Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[LemmyCaution]

Why didn't holocaust denial collapse under it's own foolishness when it had it's day in the sun?

but it did. it remains in collapse. with almost no "liberated" adherents.

 

[TSR]

I'm certainly not ashamed of having the moral fortitude to speak the obvious truth.

.
Then why are your posts so filled with demonstrable and demonstrated lies, from which you then run?
.

So you're saying the Soviets wouldn't have been all over something else for which they could openly persecute Germans?

.
Ummm. Dude.

They ran everything on the wrong side of the Wall. Can you demonstrate that conditions there were noticeably different than other satellite countries?

Oh, *do* try to document this -- your posts haven't been really funny in while...
.

So you're saying Churchill, de Gaulle, and Eisenhower wouldn't have been all over something else for which they could openly castigate Germans?

.
Yep, that's exactly what I am saying.

Feel free to demonstrate other ways in which things you *don't* deny happening were so used.

Or run away some more.
.

 

[Nick Terry]

If everything you said about the intellectual bankruptcy of holocaust deniers is true, why would legislation against holocaust denial, or extension of existing laws to include holocaust denial, be a recent phenomenon? You say that holocaust denial had been around long before there were laws against it. The Faurisson affair happened twelve years before the Gayssot laws? In your opinion, Faurisson and his ilk had been given far more credibility than they deserved back in the day and they squandered their fifteen minutes of fame by advancing completely unconvincing arguments wrapped in anti-semitic propaganda?

Why didn't holocaust denial collapse under it's own foolishness when it had it's day in the sun? Under your model, holocaust denial emerged and began attracting attention. It enjoyed unfettered freedom initially and was even given far more serious consideration than it deserved in both academia and the court of public opinion. Unfortunately for the holocaust deniers, the foolishness of their arguments was recognized by everybody as such and the movement lost all respect and began it's slow collapse into obscurity. Then, a decade or so following the rise and fall of the denial movement, politicians opened their eyes to the growing threat of this weakening movement and began passing laws against it. Holocaust deniers are now getting old and dying off. Their arguments are stale and repetitious. There hasn't been any original research recently and no rising stars of the movement. It's universally regarded as a farce. In response, the number of countries banning holocaust denial continue to grow.

If holocaust denial is such a laughing stock, why is it a threat? If it's not a threat, why are there laws against it?

Why do you assume that incitement to racial hatred legislation was expanded to include HD because it was a threat intellectually?

The reasons why anti-HD laws were passed or extended in France, Germany and elsewhere are quite obviously because far right parties in various countries sought to instrumentalise denial as political propaganda, and in the case of Germany, this very much coincided with an upsurge in extreme right violence. The reasoning in the German media and among legislators was, these neo-Nazis are yelping about the Holocaust, let's take their rattle away, and by the way let's crack down on this street violence which is killing asylum seekers.

Alas, it is not very easy to have an honest discussion about these laws with "revisionists" because most of them are in denial about this connection with neo-Nazism. But who organised the Leuchter-Irving tours in Germany in the early 1990s, Ewald Althans and Christian Worch, part of the Michael Kuehnen network in the Kameradschaften. Irving was prosecuted and convicted in Germany for what were pretty much public-order offences, i.e. giving speeches at rallies which were held in the open. At the time, the same people attending these rallies, and the same organisers, were orchestrating actual street violence.

The early 90s were undoubtedly a peak time for far-right activism in several continental countries, and also a peak time for denier agitation and propaganda. That's why anti-denial laws were passed or tightened around then, in France (1990), in Austria (1992), in Switzerland (about 1995), Belgium (1995), the lex Deckert revision in Germany (1995).... are you spotting a pattern yet?

The EU included a provision against denial in a 1996 resolution, which was interpreted by the Atlantic nations (UK, Netherlands, Scandinavia) to refer only to cases of outright incitement, whereas countries with a more traditionally continental-Napoleonic legal tradition have interpreted the prohibition on racist utterances (of all kinds) in a much more extensive fashion, in the cases of Germany very much building on past laws against collective libel.

Virtually all these laws have been part of larger packages of anti-racist legislation which became necessary, in the eyes of legislators, because of an increase in racism. By prohibiting HD it became very unattractive for the far right as a whole to engage in outright neo-Nazism.

