General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[Nessie]

So now there's a Jewish conspiracy against denial laws?

Strawman alert.

 

[A'isha]

Strawman alert.

What are you trying to say, then? You think it's "reasonable" that Jews lobbied for denial laws in countries that implemented them, but also state that "Jewish influence" is preventing at least one country (the UK) from also implementing denial laws?

 

[Clayton Moore]

What are you trying to say, then? You think it's "reasonable" that Jews lobbied for denial laws in countries that implemented them, but also state that "Jewish influence" is preventing at least one country (the UK) from also implementing denial laws?

Good cop bad cop.

Confuse or ignore the issue. Which is what Holocaustics do best.


Notice how the video from holocaustdenialvideos hasn't been discussed.

 

[A'isha]

Good cop bad cop.

Confuse or ignore the issue. Which is what Holocaustics do best.

Yes, the proof of the Zionspiracy is the fact that there's no evidence for the Zionspiracy. Very tautological.

Notice how the video from holocaustdenialvideos hasn't been discussed.

No. But I have noticed how you haven't addressed the question of why Wolf Gruner and his book haven't fallen afoul of the denial laws in Germany.

 

[Nessie]

What are you trying to say, then? You think it's "reasonable" that Jews lobbied for denial laws in countries that implemented them, but also state that "Jewish influence" is preventing at least one country (the UK) from also implementing denial laws?

In response to a comment on "Jewish Lobby" I asked a couple of questions. I get nonsense responses from TSR which appear to suggest I am making a claim about there being a Jewish Lobby which has campaigned for denial laws. Instead read the post and you will see I asked two questions, but TSR is on form as usual.

So I repeat that is what they are, just questions and point out that Jews do campaign about denial laws and I named two who have done so against denial laws.

There is nothing wrong with Jewish people getting together, forming a lobby and campaigning either for or against denial laws, in my opinion.

Now you are finding a conspiracy So as I said, strawman alert.

Here is a Jewsih Lobby who campaign on various matters, including denial.

http://www.intjewishlawyers.org/main/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=44&Itemid=53

Is this a conspiracy about a conspiracy

 

[A'isha]

Now you are finding a conspiracy So as I said, strawman alert.

CM thinks it's a conspiracy.

I was just trying to figure out what you thought, since your posts confused me.

 

[Border Reiver]

Save yourself some time.
http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/

Dragging the bodies?

Individual ovens?

Clayton saves lots of time by making up his mind and then refusing to acknowledge any contradictory facts.

In the case of this thread, he decided that it is really too bad that those poor Nazis were blamed for the deaths of 5.1 or so million Jews and a similar number of non-Jews when really they were just misunderstood guys wearingHugo Boss. And those deaths, therefore never happened or were a lot less than what is reported, because the (insert derogatory name here) always lies and is somehow making lots of money on the story;

In the USS Liberty thread, the preconception is that the Israelis launched a premeditated attack on a US ship, for an as yet unknown reason and the US government colluded in the coverup. The facts that make the whole thing look like a friendly fire incident are ignored, as is the Israeli admission made within hours and the compensation paid;

In the various 9/11 threads the whole thing was a way for a certain Middle Eastern nation to get the US to attack Iraq. Oh and so Mr Silverstein can make lots of money from insurance, forgetting the evidence that says otherwise;

In the anti-vaccination threads he believes that the medical establishment is suppressing information that would lead you know that vaccines cause autism (ignore ALL studies not from the US or that don't support his POV, because, well they aren't American are they?), apparently if you follow the money you'll figure it out; and

If you or an ancestor have a family name that sounds Jewish and you work in government, you are a dual citizen whose real allegiance is to Israel vice your actual country of citizenship.

I think that about covers it.

 

[TSR]

I don't see how that answers the questions I asked. They clearly are questions.

And equally clearly based on false premises.

Given the lack of evidence for any such lobby which pushed for denial laws, yes it is unreasonable to posit such a lobby's existence.

And given that all of the evidence points to these countries voting for these laws without undue foreign influence, yes, I'd have to say they did it all on their lonesome.

Now, since have presented both of these as reasonable positions to take, in defense of Irving, would you care to try not tap dancing around that fact?

Meanwhile I'm still waiting for your to respond to my destruction of your "reasonable questions about Krema II"...

 

[uke2se]

In response to a comment on "Jewish Lobby" I asked a couple of questions. I get nonsense responses from TSR which appear to suggest I am making a claim about there being a Jewish Lobby which has campaigned for denial laws. Instead read the post and you will see I asked two questions, but TSR is on form as usual.

So I repeat that is what they are, just questions and point out that Jews do campaign about denial laws and I named two who have done so against denial laws.

There is nothing wrong with Jewish people getting together, forming a lobby and campaigning either for or against denial laws, in my opinion.

Now you are finding a conspiracy So as I said, strawman alert.

Here is a Jewsih Lobby who campaign on various matters, including denial.

http://www.intjewishlawyers.org/main/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=44&Itemid=53

Is this a conspiracy about a conspiracy

Seriously, get to the freaking point. What is your objective in this thread? Is it trolling? If so, well played. Is it something else? Please state it.

If you read through the thread, you will find heaps and heaps of evidence that the holocaust happened as the common narrative claims. This is why it is the common narrative - it has been researched and analysed by hundreds if not thousands of historians for more than 60 years. There is more to learn - there always is - but barring some fantastical new evidence, and an explanation for why thousands of people have lied for all these years, none of the basic facts are going to get revised. These facts include the use of gas-vans, the AR camps, the gas chambers (including Krema II) and much else.

If you wish to challenge these basic facts, prepare to provide overwhelming heaps of evidence. If you cannot, your challenge is irrational and is rightly classified as holocaust denial. Are you a holocaust denier, Nessie?

 

[Aulus Agerius]

I don't think you have even read the debate, if so please link to it. David Irving was listed as an anti-semitic revisionist/denier.

Can't link - under 15 posts. In any event the relevant posts are scattered across several pages of this thread. Or are you referring to a debate elsewhere? I assumed you meant earlier in this thread. My response on Irving was that I don't consider his anti-semitism to be "minimal."

Is it that unreasonable to describe Jews who campaigned for denial laws as a lobby? Or did all the countries who introduce denier laws do so off their own backs with no input or influence from Jewish people at all?

Is it relevant that they are (or smith thinks they are, I haven't really looked into it) a "Jewish lobby."? Why the concern? Why should the activities of contemporary Jewish groups be relevant to whether or not the holocaust happened. There's even a post a few pages back on his blog entirely about a modern day arson in the US, in which Smith believes both victims and arsonists were Jewish. Why is this relevant to "revisionism." To me, this points to anti-semitism.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Good cop bad cop.

Confuse or ignore the issue. Which is what Holocaustics do best.


Notice how the video from holocaustdenialvideos hasn't been discussed.

Done to death.

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2008/11/news-from-denierbud.html

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/04/quick-links.html
Scroll down to "Debunking denierbud videos and writings"

 

[Cyrix686]

Nessie is a fence sitter, he wants to have his cake and eat it. They are very rare creatures.

Usually a fence-sitter is actually a holocaust denier using a sockpuppet to troll with. He could just of course be exhibiting that good old sense of British fair play that we are famous for. Or thon guid auld sense ay Scottish fair play that wur aye kent fi.

 

[LemmyCaution]

. . . There is nothing wrong with Jewish people getting together, forming a lobby and campaigning either for or against denial laws, in my opinion.

Now you are finding a conspiracy So as I said, strawman alert.

Here is a Jewsih Lobby who campaign on various matters, including denial.

Context, Nessie, you are missing the context. And thus stepping in it, so to speak.

Aulus Agerius made note of Smith's blog that he "feels obliged to identify particular groups (about which he is complaining) as Jewish, or as the 'Jewish lobby' a pattern which continues through earlier pages of his blog."

You reply, after quoting the post mentioning Smith's depiction of the Jewish lobby and his foes, is to ask, "Is it that unreasonable to describe Jews who campaigned for denial laws as a lobby?"

This is certainly missing the point.

Now, you might disagree with Aulus Agerius and present another view of Smith's blog, one disproving the contention that he focuses on Jews and a supposed Jewish lobby. You might show that Smith discussed many lobbies and didn't have a conception of or obsession with the purported Jewish lobby.

Or you might have reflected on how survivors of a group that had been subjected to the measures which the Third Reich used to attack, isolate, and destroy European Jews might - some of them in any event - form organizations to defend themselves from future such attacks.

But you didn't do any of this. You recast Aulus Agerius's observation by posing a completely different and unrelated question. One that seems designed to obfuscate the issue.

Your tone-deafness to the context, and the very real issues raised by Aulus Agerius - and your speedy attempt to deflect - is what brought out the comments on your post. You came across, in the context and in the face of the pattern of comments noted by Aulus Agerius, and by echoing Smith's term "lobby," as almost an apologist for Smith.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Seriously, get to the freaking point. What is your objective in this thread? Is it trolling? If so, well played. Is it something else? Please state it.

If you read through the thread, you will find heaps and heaps of evidence that the holocaust happened as the common narrative claims. This is why it is the common narrative - it has been researched and analysed by hundreds if not thousands of historians for more than 60 years. There is more to learn - there always is - but barring some fantastical new evidence, and an explanation for why thousands of people have lied for all these years, none of the basic facts are going to get revised. These facts include the use of gas-vans, the AR camps, the gas chambers (including Krema II) and much else.

If you wish to challenge these basic facts, prepare to provide overwhelming heaps of evidence. If you cannot, your challenge is irrational and is rightly classified as holocaust denial. Are you a holocaust denier, Nessie?

an additional reflection: Coming into a forum discussing HD, and not being aware of the mountains of evidence you need to contend with - and not having mountains of evidence to call these mountains into question - and "just asking" - is such odd behavior that I don't think there is a word for it.

Nessie, again, it's context. You are not at a bar when the Holocaust comes up and you say, "Gee, I dunno, I've read like a couple books on it and I really didn't get it all and I have some questions, can I have another beer?" No, you are amongst people who have read mountains of books and gone through mountains of evidence - people you sought out - and you feel you have something interesting to offer by asking - to be polite - basic questions about the very issues these people know inside and out. Such as, "one name, with proof."

That's the problem you've raised in this thread.

 

[Dogzilla]

Demonstrably incorrect. Denial is about spreading falsehoods in service of hate. Deniers don't know the truth, they don't even know the details against which they argue.

Truth is truth, but denial isn't truth.

We don't know the truth. And we spread falsehoods. If we don't know the truth, then we don't know we're spreading falsehoods, do we? So we're not really "lying," are we? But we're doing it in the service of hate. So we're spreading falsehoods without knowing they're falsehoods? So......what are you saying?

 

[Dogzilla]

I wonder what explanation CM and Dogzilla have for Berlin historian Wolf Gruner still being allowed his freedom, after publishing this book, considering that it "refutes the widespread thesis that compulsory work was organized only by the SS, and that exploitation was only an intermediate tactic on the way to mass murder or, rather, that it was only a facet in the destruction of the Jews."

I believe CM even characterized the book as an attempt to "cushion the response when the bubble bursts" and "just the beginning of an effort to cushion the reaction to the revelation for brain dead believers that there were no gas chambers".

I'm not familiar with this author but based upon your summary of his position it sounds like he doesn't dispute the fact that there was an extermination program for the Jews or that Jews were murdered but he offers a different perspective on the exploitation of labor. I don't know if that's what you meant to say but if it is, my explanation as to why he is allowed to publish his work is that he doesn't challenge any of the main pillars of the holocaust. What would you characterize about this author's work as holocaust denial?

 

[Dogzilla]

I do not deny the Holocaust, but I do have doubts about specific aspects, such as gassings at Krema II.

I wonder how that would go down in a German court?

You would go down as a denier. If you question any part of it, you're denying all of it. These people don't understand the different between "some of it didn't happen" and "it didn't happen."

 

[A'isha]

I'm not familiar with this author

Of course you're not. We've already established that you, SnakeTongue, and CM don't read the actual scholarship of the Holocaust published by real academics and historians.

I don't know if that's what you meant to say but if it is, my explanation as to why he is allowed to publish his work is that he doesn't challenge any of the main pillars of the holocaust. What would you characterize about this author's work as holocaust denial?

It contradicts a rather significant aspect of the "official story" ("the widespread thesis that compulsory work was organized only by the SS, and that exploitation was only an intermediate tactic on the way to mass murder or, rather, that it was only a facet in the destruction of the Jews") that deniers like to claim is supposedly inviolable. To the point that, as I noted above, Clayton believes that the book is an attempt to "cushion the response when the bubble bursts" and "just the beginning of an effort to cushion the reaction to the revelation for brain dead believers that there were no gas chambers".

I'm asking your side to explain how such an apparently damaging book (that is expressly for the purpose of preparing "believers" for the revelation that there weren't any gas chambers, no less), published by a German historian living in Germany, slipped through the laws against Holocaust denial that you claim clamps down on and prevents any attempt to question the so-called "official story" by German scholars.

 

[TSR]

We don't know the truth.

Correct.

And we spread falsehoods.

Correct.

If we don't know the truth, then we don't know we're spreading falsehoods, do we?

Whomever made it up first certainly did. And after correction the rest did.

So we're not really "lying," are we?

In most cases, yes. Because the falsehoods are repeated after correction.

For example, cm keeps trotting out Churchill, Eisenhower and DeGaulle as proof that there were no gas chambers. Which originated with Smith. When it is pointed out that there are any number of other things which those three also didn't mention which none-the-less happened (the truth cm didn't know until correction) he simply waits a while, then trots it out again. The first time was simple falsehood, even time subsequent has been a lie.

But we're doing it in the service of hate.

Correct.

So we're spreading falsehoods without knowing they're falsehoods?

The first time, correct.

So......what are you saying?

Exactly what I said.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

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

Go to 14:00 in this video where he says that the jews themselves were to blame for Auschwitz.



Do you think anti-semitism is bad?