sophia_h
30-12-2008, 06:17 PM
`
Dirk Zimmermann-German 'Thought Criminal' Part 1
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=crpvHukpD08&feature=related
Dr. Fredrick Toben's channel
http://uk.youtube.com/user/FredrickToben
.
Sylvia Stolz Defiantly Stands up to the Holocaust Mafia
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=B2dFaAA8sUU&feature=related
film by:
truthmonger63
Sylvia Stolz was sentenced to 3 and-a-half years in prison
and disbarred for 5 years.
She was on the defence team of Ernst Zundel
I love her courage and passion for the truth. She stood up against the Holocaust Mafia and said what was needed to be said.
The gentlemen speaking on the audio are Daryl Bradford Smith and Mohammad Rafeeq.
I recommend Daryl's website. Its a great place for in depth and detailed research on history and the economy.
bookmark iamthewitness.com
.................................................. ......................
( S: as she was DRAGGED out of court she shouted "HEIL HITLER !" )
stolz means PROUD
she surely makes us so !
.....................
Horst Mahler explains witch trials in Germany
sorry its only Deutsch
with some subs.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Rrl8jNE1aOc&feature=related
.
holodenier:
Revised Nazi Gassings
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=yGwGJuGQU2A
...
Here is the Grand Old Man of Revisionism
( I am older than he is by 3 years ! S.)
Friedrich Paul Berg
Learn everything at www.nazigassings.com
Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Niemand wurde vergast!
http://www.nazigassings.com/
Here is his channel:
holodenier Channel
http://uk.youtube.com/user/holodenier
...
According to the author, Nazi gassings during World War II were not as portrayed by history. The author provides interesting scientific and technological discoveries.
Category: Science & Technology
comments:
ThoughtCriminal911 (3 weeks ago)
So why do you need courts to protect your holohoax truth? and why are even defense lawyers of revisonists thrown into jail for defending their clients? Don't believe me? Surf for Sylvia Stoltz. I think you are one of those who believe every word bush and his neocons say and that the person responsible for 911 lives in a cave.
...
robert496 (1 month ago)
Funny isn't it how the supporters of the alleged holo always resort to foul language,mockery,intimidation and the old mantra,nazi nazi nazi,anti semite.
We, who question the events of WW2 find it hard to accept so called facts that go against the laws of physics and nature.
All we ask is to be able to investigate allegations of mass murder.If it is true,what do you zionists have to fear?
..
more:
CO 2 and Zyklon-B - part 2 of 6
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=lwdzKzgcLes&feature=channel_page
.
Added
09:45CO 2 and Zyklon-B - part 3 of 6
2,535 views
RevisionistsRusAdded
08:57CO 2 and Zyklon-B - part 4 of 6
1,432 views
RevisionistsRusAdded
09:50CO 2 and Zyklon-B - part 5 of 6
836 views
RevisionistsRusAdded
10:26CO 2 and Zyklon-B - part 6 of 6
970 views
RevisionistsRusAdded
09:06Cremation vs. holocaust - Part 2 of 3
3,825 views
RevisionistsRusAdded
07:43The Second Leuchter Report - part 2 of 2
653 views
RevisionistsRusAdded
08:15Cremation vs. holocaust - part 3 of 3
1,133 views
RevisionistsRusAdded
09:45Prof. Robert Faurisson part 1 of 6
6,165 views
RevisionistsRusAdded
09:41They were White and They were Slaves - 1 of 3
12,096 views
RevisionistsRusAdded
08:59They were White and They were Slaves - 2 of 3
3,284 views
RevisionistsRusAdded
07:26They were White and They were Slaves - 3 of 3
2,789 views
RevisionistsRusAdded
09:50Cremation vs. holocaust - Part 1 of 3
4,945 views
RevisionistsRus
.
sophia_h
30-12-2008, 06:50 PM
`
Return to the Dark Ages
Americans think of Europeans as essentially like themselves. They believe European societies are like their own-rooted in the rule of law, freedom of religion, democratic government, market competition, and an unfettered press. In recent years, however, Europeans have given up an essential liberty: freedom of speech. It is true that in the United States prevailing orthodoxies on some questions are ruthlessly enforced but it is still legal to say just about anything. Not so in much of Europe. In the last decade or so countries we think of as fellow democracies-France, Germany, Switzerland and others-have passed laws that limit free speech for the same crude ideological reasons that drove the brief, unsuccessful vogue of campus speech codes in the United States.
Today in Europe there are laws as bad as anything George Orwell could have imagined. In some countries courts have ruled that the facts are irrelevant, and that certain things must not be said whether they are true or false. In others, a defendant in court who tries to explain or defend a forbidden view will be charged on the spot with a fresh offense. Even his lawyer can be fined or go to jail for trying to mount a defense. In one case a judge ordered that a bookseller's entire stock-innocent as well as offending titles-be burned!
Just as Eastern Europe is emerging from it, Western Europe has entered the thought-crime era, in a return to the mentality that launched the Inquisition and the wars of religion. It is a tyranny of the left practiced by the very people who profess shock at the tactics of Joseph McCarthy, an exercise of raw power in the service of pure ideology. The desire not merely to debate one's opponents but to disgrace them, muzzle them, fine them, jail them is utterly contrary to the spirit of civilized discourse.
It is profoundly disturbing to find this ugly sentiment codified into law in some of the countries we think of as pillars of Western Civilization. At the same time, these laws cannot help but draw attention to the very ideas they forbid. Truth does not generally require the help of censors.
There are two subjects about which Europeans can no longer speak freely. One is race and the other is Nazi Germany. "Anti-racism" laws generally take the form of forbidding the expression of opinions that might stir up "hatred" against any racial or ethnic group. In some countries, it is now risky to say that genetic differences explain why blacks have, on average, lower IQs than whites or to say that non-white immigration should be prevented so as to preserve a white majority. There are probably parts of every issue of American Renaissance that could be banned in some European country, and we have an obvious interest in opposing censorship of this kind.
Far more prosecutions have taken place, however, in connection with what is called "Holocaust revisionism" or "Holocaust denial." This appears to cover any skepticism about the generally-accepted view that the Nazis had a plan to exterminate Jews and managed to kill some six million, mostly by gassing. There is considerable variety in the laws that forbid disagreement on this matter (see sidebar, page 6), but the Jewish Holocaust has become the one historical event on which people in France, Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Holland, Poland, Austria, Lithuania (and Israel) can be legally compelled to agree. It is still legal to dissent from Holocaust orthodoxy in Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Britain, Ireland, and Croatia, but there is powerful pressure in some of these countries to join the censors. Third Reich Jewish polices are of no special interest to AR, but it is outrageous that any point of view on any question be forbidden.
In the United States there is widespread complacency over this blatant thought control practiced by our closest allies. This complacency proves the utter lack of integrity of those who make principled free-speech claims for Communists, pornographers, rap "artists," and flag-burners, but who will not lift a finger to stop the persecution of "racists" and "Nazis." Liberals get dewy-eyed over the First Amendment only when it suits them, and are quietly delighted to see their opponents dragged off to jail because of their opinions. Indeed, several thousand Europeans are arrested every year who, if they were leftists, would be lionized as "prisoners of conscience." Indifference, even joy, over their fate is the contemptible sentiment that prevails across the political spectrum even in America.
France has had perhaps the most colorful history of modern European censorship, perhaps because it has the longest history of Holocaust revisionism. The leftist Paul Rassinier cast doubt on accepted views as early as the 1950s, but it was in 1978 that revisionism came to the attention of a larger European public. In that and the following year Prof. Robert Faurisson of the University of Lyon published two articles in the newspaper Le Monde asserting that there were no execution gas chambers in the Nazi concentration camps. Mr. Faurisson, an expert at textual analysis who made his case from original documents, provoked a storm of opposition.
Nine anti-racist and concentration-camp survivor organizations brought civil and criminal suits against Prof. Faurisson for "falsification of history in the matter of the gas chambers," a curious charge brought under the French anti-racial-discrimination law of 1972. In April 1983, the Paris Court of Appeals found Prof. Faurisson innocent of "falsification of history" but found him guilty of the equally curious crime of "reducing his research to malevolent slogans," and made him pay a small fine. At the same time, the court upheld the right to express any opinion on the existence of Nazi gas chambers (presumably so long as it was not expressed "malevolently"), concluding that "the value of the conclusions defended by Faurisson rests therefore solely with the appraisal of experts, historians, and the public."
This was a setback to the suppressers of free speech, who responded with what is known as the Gayssot law-named for the Communist deputy who promoted it-signed into law in 1990 by President François Mitterand. This law made it a crime punishable by up to 250,000 French francs (at that time approximately $50,000) or one year in prison or both to dispute the truth of any of the "crimes against humanity" for which Nazi leaders were charged at the Nuremberg trials. Prof. Faurisson, who had continued to publish views on the Holocaust, was the first to be convicted under this law, and was fined 100,000 francs in April, 1991, a penalty reduced on appeal to 30,000 francs. He has not given up his work and has been repeatedly found guilty of the same crime. At last count, he has also been physically assaulted ten times and on at least one occasion was nearly killed.
Although the Gayssot law was controversial when it was passed, the French are now happy with it. According to a 1998 Sofres poll, 79 percent think it necessary "because one does not have the right to say anything one likes about the extermination of the Jews."
The extent of this sentiment explains why there were other convictions for Holocaust-related comments before passage of the 1990 Gayssot law. In 1987 the leader of the French National Front Jean-Marie Le Pen was fined under anti-racism laws, not for denying the existence of Nazi gas chambers but merely for describing them as a "detail" or "minor point" in the history of the Second World War. Astonishingly enough, not only must a Frenchman affirm a certain historical fact, he must attribute to it a certain prescribed i
mportance.
Another French celebrity-turned-thought criminal is Brigitte Bardot, the former actress. In retirement she has become an ardent animal-rights activist and has often denounced the ritual slaughter of sheep by French Muslims during the festival that marks the end of the Ramadan fast. She has also spoken in more general terms, lamenting that "my country, France, my homeland, my land is again invaded by an overpopulation of foreigners, especially Muslims." Like Prof. Faurisson, she is impenitent and has been fined at least three times-in 1997, 1998 and 2000-under the 1972 anti-racism law. A judge concluded that Miss Bardot was guilty of inciting "discrimination, hatred or racial violence," and that her condemnation of Muslim practices went beyond any possible concern for animal rights.
There has been a host of other less-well-known Frenchmen convicted under the censorship laws. In May, 1999, the editor of a small-circulation magazine Akribeia was fined 10,000 francs ($2,000) and given a suspended six-month sentence for writing favorably about Paul Rassinier, the founder of French revisionism. At his arrest, police strip-searched Jean Plantin and confiscated his two computers and a dozen computer disks, destroying the results of several years' research. In September 2000, a 53-year-old French high school teacher in Lemberg in the Moselle region was fined 40,000 Francs ($8,000) and given a one-year suspended sentence for telling his students that the Third Reich gas chambers were used for delousing clothes and that the concentration camps were not extermination centers.
Censorship cases now get little attention in France unless there are unusual circumstances or the defendant is a celebrity. In July 2000, a local National Front politician in the Rhône-Alpes region, Georges Theil, was charged with "disputing the existence of crimes against humanity." In what he thought was a private e-mail exchange and using a screen name, he had written, "Homicidal gas chambers never existed for the simple reason that they were simply and profoundly impossible." Mr. Theil had not counted on the diligence of the French police, who tracked him down through his Internet service provider, Wanadoo, and hauled him into court where prosecutors asked for a six-month suspended sentence. Cases of this kind, which show how deeply the French police are willing to burrow into what people think are their private lives, have been completely ignored in the United States.
Two recent censorship trials that did receive international attention were "the Garaudy affair" and the successful attempt to shut down certain activities by the American Internet portal Yahoo. The Garaudy scandal is particularly instructive because it shows how willingly the left will sacrifice its own to the gods of Third Reich orthodoxy. Roger Garaudy was born in 1913, served in the French army, joined the war-time Resistance, and sat in the French National Assembly as a Communist, first as a deputy and later as a senator. For 25 years he was a major theoretician for the Communist Party, but broke with the comrades over the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. He continued to teach philosophy and promote anti-racism and socialism. He converted to Islam, and enjoyed great prestige as one of France's most influential public intellectuals.
Over the years he took an increasing interest in the Palestinian cause, and came to believe Jews were exaggerating the horrors of the Holocaust in order to squelch criticism of Israel. This and other views expressed in his 1995 book The Founding Myths of Modern Israel (published in English in 2000 by the California-based Institute for Historical Review) unleashed not only a flood of criticism but likewise brought the octogenarian into court for violation of the Gayssot law. Prof. Garaudy's impeccable credentials as a leftist and anti-racist were no defense. In February, 1998, he was duly fined the equivalent of $40,000 after a trial that caused a sensation in France and throughout the Islamic world. Probably no event has prompted more interest in Holocaust revisionism among Arabs than the trial of this French Muslim who defended Palestinians. Religious and political leaders from Egypt to Iran denounced France for putting him on trial, and the wife of the president of the United Arab Emirates contributed $50,000 to his defense. Egyptian Nobel laureate in literature Naguib Mahfouz wondered about the health of Western societies in which it is commonplace to deny God but a crime to doubt the Holocaust.
The affair took on yet another tragi-comic dimension when Abbé Pierre, one of the most popular and admired men in France, made a few offhand remarks in support of Prof. Garaudy. Abbé Pierre is a Capuchin friar whose real name is Henri Groulès. He came to be known as "the abbé" during his work with the French Resistance smuggling Jews out of occupied France. He has devoted his life to good works for the poor and for immigrants, and has a reputation something like that of Mother Theresa. He had become acquainted with Prof. Garaudy and shared his concern about Israel's treatment of Palestinians. After a few comments in favor of his old friend, he was horrified to discover that despite much backtracking and many apologies his reputation had vanished. He acknowledged he had not read the book, called on Prof. Garaudy to correct any errors, and disavowed any association with Holocaust denial. Even so, leftists whom he thought were life-long friends turned on him, kicking him out of the International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism, a French anti-racist organization of which he had long been a member. Perhaps the cruelest blow was his expulsion from Emma-us, the charitable organization he himself had founded. Although not charged with violation of the Gayssot law, Abbé Pierre fled to Italy and hid in a monastery until the controversy blew over.
The French case against the American Internet giant Yahoo, which is a gateway to search engines, auctions, shopping and much else caused only a brief murmur of disapproval in the United States, but is an ominous first step in bringing the Internet under the control of European censorship laws. The same International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism of which the abbé used to be member-known by its French acronym LICRA-joined the French Union of Jewish Students in suing Yahoo to stop Internet auctions of Nazi medals, arm bands, photos, autographs and the like. France's anti-racism laws forbid commerce in anything "racially tinged," and the California-based Yahoo promptly removed these auctions from its French web site.
This was not enough for LICRA and the Jewish students, who insisted that Yahoo find a way to block French Internet users from reaching Yahoo sites in the U.S., where auctions continued. Yahoo said it was technologically impossible, and the court appointed a panel of three computer experts-American, British, and French-to render a ruling. Two of the experts said it could not be done, but Judge Jean-Jacques Gomez chose to believe the Frenchman, who said it could. In May 2000, he gave Yahoo two months to make it impossible for French Internet users to reach the Nazi auctions. He said he would fine the American company ----100,000 Francs (now $13,000) a day if it did not, since the sale of Nazi souvenirs offended "the collective memory of the nation." Judge Gomez also ordered Yahoo to pay 10,000 Francs to the plaintiffs LICRA and the Union of JewishStudents. A LICRA spokesman hailed the ruling as a great victory for democracy, of all things.
The next month Jerry Yang, a co-founder of Yahoo, said his company would ignore Judge Gomez' order. "Asking us to filter access to our sites according to the nationality of web surfers is very naïve," he said, adding, "we are not going to change the content of our sites in the United States because someone in France is asking us to do so." Six months later, in January 2001, Mr. Yang ate crow when Yahoo decided "voluntarily" to stop auctioning anything that bears a swastika or any other "hate" symbol such as a KKK insignia. "Yahoo recognizes that we were right," exulted LICRA, and Ygal El Harrar, chairman of the Jewish students, welcomed "the return to its senses by the American company." Incredibly, Yahoo claims daily fines had nothing to do with its decision. Noting that it already bans auctions of live animals, used underwear, and tobacco, it is pretending it is was only adjusting its list of forbidden products.
No one is fooled. Lee Dembart wrote in the International Herald Tribune on Jan. 15, 2001, that the precedent has now been set for any country to try to control the Internet all over the world. China could threaten to fine sites that promote the Falun Gong Buddhist cult, which is illegal in China. Arab countries could fine Internet sites that sell Jewish memorabilia, since such things no doubt offend their "collective memory." But by and large the American media have had nothing to say about what amounts to the imposition of French law on Americans. Needless to say, there would be a frenzy of denunciation if it were not "Nazis" who were being shoved off the net but, say, abortion-rights activists.
http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/censorship6.htm
.
sophia_h
31-12-2008, 12:11 AM
Xyz
`
dirk zimmermann-german 'thought criminal' part 1
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=crpvhukpd08&feature=related
dr. Fredrick toben's channel
http://uk.youtube.com/user/fredricktoben
.
sylvia stolz defiantly stands up to the holocaust mafia
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=b2dfaaa8suu&feature=related
film by:
Truthmonger63
sylvia stolz was sentenced to 3 and-a-half years in prison
and disbarred for 5 years.
She was on the defence team of ernst zundel
i love her courage and passion for the truth. She stood up against the holocaust mafia and said what was needed to be said.
The gentlemen speaking on the audio are daryl bradford smith and mohammad rafeeq.
I recommend daryl's website. Its a great place for in depth and detailed research on history and the economy.
Bookmark iamthewitness.com
.................................................. ......................
( s: As she was dragged out of court she shouted "heil hitler !" )
stolz means proud
she surely makes us so !
.....................
horst mahler explains witch trials in germany
sorry its only deutsch
with some subs.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rrl8jne1aoc&feature=related
.
Holodenier:
revised nazi gassings
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ygwgjugqu2a
...
here is the grand old man of revisionism
( i am older than he is by 3 years ! S.)
friedrich paul berg
learn everything at www.nazigassings.com
nazi gassings never happened! Niemand wurde vergast!
http://www.nazigassings.com/
here is his channel:
Holodenier channel
http://uk.youtube.com/user/holodenier
...
According to the author, nazi gassings during world war ii were not as portrayed by history. The author provides interesting scientific and technological discoveries.
Category: Science & technology
comments:
Thoughtcriminal911 (3 weeks ago)
so why do you need courts to protect your holohoax truth? and why are even defense lawyers of revisonists thrown into jail for defending their clients? Don't believe me? Surf for sylvia stoltz. I think you are one of those who believe every word bush and his neocons say and that the person responsible for 911 lives in a cave.
...
Robert496 (1 month ago)
funny isn't it how the supporters of the alleged holo always resort to foul language,mockery,intimidation and the old mantra,nazi nazi nazi,anti semite.
We, who question the events of ww2 find it hard to accept so called facts that go against the laws of physics and nature.
All we ask is to be able to investigate allegations of mass murder.if it is true,what do you zionists have to fear?
..
More:
co 2 and zyklon-b - part 2 of 6
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=lwdzkzgcles&feature=channel_page
.