Holocaust Denier Arrested

The Holocaust denial laws, at least to me, punch huge gaping holes into the myriad of theories surrounding America being some sort of leading Zionist nation controlled by the state of Israel.

Here's my reasoning for that... According to anti-zionists we (the US) struck Iraq and are preparing to strike Iran because we do Israel's bidding. Many of those same anti-zionists point towards these anti defamation laws in European countries as being also part of the Zionist agenda and an example of doing Israel's bidding. Here's where I see a disconnect. The United States, by and large, is vehemently opposed to the type of censorship these laws espouse, likewise, the European countries with the toughest anti-Holocaust denial laws were among the countries most opposed to the US war in Iraq and are currently opposed to taking action against Iran.

I don't believe the "it's all part of a Zionist conspiracy for domination" crap. I think it merely demonstrates a significant difference in ideology between America's values & laws and the rest of the world's values & laws (albeit a difference that is ever shrinking, sadly.) Americans traditionally saw words as just that, words. If your words were the words of an ass, then we traditionally believed that you would eventually expose yourself as an ass and people would see your words for what they were, sans government interference. Conversely, the countries that have taken the boots to free speech, specifically what they consider "hatefull" speech, view words as a very volotile weapon that needs disarming.

Personally, I am 100% opposed to any form of restriction on speech with only a small handfull of exceptions. I do not believe that slander of an individual should be protected without evidence, I do not believe that we should allow carte blanche sharing of inside information without justification of a greater common good coming from such expositions, and I do not believe anyone has the right to yell "FIRE!!" in a crowded building without reasonable belief that there's actually a fire (note: this includes a lot of the utter crap we see here on ATS, too. I think it's incredibly irresponsible to make some of the baseless sensationalistic claims surrounding crap like impending doom & martial law. It is incendiary and it is fear mongering and there really should be some requirement of reasonable believabillity to avoid being held responsible for your words.)

Sadly, the traditional American viewpoint of "Sticks & stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me." seems to be going by the wayside. The top culprit is minority interests who would have people believe that using a racial slur or telling an off color joke is akin to throwing a noose around whoever you're speaking of's neck. I find that concept repulsive. If a man's words are garbage, let the listener decide that one their own. Instead we've entered a disturbing era where, if you're not grossly outraged at the mere hint of racial or hatefull speech, you, yourself are also painted as a racist or hate monger.

It's illegal in Germany to keep any anti-semetic beliefs from spurring into another situation where the Jews are persecuted, like WWII Germany.

Yes, other groups (gypsies, gays, non-Christians, and other races) and nations went through the same as the Jews in WWII, but history will focus mainly on the suffering of the Jews because they have the strongest voice now to keep tragedies like this from happening again.

reply to post by rufusdrak


Yes, i understand that it is the egg/chicken kind of issue. If pre-planned killing of people of certain race in astronomical proportions (aka holocaust) did not happen after racial rhetorics/laws then there is certainly no justification to prevent similar forces from regaining power now too. Well it is why i think that discussion about holocaust should not be suppressed. I would gladly listen to an an answer why with KKK, discriminating laws and awful treatment by officials, number of blacks in US increased. But with Nazi party all European countries Germany had conquered or even controlled numbers of Jews fell to the floor, without any proportions to demographics of "host" nations. While nowhere adequate increase in Jewish population was noted. Must be some cause to it, don't you think? I doubt that all vanished to another dimension. However since you are not this professor or his "think" alikes - this somewhat rhetorical question is to them , not to you.
For now, i see that his site - for example - contains links/material of certain old school that is deeply interested to return to the mainstream but cannot do it due to its skeletons in the open. So an attempt to temporarily at least push those problematic (for now) facts back in the closet is understood.

reply to post by rufusdrak



No, no, no !


WHO 'defined jews as an ethnicity' ?

The same people who determined that it must be illegal to deny the holocaust ?

The same people who insist that often justified criticism of jews is 'anti-semitic' ?


