| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
David WJ Sherlock
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 Jan 2007
Posts: 471
Location: Kent GB
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:53 am Post subject: Holocaust denial and the incitement of religious hatred |
 |
|
When is a genocide not a genocide? Thanks to Melanie Phillips for bringing to our attention this Financial Times article on a newly proposed EU law aimed ostensibly at criminalising Holocaust denial throughout the European Union. Holocaust denial is already a crime in several EU member states and this proposal would extend the principle across the continent. There are a number of striking features to the proposed new law, however. First of all, according to the FT report, the law is intended to apply only to the Nazi mass murder of Jews during World War II, and the Rwanda genocide of 1994. However, several EU diplomats have stated that the new legislation would not penalise denial of the Armenian genocide of 1915-1917 carried out by Ottoman troops, which is denied by the Turkish government itself.
See Article:
http://newparty.co.uk/news/april2007/holocaust-denial-and-incitement-o f-religious-hatred.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
karlos
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Soon even thinking something let alone saying it out loud will be a crime.
But the more they try to force us to think one way the more they open our minds to the truth.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
'Never believe a story until it has been officially denied'
Never believe history that you are not allowed to question. Not saying there was not something going on in WW2 Germany that was unsavoury, but I am SURE - because of this legislation - that they are hiding something.
No inclusion of the young Turks and Armenians, and also not a mention of the deliberate omission of...
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=8545
Perhaps we should look to see who was behind the genocide we are not going to include in this new legislation.
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David WJ Sherlock
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 Jan 2007
Posts: 471
Location: Kent GB
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rodin wrote: | 'Never believe a story until it has been officially denied'
Never believe history that you are not allowed to question. Not saying there was not something going on in WW2 Germany that was unsavoury, but I am SURE - because of this legislation - that they are hiding something.
No inclusion of the young Turks and Armenians, and also not a mention of the deliberate omission of...
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=8545
Perhaps we should look to see who was behind the genocide we are not going to include in this new legislation. |
The problem here is not about denying the Holocaust. It is the fact it will ban debate. That is the bad part. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rodin wrote: | Never believe a story until it has been officially denied'
Never believe history that you are not allowed to question. Not saying there was not something going on in WW2 Germany that was unsavoury, but I am SURE - because of this legislation - that they are hiding something. |
If there were indeed something to hide, you would wonder why leading holocaust scholars such as Raul Hilberg tend not to support such bans but rather support the deniers in their right to speak; Hilberg has been quoted as saying that he finds deniers useful as they force him to closer scrutiny of the evidence base. And it's folk like him that gave us 'the facts' in the first place.
This is legislation brought about by politicians; the people who drafted this in all likelihood know little of holocaust scholarship. People probably not keen to go round stirring up controversy with Russian and Turkish sensitivities.
If official denial represents 'something to hide', then it follows that any legislation prohibiting expressions of racial hatred per se is designed to cover something up.
Deniers, when they're not being generally the white supremacists they frequently are, are apt to claim the 'holohoax' was to bring about the creation of Israel. Well that happened. If, by some strange quirk of reality, they were 'right', what then? A bunch of historians would look very silly, history would be re-written and there would be a tide of anti-semitism (making many deniers very happy indeed). However, I very much doubt the Israeli population would say "it's a fair cop", pack their bags and go somewhere else. If this actually represented 'something to hide', why bother? What's to 'lose' now, half a century later? Why make a fuss about something hardly anyone takes seriously? I'd wager more people subscribe to trutherism, but scant msm attention and the mocking cry of 'conspiriloon' when it does works better that banning talking about it would. if they tried that, it would break big. Let's face it - holocaust 'revisionism' is strictly a fringe discipline confined almost exclusively to the internet - passing laws is just drawing attention to it...you may as well speculate they want people to discover it! People like that fascist clown Zundel or that racist prick Irving wouldn't be half as famous if they hadn't got dragged through the courts. Such laws, rather perversely, tend to allow a continual stream of deluded nazis to claim the moral high ground as martyrs for free speech. Hardly an effective 'cover up'.
Oddly, no-one ever seems to 'revise' T4... gypsies...gays...communists...
If you were to start a movement claiming slavery actually involved lifting black people from lives of poverty and giving them a fine economic start in a decent job (a bit like modern globalisation narratives), that the number of deaths had been vastly exaggerated and it was all a plot to bring about the collapse of civilisation by making the evolution of gansta rap possible and thus undermine societal values, you'd probably find all kinds of irate people wanting to ban yo ass from 'denying slavery' and offending black people. This would not mean you were 'on to something'.
Such a law is, IMO, silly though. If you believe in free speech, you believe in allowing the expression of all views, most importantly those you find incorrect, downright wrong or utterly offensive. Or else you do not believe in free speech at all.
Now if you'll excuse me, I must have a lie down due to the trauma of finding myself agreeing with that evil, hatchet faced harridan Melanie Phillips.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Limited freedom of speech = no freedom of speech. And - yes - enlightened followers of the party line on the Holocaust are seeing the damage these laws cause to their case (and the adverse attention it attracts - me being a prime example)
Good to see you posting
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Newspeak International
Validated Poster
Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 1158
Location: South Essex
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is this the same Melanie Philips who penned the wonderfully entertaining
'Londonistan',who could doubt her motives for the truth?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
karlos
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Newspeak International
Validated Poster
Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 1158
Location: South Essex
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I expect most have seen this one (along with the other 3),they make the same points as stelios last link:
Zionism:The real enemy of the Jews
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUh067U7E1A |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Newspeak International wrote: | Is this the same Melanie Philips who penned the wonderfully entertaining
'Londonistan',who could doubt her motives for the truth?
|
The same Melanie 'ADL' Phillips who spouts such rancid race hatred in the Daily Mail, perhaps shes looking for a spot next to Robert Maxwell on the hill for zionist heros?
I wonder what her agenda is then? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Newspeak International
Validated Poster
Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 1158
Location: South Essex
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poison in the purest form is our Melanie  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 12:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't get it; what's the big deal?
The only thing I see of interest is that Huffy seems to find it remarkable that there's a Jew out there into the same stuff as him; maybe he thinks Jews are all some homogenous group who all think the same thing and thus are somehow 'different' to 'us', I dunno.
It's far less striking than Richard Green, founder (and sole member) of 'Jews for Hitler' (see Apocalypse Culture II, Adam Parfrey ed.) - it takes all types.
If Huffy thinks it somehow makes HD more 'legitimate', that's like saying some black man claiming white people are superior makes white supremacy more legitimate.
Anyway, this is old news; as the article notes, he was doing his 'investigation' in 92 - he's not new on the HD scene.
He's a curious chap, Cole, he gets about;
| Quote: | So
from 1987 onward, I was everywhere. I ran a chapter of the revolutionary
communist party, I ran a John Birch society chapter. I had about five
different names, and there's literally not a part of the American
political spectrum I wasn't involved in. Apart from being a supporter and
subscriber to the ADL and the JDL, I have a World Jewish Congress card. I
worked for the Heritage Foundation on the right and the ACLU on the left. |
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.py?people/c/cole.david/interview-jerusalem-r eport
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
whoop45
Minor Poster
Joined: 08 May 2007
Posts: 23
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I watched the first one. The factual errors started with the statement the holocaust was used as "wartime propaganda" and the unsubstantiated assumptions started with him assuming that door had been there since at least 1945 while offering no evidence he'd actualy bothered to check. It went on from there. I like the way he seems to think that banks lending money to line their own pockets is a zionist plot. It's like capitalism never happened! I assume he goes on to say what a lovely bloke Hitler was and how it was all the fault of the Jews whilst vehemently denying he's got anything against them.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I see he's now touting the 'protocols' - I didn't see that one coming!
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rodin wrote: | | Limited freedom of speech = no freedom of speech. |
Hi Rodin
When some people use their freedom of speech to incite hatred and limit the freedom of others do you not think this speech requires some limts or do you place no limts on the freedom of speech.
Should a paedophile be allowed to stand outside a school and attempt to 'groom' a child.
Should the hutu extremists have been allowed to broadcast inflamatory calls to butcher all tutsis before the rwandan genocide.
Should the BNP be free to march through predominantly asian areas calling for 'PXXXX to go home'
Should certain protestants be free to march down a predominantly catholic road playing inflammatory marching songs.
I think not. Get real. There are some limitations to 'free speech' and for very good reasons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rabbie McM
Minor Poster
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 53
Location: Motherwell
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What any "dispassionate" observer/researcher finds most interesting is that it is only if you question the evidence surrounding the Shoah that you can now face a jail term in some European states.
What if I were a Rwandan "genocide denier" ? No problem, say what you like.
That in itself says a lot.
I agree Ian with your point about with speech comes responsibility by the way. But in no way can criminalisation for those who have a different view on the Holocaust be justified. Anyone who has done any serious study of conspiracism knows this subject is too important to ignore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rabbie McM wrote: | What any "dispassionate" observer/researcher finds most interesting is that it is only if you question the evidence surrounding the Shoah that you can now face a jail term in some European states.
What if I were a Rwandan "genocide denier" ? No problem, say what you like.
That in itself says a lot.
I agree Ian with your point about with speech comes responsibility by the way. But in no way can criminalisation for those who have a different view on the Holocaust be justified. Anyone who has done any serious study of conspiracism knows this subject is too important to ignore. |
That's not strictly speaking true. For example France has laws on denying genocide that led to the successful prosecution of Bernard Lewis for denying the Armenian genocide.
As you can see, this law has been controversial with Turkey -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6045838.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,,1920624,00.html
Furthermore, it is politicians not historians who pass these laws. The people who pass the laws likely know less about the subject than the HDs.
Thirdly, the fact it is forbidden does not therefore entail there is 'something to hide' - One may be prosecuted for spreading racist propaganda, but it does not therefore follow that propaganda is likely to be true.
However, I totally agree prosecuting people for their beliefs is unjust - I also agree it sets a dangerous trend regarding 'unorthodox' beliefs. Let people speak. I'd just personally recommend people have a good hard look at both sides.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 4:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | If you were to start a movement claiming slavery actually involved lifting black people from lives of poverty and giving them a fine economic start in a decent job (a bit like modern globalisation narratives), that the number of deaths had been vastly exaggerated and it was all a plot to bring about the collapse of civilisation by making the evolution of gansta rap possible and thus undermine societal values, you'd probably find all kinds of irate people wanting to ban yo ass from 'denying slavery' and offending black people. This would not mean you were 'on to something'. |
You mean you don't think that's true? 
http://www.blacksandjews.com/MarcLeeRaphael.html
Remember I said that the fact that no-one accused of Holocrimes had come forward to say they were framed? This did seem to to some extent counter the otherwise overwhelming evidence that the Holocaust was not all it was claimed to be.
I have since come to the conclusion that keeping these people silent is no more difficult than keeping up the illusion that we went to the moon, or that 19 arabs did 911.
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 5:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dogsmilk wrote: |
I don't get it; what's the big deal?
|
Hufschmid is probably Jewish himself.
DM - it is NOT about 'The Jews' per se. I watched Simon & Garfunkel perform @ the Usher Hall in the 60's and they were spellbinding. Such beauty cannot have a dark heart.
The problem is the elite have co-opted Judaism as a control mechanism and a way of organising a huge Mafia system. Jews who believe they really are G-ds chosen people, and that the rest of us are Goyim (cattle), or Freemasons who consider me to be 'profane' (LOL - I am more a mason than most of them having recently acquired the skill to build Roman arches etc) - these people are persuaded into serving their masters dark designs. They get material; benefit from doing so. And they are a real danger to us, because inculcated into their belief system is that we Goy do not matter. When push comes to shove they will eliminate us with a clear conscience (Kol Nidre etc). And we have allowed them to acquire the means to do so.
Not saying this is the only cult that is in play, or has been in control. But right now...
http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=136188
All these cults have the same aim - control the masses and support the pyramid structure. And all cults are run from the top by an elite who know that their cult is a lie.
If Mormons or Scientologists were @ the top of the pyramid I would be just as concerned.
I believe in this - the pyramid system is an evil structure that enslaves humanity and gives power to those least deserving of it.
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 5:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ian neal wrote: | | rodin wrote: | | Limited freedom of speech = no freedom of speech. |
Hi Rodin
When some people use their freedom of speech to incite hatred and limit the freedom of others do you not think this speech requires some limts or do you place no limts on the freedom of speech.
Should a paedophile be allowed to stand outside a school and attempt to 'groom' a child.
Should the hutu extremists have been allowed to broadcast inflamatory calls to butcher all tutsis before the rwandan genocide.
Should the BNP be free to march through predominantly asian areas calling for 'PXXXX to go home'
Should certain protestants be free to march down a predominantly catholic road playing inflammatory marching songs.
I think not. Get real. There are some limitations to 'free speech' and for very good reasons. |
Hello Ian
The examples you give involve more than free-speaking surely?
Grooming involves a minor, and minors should be protected from certain influences. Profanity being one example. I see parents F'ing and Blinding in front of their and other children. How do you legoslate for that?
The HUTU genocide is obvious incitement to kill. This is not what I would term free speech.
The BNP shouting 'Pakis go home' (why not use the full word Ian - so we won't be offended or something? Let the ugly phrase be shown for what it is) is offensive for sure, and all right minded people will treat the BNP as anathema after hearing them say it. There is an inbuilt defence mechanism against such dark nonsense - common sense and morality shared by the majority.
Same holds true for the Orangemen.
IMO these groups are supported by dark forces within the ruling elite - agents provocateurs. Witness collusion in NI.
Limiting free speech is such a danger. Either you don't see it or you do. With free speech groups and individuals can say objectionable (to right-minded people) things. Without it the top of the pyramid can protect lies and hide truth. The pyramid will 'draw the line'
I can imagine -
Rule for proper conduct #589287672
| Quote: | | It is OK for an adult to swear outside in public so long as no children other than their own are within 5 metres unless it is snowing in which case the radius of tolerance is reduced to 2.5 metres due to the muffling effect.... |
I stand by what I wrote
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig W
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rodin wrote: |
DM - it is NOT about 'The Jews' per se. I watched Simon & Garfunkel perform @ the Usher Hall in the 60's and they were spellbinding. Such beauty cannot have a dark heart.
The problem is the elite have co-opted Judaism as a control mechanism and a way of organising a huge Mafia system. Jews who believe they really are G-ds chosen people, and that the rest of us are Goyim (cattle), or Freemasons who consider me to be 'profane' (LOL - I am more a mason than most of them having recently acquired the skill to build Roman arches etc) - these people are persuaded into serving their masters dark designs. They get material; benefit from doing so. And they are a real danger to us, because inculcated into their belief system is that we Goy do not matter. When push comes to shove they will eliminate us with a clear conscience (Kol Nidre etc). And we have allowed them to acquire the means to do so.
Not saying this is the only cult that is in play, or has been in control. But right now...
http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=136188
All these cults have the same aim - control the masses and support the pyramid structure. And all cults are run from the top by an elite who know that their cult is a lie.
If Mormons or Scientologists were @ the top of the pyramid I would be just as concerned.
I believe in this - the pyramid system is an evil structure that enslaves humanity and gives power to those least deserving of it. |
An excellent post, Rodin. There is much truth here.
The gold forum thread you linked to is also enlightening.
They sure have got a lot of fat fingers in a lot of important pies, this criminal gang.
_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rodin wrote: | | Quote: | | If you were to start a movement claiming slavery actually involved lifting black people from lives of poverty and giving them a fine economic start in a decent job (a bit like modern globalisation narratives), that the number of deaths had been vastly exaggerated and it was all a plot to bring about the collapse of civilisation by making the evolution of gansta rap possible and thus undermine societal values, you'd probably find all kinds of irate people wanting to ban yo ass from 'denying slavery' and offending black people. This would not mean you were 'on to something'. |
You mean you don't think that's true?
http://www.blacksandjews.com/MarcLeeRaphael.html
Remember I said that the fact that no-one accused of Holocrimes had come forward to say they were framed? This did seem to to some extent counter the otherwise overwhelming evidence that the Holocaust was not all it was claimed to be.
I have since come to the conclusion that keeping these people silent is no more difficult than keeping up the illusion that we went to the moon, or that 19 arabs did 911. |
Ah, so now we're pinning the slave trade on Jews? Pretty much everyone involved in commerce was up to their necks in, on one hand slavery, on the other killing Native Americans for daring to stand in the way of 'civilisation'. And while some 'progressives' were bemoaning slavery from the comfort of Blighty, they were happily driving poor Scots off their land. That's people for you. The original point about dopey Dave does, I think, still stand.
It's interesting as there is a long-standing tension between Jews and Blacks in America. There is a tension between Blacks and Asians here (did you see that Darcus Howe doc about it a while ago? Very depressing.)
Why we need to continually divide ourselves along racial and religious lines is very unfortunate. If you ask me it's simply primate group instinct.
Actually, Ian's point is quite a good one. For example, the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) - (you can google them easily enough - they aren't actually an illegal organisation, but I'm reluctant to post the link here for obvious reasons) - would bemoan the fact that they are persecuted for putting forward the notion that sexual relationships between men and young boys are great. This doesn't involve any grooming - they're just putting forward their 'philosophy'. Is the censure they face evidence that they are holding a great truth that needs to be suppressed? Or should their boyz2men ideology be in any way restricted? Would you be happy if one of their members turned up here to 'debate it'? - saying 'the elite' had suppressed the golden path to sexual and spiritual fulfillment. And with 'evidence' 'the Jews' were behind their censure, based on a few web articles.
If you google up combat 18, you can find all kinds of interesting claims about (as well as Jews), 'n**gers' and the like - these don't necessarily involve specific incitement, rather incoherent ravings, but I still doubt you'll find them in print form in Waterstones. Maybe 'the elite' are suppressing them too?
The point about protestants is very good - they would say they're following a tradition and not doing anything inherently offensive - it is, after all, just a parade, right? Thanksgiving in America can be seen as very offensive, but who cares about that, right?
Whether we should limit free speech in any respect is a big debate (my libertarian leanings tend to place a very high benchmark). The main point is whether we agree x should or should not be banned, it is simply terrible logic to assume that banning something implies it therefore contains a 'hidden truth' the elites are desperate to suppress. Furthermore, it frequently entails a consideration of whether it's going to lead to harm (even if by tacit incitement) or serious offense (in itself) or offense that may actually lead to violence - that has jack nonsense to do with 'suppressing the truth'. But it is an important consideration in any society.
the serious question is, at what point do you decide you need to stop something to prevent harm? I don't pretend to know a totally viable formula.
Otherwise, as you well know, I dispute this notion of 'elite Jews' which I generally regard as an exercise in finding as many wealthy and powerful Jews (using at times highly strained definitions of 'Jew' not unlike the ones Hitler used), assuming they all think the same thing and presumably have regular meetings, and delaring they run thwe world. From following this stuff on various websites for a while, it seems there is a distinct pattern which tends to go from 'elite Jews', through to 'Hitler was framed', to 'Hitler wasn't such a bad guy', to 'Hitler didn't really do anything bad', to then getting on to gays and communists (and how bad they are) - in fact it's only really gypsies and Jehovas Witnesses you don't see any more and before you know it, you're back in the heady days of 1933. Methinks many people who write this stuff have an urge to expose a particular kind of 'truth'. Funnily enough, nobody seems to be making a big deal about how much of America rich Saudi Arabian muslims own.
Though, perhaps unusually for here, I tend to think that there isn't one elite, but rather several which change, compete and forge alliances. If every human ideological gathering thus far observed, from mainstream political parties to the 'radical underground' cannot get by without cliques, splits, splinter factions, fallings out, ego based power trips and bids for power, then (unless it's all lizards) it serious strains my credulity to assume that a single group could operate consistently over hundreds of years without splitting into competing factions. Curiously, I kind of agree that Judaism has probably been co-opted. I think wealthy, powerful people veer towards the temple of mammon, the most powerful co-opting force of them all. You only need to go to any shopping centre to see who controls the world.
It is curious, when we both appear to agree on the undesirabilty of top-down pyramidal structures. But I would assert that all pyramidal structures arise from placing humans in boxes rather than taking us all as the individual bewildered apes we are.
Bah - I've been spending too much time here, and am trying to go back into the real world for a while - so it's inevitable you'd pop back up and provoke me into writing long posts. Nice one on the arch by the way - not being made of steel it will presumably avoid any catastrophic truss failure, too.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 11:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Free speech is indeed under threat and my inclinations are always towards a lack of restrictions. Just witness the threats to limit 'conpsiracy websites' in the states. So we are agreed i think. I was just trying to point out it is not clear cut that there should be no limitations.
| rodin wrote: | | IMO these groups are supported by dark forces within the ruling elite - agents provocateurs. Witness collusion in NI. |
I definately agree with you here. I have very strong suspicions that this is precisely the case with the discussion of zionism/jewish elites on both sides: both the ADL and Combat18 ends of the spectrum. It is these suspicions and my belief that zionism is but a part of the NWO picture that leads me to avoid focussing on the subject.
Dogsmilk, thanks for your wise words and for taking the time to write them. I agree with what you say.
My understanding is also
| Quote: | | there isn't one elite, but rather several which change, compete and forge alliances. |
I tend to compare the elites with competing mafia crime families. They may all competing with each other, bumping off each others foot soldiers. Sometimes fighting each other, sometimes forging uneasy alliances and hierarchies. But they all accept organised crime is what they do.
So to me elite zionists make up one of these crime families and undoubtedly one of the most influential, but definately not the only one.
We could compare this to South Africa. Before its fall we could all probably agree that apartheid is the enemy and we could expose the crimes of the white supremacist elite and the passive support of many white south africans. And we could expose how their pwoer and influence stretched way beyond SA's borders.
But with apartheid's fall, did anything really change? The money is still concentrated in the same hands. AngloAmerican reportedly still own 80% of the SA stock exchange, but crime groups have sprung up to fill the void left by Pik Botha.
Personally if we want to expose the crimes of the high criminals, we are best to name them and avoid generic labels such as zionist that can be so easily misread.
I'm far happier with focussing on PNAC and the American Enterprise Inst. than labels such as zionist which can be applied to any one supportive of Israel. This Panorama programme is very good
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/3032147.stm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4667039539703585825 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
