Celestial Slime

rotterdam

It seems that Junky Paul’s Islamophobic outrage at the decision by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal to prosecute the controversial right-wing politician Geert Wilders for the incitement to hatred and discrimination against Muslims in that country is so boundless that he sees fit to disparage all people of the Netherlands:

The Dutch were notorious during WW2 for rolling over and playing dead when the Nazis came calling. Sure, they were a tiny little country full of pretty girls with wooden shoes and handsome men more adept at making pancakes than war.

The facts of the matter of course are completely different from Paul’s delusional, cartoon version of history.

For two and a half hours the Germans kept bombing the city. From twelve o’clock noon until two-thirty a relentless rain of death poured from the skies. After the bombing was over, more than 26,000 buildings lay in wreckage. Nearly 25,000 men, women and children lay dead in the street or buried under the masses of rubble. Eyewitnesses who escaped from Rotterdam reported that even after streets had been cleared of their heaps of dead, there was still an average of 1,800 bodies a day being dragged from the ruins for a period of seven days. That the Germans were trying to wash the blood strains of guilt from their hands was proved by the tight censorship they placed on the graveyard city. The green-clad Dutch troops, who had stood throughout the bombing with their feeble rifles pointed at the skies, watched a city with a population of nearly 600,000 become a flaming furnace. Many of the Dutch soldiers around the city of Rotterdam wept as they surrendered to the Germans. Holland’s combined armed forces, estimated at about 400,000 men [ed. which was mostly fighting with weaponry made before 1900], were hardly able to stem the German mass attacks of armored columns and airplanes. What the Germans had planned for an invasion in one day for Holland took them five days against some determined, stubborn Dutch people.

Paul then goes on to level the following loathsome smear against the Dutch:

But, they didn’t have to deliver their Jews up for slaughter, outdoing even the yellow French in providing the Nazis with lots of “Cyclon B” victims.

Again, the facts speak otherwise (emphasis added):

Shortly after it was established, the military regime began to persecute the Jews of the Netherlands. In 1940, there were no deportations and only small measures were taken against the Jews. In February 1941, the Nazis deported a small group of Dutch Jews to the concentration camp Mauthausen. The Dutch reacted with the February strike as a nationwide protest against the deportations, unique in the history of Nazi-occupied Europe. Although the strike did not accomplish much—its leaders were executed—it was a major setback for Seyss-Inquart as he had planned to both deport the Jews and to win the Dutch over to the Nazi cause. As a reaction to the February strike, the Nazis installed that same month a Jewish Council: a board of Jews who served as an instrument for organising the identification and deportation of Jews more efficiently, while the Jews on the council were told and convinced they were helping the Jews.

Utterly disgusting, but I suppose the vile nonsense spewed by “Paul” (if that’s his name), shouldn’t come as a surprise; after all, when did telling anything approximating the truth ever matter to the more asinine faction of the Blogging Tossers Tories?

72 Replies to “Celestial Slime”

  1. Celestial Drunk is the vilest of the Blogging Whories. That’s quite a feat when you consider the blogroll consists of people like Hate Macmillan and the mudfortunate Dr. Roy.

  2. Quite the crew they’ve got over there. They should rename “The Blogging Tories” something more accurate like “Kooks & Liars”…

  3. it’s dr roy —-

    Papa junker is a deluded cretin.
    These people are allowed to vote? Canada maybe more progressive than it should be….

  4. It’s like the slam against the French as “surrender monkeys”, which ignores the fact that they lost 250,000 military in WWII before they surrendered and that was just 20 years after they had lost 1,300,000 military, 300000 civilian and a lot of their infrastructure in WWI.

  5. Get your facts straight old boy, I’ve read mountains of literature on this topic and have spoken much with victims of Dutch “resistance”. My lifelong number one interest is WW2 with hundreds of books consumed on the topic.

    For a start in your education, you may want to begin here … before you go to far in perpetrating a myth … I’m actually somewhat surprised that you aren’t aware that Dutch Jews were deported at an overall per capita rate that was stunning, beating out even France. This was possible for only one reason; Dutch complicity, as the literature makes more than clear.