After 1996, other countries followed suit with various revised laws, especially in Eastern Europe, which have hardly had any occasion to use them, by and large. The greatest number of cases have been in France, almost all in the 1990s, and in Germany, where the application of article 130 has been more extensive because there just are that many headbangers over there.

The demise of denial as a major force actually has a lot to do with changing political trends on the far right. Once a number of far right parties stopped flirting with denial, it lost a lot of its raison d'etre, because historically it has functioned primarily as far-right propaganda. This is undeniable. The 80s were a kind of aberration in this pattern, only because the Faurisson affair attracted a bunch of other cranks to the party.

Around the mid-90s, it became obvious to the majority of far right parties that Hitler worship was electorally suicidal. Thus a number of parties rebranded themselves, a la the SPD in the 1950s with the Bad Godesberg program, so that a new far right emerged, which has proven much more electorally successful and is not always seen as mired in a neo-Nazi past. The BNP tried to do this in the UK - Nick Griffin tried to reinvent himself and reposition the party away from what can be considered extreme right dogmas like antisemitism, whereas in the 80s, Griffin was a headbanging Holocaust denier and outright nutzi. But this didn't work so well.

The NPD in Germany likewise tried to reposition itself after the catastrophic electoral results under Guenter Deckert, who was obsessed with the Holocaust and the Nazi past at a time when this was simply not resonating with the German public, and seemed more and more out of date. So Udo Voigt rebranded the NPD, and thus they achieved some local election successes, by seeming more mainstream and emphasising economic policies more than simply banging on about the Good Old Days. I've no doubt that many in the NPD remain emotionally attached to the Fuehrer, and their activists have supported Ahmadinejad and Iran when that blew up, but they know that in the current climate, it is not really worth promoting denial as it will cost them votes and activists.

None of this applies to the US, of course, and also doesn't really apply to the UK.

In Britain, there was talk in Blair's first term regarding whether to criminalise denial or not, but this was rejected more or less at the same time as Irving vs Lipstadt, by 2000. Until 2000, Irving et al were not prosecuted under incitement to racial hatred legislation (which dates back to the 1960s Race Relations Acts), they could deny the Holocaust all they wanted. But a few extremely repellent characters have been convicted for the antisemitic baggage and trappings, like Simon Sheperd, owner of heretical.com, who has been convicted for incitement twice. Nick Griffin was also convicted for incitement in his early days, but was acquitted more recently of charges of inciting hatred against Muslims. And then Muslims have also been convicted of incitement. Incitement is a public order offence and is triggered by overt expressions which may lead to violence or disorder. By definition, a Holocaust denial book would not qualify under the UK law of incitement.

The Irving-Lipstadt trial was a source of pride in the UK since we felt that we'd dealt with the problem of HD propaganda without needing to go the legal route, as on the continent. And thus, when Germany issued an EU arrest warrant for Fredrick Toben, there was no appetite to extradite him, even though everyone thought he was an idiot a-hole.

In the US, denial is protected by the First Amendment, so anyone can say whatever they want. That's where the intellectual battle was ultimately lost by 'revisionists', because there were absolutely no legal barriers whatsoever in America to the propagation of 'revisionism', not then, not now. But denial has manifestly failed to make any serious inroads into US public opinion, even on the fringes, since the alternative-CTscene is too enamoured of an infinity of different lunacies and HD cannot compete for market share. And whenever someone is found out to be a Holocaust denier, then this is publicised, and simple PR dictates that it's not worth the candle. So people like Alex Jones become a bigger barrier to the propagation of HD in America than the ADL, frankly.

It's not like there are that many productive 'revisionists' in America anyway. The IHR stopped producing its journal 9 years ago, Mark Weber announced the IHR was essentially abandoning revisionism two years ago, David Irving is still something of a draw on the speeches circuit for a certain milieu, but he's abandoned hardcore denial, too.

That leaves the outright nutzis, who remain pretty hardcore in the US and thus totally marginalised, and a certain number of loonies who swallow HD along with the rest of the loony package, who babble about the Illuminati and whatnot. We have a couple of examples posting on this thread.

Face it, HD is kind of a retro thing now. It had its brief moment in the sun (a few talk shows in the early 90s in the US, basically), and now it's passe. Other whackiness seems more topical and relevant to the cognitively challenged. What do you expect when it's doubtful even half the country could correctly describe what the Holocaust actually was? But they saw the Twin Towers fall, and they can see Obama on TV, so....

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The ritual of the gas chambers is the lie that put the Holocaust myth over the top. It's horror paves the way for any imagined horror to be valid regurgitation for the liars to spew.

Great... so if the nazis had just stuck to roaming death squads and mobile gassing trucks, people would have been ok with it.

 

[Clayton Moore]

.
From your source, emphasis mine:

"Robert S. Wistrich, of the International Center for the Study of Antisemitism, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, sees reference to the phrase, when used to describe an "all-powerful 'Jewish Lobby' that prevents justice in the Middle East", as reliance on a classic antisemitic stereotype.

Bruno Bettelheim detested the term, arguing 'The self-importance of Jews combined with the paranoia of the anti-Semite had created the image of this lobby.'"

< ed note: oh, *do* tell us "self-importance" is a bad thing, but check your own posts first, ye of "I am more intelligent than every one here". >

"The B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation Commission of Australia states that 'the stereotype of the 'Jewish lobby' is that the Jewish engagement in politics and policy debate is above and beyond the ordinary participation of a group in public policy-making. It paints Jewish involvement as surreptitious, and as subverting the democratic process. It alleges that a 'Jewish lobby', through bribery, bullying and manipulation, pressures politicians to act against their will and duties.'"

< ed note: dp you *really* want to get into the relative strength of the Israeli lobby vs., say, the NRA? >

"Michael Visontay, editor of Australia's The Sydney Morning Herald, wrote in 2003 that 'The way the phrase 'Jewish lobby' has been bandied about in numerous letters implies there is something inherently sinister in lobbying when Jews do it.'"

< As opposed to, say, the NRA or the AARP >

"According to Geoffrey Brahm Levey and Philip Mendes, the term is used in Australia as a pejorative description of the way in which the Jewish community influences the Liberal Party "by talking to its leaders and making them aware of Jewish wishes and views"."

< Oh, HORRORS! They *talk* to the leaders and make them aware... >

"Dominique Schnapper, Chantal Bordes-Benayoun and Freddy Raphaėl write that following the 1991 Gulf War, the term "began to be heard in political life" in France. Vidal writes that the term has been used there exclusively by the French far right as "a phrase that combines standard anti-semitic fantasies about Jewish finance, media control and power; the term is the contemporary equivalent of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion"."

< Or are you one of those that maintain that even though the Protocols are known to be a forgery, they still reflect reality? >

"Loyola University Chicago professor Wiley Feinstein wrote in 2003 that "there is much talk of the 'Jewish lobby' in the Italian Press and in Europe", describing the term as "a phrase[] of scorn for Jews and Judaism".

William Safire wrote in 1993 that in the United Kingdom "Jewish lobby" is used as an "even more pejorative" term for "the 'Israel lobby"."

< look up 'pejorative'. >

"Susan Jacobs of Manchester Metropolitan University writes that the phrase "Jewish lobby", when used "without mentioning other ‘lobbies’ or differentiating Jews who have different political positions on a number of questions, including Israel and Palestine", is a contemporary form of the fear of a Jewish conspiracy."

< Boo!!! >
.

.
You tried this before, with your unfairly labeled gambit. You may not remember, because you then ran from the issue..
.

.
No. Three Jews, Four opinions.
.

.
No. It is an agenda by those who care about history and countering the distortions of denier idiots.
.

.
Neither. It is an anti-semitic fantasy, used to excuse your hate.
.

.
Because ... ?
.

.
Neither you nor any other denier has shown any such respect.

And the only lies which have been documented here are *yours*.
.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Safire

Safire insisted that the theory was true and used it to make a case for war against Iraq. Between March 2002 and the invasion a year later, Safire would write a total of 27 opinion pieces fanning the sparks of war.[11] Safire also wrote that "freed scientists" would lead coalition forces to "caches [of weapons of mass destruction] no inspectors could find".[12] Safire never retracted his comments.

