The holocaust and revisionists

KCF · 15-03-2005 3:49pm

Eriugena wrote:

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

No, not abusiveness, just a simple process of deduction. You can show the irrationality of my deduction easily enough by pointing to anti-fascist revisionists .

Eriugena wrote:

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.

There are tens of thousands of survivors of the concentration camps who have furnished eye-witness accounts. There are very good and obvious reasons that there are very few eye-witness accounts of the extermination processes (think hard, it's probably not beyond your inference capacities). I also don't care how big a part 'gas-chambers' played in the holocaust or whether it was a minor part of the process that has been fixated on due to its inherent horror. We know the holocaust happened, we know that fascism is an utterly abhorrent ideology. How big a part gassings, shootings, overwork, starvation and whatever played in the mass butchery is not interesting to me (or I suspect to anybody who isn't a fascist or a dedicated holocaust historian).

Eriugena · 15-03-2005 4:33pm

KCF wrote:

No, not abusiveness, just a simple process of deduction.

Here is the deduction. You are being abusive instead of approaching this thing in a reasonable manner. I conclude from your behaviour that you cannot deal with the evidence and prefer to fall back on slanderous remarks and outright insult.

You can show the irrationality of my deduction easily enough by pointing to anti-fascist revisionists .

Tell me, where does the political affiliations of historians have relevance to any assesment of their work?

You will probably regret asking but Paul Rassinier, the first H revisionist was a Socialist, a member of the resistance, was tortured by the Gestapo, and was himself a prisoner in a concentration camp. He was one of your "tens of thousands."

There are tens of thousands of survivors of the concentration camps who have furnished eye-witness accounts.

Not of gas chambers though, they are very few in number.

There are very good and obvious reasons that there are very few eye-witness accounts of the extermination processes (think hard, it's probably not beyond your inference capacities).

Because there was nothing of that kind to witness. Do produce some of this testimony here so we can have a look.

I also don't care how big a part 'gas-chambers' played in the holocaust or whether it was a minor part of the process that has been fixated on due to its inherent horror.

Oh, so you want it both ways: either millions were gassed as is claimed or they were not. Either way you have now stated that you do not care about the facts of the matter.

And the differnce doesn't bother you. We know the holocaust happened, we know that fascism is an utterly abhorrent ideology.

You have let the cat out of the bag. Your real agenda is ideological. Are you one of those loonies from Indymedia by any chance? Or are you one of those thugs from AFA?

How big a part gassings, shootings, overwork, starvation and whatever played in the mass butchery is not interesting to me (or I suspect to anybody who isn't a fascist or a dedicated holocaust historian).

That's right, the truth doesn't matter to you. It matters to me and to many others.

Tell me, which ideology do you represent? Stalinism, or more likely Trotskyism?
Are you the best they can send?

Zombrex · 15-03-2005 4:41pm

Eriugena wrote:

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

Like I said, haven't read it or been able to find much info on it. Was it banned?

Eriugena wrote:

They don;t have a right to bully people which is what they do.
...
The holocaust induistry does everything in its power to prevent any kind of critical inquiry into the story.
...
They are still trying to make life difficult for all those who stood up to them there.

The point isn't if they have the right to object (they do) or the right to harrash people (they don't). The point is do they have the power to stop the "truth" being published and accepted.

Eriugena, you and other holocaust deniers seem to counter the valid argument "why has mainstream historical opinion not accepted the idea that the holocaust didn't happen the way you believed it did, if there is so much evidence?" with the response that the Jewish lobby and the holocaust industry is stopping the truth from coming out, is buying off or intimidating academics, and generally that there is a international conspiricy to stop the truth coming out. There is a problem with that idea.

Modern historical opinion has changed on the nature of the holocaust over the last 50 years. The assumption that Hitler had written an order for the holocaust has be dropped. The numbers killed in the concentration camps has been updated. The nature of the Nazi holocaust machine has been revised. The idea that the holocaust deniers evidence was over whelming and correct but that it was still ignored is simply not the case. The reason it has not been accepted is because the denial evidence is flawed, in some cases seriously flawed and politically motivated.

Eriugena wrote:

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

Afaik my department head has recieved 5 death threats from Christians in the 10 years he has been course director. And he runs an Interactive Media course for christ sake (no pun intended

) Most were for the Interactive Confession box.

The Catholic and Christian churches in Europe and America has "mobilised" countless hate campaigns against everything form evolution to gay rights. There is nothing unusual about a religion group campaigning against something, the Jewish lobby is hardly unique.

I would also point out that some vocal holocaust deniers have been part of various organisations and groups that partake in a bit of hate campaigning themselves.

The question is do any of these groups have the power to stop a valid opinion becoming accepted? Have the Christians stopped evolution? Have the neo-nazi's convinced everyone that Jews are evil? Have the jewish lobby stopped the notion of the holocaust from changing?

Eriugena wrote:

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

That maybe true, but question is what is their power?

Eriugena wrote:

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

He was not part of the review board and as such the idea that the Jewish lobby had direct infulence into the affair is false.

Eriugena wrote:

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."

That kinda proves my point. Despite the objects raised by Jewish lobbies they did not have the power to stop this thesis. So how can you claim that the reason we have all not accepted the "truth" about the holocaust is because the truth is being blocked by Jewish. Is it not far more likely that the "truth" as holocaust deniers claim, is in fact a flawed argument, which conflicts or ignores other historical truths (despite what you claim, there are accurate and believable accounts, along with physical evidence of gas chambers at the camps)

Eriugena wrote:

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.

Hayward has stated, a number of times, that his conclusions are incorrect.

Eriugena wrote:

"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.

Instead of bowing down to pressure he is fighting it. He has stepped up to make the point for academic freedom, the right to publish historical ideas even if they turn out to be wrong, a stance I admire. But you seem to be conventently ignoring the fact that he has said that his thesis is wrong and he does not want it used to support holocaust denial. The only thing he seems more pissed off about than the calls that his thesis should be banned are the holocaust deniers who are claiming it for their own propaganda campaigns.

Eriugena wrote:

It is the first duty of every scholar. 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 rather ridiculous to claim that while he is fighting tooth and nail for the right to publish incorrect papers, for historians to make mistakes, he is at the same time bowing to pressure and claiming against his will that his paper is wrong. Never mind the fact that he has said repeatable that this is not the case. Like I said, how can you claim to know his mind better than he does.

Eriugena wrote:

Now you are becoming an apologist for the unacceptable.

I am not apologising for the way he was treated, I am saying that it did not stop his views (then and now) from being expressed, and therefore is not evidence of a conspiricy that has the power to suppress important historical ideas, anymore than the Catholic Church has the power to suppress Evolution, or the Bible belt has the power to stop homosexuals. They certainly have the power and will to harrash and intimidate them, but I see no evidence they have the power to stop them, or hide the truth.

The idea that we would know the "truth" about the holocaust if it wasn't for the Jewish conspiricy holding it back is simply not backed up by any evidence. The main reason why holocaust denial evidence has not been accepted by mainstream historians is because it is flawed, incorrect or politically biased work. And the stuff that wasn't has already been accepted by mainstream historians.

Eriugena wrote:

Do you still not feel any embarassment for defending thugery?

:rolleyes:

KCF · 15-03-2005 5:53pm

Eriugena wrote:

Here is the deduction. You are being abusive instead of approaching this thing in a reasonable manner. I conclude from your behaviour that you cannot deal with the evidence and prefer to fall back on slanderous remarks and outright insult. Tell me, where does the political affiliations of historians have relevance to any assesment of their work?

As usual, baby logic is needed when talking to our racial masters. Read carefully:

Hypothesis: Holocaust deniers are either lunatics or are fascists with an ulterior motive rather than genuine historians motivated by a desire to find out the truth

Disprovability test: Show that the political positions of holocaust deniers does not exhibit a strong correlation with that tiny minority of humanity that are political fascists.

That's how science works by the way - hypothesis plus disprovability yields theory if the disprovability test holds.

Eriugena wrote:

You will probably regret asking but Paul Rassinier, the first H revisionist was a Socialist, a member of the resistance, was tortured by the Gestapo, and was himself a prisoner in a concentration camp. He was one of your "tens of thousands."

Your attempt to meet the disprovability criterion fails badly. A single counter example does not a significant correlation disprove. Furthermore, your single example is fatally flawed by the fact that Rassinier is the single source of evidence for his claims about his personal history and is acknowledged as being both a fascist and a liar by a long list of French historians at this page I refer you to the following works by _real_ historians: Florent Brayard, Comment l'idée vint à M. Rassinier, Naissance du révisionnisme, Fayard, 1996. Nadine Fresco, Fabrication d'un antisémite, Seuil, 1999.

me wrote:

it's probably not beyond your inference capacities

Eriugena wrote:

Not of gas chambers though, they are very few in number. Because there was nothing of that kind to witness. Do produce some of this testimony here so we can have a look.

Oh dear, I somehow over-estimated your reasoning powers. Try again, think hard this time. Could there possibly be a more straightforward reason that we don't have many survivors of extermination processes?

Eriugena wrote:

Oh, so you want it both ways: either millions were gassed as is claimed or they were not. Either way you have now stated that you do not care about the facts of the matter.

You should brush up your reading comprehension skills before going out in public. I said that I don't care how many of the total number of people who were butchered were killed by gas as against starvation, forced labour, shooting or anything else. To me the only important thing is the undeniable fact that millions were butchered. Historical opinion on exactly how many were killed in exactly what way varies over time as new evidence comes to light. The fact that there was a holocaust does not.

Eriugena wrote:

You have let the cat out of the bag. Your real agenda is ideological.

In the sense that attachment to the truth is an ideology, I suppose that you're right. That's why I'm spending my time bothering to reply to the stupidest ideas known to humanity.

Eriugena wrote:

Tell me, which ideology do you represent? Stalinism, or more likely Trotskyism?

Reason or maybe sanity?

bus77 · 15-03-2005 7:57pm

KCF wrote:

Disprovability test: Show that the political positions of holocaust deniers does not exhibit a strong correlation with that tiny minority of humanity that are political fascists.

Well, It depends on the correlation really.

http://www.zoa.org/

http://www.stormfront.org/
Approx 50,000 members

Approx 50,000 members
Chosen People

Master Race
Defend, 'Jewish' Interests

Defend, 'White' Interests
Platform,American/Isreal Unity

Platform,American/European Unity
Lower classes, 'non-jewish'

Lower classes, 'non-white'
Football, Holocaust

Football, Holocaust

It appears the poor germans just want to drownout the noise because according to big boards.com, The Hifi Forum (German audio and video message boards) has, 106,286 members.

Turley · 15-03-2005 11:41pm

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen mentioned this topic in his column today. I reprinted part of it below and the entire article is available at the Washingtonpost.com website if you click "opinion" and choose "Cohen."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35346-2005Mar14?language=printer

Mr. Cohen is complaining that the TV/Radio program C-SPAN invited Deborah Lipstadt to be on the program with David Irving. Mr. Cohen would prefer Ms. Lipstadt to be on the program but not Mr. Irving.

If Mr. Irving is as wrong, as Mr. Cohen seems to think, it would be an opportunity for Ms. Lipstadt to demonstrate her position is superior to Mr. Irving's in a public forum.

Instead, by refusing to participate in the public discussion Ms. Lipstadt may actually appear unable or at the very least unwilling to defend her position in the presence of Mr. Irving. What kind of history is defended by insisting an opposing view must not be heard? It is interesting that Mr. Irving has not demanded that Ms. Lipstadt not be invited speak.

The truth should be able to stand in the light for all to see. It is unfortunate Ms. Lipstadt will not appear on the popular program.

"C-SPAN's Balance of the Absurd

By Richard Cohen

Tuesday, March 15, 2005; Page A23

"You will not be seeing Deborah Lipstadt on C-SPAN. The Holocaust scholar at Emory University has a new book out ("History on Trial"), and an upcoming lecture of hers at Harvard was scheduled to be televised on the public affairs cable outlet. The book is about a libel case brought against her in Britain by David Irving, a Holocaust denier, trivializer and prevaricator who is, by solemn ruling of the very court that heard his lawsuit, "anti-Semitic and racist." No matter. C-SPAN wanted Irving to "balance" Lipstadt.

"The word balance is not in quotes for emphasis. It was invoked repeatedly by C-SPAN producers who seemed convinced that they had chosen the most noble of all journalistic causes: fairness. "We want to balance it [Lipstadt's lecture] by covering him," said Amy Roach, a producer for C-SPAN's Book TV. Her boss, Connie Doebele, put it another way. "You know how important fairness and balance is at C-SPAN," she told me. "We work very, very hard at this. We ask ourselves, 'Is there an opposing view of this?' "

"As luck would have it, there was. To Lipstadt's statements about the Holocaust, there was Irving's rebuttal that it never happened -- no systematic killing of Jews, no Final Solution and, while many people died at Auschwitz of disease and the occasional act of brutality, there were no gas chambers there. "More women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber at Auschwitz," Irving once said.

"For obvious reasons, Lipstadt cited Irving in her 1993 book, "Denying the Holocaust," which was also published in Britain. Irving sued her for libel. Under Britain's libel laws, Lipstadt had to prove the truth of what she wrote, which, after a lengthy trial, she did in spades. Her lawyer's opening statement -- "My Lord, Mr. Irving calls himself a historian. The truth is, however, that he is not a historian at all, but a falsifier of history. To put it bluntly, he is a liar." -- ultimately became the judgment of the court itself. In matters of intellectual integrity, Irving is an underachiever.

"Once, this was not all that apparent. By dint of maniacal industry, Irving had turned himself into an admired writer on Nazi Germany. He mined the archives for material that others appeared to have overlooked. Some of it was genuine; some of it was false. Increasingly, though, his books gave off the whiff of anti-Semitism and a certain admiration of Hitler. When Richard J. Evans, a Cambridge University historian (and one of Lipstadt's expert witnesses), carefully examined Irving's work, he found it a stew of misrepresentations, falsifications and outright quackery. Irving was authoritatively exposed: a propagandist hiding behind seemingly scholarly footnotes.

"This is the man C-SPAN turned to for "balance." It told Lipstadt that since it was going to air her lecture, it would do one of Irving's, too. As luck would have it, he was appearing March 12 at the Landmark Diner in Atlanta..."
END excerpt of Richard Cohen's column.
To read the entire column visit the Washingtonpost.com

KCF may conclude the producers of C-SPAN are facists!

Turley · 15-03-2005 11:54pm

KCF wrote:

Historical opinion on exactly how many were killed in exactly what way varies over time as new evidence comes to light. The fact that there was a holocaust does not.

I am not sure I understand. You are saying the evidence can change but the conclusion remains the same.

Is that right?

Turley · 16-03-2005 12:04am

KCF wrote:

...fascists ...a conspiraloon ...phony moon landing nuts...

Terms of Opprobrium

"Anti-Semitic," "conspiracy theorist,"
Throw in "isolationist," too.
We don't need laws to limit our thoughts
When labeling language will do.

-David Martin

KCF · 16-03-2005 12:29am

Turley wrote:

I am not sure I understand. You are saying the evidence can change but the conclusion remains the same.

Is that right?

Nope, another slow learner I see. I'm saying that the weight of evidence about the exact details changes with historical inquiry, the fact that there was a holocaust in which millions were butchered remains constant.

Turley wrote:

KCF may conclude the producers of C-SPAN are facists!

Are you really claiming that the producers of C-SPAN are holocaust deniers? Or are your learning difficulties really so severe that you can't distinguish between a "scholar" misrepresenting history and a television executive who wants to show a lively and controversial debate?

Once again, if you want to undermine my holocaust deniers = fascists theory, I'm waiting for the list of anti-fascist historians who support their claims.

Turley wrote:

"Anti-Semitic," "conspiracy theorist,"
Throw in "isolationist," too.
We don't need laws to limit our thoughts
When labeling language will do.

Some labels are accurate. People who deny the holocaust are invariably anti-semitic. They are, by definition, conspiracy theorists (and while conspiracies do happen, ones that involve tens of thousands of diverse people and the entire academic world don't). I don't know where you got "isolationist" from, but I assume you are probably refering to your ridiculous unscientific genetic theories. You don't need laws to limit your thoughts, you're doing quite well enough without them.

robindch · 16-03-2005 1:58am

Hi Eriugena -

WRT your postings to me:

> Do you think I am racially motivated and/or hate inspired?

In my posting of 2005-03-09, 23:49, I asked "is anybody aware of *any* holocaust-denier who isn't also anti-semitic, or an apologist for the Nazi party?" and you didn't answer this question. Given this, I'm afraid that I must conclude that you either didn't read the question, or didn't wish to answer it, if you did -- the former implies carelessness upon your part, while the latter implies deep suspicion upon mine. If you are not anti-semitic, or pro-Nazi, then I think it would be good of you to state so publicly, so that we can carry this argument forward.

> 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?).

Perhaps, at this point, you should have admitted a second possibility, that you do not understand the standard account of the Holocaust, or the evidence that supports it. There are plenty of examples of people denying what, to other people, is incontrovertible evidence -- see JC in the creation thread, for a fresh example of somebody simply unable to accept a question which queried his weird worldview, or any evidence which denied it.

> You aren't Deborah Lipstatdt by any chance?

No. Why do you ask?

> Now there are three possibilities here:

Cutting them short, I'm afraid that I have to conclude that your second possibility is what pertains in this instance -- you are simply unable to assimilate the facts of the case, for whatever reason (see my second paragraph above).

WRT your postings to other people:

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

Total nonsense.

The Catholic Church has mobilized many, many campaigns resulting in the death of humans. The more notorious are the more distant in time -- the Crusades and the (Holy!) Inquisition, though there are plenty more. In our own time, we only have to look to the North of Ireland to see the venomous legacy of religously-inspired hatred, or to the numerous mobilizations of hatred against Protestants in the South up to the mid-60's, or, at a more prosaic level, the list of prohibited books. The current political leadership of the institution of the Catholic Church, btw, is busy developing prejudice against homosexuals -- see the current pop-eyed Vatican ranting against this traditionally-villified group.

> Tell me, where does the political affiliations of historians
> have relevance to any assesment of their work?

*cough*

I can't imagine that you are being very serious in writing this. But on the offchance that you are, I suggest -- as an example of an author's political leanings poisoning his output (one of an almost infinite number) -- that you consult any of David "Hitler Diaries" Irving's offerings and see if you can establish a link between (a) his writings + his admiration for Hitler and (b) the contempt with which his writings are held by less racist, and more competent, historians.

- robin.

Turley · 16-03-2005 4:36am

KCF wrote:

Nope, another slow learner I see. I'm saying that the weight of evidence about the exact details changes with historical inquiry, the fact that there was a holocaust in which millions were butchered remains constant.

Forgive me but I must be a very slow learner so I hope you will be patient.
Can you explain the difference between, "You are saying the evidence can change but the conclusion remains the same," from your statement above.

It seems you are saying the evidence [the weight of the evidence about the exact facts] changes with inquiry but the conclusion [there was a holocaust in which millions were butchered] remains the same.

In what way are you not saying the evidence can change but the conclusion remains the same?
Sorry I am so slow.

KCF wrote:

They are, by definition, conspiracy theorists (and while conspiracies do happen, ones that involve tens of thousands of diverse people and the entire academic world don't)...

Perhaps Galileo Galilei, by the same definition, may have been a "conspiracy theorist" in his day. Would not Galileo have had to believe that tens of thousands of diverse people and the entire academic world conspired to hide the heliocentric universe? In Galileo's time someone who questioned the Ptolemaic system was not called an "Anti-Semite" they were called a "Heretic." Galileo was a geocentric universe denier so he was placed under house arrest.

Was Dr. Thomas Stockmann, in Henrik Ibsen's play, "An Enemy of the People" a conspiracy theorist? Why or why not?

Eriugena · 16-03-2005 12:33pm

robindch wrote:

Hi Eriugena -

WRT your postings to me:

> Do you think I am racially motivated and/or hate inspired?

In my posting of 2005-03-09, 23:49, I asked "is anybody aware of *any* holocaust-denier who isn't also anti-semitic, or an apologist for the Nazi party?" and you didn't answer this question.

Damn right I didn't. The question is loaded and offensive.

Given this, I'm afraid that I must conclude that you either didn't read the question, or didn't wish to answer it, if you did -- the former implies carelessness upon your part, while the latter implies deep suspicion upon mine.

Out of politness I have not expressed my suspicions about people who hold views like yours. Is it relevant? Shall we deal with the arguments rather than go down the ad hominem route?

If you are not anti-semitic, or pro-Nazi, then I think it would be good of you to state so publicly, so that we can carry this argument forward.

Let's just deal with the argument shall we? If you wish to accuse me of either of those, I will deal with those acusations if and when you make them. I have not asked you to declare that you are not a Jew or a communist, for example. If your argument is so weak that you have to get into offensive ad hominem territory then I think that can be interepreted as a failure on your part.
> 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?).

Perhaps, at this point, you should have admitted a second possibility, that you do not understand the standard account of the Holocaust, or the evidence that supports it.

When I intially reached the views that I have I of course considered this possibility and went over things again and again. One does not idly drop and adopt views of such enormous importance without being absolutly sure of one's ground. At this stage though, what you suggest is not possible.

There are plenty of examples of people denying what, to other people, is incontrovertible evidence -- see JC in the creation thread, for a fresh example of somebody simply unable to accept a question which queried his weird worldview, or any evidence which denied it.

Yes there are such examples. People who denied the existence of witches were burnt as witches and so on.

> You aren't Deborah Lipstatdt by any chance?

No. Why do you ask?

I recognise some of your "reasonings" on this. It was not a serious question, btw.

> Now there are three possibilities here:

Cutting them short, I'm afraid that I have to conclude that your second possibility is what pertains in this instance -- you are simply unable to assimilate the facts of the case, for whatever reason (see my second paragraph above).

You would have to prove that which you are most unwilling to do because you do not have a sufficient knowledge of this topic. If you did you would know the problems involved and you would not accuse me of being stupid.

WRT your postings to other people:

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

Total nonsense.

We shall see.

The Catholic Church has mobilized many, many campaigns resulting in the death of humans. The more notorious are the more distant in time -- the Crusades

And for that you can thank them that you are not prostrating yourself to Mecca six times a day.

and the (Holy!) Inquisition,

Do elaborate on that with special reference to the studies that have overturned the popular cocetion of this which it has been shown is largely Protesant propaganda of the Reformation period.

though there are plenty more. In our own time, we only have to look to the North of Ireland to see the venomous legacy of religously-inspired hatred, or to the numerous mobilizations of hatred against Protestants in the South up to the mid-60's, or, at a more prosaic level,

Show evidence that the Church has mobilised o even sanctioned any violence in the North

.the list of prohibited books. The current political leadership of the institution of the Catholic Church, btw, is busy developing prejudice against homosexuals -- see the current pop-eyed Vatican ranting against this traditionally-villified group.

So you don't agree with the Chruch's teaching's on homosexuality So what? They have their scripture and doctrines, they are not going to change to accomdate the trendy contemporary views of the gay lobby and their PC supporter friends, views which are not shared by any one in the world or in history.
I find it ironic that I am defending the Church here considering I am not a even a practising Catholic. Anyway, this is all a massive distraction from the topic

> Tell me, where does the political affiliations of historians
> have relevance to any assesment of their work?

*cough*

I can't imagine that you are being very serious in writing this.

I am very serious.

But on the offchance that you are, I suggest -- as an example of an author's political leanings poisoning his output (one of an almost infinite number) -- that you consult any of David "Hitler Diaries" Irving's offerings and see if you can establish a link between (a) his writings + his admiration for Hitler and (b) the contempt with which his writings are held by less racist, and more competent, historians.

Sorry, that answers nothing. How does a historian's political views affect our evaluation of their work?

You are now in full flight from the real question: when you establish your thought police, how do you dsitinguish between someone unknowingly uttering a falsehood and one who knowingly does so?

You have already indicated that you do not care, either person will be guilty.
How do you justify this stance whilst mocking the Holy (or otherwsie) Inquisition?

KCF · 16-03-2005 12:52pm

Turley wrote:

Forgive me but I must be a very slow learner so I hope you will be patient.
Can you explain the difference between, "You are saying the evidence can change but the conclusion remains the same," from your statement above.

It seems you are saying the evidence [the weight of the evidence about the exact facts] changes with inquiry but the conclusion [there was a holocaust in which millions were butchered] remains the same.

In what way are you not saying the evidence can change but the conclusion remains the same?

You are a slow learner, but unfortunately I am not patient, especially with holocaust deniers. The concept is simple. The evidence for the existence of the holocaust remains entirely and unchangingly compelling. The evidence for its exact constitution changes slowly and slightly with enquiry. That means that different historians have arrived at somewhat different estimates for the numbers killed and the exact manner of their butchery. All historians arrive at the conclusion that the holocaust happened. The point is that the second conclusion is the only point that is important to most people, it is also the point that holocaust deniers attempt to undermine by pointing to different opinions about the former conclusions, which is neither valid nor honest. It is similar to somebody who denies the existance of matter on the basis that our understanding of what constitutes matter on a sub-atomic level keeps changing.

Turley wrote:

Perhaps Galileo Galilei, by the same definition, may have been a "conspiracy theorist" in his day. Would not Galileo have had to believe that tens of thousands of diverse people and the entire academic world conspired to hide the heliocentric universe? In Galileo's time someone who questioned the Ptolemaic system was not called an "Anti-Semite" they were called a "Heretic." Galileo was a geocentric universe denier so he was placed under house arrest.

As I said, conspiracies do happen, although whether it is an accurate description of what happened to Galileo is another question. Nevertheless, there is a huge difference. In Galileo's time we know that there was a mechanism for suppressing such 'truth' - the catholic church which exercised monopolistic control over scientific enquiry and dissemination. No such mechanism exists nowadays in the scientific field (the gradual acceptance of Darwin's theories is about as good a proof as you could wish for there as they undermined _everybody's_ most firmly held assumptions about the special place of man). Therefore, the big difference in the case of the holocaust deniers is that they have to invent mechanisms for the suppression of information and as wicknight has pointed out on this thread, all the evidence suggests that the 'zionists'/ADL/elders of zion do not have the ability to suppress such information, even when the information is admitted to be wrong and when they really, really want to do so.

Eriugena · 16-03-2005 12:52pm

KCF wrote:

As usual, baby logic is needed when talking to our racial masters. Read carefully:

Hypothesis: Holocaust deniers are either lunatics or are fascists with an ulterior motive rather than genuine historians motivated by a desire to find out the truth

Disprovability test: Show that the political positions of holocaust deniers does not exhibit a strong correlation with that tiny minority of humanity that are political fascists.

You have it completely back to front, of course. Its up to you to show that those who practise revisionist research or hold such views are lunatics or fascists (how old are you?). Either way you have big and impossible task ahead of you becasue even if you could prove such nonsesne, you still have to deal with all the evdience which of course you cannot. Instead of that you resort to puerile abuse.

That's how science works by the way - hypothesis plus disprovability yields theory if the disprovability test holds.

Nonsense. Your understanding of Popper is nearly as weak as your understanding of the substantive issue.

Your attempt to meet the disprovability criterion fails badly.

You invent some idiotic rules for your game and then tell me I fail becasue I wont play your game. LOL!

A single counter example does not a significant correlation disprove. Furthermore, your single example is fatally flawed by the fact that Rassinier is the single source of evidence for his claims about his personal history and is acknowledged as being both a fascist and a liar by a long list of French historians at this page I refer you to the following works by _real_ historians: Florent Brayard, Comment l'idée vint à M. Rassinier, Naissance du révisionnisme, Fayard, 1996. Nadine Fresco, Fabrication d'un antisémite, Seuil, 1999.

But you don't actually know Rassiner's writings yourself? In other words you are not competent to say, you are passing on some heresay from a select group. Hardly very scientifc of you. Perhaps I shall make some comments about your distinguished Vidal-Naquet and the falsifier of evidence Leon Poliakov later.

Oh dear, I somehow over-estimated your reasoning powers. Try again, think hard this time. Could there possibly be a more straightforward reason that we don't have many survivors of extermination processes?

Because there wasn't such. Why don't you post up some of the eye-witness testimony and we can have a look? You wont of course becasue you are afraid.

You should brush up your reading comprehension skills before going out in public.

You should acquire some manners, it might help your case some, not much, but at least you wouldn't be dismissed as an intemperate brat.

I said that I don't care how many of the total number of people who were butchered were killed by gas as against starvation, forced labour, shooting or anything else.

Yes I know you dopn't give a damn about facts. Very inconveneient things.

To me the only important thing is the undeniable fact that millions were butchered.

What is important to you is a dogmatic tenet of belief, that's what you are saying.

Historical opinion on exactly how many were killed in exactly what way varies over time as new evidence comes to light.

It certaoinly does, and evisionists have been the one who have forced the exterminationists on to the back foot. We dont' hear about lampshades and soap anymore.

The fact that there was a holocaust does not.

Define the holocaust.

robindch · 16-03-2005 1:27pm

> the trendy contemporary views of the gay lobby and their
> PC supporter friends, views which are not shared by any
> one in the world or in history

<grin> You're letting your guard slip -- this is a tidy example of rubbishing what seems to be another out-group for you. There are, of course, plenty of people who do not subscribe to the Vatican's prejudicial tub-thumping against homosexuals, who are not members of a 'gay lobby' (which one? please specify), or 'PC supporter friends' (who are these people? again, please specify).

> > In my posting of 2005-03-09, 23:49, I asked "is anybody
> > aware of *any* holocaust-denier who isn't also
> > anti-semitic, or an apologist for the Nazi party?" and
> > you didn't answer this question.
>
> Damn right I didn't. The question is loaded and offensive.

The question is neither loaded nor offensive and it remains unanswered, a fact from which I think that people are now able, fairly, to draw their own conclusions.

- robin.

KCF · 16-03-2005 1:44pm

Eriugena wrote:

You have it completely back to front, of course. Its up to you to show that those who practise revisionist research or hold such views are lunatics or fascists (how old are you?). Either way you have big and impossible task ahead of you becasue even if you could prove such nonsesne, you still have to deal with all the evdience which of course you cannot. Instead of that you resort to puerile abuse.

Okay. David Irving, Ernst Zundel, Rassinier, Stormfront, Irish-Nationalism - all well known to be 'fascist', all holocaust deniers. Who are the anti-fasicst historians or other anti-fascist groups who give credence to 'revisionism' again?

Eriugena wrote:

Nonsense. Your understanding of Popper is nearly as weak as your understanding of the substantive issue.
You invent some idiotic rules for your game and then tell me I fail becasue I wont play your game. LOL!

Sadly I can not claim credit for inventing the scientific method. You should try the 'game' some time, it's great fun.

Eriugena wrote:

But you don't actually know Rassiner's writings yourself? In other words you are not competent to say, you are passing on some heresay from a select group. Hardly very scientifc of you. Perhaps I shall make some comments about your distinguished Vidal-Naquet and the falsifier of evidence Leon Poliakov later.

I know that a long list of historians have documented in peer-reviewed journals and books the fact that Rassinier was a nazi and a liar. I know that Rassinier was a frequent contributor to Nazi publications, that his editors were well-known nazis, that he helped publish many unashamedly nazi works. That's quite sufficent for me thanks (unless of course you can show me a comparable list of anti-fascist historians who dispute these facts).

Eriugena wrote:

Because there wasn't such. Why don't you post up some of the eye-witness testimony and we can have a look? You wont of course becasue you are afraid.

You really are impressive when it comes to logic. To make it obvious: EXTERMINATION PROCESSES KILL PEOPLE THEREFORE YOU DO NOT EXPECT TO HAVE EYE-WITNESS ACCOUNTS FROM 'SURVIVORS'. Eye witness accounts by dead people are considered unusual.

Eriugena wrote:

You should acquire some manners, it might help your case some, not much, but at least you wouldn't be dismissed as an intemperate brat.

I consider that politeness to humanity demands utter revulsion towards holocaust deniers.

Eriugena wrote:

Yes I know you dopn't give a damn about facts. Very inconveneient things. What is important to you is a dogmatic tenet of belief, that's what you are saying.

No. I very much give a damn about the undisputed fact that a holocaust happened. And by holocaust I mean the wholescale murder of millions of people who, for whatever reason, were deemed inferior by the master race.

Eriugena · 16-03-2005 1:47pm

robindch wrote:

> the trendy contemporary views of the gay lobby and their
> PC supporter friends, views which are not shared by any
> one in the world or in history

<grin> You're letting your guard slip -- this is a tidy example of rubbishing what seems to be another out-group for you. There are, of course, plenty of people who do not subscribe to the Vatican's prejudicial tub-thumping against homosexuals, who are not members of a 'gay lobby' (which one? please specify), or 'PC supporter friends' (who are these people? again, please specify).

I'm afraid the weight of history and other cultrues are against you. Homosexuality has not been "celebrated" anywhere except in the last few decades amongst the promters of the gay ideology and their supporters. You want exocriate the Church for merely remaining constant in its age old teachings. I see that as a point in favour of the Church: principles and consistency.

> > In my posting of 2005-03-09, 23:49, I asked "is anybody
> > aware of *any* holocaust-denier who isn't also
> > anti-semitic, or an apologist for the Nazi party?" and
> > you didn't answer this question.
>
> Damn right I didn't. The question is loaded and offensive.

The question is neither loaded nor offensive and it remains unanswered, a fact from which I think that people are now able, fairly, to draw their own conclusions.

You count on people sharing your prejudices? One was already mentioned in this thread or have you missed that?
If you want to play this game, fine, I am not in any hurry.
Define what you understand by antisemitism.
" " Nazi apologia.

When you have done that we can move on to the next step in your ultimately futile attempt to evade the question:

Eriugena asks:

When you establish your thought police, how do you distinguish between someone unknowingly uttering a falsehood and one who knowingly does so?

You have already indicated that you do not care, either person will be guilty.
How do you justify this stance whilst mocking the Holy (or otherwise) Inquisition?

bus77 · 16-03-2005 2:00pm

If I could ask you a question Eriugena (and this is for my own research). Do you have 'saxon' or similar central european blood in you?

KCF · 16-03-2005 2:05pm

Eriugena wrote:

I'm afraid the weight of history and other cultrues are against you. Homosexuality has not been "celebrated" anywhere except in the last few decades amongst the promters of the gay ideology and their supporters. You want exocriate the Church for merely remaining constant in its age old teachings. I see that as a point in favour of the Church: principles and consistency.

Wow, surprise surprise, you don't like gays and are a fan of traditional authoritarian catholicism. Our theories of holocaust deniers = fascists is really in tatters now.

Interesting too that your historical knowledge about homosexuality and catholicism reveals a depth of knowledge that is almost as profound as your knowledge of the holocaust. Roman and Greek culture 'celebrated' homosexuality much more than we do - try reading ovid. Indeed the ban on homosexuality in the catholic church is not as ancient as you think. There is a particular medieval strand of catholic poetry which celebrates such things as buggering young boys. The teachings of the catholic church change rapidly over time - their views on science being just the most obvious.

Eriugena wrote:

Define what you understand by antisemitism.
" " Nazi apologia.

Ok, I'll give you a few

People who don't immediately say 'no' when asked if they are an anti-semite / nazi apologist
People who think that 'jewry' exercises a malign influence on the world
People who think that there is such a thing as human races and that some are inherently superior to others
People who place great stock in genetic 'purity' despite it being ridiculous from a scientific point of view
People who deny the fact that there was a holocaust against all the evidence
People who believe that the Nazis were anything other than unspeakably evil

Turley · 16-03-2005 2:14pm

robindch wrote:

Perhaps, at this point, you should have admitted a second possibility, that you do not understand the standard account of the Holocaust, or the evidence that supports it. There are plenty of examples of people denying what, to other people, is incontrovertible evidence -- see JC in the creation thread, for a fresh example of somebody simply unable to accept a question which queried his weird worldview, or any evidence which denied it.

Robin-
I think you make a good point here that people can err. But all of us are subject to error. Is it not possible that you could be an example of a person "denying, what to other people, is incontrovertible evidence?" You seem to consistently think others "do not understand" and are "simply unable to question [their] world view." Is it possible that your understanding and your world view can be immune to error?

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

robindch wrote:

Total nonsense.

The Catholic Church has mobilized many, many campaigns resulting in the death of humans. The more notorious are the more distant in time -- the Crusades and the (Holy!) Inquisition...

I agree with you again Robin. The Inquisition was used to silence Galileo. The Church had a hold over the majority of people who feared being labeled a "heretic." This would cause people to self-censor harboring any "impure thoughts." Today the thought police no longer use "heretic." You had asked, "is anybody aware of *any* holocaust-denier who isn't also anti-semitic, or an apologist for the Nazi party?"

"Revisionist" is the term those who are questioning official history might prefer. When we call people "deniers," "anti-semitic," or "an apologist for the Nazi party" how is our behavior similar or dissimilar to the people that cried, "heretic" in the middle ages?

Eriugena · 16-03-2005 2:21pm

KCF wrote:

Okay. David Irving, Ernst Zundel, Rassinier, Stormfront, Irish-Nationalism - all well known to be 'fascist', all holocaust deniers.

I see you are still evading the burden of proof set by your asburd statement. Let me remind you what it was: Its up to you to show that those who practise revisionist research or hold such views are lunatics or fascists?
Instead you give us heresay and slander.
First of all David Irving is not a holocaust revisionist. He has never claimed to be one, neither has he ever published anything that would qualify him as such. In fact if you knew anything about Irving you would surely know that he does in fact subscribe to a version of the holocaust. He is mild Functionalist (look it up).
Ernst Zundel is not a holocaust revisionist historian and doesn't claim to be one either. He presents himself as a German patriot who is not prepared to put up with the blood libel against his people. He is an activist.
Paul Rassinier a fascist? That is truly ridiculous. He was a socialist. He was also a prisoner in a concentration camp on account of his anti-fascist activities.
Stromfront and Irish-Nationalism are not holocaust historians, they are not even persons; they are websites! Lots of people post messages on these websites rather like they do here. In my travels in internet land I have followed some threads on these boards and the impression I have is that the membership of these boards is divided on this question. Some hold revisionists view, some are very sceptical and others believe in some version of the story.
So much for all that.

Who are the anti-fasicst historians or other anti-fascist groups who give credence to 'revisionism' again?

I think you just blew your cover.

Sadly I can not claim credit for inventing the scientific method.

Nor you can you claim any familiarity with it either

You should try the 'game' some time, it's great fun.

I know this is a game for bored middle class lefties like you, shrieking impotently at anyone who does not subscribe to their redundant nonsense, i.e 99% of the population.

I know that a long list of historians have documented in peer-reviewed journals and books the fact that Rassinier was a nazi and a liar.

If so, then you can produce evidence of that claim here.

I know that Rassinier was a frequent contributor to Nazi publications, that his editors were well-known nazis, that he helped publish many unashamedly nazi works.

If you know that, then you can produce evidence of it here.

That's quite sufficent for me thanks (unless of course you can show me a comparable list of anti-fascist historians who dispute these facts).

Sufficient for hysterics perhaps but not for the rest of us. Your says so is not evidence of anything. Put up or shut up.

You really are impressive when it comes to logic. To make it obvious: EXTERMINATION PROCESSES KILL PEOPLE THEREFORE YOU DO NOT EXPECT TO HAVE EYE-WITNESS ACCOUNTS FROM 'SURVIVORS'. Eye witness accounts by dead people are considered unusual.

For someone who goes on about science a lot you really should be more careful. You have dogmatically ruled out the other possibility; that there was nothing to witness. A carfeul examination of the evidence can resolve this issue one way or the other. not your ranting.

I consider that politeness to humanity demands utter revulsion towards holocaust deniers.

So your unsubstantiated beliefs absolve you of the obligation of good manners and simple discourse etiquette? Who do you think you are?

No. I very much give a damn about the undisputed fact that a holocaust happened.

First of all you should define what you understand as the holocaust. Secondly, if it is a fact as you say, then you should have absolutely no difficulty in demonstrating it.

And by holocaust I mean the wholescale murder of millions of people who, for whatever reason, were deemed inferior by the master race.

How many millions? By what method? When and where? By order or by evolution?
Come on "scientist", start to behave like one instead of like an AFA/Indymedia know-nothing brat.

KCF · 16-03-2005 2:26pm

Turley wrote:

"Revisionist" is the term those who are questioning official history might prefer. When we call people "deniers," "anti-semitic," or "an apologist for the Nazi party" how is our behavior similar or dissimilar to the people that cried, "heretic" in the middle ages?

Galileo was a heretic, indisputably. Similarly 'revisionists' are invariably anti-semitic nazi-apologists. It's ridiculous to complain about attaching accurate labels to things. The big difference is, however, that it is widely accepted that scientists who were heretics against catholic teaching are a good thing, whereas nazi-apoligists and holocaust deniers are a very, very bad thing altogether.

Eriugena · 16-03-2005 2:27pm

bus77 wrote:

If I could ask you a question Eriugena (and this is for my own research). Do you have 'saxon' or similar central european blood in you?

I beg your pardon? What are you suggesting here?

robindch · 16-03-2005 2:28pm

> I'm afraid the weight of history and other cultrues are against you.
> Homosexuality has not been "celebrated" anywhere except in the
> last few decades amongst the promters of the gay ideology and
> their supporters.

You are completely wrong -- see almost any of the Platonic dialogs for documentation of the Ancient Greeks' liberal, not to say downright sporting, attitudes towards homosexuality; or Sappho's well-known Lesbian poetry; There are many, many further examples within many, many other societies which I don't have time to list here.

> You want exocriate the Church for merely remaining constant
> in its age old teachings. I see that as a point in favour of
> the Church: principles and consistency.

I will to excoriate (sp) any institution which propagates hatred towards any group; the church just happens to be a local example and there are many more. BTW, it seems worth pointing out that one man's "principles and consistency" are another man's "clinging to ancient prejudice", which is what I view anti-homosexual feeling, as well as most of the church's dogma, as.

> Define what you understand by antisemitism. Nazi apologia.

I don't think there's anybody here who is in any doubt whatsoever about these terms mean, except, apparently you. Having claimed to study the areas in detail, I would, in fact, expect you to understand them better than everybody else -- why do you require definitions to what are very simple, very unambiguous terms?

- robin.

bus77 · 16-03-2005 2:30pm

Eriugena wrote:

I beg your pardon? What are you suggesting here?

Nothing insulting, It was a clear question.

Eriugena · 16-03-2005 2:39pm

KCF wrote:

Wow, surprise surprise, you don't like gays and are a fan of traditional authoritarian catholicism. Our theories of holocaust deniers = fascists is really in tatters now.

You could spare us this tripe by scrolling back and reading where I said I am not a practising Catholic.

Interesting too that your historical knowledge about homosexuality and catholicism reveals a depth of knowledge that is almost as profound as your knowledge of the holocaust.

You are about to make a fool of yourself again . . .

Roman and Greek culture 'celebrated' homosexuality much more than we do - try reading ovid.

You should try consulting the laws of those societies on this topic.

Indeed the ban on homosexuality in the catholic church is not as ancient as you think. There is a particular medieval strand of catholic poetry which celebrates such things as buggering young boys.

Such poetry does not change anything, the ban on homosexuality has been part of Christian teaching since the start and legal sanctions existed in all ancient societies.
Btw, I am opposed to the criminalisation of homosexuality.

[*]Ok, I'll give you a few
People who don't immediately say 'no' when asked if they are an anti-semite / nazi apologist

Perhaps they don't want to indulge bad manners or falacious arguments.

[*]People who think that 'jewry' exercises a malign influence on the world

That's very vague, what does it mean?

[*]People who think that there is such a thing as human races and that some are inherently superior to others

Strange one becasue there were fascists and even members of the Nazi party who rejected biological racialism, on the other hand there have been plenty of liberals who have subscribed to it.

[*]People who place great stock in genetic 'purity' despite it being ridiculous from a scientific point of view

Again, I don't quite know what you mean here. What is "genetic purity"?

[*]People who deny the fact that there was a holocaust against all the evidence

No one does that. Revisionism is based on the evdience, all the evdience and not the selective cherry picking approach of the holocaus lobby.

[*]People who believe that the Nazis were anything other than unspeakably evil

That's question begging I would have thought. You might like to define evil - if you can.

Eriugena · 16-03-2005 2:52pm

bus77 wrote:

Nothing insulting, It was a clear question.

There is nothing clear about it. Why are you asking me?

bus77 · 16-03-2005 2:52pm

Eriugena wrote:

Strange one becasue there were fascists and even members of the Nazi party who rejected biological racialism, on the other hand there have been plenty of liberals who have subscribed to it.

That's right. It's the hard left that write the documents, and make the 'long term' plans.

bus77 · 16-03-2005 2:56pm

Eriugena wrote:

There is nothing clear about it. Why are you asking me?

DO YOU HAVE CENTRAL EUROPEAN ANCESTORS :rolleyes:

KCF · 16-03-2005 3:05pm

Eriugena wrote:

I see you are still evading the burden of proof set by your asburd statement. Let me remind you what it was: Its up to you to show that those who practise revisionist research or hold such views are lunatics or fascists?

This is the same argument that the creationists use, demanding positive proof for every evolutionary step. It is similarly falacious here. I have claimed that holocaust revisionism is a front for fascism, I have suggested an easy way for you to disprove this, I have given several examples which bolster my claim. You have just slithered around in circles.

Eriugena wrote:

Instead you give us heresay and slander.
First of all David Irving is not a holocaust revisionist. He has never claimed to be one, neither has he ever published anything that would qualify him as such. In fact if you knew anything about Irving you would surely know that he does in fact subscribe to a version of the holocaust. He is mild Functionalist (look it up).

The same "heresay [sic] and slander" that was proven in court? Or was the judge in on the elders' conspiracy?

Eriugena wrote:

Ernst Zundel is not a holocaust revisionist historian and doesn't claim to be one either. He presents himself as a German patriot who is not prepared to put up with the blood libel against his people. He is an activist.

He can present himself as a tomato if he likes, but sane people will make logical conclusions when they know that he was the largest distributor in North America of Nazi memorabilia and holocaust denial literature. The fact that his site http://www.zundelsite.org/ is mostly devoted to 'revisionism' hardly makes your claims look plausible.

Eriugena wrote:

Paul Rassinier a fascist? That is truly ridiculous. He was a socialist. He was also a prisoner in a concentration camp on account of his anti-fascist activities.

I refer you to my links above which provide ample evidence from respected historians that he was a liar and a fascist.

Eriugena wrote:

Stromfront and Irish-Nationalism are not holocaust historians, they are not even persons; they are websites! Lots of people post messages on these websites rather like they do here. In my travels in internet land I have followed some threads on these boards and the impression I have is that the membership of these boards is divided on this question. Some hold revisionists view, some are very sceptical and others believe in some version of the story.
So much for all that.

My hypothesis is that holocaust deniers = fascism. The fact that the only places on the internet where you find people seriously discussing revisionism is on obviously fascist inspired sites is strong evidence in support of my hypothesis. You have presented no evidence against it, except a few references to personal claims by the fascists, claims that have been disproved in court and disputed by every single non-fascist historian there is. You're not convincing me, you know.

The fact that you find six clarifications of an already simple question 'too vague' speaks volumes.

The holocaust and revisionists

Comments