We've been dealing with quite a pile of doo doo, haven't we..
I'm glad for one thing.. at least one of us here admitted working with a pile of mixed emotions about all this.
:)
Sometimes.. I think I am as much of a sham.. as much as I try to put myself in the shoes of those who endured horrific stuff and understand.. sometime, all I can do is guess what it was like..
We've been dealing with quite a pile of doo doo, haven't we..
I'm glad for one thing.. at least one of us here admitted working with a pile of mixed emotions about all this.
:)
Sometimes.. I think I am as much of a sham.. as much as I try to put myself in the shoes of those who endured horrific stuff and understand.. sometime, all I can do is guess what it was like..
I hear ya, Mr. "ham" Radio
I was spared a lot of the really sucky stuff myself.
Personally, I think I got off the hook easier than many because of the timing of my involvement.
Still, whether it was 6 months or 6 years or 16 years, it was wrong.
I think the thing I feel the worst about is that, after I left, people who I had brought in stayed and had to endure this junk.
I have apologized to my parents, whom I brought into The Way, many times.
They always smile and say that at least they made a lot of really good friends.
And, in fact, that is actually true in their case.
I'm not sure what that has to do with Holocaust denial but it seemed to fit the conversation somehow.
We've been dealing with quite a pile of doo doo, haven't we.. I'm glad for one thing.. at least one of us here admitted working with a pile of mixed emotions about all this. :)
Sometimes.. I think I am as much of a sham.. as much as I try to put myself in the shoes of those who endured horrific stuff and understand.. sometime, all I can do is guess what it was like..
Why guess what it [Auschwitz] was like and keep wading through the "doo doo" the Holocaust Promotion Lobby keeps peddling when you don't have to "guess" what it was like? Take this video tour with David Cole, (a Jewish individual BTW) who visited Auschwitz first hand in September 1992 - if you dare. Unfortunatly the video is broken into 6 clips as it is hosted on You Tube which has a video clip limit, and this video takes some time to completely watch. Regardless of what your opinion may be regarding the Holocaust, I think you'll find David Cole's video worth further discussion as he cuts through much of the "doo-doo" that's been out there, as he asks some very "common sense" questions regarding the Holocaust.
"I don't recall making any claim that these Holocaust revisionists are also poster's here at GSC. I don't even know where you got that idea."
Well, WTH,
I actually explained it already, but it seems you missed it.
It was in the very post you quoted.
I shall quote myself and you and show it AGAIN.
Please try to follow along this time.
==
WordWolf said:
I'm still curious why there are people who keep saying that vpw was neither anti-Semetic, nor pro-Nazi in any way,
and never taught along those lines,
and yet the only times we EVER see ANYONE denying the millions of Jews and non-Jews imprisoned and killed for the
"crimes" of being different by Nazi Germany during World War II,
these are people who are enthusiasts of vpw,
and feel the need to defend both the public image of vpw and the public image of Holocaust denial.
Is this connection supposed to be accidental?
I'm not saying every vpw defender is a Holocaust denier,
but it seems that every Holocaust denier (on the GSC) is a vpw defender.
(I expect there may be some vpw defenders who are NOT Holocaust deniers,
but there don't seem to be any GSC Holocaust deniers who are NOT vpw defenders.)
WTH read this, quoted it-including the part where it specifies it's referring
specifically to posters on the GSC and came back with
Here's a logical question for you WW - that is, if you can provide a logical answer to it [which is doubtful]: Just how are all these Holocaust revisionists, (i.e. Arthur Butz, Bradley Smith, Fred Leuchter, John Ball, Keith Stimely, Germar Rudolf, Norman Finkelstein, etc., etc., etc., etc.) all these people who have never ever heard of VPW before, nor have they ever been affiliated with TWI - have now magically become enthusiasts of VPW and are somehow defending his image?
After quoting both, I then said-which WTH quoted now and was unable to understand...
So,
apparently, Arthur Butz, Bradley Smith, etc, are all posters on the GSC,
since WTH replied to my comments-which were specifically flagged to refer ONLY to the GSC in case someone
was skimming or lacked the wit to contextualize properly- by saying they applied to these people.
Somehow, they have how magically become posters on the GSC as I specified.
=========
The connection between the two was right in the post WTH made.
I spoke of Holocaust denier who post here,
and WTH replied by invoking those names.
HE drew the connection, which any adolescent or adult English reader should have no trouble understanding.
WTH continues.
"I don't even know where you got that idea. But then again, it appears that you are making "a connection" where none exists -"
WTH seems rather good at denying connections between things that OBVIOUSLY exist-
like errors in his posts, and the content of the errors
(like saying "in the GSC" applies to all sorts of Holocaust deniers then denying he ever
connected them).
He continues
"But then again, it appears that you are making "a connection" where none exists - which apparently you are very good at, especially when you drop little comments like: "but it seems that every Holocaust denier (on the GSC) is a vpw defender."
This claim, BTW, is pretty self-evident to everyone else here.
I said not every person on the GSC who is a vpw defender/apologist is a Holocaust denier (AFAIK),
but those posters at the GSC who ARE Holocaust deniers are also all vpw defenders/apologists.
There being only a tiny handful of Holocaust deniers at the GSC, it's easy to see what
they seem to all have in common.
Off the top of my head, the few of them are all male, and they all come out to defend
vpw's memory and engage in apologetics to excuse his felonies and misdemeanors and other bad things.
To say otherwise is like denying giraffes have long necks.
You won't convince anyone, and you just sound silly.
But that doesn't stop SOME people...
WTH:
"(Apparently you consider me to be one of those "VPW defender's" though - which only goes to prove how little you know because there are many things VPW did I don't care to or want to defend.) "
WTH, apparently, is in denial over the content of many of his posts, in which he has gone
to great lengths to attempt to excuse vpw of crimes, or draw attention away from them.
Is he convincing anyone other than himself that his posting history has no connection
with defending vpw?
WTH still can't let drop the connection that HE drew by responding to "on the GSC" with
the names of Holocaust deniers he's quoted.
" will simply go on record by saying: "There is no connection between them and VPW and TWI, anymore than there is a connection between them and the GSC." That is the point I was making and am still making. Remarkable though how you chose to respond to everything I said, except for this comment I also made: And I keep wondering ... exactly what makes you think there ever WAS a connection there to begin with? Well WW, do you care to respond to that comment or not? Probably not. And why is that?"
A) I KNOW there is no connection between them-your own post notwithstanding. That's the one
where you invoked their names in response to me specifying "on the GSC."
It's really sad that I can say this REPEATEDLY in such clear terms and you can still miss it.
Perhaps there's a biological problem that's preventing this-I'm aware some victims of
Traumatic Brain Injuries can be physically unable to draw connections. If so, I'm very sorry
and you should have mentioned that. If you're trying your best, I can try to make allowances.
If not, your insistence on highlighting your OWN mistake repeatedly is baffling,
and your attempt to pass it off on someone else rather than just say
"whoops-I posted before I read" and moving on is rather transparent, to everyone except
possibly your own self. I can't see a reasonable motive for doing it.
B) I not only have no problem responding to why any connection was drawn,
but I ALREADY did, since I ALREADY had explained it, and all I did now was REPOST
the previous explanation. It was clear to everyone else the FIRST time I posted it.
WTH again:
"Because none of us really knows exactly what your basis is/was for drawing any connection beween Holocaust deniers and VPW defenders, regardless if they happen to post on GSC or not. Of course I realize you "conveniently" choose not to respond to that particular comment I also made, simply because you wanted to make it appear as though I were the one drawing that connection instead of you."
Actually, I responded specifically to every comment so far.
I didn't see the need to explain that the Holocaust deniers at the GSC are all vpw defenders
(but not necessarily vice versa), because everyone except those few have no difficulty
seeing that they are both. However, I've spelled it out now.
And not every light-skinned person has red hair, but most naturally red-headed people
have light skin. And I don't need to explain that one, since it's obvious to anyone not
deliberately trying to miss it.
As to what connected those authors to the GSC, YOU did, and I quoted you doing so-
TWICE now, and explained the quotes, TWICE now. Everyone except you can see it
without difficulty, TWICE now. It would surprise few if you STILL miss what you YOURSELF
connected.
Of course, we're supposed to respect your interpretation of the Holocaust's evidence even
though you can't see the direct connections in your own replies.
Forgive us if WE can see the disconnect in one, and conclude the other has little hope of
making sense.
WTH:
"WELL - HAVE I MADE MYSELF CLEAR NOW? Or are you still deaf? But then, with all the "noise" you make, it's a wonder anyone can hear at all.:
You made yourself clear before.
You were so eager to try to discredit me, that you didnt even read my post, and when I specified
Holocaust deniers [u[on the GSC[/u], you skipped over it completely-and connected my post
with Holocaust deniers worldwide-
unaware you now connected all of them with posting on the GSC.
Then you displayed an intentional denial you made that mistake, and even when it was explained,
you remained adamant you never said it.
You've been coming in loud and clear.
Error-ridden, but loud and clear.
I have had no difficulty understanding you-although you've been deficient in understanding me.
I've never been "deaf", but your own "blindness" is on display-
and not just because I'm recognizing it in a post- everyone else can see it whether I
mention it or not. But since you're speaking on "deaf", it seems apt to mention it in passing.
Finally, I post, and you post.
You seem under some illusion that refuting all the flaws in your post is identical to
shouting you down. Sorry, I'm unable to correct that illusion.
Also, you're under a separate illusion-or deliberately lying- that my posts lack content.
Do you think you're convincing anyone?
(snip)
From those I've read here, it does seem that the closer the person comes to adopting vic's ideologies and doctrine, the more outspoken they are about the "lies" or '"exagerations" of the holocaust.
I guess Koolaid by any other flavor is still Koolaid.
(snip)
But since WTH is either unable or unwilling to notice the connection,
apparently, there's ANOTHER thing to deny for WTH while he's busy denying...
Wordwolf thus plainly illustrates why Holocaust revisionist 'scholars' (such as WTH) can't be trusted to handle historical evidence/data from an objective point of view. They are too selective/one sided with the information, and yes Virginia, they do carry a hatred for the Jewish people (even for the Jewish 'scholars' who side with them <_< ), as every time they talk about or deal with Jewish people, that bigotry shows itself, either in an in-your-face manner, or more covertly.
if the cops were either noticeably absent from the scene, where a mob was tearing my shop to pieces, or only present to protect the looters..
where unwritten government instructions allowed a "hands off" approach, so the other citizens could vent their hatred and frustrations on a group, wrongly named as the cause of all of their woes..
or fired from a university professorship, based on one's race, and baboon with less than half the intellectual ability given the position, based only on ancestry...
don't like that kind of treatment?
Just leave. Leave the country. But don't think about taking any money with you. Your kind of "scum" is gonna give some retribution to der father land.. merely because you were born with the "wrong" ancestry..
Good luck finding a country that will accept you. If you're REALLY smart, maybe if you're one of the lucky few, a university or group somewhere might sponsor you..
even with that, good luck getting any of your family out, with you.
Okay, let's go back a bit to a couple of WTH's other observations. He mentioned weapons of mass destruction and fleets of bombers: yes, we did have bombers in England and other areas which were aimed at Germany. However, if you look at the RECORDS of the 8th Air Force, most US bombing targets were German industrial areas. The largest share of the cities destroyed were bombed by the British IN RESPONSE to Germany's attacks on British cities, including the blitz attacks on London.
Let's also look at a couple other uses of massive bomber fleets. How about those operating with Franco's forces in the Spanish Civil War. { oh I forgot. Those were actualyy being flown by GERMAN flight crews. Or, the German bombers that hit Warsaw, Krakow, Rotterdam, Amsterdam and other major allied cities in the early days of WW II. How about what Japanese bombers & troops did to the major cities of Chine { Shanghai, Nanking and others there} Do NOT criticize the US. We answered in kind for massive, brutal barbarianism by the axis powers..... Oh, let's not forget the U-boats and raiders that Germany employed in both wars. Without timely US lend-lease Germany could probably forced Britain out of the war without having to invade.
Germany was the one who introduced the use of chemical weapons on the Western Front during WW I. This included the use of Mustard & Chlorine gas among other things. Also, the last 3 major conflicts on the Continent were initiated by GERMANY! Remember this also, there was a non-agression pact between Germany & Russia. Part of that agreement was that after the invasion, Poland was to be divided between Germany & Russia. Hitler needed the oil and raw materials that Stalin could supply.
Do not stasnd there and criticize the US for our actions in the bombing of some of the cities. For many, many years, the US policy has been and continues to be retaliation in kind for attacks. The use of nuclear weapons on Japan, which was TWICE, was to try and bring a speedy end to the war. The military had warned FDR & Truman that an invasion of the home islands of Japan would produce 1,000,000+ casualties. It was a calculated risk that had to be taken.
Now, on Israel, Palestine was to be set as a Jewish homeland, according to the terms of the Balfour Declaration, at the END of WW I. That never came to pass, just as Arab independence never came to pass. WHY??? Because the people involved were lied to by the British & French, who wanted control of the oil resources. The US got involved in that fiasco because we had the technology to develop those resaources. Read "Churchill's Folly" or read 7 Pillars of Wisdom written by T.E. Lawrence. The Arab countries have a long history of lying & distrust to build on for their dislike.
Also, remember, Hussein had chemical weapons, even if there were none when we invaded. He used them on Iran during their war & he also used them on his own people. { Kurds } Every combatant in history has used the premise that they will use whatever method necessary to obtain their goals at that particular time & place. :blink: :blink: :blink:
but it seems that every Holocaust denier (on the GSC) is a vpw defender.
Did you or did you not say this, WW?
YOU DID.
So quit denying it.
Remove the parenthesis from WW's quote and what do we have?
(You can do this with a parenthesis to quickly establish the truth of what has been said. That's a basic rule of grammer, dont'cha know.)
What WE have is:but it seems that every Holocaust denier ... is a VPW defender.
That's the point WWwas making and still is making from his initial post.
Quit back-peddling WW. If what you initially wanted to say really was, "it seems that every Holocaust denier on the GSC is a VPW defender", then you certainly wouldn't have used a parenthesis and you certainly wouldn't be back-peddling now to make your point. YOU purposely used a parenthesis to imply and implicate that every Holocaust denier is also a VPW defender, - then you went on and used the parenthesis to single out "certain" GSC posters that YOU happen to believe are Holocaust deniers & VPW defenders. But that's no surprise to me anymore than this is a surprise:
You (and others here) are also promoting and parroting the same claim on GSC the Holocaust Promotion Lobby is promoting every where else - which is: Holocaust Revisionist=Holocaust Denier, because holocaust revisionism jeopardizes the agenda of the Holocaust industry --- just like the people here who defend VPW/TWI/PFAL etc. on GSC jeopardizes your personal agenda against VPW/TWI, etc.
Maybe it will come as a shock to you (and perhaps to others here) to learn: HOLOCAUST REVISIONIST'S DO NOT DENY THE HOLOCAUST!
So why are they labeled: "Holocaust deniers" by the Holocaust Promotion Lobby if they don't deny the holocaust?
[Here's a simple analogy - This is like Trinitarian's claiming: "People who don't believe in the Trinity also deny Jesus Christ!" It's not always true non-trinitarians deny Jesus Christ, they just deny the Trinitarian view of who Jesus Christ is.]
Similarly: Holocaust Revisionists don't claim that Jews didn't suffer. They don't argue the fact that Jews were, in fact, unwanted in Germany, and that there was a state policy to remove them as a "parasitic people" harmful to the country. It is absolutely true that Jews were incarcerated and often treated cruelly. They were seen as the enemy, just as in our times the "Nazis" are seen as the enemy of entrenched oligarchies, as we frequently hear people being called these words that are so often said in hate: Nazi, neo-Nazi, white supremacist, anti-Semitic, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
What revisionists do claim and argue is, that there was no state policy that called for the "mass extermination of the Jews" or any other unwanted minorities. The Allies, independently and singly, interrogated 26,000 functionaries of the National Socialist regime immediately after Germany's defeat, all based on the same set of questions. Some people have thought of lying for their own benefit by implicating others. That's what the Holocaust Promotion Lobby and the Holocaust industry have been doing for decades - but then, that's "par for the course" around here.
WW claims there must be some "blindness" on my part, yet I see and realize this is something he has beome a master at, especailly when it advances his own agenda regardless of whom he slanders or might libel in the process. Apparently he is very perturbed by what I SEE.
[Here we have a PERFECT example of the hallucinations and tortured logic
necessary to deny the Holocaust.
I shall narrate.]
"but it seems that every Holocaust denier (on the GSC) is a vpw defender."
Did you or did you not say this, WW?
YOU DID.
So quit denying it.
[First, WTH has to invent denials from me. I've been quoting and requoting
this simple sentence-whose meaning continues to elude WTH.
We all knew I said it the first time.
"Quit" denying it? I'd have to START denying it first.
So, he's inventing stuff to begin with.]
Remove the parenthesis from WW's quote and what do we have?
(You can do this with a parenthesis to quickly establish the truth of what has been said. That's a basic rule of grammer, dont'cha know.)
[What I know is that WTH has to delete part of my sentence to get
something to disagree with. When you remove part of the word of WordWolf,
you no longer HAVE the word of WordWolf. :)
What's his source for this supposed ironclad "basic rule of grammer"
that allows him to chop up a sentence?
Apparently, he's taking this completely on the authority of vpw, a man with a degree
in THEOLOGY (specializing in HOMILETICS) and considering him an expert
on ENGLISH "GRAMMER" (or English Grammar, which is probably meant to be the
same thing.) Making a supposed expert out of someone who's a layman in that
field is popular in Holocaust denial, but not so much anywhere else.
THIS is how WTH finds something to disagree with-
by adding to the word of WordWolf (he added nonexistent denials)
and subtracting from the word of WordWolf (he removed part of the sentence when he didn't like it.)]
What WE have is:but it seems that every Holocaust denier ... is a VPW defender.
That's the point WWwas making and still is making from his initial post.
[As most layman know, you can't remove a parenthetical note if the meaning of the
sentence is changed by removing it-as it was in this case.
I only ADDED the parenthetical note on the off-chance there were readers
too slow-witted to properly contextualize that I was speaking SPECIFICALLY of
our discussion HERE when I was discussing HERE, as opposed to some imaginary
discussion anywhere else. It seems that I needed more heroic measures to
enable the slackwits to keep up.
If I was REQUIRED to find ways to enable them to keep up with plain English
in discussion, I'd be frustrated now- one of them seems determined to MISUNDERSTAND
even plain English which includes explanations.
Since I'm not, this just looks sad in a funny way.
I didn't need to do anything to make this look sillier.]
Quit back-peddling WW. If what you initially wanted to say really was, "it seems that every Holocaust denier on the GSC is a VPW defender", then you certainly wouldn't have used a parenthesis and you certainly wouldn't be back-peddling now to make your point.
[i made a point I have not changed- and I used punctuation correctly-
and any native English-speaker should not have trouble understanding either.
WTH is either mentally-deficient or determined to distort what I said no matter
how clear and straight-forward it is.
Since he does that with evidence for the Holocaust as well, I'm not being singled out.
Ignore what he wants to ignore, invent what he wishes, and change meanings at will-
THIS is how one manages to pretend it didn't happen.]
YOU purposely used a parenthesis to imply and implicate that every Holocaust denier is also a VPW defender, - then you went on and used the parenthesis to single out "certain" GSC posters that YOU happen to believe are Holocaust deniers & VPW defenders. But that's no surprise to me anymore than this is a surprise:
[WTH has now rushed forward, piling invention upon invention, and completely
rewritten my post into something he can disagree with.
Does anyone other than WTH read all those changes into my posts?
Anyone else unable to understand what I mean (when I use parentheses?)]
You (and others here) are also promoting and parroting the same claim on GSC the Holocaust Promotion Lobby is promoting every where else - which is: Holocaust Revisionist=Holocaust Denier, because holocaust revisionism jeopardizes the agenda of the Holocaust industry --- just like the people here who defend VPW/TWI/PFAL etc. on GSC jeopardizes your personal agenda against VPW/TWI, etc.
Maybe it will come as a shock to you (and perhaps to others here) to learn: HOLOCAUST REVISIONIST'S DO NOT DENY THE HOLOCAUST!
So why are they labeled: "Holocaust deniers" by the Holocaust Promotion Lobby if they don't deny the holocaust?
[Here's a simple analogy - This is like Trinitarian's claiming: "People who don't believe in the Trinity also deny Jesus Christ!" It's not always true non-trinitarians deny Jesus Christ, they just deny the Trinitarian view of who Jesus Christ is.]
Similarly: Holocaust Revisionists don't claim that Jews didn't suffer. They don't argue the fact that Jews were, in fact, unwanted in Germany, and that there was a state policy to remove them as a "parasitic people" harmful to the country. It is absolutely true that Jews were incarcerated and often treated cruelly. They were seen as the enemy, just as in our times the "Nazis" are seen as the enemy of entrenched oligarchies, as we frequently hear people being called these words that are so often said in hate: Nazi, neo-Nazi, white supremacist, anti-Semitic, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
What revisionists do claim and argue is, that there was no state policy that called for the "mass extermination of the Jews" or any other unwanted minorities. The Allies, independently and singly, interrogated 26,000 functionaries of the National Socialist regime immediately after Germany's defeat, all based on the same set of questions. Some people have thought of lying for their own benefit by implicating others. That's what the Holocaust Promotion Lobby and the Holocaust industry have been doing for decades - but then, that's "par for the course" around here.
WW claims there must be some "blindness" on my part, yet I see and realize this is something he has beome a master at, especailly when it advances his own agenda regardless of whom he slanders or might libel in the process. Apparently he is very perturbed by what I SEE.
[Even when it's explained, WTH can't see he's got an intellectual blindspot.
He even feels free to reinvent the meanings of more words,
like "slander" and "libel".
And he thinks I've got emotion about his posts other than mild amusement.
Well, it makes him feel important if he does, so I suppose I can let him have
SOMETHING.
I mean, he doesn't have the evidence on his side-he has to rely on invented
"evidence" and ignore the real evidence.
He doesn't have logic on his side-he needs to rewrite my words in order to
degrade their meaning.
He barely operates in modern English-relying on incorrect meanings of all
kinds of things (rules of grammar, meanings of words)-so he doesn't have
They were seen as the enemy, just as in our times the "Nazis" are seen as the enemy of entrenched oligarchies, as we frequently hear people being called these words that are so often said in hate: Nazi, neo-Nazi, white supremacist, anti-Semitic, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
Words said in hate? More like honesty. Or just a direct observation. If the closely shaved thug has a swastika tattooed on his forehead, and claims to be of "nobler" blood.. if the shoe fits, why not let him (or her) wear it?
Like a guy who just brushed by with a degree in history, and has to resort to destruction of buildings, masquerading as a qualified engineer, and trying making a living selling lethal injection machines and maintaining electric chairs as a sideline.
If the word "dolt", "imbecile", or "charlatan" fits, and he insists on wearing it, who am I to try to rip it off his miserable hide..
You know.. the prisons of the world aren't exactly beating a path to this guy's doorstep, by eny means.. even at a twenty percent discount.. "hey, I'll even toss in free off the shelf parts for a year.. besides, if you don't buy, I'll cause trouble.."
In Virginia, Leuchter provided a death-row inmate's attorney with an affidavit claiming the electric chair would fail. The Virginia court decided the credibility of Leuchter's affidavit was limited because Leuchter was "the refused contractor who bid to replace the electrodes in the Virginia chair. (Newsweek, October 22, 1990, pg. 22)
This is the guy who said "see ma, no cyanide.."
In 1988, Leuchter traveled to several sites of structures identified as gas chambers, where, although he did not have permission to do so, he collected samples from walls, ceilings and floors, using a chisel and hammer to chip and scrape off pieces of the masonry.[1]He took copious notes about the floor plans and layout, and all of his actions were videotaped by a cameraman. (Leuchter, who had been married for about one month before the trip, told his wife that the trip to Auschwitz-Birkenau was their honeymoon.[1]) Leuchter then brought the samples back to Boston, where he presented them to Alpha Analytical Laboratories, a top laboratory, for testing. Leuchter told Alpha only that the samples were to be used as evidence in a court case about an industrial accident. The lab tested them for exposure to cyanide and found trace amounts in the alleged crematoria, which Leuchter dismissed in his report:
So what gives Holocaust denial such an appeal to this "gentleman"?
Maybe a long shot.. at some kind of "mogdom"..
recognition in a field in which he has had little or no training..
In October 1990, the state of Massachusetts brought criminal charges against Leuchter for representing himself as an engineer without a license.[1]Leuchter says he was a victim of selective prosecution, since only 10% of engineers are actually licensed. Critics have argued that Leuchter not only lacks an engineering license but hasn't an engineering degree or other professional certification or recognised credential — his only education consists of a BA in history, which he completed in 1964. He admits to having no formal training in toxicology, biology or chemistry.[1] Additionally, while Leuchter had some experience with electric chairs and lethal injection systems it was discovered that his claims of expertise in the area of gas chambers was a fabrication and he had no experience with them.
What I wonder is.. what is with the morbid fascination with electric chairs, gas chambers, lethal injection machines?
With a degree in history.. what is this? Perhaps a HOBBY?
Really.. I'm just trying to understand all of this.
even with this, he still didn't let go:
When he tried to sell parts of a lethal injection machine and other inventory from Fred Leuchter Associates, much of it items pending work for various states who refused to pay him for previously contracted or agreed work, he was again charged (Leuchter claims that the Massachusetts Attorney General had to explain that the sale of the offered equipment was not, in fact, illegal)
his wife divorced him in this same period.[1] The issues surrounding the equipment sale were covered in Boston area newspapers. Leuchter further claimed that states (he has named Delaware and its Deputy Attorney General, Fred Silverman) refused to do business with him and reneged on existing agreements not because of his lack of qualification but because of his involvement in the Zündel trial.
Give me a honeymoon in Auschitz, I might divorce too..
If I read it right.. he's claiming he's some kind of martyr..
David Irving, speaking several years before losing his libel lawsuit against Deborah Lipstadt and the ruin of his own reputation before a British court, expressed surprise that Leuchter did not commit suicide as a result of his destitution. Irving has called Leuchter a "simpleton" even as he has said that Leuchter's report convinced him that the received history Holocaust is a lie (Lipstadt's counsel in the libel trial cited Irving's contemporaneous statements to this effect in his opening statement).
In the words of one of his.. with lack of better words.. a "peer", another holocaust denier, calls him "a simpleton"..
I've been debating for a couple of days as to whether I want to get at all involved in such an emotionally charged topic as holocaust denial...But I imagine that the subject matter isn't going to go away any time soon,not just here at greasespot,but in many other places as well...
First off,I'll say,that I am in no wise anything resembling a history buff or an expert at anything particularly related to this topic...My knowledge of the holocaust is mostly from things remembered from history in el-hi schools,and various bits of piecemeal information absorbed according to how much it held my particular interest...
I will say that my interest grew to some degree in my twi days...As far as what I remember VPW saying regarding the holocaust,I don't have total recall,but the "way I remember it" is that he really didn't mention it much...He seemed more prone to discredit major religions rather than single out an ethnic group...Starting in PLAF,he discredited the Catholics("How about the Pope in Rome,when he speaks excathedra? It's STILL private interpretation"), the Baptists ("you put water in there[baptism] and you'll be all wet"),the Pentecostals ("it [holy spirit] filled all the house where they were hanging from the chandeliers"),....even the Amish ("You can't stand approved before God if you wear buttons,you have to wear hooks and eyes,or something")....I'm sure there were many others...As regards to Judeism,most comments I remember him making were along the ilk of 'we are all God's chosen people,whether Jew or Gentile,bond or free,since the day of Pentecost...besides,todays Jews are not really descendants of Abraham,anyway'...I do remember Craig making the comment about the Apaches...I guess my question would be is it necessarily "anti semetic" to try and discredit any and all competing groups that claim to hold the truth and be God's household?...
Regarding the phrase "anti semetic",it has become one of the most insultingly powerful stigmas one person can lay at the feet of another...You call somebody a racist,and you're telling them that they're ignorant....You call somebody xenophobic,and you're telling them they're afraid...You call somebody a white supremist,and you're telling them they're haughty...But if you call somebody anti-semetic,now you're telling them that they're hateful...And not just hateful,but hateful to a small minority of a people that was nearly wiped off the earth by Hitler and his mighty men(and women)...And while fear,ignorance and a sense of superiority can certainly fester into hate,it can be hard to accept that there was hate in our recent history---a bullying hate bestowed on a group of people that posed no threat of danger to the general population...
I'm not sure what the authoritive concensus is on the holocaust...I think if you ask the average person on the street "what was the holocaust?"(I actually did this a couple of times since reading this thread),the answer you'll get is "When Hitler gassed six million Jews"...Whatever the actual numbers are and whoever else was included in Hitler's death list,the holocaust does seem to be a piece of history that is more emotionally safeguarded,rather than openly discussed or debated,and I find that somewhat curious,or disturbing...Discussions usually don't get beyond a revisionist being called a holocaust denier and finally,anti-semetic...
While I certainly wouldn't call myself a "revisionist" since I don't believe I know enough about the holocaust history to make an attempt to revise,I'm also sure I don't know what motivates a revisionist...I suppose my question regarding the holocaust would not so much be the numbers or even the other groups of people involved...I guess I'd be interested in knowing if the holocaust was simply Hitler's thing against Jews,or was it a culmination of centuries and even milleniums old Jewish persecution...Personally,I can't understand why Jewish people in particular were singled out for persecution more than anybody else,but then,I'm no expert...
Simon, my forays into the subject on this thread lead from the fact that I am an amateur but very serious student of World War II. That may come from be being the truest of baby boomers, with both my dad and mom being in the Navy during that war. I dont specify in the holocaust, but it is something that I must know about if I am to call myself what I have above.
IMO both parts of your question are true. It was Hitler's "thing", but I have to believe he was influenced by past prejudices. He neede to strive, in his mind, for purity, and that had (to him) include elimination of any Jewish influence on the "master race".
I am not siding on the numbers debate either, only to the point that it was significant. I do agree that it seem to be emotionally safeguarded, as you say, to the point where suggesting the number was less than 6 million brings an instant backlash, such as when the National Park Service estimated 250,000 people at the "Million Man March". Too much significance is attached to the magic 6 million number by both sides. WTH made such a point that his "authorities" showed the number could be as low as a few hundred thousand, but when I demontrated (I believe) that there was great significance to even those "low" numbers, he suddenly backed of on admitting that those numbers could be right.
I have seen the same numbers argument on the subject of using the atomic bomb on Japan, in respect to how many lives would have been lost in an invasion and therefore were saved by the use of the bomb. Both sides stick to their numbers like glue. of course in that case it was an estimate of something that didnt actually happen, but the arguments take the same course.
I wont call myself a "hate" expert, and you may get some answers on that subject from others. I wont pretend to know someones inner mind, especially someone in the past, as Robert J. Lifton pretends to know President Truman's inner thoughts in the above mentioned A-bomb decision. But Hitler's own writings, a mere couple of which I presented earlier in this thread, do a lot of speaking for themselves.
No, I dont remember VPW mentioning the holocaust during my TWI time, except when I was at Emporia and he was promoting "the Myth of the Six Million" and a couple other books to the corps. By the way, I dont suppose you remember the "Haloween" party we had at HQ in 1979, where I was put up by some of my fellow 8th corps to be the Pope.
And I will agree that calling someone anti sematic and/or racist can attach a stigma, and such labels should not be tossed around lightly. In this case, I prefer (as I did do) to avoid labels and let Hitler's writings speak for themselves. Also some well documented information helps, of which I search for in my studies. I agree that name calling "discussions" usually get nowhere. You seem like a person who likes to see and find out for himself (sort of like a certain fellow IRS taxman from a certain skit). If you are interested and have the time, do your own studying on the subject. It is amazing what some trips to the library or even internet searches can turn up, if you have a good eye as I feel you do for what is opinion and what is true documentation. You don't have to be doing PhD research find out very intersting things. I am hardly doing anything original, just trying to be sure I have everything i can manage to see.
I'm also sure I don't know what motivates a revisionist..
That's what I'm trying to figure..
I have theories, but I think they are a little to wild for this crowd..
If someone asks, I'll say, but.. "I told you so.."
But moving on..
I think the Holocaust itself was the culmination of centuries of hatred of that which is supposedly non-Christian.
Martin Luther echoed a lot of this.. called the Jews Christ killers and such.. as despicible as his opinions in this regard are, he was only reflecting the opinion of the religion of his time. I think it fueled a lot of the fire that culminated with the Holocaust.
The reformation may have fixed a few things, but it didn't really fix problems with religious bigotry and intolerance. The Protestants got a taste of intolerance.. the freedom they wanted, I kinda wonder why they wouldn't extend it to someone as different from them, as they were from the Catholic religion.
I think you're right though.. nobody likes being labelled anti-semetic or being some kind of bigot.
I think the big problem, is people generally can't smell their own odor. Another poster said something like "it's real easy to grow accustomed to the smell of ones own feces.."
I think the Holocaust itself was the culmination of centuries of hatred of that which is supposedly non-Christian.
Martin Luther echoed a lot of this.. called the Jews Christ killers and such.. as despicible as his opinions in this regard are, he was only reflecting the opinion of the religion of his time. I think it fueled a lot of the fire that culminated with the Holocaust.
The reformation may have fixed a few things, but it didn't really fix problems with religious bigotry and intolerance. The Protestants got a taste of intolerance.. the freedom they wanted, I kinda wonder why they wouldn't extend it to someone as different from them, as they were from the Catholic religion.
You're correct. Anti-semitism was always a big problem in Europe. For example, a lot of people were shocked when Mel Gibson was accused of anti-semitism for making "Passion of the Christ". The reason for those accusations is lost on those that aren't aware of the historical significance of the movie. It was similar to "passion plays", which were brutal portrayals of the death of Jesus which were usually meant to stir up hatred against the Jews. There's really no way that Mel Gibson could have made such a thing without being aware of them, so it seemed very strange.
Don't forget that the Spanish Inquisition was not just for Christians that supposedly lost their way, but also for Muslims and Jews that refused to convert. The hatred of Jews in Europe took place long before World War II, it flourished under the Roman Catholic church, it flourished under the Roman empire, and the Jews were not well regarded during biblical times either. For various reasons, they seem to have always been history's "read-headed stepchild".
I saw earlier a show on the History Channel called "Nazi America: A Secret History" which goes into detail about how the American Nazi Party was started by some Joe McCarthy knock-off who (like Joe) was obsessed with fighting Communism, and it morphed into his embracing Hitler's views, which included racial supremacy and livid hatred of the Jews. Seems like rabid obsession with fighting Communism was always part and parcel of anti-semeticism.
Oh by the way, they also discarded the fact that the Holocaust occured. Seems like that little fact of history was running interference to their PR, as well as trying to recruit people into joining their cause. <_<
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
28
116
58
24
Popular Days
Jun 23
24
Sep 26
22
Sep 25
20
Sep 21
18
Top Posters In This Topic
WordWolf 28 posts
Ham 116 posts
What The Hey 58 posts
doojable 24 posts
Popular Days
Jun 23 2005
24 posts
Sep 26 2007
22 posts
Sep 25 2007
20 posts
Sep 21 2007
18 posts
Popular Posts
Catcup
Absolutely.
Catcup
This was exactly my experience. I sat in the same meetings and heard Martindale make the same exclamation: That the Jews of today are no more Jews than the Apache Indians. And yes, the Holocaust wa
Catcup
A slippery slope indeed, Tref.
Posted Images
Ham
We've been dealing with quite a pile of doo doo, haven't we..
I'm glad for one thing.. at least one of us here admitted working with a pile of mixed emotions about all this.
:)
Sometimes.. I think I am as much of a sham.. as much as I try to put myself in the shoes of those who endured horrific stuff and understand.. sometime, all I can do is guess what it was like..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I hear ya, Mr. "ham" Radio
I was spared a lot of the really sucky stuff myself.
Personally, I think I got off the hook easier than many because of the timing of my involvement.
Still, whether it was 6 months or 6 years or 16 years, it was wrong.
I think the thing I feel the worst about is that, after I left, people who I had brought in stayed and had to endure this junk.
I have apologized to my parents, whom I brought into The Way, many times.
They always smile and say that at least they made a lot of really good friends.
And, in fact, that is actually true in their case.
I'm not sure what that has to do with Holocaust denial but it seemed to fit the conversation somehow.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
Why guess what it [Auschwitz] was like and keep wading through the "doo doo" the Holocaust Promotion Lobby keeps peddling when you don't have to "guess" what it was like? Take this video tour with David Cole, (a Jewish individual BTW) who visited Auschwitz first hand in September 1992 - if you dare. Unfortunatly the video is broken into 6 clips as it is hosted on You Tube which has a video clip limit, and this video takes some time to completely watch. Regardless of what your opinion may be regarding the Holocaust, I think you'll find David Cole's video worth further discussion as he cuts through much of the "doo-doo" that's been out there, as he asks some very "common sense" questions regarding the Holocaust.
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Part 4:
Part 5:
Part 6:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Maybe you didn't understand me correctly. What I can only guess at.. is how I'd feel, if I was subjected to the same kind of prejudice and violence.
If I was uprooted, and shuffled from one ghetto to another..
forbidden by law from holding any kind of government position, based merely on my ancestry..
forbidden to take any of my material wealth with me, should I choose or even be able to leave the country..
have customs and religious observances declared to be incompatible with society..
insinuated or outrightly accused of murdering children because of a "godless" religion..
starved and forced to keep marching, or run, at gunpoint..
beaten for asking for a cup of water..
forbidden by law to hold any kind of money or valuables..
declared the "seed of the devil" by the standing government at the time..
taking one last glimpse at parents, or siblings, as the little man at the head of the line motioned for them to turn right..
you know, a lot of "those" people fought in the first war for the Kaiser. They were as patriotic as the next German.
Some of them fled for their lives to neighboring countries, only to meet up with their enemy there..
the enemy followed them to Poland, Slovakia, France..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
So we've apparently evolved from this kind of brutality..
We've put down Hitler and gang.
Just close the eyes, rest a few minutes..
then comes
Stalin..
Pol Pot..
Milosevic..
Hussein..
the list by far is not exaustive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
WTH:
"I don't recall making any claim that these Holocaust revisionists are also poster's here at GSC. I don't even know where you got that idea."
Well, WTH,
I actually explained it already, but it seems you missed it.
It was in the very post you quoted.
I shall quote myself and you and show it AGAIN.
Please try to follow along this time.
==
WordWolf said:
WTH read this, quoted it-including the part where it specifies it's referring
specifically to posters on the GSC and came back with
After quoting both, I then said-which WTH quoted now and was unable to understand...
=========
The connection between the two was right in the post WTH made.
I spoke of Holocaust denier who post here,
and WTH replied by invoking those names.
HE drew the connection, which any adolescent or adult English reader should have no trouble understanding.
WTH continues.
"I don't even know where you got that idea. But then again, it appears that you are making "a connection" where none exists -"
WTH seems rather good at denying connections between things that OBVIOUSLY exist-
like errors in his posts, and the content of the errors
(like saying "in the GSC" applies to all sorts of Holocaust deniers then denying he ever
connected them).
He continues
"But then again, it appears that you are making "a connection" where none exists - which apparently you are very good at, especially when you drop little comments like: "but it seems that every Holocaust denier (on the GSC) is a vpw defender."
This claim, BTW, is pretty self-evident to everyone else here.
I said not every person on the GSC who is a vpw defender/apologist is a Holocaust denier (AFAIK),
but those posters at the GSC who ARE Holocaust deniers are also all vpw defenders/apologists.
There being only a tiny handful of Holocaust deniers at the GSC, it's easy to see what
they seem to all have in common.
Off the top of my head, the few of them are all male, and they all come out to defend
vpw's memory and engage in apologetics to excuse his felonies and misdemeanors and other bad things.
To say otherwise is like denying giraffes have long necks.
You won't convince anyone, and you just sound silly.
But that doesn't stop SOME people...
WTH:
"(Apparently you consider me to be one of those "VPW defender's" though - which only goes to prove how little you know because there are many things VPW did I don't care to or want to defend.) "
WTH, apparently, is in denial over the content of many of his posts, in which he has gone
to great lengths to attempt to excuse vpw of crimes, or draw attention away from them.
Is he convincing anyone other than himself that his posting history has no connection
with defending vpw?
WTH still can't let drop the connection that HE drew by responding to "on the GSC" with
the names of Holocaust deniers he's quoted.
" will simply go on record by saying: "There is no connection between them and VPW and TWI, anymore than there is a connection between them and the GSC." That is the point I was making and am still making. Remarkable though how you chose to respond to everything I said, except for this comment I also made: And I keep wondering ... exactly what makes you think there ever WAS a connection there to begin with? Well WW, do you care to respond to that comment or not? Probably not. And why is that?"
A) I KNOW there is no connection between them-your own post notwithstanding. That's the one
where you invoked their names in response to me specifying "on the GSC."
It's really sad that I can say this REPEATEDLY in such clear terms and you can still miss it.
Perhaps there's a biological problem that's preventing this-I'm aware some victims of
Traumatic Brain Injuries can be physically unable to draw connections. If so, I'm very sorry
and you should have mentioned that. If you're trying your best, I can try to make allowances.
If not, your insistence on highlighting your OWN mistake repeatedly is baffling,
and your attempt to pass it off on someone else rather than just say
"whoops-I posted before I read" and moving on is rather transparent, to everyone except
possibly your own self. I can't see a reasonable motive for doing it.
B) I not only have no problem responding to why any connection was drawn,
but I ALREADY did, since I ALREADY had explained it, and all I did now was REPOST
the previous explanation. It was clear to everyone else the FIRST time I posted it.
WTH again:
"Because none of us really knows exactly what your basis is/was for drawing any connection beween Holocaust deniers and VPW defenders, regardless if they happen to post on GSC or not. Of course I realize you "conveniently" choose not to respond to that particular comment I also made, simply because you wanted to make it appear as though I were the one drawing that connection instead of you."
Actually, I responded specifically to every comment so far.
I didn't see the need to explain that the Holocaust deniers at the GSC are all vpw defenders
(but not necessarily vice versa), because everyone except those few have no difficulty
seeing that they are both. However, I've spelled it out now.
And not every light-skinned person has red hair, but most naturally red-headed people
have light skin. And I don't need to explain that one, since it's obvious to anyone not
deliberately trying to miss it.
As to what connected those authors to the GSC, YOU did, and I quoted you doing so-
TWICE now, and explained the quotes, TWICE now. Everyone except you can see it
without difficulty, TWICE now. It would surprise few if you STILL miss what you YOURSELF
connected.
Of course, we're supposed to respect your interpretation of the Holocaust's evidence even
though you can't see the direct connections in your own replies.
Forgive us if WE can see the disconnect in one, and conclude the other has little hope of
making sense.
WTH:
"WELL - HAVE I MADE MYSELF CLEAR NOW? Or are you still deaf? But then, with all the "noise" you make, it's a wonder anyone can hear at all.:
You made yourself clear before.
You were so eager to try to discredit me, that you didnt even read my post, and when I specified
Holocaust deniers [u[on the GSC[/u], you skipped over it completely-and connected my post
with Holocaust deniers worldwide-
unaware you now connected all of them with posting on the GSC.
Then you displayed an intentional denial you made that mistake, and even when it was explained,
you remained adamant you never said it.
You've been coming in loud and clear.
Error-ridden, but loud and clear.
I have had no difficulty understanding you-although you've been deficient in understanding me.
I've never been "deaf", but your own "blindness" is on display-
and not just because I'm recognizing it in a post- everyone else can see it whether I
mention it or not. But since you're speaking on "deaf", it seems apt to mention it in passing.
Finally, I post, and you post.
You seem under some illusion that refuting all the flaws in your post is identical to
shouting you down. Sorry, I'm unable to correct that illusion.
Also, you're under a separate illusion-or deliberately lying- that my posts lack content.
Do you think you're convincing anyone?
But since WTH is either unable or unwilling to notice the connection,
apparently, there's ANOTHER thing to deny for WTH while he's busy denying...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Wordwolf thus plainly illustrates why Holocaust revisionist 'scholars' (such as WTH) can't be trusted to handle historical evidence/data from an objective point of view. They are too selective/one sided with the information, and yes Virginia, they do carry a hatred for the Jewish people (even for the Jewish 'scholars' who side with them <_< ), as every time they talk about or deal with Jewish people, that bigotry shows itself, either in an in-your-face manner, or more covertly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I wonder how someone would feel..
if the cops were either noticeably absent from the scene, where a mob was tearing my shop to pieces, or only present to protect the looters..
where unwritten government instructions allowed a "hands off" approach, so the other citizens could vent their hatred and frustrations on a group, wrongly named as the cause of all of their woes..
or fired from a university professorship, based on one's race, and baboon with less than half the intellectual ability given the position, based only on ancestry...
don't like that kind of treatment?
Just leave. Leave the country. But don't think about taking any money with you. Your kind of "scum" is gonna give some retribution to der father land.. merely because you were born with the "wrong" ancestry..
Good luck finding a country that will accept you. If you're REALLY smart, maybe if you're one of the lucky few, a university or group somewhere might sponsor you..
even with that, good luck getting any of your family out, with you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
railroader II
Okay, let's go back a bit to a couple of WTH's other observations. He mentioned weapons of mass destruction and fleets of bombers: yes, we did have bombers in England and other areas which were aimed at Germany. However, if you look at the RECORDS of the 8th Air Force, most US bombing targets were German industrial areas. The largest share of the cities destroyed were bombed by the British IN RESPONSE to Germany's attacks on British cities, including the blitz attacks on London.
Let's also look at a couple other uses of massive bomber fleets. How about those operating with Franco's forces in the Spanish Civil War. { oh I forgot. Those were actualyy being flown by GERMAN flight crews. Or, the German bombers that hit Warsaw, Krakow, Rotterdam, Amsterdam and other major allied cities in the early days of WW II. How about what Japanese bombers & troops did to the major cities of Chine { Shanghai, Nanking and others there} Do NOT criticize the US. We answered in kind for massive, brutal barbarianism by the axis powers..... Oh, let's not forget the U-boats and raiders that Germany employed in both wars. Without timely US lend-lease Germany could probably forced Britain out of the war without having to invade.
Germany was the one who introduced the use of chemical weapons on the Western Front during WW I. This included the use of Mustard & Chlorine gas among other things. Also, the last 3 major conflicts on the Continent were initiated by GERMANY! Remember this also, there was a non-agression pact between Germany & Russia. Part of that agreement was that after the invasion, Poland was to be divided between Germany & Russia. Hitler needed the oil and raw materials that Stalin could supply.
Do not stasnd there and criticize the US for our actions in the bombing of some of the cities. For many, many years, the US policy has been and continues to be retaliation in kind for attacks. The use of nuclear weapons on Japan, which was TWICE, was to try and bring a speedy end to the war. The military had warned FDR & Truman that an invasion of the home islands of Japan would produce 1,000,000+ casualties. It was a calculated risk that had to be taken.
Now, on Israel, Palestine was to be set as a Jewish homeland, according to the terms of the Balfour Declaration, at the END of WW I. That never came to pass, just as Arab independence never came to pass. WHY??? Because the people involved were lied to by the British & French, who wanted control of the oil resources. The US got involved in that fiasco because we had the technology to develop those resaources. Read "Churchill's Folly" or read 7 Pillars of Wisdom written by T.E. Lawrence. The Arab countries have a long history of lying & distrust to build on for their dislike.
Also, remember, Hussein had chemical weapons, even if there were none when we invaded. He used them on Iran during their war & he also used them on his own people. { Kurds } Every combatant in history has used the premise that they will use whatever method necessary to obtain their goals at that particular time & place. :blink: :blink: :blink:
Edited by railroader IILink to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
Did you or did you not say this, WW?
YOU DID.
So quit denying it.
Remove the parenthesis from WW's quote and what do we have?
(You can do this with a parenthesis to quickly establish the truth of what has been said. That's a basic rule of grammer, dont'cha know.)
What WE have is: but it seems that every Holocaust denier ... is a VPW defender.
That's the point WW was making and still is making from his initial post.
Quit back-peddling WW. If what you initially wanted to say really was, "it seems that every Holocaust denier on the GSC is a VPW defender", then you certainly wouldn't have used a parenthesis and you certainly wouldn't be back-peddling now to make your point. YOU purposely used a parenthesis to imply and implicate that every Holocaust denier is also a VPW defender, - then you went on and used the parenthesis to single out "certain" GSC posters that YOU happen to believe are Holocaust deniers & VPW defenders. But that's no surprise to me anymore than this is a surprise:
You (and others here) are also promoting and parroting the same claim on GSC the Holocaust Promotion Lobby is promoting every where else - which is: Holocaust Revisionist=Holocaust Denier, because holocaust revisionism jeopardizes the agenda of the Holocaust industry --- just like the people here who defend VPW/TWI/PFAL etc. on GSC jeopardizes your personal agenda against VPW/TWI, etc.
Maybe it will come as a shock to you (and perhaps to others here) to learn: HOLOCAUST REVISIONIST'S DO NOT DENY THE HOLOCAUST!
So why are they labeled: "Holocaust deniers" by the Holocaust Promotion Lobby if they don't deny the holocaust?
[Here's a simple analogy - This is like Trinitarian's claiming: "People who don't believe in the Trinity also deny Jesus Christ!" It's not always true non-trinitarians deny Jesus Christ, they just deny the Trinitarian view of who Jesus Christ is.]
Similarly: Holocaust Revisionists don't claim that Jews didn't suffer. They don't argue the fact that Jews were, in fact, unwanted in Germany, and that there was a state policy to remove them as a "parasitic people" harmful to the country. It is absolutely true that Jews were incarcerated and often treated cruelly. They were seen as the enemy, just as in our times the "Nazis" are seen as the enemy of entrenched oligarchies, as we frequently hear people being called these words that are so often said in hate: Nazi, neo-Nazi, white supremacist, anti-Semitic, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
What revisionists do claim and argue is, that there was no state policy that called for the "mass extermination of the Jews" or any other unwanted minorities. The Allies, independently and singly, interrogated 26,000 functionaries of the National Socialist regime immediately after Germany's defeat, all based on the same set of questions. Some people have thought of lying for their own benefit by implicating others. That's what the Holocaust Promotion Lobby and the Holocaust industry have been doing for decades - but then, that's "par for the course" around here.
WW claims there must be some "blindness" on my part, yet I see and realize this is something he has beome a master at, especailly when it advances his own agenda regardless of whom he slanders or might libel in the process. Apparently he is very perturbed by what I SEE.
Edited by What The HeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[Here we have a PERFECT example of the hallucinations and tortured logic
necessary to deny the Holocaust.
I shall narrate.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Like a guy who just brushed by with a degree in history, and has to resort to destruction of buildings, masquerading as a qualified engineer, and trying making a living selling lethal injection machines and maintaining electric chairs as a sideline.
If the word "dolt", "imbecile", or "charlatan" fits, and he insists on wearing it, who am I to try to rip it off his miserable hide..
You know.. the prisons of the world aren't exactly beating a path to this guy's doorstep, by eny means.. even at a twenty percent discount.. "hey, I'll even toss in free off the shelf parts for a year.. besides, if you don't buy, I'll cause trouble.."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_A._Leuchter
This is the guy who said "see ma, no cyanide.."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
So what gives Holocaust denial such an appeal to this "gentleman"?
Maybe a long shot.. at some kind of "mogdom"..
recognition in a field in which he has had little or no training..
What I wonder is.. what is with the morbid fascination with electric chairs, gas chambers, lethal injection machines?
With a degree in history.. what is this? Perhaps a HOBBY?
Really.. I'm just trying to understand all of this.
even with this, he still didn't let go:
Give me a honeymoon in Auschitz, I might divorce too..
If I read it right.. he's claiming he's some kind of martyr..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
In the words of one of his.. with lack of better words.. a "peer", another holocaust denier, calls him "a simpleton"..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I dunno.. I think he gambled on the long shot, and lost it all..
If a person lays down with the likes of Zundel, Irving, Faurisson.. maybe the person gets up with a little more than a few fleas..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
Glad SOMEone enjoyed it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Okay - I've spent the last ten minutes laffing my arse off....
Hitler would have just LOVED his outfit... <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
It was good Sushi.. don't know how I missed it the first time around..
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
sushi................still lmao!!!!.......izzard is very funny.......your choice of clips........wonderfully appropriate......thanks!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
simonzelotes
I've been debating for a couple of days as to whether I want to get at all involved in such an emotionally charged topic as holocaust denial...But I imagine that the subject matter isn't going to go away any time soon,not just here at greasespot,but in many other places as well...
First off,I'll say,that I am in no wise anything resembling a history buff or an expert at anything particularly related to this topic...My knowledge of the holocaust is mostly from things remembered from history in el-hi schools,and various bits of piecemeal information absorbed according to how much it held my particular interest...
I will say that my interest grew to some degree in my twi days...As far as what I remember VPW saying regarding the holocaust,I don't have total recall,but the "way I remember it" is that he really didn't mention it much...He seemed more prone to discredit major religions rather than single out an ethnic group...Starting in PLAF,he discredited the Catholics("How about the Pope in Rome,when he speaks excathedra? It's STILL private interpretation"), the Baptists ("you put water in there[baptism] and you'll be all wet"),the Pentecostals ("it [holy spirit] filled all the house where they were hanging from the chandeliers"),....even the Amish ("You can't stand approved before God if you wear buttons,you have to wear hooks and eyes,or something")....I'm sure there were many others...As regards to Judeism,most comments I remember him making were along the ilk of 'we are all God's chosen people,whether Jew or Gentile,bond or free,since the day of Pentecost...besides,todays Jews are not really descendants of Abraham,anyway'...I do remember Craig making the comment about the Apaches...I guess my question would be is it necessarily "anti semetic" to try and discredit any and all competing groups that claim to hold the truth and be God's household?...
Regarding the phrase "anti semetic",it has become one of the most insultingly powerful stigmas one person can lay at the feet of another...You call somebody a racist,and you're telling them that they're ignorant....You call somebody xenophobic,and you're telling them they're afraid...You call somebody a white supremist,and you're telling them they're haughty...But if you call somebody anti-semetic,now you're telling them that they're hateful...And not just hateful,but hateful to a small minority of a people that was nearly wiped off the earth by Hitler and his mighty men(and women)...And while fear,ignorance and a sense of superiority can certainly fester into hate,it can be hard to accept that there was hate in our recent history---a bullying hate bestowed on a group of people that posed no threat of danger to the general population...
I'm not sure what the authoritive concensus is on the holocaust...I think if you ask the average person on the street "what was the holocaust?"(I actually did this a couple of times since reading this thread),the answer you'll get is "When Hitler gassed six million Jews"...Whatever the actual numbers are and whoever else was included in Hitler's death list,the holocaust does seem to be a piece of history that is more emotionally safeguarded,rather than openly discussed or debated,and I find that somewhat curious,or disturbing...Discussions usually don't get beyond a revisionist being called a holocaust denier and finally,anti-semetic...
While I certainly wouldn't call myself a "revisionist" since I don't believe I know enough about the holocaust history to make an attempt to revise,I'm also sure I don't know what motivates a revisionist...I suppose my question regarding the holocaust would not so much be the numbers or even the other groups of people involved...I guess I'd be interested in knowing if the holocaust was simply Hitler's thing against Jews,or was it a culmination of centuries and even milleniums old Jewish persecution...Personally,I can't understand why Jewish people in particular were singled out for persecution more than anybody else,but then,I'm no expert...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
Simon, my forays into the subject on this thread lead from the fact that I am an amateur but very serious student of World War II. That may come from be being the truest of baby boomers, with both my dad and mom being in the Navy during that war. I dont specify in the holocaust, but it is something that I must know about if I am to call myself what I have above.
IMO both parts of your question are true. It was Hitler's "thing", but I have to believe he was influenced by past prejudices. He neede to strive, in his mind, for purity, and that had (to him) include elimination of any Jewish influence on the "master race".
I am not siding on the numbers debate either, only to the point that it was significant. I do agree that it seem to be emotionally safeguarded, as you say, to the point where suggesting the number was less than 6 million brings an instant backlash, such as when the National Park Service estimated 250,000 people at the "Million Man March". Too much significance is attached to the magic 6 million number by both sides. WTH made such a point that his "authorities" showed the number could be as low as a few hundred thousand, but when I demontrated (I believe) that there was great significance to even those "low" numbers, he suddenly backed of on admitting that those numbers could be right.
I have seen the same numbers argument on the subject of using the atomic bomb on Japan, in respect to how many lives would have been lost in an invasion and therefore were saved by the use of the bomb. Both sides stick to their numbers like glue. of course in that case it was an estimate of something that didnt actually happen, but the arguments take the same course.
I wont call myself a "hate" expert, and you may get some answers on that subject from others. I wont pretend to know someones inner mind, especially someone in the past, as Robert J. Lifton pretends to know President Truman's inner thoughts in the above mentioned A-bomb decision. But Hitler's own writings, a mere couple of which I presented earlier in this thread, do a lot of speaking for themselves.
No, I dont remember VPW mentioning the holocaust during my TWI time, except when I was at Emporia and he was promoting "the Myth of the Six Million" and a couple other books to the corps. By the way, I dont suppose you remember the "Haloween" party we had at HQ in 1979, where I was put up by some of my fellow 8th corps to be the Pope.
And I will agree that calling someone anti sematic and/or racist can attach a stigma, and such labels should not be tossed around lightly. In this case, I prefer (as I did do) to avoid labels and let Hitler's writings speak for themselves. Also some well documented information helps, of which I search for in my studies. I agree that name calling "discussions" usually get nowhere. You seem like a person who likes to see and find out for himself (sort of like a certain fellow IRS taxman from a certain skit). If you are interested and have the time, do your own studying on the subject. It is amazing what some trips to the library or even internet searches can turn up, if you have a good eye as I feel you do for what is opinion and what is true documentation. You don't have to be doing PhD research find out very intersting things. I am hardly doing anything original, just trying to be sure I have everything i can manage to see.
Edited by Lifted UpLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
That's what I'm trying to figure..
I have theories, but I think they are a little to wild for this crowd..
If someone asks, I'll say, but.. "I told you so.."
But moving on..
I think the Holocaust itself was the culmination of centuries of hatred of that which is supposedly non-Christian.
Martin Luther echoed a lot of this.. called the Jews Christ killers and such.. as despicible as his opinions in this regard are, he was only reflecting the opinion of the religion of his time. I think it fueled a lot of the fire that culminated with the Holocaust.
The reformation may have fixed a few things, but it didn't really fix problems with religious bigotry and intolerance. The Protestants got a taste of intolerance.. the freedom they wanted, I kinda wonder why they wouldn't extend it to someone as different from them, as they were from the Catholic religion.
I think you're right though.. nobody likes being labelled anti-semetic or being some kind of bigot.
I think the big problem, is people generally can't smell their own odor. Another poster said something like "it's real easy to grow accustomed to the smell of ones own feces.."
I've done the best to wash my own clothes..
Edited by Mr. HammeroniLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
You're correct. Anti-semitism was always a big problem in Europe. For example, a lot of people were shocked when Mel Gibson was accused of anti-semitism for making "Passion of the Christ". The reason for those accusations is lost on those that aren't aware of the historical significance of the movie. It was similar to "passion plays", which were brutal portrayals of the death of Jesus which were usually meant to stir up hatred against the Jews. There's really no way that Mel Gibson could have made such a thing without being aware of them, so it seemed very strange.
Don't forget that the Spanish Inquisition was not just for Christians that supposedly lost their way, but also for Muslims and Jews that refused to convert. The hatred of Jews in Europe took place long before World War II, it flourished under the Roman Catholic church, it flourished under the Roman empire, and the Jews were not well regarded during biblical times either. For various reasons, they seem to have always been history's "read-headed stepchild".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
I saw earlier a show on the History Channel called "Nazi America: A Secret History" which goes into detail about how the American Nazi Party was started by some Joe McCarthy knock-off who (like Joe) was obsessed with fighting Communism, and it morphed into his embracing Hitler's views, which included racial supremacy and livid hatred of the Jews. Seems like rabid obsession with fighting Communism was always part and parcel of anti-semeticism.
Oh by the way, they also discarded the fact that the Holocaust occured. Seems like that little fact of history was running interference to their PR, as well as trying to recruit people into joining their cause. <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.