"...which does not extend to my questioning the premises of 9/11 and the nonsense that it was hijackers who did the job rather than simple implosions..."
this just rips to shreds the argument offered against the 6 million-gas-extermination story...anyone who believes the above nonsense should totally accept the holocaust story in its entirety but if not, ought to get the hell out of the doubting business because it makes us all look like gullible fools...
simple implosions? maybe if some of these idiots would have their brains "simply implode" things might go better for the logically critical among us...
Begin forwarded message:
1. You have hit the low note her using words such as 'saved', 'credibility', 'coward', 'pitiful attempt', 'narcissistic' because the issue I am worrying about is far larger than some personal psychological impulse could ever grasp. It is not a matter of catching people out because truth stands on its own and does not attach to any individuals as such.
2. Although this is a 'battle-of-the-wills' the aim is larger than any individual involved in it because we are dealing with objective and verifiable facts – and the protectors of any official conspiracy theory, such as Holocaust-Shoah and 9/11, for example, will do everything necessary to ensure the lies and deception remain covered - for whatever reason. I see it as my role, as a teacher, to lift the veil of deception so that we may in a civilized way and with maturity observe and understand what is around us. With Immanuel Kant I share the delights in reflecting on the moral law within me and the starry heaven above me, and from such impulses then develop a world view – a clear Weltanschauung without fear or favour!
3. You know the pattern of deception used on a daily basis by politicians, and that is why it is refreshing when someone comes along and cuts through the bullshit. Recall the Lawson video about Netanjahu addressing the US Congress and it fawning 27 or 29 standing ovations on him. That's treason! But you are not supposed to use that word anymore – unless they can use it against their critics. What about the bankers and developers ripping the guts out of nations? Etc…
4. It was Eric Hufschmidt who first began labelling Revisionists as 'Zionists' – he labelled Willis Carto, Ernst Zündel and me as such – now you did the same with Anthony Lawson.
5. It just does not make sense to do such labelling because in the most recent case Lawson has produced the goods, verifiable goods, especially on 9/11 here in Australia when he assembled the clip featuring John Bracken and Jon Fain – where Bracken demands Fain stick to the facts but Fain only insults Bracken and refuses to debate the science behind the 9/11 argument.
6. Also note that I am not re-writing the Third Reich history – that's an impossibility because the Third Reich has come and gone. What I am doing, as are other Revisionists, is bringing the historical record in line with proven facts that ideological warfare has constructed over them – lifting the lid and letting the facts speak for themselves. For example, I question the 6 million figure, the existence of gas chambers and the notion of a state-run systematic extermination program – but I forget I have a muzzle on me …which does not extend to my questioning the premises of 9/11 and the nonsense that it was hijackers who did the job rather than simple implosions.
7. I thus see my task as doing some useful work such as removing the lies that surround and even make up the historical period referred to as the Holocaust-Shoah. This narrative, and then the 9/11 narrative among others such as the Climate Change debate, is so full of deception and outright lies that it kills off a people's soul, as is the case with the Germans who are wallowing in Holocaust guilt.
It has nothing to do with any feeling or worry about popularity – I think I raised the example of the fellow I met in prison who was worried about not being liked: 'Nobody like me. I suck cock, I bend over – it not help.'
8. So, Gordon, your below comments remind me of someone who still has such worries about being liked or disliked rather than fearlessly questing for the truth of a matter. Is it not a choice between Truth and Paradise? In fact, in your comment I detect a tone therein used by some of the YouTube individuals who continued to attack me and reminded me that I am facing imminent bankruptcy – see Adelaide Institute newsletter 583 and note how Vaughan 1978 refers to the shame of it all and that I am in for it like David Irving in his failed defamation action against Lipstadt, etc. What is forgotten by this fellow, of course, is that I did not begin the legal action –
9. I assume you will not respond to my previous emails wherein I pose specific questions.
Your sending personal emails around the net shows me that you may be saved after all.
Maybe this will help you but you certainly have lost any credibility with me. Peddling dissension is Zionist work and I can't imagine how you get sucked into this, not you. I am ashamed of you.
The only loser here is you.
You are a coward. I have caught too many, Libya, Wikileaks, 9/11, who have sold out.
Your pitiful attempt can't be worth much.
Your endless harping on the same subjects, rewriting the history of the Third Reich, right or wrong, has made you a target and cost you much.
I agree that it is wrong and your personal fight for freedom of speech is admirable.
However, in other ways, gossiping and your attempts to manipulate others are not putting you in a good light.
My problem with Lawson and now with you is that you live in narcissistic personal squabbles while the planet is burning down around us.
Hey, send this around too.
Frank Scott writes political commentary and satire which appears in print in The Independent Monitor and online at Mathaba and the blog Legalienate