Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[LemmyCaution]

No. If they don't catch my drift an explanation would also be lost on them.

What is it with you and Dogzilla? Here is a forum to explain and support your views - and you keep dodging? Really odd behavior. I find it curious, that you guys keep running away from the chance to elaborate on what you claim and thereby try to convince others. You have to realize that remaining silent - or cryptic - or ignorant - won't persuade people. In this case, your remarks "Talk about a captive audience. The US is a close imprinted second" do not speak for themselves. Much as you wish - or pretend - that they might.

 

[LemmyCaution]

None of the above is grounded in what the law actually says or in legal, psychological or historical research regarding testimonies. California jury instructions state the following:



So the law says that it is up to the jury to decide what to believe and what not to believe. This is clearly how things work in the real world.

Especially since, in the real world, courts face the circumstances noted by the US Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, in Allen v. Chicago Transit Authority: "Nor, if the fell sanction of dismissal is rejected, does perjury warrant disregarding a witness's entire testimony as a matter of law. It undermines the witness's testimony; but obviously there are cases, perhaps the majority, in which a witness's testimony is a compound of truth and falsity. Perjury is a circumstance to be weighed by the jury in determining a witness's credibility rather than a ground for removing the issue of credibility from the jury by treating the witness's entire testimony as unworthy of belief."

 

[Nick Terry]

What is it with you and Dogzilla? Here is a forum to explain and support your views - and you keep dodging? Really odd behavior. I find it curious, that you guys keep running away from the chance to elaborate on what you claim and thereby try to convince others. You have to realize that remaining silent - or cryptic - or ignorant - won't persuade people. In this case, your remarks "Talk about a captive audience. The US is a close imprinted second" do not speak for themselves. Much as you wish - or pretend - that they might.

This reminds me of a little list of denier excuses I compiled a while back:

1. 'It' is illegal, even when it's not
2. Open-access archives have an invisible anti-investigation barrier thrown around them whenever a revisionist approaches
3. Public libraries also have an invisible anti-investigation barrier thrown around them whenever a revisionist approaches
4. amazon.com/co.uk/.de/.fr does not give books away for free, which is unfair
5. revisionists are too afraid to click on websites containing free materials because they might be tracked
6. thinking up a proper pseudonym is too much like hard work, except when some other revisionist does it, in which case they are a hero
7. the "playing field" is "not level" because the Industry sneakily ensured well in advance of the rev taking an interest in revisionism that they received a shoddy to nonexistent education in basic reasoning skills or research methodologies
8. it is unfair that pious repetitions of mantras do not count as hard evidence
9. the other side refuse to do all our work for us
10. only investigative form [insert type here] can possibly resolve the question, and is either impossible/unlikely to happen overnight/too much like hard work, so therefore any possible resolution of the question is postponed until doomsday.
11. it is unfair to expect us to be coherent and write comprehensible prose
12. it is unfair to take us literally when we ask for 'a debate'
13. My video will be ready shortly, then I'll show you
14. It is very difficult conducting field research while wearing a clown suit
15. I must now log in every time I visit Rodoh to read new posts.
16. Even though I cannot substantiate my beliefs, I don't believe, and that's all that counts, so nur nur nur.
17. "Belief" is Orwellian
18. You can't say anything Joos don't like without winding up ostracized as an antisemite or landing in jail.
19. Krege has had no opportunity to publish his report, even though he attended the Holocaust Conference in Iran
20. It's very hard to keep track of things we have read, and unfair that you won't take our word for it
21. I can't really give you any other details because I can't remember everything that my heroes, Goering, Irving, Butz, and Himmler, talked about.
22. I found a link that listed all this awhile back but misplaced it.
23. Dresden
24. You Believers should realise that I will continue to keep your activities and whereabouts under close observation. I will denounce KF9 as the stalker he is, too, by the way.
25. Every bit of evidence is a lie, part of the propaganda put together by the victors
26. Anyone who could have shed light on the Jewish policy of the Third Reich was murdered, so there was no Jewish policy, and, if there was one, it went too lightly on those goddamned Jews.
27. I'm not authorized to name the source ("dessen genaue Quelle preiszugeben ich noch nicht befugt bin")
28. It is not up to deniers to prove an alternative.
29. It is our right to ignore any question that we cannot answer. See # 28.
30. The Joos control EVERYTHING!

 

[LemmyCaution]

#28, #29 also quite relevant

28. It is not up to deniers to prove an alternative.
29. It is our right to ignore any question that we cannot answer. See # 28.

As to #24, but of course.

 

[Moss]

I'm partial to 23. What was that about that victim number Mr. Irving? Can I now disregard everything you ever wrote? (The whole Hitler diary debacle goes the same way...)

 

[TSR]

Yet the the Holocaust community said nothing and let her spread her lies. WHY?

.
Remind me again: which denier broke this story and when?

Oh, that's right: NO DENIER EVER DID until the real historians did the grunt work.

And do tell us: why are you so silent on when you're going to go down to the local VFW and get their support in spreading your crap?
.

 

[TSR]

I'm partial to 23. What was that about that victim number Mr. Irving? Can I now disregard everything you ever wrote? (The whole Hitler diary debacle goes the same way...)

.
Oh, no: it gets even better:

Well, if you look just at that sentence, we can say that you've only got to change one or two words and you get a completely different meaning. If it wasn't "The Führer has ordered the PHYSICAL DESTRUCTION of the Jews," but rather "the extirpation of Judaism," you've only changed the words by a fraction and yet you've got a totally different meaning.

.
CM apparently has no problems with changing words in historical sources to suit an agenda, since zie does not spend every hour of every day hounding David Irving about this.

And Irving doesn't even make movies, zie supposedly writes about history, from the same perspective as CM.

Just how does one "bury 'Judaism' in a ditch", CM?

How about you, DZ: falsus in uno and all that...

Irving wrote, back in March of '99, that he would respond to this criticism, and to date, nothing.

Doesn't that make zie a (how did that go again, CM?) "scumbag liar"?

Note that once again, I do not post the list of all the lies CM has posted and is now running from...
.

 

[Dogzilla]

What is it with you and Dogzilla? Here is a forum to explain and support your views - and you keep dodging? Really odd behavior. I find it curious, that you guys keep running away from the chance to elaborate on what you claim and thereby try to convince others. You have to realize that remaining silent - or cryptic - or ignorant - won't persuade people. In this case, your remarks "Talk about a captive audience. The US is a close imprinted second" do not speak for themselves. Much as you wish - or pretend - that they might.

OK. I'll try to explain it. CM brings up the point that the movers and shakers in the holocaust world are lying sacks of diamonds. The exact quote was this: "And yet the biggest name representatives of the Holocaust, the Simon, the Elie, and the Spielberg, have lied with aplomb and been rewarded for it. And have never admitted to their lies."

MG1962 counters with: "And if they were the only sources of the Holocaust you might have a point. It seems you should also be railing against the Titanic sinking because James Cameron made an inaccurate movie about the event." Note that MG1962 is not defending the veracity of Simon, Elie, and Steve. He doesn't say that they are not liars. He evidently agrees with CM about their truth deficiency and agrees that--if these three individuals were the only sources of information about the holocaust--there would be a problem with holocaust scholarship. But he says they are not the entire world of holocaust scholarship. They are, in fact, no more relevant to holocaust historiography than James Cameron is to Titanic historiography.

(As an aside, he is mistaken. Public perception of the holocaust is more important than the professional historians perception of the holocaust because the public shapes current social policy far more than historians do. Also, the analogy fails completely because the British taxpayers, British industrialists, Swiss banks, etc. aren't handing over cold hard cash to the hundreds of thousands of survivors of the Titanic.)

But anyway, uke2se responds to CM post by saying: "You have spectacularly failed to demonstrate any lies." uke2se is noncommittal on the veracity of Elie, Simon, and Steve but sort of makes the claim that they are not liars and that CM has failed to demonstrate that they are.

See? MG1962 says they're liars. uke2se says that CM hasn't proven that Elie, Simon, or Steve have ever lied about the holocaust.

CM tells MG1962 and uke2se to fight it out amongst themselves. This is of course an unworkable suggestion because these people don't read each others posts. If they did, they wouldn't need me to explain it to them.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Because frankly no one cares - If the Holocaust was suddenly proved a hoax, what changes for people - the answer is absolutely nothing, other than the casualty figures from WW2 would revise downwards and a few text books get re-written.

And what have you done to dispel these 'lies' You have resisted all calls to take any action at all to champion your calls. So someone who has the greatest emotional investment in the cause cant be bothered, why should others.

You might still have a point if this was the only example of people exaggerating or changing their involvement in historical events. No one seems to care that Santa Claus is an invention of Coca Cola, or that Columbus didn't discover America.

Great Caesar's Ghost! Shades of Noam Chomsky.

That's the same way Noam revealed that he knew 9/11 was an inside job.

The old who cares, what difference would it make dead giveaway. Better than body language.

 

[LemmyCaution]

.
Oh, no: it gets even better:

Well, if you look just at that sentence, we can say that you've only got to change one or two words and you get a completely different meaning. If it wasn't "The Führer has ordered the PHYSICAL DESTRUCTION of the Jews," but rather "the extirpation of Judaism," you've only changed the words by a fraction and yet you've got a totally different meaning.

CM apparently has no problems with changing words in historical sources to suit an agenda, since zie does not spend every hour of every day hounding David Irving about this.

Irving's game is doubly idiotic, first for the reason you state. These guys raise great hue and cry about supposed lies and historians not wasting their time on the claimed lies spread by pop culture figures - and yet they cheerfully watch each other lie and cheer each other on. This is the same crowd who made not a peep when a former JREF member altered a statement made by Longerich to make the historian appear to back off his position, when he hadn't, that the Madagascar plan had genocidal implications.

It's also a loser because Hitler made clear that he wasn't talking about some abstract influence of Judaism but about dealing with Jews themselves, defined racially. Jews were, after all, even in denierspeak, to be removed from Germany - not the influence of Judaism combated and defeated. Hitler himself once explained the issue of Jews/Jewry like this: "We knew . . . that the battle against Jewry could not be fought only against the race as such, but also against its living manifestation, individual persons." [Speech reestablishing the NSDAP, Munich Burgerbraukeller, 27 February 1925]

 

[LemmyCaution]

OK. I'll try to explain it. CM brings up the point that the movers and shakers in the holocaust world are lying sacks of diamonds. The exact quote was this: "And yet the biggest name representatives of the Holocaust, the Simon, the Elie, and the Spielberg, have lied with aplomb and been rewarded for it. And have never admitted to their lies."

MG1962 counters with: "And if they were the only sources of the Holocaust you might have a point. It seems you should also be railing against the Titanic sinking because James Cameron made an inaccurate movie about the event." Note that MG1962 is not defending the veracity of Simon, Elie, and Steve. He doesn't say that they are not liars. He evidently agrees with CM about their truth deficiency and agrees that--if these three individuals were the only sources of information about the holocaust--there would be a problem with holocaust scholarship. But he says they are not the entire world of holocaust scholarship. They are, in fact, no more relevant to holocaust historiography than James Cameron is to Titanic historiography.

(As an aside, he is mistaken. Public perception of the holocaust is more important than the professional historians perception of the holocaust because the public shapes current social policy far more than historians do. Also, the analogy fails completely because the British taxpayers, British industrialists, Swiss banks, etc. aren't handing over cold hard cash to the hundreds of thousands of survivors of the Titanic.)

But anyway, uke2se responds to CM post by saying: "You have spectacularly failed to demonstrate any lies." uke2se is noncommittal on the veracity of Elie, Simon, and Steve but sort of makes the claim that they are not liars and that CM has failed to demonstrate that they are.

See? MG1962 says they're liars. uke2se says that CM hasn't proven that Elie, Simon, or Steve have ever lied about the holocaust.

CM tells MG1962 and uke2se to fight it out amongst themselves. This is of course an unworkable suggestion because these people don't read each others posts. If they did, they wouldn't need me to explain it to them.

Seriously?

So because of some confused posts made in this thread, which, frankly, I couldn't follow, you think you are relieved of your obligation to 1) know the works you deny and claim need revising, 2) give an alternative explanation for and narrative of what happened, based on the available evidence, 3) state your arguments clearly, and 4) support the claims (e.g., of lying by hoaxsters or about Jaeger's report or whatever) that you make with evidence and coherent argument?

Well, that is fine, but it is only more evasion, as even you can probably understand.

This particular evasion is so weak and so outlandish that Nick didn't even anticipate it.

