Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[TS-]

You should cite an example of what/who you're talking about. The points you've attempted to make seem to be unrelated to this thread an most of the posters herein.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Can I assume from the briefly posted bits that Saggy posted from Wiernik?

http://www.zchor.org/treblink/wiernik.htm

 

[Craig4]

How many have noticed folks cannot establish their holocaustic beliefs are factual without resorting to the same kinds of arguments used by god believers to promote their beliefs?

How many have noticed they favor criminalizing disbelief, their own form of Inquisition?

How many have noticed they do not understand that common words like martyr by definition require it be voluntary?

How many have noticed there is no definitive work on what is and is not part of their holocaust beliefs? But rather that anyone can say any ridiculous thing and their fellow believers can't notice the nonsense or that different beliefs are mutually exclusive?

Wow you're poorly read aren't you? Start with Lifton's work. Then start with the original documents. Typical for the low standard of work for your kind. You assume you're right based on your own your own grossly incompetent scholarship. Tell me you don't wonder why no one takes you seriously.

 

[Saggy]

My psychology ought to be very simple to grasp. It is the same underlying psychology as drives anyone who is interested in learning about something.

Once someone has learned something and put in a bit of effort, it is thereafter no longer possible for them to pretend that they haven't or to pretend that you can get by with a sample of one.

In this particular case, I have read as I said more than 100 Auschwitz memoirs, plus countless unpublished testimonies. Leaving aside the unpublished testimonies for the sake of argument, there is a very clear 100:1 ratio here. On the one hand, Wiesel. On the other hand, 100 other memoirists.

I'll admit that reading 100 Auschwitz memoirs puts me way ahead of pretty much everyone on the planet. It certainly puts me ahead of every single revisionist, ever.

So this means that not only is your ranting about Wiesel meaningless because I haven't even read Wiesel, it's also meaningless because you haven't said anything at all about the 100 memoirs I have read.

But worst of all for you, saying that all 100 memoirists are liars is a lot more implausible than saying one memoirist is a liar. Especially when you haven't read 100 Auschwitz memoirs. To say they're all liars, you need to have read them, otherwise you're making up stuff about things you haven't read. That's the trap you're in.

Incidentally, there are probably over 1,000 published Auschwitz memoirs and easily more than 10,000 unpublished testimonies.

Simple scholarly procedures would demand that whatever generalisation is made about such sources, that the generalisation be made on the basis of a representative sample. And the bigger the sample, the more reliable the generalisation. This is absolutely indisputable, it's how every branch of knowledge works.

You, however, waltz along and fixate on just one example out of more than 10,000, and think that's enough. Unfortunately, it's patently not enough.

Pretty much everyone other than you and Dogzilla see this problem straight away, as the principles, and the psychology, are instinctively obvious to sane people. And that's why everyone laughs at you.

Sad, really.

My psychology ought to be very simple to grasp. It is the same underlying psychology as drives anyone who is interested in learning about something.

Look, if your motivation was simply to learn about the hoax then you would read Weisel. The fact that you haven't read Weisel, and even boast of it, appears as an anomaly. So, the question we have now is how to explain the anomaly. How do you explain it?

I have two possible explanation - one is favorable to you.

Hypothesis 1 - Even though you haven't read Weisel, you know what a load of crap it is. So, having read countless, or 100, absurd tales, like those of Bomba, Martin Gray, Rudolf Vrba, Felix Meuller, etc., you have reached the limit. You know that one more will break you. Here is the good news - there is a vestige of what I think of as Greek/Euclidian/Copernican/Newtonian etc. logic and perspective in you that is repulsed by the lies of the 'survivors' and that is operating in some way, subconsciously, not understood by you, to prevent you from reading Weisel.

Hypothesis 2 - You have completely assumed the Zionist worldview that revels in the hatred of all things non-Jewish and you are showing your contempt for all reason and rationality, the Greek or Euclidean or Aryan perspective if you will, by your arbitrary and capricious boasting of not having read Weisel.

I give most credence to hypothesis 2. Well, what is your explanation?

 

[Nick Terry]

You said it was the euthanasia decree.

this is hairsplitting at its worst. Really, do you think it makes you look smarter to be so utterly petty about something that has already been explained to you several times now?

 

[Nick Terry]

My psychology ought to be very simple to grasp. It is the same underlying psychology as drives anyone who is interested in learning about something.

Look, if your motivation was simply to learn about the hoax then you would read Weisel. The fact that you haven't read Weisel, and even boast of it, appears as an anomaly. So, the question we have now is how to explain the anomaly. How do you explain it?

I have two possible explanation - one is favorable to you.

Hypothesis 1 - Even though you haven't read Weisel, you know what a load of crap it is. So, having read countless, or 100, absurd tales, like those of Bomba, Martin Gray, Rudolf Vrba, Felix Meuller, etc., you have reached the limit. You know that one more will break you. Here is the good news - there is a vestige of what I think of as Greek/Euclidian/Copernican/Newtonian etc. logic and perspective in you that is repulsed by the lies of the 'survivors' and that is operating in some way, subconsciously, not understood by you, to prevent you from reading Weisel.

Hypothesis 2 - You have completely assumed the Zionist worldview that revels in the hatred of all things non-Jewish and you are showing your contempt for all reason and rationality, the Greek or Euclidean or Aryan perspective if you will, by your arbitrary and capricious boasting of not having read Weisel.

I give most credence to hypothesis 2. Well, what is your explanation?

Both are wrong, and both are nonsensical. The main reason is one of taste - it is well known that Elie Wiesel has laden his writings with religious imagery designed to appeal to Christians. This has been pointed out by many critics. As a good agnostic member of the Church of England, such imagery often revolts me, so I choose not to read something that I won't like.

The subsidiary reason is that Wiesel's writings are widely discussed for their literary qualities, and I am not a literature scholar but a historian. Historians will generally prefer testimonies that are more unadorned and less literary. It is also not difficult to work out when studying Auschwitz that Wiesel never appeared as a witness at any trial. So his writings are not relevant from that perspective, either. Moreover, Wiesel only arrived in Auschwitz in mid-1944 and spent much of his time in sub-camps not in Birkenau. If I am interested in reading about Auschwitz in 1941 or Birkenau in 1942 then there is absolutely no reason to read Wiesel.

The final reason is of course the fact that deniers are hopeless populists and like you drone on endlessly about Wiesel, Anne Frank etc. By inclination I tend to avoid things that are too popular, and it also amuses me to watch deniers like you flail hopelessly trying to explain why Wiesel is not my Bible, as you seem to believe it must be.

 

[Wroclaw]

The subsidiary reason is that Wiesel's writings are widely discussed for their literary qualities, and I am not a literature scholar but a historian.

Trust me when I say that Wiesel's writings aren't much as literature either — or at least not Night. Dawn is decent, and The Trial of God is interesting also. Haven't read The Accident, but I imagine it's much like the first two books of the trilogy.

Now, if they would toss Night for The Drowned and the Saved by Primo Levi, literature departments would benefit greatly. I.e., if you're going to choose one survivor to represent the Holocaust literarily, then go for Levi every time.

 

[MG1962]

Saggy could you point out anyone who was charged or found guilty as a direct consequence of Wiesel's writings. Giwer, feel free to step in as well if you feel you can contribute

 

[dafydd]

Saying "I said I do not debate your kind" is not a personal attack by definition.

Nazi is a collective noun.

 

[Dogzilla]

Is he genuinely denying that Eastern European Jews lived in conditions of at least some difficulty during the first half of the twentieth century?

Of course not.

Why does he think millions of Jews came to America during that period?

Got any, y'know, of that evidence stuff that more than two million Jews came to America during the first half of the twentieth century?

Virtually all of the Jews in America are descended from Jews that emigrated from Eastern Europe between 1880 and 1915.

Sounds plausible but I don't know for a fact that it is true. I'd bet virtually all the ethnic Eastern European non-Jews in America today are descended from emigrants from Eastern Europe during the same period.

If everything was hunky dory back in Europe, why'd they move in such large numbers?

Same reason large numbers of non-Jewish Europeans moved to America in large numbers: things weren't hunky dory back in Europe and we had lots of surplus land we had just stolen from the Indians that needed to be given to Whites.

 

[Wroclaw]

Got any, y'know, of that evidence stuff that more than two million Jews came to America during the first half of the twentieth century?

"Millions of Jews" equals "more than one million."

Sounds plausible but I don't know for a fact that it is true. I'd bet virtually all the ethnic Eastern European non-Jews in America today are descended from emigrants from Eastern Europe during the same period.

That's correct. And southern Europe.

But here's what I'm talking about: My own ancestors came to this country from Central Europe about 160 years ago. They were Jewish. I am in the very small minority of American Jews who can trace their ancestry to this group.

Same reason large numbers of non-Jewish Europeans moved to America in large numbers: things weren't hunky dory back in Europe and we had lots of surplus land we had just stolen from the Indians that needed to be given to Whites.

All true. What's your point?

 

[dafydd]

"Millions of Jews" equals "more than one million."



That's correct. And southern Europe.

But here's what I'm talking about: My own ancestors came to this country from Central Europe about 160 years ago. They were Jewish. I am in the very small minority of American Jews who can trace their ancestry to this group.



All true. What's your point?

He hates Jews. That is the point of all his threads.

 

[Dogzilla]

.
"Why have neither you nor any other denier here actually *cited* any of these articles", which show a "slew" of articles, which is what you posted in support of.

Which remains true, and therefore not a lie.
.

Well, sure, when you truncate it, you're closer to the truth. What you said was: "So, if it is this easy, why have neither you nor any other denier here actually *cited* any of these articles, rather than just baldly lying that they exist."

It's the bold faced part where you said I lied.

.
But since you *hadn't* done that search, your assertion that it would be fruitful *was* a lie, since you stated your point was regarding such whining, and you hadn't (and still don't) the slightest idea of the content for which you wanted everyone else to search.

And just to put it in context, that search was supposed to be in support of Saggy's lies about a whole slew of articles published in the NYT from 1915-22 with holohoax lies. Tell us, just how many of those 15 articles do you believe demonstrate "holohoax lies"?

How many demonstrate "holohoax" lies? Since these are all articles from before the Nazi takeover in 1933, I don't think any of them relate to the "holohoax."

What's that?

Like I said. None of them.

Exactly none?

Yes. None. Are you deaf or stupid?

Then other than providing me with few moments' diversion, why did you even suggest it?
.

Because I live to fill your days with meaningful activity.

.
No, I'm not. I baldly stating, based on your posts here, that *you* have never supplied citations to any such articles.


And *still* haven't.

So?

Because you apparently couldn't care less if what you said was true in your mindless support of Saggs "slew of articles" lie.

The date range was suggested by you, in case you forgot. The ten year average (get your mommy to explain the concept) was simply a result of doing the search *you* suggested during the range that *you* suggested, none of which articles support your now admitted point that the Jews were whining and the implied point that Saggy was right in asserting a "slew of articles".

First, why don't you explain "ten year average" to us and how it has any application here? Second, the 'whining' comment came later.

Could you please make a clear point (other than "I hate Jews") and offer support for it about these 15 articles for which you suggested I look? Do they constitute a "slew"? Which of them are whining?
.

My point is clear except to those people who hate Germans. I don't know how many you need to constitute a "slew" You said I was lying and that no such articles appeared. I don't need a "slew" of articles. I only need one.

.
Can you offer even *one* hit from the war years or prior which is "premium content"?

Sure. I'm not going to because doing so has no relevance to this discussion and you can easily do it yourself.
.

.
No, in fact, they don't.

Don't be so sure.

Seriously, check your sources so you don't get caught is such blatant lies.

OK, I'll get right on that.

Or tell you what: Find a war time article they charge for, and I will take six month hiatus from pointing out your idiocy.
.

I'm definitely not going to do it now because it's no fun without you.

.
Well, good thing they *don't* charge then, which you would know if you had ever actually, you know, gone to the site.
.

Well they don't charge subscribers to the print edition. The rest of the riff raff needs to pay for some of their online content.

.
And how many articles do these URLs produce?

Click and you shall find out.

How does that number support either the "slew" you posted to support, or your later claim of "whining"?

As I said, I don't know how many constitutes a "slew." More than a hundred articles is probably closer to a "slew" than fifteen although I'm sure that not all of those hits are actually relevant. Dr. Terry already answered your question, however, and it's far higher than I would have ever imagined.

How many are "whining"? Whining is a tone of voice. It can't be determined from the written form. Read the next sentence. I'm I whining now? How about now? Am I still whining?

Post the *specific* URLs you feel support either of these points, or admit that they do not.

Asked and answered.

.
Right about what? There being a "slew", or that the articles are "whining", or that the NYT requires you to pay for war time articles?

All of the above.

Why don't *you* give even one link to an article which demonstrates any of these points that you have tried to make?

Done it.

 

[dafydd]

Well, sure, when you truncate it, you're closer to the truth. What you said was: "So, if it is this easy, why have neither you nor any other denier here actually *cited* any of these articles, rather than just baldly lying that they exist."

It's the bold faced part where you said I lied.





How many demonstrate "holohoax" lies? Since these are all articles from before the Nazi takeover in 1933, I don't think any of them relate to the "holohoax."





Like I said. None of them.




Yes. None. Are you deaf or stupid?






Because I live to fill your days with meaningful activity.




So?




First, why don't you explain "ten year average" to us and how it has any application here? Second, the 'whining' comment came later.




My point is clear except to those people who hate Germans. I don't know how many you need to constitute a "slew" You said I was lying and that no such articles appeared. I don't need a "slew" of articles. I only need one.



Sure. I'm not going to because doing so has no relevance to this discussion and you can easily do it yourself.
.



Don't be so sure.




OK, I'll get right on that.




I'm definitely not going to do it now because it's no fun without you.



Well they don't charge subscribers to the print edition. The rest of the riff raff needs to pay for some of their online content.



Click and you shall find out.




As I said, I don't know how many constitutes a "slew." More than a hundred articles is probably closer to a "slew" than fifteen although I'm sure that not all of those hits are actually relevant. Dr. Terry already answered your question, however, and it's far higher than I would have ever imagined.

How many are "whining"? Whining is a tone of voice. It can't be determined from the written form. Read the next sentence. I'm I whining now? How about now? Am I still whining?



Asked and answered.



All of the above.



Done it.

You put quotation marks around the word holohoax. That is a good sign.

 

[Nick Terry]

a plea to Dogzilla and to TSR - stop fisking each other's posts for a while. It is by now utterly impossible to establish what is being discussed, so would you please commit to a position written up in one or more paragraphs.

 

[Saggy]

Now, if they would toss Night for The Drowned and the Saved by Primo Levi, literature departments would benefit greatly. I.e., if you're going to choose one survivor to represent the Holocaust literarily, then go for Levi every time.

Primo Levi and Elie Weisel are prima facie proof that the holocaust is a hoax. When the Russian army approached Auschwitz, both were in the camp HOSPITAL, Weisel being treated, operated on, for an infected foot, and Levi being treated for scarlet fever (typhus?). Otto Frank was also in the Auschwitz hospital at that time. The Nazis gave patients able to travel the option of evacuating with them, or awaiting the big bad Russians. Weisel decamped, Levi and Frank stayed, I don't know if they were able to travel, and were liberated by the Russians.

 

[Saggy]

it is well known that Elie Wiesel has laden his writings with religious imagery designed to appeal to Christians. This has been pointed out by many critics. As a good agnostic member of the Church of England, such imagery often revolts me, so I choose not to read something that I won't like.

Well, that's a fine example of pure idiocy. Not funny, was it supposed to be? Just plain stupid.

But never mind, here is some imagery from Weisel that doesn't allude to Christianity in any way, and is typical of the holohoax, i.e. this is the type of imagery you revel in, so I'm sure you'll like it ...

"The soldiers threw babies in the air and the machine gunners used them as targets."

For degenerate lies like this he received the Nobel Prize for Peace.

 

[Dogzilla]

Que?

• — 1923–1986: Articles in this date range (from January 1, 1923 through December 31, 1986) are available for purchase at $3.95 each.
• — Pre-1923 and post-1986: Articles published before January 1, 1923 or after December 31, 1986 are free, but they count toward your monthly limit.

Oh man! What did you go and do that for?

 

[Dogzilla]

.
I sit corrected. Sometimes having the computer remember these things is not so good. < note to self: did I really spend $60 showing DZ's mendacity? Check the NYT account. >

DZ: you have a six month pass. Make the most of it.

Maybe by citing which of those 'hundreds' of articles you found represent "whining" by anyone but you with actual quotes? Any, oh, say, dozen will do.

But keep in what passes for your mind that I can check, and will point your cr*p out after November runs around....
.

Don't go! I know you didn't mean it! I know you're sorry! I believe you this time when you say you'll never do it again! We can see a counselor! It'll work out this time. I love you, baby! Please don't leave me now!

 

[Dogzilla]

.
Why do you pretend that I do?

Free hint: my first marriage was to a German-American whose parents lived on the wrong side of the Berlin Wall. Guess where we met, guess how they got over the Wall? Why would I marry such a person, if I "hate Germans so much"?
.

Bigotry isn't rational.