—“How would holocaust denial be dealt with under P-law?”– A Friend
[H]ow would any public speech be dealt with under P-law? In public, to the public, in matters public, suppression of the truth, or attempts at discovering the truth are prohibited under P-law. Conversely, falsehood is prohibited under P. The difference is that under P-law, speech in public, to the public, in matters public, is involuntarily warrantied. Including the dishonest use of statements masquerading as questions. So, public trial by propaganda, sophistry, and falsehood is illegal and expensive for any party since the cost of correcting public speech is prohibitively expensive. As such one can investigate, and report findings, like we do in any science, but we cannot make claims or imply claims without liability for error, bias, and deceit. Personally I’m far less concerned about this subject than I am the destruction and death by marxism, bolshevism, Leninism, maoism; the current civilizational destruction under postmodernism and denialism; and the ancient world’s destruction by judaism, Christianity and especially the billion dead under islam. So, sure, I tend to think the holocaust industry has gotten out of hand but I don’t know truth from falsehood myself, and I think it would be useful to discover what’s true and what’s false in order to stop both sides from propagandizing. I hate this topic. I try to avoid it at all costs. But I do my job. My job is to answer the tough questions. That’s what y’all pay me for with those donations.
