PDA

View Full Version : What do deniers give each other for Christmas?


Trojan
12-25-2006, 03:18 AM
From our friends at Holocaust Controversies:

What do deniers give each other for Christmas?

Though there's a school of radical revisionists which holds to the view that Christmas is in fact a gigantic Hoax perpetrated by the retail industry on the world every year, the fact remains that to the best of our knowledge, the majority of our erstwhile opponents, in print and online, celebrate Christmahannukwanzakaa. Well, maybe not the -hannukwanzakaa bit, but you know what I'm talking about.

Yes, it's that time of year, Yuletide Eve, when even diehard Holocaust deniers must surely be gathering round the chimney, not in order to examine it for any traces of carbonised corpses, but to await whatever it is Santa and his little helpers have brought the happy revisionist household that year. All of which begs the question: what could, would or should Holocaust deniers be getting for Christmas?

Answers below the fold...


For some, the answer's fairly easy. For others, we can only speculate.

We're pretty sure that IHR maven Greg Raven will be getting that cut-price bargain video of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes' fairytale wedding that the Church of Scientology must be marketing to their flock of sheep right about now.

IHR boss Mark Weber, meanwhile, is surely to be given his 25th 'how to complete your book manuscript' guide, seeing as how it's been only 25 years since he wrote to David Irving promising the revisionist blockbuster The Final Solution: Legend and Reality. And maybe a thesaurus as well.

Paul Grubach will get a letter-writing kit so he can practice the calligraphy of his signature for his next missive to a head-of-state or chief executive of an NGO.

Friedrich Paul Berg will be given his umpteenth model German truck to play with, though we also suspect that he may well be rewarded with a year-long prescription to anti-Alzheimer's drug Aricept.

David Irving, meanwhile, will surely get a copy of the critical edition of the Anne Frank Diary from daughter Jessica, a smack in the gob from Bente and his own TV series from Fox entitled Desperate Louse Lies. Without, we hasten to add, any sign of Teri Hatcher or Eva Longoria on-set. Dang!

Richard Krege will get a new lawnmower specially designed to trim in between the patio stones, or the Treblinka monument, so that it'll be dual-purpose.

Joe Bellinger gets a complete annotated and mistranslated set of the Talmud.

Christopher Bollyn is getting a downloaded copy of 'Loose Change' on a CD-ROM. And a Christmas card scrawled '@#%$ YOU' from his former buddies at AFP.

Ingrid Rimland will give hubby Ernst Zündel a matchbook with the ad saying "if you can draw Skippy, you can earn big money as an artist".

Ernst will give Ingrid "some good German black bread" and another yeat of not having to sleep with him.

Robert Faurisson, we're assured, will be receiving a signed first-edition of J-B. Peres' classic 1827 work How Napoleon Never Existed, Or, The Great Error, Source Of An Infinite Number Of Errors To Be Seen In The History Of The Nineteenth Century, which he will hate since it pre-dates his trademark 'Ajax method' by 150 years. But them's the breaks.

Apparently, Carlo Mattogno and Robert Faurisson stopped exchanging Christmas cards in 1995, but there's been no communication breakdown within the Mattogno family. This means that Mattogno's brother, Catholic fundamentalist antisemite Gian Pio, will no doubt be gifting his sibling yet another copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, this time in Polish, which will cause bro' Carlo to grit his teeth and make a wan but sickly smile in front of the aunts and uncles of the Mattogno clan, but which he will rush away the instant the family dinner is over to devour.

The rest of the Mattogno family have apparently clubbed together to get Carlo a barbecue grill to replace the one he set on fire accidentally conducting impromptu cremation experiments with salt beef, since this was the most Jewish meat he could think of trying to carbonise.

Jürgen Graf will find all the latest Ron Jeremy DVDs in his stocking, so that Graf can reassure himself that Jewish pornstars really do have bigger penises than he does.

Alas, poor Sylvia Stolz won't be getting what she wants for Weihnachten this year, a little (Horst) Mahler, and will have to make do with a black-white-red-painted dildo instead. Double alas, the patriotically-painted dildo will turn out to be a leftover from the days of the Kameradschaften so Stolz will try and take it back to the store in case Michael Kühnen sat on it once.

Germar Rudolf's another one who's spending Xmas behind bars, but thanks to his personal website, we know what he put on his wishlist long ago. Mainly really bad 80s pop music and oldies, so it's been decided chez Rudolf that the young boy needs livening up, and thus he'll be receiving Slayer's 'Reign in Blood' and Tool's 'Undertow' albums instead. To complement the Tool CD, he'll also be getting rear-opening pajamas.

Alexander Baron will get the new book 'How to Live on a Prison Diet'.

But let's not forget our online friends at alt.revisionism, the Cesspit and RODOH.

Scott Smith, our favourite denier and owner of RODOH, is probably getting another model German truck like his friend Freaky Freddy Berg.

Claudia Rothenbach is to get a gift certificate to pay for gender-reassignment surgery at Johns Hopkins.

A.S. Marques will be getting a case of King Oliver sardines.

RiverCola will be getting a bullet in the head followed by an exhaustive forensic examination by a neutral commission of investigators, who will then present the results to him in his coffin.

For SeymoreG, we've heard that Martha Stewart's Ephraimite Guide To Entertaining has been wrapped up and placed under the tree down under in New Zealand.

His fellow Kiwi Lurkerthe/rodohcodohwatchwatch is being given free psychiatric therapy.

For Herr Wilf 'neugierig' Heink, a set of rabbit hutches and some lettuce.

A crate of Sterno for Matt Giwer.

Tom Moran gets a set of teach-yourself language cassettes. In English.

New tinfoil and a special Xmassy tinsel variant for Scott Bradbury's hat.

IlluSionS667 is being abducted for a get-away-from-it-all holiday season break inside the alien mothership at Newschwabenland.

And finally, Jonny 'Hannover' Hargis, circus ringmaster of CODOH forum, is getting some very special gifts from the cast of The Wizard of Oz: a heart, a brain and some courage....


Merry Christmahannukwanzakaa everybody!

holocaustcontroversies.bl...r-for.html

Dances with Wolves
12-25-2006, 04:06 AM
1. Buying $300 worth of Mr. Irving's excellent books for my rowdy friends.
2. Buying back issues of the Journal of Historical Review and handing them out to school libraries.
3. Wishing all the jews here a Merry Christmas :D

tricknologist
12-25-2006, 04:48 AM
I bought my friends some really nice lampshades with some curios numerological designs inked into them.

Dances with Wolves
12-25-2006, 04:54 AM
I was going to buy that but I thought it was overpriced. I settled for a miniature gas chamber complete with kapo and SS guard (no gasmask of course).

Kriger
12-25-2006, 05:00 AM
Did this vitriolic diatribe give you some type of good feelings inside, Trojan, or are you just irritable until Christmas is over and the Bowl games begin?

il ragno
12-25-2006, 05:21 AM
There's a reason the little rubber balloon you stretch over your dick that collects your spooge is called a "Trojan".

Dances with Wolves
12-25-2006, 05:25 AM
Emphasis on little. Is trojan a guy though? It's posts seem to indicate someone with a feme state of mind.

Trojan
12-25-2006, 08:46 AM
Did this vitriolic diatribe give you some type of good feelings inside, Trojan, or are you just irritable until Christmas is over and the Bowl games begin?

No sence of humor little skirt? I did not author it, I just enjoyed and thought it should be shared.

Kriger
12-25-2006, 08:58 AM
What's a little skirt? Some more pathetic examples of your feeble attempts at humor?

Please provide me with a definition of "sence" so that I may know how it relates to humor.

Who said you authored it? Quite frankly, it was too well-written to have come from your mind.

And what does this thread have to do with Revisionism? More examples of your superior intellect?

cerberus
12-25-2006, 11:26 AM
I thought that Trojan's avatar would have suggested football , the Rose Bowl , a fine marching band , Cheerleaders etc.

You lads are thinking of something of a prophylactic nature , which you probably don't have much need of .:)

The books from Mr. Irving to be honest I gave the few I had away to "Oxfam" , before which I penned a note asking the buyers not to take the author on trust alone.
D.w.W. - The complete works of Hans Christian Anderson would be better value for money , would contain an equal amount of truth and would probably be wider read. $300 is a lot of money to pay for door stops.
Dances with Wolves - Turkey and Ham for our Jewish cousins ?

I hope you guys will get a chance to use your prophylactics in the near future.:)

Quite a light hearted piece , yes well written - a "Xmas Special".
Enjoyed the chuckle .

Ambrosio Spinola
12-25-2006, 12:17 PM
Moving to lounge...tsk tsk....

delete
12-25-2006, 12:25 PM
Did this vitriolic diatribe give you some type of good feelings inside, Trojan, or are you just irritable until Christmas is over and the Bowl games begin?

He has ruined his life by getting addicted to the holocaust both professionaly and in private.

Look at his post, all of them relate to the holocaust in some way.

We should fell sorry for him, as he is in danger of becoming a wasted life, whose only goal of existance is to further the glory and the innocence of the Jews.

Keystone
12-25-2006, 02:41 PM
Look at his post, all of them relate to the holocaust in some way.

It's true. Almost 100% . I just checked.....:rofl:

Trojan, give it rest, my Pittsburgh brother!

Trojan
12-25-2006, 04:16 PM
He has ruined his life by getting addicted to the holocaust both professionaly and in private.

Look at his post, all of them relate to the holocaust in some way.

We should fell sorry for him, as he is in danger of becoming a wasted life, whose only goal of existance is to further the glory and the innocence of the Jews.


Delete

Still trying to find an answer to those nagging challenges you have left unanswered on the other threads? Your inability to back up your claims must be disheartening.

delete
12-25-2006, 04:32 PM
Delete

Still trying to find an answer to those nagging challenges you have left unanswered on the other threads? You inability to back up your claims must be disheartening.

I am only moderatly interested in the Holocaust, and think the most interesting part is how reason breaks before authority so completly in some persons.

If you have given an answer where you cite authority or dig your hole deeper, I often don't see the need to answer. You can start claming them as victories if you want. :)

The readers can judge for themselves by going through your posts, and it would become obvious that your main interest here on the Phora is the Holocaust.

Trojan
12-25-2006, 06:54 PM
I am only moderatly interested in the Holocaust, and think the most interesting part is how reason breaks before authority so completly in some persons.


Weren't you the poster, whose first posts on the forum, were to alert the readershp to a "RODOH" infiltration or some such nonsence?


If you have given an answer where you cite authority or dig your hole deeper, I often don't see the need to answer. You can start claming them as victories if you want. :)


In other words, you cannot back up your claims, so you run from the threads for fear of making a bigger fool of yourself.


The readers can judge for themselves by going through your posts, and it would become obvious that your main interest here on the Phora is the Holocaust.

What does it matter what my main interests on this forum may be? I have a life beyond the Phora, you know nothing of me. Your obsession with everything Jewish or non-white is obvious, and your hatred and fear is obvious to all.

delete
12-25-2006, 07:09 PM
Weren't you the poster, whose first posts on the forum, were to alert the readershp to a "RODOH" infiltration or some such nonsence?

Yes, and I think jews suck most of the time. You too, by the way.


In other words, you cannot back up your claims, so you run from the threads for fear of making a bigger fool of yourself.

So I run from threads now. Any more vile words to add to the accusation? :)


What does it matter what my main interests on this forum may be? I have a life beyond the Phora, you know nothing of me. Your obsession with everything Jewish or non-white is obvious, and your hatred and fear is obvious to all.

I am not the person who only writes about one subject, and my work has nothing to do with what I post on the phora.

People can search up our posts and read for themselves what we say. I think people can judge for themselves, and form their own opinion of both of us..

Trojan
12-25-2006, 07:20 PM
Yes, and I think jews suck most of the time. You too, by the way.

And Merry Christmas to you as well. :)


So I run from threads now. Any more vile words to add to the accusation? :)


You do just that, should I supply the links?


I am not the person who only writes about one subject, and my work has nothing to do with what I post on the phora.


You write exclusively about hate - be it the denial of the Holocaust or what other such topic you may choose.

My work has absolutely nothing to do with the Holocaust.


People can search up our posts and read for themselves what we say. I think people can judge for themselves, and form their own opinion of both of us..

Yep they can.

delete
12-25-2006, 07:25 PM
People can search up our posts and read for themselves what we say. I think people can judge for themselves, and form their own opinion of both of us..

Yep they can.

Then I suggest we let your 810 posts speak for you and my 431 speak for me. :)

Burrhus
12-25-2006, 07:29 PM
1. Buying $300 worth of Mr. Irving's excellent books for my rowdy friends.
2. Buying back issues of the Journal of Historical Review and handing them out to school libraries.
3. Wishing all the jews here a Merry Christmas :D

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Dances with Wolves again.

http://www.journaltek.com/green%20square.jpg

OVERWATCH
12-25-2006, 07:34 PM
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=12798

Burrhus
12-25-2006, 07:35 PM
There's a reason the little rubber balloon you stretch over your dick that collects your spooge is called a "Trojan".

Damn you Ragman, you beat me to it. :)

Burrhus
12-25-2006, 07:43 PM
Germar Rudolf's another one who's spending Xmas behind bars, but thanks to his personal website, we know what he put on his wishlist long ago. Mainly really bad 80s pop music and oldies, so it's been decided chez Rudolf that the young boy needs livening up, and thus he'll be receiving Slayer's 'Reign in Blood' and Tool's 'Undertow' albums instead. To complement the Tool CD, he'll also be getting rear-opening pajamas.

Germar Rudolf is an intelligent, decent and kind man. To those of us who have had the privilege of knowing him personally, such vitriol is disgusting and repulsive...and will be remembered when things change.

delete
12-25-2006, 07:55 PM
Germar Rudolf is an intelligent, decent and kind man. To those of us who have had the privilege of knowing him personally, such vitriol is disgusting and repulsive...and will be remembered when things change.
I think this is written by an american jew. Only americans think prison rape of family fathers is something to joke about, and only the americans of the civilized societies accept it in their prison systems.

Trojan
12-25-2006, 11:07 PM
I think this is written by an american jew. Only americans think prison rape of family fathers is something to joke about, and only the americans of the civilized societies accept it in their prison systems.

Do you just make this up as you go along? :deadhorse:

delete
12-26-2006, 03:35 AM
Do you just make this up as you go along? :deadhorse:

I think the article was written by an american as they are the only civilized coutry that accepts prison rape, and where a "rear-opening pajamas" would have cultural meaning.

In Norwegian prisons each cell has it's own shower and toilet, and prisoners never share cells. Prison rape would be a scandal of proportions if it was uncovered.

FMPOV only jews would write about holocaust deniers in the way done in the article you posted.

Thus the article was written by an american Jew.

Are you unable to think for yourself, since you seem to think I make it all up as I go along?

OVERWATCH
12-26-2006, 03:59 AM
I find it disturbing that someone would react with glee and approval regarding (prison) rape of anyone, let alone someone merely convicted of a thought crime.

Trojan
12-27-2006, 01:54 AM
I think the article was written by an american as they are the only civilized coutry that accepts prison rape, and where a "rear-opening pajamas" would have cultural meaning.

In Norwegian prisons each cell has it's own shower and toilet, and prisoners never share cells. Prison rape would be a scandal of proportions if it was uncovered.

FMPOV only jews would write about holocaust deniers in the way done in the article you posted.

Thus the article was written by an american Jew.

Are you unable to think for yourself, since you seem to think I make it all up as I go along?

The article, as a whole, was neither written by an American nor a Jew - so again, it appears you either make this up as you go along or your beliefs have distorted your ability to reason.

Keystone
12-27-2006, 02:09 AM
I find it disturbing that someone would react with glee and approval regarding (prison) rape of anyone, let alone someone merely convicted of a thought crime.
Trojan?

....

delete
12-27-2006, 01:23 PM
My bad. It was written by "you guys" over at http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/, so no wonder you had to post it here, when I think about it.

I find it totally acceptable I thought of you guys as vile american jews, but my bad was that some of them were the vile european variety in stead.

Trojan
12-28-2006, 12:53 AM
My bad. It was written by "you guys" over at http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/, so no wonder you had to post it here, when I think about it.

I find it totally acceptable I thought of you guys as vile american jews, but my bad was that some of them were the vile european variety in stead.

I don't contribute to the blog - and there is only one Jew in the group that does, to my knowledge, he did not contribute to the writing.

delete
12-28-2006, 01:49 AM
I don't contribute to the blog - and there is only one Jew in the group that does, to my knowledge, he did not contribute to the writing.

Trojan, Nick Terry, Milhouse, Globus, Sergey etc etc are all to similar in posting style for me to keep track of who said what, and who of you are who, and who is openly jewish at any given fora at any given time.

I have a hard time understanding why non-jewish people stops thinking for themselves, and chooses to swallow 'religious truth' from jewish oracles, so until I am sure, I will assume jewish identity on all of you, just to be on the safe side. ;)

I also think that there is strategy behind you guys posting only in holocaust related threads.

If you started posting on other subjects, unrelated controversy, could lead to other people getting annoyed at you, and thus more likely to listen to the revisionists.

This is how religious procelytes work to reach out with the good word to the population.

Do you attend specialised cources in how to explain holocaustianity to the unconverted aswell, like the christian missionaries do. ;)

Globus
12-28-2006, 03:09 PM
Trojan, Nick Terry, Milhouse, Globus, Sergey etc etc are all to similar in posting style for me to keep track of who said what, and who of you are who, and who is openly jewish at any given fora at any given time.

Similar only in that they all have sufficient knowledge of the Holocaust to refute denier lies.

I have a hard time understanding why non-jewish people stops thinking for themselves, and chooses to swallow 'religious truth' from jewish oracles,

The Holocaust isn't written by "Jewish oracles", as you'd know if you knew anything about the history.

I also think that there is strategy behind you guys posting only in holocaust related threads.

Aren't you the perspicacious one!

If you started posting on other subjects, unrelated controversy, could lead to other people getting annoyed at you, and thus more likely to listen to the revisionists.

Now that makes a lot of sense.

Helios Panoptes
12-28-2006, 10:16 PM
Trojan, Nick Terry, Milhouse, Globus, Sergey etc etc are all to similar in posting style for me to keep track of who said what, and who of you are who, and who is openly jewish at any given fora at any given time.

I am able to keep track of Milhouse(Terry). He is far more literate than, for instance, Globus and he has a better sense of humor(i.e., he has a sense of humor). Also, he has figured out how to use the quote function. There is little doubt that he is more intelligent than someone like Globus.

Helios Panoptes
12-28-2006, 10:21 PM
I wonder what it is like to post on a forum about one subject and have someone else who discusses the same topic from the same perspective be so superior that it renders one's internet existence superfluous? I would predict that it would cause one to lace one's posts with excessive vituperation. See Globus for an example.

Trojan
12-29-2006, 02:15 AM
I have a hard time understanding why non-jewish people stops thinking for themselves, and chooses to swallow 'religious truth' from jewish oracles, so until I am sure, I will assume jewish identity on all of you, just to be on the safe side. ;)

Then I hope you don't mind if we just refer to you as dump sh*t. Since you haven't posted an independent intellectual thought since you first graced this board with your filth.

Burrhus
12-29-2006, 11:36 AM
I am able to keep track of Milhouse(Terry). He is far more literate than, for instance, Globus and he has a better sense of humor(i.e., he has a sense of humor). Also, he has figured out how to use the quote function. There is little doubt that he is more intelligent than someone like Globus.

A dubious distinction.

delete
12-29-2006, 04:02 PM
Then I hope you don't mind if we just refer to you as dump sh*t.

Why do you feel you need my approval to call me names, when you have done it from day one? I basically don't care, so be my guest.

Since you haven't posted an independent intellectual thought since you first graced this board with your filth.

Do you shit with your mouth?

Burrhus
12-29-2006, 09:22 PM
Originally Posted by Trojan
Since you (delete) haven't posted an independent intellectual thought since you first graced this board with your filth.

Au contraire, Monsieur Préservatif, delete is one the Phora's better recent additions.

Trojan
12-30-2006, 03:40 PM
Au contraire, Monsieur Préservatif, delete is one the Phora's better recent additions.

Which does not take away from the fact that he has not posted an original thought since he arrived. :rofl:

Globus
12-30-2006, 03:47 PM
I am able to keep track of Milhouse(Terry). He is far more literate than, for instance, Globus and he has a better sense of humor(i.e., he has a sense of humor). Also, he has figured out how to use the quote function. There is little doubt that he is more intelligent than someone like Globus.

And of course the aggrieved moderator pretends he is qualified to be a judge of such things.

How old are you, 18?

Globus
12-30-2006, 03:53 PM
I wonder what it is like to post on a forum about one subject and have someone else who discusses the same topic from the same perspective be so superior that it renders one's internet existence superfluous? I would predict that it would cause one to lace one's posts with excessive vituperation. See Globus for an example.


Probably not unlike someone so frustrated with their inability to participate in a discussion they are largely ignorant of who finds it necessary to engage in childish insults while puffing himself up and overusing the pretentious pronoun "one"!

Steppenwolf
12-30-2006, 04:58 PM
Special soap and lampshades made out of Jews.

delete
12-30-2006, 10:30 PM
Which does not take away from the fact that he has not posted an original thought since he arrived. :rofl:

You have called me ignorant, stupid, unoriginal, idiot, etc, so I must be doing something right. :)

You are a member of a loosesly knitted group dedicated to enforcing the official dogma of the holocaust and fighting heretics. Trojan, globus, Sergey Romanov, Nick Terry, etc wander from forum to forum to fight any heresy that might be posted, and try to dominate any debate on the holocaust, while procelyting the core believes of the correct dogma.

Proof of their behaviour is all over the Phora, and can also be view at the skeptic forum. (http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=4393) At the skeptic forum they managed to indefinitely lock the section. (http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=4634). Other examples where their behaviour could be studied is The RODOH forum (http://p102.ezboard.com/brodohforum), Axis history forum (http://forum.axishistory.com/) etc. Do some web searches and the guys will pop up. ;)

It looks to me and probably anybody who bothers to search and read your posts on different boards and fora, that you use activist or missionary strategies when posting. This means staying away from topics that might alienate somebody who believes in the holocaust according to the political climate on that particular forum.

As the Holocaust Believers, your highest moral imperative is that heresy might lead to disaster, resulting in all behaviour becoming strategic, and any mean justifiable. FMPOV you try to provocate oponents into getting banned, and try to befriend and sound rational to 'undecided or ignorants on holocaustianity'.

You guys do anything to maximazie the chance of the believers and doubters adopting your stance; that revisionists and heretics are indeed despicable creatures, who doesn't deserve to live, but gets to, because of some fancy 'principle' like 'universial human rights' or 'free speach', which you you pretent to value higher.

You are in many ways an example of the Orwellian concept of doublethinkers, as I think you really believe in free speach, but doesn't recognize the publics right to create an informed opinion without supression from the ones in power, or from the one you have internalized. Other elements of free speach has passed you by, is that it is human to err and believe wierd stuff like holocaustianity, christianity, etc, and that the best society is made where focus is on actual deeds, and not wether somebody has dangerous thoughts contrary to the current dogma.

We have at least had massive governmental and religious lies and manipulations since writing began, proving the importance of free speach as both protection, and as a right of the common folk against manipulations and distortions by the elites. The Holocaust is just one of them, and was used as justification of the war by the winners, and as a religious theme by the Jews.

Globus
12-30-2006, 11:44 PM
You are a member of a loosesly knitted group dedicated to enforcing the official dogma of the holocaust and fighting heretics.

So pointing out your ignorance of the history you deny is "enforcing" something?

It seems you not only want to spout nonsense about the Holocaust, but you expect it to be treated seriously!

Trojan, globus, Sergey Romanov, Nick Terry, etc wander from forum to forum to fight any heresy that might be posted, and try to dominate any debate on the holocaust, while procelyting the core believes of the correct dogma.

If we dominate it's because we know the history, and expose denier canards for what they are. What invetitably happens after a short time is deniers begin to whine, call for favorable moderation, stop even trying to discuss the history for fear of further embarrassment, and then make posts like this.

It looks to me and probably anybody who bothers to search and read your posts on different boards and fora, that you use activist or missionary strategies when posting.


Oooooh, "activists or missionary strategies"!!!

As Helios might say, one is reminded of Truman. "“I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell.”

I'm always amazed at how people like you can write paragraphs of utter fiction based on your own prejudices, but can't string together a few sentences which intelligently discuss the Holocaust.

eggheadbanga
12-30-2006, 11:44 PM
^

The above contains some serious factual inaccuracies about the circumstances of online Holocaust debating.

Firstly, there's no activism or missionary strategy. The simple fact is that revisionists are wont to raise the subject of the Holocaust and how it didn't happen on various different forums, and people who disagree with revisionism are wont to respond.

The resulting arguments and debates can be addictive as well as sometimes enlightening. The subject seems to be of great interest to both 'sides' and attracts high passions.


The usual internet forum Holocaust debate experience is divided between types of forums.

The majority of instances are where a lone denier wanders in to a regular forum to expound their views, and is usually greeted with skepticism by the regulars, who may or may not know that much about the subject, but usually ask all the obvious questions, none of which the denier will ever be able to answer. Result: the denier wanders off somewhere else or gives up.

Then there are the WN forums where Holocaust revisionism is Gospel. In most cases these are left alone (VNN, Occidental Dissent). In some cases the WN forum has an Opposing Views section, eg Stormfront. These tend to attract a few non-WNs simply after an argument.

Next would be the topic-specific forums such as Axis History Forum, which bans overt Holocaust denial, but is the venue of choice for discussion about all manner of historical topics to do with WWII, and therefore attracts pretty much anyone genuinely interested in the subject.

Finally, there are the specialist Holocaust-debating forums, CODOH, which basically moderturdates anyone who doesn't believe in revisionist gospel, and RODOH, which is free-speech.

