[cryptome] Re: [cryptome] Re: [cryptome] Re: [cryptome] Re: [cryptome] Cryptome’s searing critique of Snowden Inc.

  • From: douglas rankine <douglasrankine2001@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2016 22:03:58 +0000

First of all, I apologise for assuming that you were fishing. I should have known better...Whether I am a big boy now...is debatable...you keep drawing out the little child in me.

However, I think I do need you to "really spell it out for me" what it is that you are suggesting or stating, Peter, as I am a little confused. I had a look at the website report you quoted. I admit I know nothing about this particular case, though I have been studying the subject for many, many years. The website report only confirms the holocaust denial by the woman.

Holocaust denial is quite common amongst certain groups of people of a particular political disposition and view, much as the millions who died in Stalin's concentration camps, the gulags and the pogroms carried out against the people of the Ukraine were denied by those of another political disposition and view. Trips had to be organised by the Allies from some of the local German towns and villages, because they, particularly their leaderships didn't believe what they were being told, seeing it as Allied propoganda.

The Brits are said to be the first to invent concentration camps, during the Boer War, though I daresay if I researched back far enough I would find many horrific examples of pogroms, mass murder on ethnic, religious and race, sex or vulnerability grounds. A form of them was used in Malaya during the communist led uprising in the 1950's. Vietnam is another example of where people were forced to live away from their homes and concentrated in fortified villages. Those who created the concentration camps have always denied that they were death camps. They were created purely to protect and care for the people. And if one looks at the documents for appeal against incarceration, unjust punishments and abuses of inmates rights, such as the right to be fed, to have a drink of water, to have a decent shit at Auswitch and other concentration camps, there you will find...in the greatest detail, the procedures to be carried out for making such appeals. These documents "prove" just how much the German Heirarchy cared for the human rights of the inmates. They are all written down and were submitted at the Nuremberg Trials. Finding evidence of their use, judgements from tribunals and so on, are a different matter.

I was born after the Second Wold War, but, in my lifetime I knew people who were not only involved in the War, but who were at the "liberation" of Auswitch. Though dead now, they gave me graphic, oral accounts of what they found, one of my sources was of German origin, who left Germany in the mid 1930's, became a US citizen, fought in the US armed forces and was a member of an official delegation which went to Auswitch as part of a fact-finding mission. He showed me some photographs he had taken, as well as telling me of instances of what he found, and discussions he had had with people who had been forced to live there without a trial of any kind.

As I understand it, around 60 million people died in the Second World War, of which around 6 million were of Jewish origin, many were Russians and Eastern Europeans. (Depending on which figures one uses). The US, UK, the French also lost vast swathes of their populations, either as members of the military or as citizens. Some groupings were specially selected for mass destruction, others died as a "random result" of the mass conflagration. People from other races, such as India and Africa and countries of the French and UK empires also lost their lives. Many people lost their lives or were maimed due to the allied bombings too, and of course, there was Hiroshima and Nagasaki. War is, after all, about the defeat through the physical mass destruction of people's ideas, cultures, philosophies, economies, nations, tribes and families. Morality, ethics, common sense, vanishes out of the window, and brutality is legalised, allowing the basic urges, drives and instincts of human beings, those very things which help to keep us communicating, trading, touching one another peacefully to be condemned.

So, I hope you can understand why I am a little confused, and hope you can clear up exactly what it is that you are saying?

Was she convicted for a criminal offence of denying the holocaust, or was she convicted for exercising her right to free speech. Which bit isn't true?
see url: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/27/newsid_3520000/3520986.stm

On 14/02/2016 18:59, Peter Presland wrote:

'...apart from the little bit at the end' eh?

It wasn't bait. And you don't *really* need me to spell it out for you,
do you?

Just try clicking the link, then doing a modicum of research on that
"NAZI Grandma" and a few others like Silvia Stolz, Ernst Zundel, Robert
Faurisson, Germar Rudolf. It may mean having to visit some of those
*shock-horror* duly designated 'neo-nazi-hate sites' and you may
therefore get stern warnings from Google etc. But go on; you're a big
boy now and they're really no worse than all that porn - honest.

They just tell a few home-truths that are distasteful to us goodies that
won the "Good war" and must therefore be supressed.

On 14/02/2016 16:51, douglas rankine wrote:
Very good contribution Peter, apart from the little bit at the end. I'll
take the bait...let's get it out in the open.

Did she get imprisoned for 14 months for exercising her right of free
speech?
ATB
Dougie.

On 14/02/2016 13:48, Peter Presland wrote:
Reposted here:
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:Cryptome%E2%80%99s_searing_critique_of_Snowden_Inc


..with the following comment:

Good commentary on a remarkable interview. Not least because, in
addition to Young and Natsios's devastating critique of the
Commercially-controlled media generally, it also demonstrates the
blinkered cocooned existence passing for "reality", that young Germans -
who fancy themselves so "Progressive" - still actually inhabit. This
quote from the smug and startled young interviewer is a case-in-point:

"We are loyal here to this community. But some inner criticism can be
seen as constructive. These questions are important. I suppose you can
say whatever you say. We have free speech here."

Free-speech? - Really? How would he explain, let alone justify, the 14
month prison sentence recently handed down to an 87 year old German
grandmother - and many others like her - for simply exercising their
right to his precious 'Free-speech?'.
http://www.inquisitr.com/2563934/ursula-haverbeck-german-nazi-grandma-sent-to-prison-for-denying-the-holocaust/




On 14/02/2016 10:38, John Young wrote:
Cryptome's searing critique of Snowden Inc.

http://timshorrock.com/?p=2354
https://soundcloud.com/rebootfm/interview-with-cryptome-2016-02-06











Other related posts: