Understanding 911 - Does The Holocaust Matter?

[Alulim]

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... e-science/

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... o-columns/

Why are you quoting this transparent non-sense from THHP?

[Alulim]

The issue you are avoiding is that Nazis have a vested interest in attacking the Holocaust as it is the largest PR gaffe possible for their ideology.

The issue you are evading is the question of Truth and evidence. Truth has no political alignment. Why don't you address the challenge of listing the compelling evidence in support of The Holocaust(TM)?

Until you do that, I will simply assume you are evading a meaningful discussion on the issue and remind you that you have not even begun an honest dialog on this question.

[Alexander]

Dogsmilk continues to post links to the Holocaust History Project. Lest it be thought that Revisionists are scared to confront these titans of Holocaust history i provide "some links to specific threads where the so called 'holocaust history project', their spokesman Andy Mathis, and their silly 'technical expert', Dr. Green, are utterly routed":

'Green, Mathis refuted / cyanide: lice, humans, & more'
http://forum.yourforum.org/viewtopic.php?t=267

'Believer org. spokesman, Andrew Mathis, demolished in debate'
http://forum.yourforum.org/viewtopic.php?t=254

'Holo. Hist. Proj.'s Andrew Mathis humidity/gassing canard'
http://forum.yourforum.org/viewtopic.php?t=2496

'Holo. Hist. Proj.'s Andrew Mathis on Zyklon scent removal'
http://forum.yourforum.org/viewtopic.php?t=2499

'Holo. Hist. Proj.'s Andrew Mathis attempts damage control'
http://forum.yourforum.org/viewtopic.php?t=2498

'Email from Andrew Mathis (The Holocaust History Project)'
http://forum.yourforum.org/viewtopic.php?t=1526

'holocaust' denial article by Andrew Mathis debunked here'
http://forum.yourforum.org/viewtopic.php?t=2816

'Prof. Mc Nally dissects HHP's Andrew Mathis' bogus article'
http://forum.yourforum.org/viewtopic.php?t=2841

'Holo. Hist. Proj.'s Andrew Mathis on Zyklon scent removal'
http://forum.yourforum.org/viewtopic.php?t=2499

'holocaust' History Project to unveil section on Treblinka'
http://forum.yourforum.org/viewtopic.php?t=280


Surely the Holocaust believers can come up with something more convincing - maybe an "eyewitness" we can believe is telling the truth?

[Dogsmilk]

The issue you are avoiding is that Nazis have a vested interest in attacking the Holocaust as it is the largest PR gaffe possible for their ideology.

The issue you are evading is the question of Truth and evidence. Truth has no political alignment. Why don't you address the challenge of listing the compelling evidence in support of The Holocaust(TM)?

Until you do that, I will simply assume you are evading a meaningful discussion on the issue and remind you that you have not even begun an honest dialog on this question.

The issue you are evading is that while truth may have no political alignment, people certainly do. You would argue that 'the Zionists' manipulate information to suit their political agenda while you refuse to countenance such a thing from other quarters.

Certain pieces of evidence have already been mentioned in the context of this thread, but what do you want me to do? Write a book for you? As I have already pointed out the argument is futile as no evidence is 'acceptable' anyway. A better question would perhaps be by what criteria would evidence satisfy you.
Until you acknowledge the historical links between Holocaust denial and the far right I will simply assume you are evading a meaningful discussion.

Alexander - What use or ornament is spamming with old (some dating to 2003 (!)) CODOH threads? Do you wish me to go through them all and give you 'answers'? Why do you have such a thing about Mathis? (What about Nick Terry?) As you well know, CODOH was plagued with people - deniers and non-deniers alike - being banned and/or their posts removed or not passed. Mathis posts regularly at RODOH which does not practice censorship. If you are so convinced he has been so thoroughly 'trounced' why do you not take your 'winning posts' there? What are you afraid of? We both know Hannover will not post there, despite invitation. Come now - be a man - put your money where your mouth is and go and present Mathis himself with your evidence of his intellectual bankruptcy. If not, I can only assume you are all piss and wind and hiding behind the words of others - go and tell him for yourself. There is nothing big or clever about boldly declaring to other people how easily his arguments are refuted when you can impress us all by going and actually showing us how it's done. You surely have all the information you need, right? Or don't you have the bottle?
Registration is simple.
http://rodohforum.yuku.com/

[Alexander]

New uploads of David Irving's thoughts on the Holocaust posted in the last 24 hours...
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?u ... stsRus&p=r

[Dogsmilk]

So are you going to speak to Mr Mathis about how rubbish he is, or are you just going to continue chucking out links at random, religiously avoiding a forum that's actually there to talk about the one subject you always want to talk about?

[TonyGosling]

changed headline from

Understanding 9/11 - Why The Holocaust Matters
to
Understanding 9/11 - Does The Holocaust Matter?

to reflect discussion

hope that's okay

[Alulim]

changed headline from

Understanding 9/11 - Why The Holocaust Matters
to
Understanding 9/11 - Does The Holocaust Matter?

to reflect discussion

hope that's okay

Doubleplussgood duckspeak!

[Alulim]

The issue you are avoiding is that Nazis have a vested interest in attacking the Holocaust as it is the largest PR gaffe possible for their ideology.

The issue you are evading is the question of Truth and evidence. Truth has no political alignment. Why don't you address the challenge of listing the compelling evidence in support of The Holocaust(TM)?

Until you do that, I will simply assume you are evading a meaningful discussion on the issue and remind you that you have not even begun an honest dialog on this question.

The issue you are evading is that while truth may have no political alignment, people certainly do.

Why don't you address the challenge of listing the compelling evidence in support of The Holocaust(TM)?

Until you do that, I will simply assume you are evading a meaningful discussion on the issue and will remind you that you have not even begun an honest dialog on this question.

If you are so right you could simply go to CODOH and refute all of the claims of the deniers, or demonstrate that you are unfairly censored there. I will accept either approach as a meaningful demonstration of your willingness to proceed productively on this topic. In lieu of such, however, I can only observe that you are evading the issue through the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem.

[Dogsmilk]

The issue you are evading is the question of Truth and evidence. Truth has no political alignment. Why don't you address the challenge of listing the compelling evidence in support of The Holocaust(TM)?

Until you do that, I will simply assume you are evading a meaningful discussion on the issue and remind you that you have not even begun an honest dialog on this question.

The issue you are evading is that while truth may have no political alignment, people certainly do.

Why don't you address the challenge of listing the compelling evidence in support of The Holocaust(TM)?

Until you do that, I will simply assume you are evading a meaningful discussion on the issue and will remind you that you have not even begun an honest dialog on this question.

If you are so right you could simply go to CODOH and refute all of the claims of the deniers, or demonstrate that you are unfairly censored there. I will accept either approach as a meaningful demonstration of your willingness to proceed productively on this topic. In lieu of such, however, I can only observe that you are evading the issue through the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem.

Well it is somewhat peculiar that this 'challenge' suddenly emerged as you were strenuously trying to avoid a particular issue. I may actually take up your challenge in some form, but not quite yet. It'll take a bit of time to put together. We'll see. At any rate, at some point I want to address SimpleSimon's inane last post first.
In the meantime, it would be useful if you could lay down your criteria for what you consider 'compelling' evidence. This should be consistent with your criteria for compelling evidence on other matters, particularly in relation to your posts here.

There are two apparent flaws in your argument:
Firstly what is being suggested is not simple ad hominems. For example, Ernst Zundel is a Nazi loud'n'proud so it is absurd to suggest calling him one is an ad hom. Furthermore, demonstrating that there is a link between deniers and Nazis is simply displaying demonstrable links between two belief systems.
And secondly, you yourself think this is valid when it suits you. You try to suggest the significance of Zionists in prominent positions and suggest it is important. By your own logic, is this not just ad hominems? If links between denial and the far right are irrelevant, then why are links between Zionism and the American administration relevant? If truth truly has no political agenda than whether someone is a Zionist or not is surely neither here nor there.
You need to address this if you wish to be seen as doing anything but evading and hand-waving.

I have stated previously if I wanted to specifically debate the Holocaust all the time and felt I had great knowledge on the subject I would join RODOH. Joining CODOH seems about as futile as joining an evangelical Christian forum to argue there's no God, or an exclusively atheist forum to argue there is. There is no meaningful debate if you are the solitary voice proposing one position. CODOH has geared itself towards this and most of its members - notably Hannover - have consistently refused to enter a more balanced arena. And indeed, if you are determined to bang on about this subject, you can go there yourself. I respond to this subject because it irks me that deniers consistently try to push their wares here. I would not mention it were it not raised. But if you are right you could simply go to RODOH, HC or the AHF and refute all the claims of the 'believers'. This is your hobby horse, not mine. The fact you choose to hide away here, safe from historical expertise, suggests to me you are simply propagandising. Maybe you would be so kind to show me your threads from alt.revisionism? I hypothesise your arguments were as unconvincing there as they have been here and you were earlier simply expressing sour grapes. The fact you moan about it but neglect to show us how you were so unfairly treated seems a bit telling to me. Please do prove me wrong.

[Alulim]

The issue you are evading is that while truth may have no political alignment, people certainly do.

Why don't you address the challenge of listing the compelling evidence in support of The Holocaust(TM)?

Until you do that, I will simply assume you are evading a meaningful discussion on the issue and will remind you that you have not even begun an honest dialog on this question.

If you are so right you could simply go to CODOH and refute all of the claims of the deniers, or demonstrate that you are unfairly censored there. I will accept either approach as a meaningful demonstration of your willingness to proceed productively on this topic. In lieu of such, however, I can only observe that you are evading the issue through the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem.

Well it is somewhat peculiar that this 'challenge' suddenly emerged as you were strenuously trying to avoid a particular issue. I may actually take up your challenge in some form, but not quite yet.

The only things I am strenuously trying to avoid are wasting my time and giving you a sounding board for nonsense. When you get around to telling me exactly what evidence you have to support the allegation that The Holocaust(TM) actually happened, then I will discuss the matter. Since you have not even given any tangible reason in support a belief in The Holocaust(TM), I cannot discuss the matter meaningfully. AAMOF, before you bother telling me what evidence you have, why don't you try telling me exactly what you believe The Holocaust(TM) really was in terms of specific actions and locations of these actions.

[ian neal]

...., why don't you try telling me exactly what you believe The Holocaust(TM) really was in terms of specific actions and locations of these actions.

I know this is directed to dogsmilk but I believe getting straight what it is we are supposedly discussing is helpful and so I'll chuck my twopenneth in.

Whilst my definition may not tally with the official trademarked definition, I believe we should firstly recognise that the holocaust of WWII is but one of many many holocausts inflicted by fascists down the ages including the ongoing holocaust against the peoples of Iraq, Afghanistan and the Occupied Territories.

The holocaust of WWII should be seen as the slaughter of millions of innocent people by fascists on both 'sides'. Understanding the holocaust of WWII should certainly include understanding the truth of the 'death camps' but should never be limited only to this.

If the discussion is only about how many died and how they died, the discussion loses the understanding of the political significance of WWII. WWII was a fight against fascism and totalitarianism, the very forces we face again today. The real lesson of WWII is fascism wasn't defeated, the fascists were effectively pulling the strings of both sides.

The real question arising from WWII (and all the wars before and since) is cui bono. Who was funding and hence runn ing the show on both 'sides'. The very bankers, war merchants and corporate thieves whose ancestors are running the show today. And yes prominent zionists, MOSSAD and Israel is at the heart of this nexus. But that is only apart of it.

[Alulim]

[GVideo]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 2550891901[/GVideo]

I believe that that Dr. Tobin is quite sincere and well informed, though I interpret a few minor details differently then he does. In the general thrust, however, I share his interpretation of this history.

[Dogsmilk]

I interpret a few minor details differently then he does

Do you mind if I ask which ones?

[Alulim]

[Alulim]

Hmmmm.... Strange how a request for clarification of the clams under discussion and for evidence to support them is met with utter silence.

I'd say that implies that those of us who claim The Holocaust(TM) is a fraud have sustained our positions.

[Dogsmilk]

Hmmmm.... Strange how a request for clarification of the clams under discussion and for evidence to support them is met with utter silence.

I'd say that implies that those of us who claim The Holocaust(TM) is a fraud have sustained our positions.

Strange as it may seem, some of us have jobs and home lives that may sometimes preclude us from meeting demands on the part of people who routinely avoid answering questions themselves. And sometimes, people don't necessarily want to spend their precious time trying to compose long posts to 'convince' people who are quite clearly coming from a position of fixed belief.
Particularly when they go and post arguably the worst Holocaust denial film ever made that - for a start - relies on the viewer being totally ignorant of the chronology of events. I'm still reeling from you endorsing something so damn bad as well as - ironically given an issue you're so keen to avoid - so openly pro-Hitler.

[Alulim]

Just address the request for clarification and evidence. I don't need more of your evasion and baseless innuendo.

[karlos]

i wonder if Dogsbreath has read this story?

http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles ... holocaust/

and it is only the tip of the iceberg

[Alulim]

i wonder if Dogsbreath has read this story?

http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles ... holocaust/

and it is only the tip of the iceberg

I remember back when she won her law suit, I was stunned at the extent of utter absurdity that would be upheld in the name of The Holocaust(TM). The fact that her story was fabricated is not news. The fact that she now admits it, is news.

I can't decide whether to hold Misha in contempt or admiration.

[Alulim]

I will note that Anthony appears to have had enough with the game of changing header in mid thread.

Regarding The Holocaust(TM) and its relevance to current events, have a look at this call for the arrest and prosecution of Ahmadinejad, and notice how many times the specter of Nazi Germany is invoked directly or indirectly.
Connection between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations (CPMJO)

[brian]

From the above link - Hillary before the word changed its meaning -


In a message addressed to the symposium Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) wrote:



“To deny the Holocaust places the President of Iran in company with the most despicable bigots and historical revisionists. It is an insult not only to the memory of the millions of Jews who suffered and died in the Shoah,...

[simplesimon]

Dogsmilk wrote:

At any rate, at some point I want to address SimpleSimon's inane last post first.

Please start by trying to wriggle out of this:

... In fact, I personally take issue with the notion of the Holocaust as some unique event of ultimate importance.

From this thread, versus:

I think the Holocaust has a reasonable claim to unique significance.

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewt ... dd5e993628

And then please try to explain how your posts differ in any respect from those of a GATEKEEPER.

[Dogsmilk]

*sigh*

And then please try to explain how your posts differ in any respect from those of a GATEKEEPER.

Well could you explain how your posts differ from somebody who hasn't got a clue what they're talking about?

Originally I said that the climate of fear created by the threat of unemployment, persecution, jail was an effective tool for suppressing overt dissent. You changed that (typically misrepresenting) to a climate of fear surrounding investigation of holocaust revisionism, suggesting there was none.

Not what I said, but still I say that there is, and suggested a way of trying to find out. I say that lifelong believers experience "fear" when they first look into the possibility that it's all a massive lie. I say you know that is the case (they experience fear), and everyone here knows it too.

From my perspective, you shift what you're saying so often it's difficult to keep track. In this country nobody is going to come and get you for denying the Holocaust unless you combine it with race hate (in which case you fully deserve the consequences IMO) so – assuming you're British – I don't understand what you're frightened of. People might think you're a crank, but then people who say the moon landings never happened are subject to exactly the same response and I don't see them moaning about a climate of fear. People may think you're a Nazi, but then considering the close links of denial to neo-Nazis this isn't surprising and wasn't invented by “them” (unless, of course, the omnipotent “them” manufactured denial themselves).
If you've read some denier websites and found it frightening that's your problem; Whatever - I couldn't give a nonsense.

You seem to think what Lipstadt said about Irving was libel - but calling God knows how many survivors liars or deluded isn't?!

Whether it's libel depends on whether it's true. A judge saying it's true (or not) doesn't make it so (or not).

You haven't answered my question.

Only God would seem to know how many surivivors there are. "Survivors" seem to be breeding, and passing on their "survival" to their offspring. There seem to be more now than at the close of WW2.

Evidence?

'll leave that as a typical example of your misrepresentation.

Error. Question clear with quote directly above so hardly devious misrepresentation. Evasive pedantry. Your evidence "thousands" of Germans have been fined or imprisoned for denial is...?

To help you out, this was recently being discussed at RODOH and here is their list for Germany so far:
Germany
1. Ernst Zuendel, 2007 (5 years, appeal pending)
2. Germar Rudolf*, 2007 (2 sentences of 14 and 18 months)
3. Johannes Lerle, 2007 (1 year)
4. Fredrik Toeben* - forget details (jail)
5. Otto-Ernst Remer, multiple convictions
6. Udo Walendy*, 1990s, jail
7. Wilhelm Staeglich*, 1970s/80s (fines)
8. Wolf Dieter Rothe*, 1980 (1 year)
9. Siegfried Verbeke (also in Belgium)
10. Guenther Deckert, 1994 (jail)
11. Wigbert Grabert, publisher, fined repeatedly in 1990s
12. Hans-Werner Woltersdorf*, fined, 1990s
13. Thies Christopherson*, fined/fled to Denmark
14. Horst Mahler, under investigation?
15. Sylvia Stolz, under investigation
16. Heinz Roth*, 1979, suspended 500,000 DM fine
17. Erwin Schonborn, 2.79, 5 months and 1000DM fine
18. Ingrid Weckert, fined?
19. Bela Ewald Althans, fined? left scene
20. Ursula Haverbeck-Wetzel, fined
21. Hans-Dietrich Sander, editor, Staatsbriefe, 1998, 8 months suspended and 4000DM fine
22. Per Lennart Ae, NPD leader, 2005, 4800 euro fine

http://rodohforum.yuku.com/topic/512/t/ ... tml?page=1

So assuming a couple of thousand qualifies as “thousands”, unless you can find at least another 1978 names to add to this list (and be sure to let them know at RODOH), I think we can both agree you were just making things up.

All of the above deliberately ignores that I was talking about a hypothetical ban (raised by you as a diversion) on dissenting from official 911 truth. As I said:
Comparing current and now proposed laws forbidding dissent from the official truth of the holocaust with a hypothetical ban on 911 truth .. is about as much use as a chocolate teapot. None of your ...points are really parallel.

You really should have replied in the other thread, where it would be easier for others to follow the discussion, and harder for you to construct your own contexts.

You cited hypothetical possibilities that have not occurred in relation to denial which the parallel was intended to mirror so were basically irrelevant and meaningless.

My assertion was "officially sanctioned historians are granted privileged access, while dissidents are not". I didn't refer to any particular archives. I didn't "make it up", I just know it's true as a general principle, and so does everyone else reading this. To say otherwise is rather like supposing that a "journalist" from Class War could expect the same access to government ministers and documents as the “Chief Political Correspondent” of the BBC or The Times, as I said in the other thread.

You really should have replied in the other thread, where...oh never mind.

You have provided no evidence whatsoever that "officially sanctioned historians are granted privileged access, while dissidents are not" in any instance. You are making things up.

Does the difference between the primary meaning of "testify" as in "I saw the accused do it" and "testify" as in "I think the murderer did it" mean anything to you?

I was careful to mention the original context as I anticipated such obfuscation. I stated historians had testified in court. You said they could not. This is false. I will repeat – the original point I made was -

We have already seen arguments against the Holocaust discussed openly in court, historians called in to testify, the media following the proceedings.

To which you said:

Historians can't "testify" if they weren't there. At least I thought not, until today, this very afternoon. Hang on, I may be wrong. Perhaps historians who were not there can testify. If we apply the logic of the “Holocaust Educational Trust”, who are sending our kids off to Auschwitz to be “educated”, even our children may be able to “testify” in years to come.

You thought wrong.

Further, expert witnesses who are revisionists are often not admitted, or risk imprisonment. "Truth is no defence". "If you defend yourself, you compound your guilt, if you remain silent, you forego your defence".

Depends on the country I guess. Irving was perfectly free to but didn't. This was canny as he'd then have been bound to any single denial paradigm presented in his defence. Nevertheless, he went on commission an 'expert' report from Germar Rudolf which he never used.

I presume by patronising you refer to the extract above. I wasn't being patronising. I was saying I don't think you're discussing this honestly.

I interpret "you're hard work", "you're sapping my energy" as patronising. In what way not honest? Am I really a Holocaust denier?
Ok, then I don't think you're discussing this honestly. Nyah nyah na-na nyah!

and the results of "searching <kola belzec> and 2m reading" I said I'd done are sufficient to say that there was a "debate".

If an action is performed that pisses some people off this does not constitute a "debate".
Kola did not disinter bodies.
There has never been such a debate.
Show me where there has ever been a “debate” about whether to disinter bodies or not.
Or are you just making things up yet again?

I would add that a reluctance to examine supposed physical evidence on the part of affirmers hardly inspires confidence in the story.

Physical evidence has been studied. Try reading up on the subject.

Oh, right then. Not offending anyone is more important than examining physical evidence. I'll just trust you and HHP on the mass graves.

Straw man.

I have the sense that you fine tune your position according to the extent you are boxed in on any particular thread, and to be fair, sometimes to the extent you appear to be bettering others. Your tactics of distortion, misrepresentation, ad-hom'ing, bogus extrapolation, sarcasm etc however, appear to be habitual.

Change of opinion based on reading and reflection. Opinions evolve or thinking stagnates. Your effort to try to 'catch me out' to satisfy whatever 'suspicions' your misfiring neurons have generated is truly pathetic - what the f*ck does it matter if I shift my opinion on whether the Holocaust is unique or not? In fact, |I think you might have quote mined me slightly because I recall saying recently that it had unique aspects, but who cares?? Jesus, exactly what feeble point are you trying to make here???? Are you on Mogadon or something??? Actually, if you look at my old posts, I'm sure I made statements I wouldn't endorse now (or would have put better) because I know a lot more than when I first started posting on the subject. If I'm crazy enough to carry on such arguments, I'm sure in a year's time my opinions will have shifted again, will be better informed and my posts now will look a bit nonsense. It's called "learning"; you should try it.
Bizarre, slightly creepy attempt to analyse things I've said on the board previously.
Some weirdo is reading all my old posts. Hooray! My first stalker!
Be sure to read through my exchanges with Killtown – you guys have a lot in common.

Certainly the effort you put into defending the "official truth" of the holocaust implies it is more important to you than any other topic on this board. Which brings us back to my requests to tell us what other "official truths" "don't stack up" for you.

It is important to me.
Rubbishing the memory of the dead to rehabilitate fascism is something I find pretty sickening. However, generally, I reckon it's pretty futile to argue about it (it's time consuming, tedious and requires a firm grasp of what is an enormous subject) and I'd say if people at CODOH or wherever are made happy by their online fantasy world, let them get on with it. I have only challenged it because many people – apart from the denial flagwavers - seem to ignore denial threads, but this generates the perception that the TM and Holocaust denial/anti-semitic joooo theories are closely linked. In some parts of the net that perception is already there. And given this and other forums and the likes of Eric Hufschmid it's not particularly surprising. And that's apparently how some people want it. And if that's how most people want it and if that's what the TM is really about, then please let me know and I'll go away for good and let you get on with it.

but since you claim that locking up people who question the official truth makes the official truth more believable,

I have never said that. I have said that banning things draws attention to them so is not a good strategy. if you want to draw attention away from them. This is not the same as saying things that are banned are more likely to be true.

UN-F*CKING BELIEVABLE!!. NOW THAT is "CHUTZPAH"!!
Do you want to edit your post? I mean we all make mistakes... Were you tired? HO-LEE-JUM-PING-nonsense.
Really, go on, delete that bit, I won't tell. I can't even begin to respond to that at the lengths necessary to detail the implications of what you just said, unless I know it will remain

Your reaction is bizarre. Please do let me know what you're so exited about.

there is any other official truth is protected by a legal ban on dissent.

I have already in this thread pointed out that denying the Armenian genocide is illegal in France. And I have already noted that denying the Holocaust is on a par with denying other genocides (e.g. Rwanda) in much of Europe - i.e. prosecutable if violence or hatred are likely consequences. You must have missed it.

Put well by Germar Rudolf:
Rudolf’s crime: he did not obey a German penal law that forces everybody to parrot
the official version of a detail of German history. You may wonder what detail
that may be, but to be sure, it does not matter, because a government that prescribes
the writing of history by penal law is dictating to its citizens what to think,
and that is the exact definition of a dictatorship. Period.

Though I wouldn't call Western political systems that great, Germany doesn't quite tick all the boxes for totalitarianism, holds elections and has, AFAIK, an independent judiciary. Still if you want to call Germany a dictatorship solely on the basis they banned Holocaust denial that's up to you; it's just your typical hysterical rhetoric.

It's just not worth going on about this. We see it differently.

Yet you are apparently unable to explain how the speech makes any sense if your 'translation' is applied.

Well he wouldn't would he? Thanks for making my point for me.

Example to illustrate absurdity of your position. Doesn't directly relate to Himmler speech.

Right. Just the "interesting bit". Ok

Exactly.

Do you not see how your acknowledgement that control and manipulation of the media is as old as the media itself undermines what you say (Protocols -boll0cks) and gives more credence to them?

The point is their "extraordinary prescience" is not extraordinary at all. Such themes have been around for a long time and relate to that both real and imagined. The dialogues I posted were an attack on Napoleon III and centred right on what Maurice Joly thought was relevant to 1864, yet the Protocols just lifted stuff right out of it and suddenly it's 'uncanny predictions'.

What are you prating about? As long as we do not have the press of the whole world in our hands, everything you may do is vain. We must control or influence the papers of the whole world in order to blind and deceive the people.”

And where is this from...?

And if you fail to recognise the extraordinary prescience of whoever wrote them, that can only be because you're at some level afraid.

Their "prescience" is not particularly "extraordinary".

But I'm not hearing it. I'm reading it.

Is it HHPs fault you can't be arsed to install quicktime player?

No. I have genuine doubts about your reasons for being here. I will expand on this elsewhere, when I've read more of your posts.

You are welcome to whatever paranoid fantasies float your boat.

So now do you understand? Even though the Nazi policy was unjust, there were Germans who were executed for mistreating Jews. If the German objective had been "extermination of the Jews," what need would there have been for punishment of this kind?

You link to an unevidenced assertion 'supporting' an argument from incredulity. Worthless. This can't be what you found sufficiently convincing to raise, surely????
Give me specific details of Germans who were executed for mistreating Jews.

ust as you plucked yours from an affirmer site.

So you felt sufficiently motivated previously to raise a point you apparently got from an unevidenced assertion on a denier site, yet dismiss one that is clearly sourced simply because it comes from an “affirmer” site. This suggests to me you are more than willing to just accept any old assertion from a denier site, but will reject something simply on the basis it comes from an “affirmer” site. Who exactly is it that's not being honest?

That makes sense. But were they stuck there in 1933? I didn't know that.

Many emigrated. It is totally obvious this was not exactly an easy or desired option for many. A lot has been written about this. Try reading it.

"We are a people - One people" -Theodore Herzl


"Let us all recognize that we Jews are a distinct nationality of which
every Jew, whatever his country, his station, or shade of belief, is
necessarily a member."
- LOUIS D. BRANDEIS, Justice of the United States Supreme Court.


Jewish religion is above all Jewish patriotism ... the Jews are something more
than mere 'followers of a religion,' namely, they are a race brotherhood, a nation"
Every Jew is, whether he wishes it or not, solidly united with the entire nation
- Moses Hess


Gilad Atzmon considers the different types of Jewish identity, from
that which evolves around Judaism, to that for which being Jewish is
incidental and marginal, to that for which Jewishness is the centrepiece
of identity, over and above all other traits. He focuses on the third
category, which he says is "the essence of Zionism", and argues that,
according to this definition, many Jews are in fact Zionists, even if
they deny it. He concludes that Jewish people who fall into this third
category tend to act in harmony, protecting one another and operating
as a global Zionist body shield.
...
However the third category is largely problematic. Clearly, its definition
may sound inflammatory to some. And yet, bizarrely enough, it is a general
formulation of Chaim Weizmann’s view of the Jewish identity as expressed
in his famous address at the First Jewish Congress:
“There are no English, French, German or American Jews, but only Jews
living in England, France, Germany or America.”
...
According to Weizmann, a prominent Zionist figure, Jewishness is a primary quality.
You may be a Jew who dwells in England, a Jew who plays the violin or even a Jew
against Zionism. But above all else you are a Jew. And this is exactly the idea
conveyed by the 3rd category. It is all about viewing Jewishness as the
key element in one’s being. Any other quality is secondary.

- re, Jewish identity, Zionism and Palestine
By Gilad Atzmon

You have quoted opinions from three people. What is the relevance of this?
If I selected quotes similar in nature from three Imams would this adequately capture the totality of Muslim identity?

..Scattered abroad without country or government, he yet presents
a unity of race continuity which no other people has achieved...
Being dispersed among the nations, but never merging themselves
with the nations and never losing a very distinctive identity...

This distribution of the Jews over Europe and the world,
each Jewish community linked in a fellowship of blood, faith and suffering
with every other group, .. Not only were they everywhere ...
but they were in touch. They were organized before the days of
conscious international commercial organizations, they were bound together
by the sinews of a common life....

...that every Jew acknowledges every other Jew; that Jews
understand each other and are loyal to each other as against "outsiders";
that they ... stand together for Jewish defense,...

Jews of every shade of opinion, of every degree of religion and of unreligion,
can unite all round the world, and do unite, having their own news service,
their own telegraph service, their own "foreign department"
(as they themselves describe it), by which they keep themselves united and
informed for mass action. There is nothing even remotely approaching that among "gentiles."

And this kind of rhetoric is what classifies as 'information' in your little world is it?
At any rate, I did say I wasn't going to go wasting time pulling TIJ, but you might at least have posted something that wasn't such obviously meaningless waffle.
Are you really, truly suggesting that you think this constitutes some kind of meaningful analysis? It's absolutely pitiful.
mein kamf contains many passages fundamentally similar in nature so you might want to try reading that next.

I think you're itching to say that I'm a bigot. Please don't hold back on my account. That would in my view demonstrate the bankruptcy of your argument.

Yet making paranoid inferences about me doesn't demonstrate the bankruptcy of yours?
I am not itching to say you're a bigot. I might be itching to say you're something else though.

So, no "borg-like hive mind", (rather tasteless phrase IMO) but there are sound reasons to believe the economic war was "waged" by the vast majority of Jewry, even judging only by it's impact, and sound reasons to believe that the decision was arrived at by an elite hierarchy of Jewry:

I do love the wording “elite hierarchy of Jewry”. Do you mean “Jewish leaders”?. Is there an “elite hierarchy of Muslimry” or do only Jews get such grand titles? IIRC, most ultimately backed the boycott, some didn't. Why is it such an enormous deal? What is your opinion of the measures imposed on German Jews during the course of the 1930s? Do you agree with them? What is your opinion of the Nuremburg Laws? Do you consider them justified? Are you honestly suggesting Jewish boycott action was in any way comparable to the legislation targeted at Jews by the Nazis?

Nevertheless, the Jews of the world declared a boycott against Germany, and it was so effective that you couldn't find one thing in any store anywhere in the world with the words "made in Germany" on it. (Benjamin Freedman

Ah yes, IIRC this is the guy who claimed Zionists brought America into WWI and had the documents to prove it...except he never showed them to anybody.
I'm assuming you aren't so idiotic as to just take this quote as a fact and leave it at that, so I'm looking forward to your follow up explanation of how the German economy survived with its manufacturing exports at zero. No mean feat considering how reliant German industry was on imported raw materials.
At the end of the day, if the Jews(and others) had managed to bring down Hitler through boycott action I think that would have been a good thing. Do you disagree?

In 1933 Untermyer who was the head of the American delegation to the world conference of Jews in Amsterdam, was also the president of the conference. On his return, he addressed the nation in a noted speech made on WABC. Untermyer called for the declaration of a 'holy war' by the Jews against Germany, and appealed to the masses of non-Jewish humanity to boycott German-made imports and all merchants who have German-made items in their establishments.

Uh, yeh there was a boycott, I think we agree on that.

An economic war is still a war, but otherwise you're quite right. In fact I'd be surprised if even 5% of people in this country have ever heard of it.
Funny that. I would have thought it key to understanding the run up to WW2.

How is it key to understanding the run up to WWII?

http://www.nkusa.org/Historical_Documen ... stions.cfm

Seen it before. Think I know what some of it alludes to and if I'm right it is misleading to say the least. Gives vague, unspecific information which makes verification of claims difficult and thus is pretty worthless.

Has been described as a planned genocide against the Germans. I've read about it. On the internet.

Uh, yeah, ok.

I say he is a professsional liar.

You surprise me...

thought it was said by Friedman in the trial, and on the transcript. Don't know.

You misunderstand what I said.

I say he is a liar. You will defend this to the end won't you?

Have you:

a/Checked out his testimony in detail, cross-referencing it against other independent statements and evidence, while bearing in mind all eyewitness testimony from any event is likely to contain inaccuracies and misinterpretations, but found his testimony just doesn't stack up.

b/Read about one thing he said on the internet and decided he's a liar and that's that.

Never heard of him, will try to read up.

I would have thought anyone who was confident to dismiss all eyewitness testimony would have already made a thorough study of the more well known ones.
Unless, of course, they're arguing from a foregone conclusion.

the ones who didn't want their balls crushed any more and didn't want to be executed.

This pathetic drama does not detract from the fact I asked you for specific examples.

You keep saying that. Sorry, I don't believe you.

So you are calling me a liar? That's rather rich coming from someone who says I'm rude.

I treat as I find. I'm not proud of my reaction to your "online persona", but think I've been quite restrained given how unpleasant you are. Anyone who has read my posts to others, and yours to others, can form their own judgement.

Indeed.

Most people know nothing but what the MSM tell them, so ignorant, trained to believe official truth, and not to think critically.
And AFRAID to even consider that it's all a big lie. As they're meant to be.

And I suppose you regard yourself as some kind of bastion of "critical thinking"...?
I think most people don't even think about the Holocaust on a day to day basis. Most people aren't bothered about it. Most people know next to nothing about it. Most people have other things to think about. Many people don't seem to know much history at all
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008 ... 153628.htm
I wouldn't go round thinking you're intrinsically more 'enlightened' than the rest of the 'sheeple' though. That's the winding road that will ultimately lead you on a journey up your own arse.

If you're a globalist.

You have an extraordinarily simplistic view of the world.

Typically, you divert from the fact that my point was about it not mentioning gas chambers.

You made the diversion and are engaged in some bizarre obfuscation to detract from the fact you were talking out your arse in the first place.

Never heard of Liebold. So you cannot challenge the evidence, offer evidence to support your position, or justify your claim to know more about it than Churchill, contemporary writers cited, or indeed Henry Ford.

It's remarkable what saying "anti-semitic" can achieve. Almost like a get out of jail free card.

Attacking the IJ point by point would be an extensive and ultimately futile exercise, particularly as it is quite clear you are arguing from a faith-based position. Many of its original readership would quite proudly have identified themselves as anti-semites.
You just go round blindly believing the IJ and you've never even heard of Liebold? Why am I not surprised.

So we'll soon be hearing "Labour", "Democrat", "Republican" used as psychological triggers, and taken to mean "uniquely evil mass murderers etc".

Well two of them do represent at least pretty bad mass murderers if you ask me. And I reckon maybe all three.
I don't really understand this statement as a reply to -

Well strictly speaking I think "National Socialism" comes more from "National Socialist German Workers Party" and is kind of its own thing.

Which is simply making the point the NSDAP were not socialist in the generally understood sense; for example socialism tends to be concerned with workplace rights, yet the Nazis did away with the unions and so on.
"Nazi" is kind of a negative trigger word and I think that's entirely justified; as someone who's prone to moan about "fascists" I would have thought you wouldn't have been a fan of bone fide fascists yourself.

If you're not a globalist, then yes you are. Otherwise, please tell me which political philosophy is the antithesis of globalism, or stands in opposition to it.

Grapple with this, sparky - the world of political ideology is not simply reducible to "globalist" vs "nationalist". Indeed, both terms themselves may come in a variety of flavours. I don't subscribe to either and I would have thought that by identifying my leanings as left anarchist I would have made this fairly obvious.

Once again, please say explicitly whether or not you agree to accept my challenge, and participate in the research.

No. I don't see the worth and I'm not committing to writing anything. I've spend far too much time already replying to your imbecilic piffle. Calling it “research” is vastly inflated. Besides, have you looked to see how many people actually vote in polls round here?

Besides I cannot take anyone seriously that goes round citing a mysterious “them” that apparently runs pretty much everything but you cannot even offer a basic explanation of who “they” might be.
I'd hazard a guess, but it's not really for me to be saying what you refuse to articulate yourself.

Karlos – Some woman quite recently (Amazon UK lists it as a 2005 book) wrote some memoir book that was fake and she's been found out and it's made the news. Wow. Maybe you can explain in what way this is enormously significant.

[letthemeatmadeiracake]

Writer admits Holocaust book is not true By MELISSA TRUJILLO, Associated Press Writer Fri Feb 29, 5:12 PM ET
BOSTON - Almost nothing Misha Defonseca wrote about herself or her horrific childhood during the Holocaust was true.

She didn't live with a pack of wolves to escape the Nazis. She didn't trek 1,900 miles across Europe in search of her deported parents, nor kill a German soldier in self-defense. She's not even Jewish.
Defonseca, a Belgian writer now living in Massachusetts, admitted through her lawyers this week that her best-selling book, "Misha: A Memoire of the Holocaust Years," was an elaborate fantasy she kept repeating, even as the book was translated into 18 languages and made into a feature film in France.
"This story is mine. It is not actually reality, but my reality, my way of surviving," Defonseca said in a statement given by her lawyers to The Associated Press.
"I ask forgiveness to all who felt betrayed. I beg you to put yourself in my place, of a 4-year-old girl who was very lost," the statement said.
Defonseca, 71, has an unlisted number in Dudley, about 50 miles southwest of Boston. Her husband, Maurice, told The Boston Globe on Thursday that she would not comment.
Defonseca wrote in her book that Nazis seized her parents when she was a child, forcing her to wander the forests and villages of Europe alone for four years. She claimed she found herself trapped in the Warsaw ghetto and was adopted by a pack of wolves that protected her.
Her two Brussels-based lawyers said the author acknowledged her story was not autobiographical. In the statement, Defonseca said she never fled her home in Brussels during the war to find her parents.
Defonseca says her real name is Monique De Wael and that her parents were arrested and killed by Nazis as Belgian resistance fighters.
The statement said her parents were arrested when she was 4 and she was taken care of by her grandfather and uncle. She said she was poorly treated by her adopted family, called a "daughter of a traitor" because of her parents' role in the resistance, which she said led her to "feel Jewish."
She said there were moments when she "found it difficult to differentiate between what was real and what was part of my imagination."
Pressure on the author to defend the accuracy of her book had grown in recent weeks, after the release of evidence found by Sharon Sergeant, a genealogical researcher in Waltham. Sergeant said she found clues in the unpublished U.S. version of the book, including Defonseca's maiden name "De Wael" — which was changed in the French version — and photos.
After a few months of research, she found Defonseca's Belgian baptismal certificate and school record, as well as information that showed her parents were members of the Belgian resistance.
"Each piece was plausible, but the difficulty was when you put it all together," Sergeant said.
Others also had doubts.
"I'm not an expert on relations between humans and wolves, but I am a specialist of the persecution of Jews, and they (Defonseca's family) can't be found in the archives," Belgian historian Maxime Steinberg told RTL television. "The De Wael family is not Jewish nor were they registered as Jewish."
Defonseca's attorneys, siblings Nathalie and Marc Uyttendaele, contacted the author last weekend to show her evidence published in the Belgian daily Le Soir, which also questioned her story.
"We gave her this information and it was very difficult. She was confronted with a reality that is different from what she has been living for 70 years," Nathalie Uyttendaele said.
Defonseca's admission is just the latest controversy surrounding her 1997 book, which also spawned a multimillion dollar legal battle between the woman, her co-author and the book's U.S. publisher.
Defonseca had been asked to write the book by publisher Jane Daniel in the 1990s, after Daniel heard the writer tell the story in a Massachusetts synagogue.
Daniel and Defonseca fell out over profits received from the best-selling book, which led to a lawsuit. In 2005, a Boston court ordered Daniel to pay Defonseca and her ghost writer Vera Lee $22.5 million. Defonseca's lawyers said Daniel has not yet paid the court-ordered sum.
Daniel said Friday she felt vindicated by Defonseca's admission and would try to get the judgment overturned. She said she could not fully research Defonseca's story before it was published because the woman claimed she did not know her parents' names, her birthday or where she was born.
"There was nothing to go on to research," she said.
Lee, of Newton, muttered "Oh my God" when told Defonseca made up her childhood and was not Jewish. She said she always believed the stories the woman told her as they prepared to write the book, and no research she did gave her a reason not to.
"She always maintained that this was truth as she recalled it, and I trusted that that was the case," Lee said. "I was just totally bowled over by the news."
___
Associated Press writer Constant Brand in Brussels, Belgium, contributed to this report.

via Yahoo News.

[gruts]

I remember a similar case a while back - a book called "Fragments", written by a Swiss bloke claiming to be called Benjamin Wilkomirski.

he also turned out to be telling porkies and also wasn't actually jewish.

the fact that there are some unscrupulous people out there who want to cash in on the holocaust has nothing to do with whether or not it happened.

[ian neal]

the fact that there are some unscrupulous people out there who want to cash in on the holocaust has nothing to do with whether or not it happened.

True

And in discussing whether or not the holocaust happened it is necessary to define the holocaust. In my book it should not be limited to prison camp deaths. Camp deaths would be no more a true number of the nazi holocaust, than if the iraq holocaust only counted deaths in US custody or 'officially' recorded deaths.

[gruts]

I wonder what the wolf theme is all about?

Misha Defonseca claims to have lived with a pack of wolves.

Bruno Grosjean (the guy who wrote "Fragments") claimed to be a Polish jew called "Wilkomirski" and "wilk" in Polish means "wolf".

weird....

[brian]

The European Parliament bows down to obscene power -



Holocaust denier verdict approved

Sat, 01 Mar 2008


European Parliament member, Bruno Gollnisch

The Lyons Appeal Court has confirmed conviction of a member of the European Parliament, Bruno Gollnisch, for questioning the Holocaust.

Gollnisch, a former law professor of Lyons University and a member of the European Parliament has been sentenced to five months suspended jail term and a cash fine of 5,000 euros.

Gollnisch has questioned the gas-chambers run by Nazi Germany, where thousands of Jews were allegedly murdered.

Although Gollnisch has political immunity because he is an EP member, the EP has revoked his immunity under pressure fromthe Zionist lobby paving the way for his trial at the French court.

The preliminary court started trial of Gollnisch back in May 23, 2006.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=45 ... =351020603


And no one here can offer any evidence.

Including most notably Dogsmilk who has time to post sceeds of vitriol but none to spend on posting evidence.

[simplesimon]

Dogsmilk wrote:

...what the f*ck does it matter if I shift my opinion on whether the Holocaust is unique or not?

You are exposed as a FRAUD.

In fact, |I think you might have quote mined me slightly because I recall saying recently that it had unique aspects,

No.
On Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 8:38 pm you wrote:

I think the Holocaust has a reasonable claim to unique significance.

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewt ... dd5e993628

And on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:58 pm you wrote in this thread:

In fact, I personally take issue with the notion of the Holocaust as some unique event of ultimate importance.

but who cares??

I care, and I daresay others trying to discuss this topic honestly and in good faith care too.

Jesus, exactly what feeble point are you trying to make here????

That you are a FRAUD.

I have the sense that you fine tune your position according to the extent you are boxed in on any particular thread...
Change of opinion based on reading and reflection. Opinions evolve or thinking stagnates...Actually, if you look at my old posts, I'm sure I made statements I wouldn't endorse now (or would have put better) because I know a lot more than when I first started posting on the subject...It's called "learning"; you should try it.

Okay. If you are able to tell us what you have learned about "the" holocaust since October that justifies your 180 degree shift, I will withdraw the charge and apologise.

Otherwise, you are clearly, evidently, a FRAUD.