    Strangely, Germans protected their Jews at a greater rate than any occupied land other than Denmark. So while your high dudgeon points to true events, it does nothing to address the fact that many Dutch were fascists or collaborators or simply complicit.

    I’ll say no more because any reasonable search of the literature will bear out my claim. As far as internet sources, you may want to start here:

    Click to access Kronemeijer__Teshima,_2000.pdf

  6. “I’ve read mountains of literature on this topic and have spoken much with victims of Dutch ‘resistance'”

    i tend to stop reading once i get to the first outrageous lie.

    KEvron

  7. Paul — Your purported erudition on the subject certainly wasn’t reflected in the ignorant jackassery of your post. Moreover, your comment does absolutely nothing whatsoever to dispel that initial impression.

  8. I’ll add one more thing, before I leave you to your delusion. The whole horror of the holocaust is that it was perpetrated by local peoples, be they French, Dutch, Polish, or my own Czechs. The Germans provided the overall infrastructure, the locals carried out the round up, or has Himmler said of the French (I paraphrase) “They are more exuberant in rounding up Jews than even the gestapo” … if you don’t get this point, you miss entirely why Jews are so bloody suspicious of everybody on this topic and you have fallen for the post-war canard that it was a “German-only” crime. The Dutch turned over 70% of their Jews … unbelievable.

    Take my own Czechs. The entire Jew round up was primarily done by the Hlinka Guard, a Slovak nationalist group. The Czechs, other than a few, rolled over. But, when Germany surrendered, they massacred unarmed German soldiers trying to get home. My Great Uncle took part in the massacre and I know first hand how it went down. On the other side, a dear freind of mine whose relative was a German soldier trying to return through Czechoslovakia, witnessed the atrocities as a victim.

    KEvron – I’m not sure you ever “started” reading.

  9. My lifelong number one interest is WW2 with hundreds of books consumed on the topic.

    Next time, try reading them.

  10. I’m trying to follow Paul’s arguments but he seems to have no focus, train of though or even logic.

    It’s like watching a blindfolded heroin addict that has drunken four pots of coffee try to box Joe Frasier on a good day….

  11. Jumped the shark? Your post is idiotic. Wooden shoes and pancakes…

    Look, I never said the Holocaust was a “German-only” crime or anything of the sort. The fact of the matter is that you demeaned and slimed an entire group of people with your ridiculous caricature and distortion of historical fact for your own perverse agenda.

  12. I’m actually somewhat surprised that you aren’t aware that Dutch Jews were deported at an overall per capita rate that was stunning, beating out even France. This was possible for only one reason; Dutch complicity, as the literature makes more than clear.
    And the Dutch also had highest per-capita death rate… So I’m guessing that you’d infer that they had the highest % of Jews?
    Why do Connies have no concept of causality and logic and facts… They just seem to want a hodgepodge of random bits of information and make statements…

  13. Look, I never said the Holocaust was a “German-only” crime or anything of the sort.
    Papa junker likes to infer –

  14. Apparently.

    I think the key to his ramble is this:

    So while your high dudgeon points to true events, it does nothing to address the fact that many Dutch were fascists or collaborators or simply complicit.

    Indeed, some were fascists or collaborators. This is hardly shocking news or unknown to even casual readers of history. In fact however, most were NOT.

    Paul made a blanket condemnation of ALL Dutch as cowards who simply rolled over and then collaborated even more so that the “yellow” French in packing the Jews off to be gassed. Now, he’s quibbling over the fact that I didn’t mention that some Dutch were complicit with the Nazis.

    What a vile moron.

  15. “Paul made a blanket condemnation of ALL Dutch as cowards”

    worse, he jumped ahead seventy years to use his “facts” to slight ALL of the dutch today.

    reactionary, irrational, bigoted. prime bt’s material.

    KEvron

  16. For a start in your education, you may want to begin here … before you go to far in perpetrating a myth … I’m actually somewhat surprised that you aren’t aware that Dutch Jews were deported at an overall per capita rate that was stunning, beating out even France. This was possible for only one reason; Dutch complicity, as the literature makes more than clear.

    There are a number of other factors — the relatively dense population and the fact that most of the Jewish population lived in Amsterdam. It was easier to round them up because for the most part they were in one area. The lack of forests also made it difficult for people to hide.

    Germans also focused in on the Netherlands, more than they did other countries, because of their plans to make it part of Germany..

    There’s also the boiled frog scenario — the fact that legislation was enacted over a long period of time. Toss in the fact that there was no neutral coutry along its border, the fact that most Jews were made poor by the Nazi jobs (no bank accounts, no jobs) which made hiding almost impossible to manage (they would have to rely on the black market for food and the costs were astronomical), add to this a general ignorance of what was happening to people in these damn labour camp and you get a rather fatal mix.

    And if the Netherlands was the hotbed of Anti-antisemitism, why would 25,000 German Jews choose to live there (about 10% of the number that left)? The Netherlands was known back then for its tolerance. When the Nazi’s first took over the country, Arthur Seyss-Inquart said he wouldn’t impose Nazi ideology and that the Germans would respect the local laws — laws that called for equal rights.

  17. Absolutely disgusting, vile, and reprehensible (RT, did you need a shower after having to read all that?). To brand entire nationalities that way for the actions of a minority within them, to revise history and then claim it to be true while everyone else is wrong, to be such an intolerant narrow minded person as this work has shown, nothing else can be used to describe them. This is just disgusting. It is all I can say to it, which since I am usually a man of many words should help underscore my revulsion.

  18. My Great Uncle took part in the massacre and I know first hand how it went down

    My great uncle was a Canadian infantry company commander (and later commando officer) thrice wounded in action between Sicily and central Italy so I must know first hand how it went down.

    Or not.

    Because, Paul, to know something first hand means you need to have actually been there and witnessed it. Otherwise, regardless of the source, you’re shilling second hand knowledge.

  19. I think my favourite part on his blog is where he plugs one of his blog posts like he had a novel on the NYT bestseller list. Hell I photoshopped off Flaherty’s eyebrows for a blog and I didn’t feel the need to boast about that.

    I wonder if Paul is avalanche trained for the MOUNTAINS of literature that he claims to have. Then again old reform/con pamphlets only count as literature in his mind.

  20. My Great Uncle took part in the massacre and I know first hand how it went down

    Actually Paul its hearsay what you are claiming. Simple and true unless you are 120 years old. Then again you may be.

  21. jsrothwell,
    I dunno, his mountains of literature might be popular fluff about Tiger tank specs and famous battles or something, not you know, any serious historical research and analysis.

  22. My Grandfather helped liberate Holland in 1944 and 1945. He used to tell us about the courage and bravery of the Dutch civilians who helped hid Jews. He t0ld us stories of the courage and bravery of Dutch civilians, including children, who risked their lives to bring my Grandfather, a member of the Royal Canadian Signal Corps, information on German troop movements.

    Junker Paul is liar.

    I’m sure he’d have LOVED the Dutch if the court had ruled the other way, wouldn’t he?

    Meaning of course, that he is a grade-A mean spirited anti-Muslim bigot. His apologists attitude toward the Germans seems to indicate a touch of neo-Nazi sympathies. How much do you want to bet a lot of those history book were written by David Irving…

    Fuck You Paul. Fuck you in the neck.

  23. jsrothwell:

    Google the Czech reprisals … the Czechs killed an estimated 200,000 Germans, Hungarians, and Austrians … many of them civilians. But surely, you knew that.

  24. Mike: It’s too bad you didn’t follow my link to Dutch complicity in the holocaust. Keep in mind that your grandfather witnessed the saving of only 30% of Dutch Jews … the rest had been turned in by the Dutch and transported out on Dutch trains with Dutch crews. Or did Nederlandse Spoorwegen offer its grovelling apology just a few years ago just for fun.

  25. jsrothwell: My mother is 70, that’d make her great Uncle the perfect age to be a member of the Czech Sokol and resistance in the Tatri Mountains.

    Anymore brilliant assumptions?

  26. Sharon: Nice story, but it doesn’t bear out in the literature … especially that published after about 1955.

    Jews found the Czechs wonderfully tolerant as well, until they were occupied. Joe Schlesinger of the CBC could offer you an education on that.

  27. What does any of this have to do with you smearing the Dutch by accusing the population of Holland of being wooden-shoe wearing, pancake flipping cowards and callous, Jew-hating Nazi collaborators?

  28. Mike: Good trick … from classic leftist high dugdeon to profanity. I hate it when you guys make a truth teller out of Ann Coulter.

  29. Redtory: I’m replying to statements made by your patrons. I trust then, that their comments have nothing to do with your opinion piece either.

  30. jrothwell: My Great Uncle took part in the massacre and I know first hand how it went down

    Actually Paul its hearsay what you are claiming. Simple and true unless you are 120 years old. Then again you may be.

    Paul: jsrothwell: My mother is 70, that’d make her great Uncle the perfect age to be a member of the Czech Sokol and resistance in the Tatri Mountains.

    One of the definitions of hersay is of someone telling you of an event that you did not directly witness yourself. This doesn’t mean than the event didn’t happen, just that you’re not a direct source of information.

  31. “This doesn’t mean than the event didn’t happen”

    but since paul is a reactionary, irrational, passive aggressive bigot, we can safely assume they didn’t.

    KEvron

  32. Sharon: then all of our statements here about WW2 or Wilders are hearsay, even when read in books.

    … strange though, my Great Uncle telling those things to us is “hearsay”. Truly, you live in a wonderful world where not just source documents, but sources themselves can be brushed off as hearsay.

  33. Google the Czech reprisals … the Czechs killed an estimated 200,000 Germans, Hungarians, and Austrians … many of them civilians. But surely, you knew that.

    And Germans had a habit of revenging themselves on civilian populations as well when they had control. Is this something we’re suppose to applaud?

    There’s a difference between revenge and justice. I don’t agree with all of the points George Orwell makes in “Revenge is Sour,” but he probably nails the idea of revenge in this part:

    “Properly speaking, there is no such thing as revenge. Revenge is an act which you want to commit when you are powerless and because you are powerless: as soon as the sense of impotence is removed, the desire evaporates also.

    “Who would not have jumped for joy, in 1940, at the thought of seeing S.S. officers kicked and humiliated? But when the thing becomes possible, it is merely pathetic and disgusting. It is said that when Mussolini’s corpse was exhibited in public, an old woman drew a revolver and fired five shots into it, exclaiming, ‘Those are for my five sons!’ It is the kind of story that the newspapers make up, but it might be true. I wonder how much satisfaction she got out of those five shots, which, doubtless, she had dreamed years earlier of firing. The condition of her being able to get close enough to Mussolini to shoot at him was that he should be a corpse.”

  34. Sharon: Sure must’ve made my fellow Czechs feel great raping thousands of German, Austrian, and Hungarian girls, starving them to death, and shipping the remainder off to Germany in cattle cars where about half died before they got there. I guess they were practiced though … having assisted the Germans in rounding up the Jews.

    The point is, my Czech people suffered far less under the Germans than most occupied lands … they have no excuse.

    It’s truly sad, that you excuse reprisals despite knowing that the same populations who took it out on the Germans at the end, assisted the Germans in the holocaust.

  35. Sharon: then all of our statements here about WW2 or Wilders are hearsay, even when read in books.

    … strange though, my Great Uncle telling those things to us is “hearsay”. Truly, you live in a wonderful world where not just source documents, but sources themselves can be brushed off as hearsay.

    Paul, I’m not denying whatever happened of that you’re lying. I’m just saying that jsrothwell’s definition of hearsay fits your situation.

    Look, here’s the definition of hearsay. “Evidence based on what the witness has heard someone else say, rather than what the witness has personally experienced or observed.”

    Unless you’re your Great Uncle, it fits your situation.

  36. Sharon — Paul has gone off track onto a completely different argument that has NOTHING to do with his original contention or “point” he was attempting to make — which essentially was just to smear the Dutch as being spineless cowards that betrayed the sacrifices made by brave Canadian soldiers, etc. in their effort to pander to Muslims, blah, blah, blah.

  37. Sharon: … but it’s irrelevant then to this discussion.

    – on a side point (yes Red Tory, way off topic). I’m glad in a way I stopped by here, as I didn’t fully know the magnitude of the Czech reprisals until I did more checking (pardon the pun). The Czech communists buried this history, and only more recently have Czechs gone back to document the truth more fully. I knew from first hand accounts that the reprisals were nasty, but had no idea how widespread and brutal it was in the Sudetenland. My Great Uncles accounts were only of what his partisan unit did … and that was horrific. I used to think that the murders topped in the tens of thousands … not 200,000 consisting of as many civilians as soldiers. Keep in mind that Sudeten Germans had been their for many generations, and had not brutalized the Czechs during the occupation. Most violence against Czechs was done by Czechs, as in all occupied lands where the Germans used local fascists to do most of the dirty work.

    It was a unique situation because the entire German occupying force laid down its arms at the end of the war … making them sitting ducks. One entire German corp. was wiped out on it’s long walk back, unarmed. In other countries, they left with firearms in hand.

  38. Sharon — Paul has gone off track onto a completely different argument that has NOTHING to do with his original contention or “point” he was attempting to make — which essentially was just to smear the Dutch as being spineless cowards that betrayed the sacrifices made by brave Canadian soldiers, etc. in their effort to pander to Muslims, blah, blah, blah.

    You’d think he’d support measures to squash the spread of hate toward a minority then, seeing that it was this that lead to the horrors of WWII.

  39. RedTory: I’m smearing the Dutch as a nation … yes I am. I’m smearing them for not finding the courage to stand up and defend their freedom using “words” and peaceful means alone. Hell, they don’t even have to fight physically yet.

    If they can’t do that, then they are unworthy of the sacrifice of our Canadian soldiers who gave their very lives for them.

    But, we’ll certianly see what happens yet, wont’ we. I hope they surprise me and are capable of at least as much as the Danish … especially Danish socialists.

    My point about their horrific treatment of the Jews was to drive home the point that the Dutch nation-state as a whole did little to defend themselves and was to a very great degree complicate in the holocaust. Making it even more pressing that they prove themselves today … when all they are asked to do is “speak out” … not die. We are judged today as individuals, but history judges us as nations … and the Dutch myth about WW2 has been well exploded by others more capable than I.

  40. Sharon: The greatest way to quash hate towards anyone is to destroy it in the open market place of ideas … which we call freedom of speech. Hate that specifically turns to violence or discriminatory action is already well covered in our laws.

    What you are seeing in Holland is hate-speech legislation turned on its head. While Muslim mobs march under police protection with placards saying that the Jews did not roast long enough in the ovens … or that they are the new Nazis … Wilders gets charged for comparing Muslim supremacism to Nazi doctine.

  41. So Paul, having not experienced military invasion and subsequent occupation of his homeland feels his fine self to be completely qualified to pass high and mighty judgment on the appropriate level of resistance that a population under occupation should visibly demonstrate against an invader to be considered worthy of lasting historical glory and by which all infinite subsequent generations of that population also be judged.

    My, my, what would Paul say about the six million Jews who went to their deaths at that hands of the Nazis? Should they have resisted harder? Does Paul consider Israeli violence against its neighbours to be some sort of salvation exercise for not being sufficiently ballsy? Are Rwandan victims responsible for their own genocide? What does Paul think about Iraqi or Afghan resistance to occupation? By his standard they ought to be memorialised for their sacrifice and bravery, held above other peoples. By Paul’s standard, the dead of Hamas should be bronzed and stuck on pedestals. By his standard 11 million Canadians in 1939 and 32 million today bear complicity in the Holocaust for not being sufficiently accepting of oh, the passengers of the SS St. Louis. Somehow I don’t think he’d be into that. Hypocritical relativism is far too seductive for Mr. Paul, ‘cuz it’s different or something. What a sad sack.

  42. Sharon: The greatest way to quash hate towards anyone is to destroy it in the open market place of ideas … which we call freedom of speech. Hate that specifically turns to violence or discriminatory action is already well covered in our laws.

    What you are seeing in Holland is hate-speech legislation turned on its head. While Muslim mobs march under police protection with placards saying that the Jews did not roast long enough in the ovens … or that they are the new Nazis … Wilders gets charged for comparing Muslim supremacism to Nazi doctine.

    Oddly, using the logic of the open market place of ideas, the Muslim mobs should be allowed to say whatever they want no matter how repugnant and evil. Ditto about Wilders.

    Yes, the old fight stupidity with stupidity.

  43. Paul — You’re an Islamophobic bigot obsessed with the paranoid notion that Europe (or as you like to call it “Eurabia”) will be subsumed by the Muslim immigrants that you seem to HATE with a burning passion. One presumes you take an interest in this affair out of some irrational FEAR that Canada will suffer the same awful fate and this chills your xenophobic little heart and haunts your every waking moment — or that is, I should say when not sucking furiously on Ann Coulter’s dick and screeching with inchoate rage about the dreaded “progressives” that you loath and despise. Where you, a mewling old crank, get the temerity to vilify an entire country of people, slagging their surrender as cowardice simply because they elected not be uselessly bombed to smithereens by the Luftwaffe at the likely cost of untold scores of thousands of dead civilians, and then demonize their resistance as being insufficient to your high expectations is beyond me. All this hysteria apparently because there isn’t a massive cry of outrage over the criminal prosecution of some deranged, right-wing whackaloon for breaking the law by openly inciting hate against an identifiable minority. Pathetic.

  44. Actually Sharon, I support the Muslim mob’s right to say most of what they say, not only because it is part of their right to freedom of expression, but also because it exposes them within the free market place of ideas.

    If Canada moved, for instance, to ban anti-Israel marches or even just the more offensive signs and chants, I’d move to support the marchers no matter how much I disagree with what they say.

    If Canada moved to ban Hijab … like the stupid French … I’d argue for the Hijab. It’s Muslim doctrine on the whole that I oppose because it is anathema to Western Liberal Democracy … in other words, a threat to our way of life. But, I’d still fight if governments outlawed Islam.

    Islam can be defeated in the open market … as long as there is an open market. For example, roughly half of all immigrating Muslims today renounce or just walk away from Islam … that’s a direct result of the open market of ideas and great news as far as I’m concerned.

    Do I hate Muslims … of course not, otherwise I wouldn’t have Muslim friends. It’s the doctrine of “Islam” I oppose as much as I’d oppose Nazi doctrine or Communism. Of course this will insult Muslims, but part of living in a free society is to be insulted by those who oppose and don’t share your personal foundational beliefs. I write many insulting things about leftists on my blog … and leftist blogs do the same about Conservatives … some actually making it their identity.

    The irony of Holland is that it will prosecute Wilders, but let the mob run free. I think it’s called national suicide.

  45. Thanks Red, for making your position so clear. You’d prosecute Wilders then. No wonder you find offense in what I wrote … I was indirectly writing about you; not the Dutch. It’s clear why you took such offense. My, this was a long way around to finding that out.

    Good luck crushing freedom of speech then; it’s nice to know though, that we have enough of it still left to enjoy little spats like this. I feel statisfied knowing then that there is so little to agree on with people as yourself.

    Good nite all 🙂

  46. Paul —No, actually I wouldn’t prosecute him because I don’t believe in “hate speech” legislation (as I’ve said many, many times before). But it’s not my country and I don’t live there.

    In any case, no matter how much I was adamantly opposed to the policy of another country’s government, that wouldn’t give me license to demonize the entire population of that state any more so than it would to heap abuse on all Americans simply because I oppose much of their foreign policy or all Gazans because of the provocative actions of Hamas. It would be absurd.

    Although I fully support free speech, I always find it difficult to muster very much sympathy for cretinous individuals (e.g., neo-Nazis, religious extremists, racists, hateful xenophobes, etc.) Don’t expect me to feel overly sorry for someone who, in my opinion, plays to the worst instincts of people and simply exacerbates what is already a tense situation.

  47. “I’m smearing the Dutch as a nation … yes I am.”

    We’re all in agreement then.

    ” • verb 1 coat or mark with a greasy or sticky substance. 2 blur or smudge. 3 damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations.

  48. Paul, you mention your great uncle and his war stories. I had two uncles that fought in WW2, and a grandfather that fought in WW1. NONE of them ever wanted to talk about the wars. My rather large family knows little of the tragedy of their experiences… they, the soldiers, wanted it that way.

  49. “Thanks Red, for making your position so clear. You’d prosecute Wilders then.”

    lol! what a maroon! nice tantrum, paul. real mature.

    KEvron

  50. Paul

    In previous posts you’ve actually called for the expulsion of Muslims from Canada. That doesn’t strike me as being in favour of an open market.

  51. RT: Par for the course in BT land. Their obsessive need to emulate their American Right brethren leads them to make the same pitfalls of in faulty logic and deductive reasoning.

    It’s really quite simple what one on the right does when they want to condemn those with which they disagree (an ever increasing group). They simply pick a shameful or embarrassing event committed by a select few and then reapply it to all as a sweeping generalization. Classic Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle fare.

  52. i’ve spent the last five years trying to explain logical fallacies to wingnuts, co-co. they seem to take it as strategical advice.

    KEvron

  53. they seem to take it as strategical advice.

    As do psychopaths. Therapy only makes them better at being psychopathic.

  54. It’s also par for the course that these fighting keyboarders, comfortably tapping away in the safety of their parents’ basements, will accuse others of cowardice.

  55. Islam can be defeated

    Do I hate Muslims … of course not

    You do realize that the definition of a Muslim is a person who is adherent to Islam? What you said makes no sense. Your desire is to “defeat” their religion, yet you claim this is not hate. What would you say about me if I said my goal was to defeat Christianity or Judaism? I guess that wouldn’t qualify as hate in your twisted logic. Regardless, you are quite obviously a xenophobic bigot… barely above the extremist factions of the religion you hate.

  56. Paul
    “I’ve read mountains of literature on this topic and have spoken much with victims of Dutch ‘resistance’”

    i tend to stop reading once i get to the first outrageous lie.
    KEvron
    ++

    Wouldn’t “victims of Dutch ‘resistance’” be, um, nazis?
    Paul may not be lying.

  57. “Paul may not be lying.”

    oh, i’m sure paul’s broken bread with many a nazi, but of the home-grown variety.

    heh. no, i missed that bit of nonsense. i don’t wade too deeply into the rantings of sociopaths; the convoluted logic, the glaring contradictions, the reactionary hysterics…. more effort in trying to glean the ungleanable than i’m willing to invest.

    KEvron

  58. jrothwell: My Great Uncle took part in the massacre and I know first hand how it went down

    Actually Paul its hearsay what you are claiming. Simple and true unless you are 120 years old. Then again you may be.

    Paul: jsrothwell: My mother is 70, that’d make her great Uncle the perfect age to be a member of the Czech Sokol and resistance in the Tatri Mountains.

    It’s still hearsay Paul except you got it third hand. BTW Paul thanks for calling me brilliant. I appreciate it.

  59. Oh yeah Paul,

    My dad is 75 which means I have relatives who fought in both world wars as well. Big fucking deal!

    I’m sure glad they didn’t raise me to be a loudmouth wingnut who claims hearsay as firsthand knowledge.

  60. jsrothwell:

    Google the Czech reprisals … the Czechs killed an estimated 200,000 Germans, Hungarians, and Austrians … many of them civilians. But surely, you knew that.

    Okay I did. Now what does it have to do with the Netherlands? I could also google my own ancestry (British) and find many worse things but it still has nothing to do with the argument about the Netherlands.

    Maybe I can help you out and contribute an atlas to Paul’s Mountain of Books ™

    I did google wingnut a-hole btw. You were in the top five. Congrats

Leave a comment