Hehe... try searching JW's on MySpace... hours of fun;
http://www.myspace.com/zantimisfit
This chick lists seducing JW's as an interest. Why'd I never meet HER door-to-door?
Abaddon
JoinedPosts by Abaddon
-
21
The evil apostates are at it again!
by sinis inhttp://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=messageboard.viewthread&entryid=12847623&groupid=100447990&adtopicid=27&mytoken=12c38c25-9e72-a8cb-56b5bfe4c5162bce37515265
funny, there whole reason for living is being affected by the 'postates.
they really need to get a life!
-
-
-
18
THE WORLD PUT ON NOTICE! BE AWAKE! BE READY! EDITED ADDITION
by leastone inthankyou all.... it needed to be eddited badly and god used you folks to help that to happen.
if you wish to see what you helped happen check out the results at..... http://216.6.192.131/tribpub.nb.ca/tribune/pdf/ct0215c07.pdf [http://tribpub.nb.ca][ page c 7]
-
-
Abaddon
Block caps and no paragraphs.
It's St. John the Divine all over again.
Mushrooms BAD!
-
23
Ever Hear of the Kolbrin Bible?
by skyman innever heard of it until today.
this is very interesting in its pages to talks about the great flood in which many people survived.
also talks about how the great plagues of egypt were caused not by god but was caused by a comet or heavenly body called the destroyer that is seen from earth as a red heavenly body.
-
-
Abaddon
skyman
You jumped to a conclusion because your brain is stuck in negativity land putting down a person you don't even know.
Íf you don't like having data you present criticised or ridiculed, here's an idea. Use better data. As for knowing you. I've read enough of your posts to know that this post was fairly representative of the way you look at things.
I do not believe for a second that the earth is going to end in 2012.
No? Good. However, you do immediately start drawing comparisons as though you think the information is credible;
The Kolbrin Bible gives the time of the destroys return and guess what it due to reapear in 2012.
Remember the mayans say a Red comet is coming in Dec. 2012 that signifies the end of this great age of man.
If you don't want people to think you are credulous and blindly accepting of whatever you turn up (this is what it sounds like), present the data in a different fashion that doesn't make it look like you're leaping to conclusions.
It has not ended yet because of some Asteroid the collection of books that compile the Kolbrin says this asteroid comes around every 3800 years and if the book is correct the Earth sure looks fine to me, so if it is right we have nothing to sorry about.
Why would it be right? Why do you make this assumption? Can you see how even when rebutting you phrase things in a way which makes it look like you give them credence?
As regards a reading of the Kolbrin Bible I will read it. I think it is interesting how closely the Kolbrin Bible mimics the Mayan, how could you not be curious?
Unless it has a provenance, i.e. is a really old book and not something made up in the past ciouple of centuries, why should I be interested in it. If it is only a few hundred years old, then it is a fake.
You'd get as much insight into the past from reading it as you'd get into Hiler by reading Hiler's fake diaries.
How with an ocean apart could two worlds be so close with their legends and future prophecies?
Because it is a fake? Occams razor!
Also of interest is the different account of the legend of the flood.
Why is a fake Flood legend of any interest?
If you have ever looked at my previous posts you would know that I do not believe the flood ever happened, only a damn fool could believe that.
Maybe it's the way you communicate, and I need to learn your credulity is not actual, only apparent, and that you just like talking about this shit. I have a very dear friend who goes that whacky wobbily step further...
Recently their has been proof found in Egypt that shows the Exodus is true.
Now that I WOULD be interested to see! As far as I am aware there is as much physical evidence for a 40 year wander in the Wilderness as there is for Line Dancing lessons on the moon.
What I want to read is what the Kolbrin Bible has to say about what caused the plagues because the Kolbrin it says the comet caused the plagues not GOD.
Yes, but if it is a fake...? And please explain your theories of how a comet would duplicate the Plauges. And why do you believe the plauges are true?
-
23
Ever Hear of the Kolbrin Bible?
by skyman innever heard of it until today.
this is very interesting in its pages to talks about the great flood in which many people survived.
also talks about how the great plagues of egypt were caused not by god but was caused by a comet or heavenly body called the destroyer that is seen from earth as a red heavenly body.
-
-
Abaddon
Oh sweet baby Jesus nailed to a cross...!
Astronomy is a science. Show me astronomical evidence for a red comet that's going to destroy the Earth 1n 2012.
If you can't, I can occupy the rest of your entire life showing you books which give dates for the world ending that failed to come true.
IF SUCH 'PROPHECIES' WERE UNTRUE IN THE PAST WHAT IS THE CHANCE OF SIMILAR PROPHECIES BEING TRUE IN THE FUTURE?
Bugger all, that's what.
skyman, 'open minded' ceases to be useful when the top of your head falls off. Come back with some real evidence.
-
45
Holacaust Denier Gets 3 Years In Prison In Austria!
by minimus incan you believe that "historians" are trying to deny that such an event ever occured??
this guy was getting 300 letters a week because of his anti-jewish stand.
makes me sick!
-
-
Abaddon
If Hitler didn't understand International relations, it's funny how he played the brinkmanship game so well he pulled the same routine three times before War was declared, took full advantage of US reluctance to be involved, created yet more treaties of convenience to buy himself time on the Western front, which he than broke (effectively pulling the same trick four times - Austria, Czechoslovakia, Danzig, Eastern Poland), and created links with his only potential allies in Japan.
As for him not knowing about the Holocaust, the fact is BEFORE the war he said if Jews caused war again (the propoganda was they'd started WWI) he would wipe them out. I can find the quote; it's quite unambiguous and was repeated on other occasions.
It is also very true to say that if Hitler had allowed MORE free reign to his General and not been such a control freak, Germany may have won the war before the US got involved, of have fared far better after the US did get involved.
-
45
Holacaust Denier Gets 3 Years In Prison In Austria!
by minimus incan you believe that "historians" are trying to deny that such an event ever occured??
this guy was getting 300 letters a week because of his anti-jewish stand.
makes me sick!
-
-
Abaddon
jstalin
This ignores the responsibility of the acting agent.
No it doesn't. No where do I address the punishment for acting on such propoganda as such punishments are not being dusputed here. What is being disputed is whether punishment for propoganda designed to lead others to violence is appropriate..
I can say all day that I hate Jews or blacks or white folks from Michigan, but I'm not killing them. If some wanker decides he likes what I say and decides to kill someone, the killer is responsible for the murder. Placing blame on what someone says and not on the actual murderer's act is the same logic that the Nazis themseleves used.
The murderer and the one inciting to murder both have responsibilities.
"Hitler ordered me to do it! It wasn't my fault! I was only following orders!" No, it doesn't work that way. We all have ultimate responsibility for our actions.
Yes, I agree we all have ulitinate responsibility for our actions. The one following the orders, the one giving the orders, and the ones creating propoganda ro create an environment where such orders could be carried out.
That is why propogandists connected with the Rwandan genocide have been sent to jail, even if they never said 'hit that man' or weilded a machette themselves.
Saying something negative about a person doesn't harm that person.
Simplistic spherical objects. If nothing results from saying something negative about a person then they are unharnmed by such speech. You also miss out an important factor. This isn't "Monty Lovering is a bad boy". This is, ultimately "Jews are stinking evil scum who deserve what they get as they're trying to take over the world".
This isn't some personal assault based on something someone may or may have not done. This is race-based hate speech direcetd against millions of innocent people not even known to the author of that speech, based on fantasy, speech that not only CAN lead to violence against Jews, BUT DOES LEAD TO VIOLENCE AGAINST JEWS.
Basic human rights don't include the right not to be offended.
This is not about offence.
Draw silly pictures of Allah, Jesus and Abraham in a circle jerk for all I care. No Westerner has killed a Muslim because some Dane drew a picture of the prop[het Mo' with a fuse coming out of his turban.
This is about how some forms of speech lead to violence or injustice against others.
Whereas there are those whom Irving has given lectures to, there are those who consume his writings, there are those who are members of groups he has contacts with... they have acted violently based upon the lies in his lectures and writings.
Once we squelch speech, we only make it more attractive to engage in. I never considered burning a flag, but if it was illegal here, I would promptly burn one, just because it is a violation of my natural rights to restrict my speech where no one is harmed by it.
Again, you seem to be mixing up acts which harm no one (flag burning) and acts which can reasonably lead to violence (inciting racial hate). Chalk and cheese old chap. There's a direct link between Irving and violent neo-Nazi's, what else do you want?
And STILL not a single word from anyone about how the alternative (letting scum like Irving spread their propoganda) unavoidably infringes the freedoms of the group targetted by such propoganda.
Why is everyone so concerned about the freedom of speech of people like Irving and are not even willing to answer questions regarding the rights of groups whose freedoms are infringed by such speech?
Pleasuredome
I love the fact he was hoist by his own petard. Again - the UK court case in which he was so severelty criticised by the court was actually a libel action he bought against someone who called him a holocaust revisionist, LOL.
He's a nasty, racist old man whose hate has financially ruined him and turned him into a pariah amongst all but those who hang upon his words. He was banned from entering Austria, he broke the ban in additon to breaking the law back then. I don't know if it was hubris or a misguided attempt to bolster sales of his books by getting publicity. As I mentioned earlier, entering court he was making damn sure people got a good pack shot of Hitler's War. This book in itself is a good indication of his true atttitudes. Later editions of the book have had all mention of the Holocaust and Death Camps removed. And he denies he's a revisionist! LOL.
-
45
Holacaust Denier Gets 3 Years In Prison In Austria!
by minimus incan you believe that "historians" are trying to deny that such an event ever occured??
this guy was getting 300 letters a week because of his anti-jewish stand.
makes me sick!
-
-
Abaddon
slimboyfat
His speech IS incitement to harm others NOW. He is essentially a propoganda officer for violent neo-nazis. The entire philosophy his revisonism supports ends in violence. There is no 'Shiny Happy National Socialism' movement; Irving is directly associated with people who support the use of terror in Germany to destabilize the given social and political system to pave the way to a new NS revolution.
There are similar links between Irving and violent neo-Nazis as there are between the mad Muslim Priest with a hook (jailed in the UK last week) and violent Jihadies.
Don't fall for the neo-nazis pleas for freedom of speech; the speech they seek to defend is not protected as free speech as it is as important a part of the call to violence as "Kick the Yids in!". Don't be fooled that this is about 'closing history books'; the revisonists paint it as such, but scholarly research is not curtailled by this, nor is discussion. What is prevented is LYING.
What is restricted, in the two countries where Hitler and Naziism spawned, is denying the past as to do so attracts the disaffected ignoramouses of the present. There are still groups that would overthrow the German goverment by any means possible and restore a 'Greater Germany' where Hitler was a secular saint and non-Aryans were 'cleansed'. Do some research.
And do remember, they might whine about their infringed rights, but people with such politics would only give you the right to kiss the sole of their boot as they stamp on your face.
-
35
Mormons: Bedrock of a Faith Is Jolted
by AMNESIAN incompare: "1914" and "no-blood" bedrock doctrines of the wbts:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-mormon16feb16,0,5561316.story?coll=la-home-headlines
from the time he was a child in peru, the mormon church instilled in jose a. loayza the conviction that he and millions of other native americans were descended from a lost tribe of israel that reached the new world more than 2,000 years ago.. .
-
-
Abaddon
Ocmbr
I give you the straight dope and don't treat you like a simpleton or a child. You might prefer molley-coddling but I see no good in it. If I 'tweak you nose' through caustic humour, realise I'd do this to your face, and I often do it to try and get you to stop using the thought stopping techniques you unconciously resort to when your beliefs are challenged. I'm also not going to lie about what I think about some beliefs; I did enough of that as a Dubbie.
I've made it clear I don't think that this is about brains, indeed tried to make it clear belief is largely about HOW you have been trained to think - or trained NOT to think. At the end of the day if I didn't care I wouldn't do it. It's not about what I get out of this, it's about what I hope you might get out of changing the way you analyse facts, as currently your programming only allows you to come up with the answers you're 'meant to', rather than a genuine examination of the availabe facts.
At the end of the day I guess our already decided upon worldview will inform what evidence we accept or reject and what particular spin we put on it.
True.
But if your worldview stems from reliable rules about what is a fact, what is falacious, what is reliable evidence, what is a decent method of scientific enquiry ... if ones worldview is based on things like that, then there is an immediate link between fact and worldview. It is a worldview based on external evidences which in turn provide more detail for the worldview.
A worldview of 'if BOM says x and science says y I will believe x, or try to attack y without using the same criteria to attack x' is a self-supporting world view based on INTERNAL factors. It's got nothing to do with right or wrong in the real world.
Ask yourself, if BOM was being tried in a court of law, would it be found true, untrue or (to give the option available in Scots law) unproven?
I'm in a position of defense which automatically reinforces kinship with what is being attacked.
If you're aware of this, fight it. This is why I am so direct - I can see you are increasingly aware of HOW and WHY you react. Being aware of WHY you do things is very important as it means one has to be more honest with ourselves. Realising we are being asked to think in ways that can lead to intellectual dishonesty is an important part of disengagement from a high control group.
Having your viewpoint attacked doesn't mean you are right, yet you admit yourself being put on the defensive reinforces your beliefs! If you're smart enough to figure that out, you're nearing an important step.
-
45
Holacaust Denier Gets 3 Years In Prison In Austria!
by minimus incan you believe that "historians" are trying to deny that such an event ever occured??
this guy was getting 300 letters a week because of his anti-jewish stand.
makes me sick!
-
-
Abaddon
So, no one supporting Irving's 'freedom of speech' has any comment about;
- the unavoidable restriction of freedoms to those targetted by his speech? What about their freedom ladies and gentlemen?
- the fact that there are recognised restrictions on freedoms of speech when they can result in harm?
- why it's okay to infringe human rights to defend the West, but not to defend Jews?
sixsixsixtynine
He did not deny that Jews were killed,
No one said he did. He did say;
I don't think there was any overall Reich policy to kill the Jews. If there was, they would have been killed and there would not be now so many millions of survivors.
This is a LIE. It is not an opinion. Just as a physicist saying g=3.4 m/s/s at sea-level would be lying, and demonstrably so, so to someone making this statement is lying, and demonstrably so. If is not a protected freedom of speech, as lying about facts for gain is fraud, not freedom of speech.
Don't think I am opposed to freedom of speech; I just think those who apply it to Holocaust denial are missing the point. For example; as a student journalist he claimed the media were run by the Jews, called Hitler 'Herr Hitler', supported apartheid in South AFrica, and was quoted as describing himself as a 'mild facist'. Now, all of this is freedom of speech, valid expression of opinion, even if it makes him a scumbag.
Here's a poem he wrote for his daughter;
I am a Baby Aryan
Not Jewish or Sectarian
I have no plans to marry an
Ape or Rastafarian.That's freedom of speech. Makes him contemptable, but it's his freedom.
A quote from a speech referencing the UK's first black news anchor, Trevor McDonald;
I am not anti-coloured, take it from me; nothing pleases me more than when I arrive at an airport, or a station, or a seaport, and I see a coloured family there — the black father, the black wife and the black children.... When I see these families arriving at the airport I am happy, and when I see them leaving at London airport I am happy.
But if there is one thing that gets up my nose, I must admit, it is this — the way…the thing is when I am down in Torquay and I switch on my television and I see one of them reading our news to us. It is our news and they’re reading it to me. If I was a chauvinist I would say I object even to seeing women reading our news to us.
...But now we have women reading out news to us. If they could perhaps have their own news which they were reading to us, I suppose [laughter], it would be very interesting.
For the time being, for a transitional period I'd be prepared to accept that the BBC should have a dinner-jacketed gentleman reading the important news to us, following by a lady reading all the less important news, followed by Trevor McDonald giving us all the latest news about the muggings and the drug busts...
He is perfectly at liberty to tell people what a misogynistic racist piece of shit he is.
All of this is different from LYING, DECEPETION & FRAUD, for example;
I don't see any reason to be tasteful about Auschwitz. It's baloney, it's a legend. Once we admit the fact that it was a brutal slave labour camp and large numbers of people did die, as large numbers of innocent people died elsewhere in the war, why believe the rest of the baloney?
I say quite tastelessly, in fact, that more women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber in Auschwitz.Oh, you think that's tasteless, how about this? There are so many Auschwitz survivors going around, in fact the number increases as the years go past, which is biologically very odd to say the least. Because I'm going to form an Association of Auschwitz survivors, survivors of the Holocaust and other liars, or the ASSHOLS.
... this is lying with a deliberate end in mind; recruitment of people to his 'cause' of anti-Semetic, nazi-apologism, Holocaust denial. And the end product of those causes is VIOLENCE.
rather he disputed major parts of accepted history (i.e. gas chambers at Auschwitz,
He said there weren't any when he knew the Germans blew them up before Auschwitz was captured.
how much Hitler knew about the killings, etc.).
He redefines a word used by Hitler in speeches about dealing with the Jews from 'kill' to 'stamp-out', when that word has always meant 'kill'.
These are not matters of opinion. They are matters of fact.
Why is it okay for other professionals who lie for gain to be punished legally, but not okay to punish someone legally when (in a professional capacity) they lie about the deaths of millions of people for gain? Why won't anyone deal with this point?
He also admitted that he no longer believed many of the things he said, in the 1989 speech that he was tried for.
The guy has lied in court (in Canada) before. This is the judgement from the UK case, which leaves no doubt about his truthfullness or lack of it;
Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist, and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism
The court apparently believed he was lying again.
Even on the steps of the court he was still refusing to describe the deaths of Jews in WWII as the Holocaust, as he persists in his revisonist belief the Holocaust has been used as a money making scheme by Jews(he calls it a 'brand name'), so one can't blame the court for treating him like the lying scumbag he is.
I don't agree with his views on the subject, but I don't find it anymore offensive that the bullshit history I was taught in school.
When did you get told a lie at school comparable to "six million people didn't die, those who did died of disease rather than gassing, no one planned it, especially not Hitler, and the Jews had it coming and are still trying to control the world"? What school did you go to!
glitter
But those who accept this nonsense already must have some pretty extreme views toward the Nazis and Jews.
Incitement is incitement. The fact some people are more vulnurable to it than others is not the point.
He's not "purposely espousing lies", as he most certainly believes what he speaks and writes.
So, if a Muslim SINCERELY advocates the deaths of Christians due to his beliefs, using lies to attract an audience of likely supporteres, that's okay? And you seem to be happy to accept his good character, despite evidence he has none (based on accuracy of previous statements to courts).
I don't agree with his beliefs, but I think it's dangerous to "close the history books", and not let anyone have a differing opinion from the "accepted" version of events
Unfortunately if you believe this is about differing opinions you have fallen for the story Nazi revisonists use to justify their denial of fact. There is, nor has there been, nor will there be any limit of scholarly research into WWII and the Holocaust. The Holocaust revisonists make it out that this is what it is about. It isn't.
What this is about is stopping people lying about established fact so as to deceieve others and get them involved in anti-Semetism.
minimus
It is irresponsible to be a "historian" purposely espousing lies that do have an effect upon young and older minds like neo-nazis. Adding fuel to their fire is wrong.
Yup.
MungoBaobab
Maybe we should just round up all the holocaust deniers into some kind of camp so we can concentrate them all in one area. That wouldn't be the least bit hypocrital.
Why not answer the points I made and show me what he does is a justified use of freedom of speech? I know sarcasm is easy, how about a little structured debate?
-
45
Holacaust Denier Gets 3 Years In Prison In Austria!
by minimus incan you believe that "historians" are trying to deny that such an event ever occured??
this guy was getting 300 letters a week because of his anti-jewish stand.
makes me sick!
-
-
Abaddon
I would disagree with the assesment that this is free speech.
Point one;
This is expensive speech. And as with any hate speech - whether directed at 'the West', 'America', 'Blacks', whilst you might argue those saying it have a freedom to say it, what of those who PAY for that freedom?
Are we going to defend one person's freedom of speech if it means their speech will unavoidably restrict the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of those targetted by that 'freedom' of speech? What about the victim?
Point two;
It is agreed that shouting 'Fire!" in a crowded theatre is not an exercise of free speech. As the lies and apologisms of Holocaust deniers and Nazi apologists are quoted the next day on websites representing active violent anti-Semetic gangs, some of whom enage in terrorist activity as well as other race-motivated attacks, there is as direct a link to harm as shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre. Based on imparted data others act in a way liable to lead to the injury of third parties.
Many happily accept that some human rights must be infringed to protect the West against terror. The 'intellectual' fire-brands forming the philosophy and agendas of violent Islamist gangs are identical to Irving in their importance to violent Islamic groups. Many would gladly see the incitement and agitation caused by such people nutralised by imprisonment. The fact that such action would infringe freedom of speech is considered acceptable in view of the risk such people represent.
If such infringement of freedom of speech is okay to defend the West, why not to defend Jews?
Personally, I feel such things as Guantanamo Bay represent things going too far... but some people there are as 'innocent', if not more so, than Irving - and much of the world feels their human rights are not being respected. If you support such actions in the name of the 'War on Terror', you can't be consistent in your attitudes if you maintain Irving's in jail unjustly.
Point four;
Just as with any group using 'toxic thinking', once you've accepted the first few 'facts' (the West hate Muslims, the Jews control the world (if you're a Muslim fundy), there wasn't a Holocaust and they had it coming as they were taking the world over and they're doing it again (if you're a neo-Nazi)), you are ultimately lead to a conclusion which supports violent action against the target group of the hate speech. These are sets of beliefs that can cannot support themselves independently. They are packages of beliefs that act as a call to violence. Those like Irving, or the mad Muslism Priest with a hook that got chucked in jail in the UK last week, they sell the package. They're the heart of the tumour. You can't ignore them.
Point five;
It is not credible to believe the nazi-apologists attempting to present themselves as credible professionals don't know the effect their words have - those Muslims who incite violence know the desired outcome of their actions. The only real difference is the Nazi's spin their message more, make it more palitable. Fity years more experience at PR.The violent Muslims don't spin, LOL. But, when you get down to it, ff the government protects the stupid by putting warnings on cigatettes, why can't they protect the stupid by putting those that would mislead them to harmful ends in jail?
For me, if someone acting in a professional capacity by their words or actions causes harm or is liable to cause harm (politician, doctor, plumber), they are legally responsible. If a accountant would go to jail for lying to people about the past so as to get them as a client, why can't a person presenting themsleves as a professional go to jail for lying to people about the past so as to attract their allegence?
Point six (important);
We are all on the 'same side' here, this is just a discusssion.