web analytics

ORWELL DAY!

By David Vance On January 22nd, 2013

Yesterday would have been George Orwell’s 113th birthday! The great man died in 1950 of course but has left us a GLORIOUS legacy;

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. …”

92 Responses to “ORWELL DAY!”

  1. love that quote

  2. The great majority are quite happy to go along with the deception.

  3. Doublethink: the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs, e.g. claiming that the BBC does not allow dissent and that David the self-styled dissenter was allowed on the BBC today.

  4. If anything quite the opposite of what Mr. Orwell predicted is true. Not only can you tell the truth, but conspiracy theorists are allowed to spout bullshit about every major or shocking event that happens. The latest conspiracy theories about the Sandy Hook shootings are disgusting.

  5. How fitting that in Orwell Week:

    A five year girl in America is declared a threat, branded a terrorist and put under psychological quackery for saying she was going to shoot a friend with a toy gun that blows bubbles.

    The EU demands the right to disbar journalists from working.

    HMRC posts threats on cashpoint screens.

    The Financial Transactions Tax gets the go ahead.

    The CPS declares it will concentrate of looting more for the State rather than prosecute suspected criminals.

    The Danish State can now dictate how much a haircut costs.

    Government declares “generational” war against hajis.

    State debt is £1114 billion, ensuring future generations are taxed to penury to pay for welfare today.

    State borrowing was £15.4 billion in December 2012, up from December 2011.

  6. Dave Alton –

    Stand at the Cenotaph and read out the names of our war dead. See what happens to you.

  7. Oh, I forgot: and a rapper had his microphone cut and was forced off stage by heavies for daring to criticise Great Obamses.

  8. Pete.

    I agree, I didn’t say it’s perfect. Far from it. And I’ll fight along side you to keep our free speach.

  9. The latest conspiracy theories about the Sandy Hook shootings are disgusting.

    Well Dave – if you were a parent and you had lost a 6-year-old daughter less than 24 hours previously, would you be able to act as badly as this? As for me, I wouldn’t be coherent in public for weeks. Please watch and make up your own minds:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWEnYFms3bw

  10. //How fitting that in Orwell Week://

    This is Orwell speakking in wartime Britain, when private correspondence could be intercepted and censored, photographs of the effects of bombing suppressed, and when at least one newspaper was prohibited because it critised the war:

    “Any fair-minded person with journalistic experience will admit that during this war official censorship has not been particularly irksome. We have not been subjected to the kind of totalitarian ‘co-ordination’ that it might have been reasonable to expect. The press has some justified grievances, but on the whole the Government has behaved well”

    He wrote this at a time when government censorship was much worse than anything today.

  11. Wartime censorship was quite correct, too.

    I’d love to hear some arguments against that.

  12. I agree, Phantom. My point was that it was much worse than any of the (real or hyped-up) incidents Pete refers to, and Orwell still wasn’t complaining about it.

  13. “worse” in the sense of stronger, more far-reaching. not more evil.

  14. I wasn’t going to engage with you about this Allan because, lets face it, you are mental. However unlike you, I can understand people who don’t react the way I might in stressfull situations, we are all diffrent. I’ve seen people react like this at funerals of a loved one, with my own eyes.

    Watch this video and try to understand a diffrent perspective.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snViuRNT5Jk

  15. Very selective quote, Noel. Here’s the rest of it:

    http://bigwhiteogre.blogspot.co.uk/2010_02_01_archive.html

    The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary. Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban.

    and, as we know:

    At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ‘not done’ to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.

  16. Allan – I am fairly certain you are not coherent in public or private. As Mr. Alton correctly points out the conspiracy nutcases are shameless with their nonsense about the Sandy Hook shootings. Parker was not only the real father of a real child who was killed, but he spoke with grace and dignity. His reaction is in fact quite normal under the intense shock and stress of the moment having had his daughter killed and facing the nationla media. People react in such moments with a roller coaster of reactions including sobbing, paradoxial laughter and mood swings. he had the grace to speak with eloquence and compassion eve nfor the shooter ‘s family.

  17. No Dave – no f**king way! I’ve shown this to friends and their wives and all are astounded by what they saw. But if you know people who are laughing and smiling less than 24 hours after the murder of a 6-year-old daughter, then they really are ‘mental’ people and should not be approached. That’s just the way it is.

  18. For what its worth, – war time censorship largely applied to mail to and from overseas, and anything to or from anyone in the forces. I don’t remember it being used regularly on internal mail.

    It was generally accepted as the dangers associated with information leaks were clearly obvious to even the most simple of souls, hence its acceptance.

    Letters that had been censored were usually noted as such on the envelope, – nothing secret or devious about it in those days. The censored text was literally blacked out with black ink.

    Its seems the difference between then and now, was that ‘then’ censorship was to prevent logistical info getting into the enemy hands, whereas ‘now’ it seems to be used largely in the pursuit of political correctness and to protect the reputations of our hierarchy.

  19. I would have thought that the violent, pointless death of any loved one, let alone a beautiful child, would be enough to send any parent temporarily, or even permanently insane.

    Why anyone, reporter or otherwise, would wish to literally torture by questioning and generally pestering, such a parent at such a time is the truly disgusting act.

  20. Anything, anywhere or anytime, can be made to look like a conspiracy, Allan, if that is what your agenda is at the outset. There are such things as inductive and deductive reasoning. In deductive reasoning, you start with a premise or hypothesis and then you look for all the pertinent information, modify it to suit your hypothesis, and throw out all that doesn’t fit.

    I’m going to go out on a limb and say that in this limited context, the video you posted is strange, Allan. One could perceive Mr. Parker to be acting. Or, as others have pointed out…trauma responses can be weird. I never shed a tear over 9/11 until the first anniversary. There is no doubt people thought I was weird for not “being” upset, for just going about my day-to-day business, that is until the first anniversary. Delayed response to trauma…I reckon only about 5% of the people who lived through 9/11 had a response like mine.

    Have you read any of the studies done on people who beleive in conspiracy theories, Allan? I’m not trying to deter you…have at it…but while you’re judging limited examples of other’s behavior, take a look at your own. You come across as a very odd man on this limited medium…as does Mr. Parker in that particular video (it’s only a snapshot of who he is and how he’s coping)…but at least he just suffered a terrible tragedy…what’s your excuse?

  21. Ernest – Mr. Parker wanted to come forward and speak (I assume it was a way he tried to deal with the loss). Many of the families opted for privacy and those wishes seem to have been honored by the media for the most part.

  22. Mairin – rather than studying the people who believe ‘conspiracy theories’, why not look at the evidence which the ‘conspiracy theorists’ put forward to back the ‘conspiracy theory’. If the evidence is weak, the theory doesn’t bear scrutiny. On the other hand, if the evidence is strong, then something is a-miss. For example, I have a ‘theory’ that building 7 collapsed at freefall acceleration into its own foot-print in the manner of a standard demolition and, guess what? It did collapse at freefall acceleration into its own footprint! Do you still consider it to be a theory or is it now an established fact?
    The question then arises as to how, other than by demolition through simultaneous destruction of all principal supports, could a 47-storey building collapse at freefall acceleration into its own footprint. No alternative theory to that is yet forthcoming from the ‘mainstream’ or any of the duped mass.

    Now watch this expert give his verdict on the ‘conspiracy theory’ of the collapse of building 7:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc

    And your theory, Mairin?

  23. I think that one can infer from watching just that particular video in isolation that it imploded. From only watching that particular video, it looks like it could be a purposeful demolition…but given the fires that were going on that day above and under ground and the earthquake-like collapse of the twin towers shortly before it, there are other possible conclusions. Nothing like what happened on 9/11 ever happened before…there is nothing to compare it with fairly.

  24. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874

  25. thanks for that, Phantom…I knew there was a pop mech article that cited a report that debunked the conspiracy…don’t think I remember hearing that there was a sprinkler system failure…I tend to avoid this discussion. Interestly, a coworker (long-time NYer) believes in this and the pentagon conspiracy…she’s quite smart and otherwise very nice and funny…but also a bit eccentric. She was out of the country on 9/11 too, which I suppose makes it easier for her to believe the conspiracy. She angers people when she brings up her theories…cuts too close to home for many.

  26. I know someone in Brooklyn that believes all this stuff.

    He also said that he saw a drone flying over NYC last week. Quite the conversation stopper.

  27. Phantom and Mairin2. You’re wasting your time with Allan. I bet he also believes that the US never went to the moon.

  28. I am well aware.

    I do have a fascination with these guys though. It is an interesting subculture. I think that there have been books written about them.

  29. The article in Popular Mechanics which is the fallback of ATW’s senior peddler of ignorance debunks nothing. It states that:

    After 7 hours of uncontrolled fires, a steel girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to one of the 81 columns supporting the building. Floor 13 collapsed, beginning a cascade of floor failures to Floor 5. Column 79, no longer supported by a girder, buckled, triggering a rapid succession of structural failures that moved from east to west. All 23 central columns, followed by the exterior columns, failed in what’s known as a “progressive collapse”–that is, local damage that spreads from one structural element to another, eventually resulting in the collapse of the entire structure.

    All video footage show the fires to be localised and receding. The collapse, if spreading from east to west would have caused the building to topple. It is because all principal load-bearing columns were destroyed near-simultanously (inner ones first) that the building collapsed perfectly vertically into its footprint, a tremendous achievement for the demolition squad and greatly facilitating rapid removal of the evidence debris to China.

    This stuff is beyond you Mairin so I can understand your need to take shelter in the umbrella of ignorance which Phantom provides. Realisation that the building really was demolished would wreck your world-view so best not question it and this is what government counts on. There are hopefully, some people on this site who just might get it.

    Oh – here’s something worse which Orwell would have understood. I hope it’s not true:

    https://www.facebook.com/jim.garrow.1/posts/10151209214442015

    – I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new “litmus test” in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks. “The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not”. Those who will not are being removed.
    – Dr. Jim Garrow – January 21, 2013

    Dr Jim Garrow is a 2009 Nobel Peace Prize nominee for his work in opposing ‘gendercide’ (abortion of females) in China.

  30. ATW’s senior peddler of ignorance

    Is that an official title? Does some kind of bonus come with it?

    Why was that building ( which I was very familiar with btw ) demolished? By who? Do you have an alibi for that day?

  31. Phantom – the report which you cite from Popular Mechanics states that there was a “rapid succession of structural failures that moved from east to west.” This asymmetrical failure would have caused an asymmetrical collapse i.e. the building would have toppled to the side which started to collapse first. Building 7 fell into its own footprint therefore the principal load-bearing elements were destroyed in such a manner as to ensure that this would happen, as in controlled demolition.

  32. Dave, I just imagine him as Craig Ferguson making all sorts of funny faces as he “talks” pretending to try and convince us of his theories…;-) Allan has led me to read a few articles and studies about people who believe in conspiracies and to read the article Phantom posted so not all is lost. I used to know a guy who didn’t really believe in all the conspiracies he discussed—it was more of a hobby—at first, I wondered that about Allan…a ‘just trying to make conversation’ kind of guy but he’s pretty passionate about his beliefs and nothing seems to sway him. I also think it’s interesting that people who latch onto conspiracies are often very intelligent. I’m guessing Allan is if what he says is true about himseld and he’s an engineer and not Craig Ferguson pulling our collective leg.

  33. I’m not taking shelter. I watched your video and told you what I thought. I think there’s too many variables to come to the conclusion you draw.

  34. As ATW’s junior peddler of ignorance may I note for the record that history here has shown that there is no conspiracy theory that Allan won’t embrace, facts and contradictions be damned. Those who try to engage him in seriousness (as opposed to laughter, dismissive contempt) are doomed to have him pivot from one lunacy to another lunacy. The internet was made for these guys.

  35. Allan

    There are those at a much higher intellectual pay grade than you and I who have reached different conclusions.

    For starters, a series of rapid failures moving from east to west does not at all necessitate that the building would topple to one side. Who the hell told you that?

    And even if it did topple to one side, you guys would invent a new theory to cover that.
    You guys are such fun.

  36. and Dave, I don’t know why but I love it when he talks down to me and dismisses me as being unable to understand what is so clear to him. It always makes me smile, I don’t know why. Back to work…and laundry….

  37. I want Allan to do a one man Broadway show, like Jackie Mason did.

  38. Mairin – what would these ‘variables’ be?

  39. btw

    Sorry for all the comments

    There was litigation over 7WTC. ( Welcome to America )

    In litigation those guys throw everything but the kitchen sink into the lawsuit.

    And I don’t think that any conspiracy matters was part of the lawsuits, at all. Even the trial lawyer sharks aren’t going there.

  40. Phantom – you and I are not on the same level as your comment of 7.19 confirms. If a tall building were to have its supports fail from east to west, it would fall preferentially to the east because those supports have failed first. The only way by which a 47-storey building can collapse into its own footprint at freefall acceleration is if it were made to collapse that way i.e. by controlled demolition as stated by the Dutch expert in my link of 5.51pm.

    That building 7 collapsed into its own footprint is fact. That it fell at freefall acceleration is shown in this video. WARNING – link contains elementary physics:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSyqfM-Rgy0

  41. If we are to believe Allan’s theory we have to b prepared to accept that hundreds of tonnes of explosives were secreted into most if not all the buildings that make up the WTC withut any of the thousands of people working their noticing and by using hundreds of people at a minimum engaged in this massive exercise plus huge numbers number as secondary involvers all sworn to secrecy and keeping that secrecy in the full knowledge that they were murdering thousands of ordinary civilians. Is that feasible ?

    Plus the other big question, if you have managed to organise the collapse of the twin towers to facilitate some wider military political agenda why on earth would you then have to bother rigging the much smaller building 7 with explosives ?. What would be th point ?

  42. Are you an architect who has designed large buildings?

    A very rapid failure in one direction could have a different outcome than what you say. Esp with all the other things going on.

    C’mon. Grow up.

  43. If we are to believe Allan’s theory we have to be prepared to accept that hundreds of tonnes of explosives were secreted into most if not all the buildings that make up the WTC without any of the thousands of people working there noticing and also by using hundreds of people at a minimum, engaged in this massive exercise and huge numbers as secondary involvers all sworn to secrecy and keeping that secrecy in the full knowledge that they were murdering thousands of ordinary civilians. Is that feasable ?

    Plus the other big question, if you have managed to organise the collapse of the twin towers to facilitate some wider military political agenda why on earth would you then bother rigging the much smaller building 7 with explosives ?. What would be the point ?

  44. I know a bunch of people who worked in 7WTC.

    I will call them in for questioning by Allan.

    They must not conceal the real facts.

  45. Colm – if I were to believe what you believe, then an entire gigantic project of simultaneous hijackings backed by a huge support system which suppressed airport security and the USAF was run by a guy in a cave in Afghanistan.

    Building 7 fell into its own footprint at freefall acceleration. That is conducted by controlled demolition. Those around building 7 prior to its demolition were told to evacuate the vicinity of the building and this demonstrates foreknowledge of imminent destruction.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pGxFlonJAA

  46. Allan

    Nonsense. The hijacking of planes by around a dozen men with knives does not involve the need for a gigantic project involving hundreds or thousands of people. It simply involves the element of surprise. Organising the rigged destruction of enormous buildings and ensuring total secrecy and that nothing of the act is ever leaked or reported is vastly vastly more incredible undertaking.

  47. Dr Jim Garrow is a 2009 Nobel Peace Prize nominee for his work in opposing ‘gendercide’ (abortion of females) in China.

    What’s a Nobel Peace Prize nominee?

  48. Phantom – you have no grasp of even the most simple mechanics. This is why I’m posting these links because they back up exactly what I’m saying. Let’s just confirm the facts whether you understand them or not:

    1. Building 7 fell directly into its own footprint as seen by the link in my post of 5.51pm. That the demolition expert Danny Jowenko called it controlled demolition is his opinion and it is an expert opinion, but the first sentence is fact.

    2. Building 7 fell at freefall acceleration into its own footprint as is seen from the link in my post of 7.31pm.

    3. There was foreknowledge of the impending collapse of building 7 as is confirmed by the link in my post of 7.47pm.

    All three above are characteristics of controlled demolition.

  49. My building ( and other major buildings ) is protected by security in front and on the loading dock.

    I can’t bring anything major in or out without showing it to the guy at the front desk, or otherwise getting approval for it to be moved.

    Are you, Allan from Aberdeen, accusing the blue collar building staff or building management of being complicit in moving large quantities of demolition equipment into their own building?

  50. Ross – would that be somebody who was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize? This is Dr Jim Garrow’s work reported here:

    http://www.free-press-release.com/news-nobel-peace-prize-nominee-and-pink-pagoda-author-dr-jim-garrow-rescues-china-s-baby-girls-1334665626.html

  51. I’ve heard the Nobel Committee is controlled by the Jews.

  52. Phantom – that’s good. Your building has similar security to the school in Newtown Connecticut where children were murdered. Do you have video surveillance which doesn’t work too?

    As for building 7, I shall repeat the facts and let you deal with the peripheral theories because I note that the facts aren’t being disputed any more. Here they are:

    1. Building 7 fell directly into its own footprint as seen by the link in my post of 5.51pm. That the demolition expert Danny Jowenko called it controlled demolition is his opinion and it is an expert opinion, but the first sentence is fact.

    2. Building 7 fell at freefall acceleration into its own footprint as is seen from the link in my post of 7.31pm.

    3. There was foreknowledge of the impending collapse of building 7 as is confirmed by the link in my post of 7.47pm

  53. Allan

    The crazy man does not know that he’s crazy.

    You know this, right?

  54. What a load of total and absolute baloney there is on his thread.

    What kind of extreme lack of knowledge of the human condition and lack of imagination re the wide range of reactions to a traumatic incident leads someone over he age of 11 to conclude that a few smiles or weak laughs in amidst the swirling emotions and shock that that father would have found himself in is proof of something sinister?

    God help us!

    Mahon’s 4:41 was spot on

  55. Mahon’s 4:41

    I thought that was a biblical citation for a second! :)

  56. Ross – would that be somebody who was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize?

    The Nobel prize isn’t like the Oscars where you have a bunch of nominees and a winner gets announced while the losers feign happiness at the other person’s success. There is no list of nominees for the prize anywhere let alone a designated “runner up” for the prize.

  57. Petr

    Don’t encourage him

  58. Petr – My Letter to the ATWites.

    Look Allan is a nutcase, harmless here of course, but symptomatic of a real problem with blogging and the internet. But in Sandy Hook the conspiracy nuts have in fact been harassing people in that town, most notably an older gentleman who took 6 of the escaped kids into his home.

  59. Good point.

  60. Mahons

    I heard about that. As if he didn’t have enough to deal with! Is there a potential prosecution?

  61. Dave A….I just had a chance to watch the video you posted debunking the SH conspiracies. Thanks for that. I wasn’t aware that the conspiracies had grown to that extent and it shows has sloppy those spreading the conspiracies are. No need to invent the wheel…job well done.

  62. Look Allan is a nutcase, harmless here of course

    Nutcase? Yes. Harmless? Probably, though I have to say I find the anti-Semitism, proud holocaust denial, racism etc. to be pretty poisonous stuff. I’m surprised it pass with so little objection.

  63. Petr – what would you suggest be done? And why are you incapable of refuting anything (go on – show me where) which I argue?

  64. I saw planes crash into the WTC on TV. I’ve spoken to folks that saw them in person.

    Mystery solved.

  65. Allan — I’ll let you in on a little secret. I hardly ever read your delusions, and never click on your links. I’ve seen sensible, intelligent, sane people like Frank and Fews engage you, and seen where that leads. Thanks but no thanks.

  66. Hey, Allan, do you think that Pearl Harbor was an inside job?

  67. Sorry everyone who replied to my post, I went down the pub.
    Mairin2, you’re welcome. And if you want to play with Allan, that’s your prerogative. I usually ignore conspiracy theorists, but this seems to be getting out of hand. Hassling people and calling them liars in their time of grief, especially for their own children, is just sick.

    It’s strange, the conspiracy nuts are always looking for an angle and forgetting Occam’s razor. Lets just say (for augments sake), the government was involved in 9/11. What would be easier for them to orchestrate; convince a number of lone terrorists into believing they where working for al Qaeda and to hijack planes and fly them into buildings, Or organize a massive operation involving military drones, bombs in buildings, thermite, computer generated cell phone calls, etc?
    The government wouldn’t have needed the towers or building seven to come down to achieve the same result. The conspiracy nuts never seem to search for ever more convoluted explanations for events but never ask themselves why it need to be so complicated. They convince themselves that only they can see the truth, and ignore all logic and reason.

    Aileen. Thanks for your support on the Hillsborough between with Troll and myself in another thread. I appreciate it.

  68. Petr – it’s good that you refuse to engage in debate on a debating forum as it’s unlikely that you would have anything to contribute. Then again, Phantom has exactly the same policy as one sees from above. A quip is a quip, but it isn’t an argument. Here’s some more ‘antisemitism’ for your post of 9.24pm, except that…..

    http://pauleisen.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/i-refuse-to-believe-unbelievable-robert.html

  69. I think I’ve engaged with Allan no more than 5 times on this site. I tend to skip over his stuff. I know it isn’t possible to get him to break away from his thinking patterns but every once in a while I do see what would happen if I try. It’s always the same thing though as you say. He’s deeply entrenched and can’t see the forest for the trees. I also believe in the goodness of people and I’d like to think there is some goodness in him or maybe that he just writes some of this stuff he writes for attention. I wasn’t aware of what’s going on with the conspiracy theorists in Sandy Hook. I just remember Allan starting in with a conspiracy theory immediately following the murders. Someone I went to school with lost his wife and another former classmate was one of the teachers on lockdown so that’s where my focus has been.

  70. above meant for Dave

  71. Dave

    It got my goat too and you thanked me at the time :)

  72. Listen y’all – Allan will start a conspiracy theory at the drop of a hat. The recent cold spell and snow didn’t come from mother nature in Allan’s eyes. The best we can all do with our own eyes is to roll them whenever we hear another of Allan’s ‘truths’ :)

  73. Dave @9.44pm. Try to keep it fact-based and keep away from your wilder theories. On building 7, here are what I consider to be the facts and the locations to find the links which support the facts. If you dispute the facts then state where you believe me to be wrong and why.

    1. Building 7 fell directly into its own footprint as seen by the link in my post of 5.51pm. That the demolition expert Danny Jowenko called it controlled demolition is his opinion and it is an expert opinion, but the first sentence is fact.

    2. Building 7 fell at freefall acceleration into its own footprint as is seen from the link in my post of 7.31pm.

    3. There was foreknowledge of the impending collapse of building 7 as is confirmed by the link in my post of 7.47pm

  74. Excuse the OT, but this is just magical.

    One ballsy individual catches enormous wave off the coast of Sligo yesterday.

  75. There is a common thread through all this conspiracy nonsense, including Sandy Hook.

    If you want to know where Allan and others get their opinions from, go straight to the source. Same words, same tone.

    Alex Jones

  76. Allen, practically the only thing those links of yours illustrate is how you come to believe in all your conspiracies. This latest one, talking about, inevitably, the Holocaust, says – in an attempt at sarcasm – that because no written orders can be found, mind-reading must have occurred. It totally ignores the most likely explanation: that the orders were given orally.
    That Hitler almost always gave only oral orders and hated committing anything to paper has long been known. Yet the writer here ignores it in at attempt to make the shoddiest of cases. And you swallow it.

    He then goes on not only to quote Hilberg out of context, but to distort what he said, even though it’s clear even without context that he meant something different.

    It’s hard to credit how anyone, and least of all anyone with a good education, can believe this garbage.

  77. Noel – the sarcasm is that Paul Eisen is a (non-jewish) jew and he is by no means the only jew questioning the BS that you accept as Gospel. I’m not blaming you as, after all, I was more or less in the same place until about 3 years ago – feel free to scan my posts on ATW at that time – but BS is and always shall be BS. Here he is being more direct:

    http://pauleisen.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/how-i-became-holocaust-denier-by-paul.html

    For my money, a child of six can see that something’s not right about the Holocaust narrative, and the science simply confirms what I already suspect. But I differ from the Holocaust Revisionists. They are scholars – historians and scientists who apply ‘truth and exactitude’ to determine the truth or otherwise of the Holocaust narrative. I’m no scholar. I care nothing for the chemical traces in brickwork or the topological evidence for mass graves. But I’ve read the literature, and it just doesn’t add up.

    That Jews suffered greatly from 1933-1945 is not in question, but the notion of a premeditated, planned and industrial extermination of Europe’s Jews with its iconic gas-chambers and magical six million are all used to make the Holocaust not only special but also sacred. We are faced with a new, secular religion, a false god with astonishing power to command worship. And, like the Crucifixion with its Cross, Resurrection etc, the Holocaust has key and sacred elements – the exterminationist imperative, the gas chambers and the sacred six million. It is these that comprise the holy Holocaust which Jews, Zionists and others worship and which the revisionists refuse.

    As for building 7, you fail to engage on the substance. Do you disagree with the facts as I have laid them out? Did building 7 NOT collapse into its own footrpint at freefall acceleration? Were there NOT prior warnings issued before its demolition? Did the BBC not report its destruction BEFORE it had actually collapsed? Argue those points, if you can.

  78. Allan, the Holocaust happened in the middle of a very fast-moving world war.
    It did not need to be premeditated; obviously the Germans changed their methods, plans and objectives as the war progressed.
    The end result is the same and is the only thing that matters: many millions of Jews, and millions of other people too, were murdered by the Nazi killing machine, even if in different ways.

    It is of course also beyond dispute that the horror of the Holocaust is being cynically exploited by politicians of our generation, but that’s another issue.

  79. Petr. Nice Video. I used to love surfing when I lived down south. (UK)
    Never got waves as big as that though. :-)

  80. Noel – I disagree, and so does this jew:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-YsBXEueoU

  81. ” this jew ”

    He really said it.

  82. Phantom – why would I emphasise the background of somebody, a jew, who disputes the holocaust and provides video evidence as to why he disputes the ‘story’? Think now – why?

  83. Let’s leave this dark subject for some good news:

    Netanyahu’s party and allies have been held back by the Centre-Left in Israel!

  84. Dave — I’ve never tried it but love watching surfers. The rush from catching a wave that huge must be awesome!

  85. Allan

    Your tone. As heard by every anti semite down the ages.

    ” This Jew ”

    I bet you spit the words out.

  86. My tone? I should have written ‘this enlightened jew’ and I shall adopt that term for every jew (and there are many) who agree with me – or rather, I agree with them because they were/are well ahead of the great mass of gentile dupes.

    One thing – you didn’t look at the linked video, did you?

  87. Petr. Even surfing a small wave is a great rush. Some of my best experiances have been surfing and snowboarding. Great times.

  88. I’m sure. I’ve snowboarded a number of times, it’s brilliant. I’m not great at it but good enough to enjoy it and get a buzz from it.

  89. OT as well but it seems scientists might have found a way to turn of one’s conscience off, or at least tone it way down. This article can take your mind many places and if you’re turned off by the psychological analysis in the beginning…it gets more science-y.

    http://chronicle.com/article/The-Psychopath-Makeover/135160/

  90. Seriously, what is the point in engaging with Allan? I love healthy debate but his kind of sinister agenda leaves me cold. I will never interact with holocaust deniers and downright racists as clever as he thinks he is. I am just thinking out loud here but as a long time reader I don’t get it. It puts me off becoming part of the community.

  91. “I’m sure. I’ve snowboarded a number of times, it’s brilliant. I’m not great at it but good enough to enjoy it and get a buzz from it.”

    Two questions Komrade Tarasov.

    1)Which book were you reading at the time?
    2) How did this “buzz” manifest itself?

  92. Allan,
    “Noel – I disagree, and so does this jew:”

    Watched the clip. He has very Psewdo features don’t he?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.