And once again you dodge - and, in defending your dodging, you squander yet another opportunity to make a case for so-called revisionism. Your choice.

To remind you - stripping away the noise and obfuscation - we are left with evidence, not of our choosing. It comes in many forms - documents, reports, demographic data, diaries, memoirs, court testimony, physical traces, speeches, letters, and so on.

Any one of us who wishes to understand the history - and to explain it and give a narrative about what happened - has to deal with that evidence - weigh it, sift it, sort it, compare it, evaluate it, and construct a case out of it. We also have thousands of secondary sources interpreting the evidence - almost every one of which you reject without showing any evidence of having read any of the works.

To revise history, you have to know what to do with the evidence that confronts you - and how it challenges the major narratives. This responsibility is not the same as getting worked up about monuments and memorialization, movies, the statements of popular figures and politicians. It means doing research and reading and working with the evidence and historical work that is out there - the body of serious literature on this period. At bottom, along with all your other waffling and blethering and smart-ass obfuscating - that is what you can't do because you steadfastly refuse even to engage with the primary sources and secondary literature. At this point, your stance has turned into a running gag. That isn't funny, just pathetic.

No one should take you remotely seriously until you at least make the attempt to do some reading and present a coherent explanation of an alternative view. You have shown no signs of having the mettle to do any such thing.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Seriously?

So because of some confused posts made in this thread, which, frankly, I couldn't follow, you think you are relieved of your obligation to 1) know the works you deny and claim need revising, 2) give an alternative explanation for and narrative of what happened, based on the available evidence, 3) state your arguments clearly, and 4) support the claims (e.g., of lying by hoaxsters or about Jaeger's report or whatever) that you make with evidence and coherent argument?

Well, that is fine, but it is only more evasion, as even you can probably understand.

This particular evasion is so weak and so outlandish that Nick didn't even anticipate it.

And once again you dodge - and, in defending your dodging, you squander yet another opportunity to make a case for so-called revisionism. Your choice.

To remind you - stripping away the noise and obfuscation - we are left with evidence, not of our choosing. It comes in many forms - documents, reports, demographic data, diaries, memoirs, court testimony, physical traces, speeches, letters, and so on.

Any one of us who wishes to understand the history - and to explain it and give a narrative about what happened - has to deal with that evidence - weigh it, sift it, sort it, compare it, evaluate it, and construct a case out of it. We also have thousands of secondary sources interpreting the evidence - almost every one of which you reject without showing any evidence of having read any of the works.

To revise history, you have to know what to do with the evidence that confronts you - and how it challenges the major narratives. This responsibility is not the same as getting worked up about monuments and memorialization, movies, the statements of popular figures and politicians. It means doing research and reading and working with the evidence and historical work that is out there - the body of serious literature on this period. At bottom, along with all your other waffling and blethering and smart-ass obfuscating - that is what you can't do because you steadfastly refuse even to engage with the primary sources and secondary literature. At this point, your stance has turned into a running gag. That isn't funny, just pathetic.

No one should take you remotely seriously until you at least make the attempt to do some reading and present a coherent explanation of an alternative view. You have shown no signs of having the mettle to do any such thing.

You were unable to follow that?

 

[LemmyCaution]

You were unable to follow that?

No, I was able to follow it quite well. I found it abject. You guys continue to devote all your energy to explaining why you can't state a case and defend it - instead of actually trying to revise the history. It's sad.

 

[MG1962]

Note that MG1962 is not defending the veracity of Simon, Elie, and Steve. He doesn't say that they are not liars. He evidently agrees with CM about their truth deficiency and agrees that--if these three individuals were the only sources of information about the holocaust--there would be a problem with holocaust scholarship.

Talk about missing a point. I probably should not expect any more of you. You consistently demand a level of detail in evidence you know can not be supplied, or is expected in other situations

But he says they are not the entire world of holocaust scholarship. They are, in fact, no more relevant to holocaust historiography than James Cameron is to Titanic historiography. (As an aside, he is mistaken. Public perception of the holocaust is more important than the professional historians perception of the holocaust because the public shapes current social policy far more than historians do.

And pray tell what are these current social policies you seem so concerned about?

Also, the analogy fails completely because the British taxpayers, British industrialists, Swiss banks, etc. aren't handing over cold hard cash to the hundreds of thousands of survivors of the Titanic.)

LOL - wrong again. They were still settling Titanic law suits 50 years after the event

http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/titanic-survivor-finally-awarded-280.html

See? MG1962 says they're liars. uke2se says that CM hasn't proven that Elie, Simon, or Steve have ever lied about the holocaust.

Err no - you claim I said they were liars, which we both know I never did, the point (who's subtlety is obviously beyond you) IF they were liars, what would change.............

CM tells MG1962 and uke2se to fight it out amongst themselves. This is of course an unworkable suggestion because these people don't read each others posts. If they did, they wouldn't need me to explain it to them.

Which was Clayton's usual dodge to avoid actually doing something. Why should anyone take any of you seriously. You have all this passion desire, need to prove the Holocaust wrong, but when the call to arms goes out....the silence is deafening

You are all cyber heroes tucked in behind your computer, but in the real world you have the back bone of an earthworm.

 

[MG1962]

Great Caesar's Ghost! Shades of Noam Chomsky.

That's the same way Noam revealed that he knew 9/11 was an inside job.

The old who cares, what difference would it make dead giveaway. Better than body language.

No, try again. The two examples have nothing to do with each other. The 911 incident directly lead to two wars, and the possibility of one perhaps two more conflicts.

Please feel free to show how the Holocaust caused anything like that.

 

[Wroclaw]

That's the same way Noam revealed that he knew 9/11 was an inside job.

Yeah, Chomsky did no such thing. What he did say was that the U.S. government charged that Al Qaida was responsible for 9/11 and punished people for doing so with insufficient evidence. And that charge is correct.

But he also said he was sure that Al Qaida or some other radical Islamic organization was responsible.

 

[Clayton Moore]

No, try again. The two examples have nothing to do with each other. The 911 incident directly lead to two wars, and the possibility of one perhaps two more conflicts.

Please feel free to show how the Holocaust caused anything like that.

The Holocaust hoax has provided Israel and its American Zionist/neoconservative henchman carte blanche to proceed untethered by the rules of the road with the threatening accusation of antisemitism cudgel. That's how they got away with the Liberty attack, 9/11, lies about WMD, the two wars plus the Mossad destabilizing country after country in Africa and the ME.

 

[MG1962]

The Holocaust hoax has provided Israel and its American Zionist/neoconservative henchman carte blanche to proceed untethered by the rules of the road with the threatening accusation of antisemitism cudgel. That's how they got away with the Liberty attack, 9/11, lies about WMD, the two wars plus the Mossad destabilizing country after country in Africa and the ME.

LOL what a temper tantrum. Are you suggesting antisemitism didn't exist before WW2. And please feel free to show how the nation of Israel was birthed out of the myth of the holocaust.

You and your kind consistently argue the story of the holocaust didn't exist before the early 70's yet Israel was mandated in 1948. So you will need to resolve that conundrum before pretty much anything else.

And are you going to argue the Jews invented destabilizing their neighbors for they own advantage, or that in the modern world that Israel is the only country doing it?

And the Liberty incident - Well there is a great reason to hate a whole people. Maybe the world should hate the US for the shoot down of flight 655

 

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

The Holocaust hoax has provided Israel and its American Zionist/neoconservative henchman carte blanche to proceed untethered by the rules of the road with the threatening accusation of antisemitism cudgel. That's how they got away with the Liberty attack, 9/11, lies about WMD, the two wars plus the Mossad destabilizing country after country in Africa and the ME.

LOL what a temper tantrum. Are you suggesting antisemitism didn't exist before WW2. And please feel free to show how the nation of Israel was birthed out of the myth of the holocaust.

You and your kind consistently argue the story of the holocaust didn't exist before the early 70's yet Israel was mandated in 1948. So you will need to resolve that conundrum before pretty much anything else.

And are you going to argue the Jews invented destabilizing their neighbors for they own advantage, or that in the modern world that Israel is the only country doing it?

And the Liberty incident - Well there is a great reason to hate a whole people. Maybe the world should hate the US for the shoot down of flight 655

You should fix your response so it is at least a response to what I posted.

Enlighten us as to who you consider you and your kind?

 

[A'isha]

Enlighten us as to who you consider you and your kind?

Those who aren't Jew-hating Holocaust deniers.