Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[uke2se]

The evidence is all around you, everyday. The fact that obvious liars like Irene Zisblatt and Michael Berenbaum, Yale prof. who vetted 'The Last Days', and Elie Wiesel, are taken at face value and not ridiculed in the media is prima facie evidence that it is Zionist controlled.

So you have no actual evidence then. Why didn't you say so from the beginning?

 

[LemmyCaution]

This is true. The believers like to point out that Wiesel is rarely used as a primary source among holocaust scholars. They seem to be correct. Which makes it all the more mysterious that "Night" might possibly be the most widely read book about the holocaust if we look at required reading lists on various holocaust and Genocide Studies class syllabi.

Let's assume you are correct (will you share with us the methodology you used to arrive at this conclusion about Night, and the results of your study?). What you seem to be saying here is that Night doesn't really figure in the research base or scholarship but is seen as popular and accessible for non-experts. Whilst I may fault professors and instructors for choosing this particular book, their using it doesn't affect the research, which, as you say, rarely references Wiesel and instead uses multitudes of other sources. And you haven't told us how the book is used across the syllabi you've studies? Is Night read to probe, for example, the impact of the genocide on contemporary Jewish thought? Is it subjected to critical reading and comparative examination? What texts are used alongside it? I'm interested to see your research on the role of Wiesel's book (or other writings) in Holocaust and genocide studies courses.

 

[Saggy]

So you have no actual evidence then. Why didn't you say so from the beginning?

Dr. Steven Lowenstein is another Zionist 'scholar' that vouched for the absurd and obvious lies in Spielberg's 'The Last Days'. The Zionists will tell absolutely any whopper with a straight face and get a line of university professors to vouch for its accuracy. And, as always, the media and academia is absolutely silent.

 

[LemmyCaution]

The evidence is all around you, everyday. The fact that liars like Irene Zisblatt and Michael Berenbaum, Yale prof. who vetted 'The Last Days', and Elie Wiesare taken at face value and not ridiculed and exposed as the obvious frauds they are in the media is prima facie evidence that it is Zionist controlled.

This claim is more than a stretch. Most of the time, the people who staff the various media are far from experts in what they report on. Their lack of knowledge of topics they report often leads to tepid, if not downright poodle-like, reporting. E.g., the press lapped up WMDs, embedded their reporters with the US military in Iraq to lap up their version of events, and Dick Cheney walks free and scarcely challenged to this very day. Combine the lack of historical knowledge, let alone Holocaust specific knowledge, on the part of those working in the press and media, with the fact that the Holocaust is a universally accepted historical event and that there is widespread respect for survivors, and the chances that some muckraking reporter will decide to self-educate on Wiesel's tattoo or read Joachim Neander's article on Ms Zisblatt aren't high -- absent "Zionist control" of the world media.

So, you fail on elementary logic, there being a much more obvious and simpler explanation for the phenomenon you say is iron clad proof -- and you also seem unable to provide actual evidence for your claim, which thus remains outlandish and far-fetched.

What comes across in your post is complete obliviousness to the fact that the Holocaust is part of basic historical understanding -- and not a concoction or unique belief of Zionists. Are universities also Zionist controlled?

 

[TSR]

You're probably right. I can't produce an Egyptian or alien document easily--that's for sure.

.
Then you agree that in one case, we have evidence that we do not have in the others
.

But so what? I can apply the same standard of evidence that Dr. Shermer applies to the holocaust which is, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

.
Yes, but you see, you've just agreed that there is no absence of evidence for the Holocaust as a whole, while in the other cases there *is* an absence of such evidence.

BTW, I don't recall Shermer having commented on alien abductions in any way, let alone with that particular standard.
.

We're not discussing the evidence itself. Please try to keep up.

.
Well, *you* are studiously avoiding that discussion, since you have yet to show that either in general or in the one specific case of Shermer the standard was not applied the same way. What evidence there *is*, was evaluated the same way, which lead to different conclusions about the events in question.

And that's not even getting into your equating Shermer with historians.

So, as I said -- no, you can't, and no, you haven't.

Care to try a *vaild* comparison this time?
.

 

[Saggy]

Are universities also Zionist controlled?

Regarding any question about the holohoax the Zionists have absolute control over the universities.

Look at the efforts of Bradley Smith to find one professor who will supply the name of one person gassed at Auschwitz along with some proof of that claim. He placed a 7-word ad in the U Wisconsin student newspaper advertising his question, and was met with a hailstorm of controversy, protest, and vitriol. Of course no one supplied the name of a SINGLE PERSON GASSED AT AUSCHWITZ, and the national Jewish organizations pressured the newspaper to change its rules so that no such ad could ever appear again. See the details here ...

http://www.holohoax101.com/102/

 

[TSR]

Which makes it all the more mysterious that "Night" might possibly be the most widely read book about the holocaust if we look at required reading lists on various holocaust and Genocide Studies class syllabi.

.
Tell you what, for every such class syllabus you come up with listing "Night" as required reading, I will list three that do not.

After you come up with the first time a body of evidence was handled differently by historians, that is.
.

 

[TSR]

He placed a 7-word ad in the U Wisconsin student newspaper advertising his question

.
No, he placed an ad spamming CODOH dot com. Which contains far more than just this "question", which cannot be answered since Smith rejects out of hand any and all evidence with which zie is presented.
.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Wiesel is the holohoax. The revisionists didn't choose him, the Jews did. He received the Nobel Peace Prize. He was the first director of the USHMM hoax museum. He travelled to Auschwitz with Oprah to broadcast his degenerate lies. He IS the holohoax.

Second in line Spielberg. His lies were vetted by the USHMM and Yad Vashem, and a host of holohoax professors, and won an Academy award. These include the absurd and degenerate lies of Irene Zizblatt, among others. All this is fully documented here ....

http://www.holocaustdenier.com/2011/01/the-last-days-of-the-big-lie-first-draft/

Here is one of the esteemed holohoax professors that was a 'historical consultant' for 'The Last Days' ....

Michael Berenbaum (born 1945) is an American scholar, professor, rabbi, writer, and film-maker, who specializes in the study of the memorialization of the Holocaust. He is perhaps best known for his work as Deputy Director of the President's Commission on the Holocaust (1979–1980), Project Director of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM) (1988–1993), and Director of the USHMM's Holocaust Research Institute (1993–1997); as such, Berenbaum played a major role in the creation of the USHMM and the content of its permanent exhibition. From 1997 - 1999, Berenbaum served as President and CEO of the Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation, and subsequently (and currently) as Director of the Sigi Ziering Institute: Exploring the Ethical and Religious Implications of the Holocaust, located at the American Jewish University (formerly known as the University of Judaism), in Los Angeles, CA.

There is not a shred of integrity, as commonly perceived by non-Zionists, in the entire holohoax establishment. They will vouch for any lie, regardless that it is obviously preposterous, in fact, the more preposterous, the better.

It's their life agenda to lie to the goyim.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Regarding any question about the holohoax the Zionists have absolute control over the universities.

Look at the efforts of Bradley Smith to find one professor who will supply the name of one person gassed at Auschwitz along with some proof of that claim. He placed a 7-word ad in the U Wisconsin student newspaper advertising his question, and was met with a hailstorm of controversy, protest, and vitriol. Of course no one supplied the name of a SINGLE PERSON GASSED AT AUSCHWITZ, and the national Jewish organizations pressured the newspaper to change its rules so that no such ad could ever appear again. See the details here ...

http://www.holohoax101.com/102/

Your "proof" is again a case of circular logic. I am curious about the various institutions which Zionists control. Can you summarize the extent of Zionist control in the world today for us?

I do see why you need this "Zionist control" as much as other deniers need forgeries: it is the only way to explain away the vast consensus, across political, religious, ethnic, and other boundaries, regarding the historical reality of the Holocaust. In fact, the claim of Zionist control over knowledge production and dissemination works hand in glove with the claim of forgery -- although we do have some bizarre and wild claims of Moscow Forgery Factories we need to account for. Without these unsubstantiated articles of faith, the house of cards that is Revisionism tumbles. But this is the way all conspiracy thinking works, using hunches and "must be's" to confirm prejudices and fears.

As to Bradley Smith, yes, his campaign was met with incredulity and anger. In our society we allow pressure groups to pressure. Pressure often results in hailstorms of controversy, protest, and vitriol. It's the way of the world. Jewish organizations pressure for their agenda, just like other groups' advocates. If you mistake this for Zionist control, that is a problem in you, not in Zionism or in Jews.

Your single example is poor for another reason: Bradley Smith's campaign, and the opposition to it, say nothing about what happens inside courses on college campuses or in academic research. How do Zionists control academic research and discourse? Your example seems to confuse control with influence. Are you arguing that Jews and/or Zionists should have no influence in society?

When you inform the members of this forum about the reach of Zionist control, and the major institutions under Zionist power, you should also explain to us precisely by what mechanism the Zionists exert absolute control over the universities on the Holocaust and why they stopped with the Holocaust.

 

[Dogzilla]

Let's assume you are correct (will you share with us the methodology you used to arrive at this conclusion about Night, and the results of your study?). What you seem to be saying here is that Night doesn't really figure in the research base or scholarship but is seen as popular and accessible for non-experts. Whilst I may fault professors and instructors for choosing this particular book, their using it doesn't affect the research, which, as you say, rarely references Wiesel and instead uses multitudes of other sources. And you haven't told us how the book is used across the syllabi you've studies? Is Night read to probe, for example, the impact of the genocide on contemporary Jewish thought? Is it subjected to critical reading and comparative examination? What texts are used alongside it? I'm interested to see your research on the role of Wiesel's book (or other writings) in Holocaust and genocide studies courses.

I googled holocaust syllabus, English language only and no other restrictions. I looked to see if "Night" (or excerpt) was one of the books among the required, recommended, or suggested reading lists for the class. I also looked for Hilberg's The Destruction of the European Jews just for fun and made note of other authors/titles that appeared on the lists. If the class was obviously a holocaust literature class, I didn't count it. One could make an argument that "Night" is appropriate for that sort of study. I only looked at the first few pages of google results.

Based on this quick survey, "Night" is read by students in less than half the holocaust and genocide study classes. However, "Night" appears more frequently than any other book on holocaust and Genocide Study reading lists. Primo Levi is a close second to Elie Wiesel. Browning is also quite popular but Hilberg is almost invisible. Students taking a holocaust and Genocide Study course are more likely to read the comic book "Maus" than they are DEJ.

This survey doesn't count the students who read "Night" for classes other than holocaust history specific classes. If we counted students who read the book in Literature or Literature of the holocaust classes, the numbers would be higher.

I do not know exactly how the book is used as part of the instruction. I believe I am safe in assuming that it is never used to illustrate the stupidity of holocaust survivor memoirs. I would be very surprised if any of the students taking a class where "Night" was one of the required readings were taught that Elie Wiesel is considered a fraud by many and that holocaust scholars never consider anything he wrote as a primary source.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Since Hilberg is 3 volumes and megabucks, that was an odd comparison choice. Your method is almost identical to what I rejected doing as based on too small a sample, as lacking controls to ensure a representative sample, and as without sufficient context. I too believe that you are safe in assuming that Night is never used to in regular university settings to support your ideological preconceptions. At the same time, I would expect (without sufficient evidence for me to claim this) that the book is sometimes taught as literature and "thought" but too often as a historical account of the camps. I am still perplexed that deniers harp on Wiesel whilst you acknowledge that

holocaust scholars never consider anything he wrote as a primary source.

This creates the impression that your agenda is something different to the issue of the history and its sources.

 

[MG1962]

The evidence is all around you, everyday. The fact that liars like Irene Zisblatt and Michael Berenbaum, Yale prof. who vetted 'The Last Days', and Elie Wiesare taken at face value and not ridiculed and exposed as the obvious frauds they are in the media is prima facie evidence that it is Zionist controlled.

You probably need to learn a little more about the words you use

Prima facie

at first appearance; at first view, before investigation.
You so you either dont understand the word or you admit your assertion will not stand up to investigation

 

[uke2se]

Dr. Steven Lowenstein is another Zionist 'scholar' that vouched for the absurd and obvious lies in Spielberg's 'The Last Days'. The Zionists will tell absolutely any whopper with a straight face and get a line of university professors to vouch for its accuracy. And, as always, the media and academia is absolutely silent.

Alright, just sit quietly for a bit while the grown-ups talk. Your constant eruptions of non sequiturs and off-topic virulent hatred isn't really doing anything to further the discussion.

 

[Saggy]

You probably need to learn a little more about the words you use

Prima facie

at first appearance; at first view, before investigation.
You so you either dont understand the word or you admit your assertion will not stand up to investigation

Well, you got the definition right, congrats. Wiesel's statements are preposterous, physically impossible, and prima facie absurd. You don't have to investigate, that is the point. When someone tells you that Nazis threw babies into the air and used them as targets for machine gunners, you know he is joking, or is a degenerate liar. You don't have to investigate. When he then tells you that bodies were thrown into a burning pit to be killed and cremated, you don't have to investigate, it is physically impossible. The lies are absurd. Ridiculous. A moments rational thought is all that it takes to know it.

Wiesel is no different that Zisblatt. Or Meuller, or Bomba, or Wiernik, all their 'testimony' is prima facie absurd. NO INVESTIGATION IS NECESSARY. There is nothing to investigate.

 

[uke2se]

Well, you got the definition right, congrats. Wiesel's statements are preposterous, physically impossible, and prima facie absurd. You don't have to investigate, that is the point. When someone tells you that Nazis threw babies into the air and used them as targets for machine gunners, you know he is joking, or is a degenerate liar. You don't have to investigate. When he then tells you that bodies were thrown into a burning pit to be killed and cremated, you don't have to investigate, it is physically impossible. The lies are absurd. Ridiculous. A moments rational thought is all that it takes to know it.

Wiesel is no different that Zisblatt. Or Meuller, or Bomba, or Wiernik, all their 'testimony' is prima facie absurd. NO INVESTIGATION IS NECESSARY. There is nothing to investigate.

You seem to be stuck.

200+ named witnesses. Tens of thousands of unnamed witnesses. You need to prove every single one of them wrong. You haven't even gotten over the first hurdle yet. Best start doing better.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Alright, just sit quietly for a bit while the grown-ups talk. Your constant eruptions of non sequiturs and off-topic virulent hatred isn't really doing anything to further the discussion.

Like I said.....

 

[Dogzilla]

.
Then you agree that in one case, we have evidence that we do not have in the others
.

Did I say that? Which case do we have evidence and which one do we not?

Yes, but you see, you've just agreed that there is no absence of evidence for the Holocaust as a whole, while in the other cases there *is* an absence of such evidence.

When didn't I deny that there does not exist a lack of evidence for the absence of confusing double negatives? Rather than pretend to misunderstand what I say, why don't you just answer the question: Is 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' a valid statement of principle or not?

I realize that answering the question will make you look foolish no matter what you say. But don't worry. We're used to that.

BTW, I don't recall Shermer having commented on alien abductions in any way, let alone with that particular standard.

He touches on it in that book about people believing weird things.

Well, *you* are studiously avoiding that discussion, since you have yet to show that either in general or in the one specific case of Shermer the standard was not applied the same way. What evidence there *is*, was evaluated the same way, which lead to different conclusions about the events in question.

And that's not even getting into your equating Shermer with historians.

So, as I said -- no, you can't, and no, you haven't.

Care to try a *vaild* comparison this time?
.

Well, yes, of course, some Jews are frauds. But ****** come in every color. You can't paint an entire group of people as evil just because a few "second generation" survivors think the German government should pay for therapists to help them overcome the poor parenting skills of the first generation "survivors."

(NOTE TO ALL: Since TSR insists on misrepresenting everything I say, I'm going to throw it back in his face by responding to his comments with a response to imaginary Saggy quotes.)

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited for Rule 10.

 

[Dogzilla]

Since Hilberg is 3 volumes and megabucks, that was an odd comparison choice. Your method is almost identical to what I rejected doing as based on too small a sample, as lacking controls to ensure a representative sample, and as without sufficient context. I too believe that you are safe in assuming that Night is never used to in regular university settings to support your ideological preconceptions. At the same time, I would expect (without sufficient evidence for me to claim this) that the book is sometimes taught as literature and "thought" but too often as a historical account of the camps. I am still perplexed that deniers harp on Wiesel whilst you acknowledge that This creates the impression that your agenda is something different to the issue of the history and its sources.

There's a one volume "student edition" of DEJ. It's pretty much the text of the three volume set without the footnotes. I personally do not harp on Wiesel as much as some people do because I don't think much of him. But I do reject the notion that he is a nobody in the world of the holocaust. I am a nobody in the world of the holocaust. You are a nobody in the world of the holocaust. Elie Wiesel is the living embodiment of the holocaust in popular culture. The fact that he is considered so unimportant among holocaust scholars is just one of those bizarre disconnects between popular and scholar in the holocaust world.

When you say you rejected doing what I did because of too small a sample, as lacking controls, and as without sufficient context, don't you mean that you started doing what I did and found out that your results wouldn't support your view?

 

[MG1962]

Wiesel is no different that Zisblatt. Or Meuller, or Bomba, or Wiernik, all their 'testimony' is prima facie absurd. NO INVESTIGATION IS NECESSARY. There is nothing to investigate.

Yes because history shows us the undying love the Nazis had for the Jew. There is not one single shred of evidence to prove otherwise