Burden of Proof

[SevenUp]

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.

They said the same thing about apartheid South Africa. By 'accepting the existence' of Israel as a Jewish state, like Chomsky and Finklestein, you have identified yourself as a Zionist. Believe it or not there are rational non-Zionists, Helen Thomas comes to mind.

Sevenup

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.

The Chomsky quotes are the strongest condemnation of holocaust denial that I've seen. He wrote that holocaust deniers have 'lost their humanity' and should be shunned. What more does it take to convince you that he is an integral part of the conspiracy. He gives cover to every academic to silence questioning the hoax.

Sevenup

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.

As I explained in my first or second post, I think you're wrong here. I'll go a little further. What is the strongest argument for the holocaust? I think it is that the academic community, people who study history for a living, hours on end, every day, for all of their lives, accept it 100% to a person (save Arthur Butz). What is the counter argument to that? That you, having perused a few web sites, know history better than they do? So, I think you have to counter the hoax directly, not only correct the historical account.

And I think the approach Bradley is taking is very ineffective. Now they boot him off campus before he even says the word holocaust. He whispers the word 'taboo' and the storm clouds form and he's outta there. He wouldn't dare say holohoax. What's the strength of this approach? Free speech is not the issue. The hoax is the issue. Look at what happened at UW at http://www.holohoax101.com/102/

Sevenup


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

I did mention Atzmon and said he wasn't a denier. But now, seeing your quotes I think I could be wrong. I based my opinion on a email exchange I had with him. Sometimes I email critics of Israel suggesting that they have a look at the holocaust, and I try to make a few quick arguments to entice them. Atzmon responded, most don't, and said that he was taking his 'own path' or something like that, which I viewed as a cop out. But his quotes are pretty suggestive of denial.

[Kingfisher]

By 'accepting the existence' of Israel as a Jewish state, like Chomsky and Finklestein, you have identified yourself as a Zionist.

I'm certainly not. Accepting is not the same thing as condoning. And I was talking de facto. I'm not going to start putting forward meaningless hypothetical "solutions". The situation's very different to SA. Very hard to envisage an analogous solution. I'm near totally pessimistic on it. But I don't want to pursue this further: it's OT.

Sorry I misquoted you on Atzmon. I find it tricky juggling the posting box and the earlier posts. I'm sure he doesn't believe the story, but it's very hard to come out explicitly, even if you aren't of Jewish/Israeli origin.

The Chomsky quotes are the strongest condemnation of holocaust denial that I've seen.

OK. I'll concede you that. I can only think he's never really examined it. If you're Jewish the story is going to screw you up. And we saw with David Cole what happens to Jews who don't conform. I can recognise this and still respect him for other things.

I agree Bradley is not being very effective, but nor is anyone else. I'd love to see Eric expose the Weasel, but do we really think it's going to happen? Or if it did that it would change many minds on the fundamentals? Sorry to sound pessimistic. I just am. This, "the busiest and liveliest forum..." once had a record 228 visitors (something of that order anyway). Last time I checked there was me, 2 visitors, a Google bot and a Yahoo bot.

What does bother me, that relates to our discussion, is that there is such a correlation between political position and Revisionism. After all we are talking about historical events, and as I have said before your opinion or mine have f. all to do with what actually happened. I'm left of centre on social issues, but open-minded and I form my judgements on what I see and read, not on my own political prejudices. True, I've been anti-Israeli for nearly 50 years (when no one else was), but I didn't question even the use of the holocaust by the HI until I heard Finkelstein on the radio 10 years ago. I didn't really question the H itself until very recently. Rassinier was a socialist. Revisionism is a view of historiography. It doesn't have to be right or left. It doesn't even, paradoxically, have to be anti-Zionist, since Zionism is a matter of opinion whereas the gas chambers are an issue of fact.

[The Warden]

Since this thread is way off track, I won't put much effort into responding.

I think it's important to keep in mind the old expression "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink".

Revisionism isn't about "changing the minds of others", it's about getting history recorded accurately. All you can do is put the truth out there, you can't make people read it. If the truth is placed out there properly, it will snowball into the minds of others. As far as I'm concerned, Revisionism is a disorganized mess. Even if someone's interest was sparked, they would be frustrated from all the zig zagging needed to research the easiest of topics. We all know you have to devote a lot of time to the subject if you have any hopes of learning the truth. Since we rely on facts, let's also remember that people today want the "quick fix". Unless the Revisionist work is laid out in the simplest way, no one will ever "change their minds" because they won't even look at it (Again, horse-water).

