Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 2017 Location: Croydon, Surrey
Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:21 am Post subject:
Dogsmilk wrote:
.........And anyway, what makes the 'official' account 'official?
Could you define exactly how it is 'official'?
To question any detail relating to the greatest horror of H and the thing that makes it unique, i.e. the attempted mass extermination by gassing of a race of people, draws universal condemnation (including from the managers of this truthseeking site).
When a narrative is defended by every authority and, often, the law itself.....that's pretty official.
When the raising of questions relating to perceived actual evidence gets a person sacked, branded a 'Nazi' or even imprisoned....then there is definitely something 'offcial' going on.
However, we know things can change.....the 'soap' and 'lampshades' horrors seem to have been discredited and 'dropped'. Presumably there was a time when challenging these fictions would have got a person in similar serious trouble.
If this nonsense statement is the kind of 'teaching' you get of Dib, if I were you I'd be asking for my money back. Unless you get cool robes for being a disciple.
Isaiah chapter 33 verse 19: Thou shalt not see a fierce people, [but] a people of a deeper speech than thou canst perceive; of a ridiculous (weird sounding) way of talking [The Truth], [that thou (the majority who believe they are human) can] not understand.
Dogsmilk wrote:
Flawed as it may be, the concept of sanity is essentially socially defined.
An insane collective can define it all they like. It will not be the truth which God sees, and wants us to see as well. I wonder what would happen if an enlightened being visited this planet and delivered a report on the state of its inhabitants. Oh wait... it's already happened.
Dogsmilk wrote:
I'm just glad I don't need the psychological nappy of having some self-proclaimed guru spouting a load of mumbo-jumbo to follow and can make my own way in the world.
No, you have the prince of this world's psychological restraints instead. Which make you go about his way in the world, snapping at that Truth which is dangerous to him, wherever it pops up.
Dogsmilk wrote:
Or that I think I'm the Messiah - that's just such a cliche. I wonder what would happen if all the self-declared Messiahs in the world were put into one big room at the same time? God knows.
When I first met Muad'Dib, I did not know who He was or even who He said He was. I wasn't even sure at the time whether Jesus was a real person, and didn't think too much of the Bible given the interpretations I had heard up to that point.
He invited me, and I visited Him, every evening after work because I thought He was interesting, and I listened to Him. Asked questions, and listened to Him. I had nothing better to do, and this statement is not deragatory but simply accurate, there was nothing better for me to do than what I did choose to do.
On the third day that I went to visit Him, a Voice inside of me, which had been building up, could not be restrained any longer. To this day, I have never experienced anything like it. It was as if The Truth demanded to be spoken out loud, and my mouth spoke the words which resounded in my soul:-
"You are Christ."
Matthew 16
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
John 10
4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.
6 This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them.
7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.
9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.
13 The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.
14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
Dogsmilk wrote:
Well a good education should equip you with the necessary critical thinking skills to ultimately be able to critique the contents of that education itself. And that which lies beyond it. After all, it is simply not big and not clever to assume that that which lies outside the boundaries of 'conventional' thinking is inherently more likely to be true. As it is, humans have worked to develop criteria for making the best possible sense of things within the confines of language. So if two people are discussing, say, 911 it is likely both parties will be attempting to persuade one another using generally understood 'rules' of rational discourse. That would tend to include a sober and critical examination of the validity of sources cited. Anyone who seriously uses e.g. JudicialInc as a source would generally fall under the catagory of the ill-educated as it is a blatant propaganda site with numerous easily checkable instances of fallacious information. Hence that would imply the person doing the citing has a poor grasp of what generally constitutes valid source material. So for an educated person to use such poor material suggests they are probably inherently naive or credulous.
For all those "rules" in a "good education/rational discourse" allowing you to critique "that which lies beyond it", you weren't able to consider that some people like myself did not meet a person self-declaring Himself to be the Messiah. But had God tell them who He was, instead.
1 Corinthians 1
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
..the 'soap' and 'lampshades' horrors seem to have been discredited and 'dropped'.
No they haven't. The 'soap' thing was mentioned this very morning on Radio 4, "Start the Week". Just a little flash.
