Thread: Lolocaust Denial

The Jews are really the only minority who are still overly protected. Count the number of times you hear kike versus nigger on cable television. Really, there are plenty of entertaining racial Jew jokes but the media will fucking crucify you for them. The only reason Borat got away with it was because Cohen is Jewish, and even then the Jews and the media got antsy.

Originally Posted by sponge

The Jews are really the only minority who are still overly protected. Count the number of times you hear kike versus nigger on cable television. Really, there are plenty of entertaining racial Jew jokes but the media will fucking crucify you for them.

Then again, kikes don't call themselves kikes.

The only reason Borat got away with it was because Cohen is Jewish, and even then the Jews and the media got antsy.

"Got away with it" from whom, exactly?

It has nothing to do with the fact he's Jewish. You honestly think people were like "Hey, that guy tricked us!!! Oh wait, he's Jewish? Then it's all good."


As for the points about free speech, I am in general agreement with you. However, let me add that the bishop in question was not only accused of Antisemitism because of these sorts of academic opinions. His former students also reported that he casually made extremely antisemitic statements to them, and he also was involved in other movements and projects that were overtly antisemitic:

"He said it was a pack of lies, that we shouldn't fall victim to a type of public sympathy toward the Jews," he said. "He would also tease in regard to my sizable nose, 'Gee, Rizzo, are you a Jew? I want to see a baptismal certificate,' things like that he would say. [There was] this other seminarian by the name of Dan Oppenheimer, and he would say to him, 'Oppenheimer, I don't like your name, there is a gas chamber waiting for you down at the lake,' horrible things like that, he would say."

...

Williamson champions The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an anti-Semitic forged document from the late 1800s that blames Jews for the problems in Russia at the time. He has called Jews the enemies of Christ and says that they, together with Freemasons, have contributed to the corruption of the Catholic Church.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=101139679

In addition, the radically conservative and schismatic (from the Vatican) Society of St. Pius X, which he is a part of, is virulently antisemitic: it is against the strong movement of the Vatican towards dialogue with Jewish leaders as well as still blaming them for the death of Jesus and accusing them of using human blood in their rituals (the so-called "blood libel"), among other things.

I am not sure if the media is being completely fair to the Vatican, but they are correct in accusing Williamson of Antisemitism.


EDIT: Let me just add that he thinks 200,000 to 300,000 Jews were killed, rather than 6 million.

If you still have any doubt that Williamson is at least crazy if not an antisemite, then listen to this speech of his, in which he claims in a sermon that he maintains it was indeed a government conspiracy that the caused 9/11 and, among other things, that a guided missile was responsible for the damage to the Pentagon (note that this was uploaded by a self-proclaimed supporter of Williamson):

Personally, I believe strongly in freedom of speech, so I am against the laws by which Irving has been imprisoned in the past; but by the same token, others have the right to call him a holocaust denier. That's just the way the cookie crumbles.
However, regarding whether Williamson and Irving are "holocaust deniers", I would say that you are correct in that Williamson has questioned the number killed and method of execution of the Jewish people, and not the genocide itself; Irving, though, is a very different story. He has definitely point blank denied the Holocaust before, although he equivocates and changes his opinion so often that it's not always clear what he believes or is claiming at any one time. I'm confident that Irving has stated at different times that Hitler didn't know about the final solution, that Allied bombing of Dresden was an equivalent war crime to the holocaust, that Winston Churchill was a coward and a drunkard who directly caused a war with our natural ally, Germany, that the Madagascar Plan means that The Final Solution was not condoned by Hitler, that Hitler was a friend to the Jewish people, that the numbers, method of execution etc. of the Jewish people are unproven, and that the Holocaust never happened. You can debate all day whether Irving is a holocaust denier or not, I'm sure that his equivocation, ambiguity, and euphemisms make it easier to defend him that it has been for him to defend Hitler; nevertheless, it is fairly clear that Irving leans far right politically, that he has a tendency to deliver blinkered history in his defence of Nazism, Fascism, and his own ideologies, and that he uses the mantles of free speech, truth seeking and revisionism ignobly as a smokescreen defence for his own ardent totalitarian apologetics. I'm not very sorry that he's labeled anything, quite frankly.

EDIT: And sycld just took the rug out from under Williamson's feet and then some...
Not that there's much to say in the defence of a BISHOP who thinks he knows better concerning the holocaust than mainstream history without evidence

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

Well to be fair the jews did kill Jesus

oh right i forgot about that

filthy jews

Originally Posted by <JANE>

Yeah its just the Jews for sure, those Muslims are really easy going about stuff like that.

That's beside the point. Talking poorly of Muslims is practically applauded as patriotic in parts of the US due to the religion of the 9/11 hijackers. Muslims are today what the Jews were before 1950: the easy target to blame all of the west's problems on. They control most of the oil, they have a wealthy upper class that pisses on the lower classes, and they blame it on the west and bomb the shit out of us accordingly. The same scapegoatism resulted in the holocaust, there just hasn't been a crazy enough person in power to do a mass purge.

In terms of Muslims being protected better than Jews, what was the reaction to the Muhammad cartoons? The Muslims raised hell, the Western media defended it as free speech. Had the cartoon been about some man with a big nose running around with bags of cash it would have been put down as hate speech.

Honestly I see very little wrong with denying the Holocaust. Surely it was real; I have no reason to believe otherwise. If there are any riots incited by these men's remarks the rioters are responsible for their actions. Claiming otherwise is insulting to mankind.

Originally Posted by coqauvin

Well, this is because an obviously jewish caricature that plays off racial stereotypes is, well, racist.

The furor about Mohammed being drawn is that there is a blanket ban on any image or portrayal of Mohommed. There is no drawing of Mohammed in any mosque, and you will not see one made. There was a movie made called 'the return' or something like that that was about Islam and it's rise, and Mohammed was never on screen, and there was no vocal characterisation of his voice.

The idea behind that is that Mohammed is sacred, and you render respect to him for that. Any representation of him could never achieve the true meaning of who he was, and so is profane. Profane, mostly because people will begin associating their own imagery and beliefs of Mohammed to the idol or image rather than the concept of Mohammed, and this goes against Islamic law.

Personally, I'm with the Muslims on this one. It's in poor taste to stoop to profaning the sacred to make a weak comedic statement.

Mohammed was arab, so wouldn't posing him with bombs and a turban be considered racist too?

Regardless it's a difficult comparison to make given that the only really figure in Judaism is God (plus the handful of prophets) and no one has any idea what God looks like, Mohammed was at least a real person.

Originally Posted by coquavin

The furor about Mohammed being drawn is that there is a blanket ban on any image or portrayal of Mohommed. There is no drawing of Mohammed in any mosque, and you will not see one made. There was a movie made called 'the return' or something like that that was about Islam and it's rise, and Mohammed was never on screen, and there was no vocal characterisation of his voice.

The idea behind that is that Mohammed is sacred, and you render respect to him for that. Any representation of him could never achieve the true meaning of who he was, and so is profane. Profane, mostly because people will begin associating their own imagery and beliefs of Mohammed to the idol or image rather than the concept of Mohammed, and this goes against Islamic law.

Personally, I'm with the Muslims on this one. It's in poor taste to stoop to profaning the sacred to make a weak comedic statement.

Part of the furor over the cartoons was simply the fact that they depicted Mohammed in any way, shape, or form, but part of it was also the particular way they depicted him. Mohammed has been depicted in art in many places before; those Danish cartoons weren't the first time anyone had ever depicted him. Yet no previous depiction of Mohammed stirred up such controversy. I think it's clear that the furor would have been much less intense if the depictions hadn't been perceived as being so negative. It wasn't just the act of depicting Mohammed, it was the perception of ridicule and mockery.

I'm "with the Muslims on this one" insofar as I understand why they're upset, but that's about it. Of course they have the right to demand that artists refrain from creating offensive works, but they don't have the right to have those demands enforced in any way; their demands must remain nothing more than an expression of their wishes, to be ignored or respected at the discretion of artists.

As for this Holocaust-denial thing, I pretty much agree with what Think said. I'm 100% opposed to any laws against Holocaust denial or any other form of speech, no matter how odious. No-one should ever go to jail for saying something offensive or unpopular. I think it's really reprehensible that some European countries have laws on the books that make it a criminal act to voice certain opinions. At the same time, I think it is fair to use the term "Holocaust denial" to describe what's been said by both Irving and Williamson. It's not like these two are perfectly reasonable, non-anti-Semitic guys who just happen to think that the some of the historical particulars of the Holocaust are a bit off. They are anti-Semites, and they are apologists for Nazism and anti-Semitism, and their "questions" about the Holocaust are pretty clearly a smokescreen for those beliefs. I agree that in general, questioning the historical particulars of any event, even the Holocaust, shouldn't be off-limits and shouldn't automatically make the questioner a target of scorn. But in the case of people like Irving and Williamson, the questioning isn't rooted in an honest desire to set the historical record straight, it's rooted in anti-Semitism. They are trying to use an interest in historical accuracy to legitimize and cover for their atrocious beliefs. So no, they don't deserve to be taken seriously, they don't really deserve the benefit of the doubt, and I think it's okay to denounce their beliefs right off the bat.

Originally Posted by benzss

Wasn't the lolocaust when several LWS members were banned for invading mjcneat's forum

I thought it was the fubardead incident.