Thanks AT, but it has no serious relevance to the issue at hand, which
is that to analyse history in terms the influence that specifically
Jewish power has had on the major geo-political events of the past 150
years or so, or to question the accuracy of the Jewish-controlled
official narrative of those events, is taboo - the breaking of which
invites the sort of hate-filled invective that has been directed at me
on this thread.
If you want to know who rules over you, find out who you are not allowed
to question - then go do something about it.
QED
PeterP
On 19/06/2016 23:45, Aftermeth Tehgrate wrote:
i can find out if his claim about the office is true; i frequent Victoria.
On Sunday, June 19, 2016, Peter Presland <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Another series of personal hate-filled anecdotes that I guess we must
accept at face value since they are being made by a Jewish promoter of
the Holocaust Industry, a class of individuals that can do no wrong it
seems. And still neither you nor Samuel Birkbeck are prepared to deal
with anything other than anecdotal evidence interspersed with
patronising bile and foul-mouthed hatred. Whereas it is my side of this
non-debate that is constantly accused of 'hate-crimes'
Some further points interspersed below:
On 18/06/2016 04:39, LEACHMAN Cliff wrote:
> Hi Peter, Coincidentally my assistant just bought the Vrba book I
> scanned, for my recent birthday.
How nice. Hope you find it interesting as I did when I first read it
some 10 years ago.
> and was reading this email over my
> shoulder at the office and burst out laughing as I did, when I read
> your comment about the notorious Doug Christie! What a small world
> and that you would admire such a person, not surprising I guess, but
> hilarious! I know Doug Christie very well.
I did not say I admired him. I simply cited him as defense counsel in
the 1985 Zundel trial, that's all; and forgive me for doubting that you
"know" (sic) or knew Christie well'. For one thing he died 3 years ago
and for another, he was subject to such relentless hostility, assault
and vandalism by Jewish groups over the years that he would certainly be
VERY circumspect about any contact with anyone heavily involved in
Jewish identity politics.
> his office is the size of
> a shoe box (15 feet X 10 feet) and is 1 1/2 blocks from our dental
> office, Victoria BC.
Oh how awful - a small office!. Got to have a palatial one to count for
anything eh?
> Covered by surveillance cameras after repeated
> vandalism, had a swastika sprayed painted on it and left it on the
> door as a calling card for years,
And who do you think was responsible for the repeated acts of vandalism
Cliff? And the personal assaults on him; And the same on Ernst Zundel
including the burning down of his house; plus countless other acts of
viscous hated-filled assault on aging revisionist academics in Europe?
Examples of such Jewish violence towards people they don't like (ie
so-called antisemites) are in fact legion. They are just suppressed in
the MSM, that's all because they are a serious threat to the de-rigeur
official narrative of the Jews as history's eternal victims.
And how's this for another bit of pure Jewish hatred - from the 'Chief
witness to the Holocaust' Eli Weasel, no less - and taken from his
best-selling fairy-tale "Night":
"Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate —
healthy virile hate — for what the German personifies and for what
persists in the German."
Imagine that being published anywhere in the west with the words 'Jew'
and 'German' juxtaposed. What do you suppose would happen to its author?
"Healthy virile hate for what persists in the JEW" ???? - Just imagine a
Gentile saying such a thing - He/she would be imprisoned in much of
Europe where, in matters of "The Holocaust" and alleged prototypical
Jewish suffering, double standards rule absolutely supreme.
And here are another couple of examples of dissembling absurdity for you
or others on the list to explain:
1. In response to a high-profile court case in 1979, 34 French (Jewish)
academics published the following in 'Le Monde'
".... One must not ask oneself how, technically, such a mass-murder was
possible. It was technically possible, because it happened. That is the
required point of departure of every historical inquiry on this
subject." Can you name ANY other area of historiography where
corroborating technical inquiry is forbidden by law? And if not why
should it apply here?
2. In 1982 an 'International Colloquium' of Jewish academics in Paris
concluded that they could find no documentary evidence for either a
'Hitler order' or the existence of homicidal gas chambers. Raul Hilberg
- a colloquium contributor and one of the most prestigious defenders of
the existence of homicidal gas chambers - had the following to say by
way of explanation: "... what began in 1941 was a process of destruction
not planned in advance, not organized centrally by any agency. There was
no blueprint and there was no budget for destructive measures. They
[these measures] were taken step by step, one step at a time. Thus came
about not so much a plan being carried out, but an incredible meeting of
minds, a consensus -- mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy."
Amazing stuff eh? the (allegedly) worst case of (alleged) genocide, and
it all came about by mind-reading!
The rest of your post is a similar mix of bile and patronising
pseudo-folksy anecdote with no attempt to deal with the vast array of
evidence that "The Holocaust" simply *could* not have occurred in a
manner and in numbers consistent with the hallowed official narrative.
When the Auschwitz death toll was officially revised downward by 3
million or so, you would have thought it would have been reason for
celebration in Jewish circles. After all, it meant that far fewer
Jews were killed than previously thought, did it not? But no. The 6
million remains sacrosanct. Can you think of a reason for that?
And your accusations of racism are especially rich coming from someone
who, in the same post, showcases his own "Jewish bloodline". In western
discourse, just as 'antisemite' is most accurately defined as someone
that Jews don't like, so an anti-racist is someone who is more
accurately described as 'anti-white'. I'm not a fan of race as a
category in political discourse myself because, as currently
employed, every 'Race' on earth can and does stand up for its 'racial
rights' (with the Jewish 'Race' oft-times their cheerleader); but for
someone defining himself as 'White' to stand up for His/Her 'Racial'
rights - Heaven forbid; that is simply not to be tolerated is it?
Instead of these incessant slurs, how about addressing actual EVIDENCE?
PeterP
