Calling all Debunkers, and anyone who thinks Holocaust Denial is offensive, debunk this!

Originally posted by D377MC


Which world do you live in?

The same as you do.

Nowadays anyone questioning the fairytale can expect to be ostracized, financially and professionally ruined,

That depends on what you understand the term "questioning" to mean. One meaning is the way Glenn Beck and Eric Cartman understand it, the other way is scientific inquiry. No one has yet been indicted or prosecuted for the latter. There's what 17 pages of this thread now? No one provided even one example of scientific inquiry being stiffled or supressed.
have their books burnt, their websites removed and be sent to jail for a number of years.

Holocaust denial laws alone therefore prove your above statement to be ridiculous. 'Absolute Nonsense.' as you so aptly put it.

If you read the thread carefully you would have noticed that there is no such thing as a simple "holocaust denier law" in Germany. I listed the qualification.

If you have the evidence and the sources to prove that the Holocaust didn't happen then nothing can happen to you. Look at the individual trials. What they do there is establish the intellectual honesty and reliableness of the specific content by expert testimony by witnesses of the defense and prosecution. So you can go to the documents of the individual trials and see for yourself how they establish if something is "Volksverhetzung" or not. It's a very open and transparent process and as I said in all my reading I have never seen a case where I feel that the law was grossly misused. Of course, if the court finds that none of the sources exist and that the substance of the argument is based on quote mining and other prominenst techniques, then you will be deemed intellectually dishonest and they will question your motive for publishing such stuff. Of course, all of this has already been mentioned over and over.

Instead of playing around with these general terms why don't we discuss individual cases? What, in your view, is the most unfair case?

Why this hardly matters is because a) it was not a common position held by all World Jewry (mainly a Sulzberger trick) b) nobody believed them c)it had no political consequences d) they did make some good money out of it, but that's all.

Well,

a. I guess you would be hard-pressed to find a population group which holds anything in 100% agreement

b. no, not first time round they didn't...

c. no, not immediately, chiefly due to (b)

d. they made some 'good' money out of it but that's all? in context, I would say they are still making an inordinate amount of 'good' money out of the same recycled fable, wouldn't you agree?

So please help me. What other groups in Nazi Germany besides the Jews were systematically identifyed by the census and then collectively deported just for having ancestors of a certain faith?

I think you will find, if you do a little research to justify the title of 'historian' you are quick to give yourself, that 'having ancestors of a certain faith' had nothing to do with it. Besides, you are asking the wrong question, which soit dit en passant will definitely not help you reach the appropriate conclusions. Ask yourself, why were the Jews deported and expelled from the following 109 locations since AD 250?

250 Carthage
415 Alexandria
554 Diocèse of Clermont (France)
561 Diocèse of Uzès (France)
612 Visigoth Spain
642 Visigoth Empire
855 Italy
876 Sens
1012 Mainz
1182 France
1182 Germany
1276 Upper Bavaria
1290 England
1306 France
1322 France (again)
1348 Switzerland
1349 Hielbronn (Germany)
1349 Saxony
1349 Hungary
1360 Hungary
1370 Belgium
1380 Slovakia
1388 Strasbourg
1394 Germany
1394 France
1420 Lyons
1421 Austria
1424 Fribourg
1424 Zurich
1424 Cologne
1432 Savoy
1438 Mainz
1439 Augsburg
1442 Netherlands
1444 Netherlands
1446 Bavaria
1453 France
1453 Breslau
1454 Wurzburg
1462 Mainz
1483 Mainz
1484 Warsaw
1485 Vincenza (Italy)
1492 Spain
1492 Italy
1495 Lithuania
1496 Naples
1496 Portugal
1498 Nuremberg
1498 Navarre
1510 Brandenberg
1510 Prussia
1514 Strasbourg
1515 Genoa
1519 Regensburg
1533 Naples
1541 Naples
1542 Prague & Bohemia
1550 Genoa
1551 Bavaria
1555 Pesaro
1557 Prague
1559 Austria
1561 Prague
1567 Wurzburg
1569 Papal States
1571 Brandenburg
1582 Netherlands
1582 Hungary
1593 Brandenburg, Austria
1597 Cremona, Pavia & Lodi
1614 Frankfort
1615 Worms
1619 Kiev
1648 Ukraine
1648 Poland
1649 Hamburg
1654 Little Russia
1656 Lithuania
1669 Oran
1669 Vienna
1670 Vienna
1712 Sandomir
1727 Russia
1738 Wurtemburg
1740 Little Russia
1744 Prague, Bohemia
1744 Slovakia
1744 Livonia
1745 Moravia
1753 Kovad (Lithuania)
1761 Bordeaux
1772 Deported to the Pale of Settlement (Poland/Russia)
1775 Warsaw
1789 Alsace
1804 Villages in Russia
1808 Villages & Countrysides (Russia)
1815 Lobeck & Bremen
1815 Franconia, Swabia & Bavaria
1820 Bremen
1843 Russian Border Austria & Prussia
1862 Areas in the U.S. under General Grant's Jurisdiction
1866 Galatz, Romania
1880s Russia
1891 Moscow
1919 Bavaria (foreign born Jews)
1938-45 Nazi Controlled Areas
1948 Arab Countries

'Ancestors of a certain faith'? It is true that the Jewish faith, as epitomized by the Talmud, hardly inspires respect to the rest of us. Let me give you a few examples from their 'holy' book, whose authority according to the Jewish Encyclopedia superseeds in practice even the Torah:

Erubin 21b. Whosoever disobeys the rabbis deserves death and will be punished by being boiled in hot excrement in hell.
Sanhedrin 58b. If a heathen (gentile) hits a Jew, the gentile must be killed.
Sanhedrin 57a . A Jew need not pay a gentile the wages owed him for work.
Sanhedrin 57a . When a Jew murders a gentile, there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a gentile he may keep.
Baba Kamma 113a. Jews may use lies, "subterfuges", to circumvent a Gentile.
Yebamoth 98a. All gentile children are animals.
Rosh Hashanah 17a. Christians and others who reject the Talmud will go to hell and be punished there for all generations.
Sanhedrin 54b. A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is less than nine years old.
Yebamoth 59b. A woman who had intercourse with a beast is eligible to marry a Jewish priest.
Menahoth 43b-44a. A Jewish man is obligated to say the following prayer every day: Thank you God for not making me a gentile, a woman or a slave.

You will forgive me for stopping at these few examples, it sickens me to pursue the matter. Do you think this might have anything to do with why Christian countries prefer that Jews live elsewhere? Why were they deported from the aforementioned locations? Well, as you are a historian you will know all about the historical development of the concept of 'interest on a loan' invented by the Sumerians and monopolized nowadays by the Jews. That is the real reason Jews were kicked out of the above locations, the legalized theft of ressources which left the local populations destitute and hungry. Of course you know these things since you studied in a 'serious' university....

Are you Jewish by any chance? Because if you are not maybe you should take note of the fact that you are a beast and an animal:

"Our race is the Master Race. We Jews are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves." Prime Minister Menachem Begin

I hope I do not have to point out that it is not anti-Semitic to state these facts, it is simply the truth. It is not anti-Semitic to expose Jewish extremism and hatred, again, it is simply the truth.

Whining about a non-existant holocaust tends to make them even less sympathetic than they already are due to the above.


[edit spelling 9-8-2010 by D377MC]

[edit on 9-8-2010 by D377MC]

Originally posted by ken10

More inconsistencies,

When Hausner produced as evidence a quote by Eichmann in 1945 stating: "I will leap into my grave laughing because the feeling that I have five million human beings on my conscience is for me a source of extraordinary satisfaction." Eichmann countered the claim saying that he was referring only to "enemies of the Reich".

From mothershipzeta' post

He was head of the Department for Jewish Affairs in the Gestapo from 1941 to 1945 and was chief of operations in the deportation of three million Jews to extermination camps

From Here

Also what is meant by this.......

where he stood trial in Jerusalem for crimes against humanity and the Jewish people

Why would jewish people be different from the rest of Humanity

And finally,
Why would Israel keep Eichmann's memoirs secret ? If they have "Lies" within them, then it should be left to revisionist's/historians to debunk them, moreover they could validate other pieces of history not fully documented.

It just puts more question marks on the story that is the holocaust.

Isn't he refferring to 5 million enemies of the Reich? As has been said earlier in this thread he was responsible for transportation, not just of the Jews. His actions also reach into the treatment of Soviet POW's, he supported the Einsatzgruppen logistically, he organized the logistics of the deportation of Poles and on and on.

It seems to me in one document he refers to all "his" victims and in the other he is specifically talking about Auschwitz or the total of the extermination transports.

Don't forget that Eichmann didn't necessarily have direct insight into Auschwitz and the details and exact numbers of who met which faith in the camp. But from his job he had a very good estimate of the total of transported people - what happened with them after they left the trains isn't something that was essentially part of his ressort.

Originally posted by ken10

More inconsistencies,

When Hausner produced as evidence a quote by Eichmann in 1945 stating: "I will leap into my grave laughing because the feeling that I have five million human beings on my conscience is for me a source of extraordinary satisfaction." Eichmann countered the claim saying that he was referring only to "enemies of the Reich".

I believe that quote was actually attributed to Eichmann by Dieter Wisliceny, who was later hanged. Strangely, Dieter's confessions seem to have been typed in english and simply signed by him rather written in his native German(not the only confession that was done this way). His confession also has a major flaw as can be seen in the foot note here

Does any German-language original of this lengthy and detailed statement exist? Wisliceny appears to have been shown it in English and asked to sign on the dotted line (a common procedure at Nuremberg, as witness the Höss interrogations and "affidavit").

One important inaccuracy is in para 7: Wisliceny apparently claims that there were two concentration camps, Auschwitz and Majdanek referred to at the time as "A" and "M." This is quite wrong, because both camps were part of the concentration camp system and were referred to as Auschwitz and Lublin respectively. We have seen dozens of documents referring to KL Lublin, and not one referring to the latter camp as "Majdanek" (Majdanek was the suburb of Lublin where the camp was located and the use of that name appears to be a Soviet invention).

Originally posted by D377MC



d. they made some 'good' money out of it but that's all? in context, I would say they are still making an inordinate amount of 'good' money out of the same recycled fable, wouldn't you agree?

It's not the same fable. In one they were supposedly on the "verge of starving if people wouldn't pay up their charity".
In the other millions did die. That's the difference. I'm not talking about the reality here, I'm talking about the narrative. Don't you see how it's different? In one they were going to starve and in the other they actually died?

Don't you think that is such an essential difference that it is not honest to speak of "the same story"?

I think you will find, if you do a little research to justify the title of 'historian' you are quick to give yourself, that 'having ancestors of a certain faith' had nothing to do with it. Besides, you are asking the wrong question, which soit dit en passant will definitely not help you reach the appropriate conclusions. Ask yourself, why were the Jews deported and expelled from the following 109 locations since AD 250?

250 Carthage
.....
1948 Arab Countries

Either you misread my post or your position is that the Nazis persecuted people from 250 to 1948 in disguise?

I said name one other group in Nazi Germany that was systematically identifyed by the census and then wholely deported.

I couldn't find any such group in your answer.

'Ancestors of a certain faith'? It is true that the Jewish faith, as epitomized by the Talmud, hardly inspires respect to the rest of us. Let me give you a few examples from their 'holy' book, whose authority according to the Jewish Encyclopedia superseeds in practice evn the Torah:

This thread is about Zundel (and formerly Cole's) view on the Holocaust (= that it happened differently than we are "told"). I have no interest in derailing the thread by havin a discussion about the Talmud.

