Burden of Proof

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
JoFo
Member
Member
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 11:14 pm

Re: Burden of Proof

Postby JoFo » 1 decade 6 months ago (Sat Jul 03, 2010 6:11 pm)

Revisionists have proven many of the claims didn't happen the way the way they were laid out by the hoaxers, but nothing changes. The myth carries on. The standard held for Revisionists seems to be much higher for no apparent reason, while the standard for hoaxers appears to be missing.


Exactly! That's what is so frustrating about this debate in general. There already exist widely accepted standards of proof that apply to most other areas of discovery. But on this issue they tend to be ignored or distorted. As Kingfisher implied I am probably getting ahead of myself here by looking beyond the immediate focus of this forum, but I see the ultimate aim of this debate as the revelation of truth. It's ironic that revisionists are branded "deniers" when, from a philosophical standpoint, the opposite is more appropriate!

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1673
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: Burden of Proof

Postby Kingfisher » 1 decade 6 months ago (Sun Jul 04, 2010 7:56 am)

It's my opinion, the burden of proof has to rest on the original claimant.


On the moral and judicial level this is beyond dispute. Unfortunately there is also the practical level.

We might demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt that the mainstream story just does not stand up, and it won't do us a blind bit of good because no one will ever know. A second-level burden of proof that is virtually insurmountable.

I read something recently in A J P Taylor's Origins of the Second World War. I don't have the quote to hand and the context was different, but the gist was "The Soviet Union discovered that the best way to argue a position was to make no attempt whatsoever to argue it." And there you have "Holocaust Denial" in a nutshell: Because they are "Deniers" we don't have to answer their arguments. That way we don't need to present ours. In fact better protect the public from them by vilifying them, throwing them in prison and banning them from all the media.

I agree with everything you wrote---on the first level. How we get past the second level, I have no idea. I'd be glad to hear your (and other people's) views.

User avatar
Cloud
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 7:27 pm
Location: The Land of Political Correctness

Re: Burden of Proof

Postby Cloud » 1 decade 6 months ago (Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:15 am)

When Michael Shermer of Skeptic was on the Donahue show with Smith and Cole, he said that the burden of proof was on the deniers, but he didn't explain why.

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1673
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: Burden of Proof

Postby Kingfisher » 1 decade 6 months ago (Sun Jul 04, 2010 12:16 pm)

When Michael Shermer of Skeptic was on the Donahue show with Smith and Cole, he said that the burden of proof was on the deniers, but he didn't explain why.


If you want to disprove something the whole world believes is proven, then this is true at the practical level. For Shermer, an alleged intellectual, it is dishonest, as no one has genuinely "proven" the alleged events. It is difficult to think that Shermer believes the limited amount of highly contradictory testimony, coupled with a blanket refusal to do any forensic research, constitutes proof. Fair dos to Shermer, though. He is one of the few to debate head to head with people like Bradley and Mark Weber.

In the legal sense, it may be true, in that people have been convicted, so there is a verdict, a precedent, so the onus is on those appealing to show that the conviction was unsafe.

I thought Smith and Cole were superb, and ran rings round Shermer. A shame Cole refused to stay. Have his reasons ever been given? Was he fed up with the biased presentation? Was he threatened?

Barncat
Member
Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 9:37 pm

Re: Burden of Proof

Postby Barncat » 1 decade 6 months ago (Mon Jul 05, 2010 8:53 am)

Addressing the assertion by Kingfisher that the Holocaust need not have been consciously hoaxed to be
generally believed:

A key componant of the so-called Holocaust narrative involved the testimony of a vast number of alleged
participants who could not possibly have failed to understand that these atrocities did NOT happen. The
alleged "perpetrators" of the Reinhardt camps certainly knew that there were no gas chambers at Treblinka,
Belzec and Sobibor and yet failed to warn the world of this fact.

It is unmistakeable that the cooperation of these witnesses was purchased with torture, threats and bribery
to create a viable narrative. Kingfisher, this could not possibly be done without a conspiracy, and a very powerful one
at that. The idea that Jews inadvertantly stumbled and bungled a Holocaust narrative in innocence contradicts all that
I believe about the creators of the hoax. Yes, the hoax.

Barncat
Member
Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 9:37 pm

Re: Burden of Proof

Postby Barncat » 1 decade 6 months ago (Mon Jul 05, 2010 11:37 pm)

- It began with reports from Jewish and non-Jewish sources in Poland during the war. It was picked up by Allied propaganda services, who would have been concerned with its effectiveness, not its truth. The public and politicians probably believed it without even bothering to question it. It fed back into occupied Europe and into the camps, where the Jewish and Communist resistances will certainly have promoted it. Old hands, KAPOs and “tough” prisoners would have used the stories to scare newcomers and those lower in the pecking order, and to assert their authority. Released prisoners and escapees took the story back to the outside world, renewing the cycle.


Kingfisher, you propose a possible confluence of events and human error where the Holostory might have originated without
lying, manipulation and conspiracy. However, a key componant to the so - called Holocaust narrative are the testimonies of
quite a number of innocent individuals who were forced to play the role of perpetrator in this nefarious drama.

I cannot imagine Hoess, Franz Stangl, Eichmann etc stumbling into their critical niches by the mere elements of collective hysteria
and chance. The "perpetrator testimony" that may seem to lend credibility to this nonsensical tale of gas chambers and genocide could only have
been obtained via torture, threats, bribery and the utter corruption of several post war judicial systems.

In other words, to dismiss the concept of "the Hoax" from the Holobullcrap is to let Jews and Communist stooges off the hook for
the mistreatment and exploitation of innocent Germans.

The Warden
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 436
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:28 pm
Location: 'Murica!

Re: Burden of Proof

Postby The Warden » 1 decade 6 months ago (Mon Jul 05, 2010 11:43 pm)

Kingfisher wrote:
It's my opinion, the burden of proof has to rest on the original claimant.


On the moral and judicial level this is beyond dispute. Unfortunately there is also the practical level.

We might demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt that the mainstream story just does not stand up, and it won't do us a blind bit of good because no one will ever know. A second-level burden of proof that is virtually insurmountable.

I read something recently in A J P Taylor's Origins of the Second World War. I don't have the quote to hand and the context was different, but the gist was "The Soviet Union discovered that the best way to argue a position was to make no attempt whatsoever to argue it." And there you have "Holocaust Denial" in a nutshell: Because they are "Deniers" we don't have to answer their arguments. That way we don't need to present ours. In fact better protect the public from them by vilifying them, throwing them in prison and banning them from all the media.

I agree with everything you wrote---on the first level. How we get past the second level, I have no idea. I'd be glad to hear your (and other people's) views.


I could never claim to have the answer to a problem that has slowly progressed over the last 65 years. It's apparent the point of impasse was entirely ignored (most likely due to the expression "The victor writes history").

The Hoax is a religious-based victim industry, and previous debates in that genre have shown us you'll wind up with extremism (a complete lack of choice) or the never-ending, back and forth squabbling about opinion based on storytellers. Much like Christianity, the Hoax is a guide to living a certain type of life by specific rules set up by people passing on the words and teachings of mythical figures. Some accept them in a literal translation, while others know the words can mean whatever you want them to. I don't see how the Hoax is any different. One person passing on their version to another, and so it goes. In the end, grand scale thinking shows Christianity has been around for a long time, and it's slowly being eliminated and ruled as "evil" by other rising interest groups. The world is a very cyclical item, and remembering that not everything runs it course in our lifetime may be the only way to keep our sanity when dealing with people who are more interested in revenge or capitalizing on opportunity. If you asked me to prove Jesus existed, I would simply tell you I couldn't. All the tales in the world aren't physical evidence, but the teachings and lessons are more valuable than the actual existence, IMO. The Jews simply have their own ideals, but never took the concept of technology and criticism into consideration.

Most religions aren't very accepting of others, and the Hoax is no different. The only problem being, the Jews have made the law their ally, and use it to stifle their "opponents". This is why the Jews have crossed the line, and in all honesty, made it so the burden of proof is even more important for their own claims. Time has a way of working things out. Every "survivor" will be gone in fifty years. Whether or not they should be critically investigated now before they're gone is a matter of opinion, but getting each and every one on record would certainly pay off in the end. We've seen the result of documentation as opposed to the lack thereof. Perhaps, once all the "victims" and "survivors" are gone, things can go back to a more reasonable level. After all, there is a time line hindering the Jew efforts to establish the largest victim industry possible before their funding is cut off.

It's the very laws that exist (and being established) which outlaw the debate of the topic that will stop the progress of Revisionism. Stopping them (along with the reduction of funding) seems to be the best course of action. Once the doors to debate are closed, the Jews will have their permanent victim status. Each step taken to close those doors must be stopped by showing the burden of proof (as understood in the majority of legal matters) is absolute and necessary. The "accepted truth" from Nuremberg is the backbone of the problem. I read an article once about the validity of the Nuremberg Trial --- http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia ... erg-Trials ---. We all know if the "evidence" was presented in a court today, things would've turned out differently, but one of two things needs to happen; 1) Nuremberg decisions need to be dismantled (not going to happen) or 2) Revisionists need to get a foothold in the courts before they are silenced. If the Jews want Revisionists silenced, then perhaps revisionists should be in the courts establishing their rights to be heard. The importance of wording is as crucial as ever, and getting ahead of the game seems like a good idea. Knowing the goal of the Jews and their methods to do so should make it easier to stop. To use a poor sports analogy; If you know what play the other team is going to run, there's no reason to allow it to succeed.

The burden of proof on the original claimant has to be reestablished in all courts when it comes to the dealings of world affairs, but before that can happen, the right to argue it needs to be preserved. The burden of proof may be step 3 or beyond. Unfortunately, we also have those fifty years to get things in order.
Why the Holocaust Industry exists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A81P6YGw_c

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1673
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: Burden of Proof

Postby Kingfisher » 1 decade 6 months ago (Tue Jul 06, 2010 2:39 pm)

Kingfisher, you propose a possible confluence of events and human error where the Holostory might have originated without
lying, manipulation and conspiracy. However, a key componant to the so - called Holocaust narrative are the testimonies of
quite a number of innocent individuals who were forced to play the role of perpetrator in this nefarious drama.

I cannot imagine Hoess, Franz Stangl, Eichmann etc stumbling into their critical niches by the mere elements of collective hysteria
and chance. The "perpetrator testimony" that may seem to lend credibility to this nonsensical tale of gas chambers and genocide could only have
been obtained via torture, threats, bribery and the utter corruption of several post war judicial systems.

In other words, to dismiss the concept of "the Hoax" from the Holobullcrap is to let Jews and Communist stooges off the hook for
the mistreatment and exploitation of innocent Germans.


No, that's not really my position. In fact I don't have a clearly delineated position: I'm quite open to evidence.

I just don't know how far the parties involved, Jewish, American, British, Russian believed the stories coming out of Poland. I suspect the intelligence services were fairly sceptical. I'm pretty sure there was plenty of lying and manufacture of evidence from the Russian side, and there appears to have been some on the American side as far as Dachau was concerned. I was alive at the time, though far too young to understand anything. But I recall very clearly that "The only good German was a dead one". The levels of hatred are difficult to appreciate today. Nobody cared what happened to the Germans. Quite the contrary they were out for revenge and to make sure that "it never happened again".

