Is that a death threat, or are you trolling for a date?
Watch it or I'll, I'll tell the moderators!
Yes, I will!
By the way Bart, I see that you're back posting on that Malay site:
|
Posted on 11/13/2001 12:10:56 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator
Spoken like a true proponent of hierarchy and ethnic particularity!
Your case of victimology is giving you hallucinations. Really, go see a doctor.
Poor Canaanites. My heart bleeds.
BUMP! Thou hast said it all!!!
Where you refer to poor Irving being "attacked by PC forces".
Irving wrote garbage- which you pretty much conceded. Lipstadt wrote criticism of the garbage.
Where is the attack? Is Lipstadt's criticism an attack? Doesn't she have a right to her opinion?
Irving attacked by filing suit. An absolute defense to a defamation suit is truth. Lipstadt was found to have told the truth about Irving- that he is a liar and an anti-Semite.
The mystery for you is how the world wide Jewish conspiracy got to this Gentile English judge who heard the case. Get back to us when you find out.
Hey--Kahana' was a RIGHT-WING extremist!
Once again--what is the connection between opposing rightwing nationalism and hiearchialism among Jews as a means of restoring it everywhere else? Perhaps you can tell me of how Kahana' supported leftist social policies in the United States?
Second, I agree with what you say about each side having strange (and undesirable) allies. But while I am embarrassed by Dershowitz and the ADL, most anti-Israel conservatives are willing to make a hero out of any liberal who joins them in opposing Israel (Chomsky, Ramsey Clark, Fulani, Findlay, Fulbright, etc.). I can explain to you very easily, though, why I do not allow my own undesirable allies to change my views. I idealize the Bible. In the Bible the Jew is permanently frozen in amber as Yehoshua` Bin Nun (Joshua), exterminating G-dless Canaanites as the sun and moon stand still in the sky to assist him. This is a far different picture than that which Joe Sobran sees, or anyone to whom the Jews are primarily the trouble-making dissidents of chr*stendom. Any further questions???
And btw, I am a throne and altar conservative. That's one reason it hurts me to be labelled a "neo" just because the Jews will always be Biblical Israel to me, and not rootless urban cosmopolitan exiles.
Thank you.
Is that a death threat, or are you trolling for a date?
Watch it or I'll, I'll tell the moderators!
Yes, I will!
By the way Bart, I see that you're back posting on that Malay site:
|
Irving isn't an anti-Semite (unlike some other Holocaust deniers like Ernst Zundel). He was just a man who thought he had discovered something important about the Second World War and wanted to revealed his findings to the world.
For this he has been besmirched and demonized. Anyone who tried to defend him from the accusation has been tarred with the same brush. This is not defending yourself from anti-semitism. It is witchhunting.
The boogiemen... The boogiemen... The boogiemen are everywhere.
At least the Malays are right. Jerks like you do want them killed.
A British court found that he was. I'll ask you again, how did the Jewish conspiracy get to the judge?
You are a clear example of the dangers and consquence of long term drug use.
Please, stop calling me names it is hateful and unpleasant.
I'm not aware that paleos are truly promoting nationalism or particularism everywhere but in Israel. Some of them -- and here one is speaking of a very small intellectual group within a small movement -- do have sympathies with European Rightist groups, especially the Lega Nord in Italy. The average paleo probably doesn't know or care about such groups, and is only focused on American affairs. Given the attitude of Thomas Fleming and some others in that small group towards Serbia and Bosnia, they probably would be very well disposed to Israeli or Zionist self-assertiveness, provided 1) that the US was not involved, and 2) that their real archenemies, the neoconservatives, were also not involved.
As for me, I've gotten a little tired of particularism precisely because of the kind of wild claims its partisans come up with. The problem isn't so much with the American heritage of individual rights, rather it's that we've let the ties that held us together as a nation and a people lapse in order to promote the global order. One can maintain universal standards of justice, yet recognize that some are family and others are not. One doesn't have to wish them ill or seek to disenfranchise them. One only has to recognize that good fences make good neighbors.
BTW, I suspect that most Israelis still would not agree with you. And that's something I'd hold in their favor.
The first I heard the term was in Pat's newsletter. Pat is the only one I know, that's right on the mark in his assessment on what are the critical issues and their solutions.
Wanna learn something and keep in front of the pack. Read Pat's weekly. He's now listed on Drudge, ignored by Rush, vilified by McCain, hammered by Kristol and his neocons (opposite if Paeloe). This surely must make him one of the greatest Americans of the century. It will be proven that the 'pen is greater than the sword' or the presidency.
Pat's now just coming into his prime!
Irving appears to take the view that extremely few, if any, people died in the gas chambers. He does acknowledge that many died due to the atrocious conditions in the slave labor camps and that as many 1.5 million died in the forests of eastern europe.
He is also of the opinion that, despite the rabid anti-semitism of his youth, Hitler lost interest in the Jewish question after he took power. In fact, according to him, Hilter actually protected the Jews from the rabid anti-semitism of other Nazis such as Goebbels.
So Irving acknowledges the existence of the Nazi Holocaust and the evil of the Nazis. He does quibble about its magnitude. His revisionism lies in his denial of the gas chambers and his peculiar idea about the role of Hitler.
The evidence provided pretty much proves that Irving is a nut. His theory was slaughtered at the trial. It is therefore true that he was a Hitler apologist and a Holocaust denier.
That does not make him an anti-semite. It is pretty obvious why he brought the suit too. Lipstadt's book simply does not make any distinction between the two.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
