You will not, in any nation on Earth, be thrown in prison for saying the Apollo moon landing was a hoax.
You will not lose your job for publicly expressing doubt in either the particulars or the totality of the Irish Potato Famine.
You will not be fined and incarcerated for saying that the US Civil war never happened, or that it was fought over States' rights or tarriffs more than slavery, or that it was fought to free the Tibetians, or to keep the black man down.
You will not be imprisoned if you say Stalin or Kaganovich or Mao or Pol Pot or Ghengis Khan were saint-like humanitarians who never harmed anyone.
You will not likely lose your cushy tenure at any University in the US if you say that Cleopatra or Beethoven or Charles Drew were Black (although you might, if you point out that Drew was an octaroon.)
You will not be fined or imprisoned for advancing any number of theories, be they wacky or even plausible, about the deaths of JFK or Lincoln or MLK.
You will not encounter any legal difficulties no matter how vehemently you assert that the Egyptian pyramids do not exist, or that they were built by Negroes, or Martians.

But you will very likely come to a bad end very soon if you should publicly question the Official Jewish Version of "The Holocaust." In America, you cannot yet be criminally charged for it (though you might be deported to Canada or Germany, where you will not be so lucky.) In Germany, as in many other formerly free Western countries, it is an imprisonable offense to question or to publicly express doubt in the Official Number of Six Million, or in the nonexistent homicidal gas chambers, or in most of the other official mythology. (However, even in Germany, you will NOT be imprisoned for falsely claiming to be a "Nazi death camp survivor," or for claiming that you were "gassed 6 times" and miraculously survived, or for claiming that you saw "geysers of blood spouting from the earth" at any German prison camp.)

And why would this be? Why would this one, single historical event, alone among the near infinite number of others, have at the very least censure and censorship, and even severe criminal penalties attached to its debate? Why has it become like a new religion which cannot, must not, be doubted?

Here is why: There is no reason to suppress a viewpoint UNLESS IT IS TRUE, because a false viewpoint can always be refuted with facts and logic, whereas a true one can only be refuted by force.
And here is why: There is too much money and power at stake. We are asked to believe that the Jews were persecuted always for "no reason," and asked further to accept that the Jews would never lie, not even for great reason.

Also, here is a 2nd very fundamental difference between, for example, the Irish Potato Famine and the Jewish Holocaust:
If no one believed in the Irish Potato Famine, if everyone said it was all or at least part contrived hoax, the Emerald Isle would go on pretty much just as it always has, with scarcely a ripple.

But if a majority of Germans and Americans did not believe the Official Jewish Version of "The" holocaust, the State of Israel would simply not exist.

You will not, in any nation on Earth, be thrown in prison for saying the Apollo moon landing was a hoax.
You will not lose your job for publicly expressing doubt in either the particulars or the totality of the Irish Potato Famine.
You will not be fined and incarcerated for saying that the US Civil war never happened, or that it was fought over States' rights or tarriffs more than slavery, or that it was fought to free the Tibetians, or to keep the black man down.
You will not be imprisoned if you say Stalin or Kaganovich or Mao or Pol Pot or Ghengis Khan were saint-like humanitarians who never harmed anyone.
You will not likely lose your cushy tenure at any University in the US if you say that Cleopatra or Beethoven or Charles Drew were Black (although you might, if you point out that Drew was an octaroon.)
You will not be fined or imprisoned for advancing any number of theories, be they wacky or even plausible, about the deaths of JFK or Lincoln or MLK.
You will not encounter any legal difficulties no matter how vehemently you assert that the Egyptian pyramids do not exist, or that they were built by Negroes, or Martians.

