The holocaust and revisionists

Eriugena

Myksyk wrote:

Part 4 of Michael Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things" is entitled 'History and Pseudohistory' and gives and overview of the holocaust revisionist movement. His site www.skeptic.com might be a place to access more detailed sources of information.

See Dr Shermer's contribution to the question being dissected at http://vho.org/GB/c/PG/111200.html
I am starting a new thread to deal with the skeptical pretensions of Michael Shermer.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2455741&postcount=1

Eriugena

robindch wrote:

> I don't believe someone should be locked up because they
> promote an incorrect version of history, even with something
> as serious as genocide.

I'm afraid I disagree completely.

The activities of the Germans during WWII plumbed some of the most disgraceful depths which humanity has reached. In order to prevent this from happening again, at least in Germany, laws have been passed which do not permit you to deny the fact of the slaughter, nor the manner in which it was carried out, nor the guilt of the perpetrators. If you disagree with these laws, then I suggest that you read up on what the Germans and their allies did during the war, then travel to Germany, visit one or two of the memorials, speak to a few natives and then reconsider.

In short, When the privilege of free speech is abused by those liars whose motives are racist and/or murderous, I'm afraid that I have no sympathy for their right to free speech, as they have no respect for the honor-system which gave it to them.

- robin.

Having looked through the thread it is perplexing to find an otherwise sensible and fair-minded person like robin defending the persecution of people who are carrying out independent research into a historical event. Leaving aside the substantive question for the moment - H revisionism - the idea of free speech
is there precisely to protect those we disagree with. Robin is incorrect when they describe free speech as a privilege. It is not, it is an inalienable right under the Universal Declaration: Article 19 states - "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." Now just about every country in the world is a signatory to this and there is nothing there about privilege or conditions or anything else.

Returning to the substantive issue - H revisionism. This is something I know quite a bit about and which I can articulate at length if called on to do so here. The only thing I will say at the moment is that not only is it entirely legitimate but that its handling of the evidence and the explanations produced by revisionists are closer to discovering the truth than those put forward by what Norman Finkelstein terms the 'holocaust industry.' It is precisely that industry which is at the forefront of the persecution of people like Ernst Zundel.

robindch

> inalienable right under the Universal Declaration: Article 19 states
> - "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression;
> this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference
> and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through
> any media and regardless of frontiers."

...which sounds fine on paper, until one thinks even fairly briefly about the practical implications, partiularly the section in bold text.

For example, are you in favour of convicted child molesters being able, without hindrance, to swap information on vulnerable kids + institutions? Or information on the use of dangerous chemicals + bacteriological agents against human beings, being freely available? Or misinformation about other lethal dangers to society?

> Now just about every country in the world is a signatory to this
> and there is nothing there about privilege or conditions or anything
> else.

Every country I'm aware of has implemented *some* restrictions upon this declaration (the USA has implemented far more than most) and I'm afraid that my position stands -- freedom of speech and information is fine, so long as such freedom itself doesn't threaten the system which provides it. It's a bit like that fine party in Ukraine which recently campaigned with the slogan "Vote for us and you'll never have to vote again" (they were going to suspend the constitution and abolish parliament), or in Algeria, where the army stepped in to prevent an Islamic party from assuming power, after the party had stated that they'd ditch the parliament and constitution too, as soon as they got in.

At some stage (possibly even constantly) within almost any human system, a small minority of people abuse the system's rights and priveleges for their own grubby ends, and I've no problem seeing such people lost their rights.

- robin.

sliabh

As the US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes succinlty put it - freedom of speech does not extend to falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre and causing a panic.

Eriugena

robindch wrote:

> inalienable right under the Universal Declaration: Article 19 states
> - "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression;
> this right includes freedom to hold opinions is without interference
> and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through
> any media and regardless of frontiers."

...which sounds fine on paper, until one thinks even fairly briefly about the practical implications, partiularly the section in bold text.

The practical implications are that you cannot force me to believe something that is unsustainable in evidence or argument. Prison and the stake has never killed an idea, quite the contrary.

For example, are you in favour of convicted child molesters being able, without hindrance, to swap information on vulnerable kids + institutions?

Arguments by analogy are fallacious and this is a very good example of why that is so. These activiites are serious criminal activities. We are talking about legitimate historical research and scholarly activity. The two are incomparable.

Or information on the use of dangerous chemicals + bacteriological agents against human beings, being freely available?

Such information is already available in any science library of a university.

Or misinformation about other lethal dangers to society?

This is much too vague to comment on.
> Now just about every country in the world is a signatory to this
> and there is nothing there about privilege or conditions or anything
> else.

Every country I'm aware of has implemented *some* restrictions upon this declaration (the USA has implemented far more than most)

This is false; the First Amendement of the US Constitution gives an unconditional guarantee of freedom of speech, much to the annoyance of the ADL. Those who hate free speech in the US try everything else short of actual laws. The Patriot Acts can be understood in this way, wheer the pretext is the ubiquitous threat of terrorism, or , the "Emmanuel Goldstein" factor.

and I'm afraid that my position stands

Your position is not supported by argument as is contradicted by the Universal Declaration and by the US Constitution. It cannot stand simply through proclamation.

freedom of speech and information is fine, so long as such freedom itself doesn't threaten the system which provides it.

Sorry buddy, no can do. You have just given an argument that supports the Soviet system of censroship and suppression, the burning of heretics in the middle ages etc. Nice company you keep.
Your argument is not an argument for justification rather it merely explains why something is the case, not why it ought to be the case.

At some stage (possibly even constantly) within almost any human system, a small minority of people abuse the system's rights and priveleges for their own grubby ends, and I've no problem seeing such people lost their rights.

Then no-one has the right to free speech because it is there for those we disagree with and like to label as 'grubby.' I regard the persecution of revisionists as the contemptible actions of a nasty little group of uaccountable shysters who cannot allow this thing to be researched openly and objectively. You seem to have more interest in preserving a politcial order than in advancing the cause of free and unhindered research and historcial truth.

Zombrex

robindch wrote:

For example, are you in favour of convicted child molesters being able, without hindrance, to swap information on vulnerable kids + institutions? Or information on the use of dangerous chemicals + bacteriological agents against human beings, being freely available?

You seem to be confusing freedom of speech with conspiricy to commit a crime. It is illegal for you to impart personal information about me that may be used in a crime against me, because you are effectively become part of that crime by your actions. It is not illegal to hold the opinion that you think I am an idiot.

Zombrex

Just like to clarify that I don't support any Holocaust Revisionist movment. I think the vast majority of Revisionist persue the topic for political reasons rather than interest in the truth.

But as long as they are not conspiring to commit crimes the information they publish should not be made illegal just because it is wrong.

robindch

> I think the vast majority of Revisionist persue the topic for
> political reasons rather than interest in the truth.

I would add racist reasons to the obviously political. Out of interest, is anybody aware of *any* holocaust-denier who isn't also anti-semitic, or an apologist for the Nazi party, or Hitler himself? I've certainly never heard of any, though there must be a few, somewhere?

> But as long as they are not conspiring to commit crimes
> the information they publish should not be made illegal
> just because it is wrong.

So where does this leave the laws on slander, where people can be jailed, or fined, for publishing false material? The difference here is, I believe, that holocaust-deniers are slandering an (admittedly self-selecting) group of people, something which one simply can't take a case against, except in Germany, and there, only in respect of denial of the fact of the murder of millions of humans, an entirely reasonable position to adopt, as far as I'm concerned.

BTW, this is one of the interesting differences between UK and US judicial presumptions -- AFAIR, in the UK, if the case gets to court, an alleged slanderer must prove the allegations true, whereas in the US, the alleged slanderee (?), must prove the allegations false, a much harder task. Which is one of the principal reasons, IMHO, why in the UK, people like Robert Maxwell got away with criminal behaviour for so long...

- robin.

Eriugena

robindch wrote:

> I think the vast majority of Revisionist persue the topic for
> political reasons rather than interest in the truth.

I would add racist reasons to the obviously political. Out of interest, is anybody aware of *any* holocaust-denier who isn't also anti-semitic, or an apologist for the Nazi party, or Hitler himself? I've certainly never heard of any, though there must be a few, somewhere?

I will tell you in general terms why I hold revisionist views on this. The short answer is this: the evidence does not and cannot sustain the received version of events. Antisemitsm/ nazism is a total red-herring thrown out by those who want to distract people away from a cold appraisal of the evidence that will pretty quickly lead to the same conclusion. Btw, I personally know a number of revisionists who are neither. You are also surely aware that the term antisemitism is thrown around very loosely. It is a polemical term used to silence criticism of zionism and to enforce a version of history that cannot stand scrutiny. I will happily produce some samples of this evidence here which cannot be accepted by any rational being.
> But as long as they are not conspiring to commit crimes
> the information they publish should not be made illegal
> just because it is wrong.

So where does this leave the laws on slander,

You have done a bit of that yourself, what with the nazi and the antisemite smear.

where people can be jailed, or fined, for publishing false material?

These are laws that exist to enforce a lie and have nthing to do with exising laws about slander and defamation which are civil matters; these holocaust laws are criminal matters: there is a world of differnce between them. The truth requires no such measures.

The difference here is, I believe, that holocaust-deniers are slandering an (admittedly self-selecting) group of people,

This is like the pc tyranny where you are guilty of something if someone says they feel offended. This goes against all the most ancient juridical traditions and notions of basic justice to suggest that someone is a criminal becasue someone else claims to feel hurt by their opinions! Kafka could not have dreamed this up in his worst nightmare!

of something which one simply can't take a case against, except in Germany, and there, only in respect of denial of the fact of the murder of millions of humans, an entirely reasonable position to adopt, as far as I'm concerned.

This is false. You can be jailed in most European countries even neutral Switzerland for refusing to believe the story! In France the law (Fabius-Gayssot) is specific: you are guilty of an offence if you contest the findings and judgements of the Nuremberg trials.

For example, if someone were to state publicly in France that the Nuremberg trials had no basis in international law, was not governed by any rules of evidence and consequently made no attempt to actually prove many of the things that were presented there and introduced arbitrarily invented categories of "crimes". This person would in all likelyhood be prosecuted and jailed or fined for this, even though each element of the above statement is easily demonstrated in detail. Truth is no defence. Think now about the implications of that.

Turley

Eriugena wrote:

For example, if someone were to state publicly in France that the Nuremberg trials had no basis in international law, was not governed by any rules of evidence and consequently made no attempt to actually prove many of the things that were presented there and introduced arbitrarily invented categories of "crimes".

U.S. Senator Robert Taft spoke out at the time against the Nuremberg trials and by doing so he lost his chance to become president. John F. Kennedy recognized the courage of Taft in taking the unpopular position and Kennedy included Taft in his book, "Profiles in Courage." President Kennedy was assassinated.

"The Nuremberg Trials ... had been popular throughout the world and particularly in the United States. Equally popular was the sentence already announced by the high tribunal: death. But what kind of trial was this?... The Constitution was not a collection of loosely given political promises subject to broad interpretation. It was not a list of pleasing platitudes to be set lightly aside when expediency required it. It was the foundation of the American system of law and justice and [Robert Taft] was repelled by the picture of his country discarding those Constitutional precepts in order to punish a vanquished enemy."

-- U.S. President, John F. Kennedy John Kennedy, Profiles in Courage (New York: Harper and Row, 1964), p.189-190.

"About this whole judgment there is the spirit of vengeance, and vengeance is seldom justice. The hanging of the eleven men convicted will be a blot on the American record which we shall long regret."

-- U.S. Senator Robert A. Taft Kennedy, Profiles in Courage, p.191.

No American politician would write such a book today and if they did no store would dare to sell it.

Zombrex

I think there are two issues that are getting muddled in the thread

A-
Is there evidence that the traditional ideas of the holocaust are incorrect, that there were no gas chambers and only 1 million Jews died during the war

B-
Is it right that people who publically publish ideas detailed above should face criminal prosecution

Perhaps if people want to discuss it further the second point should be spun off into another thread (in Humanities maybe) as the fact that people are criminally prosecuted for their ideas does not prove them right or wrong, and as such doesn't have much baring on whether the first issue is correct or not.

Eriugena

Wicknight wrote:

I think there are two issues that are getting muddled in the thread

A-
Is there evidence that the traditional ideas of the holocaust are incorrect, that there were no gas chambers and only 1 million Jews died during the war

B-
Is it right that people who publically publish ideas detailed above should face criminal prosecution

Perhaps if people want to discuss it further the second point should be spun off into another thread (in Humanities maybe) as the fact that people are criminally prosecuted for their ideas does not prove them right or wrong, and as such doesn't have much baring on whether the first issue is correct or not.

I agree with your point, but the issues have been mixed by already by those who assume that the content of revisionism is mendacious, and they use this untruth to try and butress the unjustifiable case for legally enforcing a version of history, a version I am confident is false in its essentials. I believe those who take this approach are being influenced by the line taken by the holocaust promotion lobby which cannot meet revisionist research but instead must resort to smears and Orwellian thought crime. Its important for anyone taking an interest in this question to see through that and to read across the spectrum, setting aside the slanderous howls of 'nazi!' and 'antisemite!'

Megatron

robindch wrote:

In short, When the privilege of free speech is abused by those liars
- robin.

Ok , now Robin i have been reading and agree with alot of your saying but this is just wrong.

Free speech is just that .. Free , you can say whatever you want , that is the whole point of it.

yes they are lairs ( imo) however who is to say how free free speech really is, if this does start then i'm afraid it will be downhill from there on.


As for the topic of "The Holocaust2 being mostly percived as a jewish thing, yeah , this image has been cultivated for years and something my history teacher in school did something to correct ( he wrote our history books well everyone for the LC 1991 - 1994). And it does make me sick when the We're jewish , we've been through enough give us what we want , and give it now2 card is played for polictical reasons ... not Every Jewish person does this , just a few of the politicians.

Anyway , back to more reading , but i must admit i've enjoyed the debate so far

robindch

> however who is to say how free free speech really is

The priviledge of free speech is granted by society to each individual on the expectation that it isn't abused by dishonesty. It's a reciprocal relationship; a bit of give and take -- you get what you want, which is to say what you like, as long as what you say is 'expected' to be as honest as you can make it, on the understanting, if not that expectation, that wholesale dishonesty is ultimately destructive.

