'holocaust' denial article by Andrew Mathis debunked here

by **Hannover** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 1:18 am

I would like all specific comments about this article to appear in this thread rather than in my initial thread where the article was first mentioned.
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=2799

The other thread had extraneous comments; all well & good, but here I want specifics about the article... please. I have asked the Moderators to lock the other thread.

The article by the 'Holocaust' History Project spokesman, Andy Mathis, is here:

http://www.holocaust-history.org/gen-semantics/
to:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/gen-semantics/gs.pdf

Thanks, Hannover

by **simon1003** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 2:24 am

In his introduction he says that this essay took him 5 years, 5 years for eight pages? And it's eight pages of pseudo-science dressed up as academical semantics. The guy's not only an asshole, he's a fraud too.

In the introduction he claims credit for discovering that the term 'resettlement to the East' was a euphemism for mass murder.

"It occurred to me, after having submitted the article to ETC: A Journal of General Semantics for publication, that the issue of the "territorial Final Solution" that I deal with in the essay is usually explained by deniers (and even by normative historians in describing the pre-extermination phases of the Final Solution -- viz. Holocaust: A History by Debórah Dwork and Robert Jan van Pelt, 2004) as the abandoning of forced emigration out of Europe for forced relocation of Jews to conquered territories, or "relocation in the East." However, given a situation on the Eastern Front that Oberkommando des Heeres (Army Chief of Staff) Franz Halder described as unwinnable as early as August 1941 (see Ian Kershaw's Hitler), the feasibility of relocating millions of Jews in occupied territories was not one that could sustain itself for long. Clearly this, as I indicate in my article, eventually became a euphemism for mass murder, along with other terms (e.g., Sonderbehandlung)."

I'm sure I'd heard of the term before Dr. Numbnuts claimed it as his own.

There's enough material in the essay for revisionists to have a field day, a couple of things that I noticed after a quick reading, the old turning jews into soap story is here again, it's not a myth the esteemed Doctor informs us, it's simply a case of "over-definition" of the holocaust, so that would be downright lies to the rest of us then Andy?

Then he goes on to use a particularly sneaky device in this sentence -

"There is no record of large-scale processing of Jewish remains into soap during Word War II"

Notice how he uses 'large-scale', alluding to the fact that maybe some small-scale or experimental processing occurred.

His translators seem to have taken some liberties with their German too, directly translating einsatzgruppen as 'mobile killing squads'.

by **Laurentz Dahl** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 4:04 am

Seems like the steam has totally gone out of Mathis and the HHP - perhaps they feel a little bit defeated after confronting the fact that their lame counterarguments were thoroughly refuted by Rudolf, Mattogno et al (see for example http://vho.org/dl/ENG/al.pdf ).

It doesn't surprise me one bit that Mathis resort to this kind of pseudoscientific compostmodernistic blaha blaha "argumentation", devoid of any real discussion of verifiable facts. What worries me is that this kind of pseudoscientific bs:ing seems to be an increasingly used form of "argumentation" within historiography (or at least when it comes to "Holocaust studies"). This deviation from the classic principles of the history of science, mainly developed in Germany during the 19th Century - the principles of exactitude and objectivity - has, I fear, to some degree its roots in the effort to protect the Holohoax.

PS. Mr. Mathis, if you are reading this: please come back here to TRF! It would be so nice to have a little debate with you about your article!

by **Jordan** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 12:21 pm

Is he trying to pull some sort of joke? After nine pages of broad and vague blabbering i see this...

Conclusion.

Intentionally selective. Not once has this man covered Zyklon B. Not once was there a detailed analysis of revisionist examinations of industrial cremation nevermind a rebuttal pertaining to that.

Hell i could lie in defense of the Holocaust better myself.

by **Kiwichap** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 3:01 pm

Credit should be given where credit is due and Mr Mathis deserves credit for the following factual statements in his article - GENERAL SEMANTICS AND HOLOCAUST DENIAL.

While originally an obscure movement, since the rise of the internet in the mid-1990s, Holocaust denial has grown significantly, and new adherents continue to set up web sites dedicated to "debunking the myth."

the growing awareness of Holocaust denial

Holocaust and Nazi atrocities that are now known to be untrue, e.g., soap production from human fat

[that] Hitler gassed six million Jews to death. ... is factually incorrect.

Thus the statement that six million Jews were gassed is untrue.

There was no human soap production. Israeli historian Yehuda Bauer has stated as much.

Final Solution had nothing to do with physical ending or the end of a physical person.

The normative history of Belzec and Treblinka now no longer include electrocution or steam as killing methods.

Were we to approach a random person on the street who happened not to have any specific knowledge of Holocaust history, and were we to ask that person to define "the Holocaust," that person might reply, "Hitler gassed six million Jews to death."

My own experience shows this is true. Any [random] person [not familiar with revisionism] born, say, 1950 to 1970 would have this definition ingrained into their psyche from childhood school memories.

Thus the statement that six million Jews were gassed is untrue.

the "man-on-the-street" definition is a classic under-definition of the Holocaust because ... it fixes the death toll at an exact figure

Of course the "man-on-the-street" definition fixes the death toll at an exact figure, any variation is 'Holocaust Denial' and a prison cell awaits if the figure is questioned.

Now, if we were to take a definition of the Holocaust that includes... the non-Jewish death toll, allows for some flexibility in the total death tally, we would still run the risk of under-definition when discussing the Holocaust.

I put it to Mr Mathis that if I (not being a Jew) were to take a definition of the Holocaust that includes... the non-Jewish death toll and allows for some flexibility in the total death tally, I would run the risk of [not under-defining the Holocaust] but of prosecution for Holocaust Denial.

deniers have been able to claim victories in "debunking" the Holocaust.

There is no record of large-scale processing of Jewish remains into soap during World War II. Nevertheless, the idea of human soap production remains a fundamental belief of some people when they consider the Holocaust.

Another longstanding over-definition of the Holocaust is that the death toll at Auschwitz-Birkenau was four million people. This is also false.

the mass media still routinely reports that four million people died at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

Journalists are not historians, so the repeating of this mistake is somewhat un-derstandable

With the Holocaust thus over/under-defined, ample opportunity exists for deniers to exploit the term.

On the one hand, if we consider again the "man-on-the-street" definition of the Holocaust, a denier can confront such a person and respond by stating, "Six million Jews were not gassed, and no reputable historian claims that they were." On its face, this is a true statement,

On the other hand, if a Holocaust denier encounters a person with an over-defined concept of the Holocaust, the denier can begin casting doubt by saying, "There was no human soap production. Israeli historian Yehuda Bauer has stated as much." Again, this statement and its attribution are true.

The official policy of the Nazis vis-à-vis the Jewish population of Nazi Germany and areas under their control - until the beginning of World War II -was emigration.

Even during the initial months of the war, the idea of setting up a massive Jewish ghetto on the island of Madagascar was given consideration by the Nazi leadership.

"No holes, no Holocaust."

Holocaust deniers say that if there are no induction ports for Zyklon-B crystals in the ruins of the building known as Krema II and believed by normative historians to have been used to gas half a million Jews, then no one was killed in this building and, by extension, the Holocaust has been either gravely exaggerated or it never happened at all.

...all opinions that do not fall under the aegis of right become wrong...

Holocaust deniers... cite the fact that prosecutors from the Soviet Union presented evidence about the gas chambers. At the trials, Soviet prosecutors accused Nazi defendants of atrocities that they themselves had committed - most notably the massacre of the Polish Officer Corps in the Katyn Forest in 1940.

Few would deny that all sides during World War II committed atrocities of some kind.

...the Soviet prosecutors tried to blame some or their own atrocities on the Nazis

Although the principal Soviet prosecutor at Nuremberg, Iona Nikitchenko, tried to enter the Katyn Massacre as a Nazi war crime in the indictment, the American and British prosecutors, already aware that the Soviets had carried out the massacre, refused to take judicial notice of the massacre as a Nazi crime.

...on-going historical inquiry on the history of the Third Reich will continue to shed light on this tragic period in human history...

Looking at the problem from a different angle,...

Ah, we have a problem.

So our thanks are in order, for the above quotes, to Mr Mathis for his honest appraisal of Holocaust Denial (Revisionism).

Mr Mathis begins his article with the following:

Do the arguments of the Holocaust deniers have any credibility?
Here is an opportunity for us to use the principles of general semantics to put such claims to the test.

On reading the article the following immediately sprang to mind.

Relevance Theory & Hebrew Semantics
While most sentences in [The Jewish Bible] are simple and make sense, the difficult ones often become simple when one removes the points, then look for the possibilities. Often the verses preceding and following indicate which of the possibilities to choose based on continuation of an idea. Often I find that one possibility gives a simple reading and any other possibility leaves us with mental gymnastics to try to make every word fit.

Start with an idea and twist everthing to conform to that idea.

Semantics is a well-known word, however 'Semantic Gymnastics' is a better known phrase.

Problems I had with the article:

Because of the extreme control over information exercised by the Nazis, witnesses to atrocities could not always be sure what they were seeing. Nor could these witnesses separate what had really happened from rumors.

...witnesses to atrocities could not always be sure what they were seeing.
...witnesses [cannot] separate what had really happened from rumors.

Surely this is either ridiculous, or the witness is no witness. Can a witness see a rumour?

the holes had been definitively located.

Does Mr Mathis mean the holes smashed throught the roof, by apparently hammers or picks with the reinforcing steel protruding into the holes, in the purposely built, brick and mortar, factories of death?

At the trials, Soviet prosecutors accused Nazi defendants of atrocities that they themselves had committed - most notably the massacre of the Polish Officer Corps in the Katyn Forest in 1940. ... Even if the Soviets had successfully hung the guilt for Katyn on the Nazis, this does not impeach all of the evidence brought by the Soviet Union at Nuremberg.

It would in our court rooms downunder, you lie, your gone!

Some semantic gymnastics from Mr Mathis.

Endlösung 1935 - forced emigration,
Endlösung 1941 - genocidal final solution [shootings]
Endlösung 1942 - genocidal final solution [gas chambers]
Endlösung 1944 - genocidal final solution [not steam chambers]
Endlösung 1946 - genocidal final solution [might include electrocutions, steam-chambers, poison gas]
Endlösung 1953 - genocidal final solution [carbon monoxide, no electrocutions]
Endlösung 1989 - final solution [no electrocutions, no steam-chambers, no poison gas (4M)]

Clearly Endlösung is a term whose meaning changed drastically between 1935 and 1941, at least in Eichmann’s usage, if not in the usage of the Nazi apparatus entirely.

Mr Mathis, you say Eichmann knew the meaning of Endlösung and then you say you are not as positive that everybody else did. Preposterous, how would anything get done unless everyone knew exactly what was meant.

Finally some semantics of my own:

Endlösung 2006 - final solution to this nonsense [I'm going to bed, goodnight all]

Cheers

by **Speeder** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 4:10 pm

What an anti climax is that the best a PhD scholar can do.

Still I suppose he wasn’t allowed to pad it out with his usual filth and profanity.

But seriously it’s a very, very thin essay. I have seen better attempts from the 8th grade. Usual BS about understanding the "secret" double meanings to words which only the believers can fully understand and so on. Nothing in it at all that can be deemed original thought or groundbreaking research, in fact it very quickly moves into an intellectual cul de sac not helped by listing some (but not all) the lies that have previously been told by the Holohoaxters. Rather leaves you feeling "why should I believe this essay" when it is clear an enormous amount of lies have been told by the hoaxters in relation to this subject.

Still another star on his "Uber Jew" team member badge and pats on the back from the goons at HHP.

Next time he breaks out his crayons I suggest he sticks to colouring in books.

Regards

Speeder

by **Kiwichap** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:56 pm

The Holocaust; A Myriad of events, Yeah Right!

Mr Mathis gives us a quote from Shermer and Grobman's book:

DENYING HISTORY:
WHO SAYS THE HOLOCAUST NEVER HAPPENED
AND WHY DO THEY SAY IT?
by Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman

However Mr Mathis does not give us the full quotation; which is:

"The Holocaust was a myriad of events in a myriad of places and relies on myriad pieces of data that converge on one conclusion. Minor errors or inconsistencies cannot prove or disprove the Holocaust, for the simple reason that these lone bits of data never proved it in the first place."
http://www.holocaust-trc.org/deny_history.htm

That is the full quotation and it seems clear, from the quotation, the Holocaust has not been proved.

The reviewer of this book goes on to say:

It is these minor inconsistencies, however, that fuel the theories of Holocaust deniers. Shermer and Grobman examine the denial arguments piece by piece, from the lack of traces of Zyklon-B on the walls of the gas chambers (explained by the exposure of the tested bricks to the elements) to the lack of a letter from Hitler ordering the extermination of the Jews.

And of course the mistaken spend their lives seeking and manfacturing these tiny bits of data, usually eyewitness accounts, fraudulent photographs, bits of soap etc...

These are the myriad pieces of data that can never prove the Holocaust according to Shermer & Grobner.

However, we who are not so easily fooled by such nonsense and chicanery cut to the heart of the matter.

"...pieces of data that converge on one conclusion"

The conclusion Shermer, Grobner, Mathis and others hope we reach is that:

The National Socialist Government of Germany, headed by Chancellor Adolf Hitler tried to exterminate the Jews of Europe. And that conclusion, we do not accept, and that conclusion, they have not proved.

The reviewer insults our intelligence when she says:

Minor inconsistencies such as "the lack of traces of Zyklon-B on the walls of the gas chambers (explained by the exposure of the tested bricks to the elements)

Minor inconsistencies such as the lack of a letter from Hitler ordering the extermination of the Jews.

These are not minor inconsistencies, these are fatal blows against the absurdity.
These blows are lethal and they have slain and buried the Jewish Holocaust.

For the fraudulent to say the lack of Zyklon-B [Prussian Blue Compound] on the walls is explained by the exposure of the tested bricks to the elements, is equal to Mr Mathis saying Potassium Cyanide is placed in water to release the hydrogen gas in American execution gas chambers.

These are statements of ignorance, par excellence!

I do not really believe they are made in ignorance, except for Mr Mathis's water fable. (Nobody is omniescent, Mr Mathis included)

No, these are lying statements by wilful liars who know the truth, but reject it for nefarious purposes.

The only way to defeat this lying wonder is to stand up and be counted.

Like Zundel, Rudolf and others, those who put their freedom, their well being and their lives on the line for the truth.

Will debate with wilful liars defeat this nonsense.

NEVER.

There is nothing to be debated, nothing to be defeated.

There was no Holocaust.

by **Hannover** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 10:53 am

That is it? That is the journal article which Mathis himself thinks is such a big deal? What a let down. I found myself embarrassed for the poor schmuck after reading that desperate attempt at spin.

There is absolutely nothing there to support the claims of '6,000,000 & gas chambers'. So what is Andy Mathis left with? Childish, pseudo-academic ranting about "semantics", laughable. This is clear evidence that the 'holocau$t' Industry is in retreat from presenting specifics in support of their absurd assertions now that Revisionists have utterly exposed their ridiculous claims. Their last resort? Censor free speech and arrest Revisionists.

It's no wonder Andy presents no arguments for the silly 'holocau$t' assertions, he's been spanked soundly any time he's tried.

- Hannover

Some links to specific threads where the so called 'holocaust history project', their spokesman Andy Mathis, and their silly 'technical expert', Dr. Green, are utterly routed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

by **friedrich braun** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 1:57 pm

I'm sure that the academic journal in question ("ETC") will provide in its next issue a platform for Revisionists to respond to Mr. Mathis's article...the right of reply being the normal procedure in the academic world...WHEN HELL FREEZES OVER...

by **Secret Anne X** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 8:46 pm

Hi,

The article has to be discussed somewhere, it might as well be here. Here are some inputs I have and also some inputs I have received from emails.

1. The article is basically a typical "holocaust happened" article phrased in the jargon of General Semantics. The author doesn't appear to understand General Semantics very well.

2. Questions of "over/under definition" are not really the problem of revisionists, because they don't argue on that basis. They argue on the basis of specific claims, like gassing at Buchenwald, release rates of Zyklon, how fast can bodies be burnt, etc. It is the other side that over/under defines the Holocaust all the time, so that anyone who questions something someone else considers sacrosanct is a "Holocaust Denier."

3. It is the other side that has problems with "extending definitions over time" because it is the other side that makes stupid arguments like, "The Allies failed to stop the Holocaust" because no one saw it that way or called it that at the time.

4. It is the other side that has a problem with "Two Value Orientation". Revisionists are all over the map in terms of interpretation, even in belief in massacres or gassings (look at Irving.) It is the other side that insists that all of these people are "Nazis", "Antisemites", "dishonest" and "Holocaust Deniers."

5. The article is illiterate. How do you "preserve" a "basic truth"? How do you "expose" something to "scrutiny"?

6. A phrase like "the Holocaust has been either gravely exaggerated or it never happened at all" would have Korzybski turning over in his grave.

7. "By extension, all opinions that do not fall under the aegis of right become wrong in the mind of the person with this mindset." This is the believer mindset.

8. "It was sarcastically said that if one or two holes were found, the deniers would then have to change their slogan to “Some Holes, Some Holocaust.” Although perhaps in poor taste, this joke does demonstrate the intellectual bankruptcy of the two-valued orientation being offered by the deniers."

In fact the use of that term "Some Holes. Some Holocaust." came from a revisionist critique of Charles Provan's alleged discovery of the holes.
see http://www.vho.org/tr/2001/3/tr07someholes.html

No revisionist has ever claimed that the Holocaust didn't happen because there were no holes. If it was that simple, Germar Rudolf, Mattogno, and many others wouldn't have written so many books! "No Holes" and "Some Holes" are really just middle fingers at the establishment that can't even find the holes they insist must be there!

9. "Two value orientation" is about right/wrong in a moral sense. It is entirely different from the jurisprudential concept of witness credibility, falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, or common sense. If the Soviet Union was wrong about Katyn, wrong about 4 million, wrong about cremation rates, wrong about Majdanek, and wrong about many other things, then there's no reason to believe them on something else unless there is a compelling reason. And there is no compelling reason.

10. "That the Soviet prosecutors tried to blame some or their own atrocities on the Nazis does not mean that the Nazis did not commit atrocities them-selves." Yes, and it doesn't mean that they DID.

11. "Although the principal Soviet prosecutor at Nuremberg, Iona Nikitchenko, tried to enter the Katyn Massacre as a Nazi war crime in the indictment, the American and British prosecutors, already aware that the Soviets had carried out the massacre, refused to take judicial notice of the massacre as a Nazi crime." This is not true. Katyn was in the original indictment, and was read out to Goering. The Soviet Katyn book WAS entered in on 2/14/1946 under judicial notice of Article 21 and that is why there was a big cat fight when the Germans were allowed to rebut it.

12. "The massacre is mentioned only twice in the Nuremberg proceedings, and no-where in any judgment against any defendant."
Katyn is mentioned in IMT 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 39, and 40.
It was the subject of intensive discussion in court and witness examinations at the end of May, 1946.

by **Moderator** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 10:15 pm

On inquiries about Mathis:

The Moderators here have been through this, we have tried to work with Mathis.

But Mathis tries to hurt people, or have them hurt. He posts their alleged names, addresses, phone numbers, and work places, he even posts pictures of alleged Revisionist like wanted posters for god's sake.

He was permitted to post here and as usual, blew it and resorted to namecalling and spammed the board. He did the same thing at the CODOH BBS repeatedly, was readmitted, but continued his usual trash dance and got banned by CODOH's various moderators.

In other words, he's a low class individual, a man most foul who goes berserk when his unsupportable beliefs are refuted.

He will not be allowed to post here. We have guidelines which he has violated over & over again. His record is more than clear, and he only has himself to blame. However, all the points from his posts are here to be read anyway.

Thanks, Moderator 1

by **Kiwichap** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 5:22 am

Mr Mathis supplies the following conclusion to his article:
-GENERAL SEMANTICS AND HOLOCAUST DENIAL -

Conclusion
The Holocaust denial movement relies on the relative ignorance of the average person regarding the minutiae that makes up much of Holocaust historiography. However, much more dangerously, the deniers rely on several of the semantic traps that Korzybski and Hayakawa exposed decades ago.

This conclusion is wrong.

A more truthful conclusion would be:

The Holocaust movement relies on the relative ignorance of the average person regarding the minutiae that makes up much of Holocaust historiography.

The Holocaust denial movement relies, partly, on evidence gathered scientifically, that is, forensic evidence, chemistry, an absolute science.

Like Bradley Smith, I am sure revisionists are all willing to be convinced they are wrong.

However, to convince us we are wrong we will need to see evidence to the contrary.
We will need to hear strong, logical argument. We will need to see the scientific evidence Revisionism has gathered, scientifically refuted.

Mr Mathis says Revisionists rely on semantic traps. This must be embarrising for him as he is the only person, to my knowledge, to offer such argument, witness the present article. Who is relying on semantics Mr Mathis?

Mr Mathis continues:

While on-going historical inquiry on the history of the Third Reich will continue to shed light on this tragic period in human history, the application of the principles of general semantics to the propaganda of Holocaust deniers and other Nazi apologists can do much to discredit their claims.

As much as Mr Mathis would like it so, semantics can never discredit science.

To apply semantics, as an argument against science, is a foolish argument.

It immediately leaves the semanticist open to the charge of dishonesty.

If Mr Mathis is to advance his cause, he needs to get real!

But Mr Mathis cannot get real. If he did, he would be a revisionist.

by **PLAYWRIGHT** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:22 am

Look at his bibliography. He cites only nine works, of which only seven have anything to do with the Holocaust. THE BLACK BOOK OF POLISH JEWRY is dismissed as a wartime propaganda work even by the believers, he got his transcripts of the Eichmann trial from Nizkor and Israel, and as for the rest, he quotes from other people’s books.

Not a single source document listed! He didn’t “research” this article at all, just pulled down whatever he happened to have on his bookshelf. I’ve read high school papers with better documentation. Mathis could learn a thing or two from the example of David Irving.

Quoting from other people’s books is what high school and undergrad students do. For a man with a DOCTORATE, that’s impossibly amateurish.

NOTE: S.I. Hayakawa is the former U.S. Senator who was appointed Chancellor of the University of California-Berkeley by then Governor Ronald Reagan, where his mission was to stamp out free speech, doing everything he could to make sure that nobody translated thought into either language or action. I can’t believe he’d quote him, but he did.

Hey, what’s his doctorate in, anyway? And from where?

by **Goethe** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 3:12 pm

Not a single source document listed!

Quoting from other people’s books is what high school and undergrad students do. For a man with a DOCTORATE, that’s impossibly amateurish.

A big question here is how did he get a doctorate with so little knowledge of academic standards? He produces no evidence for the so called Holocaust, and exposes himself as an awkward amateur when it comes to semantics.

by **Guptalicious** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 3:35 pm

Mathis has the semantics here completely backwards. The "map" is the word Holocaust, the "terrain" is the nuts and bolts revisionists discuss. It is SHM* that insists on confusing the map with the terrain. For example, they never refer to a revisionist as a "gas chamber denier", or a "one million were cremated at Auschwitz denier". No, they insist on using the "map" to smear their opponents. And it has been done for so long that it is hard not to see intention at work.

* Standard Holocaust Mythology

'holocaust' denial article by Andrew Mathis debunked here

'holocaust' denial article by Andrew Mathis debunked here

Who is online