I was telling a friend the other day how I am never lonely. I have chums on the Internet who, hour upon hour, make me as happy as a clam. I'll show you by example.
Holocaust Enforcer:
"The truth is you don't like Jews, and like most bigots, it's because you're a loser. They have unduly appropriated wealth, you claim. Sounds like jealousy. The simple fact is that Holocaust-deniers are, for the vastly greater part, underemployed, uneducated losers, almost always male, and usually highly sexually repressed, who externalize blame for their own shortcomings on Jews, Blacks, conspiracies, or whomever."
So let me now show off my bunch of "losers", compiled and trimmed down from a variety of newsgroups:
* Interesting way of proving the "Holocaust" and showing us how cool and rational your analysis of historical events is. Could you now characterise the typical holohoaxer for our benefit? Are they all over-employed, educated winners, almost always female, and usually highly sexually intense, who never externalize blame for their own over-achievements on Aryans, Whites, conspiracies or whomever?
I'll let you know a little secret: you should never reply with insults on the net. It doesn't make you look brave, since you do it from a very prudent distance indeed, but it does make you look like the one who is losing and has no arguments left.
* As you read those words, ask yourself a question: If you thought the Germans made lampshades out of Grandma and Grandpa, and then you found out it was not true, would you regard that as good news? Most normal people would.
It takes an odd mind to regard that glad news as hate. And a very ambitious political agenda.
* I am sure you are familiar with the phenomenon of judgement before evidence? This is the malpractice of law in which a judge or jury is so hypnotized by the accusation, they cannot consider the possibility that the accusation is false.
This is the mental condition of many people from the first time they hear of Nazi atrocities - - human skin lampshades, medical tortures, selective dismemberment and so forth. Without providing substantial proof of anything, the prosecution produced convictions just by reciting the charges.
The practice was institutionalized at Nuremberg, as others have already pointed out. Every officially submitted accusation from an Allied prosecutor had to be accepted as material evidence.
It is not possible to prove a negative. That is why the burden of proof in a criminal case is on the prosecution.
The statement in Revisionism is that the Nuremberg prosecutors did not make the case. They did not present the evidence of their assertions because they did not have the evidence, and that was because the evidence did and does not exist.
* Low long can Jews live in that much holocaust? How long can the world indulge in so much of it? How did we become a victim society? Why did all media and press coverage come to slant towards victimhood? Who are the world's greatest victims?
In the old days, we could do great things for no other reason than that they were great. Now we can only respond to being vicitimized. There can never be a rational victimizer.
* I know what the First World War was. I know when it started, I know when it ended, I know the details in between have a high degree of consistency which agree with everything.
I know about all the other contemporaneous events; I have no reason to doubt the documentary evidence is there; no one told me the First World War was a secret matter conducted through code words without documents, with millions of dead in small enclosures and with no corpses resulting, and no other physical evidence visible, except for mountains of shoes and tatoos in the living victims.
If I was to tell you I don't believe in the First World War, I would be considered an inoffensive loony case and you wouldn't feel the irrepressible urge to attack, insult, etc.
Why? Because the difference between the First World War and the "Holocaust" is the difference between fact and fiction, rock-hard reality and masochistic wishful thinking, it's -- in a nutshell -- the difference between truth and falsehood.
* Persecution and deportation of Jews, Japanese Americans, Volga Germans, etc did occur. But this should not confer a unique character and dimension to the tragedies that befell any of those, entitling a given group of victims to monopolise the suffering and impose censorship, while abusing and vilifying old men who can no longer defend themselves, continuously whining - after 50 years! - and, of course, extorting financial "compensation" from both other classes of surviving War victims and their descendants.
Now please tell me whether you believe in the homicidal gas chambers or not. If not, what then is the "Holocaust" to you? If you don't know what it is, at least please state: what does its uniqueness consist of, according to you?
You cannot affirm or deny something that changes shape every 15 seconds or so. You must know what it is you're talking about.
Certainly the "Holocaust" should, at the very least, include:
1) millions of gassed Jews
2) a planned extermination.
If this is too restrictive to your sense of nearly unlimited freedom for the concept, then please let us know what would be an acceptable definition to you. Is this asking too much?
* I enjoy the opposite side foaming and tearing out their hair, while I have a little coffee and cookies and whistle away with Vivaldi between the furious messages. Much more amusing if the other guy really deserves it.
Concerning the denier word, you'll notice it has two edges. It allows you to make sure the "little detail" is not lost, meaning of course the gas chamber things which should be denied indeed.
It allows you to say: wait a minute, five years ago the H was basically gas chambers and little else. I deny the H because the H is an amoeba.
And if the H word wasn't there, you simply wouldn't be able to vinculate the gas chambers and the H. Little by little the whole thing would be desintegrating before your eyes and you wouldn't be able to say "this H of yours isn't the same as yesterday's H".
I believe the H word is good to pinpoint the thing and call attention to its amoeba character, since it makes the bridge to the past. And the denial makes the discontinuities easy to point out.
And don't think for a minute the other guy doesn't know the H is a changing amoeba. He simply is furious because he cannot get away from this knowledge and its exposure and denial.
Of course the right name for the historical perspective is revisionism, but denial applied to the H is just fine with me.
* There is little substitute for making a clean statement of the affair. When the casket is empty, you cannot enter the funeral weeping with the others, planning later to reveal the fact that there was no death and hence no reason for grieving. You just lay on all sorts of complications that tangle the eventual truth.
We are in a situation of Triage. This civilization is not unlike a train wreck we have stumbled upon. There are too many casualties and too few rescuers. Triage is the art of sorting the casualties into three categories:
1) Those who are so badly wounded, only and hour or two of intensive care could save them.
2) Those who have only broken bones and other injuries that do not threaten life
3) Those who have life-threatening injuries, such as deadly bleeding, that can be patched quickly.
Category 3 is where our efforts must be directed. You cannot waste your precious moments patting the hands of those who would be offended by direct statements - category 1 - while individuals in Category 3 fall off the deep end. They are sitting on juries deciding "hate crime", passing referendums, and nodding in placid agreement as the chains are fastened around their ankles.
* You cannot quote a single line of hatred in all that Zundel has written that expresses hatred ***as that term is normally understood and applied***.
To find hatred in Zundel's writing, you have to redefine hatred. You have to twist the word to mean something no ordinary English speaker would intend. And that is exactly what the Canadians have done.
First, they say that hatred is not necessarily an expression of hatred. Hatred can be words that inspire someone ELSE to feel hatred--sort of coded hatred like computer viruses maybe. You mail them away in e-mail or put them on a webpage, and everyone who reads them breaks out in body hair and fangs.
But on top of that, the Canadians say they don't have to demonstrate and actual case of induced hatred. These people are such hate experts, they would recognize a coded hate virus on sight, and they would recognize that the words just MIGHT cause hatred in some readers.
And then, for the final icing on the cow pie, they define the emotion of hatred to include ordinary anger or annoyance. So if Zundel pointed out that you had just been short-changed by the McDonalds cashier, that cashier could complain because, hey -- you might get mad at being short changed, and that's kind of like HATE, isn't it?
And thus Zundel's speech becomes "hate speech" and away we go.
* One force is using the power of government, under color of law, to censor free speech. And that force is the pro-Israel force.
Zundel has been fighting the forces of censorship in Canada for more than a decade. He has not lost a case yet, which shows you that by ordinary understanding of the laws of the land and the fabric of this civilization, Zundel is not guilty. But the pro-Israel lobby has him tried for the same crimes over and over again.
What kind of prosecution hammers away at a case for more than 10 years without success, and still does not give up? Even Kenneth Starr has a shorter tenure. Can you imagine what they have spent, passing special laws just to catch Zundel?
* They also define a guilt by association that equals or exceeds the efforts of any previous tyrannical regime: They claim that Zundel shares in the guilt of anything anyone ever does after reading Zundel's writing. As in EVER.
So if I read a Zundel pamphlet and then violate a parking regulation, Zundel's guilty. These National Aliance folks MAYBE read something of Zundel's and then spammed your group? Zundel is guilty of censorship.
If you were looking for a formula by which you could bring all the coveted liberties of this culture down in flames, this would do it. This is THE most pernicious attack on freedom in longer than I dare to think.
If you allow passage of Canadian-type laws in America - and it seems from your statements you wouldn't mind a bit - you can kiss goodbye to your Constitution, the Magna Carta, and everything in between. Against stupidity like that, I wouldn't give them even odds with a soap bubble in a sand storm.
=====
Thought for the Day:
"When my eyes shall be turned to behold for the last time the sun in heaven, may I not see him shining on the broken and dishonored fragments of a once glorious Union, on States dissever, discordant, belligerent, on a land rent with civil feuds, or drenched, it may be, in fraternal blood."
(Daniel Webster, Second Speech on Foote's Resolution)