A case example: Skeptics Society Forum saw a denier turn up sometime in the autumn of 2005, with 1-2 other occasional deniers joining in, versus a large coterie of skeptics who proceeded to make mincemeat of him. Because the main denier, 'David', was actually moderately more capable of debating than some and also stuck to the subject of history rather than deviating off onto geopolitical and racialist tangents, a few RODOH antis went over to SSF to debate him, and did so politely, without massive rancour, and to the great amusement of the regulars. Both sides agreed they learnt something from the debates. They were actually fun.

The problem started when some RODOH/CODOH revisionists turned up as they had heard via RODOH there was a Holocaust discussion going on. One of the revisionists to turn up was Kolchab, who also posts here now, and is a RODOH/CODOH veteran. Kolchab arguably followed me over from RODOH to here, by the way.

The real cause of the closure of the SSF WWII debate section was a NZ denier, a Christian Identity-espousing freak of not very great knowledge of the subject, who went by the name Antipodes there and goes by several others at RODOH and CODOH. At RODOH he is troll level and a headache even to the revisionists there. His antisemitism was so overt and so vile that the SSF administrators eventually had enough, coupled with the fact that the sudden influx of deniers and anti-deniers had made the whole section uncontrollable.

In the course of the final weeks I got the mistaken impression that Antipodes was another NZ denier who had spent most of the spring and summer trolling me at RODOH and elsewhere. Another newcomer, who may or may not have been a sockpuppet of this other NZ denier troll, then started fixating on me personally.

The admins at SSF had created the section as a playpen for Patient Zero, 'David', in the first place, and were looking for any excuse to ban him or shut the section down. 'David' was placed on post restrictions repeatedly for flaming and personal attacks. When the newcomers were thrown in, it got out of hand very quickly and it certainly wasn't a fun place to post anymore. I actually closed my account there before the section was shut down.

I think you really believe in free speach, but doesn't recognize the publics right to create an informed opinion without supression from the ones in power, or from the one you have internalized.

By this I take it you mean you want to have a corner of the internet that is wholly revisionist, well, there are plenty of those at CODOH and Stormfront, the Phora is and always has been a free-speech forum. If your beliefs about history can't stand scrutiny outside of an amen corner then tough cookies.

Keystone
12-30-2006, 11:47 PM
If we dominate it's because we know the history, and expose denier canards for what they are. What invetitably happens after a short time is deniers begin to whine, call for favorable moderation, stop even trying to discuss the history for fear of further embarrassment, and then make posts like this.
You guys are strange. You actually troll the Internet debating the Jews of WWII. What a strange and sad hobby.

Globus
12-30-2006, 11:56 PM
You guys are strange. You actually troll the Internet debating the Jews of WWII. What a strange and sad hobby.

And you think the discussions that occur on most of this forum are a healthy hobby?

Keystone
12-31-2006, 12:01 AM
And you think the discussions that occur on most of this forum are a healthy hobby?
I talk about other things. You don't. If it's not healthy, why are you here? Are you a crusader?

Starr
12-31-2006, 12:10 AM
And you think the discussions that occur on most of this forum are a healthy hobby?


A lot of the types of discussions I suppose you are referring to on these forums are coming from people who care about their race, the future of their race, and they also might have a problem with the way things currently are and the direction we are headed in and what this will mean for our race and the countries we live in. Nearly anything can become unhealthy at a certain point, but these certain basic ideas are very healthy. There are others, but I do believe the people you consider to be racist are what you are refering to.

What is your interest in the holocaust? There are people on the other side that seem a little bit obsessive also, but considering what they believe about the way it is used and the impact it has had on society, white guilt,etc. I can understand much better where they are coming from in feeling a need to obsess on it a bit.(If you were a jew it would also make a little more sense I suppose, but you have said you are not and I believe you for some reason) I am not asking this as a flame or anything I am honestly curious.

Helios Panoptes
12-31-2006, 12:32 AM
And of course the aggrieved moderator pretends he is qualified to be a judge of such things.

It is easy for me to discern that Milhouse is brighter and more articulate than you. To be honest, I can scarcely imagine that anyone who's read each of your contributions to this forum would disagree.

How old are you, 18?

You might try exercising your problem solving skills by clicking on my profile.

Globus
12-31-2006, 12:35 AM
I talk about other things. You don't. If it's not healthy, why are you here? Are you a crusader?

And why are the other things you talk about healthy?

Globus
12-31-2006, 12:37 AM
Originally Posted by Globus
And of course the aggrieved moderator pretends he is qualified to be a judge of such things.

It is easy for me to discern that Milhouse is brighter and more articulate than you.

It certainly is easy for you to assert what reflects your frustrations!!


How old are you, 18?

You might try exercising your problem solving skills by clicking on my profile.

Close enough! It explains a lot.

Keystone
12-31-2006, 12:37 AM
And why are the other things you talk about healthy?
Are you a robot? :p

Helios Panoptes
12-31-2006, 12:38 AM
Probably not unlike someone so frustrated with their inability to participate in a discussion they are largely ignorant of who finds it necessary to engage in childish insults while puffing himself up and overusing the pretentious pronoun "one"!

1) I am not frustrated by my inability to participate in discussions. I am capable of participating in those discussions which interest me, so there is no problem.

2) I don't find it "necessary." What gave you that idea? I find it amusing to point out that you contribute nothing to the forum that another poster isn't capable of doing infinitely better and more civilly.

3) I should use male pronouns more often. Thanks for that.

Globus
12-31-2006, 12:40 AM
A lot of the types of discussions I suppose you are referring to on these forums are coming from people who care about their race, the future of their race, and they also might have a problem with the way things currently are and the direction we are headed in and what this will mean for our race and the countries we live in.

Obsession, I would say.

What is your interest in the holocaust?

The denial of reality and the growth of intellectual nihilism, which generally reigns on this forum.

There are people on the other side that seem a little bit obsessive also, but considering what they believe about the way it is used and the impact it has had on society, white guilt,etc. I can understand much better where they are coming from in feeling a need to obsess on it a bit.

Of course, it makes perfect sense to you to deny history because of Jew hatred, but not to point out the lies.

I expected no less from you.

Helios Panoptes
12-31-2006, 12:42 AM
It certainly is easy for you to assert what reflects your frustrations!!

What in blazes are you talking about?


Close enough! It explains a lot.

Explains what, exactly?

Globus
12-31-2006, 12:44 AM
Originally Posted by Globus
Probably not unlike someone so frustrated with their inability to participate in a discussion they are largely ignorant of who finds it necessary to engage in childish insults while puffing himself up and overusing the pretentious pronoun "one"!

1) I am not frustrated by my inability to participate in discussions. I am capable of participating in those discussions which interest me, so there is no problem.

The fact that it doesn't interest you doesn't mean you aren't frustrated by the discussions.

2) I don't find it "necessary." What gave you that idea? I find it amusing to point out that you contribute nothing to the forum that another poster isn't capable of doing infinitely better and more civilly.

But your opinion is nonsense, both because of your ignorance of the subject matter, and the simple fact that you've had a hair across your ass for a long time. That you found it not necessary but fun to engage in childish insults hardly speaks better for you.

Globus
12-31-2006, 12:45 AM
What in blazes are you talking about?

Try reading it with your statement.

Explains what, exactly?

Your childishness.

Globus
12-31-2006, 12:46 AM
Are you a robot? :p

Was that too tough a question?

Helios Panoptes
12-31-2006, 12:51 AM
The fact that it doesn't interest you doesn't mean you aren't frustrated by the discussions.

Do you think before typing? I did not say that some revisionist was a far better and more civil contributor than you; I said that Milhouse, who shares your position on the matter, is a much more capable poster than you. You might try making the slightest bit of sense with your next response. It would be something new.

But your opinion is nonsense, both because of your ignorance of the subject matter, and the simple fact that you've had a hair across your ass for a long time. That you found it not necessary but fun to engage in childish insults hardly speaks better for you.

You are so easy to wind up that I do not fault myself for doing it. Plus, it is just a factual observation that he is your superior in every imaginable way.

Helios Panoptes
12-31-2006, 12:54 AM
Try reading it with your statement.

What about it? You should reply with multiple sentences next time. It would help us to communicate better.


Your childishness.

There are childish aspects to my personality, sure. I like to poke histrionic nitwits with a stick and watch them pitch a fit. It does get boring fast, though. I am getting tired of you already. Dance for me, monkey.

OVERWATCH
12-31-2006, 01:08 AM
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/9038/pwnedub7.gif (http://www.imageshack.us)

Keystone
12-31-2006, 01:11 AM
It does get boring fast, though. I am getting tired of you already. Dance for me, monkey.
You are Internet Strong, my boy.

Helios Panoptes
12-31-2006, 01:26 AM
You are Internet Strong, my boy.

You challenging me to a duel?

Keystone
12-31-2006, 01:32 AM
You challenging me to a duel?
No.

I wouldn't presume such a thing. You are clearly superior to me in the internet debating arts.

Don't hurt me, please.

Helios Panoptes
12-31-2006, 01:33 AM
No.

I wouldn't presume such a thing. You are clearly superior to me in the internet debating arts.

Don't hurt me, please.

I meant with flintlocks, genius.

Keystone
12-31-2006, 01:38 AM
I meant with flintlocks, genius.
I don't have one.

I've got a single-action Ruger Vaquero I'm fond of, and would like to try it out.

Clint Eastwood spaghetti western material.

Helios Panoptes
12-31-2006, 01:46 AM
I don't have one.

I've got a single-action Ruger Vaquero I'm fond of, and would like to try it out.

Clint Eastwood spaghetti western material.

It's okay, I don't have a flintlock, either. I have a DE Mark XIX.

http://www.gundirectory.com/guns/20058-1.jpg

Keystone
12-31-2006, 01:52 AM
It's okay, I don't have a flintlock, either. I have a DE Mark XIX.

http://www.gundirectory.com/guns/20058-1.jpg
That's a big gun, my friend.

Helios Panoptes
12-31-2006, 01:53 AM
Sure is. :D

il ragno
12-31-2006, 01:57 AM
I would ask how a college student in NYC ever got a carry permit for that bad boy, but I'd rather pimp-slap Globus again.

Helios Panoptes
12-31-2006, 02:00 AM
I would ask how a college student in NYC ever got a carry permit for that bad boy, but I'd rather pimp-slap Globus again.

Permit issued to a relative, but it's really "mine."

I am not in NYC, btw, just close.

Petyr Baelish
12-31-2006, 02:03 AM
That's a big gun, my friend.

It's useless as a combat pistol, FAIK.

Starr
12-31-2006, 02:04 AM
[QUOTE=Globus]Obsession, I would say.


yes, Globus some people do feel it is important to discuss racial and cultural matters. This is something that is not even allowed in many other places. Neither of course is holocaust revisionism.

The denial of reality and the growth of intellectual nihilism, which generally reigns on this forum.

that doesn't really answer my question on why countering what you call "denial of reality" on this particular subject is so terribly important to you.


Of course, it makes perfect sense to you to deny history because of Jew hatred, but not to point out the lies.

I expected no less from you.

Why are you so quick to label everyone and everything you disagree with as "hate" and "haters" is that a bit obsessive? I must say as much as you talk about "jew hate" "anti-semitism" ad nauseum, it is a little difficult to believe you are not, in fact, a jew.

Helios Panoptes
12-31-2006, 02:07 AM
It's useless as a combat pistol, FAIK.

That is correct. It is a conversation piece.

Janus
12-31-2006, 02:07 AM
It's useless as a combat pistol... Would you say the same thing while being attacked by a rabid elephant? :D

il ragno
12-31-2006, 02:11 AM
Well, let's just say that now I understand the starting fights with strangers in bars.....

OVERWATCH
12-31-2006, 02:27 AM
It's useless as a combat pistol, FAIK.
Nope, I've fired a .44 automag and found it to be quite effective, accurate, fairly easily handled and certainly deadly to the max.

Anyways, for combat what you need is a rifle or shotgun (preferrably both) not a pistol.

Der Sozialist
12-31-2006, 02:31 AM
Nope, I've fired a .44 automag and found it to be quite effective, accurate, fairly easily handled and certainly deadly to the max.

I would imagine that the recoil would render it useless over long distances—aiming that is. Not to mention, one would be hard pressed to fire as many shots in a given range of time, as say a 9mm.

Petyr Baelish
12-31-2006, 02:35 AM
Nope, I've fired a .44 automag and found it to be quite effective, accurate, fairly easily handled and certainly deadly to the max.

I am not aware of a single country that issues the Desert Eagle or any other .44 Mag or .50 AE caliber pistol to its military (special forces included), primarily because such large caliber pistols tend to be far too bulky, incredibly loud, and the recoil is too much for the average infantryman to handle. .40 S&W, 10mm Auto and .45 ACP, on the other hand, are superior calibers for close-quarter combat.

Anyways, for combat what you need is a rifle or shotgun (preferrably both) not a pistol.

I think it's a good idea for infantrymen involved in urban combat or special-ops to carry a quality handgun as a backup weapon.

OVERWATCH
12-31-2006, 02:40 AM
I would imagine that the recoil would render it useless over long distances—aiming that is. Not to mention, one would be hard pressed to fire as many shots in a given range of time, as say a 9mm.

True. but if a pistol can reliably hit a man sized target within 75 feet, that's all that's really needed, imho.

If I had to choose between a couple hundred more rounds for the AK, or a pistol, I would take the extra rounds instead.

An automag would not be very high on my list of sidearms for purpose of conceal and carry. It would, however, be nice as a target shooter(though I greatly prefer revolvers in this regard).

OVERWATCH
12-31-2006, 02:46 AM
I am not aware of a single country that issues the Desert Eagle or any other .44 Mag or .50 AE caliber pistol to its military (special forces included), primarily because such large caliber pistols tend to be far too bulky, incredibly loud, and the recoil is too much for the average infantryman to handle. .40 S&W, 10mm Auto and .45 ACP, on the other hand, are superior calibers for close-quarter combat.



I think it's a good idea for infantrymen involved in urban combat or special-ops to carry a quality handgun as a backup weapon.
True, they aren't the best military sidearm for sure, for various reasons, but they are far from 'useless'.

Sidearms very rarely ever get used in combat anyway. If I was issued one of the less-reliable and finicky rifles that some 'advanced' western armies use, I would definitely want a sidearm 9mm or .45 due to murphy's law.

OVERWATCH
12-31-2006, 02:51 AM
As sure as the sun will rise in the morning, you can count on your AK to feed & fire every single round.

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/2512/akanimationqo1.gif (http://www.imageshack.us)

Der Sozialist
12-31-2006, 02:54 AM
True. but if a pistol can reliably hit a man sized target within 75 feet, that's all that's really needed, imho.
In close combat situations, one has to consider multiple adversaries. A DE would be a poor choice in such an scenario, imo.

If I had to choose between a couple hundred more rounds for the AK, or a pistol, I would take the extra rounds instead.

The AK-47 is an extremely rugged rifle—I knew some people who dropped their rifle in a lake and it sill worked. That being said, in close-combat situations the AK-47, even when the lever is in its lowest position (i.e. Semi-Automatic mode) has some disadvantages. Namely, its length is a problem and also its accuracy is poorer than some service pistols. However, an AK-47 is superior to a M-16 in close combat scenarios in my opinion while the M-16 is highly accurate.

OVERWATCH
12-31-2006, 03:06 AM
in close-combat situations the AK-47, even when the lever is in its lowest position (i.e. Semi-Automatic mode) has some disadvantages. Namely, its length is a problem
I dunno, less than two feet long with stock folded and able to sport a 75 round(or more) drum, that's a lot of firepower for a compact weapon; but yeah, if you're crawling into a 3' pipe or other extremely confined space it would be a problem.

also its accuracy is poorer than some service pistols.
Unless the sights are off, I find this to be a fantastic claim. Evidence?

OVERWATCH
12-31-2006, 03:09 AM
oh yeah.. btw :hijacked: :D

delete
12-31-2006, 04:13 AM
Firstly, there's no activism or missionary strategy. The simple fact is that revisionists are wont to raise the subject of the Holocaust and how it didn't happen on various different forums, and people who disagree with revisionism are wont to respond.


But of course there is strategy. Two examples could be how you don't arrest Globus when he is off limits, like some of the revisionists have done with Glenn Miller.
And how you guys stay out of controversial topics because you are afraid to alienate the opposite crowd on any other subject than the Holy Holohoax. .


The resulting arguments and debates can be addictive as well as sometimes enlightening. The subject seems to be of great interest to both 'sides' and attracts high passions.


I think it is fazinating that true believers like yourself view it as so important to belittle your oponents, call them crazy and insane, as the most intelligent of you should have realized by now, that most of revisionist are honest when they don't say they believe in the holocaust, and that a lot of them also are quite intelligent.

Factual truth, and what held as facual truth, doesn't need to be the same, something the history of science have shown time upon time.
You should have understood this, beeing university educated and all, but you stick with dogma, even though you know that almost every previous dogma have been proven false, and that statistically, the odds are against you beeing right.


A case example: Skeptics Society Forum saw a denier turn up sometime in the autumn of 2005, with 1-2 other occasional deniers joining in, versus a large coterie of skeptics who proceeded to make mincemeat of him. Because the main denier, 'David', was actually moderately more capable of debating than some and also stuck to the subject of history rather than deviating off onto geopolitical and racialist tangents, a few RODOH antis went over to SSF to debate him, and did so politely, without massive rancour, and to the great amusement of the regulars. Both sides agreed they learnt something from the debates. They were actually fun.


What I found most funny is the way the Skeptic forum is supposed to be populated by skeptics, but they are almost the most dogmatc people alive today, as they don't even acknowledge posibilty of the reality of race. ;)

Let's ask you a controversial question that I believe som Phora readers would like to know the answer to.

Do you believe that low mental capacity of Negroes is the main reason black africa is a shitty place to live, and do you believe that blacks are born with lower IQ potential than whites?

I don't think you will answer honestly or dodge this question, as your image as a reliable truth-witness for the Holocaust for everybody here on the Phora, is only going to suffer as some group is going to be alienated by ether answer.



By this I take it you mean you want to have a corner of the internet that is wholly revisionist, well, there are plenty of those at CODOH and Stormfront, the Phora is and always has been a free-speech forum. If your beliefs about history can't stand scrutiny outside of an amen corner then tough cookies.

Here you belittle again. You as a professional historian (theologian) on the holohoax, do not manage do go for the big guy revisionists like Irving, Zundel or Mattogno, whoom you put in Jail, so you try to bash amateurs with what looks like poor success in stead. :)

I don't want have a corner of the internet, I want the holohoax publicly debunked as the black propaganda that it was/is, and then blame the whole thing on the jews.

We need national unity in Europe, and what better than to exhonorate our landsmen as victimes of manipulation, and make the jews and the communists pay for their public lies and distorion of history they are responsible for.

Edited in the word 'potential'.

Dances with Wolves
12-31-2006, 04:24 AM
As sure as the sun will rise in the morning, you can count on your AK to feed & fire every single round.

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/2512/akanimationqo1.gif (http://www.imageshack.us)

The AK is such a beautiful piece of art.

delete
12-31-2006, 04:41 AM
The AK is such a beautiful piece of art.
:hijacked:
Move this pistol thing to it's own thread, perhapes?

Dances with Wolves
12-31-2006, 05:05 AM
We can't give AKs or .45s to "deniers"? :confused:

Besides, Christmas is over with ;)

Der Sozialist
12-31-2006, 07:07 AM
Unless the sights are off, I find this to be a fantastic claim. Evidence?

I shot an old-version of the AK-47—without the upgraded sights. However, in an up-right position, with the lever down, the recoil was quite strong and I wasn’t very accurate. While I found shooting a SIG P210 to have far better accuracy—at least, over 50 meters.

I have no evidence besides anecdotal—for that I apologize.

Der Sozialist
12-31-2006, 07:12 AM
I am also highly pleased with an S&W 945 in terms of accuracy but I shot that much later than an AK-47 and my shooting technique has improved considerably since then.

Helios Panoptes
12-31-2006, 08:13 AM
One bad thing about the Desert Eagle is the stovepiping, but I've heard it's caused by certain magazines. I have different mags I've been meaning to try, but haven't gotten around to it yet.

Hartmann von Aue
12-31-2006, 10:52 AM
We can't give AKs or .45s to "deniers"? :confused:

Besides, Christmas is over with ;)

Christmas has twelve days.

Something that is probably mentioned less in the regular media (excluding the carol) than the 8 days of Hanukkah.

Back to what sort of gifts they would want: Model railroad hobbyists can build their own "Holocaust" museum.

eggheadbanga
12-31-2006, 02:38 PM
But of course there is strategy. Two examples could be how you don't arrest Globus when he is off limits, like some of the revisionists have done with Glenn Miller.

On the contrary, I've told Globus to cool it in public.

And how you guys stay out of controversial topics because you are afraid to alienate the opposite crowd on any other subject than the Holy Holohoax. .

This isn't strategy, it's simple disinterest.

Contrary to your very first post here, which whined about 'RODOH infiltration', there was never any thought to somehow organising a concerted campaign of online debunking. That would be completely pointless, since if there's one thing I've learnt this year, it's that committed online 'revisionists' are completely incapable of ever admitting they might be wrong on an issue.

Waffling about orchestration is like saying the guys from Screw Loose Change are NIST shills, a complaint frequently heard from 9/11 Truthers and just as false. The guys from SLC post at JREF and get endless complaints over at the Loose Change forum, which, surprise surprise, is almost identical to CODOH in that anyone who does not espouse the Truther dogma is banned and anyone who shows them up is an obvious shill/plant/paid CIA-ADL agent etc.

The fact is that like the JREF people with 9/11 Truthers, there are a small number of people who relish arguing with Holocaust deniers, for generally similar reasons.

Let's ask you a controversial question that I believe som Phora readers would like to know the answer to.

You mean you can't guess?

Do you believe that low mental capacity of Negroes is the main reason black africa is a shitty place to live, and do you believe that blacks are born with lower IQ than whites?

I have zero interest in race-IQ debates.

I don't think you will answer honestly or dodge this question, as your image as a reliable truth-witness for the Holocaust for everybody here on the Phora, is only going to suffer as some group is going to be alienated by ether answer.

It seems not to have occurred to you that one can be a racialist without indulging in pointless Holocaust denial fantasies. Indeed, I've pointed out on several occasions that from a racialist perspective, Holocaust denial is about as sensible as bashing your head against a brick wall.

You don't need Holocaust denial if you want to start a debate about race issues, or Israel, or the role of the Jewish lobby in American politics. In fact, it might vastly increase your chances of being listened to.

I think it is fazinating that true believers like yourself view it as so important to belittle your oponents, call them crazy and insane, as the most intelligent of you should have realized by now, that most of revisionist are honest when they don't say they believe in the holocaust, and that a lot of them also are quite intelligent.

Intelligent people can believe the craziest things. Conspiracy theories of any stripe are generally more popular with the below- and above-average in intelligence. The truly average don't bother themselves with such things.

And like it or not Holocaust denial is a conspiracy theory. It theorises that a gigantic conspiracy took hold of multiple nation-states some time in the 1940s and has maintained a hologram version of history ever since, despite the fact that literally 10s of 1000s of historians, prosecutors, investigators, scientists and others have prodded this alleged hologram and found it to be quite real.

Factual truth, and what held as facual truth, doesn't need to be the same, something the history of science have shown time upon time.

Paradigm shifts happen in the history of science (and indeed any academic discipline) when the weight of evidence accumulates to the point that the previously accepted theory or account is discredited. This simply has not happened with Holocaust revisionism.

To take one example, there are far fewer than 20 book-chapters or articles written from a revisionist perspective dedicated to the Einsatzgruppen, Police Battalions and the mass shootings in Eastern Europe, a phenomenon which historians have calculated took at least 2 million lives. To use a phrase, this was at least 'one third of the Holocaust'.

The less than 20 revisionist book chapters and articles all invariably recycle the same tired old claims coined by Rassinier and Hoggan in the 1960s, with maybe one new addition every five years to the mantras.

By contrast: there are more than 200 scholarly monographs and articles dealing with the history of the mass shootings, some of which are longer than the sum total of revisionist thought on this subject, and all of which offer more evidence for consideration, indeed highlighting the fact that the shootings left a trail of mass graves which were forensically examined in the 1940s and which have in many cases been re-exhumed in the 1990s and 2000s to help site memorials.

Which perspective is a neutral observer going to choose?

You should have understood this, beeing university educated and all, but you stick with dogma, even though you know that almost every previous dogma have been proven false, and that statistically, the odds are against you beeing right.

The only dogma I observe is the revisionist belief that there were no gassings and that Jews did not die.

By contrast, it is very much the case that were substantial evidence to come to light proving a conspiracy to orchestrate a hoax, and provingthat the dead Jews in fact did not die but went to Timbuktu or wherever, that not only historians but the entire world would then accept the argument that the Holocaust did not happen. Thus, the claim that the Holocaust happened is a falsifiable one.

That is how science works; it is not enough to simply debunk mindlessly, one has to have an alternative hypothesis that satisfies and explains more of the evidence than the previous hypothesis did. This simply hasn't happened with revisionism.

Given the utter lack of an alternative explanation one is fully entitled to query whether the 'debunkings' are in fact good-faith, and lo and behold, on closer examination almost without exception the 'debunkings' are gibberish. My favourite example: Leuchter tried to calculate on the basis that six million Jews had all been gassed at Auschwitz, a claim that nobody had ever made.

Incidentally: in historical science (Geschichtswissenschaft) relating to the modern era, not a single major event of the level of complexity of the Holocaust has ever been proven to be false dogma. That's because there is a considerable difference between historical fact and historical interpretation. Interpretations are fairly ephemeral, and these are subjected to something in between the Kuhnian paradigm shift theory of the history of science, and fashion.

What I found most funny is the way the Skeptic forum is supposed to be populated by skeptics, but they are almost the most dogmatc people alive today, as they don't even acknowledge posibilty of the reality of race.

How can one be dogmatic about something that is not discussed on those forums? If it is not discussed, then it is not discussed. Not everyone shares your hobbyhorses, delete.

Here you belittle again. You as a professional historian (theologian) on the holohoax, do not manage do go for the big guy revisionists like Irving, Zundel or Mattogno, whoom you put in Jail, so you try to bash amateurs with what looks like poor success in stead.

The only statement in the above that bears any relation to the truth is describing me as a professional historian.

I don't want have a corner of the internet, I want the holohoax publicly debunked as the black propaganda that it was/is, and then blame the whole thing on the jews.

We need national unity in Europe, and what better than to exhonorate our landsmen as victimes of manipulation, and make the jews and the communists pay for their public lies and distorion of history they are responsible for.

I wish you luck trying to find a communist to make pay for these alleged distortions, there don't seem to be many around these days. What are you going to do, sue Russia?

If you wish to have this alleged 'hoax' publicly debunked then I strongly recommend you and your like-minds put a bit more effort into proving this gigantic conspiracy and providing an alternative explanation. Sitting back on your haunches saying 'show me, show me' on the internet, the default 'I'm-a-skeptic' pose that many revisionists adopt, isn't actually any good in convincing the wider audience that this alleged 'hoax' existed.

I should also add that you seem more interested in placing the antisemitic cart before the historical revisionist horse, and therefore also suggest you unhitch one from the other and rearrange. You'll notice that the published deniers manage to go for, ooh, at least 100 pages or so before making an antisemitic remark. Try it sometime.

Kriger
12-31-2006, 02:55 PM
You forgot to add that these are your opinions, Milhouse.

eggheadbanga
12-31-2006, 03:02 PM
You forgot to add that these are your opinions, Milhouse.

Yeeeess. And?

that guy
12-31-2006, 03:26 PM
delete, today:
Here you belittle again. You as a professional historian (theologian) on the holohoax, do not manage do go for the big guy revisionists like Irving, Zundel or Mattogno, whoom you put in Jail, so you try to bash amateurs with what looks like poor success in stead. :)


delete, last week:
This sort of stupid comments is what sets off the radar in the first place. You now this is untrue, but say it for retorics only.

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=269741&postcount=8

Saying that MVH put Zundel or Mattogno in jail is the sort of stupid comment that sets off the radar in the first place, delete. You know this is untrue, but say it for rhetoric only.

Your comments (here and elsewhere) also reaffirm that my comment was not stupid at all. It was accurate, and it holds true for you just like it does for DWW.

delete
12-31-2006, 03:43 PM
This isn't strategy, it's simple disinterest.


How does lay people separate between real and pretended disinterest for strategial reasons, and do you agree that this can be hard even if you know people?

I use strategy when I call you guys religious, as I think this is one of the best way to focus attention of the clear parallells between your behaviour and the ones that tried to enforce the absolute truth of the bible.


Contrary to your very first post here, which whined about 'RODOH infiltration', there was never any thought to somehow organising a concerted campaign of online debunking. That would be completely pointless, since if there's one thing I've learnt this year, it's that committed online 'revisionists' are completely incapable of ever admitting they might be wrong on an issue.


If I whined so bad, why didn't you quote the post to prove your point, in stead of leaving the work of checking out your claim to the interested reader?
I have called you a loosly knitted group of dedicated believers of holocaustianity, and you parallell the people who spread the word of God on their spare time to further their insider status. They don't need a concerted campaign to do this, and neigther do you, but it helps.


Waffling about orchestration is like saying the guys from Screw Loose Change are NIST shills, a complaint frequently heard from 9/11 Truthers and just as false. The guys from SLC post at JREF and get endless complaints over at the Loose Change forum, which, surprise surprise, is almost identical to CODOH in that anyone who does not espouse the Truther dogma is banned and anyone who shows them up is an obvious shill/plant/paid CIA-ADL agent etc.

The fact is that like the JREF people with 9/11 Truthers, there are a small number of people who relish arguing with Holocaust deniers, for generally similar reasons.


Where have I talked about 911?
Is this more strategy and deception trying to paint stupid?


You mean you can't guess? (what opinion MVH has about the mental capacity of black people.)

I have zero interest in race-IQ debates.


I think you stay away from race and IQ, because you don't dare to go there. You do quite well as a sheep in your current paradigm, and see no reason change your currently green pastures.


It seems not to have occurred to you that one can be a racialist without indulging in pointless Holocaust denial fantasies. Indeed, I've pointed out on several occasions that from a racialist perspective, Holocaust denial is about as sensible as bashing your head against a brick wall.

You don't need Holocaust denial if you want to start a debate about race issues, or Israel, or the role of the Jewish lobby in American politics. In fact, it might vastly increase your chances of being listened to.


I want the whole allied/jewish suppression and lies to explode into selfrightous anti-semitism and uncorcked nationalism. A great help would be to let the Jews and you guys keep your positions and your suppression, so that people will have prove of the crime we blame you for. You have given us a great tool with the holohoax, and left yourself open for exploitation by us nationalists.

When we say that there have been black propaganda against nationalism, and that nationalism and scientific truth is supressed with the use of the establishment, we can point to you guys and the official dogma of Holocaustianity as examples where people can look and discover the truth for themselves.

I have to answer the rest of your post later.

OVERWATCH
12-31-2006, 04:24 PM
One bad thing about the Desert Eagle is the stovepiping, but I've heard it's caused by certain magazines. I have different mags I've been meaning to try, but haven't gotten around to it yet.

If that doesn't work, I think you'll have to use hotter rounds- ours had the same problem, everything had to be hand loaded. Next time I talk to the fellow who did it, I'll see if he can remember the specs, then I'll give them to you in the shoutbox. ;)

eggheadbanga
12-31-2006, 07:01 PM
Originally Posted by Milhouse Van Houten
This isn't strategy, it's simple disinterest.

How does lay people separate between real and pretended disinterest for strategial reasons, and do you agree that this can be hard even if you know people?

I'm more and more bemused by this nonsensical argument about pretended disinterest.

What pretence am I supposed to be engaged in and what evil thoughts am I covering up?

Please, enlighten me as to what my ZOG masters must want. :rofl:

I use strategy when I call you guys religious, as I think this is one of the best way to focus attention of the clear parallells between your behaviour and the ones that tried to enforce the absolute truth of the bible.

Delete is projecting again. I see the latest 'revisionist' to arrive, Flint Steel, has been posting comic-books, that's more than a little reminiscent of the proselytising that creationists do.

A small comparison. Which sounds more cultlike?

1) Revisionism: tiny coterie of non-accredited writers operating outside their disciplines, followed by a variety of ideologues and credulous CTers who insist they and only they possess the Truth about a historical event, which incidentally they don't know very much about other than it involves 'da Joooz'.

2) Historians: trained professionals who work within their own discipline, applying rules of evidence, arguing fiercely with each other over points of fact and interpretation, and willing to consider whatever new evidence comes to light to revise their understanding of historical events.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milhouse Van Houten
Contrary to your very first post here, which whined about 'RODOH infiltration', there was never any thought to somehow organising a concerted campaign of online debunking. That would be completely pointless, since if there's one thing I've learnt this year, it's that committed online 'revisionists' are completely incapable of ever admitting they might be wrong on an issue.

If I whined so bad, why didn't you quote the post to prove your point, in stead of leaving the work of checking out your claim to the interested reader?

Because anyone who wants to check it out can find it by searching your posts. But here it is anyway:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=14073

It's also really funny because you said:

I don't recon I will stay on this forum

and yet here you still are, nearly three months and 493 posts later, accusing people of wandering from forum to forum to proselytise.

One might say 'hello pot!' given the circumstances of your arrival here.

I have called you a loosly knitted group of dedicated believers of holocaustianity, and you parallell the people who spread the word of God on their spare time to further their insider status. They don't need a concerted campaign to do this, and neigther do you, but it helps.

Again with the projection.

I notice, by the way, that you snipped the empirical comparison of how much revisionists had written versus how much historians had researched on a rather salient case example.

This is a good example of why spouting nonsense about 'believers in holocaustianity' will only make you look very foolish indeed.

Please explain why studying the results of and engaging in one's own historical research is in any way to be considered a religion. I'm very curious about this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milhouse Van Houten
Waffling about orchestration is like saying the guys from Screw Loose Change are NIST shills, a complaint frequently heard from 9/11 Truthers and just as false. The guys from SLC post at JREF and get endless complaints over at the Loose Change forum, which, surprise surprise, is almost identical to CODOH in that anyone who does not espouse the Truther dogma is banned and anyone who shows them up is an obvious shill/plant/paid CIA-ADL agent etc.

The fact is that like the JREF people with 9/11 Truthers, there are a small number of people who relish arguing with Holocaust deniers, for generally similar reasons.

Where have I talked about 911?
Is this more strategy and deception trying to paint stupid?

No, delete, it's called an analogy. I've bolded the word that alerts the dedicated reader of the English language to this.

I find the modus operandi of 9/11 Truthers and Holocaust revisionists to be remarkably similar, with the difference that Truthers tend to be younger, more stupid and slightly less ideological, whereas Holocaust revisionists seem to be older, convinced of their own superior intelligence and extremely ideological.

Hope that helps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milhouse Van Houten
You mean you can't guess? (what opinion MVH has about the mental capacity of black people.)

I have zero interest in race-IQ debates.

I think you stay away from race and IQ, because you don't dare to go there.

Why? Because I will be 'exposed' as a liberal somehow? Isn't that, you know, already obvious to anyone reading this discussion for more than a few minutes?

You do quite well as a sheep in your current paradigm, and see no reason change your currently green pastures.

Or, to vary the metaphor, there are sufficient revisionist lambs coming to the slaughter that there's no need for me to cut into darker meat. :D

Shouldn't it, you know, be obvious why I of all people tend to be interested in historical discussions on this forum and elsewhere? Because I am a historian. It's really as simple as that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milhouse Van Houten
It seems not to have occurred to you that one can be a racialist without indulging in pointless Holocaust denial fantasies. Indeed, I've pointed out on several occasions that from a racialist perspective, Holocaust denial is about as sensible as bashing your head against a brick wall.

You don't need Holocaust denial if you want to start a debate about race issues, or Israel, or the role of the Jewish lobby in American politics. In fact, it might vastly increase your chances of being listened to.

I want the whole allied/jewish suppression and lies to explode into selfrightous anti-semitism and uncorcked nationalism.

Thanks for admitting that your entire aim in engaging in 'historical revisionism' is purely political and tactical.

A great help would be to let the Jews and you guys keep your positions and your suppression, so that people will have prove of the crime we blame you for. You have given us a great tool with the holohoax, and left yourself open for exploitation by us nationalists.

No, the best you can muster is some outrage because a tiny handful of European countries have declared your kind of gibberish illegal in certain contexts. This will pass, and then what will you talk about?

When we say that there have been black propaganda against nationalism, and that nationalism and scientific truth is supressed with the use of the establishment, we can point to you guys and the official dogma of Holocaustianity as examples where people can look and discover the truth for themselves.

Bwahaha. Scientific truth, my ass.

This is the problem, you see, with historical revisionism. Instead of doing the sensible thing and, you know, avoiding the alleged biggest obstacle to the progression of nationalist/racialist/WN etc ideas, the ninnies only go ahead and headbutt it repeatedly, wondering why in so doing they not only fail to progress significantly, but are forced into embarrassing alliances of convenience with Islamists and become laughing-stocks to the wider world.

:nopity:

Straight Satan
01-01-2007, 08:14 AM
What do deniers give each other for Christmas?

A Klaus Barbie doll?

Kriger
01-01-2007, 08:24 AM
What do deniers give each other for Christmas?

What do proponents give each other for Christmas?

Trips to Yad Vashem? Appearances on Oprah with Holocaust survivors? Tours of the "gas chambers" at Auschwitz?

Vhat?

delete
01-01-2007, 02:22 PM
Guy, this was a good post, as you at least was arguing, and was the last post before the other ones qouted:

If you are a Jew, it's not a problem. You can call MP, koch and me 'Jews' until you are red in the face. But when you call posters that claim to be non-Jews Jews, then you are doing 3 additional things:

1) Claiming that they are lying (without giving any real proof).

2) Insinuating (and often downright claiming) that Jews in general post on these forums as non-Jews (without giving any real proof).

3) Insinuating that non-Jews would never be anti-netzi or anti-vnner.


The combination of these three claims/insinuations is what makes your behavior inflammatory, D, not the term 'Jew'.

The term 'arab' is not inflammatory. But if I would claim that you are an arab because you are a liar and because only arabs could hold your crazy beliefs, then it could be considered inflammatory. Hope that cleared it up for you.


The previous posts, from where Guy was quoting.



There are certain posters on this forum who I suspect of being jews who when questioned about their ethnicity cry to a moderator.
One must suspect that such posters really are jews or why not deny it?
Therefore DWW, one must obey commandment number 1, Thou shalt not out a jew!

Exactly my friend. I'm wondering why philosemites would object to being suspected of being jews. As for guys nonsense, even our other philosemites like keystone and kodos show some independent thinking. You don't see me suspecting them of being jews, though kodos may very well be, it's hard to tell with such a chameleon type of people.

My standard is, think like a jew, act like a jew;you are a jew

By that standard (coupled with your ideas on what constitutes 'thinking and acting like a jew') you would be a jew, too, D(ances with wolwes), along with most of your buddies from vnn



This sort of stupid comments is what sets off the radar in the first place. You now this is untrue, but say it for retorics only.


FMPOV there is a trend that both jews and the holocaust dogma enforcers use more infammatory oneliners in comparison to the average holocaust skeptic or disbeliever. You just have to look in the Jewology section so see some examples of this, and yes they do set of my radar as to people beeing jewish.

As to 'You now this is untrue, but say it for retorics only'
Do you really think 'Dances with wolfes' both thinks like a jew and act like a jew, or was it rethorical? Was this said with any other intention of than angering DWW or any other? Are you really proud of that post?

As to you incinuating that I was guilty of the same cheap rethorics like you, when I posted this to Milhouse?

Originally Posted by delete
Here you belittle again. You as a professional historian (theologian) on the holohoax, do not manage do go for the big guy revisionists like Irving, Zundel or Mattogno, whoom you put in Jail, so you try to bash amateurs with what looks like poor success in stead.


You are of course partially right, :) but mine was part of a bigger post, and it was also partially true.

Milhouse as a professional historian could write scholary articles, refuting Irving, Zundel, and Mattogno footnote by footnote, calculation by calculation. He thinks it is more fun fighting heretics on the internet, than redoing part of Rudolf, Zundel or Mattogno's work, as normal scientific methology would need in order to make a sound refutation.

It is not true that Milhouse have anything to do with putting Rudolf or Zundel, or has publicly support it.
I still lay it at his feet in a way, because as a professional historian, he knows that the official holocaust dogma is full of conflicting evidence and absurdities.

eggheadbanga
01-01-2007, 03:51 PM
Milhouse as a professional historian could write scholary articles, refuting Irving, Zundel, and Mattogno footnote by footnote, calculation by calculation.

Why do you assume that I am not doing that already? And how long do you think such a project should take? I've been working at it on and off for about 10 months so far.

There are 4,500 articles and equivalents (book chapters HTMLed) on VHO, which contains almost everything ever written by revisionists. A few other things are elsewhere, but this is the 'core'.

http://vho.org/Archive.html#Book

Eliminate the duplicate copies and the translations into foreign languages of the same text and there are 2,000 book chapters/articles.

On closer examination, most of these articles are waffle. The Journal of Historical Review only dedicated about 20% of its content to actual Holocaust revisionism, 30% to beating its chest about how wonderful revisionism was/how oppressed they were and 50% to other subjects. So that reduces the specifically revisionist work to a fraction.

I have a subject index file about 200pp long correlating these articles and chapters by theme, thus I know precisely how many times revisionists have written at length about the Einsatzgruppen (not very often, as it happens), how many times there has been an article devoted to Sobibor (one short 'research note' citing no sources) and how many pieces to different aspects of Auschwitz.

The beauty of this system is it means I can trace back the evolution of specific claims to Rassinier, Hoggan etc, and usually find the same old crap being repeated throughout.

I can spot citation circles whereby quotes get transformed as one revisionist ends up citing another revisionist.

I also have chronologically organised bibliographies showing when revisionist works were first written, when translated, and in comparison a similarly chronological bibliography showing what orthodox works were available in what languages at what time.

Again, the results are rather embarrassing for revisionism as most of what has been written on the Holocaust - by academics, as well as memoir accounts - has been ignored by deniers.

This is quite apart from the documents which are almost all ignored. In fact, it's fair to say that spread over the collective works of revisionists, very few documents have been cited or examined, indeed the entirety of revisionits have probably cited fewer individual files in the 4,500 articles and book chapters than I did in my dissertation.


All of this is what is known as research. The object of the research, revisionism.

In between research, I post here to let off steam.

Clear now?

He thinks it is more fun fighting heretics on the internet, than redoing part of Rudolf, Zundel or Mattogno's work, as normal scientific methology would need in order to make a sound refutation.

I think it's fun to see the hash that the followers have made of their gurus' scriptures, yes.

It's also helpful towards the refutations of Mattogno, Rudolf et al to examine the inane challenges of their followers.

I often save off things I have written here, or things others have said, into files for future reference. They've turned out to be quite helpful in the academic refutation that is accumulating.

It is not true that Milhouse have anything to do with putting Rudolf or Zundel, or has publicly support it.

I've publicly opposed it.

I still lay it at his feet in a way, because as a professional historian, he knows that the official holocaust dogma is full of conflicting evidence and absurdities.

Have you even READ the official revisionist dogma? Care to explain whether Morgue 1 of Krema II was an air-raid shelter, a carburetion chamber, a delousing chamber, or a morgue as variously claimed by the collected intellects of revisionism? Or indeed why the likes of Germar Rudolf can change their minds about what it was on consecutive pages? Or David Irving change his mind within the space of 5 minutes in a court-room? All without any corroborating evidence?

:rofl:

that guy
01-01-2007, 04:19 PM
Guy, this was a good post, as you at least was arguing, and was the last post before the other ones qouted:
Well I've been "arguing" on these websites (SF, vnn, and here) for almost 3 years. I don't argue as much as I used to now, but when I see blatant hypocrisy in front of my face, I still react.

The previous posts, from where Guy was quoting.

FMPOV there is a trend that both jews and the holocaust dogma enforcers use more infammatory oneliners in comparison to the average holocaust skeptic or disbeliever.
Well that may or may not be true, but is the difference really that great? Is the inflammatory rhetoric really only one sided?

You just have to look in the Jewology section so see some examples of this,
Do you want me to show you debates that I had on vnn? I think they show that vnners use more inflammatory rhetoric than me. Take a look for yourself if you want. I posted there under the same name. The same thing happened on SF (though I never registered there – I only posted as a guest). So you see, delete, I have years of experience in which the other side has used more inflammatory language than me. Of course, eventually I would respond to these guys in a similar manner. And eventually I had to leave vnn because IMHO you cannot have rational debates with those guys.

If you want, I could post a few examples of this behavior here.

and yes they do set of my radar as to people beeing jewish.
Well in light of what I just wrote, you can understand why I think that is not an accurate way of finding Jews. Like I said, in my 3 years of debating on SF, vnn, and to a lesser degree, here, the other side does not use less inflammatory language.

As to 'You now this is untrue, but say it for retorics only'
Do you really think 'Dances with wolfes' both thinks like a jew and act like a jew, or was it rethorical?
I never said that DWW thinks and acts like a Jew. I said that by DWW's standards, coupled with his ideas on what constitutes 'thinking and acting like a jew', he would be considered a Jew.

Here is my quote again:

By that standard (coupled with your ideas on what constitutes 'thinking and acting like a jew') you would be a jew, too, D, along with most of your buddies from vnn
Do I really think that is true? Absolutely. It was not just rhetoric.


Was this said with any other intention of than angering DWW or any other? Are you really proud of that post?
I didn't post that to "anger" DWW. I posted it to point out his hypocrisy. If he got angry then that would have been a nice bonus, though.

As to you incinuating that I was guilty of the same cheap rethorics like you, when I posted this to Milhouse?
Guiltier, actually. ;)

You are of course partially right, :) but mine was part of a bigger post, and it was also partially true.
IMO mine was more than partially true.

Milhouse as a professional historian could write scholary articles, refuting Irving, Zundel, and Mattogno footnote by footnote, calculation by calculation.
Does anybody on your side do something comparable to what you expect your opponent to do?

He thinks it is more fun fighting heretics on the internet, than redoing part of Rudolf, Zundel or Mattogno's work, as normal scientific methology would need in order to make a sound refutation.
That does look like more fun.

It is not true that Milhouse have anything to do with putting Rudolf or Zundel, or has publicly support it.
I still lay it at his feet in a way, because as a professional historian, he knows that the official holocaust dogma is full of conflicting evidence and absurdities.
That is for you guys to prove.

Fade the Butcher
01-01-2007, 04:28 PM
The race debate has nothing whatsoever to do with the Holocaust. It is an entirely separate issue. The peculiarities of the Nazi regime - fanatical nationalism and anti-semitism - are not intrinsic to racialism. Racialism is merely the assertion that detectable continent based differences in human gene frequencies exist. The Nazis also perverted Karl Haushofer's theory of lebensraum which originally had nothing to do with heredity. This Zoroastrian struggle between Aryans and Jews is alien American racialism. It goes back to George Lincoln Rockwell's American Nazi Party in the sixties and his successors like William Pierce and David Duke in the seventies.

Globus
01-01-2007, 05:02 PM
Originally Posted by Globus
Try reading it with your statement.

What about it? You should reply with multiple sentences next time. It would help us to communicate better.

Your statement and my reply were both posted. My communication is not the problem.


Your childishness.

There are childish aspects to my personality, sure. I like to poke histrionic nitwits with a stick and watch them pitch a fit.

You must be sore. You should stop doing that to yourself.

Globus
01-01-2007, 05:07 PM
The fact that it doesn't interest you doesn't mean you aren't frustrated by the discussions.

Do you think before typing? I did not say that some revisionist was a far better and more civil contributor than you; I said that Milhouse, who shares your position on the matter, is a much more capable poster than you.

I know quite well what you said. And it's clear what your motivations are. Milhouse is a professional historian. But there are aspects of the history I possess knowledge of but you frankly don't have enough background in the subject to know.


But your opinion is nonsense, both because of your ignorance of the subject matter, and the simple fact that you've had a hair across your ass for a long time. That you found it not necessary but fun to engage in childish insults hardly speaks better for you.

You are so easy to wind up that I do not fault myself for doing it.

Pot, kettle, black.

Plus, it is just a factual observation that he is your superior in every imaginable way.

It's an expression of your childish frustration.

Globus
01-01-2007, 05:17 PM
Originally Posted by Globus
Obsession, I would say.

yes, Globus some people do feel it is important to discuss racial and cultural matters. This is something that is not even allowed in many other places. Neither of course is holocaust revisionism.

And that's why they're obsessions?


The denial of reality and the growth of intellectual nihilism, which generally reigns on this forum.

that doesn't really answer my question on why countering what you call "denial of reality" on this particular subject is so terribly important to you.

Of course it does. Holocaust denial and other such nonsense undermines the very idea that we can know something. Unless we wish to turn the clock back to pre-enlightment periods it needs to be dealt with.


Of course, it makes perfect sense to you to deny history because of Jew hatred, but not to point out the lies.

I expected no less from you.

Why are you so quick to label everyone and everything you disagree with as "hate" and "haters" is that a bit obsessive?

Oh for crying out loud! If you don't think the open expression of Jew hatred and hatred of many others as well is not rampant on this forum then perhaps you need to get a clue.

I must say as much as you talk about "jew hate" "anti-semitism" ad nauseum, it is a little difficult to believe you are not, in fact, a jew.

Now there's a brilliant observation!

delete
01-01-2007, 09:33 PM
This isn't strategy, it's simple disinterest.

How does lay people separate between real and pretended disinterest for strategial reasons, and do you agree that this can be hard even if you know people?

I'm more and more bemused by this nonsensical argument about pretended disinterest.


You spend your time fighting Heretics of Holocaustianity, and on this crusade, you use the means that you seem fit, to try to win the discussion and create sympathy for your cause. In your case, this strategy involves ad hominems, but keeping it to a certain standard, and staying away from controversial subjects that might alienate the crowd of believers. This is what is observable to us readers, as to why it is like this, we can only speculate, or of course -take your word of simple disinterest as the truth. :)

As we don't know how to read minds, we can do little than obeserving other peoples actions, and making our own judgements about them.

You, for instance, can under a certain light be viewed as victim of propaganda, that have internalized it, and come to love his chains. You now even enjoy to entrap others, into your strange world of magical ovens and evil Nazis.


What pretence am I supposed to be engaged in and what evil thoughts am I covering up?

Please, enlighten me as to what my ZOG masters must want. :rofl:

FMPOV, you are religious, so you don't need any earthly master with a whip to know where your thoughts are allowed to wander. Neither do you demand any proof, that negroes are born with the same mental capacity as whites on average, when they act stupid all around you.



I use strategy when I call you guys religious, as I think this is one of the best way to focus attention of the clear parallells between your behaviour and the ones that tried to enforce the absolute truth of the bible.

Delete is projecting again. I see the latest 'revisionist' to arrive, Flint Steel, has been posting comic-books, that's more than a little reminiscent of the proselytising that creationists do.

A small comparison. Which sounds more cultlike?

1) Revisionism: tiny coterie of non-accredited writers operating outside their disciplines, followed by a variety of ideologues and credulous CTers who insist they and only they possess the Truth about a historical event, which incidentally they don't know very much about other than it involves 'da Joooz'.

2) Historians: trained professionals who work within their own discipline, applying rules of evidence, arguing fiercely with each other over points of fact and interpretation, and willing to consider whatever new evidence comes to light to revise their understanding of historical events.


I'm not schooled in Holocaustianity like you are, so I dont know the latest orthodox dogma about Auschwitz or Treblinka or the finer details of higher theology. (http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Osteuropa/Meyer_replies_engl.html)

History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom by Andrew Dickson White
CHAPTER XVIII.
From the Dead Sea Legends to Comparative Mythology. (http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/relg/historygeography/HistoryoftheWarfareofScienceWithTheologyinChristendom/chap19.html)

No more difficulty was encountered in the formation of the Lot legend (of the old testament, where god anhilated sodom and gomorra), to account for that rock resembling the human form, than in the formation of the Niobe legend, which accounted for a supposed resemblance in the rock at Sipylos: it grew up just as we have seen thousands of similar myths and legends grow up about striking natural appearances in every early home of the human race. Being thus consonant with the universal view regarding the relation of physical geography to the divine government, it became a treasure of the Jewish nation and of the Christian Church--a treasure not only to be guarded against all hostile intrusion, but to be increased, as we shall see, by the myth-making powers of Jews, Christians, and Mohammedans for thousands of years. The spot where the myth originated was carefully kept in mind; indeed, it could not escape, for in that place alone were constantly seen the phenomena which gave rise to it. We have a steady chain of testimony through the ages, all pointing to the salt pillar as the irrefragable evidence of divine judgment. That great theological test of truth, the dictum of St. Vincent of Lerins, would certainly prove that the pillar was Lot's wife, for it was believed so to be by Jews, Christians, and Mohammedans from the earliest period down to a time almost within present memory-- "always, everywhere, and by all." It would stand perfectly the ancient test insisted upon by Cardinal Newman," Securus judicat orbis terrarum."



Because anyone who wants to check it out can find it by searching your posts. But here it is anyway:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=14073

It's also really funny because you said:



and yet here you still are, nearly three months and 493 posts later, accusing people of wandering from forum to forum to proselytise.

One might say 'hello pot!' given the circumstances of your arrival here.

No I didn't think I would stay, and I still dislike the way jews and other religious people have lied and distorted history to fit their agenda.

I was provocated onto joining as the revisionists here on the Phora seemed oblivious that the heretic hunters was old friends, and sometimes professionals who recently had indefinitely lock down the 2.WW. section on the Skeptic Forum. (http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=4634&sid=c3af4d8cd74636ba579f735c4f547fa1)


I notice, by the way, that you snipped the empirical comparison of how much revisionists had written versus how much historians had researched on a rather salient case example.

This is a good example of why spouting nonsense about 'believers in holocaustianity' will only make you look very foolish indeed.


If you had a scientific mind, you understand that if Rudolf is correct, litterary tonns of 'evidence' becomes obsolete thrash, and if we continue to quote ...

History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom by Andrew Dickson White 1899
CHAPTER XVIII.
From the Dead Sea Legends to Comparative Mythology. (http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/relg/historygeography/HistoryoftheWarfareofScienceWithTheologyinChristendom/chap19.html)

How unsatisfactory all such rationalism must be to a truly theological mind is seen not only in the dealings with Prof. Robertson Smith in Scotland and Prof. Woodrow in South Carolina, but most clearly in a book published in 1886 by Monseigneur Haussmann de Wandelburg. Among other things, the author was Prelate of the Pope's House-hold, a Mitred Abbot, Canon of the Holy Sepulchre, and a Doctor of Theology of the Pontifical University at Rome, and his work is introduced by approving letters from Pope Leo XIII and the Patriarch of Jerusalem. Monseigneur de Wandelburg scorns the idea that the salt column at Usdum is not the statue of Lot's wife; he points out not only the danger of yielding this evidence of miracle to rationalism, but the fact that the divinely inspired authority of the Book of Wisdom, written, at the latest, two hundred and fifty years before Christ, distinctly refers to it. He summons Josephus as a witness. He dwells on the fact that St. Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Hegesippus, and St. Cyril, "who as Bishop of Jerusalem must have known better than any other person what existed in Palestine," with St. Jerome, St. Chrysostom, and a multitude of others, attest, as a matter of their own knowledge or of popular notoriety, that the remains of Lot's wife really existed in their time in the form of a column of salt; and he points triumphantly to the fact that Lieutenant Lynch found this very column. In the presence of such a continuous line of witnesses, some of them considered as divinely inspired, and all of them greatly revered--a line extending through thirty-seven hundred years--he condemns most vigorously all those who do not believe that the pillar of salt now at Usdum is identical with the wife of Lot, and stigmatizes them as people who "do not wish to believe the truth of the Word of God."



Please explain why studying the results of and engaging in one's own historical research is in any way to be considered a religion. I'm very curious about this.


It is in the way the practicioner bends over for the politically correct dogma, and how he internalizes the aboslute truth of the holocaust, and of jewish kindness and universial suffering though the ages.

History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom by Andrew Dickson White 1899
CHAPTER XVIII.
From the Dead Sea Legends to Comparative Mythology. (http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/relg/historygeography/HistoryoftheWarfareofScienceWithTheologyinChristendom/chap19.html)

But, in the natural course of intellectual growth, thinking men began to doubt the historical accuracy of these myths and legends--or, at least, to doubt all save those of the theology in which they happened to be born; and the next step was taken when they began to make comparisons between the myths and legends of different neighbourhoods and countries: so came into being the science of comparative mythology--a science sure to be of vast value, because, despite many stumblings and vagaries, it shows ever more and more how our religion and morality have been gradually evolved, and gives a firm basis to a faith that higher planes may yet be reached.


No, delete, it's called an analogy. I've bolded the word that alerts the dedicated reader of the English language to this.

I find the modus operandi of 9/11 Truthers and Holocaust revisionists to be remarkably similar, with the difference that Truthers tend to be younger, more stupid and slightly less ideological, whereas Holocaust revisionists seem to be older, convinced of their own superior intelligence and extremely ideological.

Hope that helps.

I use analogies myself, so I suppose that I should not whine when you use them, except that you don't use them strategically of course. :)


Why? Because I will be 'exposed' as a liberal somehow? Isn't that, you know, already obvious to anyone reading this discussion for more than a few minutes?

People here on the Phora will know that you are refusing to look at evidence that blacks have less mental capacity than whites in order to save your precious anti-racialist dogma, or that you are refusing to answer because fear of alienating your support.


Shouldn't it, you know, be obvious why I of all people tend to be interested in historical discussions on this forum and elsewhere? Because I am a historian. It's really as simple as that.

Ibsen said that when you take the “life's lie” from an average man, you take away his happiness. FMPOV you are a theologian, regardless if you view yourself as a model historian..


Thanks for admitting that your entire aim in engaging in 'historical revisionism' is purely political and tactical.


Smart people use facts to further what they want, and not lies. If did not think that The Holocaust in reality was the Hollowhoax, I would not use it as tool or exhibit it as proof, that most jews in reality are sinister creatures, and that their supporters are religious in their devotion to them.



A great help would be to let the Jews and you guys keep your positions and your suppression, so that people will have prove of the crime we blame you for. You have given us a great tool with the holohoax, and left yourself open for exploitation by us nationalists.

No, the best you can muster is some outrage because a tiny handful of European countries have declared your kind of gibberish illegal in certain contexts. This will pass, and then what will you talk about?

So now I speak gibberish aswell. :) Does this constant degrading of your oponents come naturally, or is there something you guys learn from each others?

The Holocaust dogma will fall, as no lies like that can survive in the age of the internet. You must have noticed that the number of revisionist on the internet keeps increasing, and that you are fighting a loosing battle.

Your friend communism have lost power, and as some truth starts to replace the massive communist fiction in eastern europe, we can clearly hear the clock ticking for the official holocaust dogma.

The truth about the holohoax will become a weapon for ambitious young men, and the same will happen with the truth about racial reality, and it will be propagaded as horrible examples on how the old elite do not deserve their positions, because they manipulated the society into believing in what later turned out to be political lies.



When we say that there have been black propaganda against nationalism, and that nationalism and that scientific truth is supressed with the use of the establishment, we can point to you guys and the official dogma of Holocaustianity as examples where people can look and discover the truth for themselves.

Bwahaha. Scientific truth, my ass.

Germar Rudolfs experiments in Auschwitz has not been recreated by other independent researchers on multiple of occations as normal scientific refutation or confirmation demands.


This is the problem, you see, with historical revisionism. Instead of doing the sensible thing and, you know, avoiding the alleged biggest obstacle to the progression of nationalist/racialist/WN etc ideas, the ninnies only go ahead and headbutt it repeatedly, wondering why in so doing they not only fail to progress significantly, but are forced into embarrassing alliances of convenience with Islamists and become laughing-stocks to the wider world.

The easiest explanation is that the revisionists and the islamists both seek attention for their causes, and cooperation gets them both the attention they want. You don't see it, but revisionism is a tool that can be used by enemies of the status quo, as it shows the ugly, repressive side of the western society and of Jews in particular, and it will be picked up by other groups as time progresses.

I can understand that you have no concept like love of truth in your mental toolbox other than love of authority, and I don't think you can understand why some people choose to speak what they regard as the truth, even though it might hurt their personal life, or their academic standing.

You try to much to understand holocaust deniers with your own motivations, and what would be needed to move a mind like yours, because you think that your mind works the same. We all do this to some degree, but if we are consciently aware of it, and understand that humans use projections to make sence of the world, we can compensate somewhat.

Moth
01-01-2007, 10:00 PM
german boxcar holocaust train sets:
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/8117/232d1cm2.jpg

delete
01-01-2007, 10:09 PM
GROUND PENETRATING RADAR

http://www.geosearches.com/images/170_000_0013.JPGhttp://www.geosearches.com/images/170_1a.JPGhttp://www.geosearches.com/images/248_3a.JPGhttp://www.geosearches.com/images/248_data1A.JPG

ARCHAELOGICAL AND FORENSIC INVESTIGATIONS (http://www.geosearches.com/pages/355865/index.htm)
GPR aids the investigation of recent and historical human activity. It is used extensively to locate and delineate buried artifacts, soil disturbances, and hidden cavities.

Buried Walls & Foundations

GPR detects changes in subsurface conditions. Old foundations and buried walls which have no surface expression are readily visible on GPR records. These changes in material compositions modify the water distribution in the soil resulting in a GPR response. Numerous examples of area mapping with GPR have provided vivid pictures of the foundation layout of old buildings.

Bodies & Graves

GPR is widely used to locate buried bodies and grave sites. Headstones or markers for graves frequently get displaced over time. GPR is in steady demand to locate gravesites to correctly reposition marker stones. In addition, police searches for evidence regularly require location of shallow graves. GPR responds to both the buried remains and the disturbed soil associated with the burial.

General, Historical & Human Activity

GPR senses changes in soil composition, compaction and water distribution. Virtually any manmade disturbance of the soil will cause disruption of natural stratigraphy and cause redistribution of soil water. GPR measurements over areas can readily detect these changes, which may have occurred hundreds or even thousands of years previously. In addition, the technique responds to localized metal or rock objects buried in soils. This makes it a powerful tool for direct detection of buried artifacts or evidence in police investigations.

eggheadbanga
01-01-2007, 10:58 PM
I'm more and more bemused by this nonsensical argument about pretended disinterest.

You spend your time fighting Heretics of Holocaustianity, and on this crusade, you use the means that you seem fit, to try to win the discussion and create sympathy for your cause.

See my post above, explaining precisely what I am doing.

Consider yourself ethnographic fodder :D

In your case, this strategy involves ad hominems, but keeping it to a certain standard,

and holocaust deniers don't use ad hominems?

and staying away from controversial subjects that might alienate the crowd of believers.

See Fade's post. Fade posts about the Holocaust as often as I post about race and immigration, which is to say, we both do it on occasion. Otherwise neither of us is interested in what the other is.

This is what is observable to us readers, as to why it is like this, we can only speculate, or of course -take your word of simple disinterest as the truth.

Ask Fade why he isn't interested in the alleged Holohoax. This may help you understand things.

As we don't know how to read minds, we can do little than obeserving other peoples actions, and making our own judgements about them.

True, but it is best not to impute malevolent motives to one's debating partners. I try not to go round calling everyone a Nazi, for example. I may refer to Nazis and neo-Nazis but I rarely call anyone else here a Nazi.

You, for instance, can under a certain light be viewed as victim of propaganda, that have internalized it, and come to love his chains.

Only if one is in thrall to revisionist dogma.

You now even enjoy to entrap others, into your strange world of magical ovens and evil Nazis.

No, I enjoy sparring with convinced revisionist true-believers about their hobbyhorses.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Milhouse Van Houten
What pretence am I supposed to be engaged in and what evil thoughts am I covering up?

Please, enlighten me as to what my ZOG masters must want.

FMPOV, you are religious,

FMPOV it's you that is in the grip of a quasi-religious dogma. You have your cult, your online shrines (VHO) and sacred texts (the Rudolf Report) offering exegesis, and you have your ritual prayers seeking redemption for your Martyrs. Oh yes, I'd say it's quite clear that it's revisionism that displays more symptoms of religiosity than orthodox historiography.

so you don't need any earthly master with a whip to know where your thoughts are allowed to wander.

My thoughts wander wherever they take me. Only this afternoon I spent an enjoyable half-hour reading about Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman's downplaying of the Cambodian autogenocide, and spotting the many parallels between leftwing forms of denial and 'Holocaust revisionism'.

Neither do you demand any proof, that negroes are born with the same mental capacity as whites on average, when they act stupid all around you.

I don't demand IQ test results from my Scandinavian students just to confirm that they are clever, either.

Delete is projecting again. I see the latest 'revisionist' to arrive, Flint Steel, has been posting comic-books, that's more than a little reminiscent of the proselytising that creationists do.

A small comparison. Which sounds more cultlike?

1) Revisionism: tiny coterie of non-accredited writers operating outside their disciplines, followed by a variety of ideologues and credulous CTers who insist they and only they possess the Truth about a historical event, which incidentally they don't know very much about other than it involves 'da Joooz'.

2) Historians: trained professionals who work within their own discipline, applying rules of evidence, arguing fiercely with each other over points of fact and interpretation, and willing to consider whatever new evidence comes to light to revise their understanding of historical events.

I'm not schooled in Holocaustianity like you are, so I dont know the latest orthodox dogma about Auschwitz or Treblinka or the finer details of higher theology.

Delete cannot see what is in front of his face, that his belief-system resembles a cult.

< theological gibberish snipped >

and yet here you still are, nearly three months and 493 posts later, accusing people of wandering from forum to forum to proselytise.

One might say 'hello pot!' given the circumstances of your arrival here.

No I didn't think I would stay, and I still dislike the way jews and other religious people have lied and distorted history to fit their agenda.

I especially dislike the way that revisionist true-believers have lied and distorted history to fit their agenda.

I was provocated onto joining as the revisionists here on the Phora seemed oblivious that the heretic hunters was old friends, and sometimes professionals who recently had indefinitely lock down the 2.WW. section on the Skeptic Forum.

As was explained to you, the closure of SSF was in great part due to the antics of a 'revisionist', Antipodes aka SeymoreG aka Kiwichap. This guy happens to be a Christian Identity freak who views the world entirely through the prism of religious antisemitism.

Oh dear, it's another example of religiosity on the denier side, whatever next!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milhouse Van Houten
I notice, by the way, that you snipped the empirical comparison of how much revisionists had written versus how much historians had researched on a rather salient case example.

This is a good example of why spouting nonsense about 'believers in holocaustianity' will only make you look very foolish indeed.

If you had a scientific mind, you understand that if Rudolf is correct, litterary tonns of 'evidence' becomes obsolete thrash, and if we continue to quote ...

Rudolf's chemistry experiments don't actually help you debunk the ballistics of rifle- and machine-gun fire. Try again.

< theological drivel snipped >

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milhouse Van Houten
Please explain why studying the results of and engaging in one's own historical research is in any way to be considered a religion. I'm very curious about this.

It is in the way the practicioner bends over for the politically correct dogma,

That must be why I managed to write an entire article for Yad Vashem Studies which avoided the use of the term 'Holocaust' in my own prose. Am I a heretic?

and how he internalizes the aboslute truth of the holocaust,

No such thing exists. That the Holocaust is historical fact is not a statement about absolute truth.

and of jewish kindness and universial suffering though the ages.

How do events in the 1930s and 1940s help tell anyone about what happened in Roman times?

< drivel snipped >

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milhouse Van Houten
No, delete, it's called an analogy. I've bolded the word that alerts the dedicated reader of the English language to this.

I find the modus operandi of 9/11 Truthers and Holocaust revisionists to be remarkably similar, with the difference that Truthers tend to be younger, more stupid and slightly less ideological, whereas Holocaust revisionists seem to be older, convinced of their own superior intelligence and extremely ideological.

Hope that helps.

I use analogies myself, so I suppose that I should not whine when you use them, except that you don't use them strategically of course.

The comparison between 9/11 denial and Holocaust denial is legitimate because there is an overlap between both scenes. AFP/TBR peddles both conspiracy theories.

http://www.oilempire.us/holocaust-denial.html

:nopity:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milhouse Van Houten
Why? Because I will be 'exposed' as a liberal somehow? Isn't that, you know, already obvious to anyone reading this discussion for more than a few minutes?

People here on the Phora will know that you are refusing to look at evidence that blacks have less mental capacity than whites in order to save your precious anti-racialist dogma,

Life's too short to worry about every debate on the internet.

or that you are refusing to answer because fear of alienating your support.

See above. I could care less whether the average Phorite thinks my views are PC or un-PC according to whatever ideology they follow themselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milhouse Van Houten
Shouldn't it, you know, be obvious why I of all people tend to be interested in historical discussions on this forum and elsewhere? Because I am a historian. It's really as simple as that.

Ibsen said that when you take the “life's lie” from an average man, you take away his happiness. FMPOV you are a theologian, regardless if you view yourself as a model historian..

Then you must be an altar-boy for revisionism. Do your high-priests make you bend over for them?

:nopity:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milhouse Van Houten
Thanks for admitting that your entire aim in engaging in 'historical revisionism' is purely political and tactical.

Smart people use facts to further what they want, and not lies. If did not think that The Holocaust in reality was the Hollowhoax, I would not use it as tool or exhibit it as proof, that most jews in reality are sinister creatures, and that their supporters are religious in their devotion to them.

Have you ever actually met a Jew? Most Norwegians I know never have.

No, the best you can muster is some outrage because a tiny handful of European countries have declared your kind of gibberish illegal in certain contexts. This will pass, and then what will you talk about?

So now I speak gibberish aswell. Does this constant degrading of your oponents come naturally, or is there something you guys learn from each others?

But apparently I am in the grip of a religious dogma. Does this constant degrading of your opponents come naturally, or is there something you guys learn from each other?



The Holocaust dogma will fall, as no lies like that can survive in the age of the internet. You must have noticed that the number of revisionist on the internet keeps increasing, and that you are fighting a loosing battle.

On the contrary, the number of productive revisionists is falling with every death due to advanced years, and the young 'uns seem unwilling to take up the baton from Fauri et al.

Your 'movement' is only as viable as its gurus, delete. And your gurus have lost the battle, on their own, without any assistance from state prosecutors, because they are intellectually lazy.

Your friend communism have lost power, and as some truth starts to replace the massive communist fiction in eastern europe, we can clearly hear the clock ticking for the official holocaust dogma.

Actually, it's the other way around. Holocaust denial was a product of the Cold War. All its assumptions rested on Eastern Europe being a strange, forbidden, inaccessible place. That's no longer the case. People have been traipsing the length and breadth of Eastern Europe for over 15 years now. Some travel to find out what happened to their grandparents, they can still find some oldtimer who'll tell them what happened in the 1940s. I guess that means the entire Slavic race is in on this 'hoax'.

The truth about the holohoax will become a weapon for ambitious young men,

:rofl: That sounds like Dylan Avery's band of black t-shirted troothers marching up and down in front of the WTC. Oh yes, I can just see it now.

and the same will happen with the truth about racial reality, and it will be propagaded as horrible examples on how the old elite do not deserve their positions, because they manipulated the society into believing in what later turned out to be political lies.

Are you aware that the left peddles something similar about 'media manipulation' via guru Chomsky? Your Theology has competitors.


Bwahaha. Scientific truth, my ass.

Germar Rudolfs experiments in Auschwitz has not been recreated by other independent researchers on multiple of occations as normal scientific refutation or confirmation demands.

Normal scientific procedure does not involve constructing fallacious arguments as Leuchter and Rudolf did. Nor does it involve massaging the test results to the point where Rudolf had to [B]lie about when the accepted number of victims at Aushwitz died there, so that he could construct a strawman, or where Leuchter had to lie about the overall number.

Do revisionists ever admit mistakes? If you wish me to believe that revisionists are motivated by scientific interests or care about the truth, please provide me with a list of 10 revisionist mistakes. When you have done so, I will provide you with a list of 10 mistakes made by historians.

Here's a starter example of a mistake of fact made by revisionists.

1. claiming Anne Frank's diary was a forgery, only to see the diary forensically tested and watch the claim evaporate.

your turn:

2.....
3.....
4.....
5.....
6.....
7.....
8.....
9.....
10....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milhouse Van Houten
This is the problem, you see, with historical revisionism. Instead of doing the sensible thing and, you know, avoiding the alleged biggest obstacle to the progression of nationalist/racialist/WN etc ideas, the ninnies only go ahead and headbutt it repeatedly, wondering why in so doing they not only fail to progress significantly, but are forced into embarrassing alliances of convenience with Islamists and become laughing-stocks to the wider world.

The easiest explanation is that the revisionists and the islamists both seek attention for their causes, and cooperation gets them both the attention they want. You don't see it, but revisionism is a tool that can be used by enemies of the status quo, as it shows the ugly, repressive side of the western society and of Jews in particular, and it will be picked up by other groups as time progresses.

As I said, what happens when the martyr status is taken away from you? Then you just sound like unpleasant CTers.

I can understand that you have no concept like love of truth in your mental toolbox

Projecting again, I see, delete.

other than love of authority, and I don't think you can understand why some people choose to speak what they regard as the truth, even though it might hurt their personal life, or their academic standing.

What I genuinely fail to understand is why otherwise intelligent people dedicate themselves to the cause of a known and blatant lie. Until I remember that they're only interested in the subject because it involves Jews, and because it's 'political' for them. Then it all makes sense. Then it's clear why an otherwise bright chemist such as Germar Rudolf will go to the trouble of wrecking his career in order to become an amateur historian of not very great standing.

You try to much to understand holocaust deniers with your own motivations, and what would be needed to move a mind like yours, because you think that your mind works the same.

My mind certainly does not work the same as the 'revisionist' captive mind.

Now, I'm getting very bored with this 'holocaustianity' thing. Every time you bring it up, I'll just think up yet another example of how revisionism is a religious dogma. Until you stop. OK?

delete
01-02-2007, 01:03 AM
My mind certainly does not work the same as the 'revisionist' captive mind.

Now, I'm getting very bored with this 'holocaustianity' thing. Every time you bring it up, I'll just think up yet another example of how revisionism is a religious dogma. Until you stop. OK?

I feel finished with the thread aswell, so I let you keep one subtle insult for sports. :)

I am not that interested in the holocaust per se, but I am keenly interested in how people claim to be able to separate between true historic 'truth', false religious 'truth' or malignously fabricated 'truth', when all we can do is read in some book or journal written by other people, based on what they claim to have experienced.

I don't on a personal basis hold any historical fact from the ww2, the cold war, Vietnam and the more recent Iraq as an absolute fact, as propaganda have polluted basically every humanistic dicipline and colored how incidences are repored or fabricated.

The Holocaust started out as black anti-german propaganda in WW1, and was later used as justification of why the allied fought the germans and cooperated with the evil communists in WW2..

The holocaust was also important as justifications of the war and as absolvation for atrocities committed by the communists, but the black propaganda fabrications was more focused on how the Germans tried and managed to exterminate every people they saw as 'untermenchen', and this included both slaves and jews.

When we entered the Cold was phase, western unity became paramount, and the image of USA and Britain as champions of freedom fighting evil facist, nazist and communists, in order to save the world, became important to survival of the western democracies as a defence against the image the coumminst tried to paint of the west as evil exploiters.

Fear of minorities turning into a communist fifth column, resulted in the western societies trying to incorperate them as allies and friends against communism, and thus purging all racial references from science. Same went for the jews, but as they were particulary prone to communist ideology their needs had espacially pampered and catered for.

The jews beeing jews even managed to get germany to pay for all the missing jews, even is they were missing or not, because nobody really knows as there are like 31 million german missing from eastern europe and nobody claims the communists murdered all of them. ***

The cynical political reasons for both multi-kulti propaganda and the holocaust has dissappered with communism, and we are capabable to take action without fear, on the Muslim threat and the jewish anoyances that faces us in the future.

If the holocaust was a normal scientific subject , there would be forensic investigations done one a massive scale. I mean there should be a least 100 forensic investigations in Auschwitz alone, but Germar Rudoflf who did some, is put in jail, judged by a cold war inherited government.

We don't have to lie about how negroes and whites are the same anymore, because what threat would a communist country in Arfica pose, as we all know it would last like 14 days, without support from a country populated by whies or yellows?

If you call me religious because of this it is fine. :)

***What happened to the inhabitants of Eastern Germany? (http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=111374&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0)
From the book Historical Atlas of Central Europe by Paul Robert Magocsi there are the following German ethnic compositions for several counjtries.

Czechoslovakia
1930 = 3,232,000
1991 = 53,000

Romania
1930 = 745,000
1992 = 111,000

Poland
1931 = 741,000
1991 = 350,000

Yugoslavia
1931 = 500,000
1981 =9,000

Hungary
1930 = 478,000
1990 = 22,000

Ukraine
1926 = 156,000
1989 = 11,000

Lithuania
1923 = 96,000
1989 = 2,100

Belarus
1926 = 7,100
1989 = 3,500



The book also notes the total number of population transfers from 1944-1948
(this is all ethnic groups).
Flight before militay fronts = 5,650,000
Forced deportations to the Soviet Union = 488,000
Repatriation to the Soviet Union = 5,000,000
Organized Postwar transfers = 9,937,000
Unorganized postwar resettlement = 1,760,000
Internal postwar resettlement ( to 1950) = 8,300,000

Total = 31,135,000