29m45s into the "podcast".
Of course, as it wasn't an official statement written by a respected western historian and wasn't ratified at the Nuremberg trials, it's of no significance whatsoever. It doesn't matter that perhaps a million people who fancy themselves as slightly cleverer and better informed than the average joe have now heard it, again.
Also pushed, the curious ideas that "...Israel was the creation above all of the United States..."
... and that most Jews have long since "forgiven" the Germans, it's actually the British who still bear some kind of racist grudge against them...
Of course. Now I get it. _________________ If you want to know who is really in control, ask yourself who you cannot criticise.
"The hunt for 'anti-semites' is a hunt for pockets of resistance to the NWO"-- Israel Shamir
"What we in America call terrorists are really groups of people that reject the international system..." - Heinz "Henry" Kissinger
.........And anyway, what makes the 'official' account 'official?
Could you define exactly how it is 'official'?
To question any detail relating to the greatest horror of H and the thing that makes it unique, i.e. the attempted mass extermination by gassing of a race of people, draws universal condemnation (including from the managers of this truthseeking site).
When a narrative is defended by every authority and, often, the law itself.....that's pretty official.
When the raising of questions relating to perceived actual evidence gets a person sacked, branded a 'Nazi' or even imprisoned....then there is definitely something 'offcial' going on.
Legislation and censure where it exists is not orchestrated - and is in some cases opposed - by those that actually produce the narrative. The suggestion nevertheless exists that if someone, say, goes into history, gets interested in the Holocaust, researches it or some aspect of it and subsequently publishes materials related to it, whatever they produce (if it's not Holocaust denial) is automatically 'official history'. I tend to consider this to be an effort to frame the entire spectrum of existing scholarship as being some kind of monolith somehow controlled by the authorities, something I have seen no evidence for. It's an attempt to portray deniers as somehow being the pioneering mavericks as opposed to a fairly predictable crew recycling the same old arguments again and again and again. Kollerstrom being the absolutely classic example of this. Flipping over what Mark seemed to be trying to say, there is a dynamic whereby the broadly accepted (I don't think there will ever be a 100% agreed upon narrative of exactly how and why the Holocaust occurred) narrative is automatically framed as 'official history' as if it is some kind of government dictated memo; yeah, some govts enshrine the 'boundaries' in law, but they didn't actually write the books in the first place and frankly I don't see 99.99% of people with a good knowledge of the subject protesting on anything other than civil libertarian grounds.
As I have said before, I don't know about and would be interested in finding out more about exactly how anti-denial legislation came about - what was said, who advocated for, who opposed, how it won etc. I'd like to know if anyone - preferably no-one dodgy:) - has done any work on that.
Quote:
However, we know things can change.....the 'soap' and 'lampshades' horrors seem to have been discredited and 'dropped'. Presumably there was a time when challenging these fictions would have got a person in similar serious trouble.
Well I'd agree it's a popular meme. I remember hearing about this stuff when I was younger. I can't remember exactly where from (it wasn't school though), maybe the media, and it's a story that still goes round. Still, if you want to say it has been 'discredited and dropped', you may wish to enlighten us as to exactly when and how this occurred. You might even discover there has never actually been a time when "challenging these fictions" would have got you into trouble. Who knows. SimpleSimon is obviously already aware that the "heroic deniers caused 'official historians' to drop soap and lampshades" story is a canard (on more than one level).
Quote:
Of course, as it wasn't an official statement written by a respected western historian and wasn't ratified at the Nuremberg trials, it's of no significance whatsoever. It doesn't matter that perhaps a million people who fancy themselves as slightly cleverer and better informed than the average joe have now heard it, again.
So he (apparently - sorry if I've misinterpreted. You did say it was "pushed") invents some situation where it's being deliberately propagated in the MSM (which of course will be controlled by Jews who presumably send out diktats ordering start the week to include something about soap) to...well, who knows? So we switch from framing 'official historians' as being universally mind controlled dupes or evil propagators of lies to concocting theories that (in essence) popular myths that were never really part of 'official history' in the first place are deliberately orchestrated by the (inevitably Jewish) PTB for their nefarious ends. Maybe there's also a team devoted to making people believe a swan can break a grown man's arm if it gets angry, I dunno.
So now - with SS's contribution - we move into territory where 'official historians' routinely lie about gas chambers but were inexplicably unable to similarly lie about soap, so instead that has to be slipped into Radio 4 programmes.
And a nice assumption about how Radio 4 listeners regard themselves tacked on. Lovely.
The interesting thing is, there is this weird story that goes around about how 'official historians' 'dropped stories' about soap and that this was somehow to do with pioneering Holocaust deniers. Perhaps I would be being paranoid to suggest that certain parties strive to keep this myth going out of willful mendacity.
Danny - Look, if you've had some kind of epiphany whereby you've decided some bloke is Christ, I see no point in arguing about it - you can't discuss such things on a rational level - if you had your voice that's your personal experience, but it's not convincing to me and I don't see how the empirical reality of your claims can be discussed evidentially. There is no evidence, only your belief. And that's fine if that belief is working for you. Just don't give him any money.
I am curious as to who you think visited earth though. I'm sure it's on Dib's website, but I'm being lazy and just asking.
Danny - Look, if you've had some kind of epiphany whereby you've decided some bloke is Christ, I see no point in arguing about it - you can't discuss such things on a rational level - if you had your voice that's your personal experience, but it's not convincing to me and I don't see how the empirical reality of your claims can be discussed evidentially. There is no evidence, only your belief. And that's fine if that belief is working for you. Just don't give him any money.
Here's the thing Dogsmilk - I'm not the one bringing Muad'Dib up in the first place. A few of you are, and are slandering Him. So all I'm doing in response is revealing part of what I have witnessed FIRST-HAND, while you theorize about Him being a lunatic, etc. You see the pattern?
If it is okay to insult and slander Him on this forum, then surely it is okay for others to present a defence, as it were. You may be quick to dismiss my witnessing. But others, who recognize the Truth, will not be so quick.
You are wrong about there being no evidence. Like you say though, if that belief is working fine for you...
Money - I know whatever money reaches Muad'Dib is employed wisely and for good causes. I understand that you (wrongly) believe he is a scammer, but you are also talking to me like you believe I'm a complete idiot and that you must be right about Him being a scammer. And I may be an idiot in many ways. But if after witnessing what I have witnessed, I still refused to believe who He is, that would make me even more of an idiot. Besides which, I have my free will, and I'm responsible for this soul, not you.
Dogsmilk wrote:
I am curious as to who you think visited earth though. I'm sure it's on Dib's website, but I'm being lazy and just asking.
John 18
36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
John 8
23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
Danny - Look, if you've had some kind of epiphany whereby you've decided some bloke is Christ, I see no point in arguing about it - you can't discuss such things on a rational level - if you had your voice that's your personal experience, but it's not convincing to me and I don't see how the empirical reality of your claims can be discussed evidentially. There is no evidence, only your belief. And that's fine if that belief is working for you. Just don't give him any money.
Here's the thing Dogsmilk - I'm not the one bringing Muad'Dib up in the first place. A few of you are, and are slandering Him. So all I'm doing in response is revealing part of what I have witnessed FIRST-HAND, while you theorize about Him being a lunatic, etc. You see the pattern?
If it is okay to insult and slander Him on this forum, then surely it is okay for others to present a defence, as it were. You may be quick to dismiss my witnessing. But others, who recognize the Truth, will not be so quick.
You are wrong about there being no evidence. Like you say though, if that belief is working fine for you...
Money - I know whatever money reaches Muad'Dib is employed wisely and for good causes. I understand that you (wrongly) believe he is a scammer, but you are also talking to me like you believe I'm a complete idiot and that you must be right about Him being a scammer. And I may be an idiot in many ways. But if after witnessing what I have witnessed, I still refused to believe who He is, that would make me even more of an idiot. Besides which, I have my free will, and I'm responsible for this soul, not you.
Dogsmilk wrote:
I am curious as to who you think visited earth though. I'm sure it's on Dib's website, but I'm being lazy and just asking.
