Merged General Holocaust denial discussion Part IV

fagin said:
Who?
Click to expand...



I clicked the “about” page.

For decades I have spent a couple of hours every morning carefully reading The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and several other major newspapers.
Click to expand...

That was the first sentence in the mission statement. Not that the website author wrote for any of those papers, but that he read them.
 
carlitos said:
I clicked the “about” page.

For decades I have spent a couple of hours every morning carefully reading The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and several other major newspapers.
Click to expand...

That was the first sentence in the mission statement. Not that the website author wrote for any of those papers, but that he read them.
Click to expand...

Aren't these papers examples of the supposedly Jewish-controlled media that people like him are supposed to avoid?
How did he escape Teh Branewashing? :eek:
 
Mondial said:
Jewish writer and businessman Ron Unz has come out in support of holocaust revisionism. Another Jew who did his own research and realised he'd been lied to by the msm and Hollywood.
www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6912
Click to expand...
From a post I made in a different forum right after Unz's coming out party:

I have my issues with David Cole, but I thought he hit a big fly with Unicornville.

And now he’s back, savaging Ron Unz’s case for HD, with another dinger, one he prefaces with a perfect description of how deniers so often act:
I got the standard denier’s “Hey, I’m just askin’ questions” routine. The “golly gosh aw shucks, I ain’t no highfalutin historian, just a lil’ ol’ guy tryin’ to get answers” vaudeville act. Some of our exchanges were downright hilarious.
Click to expand...
In Cole’s exchange with Unz - warning: Cole can be nasty - Cole takes Unz to task on the following, painfully familiar to those of us who read denier materials (you have to scroll down in the “dinger” link above to “Cole to Unz (unsent, because why bother?)”:

(1) official German documents

(2) Goebbels’ diary - I like this:
There are only three non-retarded responses to that diary passage:

A) It describes exterminations, but it’s a fake; Goebbels didn’t write it.

B) It describes exterminations, but Goebbels was wrong; he had bad info, and he wrote about something that never happened.

C) It describes exterminations that happened.

That’s it, Rain Man. Those are your choices. Your hero Irving proved 'A' not to be the case. The other documentary evidence proves 'B' equally false. But if you want to deny the Holocaust, AT LEAST choose A or B. But calling that diary entry 'vague?' That is moronic beyond belief…literally, beyond what even the worst mouthbreather should be capable of.
Click to expand...
(3) German documents again

(4) gas chambers - and documents yet again along with the resettlement and transit nonsense

(5) the official story on how gassings were conducted

(6) the Reinhard camps in the light of Auschwitz

(7) population statistics

(8) Treblinka as a transit camp

(9) population again

(10) Churchill, Ike, and de Gaulle’s non-mention, I kid you not, Unz brought this up!

(11) John Beaty (you have to read the piece!)

(12) Treblinka archaeology - like so,
Treblinka survivors say it was an extermination camp.

Treblinka Commandant Stangl says it was an extermination camp

Treblinka Commandant Franz says it was an extermination camp.

Treblinka SS guard Suchomel says it was an extermination camp.

SS Judge Morgen states that it was an extermination camp.

No one states that it was a transit camp.

1961: Ron Unz is born. The world mourns what is to come.

1970 – 2028: Deniers search for proof of the magical resettlement reservations where the Reinhard Jews would have been sent had they simply been “transited.” Every denier has died empty-handed. The few deniers still looking will die empty handed. Zero evidence was uncovered, along with zero evidence of the amazing amount of food, clothing, and material goods the Nazis would have had to supply to take care of 2.4 million*non-laboring*people on a reservation. There is literally more proof of unicorns than there is for this “reservation,” because in the past, scammers have at least*tried*to fake unicorn skulls. But there isn’t even any bad or questionable evidence for this “reservation.” There is*nothing. Zero. Nada.

August 2018: Ron Unz, still smarting from the fact that the “magic beans” be bought from a conniving Jew had failed to birth a beanstalk, praises Holocaust denial.

Labor Day Weekend, 2018: Ron Unz annoys one of his betters on the latter’s 50th birthday.
Click to expand...
Cole puts all this with his customary breezy nastiness, better than I can do, for sure. So I’d ask deniers who post here to tell us, point by point from my list of topics above, what’s wrong with Cole’s arguments and where Ron Unz has a point.

I’m not saying not to read the first part of the piece - which gets into Irving, Goebbels' diary, German bureaucracy, witnesses and remembrance - I’m just asking specifically about the second part.
 
Last edited:
Hello everyone - I've recently become interested in this topic after having been recommended to watch 'One Third of the Holocaust', 'Cole in Auschwitz' and some stuff about Leuchter by a denier elsewhere. I watched these films and also read the excellent and thorough debunking of them on the 'Holocaust Controversies' blog. This resource has since become my 'go to' site to link when presented with most things I hear from deniers (after which they always go completely silent! :D) but I can't seem to find a treatment of Anthony Lawson's 'Were the Germans so stupid?' film there.

I've skimmed through the film and much of it seems to be about whether or not HD should be illegal etc. but is there a source that refutes his 'factual' claims point by point? Thanks.
 
Lawson is hardly credible;

https://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=1006

"Having been tortured, Rudolf Höss, who was the commander of Auschwitz from 1940 to 1943, almost certainly lied to save the lives of his wife and children. Even if torture and duress cannot be proven, the overwhelming reason for recognizing the utter falsity of the Höss confession is that the gassing method he described was not scientifically plausible."

He starts with an unevidenced claim Hoss lied to save his family. He then accepts claims about torture and duress are not proven. He then makes a ridiculous non sequitur claim that because Hoss did not describe a plausible means of gassing (which is a claim that is disputed), therefore it was impossible to have gassed people at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

Those types of argument have already been debunked and there is no need to go through every single rehash of the arguments.
 
@Nessie
Fair enough - I just found the point by point debunkings of the most popular HD videos really useful when talking to deniers (and a wonderfully reliable way of making them disappear from the conversation!) even if it means going over the same material, and I think Lawson's vid is quite well regarded among them. When I get a bit more well versed in the subject (I'm very new to it) I'll probably do a point by point debunking myself.
 
Georgio said:
@Nessie
Fair enough - I just found the point by point debunkings of the most popular HD videos really useful when talking to deniers (and a wonderfully reliable way of making them disappear from the conversation!) even if it means going over the same material, and I think Lawson's vid is quite well regarded among them. When I get a bit more well versed in the subject (I'm very new to it) I'll probably do a point by point debunking myself.
Click to expand...

I would suggest you read the Holocaust Controversies and Holocaust Denial On Trial websites for step by step debunking of denier claims.
 
Nessie said:
I would suggest you read the Holocaust Controversies and Holocaust Denial On Trial websites for step by step debunking of denier claims.
Click to expand...
Absolutely - as I say, 'Holocaust Controversies' has become my go-to resource when talking to deniers, but it's great to have pages dedicated to the specific videos they're likely to link to, the conversation usually going something like:

- Here is an utterly irrefutable film that proves x, y, z but you won't watch it because your programming means you are unable to accept any doubt over anything to do with the official holocaust narrative and just dismiss anyone who does as a Nazi without even looking at the evidence they present.

- OK, thanks. I've now watched your film and have also read this point by point rebuttal of it on 'Holocaust Controversies'. Would you like to bring up any specific points raised in the film, and how you think they prove x, y, z so we can discuss them?

Crickets. :)

Either that or I'm told I'm Jewish (then when I tell them I'm not, which I'm not, I'm told I'm lying) so nothing I say should be listened to anyway :D

The gambit seems to be to link to a horrendously long and/or tedious and/or vague, convoluted film and claim in advance that the person you're talking to won't watch it due to their 'programming', then if they do watch it just bail on the conversation. This has happened to me a number of times now whenever I'm honest and say that I'm new to the subject. The only conversation they want to have is with people who actively refuse to look at their 'evidence' so they can say, 'You won't even look at the evidence!' etc. It's just really useful to have a page that deals with the way the argument is structured in the specific videos they're likely to link to - of course it's going to be the same ultimate non-argument, but the sophistry and tricks used may vary.

EDIT - Sorry, I see what you're saying now - you're recommending those sites for me to read up on so I can do the point by point debunking myself. Thanks :)
 
Last edited:
Ask deniers to evidence their beliefs. Be specific, like, ask them what they think happened to the Dutch Jews sent to Sobibor in 1943 and to show their evidence.

It is comical to watch them squirm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom