Germany "Convicts" Bishop Williamson
#11
(04-16-2010, 02:11 PM)JayneK Wrote: Does anyone have any ideas on how to organize a boycott of Germany?  One of my first reactions to the subject line was "Well I'm never going there." I think a  lot of people would see this as an attack against freedom of speech and that is the angle to play up.  How's this for a slogan:

In Germany it's illegal to say what you think.  If you think, don't go there.

I agree.  One should basically be able to legally say whatever one wants and it's a travesty to fine someone for saying something historically inaccurate.

Jesse

Reply
#12
Quote: I am not proud of him for his imprudence.

Imprudence is a great word for it.  He truly believes only 300,000 were murdered in the camps, none for gas.  He is entitled to his opinion.

However he also knows that the enemies of the Church are looking for any excuse to go after Tradition.  As of now, Tradition is puny.  We aren't ready for the chastisement or any kind of secular attack.  Also, it is vital that the SSPX become regularized in a system that protects Tradition.  If the SSPX stays outside of Papal Authority, it will eventually fail.  He knows better than to say these things to the secular media.

On the holocaust, I also disagree with him.  The Germans and other nationals killed around 1 million Jews/Commies with their mobile units.  They didn't just stop after they started mass exportations to the slave labor camps.  The Nazis were the real-deal racists who thought of Jews as sub-human.

Now the official story is bogus, as is already quietly admitted.  Used to be 6 million dead, 4 million killed at Auswitz.  Now it is 800,000 killed at Auswitz from all causes, including typhus outbreaks.  So the official number "should" be 2.8 million.  But it is also probable that the number of dead at the other camps (1 mm) were also exaggerated by Soviet propaganda as was Auswitz.  So that means another 200K at other camps.  The real number is probably on the order of 2.2 million.  Still genocide and a horrible crime.  But for me believing the number is around 2.2 million, I am now the worst sort of anti-semite neo-nazi according to TPTB.  That insanity has to stop.
Reply
#13
(04-16-2010, 02:11 PM)JayneK Wrote: Does anyone have any ideas on how to organize a boycott of Germany?  One of my first reactions to the subject line was "Well I'm never going there." I think a  lot of people would see this as an attack against freedom of speech and that is the angle to play up.  How's this for a slogan:

In Germany it's illegal to say what you think.  If you think, don't go there.

Interesting thought, but I doubt a "boycott" by a few thousand people who don't do much travel to Germany in the first place wil do a hell of a lot of difference. 
Reply
#14
(04-16-2010, 02:19 PM)PeterII Wrote: I wonder what Bishop Williamson thinks about using the Americanist endorsement of freedom of speech to defend his views?  It's terribly ironic that in order to oppose his censorship, one either has to believe in the conspiracy stuff, or use principles that he himself is against.

But I'm having so much fun thinking up slogans.  How about this one:

Germany - the thought crimes change, the thought police stay the same.

Or this:

Once a totalitarian state, always a totalitarian state.
Reply
#15
(04-16-2010, 02:28 PM)amasimp Wrote:
(04-16-2010, 02:11 PM)JayneK Wrote: Does anyone have any ideas on how to organize a boycott of Germany?  One of my first reactions to the subject line was "Well I'm never going there." I think a  lot of people would see this as an attack against freedom of speech and that is the angle to play up.  How's this for a slogan:

In Germany it's illegal to say what you think.  If you think, don't go there.

Interesting thought, but I doubt a "boycott" by a few thousand people who don't do much travel to Germany in the first place wil do a hell of a lot of difference. 

I think that presenting it as a violation of  freedom of speech would appeal to more that a few thousand people.  It goes beyond being a trad issue then.
Reply
#16
(04-16-2010, 02:32 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(04-16-2010, 02:28 PM)amasimp Wrote:
(04-16-2010, 02:11 PM)JayneK Wrote: Does anyone have any ideas on how to organize a boycott of Germany?  One of my first reactions to the subject line was "Well I'm never going there." I think a  lot of people would see this as an attack against freedom of speech and that is the angle to play up.  How's this for a slogan:

In Germany it's illegal to say what you think.  If you think, don't go there.

Interesting thought, but I doubt a "boycott" by a few thousand people who don't do much travel to Germany in the first place wil do a hell of a lot of difference. 

I think that presenting it as a violation of  freedom of speech would appeal to more that a few thousand people.  It goes beyond being a trad issue then.

Except that most people don't care who he is and when they find out what he is being fined for they will probably think he's a lunatic. 
Reply
#17
Fining someone a huge amount of money for questioning a historical event is nothing but tyranny. Why is Germany allowed to do this kind of thing? If someone comes to the US and questions 9/11, are we going to throw him in jail? Outrageous. I don't believe in boycotting but it's a tempting thought....if I felt like going there, which I don't.

Is the English government having any kind of reaction to this? My guess would be no....
Reply
#18
(04-16-2010, 02:46 PM)Iolanthe Wrote: Fining someone a huge amount of money for questioning a historical event is nothing but tyranny. Why is Germany allowed to do this kind of thing? If someone comes to the US and questions 9/11, are we going to throw him in jail? Outrageous. I don't believe in boycotting but it's a tempting thought....if I felt like going there, which I don't.

Is the English government having any kind of reaction to this? My guess would be no....

It's not just Germany that does stuff like this. In Canada, people can be (and have been) fined for criticizing Islam, homosexuality, or just minorities in general. A Canadian teacher (James Keegstra) was "convicted" of Holocaust denial in the 90's. I think he received a fine, community service, and probation (I might be wrong). We have "human rights commissions" to watch out for this sort of stuff. Right now they have a comedian on "trial" for making fun of lesbians during a stand-up routine.
Reply
#19
Many people are saying that everyone is entitled to his opinion.  Is this really true?  In principle, I would say that people are entitled only to well-informed opinions based on evidence.  If I publish something false about someone else and say, "Well, that's my opinion," my right to my opinion doesn't stop a court from prosecuting me for libel or slander.  That's why I don't object in principle to a law that criminalizes false historical claims.  The issue is whether the claims are actually false or not, not whether historical falsehoods should be subject to government prosecution.  IF the Nazis killed millions in intentional genocide and IF revisionistic accounts of these events tend to dampen opposition to Naziism (and I think that this is true; many Holocaust revisionists barely hide their admiration for various Nazi leaders; see the Institute for Historical Review's association with Noontide Press), THEN countries concerned to suppress Naziism would be interested in maintaining the true account of the Holocaust.  So, given the premises of the other side, I don't fault the legal prosecution of those who object.  The *only* question is whether the claims of intentional genocide of millions is true.

In France of 1820, I would not fault a law banning people from publishing claims that the French Revolution "wasn't so bad after all."  In Franco's Spain, I would not fault a law banning people from publishing claims that the Spanish Civil War wasn't so bad.  So, in principle, I don't blame countries from banning the publication of historical claims that they 1.) regard as spurious, and 2.) inimical to the common good.  

Now, how are we to discuss the justice of the law if it depends on historical claims whose truth the law prevents us from debating?  It's a quandary.  But the quandary would be the same in Restoration France and Franquist Spain, where I don't think many of us would be that troubled by government suppression of false historical claims. 
Reply
#20
Quote:If someone comes to the US and questions 9/11, are we going to throw him in jail?

God, I wish they did, that would be so awesome.  There is nothing wrong with censorship, the problem is we censor the wrong things these days.  
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)