John 18
36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
John 8
23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
Well here's the thing; I do tend to be rather cynical about people who declare themselves the Messiah, particularly if they ask for cash for rather ill-defined products, something Christ never felt the need to do. Furthermore, Christ apparently fed the multitude, healed the sick, brought a dead guy back to life etc....He didn't offer rather implausible sounding legal advice regarding motoring offences, using the same two 'testimonials' for over a year now I think - we haven't even found out what actually happened with the second guy. I realise in so many cases in today's world 'they don't make 'em like they used to', but in my book Messiahs should be genuinely impressive even to jaded cynics like me.
I realise the exact nature of Christ in terms of His perfection vs His incarnate human form has been a theological hot potato over the centuries, but considering God is by definition perfect, you'd expect Christ to be at least fairly awe-inspiring in his closeness to perfection as witnessed by us mere mortals. Which makes me wonder why these days he's turned out to be not that great at documentary film making. I realise that wasn't an issue in ancient Judea, but still.
On the other hand, if you have had a personal experience that you consider profound, then that is your affair and is simply something I am unable to relate to. If Muad truly is the Messiah, presumably he'll start actually doing something impressively Messianic at some point, in which case I'll have to eat my words. In the meantime, I am sure the Son of God is able to handle someone being a tad cynical on an internet forum. Forgive me, for I know not what I do - or something of that ilk.
I am pleased Muad uses his cash "wisely". Though I am moved to wonder how Christ managed to quite literally save us all with no visible income, despite the potential retail goldmine of 100% profit margins on the sale of His own line in wine, loaves and fishes. I suppose capitalism has come to affect us all.
I see what you mean with your quotes. It sounded for a minute like you were suggesting Christ was some kind of extra-terrestrial.
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 6:43 pm Post subject:
As a Christian, but one who like the Muslims do not believe Jesus was God (indeed, he once said 'Why do you call me good? Only God is good'), I detest the pograms that Jews have suffered over the centuries, because their ancestors 'killed God'; I also detest anti-Semitism these days, where 'the Jews' are blamed for everything and sundry.
I also detest the way Palestinians are treated by the Israeli government, and their 'IDF'.
I also find it repulsive that some religious Jews believe that the slaughter of every man, woman, child and animal was OK (Amalakites etc.) as 'God' had ordered it; even worse that some religious Jews in Israel today are likening the Palestinians to the Amalakites, and saying thhey should be treated the same as them.
And I would like to remind 'Christians' (and anyone else) that though Jesus called God his father, he also said that God was the father of us all (by recommending the prayer, 'Our Father').
Jews, like any other race, are like the little girl, 'When she is good, she is very very good, but when she is bad, she is horrid'.
Can't we give this veiled anti-Semitism a rest, and get down to exposing 9/11, and the 'USS Liberty' slaughter, and Pearl Harbour, and Northwoods, and Bali, and Spain, and Gladio? By golly, it's a wonder Israel hasn't been blamed for the 'Maine'. _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
I detest the pograms that Jews have suffered over the centuries, because their ancestors 'killed God'
What pogroms were brought about because of "their ancestors killed God" reason?
I read the book Anti-Zion where a lot of famous historical people express opinions you would undoubtedly label as "anti-semitic" - I don't recall any of them being particularly moved by the "killed God" thing.
I could post a link to the book but am aware that it might be construed as hate speech here.
Outsider - i agree with alot of what you said.
But zionism is the number one cause of strive in the world today. It is the root from which many other problems stem.
certainly zionism leads american and british policy at home and abroad
You also forget to mention the religious Jews who believe that Israel is an abomination and is against the will of God.
http://nkusa.org of which there is a large community in Stamford Hill/South Tottenham
you also cannot ignore the historic facts that many zionist elements were allies and supporters of the nazis, such as Paul Warburg the financier, Theo Goldschmidt the manufacturer of the chemical weapons and not forgetting the Stern gang who made a pact with Hitler because they considered the British the enemy
you cannot believe in 911 and 7/7 truth while ignoring the welter of evidence which points to zionist elements as being the perps
for goodness sake when do people take the boulders out of their eyes?
many of the 911 perps are not only card carrying zionists but actual Israeli dual citizens
Frank Lowy is an Israeli.