I'm not suggesting for one moment that the "collective hysteria" applied to the Germans who "confessed". It's obvious that the confessions were obtained by a variety of forms of bargaining, manipulation and intimidation, including torture. The position of the interrogators was similar to that of the courts today: that everybody "knew" what had happened, so it was just a matter of getting the prisoners to "confess" what they were supposed to say. That Nuremberg was a travesty of justice is beyond doubt. But the hysteria probably applied to the interrogators and prosecutors, who believed what they wanted to believe, and were just out for a "result". Most people believe what they are told and no one questioned the evil Germans and their concentration camps at the time. Did the WJC, Morgenthau, etc. believe it? Probably. Just as most national, ethnic groups would in similar circumstances. You're more likely to believe an atrocity story if your own group are the victims, and the deportations and the camps were real enough. It doesn't make a lot of difference whether they did or not. Either way they wanted revenge on the Germans, and so did the Allies.

The Hoax is a religious-based victim industry...


Absolutely, yet this is actually a relatively recent development. Though the stories were generally believed (including the lampshades, etc.) in the years after the war, they were generally pushed into the background and nobody, not even Jews, particularly wanted to talk about them. The cold war was a major factor, of course, as the old enemy was suddenly an ally against the new one. The cult dates back to roughly 1980, since when what Finkelstein identified as the Holocaust Industry has gone from strength to strength. Before that the anti-denial laws only applied to Germany and Austria, on this side of the Iron Curtain at least. It's a massive PR campaign, and as such is concerned with emotional manipulation and not argument or debate.

Above, I've given reasons why I don't greatly stress the "hoax" aspect in my own thinking; I rather prefer Samuel Crowell's approach. It's not even specific to the "Holocaust"; the public perception of most events is conditioned by the media and very different from the reality. But there is another important angle to this, which is the picture we present to the public: PR, if you like... your opponents are professionals at it. The first step is to get people to look at the evidence against the conventional story; if you come over to them as an extremist and an antisemite they won't. Ad hominem it may be but most people won't listen to the story if they don't like the teller, and you must be only too aware of the image of the Holocaust Denier which is promoted, so don't confirm it.

Most people haven't a clue what happened, and just believe it because everyone else does and only those evil weirdos the "Holocaust Deniers" question it. I know... I've been there. That enough people to fill Wembley stadium (or the Super Bowl for other cultures) were allegedly murdered (with a Diesel engine!) every month for a year at Treblinka by a couple of dozen SS and a couple of hundred Ukrainians, then dug up and burned without leaving any material or documentary trace, is preposterous and was what finally tipped the balance for me. But the Holocaust Industry won't discuss what happened. They are just interested in sob story after sob story. It's professional PR. If people can actually see the evidence, some, at least, are going to start questioning the story. Nuremberg, too, is a sacred cow that doesn't stand up to investigation.

After all, there is a time line hindering the Jew efforts to establish the largest victim industry possible before their funding is cut off.

I'd have thought the opposite. The Industry has become self-financing. True that they can only do over the Swiss banks once, though, but I don't think they have much trouble raising money. The US Jewish community is one of the richest on Earth.

It's the very laws that exist (and being established) which outlaw the debate of the topic that will stop the progress of Revisionism. Stopping them (along with the reduction of funding) seems to be the best course of action. Once the doors to debate are closed, the Jews will have their permanent victim status. Each step taken to close those doors must be stopped by showing the burden of proof (as understood in the majority of legal matters) is absolute and necessary.


But how can we ever stop those laws? They are spreading to new countries and we don't even have the right to argue against the laws that stop us arguing. Even the UK and US. Two Englishmen were jailed for 3 and 4 years for publishing the Holocaust cartoons on a US web site. They fled to California but were refused political asylum and sent back. Only one (local) newspaper even reported the issue. Elsewhere, total censorship. The best hope is the Net, but at the moment "the biggest and liveliest revisionist forum on the net" has me, 2 visitors and the Google and Yahoo bots.

