Question for twoofers who are NOT anti-semites

[SDC]

GregUrich, "revisionism" means Holocaust denial. It is not about correcting actual facts (e.g., when Browning's "Ordinary Men" appeared and elaborated on the routine murderousness of a German reserve unit in Poland, it was not "revision"). The people who talk about "revision" are deniers. If you don't believe me, well, look it up. Or ask Nick Terry, who is a historian of the Holocaust, just as you are an engineer.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I have already pointed out one example of the truth movement doing something about it.

No... you didn't.

What you showed us was STJ9/11 making a declaration that the founder (and presumably the leader) does not live by.

At no time has Steven Jones apologized to Larry Silverstein for taking Rick Rajters word against him. Especially after our e-mail conversation wherein Rajter affirmed his anti-semitism. And Jones has continued to associate with Holocaust deniers and use his on-line journal to publish their slander against the jews after our e-mail conversation and after STJ9/11 made that statement you linked to.

STJ9/11's credibility is directly linked to Steven Jones. Either STJ9/11 has to throw Jones out for his violations of their claimed standards, or Jones needs to come up with some serious mea culpa and the "go forth and sin no more".

Either way, your first example is a complete wash and reinforces my original point.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I don't think the point is that racist scum are present in the TM.

The point is that racist scum are present in the TM and the rest of the movement does nothing about it.

That certainly reflects on the movement as a whole, does it not? After all, it's not like we find a fringe element of the TM snuggling up with the racists.

LC cited the "American Free Press," DG Griffin gives interviews on white power radio, Steven Jones works with Holocaust Deniers and Alex Jones runs banner adds for racist publications.

Those are the very cornerstones of your "movement," kids! And notice that almost all pressure against those people came from debunkers as opposed to the TM rank-and-file.

EGG-ZACTLY!

It's almost funny that despite the prevalence of racism and bigotry within the 9/11 TM, along with people who at least pay lip service to values of tolerance and religious and racial harmony that the single biggest division within the truth movement is based entirely upon how many planes one believes was used in the attack.

Four planes = LIHOP, Two planes = MIHOP, No Planes = Dumbasses

And each one of these factions HATES the others. You can show up to a twoofer gathering with a copy of "Protocols of Zion" tucked under your arm and no one will care. But if you suggest that a plane may have struck the Pentagon, you could get yourself lynched.

 

[GregoryUrich]

GregUrich, "revisionism" means Holocaust denial. It is not about correcting actual facts (e.g., when Browning's "Ordinary Men" appeared and elaborated on the routine murderousness of a German reserve unit in Poland, it was not "revision"). The people who talk about "revision" are deniers. If you don't believe me, well, look it up. Or ask Nick Terry, who is a historian of the Holocaust, just as you are an engineer.

Now we know what revisionism means to you. Let's look at what revisionism means to most people.

Within the academic field of history, historical revisionism is the critical reexamination of historical facts, with a view to rewriting histories with either newly discovered information or a reinterpretation of existing information. The assumption is that history as it has been traditionally told may not be entirely accurate.[1]

Historical revisionism

Pulitzer Prize winning historian James McPherson, writing for the American Historical Association, described the importance of revisionism:

The 14,000 members of this Association, however, know that revision is the lifeblood of historical scholarship. History is a continuing dialogue between the present and the past. Interpretations of the past are subject to change in response to new evidence, new questions asked of the evidence, new perspectives gained by the passage of time. There is no single, eternal, and immutable "truth" about past events and their meaning. The unending quest of historians for understanding the past—that is, "revisionism"—is what makes history vital and meaningful. Without revisionism, we might be stuck with the images of Reconstruction after the American Civil War that were conveyed by D. W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation and Claude Bowers's The Tragic Era. Were the Gilded Age entrepreneurs "Captains of Industry" or "Robber Barons"? Without revisionist historians who have done research in new sources and asked new and nuanced questions, we would remain mired in one or another of these stereotypes. Supreme Court decisions often reflect a "revisionist" interpretation of history as well as of the Constitution.[2]

Those historians who work within the existing establishment and who have a body of existing work from which they claim authority, often have the most to gain by maintaining the status quo. This can be called an accepted paradigm, which in some circles or societies takes the form of a denunciative stance towards revisionism of any kind. Historian David Williams describes the resistance to the advocates of a more inclusive United States history that would include the roles of women, African Americans, and the labor movement...

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I'll see your wikipedia link and raise you one more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holoca..._Holocaust_denial_or_Holocaust_revisionism.3F

The terms "Holocaust denier" and "Holocaust denial" are often objected to by the people to whom they are applied. These people typically prefer "revisionist" and "revisionism".[4] Scholars believe that term to be misleading, however.[5] While historical revisionism is the re-examination of accepted history, with an eye towards updating it with newly discovered, more accurate, or less-biased information, deniers seek evidence to support a preconceived theory, omitting substantial facts.[10]

Historical revisionism is an academic approach that holds that a given slice of history, as it has been traditionally told, may not be entirely accurate, and should hence be revised accordingly. Historical revisionism in this sense is a well-accepted and mainstream part of history studies, and it is applied to the study of the Holocaust as new facts emerge and change our understanding of it. A very different process unfolds when someone proceeds from the premise that a major element of human history is simply inaccurate, and ignores or routinely minimizes evidence that conflicts with that premise. History done in this way is not revisionism, but denial.[11]

Because the term "revisionist" has become associated with Holocaust deniers, Holocaust historians today generally avoid using it to describe themselves, though they continue to study and revise opinions on aspects of the Holocaust. In the words of historian Donald Niewyk of Southern Methodist University:

"With the main features of the Holocaust clearly visible to all but the willfully blind, historians have turned their attention to aspects of the story for which the evidence is incomplete or ambiguous. These are not minor matters by any means, but turn on such issues as Hitler's role in the event, Jewish responses to persecution, and reactions by onlookers both inside and outside Nazi-controlled Europe."[12]

Holocaust denial is sometimes referred to as "negationism", from the French term Le négationnisme, introduced by Henry Rousso.[13] Negationists attempt to rewrite history by minimizing, denying or simply ignoring essential facts. According to Jacques Derrida:

"Generally speaking, 'revisionism' in history is the attempt to critique established dogmas, a critique that can in no way be included in with the type of negationism that attempts to deny the reality of acknowledged facts."[14]

According to Koenraad Elst:

"Negationism means the denial of historical crimes against humanity. It is not a reinterpretation of known facts, but the denial of known facts. The term negationism has gained currency as the name of a movement to deny a specific crime against humanity, the Nazi genocide on the Jews in 1941-45, also known as the holocaust (Greek: fire sacrifice) or the Shoah (Hebrew: disaster). Negationism is mostly identified with the effort at re-writing history in such a way that the fact of the Holocaust is omitted."[15]

"Revisionist", as you apparently define it, is not a title that applies to the friends of STJ9/11 founder, Steven E. Jones.

 

[GregoryUrich]

No... you didn't.

What you showed us was STJ9/11 making a declaration that the founder (and presumably the leader) does not live by.

At no time has Steven Jones apologized to Larry Silverstein for taking Rick Rajters word against him. Especially after our e-mail conversation wherein Rajter affirmed his anti-semitism. And Jones has continued to associate with Holocaust deniers and use his on-line journal to publish their slander against the jews after our e-mail conversation and after STJ9/11 made that statement you linked to.

STJ9/11's credibility is directly linked to Steven Jones. Either STJ9/11 has to throw Jones out for his violations of their claimed standards, or Jones needs to come up with some serious mea culpa and the "go forth and sin no more".

Either way, your first example is a complete wash and reinforces my original point.

Steven Jones is neither the founder or the leader of STJ911.

From the web site:

An ad hoc committee of scholars (from the old group) is forming a research society which will focus on use of the scientific method and peer-reviewed papers. Their website will be closely allied with the Journal of 9/11 Studies (which I co-edit) and will be managed by an elected committee, responsive to the group.

The ad hoc committee consisted and continues to consist of the following members:

Spero Larres
Victoria Ashley
Carl Weis
Kevin Ryan
Chris Poate
Nicholas Newton

You should do some research and get your facts straight.

Even as a jew, I do not take offense at the Rajter e-mail or the article Steve published. Please give some examples of the most offensive language, because I couldn't find any.

Did you miss the other two examples? Truthmove and 9/11 Research.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Steven Jones is neither the founder or the leader of STJ911.

From the web site:



The ad hoc committee consisted and continues to consist of the following members:

Spero Larres
Victoria Ashley
Carl Weis
Kevin Ryan
Chris Poate
Nicholas Newton

You should do some research and get your facts straight.

Even as a jew, I do not take offense at the Rajter e-mail or the article Steve published. Please give some examples of the most offensive language, because I couldn't find any.

Did you miss the other two examples? Truthmove and 9/11 Research.

Ok, fair enough.

That he isn't as prominent with the organization as I thought should make it easier for STJ9/11 to live up to its proclaimed standards and eject Steven Jones.

 

[SDC]

GregUrich, you are an engineer, and you appear to be respected by other engineers here. Therefore I take your word for your technical writings and calculations.

I have a doctorate from the Univ of Michigan in history. One of my fields is modern Jewish history. I have a fair record of publication. Take my word for what "revisionism" means in this context. (And it doesn't include McPherson.)

 

[Slayhamlet]

My understanding of the term "revisionism" is that it describes a legitimate method of historical inquiry which seeks to gain a more accurate understanding of crucial historical realities by evaluating newly discovered evidence and critically examining long-standing assumptions in light of the new evidence to reach new conclusions about it. Of course the term has inevitably been hijacked by all sorts of cranks and crackpots seeking the appearance of legitimacy, most notably Holocaust deniers. In those cases it is illegitimate because it is not based on evaluation of new evidence but rather on deliberate misinterpretation of and disregard for established evidence.

 

[funk de fino]

I have posted three truth movement groups which clearly distance themselves from racism, bigotry and the neo-nazi movement. You should be aware that there is no "truth movement as a whole". There are a large number of grass-roots organizations and only a few with loose affiliations to others. For this reason, I don't think you will ever see a collective statement from the truth movement about anything. Why not focus on the groups that have problems?

Why are Atrain and Magz posts and threads that are offensive, bigotted, racist and blatant lies never condemned by any truth sympathetic posters on this site?

 

[beachnut]

Steven Jones is neither the founder or the leader of STJ911.

Did you miss the other two examples? Truthmove and 9/11 Research.

The pervasive anti-intellectual climate in Scholars is a magnet for the neoNAZIs, too dumb to know Jones and your group are bunch of frauds.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I have posted three truth movement groups which clearly distance themselves from racism, bigotry and the neo-nazi movement.

You have done no such thing.

You linked to Scholars for Truth and Justice, whose most famous member (even if he is not the leader, Jones is still very much the public face of STJ9/11) has chronic and continuing associations with nazi-sympathizers. STJ9/11 thus far has done nothing to reign in Jones.

You linked to http://www.truthmove.org/content/2008-declaration/
Which is a dead link.

Finally you linked to 911research, who not only provides numerous links to David Griffin, Steven Jones and Morgan Reynolds, all of whom have close ties to nazi-sympathizers but even has at least one direct link to Eric Hufschmid.

The fact remains that the twoof movement has done absolutely nothing to distance itself from racism and bigotry.

And you all feel fine about it.

So how about you answer my original question? What, if anything, are you going to do with these people after your little revolution since you refuse to do anything now?

 

[deep]

Finally you linked to 911research, who not only provides numerous links to David Griffin, Steven Jones and Morgan Reynolds, all of whom have close ties to nazi-sympathizers but even has at least one direct link to Eric Hufschmid.

Let me guess, any site that links to 911research is also tainted, because 911research links to Griffin/Jones/etc, and they allegedly have links to nazi sympathizers?

 

[Nick Terry]

Let me point out the delicious irony in deep44 and others rejecting a principle they might fondly hold in other contexts.

Connecting the dots to prove that Chertoff spun the Popular Mechanics 'hit piece' or that NIST can be dismissed because it's a branch of fedgov = legitimate.

Connecting the dots to show that 9/11 Truth's sources are tainted = not legitimate.

 

[CHF]

I have already pointed out one example of the truth movement doing something about it. Here is the TruthMove 2008 declaration, encouraging truth activists to distance themselves from "Holocaust denial/revisionism and Jewish conspiracy theories". These associations fall under the category of "baseless and offensive".

Your categorical criticism of the truth movement on this issue is nothing more than mudslinging and your concerns would be better served by focusing on those organizations where there is actually a problem.

I'll say it again, Gregory:

LC cited the "American Free Press," DG Griffin gives interviews on white power radio, Steven Jones works with Holocaust Deniers and Alex Jones runs banner adds for racist publications.

The very cornerstones of your sick little movement have been citing and working with Nazi scum from day one and show no signs of stopping. So whether or not there's a policy against teaming up with such vile people is of no relevance if your "leaders" continue to do so.

 

[deep]

Let me point out the delicious irony in deep44 and others rejecting a principle they might fondly hold in other contexts.

Connecting the dots to prove that Chertoff spun the Popular Mechanics 'hit piece' or that NIST can be dismissed because it's a branch of fedgov = legitimate.

Connecting the dots to show that 9/11 Truth's sources are tainted = not legitimate.

Show me where I've connected those dots - you can't, because I've done no such thing.

 

[funk de fino]

Show me where I've connected those dots - you can't, because I've done no such thing.

Why are Atrain and Magz posts and threads that are offensive, bigotted, racist and blatant lies never condemned by any truth sympathetic posters on this site?

 

[deep]

Why are Atrain and Magz posts and threads that are offensive, bigotted, racist and blatant lies never condemned by any truth sympathetic posters on this site?

No clue who or what you're referring to - it would be helpful if you could provide an example of what you're referring to.

 

[SDC]

Deep44, if you are interested please look at their postings. Both are anti-semitic. Magz takes a broad approach to the topic; Atrain focuses more on his/ her views that the Israeli super-agents brought down the airplanes.

 

[Nick Terry]

Show me where I've connected those dots - you can't, because I've done no such thing.

silly me, I forgot, you're a no-claimer, aren't you?

But I'll take the disavowal of the join-the-dots, ad hominem methodology inherent in 99% of CTs, thxkbi.