I find any and all religions to be ridiculous and essentially bad for mankind. Still they've been around since the dawn of mankind. I think they all suck equally.
You could open a thread about the nature of the Talmud but this hardly seems appropriate in here.

Of course you know these things since you studied in a 'serious' university...

The people that feed you this garbage have studied at such universities too. Otherwise they wouldn't be so good in fooling people :-) (Look into it, it's ominous...)



Are you white? If yes then I condemn you!!!!!

That conclusion is forced upon us if we look at the world today: we have a number of nations which through their inborn outstanding worth have fashioned for themselves a mode of life which stands in no relation to the life-space - the Lebensraum - which in their thickly populated settlements they inhabit. We have the so-called white race which, since the collapse of ancient civilization, in the course of some thousand years has created for itself a privileged position in the world. But I am quite unable to understand this privileged position, this economic supremacy, of the white race over the rest of the world if I do not bring it into close connection with a political conception of supremacy which has been peculiar to the white race for many centuries and has been regarded as in the nature of things: this conception it has maintained in its dealings with other peoples. Take any single area you like, take for example India. England did not conquer India by the way of justice and of law: she conquered India without regard to the wishes, to the views of the natives, or to their formulations of justice, and, when necessary, she has upheld this supremacy with the most brutal ruthlessness. Just in the same way Cortez or Pizarro annexed Central America and the northern states of South America, not on the basis of any claim of right, but from the absolute inborn feeling of the superiority of the white race. The settlement of the North American continent is just as little the consequence of any claim of superior right in any democratic or international sense; it was the consequence of a consciousness of right which was rooted solely in the conviction of the superiority and therefore of the right of the white race. If I think away this attitude of mind which in the course of the last three or four centuries has won the world for the white race, then the destiny of this race would in fact have been no different from that, say, of the Chinese: an immensely congested mass of human beings crowded upon an extraordinarily narrow territory, an over-population with all its unavoidable consequences. If Fate allowed the white race to take a different path, that is only because this white race was convinced that it had the right to organize the rest of the world. It matters not what superficial disguises in individual cases this right may have assumed, in practice it was the exercise. . . .

Guess who said that. Do you, as a white person, feel personally responsible for that view?
If not, why do you insist that this must be the case for people of the Jewish faith?

Whining about a non-existant holocaust tends to make them even less sympathetic than they already are due to the above.

Bringing arguments for this alleged non-existence would be much more convincing than these blanket assertions that it is so.

Since we seem to get to the details from here on.

A very good source for learning about the nature of Auschwitz besides the sources already mentioned in this thread are the views of SS-folks who actually were there.

There's 4 rather famous examples, Wiki has some links on them. I have some German stuff from them if anyone is interested.

- Hans Münch, physician - 43-45
en.wikipedia.org...

-Josef Klehr, SS disinfection unit cmdr.,?-45
en.wikipedia.org...

-Oswald Kaduk, Rapportführer
en.wikipedia.org...

-Oskar Gröning, SS Rottenführer
en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 9-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

A quotation by Germar Rudolf from his book "The chemistry of Auschiwtz"

It is much easier to tell a lie than to expose one. Perhaps, that is one of the unspoken reasons that motivates people to advocate censoring hate-speech. Whereas I am opposed to censorship and hate speech laws, I am not embarrassed to call Holocaust-denial hate speech. That is what it is. People who are smart enough to obfuscate using pseudoscientific arguments are also smart enough to know what they are doing: propagating a lie. Although some people may be attracted to Holocaust denial because of gullibility and/or mental illness, these people are not the same people who write these clever but mendacious pseudoscientific reports. The people who write these reports are motivated by a desire to rehabilitate Nazism, an ideology of hate. Hate-speech is what it is, and in calling it that I am merely exercising my right of free speech.

