This is not about whether or not ‘The Holocaust’ narrative defined as ‘legal fact’ is historical fact or not.
This is about whether it is in the public interest, and even in the interests of that narrow special interest group ‘Holocaust Denial’ laws claim to be protecting, to continue with the current ‘Holocaust Denial’ and ‘Hate Speech’ laws.
The self-defined ‘identity’ ‘Jew’ means no more or less to me than any other inherited ‘identification’. I consider it as artificial, arbitrary, and unfortunate, as any other ‘exclusive’ identity. As I consider the Cult of Judah as unfortunate as any other Cult. I consider Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Marxism, ‘Global Climate crisis’, and many other cults all to be subsidiaries of the Cult of Judah which Herod the Great, then Jesus, attempted to free the ‘Jews’ FROM enslavement TO.
I love and admire, per capita, more self defined members of this artificially constructed social identity / community, known generally as ‘Jews’, than any other such social construct. Clearly any charges of anti-Semitism mean zero to me. I actively seek the participating of ‘Jews’ in my project to liberate them. In the tradition of King Herod the Great, and Jesus, FROM their Cult bondage. As I seek to liberate members of ALL and EVERY cult, from THEIR bondage to THEIR particular Cult.
I am taking huge personal risks publishing this. And I have nothing personal to gain from writing this. So anyone who does not respect this and actually read what is written here, and report on the actual argument presented, is a scumbag that it would be a waste of time attempting to reason with, and seriously has NO right to complain when THEY become the victim of ANY injustice. For as you do unto others so shall be done unto you (Obadiah).
So do your very best to actually attend to the arguments presented here. They are likely to be misrepresented by any third party opposed to freedom of speech when it comes to the legal, official 'Holocaust' narrative.
Firstly, this document is NOT about 'denying' this official, legal narrative. This document accepts, that, just as financial corporations are defined, under law, as 'Persons', so, 'The Holoaust' narrative we have all had imposed on us is LEGAL fact. This document is not about attempting to challenge this legal ruling.
If you believe legal courts are the appropriate place to carry out historical investigation, to arrive at definitive conclusions concerning scientific matters, and to define reality, then I guess you have little time for 'scientific' investigation, or 'compelling argument'. You are happy to accept the dogmatic rulings handed down by judges in legal proceedings. And enforced by all the violence at the disposal of the state.
This is exactly what occured during the many 'Inquisitions' held by the various Cults which ruled the various civilisations throughout history. Arbitrary dogmas (beliefs that had no scientific basis) were forced upon the people by 'legal' decrees, and enforced by state violence. Often death penalties for merely 'denying' some article of faith, or some religious dogma, or some secular dogma. Often carried out by the family members of the 'denier'. The 'heretic'. The 'apostate'. The 'infidel'.
There is no way you can claim that we today have ever had a free, fair, open and free debate concering 'The Holocaust'. Or that a free and fair debate concering the official, legal narrative of 'The Holocaust', is even possible.
Consider a 'debate' situation, or a scientific enquiry, where you can have your opponent socially, economically, professionally, and finanicially destroyed for challenging you? Even imprisoned for offering an argument, a fact, scientific evidence, that actually demonstrates your argument to be, based on the observable and provable and demonstrable facts, literally an impossibility, ceteris paribus (all things being equal).
Clearly there can be NO debate under such conditions. This situation would never be described as a 'free, fair, and open debate'.
So to claim that 'the debate was won' and 'the matter settled', during the Nuremberg proceedings, or by some later court in Germany or Australia, would be naive and ignorant at best. Most likely disingenous on the part of the more intelligent person. While the average person has probably not given the matter that much consideration, and has simply 'accepted' that 'the matter has been 'proven beyond any reasonable doubt'.
However the conditions under which something could be 'proven beyond any reasonable doubt' clearly do NOT exist in a show trial. That is what Stalin openly described the Nuremberg proceedings as. Proceedings where 'confessions' were gained via torture, and threats of starving family members to death, if the powerless victim did not 'confess' to whatever crimes they were accused of. Facts. I am no 'denying' that confessions were signed. I am clarifying that they were signed as the alternative was torture, and the death of family members. They were not signed because the statements reflected any reality. There is not one person reading this who would not have signed a confession relating to ANYTHING at all, if the alternative was continued torture, and the painful deaths of their loved ones.
I do not 'deny' the verdict of the Nuremberg trials. Like I do not 'deny' that, legally speaking, a financial corporation is a 'person', in Australia and Germany. I do not 'deny' 'The Holocaust'. The legal and official narrative concerning the experience of a particular group under National Socialism. It is what it is. A legal document. Just as a financial corporation is, legally, a person. I am aware of these 'facts'. I am not insane. I do not see a legal document stating that 'in Australia or Germany a financial corporation is legally a person' and claim otherwise. Under the law, legally, a financial corporation can be a person. And if the law states categorically and dogmatically that 1+1=2 then I would not be so insane as to go about publically claiming that the law does NOT state this. For what the law states, is the law.
Jesus never ‘denied’ that ‘the law’ of the Pharisees was ‘The Law’. Of course Jesus was given and fair trial, by the Pharisees, right? Under their law, he was. And given a fair sentence. Under their laws.
Perhaps it is ironic that under later laws, in different lands, people were burned alive, after being cruelly tortured, until they ‘confessed’ to being in league with the devil, after ‘denying’ the ‘trinity’. Or ‘denying’ that Jesus was born to a virgin, performed miracles, was killed, then arose from death, to ascend to heaven. Or ‘denying’ that ‘There is only one god, and Mohammed is his prophet’. Or for denying that ‘Scientific Socialism’ was a ‘fact’. Or that Stalin was a loving servant of the people. Or for ‘denying’ ‘The Holocaust’.
How often in human history has the 'legal fact' contradicted the 'scientific fact'? And which one is it sane to proclaim in public, to avoid being tortured to death? And which one is it sane to base you engineering calculations on, when building your home, or a bridge, or a car? It is clearly sane to publically keep any doubts or skepticism, that 1+1=3, to yourself, and never publically voicing any doubts, let alone arguing against this ‘legal fact’.
No 'sane' person would publically challenge any legally binding dogma where the punishment for doing so is extreme. Solzhenitsyn made the observation that the average Russian, during the Soviet reign of terror, were not even willing to risk losing their job. It was rarely necessary to threaten anything worse than that.
Tell me what YOU would be willing to risk, if YOU stumbled upon some corruption, or became absolutely convinced that something the public were being told by their own government was in fact a lie? , Would you risk ANYTHING to 'blow the whistle'?
You'd have to be highly motivated, right? And of course those you 'blew the whistle on' would claim your motives were evil, destructive, selfish, and even insane. Would you expect anything less? They would demonise you as much as they could. Attempt to undermine your credibility as a 'witness' and 'whistle-blower'. Right? Attempt to destroy any respect you had earned, challenging your integrity, and by 'destroying the credibility and status of the messenger', thus 'destroy the believability and status of the message itself'. Right?
The same is clear in a show trial where the verdict has already been agreed upon before the proceedings began. Before any real investigation is even attempted. And is going to be imposed, no matter what facts, arguments, and findings, the defence offer.
If YOU, the Australian and German Government, and all the various 'special interest groups' involved, seriously believe you are RIGHT, and are motivated by a desire for justice and truth, then you certainly would WELCOME a free and open debate, simply to give yourselves the opportunity to clarify, and enlighten those people who do NOT find your 'legally binding official narrative' compelling. Surely if the facts ARE compelling, you would welcome each and every opportunity to present them.
In other words, people who are confident they are in the right, welcome the chance to debate their subject in free and open debates. For this offers them the chance to convince others, based on compelling arguments.
I certainly welcome free and fair debate on any subject I have published anything on. As a chance to hold my own ideas up to scrutiny, and find any flaws in them. To offer alternative perspectives. To offer any factual evidence or compelling arguments I may not have been aware of, or have considered. To flag assumptions I have made, without realising it. To have assumptions I have knowingly made, challenged.
One problem with punishing people for publically voicing skepticism or doubt, is that they will self-censor, and you will never know what they REALLY believe, and are basing their decisions on.
If you want to avoid people committing hate crimes, based on irrational and unfounded fears and malice, censoring them publically will only lead to them keeping their irrational beliefs private. You won’t have a chance to change them through public discussion. They will act one way in public, then commit their crimes the moment they have the opportunity to do so. Because their motives still exist.
When a special interest group have David Icke refused a visa to enter Australia, to speak openly and freely about what he believes, and to present the REASONS WHY he believes these things, they are NOT exercising their power responsibly, and certainly NOT in the interests of the people they claim to represent. They merely publically display their own intolerance, by persecuting someone whose views they disagree with, and their own excessive power. For the only people I’ve heard of having visas refused were ‘Historical Revisionists’ and ‘Holocaust Deniers’. I’ve yet to hear of any convicted criminal, murderous dictator, or actual terrorist, having had a visa application refused.
Would the Australian authorities refuse a visa for the visit of a Rabbi who openly calls for the genocide of all Germans, Italians, and even Americans? How would I even find out if that Rabbi had made a visa application? How did the special interest group that had David Icke refused a visa, manage this feat? Can the average Australian have someone denied a visa, by claiming someone is a ‘Holocaust denier’ and ‘publically outspoken against forced multiple vaccinations of infants’?
Irony. I just started Steve Miller Band’s ‘Jet Airliner’, as I write this.
Clearly, if I ever return to Australia or Germany I will NOT challenge the ‘legal fact’ and ‘legal official narrative called ‘The Holocaust’. Because it IS a legal fact. Just like the fact that a Corporation is legally a PERSON.
Of course as a philosopher, in a private discussion, I might challenge the notion that a corporation is a person. And thus deserving of ‘human rights’. But in public, I’d be insane to. Why would I risk losing everything, including long prison sentences, simply to challenge something obviously a ‘legal fiction’. But what if some ‘corporation’ claimed the right, as a ‘person’ to one of my Kidneys? At what point does the ‘legal fiction’ REMAIN harmless?
When there are NO costs associated with publically going along with a legal fiction, few people are going to risk paying a huge cost simply to challenge what is obviously a fiction.
But what if they learned that there were really HUGE costs attached to that public conformity with that ‘legal fiction’? What if they learned that their child’s school was being built on the assumption that ‘1+1=3’? Or their daughter’s car designers were assuming the same? Or that their financial advisors advice and decisions were being based on that same ‘legal fiction’. That same ‘legal fact’?
I don’t know if the books I’ve written and published in Estonia, where they were NOT considered ‘criminal’, legally make me a criminal in Australia and Germany, simply as I am an Australian and German citizen. It is quite possible. But I consider THIS a PRIVATE conversation, and in this private conversation I am alluding to books and videos I’ve already published, while an Estonian resident, living under Estonian laws, where 1+1=2, and you are legally allowed to publically state that. So if you want to find out what I’ve found out, concerning the official legal fact and narrative called ‘The Holocaust’, you can do so. But I will not publically refer to those publications. As I am sane. And I realise that doing so could bring no benefit to anyone, and would cost he a HUGE deal of suffering, misery, and pain, and make my life itself not worth enduring.
A fate worse than death awaits the ‘Holocaust denier’. Just like in all the previous ‘Inquisitions’ during human history. Where stating the obvious, or challenging some ‘legal fact’ that was held dogmatically as an article of faith, was punished by fates worse than death. Deterrents to free, open, and fair debate, in the extreme.
Why the need for such horrific and drastic methods of censorship? Because it could NOT be scientifically proven (God has every super power other than the power of speech), or because it had in fact been demonstrated to be laughably impossible, and so any real discussion, any real ‘scientific’ or ‘philosophical’ enquiry, could NEVER be allowed to take place. No free and open and fair debate could be tolerated. Because the articles of faith were so fragile, so vulnerable to being disproven and rejected, that no Priest in their right mind would dare ALLOW ANY free, open, and fair, public debate on the subject. The ONLY way to maintain such a lie was by threatening and handing out fates worse than death, to anyone who dared to publically voice the slightest skepticism or doubt, let alone openly challenge and ‘deny’ the ‘article of faith’ in question. And in doing so, ‘deny’ the authority of the Priests and other nobles whose authority and power rested almost entirely UPON those articles of faith. Upon that dogma. For if your authority rested in some invisible god with no voice, or interest in communicating, then doubts about the very existence of that ‘god’, let alone on what it ‘commanded’, would raise doubts about the validity and legitimacy of that power base, and that power itself. In other words the transferred authority of the Priest and Kings, was only going to be considered legitimate, and accepted, as long as the dogma concerning the existence of that god itself was accepted.
Now ask yourself why a certain special interest group managed to get such ‘legal protection’ of its own ‘official narrative’. To have it declared ‘legal fact’. To have anyone who dares challenge any part of it defined as criminal, and punished more severely than a rapist or armed bank robber. Do you have your career ruined, be bankrupted, and put in prison for years for questioning any facts surrounding the Armenian genocide? Or the genocide of Australian Aboriginals in Tasmania? Or American indigenous Indians in North, Central, or South America? Or whether Mary was a virgin? Or whether Jesus was killed, came back to life, and ascended to heaven? Or whether Allah is the only god, and Mohamed is his prophet?