Safire was staunchly pro-Israel. He received the Guardian of Zion Award of Bar-Ilan University in 2005. President George W. Bush appointed him to serve on the Honorary Delegation to accompany him to Jerusalem for the celebration of the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel in May 2008.[13]

William Safir was a war mongering scumbag.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_lobby
Defense of the term

In a 2004 speech Goldberg said "There has been an awful lot of talk in the last few years about the rise of the Jewish lobby and the influence of the Jewish lobby. It used to be that you couldn’t talk about this sort of thing. When I wrote [the book] Jewish Power in 1996 ... I was accused by various Jewish lobbyists of inflating and buying into the old myths of international Jewish conspiracies simply by the use of the title."[4] Goldberg disagrees with the sensitivity towards the use of the term, arguing that: "There is such a thing as a Jewish lobby, that the network of organizations that works together to put across what might be called the Jewish community’s view on world affairs is not insignificant, it's not an invention, but it is not some sort of all-powerful octopus that it’s sometimes portrayed as these days."[4] Mearsheimer and Walt wrote in 2006 that "even the Israeli media refer to America's 'Jewish Lobby'",[21] and stated the following year that "AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents and the Israeli media themselves refer to America's 'Jewish Lobby'."[22]

American Jewish Committee were defeated by supporters of Abba Hillel Silver and "the maximalist goal of a 'Jewish Commonwealth'" at the American Jewish and Biltmore Conferences. Silver became the new leader of American Zionism, with his call for "loud diplomacy", and he then "cranked up the Zionist Organization of America's one-man lobbying operation in Washington—renaming it the American Zionist Emergency Council (AZEC)—and began to mobilize American Jewry into a mass movement."[35]

Former New York Times journalist Youssef Ibrahim writes: "That there is a Jewish lobby in America concerned with the well-being of Israel is a silly question. It is insane to ask whether the 6 million American Jews should be concerned about the 6 million Israeli Jews, particularly in view of the massacre of another 6 million Jews in the Holocaust. It's elementary, my dear Watson: Any people who do not care for their own are not worthy of concern. And what the Israel lobby does is what all ethnic lobbies — Greek, Armenian, Latvian, Irish, Cuban, and others — do in this democracy."[36]

The point is that an effective "lobby" demands that what happened about 70 years ago is what they say happened about 70 years ago.

The point also is that the effectiveness of that effective "lobby" is due
to what they say happened about 70 years ago being accepted as the undeniable, unquestionable truth.

That is the connection between today's Jewish/Israeli lobbies and the Holocaust myth. Without the Holocaust myth today's Jewish/Israeli lobbies would not have the autoprotectionism of antisemitism.
Without today's Jewish/Israeli lobbies the Holocaust would not be the one untouchable element in the history of man.

 

[TSR]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Safire

.
"The theory" being that an Iraqi intelligence agent met with Mohamed Atta, which he called an "undisputed fact", a theory which was debunked by the CIA and other intelligence agencies.

All of which has *what* to do with the historicity of the Holocaust, or even your fantasies about great wealth causing corruption?
.

William Safir was a war mongering scumbag.

.
Which, even if true, has *what* to do with the historicity of the Holocaust, or even your fantasies about great wealth causing corruption?
.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_lobby

.
"It is not some sort of all-powerful octopus that it’s sometimes portrayed as these days". So your point is ... ?
.

The point is that an effective "lobby" demands that what happened about 70 years ago is what they say happened about 70 years ago.

.
Really? What is it that the NRA demands happened? The AARP?

You also seem to have forgotten that it is not just what "they say" happened, but what generations of historians of every stripe have shown, based on the evidence, happened.
.

The point also is that the effectiveness of that effective "lobby" is due
to what they say happened about 70 years ago being accepted as the undeniable, unquestionable truth.

.
You misspelled "the existence of that lobby", "what history says happened" and "being accepted by anyone not so blinded by irrational hate as to attempt to deny the evidence of its reality" above.

HTH.
.

That is the connection between today's Jewish/Israeli lobbies and the Holocaust myth. Without the Holocaust myth today's Jewish/Israeli lobbies would not have the autoprotectionism of antisemitism.

.
Of course, without anti-semitism, there would also be no *need* for such a lobby...
.

Without today's Jewish/Israeli lobbies the Holocaust would not be the one untouchable element in the history of man.

.
And you misspelled "is not an untouchable element in history".

Really, you should proof better...
.

 

[Corsair 115]

The ritual of the gas chambers is the lie that put the Holocaust myth over the top.

The problem for you—one which you so far have utterly failed in resolving—is to provide irrefutable evidence that the gassing to death of millions of Jews did not happen. To date all we have are your rather histrionic claims that it didn't happen. Actual evidence from you proving it has been nonexistent.

(And in any event even without gas chambers there are several million deaths from shootings, starvation, and being worked to death. These are still reprehensible and for those the Nazi regime deserves contempt and condemnation.)

It's horror paves the way for any imagined horror to be valid regurgitation for the liars to spew.

Without the gas chamber lies, the Holocaust lies and phantom numbers necessary to bring the total to 5 million, the Holocaust house of lying cards collapses like a feather.

And you prove my first point by offering more histrionics. With that out of your system, might you now actually provide some evidence?

 

[Mondial]

Holocaust survivors in their own words describe orchestras, theatre, movies, canteens, spending money and soccer games in the "death camps" - www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm8UmMuRSSw&feature=player_embedded

 

[TSR]

Holocaust survivors in their own words describe orchestras, theatre, movies, canteens, spending money and soccer games in the "death camps" - www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm8UmMuRSSw&feature=player_embedded

.
To which of the Auschwitz camps does the video refer? You *are* aware that only one of the camps (well, at a time) in the Auschwitz complex was a 'death camp', right? How many of the Hungarian Jews do you suppose got to take advantage of these amenities?

Buchenwald was not a death camp, in spite of its near 25% death toll.

Monowitz was "only" a slave labour camp, originally part of the Auschwitz complex.

Mauthausen-Gusen was not a death camp, despite an over 20% death rate.

Theresienstadt *definitely* not a death camp.

Why don't they have anyone talking about all of the fun stuff to do at Treblinka? Chełmno? Bełżec? Majdanek? Sobibor?

You know: the *actual* death camps?

.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Holocaust survivors in their own words describe orchestras, theatre, movies, canteens, spending money and soccer games in the "death camps" - www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm8UmMuRSSw&feature=player_embedded

The Last Days of the Big Lie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7tHB8tD34s

2 hours 3 minutes 56 seconds

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The Last Days of the Big Lie

"Coming soon" for 2/3rds of a century and counting.

 

[Saggy]

The problem for you—one which you so far have utterly failed in resolving—is to provide irrefutable evidence that the gassing to death of millions of Jews did not happen. T

Nonsense. All that the revisionists need to show is that the people saying that the hoax did happen are pathological liars. And that's easy, all one has to do is read the actual 'testimony', for example, from the most famous hoax survivor, Nobel Prize winner, first director of the USHMM Holohoax Museum Elie Wiesel, in the most famous holohoax book, 'Night', ....


"Babies were thrown into the air and the machine gunners used them as targets."

All one has to do to know the holohoax is a hoax is to read Weisel's book, or Filip Meuller's book, 'Three Years is a Gas Chamber' which announces its absurdity in the title, or watch the testimony of the Treblinka barber, Abraham Bomba, who tells how Jewish barbers gave haircuts to their own wives and daughters, all crammed naked in the gas chamber, right before the women were gassed. See it here ... episode 7..

http://www.codoh.com/video/onethird.html

 

[TSR]

Nonsense.

.
Yes, what you are about to write is nonsense.
.

All that the revisionists need to show is that the people saying that the hoax did happen are pathological liars.

.
Every mainstream historian in the world, and every court to have actually heard the evidence -- indeed, the vast majority of the world: *all* pathological liars?
.

And that's easy, all one has to do is read the actual 'testimony', for example, from the most famous hoax survivor, Nobel Prize winner, first director of the USHMM Holohoax Museum Elie Wiesel, in the most famous holohoax book, 'Night', ....

.
Before what court was Wiesel sworn and then presented this book, that you call it testimony?

You *do* know the meaning of that word, don't you?

And to whom other than deniers are Wiesel and his book "the most famous"?
.

"Babies were thrown into the air and the machine gunners used them as targets."

.
And your proof that Moshe the caretaker did *not* make this statement? Not having read the book itself, you probably do not realize that this is one of two ways this could be a lie by Wiesel.

The other is impossibility: are babies too heavy to throw in the air? Are gunners unable to use pretty much any object as a target?

No, the lie in this case is *your* suggestion that this quote shows anything at all about Wiesel's honesty.
.

All one has to do to know the holohoax is a hoax is to read Weisel's book, or Filip Meuller's book, 'Three Years is a Gas Chamber' which announces its absurdity in the title, or watch the testimony of the Treblinka barber, Abraham Bomba, who tells how Jewish barbers gave haircuts to their own wives and daughters, all crammed naked in the gas chamber, right before the women were gassed.

.
Yeah, forget about actually reading a history book with sources and evidence and stuff. All you have to do is call three random people liars and it's all over -- because everyone knows that these sorts of personal recollections trump all of the physical, doumentary and demographic evidence, not to mention perpetrator testimony.
.

See it here ... episode 7..

.
And here it is: a series of refutations of Ugly Voice's crap which Saggs won't even begin to address.
.

 

[Wroclaw]

Also easily indexed here:

http://onethirdoftheholocaust.blogspot.com/

 

[Saggy]

All you have to do is call three random people liars and it's all over

It's all over. I didn't choose them, the Jews did, they were 1. the first director of the USHMM hoax museum and Nobel Prize winner E. Wiesel, the only man to see the Jewish people die and live to tell about it F. Meuller, and A. Bomba, featured in the Israeli hoax movie 'Shoah'. All obvious pathological liars.

Then, there is the flip side, the challenge: name one credible Jewish witness to the holohoax.

Calling Nick Terry !

There is not a single credible Jewish hoax witness.

 

[Wroclaw]

You are so freaking boring.

 

[uke2se]

You are so freaking boring.

That depends. I always picture Saggy in a certain way when he's writing his diatribes. It always nets me a chuckle.

 

[TSR]

It's all over.

.
And yet you continue to spew your bile all over their memory.
.

I didn't choose them, the Jews did

.
Really? When was this referendum held?
.

they were 1. the first director of the USHMM hoax museum and Nobel Prize winner E. Wiesel, the only man to see the Jewish people die and live to tell about it F. Meuller, and A. Bomba, featured in the Israeli hoax movie 'Shoah'.

.
And ... ?
.

All obvious pathological liars.

.
And yet, you cannot point to a *single* lie by any of these people and have to resort to calling memoirs 'testimony' to even pretend the irrational hate in your posts is associated with reality in any thing more than the most peripheral manner.
.

Then, there is the flip side, the challenge: name one credible Jewish witness to the holohoax.

.
Tell us why this particular item is so important.

And then you can cite for us one credible Nazi witness who denied the Holocaust as a whole.
.

There is not a single credible Jewish hoax witness.

.
Are you really delusional enough to assume that your personal, unsupported opinion as to credibility holds any water? Let's face it: you *just* cited Ugly Voice as a good source...
.

 

[abaddon]

It's all over. I didn't choose them, the Jews did, they were 1. the first director of the USHMM hoax museum and Nobel Prize winner E. Wiesel, the only man to see the Jewish people die and live to tell about it F. Meuller, and A. Bomba, featured in the Israeli hoax movie 'Shoah'. All obvious pathological liars.

Then, there is the flip side, the challenge: name one credible Jewish witness to the holohoax.

Calling Nick Terry !

There is not a single credible Jewish hoax witness.

Hang on a second, I would have thought the lack of eyewitnesses would be evidence for the Holocaust, because everyone else was killed, right?

 

[Cyrix686]

...All one has to do to know the holohoax is a hoax is to read Weisel's book, or Filip Meuller's book, 'Three Years is a Gas Chamber which announces its absurdity in the title...'

Nope. Muller's book is not called that at all. Its title is, "Eyewitness Auschwitz. Three Years in the Gas Chambers. "

I recall that the first edition in 1979 had a different title to that:

"Auschwitz Inferno. The testimony of a sonderkommando."