Free Republic

The film “Loss of Liberty” can be seen on Google Video and I think is for sale from some merchants on-line. I’m not sure if it’s been shown on network television or not.

The film “Loss of Liberty” is quite revealing about the attack, which had every indication of being pre-meditated. Marked Israeli planes did reconnaissance and unmarked Israeli planes launched the attack. Three torpedo boats fired six torpedoes, but only one hit the ship. The life rafts were machine-gunned, which is a war crime. This is all according to survivors interviewed in the film.

For me the matters of the specifics of the miserable affair known as the Holocaust is not of the greatest interest. I know plenty about what went on and the extreme depravity involved. Maybe Professor Gollnisch had some sinister agenda to create doubt or something, but prima facie it seems to me to be a case of extreme governmental overreaching.

As awful as the plight of Jews during the war was, the events themselves should not be used as an eternal club, against all perceived enemies of the Jews, Jewish interests, or Israel. For example, why should Palestinians have to pay the eternal price for this evil supposedly to end all evil? The Holocaust was one of the worst things to have ever have happened, but, although it goes against the accepted belief, I do not think it was any worse than the forced starvation by Stalin of 7 million Ukrainians. I am one of those who is a complete egalitarian when it comes to the Jewish people, i.e. they are no more or less important than anyone else.

I've always loved the Aussies, some of the best "can do" folks in the world. Costello sounds like a man after my own heart.

I appreciate all that you are writing. It doesn't seem at all out of line to have some of the restrictions you have in Germany. I do have a problem with some of the extreme measures taken against those who wish to discuss the details and circumstances of the mass killing and attempted extermination of European Jewry during WWII. In France, French EU Parliamentarian Bruno Gollnisch faces or did face (I don't know what the latest on his ordeal is) prosecution for basically just asking for public investigation and discussion about the Holocaust. Do you find that disturbing? I certainly do, and, in fact, find it outrageous.

I'm no expert on this, but in an issue of the ATLANTIC MONTHLY a few years ago, devoted to the (failed) lawsuit by Irving against Lipstadt and the issue of the Holocaust itself, Raoul Berger was cited as the world's leading historian of the Holocaust and he put the numbers of Jews dead at 5.1 million. I've read elsewhere he puts the number at 5.2 million. So I don't know figure he believes. He also says that the human lampshades and soap made out of humans was propaganda and a myth. In any case, he wasn't denying all the other horrible things that happened, like people being buried alive or human experimentation and the rest.

This law is not going to help anyone because it is going to make people see a double standard for protecting supposed Jewish interests in historical memory and not say, those of Armenians, Ukranians, Russians, Tutsis, Hutus, and so on. It will make those interests appear to be especially protected, and it will end up hurting the people it is designed to protect as well as the rest of us.

If some nuts wanted to claim the dropping of the bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima didn't occur or that the deaths were vastly exaggerated, should they face prosecution? No. They should be opposed by responsible honest people.

We've got some problem with scholars of Soviet history who want to vastly downplay Lenin's and Stalin's crimes. We don't put them in jail or extradite them to some place where they could be, and rightly so.

People should not be afraid to say what they believe. Eight or nine countries in Europe have made it a crime to "deny the Holocaust." Germar Rudolph is in prison in Germany for having tried to "disprove" the gas chambers at Auschwitz existed using forensic evidence, i.e. supposedly there should be cyanide residues left there, I think.

Clearly, most of us rightly believe, the mass murder of European Jews occurred during WWII. People wanting to investigate the details of how they died, how many died, and so on should be free to do so.

People have been extradited to Germany for prosecution from the U.S. and Canada over Holocaust revisionism and Holocaust denial. Israel has passed a law decreeing that anyone on earth who denies the Holocaust happened has committed a crime for which he can be extradited and prosecuted in Israel. It's totally insane. And it will backfire.

Unfortunately, restrictive immigration policies have been tarred with the extremist brush, and thus Europe is in its pickle. Enoch Powell was considered a terrible influence, but he has been proven right, as events show us more every day.

Four possible outcomes in England and France come to mind: 1) Civil war, 2) Mass deportations and repatriations, 3) Compomise and eventual capitulation to the Muslims, 4) Eventual assimilation by the Muslims.

Eventual assimilation, ostensibly, is what the so-called representatives of the people have chosen as the only possible outcome, but it seems increasingly unlikely.

So a restrictionism along the lines of what Enoch Powell favored would have avoided this juncture, and the cost would have been far less than what the British will have to pay in the future. I won't talk about Le Pen, other than to say, I think those who feared him but favored immigration policy changes should have rallied to someone else, but they should not have left the issue to Le Pen. We can all run, but eventually reality catches up with us.

Having read the entire article (thanks), I must now eat some crow. If this article on Le Pen is at all accurate, then I must conclude this man has truly gone over the deep end.

Still, I maintain something should have been done about the Islamic immigration flood early on, and it is a fact that, of the major political figures in France, only Le Pen at the time was opposing it. I would have voted for him a few years ago, but today he is on the side of the enemies of France and Europe, it would appear. How sad.

The point of the FN seems to me national survival and recrudescence. I do not see how either will be in the cards for an Islamicized France. If the old Le Pen had not been demonized and opposition to Islamic immigration had not been marginalized, France's very future existence would not be in such doubt.

How, may I ask you, is Islamist bellicosity to be dealt with now in France?

Also, how you can imply that the National Front in France is really no different from Stormfront is beyond me.

I will have to study Le Pen's "current alliance" carefully before I can pass judgement on it. If Le Pen really does accept a Muslim takeover of France as an inevitability, this will be a complete reversal of his former position, which, to use one of his own colorful descriptions, was that of "Sitting Bull."

If Jewish voters had supported Le Pen, and he came to power, not only would he have left them alone, he would have been very grateful to them.

I agree. No decent or sane people are going to persecute Jews, especially after what happened to them in WWII. Le Pen, from my vantage point, wanted to stop the eventual Islamic takeover of France. Jews and Christians would not have been threatened as they are today if he'd come to power.

Whatever Le Pen's drawbacks, is France's current condition to be preferred to the France Le Pen would have created? There would have been far fewer Muslims in France today. Now the Muslims pose an increasingly dire threat there, to Christians and Jews. Exaggerate the threat from the Right and look where it gets you: a scimitar raised above your neck.

I agree. French Jews and everyone else should have supported Le Pen while the Muslim immigration explosion was in its infant stage. Calling Le Pen an anti-Semite is a red herring and inaccurate. Opposing him in years past seems to me much more "objectively anti-Semitic" than supporting him would have been.

I am not sure that Le Pen is not being smeared here. If he wants accomodate the presence of the Muslim population in France, he has surrendered to what he has fought against for so long. Le Pen is not a fascist, imo; however, he has always stood up for the French people when no other major political figure would. He would have made a fine leader if he had come to power a decade or two ago. Now I would favor Bruno Gollnisch to take over the helm of the Front National, if he is able to escape conviction for the most ridiciulous charge, which stems from him merely calling for a discussion of the Holocaust. (Le Pen does have Jewish and Black supporters of and members in his party, btw.)

I can't think of any good reason why demonstrations such as this are not sufficient reason to promulgate laws with the purpose of repatriating these people (with some compensation). It's either going to be that or a bloodbath here in America, I think.

We would never have been in this situation without the 1965 Immigration Reform Act.

Amen, buccaneer81. There are many innocent people in prison wrongly convicted. Moreover, there are plenty of people doing long sentences for minor offenses.

A high priority society should have is to stop corruption on the part of some police who are a small but not insignificant minority. I've firsthand experienced police and traffic court corruption (or, unlikely but arguably extreme incomepetence) in two states - I thankfully beat them both times - and I know of many first-hand and second-hand accounts from friends, family, and co-workers of police violating the rules and sometimes engaging in felony behavior. Police should always be challenged and exposed when they engage in this kind of illegal or rule-breaking behavior. We cannot afford to tolerate it.

I think the foreigners who feel the U.S. is too interventionist are essentially right. Pulling back and protecting what is ours is what we should be doing. The path we are on is leading to a massive, largely unconventional, war. Really what we need to do is become much more disengaged from the Middle East and other places, and then work to improve our own society, which is in need of much improvement. Who are we to tell other countries how they should be do things, when we obviously aren't doing terrifically well here? We won't even send troops to our own border to face off armed Mexican troops who have accompanied drug smugglers into our territory.

We should be focusing on sealing the border, and eliminating birthright citizenship to illegals. If we can't get our priorities straight in that regard, I don't see how we will even be able to survive, let alone spread our enlightenment abroad.