I really don't see what the problem here is; and as I've pointed out elsewhere, there are all kinds of restrictions already in place upon *unrestrained* speech, which is a radically different thing, and perhaps closer to what people here seem to be in favour of. Anyhow, these restrictions include such things as (a) the quite reasonable laws on slander, (b) more specific instances of impartiality imposed upon institutions such as the BBC, and AFAIK, RTE; (c) things like legislation concerning food labelling, estate agents, car dealers, financial advertizing and trade descriptions in general; to (d) subjects which are said by a very small group of people to be 'controversial', for reasons that I can only deem highly suspect, which include those surrounding the denial of the fact of the wholesale, planned murder of various groups of human beings during the second world war.

Make sense?

- robin.

Eriugena

robindch wrote:

> however who is to say how free free speech really is

The priviledge of free speech is granted by society to each individual on the expectation that it isn't abused by dishonesty.

Excuse me, where does it say that? The Declaration states that it is unconditional.

It's a reciprocal relationship; a bit of give and take -- you get what you want, which is to say what you like, as long as what you say is 'expected' to be as honest as you can make it, on the understanting, if not that expectation, that wholesale dishonesty is ultimately destructive.

This means that most politicans should be deprived of free speech on account of their lies.
Tell me this: How do you distinguish between someone who is lying and someone who is uttering a falsehood but who at the time believes it to be the truth? This is where your argument falls apart.

(a) the quite reasonable laws on slander,

Yes that's fine but quite irrelevant to our example. If I say that X has defrauded Y it is only slanderous if I cannot prove it.

(b) more specific instances of impartiality imposed upon institutions such as the BBC, and AFAIK, RTE;

Like much in our society this 'impartiality' is a sham. These institutions might be non-partisan in the tirvial sense but they are bound to fundamental ideological commitments which theydare not cross, assuming, that is, they were inclined to do so.

(c) things like legislation concerning food labelling, estate agents, car dealers, financial advertizing and trade descriptions in general; to

That's right but again, it must be shown that they are misrepresenting their products in the usual way

.(d) subjects which are said by a very small group of people to be 'controversial', for reasons that I can only deem highly suspect, which include those surrounding the denial of the fact of the wholesale, planned murder of various groups of human beings during the second world war.

Now you are getting very vague as we touch onthe sisnister heart of your argument. Galileo was deemed controversial aas were many other pioneers of knowledge that upset the powers that be. You are arguing for the suppression of intellectual freedom.

Make sense?

Only to those who wish to protect lies with legal weapons (and illegal weapons in this case). Truth does not need this. I don't think you understand the meaning of academic freedom (a sub-category of free speech).

Turley

robindch wrote:

I really don't see what the problem here is; and as I've pointed out elsewhere, there are all kinds of restrictions already in place upon *unrestrained* speech, which is a radically different thing, and perhaps closer to what people here seem to be in favour of. Anyhow, these restrictions include such things as...(d) subjects which are said by a very small group of people to be 'controversial', for reasons that I can only deem highly suspect, which include those surrounding the denial of the fact of the wholesale, planned murder of various groups of human beings during the second world war.

"Corn-pone opinion" would be protected speech!

"Mark Twain called these beliefs 'corn-pone opinions': those opinions people hold, not because they have reasoned them out for themselves or because they are derived from first hand experience, but because a person 'must feel and think with the bulk of his neighbors, or suffer damage in his social standing and in his business properties.'

"To Twain corn-pone opinions derive from the 'inborn requirement of self-approval,' which, 'as a rule has it's source in but one place and not elsewhere-- the approval of other people.' Twain wrote that the aggregate of corn-pone opinions together make up Public Opinion which is held in reverence and some think of as 'The Voice of God'."

From The Tolerant Society by Lee Bolinger,
Mr. Bolinger was discussing the phenomenon of public intolerance and public opinion.

robindch

> The Declaration states that it is unconditional.

Yes, that's correct. What I'm doing is pointing out that the declaration, while superficially fine-sounding, is ignored in practice in many areas, such as those I've listed, and there are plenty more.

> This means that most politicans should be deprived
> of free speech on account of their lies.

I *never* said that anybody should be deprived of the privelege of free speech, though I do believe that there should be sanctions of various kinds for dishonest speech. BTW, it seems to me that it would be wonderful if politicians were held, publicly, to account for the accuracy, or otherwise, of their pronouncements -- and there are various interesting schemes and ideas which one can develop to enforce this, though this immediate thread is perhaps not the best place for that.

> If I say that X has defrauded Y it is only slanderous if I cannot prove it.

Not right in many countries, though this does apply to the UK, and, I believe, Ireland too. In the US, as I pointed out yesterday, it's different and it's up to X to show that the allegation is false -- an important distinction.

> [referring to BBC's charter] Like much in our society this
> 'impartiality' is a sham. These institutions might be
> non-partisan in the tirvial sense but they are bound to
> fundamental ideological commitments which they dare
> not cross, assuming, that is, they were inclined to do so.

Can you please substantiate this rather surprising allegation?

> You are arguing for the suppression of intellectual freedom.

'fraid not -- I'm arguing very much for intellectual honesty, which many proponents of unrestrained speech seem to fear.

- robin.

Eriugena

robindch wrote:

[II *never* said that anybody should be deprived of the privelege of free speech, though I do believe that there should be sanctions of various kinds for dishonest speech.

You are still evading the question.
If you believe that sanctions should be brought against "dishonest" speech, then the burden is upon you to specify; a.) what constitutes dishonest speech? and, b.) how is this is to be determined in specific instances?

How do you distinguish between someone knowingly uttering a falsehood and someone unknowingly uttering a falsehood?

Because humans are not omniscient, we all at some point fall into the latter category.

robindch

> You are still evading the question.

Nope, just answering the questions I was asked

> If you believe that sanctions should be brought against
> "dishonest" speech, then the burden is upon you to specify;
> a.) what constitutes dishonest speech?

The items which I've listed already -- slander, inaccurate trade descriptions, political bias in publicly-owned mass-media, incitement to racial/religious hatred, holocaust denial, etc. Plus, there're a few which I'd like to see addressed, specifically (a) dishonesty from politicians and (b) given the level of mutual religiously-inspired suspicion and consequent societal misery on show every day in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, I'd also like to see the various propagators of religion to be held accountable for what seems to me to be their endless hollow speechifying, tub-thumping and self-aggrandizing cant; but developing any fair means of doing this seems almost impossible, and so, we're stuck with them.

> b.) how is this is to be determined in specific instances?

Generally, in front of an independant panel (the PCC in the UK, for example), or in front of a judge + jury, while holocaust denial is simple and straightfoward -- any instance of it is automatically a sanctionable offence, on account of (a) the evidence for the existence of the holocaust, considered incontrovertible by everyone I'm aware of, except those with a racially-motivated and/or hate-inspired, political interest in its denial and (b) the necessity for it never happening again (there is, it seems to me, a possibility that it might at some stage in the future, if denials ultimately take root in what is, frankly, worryingly fertile anti-semitic soil world-wide).

- robin.

Eriugena

robindch wrote:

> You are still evading the question.

Nope, just answering the questions I was asked

> If you believe that sanctions should be brought against
> "dishonest" speech, then the burden is upon you to specify;
> a.) what constitutes dishonest speech?

The items which I've listed already -- slander, inaccurate trade descriptions, political bias in publicly-owned mass-media, incitement to racial/religious hatred, holocaust denial, etc.

Ididn't ask you for examples, but rather asked you what constitutes dishonest speech?


> b.) how is this is to be determined in specific instances?

Generally, in front of an independant panel (the PCC in the UK, for example), or in front of a judge + jury, while holocaust denial is simple and straightfoward -- any instance of it is automatically a sanctionable offence, on account of (a) the evidence for the existence of the holocaust,

You are clearly not familiar with the evidence so.

considered incontrovertible by everyone I'm aware of, except those with a racially-motivated and/or hate-inspired, political interest in its denial and

Do you think I am racially motivated and/or hate inspired? I have looked closely at the evidnece and if I were to say I accepted the H story as it stands I would be a liar (ironic isn't it?).

(b) the necessity for it never happening again (there is, it seems to me, a possibility that it might at some stage in the future, if denials ultimately take root in what is, frankly, worryingly fertile anti-semitic soil world-wide).

Oh for goodness sake. You aren't Deborah Lipstatdt by any chance?

But you are still evdaing the most important question of all:
"How do you distinguish between someone knowingly uttering a falsehood and someone unknowingly uttering a falsehood?"

Address the general issue first, if you would.
Here is an example - I tell you solemnly and truthfully that I do not believe in the Holocaust story in its essentials - (6 million; gassing etc) - on the basis of a close study of the evidence for the last few years (I stumbled into this quite by accident).
Now there are three possibilities here:
1.) I am lying - I really believe in the H but I am denying it because I want to stuff all the Jews into gas chambers and finish the job etc etc.
2.) I sincerely believe that it is false in its essentials but am mistaken because I cannot assess the evidence due to whatever factors, or I have made a made an honest error somewhere along the line.
3.) I actually do have very good grounds for saying what I have said and what's more I can prove quite easily that the story in its essentials is deeply flawed; on some points it depends on flat impossibilities, at other points there are many contradictions and other objections, like tortured evidence, forgery and falsification of documents etc.

According to you I should be prosecuted "any instance of it is automatically a sanctionable offence." I take that truth is not a defence in your scheme of things.
Now, you have an awful lot of explaining to do.

KCF

You are clearly not familiar with the evidence so.

You clearly have no idea what evidence is if you believe in conspiracies involving literally millions of people, including 99.99999% of liberal academics. I suppose the elders of zion control every university on earth and have created a veritable army of actors to stand in for the non-existent witnesses?

Only the insane and the far-right could possibly give the deranged, hate-filled, proven liers (remember Irving?) that make up revisionist 'scholarship' any credence at all. Revisionism, however, is important for the far-right, as with the still-strong consciousness of the horror of their dream, they are generally excluded from all debate. The general intellectual abhorence of the events also prevents them from getting any exposure for the stupid, pseudo-scientific racialism that ideologically underlies their politics. If you browse some of the seedier corners of the internet you might come across some of their message boards. They all include large sections devoted to genetics - although their idea of science probably differs markedly from standard conceptions.

I see that the skeptics board has recently had a visit from a few of them (opinion poll - fishing for the 'racially aware'). I shouldn't think it'll be a happy hunting ground mind. Little do these living contradictions of their theories of racial supremacy realise it, but sceptical does not mean 'happy to abandon a theory with enormous supporting evidence for whatever I'm told by a conspiraloon on the internet".

Turley

KCF wrote:

You clearly have no idea what evidence is if you believe in conspiracies involving literally millions of people...

Is calling people names like "conspiraloon" the best argument you have?

Idling Intellect

Whenever "conspiracy theory" I hear
I know that a brain has just gone out of gear.
The common phenomenon again I behold
Of a person determined to believe what he's told
By the press and political powers-that-be
Who have long had no credibility.
It's a sad thing to witness the widespread condition
Of critical faculties out of commission.

-David Martin

Eriugena

KCF wrote:

You clearly have no idea what evidence is if you believe in conspiracies involving literally millions of people, including 99.99999% of liberal academics.

Absolute nonsense.

I suppose the elders of zion control every university on earth and have created a veritable army of actors to stand in for the non-existent witnesses?

No they don't, but the ADL is a very powerful lobby which is quite able to suppress free inquiry. I may post up details later about how two highly rated post-graduate dissertations were attacked by unaccountable outside forces in New Zealand in the 1990's.


Did you join up specially to post this rant?

Zombrex

Eriugena wrote:

I may post up details later about how two highly rated post-graduate dissertations were attacked by unaccountable outside forces in New Zealand in the 1990's.

I persume you are talking about Joel Hayward

Firstly, calls by New Zealand and International Jewish groups that the Masters be rescind were ignored by the University of Canterbury. Hardly a vast conspiricy with untold power.

Secondly, an independent inquiry (which had nothing afaik to do with any Jewish group) found that Hayward had "faulty method" and "poor judgment" and that the thesis did not deserve an honours, but said that Hayward did not acted dishonestly in his use of research. Basically the research he used was wrong, but he didn't know it was wrong. There was no reason to rescind the Masters and afiak to this day he still has it.

Thirdly, Hayward himself has repeatable said that his research was wrong, and he does not believe what he wrote 10 years ago. In fact he has said that is the way it should be, that it is ridiculous that he should be forced to agree with something he wrote while in college. I agree with that, my Final Year Project in Operating Systems is wrong, and I would openly admitt it He has also appologised to the NZ jewish community if his work indirectly caused them pain.

Forthly, and most importantly for this thread, he has complained that various holocaust deniers, including David Irving have used the events for propaganda purposes, that they claimed that Hayward bowed to Jewish pressure, a claim Hayward has denied on serveral occassions.

Eriugena

Wicknight wrote:

I persume you are talking about Joel Hayward

And Eaton.

Firstly, calls by New Zealand and International Jewish groups that the Masters be rescind were ignored by the University of Canterbury. Hardly a vast conspiricy with untold power.

Yet none of their business. You go publicly against the holocaust story and see what happens to you.

Secondly, an independent inquiry (which had nothing afaik to do with any Jewish group)

Evans is not independent; he is a paid servant of the Jewish lobby as well as being a dreadful historian.

found that Hayward had "faulty method" and "poor judgment" and that the thesis did not deserve an honours, but said that Hayward did not acted dishonestly in his use of research. Basically the research he used was wrong, but he didn't know it was wrong. There was no reason to rescind the Masters and afiak to this day he still has it.

I read his thesis, which I have here, and that is nonsense. He exposed things which they would prefer did not get exposed. There is nothing wrong with the research he drew on.

Thirdly, Hayward himself has repeatable said that his research was wrong, and he does not believe what he wrote 10 years ago.

Hayward's intestinal fortitude was not up to resisting the onslaught of bullying that went on. But good for him for taking on the topic in the first place.

In fact he has said that is the way it should be, that it is ridiculous that he should be forced to agree with something he wrote while in college. I agree with that, my Final Year Project in Operating Systems is wrong, and I would openly admitt it He has also appologised to the NZ jewish community if his work indirectly caused them pain.

They always do, if they want to avoid the fate of Zundel et al. Have you read the text of David Cole's retraction and apology? You know how it was obtained? These are the hazards of challening the holocaust industry and its lies which have to be protected by ever possible weapon from legal actions right throught to terrorism (FBI classes the JDL as a terrorist oprganisation).

Forthly, and most importantly for this thread, he has complained that various holocaust deniers, including David Irving have used the events for propaganda purposes, that they claimed that Hayward bowed to Jewish pressure, a claim Hayward has denied on serveral occassions.

Hayward got cold feet, he didn't figure on the furies that would be unleashed.
I have yet to see the likes of Martin Gilbert attacked for falsifying evidence.

Btw, are you not embarassed to be defending that kind of carry-on?

KCF

Eriugena wrote:

Did you join up specially to post this rant?

Not really, but seeing a skeptics board being invaded by creationists and fascists was irritating enough to move me to post. I am very familiar with this phenomenon on the internet.

As Wicknight points out above, a masters thesis which is later admitted to be wrong, stands against the entirety of academic scholarship. You'd have to be quite a conspiraloon to give credence to the former. (incidentally, there are no words insulting enough for fascists, so I consider 'conspiraloon' to be quite gentle, equating them with phony moon landing nuts rather than the butchery of millions).

Remind me again, apart from the tens of thousands of survivors and eye-witnesses and the entirety of liberal academia, who else are the elders of zion paying off?

KCF

How about a little experiment. Considering that the vast majority of humanity could be accurately described as being opposed to fascism, how many 'revisionists' are publically on the record as being anti-fascist? If it is really a case of a genuine and valid historical opinion and not, as I firmly believe it to be, a trojan horse for respectabilising the politics of the extreme right, then we would expect that the majority of revisionists would indeed be anti-fascists.

Also 'Eurigenia' you could help to dispell any false notions about your own motives by letting us know about the non-existance of race in humans?

Zombrex

Eriugena wrote:

And Eaton.

Don't know much about the Eaton case, except some have claimed that Hayward proof read Eatons thesis, a claim he denies.

Eriugena wrote:

Yet none of their business. You go publicly against the holocaust story and see what happens to you.

They have a right to object to anything they want, and the University of Canterbury has a right to ignore them. The Catholic Church as objected to a few university projects in its time, the Catholic Church objected to a Masters thesis in a previous year of my masters course in interactive media because the girl doing it had constructed a computer controlled Confession box It was pretty funny, despite the fact that it was actually a serious project to explore human computer interaction. It was also "the hight of blasphemy" according to the church.

The is a difference between a political or religious group objecting to something, and actually having the power to stop something. The Jewish lobby didn't stop Haywards thesis, and the Catholic Church didn't stop the Auto-Confession Box thesis.

Eriugena wrote:

Evans is not independent; he is a paid servant of the Jewish lobby as well as being a dreadful historian.

Richard Evans was not on the University of Canterbury inquiry panel.

Eriugena wrote:

I read his thesis, which I have here, and that is nonsense. He exposed things which they would prefer did not get exposed. There is nothing wrong with the research he drew on.

Hayward says there is. He wrote it. He should know.

Eriugena wrote:

Hayward's intestinal fortitude was not up to resisting the onslaught of bullying that went on. But good for him for taking on the topic in the first place.

Hayward has consistantly denied, to the point of anger, in various interviews and on his own website, that he changed his mind due to pressure from the Jewish lobby. The idea really seems to piss him off. He seems to really resent the pressure put on him and seems to want to fight it.

I do respect Hayward for fighting for the right for his masters to stand, even though he now claims it is incorrect and flawed. If anything Hayward has courted controversy by standing up for publishing and academic freedom and challanging those who wanted to ban his work. But he still says it is wrong. Why do you think that is? If he was bowing down under pressure why would he be standing up for his work, while still saying it is flawed.

He seems to be a man of principle, who published something he now believes is incorrect but will not bow down to pressure that it should be banned in the first place.

I think it is pushing it a bit to say that he is doing this because of pressure from Jews. It is far more likely that he is simply saying that what he wrote he know believes is wrong, which in my view the sign of a good scientist.

Eriugena wrote:

Hayward got cold feet, he didn't figure on the furies that would be unleashed.

That is simply not true, he has never claimed it was true, and he has objected with resolve at any implication that it is true.

Eriugena wrote:

Btw, are you not embarassed to be defending that kind of carry-on?

Are you not embarassed to say that you know what is going through Hayward's mind better than he does himself?

Eriugena

KCF wrote:

Not really, but seeing a skeptics board being invaded by creationists and fascists was irritating enough to move me to post. I am very familiar with this phenomenon on the internet.

I'm sure you are and I think I know where you are coming from.

As Wicknight points out above, a masters thesis which is later admitted to be wrong,

That is not what either Wicknight or the results of the review said.

stands against the entirety of academic scholarship. You'd have to be quite a conspiraloon to give credence to the former. (incidentally, there are no words insulting enough for fascists, so I consider 'conspiraloon' to be quite gentle, equating them with phony moon landing nuts rather than the butchery of millions).

All that over-heated rhetoric and smear. Yes, I know exactly where you are coming from. I have met your kind often before in similar discussions. Instead of actually dealing with the evidence you resort to abusiveness.

Remind me again, apart from the tens of thousands of survivors and eye-witnesses and the entirety of liberal academia, who else are the elders of zion paying off?

There are not tens and thousands of eye witnesses to the gas chamber story. They can be counted in the low double figures. Care to produce some of their testimonies here so we can carefully examine their claims? I doubt it.

Eriugena

Wicknight wrote:

Don't know much about the Eaton case, except some have claimed that Hayward proof read Eatons thesis, a claim he denies.

Eaton wrote an excellent thesis (which I also have) on the kangaroo court held at Nuremberg.

They have a right to object to anything they want, and the University of Canterbury has a right to ignore them.

They don;t have a right to bully people which is what they do.

The Catholic Church as objected to a few university projects in its time, the Catholic Church objected to a Masters thesis in a previous year of my masters course in interactive media because the girl doing it had constructed a computer controlled Confession box It was pretty funny, despite the fact that it was actually a serious project to explore human computer interaction. It was also "the hight of blasphemy" according to the church.

The Catholic Chruch does not mobilise hate campaigns leading up to and including phyiscal atacks on anyone who dares to doubt what they say.

The is a difference between a political or religious group objecting to something, and actually having the power to stop something.

TYhe holocaust induistry does everything in its power to prevent any kind of critical inquiry into the story.

The Jewish lobby didn't stop Haywards thesis,

They are still trying to make life difficult for all those who stood up to them there.

Richard Evans was not on the University of Canterbury inquiry panel.

He played an important and typically slimy role in the whole affair.

Hayward says there is. He wrote it. He should know.

All quotes taken from http://www.joelhayward.com/thehistorynowarticle.htm
"The report did not recommend withdrawal of the thesis by the University and did not agree with the allegations that Hayward's argument was racist or motivated by malice. While the opinion that the thesis did not deserve the high marks it received was widely publicized in the media, no fewer than six serving or retired members of the History department persisted in their own judgment that it was a first-class effort."

"Notwithstanding the apparent finality of the report and its qualified exoneration of Hayward, during 2000, 2001, and 2002 Hayward received hundreds of pieces of "hate" mail, abusive telephone calls, threats against himself, his wife and small children, harassment at Massey University and continued negative media attention. Further attempts to publish as well as efforts at finding other employment have been unsuccessful. The issue therefore goes beyond the apparent concern over alleged flawed (but unpublished) research. Is this issue really about academic values and freedom?"

Hayward has consistantly denied, to the point of anger, in various interviews and on his own website, that he changed his mind due to pressure from the Jewish lobby.

Of course, its humiliating. Probably one of the stipulations is that he says it is of his own free will. Poor David Cole had to say the same kinds of things to cancel the JDL death threat against him. The idea really seems to piss him off. He seems to really resent the pressure put on him and seems to want to fight it. Hayward really didn't seem to have a sense of the deadly hornet's nest you stir up when you challenge the holy story of the holocaust. He knew he what he was doing was from honourable motives ["The Barker enquiry found no evidence of malicious intent, dishonesty or deliberate efforts to circumvent the truth on Hayward's part."] but people like him sometimes don't realise that there are lowlifes out there who hate the truth and will do anything to suppress it, including threatening children. He was naive, that's all.

I do respect Hayward for fighting for the right for his masters to stand, even though he now claims it is incorrect and flawed.

I'm usre it is flawed in the trivial sense in which all theses are flawed, but it is correct and very good in substance. It deserved the high commendation oit got.

If anything Hayward has courted controversy by standing up for publishing and academic freedom and challanging those who wanted to ban his work.

"Courted" that's a strange choice of word, almost as if he has it coming. This is absurd. You don't court anything by defending academic freedom. It is the first duty of every scholar.

But he still says it is wrong. Why do you think that is? If he was bowing down under pressure why would he be standing up for his work, while still saying it is flawed.

I would say all those threats against his children might have had something to do with it. What do you think?

I think it is pushing it a bit to say that he is doing this because of pressure from Jews.

Now you are becoming an apologist for the unacceptable.

Do you still not feel any embarassment for defending thugery?