Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[TSR]

Nothing he saw was specific to Nazi Jewish policy and none of the barbarity he witnessed was identified as perpetrated against Jewish victims. As such, he wasn't describing the holocaust.

.
So, the Nazis did these things to other people, but would never do them to the Jews?

Each and every one of the ~26k Jews (half the total) died of old age? Is that your thesis?

No?

So it *is* evidence of a Nazi policy, unless you are going to assert that Gotha went rogue.

Problem is, the Nazis never did anything to anyone there for what happened, so at least on some level it was okay'd.

But never ever to the Jews, apparently.

Please feel free to elucidate on why what Ike saw had nothing whatever to do with anything else the Nazis had done?

Extra-specially not to the Jews...

While you are at it, please cite Ike talking about typhus at Gotha, or shrunken heads, or lampshades of any sort at all? And for FSM's sake, put down that goalpost, you're going to hurt yourself...
.

 

[CleverClogs82]

Ike was talking about the conditions he encountered in the concentration camps in western Germany--starvation, typhus, shrunken heads, human skin lampshades, etc. Nothing he saw was specific to Nazi Jewish policy and none of the barbarity he witnessed was identified as perpetrated against Jewish victims. As such, he wasn't describing the holocaust.

Humor me here, but please define Nazi Jewish Policy. Do you mean the Final Solution? Sorry, I'm ignorant when it comes to these terms.

You're missing a very important point. The existence of Orhdruf and what they found there is evidence of what the Nazi's did. Do you think because Ike didn't include specific words like Jews, Holocaust or "Nazi Jewish Policy" in his writings erases the fact that Ohrduf was part of the Buchenwald system. Buchenwald was a part of a larger network of concentration camps. Concentration camps are where Jews were forced, imprisoned, and where the "Nazi Jewish Policy" were enacted.

Is my line of reasoning correct? Criticisms welcomed.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Humor me here, but please define Nazi Jewish Policy. Do you mean the Final Solution? Sorry, I'm ignorant when it comes to these terms.

There is no need to apologise for your ignorance - it is very refreshing to see you so honest to admit it.

The only Nazi policy document that mentions the term "Final Solution" is universally accepted by historians to refer to a program of forced emigration and expulsion or resettlement. What you understood as the "Final Solution" is contended to be a shift in policy that occurred later - and tragically all the planning and policy documents that would record this shift in Nazi policy have completely disappeared.

You're missing a very important point. The existence of Orhdruf and what they found there is evidence of what the Nazi's did.

Except Ohrdruf was never seen as a function of "Nazi Jewish Policy", which was all about expelling Jews from Europe. I don't believe that the majority of forced labourers at Ohrdruf were Jewish, and those that were recruited late in the war as other labour sources dried up.

Do you think because Ike didn't include specific words like Jews, Holocaust or "Nazi Jewish Policy" in his writings erases the fact that Ohrduf was part of the Buchenwald system. Buchenwald was a part of a larger network of concentration camps. Concentration camps are where Jews were forced, imprisoned, and where the "Nazi Jewish Policy" were enacted.

No not really, concentration camps were not predominantly designed for Jews or understood as an instrument of Jewish Policy. They were at first seen as a means of controlling dissident elements and discouraging expressions of political opposition. From 1941 there was a distinct attempt to purge Jews from the Reich based camps and sent them eastwards. As labour shortages kicked in a flow of Jews from the east returned. The expansion of the concentration camp system from about 1942 onwards was largely driven by a desire to support the war and military industrial production.

Is my line of reasoning correct? Criticisms welcomed.

No, the existence of Ohrdruf had nothing to do with "Nazi Jewish Policy" and everything to do with the desire of the Germans to build a large underground facility in Thuringau. Why they wanted to built a large underground facility is not completely known as the Allies dynamited the entrances in 1945. Some claim it was related to the German nuclear program, although no one has produced any evidence of radioactive traces to confirm this.

 

[Nick Terry]

but JREF is simply an internet forum of nearly 29,000 members, with about 10% active at the moment.

As someone put it, JREF is a community of people who think they're skeptics because they realize Uri Gellar is a fake. This is a community of rabid conformists, or at best a cross section of the hoi polloi. Certainly most posts are of the know-nothing variety. But, as you say, they're also plenty of sharp people.

Calling people conformists is like saying they're brainwashed. You are not going to convince anyone if you simply insult them.

The 'classic' JREF member is interested in debunking extraordinary claims like extrasensory perception, telepathy, ghosts, UFOs, Bigfoot and so on. That's what JREF does, that's what organised skepticism was about at the beginning. Since then, all sorts of other things have become regular subjects for discussion, but that's how it started, right?

Now it so happens that your claims, Holocaust revisionism, have been judged to be extraordinary claims. You call the Holocaust a 'hoax', i.e. a conspiracy. A conspiracy claim is an extraordinary claim whether you like it or not.

I want to leave aside the content for the moment and just point out the form. If you come onto a forum where a common mantra is 'extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof', then it really, really helps if you distinguish yourself from the ESP, Bigfoot, UFO etc advocates and from the Moon Hoaxers, creationists and 9/11 Truthers.

Some of those beliefs I just mentioned are wrong, aren't they? You can't possibly believe in all of them. But you come on here, and the revisionists act in what is seen as a virtually identical way to the advocates of silly beliefs. So you're quite unsurprisingly lumped in with them.

This means, either JREF is the absolute worst place to proselytise Holocaust revisionism, and somewhere else is a much better bet, or if you're going to stick around, that you pay attention to your surroundings, and realise how you are coming across - no differently to woo-woos who believe in obvious tripe.

It doesn't matter whether you think your belief is the absolute truth or not. Everyone who advocates a fringe belief thinks they have the truth, irrespective of the topic.

Again, I am not talking about the content here, but the form and the presentation. Both of which are utterly terrible.

I know, it could be that we are a lost cause,

You're not a cause at all, lost or otherwise. I wouldn't presume to even try to convince a Catholic priest that Jesus was a fraud, or not even a historical character, or didn't walk on water, whatever, convincing them, or you, is not a consideration.

Firstly: JREF has another 2700 active members other than myself. I have been saying that it's simply a fact that you are not convincing any of them. Now, either you retreat to insulting the entire membership, or you acknowledge that maybe you could do a better job of selling yourself and convincing people. Putting the blame entirely onto other people looks suspiciously like a refusal to engage with reality. I'm not saying you can't factor in the 'tough crowd' here, but if you are unable to assess your own tactics and your own success in convincing people, then you're not going to succeed in what you supposedly want to do, are you?

Let me put it another way. Saggy, you have amassed a fairly healthy number of yellow cards and suspensions while you've been here. Maybe you have learned from those infractions and have realised that you cannot get away with certain things while you are on this forum. So presumably you have adjusted your style to make sure that you are not suspended and eventually banned, which would be game over. If you wanted to commit suicide by mod you'd have done it months ago, so I assume you want to stick around.

But not being suspended is only half the battle. You keep posting but you don't become any more convincing. Moreover, you have a track record here. You're now up to more than 1,300 posts, you've been here for 23 months. It's a safe bet that the vast majority of forum members have dismissed you as 'a cranky Holocaust denier', many will have placed you on ignore. And that's where you'll remain if you keep doing the exact same things you've been doing for the last 23 months.

This doesn't spell out any realistic steps at all.

I do have some in mind, which I'm not detailing, and I think the hoax is vulnerable to a very small group of committed individuals. It's so freaking absurd it's got to fall !

Oh spare us the cryptic drama. What you want to bring about requires an immense number of steps to achieve a major transformation in how western society understands WWII. It is not vulnerable to your fantasy guerrilla group.

And again: you say it's absurd, over and over again, but nearly everyone else here rejects that label. Simply saying "it's absurd" and then repeating the same examples you've repeated 50 times already isn't effective. It really isn't. It's simply tedious.

You believe you have the truth. Others believe you are lying. In numerical terms you are vastly outnumbered.

Yep, you got it right there.

So what are you going to do about it? Continue in the exact same vein until you drop dead?

Now, either you're going to abolish history departments after a revolution, or you have to persuade historians that they were wrong and you are right. What's it going to be?

It's entirely political. There is no 'convincing' to be done, it's a matter of waking them up. I don't understand academia, and I was an academic, but in hard, i.e. real, science.

Saying "waking them up" is the exact same thing as "convincing" people. And you know, if you don't understand academia, this may be one reason why your cause has failed so miserably to convince academics. It really is PR 101 that you tailor your message to the relevant audience. Different audiences expect different things.

Academics are going to want to be convinced by proper scholarship presented in a conventional form. They don't generally do YouTube videos or anything like that. They do books. That much ought to be obvious. So yeah, you have your 'Holocaust Handbooks', but have you actually tried comparing them with other academic texts in history? I'm not even talking about history books on the Holocaust. I'm talking about other books on the 20th Century.

There are actually rather a lot of academics, and a fair number of academic historians. I have mentioned before that there are half a million faculty in the US alone, and of that number, you guys can claim the allegiance of maybe three people, one of whom is on the verge of retirement/death and another is a Muslim and thus obviously endorses revisionism out of partisan motivations.

There is no conspiracy to shut revisionism out of universities, Saggy. Revisionism does that all by itself by not following proper academic and intellectual procedure. Which means either the gurus learn what those things are, or they remain shut out.

Seriously, Saggy, if alleged "Israeli power" is your main bugbear, aren't there, you know, more effective ways of attacking it than droning on about historical events 70 years ago which everyone other than a handful of people on the planet is perfectly convinced happened?

Isreali power is my real bugbear, but the hoax is absolutely fascinating in itself. Could be more effective ways, ask Weber, I don't really know. It is amazing that even Walt and Mearsheimer, who recognize the duplicity of the Jews, still genuflect before the hoax.

Ask Mark Weber? The guy who shut down the IHR's revisionist efforts to concentrate on anti-Zionism? That Mark Weber?

But if you are really, genuinely interested in revising history - wouldn't it be more effective to shut up about Israel, since raising issues of contemporary politics simply makes you look, well, politically motivated?

It's all one package to me. I think the hoax is the Achilles heel of the Jews, but the real concern is not history, but the future of US/European society and the world itself.

OK, this is one reason why you are not going to make any more headway with your current approach. You seem not to realise that an awful lot of people, in fact probably the majority of people in western society, don't see the connection. They see the Holocaust as something belonging to history. And that's how it's experienced most of the time. Holocaust in one box, Middle Eastern conflict in another box.

You know, the overwhelming majority of anti-Zionists are not also revisionists. They're surely your prime target audience, and they're not convinced by you.

I'd say you've got an awful lot of rethinking to do, Saggy.

 

[little grey rabbit]

This means, either JREF is the absolute worst place to proselytise Holocaust revisionism, and somewhere else is a much better bet, or if you're going to stick around, that you pay attention to your surroundings, and realise how you are coming across - no differently to woo-woos who believe in obvious tripe.

Well quite, but at least Dr Terry can tell the difference.

Actually something Dr Terry might be interested in - you will doubtless recall that the Feb 1943 statement of Gerstein made only a passing mention of experiments with cyanide might take place at a future date, while his 1945 statements stated that in 1942 he was transporting cyanide to Belzec.

One of the versions of his confessions has the following

All the same, I
succeeded in stopping the terrible wave of typhus of 1941 which daily
caused several tens of thousands of deaths in the prisoners' and the
concentration camps. Soon, I became second, then first lieutenant.
In December 1941, I am once more in great danger, the party
tribunal that had decided my execution, having learned that I had infiltrated
into an E. M. of the SS. Thanks to my successes and the general
esteem which I enjoyed, I am protected by my chiefs and kept on.
In February 1942, 1 am namedhead ofthe technical sanitary section
which comprises, at the same time, all the drinking water system and
all the technical disinfection, even with the aid of very toxic gasses.

On 8 June 1942, the SS Sturmbannfuehrer Guenther ofthe R.S.H.A.
of the Kurfurstenstrasse comes intomy office. He is in civilian clothes.
I have never seen him before. With many mysterious allusions, he
gives me the order to obtain for him 260 kgs of prussic acid and to go
with this poison, with a car of the R.S.H.A. to a place known only to
the driver.

Curiously the first order in the account book G06 was for 240 kilograms Zyklon B (similar enough to assume they are the same), the date of the order 7 June 1943 (IIRC) also seems strikingly similar, albeit out by a year.

But Gerstein also misdates the typhus outbreak by a year, placing it in 1941 - when it took place in 1942. So it seems Gerstein transposed his first personal order of Zyklon B back a year so that he could include it in his trip to Poland. Just more evidence, if more was needed to demonstrate that his confessions are dishonest in intent.

 

[Nick Terry]

Try The Destruction of the European Jews by Raul Hilberg. The full text is a three volume set but there is a student edition.

The Holocaust in History by Michael Marris has been recommended on some of the Amazon discussion boards. It's a short overview and an easy read. Hilberg can be insufferably dry sometimes but he is one of the more respected holocaust scholars and he's certainly the grand daddy of them all.

Hopefully Nick Terry will come up with some suggestions for you. I've asked him in the past for one or two good overviews but he's prone to criticize my ignorance and laziness for not wanting to read a couple of hundred obscure manuscripts. But he has come through with some suggestions for me in the end. He might be more willing to work with you. He and I don't agree with each other very often. Maybe never.

Over the page I recommended three books to CleverClogs82, books I have recommended before when asked by other people, although I have also nominated others before, like Donald Bloxham's The Final Solution: A Genocide (2009), but CleverClogs82 wanted a narrative, and Bloxham is more of an analysis, so it got left off.

Your requests haven't been for a single volume introduction. They've been fishing expeditions for a strawman, the ultimate perfect book on the Holocaust. You're of course welcome to buy Friedlander, Longerich, Browning and Bloxham, indeed if you were to keep yourself up to date with scholarship these are all essentials.

But what is abundantly clear is that you're looking for a book which will never exist, because you have unreasonable expectations of what should be in a history book. I can also recommend many good overviews on Stalinism, which you may recall was a political system that killed millions of people, just like the Nazis.

In neither case, Stalinism or Nazism, will anyone ever write the kind of book lavishly illustrated with mass grave exhumation photos and pettifogging detail that you implicitly demand from books on the Holocaust. Nor are you going to get such books for other genocides, or other mass killings.

As long as the publishing norm is to emphasise narrative, storytelling and analysis, then no history books on mass murder are going to be written how you seem to think they should be written. Indeed, history books by commercial publishers are invariably written using more specialist history books. That's the convention, the genre, these days. It wasn't actually much different in the past. Overviews on any major subject are usually written that way.

What made Hilberg so unusual was the sheer density of primary source documentation - his book was a PhD thesis that addressed an overview level topic (the whole of the Holocaust) and was only lightly revised for publication.

Below the overview level, then you are in the domain of the academics, where it's not just about the files and documents, but also about the historiography.

 

[Clayton Moore]

I used to think that about conspiracists in general, but I know better now. And these guys are the worst of all.




I know exactly how you feel.




Thank you, but my contributions to this thread have been rather modest; mainly demonstrating that CM's claim that vacuum asphyxiation is a much more economical method of extermination than lethal gas is completely wrong. I have a BA in American and European history; I have a lot of general knowledge about World War II, and very in-depth knowledge of certain aspects of the war. However, Nick Terry probably knows at least 10 times as much as I do about the Holocaust, and LemmyCaution and Wroclaw (plus some others I may be omitting) are also considerably more knowledgeable than I.




And Belsen wasn't even an extermination camp. That's just how the Nazis treated people they wanted to (at least temporarily) keep alive.

Astonishing. Micromanaging prisoners while fighting and losing a war.

 

[Saggy]

Calling people conformists is like saying they're brainwashed. You are not going to convince anyone if you simply insult them.

The 'classic' JREF member is interested in debunking extraordinary claims like extrasensory perception, telepathy, ghosts, UFOs, Bigfoot and so on. That's what JREF does, that's what organised skepticism was about at the beginning. Since then, all sorts of other things have become regular subjects for discussion, but that's how it started, right?

Now it so happens that your claims, Holocaust revisionism, have been judged to be extraordinary claims. You call the Holocaust a 'hoax', i.e. a conspiracy. A conspiracy claim is an extraordinary claim whether you like it or not.

I want to leave aside the content for the moment and just point out the form. If you come onto a forum where a common mantra is 'extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof', then it really, really helps if you distinguish yourself from the ESP, Bigfoot, UFO etc advocates and from the Moon Hoaxers, creationists and 9/11 Truthers.

Some of those beliefs I just mentioned are wrong, aren't they? You can't possibly believe in all of them. But you come on here, and the revisionists act in what is seen as a virtually identical way to the advocates of silly beliefs. So you're quite unsurprisingly lumped in with them.

This means, either JREF is the absolute worst place to proselytise Holocaust revisionism, and somewhere else is a much better bet, or if you're going to stick around, that you pay attention to your surroundings, and realise how you are coming across - no differently to woo-woos who believe in obvious tripe.

It doesn't matter whether you think your belief is the absolute truth or not. Everyone who advocates a fringe belief thinks they have the truth, irrespective of the topic.

Again, I am not talking about the content here, but the form and the presentation. Both of which are utterly terrible.



Firstly: JREF has another 2700 active members other than myself. I have been saying that it's simply a fact that you are not convincing any of them. Now, either you retreat to insulting the entire membership, or you acknowledge that maybe you could do a better job of selling yourself and convincing people. Putting the blame entirely onto other people looks suspiciously like a refusal to engage with reality. I'm not saying you can't factor in the 'tough crowd' here, but if you are unable to assess your own tactics and your own success in convincing people, then you're not going to succeed in what you supposedly want to do, are you?

Let me put it another way. Saggy, you have amassed a fairly healthy number of yellow cards and suspensions while you've been here. Maybe you have learned from those infractions and have realised that you cannot get away with certain things while you are on this forum. So presumably you have adjusted your style to make sure that you are not suspended and eventually banned, which would be game over. If you wanted to commit suicide by mod you'd have done it months ago, so I assume you want to stick around.

But not being suspended is only half the battle. You keep posting but you don't become any more convincing. Moreover, you have a track record here. You're now up to more than 1,300 posts, you've been here for 23 months. It's a safe bet that the vast majority of forum members have dismissed you as 'a cranky Holocaust denier', many will have placed you on ignore. And that's where you'll remain if you keep doing the exact same things you've been doing for the last 23 months.



Oh spare us the cryptic drama. What you want to bring about requires an immense number of steps to achieve a major transformation in how western society understands WWII. It is not vulnerable to your fantasy guerrilla group.

And again: you say it's absurd, over and over again, but nearly everyone else here rejects that label. Simply saying "it's absurd" and then repeating the same examples you've repeated 50 times already isn't effective. It really isn't. It's simply tedious.



So what are you going to do about it? Continue in the exact same vein until you drop dead?



Saying "waking them up" is the exact same thing as "convincing" people. And you know, if you don't understand academia, this may be one reason why your cause has failed so miserably to convince academics. It really is PR 101 that you tailor your message to the relevant audience. Different audiences expect different things.

Academics are going to want to be convinced by proper scholarship presented in a conventional form. They don't generally do YouTube videos or anything like that. They do books. That much ought to be obvious. So yeah, you have your 'Holocaust Handbooks', but have you actually tried comparing them with other academic texts in history? I'm not even talking about history books on the Holocaust. I'm talking about other books on the 20th Century.

There are actually rather a lot of academics, and a fair number of academic historians. I have mentioned before that there are half a million faculty in the US alone, and of that number, you guys can claim the allegiance of maybe three people, one of whom is on the verge of retirement/death and another is a Muslim and thus obviously endorses revisionism out of partisan motivations.

There is no conspiracy to shut revisionism out of universities, Saggy. Revisionism does that all by itself by not following proper academic and intellectual procedure. Which means either the gurus learn what those things are, or they remain shut out.




Ask Mark Weber? The guy who shut down the IHR's revisionist efforts to concentrate on anti-Zionism? That Mark Weber?



OK, this is one reason why you are not going to make any more headway with your current approach. You seem not to realise that an awful lot of people, in fact probably the majority of people in western society, don't see the connection. They see the Holocaust as something belonging to history. And that's how it's experienced most of the time. Holocaust in one box, Middle Eastern conflict in another box.

You know, the overwhelming majority of anti-Zionists are not also revisionists. They're surely your prime target audience, and they're not convinced by you.

I'd say you've got an awful lot of rethinking to do, Saggy.

Please note that I don't need NT to explain the futility of holohoax denial to me !

I don't disagree with much of what you have written, in particular ...

You know, the overwhelming majority of anti-Zionists are not also revisionists. They're surely your prime target audience, and they're not convinced by you.


It's worst than that ! I took it one further, who should be the easiest people to convince? The Palestinians, right? They hate the Jews, they know what duplicitous creatures they are. They are murdered and oppressed by the Jews everyday. Surely they will be prime targets, right? Wrong. On campus there was a group Palestinians for Justice or some such (I've forgotten the exact name) and I tried on several, at least 5, occasions to engage members personally in a discussion of the hoax, and 5 more via email. It was if I had leprosy, they absolutely would not discuss any aspect of the holocaust and would even walk away even though they were manning an information table. Absolutely remarkable. Unfortunately I give up easily in personal encounters, but I still think there is some possibility here?

 

[Nick Terry]

Astonishing. Micromanaging prisoners while fighting and losing a war.

Please explain what you mean.

Clayton, when was the last time you wrote 100 words in your own words?

 

[Saggy]

A challenge to Dogzilla ..... reconcile your 'urban myth' nonsense with this 8 minute video of David Irving explaining how the hoax, a product of the World Jewish Council, came to be the the official policy of the US govt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_S7BrcH-6Yw


Also, CleverClogs .... I recommended Butz's book, which is the bible of holohoax denial, but, it's not an easy read, even I skipped the demographic stuff, and it requires a big committment to read. So, in the interest of getting to the point quickly, I suggest viewing the above video, and the other 4 segments of the Irving lecture, as a temporary substitute for Butz's book.

I'm going to review Irving's lectures on YouTube, they are extraordinary, for sure.

 

[Nick Terry]

Please note that I don't need NT to explain the futility of holohoax denial to me !

If it's so futile, why do you bother?

I don't disagree with much of what you have written, in particular ...

You know, the overwhelming majority of anti-Zionists are not also revisionists. They're surely your prime target audience, and they're not convinced by you.

I took it one further, who should be the easiest people to convince? The Palestinians, right? They hate the Jews, they know what duplicitous creatures they are. They are murdered and oppressed by the Jews everyday. Surely they will be prime targets, right? Wrong. On campus there was a group Palestinians for Justice or some such (I've forgotten the exact name) and I tried on several, at least 5, occasions to engage members personally in a discussion of the hoax, and 5 more via email. It was if I had leprosy, they absolutely would not discuss any aspect of the holohoax and would even walk away even though they were manning an information table. Absolutely remarkable. Unfortunately I give up easily in personal encounters, but I still think there is some possibility here?

It's not at all remarkable. Pro-Palestinian activists have more than enough to get their teeth into with current events. They don't need the albatross of trying to rewrite history 70 years ago. They are focused on the present. You are obsessed with the past.

The pro-Palestinian activists live in the same society as you do, which has known about this thing called Holocaust denial for more than 30 years. In that time, revisionism hasn't made any real progress. And revisionism has a very, very bad reputation. I mean really bad.

Your 'product' is just not wanted by most people. The reactions you have provoked here confirm this. There must have been hundreds of JREF members who over the past 2-3 years have expressed the opinion that they want nothing to do with Holocaust denial, or that they reject its premises utterly.

And now you tell us that the pro-Palestinian activists wanted nothing to do with you, either. Two different groups, same basic reaction. You could repeat the experiment with all kinds of other groups. The reaction would surely be the same.

Instead of blaming the audience, why aren't you rethinking your approach?

But there's another question to ask. How long would you bother to keep this up? Do you really believe that if you keep struggling for 10, 20, 30 years, that things will change? If not, then why keep it up, when your current approach is clearly not wanted?

 

[jargon buster]

Instead of blaming the audience, why aren't you rethinking your approach?

+1

But there's another question to ask. How long would you bother to keep this up? Do you really believe that if you keep struggling for 10, 20, 30 years, that things will change? If not, then why keep it up, when your current approach is clearly not wanted?

Its because they like to think they are privy to a great secret and if it actually became universally accepted as truth they would move onto something else such as the illuminati or NWO and start banging the drum.

I must admit I do find Holocaust denial particularly unpleasant and normally try and avoid discussing it.

 

[Clayton Moore]

If it's so futile, why do you bother?



It's not at all remarkable. Pro-Palestinian activists have more than enough to get their teeth into with current events. They don't need the albatross of trying to rewrite history 70 years ago. They are focused on the present. You are obsessed with the past.

The pro-Palestinian activists live in the same society as you do, which has known about this thing called Holocaust denial for more than 30 years. In that time, revisionism hasn't made any real progress. And revisionism has a very, very bad reputation. I mean really bad.

Your 'product' is just not wanted by most people. The reactions you have provoked here confirm this. There must have been hundreds of JREF members who over the past 2-3 years have expressed the opinion that they want nothing to do with Holocaust denial, or that they reject its premises utterly.

And now you tell us that the pro-Palestinian activists wanted nothing to do with you, either. Two different groups, same basic reaction. You could repeat the experiment with all kinds of other groups. The reaction would surely be the same.

Instead of blaming the audience, why aren't you rethinking your approach?

But there's another question to ask. How long would you bother to keep this up? Do you really believe that if you keep struggling for 10, 20, 30 years, that things will change? If not, then why keep it up, when your current approach is clearly not wanted?

You know what they say, and you know who they are, "There's no business like Shoah business."

 

[Saggy]

If it's so futile, why do you bother?



It's not at all remarkable. Pro-Palestinian activists have more than enough to get their teeth into with current events. They don't need the albatross of trying to rewrite history 70 years ago. They are focused on the present. You are obsessed with the past.

The pro-Palestinian activists live in the same society as you do, which has known about this thing called Holocaust denial for more than 30 years. In that time, revisionism hasn't made any real progress. And revisionism has a very, very bad reputation. I mean really bad.

Your 'product' is just not wanted by most people. The reactions you have provoked here confirm this. There must have been hundreds of JREF members who over the past 2-3 years have expressed the opinion that they want nothing to do with Holocaust denial, or that they reject its premises utterly.

And now you tell us that the pro-Palestinian activists wanted nothing to do with you, either. Two different groups, same basic reaction. You could repeat the experiment with all kinds of other groups. The reaction would surely be the same.

Instead of blaming the audience, why aren't you rethinking your approach?

But there's another question to ask. How long would you bother to keep this up? Do you really believe that if you keep struggling for 10, 20, 30 years, that things will change? If not, then why keep it up, when your current approach is clearly not wanted?

If it's so futile, why do you bother?

Well, it's interesting as hell, and it's inevitable that the hoax will collapse eventually ...

There must have been hundreds of JREF members who over the past 2-3 years have expressed the opinion that they want nothing to do with Holocaust denial, or that they reject its premises utterly.

This is what makes it so freaking fascinating. Remember, I just had an encounter with a fellow and when I told him the holocaust was a hoax his response was ... 'The earth isn't flat'. Perfect. Yet, by considering the Belsen situation and pics, and seeing the pics of the hoax Auschwitz gas chamber, he was reconsidering in TEN MINUTES. The thing is a house of cards .... just waiting to be toppled !

Instead of blaming the audience, why aren't you rethinking your approach?

I understand the hoax, now I'm trying to understand the audience, that's the whole game for me.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Go to the Jewish sponsored sites and look for the testimonies about the alleged death camps and read them. Find the testimonies of the Nuremberg trials and read them.

Google search "gas chambers" "gas vans" "crematoria" "burning bits." Read about the raging guards throwing live babies against walls, into gas chambers, into burning pits. Read about the raging guards sometimes performing 2 or 3 consecutive atrocities in one paragraph.

Read the testimonies of people who worked to support the German war effort. Read that they got paid and could send and receive mail. Remember you don't get quality output from brutalizing workers.

Read that there were schools and recreation for camp residents/communities. Read that babies were born and raised together with their siblings.


Learn about the energy that would have been required to transport, gas(vans), and associated labor.

Learn that the Red Cross was in the camps.

Learn about the energy that would have been required to cremate millions, said to be over 10 million, of people and the associated labor.

Realize the resources that would have been required to organize, oversee, and perform the hands on labor of the ritual murder process of over 10 million people.

Think about all the people in Europe, mostly Poland, that are accused of being okay with the slaughtering in their midst of women and children.

Who do you believe? The liars and the exaggerators? Or the people being lied about?

Don't believe today's liars and blind believers. Read and make your own decision.

I am not averse to reading voluminous books. My favorite piece of literature is Romance of the Three Kingdoms. That is well over 2000 pages split into 4 volumes. I've read it no less than 5 times in the last 15 years. I also bookmarked the links you noted and i'll take a look at later when I find the time. And thanks for the welcome.

Good advice is timeless.

 

[Wroclaw]

It is amazing that even Walt and Mearsheimer, who recognize the duplicity of the Jews, still genuflect before the hoax.

You find that conclusion in W&M?

 

[Wroclaw]

It's worst than that ! I took it one further, who should be the easiest people to convince? The Palestinians, right? They hate the Jews, they know what duplicitous creatures they are. They are murdered and oppressed by the Jews everyday. Surely they will be prime targets, right? Wrong. On campus there was a group Palestinians for Justice or some such (I've forgotten the exact name) and I tried on several, at least 5, occasions to engage members personally in a discussion of the hoax, and 5 more via email. It was if I had leprosy, they absolutely would not discuss any aspect of the holocaust and would even walk away even though they were manning an information table. Absolutely remarkable.

You're actually surprised by this?

 

[Saggy]

You're actually surprised by this?

Even in retrospect I'm surprised.

 

[TSR]

You know what they say, and you know who they are, "There's no business like Shoah business."

.
Yeah, deniers say that. Deniers like David Irving who travels internationally (even when he has to sneak into the country involved) getting free room and board while contributing nothing financially to the country he's in, all the while skipping out on several judgments against him. Or Mark Weber, tho he's not technically a denier anymore: gets in the way of his more banal Jew hating, heading up the IHR. Or Uncle Ernie, still peddaling (or at least trying to) his DVDs and crap....

BTW, have you read those 5 sentences on your first citation for lies at THHP for comprehension yet, so you can tell us which statement is knowingly untrue?
.

 

[TSR]

Read the testimonies of people who worked to support the German war effort.

.
... as slave labour ...
.

Read that they got paid

.
... in camp scrip, which could be spent no where else...
.

and could send and receive mail.

.
... that was often written for them and heavily censored even when not ...
.

Remember you don't get quality output from brutalizing workers.

.
... slaves, tho, are property that only *think* that they are human, and this error has to be beaten out of them.
.