But you will very likely come to a bad end very soon if you should publicly question the Official Jewish Version of "The Holocaust." In America, you cannot yet be criminally charged for it (though you might be deported to Canada or Germany, where you will not be so lucky.) In Germany, as in many other formerly free Western countries, it is an imprisonable offense to question or to publicly express doubt in the Official Number of Six Million, or in the nonexistent homicidal gas chambers, or in most of the other official mythology. (However, even in Germany, you will NOT be imprisoned for falsely claiming to be a "Nazi death camp survivor," or for claiming that you were "gassed 6 times" and miraculously survived, or for claiming that you saw "geysers of blood spouting from the earth" at any German prison camp.)

And why would this be? Why would this one, single historical event, alone among the near infinite number of others, have at the very least censure and censorship, and even severe criminal penalties attached to its debate? Why has it become like a new religion which cannot, must not, be doubted?

Here is why: There is no reason to suppress a viewpoint UNLESS IT IS TRUE, because a false viewpoint can always be refuted with facts and logic, whereas a true one can only be refuted by force.
And here is why: There is too much money and power at stake. We are asked to believe that the Jews were persecuted always for "no reason," and asked further to accept that the Jews would never lie, not even for great reason.

Also, here is a 2nd very fundamental difference between, for example, the Irish Potato Famine and the Jewish Holocaust:
If no one believed in the Irish Potato Famine, if everyone said it was all or at least part contrived hoax, the Emerald Isle would go on pretty much just as it always has, with scarcely a ripple.

But if a majority of Germans and Americans did not believe the Official Jewish Version of "The" holocaust, the State of Israel would simply not exist.


Perfectly put, Ossian.

The Potato Famine hasn't exactly been a cash cow for the Irish either, has it? Never mind the Armenian genocide, the horrors in the Ukraine courtesy of the world's priveleged victims, etc.

One other reason comes to mind - and that is that the nations of the West are now without exception interchangable states under the dominion of the same Jewish theocracy. Thus, unquestioning belief in the Holocaust is the holy of holies and First Commandment.

It is for this reason that - although I'd prefer to live in a white world - I cannot and will not slur Arabs while "white" Christians shill for Israel, encourage their sons to kill on its behalf and smilingly endure the spittle their Judeo-Christian partners regularly expectorate into their faces.

Arabs openly, proudly and unapolegetically hate and kill Jews. They don't worry about how it will look in the Jews' media the next day. They don't allow themselves to be bought off with beads and trinkets. They endure beatdowns by the Jews' preferred goon squad - the American military - and after we're finished, they will lick their wounds, bury their dead and resume killing Jews. They don't pretend race doesn't exist, women are superior to men, niggers are civilized or God watches the NFL on Sundays. Most of the fuckers don't even have a pot to piss in, but they know enough not to turn the other cheek when a Jew slaps their face. They'll strap TNT onto their own bodies and kill themselves if that's what it takes to drag a few hooknozim off this mortal coil alongside them.

They do what we won't. And until or unless we in the West start hoisting our end of the load, they're the only people currently worthy of the nomenclature 'white'.

You may not like em and you may not want em living near you but it's time to face the truth. Every racially-aware white person on Earth owes the Arabs a debt of gratitude - we haven't earned the right to look down our noses at the only people on the planet who will do the only dirty job worth doing. And all this without a single nuke in their peashooter arsenal!

What the fuck kind of excuse do WE have then?

Very true and marvelously put.

You will not, in any nation on Earth, be thrown in prison for saying the Apollo moon landing was a hoax.


But you can be assualted by astro-nots who are free from prosecution simply for daring to question their holy myth:

http://www.csicop.org/articles/20021018-aldrin/anim.gif

Video: http://www.csicop.org/articles/20021018-aldrin/buzz-aldrin-punch-video.mpg

Aldrin was never even charged for this viscious attack, what truth needs this kind of protection?


______________________

Damn good post Ossian. You can deny/agree with anything out there but when it comes to the Holocaust denying it is literally one of the most evil things you can do. If the Holocaust DID happen than why are the Jews so hell bent on making Holocaust denying a crime? A very good point to bring up when arguing with lemmings.

Damn good post Ossian. You can deny/agree with anything out there but when it comes to the Holocaust denying it is literally one of the most evil things you can do. If the Holocaust DID happen than why are the Jews so hell bent on making Holocaust denying a crime? A very good point to bring up when arguing with lemmings.

Nazi propaganda has been illegal in Germany since after WWII and that is all holocaust denial pamphlets are, Nazi propaganda. If other countries want to outlaw that BS that is their business, here in America we can spout even the most absurd things with legal protection, this website being a perfect example.

Nazi propaganda has been illegal in Germany since after WWII and that is all holocaust denial pamphlets are, Nazi propaganda. If other countries want to outlaw that BS that is their business

"that BS" is a subjective judgement. There is quite a bit of what I consider "that BS" coming out of hollywood and the talmudvision I don't care for. Should we ban that too? I'll be the judge on what qualifies as "that BS," btw. Or is responsibility for limiting freedom of speech assigned to bureaucrats and politicians? That would be rather more soviet than it would be "democratic" don't you agree?


here in America we can spout even the most absurd things with legal protection, this website being a perfect example.

That's Wrong.


Hate Crime Charge Turns Justice Upside Down in State of Idaho

If you are defending your wife or daughter from a physical attack by a brutish lout, remember to be polite or you could be facing jail time.

By James P. Tucker Jr.

A man in Idaho faces a "hate crime" charge that could put him behind bars for five years because he spoke angrily to a man who physically attacked his wife.

The man who attacked the woman faces no charges at all.

It started in October, when Lonny Rae was watching a football game in which Notus High School defeated Council High. Rae's wife, Kim, was covering the game as a reporter-photographer for the local newspaper.

During the game, Council fans were upset with some of the calls by officials. After the game, Kim was photographing officials. She continued, as was her obvious right, when officials told her to stop taking photographs.

One of the officials, Ken Manley of Boise, grabbed Kim's camera and yanked it, according to local newspaper accounts. The jerking burned Kim's neck. The two were separated and the officials entered the locker room.

Witnesses said that Lonny Rae, angry at the attack on his wife, yelled at Manley, who is black, and called him "nigger." For that, Lonny Rae faces five years. For the attack, Manley faces no charges whatsoever. There is no report that Rae physically attacked Manley.

Lawyer Dan Hawkley said Rae was coming to the defense of his wife, who was simply doing her job when attacked.

Here (http://www.americanfreepress.net/Police_State/Hate_Crime_Charge_Turns_Justic/hate_crime_charge_turns_justic.html)

....Although Rae never actually touched Kenneth Manley, there was talk of giving him up to five years in jail under Idaho's anti-hate-crime statutes, the issue being the racism implicit in the slur.

The latest development: a judge has actually sentenced him to seven days in jail. Rae's lawyer, Edgar Steele, persuaded the judge to defer the actual execution of the sentence while it is being appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court.

Here (http://www.vdare.com/fulford/rae_report.htm)

In addition you can compare this case to your pics of 70 year old Buzz Aldrin throwing a punch at a 30 something year old writer. Mr. Writer was probably too embarrassed to press the issue, being such a young guy and all and getting knocked on his ass by an old man. He certainly could have found an attorney willing to file a civil suit had he wanted to pursue it. That's the route your average god's whimpering pet would have taken.

"that BS" is a subjective judgement. There is quite a bit of what I consider "that BS" coming out of hollywood and the talmudvision I don't care for. Should we ban that too? I'll be the judge on what qualifies as "that BS," btw. Or is responsibility for limiting freedom of speech assigned to bureaucrats and politicians? That would be rather more soviet than it would be "democratic" don't you agree?



That's Wrong.


Hate Crime Charge Turns Justice Upside Down in State of Idaho

If you are defending your wife or daughter from a physical attack by a brutish lout, remember to be polite or you could be facing jail time.

By James P. Tucker Jr.

A man in Idaho faces a "hate crime" charge that could put him behind bars for five years because he spoke angrily to a man who physically attacked his wife.

The man who attacked the woman faces no charges at all.

It started in October, when Lonny Rae was watching a football game in which Notus High School defeated Council High. Rae's wife, Kim, was covering the game as a reporter-photographer for the local newspaper.

During the game, Council fans were upset with some of the calls by officials. After the game, Kim was photographing officials. She continued, as was her obvious right, when officials told her to stop taking photographs.

One of the officials, Ken Manley of Boise, grabbed Kim's camera and yanked it, according to local newspaper accounts. The jerking burned Kim's neck. The two were separated and the officials entered the locker room.

Witnesses said that Lonny Rae, angry at the attack on his wife, yelled at Manley, who is black, and called him "nigger." For that, Lonny Rae faces five years. For the attack, Manley faces no charges whatsoever. There is no report that Rae physically attacked Manley.

Lawyer Dan Hawkley said Rae was coming to the defense of his wife, who was simply doing her job when attacked.

Here (http://www.americanfreepress.net/Police_State/Hate_Crime_Charge_Turns_Justic/hate_crime_charge_turns_justic.html)

....Although Rae never actually touched Kenneth Manley, there was talk of giving him up to five years in jail under Idaho's anti-hate-crime statutes, the issue being the racism implicit in the slur.

The latest development: a judge has actually sentenced him to seven days in jail. Rae's lawyer, Edgar Steele, persuaded the judge to defer the actual execution of the sentence while it is being appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court.

Here (http://www.vdare.com/fulford/rae_report.htm)

In addition you can compare this case to your pics of 70 year old Buzz Aldrin throwing a punch at a 30 something year old writer. Mr. Writer was probably too embarrassed to press the issue, being such a young guy and all and getting knocked on his ass by an old man. He certainly could have found an attorney willing to file a civil suit had he wanted to pursue it. That's the route your average god's whimpering pet would have taken.

Well for the Idaho case I would rather not rely on the guy's LAWYER to tell me what happened. Our prisons are chocked full of people whos LAWYERS say that they are innocent. If his story is corroberated by witnesses I will bet that it gets thrown out, because it is not a hate crime unless his motives were that the guy was black. You can still be arrested for threatening someone though, and I bet that is what the other things he was saying were, threats, in which case he can still do time for it.

Anyway the whole idea behind the "potato hoax" thread is that if "revisionist" techniques are applied to other historical events, they can be made to look just as questionable as the holocaust. I guess I need to do a moon hoax thread to really get the point across.

Well for the Idaho case I would rather not rely on the guy's LAWYER to tell me what happened. Our prisons are chocked full of people whos LAWYERS say that they are innocent [the majority of them negro]. If his story is corroberated by witnesses I will bet that it gets thrown out [he'll take comfort in your confidence, I'm sure], because it is not a hate crime unless his motives were that the guy was black. You can still be arrested for threatening someone though, and I bet that is what the other things he was saying were, threats, in which case he can still do time for it.

Huh?

The husband is charged with calling the guy a "nigger," nothing else. He's spent seven days in jail for it so far. That directly refutes your assertion that

"...here in America we can spout even the most absurd things with legal protection, this website being a perfect example."

Rae was found not guilty of malicious harassment (http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=180790002.K) by the Idaho jury (http://www.vdare.com/fulford/rae_report.htm), yet he has not been exonerated as is explained at the web page.

If you choose to "not believe" the facts as reported in court, well that's merely a cheap escape route. I could henceforth "not believe" anything you claim no matter what references you provide.

Easy way of dealing with inconvenient facts, huh?


because it is not a hate crime unless his motives were that the guy was black.

The concept of "hate crime" is utterly absurd and -- dare I say? -- unconstitutional in the first place.

Here's another one: Perhaps you've heard of the Janice Barton (http://www.vdare.com/fulford/barton.htm) case?

"Mrs. Barton was arrested for using the word "spic” in a public place. Hearing some people talking Spanish in a restaurant, she said to her mother - not to the people speaking Spanish - "I wish these damned 'spics' would learn to speak English."

One of the Spanish-speakers could understand her, though. She was an off-duty Sheriff's Deputy named Caroline Benitez. She followed Mrs. Barton outside, took down her license number, and complained to the local police.

Two weeks later, Mrs. Barton was arrested under a local ordinance forbidding "insulting conduct" in a public place."

I look forward to your thoughts on that case as well in connection to your statement "...here in America we can spout even the most absurd things with legal protection, this website being a perfect example."

Anyway the whole idea behind the "potato hoax" thread is that if "revisionist" techniques are applied to other historical events, they can be made to look just as questionable as the holocaust. I guess I need to do a moon hoax thread to really get the point across.

Be my guest. Prove that the potato famine or any other historical event you are suspicious of was a hoax. If you make a compelling case, I for one would genuinely want to know about it. I do not fear the Truth. I certainly won't try to shut you up.

If your arguments are weak, you'll be challenged, dismissed and ultimately ignored. If your arguments are persuasive, the people with an interest in promoting that hoax will start throwing tantrums and trying to pass laws making your arguments illegal.

There is nothing at all unconstitutional about hate crime laws, we have different punishments for different motives in murder cases don't we?

There is nothing at all unconstitutional about hate crime laws, we have different punishments for different motives in murder cases don't we?

No.

We separate pre-meditation from accident and spur of the moment killing. Those are not motives, those are circumstances. The REASON for committing murder is irrelevant. (Some states have "crime of passion" murder sentencing allowances, but those are varieties of the "temporary insanity" defense).

But about that Janice Barton (http://www.vdare.com/fulford/barton.htm) case....

Whenever you get around to it

No.

We separate pre-meditation from accident and spur of the moment killing. Those are not motives, those are circumstances. The REASON for committing murder is irrelevant. (Some states have "crime of passion" murder sentencing allowances, but those are varieties of the "temporary insanity" defense).

But about that Janice Barton (http://www.vdare.com/fulford/barton.htm) case....

Whenever you get around to it

I definately do not like it. But things like this are not new, my great uncle told me about a time in the 50's when he lived in Georgia and a guy called him a "son-of-a-bitch". He kicked the guys ass and they guy took him to court. The court convicted him and then the judge turned to the twerp that called him an SOB and said, "son, in the south those are fighting words" then turned to my g.uncle and fined him $1. So the judge basically let my g uncle get away with beating the guy because of what the guy had said. Locking someone up for saying "spic" is just stupid, although I would like to hear the story from the other folks that were there.

I made one glaring omission:

Whether in the context of 'history,' daily 'news', education, or what have you, a comparable, parallel taboo and/or criminalization also falls upon any honest discussion or statement of fact about race; in fact, the two absolutely go hand in glove. We are tacitly or explicitly instructed, and supposed to believe, (and many do seem to believe) that if we act, speak, or even think honestly about race, that it must inevitably lead to another "Holocaust" (®).

So when I wrote in the 1st post, "...if a majority of [White people] did not believe the Official Jewish Version of "The" holocaust, the State of Israel would not exist," I neglected to mention the vastly more important thing that would also not exist: There would be no artificially induced and suicidal White guilt; there would be no Orwellian thoughtcrime laws against speaking the truth about race; and surely, there would not be the massive, unopposed, ongoing, nonwhite immigration invasion which now threatens, within a mere generation or two, to inundate the entire White world.

If we fail, whenever we get the chance, to speak out honestly about these two crucial and parallel topics, race, and "The" Holocaust --if our enemies completely succeed in stifling, by force or 'law,' honest discussion of it--the "Greatest Crime in History" will indeed continue apace and come to pass ... not perpetrated by us--but perpetrated upon us.

This is why this subject is central, not merely peripheral, to our struggle.