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 appeared some
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. etc.....
Sorry. I haven't the time to 'spell it out for you'. If you really have
been studying the subject 'for many many years' then, in spite of your
claim to the contrary, you would certainly have known about the Ursula
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 was
liberated by the Red Army.
I am older than you. I was fortunate enough to have been able to retire
at age 58 and have spent the past 16 years doing little else but study
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 unlearn what
it would be far more comfortable not to have learned - ignorance (or a
plausible fairy tale) is bliss as the saying goes.
I could recommend a few good starter 're-education' books if you really
were interested but, from the content of your email, it appears you
believe - as I used to - that you have a pretty thorough and accurate
My post was to supply information. I'm afraid I have neither the time
nor inclination for extended discussion/disputation.