PDA

View Full Version : Governments lies


sophia_h
11-02-2009, 10:58 PM
`

Edit: this is the post the TROLL says soph dumped.

I simply moved it he wont spam it into chaos.
The writer is world renowned as author and does
presentations to organizations. Troll claims repeatedly
how awful is the writing. Sad that it has to be moved
just to aviod such childish crtiticisms which TROLL
really wants to spray on me.

Make up your own mind while the TROLL
plays with himslef on the thread I left.

He still doesnt accept what I told him
I will not interact with abusers.

Here is that post just as it was .

Sophia,
not soph, or hunny or poppet or little flower
or any other demeaning crap an abuser
comes up with.

***




The motto here is: A really big chunk of
Bovine Excrement can last a long time,
and there may even be a movie deal in it!



Veritas vos liberabit
Mike Rivero
You may not really KNOW what happened there. That is the point.


When you go to Auschwitz you see the crematorium and your head may fill with sick feelings over what you have been told happened there, because that is the goal of telling you. But that crematorium was not built until AFTER WW2, by the Russians, not the Germans, to deal with the typhus epidemic.


Likewise, the room shown to you as the gas chamber is also a post-wear construction, or "reconstruction". In other words, nothing actually happened in that exact room.


History is full of lies told by rulers to their people to trick them into doing that the rulers wanted them to do.


Ramses the Great lied to his own people when he claimed to have won the battle against the Hittites at Kadesh. Ramses' propaganda, thousands of years old, is still carved into the temples of Egypt; visible proof that rulers have lied to their people for thousands of years. Non-stop.



Following Constantine’s death, a document appeared in which Constantine purportedly donated the imperial regalia of Rome to the church, with the request that it be “loaned” to all future rulers of the Roman Empire. From that day on, the loan took the form of the ritual of coronation, in which the holy oil of anointment created the king, rather than conquest or the bloodline. Coronation added the imprimatur of God’s will to the legitimacy of the monarch, and as an inevitable corollary, nobody could ascend to the throne without the permission and blessing of the church.

Except …

Constantine had not been informed ahead of time of his own coronation and by all accounts was rather shocked and angered by the church’s brazen attempt to portray his civil authority as a gift of their religion. As for the donation of Constantine, which literally reshaped the political history of Europe for half a millennium, it was a forgery, most likely written within the Papal offices, to steal for the church the “right” to declare who would or would not be kings of Europe.


In the 1130s, the Turkish Empire under the leadership of Imad ad-din Zengi began to encroach on the Crusader Kingdoms of the Holy Land. Most Crusaders considered their vows fulfilled and had already returned to Europe, leaving the Pilgrim road from Jaffa to Jerusalem under the guard of the newly emergent Knights Templar. The Knights Templar, although able to guard a road, were insufficient a force to hold off an entire invasion, and in 1145, Hugh, Bishop of Jabala, was sent to meet the newly enthroned Pope Blessed Eugene III to ask for help. Pope Eugene, far less bloodthirsty than his predecessors, balked at a new and costly crusade so soon after the last one. Hugh told Pope that a new crusade to preserve Christian dominion over the Holy Lands would be easy and cheap, because somewhere far to the east of the Holy Lands was the Kingdom of Prester John. Prester (or Presbyter) John was a Christian King; a direct descendant of one of the Magi who had visited the infant Jesus, and reportedly whose kingdom was wealthy and peaceful. According to Hugh, Prester John was committed to preserving Christian rule over the Holy Lands, and awaited only a sign of equal commitment from the armies of Europe.

Rumors of the impending intervention of Prester John bolstered the courage of the Christians of the Crusader Kingdoms and of Europe, and based in part on the promise of Prester John as an ally, Pope Eugene launched the Second Holy Crusade, led by Louis VII of France and Conrad III of Germany.

But Prester John did not show up as promised. The Second Crusade ended in the rout of the Crusader armies at Damascus, and the Christians found themselves holding less of the Holy Lands.

In 1165, just as the situation in the Holy Lands began to deteriorate further, a letter began to circulate around Europe purportedly from Prester John. The letter again promised support for the Christian armies of Europe. The letter included descriptions of the wonders of Prester John’s kingdom. The letter was so popular it was copied far and wide, and portions of it set to music!

But again, Prester John did not show up when promised, and in 1187 Jerusalem fell to Saladin. This prompted the start of the Third Crusade. Once again, rumors of Prester John’s armies attacking the Muslims from the East bolstered the invading forces.

Except …


Prester John was the invention of the church; a propaganda device to trick Europeans to join a war in which they were clearly outnumbered by the opposing force. As Marco Polo and other travelers brought tales of the Orient back to Europe in the 13th century, church leaders grew alarmed as Christians learned of powerful and advanced civilizations to the east that existed without any awareness of Christianity. Following a brief period when the Dominicans unsuccessfully denounced Marco Polo‘s writings as heresy and fraud, the church again revived the legends of Prester John to prove that Christianity did rule in the far east. Highly fanciful maps were produced of just where Prester John’s kingdom would be found.



The legends of Prester John persisted from the 12th to the 17th centuries even though John himself obviously could not have lived that long. Numerous expeditions to find the Kingdom of Prester John were mounted, all without success. As the map of Asia became filled in accurately with no sign of the fabled Christian Kingdom, the legend was altered to claim that Prester John’s Kingdom was actually in Ethiopia, then as the African map started to fill in, further south in “Darkest Africa.” The realm of Prester John eventually became one of the fabled “Lost Kingdoms of Africa” that lured explorers into the Congo, often to their deaths.


As for the letter purportedly from Prester John; like the Donation of Constantine it was a clever forgery. In its original version it was apparently derived mostly from Otto von Freisingen’s historical account of the story told by Hugh, Bishop of Jabala to Pope Eugene. The story of Prester John’s palace was actually a description of the palace of St. Thomas the Apostle. As the letter was recopied through the centuries, the stories it contained grew ever more fanciful, filled with strange and wonderful creatures and amazing feats of magic and science. In the 18th century these stories of the land of Prester John were revived as part of the tales of Baron Munchausen. In 1988, the stories of the land of Prester John again surfaced in Terry Gilliam’s film, “The Adventures of Baron Munchausen.”



The motto here is: A really big chunk of Bovine Excrement can last a long time, and there may even be a movie deal in it!



You don't really know what happened in those Nazi camps. Only what you have been told. Only what has been portrayed in books, movies, and TV. Does Star Wars mean there really is a Luke Skywalker out there battling Darth Vader? Does a comic book prove Batman is a real person?



Look at books like "Angel at the Fence: The True Story of a Love that Survived,", "Fragments", “Misha: A Memoir of the Holocaust Years”, "The Painted Bird", “The Hitler Diaries”; all are admitted hoaxes. Elie Weisel's "Night" is suspect, and even the much venerated "Diary of Anne Frank" has come under suspicion for a wide variety of reasons, not the least of which is that a professional writer, Meyer Levin, successfully sued Anne Frank's father for $50,000 owed to him for ghost writing the memoir!



Yes, many people died at Auschwitz, mostly from the typhus epidemics that swept Germany at the end of the war. Auschwitz itself keeps revising the number of dead downward. The International Red Cross had permanent offices in those camps (a courtesy they were NOT accorded at Guantanamo) and they kept careful records. They recorded many deaths from illness and accident in the Nazi camps (271,000), but no intentional mass exterminations. Really, why would the Red Cross lie to protect Hitler?




You are lied to in order to control you. You have been fed a story about a genocide in the first half of the last century to prevent you from criticizing the genocides taking place right before your eyes today. You are lied to in order to extract money from you. You are lied to to keep you silent when you should speak out.


You are enslaved by your beliefs, and you will never be free until you find the truth for yourself.


Michael Rivero
webmaster
What Really Happened
02/09/2009 - 21:14



http://whatreallyhappened.com/content/do-you-think-history-holocaust-needs-be-objectively-re-examined


.

dogsmilk
13-02-2009, 01:22 AM
Right, so now people who have opinions you don't like are forbidden from responding to your posts? You're loudly proclaiming the irrefutable truth of the 'holohoax' but you can't bear to see a critcal response?

I wrote myself a directly relevant response - this is not spam.
Posting the same article on different areas of a forum can very well be seen as spam.

I think your own words are quite apt here, though ironically when you directed them at me...they weren't.

as to not liking my posts

well boo !

dont read them

but refrain from telling me to stop

that behavior is unbecoming to the quality
of this site

if members dont like others views they dont yell to STOP

you are not the arbitor of what is allowed here

So I reproduce my original response here for the sake of relevance.

I've kinda skim read this, but I'm amazed at how badly written it is. It really is dreadful.


When you go to Auschwitz you see the crematorium and your head may fill with sick feelings over what you have been told happened there, because that is the goal of telling you. But that crematorium was not built until AFTER WW2, by the Russians, not the Germans, to deal with the typhus epidemic.

Likewise, the room shown to you as the gas chamber is also a post-wear construction, or "reconstruction". In other words, nothing actually happened in that exact room.
This is very confusingly written. The building tourists visit is Krema I which was reconstructed by the Poles after the war. Though relatively peripheral in terms of gassings, it's handy as it's in the main camp. That's the only gassing structure to be reconstructed. The other Kremas II-V were destroyed and have never been rebuilt, same as the 'little red house' and 'little white house'.

There is no evidence typhus necessitated anything like the cremation capacity the Nazis went for. Indeed, surviving death books contradict this notion. Leaving the question as to why they aimed at an astonishing ca[acity to incinerate corpses.

The article seems to talk about Krema I but try to suggest it's two different buildings. The writing is just awful.


Following Constantine’s death, a document appeared in which Constantine purportedly donated the imperial regalia of Rome to the church, with the request that it be “loaned” to all future rulers of the Roman Empire. From that day on, the loan took the form of the ritual of coronation, in which the holy oil of anointment created the king, rather than conquest or the bloodline. Coronation added the imprimatur of God’s will to the legitimacy of the monarch, and as an inevitable corollary, nobody could ascend to the throne without the permission and blessing of the church.

Except …

Constantine had not been informed ahead of time of his own coronation and by all accounts was rather shocked and angered by the church’s brazen attempt to portray his civil authority as a gift of their religion. As for the donation of Constantine, which literally reshaped the political history of Europe for half a millennium, it was a forgery, most likely written within the Papal offices, to steal for the church the “right” to declare who would or would not be kings of Europe.
Well I think this refers to a forgery from the 9th century or thereabouts and if so it drastically exaggerates its impact.

If the Constantine it's referring to is 'the Great' (there were many Emperor Constantines but the article is - again - totally unclear about what it's trying to say) it's basically impossible he was "rather shocked" about something that happened hundreds of years after his death. And the embryonic church - after he had a massive impact on history by bringing Christianity officially into the Empire - could not in any way fuck with him.

And AFAIK Prestor John was one of those long-lived urban myths. Who cares? The crusades were a darn sight more complex than the article makes out.


You don't really know what happened in those Nazi camps. Only what you have been told. Only what has been portrayed in books, movies, and TV. Does Star Wars mean there really is a Luke Skywalker out there battling Darth Vader? Does a comic book prove Batman is a real person?
It goes without saying you should not base your opinions on movies. TV is very patchy. This is trying to conflate scholarship with mass media.


Look at books like "Angel at the Fence: The True Story of a Love that Survived,", "Fragments", “Misha: A Memoir of the Holocaust Years”, "The Painted Bird", “The Hitler Diaries”; all are admitted hoaxes. Elie Weisel's "Night" is suspect, and even the much venerated "Diary of Anne Frank" has come under suspicion for a wide variety of reasons, not the least of which is that a professional writer, Meyer Levin, successfully sued Anne Frank's father for $50,000 owed to him for ghost writing the memoir!
Denier allegations about Ann Frank are extremely old and tired.
What's interesting is that while deniers try and fail to attack genuine evidence, they patently fail to expose the actual fakes. Then when these fakes are exposed, they claim it as a victory, despite the fact that fakes are exposed kinda shows that 'official history' is doing its job.


Yes, many people died at Auschwitz, mostly from the typhus epidemics that swept Germany at the end of the war. Auschwitz itself keeps revising the number of dead downward. The International Red Cross had permanent offices in those camps (a courtesy they were NOT accorded at Guantanamo) and they kept careful records. They recorded many deaths from illness and accident in the Nazi camps (271,000), but no intentional mass exterminations. Really, why would the Red Cross lie to protect Hitler?
Typhus canard again.
Auschwitz death toll canard. Ancient history.
ICRC canard. Mentioned on these threads a few times already. In fact raised with first post of recent exchanges with Sophia. No response received to date.
Pathetic.


You are enslaved by your beliefs, and you will never be free until you find the truth for yourself.
Agreed. And believing really badly written and totally disjointed articles that would be lucky to pass a GCSE exam on structure alone is not a good place to start.

God this is getting boring


Meyer Levin, successfully sued Anne Frank's father for $50,000 owed to him for ghost writing the memoir!
Whoops! Nearly forgot - this refers to the stage play. So this is either a blatant lie or the writer's 'research' is every bit as bad as their literary style.

Still I see the article - in an unusual move - has been consigned by soph to the memory hole. Shame, as it should be given to schoolchildren as an example of how not to write your essays. Bah - they all just copy stuff off the net these days anyway. I think we should go back to handwritten submissions - at least they'd have to actually write them out

airkraft
13-02-2009, 05:46 PM
Please dont nitpick about the grammar in which things are written. We are not all experienced authors or profficient at writing things down as others think they are. I myself find it hard to type what i want to say, but that does not mean what I have to type is of no consequence because it is written badly.

dogsmilk
16-02-2009, 12:41 AM
Please dont nitpick about the grammar in which things are written. We are not all experienced authors or profficient at writing things down as others think they are. I myself find it hard to type what i want to say, but that does not mean what I have to type is of no consequence because it is written badly.

I wasn't arsed about the grammar, I was berating the disjointed and unclear way it's written. To be frank, I think he just doesn't know what he's talking about.
Given it's an article written for a website supposedly presenting historical information, I don't think it can be compared to a forum post in the same way you wouldn't criticise someone's skill at oratory in a conversation down the pub, but you might if they're on the panel on question time.