Lewis Eisenberg was the geezer who sold the WTC to Silverstein and Lowy at a knock down price.
Michael Mukasey was the judge who awarded Silverstein and Lowy $7,200,000,000.
Jack Abramoff who entertained Mohammed Atta on his Yacht days before 911
Philip Zelikow who headed the 911 commission (omission)
Wolfowitz, Perle, Fetih, Scooter Libby, etc etc
How on earth can anyone talk about who was responsible for 911 and ignore the zionists?
It's like well stupid.
You're like the only holocaust denier, denier on here.
You proclaim to be so ill informed and yet you're so informed.
Are you just a . . .
High Definition Denier.
HDD ?
I shall reply on this thread as the other is locked and you've started making your pointless comments on this one.
No, I said I'm not an expert - there's a difference. It's an awareness that there are people out there who would find the standard of discussion here rather basic. Or do you seriously think me and your denier pals represent the cutting edge of historical knowledge? It would be very sad if you did.
Look Mark, you played this pointless game with chek previously, making lots of daft little comments based on some kind of feeble innuendo, somehow managing to avoid actually discussing the subject. In fact, you've leapt in here, obviously thinking you know best and doing your level best to wind Paul up, but I don't think I've ever seen you make a coherent post on the subject. I'm sure you think you know best and that your little comments are awfully clever but you may choose to consider at some point that they're totally devoid of content.
If you have something to say, say it - but please stop making stupid comments and generally acting like a penis. Thanks.
Do you remember when the subject very first came up? If memory serves, you did a little turn and accused me of advocating censorship for pointing out that linking the TM with denial was a great way of discrediting it. Funny how things turn out.
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 2017 Location: Croydon, Surrey
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 8:32 am Post subject:
Dogsmilk wrote:
Or do you seriously think me and your denier pals represent the cutting edge of historical knowledge?
Is there any such thing as historical knowledge when opposing parties contradict some of the most basic 'facts' that constitute that 'knowledge. In such circumstances if the sides agree to seek truth together they must surely agree to, firstly ignore all 'witness' evidence because as true (or false) as such evidence might be, this evidence is, in the end, mere words.
People must go to the science and the contemporaneous documents and not only analyse their meaning but decide also if even these can be trusted.
One's guess is, though, that any such collaborative investigation would be quite impossible as where are the historians or their sponsors who would not have a preconceived disposition or vested interest in the outcome of any such investigation.
you cannot believe in 911 and 7/7 truth while ignoring the welter of evidence which points to zionist elements as being the perps
Apparently you can! You see all this kind of stuff
karlos wrote:
many of the 911 perps are not only card carrying zionists but actual Israeli dual citizens
Frank Lowy is an Israeli.
Lewis Eisenberg was the geezer who sold the WTC to Silverstein and Lowy at a knock down price.
Michael Mukasey was the judge who awarded Silverstein and Lowy $7,200,000,000.
Jack Abramoff who entertained Mohammed Atta on his Yacht days before 911
Philip Zelikow who headed the 911 commission (omission)
Wolfowitz, Perle, Fetih, Scooter Libby, etc etc
How on earth can anyone talk about who was responsible for 911 and ignore the zionists?
is just meant to MAKE you blame Israel!!! You're being set up!!!
Paul Wright wrote:
I'm perfectly aware of the PNAC constituency, the media, Verint, that place where all paths lead etc etc. But that's exactly what is wanted for me and you to say. That's precisely what they want
SEE! _________________ "The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell.
What??????!!!!. this gets more surreal by the hour. Is blackcat wilfully misinterpreting or has he gone into some kind of doublethink where he holds two opposing positions simultaneously/
Please explain. _________________ http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction
You're like the only holocaust denier, denier on here.
You proclaim to be so ill informed and yet you're so informed.
Are you just a . . .
High Definition Denier.
HDD ?
I shall reply on this thread as the other is locked and you've started making your pointless comments on this one.
