VIDEOS: Why do YOU support open debate on the Holocaust?

[Hektor]

The responses are coming in !
Why Anthony supports open debate on the Holocaust

Torben explains why he supports open debate on the Holocaust


If you know of anyone in a position to show their face on video that can contribute to the campaign answering, "Why do YOU support open debate on the Holocaust", let them know about it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OAlBWA2Jvc

And have them email their video to [email protected]

Is there already something on facebook, twitter or other social media that we can use for distribution?

[Kingfisher]

The weakness of this video so far is that, as far as I am aware, the only people appearing in it are Revisionists. But many people who have not embraced a Revisionist position do not support the suppression of discussion. This suppression of debate is also the first and necessary hurdle for Revisionists to overcome. We cannot convince the public at large as long as the taboo survives. People cannot give the Revisionist position serious consideration if they are not allowed to see what it is.

So why not approach some of the people who claim to support open debate and ask them to contribute? At the very worst you will be able to point to their hypocrisy in refusing to to reply. At best you might get a contribution. Persons who come to mind are Nick Terry, Andy Mathis and Norman Finkelstein. I think it unlikely you'd get anywhere with Finkelstein, but the other two have stated publicly their opposition and Terry discusses Revisionism with with his students.

[Hannover]

The weakness of this video so far is that, as far as I am aware, the only people appearing in it are Revisionists. But many people who have not embraced a Revisionist position do not support the suppression of discussion. This suppression of debate is also the first and necessary hurdle for Revisionists to overcome. We cannot convince the public at large as long as the taboo survives. People cannot give the Revisionist position serious consideration if they are not allowed to see what it is.

So why not approach some of the people who claim to support open debate and ask them to contribute? At the very worst you will be able to point to their hypocrisy in refusing to to reply. At best you might get a contribution. Persons who come to mind are Nick Terry, Andy Mathis and Norman Finkelstein. I think it unlikely you'd get anywhere with Finkelstein, but the other two have stated publicly their opposition and Terry discusses Revisionism with with his students.

Kingfisher,

I assume the authors of the videos wanted the free speech position to be made by those who used to believe in the impossible 'holocaust' nonsense.
However, we do await the video that you make and add to the collection.

Typically what those who say they oppose laws against free speech will say is something like:

'In spite of how hateful, racist, ignorant, misinformed, & dangerous these vile 'deniers' are, I support their right to spew their insane nonsense'.

IOW, they claim to be for free speech, but then go on to vilify Revisionists and in effect justify the very laws against free speech they purport to be against.

I note your mention of Andy Mathis who is known for threatening Revisionists, posting their supposed names, pictures, work places, areas of residence, calling their claimed place of employment, on & on.
Hardly the stuff of supporting free speech.

- Hannover

Alone the fact that one may not question the Jewish "holocaust" and that Jewish pressure has inflicted laws on democratic societies to prevent questions—while incessant promotion and indoctrination of the same averredly incontestable ‘holocaust’ occur—gives the game away. It proves that it must be a lie. Why else would one not be allowed to question it? Because it might offend the "survivors"? Because it "dishonors the dead"? Hardly sufficient reason to outlaw discussion. No, because the exposure of this leading lie might precipitate questions about so many other lies and cause the whole ramshackle fabrication to crumble."

- Gerard Menuhin / Revisionist Jew, son of famous violinist

[PRHL]

Already two years ago, I published a German video:


Title: Holocaust - Holocaustleugnung - Revisionismus - Kirche
(holocaust denial - revisionism - Church).

The (short) German text which is shown on the tablet during the video can be found here:
http://www.kirchenlehre.com/leugner.htm

I firmly hold the position that it is at least the right and often times even the duty for every Catholic to be a revisionist. I cannot approve silly stories, exaggerations, lies, defamations etc., esp. if that concerns the Church (e.g. "Donation of Constantine", "Malleus Maleficarum / Hammer of the Witches", "Galileo Galilei").

As I mention in the video (position: 09:01), I even wrote to the United Nations to receive the final solution of one big problem: WHAT *IS* holocaust? Not even Barbara Kulaszka was able to find the clear definition of holocaust.
In the Church there are dogmas: one God in three Persons, two natures in Jesus Christ, seven sacraments ... Whoever does not believe (denies) what is exactly defined, is a heretic and therefor not a member of the Church.
And what exactly are the holocaust dogmas? The disbelief / denial of what exactly makes you a holocaust heretic? Jewish soap? Four million Jews gassed in the Auschwitz gas chamber? The claims of Herman Rosenblat, Misha Defonseca, Joseph Hirt ...? I honestly do not know, and I still do not have the answer by the United Nations.

A German lawyer (Sylvia Stolz) uttered in a speech that in several holocaust trials the judges were asked what opinions exactly of the accused "deniers" were punishable and why (nulla poena sine lege!). According to Stolz, this question was never answered. However after this speech, Stolz was sentenced to jail for denying the holocaust.

At the moment there is a trial against me because of holocaust denial after my comment that far more children are killed by abortion every year than jews were killed by the Nazis. That is considered to be a trivialisation of genocide, esp. as it is illegal to use the word human for unborn babies.

[hermod]

Typically what those who say they oppose laws against free speech will say is something like:

'In spite of how hateful, racist, ignorant, misinformed, & dangerous these vile 'deniers' are, I support their right to spew their insane nonsense'.

IOW, they claim to be for free speech, but then go on to vilify Revisionists and in effect justify the very laws against free speech they purport to be against.

I note your mention of Andy Mathis who is known for threatening Revisionists, posting their supposed names, pictures, work places, areas of residence, calling their claimed place of employment, on & on.
Hardly the stuff of supporting free speech.

Right in the target! Something I've seen a hundred times. Experience has taught me that the alleged concern for the free speech of Holocaust revisionists is most of time utter hypocrisy expressed by hateful censors under a liberal mask, aware that a too obvious prohibition would endanger the myth itself in Anglo-Saxon countries (where truths are not traditionally defended, protected by Orwellian silencing laws, for obvious reasons). A false dual choice between silence and social suicide is all that is left to Holocaust revisionists in America and Britain, that in the deafening silence of the alleged defenders of free speech. Hypocrisy...

[AntiBeliever]

I wouldn't want to have Nick Terry or any of the HC bloggers involved. Banning an opinion is one thing, but making degrading posts on a public website that attack the opinions of people who hold that opinion is just plain insulting. That being said, I made a comment in this thread about having non-revisionists join in earlier. Not sure why it got deleted though.

[Moderator]

I made a comment in this thread about having non-revisionists join in earlier. Not sure why it got deleted though.

Well yes you did ... but under a different name. You forgot that part.
That name was deactivated and that post deleted because of your use of way-over-the-top, personal attack content, which you also forgot.
Let's see how you do with your latest name.
M1

[Bonesy]

I believe that the only way we can know whether there was a Holocaust™ or the nature of it, is to have freedom of speech on the issue. This applies to all other issues too. No one should have to be imprisoned or face 'political assassination' for expressing a dissenting view about a historical event.

[Kingfisher]

Hannover
I take the point about Mathis. I'd forgotten because I wasn't personally involved though I think Nick Terry tried to find out my identity and lost interest in our conversation when he realised I was using a pseudo.

There's no reason though why non-Revisionists should not be invited to contribute. It is quite legitimate for them to say that don't agree with revisionists and their participation would help the impact of the videos. If they abused the situation to be insulting then obviously they would not be used and the publisher of the video can say why but if they genuinely oppose the taboo it is an opportunity for them to say so. If these individuals are not appropriate then others may be sought. How about Chomsky? He once prefaced a work of Faurisson and signed the petition for the release of Vincent Reynouard.

Obviously I'm not going to do a video since I choose to be anonymous. I do my bit differently by participating in hosting a web site and doing occasional translation and proofreading.

Are you one of those appearing?

[CODOH Video]

Is there already something on facebook, twitter or other social media that we can use for distribution?

You can retweet our pinned tweet at the CODOH Video Twitter account -
https://twitter.com/CodohVideo

[Hannover]

Hannover
I take the point about Mathis. I'd forgotten because I wasn't personally involved though I think Nick Terry tried to find out my identity and lost interest in our conversation when he realised I was using a pseudo.

There's no reason though why non-Revisionists should not be invited to contribute. It is quite legitimate for them to say that don't agree with revisionists and their participation would help the impact of the videos. If they abused the situation to be insulting then obviously they would not be used and the publisher of the video can say why but if they genuinely oppose the taboo it is an opportunity for them to say so. If these individuals are not appropriate then others may be sought. How about Chomsky? He once prefaced a work of Faurisson and signed the petition for the release of Vincent Reynouard.

Obviously I'm not going to do a video since I choose to be anonymous. I do my bit differently by participating in hosting a web site and doing occasional translation and proofreading.

Are you one of those appearing?

Do you know for certain that non-Revisionists have not been invited?

Me? Appear? I need no such visual glory to prove my mettle. I already get & have gotten very effective results. But then you know that.

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.

[Carto's Cutlass Supreme]

I don't believe this is going on! First of all that codoh video is so professional. The music is excellent. Not to mention that in the content there is a "brave" and "reasonable" element. And all these never before seen great people!

Also regarding holocaust denial videos on youtube: yes they're there but most of the biggest climbing ones were removed by youtube staff. Many of the ones you see are reuploads that have much fewer views.

Mod: could we please work the word "video" into the thread title? I almost missed the thread because I saw it as some general question thread. But this new codoh video thing is big! [Done, M1]

Plus, as if this isn't all exciting enough, enter PRHL. That guy is for real. Pre-Vatican II. I thought he was new on the forum but he's been posting here for 8 years! Just not that often. And then there's Tony Hall. Godsend!: he has a great vibe. His wonderful articulation of free debate with the beautiful snowy mountains of that great land where he lives. We need the rainbow coalition against the myth! All these different people are going to lead to multifaceted strength against the myth.

[Jurgen]

Its a brave thing to put your face to this. For me its the whole "to see who rules you just look at who you cannot criticize", or whatever that saying is. With the way they try to stifle any and all dissent, it really makes me think, without any evidence, that the whole holocaust is baloney.

Add that to Article 19, and damnit, I am allowed to hold this position and I am allowed to talk about it and I am allowed to propagate my ideas and theories without fear of persecution.

I'm scared of persecution

[Carto's Cutlass Supreme]

Hi Juergen, yes, if you read article 19, and then see that it's not that way in the world. Twitter, Facebook, youtube are all mediums, and they all censor holocaust denial content at times. I'm glad Monika mentioned that article in the codoh video. And yes you did have the phrase right.

Then there's Henry of Michigan. What an interesting story, and well articulated. What a great guy that he went to Germany to give comfort to Ernst Zuendel during his trial. What a great guy. That he's a pro-Palestinian activist in his city. Wow.