As it pertains to the burden of proof, if Revisionists can concentrate on and establish the burden of proof has not been met, that would be something the ignorant could understand. Most people don't know anything about the chemistry, Topf, Typhus, or anything else in more detail than the infamous six million number. If you want to lure people in, you have to keep it simple. It also noteworthy that most people won't discuss the topic out of fear, so the majority of the truth must be put out there by a few people.

You can't change peoples' minds. That's not a realistic goal. All you can do is give them the opportunity and the tools to do so themselves. And right now, after all these years, I've yet to see anything laid out for beginners that wouldn't run them off. It's a natural progression to concentrate on the details, but you have to have something to get them into the store before they buy something.

[Barncat]

I realise that we are OT but the points we are discussing still relate to "The Burden of Proof."

I believe that the implicit issue here is the choice that revisionists have between a radical and a
moderate stance. For moderate revisionists the issue seems to be one of petitioning people to support
open discussion of the Holocaust as any other issue might be discussed. The focus becomes one of free speech
with the historical aspects put on hold until the political climate can be resolved.

Radical revisionists appear to come from a perspective that would argue that there is already an overwhelming
compilation of research that has demonstrated that the conventional Holocaust narrative is not only a distortion
of historical truth but a calculated, self serving effort to utilise mendacity toward self serving ends. In short, the
issue for a radical revisionist is not simply one of free speech but one of outrage and anger.

If Jews and their supporters have purposefully faked an historical event in order to fortify an aggressive and
murderous political regime, it hardly seems that a dignified response is to beg to be allowed to debate the issues.

Therefore, a radical revisionist would believe that the "Burden of Proof" is barely an issue at this late date. The hoaxters
have no intention of providing proof because there is none. If this is the elephant in the room then that should be our
starting point.

[jheitwler]

In a debate, the burden of proof is on the side making an assertion. If you assert a fact, you need to provide the evidence that the fact is true. If somebody challenges your fact, they need to explain why the evidence you have provided is inadequate. They do not need to develop an alternate explanation for your evidence (although it is sometimes helpful if they do) and it is impossible for them to prove your facts are not true because it is impossible to prove a negative.

For our purposes, people who want to assert that there was a holocaust must 1) define what they mean by holocaust and 2) support their assertion with facts. It isn't up to us to prove that the holocaust didn't happen. We can't prove a negative. The best we can do is show how the evidence they rely upon is flawed.

Our problem is that the definition of "the holocaust" is an amorphous chameleon that everybody believes has already been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. You can't say to somebody something like, "the holocaust is a hoax and let me show you why." As soon as you say the holocaust is a hoax, your credibility sinks to zero. The best you can do is knock the wind out of the sails of a specific aspect of the holocaust. For example, one of my inlaws just got back from a trip to Germany that included a visit to Dachau. I asked her if they still had gas chambers there. This turned a brief discussion of how the Dachau gas chamber story has changed over time. Did this turn her into a revisionist? No. But maybe it got her thinking.

If I had come out with something like 'you know the gas chambers are just Jewish lies' I would have been dismissed as a hater.

And speaking of Jewish lies, I agree with Kingfisher and others that it is not necessary to explain the holocaust in terms of a Jewish conspiracy. There's no conspiracy among the Jews to swindle the goyim into believing in the holocaust so the Jews could steal Israel from the Palestinians. Yes, Israel and "the Jews" exploit the holocaust. But the holocaust isn't something that all Jews know is a fiction that they're using for their own ends. Jews believe the holocaust is true for the same reason everybody else does: They've been taught it's true and they have never had any reason to doubt it.

Jews can't even agree on a definition of who is Jewish. How can they perpetuate this conspiracy if they can't even agree on who to let in on it?

[Cloud]

it is impossible to prove a negative.

This is simply not true as any logician will tell you.

[Trude]

And speaking of Jewish lies, I agree with Kingfisher and others that it is not necessary to explain the holocaust in terms of a Jewish conspiracy. There's no conspiracy among the Jews to swindle the goyim into believing in the holocaust so the Jews could steal Israel from the Palestinians. Yes, Israel and "the Jews" exploit the holocaust. But the holocaust isn't something that all Jews know is a fiction that they're using for their own ends. Jews believe the holocaust is true for the same reason everybody else does: They've been taught it's true and they have never had any reason to doubt it.

If you want to insist on defining "the Jews" as every last Jew on earth, you can have your point. But that is never the case with any group. Leading Zionist Jews did conspire "to swindle the goyim into believing in the holocaust so the Jews could steal Israel from the Palestinians." There is evidence for that.

The rank and file Jews believe it because they've been taught it, you say. Okay, but they believe it with a vengence because they believe they are victims of anti-semitism without it. Goyim are afraid of "being" anti-semites. But still, why are there no Jews in Revisionism? There was David Cole. Since then, they have become more virulent and succeeded in preventing such as he. There is a distinct difference between most Jewish believers and non-Jewish believers. It is the Jews, with their loud conspiratorial campaign, who keep the non-Jews from raising questions. I don't think it's wise to ignore that. You just play into their game of control.

P.S. For example, the New York Times is a part of the conspiracy and has been for a loooong time. The BBC joined it somewhere along the line. The way it is done, it fits the definition of conspiracy.

[Kingfisher]

Barncat,

I think we are getting somewhere here. You've identified differences between moderate and radical revisionists. The next step is that we recognise and respect differences and try to analyse and understand them, rather than argue.

There appear to be two main aspects. One has emerged in the discussion between you and me. It is whether to push revisionism hard or to to regard breaking the taboo as the first step. I would say it's no contest, since you can't convince anyone of anything until you've persuaded (and legally allowed) them to listen to you, and taking a hard line from the start is likely to drive them away. You disagree with this.

The other point of difference was identified by jheltwier. I, in common with other moderates, do not see a big Jewish conspiracy. As he says, Jews believe the story for the same reasons everyone else does -- in spades, since they are subject to far stronger peer pressure even than the rest of us.

Cloud,

it is impossible to prove a negative.

This is simply not true as any logician will tell you.

I wanted to make the same point. I don't know why people repeat it, or quite what they mean. It is not difficult at all to prove that there isn't an elephant in my cellar. First of all because I don't have a cellar -- which is easily proved. So, provided the evidence can be presented and examined objectively it should not be difficult to show that 870,000 people were not murdered by Diesel engine, buried (for the most part) and dug up and burned in the space of a year at Treblinka.

Don't hold your breath though.

[Kingfisher]

Trude,

Leading Zionist Jews did conspire "to swindle the goyim into believing in the holocaust so the Jews could steal Israel from the Palestinians."

I don't know whether they believed the stories coming out of Poland, and the "evidence" presented by the Soviets, or not. It doesn't really matter. They certainly used it to advance their own ends. Was their behaviour in that respect any different to most power groups' at most times? And the Allied Powers of 1945 in particular? If we want to say that the Nazis were hard, but not the evil pantomime villains they are largely portrayed as today, then we should avoid similar simplistic caricatures of the Zionists too. Reality is more complicated than either of those pictures.

Another problem with your picture of swindling the goyim is that many of the most influential Zionists were largely not religious: out-and-out atheists and socialists, in fact. In recent years, of course, they have lost their influence and Israel has become more fundamentalist and more religious. Again, reality is more complex than your cliches.

There is not the slightest doubt that the Holocaust Industry today works to advance its own and Zionist interests, using the guilt complex generated by the alleged holocaust. Again, it doesn't mean they don't believe the story, probably including those whose own personal story is a sham. Even their Jewish opponents, like Finkelstein and Chomsky appear to believe it. And why would they not, since the rest of the world all does? Only antisemites who are sorry the Nazis didn't finish the job are "Holocaust Deniers". Do you want to confirm them in that belief?

As I have written above, I think the first (huge) step is to get the question into the open and to stop people being sent to prison. Then it is to fight the moral taboo, to stop the indoctrination in schools, and to get universities to allow the alternative case to be presented. After that we still have a very unequal fight against the heavily-funded holocaust PR industry. As, others have commented, it is now a religion, and look at all the other ludicrous things people will believe without question in the name of religion.

[Kingfisher]

It is the Jews, with their loud conspiratorial campaign, who keep the non-Jews from raising questions. I don't think it's wise to ignore that. You just play into their game of control.

Replace "conspiratorial" with "PR", and you're not far out.

P.S. For example, the New York Times is a part of the conspiracy and has been for a loooong time. The BBC joined it somewhere along the line. The way it is done, it fits the definition of conspiracy.

Disagree -- in the case of the BBC; I don't know enough about the NYT. Conspiracy implies knowing connivance. Not so. They have been brainwashed, like the whole of the rest of society. It's all "Flat Earth News":
"If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it”. Edward Bernays, father of PR and nephew of Sigmund Freud.

[Barncat]

Kingfisher,

You are arguing that it makes sense from a logical, realistic and pragmatic perspective
to shift focus away from the Jewish role in pitching the Holocaust narrative. Frankly, it
doesn't matter how conspiratorial a connection exists between various Jewish elements.
In reality, the hoax is not a major issue for the vast majority of people. There are, however,
many contemporary victims of Jewish swindling whether they may be individuals taken in
by Bernie Madoff or his ilk, or people whose children have died fighting in the Middle East
defending Jewish and Israeli expansionistic aims.

These are the people who need to be taught about the hoax, and you can't do that by soft pedalling
the Jewish issue.

[Trude]

Kingfisher,

[...]
In reality, the hoax is not a major issue for the vast majority of people. There are, however,
many contemporary victims of Jewish swindling whether they may be individuals taken in
by Bernie Madoff or his ilk, or people whose children have died fighting in the Middle East
defending Jewish and Israeli expansionistic aims.

These are the people who need to be taught about the hoax, and you can't do that by soft pedalling
the Jewish issue.

Thank you, Barncat. There is something very wrong, to my mind, in coming on here and arguing to focus only on gaining the right to debate. This will never be given and, meanwhile, the other issues are not seriously brought up?! Does Kingfisher know how long this asking for debates has been going on? If there is a debate, it is totally dishonest too, set up by the holocausters on their turf. So what is the point of him saying all this?

I admit I am suspicious of those who speak so smoothly and talk this way. Kingfisher speaks constantly of "we." He seems to want to take charge of what "we" do.

[Trude]

P.S. For example, the New York Times is a part of the conspiracy and has been for a loooong time. The BBC joined it somewhere along the line. The way it is done, it fits the definition of conspiracy.

Disagree -- in the case of the BBC; I don't know enough about the NYT. Conspiracy implies knowing connivance. Not so. They have been brainwashed, like the whole of the rest of society. It's all "Flat Earth News":
"If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it”. Edward Bernays, father of PR and nephew of Sigmund Freud.

You don't know enough about the BBC either. They are not simply brainwashed. They have an agenda and it is not just to print and broadcast the news they think people want. How naive are you? You are worrying about the word conspiracy as if it's too bad to say. Why so timid, Kingfisher? You talk about alienating people -- with the truth. Why should we be afraid to use the truth? The only people who are automatically turned off are those who don't want the truth, no matter what. Forget them.

[Trude]

Jofo
The spirit of this site, though not of all who post on the boards, is "Open Debate". If we want open debate we must ourselves be open to debate. I support absolutely Bradley's position that while our present understanding of the facts leads us to think that there were no gas chambers, as genuine sceptics we are open to evidence and debate, and prepared to change our position according to the evidence. This is the only basis on which we can ask those who do not currently share our view to examine and debate with us. It applies regardless of whether our personal view is a moderate or an extreme position.

This is triply valid in the special situation of Holocaust Revisionism, where no debate is allowed, by law in an increasing number of countries, and by taboo and censorship in others. For this reason, we should be concentrating on the first hurdle, breaking the taboo. It is a big enough one in itself. There must be many people out there who, if the subject were open to the normal principles of free inquiry, would have real doubts, but who at the moment are effectively brainwashed. I used to take it for granted that as the story was so universally believed and deniers so universally reviled it must be true.

We need to establish that, while it appeals to antisemites, there is nothing antisemitic about Revisionism in itself. At the same time, we must be free to criticize Jews, individually and communally, as much -- but no more -- as any other group.

I think it is specially important to recognize and respect the fairly small numbers of believers who are prepared to debate openly (as opposed to exchanging polemic) with us. Also those like Raoul Hilberg who, while still believing, recognized the misuse to which it was being put. The obvious case is Norman Finkelstein, though I suspect that Finkelstein may well have doubts, but dare not express them.

This is really revealing. First, I think you misunderstand and misrepresent Bradley Smith's position. I do not get from him that it is only "our present understanding" that lead us to refute the gas chambers. If "they" can prove it, then of course he would accept it, but he doesn't believe they can. You are OVERLY gentlemanly about this to the point of being a joke. Saying that once we get the "right" in ALL countries of the world to freely debate this, THEN we can discuss proofs, is a total failure of an approach.

You are far too worried about anti-Semites. And you put credibility in Hilberg and are satisfied just to attack the "holocaust industry" a la Finkelstein. Just how do you expect to make any progress that way? Who are you going to please, except the exterminationists.

It seems as if you prefer to continue talking, talking, talking -- showing off your glib language gifts -- than ending the grip of the hoax.

[Kingfisher]

Trude,

This is really revealing. First, I think you misunderstand and misrepresent Bradley Smith's position. I do not get from him that it is only "our present understanding" that lead us to refute the gas chambers. If "they" can prove it, then of course he would accept it, but he doesn't believe they can.

Which is precisely my understanding too. My understanding of Bradley's position, and my own position. I was deliberately phrasing it in a way you would use to engage non-revisionists in debate.

The rest of your post is ad hominem so I will ignore it.