:party:
:kinanna: :kinanna: :kinanna: :kinanna: :kinanna:
Wrongplanet is shit
I got banned again from there yesterday as well
I didn't even do anything wrong
Did you post as Mr Soph? :laugh::laugh:
I don't think he likes me :'(
*very sad*Did you post as Mr Soph? :laugh::laugh:
No, I was bananasarenotmelons and I was completely sensible
I may go back as Mr Soph one day though :P
I told the depressed student who was considering quitting college, that I had just quit university.I don't think he likes me :'(
*very sad*Did you post as Mr Soph? :laugh::laugh:
No, I was bananasarenotmelons and I was completely sensible
I may go back as Mr Soph one day though :P
Why did you get banned then?
Did you say ANYTHING to indicate who you
were?
I'm presuming you weren't using your IP.
Ooooppppss!
I got banned.
Wrongplanet is shit
I got banned again from there yesterday as well
I didn't even do anything wrong
Wrongplanet is shit
I got banned again from there yesterday as well
I didn't even do anything wrong
Same here. Banned without a warning and for no apparent reason.
Wrongplanet is shit
I got banned again from there yesterday as well
I didn't even do anything wrong
Same here. Banned without a warning and for no apparent reason.
I thought you would be after reading your post :green:
Could you quote that post here, or has it already been deleted from WP?
:laugh:
Hi. I just joined this forum. I'm 26 years old, live in Europe and I'm a high-functioning Aspie.
As a high-functioning Aspie, I constructed my own worldview from scratch by mere logic alone, because I couldn't accept either the liberal or Christian viewpoints of the country I lived in and I couldn't find another worldview that suited me at the time. In the years to come, I graduately developed a complex worldview that's based on traditionalist and Conservative Revolutionary principles. As such, I have very non-conventional and politically incorrect ideas, which makes it impossible for me to freely express myself on most Internet forums without risking to get banned.
What I found shocking to learn on two other Aspie forums quite recently, is that people within Autism-spectrum aren't necessarilly more openminded and tolerant than NTs with regards to politically incorrect ideas. In fact, the overall behavior of most of the forum members was just as intolerant as that of the average NT whenever you address opinions that are politically incorrect. I've been called anything from racist, antisemite, idiot, narrowminded, neonazi, etc. just for expressing views that fall within the traditionalist and Conservative Revolutionary areas. Their prejudice about such viewpoints seems to close their minds entirely in a way pretty much identical to the way NTs shun things alien to them.
As such, I decided to post this thread with the following question : what is the attitude of the administration with regards to politically incorrect ideas and how many of its members would you regard as politically incorrect? I ask this, because I do not want to go through all that sh*t again of people calling me names all the time and I do not want to stop talking politically or socially relevant issues either. Whether I stay or not on this forum, will probably depend on the outcome of this thread.
I wish to make clear that I treat people with respect if they treat me with respect, regardless of their ethnicity, thier religion, their ideology, their sexual preference, etc. I may not agree with how and where you live or how you think, but I see that as no reason to treat you with disrespect. Respect is one of my primary values.
Having said all that, I like to give a list of some ideas that I adhere to, just so you get the idea :
* ) Every ethnic group has its strengths and weaknesses on mental, spiritual and physical levels. Just like two breeds of dogs may differ in speed, intelligence and character, so can two breeds of humans differ in speed, intelligence and character.
* ) My ideal politically is the world as a patchwork of nations based on both cultural and ethnic grounds that peacefully coexist and cooperate on a supranational scale only to maintain the economical stability and to guarantee the independence of every nation.
* ) I reject the concept of "representative democract" altogether and prefer a technocratic/meritocratic system instead.
* ) Homosexuality should be tolerated but not promoted. It remains a sexual deviance and one should not be given the impression that homosexuality is "normal".
* ) I regard animals as creatures worthy of the same respect as humans. I do not believe that humans have the right to treat animals like objects and act as they see fit. Various species are obviously self-aware and capable of simple forms of rational thought.
* ) Modern medicine goes way too far by eliminating natural selection altogether. By totally limiting natural selection, too many people will survive who wouldn't survive in a more primitive society. This can only lead to increased degeneration with the destruction of humanity as a species in the end.
* ) All moral values must come from nature and nature only. Animals living in groups and primitive human societies should be studied closely and analysed to determine the proper moral values humanity has lost. Any religion that is not based on the principles of nature (eg. Christianity) is bunk. Valuable religions (that are based on the principles of nature) are religions such as Asatru, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, ...
* ) We live in an age of corruption and decay, similar to the final days of the Roman empire. Those values loved so dearly by liberals are actually symptoms of corruption and will only help mankind degenerate faster.
* ) I reject all forms of exploitation of one man by another. As such, I'm strongly anti-capitalist and favor a solidarist/corporatist model instead. This also means that I'm oposed to any form of colonisation.
* ) I'm strongly oposed to both zionism and Judaism for they are dangerous supremacist belief systems. In fact, I dare to state that he antisemitism of national-socialist Germany was caused purely by the supremacist attitude of many German Jews, who had Germany in a stranglehold.
* ) I reject the official version of history with regards to WW2 and related events. I'm not convinced that national-socialist Germany was "evil" and the US was benign. I'm not convinced that Hitler wanted to kill all those Jews. Surely there were concentration camps and surely many people never came out of them alive, but the figures are distorted and so is the context. The camps in question were really work camps and people died as a consequence of starvation and disease due to allied bombings destroying German infrastructure. This is confirmed by Red Cross reports, that actually condemned the British for causing this humanitarian disaster.
Would you say this is accepted on Wrong Planet?
Again, I'd like to stress that I treat people with respect if they treat me with respect, regardless of their ethnicity, thier religion, their ideology, their sexual preference, etc. I may not agree with how and where you live or how you think, but I see that as no reason to treat you with disrespect as respect is one of my primary values.
You have the metal to defend yourself and not get too hurt by the gentle banter here, that is all we really ask.
At the same time this is not a support forum nor can you expect us to support views that are (for want of a better word) crazy.
Tolerance goes both ways. You do not tolerate people not tolerating your lack of tolerance. The situation is intolerable. :asthing:
You mention gays are a sexual deviance, well people on the spectrum make up 1% of society so we are not normal and deviants in respect to your definitions.
Animals? I am not a animal person and must say I will never look at the non-humans of the world in a sexual way nor will I eye off a person and think in terms of steak or sausages. So treating them with the same respect? Nah.
Religion? No proof any way, for the existence of any God, and theologists will be discussing the merits of religion till the cows come home.
As for the Jewish deathcamps, WTF? That idea was weird but hey you have put a lot of time and effort in building up this delusion, don't let me rain on your parade ****tinkle, tinkle***
Oh welcome aboard Illusion. We need more crazy here.
I left WP after getting disgruntled at the oversensitive mod faggotry going on there. I guess you were a victim of their faggotry, IlluSionS667. To be honest, nothing you said should be grounds for being banned at all, and if they didn't like it, well, a simple kind warning would have been appropriate at least.
You have the metal to defend yourself and not get too hurt by the gentle banter here, that is all we really ask.
... and all I ask.At the same time this is not a support forum nor can you expect us to support views that are (for want of a better word) crazy.
Tolerance goes both ways. You do not tolerate people not tolerating your lack of tolerance. The situation is intolerable. :asthing:
:green:
All I ask for, is the freedom to express what I believe to be factual or righteous.You mention gays are a sexual deviance, well people on the spectrum make up 1% of society so we are not normal and deviants in respect to your definitions.
I'm lefthanded, high-functioning (IQ = 137), Aspie and extremely politically incorrect. It doesn't get less conventional than that, so I have no problem if people call me deviant. In fact, I regard being deviant as something to be proud of.Animals? I am not a animal person and must say I will never look at the non-humans of the world in a sexual way nor will I eye off a person and think in terms of steak or sausages. So treating them with the same respect? Nah.
Animals are also individuals with feelings and some cognitive abilities. How can you morally justify treating them as objects?Religion? No proof any way, for the existence of any God, and theologists will be discussing the merits of religion till the cows come home.
Metaphysical philosophy can be very interesting. Belief in an imaginary creature up in the sky is just plain dangerous.As for the Jewish deathcamps, WTF? That idea was weird but hey you have put a lot of time and effort in building up this delusion, don't let me rain on your parade ****tinkle, tinkle***
I've visited Auschwitz and Majdanek myself. I've spent many dozens of hours researching the topic. Based on all the info I've gained so far, I couldn't find the slightest indication that any German camp was used to murder Jews. Everything points to these camps having been work camps, the total Jewish death toll for WW2 being just a few hundreds of thousands and the large death tolls in some camps at the end of the war being the result of typhus and starvation due to resource issues caused by the destuction of Germany by the allies.
If you reject this conclusion, feel free to discuss the facts. I've discussed this topic with a qualified Holocaust historian in the past, so I doubt you can bring forward any relevant information I'm thusfar unfamiliar with. You can always try, though.Oh welcome aboard Illusion. We need more crazy here.
Crazy I'm not. I'm just un-conventional due to my having built up my own frame of thought rather than adopting an existing one. From my point of view, it's the liberal and neo-conservative masses that went nuts when they started declaring race as irrelevant, morallity as individual and love for your country as hateful.
Could you quote that post here, or has it already been deleted from WP?
:laugh:
It's still there :
*snip*
I left WP after getting disgruntled at the oversensitive mod faggotry going on there. I guess you were a victim of their faggotry, IlluSionS667. To be honest, nothing you said should be grounds for being banned at all, and if they didn't like it, well, a simple kind warning would have been appropriate at least.
I left WP after getting disgruntled at the oversensitive mod faggotry going on there. I guess you were a victim of their faggotry, IlluSionS667. To be honest, nothing you said should be grounds for being banned at all, and if they didn't like it, well, a simple kind warning would have been appropriate at least.
What you call oversentisity mod faggotry I would call super-NT behavior. IMO, a real Aspie is a Mr Spock (Star Trek), a Gregory House (House MD) or a Dharma Finklestein Montgomery (Dharma & Greg)..... and they sure as hell don't act like that :green:
I left WP after getting disgruntled at the oversensitive mod faggotry going on there. I guess you were a victim of their faggotry, IlluSionS667. To be honest, nothing you said should be grounds for being banned at all, and if they didn't like it, well, a simple kind warning would have been appropriate at least.
Actually a lot of it is illegal in some countries. Notably Germany.
What you call oversentisity mod faggotry I would call super-NT behavior. IMO, a real Aspie is a Mr Spock (Star Trek), a Gregory House (House MD) or a Dharma Finklestein Montgomery (Dharma & Greg)..... and they sure as hell don't act like that :green:
You do know that those are fictional characters, right? A *real* Aspie is more like someone here.
Oh, and one more thing, Illusion: Have you discussed your delusions with any of the surviving Jews?
Also, I suspect your karma will start dropping sharply.
I left WP after getting disgruntled at the oversensitive mod faggotry going on there. I guess you were a victim of their faggotry, IlluSionS667. To be honest, nothing you said should be grounds for being banned at all, and if they didn't like it, well, a simple kind warning would have been appropriate at least.
Actually a lot of it is illegal in some countries. Notably Germany.
How is Germany's utter lack of freedom of speech relevant?
What you call oversentisity mod faggotry I would call super-NT behavior. IMO, a real Aspie is a Mr Spock (Star Trek), a Gregory House (House MD) or a Dharma Finklestein Montgomery (Dharma & Greg)..... and they sure as hell don't act like that :green:
You do know that those are fictional characters, right? A *real* Aspie is more like someone here.
I myself am somewhat a peculiar mixture of Mr Spock (über-rational and calculated), Gregory House (brutally honest and sarcastic) and Dharma Finklestein Montgomery (genuinely sheerful and spontaneous) and the behavior of these fictional characters is what I mostly link to Asperger's. I can definitely say that I tend to appreciate people more the more they behave like either character.
Oh, and one more thing, Illusion: Have you discussed your delusions with any of the surviving Jews?
My "delusions" on the so-called Holocaust are all verifiable facts. I personally don't know any Jews who were born before '45, but I did discuss the era in particular with regular people living in occupied Belgium. I also discussed it with a Jewish girl from Chicago who lost a part of her family during that war. She's not like most Jews, though, as she has converted to Germanic paganism and considers herself German-Russian ethnically rarther than Jewish. On the cause of losing a part of her family during WW2, she's undeciced as she's in conflict between her emotions (telling her her family was murdered for being Jewish) and logics (telling her they probably died from another cause).
Also, I suspect your karma will start dropping sharply.
So be it. As a lefthanded, high-functioning Aspie with very unconventional views, I'm as unconventional as it gets and have been somewhat of an outcast or pariah for my entire life. It didn't stop me from building up a relationship that's lasted for about 5 years now, from building up a few valuable and solid friendship relations, from getting a well-paid job, from moving out of my parents' place or from being genuinely joyful. I've been through way too much to be bothered by losing "karma".
How is Germany's utter lack of freedom of speech relevant?
It's no less relevant than your #1 fan's, up there. It's also a verifiable fact.
So you like the people around you to behave like fictional characters, instead of like real ones?
So all those people that provided first-hand accounts on how Jews were gassed to death, first in makeshift lorries and various temporary arrangements, and later in surprisingly well-designed gas chambers were wrong or lying, or "like most Jews" and therefore unreliable? The many witnesses, German, jewish and other, who testified the same thing later in Nurnberg and elsewhere were lying?
How the fuck do you think regular people in occupied Belgium would have known?
So what's your theory? A ancient alien conspiracy?
So "Unconventional" is to put it mildly.
I just like the people around me to be brutally honest, rational and joyful
Could you quote that post here, or has it already been deleted from WP?
:laugh:
It's still there :QuoteHi. I just joined this forum. I'm 26 years old, live in Europe and I'm a high-functioning Aspie.
As a high-functioning Aspie, I constructed my own worldview from scratch by mere logic alone, because I couldn't accept either the liberal or Christian viewpoints of the country I lived in and I couldn't find another worldview that suited me at the time. In the years to come, I graduately developed a complex worldview that's based on traditionalist and Conservative Revolutionary principles. As such, I have very non-conventional and politically incorrect ideas, which makes it impossible for me to freely express myself on most Internet forums without risking to get banned.
What I found shocking to learn on two other Aspie forums quite recently, is that people within Autism-spectrum aren't necessarilly more openminded and tolerant than NTs with regards to politically incorrect ideas. In fact, the overall behavior of most of the forum members was just as intolerant as that of the average NT whenever you address opinions that are politically incorrect. I've been called anything from racist, antisemite, idiot, narrowminded, neonazi, etc. just for expressing views that fall within the traditionalist and Conservative Revolutionary areas. Their prejudice about such viewpoints seems to close their minds entirely in a way pretty much identical to the way NTs shun things alien to them.
As such, I decided to post this thread with the following question : what is the attitude of the administration with regards to politically incorrect ideas and how many of its members would you regard as politically incorrect? I ask this, because I do not want to go through all that sh*t again of people calling me names all the time and I do not want to stop talking politically or socially relevant issues either. Whether I stay or not on this forum, will probably depend on the outcome of this thread.
I wish to make clear that I treat people with respect if they treat me with respect, regardless of their ethnicity, thier religion, their ideology, their sexual preference, etc. I may not agree with how and where you live or how you think, but I see that as no reason to treat you with disrespect. Respect is one of my primary values.
Having said all that, I like to give a list of some ideas that I adhere to, just so you get the idea :
* ) Every ethnic group has its strengths and weaknesses on mental, spiritual and physical levels. Just like two breeds of dogs may differ in speed, intelligence and character, so can two breeds of humans differ in speed, intelligence and character.
* ) My ideal politically is the world as a patchwork of nations based on both cultural and ethnic grounds that peacefully coexist and cooperate on a supranational scale only to maintain the economical stability and to guarantee the independence of every nation.
* ) I reject the concept of "representative democract" altogether and prefer a technocratic/meritocratic system instead.
* ) Homosexuality should be tolerated but not promoted. It remains a sexual deviance and one should not be given the impression that homosexuality is "normal".
* ) I regard animals as creatures worthy of the same respect as humans. I do not believe that humans have the right to treat animals like objects and act as they see fit. Various species are obviously self-aware and capable of simple forms of rational thought.
* ) Modern medicine goes way too far by eliminating natural selection altogether. By totally limiting natural selection, too many people will survive who wouldn't survive in a more primitive society. This can only lead to increased degeneration with the destruction of humanity as a species in the end.
* ) All moral values must come from nature and nature only. Animals living in groups and primitive human societies should be studied closely and analysed to determine the proper moral values humanity has lost. Any religion that is not based on the principles of nature (eg. Christianity) is bunk. Valuable religions (that are based on the principles of nature) are religions such as Asatru, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, ...
* ) We live in an age of corruption and decay, similar to the final days of the Roman empire. Those values loved so dearly by liberals are actually symptoms of corruption and will only help mankind degenerate faster.
* ) I reject all forms of exploitation of one man by another. As such, I'm strongly anti-capitalist and favor a solidarist/corporatist model instead. This also means that I'm oposed to any form of colonisation.
* ) I'm strongly oposed to both zionism and Judaism for they are dangerous supremacist belief systems. In fact, I dare to state that he antisemitism of national-socialist Germany was caused purely by the supremacist attitude of many German Jews, who had Germany in a stranglehold.
* ) I reject the official version of history with regards to WW2 and related events. I'm not convinced that national-socialist Germany was "evil" and the US was benign. I'm not convinced that Hitler wanted to kill all those Jews. Surely there were concentration camps and surely many people never came out of them alive, but the figures are distorted and so is the context. The camps in question were really work camps and people died as a consequence of starvation and disease due to allied bombings destroying German infrastructure. This is confirmed by Red Cross reports, that actually condemned the British for causing this humanitarian disaster.
Would you say this is accepted on Wrong Planet?
Again, I'd like to stress that I treat people with respect if they treat me with respect, regardless of their ethnicity, thier religion, their ideology, their sexual preference, etc. I may not agree with how and where you live or how you think, but I see that as no reason to treat you with disrespect as respect is one of my primary values.
In June of 1941, according to Höss's later trial testimony, he was summoned to Berlin for a meeting with SS chief Heinrich Himmler "to receive personal orders." Himmler told Höss that Hitler had given the order to carry out the extermination of Europe's Jews. Himmler had selected Auschwitz, he said, "on account of its easy access by rail and also because the extensive site offered space for measures ensuring isolation." Himmler told Höss that he would be receiving all operational orders from Adolf Eichmann. Himmler described the project as a "secret Reich matter," meaning that "no one was allowed to speak about these matters with any person and that everyone promised upon his life to keep the utmost secrecy." Höss said he kept that secret until the end of 1942, when he told one person about the camp's purpose: his wife.[7]
After visiting the Treblinka concentration camp to study its methods of human extermination,[8] Höss tested and perfected the techniques of mass killing which would make Auschwitz the most efficiently murderous instrument of the Nazi Final Solution and the most potent symbol of the Holocaust. [9] According to Höss, during "normal" camp operations, two to three trains carrying 2,000 prisoners each would arrive daily for periods of four to six weeks. The prisoners were unloaded in the Birkenau camp; those fit for slave labor were marched to barracks in either Birkenau or one of the Auschwitz encampments; the rest were driven into gas chambers and murdered. At first, the killing facilities were located "deep in the woods," to avoid detection. Later, large gas chambers and crematoria were constructed in the Birkenau grounds to make the killing more efficient.[10]
Höss "improved" on the methods at Treblinka by building his gas chambers ten times larger, so that they could kill 2,000 people at once rather than 200. He commented,
"Still another improvement we made over Treblinka was that at Treblinka the victims almost always knew that they were to be exterminated and at Auschwitz we endeavored to fool the victims into thinking that they were to go through a delousing process. Of course, frequently they realized our true intentions and we sometimes had riots and difficulties due to that fact. Very frequently women would hide their children under the clothes but of course when we found them we would send the children in to be exterminated."[11]
Höss experimented with various methods of gassing. According to Adolf Eichmann's trial testimony in 1961, Höss told him that he used cotton filters soaked in sulfuric acid in early killings. Höss later introduced the poison gas Zyklon B, a crystallized form of prussic acid, into the killing process, after his deputy Karl Fritzsch tested it on a group of Russian prisoners in 1941. [12] With Zyklon B, he said that it took 3-15 minutes for the victims to die, and that "we knew when the people were dead because they stopped screaming."[13]
Höss later testified that Himmler himself visited the camp in 1942, and "watched in detail one processing from beginning to end." Eichmann, Höss said, visited the camp and observed its operations frequently.[14]
In his affidavit prepared for the Nuremberg trials in 1946, Höss asserted that local residents were well aware of the camp's purpose:
"We were required to carry out these exterminations in secrecy but of course the foul and nauseating stench from the continuous burning of bodies permeated the entire area and all of the people living in the surrounding communities knew that exterminations were going on at Auschwitz."[15]
I left WP after getting disgruntled at the oversensitive mod faggotry going on there. I guess you were a victim of their faggotry, IlluSionS667. To be honest, nothing you said should be grounds for being banned at all, and if they didn't like it, well, a simple kind warning would have been appropriate at least.
Actually a lot of it is illegal in some countries. Notably Germany.
My "delusions" on the so-called Holocaust are all verifiable facts. I personally don't know any Jews who were born before '45, but I did discuss the era in particular with regular people living in occupied Belgium. I also discussed it with a Jewish girl from Chicago who lost a part of her family during that war. She's not like most Jews, though, as she has converted to Germanic paganism and considers herself German-Russian ethnically rarther than Jewish. On the cause of losing a part of her family during WW2, she's undeciced as she's in conflict between her emotions (telling her her family was murdered for being Jewish) and logics (telling her they probably died from another cause).
Good, I hope you don't get upset over someones honesty. Do you expect them to speak the truth when you ask for their opinions or thoughts or do you expect them to tell you in the open?
While I don't agree with many of your views, I can't see how expressing them should ever have gotten you banned from WP.
I have difficulty understanding how you can fail to believe that Auschwitz Birkenau was a death camp.
What about the testimony of the Auschwitz Birkenau camp commandant, Rudolf Franz Ferdinand Höß (in English commonly Hoess or Höss), at the Nuremberg trials?
Well I was speaking on a perspective that's it's an message board based in America, and such remarks should be protected under the first amendment, regardless if it's non-mainstream views. Besides I find law enforced censorship of speech dangerous, as it can eventually grow to a point where anything that defies status quo, could be seen as illegal someday.
For example, IllusionS667 despises Judaism, not Jews as people.
It is important to have nutbags like IllusionS667 out there questioning the truth as it is presented to us.
Illusion wrote:QuoteMy "delusions" on the so-called Holocaust are all verifiable facts. I personally don't know any Jews who were born before '45, but I did discuss the era in particular with regular people living in occupied Belgium. I also discussed it with a Jewish girl from Chicago who lost a part of her family during that war. She's not like most Jews, though, as she has converted to Germanic paganism and considers herself German-Russian ethnically rarther than Jewish. On the cause of losing a part of her family during WW2, she's undeciced as she's in conflict between her emotions (telling her her family was murdered for being Jewish) and logics (telling her they probably died from another cause).
If you're not willing to name your sources then I can't take them seriously. And for God's sake don't mention David Irving or I'll have to hurt you verbally.
I think Odeon is being too hard on our new friend.
For example, IllusionS667 despises Judaism, not Jews as people.
I am against the continued occupation of Palestine and the suffering of their people caused by Israelis.
I'm not saying I also believe that the holocaust was not as gruesome as the history books and Hollywood tells us, as I haven't done any research to support this view. However, I don't think the invasion of Palestine would have occurred without the sympathy the Jewish people found post WW2.
It is important to have nutbags like IllusionS667 out there questioning the truth as it is presented to us.
People get banned from WP for lame reasons. Like the time The Alex Man banned me because of two topics he didn't like and they were both in the Adult Asperger Issues. Gee why didn't he ban me long before? I had made diaper topics just to piss him off and he doesn't like anything that involves bodily functions. Then he decides to ban me one day. He even claimed one day he doesn't have a problem with people talking about fetishes but role playing on them isn't okay. But he decided to discriminate mine. Why not be more specific about talking about fetishes or he is just misleading his members. Congradulations to Alex, he made himself look like a hypocrite and a jerk. :thumbdn:
He said some silly things and Odeon remind him that they were indeed very silly. THAt being said I am sure there are no hard feelings and we all are friends.
I think it is great that he is brave enough to share such views and I say more power to him. At least he is not lurking or scared to post
He said some silly things and Odeon remind him that they were indeed very silly. THAt being said I am sure there are no hard feelings and we all are friends.
I find it peculiar how easily people take the views on the world spread by media and politicians for granted when they are anything but obvious.
Calling my views silly without providing any arguments against them, is quite weak imo. I respect you disagreeing with my views, but if you feel the need to call them silly it would be a matter of courtesy to provide rational arguments for why you think that way.
Still, I prefer my views being referred to as silly rather than being defamed and described as a monster, just for holding the views that I hold. It could definitely be much worse.I think it is great that he is brave enough to share such views and I say more power to him. At least he is not lurking or scared to post
Some Aspies hide in a corner and have little to no confidence because of being bullied in high school. Others actually become so confident they're almost fearless and just are themselves no matter what others may think of them. I belong to that latter category, although in real life I try to adapt as much as necessary to keep my job, my friends and my relationship. I may not be scared, but I'm not a fool either.
1. You have been provided with plenty of "reasons" on AFF. That you would refute them is neither here nor there. It is just regurgitating old arguments for the sake of regurgitating old arguments.
2. I am not offended or concerned enough to waste the brainpower. I mean I am not Jewish nor do I find your view on the death camps revolting (weird sure) not revolting. The tolerance of gays? I have a few gay friends and see no reason why they ought to be in lower social standing. Then again I don't feel slightly personally, so.... Oh and the multicultural thing, well let's say I am German heritage back in 1400 with a healthy amount of English, Irish, Scottish and Aboriginal blood. So Multiculturalism and mingling of nationalities and race work fine for me. So I should care?
3. What is the end result in thrashing it out?
We are currently at a phase very reminiscent of the Roman empire before its collapse
I would prefer doing something about that rather than just letting our society degenerate further and further.
Hold on, you think condemning gays and death camps is going to solve the problem?
If you're worried about supremacist religions, you might want to check Christianity and Islam. In case you hadn't noticed, it's not WW2 anymore. Which religions people are killing people over have changed.
What's the causal relationship between Judaism and the today's-society/Roman-Empire similarities?
BTW, how can you believe in a meritocracy and be against capitalism?
As for all the back to nature stuff, are you unaware of the homosexual behavior of most animal species, including chimps?
If you believe in taking all values from nature, perhaps you should begin eating your mates.
Or killing other species without respect. Humans aren't the only ones who wipe out species, by a long shot.
The process of evolution was operating long before we showed up on the planet. We're a flash in the pan. What makes you think our values and motivations are somehow separate from the process of evolution?
You're certainly full of theories, but most idiots have an opinion. "Great ideological leader" is going off the deep end.
I didn't get banned from WP but only because I didn't cheese off Alex bad enough. I quit after seeing folk like Dunc quit in disgust and reading the posts that laid out in detail just how much of a fiefdom WP was (and is).
If I wanted to get instantly banned I'd give this username: Phartiphukborlz.
That was Douglas Adams' original name for Slartibartfast in Hitchhiker.
Oh, and one more thing, Illusion: Have you discussed your delusions with any of the surviving Jews? I know you consider their religion dangerous, but there is a point to listening to the people that were there. I'm not going to waste my time trying to put you right, though--the world is full of nutcases and there's simply not enough time.
As I said elsewhere, you won't get banned, but you will be called on. Well, you won't be banned because of your views, unless it's illegal in the US to put forward the views re Jews in your quoted WP post; I will look into that since I am the de facto owner of this place and need to remain on good terms with our host.
Also, I suspect your karma will start dropping sharply.
I think Odeon is being too hard on our new friend.
For example, IllusionS667 despises Judaism, not Jews as people.
I am against the continued occupation of Palestine and the suffering of their people caused by Israelis.
I'm not saying I also believe that the holocaust was not as gruesome as the history books and Hollywood tells us, as I haven't done any research to support this view. However, I don't think the invasion of Palestine would have occurred without the sympathy the Jewish people found post WW2.
It is important to have nutbags like IllusionS667 out there questioning the truth as it is presented to us.
I left WP after getting disgruntled at the oversensitive mod faggotry going on there. I guess you were a victim of their faggotry, IlluSionS667. To be honest, nothing you said should be grounds for being banned at all, and if they didn't like it, well, a simple kind warning would have been appropriate at least.
Actually a lot of it is illegal in some countries. Notably Germany.
Well I was speaking on a perspective that's it's an message board based in America, and such remarks should be protected under the first amendment, regardless if it's non-mainstream views. Besides I find law enforced censorship of speech dangerous, as it can eventually grow to a point where anything that defies status quo, could be seen as illegal someday.
I think Odeon is being too hard on our new friend.
For example, IllusionS667 despises Judaism, not Jews as people.
I suspect my Jew friends would see it differently. If your people have been persecuted and killed throughout history, you tend to be rather sensitive about these things.QuoteI am against the continued occupation of Palestine and the suffering of their people caused by Israelis.
I am, too.QuoteI'm not saying I also believe that the holocaust was not as gruesome as the history books and Hollywood tells us, as I haven't done any research to support this view. However, I don't think the invasion of Palestine would have occurred without the sympathy the Jewish people found post WW2.
Probably true.QuoteIt is important to have nutbags like IllusionS667 out there questioning the truth as it is presented to us.
Again, true. The downside is that their ignorance hurts people.
Or I could simply end the thread by calling him a Nazi. ;D
I suspect my Jew friends would see it differently.
If your people have been persecuted and killed throughout history, you tend to be rather sensitive about these things.
Again, true. The downside is that their ignorance hurts people.
It's a message board hosted in the US. I'm reasonably certain that he isn't breaking any US law, but it's not unthinkable that he crosses the border for what our host allows, in which case I will have to stop him to keep the board online.
http://www.nizkor.org/ (I especially thought http://www.nizkor.org/features/revision-or-denial/ was worthy of a quick read-through.)
And here's another one that refutes his claims, one by one: http://www.holocaust-history.org/denial/. My current favourite is a little dissection of sorts of Mr Germar Rudolf (http://www.holocaust-history.org/denial/nym.shtml).
Now, I'm sure Illusion (such an aptly chosen nick) will protest, pointing to this or that Holocaust-denier (may I suggest Mr Rudolf, or perhaps Dr Konrad?), but gaping holes have already appeared in his argument and I doubt any rational argument will reach through to him, anyway. After all, others have wasted bandwidth on him on other forums.
Or I could simply end the thread by calling him a Nazi. ;D
But, the glory of freespeech is that these ideas are out there and not hidden or squirming, worming underground like a festering cancer.
I used to go for similar conspiricy theory shit a number of years ago until I realised that it was a complete waste of time and didnt makea damn difference to the world wheather I believed it or not.
I prefer fucktard myself. And I'd recommend texts of my own but I don't want to waste the space or energy. but how about WHILE SIX MILLION DIED by Arhtur Morse? Morse was a member of Edward R Murrow's team @ CBS. He documents numerous occasions where FDR could have saved German Jews and DID NOTHING. That's right, the great FDR, savior of the nation, was a closet anti-Semite. At least Henry Ford was open about his.
Hey, how do you use that ignore function again? :green:
If your people have been persecuted and killed throughout history, your people is probably responsible for it.
Not my but your views are based on ignorance.
Why are you so convinced mankind's problems come from thinking too much and ignoring their animal instincts, when it's rational argument that you're so proud of and that you're using to seek to convince us?
Aren't you violating your own code?
Hey, how do you use that ignore function again? :green:
(http://www.intensitysquared.com/Themes/babylon/images/english/ignore.gif) (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php?action=ignore;u=665)
Please press it now, so I won't find your contentless one-liners after every post I write. ;)
How do you pick which species to follow? There's a massive variety out there, with very different and contradictory types of behavior.
Ah see the problem is who is the person to ascertain what is rational and what is not? Where can you draw your lines in the sand on every though or ideology and who determines it?
I mean if we say for example......I dunno......that multiculturalism is no good, how do we examine if this is summarily and without exception, peer reviewed and without doubt rational and proven so? Oh no doubt you will be able to get many to agree with you and some may raise "good points" to support the theory BUT is it proved. Even is the points raised are sound, cogent, coherent, logical, coherent and rational to you and others......it is not proven so.
Of course you could be arbitrator of all that is rational and logical but then I see your views on the holocaust so.........
Ah see the problem is who is the person to ascertain what is rational and what is not? Where can you draw your lines in the sand on every though or ideology and who determines it?
Most civilisations at one time had some sort of "counsil of elders" who were regarded as the wisest men in the nation and who were selected as leaders for life. I'd say a system like that would do fine.I mean if we say for example......I dunno......that multiculturalism is no good, how do we examine if this is summarily and without exception, peer reviewed and without doubt rational and proven so? Oh no doubt you will be able to get many to agree with you and some may raise "good points" to support the theory BUT is it proved. Even is the points raised are sound, cogent, coherent, logical, coherent and rational to you and others......it is not proven so.
At what point would you consider the statement that multiculturalism is no good to be proven?Of course you could be arbitrator of all that is rational and logical but then I see your views on the holocaust so.........
Feel free to provide evidence against my views on the Holocaust myth if you think you can. I've discussed this topic with a professional Holocaust historian, so I seriously doubt you can bring forward a single argument I haven't read or heard before. Just because you might not see the logic behind the views that I hold, that doesn't mean there is no logic.
See that is the thing is presupposes that I wish to debate points and that they matter as much to me as they do you. I am not putting the amount of mental efforts in building a case to support my ideologies and it is strange, but I actually feel quite OK about it.
Feel free to provide evidence against my views on the Holocaust myth if you think you can. I've discussed this topic with a professional Holocaust historian, so I seriously doubt you can bring forward a single argument I haven't read or heard before. Just because you might not see the logic behind the views that I hold, that doesn't mean there is no logic.
We stand for freedom of expression, combative debate, and the generation of ideas. There are no boundaries here over what may be said, save for one rule - be prepared to back up your words.
Where did I read those words....? Oh yeah, now I remember. You put them on the homepage of this website.
I prefer fucktard myself. And I'd recommend texts of my own but I don't want to waste the space or energy. but how about WHILE SIX MILLION DIED by Arhtur Morse? Morse was a member of Edward R Murrow's team @ CBS. He documents numerous occasions where FDR could have saved German Jews and DID NOTHING. That's right, the great FDR, savior of the nation, was a closet anti-Semite. At least Henry Ford was open about his.
Actually, FDR was strongly ancient alien-influenced and anything but antisemitic. If he allowed the Germans do act as they did with regards to the Jews, that was because he knew the Germans were NOT mass-murdering Jews and because his ancient alien friends could (ab)use German antisemitism and the actual situation in the concentration camps to plea for their much desired homeland in Palestine.
What about Did Six Million Really Die? (http://www.ihr.org/books/harwood/dsmrd01.html) by Richard E. Harwood? Can you bring forward any arguments against it?
How do you pick which species to follow? There's a massive variety out there, with very different and contradictory types of behavior.
Prmitive human cultures and apes are the most obvious choice to focus on when determining the basics.
How do you pick which species to follow? There's a massive variety out there, with very different and contradictory types of behavior.
Prmitive human cultures and apes are the most obvious choice to focus on when determining the basics.
How do you pick which species to follow? There's a massive variety out there, with very different and contradictory types of behavior.
Prmitive human cultures and apes are the most obvious choice to focus on when determining the basics.
Like bonobos? Or do you have a problem with their particular derivation?
How do you pick which species to follow? There's a massive variety out there, with very different and contradictory types of behavior.
Prmitive human cultures and apes are the most obvious choice to focus on when determining the basics.
Like bonobos? Or do you have a problem with their particular derivation?
You have to admit that Bonobo's seem to have a gotten the "Make love, not war" idea quite practical. Defuse social tensions with sex. :eyebrows:
You haven't actually provided any sort of argument yourself. You have merely mentioned a few names, the ones you refer to as the "academics", and provided us with a few links from these people.
Oh, and you've already said that the Jews are to blame for having been persecuted throughout history. A nice, balance, logical argument.
I did offer a couple of links in return, and also pointed out how one of your so-called academics is somewhat liberal with research standards, methods that real academics wouldn't even dream of.
You are a kook, just as nutty as they come.
Have you been censored?
Or do you think the above means that people won't be calling you a kook or a nutcase? Sorry, you lose. Freedom of expression also means that I won't have to be afraid of getting censored by some mod when I say that you are both, and a closet nazi to boot.
As for the combative debate, so far you have merely quoted others. On occasion, you have also linked to them. Why should anyone do more in return?
Sure. All that data collected by the Nazis on deaths recorded @ concentration camps on IBM mechanical computers.
Prmitive human cultures and apes are the most obvious choice to focus on when determining the basics.
Like bonobos? Or do you have a problem with their particular derivation?
How do you pick which species to follow? There's a massive variety out there, with very different and contradictory types of behavior.
Prmitive human cultures and apes are the most obvious choice to focus on when determining the basics.
Like bonobos? Or do you have a problem with their particular derivation?
You have to admit that Bonobo's seem to have a gotten the "Make love, not war" idea quite practical. Defuse social tensions with sex. :eyebrows:
Right on. O0
Make love, not pogroms.
Like bonobos? Or do you have a problem with their particular derivation?
Considering their strange matriarchal social structure focussed on sex (which is quite distant from any human culture), I wouldn't say they're the best example, but they're nevertheless very interesting from an anthropological point of view as it can teach us a lot about eg. the differences between patriarchal and matriarchal societies or about the nature of sex as a social instrument.
QuoteConsidering their strange matriarchal social structure focussed on sex (which is quite distant from any human culture), I wouldn't say they're the best example, but they're nevertheless very interesting from an anthropological point of view as it can teach us a lot about eg. the differences between patriarchal and matriarchal societies or about the nature of sex as a social instrument.
Okay -
Why does the fact they're distant from any human culture mean they're not the best example? You already said humans are degenerate and corrupt.
What would you claim are a better example, and why?
QuoteConsidering their strange matriarchal social structure focussed on sex (which is quite distant from any human culture), I wouldn't say they're the best example, but they're nevertheless very interesting from an anthropological point of view as it can teach us a lot about eg. the differences between patriarchal and matriarchal societies or about the nature of sex as a social instrument.
Okay -
Why does the fact they're distant from any human culture mean they're not the best example? You already said humans are degenerate and corrupt.
Not all human cultures are equally degenerate and corrupt and most human cultures have not always been degenerate and corrupt.
My own views are based on the following examples, ordered from strong influence to weak influence :
1) Inca civilisation, imperial Japan, Brahman culture, Tibetan culture, the Third Reich, Viking culture
2) Native-American cultures, primitive African cultures, Aboriginal culture
3) Gorillas and chimps
4) dolphins, wolves and other intelligent mammals
I take these examples because a lot of similarities can be drawn between the different cultures and species in question that allow one to establish a pattern. For example, typical for all those mentioned is a non-elected patriarchal structure lead by those considered the noblest, the wisest or the bravest by the vast majority of the group.
You didn't answer the question. Why are they not the best answer? Do you have any reasoning aside from your personal opinion?
Again - any reasoning beyond your personal opinion? I see that there's a pattern between these groups, but why is that pattern the one all people should emulate?
It is a pattern that has proven its worth for thousands of years. Some human cultures (like Tibet or primitive tribes) even managed to live in such a way until today or very recently.
It is a pattern that has proven its worth for thousands of years. Some human cultures (like Tibet or primitive tribes) even managed to live in such a way until today or very recently.
How? What proves its worth?
If you're not willing to do any reading for yourself, I don't see the point of discussing this with you.
I'm a cook because I'm not allowing myself to be indoctrinated by liberal propaganda?!? ???
Have you been censored?
Not on this website, but you seemed to express doubt on whether or not you were going to censor me.
Or do you think the above means that people won't be calling you a kook or a nutcase? Sorry, you lose. Freedom of expression also means that I won't have to be afraid of getting censored by some mod when I say that you are both, and a closet nazi to boot.
I guess that allows me to refer to you are a narrowminded, self-righteous, arrogant and feebleminded twat, right?
I'm sure all of us here can remember being young and idealistic towards causes on both sides of the table. But with age and maturity, hopefully come some sort of wisdom. Here's hoping you can find your own way there.
It is a pattern that has proven its worth for thousands of years. Some human cultures (like Tibet or primitive tribes) even managed to live in such a way until today or very recently.
How? What proves its worth?
The overall happiness (which can be illustrated by eg. suicide rates or how common symptoms of depression are) and the amount of harmony with the environment qualify imo their worth.
Of course you could be arbitrator of all that is rational and logical but then I see your views on the holocaust so.........
Feel free to provide evidence against my views on the Holocaust myth if you think you can. I've discussed this topic with a professional Holocaust historian, so I seriously doubt you can bring forward a single argument I haven't read or heard before. Just because you might not see the logic behind the views that I hold, that doesn't mean there is no logic.
I did offer a couple of links in return, and also pointed out how one of your so-called academics is somewhat liberal with research standards, methods that real academics wouldn't even dream of.
I must have missed that link. Who are you referring to and what methods are you talking about? Could you repost that link?
Nah, the burden on the proof is always on those who say that something is there. Given the evidence for the Holocaust is overwhelming, it should not be too difficult to prove the event in general. Exact figures for deaths is harder, but its still easy to show that millions died.Of course you could be arbitrator of all that is rational and logical but then I see your views on the holocaust so.........
Feel free to provide evidence against my views on the Holocaust myth if you think you can. I've discussed this topic with a professional Holocaust historian, so I seriously doubt you can bring forward a single argument I haven't read or heard before. Just because you might not see the logic behind the views that I hold, that doesn't mean there is no logic.
You have to provide the evidence that it didn't happen since you're the one with something to prove. It is not enough to say that you've talked to a "professional Holocaust historian", whatever that is.
It is a pattern that has proven its worth for thousands of years. Some human cultures (like Tibet or primitive tribes) even managed to live in such a way until today or very recently.
How? What proves its worth?
The overall happiness (which can be illustrated by eg. suicide rates or how common symptoms of depression are) and the amount of harmony with the environment qualify imo their worth.
How the hell did you measure suicide rates from a thousand years ago?
QuoteConsidering their strange matriarchal social structure focussed on sex (which is quite distant from any human culture), I wouldn't say they're the best example, but they're nevertheless very interesting from an anthropological point of view as it can teach us a lot about eg. the differences between patriarchal and matriarchal societies or about the nature of sex as a social instrument.
Okay -
Why does the fact they're distant from any human culture mean they're not the best example? You already said humans are degenerate and corrupt.
Not all human cultures are equally degenerate and corrupt and most human cultures have not always been degenerate and corrupt.What would you claim are a better example, and why?
My own views are based on the following examples, ordered from strong influence to weak influence :
1) Inca civilisation, imperial Japan, Brahman culture, Tibetan culture, the Third Reich, Viking culture
2) Native-American cultures, primitive African cultures, Aboriginal culture
3) Gorillas and chimps
4) dolphins, wolves and other intelligent mammals
I take these examples because a lot of similarities can be drawn between the different cultures and species in question that allow one to establish a pattern. For example, typical for all those mentioned is a non-elected patriarchal structure lead by those considered the noblest, the wisest or the bravest by the vast majority of the group.
Of course you could be arbitrator of all that is rational and logical but then I see your views on the holocaust so.........
Feel free to provide evidence against my views on the Holocaust myth if you think you can. I've discussed this topic with a professional Holocaust historian, so I seriously doubt you can bring forward a single argument I haven't read or heard before. Just because you might not see the logic behind the views that I hold, that doesn't mean there is no logic.
You have to provide the evidence that it didn't happen since you're the one with something to prove. It is not enough to say that you've talked to a "professional Holocaust historian", whatever that is.
If you're not willing to do any reading for yourself, I don't see the point of discussing this with you.QuoteI'm a cook because I'm not allowing myself to be indoctrinated by liberal propaganda?!? ???
You're a Kook, not a Cook.Quote
Not on this website, but you seemed to express doubt on whether or not you were going to censor me.
As long as you stay within the limits set by our host, I probably will not. The blabberizer would make you a tad more interesting, though.QuoteOr do you think the above means that people won't be calling you a kook or a nutcase? Sorry, you lose. Freedom of expression also means that I won't have to be afraid of getting censored by some mod when I say that you are both, and a closet nazi to boot.
I guess that allows me to refer to you are a narrowminded, self-righteous, arrogant and feebleminded twat, right?
Yes. However, considering that it is you who is questioning historical facts, not me, you need to do a lot more than quoting standard Holocaust denier rhetorics available from just about any neo-nazi website to be considered anything but just another closet nazi.
I'm sure all of us here can remember being young and idealistic towards causes on both sides of the table. But with age and maturity, hopefully come some sort of wisdom. Here's hoping you can find your own way there.
I don't recall having been young and moronic, though.
Oh, Odeon, please don't use the blabberizer, it's annoying and doesn't mean jack shit. The ignore function is far more efficient and telling!
Look, I really don't see your point. Wheather it happened or not, there is a lesson to be learned from things like tho holocaust. Spending all your time trying to promote the idea that it didn't happen and some group of people are trying to pull a fast one on all off us misses the point entirely.
I hope one day you wake up and realise what a mistake you have made and noticed all the time you wasted to something that was ultimately pointless..
I personally dont agree with the christian bible. But any fool can see it is a book of life lessons that perhaps has some stories that are no longer relevent to a modern society like our.
Yes history is written by the victors point of view, but that isnt the point of life, that just score keeping. The real thing is what you can learn from is and I'm not convinced you are focusing on the right lessons.
Deal. It's a win-win. I don't have to read your so-called "academics" and I don't have to listen to your bullshit.
You're a Kook, not a Cook.
Yes. However, considering that it is you who is questioning historical facts, not me, you need to do a lot more than quoting standard Holocaust denier rhetorics available from just about any neo-nazi website to be considered anything but just another closet nazi.
How the hell did you measure suicide rates from a thousand years ago?
You have to provide the evidence that it didn't happen since you're the one with something to prove. It is not enough to say that you've talked to a "professional Holocaust historian", whatever that is.
Does "Dr Konrad" ring any bells?
Nah, the burden on the proof is always on those who say that something is there. Given the evidence for the Holocaust is overwhelming, it should not be too difficult to prove the event in general. Exact figures for deaths is harder, but its still easy to show that millions died.
Somebody who can't spell "kook" properly and since K and C are not together on the keyboard. Credibility is circling the drain. NEXT factoid!
Deal. It's a win-win. I don't have to read your so-called "academics" and I don't have to listen to your bullshit.
My "bullshit" is nothing but cold hard fact in this case.
You're a Kook, not a Cook.
So I make a spelling mistake in my third language every now and then. Do you never make any errors when using your second or third language? Do you even speak more than one language?
Yes. However, considering that it is you who is questioning historical facts, not me, you need to do a lot more than quoting standard Holocaust denier rhetorics available from just about any neo-nazi website to be considered anything but just another closet nazi.
I don't question historical facts. I'm damn sure of what I'm saying when I say there was no genodical program for the Jews in the Third Reich. The evidence is overwhelming.
How the hell did you measure suicide rates from a thousand years ago?
We can measure suicide rates for cultures that exist today. Can you mention a single culture with a higher suicide rate than the Western world today?
You have to provide the evidence that it didn't happen since you're the one with something to prove. It is not enough to say that you've talked to a "professional Holocaust historian", whatever that is.
Since when do people have to prove that something didn't happen? I'd like to see the first proof that it actually DID happen.
Anyway; let's start with this :
* ) There's no evidence that more than a few hundreds of thousands of Jews died during WW2. In fact, statistics contradict this.
* ) No order to exterminate the Jews has ever been found.
* ) The Wannsee Protocols and every other document on the "Final solution" deal exclusively with forced migration and work camps rather than murder.
* ) No working gas chambers has ever been found.
* ) The Auschwitz "gas chamber" was in reality nothing but an air raid shelter when the Russians entered the camp and it has been modified by tearing out everything inside and putting a few holes in the ceiling, as admitted by Dr. Piper (head of the Auschwitz museum)
David Cole has produced a videotape which filmed the director of the
Auschwitz State Museum apparently admitting that the gas-chamber
known as "Krema I" was constructed after the war ended, on the direct
order of Stalin. In a letter to Nizkor's Ken McVay, Dr. Piper explicitly
denies making any such statement. Foner (Foner, Samuel P. "Major
Historical Fact Uncovered" SPOTLIGHT Vol. XIX, Number 2, January 11,
1993) tells us:
The videotape on which Piper makes his revelations was taken in
mid-1992 by a young Jewish investigator, David Cole. It has
just been released, on January 1, 1993, although Cole announced
his project at the 11th International Revisionist Conference at
Irvine, California last October.
The small gas chamber of Krema I was used for gassing for a short
time, and then converted into an air-raid shelter; after the war,
it was reconstructed to look as it did when it was used for
gassing, as Dr. Piper notes in his letter of response to the Cole
video.
* ) The vast majority of SS-men up to the very end of their life reject the idea that Hitler wanted to murder Jews both in public and in private.
* ) Höss used an inflated number for the amount of Jews that died at Auschwitz during his testimony to corroberate the claim that 4 million died at Auschwitz. Currently, the official death toll of Auschwitz is about 1,500,000. This obvious mistake is likely the result of torture as there are various indications that Höss was tortured
* ) Most of the camp inmates only mention "gas chambers" as something they heard about. Only a tiny number of witnesses mentions having witnessed them first hand and many of these witnesses are proven liars. One of the most laughable examples is Avraham Bomba, who stars in the propapaganda film "Shoah".
* ) Red Cross reports from during WW2 found no evidence of mass murders in any of the camps. They did, however, find cases of starvation and typhus that were blamed destruction of German transports and transportation lines by allied bombings.
* ) Autopsy reports on the piles of dead bodies in Bergen-Belsen and Dachau (used to make the most horrific Holocaust pictures) indicate typcus and starvation as the main causes of death.
* ) Concentration camp documents show various attempts to save people (including Jews) from typhus and starvation.
* ) Using bullets would have been a much more efficient way of exterminating an entire people. It makes no sense to use cyanide gas for this purpose, even ignoring the fact that Germans were and still are known for their efficiency.
* ) Insufficient traces of cyanide have been found in any of the so-called "gas chambers" for them to have been used as such
* ) ....
Those above are just a handful of the many arguments used by Holocaust Revisionists to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the claim of genocide on the Jews by the Germans is a propaganda hoax. If you actually cared to do some reading on the topic, you'd know....
Does "Dr Konrad" ring any bells?
Not really.
Mocking a man for making spelling errors in his third language is as ridiculous as it gets.
How the hell did you measure suicide rates from a thousand years ago?
We can measure suicide rates for cultures that exist today. Can you mention a single culture with a higher suicide rate than the Western world today?
Quote* ) Most of the camp inmates only mention "gas chambers" as something they heard about. Only a tiny number of witnesses mentions having witnessed them first hand and many of these witnesses are proven liars. One of the most laughable examples is Avraham Bomba, who stars in the propapaganda film "Shoah".
It's pretty obvious even to the most casual observer that there would be very few first-hand accounts of the gas chambers from surviving inmates. Funny how you state the few survivor's accounts are "laughable" but do not say why, or show how they were proven to be liars.Quote* ) Insufficient traces of cyanide have been found in any of the so-called "gas chambers" for them to have been used as such
* ) ....
You might want to read this:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/not-the-science/
The Auschwitz prisoner Dr. Nyiszli describes the scene: [49]
An SS officer and a SDG (Sanitätsdienstgefreiter: Deputy Health Service Officer) stepped out of the car. The Deputy Health Officer held four green sheet-iron canisters. He advanced across the grass, where every thirty yards, short concrete pipes jutted up from the ground. Having donned his gas mask, he lifted the lid of the pipe, which was also made of concrete. He opened one of the cans and poured the contents - a mauve granulated material - into the opening. The granulated substance fell in a lump to the bottom. The gas it produced escaped through the perforations, and within a few seconds filled the room in which the deportees were stacked. Within five minutes everybody was dead. [...]
In order to be certain of their business the two gas-butchers waited another five minutes. Then they lighted cigarettes and drove off in their car. [...]
The ventilators, patented "Exhator" system, quickly evacuated the gas from the room, but in the crannies between the dead and the cracks of the doors small pockets of it always remained. Even two hours later it caused a suffocating cough. For that reason the Sonderkommando group which first moved into the room was equipped with gas masks. Once again the room was powerfully lighted, revealing a horrible spectacle.
(The cough was surely caused by the Zyklon warning indicator, a lachrymatory irritant. For safety reasons, the warning was designed to be noticeable even at low levels of cyanide. Eyewitnesses untrained in handling of Zyklon would probably not know this. Although there were some shipments of Zyklon without the warning agent, the use of such Zyklon was not universal.)
Zyklon Introduction Columns
by Jamie McCarthy
and Mark Van Alstine
Introduction
At Auschwitz-Birkenau, in the gas chambers of crematoria II and III, Zyklon-B was poured in through holes in the roof. After early experiments with this poison, the camp staff had learned that it was important to allow the pellets of Zyklon to be removed after the victims' death, and also to spread them to increase the speed of outgassing.
The solution to these problems was a wire mesh column, which ran from the floor up through the roof. An SS man, wearing a gas mask and standing on the roof, would pour the pellets into the top of the column and place a wooden cover over it. The pellets fell into an inner wire mesh basket, which held them as they released their poison into the gas chamber.
After the mass murder was complete, the cover was opened, the basket was pulled up, and the Zyklon expelled the remainder of its poison harmlessly into the open air. Meanwhile, the ventilation of the gas chamber and the cremation of the corpses could begin.
These columns are listed in the inventory of crematorium II, March 31, 1943, as "wire-mesh insertion devices" (Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung) with "wooden covers" (Holzblenden).
Schematic
Below is a schematic cross-section of the introduction column, viewed from the side. Each of the measurements has been collected from various eyewitness testimonial sources; they have been synthesized into this drawing. The measurements shown are the best approximations of those sources, but should not be considered to be exact to the centimeter.
(http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/intro-columns/schematic.gif)
Sources: Gutman, Yisrael, and Michael Berenbaum, Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp, 1994; Pressac, Jean-Claude, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, New York, 1989.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sketch
Michal Kula, a former prisoner who worked in the metalworking shop of the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp, gave a deposition describing the introduction columns in June 1945. Below is a sketch illustrating what he described in that deposition. The captions are from Jean-Claude Pressac's book Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, which was originally published in French; the translations are below.
This sketch shows the smaller "wire basket," above the column into which it was inserted. This "movable part" is what actually held the pellets of Zyklon as they gave off the poison gas, and is what was pulled up once the gassing operation was complete.
(http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/intro-columns/kula.jpg)
Translations:
PARTIE MOBILE
MOVABLE PART
Coiffe en tôle
Metal cap
Intervalle separant le tube en tôle du 3ème tamis: 25 mm
Space between the metal tube and the third lattice: 25 mm
Troisième tamis intérieur à maille de 1 mm de côté
Third, innermost, lattice of 1 mm mesh
Tube en fine tôle zinguée de 15 cm de côté
Thin galvanized metal tube, 15 cm square
PARTIE FIXE
FIXED PART
Pièce de métal reliant les 1er et 2ème tamis
Metal strip joining the first and second lattices
Premier tamis extérieur en fil de 3 mm de diamètre et de maille de 45 mm de côté
First, external, lattice of 3 mm diameter wire, 45 mm mesh
Deuxième tamis intérieur à maille de 25 mm de côté
Second, interior, lattice of 25 mm mesh
3 m environ
Approximately 3 m
Cornières de 50 x 50 x 10 mm
Angle irons, 50 x 50 x 10 mm
Source: Pressac, Jean-Claude, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, New York, 1989, p. 487.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erber's Testimony
In 1981, historian Gerald Fleming spoke to former SS-Sergeant Major Josef Houstek, who had changed his name to Josef Erber after serving at Auschwitz. Erber described the columns as appearing slightly different:
In each of these gassing areas [of the crematoria [II and III] in Birkenau] were two ducts: in each duct, four iron pipes ran from the floor to the roof. These were encased with steel mesh wire and inside there was a tin canister with a low rim. Attached to this tin was a wire by which it could be pulled up to the roof. When the lids were lifted, one could pull up the tin canister and shake the gas crystals into it. Then the canister was lowered, and the lid closed. 6
6. Prisoner Josef Erber to author, 14 September 1981.
The "four iron pipes" are presumably the four corners around which the outside mesh was wrapped. The tin canister lowered by a wire may be an earlier, or later, version of the inside "wire basket" described by Kula.
Source: Fleming, Gerald, Hitler and the Final Solution, 1984, p. 188.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tauber's Description
Henryk Tauber gave a deposition in May 1945 which included a description of the columns:
The side of these pillars, which went up through the roof, were of heavy wire mesh. Inside this grid, there was another of finer mesh and inside that a third of very fine mesh. Inside this last mesh cage there was a removable can which was pulled out with a wire to recover the pellets from which the gas had evaporated.
[...]
The undressing room and the gas chamber were covered first with a concrete slab then with a layer of soil sown with grass. There were four small chimneys, the openings through which the gas was thrown in that rose above the gas chamber.
Source: Pressac, Jean-Claude, op.cit., p. 484.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerial View
Allied reconnaissance planes gained the military ability to overfly the Auschwitz area in mid-1944. The nearby IG Farben plant produced synthetic rubber and oil, and was of military interest for that reason, but several photographs were also taken of the Birkenau camp. On August 25, 1944, a plane captured this view of Birkenau, including the gas chambers of crematoria II and III.
On this photograph, crematorium II is in the rectangle at middle-right, and crematorium III is at the lower right. North is to the bottom.
(http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/intro-columns/rg-317-017.jpg)
Below, an enlargement of the same photograph shows the building of crematorium II. At bottom, the crematorium chimney casts a long shadow. Extending up (south) from the building is the underground gas chamber, Leichenkeller 1. Four dark patches are visible, corresponding to the four "little chimneys" of the introduction columns.
(http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/intro-columns/rg-317-017-kr2.jpg)
Source: U.S. National Archives, Record Group 317 - Auschwitz Box Envelope 17 / Security Set - CIA Annotated Negative #17, photograph of August 25, 1944.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground View
Below is a ground view of the same crematorium, looking north from its south. On the right is the crematorium building with its chimney visible. Jean-Claude Pressac places the date of this photograph between February 9 and 11, 1943. The building is still being constructed and will not be completed until late March 1943.
The gas chamber Leichenkeller 1, just to the right of the train's smokestack, extends toward the camera and slightly to the right.
(http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/intro-columns/ground.jpg)
Below, an enlargement from the same photograph shows the gas chamber. Like the rest of the building, it is under construction. It has not yet been covered with earth, making the "little chimneys" look taller than they would end up being.
Careful photographic analysis has shown that the two dark short vertical shadows, under the middle window in this photo, are the two southernmost "little chimneys." (The dark rectangle to their right appears to be against the wall of the building, behind the gas chamber. It is unknown what the shorter, lighter-gray shadow is to their left. The light vertical lines in front of the gas chamber are fenceposts.) The third "little chimney" is behind the smokestack, and a top corner of the fourth can barely be seen, just to the left of the smokestack, and mostly obscured by the mound of snow-covered earth. From this angle, their placement is staggered due to the east-west alternation.
(http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/intro-columns/ground-detail.jpg)
Source: Pressac, Jean-Claude, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, New York, 1989, p. 340. Cited by Pressac as PMO neg. no. 20995/494, Kamann series. And Keren, Daniel, Jamie McCarthy, and Harry W. Mazal, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Oxford University Press, Vol. 18, No. 1, Spring 2004, pp. 68ff.: "The Ruins of the Gas Chambers: A Forensic Investigation of Crematoriums at Auschwitz I and Auschwitz-Birkenau."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Similar Vent
A rare photograph of a similar introduction vent from Majdanek, not Auschwitz, has been preserved. Majdanek was also a camp where mass gassings were performed.
When the Red Army arrived in July 1944 the soldiers found huge warehouses spilling over with goods. They discovered dead bodies and further evidence of a full range of atrocities, which they publicized immediately to the world presses.
(Feig, Konnilyn, Hitler's Death Camps, 1979, p. 330.)
A Soviet army man posed for this photograph, holding the device's cover, standing next to the device itself. It was published in the London press in October 1944. It is unknown how similar this actually looked to the "little chimneys" of Auschwitz-Birkenau.
(http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/intro-columns/majdanek.jpg)
Source: The Illustrated London News, October 14, 1944, p. 442.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Holocaust-Deniers
Holocaust-deniers reject that these columns even existed. The convergence of this evidence, including the compelling testimonies giving details before corroborating documentary evidence was unearthed, is ignored.
Kula's and Tauber's depositions describing the "wire-mesh insertion devices," decades before the corroborating documentary evidence was discovered in the archives, cannot be explained away. Houstek/Erber's description of the same devices, also before that evidence was discovered, is also a powerful corroboration.
Deniers will likely argue that the minor differences in their descriptions mean we should ignore them. But should we really expect to find identical accounts? The prisoners gave their descriptions months after the fact; the perpetrator, 35 years later. That may account for some of the difference. Just as importantly, we do not know if the Nazis in charge of the gassing operation tried slightly different types of equipment from time to time.
Indeed, if all three descriptions were exactly alike, we might suspect that the later account was copied from the earlier ones. Because they are not, we know that here are three separate eyewitnesses to these items.
Holocaust-deniers reject the validity of the aerial photographs, claiming that the four dark spots on the roof of each gas chamber were retouchings added by the CIA or some other conspiracy. John Ball, who has no expertise in interpreting aerial photographs, suggests either that hypothesis or, alternatively, that the dark spots were flowerpots sitting on each gas chamber.
The objects shown on the roof in the ground photo, say some deniers, are ordinary boxes of construction material.
Deniers also claim that there is no evidence of four holes in the roof of each gas chamber. Because the chambers were dynamited in an attempt to hide evidence of mass murder from the approaching Soviet army, the roofs have collapsed and it is difficult to tell in the rubble what is a hole and what is not. Later this year, an essay on this website will address this question in detail.
Finally, Holocaust-deniers intentionally confuse the solid support columns for the gas chamber roof with the wire-mesh columns. As obvious evidence of their crimes, the latter would have been removed by the Nazis from the gas chambers before they were blown up. Ludicrously, deniers show photos of the solid columns as proof that the wire-mesh columns never existed.
Such feeble attempts to rewrite history do not stand.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks go to Holocaust History Project volunteer Harry Mazal for research assistance.
I hate to say this, but from a doubters perspective, all you have done is shown they were killing. They are going to argue that it was rabbits in the chambers, its probably better to bring out the people photos:Quote* ) Most of the camp inmates only mention "gas chambers" as something they heard about. Only a tiny number of witnesses mentions having witnessed them first hand and many of these witnesses are proven liars. One of the most laughable examples is Avraham Bomba, who stars in the propapaganda film "Shoah".
It's pretty obvious even to the most casual observer that there would be very few first-hand accounts of the gas chambers from surviving inmates. Funny how you state the few survivor's accounts are "laughable" but do not say why, or show how they were proven to be liars.Quote* ) Insufficient traces of cyanide have been found in any of the so-called "gas chambers" for them to have been used as such
* ) ....
You might want to read this:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/not-the-science/
Very interesting read, Odeon.
Here is an eyewitness, Dr. Nyiszli, who saw a working gas chamber, Illusion:QuoteThe Auschwitz prisoner Dr. Nyiszli describes the scene: [49]
An SS officer and a SDG (Sanitätsdienstgefreiter: Deputy Health Service Officer) stepped out of the car. The Deputy Health Officer held four green sheet-iron canisters. He advanced across the grass, where every thirty yards, short concrete pipes jutted up from the ground. Having donned his gas mask, he lifted the lid of the pipe, which was also made of concrete. He opened one of the cans and poured the contents - a mauve granulated material - into the opening. The granulated substance fell in a lump to the bottom. The gas it produced escaped through the perforations, and within a few seconds filled the room in which the deportees were stacked. Within five minutes everybody was dead. [...]
In order to be certain of their business the two gas-butchers waited another five minutes. Then they lighted cigarettes and drove off in their car. [...]
The ventilators, patented "Exhator" system, quickly evacuated the gas from the room, but in the crannies between the dead and the cracks of the doors small pockets of it always remained. Even two hours later it caused a suffocating cough. For that reason the Sonderkommando group which first moved into the room was equipped with gas masks. Once again the room was powerfully lighted, revealing a horrible spectacle.
(The cough was surely caused by the Zyklon warning indicator, a lachrymatory irritant. For safety reasons, the warning was designed to be noticeable even at low levels of cyanide. Eyewitnesses untrained in handling of Zyklon would probably not know this. Although there were some shipments of Zyklon without the warning agent, the use of such Zyklon was not universal.)
Here is another account of the gas chamber at Auschwitz:QuoteZyklon Introduction Columns
by Jamie McCarthy
and Mark Van Alstine
Introduction
At Auschwitz-Birkenau, in the gas chambers of crematoria II and III, Zyklon-B was poured in through holes in the roof. After early experiments with this poison, the camp staff had learned that it was important to allow the pellets of Zyklon to be removed after the victims' death, and also to spread them to increase the speed of outgassing.
The solution to these problems was a wire mesh column, which ran from the floor up through the roof. An SS man, wearing a gas mask and standing on the roof, would pour the pellets into the top of the column and place a wooden cover over it. The pellets fell into an inner wire mesh basket, which held them as they released their poison into the gas chamber.
After the mass murder was complete, the cover was opened, the basket was pulled up, and the Zyklon expelled the remainder of its poison harmlessly into the open air. Meanwhile, the ventilation of the gas chamber and the cremation of the corpses could begin.
These columns are listed in the inventory of crematorium II, March 31, 1943, as "wire-mesh insertion devices" (Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung) with "wooden covers" (Holzblenden).
Schematic
Below is a schematic cross-section of the introduction column, viewed from the side. Each of the measurements has been collected from various eyewitness testimonial sources; they have been synthesized into this drawing. The measurements shown are the best approximations of those sources, but should not be considered to be exact to the centimeter.
(http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/intro-columns/schematic.gif)
Sources: Gutman, Yisrael, and Michael Berenbaum, Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp, 1994; Pressac, Jean-Claude, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, New York, 1989.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sketch
Michal Kula, a former prisoner who worked in the metalworking shop of the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp, gave a deposition describing the introduction columns in June 1945. Below is a sketch illustrating what he described in that deposition. The captions are from Jean-Claude Pressac's book Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, which was originally published in French; the translations are below.
This sketch shows the smaller "wire basket," above the column into which it was inserted. This "movable part" is what actually held the pellets of Zyklon as they gave off the poison gas, and is what was pulled up once the gassing operation was complete.
(http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/intro-columns/kula.jpg)
Translations:
PARTIE MOBILE
MOVABLE PART
Coiffe en tôle
Metal cap
Intervalle separant le tube en tôle du 3ème tamis: 25 mm
Space between the metal tube and the third lattice: 25 mm
Troisième tamis intérieur à maille de 1 mm de côté
Third, innermost, lattice of 1 mm mesh
Tube en fine tôle zinguée de 15 cm de côté
Thin galvanized metal tube, 15 cm square
PARTIE FIXE
FIXED PART
Pièce de métal reliant les 1er et 2ème tamis
Metal strip joining the first and second lattices
Premier tamis extérieur en fil de 3 mm de diamètre et de maille de 45 mm de côté
First, external, lattice of 3 mm diameter wire, 45 mm mesh
Deuxième tamis intérieur à maille de 25 mm de côté
Second, interior, lattice of 25 mm mesh
3 m environ
Approximately 3 m
Cornières de 50 x 50 x 10 mm
Angle irons, 50 x 50 x 10 mm
Source: Pressac, Jean-Claude, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, New York, 1989, p. 487.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erber's Testimony
In 1981, historian Gerald Fleming spoke to former SS-Sergeant Major Josef Houstek, who had changed his name to Josef Erber after serving at Auschwitz. Erber described the columns as appearing slightly different:
In each of these gassing areas [of the crematoria [II and III] in Birkenau] were two ducts: in each duct, four iron pipes ran from the floor to the roof. These were encased with steel mesh wire and inside there was a tin canister with a low rim. Attached to this tin was a wire by which it could be pulled up to the roof. When the lids were lifted, one could pull up the tin canister and shake the gas crystals into it. Then the canister was lowered, and the lid closed. 6
6. Prisoner Josef Erber to author, 14 September 1981.
The "four iron pipes" are presumably the four corners around which the outside mesh was wrapped. The tin canister lowered by a wire may be an earlier, or later, version of the inside "wire basket" described by Kula.
Source: Fleming, Gerald, Hitler and the Final Solution, 1984, p. 188.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tauber's Description
Henryk Tauber gave a deposition in May 1945 which included a description of the columns:
The side of these pillars, which went up through the roof, were of heavy wire mesh. Inside this grid, there was another of finer mesh and inside that a third of very fine mesh. Inside this last mesh cage there was a removable can which was pulled out with a wire to recover the pellets from which the gas had evaporated.
[...]
The undressing room and the gas chamber were covered first with a concrete slab then with a layer of soil sown with grass. There were four small chimneys, the openings through which the gas was thrown in that rose above the gas chamber.
Source: Pressac, Jean-Claude, op.cit., p. 484.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerial View
Allied reconnaissance planes gained the military ability to overfly the Auschwitz area in mid-1944. The nearby IG Farben plant produced synthetic rubber and oil, and was of military interest for that reason, but several photographs were also taken of the Birkenau camp. On August 25, 1944, a plane captured this view of Birkenau, including the gas chambers of crematoria II and III.
On this photograph, crematorium II is in the rectangle at middle-right, and crematorium III is at the lower right. North is to the bottom.
(http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/intro-columns/rg-317-017.jpg)
Below, an enlargement of the same photograph shows the building of crematorium II. At bottom, the crematorium chimney casts a long shadow. Extending up (south) from the building is the underground gas chamber, Leichenkeller 1. Four dark patches are visible, corresponding to the four "little chimneys" of the introduction columns.
(http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/intro-columns/rg-317-017-kr2.jpg)
Source: U.S. National Archives, Record Group 317 - Auschwitz Box Envelope 17 / Security Set - CIA Annotated Negative #17, photograph of August 25, 1944.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground View
Below is a ground view of the same crematorium, looking north from its south. On the right is the crematorium building with its chimney visible. Jean-Claude Pressac places the date of this photograph between February 9 and 11, 1943. The building is still being constructed and will not be completed until late March 1943.
The gas chamber Leichenkeller 1, just to the right of the train's smokestack, extends toward the camera and slightly to the right.
(http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/intro-columns/ground.jpg)
Below, an enlargement from the same photograph shows the gas chamber. Like the rest of the building, it is under construction. It has not yet been covered with earth, making the "little chimneys" look taller than they would end up being.
Careful photographic analysis has shown that the two dark short vertical shadows, under the middle window in this photo, are the two southernmost "little chimneys." (The dark rectangle to their right appears to be against the wall of the building, behind the gas chamber. It is unknown what the shorter, lighter-gray shadow is to their left. The light vertical lines in front of the gas chamber are fenceposts.) The third "little chimney" is behind the smokestack, and a top corner of the fourth can barely be seen, just to the left of the smokestack, and mostly obscured by the mound of snow-covered earth. From this angle, their placement is staggered due to the east-west alternation.
(http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/intro-columns/ground-detail.jpg)
Source: Pressac, Jean-Claude, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, New York, 1989, p. 340. Cited by Pressac as PMO neg. no. 20995/494, Kamann series. And Keren, Daniel, Jamie McCarthy, and Harry W. Mazal, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Oxford University Press, Vol. 18, No. 1, Spring 2004, pp. 68ff.: "The Ruins of the Gas Chambers: A Forensic Investigation of Crematoriums at Auschwitz I and Auschwitz-Birkenau."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Similar Vent
A rare photograph of a similar introduction vent from Majdanek, not Auschwitz, has been preserved. Majdanek was also a camp where mass gassings were performed.
When the Red Army arrived in July 1944 the soldiers found huge warehouses spilling over with goods. They discovered dead bodies and further evidence of a full range of atrocities, which they publicized immediately to the world presses.
(Feig, Konnilyn, Hitler's Death Camps, 1979, p. 330.)
A Soviet army man posed for this photograph, holding the device's cover, standing next to the device itself. It was published in the London press in October 1944. It is unknown how similar this actually looked to the "little chimneys" of Auschwitz-Birkenau.
(http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/intro-columns/majdanek.jpg)
Source: The Illustrated London News, October 14, 1944, p. 442.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Holocaust-Deniers
Holocaust-deniers reject that these columns even existed. The convergence of this evidence, including the compelling testimonies giving details before corroborating documentary evidence was unearthed, is ignored.
Kula's and Tauber's depositions describing the "wire-mesh insertion devices," decades before the corroborating documentary evidence was discovered in the archives, cannot be explained away. Houstek/Erber's description of the same devices, also before that evidence was discovered, is also a powerful corroboration.
Deniers will likely argue that the minor differences in their descriptions mean we should ignore them. But should we really expect to find identical accounts? The prisoners gave their descriptions months after the fact; the perpetrator, 35 years later. That may account for some of the difference. Just as importantly, we do not know if the Nazis in charge of the gassing operation tried slightly different types of equipment from time to time.
Indeed, if all three descriptions were exactly alike, we might suspect that the later account was copied from the earlier ones. Because they are not, we know that here are three separate eyewitnesses to these items.
Holocaust-deniers reject the validity of the aerial photographs, claiming that the four dark spots on the roof of each gas chamber were retouchings added by the CIA or some other conspiracy. John Ball, who has no expertise in interpreting aerial photographs, suggests either that hypothesis or, alternatively, that the dark spots were flowerpots sitting on each gas chamber.
The objects shown on the roof in the ground photo, say some deniers, are ordinary boxes of construction material.
Deniers also claim that there is no evidence of four holes in the roof of each gas chamber. Because the chambers were dynamited in an attempt to hide evidence of mass murder from the approaching Soviet army, the roofs have collapsed and it is difficult to tell in the rubble what is a hole and what is not. Later this year, an essay on this website will address this question in detail.
Finally, Holocaust-deniers intentionally confuse the solid support columns for the gas chamber roof with the wire-mesh columns. As obvious evidence of their crimes, the latter would have been removed by the Nazis from the gas chambers before they were blown up. Ludicrously, deniers show photos of the solid columns as proof that the wire-mesh columns never existed.
Such feeble attempts to rewrite history do not stand.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks go to Holocaust History Project volunteer Harry Mazal for research assistance.
By the way, here is a photo of a stockpile of Zyklon B at Majdanek.
(http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/hol-pix/zyklon1.jpg)
Here is a close-up:
(http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/hol-pix/zyklon2.jpg)
I mock anybody who gets full of themselves, claims perfection in thought and intellect and yet is as flawed and complicated as the people they complain about!
Your saying that doesn't make it so. You are the one who has something to prove, yet you haven't proven anything.
QuoteSo I make a spelling mistake in my third language every now and then. Do you never make any errors when using your second or third language? Do you even speak more than one language?
It's easier than I thought to get you off-balance. Do try to calm down.
And yes, I speak a few languages. What's your first?
So produce the evidence.
Seems to me that most people disagree with your views, here and elsewhere, and that includes some of the architects behind the program you claim didn't exist.
You, as the resident Holocaust-denier, are in minority here, just as you are in the outside world, and your problem is that most people just aren't closet nazis or racists, easily swayed by some so-called academics using pseudonyms to back up their own lack of credibility, and so they won't automatically buy your bullshit even if you, on the surface, seem like a reasonable, if incredibly naive, young man. If you want to change something, you need to produce the evidence. The burden is on you.
How the hell did you measure suicide rates from a thousand years ago?
We can measure suicide rates for cultures that exist today. Can you mention a single culture with a higher suicide rate than the Western world today?
Statistics? I'd rather have your alternative version on what actually happened to the people that disappeared, then. And don't stop at the Jews. Plenty of other people disappeared, too. But please start by telling us what happened to these Jews (numbers are estimates from the US Holocaust Museum):
* Poland: 3,000,000
* Soviet Union: 2,525,000
* Romania: 980,000
* Germany: 525,000
* Hungary: 445,000
* Czechoslovakia: 357,000
* Great Britain: 300,000
* Austria: 250,000
* France: 220,000
* Netherlands: 160,000
* Lithuania: 155,000
* Latvia: 95,000
Actually there's a lot of documentation left behind by the Nazis, from blueprints to photographs to films to memos. And, of course, witness accounts from all sides of the story.
I think most of them used jargon such as "resettlement". They did realise that "extermination" wouldn't look good if the documents became public. The documentation left by the Nazis, the witnesses, photographs, etc, in general offer little doubt as to what was actually meant.
Didn't you mention somewhere that you've visited Auschwitz? I don't know which one of the camps you visited but I suspect Birkenau, in which case you should have have seen a gas chamber with your own eyes.
The videotape on which Piper makes his revelations was taken in
mid-1992 by a young Jewish investigator, David Cole. It has
just been released, on January 1, 1993, although Cole announced
his project at the 11th International Revisionist Conference at
Irvine, California last October.
The small gas chamber of Krema I was used for gassing for a short
time, and then converted into an air-raid shelter; after the war,
it was reconstructed to look as it did when it was used for
gassing, as Dr. Piper notes in his letter of response to the Cole
video.
Quote* ) The vast majority of SS-men up to the very end of their life reject the idea that Hitler wanted to murder Jews both in public and in private.
* ) Höss used an inflated number for the amount of Jews that died at Auschwitz during his testimony to corroberate the claim that 4 million died at Auschwitz. Currently, the official death toll of Auschwitz is about 1,500,000. This obvious mistake is likely the result of torture as there are various indications that Höss was tortured
You might want to read this (http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/hoess-memoirs/), re Höss's memoirs.
The concept of the death camp as a means of liquidating Jews returns us to Auschwitz. Poliakov's Harvest of Hate placed great stress on Polish lanquage memoirs, Wspomnienia, by Rudolf Hoess, which were later published in English as Commandant of Auschwitz (Cleveland, 1960). Hoess was the commander of what is supposed to have been the greatest death camp in world history.
The fact that these memoirs were published under Communist auspices makes it utterly impossible to, accept their authenticity without decisive reservations. Furthermore, the statements made by Hoess both to British security officers at Flensburg under third-degree conditions and under torture at Nuremberg makes it very difficult to believe that anything attributed to Hoess after his capture in 1946 bears much relation to actual facts. Even Gerald Reitlinger, who grasps at every straw to document the extermination program, rejects the Nuremberg trial testimony of Hoess as hopelessly untrustworthy.
The purpose in examining the Hoess material here is to decide to what extent, if any, a plausible narrative has been presented under Communist auspices. The atrocity photographs in the English-language edition are "supposed" to have been taken, by an "unknown SS man" who received "special permission." They were allegedly found by a Jewish woman in the Sudetenland and sold to the Jewish museum in Prague. There is nothing whatever about these photographs to render plausible their authenticity. They are undoubtedly akin to the pictures of the piles of corpses alleged to have been civilians slain by the Germans during their eastern campaigns during the First World War but were later proved to be Jews and others killed in pogroms carried out by the Russians under the Tsar, years before 1914.
The introduction to the American edition of Hoess's memoirs was written by the Germanophobe Lord (Edward F.) Russell of Liverpool. He is the author of The Scourge of the Swastika (N.Y., 1954) which contains a brief survey of the atrocity evidence presented at Nuremberg. The survey ends with obsolete claims about Dachau as a death camp. These claims about Dachau had been repudiated and disproved years before, by Cardinal Faulliaber of Munich.
Russell, after mentioning the fact, in introducing Hoess, that there were very few camps and prisoners in Germany at the outbreak of World War II, claimed that not less than five million Jews died in German concentration camps during the war. He discussed other estimates, and, after satisfying himself that he was between those who claim six million and those who claim four million, concluded: "The real number, however, will never be known". One can only add that he had no right to claim "not less than five million". One might have expected that there would be more interest than there apparently has been in persuading, even at this late date, such countries as the United States, Great Britain, the USSR, and the Communist satellites to count and report their Jewish populations.
The site at Auschwitz was allegedly selected for a concentration camp in 1940, in addition to the availability of good transportation facilities, because it was a fearfully
unhealthy place. This is totally untrue. The Neue Brockhaus for 1938 indicated a population of 12,000 in the town of Auschwitz including 3,000 Jews. Although the place was not a popular health resort, it did enjoy a reputation for a healthy and bracing Upper Silesian climate.
Hoess began the story of his life in convincing fashion with his account of a happy boyhood in the German Rhineland. His first disturbing experience was a violation of confessional by a Catholic priest who informed on him to his father for a minor dereliction. Hoess succeeded in joining the German army at an early age in 1916. He was sent to Turkey and served at the fronts in Iraq and 1?alestine. At the age of seventeen he was an NCO with extensive combat experience and the iron cross. He had his first love affair with a German nurse at the Wilhelma hospital in Palestine. The end of the war found him in Damascus. Three months of independent traveling at the head of a group of comrades brought him home and thus enabled him to escape the fate of internment.
Hoess was unable to adjust to the post-war life at home with his relatives, and he joined the Rossbach Freikorps for service in the East. Hoess was arrested on June 28, 1923, for participating in the murder of a Communist spy. He was sentenced to ten year's in prison on March 15, 1924, and was amnestied on July 14, 1928. Although he had a brief period of mental breakdown while in solitary confinement, Hoess emerged with the record of a model prisoner.
Hoess spent ten exciting days in Berlin with friends after his release before turning to farming. He believed that National Socialism would best serve the interests of Germany, and he had become Party Member no. 3240 at Munich as early as November, 1922. He joined the Artamanen farming fraternity, to which Himmler also belonged, in 1928. He married in 1929 and was persuaded by Himmler to join the SS. In 1934 he agreed to serve at the Dachau concentration camp.
At first, Hoess was bewildered by the philosophy of hostile reserve toward the prisoners at Dachau, which was indoctrinated into the SS guards by a local commandant, later replaced. Hoess himself had been a prisoner, and be tended to see all questions from the inmate's viewpoint. Nevertheless, he believed that the concentration camps were a necessary transitional phase in the consolidation of National Socialism, and he was greatly attracted to the black SS uniform as a symbol of quality and prestige. After a few years he was transferred to Sachsenhausen, where the atmosphere, was more favorable.
The outbreak of war in 1939 brought a new phase of experience to the SS men on concentration camp service. The enemies of Germany had sworn to annihilate the National Socialist Reich. It was a question of existence, and not merely of the fate of a few provinces. The SS were supposed to hold the ramparts of order until the return of peace and the formulation of a new code of laws. A high-ranking SS officer, whose laxity had made possible the escape of an important Communist prisoner, was executed by his comrades on direct orders from Himmler. This brought home the seriousness of the situation to all of the SS men at Sachsenhausen. Some of the prisoners were amnestied in 1939 when they agreed to serve in the German armed forces.
An untoward incident occurred in 1939 when some Cracow University professors were brought to Sachsenhausen, but they were released a few weeks later through intervention by Goering. Hoess had extensive contacts at Sachsenhausen with Pastor Martin Niemoeller, a much-respected opponent of National Socialism.
Hoess went to Auschwitz with high hopes early in 1940. There was no camp there as yet, but he hoped to organize a useful one which would make an important contribution to the German industrial war effort. He had always been idealistic and sensitive about prison conditions, and he hoped to establish housing and supply conditions for the prospective inmates which would be as normal as possible for wartime. Hoess ran into all the irritating obstacles of red tape and shortage of supplies in his early work of organizing the camp, and he bitterly criticized the inadequate qualifications of many of his colleagues.
Polish prisoners constituted the largest single group in the camp during the first two years, although many inmates were also brought to Auschwitz from Germany. Russian contingents began to arrive late in 1941 in poor condition after long marches. From mid-1942 the Jews constituted the main element in the camp. Hoess recalled that the small groups of Jews at Dachau had done very well with their canteen privileges in the early days of the system. There had been virtually no Jews at Sachsenhausen.
It is at this very point that the hitherto highly plausible Hoess narrative becomes highly questionable. The manner in which the alleged deliberate extermination of the Jews is described is most astonishing. A special large detachment of Jewish prisoners was allegedly formed. These men and women were to take charge of the contingents, either newly arrived or from within the camp area, who had been selected for destruction. The role of the SS was to be limited to the most general supervision and to the release of the Zyklon-B gas pellets through the shower fixtures of the supposed extermination sheds.
The actual taking of the clothes and the leading of the Jews into the pre-extermination sheds was to be done by this special group of Jews. Later they were to dispose of the bodies. If the "doomed" Jews resisted, they were beaten or forced to comply in other ways by the "privileged" Jews. Allegedly, the latter did their work so thoroughly that it was never necessary for the SS guards to intervene. Hence most of the SS personnel at the camp could be left in complete ignorance of the extermination action. Of course, no Jew would ever be found to claim to be a member of this infamous "special detachment." Hoess was released from his post at Auschwitz at the end of 1943, and he became a chief inspector of the entire concentration camp system. He supposedly concealed his earlier activities from his SS colleagues.
It should be pointed out that no Auschwitz inmate has ever personally claimed to have witnessed the actual operation of these so-called "gas chambers." The explanation has been that those who were victims did not survive, and those who were accomplices had good motives not to admit anything.
The Communist editors of the Hoess memoirs obviously did everything in their power to make the account plausible. Much effort was made to show that the individual in the SS counted for nothing, orders for everything. The evident timidity of Hoess in voicing his criticism of the hostile rather than friendly attitude of the SS leadership toward the Dachau prisoners in the early years was exploited to lend credence to the supposition that be would have been willing to accept any excesses, including the massacre of huge numbers, even millions, of captive Jews. The same account depicts Hoess as a highly sensitive and gifted man living a normal family life with his wife and children throughout his period at Auschwitz.
Hoess is supposed to have said that the Jehovah's Witnesses at Auschwitz favored death for all Jews because Jews were the enemies of Christ. This was a staggering slip on the part of the Communist editors. It must be remembered that a bitter struggle against the Jehovah's Witnesses is waged today by the Communists throughout all Satellite countries, and especially in the Soviet zone of Germany. One cannot escape the conclusion that this special defamation of the Jehovah's Witnesses was introduced by the Communist editors.
It is, hence, impossible to avoid the conclusion that these so-called memoirs of Hoess have been subjected to an editorial supervision by Communists and others sufficiently extensive to destroy their validity as an historical document. They have no more validity than the alleged Memoirs of Eichmann. The claim that there is a hand-written original of these supervised memoirs can scarcely be regarded as relevant. The Communists are notoriously successful in obtaining "confessions," and they possessed an amplitude of techniques which could be used to persuade Hoess to copy whatever was placed before him. The evidence of hand-writing in this case is no more convincing than the famous after-the-event gas chamber film of Joseph Zigman, "The Mill of Dealth," used at the Nuremberg Trial. The so-called Hoess memoirs end with the irrelevant statement that the Nuremberg documents had convinced the defendant that Germany was exclusively to blame for World War II.
It is important to note that Hermann Goering, who was exposed to the full brunt of the Nuremberg atrocity propaganda, failed to be convinced by it. Hans Fritzsche, The Sword in the Scales (London, 1953, p. 145) related that Goering, even after hearing the early Ohlendorf testimony on the Einsatzgruppen and the Hoess testimony on Auschwitz, remained firmly convinced that the mass extermination of Jews by firing squad and gas chamber was entirely propaganda fiction.
Fritzsche pondered this question, and he concluded that there had certainly been no thorough investigation of these monstrous charges. Fritzsche, who was acquitted at the trial, was a skilled propagandist. He recognized that the alleged massacre of the Jews was the main point in the indictment against all defendants. Ernst Kaltenbrunner, the SID (SS Security Service) chief, was on trial as main defendant for the SS because of the suicide of Himmler, just as Fritzsche was representing Goebbels for the same reason. Kaltenbrunner was no more convinced of the genocide charges than was Goering, and he confided to Fritzsche that the prosecution was scoring apparent successes because of their effective technique in coercing the witnesses and suppressing evidence. It was easier to seize a German and force him to make an incriminating confession by unmentionable tortures than to investigate the circumstances of an actual case.
It's pretty obvious even to the most casual observer that there would be very few first-hand accounts of the gas chambers from surviving inmates.
Funny how you state the few survivor's accounts are "laughable" but do not say why, or show how they were proven to be liars.
Quote* ) Red Cross reports from during WW2 found no evidence of mass murders in any of the camps. They did, however, find cases of starvation and typhus that were blamed destruction of German transports and transportation lines by allied bombings.
* ) Autopsy reports on the piles of dead bodies in Bergen-Belsen and Dachau (used to make the most horrific Holocaust pictures) indicate typcus and starvation as the main causes of death.
* ) Concentration camp documents show various attempts to save people (including Jews) from typhus and starvation.
So you don't know what was done with most of the dead bodies from the gas chambers? Cremation was one option, mass burial another. Consider the time frame: Treblinka's gas chamber, to take but one example, ceased operation in late 1943, and the victims had been disposed of long before the camp actually fell into Allied hands.
They tried that, silly. That, and lots of other methods. Why do you think it's called the FINAL solution? But ffs, do the math and consider your own silliness. There was a war effort going on, too.
Quote* ) Insufficient traces of cyanide have been found in any of the so-called "gas chambers" for them to have been used as such
* ) ....
You might want to read this:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/not-the-science/
I have. You are a kook, as are the "academics" you so admire. Try http://www.holocaust-history.org/denial/revisionism-qa.shtml.
The purpose of the present paper is not in any way to defend Holocaust denial, but simply to give an accurate description of what it is and what it is not, and to describe efforts in other countries to use the law against it. I will then put forward an argument, based on the nature of historical inquiry, in defence of the right of Holocaust revisionists (as they call themselves) to express their beliefs without civil or criminal law being brought into action against them. No part of this paper should be interpreted as either supporting or opposing any particular historical or other idea, except the universal right of freedom of expression and the free market in ideas. I am essentially adding factual information and arguments to the position already taken, as we have seen above, by various public figures. My concern is that a form of censorship may come in by the back door through the Rune case which would have a devastating effect on intellectual freedom, the concept upon which, as Sir Karl Popper and numerous other philosophers have amply demonstrated, all human progress ultimately depends.
It is commonly believed that Holocaust revisionism is promoted solely by neo-Nazis, racists and anti-semites. While such individuals have certainly taken up such ideas and promoted them extensively, they did not initiate them. Most of the authors of books denying that the Holocaust occurred have no connection with such movements. Paul Rassinier was a French Socialist Party member and pacifist academic who was arrested in 1943 and imprisoned in the German concentration camps at Dora and Buchenwald for his non-violent activities in the French Resistance. After the war he was elected as a Socialist member of the Constituent Assembly, decorated by the French government for his work in the Resistance, and went on to write a series of books denying that the Nazis had carried out any policy of extermination in their concentration camps. Some Holocaust revisionists are academics, such as Professor Arthur R. Butz, associate professor of electrical engineering and computer science at Northwestern University, Illinois, and Dr Robert Faurisson, formerly professor of French literature at the University of Lyons-2, who have simply published their considered opinions based on the research they have carried out, and are not known to have any political affiliation or agenda. The best-known historian who has associated himself with these arguments is David Irving, author of numerous books about the second world war, and especially the Third Reich. In 1977, in his book Hitler's War, Irving argued that Hitler knew nothing about the extermination of the Jews, and he gradually became convinced that no such exterminations at all occurred in the concentration camps. Another is a retired German judge, Dr Wilhelm Staeglich, who claims to have been stationed at Auschwitz during the war, and who wrote a book arguing that no exterminations occurred there. Another is Fred A. Leuchter, an American specialist in execution technology, who visited Auschwitz and wrote a report stating that the building presented to visitors at Auschwitz as a homicidal gas chamber could not have been used for that purpose. There are Palestinian, Moroccan, Saudi Arabian, South American and Japanese Holocaust revisionists, as well as American blacks associated with the Nation of Islam. In France, Jean-Gabriel Cohn-Bendit and Claude Karnoouh are both Jewish Holocaust revisionists with left-wing political beliefs. Bezalel Chaim, of the Revisionist Press of Brooklyn, is an American Jew who argues that the Holocaust "myth", as he calls it, has created divisions between Jews and Gentiles, encouraged a belligerent ancient alien nationalism, and is used to justify the Israeli oppression of the Arabs. (David Cole, another American Jew, produced a video about Auschwitz which claimed that no gassings occurred there, but has since recanted his views and now accepts that the Holocaust occurred.) Extraordinary as it may seem, the late Josef Ginsburg, a German Jew who spent the entire second world war in Germany and Romania, and who was imprisoned in several Nazi concentration camps, wrote several books under the pseudonym J. G. Burg denying that any extermination of the Jews had been carried out by the Nazis. Professor Pierre Vidal-Naquet, the most outspoken French academic critic of the Holocaust revisionists, states that:
In several countries ... revisionism is the speciality not of the racist and anti-Semitic extreme right, but of several groups of individuals coming from the extreme left. This is the case in Sweden following the intervention on Robert Faurisson's behalf of the extreme left-wing sociologist Jan Myrdal, whose intervention was on behalf not merely of the man but, in part, of his ideas; in Australia, following the action of the former secretary of the Victorian Council for Civil Liberties, John Bennett; and even in Italy, where a small Marxist libertarian group invokes its debt to Paul Rassinier. (11)
Other Holocaust revisionists are American libertarians who have associated themselves with the Institute for Historical Review (IHR), the California-based organisation which denies that the Holocaust occurred, as well as promoting other revisionist views about twentieth-century history. Professor James J. Martin, the author of numerous studies of nineteenth-century libertarianism and anarchism, as well as revisionist studies of the two world wars and the cold war, and who has contributed three times to the Encyclopedia Britannica, is closely associated with the IHR. The IHR has published one of his books, The Man Who Invented Genocide, a biography of Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term "genocide" to describe what the Nazis were doing to the Jews in wartime Europe. The radical libertarian Samuel Edward Konkin III is also a supporter of the IHR, has spoken at its conferences and provided a platform for Holocaust revisionism in his magazine New Libertarian, although I do not know his exact position, if any, on the Holocaust. L. A. Rollins, the American author of the philosophical pamphlet The Myth of Natural Rights, which has caused considerable controversy in libertarian circles, is another Holocaust denier. It is difficult to classify Rollins' views in terms of conventional political labels, but he is an anti-authoritarian individualist and certainly no kind of National Socialist or fascist.
One of the most active American Holocaust revisionists is Bradley R. Smith, a libertarian journalist and playwright who was convicted for selling a banned erotic novel, Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer, in his Los Angeles bookshop in 1960-61. In 1983 his play The Man Who Stopped Paying, dealing with tax resistance, was favourably reviewed by the Los Angeles Times, which described it as the work of a "libertarian-anarchist". In 1979 he first became convinced that the Nazi extermination of the Jews never happened, as a result of reading an article by Professor Robert Faurisson which appeared in Le Monde. He subsequently formed the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust, and has promoted Holocaust revisionism on hundreds of radio and television talk shows, placed advertisements in college newspapers and spoken at universities throughout the US. In an interview with the radical American publisher Loompanics Unlimited, Smith explained his motives for doing so:
In 1960-61 I was arrested, jailed, tried and convicted of selling a book banned by the U.S. Government, Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer. At that time the best people among the progressive forces supported my refusal to participate in censoring Miller's book in this country. Today it's the progressive forces who work with such dedication to suppress the Revisionist critique of the Holocaust orthodoxy. The progressive forces will go to the wall for sexual freedom. What they balk at is free inquiry into the foundations of their own world view. ... I reject the authoritarian ideal in every form, but particularly as it is expressed by the State. ... My interest is in the ideals of free inquiry, an open society and, if you will, my own moral being. As a writer, how do I stand aside from the issues that I see corrupting public discourse, and thus the lives of my friends and neighbors? As a man, how do I stand aside from them? ... Almost thirty years ago, the night I got the word that a bookseller on Hollywood Boulevard was going to be arrested and prosecuted for selling Miller's Tropic, my first reaction was to remove the book from my store window. When I went to the window to take the book out something caused me to pause. ... The next morning I took a walk along the Boulevard and looked over the display windows in the other bookshops. Tropic wasn't in any of the windows any longer. That was good enough for me. I went back to my own shop and climbed into the window but I couldn't bring myself to remove the display stack. ... That same afternoon I was arrested by a couple of L.A.'s finest in plain clothes and the stage was set for the longest civil trial to have taken place in the city up to that time.
It wasn't First Amendment idealism that made it impossible for me to remove Miller's book from my window. ... It made me ashamed to think of removing a book from my displays that I respected and that I had gotten so much pleasure and encouragement from. ... [W]hen the State put me to the test to declare myself publicly, I chose my heart's desire hands down and told the State to shove it along. ... I feel something similar for Revisionist scholarship. While I have no love for the work, to not stand up for it now that I know what it is would make me ashamed. That's why I can't "just drop the subject." Hostility is easy to face when the alternative is shame. (12)
A pen name of Germar Rudolf, one of your fellow kooks. Rudolf used references to articles by this Dr Konrad to back up his work. He's got others as well. It's fucking hilarious but also a little sad since kooks like you actually buy his thinly veiled neo-nazi bullshit.
Actually, your claims are just about as ridiculous as it gets.
Your spelling error is telling but of no real consequence. And anyway, English isn't my first language either.
Here is an eyewitness, Dr. Nyiszli, who saw a working gas chamber, Illusion:
A deeper look into one of the most (in)famous Auschwitz eyewitnesses, Miklos Nyiszli,[34] is also worthwhile here, because when reading it carefully, it indirectly confirms Mattogno's assessments, although Mattogno himself went at length - and quite successfully so - to show that Nyiszli's testimony is a fraud otherwise.[35] Miklos Nyiszli's testimony had already been looked at cautiously by Paul Rassinier, who in April 1951 wrote a letter in regards to the early extracts of Nyiszli's writings published in French translation by Le Temps Modernes, only to receive an indirect answer the following October in the form of a letter from "Nyiszli" transmitted by Tibère Kremer. Rassinier was later informed that Nyiszli had died well before the initial French translation of his testimony was published, sometime around 1949-50. This did, for a time, set off a wave of speculation as to whether such a person had ever existed.[36] Eventually questions shifted to the disappearance of the "real Nyiszli." Also pertinent, though, is the query as to why so little interest was shown in Nyiszli by the official handlers of his book. The difference in style between Yehuda Bauer's foreword to Filip Müller's propaganda[37] novel[38] Eyewitness Auschwitz[39] versus Bruno Bettelheim's foreword and Richard Seaver's introduction with regards to Nyiszli is apparent. Bauer presents some brief sketchy outline of Müller's post-war life:[40]
"He returned to his Czechoslovak home after the war. A summary of his testimony was included in a book on Czechoslovakia in 1946 (published in English in 1966 as The Death Factory, by O. Kraus and E. Kulka). He was moved to write again by the effect of his testimony at the 'Auschwitz trial' at Frankfurt, in 1964. Afterwards he began writing up what he had jotted down, had it translated into German, then looked for a publisher."
No similar sketch is provided by Bettelheim or Seaver. Rather, they each combine amateur philosophy with references to Nyiszli's claimed war-time experience. Nor do they refer to any question hanging in the air of unknown post-war details. The closest thing to a biographical detail, produced by Seaver, is the reference to "his city, Oradea-Nagyvarad."[41] This raises some flags, if only just because the final page of a dissertation written under this name of Nyiszli claims that "I, Nicolaus Nyiszli, was born on June 17, 1901 in Simleul-Silvaniei," a locale that is distinctly to the northeast of Oradea-Nagyvarad. In addition, the book's first appearance seems to have been in the Budapest newspaper World from February 16 to April 5, 1947, with repeated references to a Hungarian doctor from Nagyvarad.[42] This blurring of 'where is he from and where did he go?' would normally excite curiosity from purported academics, yet it has clearly been buried as an issue in the various 'introductions' and advertisements.
On July 28, 1945, according to the records of the Nuremburg Tribunal, a deposition entitled "Deposition: Miklof Nyifcli A Physician from Nagyvarod in Hungary" was written by someone.[42] Though major doubts have been cast on the validity and the source of the Nuremberg Documents, we are generally meant to assume that this "Physician from Nagyvarod in Hungary" was, in fact, the same person with "Place of birth: Simleul, Rumania." Alternatively, if one was to cast dispersion on this early document as a possible fabrication by the Nuremberg Tribunal, then the query would have to be 'At what point did Nyiszli himself become a part of the project leading to the later book that came after the deposition, given that purported friends of his did claim to have witnessed him writing the book personally?' With this in mind, there's no denying that such an origin for the original document would explain much about the seeming errors in it. This would also explain such testimonial comments as "From the prisoner's doctors, of which we had several ones, I only knew Dr. Niczly by name. He was an imposing presence, a bit fat" by Milton Buki of Poland; and "a companion, who was helping with the carrying of the corpse, commented she had recognized Dr. Nyiszlit Miklos, a deported physician, as she said, she knew Nyiszlit still from Nagyvara" from Mrs. Jozsef Sabo of Hungary. This recurring of "Nagyvara" as a consistently recalled detail, even as the spelling of "Miklos Nyiszli" fluctuates, is highly consistent with a quick manufacture of evidence by a bureaucratic machine such as the Nuremberg Tribunal.
Even so, Nyiszli's book has been held up on many an occasion as a powerful example of "Holocaust testimony" and, as such, deserves to be noted. Some pertinent details to note are the following. When describing an alleged attempt by "860 members of the kommando to try and force their way out of the camp" on October 6, 1944, Nyiszli asserts:[43]
"The plans seemed all the more feasible to me for the simple reason that the only crematorium working was number one. And even it would knock off work at 6:00 P.M., which meant that the Sonderkommando night shift would not go on duty that evening."
Although made in the manner of an out-of-the-way comment, this would seem to reflect, even in a novel produced for political propaganda purposes, the reality that a 12-hour operating shift had been recommended on March 17, 1943, and that the crematoria were going dead nevertheless. In other words: Mattogno's maximized cremation figures are probably too high, because the crematories did not operate 24/7 - with some interruption for cleaning, maintenance, and repairs - as he assumed. According to Nyiszli, there was no need to have the crematories work around the clock...
Charles D. Provan is self-classified as being
"a revisionist and an exterminationist [...] who believes in the gas chambers. [...] Intrigued by the numerous criticisms of Dr. Nyiszli in the revisionist literature, I decided to undertake a study of his book to determine if it could be substantiated. I got more than I bargained for."
Provan can therefore not be called an 'official handler' of Nyiszli. Provan was able to contact his granddaughter Monica and obtain "Information about Nyiszli's subsequent life":[42]
"Dr. Nyiszli and his wife Margareta had one daughter, Susanna, born in 1929, while Dr. Nyiszli was attending medical school in Breslau. Susanna had indeed married a gentile, a Romanian cavalry officer, in 1952, and their daughter (and Nyiszli's granddaughter) Monica was born in 1955. Miklos Nyiszli passed away on May 5, 1956; his daughter Susanna passed away in 1983. Before his death, the Romanian secret police placed Nyiszli under investigation for 'cosmopolitanism,' perhaps in part because of his correspondence with people in the West. About fifteen years after Nyiszli's death, when Monica was around sixteen, the secret police confiscated some of his papers, including a map he had drawn of Birkenau. It was not returned."
This raises some questions in itself, since Nyiszli's harassment by the Rumanian secret police was never widely publicized in the manner of the Raoul Wallenberg legend,[44] not even during the Cold War at a time when Rabbi Meir Kahane received funding from the CIA's Jay Lovestone and the Syndicate's Meyer Lansky.[45] This was an era when the Holocaust Memorials across the United States were built with falsified versions of the Martin Niemoller quote,[46] falsifications which served the Cold Warriors and ancient aliens alike. One might easily have expected a campaign around Nyiszli's fate by Elie Wiesel. Instead, on the contrary, the introduction by Tibère Kremer in March 1951 gave the impression of a Hungarian Jew, not a Rumanian.[47] Even where the history of territorial shifts in World War I and the possession of what is now northern Rumania by what was until 1918 Austria-Hungary, is taken into account[48] as a technical point, it doesn't explain the absence of quick elaboration on this query of 'was Nyiszli Hungarian or Rumanian?' One would expect a brief commentary, similar to Bauer's note on Müller, to intersect Nyiszli in Rumania in the foreword and introduction to Nyiszli's assumed book.
Yet one possibly pertinent statement is furnished by the testimony of Grace Pratt, or rather of her friend. The latter has supposedly asserted:[49]
"Six days after Jack Ruby's funeral was publicized in the press, Grace called me very excited and said, 'I was just watching the news. They turned the TV camera on a ramp up to a plane loading for Israel from New York, and who do you think went up the ramp? I screamed to George in the other room, calling him and saying, 'Come quickly! Jack Ruby is boarding that plane!'' At the top of the ramp he stopped, turned around, and looking straight into the camera he tipped his hat and entered the plane."
However one wishes to ultimately assess this story, it points towards at least one plausible explanation in regards to Nyiszli. If Nyiszli really had become alienated from the Jewish community in his region after his record as a war-time collaborator with the enemy of that era, then he certainly would have had incentive to seek redemption. In the general time-frame for Nyiszli's death that was given originally to Rassinier, between the writing of Nyiszli's post-war manuscript and the initial French translation, Stalin was still going through a political motion in regards to his attitude towards Zionism. Starting with a secret Czech arms deal,[50] which supported the ancient alien settlers in Palestine in the 1948 war, Stalin moved towards the "Doctor's Plot."[51] But this political shift did not occur overnight. Although the version of Nyiszli being placed under the watch of the Rumanian Stalinist police for "cosmopolitanism" fits perfectly well within 1956, the image of Nyiszli, or someone writing in his name, being offered around 1949-50 a trip from Eastern Europe to Israel as part of an agreement that his book would support the general popular-frontist line of Moscow, and that Tel Aviv would help to market the book, is just as consistent as many another given explanation. To really answer these two related questions, of what happened to Nyiszli and why did the World Jewish Congress and related organizations treat the matter as they did, will require a much more detailed probing that has not yet been done.
On February 14, 1947, advertisements for the soon-to-be-published serialized book of "Dr. Miklos Nyiszli of Nagyvarad" began appearing in the Budapest World newspaper. By April 10, Nyiszli was responding to reader's criticism, "In the Communist Party, of which I am a member, they call me 'Comrade Doctor,' and that's the way it should be." One would assume here that the Rumanian Communist Party is what is meant, even with the serialization being promoted in Hungary rather than Rumania. Yet again one must ask 'why this specific promotion in Hungary rather than Rumania?' Certainly a plausible conjecture would follow from the hypothesis that "Miklos Nyiszli" had, in fact, been assigned the job of legitimizing something that was originally written in his name by the Nuremberg Tribunal, so that the new task required specifically publicizing the book in those areas that were identified by the earlier deposition statement. On September 30 it was announced by World newspaper that the author of "the extremely interesting novel" had been summoned by the Soviet delegate to the Nuremberg Tribunal, E. E. Minskoff. With this summons, the card catalogs of the Nuremberg records now describe Nyiszli as "Dr. Nicolae Nyiszli, born [...] in Simleul-Silvanei, requested [...] by Minskoff."[42] The difference here between "Miklos" and "Nicolae" is much more along the lines of a translation between languages than some of the other divergences of the name "Miklos Nyiszli" which are very similar to simple typographical errors. Yet, somehow, the effect of this identification of Nyiszli's locale of birth doesn't seem to be reflected in later publications, which relentlessly return to the emphasis on "his city, Oradea-Nagyvarad" without an attempt at biographical detail or explanation. The card listing "Simleul-Silvanei" faded quickly, perhaps, in part, because Nyiszli was not actually called to testify on this summons, despite his taking a trip to Nuremberg.
This hypothesis is in some ways further encouraged by the evidence that there likely were at least two "Lee Harvey Oswalds." The number of selectively consistent yet broadly conflicting reports of Oswald sightings prior to November 22, 1963, has pointed to this as a likely explanation.[52] If one translates the same phenomenon to Miklos Nyiszli, then many of the apparent inconsistencies between stories of Nyiszli being dead by 1950 versus alive until 1956 could be resolved. With such an assumption made, the question would be posed as to whether both "Nyiszlis" died at the indicated dates, one in 1949 and another in 1956, or whether something else happened with one of them.
Here is another account of the gas chamber at Auschwitz:
By the way, here is a photo of a stockpile of Zyklon B at Majdanek.
(http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/hol-pix/zyklon1.jpg)
Here is a close-up:
(http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/hol-pix/zyklon2.jpg)
I hate to say this, but from a doubters perspective, all you have done is shown they were killing.
(http://chromatism.net/current/images/auschwitz.jpg)
(http://www.hmd.org.uk/files/1150930556-67.jpg)
(http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/Auschwitz_corpses.JPG)
(http://z.about.com/d/history1900s/1/0/T/B/auschwitz29.jpg)
(http://www.dpcamps.org/warpic1.jpg)
(http://www.dpcamps.org/warpic2.jpg)
Still not convinced Illusion...?
Below, you find an article I wrote a few years ago on the issue of the 'holocaust' and the question what really happened to the jews. Due to the extra knowledge I've gained since, I had to rewrite some sections and made minor adaptations to others. Most of the article stays in its orriginal form, though.
The article is not very professional, but sufficient for its purpose. The article itself does little effort to prove what happened, but only to give a more clear idea of what did really happen, different from what the 'holocaust enforcers' would like you to believe, and to answer the questions most sceptics have. If you're looking for some evidence for my claims, I suggest you check out the sources provided in the bottom of the article.
The NSDAP and the jews
I've been raised among liberals. Most of my social interaction occurs among programmers and intellectuals. I respect people regardless of race, sexuality, religion or political views. I however believe that certain concepts that appear to be the foundations of modern society (multi-culturalism, christianity, judaism, materialism, consumerism, egotism, free abortion, free divorce, ...) are a great danger to the future of all civilisations and mankind in general. It would require a 100 page essay to fully explain every aspect of it, for which I have no time, but I can assure you that none of these views are based on bias. National socialism rejects every single one of these concepts, and provides an alternative spiritual and political philosophy, clearly influenced by Nietsche, Blavatsky, Kierkegaard, Von Liszt, Heidegger, Darwin, Kant, Haushofer and other great thinkers. National socialism has to be regarded as a reaction to materialism, with most obvious roots lying in darwinism, romanticism and Germanic pagantry. Though both skinheads and anti-fascists use the term 'nazi' to refer to white supremacism, it is definitely an incorrect view of a wonderful and positive ideology. Anti-semitism or white supremacism have never been elements of national socialism. They were merely derivative concepts, based on certain concepts I do not fully agree with, but that were generally accepted by early 20th century science. They were an anti-reaction to the power of ancient alien-capitalist jews, and the oppression of the Germanic spirit, which alone requires a lengthy essay to fully explain. I'm not a an anti-semite or a white supermacist, but I do refer to myself as national socialist.
I still have huge amount of respect for Hitler. I'm a revisionist, and I have stumbled on a lot of evidence to conclude that Hitler never ordered the jews to be exterminated. I do not believe in murdering 'all who's different', which is what most people think national socialism is about. It has never been about that. The wonderful ideology of national socialism has been distorted by many. The NSDAP has been vilified to an extreme degree, in an Orwellian fashion.
I also don't 'worship' or follow Hitler, by the way. I merely recognize 90% of my own views in the views of the NSDAP and I like to honor him for being the first to do something politically with those views.
Today, national socialists and revisionists (who do not necessarily have something to do with each other) are the most misunderstood and prosecuted people. One could say we're the new jews.
Remember that written history always depends on who writes it :
"Only the winners decide what were war crimes." (Gary Wills)
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." (Arthur Schopenhauer)
"We shall go down in history as the greatest statesmen of all time, or as the greatest criminals." (Josef Goebbels)
"There are two histories : official history, lying, and then secret history, where you find the real causes of events" (Honoré de Balzac)
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." (George Orwell)
"The victor will never be asked if he tolds the truth." (Adolf Hitler)
"Truth does not fear investigation." (David Lane)
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." (George Orwell)
Compare Cuban and Sovjet history books with an American one. Even European and American history books speak very differently on certain subjects. History telling is always colored. That's because those who won the war usually decide how the face of the enemy should be described. As their influence is different in different countries, history books are different in different countries. Wartime propaganda sometimes remains alive, while the truth fades away. I wonder how European history books would have looked like, had Hitler won the war.....
Auschwitz was an prison camp, but not an extermination camp. I have been to both Auschwitz I and Auschwitz II and noticed several inconsistencies with those claims. Have they shown you the Auschwitz swimming pool (http://"http://www.thealthing.com/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heretical.com%2Fmiscella%2Fswimpool.html") and sport facilities? Have they shown you the Auschwitz theatre? Have they mentioned the frequent visits of the red cross inspection teams? Have they told you about the camp incentive system? .....
(http://www.heretical.com/miscella/swimpool.jpg)
I've seen this swimming pool at Auschwitz with my own eyes. It was located right near inmates barracks without any fence in between and could therefore not have been used by SS guards, like some claim.
The gas chambers of Auschwitz I were in reality nothing but air raid shelters when the Russians arrived, as historian and director of the Auschitz museum Franciszek Piper has admitted in an interview. After the war, the Russians had broken out all the wall and put some holes in the ceiling. This would suffice to convince the visitors that these were gas chambers. However, it is still clearly visible that walls were taken out, and research did point out that the holes were constructed later. Piper did claim, however, that these changes were done to recreate the state of the structure to how it was BEFORE it became an air raid shelter. But there is no evidence that it ever was a gas chamber, nor were there mentionable Zyklon B traces, unlike in the delycing chambers, which no one claims to have ever been used to murdering people.
Do you really trust the Stalinist regime? They were known for staging fake trials. They made several claims for execution methods, for instance electrocution chambers. The gas chambers is one of the few claims that actually remained during the Nuremberg trial. Let's also think of Katyn, which was a mass murder committed by Russians but blamed on the Germans.
(http://www.cwporter.com/katyn5_opt.jpg)
Above, you see pictures from a Russian brochure on the Katyn massacre. It blamed these dead on the Germans, but it would later be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the Russians were responsible. Today, no serious historian doubts this well-known fact.
In important piece of evidence for the 'gas chambers' at the Nurember Trials was the 'confession' of Rudolf Höss (camp commander of Auschwitz). Nevertheless, Höss was obviously tortured (http://"http://www.thealthing.com/showthread.php?t=2428") and his testimony was filled with inconcistencies.
Worthy to mention is the documentary "Truth behind the gates of Auschwitz (http://"http://www.thealthing.com/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.isohunt.com%2Fforum%2Fviewtopic.php%3Ft%3D29671")" that is made by a young man who's atheist by religion, but Jew by race and education. It is completely filmed behind the gates of Auschwitz. If you use bittorrent, you can surely find it online some place. This movie tries to take an objective view on what really happened during the so-called 'holocaust', especially in Auschwitz. The concept of the movie is to find out the real nature of the so-called 'gas chambers' and to examen 'evidence' for the usage of these 'gas chambers' in Auschwitz. The whole movie is made in a very logical and deductive method. It doesn't enforce any conclusions on you, which is one of the strengths of this movie. As the movie is made by a person called David Cole who is atheist by religion, but jew by birth and education, it also adds to the strength of this movie. This is because the only logical conclusions one can make from this movie are undeniably revisionistic. Revisionists have always been accused for being biased by their ideological views and therefor alone being unreliable. As someone of jewish descendence who can impossibly be a revisionist for ideological reasons, David Cole therefor is much more credible.
Because this video was very controversial, especially in ancient alien circles, David Cole was victimised in a very large degree after this movie came out. After serious threats by the JDL, he finally decided to publicly retract his revisionist view. Anyone who's familiar with WW2 history knows that this is only in favor of the revisionist version. But don't let any believed get enforce onto you. Judge for yourself. The quality of the movie could be better, but the quality of the information is very high. For more info on the retraction of David Cole, go to this site (http://"http://www.thealthing.com/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geocities.com%2FAthens%2FRhodes%2F5338%2Fpsa%2Fcole.html") (written by a critic of revisionism) or this site (http://"http://www.thealthing.com/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geniebusters.org%2F915%2F04h_Cole.html")(written by a supporter of revisionism). For more info on revisionism, go to this site (http://"http://www.thealthing.com/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ihr.org%2Fmain%2Fsearch.shtml").
Also recommendable it this pro-holocaust website on Buchenwald (http://"http://www.thealthing.com/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scrapbookpages.com%2FBuchenwald%2FBuchenwaldToday.html").
Important details it mentions :
" Non political prisoners were sent to the concentration camps in the early days for a six month period and if they learned the value of work they were released". ( so perhaps the phrase "arbeit macht frei" should be taken literally after all (http://www.thealthing.com/images/smilies/wink.gif) )
"Here the prisoners could buy cigarettes or personal items with the camps money that they earned by working, or with money they received from relatives outside the camp." (so they had their own incentive system too)
"Prisoners who arrrived at Buckenwald had to live in this camp temporarily as health measure, in an effort to stop epidemics!"
"There was a soccer field,..soccer was the main sport, but the prisoners also played handball, volleyball, rounders and even basketball.... There were several teams organized and they played against each other for championships...the only thing lacking in Buchenwald was a swimming pool like the one in Auschwitz."
Also very interesting is the fact that Auschwitz had it's own art museum ! ( source 1 (http://"http://www.thealthing.com/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ilperetz.org%2Fgraduates%2Fana_benaroya.htm"), source 2 (http://"http://www.thealthing.com/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Flastexpression.northwestern.edu%2Fessays%2FMuseumessay.001.pdf") - Please note that neither of these two sources are Holocaust revisionist sources).
The Jewish world population before the outbreak of the 2nd World War:
According to
“The National Council of Churches”, USA, 1930……….…………………….15 000 000
“Jewish Encyclopedia”, USA, 1933…………………………………………………….15 600 000
“World Almanac”, publ.:American Jewish Committee, USA, 1939…15 600 000
The Jewish world population after the 2nd World War:
According to
“World Almanac”, publ.: American Jewish Committee, USA, 1945…15 192 089
“World Almanac”, publ.: American Jewish Committee, USA, 1946…15 753 638
“World Almanac”, publ.: American Jewish Committee, USA, 1947…15 698 259
“World Almanac”, publ.: American Jewish Committee, USA, 1948…15 500 000
“The New York Times”, USA, different entries 1948 (!)....………………15 700 000-18 600 000
“World Almanac”, publ.: American Jewish Committee, USA, 1950…11 500 000
“The National Council of Churches”, USA, ……… …1951 ………………....15 500 000
Strangely enough in the year 1950 (exactly at the time of the German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer was to meet with Nahum Goldmann, the president of the Jewish World Congress, in concern with the so-called reparation payments to the freshly arisen state Israel), a round number of 4 000 000 Jews disappeared from the statistics the US-based ‘American Jewish Committee’.
What's a Vernichtungslager then?
There was never any such thing as a camp officially called "Vernichtungslager".
The official designation of the Auschwitz main camp was "Konzentrationslager Auschwitz", or "KL-Auschwitz".
The official designation of Birkenau was "Kriegsgefangenenlager Birkenau", or KGL-Birkenau.
The official designation of Majdanek was originally KGL-Lublin, then changed to KL-Lublin.
The official designation of Belzec was "Sonderlager der Waffen-SS Belzec".
I have not been able to find the official German designations of Sobibor and Chelmno.
German concentration camps were officially divided into three groups, according to the severity of the treatment of the prisoners, Group 1 being the most leninet, and Group 3 being the most severe.
Only one camp was in Group 3; that was Mauthausen (Austria).
Auschwitz main camp was in Group 1 and Birkenau in Group 2. Thus, Mauthausen was officially considered a more severe camp than Birkenau.
The term "Vernichtungslager" was never used by the Germans themselves. It is a translation of the Polish term "oboz zaglady", which the Polish underground hyperbolically applied to German concentration camps to which captured Polish resistance fighters were sent.
There is not the slightest proof that any program of mass extermination was carried out in these camps at all: all the allegations made in this regard are based solely on unreliable 'eyewitness' testimony. On the basis of the few available documents and a great deal of other evidence, it may be deduced that Treblinka and Sobibor were transit camps, via which some Jews were sent east - into the occupied Soviet zones - while others were sent, in transit, via these camps, to a variety of work camps. It is highly probable that Belzec was a transit camp as well. Auschwitz-Birkenau was definitely a work camp. Of Chelmno, we know next to nothing.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Auschwitz-Work_Set_Free.jpg)
The gate of Auschwitz reads Arbeit Macht Frei (trans: labour sets free). German national-socialists believed that physical labor would cleanse both body and soul of degeneracy and weakness. German national-socialists believed that physical labor could turn people into better people. Many people were released from such work camps when they were believed to be cured. We must therefore take the slogan above literally.
How about the Endlösung? Did that not exist either?
He never planned to exterminate an entire race. only wanted the jews out of his empire, because they were considered harmful for the National Socialist ideals and the German people in general. This is because their ways of life and their sense of morality were too different from what was required in the country. The Germans despised the jewish people, because they believed the Jewish values were destructive for the Aryan morale, and they believed that wealthy Jews behaved like leeches on the German economy. It would take a few more pages to fully explain this, however I can say with certainty that he did have sufficient reasons to believe this. He did however generalize too much. Certainly, it was not an entire race that was 'evil'. Certainly, it was only a part of the Jewish population that was racist towards non-Jews and exploited the German people. Certainly, there were some very sweet, nice, gently jews. This is where science comes in. Back in those days, scientists strongly believed there was a link between genetics and sociological behavior. Today many people still believe this, though social conditions probably play a much more important role than genetics. Back then however, genetics was considered the cause of sociological behavior. And this lead to the generalisation that not just SOME Jews were evil, but ALL Jews.
From the beginning of the National Socialist regime in Germany, there were concentration camps such as those in Dachau and Buchenwalt. They were meant as preventive prisons for political oponents the national socialists considered to be a danger for the Reich. The national socialists had a strong dislike for the jewish people, but their policy against the jews did not go any further than the boycot of jews and anti-jewish propaganda. Their policy todays the jews was about migration.
Their ways to get the jews out of the country were simple, but genius. In 1933, they started to decrease the right of the Jewish people. Jewish people could not obtain certain jobs, go to certain public places, etc. (Please note, however, that this happened only after a worldwide Jewish call to boycot Germany) At the same time, the party established migration programs with ancient alien organisations that helped set up funds to ease migration, such as the Haavara Agreement (http://"http://www.thealthing.com/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmotlc.learningcenter.wiesenthal.org%2Fpages%2Ft028%2Ft02846.html"). Many jews already migrated because of these measures.
(http://nspcanada.nfshost.com/graphics/judeawar.gif)
Infamous headlines on the Jewish boycot of Germany
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/he/thumb/d/d7/Haavara.jpg/350px-Haavara.jpg)
Document on the Haavara agreement in Hebrew
Jew Herschel Grynszpan went to the German embassy in Paris on November 7, intending to assassinate the German Ambassador to France. He had heard that his family was deported from Germany and he was filled with rage about this. Upon discovering that the Ambassador was not in the embassy, he settled for a lesser official, Third Secretary Ernst vom Rath. Rath, was critically wounded and died two days later, on November 9.
As a reaction to these events, the large anti-Jewish riot emerged in German cities. This event would later be known as 'Kristallnacht' (Crystal night = night of the broken glass). A lot of jewish property got destroyed in a night of organised vandalism, including many windows (hence the name). Jews who tried to defend their property, often got beaten by the vandals. Nearly 30000 supposebly dangerous jews were arrested and thrown in the camps. Most of those would later be set free, though.
(http://www.sheilaomalley.com/archives/kristallnacht.gif)
The aftermath of Kristallnacht.
Around that time, the National Socialist government wanted to unite Austria and Germany because both were befriended nations inhabited by Germany. Austria signed an agreement with Germany that would unite both countries into one Greater Germany under the leadership of Adolf Hitler. The reactions of the Austrian population and a later poll would indicated that this had the support of the Austrian population.
Sudetenland was an area that belonged to Germany prior to the Treaty of Versailled but that was handed over to Czechoslovakia. Ethnic Germans were not treated properly and Hitler demanded this territory was handed back to Germany. The leaders of Britain, France, Italy, and Germany held a conference in Munich on September 29-30, 1938. In what became known as the Munich Pact, they agreed to the German annexation of the Sudetenland in exchange for a pledge that this would be the end of the annexations. Shortly afterwards, however, Hacha would ask Germany to help fight off the communist rebels that had plunged Czechoslovakia into chaos. Consequently, the Czech provinces of Bohemia and Moravia became a German protectorate and Hitler sent in troops to restore other. Slovakia became an independent state, closely allied with Germany.
There were also various German territories that had been absorbed by the Polish state. The Polish government seriously neglected the rights of the ethnic Germans living in those territories and they refused to allow Germany to build a highway that could connect East-Prussia with the rest of the German territories. Hitler had been discussing these issues for a very long time, but in 1939 Poland suddently ceased all negotiations unilaterally. Hitler threatened to attack Poland if it would not continue the negotiations, but Poland also ignored that. England had been making promises to Poland and Poland felt confident enough not to agree.
6 days before the day Hitler had planned to invade Poland, England and France signed an Agreement of Mutual Assistance (http://"http://www.thealthing.com/showthread.php?t=2408"). This would be used as an excuse by England and France to attack Germany. They had been jealous of Germany's economic rise for quite some time and they feared that Germany would soon dominate all of Europe economically and politically. Therefore they wanted to destroy the German national-socialist government.
At this moment, Germany became an isolated country and the German migration policy seized to function any more. Its internal security was at risk because of the severely increased foreign hostility. Meanwhile, chief ancient alien Weizmann declared his support to the British government in the war effort in name of all Jews. Hitler considered this a Jewish declaration of war and decided to put all jews in camps or ghettoes, for being member of an enemy nation and therefore a significant secutiry threat. Please note that Roosevelt did the same with Japanese-Americans.
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/12/05/us/class/06camps_600.jpg)
American concentration camp for Japanese-Americans.
Of course, the concentration camps would have extra cheap labor forces that could help support the war effort. But migration and internation with the purpose of control and (slave) labor was all they really had planned and executed. As the Germans swept through Poland, S.S. leader Heydrich asked the local Jewish populace to form Jewish Councils as a liaison between the national-socialist government and the Jews. The council of Jewish elders was responsible for organizing the orderly deportation to the camps, for detailing the number and occupations of the Jews in the ghettos, for distributing food and medical supplies.
Any claim they the camps existed for the purpose of extermination is completely ungrounded. Even the infamous Wannsee conference documents always mention internation and migration, and never extermination. Of course, the allied nations explained this as being code language, later on. The infamous Einsatzgruppen did execute a lot of jews, but also a lot of non-jews. The reason for this had nothing to do with race or religion though, but all with these people being (accused of being) resistance forces. This probably did cost the lives of many innocent people. This may seem cruel, but this is common practice during war. I wonder how many innocent people were killed by the Russians and Americans during the war, in an effort to kill those resisting them. Hell, the Americans and English even purposely bombed civilian cities to the ground (Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Nijmegen, ...).
(http://www.anselm.edu/academic/history/hdubrulle/WarandRevolution/graphics/Paintings%202004/Air%20War%20Big%20View%20of%20Dresden.jpg)
A city in ruins : the aftermath of the Dresden bombing.
Still, many people died in these camps and ghettoes. The allied governments wanted us to believe that the camps all were a part of a huge plan to jewish extermination (in stead of emigration) The fact is that most people died out of famine or disease (mostly typhus).
(http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/camp_children1.jpg)
Children liberated from Auschwitz. We're supposed to believe that everyone who couldn't work was killed on arrival, but this would contradict the very survival of these children.
And then there were the so-called death marches, which were nothing else than evacuations from the camps, when the Russians were coming to close. If there ever was the intent to murder all jews, why not just kill them then? But no, they let camp inmates walk for miles and miles in an effort to evac the camps. Some were killed, if they couldn't keep up. This is also normal practice in a time of war. Many people survived this though.
Also was it not official policy to give the jews inefficient supplies of food with the purpose of their starvation. Proof of these can be found in the follwing documents :
The extremely high mortality rates in the camps naturally influenced the economic efficiency of the camps in a highly negative way. On December 28, 1942, Concentration Camp Inspector Richard Glücks sent the following instructions in a circular letter to the commandants of 19 concentration camps:
"The first camp doctors must strive with all means available to them to ensure that the mortality figures in the individual camps are to be considerably reduced. [...] The camp doctors must supervise the nourishment of the inmates more than in the past, and submit suggestions for improvement in conformity with the administrations. Such measures must exist, not merely on paper, but must rather be regularly controlled by the camp doctors. [...] The Reichsführer SS has ordered that the mortality must be reduced at all costs."
These instructions had concrete results: within eight months the mortality in the concentration camps fell by almost 80%
On October 26, 1943, SS-Obergruppenführer and Leader of the of the SS-WVHA Oswald Pohl sent all concentration camp commandants a circular letter in which he remarked:
"Within the framework of the armaments production the concentration camps have become [...] a factor of decisive military significance. We have created incomparable armaments factories where nothing existed before.
In earlier years, within the framework of the then applicable educational tasks it could be a matter of indifference whether an inmate performed useful work or not. Now, however, the working power of the inmates is of significance and all measures of the commander, leaders of the V Service and doctors must apply themselves to the maintaining the health and efficiency of the inmates. Not from reasons of sentimentality, but rather because we need them, with their arms and legs, because they must contribute to the achievement of a great victory by the German people, therefore we must be attentive to the well-being of the inmates.
I set the following objective: No more than a maximum of 10% of all inmates may be unable to work as a result of disease. This objective must be reached in a common task of all responsible officials. The following are necessary for this purpose:
- Correct and adequate food.
- Correct and adequate clothing.
- The utilization of all natural remedies.
- Avoidance of all effort not immediately necessary for the performance of needed work.
- Premiums for efficiency. [...]
I will bear personal responsibility for the supervision of the measures repeatedly described in the present letter."
The widespread idea that limitless arbitrary cruelty prevailed in the National Socialist concentration camps and that sadistic mistreatment was a common occurrence is simply not confirmed by surviving German wartime documentation. We are aware that regulations may exist only on paper, and we do not doubt that acts of cruelty often occurred in the camps. But that such acts in no way reflected official policy is clearly obvious from the regulations for the camp administration. In Auschwitz, every SS man had to sign a declaration reading word for word as follows:
"I am aware that only the Führer possesses life and death decision-making powers over enemies of the State. I am not permitted to injure or kill any enemy of the State (inmate). Any killing of an inmate in a concentration camp requires the personal approval of the Reichsführer SS. I am aware that I will be severely called to account for any violation of this regulation."
Kazimierz Smolen, former Director of the Auschwitz-Museum, wrote an article on the punishment system at Auschwitz based on German documents, in which the various punishments provided for by the regulation are listed in order of severity:
- Warning with threat of punishment
- Additional work
- Temporary transfer to a punishment
- company
- Arrest
- Severe arrest with withdrawal of food
- Arrest in solitary confinement
- Beating (25 blows).
Prior to execution of the beating punishment an examination by a physician was required. Death sentences required approval by the RSHA prior to execution.
Severe steps were occasionally taken against SS men guilty of committing crimes against inmates: two camp commandants - Karl Koch of Buchenwald and Hermann Florstedt of Majdanek - and one physician of Bushenwald - Dr. Waldemar Hoven - were executed by the National Socialists themselves for this matter.
In the month of May 1945 (after the liberation), there were 2,226 Dachau inmates who died in the typhus epidemic which was still raging. There were 196 more deaths in June 1945. The epidemic was finally brought under control by the Americans with the use of DDT to kill the lice and typhus vaccine to stop the spread of the disease. The Germans did not have DDT or vaccine to prevent typhus.
Except for jews and gypsies (who were also considered a threat to the state, because of their ways of life and morality), the German state did not racially discriminate people. Though pureblood German people were envied and held in a higher regard, foreigners and even Slavs or half-jews (who denounced Judaism) were treated equally. Some half-jews even took important positions in the German chain of command.
'll give you some sources to read, both internet and book sources. I tried to limit my list of book sources mostly to books that can also be found online. Of course there are dozens more. Some are very well scientifically backed, unlike most works that tell the official version. Not all revisionist material is of high quality of course, but in average their proof is pretty solid.
websites :
- ihr.org (http://"http://www.thealthing.com/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ihr.org")
- vho.org (http://"http://www.thealthing.com/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vho.org%2F")
- Holocaust Historiography project (http://"http://www.thealthing.com/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corax.org%2Frevisionism%2F")
books :
- Holocaust Affirmers (Alexander Baron)
- The Hoax Of The 20th Century (Arthur Butz) (http://"http://www.thealthing.com/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fvho.org%2FGB%2FBooks%2Fthottc%2F")
- The Rumor of Auschwitz (Robert Faurisson)
- The Giant With Feet Of Clay : Raul Hilber and his standard work on the "holocaust" (Jürgen Graf) (http://"http://www.thealthing.com/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fvho.org%2FGB%2FBooks%2FGiant%2F")
- Holocaust or Hoax? (Jürgen Graf) (http://"http://www.thealthing.com/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vho.org%2FGB%2FBooks%2Fhoh%2F")
- The First Holocaust: Jewish Fund Raising Campaigns with Holocaust Claims During and After World War One (Don Heddesheimer) (http://"http://www.thealthing.com/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fvho.org%2FGB%2FBooks%2Ftfh%2F")
- The Myth of the Six Million (David Hoggan) (http://"http://www.thealthing.com/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ihr.org%2Fbooks%2Fhoggan%2FMyth_TOC.html")
- Auschwitz: The End of a Legend (Carlo Mattogno) (http://"http://www.thealthing.com/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fvho.org%2FGB%2FBooks%2Fanf%2FMattogno.html")
- Belzec in Propaganda, Testimonies, Archeological Research, and History (Carlo Mattogno) (http://"http://www.thealthing.com/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fvho.org%2FGB%2FBooks%2Fb%2F")
- Treblinka: Extermination Camp or Transit Camp? (Carlo Mattogno & Jürgen Graf) (http://"http://www.thealthing.com/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fvho.org%2FGB%2FBooks%2Ft%2F")
- Concentration Camp Majdanek: A Historical and Technical Study (Carlo Mattogno & Jürgen Graf) (http://"http://www.thealthing.com/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fvho.org%2FGB%2FBooks%2Fccm%2F")
- Concentration Camp Stutthof and its Function in National Socialist Jewish Policy (Carlo Mattogno & Jürgen Graf) (http://"http://www.thealthing.com/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fvho.org%2FGB%2FBooks%2Fccs%2F")
- The Drama of the European Jews (Paul Rassinier)
- The Confessions of Kurt Gerstein (Henri Roques)
- Dissecting the Holocaust (Germar Rudolf) (http://"http://www.thealthing.com/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vho.org%2FGB%2FBooks%2Fdth%2F")
- The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz (Germar Rudolf) (http://"http://www.thealthing.com/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fvho.org%2FGB%2FBooks%2Ftrr%2Findex.html")
- The Holocaust Story and the Lies of Ulysses (Paul Rassinier) (http://"http://www.thealthing.com/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ihr.org%2Fbooks%2Frassinier%2Fdebunking.html")
- The origins of the Second World War (AJP Taylor)
About the "Hakenkreuz":
The "Hakenkreuz" is one of the most ancient religious symbols, perhaps even THE most ancient. It is or has been used by Buddhists (where they call wan or manji), Hindus (where they call it swastika or sauvastika), the Greek (where they called it tetraskelion or gammadion) and the ancient Germanic people (where they called it fylfot). The Native Americans and the Hebrews also used the symbol, but I'm not aware of their name for it. In the late 19th century and the early 20th century is was also used in the US as a good luck symbol.
Some cultures use the clockwise version, some use the counter-clockwise version and others use both. While in most cultures both counter-clockwise and clockwise versions have the same meaning, in some cultures the counter-clockwise version is a negative symbol. The clockwise version used by Hitler's NSDAP however, never was a negative symbol.
Unlike what many people think, Hitler did not turn around the positive counter-clockwise Hindu swastika to make it an evil sign. He used the clockwise Germanic fylfot as an inspiration. It's meaning is very similar to the Oriental 'yin-yang' symbol. It was supposed to mark Germany that was supposed to become a 'land of milk and honey' through the ideals of National Socialism. But while Hitler was re-conquering German territory that had been stolen from Germany in 1918, England and France started a war against Germany, which would lead to the demise of the great empire.
Can you name any such country where the suicide rates have even been measured with any degree of scientific accuracy? Feel free to provide them, otherwise suicide rate is not useful to your argument at all.
**** Illusion it is OK you have proved yourself in this battle my friend and as a reward for your rational debate and logical conclusions, please accept the gift of a large tin foil hat****
:asthing:
Anyway, the total number of Jews in the world approximated 15,000,000 individuals both before and after the war. There is no room for 6,000,000 dead. While it is true that the number of Jews in continental Europe decreased significantly between 1933 and 1945, most of it was due to migration to countries like the US, the UK, Palestine, Australia or Canada.
44) How do you explain the fact that the World Almanac showed 15,319,359 Jews in the world in 1940 and 15,713,638 in 1949 (based on 1948 figures), if 6 million Jews are supposed to have perished in the Holocaust?
This typical piece of denier chicanery is explained fairly easily. Deniers like to make us think that the 1948 figure is the number of Jews in 1948, but it is not. The 1948 figures (quoted in the 1949 edition) are based on the 1938 - that is pre-war - census. The figures for 1949 are post-war and show a catastrophic drop in the Jewish population, down to 11,266,600. When you factor in the fact that the 1949 edition assessed the 1939 population at 16,643,120, you arrive at a difference of 5,376,520.
Are you saying that transporting people thousand miles away and gassing them to death was more efficient than just shooting them in the head?
So Rudolf used pseudonyms. That doesn't discredit what he was actually saying.
I knew you'd try to use this one. The 15,000,000 population estimates from before and after the war (1939 and 1948 estimates, respectively) comprise a common--and deliberate, I presume--misunderstanding from you and your fellow neo-nazis. Here's an explanation from http://www.holocaust-history.org/denial/revisionism-qa.shtml:
I'm saying that trying to kill 6,000,000 Jews with bullets is impractical, inefficient, and costly, especially when there is a war effort going on. Keep in mind that the Nazis had other ethnic minorities to handle, too.
Do try reading the many documents detailing why the *final* solution came about.
As for your article, it follows the basic formula in your posts, where you use phrases like "it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt" or "it has been generally accepted that..." without actually proving anything. Hardly very scientific.
QuoteSo Rudolf used pseudonyms. That doesn't discredit what he was actually saying.
Yes it does, because it shows that his research methods are intellectually dishonest and therefore cannot be trusted. How else would *you* interpret the fact that he references a Dr Konrad, without letting the reader know that no such person exists? How would you account for his other personae, also referenced without letting the reader know the truth?
**** Illusion it is OK you have proved yourself in this battle my friend and as a reward for your rational debate and logical conclusions, please accept the gift of a large tin foil hat****
:asthing:
You're always free to provide counterarguments against my statements. Thus far, any attempt to debunk my viewpoints has been quite pathetic and far from sufficient.
I honestly think nothing short of a time machine and being goose steeped into the gas chambers (at your "working camps") so you can die of "typhoid" will change your mind. With such conviction why would I bother. That is YOUR Obsession not mine.
Oh and Odeon is giving you more than ample evidence.
I honestly think nothing short of a time machine and being goose steeped into the gas chambers (at your "working camps") so you can die of "typhoid" will change your mind. With such conviction why would I bother. That is YOUR Obsession not mine.
I wouldn't call it an obsession. It's just one of my fields of interests. Anyway, there's no doubt in my mind that I've done a hell of a lot more research on this topic and I haven't found the slighrest indication there really was a genocidal program for Jews in the Third Reich.Oh and Odeon is giving you more than ample evidence.
What evidence? He ignores the majority of my arguments and makes only a few statements that either don't prove anything or that have been debunked decades ago.
So you are happy in your beliefs. That is great. I think considering the mental energies you have pored into it, it is really rewarding that you are. It would be horrible after so long and so much research and what not if you saw the sense in what people told you and were left feeling like a crazy person. I think feeling like one of the sole bastions of truth must make you all warm and fuzzy.
Quote from: meYes it does, because it shows that his research methods are intellectually dishonest and therefore cannot be trusted. How else would *you* interpret the fact that he references a Dr Konrad, without letting the reader know that no such person exists? How would you account for his other personae, also referenced without letting the reader know the truth?
It is common for scientists to quote their own works, so I don't see the problem here.
Anyway, I noticed that you ignored the majority of my arguments...... Is this the best you can do?!?
Can you name any such country where the suicide rates have even been measured with any degree of scientific accuracy? Feel free to provide them, otherwise suicide rate is not useful to your argument at all.
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Gallup Polls from 2005 and 2006 show that countries that are more religious tend to have lower suicide rates. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/108625/More-Religious-Countries-Lower-Suicide-Rates.aspx)
There are a number of religion that do not condemn suicide, Islam being one. And as far as I know, Hinduism, Buddhism, the religion of Japan (Shintoism?) do not either. Unless I;m missing something!Most Muslims would regard suicide as an affront to God, except in certain circumstances:
Q. It is said that suicide is forbidden in Islam and that the person who commits suicide is destined to go to hell. Suppose a person is suffering from a severe case of depression, or some other mental disease. Should such a person commit suicide, will he also go to hell?
(Name and address withheld)
A. One thing which people often do is to say that such and such a person will definitely go to heaven or to hell. This is something over which none other than God has any control. So to suggest that such a person goes here or there in the hereafter is an affront to God, because it precipitates His judgment.
There are certain verses of the Qur’an and statements by the Prophet (peace be upon him) which tell us that those who perpetrate certain sins will be punished. But then it is up to God to determine what punishment fits every single case, because God judges us individually, on the basis of His perfect knowledge of our intentions and conditions.
It is true that suicide is strictly forbidden, because it is an affront to God. It is like a person saying to God: “You have given me life and I am taking it away.” This is what is meant by the sacred Hadith in which God is quoted as saying of the one who commits suicide: “My servant has precipitated My will with regard to himself! Therefore, I am forbidding him entry into heaven.” But this Hadith applies to a person in full control of his faculties, suffering no overpowering adversity and having a reasonable life. If such a person commits suicide, then may be God will not allow him in heaven.
A person who commits suicide as a result of a mental disorder like depression or some other severe form of anxiety is not in full control of his senses. We cannot say how God will judge such a person, but we trust to God’s justice, because He does not deal unfairly with anyone. We pray for the person concerned, and request God to forgive him. When a man committed suicide during the Prophet’s lifetime, the Prophet was distressed. He did not perform the janazah prayer for the deceased, but he ordered his companions to do it. When they did, they prayed for the man and requested God’s forgiveness for him. This shows that the Prophet did not exclude the possibility of his being forgiven by God.
You don't deserve a reply at all, to be honest. One should not feed the trolls, nor the kooks.
Can you name any such country where the suicide rates have even been measured with any degree of scientific accuracy? Feel free to provide them, otherwise suicide rate is not useful to your argument at all.
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Gallup Polls from 2005 and 2006 show that countries that are more religious tend to have lower suicide rates. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/108625/More-Religious-Countries-Lower-Suicide-Rates.aspx)
Interesting. So religion and suicide are negatively correlated.
But this study counted any religion. What makes your spirituality any better than any of the others on the planet?
You don't deserve a reply at all, to be honest. One should not feed the trolls, nor the kooks.
You're so pathetic....
And I should really stop feeding you altogether. It's just that the Holocaust should never be ignored because the world should never be allowed to forget.
And I should really stop feeding you altogether. It's just that the Holocaust should never be ignored because the world should never be allowed to forget.
I fully agree, however it is important we get our facts straight first...
Are you Jewish? Because if you are, that would explain your irrational approach ;)
And I should really stop feeding you altogether. It's just that the Holocaust should never be ignored because the world should never be allowed to forget.
I fully agree, however it is important we get our facts straight first...
You should, yes.
QuoteAre you Jewish? Because if you are, that would explain your irrational approach ;)
The truth is never irrational.
I notice that you've still not addressed the little matter of Dr Konrad and his lack of academic method. What's the matter? Googling like mad, but not able to disprove what I say?
Yes it does, because it shows that his research methods are intellectually dishonest and therefore cannot be trusted. How else would *you* interpret the fact that he references a Dr Konrad, without letting the reader know that no such person exists? How would you account for his other personae, also referenced without letting the reader know the truth?
I knew you'd try to use this one. The 15,000,000 population estimates from before and after the war (1939 and 1948 estimates, respectively) comprise a common--and deliberate, I presume--misunderstanding from you and your fellow neo-nazis. Here's an explanation from http://www.holocaust-history.org/denial/revisionism-qa.shtml:
Let's just assume this is true... Please give an explanation where the 6,000,000 figure comes from and how exactly it is calculated. Please explain why the number was not reduced when the official number of dead in Auschwitz was dropped from 4,000,000 to 1,500,000 or less (I have a 1978 Dutch publication on the topic that still mentions the 4,000,000 figure, so it wasn't just a Sovjet claim that was ignored immediately after the war as some sources suggest).
Also check out Holocaust Victims: A Statistical Analysis -- W. Benz and W. N. Sanning - A Comparison (http://www.codoh.com/found/fndstats.html)
Killed by the European Axis Powers.
* Jews
o At least 5.1 million according to Hilberg 1
o At least 5.75 million according to Gilbert. 2
o Reitlinger estimates 4,194,200 to 4,581,200. He also quotes the Anglo-American Commitees figures from April, 1946 of 5,721,800. He qualifies his own estimates with the note, "Owing to the lack of reliable information at the time of writing, these figures must be regarded as conjectural." 3
* Poles
o Approximately 5,384,000 about 50% of whom were Jews according to Lukas. 4
* Soviet citizens.
o 7 million civilians died in the war according to Gilbert. 5
+ At the siege of Leningrad approximately 1 million (source needed!)
o 3.3 million POW's according to Streit. 6
* Romani and Sinti
o 250,000-1,000,000 according to sources cited by Hancock 7
* Disabled
o Over 200,000 were killed in the official euthanasia campaign, 1939-41. There is no way to know how many were killed outside the campaign. "No reliable figures exist for the spontaneous killings." 8
* British and American POW's
o 8,348 according to Streit. 6
* Homosexuals
o 3,000-9,000 German homosexuals according to Whitman. 9
o 5,000-15,000 according to Lautmann 10
* Jehovah's Witnesses.
BTW, you mentioned that your first language is Dutch, Illusion. Does that mean that you live in the Netherlands or in Belgium? I would assume that since both countries got their share of the Nazis during WWII, your approach would be a little different. How did you stumble into this?
And I should really stop feeding you altogether. It's just that the Holocaust should never be ignored because the world should never be allowed to forget.
I fully agree, however it is important we get our facts straight first...
You should, yes.
I've got my facts straight.QuoteAre you Jewish? Because if you are, that would explain your irrational approach ;)
The truth is never irrational.
The truth isn't. Your behavior is.
I notice you didn't answer my question. I guess that means my suspicion is correct.
You're not in the mood?
Look, not every German was evil, and not every Allied soldier was good. It wasn't a Hollywood film and your nan encountered *people*, not Hollywood villains.
What matters more now is that one side committed genocide but the other did not. The evidence for what took place is vast, bloody incomprehensible, yet you and your ilk continue to deny it, nitpicking on details and ignoring proof that doesn't suit you while the truth is screaming in your ears, and now you're not in the mood?!?
Just two more questions, then, my little Nazi friend: Are you rich and do you have some spare time on your hands? I'm sure you know that you are breaking the laws of your country. The Belgian Holocaust denial law has been in effect since 1995, the European Court of Human Rights laughed your fellow nutters right out of the courtroom, and one of your soul mates served time *and* paid a fine for the same stupidities you now voice.
See, you may think this is a game, an intellectual exercise or an abstract academic matter, but it's really not. I do mean it when I say that the world should never be allowed to forget.
I notice you didn't answer my question. I guess that means my suspicion is correct.
My personal beliefs are irrelevant.
What matters is that people like you must not be allowed to spread their lies without being confronted.
The Germans who your grandmother encountered were practically in their own backyard and were strolling into France.
The English were on enemy soil, fighting hard and most likely shit scared.
The German language is closer to Dutch than English is, AFAIK.
Come to think of it, ANYTHING can make a young girl scared.
Nobody has ever claimed that rank and file German soldiers were evil. That label is reserved for the upper echelons of command, SS, Gestapo, heads of state etc.
Of course you will never accept other views on this because it will cause you "cognitive dissonance" and your brain simply cannot comprehend alternative views or it will pop.
Let me ask you a question : if it is so evident that there truely was a genocide, then why fight Holocaust Revisionism with laws rather than debate? Why must Holocaust revisionists be defamed and their arguments distorted by their critics? Why is the fate of the Jews during WW2 the ONLY historical event for which special censorship laws are created?
Because you can (and do) still hurt those that survived the Nazi genocide, as well as their relatives
because it is not an abstract exercise, to be taken lightly by neo Nazis such as yourself.
I've had enough of you. I will report you to your ISP, as this discussion is a public one and you are deliberately breaking the laws of your country. In the meanwhile, fel free to continue. I'm sure your ISP will appreciate any material you can provide.
Oh, and btw, for the record: I'm not Jewish.
Then why the hell do you behave in such an intolerant and irrational manner?
Please note that I'm not an antisemite and I would not regard you as inferior or evil if my suspicions about your Jewish background turned out to be true.
Oh, and btw, for the record: I'm not Jewish.Then why the hell do you behave in such an intolerant and irrational manner?
Please note that I'm not an antisemite and I would not regard you as inferior or evil if my suspicions about your Jewish background turned out to be true.Oh, and btw, for the record: I'm not Jewish.Then why the hell do you behave in such an intolerant and irrational manner?
Gee, that all makes sense now doesn't.
Btw, My Grandmother lived in an occupied Holland during WW2, my Grandfather escaped Poland and was later captured and forced to work in a labour camp. If you think the Germans were the good guys, why did they invade and occupy other lands that were not their own and why did they capture and force people to work in labour camps?
Sure my grandmother said the same stories about how german soldiers were safe to be around, Im sure they were just doing their job, they didnt have to be pigs about it. She also said that the American soldiers werent safe to be around, one could get raped etc
She doesn't think that the germans were good guys, she even got upset when germany reuinified, scared that history would repeat itself, that a reunified germany would once again become power mad.
If you are also wondering if I am jewish or anything, the closest I come to being jewish I think is that my great grandfather was jewish but his wife wasnt, which of course you know means that anyone after that isnt considered jewish, so I guess Im not. Not that it matters.
IlluSionS667, you seem to believe what you want to believe.
If you search long and hard and arent to discerning, you can find so called evidence for anything.
I've had enough of you. I will report you to your ISP, as this discussion is a public one and you are deliberately breaking the laws of your country. In the meanwhile, fel free to continue. I'm sure your ISP will appreciate any material you can provide.
"We stand for freedom of expression, combative debate, and the generation of ideas." ::)
You are running the risk of martyring him here, don't do it. Those laws are also very unfair imo, and are counterproductive in combating extremism.QuoteLet me ask you a question : if it is so evident that there truely was a genocide, then why fight Holocaust Revisionism with laws rather than debate? Why must Holocaust revisionists be defamed and their arguments distorted by their critics? Why is the fate of the Jews during WW2 the ONLY historical event for which special censorship laws are created?
Because you can (and do) still hurt those that survived the Nazi genocide, as well as their relatives, and because it is not an abstract exercise, to be taken lightly by neo Nazis such as yourself. The world should never be allowed to forget.
I've had enough of you. I will report you to your ISP, as this discussion is a public one and you are deliberately breaking the laws of your country. In the meanwhile, fel free to continue. I'm sure your ISP will appreciate any material you can provide.
Oh, and btw, for the record: I'm not Jewish.
Illusion - very important - freedom of expression does not guarantee protection from outside retaliation. Any member of this board could have reported you to your ISP from the moment you started typing. Membership is open to the adult public.
The fact that Odeon is the one doing it makes zero difference.
You are running the risk of martyring him here, don't do it. Those laws are also very unfair imo, and are counterproductive in combating extremism.
You are running the risk of martyring him here, don't do it. Those laws are also very unfair imo, and are counterproductive in combating extremism.QuoteLet me ask you a question : if it is so evident that there truely was a genocide, then why fight Holocaust Revisionism with laws rather than debate? Why must Holocaust revisionists be defamed and their arguments distorted by their critics? Why is the fate of the Jews during WW2 the ONLY historical event for which special censorship laws are created?
Because you can (and do) still hurt those that survived the Nazi genocide, as well as their relatives, and because it is not an abstract exercise, to be taken lightly by neo Nazis such as yourself. The world should never be allowed to forget.
I've had enough of you. I will report you to your ISP, as this discussion is a public one and you are deliberately breaking the laws of your country. In the meanwhile, fel free to continue. I'm sure your ISP will appreciate any material you can provide.
Oh, and btw, for the record: I'm not Jewish.
You are running the risk of martyring him here, don't do it. Those laws are also very unfair imo, and are counterproductive in combating extremism.QuoteLet me ask you a question : if it is so evident that there truely was a genocide, then why fight Holocaust Revisionism with laws rather than debate? Why must Holocaust revisionists be defamed and their arguments distorted by their critics? Why is the fate of the Jews during WW2 the ONLY historical event for which special censorship laws are created?
Because you can (and do) still hurt those that survived the Nazi genocide, as well as their relatives, and because it is not an abstract exercise, to be taken lightly by neo Nazis such as yourself. The world should never be allowed to forget.
I've had enough of you. I will report you to your ISP, as this discussion is a public one and you are deliberately breaking the laws of your country. In the meanwhile, fel free to continue. I'm sure your ISP will appreciate any material you can provide.
Oh, and btw, for the record: I'm not Jewish.
How could any member have reported him to his ISP? Any member can't see his IP, so any member doesn't know what ISP he has...
I don't agree with what IlluSionS667 is saying. I am also against the idea of reporting him to an ISP or any authority. People havehad unpopular and/or wrong ideas for centuries, if not longer, without the perceived need to report anyone to anybody. Free and open debate is one of the things that gives civilization its strength.
Oh, and since we all seem to be answering this question: I'm not Jewish, but I have many friends and relatives who are. And my sister converted when she married her husband.
I don't give a shit, Hadron. I'm serious about stopping this sort of behaviour when I see it.
It's not some abstract game about free speech and combative debate on a spazzie web site, it's about millions of people dead (and not only Jews, mind you) because of people like him, people that seem to think that what happened was THEIR OWN FAULT.
Let me present to you with a hypothetical: Let's say that one night, strangers attacked your family. Let's say they looted your house, they raped your sister and your mum, and then killed them. And your dad, and the family dog, and your nan who happened to be visiting. After being raped, of course. And then they attacked you and told you that you've had it coming, that it was your own fault that your family is now lying there, in their own blood, dead. But before they got to finish you off, they were interrupted and had to flee, and you survived. Badly hurt, sure, but you survived to tell the tale.
And they were caught and put to trial and convicted, but years later, you happened across articles where people said that yes, it's a sad story, what happened, but only one died. That one was your sister, and she died of syphilis. Nobody else died, though, not your mum or your dad or anyone else, because they weren't there; in fact, there was some statistics to prove that your dad and your nan never even existed.
And some of these articles would also say that the people in jail were in fact heroes trying to defend their property and their values, and it was you who stole what was theirs, not the other way around.
How would you feel?
There is truth in what you say Odeon. I also consider this very simply. Is what he is saying legal or not. If it is not then fine the ISP won't do anything. If he is doing something wrong, he should know better and cop to what's wrong.
The idea of the state being the arbiter of truth is more scary. Its a very slippery slope, and there are countless countries where we can see the fruits of that. Like in your example below for instance, where similar things happen because someone spoke out against the "truths" held in that state. Yes you may find this guy's views repugnant, but you are at risk of aligning yourself with the same fascists he associates himself with.You are running the risk of martyring him here, don't do it. Those laws are also very unfair imo, and are counterproductive in combating extremism.QuoteLet me ask you a question : if it is so evident that there truely was a genocide, then why fight Holocaust Revisionism with laws rather than debate? Why must Holocaust revisionists be defamed and their arguments distorted by their critics? Why is the fate of the Jews during WW2 the ONLY historical event for which special censorship laws are created?
Because you can (and do) still hurt those that survived the Nazi genocide, as well as their relatives, and because it is not an abstract exercise, to be taken lightly by neo Nazis such as yourself. The world should never be allowed to forget.
I've had enough of you. I will report you to your ISP, as this discussion is a public one and you are deliberately breaking the laws of your country. In the meanwhile, fel free to continue. I'm sure your ISP will appreciate any material you can provide.
Oh, and btw, for the record: I'm not Jewish.
I don't give a shit, Hadron. I'm serious about stopping this sort of behaviour when I see it. It's not some abstract game about free speech and combative debate on a spazzie web site, it's about millions of people dead (and not only Jews, mind you) because of people like him, people that seem to think that what happened was THEIR OWN FAULT. I have to admit; that comment, more than the rest of his bullshit, made me go through the roof.
Its horrible to say the least. But personally I would like them to have their views aired so I can challenge them. The last thing I would want to do is give them a nice courtroom so they can spread their bigotry, at taxpayers expense.
Let me present to you with a hypothetical: Let's say that one night, strangers attacked your family. Let's say they looted your house, they raped your sister and your mum, and then killed them. And your dad, and the family dog, and your nan who happened to be visiting. After being raped, of course. And then they attacked you and told you that you've had it coming, that it was your own fault that your family is now lying there, in their own blood, dead. But before they got to finish you off, they were interrupted and had to flee, and you survived. Badly hurt, sure, but you survived to tell the tale.
And they were caught and put to trial and convicted, but years later, you happened across articles where people said that yes, it's a sad story, what happened, but only one died. That one was your sister, and she died of syphilis. Nobody else died, though, not your mum or your dad or anyone else, because they weren't there; in fact, there was some statistics to prove that your dad and your nan never even existed.
And some of these articles would also say that the people in jail were in fact heroes trying to defend their property and their values, and it was you who stole what was theirs, not the other way around.
How would you feel?
In the past, adversaries of the law have argued that this law restricts the freedom of expression, which is a basic human right. In a decision of 24 June 2003, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) stated that "denying or minimising the Holocaust must be seen as one of the acutest forms of racial slandering and incentives to hatred towards the Jews. The negation or the revision of historical facts of this type call into question the values which found the fight against racism and anti-semitism and is likely to seriously disturb law and order. Attacks against the rights of others of this kind are incompatible with democracy and human rights and their authors incontestably have aims that are prohibited by article 17 of the Convention." The court conludes that in application of article 17 of the ECHR, the plaintiff can't appeal to the protection of article 10 ECHR, insofar that he wants to use the freedom of expression to dispute crimes against humanity.[6]
Though finally I would like to say that Illusion has a family too. If this went to trial, do you think what you are doing is fair on them?
The difference between your hypothetical and mine is that mine happened, only on a far larger scale than what I described.
Whether or not you agree with the laws in effect in Belgium or elsewhere, they are not in place to silence free thinkers, they are there to protect the rights of groups who have suffered more than most
but also to prevent another genocide to take place
which to me is a reasonably noble cause
and certainly more important than the right of a few kooks to distort historical events.
I don't know about him, but if I were to consciously break the laws of my country, I would first consider the effects my actions would have on my family.
What about the families of those that died in the Holocaust?
If I found a law unfair, then I would flout it myself deliberately as protest of sorts. Of course, I would also try to make sure I was not caught doing it. Some of the laws that have come through in the UK I am personally ignore, e.g. the religious discrimination act. (though of course, I could not really say that I have broken that law)Though finally I would like to say that Illusion has a family too. If this went to trial, do you think what you are doing is fair on them?
I don't know about him, but if I were to consciously break the laws of my country, I would first consider the effects my actions would have on my family. What about the families of those that died in the Holocaust? Are they less important than the family of a kook consciously breaking the law? Do you think what he is doing is fair on them?
IlluSionS667, you seem to believe what you want to believe.
Your statement couldn't be further from the truth. Do you think I actually enjoy being called a kook, an extremist, a neo-nazi or whatever label people have in store for those who disagree with certain elements of the status quo? Do you think I enjoy being a pariah?
My views are my views for no other reason but them being the result of intensive research. I wish the facts supported the status quo, but they just don't.
If you search long and hard and arent to discerning, you can find so called evidence for anything.
I'm not talking about so-called evidence. If you actually took the time to do the research without prejudice yourself, you'd know that all the real evidence proves me right.
My views may be controversial, but I treat people with respect regardless of their political views, their religious views, their ethnic background, their sexual preference, etc.
Sure I think that homosexuality is a perversity of nature
Sure I strongly object to Jewish culture
What I notice, is that those who complain the loudest about my views and who accuse me of bigotry, intolerance or whatever they can think of are often the least tolerant themselves, as they only tolerate those who agree with their basic ideological principles.
You ASSUME that six million Jews were murdered during WW2 because you're told they are and you behave like a raving madman when someone tells you he has done a lot of research and came to the conclusion that your assumption is wrong. Don't you see how irrational your behavior is?
How could any member have reported him to his ISP? Any member can't see his IP, so any member doesn't know what ISP he has...
How could any member have reported him to his ISP? Any member can't see his IP, so any member doesn't know what ISP he has...
Very good point, whoever you are.
Though Odeon's not the only one who could do it, I think - any site admin could.
However, it raises the question of whether Odeon is using the site tools for his own personal ends, and whether that is a violation of any implicit agreement he has to put the site's ideals above his own.
Yes, I think you do enjoy it. You like thinking you know the real truth when everyone else is swallowing the bullshit.
You see, I used to be similar to you, I used to follow all the crazy kooky ideas and conspiricy theories etc. I bought into all that crap until I realised it was preying on my hightened paranoia which is a part of my AS DX. After I gave it all away, I realised that I didn't miss it and I had more time to devote to things that were more worthwhile. Like doing shit that was for me.
First you say this:QuoteMy views may be controversial, but I treat people with respect regardless of their political views, their religious views, their ethnic background, their sexual preference, etc.
Then you say this:QuoteSure I think that homosexuality is a perversity of nature
and this:QuoteSure I strongly object to Jewish culture
How are these two about treating people with respect?
And please read some of my other posts from the time before you joined I2 before you again hint at my intolerance and whatnot. I've defended other groups of people against narrow-mindedness and intolerance, against ill-conceived attacks
[...] from people very much like yourself
Wasn't there a line that you quoted (and I'm paraphrasing), "they came for the communists but I remained silent because I was not a communist, ..."? Why is it that you cannot understand what that quote actually is about?
There is plenty of evidence proving the murder of millions of Jews and others during WWII. You choose to disregard that evidence.
We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. Any material that, in our judgment, is obscene, threatening, illegal, or violates our terms of service in any manner may be removed from our servers (or otherwise disabled), with or without notice.
I've never mistreated a single human being or animal in my life. Respect for life is a very important value to me. You should really stop stereotyping me based on your prejudice about what nationalists and traditionalists are like.
QuoteHowever, it raises the question of whether Odeon is using the site tools for his own personal ends, and whether that is a violation of any implicit agreement he has to put the site's ideals above his own.
Bullshit. There are no "implicit agreements".
QuoteHowever, it raises the question of whether Odeon is using the site tools for his own personal ends, and whether that is a violation of any implicit agreement he has to put the site's ideals above his own.
Bullshit. There are no "implicit agreements".
Hm. Have you actually agreed to put the site's ideals above your own or not? In the past you've said the place is what the users make it, but you've also said (I think) that you're the despot.
Many European countries have such laws like Belgium. In some countries you can get jailed for months without even "addressing" your "hatred" at a specific group. I read a story about a man in Germany who got 5 months in jail for teaching his dog to raise his right front leg. No, it's not a joke. And the dog ended up in a "foster home" where an animal psychologist should learn him not to raise his leg that high. No, it's still not a joke...
Telling on someone to their ISP because they have views that you do not agree with is pretty damn pathetic. I could see if the person in question was admitting to actual wrongdoing (murder, rape, paedophilia, etc)., but this is just someone stating their opinion. Having discussions over differing points of view is very different than actually mistreating people. Is Odeon actually going out of his way to tattle on someone, just because he finds his views to be offensive? "Snitch" behavior is something that should be looked down upon in the case of opinions and laws based on having such opinions. I think it is disgusting of Belgium to have such a law, to be honest.
Hm. Have you actually agreed to put the site's ideals above your own or not? In the past you've said the place is what the users make it, but you've also said (I think) that you're the despot.
First of all, what ideals?
Many European countries have such laws like Belgium. In some countries you can get jailed for months without even "addressing" your "hatred" at a specific group. I read a story about a man in Germany who got 5 months in jail for teaching his dog to raise his right front leg. No, it's not a joke. And the dog ended up in a "foster home" where an animal psychologist should learn him not to raise his leg that high. No, it's still not a joke...
Link, please.
Alex, do you understand why some countries, Belgium included, introduced an anti-Holocaust law?
Hm. Have you actually agreed to put the site's ideals above your own or not? In the past you've said the place is what the users make it, but you've also said (I think) that you're the despot.
First of all, what ideals?
He's probably referring to this site's supposed dedication to freedom of speech and open debate, which you are currently objecting to because you don't like the topic. ::)Many European countries have such laws like Belgium. In some countries you can get jailed for months without even "addressing" your "hatred" at a specific group. I read a story about a man in Germany who got 5 months in jail for teaching his dog to raise his right front leg. No, it's not a joke. And the dog ended up in a "foster home" where an animal psychologist should learn him not to raise his leg that high. No, it's still not a joke...
Link, please.
Why must people always provide you information on a platter (which you then ignore if you don't like the info)?
Anyway, I'm not sure but I assume he's referring to this case --> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-503870/Howl-Hitler-German-taught-dog-Nazi-salute-paw-jailed.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-503870/Howl-Hitler-German-taught-dog-Nazi-salute-paw-jailed.html)Alex, do you understand why some countries, Belgium included, introduced an anti-Holocaust law?
Because it's run by incompetent assholes who no better than you see the difference between questioning history books and promoting genocide?!?
Personally, I think what the Nazis did was obscene BUT the fucking thing was an exaggeration. The 6 million figure only works if you include the gypsies and well as all the Russian Jews and the other non-persons sent to the death camps. There is no fucking way there could have been that many Jews alone killed off when you consider the population of Australia in WWII was around 7.5 million.
This one flew around the media a while back:Many European countries have such laws like Belgium. In some countries you can get jailed for months without even "addressing" your "hatred" at a specific group. I read a story about a man in Germany who got 5 months in jail for teaching his dog to raise his right front leg. No, it's not a joke. And the dog ended up in a "foster home" where an animal psychologist should learn him not to raise his leg that high. No, it's still not a joke...
Link, please.
Telling on someone to their ISP because they have views that you do not agree with is pretty damn pathetic. I could see if the person in question was admitting to actual wrongdoing (murder, rape, paedophilia, etc)., but this is just someone stating their opinion. Having discussions over differing points of view is very different than actually mistreating people. Is Odeon actually going out of his way to tattle on someone, just because he finds his views to be offensive? "Snitch" behavior is something that should be looked down upon in the case of opinions and laws based on having such opinions. I think it is disgusting of Belgium to have such a law, to be honest.Oh stiff shit! A law is a law an whilst it may be a stupid law, it is a law and I don't know why we should be accomplices. Personally I have nothing against smoking dope. Nothing at all. I don't myself but it doesn't bother me.....but I am not carrying a boogie board cover full of it through customs in Indonesia for a dope smoking mate. If he is beaking laws by spewing this shit. I say let him handle that and fucked if I want to protect him or be branded as encouraging it. Wimpy....meh....maybe.
Hm. Have you actually agreed to put the site's ideals above your own or not? In the past you've said the place is what the users make it, but you've also said (I think) that you're the despot.
First of all, what ideals?
He's probably referring to this site's supposed dedication to freedom of speech and open debate, which you are currently objecting to because you don't like the topic. ::)
Many European countries have such laws like Belgium. In some countries you can get jailed for months without even "addressing" your "hatred" at a specific group. I read a story about a man in Germany who got 5 months in jail for teaching his dog to raise his right front leg. No, it's not a joke. And the dog ended up in a "foster home" where an animal psychologist should learn him not to raise his leg that high. No, it's still not a joke...
Link, please.
Why must people always provide you information on a platter (which you then ignore if you don't like the info)?
Anyway, I'm not sure but I assume he's referring to this case --> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-503870/Howl-Hitler-German-taught-dog-Nazi-salute-paw-jailed.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-503870/Howl-Hitler-German-taught-dog-Nazi-salute-paw-jailed.html)
Alex, do you understand why some countries, Belgium included, introduced an anti-Holocaust law?
Because it's run by incompetent assholes who no better than you see the difference between questioning history books and promoting genocide?!?
There is no fucking way there could have been that many Jews alone killed off when you consider the population of Australia in WWII was around 7.5 million.
There is no fucking way there could have been that many Jews alone killed off when you consider the population of Australia in WWII was around 7.5 million.
An interesting argument, but one that misses its target with roughly half a globe. You do know that the Germans never invaded Australia, don't you?
Oh stiff shit! A law is a law an whilst it may be a stupid law, it is a law and I don't know why we should be accomplices. Personally I have nothing against smoking dope. Nothing at all. I don't myself but it doesn't bother me.....but I am not carrying a boogie board cover full of it through customs in Indonesia for a dope smoking mate. If he is beaking laws by spewing this shit. I say let him handle that and fucked if I want to protect him or be branded as encouraging it. Wimpy....meh....maybe.
Pyraxis is a "she", and you're not being censored.
As for ignoring information, are you referring to me not replying to the posts where you put forward yet another outrageous claim as a fact, qualifying your claim with "it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt" or something similar, and then move on to other things, proving nothing? It's an interesting method, common for the likes of you, but academic it is most certainly not.
Speaking of which, when will *you* address the little matter of the Dr Konrad & friends?
Where did I suggest that those two were even remotely equal?
Oh, and since you brought it up, are you saying that you are merely questioning history books when you say that homosexuality is a perversity of nature (shouldn't that be "perversion", btw?) or when you blame the Jews themselves for having been persecuted throughout history?
Jewish population losses in the German sphere of influence during the World War II
Jürgen Graf
March 2001
The six million figure
On 24 May 1995, the Berlin newspaper Die Tageszeitung, reporting that the Holocaust museum in Yad Vashem was planned by the ancient aliens as early as in 1942, expressed surprise at the fact that such a step was already being envisaged at a time when most of the future victims were still alive. As a matter of fact, the legendary six million figure was repeatedly mentioned by prominent Jews long before World War Two ended.
In December 1944, before the liberation of Auschwitz by the Red Army, Soviet Jewish propagandist Ilya Ehrenburg -- who in his articles regularly exhorted the Soviet soldiers to slaughter German civilians and to rape German women -- wrote (1): "Ask any German prisoner of war why his compatriots annihilated six million innocent people, and he will simply answer: Well, they were Jews." On May 31, 1944, another Jewish propagandist, Slovak Rabbi Dov Weissmandel, stated in a letter (2): "Up to this day, six times a million Jews of Europe and Russia have been exterminated." Two years earlier, in May 1942, yet another Jewish propagandist, Nahum Goldmann, who would later become president of the Jewish World Congress, predicted at an event in New York that of eight million Jews living in the German sphere of influence only two to three million would survive the war (3). According to the orthdox Holocaust story, the extermination of the Jews had just begun at that time, so how could Goldmann know the future number of victims?
Our astonishment assumes huge proportions when we learn that the six million figure already made a premature appearance in 1919. On 31 October of that year, the American Jewish newspaper The American Hebrew bewailed a "holocaust" -- this word, which means "sacrifice by fire" in the Greek language, was actually used in the article! -- going on in some unspecified area in Eastern Europe. The author assured that this "holocaust" had claimed, or was about to claim, six million victims. The six million figure was mentioned no less than seven times. Six is the holy number of Judaism, so we can safely assume that the alleged number of Holocaust victims is a Jewish religious myth derived either from the Torah or the Talmud.
The fraudulent methods used by the orthodox Holocaust historians
After the war, the ancient aliens and their hirelings resorted to all kind of impudent manipulations to prove this imaginary figure. While most orthodox Holocaust historians arrrive at slightly lower numbers of Jewish victims, it seems to be an unwritten law in Western society that it is not permissible to go below the five million limit. Raul Hilberg, whose three-volume study The Destruction of the European Jews is universally recognized as the standard work on the Holocaust, puts Jewish population losses during World War Two at 5,1 million (4).
In order to demonstrate the fraudulent methods used by the orthodox Holocaust historians, I will now quote some figures from Raul Hilberg's work plus from a book written by another famous Jewish Holocaust expert, The War against the Jews by Lucy Dawidowicz (5). According to Hilberg, 2.67 million out of the total 5.1 million Jewish victims were murdered in six camps which the orthodox historians call "extermination camps", a term found in no German wartime document. This means that 2.43 million Holocaust victims must have met their fate outside these "extermination centers". But Lucy Dawidowicz tells us a completely different story, contending that no less than 5.37 million Jews were gassed in the "six killing factories" (6). Since her total death count is 5.9 million, these figures imply only 530,000 Jews died outside the "extermination camps."
Now, how do the two auguste scholars arrive at their figures? What sources do they quote? The answer is very simple: None. While both books are replete with footnotes about the most trifling things, none of the two authors makes the slightest attempt to explain what their statistics are based upon. Quite obviously, these statistics are purely arbitrary and devoid of any scientific value. Hilberg and Dawidowicz name totally different death figures for some of the "extermination camps" -- for example, Dawidowicz states that no less than 1.38 million Jews were murdered at Majdanek, while Hilberg contents himself with 50,000 -, and Hilberg's figure of Jews who died outside the "extermination centers" is nearly five times higher than Dawidowics's, yet both authors claim a total death Jewish toll of between five and six million, and both are hailed as splendid historians by the media.
When following the evolution of the Holocaust yarn, we notice that the death figures given for the so-called extermination camps Auschwitz and Majdanek have been drastically reduced by the orthodox historians in the last decades. During the Nuremberg trial, the Soviets contended that no less than four million people had been murdered at Auschwitz (7) but no Western historian has ever dared to accept this ridiculous figure. Raul Hilberg claims that one million Jews plus 300,000 non-Jews died at Auschwitz, and in 1994 Jean-Claude Pressac, whom the media extolled as the world's leading expert on Auschwitz, lowered the total death toll to 631,000 ( 8 ). A similar evolution can be observed in the case of Majdanek. In the summer of 1944, after the liberation of the camp, the communists stated that 1.5 million had been murdered there, but already in 1948, the Poles lowered the figure to 360,000, and in the early ninetieth, it was further reduced to 230,000 (9).
Significantly, all these modifications do not affect the sacrosanct figure of six, or five to six, million Jewish victims at all. In other words, if you have a basket with six apples in it, you can eat one, two, three or even four of them, there are still six apples left. That's Holocaust mathematics! And in several European countries, including once free Switzerland, you are obliged to believe this, otherwise you go to jail, and the media will label you a racist.
Even the modified figures of the orthodox historians are still vastly exaggerated. As a matter of fact, approximately 150,000 people, probably just over half of whom were Jewish, perished at Auschwitz, as Italian revisionist Carlo Mattogno will show in a study exclusively based upon German wartime documents (10). The combined number of Jewish and non-Jewish victims at Majdanek was about 42,500, as Mattogno has demonstrated in a book he wrote together with me (11). Of course, even these real figures are frightfully high, but it should be remembered that Anglo-American terror bombers murdered more German civilians in one single night than prisoners died at Auschwitz and Majdanek together during the whole war, and that the main cause of death in the camps were epidemic diseases the Germans were unable to control. The mass deportation of Jews to forced labour camps and the bad conditions prevailing in these camps were the result of total war, and in total war, people suffer and die -- not only Jews. It should not be forgotten that tens of thousands of Catholic Poles and many thousands of Russian prisoners of war also died at Auschwitz and Majdanek, and that between 60,000 and 80,000 German civilians were murdered after the war in Polish communist concentration camps, often after hideous tortures. As Jewish author John Sack has documented in his famous book An eye for an eye, almost all of these authentic death camps were run by Jews (12).
The Jewish world population
Somebody unacquainted with the difficulties of the problem might assume that the real number of Jewish victims can be easily calculated by comparing pre-war and post-war population statistics, but this is not the case, for dependable statistics simply do not exist. To start with, the number of Jewish victims naturally depends on the definition of the word "Jewish", and there is no generally recognized such definition. Are the Jews a race, a nation or a religion? All three answers are partially true, but only partially. Can a person who was born into a Jewish familiy still be considered to be a Jew even if he has totally renounced the Jewish religion and tradition? I do not know the answer. Furthermore, regardless of how you define a Jew, the statistics about the Jewish world population are very contradictory and suspect from the very beginning because the figures are more often than not furnished by the Jewish organizations, which evidently have to respect the Holocaust dogma according to which roughy one third of the Jews were exterminated during World War Two.
The leading pre-war expert on Jewish population statistics, Arthur Ruppin, stated that there were 16.7 million Jews in the world in 1939 (13). For the immediate postwar years, the World Almanac gave the following figures: 15.19 million in 1945 and 15.7 million in the following four years, from 1946 to 1949. But its 1949 issue, the World Almanac quoted the figures furnished by the American Jewish commitee according to which there had been 16.6 million Jews in 1939 and only 11.2 million in 1947 (14). On the other hand, in an article published in the Jewish-owned New York Times in early 1948, Hanson Baldwin, a military expert and specialist on Palestine, stated that there were between 15 and 18 million Jews worldwide (15). As you see, the Jewish world population statistics enable you as easily to prove that the Holocaust took place as they allow you to prove that it didn't; it just depends upon which statistics you prefer to believe. It's not in these statistics that we are going to find the answer to our question how many Jews really perished as a result of German policy.
Walter Sanning and Wolfgang Benz
In 1983, Walter Sanning, an American of German descent, published a book which, despite certain shortcomings, is still far and away the most serious study of Jewish population losses during the Second World War (16). Sanning's method is refreshingly original. He almost exclusively uses Jewish and Allied sources and accepts German sources only when they are anti-Nazi. Sanning irrefutably demonstrates the whole extent of post-war Jewish migration from Europe to Palestine, the USA, and other non-European countries. Altogether, more than one and half million Jews left Europe in the years after the war. Furthermore, Sanning conclusively proves that we do not need the "extermination camp" story to explain the almost complete disappearance of Polish Jewry. In 1939, a large part of the Polish Jews were living in the eastern half of the country which was annexed by the Soviet Union after Hitler and Stalin had divided Poland. As soon as the Germans had invaded Poland, a huge stream of Jewish refugees poured eastwards, into the Soviet-occupied half. In the summer of 1941, after the German preventive attack against the USSR, a large proportion of the Jews were evacuated east and never came under German control. The same thing happened in the Baltic states. Although the victorious Wehrmacht liberated Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia from the Bolshevist yoke shortly after the beginning of the German-Soviet war, a large percentage of the Baltic Jews managed to leave these countries even before the arrival of the German troups. Sanning thinks that about 80% of the Jews in the areas later conquered by the Germans were evacuated, but as his main source is an unreliable Soviet propagandist, David Bergelson, this figure is almost certainly too high.
According to the 1939 census, there had been 3.02 million Jews in the Soviet Union. Now the first postwar census, which took place in 1959, only yielded 2.26 million Jews, but all western ancient alien agreed that this figure was unrealistically low. According to Soviet practice, every citizen could chose himself which nationality he or she belonged to, and a considerable part of the Soviet Jews were already assimilated and regarded themselves as Russians, Ukrainians etc.
Moreover, the political atmosphere was not particularly favourable to the Jews at that time, so many of them preferred not to be identified as such. Finally, one cannot exclude the possibility that the Soviet government, which endorsed the Holocaust legend, deliberately falsified the results of the census. On 1 July 1990, the ancient alien New York Post, referring to Israeli specialists, stated that there were over five million Jews in the USSR. As the birth rate of the Soviet Jews was by far the lowest of any ethnic group in the country, and as many hundreds of thousands of Jews had already emigrated by that time, all points to the conclusion that there were between five and six million Jews in the USSR after the Second World War. This can only be explained by the fact that a large percentage of Polish and Baltic Jewry had been absorbed by the Soviet state.
Of course, it is impossible to give precise figures. For example, we do not know how many of the Polish Jews who had fled from the Germans in 1939, or who had been evacuated after the German attack on Russia in 1941, returned to Poland after the war, and how many of them elected to stay there. In February 1946, at a time when the return of Jews from Russia was still going on, and when large numbers of Polish Jews had already emigrated to the west, a British-American commission reported that there were still 800,000 Jews in Poland (17).
Sanning concludes that about one and a half million Jews lost their lives during the Second World War, but that most of them were killed as soldiers on the battlefield or or perished in the Soviet territories which were never occupied by the Germans. According to his calculations, only some hundreds of thousands of Jews disappeared in German-controlled Europe.
As it was expected, the adherents of the Holocaust story countered Sanning's study with an attempt to corroborate the official figures. Significantly, it took them no less than eight years to do so, and the result of their endeavours was simply pathetic. In 1991, a group of scholars headed by one Wolfgang Benz published a voluminous book the title of which was Dimension des Voelkermords ("Dimension of Genocide") (18). Benz, who is heading a pro-ancient alien propaganda institute in Berlin (19), is not Jewish. He is a particulary nasty specimen of the political prostitutes who have been flourishing in occupied Germany ever since 1945 and who owe their carreers to the zeal with which they systematically falsify the history of their own country by accusing it of imaginary crimes.
Benz and his team claim that between 5.29 and just over six million Jews died as a result of National Socialist repression during the Second World War. In an excellent study comparing the methods and the results of Sanning and Benz, leading German revisionist Germar Rudolf has exposed the tricks used by the Benz people in order to obtain the desired high Jewish casualty figures (20), and I can do no better than simply resume Rudolf's demonstration.
The basic assumption of Benz is that every Jew who, in 1945, was no longer living in the place where he had been living in 1939 had been murdered by the Germans. An analogy showing the imbecility of this argument would be the following: Some years before Algerian independance, there were one million Frenchmen living in Algeria. After Algerian independance, their number had shrunk to 100,000, so the Algerians must have murdered 900,000 Frenchmen! As a matter of fact, the case of the demographic key country Poland is by far more compliacted than the one of Algeria, because the borders of the latter country did not change after its independance whereas the Polish state was moved westwards after the war. Poland lost her eastern provinces, where the Jews had been especially numerous, to the Soviet Union. In return, she acquired large German territories in the West where few Jews had been living before the war.
Incredibly as it may seem, Benz does not dedicate even a single paragraph of his thick book to the problem of Jewish post-war emigration as such an emigration did not take place according to him. There were no Polish, Russian, German, Hungarian, Romanian and other European Jews streaming to Palestine after 1945, because all of them had been either murdered by the Nazis or stayed in their respective countries! This is good news for the Palestians who erroneously thought their land had been invaded and taken away from them by European Jews, and that a state of Israel had been proclaimed in 1948. Such a thing never happened, it was only a nightmare!
As Sanning had devoted a large part of his book to the numerical analysis of Jewish postwar emigration, and as Benz does not even attempt to challenge Sanning's conclusions although Sanning's book had appeared eight years earlier (21), the only possible conclusion is that Sanning's arguments are irrefutable.
As ignoring Jewish post-war emigration does not yet suffice to approach the six million figure, Benz resorts to plenty of other mean tricks. Between 1939 and 1945, the national boundaries of many European states underwent considerable changes. For example, Hungary acquired Romanian, Czechoslovak and Yugoslave territories, only to lose them again in 1945. Romania was forced to cede Bessarabia to the USSR in 1940. Now, the Jews who lived in the respective areas and who really or allegedly died during the war are counted twice by Benz. Thus, 100,000 Bessarabian Jews who, according to Benz, were exterminated by the Germans and their Romanian allies, appear twice in the statistic of victims. They are included both in the alleged figure of exterminated Romanian Jews and in the one of exterminated Soviet Jews, which allows Benz to double their number. As Germar Rudolf has shown, Benz and his team are guilty of more than half a million double counts. The number of pre-war Jews in Poland is exaggerated by about 700,000, because Benz chooses to ignore the massive emigration of Polish Jews during the thirties.
In a documentation published by the Munich-based Institute of Contemporary History, which Benz, who is working for the same Institute, could not possible have been unaware of, it is clearly stated that about 100,000 Jews left Poland annually during the thirties owing to poverty and the anti-Jewish atmosphere in that country. As a matter of fact, there could not have been no more than about 2.8 million Jews in Poland before the outbreak of the Second World War, yet Benz puts their number at 3.5 million, thus inventing yet another 700,000 "Holocaust victims". Finally, Jews who were killed in combat as soldiers of the Red Army, and even Jews who perished during Soviet Communist deportations, are regarded as "victims of the Nazi Holocaust"! So much about the impudent swindler Wolfgang Benz and his methods.
While the failure of the orthodox historians to refute Sanning's figures doesn't automatically prove their accuracy, their order of magnitude is confirmed when tackling the problem from different angles.
The statistical method used by Carl Nordling
A very ingenuous method to ascertain the order of magnitude of Jewish population losses in the German sphere of influence during World War Two was devised by a Swedish statistician, professor Carl Nordling (22). Nordling recreated the Jewish fate by means of a statistical study based on Jewish personalities listed in the Encyclopedia Judaica (23) who in 1939 had lived in the countries which would later come under German control. 44% of them had emigrated or fled by the end of 1941, 35% were spared internment, 8% were interned, but survived the war, and 13% died. While proving that the Jews were indeed heavily persecuted, a death rate of 13% categorically excludes an extermination policy. In his comprehensive study, Sanning had come to the conclusion that there were no more than 3.5 million Jews in the German sphere of influence at the time of its biggest territorial extension. If this estimate is correct, and if 13% of these 3.5 million died, it would mean that less than half a million Jews perished as a result of German policy. On the other hand, if we assume that both Sanning's and Nordling's estimates are too low, that not 13%, but 20% of the Jews under German control perished, and that there were not 3.5 million, but 5 million Jews in the German-occupied territories, the Jewish losses would amount to one million. In my opinion, this is definitely the highest possible figure.
Yet another way to tackle the problem
Everybody agrees that only a part of the Jewish victims died in concentration camps. Unquestionably a large number of Jews were shot on the Eastern front because the Jews formed the backbone of the Communist partisan movement. In many cases, these executions were quite legal because at that time international law permitted not only the execution of partisans but also the shooting of hostages as a retaliation for partisan attacks on soldiers of an occupying power. (Of course I am not disputing that numerous Jewish civilians who were neither partisans nor hostages were shot, too.) Finally, many Jews died as a result of insufficient nourishment and diseases in the ghettos to which they had confined as semi-prisoners by the Germans. It is not easy to decide to what extent these casualties should be considered as the direct result of the German policy because many of these Jews, especially old ones, would have died from natural causes anyway.
a) The number of Jews who died in concentration camps
Thanks to the German documents which have survived in large numbers, we can determine the number of Jews who died from all causes (diseases, starvation, exhaustion, execution) in the concentration camps which a certain degree of accuracy. It can hardly have exceeded 300,000. According to Jewish author Wolfgang Sofsky, about 450,000 concentration camp victims are registered by name (24). Now this figure may be incomplete, but of course a large part of the victims were non-Jewish. In some of the camps, Jews definitely accounted for a minority of the deceased. To quote but one example, of the approximately 26,000 prisoners who died in the Stutthof concentration camp near Dantzig about 8,000 were Jewish (25).
b) What happened to the Jews who were deported to Auschwitz but not registered there?
According to Polish Auschwitz specialist Franciszek Piper, about 1.3 million prisoners, of whom 1.1 million were Jewish, were deported to Auschwitz during the almost five years of its existence (26), but only 200,000 of the Jews were registered there. As I explained in a speech about the fate of unregistered Auschwitz inmates in May 2000 (27), the figure of unregistered Jewish deportees has to be reduced by at least 100,000; however this does not change the fact that up to 800,000 Jews were sent to Auschwitz without being registered. The orthodox historians claim that they were gassed. Having laid to rest the gas chamber legend, the revisionists have to explain what happened to these people. Although the details remain unknown, the basic answer is that they were transferred elsewhere.
On 16 October 1942, the Swiss Jewish newspaper Israelitisches Wochenblatt reported:Quote"For some time, there has been a tendency to dissolve the ghettos in Poland. This was the case with Lublin, and now Warsaw is to follow. It is not indicated how far this plan has already been carried out. The previous inhabitants of the Generalgouvernement [German occupied Poland] are going off farther to the East into the occupied Russian zone. They were partly replaced by Jews from Germany. (...) An eyewitness who was until recently in the Riga ghetto and was able to escape, reports that there are still 32,000 Jews in the Riga ghetto. Since the occupation, thousands of Jews have died. The Jews are now forced to work outside the city. (...) Recently, in Riga, it has been noticed that Jewish transports have arrived from Belgium and other countries of Western Europe which were immediately sent on again to other unknown destinations."
In the official Holocaust literature, we read nothing about Polish or Belgian Jews being sent to Russia. The missing Jews from these countries are supposed to have met their fate in the gas chambers of "extermination camps". Now, the report of the Swiss Jewish newspaper squares very well with the numerous German wartime documents referring to the "evacuation" of the Jews and their "resettlement in the East". Two revisionist authors, the Spaniard Enrique Aynat (28) and the Belgian Jean-Marie Boisdefeu (29), have documented a number of cases where Western European Jews appeared far east of Auschwitz during the war. According to the orthodox Holocaust story, they should never have gotten there.
In April 1944, the French communist underground newspaper Notre Voix, referring to a broadcast from Radio Moscow, reported that 8,000 French Jews had been liberated by the Red Army in Ukraine. Evidently, Auschwitz had merely served as a transit camp for them (30).
Although the victorious powers certainly purged the German documents in order to eliminate all those which disproved the extermination claims, a few of them have survived. One of them is a report about the deportation of Jews from France which was written in September 1942. According to this document, foreign Jews residing in France were to be sent to a camp in Russia (31).
Up to the present day, we do not know how many Jews were sent to the occupied Soviet territories, and how many of them survived the harsh wartime conditions.
In 1944, Auschwitz also served as a transit camp for Hungarian Jews. On 11 May of that year, Adolf Hitler ordered 200,000 Jews to be employed in the production of war planes (32). As no big deportations of Jews from other countries were occurring during that period, these 200,000 must necessarily have come from Hungary where massive deportations were just about to begin. So the German documents confirm what the air photographs tell us: The Hungarians Jews were by no means murdered in Auschwitz-Birkenau and their corpses burned in open pits. Some of them were regularly registered at Auschwitz, the remaining ones were transferred to labour camps and factories where they were forced to contribute to the German war effort.
c) The number of Jews shot on the Eastern front
In order to substantiate their claim that the Germans shot between one and two million Jews in the occupied Soviet territories, the orthodox historians refer to the so-called "event reports" which the Special Units engaged in anti-partisan warfare on the Eastern Front allegedly sent to Berlin on a regular basis and which detail, among other things, the number of Jews killed. One of these "event reports" describes the shooting of 33,711 Jews at Babi Yar near the Ukrainian capital of Kiev on 29 September 1941. But this gigantic bloodbath never happened. Quite apart from the fact that the witnesses contradict each other on almost every point, and that no material traces of the alleged massacre have ever been found (33), the Babi Yar story is invalidated by air photographs made by the Germans in late September 1943, shortly before the Soviets re-conquered Kiev. At that very time, the Germans allegedly opened the mass-graves, dug out the corpses and burnt them on huge pyres.
However, the air photos show no pyres, no open graves and no human activity at the Babi Yar ravine (34). As the imaginary mass murder at Babi Yar is described in one of the "event reports", the authenticity of the whole series is highly doubtful. After all, the Germans, who allegedly managed to destroy all material evidence of their atrocities, could easily have burnt these documents before the arrival of the Red Army. As the only purported documentary evidence for the shooting of between one and two million Jews in the Soviet Union is most probably a forgery, and as no mass graves with murdered Jews have ever been found while Russia is full of mass graves with the victims of Communist terror, it is safe to assume that the real number of killed Jews was only a fraction of the one claimed.
d) Conclusion
As I mentioned earlier, the number of Jews who died in National Concentration camps cannot have been much higher than 300,000. Even if we assume that several hundreds of thousands of Jews transferred into the Eastern territories succumbed to the harsh conditions prevailing there, and that the Germans shot several hundreds of thousands of Jews on the Eastern front -- both assumptions are rather improbable -, the total amount of Jewish victims can not have exceeded one million, so that the result of Sanning's and Nordling's investigation is roughly confirmed. No matter from which angle we tackle the question, the result is always the same: The six million figure is an insane exaggeration.
The reunion of the Steinberg family
A short article which appeared on 24 November 1978 in an American newspaper, The State Time, Baton Rouge/Louisiana, illustrates better than long and complicated statistics what really happened to the missing Jews:Quote"The Steinbergs once flourished in a small Jewish village in Poland. This was before Hitler's death camps. Now more than 200 far-flung survivors and descendants are gathered here to share a special four-day celebration that began appropriately on Thanksgiving day. Relatives came Thursday from Canada, France, England, Argentina, Columbia, Israel and from at least 13 cities in the United States. "It's fabulous", said Iris Krasnow from Chicago. "There are five generations here -- from three months old to 85. People are crying and having a wonderful time. It's almost like a World War II refugee reunion."
This is the answer to the question: "What happened to the Jews if they were not gassed?"
As for ignoring information, are you referring to me not replying to the posts where you put forward yet another outrageous claim as a fact, qualifying your claim with "it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt" or something similar, and then move on to other things, proving nothing? It's an interesting method, common for the likes of you, but academic it is most certainly not.
I referred to sources that go deeper into the topic, which you conveniently ignored too.
Speaking of which, when will *you* address the little matter of the Dr Konrad & friends?
What is there to address?
By the way, what do you think of Simon Wiesenthal and Elie Wiesel? Both are/were propagandists for the ancient alien cause as well as the Holocaust myth and both are proven liars with regards to their WW2 experience.
Where did I suggest that those two were even remotely equal?
In one of your statements, you said that you regarded censoring Holocaust Revisionism in the light of preventing genocide, even though I haven't heard of a single Holocaust Revisionist who supports any form of genocide whatsoever.
Oh, and since you brought it up, are you saying that you are merely questioning history books when you say that homosexuality is a perversity of nature (shouldn't that be "perversion", btw?) or when you blame the Jews themselves for having been persecuted throughout history?
My views on homosexuality are an entirely different matter. But yes, when I say that antisemitism is nothing but a typical response to the malign behavior of (a part of) the Jewish community, I'm referring to a historical fact that was mainstream knowledge for most of Western history. Recent authors like Israel Shahak (an Israeli chemistry professor and a Jew himself) and Andrew MacDonald (a North-American professor and evolutionary psychologist) have written several volumes on this topic with loads of source references including many Jewish references.
The Roman-Catholic historian Edward Flannery distinguished four varieties of antisemitism[3]:
* Political and economic antisemitism, giving as examples Cicero and Charles Lindbergh;
* Theological or religious antisemitism, sometimes known as anti-Judaism;
* Nationalistic antisemitism, citing Voltaire and other Enlightenment thinkers, who attacked Jews for supposedly having certain characteristics, such as greed and arrogance, and for observing customs such as kashrut and shabbat;
* Racial antisemitism, which culminated in the Holocaust unleashed by the Nazis.
They are longer, but that's not the same thing. The basic method is unchanged: you state something as a fact, quote this or that, and conclude that irrefutable proof has now been presented.
Another method is to misrepresent facts--the 15,000,000 population counts before and after the war comprise a typical "argument" in that respect.
So yes, I choose to ignore those, in most cases, because there just isn't any substance to it.
Apart from him deliberately hiding the fact that Rudolf invented the character, including his academic title, without telling the reader?
QuoteBy the way, what do you think of Simon Wiesenthal and Elie Wiesel? Both are/were propagandists for the ancient alien cause as well as the Holocaust myth and both are proven liars with regards to their WW2 experience.
There you go again, using the method I was talking about. "Proven liars...", "propagandists for the ancient alien cause..."
You do know that you yourself are a proven liar, don't you?
QuoteIn one of your statements, you said that you regarded censoring Holocaust Revisionism in the light of preventing genocide, even though I haven't heard of a single Holocaust Revisionist who supports any form of genocide whatsoever.
Yes, but where did I equal "questioning history books" with "supporting genocide"?
From Wikipedia:QuoteThe Roman-Catholic historian Edward Flannery distinguished four varieties of antisemitism[3]:
* Political and economic antisemitism, giving as examples Cicero and Charles Lindbergh;
* Theological or religious antisemitism, sometimes known as anti-Judaism;
* Nationalistic antisemitism, citing Voltaire and other Enlightenment thinkers, who attacked Jews for supposedly having certain characteristics, such as greed and arrogance, and for observing customs such as kashrut and shabbat;
* Racial antisemitism, which culminated in the Holocaust unleashed by the Nazis.
And this is all their own fault?
BTW, how is it "a historical fact" that "antisemitism is nothing but a typical response to the malign behavior of (a part of) the Jewish community"? Presumably the names you list support that notion, but how, exactly, do those names make it "a historical fact"?
But then, this is the method you use. It's all "historical facts", "irrefutable truths", all "proven beyond any doubt", isn't it? You should try a scientifically more viable method.
But then, this is the method you use. It's all "historical facts", "irrefutable truths", all "proven beyond any doubt", isn't it? You should try a scientifically more viable method.
Many European countries have such laws like Belgium. In some countries you can get jailed for months without even "addressing" your "hatred" at a specific group. I read a story about a man in Germany who got 5 months in jail for teaching his dog to raise his right front leg. No, it's not a joke. And the dog ended up in a "foster home" where an animal psychologist should learn him not to raise his leg that high. No, it's still not a joke...
Link, please.
Like I said : when I state something as fact, I provide a few arguments for them and give links where you can find irrefutable evidence for those arguments. For everything I label as "proven beyond reasonable doubt", I can provide sources that do prove it beyond reasonable doubt. Just don't expect my to summarize an academic work of 500 pages in a single post. Anyone who is open to it, can buy or download the relevant works and read them for themselves.
Many European countries have such laws like Belgium. In some countries you can get jailed for months without even "addressing" your "hatred" at a specific group. I read a story about a man in Germany who got 5 months in jail for teaching his dog to raise his right front leg. No, it's not a joke. And the dog ended up in a "foster home" where an animal psychologist should learn him not to raise his leg that high. No, it's still not a joke...
Link, please.
ADOLF THE ALSATIAN (http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,524268,00.html)
I was thinking first and foremost of sources like Kevin MacDonald and Israel Shahak on topics like Jewish culture and its conflict with gentile culture, a source like Norman Finkelstein on the Holocaust Industry and the abuse thereof by ancient aliens and sources like David Hoggan and Harry Elmer Barnes on the topic of WW2 history and the fate of the Jews during that war.Like I said : when I state something as fact, I provide a few arguments for them and give links where you can find irrefutable evidence for those arguments. For everything I label as "proven beyond reasonable doubt", I can provide sources that do prove it beyond reasonable doubt. Just don't expect my to summarize an academic work of 500 pages in a single post. Anyone who is open to it, can buy or download the relevant works and read them for themselves.
Academic works such as those by Dr Konrad? :hahaha:
See how these laws can be used to lock up those who could be considered mentally ill. Personally I thought the dog was rather comic myself, over here he would be lauded for satire. Germans have no sense of humour.Many European countries have such laws like Belgium. In some countries you can get jailed for months without even "addressing" your "hatred" at a specific group. I read a story about a man in Germany who got 5 months in jail for teaching his dog to raise his right front leg. No, it's not a joke. And the dog ended up in a "foster home" where an animal psychologist should learn him not to raise his leg that high. No, it's still not a joke...
Link, please.
ADOLF THE ALSATIAN (http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,524268,00.html)
"Judges had previously been lenient with the former car salesman, who was considered to have diminished culpability due to brain damage sustained in a 1995 accident."
Germans have no sense of humour.
See how these laws can be used to lock up those who could be considered mentally ill. Personally I thought the dog was rather comic myself, over here he would be lauded for satire. Germans have no sense of humour.
Is this nazi stuff all you guys ever think/talk about seems a bit obsessive. So is there anything else in there or is this a one hit wonder. At least make a thread where it would be all in one place not scattered about in off topic places
Is this nazi stuff all you guys ever think/talk about seems a bit obsessive. So is there anything else in there or is this a one hit wonder. At least make a thread where it would be all in one place not scattered about in off topic places
This will probably come to America too.
Is this nazi stuff all you guys ever think/talk about seems a bit obsessive. So is there anything else in there or is this a one hit wonder. At least make a thread where it would be all in one place not scattered about in off topic places
This will probably come to America too.
Already started here and the closed circuit cameras like you guys have too. Gee thanks for exporting your culture ::)
Is this nazi stuff all you guys ever think/talk about seems a bit obsessive. So is there anything else in there or is this a one hit wonder. At least make a thread where it would be all in one place not scattered about in off topic places
Germans have no sense of humour.
Most of German censorship can be traced back to 1945, when national-socialism was declared illegal by the allied "liberators" and every expression of German patriotism or sympathy for Hitler was smashed down by various means (from indoctrination and loss of civil rights to imprisonment and execution). Germans were taught to hate their heritage and to be ashamed of being German. As such, the German spirit was broken like a twig and corrupt "democratic" leaders have continued this condition ever since.
Most of German censorship can be traced back to 1945, when national-socialism was declared illegal by the allied "liberators" and every expression of German patriotism or sympathy for Hitler was smashed down by various means (from indoctrination and loss of civil rights to imprisonment and execution). Germans were taught to hate their heritage and to be ashamed of being German. As such, the German spirit was broken like a twig and corrupt "democratic" leaders have continued this condition ever since.
Nah, its nothing to do with censorship, their stuff was boring before the war, or at least what I slept through in my German lesson.
I did. But most of the best humour evolved in the 60's, a full 15 years after the war ended. By that point it had very little to do with allies, and more to do with the German language structure and phraseology , which constricts the development of humour. It is why most German comedy is incredibly slapstick.Most of German censorship can be traced back to 1945, when national-socialism was declared illegal by the allied "liberators" and every expression of German patriotism or sympathy for Hitler was smashed down by various means (from indoctrination and loss of civil rights to imprisonment and execution). Germans were taught to hate their heritage and to be ashamed of being German. As such, the German spirit was broken like a twig and corrupt "democratic" leaders have continued this condition ever since.
Nah, its nothing to do with censorship, their stuff was boring before the war, or at least what I slept through in my German lesson.
Did you compare with non-German humor from before the war? During the last 100 years, humor has become increasingly more sophisticated all over Western culture. I've seen Dutch, German, French, Russian, British, American and other cartoons from the era 1900-1950 and I would say they all are quite primitive in comparison with modern standards of humor.
I did. But most of the best humour evolved in the 60's, a full 15 years after the war ended. By that point it had very little to do with allies, and more to do with the German language structure and phraseology , which constricts the development of humour. It is why most German comedy is incredibly slapstick.
Is this nazi stuff all you guys ever think/talk about seems a bit obsessive. So is there anything else in there or is this a one hit wonder. At least make a thread where it would be all in one place not scattered about in off topic places
This will probably come to America too.
Already started here and the closed circuit cameras like you guys have too. Gee thanks for exporting your culture ::)
No, I meant the gang rapes and hate crimes against white people and the infringements on the freedom of speech.
So your going to send us that too wow your generous.
We have it written in the Constitution to have freedom of speech along with right to bear arms they haven't gotten rid of the guns yet and I believe they have been working it for a long time so speech seems safe for now.
So your going to send us that too wow your generous.
Don't shoot the messenger.We have it written in the Constitution to have freedom of speech along with right to bear arms they haven't gotten rid of the guns yet and I believe they have been working it for a long time so speech seems safe for now.
Ever heard of the Patriot Act? In the name of anti-terrorist legislation, the neo-cons have been attacking the US constitution and some have even suggested to make some forms of torture(that are already used in off-shore US military prisons) legal. I don't think it will take long before your sacred constitution becomes just another rag of paper.
But we are still ahead of you. I don't like the patriot act myself but it deals more with the right to privacy than free speech.
So how was torture used in the third reich was it wrong then or just now that others want to use it
Most of German censorship can be traced back to 1945, when national-socialism was declared illegal by the allied "liberators" and every expression of German patriotism or sympathy for Hitler was smashed down by various means (from indoctrination and loss of civil rights to imprisonment and execution). Germans were taught to hate their heritage and to be ashamed of being German. As such, the German spirit was broken like a twig and corrupt "democratic" leaders have continued this condition ever since.
Nah, its nothing to do with censorship, their stuff was boring before the war, or at least what I slept through in my German lesson.
Did you compare with non-German humor from before the war? During the last 100 years, humor has become increasingly more sophisticated all over Western culture. I've seen Dutch, German, French, Russian, British, American and other cartoons from the era 1900-1950 and I would say they all are quite primitive in comparison with modern standards of humor.
Do my sources matter? I believe you will just say they are propaganda spread by the allies after the war. I could look some up later if you want but like I said does it matter
I was thinking first and foremost of sources like Kevin MacDonald and Israel Shahak on topics like Jewish culture and its conflict with gentile culture, a source like Norman Finkelstein on the Holocaust Industry and the abuse thereof by ancient aliens and sources like David Hoggan and Harry Elmer Barnes on the topic of WW2 history and the fate of the Jews during that war.Like I said : when I state something as fact, I provide a few arguments for them and give links where you can find irrefutable evidence for those arguments. For everything I label as "proven beyond reasonable doubt", I can provide sources that do prove it beyond reasonable doubt. Just don't expect my to summarize an academic work of 500 pages in a single post. Anyone who is open to it, can buy or download the relevant works and read them for themselves.
Academic works such as those by Dr Konrad? :hahaha:
By the way, I noticed that you thusfar haven't even attempted to provide a single argument against the arguments of Graf in the article I posted earlier on the Jewish population losses during WW2. Your entire argument on the Jewish population losses during WW2 has thusfar consisted of copy-pasting death rates without a single mention of how they were obtained.
Michael Shermer has pointed out that the Nazis' own estimate of the number of European Jews was eleven million, and sixty percent of eleven million is 6.6 million. This is fairly close to the actual figure. (Actually, forty percent was a serious overestimate of the survival rate of Jews who were captured, but there were many Jews who escaped.)
In any case, most of the diary is quite mundane, and interesting only to historians. Did the supposed Jewish conspiracy forge seven thousand pages to insert just a few lines? How did they manage to know Goebbels' affairs intimately enough to avoid contradictions, e.g. putting him or his associates in the wrong city at the wrong date?
As even the revisionist David Cole has admitted, revisionists have yet to provide a satisfactory explanation of this document.
He hasn't physically hurt people, has he? If you as a foreigner or immigrant commit a violent crime against white people due to their ethnicity you can get away with far less than 5 months, at least in Europe.
Do my sources matter? I believe you will just say they are propaganda spread by the allies after the war. I could look some up later if you want but like I said does it matter
Yes it does. As I said before, my viewpoints are the result of years of research. For such research, I try to use sources from a variety of perspectives and analyse the arguments use for each perspective before I make up my mind. In the case of the Holocaust myth, this includes contemporary English sources, contemporary Sovjet sources, contemporary Polish sources, contemporary Jewish sources, contemporary German sources, contemporary French sources and post-war sources from both orthodox and revisionist perspectives. Only this way you can filter away the propaganda and find the naked facts. Unless your source is someone like Eugen Kogon or Daniel Goldhagen (their publications are so way off they're almost surreal), I see no reason to ignore it.
I'd urge you to read What proof exists that the Nazis practiced genocide or deliberately killed six million Jews? (http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar01.html) from the Nizkor Project. Plenty of proof there, and many interesting explanations
Michael Shermer has pointed out that the Nazis' own estimate of the number of European Jews was eleven million
In any case, most of the diary is quite mundane, and interesting only to historians. Did the supposed Jewish conspiracy forge seven thousand pages to insert just a few lines? How did they manage to know Goebbels' affairs intimately enough to avoid contradictions, e.g. putting him or his associates in the wrong city at the wrong date?
a) The Goebbels diary passages of 27 March 1942
For 27 March 1942, there is an entry in the diaries of NS Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels (22), according to which a "rather barbarous procedure, not to be described in detail here" was being applied to the Jews. 60% of the Jews were liquidated, while only 40% could be used for work.
Revisionist researchers are not unanimous on the authenticity of the Goebbels Diaries. Staeglich considers them forged in whole or in part, while Irving and Faurisson believe in their authenticity. We refrain from expressing an opinion and refer to the entry of 7 March 1942, in which Goebbels states that the Jews must first be concentrated in the East; eventually, they could be sent to an island, perhaps Madagascar. This entry is in crass contradiction to the entry made twenty days later. Goebbels, an irreconcilable enemy of the Jews, may, in writing his diaries, have risen to an even more intense hatred of them, and in doing so, may have brought fantasies to paper which were in no way reconcilable with his earlier notes. This passage is therefore no proof of the occurrence of the extermination of the Jews; it is at best the most forceful indication that the exterminationists can produce, an indication which is nevertheless contradicted by a whole slew of watertight, irrefutable revisionist evidence.
As even the revisionist David Cole has admitted, revisionists have yet to provide a satisfactory explanation of this document.
The German style is very robotic when compared to other languages, so more empathsis is based on what you say, rather than how you say it, limiting the scope for sarcasm somewhat.I did. But most of the best humour evolved in the 60's, a full 15 years after the war ended. By that point it had very little to do with allies, and more to do with the German language structure and phraseology , which constricts the development of humour. It is why most German comedy is incredibly slapstick.
I understand how language structure and phraseology can limit the use of puns, but can you explain how it limits other types of humor? For example, I don't see how sarcasm (a very popular type of humor today) can be limited by language structure and phraseology.
I'd urge you to read What proof exists that the Nazis practiced genocide or deliberately killed six million Jews? (http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar01.html) from the Nizkor Project. Plenty of proof there, and many interesting explanations
Nizkor is far from new to me. All of that so-called proof has already been debunked by Holocaust Revisionists decades ago.
I don't see how you can take that Nizkor page seriously. They even defend the silly claim that lampshades were made of Jewish skin and soap was made of Jewish fat, even though these claims have been dropped from the status quo as obvious propaganda since the late '70s.
Michael Shermer has pointed out that the Nazis' own estimate of the number of European Jews was eleven million
The actualy 1939 number was much lower, because the 11 million figure ignores the many Jews who had fled the German sphere of influence to eg. Anglo-Saxon countries, Palestine or Sovjet Russia. This is explained in greater detail in the article by Graf that I posted earlier.
In any case, most of the diary is quite mundane, and interesting only to historians. Did the supposed Jewish conspiracy forge seven thousand pages to insert just a few lines? How did they manage to know Goebbels' affairs intimately enough to avoid contradictions, e.g. putting him or his associates in the wrong city at the wrong date?
The Goebbels diaries were private diaries published only after WW2, which leave some room for doctoring of certain passages. Nevertheless, there seems to be disagreement among Holocaust Revisionists on whether of not the diary is entirely authentic. While some dispute their authenticity, various Holocaust Revisionists stand by their authenticity and use a different approach. To quote Graf again :Quotea) The Goebbels diary passages of 27 March 1942
For 27 March 1942, there is an entry in the diaries of NS Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels (22), according to which a "rather barbarous procedure, not to be described in detail here" was being applied to the Jews. 60% of the Jews were liquidated, while only 40% could be used for work.
Revisionist researchers are not unanimous on the authenticity of the Goebbels Diaries. Staeglich considers them forged in whole or in part, while Irving and Faurisson believe in their authenticity. We refrain from expressing an opinion and refer to the entry of 7 March 1942, in which Goebbels states that the Jews must first be concentrated in the East; eventually, they could be sent to an island, perhaps Madagascar. This entry is in crass contradiction to the entry made twenty days later. Goebbels, an irreconcilable enemy of the Jews, may, in writing his diaries, have risen to an even more intense hatred of them, and in doing so, may have brought fantasies to paper which were in no way reconcilable with his earlier notes. This passage is therefore no proof of the occurrence of the extermination of the Jews; it is at best the most forceful indication that the exterminationists can produce, an indication which is nevertheless contradicted by a whole slew of watertight, irrefutable revisionist evidence.
...the greater the number of Jews liquidated, the more consolidated will the situation in Europe be after this war."
Joseph Goebbels, March 6, 1942
"The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only about 40 per cent can be used for forced labor."
Joseph Goebbels, March 27, 1942
"Short shrift is made of the Jews in all eastern occupied areas. Tens of thousands of them are liquidated."
Joseph Goebbels, April 29, 1942
"There is no explicit reference ... to liquidation of Jews."
"Revisionist" David Irving, April 22, 1988, as quoted* on the web site of the "revisionist" Ernst Zündel
As even the revisionist David Cole has admitted, revisionists have yet to provide a satisfactory explanation of this document.
David Cole was very supportive of the Holocaust Revisionist point of view and his infamous film about Auschwitz leaves no doubt about that. He retracted his views only because he and his family received threats from the Jewish Defense League. Considering Faurisson at one time had been hospitalised due to an attack by Jewish extremists, he knew he shouldn't take such threats lightly.
The German style is very robotic when compared to other languages, so more empathsis is based on what you say, rather than how you say it, limiting the scope for sarcasm somewhat.
I don't see how you can take that revisionist bullshit seriously. Nizkor and others have very effectively debunked all of their so-called proof ages ago.
Hey, waitaminute, are you back to your usual style of unsubstantiated claims again? For a second I imagined you would at least try something different.
Perhaps you should read Hilberg's Destruction of the European Jews for a detailed breakdown of the figures.
Hey, he likes the same phrases as you do. There's that word again. As for the debunking of this one, I urge you to read Nizkor.
Ah, of course. When you can't change what he said, you need to convince people that it was the threats that made him stop.
Do you know how many times Ken McVay has been threatened without giving up?
What is a David Cole? Is it a sickness? Is it a mental disease? Is Cole merely a human parasite who clings to his ardent Nazi supporters and friends who back his ideas whole-heartedly? After all, this Cole mania that the media have played on, don't you think it's time that we flush this rotten, sick individual down the toilet, where the rest of the waste lies? One less David Cole in the world will certainly not end Jew-hatred, but it will have removed a dangerous parasitic, disease-ridden bacteria from infecting society.
Just as we must get rid of this monster, Cole, we must also get rid of the word "revisionism" from our vocabulary. This awful word and Cole, too, must be eliminated altogether. There is no argument. There needs to be no more debates, only the elimination of the Holocaust deniers...
JDL wants to know the location of Holocaust denier David Cole, pictured above. Anyone giving us his correct address will receive a monetary reward. Contact us through e-mail immediately if you have information leading to the current location of David Cole.
The German style is very robotic when compared to other languages, so more empathsis is based on what you say, rather than how you say it, limiting the scope for sarcasm somewhat.
Interesting :)I don't see how you can take that revisionist bullshit seriously. Nizkor and others have very effectively debunked all of their so-called proof ages ago.
Nizkor consciously misrepresents or ignores Holocaust Revisionist arguments but hardly refutes them.
Hey, waitaminute, are you back to your usual style of unsubstantiated claims again? For a second I imagined you would at least try something different.
I've already given you various links and posted various quotes, including a full article by Graf. You barely responded to ANY of the arguments provided, so why should I continue to do an effort?Perhaps you should read Hilberg's Destruction of the European Jews for a detailed breakdown of the figures.
Perhaps you should read Graf's Giant with Feet of Clay - Raul Hilberg and his Standard Work on the Holocaust (http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/Giant/) that gives a detailed analysis of Hilberg's classic work and the many flaws it contains.
Hey, he likes the same phrases as you do. There's that word again. As for the debunking of this one, I urge you to read Nizkor.
Ah, of course. When you can't change what he said, you need to convince people that it was the threats that made him stop.
Do you know how many times Ken McVay has been threatened without giving up?
Your Ken McVay has very powerful allies supporting his disinformation, wheras David Cole was just a young guy who turned his people (Cole is Jewish) against him for speaking the truth.
Excerpts from a letter posted on the JDL site:QuoteWhat is a David Cole? Is it a sickness? Is it a mental disease? Is Cole merely a human parasite who clings to his ardent Nazi supporters and friends who back his ideas whole-heartedly? After all, this Cole mania that the media have played on, don't you think it's time that we flush this rotten, sick individual down the toilet, where the rest of the waste lies? One less David Cole in the world will certainly not end Jew-hatred, but it will have removed a dangerous parasitic, disease-ridden bacteria from infecting society.
Just as we must get rid of this monster, Cole, we must also get rid of the word "revisionism" from our vocabulary. This awful word and Cole, too, must be eliminated altogether. There is no argument. There needs to be no more debates, only the elimination of the Holocaust deniers...
JDL wants to know the location of Holocaust denier David Cole, pictured above. Anyone giving us his correct address will receive a monetary reward. Contact us through e-mail immediately if you have information leading to the current location of David Cole.
*yawn*
Nizkor consciously misrepresents or ignores Holocaust Revisionist arguments but hardly refutes them.
Funny. I was just about to say something like that, only it was about you, Dr Konrad and friends.
See http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/05/jrgen-graf-is-liar.html where Nick Terry proves Mr Graf is a liar.
I'm afraid it's not a joke. McVey rather effectively picks apart your arguments.
That's the standard accusation from you and your ilk, when faced with someone who won't back down. Defamation is apparently not such a bad thing when you are the people doing it. McVey's financing his work himself, and by contributions from the public.
But you know that's the kind of thing McVey's been getting used to for the past ten years or more. Now, let me hear that you don't approve of the death threats McVey's been receiving, either.
I wouldn't even mention the phrase "scientific method" if I were you. You and your Nazi friends are not too big on that sort of thing, as proven again and again you, Rudolf and his "nyms", Graf, et al. :hahaha:
But anyway, since this is going nowhere except filling the server with your worthless bullshit, I'm ignoring you from now on. I will leave your continuing presence on the Internet up to your ISP, and your presence here up to our host.
I wouldn't even mention the phrase "scientific method" if I were you. You and your Nazi friends are not too big on that sort of thing, as proven again and again you, Rudolf and his "nyms", Graf, et al. :hahaha:
Most Holocaust Revisionists have shown to be far better scientists than orthodox historians, which is shown by the tendencies of orthodox historians to distort or ignore revisionist arguments and to use character assassination instead of actual valid arguments, whereas Holocaust Revisionists address the actual issues and NOT distort or ignore the arguments of their oponents. The fact that you use pretty much the exact same techniques as Holocaust historians (distorting or ignoring arguments and character assassination), the fact that you seem familiar with websites like Nizkor and Holocaustcontroversies and your utterly obnoxious behavior implies that you're either a Jew or a philosemite with an obvious agenda.But anyway, since this is going nowhere except filling the server with your worthless bullshit, I'm ignoring you from now on. I will leave your continuing presence on the Internet up to your ISP, and your presence here up to our host.
I don't think you could be any more pathetic than that....
:gotowp: :STFU: :spam:
He'd like to but he has been waiting for you to take the lead and now he is just getting restless. :lol:
He'd like to but he has been waiting for you to take the lead and now he is just getting restless. :lol:
Thusfar none of you has even attempted to provide any counterarguments against most of the facts I presented and most of you admitted that they never did any research on the topics in question, so your behavior and that of your "chosen" friend is completely out of line. I don't understand how you guys can be so prejudiced and narrowminded, especially considering you're Aspies....
I don't understand how you guys can be so prejudiced and narrowminded, especially considering you're Aspies....
I don't understand how you guys can be so prejudiced and narrowminded, especially considering you're Aspies....
It's called Not Giving A Damn About Your Personal Chosen Interest.
And it has nothing to do with prejudice and narrowmindedness.
Shiiiiiiiiiiiiit, and I thought you were going to pwn me once more...
Thusfar none of you has even attempted to provide any counterarguments against most of the facts I presented and most of you admitted that they never did any research on the topics in question, so your behavior and that of your "chosen" friend is completely out of line. I don't understand how you guys can be so prejudiced and narrowminded, especially considering you're Aspies....What is the point of providing counterarguments when you have already made up your mind about what you want to believe? If they are facts, what is the point of arguing. Also, when discussing, there is not absolute need to do extensive research every time beforehand is there?
Thusfar none of you has even attempted to provide any counterarguments against most of the facts I presented and most of you admitted that they never did any research on the topics in question, so your behavior and that of your "chosen" friend is completely out of line. I don't understand how you guys can be so prejudiced and narrowminded, especially considering you're Aspies....What is the point of providing counterarguments when you have already made up your mind about what you want to believe? If they are facts, what is the point of arguing. Also, when discussing, there is not absolute need to do extensive research every time beforehand is there?
Behaviour, completely out of line? This is Intensity.
Saying that Aspies aren't prejudiced and narrow-minded is stereotyping. We are the "den of inequity", remember? :evillaugh:
Shiiiiiiiiiiiiit, and I thought you were going to pwn me once more...
You want it pretty bad, don't you?
Sir Les is perfectly right of course; wanky forums like WP are the home for that type of shit, and the mods will protect the sort of dickheads that espouse it. Meanwhile, he is under the grand Illusion that we want to 'listen' to this drivel here.
BTW, Illusion, the only reason Odeon is playing along with you in this pathetic argument is that he thinks it would be an even sorrier sight to see you talking to yourself, and that he is waiting for you to pwn yourself bigtime.
:hahaha: :hahaha:
Yes, I think you do enjoy it. You like thinking you know the real truth when everyone else is swallowing the bullshit.
No I don't, as this knowledge is quite a burden on a person. I enjoy the research itself, but it strongly bothers me how hostile people react when I share my conclusions.
How did you get that email address, The Chosen One?Is this new slang I'm not aware of?
Even though I disagree with Illusion's views on the Holocaust, I don't think that it's cricket to sign up someone's private email for spam.
How did you get that email address, The Chosen One?Is this new slang I'm not aware of?
Even though I disagree with Illusion's views on the Holocaust, I don't think that it's cricket to sign up someone's private email for spam.
Main Entry: 2cricket
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French criquet goal stake in a bowling game
Date: 1598
1 : a game played with a ball and bat by two sides of usually 11 players each on a large field centering upon two wickets each defended by a batsman
2 : fair and honorable behavior <it wasn't cricket for her to break her contract — Gerry Nadel>
jesus and i thought i was immature, how old are you dude? 60? you act like someone stepped on your balls with high heelsAre you talking to me?
jesus and i thought i was immature, how old are you dude? 60? you act like someone stepped on your balls with high heelsAre you talking to me?
How am I immature, yet you're guessing I'm 60 years old?
You really are retarded aren't you.
well you stupid fuck i wasnt talking to youLearn to use the quote system then, retard.
He's better than Quartermass or whatever his name is I have actually gotten relies from him to pmed questions
Oooh back on topic that's a fucking miracle :laugh:
:-\He's better than Quartermass or whatever his name is I have actually gotten relies from him to pmed questions
Oooh back on topic that's a fucking miracle :laugh:
I did not know that you were a member there. What was your screen name?
Mine is the same as here and most everywhere, if it's not already taken. My name seems to be a hell of a lot more popular than I ever could have imagined, especially considering it WAS a nickname of mine when I was a teen. It refers to my obsession with gardening, which has been a lifelong endeavor.
I used to be a moderator on WrongPlanet. One of the bad guys..Bwahahahaaa!
Yeah I was banned, for questioning Alex and having a more haphazard view of moderation than he wanted.
I find it odd that YOU EXPECT us to debate this stuff with you. Why? I mean do you think it is strange you come, a stranger, on our board and talk up your hobby and then find it odd that we HAVE to find counter arguments for you to attack?
You cleverly are invested in this in all kinds of mentally unhealthy ways
Plenty of things you can talk about which may have some mutual interests. You have made no attempt to do this though. You came here to babble your crap at us and wonder why we call you out on it.
Trying to be a martyr now? I mean it isnt something that effects you as it happened decades ago. It isnt really a current subject.
If it strongly bothers you the way people react to it in a hostle manner, then get a fucking clue. People are letting you know that you are following bunk ideas that are in bad taste.
The thing is, you say you want us to come up with counter arguments to your ideals. I think this is a case where you are lying. After the amount of time and effort that you have put into your theories, you aren't going to change your mind that easily. You are going to put more effort into finding holes in our arguments than you are with your own.
Therefore I have proved that you are full of shit.
Looks like Elvis has left the building, then.
I find it odd that YOU EXPECT us to debate this stuff with you. Why? I mean do you think it is strange you come, a stranger, on our board and talk up your hobby and then find it odd that we HAVE to find counter arguments for you to attack?
Look... I don't expect anyone to debate anything with me. What I do expect, however, is someone who addresses my views either does his research or acknowledges that he hasn't done the proper research and just may be wrong. What is prejudiced and narrowminded is to just presume your views are correct and to call other people names for expressing views that contradict your views, while you haven't done a single yota of research to verify whether or not that those people may have a point.
.
In that case you expect too much from this place. The reason why this place is fun is all the bagging of people, flaming and putting piles of shit on each other we get to do.
Hey you have not been singled out unnecessarily. Plenty people get a bagging every post they make. This is Intensity.
#1. Post knowing we are going to make fun of you and not take you seriously.
#2. Go somewhere else where they are more respectable and tolerant.
##3. Give up the internets and spend more time doing with your lady....whatever it is that young couples do.... :eyebrows:
Absolutely and on that note....Do you dance Pyraxis? I dunno but I think you would be fun to dance with. I like dancing.
Trying to be a martyr now? I mean it isnt something that effects you as it happened decades ago. It isnt really a current subject.
Everyone deserves to know the truth about what happened 65 years ago. The fact that this topic is so ultrasensitive and so commonly abused by ancient aliens and anti-fascists for their political agendas actually makes it far more relevant than most other topics. People base their views of the present partly on what they believe to have happened during WW2, which is why those events are far more than just some events that took place in the past.
If it strongly bothers you the way people react to it in a hostle manner, then get a fucking clue. People are letting you know that you are following bunk ideas that are in bad taste.
People who haven't studied the subject up close have no authority whatsoever to judge me on my views. It is them who should look into their hearts and ask for themselves why they behave in such a prejudiced and narrowminded way.
The thing is, you say you want us to come up with counter arguments to your ideals. I think this is a case where you are lying. After the amount of time and effort that you have put into your theories, you aren't going to change your mind that easily. You are going to put more effort into finding holes in our arguments than you are with your own.
Therefore I have proved that you are full of shit.
Considering I moved from liberal Catholic to atheist anarchist to Wiccan anarcho-capitalist to nationalist perennialist, you're the one who's full of sh*t. My mind is far more flexible than that of most people because prejudice is entirely alien to me.
People will only believe what they want to. Arguing with people who not except any facts you give because only his sources are right is futile that is what this has become. Maybe if he keeps posing here he will find some other things to post about because you can't teach the blind to see
Fucking blind can be fun. :lol:
:indeed: :plus:Trying to be a martyr now? I mean it isnt something that effects you as it happened decades ago. It isnt really a current subject.
Everyone deserves to know the truth about what happened 65 years ago. The fact that this topic is so ultrasensitive and so commonly abused by ancient aliens and anti-fascists for their political agendas actually makes it far more relevant than most other topics. People base their views of the present partly on what they believe to have happened during WW2, which is why those events are far more than just some events that took place in the past.
The thing is, the shit you are peddling isnt the truth, no matter how much so called evidence you think you have. Here's what we can learn from WW2. When a country has to pay war reperation that that puts their econonmy in the toilet, idiots like Hitler get elected and can pretty much do what they want for a very long time before they are stopped. I feel the same thing has happened with our last government here in australia and the same thing in the US. We think we need someone tough who will do the things that we are too weak to do ourselves to save our country from going down the shitter. You back any country against the wall, they are gonna turn around and fight.If it strongly bothers you the way people react to it in a hostle manner, then get a fucking clue. People are letting you know that you are following bunk ideas that are in bad taste.
People who haven't studied the subject up close have no authority whatsoever to judge me on my views. It is them who should look into their hearts and ask for themselves why they behave in such a prejudiced and narrowminded way.
And you have no right to judge something that you werent a part of. Were you in a death camp or a labour camp? Were you living in a occupied country? It isnt enough that you grandparent did. Hell my grandparent did too. You are just an anti government anti society nut job with an agenda to push. You hate the Jews and you want them to pay. You want the whole world to hate them and you want to make them out to be liars. You secrety wish you could finish the job Hitler started dont you?The thing is, you say you want us to come up with counter arguments to your ideals. I think this is a case where you are lying. After the amount of time and effort that you have put into your theories, you aren't going to change your mind that easily. You are going to put more effort into finding holes in our arguments than you are with your own.
Therefore I have proved that you are full of shit.
Considering I moved from liberal Catholic to atheist anarchist to Wiccan anarcho-capitalist to nationalist perennialist, you're the one who's full of sh*t. My mind is far more flexible than that of most people because prejudice is entirely alien to me.
Isnt there a saying for activities like that? Its like you are only fucking this current woman until something better comes along. Think about it, when you followed all those previous beliefs, you were convinced that they were the right thing at the time and now you know better. Are you gonna feel the same way about your current obsession? If you were right all those other times only to be preven wrong to yourself, who's to say you wont end up feeling the same way about now?
And just because we arent following your nut job obsession doesnt mean we arent flexable and it doesnt mean we are prejudice.
You really do think you are better than everyone else. How's that working out for ya, ya fucktarded arsefarmer.
:indeed: :plus:Trying to be a martyr now? I mean it isnt something that effects you as it happened decades ago. It isnt really a current subject.
Everyone deserves to know the truth about what happened 65 years ago. The fact that this topic is so ultrasensitive and so commonly abused by ancient aliens and anti-fascists for their political agendas actually makes it far more relevant than most other topics. People base their views of the present partly on what they believe to have happened during WW2, which is why those events are far more than just some events that took place in the past.
The thing is, the shit you are peddling isnt the truth, no matter how much so called evidence you think you have. Here's what we can learn from WW2. When a country has to pay war reperation that that puts their econonmy in the toilet, idiots like Hitler get elected and can pretty much do what they want for a very long time before they are stopped. I feel the same thing has happened with our last government here in australia and the same thing in the US. We think we need someone tough who will do the things that we are too weak to do ourselves to save our country from going down the shitter. You back any country against the wall, they are gonna turn around and fight.If it strongly bothers you the way people react to it in a hostle manner, then get a fucking clue. People are letting you know that you are following bunk ideas that are in bad taste.
People who haven't studied the subject up close have no authority whatsoever to judge me on my views. It is them who should look into their hearts and ask for themselves why they behave in such a prejudiced and narrowminded way.
And you have no right to judge something that you werent a part of. Were you in a death camp or a labour camp? Were you living in a occupied country? It isnt enough that you grandparent did. Hell my grandparent did too. You are just an anti government anti society nut job with an agenda to push. You hate the Jews and you want them to pay. You want the whole world to hate them and you want to make them out to be liars. You secrety wish you could finish the job Hitler started dont you?The thing is, you say you want us to come up with counter arguments to your ideals. I think this is a case where you are lying. After the amount of time and effort that you have put into your theories, you aren't going to change your mind that easily. You are going to put more effort into finding holes in our arguments than you are with your own.
Therefore I have proved that you are full of shit.
Considering I moved from liberal Catholic to atheist anarchist to Wiccan anarcho-capitalist to nationalist perennialist, you're the one who's full of sh*t. My mind is far more flexible than that of most people because prejudice is entirely alien to me.
Isnt there a saying for activities like that? Its like you are only fucking this current woman until something better comes along. Think about it, when you followed all those previous beliefs, you were convinced that they were the right thing at the time and now you know better. Are you gonna feel the same way about your current obsession? If you were right all those other times only to be preven wrong to yourself, who's to say you wont end up feeling the same way about now?
And just because we arent following your nut job obsession doesnt mean we arent flexable and it doesnt mean we are prejudice.
You really do think you are better than everyone else. How's that working out for ya, ya fucktarded arsefarmer.
Hey, I was willing to take some of the ideas seriously. Especially the more general philosophy/spirituality ones that might actually overlap with something I care about. It's the whole holocaust thing which stinks of fanaticism to the point of becoming uninteresting.
The thing is, the shit you are peddling isnt the truth, no matter how much so called evidence you think you have.
Here's what we can learn from WW2. When a country has to pay war reperation that that puts their econonmy in the toilet, idiots like Hitler get elected and can pretty much do what they want for a very long time before they are stopped. I feel the same thing has happened with our last government here in australia and the same thing in the US. We think we need someone tough who will do the things that we are too weak to do ourselves to save our country from going down the shitter.
And you have no right to judge something that you werent a part of. Were you in a death camp or a labour camp? Were you living in a occupied country? It isnt enough that you grandparent did. Hell my grandparent did too.
You are just an anti government anti society nut job with an agenda to push. You hate the Jews and you want them to pay. You want the whole world to hate them and you want to make them out to be liars. You secrety wish you could finish the job Hitler started dont you?
Isnt there a saying for activities like that? Its like you are only fucking this current woman until something better comes along. Think about it, when you followed all those previous beliefs, you were convinced that they were the right thing at the time and now you know better. Are you gonna feel the same way about your current obsession? If you were right all those other times only to be preven wrong to yourself, who's to say you wont end up feeling the same way about now?
And just because we arent following your nut job obsession doesnt mean we arent flexable and it doesnt mean we are prejudice.
You really do think you are better than everyone else.
People will only believe what they want to. Arguing with people who not except any facts you give because only his sources are right is futile that is what this has become.
Hey, I was willing to take some of the ideas seriously. Especially the more general philosophy/spirituality ones that might actually overlap with something I care about. It's the whole holocaust thing which stinks of fanaticism to the point of becoming uninteresting.
I guess this is a lesson in moderation ;)The thing is, the shit you are peddling isnt the truth, no matter how much so called evidence you think you have.
Obviously, I strongly disagree here.Here's what we can learn from WW2. When a country has to pay war reperation that that puts their econonmy in the toilet, idiots like Hitler get elected and can pretty much do what they want for a very long time before they are stopped. I feel the same thing has happened with our last government here in australia and the same thing in the US. We think we need someone tough who will do the things that we are too weak to do ourselves to save our country from going down the shitter.
First of all, Hitler wasn't an idiot. He managed to transform Germany from a nation in chaos and utter despair into one of the most prosperous and strongest nations of the world in a matter of years. Even many of his enemies agree that he was a genius.
Second, there's quite a lot more that we can learn from WW2.And you have no right to judge something that you werent a part of. Were you in a death camp or a labour camp? Were you living in a occupied country? It isnt enough that you grandparent did. Hell my grandparent did too.
Why should I as an amateur historian have less right to judge than professional historians or those who actually lived back then? I've read and heard testimonies from all sides. I've seen numerous pictures, numerous documents, numerous videos, etc. I've met people who were sent for forced labor to Germany and I've met people who had to run from the German bombs, but I've also met SS-veterans. etc. I've done all I could to see the issue from as many perspectives as possible and make up my mind only afterwards.You are just an anti government anti society nut job with an agenda to push. You hate the Jews and you want them to pay. You want the whole world to hate them and you want to make them out to be liars. You secrety wish you could finish the job Hitler started dont you?
That's just offensive prejudiced rubbish and you know it.Isnt there a saying for activities like that? Its like you are only fucking this current woman until something better comes along. Think about it, when you followed all those previous beliefs, you were convinced that they were the right thing at the time and now you know better. Are you gonna feel the same way about your current obsession? If you were right all those other times only to be preven wrong to yourself, who's to say you wont end up feeling the same way about now?
The more I evolved down the path I described, the less cognitive dissonance there was and the more the pieces of the puzzle fitted. As such, I grew more and more convinced. Nevertheless, I ALWAYS keep open the possibility that someone at one time might provide me with new information that debunks the views I hold at that moment in time. As I haven't encountered any new information during the last few years to debunk my current views, I'm pretty sure my current views are quite stable. They're likely to only change in depth or nuance.
I understand that it might sound a bit strange to move from one frame of thought to another in just a few years, but that's the consequence of being unprejudiced and openminded. I find it quite ironic that people like you accused my of bigotry, while bigotry is something entirely alien to me.
Please also note that the shifts of worldview weren't as extreme as they may seem. For example, national-anarchism was the ideology that introduced me into the world of traditionalism and nationalism. Coming from anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, the step is quite small.And just because we arent following your nut job obsession doesnt mean we arent flexable and it doesnt mean we are prejudice.
You make (false) assumptions about historical facts and about people's motivations without any thorough investigation. That's prejudiced.You really do think you are better than everyone else.
As someone who largely applies to the Mr. Spock stereotype of AS, I'm definitely far more rational than the vast majority of mankind and I'm deeply troubled by the overemotional and irrational behavior of many.People will only believe what they want to. Arguing with people who not except any facts you give because only his sources are right is futile that is what this has become.
Indeed. Folks just keep on ignoring the facts and sources I present them, because they are too prejudiced to even look into them. I see you know the feeling ;)
Anyway, I'm still waiting for your sources on torture in the Third Reich. I'd love to look into them.
Oh that's right giving up smoking. Do you smoke?
Wow, I didn't think it was possible for you to lose any more respect points. Smoking is just wrong.
I like meerkats. I saw some at the zoo. I don't like smoking. It tastes horrible.
;)
There is your problem right there Renaeden. One should look at meerkatts but not touch them and certainly not smoke them. :asthing:
Wow, I didn't think it was possible for you to lose any more respect points. Smoking is just wrong.
Chain smoking is wrong and very dangerous, but I don't see what's wrong with enjoying a nice cigar or joint while chilling out in the evening?
I'd consider medical experiments on prisoners torture http://www.everything2.net/e2node/Nazi%2520medical%2520experiments
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/01/AR2005120101637.html
Of course easily done. I am powering up the time machine now....Oh wait small problem of you being in Belgium and me in Australia....Lucky I have a teleporter on hand.
Of course easily done. I am powering up the time machine now....Oh wait small problem of you being in Belgium and me in Australia....Lucky I have a teleporter on hand.
Everyone keeps telling me the evidence for the alleged monstrosity of the Third Reich is so obvious, but when I ask for such evidence people tell me the only way to really know is by entering a time machine..... * hmmm *
some capos used extreme violence... with SS men either not aware of it or looking another way. Surely there were also cases where SS men went out of line, but when discovered by SS autorities these men were sentenced with severe punishments. Abuse of inmates by SS men was definitely not condoned or supported by SS authorities.
I haven't the slightest historical evidence either way, but this doesn't ring true. The phenomena seen during the Stanford Prison Experiment wouldn't apply just to inmates-turned-guards, they would also apply to the guards themselves.
He still about? What a total waste of server space.
Must have been. Illusion's research proves that she was not in a camp. ::)
The SS men were actually also tattooed, though they had their bloodgroup tattooed in the armpit.
The SS men were actually also tattooed, though they had their bloodgroup tattooed in the armpit.
Well, that makes it OK to tattoo little children, then?
He still about? What a total waste of server space.
:laugh: I'm a fighter, not a lover.Fancy a bit of swordfighting?
:laugh: I'm a fighter, not a lover.
So the numbers tattooed on my old neighbors arm when she was a child was just a kindly way of keeping track of her in case she got lost at the camp?
Just some fun arranged by Hitler-Jugend for the little ones. Notice how none of the master race ever had to put up with a little tattoo?
I don't even think there was a war come to think of it.
He still about? What a total waste of server space.
Hey, he's the most action Intensity's had for a little while.
I don't care. I'd rather see Flo fill the available server space with Ginseng/Jessica/mum/etc problems than have the little Nazi voice his cluelessness for all to see. There's more truth in what Flo says, you know.
I don't care. I'd rather see Flo fill the available server space with Ginseng/Jessica/mum/etc problems than have the little Nazi voice his cluelessness for all to see. There's more truth in what Flo says, you know.
My cluelessness? First you ignore (the majority of) my arguments and you insult me. When you're entirely out of arguments, you start threatening me. Now you call me clueless. I think you just won the prize of most pathetic forum administrator.....
Well I have to give him this, when the man's right, he's right.....
About you being clueless, that is.
So you don't like Odeon...ok.
You don't like the way WE talk to you.....ok
Are you saying that you don't like it here?
Being a smart kind of fella, what do you think a solution to this is? (I will give you a hint. It has nothing to do with changing us. We are peachy)
Only some effort? Come on, Parts and Pyraxis are probably the most behaved out of all of us...
So you don't like Odeon...ok.
You don't like the way WE talk to you.....ok
Are you saying that you don't like it here?
Being a smart kind of fella, what do you think a solution to this is? (I will give you a hint. It has nothing to do with changing us. We are peachy)
Folks like parts and Pyraxis at least do SOME effort to behave maturely and I see at least SOME similarity between the views professed by members like TheoK or Beatle Soul and those of my own. I don't see why I should leave because the administator is an @$$ and a few other guys are utterly immature. The fact that your admin wants me out of here is actually encouraging for me to stay, since I just love to taunt a hypricritical and prejudiced moron like him.
Define "open minded".
What are you getting all teste about. You knew the score. Odeon has always been Odeon, I have always been me. We were before you came, we will still be long after you have left. More importantly the forum will always be what it is. You knew what you were signing up for when you joined ad have been told a couple of times since. Don't act surprised and hurt now.
This righteous melodrama of yours, is it playing out how you imagined, is this now the part where everyone looks at each other in a moment of Illusionist inspired moments of clarity and says "You know boys, he's right. Damn this site has been a waste all these years. We just needed a good man, a man with conviction and courage and all kinds of weirdness to lead us to the new frontier. Make Odeon walk the plank. We have a new King in town. Hoist up the Swastika flag."
PS for the record there is no point telling us the protocol or rules of debating these stupid topics with you. We don't have any interest in them
On that note, I should warn you, I'll probably argue semantics with you till you give up. I mean it worked with Hadron, and I seem to have a pretty good handle on it. So don't expect much in the way of "debate" from me :P
Define "open minded".
I use definitions like :
- the ability to contemplate an idea that contradicts your current views.
- the ability to question those views you currently hold.What are you getting all teste about. You knew the score. Odeon has always been Odeon, I have always been me. We were before you came, we will still be long after you have left. More importantly the forum will always be what it is. You knew what you were signing up for when you joined ad have been told a couple of times since. Don't act surprised and hurt now.
I joined this forum because someone referred it to me as an Aspie free speech forum. I knew nothing else of this forum before I joined it.This righteous melodrama of yours, is it playing out how you imagined, is this now the part where everyone looks at each other in a moment of Illusionist inspired moments of clarity and says "You know boys, he's right. Damn this site has been a waste all these years. We just needed a good man, a man with conviction and courage and all kinds of weirdness to lead us to the new frontier. Make Odeon walk the plank. We have a new King in town. Hoist up the Swastika flag."
I'm fairly new to the AS scene. Based on my own personallity, I just expected some more maturity and openmindedness among Aspies, especially among the Aspies that are part of a free speech forum.... and I find it quite shocking to see how much Aspies can resemble NTs with regards to outsiders within their own communities.
Basically, I expected oposition but oposition from a rational and openminded point of view rather than an irrational and narrowminded point of view as is the case here, especially with regards to Odeon.PS for the record there is no point telling us the protocol or rules of debating these stupid topics with you. We don't have any interest in them
Then why don't you just shut up and leave the table for those willing to debate? That's the way mature people behave.On that note, I should warn you, I'll probably argue semantics with you till you give up. I mean it worked with Hadron, and I seem to have a pretty good handle on it. So don't expect much in the way of "debate" from me :P
I don't like semantics debates. This, partly because it tends to ignore actual content (which is the part that matters) and partly (I have to admit that) because I'm sometimes a bit sloppy with regards to semantics. Still, I'm willing to give it a try since none currently appear to be willing to debate content.
See you are telling me what I should be, should want, should want to behave like and how to speak to you and when.
Oh for the record mate, you can want this forum to be whatever you weant and want its members to act however but at the end of the day we will do and be as we want.
Can you contemplate an idea that contradicts your views? For example, could you imagine a world where Nazi Germany was a haven for the inhumane and amoral to conduct torturous experiments on other humans? Forgetting the need for evidence for the moment, could you entertain such a notion?
Similarly can you question your own held beliefs? Look at their core and contemplate if they are worthy beliefs to be beheld?
Out of curiosity, who referred you?
Intensity is a haven for free speech, but as such I wouldn't expect many to engage in serious debate on issues such as the ones you wish to engage debate in.
I learned a long time ago, when I first joined the online Autistic community that few are alike and few share the same beliefs. I'm an ardent agnostic/atheist (i waver), as such I figured other Autistic, being of like mind would logically come to the same conclusions that I have. But no, there are several autistics who are religious and worship Yahweh. I found it to be a paradox, but I accepted it as part our of Diversity. As the Vulcan's say "Infinite Diversities in Infinite Combinations." But even having said, Autistics, like many other humans, cling to their belief systems and if someone comes along and shakes them, they're likely to strike out. At least that's what I have observed from people, autistic or otherwise and myself.
Semantic debates are more fun when the opposition doesn't know that they're being engaged in a semantic debate. :P
Here is another that will be shrugged off as lies http://www.mengele.dk/ and another http://www.deathcamps.info/testimonies/
Whilst it is often decried as not a decent source to cite, you could always try Wikipedia's article on The Holocaust (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust), there are over 200 citation, and source, and links to further reading.
I'd be intrigued to know how you discovered that your old beliefs were wrong, as you mentioned.
"Proper principals"?, "Mature Communication?" and "Comfortable atmosphere"
Where to you get this righteous bullshit from?
I've not been following this thread in great detail, so I don't even know what points have or have not been raised on either side. But that doesn't matter, as I the content is irrelevant to me, but rather the reasoning.
Fancy a bit of swordfighting?
Cool, like to wrestle? :eyebrows:
QuoteWhere to you get this righteous bullshit from?Experience? Aren't we Aspies supposed to learn from experience how to behave as adults?
Cool, like to wrestle? :eyebrows:
Sure, and sure ;D.
You aren't acting like an adult you are just trying to enforce your version of how you want things to go for you. In that respect you will try to manipulate those around you using, guilt, ridicule, encouragement, attacks on maturity or ideologies or basically anything else so they will do what you want which is talk crap with you so you feel stimulated and special.
Do you see why you are funny yet
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Power corrupts.
History is written by the victors.
When the Ginseng gets to be too much, when the Nazis refuse to stop breathing, and when IQs drop sharply...The IGNORE Mod
When the Ginseng gets to be too much, when the Nazis refuse to stop breathing, and when IQs drop sharply...The IGNORE Mod
It's funny you speak of IQ. Did I mention I'm a member of Mensa?!? ;)
/unignores
Ah. This is where we compare IQs, then? Mine is higher than yours. A *lot* higher, actually.
/ignores again
/unignores
Ah. This is where we compare IQs, then? Mine is higher than yours. A *lot* higher, actually.
/ignores again
My IQ is tested at 137 (WAIS-III scale -> sd15). Are you seriously suggesting that a prejudiced liberal jerk like yourself has an IQ a lot higher?
You silly boy...
My IQ is about the same as yours.
It is possible, however, to be a liberal or a communist and have a high IQ.
The thing is, the shit you are peddling isnt the truth, no matter how much so called evidence you think you have.
Obviously, I strongly disagree here.
Here's what we can learn from WW2. When a country has to pay war reperation that that puts their econonmy in the toilet, idiots like Hitler get elected and can pretty much do what they want for a very long time before they are stopped. I feel the same thing has happened with our last government here in australia and the same thing in the US. We think we need someone tough who will do the things that we are too weak to do ourselves to save our country from going down the shitter.
First of all, Hitler wasn't an idiot. He managed to transform Germany from a nation in chaos and utter despair into one of the most prosperous and strongest nations of the world in a matter of years. Even many of his enemies agree that he was a genius.
Second, there's quite a lot more that we can learn from WW2.
And you have no right to judge something that you werent a part of. Were you in a death camp or a labour camp? Were you living in a occupied country? It isnt enough that you grandparent did. Hell my grandparent did too.
Why should I as an amateur historian have less right to judge than professional historians or those who actually lived back then? I've read and heard testimonies from all sides. I've seen numerous pictures, numerous documents, numerous videos, etc. I've met people who were sent for forced labor to Germany and I've met people who had to run from the German bombs, but I've also met SS-veterans. etc. I've done all I could to see the issue from as many perspectives as possible and make up my mind only afterwards.
You are just an anti government anti society nut job with an agenda to push. You hate the Jews and you want them to pay. You want the whole world to hate them and you want to make them out to be liars. You secrety wish you could finish the job Hitler started dont you?
That's just offensive prejudiced rubbish and you know it.
Isnt there a saying for activities like that? Its like you are only fucking this current woman until something better comes along. Think about it, when you followed all those previous beliefs, you were convinced that they were the right thing at the time and now you know better. Are you gonna feel the same way about your current obsession? If you were right all those other times only to be preven wrong to yourself, who's to say you wont end up feeling the same way about now?
The more I evolved down the path I described, the less cognitive dissonance there was and the more the pieces of the puzzle fitted. As such, I grew more and more convinced. Nevertheless, I ALWAYS keep open the possibility that someone at one time might provide me with new information that debunks the views I hold at that moment in time. As I haven't encountered any new information during the last few years to debunk my current views, I'm pretty sure my current views are quite stable. They're likely to only change in depth or nuance.
I understand that it might sound a bit strange to move from one frame of thought to another in just a few years, but that's the consequence of being unprejudiced and openminded. I find it quite ironic that people like you accused my of bigotry, while bigotry is something entirely alien to me.
Please also note that the shifts of worldview weren't as extreme as they may seem. For example, national-anarchism was the ideology that introduced me into the world of traditionalism and nationalism. Coming from anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, the step is quite small.
And just because we arent following your nut job obsession doesnt mean we arent flexable and it doesnt mean we are prejudice.
You make (false) assumptions about historical facts and about people's motivations without any thorough investigation. That's prejudiced.
You really do think you are better than everyone else.
As someone who largely applies to the Mr. Spock stereotype of AS, I'm definitely far more rational than the vast majority of mankind and I'm deeply troubled by the overemotional and irrational behavior of many.
People will only believe what they want to. Arguing with people who not except any facts you give because only his sources are right is futile that is what this has become.
Indeed. Folks just keep on ignoring the facts and sources I present them, because they are too prejudiced to even look into them. I see you know the feeling ;)
Anyway, I'm still waiting for your sources on torture in the Third Reich. I'd love to look into them.
How old are you?
Sure it is possible. People with a high IQ tend to be more openminded and rational, though. This area is where Odeon hopelessly fails.
/unignores
Ah. This is where we compare IQs, then? Mine is higher than yours. A *lot* higher, actually.
/ignores again
My IQ is tested at 137 (WAIS-III scale -> sd15). Are you seriously suggesting that a prejudiced liberal jerk like yourself has an IQ a lot higher?
You silly boy...
/unignores
Ah. This is where we compare IQs, then? Mine is higher than yours. A *lot* higher, actually.
/ignores again
My IQ is tested at 137 (WAIS-III scale -> sd15). Are you seriously suggesting that a prejudiced liberal jerk like yourself has an IQ a lot higher?
You silly boy...
Mine is around the same as yours too. But as we all know, IQ tests just measure how well you can do IQ tests.
/unignores
Ah. This is where we compare IQs, then? Mine is higher than yours. A *lot* higher, actually.
/ignores again
My IQ is tested at 137 (WAIS-III scale -> sd15). Are you seriously suggesting that a prejudiced liberal jerk like yourself has an IQ a lot higher?
You silly boy...
Mine is around the same as yours too. But as we all know, IQ tests just measure how well you can do IQ tests.
That's what people with low IQ's say.
Obviously, you are still wrong, get used to it buddy.
If I don't like someone or agree with them, I call them an idiot.
Why should I as an amateur historian have less right to judge than professional historians or those who actually lived back then? I've read and heard testimonies from all sides. I've seen numerous pictures, numerous documents, numerous videos, etc. I've met people who were sent for forced labor to Germany and I've met people who had to run from the German bombs, but I've also met SS-veterans. etc. I've done all I could to see the issue from as many perspectives as possible and make up my mind only afterwards.
I don't believe you.
That's just offensive prejudiced rubbish and you know it.
Do I? Do you? I mean apparently you see it in me, but when you do it, it isn't.
I understand that it might sound a bit strange to move from one frame of thought to another in just a few years, but that's the consequence of being unprejudiced and openminded. I find it quite ironic that people like you accused my of bigotry, while bigotry is something entirely alien to me.
Just because you don't have the ability to recognise it in yourself, doesn't mean you aren't doing it.
You make (false) assumptions about historical facts and about people's motivations without any thorough investigation. That's prejudiced.
That's your opinion, not mine, and I happen to disagree with you.
Well that's the final nail in your coffin there. Someone who has a disability who thinks that they are better than the majority of people out there.
Maybe we just think your ideas and so called facts are just so utterly stupid to even give the time of day.
Mine is around the same as yours too. But as we all know, IQ tests just measure how well you can do IQ tests.
/unignores
Ah. This is where we compare IQs, then? Mine is higher than yours. A *lot* higher, actually.
/ignores again
My IQ is tested at 137 (WAIS-III scale -> sd15). Are you seriously suggesting that a prejudiced liberal jerk like yourself has an IQ a lot higher?
You silly boy...
Mine is around the same as yours too. But as we all know, IQ tests just measure how well you can do IQ tests.
That's what people with low IQ's say.
Obviously, you are still wrong, get used to it buddy.
I'm still waiting for ANYONE to debunk the arguments I presented in earlier posts. Thusfar, none has even attempted to do so.
If I don't like someone or agree with them, I call them an idiot.
So anyone not applying to your own very personal standard of truth or morallity is an idiot?!?
Why should I as an amateur historian have less right to judge than professional historians or those who actually lived back then? I've read and heard testimonies from all sides. I've seen numerous pictures, numerous documents, numerous videos, etc. I've met people who were sent for forced labor to Germany and I've met people who had to run from the German bombs, but I've also met SS-veterans. etc. I've done all I could to see the issue from as many perspectives as possible and make up my mind only afterwards.
I don't believe you.
You not believing me doesn't make these statements any less true. Besides.... why would I lie about all this?
That's just offensive prejudiced rubbish and you know it.
Do I? Do you? I mean apparently you see it in me, but when you do it, it isn't.
For someone claiming to have an IQ over 130, you sure succeed in missing the obvious.
I understand that it might sound a bit strange to move from one frame of thought to another in just a few years, but that's the consequence of being unprejudiced and openminded. I find it quite ironic that people like you accused my of bigotry, while bigotry is something entirely alien to me.
Just because you don't have the ability to recognise it in yourself, doesn't mean you aren't doing it.
Actually, it's one of my friends who first pointed out to me that he had never encountered a single person in his life as unprejudiced as I.
You make (false) assumptions about historical facts and about people's motivations without any thorough investigation. That's prejudiced.
That's your opinion, not mine, and I happen to disagree with you.
Thusfar you haven't been willing or able to produce a single arguments against the views I expressed.
Well that's the final nail in your coffin there. Someone who has a disability who thinks that they are better than the majority of people out there.
AS is not a disability. It's just a way of processing data that deviates from the norm. People with AS can outperform NTs on various levels,, because they're less prewired... although it all depends on what they've learned during their lives.
Maybe we just think your ideas and so called facts are just so utterly stupid to even give the time of day.
That's what makes you prejudiced.
Mine is around the same as yours too. But as we all know, IQ tests just measure how well you can do IQ tests.
IQ tests are insufficient as ways to measure overall intelligence, but they're definitely strong indicators of a person's cognitive abilities.
/unignores
Ah. This is where we compare IQs, then? Mine is higher than yours. A *lot* higher, actually.
/ignores again
My IQ is tested at 137 (WAIS-III scale -> sd15). Are you seriously suggesting that a prejudiced liberal jerk like yourself has an IQ a lot higher?
You silly boy...
Mine is around the same as yours too. But as we all know, IQ tests just measure how well you can do IQ tests.
That's what people with low IQ's say.
Not really.
QuoteQuoteMaybe we just think your ideas and so called facts are just so utterly stupid to even give the time of day.
That's what makes you prejudiced.
No, that's what makes us smart and spend out time more wisely.
Sure, and sure ;D.
/unignores
Ah. This is where we compare IQs, then? Mine is higher than yours. A *lot* higher, actually.
/ignores again
My IQ is tested at 137 (WAIS-III scale -> sd15). Are you seriously suggesting that a prejudiced liberal jerk like yourself has an IQ a lot higher?
You silly boy...
Prejudice has nothing to do with IQ, though. Though you can't just "dismiss" someone with an IQ of 137 as stupid. It's more than 97-98% of the world's population has.
It should be the top 2%, btw, not the top 3%. If I remember it correctly, scoring at or above the 98th percentile on any of the approved tests is the only requirement for Mensa membership.
The thread will continue after this message from our sponsor:
When the Ginseng gets to be too much, when the Nazis refuse to stop breathing, and when IQs drop sharply...The IGNORE Mod
You know you want it. You know you need it.
The thread will continue after this message from our sponsor:
When the Ginseng gets to be too much, when the Nazis refuse to stop breathing, and when IQs drop sharply...The IGNORE Mod
You know you want it. You know you need it.
What was the point of that?
It's not that I disagree with the act of making the choices, but rather the choices themselves. Of those participating (including Illusions) in the argument Parts seems to be the only one being mature about it. Sure you can choose to be immature, but, like all other choices, it will lead to consequences based on those choices. Me loosing respect for you, being one possible consequence. I don't agree with Illusions point of view, and have no need to argue it with him, but I was interested in how he came to that point of view, so I probed that, but I did so in a mature manner.
The way you respond to your enemies is just as, if not more, important than the way you respond to your allies.
It's not that I disagree with the act of making the choices, but rather the choices themselves. Of those participating (including Illusions) in the argument Parts seems to be the only one being mature about it. Sure you can choose to be immature, but, like all other choices, it will lead to consequences based on those choices. Me loosing respect for you, being one possible consequence. I don't agree with Illusions point of view, and have no need to argue it with him, but I was interested in how he came to that point of view, so I probed that, but I did so in a mature manner.
The way you respond to your enemies is just as, if not more, important than the way you respond to your allies.
I never claimed to enforce or wish to enforce anything. I merely expressed my irritation at everyone's behaviour in this thread. Do not I have the right to make that choice?
It's not that I disagree with the act of making the choices, but rather the choices themselves. Of those participating (including Illusions) in the argument Parts seems to be the only one being mature about it. Sure you can choose to be immature, but, like all other choices, it will lead to consequences based on those choices. Me loosing respect for you, being one possible consequence. I don't agree with Illusions point of view, and have no need to argue it with him, but I was interested in how he came to that point of view, so I probed that, but I did so in a mature manner.
The way you respond to your enemies is just as, if not more, important than the way you respond to your allies.
Where's the enforcement? I merely pointed out an obvious fact. To every choice there are consequences. Such as my choosing to air my annoyances has lead to this discussion. It's how the universe works.
What is going on is that you're all being bitchy dicks so I ghey'd you for it. Seems fair?
Well you got your argument in semantics anyhow GA. I wonder whether you prefer this to me just mindlessly sledging Ilusionist?
Yes, I am seriously saying that. I have had the tests done several times, last when I was dx'd with AS, and the results are consistently a lot higher than yours.
Can you tell me why this bugs you so much?
It's funny, though, because the reason you're calling me prejudiced and whatnot is because I strongly disagree with practically all of your views.
I can--and did--dismiss a person with an IQ of 137 as a Nazi with deplorable views, and because of his considerable stupidity and narrow-mindedness.
It should be the top 2%, btw, not the top 3%. If I remember it correctly, scoring at or above the 98th percentile on any of the approved tests is the only requirement for Mensa membership.
I'm well aware of the ignore mod, and refuse to use it. And even if I did, there's no reason to be a dick about the mod. If you don't agree with Illusions beliefs then just say so and exit the thread, or utilise the oft mentioned Ignore mod, no need to be an immature antagonistic bitch.
And Illusions you decry the lack of tolerance and open mindedness here, but lack it yourself when you claim to not tolerate gay people, and call other people here jerks.
I'm all for open minded discussions ands debates here, but if you don't agree with someone's view point either contest them with valid evidence or walk away. It's really that simple.
But no! We have to play the NT game and make with the attacking and bitchiness toward someone, anyone (that applies to all) who is different to yourself. Seesh lest we have some fucking diversity here, oh no, we can't have that now can we. We must all follow the same rules and be little fucking trolls. Fuck, you all suck.
It's not that I disagree with the act of making the choices, but rather the choices themselves. Of those participating (including Illusions) in the argument Parts seems to be the only one being mature about it. Sure you can choose to be immature, but, like all other choices, it will lead to consequences based on those choices. Me loosing respect for you, being one possible consequence. I don't agree with Illusions point of view, and have no need to argue it with him, but I was interested in how he came to that point of view, so I probed that, but I did so in a mature manner.
The way you respond to your enemies is just as, if not more, important than the way you respond to your allies.
Point is, the thread started to be something about Wankplanet, and probably some bitching and moaning that was happening there. Then it turned into an off-topic rant about Illusionists favourite thing; the Holocaust. Virtually all of us were never around during that period of history, and it means practically nothing to us (unless we had family members involved, which is highly unlikely) so it seems pretty futile carrying on a one-sided debate about something nobody else really gives a stuff about.
I wasn't around for WWII but both my father and grandfather served during that time (Signal Corps and US Army, respectively.). I also have friends who lost family members in the camps. So it's not something I care to put in a file and forget about.
"Millions of people can't be wrong".
Oh most assuredly they can, just look at how Hitler came to power (to use that as a metaphor).
I pity Illusions. I don't agree with his opinions of beliefs on what occured during WW2. My own opinions on the issue are clouded, as I don't truly know what occured, but I'm leaning more toward 'accepted' fact and away from what Illusions believes. But that doesn't mean I'm going to call him names for his beliefs.
Besides that, I disagree with homosexuallity being regarded as a non-deviant equivalent for heterosexuality and the propaganda used by the so-called "gay rights" movement to promote it as such. I respect the existence of homosexuality as a deviance besides heterosexuality and one of my best friends happens to be a lesbian. Thus, I can hardly be called intolerant.
Besides that, I disagree with homosexuallity being regarded as a non-deviant equivalent for heterosexuality and the propaganda used by the so-called "gay rights" movement to promote it as such. I respect the existence of homosexuality as a deviance besides heterosexuality and one of my best friends happens to be a lesbian. Thus, I can hardly be called intolerant.
Well then, how do you view Autism? As a deviance of the norm? Or perhaps an example of diversity?
And what of transgender?
For the same reason, I object to plastic surgery in general. We should accept the bodies given to us by nature, with both the upsides and the downsides.
For the same reason, I object to plastic surgery in general. We should accept the bodies given to us by nature, with both the upsides and the downsides.
What of tattoos? Ear-rings? Piercings? etc
and even though we could use the ignore mod, it's our forum just the same as anyone else's, and we will say what we like.
QuoteQuoteMaybe we just think your ideas and so called facts are just so utterly stupid to even give the time of day.
That's what makes you prejudiced.
No, that's what makes us smart and spend out time more wisely.
No, it makes you prejudiced.
Prejudice :
a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
b. A preconceived preference or idea.
Anyway, your words are both lacking of content and quite offensive, so I'll leave it at that. Picking my nose would be time better spent than addressing the rest of your tripe.
So when does this cat fight get interesting? I'm falling asleep here.
Lord Plexor sucks for being I2 2008's "tough guy".
I think you're all going off the deep end. And by all I mean nearly everyone who has replied in this thread, except myself.
I'm well aware of the ignore mod, and refuse to use it. And even if I did, there's no reason to be a dick about the mod. If you don't agree with Illusions beliefs then just say so and exit the thread, or utilise the oft mentioned Ignore mod, no need to be an immature antagonistic bitch.
And Illusions you decry the lack of tolerance and open mindedness here, but lack it yourself when you claim to not tolerate gay people, and call other people here jerks.
I'm all for open minded discussions ands debates here, but if you don't agree with someone's view point either contest them with valid evidence or walk away. It's really that simple.
But no! We have to play the NT game and make with the attacking and bitchiness toward someone, anyone (that applies to all) who is different to yourself. Seesh lest we have some fucking diversity here, oh no, we can't have that now can we. We must all follow the same rules and be little fucking trolls. Fuck, you all suck.
I never claimed to enforce or wish to enforce anything. I merely expressed my irritation at everyone's behaviour in this thread. Do not I have the right to make that choice?Yes. And we have the right to tell you to stuff it. And i mean it in the nicest possible way.
I never claimed to enforce or wish to enforce anything. I merely expressed my irritation at everyone's behaviour in this thread. Do not I have the right to make that choice?Yes. And we have the right to tell you to stuff it. And i mean it in the nicest possible way.
So when does this cat fight get interesting? I'm falling asleep here.
Lord Plexor sucks for being I2 2008's "tough guy".
Yeah, coming from you, I'm sure it really hurts.
No, it makes you prejudiced.
Prejudice :
a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
b. A preconceived preference or idea.
Anyway, your words are both lacking of content and quite offensive, so I'll leave it at that. Picking my nose would be time better spent than addressing the rest of your tripe.
I win.
I've seen you write that you had a lot of different beliefs from Catholicism to Wiccan to whatever. All that proves is that you couldn't make your bloody mind up, and just jumped on the first bandwagon to come along.
Now it's all very well having theories about this and that, but when you push them onto others and expect people to discuss them your way, when mostly they couldn't give a shit, then obviously you should realise that you are wasting your time.
I can name at least 4 wankers from WP who were exactly the same as you; trying to ram there fucking views down everyone else's throats.
Now I'me here foremost to have fun, and to debate as well (if I think it's worth it).
So do us a favour and stop expecting us to blindly follow you over the nearest cliff like
Bullshit. You put up these fucking arguments and then when Odeon or someone else says something you disagree with, you want him to quote facts and bullshit-bullshit-bullshit blah-blah-blah instead of just taking their word for it.
You think you are an authority on everything just because you bothered to research a boring subject like this with your 137 IQ?
For fuck's sake, when someone tells you something different, it means they DON"T consider your opinion to be as correct as you think it is, and that is THEIR opinion.
If you hadn't had your head up your arse for so long, you'd realise that 99.9% of people on this forym just AREN'T INTERESTED in your petty whine.
Oh, and if you think what you are doing is expressing your viewpoint while ignoring others, then obviously I would say that 137 IQ of yours is self-diagnosed, like your AS.
Oh well I guess we will all get over it. I hope you can too. It seems that there is a lot of butthurtness riding on your psyche and impacting heavily on you. Good luck in moving on.
your are completely ignoring the fact that only 2 people actually seem to give a shit out of a forum of 326 members. Now why should the rest of us have to move aside so that you and those other 2 can debate 30-odd pages of complete and utter horeshit when it's our fucking forum to.
/me unwatches this thread.
Sorry but it became to similar to a merry go round, and they make me dizzy.
So when does this cat fight get interesting? I'm falling asleep here.
Lord Plexor sucks for being I2 2008's "tough guy".
Yeah, coming from you, I'm sure it really hurts.
I'm sure it does, so get over it, you fucking Peegai clone.
So when does this cat fight get interesting? I'm falling asleep here.
Lord Plexor sucks for being I2 2008's "tough guy".
Yeah, coming from you, I'm sure it really hurts.
I'm sure it does, so get over it, you fucking Peegai clone.
I'm flattered, but I don't want to be your internet lover.
So when does this cat fight get interesting? I'm falling asleep here.
Lord Plexor sucks for being I2 2008's "tough guy".
Yeah, coming from you, I'm sure it really hurts.
I'm sure it does, so get over it, you fucking Peegai clone.
I'm flattered, but I don't want to be your internet lover.
Clone, not lover. Stupid dyslexics.
Oh well I guess we will all get over it. I hope you can too. It seems that there is a lot of butthurtness riding on your psyche and impacting heavily on you. Good luck in moving on.
You seriously think this impacts heavily on me? I actually have a life besides the Internet, you know... People who know me in real life respect me and that's all that truely matters for me. The only impact you guys have on me is giving me another confirmation that internet forums are a waste of time. Unfortunately, I sometimes have little better at hands.your are completely ignoring the fact that only 2 people actually seem to give a shit out of a forum of 326 members. Now why should the rest of us have to move aside so that you and those other 2 can debate 30-odd pages of complete and utter horeshit when it's our fucking forum to.
Why can't you just behave like an adult and ignore topics you don't like? Why is that so hard for you?
Let me repeat :
We stand for freedom of expression, combative debate, and the generation of ideas. There are no boundaries here over what may be said, save for one rule - be prepared to back up your words.
I stand for freedom of expression, combative debate, and the generation of ideas. I am prepared to back up your words. What the **** are you 326 guys doing here if you're not interested in freedom of expression, combative debate, and the generation of ideas and you're not prepared to back up your words?
So your contribution here besides snow the forum with delightful and boring theories about denying one of the worst (if not the worst) atrocities in recent times is to tell us that we are all behaving incorrectly at our forum.
He was banned, and he's telling us how to behave? Lawl.
I was banned from other forums for mentioning proven facts that just happen to be controversial enough to trigger the most irrational emotional response from 95% of the population. You can hardly blame me for the gullability and closedmindedness of those folks. I'm just the messenger here....
Anyway, like GalileoAce pointed out : this topic is just going around in circles. You guys seem to be unwilling to do anything but repeat the same mantra of insults and assumtions, so just continue shouting your profanity at the wall. I'm no longer participating in your pathetic and immature alternative for debate.
So your contribution here besides snow the forum with delightful and boring theories about denying one of the worst (if not the worst) atrocities in recent times is to tell us that we are all behaving incorrectly at our forum.
I'm not denying any attrocities that actually did take place. It's just the lies and distortions included in the so-called Holocaust that I object to and I notice that none of you did a serious attempt to debunk my arguments in spite of your self-righteousness and your arrogance. Like a bunch of blind lemmings you all just assume that the status quo must be correct because you're too brainwashed to even contemplate an explanation for the piles of bodies found at Dachau and the tattoo on your neighbor's arm that doesn't imply genocide.He was banned, and he's telling us how to behave? Lawl.
I was banned from other forums for mentioning proven facts that just happen to be controversial enough to trigger the most irrational emotional response from 95% of the population. You can hardly blame me for the gullability and closedmindedness of those folks. I'm just the messenger here....
Anyway, like GalileoAce pointed out : this topic is just going around in circles. You guys seem to be unwilling to do anything but repeat the same mantra of insults and assumtions, so just continue shouting your profanity at the wall. I'm no longer participating in your pathetic and immature alternative for debate.
So when does this cat fight get interesting? I'm falling asleep here.
Lord Plexor sucks for being I2 2008's "tough guy".
Yeah, coming from you, I'm sure it really hurts.
I'm sure it does, so get over it, you fucking Peegai clone.
I'm flattered, but I don't want to be your internet lover.
Clone, not lover. Stupid dyslexics.
You're boring.
So when does this cat fight get interesting? I'm falling asleep here.
Lord Plexor sucks for being I2 2008's "tough guy".
Yeah, coming from you, I'm sure it really hurts.
I'm sure it does, so get over it, you fucking Peegai clone.
I'm flattered, but I don't want to be your internet lover.
Clone, not lover. Stupid dyslexics.
You're boring.
As are you. Autistic parents playing as keyboard warriors don't faze me at all. :(
Are we meant to faze you? Nobody told me, I didn't get the memo. Shit.
Thanks for being such a swell guy, making sure I get enough attention here. It's been really uplifting. Lets keep our fingers crossed and hope you get in the newsbox for it! :thumbup:
Well that is the thing Illusionist asks us what we think of his pet subject we tell him and he get in our faces about it and throws us stuff he has carefully researched for the topic he has only just introduced us to, and wonders why we can't disprove him right away. It is like giving the defence lawyer 5 years research and giving the file to the prosecutor the day before and wondering why there is a difficulty in debating fairly.Exactly. Have read the thread but cannot give any argument or opinion of my own. Saving myself from being owned.
Don't worry Phlex, he hazes every up-comming troll.
Just piss everywhere and you'll stake out some territory. Just don't piss on me or you'll be truly sorry. :evillaugh:
Are we meant to faze you? Nobody told me, I didn't get the memo. Shit.
Thanks for being such a swell guy, making sure I get enough attention here. It's been really uplifting. Lets keep our fingers crossed and hope you get in the newsbox for it! :thumbup:
It's part of the Path to Trollhood. Weren't you informed, or couldn't you read the memo because of something so pitiful like dyslexia?
Don't worry Phlex, he hazes every up-comming troll.Go ahead and piss on Vodzy, he is a closet lover of golden showers.
Just piss everywhere and you'll stake out some territory. Just don't piss on me or you'll be truly sorry. :evillaugh:
We are not manipulated if We do not won't to be manipulated at all.It's not that I disagree with the act of making the choices, but rather the choices themselves. Of those participating (including Illusions) in the argument Parts seems to be the only one being mature about it. Sure you can choose to be immature, but, like all other choices, it will lead to consequences based on those choices. Me loosing respect for you, being one possible consequence. I don't agree with Illusions point of view, and have no need to argue it with him, but I was interested in how he came to that point of view, so I probed that, but I did so in a mature manner.
The way you respond to your enemies is just as, if not more, important than the way you respond to your allies.
Well that made for a very stern lecture GA.....but let's look at the big picture here.
You have decided that there ought to be a certain "right" of response to which you will enforce if not adhered to in the manner you would have it be. You are the apparent gauge to what is acceptable. You agree with Illusionist (the member who recently joined this forum with horrendously bigoted viewpoints and as a holocaust denier who insults all the memories of those affected by it. A poster who was kicked out of every other forum because of those hateful beliefs and who is only here because of the fact that the forum allows posters to have the choice to pretty much do or say as they like.) and you think it is fine him controlling the way he is to be treated here and how we conduct ourselves around him? Is that right? The "threat" of you losing respect for me, is that what Illusionist may have said to me (to control my actions) if he thought he may have some? Of course you say it now.
The freedom of choice does not go one way. It goes across the board. You would seek to inhibit that choice and restrict your own freedoms elsewhere. Odeon as the webmaster could kick out Illusionist and say "He was being too serious from now on you all have to be immature or else there will be consequences". I am betting you would have issue with it. Yet have no problem trying to do the opposite here.
I will behave in ways that are serious, silly, snarky, compassionate and a good number of other things and being a member of a good many forums I appreciate my freedom to do so. I also see others being given that freedom as a good thing. You can minus my karma as much as you like. That is your choice. You can call me out as immature. Your choice. You can try to seek to have the freedoms we all enjoy on this forum for the benefit of yourself and a man who thumbs his nose at one of the nastiest pieces in history. Your choice. You can choice to lose respect for me. Your choice. You can even seek to further justify how you could possibly be right doing so . Your choice. What you can't choose though is to stop me being me and ultimately not responding to your emotional blackmail. I don't do that. I am hoping for your sake you are just off on a tangent and that you will realise why what you have posted is against reasonableness. I like you GA but I sure as hell won't be manipulated by you.
We are not manipulated if We do not won't to be manipulated at all.It's not that I disagree with the act of making the choices, but rather the choices themselves. Of those participating (including Illusions) in the argument Parts seems to be the only one being mature about it. Sure you can choose to be immature, but, like all other choices, it will lead to consequences based on those choices. Me loosing respect for you, being one possible consequence. I don't agree with Illusions point of view, and have no need to argue it with him, but I was interested in how he came to that point of view, so I probed that, but I did so in a mature manner.
The way you respond to your enemies is just as, if not more, important than the way you respond to your allies.
Well that made for a very stern lecture GA.....but let's look at the big picture here.
You have decided that there ought to be a certain "right" of response to which you will enforce if not adhered to in the manner you would have it be. You are the apparent gauge to what is acceptable. You agree with Illusionist (the member who recently joined this forum with horrendously bigoted viewpoints and as a holocaust denier who insults all the memories of those affected by it. A poster who was kicked out of every other forum because of those hateful beliefs and who is only here because of the fact that the forum allows posters to have the choice to pretty much do or say as they like.) and you think it is fine him controlling the way he is to be treated here and how we conduct ourselves around him? Is that right? The "threat" of you losing respect for me, is that what Illusionist may have said to me (to control my actions) if he thought he may have some? Of course you say it now.
The freedom of choice does not go one way. It goes across the board. You would seek to inhibit that choice and restrict your own freedoms elsewhere. Odeon as the webmaster could kick out Illusionist and say "He was being too serious from now on you all have to be immature or else there will be consequences". I am betting you would have issue with it. Yet have no problem trying to do the opposite here.
I will behave in ways that are serious, silly, snarky, compassionate and a good number of other things and being a member of a good many forums I appreciate my freedom to do so. I also see others being given that freedom as a good thing. You can minus my karma as much as you like. That is your choice. You can call me out as immature. Your choice. You can try to seek to have the freedoms we all enjoy on this forum for the benefit of yourself and a man who thumbs his nose at one of the nastiest pieces in history. Your choice. You can choice to lose respect for me. Your choice. You can even seek to further justify how you could possibly be right doing so . Your choice. What you can't choose though is to stop me being me and ultimately not responding to your emotional blackmail. I don't do that. I am hoping for your sake you are just off on a tangent and that you will realise why what you have posted is against reasonableness. I like you GA but I sure as hell won't be manipulated by you.
:plus:
Another interesting Youtube. This is how Iraqis in Sweden's 3rd largest city celebrate that Iraq won Asia Cup. Would they be allowed to behave like that in the 3rd largest city in the US?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0_XaUqwc_g&feature=related
Illusionist: Your IQ definitely is self diagnosed, because no psychologist or mental facility would have certified you with one, let alone and IQ of 137.
Your argument and refusal to accept anyone's reason as to why they won't debate your Nazi agenda is total proof that you haven't even the foggiest idea of how to debate even a kindergarten class on the benefits of Play-dough versus Plasticine. When someone says they are not interested (as I have said for the millionth fucking time), it means they want you to SHUT THE FUCK UP.
So on behalf of the 324 members here who think your bullshit is not worth the effort, fuck off and start up your own thread.
Well that is the thing Illusionist asks us what we think of his pet subject we tell him and he get in our faces about it and throws us stuff he has carefully researched for the topic he has only just introduced us to, and wonders why we can't disprove him right away. It is like giving the defence lawyer 5 years research and giving the file to the prosecutor the day before and wondering why there is a difficulty in debating fairly.
Even so I am wondering why he thinks being able to cite this research is associated with his IQ or OUR ability not to be able to put our hands on research proves the opposite.
debating the holocaust conspiracy is not fun.
no. learn how to not get so emotional over something that wasnt even about youwell you stupid fuck i wasnt talking to youLearn to use the quote system then, retard.
Illusionist: Your IQ definitely is self diagnosed, because no psychologist or mental facility would have certified you with one, let alone and IQ of 137.
That's just your prejudice speaking. I did get that certificate and I am a member of Mensa. Nothing you're gonna say will change that fact.
In my country it's 132. Though I've scored up to 145.
In my country it's 132. Though I've scored up to 145.
I think it is an IQ measurement of 148 in the UK, but the difference may very well be to do with a different scale... In some scales 132 and 148 might actually be the same - that is why MENSA uses percentiles :) In the test where my mind didn't turn to mush, I scored just inside the top 1 percent of the nation (Higher than Carol Vorderman, I later learned... though not nearly so good at maths... I'm mildly dyscalculiac). I think I managed around 146 in the MENSA membership test (around two less for the pass) where my brain turned to mush... I think I would have refused my membership had I scraped through on that test - I'd have been too ashamed because that 146 (or whatever) was mere chance... I was more like a boiled cabbage on that day - lol ;D
Is 137 enough to get into MENSA where you live? I think it is a higher IQ score in the UK to be in an exclusive enough percentile... I think the rule is you have to be in the top 2 percentile, or is it 3, of the country where you live?
Quite frankly I don't see the point with joining Mensa. Idiots like Illusion prove that any moron could join, anyway. /shrugsNot to mention that the place is full of pretentious twats. A lot like some universities really, but even more pretentious.
Quite frankly I don't see the point with joining Mensa. Idiots like Illusion prove that any moron could join, anyway. /shrugs
Quite frankly I don't see the point with joining Mensa. Idiots like Illusion prove that any moron could join, anyway. /shrugs
Quite frankly I don't see the point with joining Mensa. Idiots like Illusion prove that any moron could join, anyway. /shrugsNot to mention that the place is full of pretentious twats. A lot like some universities really, but even more pretentious.
Quite frankly I don't see the point with joining Mensa.
Idiots like Illusion prove that any moron could join, anyway. /shrugs
So why would someone join a club which is set up to say that they are the brightest in the nation, if its not to look down on others that they consider less intelligent? (Ignoring of course insecurity of their own intellects)Quite frankly I don't see the point with joining Mensa. Idiots like Illusion prove that any moron could join, anyway. /shrugsNot to mention that the place is full of pretentious twats. A lot like some universities really, but even more pretentious.
I assumed that would be true, but the people I met at the MENSA meeting weren't pretentious at all. They were just nice people who happened to have high IQs.
So why would someone join a club which is set up to say that they are the brightest in the nation, if its not to look down on others that they consider less intelligent? (Ignoring of course insecurity of their own intellects)Quite frankly I don't see the point with joining Mensa. Idiots like Illusion prove that any moron could join, anyway. /shrugsNot to mention that the place is full of pretentious twats. A lot like some universities really, but even more pretentious.
I assumed that would be true, but the people I met at the MENSA meeting weren't pretentious at all. They were just nice people who happened to have high IQs.
So why would someone join a club which is set up to say that they are the brightest in the nation, if its not to look down on others that they consider less intelligent? (Ignoring of course insecurity of their own intellects)
Don't worry Phlex, he hazes every up-comming troll.Go ahead and piss on Vodzy, he is a closet lover of golden showers.
Just piss everywhere and you'll stake out some territory. Just don't piss on me or you'll be truly sorry. :evillaugh:
Don't worry Phlex, he hazes every up-comming troll.Go ahead and piss on Vodzy, he is a closet lover of golden showers.
Just piss everywhere and you'll stake out some territory. Just don't piss on me or you'll be truly sorry. :evillaugh:
I'd have to buy him dinner a few times before I did that I think.
Don't worry Phlex, he hazes every up-comming troll.Go ahead and piss on Vodzy, he is a closet lover of golden showers.
Just piss everywhere and you'll stake out some territory. Just don't piss on me or you'll be truly sorry. :evillaugh:
I'd have to buy him dinner a few times before I did that I think.
Nah just feed him drugs
Nah, that is what a first class degree is for.So why would someone join a club which is set up to say that they are the brightest in the nation, if its not to look down on others that they consider less intelligent? (Ignoring of course insecurity of their own intellects)
I already explained why I joined :
* ) It can be a plus for your resume.
* ) It can make it easier to find people interested in intellectual activities like philosophical debate or abstract board games.There are better ways of doing the above as opposed joining Mensa, e.g academia, political parties, think tanks and other such clubs.
* ) It has a special interest group focussed at researching and debating common side-effects of high intelligence like Asperger's.Most universities research it anyway, with access to laboratories, the whole academic community and so on.
Can't you even write a single post in this thread without insulting me for disagreeing with your liberal rubbish?
Don't worry Phlex, he hazes every up-comming troll.Go ahead and piss on Vodzy, he is a closet lover of golden showers.
Just piss everywhere and you'll stake out some territory. Just don't piss on me or you'll be truly sorry. :evillaugh:
I'd have to buy him dinner a few times before I did that I think.
Nah just feed him drugs
Hey, who do you think I am? I have some class you know.
* ) It can be a plus for your resume.
Nah, that is what a first class degree is for.
Quote* ) It can make it easier to find people interested in intellectual activities like philosophical debate or abstract board games.There are better ways of doing the above as opposed joining Mensa, e.g academia, political parties, think tanks and other such clubs.
Quote* ) It has a special interest group focussed at researching and debating common side-effects of high intelligence like Asperger's.Most universities research it anyway, with access to laboratories, the whole academic community and so on.
No, but that's because you really are a moron and sort of fun to play with.
Your eagerness to quote your IQ is your downfall.
So basically you were not good enough to do well at an engineering degree so copped out. You know for someone who claims to be so bright, finding a new way of working would not be that difficult...* ) It can be a plus for your resume.
Nah, that is what a first class degree is for.
I tried Civil Engineering, but because high school was too easy for me I never learned to study and didn't know how to deal with the amount and complexity of information provided. Thus, I just went for a Bachelor's in IT.
It depends what you do that Doctorate in, and where. Asides, even as an undergraduate, I have been able to find quite a range of people to debate etc with. The connections to be in a thinktank/ gentlemans club normally come from academia or joining a local political party, in fact just by being a member of the Tories (pretty sure you can find people there who agree with your political views) you can go into their members club.Quote* ) It can make it easier to find people interested in intellectual activities like philosophical debate or abstract board games.There are better ways of doing the above as opposed joining Mensa, e.g academia, political parties, think tanks and other such clubs.
Political parties are full of idiots and academia isn't as interesting as one might think (I know several doctorate students and my father-in-law to be is a doctor in genetics). Think tanks and gentleman clubs are far more interesting, but they require connections.
What's the point of research that cannot be checked or verified correctly?Quote* ) It has a special interest group focussed at researching and debating common side-effects of high intelligence like Asperger's.Most universities research it anyway, with access to laboratories, the whole academic community and so on.
How am I supposed to get involved without becoming an official guinea pig?
You are a fool if you believe IQ is a good measure of intelligence. Speaking as someone allegedly in the "genius" range...No, but that's because you really are a moron and sort of fun to play with.
I'm not the moron here.Your eagerness to quote your IQ is your downfall.
I only mention my IQ when people insist on calling me a moron, as it shows their own stupidity.
QuoteI tried Civil Engineering, but because high school was too easy for me I never learned to study and didn't know how to deal with the amount and complexity of information provided. Thus, I just went for a Bachelor's in IT.
So basically you were not good enough to do well at an engineering degree so copped out. You know for someone who claims to be so bright, finding a new way of working would not be that difficult...
It depends what you do that Doctorate in, and where.
Asides, even as an undergraduate, I have been able to find quite a range of people to debate etc with.
The connections to be in a thinktank/ gentlemans club normally come from academia or joining a local political party, in fact just by being a member of the Tories (pretty sure you can find people there who agree with your political views) you can go into their members club.
What's the point of research that cannot be checked or verified correctly?
You are a fool if you believe IQ is a good measure of intelligence.
IQ is a good measure of certain cognitive abilities, for example pattern recognition. As a means to measure general intelligence it is obviously insufficient as it doesn't take in account many other relevant forms of intelligence.
I scored considerably higher than 80% in my entry exams (for one 80% is the pass mark in practise for A-levels). You do need to have a metholodgy, but when you are getting behind it becomes sort of obvious. Unless you are like me and your days are spent sitting in the pub, hence why I have failed my first year and am now off to resit.QuoteI tried Civil Engineering, but because high school was too easy for me I never learned to study and didn't know how to deal with the amount and complexity of information provided. Thus, I just went for a Bachelor's in IT.
So basically you were not good enough to do well at an engineering degree so copped out. You know for someone who claims to be so bright, finding a new way of working would not be that difficult...
I scored about 81% at my entry exams for civil engineering, which is far more than most. I just lacked any sort of methodology in studying and you need this to be able to handle the complexity and amount of information at the university in question. Particularly as an Aspie, it isn't self-evident to develop a methodology just like that.
A lot of the people I hang out with tend to do some of the more arty subjects. More the fool you for sticking too close to your subject.It depends what you do that Doctorate in, and where.
Most people I hang out with, are into IT, engineering or law and obtained their degree at the better universities and colleges of my country.
So have I. I'm just looking for new people.Asides, even as an undergraduate, I have been able to find quite a range of people to debate etc with.
Are snobs people...?QuotePolitical parties are far from filled with idiots, especailly once you get out of the grassroots and start playing the game.The connections to be in a thinktank/ gentlemans club normally come from academia or joining a local political party, in fact just by being a member of the Tories (pretty sure you can find people there who agree with your political views) you can go into their members club.
Like I said, political parties are filled with idiots. Besides that, I strongly object to mainstream politics anyway.
Further, I don't think Belgian society is as class-oriented as British society. Of all the university students I met in my life, I don't think even a single one was part of a gentlemen's club.
My future father-in-law comes from what once used to be a local elite family and he once was a member of Rotary. Also, one of my best friends has an uncle who's a multi-billionaire. That's as high up as my connections go. For the time to be, those connections are not very useful, though. Maybe if I'll be married with children or my friend becomes CEO of one of his uncle's companies, those connections will prove their use.
The political society at my uni is rather unfortuantly, a gentlemans club. Much as I hate the fact, I still go.QuoteSo basically you are happy to rely on speculation and dodgy guesswork. This seems to have become a recurring theme with you.What's the point of research that cannot be checked or verified correctly?
I'm mostly interested in learning from other people's experiences or references to interesting literature on studies already taken. I don't need to be in a test group for that.QuoteThere are some pretty thick people with high IQs unfortunately. I have had the misfortune to have come across several.You are a fool if you believe IQ is a good measure of intelligence.
IQ is a good measure of certain cognitive abilities, for example pattern recognition. As a means to measure general intelligence it is obviously insufficient as it doesn't take in account many other relevant forms of intelligence.
:blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :yawn:
I have learned many things from people most would consider dumb and shook my head at Ideas from those high IQ types in the past
Gee, my pattern recognition abilities are a lot better than yours.
And yes, I agree, the IQ tests are insufficient, and you've provided all the evidence we'll ever need.
I scored about 81% at my entry exams for civil engineering, which is far more than most. I just lacked any sort of methodology in studying and you need this to be able to handle the complexity and amount of information at the university in question. Particularly as an Aspie, it isn't self-evident to develop a methodology just like that.I scored considerably higher than 80% in my entry exams (for one 80% is the pass mark in practise for A-levels).
You do need to have a metholodgy, but when you are getting behind it becomes sort of obvious. Unless you are like me and your days are spent sitting in the pub, hence why I have failed my first year and am now off to resit.
QuoteMost people I hang out with, are into IT, engineering or law and obtained their degree at the better universities and colleges of my country.A lot of the people I hang out with tend to do some of the more arty subjects. More the fool you for sticking too close to your subject.
QuoteSo have I. I'm just looking for new people.Are snobs people...?
Political parties are far from filled with idiots, especailly once you get out of the grassroots and start playing the game.
QuoteI'm mostly interested in learning from other people's experiences or references to interesting literature on studies already taken. I don't need to be in a test group for that.So basically you are happy to rely on speculation and dodgy guesswork.
QuoteIQ is a good measure of certain cognitive abilities, for example pattern recognition. As a means to measure general intelligence it is obviously insufficient as it doesn't take in account many other relevant forms of intelligence.There are some pretty thick people with high IQs unfortunately. I have had the misfortune to have come across several.
It could be, however most entry systems use 80% as the top grade pass mark. At least that is the way UK universities look at it.I scored about 81% at my entry exams for civil engineering, which is far more than most. I just lacked any sort of methodology in studying and you need this to be able to handle the complexity and amount of information at the university in question. Particularly as an Aspie, it isn't self-evident to develop a methodology just like that.I scored considerably higher than 80% in my entry exams (for one 80% is the pass mark in practise for A-levels).
You can't compare entry exams from different universities in different countries. They all have very different standards and 60% at the exam I took could be equivalent to 80% at the exam you took. Comparisons are only useful when you compare results from the same tests or exams.
Yup. Though next year I intend to do quite a bit of work and clinch a first.You do need to have a metholodgy, but when you are getting behind it becomes sort of obvious. Unless you are like me and your days are spent sitting in the pub, hence why I have failed my first year and am now off to resit.
I didn't spend my days in the pub, but I did spend quite a lot of time behind my PC doing various things or at my friend's dorm chilling out and smoking pot. I guess we're both a bit lazy when it comes to studying ;)
No, but what I do is mix into wide circles, which means I am going to meet people with a range of interests.QuoteMost people I hang out with, are into IT, engineering or law and obtained their degree at the better universities and colleges of my country.A lot of the people I hang out with tend to do some of the more arty subjects. More the fool you for sticking too close to your subject.
I don't choose people based on their interests. Maybe you do, but my friends are people I met spontaneously in high school, in college or as friends of other friends. Considering I met most of my friends when I was in college and considering my girlfriend has a degree in law, it is only logical that most of our friends come from IT, engineering or law. I don't ONLY have friends in IT, engineering or law though.
No, I am implying that otherwise intelligent and supposedly successful individuals who feel a strong need to overstate their achievements are snobs. For example those who choose to join Mensa.QuoteSo have I. I'm just looking for new people.Are snobs people...?
I'm not looking for snobs. I can't stand them any more than you do.
Are you implying that intelligent and succesful intellectuals are always snobs?
In which case all you need is membership to a decent university library. Not Mensa.Political parties are far from filled with idiots, especailly once you get out of the grassroots and start playing the game.
I haven't met a single politician who isn't both mediocre and vane.
So basically you are happy to rely on speculation and dodgy guesswork.QuoteI'm mostly interested in learning from other people's experiences or references to interesting literature on studies already taken. I don't need to be in a test group for that.So basically you are happy to rely on speculation and dodgy guesswork.
You're twisting me words. As I said, I'm interested in reading literature on (scientific) STUDIES ALREADY TAKEN (which is hardly speculation or dodgy guesswork). I'm also interested in learning from other people's experiences, because they may know some tricks I haven't thought of myself.
Your assuming that IQ and intelligence strongly correlate. I am not entirely convinced.QuoteIQ is a good measure of certain cognitive abilities, for example pattern recognition. As a means to measure general intelligence it is obviously insufficient as it doesn't take in account many other relevant forms of intelligence.There are some pretty thick people with high IQs unfortunately. I have had the misfortune to have come across several.
High intelligence obviously does not imply a lack of ignorance and prejudice. It still depends on what you do with it....
Gee, my pattern recognition abilities are a lot better than yours.
And you know this how?
And yes, I agree, the IQ tests are insufficient, and you've provided all the evidence we'll ever need.
Such statements show how narrowminded, prejudiced and plain idiotic you are.
Regular IQ tests in no way measure a person's level of commonsense! I submit Delusionist as a prime example of such. ;)Gee, my pattern recognition abilities are a lot better than yours.
And you know this how?
My IQ is a lot higher than yours, and you said this: IQ is a good measure of certain cognitive abilities, for example pattern recognition.
QEDQuoteAnd yes, I agree, the IQ tests are insufficient, and you've provided all the evidence we'll ever need.
Such statements show how narrowminded, prejudiced and plain idiotic you are.
Not really, but they do show what I think about you.
Rrohypnol in his Champagne ? :eyebrows:
Don't worry Phlex, he hazes every up-comming troll.Go ahead and piss on Vodzy, he is a closet lover of golden showers.
Just piss everywhere and you'll stake out some territory. Just don't piss on me or you'll be truly sorry. :evillaugh:
I'd have to buy him dinner a few times before I did that I think.
Nah just feed him drugs
Hey, who do you think I am? I have some class you know.
I don't. A few weeks ago I sucked dick, not for drugs, but probably because I was on them.
It could be, however most entry systems use 80% as the top grade pass mark. At least that is the way UK universities look at it.
Yup. Though next year I intend to do quite a bit of work and clinch a first.
No, but what I do is mix into wide circles, which means I am going to meet people with a range of interests.
No, I am implying that otherwise intelligent and supposedly successful individuals who feel a strong need to overstate their achievements are snobs. For example those who choose to join Mensa.
QuoteYou're twisting me words. As I said, I'm interested in reading literature on (scientific) STUDIES ALREADY TAKEN (which is hardly speculation or dodgy guesswork). I'm also interested in learning from other people's experiences, because they may know some tricks I haven't thought of myself.In which case all you need is membership to a decent university library. Not Mensa.
Your assuming that IQ and intelligence strongly correlate. I am not entirely convinced.
My IQ is a lot higher than yours
QuoteSuch statements show how narrowminded, prejudiced and plain idiotic you are.
Not really, but they do show what I think about you.
Regular IQ tests in no way measure a person's level of commonsense!
Commonsense is nothing to do with indoctrination. Commonsense is the ability to pick the bullshit from the facts, and the ability to use the facts in a constructive format. Indoctrination is where people are blindly led by the nose through the subjugation of their will to brainwashing by those whos are able to manipulate them.
Therefore, the more gullible you are, the more likely you are to be indoctrinated, and the more bullshit you are likely to swallow.
By using commonsence, you avoid this and are less likely to get sucked in. Therefore, by using commonsense, I have dedied your argument on Nazism and the war to be a surious load of bullshit, and I am less likely to fall for it.
What is your IQ and what test did you take?
It is your prejucide rather than commonsense that made you act and think this way.
It is your prejucide rather than commonsense that made you act and think this way.
wtf is prejucide? murder of prejus? in which case, wtf is a preju?
It is your prejucide rather than commonsense that made you act and think this way.
wtf is prejucide? murder of prejus? in which case, wtf is a preju?
It's a fancy way of saying "before ju".
You can also get onto a civil engineering course over here with similar percentages. However 80% is what you would need to get on a top course.It could be, however most entry systems use 80% as the top grade pass mark. At least that is the way UK universities look at it.
In Belgium, the criteria are different. You just need to pass (50% or 60%), but they change the difficulty of the tests depending on the number of people required. For example, some time ago they changed the requirements at the Civil Engineering entry exams from 5/5 exams passed to 4/5 entry exams passed because the number of people passing was too small. That should give an idea of the difficulty of those tests ;)
Thanks, I will probably need it :SYup. Though next year I intend to do quite a bit of work and clinch a first.
Good luck with that...
So why would you want to join Mensa then. Lets face it, its hardly an organisation known for diversity of membership.No, but what I do is mix into wide circles, which means I am going to meet people with a range of interests.
Like I said, I usually don't really look for people.
Having said that, just because MOST of my friends come from IT, engineering or law that doesn't mean all of them do.... and even those who do, tend to be quite diverse in terms of social background and interests.
Your assuming these people actually have in depth knowledge on all this. Like most researchers into autism however, I suspect there is much charlantanism to whatever "knowledge" they peddle about.No, I am implying that otherwise intelligent and supposedly successful individuals who feel a strong need to overstate their achievements are snobs. For example those who choose to join Mensa.
Some undoubtebly are. Membership of Mensa doesn't imply snobbishness, though.QuoteYou're twisting me words. As I said, I'm interested in reading literature on (scientific) STUDIES ALREADY TAKEN (which is hardly speculation or dodgy guesswork). I'm also interested in learning from other people's experiences, because they may know some tricks I haven't thought of myself.In which case all you need is membership to a decent university library. Not Mensa.
* It can be useful to address others to know which books exactly to read, rather than just picking books at random
* It would be useful to learn about experiences from others face to face and actually have a conversation on such topics, what you cannot do by reading books.
I doubt IQ is accurate even for the areas it is designed to measure, myself.Your assuming that IQ and intelligence strongly correlate. I am not entirely convinced.
Some forms of intelligence strongly correlate with IQ. Other forms of intelligence (eg. emotional intelligence) are entirely ignored by IQ.
It is your prejucide rather than commonsense that made you act and think this way.
wtf is prejucide? murder of prejus? in which case, wtf is a preju?
It's a fancy way of saying "before ju".
ohhhhhhhh, i see.
so wtf's "ju"?
It is your prejucide rather than commonsense that made you act and think this way.
wtf is prejucide? murder of prejus? in which case, wtf is a preju?
It's a fancy way of saying "before ju".
ohhhhhhhh, i see.
so wtf's "ju"?
Don't know, really, but before ju should be it.
:LMAO:
He would have been better off writing "prejudicial". Against rights or interests? Not sure.
Anyway, my IQ is below average. :P Beat that.
A test done in two steps when I was 21 said 155+ after the first, and 163 after the second. I think it was a WAIS test because it was somewhat similar to the one I took when dx'd, but this was before there was a WAIS-III, and the uni then employed several tests. This was the one that qualified me for Mensa, according to the uni people supervising the test.
wtf is prejucide? murder of prejus? in which case, wtf is a preju?
In Belgium, the criteria are different. You just need to pass (50% or 60%), but they change the difficulty of the tests depending on the number of people required. For example, some time ago they changed the requirements at the Civil Engineering entry exams from 5/5 exams passed to 4/5 entry exams passed because the number of people passing was too small. That should give an idea of the difficulty of those tests ;)You can also get onto a civil engineering course over here with similar percentages. However 80% is what you would need to get on a top course.
So why would you want to join Mensa then. Lets face it, its hardly an organisation known for diversity of membership.
* It can be useful to address others to know which books exactly to read, rather than just picking books at randomYour assuming these people actually have in depth knowledge on all this. Like most researchers into autism however, I suspect there is much charlantanism to whatever "knowledge" they peddle about.
* It would be useful to learn about experiences from others face to face and actually have a conversation on such topics, what you cannot do by reading books.
I doubt IQ is accurate even for the areas it is designed to measure, myself.
Hardly good ones, imo.In Belgium, the criteria are different. You just need to pass (50% or 60%), but they change the difficulty of the tests depending on the number of people required. For example, some time ago they changed the requirements at the Civil Engineering entry exams from 5/5 exams passed to 4/5 entry exams passed because the number of people passing was too small. That should give an idea of the difficulty of those tests ;)You can also get onto a civil engineering course over here with similar percentages. However 80% is what you would need to get on a top course.
In Belgium, only three universities teach Civil Engineering. Their criteria for admission are equal and their level of education is more or less the same. Unless in Anglo-Saxon countries, all universities in Belgium have very high standards and the difference between the top universities and the poorest universities is quite small.So why would you want to join Mensa then. Lets face it, its hardly an organisation known for diversity of membership.
I already gave my reasons in several previous posts.
You can go backwards rather than forwards however, by starting with these people. As an aspie, you are more likely to get somewhere with introspection as opposed anything else.* It can be useful to address others to know which books exactly to read, rather than just picking books at randomYour assuming these people actually have in depth knowledge on all this. Like most researchers into autism however, I suspect there is much charlantanism to whatever "knowledge" they peddle about.
* It would be useful to learn about experiences from others face to face and actually have a conversation on such topics, what you cannot do by reading books.
True. One needs to start somewhere, though.
Academic intelligence.I doubt IQ is accurate even for the areas it is designed to measure, myself.
What areas is it designed for?
Der... what's an IQ?Snap? Huh?
Snap! I win.
wtf is prejucide? murder of prejus? in which case, wtf is a preju?
So you never make typos?
A test done in two steps when I was 21 said 155+ after the first, and 163 after the second. I think it was a WAIS test because it was somewhat similar to the one I took when dx'd, but this was before there was a WAIS-III, and the uni then employed several tests. This was the one that qualified me for Mensa, according to the uni people supervising the test.
Then how do you explain your prejudice and your childish behavior (replacing my avatar wiith some silly pic TWICE is quite childish)?wtf is prejucide? murder of prejus? in which case, wtf is a preju?
So you never make typos?In Belgium, the criteria are different. You just need to pass (50% or 60%), but they change the difficulty of the tests depending on the number of people required. For example, some time ago they changed the requirements at the Civil Engineering entry exams from 5/5 exams passed to 4/5 entry exams passed because the number of people passing was too small. That should give an idea of the difficulty of those tests ;)You can also get onto a civil engineering course over here with similar percentages. However 80% is what you would need to get on a top course.
In Belgium, only three universities teach Civil Engineering. Their criteria for admission are equal and their level of education is more or less the same. Unless in Anglo-Saxon countries, all universities in Belgium have very high standards and the difference between the top universities and the poorest universities is quite small.So why would you want to join Mensa then. Lets face it, its hardly an organisation known for diversity of membership.
I already gave my reasons in several previous posts.* It can be useful to address others to know which books exactly to read, rather than just picking books at randomYour assuming these people actually have in depth knowledge on all this. Like most researchers into autism however, I suspect there is much charlantanism to whatever "knowledge" they peddle about.
* It would be useful to learn about experiences from others face to face and actually have a conversation on such topics, what you cannot do by reading books.
True. One needs to start somewhere, though.I doubt IQ is accurate even for the areas it is designed to measure, myself.
What areas is it designed for?
Then how do you explain your prejudice and your childish behavior (replacing my avatar wiith some silly pic TWICE is quite childish)?
Der... what's an IQ?Snap? Huh?
Snap! I win.
:dunce:
You said yours was below average, I misered your trick with my comment. Therefore, I win.But but, I don't understand.....I am not intelligent enough.
Me am the smart! Me am the smart! :PYes! Me smart good speak!
Nexus,
I think you sort of have a point, even though I disagree with the notion that you are only truly be gifted (whatever the degree) if you manage to make good use of those gifts. The whole idea implicates a kind of fairness that I believe just isn't there, even in the best of worlds. Only a select few ever get the chance to prove their worth; Illusionist, for example, advocates (and tries to excuse the sins of) a society who will do away with fellow humans based on their ethnic or religious backgrounds, or indeed anyone who deviates from the norm.
That society would gladly have done away with the likes of us, given half a chance.
As for what this topic is about, yes, it seems to be IQs at the moment. I rather regret mentioning mine, but it's done and I don't believe in deleting my posts, so...
Personally I think he is more of a Sergeant Schultz.
'I know nothing! i know nothing! I know nothing!'
How about the people who are brilliant but whose intellect never shines in the eyes of the general society? Amongst their closest friends and family, they are known as wise and of exceptional intellect but because they are humble and self-deprecating, they do not consider themselves anything special and do not push themselves forward. They are also known as the quiet achievers.
How about the people who are brilliant but whose intellect never shines in the eyes of the general society? Amongst their closest friends and family, they are known as wise and of exceptional intellect but because they are humble and self-deprecating, they do not consider themselves anything special and do not push themselves forward. They are also known as the quiet achievers.They don't consider themselves anything special because that is exactly what they are.
I am a trolling, cowardly, whining bully-boy...that HAS to score some points! :asthing: :asthing: :asthing:
Personally I think he is more of a Sergeant Schultz.
'I know nothing! i know nothing! I know nothing!'
I am a trolling, cowardly, whining bully-boy...that HAS to score some points! :asthing: :asthing: :asthing:
Yes you are :agreed:
One who can't see sarcasm when it is staring them in the face.
Hardly good ones, imo.
As an aspie, you are more likely to get somewhere with introspection as opposed anything else.
QuoteAcademic intelligence.QuoteI doubt IQ is accurate even for the areas it is designed to measure, myself.What areas is it designed for?
wtf is prejucide? murder of prejus? in which case, wtf is a preju?
So you never make typos?
oh but of course i do. but never when my head is so far up my own arse that it's imperative i look as though i know what i'm talking about.
Besides I believe that if you're truly a genius who is exceptional to the norm and is able to speak out, you name will exist in a academic history book someday that recognizes you for the intellectual achievements you made in life. You will be noted as a gifted contributing mind to the academic progress of humanity. You might even have a university named after you, or whatever you discovered, conceived or invented. Otherwise well, you may be intelligent still, but you fail to put that intellect to good use, but then what's it really worth in the ultimate end if you don't try?
How do now it was him I am the Hogan's Hero's fan I think you make a good Col. Wilhelm Klink
Then how do you explain your prejudice and your childish behavior (replacing my avatar wiith some silly pic TWICE is quite childish)?
Not that I consider myself prejudiced, but as you have proven yourself, prejudice has very little to do with IQ.
And I have not touched your avatar.
Your last comment does make sense. Obviously you don't take a lot of time with your posts, because of the amount of bullshit they contain.
Imagine if you actually did put some effort into one, would we get something half decent?
I neither know nor care about the Zach. To me, he is like the boil on the bum of the internet. A right fucking pain in the arse.
BTW bob, aren't you getting sick of Nocti holding your strings? When are you going to give us an 'unparroted' opinion of your own?
I always wondered what it was like to be an internet puppet, especially one made out of wool..... :wanker:
wtf is prejucide? murder of prejus? in which case, wtf is a preju?
So you never make typos?
oh but of course i do. but never when my head is so far up my own arse that it's imperative i look as though i know what i'm talking about.
My head is up my arse, ey? Why do you think that way?
Anyway, I don't like to waste much time on these posts
... and I'm not the kind of person who likes to pretend.
Typos are the least of my concern.
Der... what's an IQ?Snap? Huh?
Snap! I win.
:dunce:You said yours was below average, I misered your trick with my comment. Therefore, I win.But but, I don't understand.....I am not intelligent enough.
:PMe am the smart! Me am the smart! :PYes! Me smart good speak!
the bigotted crap you come out with
the complete lack of anything in the way of substantiation
your refusal to even engage in an intelligent debate...?
that is self evident. perhaps you should think about spending more time, and then you'd say something worth reading.
Quote... and I'm not the kind of person who likes to pretend.
pretend what? that you are sentient?
How do i do the multiple quotes?
One who can't see sarcasm when it is staring them in the face.
Oh I knew Sir_Les thinks too much of himself to actually be self-aware enough to see it, let alone really admit it.
How do i do the multiple quotes?
How
do
i
do
the
multiple
quotes?
the bigotted crap you come out with
What bigotted crap?
the complete lack of anything in the way of substantiation
Go back to my first posts in this thread. You'll find me providing numerous arguments and source references. I even copy-pasted an article that I wrote some time ago. Almost all of this has been ignored by everyone on this forum. You can hardly accuse ME of providing arguments for the views I express. In fact, I'm still waiting for the first argument to be used against any of the vids I publish in the thread The Truth Behind The Gates Of Auschwitz (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,9741.0.html).
your refusal to even engage in an intelligent debate...?
I've been calling for intelligent debate from the moment I joined this forum. It was my oposition who continuously refused this.
that is self evident. perhaps you should think about spending more time, and then you'd say something worth reading.
I did that for a few weeks until I realised it was pointless. People ignored what I said, no matter how much time I put into putting forward a proper argument. If they keep ignoring my arguments, why should I continue to put an effort in my posts?
Quote... and I'm not the kind of person who likes to pretend.
pretend what? that you are sentient?
I'm not the kind of person who puts a great effort in appearances.
And I have not touched your avatar.
Apparently it was parts. I apologise for wrongfully accusing you.
What bigotted crap?
It's joking, yes? :LMAO:
ah, well you see, my (and most people's) definition of "argument" tends to be something which involves actual thinking, and having an informed but independent opinion, as opposed to what appears to be yours, which is spout a load of somebody else's bollocks.
well, petal, the trouble is, you have to show signs of intelligence for anyone else to join the fray.
good question. a better one would be to ask yourself why people are ignoring your arguments. can they all be wrong?
How do i do the multiple quotes?
like this:QuoteHowQuotedoQuoteiQuotedoQuotetheQuotemultipleQuotequotes?
start of quotation = [ quote ] (without the spaces); end = [ /quote ] (ditto).
Quote from: meNot that I consider myself prejudiced, but as you have proven yourself, prejudice has very little to do with IQ.
I'm probably the least prejudiced person you'll ever meet. It took me years to undo all the indoctrination I received from liberal, Catholic and other propagandists while growing up. My current views are entirely based on rationallity. If you actually cared to debate with me in an adult fashion, you'd find out that I'm not talking BS here. The reason you think I'm prejudiced, is because you are indoctrinated with the belief that someone with my views can only have those views when they're based on prejudice.... which is prejucide itself.
Your indoctrination is from the neo-nazis and the Holocaust-deniers instead. The difference is actually only that you choose to label your sources as rational.
The evidence against your bs is so vast that it's as pointless to debate it in an adult fashion
Lots of people have debunked your propaganda before
His sources as as rational as the next looney in the asylum, and thus should be pissed on from a great height.
Hitler was the craziest bastard in the bunch
The only prejudice I have is against fucked up bullshit ideas like theirs, and if you agree with them, then the world would be a far safer place without you.
Frankly, shit for brains, I couldn't give a shit about your obseesion. I kind of wish you would start up a Neo-Nazi movement, just to show you that no-one but you tolerates that shit nowadays. You are so fucking deluded if you believe the shit that you've been quoting here, and it's a pity that you are actually able to get away with it. Some countries would be monitoring your input this minute, given the chance. Nazi Germany in the 30s and 40s would be one, and you support those bastards. But then maybe they would have enlisted you as part of their bullshit system and have sent you out to dob in any naysayers and Jews that you come accross. Thank fuck those bastards lost that fucking war and Hitler ridded the world of himself by doing what he did. Pity the bastard didn't do it in 19-fucking-33; it would have saved millions of lives and there would have been no war. Imbeciles like you should not be allowed anywhere near a keyboard where they can spout such fucking bullshit about something they have absolutely no idea about how it would affect anyone. You keep bullshitting about prejudice and propaganda; stop talking such shit and actually READ what people are saying for once. NOBODY WANTS TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE FUCKING NAZIS OR THE FUCKING HOLOCAUST, DICKHEAD!!the sandpeople made the jews do it.
Can't you get that into that thick head of yours? If not, then obviously you are a prime example of why you should never have been born in the first place.
I kind of wish you would start up a Neo-Nazi movement, just to show you that no-one but you tolerates that shit nowadays.
You are so fucking deluded if you believe the shit that you've been quoting here
Thank fuck those bastards lost that fucking war and Hitler ridded the world of himself by doing what he did. Pity the bastard didn't do it in 19-fucking-33; it would have saved millions of lives and there would have been no war.
Imbeciles like you should not be allowed anywhere near a keyboard where they can spout such fucking bullshit about something they have absolutely no idea about how it would affect anyone.
You keep bullshitting about prejudice and propaganda; stop talking such shit and actually READ what people are saying for once. NOBODY WANTS TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE FUCKING NAZIS OR THE FUCKING HOLOCAUST, DICKHEAD!! Can't you get that into that thick head of yours?
If not, then obviously you are a prime example of why you should never have been born in the first place.
Grow up, and put that so-called intellect of yours to use and find something else worth talking about. Either that, or piss off.
Why should I have to leave this thread because you say so?
Same as the internal logic of your own brain escaped you. Read the fucking post next time, smartarse.
Third positionists - all a bunch of fucking fascist looneys who should be locked up.
How many of them are on this forum besides you? (Waiting for the shoe to fall)... None, eh?
YOU are the only fucking idiot that cares about that shit
Well it makes all of yours bullshit, because the fact that only you seems to quote any of it as fact, and given that no-one else is the slightest bit interested.
Why should I have to leave this thread because you say so?
at least I don't support a bunch of jackbooted liars and thugs who tried to wipe out half of Europe and a fair chunk of the Jewish race becaise someone got menstrual cramps and had a bad hair day.
Third positionists - all a bunch of fucking fascist looneys who should be locked up.
That's offensive and prejudiced garbage.
If anyone is reciting vintage wartime propaganda, it's you. Straight out of Herr Goebbels handbook. Right down to the 'zig heil' and the SS insignia on the Nazi uniform.what a lot of words
I don't give a crap if you find it offensive or not. Your whole dissertation is offensive in the extreme; and to claim otherwise is contempt for humanity.
It matters, fuckwit, because when you have been told hundreds of time that nobody cares about your shit, you keep on like a broken record. What are you, fucking deaf or insane?
If you only told us your viewpoint, and didn't expect everyone to be converted to your side, then I wouldn't be worried. But you hold a metaphorical machine gun to our heads and try to drum it into us. What if IU did similar to you? So stop with the whiny bullshit reasoning and put up with it when someone says they don't want to listen to your shit.
Hardly a comparison between someone who was proposing an astronomical system and the biggest mass murderer of his day. Got your analogies totally fucked there, boy.
Well, as I've said, nobody is really interested in the war here, or the holocaust so it was a wate of time mentioning it. Did you mention it elsewhere too, and they told you to fuck off as well? If so, surely someone of your intellect would've got the point.
What bigotted crap?
It's joking, yes? :LMAO:
No I'm not. Just because my views are controversial, that doesn't make them bigotted.
ah, well you see, my (and most people's) definition of "argument" tends to be something which involves actual thinking, and having an informed but independent opinion, as opposed to what appears to be yours, which is spout a load of somebody else's bollocks.
I formed my opinion independently. Part of my formation consisted of studying various primary and secondary sources from various perspectives. If you think that implies "spouting a load of somebody else's bollocks" then tell me of better ways to gain knowledge.
well, petal, the trouble is, you have to show signs of intelligence for anyone else to join the fray.
And a sign of intelligence is agreement with the mainstream? Is that what you're implying?
What do you regard as signs of intelligence?
good question. a better one would be to ask yourself why people are ignoring your arguments. can they all be wrong?
Yes, they can all be wrong. I'm pretty sure Copernicus and Newton found almost no one agreeing with them when they first ousted their views. It is perfectly possible and even plausible for 99% of the population to be wrong on something.
Anyway, I've encountered many people in the past who took my arguments seriously, which lead to quite interesting discussions. I've also encountered other intellectuals agreeing with me an almost everything and I've even had my own share of loyal followers who regarded me as their mentor. Just because everyone out here ignores my arguments, that doesn't mean everyone in general ignores my argument.
Your indoctrination is from the neo-nazis and the Holocaust-deniers instead. The difference is actually only that you choose to label your sources as rational.
I'm not indoctrinated by anyone. My opinion is the result of a logical analysis of the available data by studying primary and secondary sources from all perspectives. The difference between you and me is probably that you ignore certain sources by default (because of prejudices) and therefore only look at information from a few perspectives rather than all perspectives.
The evidence against your bs is so vast that it's as pointless to debate it in an adult fashion
I have debated this topic with many others and thusfar no one has been able to come close to debunking the views I expressed. It is quite easy to say that the evidence is vast and at the same time ignore most of the arguments of the oposition.
Lots of people have debunked your propaganda before
Only a handful of people have addressed the views I expressed and their arguments have been debunked ages ago as the strawman arguments they are.
Back in Copernicus' days, no one was interested in hearing about the world being round and revolving around the sun. That doesn't make it any less factual, though. If Copernicus and his colleagues would have shut up because of the sensitivities and prejudices of their environments, we would still all believe the sun evolves around the earth and the earth is flat.
But Copernicus... ...wasn't deluded.
But Copernicus... ...wasn't deluded.
Are you saying the Sun really is the centre of the universe then!!! :o :evillaugh:
But Copernicus... ...wasn't deluded.
Are you saying the Sun really is the centre of the universe then!!! :o :evillaugh:
[quoteIllusion]Then why do you keep mentioning it yourself? If you don't want to talk about it, then just ignore whatever I'm saying and let those who are interested talk about it.... A topic dies out by itself when no one replies to it.
You don't have to be delusional to be wrong, but, as in Illusionist's case, it sure helps. :LMAO:But Copernicus... ...wasn't deluded.Are you saying the Sun really is the centre of the universe then!!! :o :evillaugh:
You don't have to be delusional to be wrong, but, as in Illusionist's case, it sure helps. :LMAO:But Copernicus... ...wasn't deluded.Are you saying the Sun really is the centre of the universe then!!! :o :evillaugh:
Good reply, but I didn't say Copernicus was 'delusional'. Believing something that is incorrect is a delusion, whether the individual is 'delusional' or sane. You do not need to be delusional to be deluded about something.
[quoteIllusion]Then why do you keep mentioning it yourself? If you don't want to talk about it, then just ignore whatever I'm saying and let those who are interested talk about it.... A topic dies out by itself when no one replies to it.
If anyone is reciting vintage wartime propaganda, it's you. Straight out of Herr Goebbels handbook. Right down to the 'zig heil' and the SS insignia on the Nazi uniform.
I don't give a crap if you find it offensive or not. Your whole dissertation is offensive in the extreme; and to claim otherwise is contempt for humanity.
It matters, fuckwit, because when you have been told hundreds of time that nobody cares about your shit, you keep on like a broken record. What are you, fucking deaf or insane?
If you only told us your viewpoint, and didn't expect everyone to be converted to your side, then I wouldn't be worried.
But you hold a metaphorical machine gun to our heads and try to drum it into us.
What if IU did similar to you?
Hardly a comparison between someone who was proposing an astronomical system and the biggest mass murderer of his day.
quite true. however, see my point about informed opinion. your "argument" seems to consist of trying to give credibility to the credentials of the people whose opinions you spout.
really, from your own experience? then why, as i said above, does your "argument" consist of nothing else but other people's dribblings?
nope. far from it. the mainstream are, by and large, sheep. but then, so are certain idiotic splinter/out groups.
many things, one being the ability to realise when you're being sucked in by bigotted propaganda.
however, copernicus and newton had original ideas, which necessitated a paradigm shift. fascist bollocks requires nothing of the sort.
I'm not indoctrinated by anyone. My opinion is the result of a logical analysis of the available data by studying primary and secondary sources from all perspectives. The difference between you and me is probably that you ignore certain sources by default (because of prejudices) and therefore only look at information from a few perspectives rather than all perspectives.
You assume too much.
Actually you've chosen to ignore every point made proving you wrong
Quite a few scientists then were known to agree with Copernicus, actually, and most of the points he made had been known since ancient Greece.
But Copernicus wasn't a Nazi, and he certainly wasn't deluded. You are. You should join the Flat Earth Society. There is one, you know.
I'm merely applying scientific methods, which includes citing primary and secondary sources. Read any academic historic work and you'll find dozens if not hundreds of references to "other people's dribblings".
What points proving me wrong? All you did, was copy-paste a few statements from Nizkor debunked ages ago that addressed less than 10% of the arguments I made and you consistently ignored most of the counterarguments I provided for them. That's hardly what I call being proven wrong.
One of the Nizkor pages you linked to even addressed the Jewish soap myth as a fact, yet you say no problem with that at all. That's quite pathetic, you know?!?
I'm merely applying scientific methods, which includes citing primary and secondary sources. Read any academic historic work and you'll find dozens if not hundreds of references to "other people's dribblings".
Ah, yes, like Dr Konrad. :hahaha:
Actually, Nizkor and others have debunked every statement you've parroted form your Nazi heroes.
Facts Illusionist? Like denying the existence of the holocaust as was proposed by the Nazi party and it's hangers on.
Facts like how the Jews were the enemy to your kind and deserved to be exterminated?
Where do you get these bullshit facts?
Ah, from some dickwads who happen to support the same cause as yours; some 'third positionist' wankers who want to rewrite history and support the machinations of the biggest group of mass murderers the 20th century (or history for that fact ever saw).
I don't deny the holocaust.
But what you are doing is offensive in the extreme by supporting those views that were the foundation of genocide and terrorism throughout the secon world war.
Yes, Copernicus came up with a new theory, and worked hard on it. By comparing him to Hitler, or yourself, you have clearly slipped a cog in reasoning.
Hitler was the engineer of the fial solution
I see your sources as biased, uninformed, and motivated by bloodlust.
Your dedication to strawman arguments like these wonderfully illustrates how weak your arguments are. I don't think I even mentioned Rudolf/Konrad in any of my arguments.
You mentioned "academics" and Rudolf, so I proved that your Rudolf doesn't follow any accepted academic methods. :hahaha:
Let's face it, folks. Delusionist is a closet Nazi.
*yawn* Why do you guys bother? He is really boring.
*yawn* Why do you guys bother? He is really boring.
I guess these folks are both unwilling to have a proper discussion and unwilling to let someone who so strongly disagrees with them have the last word.... hence their continuing to prolong the topic without adding any real content ;)
Let's face it, folks. Delusionist is a closet Nazi.
*yawn* Why do you guys bother? He is really boring.
*yawn* Why do you guys bother? He is really boring.
QFT.
let's all luuuuurve him up instead - he may explode, and that would be funny.
nah - he's not important enough.
nah - he's not important enough.
Indeed, he's not. Hence the Ignore function.
nah - he's not important enough.
Indeed, he's not. Hence the Ignore function.
How can you ignore Randy?
He's a legend.
nah - he's not important enough.
Indeed, he's not. Hence the Ignore function.
How can you ignore Randy?
He's a legend.
which one?nah - he's not important enough.
Indeed, he's not. Hence the Ignore function.
How can you ignore Randy?
He's a legend.
i never have and never would - far too entertaining.
we were talking about delusionist.
*yawn* Why do you guys bother? He is really boring.
QFT.
let's all luuuuurve him up instead - he may explode, and that would be funny.
:hair: :headexplode: :flame:*click
That close enough?
Kosmo: Wrongplanet.
Wrongplanet, Kosmo; Wrongplanet.*click
Black card.
:hair: :headexplode: :flame:
That close enough?
Kosmo: Wrongplanet.
:hair: :headexplode: :flame:
That close enough?
Kosmo: Wrongplanet.
:laugh:
nice one. ;) :thumbup: