27 October, 2008

Elie Wiesel and the Issue of Indifference

Posted by Socrates in Bradley R. Smith, Holocaust, holocaust racket, revisionism, Socrates at 4:44 pm | Permanent Link

by Bradley R. Smith: [Here].

  1. Similar posts:

  2. 02/07/09 We Will Not Protect Bad Ideas from Public Scrutiny 100% similar
  3. 07/06/09 Book Review: Blood and Politics: The History of the White Nationalist Movement from the Margins to the Mainstream 100% similar
  4. 02/08/12 Getting the Message Out 100% similar
  5. 02/14/09 Youngstown State University, the ADL, and Judaic and Holocaust Studies 100% similar
  6. 03/22/12 The Issue of Free Inquiry at Rhode Island College 100% similar
  7. 3 Responses to “Elie Wiesel and the Issue of Indifference”

    1. contumacyman Says:

      There is a principle in mathematics called “Zormelo’s Principle of Choice”, where, it is postulated, that, should anyone anywhere anytime propose the existence of a non-empty set of elements, then, one should be able to identify at least ONE element in that set.

      Mr. Smith is simply applying that time-honored principle to the holohoax, which, requires that, in order for there to be a set of “jews killed in a nazi gas chamber”, then at least ONE must be identified.

      The failure to identify AT LEAST ONE such person implies, of course, even to 5th graders, that no such set exists – ie, nobody was killed in a nazi gas chamber.

      Applying simple logic to tangled jewish discombobulations can really be embarrassing to these pompous fools who pride themselves in being able to spin incredible yarns with such conviction, and such cross-referencing of yet more and equally convicted yarn-spinners of their blood.

      It is humorous to watch Mr. Smith keep poking holes in their holohoax balloons with his simple question, “name ONE, please, just ONE”.

    2. Zarathustra Says:

      Jews are so crazy, they will believe their own bizarre lies if those lies can harm the GOYIM. So, Weinblatt claims he lost some Yid relatives in WWII. OK, but so did tens of millions of other people who weren’t Jews. Your point being what, Jewboy? That the deaths of your family members are more important than some goy’s dead relatives?

      Truly, it would be an unequalled pleasure to rid this planet of those obnoxious, neurotic bloodsuckers once and for all. Them and the shabbot goyim who front for them.

    3. gw Says:

      “Them and the shabbot goyim who front for them.”

      Yes, especially! Of the two, I disapprove of the first, but I despise the latter. Jews are just looking out for their own interests and their own people. That’s normal. Although it may be bad for us, there’s nothing contemptible about that. (It is we who are fools to permit it.)

      The latter group, however, are traitors to their own kind. In my mind, that IS contemptible.