Copyright (c) 1997 - Ingrid A. Rimland
"This is an old question and holohuggers often insist that they can not all be lying.
But yesterday's Zgram brought up the Frank Walus deportation case where . . . eyewitnesses lied. Maybe not all of them, perhaps only 9 of the 13 who described his actions in Poland but who were never in Poland when what they testified to was supposed to have happened. We further know that all the eyewitnesses in the Demjanjuk case lied.
Consider the circumstances here, people speaking under penalty of perjury and still they lie. People who take an oath, give their personal most solemn word to tell the truth and still they lie. They put their own personal reputation and risk years in prison and still they lie. To wit, they commit the crime of perjury.
Consider then that book writers are not under oath when they relate their own experiences. Further consider that when a book writer collects the stories of others those others are not under oath and, given the difference between spoken and written speech, the authors have taken the liberty of rewriting the third hand stories.
So clearly if so many people, to a man, are willing to lie under oath, it is is clear that the burden of proof of veracity of any statement is upon those who claim the veracity of any eyewitness claim as, by the burden of experience we have learned they are in fact unmitigated liars."
The second letter comes from a writer who has in the past sometimes chided
me in a friendly fashion for not being hard-hitting enough because I edit
out things that could hurt me personally and prevent me from doing what
I do best - that is, do outreach work by capturing for future historical
research WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING AND THINKING three years before the New
Millenium:
"I really think that American atrocities from the war and the post-war such as this one and OPERATION KEELHAUL and OTHER LOSSES and the dismemberment of Germany and its attendent mass death and suffering must forever condemn this country to internal misery and eventual disintegration.
Considering that we have two wonderful children, ages 5 and 3, this is not what I want. I have fought and written to prevent such a thing. But when you study our history of deliberate and sadistic actions against decent people everywhere you are confronted with a magnitude of evil that is really beyond comprehension.
It is obvious that a country with such an unceasingly fiendish government cannot hold together. There is no moral justification for its existense. There is now certainly no racial imperative. It is now merely a place for aliens to make money. It is the financial and military base of the New World Order.
It is an obscene reversal of its eighteenth century premise. I think only Patrick Henry really understood the significance of the US Constitution, which he condemned as a blueprint for empire. This is the mistake which conservatives make: They believe that we have strayed from the Constitution. The fact is that we are in this mess because of it! (Where are the checks and balances on the Supreme Court?)
(A)ll the crimes and atrocities committed by the US government since 1861 have been "legal." The Supreme Court said so. This is the fundamental flaw of America, the greatest crime of which was WWII, for which America can never be forgiven. Future historians of America will sit and read of the wartime and post-war actions and be made physically sick from shock and disgust.
I notice that you have edited the names of the guilty policymakers and warlords so far. Why? They must not be protected. As for libel, the dead can't be libeled. Furthermore, in this country truth is a defense against the charge. In England, the truer the charge the greater the libel.
Count Tolstoy was destroyed because he told the truth about the English monsters who made and executed the policy of the forcible return of Stalin's enemies to the beast. It may be the same in Canada, but so what?
Revisionism means to tell the awful truth regardless of the consequences! The truth will make us mad and may even make us fight.
My theory has always been that to tell the truth effectively you must make it clear that you are ready and willing to fight to back it up. Otherwise, the solitary truth-teller will be destroyed . . . "
You know what Cicery said two thousand years ago: "If we are not ashamed
to think it, we should not be ashamed to say it." A noble thought,
but easier said than done.
Ingrid
Thought for the Day:
"The instinctive feeling of a great people is often wiser than the wisest men."
(Lajos Kossuth)