it very important if they don't kick out representatives who disagree. That's what a democracy must do. We don't govern by polls.

[Globus]

I'm posting this on request.

Ah, Basil has found a purpose in life!

[Basil Fawlty]

Four posts in a row from Golan Globus Productions, all of them brimfull with bile, all of them very revealing of his loathesome ideology, except the last one. That reveals his addiction to personal attack, which is about all he has.

[Globus]

Four posts in a row from Golan Globus Productions, all of them brimfull with bile, all of them very revealing of his loathesome ideology, except the last one. That reveals his addiction to personal attack, which is about all he has.

LOL!

Spouts the bileful master of personal attack, who has nothing else to offer, since he knows nothing about the subjects at hand, and only knows his prejudices.

[Globus]

Over 70% of the UK population favours the restoration of the death penalty and has done so for decades.

So sayeth Calvin!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/03/ndeath03.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/03/ixnewstop.html

Less than 50pc back death penalty
By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor
Last Updated: 12:41am GMT 03/01/2006

Support for the restoration of the death penalty has fallen below 50 per cent for the first time since its abolition 40 years ago, according to a YouGov poll for The Daily Telegraph.

Recent high-profile murders, especially the shooting of Pc Sharon Beshenivsky in Bradford, have prompted calls for the return of hanging for those who kill police officers.

However, the survey suggests that while more people continue to favour capital punishment than oppose it, support is much lower than the levels seen in the past, despite a remorseless rise in the number of murders.

advertisementIn 1960, a Gallup poll found that more than two thirds of people, 70 per cent, believed that murderers of police officers should hang. The corresponding figure in the new YouGov survey is 49 per cent.

The balance of opinion remains in favour of the death penalty in such cases but it is far smaller than it used to be.

The proportion opposed to the death penalty, even when it is a police officer who has been murdered, has more than doubled since 1960 from 20 to 43 per cent.

The young are much less in favour of restoring capital punishment than their elders. Among YouGov's older respondents, 59 per cent would like to see the death penalty brought back for those who kill police officers. The corresponding figure among the young is 31 per cent.

Conservatives by a large margin - 59 to 35 per cent - want to see the death penalty restored. Labour supporters are almost evenly divided with 46 per cent in favour and 47 per cent opposed.

Among Liberal Democrats, the balance is tipped the other way, with only 35 per cent in favour and 60 per cent opposed.

The last big opinion survey on the subject was conducted in the wake of the Soham murders three years ago and showed 56 per cent support for the death penalty for child killers.

However, this was a marked fall from 75 per cent public support when the subject was last debated in the Commons in 1994.

Then, MPs voted by 403 votes to 159 - a majority of 244 - against restoration. The margin has grown over the years from 185 in 1990 and 170 in 1983.

Only 40 or so of the MPs who backed hanging in the 1994 vote remain in the Commons and while the three subsequent general elections may have brought in new supporters, another vote would struggle to get more than 100 out of the 659 MPs in favour of restoration.

It is also questionable whether Britain would be allowed to bring back capital punishment even if Parliament voted for it because the European Union requires that it should be abolished in all member states.

The death penalty in Britain was suspended in 1965 and then finally abolished in 1969 despite strong public support for its retention.

Throughout the debate on the future of hanging, which began after the Second World War, polls showed support consistently around 66 per cent.

The high-water mark of retentionist sentiment was reached in 1962 when 81 per cent were opposed to banning it.

Even when respondents were asked whether they would continue to favour hanging if it was certain that an innocent man had been executed, only 20 per cent still favoured abolition.

The YouGov poll appears to be the first time that under a half of respondents favoured restoration of capital punishment.

Paradoxically, support for the death penalty has waned even as the murder rate in Britain has steadily increased since abolition.

In 1964, there were fewer than 300 murders. By 1994, the year of the last parliamentary vote, there were 565 and last year there were 850.

YouGov elicited the opinions of 2,616 adults across Great Britain on line.

Unfortunately, you must always check what deniers say.

[Commander]

re; post #141

They are a sham and a fraud when the purpose of their existence is to exterminate their native inhabitants through innundation by non-White immigration and miscegenation.

the reply from Globus..

What's wrong with that?

I keep hearing about "Israel's right to exist". That is just for Jews, white Europeans have no such right, this is what you are saying here?

Does this not make you a racist, & hate monger, in fact you are in the same league as the JEWISH TASK FORCE (http://www.jtf.org/) people. You are an extremist.

Most whites, even ones who don't like Jews, do not openly advocate exterminating them, the way you are advocate exterminating whites.

[Globus]

re; post #141



the reply from Globus..



I keep hearing about "Israel's right to exist". That is just for Jews, white Europeans have no such right, this is what you are saying here?

No one is threatening their existence.

You're living in a dream world.

[Commander]

No one is threatening their existence.

You're living in a dream world.

You are a denier, a denier in denial of his denial, who acusses others of being deniers. Don't deny that.

[Globus]

You are a denier, a denier in denial of his denial, who acusses others of being deniers. Don't deny that.

You're not angry are you, Aryan?

[diabloblanco]

No one is threatening their existence.

You're living in a dream world.

There is no "Dream world". All demographers agree that Whites are on the road to extinction in their own homelands, or at best they terminate any population projections at the "tipping point" ,obviously fearful of the reaction it will cause if they proceed any further.
The fact is that there is no time in the remotely forseeable future that the populations of Black Africa, the Indian subcontinent,Non-White areas of Latin America, etc, will attain the living and cultural standards of the West., even if you assume that they have the same intelligence and civilization building capacity as Whites and Northeast Asians. Northeast Asia, yes, Japan has already done so, South Korea is allmost there China has a way to go but is on a surge...BUT THAT IS IT. Consequently the "push and pull factors" will remain present into the distant future.
Given this, if the West continues de facto open door immigration to Non-Whites, continues to brainwash its native populations into believing that any form of racial awareness in Whites is the epitome of evil, than the outcome is merely a question of when, not if.

[Globus]

[QUOTE=diabloblanco]There is no "Dream world". All demographers agree that Whites are on the road to extinction in their own homelands, or at best they terminate any population projections at the "tipping point" ,obviously fearful of the reaction it will cause if they proceed any further.[/quite]

Whites are only threatened if they, of their own accord, intermarry with other races. No one is making them extinct. You attach far too much importance to the color of your skin. Get over it.

[diabloblanco]

[QUOTE=diabloblanco]There is no "Dream world". All demographers agree that Whites are on the road to extinction in their own homelands, or at best they terminate any population projections at the "tipping point" ,obviously fearful of the reaction it will cause if they proceed any further.[/quite]

Whites are only threatened if they, of their own accord, intermarry with other races. No one is making them extinct. You attach far too much importance to the color of your skin. Get over it.

And who is demanding that they must do that? Race is far more than skin color, in reality Whites have a variety of different skin tones. When Blacks demanded "Majority rule" in Southern Africa, you did not tell them to "Get over their skin color" When they shouted "Afriica for Africans" you applauded
WE ARE MEN.....AND WE ARE TAKING OUT WHATEVER IS IN THE WAY OF THIS:

http://www.panf.info/upload/forumdisplay.php?f=29

What makes that so hard to comprehend? Only a brown stained sodomite would have any issue with that!

[Globus]

[QUOTE=Globus]

[quote]And who is demanding that they must do that?

No one is demaning they intermarry. You're just terrified because you realize most people are not as exercised by this "threat" as you. Perhaps you should ask yourself why.

And then perhaps you should try to post on topic for this sub-forum

[diabloblanco]

[QUOTE=diabloblanco][QUOTE=Globus]



No one is demaning they intermarry. You're just terrified because you realize most people are not as exercised by this "threat" as you. Perhaps you should ask yourself why.

And then perhaps you should try to post on topic for this sub-forum

Anyone who opposes racemixing in mainstream society is branded a pariah and efforts are made to silence them, get them fired from their jobs, etc. In some places in Europe any such opposition can lead to imprisionment

"Perhaps you should ask yourself why."

Hint, being a retrosexual straight White might have some bearing on it. In any event, I NEVER base my opinions on what I believe most other people think

"You're just terrified because you realize most people are not as exercised by this "threat" as you."

Are you really sure of that? Whites still leave their neighborhoods en masse as soon as Non-Whites move in even though the first Non-Whites are usually of the same socio-economic class as they are, and are not disruptive. Voting with ones feet is the saddest and purest form of democracy. Im simply more open and honest, ESPECIALLY to myself.

[Globus]

[QUOTE=Globus][QUOTE=diabloblanco]

Anyone who opposes racemixing in mainstream society is branded a pariah

Exactly. And that is the root of your problem.

Now, take your race fixation to an appropriate forum.