Monday, December 24, 2012
Our Demolition of MGK: One Year On
By HC Guest Blogger
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... ar-on.html
Our motives for doing so were not because we felt that MGK’s work in their ‘trilogy’ on Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka represented a serious threat or challenge to the conventional understanding of the Holocaust. Indeed, over the course of the project, we felt that Holocaust denial had slipped down another notch towards complete irrelevance, as despite the ready availability of negationist material on the internet, the denier scene did not seem to be growing in a meaningful or significant fashion, while a new generation of ‘revisionist’ researchers failed to emerge.In the time we spent working on the project, it became clear that deniers were failing utterly to convince others of the validity of their ideas when proselytising on the internet, as seen time and again at the James Randi Education Foundation forum (among many other venues on the web). One of the original reasons for the establishment of the Holocaust Controversies blog was to provide rebuttals and counters to arguments advanced on the internet by deniers, and while we undoubtedly have helped provide ammunition to others for that purpose, the antics and tactics of intenet deniers had become entirely self-refuting and self-discrediting.
 See the interview with one of the co-authors of the critique appearing as ‘Holocaust denial in decline, says historian’, The Jewish Chronicle, 7 October 2010, http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/39171 ... -historian
For an eloquent example of the frustration felt by non-deniers when listening to negationist claims, see the post by‘Horatius’ in the thread ‘Holocaust denial videos’, 19th August 2009, http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p= ... tcount=148
Holocaust denial is in decline according to this footnote #3. Really? Well if online debates are of paramount importance in regards to evidence, then how do you explain the fact that Ryan Dawson who years ago, attacked others for posting revisionist stuff, changed his tune a few years ago and is now active in promoting it? I and many others used to believe in the six million and gas chambers. What is with these Zionists? They claim on one hand that revisionism is discredited because it's believers are declining and yet on the other hand, they claim that because of its growth, forums and websites are needed to combat revisionism. If it's not a threat, then why all the effort?
Second of all the post on that randi forum is as follows.
Originally Posted by Budly View Post
But posting liberally to a thread about videos which you haven't watched is maybe indicative of how someone gets to 4,000+ or 8,000+ postings here.
You know, I think your inability to understand history is matched only by your inability to understand what it is you're doing here at JREF. Do you know what that is?
You're trying to promote your beliefs (Holocaust denial) in the marketplace of ideas. We here are the potential consumers of those ideas, whom you wish to attract to your product.
Now, we skeptics here at JREF are a desirable consumer base in the marketplace of ideas. We are well-known for being smart shoppers, not easily swayed by the nonsense of the day. As such, purveyors of ideas come to us from all over, knowing that if they can convince us, they can convince almost anyone to believe as they do. Thus, we have people who believe in UFOs, Bigfoot, God, Angels, homeopathy, 9/11 Truth, and a thousand other ideas vying for our attention.
Now remember, you came to us. We did not go looking for your favourite forum to start a discussion of your videos, you came to our forum. If you want to compete against those others for our attention, you must give us something more than they do. I can go to any forum on this site, and find some earnest idea-pusher eager to engage me, and convince me to join them in their beliefs. Why should I engage with you, rather than any one of them?
Your posts here are your advertisements, and they are all you have to draw us in. Despite that, though, right from the very start, you have consistently refused to give us the information that we, as smart shoppers, have learned is needed to make any engagement with you worthwhile. We've shown you reports on your beliefs that indicate they are seriously flawed, which you have made no effort to rebut. It's as if a car salesman we to simply wave away a Consumers Report article that indicated the car he was selling was a fire hazard. Rejecting such a report out of hand may be easy, but it won't sell a car, will it?
You're competing in the marketplace of ideas. If you're incapable of expressing those ideas in a form that attracts our attention, then you'll surely lose.
So it is self discrediting because some other guy with no posted articles, books or documentaries in his reply...says it is? He has just admitted to not watching the videos in this post. That makes HIM look bad. This is a useless footnote because he is merely parroting with the HC crew says and at least they have bibliographies. On the other hand, we have already seen what so called atheistic skeptics have to say about the holocaust revisionist field. Just look at that jackass Steve Shives. Well Ryan Dawson is an atheist too, but clearly he's not a fundamentalist. He truly has a more open mind than other self styled "skeptics."
Here is page 4 of the randi forum.
18th August 2009, 07:30 PM
"Denierbud" has refused to debate the HC bloggers who demolished his propaganda video point-by-point, for more than two years now.
He posts over at the CODOH forum as Carto's Cutlass Supreme, where non-deniers are lucky to get 1 in 2 posts up that are not deleted by the moderator there, and few can persist unbanned for very long. There is no debate at all on that forum.
Hmmmm. Is it our fault that people come in, antagonize us, and then leave without having the guts to make a cogent reply like here?
Polish Witnesses to the Holocaust
Why are we to blame for their lack of testicular fortitude?
He has repeatedly been asked to join the RODOH forum, where both sides are permitted to express their views, and has predictably failed to do so.
Maybe because he was too smart to do so. Especially in the light of the moderation scandals that happened at that place. How an HC sockpuppet under the name of Joe Future, who is really Duke, became a moderator and now the exterminationist thugs are trying to harvest IP's and threaten others like they have done in the past? Again, we are getting blamed for their lack of guts or failture to fall for their tricks? I think now we know why Roberto so many times accused others of lacking guts for failing to post at rodoh back in the day. He was just pissed they were not going to let their personal/computer information be manipulated.
Cowardice is a common thread running from the Nazis themselves, who murdered unarmed, defenseless civilians (Jews and non-Jews), to their present day proponents and apologists, who cannot muster the backbone to face up to real opposition.
Are you sure you aren't talking about what Israelis do to the Palestinians?
Also, if another generation of revisionists is failing to emerge, then how do you explain Caroline Sturdy Colls getting cold feet and cancelling her meeting? How do you explain men like Thomas Kues who are young guys and have apparently been able to produce a lot of quality material? How do you explain Eric Hunt's work in the last few years? How do you explain more people willing to listen to David Cole's Auschwitz revisionism? How do you explain former nay sayers like Ryan Dawson turning to the revisionist cause?
Do the guys at HC really enjoy stroking their own sexual organs this much?
Also, continuing back to the HC article and away from that poster on randi
Should MGK wish to persist with negationism, then they will have to do a lot more to justify this approach. Indeed, a common reaction to denier arguments is that if generalised across the whole of history, then much of the historical record would disappear in a puff of smoke. While negationism has an unspoken epistemology and methodology, it is a major flaw in the revisionist belief system that its gurus like MGK seem unable to relate this epistemology and methodology to accepted philosophical, theoretical or practical models, and have never coherently elaborated the ‘revisionist method’. Worse still, MGK like other deniers consistently refuse to test their epistemology and methodology on other historical events properly and systematically, and thus fail to establish that there is anything unusual, incorrect or invalid in how historians of the Holocaust have approached the evidence for Nazi genocide. This refusal to compare almost single-handedly destroys the validity of revisionist arguments.
More of this, "Oh deniers only do negationism and there is nothing positive in revisionism," and "negatives don't tell us about what was, only what was not and that helps very little in building a historical picture." Maybe these morons should investigate a speech made by Carlo mattogno a while back that was hosted on the now defunct Russ Granata website.
And what does he have to say about the future of Revisionism itself?
In Mattogno's opinion, negativistic revisionism - or that which exclusively limits itself to refuting the affirmations of the official historians - that sort of revisionism, has just about run its course.
Mattogno thinks that this may be just the right time to try to produce more positively oriented contributions and to create more Revisionist historiography of a wider range - not limiting itself to negativism - but on the contrary, expanding more into the challenging direction of constructive positivism.
As to his part in this challenge, Mattogno says that he has already tried to embark in that direction with the publication of his work on the Zentralbauleitung of Auschwitz, and he also feels that his work regarding the crematory ovens of Auschwitz, falls within that perspective as well.
He is quick to point out that this obviously does not mean that we must renounce the revisionist character of our historiography, but only that it be exercised with more diversification and in a wider historical context.
Mattogno believes the continuing production of more scientific, constructive historiography is an indispensable prerequisite to the future progress of Revisionism.
This challenge is much more important at a time such as the present - in which Revisionism, exhausted from its initial surge, appears to be groping with rash hypotheses and to be risking devouring itself with sterile polemics and personal clashes.
It is fervently hoped that 21st century generations shall reap bountiful harvests from even more truth seeds sown by our generation's truth-pursuing planters.
Ladies and gentlemen - I thank you for your kind attention, and wish you well.
http://web.archive.org/web/200408161729 ... rence.html
Mattogno's work on the crematory ovens of Auschwitz show what could have happened and what did happen in terms of cremation capacity. It is not negative in the purest sense. It speaks from German documents and makes positive assertions and claims. Not purely negative ones. Try again HC losers.
When we began the critique project, we were of course fully aware of past ‘exchanges’ between deniers and their critics, such as occurred between Richard Green of the Holocaust History Project and Germar Rudolf. It was never our intention to engage in tit-for-tat dialogue as a collective, although individual contributors may well respond to future MGK writings as they see fit. It is, however, our intention to release a revised 2nd edition in 2013, correcting various typos and glitches, and possibly adding an afterword.
Since the first edition is out from Mattogno, Graf and Kues, I wonder if you guys will correct your historical plagarisms noted by Mattogno in chapter three.*
Thereafter, the critique team will disband once more. While we have all enjoyed our contributions to HC blog, several of us have quite simply, moved on, with others not involved in the drafting of the critique taking our place on the roster of HC blog contributors. We do not hold to the ‘last man standing’ theory of pseudo-debate seen on the internet in so many places. We are, in fact, quite sure that MGK will be churning out their screeds for years to come, and just as sure that such screeds will continue to have zero impact on serious scholarship. Some of us have done academic work on the history of Holocaust denial, and may continue to publish academically on that subject, while some will be publishing on the history of the Holocaust, and will be dealing with MGK only to the extent that they might be considered names in the history of the post-1945 phenomenon of negationism. We concur with MGK that after the publication of the revised edition of the critique, we will not have the slightest obligation as historians of the Holocaust to pay any further attention to anything Signore Mattogno, Herr Graf and Herr Kues might publish in the future.
Well if the contributions to the HC blog from Jonathan Harrison in recent times is any indication of the quality of your upcoming 2nd edition of your cut and paste manifesto, then even I would be able to find more problems with it. And I'm just good at philosophy. Mattogno, Graf and Kues have personal libraries and archival references behind their linguistic and historical skills to boot. So no doubt they could pick you apart once again. Hell, as I showed on the previous page, most of Harrison's contributions are just old wine in new bottles. Hell, you HC morons couldn't get Hitler's direct relation to Madagascar correct. You couldn't get your interpretation of Mattogno's writings to the Fuhrer's relation to the Madagascar plan correct as I also showed earlier. How can you screw up something so simple?
*Some quick examples of Nick Terry who basically steals quotes and footnotes. The first example is on page 94, and on page 97, we find Terry even plagraized a source of one of the holocaust deniers he was refuting! There are plenty more. There's a one on page 114 showing how Terry can't even get his citation correct. We have another example of that at the bottom of page 123. Jumping over the revisionist arguments against the holocaust, we find more direct evidence of plagarism of sources that the holocaust historians such as those associated with Gary Webb can not even deny. On pages 130-134, revisionist Carlo Mattogno exposes the "cut and paste" method of research Nick Terry has apparently engaged in. Read and you will see that not only is this all true, but that there are other examples in chapter three of plagarism.