Think about it, please. Otherwise you will impose the same propaganda upon others as has successfully been imposed upon yourself.

Judaism is a religion


Jews .. those who claim to adhere to the teachings of judaism .. by contrast are of a wide range of ethnicities.

There are Jamaican jews. There are black-American jews. There are Ethiopian jews. There are British jews. There are Australian jews. There are Lebanese jews. There are Canadian jews. There are Finnish jews. There are Norwegian jews. There are Dutch jews and Belgian jews and French jews and German jews and Lithuanian jews and jews in Utah and South Carolina and Washington State and California .. etc.

Judaism is a religion.

There are many variations of Judaism. Many of them virulently oppose other forms of Judaism.

The vast majority of those claiming to be jews originated not in the Middle East but in Asia/Europe .. the Khazars .. who in turn converted to Judaism several hundred years ago.

Therefore, as is clear, Judaism is merely a religion, not a 'race'.

Yes .. there is a concerted effort to persuade and convince that Judaism is a 'race' AND a religion.

Would you accept as willingly any claim that Mormonism is a 'race' AND a religion, on the grounds that the vast majority of Mormons originated in Utah ?

Would you then concede that any criticism of Mormons or any rebuttal of any claim made by the Mormons is 'racial discrimination' and 'illegal' to boot ... because the Mormons insist this is so ?

reply to post by burdman30ott6


Sorry good sir I must respectfully disagree. You see America was FOUNDED on the ideals of free speech whilst most European nations were not. This is why the deplorable holocaust denial laws have not been able to grab hold over here. America is a far larger country with a far more numerous, and belligerent (and ARMED!!!) citizenry that will NOT put up with a certain amount of ####. Zionists DO control America and all those countries (hey I'm entitled to my opinion like you yours) but you seem to be thinking only in 'absolutes'. Just because they control a large PART doesn't mean they are ALL POWERFUL and able to utterly subdue and enslave us. Ofcourse not there is only a certain amount of repression the americans will put up with plus it's a gradual process, our freedoms are being limited by the Bush administration more and more so who's to say we won't have these laws in the near future.

Oh .. and I forgot to include the Italian jews.

Recently, whilst conducting research in another field entirely, I came upon something I was previously unaware of: 40% of Sicily was comprised of jews. Also, jews comprised 50% or more of the population of the Abruzzo region in Italy. Abruzzo and Sicily, incidentally, were once known as The Two Sicilies. And I'll leave it to others to ponder the Russian and Italian mafias and their origin.

So add a significant number of Italian jews to the pot. Proving yet again that 'jewishness' is NOT an ethnicity

Originally posted by Dock6
reply to post by rufusdrak

 

No, no, no !

While I personally agree with most everything you're saying I must make a few corrections.

When you named Jamaican Jews, Norwegian Jews, Ethiopian Jews, etc, you are referring to a Jamaican person who has chosen the RELIGION OF JUDAISM. What I was saying is that "officially" Jews are also an ETHNICITY not just a religion. I understand what you're saying but I'm just telling you that the official version is that it is also an ethnicity and therefore a Jamaican being a jew in no way discredits the fact that Jews might be an ethnicity because just because an ethnic Jamaican CONVERTED to THE RELIGION OF JUDAISM has no bearing on his ETHNICITY which is a genetic factor not a religious one.
So there could be people practicing the JUDAIC RELIGION anywhere on earth whether it be jamaica iceland or india but that has no bearing on the fact (woops, ASSERTION) that JEWS comprise an ethnicity as well as a religion.
For example what do you make of a person who is a buddhist Jew? He ascribes to the BUDDHIST RELIGION yet he will ETHNICALLY call himself a Jew. Does such a person exist to you?
Keep in mind I'm just telling you what the official story is, as for unofficially and personally I probably tend to agree more with you but I'm not 100% certain if it is an ethnicity or not.
And please stop saying race I never said they are a race I am saying ETHNICITY there's a difference. There could be people of the same RACE but are of different ethnicities. For example Brazil has people that are black and spanish in terms of skin color, their ETHNICITY is the same they are Brazilian yet their RACE is different, at least that's how I understand the definitions of ethnicity and race.

reply to post by rufusdrak


its important to also note this isn't just about denial. "Revisionist" means you do not blindly take the generally accepted events as complete fact.

Can someone point out a SINGLE historical event that everyone agrees on, and nobody has any motivation whatsoever to "revise" to mean something else? For example, what if the US made it illegal for anyone to talk about mistreatment of native americans, just because it reflects poorly on America.

Likewise, criticizing the details of he holocaust is seriously undermining lots of effort that has been put on defining the holocaust in a very specific way, in regards to the loss of Jewish lives. This has been classified as genocide, although it seems that it's totally legal to talk /debate any other genocide in history. WWII is just a touchy subject still. I can't really figure out why without lots of speculation, but I am quite positive that there are some non-public reasons for all the effort put on retaining this textbook definition of what happened.

Originally posted by scientist
reply to post by rufusdrak

 

its important to also note this isn't just about denial. "Revisionist" means you do not blindly take the generally accepted events as complete fact.

Can someone point out a SINGLE historical event that everyone agrees on, and nobody has any motivation whatsoever to "revise" to mean something else? For example, what if the US made it illegal for anyone to talk about mistreatment of native americans, just because it reflects poorly on America.

Likewise, criticizing the details of he holocaust is seriously undermining lots of effort that has been put on defining the holocaust in a very specific way, in regards to the loss of Jewish lives. This has been classified as genocide, although it seems that it's totally legal to talk /debate any other genocide in history. WWII is just a touchy subject still. I can't really figure out why without lots of speculation, but I am quite positive that there are some non-public reasons for all the effort put on retaining this textbook definition of what happened.

Good point. I was reading the supposed 'official' criteria for what constitutes holocaust denial and ONE of the criterion points was the denial of the commonly accepted figure of 5 to 7 million or something along those lines. So technically if a 'revisionist' doesn't even deny the holocaust but simply says he believes only 4,999,999 Jews died then he is now legally a holocaust denier and can be imprisoned. Sounds to me like a giant ARBITRARY and illegal joke!
For example, my best friend's grandfather served in WW2 and he says that the holocaust is a hoax. But let's pretend that it was MY grandfather and that he was IN ww2 and experienced it but told me only 4 million jews died instead of 7 million. So I go write a memoir about myself and my grandfather and I say that only 4 million died now I'm imprisoned because I'm telling an account of what my grandfather saw with his own eyes. Why doesn't anyone else see something wrong with this.

reply to post by rufusdrak


Ok. Point taken. As of this moment, I've only consulted two sources re: ethnicity.

Oxford American Dictionary: ' Ethnic: adj. 1 of a racial group 2. of clothes, etc. resembling the peasant clothes. etc. of primitive peoples. Ethnic n. a member of an ethnic group. Ethnically adv. ethnic group, people who share distinctive cultural characteristics originating from a common national, linguistic or racial heritage

Collins Compact Thesaurus: ethnic, ethnical adjective = cultural, folk, indigenous, national, native, racial, traditional

Grabbed another, Cassell English Dictionary: ethnic, a. pertaining to or characteristic of a race, people or cult; pertaining to the culture or traditions of a particular race or cult; (coll) out of the ordinary; racial, ethnological; + not jewish nor Christian + a Gentile, or pagan. ethnical, a. ethnically, adv. + ethnicism, n. heatenism, paganism; a non-Jewish and non-Christian religion.

ethnocentrism, n. the mental habit of viewing the world solely from the perspective of one's own culture.

ethnograph, n. the science which describes different human societies

ethnology, n. the science which treats of the varieties of the human race and attempts to trace them to their origin


Judaism is not a 'race'

It is utterly absurd to even propose such a nonsense


Further, if it is proposed that Judaism is a 'race' --- then so must all other religious denominations. The Christian 'race' ? The Mormon 'race' ? The Baptist 'race' ? The Methodist 'race' ?

Any argument put forth to support Judaism as a 'race' applies equally (and equally absurdly) in the case of any other religion, by the same preposterous reasoning.

I think the OP raises a good point. I believe the Holocaust happened, it did did it not?

However so what if this guy wants to believe differently and share his opinion, or even his propaganda?

Who decides what is right and wrong to deny? You can not support these laws because who knows when it will be decided what you wish to deny is illegal, say when it comes to religion or 9/11 Truthers who don’t believe the official story of September 11th 2001?

reply to post by Dock6

Ok but who has ever in the history of the human race called Judaism a race? I have never to my knowledge heard it called a RACE unless it was by someone just completely ignorant or illiterate. Most people call it an ethnicity not a race.

In my country (Belgium) it is illegal to be a revisionist, indeed.

I'm not taking sides on either tip of the scale, Just trying to give some background on how those laws came about..

There is a strong Israeli factor to the Belgian Economy, especially in Antwerp, the diamond capital of the world (at that time undisputed, now Dubai is taking over). They mainly keep to themselves, living in a parallel economy, dressing distinct and minding their own lives.

There had been several bombings in front of Jewish schools and Synagogues, and an extreme rightwing party fueling the situation when a couple revisionists used the momentum to publish some material.
(No idea whether these bombings where the real deal or a false flag, I was too young to really be interested at the time)

I'm not taking responsibility nor choosing sides, but I think this breach of the freedom of speech was pushed through both because of the lobbys behind these Jewish businesses, and the fact our gouverment feared this party (Flemmish Blok) would grow to an opponent they'd have to reckon with based on these Nazi propaganda.

They made it then illegal to both publish revisionist material, and they banned Nazi periphalia like swastika's and military clothing.

Personally I believe the law is bad, because emotions should not be used to avoid an in-depth investigation of any event. But I think money spoke louder then words, maybe coupled with the threat of the diamond Industry dissappearing.

Thruth brings understanding, preaching one thruth and banning speech of alternative views is dogmatic brings ignorance.

Just one more thought.. If all went just like the history books say they went, and undisputable historic material exists, why then going through the trouble of outlawing dissenting voices?

(And to make clear; I'm not anti Semitic, I am anti Zionist, and if I was living in a community I would demand my children could go to school safe, too.. if they used money to bring this about, fact is they felt really worried, if I had had the money I propably would have tried the same I guess.

But, on the Internet, it's illegal to publish anything that is illegal in any country capable of accessing the website. So , in a way, my Country was among the Countrys responsible for it being a global ban on that particular search for the Thruth..

Peace.

reply to post by scientist




Exactly ! Which is why I nominated the Red Cross as being technically 'guilty of holocaust denial' ... because the Red Cross figures for jewish dead in WW2 are HUGELY lower than those insisted upon (as they did in WW One) by jews.

Yet we don't see the Red Cross being 'arrested' for 'illegally denying the holocaust figures' do we ?

Because if they did charge the Red Cross with 'holocaust denial' .. the Red Cross would cart into court THE authoritative documents and data .. after which there would be NO MORE arrests, for sure. And the world would become just that little bit more SANE afterwards.

Nor do 'they' charge or arrest the various 'holocaust museums' in Europe, most of which have GREATLY REVISED DOWNWARDS holocaust numbers.
SOME nations have CLOSED their holocaust museums after downwardly revising holocaust numbers. Although you won't find the whore media reporting it.

This arrest of Tobin is simply a publicity stunt by holocaust supporters

AND a way of sending a 'warning' to those who're beginning to point the finger at a 'certain group' in relation to the allged 'financial collapse'.

And I guess we aren't supposed to mention the 'holocaust memoirs' written in the past couple of years alone by jews who weren't born until 30 years after the END of WW2. And jewish publishers printed those books and sent them out in a burst of publicity for the Sheep to buy, even though a five year old could have done the sums which the jew publishers were apparently unable to master.

reply to post by Phatcat


I'm just curious what constitutes 'publishing' though? For example what you wrote right now, if you had written that you support holocaust denial and that you are a holocaust denier, and if this forum was viewed by the police in your country could you be arrested for just posting your views here?

Originally posted by rufusdrak
reply to post by Phatcat

 

I'm just curious what constitutes 'publishing' though? For example what you wrote right now, if you had written that you support holocaust denial and that you are a holocaust denier, and if this forum was viewed by the police in your country could you be arrested for just posting your views here?

I do believe so, yes!

Because my words would be 'advertizing' this forbidden topic.

That's why I will never engage in this topic, no point giving them a stick they can beat me with, eh ?

Originally posted by Phatcat

Originally posted by rufusdrak
reply to post by Phatcat

 

I'm just curious what constitutes 'publishing' though? For example what you wrote right now, if you had written that you support holocaust denial and that you are a holocaust denier, and if this forum was viewed by the police in your country could you be arrested for just posting your views here?

I do believe so, yes!

Because my words would be 'advertizing' this forbidden topic.

That's why I will never engage in this topic, no point giving them a stick they can beat me with, eh ?

Wow that is truly DISGUSTING!!

Long live America, brb guys I'm going to go dust off that ol' red white and blue flag.

reply to post by rufusdrak


When you're done polishing, just keep this in mind:

It is illegal to publish this material on the Internet in any Country that is capable of viewing the site ; remember?

Whenever you publish material of this nature on the Internet, what ever Country you are in, it is still considered illegal! Even if it is legal to publish it i your country through other means.. Internet legality is a tough one..

So, in a way, it's like hanging a hammer above your head, not knowing if it will ever come down on you, but if they need some semi-legal reason to shut you up, or just want to make a case in point, it's provided right there.

I doubt one or two posts would constitute as enough evidence, I reckon if they go after anyone it'd be repeat 'offenders', but it at least gives them the authority to confiscate your computer, so you can make the headlines..

"The offender's P.C rapportedly contained material of a revisionist nature"
"his case is set to come before the speed-trials in 3 weeks"

"Stay tuned for an update on this shocking development!!!"



[edit on 1-10-2008 by Phatcat]

Just to add a note, anyone who questions the numbers, locations, names, deaths, or methods of torture pertaining to the concentration camps is labeled a "Holocaust Denier."

I think the bigger conspiracy here is over the term "Holocaust Denier," meant to be used on anyone who questions any part of the Holocaust.

Automatically, people assume they deny the Holocaust ever happened, which is far from what their stance is.

It's a propoganda word, because no matter what the critiquing person's point is, people will always think the "Holocaust denier's" belief is invalid because the Holocaust had occurred, even though the critiquing person was never denying the Holocaust, but rather questioning the numbers or other miscellaneous information.

Originally posted by DJMessiah
Just to add a note, anyone who questions the numbers, locations, names, deaths, or methods of torture pertaining to the concentration camps is labeled a "Holocaust Denier."

I think the bigger conspiracy here is over the term "Holocaust Denier," meant to be used on anyone who questions any part of the Holocaust.

Automatically, people assume they deny the Holocaust ever happened, which is far from what their stance is.

It's a propoganda word, because no matter what the critiquing person's point is, people will always think the "Holocaust denier's" belief is invalid because the Holocaust had occurred, even though the critiquing person was never denying the Holocaust, but rather questioning the numbers or other miscellaneous information.

Exactly friend it's called in classical philosophy and debate the AD HOMINEM technique:
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

This is why they created these false propagandistic terms like "anti-semitic" and "holocaust denier" because by simply LABELING you with that all encompassing label they thereby shut down any argument you might have with a typical ad hominem attack therefore discrediting any actual EVIDENCE you might have to support your claims.