• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Banned Book:The Hoax of the Twentieth Century

Status
Not open for further replies.
Some countries modulate free speech with the provisio that you cannot tell outright lies and/or set out to specifically write things that would be seriously hurtful to people.
Such as telling holocaust survivors (a lot of which live(d) in named countries) that actually they weren't in nazi death camps, but nazi cuddle camps and that their memories of them being enslaved/starved and seeing their loved ones murdered on a daily basis are not true, but planted by evil zionists.

The sad thing is that the people who now go on about 'finding the conspiracy and disbelieving the government line' would be among the first to end up in said concentration camps in nazi occupied territory, as questioning the government and demanding free speech was cause for automatic arrest.
But of course Mondial will never see that his very right to whine and rant is caused by the very governments he dispises.
 
Mondial said:
Why should The Hoax of the Twentieth Century or any other holocaust revisionist book, dvd or website be banned in countries that call themselves "democracies"? Why should people be sent to prison for expressing a non violent opinion on a historical subject? I repeat - all the countries that imprison holocaust revisionists call themselves "democracies", they are not communist or military dictatorships. Whatever happened to intellectual freedom? Since when is it a crime to ask questions in a "democracy"?
Click to expand...

1) democratie don't mean freedom of speech. Democratie means the folk get to vote for the leader/law/representant. It is usually associated with a certain type of freedom of opinion, but by definition isn't necessary, and certainly is not dependent on an ALL-OUT freedom of speech. You can express your opinion as much as you want in germany as long as you don't deny the horror of nazism.
2) Holocaust denial is forbidden. That does not mean the country is a dictatorship or communist or anything you make up, it means it is forbbiden. just like possession of child pornography is forbbidden. Other country forbid the knowledge of fabricating bombs, where to put them to damage a nuke plant, or even how to manifacture drugs. So what.

If you aren't happy on holocaust denialism being forbbiden, and live in such country : move somewhere else. or try to get the law changed (goo luck on that one, as holocaust denialism not only is stupidly wrong, but also associated with neo nazism and nazism worship).
 
Mondial said:
Why should The Hoax of the Twentieth Century or any other holocaust revisionist book, dvd or website be banned in countries that call themselves "democracies"? Why should people be sent to prison for expressing a non violent opinion on a historical subject? I repeat - all the countries that imprison holocaust revisionists call themselves "democracies", they are not communist or military dictatorships. Whatever happened to intellectual freedom? Since when is it a crime to ask questions in a "democracy"?
Click to expand...
I agree fully. I also agree that it's ridiculous how Hitler is universally hated, while it's trendy for young folks to walk around spray-painting Stalin on house walls.

Now that I've gotten that off my back, can you tell me if this supports the OP somehow, or if you're just using the CT-er tactic of supporting a position by heaping on tonnes of irrelevant facts, claims and pet-peeves?

Aepvirus said:
2) Holocaust denial is forbidden. That does not mean the country is a dictatorship or communist or anything you make up, it means it is forbbiden. just like possession of child pornography is forbbidden. Other country forbid the knowledge of fabricating bombs, where to put them to damage a nuke plant, or even how to manifacture drugs. So what.
Click to expand...
I was once of this opinion, too, but was fortunately talked out of it by people who had thought about it more rationally than had I. What convinced me was this forumite who pointed out that by this definition of freedom of speech, Nazi Germany, too, had freedom of speech. Goebbels, too, was fully in support of the idea that you should say anything you wanted -- as long as your ideas didn't conflict with State doctrine. In the People's Republic of China, too, you can express any sentiment you please, however you please... as long as it does not come into conflict with Party policies.

I don't particularly care for such an approach.
 
Last edited:
Safe-Keeper said:
I was once of this opinion, too, but was fortunately talked out of it by people who had thought about it more rationally than had I. What convinced me was this forumite who pointed out that by this definition of freedom of speech, Nazi Germany, too, had freedom of speech. Goebbels, too, was fully in support of the idea that you should say anything you wanted -- as long as your ideas didn't conflict with State doctrine. In the People's Republic of China, too, you can express any sentiment you please, however you please... as long as it does not come into conflict with Party policies.

I don't particularly care for such an approach.
Click to expand...

The difference is that all the countries this little piece of hate fiction is banned in are democracies. So if people want that particular law changed all they have to do is create a party that has the abolition of such limitations on free speech as one of its (key) policies and convince people to vote for them, which would remove the restriction.
Until such the laws are actually part of what the people want, not random government enforced restrictions.
The fact that such parties do not get a majority might not be something you like, but its hardly undemocratic.
 
Mondial said:
Why should The Hoax of the Twentieth Century or any other holocaust revisionist book, dvd or website be banned in countries that call themselves "democracies"? Why should people be sent to prison for expressing a non violent opinion on a historical subject? I repeat - all the countries that imprison holocaust revisionists call themselves "democracies", they are not communist or military dictatorships. Whatever happened to intellectual freedom? Since when is it a crime to ask questions in a "democracy"?
Click to expand...

Suppose I published a book depicting your recent ancestors as cannibals, but stating that the contents were only based on my opinion. Would that be acceptable?

Also, what are these questions that you're not allowed to ask?
 
Mondial said:
Why should The Hoax of the Twentieth Century or any other holocaust revisionist book, dvd or website be banned in countries that call themselves "democracies"? Why should people be sent to prison for expressing a non violent opinion on a historical subject? I repeat - all the countries that imprison holocaust revisionists call themselves "democracies", they are not communist or military dictatorships. Whatever happened to intellectual freedom? Since when is it a crime to ask questions in a "democracy"?
Click to expand...
It ain't banned here, and we're a democracy and have freedom of speech.

And we think your book is a giant steaming pile of putrid possum's poo.

You idiot! :cool:
 
Safe-Keeper said:
I don't particularly care for such an approach.
Click to expand...

It is a matter of opinion then. I don't see free speech as the end all goal. See the USA has free speech. But it isn't immediately more democratic, than say, Swiss. It isn't better politically than many other more healthy democracy, which don't have two right wing party, "blanc bonnet et bonnet blanc". It is also really about as much under corporatism (nearly facism as the original meaning) as many other country. Heck, there are limitation on what you can express as opinion.
The quality of life can also be demonstrated to be equivalent or even lower than other countries, which don't have free speech. And much more important, as I said previously, it isn't as obvious as for nazism in germany, but there *are* thematic which are limited by the US governement too.

Finally freedom of speech is recognized as law in those country cited by mondial. Heck it is even recognized as human right in human right declaration IIRC.

So really, world wide there is *NO* freedom of speech. What there are is freedom of speech abridged by cultural limiztation.
 
timhau said:
My painstaking research that took about .3 seconds uncovered a few. But hey, don't let facts get on your way.
Click to expand...

Wow and that list does not even cover documentaries

For the record. Episdode 20 of "The World At War" Is called Genocide, aired March 1974. This series is widely regarded as one of the best WW2 documentaries ever made. Funny how 25 episodes are great, and one is fake
 
Last edited:
Lukraak_Sisser said:
The difference is that all the countries this little piece of hate fiction is banned in are democracies. So if people want that particular law changed all they have to do is create a party that has the abolition of such limitations on free speech as one of its (key) policies and convince people to vote for them, which would remove the restriction.
Click to expand...
Whether a policy can be altered is irrelevant when determining whether or not it's a good policy. "If you don't like it, get it changed" is really in my ears "***** you, I'm not discussing this with you". This "My way or the highway" philosophy is precisely what you get when the State starts telling people what sentiments they are allowed to express.

Until such the laws are actually part of what the people want, not random government enforced restrictions.
Click to expand...
Righty, and people who do not want them can express this opinion freely without fearing for a blow to their reputation or a stigma as a "Nazi supporter", I assume:rolleyes:.

The fact that such parties do not get a majority might not be something you like, but its hardly undemocratic.
Click to expand...
What would be "undemocratic" in your eyes? A bill banning minarets? A bill exiling all foreigners of Asian descent? A bill requiring all atheists to wear identifiable scarlet "A"s on their clothes so people could identify and shun us? Sorry, but the majority may decide what gets done and what doesn't. It does not, however, simply by being the majority, decide what is and isn't moral.

Twiler said:
Suppose I published a book depicting your recent ancestors as cannibals, but stating that the contents were only based on my opinion. Would that be acceptable?
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Of course, if the book was proven to be false you would be subject to applicable libel laws, but publishing the statements would still be perfectly legal. Heck, you could publish a book branding me as a serial rapist of children and ruin my life, and I wouldn't argue that the book should be banned.

Oh, and it doesn't matter if it's "only based on opinion". Free speech is free speech. It doesn't matter if it's "just my opinion", a "fact", or "just asking questions" that the PRC's government stinks, I'm allowed to say it. It doesn't matter if it's "just my opinion" if I say I'm going to kill you on Thursday, it's still illegal.

Also, what are these questions that you're not allowed to ask?
Click to expand...
Oh, so you can be a Holocaust-denier in Germany, as long as you phrase them as questions:boggled:?
Some questions on independence


I'm just wondering -- and pardon me if you take me as, like, a rebel or progressive or something here, because we're totally not thinking of forming our own nation or anything, that'd be politically incorrect -- but I just wanted to know if it's true that all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, such as Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Just asking questions is all. Now I just also wondered if His Majesty kenw if Governments could be instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed? Just asking, no sentiments expressed here, nossire. Now, while we're on a roll, could you tell me if...


...goes on for a while...


Now, would you mind if we, like, threw this ship load of tea on the sea and declared independence really quick?



​
King George V (puzzled, scratching head): Do we have a revolution on our hands?
Aidee: Nah, he's Just Asking Questions.


Oh, and have you stopped beating your sis' yet?
 
Mondial said:
There were no holocaust movies in the 1940's, 50's or 60's and then circa 1974 Did Six Million Really Die? (www.zundelsite.org/harwood/didsix00.html ) was published. Then in 1976 came The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. After these two works started to gain attention the "Holocaust" mini series was first broadcast in 1978. This opened the floodgates to an avalanche of holocaust propaganda so that not a week goes by without a movie, tv show or documentary about the subject. Total overkill. The victims of Stalin vastly outnumber those of Hitler but there is no comparable amount of film or tv time for them.
Click to expand...

Video editing equipment and movie making equipment is pretty cheap, maybe you could make a documentary about Stalin's victims, instead of peddling drivel about Holocaust denial.

Meanwhile, I'm pretty darned confident that the claim made in the first sentence above is rather easily refuted, even by a Holocaust denier. I knew about the Holocaust before 1974, and I'm pretty sure I learned about it on television.



(Trivia aside: When I was growing up, I generally didn't hear the word "holocaust" to describe the Nazi atrocities. It wasn't after the miniseries mentioned above that that word became synonymous with the attempted extermination of the Jews in Europe.)

ETA:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Holocaust_films
 
Last edited:
Mondial,

My aunt was an organiser and aid-worker with the Red Cross when the US forces liberated some of the concentration and death camps. They recovered the death records the Nazis there kept themselves. They recovered the the personal items taken from the inmates before they were killed. They assisted those few who, amazingly, managed to survive. She was personally responsible for "debriefing" many of them in an attempt to find out what actually happened.

Later she was involved with UNRRA, a UN taskforce designed to assist these displaced people in finding their families and getting them home again. The reports and evidence provided by those people made to thousands of Red Cross aides like my aunt, and to tens of thousands of Allied investigators, puts the Holocaust's existence beyond any doubt in the mind of any reasonable person.

See UNRRA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Relief_and_Rehabilitation_Administration

So if you think my aunt, an Allied Red Cross organiser, was also complicit in this giant conspiracy that the Holocaust never happened, you are completely unreasonable, and will also be held in my utter contempt hereafter.
 
Last edited:
I married a Jewish woman. She had a copy of an old family photograph, but we weren't sure who the people really were. Her grandmother was in the photo (taken in Poland in 1937) and she remembered the first names of the people in the photo, and a little bit about them, but not very much. A couple of years ago, we did some genealogical research, and are confident we positively identified each of the 10 people in the photo.

This source was very helpful in making the identification:


http://www.yadvashem.org/wps/portal...&first_name=&location=Lesko&next_form=results
 
Anyone who denies the Holocaust should have a Swastika carved in their ignorant faces. The evidence is overwhelming. There are endless images and footage from death camps such as Auschwitz. My English teacher's Polish father was a survivor of such a camp, and he told me, in his fathers words, what went on. The elderly were taken away first, never to be seen again. The grandchildren of these elderly would be told that they've gone to the hospital for a while. There are historical reports and first hand accounts of it; e.g. The Diary of Anne Frank. And this is just an ounce of the evidence.

I do realize you all would know all this but to those that still deny it....

SERIOUSLY?! ARE YOU DERANGED?!
 
Safe-Keeper said:
Whether a policy can be altered is irrelevant when determining whether or not it's a good policy. "If you don't like it, get it changed" is really in my ears "***** you, I'm not discussing this with you". This "My way or the highway" philosophy is precisely what you get when the State starts telling people what sentiments they are allowed to express.
Click to expand...

But how is it my way or the highway? I really don't see that. The laws were enacted by (I presume) major parties in a democratically elected government or in the swiss case maybe even by general voting of the entire nation. Any democracy functions by making such decisions, wether that is what things are allowed to be published or any other law that restricts what people can and cannot do. The fact that *you* do not like it doesn't make your viewpoint any more valid than the viewpoint of those that do endorse such laws. Hence in democracies the majority gets to decide or nothing would get done. If views change over time, then the laws can get altered to reflect this change in views.


Safe-Keeper said:
Righty, and people who do not want them can express this opinion freely without fearing for a blow to their reputation or a stigma as a "Nazi supporter", I assume:rolleyes:.
Click to expand...

That depends on who wants it done and why. If the party is clearly neo-nazi it won't get many voters, but a more mainstream liberal/right wing party wanting to fully implement free speech would not be stigmatized that way

Safe-Keeper said:
What would be "undemocratic" in your eyes? A bill banning minarets? A bill exiling all foreigners of Asian descent? A bill requiring all atheists to wear identifiable scarlet "A"s on their clothes so people could identify and shun us? Sorry, but the majority may decide what gets done and what doesn't. It does not, however, simply by being the majority, decide what is and isn't moral.
Click to expand...

Undemocratic would be an unelected official forcing things against the wishes of the majority of the population, especially without a means of correction. Any of the bills you propose can be democratically made into law. As you say, they may be considered unethical, but ethics and democracy are not the same.
For instance I consider it unethical that in the US the government denies gays the right to marriage and forbids the people to chose to end their lives through euthanasia should they choose so. But I do not consider it undemocratic, as the majority of the US voters appearantly agrees.
What constitutes a true democracy is of course debatable (although not on topic here). I personally consider the US/UK system to be far less democratic than the direct representation method prevalent in (the rest of) europe as it allows the winner of a three party race with the outcome 35/33/32% to act as if 100% of the voters of his district back him, while in fact 65% of the voters did NOT want that person and are now voiceless.
 
.
Funny that everyone simply accepts the lie that this book is banned in all of the mentioned countries.

Mondial: What proof do you offer of your assertion?
.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom