Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[Wroclaw]

And if you know for a fact these pages weren't written by Lipstadt, how do you know that they weren't written by a historian?

Gonna go out on a limb here and guess it's because he knows who wrote them.

You fail freshman logic? Would a Venn diagram help?

 

[Corsair 115]

The Life of an American Jew
in Racist Marxist Israel
Written in 1985 by Jack Bernstein

Now please provide the evidence which demonstrates he's a CREDIBLE witness. Remember, Saggy is always bleating about how it has to be a CREDIBLE witness. So, Clayton, tell me, why do you think this book is a CREDIBLE source?

 

[Clayton Moore]

Now please provide the evidence which demonstrates he's a CREDIBLE witness. Remember, Saggy is always bleating about how it has to be a CREDIBLE witness. So, Clayton, tell me, why do you think this book is a CREDIBLE source?

Read it. If you can't comprehend you can't comprehend. Do you think everyone hating Zionists is just whimsy? The Zionists love it when slugs say people who hate Zionists hate all Jewish people.

 

[uke2se]

*Missing the point as usual*

So, are you going to present a quote from an actual historian that says that the Jews of WWII Europe vanished without a trace? Because thus far your attempts have been ridiculous.

 

[uke2se]

Read it. If you can't comprehend you can't comprehend. Do you think everyone hating Zionists is just whimsy? The Zionists love it when slugs say people who hate Zionists hate all Jewish people.

But you do hate all Jewish people, don't you, Clayton? It's rather blatant that you do. Nazis have been known to say "The only good Jew is a dead Jew". To you, this seems to apply with the addition of "... or a non-existant Jew", as is the case with Jack Bernstein.

 

[Nick Terry]

Fascinating. But not what we're talking about.

It's precisely what we're talking about. You brought up a quote from a website bringing up absence of proof in connection to the Hitler order (a quote which is clearly a misapplication of the term).

I've pointed out several times now that any absence of evidence blah-blah can't apply to the Hitler order since there is no absence of evidence for a Hitler order, there is evidence of a Hitler order. I've explained what kind of evidence several times now so please don't be a retard and make a fool of yourself here with a dim attempt at a smart-alec comeback.

I gotta take them as they come. I can't just ring up a holocaust historian and ask them to say something stupid.

Or you could, you know, demonstrate genuine knowledge of the historiography of the Holocaust and cite pages in books which use the term, and then demonstrate basic reasoning and evidentiary skills by showing how a measurable proportion of historians of the Holocaust, as opposed to whoever you could randomly google, use the phrase 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' as a major plank of their explanation for the Holocaust.

Lipstadt should at least read them. She endorses them. And if you know for a fact these pages weren't written by Lipstadt, how do you know that they weren't written by a historian?

Uhhh... maybe because I know who wrote the pages?

Does he say it's a valid maxim for holocaust research but a joke when applied anywhere else? Then I'm not interested.

What a marvellous demonstration of confirmation bias, and what a wonderful display of wilful ignorance and refusal to learn.

Keep digging, Dogzilla.

 

[Nick Terry]

Essentially the argument that these guys are making is two-fold, first, that they can only handle one thing at a time, second, that they are not competent to pick a name from a list. Strange.

There is of course a plausible explanation for the epic fail provided by the dynamic duo on this thread: that they are both shills designed to make revisionism look even more stupid than it already is. Another revisionist wants to be a shill, but doesn't understand the principle.

 

[Pacal]

Originally Posted by Saggy
the greatest and most destructive hoax of all time.

Really?! I guess you don't accept that the Protocals are an obvious and crude fake.

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore
Claiming antisemitism is just as lame as bringing up Hitler or Nazis. Grow up.

And then you say:

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore
Because lying seems to be a Khazar compulsion.

Ah yes the anti-semitic trope of the Jew as demonic, compulsive liar. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is a duck. Thank you for the old Khazar chestnut.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Really?! I guess you don't accept that the Protocals are an obvious and crude fake.



And then you say:



Ah yes the anti-semitic trope of the Jew as demonic, compulsive liar. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is a duck. Thank you for the old Khazar chestnut.

Exactly. Ask Ted Turner how he got swindled. Jane was prolly in on it.

 

[Nick Terry]

I've got a challenge for the revisionists here, which may go some way to alleviating the excruciating boredeom that this thread is generating.

The challenge is to contact at least three fellow revisionists who can relieve you of your duties on this thread. Some of the revisionists on here probably need the break, and some are clearly busy warbling on about 9/11 or the Moon Hoax and are neglecting their denier duties.

The new crop of revisionists should, of course, try to think of something to say which won't provoke the standard responses*. It would probably help if they came prepared to discuss a particular topic, such as Auschwitz.

In return, the regular posters on this thread promise that they will treat the newcomers politely, for as long as the discussion remains substantive and does not degenerate into repetitious Wiesel-spam.

I know you guys have highlighted JREF on CODOH forum and excuses were made about how it wasn't worth posting there. But it is worth posting here simply to prove that there are in fact more than 4 or 5 of you who will ever venture out from CODOH forum.

If you can't find 3 new revisionists to post here, then this will be interpreted as evidence that there simply aren't very many revisionists left, and the ones that are still around on CODOH are all cowards.


* any entry in Denier Bullflop Bingo is liable to provoke the usual responses. Please be aware that this discussion has been ongoing on the internet for the better part of 20 years now.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Really?! I guess you don't accept that the Protocals are an obvious and crude fake.



And then you say:



Ah yes the anti-semitic trope of the Jew as demonic, compulsive liar. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is a duck. Thank you for the old Khazar chestnut.

I'm curious. Did the Khazars ever get along anywhere?

Why do they have such a long history of being thrown out of country after country?

 

[Saggy]

I've got a challenge for the revisionists here, which may go some way to alleviating the excruciating boredeom that this thread is generating.

The challenge is to contact at least three fellow revisionists who can relieve you of your duties on this thread. Some of the revisionists on here probably need the break, and some are clearly busy warbling on about 9/11 or the Moon Hoax and are neglecting their denier duties.

The new crop of revisionists should, of course, try to think of something to say which won't provoke the standard responses*. It would probably help if they came prepared to discuss a particular topic, such as Auschwitz.

In return, the regular posters on this thread promise that they will treat the newcomers politely, for as long as the discussion remains substantive and does not degenerate into repetitious Wiesel-spam.

I know you guys have highlighted JREF on CODOH forum and excuses were made about how it wasn't worth posting there. But it is worth posting here simply to prove that there are in fact more than 4 or 5 of you who will ever venture out from CODOH forum.

If you can't find 3 new revisionists to post here, then this will be interpreted as evidence that there simply aren't very many revisionists left, and the ones that are still around on CODOH are all cowards.


* any entry in Denier Bullflop Bingo is liable to provoke the usual responses. Please be aware that this discussion has been ongoing on the internet for the better part of 20 years now.

Well, you can relieve the boredom, Nick. Just name ONE CREDIBLE JEWISH WITNESS TO THE HOLOHOAX.

Unfortunately, you can't do it. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE CREDIBLE JEWISH WITNESS TO THE HOLOHOAX.

What do we have to discuss if you cannot provide the name of one credible Jewish witness? Why nothing but the lies of the purported witnesses.

It's on you - name one credible Jewish witness, or go home in disgrace.

Or, I suppose you can continue to make your idiotic 'death threats'. Up to you. I confess I like it when you are reduced to the standard Zionist tactics of Wroclaw or TSR.

 

[Cyrix686]

More Khazar nonsense!

 

[Border Reiver]

I'm curious. Did the Khazars ever get along anywhere?

Why do they have such a long history of being thrown out of country after country?

The Khazars to be a dominant military and political power for nearly 200 years in the Black Sea Region in 9th and 10th centuries. They would appear to have been a fairly successful Turkic -speaking people who, like many other such groups, had a period of success, and through a variety of external pressures were unable to maintain their earlier position of dominance over a particular territory (areas now called Russia, Ukraine, Khazakstan,etc.).

Or are you referring to that long discredited notion that the Ashkenazi Jews are not Semitic, but rather Turkic? The wikipedia has some links to decent sources for both the history of the Khazars, and also this discredited notion.

Try again, maybe you can hide your hate.

 

[Corsair 115]

Read it. If you can't comprehend you can't comprehend. Do you think everyone hating Zionists is just whimsy? The Zionists love it when slugs say people who hate Zionists hate all Jewish people.

Evasion noted. Once again: Why should this book be considered a CREDIBLE source?

 

[Corsair 115]

Well, you can relieve the boredom, Nick. Just name ONE CREDIBLE JEWISH WITNESS TO THE HOLOHOAX.

Saggy hasn't named EVEN ONE CREDIBLE WITNESS TO THIS FANTASTICAL WORLDWIDE JEWISH CONSPIRACY THAT CONTROLS THE MEDIA, ACADEMIA, AND EVERYTHING ELSE.

Unfortunately, you can't do it. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE CREDIBLE JEWISH WITNESS TO THE HOLOHOAX.

Saggy can't do it. He can't name EVEN ONE CREDIBLE WITNESS TO THIS FANTASTICAL WORLDWIDE JEWISH CONSPIRACY THAT CONTROLS THE MEDIA, ACADEMIA, AND EVERYTHING ELSE.

What do we have to discuss if you cannot provide the name of one credible Jewish witness?

Why should we listen to your ridiculous bleating when you have failed to substantiate in any way this fantastical worldwide Jewish conspiracy of yours which controls the media, academia, and everything else?

It's on you - name one credible Jewish witness, or go home in disgrace.

It's on you, Saggy. Provide solid and credible evidence for this fantastical worldwide Jewish conspiracy of yours which controls the media, academia, and everything else, or go home in disgrace.

 

[LSSBB]

Well, you can relieve the boredom, Nick. Just name ONE CREDIBLE JEWISH WITNESS TO THE HOLOHOAX.

Unfortunately, you can't do it. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE CREDIBLE JEWISH WITNESS TO THE HOLOHOAX.

Per Merriam-Webster:

Definition of CREDIBLE

1: offering reasonable grounds for being believed <a credible account of an accident> <credible witnesses>2: of sufficient capability to be militarily effective <a credible deterrent> <credible forces>

Taking meaning one: For me, Vladek Spiegelman is a credible witness for the HOLOCAUST.

I found his story reasonable to be believed.

Then again, I do not throw out an entire testimony because of minor discrepancies in his story. This is also why aggregate testimony is required with eyewitnesses.

The need for corroboration, and the individual point of what is "reasonable", are why this entire challenge falls flat.

 

[NoahFence]

Clayton, give it up. You bring nothing to the discussion.

Ah.. so it's not just 9/11 ignorance?

 

[Clayton Moore]

It's the Media, Stupid

Saggy hasn't named EVEN ONE CREDIBLE WITNESS TO THIS FANTASTICAL WORLDWIDE JEWISH CONSPIRACY THAT CONTROLS THE MEDIA, ACADEMIA, AND EVERYTHING ELSE.





Saggy can't do it. He can't name EVEN ONE CREDIBLE WITNESS TO THIS FANTASTICAL WORLDWIDE JEWISH CONSPIRACY THAT CONTROLS THE MEDIA, ACADEMIA, AND EVERYTHING ELSE.





Why should we listen to your ridiculous bleating when you have failed to substantiate in any way this fantastical worldwide Jewish conspiracy of yours which controls the media, academia, and everything else?





It's on you, Saggy. Provide solid and credible evidence for this fantastical worldwide Jewish conspiracy of yours which controls the media, academia, and everything else, or go home in disgrace.

It's the Media, Stupid
by John Nichols and Robert McChesney
Seven Stories Press, 2000

Excerpts

p16
Today fewer than 10 multinational media conglomerates-Time Warner, Disney, Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp, Viacom, Sony, Seagram, AT&T/Liberty Media, Bertelsmann, and GE-dominate most of the American mass media landscape.

p22
The closer a story gets to examining corporate power the less reliable our corporate media system is as a source of information that is useful to the citizens of a democracy. And on issues like the global capitalist economy, the corporate media are doubly unreliable, because they rank as perhaps the foremost beneficiaries of Wall Street-designed trade deals like NAFTA, and of the machinations of the three multilateral agencies developed to shape the global economy to serve corporate interests: the World Bank, the IMF and the World Trade Organization (WTO). Moreover, almost all the favored mainstream sources for coverage of global economic affairs are strident advocates for a corporate-driven vision of globalization. Thus, corporate journalists-even those low enough on the pecking order to be dispatched to stand in the rain on a Washington street corner-generally will find arguments against the status quo incomprehensible.

p24
The news required for a functional democracy - the news that empowers citizens to act in their own interest and for the good of society-is discarded [by the corporate media] to make way for the trivial, sensational, and salacious.

p27
Alan Schroeder
"Media is not an issue, but that's because the media frame the topics of discussion-and, obviously, they're not going to put that on the list of issues that have to be discussed."

p28
In our American democracy the issue of media barely registers. The structures of our media, the concentration of its ownership, the role that it plays in shaping the lives of our children, in commercializing our culture, and in warping our elections ...

p29
Congressional approval of the [1996] Telecommunications Act, after only a stilted and disengaged debate, was a historic turning point in media policy making in the United States, as it permitted a consolidation of media and communication ownership that had previously been unthinkable.

p30
The problem with concentrated media is that it accentuates the two main problems of commercial media, hypercommercialism and denigration of public service.

p31
We have a media system set up to serve private investors first and foremost, not public citizens.

p32
Those media that depend upon advertising for the lion's share of their income-radio, TV, newspapers, magazines-are, in effect, part of the advertising industry.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media_control_propaganda/MediaStupid_McChesney.html

 

[Clayton Moore]

Per Merriam-Webster:

Definition of CREDIBLE

1: offering reasonable grounds for being believed <a credible account of an accident> <credible witnesses>2: of sufficient capability to be militarily effective <a credible deterrent> <credible forces>

Taking meaning one: For me, Vladek Spiegelman is a credible witness for the HOLOCAUST.

I found his story reasonable to be believed.

Then again, I do not throw out an entire testimony because of minor discrepancies in his story. This is also why aggregate testimony is required with eyewitnesses.

The need for corroboration, and the individual point of what is "reasonable", are why this entire challenge falls flat.

A comic book character?