View Full Version : The Underlying Reasons for Big Brother's Present Triumph
revision
05-20-2009, 11:14 AM
The Underlying Reasons for Big Brother's Present Triumph
[...] In 1945, those who had defeated the Axis also changed the
consciousness of the so-called civilised world.
After having crushed their enemy, plundered his territory, demolished
his cities and raped his women, they declared to the whole planet :
" We have fought against a barbaric regime to the point of its
complete destruction, and have the right to call it to account;
But we need not demonstrate that it was barbaric ( the fact being
common knowledge ), nor answer for any of our own violations of
international law ( since, in defending civilisation against absolute
Evil, all is permitted ). "
Today the consequences of that change are quite plain to see :
Big Brother, showing no evidence for his claims, accuses entire
countries, drags their names through the mud, heaps insults upon
them, starves them, tears up the UN Charter, attacks them, bombs
them, poisons them and, in doing so, meets with no real political
resistance, for people's minds are conditioned by " Nuremberg ".
[...] We go on struggling, alone if necessary, for as Maurice Bardèche
wrote, already in 1948 : with the verdict of Nuremberg, " it"s not
just the Germans, it's all of us that are dispossessed ".
Until objectivity in History is re-established, nothing effective can
even be tried against the New World Order. And action toward that goal
is needed now, for Big Brother, at his end, is wasting no time...
source : Vincent Reynouard, in LE REVISIONNISTE N°1, April 2003
Until objectivity in History is re-established, nothing effective can
even be tried against the New World Order. And action toward that goal
is needed now, for Big Brother, at his end, is wasting no time...
In light of this current problem, (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3973) obsessive historical revisionism is sort of distracting and missing the point. To what end? A waste of time and energies if you ask me.
revision
05-20-2009, 05:19 PM
In light of this current problem, (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3973) obsessive historical revisionism is sort of distracting and missing the point. To what end? A waste of time and energies if you ask me.
The Historical Revisionism is not a waste of time otherwise how to explain the repression against revisionists !
Ernst ZUNDEL jailed
Germar RUDOLF jailed
Sylvia STOLZ jailed
Fredrick TOBEN soon jailed....
The Historical Revisionism is not a waste of time
Well, I guess for the minuscule fraction of the population who are really fascinated with history, it may be relevant -- if they will be willing to buy into biased research and ideologically loaded analyses.
otherwise how to explain the repression against revisionists !
Well ... animal rights militants are also repressed. And so are paedophiles. Does this mean we should jump to the cause of legitimising paedophilia, just because they are being oppressed?
Ernst ZUNDEL jailed
Germar RUDOLF jailed
Sylvia STOLZ jailed
Fredrick TOBEN soon jailed....
I apologise if I may sound insensitive, but honestly I'm not going to lose any sleep over this. Whether these elderly Holocaust deniers are jailed or not, will not affect my mental and physical wellbeing at all.
I understand that these guys may have noble and worthy motives. They mean well. But so do people who campaign against speed cameras or Google's street mapping's invasion of our privacy. All these are good, but probably equally irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
A jailed Ernst Zundel won't make much of a difference. Especially in this day and age where all information is readily available on the internet, his ideas won't die out anyway. So the authorities who jail him are wasting their time and money as well. :rolleyes:
I would be more concerned if someone like Nick Griffin or Ron Paul were jailed. These guys actually make a difference, or try to.
revision
05-20-2009, 07:15 PM
Well, I guess for the minuscule fraction of the population who are really fascinated with history, it may be relevant -- if they will be willing to buy into biased research and ideologically loaded analyses.
Well ... animal rights militants are also repressed. And so are paedophiles. Does this mean we should jump to the cause of legitimising paedophilia, just because they are being oppressed?
I apologise if I may sound insensitive, but honestly I'm not going to lose any sleep over this. Whether these elderly Holocaust deniers are jailed or not, will not affect my mental and physical wellbeing at all.
I understand that these guys may have noble and worthy motives. They mean well. But so do people who campaign against speed cameras or Google's street mapping's invasion of our privacy. All these are good, but probably equally irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
A jailed Ernst Zundel won't make much of a difference. Especially in this day and age where all information is readily available on the internet, his ideas won't die out anyway. So the authorities who jail him are wasting their time and money as well. :rolleyes:
I would be more concerned if someone like Nick Griffin or Ron Paul were jailed. These guys actually make a difference, or try to.
Revisionists are people who want to know if what is being said is true.
If the revisionism is not important, why is there laws which forbids the revisionnism?
And why to imprison peoples?
Certain persons are interested, other persons are not interested in it.
No problems, this is not the end of the World...:D
If the revisionism is not important, why is there laws which forbids the revisionnism?
Do you ever challenge the views and "facts" laid out by these revisionists? Or accept them at face value, just because they are opposing "official" views? Question everything. :thumbs up
revision
05-20-2009, 08:11 PM
Do you ever challenge the views and "facts" laid out by these revisionists? Or accept them at face value, just because they are opposing "official" views? Question everything. :thumbs up
I studied to the school the official history, as everybody.
and I was a "true believer" in the official History about Auschwitz.....
I visited Auschwitz (I saw everything, showers...) and Oradour.
AND :
The revisionists are right
I studied to the school the official history, as everybody.
and I was a "true believer" in the official History about Auschwitz.....
I visited Auschwitz (I saw everything, showers...) and Oradour.
AND :
The revisionists are right
LOL. Not all revisionists say the same things. Many of them disagree with one another ... there are versions aplenty. If you are suggesting some kind of homogeneity of thought and agreement among all historical revisionists, then you are kidding yourself. They can't all be right.
revision
05-20-2009, 08:35 PM
LOL. Not all revisionists say the same things. Many of them disagree with one another ... there are versions aplenty.
examples ?
If you are suggesting some kind of homogeneity of thought and agreement among all historical revisionists, then you are kidding yourself.
I believe that you do not know much revisionists.
They can't all be right.
About what subject ?
examples ?
Ok tell me what exactly you believe about Auschwitz. Revisionists believe different things. David Irving even changed his views over the years.
I believe that you do not know much revisionists.
LOL, I think it is precisely because I know a lot about revisionists, that I am questioning a lot of what they say. It's in that sense not so different from ufology and cryptozoology.
Over the years I have read loads of stuff, almost all of what you are posting here. Most of it is old hat. I have actually met some of these revisionists myself too.
About what subject ?
About every subject that they have different views on.
Loddfafner
05-20-2009, 10:49 PM
I see people like Irving and Zundel as mere cranks. I am horrified that the State has gone to such lengths to repress them given that they belong in the same league as the likes of Ludwig Plutonium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Plutonium). The freedom of speech should include the right to express one's delusions, though not in any and every context. Unfortunately, the suppression of the so-called revisionists has given them more credibility than they deserve.
Lenny
05-21-2009, 04:37 AM
I see people like Irving and Zundel as mere cranks. I am horrified that the State has gone to such lengths to repress them given that they belong in the same league as the likes of Ludwig Plutonium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Plutonium). The freedom of speech should include the right to express one's delusions, though not in any and every context. Unfortunately, the suppression of the so-called revisionists has given them more credibility than they deserve.
If the Stalin-era USSR were the one responsible for the Iraq invasion in 2003, it could well be considered "revisionism" to today "deny" that 2003-Iraq had nuclear, chemical, and biological arsenals.
revision
05-21-2009, 05:51 AM
Ok tell me what exactly you believe about Auschwitz. Revisionists believe different things. David Irving even changed his views over the years.
David Irving... a revisionist ....:D
Really, you don't know much about revisionists
LOL, I think it is precisely because I know a lot about revisionists, that I am questioning a lot of what they say.It's in that sense not so different from ufology and cryptozoology.
Revisionism vs ufology...:rolleyes:....:D
Over the years I have read loads of stuff, almost all of what you are posting here. Most of it is old hat. I have actually met some of these revisionists myself too.
Who exactly ?
About every subject that they have different views on.
About what ? examples ....
revision
05-21-2009, 06:09 AM
I see people like Irving and Zundel as mere cranks.
I am horrified that the State has gone to such lengths to repress them given that they belong in the same league as the likes of Ludwig Plutonium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Plutonium).
The freedom of speech should include the right to express one's delusions, though not in any and every context.
You're for "freedom of speech".... BUT NOT in every context... ....:D
It means for all, EXCEPT for revisionists.... I know this kind of speech ....
Unfortunately, the suppression of the so-called revisionists has given them more credibility than they deserve.
To imprison revisionists does not question the seriousness of their works
Treffie
05-21-2009, 08:55 AM
The revisionists are right
Some revisionists are stark, raving bonkers IMO.
If the Stalin-era USSR were the one responsible for the Iraq invasion in 2003, it could well be considered "revisionism" to today "deny" that 2003-Iraq had nuclear, chemical, and biological arsenals.
Does this mean that you're comparing the Stalin-era USSR to the near present-day USA? :icon1: Until quite recently it was taboo in the US to suggest that Saddam did not have WMD's. Today we know it was all nonsense.
revision
05-21-2009, 09:31 AM
Some revisionists are stark, raving bonkers IMO.
Some... who ? why ?
SwordoftheVistula
05-21-2009, 10:41 AM
For the most part, I think debating the death toll and causes of death regarding the jewish population in WWII is a sticky trap for anyone interested in promoting European ethnic preservation. You get identified as a 'nazi sympathizer', and even if people accept your arguments (usually they don't) you still have to deal with all the other BS regarding the third reich, like the perception of them being totalitarian fascists, marching around in funny uniforms, and invading other countries. All you have to do is take a look at the allied propaganda before the invention of the 'holocaust' to see this. A much better strategy is to focus on domestic issues and patriotism and distance oneself from NS/3rd Reich as much as possible, like the BNP, SVP, and Jared Taylor do. Disassociate as much as possible in order to defeat the perception that racial/ethnic nationalism by European peoples leads to a dictator with toadies goose-stepping around, 'jack-booted thugs' kicking in doors and arresting political opponents, and state control and centralization of all elements of society.
As far as the 'holocaust' itself goes, it certainly appears to have been greatly exaggerated, and locking up people for historical research and theories is despicable, especially regarding something that happened several decades ago, and even if the 'official version' is true it is a fraction of the death toll caused by the USSR and communist China. It's especially odd that in most wars the propaganda ends when the war ends and is eventually acknowledged to be mostly exaggerations and BS, whereas in this case the propaganda has actually increased over the decades since WWII ended.
The other primary aim of 'revisionist' is to exaggerate British and American 'atrocities' during WWII in the same way that certain entities exaggerate German 'atrocities' during WWII, which I find to be ridiculous. POWs in the UK and US were treated better than in any other country, certainly better in most past wars, for example the Andersonville camp in the American Civil War was as bad or worse than any in western Europe during or after WWII. I don't know much about POW camps in the Napoleonic wars and other wars in Europe, but I doubt those were real fun either, if they even bothered to take prisoners.
For the most part, I think debating the death toll and causes of death regarding the jewish population in WWII is a sticky trap for anyone interested in promoting European ethnic preservation. You get identified as a 'nazi sympathizer',
Precisely. I would even go as far as to say a lot of these guys who drive these ideas are plants whose main task is to discredit genuine preservationism.
Atlas
05-21-2009, 11:14 AM
I tend to agree with Loki and STV... I don't see the point stirring up the revisionist pot on here, we are being read, and not only by friends. Revision, I remember you from Phora where literraly 90% of your post are revisionist history about WWII, Faurisson etc, I know you can do better than that, please do so here.
SwordoftheVistula
05-21-2009, 01:33 PM
Precisely. I would even go as far as to say a lot of these guys who drive these ideas are plants whose main task is to discredit genuine preservationism.
I don't think they need to create plants. There's loads of people with all sorts of far less plausible theories regarding 9-11, the Kennedy and Princess Di deaths, chemtrails, UFOs, witchcraft/magic, illuminati/bilderbergers/freemasons/knights templar, you name it.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.