No, I said I'm not an expert - there's a difference. It's an awareness that there are people out there who would find the standard of discussion here rather basic. Or do you seriously think me and your denier pals represent the cutting edge of historical knowledge? It would be very sad if you did.
Look Mark, you played this pointless game with chek previously, making lots of daft little comments based on some kind of feeble innuendo, somehow managing to avoid actually discussing the subject. In fact, you've leapt in here, obviously thinking you know best and doing your level best to wind Paul up, but I don't think I've ever seen you make a coherent post on the subject. I'm sure you think you know best and that your little comments are awfully clever but you may choose to consider at some point that they're totally devoid of content.
If you have something to say, say it - but please stop making stupid comments and generally acting like a penis. Thanks.
Do you remember when the subject very first came up? If memory serves, you did a little turn and accused me of advocating censorship for pointing out that linking the TM with denial was a great way of discrediting it. Funny how things turn out.
Dogs.
What would be an acceptable response to this ?
If I quoted something that I need to rely on later in your court, you'd call it dodgy.
Yet you rely on your sources all day long.
If anyone contends that your sources might be dodgy, even after years of knowing that some of the memes have long since gone, you and many others would call those sources dodgy and label said detractors as far right neo-nazi HD nutters, wouldn't you ? _________________ The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
Look back on the threads on this site. No one is censoring discussion of zionism or denying that there is evidence connecting supporters of zionism with the crimes of 9/11. PNAC to give a very obvious example. Discuss this till the cows come home.
But also look back on some of these threads and in particular the discussion of the holocaust and you will find posters who have cited sources and websites which are 'dodgy' and in some instances this lead to some users being banned.
Obviously some of you are struggling to understand what 'dodgy' is, so let me spell it out for you.
I'm talking about RACIST sites. Sites such as Jewwatch. Content which is written by or sites which are managed by people with strong and provable records of supporting racism or working with racists.
Ever since I first sent out emails trying to build up a network over 4 years ago, there are only 2 red lines
No racism or bigotry (eg homophobia) and
No promotion of violence.
In a nutshell those are the only 2 rules I insist on and thankfully they are the rules of this site. Really not that hard
You're like the only holocaust denier, denier on here.
You proclaim to be so ill informed and yet you're so informed.
Are you just a . . .
High Definition Denier.
HDD ?
I shall reply on this thread as the other is locked and you've started making your pointless comments on this one.
No, I said I'm not an expert - there's a difference. It's an awareness that there are people out there who would find the standard of discussion here rather basic. Or do you seriously think me and your denier pals represent the cutting edge of historical knowledge? It would be very sad if you did.
Look Mark, you played this pointless game with chek previously, making lots of daft little comments based on some kind of feeble innuendo, somehow managing to avoid actually discussing the subject. In fact, you've leapt in here, obviously thinking you know best and doing your level best to wind Paul up, but I don't think I've ever seen you make a coherent post on the subject. I'm sure you think you know best and that your little comments are awfully clever but you may choose to consider at some point that they're totally devoid of content.
If you have something to say, say it - but please stop making stupid comments and generally acting like a penis. Thanks.
Do you remember when the subject very first came up? If memory serves, you did a little turn and accused me of advocating censorship for pointing out that linking the TM with denial was a great way of discrediting it. Funny how things turn out.
Dogs.
What would be an acceptable response to this ?
If I quoted something that I need to rely on later in your court, you'd call it dodgy.
Yet you rely on your sources all day long.
If anyone contends that your sources might be dodgy, even after years of knowing that some of the memes have long since gone, you and many others would call those sources dodgy and label said detractors as far right neo-nazi HD nutters, wouldn't you ?
Well I probably would if they were. How curious that it is so out of line to want to suddenly ignore the possible political motivations of commentators on a matter - no matter how overt they may sometimes be - and pretend that they will in no way be influenced to promote that agenda. Why is that Mark? Why is this the one subject where considering the background agenda just isn't cricket? Or did I somehow engineer the rather striking correlation between the denier community and the far right? You have not one word to say on this consistent tacit promotion of the meme that "my sources" are somehow working to an 'official' agenda despite zero evidence for this conclusion. I mean, if you think "my sources" are dodgy, then why not say why? Otherwise, what's your problem? Is it because they're not 'contrary' enough? And that's just not cool and exciting? Or did Raul Hilberg publish a book 11 months and 9 days after the queen visited a Holocaust memorial or something?
And exactly how often do I write people off as "nutters" without accompanying responses to their arguments? My personal experience is that with a relatively light working knowledge of the subject, huge swathes of denier arguments are just obviously c*** with a modicum of investigation. One of the reasons I'm keen to stress my lack of expertise is that there seems to be this fantasy land perception that the debate round here is somehow at the cutting edge. It isn't. As I often say, most of it is just endlessly recycled canards from years ago.
But no. You win. Let's declare any consideration of the background of Holocaust deniers out of bounds. Considering background agendas is just for wild-eyed conspiriloons. And obviously Kollerstrom never needs to actually defend his arguments - it's 'contrary' so it's obviously inevitably true. He can even apparently forget what articles he wrote when it's convenient to do so if he likes. After all, you're either with the 'contrary' or you're with the government, right? The world is a cut and dried Manichean affair, and anything they say happened by definition therefore didn't. It makes life simpler.
Or do you seriously think me and your denier pals represent the cutting edge of historical knowledge?
Is there any such thing as historical knowledge when opposing parties contradict some of the most basic 'facts' that constitute that 'knowledge. In such circumstances if the sides agree to seek truth together they must surely agree to, firstly ignore all 'witness' evidence because as true (or false) as such evidence might be, this evidence is, in the end, mere words.
People must go to the science and the contemporaneous documents and not only analyse their meaning but decide also if even these can be trusted.
One's guess is, though, that any such collaborative investigation would be quite impossible as where are the historians or their sponsors who would not have a preconceived disposition or vested interest in the outcome of any such investigation.
Well if the 'opposing side' constitute about 0.001% of reasonably informed opinion and seem to be struggling tremendously to come up with anything convincing it's not surprising this 'grand clash' never seems to happen.
This is the 'deniers form a large, formidable and legitimate opposition' canard. It's very old.
Edit - sorry, forget to say - discounting all eyewitness evidence is a totally bizarre notion. I realise it helps deniers enormously, but that's not a good reason in itself. So shall we just discount eyewitnesses from the whole of history then? Or just the Holocaust? Jeez - history just got a lot smaller! And just out of interest, how much of the New Testament is based on eyewitnesses to the life of Christ? Not being a Christian, that doesn't bother me, but...
"Sorry mate - I realise you say you spent years in Auschwitz cremating corpses, but I just don't want to know...it's all just mere words to me."
I take it from this point on you will ignore any witness testimony regarding 911 as potentially "mere words"...? I am sure Willie Rodriguez will be most understanding.
Quote:
People must go to the science and the contemporaneous documents and not only analyse their meaning but decide also if even these can be trusted.
"This document is irrelevant and does not say what it appears to. Besides which, it is also a forgery"
- Holocaust denial for dummies (who else?!) p.4
Who are these "sponsors"?
Last edited by Dogsmilk on Wed Jun 25, 2008 12:35 pm; edited 1 time in total
But also look back on some of these threads and in particular the discussion of the holocaust and you will find posters who have cited sources and websites which are 'dodgy' and in some instances this lead to some users being banned.
Obviously some of you are struggling to understand what 'dodgy' is, so let me spell it out for you.
I'm talking about RACIST sites. Sites such as Jewwatch. Content which is written by or sites which are managed by people with strong and provable records of supporting racism or working with racists.
Still struggling to understand Ian - what about this:
=========================
Adolf Hitler, Jesse Owens and the Olympics Myth of 1936
Everyone knows that at the 1936 Olympics Hitler snubbed Jesse Owens. As the story goes, after Owens won one gold medal, Hitler, incensed, stormed out of Olympic Stadium so he wouldn't have to congratulate Owens on his victory.
...
Such a performance would have been perfectly in character, but it didn't happen. William J. Baker, Owens's biographer, says the newspapers made up the whole story. Owens himself originally insisted it wasn't true, but eventually he began saying it was, apparently out of sheer boredom with the issue.
...
Not only was Owens not rebuffed by Hitler, Owens wasn't shunned by the German audience at the Berlin stadium either. Baker reports that Owens so captured the imagination of the crowd it gave him several ear-shattering ovations. Owens had been prepared for a hostile reception; a coach had warned him in advance not to be upset by anything that might happen in the stands.
...
========================
http://hnn.us/articles/571.html
I think the article is a useful source for helping us to understand another big lie in the same vein as the soap and lampshades things.
But anyway. My question to help me understand what "dodgy" is, is:
Is the site "dodgy" for including content by the Jewish racial supremacist Daniel Pipes? _________________ If you want to know who is really in control, ask yourself who you cannot criticise.
"The hunt for 'anti-semites' is a hunt for pockets of resistance to the NWO"-- Israel Shamir
"What we in America call terrorists are really groups of people that reject the international system..." - Heinz "Henry" Kissinger
Well perhaps we'll never know until or unless Mark is unsuspended Which in view of muddling terms is not recommended
He's a well-known supporter of Zionism as far as I know, which is completely different _________________ http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction
Well here's the thing; I do tend to be rather cynical about people who declare themselves the Messiah, particularly if they ask for cash for rather ill-defined products, something Christ never felt the need to do. Furthermore, Christ apparently fed the multitude, healed the sick, brought a dead guy back to life etc....He didn't offer rather implausible sounding legal advice regarding motoring offences, using the same two 'testimonials' for over a year now I think - we haven't even found out what actually happened with the second guy. I realise in so many cases in today's world 'they don't make 'em like they used to', but in my book Messiahs should be genuinely impressive even to jaded cynics like me.
I realise the exact nature of Christ in terms of His perfection vs His incarnate human form has been a theological hot potato over the centuries, but considering God is by definition perfect, you'd expect Christ to be at least fairly awe-inspiring in his closeness to perfection as witnessed by us mere mortals. Which makes me wonder why these days he's turned out to be not that great at documentary film making. I realise that wasn't an issue in ancient Judea, but still.
On the other hand, if you have had a personal experience that you consider profound, then that is your affair and is simply something I am unable to relate to. If Muad truly is the Messiah, presumably he'll start actually doing something impressively Messianic at some point, in which case I'll have to eat my words. In the meantime, I am sure the Son of God is able to handle someone being a tad cynical on an internet forum. Forgive me, for I know not what I do - or something of that ilk.
I am pleased Muad uses his cash "wisely". Though I am moved to wonder how Christ managed to quite literally save us all with no visible income, despite the potential retail goldmine of 100% profit margins on the sale of His own line in wine, loaves and fishes. I suppose capitalism has come to affect us all.
Hi Dogsmilk,
Just a couple of points to address some things you said, now that I have filtered out the scorn in which they are ensconced.
You are assuming that Christ should do the same things He did, in this 2nd Coming. To sort of "prove to everyone" that He is who He is.
Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
John 14:22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?
This time, His people will recognize Him through other means.
Dogsmilk wrote:
I see what you mean with your quotes. It sounded for a minute like you were suggesting Christ was some kind of extra-terrestrial.
Then you do not see that this is the Truth contained in those verses.
This time, His people will recognize Him through other means.
Like what? How many people 'recognise' him apart from you?
Quoting random sentences from the bible doesn't really mean anything, but one refers to false Christs - how do you know Dib isn't a false Christ?
Quote:
Then you do not see that this is the Truth contained in those verses.
Most people see Christ as being of the Kingdom of Heaven, not careering round in a flying saucer. "Not of this world" doesn't necessarily mean "from outer space".
After reading the tosh that is this thread it is abundantly clear to me why we, as a campaign have got not-very-far
When it has been discussed before and is known that certain issues are used by "them" to discredit etc, people (some of whom should know much better) still jump in with gleeful abandon.
Dissapointing, very dissapointing.
Tony, why is nonsense like this not deleted?
(by nonsense I`m not taking any sides on the issue, just saying its all nonsense!)
C. _________________ The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
