the impossibility of debate on most forums

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
ericblair
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 6:58 pm

the impossibility of debate on most forums

Postby ericblair » 9 years 18 hours ago (Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:11 pm)

just recently i was reprimanded for mentioning the H topic once to often in a small vaguely leftish forum that i frequent and after some to and fro on the subject of free speech, to demonstrate how "open-minded" were the admins, i was invited to stage a debate, which was to be "the last word" i would be allowed on the subject forever.

never one to refuse a challenge, but knowing how these things gernerally pan out from experience, i agreed, but only on the condition that i proposed the resolution and that certain conduct guidelines were observed. here's what i came up with:

---------

RESOLUTION:
that jews and other non-combatant "enemies of the reich" were intentionally murdered en-masse by means of gassing and/or deliberately imposed privations at extermination facilities is a wartime propaganda invention contrived and sustained up until the present day by a coalition of powerful vested-interests.

specifically excuded from the discussion are deaths resulting from a/ einsatzgruppen activities and/or anti-partisan operations on the eastern front and b/ the domestic T4 euthanasia program, which have their own specific conditions and contexts.

CONDUCT GUIDELINES:
no spitting, gouging,
playing to the gallery, ad-homs, rhetorical outrage ("how very dare you!"), strawmen, unsupported appeals to authority,
sarcasm, irony,
no imputing base motivations onto other particpants, (which includes sly innuendoes). you may assume for the purposes of the debate that i am the director of yad vashem playing devil's advocate on his day off.
no sophistry, eg.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skep ... ments.html
dodging questions / changing the subject,
no spamming the thread with images or volumes of pasted references; links plus extracts and a required comment (in your own words) only.
and no ***** abusive language.

this is a serious subject. please treat it seriously, or stay out of the thread. OK?

---------

there was a bit of grumbling about the guidelines, particularly from a couple of regular posters whose "debating" style i knew would have been severely cramped thereby and another couple who opined that such things did not need to be spelled out and were observed anyway by civilized people as a matter of course. to the latter i replied that you'd be amazed at the high jinks that "civilized people" get up to when debating a subject in which they are emotionally invested. i then posted an opening statement compiled from a number of sources as an overview of the revisionist perspective on the subject, some of it shamelessly cut and pasted from a couple of excellent contributions to this forum -- one in particular from poster kingfisher -- uncredited i'm afraid, as the source would have alienated them from the outset, and it was only intended as an abstract overview.

---------

i'll begin with a brief potted history of german WWII atrocity allegations compiled from a revisionist/propaganda perspective.

in response, i'd be interested in hearing what it is that convinces posters that the revisionists' arguments are wrong (if they have ever thought that through) and i will address those points individually as best i can.


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.

When Belsen and other camps were liberated, it appeared to confirm all the worst horror stories. The press and radio convinced the outside world which was all too ready to believe. This was the end of the worst conflict in history and the enemy had to be portrayed as subhuman to motivate and to justify.

As well as the need to convince the folks back home, German public opinion also had to be turned away from any slightest sympathy with the Nazis, in order to manage a peaceful occupation with no danger of internal resistance.

Army PsychWar units were among the first into the camps and they produced theicr exhibitions of lampshades and tattoos and they made propaganda films, with the help of professional film makers like Billy Wilder and ALfred Hitchcok. It all served to distract attention from the very real brutalities of the Allies: the Russian rapes and murders, the displacement of millions of Eastern Germans, the fire bombing of cities, the awful conditions of German POWs. It worked and has lasted to this day. The one thing that brands the Nazis as irredeemably evil beyond the general level of wartime brutality is the attempted extermination of a people.

the nuremberg (and other) war-crimes trials of 1945-49, undertaken only after intense lobbying by the world jewish congress (which also played a big role in determining its focus [on jewish suffering] according to former president Nahum Goldmann), solidified the ideas of the gas chambers and the death total of 6 million jews. this was despite the proceedings being manifestly political in character violating ancient and fundamental principles of justice, a fact acknowledged by prominent legal figures at the time, with much of the case against the defendants coming via testimony from soviet extraordinary commissions which was accepted into evidence unchallenged, including documents of dubious provenance and sealed witness accounts.

The Zionist lobby needed the holocaust story to justify the occupation of Palestine.

Far from it being difficult to continue the wartime propaganda into peacetime, it would actually have been harder to do the opposite and acknowledge that it had all been propaganda.

that said, for 15 years following the end of the war, germany's wartime treatment of the jews was not prominent in the public consciousness despite the publication of a great number of jewish camp memoirs such as those of elie wiesel, primo levi and others.

for instance, the 1961 edition of the Encylcopedia Britannica contained only two short paragraphs on "the holocaust" (it wasn't then called "the holocaust") out of its 24 volumes of fine print. Also in the voluminous wartime memoirs of eisenhower, churhill and degaulle, 7,061 pages (not including the introductory parts), published from 1948 to 1959, one will find no mention either of Nazi 'gas chambers,' a 'genocide' of the Jews, or of 'six million' Jewish victims of the war."

the first dissenters from the mainstream view also emerged soon after the war, notably the frenchman paul rassinier who is generally acknowledged as the founder of scholarly Holocaust revisionism. During the Second World War, he co-founded the "Libé-Nord" underground Resistance organization, which helped smuggle Jews from German-occupied France into Switzerland. As a result, he was arrested by the Gestapo in October 1943 and deported to Germany, where he was held prisoner until the end of the war in Buchenwald and Dora concentration camps.Rassinier was profoundly distressed by the many lies and myths about the concentration camps that were being circulated and in a series of books, Rassinier related his camp experiences, and sought to set the record straight about the camps and Germany's wartime Jewish policy. He wrote:

"Then one day I realized that a false picture of the German camps had been created and that the problem of the concentration camps was a universal one, not just one that could be disposed of by placing it on the doorstep of the National Socialists. The deportees — many of whom were Communists — had been largely responsible for leading international political thinking to such an erroneous conclusion. I suddenly felt that by remaining silent I was an accomplice to a dangerous influence."

in 1961, Nazi mastermind Adolf Eichmann went to trial in Israel. The proceedings were publicized world-wide, and more than a hundred survivors testified in Jerusalem. Dorothy Rabinowitz analyzed the effect of the trial, writing that for many it was a "galvanizing force, bringing [American Jews] face to face with emotions theretofore repressed, with events whose full scope and reverberations had been kept, rumbling, beneath the surface of consciousness"

The next most salient event in the resurrection of the Holocaust in American memory, however, occurred in 1967 with the Israeli victory of the Six-Day War which was accompanied by a huge propaganda effort on the part of the supporters of israel to justify that outcome in the media.

interest in the history of WWII was also spurred by Anti-Vietnam war activists using images of Nazi atrocities to link the United States with the perpetrators of the Holocaust, equating the soldiers at My Lai with storm troopers. The lack of American action to destroy the camps during World War II was compared to the passivity of the public regarding military action in Vietnam. At the same time, universities all over the country began teaching courses focussed on the Holocaust. Raul Hilberg argues that "After the disorientation of Vietnam, [American students] wanted to know the difference between good and evil. The Holocaust is the benchmark, the defining moment in the drama of good and evil. . . Against this single occurrence, one would assess all other deeds. And so, memorialization began in earnest"

In the late 60s and early 70s nazi concentration camp motifs began to appear more regularly out of hollywood and in television dramas and documentaries culminating in 1978 when NBC aired a miniseries, The Holocaust, which attracted an audience of 120 million people. Film historian Judith Doneson asserted that "people in Idaho, North Dakota, New York-- throughout the United States-- were now initiated, albeit in a simplified manner, into the world of Nazi genocide against the Jews". Several weeks later, President Jimmy Carter announced the creation of a commission on the Holocaust (as it was thereafter to be known), charged with deciding on a suitable American memorial to the victims of the Holocaust. The place of the Holocaust in the American consciousness was now firm.

that year also marked the birth of the Holocaust Industry identified by Norman Finkelstein as it began its massive and well-financed PR campaign, creating the Holocaust Cult which we all know today, with it's dogmas, temples, Holy Sites, pilgimages and Doctrines taught in schools.parallel to this, but entirely ignored by the mainstream media, holocaust revisionism also developed through the 60s and 70s with the publication of numerous works debunking the orthodox view, perhaps the most influential being Arthur Butz's "the hoax of the 20th century" and the writings of Dr. Robert Faurisson including 2 revisionist articles published in le monde in 1978 challenging the gas chamber myth, which caused major uproar in france.

In 1979, the German Judge Dr. Wilhelm Stäglich published his book The Auschwitz Myth, in which he critically analyzed the evidence for the ‘Holocaust’, mainly as presented during the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial in 1963-1965.9 This book of high scholarly standards caused a major furor in Germany, leading to its confiscation and burning, the withdrawal of Stäglich’s PhD title by the once famous University of Göttingen, and the change of German penalty law to outlaw revisionism. more than a dozen other countries soon followed suit with regular prosecutions of revisionists ongoing up until the present day.

the best known and most influential of these were probably the Canadian "Holocaust Trials” of 1985 and 1988 in which Ernst Zundel was brought to court in Toronto on a charge of “publishing false news,” and specifically for publishing a reprint edition of a booklet entitled Did Six Million Really Die?. Zundel’s two lengthy trials – the 1985 trial lasted two months, and the 1988 trial lasted four months – have been the closest thing anywhere to full scale debates on the Holocaust issue. For the first time ever, “Holocaust survivors” and Holocaust historians were closely and critically questioned under oath about their claims and views.

To wage the legal battle that was forced upon him, he brought together an impressive international team of revisionist scholars, legal specialists, researchers, and many others. From numerous libraries and archives in North America and Europe, this group assembled one of the most impressive collections of evidence anywhere on this chapter of history.

Among those who testified on Zundel’s behalf in the trials were Robert Faurisson, Mark Weber, William Lindsey, Udo Walendy, and Bradley Smith. As a result of the two trials, an enormous quantity of compelling evidence refuting the familiar Holocaust extermination story was presented to the court and thereby was made part of the permanent public record. Perhaps the most important of this evidence was the historic testimony of American gas chamber expert Fred Leuchter about his on-site forensic examination of the alleged extermination gas chambers in Poland (since repeated by other researchers) which proved that they could not have served the purpose that is claimed.

notice must also be taken of a propaganda tract published by emory professor of jewish history (and avowed zionist) Deborah Lipstadt in 1994, "Denying the Holocaust" where she develops the anti-intellectual thesis that revisionists must not be debated. to quote revisionist reviewer carlo mattogno:

"The falsehood of revisionism having Nazi origins, is not merely upheld with an unparalleled stridency, that smear actually comprises the very essence and raison d'etre of her entire book. [..] the tale which is repeated in all forms and flavors - reocurring obsessively throughout her entire book and constituting its fundamental thesis, is that revisionists are Nazis; or Neo-Nazis; racists; anti-semites; and so therefore, revisionists are liars".

and to give you a flavour of ms. lipstadt's detachment on this topic she assigned [Binjamin Wilkormiski's book] Fragments in her Emory University class on Holocaust memoirs. "When confronted with evidence that it is a fraud [the author spent the war in comfort in Switzerland, not Auschwitz, and was not even a Jew], she commented that the new revelations 'might complicate matters somewhat, but [the work] is still powerful.'" -- In other words, who cares about fact or fiction where the Holocaust is concerned?

which bring us to today. In a perfectly just world the burden of proof lies with the accuser. But in the real world, 99% of people not only *know* revisionists are wrong but also believe it is evil to entertain a revisionist viewpoint. They will meet you with ad hominem attacks and a blanket refusal to listen. For holding such a view you are subject to imprisonment in a number of countries, a universal taboo, loss of your livelihood, physical violence and total censorship of your viewpoint from everywhere except the Net. Even here, revisionist sites are surrounded by an electric fence of taboo, and actual censorship by libraries and schools. So it's pretty clear where the effective burden of proof lies. It is doubtful if revisionism will ever succeed in breaking through this barrier.

---------

to cut to the chase ...
the "debate" didn't go too well. it lasted all of one day. all the guidelines were breached and I'm now effectively banned from the forum.
if anybody is interested in a blow-by-blow, i'll follow-up.
depressing really that even when you think you've covered all the bases, and you bend over backwards to be civil, it still ends up as a car crash. even with an audience or ordinary grazers, who you might expect not to be so polarised.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9866
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: the impossibility of debate on most forums

Postby Hannover » 9 years 17 hours ago (Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:33 pm)

Good work, Eric.

The hysterical, irrational methods employed against Revisionists are the ultimate indicators of the absurd quality of the 'holocaust' storyline. Those that are confident in their ability to debate an opposing viewpoint do not engage in hysterical, irrational behavior.

You won the debate. They are content to die stupid.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2359
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Re: the impossibility of debate on most forums

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 9 years 16 hours ago (Wed Oct 13, 2010 7:33 pm)

Before reading the end of your post, I predicted that what would happen was immediate breaking of the guidelines.

I'm guessing it was a lot of sarcastic strawmans, and then those posters jeering when you called them on it.

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

Re: the impossibility of debate on most forums

Postby Kingfisher » 9 years 15 hours ago (Wed Oct 13, 2010 8:37 pm)

Eric, I'm delighted if my contribution helped in any way. Sad to see all your efforts rewarded with the usual predictable rubbish.

I recommend your list of fallacious arguments to a number of posters on this forum ;). Stick around. We need people like you.

Carolyn Yeager
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 355
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 11:55 pm

Re: the impossibility of debate on most forums

Postby Carolyn Yeager » 9 years 14 hours ago (Wed Oct 13, 2010 9:37 pm)

ericblair wrote:there was a bit of grumbling about the guidelines, particularly from a couple of regular posters whose "debating" style i knew would have been severely cramped thereby and another couple who opined that such things did not need to be spelled out and were observed anyway by civilized people as a matter of course. to the latter i replied that you'd be amazed at the high jinks that "civilized people" get up to when debating a subject in which they are emotionally invested. i then posted an opening statement compiled from a number of sources as an overview of the revisionist perspective on the subject, some of it shamelessly cut and pasted from a couple of excellent contributions to this forum -- one in particular from poster kingfisher -- uncredited i'm afraid, as the source would have alienated them from the outset, and it was only intended as an abstract overview.


Eric, this is why I don't believe in the "quiet reasonableness" promoted by Kingfisher. As you see, it didn't work although you had everything in perfect order. I wonder why Kingfisher is proud that you used his arguments in order to fail. :mrgreen: Well, I'm kidding because I would rather that you had gained a convert or two. But here's the thing: I don't think most on that forum ever read it; I couldn't really read it myself. If they read it, it was quick and they didn't try to think about or digest any of it. It was too much all at once.

It has to be something powerful - one thing at a time - that grabs their attention. They may scream and howl, but they can't deny because it's demonstrably true! Quiet reasonableness can work over time with someone who is open to listening and thinking, but to those who are not (most) it is just passing wind. It makes no impression.
---------

ericblair wrote:It's depressing really that even when you think you've covered all the bases, and you bend over backwards to be civil, it still ends up as a car crash. even with an audience or ordinary grazers, who you might expect not to be so polarised.

As I said, covering all the bases is not it. It's one thing that sticks in their mind. And never bend over backwards. You appear weak and that makes them dislike you right away. Live and learn. But I thank you for sharing your experience.
In Jewish history there are no coincidences ... Elie Wiesel
Learn more at http://eliewieseltattoo.com

Auschwitz: The Underground Guided Tour http://carolynyeager.net/auschwitz-unde ... uided-tour

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

Re: the impossibility of debate on most forums

Postby The Warden » 9 years 13 hours ago (Wed Oct 13, 2010 11:20 pm)

Kingfisher wrote:I recommend your list of fallacious arguments to a number of posters on this forum ;). Stick around. We need people like you.


I second the motion.
Why the Holocaust Industry exists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A81P6YGw_c

vladkampfer
Member
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 12:40 am

Re: the impossibility of debate on most forums

Postby vladkampfer » 9 years 13 hours ago (Wed Oct 13, 2010 11:21 pm)

Eric,

This is good experience for you as it pertains to 'debating' the Hoaxocau$t topic. As you've come to find out, and you already knew, but 'civil debate' about the Hoaxocau$t is about as civil as a hammer to the face. :blackeye:

Take Carolyn's point of view into consideration. For instance, if I said, "Do you remember that part in the movie: The Network?" You'd IMMEDIATELY recall what I'm talking about. (Because it elicits a strong response when you see the film, it personally resonates within you.) That is the kind of substance a person needs to have behind their 'debate.' To be absolutely jolting with dozens of examples and long pieces of text won't do a whole lot... but that short paragraph that kicks a person in the balls will. Find a way to write about the Hoaxocau$t in this way, and you'll get more people who will research it on their own. Ultimately, we can only lead the horse to water, you know what I mean?

Also, a lot of people can't be bothered to actually read anything longer than two paragraphs. I'd consider a large lot of people at CODOH, myself included, that have the discipline to sit and read very long passages of text at once. Most people need a 5 minute movie with music with very little text because they're too lazy. Short and sweet reality shattering pieces of text is what you need.

Keep at it. I also wouldn't consider the outcome to be a "failure", it's a learning experience. You evaluate, take what works, realize what doesn't, junk it, and start anew. 8)

ps
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 174
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 11:29 am

Re: the impossibility of debate on most forums

Postby ps » 9 years 13 hours ago (Wed Oct 13, 2010 11:30 pm)

There are various ways to the problem of "Holocaust" to discuss. One way is to sneak around the bush. This follows a long discussion. I prefer another possibility, which for a long discussion unnecessary. I go straight to the gas chamber.

It has only one question to be clarified in advance: "Does it make sense, dead jews to kill with Zyklon B?"

If this question is answered with "No", you can proceed. This is determined that it can be useful only to gas living jews.

This is for the Holocaust, especially for the gas chambers, an incredibly important discovery with the utmost importance!

The realization that it only makes sense to gasify living jews include namely the same time that all of the gasification process, ie the complete evaporation of hydrogen cyanide within the time must be completed!

This is very important! For if the cyanide gas release for the killing had not yet completed, might have been gassed dead jews!

One can then say no later than the time of sacrifice, the entire used cyanide in the gaseous state have been transformed.

More needs to know about the gassings with Zyklon B does not. Of course, another thing that is looked like the pot and how the physical properties of Zyklon B. But that is part of the tools of every revisionists (Kula-wire mesh columns, "Partie Mobile"). At least it should be.

This finding is not necessary to already the question of how poisonous hydrocyanic acid is! It is unnecessary, the question of the amount used at a gassing Zyklon B! Needless to the question of how many Jews in the gas chamber was actually! And there is no need to question how many holes in the gas chamber ceiling have been! And there is no need to question whether the gas chamber is a reconstruction or not!

Why?

The evaporation of hydrogen cyanide heat energy is required. We know that the heat energy was supplied only by the gas chamber itself, ie by the difference in temperature of the gas chamber temperature to the boiling point temperature of the hydrogen cyanide. The pot had its own heating source that is definitely not!

We know the bulk density of Zyklon B, and we know the cyanide content of Zyklon B. Accordingly, had 1 kg prussic acid a volume of 0.00369 m³.

If 1 kg prussic acid ( =1 kg Zyklon B) was poured into the pot, she wetted a heat transfer surface according to the known pan geometry of 0.177 m².

For the evaporation of 1 kg of cyanide 976 000 J are needed. Accordingly, had the pot surface to transfer a heat energy of 976 000 J / 0.177m² = 5.51 million J/m² , so that the underlying hydrocyanic acid was evaporated. At least. And so by the time of sacrifice had to be done. Because one would otherwise gassed dead Jews!

It must have been raises the question of how high must the gas chamber temperature, within the time of sacrifice an amount of heat of 5.51 million J/m² could penetrate. This can be roughly calculated or determined in an experiment.

From the building construction a heat transfer coefficient of about alpha = 20 W/m²K = 20 J/sm²K known. We can now calculate the temperature difference between the gas chamber and hydrocyanic acid boiling point charge:

dT = Q / (alpha * killing time)

For a killing time of 3 minutes = 180 seconds, we therefore get an approximate gas chamber temperature at a boiling point of hydrocyanic acid from 26°C:

T = 26°C + dT
an so we get
T = 26°C + 5.51 million J/m² / (20 J/sm²K * 180s) = 1556°C

Any questions?

Sure. One can still talk about the number of victims who were killed in this white-hot gas chambers with Zyklon B.

ericblair
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 6:58 pm

Re: the impossibility of debate on most forums

Postby ericblair » 9 years 12 hours ago (Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:06 am)

here's how it went. (other people's quotes highlighted)

somebody asked if my opening was all my own work, to which i replied:
"it's my assemblage of excerpts from numerous sources"
however before i could even type that reply a couple of posters had found some of my sources and the big issue then became my "plagiarism". after a bit more in this vein i posted this reply:

"?? plagiarism is hardly relevant here. this is not a phD dissertation. why re-invent the wheel? but neither is it a straight grab from a propaganda site, if that is what you are implying. the structure and emphasis is mine.
the sources are not relevant as i am not quoting them authoritatively. it was meant as an abstract summary of the revisionist position only. if you want to challenge any point in the piece then raise it and i'll address it.
if you could dedicate the time reqiired to write a summary like that completely in my own words then you have a lot more time on you hands than do i.
this is a complete rhetorical distraction tactic and i refer you to post 1 guidelines. "

somebody else then accused me of breaching my own guidelines by "spamming the thread" with quoted material to which i replied that the proposer of a debate is entitled to an opening statement.

another:
"Have you actually done any of your own research on the matter or have you just been brainwashed by a load of revisionist websites? "


and another:
"Because pasting a huge volume of text from different sites and merging them into a single essay can be seen as being disingenuous. It's more commonly accepted to precis a source or collection of sources and to provide links. That way people can judge the credibility of those links and can click on them for further information if they want to find out more. Posting in this style makes your argument more concise as well and doesn't run the risk of people being faced with a huge volume of text that they skim over thereby missing important points that would otherwise stand out."


to the above i replied:
"completely wrong context. and another distraction tactic, imo.
this is a forum debate not a written academic thesis.
when did a speaker opening a debate have to annotate references?
and as i have said now several times, nothing was quoted authoritatively."

her reply:
"By all accepted commonly used definitions this would be classed as plagiarism and therefore is unacceptable. An MSc student I once supervised was failed for exactly this kind of plagiarism. It is therefore not fair use.
You have come up with a list of rules. Well this one is mine.
No plagiarism.
This is a discussion forum for debate. It is not a forum for propaganda masquerading as debate."
[..]
No. I mean it. This applies to all serious discussion on this forum. Your favourite subject is not exempt. Debate properly or there will be no debate.
Provide links.
Quote where appropriate.
Do not plagiarise.
Discuss points one at a time.


this from the person who was yet to discuss a single substantive point!

then somebody quoted my whole opening statement back at me with the paragraphs numbered and
"please could you provide documented, checkable sources for the following."


between all this guff a few genuine questions came in which i answered:
"Eric, can you confirm you're of the opinion that each and every single eye witness account that goes against your resolution is a lie?"

i explained how the direct "witnesses" were few in number and some of them had lied while others were deluded,

"Why have the victims of this massive slander not made more of a fuss Eric?"

i cited richard baer and others and that:
"alternative narratives if they existed were suppressed and denied and a new political class was established which enforced a separation form the past. this process continues in germany to this day"

"Please post some evidence for the Global Jewish Conspiracy"

i said that "conspiracy" was a bit ripe but point out the plethora of jewish lobbying organisations and their business and media sponsors existing then and now sharing a common agenda.

next somebody actually tried to refute leuchter by reference to a wikipedia link and the errol morris documentary for authority.
i replied that an encyclopedia that point-blank refuses to host a revisionism entry (all resolves to "denial") is hardly being even-handed on the subject, and posted a link to a rudolf article on the fraudulent krakow institute report.

the fairness of IMT nuremberg was also asserted in response to which i posted an IHR piece by weber on it, where commenced the next tide of distraction:

Eric, do you think the IHR is a reasonable, accurate and unbiased source to use?
"At it's first meeting the IHR offered $50,000 to anybody "who could prove that the Nazis operated gas-chambers to exterminate Jews during World War II." A chap called Mel Mermelstein submitted evidence, they refused to pay, he took them to court for breach of contract and won."


i posted the IHR's version of that case in response where the judge in the case took "judicial notice" of the fact that "Jews were gassed to death at the Auschwitz Concentration Camp in Poland during the summer of 1944" and brought up the JDL bombing of the IHR offices and the campaign waged against them in the press and in the courts.

"For anyone who's not heard of the Institute for Historical Review:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_ ... of_methods
Their journal is not peer reviewed.
Eric - do you have any peer reviewed material that backs up any of your claims?"
[..]
I would like some peer reviewed material that backs up the Leuchter report.


my reply:
"check out the germar rudolf link i posted for xxxxxx. he went to prison in germany for that work. credible enough for you?"

in discussion before the debate started with the site owner, she stated in public that if the thread descended into ad-homs or got repetitive she would lock it which i had said was an invitation to vandalism. the first ad-homs duly appeared:

"Eric has fired his shit gun and were all covered in it now. Leuchter has been discredited, Eric refuses to accept this. The Institute of Historical Review has been discredited. Eric refuses to accept this. The facts he quotes are cut and paste jobs. He is using texts he hasn't read and doesn't understand.At what point is this trolling? He refuses to accept the eye witness testimony. Which is overwhelming. He is using a scene from Schindlers list to prove worldwide academic opinion on the Holocaust was shifting. While simultaneously whilst attacking wikipedia links. There has so far been no credible evidence produced by Eric to back up his claims. Leuchter is the real joke here. No one apart from closet neo Nazis believes his work has any credibilty. No one. This is a shit storm."
[..]
"Yes Eric. My specific point is that all of your evidence so far has been bogus. And when posters have explained that to you you have refused to budge. You have not yet answered my question about Finkelsteins book. You are not engaging in a debate. You are cutting and pasting text that you don't even understand and quite clearly haven't read. Its a shit storm to promote your ideological position. Everyone has been quite reasonable with you. You have not responeded to any of the criticisms directly. You're a fucking troll."


she had accused me of claiming that finkelstein was a revisionist, which i did not. i then replied:
"regarding "the holocaust industry", where exactly did i suggest that finkelstein was not a holocaust believer?
his mother was a camp survivor. but the old lady did come out with a choice quote reported by him in an interview:
"If there are so many survivors, who exactly was murdered in the Holocaust?""

this particular poster continued in an abusive and confused vein:
"You cited Finkelstein in your earlier remark. I asked you if you had read the book. I notice you still haven't answered. As for you refuting other people's points. Well, no you haven't. You've cut and pasted arguments from discredited denier websites"

the poster who had raised the mermelstein case to discredit the IHR came back with:
"the IHR was founded by David McCalden and Willis Carto.
David McCalden was a member of the BNP and Carto ran the Liberty Lobby, a lobby group with anti-semitic, white supremacist leanings (including supporting the KKK)
It was then taken over by Mark Weber who worked prior to that for a white supremacist group called National Alliance.
You had previously (on a different thread) bemoaned that everyone who questions to the holocaust is accused of being antisemitic or a neo-nazi, do you have any evidence from organisations that aren't crawling with anti-semitic neo-nazis?"


