General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[swright777]

If you see a $20 gold piece immersed in mud do you extract it or leave it where it lies?

I would pick it up. What does this have to do with you extracting the turd that you found in the sewer?

 

[Nessie]

No but when challenged to provide real original research which was impacted by these laws, you offered Faurie's Anne Frank critque.

Which was never a problem.

But yes , it is that hate language, the "brigade" and "Hitler" comments which will be a problem for a denier researcher.

Now, can you name a single denier "researcher" who has not engaged in such?

No, and not by the vast majority of Germans.

That's kind of why Rudolf ran away with his tail between his legs and his lies on his lips.

I had a debate elsewhere after a deniers claim that there were no anti-semitic revisionists. Despite producing a large list, he countered by trying to argue none were revisionists, instead they were deniers. But during that search the one person that I could find no anti-semitism attributable to was Bradley Smith. I have found his use of language to be moderated and reasonable.

If the Rudolph Report is illegal in Germany I say that is wrong and is an example where denial laws can limit research since anyone who comes out with similar beliefs could find themselves arrested. If someone who is regarded, say by yourself as a serious historian came to the same or similar conclusion, they cannot speak out.

 

[Corsair 115]

I expect details that a new examination of the holocaust find need to be revised to be revised. You can't expect me to be any more specific then that. I usually ignore questions that don't have answers or are meaningless. That's not the same as lying.

If you had genuine questions about specific aspects of the Holocaust, presumably you would just ask these questions, then wait for the responses from knowledgeable folks and check out the references and citations they offer in support of their answers. But you never ask questions about specific aspects of the Holocaust with which you have difficulty. Whether you intend it or not, your posts come across as little more than 'lighter' versions of the flat-out denials offered by Clayton et. al.

The positions espoused in your quote above is little more than faux skepticism of the kind held by 9/11 conspiracy believers and similar folks. Try reading the vast amount of literature and research already widely available on the Holocaust, then return with specific questions on any elements that you find problematic. That would be real skepticism.

 

[uke2se]

But during that search the one person that I could find no anti-semitism attributable to was Bradley Smith. I have found his use of language to be moderated and reasonable.

Bradley Smith is a holocaust denier. Holocaust denial is a form of antisemitism. Therefore Bradley Smith is an antisemite. Furthermore, looking at Smith's associates, they consist entirely of neo-Nazis and outspoken antisemites. Just because Smith himself hasn't used any antisemitic slurs (not saying he hasn't), that doesn't make him not an antisemite.

 

[TSR]

I had a debate elsewhere after a deniers claim that there were no anti-semitic revisionists. Despite producing a large list, he countered by trying to argue none were revisionists, instead they were deniers. But during that search the one person that I could find no anti-semitism attributable to was Bradley Smith. I have found his use of language to be moderated and reasonable.

And tell us -- what historical research has Smith engaged in? That *was* the topic, remember?

And while he himself is a bit more circumspect than most, have you seen his blog, and sites to which he links ?

If the Rudolph Report is illegal in Germany I say that is wrong and is an example where denial laws can limit research since anyone who comes out with similar beliefs could find themselves arrested.

Not if they leave out the polemics.

If someone who is regarded, say by yourself as a serious historian came to the same or similar conclusion, they cannot speak out.

Yes, they can -- as long as they are not also inciting.

But Rudolf did no original research for his report -- it is the Leuchter nonsense with some commentary.

 

[Nessie]

Bradley Smith is a holocaust denier. Holocaust denial is a form of antisemitism. Therefore Bradley Smith is an anti-semite. Furthermore, looking at Smith's associates, they consist entirely of neo-Nazis and outspoken anti-semites. Just because Smith himself hasn't used any antisemitic slurs (not saying he hasn't), that doesn't make him not an antisemite.

I think to claim denial is anti-semitic is tragic and if that really is the case very very wrong. In the same way to anti-imperialist being associated with being Anglophobic. They are not necessarily connected.

Yes Smith may keep dodgy company and be an anti-semite, but his work does not that I can find contain the typical denier hate language.

 

[Nessie]

And tell us -- what historical research has Smith engaged in? That *was* the topic, remember?

And while he himself is a bit more circumspect than most, have you seen his blog, and sites to which he links ?

Not if they leave out the polemics.

Yes, they can -- as long as they are not also inciting.

But Rudolf did no original research for his report -- it is the Leuchter nonsense with some commentary.

So you are certain that in Germany you can publish a claim that no one was gassed, your reasons why and you will not fall foul of the law. Is that the case?

 

[uke2se]

I think to claim denial is anti-semitic is tragic and if that really is the case very very wrong. In the same way to anti-imperialist being associated with being Anglophobic. They are not necessarily connected.

Yes, holocaust denial and antisemitism are necessarily connected. If you press a holocaust denier, it always boils down to a Jewish world conspiracy. Antisemitism is the reason for 100% of holocaust deniers.

Yes Smith may keep dodgy company and be an anti-semite, but his work does not that I can find contain the typical denier hate language.

What work are you referring to?

 

[uke2se]

So you are certain that in Germany you can publish a claim that no one was gassed, your reasons why and you will not fall foul of the law. Is that the case?

An obviously erroneous claim like that probably wouldn't pass muster, no. That's the problem for deniers. They are allowed to post correct information but they are always wrong.

 

[LemmyCaution]

. . . during that search the one person that I could find no anti-semitism attributable to was Bradley Smith. I have found his use of language to be moderated and reasonable.

Really and truly? And what does Smith do about anti-Semitism in his movement, its being so prevalent? Does he drum it out or dissociate himself from it?

 

[Nessie]

Yes, holocaust denial and antisemitism are necessarily connected. If you press a holocaust denier, it always boils down to a Jewish world conspiracy. Antisemitism is the reason for 100% of holocaust deniers.



What work are you referring to?

So if you deny the Holocaust you are an anti-semite. That is a dreadful threat to freedom of speech and research.

I am referring to what I have read of his blog and articles on the internet.

 

[TSR]

So you are certain that in Germany you can publish a claim that no one was gassed, your reasons why and you will not fall foul of the law. Is that the case?

Do please read for comprehension. I very clearly said:

That is a question for German courts to sort out, and I believe would depend a great deal on how legitimate your reasons were. If they amount to cm's "Nazis would never do that" and "The Jews would be walking time bombs as soon as they found out about it", I wouldn't count on leaving German soil anytime soon.

Which of these words are unclear to you?

 

[Nessie]

An obviously erroneous claim like that probably wouldn't pass muster, no. That's the problem for deniers. They are allowed to post correct information but they are always wrong.

Right, so denial laws restrict freedom of research and publishing those results.

 

[uke2se]

So if you deny the Holocaust you are an anti-semite. That is a dreadful threat to freedom of speech and research.

It has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It's a necessity of the premise. The only way to deny the holocaust is to posit a global conspiracy. The only way to do this is to implicate Jewish people in nefarious activities.

That and the fact that 100% of holocaust deniers have turned out to be antisemites.

I am referring to what I have read of his blog and articles on the internet.

"Rabbis normally come from a sophisticated urban intellectual background, which encourages a self-righteous contempt for the views and sensibilities of those who don't, hypocritical betrayal of proclaimed ideals to disguise true motives, and a rejection -- for self-serving ends -- of any kind of good will or even civility towards those with whom they disagree."

IHR Newsletter, February 1992.

2 minutes with Google.

 

[uke2se]

Right, so denial laws restrict freedom of research and publishing those results.

Nope. Don't know how you read that into what I wrote. Denial laws restricts making crap up and publishing it to attack a group of people.

 

[Nessie]

Really and truly? And what does Smith do about anti-Semitism in his movement, its being so prevalent? Does he drum it out or dissociate himself from it?

Yes, I cannot find him being anti-semitic in his use of language. No and no. I doubt he can since revisionism is so full of anti-semitism and in any case Smith may well be a hater.

I found very little of David Irving being anti-semitic as well. Nothing like as much abuse as he has had to take.

 

[uke2se]

Yes, I cannot find him being anti-semitic in his use of language. No and no. I doubt he can since revisionism is so full of anti-semitism and in any case Smith may well be a hater.

I found very little of David Irving being anti-semitic as well. Nothing like as much abuse as he has had to take.

Read the Irving-Lipstadt trial transcript. Here's a song he used to sing to his child when what he called "half-breed children" were wheeled past:

"I am a Baby Aryan / Not Jewish or Sectarian. / I have no plans to marry an
/ Ape or Rastafarian."

 

[TSR]

So if you deny the Holocaust you are an anti-semite. That is a dreadful threat to freedom of speech and research.

Deniers don't *do* research. They look for something they can quote mine or distort into the service of their hate.

Historians take a look at the evidence -- all the evidence -- and say "what does this all tell us about these events.

Deniers *start* with the conclusion, and then look for ways to support it. It is this lack which always trips them up. No denier yet has offered a narrative which accounts for all of the evidence more elegantly than the normative view of these events.

I am referring to what I have read of his blog and articles on the internet.

Blogs and op-ed are research?

Didn't you claim to be an historian?

 

[Nessie]

Do please read for comprehension. I very clearly said:


Which of these words are unclear to you?

The part where you skirted round my question. I wanted to press you further on the point and if want to I will continue.....

If I present a reasonably argued case that I do not believe anyone was gassed, it contained no hate language or rhetoric, it was clearly my genuinely held view based on my research with no agenda attached, will I get into trouble with German denial laws?

It is irrelevant whether you think I am right or wrong about such a view point, I just want to know if I can have such in German and talk or publish openly about it.

 

[uke2se]

The part where you skirted round my question. I wanted to press you further on the point and if want to I will continue.....

If I present a reasonably argued case that I do not believe anyone was gassed, it contained no hate language or rhetoric, it was clearly my genuinely held view based on my research with no agenda attached, will I get into trouble with German denial laws?

It is irrelevant whether you think I am right or wrong about such a view point, I just want to know if I can have such in German and talk or publish openly about it.

In an alternative universe where it was possible for you to present a reasonably argued case like that, I don't think you'd get in trouble. Problem is, in this universe, also called "reality", that feat is impossible, so your question isn't relevant.