That's OK Peter. As Oscar Wilde once said, "An apology is a recogntion
of ones failings in others"...:-) .
And this will be my last word on the matter...I promise...
Now, I took a look at those people you mentioned. The ones who are called "holocaust deniers". There seems to be a common theme in their beliefs. Specifically, they don't believe that a holocaust occurred before and during the Second World War, in Germany and its occupied territories, or that there was a specific programme created for the extermination of the Jewish population and that concentration camps and death camps were created for those purposes. We know of course, that concentration camps were created for political dissidents and trades union activists, communists. gypsies, ethnic minorities and those who opposed the philosophy, policy and practice of the German National Socialist Democratic Party and who were defeated on the streets after the GNSDP had taken power in the elections...which were rigged. (though that point is moot and up for debate by some). Later on vulnerable people were added, like physically and/or mentally handicapped children, as the superior race and the blood had to be kept pure and Aryian.
They, the holocaust deniers, believe that any camps that were created, of which the were only a few, were more like holiday camps, like Butlins and such like and that the camps were purely voluntary for Jews to go to, and that the policy and programme was designed by the German National Socialist Democratic Party for the safety of the Jews, some of whom were being attacked and punished by fellow Germans, and to look after their best interests and well-being by removing them from the scene. In researches on any of their papers I have never seen any or should I say a few admissions that places like Auschwitz or Buchenwauld existed, never mind the 900 or so that were found in the clean up after the war. Neither do they admit to any Jews being killed en masse, tortured, moved from their homes or, if it did happen, it was only very small and only those Jews who deserved it, suffered it. There is no recognition of the holocaust at all, it is a figment of the Allies imagination, as far as they are concerned, and therefore not worthy of remorse, recompense or reparations for those who managed to survive.
All of this contradicts the evidence which was given at the Nuremberg trials and the subsequent trials held afterwards. German National Socialist & Democratic Party members gave evidence that in some cases such atrocities had been carried out, but, in the few cases in which they were involved, it was a question of them obeying orders, and that what they did was perfectly legal, within German law, all tickety boo and above board, that bad things happen in war; and that it was a question of the Victorious over the Vanquished, and that it was really them who were the victims in all this. Much evidence was gained from prison gaurds themselves, and other people who worked at the camps, in the administration, on the trains, and those who designed and organised the planning of, what was called...in essence. "The Final Solution". Then, last but not least, came the most important evidence of all, that of the victims. I think that is basically the story. The result of Nuremberg, was the establishment of a couple of very important principles. "The Right NOT To Obey Orders"! and the law of humanity is a much greater and higher law than any other law of a nation state.
Now, where does the concept of "free speech" come into all of this? The Holocaust Deniers are saying that their right to free speech is being compromised, that they have the right to say anything they like, and if they believe that the Holocaust didn't happen, then they have the right to say so. And that to make the advocacy and the organisation of groups which support such a policy a criminal offence is a denial of their right of free speech. Well, it seems pretty obvious to me...that that is a load of hogwash, but I will take the time to spell it out, and I hope that you will bear with me, because I think it is important...for all of us.
Have you ever heard the story of William Tell? It's a piece of Swiss folklore about a boy who had an apple put on his head and to save the village his dad had to shoot the apple off his head without hurting his son. He managed it and everyone was happy. Well, there was a corollary to that story at the Nuremberg trials. There was a concentration camp gaurd who was nicknamed William Tell (Gottfried Wiesse). He went one better. Working in a concentration camp got really boring so he used to organise Sunday afternoon soirrees for his camp followers, which consisted of having a party, getting drunk and lining up Jewish prisoners and firing bullets at the apples on top of their heads. Some say that the German NSDP wasn't frivolous, particularly when they used to execute prisoners who complained frivously about having no food, no freedom, being beat up by gaurds, wanting medial attention which didn't include illegal operations etc. Of course, the drunker they got, the worse they got at shooting, and would kill a prisoner, "accidently" sending them off into paroxisms of laughter. The trouble was...and this is the important bit as far as I am concerned. Their camp gaurds' children were also present, and followed the example of their "betters"....Down through the generations the sins of the fathers are passed on to the sons.
And, it is for reasons like that, in my view, that many countries have made Holocaust Denial and organising and publicising holocaust denial groups and events unlawful. Were they right, or were they wrong? I know where I stand, but where do you stand?
By the way Peter, I am not Jewish or a supporter of Judaism, or any religion, or any race apart from the human race for that matter, but I do recognise the right of the State of Israel to exist. (My, haven't I come a long way from my youthful utopian dreams and the abolishment of the state leading to the liberation of mankind)...:-) . And...if you have got this far...for taking up so much of your valuable time...:-) .
On 17/02/2016 07:05, Peter Presland wrote:
Sorry if I have offended you. That was not my intent.
For me it wasn't and isn't a question of not wishing to discuss *this*
matter further; rather I prefer not to enter into extended discussion on
*anything* - mailing lists being too prone to time-wasting point-scoring
over inconsequential trivia. I try to confine myself to posting
information I (in my vanity) consider both useful and reasonably
'on-topic + occasionally seeking information.
My further post to Joe was simply a matter of courtesy to someone who
had addressed a first post to me personally, that's all.
I hope that clarifies things a little.
PS This morning I received a 'delayed delivery notification' re my first
reply, so it looks like that may actually be delivered sometime in the
future. If so please ignore it. It's just a duplicate of what's already
arrived - the vagaries of email eh?
On 16/02/2016 18:44, douglas rankine wrote:
Dear Peter & Joe,
Are you two referring to me in this discussion...Is it something I said,
or are you just referring to the world generally and how it looks upon
your concept and understanding of the phrase, "holocaust denial"? Do
you think that because of your age, you have the wisdom of the world on
your shoulders, far greater than anyone else, and which therefore
entitles you to know what the only defintion of holocaust denial is?
I only ask because Peter has said, below, in no uncertain terms that he
does not wish to discuss the matter further, that he has already
researched all of it, and has the last word to say on it, that he hasn't
got the time or the inclination...
And then goes on to discuss the subject further.
In that way you, Peter, attempted, and I say "attempted" to bar
me...from saying anything further about it. And with that, Joe, you
appeared to concur. The trouble is, with what you two concurred about
really, I haven't a clue...must be some secret or other...and I bet you
don't know yourselves.
Peter, you also impute a lot of meaning to things which I said, which I
didn't say. And, you used, very effectively...you thought...the "ad
hominis" argument whose use by others, you are so contemptuous of, to
attack my credibility rather than answer the question. Rather a neat
ruse, I thought...well used, well rehearsed...eh? And the thing is, you
didn't need to use it...
see url: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem
If you have doubts about the person I was referring to in my previous
posting, then why not do me the courtesy of asking? Then I would have
told you the story.
And, of course, every student of history knows that Auschwitch was
liberated by the Red Army...what a banal comment that was for you to make!
You didn't even pay attention to what I said, running off with some
half-cocked idea of what you thought I said.
Now, I don't really care whether you attack my credibility, as I am
used to that, and I know from past experience that it is a sign of
discourtesy verging on arrogance from those who think they know better.
And I don't really care whether you believe what I say...after all why
should you? I don't believe what you say either! Why should I?
I do not participate in this list for those reasons. I came on here to
learn and to share information, experiences, outlooks, opinions,
beliefs...and have a bit of fun and entertainment too.
A word of advice, Peter, perhaps, if you hadn't mentioned the phrase in
the first place, it would never have been discussed.
I wasn't attacking you personally, either. I was challenging what you
said. If you don't want to be challenged, then my advice is, don't say
it. And, as for pulling age as a sign of great wisdom which is superior
to the rest of the world, don't make me laugh. Napoleon thought he had
great wisdom too. Unfortunately what he thought was logic was luck and
it ran out in Moscow. Just think, if only the older folks of this world,
were a bit less impatient and worked a bit harder at explaining what
they mean, particularly on the lessons or meaning of history, to our
young people, then perhaps the younger generation would be more inclined
to follow their example and be less frustrated and not perceive that the
things which are wrong with this world, be they evil or not, lead to
such things as wars and holocausts. Free speech is about speaking
freely, not about shutting people up! Also, if we old folks were
prepared to listen to our young people, we might be more willing to
learn some of the more constructive lessons from their history, and
their fears for the future, rather than going out and practicing the
mistooks anew...but there again...perhaps not...:-).
And Joe, my apologies to you, because I haven't a clue where you come
from, in which country you are a citizen, or which leader it is that
starts off his speeches with a Nazi expression, or which Nazi
expression. Perhaps you would care to enlighten me? But...if
not...that is fine too.
And, pray, the two of you...As you appear to know so much...what were
the "real" reasons for which the two world wars were occurred? I look
forward to the omnibus edition...:-) .
In the meantime, I apologise to all of our colleagues, for allowing
myself to become so stupidly distracted and say that I would like to get
back to listening to what John Young and Debora Natsios were actually
saying in their interview about the media and Snowden. Free speech indeed!
With kindest regards,
On 16/02/2016 14:02, Peter Presland wrote:
Ciao Joe. Right on.
I do try to avoid doing the breaking but, what with everyman and his dog
- and especially so in still cowed and occupied Germany - required to
believe that Hitler and the NSDAP represent the gold-standard pinnacle
of pure evil, it can be difficult.
As is repeated ad-nauseam by the Victors in their solemn pronouncements
and official histories: "...well sure, we may have done some bad things,
but we absolutely *had* to - after all it was war - and just look at
what our enemy was guilty of!! - almost anything would be justified to
rid the world of such unmitigated evil"
such parrot-fashion homilies go a long way to explaining why ANY
questioning of the holy dogma of 'Holocaustianity' (That's 'Free speech'
for Dougie's benefit) must be squashed - even in Putin's Russia since
last year too. After all were the holy trinity of "The Holocaust" (state
policy; 6 million; Gas-chambers) to be shown for the appalling callumny
that it so clearly is to anyone prepared to countenance and research
such heresy, then the Glorious victors would be revealed as little
different from the people they were fighting - and the real reasons for
both World wars would become that much more visible through the fog of
absurd obfuscation that continues to envelope them.
Galileo must absolutely *not* be allowed to propagate the heretical
notion that the Earth actually orbits the Sun eh?
On 16/02/2016 12:51, Joe Products wrote:
you reached the goodwin law breaking point
*Godwin's law* (or *Godwin's rule of Nazi analogies*)^
an Internet adage
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_humor> asserting that "As an
online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1
—that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes
on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or
something to Hitler <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler> or Nazism
But be aware that in one small country in the middle of Europe we have a
president who STARTS the discussion with NAZI reference.
---------- Původní zpráva ----------
Od: Peter Presland <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Datum: 16. 2. 2016 8:23:28
Předmět: [cryptome] Re: [cryptome] Re: [cryptome] Re: [cryptome] Re:
[cryptome] Re: [cryptome] Cryptome’s searing critique of Snowden Inc.
This is a duplicate reply. Sent because the first has not
12 hours after hitting the send button (usually takes less than 5
On 14/02/2016 22:03, douglas rankine wrote:
> First of all, I apologise for assuming that you were fishing.
Sorry. I haven't the time to 'spell it out for you'. If you
been studying the subject 'for many many years' then, in spite
claim to the contrary, you would certainly have known about the
Haverbeck case together with the other names I mentioned.
I do not accept that the term 'Holocaust denial' has any legitimate
meaning other than as an ad-hominem term of abuse.
Also, forgive me for doubting that "..in my lifetime I knew
people .... who were at the "liberation" of Auswitch". Auschwitz
liberated by the Red Army.
I am older than you. I was fortunate enough to have been able to
at age 58 and have spent the past 16 years doing little else but
the *real* history of the 20th century - and later. I am appalled,
saddened and deeply angered by what I have learned. I heartily wish
things were not so - but they were, they are and I cannot
it would be far more comfortable not to have learned - ignorance
plausible fairy tale) is bliss as the saying goes.
I could recommend a few good starter 're-education' books if you
were interested but, from the content of your email, it appears you
believe - as I used to - that you have a pretty thorough and
My post was to supply information. I'm afraid I have neither the
nor inclination for extended discussion/disputation.