to which i replied:
"hypothetically, if the "holocaust" could be demonstrated by revisionism to be in part a jewish invention, that would put jews in a bad light as a group so fairly obviously those not predisposed to jews would be attracted to such an endeavour disproportionately.
you are not entitled to conclude from this that all revisionists are anti-semites any more than you may assume that all paras [british paratroopers] are aggressive thugs
if the IHR had roots in white nationalism etc. then i haven't noticed that slant in their editorial policy, which is scholarly.
to put it another way, many sites promoting the holocaust have been started up by rabid zionists and judeo-suprmecists. is that *sufficient* reason to tar the holocaust as a zionist propaganda tool. no it isnt. i seek more justification than that.
this thread is being characterized by blanket damning of sources which looks to me like rhetorical trickery to avoid awkward facts.
the principled way to debate is to dispute "points" not "sources" unless they are used authoritatively, without supporting references."

this poster then posted a long list all the topics on the front page of the IHR site presumably to illustrate how far-right they are, to which i replied:
"i'm sorry, they don't seem that far right to me, certainly not be US standards. looks like a "patriot"-type site. if that shocks you, then you need to venture wider than guardian Online [british liberal newspaper site].
what i meant by "no slant" was no anti-semitic angle in their revisionist scholarship. look at the IHR articles i posted. do they remind you of "der sturmer". no.
on the other hand, speaking of racial separatists, you might want to research some of the utterances of deborah lipstadt who has been referenced in this thread. did you know that she opposes the marriage of jews to non-jews?
http://www.vho.org/tr/2001/4/tr08lipstadt.html
so spare me the hypocrisy and cant please. and judge sources on their content, point for point."


one poster on the opposing side (and probably only one) did observe decent debating standards and posted a lot of references to the reinhard camps, at first citing confessions from eichmann and stangl and the latter's prison interview with Gita Sereney and later links to the kola findings at belzec and sobibor which i disputed, the Hofle telegram and the treblika trials. before i could addresss these though, one of the site admins pitched in with this (his first post on the thread):
"Eric, this is fucking pathetic. For a long time, you've posted constantly on this subject, both here and on HPC. You've never been able to justify your allegations and suggestions about the holocaust, and now, after behaving like a spoilt and over indulged child, you've failed miserably in the opportunity we gave you to present your case. You've copied and pasted unreferenced quotes and passed them off as your own. You've quoted rhetoric, half truth and pseudoscience as fact. Not once have you presented any hard evidence or anything resembling reasonable doubt. Your case is non existent and your stance untenable.

But worse than that is how it makes you look. You've built your whole online persona as being anti-propaganda, yet what is this thread, and your argument, if not propaganda? All those claims, all those dismissive comments about those that fall for propaganda have led to this thread, and you have failed pathetically, showing yourself to be nothing more than the very kind you claim to hate - a propaganda spreading liar, hopelessly trying to convince others that the blatantly false is true. Your anti-semitism (which you showed on the bastard thread) [*no idea what he's talking about here] is clear here, and like all bigots, you feel the need to fear and hate others only to make up for your own failings.

You are a bigot and a fool. You will be forever derided here, and this thread will live for a long time as testament to your hypocrisy and to your feigned hatred of propaganda now that we know, from your own words, that your whole online persona is obsessed with the spread of propaganda."


followed by a rush of posters to agree with him.

meanwhile, the only decent poster carried on posting reinhard links and quotes, the stroop report, treblinka photo links and more. by this time i was starting to get a bit fatigued.

i replied to the admin's diatribe with:
"so now you've told me off. feel better? if you've nothing substantive to add i refer you to post 1, guidelines: {all of them}"

to which he replied:
"No, I feel stupid for letting you use this place to spout your bullshit. And I'm still waiting for your to add something substantial, other than quote the ramblings of bigots and idiots. And I refer you to the bit under my name that says Administrator. Which means "fuck your guidelines"."


i later asked him

"could you stop spamming the thread with this guff. either post something on-topic or take a hike."

i responded to the decent poster's treblinka post:
"Little evidence remains at the site today."

with
"you're not kidding. there is a adage in revisionist circles that 2 guys with shovels could settle the treblinka question as there are supposed to be the remains of 800,000 bodies buried there, for the existence of which no forensic evidence has been supplied. what is supposed to be the main burial pit has even had large stone monuments erected over it which act to prevent just such an investigation although the area has been previously surveyed with gound-penetrating radar which suggested that the ground had lain undisturbed for centuries.
there is a 30+ part documentary online entitled "one third of the holocaust" which presents the revisionist perspective on the reinhard camps, treblinka, sobibor and belzec and makes a god case for them being transit camps for deportations to eastern ghettoes. certainly no excavations at any of them have produced remains to correspond to the mass graves that are supposed to be there. "

he later disputed the krege evidence which point i conceded as krege has apparently still not published his findings.

however i asked him to hold back a bit on the volume of links he was posting and deal with one point at a time and 2 others supported me in this while the majority accused me of not answering questions:
"Eric - whilst I am hoping you are proved wrong, I'd like to commend you for staying the course. I reckon you should take as much time as you need and make each response you give as watertight as possible, before looking at what anyone else has posted, otherwise diminishing circles etc.
Everyone else - come on this has the potential to be interesting but it's going too fast for the poor bloke to keep up. It would be hard enough having this debate with one person on each side."


"In all fairness to Eric Blair, it is just one person against quite a few and it can be difficult to keep up with all the questions. As I have every faith that he does intend answering them all, if anyone wants to PM me any question that hasn't yet been answered, I'll add a post to the end of bookworm's locked thread so Eric can easily see the list of questions and answer them each in turn."


then the flakey abusive woman came back with a lot of warime atrocty quotes from churchill and roosvelt(?) to doubt my claims about the memoir omissions as well as claiming that i coouldn't know because "i hadn't read them", which i dismissed as irrelevant since:
"what politicians say in time of war and what the write in their memoirs afterwards are two different things, the latter being more considered and less likely to be statements issued for propaganda purposes. eg. blair? 45minutes? WOMD?
the likeliest interpretation of these notable memoir omissions are that their authors knew (and they were in the best position to know) that they were war propaganda which is usually abandoned shortly after the cessation of hostilities. in this case however it didn't happen."

there was some more talk about "perpetrator" witnesses where i mentioned Hoess's torture and subsequent inflated claims for auschwitz gassings.

somebody posted a lot of images of bunnies, puppies etc in the thread

then the flakey woman exploded.

"Rubbish. Utter craven rubbish. You can't answer the point so you are slinging mud at Roosevelt, Churchill and de Gaulle. Fuck off you silly cunt.
Edited to add - Ban me you motherfuckers. Your site isn't worth a shit if you let dickheads like this continually troll enormous amounts of cunnywaft like this. Just ban me or I'll do it myself."


at which point the sanctimonious admin locked the thread
"Ok, this has gone far enough.
This thread is now locked. It will be re-opened tomorrow at 6pm for people to make final statements. One post per person will be allowed when it re-opens, second posts or edits to existing posts will be deleted."


cue a lot of condemnation for me such as:
"I'd like to say I've enjoyed watching Eric's pseudo-academic theory being torn apart, but it's never pleasant watching quite such an underdog lose quite as comprehensively as he has.
Eric, if you have any honour whatsoever, you'll take a hike and go and find like-minded people who'll be only too happy to spend their time fantasising about the Reich and what might've been."


but also a bit of support:
"I've no experience of debating. Never been in one, never seen one. So bearing that in mind.............and leaving aside what the 'debate' was supposed to be about.......
I cannot see how you can have a debate with one person on one side, and lots on the other. It's sad that the one on their own, seemed to get the most abuse thrown at them.
Why is that needed?
If that is debating, then I'm glad I've never had anything to do with it. "


"I'm a little disappointed that the thread was not allowed to go through to the subsequent use of the holocaust for political ends. The 'debate' could have been so much more, but when one guy is up against several trying to paint him as a holocaust denier (even if he probably is) it's not surprising that the debate was never going to get anywhere."


"I've only read 7 pages but don't feel Eric is afforded appropriate academic rigour in the counter-arguments.
I don't deny war crimes or anything, but I see there is some provable "smoke" in what the revisionists say. What the actual "fire" is I don't know but I don't think we know everything that went on, no more than we know about Allied war crimes with intentional bombing of civilians etc."


"I would like to thank Eric for posting this thread.
I think it's good to have had this out.
It prompted me to ask myself seriously, what if it's all a lie?
That lead me to the bit about why the Germans aren't kicking up a genuine stink about it.
I am grateful to have stumbled across that thought and for it I thank Eric. "


and here's my own final statement:
---------------
when the allies liberated belsen-bergen, buchenwald and dachau they found scenes of carnage almost entirely attributable to their policy of total war which had resulted in the complete destruction of german infrastructure leading to starvation and typhus epidemics in those camps.
however, sensing a propaganda opportunity and despite not one single case of death by gassing being found by forensic teams after thousands of autopsies, allied psyops fed journalists, filmmakers, their own troops and german civilians the story that inmates had been variously gassed, starved and worked to death as an article of nazi wartime policy.

no atrocity accusation was too outrageous with cinema newsreels featuring such absurdities as "human skin" lampshades and shrunken heads together with staged parades of naked men *invited by the directors to disrobe* giving the impression that they were headed for the gas chambers. The images are powerful and usually form the bulk of the knowledge to this day that the average person has about camp liberations. the message conveyed in these propaganda flicks remaining cemented in the public mind: Those damned Germans! Look what they did!

today no gassings are claimed to has taken place in german camps (as even the simon wiesenthal centre confirms) and the lampshades, shrunken heads, "jewish soap" and other absurdities have been quietly dropped. no announcements were made, they just stopped talking about them.

now instead we are to believe that all gassings occurred in poland and the ukraine in camps liberated by the soviets and conveniently held outside the reach of western scrutiny for 45 years until the fall of the berlin wall but there are good reasons to suspect that these claims are as bogus as were the earlier ones.

number one clue is that the mass graves alleged to hold the remains of upwards of 3.5 million bodies have not been produced. the soviets were all over those sites immediately after liberation and if there was anything there we would have heard about it. the only later excavations by agenda-driven polish teams at belzec and sobibor have uncovered nothing consistent with those camps' alleged function as death camps. treblinka has never (officially) been excavated and obstructions to future investigation have been put in place with the erection of a field of large boulders over the "burial pit" and the classifying of the area as a sacrosanct jewish grave site. similar large monuments are planned for the other camps.

i could go into the impossible logistics of gassing, burning and burying 3.5 million people in a few years; the unsuitability of zyklon-b de-lousing agent (shipped to ALL camps, not just the alleged death camps) as a murder weapon; the utter absence of evidence of any plausible homicidal gas chambers having existed anywhere; the non-mention of gassings in the auschwitz memoirs of eli wiesel and primo levi and the paucity of credible witness testimony generally; and the downward revisions of official death tolls for the auschwitz (4M down to 1.5M in 1990) and majdanek camps, but i'll leave all that to others.

if you can just show me the bodies, i'll put all the rest aside.

it didn't happen.

how do you react when you hear that? if you are like i was then cognitive dissonance sets in at this point. you can't ignore the logic of the arguments presented but your mind recoils at the implications of them, that you might now be a evil "denier". a typical first reaction will be to "shoot the messenger" (ignore him. he's just a nazi/ anti-semite). next stage will be a frantic search to rationalize and reinforce your existing beliefs via holocaust promotional sites such nizkor.org or RODOH but if you have any integrity you will soon see those for what they are. finally, most settle for the "denier-lite" position, as expressed by several posters here already: "there most definitely WAS a holocaust but," and one of ...

"there were no gassings. they were starved/ worked etc. to death, the camps were hell-holes. they WERE the holocaust"

you'll need to reconcile that view with certain known facts:

- that the three most well-known survivors of auschwitz, otto frank (father of anne), primo levi and eli wiesel were all patients in camp hospitals (there were several) as the soviet army approached at the nd of the war. wiesel was being treated for an infected foot and was given the option of waiting to be liberated by the Soviets, or evacuating to the west. Wiesel, with his father, chose to leave with the Nazis. levi who had scarlet fever chose to stay as did frank who was being treated for typhus, while his daughter anne was eventually evacuated to bergen belsen where she later died in a typhus epidemic.

- the auschwitz "death books" found "lost" in the soviet archives in 1989 recorded deaths there from old age (incl. 3 over 90), births and marriages in the camp with a total of about 64,000 deaths for the years 41-43 with peaks coinciding with known typhus epidemics; hardly unusual for a facility of that size. red cross figures presented by a former director Charles Biedermann at one of the zundel trials suggested an auschwitz total 135,000 for the whole war.

Code:

http://www.zundelsite.org/dsmrd/dsmrd10biedermann.html


- the testimony of dr. russell barton, a british medical student who went into the bergen-belsen camp with british libertaing forces in 1945 who reported:

Quote
Barton made inquiries with inmates, including Jewish doctors, who told him that Belsen had not been too bad until the autumn of 1944. Then, as the Russian armies were advancing, they said they had been given the choice of remaining in the camps about to be overrun by the Soviets or being repatriated back to Germany. Many chose to return to Germany. As a result, from the autumn of 1944 to early 1945, some 53,000 people were moved into Belsen, which had room for only 3,000 inmates. The overcrowding was gross and the staff at the camp resented it. Josef Kramer, the commandant of Belsen, felt he had a responsibility to his 3,000 inmates but was apparently angry about the 53,000 that were dumped into the camp. Dr. Klein, the medical doctor at the camp, didn't know what to do.

Code:

http://www.zundelsite.org/dsmrd/dsmrd15barton.html


"there were no gassings. they were all shot by einsatzgruppen in the east"

- in this case, you will need to distinguish this from what went the US did in vietnam (google *free-fire zones*) and ask why one is a "holocaust" and the other a regrettable consequence of that type of a conflict.

- you might also want to google *einsatzgruppen babi yar*. babi yar was the site of an alleged einsatzgruppen mass-killing of 33,000 jews, which site, like treblinka, has conveniently never been excavated for remains.

that fact is that without the gassings, bad things happened in a bad war *on all sides* (dresden? hiroshima?) for which national socialist germany has been made the sole scapegoat which suited all parties involved on the winning side.

why bother trying to correct the record?

the main reason is that we need to grow up as a society and stop believing in the boogie man, ie. the nazis as the personification of evil, and by reflection, our "free democracies" as necessarily standing for anything good. we also need to stop believing things that aren't true generally and we need to become aware of the power of propagandists to construct "alternative realities" that shape our lives. preventing another hitler/holocaust has been the moral rationalization for innumerable imperialistic adventures since the end of WWII and underpins the european jewish colonial project in palestine/israel which could end up leading to WWIII. it also justifies repression of free speech and thought around the world.

i rest my case. i may have over-stated it and i will certainly have made mistakes but i hope it has given you food for thought.

take the red pill.
---------------

the santimonious admin then concluded by posting a whole lot of hitler quotes from mein kampf on top of photos of piles of bodies from belsen and this:
"I've posted these just in case people were forgetting what this was about. This isn't an intellectual exercise, its about the systematic murder of millions of men, women and children, and if you're going to question the enormous mound of evidence that documented it, you'd better do a better job than Eric has.

Eric talks of "impossible logistics of gassing, burning and burying 3.5 million people in a few years; the unsuitability of zyklon-b de-lousing agent", yet he forgets that every year Europe slaughters 300 million cows, sheep and pigs and 4 billion poultry birds, but nobody notices. The logistics are very, very easy to cope with for a nation state. He fails to mention that Zyklon-B is a cyanide agent, and that it is far, far more effective on the human anatomy than it is on lice. Zyklon-B is excellent at killing people, but far greater doses and exposure times are required to kill lice.

I could quote more, such as the non existant data from the ground penetrating radar, or the flawed chemical tests that were conducted in the showers. but all Eric has produced is the unsubstantiated words of self proclaimed bigots and fools, and as a result, he has shown himself to be one also."


and if you're tired after all that, imagine how i felt!
Last edited by ericblair on Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

ericblair
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 6:58 pm

Re: the impossibility of debate on most forums

Postby ericblair » 9 years 12 hours ago (Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:10 am)

here's how it went. (other people's quotes highlighted)

somebody asked if my opening was all my own work, to which i replied:
"it's my assemblage of excerpts from numerous sources"
however before i could even type that reply a couple of posters had found some of my sources and the big issue then became my "plagiarism". after a bit more in this vein i posted this reply:

"?? plagiarism is hardly relevant here. this is not a phD dissertation. why re-invent the wheel? but neither is it a straight grab from a propaganda site, if that is what you are implying. the structure and emphasis is mine.
the sources are not relevant as i am not quoting them authoritatively. it was meant as an abstract summary of the revisionist position only. if you want to challenge any point in the piece then raise it and i'll address it.
if you could dedicate the time reqiired to write a summary like that completely in my own words then you have a lot more time on you hands than do i.
this is a complete rhetorical distraction tactic and i refer you to post 1 guidelines. "

somebody else then accused me of breaching my own guidelines by "spamming the thread" with quoted material to which i replied that the proposer of a debate is entitled to an opening statement.

another:
"Have you actually done any of your own research on the matter or have you just been brainwashed by a load of revisionist websites? "


and another:
"Because pasting a huge volume of text from different sites and merging them into a single essay can be seen as being disingenuous. It's more commonly accepted to precis a source or collection of sources and to provide links. That way people can judge the credibility of those links and can click on them for further information if they want to find out more. Posting in this style makes your argument more concise as well and doesn't run the risk of people being faced with a huge volume of text that they skim over thereby missing important points that would otherwise stand out."


to the above i replied:
"completely wrong context. and another distraction tactic, imo.
this is a forum debate not a written academic thesis.
when did a speaker opening a debate have to annotate references?
and as i have said now several times, nothing was quoted authoritatively."

her reply:
"By all accepted commonly used definitions this would be classed as plagiarism and therefore is unacceptable. An MSc student I once supervised was failed for exactly this kind of plagiarism. It is therefore not fair use.
You have come up with a list of rules. Well this one is mine.
No plagiarism.
This is a discussion forum for debate. It is not a forum for propaganda masquerading as debate."
[..]
No. I mean it. This applies to all serious discussion on this forum. Your favourite subject is not exempt. Debate properly or there will be no debate.
Provide links.
Quote where appropriate.
Do not plagiarise.
Discuss points one at a time.


this from the person who was yet to discuss a single substantive point!

then somebody quoted my whole opening statement back at me with the paragraphs numbered and
"please could you provide documented, checkable sources for the following."


between all this guff a few genuine questions came in which i answered:
"Eric, can you confirm you're of the opinion that each and every single eye witness account that goes against your resolution is a lie?"

i explained how the direct "witnesses" were few in number and some of them had lied while others were deluded,

"Why have the victims of this massive slander not made more of a fuss Eric?"

i cited richard baer and others and that:
"alternative narratives if they existed were suppressed and denied and a new political class was established which enforced a separation form the past. this process continues in germany to this day"

"Please post some evidence for the Global Jewish Conspiracy"

i said that "conspiracy" was a bit ripe but point out the plethora of jewish lobbying organisations and their business and media sponsors existing then and now sharing a common agenda.

next somebody actually tried to refute leuchter by reference to a wikipedia link and the errol morris documentary for authority.
i replied that an encyclopedia that point-blank refuses to host a revisionism entry (all resolves to "denial") is hardly being even-handed on the subject, and posted a link to a rudolf article on the fraudulent krakow institute report.

the fairness of IMT nuremberg was also asserted in response to which i posted an IHR piece by weber on it, where commenced the next tide of distraction:

Eric, do you think the IHR is a reasonable, accurate and unbiased source to use?
"At it's first meeting the IHR offered $50,000 to anybody "who could prove that the Nazis operated gas-chambers to exterminate Jews during World War II." A chap called Mel Mermelstein submitted evidence, they refused to pay, he took them to court for breach of contract and won."


i posted the IHR's version of that case in response where the judge in the case took "judicial notice" of the fact that "Jews were gassed to death at the Auschwitz Concentration Camp in Poland during the summer of 1944" and brought up the JDL bombing of the IHR offices and the campaign waged against them in the press and in the courts.

"For anyone who's not heard of the Institute for Historical Review:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_ ... of_methods
Their journal is not peer reviewed.
Eric - do you have any peer reviewed material that backs up any of your claims?"
[..]
I would like some peer reviewed material that backs up the Leuchter report.


my reply:
"check out the germar rudolf link i posted for xxxxxx. he went to prison in germany for that work. credible enough for you?"

in discussion before the debate started with the site owner, she stated in public that if the thread descended into ad-homs or got repetitive she would lock it which i had said was an invitation to vandalism. the first ad-homs duly appeared:

"Eric has fired his shit gun and were all covered in it now. Leuchter has been discredited, Eric refuses to accept this. The Institute of Historical Review has been discredited. Eric refuses to accept this. The facts he quotes are cut and paste jobs. He is using texts he hasn't read and doesn't understand.At what point is this trolling? He refuses to accept the eye witness testimony. Which is overwhelming. He is using a scene from Schindlers list to prove worldwide academic opinion on the Holocaust was shifting. While simultaneously whilst attacking wikipedia links. There has so far been no credible evidence produced by Eric to back up his claims. Leuchter is the real joke here. No one apart from closet neo Nazis believes his work has any credibilty. No one. This is a shit storm."
[..]
"Yes Eric. My specific point is that all of your evidence so far has been bogus. And when posters have explained that to you you have refused to budge. You have not yet answered my question about Finkelsteins book. You are not engaging in a debate. You are cutting and pasting text that you don't even understand and quite clearly haven't read. Its a shit storm to promote your ideological position. Everyone has been quite reasonable with you. You have not responeded to any of the criticisms directly. You're a fucking troll."


she had accused me of claiming that finkelstein was a revisionist, which i did not. i then replied:
"regarding "the holocaust industry", where exactly did i suggest that finkelstein was not a holocaust believer?
his mother was a camp survivor. but the old lady did come out with a choice quote reported by him in an interview:
"If there are so many survivors, who exactly was murdered in the Holocaust?""

this particular poster continued in an abusive and confused vein:
"You cited Finkelstein in your earlier remark. I asked you if you had read the book. I notice you still haven't answered. As for you refuting other people's points. Well, no you haven't. You've cut and pasted arguments from discredited denier websites"

the poster who had raised the mermelstein case to discredit the IHR came back with:
"the IHR was founded by David McCalden and Willis Carto.
David McCalden was a member of the BNP and Carto ran the Liberty Lobby, a lobby group with anti-semitic, white supremacist leanings (including supporting the KKK)
It was then taken over by Mark Weber who worked prior to that for a white supremacist group called National Alliance.
You had previously (on a different thread) bemoaned that everyone who questions to the holocaust is accused of being antisemitic or a neo-nazi, do you have any evidence from organisations that aren't crawling with anti-semitic neo-nazis?"


to which i replied:
"hypothetically, if the "holocaust" could be demonstrated by revisionism to be in part a jewish invention, that would put jews in a bad light as a group so fairly obviously those not predisposed to jews would be attracted to such an endeavour disproportionately.
you are not entitled to conclude from this that all revisionists are anti-semites any more than you may assume that all paras [british paratroopers] are aggressive thugs
if the IHR had roots in white nationalism etc. then i haven't noticed that slant in their editorial policy, which is scholarly.
to put it another way, many sites promoting the holocaust have been started up by rabid zionists and judeo-suprmecists. is that *sufficient* reason to tar the holocaust as a zionist propaganda tool. no it isnt. i seek more justification than that.
this thread is being characterized by blanket damning of sources which looks to me like rhetorical trickery to avoid awkward facts.
the principled way to debate is to dispute "points" not "sources" unless they are used authoritatively, without supporting references."


this poster then posted a long list all the topics on the front page of the IHR site presumably to illustrate how far-right they are, to which i replied:
"i'm sorry, they don't seem that far right to me, certainly not be US standards. looks like a "patriot"-type site. if that shocks you, then you need to venture wider than guardian Online [british liberal newspaper site].
what i meant by "no slant" was no anti-semitic angle in their revisionist scholarship. look at the IHR articles i posted. do they remind you of "der sturmer". no.
on the other hand, speaking of racial separatists, you might want to research some of the utterances of deborah lipstadt who has been referenced in this thread. did you know that she opposes the marriage of jews to non-jews?
http://www.vho.org/tr/2001/4/tr08lipstadt.html
so spare me the hypocrisy and cant please. and judge sources on their content, point for point."


one poster on the opposing side (and probably only one) did observe decent debating standards and posted a lot of references to the reinhard camps, at first citing confessions from eichmann and stangl and the latter's prison interview with Gita Sereney and later links to the kola findings at belzec and sobibor which i disputed, the Hofle telegram and the treblika trials. before i could addresss these though, one of the site admins pitched in with this (his first post on the thread):
"Eric, this is fucking pathetic. For a long time, you've posted constantly on this subject, both here and on HPC. You've never been able to justify your allegations and suggestions about the holocaust, and now, after behaving like a spoilt and over indulged child, you've failed miserably in the opportunity we gave you to present your case. You've copied and pasted unreferenced quotes and passed them off as your own. You've quoted rhetoric, half truth and pseudoscience as fact. Not once have you presented any hard evidence or anything resembling reasonable doubt. Your case is non existent and your stance untenable.

But worse than that is how it makes you look. You've built your whole online persona as being anti-propaganda, yet what is this thread, and your argument, if not propaganda? All those claims, all those dismissive comments about those that fall for propaganda have led to this thread, and you have failed pathetically, showing yourself to be nothing more than the very kind you claim to hate - a propaganda spreading liar, hopelessly trying to convince others that the blatantly false is true. Your anti-semitism (which you showed on the bastard thread) [*no idea what he's talking about here] is clear here, and like all bigots, you feel the need to fear and hate others only to make up for your own failings.

You are a bigot and a fool. You will be forever derided here, and this thread will live for a long time as testament to your hypocrisy and to your feigned hatred of propaganda now that we know, from your own words, that your whole online persona is obsessed with the spread of propaganda."


followed by a rush of posters to agree with him.

meanwhile, the only decent poster carried on posting reinhard links and quotes, the stroop report, treblinka photo links and more. by this time i was starting to get a bit fatigued.

i replied to the admin's diatribe with:
"so now you've told me off. feel better? if you've nothing substantive to add i refer you to post 1, guidelines: {all of them}"

to which he replied:
"No, I feel stupid for letting you use this place to spout your bullshit. And I'm still waiting for your to add something substantial, other than quote the ramblings of bigots and idiots. And I refer you to the bit under my name that says Administrator. Which means "fuck your guidelines"."


i later asked him

"could you stop spamming the thread with this guff. either post something on-topic or take a hike."

i responded to the decent poster's treblinka post:
"Little evidence remains at the site today."

with
"you're not kidding. there is a adage in revisionist circles that 2 guys with shovels could settle the treblinka question as there are supposed to be the remains of 800,000 bodies buried there, for the existence of which no forensic evidence has been supplied. what is supposed to be the main burial pit has even had large stone monuments erected over it which act to prevent just such an investigation although the area has been previously surveyed with gound-penetrating radar which suggested that the ground had lain undisturbed for centuries.
there is a 30+ part documentary online entitled "one third of the holocaust" which presents the revisionist perspective on the reinhard camps, treblinka, sobibor and belzec and makes a god case for them being transit camps for deportations to eastern ghettoes. certainly no excavations at any of them have produced remains to correspond to the mass graves that are supposed to be there. "

he later disputed the krege evidence which point i conceded as krege has apparently still not published his findings.

however i asked him to hold back a bit on the volume of links he was posting and deal with one point at a time and 2 others supported me in this while the majority accused me of not answering questions:
"Eric - whilst I am hoping you are proved wrong, I'd like to commend you for staying the course. I reckon you should take as much time as you need and make each response you give as watertight as possible, before looking at what anyone else has posted, otherwise diminishing circles etc.
Everyone else - come on this has the potential to be interesting but it's going too fast for the poor bloke to keep up. It would be hard enough having this debate with one person on each side."


"In all fairness to Eric Blair, it is just one person against quite a few and it can be difficult to keep up with all the questions. As I have every faith that he does intend answering them all, if anyone wants to PM me any question that hasn't yet been answered, I'll add a post to the end of bookworm's locked thread so Eric can easily see the list of questions and answer them each in turn."


then the flakey abusive woman came back with a lot of warime atrocty quotes from churchill and roosvelt(?) to doubt my claims about the memoir omissions as well as claiming that i coouldn't know because "i hadn't read them", which i dismissed as irrelevant since:
"what politicians say in time of war and what the write in their memoirs afterwards are two different things, the latter being more considered and less likely to be statements issued for propaganda purposes. eg. blair? 45minutes? WOMD?
the likeliest interpretation of these notable memoir omissions are that their authors knew (and they were in the best position to know) that they were war propaganda which is usually abandoned shortly after the cessation of hostilities. in this case however it didn't happen."

there was some more talk about "perpetrator" witnesses where i mentioned Hoess's torture and subsequent inflated claims for auschwitz gassings.

somebody posted a lot of images of bunnies, puppies etc in the thread

then the flakey woman exploded.

"Rubbish. Utter craven rubbish. You can't answer the point so you are slinging mud at Roosevelt, Churchill and de Gaulle. Fuck off you silly cunt.
Edited to add - Ban me you motherfuckers. Your site isn't worth a shit if you let dickheads like this continually troll enormous amounts of cunnywaft like this. Just ban me or I'll do it myself."


at which point the sanctimonious admin locked the thread
"Ok, this has gone far enough.
This thread is now locked. It will be re-opened tomorrow at 6pm for people to make final statements. One post per person will be allowed when it re-opens, second posts or edits to existing posts will be deleted."


cue a lot of condemnation for me such as:
"I'd like to say I've enjoyed watching Eric's pseudo-academic theory being torn apart, but it's never pleasant watching quite such an underdog lose quite as comprehensively as he has.
Eric, if you have any honour whatsoever, you'll take a hike and go and find like-minded people who'll be only too happy to spend their time fantasising about the Reich and what might've been."


but also a bit of support:
"I've no experience of debating. Never been in one, never seen one. So bearing that in mind.............and leaving aside what the 'debate' was supposed to be about.......
I cannot see how you can have a debate with one person on one side, and lots on the other. It's sad that the one on their own, seemed to get the most abuse thrown at them.
Why is that needed?
If that is debating, then I'm glad I've never had anything to do with it. "


"I'm a little disappointed that the thread was not allowed to go through to the subsequent use of the holocaust for political ends. The 'debate' could have been so much more, but when one guy is up against several trying to paint him as a holocaust denier (even if he probably is) it's not surprising that the debate was never going to get anywhere."


"I've only read 7 pages but don't feel Eric is afforded appropriate academic rigour in the counter-arguments.
I don't deny war crimes or anything, but I see there is some provable "smoke" in what the revisionists say. What the actual "fire" is I don't know but I don't think we know everything that went on, no more than we know about Allied war crimes with intentional bombing of civilians etc."


"I would like to thank Eric for posting this thread.
I think it's good to have had this out.
It prompted me to ask myself seriously, what if it's all a lie?
That lead me to the bit about why the Germans aren't kicking up a genuine stink about it.
I am grateful to have stumbled across that thought and for it I thank Eric. "


and here's my own final statement:
---------------
when the allies liberated belsen-bergen, buchenwald and dachau they found scenes of carnage almost entirely attributable to their policy of total war which had resulted in the complete destruction of german infrastructure leading to starvation and typhus epidemics in those camps.
however, sensing a propaganda opportunity and despite not one single case of death by gassing being found by forensic teams after thousands of autopsies, allied psyops fed journalists, filmmakers, their own troops and german civilians the story that inmates had been variously gassed, starved and worked to death as an article of nazi wartime policy.

no atrocity accusation was too outrageous with cinema newsreels featuring such absurdities as "human skin" lampshades and shrunken heads together with staged parades of naked men *invited by the directors to disrobe* giving the impression that they were headed for the gas chambers. The images are powerful and usually form the bulk of the knowledge to this day that the average person has about camp liberations. the message conveyed in these propaganda flicks remaining cemented in the public mind: Those damned Germans! Look what they did!

today no gassings are claimed to has taken place in german camps (as even the simon wiesenthal centre confirms) and the lampshades, shrunken heads, "jewish soap" and other absurdities have been quietly dropped. no announcements were made, they just stopped talking about them.

now instead we are to believe that all gassings occurred in poland and the ukraine in camps liberated by the soviets and conveniently held outside the reach of western scrutiny for 45 years until the fall of the berlin wall but there are good reasons to suspect that these claims are as bogus as were the earlier ones.

number one clue is that the mass graves alleged to hold the remains of upwards of 3.5 million bodies have not been produced. the soviets were all over those sites immediately after liberation and if there was anything there we would have heard about it. the only later excavations by agenda-driven polish teams at belzec and sobibor have uncovered nothing consistent with those camps' alleged function as death camps. treblinka has never (officially) been excavated and obstructions to future investigation have been put in place with the erection of a field of large boulders over the "burial pit" and the classifying of the area as a sacrosanct jewish grave site. similar large monuments are planned for the other camps.

i could go into the impossible logistics of gassing, burning and burying 3.5 million people in a few years; the unsuitability of zyklon-b de-lousing agent (shipped to ALL camps, not just the alleged death camps) as a murder weapon; the utter absence of evidence of any plausible homicidal gas chambers having existed anywhere; the non-mention of gassings in the auschwitz memoirs of eli wiesel and primo levi and the paucity of credible witness testimony generally; and the downward revisions of official death tolls for the auschwitz (4M down to 1.5M in 1990) and majdanek camps, but i'll leave all that to others.

if you can just show me the bodies, i'll put all the rest aside.

it didn't happen.

how do you react when you hear that? if you are like i was then cognitive dissonance sets in at this point. you can't ignore the logic of the arguments presented but your mind recoils at the implications of them, that you might now be a evil "denier". a typical first reaction will be to "shoot the messenger" (ignore him. he's just a nazi/ anti-semite). next stage will be a frantic search to rationalize and reinforce your existing beliefs via holocaust promotional sites such nizkor.org or RODOH but if you have any integrity you will soon see those for what they are. finally, most settle for the "denier-lite" position, as expressed by several posters here already: "there most definitely WAS a holocaust but," and one of ...

"there were no gassings. they were starved/ worked etc. to death, the camps were hell-holes. they WERE the holocaust"

you'll need to reconcile that view with certain known facts:

- that the three most well-known survivors of auschwitz, otto frank (father of anne), primo levi and eli wiesel were all patients in camp hospitals (there were several) as the soviet army approached at the nd of the war. wiesel was being treated for an infected foot and was given the option of waiting to be liberated by the Soviets, or evacuating to the west. Wiesel, with his father, chose to leave with the Nazis. levi who had scarlet fever chose to stay as did frank who was being treated for typhus, while his daughter anne was eventually evacuated to bergen belsen where she later died in a typhus epidemic.

- the auschwitz "death books" found "lost" in the soviet archives in 1989 recorded deaths there from old age (incl. 3 over 90), births and marriages in the camp with a total of about 64,000 deaths for the years 41-43 with peaks coinciding with known typhus epidemics; hardly unusual for a facility of that size. red cross figures presented by a former director Charles Biedermann at one of the zundel trials suggested an auschwitz total 135,000 for the whole war.

Code:

http://www.zundelsite.org/dsmrd/dsmrd10biedermann.html


- the testimony of dr. russell barton, a british medical student who went into the bergen-belsen camp with british libertaing forces in 1945 who reported:

Quote
Barton made inquiries with inmates, including Jewish doctors, who told him that Belsen had not been too bad until the autumn of 1944. Then, as the Russian armies were advancing, they said they had been given the choice of remaining in the camps about to be overrun by the Soviets or being repatriated back to Germany. Many chose to return to Germany. As a result, from the autumn of 1944 to early 1945, some 53,000 people were moved into Belsen, which had room for only 3,000 inmates. The overcrowding was gross and the staff at the camp resented it. Josef Kramer, the commandant of Belsen, felt he had a responsibility to his 3,000 inmates but was apparently angry about the 53,000 that were dumped into the camp. Dr. Klein, the medical doctor at the camp, didn't know what to do.

Code:

http://www.zundelsite.org/dsmrd/dsmrd15barton.html


"there were no gassings. they were all shot by einsatzgruppen in the east"

- in this case, you will need to distinguish this from what went the US did in vietnam (google *free-fire zones*) and ask why one is a "holocaust" and the other a regrettable consequence of that type of a conflict.

- you might also want to google *einsatzgruppen babi yar*. babi yar was the site of an alleged einsatzgruppen mass-killing of 33,000 jews, which site, like treblinka, has conveniently never been excavated for remains.

that fact is that without the gassings, bad things happened in a bad war *on all sides* (dresden? hiroshima?) for which national socialist germany has been made the sole scapegoat which suited all parties involved on the winning side.

why bother trying to correct the record?

the main reason is that we need to grow up as a society and stop believing in the boogie man, ie. the nazis as the personification of evil, and by reflection, our "free democracies" as necessarily standing for anything good. we also need to stop believing things that aren't true generally and we need to become aware of the power of propagandists to construct "alternative realities" that shape our lives. preventing another hitler/holocaust has been the moral rationalization for innumerable imperialistic adventures since the end of WWII and underpins the european jewish colonial project in palestine/israel which could end up leading to WWIII. it also justifies repression of free speech and thought around the world.

i rest my case. i may have over-stated it and i will certainly have made mistakes but i hope it has given you food for thought.

take the red pill.
---------------

the santimonious admin then concluded by posting a whole lot of hitler quotes from mein kampf on top of photos of piles of bodies from belsen and this:
"I've posted these just in case people were forgetting what this was about. This isn't an intellectual exercise, its about the systematic murder of millions of men, women and children, and if you're going to question the enormous mound of evidence that documented it, you'd better do a better job than Eric has.

Eric talks of "impossible logistics of gassing, burning and burying 3.5 million people in a few years; the unsuitability of zyklon-b de-lousing agent", yet he forgets that every year Europe slaughters 300 million cows, sheep and pigs and 4 billion poultry birds, but nobody notices. The logistics are very, very easy to cope with for a nation state. He fails to mention that Zyklon-B is a cyanide agent, and that it is far, far more effective on the human anatomy than it is on lice. Zyklon-B is excellent at killing people, but far greater doses and exposure times are required to kill lice.

I could quote more, such as the non existant data from the ground penetrating radar, or the flawed chemical tests that were conducted in the showers. but all Eric has produced is the unsubstantiated words of self proclaimed bigots and fools, and as a result, he has shown himself to be one also."


and a few days later he set the global swear filter on the site to convert all references to "revisionist" to "holocaust denier" which filtered through to all the posts i'd made in that thread and changed the thread title. it was when i remonstrated about this that i got banned.

and if you're tired after all that, imagine how i felt!

David Baker
Member
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:37 am

Re: the impossibility of debate on most forums

Postby David Baker » 9 years 7 hours ago (Thu Oct 14, 2010 4:40 am)

ericblair,

Welcome to revisionism. Perhaps you're not as experienced in this field as many of us are. My personal efforts to expose this canard have resulted in several websites being shut down, or at least the forums/guest boards being censored. This subject is very touchy, and the ADL/JDL/WhateverDL is ever watchful on the internet for revisionists within public forums. They'll have that thread quickly closed up, and a squadron of disgruntled Jews will have posted their litany of scornful retorts, all tenderly preserved...

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

Re: the impossibility of debate on most forums

Postby Kingfisher » 9 years 7 hours ago (Thu Oct 14, 2010 5:26 am)

Quote from Eric's admin
yet he forgets that every year Europe slaughters 300 million cows, sheep and pigs and 4 billion poultry birds, but nobody notices.

So now we know what happened to all the bodies. The Nazis ate them! ;)

ericblair
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 6:58 pm

Re: the impossibility of debate on most forums

Postby ericblair » 9 years 3 hours ago (Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:59 am)

Eric, this is why I don't believe in the "quiet reasonableness" promoted by Kingfisher. As you see, it didn't work although you had everything in perfect order. I wonder why Kingfisher is proud that you used his arguments in order to fail. :mrgreen: Well, I'm kidding because I would rather that you had gained a convert or two. But here's the thing: I don't think most on that forum ever read it; I couldn't really read it myself. If they read it, it was quick and they didn't try to think about or digest any of it. It was too much all at once.

It has to be something powerful - one thing at a time - that grabs their attention. They may scream and howl, but they can't deny because it's demonstrably true! Quiet reasonableness can work over time with someone who is open to listening and thinking, but to those who are not (most) it is just passing wind. It makes no impression.


thanks for your reply carolyn. i always enjoy reading your contributions to this board, but i'm not sure i agree with your stance on debating tactics. aside from the fact that t's not really in my nature to be in-your-face combative, i think it it might be premature to conclude that my effort "failed". i wasn't expecting any damascene "conversions" and even if that had happened, the chances of anybody declaring reasonable doubts in that atmosphere was zero. the best i could hope for was to expose some people to a new perspective and maybe plant seeds for the future. i certainly wasn't immediately converted by the first lucid presentation of the revisionist case that i heard but the damage was done to my presuppositions (perhaps only on a unconscious level) which led me to where i am now on the subject. the first damage to my "belief system" was simply finding out that zyklon-b had a legitimate use and was not manufactured by ig farben for the sole purpose of gassing jews (which i had naively assumed from the propaganda).

i certainly made a lot of mistakes in that debate and it has been a learning experience for next time. i should have narrowed the focus even more -- perhaps say, to gas chambers at auschwitz or the veracity of the witness, disproof of which should discomfit any disinterested believer -- and i shouldn't have tried to take on so many questions at once. i still think i was right though not to try to match my main opponent's volume of posted links and quotes and to keep my statements brief as these extended ping-pong quoting sessions are just off-putting to most people (and nobody much clicks on the links anyway).

i think the best you can achieve in these situations is not to appear like the caricature antisemite neonazi irrational "denier" that the holocaust promoters have implanted in ordinary people's heads with their propaganda. the cognitive dissonance that this creates should then do the job on anybody with any intelligence.
Last edited by ericblair on Thu Oct 14, 2010 9:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

gbrecht
Member
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:43 am

Re: the impossibility of debate on most forums

Postby gbrecht » 9 years 3 hours ago (Thu Oct 14, 2010 9:28 am)

Good job, it seems you have opened some eyes, if only slightly, to the truth.

It never gets old, "all revisionists are holocaust denying neo nazis."
Don't they ever get bored of this regurgitated rhetoric.

If that was your first time debating, I would get used to it. No matter how well you deliver it, how absolutely pristine, mature and civil you present your case there is always someone who will be very angry and will hate your very soul and do everything to discredit you without addressing any issues. I find that most times when I have changed people's minds on the subject, I always keep calm, explain my points respectfully, even if someone swears or yells at you. You will usually impress an intelligent, open-minded spectator, and at the very least win their respect for not responding to Ad hominem abuse. I've had several discussions and debates where this has happened, and afterwords someone will ask me something related to my points, and it usually ends well.

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

Re: the impossibility of debate on most forums

Postby SevenUp » 9 years 3 hours ago (Thu Oct 14, 2010 9:31 am)

ericblair wrote:\
i think the best you can achieve in these situations is not to appear like the caricature antisemite neonazi irrational "denier" that the holocaust promoters have implanted in ordinary people's heads with their propaganda. the cognitive dissonance that this creates should then do the job on anybody with any intelligence.


Just so, and I think you did a fantastic job. Still, the quest for successful 'debate' or 'education' tactics continues, and some of us are veterans of this effort.

It's not only a question of on-line debates with rabid Zionists, but how to approach the topic with acquaintances, or in 'friendly' debates. The resistance to any challenge to the holohoax is very deep in, it appears to me, every individual in the US.

The first question is whether to take a comprehensive approach as you've done, or to focus on a particular aspect of the hoax. Both approaches have obvious merits, but, I've been uniformly unsuccessful with both.

And so, I have a new method that I'm trying right now - and that is to discuss the hoax at camps where it is now agreed, even by the USHMM, that no mass killings of Jews occurred, that is, Belsen, Buchenwald, and Dachau. Each of these camps figured prominently in the hoax at the beginning, and the pictures from Belsen are still universally employed as 'evidence' of the hoax, but the facts about what happened in the camps are now agreed by all parties, so the facts are not in question. So, you need to demonstrate that each of the camps played a role in the hoax, at Belsen you have the pictures of the dead and dying, which everyone has seen, and you can reveal the pictures of the not dead and not dying, which no one has seen. At Buchenwald you have the Billy Wilder movie which makes many absurd claims, which everyone knows, and you also have the Morgen investigation, which no one knows. At Dachau you have the 7th army report which describes Dachau as the essence of evil, describes gas chamber killings of Jews, and there is even a British 'documentary' movie made at liberation showing how the gas was piped into the gas chamber. All this is familiar stuff to almost everyone, but no one knows that now it is admitted that no one was gassed at Dachau and that the gas through pipes method has been abandoned at all the camps.

So, you can presumably, and I have with one test case, get agreement with all the above, because you can use the USHMM as a reference and there is no wiggle room on the facts.

Then, with this basis, you're ready to tackle Auschwitz, etc. And it's a substantial base to work from, because you are accustomed to examining what really happened, and what was said/written about what happened, in a fairly disinterested way, and you've demonstrated the difference between the two.

With my one test case all this has gone very well, up to the point of Auschwitz. Here the subject is manifesting avoidance and disinterest .... LOL ... all this for nothing perhaps, but, the jury is still out.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest