I agree w/ all of this, as you might imagine. Perhaps Substack is itself an opportunity for samizdat. Some are taking advantage of this temporary autonomous zone.
I think I first came across that word in connection w/ Ernst Zundel. He was publishing samizdat for a couple of years in Canada before the Crown decided to prosecute him. One assumes small hat snitches tipped the proper authorities off to his thought transgressions. But, ya know what? The subsequent trials blew up in their face. Even the most sober defender of Holocaust truth, Raul Hilberg, was at a loss to defend the orthodox version re key points. I don't think cross examination of Holocaust expert witnesses will be allowed after that debacle.
Thanks for defending free speech in a perilous time.
I may be wrong, but I think Canada has recently outlawed any discussion of the Holocaust. In Germany, or course, you can go to jail if you even mention any of that. Now, I understand that some unsavory people may be behind those discussions or historical revisions. I personally don't like Nazism, much less neo-Nazism which seems to me an artificial, anachronistic creation. But I think it should be possible to freely debate about all historical events. No one is prohibiting the discussion about, say, the Battle of Waterloo, or even the Soviet gulags. So why only this is forbidden? However, as I say it, I realize that iit's not "only this" now. The list has grown, as you cannot also freely discuss about 9/11, the Covid operation, or Sandy Hook, etc.
Why only this is forbidden?
Given your base in Montreal, I assume this is a rhetorical question only.
I agree w/ all of this, as you might imagine. Perhaps Substack is itself an opportunity for samizdat. Some are taking advantage of this temporary autonomous zone.
I think I first came across that word in connection w/ Ernst Zundel. He was publishing samizdat for a couple of years in Canada before the Crown decided to prosecute him. One assumes small hat snitches tipped the proper authorities off to his thought transgressions. But, ya know what? The subsequent trials blew up in their face. Even the most sober defender of Holocaust truth, Raul Hilberg, was at a loss to defend the orthodox version re key points. I don't think cross examination of Holocaust expert witnesses will be allowed after that debacle.
Thanks for defending free speech in a perilous time.
I may be wrong, but I think Canada has recently outlawed any discussion of the Holocaust. In Germany, or course, you can go to jail if you even mention any of that. Now, I understand that some unsavory people may be behind those discussions or historical revisions. I personally don't like Nazism, much less neo-Nazism which seems to me an artificial, anachronistic creation. But I think it should be possible to freely debate about all historical events. No one is prohibiting the discussion about, say, the Battle of Waterloo, or even the Soviet gulags. So why only this is forbidden? However, as I say it, I realize that iit's not "only this" now. The list has grown, as you cannot also freely discuss about 9/11, the Covid operation, or Sandy Hook, etc.