The arguments made by the deniers are, of course, repulsive, but they can only have an effect if the public is not educated enough to see the poor scholarship disguised with footnotes. It is because of this restriction on the possibility of the deniers to have an effect that I believe that accurate information is the best possible response.

What I like about Germar Rudolf - or as he is also known -

Ernst Gauss“, „Manfred Köhler“, „Jakob Sprenger“, „H. K. Westphal“, „Dipl-Ing. Dr. W. Kretschmer“, „Dr. Ch. Konrad“, „Dr. Dr. R. Scholz“, „Michael Gärtner“ and „Anton Mägerle“

is that he writes so convoluted and around so many corners that sometimes, he just can't hide what he tries to burry behind all the pseudoscience.

Originally posted by D377MC
Are you Jewish by any chance? Because if you are not maybe you should take note of the fact that you are a beast and an animal:

"Our race is the Master Race. We Jews are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves." Prime Minister Menachem Begin

I hope I do not have to point out that it is not anti-Semitic to state these facts, it is simply the truth. It is not anti-Semitic to expose Jewish extremism and hatred, again, it is simply the truth.

If it was true, then it would not be anti-Semitic. But since it's a flat-out lie, you're an anti-Semite for knowingly spreading falsehoods.

begincenterdiary.blogspot.com...

Well, my ignore list WAS empty prior to today. But there are so many hate-filled, irrational, revisionist, ignorant, bigoted scumbags on this thread (or the same ones repeating themselves) I have to start using it now.

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin

If you have the evidence and the sources to prove that the Holocaust didn't happen then nothing can happen to you. (etc...)

Again, nonsense. First of all, with regards to your trying to differentiate between a scientific method of enquiry and the 'other' - whatever this might mean - let us postulate the following: any researcher must be allowed to propose any kind of working hypothesis, and any imaginable result must, in principle, be admissible and acceptable. Notice I said in principle, as we are still in the theoretical domain for now, regarding the fundamentals of scientific enquiry.

Now let me ask you: is it possible, in Germany for instance, to propose the thesis that there has been no systematic mass murder of Jews in the
Third Reich, and is it legal to arrive, at the end of such a research, at the conclusion that such a thesis is essentially correct? Notice that I asked if it was legal. The answer is a resounding no, and I will provide a detailed analysis of exactly how section 130 of the German penal code prescribes a certain view of history in a moment for your benefit in just a moment.

Seeing as the answer is no, the question is: if the whole scientific establishment, as well as the media, the politicians, the judicial system,
and more or less the public in general are flouting the most fundamental principle of science, why are the victims of such a limitation or denial of scientific freedom accused of being unscientific? I'm afraid that just doesn't stick, because any historian, but also any layman such as yourself,
who accepts or condones that certain hypotheses or results are made illegal – whether they concern the Holocaust, the tooth fairy, or the shape of the earth – is by the same token acting in a most unscientific fashion, contrary to established scientific principles.

Here is a quote from a judgment of the German Constitutional High Court, which legally defines or delinates scientific work, or rather, on which conditions
a document can be denied the status of being scientific.

“The protection of the fundamental right to a free science does neither depend on the correctness of its methods or results nor on the soundness of the
argumentation and logical reasoning or the completeness of the points of view and the evidence lying on the base of a scientific work. Only science itself
can determine what is good or bad science and which results are true or false. […] It is not permissible to deny a work to be scientific just because it has a bias and gaps or because it does not consider opposing viewpoints adequately. […] It is removed from the realm of science only if it fails the
claim to be scientific […] systematically. […] An indicator of this can be the systematic neglect of facts, sources, views, and results that oppose the author’s view.”

Verdict BVerfG, Jan. 11, 1994, Ref. 1 BvR 434/87, pp. 16f.

The German Constitutional High Court has stated that even erroneous or deficient works are not necessarily unscientific and are therefore protected under the law. After all, if having made errors were a criterion to deny a a document has a scientific character, then we would be in a bit of a fix, because after all, we all make mistakes. It is therefore not possible to seriously argue like you are trying to, and you should avoid referring me to subject matter I probably have a better grasp on than yourself.

Your statement 'if you have the evidence and the source to prove the holocaust didn't happen then nothing can happen to you' is quite simply another empty statement on your part.

Austria punishes revisionist statements with a maximum of ten years, Germany with a maximum of five years (as does Israel), then Poland and Switzerland up to three years, followed by France and Belgium with a maximum of one year prison.

" In Germany, due to the concept of 'common knowledge', those facing these prison terms are unable to defend themselves. The German term “Offenkundigkeit” means “well known, obvious, self-evident,” and translates into English legalese as “public knowledge” or better “common knowledge.” This legal term is defined in the article 244, section 3, of the German Code of Penal Procedures (Strafprozeßordnung). This permits judges to dismiss evidence if the subject matter has already been legally determined to be “common knowledge.” For example, motions to prove trivial claims like “the sky is blue” or “water freezes at 0°C/32°F” will not be permitted due to “common knowledge.”

This article becomes a problem when used to suppress evidence in proceedings against revisionists. Although they are accused of making false and inciting assertions, they are not permitted to contradict the charges made by the court that the revisionist views are wrong. By denying a defendant the opportunity of proving to the court that the alleged “propaganda offense” is not an offense because the indicted statement is true and thus cannot be a crime, the defendant is denied a fair trial, which is a violation of a most fundamental human right. In German legal procedures against revisionists public prosecutors merely asserts that it is “common knowledge” that revisionists are factually wrong. There is, therefore, no need to prove the case against a revisionist. The defendant, on the other hand, has no right to prove his case because the judges follow the public prosecutor and declare that it is “common knowledge” that the defendant is always wrong. If the defendant still insists on proving his case, then this attracts a more severe sentence because the defendant is seen not to show any “insight” or “fails to learn,” because he repeats his thought crime in court instead of showing remorse. "
Germar Rudolf 'Lectures on the holocaust'

You will find evidence the above author is correct in his assertions, seeing as you dislike him, here: BVerfG, verdict of March 15, 1994, Ref. 1StR 179/93.That's the German Constitutional Court by the way. Maybe you need to do some more reading, because as you might notice from the above, the exact opposite of all of your statements is true, which is no small feat, and qualifies them as 'nonsense'.



[edit on 9-8-2010 by D377MC]

[edit on 9-8-2010 by D377MC]

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin

Guess who said that. Do you, as a white person, feel personally responsible for that view? If not, why do you insist that this must be the case for people of the Jewish faith?

Lets turn that around again to really get it spinning: why do Jews continue to hold Germans today responsible for the alleged sins of their forefathers and expect them to continuosly prove their eternal shame via the funding/gifting of large amounts of money with a few nuclear submarines for good measure?

Originally posted by D377MC
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin

 

Guess who said that. Do you, as a white person, feel personally responsible for that view? If not, why do you insist that this must be the case for people of the Jewish faith?

Lets turn that around again to really get it spinning: why do Jews continue to hold Germans today responsible for the alleged sins of their forefathers and expect them to continuosly prove their eternal shame via the funding/gifting of large amounts of money with a few nuclear submarines for good measure?

I asked you a question: Do you, as a white person, feel personally responsible for the contents of that statement?

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin


Yes I noticed. I replied by another question, namely, should Germans feel personally responsible for the alleged crimes committed by their forefathers. Doesn't that answer your question?

reply to post by D377MC

Again, nonsense. First of all, with regards to your trying to differentiate between a scientific method of enquiry and the 'other' - whatever this might mean - let us postulate the following: any researcher must be allowed to propose any kind of working hypothesis, and any imaginable result must, in principle, be admissible and acceptable. Notice I said in principle, as we are still in the theoretical domain for now, regarding the fundamentals of scientific enquiry.

You act as if ANY of the publications discussed in this thread qualify under the term of "scientif inquiry" when this is simply not the case. My challenge still stands: Name me one instance where a scholar, submitting any kind of scientific research has been indicted under these laws. Why can't you name one?
Any researcher is free to submit ANYTHING he wants. Peer-review will determine the validity, the intellectual honesty, the factualness, the source-basedness of that work and its overall merit. This is the normal scientific process. It happens within the scientifc community but is open to laymen.

Now as far as the law goes. I'll try to answer the rest later.
But lets be practical for a moment: Can you name one of these cases where the scientific evaluation of the indicted publication was not central to the trial?
Certainly in the Rudolf case establishing his frequent use of quote mining was one of the central arguments made by the prosecution. They could objectively demonstrate that the degree of quote mining used can not be explained by mere mistakes since it was demonstrably systematic.

Originally posted by D377MC
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin

 

Yes I noticed. I replied by another question, namely, should Germans feel personally responsible for the alleged crimes committed by their forefathers. Doesn't that answer your question?

I have no idea why you would ascribe such a view on me. I haven't given my opinion on such a question.

It's irrelevant to the question discussed in this thread, is it not?

"But no, I do not think they should feel responsible. But there's a good argument to be made that they should be aware." That's how my German Great grandfather put it.

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin

It's not the same fable. In one they were supposedly on the "verge of starving if people wouldn't pay up their charity". In the other millions did die. That's the difference. I'm not talking about the reality here, I'm talking about the narrative. Don't you see how it's different? In one they were going to starve and in the other they actually died? Don't you think that is such an essential difference that it is not honest to speak of "the same story"?

Its the same number: 6,000,000. Same propaganda, more than twenty years prior, that's all I wished you would notice - the origins of the fundamental tenet of the fairytale.

Either you misread my post or your position is that the Nazis persecuted people from 250 to 1948 in disguise?

Ok, I see the confusion now. The original post was from someone else, I didn't realize you had jumped in and therefore was not really addressing your question but his.

I said name one other group in Nazi Germany that was systematically identifyed by the census and then wholely deported.

Name one other group in Nazi Germany who had monopolized capital through 'interest on a loan', and therefore monopolized all positions of influence and power to the detriment of Germany itself and to their own benefit? Who else did they have reason to fear and dislike and who else should they have deported? Faith really doesn't enter into the equation.

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin

I have no idea why you would ascribe such a view on me. I haven't given my opinion on such a question.

It's irrelevant to the question discussed in this thread, is it not?

I didn't ascribe anything to you, I simply answered a question by a question, the answer to which was meant to provide you with an answer to your original question. Is this too subtle maybe?

reply to post by D377MC

therefore monopolized all positions of influence and power to the detriment of Germany itself and to their own benefit?

I wholeheartedly reject the permise that the "Jews monopolized all positions of influence and power".

This is a statement that can be materially and empirically proven. Extraordinary claims demands extraordinary evidence. Please provide me with a convincing argument that the "Jews monopolized all positions of influence and power". I doubt that you can.

Originally posted by D377MC



I didn't ascribe anything to you, I simply answered a question by a question, the answer to which was meant to provide you with an answer to your original question. Is this too subtle maybe?

No it's just very elusive. Besides that the quote was demonstrated to be not exactly accurate by another poster with a very convincing link.

I ask again. Is your proposition that one should feel responsible for the statements and thoughts of anyone that share some random trait?

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin

But lets be practical for a moment: Can you name one of these cases where the scientific evaluation of the indicted publication was not central to the trial?

I believe it was the Deckert case which established the notion of 'Offenkundigkeit' of the Holocaust “as a matter of law” , thus prohibiting self-expression of deniers. Proving their claims is no longer an option for 'deniers' since then, despite your claims to the contrary.

Federal Supreme Court (Order from Dec. 7,1994 and Decision from Dec.15,1994 1 Str 656/94)

[edit on 9-8-2010 by D377MC]

[edit on 9-8-2010 by D377MC]