I think it would be helpful not to throw around accusations against "the Jews" in the same all-encompassing manner that people condemned "the Germans" after the war. Probably it is meant in the same way that people loosely say "the Americans" for the US government and political and economic establishment, but it is unhelpful. I have Jewish friends and there are plenty of Jews out there in public life who are actively anti-Zionist. Finkelstein has done more than anyone alive to expose the Holocaust Industry. Chomsky argues forcefully against Zionism and supported Faurisson's right to publish although he didn't agree with him. David Cole is Jewish. Gilad Atzmon is ethnically Jewish, though he renounces his background. Ilan Pappe... Michael Howard and Leon Brittan, who stopped the extension of Holocaust Denial laws to the whole of the EU, are both Jewish. If you mean Zionist, say Zionist. If you mean the Holocaust Industry, say so. Likewise for the ADL, AIPAC and the rest.

SevenUp
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 255
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:54 pm

Re: Burden of Proof

Postby SevenUp » 1 decade 6 months ago (Tue Jul 06, 2010 3:50 pm)

Kingfisher wrote:I have Jewish friends and there are plenty of Jews out there in public life who are actively anti-Zionist. Finkelstein has done more than anyone alive to expose the Holocaust Industry. Chomsky argues forcefully against Zionism and supported Faurisson's right to publish although he didn't agree with him. David Cole is Jewish. Gilad Atzmon is ethnically Jewish, though he renounces his background. Ilan Pappe... Michael Howard and Leon Brittan, who stopped the extension of Holocaust Denial laws to the whole of the EU, are both Jewish. If you mean Zionist, say Zionist. If you mean the Holocaust Industry, say so. Likewise for the ADL, AIPAC and the rest.


Enough of this nonsense ! Here is what Chomsky has to say about the holocaust ....

"The Holocaust was the most extreme atrocity in human history, and we lose our humanity if we are even willing to enter the arena of debate with those who seek to deny or underplay Nazi crimes."

"By entering into the arena of argument and counterargument, of technical feasibility and tactics, of footnotes and citations, by accepting the presumption of legitimacy of debate on certain issues, one has already lost one’s humanity."


Finkelstein is even better ..... you need to watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNQSV3BBtZ4 (this is great !) where Finklestein says ...

"My father was in Auschwitz"
"My mother was in Majdanek"
"Every single member of my family, on my father's side and on my mother's side, was exterminated."


The best part? Finklestein was born in 1953 !

Of the Jews you mention, only David Cole was a holocaust denier, and look what happened to him.

The holohoax is a Jewish conspiracy, one hundred percent.

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1673
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: Burden of Proof

Postby Kingfisher » 1 decade 6 months ago (Tue Jul 06, 2010 5:43 pm)

I neither suggested nor implied that Chomsky or Finkelstein were revisionists. I know both those quotes and I've seen the video. Chomsky clearly believes it is true. If it were his statement would be justified (apart from the attack on Revisionists). He may even have been motivated to keep his credibility with Jews in view of his strong antiZionism. It is a very categorical statement, but it is the only one on the subject I am aware of him making. Finkelstein was defending his position against some women trying to use the Holocaust emotionally to support Israeli attacks on Palestinians. He has always said that his mother's and father's families died in the Holocaust. Presumably they did either die or were lost contact with. If he believes the Holocaust story he will believe they were killed.

The points I was making are not invalidated. Don't see everything in black and white. You surely are not suggesting that these two men are part of your conspiracy? Anyway I'm only interested in the facts of the Holocaust. Historical events are totally independent of the opinions or statements of anyone today, including you and me. I could think that Jews were the finest people ever to walk the Earth and I would still find the Treblinka story ridiculous. I've known quite a few Jews I have got on well with. Generally, it is true, secular Jews with no particular attachment to Israel. It has f. all to do with whether people were gassed or not. identify your targets and aim at them. Don't fire grapeshot over everyone.

Stick to your hard line and give up any hope of ever breaking through. See what I mean? I only recently crossed the line to your side (after a very long period of doubts: decades of sympathy for Palestinians, then having my eyes opened to the Industry by Finkelstein) and you're trying to drive me back. How do you hope to persuade others?

After your first post I offered you a discussion. You didn't answer. You now seem to have decided to make this personal. If you have, well, sorry. I'm not joining in. Reply constructively and I'll answer. Otherwise I won't.
Last edited by Kingfisher on Wed Jul 07, 2010 1:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

SevenUp
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 255
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:54 pm

Re: Burden of Proof

Postby SevenUp » 1 decade 6 months ago (Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:45 pm)

Kingfisher wrote:. You surely are not suggesting that these two men are part of your conspiracy?


Of course Chomsky and Finklestein are part of the conspiracy. Their statements demonstrate it. Chomsky refuses to discuss the holohoax under any circumstances, beyond stating that it is one of the best documented genocides in history, an obvious lie, and condemning anyone who does discuss it. Finklestein has not, to my knowledge, and I've looked, given a shred of evidence that ANY member of his family was 'exterminated', yet he uses this line over and over. He is lying.

Kingfisher wrote:

After your first post I offered you a discussion. You didn't answer.


I thought I'd done a good job of presenting my argument in my first post, so, I didn't have anything to add. But when you characterize Chomsky and Finklestein as revisionists (as it seemed to me), or sympathetic to revisionists, or as anything but full fledged holocaust liars, who serve as gatekeepers to divert substantive opposition to Israel from the left , then I think your error should be corrected.

If you can name one Jew who challenges the holohoax lies, other than David Cole, I'll be surprised. I know that Atzmon doesn't. And I believe that every Jew has a special responsibility to challenge them, as they are using these lies as the justification for killing the Palestinians.

Ah yes, the question of Zionism. Both Chomsky and Finklestein are also full fledged Zionists. Of course they criticize Israel, that's their function as gate keepers. Chomsky in fact said it best ....

Keeping the People Passive & Obedient
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.


Chomsky and Finklestein serve to limit the spectrum of debate. They appear to be articulate critics, deep even, of Israel, and yet they both support the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish state, and are hence, by definition, Zionists. The full range of opinion on Israel is as follows:

1. Israel should ethnically cleanse all of Palestine, this is the right-wing ZIonists position
2. Israel should cede parts of Palestine to the Palestinians and co-exist with a Palestinian state. This is the humanistic Zionist position of Chomsky and Finklestein, the two-state solution.
3. Israel should unify the Palestine into a secular democratic state, this is the one state solution.
4. The Jews should get out of Palestine.

The spectrum of debate in the US only includes positions 1 and 2 above, 3 and 4 are TOTALLY excluded from the media, from politics, from government. They are verboten, taboo.

Chomsky and Finklestein actively cultivate the image of vociferous critics of Israel, thereby keeping the debate in the allowable spectrum, both with respect to Israel and with respect to the holohoax.

Barncat
Member
Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 9:37 pm

Re: Burden of Proof

Postby Barncat » 1 decade 6 months ago (Tue Jul 06, 2010 8:58 pm)

Stick to your hard line and give any hope of ever breaking through. See what I mean? I only recently crossed the line to your side (after a very long period of doubts: decades of sympathy for Palestinians, then having my eyes opened to the Industry by Finkelstein) and you're trying to drive me back. How do you hope to persuade others?


Kingfisher, if your commitment to revisionism is so precarious that a "hard line" perspective would drive you back
into the arms of the hoaxers then your position is without real merit. Debate about the hoax, in my view, is not
about polite politics and persuading the brainless masses of the civility of revisionists. It is about revealing the
truth without apology. As SevenUp is well aware, Jews like Finklestein and Chomsky are unambiguous apologists for
the Hololie. Their views on a few immediate aspects of Israeli military policy is no reason to get sentimental about
Jews and dismiss the basic facts about the hoax.

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1673
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: Burden of Proof

Postby Kingfisher » 1 decade 6 months ago (Wed Jul 07, 2010 1:22 am)

Barncat,

If you take that position you haven't a hope in hell of making any progress. I accept your position and I expect you to accept mine, which is much closer to the owner of this site than yours is.

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1673
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: Burden of Proof

Postby Kingfisher » 1 decade 6 months ago (Wed Jul 07, 2010 2:33 am)

Sevenup

I can't deal with everything you wrote as we are going way off topic. Probably Chomsky and Finkelstein do now accept the physical existence of Israel as a fait accompli, just as any rational realistic person now must. I don't see this a reason for rejecting their contribution. I certainly don't see them as apologists. I disagree with Chomsky on this "denial" point, but I don't know how frequently he has made it, how strongly he feels it or his reasons for it. Not a problem. I'm not here to defend him.

My point is that you will not encourage potentially sympathetic believers to question by taking a hard line. Take that hard line as your personal stance but don't require it of others. "He who is not for us is against us" will not make many converts. Bradley is taking the right line. When he speaks it is to defend the right to speak, not to push revisionism. The first step is to break the taboo, to get people to even consider your right to a view. It's a mammoth task in itself, and without it you can forget any other progress.

You didn't mention Atzmon but here are a few quotes:

Yes, I am a survivor, for I have managed to survive all the scary accounts of the Holocaust: the one about the soap, the one about the lamp shades, the one about the camps, the mass shooting, the one about the gas and the one about the death march. I just managed to survive them all.

In spite of all these fear inflicting stories, that were purposely installed in my soul since I opened my eyes for the first time, I have become a functional and even a successful human being.


I am left puzzled here; if the Nazis ran a death factory in Auschwitz-Birkenau, why would the Jewish prisoners join them at the end of the war? Why didn’t the Jews wait for their Red liberators?

Instead of a history text, Jews have the Holocaust, an event that matured into a religion.


In the Jewish intellectual ghetto, one decides what the future ought to be, then one constructs ‘a past’ accordingly.


When I was young and naive I was also somehow convinced that what they told us about our ‘collective’ Jewish past really happened. I believed it all, the Kingdom of David, Massada, and then the Holocaust: the soap, the lampshade,1 the death march, the six million.

As it happened, it took me many years to understand that the Holocaust, the core belief of the contemporary Jewish faith, was not at all an historical narrative for historical narratives do not need the protection of the law and politicians. It took me years to grasp that my great-grandmother wasn’t made into a ‘soap’ or a ‘lampshade’. She probably perished out of exhaustion, typhus or maybe even by mass shooting. This was indeed bad and tragic enough, however not that different from the fate of many millions of Ukrainians who learned what communism meant for real. “Some of the worst mass murderers in history were Jews” writes Zionist Sever Plocker on the Israeli Ynet disclosing the Holodomor and Jewish involvement in this colossal crime, probably the greatest crime of the 20th century. The fate of my great-grandmother was not any different from hundreds of thousands of German civilians who died in an orchestrated indiscriminate bombing, because they were Germans. Similarly, people in Hiroshima died just because they were Japanese. 1 million Vietnamese died just because they were Vietnamese and 1.3 million Iraqis died because they were Iraqis. In short, the tragic circumstances of my great grandmother wasn’t that special after all.

Barncat
Member
Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 9:37 pm

Re: Burden of Proof

Postby Barncat » 1 decade 6 months ago (Wed Jul 07, 2010 6:55 am)

If you take that position you haven't a hope in hell of making any progress. I accept your position and I expect you to accept mine, which is much closer to the owner of this site than yours is.


Kingfisher, a wishy washy revisionism that would posit that the Holocaust myth was derived from rumors,
hysteria, overly zealous prosecutors and the normal behaviors of honest people under the duress of post war chaos
simply will not create more than a mild reduction of "Holocaust statistics."

A real change in peoples thinking requires an awareness of deliberate malice. I personally have no problems with
Jews or the idea that some Jews are better than others or even the idea that some Jews are truely heroic - I have
heard that Zundel is half Jewish - but to disregard the perfidity of Jews as a factor in the hoax is going too far.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests