TextSearch

Forty percent of American millennials (ages 20-36) believe the government should intervene when citizens say something that might be considered offensive to minorities, a Pew Research study reveals. It is not entirely clear what is meant by "intervene" and "minorities," and the term "offensive" is broadly defined. As usual in the world of Newspeak we go to

Thought and Speech Crimes: The Disturbing Case of Revisionist Ursula Haverbeck May 8, 2018 Thomas Müller Articles by Thomas Müller, Crime, Culture, Hidden History, International News, Winter Watch Articles 14 Ursula Haverbeck in court in October 2017. PHOTO: Der Tagesspiegel/Reuters Forty percent of American millennials (ages 20-36) believe the government should intervene when citizens say something that might be considered offensive to minorities, a Pew Research study reveals. It is not entirely clear what is meant by “intervene” and “minorities,” and the term “offensive” is broadly defined. As usual in the world of Newspeak we go to our standby- the dictionary. Offensive: causing someone to feel resentful, upset, or annoyed. Wow, the eggshell world is here. Intuitively, the question likely pertains to the sort of nonsense we are seeing involving censorship and public persecution of those who espouse views that are deemed “politically incorrect.” Despite the threat of political correctness (PC) from millennials, Americans overall still put a high value on free speech, with only 28% in favor of government regulation of speech. Among respondents, 27 percent of Gen Xers (37-52), 24 percent of Baby Boomers (ages 53-71) and 12 percent of the Silent Generation (age 72 and older) believe government should control and limit offensive speech. The dwindling Greatest Generation universally defends free speech, but they are now over age 90. In Germany, a troubling 70% are in favor of limiting free speech. That country will jail those who engage even in revisionist history involving WWII, and even debate on the Holocaust is considered taboo. In fact, it is illegal in Germany to deny or even downplay the Holocaust. The term deny is curious given that no leading revisionist on the topic actually denies atrocities or actions against Jews and others. Understanding of the Case of Ursula Haverbeck 89 year old Ursula Haverbeck was supposed to report to prison to serve a two year sentence for “holocaust denial”. Instead she is on the run, presumably sheltered away someplace by supporters. The Jewish ‘International Auschwitz Committee’, apparently oblivious to the bad optics, is asking German police to use ‘high pressure’ to hunt down and imprison this elderly woman. Update: Ursula apparently went back to her home after five days on the run, and police hauled her to prison. Ursula Haverbeck was sentenced for violating section 220a [see below]. For a woman of her advanced age, this is the equivalent of a death sentence. The following video is the interview that got her into hot water. Watch it before it’s removed from the Internet. Apparently, “downplay” is double-speak for revisionism. Watch the interview closely, as if you were on the jury. Nowhere does Haverbeck deny that crimes or atrocities were committed against Jews (and others), nor does she refuse to accept that they were rounded up or persecuted. Rather, she speaks mostly about the nature, methods and the numbers, which is deemed “revisionism.” The following is an excerpt from the German law, and what a broad and sweeping law it is. In essence, it demands no one disturb the public peace, ruffle feathers or challenge a history that has been deemed set in stone or static. (3) Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or renders harmless an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the type indicated in Section 220a subsection (1), in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine. Please, watch Haverbeck for yourself. See if you can identify her so-called offensive words that “might disturb the public peace.” In fact, Haverbeck was remarkably well composed and was relatively careful in her word choice. Despite the news coverage on her imprisonment, I certainly didn’t hear her “approve of” atrocities or claim they didn’t happen. Do you hear her “rendering harmless” acts committed under the rule of National Socialism? She did go into the rarely discussed — but I think much-needed — topic of the mass murder (Hellstorm) of German civilians and POWs as the war wound down and after the defeat of Germany. Basically, she is “guilty” of processing things outside of the box and not functioning under prescribed terms. Her “revisionism” only involves researching and questioning the size and degree of atrocities against Jews and the aspects of the Hellstorm. She did suggest that truth or history on these topic has been “distorted.” She uses the term “Das Groste Problem” to define this distortion. This is problematic in her eyes because this historical distortion has been used as an agenda to kowtow Germany and promote Zionist power. I’m sorry, but I don’t see “The Great Problem” train of thought as a jailable crime. I don’t see being an aggressive revisionist as being a jailable crime either. Nor is hurting someone’s feelings a jailable offense. Any sensible observer would say that ALL ...

Thought and Speech Crimes: The Disturbing Case of Revisionist Ursula Haverbeck | Winter Watch